Aleister Crowley

A

Anonymous

Guest
#31
Crowley Not To Be Taken At His Word?

“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.”
- Magick in Theory and Practice by Aleister Crowley

Wintermute feels that Crowley was being disingenuous when he wrote the above words. Where is the evidence for that? There is evidence to suggest that Crowley genuinely subscribed to animal and human sacrifice, and circumstantial evidence to indicate that he indulged in both. What evidence is there to suggest that he opposed animal and human sacrifice? None!

If Wintermute truly believes that Crowley was not to be taken seriously when he wrote his rituals, such as the one above, why believe anything he wrote? Why follow his counterfeit religion of Thelema?

Personally, I feel that he both boasted of things he felt would shock and sometimes did things he knew would shock those in his company. Females in his life either committed suicide or ended up in an insane asylum. Certain acquaintances met with mysterious deaths. One poor soul is said to have been frightened to death during a particular demon raising ceremony.

I spoke to someone many years ago who experienced Crowley's presence when he visited her antiquarian bookshop in North London. She felt physically sick when he passed by her. Sh said he had an aura of pure evil.

Whether or not he was just a fake, there is little doubt, as underlined by the Reverend Kevin Logan in the recent C4 documentary, that he was the personification of real evil.
 

harlequin2005

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Likes
9
Points
49
#32
Didn't Sonia Green have a thing with AC? And she turned out alright, although she was Mrs Lovecraft for a while


8¬)
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
#33
None So Blind

Exorcistate, who may wish to change his name to Excoriate, seems determined to find AC evil, and if that floats his or her boat, hey, why not? Cheap thrills abound.

In truth, however, this attitude stems from the standard problem of not realizing that AC's writing uses language in a way far different, far more stylized, and far more encoded than ordinary communication. He wrote it to function on many levels at once, and to speak only to those with eyes to see. This means that one can understand it only to the level of esoteric training and insight one brings to it.

“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.”
- Magick in Theory and Practice by Aleister Crowley

In this quotation, taken out of context, AC is speaking symbolically as usual, and means not what he literally says, but rather that the mage's transformation to higher enlightenment depends upon manipulating by will the forces of yin and yang -- in this case "killing" or negating only the male, which is the positive or light force -- in order to attain the highest spiritual attunement. He might as easily have written: "To see truly, dowse the light," or "Snuff the candle and embrace the darkness; only then can you see what's real."

He means to move entirely into the subconscious, to let go of the illusory world revealed by light. It's the same basic advice Zen students receive: Let go. Just be.

Misunderstanding such language is part of the idea, but is as literal and panicky as, perhaps, accusing a Zen monk of encouraging murder when he says, "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him." This is an old saying meant to convey in somewhat shocking terms, so it's memorable, that those who know don't speak,and those who speak don't know.

What proof of this exists? Only the entire body of esoteric tradition and magick.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#34
Misunderstanding?

All of which ~ even if it were true ~ is small comfort for Diego Pineiro-Villar and the many others whose ritual murders were inspired by the writings and committed in the name of Crowley.

Aleister Crowley’s satanic religion of Thelema, followed by the birth of modern witchcraft, occult explosion of the 1960s-1970s and the New Age movement of the 1980s-1990s, all share a common heritage from where the current satanic revival has found succour. The formal establishment of the Church of Satan, with such derivatives as the Temple of Set, has certainly played its part. Between Charles Manson, Son of Sam and Richard Ramirez alone we have dozens of murders in the name of Satan. I could easily add to this list case after case that would fill a book, perhaps several books, but the point has more than sufficiently been made for those who will honestly look at the evidence. The most influential and notorious satanic leaders have had a campaign to dupe their initiates into becoming unwitting followers of not a symbol, nor an abstract force, but of Satan himself. Not only their own admissions, but the deceptive web they have spun to prey on outer circle initiates, give witness to this fact.

It is time to wake up and acknowledge the pure evil unleashed by this charlatan who lived a century ago yet still has an impact on the lives of those who fall victim to his false teachings.
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
#35
Boo!

Satanism?

LOL

The root cause of you inabilities is revealed. May your fundamentalist lunacy comfort you as you cower from the imagined evils surrounding you.

As for waking up, it's you who's snoring.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#36
And you could fill whole libraries with examples of murder in the name of god, allah and jehovah.

By the way, Aleister Crowley wasn't a Satanist.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#37
Examples?

Jesus Christ never once asked for murder, ritual killing, or indeed war in His name. On the contrary, He upheld the ten commandments, added a further two, and His ultimate teaching is the Sermon on the Mount. He only asked that people loved God and each other.

Organised churchianity is guilty of the slaughter of people in the name of religion and the farce described as a "just war." Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine might have introduced the "just war" concept, based on a pagan doctrine, but the Supreme Head of Christianity would find it anathema.

Once Christianity was usurped by pagan Rome and became the state religion of the Roman empire, I agree it lost the plot. So church leaders today have a clear responsibility to return their flock to a path in keeping with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

That notwithstanding, satanic icons such as Aleister Crowley, did and still do recommend murder, ritual killing and war. Surely, if such as Crowley was not a Satanist ~ then nobody is!
 

NilesCalder

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,817
Likes
12
Points
67
#38
Exorcistate, surely a deity is responsible for deeds done in it's name.

I also think that "Satanist" means something different to you than it does to Donna.

You use Satanism to define any belief system that contradicts your Christianity. By that definition Crowley was indeed a Satanist.

Donna uses Satanism to define the offical Church of Satan, founded by Anton Le Vey (the Bill Gates of the occult world), of which she is a member. By that definition Crowley wasn't a Satanist.

Niles "running for the nearest fire escape" Calder
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
#39
Sad Gets Sadder

Crowley called anyone who labeled themselves a "satanist" all sorts of vile names, and held them in utter contempt as the lowest of the low, complete failures of mind on par with, yes, the fundamentalist xtian types who basically keep all that claptrap alive.

Were it not for the fundy xtians and their fear-mongering, poor old Scratch would have died off ages ago.

In passing, I note how amusingly Excoriate even manages psychologically to blame the poor oppressed pagans for that St. Thomas Aquinas did. LOL

The World As Will And Wallpaper, eh?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#40
Certainly Crowley wasn't a Satanist, neither of the individualist/humanist La Vey style nor the Dennis Wheatley devil-worshipping kind.
It seems to me that, apart from his myth-making performance pieces, what Crowley really wanted was to achieve the pinnacle of human potential, to raise himself to a higher state of being, to gain absolute knowledge of and to experience the divine.
He seems to have suffered the same fate as the alchemists who sought spiritual development and transfiguration but are remembered as materialistic gold-seekers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#42
When is a Satanist not a Satanist?

"You use Satanism to define any belief system that contradicts your Christianity. By that definition Crowley was indeed a Satanist." - NILES CALDER

I do not define "any belief system" outside the Christian Church as being satanic. Nor do I limit those who are satanic to Church of Satan membership, which would mean that prior to 1966 there were no Satanists at all.

Satanism is as Satanism does, and I fully accept that Satanists may be found in all walks of life ~ including Christian Churches! But to insist that Aleister Crowley was not, in truth, a Satanist is tantamount to saying that the Pope is not Catholic.

Did any of the informed contributors to the recent C4 television documentary deny that Crowley was a Satanist? I don't think so.
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
#43
A Final Tilt at the Windmill

Excoriate - If only you'd educate yourself, which you won't, you might free yourself of the malarkey of received wisdom and phony expert testimony and instead discover the simple facts, which are far more human and less melodramatic that you may find to your taste.

In simple fact, Crowley himself despised satanists of any form and put them down at every opportunity.

I'd recommend Lawrence Sutin's excellent biography Do What Thou Will, but of course it not being an expurgated, bowdlerized bible... what's the use?

You can find my review of this biography at http://www.xprojectmagazine.com/features/books/aleistercrowley.html if you're interested. I've mentioned it before, but you may have overlooked it.

And when you call it all lies and propaganda and so on, once again I'll give this up as a loss, as per Plato's excellent advice about not arguing with certain folks.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#44
LaVey ~ Humanist or Satanist?

One of the delusions that that will need to be established at the outset is the lie that leading Satanists do not believe in or truly worship the Devil. Anton LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan, viewed Satan as a true entity that he absolutely worshipped before his death. LaVey deceived a lot of people who joined the Church of Satan by claiming that Satan only represented the repressed forces of nature, but was not a real entity. Interviews with former Charles Manson family member Susan Atkins, who is still in prison after being convicted of eight murders, resulted in Atkins blowing the lid off of LaVey’s lie. As a former associate of Anton LaVey’s, who danced for him and spent personal time with him before joining the Manson family, Atkins was privy to conversations with LaVey before he became popular.

Atkins revealed repeatedly that, while LaVey promoted a watered down, almost palatable form of Satanism to the ignorant masses whom he deceived, he acknowledged the exact opposite to her and to his inner core of Satanists in the Church of Satan. Atkins revealed that LaVey told her emphatically, while she was in his home, that they truly worshipped Satan as a real entity and as the one who began the initial rebellion against God. Atkins also stated:

“Anton told me that as a Satanist he does believe in the God of the Bible but he refused to worship Him and made a conscious decision to worship Satan instead.” (Susan Atkins interviewed by Joe Schimmel).

There are pictures of Atkins with LaVey in his ritual chamber when she associated with the Church of Satan. LaVey was aware that few people were stupid enough to truly turn their lives over to Satan. He, therefore, presented a seeker sensitive, user-friendly form of Satanism in the hope that it might appeal to the masses he was seeking to deceive. LaVey sought to put a spin on Satanism as a kinder and gentler form of Devil worship claiming that Satan merely represents a force in nature, and that, rather than Satanists’ sacrificing animals and little children, they are animal activist who love children. All of this was done to garner unwitting recruits. Satanists' view lying to be among their highest virtues. LaVey and other Satanists serve the one whom Jesus Christ repudiated as “The father of lies”. (John 8: 44). It would be just like the father of lies to cloak his religion in non-reality. Satan has long been about deception and has successfully deceived many recruits into believing that they are simply worshipping a symbol rather than a reality. Satan relishes in such ignorance.

Atkins’ testimony that LaVey was deliberately duping Satanists in the outer circle is corroborated by evidence from LaVey’s own admissions. LaVey let his guard down when responding to other Satanists who considered him, “not extreme enough.” LaVey, while in a defensive mode, admitted that the image that he presented publicly was deceptive, declaring:

“If they’re at all intelligent [other true Satanists] … they’ll realize that there’s only so much I can say publicly … I will not advance things in print which make my position untenable … How long would the Church of Satan have lasted if I hadn’t appeased and outraged in just the right combination? It required a certain amount of discretion and diplomacy to balance the outrage.” (Lucifer Rising, p133).

Purposeful deception is needed amongst leading Satanists to enslave those whom they recruit as unscrupulous and unsuspecting pawns who feel more comfortable believing Satan is a symbol for force. Few Satanists realise the evil intentions among the inner core of the cult and how lower initiates are viewed as mere puppets to be used and later discarded. Those in the higher echelon are often aware of the nature of Satan and the demonic realm that they serve. They are often bound and blinded on another level because they have become addicted to the power that Satan deceptively promises.
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
#45
enough

Forgive me, Uncle Al, for not wishing to bother further. I'm sure your restless, oppressed shade understands.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#46
The Method in Crowley's Madness

The major axioms of Satanism, as it would later develop in the Sixties, were contained in Liber Legis, or The Book of the Law. The credo of the book was summed up in the now infamous phrase “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.”

Crowley’s next important literary contribution was The Equinox (1909). Many of the ideas contained in this latter work became the basis for modern Satanism. Weighing 3.5 lb per volume, these were the journals of his newly formed Order of the Silver Star aka Argenteum Astrum. In 1929 came Crowley’s Magick in Theory and Practice. His American publishers, Dover, made a selling point of the claim that the book contains Crowley’s admission that he himself carried out ritual killings of children, a point not lost on a certain Henry Bibby at the end of the century. Having recommended to his readers the choice of “a male child of perfect intelligence,” Crowley later acknowledges that some of his acolytes might be squeamish when it comes to ritual sacrifice and offers the following conscience clause: “Those magicians who object to the use of blood have endeavoured to replace it with incense … But the bloody sacrifice, though more dangerous, is more efficacious; and for nearly all purposes human sacrifice is best.” Crowley offered no comforting disclaimers. He described his opus as a course of training, to help people from all walks of life “fulfill themselves perfectly.” And he promises that “the student will discover … a practical method of making himself a magician.”

Within the same work, Crowley makes reference to unspecified progressive forms of blood sacrifice and he advocates self-mutilation, the offering of blood and virginity, and animal sacrifice by crucifixion. Crowley notoriously baptised a frog and called it “Jesus Christ” and then crucified it. This was in 1916, while living in New Hampshire, USA, during his induction ceremony to raise himself to the rank of magus. The remainder of Crowley’s life is a long legacy of perversion and evil. He believed that degrading sexual practice and drug use destroyed the consciousness of any sense of morality. This in turn enabled the consciousness, deprived of any sense of “ought” or “law,” to come under the influence of powerful supernatural beings.

Former Labour prospective politician and National Children’s Home employee, David Hallam, commenting of Crowley’s opus, said: “People who are inadequate might pick up something like Crowley’s Magick in Theory and Practice and believe that they can control peoples’ lives by using magic, believing that if they do this to a child, they will have power. I cannot understand why anybody would want to publish a book advocating the ritual slaughtering of children. No doubt there’s a massive market for occult material. But publishers must remember that these are often handbooks. People are picking them up for a purpose.”

Jerry Johnston in The Edge of Evil (after the Enyclopedia of Occultism and Parasychology) has it that Crowley’s own son died a ritual death.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#47
I'm not saying his behavior was good or bad on the mountain, only that it's impossible for even those who were there to know for certain.
I agree with you, that the evidence is pretty equivocal, the point I was trying to make was that at least there's some evidence.

My view of Crowley is that he was in some ways similar to Freud, in that he had some original thoughts, but from our perspective we can see the flaws in his world view and charachter.

I think AC was almost certainly a deeply unpleasant person, but that doesn't make him the fount of all evil.

As for the allegations of Satanism, its this simple - did Crowley worship Satan? Answer, as far as I understand it - no. Case Closed.

'Do what thou wilt' is suspiciously close to 'Better that the whole world be destroyed and perish utterly than that a free man should refrain from one act to which his nature moves him', (though much snappier!) - the source of which is a radical medieval Xtian sect. And of course there's the famous 'Nothing is true, everything is permissible' attributed to Hassan iSabah. Idiot satanists would have found these quotes, or others like them, or made their own up.


He believed that degrading sexual practice and drug use destroyed the consciousness of any sense of morality. This in turn enabled the consciousness, deprived of any sense of “ought” or “law,” to come under the influence of powerful supernatural beings.
Sripped of the pejorative language, this means 'Crowley believed that sex and drugs were both possible routes to trascendent experience' As far as I'm concerned, its precisely this realisation, and the flawed attempts to utilise it, that make AC interesting.


“People who are inadequate might pick up something like Crowley’s Magick in Theory and Practice and believe that they can control peoples’ lives by using magic,
And some inadequate people read the bible or the koran and think believe they can control peoples lives by blowing up abortion clinics or driving aircraft into buildings. Its not the fault of the text.

Fact is, lots of inads go for Crowley cos he's got that 'shock the parents' factor of name recognition and mythic presence in the culture. They're mainly interested in being seen with the books rather than attempting to deal with trying to read and figure out AC's wilfully obscure writings.
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
#48
Quibble De Dibble

Originally posted by wintermute


I think AC was almost certainly a deeply unpleasant person, but that doesn't make him the fount of all evil.


A minor quibble with the above quotation, as I agreed with all your wrote. The quibble arises from William B. Seabrook's Magic Island, about Haiti and Voodoo. In it he relates having encountered Crowley in New York City just prior to Crowley's self-imposed exile in the upstate NY wilderness, where he painted a cliffside with huge letters proclaiming; DO WHAT THOU WILT.

In any case, Seabrook spent some time with him and found him a congenial old rascal, quite pleasant if one was not prone to taking easy offense, and he quite liked him.

So perhaps it's better to say that Crowley could be an unpleasant fellow, but could also be charming. As can we all, I suppose, hm?

As I say, otherwise what you wrote hit the nail on the proverbial noggin, and bravo.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#49
Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law

It was not Crowley who coined this phrase. It was Francois Rabelais in 1532. Crowley merely imitated what he had read in Rabelais' The Histories of Gargantua and Pantagruel.

Therefore, the infamous and somewhat irritating phrase of modern Satanists and their fellow travellers, that is falsely attributed to Aleister Crowley as being its originator, is, in fact, stolen, as is much else.

You do not have to look very far to discover the sources for Crowley's "new" religion of Thelema and its "Magickal" system.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#52
Read My Lips!

"Aaah - so Rabelais is the Father of Satanism now?" - WINTERMUTE

No. And neither is Crowley. Rabelais coined the phrase. That's all.

Crowley, the founder of MODERN Satanism, hijacked the phrase for his own and employed it in the context of his counterfeit religion and satanic philosophy.

Satanism, needless to say, existed long before Crowley, as did manifestations of witchcraft exist long before Gerald Gardner. But MODERN witchcraft and MODERN paganism owe their very existence to both Crowley and Gardner who clearly based much of what has become witchcraft initiations and other ritual mumbo jumbo on Masonry. Both, of course, were advanced Freemasons.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#53
Did Crowley Worship Satan?

“I swear to work my Work abhorred, careless of all but one reward, the pleasure of the Devil our Lord.” ~ Aleister Crowley

"Satanism is commonly referred to as Devil worship. Satanism is the general term for worship of the biblical Lucifer, or Satan (Gen. 3: 1-15; Isa. 14: 12)." ~ Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult, p241.

Satan is the Hebrew appellation for the Devil. I rest my case.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#54
When does the quote above date from? Was it before or after Crowley's alleged meeting with Aiwass? Before or after his eventual acceptance of the Book of the Law?
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
#55
Fat Chance

PLEASE don't encourage him, he RESTED his case, maybe he'll go away now with his fundy xtain propaganda, hm? jeesh.
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
#57
This Way to the Egress

Precisely observed. Bravo.

What is a matter of course for some is a detour for others, after all. lol
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#58
Of course ...

"Crowley and Gardner clearly based much of what has become witchcraft initiations and other ritual mumbo jumbo on Masonry. Both, of course, were advanced Freemasons." (Previously stated.)

The "of course" relates to the previous sentence wherein it is implicit that modern witchcraft et al is reliant on Masonry. Thus it becomes a matter "of course" when the fathers of modern witchcraft, Crowley and Gardner, are found to be high ranking Freemasons. It is also a matter "of course" that all the leading lights in occultism and witchcraft, during its modern revival, were advanced intiates of Freemasonry. From the Golden Dawn to "King of the Witches" Alex Sanders ~ Freemasons all.

Oh yes, ... of course!
 

bizkit_1979

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Nov 9, 2001
Messages
37
Likes
0
Points
37
#59
When I was at school, me and my mate had a passing interest in Crowley, mainly cos she was a mad Led Zeppelin fan, and Jimmy Page lived in his old house :rolleyes:.

Has anyone read his son's (Amado Crowley) book about him? It was years ago I read it, but I recall it was really interesting and didn't make him out to be a monster, although for obvious reasons it would have been biased.

I'm not an expert on Crowley, and didn't even watch the C4 docu, but from talking to other people about him I think he took a great delight in writing purposefully misleading books and would probably be having a huge chuckle right now if he knew what was being written about him on this board.

Paul Merton describes him in his autobiography 'My struggle' as "a completely charming man who loved nothing better than reading out the jokes printed on the backs of matchboxes. I knew that millions described him as the spawn of beelzebub, but you know how people like to gossip. I didn't realise that he had in fact died in 1947, but being satanic he could shrug off this minor detail. :p"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#60
Crowley welcomed war and supported the enemy!

What was established in the C4 documentary was that Crowley betrayed his country. Such acts surely cannot be dismissed.

In 1898 Crowley had joined the Order of the Golden Dawn where he made the acquaintance of his temporary mentor, MacGregor Mathers, leader of the occult group. Taking on the name of Brother Perdurabo (“I will endure”) and beginning his experiments with drugs, Crowley’s voracious bisexuality and his interests in the darker forces gave him a sinister reputation. He was very much a figure of decadence who loathed Christianity. The Golden Dawn taught a form of magic that was derived from the Kaballah and Rosicrucianism. There are certainly similarities to Freemasonry and Theosophy. However, the magic espoused by the Order of the Golden Dawn soon proved to be insufficient for Aleister Crowley who was convinced that more potent magic could be harnessed through sex and drugs.

Crowley left his former tutor, MacGregor Mathers, a broken man as he embarked on a psychic war against him. They both conjured up demons to attack the other. The violent eruption concluded with Crowley claiming that Mathers was killed in a magical duel by a vampire he had conjured up. The would-be usurper proved to be too perverted and bizarre for the Order and was cast out. He formulated his own ideas, seeking aid from what he termed the Secret Chiefs (supposedly divine beings with supernatural intellects). The revelation that came to him in Cairo was via a demon named Aiwaz.

Crowley welcomed the First World War as necessary to sweep away the old age and usher in the new one. After going public with his revelations, he was made head of the German-based Ordo Templi Orientis that he had joined in 1912. The OTO emphasis on sexual magic was precisely what Crowley had been searching for. He founded his cult of Thelema in Sicily in 1920, but was expelled in 1923 amid accusations of, among other things, blood drinking, drug taking, and child sacrifice.

He is known to have favoured the Nazi war effort and, whilst abroad, once notoriously wrote in The Fatherland: “The sovereignty of England must be destroyed once and for all. England must be divided between the Continental Powers. She must be a mere province, or better still, colony of her neighbours, France and Germany.”

The historical affinity between Nazism and Satanism has been well documented in a wide variety of books on the subject, including Satan Wants You by Arthur Lyons, From Satan To Christ by Seán Manchester, Satanism and the Occult by Kevin Logan, The Twisted Cross by Joseph J Carr, The Occult & the Third Reich by J M Angebert, Occult Reich by J H Brenna, Satan and the Swastika by Francis King, The Spear of Destiny by Trevor Ravenscroft, Hitler: The Occult Messiah by Gerald Suster, Germany Possessed by H G Baynes, and, finally, Hitler’s Cross by Erwin W Lutzer. There are many more such works that draw both an affinity and collusion between Nazism and Satanism.

Can betraying your country and people be swept under the carpet; even if the bood drinking, ritual sacrifices, drugs and sexual depravity doesn't seem to bother you?
 
Top