Letters
The Magazine of Lies
Well, I guess I needn't have been so depressed that no one responded to the inflammatory Crowley article in issue 3:5—since then we've received several letters and I feel much better now. A couple of these letters follow. Most of those questioning Tim Scott's position pointed out that it is not appropriate to judge the message by the messenger.
G.M. Kelly reviewed Tim Scott's article in his Neweon Newsletter (P.O. Box 19210, Pittsburgh, PA 15213). He commented that it contained many flaws, but focused on Scott's accusation of anti-Semitism. In a private letter, Kelly point out that we should not be publishing such nonsense. This is something I'd better address.
Yes, this magazine, like any other publication, should contain no inaccurate information. When I come across a fact that I know is incorrect, I don't print it. That's it. Unfortunately, I don't have researchers or much time to do research myself. Since I'm pathetically open-minded, not much gets filtered out. To balance this handicap, I try to make it clear that readers are responsible for what they believe. This is always true anyway, but it is especially important in the occult and in publications which lack the resources to exhaustively research facts. (That's us, big-time.) I hope that those concerned one way or the other about Mr. Crowley's reputation will check into the sources that Tim Scott listed at the end of his article (as well as other sources).
I do apologize for all inaccuracies, but I must leave it to readers to discover what they are. I will gladly print other's opinions in the letters section and, as always, I encourage people to write articles based on alternative views. In my own mind, this Crowley thing is still far from resolved (though I seem to be settled in my opinions of the man and his work) so I don't have anything specific to apologize for, I leave it up to each reader to determine what I'm sorry about.
I have been meaning to write to you regarding The Life and Works of Aleister Crowley by Tim Scott (NMR 3:5). After all my procrastinating, I have received NMR 3:6, and learned that you did not receive much response on this article at all. This surprises me, considering that Crowley was one of the most influential men in modern history—and aside from Karl Marx, probably the most controversial.
Though Scott tried to be objective in his article, he did not use the best of sources (John Symonds who supported Crowley during life, but spent the years after Crowley's death trying to discredit him; Isreal Regardie, who has always been an unfriendly rival; etc.). Because of this, rehashes of untrue ideas about the man were promoted.
Crowley did not hold women in disrespect. On the contrary, he placed archetypal woman on a pedestal, and only had troubles with women because they did not meet his standards. This is not different from the way he treated men, which is very odd considering the social norms of his time. How could anyone accuse Crowley of hating women after reading his Book of Lies?
Crowley also did not hate Christianism per se, but he did hate the enslaving and barbaric form of Christianism familiar in his day. Much of his work was even based on the myth of Jesus and on the Apocalypse.
The most appalling of these claims was the bold assertion of anti-Semitism. Crowley's entire magical career (beginning with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn) was based on the Qaballa, which is about as Jewish as one can get!
No mention was ever made in the article concerning the theory of aeons, which was the basis of Crowley's work. Perhaps Scott does not understand this, and maybe this is why he does not understand Crowley.
Tim Scott also neglected to mention many of Crowley's accomplishments, such as the authorship of many astrological, fictional, political, and even some technical manuals under various pen names. Besides his mountain-climbing and mastery of chess, Crowley proved himself as an accomplished poet, and scholar. There is hardly any area in modern society which has not been touched by the work of Aleister Crowley.
S. A.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
I read with interest Tim Scott's article, the Life and Works of Aleister Crowley (NMR 3:5). It is, I think, useful in clarifying some of the grosser fogs of misinformation about Crowley (it's amazing how many people, even magick practitioners, still think Crowley was a Satanist). Scott's irreverence is also useful, as a counter to those who would rigidify Thelemic teachings into dogma with a Crowley personality cult at its center. And the article makes a workmanlike attempt to present an overview of Thelemic teaching with a modicum of fairness.
The problem is that Scott shows no signs of any experiential understanding of the significance of Crowley's work. As an early apocryphal gospel states, If you have not entered the dance, you misunderstand the event. This doesn't mean abandoning intelligence, or swallowing anything on faith. It just means you have to encounter something before you evaluate it.
Instead, Scott exhibits a journalistic preference for the more entertaining aspects of his subject, while his analysis of the teachings that came through Crowley is hasty, superficial and flawed. What we're left with is a random assortment of tidbits from Crowley's life and writings. Scott seems lost in the energetic welter of contradictions that emanated from his subject.
For instance, Scott chronicles Crowley's misogyny, and quotes passages indicating a low opinion of women. But he conveniently overlooks passages such as the following (from Crowley's commentary on Part III of The Book of the Law): We of Thelema say that `Every man and woman is a star.' To us, a woman is herself, absolute, original, independent, free, self-justified, exactly as a man is. Woman will save herself if she be but left alone to so it. Let Women's labor organizations support any individual who is economically harried on sexual grounds. The image of the powerful, liberated Scarlet Woman in The Book of the Law foreshadows the explosion of feminists toward a return to frank eroticism. Dare I mention Madonna?
So which is the real Crowley: the despicable misogynist or the visionary prophet of women's liberation? The answer is, of course, both.
Scott founders most seriously in waters beyond his depth when he attempts to evaluate Crowley's attainment as a magician. It takes some kind of supreme chutzpah to judge the success or failure of another person's spiritual path based on outward manifestations. Most of the real work is inward and very personal. Especially in magickal working, the gates of initiation are imaginal. One's outer life magnetizes itself according to these. The work seems to consist in a constant surrender of who we thing we are to what we must be.
When this surrender occurs, what happens to the collection of quirks and foibles we call our personality? It does not simply disappear; it becomes less and less the center of attention as one's path evolves. It becomes [a] vehicle, receptacle, or channel. We would like to think that transcending ego provides some kind of recognizable saintly outer persona, but this in itself is just ego-fantasy. The real game is trickier than that.
Thus it is nonsense for Scott to assert confidently that Crowley's magical career collapsed under the weight of his ego, weakness and insecurity. (Nor does the editorial comment that Crowley perhaps broke down in the attempt to make the great leap from Netzach to Binah carry much weight—especially since the Abyss lies beyond Chesed, not Netzach! [aagh! sorry about that—I did mean the leap from Chesed to Binah. oops! —S.R.])
The Book of the Law states: But I will hide thee in a mask of sorrow: they that see thee shall fear thou art fallen: but I lift thee up. Aleister Crowley had little left but wit and pipe at the end of his life, blowing smoke rings inscrutably in his rest home. Was he an accomplished master magician, gone beyond all outward manifestations, or a burned-out victim of the chaos of the Abyss? It's really none of our business. He certainly worked hard, and transmitted much interesting and useful information in the process. The message of Thelema is not dependent on anyone's opinions about the man Aleister Crowley, pro or con. For us, the basic criterion is whether or not the teachings that came through him connect to our lives. The old adage is the best guideline: If the shoe fits, wear it.
C.G.
San Francisco, CA
Bashing Bashing
When I first read Scott Cunningham's article in the Vol. 3, No. 5 issue of NMR, I thought, oh well, a not-so-hot filler article about Wiccan in-fighting? Well, we all have our so-so days. It was a very nice admonition to not fight amongst ourselves, and well, who could disagree with that, but really, it wasn't a problem I had ever encountered, or thought I'd ever encounter—that is, until I took a trip back to New York just this past August.
With a little looking, I suppose I could have seen evidence of a rift that has developed between certain Wiccan/Pagan practitioners and others, mainly along the lines of the employment of feminism in the ranks of paganism—or whether or not feminist Wicca can really co-mingle with the more traditional assignments of the Craft: that is, we all agree on the existence of the Goddess, but what about the existence of (the) God? And also: whether or not a person influenced by something labeled New Age (as opposed to old age?) can really be considered valid by the supposed hard core Olde Thymers of the Craft. To my surprise I encountered a certain arrogance in this regard and have wondered if the influence is the New York area, or if there is a widespread feeling that certain elements incorporated into Wicca/Paganism are not as valid as others?
While at the NY Renn Fest I chanced upon a seller of magical goods (magickal, if you insist) who has an occult supply store in New Jersey. His thatched Renaissance shack was stocked with incense, stones, bones, jewelry, as well as books by various authors, including some better known ones, like Starhawk, Marian Weinstein and Scott Cunningham, et al.
Very fervently he talked to some young thing about how unwise a move it would be for her to employ a love spell in obtaining the favors of a young man of her fancy—especially since he already had a girlfriend, and no matter how much she thinks he doesn't really like the one he's with now, Karma being such and so forth, it wouldn't be a good idea. He emphatically recommended Weinstein's book Magical Self Help saying that he has all his students read it before he teaches them anything. I'm thinking, this guy must be O.K. So I try to start a conversation with him.
Well, that was the wrong thing to do! The arrogance I encountered in trying to engage in a free exchange of ideas—to find out a little of what the New York scene was like; to basically establish contact with another practicing pagan, was astonishing—not to mention frustrating.
This man's low opinion of every author I mentioned was surprising, since he was perfectly willing to sell their books to others.
I mentioned Weinstein: well, she's too airy-fairy. Too much goodness and light. And there was some problem with the idea of magic being done with the free will of all concerned; the logic of which eluded especially since he was just recommending her book to this girl.
I mentioned Starhawk and Z. [Budapest]—he answers that he doesn't take to reading authors who want to cut his nuts off with a rusty spoon. I wasn't sure what he was talking about, but he seemed clearly threatened by them.
So I ask about Loise Hay, who, while being of the New Age variety, is not objectionably white-light filled, nor a strident, militant feminist, and also has a lot of good practical information. Well, he launches into a mocking singsong about how the New Age people think they can solve everything with a crystal. Now, anyone who has read Loise Hay knows she's not talking crystals. Scott Cunningham talks more about the power of crystals than does Loise Hay, which brings me to my next point.
I ask him if he knows Weinstein, since my experience in California has been that if you practice magic with any degree of seriousness, you meet others of like mind, many of whom are the foremost authors in their field.
No, the man says, he knows the real people. The serious practitioners. The people who are doing the real magic (he's gonna name drop and really put me in my place). He knows Raymond Buckland and Scott Cunningham.
Well, I just had to laugh, having read Cunningham's one page piece in NMR (which, by the way, I didn't see on any shelf anywhere I visited). Of all names for him to drop, the one who had just written admonishing against inter-Wiccan fighting.
Needless to say, I backed off from the situation, knowing that anything I said would cause this unfriendliness to escalate—an obvious case of: if I said black he'd say white. I left, purchasing nothing, trying to dispel my own scorpionic tendency to fixate on conflict (oy!).
The point here is not that he was a jerk and I was a saint. Obviously I walked into it—I should have not been trying to show off how much I knew, thereby pushing his buttons? It was stupid. But I'd like to get back to what Scott Cunningham said in his article about the Wiccan spirit.
This fellow aside, there seems to be some true conflicts between the feminist Pagans, the New Agers, and those who practice more traditional ways.
It's assumed that to be a Pagan is to know that others have similar but not-quite-exactly-the-same, or even radically different beliefs than one's own. Accept or ignore it, different people are inclined to follow different things. To put another down because they are not traditional enough, not politically correct enough, or are somehow not living up to the Pagan tradition as you have specified—based on whatever fragmented information you've gotten your hands on—is just escalating the one-upsmanship we find in some Christian traditions (God likes me better than you), throughout the world in various caste systems, and specifically, in New York (let's call it the Studio 54 syndrome). It all reads as insecurity to me.
None of the authors I mentioned are people I agree with one hundred percent. The idea of the New Paganism, or whatever you call it, is that it's a patchwork. It isn't an organized system of belief—unless that's what you want. (If you can get 13 people to all believe the same thing, my congratulations.) We all know this, right? Or maybe we don't. I don't blame the feminists for their anger any more than I blame the New Agers for their asceticism, or the more traditional Wiccans or Pagans for being traditional. The right thing comes into your life when needed. It's not who one reads, or knows, whether or not what you're reading is politically correct? What matters is that you are growing from what you encounter and are able to live life as you envision it.
Lastly, I'd like to note that arrogance is ugly. It is especially ugly when we're talking of doing as one wilt, harming none along the way. If one must be arrogant, at least recognize it as such. It's a shame to see an insecure Pagan, it sort of undercuts your own work. And, if you don't watch out, it puts you on the defensive, and that's just bad Karma.
E.M.W.
Los Angeles | 
