The Magical Battle of Britain
-
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.
-
Jim,
Previously, you said the quote sounds representative, now it appears you're disagreeing with your previous assessment. I'm giving "equal weight" to the supposedly representative quote of Crowley. I didn't quote any opinions of Symmonds up above.
If AC was all, "yay Hitler's so incredibly demonic, that's why I come when he calls me" and "Hitler is the enemy of God," and this quote is representative, then please explain what I'm missing here.
-
93 All!
Let's look at some historical facts before saying Hitler used Liber Al as a basis for his creation of the Third Reich. Hitler's ideas for a nationalistic Germany started early in his life. Following WWI Hitler had a brief stint with the Freidcorps (paramilitary forces made up of primarily out of work WWI soldiers who fought the Communist movement). The Freidcorps were funded by the industrial giants within Germany who had the most to loose if the Communists took power. It's my personal belief that the economic humiliation suffered by the Germans after WWI (due to the Allied armistice conditions) created an atmosphere of 'Germany against the world' for the German people. I believe this feeling of economic isolation experienced by the Germans while fighting gangs of Communist thugs attempting to overthrow the existing Government went a long way in paving the way for a nationalistic political movement in Germany during the early 30's.
Regarding Hitler's anti-Semitic beliefs some believe that he began to foment anti-Semitic behavior prior to WWI when he didn't make it as an architect. It's been a very long time since I've read a biography on Hitler, but I believe there were Jewish scholastics and business owners that he thought stymied his professional advancement. Many Western European Jews held very prestigious professional positions at the turn of the century. At the end of WWI as a social-cultural group they were one of the better positioned to recover from the war in Germany because of their pan-national society. This made a convenient economic scapegoat for Hitler. As someone noted earlier anti-Semitism was not confined to Germany, but pervaded the entire European continent at the turn of the century and the decade that followed. So Hitler's sentiments were not unique. His action based upon his sentiments were.
As we can see Hitler's ideas of a nationalistic Germany started early. He joined the National Socialist Party in the very early 20's. He along with others in the Nazi Party attempted to overthrow the local Bavarian Government in Germany on 9 Nov 1923, the Munich Putsch. He was arrested, tried and placed in prison for his participation in the attempted Putsch. While in jail he wrote Mein Kampf during late 1924. If you read Mein Kampf you'll see that his entire nationalistic political agenda was already formulated. This being the case one can assume that Hitler’s agenda was fairly well formulated in his head before he wrote Mein Kampf.
It would be interesting to see any evidence on when Hitler met this Ms. Kuntzel. Dr. Kaczynski only gives an approximate time of the 1920s per the earlier quote in this thread. Considering Liber Al was written in 1920, and Crowley had lost the document for a number of years after it was written I highly doubt Hitler was influenced by Liber Al during the years he formulated his nationalistic political ideas. What might be said is that there are many coincidental similarities between the ideas stated in Liber Al and in the societal organization of the Third Reich. (I say this based upon comments made by others in this thread, not my own studies.) As Jim mentioned in his earlier post there is no direct evidence that Crowley ever hand any first hand contact with Hitler by written correspondence or otherwise.
Regarding the use of the swastika it should be noted that the Aryans of the Nazi Party and the Aryans of India are two very different cultural groups. Archeology and anthropology studies show that the Aryans which invaded India came from the steppes of what is now south central Russia. They were a nomadic people who worshiped an early form of Agni, the fire god of Hindu belief. The Nazi Aryans were the Germanic tribes that came out of Eastern Europe and the Ukraine. They were an agrarian society who had a polytheistic belief system. Now at some point in the ancient past they probably came from the same stock of people since they do share an Indo-European language root, but that would be like saying the French and the Spanish are the exact same cultures.
-
@Nick Rusch said
"93 All!
Let's look at some historical facts before saying Hitler used Liber Al as a basis for his creation of the Third Reich. Hitler's ideas for a nationalistic Germany started early in his life. "We know that, but that doesn't mean he didn't find cosmic validation in Liber Al.
"So Hitler's sentiments were not unique. His action based upon his sentiments were."
In the context of the discussion thus far, it doesn't really matter of Hitler's sentiments were unique or not, does it?
"It would be interesting to see any evidence on when Hitler met this Ms. Kuntzel. Dr. Kaczynski only gives an approximate time of the 1920s per the earlier quote in this thread. Considering Liber Al was written in 1920, and Crowley had lost the document for a number of years after it was written I highly doubt Hitler was influenced by Liber Al during the years he formulated his nationalistic political ideas. What might be said is that there are many coincidental similarities between the ideas stated in Liber Al and in the societal organization of the Third Reich. (I say this based upon comments made by others in this thread, not my own studies.) As Jim mentioned in his earlier post there is no direct evidence that Crowley ever hand any first hand contact with Hitler by written correspondence or otherwise."
I think Jim also mentioned that he believes Hitler did find validation in Liber Al based on his research and that the above quote attributed to Crowley appears to him to be "representative."
"Regarding the use of the swastika it should be noted that the Aryans of the Nazi Party and the Aryans of India are two very different cultural groups."
This we also know, but it doesn't have any relation to whether or not Crowley suggested the symbol as a good power symbol. Did Crowley's "V" or "Thumbs Up" symbols have much to do with popular, rational politics? Hitler used the Kabballah, too, despite being antisemitic and he was antisemitic despite being Jewish himself. So, I wouldn't base much on the fact that Nazi Aryan is a totally bogus concept.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"Previously, you said the quote sounds representative, now it appears you're disagreeing with your previous assessment."
So I did. I really must not have read it carefully at first. Mea culpa. On reading it today, I don't even remember some of that content being in there when I read it before.
Here's the part that looks familiar - that stuck in my mind the first time I read it, and about which I made that remark:
" 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."
-
@Nick Rusch said
"Regarding the use of the swastika it should be noted that the Aryans of the Nazi Party and the Aryans of India are two very different cultural groups."
Exactly! But he did lift the word from somewhere - and the only place it previously existed was in India.
You're not saying there was a German "Aryan" before Hitler coined the term, are you?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"Previously, you said the quote sounds representative, now it appears you're disagreeing with your previous assessment."So I did. I really must not have read it carefully at first. Mea culpa. On reading it today, I don't even remember some of that content being in there when I read it before."
I didn't change the Crowley quotes at all, but I do edit the hell out of my posts, despite trying to word very carefully, I always end up discovering phrases with double-meanings I didn't intend and rush to edit them out and remove anything that could be construed as "hostile" or something.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Here's the part that looks familiar - that stuck in my mind the first time I read it, and about which I made that remark:
" 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'm sorry for being slow, but I'm still not sure what you're saying. Is this quote "representative" of Crowley or "representative" of the lies Symmonds makes up about Crowley? I can't figure out if you're agreeing with this quote or saying it's ridiculous.
BTW, as for Symmonds, I only knew that he co-authored something with Kenneth Grant and so I never imagined that he had an agenda against Crowley. Also, with regards to why I don't just immediately discredit things that sound anti-Crowley, the reason is simply because every time I read something new by Aleister himself I am surprised. And so, it is not that I am necessarily being naive or wishy-washy, although I'm sure I am to some extent, it is that I am learning MORE about Crowley's full scope of thought. I think it would be more naive to just assume everything freaky that Crowley wrote was just playful rebellion to piss of the squares. There's generally a reason for the things he wrote and did and so, with regards to Hitler, I am trying to get a bead on his motives.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"I think Jim also mentioned that he believes Hitler did find validation in Liber Al based on his research and that the above quote attributed to Crowley appears to him to be "representative." "
Jim I don't mean to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong here...
I believe what was said is that Crowley made a number of notes in a book entitled "Hitler Speaks" where he (Crowley) found, in his (Crowley’s) opinion, corollaries between Hitler’s speeches and Thelemic teachings. I don't know of any evidence where Hitler indicated in writings or any speeches that he was using Thelemic (i.e. Crowley's) material for formulating the National Socialist society. If you know of any material that points this out I'd really like to see it.
@Redd Fezz said
"
@Nick Rusch said
"
93 All!
Let's look at some historical facts before saying Hitler used Liber Al as a basis for his creation of the Third Reich. Hitler's ideas for a nationalistic Germany started early in his life. "We know that, but that doesn't mean he didn't find cosmic validation in Liber Al. "
So based upon historical fact and lacking any historical evidence to the contrary that Hitler said or wrote anything about using Thelemic material for creating a national socialist state, I would say we have no known evidence that Hitler used Liber Al to find cosmic validation. I would be surprised if he did. Hitler was never one to seek validation from others...
@Redd Fezz said
"Hitler used the Kabballah, too, despite being antisemitic and he was antisemitic despite being Jewish himself. So, I wouldn't base much on the fact that Nazi Aryan is a totally bogus concept."
I'd like to know where it has been documented that Hitler was a student of the Kabbalah. I know of no such reference. Hitler had an interest in astrology. Himmler with his SS tried to create an occult society using Nordic ritual and tradition that was made up as they went. It leveraged Germanic and Nordic folklore and traditions. Many of the blank areas of knowledge were filled in with National Socialist propaganda. This should not be confused with the Kabbalah as taught by Jewish or Christian mystical traditions.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"You're not saying there was a German "Aryan" before Hitler coined the term, are you?"
Heavens no! My point was that the concept of a German Aryan has nothing to do with the true anthropological term "Aryan" which defines a culture in the Russian steppes that invaded northern India.
Is it thought that Crowley selected the swastika because it was from an "Aryan" tradition, confusing the true Aryan with that made up by the Nazis? Or was it just coincidence that the symbology he selected just happened to be from the real "Aryan" peoples?
-
@Redd Fezz said
"I didn't change the Crowley quotes at all"
I'm sure - never suspected otherwise.
"I'm sorry for being slow, but I'm still not sure what you're saying. Is this quote "representative" of Crowley or "representative" of the lies Symmonds makes up about Crowley? I can't figure out if you're agreeing with this quote or saying it's ridiculous."
Sorry for being obscure. Obviously don't have my full attention on this for this weekend.
I meant that the part I requoted sounded quite representative of Crowley. At least the ideas and, for the most part, the language. I can't say for sure that this was him, but it sounds like his ideas in very close to his words.
"BTW, as for Symmonds, I only knew that he co-authored something with Kenneth Grant and so I never imagined that he had an agenda against Crowley."
His biography of Crowley is pretty much serial slander and distortion. Really sad, since (at that time) he had access to more material than anybody else.
-
@Nick Rusch said
"I don't know of any evidence where Hitler indicated in writings or any speeches that he was using Thelemic (i.e. Crowley's) material for formulating the National Socialist society. If you know of any material that points this out I'd really like to see it."
Oh, I don't know of any either. Nor do I think we'll ever find any. Nor that Hitler would have 'fessed up.
But I think there's an excellent change that Crowley was correctly seeing his own ideas and words quoted in Hitler's private conversations, and I'm more inclined than not (say, certainty of 7 on a 10 scale) that Hitler had significant exposure to Liber L. and to Crowley's writings during key periods, at the hands of someone he valued as a teacher.
Of course, I could always be wrong.
"So based upon historical fact and lacking any historical evidence to the contrary that Hitler said or wrote anything about using Thelemic material for creating a national socialist state, I would say we have no known evidence that Hitler used Liber Al to find cosmic validation."
I disagree with this kind of analysis.
Though, of course, it depends on what you mean by "evidence." The ideas reflected in his private conversations at a time when he was known to be receiving instruction from someone committed to putting Liber L. in his hands, and who stated to Crowley that she had done so, constitutes evidence. The jury must determine the evidence's proper weight.
-
@Nick Rusch said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"You're not saying there was a German "Aryan" before Hitler coined the term, are you?"Heavens no! My point was that the concept of a German Aryan has nothing to do with the true anthropological term "Aryan" which defines a culture in the Russian steppes that invaded northern India."
Then we're in agreement. That's the position I was holding when making my (evidently badly stated) original statement.
"Is it thought that Crowley selected the swastika because it was from an "Aryan" tradition, confusing the true Aryan with that made up by the Nazis?"
No, it was stated by Crowley that he proposed the Svastika because of its Nordic implications within the Golden Dawn. He identified it as "Aryan" (meaning, northern Indian). I am proposing that this remark to Ludendorf was the origin of the adoption of the term "Aryan" in its modern German sense.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"But I think there's an excellent change that Crowley was correctly seeing his own ideas and words quoted in Hitler's private conversations, and I'm more inclined than not (say, certainty of 7 on a 10 scale) that Hitler had significant exposure to Liber L. and to Crowley's writings during key periods, at the hands of someone he valued as a teacher."
Point taken Jim and by association your responses as well Redd Fezz. Based upon what you’ve read from Crowley’s personal writing we can only assume he was exposed. However, I stand by my original statement that Hitler's concept of a National Socialist Germany developed long before his exposure to Liber Al. Perhaps he found Liber Al sympathetic to some of his existing political agenda?
At the same time I don't know how one justifies genocide in light of Liber Al's main thesis, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". I doubt very much that Crowley was aware in any detail of the death camps within Nazi Germany when he made the notes in "Hitler Speaks". Yes, I know there were public reports about some of the atrocities taking place such as Krystalnacht in the early ‘30s. I can't explain why people at the time chose to turn a blind eye to these reports. Why did Britain decide not to honor its defense treaty with Poland after Germany invaded? It’s complicated no doubt.
Getting back to what started all this reference to Crowley and Hitler… My point being Crowley should not be thought of as sympathetic to the Nazi political cause, and by association with the atrocities of Nazi Germany, just because Hitler had exposure to a Thelemic teacher and Liber Al. Could it be that Crowley was 'rooting' for Hitler for the sole reason that it appeared Hitler was interested in the Thelemic current? And potentially because Crowley may have had hopes that Hitler (who was thought of as a dynamic leader by other world leaders prior to WWII because he pulled Germany out of a serious economic depression in less than a decade) may adopted Thelema? And not because Crowley necessarily agreed with National Socialism?
It would have been interesting to see what Crowley thought of Hitler during that same time period if Crowley had known about the death camps and the other savage acts that the Nazi's committed in the name of their cause. I just don't see how Crowley could have accepted what the Nazi's did to others and at the same time espouse the teaching that each individual has the right to pursue their true will. Similarities can be found between any two complex structures – even opposing ones. But that doesn't make them sympathetic to eachother. If there ever were two opposed agendas Nazism and Thelema are certainly good examples.
OK... I've probably belabored this point more than was necessary. I'll get off my soapbox now.