Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:03:52 — 75.8MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Part one of two-part conversation with author William Ramsey, on Aleister Crowley’s cultural impact, 9/11 and numerology, Robin Bryans’ The Dust Has Never Settled, Lord Tredegar & Black Masses, Peter Levenda & the Crowley wall of denial, The World’s Tragedy, comparing Crowley to Ted Bundy, de-emphasizing AC’s pathology, Betty Ma’s testimony, Crowley’s appeal to the artistic class, the crucifixion of a frog, the promise of AC, power through transgression, the Abbey of Thelema, Michal Tsarion’s Crowley-love, the AC-lineage, James Franco and celebrity OTO, Colin Batley, Alex Sanders’ child-sexual “initiation” by AC, Damien Eccles & Memphis 3, Temple of Psychic Youth, Burroughs, David Bowie, Jasun’s being inducted into Thelema through pop culture, Ramsey’s Catholic upbringing, close to the Pope, AC’s mother bondage & childhood, a rebel within his class, Oxford recruitment, the disastrous consequences of following Crowley.
Songs: “The Kommema and his Religion” by SunWalker; “The Coming Tide” by Dlay/”The Pentabarf” by Arcane Waves (two tracks spliced together); “Alright” by The Koolaid Electric Company.
At what age could a minor legally marry in the late 1800’s and very early 1900’s in the church in the UK? Did they need parental approval?
It’s certainly child abuse to allow children to look on and observe sexual acts. It seems AC is clearly guilty of this, and that would be considered more abusive and “outcast” in that time period to allow that considering the church’s power and influence back then.
I would not agree that allowing children to watch a sexual act necessarily constitutes child abuse. It’s important to be careful with terminology; exaggerated reactions only strengthens the arguments of the libertarians that this is all religious-based moral hysteria.
Under what context would it be acceptable and not child abuse to allow a child to watch explicit sex in person or even XXX movies or AC sexual rituals???
I’m not talking about some kind of educational setting in the classroom.
what’s your basis for asserting that it would be psychologically damaging for a child to witness its parents having sex?
Young children, under 13-14yo, do copy and mimic what they witness. It is definitely psychologically damaging or high risk, at a minimum, for young children to deal with witnessing explicit sexual acts whether from XXX movies, in person w/parents or others, and, now, more so than ever before… the Internet.
I’m sure serious research that is published and experts on child abuse would agree with my thinking above. I would be very surprised to learn otherwise.
there is an obvious difference between watching porn and walking in on one’s parents having sex. I see no basis for assuming the latter would be ipso facto harmful. It requires contextualization. There may be tribes in which there is no concerted effort to hide sexual activity from children’s eyes and ears and I would be surprised if this resulted in any form of psychological damage. This too-easy conflation of moral feelings with facts does nothing to advance awareness as to the real harm being done via sexual child abuse. We need to be very careful about what arguments we make and what the basis is for them. It’s not enough to say “I’m sure serious research would back me up,” obviously. You have to do it yourself.
My comments here refer to modern Western Civilizations, and the changes from the 1800’s to the modern era we are now in. Certainly other non-tribal Eastern Civilizations connected to other formalized or well organized religions or belief systems could apply to these ideas too for the same time periods I’m referring to.
I checked current marriage laws in the USA and some states allow marriage of minors with parental approval as young as 12yo for girls, BUT some states even have no age limit with parental approvals.
Based on these extreme minor low-age minimums allowed now, I’m guessing very young children were getting married in the UK or USA in the 1800’s and early 1900’s. Child sex within a marriage context would be legal, so the potential for child sexual abuse may have been more common and “accepted” vs “today’s standards” and expectations???
surprising; to put it mildly.
I haven’t listened to this on yet but I will eventually however I think the link to William’s website is wrong, I suspect it should be https://occultinvestigations.wordpress.com/
thx; dont know how that happened!
Was never a huge Throbbing Gristle fan, but that’s one more artist to delete from the iPod.
I’ll qualify this by admitting I’ve recently been attracted to Thelema and Crowley’s work. I’ve only really scratched the surface and I can appreciate that Crowleyites are definitely cognitively dissonant when it comes to Crowley’s disturbing traits and actions, However, I didn’t find William very insightful. He writes about Crowley’s cultural impact yet he admitted to having no interest in his Magick which to me is the flipside to the promoters who ignore his serious transgressions. It’s only half the story. What really threw me off was when William mentioned Damien Echols as an example of the dark side of the occult. Wasn’t he released from prison because the DNA evidence showed that they weren’t guilty? That being said I would like to hear/read more about Jasun’s opinions on the occult. I do think there’s creedance to the occult being a call to power and that occultism is often a rebelion of christian values.
I haven’t looked into Echols but I tend to smell a rat whenever movie stars and big media gets involved. How many innocents are thrown to the wolves without J Depp coming to the rescue? But when it’s “satanic panic,” in step the spin squad.
I would agree that Bill’s work on AC presumes a predisposition for the Christian outlook and lacks objectivity. I would even say the same about McGowan’s sections on AC in Programmed to Kill. Disappointing. Vice of Kings aims to set the record straight, a view from the inside and the outside.
I find nothing worth salvaging from AC’s opus, however, save its cautionary nature. The man was a beast.