 |
Lonelygirl15
Forum to post messages about Bree and Danielbeast
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tannhaus
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject: Re: Why Lonelygilr15's religion is not Thelema |
 |
|
| asenath wrote: | | Ah, a link! Even better. Thanks. You're right; it can be very hard to determine the truth from the myth when it comes to that man. |
Not really...when you weed out those who wish to profit from sensationalism.
This is something Crowley said in his Confessions about one such case of libel:
I replied "Allegations utterly absurd." My only annoyance was having to pay for the telegram. Presently copies of the Sunday papers for November 28th arrived. I read them with tireless amusement. I had read in my time a great deal of utter balderdash, but nothing quite so comprehensively ridiculous. It gave me the greatest joy to notice that practically every single detail was false. There was, for instance, a description of the abbey, without a single failure to misstate the facts. If a thing was white, they called it red, if square, circular, if stone, brick; and so for everything.
I saw no reason for taking any action. I was content to enjoy the absurdity and profit by the publicity. Unfortunately the sense of humour is rare in England. My friends wanted me to prosecute the paper for criminal libel, which was all very well, except that I had not enough money to get to Naples, much less London, to say nothing of the costs of an action against a corporation backed by millions and the influence of its coroneted proprietor. Five thousand pounds would not have given me a dog's chance. Incidentally, there was internal evidence in the article that they had not taken the risk of printing it without making sure that I was not in a position to prosecute.
In earlier chapters, I have given my views with regard to libel actions in general; I should refuse to fight in any circumstances for the simple reason that I cannot waste my time on anything of the kind. I must maintain my concentration upon creative work. There is a further objection, mixing oneself up with people of alien mentalities.
The only misfortune in the matter was that my publishers reflected that doing as they did a large business in bibles and similar pious publications they could not profit by the publicity as their clear duty was to do. They professed all sympathy with my position, but insisted on some sort of vindication before proceeding to carry out their contracts. I find their attitude inexcusable. They live in a country which boasts of sportsmanship and fair play as their copyright, but refuse to apply their principles, to say nothing of elementary justice, to cases which involve the suspicion of sexual irregularity. The accusation is sufficient. Even a successful public defence does not clear the character of the person attacked. It is notorious that most exculpations of this sort are the result of compromise or the payment of blackmail and it is known universally assumed that everyone is guilty of the offences of which they know themselves at least potentially capable and whose commission is a function of opportunity and moral courage. The sense of sin assures the English that all men alike are inevitably transgressors.
What struck us as the best joke in the whole article was the description of the abbey as a focus of all possible vices. We were all drug fiends devoting ourselves uninterruptedly to indulgence in all conceivable sexual abominations. Our morality compared favourably with that of the strictest puritan. The only irregularity that had ever occurred at any time was intercourse between unmarried people, which is, after all, universal in good society, and in our case was untainted by any objectionable features apart from the question of formality. I fail to understand why it should be considered excusable to seduce a woman and leave her to shift for herself, while if one receives her as a permanent friend and cares for her well-being long after the liaison had lapsed one should be considered a scoundrel. The idea seems to be that it is immoral to prevent love resulting in every kind of ill-will and misfortune. O fools and blind, not content with inventing a sin, you insist on the fears and pains which haunt the nightmares of superstitious slaves.
By this particular period, our conduct was so moral by the strictest standards that it would not be matched by any community of equal numbers in the world. We were all working so hard, to say nothing of having so little to eat, that we had neither time nor need to think of sex at all. The one exception was Betty and her actions did not affect the abbey. She had to go outside for sympathy in such affairs.
and then
He was as fair as his circumstances permitted and in my judgment the ultimate effect of his hotel polish mixed fact and fable will be to familiarize the American public with my name and interest them in my career sufficiently to induce the few intelligent individuals who have read it to inquire independently into the facts of the case. The strong point of my position is that there is nothing in my life of which I need be ashamed. Inquiry must inevitably result in clearing my character, and any person whose attitude is worth a moment's consideration should experience a reaction of indignation and disgust. The stench of the cesspool of calumny will offend his nostrils and he will insist on restoring equilibrium by long reviving inhalations of the perfume of my personality.
So you see...it wasn't that Crowley was some wicked man....the exact opposite. But, he overestimated the average person. He thought intelligent people would see the accusations and find them repulsive...they would endeavour to find the truth out for themselves. But, he didn't realize that the average person, even those that are considered intelligent, are more than content to accept the word of a third party, no matter how ludicrous it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
asenath
Casual Observer
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 89
Location: Innsmouth
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: Re: Why Lonelygilr15's religion is not Thelema |
|
|
| tannhaus wrote: | | asenath wrote: | | Ah, a link! Even better. Thanks. You're right; it can be very hard to determine the truth from the myth when it comes to that man. |
Not really...when you weed out those who wish to profit from sensationalism.
This is something Crowley said in his Confessions about one such case of libel:
I replied "Allegations utterly absurd." My only annoyance was having to pay for the telegram. Presently copies of the Sunday papers for November 28th arrived. I read them with tireless amusement. I had read in my time a great deal of utter balderdash, but nothing quite so comprehensively ridiculous. It gave me the greatest joy to notice that practically every single detail was false. There was, for instance, a description of the abbey, without a single failure to misstate the facts. If a thing was white, they called it red, if square, circular, if stone, brick; and so for everything.
I saw no reason for taking any action. I was content to enjoy the absurdity and profit by the publicity. Unfortunately the sense of humour is rare in England. My friends wanted me to prosecute the paper for criminal libel, which was all very well, except that I had not enough money to get to Naples, much less London, to say nothing of the costs of an action against a corporation backed by millions and the influence of its coroneted proprietor. Five thousand pounds would not have given me a dog's chance. Incidentally, there was internal evidence in the article that they had not taken the risk of printing it without making sure that I was not in a position to prosecute.
In earlier chapters, I have given my views with regard to libel actions in general; I should refuse to fight in any circumstances for the simple reason that I cannot waste my time on anything of the kind. I must maintain my concentration upon creative work. There is a further objection, mixing oneself up with people of alien mentalities.
The only misfortune in the matter was that my publishers reflected that doing as they did a large business in bibles and similar pious publications they could not profit by the publicity as their clear duty was to do. They professed all sympathy with my position, but insisted on some sort of vindication before proceeding to carry out their contracts. I find their attitude inexcusable. They live in a country which boasts of sportsmanship and fair play as their copyright, but refuse to apply their principles, to say nothing of elementary justice, to cases which involve the suspicion of sexual irregularity. The accusation is sufficient. Even a successful public defence does not clear the character of the person attacked. It is notorious that most exculpations of this sort are the result of compromise or the payment of blackmail and it is known universally assumed that everyone is guilty of the offences of which they know themselves at least potentially capable and whose commission is a function of opportunity and moral courage. The sense of sin assures the English that all men alike are inevitably transgressors.
What struck us as the best joke in the whole article was the description of the abbey as a focus of all possible vices. We were all drug fiends devoting ourselves uninterruptedly to indulgence in all conceivable sexual abominations. Our morality compared favourably with that of the strictest puritan. The only irregularity that had ever occurred at any time was intercourse between unmarried people, which is, after all, universal in good society, and in our case was untainted by any objectionable features apart from the question of formality. I fail to understand why it should be considered excusable to seduce a woman and leave her to shift for herself, while if one receives her as a permanent friend and cares for her well-being long after the liaison had lapsed one should be considered a scoundrel. The idea seems to be that it is immoral to prevent love resulting in every kind of ill-will and misfortune. O fools and blind, not content with inventing a sin, you insist on the fears and pains which haunt the nightmares of superstitious slaves.
By this particular period, our conduct was so moral by the strictest standards that it would not be matched by any community of equal numbers in the world. We were all working so hard, to say nothing of having so little to eat, that we had neither time nor need to think of sex at all. The one exception was Betty and her actions did not affect the abbey. She had to go outside for sympathy in such affairs.
and then
He was as fair as his circumstances permitted and in my judgment the ultimate effect of his hotel polish mixed fact and fable will be to familiarize the American public with my name and interest them in my career sufficiently to induce the few intelligent individuals who have read it to inquire independently into the facts of the case. The strong point of my position is that there is nothing in my life of which I need be ashamed. Inquiry must inevitably result in clearing my character, and any person whose attitude is worth a moment's consideration should experience a reaction of indignation and disgust. The stench of the cesspool of calumny will offend his nostrils and he will insist on restoring equilibrium by long reviving inhalations of the perfume of my personality.
So you see...it wasn't that Crowley was some wicked man....the exact opposite. But, he overestimated the average person. He thought intelligent people would see the accusations and find them repulsive...they would endeavour to find the truth out for themselves. But, he didn't realize that the average person, even those that are considered intelligent, are more than content to accept the word of a third party, no matter how ludicrous it is. |
I knew that the majority of what the newspapers stated about him during his lifetime was complete trash, but I thought some of the stuff that he did (like the climbing accident where he didn't help his fellow climbers who fell to their deaths) was truth, or at least semi-truth. I would never consider him a wicked man, since I realize that's pretty absurd, but I was always under the impression that sometimes he went to the extreme just to shock people, and that sometimes he was selfish to the extreme (climbing incident in example).
Anyway, it's pretty ridiculous that even to this day such falsities are being thrown around as truths. I'm definitely going to the library to pick up that book, though. I hate being uninformed about any subject, especially one that I'm really interested in. Ignorance is not a becoming trait. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tannhaus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: Re: Why Lonelygilr15's religion is not Thelema |
|
|
| asenath wrote: | I knew that the majority of what the newspapers stated about him during his lifetime was complete trash, but I thought some of the stuff that he did (like the climbing accident where he didn't help his fellow climbers who fell to their deaths) was truth, or at least semi-truth. I would never consider him a wicked man, since I realize that's pretty absurd, but I was always under the impression that sometimes he went to the extreme just to shock people, and that sometimes he was selfish to the extreme (climbing incident in example).
Anyway, it's pretty ridiculous that even to this day such falsities are being thrown around as truths. I'm definitely going to the library to pick up that book, though. I hate being uninformed about any subject, especially one that I'm really interested in. Ignorance is not a becoming trait. |
Actually, on that same climbing incident they accused him of eating his porters too heh.
But no, the incident is related in Perdurabo...and you can probably find it in Confessions also. The climbers wanted to go back down the mountain. He told them it was too dangerous to do in the dark, wait until morning. They wouldn't listen to him. The next day when he descended, he saw where they had fallen to their deaths.
Now, what would have happened if he had given in against his better judgement and went with them? He would have fallen to his death also. He was an experienced climber. He knew the risks and he refused to take that risk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asenath
Casual Observer
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 89
Location: Innsmouth
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject: Re: Why Lonelygilr15's religion is not Thelema |
|
|
| tannhaus wrote: | | asenath wrote: | I knew that the majority of what the newspapers stated about him during his lifetime was complete trash, but I thought some of the stuff that he did (like the climbing accident where he didn't help his fellow climbers who fell to their deaths) was truth, or at least semi-truth. I would never consider him a wicked man, since I realize that's pretty absurd, but I was always under the impression that sometimes he went to the extreme just to shock people, and that sometimes he was selfish to the extreme (climbing incident in example).
Anyway, it's pretty ridiculous that even to this day such falsities are being thrown around as truths. I'm definitely going to the library to pick up that book, though. I hate being uninformed about any subject, especially one that I'm really interested in. Ignorance is not a becoming trait. |
Actually, on that same climbing incident they accused him of eating his porters too heh.
But no, the incident is related in Perdurabo...and you can probably find it in Confessions also. The climbers wanted to go back down the mountain. He told them it was too dangerous to do in the dark, wait until morning. They wouldn't listen to him. The next day when he descended, he saw where they had fallen to their deaths.
Now, what would have happened if he had given in against his better judgement and went with them? He would have fallen to his death also. He was an experienced climber. He knew the risks and he refused to take that risk. |
Ah, well that explains it -- he was just being sensible. I've never heard the eating rumor, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tannhaus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: Why Lonelygilr15's religion is not Thelema |
|
|
| asenath wrote: | | I knew that the majority of what the newspapers stated about him during his lifetime was complete trash |
When you read the truth about these incidents, you will see how absolutely sad it all is....like the climbing incident...and like the death at the Abbey of Thelema. Raoul Loveday and Betty May were the two characters in Diary of a Drug Fiend. Most people think it was Crowley, but no...Crowley was the count. Well, they were two of the people at the Abbey.
Crowley had cautioned everyone at the Abbey not to drink the waters nearby...to only drink water that they knew to be safe. When Raoul was out hiking, he drank the water out of a stream. He grew sick and died. Betty May loved Raoul Loveday and blamed Crowley for bringing them both there. If he hadn't been there, he couldn't have drank the water, and would still be alive.
So, she sided with his enemies and said whatever she could in order to hurt him. Whatever they wanted her to say, she proclaimed from the housetops. We really can't blame her either...she was in love. But, we can't blame Crowley either. It wasn't his fault that Raoul drank the water. They all knew the waters around the Abbey were iffy.
But, it didn't stop the newspapers from twisting it, saying Crowley killed Raoul in a bizarre satanic ritual, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asenath
Casual Observer
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 89
Location: Innsmouth
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: Re: Why Lonelygilr15's religion is not Thelema |
|
|
| tannhaus wrote: | | asenath wrote: | | I knew that the majority of what the newspapers stated about him during his lifetime was complete trash |
When you read the truth about these incidents, you will see how absolutely sad it all is....like the climbing incident...and like the death at the Abbey of Thelema. Raoul Loveday and Betty May were the two characters in Diary of a Drug Fiend. Most people think it was Crowley, but no...Crowley was the count. Well, they were two of the people at the Abbey.
Crowley had cautioned everyone at the Abbey not to drink the waters nearby...to only drink water that they knew to be safe. When Raoul was out hiking, he drank the water out of a stream. He grew sick and died. Betty May loved Raoul Loveday and blamed Crowley for bringing them both there. If he hadn't been there, he couldn't have drank the water, and would still be alive.
So, she sided with his enemies and said whatever she could in order to hurt him. Whatever they wanted her to say, she proclaimed from the housetops. We really can't blame her either...she was in love. But, we can't blame Crowley either. It wasn't his fault that Raoul drank the water. They all knew the waters around the Abbey were iffy.
But, it didn't stop the newspapers from twisting it, saying Crowley killed Raoul in a bizarre satanic ritual, etc. |
Wow, that really is sad. I'm glad to have met you; you've definitely cleared up some of this stuff for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tannhaus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject: Re: Why Lonelygilr15's religion is not Thelema |
|
|
| asenath wrote: | | Wow, that really is sad. I'm glad to have met you; you've definitely cleared up some of this stuff for me. |
Thank you very much.
I really can't imagine what it was like to be him. I can't imagine doing all the great work he did, when faced with what he faced. I mean, first, you have a mother that calls you the beast of revelations. Instead of having a mother that loves and nurtures you, she attacks you mentally.
Then, you have asthma and are prescribed laudanum (an opium derivative) for it as a child. When you get older, you're prescribed heroin for it. Throughout your life you try to break the addiction, but it's one you've had YOUR WHOLE LIFE. You never succeed in breaking it and it eventually kills you.
You take what your mother has called you and attempt to redeem the image. You explore gnostic christian theology and attempt to portray it in a whole new light....one presumes it was an attempt to feel better about himself and the way his mother viewed him. Instead, the world calls you every bad thing in the book...and attributes horrible acts to you.
On a couple of occasions, you have some of your best friends die. Instead of being allowed to deal with your grief, the world makes up stories about you, accuses YOU of killing them, and calls you evil.
I don't know that many people could have withstood that kind of an onslaught from such an early age. But yet, somehow Crowley did. Through it all, he managed to persevere and work to liberate the very people attacking him. He died in poverty in a boarding house. But, underneath his bed, he had some thelemic writings. He also had several hundred pounds....money that had been given to him to help publish them. He could have taken that money and bought heroin...perhaps prolonged his life. His doctor had cut off his prescription finally. But, that wasn't his money. It was money for the Great Work. So he died...with enough money to save him beneath his bed.
We should commend and respect this man. He was a pioneer in sexual freedom, in women's rights, and so many other things. He was one of the holiest men of the twentieth century. Yet, we condemn him and spread lies. It truly is sad.
The world was not worthy of a man like Crowley. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
heybitch
Enthusiastic Fan
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 342
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:12 pm Post subject: Okay.. Hold on a second. |
|
|
Right.
So. Person one is stating what is right now perceieved as truths (to many historians)
Then. Person two, is stating that these are fallacie's.
and in turn. Person One believes his great wisdom on the subject.
I have a question. I realise that the whole world (lets state that fallacy just for fun) believes the accounts that Crowley killed his friends and was so greatly evil. I also realise that you, Person Two, have a completely different view on these matters.
Now, your views appear to come from Crowleys perspective or idea of events.
This so, is my question.
These "truths" (oohh.. scare quotes, WHAT FUN!) that you exclaim.
Who holds these? Are they simply crowley? Does somebody else back him up? Would this persons point of view be of primary or secondary source?
Why should we, and person one, just lap up your ideas (take on the situation)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tannhaus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:17 pm Post subject: Re: Okay.. Hold on a second. |
|
|
| heybitch wrote: |
So. Person one is stating what is right now perceieved as truths (to many historians)
Then. Person two, is stating that these are fallacie's.
|
These are not historians. These are people wanting to make some money off their books. You need to make the distinction.
Second, there was a lot of documentation surrounding these events, whether it be letters written by Crowley, to Crowley or about Crowley from people involved. Much of this documentation still exists in archives. These archives were made available to Dr. Kaczinski for the writing of his book.
So, the question is, do you believe a newspaper article by someone who wasn't there....perhaps wasn't even in the same country at the time..and has no supporting documentation, or do you believe those surrounding the incident? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
heybitch
Enthusiastic Fan
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 342
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I am not sure exactally how relevant your response was.
Really.
However, you did supply me with more background information on the knowledge which you were regurgitating with such pride.
So thank you.
I shall now back right out of your odd little conversation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asenath
Casual Observer
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 89
Location: Innsmouth
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:25 am Post subject: Re: Why Lonelygilr15's religion is not Thelema |
|
|
| tannhaus wrote: | | Then, you have asthma and are prescribed laudanum (an opium derivative) for it as a child. When you get older, you're prescribed heroin for it. Throughout your life you try to break the addiction, but it's one you've had YOUR WHOLE LIFE. You never succeed in breaking it and it eventually kills you. |
I would just quote your whole post and talk about all of it, since it's all relevant, but I just got up and this is the part that stood out for me. I just wanted to say that, with the truth behind his addiction now in my face, I am truly disgusted with people touting him as a "drug fiend" and making it out to be that he was just partying and thinking about himself (as in it started recreationally). That man really DID have to put up with a lot of crap.
Last edited by asenath on Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:21 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asenath
Casual Observer
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 89
Location: Innsmouth
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| heybitch wrote: | Well, I am not sure exactally how relevant your response was.
Really.
However, you did supply me with more background information on the knowledge which you were regurgitating with such pride.
So thank you.
I shall now back right out of your odd little conversation. |
You make a point. We probably should've went to PM with this. But, at the same time, it's better to know as much we can about all the background information if we really want to look at all the LG15 clues correctly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tannhaus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:51 am Post subject: Re: Why Lonelygilr15's religion is not Thelema |
|
|
| asenath wrote: | but I just got up and this is the part that stood out for me. I just wanted to say that, with the truth behind his addiction now in my face, I am truly disgusted with people touting him as a "drug fiend" and making it out to be that he was just partying and thinking about himself (as in it started recreationally).
That man really DID have to put up with a lot of crap. Anytime I hear people furthering the spread of the lies about him, I'm going to tell them the truth. I know I'm only one person, but you've impacted me so I figure one more person can't hurt. |
Thank you...I'm glad
Yes, anyone can find a passage where he glorifies drugs...or says that if one is strong that they can take them like salt water taffy and they won't affect him...but he was an addict...it's really a shame. He struggled his whole life to overcome them...fought against them...and didn't give up hope.
To read about him going to excess with heroin and cocaine, read this:
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib93.html
Notice he spent the whole time trying to quit...notice the difficulty trying...and in the end of the experiment, he wrote out his will...thinking he was going to die from trying to quit. Who knows...if he had quit, it might have killed him.
As far as his purpose in life, he did give up while here in New Orleans:
Hope died in my heart. There was not one glimmer of light on the horizon anywhere. It seemed to me an obscene mockery to be called a Magus. I must have been afflicted by "lust of result"; at least it came to this, that I felt that I could not go on with my work. On every side the wizened witches of religion and morality were shrill in celebration of their obscene sabbath. I felt that I had not only failed, but that it was little short of lunacy to imagine that I could ever make the slightest impression upon the monstrous mass of misery which was soaking through the very spine of mankind. My faith failed me; I made a gesture of despair; I committed spiritual suicide, I closed my Magical Record and refused to write. "If the Masters want me to do their Work," said I, "let them come forward and call me."
This action is the only of my life of which I am really ashamed. I should not have surrendered while there was breath in my body. Well, perhaps it was not altogether a surrender; but it was at least a desperate appeal of anguish.
Those are not the words of a wicked man. Those are the words of a man who has dedicated his life to trying to help mankind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
