|
Correspondence from Gerald Yorke to Charles Stansfeld Jones
28 May 1948
Dear Jones,
Your 24/5/48. Page 1. I hope that you will continue to treat me as a witness. The fact that one other contacted your MA-ION current confirms the existence of the current, but has no bearing on the validity of the current.
Page 2. Aren't you basing an argument on a misprint? Chapter VI of The Equinox of the Gods is a reprint of The Temple of Solomon the King in Equinox I, 7. In the latter p. 386 it reads "It must have been on the 7th of April that W. commanded P. . . . to enter the temple exactly at 12 o'clock noon . . .". In The Equinox of the Gods this becomes "It must have been on the first of April . . ." A.C. was a careless proof reader. There is no fresh work in The Equinox of the Gods, which consists entirely of the reprint of things written elsewhere. I am certain that this is a misprint. You can of course argue that the misprint is of magical significance, but in my opinion that is balls. You are twisting facts to meet your theory, and that weakens your theory.
Page 2. Are you not being unjust to Saturnus [Karl Germer]? Not being a Qabalist, it is natural for him to mistrust revelations based mainly on Qabalistic interpretations of Liber Legis. As a sincere believer in A.C. he takes literally the latter's comment "The study of this book is forbidden . . . Whosoever disregards this does so at his peril . . . Those who discuss this book are to be shunned by all . . .". You are unjust to Saturnus in thinking him so small a man that as a result of A.C.'s quarrel with Tränker [Heinrich Tränker], which led to them refusing to allow Tränker to publish your and A.C.'s works, Saturnus would :get it in for you personally". I have much of the contemporary correspondence and your name is not mentioned.
How do you make "The Name Jesus" add to 666? TO ONOMA, 'The Name', which is Greek Qabala, adds to 601 and IHSOUS to 888. Jesus has always been equated with the number 8, the Messenger God, never with 6, the Solar-Phallic force, yet here you are equating Him with 666. There are times when I mistrust your qabalah, twisting it to suit your thesis. You can stretch the qabalah to fir anything.
I agree with Saturnus in fulfilling his 'clerkship' role identifies himself with 666 and that current, which is a totally different one to your MANIFESTATION and MA-ION. You are grossly unjust to Saturnus when you say "it is doubtful whether Saturnus can or would supply accurate and truthful details". If he sent them to you they would be truthful, but if he denies your message, he might decide not to send them to you, and it would be only natural in view of the fact that you are refusing him Liber 31, and your refusal came first. If you want me to check the entries in A.C.'s recent diaries on specific dates, let me know the dates, and what you want me to look for. I am not keeping a copy of the old boy's diaries from 1928 onwards, as I do not think them worth copying out. They contain no record of magical workings.
Your letter distresses me somewhat, as I see bitterness in it, or am I merely reading my own weaknesses into it?
I do not like your argument that Saturnus is 'unjust' because he does not accept your revelation. He may be mistaken, but that does not mean he is unjust. If he believes you are mistaken, he naturally attributes that mistake to Choronzon, and is honest enough to tell you so. You say that A.C. "as late as 1936 recognised the possibility of the Aeon of Truth and Justice coming in". On 31/5/46 A.C. wrote to Saturnus as follows:
The question of Fra . . . seems to me very typical. He reminds me up to a point—though he is on a much lower plane than they—of two men who joined the Order shortly after I took it over: both cases seem to me to have certain significance if applied to the present case of Fra . . .
Both cases were alike in this—that, after a very short period of training, both had more than fulfilled their early promise; they could claim not only attainment but achievement, and that in no small degree. I am sorry that there is no possibility of making any similar claim on behalf of Fra . . .
The elder of the two men rashly took the oath of a Master of the Temple. He must have failed to expel the last drop of blood into the Cup of Our Lady, Babalon, for a comparatively few months later he got an "initiation" (by his own account) so marvellous that it superseded our own work altogether. It was of course much too sacred for him to give even the least hint of its nature.
What was the result? From the moment his attainment stopped; he never produced anything from that hour to this which was worthy of a moment's consideration. Now, after thirty years he has realized his mistake; he has come crawling back in penitence. But that will not do him the service of filling up the gap of 30 wasted years!
Saturnus in his letter to you of May 18 is merely passing on to you what he considered to be A.C.'s considered opinion after A.C. had read your communications of 1932, 1936, and your All Fool's Day message of 1946. It is legitimate to criticise his letter as a result of obsession by the current 666, but quite false to attribute it to complexes and personal feelings against you. He does not 'dislike' you, he merely accepts A.C.'s opinion as the latter expressed it to him. If A.C.'s opinion as expressed above is correct, it follows logically that "your demon is leading you to his planned and awful goal". Saturnus is not trying to save his face, he is merely telling you that he accepts your 'magical sire's' opinion of you.
Yours,
|