Child Abuse as Sex Magick & Sexual Research: Aleister Crowley & Alfred Kinsey (Occult Yorkshire 14)

kinsey-lam

“For that group, the book of books was Davidson’s History of Education. William James called its author a ‘knight-errant of the intellectual life,’ an ‘exuberant polymath.’ . . . Its purpose was to dignify a newly self-conscious profession called Education. Its argument, a heady distillation of conclusions from Social Darwinism, claimed that modern education was a cosmic force leading mankind to full realization of itself.”
— John Taylor Gatto, Underground History of American Education

Not knowing is the hardest part. There is something in the human brain—mine at any rate—that can’t let go of an unsolved mystery, especially when it pertains directly to the organism’s survival. Of course, it’s not (as far as I know) a matter of survival for me to solve this mystery now; but it may have once been exactly that, or perhaps the reverse. It may have been a question of personal survival not to see, identify, or talk about this mystery. Even this of course is speculative. All I know for sure is that I am driven to sift through all this information (to the point that the muscles in my shoulders are becoming painfully tight), arrange it into some sort of coherent order, and present it to others, to the world, in the hope that it will make a case for something. The trouble is, I am not sure for what.

In The Evening Standard report from 27th May, 1994, regarding the Islington care home child abuse, Stewart Payne and Eileen Fairweather wrote that, “For years a group of gay social work academics were able to abuse young boys with terrifying ease shielded—unwittingly—by colleagues who didn’t dare challenge their views on child-sexuality for fear of appearing anti-liberal.” They described Scotland Yard’s Obscene Publications Squad as “investigating a network of gay intellectuals who are believed to have run child sex rings for decades through schools and children’s homes.”[ref]

When I was growing up, I was not exactly surrounded by gay intellectuals, but they were certainly around, and I was suffused in the sort of liberalism that would have been afraid to challenge pro-pedophilia views—at least if they were coming from respected peers within the cultural community. Maybe this would have even extended to the point of shielding abuse. Certainly, it is not at all hard for me to believe; but again, it does not prove that any abuse happened, much less that members of my family were involved.

One of the things I concluded about my brother’s carefully crafted public persona as a dandy, drug user, and sexual libertine, was that it was an elaborately disguised cry for help—that he had been engineered through trauma to become the clothes-Horsley that he was, and that his every insistence on being his own man was an unconscious cry from the soul of the very opposite truth, that he had been colonized internally by a malign force. This piece is neither disguised nor unconscious as a cry for help; and yet it’s perhaps equally irrational, since I neither expect help to come nor believe that I need it from anywhere or anyone outside of me. That time has long passed. Even so, some of the individuals who could have intervened on my behalf as a child are still alive, and they are implicated, some directly, in this investigation. But the main participants—those who were either most responsible or who could most effectively have intervened, or both—my grandfather, my father, my brother, are all dead. They are, or were, also the principal carriers of the Fabian legacy which I have inherited, being the firstborns of the firstborn; and since they are gone, I am now the only surviving son of the firstborn son of Alec Horsley. The buck stops here.

officer-jasun

If this written exploration is for anyone, besides myself and those very few surviving family members willing to look at the hidden aspect of their heritage, it’s for those that have passed on. Perhaps there are family members being wrongly implicated by this piece. There is always the possibility that even my grandfather was duped, that he was a useful liberal idiot, oblivious to the geopolitical social engineering agendas that were moving, like vast cosmic tides, around and finally over his castles in the sand. Yet, if one of those sand castles is Northern Foods—possibly the largest Food conglomerate in Europe, whose legacy in geopolitics continues to this day—it seems rather naïve, not to mention a disservice both to Alec and to history—to suppose so.

Before I get to the geopolitical picture and how Northern Foods’ influence—via my uncle Lord (or is it Baron? I can’t keep track of these peerages) Haskins—continued into the 2000s, I want to return to the intersection of progressive leftist movements with homosexuality, within the already described larger context of social reform, economics, psychiatry and the medical establishment, hallucinogens, literary movements and liberal intellectualism, pedophilia and, most distressing of all, intelligence operations in mind control. That means going back to the beginning once more.

A decade after the founding of the Fabian Society, in 1897, The Order of Chaeronea was founded by George Cecil Ives (friend of Oscar Wilde). It was a secret society for the cultivation of a homosexual, ethical, cultural and spiritual ethos. It was secret because homosexuality was illegal at that time and homosexuals needed a means of underground communication. The organization was inspired by and closely tied to the “Uranian” movement, Uranian being a 19th-century term that referred to a “third sex,” originally someone with “a female psyche in a male body” who was sexually attracted to men.

ooc

Although there’s no mention of Aleister Crowley in the records of The Order of Chaeronea, they could hardly have been unaware of one another, since Crowley was both a pioneer of “sexual liberation” and a practitioner of homosexual sex. The subject of sexual magick, while it’s really of central importance to this investigation, is one I’ve avoided until now, because it becomes all-too-easy to lose the ground of factual reportage once strayed into more esoteric and philosophic waters. However, it’s worth mentioning in brief (having just come across this material myself via author Phil Hine’s website), that the Theosophical Society (tied to the Fabians via Annie Besant) was implicated in child sexual abuse in the early 1900 because of Charles Leadbeater. Canadian sociologist Stephen Kent writes in “Religious Justifications for Child Sexual Abuse in Cults”:

“Leadbeater’s practice of sex magick involved homosexual abuses, but this tradition is by no means limited to homoerotic activities. . . . Leadbeater was a pederast, and he used the Theosophical Society to gain access to boys so that he could engage them in various forms of sex magick (see Washington, 1995, p. 121). Remarkable, perhaps, about Leadbeater’s pederasty was that he was able to sanctify it under the guise of spiritual training. Apparently, Leadbeater taught a sexual technique to an inner circle of initiates who claimed that ‘the energy aroused in masturbation can be used as a form of occult power, a great release of energy which can, first, elevate the consciousness of the individual to a state of ecstasy, and second, direct a great rush of psychic force towards the Logos for His use in occult work.’”

According to Hine’s “Breeding Devils in Chaos: Homosexuality & the Occult,” this

“gave rise to the rumors that there existed groups of ‘Black Magicians’ who obtained occult power by psychically vampirizing young boys. [Author] Dion Fortune. . . alleged that there was a conspiracy of male occultists who used ‘homosexual techniques’ to build up what she called ‘dark astral power.’ She also blamed the decline of the Greek and Roman empires on those cultures’ relaxed attitude to homosexuality. Although she never named any of these ‘black adepts,’ it is clear that she was probably referring to C. W. Leadbeater, and perhaps, also Aleister Crowley.”

Hine refers to Crowley’s male lover, the poet Victor Neuburg, “his partner in a series of homosexual sex-magick operations known as The Paris Working, where Neuburg & Crowley performed a series of invocations using anal intercourse as the means of achieving gnosis.” The six-week ritual included strong drug use, as well as the occasional attendance of a Liverpudlian journalist named Walter Duranty. Inspired by the results of the Working, Crowley authored his treatise on sex magic, Liber Agapé. Following the Working, Neuburg distanced himself from Crowley, Crowley “cursed” Neuburg, and Neuburg (allegedly) suffered a nervous breakdown.

That was in 1914; a year before, in 1913, George Cecil Ives, along with Edward Carpenter and others, founded The British Society for the Study of Sex Psychology (BSSSP), “to advance a particularly radical agenda in the field of sex reform.” It was particularly concerned with homosexuality, aiming to combat legal discrimination against homosexuality with scientific understanding. Members included Havelock Ellis, George Bernard Shaw, and fellow Chaeroneans Laurence Housman and Montague Summers (a clergyman with a leaning towards the occult who translated Malleus Maleficarum into English). Ernest Jones was also a member, and he is worth lingering on.

In the early 1900s, Jones had worked with and mentored under Wilfred Trotter, of Tavistock. He experimented with hypnotic techniques in his clinical work and applied Freudian psychology as an inspector of schools for “mentally defective” children. In 1906, he was arrested and charged with two counts of indecent assault on two adolescent girls he was interviewing. In court, Jones insisted the girls were fantasizing and was acquitted. He founded the British Psychoanalytical Society in 1919 and was President until 1944. In 1931, the BSSSP was renamed the British Sexological Society, and it seems to have continued until some point in the 1940s. It was largely through Jones’ advocacy that the British Medical Association officially recognized psychoanalysis, in 1929. There’s that year again—the same year that “Idiocy” became a diagnostic term for a congenital defect, and the London School of Economics began its training courses for psychiatric social workers.

In Germany in the 1930s, homosexual groups and individuals were being targeted as subversives (and eugenics were becoming national policy). In the 1940s, many countries in Europe (starting with Iceland) decriminalized homosexuality. In 1948, Alfred Kinsey published Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, revealing to the public that homosexuality was far more widespread than was commonly believed. The book also reported Kinsey’s findings about child sexuality. Tables 31-34 were the tables or lists in the book which purported to display the number of times infants and young children were aroused when the researcher attempted to masturbate them. The table noted that “many of the infants cried and fought” against this so-called “clinical research.”

Even though this obvious sexual abuse of children was displayed in the text of the work itself (a study often said to have kick-started the sexual revolution), it was not until 1981 that Dr. Judith Reisman drew attention to the implications. Her charges were eventually confirmed, in the August 25, 1997, issue of the New Yorker, by James H. Jones, former-member of the Kinsey Institute’s Scientific Board of Advisors; they were then validated by the Institute for Media Education. According to Reisman, however, Jones avoided any mention of the hundreds of infants and children under Kinsey’s control.

“These little ones could not talk or flee from the sexual assaults, both ‘oral and manual,’ they endured from the Kinsey pedophile team, the ‘trained observers’ who used stop watches as they raped the infants and boys to record their ‘thing.’ Jones justifies these heinous and sadistic experiments by simply saying Kinsey desired to free society from its “disapproval of adult-child sexual contacts.” [1]

In an audio-taped interview, Kinsey team member Paul Gebhard told Reisman that most of the “research” on children was done by “one individual, a man with scientific training, and not a known scientist. The other cases were done by parents [and] by nursery school personnel.” The “man with scientific training” was known as “Mr. X,” later discovered to be Rex King, a serial child rapist responsible for the rape of more than 800 children. “Some of these rapes were rendered to Kinsey in graphic detail, which he considered to be ‘scientific research.’ Kinsey never reported King to the authorities, meaning that “for over 50 years the entire Indiana University Kinsey Institute team collaborated in covering up sex crimes perpetrated against children involved in its research.”

In 1992, Gebhard confirmed that “some of the men on Kinsey’s child sexuality team included child molesters who were easily obtained from prisons and pedophile organizations around the world. . . . He also admitted to having personally collaborated in the child abuse inherent in Kinsey’s research.” A 1998 Yorkshire-produced documentary, “Secret History: Kinsey’s Pedophiles,” uncovered more facts about the “trained persons” who participated in Kinsey’s experiments, naming Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck, “a notorious Nazi pedophile who contributed his child abuse data during the twenty year period of 1936 to 1956 to Kinsey’s research data base.”[ref]

Kinsey’s research was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation (Alfred C. Kinsey: A Life, by James H. Jones, W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 555). Kinsey corresponded with MKULTRA-psychiatrist Ewen Cameron and was an admirer, and possible correspondent, of Aleister Crowley. Kinsey tried hard to obtain Crowley’s sex-magickal diaries after Crowley’s death, and even made a pilgrimage to Crowley’s Thelema Abbey, where Crowley allegedly conducted sexual rituals that included children. (Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research, by Wardell Baxter Pomeroy, Yale University Press, 1972, p. 413)

James H. Jones described Kinsey as a militant propagandist, a sadomasochist and homosexual, “campaigning with scientific cover and on tax-exempt funds for his goal of undermining American morality to establish a sexual utopia.” (Emphasis added.) What’s perhaps most remarkable about this hidden history is that it remains hidden to this day, despite being very much on public record. The 2004 Hollywood movie, Kinsey, with Liam Neeson, presented a glowing picture of the sexologist. Despite some protests, mostly from Christian activists, the film was well-reviewed and won a bunch of major awards. Kinsey’s reputation remains intact. How is this even possible in a cultural climate that views pedophiles as the most depraved and irredeemable of monsters? The answer would appear to be simple: science. Place blatant crimes in the context of science, and most people will not question them.

(NB: according to a source, Richard T. Cole, the above photo has been doctored.)

*****

[1] “The current Kinsey Institute Director, John Bancroft, recently derided Dr. Reisman as a ‘moralist’ and declared that she ‘has no evidence that experiments were carried out on children.’ Yet, Bancroft admits that Kinsey was ‘misleading,’ lied about the child sexuality experiments and that those who do sex research on adults and children ‘still have to keep going back to Kinsey.’” http://www.crosswalk.com/archive/dr-kinsey-the-un-american-marquis-de-sade-518418.html

 

 

.

60 thoughts on “Child Abuse as Sex Magick & Sexual Research: Aleister Crowley & Alfred Kinsey (Occult Yorkshire 14)

  1. Another fine installment Jasun. Long before Kinsey was exposed as a fraud, I found his work suspect. It is no accident that he was glorified in film by a corrupted industry in spite of mountains of evidence of his real agenda and deeds. Keep up the fine work.

  2. Is this a typo? Did you mean Kinsey tried to obtain Crowley’s diaries? “Cameron tried hard to obtain Crowley’s sex-magickal diaries after Crowley’s death, and even made a pilgrimage to Crowley’s Thelema Abbey, where Crowley allegedly conducted sexual rituals that included children.” Not that I’d be surprised if it was Cameron,

    BTW I hated the Kinsey movie to the point of annoying my friends who were enjoying it. Not because I knew much about Kinsey — but it was such obvious propaganda, embarrassing to watch.

  3. Was reading more of your stuff at RI Occult Yorkshire thread. What struck me most was the screenshot page from Bertrand Russell — that was a pretty frightening scenario, and I’m sure it was put into practice quite extensively. Reminded me of National Socialism.

  4. This is absolutely stunning stuff. The Kinsey book photo with the Crowley alien head pretty much sums it all up. Good god….do these people hold design meetings? Childhood’s End indeed. And yes, it’s true, especially after the alleged moon landings. If it’s science, it must be good.

    Here is a resource you might not know and might find important- ‘The Leipzig Connection” The roots of psychology, Behaviorism and modern education.
    https://archive.org/details/TheLeipzigConnection

  5. Gah! Fuckin’ Leadbeater!!! To me, that guy negates anything positive I might have to say about Theosophy.

    Re: Kinsey, I had never thought much about him before reading this (didn’t even see the movie), and had naively accepted the mainstream cultural mythology about him. However, after reading this essay, I pulled up the Wiki on him, then google-imaged him. I’m sorry but he *looks* like a monster.

  6. I haven’t seen any evidence that Crowley ever involved children in sex magick rituals. If such evidence exists, I would have thought it would have come out by now.

    You say “…and even made a pilgrimage to Crowley’s Thelema Abbey, where Crowley allegedly conducted sexual rituals that included children”. Perhaps you should quote the evidence cited by your stated 1972 reference for those of us who don’t have it to hand, rather than just repeat a claim and know nothing of the worthiness or otherwise of a book over 40 years old. Sounds like hearsay that is just being repeated. You’re better than that, aren’t you?

  7. A lot of the hysterical claims about Crowley are based on his own writings, which were more examples of his black humour than his dreaded deeds. But I am not aware of anyone who has come forward to say they were abused by Crowley as child, nor have any of the supposed human sacrifices been unearthed.

    Certainly when I met Victor Neuburg’s son, he didn’t have anything good to say about Crowley, but that was entirely based on what he saw as a negative influence on his father and conveniently forgets that his father wanted to be in this relationship with Crowley. But actual child abuse, actual human sacrifice, you’d have to be somewhat foolish to believe that without any actual evidence.

  8. Why foolish? What reason would you or anyone have to think that Crowley would have drawn that particular line (that of sex with children)? If he was moving in circles in which this was being done (and he was), do you think Crowley would have backed away from that on moral grounds?

    As for black humor, I posted about that already. Jokes are frequently used as a way to encode confessions for those who know how to recognize them. Jimmy Savile cracked a lot of black jokes too. Turns out they weren’t jokes. If you want to come and defend Crowley, you need to bring more to the table than this. He is so utterly implicated that I can’t see how anyone would even try to extricate him, except if they were personally invested in his belief systems (which I was, once). Or are you concerned that his reputation needs protecting? That would be a supreme irony.

  9. If there’s some actual evidence that Crowley was a child-abuser, I’m perfectly willing to change my opinion about him. But I don’t see the point of joining a paedophile-condemning bandwagon without the evidence, otherwise one may as well say ALL 70s disc jockies were paedophiles and congratulate oneself on a resoundingly strong opinion.

    As for black humour, sometimes it’s just black humour. I have no idea, for example, whether Lautréamont liked to slice the cheeks off young boys or not. When I read it I took it as fiction myself.

    But it sounds like you want to believe that Crowley was a nonce and there are no two ways about it. I’m not defending Crowley, more standing up for innocent until proven guilty, which I think is still a sound principle. Crowley himself at least was not bothered about his reputation. Something good in that. But if we are to go into the future thinking he was also an evil child-molester I think you’ll need to put up a little more than your vague suspicions based on a dislike of the man.

    • Jack,

      “And I the Worm have trailed my Slug-Slow across Her Breasts; so that Her mother-mood is turned and Her breasts itch with lust of Incest. She hath given Her two-year bastard boy to Her lewd lover’s whim of sodomy, hath taught him speech and act, things infinitely abhorred, with Her own beastly carcass. She hath tongued Her five-month girl, and asked its father to deflower it. She hath wished Her Beast to rape Her rotten old mother – so far is woman clean of Her! Then Her blood’s grown icy hard and cold with hate; and Her eyes gleam as Her ears ring with a chime of wedding bells, dirty words, or vibrate, cat-gut fashion, to the thin shrieks of a young child that Her Beast-God-Slave-Mate is torturing for Her pleasure – ay! and his own, since of Her Cup he drank, and of Her soul he breathed.

      He loved it all. He rolled each drop of filth around His tongue.” – The Magical Record of The Beast 666 – The Diaries of Aleister Crowley, 1914-1920 (Duckworth)

      I’d very much appreciate your thoughts on Crowley’s own words.

  10. @Jack: I don’t think you are paying attention to what is being mapped out here, which is much larger than any group or individual. Why the special interest in defending Crowley? Much of this is circumstantial evidence which, as it mounts, becomes increasingly damning (at least to my eyes, others can judge for themselves). But there are countless others also being implicated.

    What you are arguing against isn’t opinion (I haven’t expressed much by way of opinion in these posts) but evidence. If you don’t like the way the evidence points to Crowley’s complicity in networks of child abuse, sorry, there’s nothing I can do about that. I am not aware of stacking the deck against anyone. Go back and read the post. It is possible that the charges of Crowley involving children in his rituals are false. It is also possible they are true. These allegations are simply one more piece of evidence being presented. Is the fact there is no public record of anyone claiming they were sexually abused by Crowley supposed to constitute evidence also? OK then, it’s now on the record.

  11. Also, the overlap between disc jockeying and child sexual abuse, while not entirely non-existent, is obviously less significant than the one between CSA and sex magick. So “arguments” like that border on the disingenuous.

  12. Evidence? You haven’t cited any actual evidence, nor even actual allegations, just scattered bits of sensationalistic gossip without specific detail. Anyone can say anything about anyone, doesn’t mean it’s true, but to dump Crowley into your cultural paedophile mash-up rather detracts from the damning evidence about Kinsey and is an easy pot-shot to make, given that Crowley already lorded up his ‘wicked’ reputation, as if that is all he was about.

    Frankly I find your inclusion of him here in an otherwise interesting piece on Kinsey is just too tabloid to take seriously. I thought you had a more penetrating vision than that.

  13. Jasun said: “Also, the overlap between disc jockeying and child sexual abuse, while not entirely non-existent, is obviously less significant than the one between CSA and sex magick.”

    — Hang on, apart from the fact that both have the word” sex” in common, I don’t see that any link has actually been established.

  14. It seems, Jasun, that you want to instil an attitude of unquestioning acceptance of ‘evidence’, but you should know that when a person regards weak ‘evidence’ that is little more than hearsay as being as convincing as strong evidence in the end this will cast doubt on that person’s ability to assess the value of any evidence.

  15. Are you a practicing occultist by any chance? If you are upset about the idea of Crowley being involved in these areas, can you admit that? I hear that you want to assist me with making a better case but somehow I don’t believe it. Using terms like “scattered bits of sensationalistic gossip without specific detail,” for example, when referring to a cited reference from a published work, just because it suggests something you personally find offensive, seems like selective logic. Is an allegation evidence? Of something anyway. As I said already, you could just as easily question other names being implicated here, since much of it is only meant to be suggestive, not conclusive.

    On the other hand, arguing that there’s no concrete connection between sex magick and child sexual abuse is not even stupid, it’s dishonest, and to me suggests an affiliation with such systems which you are not owning up to. If you practice sex magick or endorse it, maybe best to just say so? No one is going to accuse you of being a pedophile here.

    • Exactly Jasun,

      Let’s just assume for a moment that Crowley was just all talk and his “black humor” got the best of him for literary shock value. I would argue that many of his follower in the occult world took him quite literally, begging the question , how many children were sexually abused by his follower?

  16. Jasun said: “Are you a practicing occultist by any chance?”

    — Why should that make a difference, apart from the fact that I may be more reasonably informed about Crowley because I may have studied him in some detail?

    I’m not ‘upset’ about you including Crowley, more upset if we’re going to use that emotive word that my initial impression of YOU was so misguided. This is piss-poor championing of a cause, and now you see me as some kind of person with an agenda because you can’t prop up your case any better.

    Jasun said: ” If you practice sex magick or endorse it, maybe best to just say so? No one is going to accuse you of being a pedophile here.”

    — Now you indulge in ‘guilt by association’. Obviously you have no interest in discussing the matter, more interested in writing off opposers by first suggesting they are involved sex magicians and then tacitly suggesting they could even be paedophiles and the very enemy in the midst. What a slimy bugger you’re turning out to be.

  17. “As I said already, you could just as easily question other names being implicated here, since much of it is only meant to be suggestive, not conclusive.”

    — I haven’t read all of your articles, nor am I particularly informed about Leadbetter and others, so I simply have no perspective to offer. There is no mystery here. I chimed in on Crowlet because I felt a generalised association was being bandied about and pointed at Crowley that simply doesn’t accord with what I know about the man. Should I have remained silent, when I saw what I considered to be a potential injustice? That you now bandy the same kind of ‘darkening’ association at me tells me everything I need to know about your own ‘fearful’ position. You’re simply justifying a prejudice and have probably forgotten why you hold it in the first place.

  18. Not a very artful dodging of the question, Jack. Followed by resorting to insults, perhaps in the hope of escalating? SOP for trolls. Nice try.

    Those who have read the full exploration know that the picture being drawn here has many layers and nuances, and that what it suggests is that Crowley, along with countless others, was part of a very large and long-running program of social engineering which includes the sexual abuse of children, leftist politics, witchcraft & occultism, psychiatry, medicine, and even the entertainment media. How witting some of these players were is always hard to determine, but not especially relevant unless the aim is to cast moral judgment, which mine isn’t.

    “Jack” has shown himself to be unwilling or incapable of engaging in an honest, open dialogue, and, in a mere handful of posts, has managed to move from a semblance of serious challenging to snarky remarks, ad hominem attacks, and slippery non-denial denials. Since he’s not adding anything helpful to the discussion, and barring a drastic change in content, future comments from “Jack” will be removed. I am averse to censorship, but not as averse as I am to having my time used up dealing with trolls.

  19. Why resort to branding what I have said as the actions of a ‘troll’. Isn’t that just another way of discounting what I have said? That’s just being rude in a very hackneyed way.

    But it’s your site and up to you. I too feel I have wasted my time talking to you, so you’re not the only one around here wasting their valuable time.

    Delete what I have to say or not, that’s your decision, but know that in doing so you are deleting someone who has listened to and enjoyed your podcasts and perspective, but now, on this matter, I can’t say the same and your reaction to what I have said paints you considerably more small-minded than I had supposed. Nothing better than a little interaction to expose huge gulfs.

  20. Hi Jasun,
    Good stuff….I used to be into all that Crowley nonsense ,tho never practiced…By chance I even lived next door to where he was born in Leamington Spa for a while. I was conned into believing that he was some kind of counter culture hero and would jump to his defense…. even after reading stuff like this in his books……
    From The Magick, in Paris, France:

    “…it was the theory of the ancient magicians that any living being is a storehouse of energy varying in quantity according to the size and health of the animal , and in quality according to its mental and moral character. At the death of the animal this energy is liberated suddenly. The animal should therefore be killed within the Circle, or Triangle, as the case may be, so that its energy cannot escape…For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim.” (Magick, by Master Therion, published in 1929 by the Lecram Press, Paris, France)

    A footnote on p. 95 says: “(4) It appears from the Magical Records of Frater Perdurabo that he made this particular sacrifice on an average about 150 times every year between 1912 and 1928.

    Are we really supposed to believe his “sacrifice” was his “holy” sperm? or that it’s “black” humor?
    I think he was capable of anything…He was supposed to be an advocate at the time for child rights……but there are photographs of his own child smoking ……presumably they also had the “rights” to take drugs and engage in sex with adults too.
    Didn’t one of his children die at his “Abbey”? …supposedly of some illness.

    Anyway…..I think you are quite correct in what you are suggesting.
    Cheers
    Dean
    I

      • From Wikipedia:

        Two women, Hirsig and Shumway (her magical name was Sister Cypris after Aphrodite), both became pregnant by Crowley at the Abbey. Hirsig had a miscarriage, but Shumway gave birth to a daughter (11/12/20), Astarte Lulu Panthea. From 1931, Astarte was raised in the US by Helene Fraux. Astarte would grow up to have four children of her own, including jazz pianist Eric Muhler. [b]On arrival in Sicily, Hirsig had a two-year-old son named Hansi and Shumway had a three-year-old son named Howard; they were not Crowley’s sons but he nicknamed them Dionysus and Hermes respectively. [/b]At some point, Hirsig suspected Shumway of magical foul play, and Crowley found supporting evidence of it in Shumway’s magical diary (everybody had to keep one while at the abbey for reasons explained in Liber E). Appalled, Crowley banished Shumway from the abbey, however, she soon returned to take care of her children.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbey_of_Thelema

        From The Wonders of Sicily website:

        In 1921 Leah Hirsig writes in her diary:

        “I dedicate myself wholly to the great work. I will work for wickedness. I will kill my heart. I will be shameless before all men. I will freely prostitue my body to all creatures.”

        In January 1920, Crowley moved to Paris with Leah Hirsig; they were soon joined in a ménage à trois by Ninette Shumway, and also by Leah’s newborn daughter Anne “Poupée” Leah.

        Crowley offered a libertine education for the children, allowing them to play all day and witness acts of sex magic. He occasionally travelled to Palermo to visit rent boys and buy supplies, including drugs; his heroin addiction came to dominate his life, and cocaine began to erode his nasal cavity.

        Subsequently, a young Thelemite named Raoul Loveday moved to the Abbey with his wife Betty May; while Loveday was devoted to Crowley, May detested him and life at the commune. She later claimed that Loveday was made to drink the blood of a sacrificed cat, and that they were required to cut themselves with razors every time they used the pronoun “I”. Raoul drank from a local polluted stream, soon developing a liver infection resulting in his death in February 1923. Returning to London, May told her story to the press. John Bull proclaimed Crowley “the wickedest man in the world” and “a man we’d like to hang”, making various slanderous accusations against him, but he was unable to afford the legal fees to sue them. As a result, John Bull continued its attack, with the stories also being picked up by newspapers in North America and throughout Europe. The Fascist government of Benito Mussolini learned of Crowley’s activities and in April 1923 he was given a deportation notice forcing him to leave Italy; without him, the Abbey closed.
        http://www.wondersofsicily.com/cefalu-aleister-crowley-abbey-thelema.htm

  21. Testimony of Alex Sanders, tho his website is now offline:

    At ten, she took him to London to meet Aleister Crowley, whom she knew.

    ‘She left me with Crowley for the night and he carried out some of his sex magic with me,’ said Alex. ‘It wasn’t a very nice experience. To me, as a young boy, he was just a horrible, smelly, old man. Before I left he tattooed his “mark of the beast” on my hand. It’s still there. It hardly turned me off sex though. At one time when I was still in London with my second wife, Maxine, I also had two mistresses and nine male lovers. It’s a much quieter life here in Bexhill-on-Sea. My current coven is only five-strong and just one of them is a woman.’

    http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=426101&postcount=1

  22. TRIGGER ALERT

    Hi Jasun,
    The photographs of the Abbey and Crowley’s children I saw were part of a private collection unfortunately…..of course they may or may not have been his children……..there is this though, in the writings of Betty May who visited the Abbey with husband/poet Raoul Loveday (who also died there!) about life at the Abbey and the five year old son of Leah Hirsig (Crowley’s “Scarlet Woman”) called Hansi .

    “The children were allowed to run free,even being allowed to witness the sexual relations of the residents.Crowley believed this would alleviate any “repression” the children could develop.
    The children received almost no discipline and problems soon arose,the Scarlet womans child Hansi contracted the cigarette habit at the age of five and was such a “fiend” you never saw him without one in his mouth ……….”

    And this is also of great interest from his diaries about the Scarlet woman………..

    August 12th 1920 – “Her breasts itch with lust of Incest. She hath given Her two-year bastard boy to Her lewd lover’s whim of sodomy, hath taught him speech and act, things infinitely abhorred, with Her own beastly carcass. She hath tongued Her five-month girl, and asked its father to deflower it.”

    This quote from Crowley’s diaries seems to imply that both Crowley and Leah Hirsig not only molested her son Hansi Carter aka ‘Dionysus’ [whose father was Edward Carter] but that Crowley also ‘deflowered’ his own daughter who was only five months old. The daughter Anne Leah, nicknamed Poupee, had been born in late February 1920. Of course, if this molestation is true then Crowley might have been directly responsible for causing her death less than two months later on October 14th…. We also know that Poupee’s death was so traumatic to Hirsig that six days later she, who was three months pregnant with another child by Crowley, miscarried and lost this child too…

    If I can recall where I read about Crowley’s voice on “child rights” I will let you know..

    Cheers
    Dean

      • The ” August 12, 1920 journal entry” is actually from The Magickal Diaries. It occurs in the context of a dream state, possibly drug-induced, and is immediately preceded by a series of impossible occurrences, i.e., Leah ‘melting’ before his eyes, etc.

        Evidence, you say? If Crowley’s “sacrifice” rant was meant to be literal rather than metaphorical, where is the evidence for the hundreds of mysteriously slain blond male children turning up throughout the UK, every year, over the last 20 years of Crowley’s life? They were all “street arabs”, and no one cared about them, so no one took any notice? But there was a nation-wide hysterical furor over the deaths of a few prostitutes during the Ripper case of the same era, and they were just “worthless whores” to most citizens of that time, yet no one noted or remarked on the corpses of 1500+ murdered children? Come on!

        And where were all these alleged child sex abuse victims supposed to have come from? There were only a couple of dozen people in Crowley’s inner circle at any one time, and most of those were childless. Crowley himself never pursued any course of action obviously intended to facilitate his access to vulnerable children; he never took up teaching, or ministering in a mainstream faith group with thousands of members, he never joined any child welfare organizations, nor any children’s sporting/ recreational organizations, he was never a children’s entertainer, or coach, or tutor…nothing at all.
        Meanwhile, during the same time period, the Congregation of Christian Brothers was aggressively expanding the scope of their mandate and operations – building more schools for ‘deprived’ children in more countries, taking on orphanages and juvenile prison facilities. They had thousands of documented child physical & sexual abuse victims during Crowley’s lifetime – almost 900 survivors will receive compensation in Australia alone. Can you list 90 documented victims of Crowley and his close circle? How about 9? How about..none? Any police complaints against Crowley, for child sex crimes? How about Neuberg? Gerald Yorke? Charles Stanfeld Jones? Any of them? I guess not.

        There might be unspoken agendas skewing people’s perspectives about all of this.

        • You’re a little late to the party as I’ve done a lot of research into the magickal diaries since this post. There’s nothing to indicate that it’s a dream-vision (& nothing to indicate that it’s not) & even if it were, there’s a total disregard for the impact which parental fantasies have on a child’s psyche regardless of being acted on. That AC was spinning such fantasies of raping & torturing his children as part of his magickal practices indicates an almost unbelievable disregard for the well-being of the children in his care & ought to be sufficient to throw into question what he was capable of in terms of actual abuse.

          I’ve never suggested that AC murdered thousands of children so I don’t know why you’re tossing that argument in here. even so, it’s a rather conventional argument to juxtapose a highly publicized series of murders (the ripper), which was most probably part of a deliberate terror campaign for social engineering purposes, with possible murders committed by elite circles under tightly controlled conditions. I doubt you’ve read the entire occult yorkshire series to be making these sorts of superficial arguments, which makes me think you yourself have an “unspoken agenda” here.

          There were only a couple of dozen people in Crowley’s inner circle at any one time, and most of those were childless.

          So you are privy to a list of AC’s inner circle are you?

          Crowley himself never pursued any course of action obviously intended to facilitate his access to vulnerable children

          How do you know that? Do you also have a list of every party he ever attended?

          The rest of your arguments are pretty much meaningless. Citing lack of police complaints as evidence? Really?

          I do ask that people who wish to comment here take the time to do a thorough reading of the material they are commenting on. I don’t think you have, so please do me that courtesy before further pursuing your debunking agenda here. Thanks.

  23. Yeah..!!!..I can’t believe that when I first read this (and the like) in his diaries years ago that my mind was so in the thrall of (and so rendered helpless to) Crowley’s teachings/ drugs/the occult/counterculture … and the now obvious Luciferian systems of mind control and social/cultural/reality engineering .. that I was happy to see him ,his philosophies and (now obviously) vile/depraved material in his works as “magical metaphor”,or humorous zen like occult riddles or believe that he would put outrageous lies into his writings to deliberately shock and disgust or mislead and hide from those whose consciousness was not raised enough to grasp the true meaning /intent …etc etc etc and so jump to his defense and to spread his ideas like a good little mind controlled puppet ! …!lol……..what an fool …!

    I was first lead to Crowley ,as many are/were I guess, by LSD experimentation and the books of C.I.A operative ?,psychologist and ’60’s acid guru Dr Timothy Leary (who actually believed,or so he states in his writings,that he was Crowley’s reincarnation carrying on the earthly work of liberating mankind) ,by Robert Anton Wilson and by heavy metal bands/music….. curse those mind rapers !

    I also want to thank you for being one of those instrumental in breaking me out of the Luciferian trance.
    Looking forward to the next installments in this series……the jigsaw is coming together at last!

    Dean

  24. I was never a Leary-follower but RAW def. was an early influence, following right on the heels of Castaneda & Crowley. I would be wary of going too far in painting them all with the same brush stroke, and specifically that of “Luciferianism,” which is a growing meme first seeded (AFAIK) by the Christian fundie crowd back in the 1970s. We are talking about The Will to Power and the Will to Power is also known as The Pursuit of Happiness. Choosing to reign in Hell rather than serve in Heaven is a metaphor for giving our life force to the constructed identity rather than to the soul (psyche), and not really a choice, since it begins very early on, pre-verbal (it being how our identity is constructed, via abuse).

    There is, it seems, some sort of choice about how honest we are later in life, as regards identifying the destructive influences and owning up to and cancelling our unconscious complicity with them. It sounds as if your own process matches mine to a degree, hence your finding this exploration helpful.

  25. Although homosexuality was criminalized in Nazi Germany, the SS attracted many with homosexual tendencies, See 2011 Eliot H. Boden, The Enemy Within: Homosexuality in the Third Reich, 1933-1945

  26. Clearly the idea that homosexuals are not pedophiles has come a long way. Time to reverse the trend, which I gather is the underlying message here.

    • I expected that. Trying to correct ideologically-inclined readers would be fruitless, however, because thinking and ideological positions don’t go together. So to attempt to address this accusation (which is what it is) drags the discussion down several notches, and my target readership are people willing to “aim above ideology.” But thanks for commenting.

  27. I’m not sure if Josef’s comment is meant to be facetious or taken at face value?

    I do think it is a very delicate argument to make, that homosexuality is the *result* of social pathology that makes its imprint very early in child development, because it has the inevitable result of shifting blame to the victim (in this model). [I say “inevitable result” because, sadly, most people are incapable of nuanced reading.]

  28. You have people arguing that some males became homosexuals because of feminism drying up the women-pool. Then someone says the SS were mostly homosexuals. Now you have someone claiming homosexuality is caused by a social pathology in early child development. Clearly the undertone is of homosexuality being an aberration of some kind. And all this is discussed in the context of pedophilia. It is one thing to imagine readers are intelligent enough to see beyond ‘ideological positions’, but never mind the readers, how about the writers of some of this tripe?

  29. Josef, to clarify what I’m saying: I’m responding to the suggestion that male homosexuality may be more prevalent in society because of pre-verbal childhood trauma (i.e. sexual abuse in early childhood). This is what I mean by “social pathology”. I don’t know that I agree with the proposition, but *if* it is true, then it is still the case that stigmatizing gay men (which I am one) is akin to blaming the victim, and should therefore be avoided. I hope you now understand my statements.

  30. yeyuad — I’m not entirely sure what you’re actually saying. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like you’re saying that being a gay man is potentially attributable to being sexually abused as a child, and that gay men are ‘victims’. I can’t imagine that would be a popular gay opinion. Sounds like apologizing to an upright Christian community for being gay. ‘Don’t blame me, I’m a victim!’

    Is that what you’re saying?

  31. There is also the undertone in your comments that gay males who happen to be pedophiles should be regarded as victims themselves because they were abused as a child. Well, I have no argument against a compassionate stance, I just find the idea that male gayness is down to sexual abuse as a child ludicrous to begin with.

  32. Josef: I don’t know where you’re getting that I am excusing pedophiles. Also, I stated clearly that I doubt the thesis that male homosexuality stems from childhood abuse, but *if* it does (note the conditional/subjunctive) it is still incorrect to blame gay men for the result of their own victimization. However, this conversation, as I understand it, as framed by Jasun (he can correct me if I’m wrong) is about social processes, and those who are in a position to direct them, not the individuals who have little say in what happens or is done to them.

  33. I find this ‘this conversation’ a little odd, seeming to consist of a bunch of assertions and unexamined implications that appear to be saying something or putting forward something that isn’t clearly spelled out but on the surface at least seems somewhat questionable and a little dubious.

    I would like the bottom line spelt out a little more, because in its current form ‘this conversation’ seems open to quite a few interpretations, some of them sinister but not in the way the author intends. I’m afraid I cannot be less vague, because the tone that infuses ‘this conversation’ is also vague, so any who might like to comment seem actually invited to comment on the basis of not quite knowing what is being said, such that certain reprehensible views seem to be given ‘currency’.

    But perhaps ‘this conversation is so many levels above ‘ideological positions’ that it’s all perfectly clear to everyone here, although personally I suspect it is all clear to each individual in their own mind, including the author’s, and there is actually no consensus on what is being said here at all.

  34. Well, this is a conversation (the comment thread, not the OP), not an essay, so it’s not going to have a solid structure. It also covers a great many topics, and touches on spirituality, which is famously difficult to pin down and define. So the “vagueness” is a function of the structure, the topic, and the diversity of tangential topics.

    I would ask whether you are looking to be offended, or else reacting to something that is not within the intentions of the authors (Jasun and myself, presumably)? I admit that my initial reaction to some of the comments (notably Ann’s) was negative because, on the surface, they do seem to conflate pedophilia with homosexuality. But I think this conversation is about something deeper, it is about the extent to which our moral assumptions, especially those around consent, may be manipulated by processes outside our conscious awareness. Jasun seems to take the view that these processes are intentional. I, on the other hand, am not so sure that they are intentional, at least by human agency (i.e. they may be intentional at the level of egregore or other nonlocal/acausal/nonhuman spiritual source). Of course none of us knows for sure, so all of this is conjecture, an attempt to come to some kind of understanding.

  35. That’s pretty clear, yevaud.

    I wouldn’t say anything intentional is going on either on behalf of some kind conspiracy of humans nor the machinations of some deity or ‘egregore’ or ‘spiritual agency’. All I see is individuals acting according to their conditioning, this conditioning multfarious and mostly unacknowledged as conditioning, and as unalterable as the destinies of actors in a film already in the can. That’s not to say it isn’t of interest to examine this conditioning, but what I’ve read so far is fairly one-dimensional and, to my eyes, just another conditioned response.

  36. Well, we can only have our conditioned responses, unless, serendipitously, a wholly external epiphany graces us, and these may not even exist. My own conditioned response is to tend to see things through a lens of science and mathematics, and this is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, what we see may merely be emergent phenomena of a dynamical system, i.e. with no apparent agency anywhere. Certainly, with enough time you could build a stochastic model of society-wide sexual interactions and observe pretty much the same behavior we commonly see around us.

    However, a popular position is that *everything* in existence arises as an emergent phenomenon from some effectively mindless dynamical system, i.e. nothing has any real intention. To me, that is a very nihilist proposition. I suspect that many different models can describe the same reality, and some of them include conscious agency as a driving force, others do not. I tend to favor those that do, but it may be a personal preference (i.e. its own conditioned response). That said, I don’t know that there is evidence of human agency here, although certain actors (e.g. AC) may aid and abet the agencies of deities.

  37. That’s only a nihilist position if you regard nothing as being something in the first place, ie that there is a concrete objectifiable reality and everything that we take to be so as it appears is precisely and materially exactly how it appears. Were it for a moment to appear otherwise, such a position would inevitably crumble anyway. And yet, this renewed position, that everything is appearance, might also be regarded as nihilistic — yet for the reason just outlined it cannot be since there is no concrete position to be nihil.

    So we are left examining the tendencies of a state of affairs that may not even exist, save in the mind of the beholder, his or her own existence (as ego) as yet unchallenged.

    How would such a view impact on pedophilia, or, indeed, anything? Well, not very usefully, since imaginary criminals would be going to imaginary prisons which they, at least, unless enlightened, would have to regard as real and so have the punishment of society doled out to them anyway, regardless of whether any of it ever existed.

    In practice, as a ‘society’ (whatever that is) we learn to scorn murderers and pedophiles when really what we mean to say is that we’re glad we didn’t have that conditioning ourselves. What can be done about anything? Nothing. And yet, we seem to thrash out ideas continually, and, now and again, arrive at seemingly meaningful conclusions. This too, our conditioning. But the unconditioned being that we are really is only an observer.

  38. Whether or not AC’s intent was literal, and whether or not AC’s abuses were factual, I still can’t understand how many apologists come out of the woodwork to defend. Most of the imagery he uses is grotesque, and as far as I can discern, his work is just one big celebration of lower ego. “Love is the law”, but what kind of “love”? Love under will, indeed. Do what thou wilt, sure. One big conflagration of ego at the expense of anything perceived as outside the locus of ones control. Why is this worth defending?

  39. Pingback: Scotland’s Children – abused and used – WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s