Talk:Aleister Crowley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aleister Crowley article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Peer review A request for peer review has been made for this Thelema-based article. Please join the conversation about ways it may be improved.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page. How about a nice cup of tea?
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 (2003)
  2. Archive 2 (2004-2006)
  3. Archive 3 (2006)
  4. Archive 4

Contents

[edit] Bio Section yet again

After adding the only citation in this section, I began thinking...AC's bio is in no way chronological. I think it needs a complete re-write. Here are a few examples:

  • The sub-header mystical beginings contains information which could be placed in early years (first paragraph). And the second paragraph is a mess. Its basically saying he coined magick before he even entered the Golden Dawn (it should be noted when he used it first, and why). Plus, I have sources to say how he actually got started in mysticism/occultism and I'm waiting to help re-write. Also, the second paragraph seems to be saying that "in response" (to the first paragraph) he "created his own philosophical system". Er, this would be Thelema...right? I'd say move this kind of statement to the Thelema section. Then the next two sentences after the second paragraph seem like pov statements, none of which is cited.
  • The sub-header golden dawn begins by asserting he had already been in the order, and nothing is said to specify how he joined and why. Plus, the golden dawn section goes into thelema as well. It should stop just short of what he did next. And I'm sure he did something inbetween the Golden Dawn and Thelema which could be added. This section should stop short of going into thelema.
These are just a few things I'm noticing. I'm about to suggest that this bio be removed to the talk page until we get citations. I mean, how long have we been waiting for them? How long will we? I'm willing to add citations, but to do this there has to be some reconstruction of this in repsect to chronological order. Any thoughts? Zos 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Plus, I've also been made aware on this talk page (archived by now) that this article is the bio of Crowley, so we really don't need to have a header called Bio. This lead to confusion when I was still a new editor, and I moved the material to an article called Aleister Crowley (Biography) Zos 14:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Re:...occultist, Freemason, prolific writer, mystic, hedonist, and sexual revolutionary
I feel I ought to dispute the claim that he was a Freemason. He was Initiated by the generally discredited John Yarker, and his conferred Degrees included the Antient and Primitive Rite of Memphis-Misraim, which puts Crowley outside the Amity of Regular Freemasonry.
Nuttyskin 06:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nuttyskin. You state for him to write the source stating that he wasn't a mason. Why don't you state the source that states he is a mason. If you can't, then I would advise you take the reference to Freemasonry out. JValenc1 07:48, 1 August 2006 UTC
Please see the last section on this talk page. There is a citation for that sentence if you did not already notice. SynergeticMaggot 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is a citation, however, although he practiced a bastardized form of Freemasonry, he wasn't actually a Traditional Freemason. He was duped into believing he was a Freemason. The lodge he was supposedly initiated in was not accepted by the Grand Lodge at the time. Once I find that reference, I will let you know. Until then, expect a long wait (this isn't the first thing on my "To Do" list.) JValenc1 08:40, 2 August 2006 UTC
Not a problem. Just make sure its a reliable source :) SynergeticMaggot 17:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Crowley also asserted that someone he met in Mexico (who he called Don Jesus Medina) granted him accelerated Masonic initiation into the 33rd degree of Scottish rite free-masonry at the start of the 20th century. Sutin passes on this claim. We don't know if it happened or not. (We do know, however, that Mathers granted him accelarated initiation into the Golden Dawn Second Order, and that people often had strong good or bad reactions to Crowley.) I doubt anyone "duped" him into anything here. He thought he knew a better form of Freemasonry than many who used the term, having rediscovered an important secret. See the story of Reuss, The Book of Lies and the O.T.O. In other words, he may disagree with your view of what Masonry means. I agree that the article should at least describe the controversy. As for the introduction, I don't know what definition of "Freemason" we want to use or, for that matter, what you mean by calling a person "discredited". Dan 21:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Discredited, in a Masonic sense, means there is no confidence in him, because he has, for example, sold Masonic secrets without authority, or conferred bogus and unrecognised Degrees upon the ignorant and gullible. The whole point in Freemasonry is to encourage fraternal relations between members; if no-one recognises the Degrees you have, or considers them improperly conferred, the Masonic purpose is not served and the one who pretended to confer them is discredited as a Conferring Master.
Furthermore, that he submitted to accelerated Masonic initiation into the 33rd degree of Scottish rite free-masonry displays Crowley's own ignorance in this matter, as the Scottish Rite is an entirely American system with no Jurisdiction in Britain. While both American and British (UGLE, GLoS and GLoI) Masonry recognise a 33rd Degree, in the UK this is always an honorific conferred upon very few, such as Grand Masters, who in the English Constitution are almost exclusively titled aristocrats.
Nuttyskin 11:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frater5

You could have at least moved my cited statement to another location in the article. Seeing as how the bio section is small and not very chronological, and there is no misc. section anymore...where am I supposed to put it? If this is the case, then the wickedest man in the world statement needs to be moved as well (it came later in life). Zos 17:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. Hoever, in my opinion, it really didn't fit in the intro. What the article really needs is a whole section on his Abbey days, which your sentence would complete perfectly. Perhaps I could start the section, if you'd be willing to lend a hand... –Frater5 (talk/con) 16:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I will add to the section once I get time. And thanks. Zos 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thelema section

Shouldnt the Thelema section in this article focus more on the Abbey of Thelema? There is already a main page for Thelema's philosophy. How is this contributing to his bio? I've mentioned before that this section might need to be moved to its main page, for space issues, yet now, since this is Crowleys "life" or biography, it seems like the thelema section isnt supporting any of it. Zos 17:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awaiting Sources

An Anon user put alot of info on the article, in the wrong place, and didnt cite it. I've removed it here until sources are found, and can be integrated into the article.

==Full Biography==

Beastly child

Baptised Edward Alexander but known as Aleister, the young Crowley was born into a family of staunch Plymouth Brethren, a puritanical Christian sect. He was taught that God was all powerful and that the sins of the flesh would be punished in the fires of hell. For the young Crowley, free will was not an option.

When Aleister was 11, his father died and the boy's feelings towards the church, and his family, turned to hate. He labelled the Plymouth Brethren a 'detestable crew', and it became clear that Crowley was not growing up to be the son his mother had dreamt of when he was caught torturing a cat to test if it had nine lives.

In his early teens, Crowley's mother caught him masturbating and in disgust called him 'the beast'. Far from being ashamed, however, Crowley adopted the name. At 14, as a way of punishing her, he had sex with a maid on her bed. This marked the beginning of Crowley's sexual life and he was forced to leave many schools, on one occasion because he had caught gonorrhoea from a prostitute.

Occult practices

In 1895, Crowley attended Cambridge University and began to publish sexually explicit poetry. A year later, however, a trust fund which had been set up after the death of his father matured, and, freed from dependence on his family, Crowley left university. Three years later, Crowley was initiated into a society called the Golden Dawn, which taught magic, alchemy and tarot. Taking the name Frater Perdurabo (Latin for 'I will endure'), he rose quickly through their ranks.

Over the next few years he travelled extensively and immersed himself in the occult, eventually growing irritated with the members of the Golden Dawn because he felt they were not taking magic seriously enough. Desperate to perform an extreme ritual, Crowley bought a house, Boleskine, in Loch Ness.

Once there, he set about performing the Abra-Melin, a high-magic ritual dating from the 14th century. The purpose of this ritual was to have a conversation with the 'higher self', or Holy Guardian Angel. It took six months, and such was its power that nobody had attempted it for centuries. Halfway through this dangerous ritual, however, Crowley met a young society lady named Rose Kelly – and a day later they were married. The Abra-Melin was forgotten and the newlyweds went on their honeymoon to Egypt.

Triumph of the will

In Egypt, between intense sex sessions with Rose, Crowley practised more black-magic rituals to impress her. Deep within the king's chamber in the Great Pyramid he recited the preliminary invocation of the occult ritual called Goetia. It had unexpected consequences.

Rose, who had previously known nothing of the occult, began to chant. In a trance, she repeated 'They are waiting for you' over and over. Crowley was irritated and sceptical of his new wife and her previously hidden clairvoyant skills but she went on to tell him that he had offended the Egyptian god Horus by not finishing the Abra-Melin. Crowley quickly set about an invocation, and a strange voice identifying itself as Aiwass began to speak in their hotel room.

For three days, between the hour of midday and 1pm, Aiwass spoke and Crowley wrote. The result was The Book of Laws. Believing himself to be the messiah of a new epoch, Crowley swore that he would perform depraved acts and learn to love them. Christianity was dead, he declared. His new religion had one all-powerful doctrine: 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.' Free will, denied to Crowley as a child, had now become all powerful.

Magick and sex

While in Egypt, Rose found out that she was pregnant and later gave birth to a daughter, Lola Zaza. Later, on a trek in Vietnam, Crowley abandoned them both, however, and his daughter died of typhoid – a tragedy that Crowley blamed on Rose and her increasing alcoholism. Left alone in grief, she descended into madness. She would not be the last lover of his to do so, nor was Lola Zaza the only child of his to die.

Crowley penetrated deeper into the world of the occult, taking another lover, this time the male writer Victor Neuberg. Together they travelled to Algeria and the Sahara to perform an Enochian ritual to summon up Chorizon, the demon of the abyss. This rite is said to open the gates of hell.

Eventually, like Rose before him, Neuberg was left psychologically ruined. For Crowley their time together was more productive, however. His intense sex sessions with Neuberg had convinced him of the power of sex magick. From then, his two obsessions were married: sex and the occult.

Treason and depravity

Crowley went on to become the world head of the Ordo Templi Orientis, or Order of the Eastern Temple, and he further defined his own religion, Thelema.

After the outbreak of the First World War, Crowley was rejected by the British intelligence service and – in a huff – turned to the Germans, supporting them by writing anti-British propaganda. This made him an outcast in Britain and in 1920, two years after the war ended, he went to Cefalu in northern Sicily and created a temple in an old farmhouse with his new mistress Leah Hirsig. They had a child together, and under the influence of opium and cocaine they founded a new religious cult.

Stories of depraved sexual acts at the abbey quickly began to circulate, one of the most notorious involving Leah. A goat was sacrificed while penetrating her. She, and many others, were becoming severely unbalanced and addicted to drugs, and Crowley himself was increasingly dependent on heroin and cocaine. In this environment, Crowley and Hirsig's child died. She had a nervous breakdown.

Decay and disillusion

The end of the Abbey came when Raoul Loveday, one of Crowley's disciples, died after drinking the blood of a cat. Mortified, his wife Betty May fled back to England and sold her story to the press. The British media immediately dubbed Crowley 'the wickedest man in the world'. The temple was disbanded and many of Crowley's former disciples went mad or committed suicide. Leah Hirsig turned to prostitution. Finally, in 1923, a year after Crowley published his Diary of a Drug Fiend, Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator, had him deported.

Crowley went on to publish more books – such as Magick: In theory and practice and his Confessions – but his reputation had been damaged. As the years passed he began losing touch with reality. He spent his final years penniless, a sad figure living on the favours of friends. A chronic heroin addict, he died in Hastings in 1947, disillusioned and questioning the philosophies he built to escape his repressed Christian upbringing.

In his own words

'I have successfully eliminated the danger of obsession by sexual ideas in this way: I refuse to admit that it is the fundamental truth. Science in failing to follow me so far has destroyed the idea of religion and the claim of mankind to be essentially different from other mammalia. The demonstration of anthropologists that all religious rites are celebrations of the reproductive energy of nature is irrefutable; but I, accepting this, can still maintain that these rites are wholly spiritual. Their form is only sexual because the phenomena of reproduction are the most universally understood and pungently appreciated of all. I believe that when this position is generally accepted, mankind will be able to go back with a good conscience to ceremonial worship. I have myself constructed numerous ceremonies where it is frankly admitted that religious enthusiasm is primarily sexual in character.

I have merely refused to stop there. I have insisted that sexual excitement is merely a degraded form of divine ecstasy. I have thus harnessed the wild horses of human passion to the chariot of the Spiritual Sun. I have given these horses wings that mankind may no longer travel painfully upon the earth, shaken by every irregularity of the surface, but course at large through the boundless ether. This is not merely a matter of actual ceremonies; I insist that in private life men should not admit their passions to be an end, indulging them and so degrading themselves to the level of the other animals, or suppressing them and creating neuroses. I insist that every thought, word and deed should be consciously devoted to the service of the Great Work. "Whatsoever ye do, whether ye eat or drink, do all to the glory of God."'

  • I hope we can work to fit this is. Zos 02:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I see a number of demonstrably false statements as well as biased wording. Possibly someone could summarize the long quote. Dan 01:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, as I said, this was done by an anon user, and it was added in the wrong area at that. Its too long to quote as well and I'm waiting to see if the anon is going to come back and comment. Zos 01:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awaiting more sources

Aside from the anon user's additions, and getting back to the original bio section, I'd like to request some citations. I wont remove the content from the article just yet, but will address them here first. If no citations are given within a reasonable amount of time (a few days or so), I'll remove it. I'm also awaiting a few bio-books on Crowley to come via mail, so this is in an iterest of good faith here, as I have already removed uncited material and replaced it with citations in the early years and mystical begginings section.

(early years section)

  • His father, Edward Crowley, once maintained a lucrative family brewery business and was retired when Aleister Crowley was born. His mother, Emily Bertha Bishop, drew roots from a Devon and Somerset family[citation needed].
  • He grew up in a staunch Plymouth Brethren household. His father, after retiring from his daily duties as a brewer, took up the practice of preaching at a fanatical pace. Daily Bible studies and private tutoring were mainstays in young Aleister's childhood; however, after his father's death, his mother's efforts at indoctrinating her son in the Christian faith only served to provoke Aleister's skepticism. As a child, young Aleister's constant rebellious behaviour displeased his devout mother to such an extent she would chastise him by calling him "The Beast" (from the Book of Revelation), an epithet that Crowley would later happily adopt for himself. He objected to the labelling of what he saw as life's most worthwhile and enjoyable activities as "sinful"[citation needed].

(golden dawn section)

  • Involved as a young adult in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, he first studied mysticism with and made enemies of William Butler Yeats and Arthur Edward Waite. Like many in occult circles of the time, Crowley voiced the view that Waite was a pretentious bore through searing critiques of Waite's writings and editorials of other authors' writings.
  • His friend and former Golden Dawn associate Allan Bennett introduced him to the ideas of Buddhism, while Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers, acting leader of the Golden Dawn organization, acted as his early mentor in western magick but would later become his enemy. Several decades after Crowley's participation in the Golden Dawn, Mathers claimed copyright protection over a particular ritual and sued Crowley for infringement after Crowley's public display of the ritual. While the public trial continued, both Mathers and Crowley claimed to call forth armies of demons and angels to fight on behalf of their summoner. Both also developed and carried complex Seal of Solomon amulets and talismans.
  • In a book of fiction entitled Moonchild, Crowley later portrayed Mathers as the primary villain, including him as a character named SRMD, using the abbreviation of Mathers' magical name. Arthur Edward Waite also appeared in Moonchild as a villain named Arthwaite, while Bennett appeared in Moonchild as the main character's wise mentor, Simon Iff.
  • Crowley, in magical garb, displaying the "horns of Pan"While he did not officially break with Mathers until 1904, Crowley lost faith in this teacher's abilities soon after the 1900 schism in the Golden Dawn (if not before). Later that year, Crowley travelled to Mexico and continued his magical studies in isolation. AC's writings suggest that he discovered the word Abrahadabra during this time.
  • In October of 1901, after practising Raja Yoga for some time, he said he had reached a state he called dhyana — one of many states of unification in thoughts that are described in Magick (Liber ABA) (See Crowley on egolessness). 1902 saw him writing the essay Berashith (the first word of Genesis), in which he gave meditation (or restraint of the mind to a single object) as the means of attaining his goal. The essay describes ceremonial magick as a means of training the will, and of constantly directing ones thoughts to a given object through ritual. In his 1903 essay, Science and Buddhism, Crowley urged an empirical approach to Buddhist teachings.
  • He said that a mystical experience in 1904 while on vacation in Cairo, Egypt, led to his founding of the religious philosophy known as Thelema. Aleister's wife Rose started to behave in an odd way, and this led him to think that some entity had made contact with her. At her instructions, he performed an invocation of the Egyptian god Horus on March 20 with (he wrote) "great success". According to Crowley, the god told him that a new magical Aeon had begun, and that Crowley would serve as its prophet. Rose continued to give information, telling Crowley in detailed terms to await a further revelation. On April 8 and for the following two days at exactly noon he heard a voice, dictating the words of the text, Liber AL vel Legis, or The Book of the Law, which Crowley wrote down. The voice claimed to be that of Aiwass (or Aiwaz "the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat," or Horus, the god of force and fire, child of Isis and Osiris) and self-appointed conquering lord of the New Aeon, announced through his chosen scribe "the prince-priest the Beast."
  • Portions of the book are in numerical cipher, which Crowley claimed the inability to decode (Setian Michael Aquino later claimed to be able to decode them). Thelemic dogma (to the extent that Thelema has dogma) explains this by pointing to a warning within the Book of the Law — the speaker supposedly warned that the scribe, Ankh-af-na-khonsu (Aleister Crowley), was never to attempt to decode the ciphers, for to do so would end only in folly. The later-written The Law is For All sees Crowley warning everyone not to discuss the writing amongst fellow critics, for fear that a dogmatic position would arise. While he declared a "new Equinox of the Gods" in early 1904, supposedly passing on the revelation of March 20 to the occult community, it took years for Crowley to fully accept the writing of the Book of the Law and follow its doctrine. Only after countless attempts to test its writings did he come to embrace them as the official doctrine of the New Aeon of Horus. The remainder of his professional and personal careers were spent expanding the new frontiers of scientific illuminism.


  • Crowley posing as the Bodhisvattva HoteiRose and Aleister had a daughter, whom Crowley named Nuit Ma Ahathoor Hecate Sappho Jezebel Lilith Crowley, in July of 1904. This child died in 1906, during the two and a half months when Crowley had left her with Rose (after a family trip through China) and returned home by a different path. They had another daughter, Lola Zaza, in the summer of that year, and Crowley devised a special ritual of thanksgiving for her birth.
  • He performed a thanksgiving ritual before his first claimed success in what he called the "Abramelin operation," on October 9, 1906. This was his implementation of a magical work described in The Book of the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage. The events of that year gave the Abramelin book a central role in Crowley's system. He described the primary goal of the "Great Work" using a term from this book: "the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel." An essay in the first number of The Equinox gives several reasons for this choice of names:
  • Because Abramelin's system is so simple and effective.
  • Because since all theories of the universe are absurd it is better to talk in the language of one which is patently absurd, so as to mortify the metaphysical man.
  • Because a child can understand it. Crowley was notorious in his lifetime — a frequent target of attacks in the tabloid press, which labelled him "The Wickedest Man in the World" to his evident amusement. At one point, he was expelled from Italy after having established a sort of commune, the organization of which was based on his personal philosophies, the Abbey of Thelema, at Cefalu, Sicily.
  • In 1934 Crowley was declared bankrupt after losing a court case in which he sued the artist Nina Hamnett for calling him a black magician in her 1932 book, Laughing Torso. In addressing the jury, Mr Justice Swift said:
  • "I have been over forty years engaged in the administration of the law in one capacity or another. I thought that I knew of every conceivable form of wickedness. I thought that everything which was vicious and bad had been produced at one time or another before me. I have learnt in this case that we can always learn something more if we live long enough. I have never heard such dreadful, horrible, blasphemous and abominable stuff as that which has been produced by the man (Crowley) who describes himself to you as the greatest living poet."
  • Aleister Crowley died of a respiratory infection in a Hastings boarding house on December 1, 1947, at the age of 72. According to some accounts he died on December 5, 1947. He was penniless and addicted to opium, which had been prescribed for his asthma and bronchitis, at the time.
  • Biographer Lawrence Sutin passes on various stories about Crowley's death and last words. Frieda Harris supposedly reported him saying, "I am perplexed," though she did not see him at the very end. According to John Symonds, a Mr Rowe witnessed Crowley's death along with a nurse, and reported his last words as, "Sometimes I hate myself." Biographer Gerald Suster accepted the version of events he received from a "Mr W.H." in which Crowley dies pacing in his living-room. Supposedly Mr W.H. heard a crash while polishing furniture on the floor below, and entered Crowley's rooms to find him dead on the floor. Patricia "Deirdre" MacAlpine, the mother of his son, denied all this and reports a sudden gust of wind and peal of thunder at the (otherwise quiet) moment of his death. According to MacAlpine, Crowley remained bedridden for the last few days of his life, but was in light spirits and conversational. Readings at the cremation service in nearby Brighton included one of his own works, Hymn to Pan, and newspapers referred to the service as a black mass. Brighton council subsequently resolved to take all necessary steps to prevent such an incident occurring again.

(thelema section)

  • The religious or mystical system which Crowley founded, into which most of his writings fall, he named Thelema. Thelema combines a radical form of philosophical libertarianism, akin in some ways to Nietzsche, with a mystical initiatory system derived in part from the Golden Dawn.
  • Chief among the precepts of Thelema is the sovereignty of the individual will: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." Crowley's idea of will, however, is not simply the individual's desires or wishes, but also incorporates a sense of the person's destiny or greater purpose: what he termed "True Will." Much of the initiatory system of Thelema is focused on discovering and manifesting one's Will, culminating in what he termed Knowledge and Conversation with the Holy Guardian Angel (See: Thelemic mysticism). Much else is devoted to an Eastern-inspired dissolution of the individual ego, as a means to that end (see Choronzon).
  • The second precept of Thelema is "Love is the law, love under will" — and Crowley's meaning of "Love" is as complex as that of "Will". It is frequently sexual: Crowley's system, like elements of the Golden Dawn before him, sees the dichotomy and tension between the male and female as fundamental to existence, and sexual "magick" and metaphor form a significant part of Thelemic ritual. However, Love is also discussed as the Union of Opposites, which Crowley thought was the key to enlightenment.
  • Thelema draws on numerous older sources and, like many other new religious movements of its time, combines "Western" and "Eastern" traditions. Its chief Western influences include the Golden Dawn and elements of Freemasonry; Eastern influences include aspects of yoga, Taoism, Kabbalah and Tantra.
As you can see, there is alot of info that is not cited, and should have been upon adding this info. I've been informed that this article is his bio, and as it looks, its not so good. These sections should shade into one another with respect to previous sections. For some reason, thelema is brought up all over the place, he was known for alot more. I hope by the end of this we can get a better bio article in place. Zos 13:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Citations, yes. But how can we give an honest account of anything he did after 1904 without mentioning the system to which he dedicated most of his life? And for the love of Eris, what other verifiable facts that do not appear in the article made him famous? I hope you just said this because of the flow problems in the old "biography" section. Wiki guidelines as I understand them do not identify the article with the biography, they just say to focus on the bio if space requires it. While I feel for our friends on dial-up, I see no need to remove the "Thelema" section entirely. Dan 01:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, simply put, 1904 is when it was dictated, its not when Thelema began. I'm just saying as it was when I posted this, its not at all chronological. And yes its flow problems. I'm not saying remove the thelema section, but its got its own article already, and needs a smaller summary for space issues (since alot more info is going to

be put onto this article soon). Zos 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

This may be minor points to some but just wanted to throw them out there. First, since Crowley was in many ways a pretty dedicated Drug addict one could point out that he supported the view that drugs were a useful technique towards religious experience. As such placing the section on his Drug use in the controversy section right above the sections on Sexism and Racism seems to simplify his drug and condemn it as being ultimately "wrong." Second, the section on sexism is comprised entirely of quotes from Sutin's book and what both the section & book don't clearly point out, is that regardless of Crowley's personal hangups, his legacy (i.e. Thelema) is quite egalitarian. Worlock93

Forgive me, but who are you responding to? Zos 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't actually responding to anyone, (hence new heading, maybe I should have put it at the top?) I just wanted to see if anyone could see what I was trying to say. Since this article has changed quite a bit over the last year (and gotten rather good actually) I didn't want to step on the toes of anyone who may be a rather dedicated editor of this article. ;) Worlock93 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and do whatever I suppose, if someone doesnt like it, they should bring it to the talk page. I believe I have some things I could cite for his drug use in a bio I just got yesterday, and more on the way on monday. Zos 03:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You know what. I failed to read what you were saying. I think the reason its in the controversy section is that not many magicians/magickians (whatever) use drugs to achieve the states of consciousness Crowley did. Most feel its cheating. But I do get your point. If you have citations to say that he used drugs for technique then it should be put on the article. But only if it pertains to his life. Otherwise i'd suggest adding it to the Magick article, as its more on topic there. But if you do in fact add to this article, I'd suggest renaming the drugs section in controvery to "Addictions" or something of the simular wording. Who knows what the future holds for this article anymore :) Zos 04:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early years vs. Mystical Beginnings

Just a thought, but does anyone but me feel we can leave out the header "Mystical Beginnings" and just move that content to "Early years"? It seems a bit off, seeing as how his true mystical beginnings were from the Golden Dawn on. For as 2-3 sources are already saying to me, that he didnt know much of anything until he met Julian Baker and was prompted to join him in meeting wither G. Cecil Jone or Mathers. I'm not sure if reading a few books and proposing that you are an expert in alchemy constitutes as mystical beginnings. Zos 16:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This strikes me as a strange definition of knowledge. His mystical beginnings don't start with books, but with unlooked-for experience that led him to start investigating books. This continued with revelations that led him to focus on the mystical path for the rest of his life. Dan 20:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the "Mystical Beginnings" header. They will do just fine together I think. ---J.S (t|c) 20:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this (partial)quote from the entry: "I had read in some book or other that the most favourable name for becoming famous was one consisting of a dactyl followed by a spondee, as at the end of a hexameter: like 'Jeremy Taylor.' Aleister Crowley fulfilled these conditions ...."[25] "Crowley" would appear to me to be a trochee, not a spondee, as would "Taylor." I'm not sure how this (or if this) should be addressed in the article.Llysse (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

I'm having a discussion over at the Wikipedia:Featured articles talk page. Once we get this page looking good, I'm gonna nominate it for a featured article (this one, the Golden Dawn, and more than likely, the Ordo Templi Orientis article), so we can get a category there. This will open it up so we can nominate more article realting to Magick and the Occult. Anyone can help by reviewing the Wikipedia:The perfect article page and following it. Zos 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Here's a checklist for "A perfect Wikipedia article"...

  • starts with a clear description of the subject
Check. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • is understandable,
Check. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • is nearly self-contained;
not sure entirely sure. ---J.S (t|
this means that if the article combusts, it stays on this page :p Zos 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Errr.... ok? I'm not sure what you mean. ---J.S (t|
Oh that was just a joke :p I have no idea what self contained means in this context Zos 17:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

c) 15:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC) c) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • branches out;
Check. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject;
Perhapse. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • is completely neutral and unbiased;
As close as this kind of subject is likely to get imo. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • is of an appropriate length;
Maybe... tad long actualy. Not sure what we can do about it however. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Remove things to sub-section, only leaving 2-3 paragraphs. Zos 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
That's what I was kinda thinking, but I'll wait until we reach consensus. ---J.S (t|c) 15:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that no one was disputing it. Zos 17:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • reflects expert knowledge;
Check. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • is precise and explicit;
Check. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • is well-documented;
Check. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • is very clear;
Check. - Clear enough for me... ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • uses clearly-worded sentences,
Check. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • includes informative, relevant images, each with an explanatory caption.
Check. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think it needs 2 or 3 more images. Just not sure if that many exist. ---J.S (t|c) 20:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Of Aleister Crowley? You must be joking. Dan 02:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I was actually referring to photos in the public domain. Most of the photos of Crowley are after modern copyright-laws were introduced... ---J.S (t|c) 15:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • is engaging;
Not sure how to judge this one. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • uses proper grammar, spelling, and writing conventions;
As far as I can tell, but I'm not an expert. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writings & Thelema sections

Would anyone mind if I merged everything but the first two paragraphs into the Works of Aleister Crowley article? I'm trying to think of a few ways to shorten the article a bit and removing redundant info is always the easiest. ---J.S (t|c) 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Add Thelema to this as well. I really think only one (two at most) paragraph(s) should follow a "main article". ---J.S (t|c) 20:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind at all. I originally made this request during the old edit wars (archived somewhere). This will give us more space for his life/bio. According to the writing a perfect article, only a brief description is needed, and only enough so where you dont have to go to that article to find out about it. This might be difficult for the Thelema section, but we should be able to keep it at 3 paragraphs at least. Zos 21:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, things have calmed down in the past month or so, so perhaps it's a better time for makeing changes like this. :) I was thinking on the themlma section we could even just crop it down to the first paragraph. Explaining what thelema is extra info, and it's all there in the thelema article should someone wish to go explore further. I'll work on it tonight when I have more time. ---J.S (t|c) 22:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that not all of the Thelema section appears at Thelema, it seems important to give a fair summary of such a complex topic if we want to give a comprehensible picture of the man's life. (See my previous comment on the subject.) And the current section doesn't seem that long to me. I don't know about the Writings section. Dan 02:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but this is Crowleys main page. And Thelema statements need to adress how it effects his life. This can be done with just the Abbey of Thelema section. So, in other words, the Thelema section should be taken out altogether in my opinion. A simple sentence saying he founded it should be sufficiant. But for pertaining to his life, the Abbey is good enough, and if any other comments need to be made, they can be made in other sections to improve the flow of the bio.
For instance. Such comments could be made in new headers, like "Life in the A:.A:.", and "Towards the OTO". I'm actually surprised we havent gotten to that. He founded A:.A:. and restructured OTO! I think I'll take a break from working on his bio to add the A:.A:. and OTO. Zos 03:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I gather from the second part of this that you actually know better, and didn't actually mean to identify Thelema's influence on his life with the Abbey of Thelema. Dan 03:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just mean that those kind of life changing statements probably happened while in the A:.A:. or O.T.O. , and can be placed there, or where ever they happened. Zos 04:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A:.A:. and OTO

Oh god. I just realized I cant find when Crowley actually joined OTO, just when he became head of the British section. Anyone have any sources for Crowley and the OTO? I guess I'll just start on A:.A:. for now. Zos 03:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, well, about that. Dan 03:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok well, I squeezed the header in going by dates. And the Book of Lie only covers so much, it can help, but I'm looking for someone with a bio that I dont have. Zos 03:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I meant to point out that nobody actually knows when he joined the OTO. But I'll add the standard date with explanation. Dan 04:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
He joined in 1910, but I cant use the source I have because its not usable here. Its a main web site, and its not aloud. Its here. Zos 04:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Booth, Martin [2000] (2001). "13: Enter Mary, Exit Victor and the Paris Working", A Magick Life: A Biography of Aleister Crowley (trade paperback), Coronet (in English), London: Hodder and Stoughton, 305. ISBN 0340718064. “In 1910, while visiting Britain, Reuss had admitted Crowley into the OTO, although Crowley appears to have has little to do with it until probably 1913, when Reuss paid him a visit in London and, producing a copy of The Book of Lies, accused him of revealing in its pages the secrets of the OTO 9th Grade, which concerned sexual magic.”  (Edit this section to copy the proper template code for the full cite.) --Geoff Capp 11:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
That'll worrk. Plus it doesnt comflict with my sources. Zos 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting is that their is no metioning of his political influence As the teachers of A. Hitler where close pupiles of his teaching, and if one reads the ideas of Hiler the connection becomes quite clear. Not metioned is too that he influenced too the foundation of the Scientology sect The connection is easaly made if you check the religiouse believe of scientology and the believe of the group around Hitler.The Thule group and its sucsessor the inner SS, It's basicly the same. Johann just as comment

The article does not include your claim about Hitler because the evidence says nothing remotely like that happened. See Sutin, Do What Thou Wilt chapter 10, p 375-380. The L. Ron Hubbard article does mention Hubbard's connection with Crowley, and I suggest you read it closely. Dan 18:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preparing to add citations

Hey, you all. I'm going to take a shot at adding some citations here. Unless someone stops me. -Zeno Izen 01:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

... mind you, it won't be immediately. Want to put together something useful before I add it. -Zeno Izen 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No ones gonna stop you so long as it merits inclusion :)
What did you have in mind? SynergeticMaggot 02:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
What I had in mind was whatever I could find that would be useful. That turned out to be more complicated a job than I was in the mood for, or had time for. I shouldn't have said anything in the first place. I went off half-cocked at trying not to be half-cocked. Heh. -Zeno Izen 22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freemason or not...

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JValenc1"

Currently there is a source that claims he was a mason. If you have a source that said he isn't' a mason (and no, absence of his name on the list is not directly a denial of his membership) then feel free to present it. If there is a controversy over his membership/lack of membership a paragraph in the main body would be reasonable... however, I don't see any kind of notable controversy. -----J.S (t|c) 20:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Figured I'd bring the conversation here... ---J.S (t|c) 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Right o. I feel the same way. We need a cited source here. A biographer of Crowley. Not anons trying to add this is with no conversation. I've had to revert a few times I think because of this edit. SynergeticMaggot 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
"Being a Freemason"

I'm of a mind to simply erase the entire thing. It's all talking about the OTO and freemasons... nothing quoted suggests there is any kind of debate about AC's membership in the masons. (Just because OTO isn't a part of the masons doesn't mean AC wasn't a member himself.) Synergy, you've gotta help me here... does that biography say, implicitly, that AC is a mason? ---J.S (t|c) 04:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then erase that he was a Freemason until you find evidence which states he was indeed a Freemason. You can't just go claiming he was a Freemason when you have no evidence just like how I can't say he isn't a freemason without more reliable sources. --JValenc1 07:48, 1 August 2006 UTC

[edit] Awaiting Better Sources

Aleister Crowley being an actual Freemason is up for debate. It has been said that he is a Freemason, however [Freemasonry] is an entire organization in itself. Aleister Crowley is known to have been in the Golden Knights and O.T.O.

“Through his mountaineering contacts, Crowley made contact with members of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, an occult secret society. The Golden Dawn was an offshoot of the Freemasons, borrowing liberally from that order's initiation practices and layering on a hodge-podge of mysticism and ritual magic borrowed from a wide variety of influences.” Source: http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/aleister-crowley/

“O.T.O. is an offshoot of Freemasonry. The Ordo Templi Orientis (the Oriental Order of the Templars). Unlike the Masons, the OTO would allow women as members. Otherwise, at this stage, the organization was fairly similar to the Masons, and the inner circle of OTO leadership had advanced Masonic degrees as a job requirement.” Source: http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/oto/

“Fringe Masonry existed. By examining it in a rational manner and in the context of its time we can defuse it and render it worthless as a weapon of attack on mainstream Freemasonry.”

John Hamill. Transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge. Vol. 109. p. 214.

“Fringe Masonry encompasses those regular freemasons whose interest in mysticism and the occult led them to such organizations as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (HOGD) and the Ordo Templi Orientis. Neither of these organizations was ever recognized by any regular masonic body. The Golden Dawn had no masonic pretensions but the fact that the founders of the OTO made such claims opened it to accusations of being clandestine or irregular Freemasonry. Since 1919 (Equinox Vol. III, No. 1) they ceased to claim being or having any authority regarding Freemasonry. Currently most masonic Grand Lodge jurisdictions are unaware of, or indifferent to, the existence or history of the OTO.

It must be stressed that although Freemasonry recognizes many of these men as freemasons, no recognized masonic body, and few freemasons, endorse their opinions and conclusions as an accepted extension or interpretation of the teachings of Freemasonry. Their published works have had no positive or lasting impact on Freemasonry. In fact their writings are more often quoted, out of context, by anti-masons attempting to link masonic teachings with these individuals' opinions.

These authors do not, in any fashion, represent the teachings or beliefs of recognized Freemasonry.”

Source: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/esoterica/index.html

Sorry. Web sites will simply not do for biographical content. Especially rotten.com, and a freemasonry website. SynergeticMaggot 04:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Also note that the only book reference does not mention Crowley. SynergeticMaggot 04:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd also have to say. The majority of this is original research. I have 4-5 book sources to say that most of that was added is complete nonsense. Especially pertaining to the Golden Dawn information. SynergeticMaggot 05:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can't find the source that states he wasn't a Freemason, then Find the source that states he WAS indeed a freemason. You can't just simply state he is a freemason and have no proof that he was a freemason. That is what I don't understand about you editors. At least take the reference to him being a freemason out. --JValenc1 07:48, 1 August 2006 UTC
No, your right... the burden of inclusion lies right on the shoulders of the people/person who wants to include something. If I'm not mistaken the citation however supports the Freemason claim. (the book called "Do What Thou Wilt" is one of the most accepted Crowley biographies). I'm not 100% sure what the book sais since I don't have it, but it shoudln't be hard to lookup. ---J.S (t|c) 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, as I said (perhaps unclearly), Crowley claimed to have received Masonic initiation in the Scottish Rite before his meetings with Yarker and Reuss (or at least the ones I know about). Sutin repeats this story in "Do What Thou Wilt" (p. 83) without taking a position on its truth. Dan 02:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writings

Writings section is a bit of a problem atm. It has a "main article" link and then it proceeds to a whole page of text on the subject. The stuff in this article is well done, but most of it needs to be merged over-to the other article in my estimation. Anyone up to the task? ---J.S (t|c) 05:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see his writings in a chronological and dated format.
I Second that. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Himalayas

I remember hearing at one point (I thought it was in one of his own works) that Corwley had crossed the Himalayas twice, the first time eating his entire crew... is this rumor or at least somewhat factual? Thanks —Memotype::T 13:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

AC did not eat people while in the Himalaya. PyrE 06:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Coast Visits

Lots of Authors/Poets active in Northern California - Bohemian Club - Did he visit? Lodge Visits in CA and BC - any paths to retrace? How many visits? Wrote poem "Big Trees" about the Redwoods. Was this After Hawaii? or Later? And something about an Coastal Island here? and LAM? and Pasadena visits? with Hubbard Parsons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.126.136.233 (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chess master?

In the intro, the article calls crowley a chess master, but in the chess section, it never says conclusively that he actually attained master level. In fact, it implies that he gave it up just before reaching it... how about some clarification? —Memotype::T 13:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In order to determine this, we'd need to know:
  • What was meant by "master" in chess during Crowley's life, or specifically at any time that he claimed such a title?
  • Did he, in fact, attain such a level?
I don't know enough about the history of chess rankings to say so. --FOo

He claims to have won two matches concurrently while blindfolded in bio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.126.136.233 (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chess master...

To the best of my knowledge a chess master is merely a term for someone who is a very skilled player, and doesn't imply any sort of official qualification or specific standard.

Actually it does, master implies a record of winning a certain percentage of games against opponents of has pretty strong criteria. Master is a national title (international master or grand master are international titles). If this helps, the British chess federation was established 1904 and would have had criteria, they are essentially contiguous with the modern FIDE. The modern criteria (modulo minor changes) date to the early 1950s Kenneth Harkness. jbolden1517Talk 15:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
See Grandmaster (chess) and International master. Bubba73 (talk), 15:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, these titles were not formalized until 1950. They were used informally before that. Bubba73 (talk), 01:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Paederastic Poetry

[Crowley]published numerous poems and tracts combining pagan religious themes with sexual imagery both heterosexual and homosexual, as well as pederastic

That is a fabrication. Though paederastic poetry was common and indeed occasionally ubiquitous in England in the period from the later Nineteenth to the middle Twentieth Centuries, Crowley himself never created any work, to my knowledge, which could be construed as paederastic. Homosexual, yes - or, more correctly, bisexual - and though some there are who strive to conflate the homosexuality with paederasty, the latter does not feature in Crowley's opus. Nuttyskin 22:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the reference is to the little-known The Scented Garden, or Bhag-i-Muattar, a collection of verse, written by Crowley and published pseudonomously, on mystical themes using a pederastic sexual relationship between the supposed author and his boy lover as a metaphor for the intercourse (in the larger sense) of Deity with the soul. The facsimile edition I own was edited by Martin P. Starr, and published by Teitan Press, Chicago, in 1991. The original edition was largely suppressed by British Customs, but I believe a copy of this edition is in the collection of the Harry Ransom Center of the University of Texas at Austin. Fra. O.M.M. (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sandman

alister crowly was a mason a evil man [Neil Gaiman] references him directly in the very first issue of Sandman, where he imprisons the titular hero through "black magick".

Rubbish. In issue one of Sandman, he is imprisoned by a fictional character named Roderick Burgess. On page four, Burgess says "After tonight I'd like to see Aleister and his friends try to make fun of me!" So not only is he not Crowley, he is not meant to represent him as Crowley clearly exists in the universe portrayed in the comic book.

Accordingly, I have removed the line. Pearce.duncan 03:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Burgess is evidently based loosely on Crowley, although equally obviously not the same person. There is a direct reference in "Sandman Midnight Theatre" in which the doormen to Burgess's party greet Wesley Dodds with "Do what thou wilt." Nonetheless, it is not a particularly important reference. --FOo 06:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] popular culture section

Maybe it's just me, but the few paragraphs in the popular culture section beg to be put in list form. The reason I say this is because it will jump from reference to reference without trying to group them together in some fashion. It makes the whole section seem discombobulated.

And since there is a very detailed related page that does group the instances together, why not just leave the link to the sub-section and shorten the article length? --Mr Vain 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has objected I'm going to go ahead and shave off that section and leave the link. If someone disagrees, then simply revert it. I'm not here for an edit war. It just looks so disjointed I think it would suit the article better if just the link were there. --Mr Vain 00:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There -should- be a small paragraph there to summarize the "main" article. ---J.S (t|c) 01:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The article that I removed tried to summarize it and ending up being scattered in it's attempt. I suppose one could write something vague and get the message across. How about this: "Aleister Crowley has been mentioned in various movies, comics, books, TV Shows and in a variety of places on the net." To me that wouldn't be up to par with the rest of the article and is somewhat undeserving of being put in the article at all. Unless it is done well, then the article summarizing the appearances in popular culture will just seem like the original, that being really discombobulated without any cohesiveness that a paragraph would need. Thoughts? --Mr Vain 04:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a brief summary that should suffice as a placeholder until someone can come up with something better. Justin Eiler 20:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bundle. --Mr Vain 00:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death and burial

OK, what happened when he died? Was he buried or cremated. Cremated where? Buried where? Where were the ashes taken? Where are they now? This sort of thing needs to be in this article, can anyone help expand the section on his death? I ask because I also found this: his ashes were either buried under a tree or scattered among trees on a friend's estate in Hampton, New Jersey, depending on whom one believes. [1] FK0071a 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wives, Scarlet Women, and Mistresses - female aquaintences section

Rose Kelly

Mary d'Este Sturges Mary Desti Mary Estelle Dempsey, Mother of Preston Sturges

Jeanne Robert Foster

Roddie Minor

Marie Rohling

Bertha Almira Prykryl

Leilah Waddell

Leah Hirsig

Jane Wolfe

Ninette Shumway

Mary Butts

Dorothy Olsen

Maria de Miramar

Patricia "Deirdre" MacAlpine

Frieda Harris

Isadora Duncan

Marchesa Luisa Casati

Helen Blavatsky

Dion Fortune

Evangeline Adams

Sybil Leek

Mary Cunard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.91 (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sonia Greene

others ...

[edit] Ian Flemming and Hess

When Rudolf Hess was captured in Scotland, Navel Intelligence officer and author of James Bond, Ian Flemming, suggests that Crowley interrogate Hess because Hess was an occultist and supporter of Astrology (this is widely known) but Churchill rejected the suggestion. Please someone who can write better than me please add this into the article on Aleister Crowley. FK0071a 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Was it Hess who Crowley met with in Egypt, or List? In news articles H.Rider-Haggard or Bulwer-Lytton was there in Eygypt at same time - among others? Caliph Vizier Crowley? Eqyptian Newspaper Roses' Lime Water

And please confine trash like this to the talk pages, not to the article: If Crowley died alone in his room then there is no way to know the last thing he said. And he was not penniless as you may think but not as wealthy as in his youth. Crowley had kicked the habit of heroin but in his last years he was forced to take it because of the deterioration of his asthma. Carsonc 01:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

FK0071a, could you please give a citation for Ian Fleming's accusation. --Harpakhrad11 19:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gates and Crowley

Independent researchers recently confirmed persistent rumors that Bill Gates is a devote Crowley's disciple. They found an alarming resemblance of Microsoft Office Mac OS icons and Hebrew glyphs Microsoft Office#Illuminati. This correspondence proves that Mr. Gates takes part in coding and programming of consensus reality. And this project is, uncharacteristically enough, is an open source one – as any member of occult community could participate in the project, using such classical sources as 777 and other Qabalistic writings of Aleister Crowley.

—Aleister Crowley, Taken from article.

I'd pay a nickle to see a source for that. :) ---J.S (t|c) 17:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph - Infamous?

Hi:

Why is the photograph called infamous? What is the controversy surrounding it?

[edit] Zoso

Zoso redirects to Zeppelin 4, which says it traces back to Crowley? How? Mathiastck 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Z0.-f-.0 has been said to be an alchemical sign for Amber or electrum of some form - no refs

That looks like original research to me. Unless someone can cite a source which said that, it should be removed. Frater Xyzzy 19:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crowley and Meditation

Hi Everyone :) I have been a long-time student of Crowley's work and I love everything that is being done with his page. I wonder though, why I see no mention of meditation? The first part of Book 4 is soley focused on meditation. Many of the Libers and exercises from the equinox are likewise. He wrote "8 lectures on Yoga" as some of his later work. It seems unbalanced to have so much talk of magic and so little talk of meditation. Didn't he write about how magick and meditation are inseperable, that it is always preferable to do both? Anyways, thanks again for the awesome work.<3 (+my2cents)Captain Barrett 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This does seem like a problem. The length of the article has pushed out much material. You might expect to find it in Thelema or Thelemic mysticism, but these entries suffer from similar problems. The following text, though, seems confusing or outright false: Although highly under-publicized, Crowley eventually took to practicing only Yoga, giving up all formal ritual magick completely. During this period he wrote "Eight Lectures on Yoga" and spent time in India. Part of his stated motivation for the transition from magick to yoga is illustrated by the progression of the Argenteum Astrum degrees. According to his system, magick is only necessary for the lower degrees. Please give a source and explain what that last sentence means. (The second-to-last degree in the system goes by the name of "Magus".) I think at best the removed text blurs the distinction between one "ceremonial" type of magick and Crowley's broader definition. Dan 05:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Hi all. I run a website devoted to the legacy of Aleister Crowley and which has for twelve years been home to The Aleister Crowley Society. I noted that the Links on this article were generally poor: ill-researched and partisan sites. I therefore posted a link to the non-commercial site I own (LAShTAL.COM), which is considered non-partisan and definitive. The response within hours was an anonymous edit:

07:08, 12 February 2007 217.10.142.170 (Talk) (→External links - remove link added by site owner in violation of spamming policy)

I have no desire to turn this into a squabble, but would appreciate some guidance. Can this really be considered "spamming"? Lashtal.com 00:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yes, I think I saw that in the policies somewhere. If you own/run the site, you are not supposed to add the link yourself. Does the site sell anything, take donations, etc? Khabs 05:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related article nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleister Crowley in popular culture. As that debate may have an impact on this article (particularly when people propose merging), I thought it would be only fair that the editors of this page be made aware of the debate. Mangojuicetalk 14:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving dangerous traps in his books

I remember reading somewhere that he wrote some books detailing how to do all sorts of magical things, except some of the recipes instead of having the required effect, would explode or do something just as dangerous. According to the story a man tried to make a homunculus by Crowley's recipe, only succeeding in killing himself in the resulting explosion, long after Crowley's own death. Anyone heard of this as well? Tainted Deity 15:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an urban legend.
It's certainly true though that Crowley put things in his books that were intended to be misunderstood by those who didn't know what he was talking about. The usual example is the one where he talks about masturbation as "sacrificing a child". --FOo 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That Jack Parsons fellow seems to fit in nicely with what I have heard. I guess it is an unconfirmable rumour. Tainted Deity 15:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ouija

Does anyone else think we can find a better place for the section on Ouija boards? Judging by the article itself, they don't seem all that important to Crowley's work. The Ouija article has significantly less text than this one, which may leave out more important matters about yoga (see previous discussion). Maybe we should move the whole section there. Suggestions? Threats? Dan 00:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Agent 666

As I have indicated in the main article, Crowley was an agent of the British intelligence all along his involvement with the Irish nationalist cause and with the cause of German propaganda. The source which claims this is Richard B. Spence, "Secret Agent 666. Aleister Crowley and British Intelligence in America, 1914-1918", International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 13:359-371, 2000, Taylor and Francis. Tgeorgescu 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I will give some brief quotations, as requested inside the main article. I hope they fall under the fair use doctrine. Tgeorgescu 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"His writing for The Fatherland, he [Crowley] argued, was <<So blatantly extravagant only a German would have believed it.>>" (ibidem:360) Tgeorgescu 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"But newly available evidence from the archives of the United States Army's Millitary Intelligence Division (MID) confirms official British knowledge and acceptance of his actions, and specifically identifies him as an employee of His Majesty's Government." (ibidem:361) Tgeorgescu 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"Crowley's job may have been more than a mere faux-propagandist." (loc. cit.) Tgeorgescu 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"Finally, the Great Beast's role can be compared to two <<international spies>> active in much the same quarters in wartime New York: Sidney Reilly and Ignace Timothy Trebitsch-Lincoln." (loc. cit.) Tgeorgescu 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"... he [Crowley] and nine companions cruised across New York Harbor in a small launch flying an Irish flag and dropped anchor off the Statue of Liberty. Calling themselves the <<Secret Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety of the Provisional Government of the Irish Republic>>, the group proclaimed the independence of Ireland and declared war on England." (ibidem:362) Tgeorgescu 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"Whether these antics delighted Viereck is uncertain, but if they were not also intended to lampoon and discredit Irish separatism, they certainly should have been. As such, they suited British interests very well." (ibidem:363) Tgeorgescu 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"[...] the <<Crowley file>> [...] Most disturbing to the authors of these reports was the rumor that Plummer and Crowley were able to communicate with Steiner via telepathy." (loc.cit.) Tgeorgescu 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"[...] the Beast had already been subjected to an inquiry by the Justice Department because of his work for Viereck. [...] <<It was determined that Aleister Crowley was a employee of the British Government ...>> [...] The message seemed quite clear: Crowley was <<OK>> and the Americans should leave him be." (ibidem:364) Tgeorgescu 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"[...] the British consul [Charles Clive Bayley] [...] vouched for him [Crowley] [...]" (loc. cit.) Tgeorgescu 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"Crowley was a man with unique qualities and sources of information in corners where other agents could not or would not thread. He clearly demonstrated his ability to gain the confidence of an important German propagandist [Viereck] and to influence his product. He could also monitor enemy currents in the occult underworld." (ibidem:367) Tgeorgescu 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope that the above quotes show that Crowley was no traitor, but Secret Agent 666, just as James Bond is Secret Agent 007. Tgeorgescu 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that. However, unless the book specifically justfies any racist remarks, what you've added is original research and doesn't belong in the racism section. IPSOS (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You may be right. I thought that his monstrous racist utterances could be attributed to faux-propaganda, i.e. make such text sound so ridiculous that every man/woman of common sense would consider it unfair and inappropriate. Tgeorgescu 20:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, seems logical. But you have to find someone else who has said so. Interpolation from sources is original research which isn't allowed in most encyclopedias, which are supposed to summarize existing verifiable knowledge. IPSOS (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. Tgeorgescu 20:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crowley

"...the first syllable sounding like "crow" in English..." is is surprising to me. I have never heard anyone pronounce his name like this. Also, I know people with an identical surname and they do not pronounce the first syllable like the English word 'crow'. I thought the 'o' in Crowley is more like the English word 'our'? Without, prehaps the accent some people give to the 'r' (I could not think of a better example off the top of my head). PyrE 11:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't have the exact quote handy, but Crowley himself said something to the effect of "Some call me Crou-ly/To treat me foully/My friends call me Crow-ley/to show that I'm holy." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You may be right. Although, this may be AC and his usual attempt at wit. As a name itself how is it meant to be pronounced? Maybe in the above quote AC is trying to associate himself with holiness through word play, although he may not be giving the proper pronunciation of his surname. PyrE 14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It's well known that he pronounced it "Crow Lee". Therefore that's the "correct" pronunciation. There's no "meant" when it comes to names. Different families have different accents and traditions. IPSOS (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to get that "cleared up". Thank you for your "help". I guess the "correct" pronunciation is "meant" to be CROW-ley. lmfao. PyrE 01:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple of quips attributed to Beastly Old Uncle Aleister on the subject of the pronunciation of his name that I have never been able to verify. One has him responding huffily to a misspoken introduction, "Not Crowley as in foully, but Crow ly as in holy." The other is a limerick -
"My name is Aleister Crowley,
I'm a master of magick unholy,
Wand, sword and pentacle,
Coven, conventicle,
Nightshade and mandrake and moly!"
Fra. O.M.M. (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who's smart idea was This?

Ok, sorry to be blunt but, who the world thought they were benefiting wikipedia by removing the 2 pictures of Crowley as an old man? It seems this was a wanton act with no reason behind whatsoever. I'm going to asume that it was VANDALISM and not the work of a overzealouse mod. Now can someone find the old pictures and out them back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.130.215 (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It was done by User:OrphanBot, so I'd say it's doubtful it was vandalism--at worst improper actions on a bot's part. According to them, it was removed since it had no source information. If you do talk to them, I'd advise taking a more civil tone. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
So, you suggest that I speak to a bot? Yeah, that'll work. If you thought my tone was uncivil here, you should have seen what I was going to post... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.130.215 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed?

While reading the article on Aleister Crowley I came across the following sentence, followed by a "citation needed" sign, exactly as shown below:

He objected to the labelling of what he saw as life's most worthwhile and enjoyable activities as "sinful".[citation needed]

I don't know if I have misunderstood the reason for including the "citation needed" note? However, I would have thought that Crowley's objection to 'labelling of what he saw as life's most worthwhile and enjoyable activities as "sinful"' was so well known as to need no citation whatsoever. Having read even a fraction of his "Confessions" I would say that his objection to 'the labelling of what he saw as life's most worthwhile and enjoyable activities as "sinful"' was very nearly the most obvious thing about him. This is the man who, when informed of the death of Queen Victoria, joined with his companion of the moment, in throwing his hat in the air and performing a war dance. He saw Queen Victoria as a symbol of repression and he saw her death as cause for celebration. This is the man who gave the world that well known saying: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"! Can Crowley's objection to 'labelling of what he saw as life's most worthwhile and enjoyable activities as "sinful"' seriously be in need of a citation? If it can, then please may I be permitted to cite: Every single thing he has ever written?

Richard Gillard 23:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's an even better suggestion! Cite "Flaky ramblings of a half-literate troglodyte on the talk page for this article."!

[edit] The grandfather of George W. Bush?

On the radio talk show A View From Space, November 11, 2007, Toronto talk show host "Spaceman" Gary Bell relays about the mother of the former first lady, Pauline, that nine months prior to the birth of her third child she was in France:

Pauline (Pierce) had two young children aged three and four when she decided to have some fun. She left her children and her husband and the States and headed off to France. When she got there, she spent time with her friend Nelly O'Hara and Frank Harris. Frank Harris also had a friend who was none other than Aleister Crowley, the head at the time of the Satanic organization known as the O.T.O. [...] This trip to France took place in 1924, the very same year that Aleister Crowley claims to have first experienced his E.C.L. or "eroto-comatose lucidity" [...] As I said, this all happened in 1924, in early October of 1924 Pauline Pierce after this meeting and staying with Aleister Crowley and her friend returned to the Unites States, and her children, and her husband Marvin. Exactly nine months later she gave birth to a daughter whom they called Barbara Pierce.

__meco 18:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I read the story also. Is it a true story, or a gossip simply. Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 09:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

speculate - but I think the story came out on an April 1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.126.136.233 (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Mr.Crowley"

i think that it should be put on that the ozzy osbourne song mr.crowley is based on aleister crowley. he wrote the song when he found a deck of tarot cards designed by crowley in the studio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.34.159 (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

that is an absurd suggestion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.127.174.141 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There should at least be a section on 'Crowley in Popular culture' - e.g. the cover of 'Sergeant Pepper', the character of Mocata in Dennis Wheatley's 'The Devil Rides Out', Ozzy Osbourne's 'Mister Crowley', David Bowie's 'Quicksand'. 90.193.44.230 (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There should definitely be a link back to Mr. Crowley from this article. It's the only way a lot of people have heard of him. A pop culture section seems appropriate to me. -- Bilbo1507 (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Switch

I think that we should switch the photo of Crowley with the Mason hat with the photo of him in his arm chair. It looks more professional--Gpshaw (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why. That was his profession. Dan (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aleister Crowley; his character described by Somerset Maugham

Maybe I overlooked the subject in this page. Would it be inappropriate to ad a topic on his relation to contemporary writers such as Maugham? Apparently Maugham wrote “the magician” with Crowly in mind. Not his best writing though. 82.95.60.124 (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paedophilia

Until I removed it, the term paedophile was among those used to describe Crowley at the beginning of the article, yet the article does not go on to explore or substantiate this claim. There is no evidence to suggest that Crowley ever engaged in sexual activity with under age children. I therefore think it misleading to describe Crowley in such terms.

Deantuhka (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing: "Here he finally broke with religion"

The article says "Here he finally broke with religion" but then contradicts itself by saying that Crowley "decided to pursue a path in occultism and mysticism". Maybe it should say "he finally broke with conventional religion" or "mainstream religion". Or maybe "he finally broke with the Church of England." Honestly, I don't know enough about Crowley to feel comfortable to change the article, but the way it is currently worded is confusing. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking, he had broken with the Church of England even before he was born, as his family were Plymouth Brethren, a Nonconformist sect.
Nuttyskin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.199.50 (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Occultism isn't exactly the same thing as religion (in the sense of, f.ex., Christianity), it's merely the study of the supernatural. ktr (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Theology is the study and development of dogmas. Theology is part of religion. It isn't exactly the same as religion, but it is part of religion. So it is occultism. Occultism supposes some kind of faith in the supernatural phenomena. This is religious faith, according to the definition from Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." "Things not seen" means occult phenomena, since occult means something that cannot be seen, hidden, mysterious, secret, charming. This makes Christian religion be 100% occult, because it relies on believing evidence for occult stuff (angels, demons, God, messages from such beings and so on). This is verifiable information based upon a print-published book (the Bible). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Religion is the belief in supernatural entities based on faith, unlike occultism. I think we should clear up what kind of faith we're talking about here. Maybe you're confusing a general term such as 'occultism' with Wicca, Satanism, neo-pagan religions etc? And are you suggesting that we use citations from the Bible to support that occultism equals religion? You must be joking; the Bible is 100% non-NPOV for this occasion.
Anyhow, Here are some quotes; they can be used as sources in the article:
"occultism:
1. belief in the existence of secret, mysterious, or supernatural agencies.
2. the study or practice of occult arts".
—From dictionary.reference.com.
"Occultism, belief in supernatural sciences or powers, such as magic, astrology, alchemy, theosophy, and spiritism, either for the purpose of enlarging man's powers, of protecting him from evil forces, or of predicting the future. All the so-called natural sciences were in a sense occult in their beginnings; most early scientists were considered magicians or sorcerers because of the mystery attending their investigations. In the modern world occultism has centered in small groups that seek to perpetuate secret knowledge and rites alleged to be derived from the ancients".
—Reference.com. Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Columbia University Press. http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/occultis (accessed: May 26, 2008).
"'Occultism is the intellectual and scientific temperament trying to extend its field of consciousness'; or in other words, the effort to know Reality, or the structural facts and laws of the Universe, on all planes of consciousness, and not merely as a transcedental extraphenomenal experience. It is the 'Higher Science'".
—William Kingsland, Rational Mysticism.
"The philosophy of occultism is the philosophy of all sciences and all religions of the world put togetther".
—H.P. Blavatsky, The Theosophist.
"Like science occultism is the investigation of an outside world or of outside worlds in their multiplicity of forms and colours, presented in dimensions of time and space. As such it is the observation and investigation of a world-image; as ordinary science explores the physical world-image so does occultism attempt to explore an etheric, astral or mental world-image. It, therefore, has the same possibilities and limitations which science has".
—J.J. Van der Leeuw, Conquest of Illusion. ktr (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We place no reliance/On virgin or pigeon/Our Method is Science/Our Aim is Religion -- Crowley. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General Tone

The entire article, entirely separate from the difficulty of figuring out exactly who was telling the truth about Crowley's life, reads as though it were exclusively written by fanboys. The underlying tone - that Crowley was basically right about everything, and everyone who opposed him was a fool - is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

One example of many... >according to Freudian Steven Marcus, men in Victorian England had a common sexual fetish for thinly veiled descriptions of men spanking boys.[56]

Is this supposed to be accepted as fact? There's a BIG difference between "men in Victorian England..." and ONE FREUDIAN NAMED STEVEN MARCUS SAYING "men in Victorian England..." Why is being a Freudian enough to make him an authority? Anyway, granted that he is...

(In their reformatory institutions for children, men "were allowed to birch their inmates across the bare buttocks until the early 1920s, when under government pressure the cane or tawse over trousers became standard."[57]) OK, a website on corporal punishment - perhaps relatively authoritative..

And here we drift off into the authors' personal prejudice

>Many have cited one or both of these quotes from Crowley, without context, as proof of immorality and sometimes of a vast child-abusing conspiracy.[58]

Well, never mind Crowley, if you accept 56 and 57 as authoritative, then there WAS, IN FACT, a child-abusing conspiracy as big as Britain, at least. Why is the author so snippy about it? Al-Qeada is a conspiracy, Enron was a conspiracy, the CIA do nothing BUT conspire - it is their JOB, for chrissakes! All it means for an activity to be conspiracy is to have more than one person working for the same goal. Every business that has private strategy meetings is conspiring - we just need to get over our irrational fear of the word, and of looking at places in the world where people do band together to harm others for their own benefit.

Oh, and BTW - the argument that "being hit didn't hurt me, so it won't hurt others" is evidence of child abuse. A rational person would observe "being hit made me into someone who thinks other people should be hit against their will." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.180.126 (talk • contribs)

Apparently you've missed the point in a big way. The people talking about Crowleyan conspiracies are the people who bemoan the loss of this old-time child abuse, contrasting it with AC's principle of freedom and openness. And the Freudian bit is there to tell you where this information comes from, not to make it sound more authoritative (did you even see Crowley's reference to Freud in the previous sentence?) Dan (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)