rigorousintuition.ca

"For all we know"

Speak for yourself. Some of us can do math.

guruilla » Wed Aug 31, 2016 5:31 pm wrote:I tried to watch Schnoebelen's "Interview with a Vampire" some years back & couldn't; it wasn't because I thought he was simply making it all up, but rather that he'd been so seriously unhinged by his experiences that his testimony was severely compromised and yes, it was especially hard to stomach the heavy Christian spin.

And yet: Crowley made equally outlandish clams throughout his life, albeit using superior literary technique and adhering to more "progressive" ideologies; he (in Liber Al and elsewhere) advocated rape, killing, torture, child sacrifice, & oppression of the weak (no hate there). Yet he is considered by many here not only as a reliable source of information but worthy of admiration, even emulation.

Sorry, but crying "Hate" in the current climate & context, like crying "Witch hunt", is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

If I'd left the quote unattributed, I imagine OP ED would simply have ignored it anyway. As it is it provided an excuse to create a big song & dance to distract from the subject matter at hand, namely, the correlations between CERN, human sacrifice, tunnels, ritualized rape, neurological trauma, Crowleyanity & demon evocations, all of which, for all we know, Bill Schnoebelen had some direct experience of, however, messed up his testimony might be (possibly by such direct exposure to it).

Others reading this thread may have had some direct experience also.

The distraction in this thread from the topic of what happened recently at CERN is your raising the topic of "Crowleyanity" that is off topic in the specific and on topic only in that Crowley wrote about, had some experience, and influenced others regarding blood sacrifice. It is likely only in your fevered imagination that Crowley ever practiced human sacrifice. Crowley clearly stated that the blood sacrifice was not new to humanity. Crowley listed a number of historical practitioners of human sacrifice to what was in his writings and highly unlikely to have been his practice. You posted the chapter in this thread from Magick in Theory and Practice on blood sacrifice without the lengthy footnotes that make clear the blood sacrifice he wrote about was, in general, a metaphor in his practice.

I fail to see what ritual rape has to do with recent happenings at CERN. There is a wealth of threads at RI where Crowley and ritual rape (and pedophilia too) are most appropriate without having made this thread about your specific Crowley fetish.

The topic of human sacrifice at CERN's Shiva statue and the ritual that occurred, was uploaded to the internet, and not denied by CERN authorities is a rich topic without a a repetitive focus on Crowley.

I have been avoiding direct discussions of Crowley's writings. They speak for themselves and have footnotes to clarify. Perhaps too many actually. I can't help how someone chooses to ignore these portions. I don't have the time or energy to give an adult literacy course and/or divorce anyone from their preferred beliefs.

(the Chick people are evil though, I can't let that slide)

OP ED » Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:40 pm wrote:I have been avoiding direct discussions of Crowley's writings. They speak for themselves and have footnotes to clarify. Perhaps too many actually. I can't help how someone chooses to ignore these portions. I don't have the time or energy to give an adult literacy course and/or divorce anyone from their preferred beliefs.

(the Chick people are evil though, I can't let that slide)

The Chick tracts are hilarious except when one considers that some folks take them seriously.

I once bought a collection of 100 unique Chick tracts for $10.

PufPuf93 » Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:29 pm wrote: The distraction in this thread from the topic of what happened recently at CERN is your raising the topic of "Crowleyanity" that is off topic in the specific and on topic only in that Crowley wrote about, had some experience, and influenced others regarding blood sacrifice. It is likely only in your fevered imagination that Crowley ever practiced human sacrifice. Crowley clearly stated that the blood sacrifice was not new to humanity. Crowley listed a number of historical practitioners of human sacrifice to what was in his writings and highly unlikely to have been his practice. You posted the chapter in this thread from Magick in Theory and Practice on blood sacrifice without the lengthy footnotes that make clear the blood sacrifice he wrote about was, in general, a metaphor in his practice.

I fail to see what ritual rape has to do with recent happenings at CERN. There is a wealth of threads at RI where Crowley and ritual rape (and pedophilia too) are most appropriate without having made this thread about your specific Crowley fetish.

Crowley fetish? Really?

The thread is about "'human sacrifice' staged at CERN." (Look it up.) There was some discussion about the purpose of sacrifice; I quoted Crowley as an acknowledged expert on matters occult, here. Would have been end of story, except Neither posted (here) that s/he thought the passage was taken out of context & that the context was "Only pranking." I quoted the full chapter (here) in the interests of fairness & clarity. dada then defended AC's poetic license in several paragraphs, here. You then pitched in, here, quoting dada's post in full and applauding it, then adding that it was off-topic to talk about AC, at all. OP ED chimed in to say AC was just talking about buggery. I responded, and so on, so it has continued to go, one on-topic post by me, several off-topic defenses of AC by the resident non-Crowleyan Crowleyites, and so on. Yet I'm the one with the fetish?

OP ED wrote:I have been avoiding direct discussions of Crowley's writings. They speak for themselves and have footnotes to clarify. Perhaps too many actually. I can't help how someone chooses to ignore these portions. I don't have the time or energy to give an adult literacy course and/or divorce anyone from their preferred beliefs.

(the Chick people are evil though, I can't let that slide)

At least you acknowledged the rank hypocrisy of this position, kudos for that. Bill Schnoebelen is a hater because of Christian chick comics that, probably, you haven't read and which we know for a fact you haven't investigated because

I also don't feel the need to "investigate" ridiculous masturbatory fantasy writings from this crackpot. I went to independent baptist school and I gained more than enough familiarity with the kind of hate promulgated by this company and its spokesmen.

AC, meanwhile, can spew all the ego-engorged hate he likes, but since you have investigated and read, and swallowed hook line & sinker, all the footnoted disclaimers & nudge-nudge, wink-wink, only kidding Kool-aid of the legions of lackeys who came after, other people's interpretations of what he actually wrote and tried to found a religion on is of absolutely no consequence.

Schnoebelen, on the other hand, is a Christian who doesn't like gays!

The power of a religious upbringing!

PufPuf[b][u]93[/u][/b] wrote:The topic of human sacrifice at CERN's Shiva statue and the ritual that occurred, was uploaded to the internet, and not denied by CERN authorities is a rich topic without a a repetitive focus on Crowley.

Yet as far as I can see, it is only those who think highly of AC who object to his being discussed here. Once again, the topic is human sacrifice in the context of the occult (ritual) and Science, big S. I fail to see how AC is 100% irrelevant to any serious discussion of these matters.

As a more general point, when you want a conversation to move away from one topic and onto another, don't focus on the topic you want to move away from.

Just saying...

I'm not trying to move anything. I find portions of it ridiculous, if perhaps entertaining. I don't take the notion of CERN satanists seriously. I only pop in on things that I know about. Like chick. You seem to be (deliberately) misunderstanding my statement that I have no desire to study him. Or his followers' fabrications. This is because I already have. First when I was taught this sort of nonsense using these same publications you quote. I read it IN (not concurrently with but DURING) junior high school. Think about that as something other than "social engineering" if you're able. Later on I studied him (Bill but also Jack as the ringleader) again, in the Witchy bookstore that someone caught on fire, aforementioned. These Wiccans actually kept anti-Wiccan literature on the shelves of their stores. Mostly to prepare the younger sort for the kind of nonsense they'll find themselves subjected to. There was also a fairly large conspiracy theories type section devoted to all kinds of things.

But I know quite a bit about Chick. They used to force me to hand that crap out to people. You can bet your ass I looked into it, a lot. Although their general issue republican war mongery is something they're quite open about, Most of the other hate has been toned down to avoid lawsuits over the years.
He doesn't just hate occultism though. He hates homosexuals, communists, feminists, liberals, muslims, hindus, masons, catholics, mormons (more than half of all people are part of the Satanic conspiracy). Etc etc etc

(The various lies are probably at least partially responsible for my interest in matters occult to begin with)

Sources are important. Especially if you want to have a real discussion and have your views taken seriously.

I liked the 'CERN is bringing back Nimrod' youtube video Pufpuf93 linked to.

I mean I couldn't sit through it, but I thought it was funny, considering that when I wrote my 'the next CERN video' post I said the cameraman starts talking about Akkadian prophesies guarded by black nobility. I was just riffing when I wrote that, seriously.

Sources are important. Especially if you want to have a real discussion and have your views taken seriously.

Agreed. Pardon the continued reliance on analogy, but this may clarify my point::

A clinically delusional person is out for a drive. There is a stop sign ahead, but with a drooling, gibbering gargoyle perched upon it.

He stops for the stop sign, because that's what you do.
He chants protection from the gargoyle because that's what you do.

Does his report of the gargoyle disqualify the existence of the stop sign?
I would say it doesn't.

It would if he was actually institutionalized in another country when he said he was out driving.

The great thing about the game of metaphors is that no one is ever more than a tweak away from the win.

Sources are important. Especially if you want to have a real discussion and have your views taken seriously.

Seeking information about especially controversial subjects or issues in a world where most so-called "legitimate" or "reliable" or even "peer-reviewed" sources" are severely compromised, corrupted, biased, bought and paid for, agenda driven, etc., in a world where most of the avenues to solid evidence are blocked--investigations shut down due to "national security"; limited access to SSDI (3-years); delayed or blacked out FOIA, etc.--challenges us to think for ourselves. Investigate for ourselves. That means we must examine, study, research the information for ourselves, regardless of the source.

I mean, do investigators overlook sources because they don't like them, don't agree with their politics, religion, lifestyle? No, they depend upon and sometimes employ drug addicts, prostitutes, street criminals, etc., as sources of information. Everyone is a potential source of information and often times the less official that source the better because they don't have to consider their paycheck, job or even their life in some instances.

In other words, who cares if they don't believe what you do, like what you like, hate what you hate... in fact, it makes it even easier to discern the information when you know that person's bias when they shout it from the rooftops. Does it make everything they say false? Absolutely not.

So you're saying we should consider it possible that he was a vampire? Allergic to garlic and everything?

Or are we just going to consider the parts that confirm our own ideas?

OP ED » Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:16 am wrote:So you're saying we should consider it possible that he was a vampire? Allergic to garlic and everything?

Or are we just going to consider the parts that confirm our own ideas?

Well, it depends on how you define vampire. Is it possible he is a person who preys ruthlessly upon others? Sure. Is it possible that he is a preternatural being, commonly believed to be a reanimated corpse, that is said to suck the blood of sleeping persons at night? Less likely, but does that mean everything he says is 100% false? I could say I believe I'm the reincarnation of Elvis and you probably wouldn't believe me but if a bus is coming toward you and I tell you about it, are you going to refuse to turn around, refuse to move because I said I'm the reincarnation of Elvis?

As far as allergies to garlic go, I'm sure there are some people who are allergic to garlic as you can develop an allergy to anything as far as I know, but I'd have to look into it further.

divideandconquer » Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:21 am wrote: I could say I believe I'm the reincarnation of Elvis and you probably wouldn't believe me but if a bus is coming toward you and I tell you about it, are you going to refuse to turn around, refuse to move because I said I'm the reincarnation of Elvis?

Some might.