top of page
  • Writer's picture738

Aleister Crowley (psychopath)

Updated: Feb 19

I know there is a certain limit to historical analysis where you relegate various figures to the categories of modern psychology—a field that is far from an established science and that changes very much decade to decade.

I described St. Augustine as “bipolar” but mostly I said he was moody—which isn’t to medicalise it, because, ultimately, unless you knew these people you can never diagnose them really, but you can use everyday equivalent words and concepts.

Nevertheless, Aleister Crowley was almost certainly a psychopath. How can I tell? At age 14 he killed a cat—classic psychopath behaviour, these people are known to kill cats; and, I would add, I think there is some occult connection between psychopaths and the murder of cats.

I think the cat, a liminal creature that lives between night and day, a witchy creature, is used to grant the psychopath certain “powers”. After all, isn’t it strange that they are known to murder this animal in particular? This creature of all the creatures in the world?

Crowley: “I remember that all the time I was genuinely sorry for the animal; I simply forced myself to carry out the experiment in the interests of pure science.”

Observation: he tells us he felt “genuinely sorry for the animal”—this is a non sequitur. Imagine if I murdered someone and then said “I felt genuinely sorry for her when I did it”, you’d think that’s not the point, it doesn’t matter how you felt.

If you felt “genuinely sorry” for the cat, then you wouldn’t murder it—the adjective “genuinely” is disingenuous, there is no need for the extra descriptor. People who are really sorry don’t say “I’m really truly sorry”—that’s when they’re faking it, because genuine sorrow doesn’t need lots of words.

So Crowley, in all likelihood, as with all psychopaths, felt nothing when he killed the cat. You can tell this is so because he follows up with a reference to “for science”. What is science? It’s clinical, without emotion—and so Crowley rationalises the fact he didn’t really feel anything when he killed the cat by saying “it was a scientific enterprise”, but he knows he should feel “something” because he’s a smart guy, so we then get the rationalisation “genuinely sorry”.

However, what he did on his own at 14 is in no way “science” as the concept is commonly understood (nay “pure” science, another guilty unnecessary adjective; nothing “pure” about it, chum)—this is rationalisation for his own lack of emotion and abnormal behaviour (because he knows he has an audience, knows that what he has done is “a bit odd”). His supporters like to rationalise this as “he made it up, it’s a jolly wheeze—he’s always fooling around like that”; but they’re naïve, they’ve got cognitive dissonance (other things Crowley “made up” as a “joke”—child sacrifice).

Crowley’s whole dictum “our method is science, our aim is religion” just rationalises the fact he had no compassion—no emotions—for anybody or anything. The “science” angle was just rationalisation for his internal state—without emotion, without compassion.

It explains why, on a mountain expedition, he refused to leave his tent when his expedition was in trouble—just callously let the other people get on with the search party “tough luck for them”. Typical psycho behaviour—completely self-interested, completely indifferent to other people in need.

It also explains why he did things like run through his entire massive fortune—psychopaths are known to be impulsive with money; and it also explains why he did things like beat his acolytes with branches—and why he produced The Book of Lies, psychopaths are known to be compulsive liars and are known to be glib charmers.

You might say to me, “So? A person can be psycho and still say true things—or do notable things, St. Augustine might have been bipolar but he still helped to found Christianity.” I agree, just to have one of these medical labels attached to you doesn’t prove anything one way or the other, not necessarily. You can still say true things, still “function”—often at a high level.

However, it’s very suggestive—it means that the religion Crowley cooked up would be without compassion, without emotion; just totally cold and self-interested and with no concern for others. And what religion is based on Crowley’s magic? Scientology. And is Scientology a good religion? Common sense says “no”. And we see a similar problem with Jack Parsons and Marjorie Cameron—who were both also adherents to Thelema.

A religion is, in a sense, a technology—technology allows action at a distance, so that a rocket is like an extended arm, an extended spear, that shrinks distance so that you can “spear” an object across the other side of the world.

A religion is a psychic technology that lets you extend your psyche across the globe—it lets you make other people adopt the thought rhythms of your own mind; and so if you adopt Crowley’s religion you will be hooked into the mind of a psychopath; and, insofar as a religion can alter your innate thought patterns and behaviour, it will alter you so as to be a psychopath.


Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page