Paul McCartney is Aleister Crowley.

wollclark said:
2. A quote from Aleister Crowley's book "Magick" is mentioned at 18 min. and 6 sec. that gives validity to backmasking.
Click to expand...
Not, as I mentioned and teh actual title is "Magaick in Theory and Practice"
3. There's one moment (at 18 min. and 55 sec. in the YouTube link) where an overlay is displayed of a young Paul and a young Aleister, they look quite similar, if not exactly the same.
Click to expand...
So did Paul enjoy anal receptive, was he raised a plymouth Bretheren?
4. The "Love" code mentioned around 52 min. and 37 sec. contains the symbol of a bird in the "O". A similar bird is found here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/OTOlogo.png This bird is also flashed many times throughout the movie.
Click to expand...
Yup the symbol of the OTO, big deal, if I use Micky Mouse it does not mean I am Disney.

It is the tree of life (kabbalah) and also some sort of sexual metaphor.
5. The mirrored text AREERA, or ARE3RA is displayed often in this. I found, through a Google translation, so it's not confirmed, that "Are Era" means "Ares (the God of War) was".
Click to expand...
Definitly not Crowley, one of many patron dieties was Heru/Horus
6. I believe "iamaphoney" is supposed to mean "lamaphoney" or "Lamaphoney". Lam is supposedly an alien-like figure invoked by Crowley in 1918.
Click to expand...
Not
7. This is an add-on to five and six, another name for the Lam being is "Aiwass"
http://drbristol.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/paul-mccartney-i-was.jpg
Click to expand...
Wrong

LAM=30+1+600
aiwaz is a different number and meaning, Crowley's HGA
I think the movie is implying that when Paul was killed, the replacement was a reincarnated Aleister Crowley, or the soul of Crowley was somehow transferred to the replacement. Something akin to McCartney being Crowley and vice versa.
Click to expand...
Paul is no where near the flaming jerk that Crowley was.
What do you think?
Click to expand...

they know little of either.
 
Heather Mills is the re-incarnation of Helena Blavatzky.
One had a wooden head and the other has a wooden leg.
 
As Hans said in post #36, don't you think anyone would have noticed back in 1966?

"Oh, hai Paul-who-is-taller-Paul!" (Or shorter, or whatever)

Many times on this site, someone will claim that important conclusions can be made from apparent discrepancies in photos. They think: important 9/11 photos have been tampered with indicating an Inside Jobby Job. Lee Harvey Oswald's photos have been tampered with. Etc. These conclusions are all based on how the person thinks the photos ought to look. But this style of reasoning never proves, never even supports, anything.

In one or more of those photos, someone may be wearing shoes with high heels, or bending her knees, etc.

The only way this would be evidence is if both parties stood directly next to some measuring device with their shoes off, standing up straight.
 
Last edited:
I think I can help.

First, we add punctuation.

"Fifteen million people voted for The X Factor winner. I take it you (were) one of them."

Googling The X Factor, we see that this is a reference to a Simon Cowell-produced TV show a little bit like American Idol.

Because of the lack of punctuation and the reference to a show where people vote for a singer, the post is probably insulting anyone who likes Paul McCartney. The lack of punctuation indicates an impulsive, "shoot from the hip" kind of tone.

Now, since Paul McCartney really has written a lot of good songs, by any standard (as well as a lot of fluff, by any standard), the justice of the remark must be considered controversial.
 
calebprime said:
I think I can help.

First, we add punctuation.

"Fifteen million people voted for The X Factor winner. I take it you (were) one of them."

Googling The X Factor, we see that this is a reference to a Simon Cowell-produced TV show a little bit like American Idol.

Because of the lack of punctuation and the reference to a show where people vote for a singer, the post is probably insulting anyone who likes Paul McCartney. The lack of punctuation indicates an impulsive, "shoot from the hip" kind of tone.

Now, since Paul McCartney really has written a lot of good songs, by any standard (as well as a lot of fluff, by any standard), the justice of the remark must be considered controversial.
Click to expand...

that would explain my inability to understand the comment. i have not had tv for many years.
15 million people voting for something, one-off, is hardly equivalent to hundreds of millions of fans over 5 decades.
 
I believe it was Pete Hamill who once said something to the effect of "sometimes popular culture gets it right". He was referring to Frank Sinatra, but I'd argue the same holds true for The Beatles as well.

In my experience people who actively dislike The Beatles fall into one or more camps:

1. People who were of another culture or generation who simply didn't speak The Beatles' language (literally or metaphorically).

2. Snobs/chauvinists of Classical or Jazz or some other specific musical genre.

3. Angry, superior contrarian types who reflexively despise most things that are enjoyed by "the masses".

4. The younger siblings or children of Hippies who are desperate to set themselves apart from that generation. You could start to hear this sentiment at least as early as the early 70s*. Ironically The Beatles weren't really Hippies themselves** and were up to something a little more interesting, witty and ultimately more transgressive that simply rejecting the mores of their parents. If you've ever heard George Harrison's comments about the Hippies he encountered when he visited San Francisco in the late 60s you'd know what I mean.

I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with a person who falls into one or more of these camps and of course taste is purely subjective, but I find it interesting how passionate some people are about declaring how little they rate The Beatles, specifically. For example, I have a similar lack of respect towards any number of popular bands from the past or present, but I don't feel the need to visit threads generally populated by fans of those bands and get all snarky with them, even if I'm just messing with them.





*For example; "My bother's back home with his Beatles and his Stones, we never got it off on that revolution stuff..." from Mott The Hoople's "All The Young Dudes".

**Am I committing the "No True Hippie" fallacy?:confused:
 
Last edited:
To restate my theory plainly, I think Paul McCartney is the anti-christ. Using Crowley magick (the "Beast 666") Paul became the anti-christ, it's to be revealed in 2012, when the suitcase full of lost Beatles archives will be released to the public eye.

The use of Revelations from the bible, Crowley ideals and symbols, I can come to no other conclusion.

It's made obvious when looking over the documents in the movie, and research on those documents.
 
Last edited:
Now, since Paul McCartney really has written a lot of good songs
Click to expand...
Yes the guys a lyrical genius :rolleyes:
Everybody's gonna dance tonight
Everybody's gonna feel alright
Everybody's gonna dance around tonight

Everybody's gonna dance around
Everybody's gonna hit the ground
Everybody's gonna dance around tonight

(Chorus)
Well you can come on to my place if you want to
You can do anything you want to do

Everybody's gonna dance tonight
Everybody's gonna feel alright
Everybody's gonna dance around tonight
Lyrics provided by http://www.kovideo.net/
Source - http://www.kovideo.net/dance-tonight-lyrics-paul-mccartney-590390.html

(Whistling)

Well you can come on to my place if you want to
You can do anything you want to do

Everybody's gonna stamp their feet
Everybody's gonna feel the beat
Everybody's wanna dance around tonight

(Bridge)

Everybody's gonna dance tonight
Everybody's gonna feel alright
Everybody's gonna dance around tonight

Everybody's gonna jump and shout
Everybody's gonna sing it out
Everybody's gonna dance around tonight

Well you can come on to my place if you want to
You can do anything you want to do

Everybody's gonna dance tonight
Everybody's gonna feel alright
Everybody's gonna dance around tonight
Everybody's gonna dance around tonight
Everybody's gonna feel alright tonight
Click to expand...
 
jargon buster said:
Yes the guys a lyrical genius :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Yeah, yeah, yeah:rolleyes: Your example proves exactly nothing. I can't stand most of the stuff he's written in the last 30 years, but that takes nothing away from the best of the dozens and dozens of songs he wrote in the 60s and 70s (and even some of his more recent songs from the last few years). Anyway, when people talk about the songwriting talents of Paul McCartney, I believe it's generally more for his melodies than his lyrics.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom