Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Crowley Myth #5 :: Is Aleister Crowley George W. Bush's Grandpa?

Barbara Bush/Aleister Crowley
Barbara Bush's photo side by Crowley's. People oft chose shots with the two in similar poses etc, to add weight to that Barbara is rumored to be Crowley's daughter. 


Many say that Barbara Bush was Aleister Crowley's biological daughter. But the evidence (or lack of it) is clear to see, and...



No Matter What Anyone Thinks, it Just isn't So


by Jude Chi


It is commonly bandied about, that Barbara Bush is Aleister Crowley's daughter. If that were true, former president George W. Bush, naturally, would be his grandson. But is it true?

Analysis: ❌ This is false.

What can be said about this "myth"? How did it originate? How did it become so popular? Is there any basis to it? Let's look at these things, and see what light we can shed on them. It is my duty through this article to prove that Barbara Bush is not Crowley's daughter--that is, at least as much as it's possible. Though there's no proof or any logical reason to believe that it's true, it's possible that anything could have been written between the lines of documented history.

Where did the idea that George W. Bush is Aleister Crowley's grandson, originate from? The concept was first presented in 2006, through an article published on April Fool's day, no less. The article states that the blog author researched this on some level, and offers that the initial premise the article was founded upon was that Pauline Pierce, Barbara Bush's mother, was friends with Nellie O'Hara, who lived with Frank Harris in Paris at the time this would have unfolded. 


Ultimately, a lot of reading was done on my part, that yielded this: there is no evidence whatsoever, to support that Crowley was Barbara's biological father, and no evidence supporting that Pauline encountered Crowley. Furthemore, if one scouts the Net for research purposes, what they will primarily find on this, are instances where people've quoted pieces of the April Fool's article, not realizing it was one. I came across a seemingly convincing article or two, that ultimately cited no sources of proof whatsoever, or pointed at snippets from books citing no sources of origin. To imagine, to some that constitutes proof.


Question: An imaginary tale thrown out as a prank, is all there is to this? Answer: Nods head. I am afraid so.


Any articles wherein people insist that Crowley is Bush's father, dig deeper into the theory that Crowley actually met Pauline. But to repeat, this cannot be substantiated. The closest we can get to the truth, is what is quoted on this Gizmodo article. Within it, author Tobias Churton, who read Crowley's diary, said "but I had not seen the name of the lady in question in his diary." "Crowley was very well known in artistic circles in Montparnasse and was highly gregarious, so the chances of the lady being charmed by AC, as many other women were, is high; but there is no direct evidence, that I am aware of, that could lend conviction to the hypothesis that the lady’s pregnancy was the result of a passion for AC." Churton added that there were gaps in the diary; however, that too proves naught.

One point that screams to be made here, is that many who write articles on this, are doing it entirely to produce sensationalistic pieces; so factuality is not a prime requisite. It has been said a few times over, that "they have the same eyes." Well let's analyze that one small point. One, it proves nothing. Two, Crowley was heavy into heroin due to his asthma, and one gets a sense from looking at his photos, that the buggy eyes are aligned with that. I am no physician or healthcare worker whatsoever, but looking at Barbara Bush's photo hints to me of Graves. So my mind, which takes on a comedic slant at the best of times, goes--"that AC had issues with drugs that made his eyes prominent in later life, and that Barbara Bush potentially had thyroid issues that made her eyes prominent, is proof that they are related? Phffft!!..."


The Truth:
People, and primarily mainstream religion communities, have long worked to desecrate the memory of Aleister; and naturally this phenomenon is the only fuel such fallacies need to propel them. He may not be regarded as a hero, but he was a high achiever and left the world of occultism and magick with much to consider. Additionally, he left the world of faith with Thelema as a philosophy. AC was a bold and proud man; he'd have been proud to state that Barbara, or any other child for that matter, was his if it was true. Bottom line is, it is nothing more than a superficial notion to say that Crowley was George W. Bush's grandpa.

I issued a query to the prank blog post's author, and his now paraphrased response was: "I've admitted this many times. The article was published on April 1st, and I never thought anyone would take it seriously. Unfortunately, this country is filled with conspiracy-crazed people, who are emotionally wedded to a belief in 'evil bloodlines.' It is sickening.

In part, that April 1st article was intended as a test. I wanted to see if anyone would take the logical first step that any Journalism 101 student should take -- a step which you yourself have taken. In short: I wondered whether anyone would write to the author and ask 'Where did you get this information? Did you make it up?' 

The piece was published in 2006. In the 12 years since then only TWO people have taken that logical first step. You are the second. That fact says something about the state of our culture."  ~ J. Cannon

Though this post may have failed to outrightly prove that Barbara was not Crowley's daughter, it brought to light that the entire premise was based upon a prank, or in other words, an outright lie. To underscore the point--without that prank, this whole theory would never have been born.

And to conclude this piece, a quote from long term OTO icon, Bill Heidrick, who said (in his classy, tongue-in-cheek style) in response to my querying him on this: "As near as I can tell, it's BS, not BB. For that matter, it doesn't make a bit of difference how many people believe it for whatever reason -- advertisements for fad products to the contrary, the more people believe some silly bit, the less likely it is to be true. The world's great religions are a major case in point -- since they all contradict one another (often themselves internally), it is no issue how many people believe they will go to some sort of heaven or hell for picking or not picking an arbitrary nit. 

As to the Crowley-Bush allegation, it's not worth a DNA test on Jerry Springer -- Springer probably wouldn't want it anyway because the subjects in question are no longer available for a food fight. Absence of evidence creates a presumption of doubt, rising to falsity in cases of lascivious political interest; and Crowley was much given to acknowledgement of his offspring. If Crowley had done, he would have said.

I haven't seen anything in the extant Crowley diaries about a Pauline Pierce. In any event, Crowley marked his diaries with particular symbols to indicate various forms of sexual activity, and just meeting someone would not be an indication of anything but a meeting and whatever else was written down. You can't get Crowley from a toilet seat!"

As for me, Jude, the blog author, my concluding thought is this--this piece has presented as close to the entire truth that could be gleaned at this point in time. Yet as has long been the case, people will want to rebuke it, turn their backs on it. Perhaps that's because without having someone to attribute the Devil persona to, this world is too difficult for many to make sense of.

** I have permission from Bill Heidrick to quote him, under the condition I make it known that he will not be available to respond to comments.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Understand that though I love to receive blog comments, I can only post those that are not spammy and that are relevant to the post, all others will be deleted.

Video Bar