On Dec 23, 4:22 am, "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote:
> You spelled his name wrong. Fleming.
So what?
> Fleming invited Crowley to advise MI6 on the occult beliefs of the Nazis.
> According to a real espionage historian, Richard Deacon, that's all he did.
> His only other contribution was a suggestion to leaflet Germany with his own
> interpretation of the symbols that the Nazis were using. That plan was
> rejected. The v-sign was not one of Crowley's suggestions. It was, as I've
> said before, the invention of Victor DeLaveleye, who created the "V For
> Victory" campaign.
On who's suggestion, though? You won't even consider this question.
> If you are claiming that Ian Fleming claimed in a letter that Aleister
> Crowley taught Churchill the v-sign, you're goiong to need more evidence
> that your say-so, which is, as we've also noted previously, highly suspect.
First, get stuffed. He did!
> Well, to give you a first-rank reference, let's cite Dame Frances Yates, in
> her highly respected historical treatise on the history of Rosicrucianism,
> "The Rosicrucian Enlightenment". In the chaper titled "Rosicrucian
> Manifestos" she notes that the author of the tract "Consideratio Brevis",
> one "Philip a Gabella", lifted almost all of it from John Dee's "Monas
> Hieroglyphica".
Yes, I have read Yates' Rosicrucian Enlightenment. Good book. And
there is also the suspicion that Dee himself was a member of the
Fraternity. However, you're talking about the post-renaissance popular
occult tradition in the West, which frankly I have little to no
sympathy for. The Manifestos, however, aren't so much important in who
penned them, but their intention -- which is still plaguing the
Western occult mind. Recent scholarship by notable Western Islamicists
is now showing how much of the Rosicrucian Manifestos and their ideas
have their seed specifically within the Islamic Sufi and Esoteric
Tradition, particularly in the work of Ibn Arabi (d. 1240). Look up
Gerald Elmore.
> As for the "Fama Fraternatis" itself, the most widely known and most basic
> of all Rosicrucian documents and its author, Johann Valentin Andreae: "The
> most recent critical scholarship on the Rosicrucian mystery has emphasized
> that Johann Valentin Andreae himself described it as fictitious, or a
> comedy, or a 'joke'. Andreae was certianly behind the scenes of the whole
> movement to which he frequently refers in his numerous works (works other
> than his 'Chemical Wedding' which ranks almost as a third Rosicrucian
> manifesto). The Latin word which Andreae uses most frequently when
> mentioning the Rosicrucian movement is *ludibrium*. Of the manifestos, he
> uses the expression 'the ludibrium of the vain Fama' or 'the ludibrium o the
> fictional Rosicrucian Fraternity'. Paul Arnold translated ludibrium into
> French as 'un farce' and decided that Andreae himself has told us that the
> whole thing was a joke. Charles Webster thinks that the phrase about the
> ludibrium are "derisive terms"."
See above, and look for articles by Yale scholar Gerald Elmore on the
Sufi genesis of the so-called Rosicrucian revolution, specifically in
the works of Ibn 'Arabi and the Andalusian Hermeto-Neo-Pythagorean
mileu he came from. That said, that you had European occultists in the
post-rennaissance period manufacturing (and otherwise whitewashing)
texts and ideas of the Greater Hermetic Tradition, does not invalidate
this Tradition whatsoever.
> And for another reference for the frauds, follies, and forgeries of
> occultists that you'll never even bother to look at, I suggest "The Occult
> Tradition", by Dr. David Katz, Department of History, Tel-Aviv University.
You're talking about Western occultists. And don't assume what I
bother to look at or not.
> Ah. I see that I misunderstood what you were saying. You were actually
> agreeing with me that Westcott forged the cypher manuscript and Mathers knew
> it but chose to defraud the rest of the membership anyway.
The Golden Dawn and that whole crowd of 19th century British/European
occultists (including Blavatsky and her Theosophical Society), in my
world are utter frauds and full on counter-initiates who wouldn't know
an authentic initiatic Tradition from their backsides. And the manner
in which those society's fell apart or where otherwise plagued by
controversy speaks to it. However there are other strains in the late
19th century/early 20th that are real. Have you ever heard of Julius
Evola and the UR Group, for example -- an organization that Mussolini
and the Fascists disbanded?
>And this is
> where the young Aleister Crowley learned to fine art of using bullshit to
> con people into believing he was part of some organized tradition of magick
> that began in antiquity and continued unbroken to the present.
Crowley claimed many things. On the initiatic front, he was a counter-
initiate all the way, not to mention a charlatan! But credit is due
where credit is due. And FYI I have absolutely no sympathy for Crowley
Thelemic Sex Magick BS, since it represents a complete twisted
whitewash of the Left-Hand Tantric Tradition originating in the
Kashmir and what it is about.
> Yet, despite the fact that you know that these forgeries, frauds, and false
> claims abound throughout occultism, you still choose to believe in it.
> Well, emotional needs often trump logic in human consciousness.
The Western *popular* occult tradition since the end of the Italian
rennaissance has been full of fraudsters and con-games. I have never
denied that. My approach to these things questions is more like Evola
or Rene Guenon's -- and the fact that the popular mileu is full of con-
people does not change the original point. On the WWII front, it is a
well-known fact that the British government was hiring these guys for
its own purposes. I have spoken one-on-one to people who were actually
involved on this level, whatever your biased historians say otherwise.
> Remember now?
Ok, I referenced Spare. Does not change anything regarding the
original issue.
W
