Satanism, Dead Babies, & Lon Milo DuQuette

2014 Preface

In the past, I think it is fair to say I had a good deal of antipathy towards Lon Milo DuQuette. Although it wasn't really for Lon as a person, but rather for what he stands for, a kind of pathetic, special-pleading & peddling devilry meant to mislead the always eagerly misled poor saps who huddle around the entrance at the outermost gates of the occult temple.

Many people have objected to me that they know Lon, and he is a very nice person. I know Lon almost entirely through his works, and those are sufficiently troubling to me, in the sense of their being inadequate on technical points, and buffoonish on most points, that getting to know Lon well enough to afford him any sentimental benefit of acquaintance, seems a most ill-advised move.

Nevertheless, as you shall see below, I have in the past sought to develop an online dialog with Lon, hoping by this to obtain more details from him on where precisely he is coming from—other than a circus tent. This has proved fruitless, as Lon perhaps has gotten the correct impression that my own agenda is unlikely to offer him any solace or salvation.

Originally published December 24, 2009


Lon Milo DuQuette just wants everyone to know that Satan DOES NOT EXIST! Of course he is talking about the South Park Satan, not the Thelemic one.
I dislike listening to or reading Lon Milo DuQuette. That was my first reaction to him, many years ago when I watched him lecturing about (and peddling of course) his own Tarot cards, the "Yes We Put In Every Demon And The Kitchen Sink Too" deck, one of the ugliest things ever foisted on Tarot.

At that time, I complained to Bill Heidrick that I thought something weird was going on, because Lon seemed more like a used-car salesman, rather than a magician or occultist. Of course that is the thing most people find appealing about Lon. He says a lot of silly, stupid, things, and they laugh, and the occult feels warmer and fuzzier that way. As I have said, Lon is the Art Fern of Magick. Heidrick replied to me, disparaging an entire regional culture to make excuses for his Order brother: "He's from Southern California." Heidrick noted that people from the northern part of the state, where he was from, didn't naturally act like fools.*
*—2014 note: Perhaps his implication was that Northern Californians have to spend many years in fine schools training to achieve the same end.

When DuQuette's book on the Thoth deck came out, many people were very excited, and I was curious to see what a long-term student of the occult, and a high-ranking member of the OTO, might say to elucidate Crowley's Tarot. I was one of the very few people who gave Lon's book a bad review, and in fact I considered it such a bad book, I decided the OTO must have an organizational objective to thwart people's understanding of Crowley and his Tarot.

I had one email exchange with DuQuette, where I asked him if he was such a great magician, why couldn't he lose some weight.* Maybe that sounds mean, but we're talking about a man whose motto is "I can change only one thing with Magick—myself." OK, so at the least you might change to being a little less roly-poly. Just to show it wasn't all snark and no heart, I also told Lon that I had a couple of magick words—DIET and EXERCISE—that I happily dispensed to him as a professional courtesy. He thanked me, and said he was already attempting to employ those words, and had lost some weight. I told him I would offer him any assistance he might need to help him sveltecize. He never asked for my help.
*—2014 note: Lon's weight loss program seems to have succeeded, to the point where he now appears frail and old, instead of jolly. But, I credit him with coming to agree with me that a lot less Lon is a positive development.

From time to time on forums, I will ask Lon topical questions, and he will refuse to answer.

I sent a Facebook "friend" request once or twice to him, but he declined the honor.

I suspect he will not love me more for this review:



Satan's Nuts

Recently, Lon Milo DuQuette was interviewed on Blogtalk Radio, on the Beyond Worlds show, an alleged fusion of Tarot and Angel beliefs and practices, where they claim to help the "naturally intuitive" listeners tap into their own "inner knowing". In the 90-minute interview, we were told that Lon would be "debunking the Myths about Aleister Crowley", and also talking about Thoth Tarot.

As it turned out, and this is certainly no fault of Lon's, or maybe it was in an ironic way (given the co-hosts of the show felt they were obliged to find DuQuette's every snort and whinny hilarious), but so distracted and goofy were the two women interviewers, who talked over Lon, finished his halting responses, drowned him out with their inane cackling, and generally sounded perfectly idiotic, they only managed to get to a few topics. As Lon pointed out at the end, that is often a problem with him anyway, as he tends to drone on peripatetically, averse to getting to any destination—or shutting up.

One of the topics they did get to was the question of Satanism, a recurring issue and theme for any Thelemite to address, as Crowley of course had no problem admitting he worshiped the Devil or Satan, and that he was in fact a Satanist. Certainly, many people, who have written about Crowley, mention that he was a Satanist, and that his religion is a form of Satanism. And, needless to say, the representatives of the OTO are pretty sensitive about this, as they naturally would be about many things having to do with Aleister Crowley, and Lon sought to correct people's alleged misapprehensions.

The problem is, Lon sought to do this by saying things that were both unfounded, and disparaging of the beliefs of millions of people who do happen to believe in a power or entity called Satan. In Lon's myth of Crowley and Satanism, Crowley just liked to say things to filter out the unworthy, things like "I worship Satan."

Well, Crowley repeatedly admitted that he worshipped Satan, and for that matter pointed out that Thelemites, given that they worshipped the Sun, were worshipping Satan too. In Liber Samekh, for example, Crowley speaks explicitly of:
"the Devil our Lord...Lord of the Sabbath of the Adepts, [who] is Satan, therefore also the Sun, whose number of Magick is 666, the seal of His servant the Beast."
And Crowley implies that the Beast (i.e., Crowley) was not only Satan's servant, but since, according to Wynn Wescott, who Crowley quoted on this matter in the Equinox, the Beast is the child of Samael (Satan) and his wife, the harlot Isheth Zanunim, that means Aleister Crowley, at least in his Thelemic office and role as Beast 666, was also the son of Satan.

So, Satan is not just a fringe notion in Thelema. Satan and Satanic thinking, whatever that may be determined to be by study of Liber AL and its antecedent sources, are central themes in Thelema. It is not unfair to then suggest that Thelema has at least something to do with Satanism, and that Thelemites can fairly be called Satanists.

But, Lon Milo DuQuette dismissed that notion entirely, alleging that only "nutty people" would believe in Satan, or call themselves Satanists, and that in fact these "nutty people" were really Christians, not Thelemites. The fact is, these are not wholly baseless statements, given that Satanism would seem to be largely a Christian heresy, but the "nutty people" would also seem to include Thelemites.

At one point, one of the hosts put a simple, straightforward question to DuQuette: "Lon, can you define for us what Satanism is?"

There was a big beat of utter, desperate silence, followed by Lon's stumbling reply:
"Oh...well...the...I...the...uhm...more easily I can define what it is not. It is not an organized group of people...ah...ah...who are in touch with the anti-Christian god. The Satanism that I was afraid of was a figment of my imagination, because the Satan that I thought people worshipped doesn’t exist...and...and...anybody who you can’t convince that to, I’m sorry the discussion ends. I’m through arguing with you.”
Now, Lon could of course have imagined all kinds of Satans I suppose. Maybe in Lon's head, Satan looked a lot like Santa Claus...and of course Lon looks a lot like...well, you know. So, yes, it is always possible that Lon Milo DuQuette had imagined an absurd idea for Satan, and that idea, being nonsense, does not really exist. But the problem is, he implies that a lot of other people have the same idea about this notion of Satan. And to those people he shows not understanding, but contempt.

Let's be very clear about what Christians actually believe, because I think it often confuses people that Christians call the Devil by the name of Satan, or that they think it applies somehow to the Edenic Serpent. How did they get that idea? Well, my dears, they got that idea from their Bible, and from the very important book in the Bible that is so influential to Thelema—the Apocalypse of St. John, or Revelation.

See if this little verse, one of two in Revelation that use this language, can clear it up for you:
“And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.”—Revelation 20: 1-2
SO—DRAGON=OLD SERPENT (i.e. Eden’s Serpent)=DEVIL=SATAN

So, no matter the name, it is the same Satanic station, the same host—the eternal enemy of humanity—the one who opposes, prosecutes, and leads to destruction God’s creation. But Satan accomplishes this in a peculiar way, by seeming to lift up humanity to the position of gods themselves. His only purpose in this is to demonstrate the arrogance and impiety of humans, so that God, according to his own rules, has to destroy humanity. And Satan does this because it is his job. Also his pleasure.

At some point, we are told, it becomes such a pleasure, such a demented mission of Satan’s, that he decided maybe God was kind of a weakling for not following his own rules and permanently eradicating humanity from the face of the Earth. And a lot of the angels agreed with Satan, presumably the lot standing on the side of Severity. These launched a heavenly rebellion, leading to a war that is ongoing. The Severe-team angels, Captained by Satan, were outnumbered, 2-1, and also of course they were opposed by God, who you figure has to count for a whole number himself—at least, so maybe 3-1 or hey, 4-1. The odds against Satan were not so good, and either because he was cast out of Heaven or chose to strategically retreat, the host of “evil” angels came or fell to Earth, established themselves as demonic forces of the most assuredly disloyal opposition, and began to work assiduously for the destruction of humanity.

The inevitable failing of humanity, in listening to the almost irresistible temptation of Satan, makes God regret ever having created such a defective, irredeemably arrogant bunch of losers. God says at one point his choices are few—destruction of humanity on the basis of its defective nature OR remaking of humanity in a manner that will eliminate the possibility of disobedience. This remaking is essentially what Christianity is all about, being reborn in the spirit, to create a Christ-driven life, which is impervious to the destructive temptations of Satan, just as the perfect man, Jesus Christ, was able to resist Satan in the wilderness.

In addition, via the enormous and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ, humanity is saved from Judgment and destruction, and thus Satan’s power is neutralized at its heart. However, humanity can still choose whether to accept the Light, and salvation, or to listen to the question of the Shadows—what do you want? Because Satan will most definitely appear to provide just that. In fact, he will be willing to meet you at a crossroads, and sign a contract to give you exactly what you claim to want, in return for the ownership and destruction of your soul.

Now, THAT’S the story as Christians actually understand it, and as millions of them believe to be the truth.

When a Thelemite laughs about Satan, and acts like it’s just a silly myth nobody could reasonably believe in, he is acting in accord with Satanic impulses to con people into thinking Satan is a joke, a myth, a metaphor. But, why would Aleister Crowley spend so much time talking about the centrality of a joke to his belief system? True, he was given to distancing himself from his own piety to Satan often enough. If you think about it, impiety is actually a Satanic virtue, but Crowley ended up destroying his own life (or emptying it into Satan’s butt if you prefer), and maiming the lives of many people he touched with his Thelemic sensibilities.

If Aleister Crowley did not worship Satan, certainly from a Christian perspective he acted like he did. And it is that perspective that the Thelemic managers, such as Lon Milo DuQuette, most fear, because on the one hand, all Thelemites are commanded by Aiwaz to “throw the Christians to the lions”, which I suppose could be interpreted metaphorically, but given Crowley’s hatred of Christianity, especially certain expressions of it, that seems questionable. On the other hand, the Old Aeon hierarchy, while certainly under pressure and threat of diminishment, is still largely in control, and far more influential than the fledgling Thelemic organizations.

At any moment, if the Christian, or other Old Aeon, powers, decide Thelema is a threat, it will be “the Thelemites to Gitmo”, or whatever will be employed during the Ordeal XI of Thelema.



Dead Babies and Best Blood

Sacrificed Male Child, XII-Hanged Man, from Crowley's Thoth Tarot, perhaps the only Tarot card suggesting a felonious act.
One of the other myths Lon attempted to correct in the Beyond Worlds show, was the idea that Crowley promoted or in fact committed human sacrifice, specifically child sacrifice. That is of course a recurrent charge against Crowley and against Thelema.

Lon went to tediously long length to make a simple point—Crowley was just talking about sacrificing his sperm, in the bodily fluid he called "blood", and which most people call "semen". And Lon claims Crowley wrote about it using the child sacrifice symbolism because at the time (1920's), one couldn't write openly of sex-magickal practices without getting into some kind of trouble, but you could allege you were a mass-murderer of children, as a way of veiling your sex-magick secrets, and nobody would mind in the least.

Lon misstated the facts to enable this dubious explanation, by alleging that the myth of Crowley murdering children originates solely from the "Bloody Sacrifice" chapter in Magick in Theory and Practice. This is the infamous chapter, where Crowley plainly tells us that blood sacrifice is the most important and effective magickal technique available to the magician, and "[a] male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim." In a footnote to this text, Crowley appears to confess to having murdered 2400 children: "FRATER PERDURABO...made this particular sacrifice on an average about 150 times every year between 1912 e.v. and 1928 e.v."

Now, it is often alleged that this is the main reason child sacrifice is ever associated with Crowley or Thelema, and, as Lon said, this is based on a misunderstanding of Crowley's veiled language. However, this argument is factually incorrect, and quite misleading.

Thelema is associated with child sacrifice in a fundamental way mainly because child sacrifice is commanded in the Thelemic holy book, Liber AL:
AL III,12: "Sacrifice cattle, little and big: after a child."
As with many Liber AL verses, the language here is at least a bit vague. It after all explicitly says to sacrifice cattle, but is somewhat unclear about whether "a child" is also sacrificed, as one had done with the "little cow", or if it has some other function "after". As always, in any occult verses, one could argue that none of the words should be read flat or literally to obtain the intended or essential meaning.

But, we have the evidence of Crowley's commentary here, which fixes that commandment to a particular and real child sacrifice, one Crowley and Rose certainly did commit, or suffer, through gross neglect, especially on Crowley's part, as he abandoned his wife and baby in Southeast Asia to run off by himself to America. Ultimately, Crowley blamed Rose for what happened, saying her drinking and poor hygiene led to the typhoid infection afflicting their baby girl, Lilith, who died in Rangoon on or about May 1, 1906.

Further, Liber AL had included a warning (AL III, 43) to the Scarlet Woman, i.e. Rose Crowley, saying that failure to continue her "work" for the Thelemic gods would result in the sacrifice of her child to Ra-Hoor-Khuit, who speaks of taking his vengeance against Rose (and Crowley too presumably) by "slaying" her child. What are the chief sins Rose might exhibit to suffer this terrible penalty: pity, compassion, tenderness—basic faults of character in Thelema.

Now, in spite of this, true believers and defenders of Thelema (the fluffy-fake brand of it anyway) might complain that this is no smoking gun. After all, Liber AL does not have any explicit verse that says something like use the blood of a child to do some magick or something.

Except of course it certainly does:
AL III, 24: "The best blood is of the moon, monthly: then the fresh blood of a child, or dropping from the host of heaven: then of enemies; then of the priest or of the worshippers: last of some beast, no matter what."
We should note that here, "beast blood" is the least blood, while "blood of a child" gets the silver medal. And so, one way of reading AL III, 12 could be to note it is advising two levels or brands of efficacy concerning sacrifice, noting the easier beast blood of cattle would be the primary choice, but only AFTER one had sought out the better grade blood of a child.

Now, "the fresh blood of a child" in AL III, 24, according to Crowley's commentary, means "BABALON and THE BEAST conjoined, the Secret Saviour", so it refers to the mingled sex fluids of the magical partners. Crowley says he chooses to use language that, without commentary, could easily be taken to say he is promoting the magical use of the blood of actual children, because he is concerned that plain talk about the magical principles involved in the verse "could lead only to the most fulminating and irredeemable disaster."

In that respect, it seems his reasoning in the choice of language is not so different from what DuQuette alleged on the Beyond Worlds show.

Yet, veiled talk in the form of plain statements about sacrificing children could lead to some pretty irredeemable disasters too, but maybe that is also part of Crowley's plan, to inspire the profane to commit terrible acts in accord with an uninitiated reading.

Certainly, Crowley did not care much about the welfare of children, and had parental tips such as:
"The Beast 666 adviseth that all children shall be accustomed from infancy to witness every type of sexual act".—New Comment to AL I:51
Regarding the proper levels of initiation in readings of Crowley's writings, it is useful to point out that Lon Milo DuQuette dismissed any possibility that the "Bloody Sacrifice" comments by Crowley should in any way be taken to suggest he advocated real child sacrifice, even though Crowley plainly believed he and the Scarlet Woman had, perhaps inadvertently, sacrificed their first child to Satan.

DuQuette says Crowley was clear in his rejection of a literal taking of his "Bloody Sacrifice" comments, that Crowley was meaning (in Lon's version):
"I’m saying something here behind what I am saying. What you think I’m saying, I’m not really saying. And then in a huge, long footnote, he says I’m not saying what I’m saying, I’m saying something else."
However, the "huge footnote", which Crowley called an "initiated interpretation", is blamed on Soror I.W.E. (Martha Kuntzel), whose name Crowley is known to have used on at least one other occasion (in The Book of Thoth) as a pseudonym to express his own satiric or misleading commentary. Whether or not Kuntzel actually wrote the "initiated interpretation", Crowley later called it "nonsense" and "dust in the eyes of the profane" in notes to Emblems and Mode of Use.

But for DuQuette to raise that complication would of course run the risk of perhaps clarifying something for the profane, and everybody else. That is not to say Crowley actually sacrificed 2400 children. But it is to say that while he may have intended a sex-magick metaphor in mentioning his prolific sacrifices of sperm, Crowley never intended blood sacrifice and its magickal efficacy, or the grade of children's blood as a sacrificial agent, to be taken only as metaphors.

We know this for the reasons I have mentioned above, plus there is the case of the speaking of the initiatory Word of the Aeon, which is associated with an immense and real bloody sacrifice. You know that sacrifice by its historical appellation—World War One—which Crowley understood to be part of the global bloodbath required by the change of Aeon to announce and anoint the rulership of Horus the Avenger.

Crowley plainly says:
"This Bloody Sacrifice is the critical point of the World-Ceremony of the Proclamation of Horus, the Crowned and conquering Child, as Lord of the Aeon."—Chapter XII, "The Bloody Sacrifice", Magick
What one should really take from the whole "Bloody Sacrifice" chapter, and its footnote, and its controversy, is that Crowley often used rash and questionable judgment in his veils and blinds, delighting in saying things which while "technically" correct as far as occultism was concerned, are potentially quite dangerous insofar as his ideas are made available for a wider, uninitiated, audience.* And they are dangerous not merely because someone might take Crowley at his word, and miss the subtextual and perhaps truer meaning, but also because a lot of the subtextual or technical meanings of his writing do not necessarily negate the surface meaning.
*—A lot of the reason Damien Echols ended up on death row is because of his ignorant understanding of Crowley's child sacrifice comments. Naturally, the Echols' defense team didn't know enough to counter the incredibly stupid and bigoted prosecution team's use of Echols' study of Crowley either.

Occultism does not offer a hierarchy of increasingly truer understandings of its symbolism, each one erasing the meaning of the previous insights. What one actually encounters is an increasingly complex understanding of the ways in which "truth" is a relative feature of life, except in certain deep and high grasps of it. This is to say that the surface reading and meaning of an occult verse or idea is one level of truth, one way of understanding something, which has a material implication. That way of understanding is appropriate for a certain level of initiation. As one progresses, he will understand more of the meaning, and what was once the whole meaning, will be understood to be just one part, and perhaps not the better part any longer for the point at which the aspirant now finds himself.

Crowley well understood this, and wrote in accord with it. The problem is that, unlike the vast majority of occultists, Crowley was contemptuous of the idea that the innocent or unready should be protected from the dangers of premature exposure to the secrets. While he would not explicitly reveal to them the protected ideas, he would point to these in language that plainly articulated the dangerous power he alleged was inherent in them.

Fundamentally, Thelema is not a jolly, harmless, belief system. Given the predictions for the New Dark Ages, it is difficult to see how it is in fact a very hopeful religion in any way for the vast majority of humanity, certainly not a for a long time.

When public spokespeople for what is alleged to be "official" Thelema present themselves and the religion with buffoonery, and inane attempts to make something terrible (in its meaning and its power to incite baleful deeds) seem safe for children or anybody else, they dangerously misrepresent Thelemic ideas. And of course, one can complain very much in the same way about Christianity, that its verses can be distorted to lead people to commit heinous acts in the name of "love" and "peace". The problem for Thelema, which is one reason the Thelemic managers do like their comforting clowns, is that heinous acts and policy are the Law in Thelema, not the corruption of a beneficent dogma.

(jk)—Adjustment Avatar of Glenn F. Wright

Comments

  1. I'm not even a man by it's screamingly obvious by the shear numbers and frequency of which he "sacrificed children" what it refers to don't you think?! I'd say only 150 times a year is pretty tame compared to the average human beast...

    ReplyDelete
  2. "screamingly obvious"—if you're screaming, you're probably not paying attention. Crowley is seldom intending one level of meaning only in his writing. On the doctrine of sacrifice, his intention is pretty clearly spelled out, that killing is the idea, and always has been.

    Of course there is a particular idea of killing Crowley is getting at, and you have to understand his attitude about contraception and abortion—that it is murder most foul.

    But beyond this, and this is the point I make in the article, it is misleading to only talk about the infamous statement—about killing children in large numbers—as the only place or dogma which deals with the topic in Crowley's writing.

    It comes up repeatedly, and repeatedly Crowley bothers to tell us he is not merely being metaphorical in using that very specific language.

    So, when Lon tries to get everybody to laugh about the big misunderstanding, and Crowley never meant to say children should be sacrificed, he isn't telling people the truth. He's using misleading talking points to get around a difficult and potentially very dangerous subject.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Apparently my comment did not post, so forgive any overlap should it show up later: AC occasionally used the term in the sense many people often think of, but it was closer to PAN than any Christian figure (see "Leah Sublime" for such a usage). Often, too, he used it for its comparative religious and etymological connotations, but he certainly did not hold to the idea of "Satan" in the manner of the classical sense or even of the "LaVeyan" type. At times he overestimated the sophistication of his readers.

    The statement re. "sacrificing children" is quite clearly resolved in an unpublished paper of the IX* of OTO entitled "IX* Emblems & Their Mode of Use", in which he blatantly states the note to be a blind, and gives the proper interpretation. Lon is speaking there from generally unavailable sources.

    ReplyDelete
  4. P.S.: Martha Kuntzel (Soror Ich Will Es) was a real, live person; not an alter ego of AC.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "it was closer to PAN than any Christian figure"

    Pan is the Christian figure, with doctrinal adaptations, which Crowley accepted and was oriented to.

    And it is absurd to say "he occasionally used the term" when Satan was central to Crowley's religion—literally, since it was associated with Hadit.

    "he certainly did not hold to the idea of "Satan""

    He said otherwise, explicitly, repeatedly. You're just talking utter nonsense.

    When you deeply desire Crowley's words to say something other than what they say, you are revealing your lack of sophistication. That isn't my problem. But it would help if you could actually read what you're critiquing.

    So far example:

    "is quite clearly resolved in an unpublished paper of the IX* of OTO entitled "IX* Emblems & Their Mode of Use","

    —which I talk about in the article. Most of the people criticizing what I am writing on this blog are doing so from idiotic talking points, not facts, nor even an interest in engaging a Thelemic topic seriously.

    As for Küntzel—again—I explained Crowley's use of her name in the article. She may have been live (for a bit), but, other than trying to enlist Adolph Hitler into Thelema, she was most useful to Crowley as a sockpuppet.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Can this not be written by some naive christian who thinks facing death and destruction is of the devil and Satan, Satan is personification of an Enemy where it says in the bible by Christ you are to love your enemies? So if Crowley loves the Devil and Satan then sure enough he follows the christian ethic seeing he even loves the personification of the Enemy being Satan. Sure Satan is real only that the referent implies enemies, yet it does not referent to any particular, but defines the notion to the ego such as Christ being tempted by the devil where temptation itself was said to be the enemy as he fasted for a month, and so anyone who has tried such a feat knows the notion that temptation can manifest some harsh insights, yet back to the point, any blind fear monger can speak of greater nonsense, the fact is you don't know, and yet can not leave a dead man's bones alone must you molest a dead man's bone, you sound like the standard grave robber who can't write anything that will last and so in resentment screw with another man's work!

    ReplyDelete
  7. What Satan is or is not—to you—is not the question I was addressing. Rather, what Satan is or is not—to Aleister Crowley—and how his understanding differed, markedly, from that of the corporate Thelema apologists, was the topic I was discussing.

    So, for example, you claim Satan is the idea of "enemy", yet Crowley says:

    "This serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of Man."

    And Crowley openly, repeatedly, and enthusiastically embraces Satan, the Devil, and what he says they stand for as key constructs of his faith. From a Christian perspective—but not only that—that is consistent with the very definition of evil, and not just as Lon Milo dismissively jokes about it, but in very real terms. And Crowley gives a number of examples of how those terms operate as he understands them.

    I am aware that this discussion disturbs many alleged Thelemites, but this is only because what they have understood of Thelema is based upon their own poor resources, and not upon what Crowley actually wrote.

    "you don't know, and yet can not leave a dead man's bones alone must you molest a dead man's bone"

    I guess you mean by this that I am writing about Crowley's words and ideas, seeking to clarify them, by making note (for a change) of what the man actually says.

    I am quite sure Crowley is fine with what I am doing with his bones.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Thelemic Jihad

"Mercy Let Be Off", A Commentary on Liber AL III, 18