Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Thelema - A Modern Religion for Modern Times

By tannhaus in Culture
Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:00:00 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

Thelema is a modern religion, started in 1904, by the much-maligned Aleister Crowley.  As a result of his association to Thelema, it is also much-maligned and misunderstood by many.  This is my attempt to give a basic rundown of Thelema as well as some starting points for more information.

Since Thelema values the individual's free will and choices, this is not an attempt to convert, which would be useless.  It is instead an attempt to explain a misunderstood religion and to offer the individual access to information to gain further information, if they so desire.  Also, Thelema is open to personal interpretation, so my interpretation of Thelema will vary from another thelemite's interpretation.  So, I have attempted to keep this very basic so as to not run too much into controversial areas.  It is up to the individual to research and interpret for himself if he enjoys this article.


The Birth of the Man

October 12th, 1875, in Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, England, Edward Alexander Crowley was born the son of two Plymouth Brethren, a devout Christian sect.  His father, a retired brewer, died when young Aleck (as his mother called him) was only 12 years old, leaving him at the mercy of his mother, who commonly referred to him as "The Beast of Revelations".  Although his father's death left him heir to a sizable fortune, it also left him as a sickly young boy with no father figure, which his mother remedied by sending him to his uncle Tom Bishop, who by all accounts abused and neglected young Aleck.

The boy eventually took the nickname Aleister, since he hated the nickname his mother gave him, and finally found an outlet for himself in books, thanks to the influence of his uncle.  This fascination with literature carried over into his later life, where he eventually became an accomplished poet.  Regarding his health, which he was originally prescribed laudanum (an opium derivative) and eventually heroin for, he persevered, finally becoming a world record setting mountain climber in spite of the odds.  However, his asthma stayed with him all of his life, giving him problems to his last days.

Crowley entered Trinity College, Cambridge in 1895.  It was during his college years on a mountain climbing expedition that he met a contact for the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, an occult group.  The Golden Dawn at the time was filled with literary giants such as the poet Swinburne and Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein.  This seemed a perfect fit for the budding poet and in 1898 he became an initiate of the Order.

In 1901,Crowley abandoned magick (definition of magick) and decided to travel to Ceylon the very next year to study Buddhism with one of his associates in the Golden Dawn, a man named Allan Bennett.  Bennett would originally return to England as Ananda Metteya, the first of many Buddhist missionaries to the West.  However, Crowley returned much sooner, in 1903, and married Edith Rose Kelly, the sister of Sir Gerald Kelly, another associate from the Golden Dawn.  The couple decided to travel for their honeymoon to Paris, Naples, Sri Lanka, and finally Cairo.

The Birth of the Religion

It was when this honeymoon was in Cairo that the young buddhist's wife wanted to see evidence of magick.  Crowley decided to invoke the sylphs for his wife.  She claimed she saw nothing.  However, she began telling him "they're here" and mumbling something about a child.  He couldn't imagine what she was talking about, so the next day when she continued, he invoked Thoth, the Egyptian god of knowledge, to make sense of it. There was no immediate result, but on the third day, Rose decides that the Egyptian god Horus is speaking through her.  Crowley, in an attempt to prove her wrong, carries her to the Bulaq Museum in Cairo and she promptly points out a funerary tablet labeled Stele 666 and the figure of Horus as Ra-Hoor-Khuit.

For the next three weeks, Crowley had the stele translated by the assistant curator to the museum.  At the end of that time, he invoked Horus and was told to enter the temple at exactly noon on April 8th, 9th, and 10th, writing down what was given to him.  On each of the three days, he was given a new chapter to a book by Aiwass, whom Crowley began to consider his Holy Guardian Angel. The three chapters formed a book which became known as The Book of the Law.  This became the foundation of a new philosophy called Thelema.

The first chapter is written as if spoken by Nuit, the goddess of space.  It describes worship directed towards the infinite.  The second chapter is written as if spoken by Hadit, the infinitesimal point and the consort of Nuit.  It sets up timed religious observances as well as further codes of conduct.  The third chapter is spoken as if by Horus, the crowned and conquering child, the synthesis of the two.  This chapter takes on a war-like tone and finishes up the instructions on conduct as well as giving tasks for the future.

At first, since it clashed with Crowley's Buddhist leanings, he rejected the Book of the Law, primarily because of the wording of the third chapter.  However, he eventually began to see the sense of it and started the first thelemic order, the order of the silver star or Argentum Astrum (A.: A.:) in 1907.  He also, per the instructions in the book, began working on commentaries to the Book of the Law, setting himself up as the prophet of the New Aeon or age. He began devoting himself to the promulgation of the Law of Thelema by writing many poems and books as well as other activities.

It was one of these writings that caused him to be contacted by a man named Theodor Reuss in 1913.  Reuss claimed that Crowley had published the secret of the pseudo-masonic order called the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) and demanded he be initiated into it, taking oaths to protect the secret.  After proof of his publishing of the secret, Crowley relented and was initiated.  The very next year he advanced to tenth degree in that order and became head of Great Britian and Ireland for the order.

The next year, Crowley traveled to Moscow and, after attending a Orthodox mass, sat down to write the Gnostic Mass, a Mass incorporating not only the ideals of Thelema, but also the secret of the OTO.  It was his goal to provide a religion for the new aeon, incorporating the philosophy in symbol suitable for public performance.  Through the use of theater and song, it would proclaim the Law for all.

In 1922, Crowley became the head of the OTO, the first old aeon organization to accept the Law of Thelema and its precepts.  He spent the rest of his life traveling and sharing this Law with the world, not only through his own association, but with numerous books, poems, and articles.  At the age of 71, Aleister Crowley, with his son Ataturk at his side, succumbed to his Greater Feast and died.  His ashes were buried near a tree on the property of Karl Germer, a holocaust survivor, and his successor to the OTO.

The Religion Comes of Age

The Book of the Law stands as the foundation of Thelema.  In it, we are told that every man and every woman is a star.  Every person is an individual.  Each person is to find his True Will, the natural inclination of his soul, and accomplish that.  The Law of Thelema comes from the Book of the Law and drives this essential doctrine home: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.  Love is the law, love under will."  This is not a license to do what you want, but rather a charge to find your True Will and accomplish it above all else.  It is up to each individual person to interpret the Book of the Law for themselves, appealing to the writings of the prophet, but ultimately deciding for themselves as to the meaning of each verse.  The only question is whether the person will be king of his own destiny, or the slave to the desires of others.

Just as we are to interpret the book for ourselves and to follow our own Wills, we are also charged to not interfere with the Wills of others.  Self-determination is one of man's rights.  Each star has its own orbit, each person has his own path.  We must go beyond doing what others tell us is right and instead find what is right for us.  Morality that restricts needlessly should be shrugged off as the shackles it has become.  Each person should think for himself, reason for himself, and follow his own path.  Since no two paths are the same, we have no way to instruct our brother or sister other than to encourage them to accept their own freedom, and with it, their own responsibilities for their life.

While many of the statements found in the Book of the Law and the commentaries were radical for the time in which they were delivered, they are things many agree with today.  Crowley spoke of gender equality, the acceptance of homosexuality and bisexuality, the bondage to old religions which attempted to stuff everyone into a one-size-fits-all path, etc.  As the Aeon has progressed, these have become ideals many of us espouse.

The religion of Wicca was devised by a member of Crowley's OTO, Gerald Gardner.  He adapted the Law of Thelema to his attempt to bring back paganism and it became the Wiccan Crede "An it harm none, do what ye will".  Due to this first attempt at the reconstruction of paganism, we have seen an increasing explosion of neo-pagan religions, all emphasizing the individual's right to believe as he or she will.  Even many within the formerly intolerant old aeon religions are now tolerant of the beliefs of others.

Crowley proclaimed the start of a new age.  We are fortunate enough to witness it's progression: the age of the individual, the Aeon of Horus.  Even though he suffered through an addiction to heroin as well as libel in the press, he tirelessly worked to promulgate the law.  We are the benefactors of his work.  We are the children of the crowned and conquering child, Horus.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
o definition of magick
o Stele 666
o The Book of the Law
o commentari es to the Book of the Law
o Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO)
o Gnostic Mass
o numerous books
o man's rights
o Also by tannhaus


Display: Sort:
Thelema - A Modern Religion for Modern Times | 229 comments (184 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden)
For your reading pleasure, (3.00 / 2) (#7)
by Kasreyn on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 06:38:43 AM EST

and just to remind everyone who we're discussing: How to Summon Ye Daemon.
"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
read like a Discordian ritual if u ask me [nt] (none / 1) (#111)
by dobbs on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:55:40 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Crowley is only interesting to (2.72 / 11) (#10)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:59:52 AM EST

college kids and teenage girls. After that, people grow up or become weirdos.

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.

just sounds like a mental remix of (2.00 / 5) (#13)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 10:05:05 AM EST

the rosicrucians, what with all the horus worship

i went jogging once on the east side of manhattan and passed a large imposing nondescript building, just south of the united nations buidling, with nothing identifying except a strange latin phrase and something like a coat of arms on the outside, and i could place neither in my mind. so i memorized the latin phrase and looked it up on teh intarweb when i got home, and only found a cryptic reference to the rosicrucians

huh, maybe the world IS run by secret societies (snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

rosicrucians (3.00 / 3) (#14)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 10:14:44 AM EST

Actually, I remember reading where somehow the modern rosicrucians (AMORC) owe their authority to initiate to the OTO.  Crowley had it in his mind that he could show that to a US court and seize AMORC's property.  Of course, things don't quite work out that way.

But, it's not really true Horus worship with either group, I don't think.  They view the gods as symbolic, not actual.  I could be wrong in the case of AMORC.  

[ Parent ]

just for saying that (3.00 / 7) (#15)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 10:29:42 AM EST

in 15 minutes your body will be found dead outside your window, a look of shock on your face and a white rose on your corpse

i am initiating the necessary cleansing now...


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

New York sucks. (2.33 / 3) (#158)
by Comrade Wonderful on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 01:05:35 AM EST



[ Parent ]
yay, another religion (2.45 / 11) (#21)
by hesk on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 01:41:53 PM EST

just what this world needs

--
Sticking to the rules doesn't improve your safety, relying on the rules is

That's great, ... (2.90 / 11) (#31)
by Ignore Amos on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 06:19:58 PM EST

... but what about Louise?

And that explains why airplanes carry cargo on small boats floating in their cargo aquarium. - jmzero

If it's maligned because of Crowley (3.00 / 4) (#32)
by livus on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 06:45:55 PM EST

then why do you lead with a huge heap of stuff on Crowley?

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

Why lead with Crowley? (3.00 / 2) (#33)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 06:49:11 PM EST

oh...because he STARTED it?  I mean, it's not like you can divorce it from Crowley entirely...that is a major part of the history of Thelema.

[ Parent ]
In that case (none / 1) (#46)
by livus on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:11:11 PM EST

why intro with the comment that Crowley is why it's maligned? It gives the impression that you think without Crowley the religion would be accepted. Whereas the two things are in many ways interchangeable.

No, there's still no need to lead with Crowley. You could do what $cientologists do with theirs, i.e keep the weirdest stuff from people at first.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

Crowley and Thelema (2.83 / 6) (#57)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:58:30 PM EST

I do personally think that Crowley's humor and overestimation of the public did a lot to slander his work - which was Thelema.  He didn't fight the libel against him at first because he thought people were intelligent enough to not believe it without finding out for themselves.  By the time he realized that wasn't the case and people would believe anything if it's told to them enough, it was too late.  He had let too much libel stand.

Thelema itself can stand on its own.  The philosophy doesn't have to hang on Crowley's bootstraps for merit.  However, he's also the prophet...his writings (at least the ones designated as Class A) are indispensible.  

That puts us in a unique role: trying to study the words of Crowley the prophet, while apologizing for Crowley the man.  Crowley was far from perfect.  By many accounts, he was an egotistical asshole who had problems with relationships.  He also personally had some very old fashioned views (sexism, social Darwinism, etc.)  These views often clash with the Class A documents.  Generally when you're reading Crowley though, you have to weed out those parts...he was, after all, a man.

I think Thelema has many notable people, such as Lon Milo Duquette, that have exemplified Thelema and are very well-written gentlemen.  But, when you talk about the origins, you have to talk about Crowley...as embarassing as he was in some aspects, he was a genius in others.


[ Parent ]

Interesting (2.66 / 3) (#59)
by livus on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:02:32 PM EST

kind of like what Paul is to the Christians.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately (3.00 / 4) (#61)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:07:29 PM EST

Not many christians see anything wrong with Paul

[ Parent ]
i'm not very well read in christian mythology (none / 1) (#124)
by zrail on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:08:07 AM EST

What was wrong with Paul?

[ Parent ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus (none / 1) (#140)
by GotoHospital on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:42:01 PM EST

Paul persectued Christians. Wrong.

Paul founded Christianity. Good.
nested¢ evolution is still interesting. talk.origins faq.
[ Parent ]
I assume you messed up when you typed (1.60 / 5) (#191)
by Phil San on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 01:04:28 PM EST

i'm not very well read in christian mythology

That should be history, check those typos.

[ Parent ]

well then (2.25 / 4) (#188)
by Phil San on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 12:52:00 PM EST

That puts us in a unique role: trying to study the words of Crowley the prophet, while apologizing for Crowley the man. Crowley was far from perfect. By many accounts, he was an egotistical asshole who had problems with relationships. He also personally had some very old fashioned views (sexism, social Darwinism, etc.) These views often clash with the Class A documents. Generally when you're reading Crowley though, you have to weed out those parts...he was, after all, a man.

Well then why should I believe, even slightly, easily falsifiable rantings?

Frankly Christianity is a hell of a lot more complex than that shit and a hell of a lot more substantiated.

A fucking actor isn't someone who should be trying to start a religion; it's most likely fake.

[ Parent ]

What about a carpenter? (none / 1) (#206)
by mr strange on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 06:24:46 PM EST

Would he be qualified to start a religion?

omniEvents is a high availability messaging service for CORBA.

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]

shhhhhhh (3.00 / 2) (#208)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:31:07 PM EST

Don't confuse him with facts.  He's trying so hard to be closeminded and ignorant.  I'd hate to see someone ruin his day :-P

[ Parent ]
Which casts doubt (none / 1) (#189)
by Phil San on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 12:58:56 PM EST

oh...because he STARTED it? I mean, it's not like you can divorce it from Crowley entirely...that is a major part of the history of Thelema.

It's a total waste of time to try and do something which can be seen as an impossibility to do when it's already done properly.

[ Parent ]

Because of the Ozzy song (3.00 / 5) (#34)
by LodeRunner on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 07:12:59 PM EST

The only thing connected to this whole Thelema business that a lot of people know is the name of...

MR CROOOOOOWLEYY (dun dun dun dun!)
What went on in your heeeead?
OH MR CROOOOOOOOOWLEYY (dun dun dun dun!)
Did you talk to the deaaad?

---
"dude, you can't even spell your own name" -- Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

WTF? (1.57 / 7) (#186)
by Phil San on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 12:47:31 PM EST

The only thing connected to this whole Thelema business that a lot of people know is the name of... MR CROOOOOOWLEYY (dun dun dun dun!) What went on in your heeeead? OH MR CROOOOOOOOOWLEYY (dun dun dun dun!) Did you talk to the deaaad?

And this is supposed to relate to someone who wasn't born before say 1978 how?

What the hell are you talking about?

[ Parent ]

-1, inappropriate next to the article on Islam (2.27 / 11) (#38)
by United Fools on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 07:18:45 PM EST

These religions are not compatible. Your office in Gaza will be closed.
We are united, we are fools, and we are America!
There was a big movement were I live... (none / 1) (#41)
by Sairon on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 07:26:00 PM EST

a few years back where alot of people converted to Thelema. I lived with a couple Thelemites, actually. I ended up reading most of the required material to see where they were coming from. Good write up.

Jared

That's really odd (3.00 / 2) (#51)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:44:35 PM EST

What kind of a movement was this?  I've never heard of anything similar.

[ Parent ]
I don't think it was organzied... (3.00 / 2) (#92)
by Sairon on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 06:26:00 AM EST

but there were just alot of people becoming Thelemites. I'm going to say this was around 1999-2000. Maybe even 2001, my memory is sketchy on the details. I lived with a couple Thelemites, though. I'd hear the greeting quite often, something like "Do what thow wilt shalt be the whole of the law." and then there was a second part that was the reply. I think it was a quote from the Book of Law if I remember properly. That said, I think there are still a few of them around. I'm on the k5 frappr if you'd like to know where that was.

Jared

[ Parent ]

the reply (3.00 / 2) (#159)
by flargx on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:03:50 AM EST

The reply is, "Love is the law, love under will."

[ Parent ]
Apparently (none / 1) (#218)
by tannhaus on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 01:25:02 AM EST

Your city does have a big thelemic presence...with at least two different Thelemic orders operating out of it.  One is the OTO and the other is a relatively new group that calls itself Chaotic OTO or something similar.

[ Parent ]
most likely somewhere is California (1.50 / 6) (#196)
by Phil San on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 02:31:44 PM EST

a few years back where alot of people converted to Thelema. I lived with a couple Thelemites, actually. I ended up reading most of the required material to see where they were coming from. Good write up.

Only there would "alot of people" be converting in any numbers to some silly little cult, created by some perverted, drug alded crazy.

[ Parent ]
Well, if you'd do your research... (2.50 / 2) (#199)
by Sairon on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 02:49:25 PM EST

you'd see you are absolutely wrong.

Jared

[ Parent ]

Well that hardly matters (1.40 / 5) (#200)
by Phil San on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 02:52:15 PM EST

Well, if you'd do your research you'd see you are absolutely wrong.

Well congradulations you at least don't get instant condemnation then.

I would hazard a good guess you and whoever decided to have the special koolaide probably aren't anywhere close to 2 standard deviations close to normal.

[ Parent ]

"Drug alded"? (none / 1) (#207)
by mr strange on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 06:28:05 PM EST

What are you on?

If I was president I would just blow up their fucking shitty island [Aruba] and be done with it - Acidify

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]

+1 FP nice write up! (nt) (1.33 / 3) (#43)
by mescalito on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 07:30:41 PM EST



thanks n/t (none / 0) (#49)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:41:21 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Religion is for people with defective brains. (2.42 / 7) (#44)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 07:43:31 PM EST

That being the case, what makes this one set of superstitions so interesting it deserves to have a writeup on K5?

I mean, it's not even self-consistent. Is it really a variation on the ancient egyptian religion, or were they too stupid to make up new names for their deities?

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.

Maybe because it's not a case of superstitions? (none / 1) (#48)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:40:44 PM EST

Maybe because it endeavours to find the psychology and science behind things instead of clinging onto superstition?

[ Parent ]
Oh... (2.50 / 2) (#54)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:52:13 PM EST

So Thelema = science?

Why not keep the science and drop Thelema then?

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Why drop Thelema? (none / 1) (#63)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:19:57 PM EST

Why drop religion?

No one says you have to believe anything.  Why should you dictate the beliefs of others?  

[ Parent ]

Because. (3.00 / 4) (#64)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:23:26 PM EST

All should bow down before me. I shall ruthlessly cull the unbelievers, swordinating them with great malice and minimal patience.

Or maybe, I'm just expressing an opinion. Strange that you don't recognize this, you being about free will and all that jazz.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

I know it's your opinion (none / 1) (#67)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:58:19 PM EST

I just don't see where this animosity towards anything symbolic, religious, etc. comes from. I don't see what you're trying for here.

[ Parent ]
Haha, you don't? (2.75 / 4) (#68)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 10:18:58 PM EST

I've never seen anything positive about symbols. Sure, they can seem morally neutral most of the time, but when they move away from that position, it's ALWAYS downhill. As a child, I noticed that... and that mature (allegedly) adults can't is pathetic.

As for religion, in times past it was to worship omnipotent deities who could smite you if you looked at them funny. Much like rock-stars, these gods had it all, but mostly wanted you to adore them... or else. You say those gods aren't real in your religion, so what's the point? No hell to go to if I refuse? No lightning bolts from clear skies if I blaspheme?

It's just dumb. It boils down to weak tradition... jews who claim god isn't anthropomorphic have millenia of tradition, lots of inertia. Your religion was made up on the spot less than a century ago by a drug-addled nutcase. You don't get to claim tradition. So what's the fucking point? To prove that you have a religion too? Is it some sort of fashion, "Why my god, the Johnsons have an SUV, I'm going to go out and buy an H2!"... only, you're too chic to choose one that anyone else does?

I like to have reasons for the things I do. They don't always have to be logical reasons, I'll explore just for the sense of wonder, or act emotionally. But those things seem healthy. Religion is too easy to pervert, and impossible to put to good use.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

the point (2.50 / 2) (#87)
by headonfire on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 02:47:20 AM EST

of thelema isn't really the gods themselves.  They were just means to an end, and a way to personify concepts for the sake of easier understanding.

Crowley was pretty clear on the fact that it didn't matter _what_ symbology you used, because it all pointed to the same place.  He, however, cobbled together symbolism from a variety of sources to help  the student along; doing a bit of the legwork in creating a sort of template for a personalized belief system.  You can almost view it as a meta-religion, a way of manipulating bits and pieces of one or more religions into something that can help you obtain the ultimate goal,  "Enlightenment".

[ Parent ]

Sake of easier understanding? (3.00 / 3) (#94)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 08:37:36 AM EST

You think it makes things easier to understand by parading around symbols and using metaphors at every opportunity, rather than just speaking plainly about whatever it is you're trying to say?

Speaking plainly has several advantages beyond that, for instant it's not nearly so inflammatory to christians and whatnot as things associated with the occult.


--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

of course not (2.00 / 2) (#102)
by headonfire on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 05:52:23 PM EST

but that's the tradition of religion, and why that sort of learning is often called "the Mysteries", not "The Plainly Easy to Sees". The folks who do that kind of thing aren't exactly rushing out to make little airplane card Guides to Enlightenment, you may have noticed.  

I reckon it's a bit difficult for your average joe (meaning person who hasn't devoted a chunk of time to contemplating this stuff) to grasp some of the ideas involved at the root - which one is easier to understand? A dude watching from a cloud, or the concept of a limitless non-being that pervades everything and nothing, simultaneously here, there, yet nowhere in particular, a sort of pseudo-consciousness somehow responsible for the creation and destruction of you, me, and the entire universe?  You know that doesn't even cut it as a descriptor.  Eh, it's easier just to say "god" (or whatever) and assume everyone gets what you mean, I think.  Symbols make the world go round.  Even words are just symbols for concepts.   A general consensus is achieved about meaning, and off we go communicating like it's the easiest thing in the world.

The dude tried to find those conceptual, unspoken links between the gods and symbols used to represent the base concepts of multiple religions, because that's the way it was done, sort of made a relational table.  It's a bit easier to read than trying to delve into a base understanding of each and every religion without becoming a convert to each in turn.

Yeah, it's a bit silly, but it's religion.  Not only that, it's mysticism.  It's been silly for thousands of years, and I don't reckon the silly is going away any time soon.

Oh, and as for getting people riled up - hah.  Who  cares about making folks upset about something like that?  If you can't take criticism about your beliefs in stride, is your faith really that strong?  A.C. went overboard himself in lambasting Christians - he had a bit of a chip on his shoulder, like a high school Wiccan, eheheh.  I reckon he was sickened by the hypocracy, and who (besides the bad Christians, anyways) isn't, really?  Eh, I think it's funny.

[ Parent ]

777 (3.00 / 2) (#108)
by tannhaus on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:01:51 PM EST

As far as the relational tables, that was not Crowley's doing.  That is part of a tradition of jewish mysticism called Qabalah (Kaballah).  Sure, he actually put the correspondences into a table, but most of the work on the relations was done by the Golden Dawn.  He just copied it.

[ Parent ]
qabalah? (none / 1) (#112)
by headonfire on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:12:42 AM EST

Like hell, the comparisons and relations are "a part of a tradition of jewish mysticism".  Yeargh.

[ Parent ]
777 (none / 1) (#114)
by tannhaus on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:35:16 AM EST

777 is a book of qabalistic correspondences.  The Qabalah differs from the traditional Jewish Kaballah in a few minor ways, the main ones being the correspondences.  Those numbers in the charts aren't just numbering...that number is related to the figure in the chart.  But, I'm sure you knew that much.

But, most of these correspondences came from the Golden Dawn and not Crowley's own work.  Crowley did add some stuff to it...but the majority of it was Golden Dawn.  

[ Parent ]

hump (none / 1) (#183)
by headonfire on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 02:15:13 AM EST

yeah, ok, the dawn i guess did that, you're right.  crowley took it on as a pretty important core, though.  but saying "the qabalah differs from the traditional jewish kaballah in a few minor ways"....
uh...  We could debate that for -years-.   eheh.  puke.  but i think saying that is like saying, randomly, 'televangelism differs from the traditional catholic  sermon in a few minor ways".  Or Islam/Wicca.  Or goatse.cx/disney.com.   Sure, they're both religions and/or websites, but... Uh... Eheh.  

I've started reading regardie's tree of life again today.  it's been a few years.

my god, these guys sure do know how to write self-absorbed, masturbatory prose, don't they?  ouch.  

[ Parent ]

regardie (none / 1) (#184)
by tannhaus on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 02:43:52 AM EST

I think that's true of a lot of the older english writers...they tended to love saying things in as many words as they possibly could.

[ Parent ]
because some people have hope for humanity (2.66 / 3) (#175)
by eraserewind on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 07:30:38 PM EST

and would like to think that they most people don't go around "believing" a bunch of stuff with no foundation in reality just because "you shouldn't dictate the beliefs of others"?

[ Parent ]
As far as the dieties (2.00 / 2) (#50)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:42:53 PM EST

Most believe they don't exist as anything more than symbols.  But, that goes for any god.  It's simply a personification of the forces of nature.

[ Parent ]
Symbolism is evil. (2.50 / 2) (#56)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:57:09 PM EST

As much as any abstract can be, anyway. With it, you have people who go apeshit when a flab is burned, because it is a symbol, even as they're perfectly willing to destroy everything that flag stands for.

Except, with a flag, it becoming a symbol was unintentional. It has that excuse, at least. Anyone that chooses symbolism freely is a fool, an asshole, and possibly a monster.

There are some religious people who believe their gods are symbolic, I've spoken to a few reformed jews who believe as much. Certain catholics also describe something not unlike that. Which is really strange.

The world doesn't need more religions, it needs fewer.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Think more carefully (2.00 / 2) (#171)
by pyro9 on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 03:43:42 PM EST

Every word of your post is a symbol. They are combined to represent ideas.

Symbols are not evil, mistaking the symbol for the thing it represents may lead to evil.

The U.S. flag becoming a symbol for the U.S. was no accident. People didn't just suddenly wake up one morning accidentally thinking that particular image stood for the U.S.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
WOW!!! (2.50 / 4) (#53)
by Blaest on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:52:11 PM EST

we are told that every man and every woman is a star. Every person is an individual. Each person is to find his True Will, the natural inclination of his soul, and accomplish that. The Law of Thelema comes from the Book of the Law and drives this essential doctrine home: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Radical stuff. Without this written down as a religion of course humanity could never have hoped to ascend to such stunning levels individualism and COMMON SENSE.

As the Aeon has progressed, these have become ideals many of us espouse.

Progression all thanks to the relevations of thelema, of course.

+1 SP though (none / 1) (#58)
by Blaest on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:59:18 PM EST

... giving it +1 because I like Crowley & it's a good writeup of one side of his work & thought.

[ Parent ]
the progression of the aeon (3.00 / 3) (#60)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:02:33 PM EST

No, it's my personal opinion that even if people have never heard of Crowley, they still progress along the lines of the aeon.  The prophet proclaims the aeon...he's not responsible for leading us all into and through it.  

Sure, a lot of this stuff is what we'd call common sense or normal now, I said as much in the article.  However, in 1904, it was considered blasphemous.

[ Parent ]

Uh.. (2.25 / 8) (#65)
by sudog on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:48:44 PM EST

.. way to excise a huge portion of the man's life from your little pro-Crowley biography masquerading as a religious diatribe.

The man sold pills of his own semen as cure-alls in a futile attempt to raise money because he frittered away all his own fortune.

His own son died of a drug overdose in an obviously misguided ritual behind closed and locked doors.

Also, that Gardner fellow based Wiccanism from *very* similar rituals and rites that were originally used by the Church of Satan (which themselves are often just deliberate mockeries of Christianity.) Even their little catchphrases are alike:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." - Satanist motto.

"And it Harm None, do What Thou Wilt." - Modern Wiccan motto.

(It all originated with the old Christian Frenchman, François Rabelais, apparently, but that's neither here nor there. What I get such a kick out of are Wiccans who delude themselves into thinking modern Gardnerian Wiccanism is a direct descendant of ancient Druidic custom.)

You can't very well describe all the positive things about the man and then use that (apparently) as some kind of evidence for how wonderful the religion is. You're being disingenuous..!


oh god (3.00 / 2) (#66)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:56:41 PM EST

You believe everything you hear, eh? Let me guess... a christian told you these things? Perhaps a preacher? Yes, this is the kind of libel I was speaking of...heh....

[ Parent ]
Your Article on Aleister... (none / 1) (#71)
by Reverie on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:27:20 PM EST

Perhaps it would be in your best interest to follow your article with a reference page of sorts, thereby permitting anyone who reads it to know exactly where you found your information. Inevitably, each person must decide how reliable they find the sources that you present. Obviously this is irrelevant to the truth of history which we will never know unless we witnessed it, and even then, human memory has proven to be faulty on a grand scale. As for your writing, I have only a few tiny bones to pick concerning your article. Some of your sentences are unclear and do not flow well. Read through them and question your need for commas. Check that the topics within each sentence are relevant to each other enough to make them bedmates. If not, separate them into two sentences and let them stand next to each other.

[ Parent ]
No. (2.00 / 2) (#113)
by sudog on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:34:13 AM EST

Actually it was the Encyclopedia of Satanic Crime and Worship. It's an interesting book that basically outlines every criminal link between religious or pseudo-religious groups and Satanic worship.

It's an interesting book not because it is pro-Christian (which it isn't) but because it's very thorough in terms of criminal case histories of the people involved in, or creating, these groups.


[ Parent ]

It's hard to type while I'm laughing so hard at yo (3.00 / 2) (#125)
by tannhaus on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:16:20 AM EST

THAT book? Highly thought of?  Let's see...look at amazon and you can see from the reviews that it's drivel...or my favorite URL HERE:

11. Newton, Michael. Raising Hell -- An Encyclopedia of Devil Worship and Satanic Crime (1993). Avon Books, 1350 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, USA. $5.99. Get this one while you can! It defames virtually everyone connected publicly with darker aspects of occultism and is destined to become an underground classic.

Defames everyone?  Well respected? AHAHHAHA

Or perhaps this here

Yet another by-the-numbers effort (or lack of such) that attempts to provide an all-round view of Satanism and alleged crimes committed in the name thereof. The content of this book is sadly lacking -- much of the data long outdated, and it seems that the author has just thrown in any old thing into it that bears even the most tenuous link to "Satanism" or the "Occult" (e.g. the Ku Klux Klan were neither!). This 400+ page volume has no practical value for anyone wishing to learn anything of significance about either Satanism or the occult -- rather it is a collection of jumbled entries evidently trying to focus mainly on the more "shocking" elements of juvenile devil-worship and neo-pagan or esoteric societies (much of it inaccurate). Serious readers should avoid this turkey like the plague.

Oh my god...you truly are an idiot.  I could go on and on.  However, this is much like attacking a mentally handicapped person (who knows...I may be doing just that).  It really embarasses the one doing the attacking since the other doesn't have the mental capacity to actually fight back.

You want to see a real law enforcement guide to these things you're calling satanic?  How about from someone in the Behavioural Science Unit at the FBI?

http://www.praticomondo.net/satanism/Satanic_World.htm?Satanic_Crimes.htm&1

There you go.  Knock yourself out.  You might want to really check out this person's page on Thelema while you're at it:

http://www.praticomondo.net/satanism/Satanic_World.htm?Satanic_Crimes.htm&1

What is so special about this guy?  


My name is Marco and I live in Southern California where I am a Police Officer for the LAPD . My goal is to someday become a delegate for the Los Angeles Police Protective League. I am currently a Senior Training Officer and my expertise is Hispanic Gangs. I have worked Gangs for most of my Law Enforcement Career.

I am a member of an organization known as the O.T.O.

heh...

Your reference is a laughable joke.  I'm surprised anyone was gullible enough to believe that drivel.  But, as they say, there is a sucker born every minute.

[ Parent ]

Too funny.. (1.66 / 3) (#148)
by sudog on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:23:43 PM EST

I laugh at you, who are happy to let other anonymous and unqualified people do your thinking for you. Way to throw up that strawman there, hotshot. If you'd actually taken a look at that book instead of assuming some anonymous Amazon reviewer (laff) was authoritative, you'd know that much of that book spends a great deal of time explaining why none of the criminals mentioned in it should be considered in any way a reason to condemn the religions they were linked with—only that they were linked.

However idiotic you think I am, each time you graphically describe how willing you are to let someone else do your thinking for you, all you do is prove that I'm right.

LOL. This is the last note in which I'm going to waste my time on your lame-ass non-self.


[ Parent ]

hypocrisy at its core (none / 1) (#149)
by tannhaus on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:48:27 PM EST

However idiotic you think I am, each time you graphically describe how willing you are to let someone else do your thinking for you, all you do is prove that I'm right.

And I've never stated that...just the exact opposite.  You're railing without reason...willing to believe anything that supports your hypothesis...and you've trampled all over truth in the process.

It's really sad, but it seems people see you for the raving lunatic you are.

[ Parent ]

You are an idiot (3.00 / 9) (#72)
by localroger on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:35:23 PM EST

First of all, Anton LaVey formed the Church of Satan in 1966. He openly credited Crowley with the phrase you call "Satanist motto." Gardner published his version of Wiccanism in 1954 and, while he didn't credit Crowley, it's pretty much understood that he too was inspired (though in Gardner's case "ripping Crowley off" might be a better description). Semen cure-all pills? Let me guess, you probably believe the one about the guy who woke up in a bathtub full of ice missing a kidney, too.

Crowley is an important person because he catalyzed what would become the modern pagan movement. If he hadn't someone else would have; the intellectual ground between Christianity and the Enlightenment had become quite large and sterile and it was inevitable that something new would move in to fill the gap, something that would combine the mystery and introspection of religiosity with the individualism and libertarian ideals of the Enlightenment. It happened to be Crowley who was in the right place at the right time with the right bad attitude to strike that arc.

As it happens Crowley was an accomplished troll and he found outrageous stories about himself to be hilarious and, as tannhaus relates, encouraged them. He was an elitist who thought anyone stupid enough to believe such outrageous crap deserved to remain in ignorance. Unlike LaVey, who tried hard to carefully manage his public image, Crowley seemed content to let the winds of fate arrange things. It's not that Crowley lacked a monstrous ego, it's that he had such faith in himself that he believed he would achieve fame without any special effort on his own part. Unlike most people with such an attitude, he was right.

Before Crowley, the mystery religion was mostly dead because publishing and the new scientific paradigm were making it hard to keep secrets. Anyone who didn't have some idea what, for example, high-level Masons were taught just wasn't trying very hard.

Crowley was the inventor of the modern form mystery religion which hides its precepts in plain sight by scattering them among obvious lies and exaggerations which you must think about and penetrate in order to arrive at the embedded truth. Robert Anton Wilson has in turn elevated this method to a high art. I have always believed that this is why Crowley enjoyed the lies about himself so much; they inadvertently served his own purpose.

Anyway, your comment proves you to be the owner of a river of knowledge both an inch wide and an inch deep, and unlike me a true disciple of the man would probably have honored his memory by letting you wallow in your ignorance. But I can't let the Thelemites have all the fun :-)

I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]

Excellent rebuttal (none / 1) (#84)
by tannhaus on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 02:17:42 AM EST

As far as Gerald Gardner, I have personally seen the charter given to him by Aleister Crowley to start his own group.  So no, he didn't really rip Crowley off...Crowley gave him permission.  Many Wiccans have come to terms with this...that Gardner was a member of the OTO and that the origins of Wicca actually lie within Thelema.  

As far as the semen panacea...I'd hate to see how much a man would have to masturbate in order to turn a profit from filling those little capsules LOL.  

I didn't reply in detail because his post was so idiotic, but you've appeared to do an excellent job.  It's nice to see someone else from New Orleans with an appreciation for Thelema.  Also, concerning most thelemites would let him wallow in his own idiocy, it depends on the day of the month.  Some thelemites love to argue. LOL

But, I'm just sorry you weren't here when Kali Lodge operated in New Orleans.  I would have definitely invited you along.

[ Parent ]

Idiot this and idiot that.. (1.50 / 2) (#118)
by sudog on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 03:19:16 AM EST

You know all you're doing is making yourself look like a pretentious ass, right?

I suppose if you get off on Crowley's little anti-establishment dogma, you're welcome to it. I suppose if you concentrate some aspects of the man's writings down to a nice little friendly religion, you might be able to get away with that.

However, consider that in Crowley's Liber AL vel Legis he says that all persons must interpret his Law for himself. Does he not say:

"Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence."

Hello, pestilence. Lovely sores you have oozing there.

I, on the other hand, have no problem discussing it, because I think the guy was a moron, and "a bore." However, as a Thelemite, does not the fact that you are discussing it and passing judgement on another human mean are you not violating your own laws?

Methinks you have some serious penance to do.. Thelemites do have some form of penance don't they? Oh, sorry.. realigning of energies with the great Earth-mother..

What a load.


[ Parent ]

One by one (2.00 / 3) (#127)
by tannhaus on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:03:33 PM EST

You know all you're doing is making yourself look like a pretentious ass, right?

Actually, I'm just countering someone making themselves out to be an ass while being pretentious about the whole affair.

I suppose if you get off on Crowley's little anti-establishment dogma, you're welcome to it. I suppose if you concentrate some aspects of the man's writings down to a nice little friendly religion, you might be able to get away with that.

Anti-establishment?  Wow...you must have never read anything accurate about thelema in your life.  Crowley wasn't anti-establishment.  He sought to build up a thelemic establishment.  He was actually pretty aristocratic...and all that entails.

However, consider that in Crowley's Liber AL vel Legis he says that all persons must interpret his Law for himself. Does he not say:

"Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence."

Hello, pestilence. Lovely sores you have oozing there.

No, he did not say that in the Book of the Law.  He said that in the comment.  Now, if you had done your history, you would know the comment was added at a much later date...when someone kept discussing the contents of the book over and over...and bugging crowley to death.

However, as a Thelemite, does not the fact that you are discussing it and passing judgement on another human mean are you not violating your own laws?

Again, you really should actually learn something ABOUT Thelema before you try to talk on the subject.

You may have a right to say idiotic things, but that doesn't mean you don't have a responsibility for the things you say.

I can call you a fool if I wish.  I can even smack you if I'm willing to accept the consequences for my actions....just like you have to accept the consequences of your actions.

If you had actually read anything about Thelema, you would understand this.  As brothers fight ye! If he be a King you cannot hurt him...and so on and so on.

This is not a religion of cowardly meekness.

Methinks you have some serious penance to do.. Thelemites do have some form of penance don't they? Oh, sorry.. realigning of energies with the great Earth-mother..

To quote Crowley:  "Our Law knows nothing of punishment beyond that imposed by ignorance and awkwardness on their possessor."

Again, you've proven yourself to be quite the ignorant one.

[ Parent ]

lol Okay then. (1.50 / 4) (#133)
by sudog on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 03:28:08 PM EST

Thanks for proving my point.

EOT.


[ Parent ]

I don't know. (2.40 / 5) (#130)
by Back Spaced on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:43:20 PM EST

There really is no stronger affirmation of the nuttiness of an idea than to have localroger come to its defense. This is, after all, a man who thinks that Orson Scott Card is out to get him.

Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder. He's pre-med.
[ Parent ]

Re-read my Card article plz kthx (none / 1) (#131)
by localroger on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:42:09 PM EST

Nowhere have I ever said that Scott Card was "out to get me." I have said that he is an asshat, and that other asshats not directly related to Card were out to get not me but a friend of mine because of something she wrote about Card. Now considering how badly you messed up even such a simple thing, why should we take your opinion seriously about anything?

I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]
You're still fucking looney. (2.33 / 6) (#139)
by Back Spaced on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:19:58 PM EST

localroger: I never said Card was out to get me. It was actually a group of Nazi scifi writers that have been hiding out in Argentina since the end of the war. After a friend of mine discovered that Card was really writing coded plans about the return of Hitler, I was forced to hide out in a foil-covered room in New Orleans until the waters started rising. Card and his Nazi clan sent Katrina just to get rid of me. Did I mention that astrology is real? This was all predicted by Nostrodomus. Do you want to buy pills made out of my semen?

Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder. He's pre-med.
[ Parent ]

...and YOU call ME loony? /nt (none / 1) (#142)
by localroger on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:33:51 PM EST



I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]
Alright localroger. (1.50 / 6) (#117)
by sudog on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:49:39 AM EST

In an attempt to keep some level of civility in my introduction (though you deserve none) I'm going to remind you that it was you who first started the name-calling, so when I indulge myself a little, keep that in your lobes—thank you for opening that little alleyway, by the by, as I so rarely get the opportunity to wander down it.

Tell me again precisely what it was that I said that was a lie, or incorrect? I never stated he was a Satanist (though he was when he was younger.) I never said he wasn't an important historical figure (though important could be applied to so many villains through time.) What I took issue with was the fact that the author of this story has portrayed only positive things about the guy, and none of the negative.

In your (meandering, and apparently mindless) post, you aren't actually addressing any of my points, but going off in another, unrelated direction entirely. Do you do this often? Your technique reminds me of that classic Bush- and Rumsfeldian tactic of reframing the argument. Oh sure, I suppose if we ignore all the nasty things that sprung from Crowley and the people he encouraged the guy would've been a Saint. So would lots of other nasty historical figures.

Don't think I'm some mindless Christian drone, you presumptuous turd—I'm the furthest thing from a Christian, mmkay?

All I ever said about him was fact I learned from otherwise reasonably credible sources. My source for the semen-pills was Raising Hell: An Encyclopedia of Devil Worship and Satanic Crime, by Michael Newton.

So tell me, oh great and worthy localroger, ye of powerful prose and tremendous wit, oh ye of great and masterful sniping, ye of towering intellect and truly stupendous... Kuro5hin lurking.. what's so hard to believe about an egotistical fucktard like Crowley selling pills of his own semen as a cure-all? Why don't you tell me why this particular fact isn't? I'm being very reasonable.. where's your source that points out where this supposed lie comes from?

You'll note that I DID credit the original Frenchman who was the coiner of the Satanist and Wiccan creeds. I'm perfectly aware of Anton LaVey's constant Crowley brush-offs and portrayals of Crowley as "a bore."

What I find truly awesome (in the original sense of the word) is the fact that you seem to be claiming to be the sole purveyer of some kind of secret tome of "real" knowledge about a man who was both nasty and a dick.

Let's take a quick journey through some passages the man wrote about semen, shall we?

From The Paris Working:

The name of this Phallus is Thoth, Hermes or Ma.  Ma is the god who seduced the Phallus away from the Yoni; hence the physical Universe.  All worlds are excreta; they represent wasted semen. Therefore all is blasphemy.  This explains why man made god in his own image.

Here he's describing how precious he believes semen to be. This is similar to Christian dogma, since Catholics believe semen to be precious and from this are derived all kinds of nonsensical interpretive edicts from Rome: birth control is (or was?) bad; masturbation is bad; anal sex is bad.

Is it so much of a stretch to believe that his ego prodded Aleister Crowley into thinking his own semen was therefore prized even amongst all the other semen, given his penchant for self-aggrandisement?

Semen itself is Mercury, the river of life flowing throughout the generations.  That is fluid Mercury.  What is (from the point of view of life) waste, is knowledge.  Hence the opposition between knowledge and life.  One is homo- and the other heterosexuality.  Those are reconciled in Mercury, who is wisdom.

Here we find Mr. Crowley again praising the importance of semen; that from it, all things Life flow. Why is it so hard for you and all the self-deluded self-styled Thelemites to believe that his drug-addled brain produced an "Elixir of Life", a Quintessence, the chief ingredient of which was his own semen?

(In my searching, I found the following.. Oh, this quote is just fucking fantastic;

Semina nunc molli dat mentula saeva cinaedo.
Aspectu gaudens ipse Priapus adest.
Gaudens exaudi; nobis sit mentula semper
Et Rigida et roseo semen ab ore jacens.

So here we have Aleister Crowley apparently condoning pederasty. There's your great hero for you, you pompous ass. Oh sure, we could sit back and laugh about it and pretend it's just a mockery of Christianity and unreasonable virtue; but then, part of his belief system is based around the objective re-evaluation of traditional belief systems and the throwing out of all those that make no sense. Wouldn't pederasty between two willing and intelligent partners be one of those unreasonable taboos, in Crowley's world?)

So you go ahead and write your little missives; you go ahead and spray your little ejections of authority all over your little fiefdom here, populated with all your little adoring fans.

That doesn't change the fact that the guy caused more harm than good.


[ Parent ]

Furtherance, etc. (2.66 / 6) (#123)
by localroger on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:47:53 AM EST

I don't think anybody is denying that Crowley was an asshole. You seem to think this is an argument that a person's ideas or influence aren't important or should be dismissed, and I called you an idiot because that's just plain stupid.

Is Gandhi less important because he slept with young girls to *cough* test his virtue? Is Abraham Lincoln a nobody because he suspended habeas corpus and signed off on atrocities that would be regarded as war crimes today? Would it shock you to consider that the guy from Nazareth was likely married to Mary Magdalene and certainly not celibate, as Gore Vidal has argued from a close reading of the gospels?

Crowley did indeed regard semen as being precious. Here's a better example of Crowley at his Crowleyest: In Theory and Practice of Magick he writes of sacrificing a male child of high intelligence. He is in fact talking about ritual masturbation, although legions of morons have done exactly as Aleister intended taking that passage out of context and shrieking in horror.

Here's a clue: ALL magic systems regard ALL products of the body to be important. That Crowley attached such importance to semen is utterly unremarkable.

The Amazon reviews do not cover your primary source in glory. Although I'd have guessed as much from the title alone, here's what one person said of it: "This 400+ page volume has no practical value for anyone wishing to learn anything of significance about either Satanism or the occult."

Finally, you leap from the assertion that Crowley is a pompous ass, which nobody is really denying, to this amazing statement:

That doesn't change the fact that the guy caused more harm than good.
REALLY? So far the only example of "harm" you have brought up is a very dubious claim from a book filled with errors that he sold magick penis pills made from his own sperm, which even if it was true wouldn't exactly put him up there with Jeffrey Dahmer. He wrote deliberately shocking things; if that was a crime I suppose I'd be one of the first against the wall. He thought he was better than everyone else and didn't suffer fools gladly; that puts him in company with, oh, 99% or so of K5.

The reason I called you an idiot is that you are reacting precisely as Crowley intended. In our local lexicon, YHBT, YHL, HAND. Crowley trolled you and you fell for it hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, boat, and pier.

In closing, while we are swapping Google results, here is an explanation of Crowley's sex magick in words of one syllable by someone who isn't trolling for shock value.

I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]

Your ability to comprehend.. (1.25 / 4) (#134)
by sudog on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:19:38 PM EST

... the written word seems to be impaired by your endless dealings with the posters here on K5.

You seem to think this is an argument that a person's ideas or influence aren't important or should be dismissed, and I called you an idiot because that's just plain stupid.

I never said that, Roger. I am saying that it is disingenuous to portray the man in only a positive light, since he was much, much more than that. As another poster noted, it ends up sounding like a piece of unobjective propaganda. I take issue with that.

For the record, I own a Thoth tarot deck, so it's not like I consider every single thing the man did to be worthless and pointless. It's a pretty piece of artwork. He wrote some amusing poems. But, to describe "The Man" as some kind of saintly legend in an attempt to lend credibility to the religion.. that's stupidity, and shallowness.

Is Gandhi less important because he slept with young girls to cough test his virtue? Is Abraham Lincoln a nobody because he suspended habeas corpus and signed off on atrocities that would be regarded as war crimes today? Would it shock you to consider that the guy from Nazareth was likely married to Mary Magdalene and certainly not celibate, as Gore Vidal has argued from a close reading of the gospels?

This is all pointless and misleading diatribe. I never argued against any of that. Come on buddy—Gandhi?! You're comparing Aleister Crowley with fucking Ghandhi? Are you high?

He is in fact talking about ritual masturbation, although legions of morons have done exactly as Aleister intended taking that passage out of context and shrieking in horror.

More pointless misdirection. I knew he never sacrificed people. Where does it fucking say I thought he sacrificed people? Jacking off into a bottle is a far fucking cry from slaughtering the innocents. This is precisely the kind of thing that makes the man a deluded bore.

That Crowley attached such importance to semen is utterly unremarkable.

Then why are you fucking arguing with me? I'll tell you why—you aren't sure anymore of whether the semen pills are truth or not, and are lessening the impact of the likely possibility that you might be wrong.

I can't believe you're quoting a reviewer who read the book. That guy is talking about practical value. What has that got to do with Satanic and occult-related crime? It sounds like that reviewer was looking for a how-to book and was disappointed that there were a bunch of objective facts describing murders and crime in relation to Satanic and occult practices. In fact, the book is quite clear that most of these criminals were simply using Satanic worship as an excuse for their otherwise heinous criminal acts. On the other hand, it wanders off on all kinds of interesting tangents, and Aleister Crowley was one of them. In other words, the book acknowledges Crowley as an important figure in occult groups and the author obviously thought he'd be remiss not to have at least an entry or two about the man.

Wow.. I still can't believe you're basing your opinion of a book you haven't even read yet on a bunch of anonymous reviews on Amazon. You're still a pompous ass.

So far the only example of "harm" you have brought up is a very dubious claim from a book filled with errors that he sold magick penis pills made from his own sperm, which even if it was true wouldn't exactly put him up there with Jeffrey Dahmer.

More cushioning. When the fuck did I ever compare the guy with a serial killer? Does it now require mass murder to do harm these days in your book? Harm can't be done without Manson-esque insane psychopathy?

What kind of hyperbole-inducing pills are you on these days, anyway?

The reason I called you an idiot is that you are reacting precisely as Crowley intended. In our local lexicon, YHBT, YHL, HAND. Crowley trolled you and you fell for it hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, boat, and pier.

What a fucking cop-out.

In closing, while we are swapping Google results, here is an explanation of Crowley's sex magick in words of one syllable by someone who isn't trolling for shock value.

I am not swapping Google results. I have a collection of nearly everything Aleister Crowley ever wrote, along with related texts, in electronic form which I can conveniently search through for interesting passages. The only thing I used Google for was the original double-check to make sure I remembered the origin of the "do what thou wilt" creed correctly.

What I find pathetic is your use of Google in your response to me, and your attempt to circumvent (again) my point: the author of this story painted an unrealistic, one-sided portrait of an asshole in an attempt to legitimise a bunk religion, using a neutral voice as though he were being objective.

That, my friend, is pure propaganda., and unless you are trying to tell me otherwise, I am right. Yes, it's that simple.


[ Parent ]

Well then, do you have a point? (2.50 / 4) (#141)
by localroger on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:31:21 PM EST

Your complaint seems to be, well, this...
I am saying that it is disingenuous to portray the man in only a positive light, since he was much, much more than that.
Well, I don't think anybody here is trying to portray Crowley in only a positive light; I've admitted he is an asshole, as did tannhaus, and tannhaus spent several long comments apologizing for the prominence of Crowley in his essay about the Thelemic religion. Your real complaint seems to be that we haven't portrayed Crowley in a sufficiently negative light for your taste.

Now, despite your protestations (You're comparing Aleister Crowley with fucking Ghandhi?), the comparison of Crowley to Gandi is very apt. Both men are highly regarded by religious adherents, both men had private habits which would widely be regarded as shocking. Indeed, the vehemence with which you react suggests your prejudices. Here is a set of people all of whom did the same fundamental thing:

  • Jesus of Nazareth
  • Lao Tse
  • Mohammad
  • Confucius
  • Karl Marx
  • John Fitzgerald Kennedy
  • Fidel Castro
  • L. Ron Hubbard
  • Aleister Crowley
If you don't see the similarity between these people then you are willfully blind. What more can I say? None of them are perfect, some very far from perfect, but what they have in common is that they inspired people to follow and spread their teaching, sometimes at great personal cost.

The reason I mentioned Gandi is that there was a particular uproar about him when the famous movie starring Ben Kingsley was being made. His devout followers wanted him portrayed as a blazing point of pure light, not by some mere human actor. Little details like the sleeping with girls thing were deliberately left out, and the movie makers didn't even argue that point.

Meanwhile, Crowley is almost the anti-Gandi, which is why the comparison is so useful. Instead of the followers demanding that his name be kept clean, legions of nitwits insist that it isn't being kept dirty enough. But it's all the same thing. Neither man is being remembered for what he really did, for almost opposite reasons, but with similar results.

I really liked tannhaus' article precisely becuase it portrayed Crowley's work without the usual OMFGSATANIST shit that you usually see. Like most people who are more than just work droids Crowley was a very complex person who did a lot of things, both good and bad. To drag the bad into any article about his good side is nothing more than knee-jerk character assassination. Does every article about JFK have to mention his banging Marilyn Monroe? Yes, I just compared Crowley to JFK. Deal with it.

I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]

Well, at least you left off.. (1.25 / 4) (#146)
by sudog on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:14:20 PM EST

..the direct name-calling this time. Good for you; your initial knee-jerk reaction has been becalmed somewhat. I'm impressed you're not still frothing from your rosie mouth.

Since it's obvious I need to elucidate my point—it appears to be lost on you—perhaps we can end this pointless back-and-forth before it wastes too much more of our time.

The article on Thelema presents the religion as though he wanted more exposure for it, and therefore wanted others to look into it. As part of his rhetorical technique, he describes Aleister Crowley (the father of his particular brand of Thelema) in as positive a light as possible.

However, the author's bias is obvious to anyone who actually knows who and what Crowley truly was. Therefore, we are not his target audience. But who is? It's not entirely clear.

Since he claims to know so much about Crowley, the conclusion that the rest of us reach is simple: he's deliberately describing the man as seen through a viewing crystal of worshipful pride, and therefore the tone is disingenuously objective. It tries to cloak itself in a wrap of academe when the reality is more sinister.

Plus, he's being a dick in the comments.

By pointing out the author's hypocrisy, I am thereby weakening his purpose and providing a counterpoint, or a cautionary signpost, to encourage otherwise neutral or open-minded readers to look past the poorly-constructed veneer and find out the truth for themselves.

Hypocrisy of this nature disgusts me. Like the self-inconsistent lies Crowley constantly spewed, that which occults the truth deserves all the scorn and contempt we can deliver.

To sum it up; his audience is muddied, his attitude in the comments is shameful, his hypocrisy disgusts me, the religion is half-baked mysticism well past its prime, and quite frankly, Crowley was not the unrealistically important person you both pretend he was. Therefore, I am compelled to deliver a dose of considered truth to counter your silliness.

You know what else bugs me? The instant-cop-out you set up by implying that Crowley's "truth" is something only you can fathom—that all those who can find nasty things in his writings are therefore simply misguided and incapable of divining what Crowley "really meant". That's just a plain cop-out, pure and simple. In that sense, there is no argument which can win with you. In essence, you're claiming to have such a steel-trap mind about the matter that there is no point arguing with you.

Therefore, why am I continuing to do so? It's not for your benefit, that much is clear. I'll tell you why: it's for the other people who see that it's localroger who's saying Aleister Crowley was a great man. It's for those people, who think you are something special here on K5 and who might allow your prose to percolate up through a few more mental barriers they would otherwise have kept erected and impenetrable. Yes, I'm admitting you have somewhat of a fiefdom here on K5. Out of concern for those people, I am compelled to decry the author's hypocrisy. I am hoping to shake them out of their complacency and find out what I already know: Aleister Crowley was not a good person, and therefore a religion he started deserves scrutiny and contempt.


[ Parent ]

Wow, I must be a much bigger wheel than I thought (2.50 / 2) (#153)
by localroger on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:38:04 PM EST

it's for the other people who see that it's localroger who's saying Aleister Crowley was a great man.

Wow, as if my contribution to the memory of Aleister Crowley was worth, oh, bean spittle. As I understand it my Claim to Fame will be that one day dozens of years from now people will say "You know how Vernor Vinge predicted all of this? Well this Roger Williams guy wrote a pretty neat story about it, in between founding Rhode Island and writing the score for Mutiny on the Bounty."

You are, not all that surprisingly, reading all kinds of intent into my comments that isn't there. I never said I had any special Clue into Crowley's work; in fact, I wouldn't have any Clue at all if it weren't for interpretations by others far more familiar with him, such as Robert Anton Wilson.

I see Crowley as a complex person who occupies an important point in history, a man who is both loathesome and great in equal measure. He is in some ways comparable to another great man of dramatically ill repute, Donatian Alphonse-Francoise de Sade. One can gauge the greatness of both men by the simple fact that we are here talking about them now, even though both are strangers to us and both are dead.

I would be both shocked and honored if people were debating as intently my own words 100 years from now as we all are about Crowley's. That, frankly, seals the argument about his importance. It doesn't really matter whether you agree with him or think he's an asshole. The fact that you even bother to discuss the matter at such length proves his importance.

I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]

Yeah. (2.50 / 2) (#157)
by Comrade Wonderful on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 01:00:15 AM EST

Aleister Crowley was not a good person, and therefore a religion he started deserves scrutiny and contempt.

The fact that you even bother to discuss the matter at such length proves his importance.


[ Parent ]

Important (none / 1) (#176)
by Back Spaced on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 09:12:56 PM EST

People discuss Star Wars at nauseating length, and yet I would hardly consider it an "important" subject. Crowley garners attention more for his freakishness than any actual importance.

Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder. He's pre-med.
[ Parent ]

I don't particularly disagree. (none / 1) (#177)
by Comrade Wonderful on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 09:30:28 PM EST

Just pointing out if you think something is worthy of rebuke and contempt then it's simply true that it has some level of importance to you.  So if you think it's a waste that people discuss Star Wars it's more imporant of an issue to you than from the average Joe who has no real opinion on it.

[ Parent ]
Just not as important.. (3.00 / 2) (#174)
by sudog on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 04:11:06 PM EST

.. as Gandhi.

Nowhere near Gandhi, IMO, and certainly nowhere near enough to call the man "great." I myself admitted he was important, and I'm fully aware that by discussing him, I'm giving his followers credence (and perhaps some small measure of press) they wouldn't otherwise have.

The fact that I'm willing to discuss the matter I think proves more that I want to keep Crowley's place in history where it belongs, and point out and deride obvious attempts at pro-Crowley propaganda.

I did in fact like your story--but it's not necessarily your story that makes you a relatively important person here on K5. Instead, people seem to like you because you speak with authority, are relatively logical, and can therefore elucidate their views in ways they themselves can't or won't.

I guess this thread has petered out.

Have a pleasant week.


[ Parent ]

No, he gets it. (2.00 / 2) (#156)
by Comrade Wonderful on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 12:53:44 AM EST

Your ability to comprehend the written word seems to be impaired by your endless dealings with the posters here on K5.

He is just psychologically incapable of admitting any fault in anything he ever puts down on paper.  Much less ego-damaging to just go on and talk about other things one is more confident about!

Totally gay.

[ Parent ]

Oh god (none / 1) (#150)
by tannhaus on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:19:06 PM EST

You really are a pretentious raving madman....but I must reply to some of this absurdity...then I'll stop wasting my time on you.

What I took issue with was the fact that the author of this story has portrayed only positive things about the guy, and none of the negative.

I acknowledged negative things...which you so conveniently overlook.  The fact is, you want so desperately to turn him into a madman that you'll believe anything, and disregard anything that doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions.

I also stated several times that crowley is not equal to thelema.  You want him so desperately to be, so you can lash out about them both with absurd allegations.

All I ever said about him was fact I learned from otherwise reasonably credible sources. My source for the semen-pills was Raising Hell: An Encyclopedia of Devil Worship and Satanic Crime, by Michael Newton.

And what do you base credibility on?  The fact YOU are willing to believe it?  Every place online it's mentioned by those not in the "ritual abuse...omg satanic killings everywhere!" arena it's been ridiculed.

Why don't you tell me why this particular fact isn't? I'm being very reasonable.. where's your source that points out where this supposed lie comes from?

That's not reasonable at all.  I could write an article saying you slept with your mother...then charge you to show me your sources that say that's a lie.  That's pretty idiotic.  

You'll note that I DID credit the original Frenchman who was the coiner of the Satanist and Wiccan creeds.

No, the only thing Rebelais came up with was the use of Thelemites to describe these monks....and "Do what thou wilt".  Crowley fleshed it out in the Book of the Law and later works...and he is who LaVey and Gardner copied.

As far as who LaVey got it from, it's obvious from his writings that was Crowley...regardless of his comment calling crowley a bore, which is so completely off topic to the subject it's pathetic.

Here we find Mr. Crowley again praising the importance of semen; that from it, all things Life flow. Why is it so hard for you and all the self-deluded self-styled Thelemites to believe that his drug-addled brain produced an "Elixir of Life", a Quintessence, the chief ingredient of which was his own semen?

Crowley's thoughts on the importance of semen did not originate with him.  It was the basis of alchemy.. and you can find similar references to it in plenty of occult literature.  Sex magick did not originate with Crowley.

As far as saying since he saw sperm as the transmission of the life force, that means he sold pills of his own semen after he went broke, that's so much of a jump in logic it's ridiculous.

(In my searching, I found the following.. Oh, this quote is just fucking fantastic;

    Semina nunc molli dat mentula saeva cinaedo.
    Aspectu gaudens ipse Priapus adest.
    Gaudens exaudi; nobis sit mentula semper
    Et Rigida et roseo semen ab ore jacens.

So here we have Aleister Crowley apparently condoning pederasty. There's your great hero for you, you pompous ass.

Man...you clearly are deluded.  So, let's take that quote..and the translation we can find in thelemapedia:

http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Priapus

Wow...not exactly a hidden thing, is it?  Right there on a website about thelema.  

Hmmmm it's a hymn to Priapus, eh?  So, what do catamites have to do with Priapus?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/priap/priapeia.htm

Wow...latin prose to Priapus.  Could Priapus by chance have a correspondence to catamites?

This staff of office cut from tree as 'tis,
No more with leafage green for aye to bloom;
Staff by the pathic damsels fondly loved,
Which e'en the kings delight in hand to hold
And oft by noble catamites bekissed--
This staff in robbers' vitals deep shall plunge
Up to its bushy base and bag of balls.

Oh wow! Catamites are mentioned in reference to Priapus! Imagine THAT!

Whenas the Rigid God espied a wight
Crisping his head with curling-tongs aglow
That he be likest to a Moorish maid,
'Ho thou! (cried he) we tell thee, catamite;
However much thou toast and curl thyself
Is then a damsel more of worth, I ask,
Than are the hairy honours of thy yard?'

OMG! There it is again!! Imagine! Priapus is associated with catamites!

Whatever thief who deceives my faith[1] may he wither away, far from the buttocks of a catamite. And whatso girl who with audacious hand plucks off these apples, may she meet with no futterer.

Wow...catamites sure are mentioned a lot...I wonder if that had something to do with latin culture and the people worshipping Priapus...hmmmmm

Well, let's see what else it says in that text:

Paedico means to pedicate, to sodomise, to indulge in unnatural lewdness with a woman often in the sense of to abuse. In Epigrams 10, 16 and 31 jesting allusion is made to the injury done to the buttocks of the catamite by the introduction of the 'twelve-inch pole' of Priapus, and Ausonius speaks of the battered clazomenes (incusas clazomenas), or buttocks of a passive. By calling the clazomenes hammered (battered) Ausonius implies that they have become polished by having served as an anvil. Martial directs an epigram against Carinus, whose anus was split and lacerated by his excessive indulgence in these practices. Orpheus is supposed to have introduced the vice of sodomy upon the earth. In Ovid's Metamorphoses--

Ille etiam Thracum populis fuit auctor, amorem
In teneros transferre mares...

He also was the first adviser of the Thracian people
to transfer their love to tender youths ...

presumably in consequence of the death of Eurydice, his wife, and his unsuccessful attempt to bring her to earth again from the infernal regions. But he paid dearly for his contempt of women. The Thracian dames whilst celebrating their bacchanal rites tore him to pieces. François Noël, however, states that Laius, father of Oedipus, was the first to make this vice known on earth. In imitation of Jupiter with Ganymede, he used Chrysippus, the son of Pelops, as a catamite; an example which speedily found many followers. Amongst famous sodomists of antiquity may be mentioned: Jupiter with Ganymede; Phoebus with Hyacinthus; Hercules with Hylas; Orestes with Pylades; Achilles with Patrodes, and also with Bryseis; Theseus with Pirithous; Pisistratus with Charmus; Demosthenes with Cnosion; Gracchus with Cornelia; Pompeius with Julia; Brutus with Portia; the Bithynian king Nicomedes with Caesar,[1] &c., &c. An account of famous sodomists in history is given in the privately printed volumes of 'Pisanus Fraxi', the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (1877), the Centuria Librorum Absconditorum (1879) and the Catena Librorum Tacendorum (1885), the lists there presented including such names as Alexander of Macedon, Napoleon Bonaparte, Henri III of France, Peter the Great, &c. For a most admirable article on sodomy, see The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night and the works there cited. Those interested in the subject are referred to the Thesaurus Eroticus Linguae Latinae, under articles 'Aversa Venus' and 'Paedicare', and will find the following brochures worthy of reading: 'Un Point Curieux des Moeurs Privées de la Grèce' (an essay by M. Octave Delepierre on sodomy amongst the ancients), Gay, Paris, 1861, and Socrates sanctus Paiderastes, by Gesner (translated into French under the title of Socrate et l'amour Grec, by Alcide Bonneau), Liseux, Paris, 1877.

[1. Gallias Caesar subegit, Nicomedes Caesarem;
Ecce Caesar nunc triumphat, qui subegit Gallias.
Nicomedes non triumphat, qui subegit Caesarem.

The Gauls to Caesar yield, Caesar to Nicomede,
Lo! Caesar triumphs for his glorious deed,
But Caesar's conqueror gains no victor's meed.

--L. Pomponius]

Hmmmmmmm shocking!  HAHAHHAHA

That doesn't change the fact that the guy caused more harm than good.

And what harm did that guy cause?  Heh...

Yes, I'm talking to you as if you were a child.  You have the intelligence of one....and the scholarship of one too, apparently.

But, I'm through wasting time with you....even though it's been a load of laughs.  

[ Parent ]

semen pills (3.00 / 2) (#161)
by flargx on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:34:18 AM EST

Your source is a little questionable there.   Crowley definitely was an eccentric, but a lot of false things have been published about him.  

The part about his son dieing of drug overdose, I've never heard anything of the sort.   If you have a reference I'd like to look into that.

As for Wicca/Satanism you are way off.  Check the dates and you'll see that it doesn't even make sense.   Also Lavey of the Church of Satan stole a lot of rituals and ideas from Crowley and the golden dawn.   It should be noted that Crowley was  very against satanism.   As for Gardner, he was an associate of Crowley and a member of the OTO.

As for the semen rejuvinator (not cure-all), well.. :)  That was a short lived series of experiments.  He believed it worked and kept a diary of the experiments.  I'm not sure if he ever actually sold any.   To put this in another perspective please realize he thought it was actually helping.  It fit very will into much of sex magick and alchemy.  Crowley also had an idea that never took off to sell what a fragrence he referred to as IT that worked at attracting women.    IT also had a secret ingredient.

If you actually want to learn a bit of the truth you should read the book Perdurabo, by Richard Kaczynski.  It's one of the most recent Crowley Biographies, and possibly the best.  Most others suffered from either being too pro-Crowley, anti-Crowley.  His auto-biography is also a great read, but it's a large book and I would not reccommend that as an intro to Crowley.  


[ Parent ]

semen rejuvenator (none / 1) (#165)
by tannhaus on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:53:12 AM EST

As for the semen rejuvinator (not cure-all), well.. :)  That was a short lived series of experiments.  He believed it worked and kept a diary of the experiments.  I'm not sure if he ever actually sold any.

That was precisely what I had a problem with...not that Crowley didn't believe that semen combined with other things in a ritual context could not rejuvenate a person...he clearly did..and yes, he did experiments with that..mostly on himself.

But, the fact that this person claims he filled capsules full of semen and sold them to make money when he went broke is clearly absurd.

As far as Crowley coming up with that, he most certainly didn't.  As we can see from this:

One aspect, however, is particularly significant.  Coitus interruptus was normal practice.  Semen was collected and offered to the body of Christ before being consumed.  The Gnostics also, apparently consumed women's menstrual blood.  This corresponds to the semen of the god being equivalent to  The Golden Tear from the Eye of Horus, the semen of the Father of Heaven being the White Powder of Gold, and the menstrual blood being the Star Fire of the Goddess!  Obviously, the Gospel of Eve is dealing with a wholly new interpretation than the one afforded by Thomas.

http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/gnostic.htm, goes on to note that, "the power of the soul was found in semen and menses.  But allowing semen to beget children in this world would play into the hands of the evil archon.  So if by accident a woman fell pregnant, the sect would abort the fetus.  They would pound it in a mortar, mix it with honey and spices, and eat it."  In effect, "the material world was ruled by an evil `archon' or intermediate deity.  The bodily flesh belonged to this archon, and would not be raised up."  The modern day equivalent to this might be in not supporting the Matrix!

Allegedly, Jesus "was the first teacher of these practices. He took Mary (probably Mary Magdalene) to a mountain, took a woman out of his side and had sex with her, then drank his own sperm saying: `Thus we ought to do, that we may live'" The sect even claimed that when Jesus at the Last Supper spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he was referring to this practice."

[The accounts and texts are from: Wilhelm Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, James Clarke & Co-Westminster/John Knox Press, Cambridge and Louisville, 1990, and Philip Amidon, The Panarion of St Epiphanius, Oxford University Press, 1990.]

The Gnostics (and Crowley considered himself a gnostic...hence, the GNOSTIC Mass) had done this before...and I've seen references that the Egyptians perhaps thought something similar.  

Crowley didn't think his sperm was anything special as the person claims...and anyone could prepare this secret elixer....which may or may not be the supreme secret in the OTO.  

[ Parent ]

Perdurabo, P 376-377 (3.00 / 2) (#166)
by flargx on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 03:15:43 AM EST

I found a few quotes that may provide a source for some things. Please take this lightly. It sounds strange but it really was believed to be beneficial. Writing it off from being strange or gross may miss the point.

To twist things a little, in recent years there have also been studies in modern science that claimed health benefits to women that regularly practiced fellatio. Search online and you'll find some articles.

From Perdurabo p376-377:

...was Crowley's ploy to advertise the O.T.O.'s secret "tonic of rejuvenation." The basis of his claims rested in the youthful bursts of energy Crowley experienced during his retirement at Lake Pasquaney in 1916, when he was experimenting heavily with sex magick. While sworn not to reveal the sexual components of this elixer, he accepted a few "patients" to receive the miracle drug at the rate of 25 guineas weekly.

...In order to produce documentation for his elixer of rejuvenation, Crowley began recording his physical state when taking this elixer. On January 23, 1933 he began the experiment, noting the condition of his asthma, weight, stricture, sex drive, and other matters. After the first week Crowley noted marginal improvement in his asthma and his stricture "quite miraculously less," although he still suffed from broken sleep and a distended abdomen...

...Another scheme at this time was to market Crowley's distinctive sex atraction ointment. Called "IT," the perfume gave A.C. a characteristically unusual --but not unpleasant-- scent. As with Amrita, the active ingredient of IT was Crowley's sexual fluids. On June 9, Crowley recorded in his diary, "IT worked wonders--all women after me!" Like the previous scheme, IT never took off.


[ Parent ]
ahhhh ok (none / 0) (#167)
by tannhaus on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 03:22:19 AM EST

I remembered IT...which probably was missing the shem from the front...since it most likely made him smell like ShIT...but didnt' remember this supposed cure.  

However, wasn't this well before he went broke...and 25 guineas a week...how much would that translate as today?

[ Parent ]

Hey flargx.. (none / 0) (#178)
by sudog on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 09:33:30 PM EST


Hrm. While the semen drink/pills/whatever seems to have been substantiated, I'm afraid I can't find any further reference to any of his offspring's deaths.

The only son I can find further reference to is Aleister Ataturk (sometimes Attaturk) McAlpine but everytime I find a reference to him, it says "Aleister Crowley's only surviving offspring." This doesn't mean much, but it does imply the existence of others.

Of course, Google was never one much for historical fact. I only resort to it here for the sake of brevity: I was hoping a speedy search would find reputable corroboration, but alas, it was not to be.

Therefore, I suspend that statement pending further investigation.

Additionally, my timeline on LaVey's Church of Satan vs. Gardner's Wiccanism appears to have been out of whack. However, the similarities in rites and mottos are still very striking, and both appear to have arisen as a result of an anti-Christian/religion backlash and a shift towards individualism and personal empowerment.

Can you blame me for getting these bits wrong? It's all such tripe, I'm not sure why I bother keeping what I do know of it in my head. Far more interesting are the acts and histories of Scientology.


[ Parent ]

similarities (none / 0) (#179)
by tannhaus on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:13:56 PM EST

Additionally, my timeline on LaVey's Church of Satan vs. Gardner's Wiccanism appears to have been out of whack. However, the similarities in rites and mottos are still very striking, and both appear to have arisen as a result of an anti-Christian/religion backlash and a shift towards individualism and personal empowerment.

That's because they both owe their roots to thelema...like everyone has been telling you.

[ Parent ]

To the one who's not paying attention. (none / 1) (#180)
by sudog on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:25:38 PM EST

From the first statement of Roger's, I never argued about the correction of my timeline.

Twat.


[ Parent ]

Ok....then this is what happened (none / 0) (#181)
by tannhaus on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:48:55 PM EST

Gardner was a member of the OTO.  He was an aquaintance of Crowley's.  I've seen the charter for him to start his own group.  His rituals, the crede, etc. are all evidentally influenced by thelema and ceremonial magick.. His first announcement of Wicca to the world really was in 1954 with the publication of Witchcraft Today.

http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/historywicca/a/ageofwicca.htm

As far as Anton LaVey, he's obviously read quite a bit of Crowley...and he took the motto from that.  He started the COS in 1966
http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id134/pg1/

[ Parent ]

As far as Rabelais (none / 0) (#182)
by tannhaus on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:55:14 PM EST

He really didn't come up with as much as you may suspect.  

THIS is his first mention of them.  Do a search for "thelem" in the later two books and you'll see various mentions, but nothing of significance.

[ Parent ]

this comment/question of mine ... (none / 0) (#224)
by satyr on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 10:48:38 AM EST

... might be totally off topic, but I will post it anyway. Well, as it says in the comment I am replying to: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." - Satanist motto...

I really just need to ask this (once and for all): what do "thou" and "wilt" words mean ?? You see, I've seen them used many times already in the past; usually in a what I would call more or less the "religious context".

regards, satyr

SIGNATURE:

________________

Male, relatively young and relatively well-preserved. :) I see myself as an open-minded person, a critical thinker, rationalist and skeptic.
[ Parent ]
The satanic motto (none / 0) (#225)
by tannhaus on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 04:52:20 PM EST

The satanic motto was taken from the Law of Thelema but implies a misunderstanding of the Law of Thelema.

This is a brief explanation by Crowley:

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib2.html

[ Parent ]

Alternative Analysis: (2.71 / 7) (#70)
by pwhysall on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:25:37 PM EST

"Thelema - A Load Of Old Toss"
--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown
same analysis applies to all religions [nt] (1.75 / 4) (#77)
by Cyan Magenta Yellow Black on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:12:35 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Yes! [n/t] (none / 0) (#119)
by sudog on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 03:25:42 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Religion is a dissease. (2.37 / 8) (#73)
by Lemon Juice on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:38:28 PM EST

In the modern world there is no religion.

whereas inability to spell is a mental disorder % (3.00 / 4) (#75)
by creativedissonance on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:45:01 PM EST




ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
'dissease' (2.25 / 4) (#138)
by tkatchevzz on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:19:17 PM EST

is that from 'to diss'?

yay for negribonics

[ Parent ]

so which is it? (2.00 / 3) (#74)
by creativedissonance on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:42:21 PM EST

a philosophy, or a religion?

-1, get ur terminology straight


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n

depends on who you ask (none / 1) (#79)
by tannhaus on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:24:23 AM EST

Some think it's a philosophy, some say it's a religion. I personally see it as a philosophy, but understand it fulfills the role of religion to others

[ Parent ]
+1 Crowley = legend (3.00 / 6) (#76)
by Russell Dovey on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:53:17 PM EST

Let us not forget his seminal (pun intended) work of poetry, White Stains, an excerpt of which follows:

When thy warm sweat should leave me cold,
And my worn soul find out no bliss
In the obscenities I kiss,
And the things shameful that I hold.

My nostrils sniff the luxury
Of flesh decaying, bowels torn
Of festive worms, like Venus, born
Of entrails foaming like the sea.

Yea, thou art dead. Thy buttocks now
Are swan-soft, and thou sweatest not;
And hast a strange desire begot
In me, to lick thy bloody brow;

To gnaw thy hollow cheeks, and pull
Thy lustful tongue from out it's sheath;
To wallow in the bowels of death,
And rip thy belly, and fill full

My hands with all putridities;
To chew thy dainty testicles;
To revel with the worms in Hell's
Delight in such obscenities;

To pour within thine heart the seed
Mingled with poisonous discharge
From a swollen gland, inflamed and large
With gonorrhoea's delicious breed;

To probe thy belly, and to drink
The godless fluids, and the pool
Of rank putrescence from the stool
Thy hanged corpse gave, whose luscious stink

Excites these songs sublime. The rod
Gains new desire; dive, howl, cling, suck,
Rave, shreik, and chew; excite the fuck,
Hold me, I come! I'm dead! My God!

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan

I can top you on that one...Leah Sublime (1.00 / 3) (#80)
by tannhaus on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:32:21 AM EST

Leah Sublime, Goddess above me! Snake of the slime Alostrael, love me! Our master, the devil Prospers the revel. Tread with your foot My heart til it hurt! Tread on it, put The smear of your dirt On my love, on my shame Scribble your name! Straddle your Beast My Masterful Bitch With the thighs of you greased With the Sweat of your Itch! Spit on me, scarlet Mouth of my harlot! Now from your wide Raw cunt, the abyss, Spend spouting the tide Of your sizzling piss In my mouth; oh my Whore Let it pour, let it pour! You stale like a mare And fart as you stale; Through straggled wet hair You spout like a whale. Splash the manure And piss from the sewer. Down to me quick With your tooth on my lip And your hand on my prick With feverish grip My life as it drinks† How your breath stinks! Your hand, oh unclean Your hand that has wasted Your love, in obscene Black masses, that tasted Your soul, it's your hand! Feel my prick stand! Your life times from lewd Little girl, to mature Worn whore that has chewed Your own pile of manure. Your hand was the key to† And now your frig me, too! Rub all the much Of your cunt on me, Leah Cunt, let me suck All your glued gonorrhea! Cunt without end! Amen! til you spend! Cunt! you have harboured All dirt and disease In your slimy unbarbered Loose hole, with its cheese And its monthlies, and pox You chewer of cocks! Cunt, you have sucked Up pricks, you squirted Out foetuses, fucked Til bastards you blurted Out into space† Spend on my face! Rub all your gleet away! Envenom the arrow. May your pox eat away Me to the marrow. Cunt you have got me; I love you to rot me! Spend again, lash me! Leah, one spasm Scream to splash me. Slime of the chasm Choke me with spilth Of your sow-belly's filth. Stab your demonical Smile to my brain! Soak me in cognac Cunt and cocaine; Sprawl on me! Sit On my mouth, Leah, shit! Shit on me, slut! Creamy the curds That drip from your gut! Greasy the turds! Dribble your dung On the tip of my tongue! Churn on me, Leah! Twist on your thighs! Smear diarrhoea Into my eyes! Splutter out shit From the bottemless pit. Turn to me, chew it With me, Leah, whore! Vomit it, spew it And lick it once more. We can make lust Drunk on disgust. Splay out your gut, Your ass hole, my lover! You buggering slut, I know where to shove her! There she goes, plumb Up the foul Bitch's bum! Sackful of skin And bone, as I speak I'll bugger your grin Into a shriek. Bugger you, slut Bugger your gut! Wriggle, you hog! Wrench at the pin! Wrench at it, drag It half out, suck it in! Scream, you hog dirt, you! I want it to hurt you! Beast-Lioness, squirt From your Cocksucker's hole! Belch out the dirt From your Syphillis soul. Splutter foul words Through your supper of turds! May the Devil our lord, your Soul scribble over With sayings of ordure! Call me your lover! Slave of the gut Of the arse of a slut! Call me your sewer Of spilth and snot Your fart-sniffer, chewer Of the shit in your slot. Call me that as you rave In the rape of your slave. Fuck! Shit! Let me come Alostrael! Fuck! I've spent in your bum. Shit! Give me the muck From my whore's arse, slick Dirt of my prick! Eat it, you sow! I'm your dog, fuck, shit! Swallow it now! Rest for a bit! Satan, you gave A crown to a slave. I am your fate, on Your belly, above you. I swear it by Satan Leah, I love you. I'm going insane Do it again!

[ Parent ]
I can top you on that one...Leah Sublime (2.85 / 7) (#81)
by tannhaus on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:33:15 AM EST

Leah Sublime,
Goddess above me!
Snake of the slime
Alostrael, love me!
Our master, the devil
Prospers the revel.
Tread with your foot
My heart til it hurt!
Tread on it, put
The smear of your dirt
On my love, on my shame
Scribble your name!
Straddle your Beast
My Masterful Bitch
With the thighs of you greased
With the Sweat of your Itch!
Spit on me, scarlet
Mouth of my harlot!
Now from your wide
Raw cunt, the abyss,
Spend spouting the tide
Of your sizzling piss
In my mouth; oh my Whore
Let it pour, let it pour!
You stale like a mare
And fart as you stale;
Through straggled wet hair
You spout like a whale.
Splash the manure
And piss from the sewer.
Down to me quick
With your tooth on my lip
And your hand on my prick
With feverish grip
My life as it drinks†
How your breath stinks!
Your hand, oh unclean
Your hand that has wasted
Your love, in obscene
Black masses, that tasted
Your soul, it's your hand!
Feel my prick stand!
Your life times from lewd
Little girl, to mature
Worn whore that has chewed
Your own pile of manure.
Your hand was the key to†
And now your frig me, too!
Rub all the much
Of your cunt on me, Leah
Cunt, let me suck
All your glued gonorrhea!
Cunt without end!
Amen! til you spend!
Cunt! you have harboured
All dirt and disease
In your slimy unbarbered
Loose hole, with its cheese
And its monthlies, and pox
You chewer of cocks!
Cunt, you have sucked
Up pricks, you squirted
Out foetuses, fucked
Til bastards you blurted
Out into space†
Spend on my face!
Rub all your gleet away!
Envenom the arrow.
May your pox eat away
Me to the marrow.
Cunt you have got me;
I love you to rot me!
Spend again, lash me!
Leah, one spasm
Scream to splash me.
Slime of the chasm
Choke me with spilth
Of your sow-belly's filth.
Stab your demonical
Smile to my brain!
Soak me in cognac
Cunt and cocaine;
Sprawl on me! Sit
On my mouth, Leah, shit!
Shit on me, slut!
Creamy the curds
That drip from your gut!
Greasy the turds!
Dribble your dung
On the tip of my tongue!
Churn on me, Leah!
Twist on your thighs!
Smear diarrhoea
Into my eyes!
Splutter out shit
From the bottemless pit.
Turn to me, chew it
With me, Leah, whore!
Vomit it, spew it
And lick it once more.
We can make lust
Drunk on disgust.
Splay out your gut,
Your ass hole, my lover!
You buggering slut,
I know where to shove her! There she goes, plumb
Up the foul Bitch's bum!
Sackful of skin
And bone, as I speak
I'll bugger your grin
Into a shriek.
Bugger you, slut
Bugger your gut!
Wriggle, you hog!
Wrench at the pin!
Wrench at it, drag
It half out, suck it in!
Scream, you hog dirt, you!
I want it to hurt you!
Beast-Lioness, squirt
From your Cocksucker's hole!
Belch out the dirt
From your Syphillis soul.
Splutter foul words
Through your supper of turds!
May the Devil our lord, your
Soul scribble over
With sayings of ordure!
Call me your lover!
Slave of the gut
Of the arse of a slut!
Call me your sewer
Of spilth and snot
Your fart-sniffer, chewer
Of the shit in your slot.
Call me that as you rave
In the rape of your slave.
Fuck! Shit! Let me come
Alostrael! Fuck!
I've spent in your bum.
Shit! Give me the muck
From my whore's arse, slick
Dirt of my prick!
Eat it, you sow!
I'm your dog, fuck, shit!
Swallow it now!
Rest for a bit!
Satan, you gave
A crown to a slave.
I am your fate, on
Your belly, above you.
I swear it by Satan
Leah, I love you.
I'm going insane
Do it again!


[ Parent ]
I am voting +1FP *just* for that post. ¤ (none / 0) (#95)
by warrax on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:04:56 AM EST



-- "Guns don't kill people. I kill people."
[ Parent ]
That is so beautiful (none / 1) (#103)
by DJ Allah on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 05:56:01 PM EST



The real image of Islam!
[ Parent ]
sounds like forgettable k5 diary $ (2.50 / 2) (#132)
by GotoHospital on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:59:27 PM EST


nested¢ evolution is still interesting. talk.origins faq.
[ Parent ]
Tell me truthfully (3.00 / 6) (#78)
by Mr Frumble on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:18:57 AM EST

if I practice thelema, will I finally be able to catch my hat?

re: will I finally be able to catch my hat? (none / 1) (#129)
by Highlander on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:42:16 PM EST

I think you should practice catching your hat.

On the other hand, maybe you should find out first why thou wilst to catch thy hat.

Moderation in moderation is a good thing.
[ Parent ]

Your chronology's somewhat off (3.00 / 4) (#83)
by IHCOYC on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 02:14:08 AM EST

Mary Shelley died in 1851. Swinburne was largely an invalid after the publication of Poems and Ballads in 1866.

The Golden Dawn, by most accounts, was founded by Dr. William Wynn Westcott and Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers in 1888. It seems implausible that Mary Shelley could have ever belonged. While it is possible that Swinburne could have, it is also unlikely.

Significant cultural figures did belong to the Golden Dawn, including Maud Gonne, William Butler Yeats, and Arthur Machen. I doubt strongly that Swinburne or Shelley were members.
--
"Complecti antecessores tuos in spelæis stygiis Tartari appara," eructavit miles primus.
"Vix dum basiavisti vicarium velocem Mortis," rediit G

You are correct (3.00 / 2) (#86)
by tannhaus on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 02:41:09 AM EST

It appears it was not Mary Shelley, but Bram Stoker who was (allegedly) a member of the Golden Dawn.

As far as Swinburne, it appears he was one of Crowley's idols, but was not a member of the Golden Dawn.

My apologies.

[ Parent ]

Okay, so? (2.25 / 4) (#85)
by Sesquipundalian on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 02:22:43 AM EST

Some shit to interpret solemnly, some shit to wonder about, some shit to say yes to, some shit to interpret solemnly.

Measured in microgivishitz I tell you.

I got this dizzy little lecture in high school about the fractal structure of essays AKA:SAY_WACHERGONNA_SAY, SAY_WHATEVER, SAY_WACHYOUSED. The basic idea being to introduce whatever you were going to say, then to get down and dirty, and then to clarify any missed points.

Okay so big deal, the fractal structure facinates people, but what a waste of time! What about SAY_WHATEVER coupled tightly to PAY_ENOUGHATTENTIONTOSELFREPHRASE? Where the listener simply internally rephrases whatever they hear, and asks questions about the subject whenever contradictions arise?

The world would be better if people signaled to each other EFFECTIVELY. not just facinatingly.


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
Weakness (2.44 / 9) (#96)
by Mylakovich on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:24:38 AM EST

This kind of psudo-intellectual posturing is an obvious sign of gullible self-centered wishful thinking and attention-whoring. You think your personal life is so important that you have a fancy label for it to impress the mundanes when they notice how special and unique you are. Also, it's so hardcore 'cause it dates back to OMG GOTHIC AMERICAN WITCHCRAFT and is totaly egyptian and shit.

Whats stopping you from just doing what you want in the first place, without the useless and pompous trappings of religion?

-1 (1.66 / 3) (#137)
by tkatchevzz on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:17:48 PM EST

not goth enough

[ Parent ]
gothic american witchcraft? (2.00 / 2) (#145)
by tannhaus on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:00:19 PM EST

The last time I checked, England was not in America....so this gothic american witchcraft makes no sense..

Not to mention the fact that witchcraft wasn't really popular in that period....

Whats stopping you from just doing what you want in the first place, without the useless and pompous trappings of religion?

Because some don't see it as useless?

Move along now

[ Parent ]

Becuase? (2.33 / 3) (#147)
by Back Spaced on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 08:22:14 PM EST

Some people are incapable of doing as they will without others telling them that it's okay to do as they will.

Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder. He's pre-med.
[ Parent ]

Then you skimmed the article (none / 1) (#215)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:56:07 PM EST

Do what thou wilt is not the same as Do what you will.  Will (the greek word for will is thelema...surprise) is the natural inclination of the soul.  So, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law means there is a place you fit in the scheme of things...find it and do it...and that's the most important thing...NOT do what you want.

[ Parent ]
Fine, Replace AMERICAN with BRITISH (2.50 / 2) (#152)
by Mylakovich on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:30:43 PM EST

My point still stands that you love this type of crap only because it makes you feel better than everyone else.

And perhaps the only 'use' of these types of rituals is a crutch, a replacement for rational thought.

[ Parent ]

um...no (none / 1) (#154)
by tannhaus on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 10:03:37 PM EST

To the first point...no...but project all you wish.

To the second....no.  Ceremonial magick is a type of applied psychology.  At no point do we believe that one needs faith for anything, nor do we encourage blind following, the very opposite.  As far as the results, we believe science hasn't caught up completely to the laws of nature, but these are no less natural...and they can be treated as a science.

[ Parent ]

Other noteworthy topic: (1.81 / 11) (#97)
by What Good Is A 150K Salary When Living In NYC on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:55:23 PM EST

I wrote this message whilst sitting on the porcelain goddess, with WiFi. I was defacating.


Skulls, Bullets, and Gold
Enlightenment? (2.50 / 2) (#98)
by Back Spaced on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 02:16:23 PM EST

Did you become enlightened?

Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder. He's pre-med.
[ Parent ]

DO WHAT THOU WILT % (3.00 / 3) (#101)
by Mylakovich on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 02:47:13 PM EST



[ Parent ]
good thing, too (3.00 / 3) (#136)
by tkatchevzz on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:17:17 PM EST

goodness knows we might've though you would be doing something else less productive

[ Parent ]
like chatting all serious-like on k5? (3.00 / 3) (#170)
by What Good Is A 150K Salary When Living In NYC on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 01:46:31 PM EST

Loser.


Skulls, Bullets, and Gold
[ Parent ]
Hmm. (2.33 / 3) (#100)
by Back Spaced on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 02:26:45 PM EST

Mormonism is a modern religion. This is turn-of-the-century orientalism. It's interesting as a cultural turning point of sorts on Europe's road to secularism, but I always get a good laugh out of its practitioners.

Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder. He's pre-med.

Interesting thing that you mention Mormonism (none / 1) (#214)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:53:53 PM EST

Do you realize Joseph Smith was a gambler and spent time in jail?  Crowley looks a lot better when compared to the man who started Mormonism, eh?

As far as turn-of-the-century orientalism, I disagree.  You could say that of Madame Blavatsky and her adherents, but not of Crowley.  For instance, one of the central practices of Thelema is the Qabalah, which is jewish mysticism.  The first verifiable surfacing of it was in the 1200s(?) in Europe....within a hundred years of the founding of the Knights Templar.

Another quite significant piece is gnosticism, which was prevalent in early christianity, but predated Christianity in the region of Egypt.  

So, what is so oriental about Thelema?  Not much...you could count the yoga as evidence of orientalism, but when you realize it fits into the doctrine of the qabalah...it still fails to make your case.

Sounds to me like another case of someone who thinks it's fashionable to bash something they don't understand.

[ Parent ]

Ethical Culture (none / 1) (#104)
by Lode Runner on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 06:42:31 PM EST

is the real "modern religion for modern times." Was Matthias the Prophet legit just because Isabella Van Wagenen (aka Sojourner Truth) was one of his followers for awhile?

And this is supposed to be? (1.00 / 3) (#194)
by Phil San on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 02:25:44 PM EST

is the real "modern religion for modern times." Was Matthias the Prophet legit just because Isabella Van Wagenen (aka Sojourner Truth) was one of his followers for awhile?

What exactly is this idiocy supposed to be?

[ Parent ]
Objective achieved (3.00 / 3) (#105)
by Brogdel on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 08:42:29 PM EST

If your objective is not to convert but to arouse curiosity about "Thelema", then you've done it. You might want to double check some of the facts and the timeline though. Well written essay overall, whether or not one agrees with the subject matter.

thank you n/t (none / 0) (#107)
by tannhaus on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:56:58 PM EST



[ Parent ]
an it harm none, do what thou wilt (1.60 / 5) (#106)
by trane on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 09:39:20 PM EST

this is crap. in the crack world wiccans steal your highs. that's harm to others. there are a lot of evil wiccans.

uh, then most likely they're not really wiccans (1.50 / 2) (#110)
by dobbs on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:49:09 PM EST

or if they are, they're 'wiccan' the same way people who fuck and steal and cheat but still go to Mass on Sunday are 'catholic'

[ Parent ]
Since when did fuck (none / 1) (#143)
by alge on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:53:36 PM EST

ing become uncatholic? It's the only thing they're good at!

vi er ikke lenger elsket her

[ Parent ]
you're being deliberately obtuse, right? % (1.00 / 3) (#155)
by creativedissonance on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:28:02 PM EST




ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
Crowley's Autobiograpy, Philsophy and Religion (2.75 / 4) (#109)
by cronian on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:43:40 PM EST

I found Crowley's autobiography to be an entertaining read. I recall reading somewhere that many of his writing are coded explanations of different sexual acts, which couldn't be openly published at the time. As far as the religious thing, I have a mixed view.

I believe there can sometimes be a fine line between exposing common misperceptions and exploiting them. For instance, if you clearly and logically explain the faults with someone's religious beliefs, they will often reject what you say. However, if you recruit them into a religious that somewhat plays off of their relgious beliefs, you are more likely to be able to show them the faults with their more absurd beliefs.

However, I think that after you have someone expose the old frauds in religion or philosophy, others often step foward to exploit. While Crowley did lead some movements, his sucessors have been much more successful cult leaders than he ever was.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
sacrificing a child daily (none / 1) (#115)
by tannhaus on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:36:47 AM EST

Yes, you're right...it's amazing that at the time you could say you sacrificed a child daily without it being censored, but if you had said what you really meant...that you masturbated daily, they would have had a fit and seized your books.

[ Parent ]
some things don't change (2.50 / 2) (#116)
by cronian on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:32:45 AM EST

Movies can have moderate violence and get PG-13 rating, and with severe violence they get at most an R rating. However, if you show explicit sex, it will automatically NC-17 rating.

The current rating regime ends up amounting to de facto censorship. A somewhat similar situation exists for TV. Some things haven't totally changed.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
Also Wikipedia: (none / 1) (#126)
by jacoplane on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:35:28 AM EST

Aleister Crowley, Thelema

[ Parent ]
Wikipedia for Thelema (none / 1) (#128)
by tannhaus on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 12:04:39 PM EST

There's also a wikipedia just for thelema

www.thelemapedia.org

[ Parent ]

Crowley as cult leader (none / 0) (#213)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:43:38 PM EST

Well, Crowley did not wish that status.  If people abuse the philosophy he sat up and distort it in order to become cult leaders, then is that any fault of his?  Keep in mind that the majority of cults are based on christianity....remember waco?

[ Parent ]
Religion is gay nt (1.22 / 9) (#120)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 03:28:00 AM EST



I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
omg (3.00 / 3) (#135)
by tkatchevzz on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:15:30 PM EST

i wonder that 'temple' you visit exactly.

but on second thought, no, plz keep it to yourself thx

[ Parent ]

Who gives a fuck? (1.85 / 7) (#122)
by opusman on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:06:03 AM EST

Like the world needs ANOTHER religion.

The religion for modern times... (3.00 / 2) (#144)
by sakusha on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:05:55 PM EST

as long as you consider "modern times" as the 1920s and 30s.

Why not (none / 0) (#173)
by jolly st nick on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 04:04:20 PM EST

we're all post modern anyways.

Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.



[ Parent ]

Who exactly decided that (none / 1) (#193)
by Phil San on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 02:20:32 PM EST

we're all post modern anyways.

To me modern is entirely the way of seperating the present from the past.

It's also a term of defining archaic from non-archaic.

[ Parent ]

honestly though (none / 1) (#195)
by Phil San on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 02:27:42 PM EST

as long as you consider "modern times" as the 1920s and 30s.

It's possible to argue that there is enough crap that was produced from the 1970's to seperate it from being modern.

Trust me if you read enough you can see this.

[ Parent ]

List of new religions (MWPLP) (none / 1) (#151)
by jrincayc on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 09:30:16 PM EST

Wikipedia: List of Religions: New Religious Movements

just throwing this out there (none / 1) (#160)
by wowboy on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:26:07 AM EST

and call me crazy but shouldn't a religion be based on the teachings of a higher being? otherwise what's the point. anyone can write drivel and call it religion.


Actually that's where the problem for me comes in (3.00 / 2) (#162)
by tannhaus on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:42:17 AM EST

You hit the nail on the head with my problem calling it a religion.  To me, it is a philosophy.  For it to be a religion to me, it would have to deal with some type of higher being that exists outside of the person, would have to deal with what happens when you die, etc.  To me, Thelema is more of a philosophy...a way of life.

However, I suppose since it deals with man's spirit, then you can classify it as religion...the same as you would Buddhism.

Here's what Crowley said about it

There's a very nice thelemic website called Lashtal.com that discussed this very issue in their forums.

And, there is a wikipedia for Thelema that has an entry on this

So, I think it's really how you define religion.

[ Parent ]

"Philosophy" (none / 1) (#172)
by jolly st nick on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 03:52:36 PM EST

is nearly as loaded a term as "religion", and not necessarily more accurately defined.

I'm inclined to a walk/quack test on this.

If it deals with "should" independent of "provided that", I'm inclined to consider it religion. If it elaboratey works out the "provided that" to arrive a various conditional "shoulds", to my ears and eyes it quacks/walks like a philosophy.

[ Parent ]

Then you would consider thelema philosophy nt (none / 0) (#212)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:41:37 PM EST



[ Parent ]
although buddhism talks about the lack of spirit (none / 0) (#201)
by boxed on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 03:28:47 AM EST

Which really doesn't seem to qualify them in the same category on that part alone. I still say that a religion needs a body of believers, traditions and rites. Any kind of definition above that becomes somewhat arbitrary.

[ Parent ]
buddhism and lack of spirit (none / 0) (#202)
by tannhaus on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 05:05:37 AM EST

I would say in the strictist terms, you are correct.   However, they also believe in reincarnation...and although some of their views on that are a little unusual...that someone can reincarnate piecemeal into several different future lives at the same time...it still fosters a belief that something of what you are now lives on after death.  

[ Parent ]
oh it lives on (1.50 / 2) (#204)
by boxed on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:47:14 AM EST

...every time I say something a part of that thought lives on in the brain of whoever hears it, and if I produce offspring my genes live on there. There's just no magical stuff about it.

[ Parent ]
no magical stuff about BUDDHISM? (none / 0) (#211)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:40:35 PM EST

Perhaps you need to look again at buddhism.  It's full of magical stuff...starting with the story of the Buddha.  Then, there is the fact these beings died and are still alive on some level...not reaping the rewards of their enlightenment until all of humanity is enlightened, etc.

[ Parent ]
don't mistake symbolism for literalism (none / 0) (#219)
by boxed on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 08:08:19 AM EST

That's the mistake of creationists, and everyone laughs at them, including the catholic church.

[ Parent ]
symbolism? (none / 0) (#220)
by tannhaus on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 10:01:25 AM EST

There's nothing symbolic about saying the boddhisattvas live on and won't take the rewards of enlightenment until after humanity is enlightened....or if you take into account Tibetan and Pure Land buddhism....QUITE a lot of that is no different from any other religion.

[ Parent ]
yes symbolism (none / 0) (#226)
by boxed on Mon Feb 13, 2006 at 03:40:59 AM EST

There is nothing symbolic about God creating the word in 6 days either, if it wasn't for the tiny fact that it IS a symbol. Just like bodhisattvas. Pure Land is everything you accuse all of buddhism for though, unfortunately. It also ignores the Buddhas words, so that it's a bit fucked up is quite natural.

[ Parent ]
symbolism (none / 0) (#227)
by tannhaus on Mon Feb 13, 2006 at 06:34:38 PM EST

You can't take what buddhists believe, look at it from your own interpretation....and then say that's what buddhism is.  It's not just Pure Land either...

If you look at it and say "Oh, that's symbolic" but most buddhists don't say that...well, you can't claim that buddhism says it's symbolic.  You do.

[ Parent ]

buddhism isn't democratic (none / 0) (#228)
by boxed on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 03:21:16 AM EST

Buddhism isn't defined by majority rule. Most buddhists are laymen who have been fed a slimmed down version highly adjusted for their local culture and beliefs. If you'd have said "most buddhist teachers" then we'd start to get closer to the truth.

[ Parent ]
There was a higher being (none / 1) (#163)
by flargx on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:42:53 AM EST

The Book of the Law was supposedly dicted to Crowley by Aiwass, who identifies himself as the minister of Hoorpaarkraa (Harpocrates.)  Crowley viewed Aiwass as his holy gaurdian angel, which he viewed sometimes as a higher part of his own mind, and other times as an entity external to himself.

Not to start a war or anything, but you refer to it as "drivel," but don't seem to know much about it.  That doesn't seem very reasonable?


[ Parent ]

dicted=dictated (none / 0) (#164)
by flargx on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:43:52 AM EST

It's getting late, sorry about the typos.

[ Parent ]
It's nothing about being reasonable (none / 0) (#190)
by Phil San on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 01:02:39 PM EST

Not to start a war or anything, but you refer to it as "drivel," but don't seem to know much about it. That doesn't seem very reasonable?

It's the source of the information rather than the information itself.

For example your assertion that some flaky Greek was dictating moral authority seems stupid from my point of view.

I've seen made up stuff that was more profound.

Try looking at "The Imitation of Christ" for some truly profound stuff.

[ Parent ]

more profound? (none / 0) (#197)
by flargx on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 08:54:34 PM EST

More profound is a personal judgement. Have you ever read the book you assume isn't profound? Even more importantly, have you ever understood it. I don't mean to play the devil's advocate too much, because I'm definitely no Crowley worshipper. On the other hand I think that he did some very important work and some of his writings such as "Book IV part I", and "Eight Lectures on Yoga" are amongst the most approachable and englightening books on their subject.

Anyway I'm not sure that anything here involves a flaky greek dictating moral authority. It does however involve a fascinating work that contains a fair amount of insight, and at times does seem very profound to me.

I'm still a little disturbed that without knowing anything about it, you have already discounted it as being "drivel" and "stupid" before giving it the slightest chance.

[ Parent ]
eight lectures on yoga (none / 0) (#198)
by tannhaus on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 09:58:28 PM EST

Actually, I appreciate his "eight lectures on yoga" greatly.  It's amazing how he took that subject and cut through the crap to get to the core...

I spent two years as a hare krishna....and to see how he stripped it bare....is amazing.  He did that a lot...the goetia...the sacred magic of abramelin the mage... He was a genius that seemed to have a knack for cutting to the core of a subject.

[ Parent ]

So... (none / 0) (#203)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 05:24:49 AM EST

You are a religion connoisseur, who goes around trying one cult out after another? Any idea what the next fashion religion will be? Could someone hip and cool with the younger crowd revive an old boring religion?

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]
Actually (none / 0) (#210)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:37:01 PM EST

I've been a thelemite since 1990.  Yes, I spent two years as a hare krishna, which was a lapse in my practice, but I wouldn't trade it for the world.

You love throwing around the word "cult" though, however, a cult would not tell you to think for yourself and even encourage disagreement with the founder.

I'm beginning to see that some of you are more closeminded than the religions you're trying to bash...and bashing it simply because it's deemed a religion.  That is not enlightenment or intelligence.  It's prejudism and is the characteristic of a lack of intelligence and maturity.

[ Parent ]

eight lectures (none / 0) (#221)
by flargx on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 02:23:59 PM EST

I'm glad to hear that someone else appreciates the Eight Lectures. They aren't perfect, but they are so much cleaner than anything else I've ever read on yoga. It's strange that Crowley was able to clean up and give the west a cleaner version of yoga then a dozen Indian yogis that attempted the same thing in the years to follow. Of course, some of them got better publicity.

A couple messages down you refer to yourself as a practicing thelemite. I was just wondering what that means to you. Also, if I may ask I was wondering if you were part of a larger group, or doing that sort of thing on your own? Either way, I'm glad you put this article here. Don't be too put off by the negative reactions. You are bound to get negative reactions on anything that borders on religion, and on K5 you are pretty much just bound to get negative reactions on anything. It is still a good thing to present people with something like this that they may not have encountered elsewhere.

[ Parent ]
practicing thelemite (none / 0) (#223)
by tannhaus on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 03:59:18 PM EST

It's strange that Crowley was able to clean up and give the west a cleaner version of yoga then a dozen Indian yogis that attempted the same thing in the years to follow.

I think part of that is the way Crowley approached things.  He wanted to separate the chaff from the wheat and looked at it that way.  He didn't blindly accept things, so he was able to cut through the hocus pocus and get to the reality of things.

A couple messages down you refer to yourself as a practicing thelemite. I was just wondering what that means to you. Also, if I may ask I was wondering if you were part of a larger group, or doing that sort of thing on your own?

Well, to me a practicing thelemite is someone who tries to follow the Book of the Law and the philosophy as I understand it.  Of course, no two thelemites see things the same way, so every one will practice differently.

Also, I do study the qabalah, practice magick, etc. in an attempt to find the gnosis within myself.

As far as the group thing, I am a member of the OTO but I'm not representing the OTO in any way with this article or comments.  I'm simply stating things in a way that I feel is a brief introduction to the subject.  Your mileage may vary.

Either way, I'm glad you put this article here.

Thank you.  I'm very pleased with the outcome.  It got people discussing, thinking about the topic, etc.  That's all I wanted...just to throw a brief introduction out and have people consider what I said.

[ Parent ]

buddhism, taoism, confucianism [nt] (3.00 / 2) (#168)
by boxed on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 09:01:14 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Oh, Crowley was a high being for SURE (3.00 / 4) (#169)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 01:28:50 PM EST

Oh, highER being. Right.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

that's the point (none / 0) (#192)
by Phil San on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 02:12:53 PM EST

and call me crazy but shouldn't a religion be based on the teachings of a higher being? otherwise what's the point. anyone can write drivel and call it religion.

That's the point. Religion would be 100% useless without the good stuff after you die.

[ Parent ]
Where's the difference? (3.00 / 2) (#205)
by anno1602 on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 04:20:14 PM EST

shouldn't a religion be based on the teachings of a higher being

The only difference I can see is that in one case, someone* writes drivel and calls it a religion, in the other case, someone* writes drivel featuring a higher being and then calls it a religion. The drivel talking about a higher being doesn't make it not drivel.

*)or a group of people over a long period of time


--
"Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit." - Murphy
[ Parent ]
I'll be perfectly frank (1.33 / 3) (#185)
by Phil San on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 12:45:38 PM EST

I feel that virtually any "new" religion is intensely suspect.

Older religions have at very least when it comes to suspicion a chance that we just have to believe someone.

However we would be remiss in the present when most of these things are a little easier to dismiss when the person is an obvious crank.

Crowley an obvious crank (none / 0) (#209)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:32:57 PM EST

But, if you get away from the yellow journalism, his british humor, etc. you find out that he wasn't really a crank.  Sure, he loved to tease...but when you got down to the real Crowley, you discover he was a genius.  

[ Parent ]
Wow (none / 1) (#216)
by Dirty Douche on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 11:09:10 PM EST

You make Crowley sound boring. I am not impressed.  
~ Forever Dirt ~
Maybe because Thelema is not about Crowley? (none / 0) (#217)
by tannhaus on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 11:19:27 PM EST

Besides, a lot of the hogwash written about the man is just that...

[ Parent ]
quotes from the autohagiography (none / 0) (#222)
by flargx on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 02:55:19 PM EST

Here are a few quotes straight out of Crowley's autobiography. The goal of posting these is to give people a little taste of Crowley, and to show that some of your guesses, such as that he tried to lead a cult, are just wrong.

"I do not want to father a flock, to be the fetish of fools and fanatics, or the founder of a faith whose followers are content to echo my opinions. I want each man to cut his own way through the jungle."
-Confessions, page 618

"I am afraid that the root of the evil lies in the psychological fact that men proclaim the principals of freedom only when they are suffering from oppression."
-Confessions, page 729

The next quote comes after a man came to Crowley and told him of fears that his mother was using black magick against him. I include this because I find it fascinating that Crowley attempted to be a psychologist of the man and treat him by entering his reality, rather than fighting him. That is a realization that some schools of psychology only started considering years later.

"My plan in such cases is not to undeceive the patient. I propose to treat him. 'What you must do is to develop your own magical powers as to beat your mother at her own game.'"
-Confessions, page 548

"...One of themselves told me recently that the American ideal is attainment, while that of Europe is enjoyment. There is much truth in this, and the reason is that in Europe we have already attained everything and discovered that nothing is worthwhile, unless we live in the present, we do not live at all."
-Confession, page 209



Hmmmm (none / 0) (#229)
by aguila on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 11:55:40 AM EST

Thanks for your comments regarding Crowley.  Your presented a more humane side which I had not been aware of.

It always puzzled me that he had gone so high and yet appeared to go in a completely different direction.  It is good that he was able to redirect his energy into a positive and creative vein.  I was unaware of that, and had been concerned for his sake, and for ours as there is no such thing as a pebble dropping into an ocean without affecting all.

I'm not sure many have the strength or awareness to reconstruct their energies so that it serves their True intent as opposed to the endless dance of ego's whims.  Hope remains after all.

Sophia remains Who and as She is and has been, if any will care to listen and learn.

I wonder what will happen when the older Mayan, Incan, and other gods return and have their influence felt and known as well.

Thelema - A Modern Religion for Modern Times | 229 comments (184 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!