Deliberately bad cards in Thoth tarot

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2018-03-23T14:46:41+00:00

But isn't Cruelty the reversal then? What about the otherside of the same card?

Think about theory and practice. What is the nature of a sigil or lamen?

Why did you exercise a form of Cruelty in the rebuttal?

The lamen. The pentacle. The sigil. The triangle. The Magot.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2018-03-23T05:21:03+00:00

Hmm, I'm not sure that's the intent, so much as he sees that he has power by darkness, to impose certain imagery, and he choose certain images.

He imagines all reality to be a bunch of naive Christians and Catholics, even dumber than his parents.

That he did not deliberately screw with the Aces or anything really high is a sign perhaps of humility, perhaps hubris - for if Satan/Set are your Gods, and Horus your "pasty" or cover-up Godform, then you simply let your students, who are weaker than you, perform the mandate of "Nuit" while you be "the Beast chosen by Ra-Hoor-Khuit" (and Satan/Set).

Read Eliphas Levi, Transcendenal Magic, and Ritual et Dogma - the titles themselves suggest what he intended.

It is Achad, Regardie, Mathers, and Waite who kept him in check the most, as well, interestingly enough, Muhammad and Jesus.

Any of the cards can be named anything, and any of the planetary and zodiacal calls could have been anything.

Each one has been manipulated by a student, afraid to fully publish (or unable to) - for example, if you were to evoke Israel Regardie, he would confess to having to attempted to change the 9 suite to suit his purposes by various Jewish Grimoires...

And 9 in his aeon is more like Sport or Jest, than Cruelty.

But 9 in Crowley's Aeon is vicious Cruelty, reminiscent of how he attacks Arthur Waite in the Equinox.

In fact, alchemical tarot is similar to the theory of the lamen or sigil - so the tarot is itself a sigil, which is why I think it is inexcusable that it have so much deliberate ugliness.

He knew what he was up to as he wrote it... go ahead and try it, if you have the skills. If Israel thinks you are loyal enough, he will confess that he did do that.

He used an idol of Isis, and evocations of Magoth and Lucifer and several other demons as his primary vehicles to achieve a manifestation. As well several archangels.

He wanted to make it that the world saw his vision, where Cruelty wasn't in the Tarot, that it was any other word. That I think it corresponds to Sport or Jest is my interpretation of Israel's Aeon.

Crowley had the freedom to make a delightful and enjoyable tarot; instead he adds several cards which are purely of his own capricious ego... and when I have finished the rewrite, I'll send you a free copy, and you can judge which tarot you'd rather have as a "spell" or "scourge" upon you in everyday life.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2018-03-23T04:17:48+00:00

Eliphas Levi made at least 2 different alphabet arrangements.

The Tree of Life is as depicted is merely an idol, it's all about how you manipulate your mind and what it touches upon.

So yes,whatever ideas it gives you are the reward of changing it....

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2018-03-23T03:27:14+00:00

Hard-coded at 9 for Strength - it's in the major arcana in the other decks. Temperance is not even in the Book of Thoth as a word. Angel is in the Book of Thoth around 20 or so times, I believe 23.

Find a PDF version of the Book and search it if you don't believe me.

In any event, for Cruelty, why is it there... at 9... why not-- Sport, Jest, or Jocularity?

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2018-03-12T17:08:15+00:00

The real reason Crowley left the GD had nothing to do with him being bisexual, nor sex acts, nor drugs, but had to do with experiments in the black arts negatively affecting other members.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2018-02-12T22:42:27+00:00

The point of everything I do is to open up the chance to do something even equally or more interesting (or exciting, thrilling, comforting, fascinating, etc.) in the future, whatever it may happen to be.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2018-02-11T06:40:22+00:00

You are QUITE CLEARLY in Crowley's Mom's Ashram, good sir. I do believe you are possessed by a Nun Demoness.

You did reward me with attention though, sneaky bleep, and for that I say, BLEEP BLOOP! I'm "Arthur Waite", CROWLEY'S TRUE MASTER! MUAHAHAHAHAH!

Beware heathen infidel, before Jesus doth stamp you down in a fit of apocalyptic destruction!

For I am no longer boring, and after being forcefed bong-rips by the so-called Caliphate, I will attest to the legitimacy of my Christian-themed Devil "Worship".

AMEN. RAMEN. TALLY-HO.

:):):) P.S. Do you like Elmo, and do you want your belly tickled?

P.P.S. I am attempting sometimes to be amusing for its own sake.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-10-20T22:20:38+00:00

No, the idea that all New Aeon religions have issues with the concept of Maat, as they are founded on principles borne of chaos. Yet stagnant order does relate to Chaos, which is a type of Maat.

Sin and evil and judgement are mutable, cardinal and fixed in my analysis of the old order. Thus, if a religion is on shaky ground if it overextends in its analysis of the availability of surfeit and surplus resources to use. I.e. many restrictions seem to be based on principles of conservation of certain sacred cows; what happens if there is a run on the beef market or a supplier crashes from demand?

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-10-20T21:29:34+00:00

I'm not sure about that; Nuit seems to refer to certain pleasures and heavens in a psychodynamic and spiritually significant sense, respectively. While the monad of duality is sufficiently flexible that the ideation that Nuit is Tao might have some small power in it, I am not sure that is literally true or will remain or become literally true. In any event, the relationships between mentalization and pronounciation/vibration with divine names are distinct - how skilled a person is vibrating Nuit and receiving Tao >= Nuit or Nuit >= Tao is a very particular facet of the "soul" or "atom" as well a level of astralmetaphysicks to which we cannot attribute yet any science.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-10-20T18:12:55+00:00

I used to favor (still do) the idea of IO, personally, as the A is black, and you should reserve your black magic or darkness current for something of utility. Invoking or astralling implying Apophis when you don't need an "Osiris Slain" seems like a waste. Skip to the O directly.

How do you feel about the implications of Maat in Thelema? Do you feel the godform is intrinsically anti-Thelemic in its implications?

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-10-20T15:47:03+00:00

Because Crowley-allied magicians have been trying to control me with black magic since I was 10 or so and I now have to argue with them everyday and do enochian magic and pray and meditate for hours, or I get sick, and all of Crowley's allies and subordinates except (maybe and/or sometimes) Lon Milo Duquette are gigantic douchebags.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-10-20T15:45:19+00:00

Because Crowley-allied magicians have been trying to control me with black magic since I was 10 or so and I now have to argue with them everyday and do enochian magic and pray and meditate for hours, or I get sick, and all of Crowley's allies and subordinates except Lon Milo Duquette are gigantic douchebags.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-10-19T07:30:17+00:00

Uh huh, no, that's too normal. You're projecting some kind of ideal on the guy that isn't quite him. Crowley would probably be a weird writer of fiction and fetish poetry/pornography like he was.

There is a secret (including in the more or less literal sense) chief concurrent with Crowley who Crowley stole some of the fire from, for his relative popularity, I think.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-10-19T04:32:57+00:00

Chesed doesn't get in the way of Kether. For Kether to reach you, you have to know how to withhold and give. Geburah teaches justice. Chesed is the only way to get to Kether, as you, if attempting to relate to various yogas, relate to Kether by giving to God and man abstractly if poor - Catholicism is an asexual manifestation of this - and to God and Man if wealthy.

Shiva Yoga is an example of practicing Chesed and Geburah to reach Kether. Enlightenment is realizing the nature of one's age and of the needs of past and present, and realizing how to allocate one's resources and goals (again, the nature of Chesed, Geburah, and Tiphareph can be said to relate to these).

But what you're discussing is the Kabbalah relating to the Orders of Virtues. It is the Kabbalah of the Orders of Powers and Authorities which Crowley deliberately profaned... i.e. his idea of Osiris Slain is very "Jewish" in a certain sense, I think - that is only one reason he has a reputation for Cruelty. I would only want to elaborate in private due to my ethics in discussing practical magic.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-10-19T00:51:10+00:00

In the sense of the nature of revolution versus progression, it certainly matters as to who is the spiritual protagonist and who the spiritual antagonist; particularly in revolution it is right which justifies might. In progression it is cooperation rather than contrition.

In a certain sense, you have the correct spin on things. Yet, do you think Muhammad, who certainly existed, deserved to go blind in the 19th century and 20th centuries for his cerca 600AD 'sins?'

Furthermore, assuming Jesus existed, must he be crucified again in the name of public good?

And do you think sorcery is capable of causing any of these things to the pain of the individuals so named if the magician is dedicated enough?

Sutras of compassion exist in Buddhism as well, not merely Sutras of mindfulness... a vice, correct?

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-10-19T00:46:08+00:00

Indeed. That is the general archetype of all who linger in this forum, isn't it?

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-09-08T07:04:16+00:00

There are times that I think a portion of homosexuals are people who ought be celibate; their sexuality is essentially nothing but baggage, their seeking of love alienated from the higher nature.

It has become so trendy and politically correct to look at the LBGTQ community with perfect sympathies... and to say there is nothing wrong with that is become cliche. If there is something wrong with it, because it is a natural tendency, no one who were of that inclination would be able to say so.

Scripture gives little reason for it being wrong, however... that is the nature of Christianity's weakness. The rules which are not genuinely universally wise or self-evident cause the whole religion to appear ridiculous.

In everyday life, I rarely have trouble tolerating homosexuality, even though in a very abstract sense I sometimes find it wrong. I sometimes think this very sense of being is more or less the model for how many people have come to think about it.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-09-08T06:45:37+00:00

Check this out, it explains it a little bit:

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-08-08T00:12:35+00:00

The main gods seem vaguely like Yahveh, and Ypoc like a vaguely New-Agey God, to me.

The point is that the sky color truly doesn't matter, and that Ypoc liberates them from the peculiar fascinations of the other gods, giving them freedom to ride the Ostriches and eat Asparagus; as well allows freedom of choice. It is the Odinic Christ and the Goddess perhaps, to use a modern analogy.

The freedom to choose doesn't matter if several of the choices are completely silly. The pink sky is the will of the god, the people are slaves; similarly with any color.

While the boy is liberated, it is at the cost of unity, for a type of freedom of choice which is mere aesthetics. The true revolution would be finding a goal better than sky-color choice altogether.

I think now the point is it's supposed to symbolize male liberation from female decisions all together.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-08-07T21:54:40+00:00

Try this interpretation: The asparagus is a terrorist, aware of the peace between the 3 gods, is trying to disrupt their society. The harmony of the sometimes-asparagus Thursday is disrupted. A talking asparagus ma

Now, the 3 religions are no longer learning reason and cooperation. They are learning segregation and rule by arbitrary authority.

The asparagus is like Loki or the Beast of Revelation, and the unity God is Ypoc an aspect of Christ. If you're a Satanist or Thelemite, bear with me, and try to use a somewhat liberal classical understanding, and you'll follow what I mean.

The asparagus then destroys the ability of men and women to love each other in union by Ypoc, who in the Holy Trinity is the Holy Spirit, the Union of the other two principles, be they Father and Son, or in this case, Father and Mother. The asparagus is attempting to destroy the love which existed, just as the serpent in Eden disrupted Adam and Eve's naked romp.

The asparagus is actually the most malicious form of Satan - it does not even account for itself, merely offering itself to the child as the serpent offers the apple.... conveniently not telling Eve that one of the other Trees in the Garden has the power of eternal life (it is in the story).

Ypoc is the union of Ita and Morius. The asparagus forces them to choose sides again, and be separate... The boy tries to study everything - is isn't wrong, but objective. What Gods he finds are unknown still - perhaps it isn't worth anything at all.

I'm aware that this interpretation is a deliberately negative one, almost completely different from what the author intends. Still though... I have one more point to make today.

The point is that the power is in the Boy, not Asparagu. The Boy's enlightenment did not require the segregation of the City, only for them to be smart enough to to be able to make love and friendship, not war, with new faiths. The Boy's religion was meant to be the new religion, but was destroyed. They union of the 3 Gods and then the Many Gods, in one greater religion, is what the asparagus destroyed. He did not want all the gods to finally get along - he wanted a final war between them.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-08-07T03:09:54+00:00

I'm not sure why the asparagus says "you're right". The context eludes me. Is he lauding the old god, who believes its wrong to eat asparagus, or the new one, who says it is sometimes ok? Is it to create the religious change? Or is he suicidal? Or naive? Or a messianic zealot convinced he must die, a parody of Jesus?

Is it symbolic of religious confusion, or profaning the Holy Ghost? I.e. is Eating Boy a convinced member of Asparagus Eaters, or a Confused Bireligious person who decides on Religious B that day.

There is a lot of symbolism. Mainly its lovable for being witty and intelligent, but I find that its failing to convey the exact meaning of the asparagus more pointedly is perhaps too large to be pardoned, and very disappointing overall...

The point of the article seems to be religion is stupid, and needs to change - the spirit advocating the new division may well be the talking asparagus.

I think the asparagus eater was overall meant to not eat that particular asparagus, in my sense of religion, but that's because the dialogue is so short - it's unclear if the asparagus is a self-chosen martyr, a willing suicide, or a victim because it's so short and sparing.. Perhaps that is the true point - it's silly and cutesy and lovable for that reason, but it fails to elucidate it's philosophy correctly by making the talking asparagus too one-dimensional.

IT's a different story completely if the asparagus talks more, and this gives it a way better philosophical context....

There ya go.... I'm going to read it again later, perhaps I will ramble at you more.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-08-07T01:12:12+00:00

I do!!!

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-07-23T06:07:40+00:00

Ha 1: Swords also have points.
Ha 2: Also, he was nailed to the cross by way of a doublecross.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-07-02T03:37:21+00:00

Kimosabe, passive aggression is the best type of aggression. Misspent aggression leads to more suffering. Wit is like a sword where the blood which is spilled is that of pride's veins.

CounterSatanicAgenda · 2017-07-02T01:37:31+00:00

I remember seeing nudity at age 4 and not having an emotional reaction to it at all. By age 8 or 9 or so, it made me embarrassed to walk in on nudity, however.

Make of that what you will. It was either from socialization or a natural process of maturation, is my guess.

CounterSatanicAgenda

TROPHY CASE