First, I want to correct and clarify my previous remarks about Futhark
(runes) and WWII (Crowley's relationship with Hitler). I had mentioned
previously in my discussion/questions regarding the Futhark runes that
Crowley "eagerly took meetings with Hitler," who, as we know, used the
Runes as part of his whole campaign of racist religious-political
system. Since then, I was asked where I got this information. I
attempted to explain twice that it came from a John Symonds book and
provided a quote. As I was providing the quote, I attempted to explain
that I had forgotten that Symonds was a known slanderer and liar and
therefore the quote was meaningless. However, since I never provided a
proper citation, none of these messages got through. The moderators
were wise enough to ask for a specific citation (book and page
number), since anyone can come up with any old lie and claim it's true
(as Symonds apparently did).
So, now to clarify...
I actually don't have the Symonds book, unfortunately. I believe it is
supposed to be a quote from his book "The Great Beast." I got the
quote about Crowley 'eagerly taking meetings with Hitler' from here:
Of course, the URL would give away that I shouldn't be looking for
proper information about Crowley here, but for whatever reason, I
stumbled on the page a few months ago and brought it up during a
discussion of WWII on heruraha.net. There is a man there who is a good
one to ask about anything and he has had access to most everything
Crowley ever wrote, so I asked him about it. From what he said, there
seemed to be somewhat of a fairly verifiable close proximity of
Crowley and Hitler, at least, and that is what I had remembered most
about the discussion. For instance, Crowley's aquaintances had met
Hitler and Crowley had met some of Hitler's officers, but as far as
Crowley and Hitler actually meeting face-to-face, there is no evidence
to suggest it. Also, he didn't necessarily disbelieve what Symonds
reports Crowley remarking; he just seemed to indicate that even if
Crowley DID say these things, there was most likely an explanation
which Symonds conveniently left out (or was possibly too stupid to
comprehend). But, with a known slanderer like Symonds being the only
source to confirm or deny such a quote, and with no indication
anywhere else that Crowley took ANY meetings with Hitler, there is no
need to further consider the words of a known liar and slanderer.
Now, as for Futhark, specifically, there is a rune called Eihwaz,
which I am not the only one to have noticed bears a striking
resemblance to Aiwaz, since my initial post was a reponse to a
previous list post in which someone asked, "So, is Aiwaz really
Eihwaz?" Alternate forms of the rune look rather like the peace sign
of the 60s, which was the dawning of the New Aeon it seems. An author
named Jan Fries has taken a very Thelemic attitude toward the Runes.
If Crowley was so against the attitudes and morals of the Abrahamic
religions, it does seem logical that the Rune culture, notoriously
self-reliant, bold and people-based, WILL power-based, and absolutely
Heathen and Anti-Christ would make a natural "fit" for Crowley's
vision of Thelema. After all, he mixed everything that was available
at his time to the best of his knowledge and experience.
However, since then, since I just recently found out "Eihwaz" is from
a reconstructed proto-Germanic language and not authentic. When I
mentioned this to one of the moderators here, he said:
# "like Hadit? exhibit 666? unedited scripture?
# all very excellent topic focus in-list should
# you desire to broach them."
These are some very interesting points about Hadit and the 666
exhibit. I guess maybe I was vaguely thinking along these lines
initially and lost track of it... Aiwaz was a master manipulator and
he DID seem to indicate the birthing of the New Aeon would be
bloody... and both WWII and the 60's could be considered the "bloody
What do you think?