Subject: Darkness and Religious Law (was Nightside, Lightside)
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nigris (333))

Orig-To: thelema93-l now @egroups.com

49990805 IVom

do what you please

333: 
#> I called Crowley a poseur where Satanism is concerned

a correspondent wrote:
# Do you have proof he posed as a Satanist, or are you just 
# trying to offend people?  Or are you interpreting his life 
# and lifestyle and writings as you see fit.

I was pretty thorough in my elaboration. AC took names which were
blatantly anti-Christian, yet he was Christian himself. he didn't
want to do 'black magic' because he was all hung up on mysticism.
but he had a reputation for being 'wicked' and engaged in acts
which would today be considered 'juvenile Christian misbehavior'
such as crucifying frogs in the name of Christ and invoking
Satan, taking Satan as his 'holy guardian angel', etc. taking
the name his mum gave him (the Beast) in a revelation, he didn't
really want to transcend the Christian paradigm in which he was
raised, he wanted to take it with him into something LARGER. he
didn't want to come out and say that he was indeed a Satanist
and for his time period this is understandable, yet he takes so
many precautionary steps and focusses so much on self-discipline
in his texts (consider the relative weight of data he presented
when comparing his writing on will-building and ordeals with
that of how to indulge profitably, with style, as a means of
spiritual self-broadening) that he loses his "edge". the thin
veneer of counter-culturalism rubs off quickly as we enter his
diaries and encounter his Victorian judgementalism and lack of
liberated character. he doesn't even adopt a french accent! :>

# [I can see where the above paragraph could go into massive 
# sub-topics: Crowley may have originally identified with the 
# Beast to offend the Plymouth Brethren; but in The Book of 
# the Law, Nuit clearly brings the term into non-biblical meanings,
# appointing him Beast, as a sort of Thelemic Pope.]

unless you believe that Crowley wrote that book and appointed himself.
there is also the qabalistic Samael, SMAL, the angel of poison and 
of death and his wife the harlot, or woman of whoredom, AShTh ZnVNIM, 
Isheth Zenunim. Mathers says that united they are called the Beast,
CHIVA, Chioa. there is also the Beast With Two Backs (fucking couple).
I suppose there are many choices. whether Nuit 'appointed' him or not
he tended to describe himself in biblical language (look at Liber
Cheth's 'Babalon, the Mother of Abominations, bride of Chaos, etc.).
 
# > I do dislike Crowleyanity and like to display it for all
# > to see in its kreeping fundihood.
# 
# There are some times when you attribute things as Crowleyanity, 
# where I think you are going overboard in the associations you make. 

quite possible.

# Can you honestly say that your use of the phrase "Evul Book" 
# is meant to do anything other than to offend people?

sure, meant to inspire consideration of whether the book is of
any value, whether it might be corrupt, insidious, a horrid
batch of memes, or extremely over-rated, a tar-baby to snare
the bibliolaters. I quote from it frequently, especially in
argument against common "Thelemic" attitudes and presumptions.
all such scriptures can become tools of persuasion, and those
which incorporate such diversity of exposition are more likely
to be used in this fashion. because it is a bomb waiting to go
off it deserves to be burnt and quickly.

love is the law, blessed beast!

nigris (333)