Was Aleister Crowley advocating genocide?

Q&A and discussion on the world view encapsulating humanity's current stage of evolution

Moderator: Moderators - Public

Re: Was Aleister Crowley advocating genocide?

Postby FraterAO » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:15 pm

As it should just so be, I believe it was an avocation of Genocide, a "Spiritual" genocide, if not only for the individual- To kill off the Ideals of False belief and ignorance of the Old aeon, and usher yourself into the new Aeon of Horus of Scientific and empirical proof, Thus we have "War and Vengeance" against the Old aeon.

Ultimately you can't have Peace without war of some sort; Whether that war is inside of you, or you bring it outside of you, ultimately separates the Kings from the Slaves. Think of it this way, every outward war or oppression begins with an insecurity or unhappiness from within. We must have the strength of will to wage war within ourselves, on ourselves, in order to get rid of these insecurities and control our emotions so that we do not project them on others that turns to physical violence. It's very Buddhist-Taoist kind of thinking. It also reflects Love under Will. Love is the law, which needs to be balanced with Will.

Of course to the blind eye this will look like a provocation of physical violence; But I think the way it is written is twofold in nature, to shock and scare people into further investigation on it, and to associate Crowley more-so as the first beast from revelations.
User avatar
Forum Neophyte
Forum Neophyte
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Was Aleister Crowley advocating genocide?

Postby LD330 » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:01 am

I think he might have been :lol:

David Myatt famously praised 9/11. I was thinking about terrorism from a demand-based standpoint.

So we interpellate on the Earth, and peoples' sutures are projecting. So say I'm a martial arts expert. But you lose in some other sutured field of expertise. But that's not why, right?

But, as people know, to people, on the planet, that's why.

So you're still thinking about this guy when you notice there's terrorism on the planet. And hey, I'm pool on the Earth for terrorism. So say I join a terrorist organization to YOU.

And that's where there's terrorism on the planet to people, and say the pool generally doesn't want it on the planet. That's where we're afraid of terrorism. So we can describe/define terrorism as "annoying."

It reminds me of an episode of the Sarah Silverman Show, a show I didn't find that funny. There are two guys in a long-term relationship, and one of them suggests the other should try something new at the diner, say, a Tab soda. This is instead of a Coke, which he usually orders.

So the other guy's like, yeah, why don't I just order a Tab soda? And the other guy has to keep going along with it. Are you going to go back on that?

So we get really into Tab soda. And this goes on and on for the duration of the episode, to the point where they even drive a Tab soda car and visit the Tab soda factory. Cause yeah, why don't I order a Tab soda?

So we all have demand for terrorism, so say I'm a terrorist TO YOU, because I don't want your demand, but I'll pool it on the planet with terrorism.

So what this works out to is you get "that's who I am to people" with "not-pool" as a terrorist and "that's why."

So what I'm wondering is, was David Myatt just a really nice guy who they thought they pooled (but really didn't) and decided to go Tab Soda on the pool's demand with terrorist? Cause that's who I am to you?

I was looking at a picture of him at a monastary, and honestly, he looks maybe a bit awkward, like me in Facebook pictures at high school as an usher at a wedding.

And that's why he's Anton Long?
User avatar
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:25 pm


Return to Thelema

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests