View topic - lets talk About Aleister Crowley :: lashtal.com

ianrons wrote: › I think the same people who were interested in slandering Crowley during his lifetime are also interested in doing the same today. A lot of this stuff coming from quandary121 is reminiscent of rumours that I believe originate with the LaRouche organisation. LaRouche (through his contacts in Russian circles) probably has access to info gathered by Germany going back to before WWII, so is aware of (and has stated) Crowley's role as a secret agent for the British. But in his homophobic-Catholic mind this means a "Beast-Man" conspiracy of gargantuan proportions (the details of which I'll omit). Although I have no doubt quandary121 isn't consciously aware he is being manipulated by this sort of propaganda, the fact is that all he can do is pull a few quotes out of context. There's no logic connecting any of it. The only thing that I haven't spotted in this thread is the "Crowley was Mrs. George W. Bush's mother" joke.

As far as countering the allegations from quandary121's first post, it's probably worth doing a brief outline:

"depraved sexual deviant"
One man's depraved sexual deviant is another man or woman's evening of fun. You presumably disapprove of bisexuality? If so, this is absurdly prudish and a frankly muddle-headed view of the human body and sexuality.

"drug taker"
Whilst illegal in most countries, the use of psychoactive substances is nevertheless quite prevalent and has a long history in religion. For specifics see the extensive published sources dealing with esp. ritual use of hallucinogens, which writing is an interesting blend of the anthropological, botanical and medical that unfortunately makes it very dull to the lay person. This much for his use of, e.g., peyote and cocaine. However, Crowley was also prescribed heroin for his ashthma, which became a physical addiction that he never shook off. The fact that he *didn't* end up psychologically destroyed by it is a testament to his mental endurance -- for every other addict it seems to leave permanent scars.

"who practice's Satanism" (sic)
He did rebel against his strict Christian upbringing -- "evil be my good" -- but was never a "Satanist" in the sense of someone invoking the opposite of the Christian God. The "Satan" that you talk about is really only a medieval invention to symbolise all the "immorality" that the Roman Church didn't approve of; but Crowley ultimately came to believe in the "goodness" (for want of a better term) of everything, so his God also included everything that you call "Satan". Instead of allowing the forces controlling what he called the "slave religions" of Christianity, Islam, etc., to determine what is right for each individual, he threw it back and said: you decide. In Thelema, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." But naturally there are forces who still oppose this idea, because they want to be able to tell you what is "Satan". To LaRouche, Satan is pretty close to the Catholic idea. But to fully answer your question about whether Crowley was a Satanist, I need to ask you: what does "Satan" mean to you? or do you think it's an actual physical human-shaped being?

Then maybe we can carry on this conversation.