Discussing Crowley, Occultism, and Ritual Child Abuse with Peter Levenda

In January 2016, I emailed the author Peter Levenda (who has written and spoken about Crowley on various occasions) to ask if he was aware of any evidence of Crowley’s involvement in child sexual abuse. Levenda’s response was superficially thoughtful but at the same time, I thought, rather dismissive. I reprint it below with Peter’s permission:

I don’t have any solid evidence on AC’s involvement in child sex rituals. He probably drew the line there. It’s a problematic issue, because sexual attraction was not AC’s primary motivation for sex where magick was concerned. In other words, I don’t believe AC was a pedophile (just based on my own reading of his work as well as all those really massive biographies that have come out lately) but just because he wasn’t attracted to children did not mean he would avoid sex with children if he believed it served a magickal purpose. But it would have amounted to rape, and AC was a great believer in everyone following their true will so it is doubtful he would have practiced sex rituals with children who would not have been able to consent. He had numerous sexual partners among prostitutes, for instance, which was more his metier.
Remember also that he had children, and that one famously perished during the period when he was on the trek in Yunnan Province (often wrongly characterized as a “trek across China”; it was hardly that). That death affected him greatly. He was never accused of pedophilia by anyone as far as I know, except for the tabloid press perhaps, and he was accused of everything else including bestiality if I recall. We know he was aggressively bisexual, for whatever that’s worth. I don’t believe that the child who died at Cefalu, for instance, perished as a result of sex rituals or any ritual, really.
But as I say I have no solid evidence in any direction on this. I know members of the OTO (and have known many since the 1970s) and one could not accuse any of them of pedophilia or using children for sexual rituals. If there was even the whiff of that, you can be sure I would have followed it up.

In response to this, I sent him the infamous passage from the 1920 journal. He did not respond. Time passed and recently (April) I began working the material featured at this thread into an essay which I thought I’d post at disinfo. It snowballed into a 40,000 word and counting exploration which now looks most suited to be the second part of a book, with “Occult Yorkshire” as the first. I was struck by the recurring sense I got that no one, most of all Crowley scholars, wanted to hear about child sexual abuse, so I decided to try and get some of them to go on record for the book/piece.
Among various emails, I sent this one to Levenda on Wednesday 29 June:

I am working on a follow-up to “Occult Yorkshire” which looks at the overlap between Crowley’s beliefs and activities with larger social engineering goals that include the deliberate sexual traumatization of children in a ritualistic fashion. One of the things I am wrestling with around this is how there seems to be so much evidence that Crowley both advocated this partiuclar type of transgression and was involved in it, and yet, at the same time, so little serious, never mind scholarly, examination of the evidence. Of course, what constitutes evidence and what merely circumstance, rumor, bluster, and the like is quite a subjective matter. Nonetheless, I feel confident in saying that the evidence I have gathered would give pause to all but the staunchest of Crowley advocates.
I’d like to include the thoughts and responses of some of the AC researchers out there in the work, even if all they have to say is “no comment” (or even if they don’t take the time to say that). The reason I want to include it is that, just as every cover-up proves a crime, I find the sort of stonewalling that occurs when it comes to questioning a dominant narrative around a public figure or event to be very much part of the evidence.
This is a genuinely fascinating area, and AC is very much the center of what I think is not merely a huge industry but a massive disinformation apparatus around modern occultism, and may even be synonymous with it. (The overlap between intelligence and the occult is so deep & wide that it’s questionable as to whether “overlap” is even the word for it.)
Below is your last response to me, after which I sent you some material from AC’s own journal, from the Abbey of Thelema period, but received no response. Since then I have found quite a bit more evidence suggesting that this passage was no fevered drug vision, as I presume must be the explanation given for it by AC’s apologists (tho actually I have never heard anyone address it at all; it is entirely absent from Kaczyinsky’s bio). Nor is it anomalous to AC’s activities or exhortations. Liber Al itself proscribes [sic; should read prescribes] the sacrifice of children!
I am writing to ask if I can quote the below response, and if you have anything to add; and/or: are you interested in seeing some of the arguments I have formulated and responding to those?

Levenda responded:

Well, as I wrote previously, I don’t see a smoking gun where AC’s alleged child abuse is concerned. About all we have are the statements of visitors to Cefalu that children were allowed to run free and observe sexual acts being performed by the adults. That would constitute sexual abuse in some countries (although in 1960s America it took place on some communes, and there were some famous references to the sexuality of children in some Wiccan publications of the 1970s, I think “The Witches Bible” was one of these, but I could be mistaken, it was a long time ago!), but if you are seeking evidence that AC himself sexually abused children and are not finding it I don’t think it’s because you are being stonewalled. Crowley died in 1947, so there are very few people left alive today who would have direct knowledge of anything like that. Thus, any evidence to support this theory would be, of necessity, circumstantial. Photographs and film footage would not exist (I am relatively sure; there are not many photos of AC or his sexual partners as it is); written documentation probably doesn’t exist, either, unless it has been suppressed by whoever owns such a document.
The evidence you provided in your previous email was pretty familiar to me as well as to other researchers, but taken in context constitute a pretty thin case for sexual abuse. That he abused women of all backgrounds seems fairly obvious (protestations by some Thelemites to the contrary notwithstanding!), as well as the abuse of some men. His lifestyle was dangerous to children: a lot of arduous foreign travel at a time when it was considerably more problematic than it is today; drug consumption; alcoholism; excessive self-absorption, etc. If AC was involved in “deliberate sexual traumatization of children” in whatever fashion, what was the goal? And have any of his children admitted to this? Crowley’s occult system demanded that he keep records of rituals, their purpose as well as their outcome, and there is nothing on this even though there is considerable detail on his sexual rituals.
The passage from the diary you mentioned also has to be taken in context. AC wrote a lot of prose like that. His mission was to shock people and to “brand” himself. He always wrote with an audience in mind (in my estimation) because he was confident that he was a kind of messiah and that his writings would command great attention and scrutiny after his death. Scholarly examination of the evidence has to take into account the actual evidence first, and if scholars cannot find evidence of sexual abuse of children it is probably because it is not there to be found. There are a number of non-Thelema-affiliated scholars working with the Crowley material today, mostly in Europe (the circle around Wouter Hanegraaf comes to mind) and they would not balk at researching AC’s pedophilia if it was there. Hell, they could make their careers on a discovery like that!
All of this said, there is evidence that sexual intercourse with young girls took place (and perhaps still does) among certain Tantric sects, and is part of the Kalacakra Tantra tradition. There are prescriptions for their selection based on age, appearance, capabilities, knowledge of the Tantras, etc. I believe I’ve written about this already, possibly in The Tantric Alchemist but I’m not sure at the moment. (Child marriage is also common in some areas of Asia.) AC’s knowledge of the Tantras, however, was slight. He only had access to a few texts, and those in English translation (the Max Mueller series, for the most part) and presumably was not aware of the more arcane Tantras where this is discussed. Kenneth Grant knew considerably more about the Tantras than AC, and even in that case there is no hint of child sexual abuse in Grant’s writings or of the possibility of using children in sexual rituals. From my reading of both AC and Grant there is no evidence that they were aware of the specific Tantras to which I refer, since most of them were translated only recently.
The Finders group that was uncovered operating out of Washington DC in the 1980s is much more identified with the deliberate traumatization of children, as covered in the mainstream press as well as in my own work. This group had a CIA connection and was very involved in what appears to have been everything from child trafficking to blood sacrifice rituals at which children were present (and photographs taken of them, clothed and unclothed, during the sacrifice of animals, etc.). This story hit Business Week and other mainstream publications and then died down once CIA quashed the investigation.
You can quote any of this or the previous email, as per your request.

On 6/30/2016 12:33 AM, I wrote:

thanks for the in-depth response. I think my main argument is very simple: knowing what is known about his beliefs, practices, and proclivities, and the set of circumstances in Cefalu, why would anyone think that AC would draw a line at sex with children? And on what grounds?
There is a growing body of evidence that the sexual abuse of children is a central tenet to aristocratic occult (or at least hidden) practices, and even that it is considered as a valid means to increase intelligence and “psychic” capacities in a child. (Are you familiar for example with the “key of solomon” practice of sodomizing male children as a means to raise the kundalini?)
I am not sure why you would assume the passage cited previously must be a case of AC trying to shock future readers, rather than a (somewhat coded, for obvious reasons) record of a ritual? I allow it could be either, but why lean towards one interpretation simply because it is shocking? This prevalent idea that AC was deliberately trying to shock therefore was incapable of actually doing the things he bragged about makes no sense if we consider that one of his primary methods was the destruction of the ego through willed transgression. There is no logical reason to think AC would have stopped at anything to attain his goals. On the contrary. Nor do I think he needed access to tantric texts to know that sexually violating children would be a powerful taboo-breaking “left-hand” ritual.
I am not aware of any testimonies from his children about anything, are you? They seem to have been stricken from the historical record. But as you must know, it is quite uncommon for victims of sexual abuse to speak out, even assuming they remember their abuse, which frequently they do not.
To argue that if scholars haven’t found evidence it is not there to be found is to assign a higher level of integrity and diligence to scholars than I would be inclined to do, at least around this particular subject (child abuse). This must surely go tenfold for Grant. If there’s one thing we know for certain about organized, ritualized sexual abuse of children (besides that it happens), it’s that it is thickly shrouded by the twin layers of secrecy and denial. Jimmy Savile operated at a high level of British society and with the complicity and aid of the entire apparatus of British institutional society, from MI6 to BBC, for several decades. I suspect we only even know about this now because it was deemed suitable to leak the truth, for whatever reasons (probably controlled social destabilization). Even so, the implications of Savile have been largely swept under the rug for most people, due again to the unconscious conspiracy of denial: the desire not to know.
Simply stated: why expect scholars (much less occultists & crowley-ites such as Grant) to be immune to, or unaffiliated with, this tightly organized network of secrecy suppression?

A long reply was waiting for me the next morning (June 30) from Levenda:

Your argument is circular. You’re saying that, with what we know about Crowley, why would anyone think he would draw the line at sex with children; i.e., he must have had sex with children because he was so sleazy. We can say that about a lot of people for whom there is no evidence, either.
I remember very well the Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria of the 1980s, for instance, when the assumption was made that — since there are such things as occultists and satanists — there must be satanic rituals involving the sacrifice of children. Claims were made that thousands of children were being sacrificed annually in the US alone during satanic rituals by generational satanic cults. There was no evidence for it (there was no evidence for generational satanic cults, either) but that didn’t stop people from making assumptions and wild accusations, ruining innocent people in the process.
Nick Bryant is a friend of mine who covered the Franklin Scandal in depth; we talk about the underground traffic in children, the involvement of celebrities, politicians, etc. We are not naive on this subject. But there is simply no evidence for the type of ritual abuse of children by Crowley that you insist took place. You can ask “why would AC draw a line at sex with children?”. Fair enough. But can you (or anyone) say that he didn’t? That in fact he did have sex with children? In the absence of any kind of evidence — I mean real evidence, not the imaginative deconstruction of his diaries, occult writings, etc. — we have no proof of this. Proof in this case seems to be in the eyes of the beholder. One could write a speculative piece about this, and even then it would be thin.
You know my work. You know the type of documentation, verification, etc. that I do. I don’t write speculative history or conspiracy theory. I investigate, with personal interviews as well as documentation, and report what I find. In an area like this, though, what I report is sometimes only a vague outline of something: a bit like predicting the existence of Pluto because of the eccentric orbit of Neptune. It’s through inference, and when it is I clarify that I am speculating or suggesting and do not insist that my interpretation is the right one, or the only one.
I lean towards my interpretation of the AC passage not because it is shocking, as you imply, but because I consider it within the overall context of his work. It is of a piece. It is consistent with his style, his taste for the bizarre, etc. We have an enormous record of AC’s sexual rituals, almost tedious in their attention to explicit detail. In that case, why would we expect that he would suddenly become coy and neglect to detail for us his sexual conquest of minors?
In addition, AC had to have a context himself for what he was doing. Everything — every ritual, every sex act, every mundane action — was related to the Kabbalistic system as represented by the Golden Dawn. You see that in all his occult diaries. What is the Kabbalistic correspondence for sexual acts with children? What is the Golden Dawn context? There isn’t any.
If you insist that he was not explicit for fear of some kind of legal reprisal (he would not have cared about his reputation, his actions throughout his life are proof of that!), then we are back to square one. He didn’t write about it, and in absence of any other kind of proof we cannot in good faith accuse him of it.
I am not apologizing for Crowley. I am not defending Crowley. He doesn’t need me to do either of that, and I have no interest in it anyway. But I am defending journalistic and academic integrity (or at least my understanding of it), and when you accuse everyone of covering up Crowley’s proposed abuse of children because there is no evidence of it so therefore they must be covering it up you are up a creek without a paddle.
Further, I have spent a lot of time around occultists, Thelemites, satanists, witches, neo-Nazis, magicians, and even Republicans. I have witnessed all sorts of mayhem, from sexual promiscuity to drug abuse to threats of violence, etc. For me this began about 1968 and has continued in one form or another to this day. I am still in contact today with people I first met in the 1970s, so I have the benefit of having seen them grow and evolve, warts and all. I have never seen any hint of pedophilia in any of the groups I have known, nor in connection with any individual person I have known. I can give you chapter and verse on drug use, sexual partners, overdoses, all sorts of other scandals, etc. but there has been no evidence — not even rumor or gossip — about child abuse. Well, except among the Republicans. (!)
AC is long dead, so we can say whatever we like about him without fear of being sued, and without fear of damaging his reputation. But we are in McMartin territory here, and it’s a dangerous place to be. I am sure you or anyone else could go through my own published work and pull a sentence here or there to make it seem I am advocating something hideous. But what that means is that you have begun with a conclusion and worked backward from there. I can’t in good conscience accept that type of approach, not only because it is unethical but also because it simply fails to make its case.
You are cynical concerning academia, believing that they would not touch child abuse. Jasun, with all the scholarship recently on the subject of AC — including his sexuality — coming out of respected academic quarters in the past ten years, believe me proof of pedophilia would have been pounced upon. I spent a lot of time in the Netherlands among academics there and they would have had no problem with reporting AC’s pedophilia if they had evidence that it existed.
You can’t assert that just because a society is secret that it automatically implies their members are pedophiles. It’s just the rankest conspiracy theorizing. False equivalencies, guilt by association, and all the sins committed by the Alex Jones of the world to further an agenda and get more followers as mindless as their leader. Are there groups of individuals who abuse children? Of course, there are. Are celebrities involved? Not just possibly, but probably. Are some of these nutcases employing occult symbols they’ve found in a book by Crowley, or Levi, or Montague Summers or A. E. Waite? Of course. Why not? There is evidence of much of this, as we have seen to our horror the past several decades. But AC specifically? I don’t see it. I haven’t seen it. No one I know has seen evidence of it. And more to the point, why would we care? AC is dead. There are a lot of other people to focus on in this field, people still alive. The Franklin group; Jimmy Saville; the Belgian cult, Finders, etc. AC’s influence over today’s crop of pedophiles has got to be non-existent, or nearly so.
Anyway, that’s my take.

This was my response:

>Your argument is circular. You’re saying that, with what we know about Crowley, why would anyone think he would draw the line at sex with children; i.e., he must have had sex with children because he was so sleazy.
Not at all. I am not saying AC must have had sex with children because he was so sleazy, but that AC most likely had sex with children considering
a) his general philosophy of breaking all taboos, including or especially those that appalled him personally
b) what we know of other acts which he was involved in, including rape, animal sacrifice (toad & cat), and bestiality (having Leah copulate with a goat, before sacrificing it, which even AC’s bellwethers such as Richard Kaczinksy allow probably happened, however botched it was
c) his specific teachings around children and sexuality and the fact he allowed children to be present at sex magickal rituals at the Abbey
d) the death of at least one child during the same period
e) his written descriptions of rape and torture of children
f) his known associations with individuals and groups who have been directly implicated in organized child sexual abuse, such as Tom Driberg (associate of Lord Boothby & the Krays), whom AC named his successor as world teacher (Driberg declined), and MI6, who covered up Savile’s crimes for decades and who have been directly links to child sex abuse networks.
This is what you call circular argumentation?
I am glad you cite “the Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria of the 1980s,” with the old mantra of “There was no evidence for it.” This is simply not true, as I addressed in a recent piece. Not only was, & is, there evidence, there have been confessions and convictions (tho not around the McMartin case; I do have a FOI document showing that the tunnels were found however, jpgs attached). I am afraid you have been hoodwinked around this subject, like so many others.
> One could write a speculative piece about this, and even then it would be thin.
And yet you have not asked to see or hear my own evidence, tho I offered. The waters I am wading through are as thick as treacle.
>In that case, why would we expect that he would suddenly become coy and neglect to detail for us his sexual conquest of minors?
Because of the fourth part of the magician’s oath? Savile also bragged about all sorts of deviancy, but no one took him seriously. For AC to be so bold about admitting, exaggerating, or even inventing, his more devious tendencies, such as his “joke” about committing 150 child sacrifices a year, is a great way to muddy the waters and obscure anything he might have actually done; not to mention a way to sow the seeds for arguments such as your own.
You seem to want to say that we can believe Crowley when insists he is opposed to rape, but not when he brags about doing it (then he was just spouting hot air); isn’t that the inverse of what we generally know about criminals?
>In addition, AC had to have a context himself for what he was doing. Everything — every ritual, every sex act, every mundane action — was related to the Kabbalistic system as represented by the Golden Dawn.
That seems highly improbable, considering his opinion of the GD. I think it’s much more accurate to say that Liber Al was his context, and LA expressly proscribes [sic] child sacrifice on at least two occasions. (Admittedly not the same as sex with children, but once the one line is crossed, the other doesn’t seem to present much of a problem.)
>What is the Kabbalistic correspondence for sexual acts with children? What is the Golden Dawn context? There isn’t any.
That you know of. Yet you well know that the deeper rites and practices are kept secret.
>If you insist that he was not explicit for fear of some kind of legal reprisal (he would not have cared about his reputation, his actions throughout his life are proof of that!)
Again, I disagree, and I think the proof is that even researchers who claim not to have any stake in Thelema are still defending his reputation (while claiming not to be). AC’s rep is in remarkably good condition considering everything. His influence meanwhile has been incalculable. Would this be the case had it become known that he committed acts that almost no one can publicly defend? What has come out, the goat copulation, the cat sacrifice, the drug use, the homosexuality, can all be viewed by the intelligentsia as either humorously kinky or ahead of its time, or both.
But then, the intelligentsia have a history of advocating child sex, too. Your view of AC seems to leave him out of the loop entirely, and make him seem like a rather paltry beast.
>Further, I have spent a lot of time around occultists, Thelemites, satanists, witches, neo-Nazis, magicians, and even Republicans.
I am aware of this, as well as your alleged involvement in the Necronomicon penning…
> I have never seen any hint of pedophilia in any of the groups I have known, nor in connection with any individual person I have known.
And yet sexual abuse of children is so widespread that even the average person today regularly encounters both victims and perpetrators of it, usually without knowing it. (This is an inevitable conclusion based on statistical deduction. See Lori Handrahan’s figures if you doubt it. I’ve attached a sample)
> But we are in McMartin territory here, and it’s a dangerous place to be.
Surely, tho not the way you mean it.
>You are cynical concerning academia, believing that they would not touch child abuse.
They might, but academics are generally dependent on funding of some sort or at least have positions to protect.
> I spent a lot of time in the Netherlands among academics there and they would have had no problem with reporting AC’s pedophilia if they had evidence that it existed.
So essentially you are saying I should leave it to the experts? Do you even know anything about my family background? It’s possible my grandfather may even have met Crowley, considering the overlap of their respective circles. When I am researching & reporting these things, I am referring to my own personal history and knowledge. You can try to pull rank on me, but all it does is betray a lack of professional courtesy or consideration. It also suggests that, despite what you claim, you have an unspoken stake in the game, whatever it may be.
>You can’t assert that just because a society is secret that it automatically implies their members are pedophiles. It’s just the rankest conspiracy theorizing.
It would be, if I’d asserted that, but since I didn’t, you are grasping at straw men.
> I don’t see it. I haven’t seen it. No one I know has seen evidence of it. And more to the point, why would we care? AC is dead.
Amazing. Apparently you see me as on some sort of witch hunt? Yet, on the one hand, you say there’s no evidence for it and there can’t be because if there were, you and your associates would have found it and already cried it to the heavens; then on the other you ask why we should care anyway, so why not just leave it alone? Nothing to see here, move along.
Yet this came in today from one of these AC scholars, High Urban: “The connections you’re exploring are intriguing. I’m not really working on Crowley at the moment, so I would suggest you contact others who are more active in that area now — Marco Pasi is the first that comes to mind, and then maybe Gordan Djurdjevic.”
> There are a lot of other people to focus on in this field, people still alive. The Franklin group; Jimmy Saville
Savile died in 2011, which is the only reason anything came out about his activities, at all.
>AC’s influence over today’s crop of pedophiles has got to be non-existent, or nearly so.
This is another highly questionable assertion. AC’s influence, via Leary, the Beatles, et al, is literally incalculable, and nowhere more so than in the sexually “progressive” and occultist circles.
That said, I appreciate the opportunity this has provided for me to clarify my thoughts, & I hope my replies haven’t been too curt or cocky.

Levenda:

One by one:
>This is what you call circular argumentation?
Uh, yeah. Kinda. Go back over those lines. You could use them to create a character profile but not to create a legal case of child abuse. Yes, you are saying that because AC was sleazy — general philosophy of breaking taboos, other acts he committed, etc etc. — he must have abused children. You are also using guilt by association (a tired but still effective tactic of conspiracy theorists) in paragraph (f) particularly. But there is nothing in (a) through (f) that can be used as proof that he was involved in child abuse. You’re just saying what a hideous guy he was, so why not call him a child abuser as well? And what is the value of a “most likely” assertion? Child abuse is a serious accusation; it deserves a lot more than a “most likely.”
> I am afraid you have been hoodwinked around this subject, like so many others.
I don’t think I am the one being hoodwinked. If I do not see evidence of something, how can I believe it to be true? What are the rules of evidence here? or even of journalistic integrity? If you include the abuse of children by Catholic priests, you might overreach and claim it was ritual abuse (since the abusers were priests) but even then it would be weak unless you had evidence the abuse took place as part of a ritual. The recent piece for disinfo that you wrote is more opinion than evidence. You’re cherry-picking your sources, looking for citations that will suggest what you’re saying is true. On what basis do those psychologists surveyed “believe” that cases of ritual abuse of children are “true”? You cite John Mack, who believed that alien abduction experiences were “true” to the extent that the abductees were suffering from PTSD, etc. He knew something was going on there, and had conducted interviews and collated data, etc. You dismiss him, and Kripal, (both unfairly in my view) simply because they were intrigued by the ET phenomenon rather than the SRA phenomenon.
There is child abuse in the world. No doubt about it. No one will dispute that. And there are priests, preachers, politicians, and perverts of every demographic who were/are involved in it. That does not mean there is a vast, underground cult of Crowley-inspired or Crowley-worshipping pedophiles, however. None of the evidence you cite can be used to prove that specific case. And, no, I am not lying or misinformed on this. I’ve been to SMART meetings, I’ve been to countless encounters with AC believers, with satanists, etc. and you can extend that to include intelligence types, military personnel (in more than one country), etc etc. In the SMART conference some years ago, for instance, all I heard about the ritual abuse was that it was conducted by Josef Mengele and George Bush, as well as Henry Kissinger. I am a fan of none of those guys, but still … some claims strain credulity for a lot of reasons. And not once was Crowley mentioned, by the way. It was all Nazis and Republicans. Go figure.
>And yet you have not asked to see or hear my own evidence, tho I offered. The waters I am wading through are as thick as treacle.
If you had evidence to convince me that AC was a pedophile or abused children, I am sure you would have offered it by now.
>Because of the fourth part of the magician’s oath? . . .. You seem to want to say that we can believe Crowley when insists he is opposed to rape, but not when he brags about doing it (then he was just spouting hot air); isn’t that the inverse of what we generally know about criminals?”
The fourth part is to “keep silent”: is that your opinion about Crowley? Really? He was not a man to “keep silent” about anything! So you’re saying that the “150 child sacrifices a year” was a way to muddy the waters … the logic of this escapes me. He had no need to “muddy the waters.” All he had to do was not talk about it! This is what I mean about circular reasoning. He claimed 150 sacrifices so it must be true; he claimed it was not true, so it must be true; since it was not true, it must be true. At what point do we acknowledge that it was just what AC said it was: a reference to masturbation?
And what is that about rape? By linking AC with the rape of an older woman you are making the claim that this is evidence of his abuse of young children. Isn’t that the inverse of what we generally know about criminals?
>That seems highly improbable, considering his opinion of the GD. I think it’s much more accurate to say that Liber Al was his context, and LA expressly proscribes child sacrifice on at least two occasions. (Admittedly not the same as sex with children, but once the one line is crossed, the other doesn’t seem to present much of a problem.)
You are showing your ignorance of Crowley, the GD and all of that here. This single sentence reveals to me that when it comes to modern ceremonial magic — and especially of the type practiced by Crowley — you haven’t done the reading. Crowley may have had a dim view of the GD as an organization, but he used the GD rituals and Kabbalistic context to the end of his days. Membership in that order defined him as a magician. All of his workings — at Cefalu, in North Africa, etc — were based on GD rituals. Liber AL itself is written using GD imagery, for instance. You can’t understand AC without understanding the GD, as I have written and proven already. His magical diaries are replete with references that only make sense to someone deeply familiar with GD terminology.
As for the claim that Liber AL “proscribes” child sacrifice (I think you meant “prescribes”?) off the top of my head I don’t know what you’re referring to, but I submit the Bible also prescribes child sacrifice. So maybe that goes to your point? If you’re referring to Chapter III verses 12 and 24, those verses (and the whole of AL) have been subjected to all sorts of deconstruction and explication, and you would have to show me that you were aware of those arguments and could refute them. In any case,where is the prescription for ritual sexual abuse of children?
> Yet you well know that the deeper rites and practices are kept secret.
Again, Jasun, you are showing your ignorance of the subject matter. You are also letting your paranoia show. “If there are secret rituals, then they must involve ritual child abuse.” That is what I mean by your circular argumentation. Actually a great deal is known about the Golden Dawn and regardless of whether or not there were “deeper rites” the Golden Dawn system is a system of correspondences on the Tree of Life. AC would have had to identify the “ritual child abuse” correspondence in order to work it within the system and later to write it down in Kabbalistic terminology. If AC could do that (assuming he could) then anyone else can do that. It’s a system. All the moving parts are known. His ritual sexual acts with women and men are all detailed in his diaries using a shorthand familiar to anyone who has knowledge of the system.
>Again, I disagree, and I think the proof is that even researchers who claim not to have any stake in Thelema are still defending his reputation (while claiming not to be). AC’s rep is in remarkably good condition considering everything. His influence meanwhile has been incalculable. Would this be the case had it become known that he committed acts that almost no one can publicly defend? What has come out, the goat copulation, the cat sacrifice, the drug use, the homosexuality, can all be viewed by the intelligentsia as either humorously kinky or ahead of its time, or both. But then, the intelligentsia have a history of advocating child sex, too. Your view of AC seems to leave him out of the loop entirely, and make him seem like a rather paltry beast
The researchers you mention are not “defending his reputation” just because they do not hold the same ideas you do! It seems as if, if someone disagrees with you, then they are covertly in favor of child abuse or have a hidden agenda. They are, as you wrote, “lying” or “misinformed”, etc. I wrote that “his actions throughout his life are proof” of the fact that he did not care about his reputation. You say you disagree, and give as proof researchers born after AC died who you claim are defending his reputation. That’s not proof of AC caring about his reputation. He had no control over what researchers fifty years after he was dead were going to say. And “the intelligentsia have a history of advocating child sex, too.” Really? All the intelligentsia? Can you show me where?
>And yet sexual abuse of children is so widespread that even the average person today regularly encounters both victims and perpetrators of it, usually without knowing it. (This is an inevitable conclusion based on statistical deduction. See Lori Handrahan’s figures if you doubt it. I’ve attach a sample)”
I am not claiming that sexual abuse of children is not widespread. I know people who were abused as children, some physically, some sexually, from different countries and times. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that the individuals or groups with which I am familiar are abusers. If you’re trying to tell me that, yes, they are abusers and I am not aware of it, then please show me the proof. In any case, this is again an example of how you make your arguments. If I don’t see something, then it means it was carefully hidden (not that it wasn’t there to start with). Circles within circles. Just because sexual abuse is widespread does not mean that everyone I know is an abuser.
> academics are generally dependent on funding of some sort or at least have positions to protect.
Yet, they write about Crowley and his sexuality, etc. without fear of losing any funding. Again, you see absence of evidence as evidence itself. Writing about UFOs is far more lethal to a university tenure than writing about Crowley and sexuality, for instance.
>So essentially you are saying I should leave it to the experts? Do you even know anything about my family background? It’s possible my grandfather may even have met Crowley, considering the overlap of their respective circles. When I am researching & reporting these things, I am referring to my own personal history and knowledge. You can try to pull rank on me, but all it does is betray a lack of professional courtesy or consideration. It also suggests that, despite what you claim, you have an unspoken stake in the game, whatever it may be.
Wow. What does my academic background, such as it is, have to do with “pulling rank” or “leaving it to the experts”? Should I apologize for having done my own research? I thought it was my particular background that was the reason for you contacting me in the first place.
I think I’ve struck a nerve there, somewhere, Jasun. You are taking this comment the wrong way, and it shows your insecurity. I am doing you the courtesy and consideration of answering this and your earlier emails. What I am saying is that they haven’t come up with the pedophile angle, and no one else I know has. The “experts” are not the Alpha and Omega of research, but they are a start, and they have done a lot of work in AC lately and I am not sure you are aware of their research. And then you write “it’s possible” that your grandfather “may even have met Crowley.” That’s a lot of qualifications in one sentence. And what if he had? It’s possible that my maternal grandfather met Crowley, too, but it’s not something I can prove so there is relatively little value in even discussing it. So what?
And I resent any implication that I have an “unspoken stake in the game” whatever that is. This is how you approach the subject: those who disagree with you, honestly disagree, are part of some conspiracy and are defending AC or covering up his alleged child abuse. If that is what you feel, then there is no purpose in continuing this correspondence. I think you would agree.
You say you are referring to your own “personal history and knowledge” but I am quite certain that personal history did not include being abused by Crowley. Why don’t you stick to your own personal story without making claims you can’t support? About the best you can do with your thesis at this point is to say “Maybe Crowley, for all his faults, also abused children. We don’t know for sure, but it’s possible.” Not really “breaking news”, but at least it would be honest.
>It would be, if I’d asserted that, but since I didn’t, you are grasping at straw men.
I think your hands are full of straw men at this point, Jasun. And your correspondence is full of references to secret cabals of pedophiles, so what am I supposed to conclude?
>Apparently you see me as on some sort of witch hunt? Yet, on the one hand, you say there’s no evidence for it and there can’t be because if there were, you and your associates would have found it and already cried it to the heavens; then on the other you ask why we should care anyway, so why not just leave it alone? Nothing to see here, move along.
In the first place, yes, Jasun. You are on a witch hunt. How else do describe it? It’s McCarthyism applied to Crowley. You are twisting my words and ignoring my context, just as the Senator did when it came to suspected Communists. You are attacking me personally because I disagree with you. The old ad hominem approach, also used by conspiracy theorists. I heartily recommend you do as Dr Urban suggested: contact Marco Pasi and Gordon Djurdjevic, as these are two of the much-abhorred “experts” to which I referred earlier. And don’t make the same mistake with them as you did with me: accuse them of being somehow in the bag for Crowley because they insist on some kind of proof of your assertions.
Cheers, and good luck

My response:

thanks for taking the time with that, Peter.
Unfortunately the gulf seems to be widening rather than narrowing so, as you suggest, there may not be anything to gain by continuing. Somehow I am compelled to respond to your points however, & give it one last try. I will understand if you don’t feel the desire to respond and won’t take it personally. Do let me know however if there’s anything you wrote which you do not want me to quote, as I am interested in presenting opposing viewpoints in the book, and yours is a strong and clear voice of such.
I’d also offer, I hope not presumptuously, Blake’s aphorism that opposition is true friendship, so maybe true opposition can, on occasion, clear the way for friendship, or at least sympathy…
>That does not mean there is a vast, underground cult of Crowley-inspired or Crowley-worshipping pedophiles, however. None of the evidence you cite can be used to prove that specific case.
As if anyone could prove that (in the way you seem to mean) if it were true! Isn’t it a bit like saying don’t make wild claims about life after death because you aren’t dead?
Your standard of evidence and argumentation strikes me time and again as a double standard.
> The recent piece for disinfo that you wrote is more opinion than evidence. You’re cherry-picking your sources, looking for citations that will suggest what you’re saying is true.
It’s called making a case.
> all I heard about the ritual abuse was that it was conducted by Josef Mengele and George Bush, as well as Henry Kissinger.
It’s curious how you once argued with me about the need to take alien abductees seriously, yet you are happy to dismiss accounts of human interference simply because they involve public figures. There’s that weird double standard again.
>If you had evidence to convince me that AC was a pedophile or abused children, I am sure you would have offered it by now.
“Evidence to convince” depends on two variables; one of them is your openness to question.
>The fourth part is to “keep silent”: is that your opinion about Crowley? Really? He was not a man to “keep silent” about anything!
Circular logic: because he talked about some things, he was terrible at keeping silence. Because he couldn’t keep his silence, he must have talked about everything. You seem confident to pit your own intelligence against Crowley’s & assume you can anticipate all of his moves & motives. I am still trying to get to the bottom of that.
>So you’re saying that the “150 child sacrifices a year” was a way to muddy the waters … the logic of this escapes me. He had no need to “muddy the waters.” All he had to do was not talk about it!
You missed the point: he bragged about something extreme in order to get a reputation for telling tall tales so no one would believe him about other, more veiled admissions. Savile did the same thing. I believe it’s called glamor magic.
>At what point do we acknowledge that it was just what AC said it was: a reference to masturbation?
where’s your proof?
>And what is that about rape? By linking AC with the rape of an older woman you are making the claim that this is evidence of his abuse of young children.
No, I was making the claim that it was evidence of him lying when he said he was against rape. You seem to me too intelligent to misread me that badly, which makes me suspect you are deliberately distorting my arguments so as to hijack the discussion. Either that or “I’ve struck a nerve.”
>You are showing your ignorance of Crowley, the GD and all of that here. This single sentence reveals to me that when it comes to modern ceremonial magic — and especially of the type practiced by Crowley — you haven’t done the reading.
AC may have done a lot of stuff by the book, GD or otherwise. To then argue that it was the only basis for any of his magick is unfounded. I have found, or formulated, several bases for child sexual abuse as a magickal ritual, none of them coming from the GD, as far as I know. So what? Even from a conventional angle, Crowley is considered a pioneer.
> You can’t understand AC without understanding the GD, as I have written and proven already.
So then you have proven that anything anyone else writes about AC is worthless unless they have taken the steps you prescribe?
>His magical diaries are replete with references that only make sense to someone deeply familiar with GD terminology.
Ditto. It must be nice to be “in the know.”
>Again, Jasun, you are showing your ignorance of the subject matter. You are also letting your paranoia show. “If there are secret rituals, then they must involve ritual child abuse.”
again, this is a complete distortion; what I said was, if there was ritual child abuse, it would be a closely guarded secret, a fact that should be obvious to anyone and that renders several of your arguments hollow. Not to mention that old trick of turning it around and accusing me of citing lack of evidence as proof of conspiracy, which I have never done. But again, since you are not that obtuse but in fact a wily old goat, it makes me wonder who you are arguing on behalf of, at this point?
> That is what I mean by your circular argumentation.
and that is what I mean by straw men
> AC would have had to identify the “ritual child abuse” correspondence in order to work it within the system and later to write it down in Kabbalistic terminology. If AC could do that (assuming he could) then anyone else can do that. It’s a system. All the moving parts are known. His ritual sexual acts with women and men are all detailed in his diaries using a shorthand familiar to anyone who has knowledge of the system.
Are you honestly trying to argue that occultism and child sexual abuse are not interconnected? That it is all Christian hysteria, combined with a clever disinfo strategy to discredit and scarify occultism? If so, let’s see the proof. That’s a real conspiracy theory! It is also one I am not entirely closed to, and in fact I consider it frequently. I always come back to the same question, however: which is more likely, that a bunch of very clever, sophisticated, and thorough individuals are conspiring to make us believe that occult child abuse rituals form the basis of modern society; or that a bunch of very clever, sophisticated, and thorough individuals are conspiring to make us believe that occult child abuse rituals do not happen, at all, or only in a random, haphazard fashion that has nothing at all to do with the higher echelons of the ruling class (who have no interest in occult rituals, even if they like to diddle kids occasionally)?
>The researchers you mention are not “defending his reputation” just because they do not hold the same ideas you do! It seems as if, if someone disagrees with you, then they are covertly in favor of child abuse or have a hidden agenda.
Disingenuous logic. We are talking about you and the subject of organized ritual child abuse, not “someone” and some random argument.
> They are, as you wrote, “lying” or “misinformed”, etc.
When it comes to ritual abuse, I believe this is the case, & the article you dismiss as “opinion” establishes (so far as that is ever possible) this clearly and categorically, since ritual abuse happens and has been proven to do so. I note you didn’t address the tunnels under McMartin.
>I wrote that “his actions throughout his life are proof” of the fact that he did not care about his reputation. You say you disagree, and give as proof researchers born after AC died who you claim are defending his reputation.
No, I give as evidence AC’s own admissions about his concern, combined with a logical deduction that a man expecting to have a religion based around his writings would be aware of how his own reputation might compromise or enhance that process.
>And “the intelligentsia have a history of advocating child sex, too.” Really? All the intelligentsia? Can you show me where?
Start with Gore Vidal if you are really interested, which I increasingly doubt.
> If you’re trying to tell me that, yes, they are abusers and I am not aware of it, then please show me the proof.
I think one of the main causes of the gulf between us is that you are extremely literal-minded where I am not. I raise questions, you demand proof of the answer, rather than pursuing the question further, which is all I am ever asking of anyone.
> In any case, this is again an example of how you make your arguments. If I don’t see something, then it means it was carefully hidden (not that it wasn’t there to start with).
It means only that not seeing something is not proof it is not there. If we do not remember being wounded but have scars on our body, we can safely deduce that something happened.
> Circles within circles. Just because sexual abuse is widespread does not mean that everyone I know is an abuser.
It means that, unless you were a hermit, and even outside all of your occult fraternity affiliations, some people you know must be; which is exactly what I said the first time around, and now you have made me repeat it.
>Yet, they write about Crowley and his sexuality, etc. without fear of losing any funding. Again, you see absence of evidence as evidence itself.
Again, you present a meaningless argument and then sit back as if you have said something meaningful. Of course there is no embargo on writing about AC & sexuality, at least as long as it doesn’t challenge the dominant narrative or threaten to kill the Crowley cash cow. Have you seen the latest bio from North Atlantic? It could come with a line of Crowley dolls.
>Wow. What does my academic background, such as it is, have to do with “pulling rank” or “leaving it to the experts”? Should I apologize for having done my own research?
Only for suggesting that “experts” should have the final say, even when they have shirked on their own research.
>I thought it was my particular background that was the reason for you contacting me in the first place.
Of course, I want to hear what knowledgeable researchers have to say; it’s just disappointing when what it mostly comes down is: “Nothing to see here, run along now and get your proper training, and meanwhile let us experts continue to define the narrative.”
>I think I’ve struck a nerve there, somewhere, Jasun. You are taking this comment the wrong way, and it shows your insecurity.
Is that fatherly concern, or the sound of the intelligentsia gloating?
>I am doing you the courtesy and consideration of answering this and your earlier emails.
Noted, and appreciated.
> What I am saying is that they haven’t come up with the pedophile angle, and no one else I know has. The “experts” are not the Alpha and Omega of research, but they are a start
they are not the start for me, they are only a stop along the way.
>they have done a lot of work in AC lately and I am not sure you are aware of their research.
One of my reasons for writing you; but unless they are addressing the material we are discussing and providing a realistic interpretation of it, I just don’t have the time to read every AC paper and publication.
> And then you write “it’s possible” that your grandfather “may even have met Crowley.” That’s a lot of qualifications in one sentence. And what if he had? It’s possible that my maternal grandfather met Crowley, too, but it’s not something I can prove so there is relatively little value in even discussing it. So what?
My point was that I am also working with a direct past experience of the networks, beliefs, and practices which I believe AC can be associated with.
>In the first place, yes, Jasun. You are on a witch hunt. How else do describe it?
An attempt to get to the truth. The notion of a witch hunt presumes a moral directive and a desire to punish or destroy. I think that’s your Jesuit training speaking.
Peace out

I sincerely hoped Levenda would not respond at this point, but he did, with another massive diatribe.

>It’s called making a case.
No. It’s called cooking the books. It’s called starting from a conclusion and working backwards. You can’t make a case if all you cite is spectral evidence.
>It’s curious how you once argued with me about the need to take alien abductees seriously, yet you are happy to dismiss accounts of human interference simply because they involve public figures. There’s that weird double standard again.
So, what you’re saying is, I should accept at face value the claim that Mengele — who has been dead a long time — was abusing children at an air base in the US a decade later? I take alien abduction cases seriously without believing they are cases of alien abduction, since we have not defined what an “alien” is. The phenomenon is real; we just don’t understand what it is. The people suffering what they believe to be SRA may indeed be suffering something similar to, or identical to, the PTSD suffered by the abductees. We simply do not have enough information. But I don’t believe that Josef Mengele rose from the dead and abused children; I do believe that the claimant is suffering. How and why that suffering originated is still up to investigation. No double standard; it’s the same standard, applied equally to two different cases.
>”Evidence to convince” depends on two variables; one of them is your openness to question.
Come on, Jasun. I don’t need to be “open to question” if the evidence is there. It will speak for itself. Don’t claim that I am close-minded because I don’t agree with you! What is the other variable?
>Circular logic: because he talked about some things, he was terrible at keeping silence. Because he couldn’t keep his silence, he must have talked about everything. You seem confident to pit your own intelligence against Crowley’s & assume you can anticipate all of his moves & motives. I am still trying to get to the bottom of that.
I am not doing any such thing! I am doing what any investigator, researcher, historian does: examine the evidence, the documents, retrace the steps. If you read his works you will see that he copped to everything he did, no matter how heinous. Did he keep secrets? Maybe, why not? Does that automatically mean the secrets were about child abuse? Why? Maybe he was Jack the Ripper and was keeping silent about that? You need some kind of metric, Jasun, but you are all over the place. It’s child abuse or nothing.
> I was making the claim that it was evidence of him lying when he said he was against rape. You seem to me too intelligent to misread me that badly, which makes me suspect you are deliberately distorting my arguments so as to hijack the discussion. Either that or “I’ve struck a nerve.”
Oh, please. Here you are accusing me — who disagrees with your premise — of being deliberately deceitful or deceptive. Another ad hominem response. Did AC ever lie about anything? Probably. Therefore that makes him a child abuser … we always come back to that, which is the central core of your mission it seems, which is why I do not believe I misread you at all. The account he gave was of an abused fourteen year old boy lashing out against his abuser. Who knows how much of that account is true, how much he embellished, etc. but that is still beside the point. Maybe, since he was abused by this 19 year old, he was the victim. She should have been arrested, tried and convicted. You can make all kinds of cases here. We don’t know what the truth is, absent any evidence.
>AC may have done a lot of stuff by the book, GD or otherwise. To then argue that it was the only basis for any of his magick is unfounded. I have found, or formulated, several bases for child sexual abuse as a magickal ritual, none of them coming from the GD, as far as I know. So what? Even from a conventional angle, Crowley is considered a pioneer.
You seem to be arguing from a lack of proof, again. Why is it unfounded? Just because you have found or formulated your own ideas of child sex abuse as ritual does not mean that these ideas have any weight in the real world of child ritual sexual abuse. They are theories, and as such need to be evaluated according to some kind of objective metric. Or else, this is all just fantasy. If my claims are unfounded, prove it. Crowley experimented with Tantra, with Sufism, with a wide variety of religious and spiritual disciplines, but always brought them back to the GD context. He was mistaken in many of the assumptions he made about Egyptology (for instance) and other religions, based on an imperfect understanding available at the time. He wrote scandalous pieces about sex, and was ostracized because of them. I’ve written about all of this, in some detail. I am not defending AC as an intellectual, as an occultist, or anything else. I am not defending him: I am simply not convinced by your theory. It’s the theory itself with which I have a problem. And on what do you base your theories of child sexual abuse as a magickal ritual? Do you have experience performing ritual magic? Or is this purely an intellectual exercise?
>So then you have proven that anything anyone else writes about AC is worthless unless they have taken the steps you prescribe?
Pretty much. If you don’t understand the language in which he is writing, how can you offer a translation? How do you know, for instance, what an “Equinox of the Gods” means (so central to an understanding of Liber AL) unless you are familiar with the GD context from which it was taken?
>It must be nice to be “in the know.”
It only takes some reading, Jasun. There’s a lot of that material around. So much of it is free on the Net, too. There is no excuse for not knowing this if you are trying to build a solid case. You are actually being sarcastic because I have done the reading? Seriously? Is that some major accomplishment or something?
>Are you honestly trying to argue that occultism and child sexual abuse are not interconnected? That it is all Christian hysteria, combined with a clever disinfo strategy to discredit and scarify occultism? If so, let’s see the proof. That’s a real conspiracy theory! It is also one I am not entirely closed to, and in fact I consider it frequently. I always come back to the same question, however: which is more likely, that a bunch of very clever, sophisticated, and thorough individuals are conspiring to make us believe that occult child abuse rituals form the basis of modern society; or that a bunch of very clever, sophisticated, and thorough individuals are conspiring to make us believe that occult child abuse rituals do not happen, at all, or only in a random, haphazard fashion that has nothing at all to do with the higher echelons of the ruling class (who have no interest in occult rituals, even if they like to diddle kids occasionally)?
Here we go again. Occultism and child sexual abuse are interconnected to the extent that occultism, unemployment, and bad teeth are interconnected. You are going to find a lot of unemployed occultists, and a lot of occultists with poor dental hygiene. I am sure you will also find occultists who have abused children. I mean, you are coming to me (I assume) because I have some background in this field. I’ve been studying occultism since the early 1960s when I was still a child. I’ve been to Wiccan rituals, OTO rituals, and everything in between. I’ve read extensively in the literature. I do not see child abuse as some kind of “basis of modern society” or some kind of foundation for occult rituals. I’ve been in enough occult rituals to know. You can’t take one piece of data and extrapolate an entire worldview from it, especially not if it comes to making some serious allegations.
Look at it this way. I can take everything you’ve written — in your emails to me, as well as what you have posted online — and build a very convincing case that your obsession with this subject is a desperate, guilt-ridden attempt to disguise your own abuse of children. Do I believe that? Of course, not. You would quite rightly demand to see evidence, proof of my allegations. And all I would provide as evidence is the same type of proof you have offered against Crowley and nameless occultists. How do you prove a negative? You can’t. All you can do is prove a positive. You can insist that my refusal to accept your view of Crowley as a child molester is evidence that I am also a child molester or a defender of child molesters, but we’ve been through that kind of thing before in this country and it didn’t end well.
>Disingenuous logic. We are talking about you and the subject of organized ritual child abuse, not “someone” and some random argument.
Nice try, Jasun, but we were not talking about me only. Your statements about researchers, intellegentsia, etc. were inclusive, not exclusive.
>When it comes to ritual abuse, I believe this is the case, & the article you dismiss as “opinion” establishes (so far as that is ever possible) this clearly and categorically, since ritual abuse happens and has been proven to do so. I note you didn’t address the tunnels under McMartin.
Here we disagree. And the tunnels are old news and, in fact, their alleged connection with ritual abuse have been debunked as you know.
>No, I give as evidence AC’s own admissions about his concern, combined with a logical deduction that a man expecting to have a religion based around his writings would be aware of how his own reputation might compromise or enhance that process.
What admissions? I didn’t see that evidence. His writings are full of drug abuse, sex with prostitutes, with men, with multiple partners, animal sacrifice, magical masturbation, etc etc etc. Are you saying that none of this “might compromise” his reputation as a man who was basing a religion around his writings? He simply didn’t care.
> Start with Gore Vidal if you are really interested, which I increasingly doubt.
Does Gore Vidal constitute “all the intelligentsia”? I am sure you can find some of the intelligentsia you can use to substantiate your claims, but certainly not all. Not even most. Not even a substantial minority. You would have to define “intelligentsia” for me, then, as well as what constitutes ‘advocating child sex.” You are making wild, all-inclusive statements that right at the outset are patently false which is what ruins your approach. You might as well say “all Muslims are terrorists.”
>I think one of the main causes of the gulf between us is that you are extremely literal-minded where I am not. I raise questions, you demand proof of the answer, rather than pursuing the question further, which is all I am ever asking of anyone.
Jasun, for the love of God, I can’t pursue a question further if it is based on sand! I need a place to stand. It’s not a question of being literal-minded, and I am grateful (and surprised) you admitted you are not. That pretty much sums up this entire correspondence, so I think we have nowhere to go from here.
> It means only that not seeing something is not proof it is not there. If we do not remember being wounded but have scars on our body, we can safely deduce that something happened.
But not that Crowley set upon me with a carving knife.
> It means that, unless you were a hermit, and even outside all of your occult fraternity affiliations, some people you know must be; which is exactly what I said the first time around, and now you have made me repeat it.
Again, I do know people who were abused. But they were all abused by close relatives. No ritual associations. Just sick puppies.
>Again, you present a meaningless argument and then sit back as if you have said something meaningful. Of course there is no embargo on writing about AC & sexuality, at least as long as it doesn’t challenge the dominant narrative or threaten to kill the Crowley cash cow. Have you seen the latest bio from North Atlantic? It could come with a line of Crowley dolls.
Have you seen the study of Crowley that came out of Leiden? and how is my argument any more meaningless than the ones you have been using so far?
>Only for suggesting that “experts” should have the final say, even when they have shirked on their own research.
I have never said that, or even suggested it. In fact, I said they are not the Alpha and Omega, but a place to start. I never said they should have the final say. And I do not see where the “experts” to which I refer have shirked anything. Proof, please?
>Of course, I want to hear what knowledgeable researchers have to say; it’s just disappointing when what it mostly comes down is: “Nothing to see here, run along now and get your proper training, and meanwhile let us experts continue to define the narrative.
You are hearing the words, but not the music. There was a considerable witch-hunt against Michael Aquino, for instance: a satanist who was in Army intelligence, no less. They tried to prove he molested children. This was at the height of the SRA hysteria. The police, the Army, private investigators, everybody jumped on that bandwagon. And there was nothing there. He was vindicated. He wasn’t even in the same city when the alleged abuses were taking place.
Yes, get some proper training. If not official, academic training then at least do some reading in the areas you mention. It won’t cost you a dime.
>Is that fatherly concern, or the sound of the intelligentsia gloating?
Neither.
> they are not the start for me, they are only a stop along the way.
So stop there awhile and see what they have to say.
>One of my reasons for writing you; but unless they are addressing the material we are discussing and providing a realistic interpretation of it, I just don’t have the time to read every AC paper and publication.
In other words, unless they are already writing about AC and sex abuse, you are not interested. You don’t have the time to truly study your subject, since you are already convinced of the truth of your allegations.
> My point was that I am also working with a direct past experience of the networks, beliefs, and practices which I believe AC can be associated with.
I am working with a direct past and current experience of the networks, etc. But that is evidently suspect, I guess.
And you are not working with a direct past experience; by your own admission your grandfather may have met Crowley. That’s not evidence of direct past experience. It’s a suggestion, nothing more, that someone in your family “met” Crowley. A lot of people met Crowley. We need more than that to make a case for direct past experience.
>An attempt to get to the truth. The notion of a witch hunt presumes a moral directive and a desire to punish or destroy. I think that’s your Jesuit training speaking.
Go back to Salem. 1692. Spectral evidence. Many people were executed. Others had their reputations ruined. And there was no “there” there. If you truly want to get at the truth, then stop arguing with me and build a solid case with a definable thesis and some supporting documentation. I am not opposed to finding out that AC was a child molester. I have no dog in this race. I am not a member of the OTO or any other occult, spiritual or religious organization. But I have been through the mill since at least the JFK assassination with conspiracy theories, accusations, poorly argued theses, illogical statements, and people who are certain they are right … until they are not, and by then it’s usually too late.
Good luck, qualify your statements and accusations, and be objective. That’s all the advice I can give (unsolicited of course!).

By this point I had had enough and responded with this:

One question: I am curious what exactly would constitute proof in your eyes, since you don’t consider victims’ own testimonies reliable, nor a close study of Crowley’s own beliefs, statements, relationships, and the circumstances surrounding him. So what does that leave? Photographic evidence?
May I share this back & forth with some fellow researchers to see what they make of it?

Levenda:

What evidence was there for Jimmy Savile, or the case in Belgium, or the Finders? You had eyewitness testimony in some cases that could be corroborated. You had documentary evidence. You had trophies collected by the perpetrators. You had police investigations that were conducted according to the law. Would you want to be accused of a crime based on the type of speculation you employ, if it didn’t include all of this?
Victims’ testimonies are a place to start, but they have to be corroborated. And a close study of Crowley’s own beliefs, etc etc would be nice but you haven’t done that. Or if you have, I haven’t seen it.
In the Franklin case, there was testimony by the victims and that constituted the beginning — not the end — of the investigation. I strongly recommend reading Nick Bryant’s book on that case as it shows how such a delicate and seemingly impossible investigation of systematic sexual abuse (perpetrated by public figures) can be conducted.
As for sharing the correspondence, I leave that to your judgment.

I was a bit dissatisfied with that last so I fired back:

let me put it more plainly: do you have any objections to our correspondence being read and commented on by others?

Levenda’s caveat:

I have no objection, only a reservation:
I don’t want to get dragged into a long engagement on this material, repeating things I already said, being required to respond to more and more allegations, speculations, etc. I am afraid that if I neglect to reply or if I challenge someone on their method or conclusions that I will be accused (as you have already done) of being somehow dishonest or deceptive, etc. Sometimes silence is not deafening, it’s just nice and quiet. And I am involved in a heavy workload that is only going to get heavier as the year progresses, which will reduce the amount of care and time I will be able to contribute to this discussion. I can contribute my understanding, as I have done, of “sources and methods” where an investigation of this type is concerned, and I can share my own direct engagement with the material, as I have done, and then only when time permits.
So with that caveat in mind, I reiterate that I have no objection to the exchange being shared. (I do not want my email address to be part of the sharing, though.)

I would be lying if I said this exchange didn’t rattle me, or that this wasn’t my main reason for posting it here, as a reality check, to invite feedback from third party readers.

123 thoughts on “Discussing Crowley, Occultism, and Ritual Child Abuse with Peter Levenda”

  1. Both perspectives seem reasonable to me. Levenda does not come across to me as someone who is hiding anything, but rather someone who has formed a different interpretation of the available evidence.
    However, this statement of yours really stood out:
    ” I always come back to the same question, however: which is more likely, that a bunch of very clever, sophisticated, and thorough individuals are conspiring to make us believe that occult child abuse rituals form the basis of modern society; or that a bunch of very clever, sophisticated, and thorough individuals are conspiring to make us believe that occult child abuse rituals do not happen, at all, or only in a random, haphazard fashion that has nothing at all to do with the higher echelons of the ruling class (who have no interest in occult rituals, even if they like to diddle kids occasionally)?”
    I take more of a ‘macro” view of society and its movements at large, and your statement above reflects my point of view pretty well. Evidence appears to strongly indicate that there is a massive and concealed international child abuse network in our world, and at the same time evidence appears to strongly indicate that there is an occult element among the leaders and intelligentsia of our world, one that they make great efforts to conceal from the general public. I don’t know the ultimate truth on the matter, but it really doesn’t seem unreasonable to speculate that these 2 concealed elements have a large overlap. All rats converge in the shadows, and so on.
    That said, I personally have no stance regarding Aleister Crowley in particular, and the idea that there may be a massive international occult society that engages in pedophilia doesn’t automatically indict him. Though it certainly does suggest that one should take his case in this matter seriously, and not dismiss it out of hand because of lack of formal evidence.

    • Thanks, dj. I don’t agree about Levenda, at least that was not my experience, at all, and as I continue to mull over his responses, more & more things fail to add up about them. Maybe I’ll get to it later, but for now I am still waiting for the dust to settle and to hear others’ responses.
      I did read something today, sent to me unrelated to this, which seems relevant to my own perspective/experience & might account (in part) for the gulf shown above:

      The Golden Ass of Apuleius: The Liberation of the Feminine in Man, by Marie Louise von Franz

  2. Jason, thank you for the presentation of your exchange with Peter Levenda. May you prevail.
    If I’ve learned anything in life, it’s that people lie. I read somewhere when people lie about numbers it’s often done in multiples. Crowley’s bragging about 150 child sacrifices is the ludicrous camouflage of, perhaps, the more realistic number of 5.

    • Howdy.
      If you haven’t already, please do read
      The Witch-Hunt Narrative: Politics, Psychology, and the Sexual Abuse of Children
      It’s greatly informative (macro and micro) on the hoodwink of the satanic panic.

      • In the 1980s, a series of child sex abuse cases rocked the United States. The most famous case was the 1984 McMartin preschool case, but there were a number of others as well. By the latter part of the decade, the assumption was widespread that child sex abuse had become a serious problem in America. Yet within a few years, the concern about it died down considerably. The failure to convict anyone in the McMartin case and a widely publicized appellate decision in New Jersey that freed an accused molester had turned the dominant narrative on its head. In the early 1990s, a new narrative with remarkable staying power emerged: the child sex abuse cases were symptomatic of a “moral panic” that had produced a witch hunt. A central claim in this new witch hunt narrative was that the children who testified were not reliable and easily swayed by prosecutorial suggestion. In time, the notion that child sex abuse was a product of sensationalized over-reporting and far less endemic than originally thought became the new common sense. But did the new witch hunt narrative accurately represent reality? As Ross Cheit demonstrates in his exhaustive account of child sex abuse cases in the past two and a half decades, purveyors of the witch hunt narrative never did the hard work of examining court records in the many cases that reached the courts throughout the nation. Instead, they treated a couple of cases as representative and concluded that the issue was blown far out of proportion. Drawing on years of research into cases in a number of states, Cheit shows that the issue had not been blown out of proportion at all. In fact, child sex abuse convictions were regular occurrences, and the crime occurred far more frequently than conventional wisdom would have us believe. Cheit’s aim is not to simply prove the narrative wrong, however. He also shows how a narrative based on empirically thin evidence became a theory with real social force, and how that theory stood at odds with a far more grim reality. The belief that the charge of child sex abuse was typically a hoax also left us unprepared to deal with the far greater scandal of child sex abuse in the Catholic Church, which, incidentally, has served to substantiate Cheit’s thesis about the pervasiveness of the problem. In sum, The Witch-Hunt Narrative is a magisterial and empirically powerful account of the social dynamics that led to the denial of widespread human tragedy.

        https://www.amazon.ca/Witch-Hunt-Narrative-Politics-Psychology-Children/dp/0199931224

  3. Jasun, I thought you presented an excellent case. I did not read all of it, but I read a long part on circular reasoning and Alister’s comments and associations. As you might appreciate, law is designed to hinder investigation and muddy the waters. Probabilities and likelihoods are not things courts like to admit. further, in ordinary times and circumstances, we operate under normal laws and procedures. But in time of crisis such as war, Marital law becomes the necessary rule of law. on the Battle field, one can not afford the luxury of a trial. The ruling commander on the battlefield makes the decisions, including like and death and execution.
    We have lost control and order in our society. We are surrounded by the utmost evil and it has penetrated every level of society. We are now at war. We do not have the luxury of careful evidence of precision quality. We must allow for associations, known quotes, known activities and anything related to the accused or suspected. Your evidence, that was known and published or commented on by associates of Crowley seem very indicative of what likely was the case. In my mind, Crowley definitely raped kids and/or had sex with them. Not only him, but most of the elite of today would have to suffer the same conviction from me. If one knows a few facts, those often require the assumption of other facts, too.
    As an example, business does lots of bribing to get waivers of buildling codes and secure help from within a municipality. Businesses also have allies of similar interests. So if one business is caught abusing the law, we can probably assume, without much concern, that all substantial business are doing that. And if they are doing things like that, They probably price fix, bribe state and federal politicians, hire whores, and engage in criminal activities of some sort. And if they go that far, there is probably nothing they will not do or resort to. Humans do behave in regular predictable patterns. That is what psychology is about and it is a science and not mere speculation.
    Your presentation in the parts I read, were quite convincing. Perhaps you could do a condensed version in the future. Pick the best observations of Crowley and expand on those, perhaps not even regarding the person you were writing to. Those who are part of the “network” are notorious liars. Such make very poor witnesses.

  4. — TO BE (FILTHY), OR NOT TO BE (FILTHY), THAT IS THE QUESTION —
    Gurdjieff treated him like any other guest until the evening of his departure. After dinner on Sunday night, Gurdjieff led the way out of the dining room with Crowley, followed by the body of the pupils who had also been at the meal. Crowley made his way toward the door and turned to take his leave of Gurdjieff, who by this time was some way up the stairs to the second floor. “Mister, you go?” Gurdjieff inquired. Crowley assented. “You have been guest?”—a fact which the visitor could hardly deny. “Now you go, you are no longer guest?” Crowley—no doubt wondering whether his host had lost his grip on reality and was wandering in a semantic wilderness – humored his mood by indicating that he was on his way back to Paris. But Gurdjieff, having made the point that he was not violating the canons of hospitality, changed on the instant into the embodiment of righteous anger. “You filthy,” he stormed, “you dirty inside! Never again you set foot in my house!” From his vantage point on the stairs, he worked himself into a rage which quite transfixed his watching pupils. Crowley was stigmatized as the sewer of creation was taken apart and trodden into the mire.
    http://www.ptmistlberger.com/why-remarkable-men-rarely-meet.php
    Ten Crowley Myths Busted
    9. Myth: Aleister Crowley advocated pedophilia.
    Aleister Crowley was one of the strongest advocates for children’s rights of his time. He was against all forms of child abuse, and has said that if he were in political power, he’d have parents who bully their children arrested. Moreover, he was unequivocal that abuse of anyone’s rights is contrary to his religious philosophy of Thelema.
    https://ac2012.com/2011/12/20/aleister-crowley-myths-busted/
    As Aleister Crowley wrote in his commentary on The Book of the Law:
    “… acts invasive of another individual’s equal rights are implicitly self-aggressions. … Such acts as rape, and the assault or seduction of infants, may therefore be justly regarded as offences against the Law of Liberty, and repressed in the interests of that Law.”
    https://ac2012.com/2011/03/11/pedophiles-in-wales/

    • And yet:
      In a 1938 interview for Real Action for Men, Crowley bragged about raping a young woman at knife-point when he was fourteen, betraying a very clear double standard when it came to his own actions. He described this as “the day I became a man”:

      “I was 14 and rather big for my age, also not a little precocious, as you will see. We had a scullery maid. She was a lusty wench of 19, and she had been tormenting me for a long time. She would spy on me in my bath, sneak into my bedroom early in the morning and tickle me under the covers, lift her skirts at me, and in general do her best to arouse the young man in the boy of 14. She succeeded. I took these gestures to be frankly insistent invitations, and I attempted to accept. But she played coy and shoved me away. After a few such rejections and her tantalizing fraud continuing, I caught her alone one morning in the scullery when all the house was away somewhere. What I was unable to accomplish by sheer muscular power, I managed by the ever-so gentle pressure of boning knife to throat, and thus this treacherous lass of 19 got her come-uppance from a mere stripling of 14.”

      Crowley refers to this incident obliquely in his Confessions, without describing it as a rape and focusing primarily on two things: his cunning in enlisting a local tobacconist to foster him with an alibi when the maid levels charges against him; and absolving himself of all responsibility for his actions by blaming them on the prevalent repressive attitudes towards sex at that time.

  5. It skimmed this and because it’s all about Crowley, most of it goes over my head. For all of his sophisticated argumentation, Levenda defends the official story on the McMartin case, supports Aquino’s innocence, and pokes fun at MKULTRA survivors re: Mengele molesting children on AF bases “after his death”.
    At one point I did quite a lot of digging into Mengele, read the official (CIA-sanctioned) biography and a slough of other material, and noticed that the official narrative was full of gaping holes, beginning in 1945 when the Americans captured and released him and lied about it. His alleged death in Embu, Brazil in 1979 at age 68, is also controversial: witness accounts at the scene claimed the man in the coffin was not Mengele but one of his Nazi associates, and one of the forensic experts who traveled to Brazil to identify the body happened to have also served on the Warren Commission. Four thousand pages of Mengele’s papers remained in CIA classified storage for decades and were never released as promised, although a doctored “autobiography” appeared in 2004. What other conclusion can one jump to, except that there has been a flawed coverup to discredit e.g. all the survivors etc who claim Mengele worked in America under Operation Paperclip?
    How can Levenda also not be aware that there is a LOT of power standing on the side of the McMartins and Michael Aquino? All three of these cases (Mengele, McMartin, Aquino) should be considered ‘unsolved’ or at least ‘controversial’ and were central to a massively funded, highly organized counter-attack by establishment groups because all three threatened to open the floodgates, exposing a whole underground network of organized child abuse?
    IMHO Levenda is suspect for bringing up those cases in defending Crowley — especially since you, Jasun, didn’t mention any of them.

    • Agreed. Here’s some comments I made at a Rigorous Intuition thread where I also posted the above exchange:

      There seems to be very little awareness about, or even desire to understand the ways in which organized child abuse comes about, the underlying patterns of ideological belief that support & give rise to it, and act as a cover for it. Levenda and others seem more concerned with the dangers of some imagined “witchhunt” in which innocent witches will be burned than they do with what is happening to children. I have been on the wrong end of that sort of attitude myself (i.e., seen as a dark sorcerer), so I know it exists; but is it really comparable as a danger to that of worldwide, systematized ritual abuse of children? I don’t see how that can be argued.
      As for looking for direct or even coded references to “pedophilia” in occult tracts, this may very well be simply missing the point. But if such are desired, they certainly exist. Kazsynski (AC biographer) mentions how two children are listed as a central part of Crowley’s Gnostic mass; he places “children” in inverted commas, as if to deflect any fears the reader might have that such would be taken literally.
      I would agree about the overly hysterical point of view of Christian fundies, of course, as well as the exaggerations of Icke; however, I personally think their viewpoints, however distorted, are significantly closer to the social reality than that being pushed by occult-fraternity-friendly but supposedly “exposing” voices such as Levenda’s.
      My goal isn’t to prove this, or even that AC committed child abuse, but to demonstrate the chain of associations and discoveries by which I have come to see culture at large, as well as the underlying subculture of the occult, to be all of a piece, regarding organized ritual abuse and child traumatizaton as an occultic practice to attain power both worldly and otherworldly.
      I would encourage discerning reader to go through PL’s replies carefully and look for clear inconsistencies, dissembling, and avoidance (such as the McMartin tunnel question), not to mention the overall sustained mantra of “where’s the proof” as a means to belittle and discredit all arguments about a case that, if it happened, would have happened a hundred years ago, making the question of proof almost entirely moot.

      I do not find Levenda credible in terms of being someone who simply has “blind spots,” which of course we all have. There seems to be a pattern to what he allows himself to advocate and endorse, in terms of narratives, and what he dismisses. Also to the ways in which his forms of argumentation changes according to need. Rightly or not, I felt after our exchange like I had been the victim of what Raimond Gaita calls “illegitimate persuasion.” For someone who purports to have an exacting standard of journalistic integrity(and who disparages conspiracy extremists such as Alex Jones), his tendency to do interviews on what to my mind are no more credible shows (Coast 2 Coast, etc), not to mention his continuing gushing endorsement of Whitley Strieber, ought, I think, to raise a few questions.

      Honest ambivalence is especially difficult when one’s version of reality is being belittled or dismissed illegitimately.
      With Levenda, what began as an inquiry of an “expert” so I could get it on record for the book snowballed into an adversarial exchange, partially due to my own feeling of being invalidated by a superior-voiced “elder”, and the corresponding compensation on my part. I didn’t consciously set out to expose Levenda and yet in a way I did, since I expected him to give me an example of the way debate gets closed down, or never entered into, around the question of highly-respected figures and their possible affiliations with organized abuse. I thought he would just ignore me again, or give me a brief dismissal. That he took so much time and energy when there is clearly no real affection or even much respect between us in itself is curious, since he is clearly a very busy guy.
      The other thing I wanted to mention, been thinking about, is PL’s accusation that I am on a witchhunt, and even the use of this term at all in the present day context of organized abuse. Does it really add up? There is no modern day Inquisition, there are no powerful political forces trying to root out child abusers, on the contrary. So what sort of Inquisitional flames am I supposed to be fanning by my arguments?
      PL has to know about the UK revelations (during which PM Tony Blair warned about a “witchhunt”!), that children were and are being trafficked via care homes to political and cultural elite; so why is he downplaying it so much that he can simultaneously make points as if organized abuse was all just unsubstantiated rumor and Christian hysteria? Isn’t it a case of choosing to align with the structures of power?

  6. Crowley’s favorite sex partner was the female prostitute but I’m quite certain the chosen whores (Babalon) were not aware of the perverse sexual magick he was performing – so it actually goes against his saying of “Do What Thou Wilt”. Crowley’s perverse sexual nature most certainly did go against the will of some of his encounters, not all but some.
    Crowley named his first daughter- Nuit Ma Ahathoor Hecate Sappho Jezebel Lilith Crowley (1904–06) and they called her Lilith. Naming one’s daughter after the occult’s favorite Witches, Prostitutes and Lesbians tells me all I need to know about the guy.
    Levenda communing with Strieber says much – and Strieber’s most recent book cover of an owl’s eye is a wink and a nod to the occult worship of Lilith (Ishtar) — the Screech Owl of the Night. OT – Jasun, your description several weeks ago of a presence of a being with you at night, made me think you had been visited by Lilith. Wouldn’t surprises me if some spook conjured her up to pay you a visit.
    Keep up the research!

  7. I wrote this first part before I finished reading the whole piece, which I did finish. I wanted to write my responses as I went along.
    “[Crowley]”didn’t write about [child sex abuse]” says Levenda..
    But Crowley did write about it, in plain site..
    I’m starting to feel my bias against Levenda reconfirmed; I’d taken him earlier as a liar.. (Hmmm, confirmation bias, is it? )
    I wrote this first part before I finished reading the whole piece, which I did finish. I wanted to write my responses as I went along. Sorry it’s a bit un-even, but I wanted to take the time to contribute a few thoughts, even though I couldn’t do a perfect job of it.
    “[Crowley]”didn’t write about [child sex abuse]” says Levenda..
    But Crowley did write about it, in plain sight.
    I’m starting to feel my bias against Levenda reconfirmed; I’d taken him earlier as a liar.. (Hmmm, confirmation bias, is it? )
    Crowley’s writing about his ritual with his lover, the mother of his child reminded me of the end of the book “Justine,” said to be by de Sade.
    I knew a lot, second hand, about de Sade without reading his writings and I was sickened when I did finally read some.
    I didn’t realize how disgusting that creep was and was glad I never wasted any more time reading that fool.
    In the story, de Sade forced the mother to have sex with him and the baby, then has her kill her own baby and then has sex with the mother..
    These jokers love to hide in plain sight. .Why would some people apologize for it and construct elaborate Apologia for this? – so the perp doesn’t even have to.. It’s all about the alleged division between “Art” and Life,” is it, so carefully constructed?
    With all the hoaxes perpetrated, maybe this is just another hoax? Yet maybe all the hoaxes are to muddy the water to keep *this from ever being seen.
    I noticed Levenda never argued that all the talk could be a hoax, but he does elude to the notion Crowley is “just joking” in the passage where he describes such a scene as the de Sade.
    But if Crowley were “just joking” wouldn’t he *want people to believe it; rather than lead people to believe it was not so?
    It more likely just a typical psycho narcissism – proud of the crimes and can’t keep it to themselves?
    Reading yesterday a chapter in the “Music , the Arts, and Ideas” by Leonard B. Meyer, Univ. of Chicago 1967 called, “Forgery and the Anthropology of Art”
    Meyer writes :
    “If the criteria of judgment are purely aesthetic , why should a work of art once found moving and valuable become a worthless curiosity when it is discovered to be a forgery?” [speaking of paintings] in the same way: of Crowley and de Sade:
    “Why should an [alleged] work of art become a confession of crime when found *not to be a forgery?”
    Why assume that they are lying?
    Makes no sense.
    “[Crowley] didn’t write about [his crimes against children]” says Levenda.. But He Did!
    “police investigations that were conducted according to the law”
    Lavenda says he would count as evidence,which he would accept as some proof [I don’t believe him though]:
    Assumptions are wrong on this one. As if.
    Crowley was working for MI6? Is Lavenda really so naïve to believe these people can do this, get away with it for so long, without protection?
    Also, if people are not caught in a lie, they don’t stop lying. Seems like Crowley’s lies get to slide? Yes his very doctrine tells one that he would have no compunctions. He tell you straight out.
    [I think this double – bind is a kind of NPL or hypnotism ; or functions like that?]
    I poem I love and recently memorized, The Hound of Heaven” has a line I’ve thought about:
    FEAR WIST NOT TO EVADE.
    Sometimes horror or fear can freeze one? So maybe the horror of what Crowley is about, or pretends to be about [?], causes a mental paralysis in the victims?
    Crowley was caught by Mr. Horsley in a lie regarding his platitudes about “Do What Thou Wilt” and what it really means. [“Rape is against my rules”] Yet he brags of it. But that detail is not recognized by Crowley’s apologizers.
    Why would anyone believe Crowley after he was caught in the rape lie? It’s against legal standards, (though I know our justice system is shot), to take any testimony as sincere after the person is caught in a lie; and Crowley was. Though Crowley is long dead and this is just as a mental experiment with no legal repercussions; yet once someone is caught in a lie you are not supposed to keep on believing them, per legal standards.
    Also, as Mr. Horsley points out: Isn’t it better the err on the side of caution when making a judgment around this. For instance, the “witch hunt” isn’t really a possibility / danger, or is it?
    Perhaps the guilty really are afraid of that? Or why would it be an issue? Perhaps the apologizers side with the power?
    Speaking of Synchronicity: A friend of my son who is also a Synchromystic writer and a Thelemite [I remember many years ago introducing him to the work of Kotze, but he says he doesn’t remember] and I had a long-ish exchange yesterday /”religion” of Crowley, on Facebook.
    The whole Crowley worship never made sense to me, though I’ve known his followers in my neighborhood. There are many circles of them here. But it never occurred to me that Crowley had proclaimed his group outside of the term “religion.” That’s deep.
    And this fellow buys the whole whitewash.. Why would Crowley say “Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law” if he didn’t mean what that said.? Why would there have to be multiple footnotes on that statement? Does “Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You” have numerous caveats and appendices? [even if in reality the phrase is not widely practiced by self – proclaimed Christians]
    (Sorry if the formatting of this is off, the settings on the form entry aren’t working for me and I don’t know how to fix it. So I had to write it first in a “Notepad” )
    I’d reprint the exchange with the Thelemite , but this is not the proper place for it. It would just to be to show how for all Crowley’s followers are taught that they are “thinking outside the box” and “free,” they still can’t get out the box to admit that Crowley’s definition of religion might not be something everyone agrees with.. i.e. “Others have religion, but ours is just the truth.” And not realizing that’s what “they all” say. Everyone’s religion is the privileged one; by definition?
    The repetition of the words of the great philosopher / master are just that:empty repetition, rote; just as with the other religions which they hate [Christianity]. My correspondent finally fell back on the “experience” platform : which I very familiar with from the Ashram I was in; that was the “answer” to any criticism; “It’s not my experience” “We base our truth on [direct] Experience.” “Ours is different; we base our on experience”

    • “He expects him to written a confession and have it notarized..?”
      That is what everyone in power or full of guilt says and wants . . . a confession signed and notarized, with

      • I don’t know what the hell happened typing but to finish . . . with 10 witnesses and video taped as well. Otherwise, it never happened and never could happen. But average people have got to stop accepting whatever told by authorities, particularly of the media, and start being a lot more critical and demanding of explanations given. The Media no longer does so. But people put up with crap all the time. That is why they continue to get crap.

  8. Strange, but last night when I was typing in here on the Explorer browser with cookies, links to Facebook et cetera; My keypad wouldn’t work. And in fact, letters kept getting changed around as I typed them, some were spelling corrections, but the op, whatever it was, did not hit all my spelling errors. There was also a huge lag between me typing and the word coming out on the screen .
    I switched to TOR browser this morning and it’s all gone away. I’ve been having my computer security breached and I need to figure out a fix. “Soon Coming” as they say in India.
    It was super – hard to write at all that under those conditions. Weird that letters you are writing can be grabbed.. I’m thinking it was a glitch with the software, and Microsoft really does reach in through it’s browser to correct your spelling. And it’s just a really crappy program , typical of Microsoft. And there are many other possibilities including the occult and the intelligence services and IA – but I’m not going there because certainly there are some perps who want me to look as insane as possible.
    I even read the posting after it was registered / sent last night and the the spelling error I had corrected over and over “sight” not “site” – had gotten posted incorrectly on the first section. But then this morning the hard copy was changed..and it was correct in both writings [It had been doubled by accident]
    I think I’m being gaslighted and someone wants me to believe in the Mandala effect..? The spooks who are supporting that should learn how to pronounce the word correctly. They sound like jack – asses on the YouTube NLP / hypnosis video supporting/promoting that garbage.
    And yes, this whole Mandala op all bears upon the traces of crime from the past.. If the past changes, hey, they’ve really got a back door [no pun] don’t they?
    ““Why should an [alleged] work of art become a confession of crime when found *not to be a forgery?” I wrote last night.
    This didn’t type wrong but I phrased it poorly; Maybe better, to make a parallelism with the author and scholar Mr. Meyer:
    “Why should an [alleged] work of art become a confession of crime when found to be real depiction of events?”
    I recognized another anomaly this morning regarding my research on Crowley of yesterday.
    I think the Wiki is sanitized. Wiki says:
    “He spent mid-1919 on a climbing holiday in Montauk before returning to London in December.[140]”
    Um “Montauk” is a very flat beach at the tip of Long Island. 100% flat. Not even with hills of the size @ Berkeley CA
    They’re making him sound like a great mountain – climber, at Montauk? They meant “Mohonk”
    But anyway, the Wiki is doing a hagiography on him
    and
    The official Wiki says the man , who was Crowley’s follower and who died on Cefalù died of liver poisoning from tainted water.
    According to biographer Martin Booth, in his bio. “A Magick Life” the man who died did so immediately after being made to drink cat blood.
    According to this biography, which is very even handed, Crowley was in the midst of a magic circle ceremony with his one follower [a follower who remained – most had deserted him by that time] also Crowley had no money by this time; had gone through his inheritance] ordered that someone should go kill a cat and make the man drink the blood..as part of the ceremony [Thinking now : was it really a cat?]
    In any case the acolyte developed a fever immediately, and died shortly after.
    This precipitated Crowley’s move back to England.. According to Wiki , the man, Raoul Loveday , died from other causes:
    “Subsequently, a young Thelemite named Raoul Loveday moved to the Abbey with his wife Betty May; while Loveday was devoted to Crowley, May detested him and life at the commune. She later said that Loveday was made to drink the blood of a sacrificed cat, and that they were required to cut themselves with razors every time they used the pronoun “I”. Loveday drank from a local polluted stream, soon developing a liver infection resulting in his death in February 1923. Returning to London, May told her story to the press.[157] John Bull proclaimed Crowley “the wickedest man in the world” and “a man we’d like to hang”, and although Crowley deemed many of their accusations against him to be slanderous, he was unable to afford the legal fees to sue them. As a result, John Bull continued its attack, with its stories being repeated in newspapers throughout Europe and in North America.[158] The Fascist government of Benito Mussolini learned of Crowley’s activities and in April 1923 he was given a deportation notice forcing him to leave Italy; without him, the Abbey closed.[159″
    This appears biased on many scores.. One the wife, Betty May, is marginalized. Her story about the cat blood is not given credence.. And then , when they note he was thrown off the island, they make sure to note it was the “Fascist Government of Mussolini” .. However, Crowley himself worked for the fascists.. so is the implication that he was thrown out because they were Fascists and didn’t like his “freedom”
    So here we have an example of a dispute over history. The bio by Booth does not come up easily in any searches .. It was not easy to find. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/0340718056/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all
    My conspiracy theory is that Crowley is being sanitized , as much as possible, by the powerful people who promoted him after his death.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley#Abbey_of_Thelema:_1920.E2.80.9323

    • It is my opinion, for what that is worth, that the problems you were/are having are from hackers or whatever else you want to call them. I have experienced much the same myself, more than once. When you get on to topics like these, picking on major people like Crowley, you are going to get noticed and paid attention to. In fact, Crowley is a major kingpin of Satanism. If he were to go down, it would be a horrific disaster and loss for the Satanic Community. You need not doubt that one.
      There are subjects that might not seem that important to most, but are very important and sensitive to some, who have interests that most do not realize or discern. This is a major article, as I see it, going in very interesting directions. But I say that with good intent and appreciate this whole post article. I am sure others, for other reasons, find this concerning that anyone should look that deep into Crowley and 2nd guess him., looking beyond the surface. My greatest compliments to the chef for this work and effort. I’m saving it to disk.

  9. To hammer home the point of my above link, which i thought about overnight. Really, according to Levenda what is this poem if not a confession of pedophilia? It starts out with an adult male fantasizing about sex with little kids who smile at him ‘awry’, then shifts to the child’s secret (or open) desire to be violated by “a strong man”. What are poems if not incantatory vehicles in this case for forbidden desires? Can anyone seriously argue that the words and worlds that poets invent are not to be taken seriously, especially as he seems so determined to not only describe his ‘passive’ desire in graphic terms but also to justify it from the child (victim)’s perspective?
    A BALLAD
    OF PASSIVE PEDERASTY
    Boys tempt my lips to wanton use,
    And show their tongues, and smile awry,
    And wonder why I should refuse
    To feel their buttocks on the sly,
    And kiss their genitals, and cry:
    ‘Ah! Ganymede, grant me one night!’
    This is the one sweet mystery:
    A strong man’s love is my delight!
    To feel him clamber on me, laid
    Prone on the couch of lust and shame,
    To feel him force me like a maid
    And his great sword within me flame,
    His breath as hot and quick as fame;
    To kiss him and to clasp him tight;
    This is my joy without a name,
    A strong man’s love is my delight.
    To feel again his love grow grand
    Touched by the langour of my kiss;
    To suck the hot blood from my gland
    Mingled with fierce spunk that doth hiss,
    And boils in sudden spurted bliss;
    Ah! God! the long-drawn lusty fight!
    Grant me eternity of this!
    A strong man’s love is my delight!

    • This is typical of how they clothe their desires, suggesting the kids really want it. They do not. It is easy for an adult to forget what they felt as children (or is it?). They forget how children are naturally intimidated by adults and tend to be obedient to them, even if they are strangers, out of that fear/intimidation. There are those now who say some children like it or want it. With some their own age, they might indeed, find it interesting or be curious and not sacred. But if the other is much older, then no, not a chance. And there are studies to back this up as well. I thin kit was in Psychology Today in the late 80s that children showed no harm when having sex with someone their own age, but as the other gets older in age, they become more intimidated and uncomfortable and if like 5 years or more, older, than more harm. It gets progressively worse till 26, where it reaches a maximum discomfort and remains at that level for ages older than that.
      But liars lie to get what they want. Protectors have to take up “weapons” of defense to repel the invaders. that reason and logic.

  10. I notice the poet, above, Crowley, says “fight”
    There was an occultist / artist / party organizer [who was also self-identified queer] who used to live in my neighborhood and who made a posting about how it was the ~ “the smell of children” and how he enjoy the screaming. or some such.. after a particular wild party event / ritual . It was apparently a turn-on. They had big wild parties associated with some art gallery.
    It was slightly obscured language, but it was pretty obvious what he referred to. I cut him off right away.
    But didn’t “drop a dime”
    A mutual friend [at the time – I’ve, since, been estranged from her, too], who was also a party organizer, forgave him right away, though she had harsh words in the comments. Other people didn’t object. Right, they were all heavily Crowley influenced, I would say. Crowley is a big cultural influence in the circle’s here. And he’s worshipped.. You can’t say a bad word about him and be heard.
    So yeah, they might not “seduce” the child with love and attention for a long “courtship” but you could be talking about straight out rape..in some cases. So the “discomfort” as a older sex partner gets progressively older is not really fitting to the case of a purposeful violation? It might be flattery, attention, and follow -up before and after the rape? And “making it all better” “explaining it” I’m just guessing how they do it.. But it’s not as though the perpetrator flatters them/ befriends them into consent at all times.
    I don’t really want to get “into” exposing Satanists.
    As soon as Mae Brussell started in on the Presidio investigation was when she got the “people” moving into the empty houses across the street and spying on her, And when she came down with fast growing cancer. Of the three main c0-researchers on 9/11 TV Fakery [of 4 counting myself]. 2 died of rare and fast – growing cancer; one just last month. And the 3rd was hit with psychosis.
    One other tid-bit of info. I met the man who ghostwrote the “Happy Hooker” at a book signing. He also wrote the “French Connection” and was from a family who owed the “Sheraton” [? I believe] hotel chain. He also belonged to the Century Club.. I had a rapport speaking with him at this event many years ago now. He is now dead. And he gave me a ride home with his wife and himself in a cab. I was talking all about politics; I can’t remember specifically. And he told me, both at the event and later as we parted, that I reminded him very much of his sister; who was dead; What I was saying, not how I looked.
    His name was Robin Moore and his sister was Marsha Moore.. There was a poignancy in how he looked at me and repeated how I reminded him of his sister.. He was basically agreeing with everything I said, politically.
    After some lag of time, I looked up his sister and found out she had been be-headed [called “suicide’ – but how do you behead yourself and leave your body behind in a tree and have your head found in a Parking Lot some distance away?] while investigation a coven of Satanists who lived near her – and who she had gotten in circles with.
    I’m not sure if the info is still up on-line about her. I didn’t check.
    So honestly, this most prominent occult bookstore and center for events moved one block from me. It’s the most prominent center in the entire city for that.. And it just “Makes Me Think,” lol
    And that was just a weird synchronicity.. So all added up.. I have to stay away from that.. Let other people do it. Mr. Moore insisted I reminded him of his sister, over and over – with “pregnant pause” look on his face. I’m not getting any awards or thanks for doing research and chasing things no one one else even sees.

    I have a hard time writing on this input window. It’s changing my letters again ,, probably just a spell check this time. But I write a clear copy on my new WordPress blog; since I can edit there. Maybe I won’t need to edit this time [doubtful] But just for safe keeping too.

  11. I have to take Levenda’s side insofar as you can’t make assumptions without evidence. And we can’t seem to trust Crowley about anything. He claimed to be a great wizard but was a deeply flawed individual, given over to behavior Nietzsche would have rolled his eyes at. A lot of his ‘magickal’ activities were just an excuse for licentious behavior. But on the other hand, he pioneered the syncretistic occultism that was a by product of the 19th century globalization.
    The evidence Crowley was raping children is pretty whispy, but I would suggest the more productive avenue for exploration was how his integration to the Anglo-American elite’s decadent circles of the early 20th century made possible cults like Scientology, The Process and all these weird DIY Satanisms. Not to mention creepy libertinism like that advocated by the Fabians or people like Gore Vidal. The revival of Bohemianism in the 60s was the perfect cover for mind-rapers like the CIA.
    Just my take. Obviously, there are others.

    • What about PL’s take on ritual abuse? He claims my piece was cherry-picking cases to prove an argument, when what I did was present the evidence that ritual abuse happens and base my larger arguments (which he calls “opinions”) on that evidence. Apparently, evidence is only evidence when it agrees with PL’s beliefs (or his agendas); otherwise it is cherry-picking.

      • PL was, as I see it, trying to create a smoke screen and cause doubt where none is required. In the world of Mind Control programming, which goes hand in hand with Satanism and in sex trafficking/porn/snuff, there are a wide variety of “apologists” who only job is to try to put our “fires” and cause doubt and division, if possible. They are liars be profession. We have shills on the net doing the same, though often not of the same quality as the “pros.” One has to expect this when dealing with subjects that threaten to expose the very worst of humanity. Its business as usual in the fight against evil.

        • There is no fighting evil going on at this thread, only the attempt to deepen awareness past and through the mental masturbation of binary oppositions such as good” and “evil,” dark and light, where the only meaningful polarity in human existence is that of conscious and unconscious.

          • I understand that fighting evil may not be your purpose or intent, but when you deepen awareness, you are going to uncover things that many try to avoid or suppress. That exposure, like it or not, is going to “awaken” those who do not like exposure. Nothing we do goes un-noticed.

      • I think he’s just saying there’s no evidentiary chain linking Crowley specifically to such abuse. Which isn’t the same as saying it’s not possible. He certainly contributed toward providing intellectual cover for those who did and do participate in such crimes

  12. Is it really necessary to “prove” that Crowley abused children, when it’s clear that he condoned, celebrated, and encouraged child abuse, while many of his associates and followers either were pedophilia-friendly or actual practitioners? Isn’t it enough to know that many highly-placed people in the circles and organizations he was connected to, have been implicated in pedophile networks and shown to be using a system of social and political control that bases itself on recruitment of pedophiles into positions of power where they can be blackmailed and manipulated? Isn’t the bigger picture more important to understand than the sticky details of “did he or didn’t he? and if so how many, and who and where and when?” which have been scrubbed from the record or never recorded to begin with, for obvious reasons?
    I have been surfing for articles on Ted Hughes, someone who followed in Crowley’s footsteps — I know a Canadian poet who was initiated (i.e. had sex with) Hughes at age 16 when Hughes was 30 and a visiting poet. I know this was absolutely his gateway to membership in international literary circles, with intelligence connections very obvious on the side. He became a cultural Mandarin who considers himself, and is in fact, a hereditary member of a charmed Masonic club, with the ability to open any door and access anything or anyone in that hierarchy, and although it’s supposedly a closely-guarded secret, he has never been able to resist bragging about it. He thinks it’s amusing that “the little people” imagine they can make their way without joining or being born into this pedophile network — which he reveres. Part of reverence is helping cover it up but that’s not as easy as it used to be. And the rewards for loyalty are also thinning out.
    The bigger point here is that much or all of our literary culture is Masonic and magickal — this was obvious even at the undergraduate level in the 1970s which was when I bailed out of English Lit and switched to History which you can study without feeling you are entering a temple and putting on robes.
    Ted Hughes’ life (and his critical reception, and the iron-clad, occult dynasty he established) is a wonderful example of how one rises in that world through every kind of darkness, and I’m not even a Hughes-hater, but the record (two wives committed suicide, as did his son Nicholas a few years ago) is there for anyone who wants to follow it. Although he didn’t pay public homage to Crowley (why would he? Crowley was a pretty awful poet) he certainly embraced many of his beliefs and acted on them. From there the tentacles branch out into the scene, the whole Isis-Osiris mythology that grew up around Hughes and Sylvia Plath. With Plath there is also a pretty clear MKULTRA connection as she was hospitalized in 1953 for sudden-onset schizophrenia and treated in MKULTRA-linked institutions in Massachusetts, and writes about all this in her novel The Bell Jar. Hughes made sure to destroy her journals immediately after her suicide in 1963 so we will never know what she really knew. Hughes had many imitators and sycophants who defended his reputation. I’ve heard him described as a ‘healer’ but towards the end of his life when he was Poet Laureate he was entwined with Buckingham Palace — another notorious pedophile club.
    The point is, we’re all steeped in ‘black magic’ — and everything that goes with it including compartmentalized awareness, trauma-based amnesia, and multiple personalities. Our whole culture promotes our shared state of unconsciousness.

  13. Seems like you are building a case of your own. I agree with all the generalities of the above, without knowing any of the specifics about Hughes (tho the fact he he paid attention to me as a 9 or 10 year old boy takes on a new & ominous meaning in this context), but I wonder how many others would? Corresponding with Levenda drove home the gulf between my worldview and that of the world itself; I am not sure what PL represents, in terms of a demographic, but he has plenty of followers who see him as a luminary in the field, and while I don’t much care for his writing (or his argumentation), he is superficially at least a much more “serious” researcher than someone like David Icke. The above exchange left me feeling psychologically “handled” – as if in an attempt to neutralize my efforts; and in fact I haven’t gone back to the book since then, though I am sure I will.

    • For sure, Jasun, I have my own view, too and am building a case of my own that I share parts of here and there as well as on my own site. PL, without a doubt, has many followers and/or supporters. But than again, if he is covering for a “greater cause” in the eyes of those cuddling that cause, then he is sure to have support and backing and especially protection. That would naturally only follow, for anyone with celebrity, power, or authority. For one can not be a status symbol within the status quo, unless he, too, is part of that status quo.
      But what you get with that, if the party line of the status quo and not an individual with individual ideas and thinking. Brave bold thought can only come from outside the status quo, where the party and the party line are not respected or beloved.
      As for PL being better (more serious to quote you) than David Icke, I can only say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As far as I am concerned, they are both cut from the same cloth. Each has their own particular role in the status quo. I prefer Icke, to be honest. His ultimate agenda is not as important to me as is individual topics. He is more enjoyable to watch and listen to, and holds my attention easier than many who are rather dull by comparison. But ultimately, I do not believe anyone should follow anyone else.
      We should all judge each idea individually, assessing each for its value and accuracy/truthfulness. No man could have every idea right, anyway. So we need to be our own leaders, rather than follow someone else. That’s my case for this post.

  14. re Hughes: I never met him and I’m not trying to build a case against him, but I did closely read the Sylvia Plath biographies that came out in the early 1990s, and I met the man who lived upstairs from her when she committed suicide, who witnessed certain things and told me he had been repeatedly threatened and harassed by Hughes, who he also also said was a Mason and therefore not someone to go up against. At the time I talked to a couple of other ‘insiders’ and realized that Hughes was a very powerful and connected public figure (for a poet) and why did he have so many apparently dishonest or otherwise compromised people defending him?
    It’s just another puzzle piece but over time a pattern emerges. As the patterns repeat themselves, it’s hard not to jump to general conclusions about How Things Work. I used to wonder why so many editors I had to deal with as a writer in Canada, behaved so “oddly” and was it “just me?” — and then I discovered they all had military and/or intelligence connections — someone revealed this fact in a book blurb, as he was one himself — and they all had been given positions at around the same time — early sixties, when MKULTRA was in flower — positions they held onto for life. Is this how the world works? Yes, if you come from their background. More recently I began noticing the pedophile connections. This is where one normally backs off, because our sense of smell is designed to keep us out of trouble and that’s where I prefer to stay. I’d rather walk away than get repeatedly shot —

    • People normally back off from the pedo connections because:
      “The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one.”
      -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

      • Damn good reply Mr. Gooding. But I also suspect that some have a sense of what lies beyond, if they do go one step further. So they freeze, turn around, and walk back to where they had come from. As I see it, only God protection can blow this open and He does not like to share His glory and might with pagan gods. So I assume He wants one of his own or a number of his own to bring this to light so that the contrast between the 2 opposing sides will be more obvious, and enable them to make a better choice of which side to join with. And days are coming that will force us all on earth to choose between lies and truth.

        • T1: I have no wish to offend but this blog just isn’t the place for Christian proselytizing. Pls keep your personal religious beliefs to yourself as they can only add noise to the signal. Thanks!

    • Fascinating entry and I don’t blame you for backing off at some point. I am counting on God’s protection in pursuing this matter for without His help, the matter can not be pursued and brought to light and I assume that He does want it brought to light. And I have encountered threats and even an attempted “hit.” But never more than that. My father was hit in a cross walk, and should have been killed and yet only had a bad bruise and a small sub-dural hemotoma. They tried to take him out to stop me. Since then, its been fairly smooth. I even got to figure out the entire plot of how the hit was organized. Of course, the police helped cover it up. You can always count on them. But I like to go whee angels fear to tread. Some like it hot and I’m one of those.

  15. “His magical diaries are replete with references that only make sense to someone deeply familiar with GD terminology.”
    “Ditto. It must be nice to be “in the know.”
    Levenda is not just a passive “researcher”. He’s a card carrying member of many of these groups.
    Of course he wants to make sure nobody speaks ill of things he’s partial to.
    And I put emphasis on “partial to”.
    Last I heard he moved overseas to Indonesia or somewhere to take up Islam!
    For research on a future book I’m sure. The guy will “try anything once” as the saying goes.
    Once the Muslims find out he’s faking it though…..

  16. For the record Jasun, I mentioned my feelings about God but was not looking for membership or conversion. I can see you are disturbed, in more ways that one. I remove myself hence and save all this, too, so that other can see.

  17. just for kicks, I would say Levenda is a lowballer. I don’t know if lowballers know they are lowballers. some must.
    it’s like shouting KUBRICK FAKED THE MOON LANDING or KUBRICK DISAPPROVED OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN GENOCIDE
    that’s lowballing Kubrick’s .. ahem, “work” – I’m thinking of Weidner, Ager, Ascher and their ilk
    I mean, they gotta’ sell something
    🙂

  18. I enjoyed this exchange, and it reminded me of two things almost immediately. The first being that it is the kind of arguments Noam Chomsky gets into with those who do not see the validity of his arguments pointing out the blindness of the intelligentsia especially regarding America’s brutal hegemony. (I came across this interesting read, when I went to research my arguments, http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/noam_chomsky_has_never_seen_anything_like_this_20100419.)
    And the other, and more interesting thought was that the role of the unconscious is not being taking into account by either Jasun or Levenda.
    Personally I have a difficult time with the concept of a formally, conscientiously, consciously formed pervasive conspiracy. I won’t say that they don’t or can’t exist, but that they are inherently unstable. They do not last for very long, especially if they get big, because egos, money, purpose, all naturally self-destruct a ‘conspiracy.’
    However they are powerful and dangerous and can be long-lived if people participate in them unconsciously. For example, Hitler tapped into an unconscious complex within the German psyche that he was able to constellate to form Naziism. And not only did the German population unconsciously support him and his idea of a master race, but the rest of the ‘western’ world largely did, too. Back then it was eugenics which had an intellectual appeal especially to those unconsciously conspiring with others the need for superiority and purity. And this applies to things like religion and whatever morality is fashionable. Is the long-livedness of the Catholic church because its leaders consciously conspired effectively, or because they and their sea were moved by unconscious and archetypal energies that conspired to give it longevity despite the mixed quality of its leaders? And, in our current time, the largely accepted intellectual idea that growing a meritocracy is a good thing, with its appeal to the morality of deservedness and the unconscious acceptance that brutalizing the undeserving is okay, as we blithely walk past the undeserving we are letting die a slow death of exposure.
    I suspect that the place paedophilia has in our society has large elements of something that has been constellated within the unconscious. The energy of that constellation makes it look like a conspiracy, whereas in reality it is an archetypal energy that has been perverted in its expression because ego-consciousness is denying the energy on which it rests and from which it was born. The unconscious has nearly unlimited resources to organize itself and the people who are constellated within it. And the unconscious easily and deliciously exploits egoism and self-delusion.
    Further to that thought, following the Taoist and Jungian idea that Life naturally tends to balance its elements, it is worth thinking about how our society has overly sentimentalized childhood and children, their innocence and beauty, etc. Has that over sentimentalization come about as a necessary concomitant with the way in which we brutalize them? And when I write ‘brutalize’ I don’t mean just sexually exploiting them. I include how our child rearing and educational practices are designed to traumatize and enervate them and remove from them their personal integrity and individuated selves. Openly and formally that process publicly starts with our batch method of schooling children, as if they were like automatons being built on an assembly line, each one just like the other. I suspect that even the continued use of the word ‘paedophilia’ is a suggetion pointing to an unconscious ambivalence about what we do to children. (Many years ago I wrote an article on our societal acceptance of misanthropic behaviours towards children in the popular comic strips, which frequently treat and talk about children in a way that would not be allowed if the butt of the jokes had been race, creed, or nationality.)
    I will make a general comment, here, about Levenda loosely representing the unconscious academic. By that I mean that to become a successful academic means removing from argument those bits of evidence that will impede the academic’s academic career. Chomsky puts it well, when asked why people in the media and academe refuse to see the evidence of, for example, media bias and disinformation. Paraphrased, he says that no one lives well living with lies. And so in order to be happy and have a successful career, the Self will blind us to ‘the truth’. And it’s not that we live a lie, or lie when we express our ‘truth’, it is just that psychologically it is easier to remain unconscious of the truth, and so we choose individually and collectively to be unaware. To be unaware is to not only be unconscious, but to be easily susceptible to unconscious and archetypal energies. And so we become and oftentimes remains unconscious of truth, even after, with the perversely of a practical joker, the unconscious demands of us to become aware.
    And the unconscious has the power to keep all of us from seeing what’s in front eyes and hearing what is being said. We have all experienced examples of this personally, either within our own selves, or with the people around us. Of course, the delightful and challenging thing about delusion is that it knows no bounds and is ALWAYS the other person’s problem. Invariably we are convinced that our level of consciousness precludes our own delusion, and so the first delusion is born. I love how Jung puts it: paraphrased, from an interview, he said that the ‘problem’ with the unconscious is that it REALLY IS UNCONSCIOUS! What we are unconscious of is not seen, it is invisible. He further points out that the unconscious is massive, and consciousness a tiny cork that bobs on it, subject to the winds and tides and waves of which we are ignorant.
    And in a similar way, Jasun’s argument has the energy of the unconscious stepping in and demanding that it be heard. And Levenda’s argument is one that has the energy of the unconscious puffing up the idea that intellectual understanding and perception are sufficient.
    This is a bit long-winded way of saying that the existence of the practice of brutalizing children may be something other than a covert conscious conspiracy, or the intermittent and disorganized acts of a few sickos that we can conveniently scapegoat so as to remain unconscious of our own shadows. It is expressing a collective unconsciousness that is demanding of us to grow out of our own unconsciousness.

    • IMO you are leaving out what I consider the most obvious motivation for the conscious formation of a conspiracy: a group of people engaging in an activity that is considered extremely immoral and illegal in their culture. IE, pedophilia.
      If a group of powerful people engage in this activity, then is it too outlandish to consider that they might consciously conspire in order to protect one another, because in the end they are in fact each protecting their own freedom to continue committing the crime?
      I think this is the foundation of most conscious conspiracies, criminals of a like mind protecting one another for the collective benefit of their particular criminal enterprise.

  19. Addendum synchronicity. As soon as I posted this, I flipped open How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer by Sarah Bakewell. The page I flipped to, randomly, was 57. My eyes went to the bottom of the page, where I was amused to read:
    “[A tutor] must not be allowed to be cruel. Learning should be a pleasure, and children should grow up to imagine wisdom with a smiling face, not a fierce and terrifying one.
    “He fulminates against the brutal methods of most schools. ‘Away with violence and compulsion!’ If you enter a school in lesson time, he says, ‘you hear nothing but cries, both from the tortured boys and from masters drunk with rage’.”

  20. Well, you didn’t “school” me, Ega[j]d. I’m not sure what you are pounding on ; or why you need to remind everyone that , according to you, there is no large group of politically powerful pedophiles who run in gangs.
    If someone was in a pedophile gang, what would be their motive to “blow the whistle?”
    People are caged, hemmed in, impounded for a reason.. I didn’t read Jasun to be promoting the notion a large group of pedophiles actually exists.. As I read it, correct me if I am wrong, he was just entertaining the possibility.
    Writing here of unconscious urges: What was it which made you feel the need to extrapolate at length around the alleged impossibility of such a conspiracy?
    Would such an effect upon yourself by this discussion point to any unconscious motives?
    “I suspect that the place paedophilia has in our society has large elements of something that has been constellated within the unconscious. The energy of that constellation makes it look like a conspiracy, whereas in reality it is an archetypal energy that has been perverted in its expression because ego-consciousness is denying the energy on which it rests and from which it was born.”
    I feel here that you are trying to rein – in or put bounds around the notion of endemic paedophila, among the administrators / people of power, in our culture.
    The clique would be a particular class, invisible to average people, deliberately so. It’s not an indictment of the “subconscious” of the entire culture.. Certain people are perps and certain people are not. Would you agree?

    • I had planned to respond to egajd but this one beat me to it. Firstly, as to the notion of overlooking the unconscious element in any “equation” and so arriving at erroneous conclusions: absolutely, I think this is irrefutable. The only trouble with this is that the very hypothesis of the unconscious and its implications becomes, if true, also false, for the very reason that it IS true! I don’t want this to end up as sophistry or as platitudes such as “all is relative” and “you can’t know anything” (which are both true, but self-cancelling also), because in order to discuss anything at all, we have to speak or write as if we were conscious enough to so, as if the picture we are able to make out of the data were complete enough to talk about as something, rather than a bunch of clues that could mean one thing or equally another.
      I have been amassing data around this general subject of long-term social engineering that involves high, as well as low, level conspiring to sexually abuse children, both for pleasure and profit, but also for social and psychological ends that transcend both, and that seem to encompass a level of intelligent design that surpasses what we think of as human society, never mind conspiracy. And I agree that the closest I feel we can get to really understanding such a vast and deep web of interconnections and agendas is by using it as a hypothetical map of the collective unconscious, which means also our own unconscious.
      I would disagree however (from my own partially conscious viewpoint) with egajd’s need to posit an either/or dichotomy regarding human conspiracy vs. archetypal, unconscious patterns at work. It is clearly (to me) both. I would agree with egajd insofar as the unconscious context contains the conspiratorial one, where the conspiratorial one does not seem to contain the unconscious (though there’s overlap). Even here, I have to say I’m not 100% sure, as my sense is that certain intelligences, human or otherwise, appear to know how to use the unconscious and work with the fact of it being unconscious, i.e. to manipulate society applying the very same theoretical basis (that we can’t see what we can’t see, even when it’s right in front of us) which egajd is bringing to the discussion (better late than never). I wonder then also if such intelligences, aware of the way in which their own unconscious is unseeable to them, might attempt to devise ways to work around this and even co-opt it in some way, aspiring as are to become superconscious, omnipotent and omniscient, as gods, and hence to be immune to the sorts of SNAFUS that make every conspiracy essentially fallible and even self-destructive.
      But that’s quite speculative and a case of my own straining beyond my conscious capacity to try and shake the bushes of the unconscious and see what pops up.
      I would disagree with Margery in that I don’t think it is possible, however desirable, to separate our own affinity and hence complicity with the actual human agencies and groups conspiring to commit these acts and implement these agendas. I think this is precisely where I disagreed with Levenda’s literal-mindedness (while also being snared by it and ending up matching it), as if it were necessary to find proof of a crime to establish complicity and affinity, which, while not being as “bad” legally or morally speaking, may be every bit as pernicious in the long run.
      It’s ironic that I might end up appearing to be trying to prove an actual crime (conspiracy) when what I am really trying to prove is a) complicity; b) that complicity is as harmful and as accountable as direct participation; and c) that we are all complicit to an unseen degree, i.e., all unconscious of our participation in the collective abuse of children, and everything ~ the world ~ that stems from that complicity.
      This is even the way the systematized child abuse works: hence we may all being living on Planet Stockholm.

  21. We are all unconscious to various degrees so I don’t see the problem as “consciousness” vs “unconsciousness.”. I see the dichotomy in the world as “Controlling” versus “Allowing” — i.e. there are groups in society that are dedicated to controlling human life including our evolution toward consciousness. They do this by controlling material reality e.g, the class system, the monetary system — both of which are forms of black magic. A hierarchy’s main weapon is secrecy and separation. Unless you’re inside the matrix, you can’t really see it or talk about it intelligently — and when you’re inside it, it completely controls you mainly through fear of being expelled ie “losing membership” and all its “privileges”. Elites apparently school their children in specific ways that involve the strategic use of trauma to fragment personality and promote loyalty to a closely guarded system of rewards and punishment. Elite private schools appear to centres for organized abuse and placed where most pedophile scandals are concentrated. The rest of the population are on the outside looking in, but a cat can look at a king and notice weaknesses and vulnerabilities.
    Adherence to the occult is hardly “unconsciousness.” Rather it’s an attempt to be hyper-conscious of the supposed spiritual realm in order to control “reality” which (like Hell) is other people. Occultists are focused on gaining power and documenting their own special achievements — in opposition to ordinary humans who have the opposite tendency i,e, to go with the flow, making them easy prey and predictable cannon fodder at times but also unpredictable and amorphous draft dodgers at others.
    Pedophilia is difficult to study as it’s probably the best-kept secret at our institutions of ‘higher learning’ many of which allegedly are controlled by pedophile networks, as are our intelligence services. There is data on this, as well as anecdotes supporting it: e.g. I was told that the head of personnel at one major university is a pedophile, and his policy has been to hire other pedophiles for academic and support positions. It’s not hard to see how this situation could become self-replicating, systematic and entrenched over generations, or even centuries without there being an actual ‘conspiracy’ . Those who are not part of it simply gravitate away from it, allowing the secret to grow like a cancer. Cancer doesnt need a conscious conspiracy to metastasize — and neither does secret abuse. It evolves according to its own dark laws and agreements with the host. The host being the social body that does nothing to discourage or cure it.

    • Great input Ann 🙂 If the head of a major institution is a pedophile and hires other pedophiles for the positions of authority and influence in his organization, I really see this as no different from a conspiracy. The most important element of a conspiracy is evil deeds being kept secret from the general public, IMO. The minor distinction in this case is that it is more of an “understood” conspiracy rather than a bunch of men in a smoky room discussing their proposed evil deeds. The evil deeds are already understood.
      Noam Chomsky might refer to instances like this as “internalizing the value system”. This is what makes an explicit comic book-style conspiracy unnecessary. Nevertheless, I would still consider it a conspiracy because it is a group of men keeping their crimes secret from the general public.

  22. You have an obsessional interest in child abuse.Lacking evidence your speculative accusations would be libellous if your target Crowley was alive.Does your passion for this subject belay an unhealthy interest or personal trauma of the same?One wonders do you have any actual evidence;or is opinion now evidence of fact?.

      • The notion that what I am writing about Crowley would be libelous if he were alive is intriguing, but I am pretty sure inaccurate. I’m reporting facts, accompanied by speculation/deduction. There is no law against speculating, as far as I know, tho of course anyone can sue whosoever they want and of course, he who has the most expensive lawyers, wins.
        It’s a pretty ironic complaint coming from a Thelemite, however.

  23. Thanks Egajd mahn i found your spiel about the unconscious constellation of pedophilia fascinating , and agree with Jasun that there exists both an unconscious constellation and a conscious conspiracy , which feed and drive each other in various ways .
    A herd of chimps living in an artificial fossil fuel derived imaginarium whose only goal is consumption and expansion is inherently infantile , and the nature of our system guarantees all children past present and future will be harmed in some way . Its become obvious that the high priests and priestesses of the infantile chimp – cult like to fiddle kiddies in real time . Is every popcorn munching SUV driving apathetic zombie a kiddie fiddler by extension ?
    For what its worth Levenda seemed to me to be unsure why Crowley is so important to you rather than every other kiddy fiddling occultist . I dont think all occultists are kiddy fiddlers , neither are all kiddy fiddlers occultists . He seemed to doubt your assertion that the world is run by a conspiratorial cabal of kiddy fiddling occultists who control all our major institutions , does this mean he’s covering up for them ? I dont know much about the bloke except i liked his book about where the Nazis are hiding out these days , havent read any of the others .
    I get that you think Crowley is significant because he is effectively the proto-typal kiddy fiddling occultist , who has inspired many of the others . Have to admit i found his writing very cryptic , and always thought of him as a Luciferan Lighthouse , ie steer towards the lighthouse and you end up shipwrecked , all hands on the mast and seamen everywhere , pardon the pun .
    Crowley wasnt the one , but the onanist !

  24. Thanks Kutuman and good to have your voice here again.
    The last paragraph sums up my view fairly well, tho it’s still a bit literal: AC was a key element in a larger cultural/occultic set of beliefs that inspired ME, not to fiddle any kids but to feed my own traumatic drive for power over others, and to commit some pretty massive blunders in thought and deed, as well as some unpleasant acts, as touched on in my comic. And this was KNOWING that AC/Thelema was a Luciferian Lighthouse and still steering my ship by it, regardless of knowing that.
    So far, none of the AC defenders (including those who claim not to be, like PL) have explained why they believe someone bidding for spiritual power through moral transgression would draw the line at anything at all, or why they insist that when Liber Al says “take strange drugs” it means it literally (and AC followed it literally), whereas when it says “sacrifice cattle little and big, after a child,” or “the best blood is that of a child,” it is using some occultic code that anyone who has done the reading would know wasn’t EVER meant to be taken literally (and anyone stupid enough to do so can’t blame AC but should have done the reading!).
    The doublethink and pretezeling of logic necessary to exempt AC from complicity in such things boggles my mind. When the so-called circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming, isn’t the onus of proof on them, to show exactly why this evidence doesn’t count as evidence?
    One problem is the difference in context; PL offers his own context being all the reading he has done about occult teachings; my own context is all the research I have done about organized abuse and the overlaps with both the world of occult and that of the ruling class, making it all of a piece to me, and making the written teachings not exactly trustworthy.
    One of PL’s main arguments seems to be: if you are right and these groups and individuals are doing these things, why aren’t they admitting to it in their public teachings?
    Gee, I wonder…

  25. I think its London to a Brick that Crowley was a pederast ….i am guessing he would have seen it as a noble past time of ancient Greek patricians, therefore worthy of himself , and no doubt a good way to scapegoat his own traumatised inner child , as you have also described elsewhere , under the guise of communing with the inner masters or Pan or whoever
    I guess your crux is that if you psycho spiritually associate with AC and his symbology , then you would be identifying yourself with all the pathology he embodies , strengthening its unconscious constellation at both a personal and collective level. As i think i read John Michael Greer writing ” if you drink a cup of poison , its bound to make you sick ” , and Maggie Thatcher , ” watch your thoughts because they become your words, your actions, your habits, your character , your manifest (and perhaps unmanifest ) destiny ” ….
    I wonder if the reason so many people who take up occultism are drawn to Crowley is because of
    – his ubiquitous reputation
    – his prolific writings
    -sad and sick puppies being attracted to other sad and sick puppies ??

  26. Seems to me the separation between conscious and unconscious seems to be the crux of Jasun’s points. You know, now they say bacteria can interfere with our heads, control our thoughts/actions. Next month, they’ll have another ‘theory’ to occupy the time of still others looking for answers. Some say we live in a hologram, others say nothing is real, others say we evolved from chimps….. take your pick, something for everyone’s tastes and desires. Save us from Crowley is the lesson today, he influenced the masses of men to use women/PROSTITUTES (possibly children) to act out their own personal, sexual perversions.
    The more days I live, the more I see reality is just a play with new actors being created everyday to distract us from our true potential. You don’t have to be an mk-ultra type to be one of their actors today, just one of the ‘lucky’ ones. You’ll be exactly what they want you to be — for the fame and fortune. Maybe Jasun is one of them and he doesn’t even know? Jasun is searching for answers to questions about his brother’s life/death (and his own painful life) which has lead him to the dark shadows of his father’s family history. I read Valerie’s version of the meeting of her and Nick…. sounds like there is much more to that story than she let on. Three children are accidents? More there, too. I think answers to questions are in your family tree, those dead branches that hang low but no one ever notices until someone else points them out.

  27. Interesting dialogue with Lavenda, you two seem to be talking past each other; mostly him talking past you. I actually agree with many of his points – I too have met a number of thelemites over the last five years and have seen no evidence of child sexual abuse in their organization. Mostly maladapted nerds who like drugs and transgressive art.
    What got my attention from all of Lavenda’s responses was how he kept blurring the line between speculation with assertion. He keeps transforming your questions into statements. Hasn’t he read the Soldier and the Hunchback? Is an author not permitted to wonder about past events unless they are corroborated by tangible documents?
    Every scientists begins with a hypothesis and then tests the idea through experiments, contemplation, and ongoing research. How is it that, when the hypothesis runs counter to the dominant narrative, the scientist’s method is called into question?
    “A cat may or may not be in the box. We’ll have to open it to find out” is met by “Don’t be ridiculous, of course the cat is in the box.”
    Your inquiry is driving towards a worldview that is fundamentally opposed with his own. To assert that Crowley may have been involved in child sexual abuse contradicts his extensive experience with occultists in his own life, and with the actual materials of the Golden Dawn. The very suggestion is so loaded for Lavenda that he equates it with a claim.
    The only risk I see in your approach to this narrative would be falling into the trap that Lavenda imagines you have already succumbed to: that is, setting out to prove your point rather than setting out to ask the difficult questions. If you can’t come to this research with a truly open mind – including the possibility that your thesis about crowley may be flat out wrong – then that would be problematic… But Lavenda should know better, as a longtime colleague of yours, that you have always included a rigorous self-evaluation relative to the subject you’re studying (JDR, Strieber, etc), and that your research into the OTHER is simultaneously an exploration of self.
    One line in particular stuck out to me – “I can take everything you’ve written — in your emails to me, as well as what you have posted online — and build a very convincing case that your obsession with this subject is a desperate, guilt-ridden attempt to disguise your own abuse of children. Do I believe that? Of course, not.”
    What’s with the comma between of course and not? Am I nitpicking? Is he being disingenuous? I think Lavenda actually suspects that that he is picking up an underlying unconscious motive on your part to dissect the crowley topic. Ironic then that, rather than following his intuition and asking a question (which would deepen the intimacy of the connection between you two), he instead puts it on the table as an example of further “unbelievable” speculation.
    A case could be made that it doesn’t matter whether Crowley sexually abused children or advocated such things in secret, because the very act of talking about it (even fictitiously) in combination with the transgressive philosophies of drug abuse and rape, puts the thought form out there in the field, for later individuals like Saville to pick up on and carry into practice.
    I don’t believe that Lavenda is consciously covering anything up. From my read of his text, he seems to be genuinely engaging with you, albeit at the level of academic combat. His goal seems to be discrediting your speculative approach because you are asking leading questions that contradict his experience and research.
    A final thought — If Lavenda was himself subject to child sexual abuse through occult circles and/or was himself engaged with individuals who are actively involved in said activities and/or was himself involved in abusing children (this is not a claim or assertion!), then he would have every reason to carefully attack and refute your work. He points this out himself…

    • Thanks ezrazera, that’s a cogent & considered response.
      The notion that we would see evidence of these sorts of activities if we were hanging out with the people and groups committing them, and/or that we would be able to recognize someone as being capable of these acts is, I think, a mistaken one. This stuff (apparently, evidentially) is going on under our noses all the time. Even in our own lives. And yet, it remains seen & not-seen.
      If something (child abuse) is this prevalent and yet we almost never see any actual evidence of it, then doesn’t it stand to reason that we are not able to recognize the evidence when we see it?
      The only risk I see in your approach to this narrative would be falling into the trap that Lavenda imagines you have already succumbed to: that is, setting out to prove your point rather than setting out to ask the difficult questions.
      Absolutely. If nothing else, PL helped me to see my own tendency to fall into the trap he set for me, complete with carrot of “scholastic approval” and whip of academic ex-communication.
      >A case could be made that it doesn’t matter whether Crowley sexually abused children or advocated such things in secret, because the very act of talking about it (even fictitiously) in combination with the transgressive philosophies of drug abuse and rape, puts the thought form out there in the field, for later individuals like Saville to pick up on and carry into practice.
      Yes, it is all of a piece and what I am arguing is that child sexual abuse may be both consistent with AC’s life and work and a logical result of it. That there seems to be a continuity between the rationalizations/justifications of child predators and occultism as a philosophy and way of life (will to power). PL’s assumption is that I am trying to condemn occultism, but to some degree the condemnation occurs in his own mind. I’m not condemning anything only trying to understand it.
      Regarding your last & most incendiary point (which I think only seems to contradict the preceding one), yes, and sometimes the line between denial & dishonesty is so blurry that it doesn’t exist; which applies to Crowley as much as PL; and to us all…

  28. “PL helped me to see my own tendency to fall into the trap he set for me, complete with carrot of “scholastic approval” and whip of academic ex-communication.” — can you expand on that?

    • From my email to you just now, reproduced here as I think it addresses this question in the last part:
      I’m not comfortable with the “speculative” label; i prefer deductive
      speculation often leads nowhere; deduction done rightly leads to some sort of conclusion/closure, if not a conviction! . . . (which as we know only make convicts)
      >By that same token, if something (anything) is not prevalent, then we would see no evidence of it, and only a person looking for evidence to support their speculative fiction would “recognize” it as such.
      I think you missed, or sidestepped my point; we know that child sexual abuse IS prevalent; yet how often do we encounter evidence for it?
      My point to you and Levenda was that saying “I’ve hung out with these people so I know they’re not up to any of that stuff” is no different from saying, “He was such a nice boy” or “My father/uncle/mother/brother/friend would never do anything like that!”
      Levenda countered that I was trying to say that lack of evidence was itself evidence, and that by questioning systems of belief I was directly accusing specific groups of something. What I was doing was refuting his arguments that a lack of evidence is itself proof of anything. Ditto with your argument. When we are investigating these kinds of activities, just as when we are trying to access unconscious matter, the degree of concealment is always going to be profound and thorough. This means there’s a need, or at least an invitation, to approach the question with a less literal, more intuitive-deductive approach. As I said to Paso:
      I am extending the examination to explore the ways in which AC’s magickal doctrine might have inevitably led him to commit those acts most forbidden, and most appalling to him, as the means to abolish all attachments, a form of false individuation through violence. It’s hard to see how infants being raised in this environment would not have been square in the line of that fire. Nothing can be proven, of course, but to carefully map the contours of this beast does allow for I think measured deductions about what happened in the areas unseen.
      In my exchange with Paso, he countered that this was reasonable but that it did lead to only opinions, not facts. It’s true enough that the line between opinion and fact has been blurred by emotionality and muddy thinking. However, I think there are ways to reach the truth that do not depend on establishing the facts of it, but on carefully analyzing what facts are known and deducing, within reasonable doubt, certain things from them. Those deductions won’t ever be facts, and can always be dismissed as opinion by those with a vested interest in concealing the truth. But PL’s super-imposition of the legal criteria required for convicting a criminal onto the scholarly approach to history is, I think, a strangely limited one that presupposes a desire to condemn, rather than a desire to understand.
      If PL, or whoever, creates a context/space that resembles a courtroom and I, the witness, am feeling badgered to give evidence and not simply “speculate,” or question, if my approach is being described as invalid, even suspect, and I am myself on the verge of being held in “contempt of court,” that tends to exacerbate and encourage the very part of me which PL is accusing me of, that persecutory drive to find “proof” of a crime and so bring about a conviction. Even tho this is not my interest. When we have the experience of not being heard, we tend to shout louder, and that leads to a less and less nuanced expression.

  29. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB56Ih7ppAo I don’t necessarily trust PressTv but I found this compelling, and the note / comment which went with it in my circle of correspondence :
    UK Pedophile Activity Goes All The Way To The Top
    Nothing is what it seems and the entire media/school indoctrination system maintains a surreal fantasy for the public at large. The reason UK MP’s and Royal family insiders are directly involved with pedophilia has to do with the ancient ties of the Royal Family to old world belief systems that involve pedophilia, trauma, fear, self pleasuring behavior and ritual sacrifice. All pillars of classic satanic philosophy. Ancient stories of satanism were never about a mythical being with horns and a pitch fork but were about an evil way of life, acted out with complete psychopathic vigor by an ancient and sinister cult.
    The origins of the UK Royal Family are not British and go back much farther into the ancient world and this is easy to confirm with minor investigation. This belief system, held by people in power within the UK, is basically an ancient dark and very evil religion operating in plain sight, within our modern world. This moral infection can be found in most (if not all) circles of power within the commonwealth and has even been present in the town where I reside, where it was swept under the rug as a chance occurrence, when it’s a ritual of ancient dark occult groups. A regular practice for the most mentally imbalanced of our communities, given privilege and power over moral and ethical people. There is more happening in all commonwealth nations than meets the eye. These groups often set up around orphanages, church groups, children’s aid agencies and any other places where adult protection of the children is absent. Complete savages and evil of the highest order.
    I’m studying Christopher Marlowe / Morley now, and he’s alleged to have said; I found this today:
    “All they that love not tobacco and boys are fools.”
    I’m finding out he was also a spy, worked for Elizabeth One.
    (Evidence points to: “Marlowe” faked his death [with help] and did not come from a poor family as people are led to believe. )
    This whole issue , detailed in the quote above by “Jason Christoff” , brought to mind, one whom I think is another “death faker” intelligence agent & actor “Davie Jones”/ “Bowie” .
    And the “last video ” he did, called “Lazarus” with [allegedly] 36 million views was brought to mind, too, by the passage above.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-JqH1M4Ya8 That dude was also a Crowley – ite.
    Marley / Marlowe’s last work was [allegedly] TAMBERLANE – the terrorist.. Funny, h’uh, 500 years later they are still “fighting the Moors” ? Phst.
    http://www.synchromysticismforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=61890#p61890

  30. Jasun, Ive just begun reading the newly updated and revised book Pink Swastika. The book has been blacklisted for the most part and disparaged as historically inaccurate. It has plenty of citations and seems pretty straightforward to me but I’ll reserve judgement until I’m done. I read the following in the first chapter and thought I would pass it along.
    ” The Guido von List Society was accused of practicing a form of Hindu Tantrism which featured sexual perversion in its rituals. This form of sexual perversion was popularized in occult circles by a man named Aleister Crowley who according to Hitler biographer J. Sydney Jones, enjoyed “playing with black magic and little boys” ( J.S. Jones :123) List was accused of being the Aleister Crowley of Vienna” ( ibid.: 123). Im not familiar with J.S. Jones but his research might be an avenue worth following.

  31. Jasun, you’ve been mansplained. This sounds like the egocentric argumentive shutdown I’ve gotten from at least half the men I’ve ever tried to have a conversation with. Don’t take it personally, I respect Levenda’s books, esp Tantric Temples and Stairway to Heaven but he does seem impressed with himself. You are not going to get validation from him, and I believe that you are right and he is invested in being the expert. He is also invested in occultism and seems defensive about criticism of it. Like a lot of men I think he is somewhat emotionally shut down and cant offer you any support or nurturing. He may have his own issues about this stuff and I suggest that you show compassion to both him and yourself and let it go.

      • That’s completely fair, I only meant that so far as to let go of any expectations of a rewarding outcome with Mr. Levenda, not to give up your inquiries. I’ve had exactly that kind of conversation with people before and you can’t really win, not when someone is defended or reactive. This subject matter is loaded, and it’s too much for some people, they short circuit. It also may be as simple as a personality conflict, where you just push each others’ buttons unintentionally due to radical differences in style. Mr. Levenda is a very good writer and researcher, he has some excellent insights, and he also has a venerable experience of esotericism, but he has something of a typically Western male journalistic and rationalistic style. I can see why it might not be compatible with yours. I don’t know you but from reading your writings I think you may be a lot more intuitive than he is, and more open to exploring ideas in a holistic manner without an insistence on hammering down all the facts first, rather establishing them experientially as you go.
        I’d like to say something to Mr. Levenda in case he ever reads this: I believe Jasun really respects you and that is why he reached out to you for your opinion. I don’t think it was at all his intent to start an argument with you. It may be none of my business, I am just some lady on the internet who reads both of you and finds much to admire there, and the sole reason I am responding is because Jasun put this out there with your permission for objective perspective from third parties. The only thing I would ask you is to be kind to Jasun, he lost his artistic and remarkable brother to the same kind of trauma he asked you about, and I think it’s entirely natural and understandable why he would have an emotional stake in making inquiries about it.

  32. After someone sent me a Christian video about 33rd Masons, anal sex, pedophilia, Aleister Crowley and the “Tunnels of Typhon” — I googled Tunnels of Typhon and didnt find much but did come across this: https://www.energeticsynthesis.com/index.php/resource-tools/blog-timeline-shift/2579-the-typhonian-tradition
    which also led to this http://ascensionglossary.com/index.php/Sexual_Misery
    I agree with her view of Crowley, who she claims was a tool of the Dark Alien Agenda which is linked to Mind Control, Artificial Intelligence, and a long dark tradition on earth that goes back millennia, according to which we are all programmed by non-human entities and are currently undergoing an ascension process that entails the dismantling of our parasitic “master-slave” coding — and much else. To me, this goes without saying but unlike you I don’t care to debate this topic with mainstream writers.
    One thing she mentions repeatedly: the programming centre is located in the “central UK” — I wonder if she means London, or possibly the midlands, or even Yorkshire? She also mentions San Francisco as a hub for a certain AI military mind control program that targets huge swathes of the North American population – someone once described this same SF-based AI machinery to me and it sounds like the very same, huge entity.
    She’s not an academic, and doesn’t write books, but she does have a podcast which I haven’t listened to as I only just found out about her. She appears to be transmitting teachings she began receiving in the early 2000s, when a certain hierarchy of beings took over her life and consciousness. She has systematized it into a coherent package that is not “New Age” — she actually seems like a genuine light worker with a clear understanding of dark and light and their interactions. She mentions “gender issues” as one aspect of the agenda that is attempting to stop humans from evolving as they need to.
    You are involved in a process of self-deconstruction, as someone who was deeply implanted with the Agenda she describes, including the Crowley component. It’s fascinating, and possibly dangerous work. Therefore I don’t think you need the kind of affirmation the mainstream can offer — you’ve already transcended their boundaries and limitations, imho.

    • Thanks. I suspect you’re right about that last point. I will check this person out but the trouble with channeled material is that, even assuming it’s coming from a true source (i.e., their own unconscious) and not being beamed in via psychotronics, it’s like dreams, highly subjective, particular to the person it is coming through. I suppose that’s true of everything. I think what I’m up to here with the public output is connecting to others who are ready to recognize and relinquish their programming, and some of those, us, are in the mainstream. Ideally we want access to all of the matrix…. 😉

  33. “I think what I’m up to here with the public output is connecting to others who are ready to recognize and relinquish their programming, and some of those, us, are in the mainstream.”
    Never change Jasun, never change. Just keep chugging along.

  34. Now…back to the mystics for a sec. Sorry that this all kinda trails off from the specific Levenda discussion BTW.
    “I agree with her view of Crowley, who she claims was a tool of the Dark Alien Agenda which is linked to Mind Control, Artificial Intelligence, and a long dark tradition on earth that goes back millennia, according to which we are all programmed by non-human entities and are currently undergoing an ascension process that entails the dismantling of our parasitic “master-slave” coding — and much else. To me, this goes without saying but unlike you I don’t care to debate this topic with mainstream writers.”
    If you believe the above, this will interest:
    http://interferencetheory.com/
    Hints are in his paragraphs explaining his theory.
    But this page and linked .PDF document caught my attention:
    http://interferencetheory.com/HarmonicTheory/HarmonicEvolution/page8.html
    You really need to stick with his .PDF. It’s dense read but has real specific gems in it.
    Especially page 12 with “Consciousness as a property of spacetime”.
    “According to quantum entanglement, thinking cannot be
    entirely local or physical, but instead able to exist anywhere in
    the universe or even outside of spacetime. The electrons of our
    thoughts do this by “tunneling” across the so-called Higgs boson
    boundary into some other place millions of times a second, where
    they could be affected or influenced before returning.”
    “All joking aside, human beings might simply be semi-
    autonomous biological robots under the remote control of a higher
    self. Given our current understanding of physics, it is really not
    that farfetched to think that we could be guided by impulses
    transmitted and received via quantum leaps from some other realm.
    Our concepts of free will, creativity and personality might well
    be a glimpse into this other realm, resonating through to us from
    space as subtle patterns in the liquid crystal antennae of our brains.”
    Your thinking could be “affected or influenced” from outside spacetime.
    Hmm.
    Note, he assumes that “remote control” might come from a “higher self”.
    Double hmm.
    I’m thinkin’ the postulated “non-human” entities are messing about behind the scenes.
    This explains all the angels + demons…religious talk…basically all the woo from all parties.
    Your unconscious might be subject to tinkering….from some other entities/place.
    Sexual abuse, getting into “magic” practice and all things related may open a kind of conduit.
    Magicians/witches/whatever you want to call them will say “Duh, of course!”.
    I would say that they literally have no clue what they are doing, no matter how much secret knowledge they claim to have.
    Of course real knowledge of this stuff could be used for terrible ends.
    Any time you attempt to “link up” or “tune in”, you give up free will.
    Contrary to the people like the Crow that claim you are harnessing your “true will” etc etc.
    His garbage like all the New Age is an actual trap.
    By being one of the “others who are ready to recognize and relinquish…”, does this engage an “opt out” mechanism?

    • I think the opt out mechanism = unconditionally surrendering to being a powerless mortal coppertop psychic wage slave.
      The system counts on our resistance to fuel it.

      • What I was trying to say was that “the system” is most likely built of people being actively “programmed by non-human entities”. For real. Once you are open to the tampering (voluntarily or involuntarily), it’s a done deal.
        “Given our current understanding of physics, it is really not
        that farfetched to think that we could be guided by impulses
        transmitted and received via quantum leaps from some other realm.”
        Once you recognize and repudiate this situation…you are “opting out”.
        You become immune to the “tampering” by revoking permission/explicitly claiming your full control.
        Once you are in full control of your own mind…you are anything but powerless.
        Switch your radio from “66.6 FM The Station Of The Beast” to the smooth sounds of 1978 AM Gold.
        The Beast freaks out because he lost listeners. This stabs him right in his advertising revenues!

  35. As a side note, notice how “the system” always hates choice and freewill?
    More than ever things are being engineered to remove choice.
    Self-driving cars? Forced upgrade to Windows 10 (lol)?
    These things are ideas beamed direct to the heads of the robotic men and women of “the system”.
    No rational people would ever advocate these things on such a mass scale.
    Having freewill is not the same as some dupe telling you how to use your “true will” or whatever.
    Once you listen to said dupe, you are tuned into channel 66.6 from beyond.
    Now all kinds of programming can flood in.
    Canada’s own Neil Peart summed it up while back:
    “A planet of playthings
    We dance on the strings
    Of powers we cannot perceive”
    “You can choose a ready guide
    In some celestial voice
    If you choose not to decide
    You still have made a choice”
    “You can choose from phantom fears
    And kindness that can kill
    I will choose a path that’s clear
    I will choose free will”

    • I don’t know; the above sounds like more of the same 2nd matrix stuff to me, trying to use mind to escape the structures of mind.
      What’s the difference between free will and self-will?
      Nothing works, except accepting that nothing works, aka, surrender.
      Put differently our being can’t ever be enslaved because what’s infinite can’t be captured; only our “doing,” the part of us that wants to act, that has forgotten how to beeee.

  36. So, it’s okay when Jasun brings us back to ‘his story’ to anchor his thoughts in a personal narrative, but when Lisa Renee tells us hers, she’s only proving she’s a flake? I didn’t get the impression she’s another New Age channeller, by the way — I think she is an energy worker with quite an extensive analytic grasp of current spiritual paradigms who is attemping to communicate a substantial body of material — take it or leave it. I will not be surrender my destiny to this person, nor was I suggesting anyone else do that, with any guru or even any anti-guru. I do think her comments on Crowley and the notorious “tunnels” (which no one here has explained — I thought Jasun might go there i.e. let us in on the secret) are well taken and cogent. No need to wag all your fingers at once and bring up “free will.” She brings in the “negative alien agenda” which i happen to believe explains many of our delusional beliefs and planetary control systems. While we need to debunk Strieber and Crowley for targeting the “star seeds” with occult belief systems and attempting to paint a glorious landscape of “outer space” and human destiny within the Space Program, we also need to recognize the reality of ‘aliens’ and a possible agenda emanating from seductive ‘inorganic’ entities and AI which is where all the jobs are these days —
    The Greek word for alien or foreigner is “xenos” (as in ‘xenophobia’ which many of us suffer from) — it also means “visitor” or “guest” (hence, “philoxenia” which translates as hospitality).
    The Greek work for “ET” is ο εξωγήινος — which roughly means “off planet person” — or “non earth entity”
    If the Greeks have a word for it, it’s been around for a long time.

  37. This entry (related to ‘Sexual Misery’ programming) seems extremely relevant to Jasun’s work here (maybe especially recent podcasts) and in my view fits over top of it, almost like a template: http://ascensionglossary.com/index.php/Moon_Chain
    For some it will probably appear to be gobbledegook, though.
    To clarify (because I do want to get out of here eventually): soul fragmentation, gender issues, marital problems, narcissism, disembodiment, various alters — which she identifies as stemming from a particular kind of programming that begins in infancy — are all topics Jasun covers in a lot of depth, and returns to often. The main reason I keep coming back to this board is that I believe in the healing process taking place here.
    ‘Sexual misery’ includes porn addiction, another topic very few people are honest about, or can articulate.
    Finally: when Crowley comes up, he seems to take over the entire field of Sex and Magick so that inevitably it gets associated with child rape, sex with prostitutes, violent pornography etc. This is an example of our programming at work, occupying every cell and neuron. It becomes impossible to bring up Sex (or its magical, or spiritual side) without triggering absolute negativity, cynicism, and unconscious fears manifesting as ridicule, rejection, avoidance mechanisms such as changing the subject or spinning off into wild generalities.
    Sex is very specific and personal. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth talking about. I’m an old lady but I still have lots of questions about sex. including: astral (out of body) sex, and the 4th dimension where heart energy resides. Why can’t we live there? Why do we readily enslave ourselves to monsters like Crowley and travel beyond Pluto to get our sexual kicks — instead of reviving heart-centered spirituality and real sexual magic here on earth? Just thought I’d ask, before I watch the video of Sebastian vs Crowley.

  38. Ugh…we should all shunt this discussion off to a forum thread.
    It would be cool to take it back and forth in more detail.
    Levenda dialog does need more analysis.
    “So, it’s okay when Jasun brings us back to ‘his story’ to anchor his thoughts in a personal narrative, but when Lisa Renee tells us hers, she’s only proving she’s a flake? ”
    Jasun has his own personal story. And it’s his blog/platform.
    Do I agree with his “story” 100%? Not so much.
    But whatever.
    I am thankful that he’s not enlisting ancient Egyptian rulers to pimp his DVD’s or whatever.
    I read many stories from many people on the internet. Hear many real life stories.
    The challenge is sorting out possible reality from junk.
    My issue was with Lisa Renee’s marketing…and her about me page.
    It ticks all the boxes related to “cult of personality” type stuff.
    Once I see stuff like that, it’s shields up time. Just like with Teal Swan etc.
    I’ve got some thoughts on Mr. Levenda coming up once I get a minute.

  39. ‘Levenda vs Horsley’ is the topic but most here have decided in favour of Jasun for obvious reasons. Since ‘pedophilia’ is the core issue, I don’t think it’s entirely off-topic to talk about sexual programming in children as a function of a much larger AI “program” involving splitting the human psyche and creating sociopathic alters who molest children. (I don’t think Lisa Renee’s marketing or Egyptian pharoahs are relevant either — but now that you mention Akhnaten, he did succeed in overthrowing the Egyptian mind control matrix for the period in which he ruled. Not a bad role model to look into).

  40. Jasun: I went to the link you posted and at first glance it looks like a sinkhole of New Age nonsense. So I won’t be taking further comments there. I stand by what I said above about Crowley and our ancient “sexual misery” programming which you explore in detail elsewhere.
    Your comment on that thread: “‘the split between soul & body (trauma-sourced dissociation) is the only “problem”‘ is quite revealing. It is just possible that this “problem” is just as illusory as the rumour of Outer Space.

    • a sinkhole of New Age nonsense??
      that’s the official forum for auticulture, be it ever so abandoned!
      Your comment on that thread: “‘the split between soul & body (trauma-sourced dissociation) is the only “problem”‘ is quite revealing. It is just possible that this “problem” is just as illusory as the rumour of Outer Space.
      You seem to be off on another Diamond-bender again. Did you get triggered?

  41. “When I am dead, my dearest,
    Sing no sad songs for me;
    Plant thou no roses at my head,
    Nor shady cypress tree:
    Be the green grass above me
    With showers and dewdrops wet;
    And if thou wilt, remember,
    And if thou wilt, forget.
    I shall not see the shadows,
    I shall not feel the rain;
    I shall not hear the nightingale
    Sing on, as if in pain:
    And dreaming through the twilight
    That doth not rise nor set,
    Haply I may remember,
    And haply may forget.”
    – Christina Georgina Rossetti
    I am going to have to “forget” this thread..[I needed an opportunity to post this poem – sorry if it’s doggerel to some and inappropriate.]
    But before I go, I want to say how impressed I am with the thinking and writing of Jasun . I need to look further into “inductive” vs. “deductive” logic and I’m an inspired in that, from his writing above. The notion that the search for “evidence” is simply the search for *that evidence which will be acceptable to those who will refuse to be convinced no matter what,” is to the point.
    I found that same scenario over and over again. “They’ll psy-op you to death”
    And if the point one puts forward is ironclad, they will just shift the ground.
    “Here we go again” “Let’s go back to Square One”
    People in my group have named it “fruit -looping.”
    In studying “Marley” / Marlowe I found he was in a boy’s choir in Canterbury, where they liked the singing for religious services to be done by male children, with very high voices?
    Last Pope’s brother was caught with “abuse” charges after running such a choir in the “Black Forest.” Could the Church be where Marley got his taste for boys, once he grew up? Could there be an un-broken chain in this “brotherhood” since the ancient times [which from my study of the research of A. Fomenko is not as far in the past as we are led to believe]?
    As far as AC, if you read his “Auto-hagiography” you’ll find Crowley was badly abused in the Brethren school he was made to attend by his religious – fanatic family.. Also, initially spoiled.he was “the Preacher’s Son” & terrified by early religious horror tales of “End of the World” any second now / “Coming of Christ any minute” – that he would be left behind; So to understanding rather than to blame.
    (FWIW : there is a reward of some excess of a million pounds for anyone who can “prove” Marlowe / “Marley” wrote the works attributed to the “stage manager” Mr. Shakespeare of Stratford. )

  42. By sinkhole, I meant that particular thread involving some New Age woman channeler. As if she had anything to do with the “Sexual Misery’ aspect of Crowley’s writing. Or Crowey as a front man for an ancient agenda. So although you are quick to root out ‘straw men’ arguments in others, you posted your very own ‘straw woman’ from another site as a distraction, while KK Deluxe continued his ad feminem attack using irrelevant details from Lisa Renee’s website as ammunition.
    No one seems to want to read or discuss the actual links which deal with the root of this programming. I am guessing you were triggered by questions you would prefer to avoid answering, while the last poster says he will have to “forget” this thread. I am guessing this has to do with an observable phenomenon: that AC’s “sexual misery” (aka sado-masochism) translates in many male brains as “sexual entertainment.” We all know this — but then our deep programming kicks in – bringing superficial digressions, irrelevant comments. The flashlight brain seeking its own darkness.
    https://indigenize.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/brain-deposed/

    • Not at all. If you saw recent comments by KK at another thread then you know he brought up Teal Swan. Hence the relevance of that thread. Having looked over the site you linked here, I can see at least initial similarities: young, attractive, dark-haired woman talking about kundalini ascension light forces dna etc, etc, all more a less a piece, so I don’t see how Swan is any more of a straw woman than this person whose site you are citing.
      How are KK’s selected details irrelevant? Is it ad hominen to point out things about a source when measuring the value of info that comes from it? If so, then Prisoner of Infinity is one sustained ad hominen attack.
      Add to this that I started a thread at the forum to explore the piece you linked to, and your talk about men being triggered & trying to avoid addressing what *you* think needs to be addressed strongly suggests that you are wrestling with some phantom projections here.
      I do agree that some of the material at the site you linked to is worth exploring, but *not* divorced from the context which it stems from (ie, a very dodgy looking & sounding new age chaneled info site).
      I only saw your other comment now, so I’ll respond to that separately.
      (This has been comment # 93)

  43. Sorry if something triggered me. Possibly it was listening to the conversation with Peter Watts about “the brain vs. the psyche.” I switched it off after Watts pointed out, you can’t measure or weigh the psyche. He’s right: it doesnt exist as an object. The flashlight brain (subject) cannot see darkness, only objects. The flashlight brain can’t even accommodate other flashlights, as there can only be “one subject”. Materialist logic is a form of scientific narcissism. Science does not understand or recognize consciousness mainly because consciousness is a function, not an object. Consciousness arises from the relationship between subject and object. Consciousness is all about that relationship. It’s not an entity, but a motion,expanding and contracting, and arising from the interaction between positive and negative. The so-called split between brain and psyche, or soul and body, is an illusion, and our focusing on it (and grieving over it) may be the result of early trauma, or the kind of programming Lisa Renee talks about. In reality, subject and object are always splitting apart and coming together, and that process gives rise to thinking, aka consciousness. Aka soul. The soul has no real need to fixate or grieve over separation because the soul embraces the whole universe. However, our thinking self needs objects.When lovers are united, there is nothing to think or say. Divorces, on the other hand, involve reams of argumentation. When Garbanzo was alive, you didn’t think about him as much as after his death… or did I miss something?
    Levenda’s version of Crowley does not embrace the child molester but your version does. So people here, understandably, side with your version, knowing Crowley was probably molested himself as a child and carried the abuse forward into adulthood. To serve some agenda, Crowley is being whitewashed and recycled to a new generation, minus the “child abuser” of course. This appears to be part of Levenda’s project: attracting more young people to the occult, through conspiracy-as-entertainment. I think some of us sense that Levenda’s defence of him is a sign of immaturity or disingenuousness. Most here are prepared to feel compassion for Crowley the ‘genius’ without denying that he was a monster. Therefore we would rather listen to you on this topic, because you seem ready to explore the forbidden world of abuse, using yourself as a player.
    Somewhere you said, you weren’t attracted to Crowley because of his child abuse, but because he seemed to offer a path to power. A way to separate from the mother-matrix? I was hoping you could explore that further, possibly by taking us on a personal journey into the Tunnels of Typhon. Or maybe by having a qualified hypnotherapist interview you on your own podcast? What a weird idea…

  44. How odd ~ does the blog create a new page after 92 comments??
    I think that you did miss something about Garbanzo, yes. Your argumentation here smacks of dissociation. When a loved one dies, we grieve. Does seeing grief make you uncomfortable? Are you hoping for a stony silent type to pick you up and sling you across his horse?
    As for having compassion for AC’s genius while calling him a monster, why would a genius need our compassion, and how does it help to label him or anyone a monster? I don’t think of AC as either a genius or a monster.

  45. I just heard that Levenda has been reading the comments here and commenting about it on FB, at a private group called the Parapolitical Research Society which I don’t have access to (I don’t consider FB a place for serious discussions anyway). I was thinking about emailing him recently, but decided not to as it no longer feels “safe” to engage him privately. So instead I will address him here, as someone else did recently.
    Peter: I am reading a book called The Politics & Experience of Ritual Abuse: Beyond Disbelief, by Sara Scott. I cannot believe a dedicated researcher could read this book and still be dismissive of organized ritual abuse. But then, I can’t believe a dedicated researcher such as yourself could be dismissive of organized ritual abuse, period. So I don’t suppose one book is going to make much difference anyway. But if you are sincere in wishing to broaden your horizon, this would be a good place to start: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Politics-Experience-Ritual-Abuse-Disbelief/dp/0335204198
    best,
    Jasun

    • Was not Levendas point that the Satanic Panic was unsubstantiated fear mongering, not that organized ritual abuse is an impossibility, just that you were throwing that label onto whomever you like with no evidence just because you don’t like their beliefs – which is fairly bigoted.
      He himself said the Franklin case began with testimony, and the woman whose book you quote also uses testimony. In the case of AC there is no testimony.

      • The two are simply not comparable & there is no reason to compare them that I can see. As for Satanic Panic, take some time to check out Ross Cheit’s book: there WAS no “witch-hunt,” this is a manufactured narrative. Levenda ought to know this, & the fact he doesn’t and uses McMartin to propagate the witchhunt narrative as a means to undermine a person’s investigations is deeply suspect, IMO.
        To say I am throwing the label on to whomever I like, & to throw terms liked bigoted around, is ridiculous, frankly. As if AC was somehow a random target! The evidence for Crowley’s complicity with these programs is massive, whatever Levenda may say. It’s not proof, granted, but it’s easily as substantial as a single person’s testimony as the basis for an investigation.

  46. Strong, silent type? Where, what, who? (:
    I just can’t stand to see a grown man cry ..
    I learned today from my Greek friend that the root of “Jason” actually means “I heal” in Greek — and the Golden Fleece was sought after for its energetic healing powers, which is also why Buddhist monks would meditate on sheepskins.
    I also learned that the Argo has its very own constellation in the sky between Orion and Canis Major (home of Sirius, the Dark Star) —
    We are all together attempting to decode a very old mystery. I’m glad PL is paying attention to this thread. Maybe he could comment on this: http://ascensionglossary.com/index.php/Aleister_Crowley

  47. Hi Jasun,
    didn’t know where to post this; thought this might be of interest:
    A Post Western World? A Disturbing Interview With Prof. Harry Redner
    I have no idea what a post-civilizational world will look like, except to surmise that unless some way is found to counter the worst of the present trends towards soulless uniformity, it will not be a world which I would like our children and grandchildren to inherit.
    Perhaps the most dangerous of these [unintended consequences of an eager embrace of new technologies] are changes in brain function starting to appear among children who are heavy computer users.
    Without civilization we are faced with the kind of brave new world scenario, outlined long ago by Huxley.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/post-western-world-disturbing-interview-prof-harry-redner

  48. “I just heard that Levenda has been reading the comments here and commenting about it on FB, at a private group
    called the Parapolitical Research Society which I don’t have access to”
    Oh cool, a mini cult/govt. propaganda operation meetup spot!
    Is this where all the cool bloggers go to get their talking points?
    You gotta be accepted in (vetted)…..and can also be kicked out if you dissent!
    That model sucks.
    FB is New NWO Age government cult kool-aid disguised as a tech company.
    Anybody with half a functioning brain knows that already…so whatevs.
    What did Jung have to say about this?
    “The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community.”
    Guy from Rune Soup is def. in the FB group.
    He ticks all the boxes, Practicing “magician”. Got his start with a Crowley book, openly homosexual, blogs about
    spiritual “interference” in geopolitical matters. Works in marketing. Now writes book$. Has Levenda on his podcast.
    Seems a likeable guy. But in his Chaos Protocols book goes from financial talk to getting you to intone “Baphomet” loudly while meditating. I’m not joking! Oh, and details a ritual to meet “the devil” at a crossroads. More upcoming on the Baphomet thing as relates to AC and Typhon junk. Will post to forum soon.
    I’ve noticed a “teaming up” of a series of bloggers on the “para-political” topic in the past year.
    Guessing the plain paranormal is not enough anymore, we need to see how the ghosts want the next US election to go. And maybe get them to do our bidding.
    This crew may just be linking/interviewing each other to get famous quicker?
    Everybody is talking about each other…thereby reinforcing specific information.
    Things like this are hijacked/co-opted in the blink of an eye. If not flat out engineered from the beginning.
    Jasun, staying independent is good. It’s a badge of honor.
    PS – It goes without saying I’m not slagging specifically on the female alt. perceptions crew.
    Just have allergic reactions to specific woo when I see it, that’s all.
    And I blurt things out in a direct manner.
    I could detail a ton of Star Wars crock that men have written also.
    Everybody is fair game in this arena.
    How about:
    Epic Of Gilgamesh (a crazy read, in clay tablet form!)
    Hypostasis Of The Archons (actually anything Nag Hammadi)
    Old Testament (Those zany conquered Jews!)
    New Testament (Roman jokers, with bonus NLP inserted by Francis Bacon)
    Finnegan’s Wake (Ugh!)
    There are more but I forget them offhand.
    Snippets of truth in all of these tales written by men. Good luck finding it.
    I do commend Ann for finding this woman’s stuff.
    There are a couple connections in it that I’ll detail on the forum post.
    It strikes at the heart of what the magicians believe they are doing with these specific sex rituals.

  49. “Levenda’s version of Crowley does not embrace the child molester but your version does. So people here, understandably, side with your version, knowing Crowley was probably molested himself as a child and carried the abuse forward into adulthood. To serve some agenda, Crowley is being whitewashed and recycled to a new generation, minus the “child abuser” of course. This appears to be part of Levenda’s project: attracting more young people to the occult, through conspiracy-as-entertainment. I think some of us sense that Levenda’s defence of him is a sign of immaturity or disingenuousness. Most here are prepared to feel compassion for Crowley the ‘genius’ without denying that he was a monster. Therefore we would rather listen to you on this topic, because you seem ready to explore the forbidden world of abuse, using yourself as a player. ”
    All spot on except for one thing. I was going to say “disingenuous” a couple days ago but didn’t post.
    Read Levenda’s “official” bit about the Necronomicon:
    http://peterlevenda.com/?page_id=35
    There is a lot of redirection and leading going on in this single page.
    It’s all just part of his stage act I guess.
    “Most here are prepared to feel compassion for Crowley the ‘genius’ without denying that he was a monster.”
    Uhhh….nope. I would say, “What genius?”.
    As a person on Planet Earth he made a choice.
    He gave up his freewill completely…to unknown outside entities, despite all the talk about doing “his will”.
    Didn’t these “outside entities” or “sinister forces” (lol) tell him what to write down anyway?
    When you choose to use buttsex to gain Real Ultimate Power™, it never goes well.
    Hence, his inglorious finale.
    “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world (of magical fanboys), and lose his own soul?”

  50. Peter Levenda wrote:

    “I remember very well the Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria of the 1980s, for instance, when the assumption was made that — since there are such things as occultists and satanists — there must be satanic rituals involving the sacrifice of children. Claims were made that thousands of children were being sacrificed annually in the US alone during satanic rituals by generational satanic cults. There was no evidence for it (there was no evidence for generational satanic cults, either) but that didn’t stop people from making assumptions and wild accusations, ruining innocent people in the process.”

    AND YET:

    “There are many similarities between the accounts of family sadism heard at Plymouth Crown Court in 1998 (for which nine people were jailed for crimes against children over a period of 35 years) and the accounts of survivors who participated in my research – although the Plymouth case was never identified as one of “ritual abuse” and received almost no media attention. The boys in the family were taught to abuse their sisters from an early age. The children were prostituted to men outside the family, and when pregnancy resulted their father performed the abortion. The children often went hungry and never discussed the abuse with each other. The abuse was often photographed and in the middle of the night the children were sometimes driven to nearby woods and tied over a smouldering fire before being multiply raped. Throughout the three inter-linked trials in this case, the prosecution insisted that the court should not be fixated on precise dates and particular events but concerned rather with a pattern of behaviour, with repetitive abuse until in the victims’ memories one occasion was little different from another. However, the crucial difference between this case and “discredited” ritual abuse cases was the testimony of adult survivors and the central role it played in the presentation of the case.” (Sara Scott)

    http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2001/06/28/a-living-hell/
    Nick Davies wrote in The Guardian, Aug 1, 1998, of this same case:

    “In that most important respect, this story is not unique. Indeed, for anyone who has worked in child protection over the past 30 years, it is a classic account of ‘inter-generational family abuse ‘: classic in its nastiness, classic in its secrecy, classic, too, in its ability to beggar belief.
    The story has echoes of the discredited cases of alleged ritual abuse in the 1980s. Those cases collapsed in procedural chaos and cries of incredulity. The accused were cleared. The accusers and their allegations were all rejected.
    To this day, the official line within which police and social workers are expected to work is that there is no such thing as ritual abuse. They say they are discouraged from pursuing cases of inter-generational family sadism because it is presumed that juries will instinctively reject them. There is, however, one stunning difference with this account: it could be proved.

    http://www.nickdavies.net/1998/08/01/an-example-of-organised-child-abuse-news-and-feature/

  51. “The more he uncovered, the more alarmed he became eventually he succeeded in setting up a major operation. He now pays tribute to his force for having the courage to continue, but he recognises the risk. ‘If we had failed to get convictions,’ he said, ‘there would have been an awful lot of fingers pointing, saying ‘I told you so’ and wanting me to justify my belief in pursuing the case.’
    Now that the juries have returned their verdicts, the most important message of this miserable story is that when it comes to child abuse , the mere fact that an allegation is beyond belief does not necessarily mean it is untrue.”
    WORD.

  52. I’m sorry Jasun, I have to agree with Levenda on this one. Your accusation towards AC is merely based on circumstantial arguments. You seem so fixated on a desired outcome, nailing Crowley for deliberate child abuse, that you’re massaging the facts towards that aim. There’s a whole world between what you call “the unconscious conspiracy of denial” (which undoubtedly exists) and jumping to conclusions without a smoking gun, or, in your case, blowing smoke on the gun and trying to make it stick.

  53. I don’t see Jasun as blowing smoke by connecting Crowley to child abuse, or why ‘circumstantial arguments’ should be dismissed when discussing this whole phenomenon. There are many ways to practice denial, and one is “cool reasoning” — and then there is “where is your evidence” — but as Jasun says, this is not a courtroom where even the worst perpetrators are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and the legal system is often biased against victims, which is one reason systemic abuse goes unpunished and has an impenetrable cloak of secrecy around it. By all means, “Justice for Crowley” — and let’s not have any more “witch hunts” — and while we’re at it, let’s listen to the Hampstead kids talking about unbelievable events happening in their elementary school, and above all “Let’s not panic” — and “let’s distinguish between real and false memories.” These circular arguments do get a bit stale, and those who have no emotional involvement in the issues usually wrap up the discussion with a shrug for lack of “proof” whereas those with direct experience are often too traumatized to speak. So I don’t see why Ouse4msm’s dismissive comment should be the final one. The question is far from resolved,
    From my last post here I drifted off into a series of coincidental finds, the first being that the Central UK (as mentioned above: Middle England) really was a major hub for MKULTRA mind control experiments — on children — in the 1950s and 60s, i.e. after Crowley’s death but these experiments were orchestrated by his intelligence pals (MI5 and Tavistock for short). Just recently, 50+ survivors of the Aston Hall mental hospital (in Derby) have come forward alleging a Doctor Milner, a colleague of Sargant and Cameron, conducted drug experiments and also abused them sexually. Cathi Morgan has been blogging on this recently. The experiments happened during the Cold War and continued into the Beatles era when these kids were growing up. Aston Hall hospital, as well as being the “exact centre of the UK” is located in Derby, Derbyshire, not far from Liverpool — I found that mildly interesting, considering that the Beatles came from the general area, as did Jimmy Savile.
    Then for some reason I decided to watch a very strange mockumentary, The Last Testament of George Harrison, considered to be disinfo mainly because it’s loaded with ridiculous factual errors pretending to support the “Paul is Dead” conspiracy theory. To my surprise, at about the two-thirds point, the film shows a map highlighting Derby, Derbyshire, as the place where Paul McCartney retreated before he was killed. The debunkers jumped on this as just another glaring error because (as everyone knows) Paul actually retired to his new property on Mull of Kintyre. Just maybe the filmmakers decided to insert Derby into their film to let insiders know a secret: that the Beatles (including Paul and his replacement, Faul) were products of MKULTRA mind control, which was tested not only on them, but on hundreds of children from all over the central UK, which would include neighbouring counties such as Yorkshire…
    And therefore, it occurred to me that since Paul was replaced soon after, maybe he was murdered in that hospital by his programmers? And the supposed scene of the car accident – which was reported initially although journalists were banned from seeing it – was faked? Like Crowleyian magick, the world of disinfo is a twisted mess of lies abetted by some truth.
    Oddly what I took from watching The Last Testament of George Harrison, is its apparently “silly” hypothesis John Lennon was shot in December 1980 because he was about to release the bombshell that Paul died (or was murdered) in 1966 — I had never heard of that before this mockumentary proposed it, and then discredited it by drenching it in nonsense.
    This hypothesis – that Lennon was tormented by Paul’s death and the coverup — seems less silly when you look into actual forensic evidence supporting the crazy conspiracy theory. Italian researchers who set out to debunk the PID rumours ended up faced with embarrassing proof that Sir Paul is an imposter. Faul is also a fan of Aleister Crowley, and displays his image at his concerts, and of course the Sergeant Pepper album featured Crowley in the crowd at Paul’s symbolic funeral. Therefore it’s not insanely farfetched to imagine that Paul was eliminated because he stood in the way of a deep agenda that aimed to legitimize Crowley and all he stood for, to the Beatles-worshipping generation who were the genetic wedge being used to disempower Christianity and introduce the “Satanic” religion to the masses.
    So — although Paul is Dead is just another conspiracy bandwagon or ‘red herring’ in this discussion, the forensics are hard to ignore. According to my simple way of reasoning and ’emotional logic’, this means Lennon and the other two lived with this secret and must have felt some pressure to reveal it to the world. All this just seems obvious and inevitable, as does Lennon’s fatal error of overestimating the Beatles’ popularity and underestimating the vicious extremism of the Powers that Be. And lets not overlook the sleepiness of the general population who can be lulled at any time into a state of passively witnessing their own collective traumatization.
    There are strong indications that the same intelligence groups who orchestrated Lennon’s assassination (using the programmed patsy Mark David Chapman) were busy programming children in the central UK at the time Paul McCartney was killed. The link is, always and everywhere, MKULTRA — always with Crowley hovering in the background.
    Some of the discussion here reminds me of the well-known psychological mechanism whereby traumatized children “forgive” their sadistic programmers, which was something Mengele studied very closely at Auschwitz, and his discoveries on trauma-based amnesia made him very popular with western intelligence services and military after the war.
    Whether we like it or not, and whether or not we loved the Beatles or prefer Punk or Death Metal, we are all programmed by Crowley, either directly or via his disciples. Everyone who commented here is a Crowley product – this just a fact that can’t be undone, like “Paul is dead.” You’re not going to undo this programming if it’s part of you – therefore it still controls you like a rite of passage, but you barely remember anything about it. It emerges in your behaviour, though: e.g. susceptibility to violent porn.
    So the question “Did Crowley really, personally abuse children?” would be moot. Wouldn’t it?

    • Yes to the last point anyway, I think it is moot in a certain sense (it has to be since it can’t be proven), but/and that the so-called circumstantial evidence that AC was complicit with CSA is so far-reaching & persuasive that it is rather for the nay-sayers to argue why they believe AC would have balked at child sexual abuse. The question isn’t did he or didn’t he but, with everything we know about AC, his life & circumstances, his beliefs, and his associations, and the culture which he was both spawned by & helped to create, would he have drawn a line at such things and if so, why? To respond as Levenda did with “where’s your evidence?” is to almost willfully disregard the actual nature of the question in favor of a prosecutory mindset that presumes all questions around the subject can only be aimed towards criminal convictions.
      The larger question isn’t even about AC but this: is modern occultism compatible and consistent with ritual abuse & sacrifice or is the latter merely an aberrational offshoot of the former? Those such as Ouse4msm or Levenda who keep harping on about “circumstantial evidence” can only do so by ignoring this larger question. It also serves quite well to obscure it entirely.
      A rather more contentious &, for me, reprehensible, position is those, such as sutekh from Sword of Thelema, who want to “diagnose” a sincere & impassioned interest in recognizing and understanding child sexual abuse as an unhealthy “obsession.”

  54. Ritual Violence: Sold Out Catholic Church Conference in Germany vs. ‘LICENCE TO KILL’ in the UK
    I just returned from the conference ‘Rituelle Gewalt’ organised by the Catholic University in Muenster. 250 delegates attended with a waiting list of 50. The 2013 conference helped me come to terms with the chilling realities of the extreme abuse scene but references to Alestair Crowley and associated satanist/luciferian ideologies were rather ‘hushed’. This time however most presenters tackled these and made overt reference to ‘Human Sacrifice Murder’.
    In the opening contribution organiser Brigitte Hahn bravely laid out what kind of abuse, torture and murder disclosures are made (in total confidence) to pastoral personnel. She explained the ideological background and also touched on recent ‘Terrorist’ events (e.g. McDonalds shooting in Munich) and disasters (e.g. German Wings tragedy). She shared the following definition:
    ‘Ritual Violence’ is planned and systematic physical and psychological violence in the context of an ideology or view of the world.
    Dr Brigitte Bosse talked about the issues from her experience as a medical practitioner and trauma specialist including discovery that two long-standing clients had been ritually abused.
    Prof. Dr. Adelheid Herrmann-Pfandt provided a religious science perspective with rare insights into the reward and punishment emotions evoked through criminal acts in ritual violence groups.
    Thomas Werner, Christiane Hobbie and Manuela Wasmann shared their forensic experiences in investigating Ritual Violence cases and provided valuable advice e.g. to first discuss matters with a victim support organisation and/or solicitor before contacting police.
    Brave survivors talked about their exit from destructive cults who use ‘secret service’ style methods such as mind control, surveillance and intimidation to run their strictly hierarchical organisations. ‘Nicky’ described how a cult baby was sacrificed in a ritual – seemingly on the Wewelsburg which is a hot spot of German right wing mythology. She was one of the self-identified survivors who had come forward for the TV program ‘Hoellenleben’ (Life in Hell) broadcast by ARD in 2001 which raised awareness of the issues in Germany:
    Link.
    This broadcast lead Journalist Claudia Fisher to turn her attention to extreme violence. A few successful prosecutions in Germany were mentioned in her lecture:
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordfall_von_Sondershausen Murder of a youngster by three right wing musicians
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordfall_von_Witten Satanic couple murdered a work colleague
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dietmar_Eschner Proponent of ‘Thelema’ ideology based on Aleister Crowley sentenced to 6 years for sexual abuse
    The latter seems related to the ideology of Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.) and the associated ‘Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica’ (EGC) or Gnostic Catholic Church which are organised around the ‘Law of Thelema’ as the central religious principle. The law is expressed as “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law” and “Love is the law, love under will” and was promulgated in 1904 with the writing of The Book of the Law.
    A Therapist shared with me how we had to read up on matters when a former client returned with colourful account of abuse under this ‘Thelema’ ideology.

    https://psychassessmentblog.wordpress.com/

  55. Levenda on Pizzagate:

    As some of you may know, I was involved the past few months in a series of discussions concerning satanic cults and pedophilia, in particular the idea that there is an international cabal of satanic, devil-worshipping pedophiles. If you’ve been following this, you know my stand on the issue: that there are, indeed, international groups of those who traffic in children and who are engaged in child prostitution and child pornography rings, but that I do not find that dragging concepts like “satanic cult” into the mix does anything for the children who are, in fact, being trafficked. There is simply no evidence of the existence of a satanic cult specializing in the trafficking of children, and to insist otherwise only serves to devalue the discussion where real gangs and real organized crime rings are exploiting women and children around the world without the need of “satanic” trappings, rituals, or belief systems.
    This discussion became overheated in the environment of “Pizzagate”, the inclusion of performance artist Marina Abramovic and Democratic Party officials in that faked scandal, and the resultant shooting this past weekend at Comet Ping Pong (the pizza parlor implicated as the center of this alleged satanic-Democratic cabal of child abusers). My objection to those who scream “satanic pedophiles” and who insist that there is overwhelming evidence of same is that they are using “spectral evidence”: a term coined at the time of the Salem witchcraft trials over three hundred years ago to denote evidence that no one can see except the accusers. Nineteen innocent people were executed on the basis of that “spectral evidence.” Today, Pizzagate is a case in point.
    However, to those who still believe in such things I have a suggestion.
    (No, not that. Another suggestion.)
    You know that I just published a novel about international terrorists and religious groups. One of the groups I write about in that book is called the Yezidi or Yazidi. For centuries these people were considered to be “devil worshipers” by Muslims and Christians alike. They are still considered that way by the followers of the Islamic State, which has undertaken a campaign of genocide against them. Thousands of Yezidi have been slaughtered. Thousands more – women and children – have been taken into slavery, a fact that the Islamic State brags about in their own publications and on-line. Women and children are traded, sold, and bought. They are raped by their captors, and then sold to another set of captors where they are raped again. Prices range from about ten dollars each to more than twenty-five thousand dollars, depending on the desirability of the victim. The children who have been victimized this way already are showing evidence of severe psychological trauma.
    There is little information about the Yezidi in the media, other than the fact that they are being killed in large numbers, their shrines defaced and destroyed, and the most vulnerable among them being brutalized in ways I hope you cannot imagine.
    But see: here is real proof of the organized abuse and murder of children by a gang of religious fanatics. It is happening now. In huge numbers. And the excuse the Islamic State uses to conduct this barbarity? The Yezidi, they say, are devil-worshipers.
    You know. Like Marina Abramovic and Tony Podesta and James Alefantis. Right?
    Yeah. Think about that.
    If you truly believe in any of this despite all evidence to the contrary, and if you still insist that there is an international cult of satanic child molesters, then put your money where your mouth is. Do something for children who are being abused right now by just such a cult. Take a stand on something real, and help save a child or its mother right now.
    You can send a donation via the website http://www.yazda.org. Or via UNICEF.
    Do it. Show the world you’re serious and that you really care about children, and that you care about them more than you do your own fevered fantasies. Show the world you have nothing in common with the bigotry of the Islamic State, or with shooting up pizza parlors on the basis of false stories and unsubstantiated, unsupported reports in un-refereed alternate media.
    In other words, grow the f*** up.
    • facebook official.
      I guess a leper can’t change his lesions.
      same punchline as Steve Colbert.
      we wait with bated breath for Farrell and his mustache to weigh in..
      I’ll see your Satanism and raise you Rasputin connected to Abramovic family (?)
      voat.co/v/pizzagate/1474221

  56. “The understanding that I’ve come to is that there is a left side to the universe, to understanding reality. We sometimes have to suspend disbelief, we have to suspend the rational framework to get deeper into what’s happening to us.” Peter Levenda 2015: https://conspiracyreview.net/2015/04/09/peter-levenda-on-cthulhu-kenneth-grant-and-the-sinister-forces-in-american-history/

    “Jasun, for the love of God, I can’t pursue a question further if it is based on sand! I need a place to stand. It’s not a question of being literal-minded, and I am grateful (and surprised) you admitted you are not. That pretty much sums up this entire correspondence, so I think we have nowhere to go from here.” PL, 2016.

  57. I would like to re-iterate the point I made in the other thread.
    Crowley is THEEE ABSOLUTE CLASSIC ….. SPOOK … that the elite LOVES to USE for their psychological warfare to scare the shit out of people …
    Crowley was the world’s most EVIL man, correct? That’s what they tell us. Never mind Pol Pot … killing a few hundred million people is NOTHING compared to the evil this man was capable of … Be afraid. Be very afraid. Be vary paranoid.
    So why not spook people out even more with connecting him to highly organized pedophilia rings?
    Sorry, I don’t know what you’re doing or why you’re doing it. But I’m not drinking your Kool-Aid.

  58. In one of Levendas books he mentions something about a cult you can only get into by sacrificing a relative, I dont have the time to spare re-reading his whole trilogy, do you know what page I can find this on? as I wish to quote from it. As 4 AC he talks of child sacrifice and in those days I bet half the children that went missing were never even reported, especially in Italy, they were probably into what the Gilles de Rais was into with joan/john of arc

  59. https://archive.org/details/Whitley-Strieber_Dreamland_Intelligence-Community-Child-Abuse/01-JonRappoport-IntelligenceCommunityChildAbuseDreamland_01_09_10.mp3
    Here archived are four podcasts from some show created and produced by Whitley Strieber. Two concern Strieber and some strange childhood memories that came back to him later in life. A particularly unsettling part was a memory of a school for gifted children in Monterrey Mexico which he said he attended. He tied this to the finders cult and in in documents dealing with an investigation into this cult a supposed school for gifted children was mentioned. Anyways pretty interesting listening.
    Anyways the other two interviews are with Nick Bryant, a top notch investigative journalist who is an expert in the whole franklin credit union scandal. One of these interviews with Bryant is hosted by Peter Levenda, and it is an extremely informative affair, highly suggest checking it out.
    What struck me as odd was that Levenda kept referring to this scandal like it was totally new to him and he was flabbergasted by it. He mentioned in the interview that some of the facts in the case are so weird and astounding that they seem unbelievable, but that Nick’s work shows it to be true. Next and tellingly he talks of the accusations of ritual abuse and said that the Franklin scandal almost lends credence to some of the accusations made over the years (before, or maybe during these statements, Levenda talked of going to a convention of folks who claimed they had been victims of mind control and ritual abuse, and he said in a rather derisive way that it was the weirdest and scariest things he had attended) concerning SRA. I don’t know… It felt like Levenda was curating the info and the context in a manipulative way. Peter Levenda knows much of the weird, the fortean, and the occult. Why would he act as if he was dumbstruck by the information in Nick Bryant’s book written I believe in 2006? He would have undoubtedly heard of this event long before when all this was going on in the early 90s. especially so since he is wont to talk about the so-called satanic panic. You know those investigative shows on cable that rehash famous crimes? I remember seeing one where the killer was loitering at the scene of the crime soon after he had committed it. The guy even allowed himself to be interviewed by a local news van that had quickly came to report on the event. He acted angry and sorrowful, crying for the head of the killer. Nobody knew for a long time that the melodramatic guy interviewed that day was the actual killer.
    That is what I get from Levenda. The guy knows a whole lot, and is very clever. Either he is blinding himself to the realities of this sick shit out of personal biases and beefs, or he is being willfully and malevolently hiding things. I am starting to side more with the latter. Some folks from occult circles are coming out and blowing the whistle on what they eventually learned. One example I can cite are the accusations levied at the Illuminates of Thanateros in the UK by a couple people who eventually discovered some in the higher ranks were hiding real evil stuff. Even some chaotes I have talked to have said parts of the IOT are rotten and have strange connections.
    Anyways sorry for the rambling scrawl. I am just happy I found this place and article. A lot of very solid comments and a fascinating go-between with you guys. Keep up your good work.

      • I have not seen this website before but I think I heard of him. Is he still being hounded by his former associates? Thanks for the link I will go thru it today. What is neat is many in the occult community are calling this wickedness out. For so long us Christians were mocked for all of this (and not always without reason!). Crazy fundi’s, or birchers or larouche followers. Those complicit in SRA and pedo rings did a masterful job at shutting everyone down, and the conspiracy community is an easy target of ridicule. now though with awareness rising, and stuff like nxivm coming out, what sounded loony to average people is starting to unnerve the average person. It shattered my worldview when I found out. What is scary is there is more than enough evidence to show beyond all doubt it is happening.

  60. I came here after listening to your appearances on Occulture, Higherside Chats and Aeon Byte. I spent the majority of my day listening to those, finding and reading this interaction.

    I am myself a victim of ritual abuse; but not within the Hermetic tradition. My abuser claimed to be a guru of the Eastern persuasion. So, I have some strong empathy for this topic and a burning interest. My abuse at the hands of my guru is actually what led me to the Hermetic tradition and it’s authors like Crowley.

    All that said; I have always been wary of new teachers and currents. As such, I found some of your perspectives and hunches compelling. I have been down those avanues of inquiry many times.

    That said, I say with all humbleness, I think Peter Levenda has you dead to rights here. He addressed Everything you said in a susinct, respectful and coherent manner and by the end of reading this interaction I felt pretty strongly that you were out of your depth and Levenda’s defenses were warranted.

    Your statement “it must be nice to be in the know” was rude and did betray a lack of elementary research on your part- stuff readily available to a victim of ritual abuse looking for answers, like myself.

    If you want to catch the bad guys, you’ll need to do better than speculating and subtly accusing the sinscere seekers because “occultism is bad mmmkay.”

    • thanks for the comment Luke

      Levenda’s case here IMO is one of illegitimate persuasion; I address it in more depth in a recent online meet starting around the 35 min mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO12MHa5m0

      I am puzzled why anyone who was a victim of ritual abuse would seek to defend occultism, Crowley, or Levenda unless, that is, they were seeking to align with the same powers they were abused by, which was true in my case for many years. I suggest you read Vice of Kings for a more complete breakdown of the evidence against Crowley that Levenda, disingenuously IMO, dismiss as “spectral.”

  61. The Colin Batley paedophile ring worshipped Crowley, dressed in white robes, called itself a ‘Church’, had a large membership with connections to Bristol and London.. I would suggest it is down to the OTO to prove they knew nothing about him, and that his ‘Church’ was not sponsored by the OTO, rather than it being down to anyone to prove it wasn’t.

    There is NO WAY a group of that size was unknown to anyone of standing in the occult community. It is simply common sense, surely?

    Besides which, having been close to this case, I can say with certainty that high ranking members of the OTO, IOT, and Pagan Federation were directly involved.

    • thanks Nathaniel; I am not sure what motivated this previous commenter – hard to see how a survivor of ritual abuse would want to defend someone (Levenda) who denies the existence of ritual abuse and who cozies up with people like Michael Aquino.

Leave a Comment