I have no words.

Given that this guy *is* Aleister Crowley, we should therefore pose the ''Kill'' or ''fill'' question. Then we should ask him to explain the numbering in Part 3 BOTL - I've always wondered about that!

  😉 "But I'm the real one!"

No, I'm the reincarnation of Aleister Crowley - and so is my wife.

This sort of thing exemplifies why scepticism should be the rule when it comes to making claims about metaphysical matters.  This is not so much more outlandish than the vast majority of posts found in occulture forums.

We're ALL Aleister Crowley. Or, perhaps, Aiwass -

"But I myself (איואס) have been considering all the time how to act as to Crowley’s body and mind. Can I use it any more? Wouldn’t my ideas get ahead much faster if he were dead? Shouldn’t I be wise to manifest in another, or in a multitude?"

(Diary (“The Urn”), May 27, 1917)

In what way is someone claiming to be the reincarnation of Aleister Crowley a "metaphysical" matter, any more than claiming to be the reincarnation of Napolean Bonaparte, Florence Nightingale, Winston Churchill or Attila the Hun?

Given your conviction that scepticism is the bees knees, obviously you're able to substantiate this claim with some data.

It's a video of someone making a claim about reincarnation Michael.  It isn't about Napoleon or Richard the third etc.  If it was then my statement would still stand.

The guy in the video (if he's not joking around that is) is a great example of what it is to have a closed mind; to limit one's own mental horizons.  To cite Crowley ;3. The advantages to be gained from them (exercises in Liber O) are chiefly these:
("a") A widening of the horizon of the mind.
("b") An improvement of the control of the mind.
.

What do you think are (a) and (b) a good ideal?  From the same treatise;

2. In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist.

It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them

This guy in the video could be joking. I don't know.

And to think, all of these years I've been pronouncing it wrong; it's 'Aleister Crawley.'

Didn’t Grady McMurtry start the “Great Wild Beast Furtherment Society” as a sort of joky spin-off to the Caliphornian OTO back in the late 70s?  It was before my time, so I don’t know much about it, but apparently affiliation was meant to consist of everyone who thought they were a reincarnation of you-know-who, and there was also meant to be a membership card and a short-lived newsletter: unless I was misinformed, I think they even managed to reach double figures – maybe someone else can provide some interesting further info about it (assuming it has never been featured on Lashtal before)?

Norma N Joy Conquest

The phrase "reincarnation of Aleister Crowley" or any other "reincarnation of " is nonsensical.

It is not Aleister Crowley, the persona, who reincarnates but rather the HGA/True Self who chooses certain bodily form as a means of Self-expression in the material world. Of course, if we assume the pehnomenon of reincarnation actually happens.

Based on such assumption, there will never be the man called Aleister Crowley again, since such persona/vehicle has been annihilated once it served its purpose.

Kenneth Grant speculated in The Magical Record of The Beast 666 that perhaps the entity once known as A.C. will choose to reincarnate and come back as a woman – specifically in the persona/vehicle of a Scarlet Woman – the next time around (p. 192, Footnote #3 refers).

N joY

I don't think it's a case of "the entity once known as A.C.", but rather - insofar as we can refer to it as an entity - "the entity, one facet of which was A.C.". I agree broadly with k4n3 on this matter.

Yes Michael, you’re quite right there – I stand corrected.

N Joy