Author Topic: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?  (Read 2519 times)

Frater V.I.M.

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2017, 10:34:04 pm »
Yeah, Liber Samekh is pretty goddamn obvious as to what it is. It's a giant invocation to Satan and His Bride Babalon as God/Goddess. What cracks me up is the way most folks try to get around it. It's usually by turning towards the Barbarous Words themselves, and saying something like:

"See, these words didn't originally mean any of that, and since Crowley associates 'O' with the Devil, that's just how those words come out in 'translation.' He's only talking about 'O' or 'Ayin,' not 'the Devil.'"

But bruh, what they seem to be missing here, is that Crowley was under no obligation to HAVE to "translate" those words in the manner he did. He took massive liberties with it. Dude went OUT OF HIS WAY to turn that shit into a giant invocation to Satan ON PURPOSE. His reason for doing so is pretty obvious for anyone not bending over backwards to pretend a dude who called himself "The Beast 666" and advocated throwing Xians to lions wasn't Satanic.
"The old gods did not die, they fell into Hell and became devils.”
- Anton LaVey

NEMO 93

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2017, 10:55:47 pm »
Not to mention Tiphareth, who's number is 666 can be accessed from Hod by the path associated by the devil card.

But to be fair, Crowley was no stranger himself to justifying stuff like this; my favorite anecdote is when he explained the beast to be the microcosm, or man, and 666 to be the number associated with tiphareth so you could call him "little sunshine" to a court when on trial for some reason that escapes me. I find that hilarious.

I think the main thing here is even if one denies Crowley's satanic bents and makes their own interpretation of Thelema(which is totally encouraged), it doesn't change the fact it's a solar-phallic religion in nature- which is often associated with imagery belonging to satan, lucifer, pan, and so on.

Frater V.I.M.

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #17 on: December 31, 2017, 11:11:09 pm »
Oh yeah. Crowley certainly enriched his meaning of "666" with all sorts of Qabalistic stuffs, but none of that at all refutes or takes away from the primary meaning of being a reference to the Beast of Revelations. Also, I'm pretty sure Crowley was well aware that the Qabalah and Tree of Life scheme, with its own "nice" meanings for "666" is alot younger than Revelations, despite the wails of those who seriously think that stuff is some ancient Moses-era Hebrew stuff.

All of Crowley's insistence on the positivity of his system, and the positivity of his terms, is ultimately only a way to insist that Satan is holy and positive. And besides, the folks who tend to think all that means "not Satanic" tend to miss that Crowley vehemently hated Xianity and their standards of morals. What is positive, light, and good to Crowley is not even slightly meant to imply it's also what's positive, light and good to standard Abrahamic beliefs. People also tend to forget that the things that are most "evil" in Abrahamism are not universal standards of "evil" such as hate, murder, wanton destruction, etc. Worshipping other gods besides "Yahweh" is the epitome of evil, not obeying their "god" is the most evil thing one can do.

Crowley talks alot about light, holiness, etc, of course. But, people tend to gloss over that the sort of ceremonies he calls the holiest of holies is things like . . . ya know, getting pounded in the butt after cutting "666" into your chest while reading twisted versions of the Lord's Prayer in front of paintings of goat-gods and shit.

Crowley ranks as one of the biggest trolls in history. It takes some sophisticated trolling to get people to regularly participate in a Mass that's heavily modelled on the Xian Mass, but you wind up eating semen and menstrual blood while praising names that Crowley directly associates with Satan, while a naked chick is on the altar, and all the while the participants are 100% convinced it has no relation to the historical "Black Mass." It's probably for the best that most people don't look into the details of what sort of bodily fluids Guiborg and them were using in their hosts and stuff back in the 17th century, and the witch-cults before. They'd probably not be amused.
"The old gods did not die, they fell into Hell and became devils.”
- Anton LaVey

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1805
  • Total likes: 1938
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2018, 06:43:04 pm »
I'm sharing this thread some other places because it's insanely informative.

"My step is great, that I may traverse the sky."
- The Pyramid Texts


NEMO 93

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2018, 07:20:28 am »
A bit more in LHP thelema.

I've seen Phil Hine also equate Aiwas to Nyarlhotep. I wonder if Kenneth Grant has commented on this?
It seems unlikely the chaos magicians are the only to make a link when Grant did so much with lovecraft.

Also, in the higher grade, I want to say somewhere around 3=9 or whatever it is, the seals of the Qlipoth were distributed out. However, there is little information available on Qlipoth and Crowley's Thelema and Grant is known for making wide leaps that were not in line with Crowley.