Paul McCartney is Aleister Crowley.

[sadhatter]

Macbeth!

Sorry, i have never heard of the name of that piece of art, is it a play perhaps? I know there is a character that goes by that name in some play or other, but for the life of me, i can't seem to think of the name.

**leaves conversation before he is forced to say the name. ** lol

 

[dafydd]

Why would people lie about such a thing?

Prurience is the word you are groping for.

 

[INRM]

This is nonsense, and for an easy reason to explain (despite the fact that consciousness is a byproduct of brain activity which makes an afterlife and reincarnation impossible): Aleister Crowley died in 1947, and McCartney was born in '42 which meant McCartney was alive before Crowley died.

Also being that consciousness is the product of the human brain, it is not possible to "possess" another human being which would be the only other metaphysical way that Crowley could have taken control of McCartney.

 

[dafydd]

Crowley was a drug addled nutcase who could only control a hypodermic needle.

 

[fuelair]

Paul McCartney is Aleister Crowley.




Possibly, but he is certainly not the Walrus. And that's Sir Paul to all you commoners, thank you very much!!

 

[bikerdruid]

Paul McCartney is Aleister Crowley.

Possibly, but he is certainly not the Walrus.

koo koo kachoo

 

[BobHaulk]

Zappa was a cool and talented dude and I'm genuinely sorry he's no longer with us, but he could be kind of an egotistical ass, too, as evidenced by that quote. His aggressively über-arch, "hipper-than-thou" shtick gets old after a while.

I don't think zappa was hipper than thou he just didn't buy into the fake hippie culture espoused by the likes of the Beatles. All that swinging sixties and free love bollocks, not round my way it wasn't, it were outside toilets and long shifts down pit. We didn't need some grammar school kids from their posh neighbourhoods singing about holding hands and how their mummies didn't want them pretending they were leading a revolution. It's not just McCartney that's the anti christ, it's the Beatles,except Ringo, obviously.

 

[bikerdruid]

It's not just McCartney that's the anti christ, it's the Beatles,except Ringo, obviously.

evidence?

 

[dafydd]

koo koo kachoo

Goo goo goo joob.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Goo goo goo joob.

Ob-la-di ob-la-dah.

 

[JohnG]

I don't think zappa was hipper than thou he just didn't buy into the fake hippie culture espoused by the likes of the Beatles. All that swinging sixties and free love bollocks, not round my way it wasn't, it were outside toilets and long shifts down pit. We didn't need some grammar school kids from their posh neighbourhoods singing about holding hands and how their mummies didn't want them pretending they were leading a revolution. It's not just McCartney that's the anti christ, it's the Beatles,except Ringo, obviously.

Well the important thing is that you are looking at the subject rationally and objectively.

The Beatles might not have been working downt' pit, but they sure as hell weren't from "posh neighborhoods", either. If you ever actually listened to the song "Revolution" you'd know Lennon was at best ambivalent about the idea of revolution. Oh and John and Paul's "mummies" didn't have any strong views on their son's supposed revolutionary activities one way or another seeing as they both died tragically young before The Beatles even formed. The Beatles were up to something more interesting, witty and thoughtful than the typical naive and self-centered hippie BS. In fact you've managed to cram so much "wrong" into that short paragraph of yours that I'm guessing you actually like The Beatles at least a little and are just trolling for the lulz.

Either way I'm sure you'll be happy to know that in the unlikely event there's ever a thread about Dylan or Zappa being the antichrist, I promise I won't derail it with a critique of their status as musicians.

 

[BobHaulk]

Well the important thing is that you are looking at the subject rationally and objectively.

The Beatles might not have been working downt' pit, but they sure as hell weren't from "posh neighborhoods", either. If you ever actually listened to the song "Revolution" you'd know Lennon was at best ambivalent about the idea of revolution. Oh and John and Paul's "mummies" didn't have any strong views on their son's supposed revolutionary activities one way or another seeing as they both died tragically young before The Beatles even formed. The Beatles were up to something more interesting, witty and thoughtful than the typical naive and self-centered hippie BS. In fact you've managed to cram so much "wrong" into that short paragraph of yours that I'm guessing you actually like The Beatles at least a little and are just trolling for the lulz.

Either way I'm sure you'll be happy to know that in the unlikely event there's ever a thread about Dylan or Zappa being the antichrist, I promise I won't derail it with a critique of their status as musicians.

I'm not trying to derail a thread about paul being the anti christ since it's a fairly comic thread anyway, you shouldn't be so precious about how much you hero worship a group of folk who play a couple of tunes you like.
Take the piece of cack that is sgt peppers, it's a total rip off of Captain Beefheart yet to your average beatle fan you'd think they'd reinvented the wheel when all they did was try and sound like the captain, even ripping the name. Oh and the very idea that lennon isn't a hippie is just wrong, he was the king of the hippies unlike Dylan or Zappa who wanted nothing to do with them.
Thank god for ringo and his great drumming cause without him they'd have just sounded like another bunch of middle class white kids badly playing chuck berry and little richards songs.

 

[Aitch]

Hey Bob - are you using that web site that generates random gibberish? Certainly looks like it.

 

[JAStewart]

I'm not trying to derail a thread about paul being the anti christ since it's a fairly comic thread anyway, you shouldn't be so precious about how much you hero worship a group of folk who play a couple of tunes you like.
Take the piece of cack that is sgt peppers, it's a total rip off of Captain Beefheart yet to your average beatle fan you'd think they'd reinvented the wheel when all they did was try and sound like the captain, even ripping the name. Oh and the very idea that lennon isn't a hippie is just wrong, he was the king of the hippies unlike Dylan or Zappa who wanted nothing to do with them.
Thank god for ringo and his great drumming cause without him they'd have just sounded like another bunch of middle class white kids badly playing chuck berry and little richards songs.

Were the Beatles socialist hippies? Remember the song "Taxman"? That's the anthem of Libertarians these days...

The song I Am The Walrus basically sounds like Captain Beefheart^lite. Don't get me wrong, I do like the Beatles, I think they're great, but they're not the be-all-and-end-all of music.

PS I think Ringo is overrated.

 

[dafydd]

Well the important thing is that you are looking at the subject rationally and objectively.

The Beatles might not have been working downt' pit, but they sure as hell weren't from "posh neighborhoods", either. If you ever actually listened to the song "Revolution" you'd know Lennon was at best ambivalent about the idea of revolution. Oh and John and Paul's "mummies" didn't have any strong views on their son's supposed revolutionary activities one way or another seeing as they both died tragically young before The Beatles even formed. The Beatles were up to something more interesting, witty and thoughtful than the typical naive and self-centered hippie BS. In fact you've managed to cram so much "wrong" into that short paragraph of yours that I'm guessing you actually like The Beatles at least a little and are just trolling for the lulz.

Either way I'm sure you'll be happy to know that in the unlikely event there's ever a thread about Dylan or Zappa being the antichrist, I promise I won't derail it with a critique of their status as musicians.

John Lennon was middle class,as was Paul. George and Ringo were working class.

 

[dafydd]

Were the Beatles socialist hippies? Remember the song "Taxman"? That's the anthem of Libertarians these days...

The song I Am The Walrus basically sounds like Captain Beefheart^lite. Don't get me wrong, I do like the Beatles, I think they're great, but they're not the be-all-and-end-all of music.

PS I think Ringo is overrated.

Taxman was George Harrison bitching about paying 98 percent supertax on some of his earnings. I Am The Walrus doesn't sound like Beefheart to me.

 

[dafydd]

I'm not trying to derail a thread about paul being the anti christ since it's a fairly comic thread anyway, you shouldn't be so precious about how much you hero worship a group of folk who play a couple of tunes you like.
Take the piece of cack that is sgt peppers, it's a total rip off of Captain Beefheart yet to your average beatle fan you'd think they'd reinvented the wheel when all they did was try and sound like the captain, even ripping the name. Oh and the very idea that lennon isn't a hippie is just wrong, he was the king of the hippies unlike Dylan or Zappa who wanted nothing to do with them.
Thank god for ringo and his great drumming cause without him they'd have just sounded like another bunch of middle class white kids badly playing chuck berry and little richards songs.

Sgt Peppers is not a Beefheart rip off,I have no idea where you get that from. In 1967 the only Beefheart album available was Safe As Milk. Lennon loved the album,but I hear no influences. Safe As Milk was released in April 1967,and the Beatles had been in the studio recording Peppers for for months. Beefheart did annoy Lennon with this track in 1968.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cuv1HBTbHO4

Guess where the idea for backwards guitar came from.

 

[calebprime]

Sgt Peppers is not a Beefheart rip off,I have no idea where you get that from. In 1967 the only Beefheart album available was Safe As Milk. Lennon loved the album,but I hear no influences. Safe As Milk was released in April 1967,and the Beatles had been in the studio recording Peppers for for months. Beefheart did annoy Lennon with this track in 1968.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cuv1HBTbHO4

Guess where the idea for backwards guitar came from.

Hehe. It pays to listen all the way to the end.

What does the address say on the front?

Capt. Beefheart & His Magic Band
5000/mgs Tubular Falls Estate
Glassdom, Glassdom.

It's not a reference to Tubular Bells, (highly overrated by some imo) because that came out in '73.

5000 mgs of LSD is almost enough to induce permanent delusions of reference in a small dog, but Lennon was taking LSD daily for a while, and so had a large tolerance.

It's important to understand these things.

 

[calebprime]

... but Lennon was taking LSD daily for a while, and so had a large tolerance.
It's important to understand these things.

But, apparently, not important enough to do adequate skeptical research before making baseless claims and spewing your nonsense all over the forum.

Your source, methinks, was the Albert Goldman bio of Lennon.

Louis Menand in The New Republic described the sourcing of Goldman's book as "vague and unreliable". Menand wrote of Goldman's book that "The little things don't matter, of course, if the big things can be trusted. But the big things can't."[23] Luc Sante, in New York Review of Books, said about the account of Lennon's consumption of LSD in the book: "Goldman's background research was either slovenly or nonexistent."

uh-oh, big thunderstorm in Boston area right now!

off-line I go!

don't want to get zappa-d.

 

[dafydd]

Hehe. It pays to listen all the way to the end.

What does the address say on the front?

Capt. Beefheart & His Magic Band
5000/mgs Tubular Falls Estate
Glassdom, Glassdom.

It's not a reference to Tubular Bells, (highly overrated by some imo) because that came out in '73.

5000 mgs of LSD is almost enough to induce permanent delusions of reference in a small dog, but Lennon was taking LSD daily for a while, and so had a large tolerance.

It's important to understand these things.

Lennon said that he taken 'thousands of trips' but I didn't believe him,or the daily consumption either. I swallowed 1000 mgs of Californian Sunshine by mistake in 1969. I can't imagine what 5000 mgs would be like. It did no lasting damage, I quite enjoyed it. Now I must go and water my collection of singing potatoes.