"This latest maniac"
I've said it before: when I read Hunter S Thompson's name in The Franklin Cover-Up I just about gave up on the book. Not that I'm a such a fan; only that his appearance, of all the book's apparent excesses, seemed to me the most improbable. Even knowing he was not a squishy liberal so much as a hard-core libertarian, who appeared as well as any Thelemite to live by Aleister Crowley's law of "Do what thou wilt," it didn't seem a fit. Because even though he kept some strange company - even saying in 2003, "I don't hate Bush personally. I used to know him. I used to do some drugs here and there" - it seemed too strange to think that the company would want to keep him.
Here is a page, maintained by a member of the Temple of Set, of Michael Aquino's partial list of refutations to the 1994 book The New Satanists by former Setian Linda Blood. (According to the University of Virginia's course work on "New Religous Movements": "The book, Aquino's lawyers said, depicted him and his fellow Setians as 'pedophiles, child abusers, murderers and the masterminds behind a nationwide satanic conspiracy.' This was settled out of court, with details of the settlement kept confidential.") Aquino makes a point by quoting a letter addressed to him from Blood dated June 30, 1980 (the "[Hunter S.]" interpolation is his own):
Where the heck did you find this latest maniac [Hunter S.] Thompson you're corrupting me with anyway? My housemates keep hearing these shrieks of glee issuing from various parts of the house. They were half convinced I was crackers already, now they're sure. Marvelous.
All this appears to suggest, and all I mean to suggest by quoting it, is that Aquino recommended Thompson's work to Blood.
I suppose I find this noteworthy simply because, if I had known this before reading The Franklin Cover-Up, seeing Thompson's name would have jarred me just a little bit less.
Speaking of Archons
And not even a Star Trek metaphor this time.
If you haven't yet, and you're so inclined, get over to Fantastic Planet for some provocative conjecture regarding "Greys" and Gnostic Archons. (Also see Tim Boucher, "occult investigator," here.)
I've been considering them lately to be "Enochian entities" - Dr John Dee's "little men," and Crowley's "guru," Lam - but that says something about their invocation, not their nature. Though, if their reality is hyperdimensional, perhaps it makes no sense to speak of their "nature" at all. Maybe their reality is so different from ours, we don't have the words yet to describe it. (And this is partly why I find the castles-in-the-air disinformation regarding "treaties" with "extraterrestrials" so ridiculous and transparent. A "treaty" is a construct of human intelligence. We may as well negotiate treaties with sea horses and asteroids.)
Regardless, as the ever-quotable Jacques Vallee writes, relegating UFOs to either the realm of fantasy or extraterrestrials is like saying the Moon either doesn't exist or it's made of green cheese.
Just something to think about, as you try to not think about Terri Schiavo.