I'm convinced that Aleister Crowley is a folk hero. It is the only way I can reconcile the dissonance between his continued influence in Western Occultism and the fact that he was a terrible example of a magician. It seems to me that he single-handedly obfuscated over 100 years of occultism and occult study, becoming the very "Ape of Thoth" he saw in others.
The reason I bring this up is that I've been reading a new (2016) book on magic, and find the influence of Crowley still overshadows the writings and work of far superior 20th century occultists. The author derides 19th century occult schools (calling them Victorian swingers' clubs) while still using old man Crowley as an authority. The book is about abandoning outmoded thinking in the 21st century!
It seems as though authors would rather lean on this wealthy rebellious Victorian rather than brave the remote possibility of being seen as a Christian sympathizer by referencing the work of other occultists. This is just as personally dogmatic as the doctrines against which they are supposedly rebelling in the first place. It's the exact same blinders to which they are pointing in mainstream society.
Yet, authors like Dion Fortune, Paul Foster Case, W.E. Butler, Dolores Ashcroft-Nowicki, and others, are only superficially Christian at best. Some are down right Pagan! Butler was a Liberal Catholic priest, sure, but Crowley formed at Gnostic Catholic Church! In both cases, Catholic means "Universal," and the Roman Catholic Church was the Universal Church of Rome, the official state religion of the empire. If you push past that and read Butler, you'll see he's far more Gnostic than Roman, and in fact more Gnostic than Crowley's "Gnostic" church. (Crowley never lived to know about the Nag Hammidi texts, this discovery coming only two years before his death while Crowley was in poor health.)
Quite possibly the most frustrating part about reading modern "occultists" is "Chaos Magic" and certain Wiccan approaches to Western Occultism. I get that Wicca is basically stripped down for export. Crowley thought it was "Thelema for the masses" or some such. So I can be a little more forgiving of its lack of sound theory, but the Chaos Magic writers seem to have found only half of the keys, and somehow continually miss the point.
The thing is, I keep reading Chaotes at the insistence of a good friend, but continually find my opinion reinforced. On one hand, they may have a strong grasp of modern economics, but then give a practical instruction that could only come from someone without a solid theoretical basis in magic or ceremonial. They will quote quantum theory on one page and then seem to miss how it's connected to ritual theory on another. They'll discuss the importance of magic's psychological impact, but then miss how that impact can best be applied.
One thing that got me was a ritual instruction that referred to candles and incense as "mere theatrics." This completely misses the point of magical work in the first place. Certainly, in today's age, candles are theatrical, but the psychological impact is to trigger our subconscious mind in order to make it receptive to the work we are undertaking. We have innumerable cultural images of candle-lit rituals and even the experience of candles as ritual and magical tools (regardless of religious tradition) that to discount them outright is to miss a valuable tool.
To dismiss theatrics is equally poor theory. The power of psychodrama is a cornerstone of all occult work as it implants images and suggestions into the subconscious mind, the place where magic really happens. And do dismiss the well documented power of scent as tied to mental and psychological processes is, beyond words.
Often the things about which they write are internally inconsistent. On one hand an author might suggest that the best way to be initiated is through a ritual using psychotropic drugs as administered ritually by a trained Shamen or Priest. Yet at another point dismiss other initiatory traditions. In my understanding of occult theory, there is no difference. Both methods require the administration of initiation by an external initiator. Regardless of method, the initiatory experience is dependant upon the power and experience of the initiator. It is up to them to prepare you for the initiatory experience, to plug you in and turn you on so that the initiatory experience can manifest.
Both types of initiation only prepare you for the experience which then manifests separately. Even the most powerful initiatory experience can still take years to properly ground out and manifest in the personality regardless of the presence of presently illegal psychotropics. Furthermore, the incenses that are traditionally used in these initiatory traditions are, themselves, psychoactive in nature. Dittany of Crete, Myrrh, Sandalwood, Frankincense, Aloeswood, etc... Dion Fortune writes about using the Fire of Azrael—using Juniper, Sandlewood, and Cedar—as a magical tool.
Psychodrama itself, when used properly, can have very similar effects on the brain as various psychoactive plants. Include the psychological impact of a well written ceremonial combined with appropriate lighting and copious amounts of the traditional incenses, and a legitimate initiator, and you have everything necessary to plug in and turn on anyone who is ready to be turned on.
I say "ready to be turned on" because it doesn't matter what methods you use, if the individual is not ready, the initiation simply will not occur. Even if you're using a heavy-handed method like LSD or peyote, you're more likely to just have a "good trip" than an initiatory experience.
Further, it seems to me that most people don't understand what initiation is about anyway.
Although this "turning on" is important, it is only one part of the process. The other parts include impressing on the subconscious the keys that access the particular current into which you are being initiated, and to welcome you to an ingroup of some description. This is why, regardless of experience or education, you must be "initiated" into every different group with which you wish to work. Initiation also connects you to an egregore and a current of force specific to that group. I cannot imagine much benefit to being "turned on" without having a current or egregore with which to connect. To my mind, initiating a person simply to initiate them, and then leave them to their own devices, is unethical.
In may ways, I do agree with some of the things these guys are writing. Yes, we need to break out of the societal moulds into which we are placed. We need to rebel against the barrage of advertising that constantly tries to make us conform. But I often wonder if these writers are conflating Ethics and Morals. One has to do with conforming to social customs, the other has to do with causing harm to self and others.
Perhaps the most important thing I take away from reading modern occult writers is that I've been extremely fortunate in my occult career. Perhaps it is not their fault that they lack a good foundation in magical theory. In many ways, this seems a self-fulfilling cycle. Authors who don't have a good foundation in occult theory inspire other writers to work from the same position.
The cool kids all reject formal occult education, and so they perpetrate a lack of understanding when it comes to occult and magical theory. They then end up falling back onto the rock-star attitudes of a certain extremely wealthy Victorian madman who, more than anything else, loved to see his name in print. He thumbed his nose at authority, and got angry when anyone said no to him. He's the perfect folk hero for an age where we're seeing our Post-WWII economy fail, and feel some of his ideas on religion are being vindicated.
But here's my problem. Crowley died destitute, addicted to heroin, alone, and quite possibly insane. He either drove all of his wives and partners mad, or was only attracted to women who suffered from mental illness in the first place. He utterly wasted a massive fortune while thinking he was both a Gnostic Saint and the new Messiah, delivering the Word of the Gods unto humanity. From all reports, he was an abusive megalomaniac, and is, in my opinion, the perfect example of a failed magician. His should be a cautionary tale, a fate to avoid at all costs. Someone to avoid.
The problem with other occult authors is that most of them lived quite, fulfilling lives surrounded by friends, family, and beloved students. They wrote, not for shock value, not to get their names in papers, but because they felt they had something worth sharing with the world. The best of them were always humble, seeing themselves as servants of the greater good, whatever they might call it in their personal cosmology. In short, they lived the Great Work. Maybe that's not sexy enough for the post-modern era, I don't know. What I do know is that the world about which the Chaotes write is not one with which I can relate. The occultists to whom they refer are not representative of those with whom I've worked.
...And once again, I'm reminded how lucky I've been.
Regardless of my feelings towards the Order's administration, the Work has given me an excellent education.