Nice one. Yet you wouldn't let your nephew alone with Crowley. Why? Because we both know this fellow was a pedophile (what do you expect from somebody who sticked rods into women to produce "moon children"?). As for the O.T.O members you know, they are just average schmoes like both of us. The ideologues are who I care about.

Originally posted by Nakash
Because we both know this fellow was a pedophile (what do you expect from somebody who sticked rods into women to produce "moon children"?).

Sure I would let Crowley babysit, if he was capable of it at the time. That means not when he was a feeble old man, and not when he was on heroin, and not after having too much wine after dinner.

So what makes you think he was a pedophile?

And you don't have a clue with the rod thing.

Dude, I MAY be wrong, but Crowley was the blaster master of orgies in that little Thelemite temple of his. Also last time I checked he did some pretty weird rituals (ie: our "Moonchild" example). I really wouldn't trust a person such as Crowley to teach me ethics, (or babysit for me). Anyway , it's your life, your free will- nothing of my own concern. Just don't say certain people don't perform ritual sex abuse because it does happen and it offends me to claim that this is bogus.

Originally posted by Nakash
Dude, I MAY be wrong, but Crowley was the blaster master of orgies in that little Thelemite temple of his.

So what? Orgies do not in any way equal child abuse

Also last time I checked he did some pretty weird rituals (ie: our "Moonchild" example).

You are misinformed about the moonchild ritual. But weird rituals so what, I do most of them and I don't think they are "weird". Speaking in tongues at a Pentecostal church.. now that's what I think is weird. But again Weirdness does not equal child abuse!

I really wouldn't trust a person such as Crowley to teach me ethics

So Great! You not a Thelemite. I am. You have to remember Crowley is not our Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, and we don't think of him that way. He was a human, and like all humans he was not infallible. Again that does not make him (Or me, or the O.T.O., or any other Thelemite) a child abuser!

Just don't say certain people don't perform ritual sex abuse because it does happen and it offends me to claim that this is bogus.

When Did I tell you that? What I am saying... and what this thread is about is the O.T.O. is not an organized group of child abusers! I am also not saying there is no way a pedo scumbag might be in the O.T.O. (In fact there was one in the 80's in San Francisco.. when he was found out by the O.T.O. he was suspended, when he was convicted he was kicked out.)

The O.T.O. is made up of "average schmoes" Yes they are weird to the rest of the average schmoes but that does not make them child abusers!

Originally posted by Nakash
You know what? Many of you guys on this board DISGUST me. I have seen victims of ritual sexual abuse (ie: my former nanny) and the sort of comments on these boards are an insult to humanity, too infamous, too dastardly to even be spoken. Screw the people who defend these organizations. I dearly hope something like this enters your life so you can learn what you are dealing with. FINIS

No one here is defending child abuse, mate. Take your hyperdrama self-righteous indignation somewhere else.

Some of us are trying to defend rational thought, and exercising the right to respond to wild, unsubstantiated accusations.

Neither O.T.O nor Freemasonry condone child abuse. Get it?

OK- cool it. I'm sorry, got carried away. My apology. Nobody here is scum and that's what matters.

I must say that excentric rituals within O.T.O. only will fuel suspicions of foul play on its members. I'm not saying those members are quilty of committing a crime, just that given human nature people will start to think the possibility is there. That's what you get when you do a lot of stuff behind closed doors. What's this with Crowley's "moon-children"? Never heard of it before.

Originally posted by TerraX
What's this with Crowley's "moon-children"? Never heard of it before.

Moonchildren are symbolic; only allegorical. When Crowley wrote about "moonchildren", he "had his tongue planted firmly in his cheek", as Anton Szandor LaVey would later write. Nevertheless, the paranoid and the conspiracy theorists often take every word Crowley ever wrote literally, when in fact, very little of Crowley can be so taken. He was a master of symbolism and allegory, and was even more of a master of making fools out of those who read his works without the proper understanding.

Originally posted by Nakash
Dude, I MAY be wrong, but Crowley was the blaster master of orgies in that little Thelemite temple of his. Also last time I checked he did some pretty weird rituals (ie: our "Moonchild" example). I really wouldn't trust a person such as Crowley to teach me ethics, (or babysit for me). Anyway , it's your life, your free will- nothing of my own concern. Just don't say certain people don't perform ritual sex abuse because it does happen and it offends me to claim that this is bogus.

I agree with Cug, if he was straight Id trust him with my kids. If he was doped, well I wouldn't trust him in that state. Then again in real life, I trust no one with my kids and they have never ever been babysat by anyone.

Best you go out and grab yourself a copy of Crowley's Book Moonchild to read for yourself about moonchild.

and since when has participation in orgies been an indicator or somones "evilness".

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Mayet]

Originally posted by Mayet


and since when has participation in orgies been an indicator or somones "evilness".

We could also note that the so-called "orgies" proclaimed by the Fascist press in Italy against the Thelemites were in fact nothing of the kind. During the Gnostic Mass, the Priestess is nude. No sexually activity occurs during the ceremony, but the incident of female nudity in public was enough for Mussolini's henchmen to launch charges of moral depravity against Crowley and the other occupants of the Abbey at Cefalu.

In reality, Crowley wasn't even a tenth as wild and depraved as his detractors pretend he was (which they use as an ad hominem against Thelemic philosophy in general). On the other hand, no doubt, Crowley certainly would have gotten a kick out of all the infamy and notoriety, and would probably do his best to promote all the attacks and conspiracy theories against him himself, just for the hell of it.

I find Thelemites to be a great bunch of people, which lends a kind of positive testament to their doctrine, for me anyway.

It's as though relative moral freedom has meant that they promote and safeguard strong principles more enthusiastically than if those principles were foisted upon them by an exoteric authoritarian religious structure like the Catholic church (as an example).

Originally posted by TerraX
I must say that excentric rituals within O.T.O. only will fuel suspicions of foul play on its members. I'm not saying those members are quilty of committing a crime, just that given human nature people will start to think the possibility is there. That's what you get when you do a lot of stuff behind closed doors.

Honestly that is because most people are inherently lazy and are willing to have other people do their research for them. Most of the rituals that a member of the O.T.O. does has been published (By the O.T.O.) and are available at your local Borders or Barnes & Nobles bookstores. The only rituals not published by the O.T.O. are the initiation rituals, and some documents that relate to sex magick. But these have also been published. (The official line of these rituals is they are not accurate, but I'd be willing to bet they are close enough to give someone a good idea on what may go on.)

Take a good look at what the Crowley is evil people present as evidence. 80% of it comes from chapter 12 of Magick in Theory and Practice (Of the Bloody Sacrifice and Matters Cognate) where they seemingly forget to read the parts that say don't take this literally. and the rest comes from stories from tabloid papers that are pretty close to our modern Enquirer or Weekly World News.

I have said before there is plenty withing the O.T.O., A.'.A.'., and Thelema in general for the general population to dislike, everything from the ingestion of sexual fluids, to the parts of Liber vel Jugorum and the Mass of the Phoenix that use what is basically self-mutilation*, The Book of the Law has parts that are very offensive to members of other faiths. But it still ends up being the same ol' same ol' goofy crap.


* Both are officially A.'.A.'. rituals but many Thelemites use them. And most don't do it to the extreme that is mentioned in the rituals. In fact a version of Liber vel Jugorum was featured in TV ads as a way to quit smoking (Snapping a rubber band on your wrist when you want a cigarette.)

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Nevertheless, the paranoid and the conspiracy theorists often take every word Crowley ever wrote literally, when in fact, very little of Crowley can be so taken. He was a master of symbolism and allegory, and was even more of a master of making fools out of those who read his works without the proper understanding.

Two things to remember when your reading Crowley

1) He was a poet.
2) He was an occultist

Like a poet Crowley would use a word just because is sounded better to him, but as an occultist he had a larger vocabulary than normal.

Here is a lame example of my own.

A poet might describe a woman's eyes as being like sapphires. And we all know that means she has blue eyes.

Now Crowley might say something like her eyes were of Binah, as Qabalistically Binah relates to sapphires, but it is also far more descriptive, Binah also relates to Understanding, and Women, The Egyptian goddess Isis, The 8=3 Grade of the A.'.A.'., etc...

Or maybe he would say sapphires, but he meant understanding as they are both related to Binah. but he found the word sapphires more poetic.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
In reality, Crowley wasn't even a tenth as wild and depraved as his detractors pretend he was...

I'd have to disagree with that. He was wild and depraved for his time (the early 1900's). But nowdays subjects like masturbation, sex outside marrage, and bi-sexuality are not that titillating.

Originally posted by Cug


Two things to remember when your reading Crowley

1) He was a poet.
2) He was an occultist

I would have to ad a third

3, he had a sense of humour.

Originally posted by Cug

I'd have to disagree with that. He was wild and depraved for his time (the early 1900's). But nowdays subjects like masturbation, sex outside marrage, and bi-sexuality are not that titillating.

Personally, I wouldn't even go that far. Crowley was no more depraved than anyone else: he was just honest about it.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Cug

I'd have to disagree with that. He was wild and depraved for his time (the early 1900's). But nowdays subjects like masturbation, sex outside marrage, and bi-sexuality are not that titillating.

Personally, I wouldn't even go that far. Crowley was no more depraved than anyone else: he was just honest about it.

Well I just gotta ask....are you calling me and all others who don't share your depravity, dishonest liers, or are you claiming you aren't like anyone else?

Depravity was roaring in western society well before the roaring 20's. That 'titilating' little list was very short and mild compared to what people got up to either side of WW1, but still, Crowley was seen as extreem.

Infact history is full of cycles of socially accepted depravity, that peaks just at the fall of those societies.

Your smiley after calling moral people, dishonest, is like Crowley and all that ilk, who do what they will, in 'safe' company, but call it a 'joke' whenever it causes a negative reaction by those they want something from.

So tell us, please, what is the youngest aged person an adult could have sex with, before you would call them, "depraved"?
As someone who so delights in enlightening and educating us, I think it only fair we get a better handle on your charactor.

Personally, I feel continuing this thread as an, Oh So Jolly, Pro-Crowley, Praise Fest, despite knowing those hurt by Satanic Ritual Abuse, have and will be reading it, shows worse than bad charactor.

Of course, that's only the impression of one who's had to deal with too many who break into the, "We're untouchable, but can get you anywhere, anytime." chant, when they find those close to making a case against them, and what's that opinion worth against those 'enlightened' enough to admire the 'greatness' of Crowley and declare those who don't, "dishonest".

Suzy Masons just have a different definition of moral i guess seeing how they always go on and on about how important it is to Masons and that its only for good men who are made better by it.

Is it a secret that cant be shared as well,your meaning of moral?

Originally posted by suzy ryan


Well I just gotta ask....are you calling me and all others who don't share your depravity, dishonest liers, or are you claiming you aren't like anyone else?

I'm not "claiming" anything. I'm stating as a fact that humans, by nature, are very less than perfect, and that Crowley was much more moral than the hypocrites who constantly condemn him for "immorality".

Your smiley after calling moral people, dishonest, is like Crowley and all that ilk, who do what they will, in 'safe' company, but call it a 'joke' whenever it causes a negative reaction by those they want something from.

Just for the record, to my knowledge, Crowley never claimed anything he wrote to be a joke. He was all too happy to allow morons to believe nonsense. It was a method by which he tested the intelligence of his readers.

So tell us, please, what is the youngest aged person an adult could have sex with, before you would call them, "depraved"?

This is a stupid question. Adults should only have sex with adults.

Personally, I feel continuing this thread as an, Oh So Jolly, Pro-Crowley, Praise Fest, despite knowing those hurt by Satanic Ritual Abuse, have and will be reading it, shows worse than bad charactor.

For the very most part, as has been shown, "satanic ritual abuse" is a hoax. It boggles my mind that you're so caught up in that stuff that you ignore the real ritual abuse cases, which are almost always Christian Ritual Abuse. Scandal after scandal over the last ten years of Christian Ritual Abuse have been the headlines, yet I don't even remember seeing one authentic case of satanic ritual abuse, let alone a case of ritual abuse perpetrated by Thelemites (followers of Crowley).

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Well I just threw the 'whole shoe box' out there and didn't specify what size or style it contained or which 'individual's' foot it fit's...but anyway...

I wish I could thank you for just as eagerly jumping to the defence of those called "crazy" just for daring to tell the truth....

Ritual Satanic Child Sexual Abuse, and Worse, goes on, and is an International Multi Billion Dollar (heavily protected by Powerfull, 'Respected' people) Trade, that WOULDN'T EXIST if it didn't serve an awfull lot "Powerfull", "Respected" people.

By all means defend yourself, as is your right. I'm sorry if 'the shoe' looks like one out of your closet. If I knew, 'exactly', what you wore I would have specified, "Does not fit Cug."

I didn't realize you are so much more important and at risk than defenceless, powerless babies who don't have another International "Brotherhood" to protect and defend them.

tell me do you have accurate and legitiment proof. Further, would you stand before a court and make a slanderous statement under oath? And I'm not even a member of this group. I get the feeling that this place is only meant to raise ones own self-esteem by proving, or more likely, giving false info to make one's self look better. Funny, just because people, generally, hear something, true or untrue, they will believe it or dispute it based on there "feelings" and not the facts. Where possible bend it to there own cause.

So Suzy... is there a connection to O.T.O or Freemasonry, or are you just tarring everyone with the same Satanic brush in your zealous frenzy?

I admire your desire to see justice done, but your accusations and data are highly disjointed and often unrelated.