If nobody believed in superstition it would be unable to hurt anyone
INSANITY OF CROWLEYANITY, ALEISTER CROWLEY WAS A
THE BOOK OF THE LAW, THE FIRST CHAPTER
Cairo. 1904. Aleister Crowley, the Great Beast, the Beast 666, claimed that some intelligence from the spirit realm wrote The Book of the Law through him. Crowley regarded it as THE book of his magical philosophy. That he did shows that he was far from being all there.
One has only to read it to see how much paper the entity
he said wrote it wasted. Surely when it was so keen to speak it could have had
more deep and profound things to say? The Law is for All, The Authorised Popular
Commentary to The Book of the Law, by Aleister Crowley and edited by Louis
Wilkinson and Hymenaeus Beta (New Falcon, Arizona, 1996) is what is consulted
for this chapter and the following two. I am writing one chapter for each of the
three chapters of this deranged law.
Crowley considered The Book of the Law to be proof that
beings greater than human beings existed and were interested in what was best
for us. He said it proved the existence of God. Yet there is not one single
argument for God’s existence in it. There is only imagination in it. A godlike
being would have picked a more reliable and competent prophet.
The commentary was written by Crowley for he was the only
person allowed to do that. Crowley wrote, “Some 25 years ago I wrote a
Commentary on The Book of the Law – over a quarter of a million words of the
most turgid and incomprehensible hogwash ever penned” (page 9). Hymenaeus Beta
claims that this was half-joking (page 9). But Crowley said he could not bear to
look at what he wrote to correct it and got Wilkinson to try and make it
coherent. So he was serious. If Crowley had been divinely inspired or believed
himself to have been he would have done it himself. Nobody knows a work better
than its writer.
Page 10 reveals that the edited commentary was found in Crowley’s papers making
it more than likely that he had seen and agreed with the commentary in The Law
is for All.
The first verse of the book is, “Had! The manifestation
of Nuit”. Had is Satan (page 24).
On page 26, we read that every number is infinite and
this means that every person is infinite and therefore God.
The commentary on page 36 says, “The Golden Rule is
silly. If Lord Alfred Douglas (for example) did to others what he would like
them to do to him, many would resent his action”. Lord Alfred Douglas was the
homosexual who had a relationship with Oscar Wilde. But the Golden Rule, treat
others as you like them to treat you, does not ask you to force your sexual
needs on those who do not want them for you would not like people to do that to
The commentary teaches this on page 42, “The sexual act
is a sacrament of Will. To profane it is the great offence. All true expression
of it is lawful; all suppression or distortion is contrary to the Law of
Liberty. To use legal or financial constraint to compel either abstentation or
submission, is entirely horrible, unnatural and absurd”. As if harmful sex
should not be forbidden. The book says that it is the sacrament of Will. Will is
what you truly want considering all the options. If Will wants to have sex
regardless of how likely it is to get AIDS then this is permitted. Desire is
exalted over reason and that is foolish. The Will is more interested in eternal
self-preservation than acts of sex. If it could trigger the brain to be in a
state of perpetual orgasm with sex or whatever it would. Crowley misunderstands
the true will. Sex is not a sacrament of the Will. The commentary (page 42) gets
far worse, “Some of the most passionate and permanent attachments have begun
with rape. Rome was actually founded thereon. Similarly, the murder of a
faithless partner is ethically excusable, in a certain sense; for there may be
some stars whose Nature is extreme violence”. (Stars are independent so star
represents the individualists.) this is utter revolting rubbish. Rape and murder
are condoned here.
Silly attitudes to women appear in the commentary, “Blind
asses! Who pretend that women are naturally chaste! The Easterns know better;
all the restrictions of the harem, of public opinion, and so on, are based on
the recognition of the fact that woman is only chaste when there is nobody
around. She will snatch the baby from its cradle, or drag the dog from its
kennel, to prove the old saying: “Natura abhorret a vacuo” (page 44). The saying
is that nature abhors a vacuum. So a woman will molest babies and even animals
if there are no men. How stupid a doctrine this is.
The commentary says that, “A man who is not doing his
will is like a man with cancer, an independent growth in him, yet one from which
he cannot get free. The idea of self-sacrifice is a moral cancer in exactly this
sense” (page 45). But then page 54 says that you should suffer by admitting and
freely practicing your sexual desires no matter how much trouble it lands you
in. It demands self-sacrifice after all!
Page 50 declares that a person must not invade another’s
rights for that implies that one’s own rights should be invaded. It does not
matter if it doesn’t to you and if you don’t get caught. And the true will might
make you like being abused. So the commentary can give no real reason for not
harming others. And it forbids respect for treating a person right is only a
sham if you are only doing it for your own benefit.
Page 54 advises that babies and young children be shown
and taught all about sex of every kind in case mystery makes them stupid! It
does not worry the commentator that this will injure the children. Sex is not
everything in life.
On page 55, incest, adultery and men sleeping with boys
are authorised in case forbidding them leads to shame, cowardice and hypocrisy
and makes them the conditions for a successful life. Forbidding these things
need lead to none of these. Hypocrisy can be avoided by repentance.
The commentary says on page 64, “There are cases when
seduction or rape may be emancipation or initiation to another. Such acts can
only be judged by their results”. So rape is moral when it has good results! But
when nobody knows what the result will be and there is no need for rape then how
could it ever be right? Rubbish like this should not be published. When the
Bible is as bad and it is published it is no wonder when a publisher would
publish the likes of what Crowley wrote.
CROWLEY’S LAW, CHAPTER TWO
Having completed our search for faults in Crowley’s first chapter of the law let us hope we can find plenty to discredit his hateful book in chapter two.
Verse 2 is, “Come! All ye, and learn the secret that hath
not yet been revealed. I, Hadit, am the complement of Nu, my bride. I am not
extended, and Khabs is the name of my House”.
The commentary reads, “Khabs – “a star” – is a unit of
Nuit, and therefore Nuit Herself. This doctrine is enormously difficult of
apprehension, even after these many years of study. Hadit is the “core of every
star”, verse 6. He is thus the Impersonal Identity with the Individuality of
“every man and every woman.” He is “not extended”; that is, without condition of
any sort in the metaphysical sense. Only in the highest trances can the nature
of these truths be revealed” (page 87, 88).
This is really Pantheism which claims that we are
ultimately one impersonal spirit. And Crowley wants us to believe in spirits
which is a mystery to us for we cannot see how a being that is a kind of nothing
can exist. This system is as abominable as Christianity with its belief in
Verse 3 goes, “In the sphere I am everywhere the centre,
as she, the circumference, is nowhere found.” If the sphere has its centres
everywhere inside it then we have a contradiction. Crowley’s God is irrational.
The commentary on page 92 says the centre is everywhere and the circumference
nowhere. But if there is a centre then there must be a boundary. Christians used
the same language for their mysterious God. It is just nonsense.
Page 98 says that Archbishop Cranmer’s excuse for his
heretical actions was to burn his hand in the fire that he was to be burned in
by the Catholics. Cranmer said that his hand offended but he could still have
meant that he was guilty and only have been performing a symbolic action.
Verse 19 says, “Is God to live in a dog?” the context and
commentary say this is a rhetorical question meant for suggesting that it is
But a God living in a dog would still be a God and able
to do what he wants so there is no problem. Yet the commentary says, “A god
living in a dog would be one who was prevented from fulfilling his function
properly” (page 101). This error proves that The Book of the Law was not
inspired by a genius spirit at all.
Verse 21 is a shocker! “We have nothing with the outcast
and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is
the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched and the weak: this is the law of the
strong: this is our law and the joy of the world”.
This hate-filled crap ignores the fact that we are all
weak at times and that the weak can become strong. The compassion denounced is
not the emotion but the practice of helping others for if kings were gripped by
the emotion they would give away all they had to the wretched.
The commentary argues: “There is a good deal of the
Nietzschean standpoint in this verse. It is the evolutionary and natural view.
Of what use is it to perpetuate the misery of tuberculosis, and such diseases,
as we do now? Nature’s way is to weed out the weak. This is the most merciful
way, too. At present all the strong are being damaged, and their progress
hindered by the dead weight of the weak limbs and the missing limbs, the
diseased limbs and the atrophied limbs. The Christians to the Lions!” (page
To hell with the laws of nature. Nature was made by
chance not a God so we have no need to call upon people to respect its laws even
if it hurts us. So nature gets rid of the weak with diseases? The strong have
the same problem.
So the weak have to die so that the strong will prosper?
But the strong should be more interested in people than in material things which
can be lost anytime. And evolution does not imply that we should live as if
survival of the fittest is a moral law. That lie has led to states in America
dropping evolution from the curriculum.
Verse 22 includes the words, “To worship me take wine and
strange drugs whereof I will tell my prophet, & be drunk thereof! They shall not
harm ye at all” (page 109).
The commentary recommends cocaine (page 110).
Because it is said earlier that reason is rubbish, page
118 says, “We must not suppose for an instant that The Book of the Law is
opposed to reason. On the contrary, its own claim to authority rests upon
reason, and nothing else”.
Also page 118 says, “Distrust any explanation whatever.
Disraeli said, “Never ask anyone to dinner who has to be explained.” All
explanations are intended to cover up lies, injustices, or shames. The Truth is
The verse this is about, verse 29 (page 118), puts it
more bluntly, “May Because be accursed forever!” How cynical! Even reason has to
be explained to the novice. What are the commentary and The Book of the Law for?
Verse 32 says, “Reason is a lie; for there is a factor
infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise” (page 119).
The commentary says, “It has been explained at length in
a previous note that “reason is a lie” by nature. We may here add certain
confirmations suggested by the “factor”. A and a not-A together make up the
Universe. As A is evidently “infinite & unknown”, its equal and opposite A must
be no less. Again, from any proposition “S is P”, reason deduces S is not p”;
thus the apparent finitude and knowability of S is deceptive, since it is in
direct relation with p” (page 119, 120).
Later, “we may be sure that our apparatus is inherently
incapable of discovering the truth about anything, even in part” (page 120).
So The Book of the Law is based on lies if it is based on
reason. Pity Crowley’s spirit guide did not have the intelligence to realise
that if reason comes up against a brick wall then that does not mean it is all
Here is some sexism from page 121, “Reason is like a
woman; if you listen, you are lost; with a thick stick, you have some sort of
Page 122 condemns the person who believes in asking the
question, “Why?” for “there is no answer to the question.” Then we read, “The
greatest thinkers have been sceptics or agnostics”.
Page 130, “Compulsory education has aided nobody. It has
imposed an unwarrantable constraint on the people it was intended to benefit; it
has been asinine presumption on the part of the intellectuals to consider a
smattering of mental acquirements of universal benefit. It is a form of
Who hasn’t looked back on the years of their education
and not been grateful even when they were fairly horrible years? Even if we
won’t learn we want to and so compulsory education is right.
Page 133, “Our Law knows nothing of punishment beyond
that imposed by ignorance and awkwardness on their possessor”.
Page 137 indirectly tells us that if we want a cleaning
job to kill the cleaning lady. “The end justifies the means; if the Jesuits do
not assert this, I do.”
The following also, from the same page, does not really
alter this for it is without depth and substance: “There is obviously a limit,
where “the means” in any case are such that their use blasphemes “the end”:
e.g., to murder one’s rich aunt affirms the right of one’s poor nephew to repeat
the trick, and so to go against one’s own Will-to-live, which lies deeper in
one’s own being than the mere Will-to-inherit”. If that is right then the end
never justifies the means for your true will does not want you harmed. The
principle means that you do wrongful harm to others to get what you want so it
does not agree with itself. You could murder the aunt secretly and that would
not be asking for your nephew to do that to you. And even if he does find out
you can protect yourself from him.
Page 146, “We at Thelema think it vitally aright to let a
man take opium. He may destroy his physical vehicle thereby, but he may produce
another Kubla Khan”.
Page 147 tells us that “we do well to assist one who is
weak by accident or misfortune, if he wishes to recover. But it is a crime
against the state and against the individuals in question to hinder the gambler,
the drunkard, the voluptuary, the congenital defective, from drifting to death,
unless they prove by their own determination to master their circumstances, that
they are fit to pull their weight in the Noah’s Ark of mankind.”
Verse 56 gives a series of letters and numbers that have
some hidden meaning that some future prophet will discover. The verse says that
even Crowley does not know the meaning.
Anybody could say they know so how could such a ludicrous revelation have come
from a spiritual intelligence? It is not worth the ink the full stop at the end
of it is written with.
CHAPTER THREE OF THE LAW
On page 164, The Book of the Law 3:23, 24 we meet some loathsome saying. “For perfume mix meal & honey & thick leavings of red wine: then oil of Abramelin and olive oil, and afterward soften & smooth down with rich fresh blood. The best blood is of the moon, monthly: then the fresh blood of a child, or dripping from the host of heaven: then of enemies; then of the priest or of the worshippers: last of some beast, no matter what”.
There is nothing symbolic in this as you can see from the
violent contrasts in it. Honey and blood. Menstrual blood and animal blood. Nor
does the commentary try to make this out to be symbolic. Blood sacrifice is
Verse 46 asserts, “I am the warrior Lord of the Forties:
the Eighties cower before me, & are abased. I will bring you victory and joy: I
will be at your arms in battle & ye shall delight to slay”.
Verse 46 seems to be a prophecy of the Second World War
until you remember that the Lord would be doing the fighting himself in the
world so it is ambiguous. Every decade had some big wars that served to drive
many nations into the course that Crowley would want them to take.
The Eighties have not bent the knee to Crowley’s
hypocritical and moralising and yet amoral deity and he has not become to the
world what Jesus Christ has become to the Vatican.
The last line we have quoted in the verse says that Crowley’s disciples will
conquer by bloodshed. An utterly failed prophecy.
Pages 176 and 177 promise that if women are emancipated
and allowed to be sexually free then the “crime of abortion”, sex-related shame,
blackmail, jealousy, domestic misery and prostitution will tend to disappear.
There will always be things like jealousy to lead to these things. The book
maintains that the spread of sexual disease will be checked for if sex is
accepted as decent people will not be afraid to hide and ignore anything they
catch by it. But you can be ashamed of sex and still take care of yourself.
Crowley wrote regarding The Book of the Law, “The study
of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first
reading. Whosever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are
most dire. Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all,
as centuries of pestilence” (page 284).
The only bad consequences of reading The Book of the Law
which is full of obscure poetic mumbo-jumbo and has nothing profound in it will
be disgusted at it and disgusted oneself for wasting time on it.
The commentary is unworthy of a favourable estimate as
well. It was written to dupe and make converts for the wily Crowley. And it is
amenable to use lies and slanders and half-truths to achieve this. “The English
Bible sanctions the polygamy and concubinage of Abraham, Solomon and others, the
incest of Lot, the wholesale rape of captured virgins, as well as the
promiscuity of the first Christians, the prostitution of temple servants, men
and women, the relations of Johannes with his master, and the putting of
wandering Prophets to stud, as well as the celibacy of such people as Paul”
(page 180). The only things the Bible sanctions from this list are polygamy and
celibacy and then monogamous marriage. Never does it say that Johannes, John,
had a gay affair with Jesus Christ. It is well known that the accusations in the
quote are mostly lies. Crowley and the editors of the commentary were liars for
if they had made mistakes they would have removed them.
Isn’t it obvious by now that the real author of The Book
of the Law was Aleister Crowley himself and not the spirit he allegedly channel
in Cairo, in 1904? A spirit didn’t write it but who gives a damn?
The Occult, Colin Wilson, Grafton, London, 1979
The Law is for All, The Authorised Popular Commentary to The Book of the Law by Aleister Crowley, Edited by Louis Wilkinson and Hymenaeus Beta, New Falcon, Arizona, 1996
Magick in Theory and Practice, Aleister Crowley, Castle Books, New Jersey, 1991