Path: shell.portal.com!usenet
From: tyagI@houseofkaos.Abyss.coM (tyagi/TOKUS)
Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.satanism
Subject: Crowley and Satanism (Was Re: More fake AC bio ...)
Date: 22 Nov 1994 01:43:24 GMT
Organization: Portal Communications (shell)
Lines: 319
Message-ID: <3aribs$6le@news1.shell>
References: <3albpe$8bk@nkosi.well.com| <3apnqe$sti@news1.shell>
Reply-To: tyagI@houseofkAos.abyss.coM (tyagi/TOKUS)
NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.magick.tyagi:1206 alt.magick:34709 alt.satanism:11675

Kali Yuga 49941121

My intent here is to support the notion that Aleister Crowley should be
considered a Satanist. :>


heidrick@well.sf.ca.us (Bill Heidrick) quotes Tim Maroney and writes:

[much masonic necromancy omitted :>]

|>There's little doubt that to Crowley, "Satan" was an entirely
|>positive symbol, and he repeatedly identified himself with it.

Crowley rarely supported anything consistently, though his identifications
are rather important.


|Crowley did use "Satan" as the subject of poetry and irony, but
|he denied the existence of the critter.  

Anton LaVey denies the existence of Satan.  I think that denying the
existence of things which one values is part and parcel of Satanism.


[bulk of Bill's textual analysis omitted]

# Equinox Vol. I, No. 10, page 23 suppliment:
#
# Lucifer, of whom the dark ages have made the genius of evil, will be truly
# the angel of light when, having conquered liberty at the price of infamy, he
# will make use of it to submit himself to eternal order, inaugurating thus the
# glories of voluntary obedience.

# Ibid:
#
# The fallen angel is not Lucifer the light-bearer; it is Satan, who
# calumniated love.

It would seem from these two that Crowley lays out a psychomythic profile
and taxonomizes Lucifer and Satan based on their respective stories/myths.


# Eq. I, 4:
#
# By Thy most secret and Holy Name of Apophis be Thou blessed, Lucifer, Star
# of the Dawn, Satan-Jeheshua, Light of the World!

# Eq. I, 5:
#
# And Satan is worshipped by men under the name of Jesus; and Lucifer is
# worshipped by men under the name of Brahma; and Leviathan is worshipped by
# men under the name of Allah; and Belial is worshipped by men under the name
# of Buddha.

All very nice.  Crowley apparently alludes to the dual-nature of the Xristos
(Satan-Jesus).


|Magick in Theory and Practice (MTP):

|  This has led to so much confusion of thought that THE BEAST 666 has
|preferred to let names stand as they are, and to proclaim simply that AIWAZ
|--- the solar-phallic-hermetic "Lucifer" is His own Holy Guardian Angel, and
|"The Devil" SATAN or HADIT of our particular unit of the Starry Universe.

HERE is the first time he refers to himself, and he associates himself
directly with Satan, 'letting names stand as they are', inasmuch as Aiwaz
is Therion's HGA and is Satan-Hadit-Jesus.  What more need be said?


|Conclusion:  Except for the MTP reference, which context places as a
|defiance of popular prejudice more than an expression of belief, Crowley
|did not appear to make much use of "Lucifer" as a serious subject.  

I don't understand your remark here about 'defiance of popular prejudice'.
Crowley obviously wanted to be associated with Satan, having been so since
his childhood by his mother ('The Beast') and, as he utilized this in a
very effective mnematic twist, attempted to turn the popular consciousness
upon itself and initiate the redress of the reputation of the Evil One 
(as associated directly with the mystic and magician).


|The references to "satan" are more varied.  Most are simile, metaphor,
|derogatory or associations of "Satan" to Christianity.  Some appear to
|use the term in a non-traditional fashion.  

Of course.  Crowley didn't worship words, he used them, and to his
advantage.  If one merely means by 'Satanist' 'one who worships Satan'
and has a simple-minded will-dissolution to the traditional and conven-
tional Satan-god, then it is trivially true that Crowley is not this kind
of Satanist.  

On the contrary, if one means by 'Satanist' one who is prone to take the
orthodox and conventional and twist it back upon itself, to use concepts
and words as adversarial mechanisms of awakening, then not only was he
a Satanist, but he inspired a tradition of Satanism some of which still
associates with the name (notably many of the organized groups).

 
|...Satan is also associated with Saturn in Astrology, the Sun in 
|mythology (not Astrology), and several philosophical ideas and ancient 
|deities not relevant to Christian concepts of a Devil or Personification 
|of Evil.  The first example below associates "Satan" to a geographic 
|direction.

So you are merely saying that Crowley did not associate himself with the
Christian Personification of Evil?  I think even this is extreme, since
surely he understood (as Otter G'Zell is wont to hammer home) that the
modern repressed and nominal 'Christian' projects these elements of the
psyche, and Crowley was manifesting (in writing if not in overt behavior)
a great many of these (such as calling himself 'The Great Beast 666',
claiming that his HGA was Satan, spouting off Thelemic Greetings and
promoting Liber Oz, etc.).


# Comment on Liber AL:
#
# It is also to be considered that Nu is connected with North, while
# Had is Sad, Set, Satan, Sat (equals "Being" in Sanskrit), South.

Here is more of the same psychomythology, Set/Satan being identified
with the Center of the Star of life-force and awareness, Hadit.


# Confessions:
#
# I simply went over to Satan's side; and to this hour I cannot tell why.
#
# My satanism did not interfere with it at all; I was trying to take the
# view that the Christianity of hypocrisy and cruelty was not true
# Christianity.

All this fits with modern Satanism.


# The problem of life was not how to satanize, as Huysmans would have
# called it; it was simply to escape from the oppressors and to enjoy the
# world without any interference of spiritual life of any sort.

What was Huysmans' theory on 'satanizing'?


# Eq. I, 10:
#
# and Satan is only so incoherent and so formless because he is made up
# of all the rags of ancient theogonies.

Echoes of the 'devil of one people are made up of the rejected gods of 
another'.


# Eq. I, 2:
#
# Thus it happens that until you become God, God Himself is in Reality
# The Tempter, Satan, and the Prince of Darkness, who, assuming the
# glittering robes of Time and Space, whispers in our ears: "Millions and
# millions and millions of eternities are as nothingness to me; then how
# canst thou, thou little mote dancing in the beam of mine eye, hope to
# span me?

Again, this supports the notion, given Crowley's obvious preference for
God, that he adored Satan and found Him appealing. :>  The only dispute
of this is to say that either you or he assume that Crowley is/was God 
(and please explain this if you think so).


# Eq. I, 5:
#
# SMAL, Satan so-called, but really only Samael, the accuser of the
# brethren, unpopular with the Rabbis because their consciences were
# not clear.

Further psychomythos, weaving a fairly coherent picture of how Crowley
saw Satan functioning in the popular (as well as his own) psyche.


# MTP:
#
# This "Devil: is called Satan or Shaitan, and regarded with horror
# by people who are ignorant of his formula, and, imagining themselves
# to be evil, accuse Nature herself of their own phantasmal crime.
#
# Satan is Saturn, Set, Abrasax, Adad, Adonis, Attis, Adam, Adonai, etc.
#
# This serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of Man, but He who made Gods of
# our race, knowing Good and Evil; He bade "Know Thyself!
#
# Thus, in low grades of initiation, dogmatic quarrels are inflamed
# by astral experience; as when Saint John distinguishes between the Whore
# BABALON and the Woman clothed with the Sun, between the Lamb that was
# slain and the Beast 666 whose deadly wound was healed; nor understands
# that Satan, the Old Serpent, in the Abyss, the Lake of Fire and Sulphur,
# is the Sun-Father, the vibration of Life, Lord of Infinite Space that
# flames with His Consuming Energy, and is also that throned Light whose
# is suffused throughout the City of Jewels.
#
# He is the Lord of the Sabbath of the Adepts, and is Satan, therefore
# also the Sun, whose number of Magick is 666, the seal of His servant the
# BEAST.

This is again consistent with his thesis.  Crowley identifies here Aiwaz as
his HGA and master, and himself as the Beast.  Of course he also identifies
the Beast with the Lamb and Satan with God.  These are very old teachings,
as I understand it, and some Satanists do indeed hold these very notions.

If Crowley hadn't made a point of identifying with the Beast of Revelations
and taken/discovered as his number 666; if he hadn't written the above about
the very specific relationship between the Beast and Satan, making very
clear the parallel/identity between himself and Aiwaz, then I might think
you had a case to posit him as a 'mere monist' or some other of unitive and
syncretic mystic.  I'm not denying that he had these motives and values, but
the evidence as you've presented it seems to indicate without question that
Crowley was a Satanist by most Satanist's standards, even his own.


|Conclusion:  Crowley used "Satan" most often in the Christian context
|as a term of common speech to indicate some image of myth suited to
|another subject under discussion;....

He used the term in different ways assuredly.  When we come to look at whether
Crowley was himself a Satanist it becomes more relevant what he said that his
relationship was *to* or *with* Satan than how he might have used the word
otherwise.  This is why I don't think what Tim said about 'positive usage' is
very relevant, though he may have meant 'positive in association with Crowley',
which I think is obviously true.


|...in his late teens or early 20's when he followed "Satan" as an act of 
|rebellion;....

I find that most Satanists indulge their path as an act of rebellion,
especially at first and at least until their experience broadens.


|more rarely but philosophically as a Miltonian ideal and positive image 
|for ideas concealed by common prejudices; occasionally as an insult or 
|joke, including categorization of his own public reputation.  

My impression is that he was not talking about 'reputation' when he wrote
_Book Four_, he was talking about *identity* and relationship (not only
his relationship to 'common prejudice' but also to his HGA).  Words and
labels are given meaning *through* usage, and this is likely why he may
not have wished to attempt to completely restructure the language so as
to settle himself into a better light.

Actually I think he derived very much pleasure from being associated with
and intentionally associating himself with the demonic and evil, while
laying the groundwork for a more expansive theology that allowed him to
also be equated to Jesus or the Lamb.


|The more profound usages of "Satan" by Crowley appear to be totally 
|irrelevant to Christian ideas.

Satanists are well-known for their venturing outside the limited and popular
mindset in order to define 'Satan' and 'Satanist' (including following it
back to Egyptian roots or projecting out to their own preferred ideals about
that entity/being/image/term).


|About half the references to Christianity are negative, emphasizing
|"false doctrines" and vice pervading Christian theology or tradition.

More support for the theory that Crowley was not a Christian but was indeed
a Satanist.  Most Satanists of which I have knowledge disdain the character
and history of the Christian religious tradition (as do most heretics) even
while they may laud the image and teachings of Jesus (as they interpret them).

If you were to say that Crowley wasn't a Satanist but was instead a Gnostic,
then I'd like to know what you meant by the term.  Most meanings of the term
'Gnostic' of which I'm aware include a healthy assault upon the material and
sensual worlds, seemingly excluding Crowley from their number.  They also
appear to associate Satan with 'the Demiurge', but I could be way off here.
 

|>His tradition of Thelema has a great deal to do with the Satanic
|>symbols of the Beast and the Scarlet Woman, servitors of the Draconic
|>form of Satan in the Apocalypse of John.

|Calling these various things "Satanic symbols" is not responsible,
|IMHO.  To Christians, yes, mostly.  To Satanists, some, yes, some no.
|To Thelemites, mostly no.  To the author of the Apocalypse, definitely
|no.   

Here you are only drawing up divisions and thereafter rejecting Tim's
assertion.  I think Tim was speaking from *his* perspective, and it is
certainly justifiable to characterize these Biblical symbols as 'Satanic'
from his (Satanic) tack.  What remains to be shown is how *Crowley* would
regard these symbols, and from the above it would seem that the associated
them all with Satan/Set/Saturn; i.e. he was a Satanist and saw those
Biblical references above as 'Satanic symbols'.


|Where do you get "servitors of the Draconic form of Satan..."?
|That one throws me.

I think he meant 'Draconic form of Satan [appearing] in the Apocalypse of
John', though I could not, of course, be sure.  I'm a Biblical nitwit,
and yet my parse of this book is that there are two sides being draw out
very clearly, one behind the Great Dragon, which includes the Great Beast
and the Scarlet Woman (Babylon, Mother of Abominations); the other includes
the Lamb of God and the various angels and archangels.


|>Our own Bill Heidrick denies that any of these symbols are actually
|>central to Thelema, to which opinion he is of course entitled, just as
|>I am entitled to the opinion that Crowley did consider them central.

|On the centricity or lack of it in the symbols, I've never commented.
|On the meaning of these symbols in Crowley's usage and in Thelema,
|not all of this is a matter of opinion.  There is ample evidence in
|Crowley's writings toward determination actual fact of usage.

Pah, it is always a matter of opinion.  The very notion of 'facts of usage'
seems ludicrous to me.  In any case, what you have shown above doesn't
appear to demonstrate any facts of usage regarding Satan or even Lucifer,
while it does seem to support the contrary.

tyagi/TOKUS