The Magical Battle of Britain
-
"Malaclypse wrote:
According to an unconfirmed source Kaczynski also practises magick so there's no meaningless scepticism in it."Dr. Kaczynski is a Thelemite. If you are interested in hearing some interviews of Dr. Kaczynski checkout -
Thelema Coast to Coast #03: May 7, 2005,
Thelema Coast to Coast #19, January 22, 2006, and
Thelema Coast to Coast #23: April 5, 2006 -
@Malaclypse said
"I just stumbled upon the book on the web but couldn't find anything extensive about it. Does anyone here know what effects it had on the war?"
Yes, if you judge success based on a desired result coinciding with a magical act intending it, then the work was one of the most successful magical workings on record.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"Who had the V? The Americans or the Germans?"
The British. Crowley was conscripted to provide them with a magical symbol.
He related it to Victory, but he privately wrote that it was meant to establish the name V.V.V.V.V and the horns of The Beast as the magical power protecting and otherwise aiding Britain.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"Only, I think I remembered it (probably wrongly) that Hitler found inspiration/evidence for his ideas in Liber AL."
Probably not wrongly. Crowley clearly believed Hitler was building the Third Reich using Liber Legis as his reference book. It had been placed in his hands by Martha Kuntzel, 8=3 A.'.A.'. and Hitler's magical mentor at one point, based on her belief that the nation which first adopted Liber L. as the foundation of its government and society would rule the world.
However, his understanding of it broke down in some crucial points - and, at about the same time, his empire started showing its flaws and weaknesses more openly.
In Crowley's personal copy of Hitler Speaks - a book written by one of Hitler's inner circle members, recording his actual conversations (in contrast to his public persona), Crowley wrote voluminous marginalia. Much of it was line-for-line tracking of Hitler's soliloquies against Crowley's writings (same ideas in the same sequence, sometimes nearly verbatim even after dual translating). Eventually he tracked the Liber L. references, found a direct reference to a woman in Hitler's inner circle that he believed he recognized as Kuntzel, and sited points where Hitler's understanding of Thelema faltered and he started going down the wrong track.
It's also in these marginalia that he describes his role in establishing some of the primary magical symbols of the war. For example, Ludendorf came to him a few years after WW I and said they were working with a promising young politician who was looking for a magical symbol of great power that had Norse mythological associations. Crowley suggested he use an Aryan (i.e., northern India) symbol called the Svastika which was sometimes called "the hammer of Thor" - something generally not known outside of the Golden Dawn. The rest was - literally - history!
-
@Redd Fezz said
"Wow, so Crowley himself wrote notes to one of Hitler's writings ("Hitler Speaks")"
Ah, hadn't seen this when I wrote my last answer. (In fact, I didn't think anyone else knew about it!)
BTW, having read Crowley's original copy front-to-back a couple of times, I disagree with the biographer's assessment.
-
@Her said
"Crowley's connection with the Third Reich is very slight. The same can't be said for other people that Crowley knew.
Major General J.F.C. Fuller a one time close friend of Crowley's and editor of The Equinox, until the time of the Jones versus the Looking Glass trial, was the only Englishman to be invited to Hitler's 50th birthday party and he was one of the key men behind the development of the stratergy called "Blitzkrieg"."
Yes - and you left out that he was the original Cancellarius of the A.'.A.'..
-
So... Nobody associated with Thelema thought the Nazi party was a good idea once things started getting underway, I hope? I seriously hope Crowley wasn't writing in the margins anything about race or war.
Yikes, I guess no such luck. This link seems to suggest Fuller knew what he was getting into:
rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/02/jfc-fullers-army.htmlThe replies (especially the first reply by the professor) are interesting, too.
See, it's crap like this...
-
Uh boy...
John Symmonds has Crowley remarking:
"I never met... someone so demonic as Herr Hitler. Why do you think I spend so much time with him? And come when he bids me? I tell you only the universe can prevail against Hitler. But the universe for the present doesn’t seem to be interested; though Hitler is the enemy of the universe, that is to say of God; for the universe is only God’s instrument. It is as if God said, “Let mankind learn a lesson; they need to open their eyes a little wider. Hitler will do that for them. Just wait. They will see things that men have never seen or heard before—such horrors that there will be no word in the German or any other language to describe them.’ That is what the demonic is when it appears in a very ordinary person, a man of the people, someone the intellectuals are contemptuous of but not the masses. With an uncanny instinct, they know who he is.”
...
Hitler: “And are you an angel of darkness?”
Crowley: “You’ll find out in good time all about me. For the present, I’ll say this: if I were an angel of light, you wouldn’t want to know me.” -
@Redd Fezz said
"So... Nobody associated with Thelema thought the Nazi party was a good idea once things started getting underway, I hope? I seriously hope Crowley wasn't writing in the margins anything about race or war."
Nothing about race. Could well have been about war. (It's been too long for me to remember, and I'd have to dig to find my copy.)
"Yikes, I guess no such luck. This link seems to suggest Fuller knew what he was getting into:
rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/02/jfc-fullers-army.html"FUller was a military man, expert in tank warfare. I always thought he knew what he was getting into, but that was only a guestimate.
"See, it's crap like this..."
...that what?
-
@Redd Fezz said
"Uh boy...
John Symmonds has Crowley remarking:
"I never met... someone so demonic as Herr Hitler. Why do you think I spend so much time with him? And come when he bids me? I tell you only the universe can prevail against Hitler. But the universe for the present doesn’t seem to be interested; though Hitler is the enemy of the universe, that is to say of God; for the universe is only God’s instrument. It is as if God said, “Let mankind learn a lesson; they need to open their eyes a little wider. Hitler will do that for them. Just wait. They will see things that men have never seen or heard before—such horrors that there will be no word in the German or any other language to describe them.’ That is what the demonic is when it appears in a very ordinary person, a man of the people, someone the intellectuals are contemptuous of but not the masses. With an uncanny instinct, they know who he is.”"
I don't under stand the "Uh boy" part.
I don't trust Symmonds on anything he writes about Crowley unless I can confirm it elsewhere - but the above quote sounds representative.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I don't trust Symmonds on anything he writes about Crowley unless I can confirm it elsewhere - but the above quote sounds representative."
I agree. I read a copy of Symonds, "The Great Beast" a few years ago. It seems that every bit of gossip, rumour, and hearsay that he could get his hands on he printed as if it were incontrovertable fact. Plus it is clear that he doesn't like Crowley at all, so he's hardly unbiased.
-
I have always thought that the magical battle was the one where the witches created a storm that sank the Armada during Elixabeth the Great's reign.
That's the theme that has come up in many a book I have read.
In L.VX.,
chrys333 -
Sorry Jim, the "crap like this..." comment of mine was meant to indicate that reading stuff like this for me is like taking a step back. I'm at the point now where it's not two steps back, but it is frustrating to consider that Crowley was rooting for Hitler, when here I am thinking he's a great, spiritual man. It doesn't sound like he was trying to trick Hitler the same way he was trying to trick Americans regarding Germany during WWI.
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"Uh boy...John Symmonds has Crowley remarking:
"I never met... someone so demonic as Herr Hitler. Why do you think I spend so much time with him? And come when he bids me? I tell you only the universe can prevail against Hitler. But the universe for the present doesn’t seem to be interested; though Hitler is the enemy of the universe, that is to say of God; for the universe is only God’s instrument. It is as if God said, “Let mankind learn a lesson; they need to open their eyes a little wider. Hitler will do that for them. Just wait. They will see things that men have never seen or heard before—such horrors that there will be no word in the German or any other language to describe them.’ That is what the demonic is when it appears in a very ordinary person, a man of the people, someone the intellectuals are contemptuous of but not the masses. With an uncanny instinct, they know who he is.”"
I don't under stand the "Uh boy" part.
I don't trust Symmonds on anything he writes about Crowley unless I can confirm it elsewhere - but the above quote sounds representative."
Crowley talking about God? Hitler as the "enemy of
God?" When has he ever before been so "black and white" about God and God's enemies? And if he believes so, why is he so delighted to be
with Hitler and write notes on Liber AL in the margins of "Hitler
Speaks?" I mean, huh? Maybe you can explain it to me in ways that don't seem so bizarre.It's also strange because he gave the V sign to Britain as a
double-meaning for the horns of the Beast and V.V.V.V.V. Until the
end, he just loved the symbolism of Revelations, so him being The
Beast and Hitler being the "enemy of God" would align everything quite
appropriately for Hitler to be "The Antichrist," which has me
wondering... didn't Crowley ever read how the Bible ends? He liked to
play both sides of the wars so he'd always have a place in peace
regardless of which side won, but that's not how Revelations turns out
at all. All of his Beastliness would surely put him on the wrong side,
right next to "the enemy of God," as he said himself. -
Chris,
A lot of this comes from the writings of Gerald Gardiner, the rediscoverer or re-inventor if Wicca in mid-20th Crentury Britain. Evidence for organised covens turning back the Armada doesn't really exist, because witches in 16th Century England, patriotic or not, were burned.
Gardiner said the covens had convened in southern England in summer 1940 to raise the Cone of Power and turn back the Nazi forces, and the flagellations had been so fierce one or two people died. Gerald liked fladge.
At the same time, various Nazi groups were trying something similar in Germany - I don't know if anyone died from flogging there or not, but the Nazis offered plenty of other ways for people to get killed if they didn't.
There's also a heretical section of opinion that holds the magical oratory of Hitler and Churchill, plus their marshalling the hosts of their aircraft, were more significant in the outcome than SS seances or Wiccan flagellations.
In L.V.X.,
Edward
-
Redd Fezz wrote:
I'm at the point now where it's not two steps back, but it is frustrating to consider that Crowley was rooting for Hitler, when here I am thinking he's a great, spiritual man.
If you do some historical digging, you will find very many people were pro-fascist or pro-Nazi. We look at it all know from the viewpoint of knowing about the Holocaust, whereas at the time a lot was denied or buried or excused. The 1930s were a frightening time, with the world economy in shanbles and communism profiting from this. People thought only an extreme stance would get them out of the mess, so they turned to extreme politics. W.B. Yeats became a fan of Mussolini, for example.
Also, Hitler talked a very good game. If you want to believe someone is a good guy, with your best interests at heart, then you do believe him. He signed a non-agression pact with Britain in late 1938, stating that he wanted no more territory in Europe. Nine or ten monthds later, he invaded Poland, and the War was on.
Crowley is also, clearly, making a philosophical point more than a political one. The great conquerors - the Romans, the early Muslims, Napoleon - may have been very nasty characters, but they do shake things up.
History isn't comfortable, it's simply what happened, according to what made sense at the time. Hindsight is a different animal.
And what is 'a great, spiritual man'? Isn't it someone who has looked right into the darkness?
Edward
-
Hi Edward Mason,
Thanks, those are good points. I really am at a disadvantage because I simply don't know the exact timeline here, so I have no idea when Crowley was involved with Hitler or what he thought of Hitlery's ideas, etc. Did he say anything about the man when all was said and done?
@Edward Mason said
"Redd Fezz wrote:
And what is 'a great, spiritual man'? Isn't it someone who has looked right into the darkness?
Edward"
Well, I'm sort of getting into this just now on another thread. I think a great, spiritual man (to me) is probably someone who wants only the best for his pupils. Maybe, from a higher vantage point, one sees that nothing matters and any disasters in this life will be lessons for the next incarnation, but with logic like that, absolutely anything is justifiable and this seems to go against our basic needs, especially as aspirants to "godhead" or whatever. I don't know Crowley's motivations for some of the stuff he's written, but I can see very easily how his writings could have urged people on to huge mistakes that might have been otherwise avoided.
-
93,
I'm not sure of the timeline either - you'd need one of the fans of Crowley's biography for that.
I don't see AC as someone who was very astute politically. For example, it's known today that he really was trying to help British intelligence in WWI, but his contributions were minor, and the aftermath was bad. He got a lot of bad press for his pains. I don't see Crowley as a very practical-minded person, and he gets picked on a lot for suing people at the wrong time. sending mean letters or joining forces with people whose own ethics were dicey.
The idea that keeps kicking me in the head is that this whole business of the spiritual life isn't about getting things right, then doing our wills. Rather, we have certain life-problems, certain karmic knots, to address and unravel. Soembody else gets to run the world's business affairs, or its politics. The Adepti, Masters, gurus et al (or Al...) are propelling it in a different way, keeping the whole human enterprise afloat by striving and helping others to strive. Our horizons forever recede, because they keep on expanding.
I don't mean stupidity and incompetence are okay, or that we don't need to try and get on the side of the angels. But I think we just have to look at Crowley's total life, or we miss the point of his living. He was sometimes a jerk to friends, lovers and disciples, wrote some occasionally execrable poetry, and ended up broke.
On the other hand, thousands of us constantly find encouragement, wisdom and delight in things he wrote and did. He didn't suffer fools gladly, and anyone who's too literal-minded about Thelema gets lost or scared. I agree with your comment on awareness - the whole business of the path is one of education from within.
The other thing that often strikes me is that mistakes are the educator. This ties in with the other thread on Satan, and the Tarot concept of the Devil. The scariest, stupidest situations we create are our real teachers.
Sometime in the 1940s - and I forget the context - Crowley wrote in his diary, "What an ass I've been!" (By which he meant a donkey, not 'arse') I think that remark alone shows he never really lost his way.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
Thank God for this forum. And thank you, again, Edward. Without people to talk to, I get stuck on stuff like this for a very long time.
-
@Chris Hanlon said
"I have always thought that the magical battle was the one where the witches created a storm that sank the Armada during Elixabeth the Great's reign.
That's the theme that has come up in many a book I have read.
In L.VX.,
chrys333"The assault on the Spanish Armada that I know about was by Dr. John Dee, Queen Elizabeth's physician and confidant, who used his knowledge of ceremonial magick to bring in the storm. - Possibly the earliest known event for which Enochian magick was employed for anything practical.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"Sorry Jim, the "crap like this..." comment of mine was meant to indicate that reading stuff like this for me is like taking a step back. I'm at the point now where it's not two steps back, but it is frustrating to consider that Crowley was rooting for Hitler, when here I am thinking he's a great, spiritual man."
We must be reading this differently. I don't see anything here that says he was rooting for Hitler.
This quote is a great example of why I don't trust Symmonds. I have no reason to believe Crowley ever met Hitler at all, let alone "spent so much time with him." Going back to the annotations of Hitler Speaks, AC noted his communications with Ludendorf, and Kuntzel's interaction with Hitler, and meticulously analyzed Hitler's conversations as recorded in the book (all with a sense of discovery and investigation, as he would have in learning something about the private conversations of somebody he had never met) - and no place at all did he have any passage affirming that he was personally familiar with Uncle Adolf. Since he was annotating this book in the 1940s, it's pretty certain that he didn't travel from England to Germany anytime after he read it.
Redd, you're really bad about considering sources. You more or less give equal weight to words regardless of who says them. In some ways, that's an amazing talent, but you're driving yourself batty because of it.
You have to consider the source of a statement when evaluating the statement. For example, when somebody like me - with a known, established, public, verifiable left-of-moderate Democratic anti-Bush agenda uses a phrase like "White House terrorism against the American people" for the current administration, your first reaction should be to assume that I'm probably exaggerating at best, and start of disbelieving my extreme statement, unless you have some independent knowledge that lets you verify it somehow. (OK, maybe a bad example
, but you get my point, eh?)In this case, you already had your own reason to think, "That just doesn't sound like Crowley. When did he ever write like that?" Right? You wrote as much. Yet it still sounds like it upset you a bit emotionally.