| 
			  
			  
			  
			
			
			 Part 
			3: The Slaves Shall Serve 
 Sex rituals? I thought when I awoke the following morning.
 
 It didn't seem to fit. Jack Parsons and Ed Forman had been two 
			uncommonly bright kids experimenting with rockets, and corresponding 
			with the early rocket pioneers. They had showed up at Cal Tech and 
			formed an alliance with some of von Karman's graduate students. 
			Unlike the latter, Parsons and Forman already had hands-on 
			experience with mixing solid rocket fuels and constructing rocket 
			bodies.
 
 Cal Tech thought the idea of space rockets was silly, except for von 
			Karman, perhaps the nation's leading expert in jet propulsion. Von 
			Karman gave the group the use of facilities. After some explosions, 
			they ended up in Pasadena's Arroyo Seco--a small canyon that passes 
			near South Orange Grove Blvd.--at a spot near Devil's Gate Dam, and 
			near where von Karman, Parsons, and others founded the Jet 
			Propulsion Laboratory a few years later.
 
 The project had soon attracted the attention of the U.S. military, 
			which was looking for some form of jet-assisted takeoff for planes 
			using the short air strips in Southeast Asia. The group obtained a 
			number of JATO patents, most under Parsons' name, and formed a 
			company named Aerojet Engineering Corporation to sell JATO units to 
			the military. The early stockholders had had financing problems, and 
			their intellectual property had essentially been expropriated by 
			General Tire and Rubber.
 
 But JPL's WAC Corporal had become the first rocket to enter extra- 
			terrestrial space. And another member of the original rocket group 
			had gone on to found China's missile program.
 
 Sex rituals? Was there some sort of contradiction here? On the other 
			hand, this was an important lead. Sex itself is a powerful 
			explosive. Perhaps Parsons' death had something to do with his 
			unusual personal life.
 
 The new lead was waiting for me at the office. Sheri had started the 
			laborious process of sifting through our own research collection. 
			She had marked a reference to Parsons in The Great Beast, the 
			biography of Crowley mentioned by von Karman.
 
 One of the particpants in those sex rituals was L. Ron Hubbard, the 
			future founder of Scientology.
 
 A group of Crowley followers had established a church in Pasadena in 
			the 1930s. It was called the Agape Lodge, and was started by Wilfred 
			T. Smith, whom Crowley had met in Vancouver in 1915. According to 
			John Symonds, Crowley's biographer, Wilfred Smith subsequently 
			aroused Crowley's ire by seducing Helen Parsons, the wife of John 
			Whiteside Parsons. Parsons was then one of the Agape Lodge flock. 
			Symonds referred to Parsons as "Dr." Parsons, apparently thinking 
			his Cal Tech association implied a doctorate.
 
 Crowley wrote Smith that his seductions were giving the Agape Lodge 
			the reputation of being "that slimy abomination, a `love cult'." (I 
			found it difficult to see how something named agape could have 
			avoided that stigma.) Crowley apparently expected little reform from 
			Smith, pointing out that when he had met Smith in 1915, Smith was 
			sleeping with both a woman and her daughter. So Smith was 
			disfellowshipped, and Parsons took over the church. Parsons, 
			meanwhile, had transferred his affections to Helen's younger sister 
			"Betty" (Sarah Elisabeth Northrup).
 
 In the summer of 1945, some time after Parsons had sold his shares 
			in Aerojet, a young L. Ron Hubbard appeared at the Agape Lodge. 
			Parsons thought Hubbard had great magic potential. Betty did too, 
			and started sleeping with Hubbard. Parsons wrote Crowley of Ron 
			Hubbard: "He is the most Thelemic person I have ever met and is in 
			complete accord with our own principles. He is also interested in 
			establishing the New Aeon. Thy son, John."
 
 With the loss of Betty, Parsons set about magically attracting 
			another principal partner. He had succeeded by February 1946 when he 
			wrote Crowley about a girl named Marjorie Cameron. "I have my 
			elemental! She turned up one night after the conclusion of the 
			Operation, and has been with me ever since, although she goes back 
			to New York next week. She has red hair and slant green eyes as 
			specified."
 
 In the newspaper clippings Homer Nilmot had given me, Robert Cameron 
			was cited as Parsons' brother-in-law. Apparently Parsons was married 
			to Marjorie Cameron when he died in 1952.
 
 Parsons continued his magical operations with the sexual 
			participation of Marjorie Cameron. By some unclear mechanism, these 
			resulted in revelations delivered through the mouth of L. Ron 
			Hubbard. Parsons gave them special significance, writing Crowley: "I 
			have been in direct touch with One who is most Holy and Beautiful as 
			mentioned in The Book of the Law. I cannot write the name at 
			present. First instructions were received direct through Ron, the 
			seer. I have followed them to the letter."
 
 This was pretty rich. "Ron the seer." If Ron was God's (any god's) 
			mouthpiece, he was in an ideal position to manipulate Parsons. 
			Hubbard had started by taking Parsons' girl. You could already guess 
			that Parsons' money would be next.
 
 Crowley wrote to his head man in America, referred to as Frater 
			Saturnus:
 
				
				"Apparently Parsons 
				or Hubbard or somebody is producing a Moonchild. I get fairly 
				frantic when I contemplate the idiocy of these louts." 
				 
			Moonchild? What was a 
			Moonchild? I made a note to look it up. 
 In the meantime, Hubbard ran off with Betty in Parsons' yacht. 
			Parsons wrote Crowley that he had magically evoked a storm which 
			drove the two back to shore. "I have them tied up; they cannot move 
			without going to jail," he wrote.
 
 Symonds' account of Hubbard abruptly ends there. Clearly, however, 
			there was more to the story. Was there a continued relationship 
			between Hubbard and Parsons?
 
 Later in 1949, Symonds relates, Parsons took the Oath of the Abyss, 
			which was said to be an attempt to unite his consciousness with the 
			Universal Consciousness. Parsons gave himself the magical name of "Belarion 
			Armiluss Al Dajjal AntiChrist." Symonds thought Parsons was going 
			crazy at this point.
 
				
				"Dajjal," Sheri 
				explained, "is Arabic for `deceiver,' which was the name given 
				the Antichrist in Islamic legend. Ad-Dajjal was supposed to have 
				a red face, one eye in the middle of his forehead, and to rule 
				all the world, except Mecca and Medina, for forty years before 
				being destroyed by the Mahdi."  
			Weird stuff. Why would 
			Parsons chose that name?  
				
				"So now we know the 
				real identity of the Antichrist," I told Sheri. "Parsons was 
				trying to start a New Aeon or New Age, and Hubbard (Ron the 
				Seer) was trying to cash-in on it. There are God-hucksters on 
				the radio who have suspected all along that New Age movements 
				are the work of the Antichrist. I think they're right. When you 
				hear someone declaring a `New Age,' or a `New Order' run for 
				your life." 
 "What's wrong with a New Age?" Sheri wanted to know.
 
 "I suppose it's mainly a question of who's in charge. When a 
				group proclaims a New Age, you can bet they themselves expect to 
				end up running the show. Those in power now typically wouldn't 
				need, and wouldn't want, a new order for themselves. They're 
				doing well enough under the old order, thank you. So it's either 
				another elite group making a power-grab, or else it's 
				disgruntled trouble-makers, angrily enduring the `present 
				distress,' perhaps envious of the rest of the world or suffering 
				from an illusion of insignificance. These types might well vote 
				for radical political and social reforms. The little guys in the 
				present age, naturally, are going to be well-rewarded big 
				honchos in the next world. But today's little guys are a large, 
				heterogeneous group, and they disagree on the nature of the 
				changes needed."
 
			We catalogued a few 
			questions: What had lead Parsons to become a closet magician? Why 
			was he so naive where L. Ron Hubbard was concerned? What were 
			Parsons' occult activities immediately prior to his death? 
 Where was L. Ron Hubbard in June 1952?
 
 Then there was Homer Nilmot. He undoubtedly already knew what we had 
			thus far discovered about John Whiteside Parsons. Probably a good 
			deal more. What hadn't he simply told me at the outset? What was he 
			trying to accomplish?
 
 I had met Homer a few weeks previously at a party given by Trisha, 
			Sheri's roommate. Homer introduced himself and asked what I did. I 
			told him I was an "ontological detective". The description had just 
			slipped out, and it occurred to me it would look good on a business 
			card. Homer chose to focus on the detective part and asked for a 
			meeting. At lunch at Downey's he seemed to know a lot about 
			me--enough to make me wonder who was playing detective. He had given 
			me a cash retainer, and had discouraged any questions about himself 
			or his organization.
 
 The strange phone call I had received indicated someone else was 
			also interested in Jack Parsons.
 
				
				"Why don't we focus 
				on the following," I said to Sheri. "First, how did L. Ron 
				Hubbard come to meet Jack Parsons? The biography of Crowley 
				doesn't explain that. Was it through the O.T.O.? And what 
				happened after the incident with Ron running off with Betty in 
				the yacht? We need more details."  
			Sheri had arranged a 
			meeting with David Wilson, the Penn academic who was supposed to be 
			the Crowley expert. Like many academics, I assumed he had fallen in 
			love with his subject. If so, this would be helpful. In order to 
			understand Parsons, I had to see the world through his eyes, and 
			Parsons obviously admired Crowley. 
 How would an expert on rocket propulsion reconcile his professional 
			life with the other one involving the Agape Lodge? Maybe Parsons 
			just liked sex. Or maybe there was more to it than that.
 
 There was a small line of students waiting outside David Wilson's 
			office. I had never understood why a professor would voluntarily 
			choose to teach a summer session. I knocked on the door and they 
			looked somewhat resentful when Wilson came out with a departing 
			student and told those waiting office hours were over for the day. 
			He gave me a good-humored grin and we went inside.
 
 The room was sparsely furnished, but exuded more the atmosphere of a 
			private den than an academic office. Missing were the stacks of 
			papers and research reports piled high on desk, filing cabinets, and 
			spare chairs. There was an oriental rug spread out in front of the 
			desk, with two padded armchairs angled on either side. Nested among 
			the books on the wall shelves was a CD player, softly pumping out 
			"Bass Strings" by Country Joe and the Fish. A framed print on the 
			wall showed a dancer sensuously arching backward, her left hand 
			resting on the floor behind her.
 
 Wilson himself was in his mid-fifties, with layered medium-length 
			white hair combed forward. His face showed the intense enthusiasm of 
			an undergraduate.
 
				
				"So you're 
				interested in that old rascal guru Aleister Crowley," he said, 
				waving me to an armchair. "What can I tell you about him?"
				 
			Homer Nilmot's questions 
			to me had indicated a political motivation for his interest in Jack 
			Parsons. I decided to start with that angle.  
				
				"Can you tell me 
				something about the political attitudes of Crowley and his 
				followers?"  
			The answer came almost 
			immediately, without reflection, like a well- rehearsed lecture for 
			Psychology 101.  
				
				"You have to 
				distinguish between Crowley-the-Herald-of-the-New-Age, and 
				Crowley-the-Man. Crowley-the-Cambridge-Don had the 
				turn-of-the-century British upper class attitude that viewed 
				much of the outer world as peopled with inferior wogs, geeks, 
				and niggers, who for their own good needed to be ruled with a 
				firm British hand. By contrast, the Book of the Law (his 
				revelation) was democratic, anarchistic, hacking apart the group 
				mythologies of society and nation with their self-perpetuating 
				codes of personal and economic bondage. 
 "Crowley-the-Man sometimes said that women were creatures of 
				inferior minds. The Book of the Law said every man and every 
				woman was a star, which Crowley-the-Herald-of-the- New-Age 
				interpreted to mean full equality between the sexes. Most of 
				Crowley's followers were in fact women of an independent spirit.
 
 "Occult organizations are by their nature hierarchical. There 
				are masters and disciples, inner and outer orders. Everyone gets 
				spiritually ranked according to his or her initiatory stage. 
				This aspect of things undoubtedly appealed to Crowley-the-Man, 
				who wanted to possess the occult knowledge and spiritual stature 
				denied ordinary people. Nevertheless, Crowley- the-New-Ager set 
				out to democratize magic by publishing the secret traditions.
 
 "Crowley's political program was essentially set out in Liber 
				Oz."
 
			Wilson got up to pull 
			out a typed sheet from a drawer in his desk. It was a plain sheet of 
			white paper with no heading. An address in California was listed at 
			the bottom of the page. I read:  
				
					
						
						Every man 
						and every woman is a star. 
 There is no god but man.
 
 Man has the right to live by his own law,
 to live in the way that he wills to do,
 to work as he will,
 to play as he will,
 to rest as he will,
 to die when and how he will.
 
 Man has the right to eat what he will,
 to drink what he will,
 to dwell where he will,
 to move as he will on the face of the earth.
 
 Man has the right to think what he will,
 to speak what he will,
 to write what he will,
 to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will,
 to dress as he will.
 
 Man has the right to love as he will,
 take your fill and will of love as ye will,
 when, where, and with whom ye will.
 
 Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these 
						rights.
 
 The slaves shall serve.
 
 Love is the law, love under will.
 
			I thought about it for a 
			bit. Then:  
				
				"This is powerful 
				political stuff," I offered. 
 "It would upset a few people," Wilson said. "The right to die 
				when and how you will? The military and the medical profession 
				would prefer to keep that prerogative to themselves.
 
 "The right to dwell and move around where you will? That's 
				anathema to the modern conception of the nation-state. How would 
				we dispense with immigration authorities, border patrols, the 
				passport mafia, and the coast guard? How would the tax collector 
				keep track of anyone in such a world?
 
 "To love as you will? Free love provoked violent reaction in the 
				Sixties. And who believes in it anymore in the Live AIDS era?
 
 "To eat as you will? That implies sovereignty over ones own 
				body. Are you kidding? Look at the governmental and media 
				hysteria over substances with psychopharmacological properties. 
				As for less controversial chemicals, it still takes an average 
				of 8-10 years and $100,000,000 to get a new drug approved by the 
				FDA and out on the market. Thousands can die while the FDA 
				decides whether a new treatment is `safe'.
 
 "Free speech? Destroyed by the libel laws. A few years ago the 
				Trilateral Commission published a book by Harvard political 
				scientist Samuel Huntington which said that the problem with 
				modern democracies was there was too much democracy and too much 
				free speech. That democracies could only survive as long as most 
				people left the problems of running a country in the hands of an 
				educated elite, like (and this was Huntington's example) in the 
				good old days when Harry Truman was able to make do with a 
				handful of Wall Street lawyers and bankers. Huntington proposed 
				going after the press with a liberal dose of the libel laws.
 
 "No God but man? What would the religious establishment say to 
				that? How are you going to terrify people into submission 
				without an external supernatural power to back up arbitrary 
				codes of largely monetary conduct?"
 
			Okay, I thought. This 
			still doesn't tell me much about Homer Nilmot's interest. Or not 
			that I could see, right off hand.  
				
				"Do you know 
				anything about a Crowley follower named Jack Parsons?" I asked.
				
 "Just what I've read here and there. The Symonds biography of 
				Crowley has some material. Then there are some books by the 
				current head of an O.T.O. lodge in London, Kenneth Grant. One is 
				called The Magical Revival and another Aleister Crowley & The 
				Hidden God. They discuss Parsons' experiences with a `Frater X.' 
				If you compare the events with Symonds' biography, Frater X is 
				obviously L. Ron Hubbard, the Scientology founder. Grant chose 
				not to use Hubbard's name, perhaps fearing a dirty tricks or 
				character assassination campaign conducted by some of Hubbard's 
				fanatical followers."
 
			I took note of the two 
			books.  
				
				"Does it make sense 
				for a scientist like Parsons to be a magician?" I asked. 
				 
			Wilson just grinned at 
			me.  
				
				"Does it make sense 
				for a scientist to be a Protestant?" he finally responded. "Did 
				it make sense for Isaac Newton, the inventor of the calculus and 
				expositor of the law of universal gravitation, to write 
				commentaries on the biblical books of Daniel and Revelation, and 
				to devote his time delving into alchemical treatises?" 
 "Okay. Let me alter the question. What is the relation of magic 
				to science and religion?"
 
			I asked that question 
			because I was annoyed at his superior attitude, but he didn't seem 
			to notice.  
				
				"Sir James Frazier, 
				the anthropologist, characterized science, magic, and religion 
				as three approaches to reality, and I would agree. The 
				scientific approach can be summarized in the phrase `seeing is 
				believing'. Scientists are from Missouri--you've got to show 
				them. Physical science deals with the basic forces of material 
				reality--gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong 
				nuclear forces--as elucidated by experiment. 
 "The key psychological characteristic of the domain of physical 
				science is that it purports to study behavior that manifests 
				itself independently of human cognition or belief. You don't 
				have to understand gravity in order to fall off a building and 
				die from the impact. It doesn't matter if you've ever heard of 
				gravity or even if you vehemently deny its existence. Stick your 
				finger in an electrical socket and you get a shock, whether 
				saint or sinner, Methodist or Moonie.
 
 "Ideally, scientists are supposed to be neutral skeptics.
 
 "For example, Einstein said that large gravitational bodies such 
				as stars would warp space-time around themselves. So that even a 
				light ray passing by would apparently change directions-- just 
				as though it had been `pulled' off course by gravity--and 
				continue at an angle to its original path. This was an 
				interesting theory by a leading scientist. But the theory was 
				only believed when the phenomena was actually observed in the 
				solar eclipse of May 29, 1919. When announced later, the 
				confirmation made headlines around the world. Even then Einstein 
				himself wasn't convinced his own theory was correct, because he 
				had made other predictions that hadn't yet been confirmed."
 
			The phone began to ring.
			 
				
				"Anyway, that's the 
				way the scientific approach is supposed to work. But doesn't 
				really," he added, picking up the phone.  
			When he finished I asked 
			him what he meant.  
				
				"Well, scientists 
				don't work in a vacuum. You go to college to learn the current 
				body of accepted, and acceptable, beliefs. What questions you 
				ask depends on what questions you feel comfortable raising in a 
				seminar comprised of educated colleagues. The university 
				doctoral program indifferently screens out the incompetent and 
				the competently heretical. What experiments you perform depends 
				on what experiments are `worthwhile'. What is `worthwhile,' of 
				course, depends on what you can get grant money for, and what 
				you can publish. Both of these require referees who are already 
				grounded in the body of current beliefs. 
 "Here is one example. French peasants in the Seventeenth Century 
				kept reporting meteorites. The scientific community laughed at 
				the superstitious reports from gullible bumpkins. Any educated 
				person `knew' that stones don't fall from the skies.
 
 "If you really believed in observation and experiment, of 
				course, you would have gone out and seen the meteorites for 
				yourself. This just shows that how scientists actually operate 
				differs from the Pollyanna descriptions of the scientific method 
				you find in high school textbooks."
 
 "The Seventeenth Century occurred some time ago," I astutely 
				observed.
 
 "It's not any different today," he replied. "In 1962 a French 
				astrophysicist named Jacque Vallee watched his colleagues erase 
				a magnetic tape on which his satellite-tracking team had 
				recorded data on an unknown flying object. The data had a 
				suspicious resemblance to classical ufo sightings, and he was 
				given the explanation that `people would laugh at us.' What is 
				interesting to a psychologist is the fact astronomers were 
				willing to destroy scientific data rather than run the risk 
				someone might associate them with cultists and cranks.
 
 "You even have witch-hunting organizations like CSICOP--the 
				Committee for Snotty Interpretations of Claims of the 
				Paranormal--which engages in character assassination of 
				scientists involved in parapsychological research. CSICOP 
				members claim their goal is rooting out fraud. But it isn't 
				fraud that really upsets them. It's heresy. CSICOP once ran a 
				study refuting a particular astrological correlation. When one 
				of the editors of their magazine realized that a statistical 
				error had been made, and that the study actually supported the 
				astrological assertion, the magazine refused to print a 
				retraction. He wrote a letter to the editor, but they wouldn't 
				print that. He himself then did a further study, which this time 
				came to the `right' conclusion, and CSICOP published it, but 
				refused to publish the reference to the error in the previous 
				study. They then agreed to publish a statement that his second 
				report had been `censored.' Then, without his knowledge, they 
				censored the reference that the report had been censored. It 
				shows their real function is propaganda.
 
 "They have a court jester, an erstwhile stage magician and a 
				paid disinformation agent for the U.S. Department of Defense, 
				who goes around claiming parapsychological research results are 
				obtained by trickery. Imagine CSICOP scientists being led around 
				by the nose by a stage performer! CSICOP even got Nobel-prize 
				winners to sign a statement that astrology was superstition. It 
				was absurd. Most of the people who signed that statement 
				wouldn't know a Gemini from a Taurus. Yet they were perfectly 
				willing to declare there was no scientific evidence for 
				astrology."
 
			David Wilson was clearly 
			on his soap box. I just listened.  
				
				"It's the basic 
				appeal to authority rather than evidence. The Pope says you 
				shouldn't wear prophylactics--he's the Pope, after all. And a 
				CSICOP T.V. scientist says there's no evidence for psychokinesis--well, 
				he's on T.V. after all. He must know what he's talking about."
				 
			He paused, so I 
			interjected: "How would you characterize the religious and magical 
			approaches?" I was still listening between the lines, trying to get 
			a sense of where Jack Parsons may have been coming from--living 
			simultaneous lives as a rocket genius and a Crowley disciple.  
				
				"The religious and 
				magical approaches are quite distinct. Both believe in an unseen 
				order, a sacred realm. Both are concerned with laws that operate 
				according to one's psychological state. It's difficult to 
				generalize, but the religious approach is basically concerned 
				with worship and reward and punishment. You worship a God by 
				emulating his characteristics. The devotees of Dionysus were 
				infused with his spirit. Followers of Jesus receive and express 
				his love. 
 "The magician is more pragmatic. Crowley defined magic as the 
				`art and science of causing changes in conformity with will.' 
				That is, magic integrates psychology and physics. Magicians 
				believe in the Hermetic principal `as above, so below.' There is 
				a complete correspondence between the inner and outer world, 
				between the microcosm and macrocosm, between your state of mind 
				and your outer world experience.
 
 "The magical approach is technological in that you want to bring 
				about changes in your own or others behavior, in the state of 
				society, or in physical matter. But the starting point for 
				effecting change is the consciousness of the magician himself. 
				Or herself.
 
 "A magician would not hesitate to use a religious approach. For 
				example, a magician might meditate on the God Dionysus, or 
				perform a prayer or ritual dedicated to Dionysus, in order to 
				infuse his own consciousness with the Dionysian spirit, if this 
				were important for the accomplishment of a particular goal.
 
 "Neither would a magician hesitate to study science. Science is, 
				after all, a very powerful method for getting at certain aspects 
				of physical reality. In fact, one standard type of magical 
				exercise involves immersing yourself in a point of view 
				alternative to what you are normally accustomed.
 
 "Around here," he waved his hand vaguely at the surrounding 
				walls--I assumed he meant the university--"we talk about putting 
				on our psychologist's hat, or economist's hat, or physicist's 
				hat--meaning you interpret something in terms of the 
				conventional wisdom of that profession. A good magician believes 
				in the multi-model approach. For the moment he may become a 
				psychologist, or economist, or physicist, or he may take the 
				cosmic viewpoint of a priest in the ancient Egyptian city of On, 
				or adopt the paranoia of a life-long member of the John Birch 
				society. The manipulation of reality requires a plasticity of 
				consciousness."
 
 "Aren't there different types of magic?" I asked. "How does, 
				say, black magic differ from white magic?"
 
 Wilson laughed. "How does the gas mileage of white cars compare 
				to that of black cars?"
 
 "You're saying there's no difference."
 
 "Not at all. People who buy black cars may be, in general, 
				different drivers from people who buy white cars, so white cars 
				may get different mileage." He paused. "I suppose there are 
				different ways to answer your question. On the one hand there's 
				the good-guys-wear-white-hats approach. White magic is what we 
				do. Black magic is what anyone I don't like does. In this sense, 
				`white' magic is magic used for a purpose you approve of.
 
 "But magic is really a neutral technology, somewhat independent 
				of the goals of the magician."
 
 Wilson paused, thought for a moment, then decided to stop there.
 
 "Nothing you have said so far makes Crowley or magic seem all 
				that awful, aside from whether you think it makes any sense." I 
				said. "So why does the mention of Crowley's name arouse so much 
				hostility?"
 
 "Oh. For a number of reasons. Crowley wasn't all that nice of a 
				guy. He was a notorious practical joker and show-off. If anyone 
				conceived a disagreeable opinion of Crowley, he went out of his 
				way to confirm their worst impressions, often acting like a 
				dirty-minded little kid. It was perhaps the inevitable 
				consequence of growing up in a family who believed in the 
				literal truth of the Bible, thought they were the only true 
				Christians, and looked forward to the imminent return of Christ. 
				Besides the fact that he enjoyed manipulating others' 
				perceptions of reality, Crowley was, I think, practicing the 
				magical principle that relates the degree of power you have over 
				someone to your capacity to generate intense emotion in that 
				person. That is, it was better they spoke badly of him, than 
				they not speak of him at all.
 
 "He was a show-off alright. When he first left Cambridge, he 
				went around as a Count Vladimir Savareff. Another time, when the 
				Paris authorities had commissioned a bronze butterfly to cover 
				the private parts of the monument which Jacob Epstein had made 
				for the tomb of Oscar Wilde in Pere-Lachaise, Crowley stole the 
				butterfly and showed up at the Cafe Royal with the butterfly 
				afixed as a cod-piece over his evening dress.
 
 "Then there was sex. Remember, we are talking about the early 
				part of the twentieth century. This was a time when parents 
				still read John Harvey Kellogg's Plain Facts for Old and Young 
				to learn the thirty-nine signs of the secret vice of self-abuse 
				in their children. Kellogg exemplified the spirit of the age 
				when he recommended having the skin covering the end of the 
				penis sewn up to prevent erection, and the application of 
				carbolic acid to the clitoris to prevent abnormal excitement in 
				females.
 
 "Well, Crowley's magic, especially later on, was tantric. It 
				involved sex. To the public at large that made it black magic by 
				definition. The public essentially first heard about Crowley 
				when he opened his Abbey of Thelema at Cefalu in Sicily. The 
				British papers began a campaign of villification claiming that 
				the Abbey was inhabited by drug addicts who spent their days 
				indulging in sexual abominations. As a result, Crowley was 
				banished from the country by Mussolini in 1923."
 
			Banishment by Mussolini? 
			Was that serious condemnation or not? But I dropped that line of 
			thought because here was opportunity to ask a basic question about 
			those sex rituals.  
				
				"What's sex magic?"
				 
			Wilson turned for a 
			moment and looked out the window across his desk.  
				
				"Like most other 
				types of magic ritual, it's a way of reprogramming the human 
				mind," he said finally. He got up and moved to one of the 
				bookshelves. "I usually refer people to this book for the basic 
				mechanism involved."  
			The book was entitled 
			The Mind Possessed: A Physiology of Possession, Mysticism, and Faith 
			Healing. It was written by a British psychiatrist named William 
			Sargant.  
				
				"Sexual magic was 
				practiced by the Ordo Templi Orientis long before Crowley became 
				a member. Crowley, incidentally, always wrote OTO in a manner 
				that made the phallic symbolism of the letters obvious--the O's 
				representing the testicles. He also formed the A in Aleister 
				with curls at the bottoms of the verticle strokes and the 
				cross-bar positioned at the top of the letter, so that the total 
				effect was an ithyphallic version of OTO."  
			The phone rang again. 
			While Wilson talked to a student about an exam, I looked once more 
			at the sheet of paper Wilson had given me when I had first come in 
			the office. A group entitled JPMS had sponsored the flier. The 
			address was in Glendale, California. 
 When Wilson got off the phone, he looked at me as though it were 
			time for me to leave.
 
				
				"Just a couple more 
				quick questions," I said. "There are groups of Crowley followers 
				around today. What are they like?" 
 "It all depends. Many intellectuals read Crowley for the clarity 
				of his thought, which contrasts with a lot of the New Age bilge 
				floating around today-- channelled revelations from 
				35,000-year-old Lemurians and moralistic dolphins and whatnot. 
				But keep in mind the Media-Crowley. The Media-Crowley was the 
				wickedest man alive. Look at the Bantam edition of Crowley's 
				autobiography. Notice the advertising blurb at the top."
 
			He showed me a paperback 
			The Confessions of Aleister Crowley.  
				
				The blurb said these 
				were "the profane and uninhibited memoirs of the most notorious 
				magician, satanist and drug cultist of the 20th century." 
 "Anyone who actually read the book will come away with a much 
				different impression that they get from the cover. But think 
				about it. There are all sorts of kooks and crazies who want to 
				be associated with Crowley because they take this hype 
				seriously. They're looking for a piece of the action of drugs, 
				black masses, satanism, sex, bloody rituals, and whatever else 
				the media have lead them to expect. It's not likely to be a nice 
				crowd. And some of those weirdos can be downright dangerous."
 
 Wilson looked at me carefully. "Downright dangerous," he 
				repeated.
 
 "What about this group?" I held up the sheet of paper with the 
				quotations from Liber Oz, and tapped the name at the bottom.
 
 Wilson shrugged ignorance.
 
 "What does JPMS stand for?"
 
 "Oh that." Wilson didn't bat an eye. "That's the Jack Parsons 
				Memorial Society."
 |