INSANITY OF CROWLEYANITY
INDEX INDEX INDEX
THE BOOK
OF THE LAW, THE FIRST CHAPTER
THE BOOK OF THE LAW, THE
FIRST CHAPTER
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,
The commentary was written by
Page 10 reveals that the edited commentary
was found in
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 you.
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
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
Having
completed our search for faults in
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
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.
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 preposterous.
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 102).
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
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 radiantly simple”.
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? Explaining!
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
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 sporting chance”.
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 sectarian bigotry”.
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
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 approved.
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
The Eighties have not bent the knee to
The last line we have quoted in the verse
says that
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
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
FURTHER
The
Occult, Colin Wilson, Grafton,
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,
12/06/08