3 ms·

Well, the article directly contradicts your perspective of Crowley and Parsons beliefs with: beastiality, incest, and more.

api 8y ago
I'm agnostic about those allegations personally. Anything fringe back then was going to attract tabloid claims, and Crowley himself was a troll who was fond of promoting outrageous BS about himself for attention. They were a bunch of nutballs certainly but there's quite a bit of very sensational stuff out there about that scene that's just as questionable. Today they'd just be a bunch of goth swingers into Neo-Pagan LARPing and totally unremarkable.
- selimthegrim 8y ago
  From the OTO members I’ve run into this sounds about right.
armitron 8y ago
Most of what they ascribe to Crowley is highly dubious and sensationalist. There have been many independent biographies of Crowley published, not to mention his "autohagiography" that shed a lot of light . The article also contains blatant falsehoods, their explanation of the avalanche incident is fabricated and not corresponding to history (diaries and 3rd party first-person accounts of what actually happened). Even wikipedia gives a different version of events that doesn't seem so callous. Moreover, a lot of Crowley's writings are deliberately using veiled language meant to offend the uninitiated and those predisposed to a superficial reading of his material. This is of course treasure for lazy journalists - and readers - that want to shock and stir up drama. As far as the incest/beastiality bits related to Parsons go, I can't find any verifiable references anywhere. They took some rumors as laid out in a highly sensationalist book and presented them as fact. This is the sort of trash, low quality article that has no place in HN. Parsons - and Crowley - deserve better.
- imhelpingu 8y ago
  Casting Crowley as the evil crazed Satanist is basically like if people in 50 years were to watch a bunch of Marilyn Manson videos and decide he was really an evil vampire. It's part of the marketing. On the other hand, this > using veiled language meant to offend is frequently the opposite of the case. Frequently, the veiled language is used to obscure the nature of some rituals which many "uninitiated" would likely find offensive. It strikes me as rather disingenuous to proactively pretend otherwise, frankly.
  - armitron 8y ago
    Crowley had a mischievous streak and delighted being in the spotlight. His writing style was infused by sarcasm and was all over the spectrum of using poetic and sexual language to both offend and veil. I do not think you are correct in your assessment as clearly he couldn't care less about offending people. An example is when he refers to masturbation as "child sacrifice": “For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim.” His sense of humor wouldn't be out of place today. Crowley was a visionary genius who tapped into the 21st century and one could say helped bring it into existence. To portray him as nothing more than a sexual deviant or charlatan does not do the man justice.
    - imhelpingu 8y ago
      I'm not disputing Crowley's influence, but you are mischaracterizing the "veiled" language. Masking a reference to ritualistic masturbation with an edgy joke is a pretty good example actually. > To portray him as nothing more than a sexual deviant Getting a little ahead of ourselves though, aren't we. You know, if you really want to push the issue, we can discuss how much he loved animals and how that might have influenced his work.
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      Crowley was a visionary genius who tapped into the 21st century and one could say helped bring it into existence. What makes you say that?

api 8y ago

I'm agnostic about those allegations personally. Anything fringe back then was going to attract tabloid claims, and Crowley himself was a troll who was fond of promoting outrageous BS about himself for attention. They were a bunch of nutballs certainly but there's quite a bit of very sensational stuff out there about that scene that's just as questionable. Today they'd just be a bunch of goth swingers into Neo-Pagan LARPing and totally unremarkable.

selimthegrim 8y ago
From the OTO members I’ve run into this sounds about right.

armitron 8y ago

Most of what they ascribe to Crowley is highly dubious and sensationalist. There have been many independent biographies of Crowley published, not to mention his "autohagiography" that shed a lot of light . The article also contains blatant falsehoods, their explanation of the avalanche incident is fabricated and not corresponding to history (diaries and 3rd party first-person accounts of what actually happened). Even wikipedia gives a different version of events that doesn't seem so callous. Moreover, a lot of Crowley's writings are deliberately using veiled language meant to offend the uninitiated and those predisposed to a superficial reading of his material. This is of course treasure for lazy journalists - and readers - that want to shock and stir up drama. As far as the incest/beastiality bits related to Parsons go, I can't find any verifiable references anywhere. They took some rumors as laid out in a highly sensationalist book and presented them as fact. This is the sort of trash, low quality article that has no place in HN. Parsons - and Crowley - deserve better.

imhelpingu 8y ago
Casting Crowley as the evil crazed Satanist is basically like if people in 50 years were to watch a bunch of Marilyn Manson videos and decide he was really an evil vampire. It's part of the marketing. On the other hand, this > using veiled language meant to offend is frequently the opposite of the case. Frequently, the veiled language is used to obscure the nature of some rituals which many "uninitiated" would likely find offensive. It strikes me as rather disingenuous to proactively pretend otherwise, frankly.
- armitron 8y ago
  Crowley had a mischievous streak and delighted being in the spotlight. His writing style was infused by sarcasm and was all over the spectrum of using poetic and sexual language to both offend and veil. I do not think you are correct in your assessment as clearly he couldn't care less about offending people. An example is when he refers to masturbation as "child sacrifice": “For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim.” His sense of humor wouldn't be out of place today. Crowley was a visionary genius who tapped into the 21st century and one could say helped bring it into existence. To portray him as nothing more than a sexual deviant or charlatan does not do the man justice.
  - imhelpingu 8y ago
    I'm not disputing Crowley's influence, but you are mischaracterizing the "veiled" language. Masking a reference to ritualistic masturbation with an edgy joke is a pretty good example actually. > To portray him as nothing more than a sexual deviant Getting a little ahead of ourselves though, aren't we. You know, if you really want to push the issue, we can discuss how much he loved animals and how that might have influenced his work.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    Crowley was a visionary genius who tapped into the 21st century and one could say helped bring it into existence. What makes you say that?