It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poor misunderstood Aleister Crowley

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Wonderful display of partisanship from so called moderator Helmutt.

Well done boys.

I get warned for naming a man a fool and a satanist.

Yet he gets away with the following..




Yet more Garbage (I just got done telling you that he was talking about SEMEN - a Sperm is NOT a Baby - Just because Crowley was a Pagan instead of a Christian does NOT make him a Satanist)! Why don't you *PROVE* those two Claims? Right - just as I thought - Edelweiss Pirate you are nothing more than a Propagandist Troll!!! In my Opinion you should be Banned from ATS! How is it that you got away with calling ALL Freemasons = Pedophiles on this website? Fundamentalist Moron - keep your garbage to yourself!


Proof that this place, just like the outside world is corrupted with freemasons in positions of trust and power who protect their own.

Well done gentlemen, your reward will come I expect!



[edit on 19-7-2006 by Edelweiss Pirate]




posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
LOL I love this place....

What people tend to forget and this is a FACT....that Crowley himself would have to abide by the Rule Of 3, because what he was doing has one basic rule...

Whatever you do, will basically return to you, but with 3 times the power.

Now since this would have been fundamental to Crowleys rituals, do you really think he'd be murdering children and causing people harm?? I think not, as HE'D KNOW that if he caused someone great harm, it would eventually come back to him, with 3 times more force than when he committed any act himself.

For instance, just say, that part of his rituals was to cut someone on thier arm. Sooner or later he'd know that he'd get 3 times this cut back....which could mean losing his arm or worse.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Here is an audio BBC documentary on Crowley with Crowley experts, some of which actually met him.

Enjoy.

media.putfile.com...

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
i think a lot of the angrier folks around here, the ones slinging words like "satanist" and "child-murderer" around, fail to really understand Crowley at all.

if you've actually read more than a couple pages of anything he wrote, it should be abundantly clear that the man was every bit as much a showman as he was an occultist-- Crowley will hit you with a profound truth one second and some hilariously tongue-in-cheek stuff the next.

he reveled in being called the wickedest man on earth. he named himself the Great Beast not because of some Thelemic tradition but to frighten some Christians-- the ones that are still every bit as terrified of mean ol' Satan as they were told to be as children.

the attacks being hurled around this thread are wholly unnecessary, and while they are indeed stinging, i'm certain Crowley himself would be very much amused.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by The Parallelogram]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pictnation


For instance, just say, that part of his rituals was to cut someone on thier arm. Sooner or later he'd know that he'd get 3 times this cut back....which could mean losing his arm or worse.


lol...interestingly, this was one of Crowley's many bizarre instructions. He believed, and rightly so, that the ego was an obstacle to spiritual enlightenment. As a practice, he therefore recommended that aspirants cut themselves on the arm with a razor each time they said the word "I".

But as with many instances in Crowley's writings, one is led to question exactly how serious he was being. It seems to me that this was probably meant as another joke, given the fact that he ended his comment by saying that it could be turned into a game: let your family know what you're doing, and they'll have loads of fun trying to trick you into saying "I" (and thus making you carve yourself up more).

A much more practical (and less bloody) version of this would be to give whoever you're talking to a quarter every time you say "I".



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Aliester Crowely is a #ing idiot, a bastard of a half assed mason and he couldnt keep his damn mouth shut! He got booted from the masons and was shunned by all the other orders even lucis trust disowned him, mainly because he was a hypocrite and a loud mouth who ended up spilling alot of beans.
Personally i think crowley should have been taken out back of the temple and beat the living # out of and then thrown into the sewers where he could teach the rats his mystic gibberish and hypocrital ramblings!

I liked crowley he was an ok guy but due his actions he was shunned and cast away where he toiled on his stupid little abbey with his doped up irrational followers of heroin addicted louts. Im surprised mousolini even kept him in the country but really i guess whats the point of kicking over an ant hill when youve got houses to bomb.

Any body who supports crowley is just a guilt ridden lost soul searching for meaning in some dum#s esoteric ramblings that where so half assed and ripped off from other beleifs he didnt even know what he was talking about half the time.
As for the whole satanic good and evil thing, the world is grey get used to it. And no for the record crowley didnt do any human sacrafices, the drunken, stonned opium and heroin addicts at his little abbey where just too dumb and decided to go for a dip in the river and theyd usually pass out after a good hit of smack and drowned, and aliester was so goofed up half the time im supriesed he didnt drown too!

Yea all admit their is truth in some of aliesters teachings but its half truths, its like claiming mel gibson is the new prophet because he made passion of the christ both mel and aliester are just confused dilusional men seeking some truth in a basic teaching they misinterpreted and play on to make themselves seem important.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orderoftheblazingsun
Aliester Crowely is a #ing idiot, a bastard of a half assed mason and he couldnt keep his damn mouth shut! He got booted from the masons and was shunned by all the other orders even lucis trust disowned him, mainly because he was a hypocrite and a loud mouth who ended up spilling alot of beans.


Crowley was never a regular Mason; however, he was never booted from his irregular Lodge. Nor was he ever affiliated with Lucis Trust (he no doubt would have considered them imbeciles).


Personally i think crowley should have been taken out back of the temple and beat the living # out of and then thrown into the sewers where he could teach the rats his mystic gibberish and hypocrital ramblings!

I liked crowley he was an ok guy


Geez, if that's what you wish for folks you like, I'd hate to see what you'd have planned for your enemies!


Im surprised mousolini even kept him in the country but really i guess whats the point of kicking over an ant hill when youve got houses to bomb.


He didn't. Crowley and his party were expelled by Mussolini, and they relocated to NYC.


And no for the record crowley didnt do any human sacrafices, the drunken, stonned opium and heroin addicts at his little abbey where just too dumb and decided to go for a dip in the river and theyd usually pass out after a good hit of smack and drowned, and aliester was so goofed up half the time im supriesed he didnt drown too!


That probably has some truth in it.



[edit on 19-7-2006 by Masonic Light]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Watch a brilliant documentary about Crowley here.

Part 1

www.youtube.com...

Part 2

www.youtube.com...

Part 3

www.youtube.com...

If you have not seen Masters of Darkness, don't over look these links.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
oh yeah your right i fogot about that, mousolini did boot him from italy haha. But no aliester was a loud mouth he wasnt accepted as a true mason but still was in and around with them, plus also later in life he was incontact with members of lucis trust. He was associated with members before lucis trust was lucis trust.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edelweiss Pirate
No, seriously, you folks who defend Crowley are defending a known satanist and child murderer.

Prove it.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I have read a lot of crowleys work including 4, book of the law and Magick without tears to name a few. I am very certain that crowley in no way was a satanist. He was looking for a new ritual magick system which worked for him.

I am no longer a practitioner of ritual magick in the classic form but in no place in any of his writings does he say or even promote the worship of satan or dark deities in general, in fact he wasn't all that thrilled with the conepts of giving up your own power to any higher being of any kind but to in fact integrate the "god" into man.

To reiterate what other posters have said, Crowley was a showman who thrived on controversy. He is the one who came up wtih "The Wickedest Man in the World" a label he put on himself.

Think of him as marylin manson with more musical talent. As for his father being a half-assed mason I do believe that to be incorrect.

Aleister Crowley's father was (correct me if I"m wrong) a fundamentalist minister. Crowley called himself (at a young age I believe before he even left home) "the Beast" again another label he came up with.

He did not do this to identify with Satan which of course Crowley himself mostly scoffed at the western religious philosophies concerning god and the devil.

He took this monicker as a minor "Screw You" to his father.

I can appreciate the uneducated fear coming from one side of the argument and it is safe to say that even those who consider themselves experts on Crowley get it wrong half the time.

Not a satanist, not a pedophile but certainly not a mainstream day-job kind of fella. He'd also be the first to admit when he went to far.

My two cents, but coming from an educated place.

Spiderj



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   


Aleister Crowley's father was (correct me if I"m wrong) a fundamentalist minister. Crowley called himself (at a young age I believe before he even left home) "the Beast" again another label he came up with.


Yep, and that is all in the documentary I posted up.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Edelweiss Pirate
No, seriously, you folks who defend Crowley are defending a known satanist and child murderer.

Prove it.


Hello Nygdan! Long time, no see; U2U me please, I need help with an avatar- in the meantime, let me respond to our friend here:

It never fails to amaze me the ferocity of these people that come out of the woodwork to bash poor Al.

Yes, he delved into some dark, dangerous topics, he discovered quite a few hidden secrets- he was an adventurer and poet. Primarily a poet/artist. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone wants an analogy, I liken him to a yesteryear Howard Stern. THE "shock-jock" of his day, Albeit, with a MUCH higher intelligence, and a much more esoteric interest in the world/magick/literature.

As a "non-practicing" OTO member, (can't find any kindred souls in my area), and an ex-DeMolay, and also coming from a long line of Masons, I can tell you that there are far more dangerous individuals, cult-leaders, messiahs, whatever title you wanna wedge Crowley into, today, than ever. OF COURSE SOMEONE WHO CALLS HIMSLEF "THE BEAST" IS SETTING HIMSELF UP TO BE VILELY ACCUSED OF HORRIFIC THINGS.

The person that worries me is the lowly, humble catholic priest, or Boy Scout leader, who is secretly leering at your 5 yr old son's a@#. Someone who is ACTUALLY perpetrating these crimes, will keep a MUCH lower profile than Crowley did.

An accusation like this DEMANDS to be backed up with proof, of which you, Edelweiss Pirate, are totally lacking.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Edelweiss Pirate - Guess what - I am not a Mason & I am Certainly not a "Satanist". I hope that you realize that I rarely get so angry as to the point of losing control & calling someone a name, but it drives me Insane when people make blanket accusations without any proof to back it up. That - Edelweiss Pirate - is what you have done. I believe that this is called Slander (as was the remark about my Intelligence - I have been Discussing & Debating with members of ATS about various Cerebral Topics for over *TWO YEARS* now - you appear recently and spout the same Rubbish that we have heard over & over again - I would not be surprised if you were banned from ATS eventually, just as the others of your kind).



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
How convenient that people like Crowley are always"talking about something else." And one must be an idiot with a dreadfully low iq level for imagining their words might actually mean what they say. ANd one would surely be foolish and naive to distrust someone who was so infantile and egotistical as to call himself The Beast. But the Beast or 666 was talking about the semen rather than the actual devouring of a child, it's just that he was a bit of an idiot and couldn't express himself coherently. So he meant ....emm.......the eating of a pure and innocent's young boy's semen...........I think. Oh sorry, I should have referred to him as Lord Ballesken(?) which he liked to be known as, as he was so wonderfully humble like all the great people of genuine spiritual insight.







[edit on 23-8-2006 by riddley]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   


But the Beast or 666 was talking about the semen rather than the actual devouring of a child, it's just that he was a bit of an idiot and couldn't express himself coherently. So he meant ....emm.......the eating of a pure and innocent's young boy's semen.


That accusation was originally make in a Tabloid - hardly a reputable source!

Have you read the Book of the Law? Maybe if you did (as well as the "Gnostic Mass") & thought about it you would figure it out! Tamahu figured it out - maybe you should ask him!

"Droppings from the Host of Heaven" = Sacrament?

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente


But the Beast or 666 was talking about the semen rather than the actual devouring of a child, it's just that he was a bit of an idiot and couldn't express himself coherently. So he meant ....emm.......the eating of a pure and innocent's young boy's semen.


That accusation was originally make in a Tabloid - hardly a reputable source!

Have you read the Book of the Law? Maybe if you did (as well as the "Gnostic Mass") & thought about it you would figure it out! Tamahu figured it out - maybe you should ask him!

"Droppings from the Host of Heaven" = Sacrament?

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]


Well someone said in defence of him that he was talking about the semen of a child. I'm not sure how far up the scale of integrity this puts him. In a separate tv programme actually in praise of him, which of course didn't dispute the Beast stuff,(surely enough to raise the alarm bells for most people that this Crowley mightn't be exactly on a good trip) claimed that amongst other things he would occasionally do is # on someone's carpet. No doubt to show how he'd travelled so far beyond good and evil that behaving in this way made him feel liberated. I've been willing to alter my opinions about this man, but the more I see, often from those defending him, the less savoury the impression made. A man who entered the deeper realms of consciousness but failed to let go his hold on hte ego and the ego in such territory is apt to become monstrous.

[edit on 24-8-2006 by riddley]


Cug

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by riddley

Well someone said in defence of him that he was talking about the semen of a child.


You seem to be confusing what he said with what it meant. This stuff comes from Chapter 12 of Magick in Theory and Practice where he said "For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim. (of sacrifice.)

In this case the "male child" is the semen.. and the sacrifice is not allowing the semen to produce a child. in other words contraception, or sex acts that can't result in pregnancy.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   
AC was a brilliant man, he pushed the envelope regarding the norm.

He has been massively demonised by certain sections of the community over the years. The man knew how to shock people and wind them up. He was not evil just knew that the masses were gullible.

I suggest that most people read his works before judging him, as it is plain to see most of you have no clue about the man, other then what you have been told.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cug
In this case the "male child" is the semen.. and the sacrifice is not allowing the semen to produce a child. in other words contraception, or sex acts that can't result in pregnancy.


So semen has innocence and intelligence? Jacking off is now a "sacrifice"? lol. nice try.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join