George W. Bush, Barbara Bush, and Aleister Crowley

Nevyn

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/04/george-w-bush-barbara-bush-and.html

But who was Barbara's father? The chronology indicates that it could have been Crowley, but it could just as easily have been Marvin Pierce. The truth regarding Crowlean sexual rituals is disclosed only to the highest initiates of the OTO, in a document misleadingly titled "Emblems and Modes of Use."

Is Aleister Crowley the father of Barbara Bush? Even she may not know for certain; indeed, I have no way of knowing whether she has ever been told that this possibility exists. However, more than one person has noted the resemblance -- and this resemblance is not just physical. Many will recall the former First Lady's haughty and thoughtless remarks in the aftermath of the Katrina disaster. Those "in the know" were reminded of Aleister Crowley's similar reaction to the loss of life which occurred during the ascent of Kangchanjunga, an expedition he commanded: "This is precisely the sort of thing with which I have no sympathy whatsoever

What do you think ?
Is it possible, probably ?

Diogenes

Thaedydal wrote:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/04/george-w-bush-barbara-bush-and.html



What do you think ?
Is it possible, probably ?

Looking at the article there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Pauline Pierce ever met Crowley, never mind had him having his way with her. It reads more like Pauline Pierce, was friends with Harris, who was friends with Crowley, and the author then makes the leap that they were "key associates" of Crowley.

bonkey

Possible?

Yeah, I think its possible.

I also think its possible that the posting date for the article is neither coincidental nor irrelevant.

From a critical perspective, there's a lot of stuff in the article which make me suspicious, but I do acknowlege that Cannon (the author) insists to this day (at least, that I'm aware of) that it was a serious piece.

The important question, in the face of it possibly being true, would be "so what?" from my perspective at least.

Hivemind187

A very interesting geneological question but ultimatly meaningless.

The implication here is that because Aleister Crowley was "evil" therfore his progeny must somehow be evil and then by extention his grand progeny would be evil. A fair point but "evil" is not know to be carried by genetics.

Moreover, Aleister Crowley was not a "devil worshiper" nor a "satanist" by any means of the word. Rather he was an occultist (one who searches for the hidden, with a penchant for egyptology), a spiritualist (one who believes in the existence and power of spirits, specifically goetic demons) and a forerunner of many modern schools of thought and philosophy (free love, free thought, homeopathy etc). Because he wasnt a christian and was more inclined to believe in the "old gods" as well as his philosophy of sexual freedom (rejection of abstinence in favor of the spiritually enlightening and so-called magickal potential).

So Crowley wasnt evil and to be honest, if GW had inherited some of his alledged Grandfathers attitudes maybe some of the current messes might have been avoided.

No conspiracy here I'm afraid, save for maybe some family deceptions.