> On Dec 23, 4:22 am, "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote:
>>> You spelled his name wrong. Fleming.
>
> So what?
So I don't think you've been reading his mail. I think you're just
repeating something that some occultist told you.
>> 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.
Are you now trying to claim that Crowley suggested the v-sign to DeLaveleye,
or what?
>> 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!
Repeating a claim does not constitute verifiable evidence for it. it
doesn't matter how many tiomes you repeat the same stupid fiction, Wahid,
it's still the same stupid fiction. The evidence, the real, verifiable
evidence, used by each of the actual historical scholars who has
investigated the matter, points to Victor DeLaveleye as the inspiration for
Churchill's v-sign. No evidence whatsoever supports the claim that Crowley
did. You can belive it if you like, just like you can believe in the Easter
Bunny or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spagetti Monster. But no
matter how firmly you believe it, you have no evidence to support it.
>> 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.
What you have "sympathy for" is beside the point. I've established that
bona fide historical researchers have shown that throughout history occult
documents have been shown to be fraudulent. You have not been able to argue
against them at all, so instead, you try to minimize them and claim that
*your* occult claims are different although you haven't a shred of
verifiable evidence for their veracity.
> The Manifestos, however, aren't so much important in who
> penned them, but their intention -- which is still plaguing the
> Western occult mind.
The intention of the author of the Manifestos was very clear, if you read
what he wrote about them. They were "ludibrium". A joke. A farce. A
piece of fiction.
> 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.
Irrelevent and immaterial. The subject was the pervasive fraudulence of
occultists throughout history. I gave you the evidence for it and now you
suddenly want to talk about something else.
> See above, and look for articles by Yale scholar Gerald Elmore on the
> Sufi genesis of the so-called Rosicrucian revolution
I don't give a rat's ass about Sufi philosophy at the moment. I'm talking
about fraudulent occultists, of which you are only the most recent example.
Of course, the historical ones were a lot better at it that you are. Nobody
with more than two working brain cells believes squat of what *you* say .
> You're talking about Western occultists.
So were you. "Crowley, Fortune, Spare et al." Remember?
> And don't assume what I bother to look at or not.
One need not assume your willful ignorance. It's self-evident in your
posts.
> 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 yet you believe the claim from one of those "utter frauds" that he
taught Churchill the v-sign. Now why would you call him an "utter fraud"
and still take his word as unquestionable truth?
> Crowley claimed many things.
Yes he did and a lot of them cannot be taken as factual accounts of things
that really happened. So stop being such a credulous dufus.
>> Remember now?
>
> Ok, I referenced Spare. Does not change anything regarding the
> original issue.
It doesn't change it, it reinforces it. My original issue is that what you
say is untrustworthy and here I've caught you trying to claim you never
wrote what you did write. That bit of checkable evidence makes my point
that your claims *are* untrustworthy unless they can be supported by
verifiable evidence. So far, you haven't managed to support any of them
with verifiable evidence. In fact, it appears you are extremely fuzzy on
the whole concept of "verifiable evidence".
And, speaking of verifiable evidence, when is this "ritual banishing" you
said was in progress supposed to take effect? And just what's supposed to
happen? You keep avoiding these questions. Could it be that you are
doubting your ability to to anything demonstrable at all and are instead
hoping everyone will forget about the whole embarrassing mess?
