Shadow: Raniere & Crowley Were Much Alike
By Shadow State
According to Catherine Oxenberg’s book “Captive”, Allison Mack was obsessed with the notion of penance.
That’s why Mack imposed strict diets and cold showers on her slaves and on herself.
That’s why Mack identified so strongly with Joan of Arc.
Well, now, Allison Mack has lots of sins to do penance for.
As for Aleister Crowley, just like J.Z. Knight who claims to channels an entity called Ramtha, Crowley claimed to communicate with Spirit Beings.
“Crowley claimed to have been contacted by a supernatural entity named Aiwass, who provided him with The Book of the Law, a sacred text that served as the basis for Thelema. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley
Crowley’s Mumbo Jumbo provided the basis for L. Ron Hubbard’s Scientology and indirectly NXIVM.
Crowley’s “Do what thou wilt” sounds a lot like Raniere’s emphasis on experiencing “Joy.”
Crowley gained notoriety during his lifetime as a recreational drug experimenter and bisexual.
Crowley was a libertine much like Raniere.
Crowley was bisexual, but exhibited a sexual preference for women, with homosexual relationships being fewer and more in the early part of his life.
He had an attraction toward “exotic women” and in later life, Crowley was able to attract young bohemian women as his lovers. During homosexual anal intercourse, he played the passive role.
Crowley had frequent sex with prostitutes leading to his venereal diseases, much like Raniere’s rumored herpes.
Keith Alan Raniere isnlt a sociopath. He's a simple conman and grifter - who stumbled onto Bronfman millions.
Keith Alan Raniere in his days as the Vanguard
Like Raniere, Crowley exhibited signs of anti-Semitism.
Crowley insulted his Jewish friend, Victor Neuburg, using anti-Semitic slurs and had mixed opinions about Jews. He praised their “sublime” poetry and their “imagination, romance, loyalty, probity and humanity”.
He also said that centuries of persecution led some Jews to exhibit “avarice, servility, falseness, cunning and the rest”
Women were insulted by Crowley’s views of them.
“Crowley described women as “moral inferiors” who had to be treated with “firmness, kindness, and justice”.
Raniere said that women were weak-willed and did not uphold honor like men do. This was the basis of his teachings in SOP and Jness. Indeed, it was Raniere’s idea that DOS, the master-slave group would end the moral inferiority of women, He wanted women to become bad-asses.
They're both examples of a nasty human being.
But that's pretty much where the similarity ends. Crowley was an occultist, bisexual, a world wanderer, and a prolific author. He wrote poetry and fiction as well as his looney occult visions, he rubbed shoulders with painters, sculptors, and writers in Paris, London, and Berlin. He lived in North Africa and the Far East, he bought an estate in Scotland, wore the kilt and passed himself off as a Scottish Laird. He considered himself a gentleman and did not believe in getting paid for teaching the mysteries of the occult. Rainiere is the exact opposite; his “technology” is very much for sale, he wouldn't know the arts if they bit him on the ass, and preferred to remain glued to the environs of upstate New York, living in a tacky suburban development in Nowheresville, NY. Crowley was an asshole, but he was an asshole with good taste and wide ranging interests. He ran through his fortune by the time he was forty, traveled the world, scaled mountains, and had a grand time. He inspired a Somerset Maugham novel, The Magician.
Crowley is interesting. Rainiere is not; he's a money-grubbing little man whose vision of the good life never went beyond sleeping most of the day, eating pizza, and getting laid. He's mercenary, he loves money, but doesn't know what to do with it, other than lose it in bad investments. See the world? Nah, he'd rather sprawl on a dirty couch and watch reruns of Star Trek. The man led the most uninteresting life imaginable and the most remarkable thing about him is that he managed to screw up so spectacularly. Hannah Arendt famously wrote of “the banality of evil”; Raniere would be the perfect contemporary illustration of the concept except I can't elevate his tawdry nastiness to the level of Evil.
I'm no defender of Aleister Crowley, he hit his wife and sacrificed small animals. The only reason I have posted about him is in response to other posts. Just to correct the record. In the popular imagination Crowley is this great evil, a Satanist and the opponent of all that is good and holy. In fact he was not a Satanist, he was a Pagan. And yes, there is a difference. The son of fanatically religious parents, he rebelled against the restrictive Victorian moralism of his youth. He was Gay in both senses of the word. He was an interesting eccentric whereas Keith Raniere is a surpassingly dull felon. Rainier is perhaps the least interesting racketeer in the history of racketeering. He ruined lives and burned through others' money for nothing, not even for the sake of a grandiose lifestyle for himself. The man is literally a waste of space.