Jack Parsons and the Occult Roots of JPL
spacesafetymagazine.com
Jack Parsons and the Occult Roots of JPL
1–10 of 68 posts
Re: Jack Parsons and the Occult Roots of JPL
#2If anyone hasn't seen Strange Angel I highly recommend it. It's definitely the "Hollywood version" to some extent but it's relatively close to his biographies and is a decent watch regardless.
The title and thesis here is a bit wacky. JPL itself doesn't have "occult roots." Parsons was into occultism and Thelema/Crowley, which is far less sensational than it sounds if you've ever actually read any of that stuff. It's not any more shocking than someone being into Daoism, esoteric Hinduism, Sufism, or any other minority (in this country) religious or philosophical sect. The beliefs involved are no more or less bizarre than the beliefs championed by much more popular religions.
I have noticed a tendency for creative outside thinkers like Parsons to be into "weird" belief systems. I've met a good number of really bright hacker types who are into all kinds of non-mainstream beliefs including conspiracy theories, Neo-Paganism, esoteric types of religion, strong interests in topics like UFOs and the paranormal, etc.
Re: Jack Parsons and the Occult Roots of JPL
#3The story of Jack Parsons is one of my favorites. He really contributed scientifically, was certainly in part responsible for L. Ron Hubbards rise to fame and also a protege` of Aleister Crowley.
Re: Jack Parsons and the Occult Roots of JPL
#4If you want to know more about this, the Unexplained podcast has a 3-parts episode on the story of Jack Parsons. Really recommended!
http://www.unexplainedpodcast.com/episodes/2018/3/20/s03-epi...
Re: Jack Parsons and the Occult Roots of JPL
#5The story of Jack Parsons is one of my favorites. He really contributed scientifically, was certainly in part responsible for L. Ron Hubbards rise to fame and also a protege` of Aleister Crowley.
According to most of what I've read Parsons was kind of conned by Hubbard. They did have an association for a while but I don't get the sense that Parsons had any direct role in Scientology per se. Hubbard invented that later.
Re: Jack Parsons and the Occult Roots of JPL
#6If anyone hasn't seen Strange Angel I highly recommend it. It's definitely the "Hollywood version" to some extent but it's relatively close to his biographies and is a decent watch regardless. The title and thesis here is a bit wacky. JPL itself doesn't have "occult roots." Parsons was into occultism and Thelema/Crowley, which is far less sensational than it sounds if you've ever actually read any of that stuff. It's…
Agree ^. It makes sense to me that if you are a person who believes that what society and the status quo deem as possible are limited, you probably also don't find traditional interpretations of "why" to be sufficient.
Re: Jack Parsons and the Occult Roots of JPL
#7If anyone hasn't seen Strange Angel I highly recommend it. It's definitely the "Hollywood version" to some extent but it's relatively close to his biographies and is a decent watch regardless. The title and thesis here is a bit wacky. JPL itself doesn't have "occult roots." Parsons was into occultism and Thelema/Crowley, which is far less sensational than it sounds if you've ever actually read any of that stuff. It's…
Agree ^. It makes sense to me that if you are a person who believes that what society and the status quo deem as possible are limited, you probably also don't find traditional interpretations of "why" to be sufficient.
[deleted]
Re: Jack Parsons and the Occult Roots of JPL
#8If anyone hasn't seen Strange Angel I highly recommend it. It's definitely the "Hollywood version" to some extent but it's relatively close to his biographies and is a decent watch regardless. The title and thesis here is a bit wacky. JPL itself doesn't have "occult roots." Parsons was into occultism and Thelema/Crowley, which is far less sensational than it sounds if you've ever actually read any of that stuff. It's…
Well, the article directly contradicts your perspective of Crowley and Parsons beliefs with: beastiality, incest, and more.
Re: Jack Parsons and the Occult Roots of JPL
#9If anyone hasn't seen Strange Angel I highly recommend it. It's definitely the "Hollywood version" to some extent but it's relatively close to his biographies and is a decent watch regardless. The title and thesis here is a bit wacky. JPL itself doesn't have "occult roots." Parsons was into occultism and Thelema/Crowley, which is far less sensational than it sounds if you've ever actually read any of that stuff. It's…
Well, the article directly contradicts your perspective of Crowley and Parsons beliefs with: beastiality, incest, and more.
I'm agnostic about those allegations personally. Anything fringe back then was going to attract tabloid claims, and Crowley himself was a troll who was fond of promoting outrageous BS about himself for attention. They were a bunch of nutballs certainly but there's quite a bit of very sensational stuff out there about that scene that's just as questionable.
Today they'd just be a bunch of goth swingers into Neo-Pagan LARPing and totally unremarkable.
Re: Jack Parsons and the Occult Roots of JPL
#10If anyone hasn't seen Strange Angel I highly recommend it. It's definitely the "Hollywood version" to some extent but it's relatively close to his biographies and is a decent watch regardless. The title and thesis here is a bit wacky. JPL itself doesn't have "occult roots." Parsons was into occultism and Thelema/Crowley, which is far less sensational than it sounds if you've ever actually read any of that stuff. It's…
Well, the article directly contradicts your perspective of Crowley and Parsons beliefs with: beastiality, incest, and more.
Most of what they ascribe to Crowley is highly dubious and sensationalist. There have been many independent biographies of Crowley published, not to mention his "autohagiography" that shed a lot of light . The article also contains blatant falsehoods, their explanation of the avalanche incident is fabricated and not corresponding to history (diaries and 3rd party first-person accounts of what actually happened). Even wikipedia gives a different version of events that doesn't seem so callous.
Moreover, a lot of Crowley's writings are deliberately using veiled language meant to offend the uninitiated and those predisposed to a superficial reading of his material. This is of course treasure for lazy journalists - and readers - that want to shock and stir up drama.
As far as the incest/beastiality bits related to Parsons go, I can't find any verifiable references anywhere. They took some rumors as laid out in a highly sensationalist book and presented them as fact.
This is the sort of trash, low quality article that has no place in HN. Parsons - and Crowley - deserve better.