X rated but very informative links on PEDOFILES!



World Process: Kinderladen, Pedophile Information Exchange, & Labor (Occult Yorkshire 15)

“My endeavor has been to present education as the last and highest form of evolution. . . . By placing education in relation to the whole process of evolution, as its highest form, I have hoped to impart to it a dignity which it could hardly otherwise receive or claim . . . when it is recognized to be the highest phase of the world-process. ‘World process’ here is an echo of Kant and Hegel, and for the teacher to be the chief agent in that process, both it and he assumes a very different aspect.”
—Thomas Davidson, History of Education

Returning to the 20th century history of homosexuality, the Homosexual Law Reform Society was founded in Britain in 1958, publicly supported by Clement Attlee, Isaiah Berlin, Julian Huxley, J. B. Priestley, and Bertrand Russell, among others, with members including Victor Gollancz, Stephen Spender, MP Kenneth Younger, and the aforementioned Antony Grey. Most of the founders were supposedly not homosexual, at least openly. That same year, the related charity the Albany Trust was set up, using J. B. Priestley’s apartment for its first meetings (Grey joined in 1962). The following year, in 1959, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the First Amendment rights of a gay and lesbian magazine, marking the first ruling on a case involving homosexuality. UK’s ITV, at the time the only national commercial broadcaster, broadcast the first gay drama, South, starring Peter Wyngarde.

And then came the sixties, towards the end of which the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) was formed. Homosexuality became legal in the UK via Sexual Offences Act 1967, the year I was born. In the UK, the GLF had its first meeting in the basement of the London School of Economics, on 13th October, 1970. Why the LSE, of all places? Apparently it was simply the place to be.

Another chapter in the hidden history of the sexual revolution occurred in Germany during this period. In “The Sexual Revolution and Children: How the Left Took Things Too Far,” published in De Spiegel in 2010, Jan Fleischhauer and Wiebke Hollersenup describe a movement in Germany of the late 1960s that involved schools across the country known as Kinderladen. In a collection of reports found for one of these schools, the Rote Freiheit (“Red Freedom”) after-school center, dated from August 13th, 1969, to January 14th, 1970, fifteen children aged between eight and fourteen were mentioned as being “taken care of during the afternoon.” “The goal of the center was to shape the students into ‘socialist personalities,’ and its educational mission went well beyond supervised play.” There was “a very strong emphasis on sex education. Almost every day, the students played games that involved taking off their clothes, reading porno magazines together and pantomiming intercourse.”

An entry made on November 26th reads: “In general, by lying there we repeatedly provoked, openly or in a hidden way, sexual innuendoes, which were then expressed in pantomimes, which Kurt and Rita performed together on the low table (as a stage) in front of us.”

“In the basement [were] found two rooms that were separated by a large, one-way mirror. There was a mattress in one of the rooms, as well as a sink on the wall and a row of colorful washcloths hanging next to it. [T]he basement was used as an ‘observation station’ to study sexual behavior in children. . . . It has since faded into obscurity, but the members of the 1968 movement and their successors were caught up in a strange obsession about childhood sexuality. It is a chapter of the movement’s history which is never mentioned in the more glowing accounts of the era.”

The aim of the movement was the “sexual liberation of children.” As with the Kinsey Institute, some of the leading German academics of the time were involved.[1]

“[I]t was precisely in so-called progressive circles that an eroticization of childhood and a gradual lowering of taboos began. It was a shift that even allowed for the possibility of sex with children. Sexual liberation was at the top of the agenda of the young revolutionaries who, in 1967, began turning society upside down. The control of sexual desire was seen as an instrument of domination, which bourgeois society used to uphold its power. Everything that the innovators perceived as wrong and harmful has its origins in this concept: man’s aggression, greed and desire to own things, as well as his willingness to submit to authority. The student radicals believed that only those who liberated themselves from sexual repression could be truly free. To them, it seemed obvious that liberation should begin at an early age. Once sexual inhibitions had taken root, they reasoned, everything that followed was merely the treatment of symptoms. They were convinced that it was much better to prevent those inhibitions from developing in the first place. Hardly any leftist texts of the day did not address the subject of sexuality” (emphasis added).

This radical philosophy blamed “The de-eroticization of family life, from the prohibition of sexual activity among children to the taboo of incest,” for people’s “voluntary subjugation to a dehumanizing labor system. [F]or the revolutionaries of 1968, [what is today seen as sexual abuse] was an educational tool that helped ‘create a new person’” [emphasis added].

“In the wake of the emerging gay movement, so-called Pedo groups soon appeared. Taking their cue from homosexuals, they also claimed that, as a minority, they were entitled to certain rights. . . . The Greens were not long immune to the argument that the government should not limit the sexuality of children [and] argued that ‘nonviolent sexuality’ between children and adults should generally be allowed, without any age restrictions.”

As with the Kinsey affair, and as with PIE in the UK, this chapter in German history has been all-but stricken from the record. It is generally assumed that these movements “petered” out because they were aberrational, a symptom of the times. But what if, like the New Criticism, they simply became the norm, and hence culturally invisible?


In 1973, The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders, and in 1974, Paedophile Action for Liberation (PAL) developed as a breakaway group from South London Gay Liberation Front. It was the subject of a front page and centerspread article in the Sunday People, leading to some of the people exposed losing their jobs. In 1975, PAL merged with the Pedophile Information Exchange, a special interest group within the Scottish Minorities Group, with founding member Michael Hanson (a non-pedophile), as the group’s first chairman. As already mentioned, PIE grew out of The National Council for Civil Liberties (now simply Liberty), originally formed in 1932 as a response to the National Hunger March 1932. The first Secretary of NCCL was Ronald Kidd, and the first President was the author E. M. Forster. Vice-Presidents were the politician and author A. P. Herbert and the journalist Kingsley Martin of The New Statesman. H. G. Wells, Vera Brittain, Clement Attlee, and Harold Laski (of the LSE) were also founder members.

Since the majority of inquiries were from England, PIE relocated to London in 1975, where 23-year-old Keith Hose became chairman. The group’s stated aim was “to alleviate [the] suffering of many adults and children” by campaigning to abolish the age of consent and legalizing sex between adults and children. PIE spokesman Tom O’Carroll (in his 1980 book Paedophilia: The Radical Case) advocated the normalization of adult-child sexual relationships. Each stage of the sexual relationship between an adult and child, O’Carroll claimed, can be “negotiated,” with “hints and signals, verbal and non-verbal, by which each indicates to the other what is acceptable and what is not. [T]he man might start by saying what pretty knickers the girl was wearing, and he would be far more likely to proceed to the next stage of negotiation if she seemed pleased by the remark.”

Tom O’Carroll

By his own account, O’Carroll was not a homosexual: “I didn’t feel gay at all, and although Quentin Crisp is firmly in my pantheon of twentieth-century heroes, I felt as out of place in GLF company as I would sipping tea with Mary Whitehouse.” (Quentin Crisp was also one of my brother’s handful of acknowledged role models.) O’Carroll describes attending the early meetings of PAL:

“It was at these meetings that I first met other pedophiles, and experienced the sheer exhilaration and joy of suddenly finding a whole new social world—a world in which the Great Unmentionable was all at once the thing to talk about, a source of instant, garrulous rapport, between the unlikeliest combinations of people: at my first meeting there were maybe a dozen, all male, mostly young not easily pigeon-holed—by either dress, accent or manner—into any obvious social class stereotypes. Among them were a naval petty officer, a motor mechanic, a former child welfare officer, a medical-research technician, a high-ranking administrator and a bus driver. At a later meeting a middle-aged man introduced himself as the headmaster of a boarding school for boys.”

O’Carroll quotes a letter published in PIE’s magazine, Magpie, from someone reluctantly leaving the group, stating, “some of the finest people I have ever met in the gay world are PIE members.” Even more tellingly, Tom O’Carroll writes about how he was angrily criticized for his involvement with PIE—not by offended parents but by fellow pedophiles—for not being subtle enough. A professor at the British Psychological Society’s conference on Love and Attraction, in Swansea in 1977, accused O’Carroll of trying to be a messiah. “He had wanted to introduce to an academic audience some ideas about paedophilia and child sexuality,” O’Carroll wrote, “that were quite as ‘advanced’ as any I had to offer; but his ideas were to be safely couched in academic language, with an air of tentative, disinterested objectivity. Thus, carefully sown, the seeds of his radicalism would be nurtured in good soil, and would in their own good time propagate themselves more widely.”[2]

O’Carroll also describes attending MIND, the national mental health organization, where it was suggested that PIE should submit evidence to the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee on the age of consent. O’Carroll writes that the report “caught the imagination of no less a figure than the Home Secretary of the time, Roy Jenkins. He is said to have been impressed . . . but added words to the effect: ‘Of course, it hasn’t a hope in hell.’”

Roy Jenkins is an important figure in this narrative. In Jenkins’ obituary, Labor MP David Marquand claimed that “Jenkins did more than any other person to make Britain a more civilized country to live in,” that he played an “indispensable part” in taking Britain into the European Union, an “equally indispensable part” in paving the way for the single currency, and, by forming the Social Democrat Party (with the afore-mentioned David Owen) and “breaking the mold” of British politics, Jenkins created New Labor.[3]Jenkins, who became Home Secretary in 1965, was “convinced that the ‘permissive society’ was the ‘civilized society.’” In 1967, Jenkins embarked on what The Telegraph called “the most radical program of penal reform since the Second World War. His Criminal Justice Act of 1967 said very little about the victims of crime, but plenty about the perpetrators.”[4]

Other leading Labor figures more directly connected to PIE are Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt, who first encountered the group when they were working in the National Council for Civil Liberties. According to a Daily Mail piece from 1976, “the NCCL filed a submission to a parliamentary committee claiming that a proposed Bill to protect children from sex abusers would lead to ‘damaging and absurd prosecutions.’ . . . . ‘Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage,’ it read. ‘The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage’” (emphasis added). In 1978, Harriet Harman became the NCCL’s legal officer and promptly wrote its official response to Parliament’s Protection of Children Bill, which sought to ban child pornography. Harman argued that “a pornographic picture of a naked child should not be considered indecent unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered.”

Patricia Hewitt was part of the NCCL before PIE was formed and continued there throughout its existence. She stuck up for Tom O’Carroll after he was convicted in 1981 for “conspiracy to corrupt public morals” over the contact ads section of Magpie. “Conspiring to corrupt public morals,” Hewitt wrote, “is an offence incapable of definition or precise proof.” She argued that O’Carroll’s involvement in distributing child pornography had “overshadowed the deplorable nature of the conspiracy charge used by the prosecution.” I spend so much time on these characters because many of them show up again in the 2000s, as part of Tony Blair’s “Brain Trust,” a New Labor incentive that included Rupert Murdoch, two of Jenkins’ devotees David Marquand and Peter Madelson, Patricia Hewitt, David Puttnam, Melvyn Bragg, and—my uncle, Lord Haskins.[5]

While it would be premature to suppose that everyone operating inside these circles of power is necessarily implicated in the sexual abuse that clearly proliferates within them, at the very least, it seems almost unthinkable they would not have known about it.


[1] Alexander Schuller, a sociologist, was one of the pioneers of the movement and founders of a Kinderladen in Berlin’s Wilmersdorf neighborhood. “Like Schuller, the other parents were academics, journalists or university employees—a decidedly upper middle-class lot.”

[2] At his blog, in a 2013 post, Tom O’Carroll mentions PIE treasurer David Grove (a.k.a. Robin Brabban), whom O’Carroll worked with in London in the 1970s. Grove was at Oxford during the same period as Alec Horsley, and according to O’Carroll (who refers to Grove as a “colonial boy-lover”), Grove “served as an assistant district commissioner in Nigeria from the 1920s. Alec was assistant district officer in Nigeria in the 1920s, so it seems more than likely he would have known Grove. Like O’Carroll, Grove “was indicted on a charge of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and would have been tried alongside [O’Carroll] and others at the Old Bailey but for the fact that he was gravely ill by then and died before the trial began.” O’Carroll writes that “Old David used to talk with great affection about the boys in Africa—hordes of little kids who were not banned from his verandah, nor from his heart or his life. He loved them dearly and they, I am sure, would have loved him. He was that sort of guy.” https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2013/05/

[3] In the late 1950s, Jenkins wrote a tract entitled Is Britain Civilized? in which he attacked Britain’s “archaic” laws on censorship, homosexuality, divorce and abortion, and argued for changes to the country’s “Victorian” criminal justice system. Jenkins’ progressive views on social reform were still in the minority in the Labor Party at that time, but by 1964, when Labor regained power, a “group of middle-class, mainly Oxbridge-educated ‘intellectuals’ had risen to prominence in the party and, for these ‘modernizers,’ led by Jenkins and his Oxford friend Tony Crosland, the main aim was the social, rather than the economic, transformation of Britain.” Link

[4] The death penalty had already been suspended, and Labor supported bills to decriminalize abortion and homosexuality, relax censorship and make divorce easier. Jenkins also embarked on what The Telegraph called “the most radical program of penal reform since the Second World War. His Criminal Justice Act of 1967 said very little about the victims of crime, but plenty about the perpetrators.” It introduced the parole system of early release for offenders serving three years or more, and the system of suspended sentences. “The legalization of homosexuality has not been the end of the chapter, but merely the beginning, with an aggressive ‘gay rights’ lobby demanding more and more concessions. The policy of early release of prisoners has had a catastrophic effect on the safety of the general public: 14 per cent of violent criminals freed early are convicted of fresh violence within two years of their release. As The Sunday Telegraph’s Alasdair Palmer states: ‘Scores of men, women and children have been assaulted, raped and murdered as a result of the policy of releasing dangerous criminals before their sentences are completed’—a policy initiated and endorsed by Jenkins.” Debatable rhetoric aside, it does tie in to my grandfather’s interest in and sympathy for violent offenders. Link

[5] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/blairs-brains-trust-1525441.html Also implicated throughout are British intelligence services MI5 and MI6: On the 19 July 2015, Australia’s “60 Minutes” broadcast an investigation of an alleged pedophile ring which was supplied children by PIE founder, Peter Righton, former director of education at the National Institute for Social Work and legal aid to the British government. The ring allegedly included senior politicians from all three main parties, naming Leon Brittan, Greville Janner and Cyril Smith, alongside British diplomat and long-time deputy director of MI6, Sir Peter Telford Hayman. Hayman also went to Worcester College, Oxford, where my grandfather majored.

Post navigation

25 thoughts on “World Process: Kinderladen, Pedophile Information Exchange, & Labor (Occult Yorkshire 15)”

  1. Do you see a connection between the rise of GLF and pedophile-friendly groups, and the simultaneous rise of militant feminism? (I do). Were certain men reacting to the decreased availability of women-as-sexual-objects, by eroticizing one another, along with children? All under the big umbrella of universal ‘liberation’ —

  2. Fast forward to “The History Boys” which no on even seemed to notice was extended endorsement of pedophilia and the great fun of revising history. Even after it was a big hit on Broadway and then a big hit on the screen. Sheesh. i was dumbfounded. Or was I Bewitched Bothered and Bewildered.

  3. I don’t think one simply decides to be attracted to men (or children) because women aren’t available.

    While identities around sexual orientation are likely socially constructed, the orientations themselves are, to a large degree, much less so.

  4. For some that I remember, changing sexual orientation was a gradual process. It could take months or years. If you are continually being (or feeling) rejected by the opposite sex, while finding consolation with fellow rejects of your own gender, you might (not in all cases, but some) begin to reconstruct your sexual orientation in alignment with prevailing ideologies. If you’re sensitive and vulnerable, it doesn’t take that much rejection — a few times are are traumatic enough. And it’s so easy, when you’re young, with a change of clothes and some friendly encouragement, to change your lifestyle.

    You can always justify your choice with a new ideology, and membership in a movement. Even if that movement turns out to be headed by CIA agents — by the time you find out, it’s too late. Your life has been spent debating ideology, or buying the latest cause for cynicism. By the time you’re 50, you’re starving for something innocent to destroy.

    Speaking of social engineering — it doesn’t take much to change behaviour. In the 1970s I learned to say No to all kinds of male advances, from wolf whistles to offers of marriage. The men must have moved on to other women, or other men, as we all collectively licked our wounds and waited for directives from our gurus, who changed with the decades. I think all this was planned — we were being programmed to drain our private lives and pour ourselves into the public arena,

  5. Not sure what a fictional play about a boy’s school says about sexual orientation. My experience, and those of most or all gay men I know, is that sexual attraction to men arose organically. In addition, I’ve conversed with a great many straight men who felt rejected by women in their youth, and simply kept trying until they were successful. Female sexuality may be a bit more fluid, but my (admittedly not-systematically-researched) experience suggests that male sexuality is fairly fixed, but I do think that the actual research backs that up (I realize this series of posts calls some of that research into question). Social identity is a different manner: I’ve known a number of men (a couple of them in the biblical sense) who socially identified as straight or bisexual, had the trappings of a conventional middle-class heterosexual life, but absolutely were sexually attracted to men.

  6. What’s that saying, correlation does not equal causation? Feminism, homosexuality, and pedophilia (and sex magick) can be connected and seen as correlating aspects of a larger social and psychological emergence (and/or engineering plan), without needing to posit one as causing the other. Regarding the difference between so-called “organic” sexual preference and socially conditioned, I cant see any way to make a separating line between the two, even without bringing epigenetics into the picture. The notion of a biological basis for homosexuality makes little sense to me, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. What absolutely DOES exist, IMO, but that is no longer really allowed into the debate, is the emergence of homosexuality as what Kunstler called a developmental issue, resulting from a male child’s early sexual imprinting ~ just as all forms of sexual “preference” do, to one degree or another.

  7. If you propose that there is no biological basis for sexual orientation, then the implication is that there is no biological basis for gender identity, and I don’t see that as being the case (I’m talking about “normal”, i.e. cis-gendered identity). I think it is not unlikely that development of nervous tissue and neural connections is highly dependent on the in utero environment, and not much is really known about those processes. Sure, sexual identity is an evolving processes, somewhat dependent on social signals, but also somewhat dependent on biology as well. It’s both nature *and* nurture, evolving in an iterative fashion.

    If there is one single “cause” that drives correlation across these different domains, I would say that it is the undermining of fatherhood. (Certainly that has played a role in my own sexual attraction to men who are older than myself.) There’s plenty of research that shows that children who grow up with single mothers are substantially disadvantaged in a large number of areas; to the extent that fathers’ involvement is weakened even in families that superficially seem to be intact, the same disadvantages would exist across society, in a dose/response pattern. If there is any social engineering involved, the most obvious and mundane is the undermining of social networks leading to social atomization, for purely economic reasons (the more human interactions can be monetized, the more it’s possible to centralize and concentrate the resulting “profit” … there’s your LSE connection.)

    • If there is a biological basis for gender identity, what is it? By which I mean, what is the source of identity if not the body? The soul?

      The way the fetus develops in utero is also a “developmental issue,” and pertains directly to the mother’s own behaviors and internal processes. This raises the question of whether biology can be separated from conditioning, at all.

      I agree about the undermining of fatherhood as being central to the proliferation of identity-crisis-violence (inc. the violence of self-mutilation). In tandem with this is the child’s remaining “hostage” to the mother’s psyche (lacking an individuated sense of self outside of her gaze).

  8. Everything is biology. I don’t refute the concept of a soul, but to the extent that there is such a thing, especially a *gendered* soul (the existence of which I doubt), it is mediated in this plane of existence entirely by biological mechanisms. Therefore, gender is definitely a developmental process. While it is true that the concept of gendered brain (in terms of strict dichotomies) has now been refuted, it is still the case that in a statistical sense, females tend to have certain brain patterns, while males tend to have a different pattern. This is almost certainly the result of developmental processes in utero (e.g. see the work of Gerald Edelman), although it is certainly also modulated by social processes in early childhood.

    In any case, whether it is formed in utero or in early childhood development, sexual orientation is almost entirely outside the realm of conscious choice. If you want to make the argument that homosexuality is the result of social pathology rendering its imprint in very early childhood, fine, but it’s very easy to misunderstand the intentions of this argument, and to shift blame for the pathology onto individuals who (by this model) are actually the victims.

  9. Thanks. Glad to have your nuanced and informed responses here. I am very aware of the danger of equating homosexuality with pathology, as well as the risk of being misinterpreted while mapping the many overlaps between pedophilia & homosexuality. Sexually interfering with children, we can mostly agree at this blog, causes harm and has long-term consequences for the child in question. Yet there is a growing incentive to overturn this understanding and, in a way that seems to follow the blueprint of homosexual liberation, to reframe child sexual abuse as consensual sex, and/or as basically non-harming and non-pathological.

    Exploring this snake pit has meant looking at and reevaluating some of the enculturated beliefs and assumptions about homosexuality, I would hope in a way that the more discerning and identity-fluid practicing homosexuals can share in, and perhaps already have thought about much more than I have. Always the aim of any arguments made here is understanding, not addressing or correcting supposed “problems.” IMO, it is not actually possible to know what is a problem until there is a full understanding of all the variables. So for example, I can’t say that pedophilia is a problem, only look at it as a social phenomenon and discuss the sort of effects it has and the ways in which these effects may intersect with what most of us consider problematic. The same is true of homosexuality or, for that matter, any sort of sexuality. It’s a spectrum and much as we might wish there was a clear, unmoving line been a healthy sexual expression and a pathological one, there isn’t.

    • Great comments. The mystery and paradox. On a more mundane level- I’m sure you guys have seen this: Homosexuality and Fascism http://aqueertribe.tribe.net/thread/baa10a48-8a0a-4d1f-90f2-7da4ed59d1be

      Weren’t the Templars gay? Were your father and grandfather Freemason’s Jasun? Weren’t many of these characters mentioned? Just curious.

      As far as the HIstory Boys- it is a lite highbrow mainstream hugely popular apologia for pederasty, apparently based on a real teacher at a British “public” school, where pederasty and child homoerotica are rampant. So it fits with the education theme of this series. How does that correlate with the insane, ingenious and unmatched imperialism of the Brits? Imperialist and Rosicrucian Francis Bacon was a pederast. Shakespeare? And if you read “Conjuring Hitler”, by Guido Preparata many more dots connect between the occult homosexuals of Albion and the current state of world affairs.

  10. I agree that the analogy of pedophilia with homosexuality as “just another sexual preference” is disturbing. However, the issue of mutual informed consent is a major litmus test for what should be considered taboo in a society. I think it’s fairly obvious that an eight year old cannot consent (although of course there are people who would argue against this, but I very much believe they are wrong in just about every sense). A twelve year old very likely cannot consent. It’s more gray around the ages of fifteen to eighteen, and probably very dependent upon the individual. This is where the issue of fatherhood comes in, because while a sixteen-year-old can likely consent to a sexual act (and enjoy it in most cases), they would be profoundly unaware of the downstream psychological consequences. [The German novel _The_Reader_ is an interesting fictional studyof this issue.] Thus, adolescents are dependent upon their adult mentors for protection against bad decisions that seem like good ones in the moment. We have lost this important inter-generational transfer of moral knowledge, and that is the backdrop behind all of this. It may even inform views on male homosexuality, because while there are no obvious and immediate harmful effects among consenting adults, public health consequences become obvious when one considers the collective patterns of male sexuality within a larger system of interacting sexual agents. There is also the life-course trajectory of gay man, who is at risk of being alienated from the life-stream of a community by virtue of having no direct connection to the next generation (assuming that he is exclusively homosexual throughout his life and does not father children). Thus, there may be reasons to prohibit male homosexuality, when taking the long view. I say this as a middle-aged gay man who has been “out” since I was a teenager.

    You already know my views on feminism. The surface/obvious issues, focused on by earlier feminisms, are no-brainers: obviously there should be no gender-based barriers to property ownership or to entry into any profession, save those that are highly relevant to the performance of required duties. However, the third-wave “you go girl” attitude towards sexual liberation of women ignores some fundamental, biologically-based patterns of sexual behavior, and removes all of the necessary social negative-feedback mechanisms that protect society from runaway processes. Thus you have runway sexual promiscuity, the resulting victim/grievance culture, etc. Here is a medical/public-health result: http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/gonorrhea-s-resistance-could-soon-make-it-untreatable. The social ills include all the familiar baleful consequences of single-parent-families.

    I’m not suggesting that the “good ol’ days” were a utopia, or that dense social networks aren’t sometimes very suffocating. However, the opposite extremes of sexual libertinism and social atomization hardly represent human progress, and will lead to some kind of social collapse that ushers in something very dark and spiritually oppressive.

  11. The question of consent is really a key isn’t it? While we can agree that children do not have the internal development, understanding, or self-awareness to give consent to an act that they have no clue as to the meaning or consequences of, most of us would balk at the suggestion that we, as adults, might be lacking to a less severe degree in the same way.

    Yet, when I look back on my use of sexuality, I would have to say it was uninformed, lacking in awareness, and irresponsible, and to that degree, also quite harmful to myself (and possibly to others). And I am someone who didn’t have penetrative sex until my late-20s ~ due to a combination of lack of opportunity with lack of confidence/capacity to perform. I know others who were sexually promiscuous and it was almost certainly as a result of early sexual abuse, but, even if not, who see it as a deleterious misuse of their life-force, and as a kind of unconscious self-abuse.

    In many ways, this is what I’m exploring here, sometimes directly but mostly not so directly: the ways in which our ability to give consent, to make choices that come from our own centers, not just around our sexual expression but that of our life force generally, how that ability has never been allowed to develop, due to the various factors, social, cultural, domestic, paternal, maternal, and so forth.

    You say that everything is biology, but the soul, or the psyche, is not biological. I think if we are going to posit a use of the life force, and of sex that is not procreative, then we have to start speaking of the soul. In our current (I would say socially engineered) culture, of which we are the products as well as the bearers, the notion that recreational sex is healthy and normal, and even essential to a good life, goes largely unquestioned. Hence the promotion of the idea of homosexuality as, on the one hand, just another lifestyle choice, and on the other, as a natural biological phenomenon (in other words, nature condoning recreational/non-procreative sex!), may be just the tip of a much larger “push” towards divorcing sex from both biology and the soul. Unless we think the soul is just here to have a good time and party, in which case it wouldn’t be any different from a horny teenager!

  12. Jasun, you touch on a number of very subtle points, and it becomes very delicate to discuss them. (For example, Josef on another thread seems to be misunderstanding much of the intent of this conversation, at least so far, seemingly choosing to register offense rather than look into the depths of the arguments.)

    On the subject of consent, it is absolutely true that it is questionable whether a young adult can be sufficiently aware of all social variables to issue fully informed consent; this is why I keep bringing up fatherhood and inter-generational transfer of information that might, more-or-less, be considered “moral”. I began having sex with other men (often men who were much older) at the age of 16. It is true that I typically sought out these relationships, usually enjoyed them physically, and often benefited from them socially. However, the kind of intimate emotional experience we as humans need for proper spiritual development eluded me for a very long time. In the process, like you, I did a fair amount of emotional damage to myself, and probably others. As a bystander and witness, I watched the slow disaster of HIV infection work its way through the gay male community, and am currently horrified that not much has seemingly been learned (e.g. see the current collective behaviors in reaction to and resulting from the advent of PrEP therapy). As I advance into middle age and senior citizen status is on the horizon, I note that I have no progeny to carry on my genetic and intellectual heritage (not that, in this society, heterosexuality is any guarantee of legacy either). I made the choices I made, and likely did the best I could with the social and emotional resources available to me, so I will confront whatever fate awaits me with as much spiritual dignity as possible. However, I do wonder about the very long term collective consequences of the liberal morality that has become the baseline for our society. Acknowledging of course that some of its alternatives are equally spiritually constraining but in fundamentally distinct ways.

    Regarding biology vs. psyche vs. soul, I tend to downplay discussions of “soul” because it is difficult to make empirically verifiable statements about the soul. Or, rather, I should say that it is difficult to make assertions that can be *collectively* verified empirically. (It is possible to verify any number of statements about spirituality on an individual basis, which is why I still use the word “spiritual” even when it is very difficult to define.) That said, the soul operates in this world via biology. I’m willing to posit the existence of a metaphysical soul, which functions as a kind of awareness that uses biology to watch/experience the physical world, and that intentions manifest by navigating the probability spaces that describe the intrinsic randomness of the physical world at both the quantum and thermodynamic levels. But whatever the soul is, our souls have chosen (at some level) to incarnate in this time and place, and so the lessons we are learning (or the experiences we are experiencing or the games we are playing) are right and proper for whatever development (or play) we are engaging in at this meta-moment. I don’t think we’re going to “fix” society in this conversation, and even if we had the power to change society according to our wills, we would likely create some other kind of monster. So the best that we can achieve here is a deeper level of spiritual understanding, which (I hope) each of us can port to our “soul”, wherever/whatever it is.

    • Regarding biology vs. psyche vs. soul, I tend to downplay discussions of “soul” because it is difficult to make empirically verifiable statements about the soul. Or, rather, I should say that it is difficult to make assertions that can be *collectively* verified empirically.

      And let’s hope it will always be that way, since what can be verified can be mapped and controlled.

      The nature of the soul is and must be a wholly individual/subjective affair, just as we can all of us only know our own interiority (and our own interiority is the only thing we can know for sure)… Yet, the unconscious is both apparently collective and empirically verifiable, if only by its effects. I can experience the reality of the unconscious in something as simple as a memory resurfacing after a period of amnesia, or when I realize that my conscious motivations for doing something were actually secondary to a deeper motivation that only becomes conscious after having seen its effects (i.e., my own actions and the consequences).

      This seems to be what we’re addressing here also in terms of consent, and what constitutes a pathological expression of sexuality. We both agree that we only discovered years later that certain behaviors were harmful to us, due to our becoming over time more conscious: of our motivations, of our true desires, and of the consequences of acting unconsciously, being driven by unconscious patterns or wounds. I am thinking “out loud” now (writing without knowing what will come out), but there’s a symmetry here in that, while an awareness of the reality of the unconscious leads to an experience of the soul, the harmful nature of unconscious behavior seems to be largely in how it prevents the soul’s true expression by repeating the original wounding that caused a soul-body disconnect to begin with.

      I think many of us misguidedly believe sex, and lust, is a way to experience the soul because sex seems to be a pure expression of the body, and it’s via the body, as you say, that the soul operates. Trauma, sexual abuse, and even everyday negligence and/or parental possessiveness (emotional incest), hijack that process and sexuality becomes a means to unconsciously reenact the trauma/seek revenge for/resolution of it.

      Society may not be fixable and although it’s generally assumed to be the best or even only reason to discuss these things, it’s not mine. Becoming fully aware of the reality of the soul and fully identified with it (and not the mind or even the body) seems to me realizable, and realizable through dialogue with others seeking the same “marriage” ~ the fulfillment that no quantity or quality of fucking can provide.

      • So why would there be such elaborate and ingenious secret mechanisms involving deceit and depravity (secret social engineering) to deny one the experience of soul? Does calling it satanic suffice? Hatred of beauty? Was Milton the closest to grasping it all?

        Do you really not want to make society better? “Fix” is too broad a term. Isn’t that a true objective of a soul, to help society or at least help others, which is incredibly difficult and fraught with multiple dangers to the soul? In other words a worthy heroic endeavor? Can the soul even be separated from society? As with all questions it’s yes and no. Making you not want to ‘fix’ society is exactly the objective of a Laurel Canyon type psy-op. Fuck for freedom and truth, that’s all ya gotta do! Or Enochian magic, or Kabbalah or hermeticism or journeys out of the body or Eckhart Tolle even or Freudianism, so apolitical. It’s hard to go to community board or school board meetings after tripping or meditating or fucking for 7 days. Or being told you are just a conflicted jumble of primitive desires. Or having an operation to change your gender.

        Aren’t most humans inherently fair? Don’t most of us believe in social justice inherently, a priori? In some of the most just and fair societies of all time (Iroquois and Cherokee for instance)- what were the sexual practices? Rape was non-existent in the eastern woodland Indians, attested to by many stunned observations of early invaders. A society with no kings or jails and no rape. Presumably pedophilia was non-existent as well. Homosexuality was probably incidental and rare. Everyone was married with the occasional extra wife, but the power was matrilineal. Divorce was possible. And the Iroquois were not just a tribe- so Jared Diamond’s assertion that the state is always coercive is bunk. They inspired American democracy as much as the Greeks did if not more- only their democracy was consensus, so it moved slowly, making in inherently conservative. See “In The Absence Of The Sacred” by Jerry Mander. Meaning the sacred is absent from white society, so the Indian society, built around the sacred, had to be destroyed.

        We are now colonizing ourselves. Or should I say “they” are now colonizing their own. Again.

    • It’s also not possible not to have any effects on our environment. So participating with one’s community in a way that benefits others, which may be essential to individuation, isn’t a million miles from “making society better.”

  13. This:

    “In the UK, the GLF had its first meeting in the basement of the London School of Economics, on 13th October, 1970. Why the LSE, of all places? Apparently it was simply the place to be.”

    Snort. “The Place To Be.” Idn’t tho’? hehehehehe…Makes a person wonder what exactly is envisioned Economically for all of us plebes?

  14. Pingback: “Gay” Connection to Communism! | Looking Back Woman-Suzanne Dupree blog
  15. Pingback: Psychopathic (Satanic) World Rulers Abuse Children And Then “Snuff” Them « richardboydenreport

Leave a Reply


About Looking Back Woman-Suzanne Dupree

Tetuwan Lakota scholar, educator, historian, Sun Dance participant, Cannunpa carrier, cultural & spiritual preservationist, journalist-writer and fraud investigator.
This entry was posted in SPIRITUAL AWAKENING. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to X rated but very informative links on PEDOFILES!

    Child Abuse as Sex Magick & Sexual Research: Aleister Crowley & Alfred Kinsey (Occult Yorkshire 14)

    “For that group, the book of books was Davidson’s History of Education. William James called its author a ‘knight-errant of the intellectual life,’ an ‘exuberant polymath.’ . . . Its purpose was to dignify a newly self-conscious profession called Education. Its argument, a heady distillation of conclusions from Social Darwinism, claimed that modern education was a cosmic force leading mankind to full realization of itself.”
    — John Taylor Gatto, Underground History of American Education

    Not knowing is the hardest part. There is something in the human brain—mine at any rate—that can’t let go of an unsolved mystery, especially when it pertains directly to the organism’s survival. Of course, it’s not (as far as I know) a matter of survival for me to solve this mystery now; but it may have once been exactly that, or perhaps the reverse. It may have been a question of personal survival not to see, identify, or talk about this mystery. Even this of course is speculative. All I know for sure is that I am driven to sift through all this information (to the point that the muscles in my shoulders are becoming painfully tight), arrange it into some sort of coherent order, and present it to others, to the world, in the hope that it will make a case for something. The trouble is, I am not sure for what.

    In The Evening Standard report from 27th May, 1994, regarding the Islington care home child abuse, Stewart Payne and Eileen Fairweather wrote that, “For years a group of gay social work academics were able to abuse young boys with terrifying ease shielded—unwittingly—by colleagues who didn’t dare challenge their views on child-sexuality for fear of appearing anti-liberal.” They described Scotland Yard’s Obscene Publications Squad as “investigating a network of gay intellectuals who are believed to have run child sex rings for decades through schools and children’s homes.”[ref]

    When I was growing up, I was not exactly surrounded by gay intellectuals, but they were certainly around, and I was suffused in the sort of liberalism that would have been afraid to challenge pro-pedophilia views—at least if they were coming from respected peers within the cultural community. Maybe this would have even extended to the point of shielding abuse. Certainly, it is not at all hard for me to believe; but again, it does not prove that any abuse happened, much less that members of my family were involved.

    One of the things I concluded about my brother’s carefully crafted public persona as a dandy, drug user, and sexual libertine, was that it was an elaborately disguised cry for help—that he had been engineered through trauma to become the clothes-Horsley that he was, and that his every insistence on being his own man was an unconscious cry from the soul of the very opposite truth, that he had been colonized internally by a malign force. This piece is neither disguised nor unconscious as a cry for help; and yet it’s perhaps equally irrational, since I neither expect help to come nor believe that I need it from anywhere or anyone outside of me. That time has long passed. Even so, some of the individuals who could have intervened on my behalf as a child are still alive, and they are implicated, some directly, in this investigation. But the main participants—those who were either most responsible or who could most effectively have intervened, or both—my grandfather, my father, my brother, are all dead. They are, or were, also the principal carriers of the Fabian legacy which I have inherited, being the firstborns of the firstborn; and since they are gone, I am now the only surviving son of the firstborn son of Alec Horsley. The buck stops here.


    If this written exploration is for anyone, besides myself and those very few surviving family members willing to look at the hidden aspect of their heritage, it’s for those that have passed on. Perhaps there are family members being wrongly implicated by this piece. There is always the possibility that even my grandfather was duped, that he was a useful liberal idiot, oblivious to the geopolitical social engineering agendas that were moving, like vast cosmic tides, around and finally over his castles in the sand. Yet, if one of those sand castles is Northern Foods—possibly the largest Food conglomerate in Europe, whose legacy in geopolitics continues to this day—it seems rather naïve, not to mention a disservice both to Alec and to history—to suppose so.

    Before I get to the geopolitical picture and how Northern Foods’ influence—via my uncle Lord (or is it Baron? I can’t keep track of these peerages) Haskins—continued into the 2000s, I want to return to the intersection of progressive leftist movements with homosexuality, within the already described larger context of social reform, economics, psychiatry and the medical establishment, hallucinogens, literary movements and liberal intellectualism, pedophilia and, most distressing of all, intelligence operations in mind control. That means going back to the beginning once more.

    A decade after the founding of the Fabian Society, in 1897, The Order of Chaeronea was founded by George Cecil Ives (friend of Oscar Wilde). It was a secret society for the cultivation of a homosexual, ethical, cultural and spiritual ethos. It was secret because homosexuality was illegal at that time and homosexuals needed a means of underground communication. The organization was inspired by and closely tied to the “Uranian” movement, Uranian being a 19th-century term that referred to a “third sex,” originally someone with “a female psyche in a male body” who was sexually attracted to men.

    Although there’s no mention of Aleister Crowley in the records of The Order of Chaeronea, they could hardly have been unaware of one another, since Crowley was both a pioneer of “sexual liberation” and a practitioner of homosexual sex. The subject of sexual magick, while it’s really of central importance to this investigation, is one I’ve avoided until now, because it becomes all-too-easy to lose the ground of factual reportage once strayed into more esoteric and philosophic waters. However, it’s worth mentioning in brief (having just come across this material myself via author Phil Hine’s website), that the Theosophical Society (tied to the Fabians via Annie Besant) was implicated in child sexual abuse in the early 1900 because of Charles Leadbeater. Canadian sociologist Stephen Kent writes in “Religious Justifications for Child Sexual Abuse in Cults”:

    “Leadbeater’s practice of sex magick involved homosexual abuses, but this tradition is by no means limited to homoerotic activities. . . . Leadbeater was a pederast, and he used the Theosophical Society to gain access to boys so that he could engage them in various forms of sex magick (see Washington, 1995, p. 121). Remarkable, perhaps, about Leadbeater’s pederasty was that he was able to sanctify it under the guise of spiritual training. Apparently, Leadbeater taught a sexual technique to an inner circle of initiates who claimed that ‘the energy aroused in masturbation can be used as a form of occult power, a great release of energy which can, first, elevate the consciousness of the individual to a state of ecstasy, and second, direct a great rush of psychic force towards the Logos for His use in occult work.’”

    According to Hine’s “Breeding Devils in Chaos: Homosexuality & the Occult,” this

    “gave rise to the rumors that there existed groups of ‘Black Magicians’ who obtained occult power by psychically vampirizing young boys. [Author] Dion Fortune. . . alleged that there was a conspiracy of male occultists who used ‘homosexual techniques’ to build up what she called ‘dark astral power.’ She also blamed the decline of the Greek and Roman empires on those cultures’ relaxed attitude to homosexuality. Although she never named any of these ‘black adepts,’ it is clear that she was probably referring to C. W. Leadbeater, and perhaps, also Aleister Crowley.”

    Hine refers to Crowley’s male lover, the poet Victor Neuburg, “his partner in a series of homosexual sex-magick operations known as The Paris Working, where Neuburg & Crowley performed a series of invocations using anal intercourse as the means of achieving gnosis.” The six-week ritual included strong drug use, as well as the occasional attendance of a Liverpudlian journalist named Walter Duranty. Inspired by the results of the Working, Crowley authored his treatise on sex magic, Liber Agapé. Following the Working, Neuburg distanced himself from Crowley, Crowley “cursed” Neuburg, and Neuburg (allegedly) suffered a nervous breakdown.

    That was in 1914; a year before, in 1913, George Cecil Ives, along with Edward Carpenter and others, founded The British Society for the Study of Sex Psychology (BSSSP), “to advance a particularly radical agenda in the field of sex reform.” It was particularly concerned with homosexuality, aiming to combat legal discrimination against homosexuality with scientific understanding. Members included Havelock Ellis, George Bernard Shaw, and fellow Chaeroneans Laurence Housman and Montague Summers (a clergyman with a leaning towards the occult who translated Malleus Maleficarum into English). Ernest Jones was also a member, and he is worth lingering on.

    In the early 1900s, Jones had worked with and mentored under Wilfred Trotter, of Tavistock. He experimented with hypnotic techniques in his clinical work and applied Freudian psychology as an inspector of schools for “mentally defective” children. In 1906, he was arrested and charged with two counts of indecent assault on two adolescent girls he was interviewing. In court, Jones insisted the girls were fantasizing and was acquitted. He founded the British Psychoanalytical Society in 1919 and was President until 1944. In 1931, the BSSSP was renamed the British Sexological Society, and it seems to have continued until some point in the 1940s. It was largely through Jones’ advocacy that the British Medical Association officially recognized psychoanalysis, in 1929. There’s that year again—the same year that “Idiocy” became a diagnostic term for a congenital defect, and the London School of Economics began its training courses for psychiatric social workers.

    In Germany in the 1930s, homosexual groups and individuals were being targeted as subversives (and eugenics were becoming national policy). In the 1940s, many countries in Europe (starting with Iceland) decriminalized homosexuality. In 1948, Alfred Kinsey published Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, revealing to the public that homosexuality was far more widespread than was commonly believed. The book also reported Kinsey’s findings about child sexuality. Tables 31-34 were the tables or lists in the book which purported to display the number of times infants and young children were aroused when the researcher attempted to masturbate them. The table noted that “many of the infants cried and fought” against this so-called “clinical research.”

    Even though this obvious sexual abuse of children was displayed in the text of the work itself (a study often said to have kick-started the sexual revolution), it was not until 1981 that Dr. Judith Reisman drew attention to the implications. Her charges were eventually confirmed, in the August 25, 1997, issue of the New Yorker, by James H. Jones, former-member of the Kinsey Institute’s Scientific Board of Advisors; they were then validated by the Institute for Media Education. According to Reisman, however, Jones avoided any mention of the hundreds of infants and children under Kinsey’s control.

    “These little ones could not talk or flee from the sexual assaults, both ‘oral and manual,’ they endured from the Kinsey pedophile team, the ‘trained observers’ who used stop watches as they raped the infants and boys to record their ‘thing.’ Jones justifies these heinous and sadistic experiments by simply saying Kinsey desired to free society from its “disapproval of adult-child sexual contacts.” [1]

    In an audio-taped interview, Kinsey team member Paul Gebhard told Reisman that most of the “research” on children was done by “one individual, a man with scientific training, and not a known scientist. The other cases were done by parents [and] by nursery school personnel.” The “man with scientific training” was known as “Mr. X,” later discovered to be Rex King, a serial child rapist responsible for the rape of more than 800 children. “Some of these rapes were rendered to Kinsey in graphic detail, which he considered to be ‘scientific research.’ Kinsey never reported King to the authorities, meaning that “for over 50 years the entire Indiana University Kinsey Institute team collaborated in covering up sex crimes perpetrated against children involved in its research.”

    In 1992, Gebhard confirmed that “some of the men on Kinsey’s child sexuality team included child molesters who were easily obtained from prisons and pedophile organizations around the world. . . . He also admitted to having personally collaborated in the child abuse inherent in Kinsey’s research.” A 1998 Yorkshire-produced documentary, “Secret History: Kinsey’s Pedophiles,” uncovered more facts about the “trained persons” who participated in Kinsey’s experiments, naming Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck, “a notorious Nazi pedophile who contributed his child abuse data during the twenty year period of 1936 to 1956 to Kinsey’s research data base.”[ref]

    James H. Jones described Kinsey as a militant propagandist, a sadomasochist and homosexual, “campaigning with scientific cover and on tax-exempt funds for his goal of undermining American morality to establish a sexual utopia.” (Emphasis added.) What’s perhaps most remarkable about this hidden history is that it remains hidden to this day, despite being very much on public record. The 2004 Hollywood movie, Kinsey, with Liam Neeson, presented a glowing picture of the sexologist. Despite some protests, mostly from Christian activists, the film was well-reviewed and won a bunch of major awards. Kinsey’s reputation remains intact. How is this even possible in a cultural climate that views pedophiles as the most depraved and irredeemable of monsters? The answer would appear to be simple: science. Place blatant crimes in the context of science, and most people will not question them.

    Kinsey’s research was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation (Alfred C. Kinsey: A Life, by James H. Jones, W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 555). Kinsey corresponded with MKULTRA-psychiatrist Ewen Cameron and was an admirer, and possible correspondent, of Aleister Crowley. Kinsey tried hard to obtain Crowley’s sex-magickal diaries after Crowley’s death, and even made a pilgrimage to Crowley’s Thelema Abbey, where Crowley allegedly conducted sexual rituals that included children. (Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research, by Wardell Baxter Pomeroy, Yale University Press, 1972, p. 413)


    [1] “The current Kinsey Institute Director, John Bancroft, recently derided Dr. Reisman as a ‘moralist’ and declared that she ‘has no evidence that experiments were carried out on children.’ Yet, Bancroft admits that Kinsey was ‘misleading,’ lied about the child sexuality experiments and that those who do sex research on adults and children ‘still have to keep going back to Kinsey.’” http://www.crosswalk.com/archive/dr-kinsey-the-un-american-marquis-de-sade-518418.html


    Share this:
    Press ThisEmailTwitterFacebook63RedditPinterest1
    A Scientific Outlook: CCF, Bertrand Russell, William Empson, & The New Critics (Occult Yorkshire 11)
    In “fabian society”
    World Process: Kinderladen, Pedophile Information Exchange, & Labor (Occult Yorkshire 15)
    In “fabian society”
    A Brief History of Fabianism (Occult Yorkshire Part 2)
    In “albany trust”
    Post navigation
    50 thoughts on “Child Abuse as Sex Magick & Sexual Research: Aleister Crowley & Alfred Kinsey (Occult Yorkshire 14)”
    DECEMBER 25, 2015 AT 6:01 AM REPLY
    Another fine installment Jasun. Long before Kinsey was exposed as a fraud, I found his work suspect. It is no accident that he was glorified in film by a corrupted industry in spite of mountains of evidence of his real agenda and deeds. Keep up the fine work.

    DECEMBER 25, 2015 AT 8:10 AM REPLY
    Is this a typo? Did you mean Kinsey tried to obtain Crowley’s diaries? “Cameron tried hard to obtain Crowley’s sex-magickal diaries after Crowley’s death, and even made a pilgrimage to Crowley’s Thelema Abbey, where Crowley allegedly conducted sexual rituals that included children.” Not that I’d be surprised if it was Cameron,

    BTW I hated the Kinsey movie to the point of annoying my friends who were enjoying it. Not because I knew much about Kinsey — but it was such obvious propaganda, embarrassing to watch.

    DECEMBER 25, 2015 AT 9:34 AM REPLY
    It was a typo! Thanks for pointing it out. Conflating psychopaths, I must be working too hard!

    DECEMBER 25, 2015 AT 10:20 AM REPLY
    No worries. Pagans are here to save us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlsJD8RlhbI&feature=youtu.be

    DECEMBER 25, 2015 AT 10:39 AM REPLY
    Was reading more of your stuff at RI Occult Yorkshire thread. What struck me most was the screenshot page from Bertrand Russell — that was a pretty frightening scenario, and I’m sure it was put into practice quite extensively. Reminded me of National Socialism.

    DECEMBER 25, 2015 AT 6:26 PM REPLY
    This is absolutely stunning stuff. The Kinsey book photo with the Crowley alien head pretty much sums it all up. Good god….do these people hold design meetings? Childhood’s End indeed. And yes, it’s true, especially after the alleged moon landings. If it’s science, it must be good.

    Here is a resource you might not know and might find important- ‘The Leipzig Connection” The roots of psychology, Behaviorism and modern education.

    DECEMBER 26, 2015 AT 11:07 AM REPLY
    You do know I designed that image, right?

    DECEMBER 26, 2015 AT 5:34 PM REPLY
    Gah! Fuckin’ Leadbeater!!! To me, that guy negates anything positive I might have to say about Theosophy.

    Re: Kinsey, I had never thought much about him before reading this (didn’t even see the movie), and had naively accepted the mainstream cultural mythology about him. However, after reading this essay, I pulled up the Wiki on him, then google-imaged him. I’m sorry but he *looks* like a monster.

    DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 10:28 AM REPLY
    I haven’t seen any evidence that Crowley ever involved children in sex magick rituals. If such evidence exists, I would have thought it would have come out by now.

    You say “…and even made a pilgrimage to Crowley’s Thelema Abbey, where Crowley allegedly conducted sexual rituals that included children”. Perhaps you should quote the evidence cited by your stated 1972 reference for those of us who don’t have it to hand, rather than just repeat a claim and know nothing of the worthiness or otherwise of a book over 40 years old. Sounds like hearsay that is just being repeated. You’re better than that, aren’t you?

    DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 10:37 AM REPLY

    Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research, by Wardell Baxter Pomeroy, Yale University Press, 1972.

    Do not as yet know what the source is for the Crowley child abuse angle. See no reason to doubt it in light of all the other evidence, but not claiming it as proof either. The argument that it would have come out by now doesn’t seem like much of an argument, to me.

    DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 10:43 AM REPLY
    A lot of the hysterical claims about Crowley are based on his own writings, which were more examples of his black humour than his dreaded deeds. But I am not aware of anyone who has come forward to say they were abused by Crowley as child, nor have any of the supposed human sacrifices been unearthed.

    Certainly when I met Victor Neuburg’s son, he didn’t have anything good to say about Crowley, but that was entirely based on what he saw as a negative influence on his father and conveniently forgets that his father wanted to be in this relationship with Crowley. But actual child abuse, actual human sacrifice, you’d have to be somewhat foolish to believe that without any actual evidence.

    DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 10:51 AM REPLY
    Why foolish? What reason would you or anyone have to think that Crowley would have drawn that particular line (that of sex with children)? If he was moving in circles in which this was being done (and he was), do you think Crowley would have backed away from that on moral grounds?

    As for black humor, I posted about that already. Jokes are frequently used as a way to encode confessions for those who know how to recognize them. Jimmy Savile cracked a lot of black jokes too. Turns out they weren’t jokes. If you want to come and defend Crowley, you need to bring more to the table than this. He is so utterly implicated that I can’t see how anyone would even try to extricate him, except if they were personally invested in his belief systems (which I was, once). Or are you concerned that his reputation needs protecting? That would be a supreme irony.

    DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 11:02 AM REPLY
    If there’s some actual evidence that Crowley was a child-abuser, I’m perfectly willing to change my opinion about him. But I don’t see the point of joining a paedophile-condemning bandwagon without the evidence, otherwise one may as well say ALL 70s disc jockies were paedophiles and congratulate oneself on a resoundingly strong opinion.

    As for black humour, sometimes it’s just black humour. I have no idea, for example, whether Lautréamont liked to slice the cheeks off young boys or not. When I read it I took it as fiction myself.

    But it sounds like you want to believe that Crowley was a nonce and there are no two ways about it. I’m not defending Crowley, more standing up for innocent until proven guilty, which I think is still a sound principle. Crowley himself at least was not bothered about his reputation. Something good in that. But if we are to go into the future thinking he was also an evil child-molester I think you’ll need to put up a little more than your vague suspicions based on a dislike of the man.

    DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 11:33 AM REPLY
    I don’t think you are paying attention to what is being mapped out here, which is much larger than any group or individual. Why the special interest in defending Crowley? Much of this is circumstantial evidence which, as it mounts, becomes increasingly damning (at least to my eyes, others can judge for themselves). But there are countless others also being implicated.

    What you are arguing against isn’t opinion (I haven’t expressed much by way of opinion in these posts) but evidence. If you don’t like the way the evidence points to Crowley’s complicity in networks of child abuse, sorry, there’s nothing I can do about that. I am not aware of stacking the deck against anyone. Go back and read the post. It is possible that the charges of Crowley involving children in his rituals are false. It is also possible they are true. These allegations are simply one more piece of evidence being presented. Is the fact there is no public record of anyone claiming they were sexually abused by Crowley supposed to constitute evidence also? OK then, it’s now on the record.

    DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 11:43 AM REPLY
    Also, the overlap between disc jockeying and child sexual abuse, while not entirely non-existent, is obviously less significant than the one between CSA and sex magick. So “arguments” like that border on the disingenuous.

    DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 11:52 AM REPLY
    Evidence? You haven’t cited any actual evidence, nor even actual allegations, just scattered bits of sensationalistic gossip without specific detail. Anyone can say anything about anyone, doesn’t mean it’s true, but to dump Crowley into your cultural paedophile mash-up rather detracts from the damning evidence about Kinsey and is an easy pot-shot to make, given that Crowley already lorded up his ‘wicked’ reputation, as if that is all he was about.

    Frankly I find your inclusion of him here in an otherwise interesting piece on Kinsey is just too tabloid to take seriously. I thought you had a more penetrating vision than that.

    DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 11:57 AM REPLY
    Jasun said: “Also, the overlap between disc jockeying and child sexual abuse, while not entirely non-existent, is obviously less significant than the one between CSA and sex magick.”

    — Hang on, apart from the fact that both have the word” sex” in common, I don’t see that any link has actually been established.

    DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 12:26 PM REPLY
    It seems, Jasun, that you want to instil an attitude of unquestioning acceptance of ‘evidence’, but you should know that when a person regards weak ‘evidence’ that is little more than hearsay as being as convincing as strong evidence in the end this will cast doubt on that person’s ability to assess the value of any evidence.

    DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 1:19 PM REPLY
    Are you a practicing occultist by any chance? If you are upset about the idea of Crowley being involved in these areas, can you admit that? I hear that you want to assist me with making a better case but somehow I don’t believe it. Using terms like “scattered bits of sensationalistic gossip without specific detail,” for example, when referring to a cited reference from a published work, just because it suggests something you personally find offensive, seems like selective logic. Is an allegation evidence? Of something anyway. As I said already, you could just as easily question other names being implicated here, since much of it is only meant to be suggestive, not conclusive.

    On the other hand, arguing that there’s no concrete connection between sex magick and child sexual abuse is not even stupid, it’s dishonest, and to me suggests an affiliation with such systems which you are not owning up to. If you practice sex magick or endorse it, maybe best to just say so? No one is going to accuse you of being a pedophile here.

    FEBRUARY 25, 2016 AT 6:30 AM REPLY
    Exactly Jasun,

    Let’s just assume for a moment that Crowley was just all talk and his “black humor” got the best of him for literary shock value. I would argue that many of his follower in the occult world took him quite literally, begging the question , how many children were sexually abused by his follower?

    DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 1:27 PM REPLY
    Jasun said: “Are you a practicing occultist by any chance?”

    — Why should that make a difference, apart from the fact that I may be more reasonably informed about Crowley because I may have studied him in some detail?

    I’m not ‘upset’ about you including Crowley, more upset if we’re going to use that emotive word that my initial impression of YOU was so misguided. This is piss-poor championing of a cause, and now you see me as some kind of person with an agenda because you can’t prop up your case any better.

    Jasun said: ” If you practice sex magick or endorse it, maybe best to just say so? No one is going to accuse you of being a pedophile here.”

    — Now you indulge in ‘guilt by association’. Obviously you have no interest in discussing the matter, more interested in writing off opposers by first suggesting they are involved sex magicians and then tacitly suggesting they could even be paedophiles and the very enemy in the midst. What a slimy bugger you’re turning out to be.

    DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 1:37 PM REPLY
    “As I said already, you could just as easily question other names being implicated here, since much of it is only meant to be suggestive, not conclusive.”

    — I haven’t read all of your articles, nor am I particularly informed about Leadbetter and others, so I simply have no perspective to offer. There is no mystery here. I chimed in on Crowlet because I felt a generalised association was being bandied about and pointed at Crowley that simply doesn’t accord with what I know about the man. Should I have remained silent, when I saw what I considered to be a potential injustice? That you now bandy the same kind of ‘darkening’ association at me tells me everything I need to know about your own ‘fearful’ position. You’re simply justifying a prejudice and have probably forgotten why you hold it in the first place.

    DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 1:58 PM REPLY
    Not a very artful dodging of the question, Jack. Followed by resorting to insults, perhaps in the hope of escalating? SOP for trolls. Nice try.

    Those who have read the full exploration know that the picture being drawn here has many layers and nuances, and that what it suggests is that Crowley, along with countless others, was part of a very large and long-running program of social engineering which includes the sexual abuse of children, leftist politics, witchcraft & occultism, psychiatry, medicine, and even the entertainment media. How witting some of these players were is always hard to determine, but not especially relevant unless the aim is to cast moral judgment, which mine isn’t.

    “Jack” has shown himself to be unwilling or incapable of engaging in an honest, open dialogue, and, in a mere handful of posts, has managed to move from a semblance of serious challenging to snarky remarks, ad hominem attacks, and slippery non-denial denials. Since he’s not adding anything helpful to the discussion, and barring a drastic change in content, future comments from “Jack” will be removed. I am averse to censorship, but not as averse as I am to having my time used up dealing with trolls.

    DECEMBER 30, 2015 AT 2:16 PM REPLY
    Why resort to branding what I have said as the actions of a ‘troll’. Isn’t that just another way of discounting what I have said? That’s just being rude in a very hackneyed way.

    But it’s your site and up to you. I too feel I have wasted my time talking to you, so you’re not the only one around here wasting their valuable time.

    Delete what I have to say or not, that’s your decision, but know that in doing so you are deleting someone who has listened to and enjoyed your podcasts and perspective, but now, on this matter, I can’t say the same and your reaction to what I have said paints you considerably more small-minded than I had supposed. Nothing better than a little interaction to expose huge gulfs.

    DECEMBER 31, 2015 AT 7:20 AM REPLY
    Hi Jasun,
    Good stuff….I used to be into all that Crowley nonsense ,tho never practiced…By chance I even lived next door to where he was born in Leamington Spa for a while. I was conned into believing that he was some kind of counter culture hero and would jump to his defense…. even after reading stuff like this in his books……
    From The Magick, in Paris, France:

    “…it was the theory of the ancient magicians that any living being is a storehouse of energy varying in quantity according to the size and health of the animal , and in quality according to its mental and moral character. At the death of the animal this energy is liberated suddenly. The animal should therefore be killed within the Circle, or Triangle, as the case may be, so that its energy cannot escape…For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim.” (Magick, by Master Therion, published in 1929 by the Lecram Press, Paris, France)

    A footnote on p. 95 says: “(4) It appears from the Magical Records of Frater Perdurabo that he made this particular sacrifice on an average about 150 times every year between 1912 and 1928.

    Are we really supposed to believe his “sacrifice” was his “holy” sperm? or that it’s “black” humor?
    I think he was capable of anything…He was supposed to be an advocate at the time for child rights……but there are photographs of his own child smoking ……presumably they also had the “rights” to take drugs and engage in sex with adults too.
    Didn’t one of his children die at his “Abbey”? …supposedly of some illness.

    Anyway…..I think you are quite correct in what you are suggesting.

    DECEMBER 31, 2015 AT 9:37 AM REPLY
    Thanks. I’d be interested to see that photo, or hear more about AC and “child rights” – something PIE was also petitioning for. Child death at Abbey rings a bell too.

    DECEMBER 31, 2015 AT 10:19 AM
    From Wikipedia:

    Two women, Hirsig and Shumway (her magical name was Sister Cypris after Aphrodite), both became pregnant by Crowley at the Abbey. Hirsig had a miscarriage, but Shumway gave birth to a daughter (11/12/20), Astarte Lulu Panthea. From 1931, Astarte was raised in the US by Helene Fraux. Astarte would grow up to have four children of her own, including jazz pianist Eric Muhler. [b]On arrival in Sicily, Hirsig had a two-year-old son named Hansi and Shumway had a three-year-old son named Howard; they were not Crowley’s sons but he nicknamed them Dionysus and Hermes respectively. [/b]At some point, Hirsig suspected Shumway of magical foul play, and Crowley found supporting evidence of it in Shumway’s magical diary (everybody had to keep one while at the abbey for reasons explained in Liber E). Appalled, Crowley banished Shumway from the abbey, however, she soon returned to take care of her children.


    From The Wonders of Sicily website:

    In 1921 Leah Hirsig writes in her diary:

    “I dedicate myself wholly to the great work. I will work for wickedness. I will kill my heart. I will be shameless before all men. I will freely prostitue my body to all creatures.”

    In January 1920, Crowley moved to Paris with Leah Hirsig; they were soon joined in a ménage à trois by Ninette Shumway, and also by Leah’s newborn daughter Anne “Poupée” Leah.

    Crowley offered a libertine education for the children, allowing them to play all day and witness acts of sex magic. He occasionally travelled to Palermo to visit rent boys and buy supplies, including drugs; his heroin addiction came to dominate his life, and cocaine began to erode his nasal cavity.

    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 claimed 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”. Raoul 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. John Bull proclaimed Crowley “the wickedest man in the world” and “a man we’d like to hang”, making various slanderous accusations against him, but he was unable to afford the legal fees to sue them. As a result, John Bull continued its attack, with the stories also being picked up by newspapers in North America and throughout Europe. 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.

    DECEMBER 31, 2015 AT 10:40 AM REPLY
    Testimony of Alex Sanders, tho his website is now offline:

    At ten, she took him to London to meet Aleister Crowley, whom she knew.

    ‘She left me with Crowley for the night and he carried out some of his sex magic with me,’ said Alex. ‘It wasn’t a very nice experience. To me, as a young boy, he was just a horrible, smelly, old man. Before I left he tattooed his “mark of the beast” on my hand. It’s still there. It hardly turned me off sex though. At one time when I was still in London with my second wife, Maxine, I also had two mistresses and nine male lovers. It’s a much quieter life here in Bexhill-on-Sea. My current coven is only five-strong and just one of them is a woman.’


    DECEMBER 31, 2015 AT 11:33 AM REPLY

    Hi Jasun,
    The photographs of the Abbey and Crowley’s children I saw were part of a private collection unfortunately…..of course they may or may not have been his children……..there is this though, in the writings of Betty May who visited the Abbey with husband/poet Raoul Loveday (who also died there!) about life at the Abbey and the five year old son of Leah Hirsig (Crowley’s “Scarlet Woman”) called Hansi .

    “The children were allowed to run free,even being allowed to witness the sexual relations of the residents.Crowley believed this would alleviate any “repression” the children could develop.
    The children received almost no discipline and problems soon arose,the Scarlet womans child Hansi contracted the cigarette habit at the age of five and was such a “fiend” you never saw him without one in his mouth ……….”

    And this is also of great interest from his diaries about the Scarlet woman………..

    August 12th 1920 – “Her breasts itch with lust of Incest. She hath given Her two-year bastard boy to Her lewd lover’s whim of sodomy, hath taught him speech and act, things infinitely abhorred, with Her own beastly carcass. She hath tongued Her five-month girl, and asked its father to deflower it.”

    This quote from Crowley’s diaries seems to imply that both Crowley and Leah Hirsig not only molested her son Hansi Carter aka ‘Dionysus’ [whose father was Edward Carter] but that Crowley also ‘deflowered’ his own daughter who was only five months old. The daughter Anne Leah, nicknamed Poupee, had been born in late February 1920. Of course, if this molestation is true then Crowley might have been directly responsible for causing her death less than two months later on October 14th…. We also know that Poupee’s death was so traumatic to Hirsig that six days later she, who was three months pregnant with another child by Crowley, miscarried and lost this child too…

    If I can recall where I read about Crowley’s voice on “child rights” I will let you know..


    DECEMBER 31, 2015 AT 12:43 PM REPLY
    Thanks Dean, that’s a pretty damning, and disturbing, find. I put a trigger alert at the top of your post.

    DECEMBER 31, 2015 AT 2:47 PM REPLY
    Yeah..!!!..I can’t believe that when I first read this (and the like) in his diaries years ago that my mind was so in the thrall of (and so rendered helpless to) Crowley’s teachings/ drugs/the occult/counterculture … and the now obvious Luciferian systems of mind control and social/cultural/reality engineering .. that I was happy to see him ,his philosophies and (now obviously) vile/depraved material in his works as “magical metaphor”,or humorous zen like occult riddles or believe that he would put outrageous lies into his writings to deliberately shock and disgust or mislead and hide from those whose consciousness was not raised enough to grasp the true meaning /intent …etc etc etc and so jump to his defense and to spread his ideas like a good little mind controlled puppet ! …!lol……..what an fool …!

    I was first lead to Crowley ,as many are/were I guess, by LSD experimentation and the books of C.I.A operative ?,psychologist and ’60’s acid guru Dr Timothy Leary (who actually believed,or so he states in his writings,that he was Crowley’s reincarnation carrying on the earthly work of liberating mankind) ,by Robert Anton Wilson and by heavy metal bands/music….. curse those mind rapers !

    I also want to thank you for being one of those instrumental in breaking me out of the Luciferian trance.
    Looking forward to the next installments in this series……the jigsaw is coming together at last!


    DECEMBER 31, 2015 AT 3:01 PM REPLY
    I was never a Leary-follower but RAW def. was an early influence, following right on the heels of Castaneda & Crowley. I would be wary of going too far in painting them all with the same brush stroke, and specifically that of “Luciferianism,” which is a growing meme first seeded (AFAIK) by the Christian fundie crowd back in the 1970s. We are talking about The Will to Power and the Will to Power is also known as The Pursuit of Happiness. Choosing to reign in Hell rather than serve in Heaven is a metaphor for giving our life force to the constructed identity rather than to the soul (psyche), and not really a choice, since it begins very early on, pre-verbal (it being how our identity is constructed, via abuse).

    There is, it seems, some sort of choice about how honest we are later in life, as regards identifying the destructive influences and owning up to and cancelling our unconscious complicity with them. It sounds as if your own process matches mine to a degree, hence your finding this exploration helpful.

    JANUARY 1, 2016 AT 12:19 PM REPLY
    Although homosexuality was criminalized in Nazi Germany, the SS attracted many with homosexual tendencies, See 2011 Eliot H. Boden, The Enemy Within: Homosexuality in the Third Reich, 1933-1945

    JANUARY 2, 2016 AT 11:37 AM REPLY
    Clearly the idea that homosexuals are not pedophiles has come a long way. Time to reverse the trend, which I gather is the underlying message here.

    JANUARY 2, 2016 AT 11:44 AM REPLY
    I expected that. Trying to correct ideologically-inclined readers would be fruitless, however, because thinking and ideological positions don’t go together. So to attempt to address this accusation (which is what it is) drags the discussion down several notches, and my target readership are people willing to “aim above ideology.” But thanks for commenting.

    JANUARY 2, 2016 AT 12:22 PM REPLY
    I’m not sure if Josef’s comment is meant to be facetious or taken at face value?

    I do think it is a very delicate argument to make, that homosexuality is the *result* of social pathology that makes its imprint very early in child development, because it has the inevitable result of shifting blame to the victim (in this model). [I say “inevitable result” because, sadly, most people are incapable of nuanced reading.]

    JANUARY 2, 2016 AT 1:40 PM REPLY
    You have people arguing that some males became homosexuals because of feminism drying up the women-pool. Then someone says the SS were mostly homosexuals. Now you have someone claiming homosexuality is caused by a social pathology in early child development. Clearly the undertone is of homosexuality being an aberration of some kind. And all this is discussed in the context of pedophilia. It is one thing to imagine readers are intelligent enough to see beyond ‘ideological positions’, but never mind the readers, how about the writers of some of this tripe?

    JANUARY 2, 2016 AT 1:51 PM REPLY
    Josef, to clarify what I’m saying: I’m responding to the suggestion that male homosexuality may be more prevalent in society because of pre-verbal childhood trauma (i.e. sexual abuse in early childhood). This is what I mean by “social pathology”. I don’t know that I agree with the proposition, but *if* it is true, then it is still the case that stigmatizing gay men (which I am one) is akin to blaming the victim, and should therefore be avoided. I hope you now understand my statements.

    JANUARY 2, 2016 AT 2:23 PM REPLY
    yeyuad — I’m not entirely sure what you’re actually saying. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like you’re saying that being a gay man is potentially attributable to being sexually abused as a child, and that gay men are ‘victims’. I can’t imagine that would be a popular gay opinion. Sounds like apologizing to an upright Christian community for being gay. ‘Don’t blame me, I’m a victim!’

    Is that what you’re saying?

    JANUARY 2, 2016 AT 2:33 PM REPLY
    There is also the undertone in your comments that gay males who happen to be pedophiles should be regarded as victims themselves because they were abused as a child. Well, I have no argument against a compassionate stance, I just find the idea that male gayness is down to sexual abuse as a child ludicrous to begin with.

    JANUARY 2, 2016 AT 3:52 PM REPLY
    Josef: I don’t know where you’re getting that I am excusing pedophiles. Also, I stated clearly that I doubt the thesis that male homosexuality stems from childhood abuse, but *if* it does (note the conditional/subjunctive) it is still incorrect to blame gay men for the result of their own victimization. However, this conversation, as I understand it, as framed by Jasun (he can correct me if I’m wrong) is about social processes, and those who are in a position to direct them, not the individuals who have little say in what happens or is done to them.

    JANUARY 2, 2016 AT 4:38 PM REPLY
    I find this ‘this conversation’ a little odd, seeming to consist of a bunch of assertions and unexamined implications that appear to be saying something or putting forward something that isn’t clearly spelled out but on the surface at least seems somewhat questionable and a little dubious.

    I would like the bottom line spelt out a little more, because in its current form ‘this conversation’ seems open to quite a few interpretations, some of them sinister but not in the way the author intends. I’m afraid I cannot be less vague, because the tone that infuses ‘this conversation’ is also vague, so any who might like to comment seem actually invited to comment on the basis of not quite knowing what is being said, such that certain reprehensible views seem to be given ‘currency’.

    But perhaps ‘this conversation is so many levels above ‘ideological positions’ that it’s all perfectly clear to everyone here, although personally I suspect it is all clear to each individual in their own mind, including the author’s, and there is actually no consensus on what is being said here at all.

    JANUARY 2, 2016 AT 4:47 PM REPLY
    Well, this is a conversation (the comment thread, not the OP), not an essay, so it’s not going to have a solid structure. It also covers a great many topics, and touches on spirituality, which is famously difficult to pin down and define. So the “vagueness” is a function of the structure, the topic, and the diversity of tangential topics.

    I would ask whether you are looking to be offended, or else reacting to something that is not within the intentions of the authors (Jasun and myself, presumably)? I admit that my initial reaction to some of the comments (notably Ann’s) was negative because, on the surface, they do seem to conflate pedophilia with homosexuality. But I think this conversation is about something deeper, it is about the extent to which our moral assumptions, especially those around consent, may be manipulated by processes outside our conscious awareness. Jasun seems to take the view that these processes are intentional. I, on the other hand, am not so sure that they are intentional, at least by human agency (i.e. they may be intentional at the level of egregore or other nonlocal/acausal/nonhuman spiritual source). Of course none of us knows for sure, so all of this is conjecture, an attempt to come to some kind of understanding.

    JANUARY 2, 2016 AT 5:33 PM REPLY
    That’s pretty clear, yevaud.

    I wouldn’t say anything intentional is going on either on behalf of some kind conspiracy of humans nor the machinations of some deity or ‘egregore’ or ‘spiritual agency’. All I see is individuals acting according to their conditioning, this conditioning multfarious and mostly unacknowledged as conditioning, and as unalterable as the destinies of actors in a film already in the can. That’s not to say it isn’t of interest to examine this conditioning, but what I’ve read so far is fairly one-dimensional and, to my eyes, just another conditioned response.

    JANUARY 2, 2016 AT 5:44 PM REPLY
    Well, we can only have our conditioned responses, unless, serendipitously, a wholly external epiphany graces us, and these may not even exist. My own conditioned response is to tend to see things through a lens of science and mathematics, and this is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, what we see may merely be emergent phenomena of a dynamical system, i.e. with no apparent agency anywhere. Certainly, with enough time you could build a stochastic model of society-wide sexual interactions and observe pretty much the same behavior we commonly see around us.

    However, a popular position is that *everything* in existence arises as an emergent phenomenon from some effectively mindless dynamical system, i.e. nothing has any real intention. To me, that is a very nihilist proposition. I suspect that many different models can describe the same reality, and some of them include conscious agency as a driving force, others do not. I tend to favor those that do, but it may be a personal preference (i.e. its own conditioned response). That said, I don’t know that there is evidence of human agency here, although certain actors (e.g. AC) may aid and abet the agencies of deities.

    JANUARY 2, 2016 AT 6:10 PM REPLY
    That’s only a nihilist position if you regard nothing as being something in the first place, ie that there is a concrete objectifiable reality and everything that we take to be so as it appears is precisely and materially exactly how it appears. Were it for a moment to appear otherwise, such a position would inevitably crumble anyway. And yet, this renewed position, that everything is appearance, might also be regarded as nihilistic — yet for the reason just outlined it cannot be since there is no concrete position to be nihil.

    So we are left examining the tendencies of a state of affairs that may not even exist, save in the mind of the beholder, his or her own existence (as ego) as yet unchallenged.

    How would such a view impact on pedophilia, or, indeed, anything? Well, not very usefully, since imaginary criminals would be going to imaginary prisons which they, at least, unless enlightened, would have to regard as real and so have the punishment of society doled out to them anyway, regardless of whether any of it ever existed.

    In practice, as a ‘society’ (whatever that is) we learn to scorn murderers and pedophiles when really what we mean to say is that we’re glad we didn’t have that conditioning ourselves. What can be done about anything? Nothing. And yet, we seem to thrash out ideas continually, and, now and again, arrive at seemingly meaningful conclusions. This too, our conditioning. But the unconditioned being that we are really is only an observer.

    JANUARY 3, 2016 AT 1:37 PM REPLY
    Hi Jasun,
    Bumped into this news from a few days back….
    Thought it was an interesting “sync” ……..no smoke without fire ?:-)

    JANUARY 3, 2016 AT 5:37 PM REPLY
    I did hear about this, and commented on it here: http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=584559#p584559

    I also quoted one of your comments from this thread at the above link.

    JANUARY 9, 2016 AT 10:34 AM REPLY
    Seems odd to be celebrating the burning down of someone’s home. Apparently they left the cooker on when they went shopping.

    JANUARY 9, 2016 AT 5:03 PM REPLY
    who is celebrating?

    Leave a Reply

    Enter your comment here…

    strieber-land noturningback lost-whitley
    common core
    transhuman-old-seers castaneda atlantean-singularity
    eros-thanatos writinghostage
    dirt pile of the real Julian-aldous wilber
    bicameral-ufo-man bug-man strieber-mask
    strieber-stevenson jesusmaze crucialfiction
    angrybaby marsattacks
    whitley-jasun whitleyscoffin z-old-boy-s
    6-Litvinoff-league-of-extraordinary 13450533 13450540 13450552
    whitley-spy 5-Donald-Cammell-as-Osiris whitley-james-fox-in-oz 13450575
    Blog at WordPress.com. | The Ideation and Intent Theme.
    Skip to toolbar
    My Sites

    Log Out:)


  2. Pingback: Kingsley & Crowley/Satanists | Looking Back Woman-Suzanne Dupree blog

Comments are closed.