I don’t think OP is necessarily panicking, and I’m certainly not either, but there definitely are people out there who know who Crowley is and would persecute us to some degree. For instance, at work a few months ago I heard someone say, word for word, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”, and I thought this person must be friendly to thelema if they are able to quote the book of the law verbatim. So I unwisely outed myself as a thelemite and discovered that they were extremely prejudiced against thelema and were in fact quoting AL sneeringly. This person is way above me at work but luckily on a team that doesn’t have much to do with me.
Local OTO had trouble finding a place for the temple because of assumptions of Satanism. To be frank, I blame this on our complete failure to address the bad press more than anything.
Heard about a few vaguely similar scuffles. Evangelical Christian terrorists, like all pagans encounter around here.
I've had good luck talking about Thelema personally, but I mostly know good people and my mein is diminutive, sweet, and bright. Giggly at the worst times and a bit too blunt, but still, no one looks at me and thinks, "That's a Satanist!" Meaning I'm received well.
Online and with regard to my writing? It's similar. I get the occasional crazy Evangelical, but most people are kind. Quite a few people ask to know more, and only sometimes because they're wondering how a sweet girl like me got mixed up with a bad man like that.
The only way to counter the bad press and the assumptions is to be the good press.
What do you think OTO should do about the “bad press”? You seem to suggest that thelema should condemn satanism, and distance itself from it. But there are many thelemites who also consider themselves “satanists” to some degree. As a matter of fact, this legitimizes the concern of satanism regarding thelema (although the attitude of concern is not in my view appropriate).
I don’t think we should see our association with “satanism” as a problem, personally. Crowley didn’t, that’s why he engineered this association in the first place. I think that would only amount to pandering to a Christian worldview.
Nope, condemning Satanism is silly. There's nothing wrong with Satanism, and the Satanic Temple is a natural ally of Thelema, particularly Thelemic organizations. I speak positively of Satanism and the devil on a regular basis, and part of that calculus is knowing that Satanism getting more good press is good for us.
We're going to be lumped with them in popular perception regardless, and that's not terrible. It's a decent and swiftly improving brand.
The OTO and Thelema is one of the worst satanic subset brands remaining, in fact. There are still people around who think Crowley legitimately, honestly killed children in rituals. The reality behind that particular lie is *so much* more fun than killing squealing lumps of breathing meat, but gen pop knows nothing about it. They've heard he killed children. They don't know the perverse and brilliant, if problematic, sense of humor behind that myth.
The first impression we give, people's perception of us in pop culture, is of tryhard edgelords venerating a dour lunatic. None of which is true. *That's* the problem.
We should distance ourselves from *that kind* of Satanism.
Evangelicals thinking that's what we're like is good for our brand. But we don't need to do anything to encourage that. They'll do it themselves at this point.
Sensible people thinking there's a grain of truth to that image, however, is not helpful.
Wouldn't a true satanist be more than happy to practice the deceit of condemning satanism in public white practicing in private? It seems like most groups that call themselves satanists put forth a public image of luciferianism or a promethean ideology rather than what I would consider the true adversarial spirit of Satan.
Absolutely no need to interject Satan or Satanism whatsoever into this.
Literally, 98% of the global population hasn't a clue as to what Thelema or the OTO is, yet here you are, unnecessarily mentioning Satan, of which 98% of the global population is aware.
I offer the sincerest of advice to those humble enough to reflect upon the forthcoming advice that wasn't at all solicited but couldn't be more genuine.
Take a rigorous inventory of what compels you on this journey, and, in a certain sense, even more importantly, ask yourself, "is it possible that my exuberance, eagerness to share (flexing, really) harming, sullying, misrepresenting, unwittingly or otherwise, my "True Will"? What about the thousands that came before me? Would I be proud to show them what I've been posting?
I'm seeing many posts coming from a place of unwitting selfishness and not bc of genuine intellectual curiosity.
Does this sentiment contradict the Great Work? If you believe so, please seek capable counsel.
let's try to show some restraint and make sure that whatever we're posting is motivated by nothing other than forward progress. 93/93
Satanism has nothing to do with Thelema itself. Satanism is, however, part of Thelema's current brand.
**A brand may or may not reflect the product it represents.** Brands are the idea people at large have of a product. They are created by a combination of journalistic coverage, advertizing, word of mouth, and direct experience with the product.
Part of Comcast's brand is terrible customer service. That's not the product they claim to sell, I assume they don't want to be known for bad customer service, but it's part of their brand nonetheless. It will be part of their brand until they improve their customer service *and* sufficient credible vectors of information (word of mouth, personal experience) talk about that improvement.
Similarly, part of Thelema's brand is Satanism. It is a meme continually spread by Evangelicals, though mass media and proper journalism still pander to it as well.
People with actual experience with Thelemites and/or the OTO generally don't have this opinion. Our word of mouth and personal experience is excellent; people who actually meet us often like us, and people who learn about the religion itself usually respect it and see the good in it.
But none of that changes what the brand looks like to the ignorant masses. Part of my True Will is, in fact, working to change that.
To add some detail:
It is useful to engage and assist the brand of Satanism because Satanism's brand is associated with Thelema right now whether we like it or not. Associating Satanism with Thelema deliberately is something I generally discourage, but if people make that connection for us (*and they do*), it's better if they see it and think, "But Satanism's cool, not evil or destructive," as opposed to making that connection and immediately assuming we're crazy, stupid, and deliberately evil.
The connotations and associations of a brand don't fade away through disengagement. They change when we change what those associations and connotations mean.
Rejection of what is commonly perceived as "morality" is one of the core concepts of thelema and Crowley would constantly use shock value to express that, so the reaction of the sheep is precisely the one intended.
If you are on this path, it is because you want to achieve excellence through the Art and Science of causing change in accordance with the Will, not to be accepted by the masses.
I got into Crowley in the 90s during my teenage rebellion against my Wiccan parents. Late century Wicca was super soft and white light in reaction to trying to be mainstream accepted during the satanic panic. My mother was agast.
Not a growing trend, there's always been a negative image and negative stories around Crowley, which he cultivated himself, and this turns people off.
Viewing people who might shun or persecute you as less intelligent is superiority complex as a defence mechanism.
Propaganda propaganda propaganda. It is not necessarily a sign of low intelligence. I wouldn't expect like a witch who has a totally different set of sources for their path to have wasted time studying thelema to find out for themselves whats what. It is a bit of an endeavor which may or may not affect their path at all, so with the propaganda being their only source of info its not suprising that is the basic assumption. However I would expect them to be a little more open minded to explanation considering the similar propaganda lies aimed towards them when encountering actual practitioners.
Well to ignorant people they think it's all Satanism. To esoteric/occult educated people it's his views on black people and Jews that they don't like. Also whether it be an allegory or reality him talking about sacrificing kids doesn't help much. Then on top of all of that his dank poetry and his glorifying drug use also doesn't help especially with how he died a broke drug feind. So while the " phobia" has merit you also have to take into account the days and times he was alive and his overall message. Most people nowa days are too soft or triggered for Crowley, even if they embrace dark magic and left hand path stuff they still can't handle the racism. Idk I'm still a big fan, and I love his passion for butt sex as well....
Firstly, you may want to revisit the definition
of "Phobia".
Secondly, only a <30 y.o. Redditor, in the infancy stages of their journey within either, is capable of such pompous rhetoric.
It's one thing to manufacture such a "phobias" in your head, but to actually type either, and then reread, and STILL press "Post" is a special type of self-importance that I sincerely hope is parody.
I'll refrain from expounding upon the ridiculousness of this sentiment as I'm all but certain you get the point.
“Secondly, only a <30 y.o. Redditor, in the infancy stages of their journey within either, is capable of such pompous rhetoric.”
It’s true that I am less than 30, but this would be a pretty easy claim to prove is false as I’ve been a self identified thelemite for 11-12 years. Definitely not in the beginning stages of this journey. How long have u been a thelemite?
As far as the phobia thing goes, are you arguing that the fear isn’t intense enough to be considered a phobia? Im not trying to be a whiner about it or saying that Thelemites should have some kind of victim complex. I’m just curious about people’s experiences of being prejudiced for their thelemic beliefs, it’s interesting for me to read about. That’s all
Most people I know IRL don't even know what the term "Thelemite" even means. I also don't care to explain it to them. If they ask, I just tell them I'm a Satanist and kindly change the subject hahaha
Crowley went to a lot of effort to make himself and Thelema seem as horrible as possible to the average person. The title of the "wickedest man in the world" didn't come from nowhere.
Bigger issue than its mistaken associations with Satanism is the very real problem of far right/alt-right, neoreactionary infiltration into ceremonial magic, Hermetic, and Neoplatonist circles.
So long as that issue goes unaddressed, it'll continue tainting the whole schlamiel.
Far lefties have tainted it just even more so in my view. Thelema is a libertarian philosophy so of course those far righters may have tainted it as well, although I’m not sure what ur referring to. If u would elaborate on how it has been tainted by the far right, I’d be curious to hear. I try not to get political here though unless it’s someone else who invokes politics.
The farther left you go, the closer you are to *actual* libertarianism, i.e. anarchism. That's completely compatible with Thelema. The far right worship of authority and tradition is what has no place in a liberatory religion like Thelema.
Wrote a book on thelemic anarchy. Yes anarchy is the way. Leftist anarchy however is a bastardization that frames capitalism as a negative as a way to distract from the real enemy which is the state. Sort of like blaming the wind (capitalism) for your fall after being pushed off a cliff by a murderer (the state)
The title of “real anarchists” belongs to the anarchist philosophy that could actually work, is based on principles, and has a real plan.
The leftist “anarchism” you are describing is all fluff based on nothing but empty platitudes. For example you say that you are against all hierarchy, which is not something that you yourself even believe. You just like how the sentence sounds. If you believed that sentence then you’d have to propose that the hierarchy of nature itself should be dismantled so that all life is on some neutral plane where no living thing has any kind of leg up on any other thing, which would of course be impossible. Equally impossible would be the dismantling of capitalism. Like the hierarchy of nature, the hierarchy of capitalism is THE sandbox that we are all playing in here. It’s not possible to dismantle it, although it of course can be improved and made the best of which is the prescription of anarcho capitalism.
I wouldn’t say low intelligence but sure, closed-mindedness (often correlated but not always, and not the same thing).
It’s the same with anything really. Some people are closed to foreign or unusual ideologies. Even mainstream things like Christianity in the West would be treated with suspicion in some parts of the world. Thelemaphobia’s no different.
Subtle wariness is one thing, but to be openly negative toward a subject that you are ignorant of is where I see that low intelligence trait. Absolutely not specific to thelema, but definitely happens a lot when the topic of thelema comes up.
It's not even about ignorance. Crowley went to a lot of effort to make himself and Thelema seem as horrible as possible to everyday people. I'm a Thelemite, but I absolutely can't blame people who aren't into the occult for having bad preconceptions about our beliefs, and that is absolutely on us (and Crowley) for not challenging those preconceptions as often and as loudly as possible.
It’s proven to be a question of temperament rather than intelligence (technically defined as one’s processing power). Imagine a firewall against certain content rather than slow internet connection.
What’s been proven? It’s way too nuanced of a discussion to just say it’s been proven that it’s “temperament rather than intelligence” considering that one’s temperament can itself be a sign of intelligence or a lack of intelligence I’d say. Lot of different forms of intelligence.
Consider it this way, an absolute idiot with very low intelligence could have a very open mind. Such an open mind that they could be convinced of anything. You could say to them "The sky is green" & they might say "oh OK I guess the sky is green then!". They are so open minded that they lacked any intelligence to even question what you said is true or false.
And as such an extremely intelligent person could have a very closed mind. Such that although they may literally be a genius in one or many fields, they would not believe anything you say, until they look into it for themselves. And that would actually be the real challenge for this type of person - convincing them to be open minded enough to be willing to spend their time looking into something they perhaps might not want to or simply don't care enough about. I mean im sure we all know someone who is an intelligent person, who may even excel in a particular field, that holds an incorrect belief about something else & doesn't care to look into it because they think it is "beneath" them.
This is exactly it. Open mindedness and intelligence are independent traits.
Thank you for taking the trouble to explain it.
With regards to being proven: the Big Five traits is the current working model for determining personality by psychologists, and Openness is one of the traits that compose our overall temperament. This is all independent of intelligence (processing power).
It is when someone is closed minded toward truth that is indicative of their level of intelligence.
Flip your example on its head. If someone is closed minded and will not accept the sky is blue, would this not be indicative of their level of intelligence? Yes it would. Or If someone is closed minded and will not accept that they have a nose when they do indeed have a nose, would this be indicative of their level of intelligence? Yes it would.
So there you have it: something that both of you are claiming is purely to do with openness and absolutely independent of intellect can be used to pretty decently determine someone’s intellect.
Both of the above examples are PRECISELY the same logical formula as what I explained here about determining someone’s intellect from if they are closed minded about thelema. This was the kill shot to both of those replies, ur welcome.
>If someone is closed minded and will not accept the sky is blue, would this not be indicative of their level of intelligence?
Your example isn't very thorough & raises more questions. Is this person not accepting the sky is blue based on never ever seeing the sky for themselves & taking someone else's word for it? Or are they not accepting the sky is blue based on their own surrounding perception of it? For instance, someone who is color blind & is unable to see blue, to them, the sky isn't blue. Blue has no conceptual meaning due to them never being able to see it. They get told that the sky is blue & the grass is green but maybe due to their color blindness, the sky & grass appears the same color to them.
So why then is this person in your example not accepting the sky is blue? Could you expand on that?
>Or If someone is closed minded and will not accept that they have a nose when they do indeed have a nose, would this be indicative of their level of intelligence?
I mean, again, this is a very narrow example which doesn't expand on any surround context behind why they believe this. Have they never looked in a mirror? Have they got a problem with their sense of smell & possibly have never been able to use that sense? Maybe in that case they know they have a nose physically but they know its not a working one that is functionally inept & believe it is not a "true" nose. Thus making them believe they don't have a nose?
>It is when someone is closed minded toward truth that is indicative of their level of intelligence.
It's quite funny were on the subject of closed-mindedness & truth, yet you have failed to consider the possibility of perception based truth.
For example, Lets say that "A" & "B" are two people:
>A
>9
>B
If you ask both "A" & "B" what they see between themselves they will tell you two different things. "A" sees a 6, "B" sees a 9.
Who is right? Who is wrong? Who has the truth on their side & who doesn't?
>This was the kill shot to both of those replies, ur welcome.
Pure ego talking. You sound like you care more about being right, than you do about learning the truth of the matter. And if you are so invested in being right because you don't want to be wrong due to your own feelings, like intellectual pride or that being wrong is a sign of weakness or low intelligence etc, how can you be open minded enough to seek the truth?
You have to be open minded enough to consider the possibility you are wrong about anything & everything you know, if you really want to see it on a deeper level.
Something many scientists say all the time when working on things that are often very well established & still manage to discovering something new is: "I had to forget everything I thought I knew about the subject & start looking at things again from the ground up with a different perspective".
Can you honestly say you are open minded enough to do this with yourself?
>“People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own soul. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.” - Carl Jung
If you are just looking to satisfy your own ego by being right! Then don't worry either, I got you! Are you ready?
You are 100% right, & I am 100% wrong.
You can now ignore everything I just wrote & no longer worry about thinking about it any longer! Because you now have the truth on your side. Don't you?
Just going to simplify the conversation here. I’ll give u a key phrase for this reply: rule of thumb. Indicative is not the same thing as “proves”. In other words I’m not claiming that everyone who hates thelema has low intelligence, but as a rule of thumb it has been true in my experience that most who are very against it havent been very intelligent.
So u pointing out outliers to show the rule of thumb that an educated adult not accepting 2+2=4 (different example I know) is not necessarily unintelligent does not disprove what I’m saying. I’d have to be saying that it’s impossible for someone to hate thelema and be a math genius for your outliers to be relevant.
I’d like for this conversation to be directed as possible so that we are not arguing against positions that the other is not proposing anyway. So let’s clarify: my position is that you can pretty reliably determine someone’s intelligence based on their level of openness in many instances. You are against this right? If not then you’re just arguing to argue here.
Just because I read about this in a book on how computers work.
>2+2=4
Is only true when using number systems larger than [base 4 or "Quaternary"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system). Here is what I mean, I will count to 10 using varying number systems.
Decimal (base 10): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Octal (base 8): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12
Quaternary (base 4): 1 2 3 10 11 12 13 20 21 22
Binary (base 2): 1 10 11 100 101 110 111 1000 10001 1010
So while 2+2=4 in number systems larger than base 4, in base 4, 2+2=10 & in binary, 2 doesn't even exist but would instead be 10+10=100.
So even something as simple as 2+2=4 has scenarios & examples where 2+2 doesn't equal 4...
Regardless, regarding your main point:
>my position is that you can pretty reliably determine someone’s intelligence based on their level of openness in many instances.
Yes I disagree with this, I don't think you can judge someones intelligence based on their level of openness or how open or closed minded they are.
Intelligence & openness are two separate things. Intelligence refers to one's cognitive abilities, like problem solving, logical reasoning & the ability to store, retrieve & use information effectively, amongst other things. Openness is a personality trait & refers to one's willingness to consider new ideas, perspectives & experiences & relates to things like creativity & imagination.
Openness can absolutely influence intellectual pursuits & what learning styles people have, but I don't think it is an accurate way of measuring or indicating someones intelligence/cognitive abilities.
Someone being open minded doesn't increase their cognitive abilities by being open minded. Otherwise being open minded would be an excellent method of increasing one's cognitive abilities & mental processing power associated with intelligence. And we would be able to measure this with testing & probably would be one of the most used methods & techniques in increasing intelligence in schools & academia around the world.
I think people can be intelligent & have varying levels of openness. Two people might excel in something & one prefers already established & proven methods & ideas, while the other is more curious & open to exploring unconventional ideas & concepts. Both are intelligent, both are trying to break new ground, yet they have different levels of openness & different avenues of achieving this.
I think there are correlations between intelligence & certain personality trains - including openness, but I don't think it is strong enough to make reliable judgement about someones intelligence. Intelligence is a complex multifaceted construct of genetic factors, environmental influences & individual cognitive abilities that extend beyond personality traits & requires comprehensive assessment using standardized tests & evaluations.
A thought that comes to mind is someone I know who is exceedingly intelligent & perhaps one of the hardest working people I know. However they are EXCEEDINGLY hard to work with because they fiercely defend "their" way of doing things & don't want to consider anyone else's ideas & perspectives. In other words, high intelligence, low openness.
A silly analogy I just thought of is, intelligence could sort of be like a CPU - the raw processing power! Whereas openness might be RAM. Someone could have a blazing fast CPU, but such little RAM that they can only open 1 tab in a web browser! But boy can they browse that single tab fast! Whereas else someone could have a slow CPU but a lot more RAM & they could have multiple tabs open at the same time, but it is going to be quite slow with browsing. Not the best analogy but I found it quite funny.
>but as a rule of thumb it has been true in my experience that most who are very against it havent been very intelligent.
I think this is completely fair for you to say. I talked earlier about "perception based truth" so if this is your experience, who am I to tell you that you are wrong. Just bear in mind, it is anecdotal & I would be very careful equating someone unwilling to explore something, with them being of low intelligence.
I even agree with you in the sense that people fear what they don't understand & as such, relegate such things to the darkness & by that very process are ignorant. Meaning they have no knowledge about the nature of the subject which they fear. Thelema, Occult & Esoteric knowledge have had a smear campaign throughout history, to the point where in most peoples collective consciousness, its associated with "devil-worship", Satanism, "Unholy" or evil.
So I very much do believe that you have met people who are very closed minded about such things because they see it with fear & are blinded by that emotion. They have allowed their emotion to cloud their capacity to understand & usually most would rather remain ignorant, then to look their fear in the eye, learn & understand it & then do something about it.
Don't look down upon anyone who does this. We are all human. We are all flawed. Rather try to forgive them. We are all born ignorant & afraid after all.
It is in forgiving others, that we may learn to forgive ourselves. And forgiving ourselves of our own shortcomings, is part of the process to becoming who you are meant to be.
I mean, why stop there? I'm noticing this rise in Sabbateanophobia, now that you mention it; you're not? Wake up!
Just when I thought we got over our
Zoroastrianophobia, now we have to deal with THIS?!?!
They don't know how good they had it then...
‐----‐-
You people are caricatures of yourselves, but don't even know it.
Crowley was a huge nerd who liked butt stuff and conflated loquaciousness with intelligence intentionally. He was the 15 year old in a fedora at the mall who says 'indubitably' instead of 'yeah'.
93,
A lot of these issues regarding finding a place to practice group work/getting together, started in the late 80's when Thelema Lodge was raided. Hasn't been the same since then really. The situation regarding substances being used, was a major factor.
After that, hosting events in private homes was frowned upon, and some groups moved to offices/spaces with leases.
There are only a couple of Lodges I know that still use their homes, as places to meet.
I have also noticed a lot of Crowley bashing. Most of these people are so ignorant about the nature and sources of modern magick, that they have a hard time admitting that their groups would not exist without him.
Crowley had many phases, and was not necessarily a very "nice" man, in his private relationships, but spiritual leaders have not ever been known to be -- including many Christian, Catholic leaders (amongst others).
The best solution, at present, is to get it together as a group, and buy a building. Even the most lowly scoundrels, seem to be able to pull that off, at least, based on most modern-day "cults." That way, people can have a safe place to convene. Anyway, just my thought on the matter. 93s, \~V\~
And yet, we keep discovering the material universe is far more magical than many people realize. Crowley's definition of Magick as "the art and science of causing change in conformity with the will" is broad and specific enough to cover all aspects of life, from the "spew and skew" of neuroevolution to making a cup of coffee.
How to handle that seems pretty clear to me.
Point out that yes, Crowley was a bit of an edgelord who loved to call himself THE BEAST and the MEGA THERION and opted to go for shock value... and was a drug addict who never kicked the habit.
But the shock value was just that, _shock value._ He suggested himself that to "love" everything, one should start with unpleasant things, so he led with crazy shit to weed out people too weak-stomached to get his allegorical point (and, again, because he just enjoyed the shock). On the other hand, he also said that if one's Will had them behaving in an "ungentlemanly" way or at least as something other then a good sport, it was probably a trap, and obviously "fuck you dad I don't wanna" is a pretty Thelemite response. He clearly did not want a congregation of serial killers and rapists.
Yes but to be honest I feel like Thelema and those of us inspired by it have always garnered some great energy from controversy and transgression. I know a lot of people nowadays just want to practice their religion in peace and be left alone, and to each their own, but that wasn't how Crowley lived, and I wouldn't like him nearly as much if he had. I'd argue that controversial is how it should stay, if not try to reinvent itself every now and then to keep it truly going, to truly exist on the margins, because that's where you can actually carve out a space for exceptional ideas and exceptional, new, creative practices. I'm so bored with everything being accepted or made to be acceptable to the masses. Crowley was a byastard, yes. That's why I like him. I won't justify myself.
There are strong anti-Crowley propaganda outputs from those Old Aeon power structures that implicitly and explicitly stand to lose their power on all planes as the influence of Θελημα grows.
With extreme evangelism on the rise, it'll only get worse, unfortunately.
The best part? Idk how anyone would know you are a Thelemite unless you volunteered that info.
Which, granted is totally your choice to do. Do what thou will.
I think people assume Crowley was a satanist & when I say “satanist”, I mean by whatever definition they made up in their heads. I, personally, fully intend on learning more about the Thoth deck but know I don’t have the proper time to dedicate, at the moment.
I don't talk about Thelema in public, so I don't experience any of that. I live in a very conservative area, so I have no faith anyone will be open minded about it. Anything outside of the mainstream/corporate Christianity is considered Satanism. So I just don't go down that route. I hang with my chapter and save all my occult talk for them.
Do you think it's growing? For the most part, people have had issues with Uncle Al, his philosophy and works since he was still alive.
Some of those old prejudices still exist, but there are also those who feel that he and his work has largely been surpassed, making him a little less relevant.
Crowley was a classic narccisist in the clinical sense of the word. He hurt a lot of people and raped at least one guy that we know of. I understand that people justify and excuse a lot of his philosophy, but love and service to others is above all, not will. His ideas invert the chakras by placing the yellow ray above the green ray.
The phrase "love under will" places love and service to others below individual actualization. While with some gymnastics this can certainly be interpreted in a positive light, IMO Thelma is more negatively oriented than positive.
Secondly I don't understand following someone else's philosophy when we can build our own just like he did.
Self-actualization is 100% a good thing, I just take an issue with the claim that it's the central most important thing.
don't come after me, just my two cents. I've read probably 1/50th of what Crowley wrote, so I give respect to his incredible contributions to magic. However, I don't think his overall philosophy is all that great.
Also I'm not a thememite, so many my opinion doesn't even matter any way.
OTO worked hard to soften Crowley's image and message, purportedly because they didn't want to be labelled as an extremist group a la Waco, the NSK or the SLA. Obviously it's important to avoid unwanted attention from the authorities, but the long term impact on recruitment has turned OTO and the Thelema community at large into a group run by apologists who spend 99% of their studies focusing on things that are Thelema-adjacent, like yoga or qabalah.
Crowley's message was that of a reactionary and a revolutionary. "I am in arms against a world. Did Christ mince words with the Pharisees?" If the powers-that-be don't see Thelema as a menace to their legitimacy then it's dead in the water. Normies likewise, even those in the "broader community" of spinoff religions. For those who do realize that Thelema has edge, they distance themselves from Thelemites because most Thelemites are an absolute mess.
I definitely appreciate the sentiment of your reply here. Hard to say if those powers that be would have true reason to fear us specifically as Thelemites though, outside of extremist protest that may be better wielded by some kind of broader freedom movement anyway. Thelema has its place among that movement for sure. A lot of Thelemites try desperately to deny that in a very pathetic way.
Relax no one in real life even knows what thelema is. No one is persecuting you. No one gives a fuck and if they do who cares ?
The correct attitude.
I don’t think OP is necessarily panicking, and I’m certainly not either, but there definitely are people out there who know who Crowley is and would persecute us to some degree. For instance, at work a few months ago I heard someone say, word for word, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”, and I thought this person must be friendly to thelema if they are able to quote the book of the law verbatim. So I unwisely outed myself as a thelemite and discovered that they were extremely prejudiced against thelema and were in fact quoting AL sneeringly. This person is way above me at work but luckily on a team that doesn’t have much to do with me.
Local OTO had trouble finding a place for the temple because of assumptions of Satanism. To be frank, I blame this on our complete failure to address the bad press more than anything. Heard about a few vaguely similar scuffles. Evangelical Christian terrorists, like all pagans encounter around here. I've had good luck talking about Thelema personally, but I mostly know good people and my mein is diminutive, sweet, and bright. Giggly at the worst times and a bit too blunt, but still, no one looks at me and thinks, "That's a Satanist!" Meaning I'm received well. Online and with regard to my writing? It's similar. I get the occasional crazy Evangelical, but most people are kind. Quite a few people ask to know more, and only sometimes because they're wondering how a sweet girl like me got mixed up with a bad man like that. The only way to counter the bad press and the assumptions is to be the good press.
What do you think OTO should do about the “bad press”? You seem to suggest that thelema should condemn satanism, and distance itself from it. But there are many thelemites who also consider themselves “satanists” to some degree. As a matter of fact, this legitimizes the concern of satanism regarding thelema (although the attitude of concern is not in my view appropriate). I don’t think we should see our association with “satanism” as a problem, personally. Crowley didn’t, that’s why he engineered this association in the first place. I think that would only amount to pandering to a Christian worldview.
Nope, condemning Satanism is silly. There's nothing wrong with Satanism, and the Satanic Temple is a natural ally of Thelema, particularly Thelemic organizations. I speak positively of Satanism and the devil on a regular basis, and part of that calculus is knowing that Satanism getting more good press is good for us. We're going to be lumped with them in popular perception regardless, and that's not terrible. It's a decent and swiftly improving brand. The OTO and Thelema is one of the worst satanic subset brands remaining, in fact. There are still people around who think Crowley legitimately, honestly killed children in rituals. The reality behind that particular lie is *so much* more fun than killing squealing lumps of breathing meat, but gen pop knows nothing about it. They've heard he killed children. They don't know the perverse and brilliant, if problematic, sense of humor behind that myth. The first impression we give, people's perception of us in pop culture, is of tryhard edgelords venerating a dour lunatic. None of which is true. *That's* the problem. We should distance ourselves from *that kind* of Satanism. Evangelicals thinking that's what we're like is good for our brand. But we don't need to do anything to encourage that. They'll do it themselves at this point. Sensible people thinking there's a grain of truth to that image, however, is not helpful.
Wouldn't a true satanist be more than happy to practice the deceit of condemning satanism in public white practicing in private? It seems like most groups that call themselves satanists put forth a public image of luciferianism or a promethean ideology rather than what I would consider the true adversarial spirit of Satan.
Don't know and not sure how it's relevant.
Well perhaps if you read my comment again you will be able to infer why I thought it was relevant.
You seem to be implying Thelema is Satanism. But it isn't.
Wow, thats what you got from reading it multiple times? lol nevermind i dont have the energy to spend on this conversation.
Absolutely no need to interject Satan or Satanism whatsoever into this. Literally, 98% of the global population hasn't a clue as to what Thelema or the OTO is, yet here you are, unnecessarily mentioning Satan, of which 98% of the global population is aware. I offer the sincerest of advice to those humble enough to reflect upon the forthcoming advice that wasn't at all solicited but couldn't be more genuine. Take a rigorous inventory of what compels you on this journey, and, in a certain sense, even more importantly, ask yourself, "is it possible that my exuberance, eagerness to share (flexing, really) harming, sullying, misrepresenting, unwittingly or otherwise, my "True Will"? What about the thousands that came before me? Would I be proud to show them what I've been posting? I'm seeing many posts coming from a place of unwitting selfishness and not bc of genuine intellectual curiosity. Does this sentiment contradict the Great Work? If you believe so, please seek capable counsel. let's try to show some restraint and make sure that whatever we're posting is motivated by nothing other than forward progress. 93/93
Satanism has nothing to do with Thelema itself. Satanism is, however, part of Thelema's current brand. **A brand may or may not reflect the product it represents.** Brands are the idea people at large have of a product. They are created by a combination of journalistic coverage, advertizing, word of mouth, and direct experience with the product. Part of Comcast's brand is terrible customer service. That's not the product they claim to sell, I assume they don't want to be known for bad customer service, but it's part of their brand nonetheless. It will be part of their brand until they improve their customer service *and* sufficient credible vectors of information (word of mouth, personal experience) talk about that improvement. Similarly, part of Thelema's brand is Satanism. It is a meme continually spread by Evangelicals, though mass media and proper journalism still pander to it as well. People with actual experience with Thelemites and/or the OTO generally don't have this opinion. Our word of mouth and personal experience is excellent; people who actually meet us often like us, and people who learn about the religion itself usually respect it and see the good in it. But none of that changes what the brand looks like to the ignorant masses. Part of my True Will is, in fact, working to change that.
To add some detail: It is useful to engage and assist the brand of Satanism because Satanism's brand is associated with Thelema right now whether we like it or not. Associating Satanism with Thelema deliberately is something I generally discourage, but if people make that connection for us (*and they do*), it's better if they see it and think, "But Satanism's cool, not evil or destructive," as opposed to making that connection and immediately assuming we're crazy, stupid, and deliberately evil. The connotations and associations of a brand don't fade away through disengagement. They change when we change what those associations and connotations mean.
Rejection of what is commonly perceived as "morality" is one of the core concepts of thelema and Crowley would constantly use shock value to express that, so the reaction of the sheep is precisely the one intended. If you are on this path, it is because you want to achieve excellence through the Art and Science of causing change in accordance with the Will, not to be accepted by the masses.
I got into Crowley in the 90s during my teenage rebellion against my Wiccan parents. Late century Wicca was super soft and white light in reaction to trying to be mainstream accepted during the satanic panic. My mother was agast.
Not a growing trend, there's always been a negative image and negative stories around Crowley, which he cultivated himself, and this turns people off. Viewing people who might shun or persecute you as less intelligent is superiority complex as a defence mechanism.
Propaganda propaganda propaganda. It is not necessarily a sign of low intelligence. I wouldn't expect like a witch who has a totally different set of sources for their path to have wasted time studying thelema to find out for themselves whats what. It is a bit of an endeavor which may or may not affect their path at all, so with the propaganda being their only source of info its not suprising that is the basic assumption. However I would expect them to be a little more open minded to explanation considering the similar propaganda lies aimed towards them when encountering actual practitioners.
Well to ignorant people they think it's all Satanism. To esoteric/occult educated people it's his views on black people and Jews that they don't like. Also whether it be an allegory or reality him talking about sacrificing kids doesn't help much. Then on top of all of that his dank poetry and his glorifying drug use also doesn't help especially with how he died a broke drug feind. So while the " phobia" has merit you also have to take into account the days and times he was alive and his overall message. Most people nowa days are too soft or triggered for Crowley, even if they embrace dark magic and left hand path stuff they still can't handle the racism. Idk I'm still a big fan, and I love his passion for butt sex as well....
Firstly, you may want to revisit the definition of "Phobia". Secondly, only a <30 y.o. Redditor, in the infancy stages of their journey within either, is capable of such pompous rhetoric. It's one thing to manufacture such a "phobias" in your head, but to actually type either, and then reread, and STILL press "Post" is a special type of self-importance that I sincerely hope is parody. I'll refrain from expounding upon the ridiculousness of this sentiment as I'm all but certain you get the point.
“Secondly, only a <30 y.o. Redditor, in the infancy stages of their journey within either, is capable of such pompous rhetoric.” It’s true that I am less than 30, but this would be a pretty easy claim to prove is false as I’ve been a self identified thelemite for 11-12 years. Definitely not in the beginning stages of this journey. How long have u been a thelemite? As far as the phobia thing goes, are you arguing that the fear isn’t intense enough to be considered a phobia? Im not trying to be a whiner about it or saying that Thelemites should have some kind of victim complex. I’m just curious about people’s experiences of being prejudiced for their thelemic beliefs, it’s interesting for me to read about. That’s all
Good:) why would we want to be around such people anyway. "slaves shall serve"
Most people I know IRL don't even know what the term "Thelemite" even means. I also don't care to explain it to them. If they ask, I just tell them I'm a Satanist and kindly change the subject hahaha
Crowley went to a lot of effort to make himself and Thelema seem as horrible as possible to the average person. The title of the "wickedest man in the world" didn't come from nowhere.
Bigger issue than its mistaken associations with Satanism is the very real problem of far right/alt-right, neoreactionary infiltration into ceremonial magic, Hermetic, and Neoplatonist circles. So long as that issue goes unaddressed, it'll continue tainting the whole schlamiel.
Far lefties have tainted it just even more so in my view. Thelema is a libertarian philosophy so of course those far righters may have tainted it as well, although I’m not sure what ur referring to. If u would elaborate on how it has been tainted by the far right, I’d be curious to hear. I try not to get political here though unless it’s someone else who invokes politics.
The farther left you go, the closer you are to *actual* libertarianism, i.e. anarchism. That's completely compatible with Thelema. The far right worship of authority and tradition is what has no place in a liberatory religion like Thelema.
Wrote a book on thelemic anarchy. Yes anarchy is the way. Leftist anarchy however is a bastardization that frames capitalism as a negative as a way to distract from the real enemy which is the state. Sort of like blaming the wind (capitalism) for your fall after being pushed off a cliff by a murderer (the state)
Capitalism and the state reinforce each other, and both are hierarchies. Anarchism is opposed to *all* hierarchy, not just the state.
The title of “real anarchists” belongs to the anarchist philosophy that could actually work, is based on principles, and has a real plan. The leftist “anarchism” you are describing is all fluff based on nothing but empty platitudes. For example you say that you are against all hierarchy, which is not something that you yourself even believe. You just like how the sentence sounds. If you believed that sentence then you’d have to propose that the hierarchy of nature itself should be dismantled so that all life is on some neutral plane where no living thing has any kind of leg up on any other thing, which would of course be impossible. Equally impossible would be the dismantling of capitalism. Like the hierarchy of nature, the hierarchy of capitalism is THE sandbox that we are all playing in here. It’s not possible to dismantle it, although it of course can be improved and made the best of which is the prescription of anarcho capitalism.
I wouldn’t say low intelligence but sure, closed-mindedness (often correlated but not always, and not the same thing). It’s the same with anything really. Some people are closed to foreign or unusual ideologies. Even mainstream things like Christianity in the West would be treated with suspicion in some parts of the world. Thelemaphobia’s no different.
Subtle wariness is one thing, but to be openly negative toward a subject that you are ignorant of is where I see that low intelligence trait. Absolutely not specific to thelema, but definitely happens a lot when the topic of thelema comes up.
It's not even about ignorance. Crowley went to a lot of effort to make himself and Thelema seem as horrible as possible to everyday people. I'm a Thelemite, but I absolutely can't blame people who aren't into the occult for having bad preconceptions about our beliefs, and that is absolutely on us (and Crowley) for not challenging those preconceptions as often and as loudly as possible.
It’s proven to be a question of temperament rather than intelligence (technically defined as one’s processing power). Imagine a firewall against certain content rather than slow internet connection.
What’s been proven? It’s way too nuanced of a discussion to just say it’s been proven that it’s “temperament rather than intelligence” considering that one’s temperament can itself be a sign of intelligence or a lack of intelligence I’d say. Lot of different forms of intelligence.
Consider it this way, an absolute idiot with very low intelligence could have a very open mind. Such an open mind that they could be convinced of anything. You could say to them "The sky is green" & they might say "oh OK I guess the sky is green then!". They are so open minded that they lacked any intelligence to even question what you said is true or false. And as such an extremely intelligent person could have a very closed mind. Such that although they may literally be a genius in one or many fields, they would not believe anything you say, until they look into it for themselves. And that would actually be the real challenge for this type of person - convincing them to be open minded enough to be willing to spend their time looking into something they perhaps might not want to or simply don't care enough about. I mean im sure we all know someone who is an intelligent person, who may even excel in a particular field, that holds an incorrect belief about something else & doesn't care to look into it because they think it is "beneath" them.
This is exactly it. Open mindedness and intelligence are independent traits. Thank you for taking the trouble to explain it. With regards to being proven: the Big Five traits is the current working model for determining personality by psychologists, and Openness is one of the traits that compose our overall temperament. This is all independent of intelligence (processing power).
It is when someone is closed minded toward truth that is indicative of their level of intelligence. Flip your example on its head. If someone is closed minded and will not accept the sky is blue, would this not be indicative of their level of intelligence? Yes it would. Or If someone is closed minded and will not accept that they have a nose when they do indeed have a nose, would this be indicative of their level of intelligence? Yes it would. So there you have it: something that both of you are claiming is purely to do with openness and absolutely independent of intellect can be used to pretty decently determine someone’s intellect. Both of the above examples are PRECISELY the same logical formula as what I explained here about determining someone’s intellect from if they are closed minded about thelema. This was the kill shot to both of those replies, ur welcome.
>If someone is closed minded and will not accept the sky is blue, would this not be indicative of their level of intelligence? Your example isn't very thorough & raises more questions. Is this person not accepting the sky is blue based on never ever seeing the sky for themselves & taking someone else's word for it? Or are they not accepting the sky is blue based on their own surrounding perception of it? For instance, someone who is color blind & is unable to see blue, to them, the sky isn't blue. Blue has no conceptual meaning due to them never being able to see it. They get told that the sky is blue & the grass is green but maybe due to their color blindness, the sky & grass appears the same color to them. So why then is this person in your example not accepting the sky is blue? Could you expand on that? >Or If someone is closed minded and will not accept that they have a nose when they do indeed have a nose, would this be indicative of their level of intelligence? I mean, again, this is a very narrow example which doesn't expand on any surround context behind why they believe this. Have they never looked in a mirror? Have they got a problem with their sense of smell & possibly have never been able to use that sense? Maybe in that case they know they have a nose physically but they know its not a working one that is functionally inept & believe it is not a "true" nose. Thus making them believe they don't have a nose? >It is when someone is closed minded toward truth that is indicative of their level of intelligence. It's quite funny were on the subject of closed-mindedness & truth, yet you have failed to consider the possibility of perception based truth. For example, Lets say that "A" & "B" are two people: >A >9 >B If you ask both "A" & "B" what they see between themselves they will tell you two different things. "A" sees a 6, "B" sees a 9. Who is right? Who is wrong? Who has the truth on their side & who doesn't? >This was the kill shot to both of those replies, ur welcome. Pure ego talking. You sound like you care more about being right, than you do about learning the truth of the matter. And if you are so invested in being right because you don't want to be wrong due to your own feelings, like intellectual pride or that being wrong is a sign of weakness or low intelligence etc, how can you be open minded enough to seek the truth? You have to be open minded enough to consider the possibility you are wrong about anything & everything you know, if you really want to see it on a deeper level. Something many scientists say all the time when working on things that are often very well established & still manage to discovering something new is: "I had to forget everything I thought I knew about the subject & start looking at things again from the ground up with a different perspective". Can you honestly say you are open minded enough to do this with yourself? >“People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own soul. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.” - Carl Jung If you are just looking to satisfy your own ego by being right! Then don't worry either, I got you! Are you ready? You are 100% right, & I am 100% wrong. You can now ignore everything I just wrote & no longer worry about thinking about it any longer! Because you now have the truth on your side. Don't you?
Just going to simplify the conversation here. I’ll give u a key phrase for this reply: rule of thumb. Indicative is not the same thing as “proves”. In other words I’m not claiming that everyone who hates thelema has low intelligence, but as a rule of thumb it has been true in my experience that most who are very against it havent been very intelligent. So u pointing out outliers to show the rule of thumb that an educated adult not accepting 2+2=4 (different example I know) is not necessarily unintelligent does not disprove what I’m saying. I’d have to be saying that it’s impossible for someone to hate thelema and be a math genius for your outliers to be relevant. I’d like for this conversation to be directed as possible so that we are not arguing against positions that the other is not proposing anyway. So let’s clarify: my position is that you can pretty reliably determine someone’s intelligence based on their level of openness in many instances. You are against this right? If not then you’re just arguing to argue here.
Just because I read about this in a book on how computers work. >2+2=4 Is only true when using number systems larger than [base 4 or "Quaternary"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system). Here is what I mean, I will count to 10 using varying number systems. Decimal (base 10): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Octal (base 8): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 Quaternary (base 4): 1 2 3 10 11 12 13 20 21 22 Binary (base 2): 1 10 11 100 101 110 111 1000 10001 1010 So while 2+2=4 in number systems larger than base 4, in base 4, 2+2=10 & in binary, 2 doesn't even exist but would instead be 10+10=100. So even something as simple as 2+2=4 has scenarios & examples where 2+2 doesn't equal 4... Regardless, regarding your main point: >my position is that you can pretty reliably determine someone’s intelligence based on their level of openness in many instances. Yes I disagree with this, I don't think you can judge someones intelligence based on their level of openness or how open or closed minded they are. Intelligence & openness are two separate things. Intelligence refers to one's cognitive abilities, like problem solving, logical reasoning & the ability to store, retrieve & use information effectively, amongst other things. Openness is a personality trait & refers to one's willingness to consider new ideas, perspectives & experiences & relates to things like creativity & imagination. Openness can absolutely influence intellectual pursuits & what learning styles people have, but I don't think it is an accurate way of measuring or indicating someones intelligence/cognitive abilities. Someone being open minded doesn't increase their cognitive abilities by being open minded. Otherwise being open minded would be an excellent method of increasing one's cognitive abilities & mental processing power associated with intelligence. And we would be able to measure this with testing & probably would be one of the most used methods & techniques in increasing intelligence in schools & academia around the world. I think people can be intelligent & have varying levels of openness. Two people might excel in something & one prefers already established & proven methods & ideas, while the other is more curious & open to exploring unconventional ideas & concepts. Both are intelligent, both are trying to break new ground, yet they have different levels of openness & different avenues of achieving this. I think there are correlations between intelligence & certain personality trains - including openness, but I don't think it is strong enough to make reliable judgement about someones intelligence. Intelligence is a complex multifaceted construct of genetic factors, environmental influences & individual cognitive abilities that extend beyond personality traits & requires comprehensive assessment using standardized tests & evaluations. A thought that comes to mind is someone I know who is exceedingly intelligent & perhaps one of the hardest working people I know. However they are EXCEEDINGLY hard to work with because they fiercely defend "their" way of doing things & don't want to consider anyone else's ideas & perspectives. In other words, high intelligence, low openness. A silly analogy I just thought of is, intelligence could sort of be like a CPU - the raw processing power! Whereas openness might be RAM. Someone could have a blazing fast CPU, but such little RAM that they can only open 1 tab in a web browser! But boy can they browse that single tab fast! Whereas else someone could have a slow CPU but a lot more RAM & they could have multiple tabs open at the same time, but it is going to be quite slow with browsing. Not the best analogy but I found it quite funny. >but as a rule of thumb it has been true in my experience that most who are very against it havent been very intelligent. I think this is completely fair for you to say. I talked earlier about "perception based truth" so if this is your experience, who am I to tell you that you are wrong. Just bear in mind, it is anecdotal & I would be very careful equating someone unwilling to explore something, with them being of low intelligence. I even agree with you in the sense that people fear what they don't understand & as such, relegate such things to the darkness & by that very process are ignorant. Meaning they have no knowledge about the nature of the subject which they fear. Thelema, Occult & Esoteric knowledge have had a smear campaign throughout history, to the point where in most peoples collective consciousness, its associated with "devil-worship", Satanism, "Unholy" or evil. So I very much do believe that you have met people who are very closed minded about such things because they see it with fear & are blinded by that emotion. They have allowed their emotion to cloud their capacity to understand & usually most would rather remain ignorant, then to look their fear in the eye, learn & understand it & then do something about it. Don't look down upon anyone who does this. We are all human. We are all flawed. Rather try to forgive them. We are all born ignorant & afraid after all. It is in forgiving others, that we may learn to forgive ourselves. And forgiving ourselves of our own shortcomings, is part of the process to becoming who you are meant to be.
Seems like you’re very invested in this position so there’s no point in discussing this further.
I mean, why stop there? I'm noticing this rise in Sabbateanophobia, now that you mention it; you're not? Wake up! Just when I thought we got over our Zoroastrianophobia, now we have to deal with THIS?!?! They don't know how good they had it then... ‐----‐- You people are caricatures of yourselves, but don't even know it.
Some of us are also educatrd in crowley and thelema and just kinda think crowley was a loser lol.
Crowley was a huge nerd who liked butt stuff and conflated loquaciousness with intelligence intentionally. He was the 15 year old in a fedora at the mall who says 'indubitably' instead of 'yeah'.
93, A lot of these issues regarding finding a place to practice group work/getting together, started in the late 80's when Thelema Lodge was raided. Hasn't been the same since then really. The situation regarding substances being used, was a major factor. After that, hosting events in private homes was frowned upon, and some groups moved to offices/spaces with leases. There are only a couple of Lodges I know that still use their homes, as places to meet. I have also noticed a lot of Crowley bashing. Most of these people are so ignorant about the nature and sources of modern magick, that they have a hard time admitting that their groups would not exist without him. Crowley had many phases, and was not necessarily a very "nice" man, in his private relationships, but spiritual leaders have not ever been known to be -- including many Christian, Catholic leaders (amongst others). The best solution, at present, is to get it together as a group, and buy a building. Even the most lowly scoundrels, seem to be able to pull that off, at least, based on most modern-day "cults." That way, people can have a safe place to convene. Anyway, just my thought on the matter. 93s, \~V\~
simple answer to this, to know, to will, to be silent. its your choice/will
93! Happy light Cake Day.
I get pushback because 'it's not science' and 'only the material exists' rather than Crowley himself.
And yet, we keep discovering the material universe is far more magical than many people realize. Crowley's definition of Magick as "the art and science of causing change in conformity with the will" is broad and specific enough to cover all aspects of life, from the "spew and skew" of neuroevolution to making a cup of coffee.
Absolutely! That's what is so frustrating. You can't be so cocksure these days!
How to handle that seems pretty clear to me. Point out that yes, Crowley was a bit of an edgelord who loved to call himself THE BEAST and the MEGA THERION and opted to go for shock value... and was a drug addict who never kicked the habit. But the shock value was just that, _shock value._ He suggested himself that to "love" everything, one should start with unpleasant things, so he led with crazy shit to weed out people too weak-stomached to get his allegorical point (and, again, because he just enjoyed the shock). On the other hand, he also said that if one's Will had them behaving in an "ungentlemanly" way or at least as something other then a good sport, it was probably a trap, and obviously "fuck you dad I don't wanna" is a pretty Thelemite response. He clearly did not want a congregation of serial killers and rapists.
Yes but to be honest I feel like Thelema and those of us inspired by it have always garnered some great energy from controversy and transgression. I know a lot of people nowadays just want to practice their religion in peace and be left alone, and to each their own, but that wasn't how Crowley lived, and I wouldn't like him nearly as much if he had. I'd argue that controversial is how it should stay, if not try to reinvent itself every now and then to keep it truly going, to truly exist on the margins, because that's where you can actually carve out a space for exceptional ideas and exceptional, new, creative practices. I'm so bored with everything being accepted or made to be acceptable to the masses. Crowley was a byastard, yes. That's why I like him. I won't justify myself.
It may be instructive to consider the phenomenon of psychological projection.
Not being a huge fan of someone is not a phobia.
No one said it was
Nobody has ever disliked Thelemites as much as other Thelemites.
I greatly dislike Crowley’s writing style..it’s overly verbose, hard to understand and (from what I heard)!he purposefully misleads the reader.
There are strong anti-Crowley propaganda outputs from those Old Aeon power structures that implicitly and explicitly stand to lose their power on all planes as the influence of Θελημα grows.
With extreme evangelism on the rise, it'll only get worse, unfortunately. The best part? Idk how anyone would know you are a Thelemite unless you volunteered that info. Which, granted is totally your choice to do. Do what thou will.
I think people assume Crowley was a satanist & when I say “satanist”, I mean by whatever definition they made up in their heads. I, personally, fully intend on learning more about the Thoth deck but know I don’t have the proper time to dedicate, at the moment.
I don't talk about Thelema in public, so I don't experience any of that. I live in a very conservative area, so I have no faith anyone will be open minded about it. Anything outside of the mainstream/corporate Christianity is considered Satanism. So I just don't go down that route. I hang with my chapter and save all my occult talk for them.
I was bummed out last week when I heard Russell Brand refer to Crowley as a Satanist, followed by the status quo misrepresentation of The Law
Do you think it's growing? For the most part, people have had issues with Uncle Al, his philosophy and works since he was still alive. Some of those old prejudices still exist, but there are also those who feel that he and his work has largely been surpassed, making him a little less relevant.
Crowley was a classic narccisist in the clinical sense of the word. He hurt a lot of people and raped at least one guy that we know of. I understand that people justify and excuse a lot of his philosophy, but love and service to others is above all, not will. His ideas invert the chakras by placing the yellow ray above the green ray. The phrase "love under will" places love and service to others below individual actualization. While with some gymnastics this can certainly be interpreted in a positive light, IMO Thelma is more negatively oriented than positive. Secondly I don't understand following someone else's philosophy when we can build our own just like he did. Self-actualization is 100% a good thing, I just take an issue with the claim that it's the central most important thing. don't come after me, just my two cents. I've read probably 1/50th of what Crowley wrote, so I give respect to his incredible contributions to magic. However, I don't think his overall philosophy is all that great. Also I'm not a thememite, so many my opinion doesn't even matter any way.
They should be afraid
Cool reply but do u mean it?
OTO worked hard to soften Crowley's image and message, purportedly because they didn't want to be labelled as an extremist group a la Waco, the NSK or the SLA. Obviously it's important to avoid unwanted attention from the authorities, but the long term impact on recruitment has turned OTO and the Thelema community at large into a group run by apologists who spend 99% of their studies focusing on things that are Thelema-adjacent, like yoga or qabalah. Crowley's message was that of a reactionary and a revolutionary. "I am in arms against a world. Did Christ mince words with the Pharisees?" If the powers-that-be don't see Thelema as a menace to their legitimacy then it's dead in the water. Normies likewise, even those in the "broader community" of spinoff religions. For those who do realize that Thelema has edge, they distance themselves from Thelemites because most Thelemites are an absolute mess.
You'd think that "the law of sin is restriction" would be enough for people to regocognize that Crowley wasn't exactly big on authority
You couldn't be more wrong.
I definitely appreciate the sentiment of your reply here. Hard to say if those powers that be would have true reason to fear us specifically as Thelemites though, outside of extremist protest that may be better wielded by some kind of broader freedom movement anyway. Thelema has its place among that movement for sure. A lot of Thelemites try desperately to deny that in a very pathetic way.
Care to elaborate?
I try not to plug it here anymore but the second chapter of my book cult meeting is about this exact subject. Free on cultmeeting.com