Was Aleister Crowley truly as evil as most thought he was?

I feel he worked for government agency to make occult scary and evil. He was a heroin addict and this is how i feel he paid for his drugs. You cant demonize psychology just becuase it can be used for good or evil. Same goes for the occult. All occult means is "knowledge of the hidden". en.wikipedia.org...

What do you think? Was he the most wicked man in the world? Did he do all the things they claimed he did when he was under surveillance 24/7.

I feel he used shock an ahh in a negative way to get attention. Just how roman arenas pulled in the crowds. I feel he did this for his prophet. So that his prophet 777 would get attention. He siad to pull his work from the mud and make it beautiful. To take all our fathers works even if they were negative and evil and turn them around to moral love and something good. Like a lotus flower grows from the mud. If you think of the old testament and you examine to see who was more evil...Lets go stone a man for a sin...kill all the people from other tribes. Give me a break.

So I think what he was trying to do is have a Christ like figure come into his religion and save it. like Christ did in the old testament. To pull from the mud and make beautiful in god aligning ways. 6 means human 7 means divine. He was number 666. Who will be 777? I feel there is many. Most his writing was for shock and ahh. To get freak out attention.

Free will. Moral love is the law. Moral love and universal simple moral logic above free will. Harm none.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Azen thorhammer]

reply to post by Azen thorhammer


I think Mr. Crowley knew some things about what can make a human being totally powerful or even revered as a God.

Evil? Possibly not but sadistic yes.

reply to post by Azen thorhammer


My vote is for evil.

He really was neither good nor evil. I think he mixed truth and lie to teach the wise about the mysteries and to throw fools into the pit of their own hell. Really, I think literally all religion has a heirarchical structure of understanding where the lowest-level interpretations are evil and bound to cause harm whereas the higher ones converge to something more heavenly to bring about love and peace. It's a representation of the metaphyics behind it all.

As an example, if do what thou wilst shall be the whole of the law then why is there a whole book after that containing other laws and directives? What it doesn't say is also important to understand.

reply to post by Azen thorhammer

I've actually had this argument with my husband several times. I do not believe he was the "wickedest man in the world"... a bit corrupt perhaps, but there are far worse.

As a teenager, I read Diary of a Drug Fiend. It is his fiction book, but I believe it to be based on his experiences and I found it fascinating. Rather uplifting in the end really. I've used his tarot deck for years.

My husband seems to think Crowley was more involved with TPTB, that he is a mentor/leader for them. He hates it when I laugh at those comments and defend Crowley.

I do believe Crowley pieced things together quite well. I guess ultimately, I think he was a wanna-be... I think he wanted to be in the power club and know what they know. I don't think they could trust him though, as he was a 'show-off', I don't think he could keep their secrets. He wasn't 'stable'.

Personally, I like to think he realized his wrongs after his life, and I think he is probably living again and 'redeeming' himself, balancing karma and whatnot.

I doubt he worked for the government to make the occult look bad... that's more the realm of Michael Aquino and Anton LaVey... I think Crowley was doing too much research and spreading information (to satisfy his ego), so he is made out to be more corrupt than he really was (though he was 'corrupt')...

Just my feelings on the matter, I could certainly be wrong.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
He really was neither good nor evil. I think he mixed truth and lie to teach the wise about the mysteries and to throw fools into the pit of their own hell. Really, I think literally all religion has a heirarchical structure of understanding where the lowest-level interpretations are evil and bound to cause harm whereas the higher ones converge to something more heavenly to bring about love and peace. It's a representation of the metaphyics behind it all.

As an example, if do what thou wilst shall be the whole of the law then why is there a whole book after that containing other laws and directives? What it doesn't say is also important to understand.

Do what thou wilst shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will. Harm none. I feel this statement leaves to many loopholes for those who don't understand. So I changed it. hehe

So... Do as though will..universal simplistic moral love and logic above free will is the law. Harm none.
- One of many 777's hehe

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Azen thorhammer]

Crowley spent his life breaking down social norms, to people who hold those social norms dear, they would see him as a threat and consider him evil.

Evil is relativistic, and directly correlated to what ones views on normalcy include.

Some would say that he worshiped demons, others would refute that he worshiped the same Gods as they do.

I see no reason to classify him as evil. Of course there many users of this forum would call any man who practices occult wisdom and philosophy guilty! Guilty of being evil!

Crowley wasn't even as evil as he thought he was. Smoke & mirrors, Crowley was all hype.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Azen thorhammer
So... Do as though will is the basis of the law..universal simplistic moral love and logic above free will. Harm none.

What I saw is that it really doesn't state (or maybe love is the law, love under will does in a round-about way) consider the ramifications. Hmmm...you helped me see another possible interpretation. Thank you.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by Azen thorhammer
So... Do as though will is the basis of the law..universal simplistic moral love and logic above free will. Harm none.

What I saw is that it really doesn't state (or maybe love is the law, love under will does in a round-about way) consider the ramifications. Hmmm...you helped me see another possible interpretation. Thank you.

Yes he said...There is the love of the serpent or the love of the dove. Choose wisely my prophet. "Love" alone as a law is dangerous. What if one LOVED the serpent? (why I had to pull it from the mud.) hehe
Thats another thing about Crowley...he is sadistic...Have to ignore the negative stuff that was put there to get attention. Why he was called the most wicked man in the world.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Azen thorhammer]

He did live part of his life in Victorian England which was an extremely draconian religious period so what was considered 'evil' then may not even warrant a second glance today. He was never charged or convicted with any crime, as far as I know. An egomaniac? Yes, it must take quite a personality to be known as the 'wickedest man in the world'! Sadistic? not sure, he played on his public image and basically didn't give a sh*t what others thought of him, even back then we had tabloids sensationalising things. He was ahead of his time as regards psychedelics and sexual freedom and 'Do What Thou Wilt' (ie 'think for yourself, find your true path') is a good motto to have instead of just believing what we're told in the bible/koran/tora or whatever. My only complaint is that nowadays so many seem to be trying to just emulate Crowley, doing his will instead of 'doing their own will' so to speak.

Originally posted by Choronzon

Evil is relativistic, and directly correlated to what ones views on normalcy include.

I feel there is a universal Morality. Simple #...you know?

But yea back to was he the most wicked man in the world?

Originally posted by obeah6
My only complaint is that nowadays so many seem to be trying to just emulate Crowley, doing his will instead of 'doing their own will' so to speak.

I would have to agree with that. But you have to admit..he left his prophet 777
John Lennon thought of himself as the prophet of Crowley. He was the egg man.
www.youtube.com...
(Could be done through music if done right...plan to take over the world. hehe) Enough attention...But yea I feel doing your own thing following by the commandments is special and magickal enough. But yea back to the question. What do you think? Was he EVIL!?

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Azen thorhammer]

reply to post by Azen thorhammer


how would we know? ask him?

there's no such thing as evil. but i didn't knew crowley decently, and i don't have any reason to get to know him now either.

all i know about him that he took the teaching, twisted it to fit it to his own ends and died, like the rest of us. what does that make him? i don't know. you decide. i have no opinions.

He more seems like an evil genius in my view. And if he’s not evil as its been discussed then that just leads to him being an occult genius. If anything I give him kudos on how to manipulate not only the worlds different energies but also in the fields of occult mysticism, was able to touch the ultra-verse (inter dimension portal) and created the occult of lam in the 60’s. However you can say that his knowledge is very much like a gun. Its how you use that knowledge that can determine the type of person that you are. Still, I admire how much knowledge he had but how he used it is another matter.

Originally posted by Geemor
reply to post by Azen thorhammer

 

there's no such thing as evil.

Ever since the first cave man hit the other on the head with a stick for power there has been evil. There is a universal evil and GOD aligning morality and goodness.

Originally posted by Calon
However you can say that his knowledge is very much like a gun. Its how you use that knowledge that can determine the type of person that you are.

100% agree with you. In one part of his books he says he sacrifices a child every day. What he meant by this is he sacrificed his ego that was built up to the point of a child every day. He had lots of ego aliases


Like I siad though, allot of the stuff he wrote for shock and awe was in a negative way to get attention. If you can get passed and ignore the serpent and find the dove in his writings...there is lots of wisdom. Always remember to throw out the evil. It was put in there to get attention and or i feel it meant something else. He was a witty bastard.


[edit on 9-9-2009 by Azen thorhammer]

Originally posted by Azen thorhammer
Thats another thing about Crowley...he is sadistic...Have to ignore the negative stuff that was put there to get attention. Why he was called the most wicked man in the world.

Mostly agreed. It is that that gets the fanatics interpreting literally, hanging on every command into deep doodoo. That is pretty wicked. Then again, I say some sadistic things here and there in jest.

Also (going back a little), I guess the whole of the law could refer to the jist of all as a complete unit rather than the one statement being its entirety.

Crowley was many things, including an egomaniac (why he failed to Cross the Abyss), and a general jerk (I might respect some of his writings, but I wouldn't have been able to stand the guy had I met him personally), but he was not "evil" as he enjoyed toying with the media into thinking he was.

I believe that long after he had violated his Magickal Oaths by publishing the secrets of the Golden Dawn in his Equinox series, that he felt a need to make amends and become the new Gate Keeper of the Mysteries, epitomized by the image of Baphomet. In more superstitious times, the physical key to unlock something important would be kept in the open, usually underneath a frightening looking statue. Only those who were focused and without fear or superstition would dare reach their hand beneath the statue to take the key. I believe that Crowley tried to do the same with the Western Mysteries...publishing their secrets out into the open, but personifying something seemingly horrific to scare the curious away.

A prime example would be the claim that he sacrificed a thousand unborn children every day. Crowley did indeed state such to a reporter. However, although the superstitious would take that to mean literally, Crowley never partook in human sacrifice but was referring to masturbation...meaning he ejaculated, causing the death of 1000 sperm who were children in potentia. Although in Edwardian times, masturbation was probably equally as "evil" but nevertheless quite innocuous.

The funny thing is that for his time Crowley was the greatest of the late 19th and early 20th century Ceremonial Magicians. However, by modern standards, he would be a mediocre Ceremonial Magician by comparison. In his place and time, he contributed greatly, but by modern standards...other than having written far more prolifically than most, he pales in his achievements. For that reason, I find it difficult to accept those that would prefer to idolize him and walk within his shadow, clinging on to the past instead of carrying the light further out into the darkness to explore beyond where his life's work left off.

(On a sidenote, one of the books I am currently writing is an intentional spoof of Crowley's Magick Without Tears titled Magick Without Crowley)

Originally posted by eMachine
reply to post by Azen thorhammer

 

I doubt he worked for the government to make the occult look bad... that's more the realm of Michael Aquino and Anton LaVey... I think Crowley was doing too much research and spreading information (to satisfy his ego), so he is made out to be more corrupt than he really was (though he was 'corrupt')...

Just my feelings on the matter, I could certainly be wrong.

I feel he worked for the elite...To try and demonize occult. In one of his books it says that his prophet and his army will kill many rich people. (Making it impossible to become his prophet cause then you get on "THEIR" radar screen. So he #ed that up on purpose working for the elite. Probably funded his drugs.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Azen thorhammer]