Satanic sex cult that's snaring celebrities

reply to post by Suspiria


Are the OTO like wiccans?

I assume then that if peaches Galdolf is part of them perhaps she got these teachings from her father bob galdolf.

And why do you say its a satantic sex cult?
lol

The OTO is real and sinister. It has been alluded to in the adult entertainment industry.

One of the primary factors as to why I’ve not only left, but renounced the Los Angeles porn industry and the majority of those attached to it, was due to my realization that Satanism and an organization / cult called the O.T.O. ( Ordo Templi Orientis ) are very influencial within the group of people which make up the Los Angeles porn industry. Don't let the mainstream info of the cult fool you

That's testimony from a former employee of the industry. Her name is Monica Foster and she has a blog citing the dangers of the industry.

reply to post by TrueMessiah


Oh alluded to in the adult entertainment industry? tell more ... have not heard.

You are suggesting that bdsm has something to do with satanism?

reply to post by FreedomEntered


Oh so Monica's just making this up huh?
I find it very appalling that you would even defend something Alister Crowley was heavily involved in. That raises a lot of suspicion.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


I try to be polite until I have a reason not to be. Respect is earned, not given.

But since my explanation and answers to your question were misunderstood or explained poorly, I will try to re-iterate.

Before I became a mason, I did a lot of looking into what masonry was. My search brought me here among other places. I mostly saw the bad side of what everyone claimed it was. It was devil worship, spitting on crosses, denouncing Jesus Christ, It was nothing but good ole boys giving each other jobs and such, it was eating babies and sacrificing virgins, after all that, I was not at all interested in joining such a terrible thing. But I trusted the people that I know that were PART of the organization and I couldn't believe they could be part of anything like that. So I joined to find out for myself. Guess what? It's a wonderful group of like minded men trying to better themselves and their respective communities. And it has brought me closer to God.

Now on to the OTO. We seem to have the same things going on here. Please don't take this as against you personally, But how on earth can someone who is not a member of a secret society know anything at all about that society for sure? Common sense says they cannot.

So given all the evidence I have, I chose not to make snap judgments on what this group might or might not be based on outsiders information. I am not interested in joining at this point of my life, and I may never be, but for the friends I have that are part of this, they seem to enjoy it and they also seem to enjoy normal lives free of demons following them around and the need for orgies every other weekend.

And just like anything in life, I might be dead wrong and you might be completely right, but I just cannot persecute a group without first hand knowledge.

Originally posted by TrueMessiah
reply to post by FreedomEntered

 

Oh so Monica's just making this up huh?
I find it very appalling that you would even defend something Alister Crowley was heavily involved in. That raises a lot of suspicion.

edit on 27-4-2013 by TrueMessiah because: (no reason given)

Tell me what crimes Mr. Crowley is guilty of please.
I find it very appalling that you would demonize an entire organization based on misinformation.
Crowley was egocentric, he was an ass, And he wanted attention and got it by pushing the envelope, but He was not a satanist, he didn't kill people, and to my knowledge, he wasn't a criminal. You might want to study up on his bio a bit before you act as if you KNOW about him.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Saurus

 

When dealing with the incredibly ignorant, one mans sex cult is another mans harmless meeting of an esoteric society.

Those who fear what they don't understand will always be this stupid. But they are damn fun to watch.

I nearly gave myself a charlie horse in my side from laughing so hard at that comment.

Hysterical.... Thanks for the chuckle, mon ami

Let me start by saying I am NOT a member of the OTO. However, I am a member of another organization which is often viewed as the complimentary, dualistic twin of OTO. Those who are knowledgeable know I a speaking in terms of left hand path versus right hand path. That being said, I have attended meetings and rituals of the OTO in the past. Only the uninitiated and mundane would term the OTO to be Satanic. It is not. They do discuss, study, invoke, and evoke entities from the Qlippoth, but for reasons that go deeper than the average layman would understand. Not necessarily to utilize or provoke the powers of the Christian Satan.

Furthermore, the mottos about "do as though will is the whole of the law" is misunderstood and taken out of context by the uninitiated. It is meant to portray an unfailing law of personal accountability. You control your actions in this world. Your actions are your will. Do what you will in this life knowing there will ALWAYS be a spiritual reckoning for that will.

Double post. Stupid airport.....

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by TrueMessiah
reply to post by FreedomEntered

 

Oh so Monica's just making this up huh?
I find it very appalling that you would even defend something Alister Crowley was heavily involved in. That raises a lot of suspicion.

edit on 27-4-2013 by TrueMessiah because: (no reason given)

Tell me what crimes Mr. Crowley is guilty of please.
I find it very appalling that you would demonize an entire organization based on misinformation.
Crowley was egocentric, he was an ass, And he wanted attention and got it by pushing the envelope, but He was not a satanist, he didn't kill people, and to my knowledge, he wasn't a criminal. You might want to study up on his bio a bit before you act as if you KNOW about him.

Hey network dude i know you weren't replying to me in this quote but i figured i could throw some stuff out there that i heard in terms of some stuff Crowley did that doesn't sit well with me, first thing from what i understand he beat women that and his majik was of the more sinister nature such as conjuring up demons not entities but demons, anyway thought i would throw that out there....

reply to post by King Seesar


Could you link me to that information please. I never claimed to like the guy or think he was a saint, but I did do more than a cursory glance at his bio and found that most of what is claimed about him is sensationalized garbage. He was a nut job by most standards, he was eccentric, he did try to communicate with demons and the like, but to my knowledge he wasn't a law breaker. I would just rather when people go to use him as an example of something, that they actually know what they are talking about. Not just parroting what they "heard".

reply to post by network dude


Sure i understand what you mean here's one example of the notion that Crowley abused women......

en.wikipedia.org...

On the Wiki page look for this quote "Elizabeth Reis claims that Crowley physically abused his Scarlet Women in sadomasochistic sex rituals"

Plus i have heard it elsewhere it's pretty commen knowledge that Crowley was abusive to women.....

I know you were inquiring about the concept of majik in a thread you made, i can only say that if you start using majik in the sense of rituals conjuring ect ect i would look elsewhere for guidance, while my concept of majik is not along these lines persay if you chose this path of majik there are better people to study with many books on the subject.....

reply to post by King Seesar


Seesar,

Bonjour, mon ami...

I think it is safe to say that any engaging discussion about Crowley would be hard to defend, no matter which position the debater takes. Why? Because any individual who may have actually been present or personally known the man is long dead. So that leaves only 2nd hand or written information to stand as witness or evidence. That material falls on both sides of the aisle. I doubt anyone would argue that the man was eccentric and controversial, especially in his time. That kind of dynamic personality is bound to attract both lovers and haters.

That being said, it would be an interesting to debate or entertain discussion on Crowley from two different perspectives:

1. His psychology - Pull up (or even complete yourself) a psychological profile of Crowley. In order to be objective, be sure to set aside your personal opinions about his BELIEFS and just look at the actions & motivations of the MAN himself. I don't believe Crowley started out a madman. A strong personality, yes...but not crazy or psychotic. When any individual begins studying esoteric wisdom (let alone blazing new trails in it....), one is seriously cautioned about the personal ramifications of not maintain a strict psychological balance. In fact, many adepts *INSIST* that initiates attend regular counseling sessions apart from their esoteric studies just to keep themselves grounded and maintain a safety net. Not surprisingly, Crowley had no such check and balance. Magic changes you. If one is not careful, it can lead to megalomania. This is what happened to Crowley.

2. His knowledge - Few can argue that Crowley had a genius in regards to esoteric intuition. He was a risk-taker and unafraid to experiment. He made great strides in the areas of esoteric science, even if you happen to disagree with his philosophy. In fact, I have noted that many of his naysayers object based upon their own personal objection on a philosophical level. They dislike the man and his methods....therefore, they can't see the true value in what he uncovered. They look at HIM and not what he discovered.

reply to post by CIAGypsy


Yea i guess there is no debate in terms of Crowley ever being mistaken as the second coming of Christ persay most people know enough about the man that this would be impossible.....

One question i have for you tho that i have been thinking of for some time now just waiting for the right time to ask it and that is this, correct me if i'm wrong but you said you are (and i can't remember exactly so forgive me) a scientist or biologist but my question would fit either occupation....

My question is when working in a job that is based on mans notion of pure known logic/science which would seem to be a job that most who occupy would be very left brain dominated how are you able to grasp the esoteric beings the job you work?? i would think they would be rather conflicting, the esoteric asks for you to suspend disbelief in a sense of pure known logical science and use your right brain to obtain such a awareness of such....

I was always wondering how you were able to juggle both things, sorry in advance if this is to personal for you to answer i was just wondering.....

Anyway nice talking to you again CIAGypsy....

Edit to add: To answer your question if i was assigned to take a pro Crowley stance in a debate i would point to the fact that he was a pioneer in right brain thinking and while i might not agree where that right brain thinking took him he was revolutionary in terms of imagination and putting that imagination to work for something he believed in..

reply to post by King Seesar


Seesar,

You are correct.... One of the several hats I wear is that of scientific research, specifically in the areas of electromagnetics and BCI (brain-computer interface). You are also correct that my role in this life requires me to look at everything around me through two filters - the "scientific" (as it is known by the average person) and the esoteric. You see a conflict in these two views because one is based on concrete, repeatable evidence that can be independently verified....the other based upon sometimes spiritual laws that cannot (at least, in the terms of science).

However, the truth of the matter is that there need be no conflict. The answer is simple. Science tells me the "how" but it cannot tell me the "why." I can use science to explain how a chemical interacts with the brain in a particular way but there is much that science cannot sufficiently explain (such as consciousness). Some mysteries can only be explained by faith in this time and place (side note- which is why the movie "Contact" was so brilliant for those who picked up the deeper meaning!).

There are many scientists...great scientists....who were also students of esoteric knowledge -

Throughout history a number of prominent persons in the fields of science and the arts have been associated with the Rosicrucian movement, such as Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), Cornelius Heinrich Agrippa (1486-1535), Paracelsus (1493-1541), François Rabelais (1494-1553), Theresa of Avila (1515-1582), John of the Cross (1542-1591), Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Robert Fludd (1574-1637), Jacob Boehme (1575-1624), René Descartes (1596-1650), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646-1716), Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), Ella Wheeler Wilcox (1850-1919), Marie Corelli (1855-1924), Claude Debussy (1862-1918), Erik Satie (1866-1925), and Edith Piaf (1916-1963).

These are well documented. There are many others from today's society, but I am not at liberty to name them due to confidentiality. But I can tell you that there are deep, coordinated, scientific studies being done, both in America and Europe, by Fraters and Sorers who ascribe to esoteric philosophy from Rosicrucianism and other mystery schools.

reply to post by King Seesar


Don't worry, I don't plan on following Crowley to find anything I have lost. I was curious as to what definition others would use for magic. The path I am on seems right for me now. I have a desire to learn more of the Rosicrucian teachings in the future, but I have a lot of things to do between now and then. It sounds like you looked into Crowley a bit as well. I did so only to find the truth and not just others opinions. Not out of interest in demons and the like.

reply to post by network dude

I thought to know... and found that the rose is a symbolic imagery of a woman who meets a mortal whose desire leads him to cross the line from noble to demon. He devours her and it is called the natural as in nature.
It was original sin and his desire is natural thus she is called rose as in the garden and of nature. To use her is deemed to trample. Crossing the line of nobility to demonizing proportions.
For not crossing the he is deemed a coward. Knight of the rosecroix

Originally posted by TrueMessiah
The OTO is real and sinister.

The O.T.O. are a joke. It's basically a personality cult for Bill Breeze. Very similar to what the Church of Satan was for Anton LaVey. O.T.O. membership has even higher turnover rates than regular Masonry. People tend to wake up pretty quickly and see it for the farce it really is. In the meantime, Bill Breeze, a/k/a Hymeneaus Beta, is happy to take their dues money.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment


When the OTO was established, do you suppose it was intended to be a godly path of righteousness, truth and justice?

Actually, yes. The O.T.O. was originally Christian - Gnostic.

Aleister Crowley eventually conned his way into a leadership positon. When he tried to eliminate Christianity and replace it with Thelema, he was expelled. But he still continued to be the boss of the O.T.O. lodge in Canada, which had become irregular.

The modern O.T.O. isn't really related to the original O.T.O. of Reuss, or even the Thelemic O.T.O. of Crowley. It was founded in the 1970's by Grady McMurtry, and only claims to be the Crowley O.T.O.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
reply to post by King Seesar

 

Seesar,

You are correct.... One of the several hats I wear is that of scientific research, specifically in the areas of electromagnetics and BCI (brain-computer interface). You are also correct that my role in this life requires me to look at everything around me through two filters - the "scientific" (as it is known by the average person) and the esoteric. You see a conflict in these two views because one is based on concrete, repeatable evidence that can be independently verified....the other based upon sometimes spiritual laws that cannot (at least, in the terms of science).

However, the truth of the matter is that there need be no conflict. The answer is simple. Science tells me the "how" but it cannot tell me the "why." I can use science to explain how a chemical interacts with the brain in a particular way but there is much that science cannot sufficiently explain (such as consciousness). Some mysteries can only be explained by faith in this time and place (side note- which is why the movie "Contact" was so brilliant for those who picked up the deeper meaning!).

There are many scientists...great scientists....who were also students of esoteric knowledge -

Throughout history a number of prominent persons in the fields of science and the arts have been associated with the Rosicrucian movement, such as Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), Cornelius Heinrich Agrippa (1486-1535), Paracelsus (1493-1541), François Rabelais (1494-1553), Theresa of Avila (1515-1582), John of the Cross (1542-1591), Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Robert Fludd (1574-1637), Jacob Boehme (1575-1624), René Descartes (1596-1650), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646-1716), Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), Ella Wheeler Wilcox (1850-1919), Marie Corelli (1855-1924), Claude Debussy (1862-1918), Erik Satie (1866-1925), and Edith Piaf (1916-1963).

These are well documented. There are many others from today's society, but I am not at liberty to name them due to confidentiality. But I can tell you that there are deep, coordinated, scientific studies being done, both in America and Europe, by Fraters and Sorers who ascribe to esoteric philosophy from Rosicrucianism and other mystery schools.

This is one of the most interesting ATS comments I've read. Period.

Sounds like our background overlaps a bit. I completed my doctoral degree in neuroscience last year brain-computer interface wasn't too far removed from my area of study. I happen to agree with your take on the HOW and WHY aspects of science and faith/esoteric.

Very intrigued by the societies and practitioners that you reference regarding confidentiality.