It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


was alister crowley all that bad?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 09:21 AM
from time to time i hear things that alister crowley was a satanist and was an evil man ect ect. personally i believe in the exact oppisite. i personally believe that he was just another man just like you and me that got into alot of deep stuff. he is most known as being into alot of drugs and also being into the occult. personally i believe there is no evil in drugs and the occult, but rather it is only evil if you make it evil. i definately agree that some of his writings contained alot of messed up stuff, but i also personally believe that they werent of his own making. i have read that some of his writings were the result of automatic writing through dabbling with the occult. i believe that he was mearly under the influence of "demonic" forces when he wrote some of his material. overall i personally think that he was a very brilliant man that just happened to get into alot of stuff that we have yet to understand.

[edit on 17-7-2004 by mutehalo]

posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 11:29 AM
Crowley was not considered evil by anyone who knew him. He was often considered bombastic, but not "evil". Regardie, who had a falling out with Crowley shortly before the latter's death, nevertheless came to Crowley's defense, debunking the claim that Crowley was not a gentleman, made by John Symonds in his Crowley biography "The Great Beast". (Symonds claimed that Crowley often used vulgar language in the presence of ladies; Regardie, who had spent years working for Crowley as his personal secretary, said that Crowley often told racy jokes, but never in the presence of ladies).

His being "evil" was mostly yellow journalism. For example, he had commisioned the Lady Frieda Harris, a well known artist, to paint his Thoth Tarot using his descriptions, which resulted in a lengthy written correspondence between the two. In a letter to Crowley, Lady Harris mentions that she'd recently read in the tabloid press that he was a black magician, and asked if this was true...Crowley responded that no, he was not a black magician...he was a caucasian!

Concerning his writings, it's important to understand that Crowley was a student of Zen Buddhism. Zen Masters often use "blasphemies" in order to "shock" students into enlightenment. Crowley attempted this technique continuously, usually with only mixed results.
He was also a notorious practical joker, and not everything he said or wrote should be taken seriously.

Fiat Lvx.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:36 PM
there are a few interpretations of Alister Crowley that lay claim to Crowley being a high magus of such magnitude that his true will had one concern and goal, the complete enlightement of humanity into an era of great peace and genius.

If you think Crowley is evil, you are falling for the joke.

the joke is there not just to make one who gets the joke laugh or giggle, but also to spread the 'meme-plex' or the 'king concealed' through history, a way to keep certain key ideas spreading through time from his era to our own, where the internet (Let her W-ork the W-ork of W-ickedness!) and the computer ( It shall not fade, but miraculous colour shall come back to it day after day. Close it in locked glass for a proof to the world.) shall exalt the historical dialectic and quicken it towards it's conclusion, the temple of the holy ghost, the messiah that is all of us. (There is a splendour in my name hidden and glorious, as the sun of midnight is ever the son.)

It took me about 10 years to get the joke.....I know that although I am giving away some clues in the plainest and simplest of language, that the unintiated will still fail to see the truth....just as the unintiated still see crowley as evil...for did not even the great beast write that the HOLY ILLUMINATED MAN OF GOD is hidden by the very nature of our own clouded minds?


A red rose absorbs all colours but red; red is therefore the one colour that it is not.

This Law, Reason, Time, Space, all Limitation blinds us to Truth.

All that we know of Man, Nature, God, is just that which they are not; it is that which they throw off as repugnant.

The HIMOG is only visible in so far as He is imperfect.

Then are they all glorious who seem not to be glorious, as the HIMOG is All-glorious Within?

It may be so.

How then distinguish the inglorious and perfect HIMOG from the inglorious man of earth?

Distinguish not!

But thyself Ex-tinguish: HIMOG art thou, and HIMOG shalt thou be.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:59 PM
i never got stuck on crowley. except for the song of course. his stuff was all dark. and as they say in china; "where there's dark, there's stupid."

i see him as a toy. lots of childish freedoms and slithering around counting numbers and drawing symbols. nothing much to see here, best to move on.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 01:55 PM
Crowley was a genius. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If you actually read his works (most, if not all of them, are online), you'll figure out what he's about soon enough. He's produced some of the most enlightening descriptions of ancient philosophies that you can read today, from the Kabbalah to yoga and Hindu philosophies to Buddhism. This man didn't just study "deep stuff," he embodied it and sought to spread it as effectively as he could.

His reputation as evil is a joke befitting to the man and his context in today's society, and he probably knew what he was doing (or didn't care). He's actually one of the more compassionate men of the last century for the body of work he left us. But the work he left us is certainly taboo if you would listen to anything the "powers that be" have to say about it.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 03:41 PM
would you kindly narrow down the options so i can read some of his better stuff. i started reading one of his online works but it's total gibberish. if you could point in the right direction, thanks.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by mutehalo

Define evil.
What is evil to you may be good to me.

I know many people who profess to be Christians shutter at the idea - but it is as it is.

Love is the acceptance of another where they are at and not intruding upon their right.
Past this, "do what thou wilt" seems to be law, and it is as relative as can be.
Just like wearing a coat is smart in the cold, but stupid in the Bahamas.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 03:59 PM
I'm about to leave so I'll come back and look for something accessible a little later but off the top of my head look for his 8 lectures on yoga. He ties everything together, constantly, so while you might not be interested in yoga it will still present you with a lot of concepts you'll keep coming across in the rest of his works.

Here they are:

Also try to read through some of the things that read like nonsense to you and pick out words or names you are unfamiliar with and look them up. Look up what system of philosophy they came from, etc., and then read up a little about that particular system. Crowley borrows from tons of them frequently.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 04:47 PM
*snark removed* as the Anonymous post that bumped this thread was finally approved.

[edit on 12/10/2008 by JoshNorton]

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 05:05 PM
reply to post by mutehalo

Your question would depend on whom you ask and what definition you would like? Here's one I haven't seen yet...

Yes he was Evil by definition of the Authorized King James Bible. Anything that is against God's laws is evil.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 05:15 PM
Crowley was a straight up Luciferian, and condoned child sacrifice as I have personaly read in one of his works, also I do know that the books he wrote channeling the entity that resebled a grey alien te detials were based on sacred numeroligy and hidden meaning of both colors and sybols, he was also a self professed faker, he would infiltrate certian societies and fraternal organizations by studying their key words, phrases and hand shakes, then use them when he felt he was in the ompany of a fellow intiate. He was an occultist, masonic,luciferian illumanist, and the OTO he founded was financed by the rothchild's.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by BeyondBelow

What an answer, I guess I am wondering if you went that far in explaining his past why did you leave out the three main characters?

1. Annie Besant
2. Alice Bailey
3. Jesuits

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 05:29 PM
All the "The Beast 666" stuff was a smokescreen Crowley set up to scare away the uninitiated. And it worked. The press fell for it. Christians have been falling for it.

"Oh my God, the most evil man in the world!" they say with bulging eyes.

A pretty succesful disinformation campaign, waged by Crowley himself...who was...rather harmless...but didnt want anyone to know.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 05:57 PM
Actually the title the beast or great beast was bestowed upon him by the catholic church. At least as far as my research has sugested. Also he wasn't an illumanist untill just before his starting the O.T.O. . Also the entity he was channeling was LAM and is often associated with a demon or reptilian alien as crazy as it sounds. And he was very deeply interested and even based his own magical theories on the Talmud, Kabbalah, and the emerald tablets of thoth and also sumerian religion. He was nothing more than another Satanist. How ever you slice it. A qoute from one of his works I read, My colors are blue red and gold for those who can see. That was dictated by lam to crowley on lucifers behalf, now link that in with what you know about masons, the throne of england, the sybologie and garbs worn by the catholic church and you will begin to see links to one another, and before any one says it, the catholic church although run by the illuminati, was trying to iscredit and call attention to crowley because he was divulging to much to uninitated individuals. He aswell as Parsons at one time or another had written and told friends they felt they were possesd by the dark prince, or were the anti-christ. I have tons more to write but I feel its futile to try and explain the realities to novice occultists and people who just think its cooland edgey to be intop satanism or te dark arts. None of this is a game as you can see by how real individuals such as crowley took it.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 05:59 PM
Also he was very far from the most evil man on the planet at that time. Not even close, I would consider him more of a court jester to the elite masters who are truly cruel and evil. He was entertainment for them, a novice researcher him self if you will. For he never got the entire picture of what the truth behind the truth is. I do know also that he was gifted honorary degree'd in both Masonry, and title in the royal family.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 08:54 PM
thanks for the link, pretty good read so far about yoga. nothing satanic or baby killing about it.

haven't made up my mind yet though.

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 08:01 AM

Originally posted by BeyondBelow
Actually the title the beast or great beast was bestowed upon him by the catholic church.

No, the title was bestowed on him by his mother when he was only a boy. He identified with it for the rest of his life.

At least as far as my research has sugested. Also he wasn't an illumanist untill just before his starting the O.T.O.

He didn't start the O.T.O., he simply joined it. He had been an "illuminist" since 1899, when he joined the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.

He was nothing more than another Satanist.

He was not a satanist, since he didn't believe in Satan, or anything else associated with Christianity. He would probably be better described as a "pagan", although that wouldn't be 100% correct either. Technically, he was a Panentheist, as most mystics are.

How ever you slice it. A qoute from one of his works I read, My colors are blue red and gold for those who can see. That was dictated by lam to crowley on lucifers behalf

Source please?

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Mozzy
i never got stuck on crowley. except for the song of course. his stuff was all dark. and as they say in china; "where there's dark, there's stupid."

i see him as a toy. lots of childish freedoms and slithering around counting numbers and drawing symbols. nothing much to see here, best to move on.

Are you serious? The man was a dedicated Genius, dedicated to his faith, determined to go further than any human being had for Millennia into the hidden truth of long forgotten ritual.

It's only considered dark because of the unknown, indeed it was because of this unknown that he became classed by some as evil, there are even rumours and a little evidence he could have been the grandfather of G W Bush JR, Barbara Bush being the offspring, this supposedly happened during a ritual said to have lasted several days and involved sex Magick.

He has even been said to have worked for MI5 at the request of Ian Flemming, in the Interrogation of Rudolph Hess, the British Government deny this however to an extent, but if you delve deeply there is evidence available that he did work for British Intelligence, and indeed American Intelligence, details uncertain.

Unlike Gerald Gardener who IMO was just a manipulating dirtbag, Crowley was not afraid to try and delve into forgotten ritual and secret ceremony, in the pursuit of knowledge and enlightenment, it was because of this unknown, that he was eventually described as the worlds most evil man, but if you look at the society circles he frequented and the people, it becomes obvious, these people wanted to share in what he discovered, (obviously seeking power from knowledge) it would also be a good idea to research who the people where branding him these things, they still do it today to anyone they fear.

Crowley has always fascinated me, simply because of his determination, I cant comment on the personal side of Crowley having never met the man, but I also don't fall into the trap of judging him on others peoples say so, which differs when it comes to the likes of Gerald Gardener, to who my family had close connections with, but that is a different story.

If root Paganism ever became organised (which it never will) then the likes of Crowley would be the equivalent of it's pope IMO, thank goodness it never can be, that would be a total reversal of it's meaning and understanding.

[edit on 11/12/2008 by azzllin]

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 09:24 AM
yeah well, don't get too excited about people ok? sounds like you need to take a cold shower.

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:39 PM
Here's a listing of his works:

Each work is classed, and here are the classes explained by Wikipedia:

* Class [A] consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization.
* Class [B] consists of books or essays which are the result of ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest.
* Class [C] consists of matter which is to be regarded rather as suggestive than anything else.
* Class [D] consists of the Official Rituals and Instructions.
* Class [E] consists of manifestos, broadsides, epistles and other public statements. Some publications are composite, and pertain to more than one class.

"Class A" works are probably the most likely to be incomprehensible. As far as those go, think of them like really deep poetry, because that's what they are anyway.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in