Artwork by Lucinda Horan (with a small tweak by me), first used for Stormy Weather 23.5, “Blood Groups” with Peter Levenda.
Update: I began this as a response to a comment from KK deluxe to my last post but it mushroomed into an essay and so that’s what you, the reader, gets. Here’s the guilty comment that started it all (for any sync-ers, I just got a pretty deluxe truck for the thrift store: the license plate begins with KK):
Jasun: “I just heard that Levenda has been reading the comments here and commenting about it on FB, at a private group called the Parapolitical Research Society which I don’t have access to”
Oh cool, a mini cult/govt. propaganda operation meetup spot!
Is this where all the cool bloggers go to get their talking points?
You gotta be accepted in (vetted)…..and can also be kicked out if you dissent!
That model sucks.
FB is New NWO Age government cult kool-aid disguised as a tech company.
Anybody with half a functioning brain knows that already…so whatevs.
What did Jung have to say about this?
“The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community.”
Guy from Rune Soup is def. in the FB group.
He ticks all the boxes, Practicing “magician”. Got his start with a Crowley book, openly homosexual, blogs about spiritual “interference” in geopolitical matters. Works in marketing. Now writes book$. Has Levenda on his podcast.
Seems a likeable guy. But in his Chaos Protocols book goes from financial talk to getting you to intone “Baphomet” loudly while meditating. I’m not joking! Oh, and details a ritual to meet “the devil” at a crossroads. More upcoming on the Baphomet thing as relates to AC and Typhon junk. Will post to forum soon.
I’ve noticed a “teaming up” of a series of bloggers on the “para-political” topic in the past year.
Guessing the plain paranormal is not enough anymore, we need to see how the ghosts want the next US election to go. And maybe get them to do our bidding.
This crew may just be linking/interviewing each other to get famous quicker?
Everybody is talking about each other…thereby reinforcing specific information.
Things like this are hijacked/co-opted in the blink of an eye. If not flat out engineered from the beginning.
Jasun, staying independent is good. It’s a badge of honor.
PS – It goes without saying I’m not slagging specifically on the female alt. perceptions crew.
Just have allergic reactions to specific woo when I see it, that’s all.
And I blurt things out in a direct manner.
I could detail a ton of Star Wars crock that men have written also.
Everybody is fair game in this arena.
Epic Of Gilgamesh (a crazy read, in clay tablet form!)
Hypostasis Of The Archons (actually anything Nag Hammadi)
Old Testament (Those zany conquered Jews!)
New Testament (Roman jokers, with bonus NLP inserted by Francis Bacon)
Finnegan’s Wake (Ugh!)
There are more but I forget them offhand.
Snippets of truth in all of these tales written by men. Good luck finding it.
I do commend Ann for finding this woman’s stuff.
There are a couple connections in it that I’ll detail on the forum post.
It strikes at the heart of what the magicians believe they are doing with these specific sex rituals.
Ann Diamond: “Levenda’s version of Crowley does not embrace the child molester but [Jasun’s] version does. So people here, understandably, side with [Jasun’s] version, knowing Crowley was probably molested himself as a child and carried the abuse forward into adulthood. To serve some agenda, Crowley is being whitewashed and recycled to a new generation, minus the “child abuser” of course. This appears to be part of Levenda’s project: attracting more young people to the occult, through conspiracy-as-entertainment. I think some of us sense that Levenda’s defence of him is a sign of immaturity or disingenuousness. Most here are prepared to feel compassion for Crowley the ‘genius’ without denying that he was a monster. Therefore we would rather listen to [Jasun] on this topic, [who seems] ready to explore the forbidden world of abuse, using [himself] as a player. ”
All spot on except for one thing. I was going to say “disingenuous” a couple days ago but didn’t post.
Read Levenda’s “official” bit about the Necronomicon: http://peterlevenda.com/?page_id=35
There is a lot of redirection and leading going on in this single page.
It’s all just part of his stage act I guess.
Ann Diamond: “Most here are prepared to feel compassion for Crowley the ‘genius’ without denying that he was a monster.”
Uhhh….nope. I would say, “What genius?”
As a person on Planet Earth he made a choice.
He gave up his freewill completely…to unknown outside entities, despite all the talk about doing “his will”.
Didn’t these “outside entities” or “sinister forces” (lol) tell him what to write down anyway?
When you choose to use buttsex to gain Real Ultimate Power™, it never goes well.
Hence, his inglorious finale.
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world (of magical fanboys), and lose his own soul?”
Due to a chain of events that didn’t involve my knocking on the door of the PRS I now have access to that group. It is in fact not a private but a secret FB group, which makes me wonder if I should have named it at all? Oh well. There are a few minor ‘celebs’ in there but not including Gordon White, about whom I have already expressed my feelings in a couple of places, so I won’t repeat them here. I will say that after Ramsey Dukes/Lionel Snell was on the Runesoup podcast, I emailed Lionel a friendly reminder about his agreeing to do a podcast with me, and received no response. It’s true that in my email I did put the words “Crowley” and “unsavory” in the same sentence together, but beside that there was no reason for him to ignore me—except that Lionel knows the nature of my focus now, a focus which can, broadly, be described as anti-occult (though I have pledged never to be an “anti-anything”).
As regards Peter Levenda being disingenuous at the linked page and elsewhere, well yes, though I think Peter wants this piece to pass for playful, and that his long list of highly suspect (to we paranoids) affiliations throughout his illustrious career will spice up his résumé, while passing for transparency as someone whose career just looks like that of an operative, but really isn’t.
OK, but, none of this is meant to imply that Peter Levenda is an operative. I am using him and our recent exchange as an example to demonstrate the potential challenges we all must face when navigating the murky waters of parapolitical research, knowing as we do that they are swimming with all kinds of man-eaters, from piranha to sharks, and that, unlike the underwater kind, there is no sure way to identify these predators when we do encounter them. But once again, since I am slowly learning that you can’t be too careful when even talking about these sorts of fish: none of this is meant to imply that Peter Levenda is an operative. OK, got that? Moving on.
There is a rule in parapolitical discussion circles never to accuse someone of being an operative. This is a necessary rule, if at times a hard one to stick to, because it really doesn’t help to call someone an agent since it can almost never be proven. Even if you do manage to out an agent and force them to admit it, another will only take his place. This rule extends into general society as an even broader but unwritten rule: “never accuse anyone of lying,” even when you are sure they are. This is especially the case when you strongly disagree with them and are trying to invalidate their arguments, or at least oppose them with your own. Then springing the Liar! card just seems like poor cricket.
Levenda wrote that I accused him of being deliberately deceitful because he disagreed with me. What I wrote was: “You seem to me too intelligent to misread me that badly, which makes me suspect you are deliberately distorting my arguments so as to hijack the discussion.” Prior to that I also wrote: “But again, since you are not that obtuse but in fact a wily old goat, it makes me wonder who you are arguing on behalf of, at this point?”
Neither of these comments was particularly helpful, I admit. But they were I think sourced in a genuine desire to believe that Peter Levenda was NOT deliberately lying or misrepresenting himself. If I’d really believed that, the smart play would have been to approach him that way, and try and trap him into saying something that might reveal this. I didn’t do that because I was giving him the benefit of the doubt while also wanting to communicate how confounding I was finding his responses to be. By the end of the exchange, however, I was left with the sense, rightly or wrongly, that Levenda wasn’t being 100% straight with me.
I wrote as much in an email to Keith Zavatski yesterday, adding that this “would give him a big advantage; or at least gives me a big disadvantage.”
This is one of those comments that I wrote before fully thinking about it, from a visceral rather than a purely rational place. (In passing I think this is one of the main failures of communication between Levenda and myself: that I argue viscerally, intuitively, and not so much intellectually.) If I try to explain my comment (to Zavatski) now, there are several reasons I think we are at a severe disadvantage when someone is consciously deceiving us. One of them is that they know it and we don’t, which is a bit like fighting in the dark with someone who is wearing night vision goggles. Another is that someone who is arguing in a purely strategic fashion, 100% from the head, and not at all (or very little) from the heart or gut, can shift their arguments as often as they like. They are unlikely to feel attached to, or emotionally invested in, any of their arguments, since their goal is not to get to the truth but to prevent us from doing so. As a result, we may find ourselves increasingly emotionally invested in trying to get to the truth, because we are being constantly blocked and undermined and start to feel the ground shifting under our feet with every step (as I did with Levenda). We are then more and more inclined to grab at any kind of handhold we can, including accusing the other of lying, which, in this hypothetical scenario, they would be.
At least in academic circles, becoming emotional in an argument is seen as a weakness and evidence of being prejudiced, and hence wrong. (Jason Witherspoon commented at his group that Levenda was “well more level-headed” than I was.)
There is another disadvantage we have when unknowingly dealing with someone who is lying, and it is one of the biggest: if we feel like someone is being disingenuous with us but can’t be 100% sure, we are not really allowed to say this. At this point, my own policy of honesty-at-any-cost becomes compromised, or at least seriously challenged. My attempt was to confront Levenda in such a way as to give him room to reconsider his arguments after seeing how they were affecting me (i.e., causing me to doubt his sincerity). I failed at this due to my own issues and due to a lifelong tendency to use intellectualism as a defense, and as a result, Levenda (in my view) became defensive and counter-offensive. This didn’t really prove anything, but it did ensure the discussion deteriorated into personal disagreement. Yet surely Levenda must be aware that disinformation agents exist, and that they engage in discussions, just as we were doing, in order to sabotage them? So is the suspicion that someone is doing just that really so outlandish, and does it have to be construed as offensive? I am asking the questions sincerely.
Another question: What is worse, to be an innocent and be challenged with the suggestion that you are acting a bit like an operative; or to be an innocent being played by an operative and unable to say anything for fear of wrongly challenging someone? I think the same question can be extended to the subject of Crowley & ritual child abuse. Which is worse, to seriously consider circumstantial evidence of child abuse and risk reaching an erroneous conclusion as to Crowley’s complicity; or to keep demanding proof out of fear of joining a “witch hunt,” and so dismiss all circumstantial evidence as worthless?
Of course I will feel bad for even suggesting Peter Levenda’s affiliations might be dodgy if it should turn out there was no basis at all for my suspicions. But not that bad, because I don’t think my suspicions are altogether unreasonable, considering the data and the context which it arises from. Nor do I see how Levenda can really be all that surprised, or offended, if this sort of thing should happen, nor how he can in good conscience write it off as proof of my paranoid, reactive, and witch-hunt-y nature (though he may want to).
Child sexual abuse in the context of occult ritual and belief is a reality. Disinformation agents posing as authors and parapolitical researchers is almost certainly a reality too. How are we to confront these realities at all unless we are willing to risk getting it wrong and offending our peers, that is, to risk wrongly suspecting innocents once in a while? If we only proceed when we are 100% sure about something, what’s the point in proceeding at all? Levenda’s logic around Crowley and child abuse reminds me of the Rabbinic law in orthodox Jewish communities (which Michael Lesher talks about on this week’s podcast): unless there is proof of child sexual abuse, then no allegations should be made. But if no allegations can be made, how can proof ever be established?
Why did Levenda fight me so hard on this question instead of being willing to meet me halfway—as Marco Paso did, albeit in a far briefer exchange so far—and entertain the possibility? Many scientific breakthroughs depend on this kind of “what if” approach—if Crowley did abuse children, what indications can we find that this did in fact occur? Levenda’s approach (with me at least) seems to have been the inverse, though also scientific, approach, which is to make a hypothesis and then set out to disprove it. Yet even there, he didn’t so much show me the evidence for Crowley’s innocence as try to undermine my own methods and prove that I am an extremist, unscholarly, wacko conspiracy theorist on a witchhunt to prove a worldwide satanic conspiracy.
To be fair, if I want Peter to acknowledge that he may be acting in certain ways that make me believe he’s being dishonest, I can at least acknowledge that I may be behaving in such a way as to make him think the above about me. At the very least, I will be more careful about how I present my arguments in future. It’s rather ironic, however, because one thing Peter and I almost certainly have in common is a strong desire to steer clear of the quicksand of uncited, whole-cloth, woo-woo conspiracy theorizing as every bit as antithetical to solid, grounded research as mindless blanket consensus denial can be. It’s just that we have different yardsticks.
Another thing that occurs to me as a result of this recent dust-up has to do with status. In my emails to Zavatski, I also wrote: “it would be hard to overestimate the power of status, & Levenda has it; i, to my infinite credit, do not. :)” Leaving aside the weird modest-immodesty of my second remark, which came out too spontaneously for me to censor (as so many of my remarks do; yes, I lack Peter’s self-control), it did cause me to think about how and why exactly I lack status as compared to Levenda, and why this may be a good thing.
Most people in this “field” tend to build on their work steadily and systematically with the desired result that their reputation builds accordingly. A large part of this entails a sort of chumminess with other researchers and writers, endorsements back and forth, and so on. My own process of self-deconstruction has meant that anything I have built I have subsequently torn down, or at least seriously undermined, as a necessary result of whatever work came after. I no longer get invited on other people’s podcasts, though this used to happen quite a bit in my Aeolus days (even Jan Irvin backed away from having me on his podcast recently); my last book wasn’t reviewed except on Amazon; and my writing and podcasts have focused more and more on unraveling the secret of my own past (even when in tandem with cultural figures like Strieber, Savile, or Crowley). I have also been self-identifying more and more openly as a survivor of some form of sexual abuse, whether organized or ritual or not I still can’t even opine. And what could be lower than the status of survivor? (I allow that, at the same time, the victim card is a powerful card in today’s society; but I don’t think I have played this card unduly.)
I was speaking to my sister today and I realized, while saying it, that, where once I used writing as a shield, it has become more and more the opposite of a shield to me. This means that I feel anxious, unsafe, exposed, whenever what I am working on is submitted to more intense exposure, as happened (by my own hand, admittedly) through this recent exchange with Levenda. I don’t think most other writers or researchers want to experience, or even get close to, this sort of self-exposure. It feels inherently unstable, threatening, and just plain wrong, so this is probably how these other researchers see me more and more: as an unstable element. I am breaking the unwritten social code in some hard to define way; proximity to me is not likely to further anyone’s career, or to improve their self-image.
As a way to wind this up, I’d like to draw people’s attention again to this week’s podcast with Michael Lesher as relevant to this subject matter, and because his book deserves serious attention, and not just from Jews.
Here’s a few quotes from it that will give you an idea of how deeply Lesher looks into the subject:
“Isaac’s divine status as a divine gift [is] the very reason he can be sacrificed!” (196)
“Once the victim’s perspective is ruled out of consideration, almost anything goes.”
“The unifying factor that particularly interests me is the patent fear of children’s natural development in sexual matters, and the inevitable, concomitant horror expressed by the leadership of both religious communities about any possible ‘contamination’ by modern advertising and the mores of contemporary lifestyles. (208)
“Is this pairing of innocence and abuse inevitable because the ideal of ‘innocence’ corresponds to the notion of a radical cleavage between body and soul, and because this makes the child’s body, as a counterweight to its putative spiritual purity, seem that much more carnal? Is it because where all sexuality is equated with defilement, the most extreme sort of defilement is also the most sexual, and therefore, for some people at least, the most desirable?” (212)
“the ideal of juvenile ‘innocence’ actually feeds communal indifference towards child sexual abuse.” (213)