Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tl00169)

>I have heard that from a few of the local ranking OTO people.  On the other
>hand, Frater U.D. speaks very highly of his book on the FS in his Letters 
>From Germany.  As I am not enough of an expert on the subject, I am
>naturally somewhat confused as to whose interpretation is right.

I think a lot of Flowers' historical writing is self-indicting. One 
useful exercise, for instance, is to read "Futhark" and the scholarly 
"The Occult Roots of Nazism" by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke together, and 
then ask yourself why Flowers would so completely misrepresent Guido von 
List when he had access to the primary sources and appears to be familiar 
with them. A political agenda is clear; he is sanitizing List and his 
system by deliberate omission, and trying to erect his own new rune-cult 
on top of this revisionist myth, all the while posing as an objective 
historian. The same is true in "Fire and Ice", but this time the 
objective is to paint the Fraternitas Saturni as a pre-Aquino adherent of 
the "left hand path" in order to bolster the Temple of Set's political 
position.

By the way, given that we are among Theosophists, does anyone have a 
better source in English than Goodrick-Clarke on Ariosophy, a German 
descendant of Theosophy from which most of the modern Rune interest 
ultimately derives? (As well as the Thule Society -- though 
Goodrick-Clarke points out that Hitler had little patience with the 
Ariosophical milieu and attacked it in "Mein Kampf.")

>My personal view is that if one looks at cultural impact, at least in the
>west, Crowley has had a far greater effect than Krishnamurti not only 
>directly
>on the magickal culture, but, through his disciples, on the culture at large.
>Virtually everything we take for granted in our culture, from pan-sexual
>freedom to the abolition of authority has either its roots or its strongest
>proponent in Crowley.  He taught that one could function as a spiritual being
>without the moral or ethical baggage that all other teachers presuppose 
>and is
>certainly far more deserving of the title World Teacher than any of the other
>contenders.

Have to argue with you here. (And as you can tell, I hate to argue 
history.)

Crowley was more in tune with these aspects of the times than 
Krishnamurti, but the developments you cited were well established 
already before Crowley was born. The Free Love movement already existed 
and was already related to Spiritualism, the great under-acknowledged 
ancestor of modern occultism and Theosophy. There were also a few waves 
of romantic decadence and Satanism before him. Anti-authoritarian trends 
had been strong since the humanistic 18th century in the West and 
Crowley's own views -- as well as those of rigidly hierarchical 
initiatory groups like the Golden Dawn, A.'. A.'. and from what I'm given 
to believe the Esoteric Section as well -- could be considered 
reactionary and authoritarian despite their lip service to freedom. 
Crowley did ride these waves in society but they were around before he 
was. It would be harder to paint Krishnamurti as having picked up on 
popular social movements and attuned himself to them but I would say that 
Krishnamurti has had a broader influence than Crowley. He is much better 
known and respected in society at large.

As for the World Teacher title, I don't know what would be good grounds 
for debating it as it's not a historical question. Crowley has had a lot 
of influence on my life and my spirituality. The longer I've studied him 
and his sources, the more I've realized that he was largely a syncretist 
from earlier traditions, emphatically including Theosophy, which I regard 
as a direct ancestor of Crowley's system. Too little attention has been 
paid to this source by Crowley's biographers and followers and I'm hoping 
to make some contributions in this area.

--
Tim Maroney    tim@maroney.org    http://www.maroney.org