This year, as commonly reckoned, 1985, has witnessed the deaths of two well known gentlemen.  Both of these men knew Our Father Aleister Crowley (although not as well nor for as long as we were at one time led to believe) and with their passing an era seems to be coming to a close.  When but a few more men and women pass through the gates of death all that will be left behind of the Beast will be words committed to paper.  The old guard will soon be gone and the new will take their place--but will the young ones be any better?

Most recently, on the 12th of July as The Magickal (sic) Link reports, Grady Louis McMurtry died.  It should here be stated for the record that whatever Newaeon has said about Grady and his organization was not said out of petty personal hatred--to be truthful, we had no feelings about Grady one way or the other--but rather our only motivation was and always will be love (under will) for Thelema.

According to Llewellyn's New Times, Francis Israel Regardie died on the evening of March 10th.  (Magickal [sic] Childe not only reported that he "Passed on April 10", but also that he was born on "November 17, 1927" instead of 1907 E.V.)  Despite many shortcomings, Francis did spark interest in the writings of Aleister Crowley just at the right time and helped to bring about the publication of those works, and regardless of his true motives and sources of information, he did present to us a most valuable work on magic, The Golden Dawn.

Whatever their true personal intentions and however much they erred, the Secret Chiefs watched over them and guided their every move.  They served their purpose on earth and did a great deal to revive Magick and Thelema in society and we must thank them for this.

It is our sincere wish that both Grady and Francis find safe passage on their new journey and that they experience many new adventures beyond the veil.

Fraternally yours,
Kelly
Frater Keallach 93/676

[TNN.IV.4.TP-1, AUTUMNAL EQUINOX, SEPTEMBER 1985 E.V.]

A Salt & Water set, briar and clay pipes Aleister Crowley is said to have once owned, along with rare works by the Master Therion, these things and more we are told can be found at the Lawrence Museum of Magic & Witchcraft.  Anyone interested in visiting the museum is welcome and admission is, we are told, "a sea shell, pine cone, acorn, stone, feather, anything from Nature, or any little Magick item the visitor has made with his or her skill."  For more information you may wish to write to Merlin & Moonstone at the Graverobber's Gazette, P. O. Box 219, Galveston, Indiana 46932.

[1997 E.V. NOTE:  Please note the original publication date at the end of this bit of miscellany.  The current status of the museum is unknown to me at this time. -ED]

In a past issue of the Circle Network News there appeared an ad which read:  "A FREE COPY of Aleister Crowley's Liber OZ" and all one has to do to obtain this is to send a self-addressed stamped envelope to M.Levin, P.O. Box 3151, Miami, FL 33169.  Right.  Remember the old saying, "Nothing in this life is for free"?  No one I know received the copy of Liber OZ, but M.Levin sure got a lot of free stamped envelopes!  Sounds like mail fraud to me...

In that same issue of Circle Network News there was another advertisement of interest to us.  A person was willing to part with, and I quote, "Aleister Crowley blessed pinky ring", and for only $1800.00...gee, what a wonderful deal!  I wrote to Eden, 3650 Nicholson, # 1185, Baton Rouge, LA 70802, as the ad had it, and along with cut up sections of my letter of inquiry, marked with blue felt-tipped pen and numbered, I received a letter written on very qliphothically decorated stationary that was crudely xeroxed.  I asked how this person ("Eden Elizabeth Mai Ying/Mountbatten/Lin Jit Nihg Tai Tai"?) got the ring and received an improbable story.  How do we know the ring was blessed by A.C.?  Easy!  "Aslif ask Aleyestlair"...but of course!  Wonder if a buyer will be found?  They say there's a sucker born every minute...

[TNN.V.5.TP, NOVEMBER 1986 E.V.]

According to Christian doctrine we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  After they "sinned", that is wanted "to know" and realize their own divine nature, their "bright natures" were taken away from them and they were cast out of Paradise and into this cruel hard world of ours.  Here they begat their sons, Cain and Abel.  Cain murdered Abel and the reason for this murder seems a bit vague in the Bible,  However, according to "The First Book of Adam and Eve", once accepted as part of the Judeo-Christian Bible but later rejected, the motivation was Cain's desire for Able's woman.  What woman?  The Bible often neglects to mention women and in this case the reason is most obvious.  Christianity wants its followers to believe, to blindly accept and follow, and while consistantly insulting its followers it often does its best to disguise those insults.  Think about it.  If Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and they had sons who would have to marry to propagate the human species, they would have to marry women.  Speculation:  Did they have sexual intercourse with their mother?  No.  The book later rejected by Christianity explains that Cain was born with a twin sister named Luluwa, and that about three years later Able was born with a twin sister named Aklia (or Aklemia) and that their parents decided to marry each to the other's twin.  Marrying sister to brother was the only solution.  However, Cain wanted his own twin sister because she was the more attractive one and so he killed his brother for her.  Cain and Luluwa were exiled and Seth was later born and eventually married Aklia, his much older sister.  By rejecting "The First Book of Adam and Eve" Christianity had hoped, in part, to obscure the matter, demanding its followers to accept their dogma and follow blindly, without reason.  We are to accept the fact that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and leave it at that.  However, Christianity insults its followers by implying that they--that the whole of the human race--is the product of incestuous inbreeding, which, as we all know, is supposed to produce mentally deficient offspring.  Say!  Maybe they have a point.  I have always said that everyone is at least a little bit crazy, off centre, off balance, at least in the beginning, and that sanity is merely the degree of insanity that is generally acceptable, but this is beside the point.  Christians seem to miss the point, very often, that their own religious doctrines insult them.  Of course, Christianity is always referring to its prophet, Jesus, as the Lamb, and to its followers as the "flock", with Jesus as the "good shepherd".  According to Webster, metaphorically, a lamb is "a person easily tricked or outwitted" and a sheep is "a person who is silly, stupid, meek, timid, defenseless, etc."  How long, I wonder, are Christians going to allow themselves to be rudely insulted before they wake up and begin to think and reason for themselves?

[TNN.V.5.5, NOVEMBER 1986 E.V.]

Christian dogma teaches its followers that we are all born into this world with "original sin", that is to say, that no babe is born innocent but with the "sin" of its ancestors on its soul which that new born babe must suffer for.  (A concept lacking all sense of justice.)  Thus the guilt complex, cruelly used to keep the "flock" in line, is immediately instilled, creating from the moment of the person's birth an emotional and psychological imbalance that is continually reinforced by Christian dogma as the person grows older.

In Thelema there is no concept of "original sin".  The nearest concept is that of Karma, that is, the Law of Action and Reaction, or Cause and Effect.  We are born into this world to experience, not necessarily to "suffer", the effects of our past incarnations, not the "sins" of others, and we are meant to learn from our experiences.  Our actions in previous incarnations are the cause of the effects in our present incarnation.  These were and are "good" or "bad" depending upon the Point of View as well as the nature of the True Will involved.

In Thelema there is no "guilt trip" for there is only one "sin" which Liber AL vel Legis sub figura CCXX (The Book of the Law) explains in Chapter I, Verse 41:  "The word of Sin is Restriction."  That is to say that we should not interfere with what might be the Will, or "divine purpose", of another, nor should we restrict ourselves by not doing our Will on earth.

Part of the reason for the Christian priesthood to place the burden of "original sin" upon its followers is to give purpose to their priesthood, to make it seem necessary.  An intermediary is needed, a person that can communicate between God and sinful man, and to redeem the sinner the priest and only the priest has the right to forgive those sins--which, nonetheless, since they are so easily forgiven makes it possible for most Christians to go out and commit them over and over again, being forgiven at the end of the week of sinning, wiping the slate clean to start all over again after a formal confession in private, a few Our Fathers and Hail Marys.  The fact that the Master Jesus said that "the son of man has the power to forgive sin" is explained by the priesthood as meaning that only Jesus or his representatives, the priests, have this power.  They ignore the logic of the Master they misrepresent for it is clear to any thinking being that Jesus the Nazarene not only referred to himself with that phrase, "son of man", but also to all of us who are quite naturally the son (or daughter) of man--for have not we all had a father who was a man?  In short, the Christian priests are not needed to forgive the sins committed against us or the sins we commit for we, all of us, have the power to forgive those sins.  Christianity while pretending to wash the soul clean also does its best to wash brains.

Of course what can one expect of a degenerate religion like modern day Christianity which dictates, as if they were absolutes, what is "good" and what is "evil" for everyone, ignoring and discouraging individuality.  "Good" and "evil" like "right" and "wrong" are not absolutes.  They are relative terms in a relative universe, somewhat different for each individual in every unique situation and dependent upon one's Point of View.  Thus what may be a "sin" for one may be quite the contrary for another.  And while we may have to endure or enjoy the results of others' actions, ultimately we are responsible only for our own actions in life and not those of others.

Modern day Christianity, which has little to do with the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene, rules its "flock" as a slave master, through fear of hell and eternal damnation if one "dies in sin", employing herd psychology, whereas Thelema teaches that we are all free and there is no eternal damnation--simply results that we will experience dependent upon our own actions.

[TNN.V.6.5, JANUARY 1987 E.V.]