You could argue that anyone going against the will of God is a "Satanist" but then the phrase because less useful.
Crowley believed many insane things but he wasn't an atheist.
Anton Lavey's "Satanism" has more to do with Ayn Rand than with Crowley.
Wicca is not fast-growing. All of the "wiccans" I ever met grew out of it and moved on.
Also, it's "do what thou wilt." "Do what thy wilt" is nonsense.
"Love is the Law, Love under Will."
"Every man is a star."
Crowley ain't as simple as the people he lampooned.
lulz at Lavey and Ayn Rand.
Yep real fascinating? Crowley talks about sacrificing male children and drinking semen of the sacrificed. He also designed a black "liturgy" mirrored off the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Of course it involves snakes, and the "eucharist" he served consisted of bodily fluids. His two children also mysteriously died and he had his wife engage in "relations" with goats and other animals.
His own mother believed he was the anti-Christ.
I call forth the spirits of the dammed and say unto you, rise! Rise from the abodes of the eternal night, wherein all dead threads rest.
It's really unwise to gather your information from Fundamentalist Christians. Especially on "Occult" matters. They are, more often than not, mistaken. Im not sure why anyone would consult the enemies of an individual(s) or philosophy, if they truely wished to penetrate to the heart of the subject. Would you consult Adolf Hitler if you wanted to learn about Jewish Theology? So why would you rely on paranoid, sensational websites and hostile authors to get a fair account of the Great Beast??
Lets break this down play by play, and since ive taken it upon my self to lay claim as OC.net's resident Crowley scholar; I'm obviously
qualified to address this issue.
First off, This whole issue of the child sacrafice is perhaps the most common criticism leveled at Mr. Crowley, yet on no other statement in any of his works, does he give such dire words concerning the inevitable misinterpretation of the passage. If any of these motor-mouths ever cared to actually READ the book, they would have noticed the flashing asterisk* staring them in the face at the end of the sentence, followed by a lengthy footnote on it by both Crowley and the Editors of the later editions.From Book 4, "LIBER ABA" concerning the "bloody sacrifice":
"It is the sacrifice of oneself spiritually. And the intelligence and innocence of that male child are the perfect understanding of The magician, his one aim, without lust of result. And male he must be, because what he sacrifices is not the material blood but his creative power."
"Crowley specifies self-sacrifice that does not result in serious injury or death; his remarks also have a sex-magical interpretation. He is advocating neither suicide nor ritual murder.
From time immemorial, certain mystics have associated the orgasmic release with death, for in that moment, the perception of the individual and the normal mode of consciousness is blotted out in psycho, spiritual and physical ecstasy. Since the creative/active principle of the universe has traditionally been considered Masculine, the creative principle in the microcosmic man would be his ability to reproduce. His seed. The Young. Male. Child. And the sacrifice of this child, would be orgasmic release without the intent of conceiving real human children. In other words, "without lust of result."
This of course is just the rude, exoteric, sexual-interpretation.
The real divine comedy begins when you realize that, at the time of the books publication (1913, I believe it was), due to the wildly idiotic "decency laws" a writer could land his or herself in prison for writing about sex. Yet, you could get away with writing about KILLING CHILDREN! HAHAHA. You got to love people, man. So incredibly stupid.
Second on the list, Crowley never wrote a "Black" anything. That whole term is a goofy way of saying "We aren't cool with how you worship God." And perhaps at another time I'll ill go into the whole "black magic" issue, but not here. I don't want to waste any more of your time with my jibbering insanity than I have to.
However, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe you're talking about:
The Gnostic Mass —technically called Liber XV or "Book 15" —Crowley wrote Liber XV in1913 while travelling in Moscow, Russia. In many ways it is similar in structure to the Mass of the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, the comparison ends there, as Liber XV is a celebration of the principles of Thelema.
He wrote it :
"under the influence of the Liturgy of St. Basil of the Russian Church."
Host and wine during religious ceremony is not a practice originating in Christianity. I'm sure you know this. However, it does seem fairly obvious to me, having attended several Gnostic Masses myself, that it IS heavily influenced by EO and RC services,but carrying a far different intention. I know that in several places, though I cant remember where, that Crowley expressed great admiration for the Old Liturgy. If there was one thing Crowley never did, that was fail to give credit when credit was due. He always cited his sources and openly proclaimed his eclecticism. The intention of the Mass was to reintroduce the full spectrum of life and its cycles, with emphasis on Thelemic cosmology, back into the ceremony, which he felt had been lacking or lost in the Christian tradition.
As for the snakes you mentioned? I have no clue where you got that from. Sounds like some of the silly crap the Laveyan Satanist's do up in West Hollywood. The Eucharist however, does have some truth to it. Its taken from a couple of passages in the Book of the law, where one is instructed to do such. It is important to take note of the symbolism behind these ingredients. Also noone was ever, or is ever, served these ingredients during communion. If in private ceremonies, a couple (or maybe a few!) lover's and/or magicians choose to partake of this sacrament so be it. I assure you nothing is consumed that isn't consumed during intercourse between the average married couple. It is literally the Mystic Marriage! Lulz. Anyway... on to the next one.
There was nothing "Mysterious" about a 3 year old catching Typhoid in South east Asia in 1907. Just very very sad. It drove his wife deeper into her alcoholism, and saddened Crowley to no end. It didn't help that a similar fate would be befall another child of his, in the future. He may have been all over the place, but from what we can tell by his diary entries on the subject, he loved and cherished his children very much:
" Part of my plan in coming here is to dig up the bitter memories which have been killing me. I was so happy and hopeful here two years ago; and now my little Poupee(his nickname for the deceased daughter) has been dead over a year and her little brother never came to birth; and my manhood in part is crushed]"
" The day had been one of anguish. Poupee peeped from every alley in the forest."
-Fountains of Hyacinth (1922 diary entry)
There has been no evidence that has surfaced that shows any kind of validation for the beastiality incident actually occurring. Though in numerous places we have Crowley calling himself "an" or "the Old Goat". We also have other people, usually women, affectionately referring to him as such too. Perhaps another misenterpretation of his subversive sexual writing? Who knows.
Finally, concerning his Mother, all we have is Crowleys account. She was part of the Plymouth Bretheren. A fanatical evangelical group, stressing the absolute LITERAL interpretation of the king James Bible. He despised his mother for the way she treated him. And its not merely due to her "Christian" orientation, for his father was a traveling preacher! A man he loved and admired deeply. Perhaps if he had lived, we wouldn't have "The Great Beast" we've all come to know and love.