Home PEx Family and Society Realm of Thought

Aleister Crowley.....Ring a ding?

HEHEH....The not so famous NECROMANCER......All messages welcome.....


  • I'm currently studying supernatural and paranormal
  • yah, he is the stupidest atheist in history.

    believes and imitates the Devil; yet does not believe in God.

    i will laugh hard at this fool when i see him in hell.
  • Yep...I;'ll luv tah see him in hell....and Al Ahzred too...wanna know if their studies is true......by the way....what is wicca??
  • Yep...I;'ll luv tah see him in hell....and Al Ahzred too...wanna know if their studies is true......by the way....what is wicca??
  • i would have wanted to see him in action.

    all things considered, though, i'm inclined to believe he was a crackpot.
  • you know why you talk like that bout him? coz you never read his books. he's anything but superstitious.
  • bleh's hubby here...

    to paraphrase Timothy Leary, "Crowley's books create hysteria in ppl who HAVEN'T read them.." IMO his translation of the Tao Teh King is the best english one to date...

    some good places to START with Crowley: Liber Aleph, Magick Without Tears, Book 4, Tao Teh King, or even his Confessions book... I would NOT start with Magick in Theory and Practice or the Book of Lies as these are too obscure for most ppl to grasp.

    for a more modern version of Crowley's thoughts I'd suggest some of the more technical books by Robert Anton Wilson... like Prometheus Rising... or Will to Power by Nietzsche.. or General Semantics by Alfred Korzybski

    any opinion of Crowley without reading the above books is pure hubris

    RAW actually teaches an online class on Crowley called, humorously, Crowley 101... it's on his maybe logic website.

    as far as the "supernatural" goes, Crowley was mainly a critical debunker... his "magick" rituals were merely a way of focusing the subconscious will on one goal.. it's a psychological trick or sorts more than it is conjuring "demons"... he spoke in metaphor a lot and most ppl have problems seeing thru this... if you want to read Crowley in his most direct form, perhaps 8 Lectures on Yoga is a good place to start... it really depends on what the reader already knows and where they want to go next.

    I find Crowley's works refreshingly sane
  • rickymrickym PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    i remember reading some of his works before. yes he was critical, i may not believe in everything he wrote. but his criticism wasn't really so bad. i also remember meeting people who loved the 'aliester crowley tarot cards.' i don't know if he created them.
  • st.angerst.anger PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    i know him 'coz of Ozzy Osbourne :D
  • hey...isn't that Crowley-Thoth tarot cards?I read some of his works too...through internet...and GOD I SAVED THE WHOLE PAGE CONTAINING HIS WORKS!
  • mas trip ko syang poet... hehe sabog pero kwela
  • Hmm the great Thelemist uncle Al would probably be the closest thing the occult community came to a lord voldemort than in all history. If he was bad enough to get his sorry hide kicked out of Italy by Mussolini himself then there was definitly something wrong with him..
  • Uncle Al's books are on every serious magician or occultist's reading list... unreadable and difficult at times, but quite solvable after some time or experience passes by.

    But i think he's overrated... for the real shiyeyt and unreadable prose, Austin Osman Spare is da man
  • Frank_MackyFrank_Macky PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    I've been reading some Crowley lately. hermetic.com is a great resoruce...

    Say what you will about Crowley's allegedly debauched lifestyle... he sure has some very interesting and advanced ideas, going even beyond buddhism/hinduism to hear him explain it.

    Remember that Jesus Christ was a blasphemer in his time just as much as Aleister Crowley is considered to be one in ours.
  • well I gotta give credit where credit is due, Uncle Al's books Magick in theory and Practice, and Magick without tears are must haves in any occultists library. But then again, what he USED magick for was way outta line
  • Frank_MackyFrank_Macky PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Even though Crowley's books and taoist/hindu/buddhist mumbo jumbo are fascinating, I'm still waiting for evidence of how all this magick stuff is supposed to work... seems like it's all empty philosophizing and word-play up to this point.

    Crowley's tone of narration though gives confidence that he is not making things up, because he seems to be quite appreciative of the skeptic's and scientist's point of view and he is in fact quite aware of what these other paradigms are about and how they differ from what he calls magick.

    The scientific mind is very skeptical of voodoo because it does not understand the rules of such, but that does not necessarily mean magic or voodoo is non-existent.

    One can easily imagine that a voodoo-soaked mind can be also just as skeptical about scientific accomplishments and have no faith that the mathematical scribblings of scientists hold any power. That is, until he is confronted with the wonders of scientific inventions.

    But just like the skeptic/scientist, he may resort to explanations using the vocabulary of his own paradigm to explain these away.
  • Frank_MackyFrank_Macky PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    perkins wrote: »
    yah, he is the stupidest atheist in history.

    believes and imitates the Devil; yet does not believe in God.

    i will laugh hard at this fool when i see him in hell.
    This attitude is pretty typical of today's utterly corrupted and depraved so-called "christianity".

    I guess this is what today's "christians" learn from their "Jesus". To laugh at other people's misery...

    Just goes to show you if you ever find enlightenment, keep your trap shut, because the only thing that will happen if you try to preach and spread your experience, is that it will eventually degrade into fodder for weak-minded m0r0ns. Mohammed, Jesus, etc... as we can see with today's "christians" as exemplified by perkins, or with the butchery practiced by muslim fanatics, these so-called prophets' attempts at preaching their original visions seem to have devolved and disintegrated into utterly filthy and meaningless garbage.
  • boohoo, the atheist poser lawyering for the satanist poser.

    im touched.

    they must be announcing their engagement soon.
  • Frank_MackyFrank_Macky PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    perkins wrote:
    boohoo, the atheist poser lawyering for the satanist poser.
    :lol: That is about as naive a belief as they come. If anything, Aleister Crowley can't seem to shake off his belief in the Hebrew God Jehovah. He keeps going on about Jesus, Adonai and Yahweh in his books. Kind of disappointing in fact...
  • Frank_MackyFrank_Macky PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    1) Jesus Christ - [the dingbat who] called himself God

    2) Mohammed - [the dingbat who] called himself God's prophet and imagined himself to be doing God's will

    3) Gautama - "I am no God, just awakened" ( Jonathan Livingston Seagull )

    4) Crowley - the rational Victorian Englishman skeptic who explained what the other three went through in contemporary terms

    From http://hermetic.com/crowley/book-4/aba1.html

    What is there in common between Christ, Buddha, and Mohammed? Is there any one point upon which all three are in accord?

    Buddha was born a Prince, and died a beggar.

    Mohammed was born a beggar, and died a Prince.

    Christ remained obscure until many years after his death.

    ... There is one thing common to all three -- an omission. We hear nothing of Christ between the ages of twelve and thirty. Mohammed disappeared into a cave. Buddha left his palace, and went for a long while into the desert... Each of them, perfectly silent up to the time of the disappearance, came back and immediately began to preach a new law... A nobody goes away, and comes back a somebody..

    Moses was rather a big man in Egypt when he left; he came back as a mere stranger.

    Christ had not been to China and married the Emperor's daughter.

    Mohammed had not been acquiring wealth and drilling soldiers.

    Buddha had not been consolidating any religious organizations.

    St. Paul had not been intriguing with an ambitious general.

    Each came back poor; each came back alone.

    ... The only one who explains his system thoroughly is Buddha, and Buddha is the only one that is not dogmatic. We may also suppose that the others thought it inadvisable to explain too clearly to their followers; St. Paul evidently took this line ...

Sign In or Register to comment.