Apocalypses 13

[Adamon]

What do you think about this? Nowadays, you're going to find a lot of conspiracy theories about who they are. However, if you follow the TOS (Temple of Set) beliefs and everything related to them, in the book Overthrowing the Old Gods: Aleister Crowley and the Book of the Law, when Dr. Aquino gives his remarks about The Book of the Law, he suggests that they and Crowley were the beasts mentioned in this part of the Bible. Furthermore, if you read it, you'll notice that the description of the first two beasts fits them perfectly. In theory, only the Antichrist remains.

I want to hear opinions about this. On the internet, there are a lot of people claiming that both Crowley and Dr. Aquino were liars, but I don't think so. Crowley may have been a bit of a show-off about this. On the other hand, Dr. Aquino never claimed to be the second beast (he stated that The Book of the Law never mentioned "a second beast," despite it made a reference to one).

Do you think they were just charlatans??

 

[IllusiveOwl]

Aquino has had a prolific career and had not just had a hand in founding a school - the Temple of Set - but has also published several interesting & thought-provoking books. He's accomplished more than most of the people in the occult world today could claim.

And love him or hate him, Crowley will be remembered. He will be remembered for a long time. He called himself The Beast 666, which is a bit on the nose here.

Regardless I don't think they were charlatans, charlatans are all flair & showmanship, empty promises and profit. Both produced works of substance, of sweat and blood. I think they were genuine, though I don't think tying them to revelations is a bit much, Aquino may have been overreaching with that claim.

If the slot for the Antichrist is open though, I nominate @Xenophon

 

[Xenophon]

What do you think about this? Nowadays, you're going to find a lot of conspiracy theories about who they are. However, if you follow the TOS (Temple of Set) beliefs and everything related to them, in the book Overthrowing the Old Gods: Aleister Crowley and the Book of the Law, when Dr. Aquino gives his remarks about The Book of the Law, he suggests that they and Crowley were the beasts mentioned in this part of the Bible. Furthermore, if you read it, you'll notice that the description of the first two beasts fits them perfectly. In theory, only the Antichrist remains.

I want to hear opinions about this. On the internet, there are a lot of people claiming that both Crowley and Dr. Aquino were liars, but I don't think so. Crowley may have been a bit of a show-off about this. On the other hand, Dr. Aquino never claimed to be the second beast (he stated that The Book of the Law never mentioned "a second beast," despite it made a reference to one).

Do you think they were just charlatans??

Crowley was what might be called "a sincere phony." He thought he had a great teaching to impart, but put himself in the position of needing worldly support to get the word out. So he pandered a lot and popularized. I have never really heard serious charges that Aquino was at all in the same boat. The O9A---or at least David Myatt---trashed Aquino for whoring after public respectability, but that's a different charge. If Aquino has any other flaw, it's a certain tedious tendency to court intellectual respectibility by rehashing the history of Western philosophy every time he got in front of a keyboard. The Temple of Set produced enough first rate magi that I think the charge of charlatan has an uphill slog to make.

As for the Beast business, one doubts that any Anti-Christ worth the title will telegraph his punches by coming out too soon like that.