Jump to content

Jimmy Page slandered for occultism in Daily Mail


TheStairwayRemainsTheSame

Recommended Posts

The Guardian is a nastier paper than the Mail, it's just less trendy to say so.

Knebby, that's almost as contentious and sweeping a statement as the one about 99.9% of Mail readers :) ... would love to hear the case for that : interesting topic!

I don't think the Guardian's perfect ... but unlike the Mail, I don't get the impression that it is out to cultivate all that is vile and small-minded in its readership.

Meanwhile, for comparision, here's the Guardian's take on OTO. (Replace "evil" with "stupid" and remove reference to JP )

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/shortcuts/2013/apr/15/peaches-geldof-aleister-crowley-sex-cult-oto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knebby, that's almost as contentious and sweeping a statement as the one about 99.9% of Mail readers :)

You're quite right ha ha! I should have said "IMHO" - as it is just that. Apologies (though the "generalisations" bit followed by a generalisation of a sort was deliberate, guess I have an obscure sense of humour at times ;) ). We'll agree to disagree about The Mail. I'm neither left nor right wing so I often find I'm in a position to easily notice the tactics of both - and quite often they don't realise how they need to check the mirror (not the paper ;) ) .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defamation in print is called libel, not slander.

"Led Zeppelin’s Jimmy Page, for example, routinely took part in occult magical rituals and was so intrigued by Crowley he bought his former home, Boleskine House, on the shores of Loch Ness in Scotland."

What is libellous in this statement? Just a bunch of unsourced bullshit ("Jimmy Page, for example, routinely took part in occult magical rituals").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magical rituals are fun. For example, there's one that's popular here in NYC, in which every Friday night, people light candles, often drink wine, mutter words in an ancient language, and this transforms an ordinary Friday evening into something called "the Sabbath." Although I've never seen physical evidence of this "Sabbath," it does have a different feeling and is kind of fun. I've heard there's an even stranger one, in which on Sundays, some people eat wafers and drink wine, and it becomes the blood and flesh of their murdered martyr (cannibalism). I haven't tried that one yet, maybe too weird for me. I've heard it's sometimes performed to words spoken in an ancient language created by pagans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magical rituals are fun. For example, there's one that's popular here in NYC, in which every Friday night, people light candles, often drink wine, mutter words in an ancient language, and this transforms an ordinary Friday evening into something called "the Sabbath." Although I've never seen physical evidence of this "Sabbath," it does have a different feeling and is kind of fun. I've heard there's an even stranger one, in which on Sundays, some people eat wafers and drink wine, and it becomes the blood and flesh of their murdered martyr (cannibalism). I haven't tried that one yet, maybe too weird for me. I've heard it's sometimes performed to words spoken in an ancient language created by pagans.

Exactly religion is the biggest cult of them all. However I'm not sure that the ritual genital mutilation of children could be described as "fun" for anyone involved, but hey ho - mainstream cults are fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magical rituals are fun. For example, there's one that's popular here in NYC, in which every Friday night, people light candles, often drink wine, mutter words in an ancient language, and this transforms an ordinary Friday evening into something called "the Sabbath." Although I've never seen physical evidence of this "Sabbath," it does have a different feeling and is kind of fun. I've heard there's an even stranger one, in which on Sundays, some people eat wafers and drink wine, and it becomes the blood and flesh of their murdered martyr (cannibalism). I haven't tried that one yet, maybe too weird for me. I've heard it's sometimes performed to words spoken in an ancient language created by pagans.

LOL, good call.

Cheers,

Indi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd happily slander The Daily Mail any day, I mean it would not require much cerebral effort and imagination to do so. At least The Sun knows it is idiotic. Come to think of it, I'd sue all newspapers for defamation of character on behalf of every tree on the planet. Sacrilegious use of beautiful living things to print a load of shallow, negative garbage illustrating how destructive human beings are: murders, wars, pillage, politicians flaunting their own aggrandisement and moral ignorance, the tedious cult of celebrity hoopla, etc.

Cheers,

Indi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indi,

It's a real pleasure to see you back here contributing to the forums. :) You hadn't been around in a few months. As for the Daily Mail, their online edition is comical. Down the right hand side of the page, they seem to specialise in articles about female celebrities who have had the temerity to go out without makeup. Gasp!!

I'd happily slander The Daily Mail any day, I mean it would not require much cerebral effort and imagination to do so. At least The Sun knows it is idiotic. Come to think of it, I'd sue all newspapers for defamation of character on behalf of every tree on the planet. Sacrilegious use of beautiful living things to print a load of shallow, negative garbage illustrating how destructive human beings are: murders, wars, pillage, politicians flaunting their own aggrandisement and moral ignorance, the tedious cult of celebrity hoopla, etc.

Cheers,

Indi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Routinely took part in occult magic rituals"?

I'd be interested to know where the Mail's getting its information, seeing as how Page's biographers (people who've spent years looking into his life) admit that they don't actually know precisely what he has or hasn't practiced or even what he believes. I mean, has he even ever explicitly nailed his colours to the mast (i.e. by calling himself a Thelemite?). Even when he made reference to Thelemites on his blog it wasn't "fellow Thelemites" or "other Thelemites". He's always said stuff like "I don't agree with everything Crowley said, but I find aspects of it useful" etc. This seems like just straightforwardly making stuff up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I have never read where Page actually said in any detail what his beliefs are. But it could be assumed that Page has strong interests in the occult because of his facination with Crowley, the themes in his music and other images, and that he owned an occult bookstore at one time. But what he believes his business IMHO.

What did Mick Wall have to say about this in his book, "When Giants Walked the Earth"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I have never read where Page actually said in any detail what his beliefs are. But it could be assumed that Page has strong interests in the occult because of his facination with Crowley, the themes in his music and other images, and that he owned an occult bookstore at one time. But what he believes his business IMHO.

What did Mick Wall have to say about this in his book, "When Giants Walked the Earth"?

Sure, it goes without saying he had a very long-standing interest in various occult / esoteric type things; he’s made no secret of that. I just don’t think it’s right to suggest that he’s ever publicly and explicitly aligned himself with any one belief system. (Correct me if I’m wrong, anyone).

“When Giants Walked The Earth” has by far the most detailed, well-researched and balanced account of all this. Lots of background on the relationship between rock and the occult in general and Crowley in particular. Page is quoted saying he’d long been interested in “alternative religions. . . mysticism, Eastern tradition, Western tradition”. I mean, it was never just Crowley. On Crowley: “I’m not saying it’s a system for anybody to follow. I don’t agree with everything.” Nothing more than speculation about whether Page was an OTO member; Mick Wall (who has clearly looked into all this more than anyone) doesn’t claim to KNOW that (although he thinks it’s likely), or to know exactly what Page practiced. It just ticks me off when some hack on the Mail claims to know stuff for sure when they don’t.

Pages of stuff on Crowley, who sounds like a rich-boy idiot, an egomaniac and a complete charlatan. (Not to mention disgusting; children watching adults having sex and women being penetrated by goats were the norm around Aleister’s gaff, apparently). Family money allowed him to devote his life to sex, drugs and “magick”, but the “lifestyle” hardly seems practical for most people. Lots of stuff about the concept of the “True Will” and how everyone has their “true path in life”, blah blah. (This seems to be a popular notion amongst creative types and privileged people in general. It never seems to occur to them that not everyone’s as lucky as they are and not everyone has any particular talents, or even the means to make the most of them if they do. I mean, is it some people’s “path in life” to be a binman? Irritating). Still, Thelema sounds like the ideal religion for drug-addled, hedonistic celebrities past or present – seems like it’s basically all about advancing your own interests, with none of the other stuff you get with most religions (you know, being more moral, a better person, treating others better, being more charitable etc; let alone any of those inconvenient rules about what you can and can’t eat, when you can and can’t work etc. Or – heaven forfend – who you can and can’t sleep with). Yep, it’s a religion for rockstars alright. And Peaches Geldof.

There’s also interesting stuff about Kenneth Anger, who also sounds absolutely foul. Fortunately Page saw through him in the end.

It’s basically interesting, all of it, for the insights it provides into Page’s psyche. He just seems to have this deep-rooted need to believe that his success with Zeppelin was somehow “meant”, “fated” etc. (He hasn’t changed his views on that – in the recent Esquire interview he was claiming that he and the other LZ members hooking up was “not an accident”). I can’t understand it, myself – I mean, what’s wrong with taking credit for your own achievements (“we were very talented and I practiced like a maniac from the age of twelve and we worked very hard and were also willing to take a few risks”) and also acknowledging a bit of luck (“we were lucky to meet each other, and to have a manager like Peter Grant, and having two very pretty boys in one band probably didn’t hurt”)? But Page can’t do that – there has to be some giant cosmic meaning to it all. Like there’s some force or consciousness out there that cares what guitar geeks in Middlesex are doing with their lives. It seems to fit with everything else you read about Page’s clearly very unusual and complex personality – this peculiar mix of arrogance and shyness, egotism and reticence. You know, on the one hand it’s saying “I can’t take credit for anything”, and at the same time saying “me and my band became the biggest in the world because God / Buddha / the fates / whatever LIKE ME BEST”. Better than they liked all the thousands of bands that didn’t make it, anyway.

So, you know, Thelema’s all bollocks. But it’s worth reading Mick Wall on the subject because of the insight it provides into all kinds of other stuff to do with the band. It’s a terrific book.

I was left wondering one thing – why would Page sell Boleskine House? I mean, if you’re so obsessed with all things Crowley, wouldn’t having his house be the ultimate? Two obvious answers seem to suggest themselves:

1. He became disillusioned with the whole thing over the years, ultimately concluding it was all rubbish;

2. Something happened there that freaked him out so badly he wanted to leave and never set foot there again.

Anyone have any clue what his reasons were? Or know if he ever sold off any of the other Crowley memorabilia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with you about Crowley, Scylla; it just seems like he was a rich person with a lot of time on his hands and a need to feel important by creating his own religion...I myself am interested in exploring different belief systems, but for a belief system to have value I think it has to stand the test of time and it doesn't look to me that Thelema is going to make it...I can't make any sense of it from what I've read...I do have a theory about what might have attracted Page to Crowley: Thelema is basically an amalgam of a lot of different things, and Zeppelin's music is also syncretic, a blend of genres. Perhaps that's what made Thelema seem interesting to Page. I've also wondered about Page's childhood and being an only child--sometimes only children feel controlled by their parents (two against one) and Crowley's anything goes philosophy might have appealed to Page for that reason...in Tolinski's book, he asks Page a question to the effect of how could he preach a belief system that is only realistic for rich people whereas the ordinary person is simply not able to "do what they wilt," at least not without serious consequences. Page's response was that he wasn't proselytizing/trying to convert anyone else. I thought that was a fair response. I don't care what someone else believes even if I find the beliefs absurd, as long they don't try to shove it down my throat. It was the media that made a big deal about Page's interest in Crowley and they are still doing it today!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy Page = a paradox under a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, smothered in a secret sauce!!!

:P

This sounds similar to Winston Churchill's description of Russia.<g>

As for Boleskin House...I'm just guessing but Loch Ness is a long way from London. Perhaps Boleskin House was too far for Page to regularly pop up for the weekend. Speaking of Loch Ness...I'm reminded of William S. Burrough's interview of Page back in 1975. According to Burroughs, Page thought the Loch Ness monster really existed. Burroughs had his doubts. He didn't think Loch Ness contained enough food sources to sustain a creature of that size. This was my high school biology teacher's view as well. I guess my point is that Page seems to have a rather fanciful personality; or at least he did back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with you about Crowley, Scylla; it just seems like he was a rich person with a lot of time on his hands and a need to feel important by creating his own religion...I myself am interested in exploring different belief systems, but for a belief system to have value I think it has to stand the test of time and it doesn't look to me that Thelema is going to make it...I can't make any sense of it from what I've read...I do have a theory about what might have attracted Page to Crowley: Thelema is basically an amalgam of a lot of different things, and Zeppelin's music is also syncretic, a blend of genres. Perhaps that's what made Thelema seem interesting to Page. I've also wondered about Page's childhood and being an only child--sometimes only children feel controlled by their parents (two against one) and Crowley's anything goes philosophy might have appealed to Page for that reason...in Tolinski's book, he asks Page a question to the effect of how could he preach a belief system that is only realistic for rich people whereas the ordinary person is simply not able to "do what they wilt," at least not without serious consequences. Page's response was that he wasn't proselytizing/trying to convert anyone else. I thought that was a fair response. I don't care what someone else believes even if I find the beliefs absurd, as long they don't try to shove it down my throat. It was the media that made a big deal about Page's interest in Crowley and they are still doing it today!

Crowley also loathed his mother and the Plymouth Brethern sect he was raised in. I suspect that rebellion against both had a lot to do with his life and career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds similar to Winston Churchill's description of Russia.<g>

As for Boleskin House...I'm just guessing but Loch Ness is a long way from London. Perhaps Boleskin House was too far for Page to regularly pop up for the weekend. Speaking of Loch Ness...I'm reminded of William S. Burrough's interview of Page back in 1975. According to Burroughs, Page thought the Loch Ness monster really existed. Burroughs had his doubts. He didn't think Loch Ness contained enough food sources to sustain a creature of that size. This was my high school biology teacher's view as well. I guess my point is that Page seems to have a rather fanciful personality; or at least he did back then.

I know, right? Guess being very bright is no defence against being very, very gullible.

I once attended a lecture on cryptozoology at the Zoological Society of London where a professor gave about 20 different reasons why the monster is totally impossible - like, you know, plesiosaurs didn't have the kind of necks that could have reached out of the water at the angle shown in the pics. . . all sorts of stuff. And of course the food - obviously it wouldn't be one creature, it'd have to be a whole breeding colony of them that'd survived in there from prehistoric times. Total impossibility. (And this was a guy who wasn't totally ruling out the Yeti or other cryptids).

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything." - G K Chesterton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I know what you mean. ;) It was when he and Ross Halfin went to Cambodia - they were on Ross' site. Am sure someone will have them to hand but if they don't appear soon I will try to dig one out :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, JImmy is/was involved with OTO.

No he's not, he wasn't, he never has been an Initiate of any branch or linage of the O.T.O.

Mr. Page is a personal friend of the Caliph, (the Head of the O.T.O.) Hymenaus Beta, who is a personal friend of mine. Mr. Page has several American friends in the Order, people that he's known for decades, but Jimmy's never been much of a "joiner." Likely he didn't want to associate himself with the strife between different groups claiming to be O.T.O. back in the 70's and 80's, certainly didn't want to be percieved as taking anyone's side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...