Astron Argon

Holy Conundrum!

Frater Zephyros

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.


Kenneth Grant has laid claim that the Liber AL vel Legis was actually written on April 1, 2 and 3, 1904ev. He supports this with assertions made by Frater Achad. And there is a certain rationale for keeping the date of April 1st under wraps as noted below. But more interestingly, the Equinoxes were generally celebrated as twelve day events, even before the Christist aberration with the Vernal Equinox being the first day and April 'First' being the twelfth day. The seeming actual date of transmission on this day would indicate a link to the old tradition and yet an extension into a 'New Aeon,' beyond anything that has come before. And we would have April First for the 1st Chapter, the Second for the 2nd Chapter and the Third for the 3rd Chapter.

Presented below are scans of a couple of pages from a facsimile edition of Crowley’s Equinox Vol. III, No. 3; Copyright 1936ev. And this by Crowley's OTO; the one that claimed authority by way of the A.'.A.'. and not by way of a Circuit Court of Appeals. And this was back in the day when the OTO argued that this was a praeterhuman transmission from Aiwass, not a creative endeavor copyrighted by Crowley and his heirs…Crowley's OTO, not the present aberration.

Notice the third paragraph from the bottom, starting with “It must have been…” in the following scan. This seeming admission comes in a chapter entitled: Confession. And the fact that he parenthesizes "Now somewhat cowed" seems to indicate that he's quietly and carefully admitting a grave mistake. Crowley also goes on to apologize in this work for all the practical jokes he has played as he feels they have compromised his integrity, just when he needs to tell the truth.

The following scan is from the Caliphate OTO’s Equinox Vol. III, Nos. 3 & 4, copyright 1991ev. Notice the change to that same paragraph. And we have to ask why William Breeze changed this. Is he correcting Crowley?…or like a consoler, is he sparing us the debate? And what presumption!

The conundrum really starts when we go back to Crowley’s original publication. In the following scan, notice that he says: “Between March 23 and April 8 the hieroglyphs on the Stele were evidently translated by assistant-curator at Boulak…” indicating that he possibly knew about this stele before the reception of AL. Yet the direction in AL says to get the Stele itself and Crowley says that he completed the versification of the translation by April 8th. This was not available at the time of his reception of Liber AL vel Legis.

But these next two scans add more confusion to the issue. He goes back to claiming the dates that have come into common acceptance for the transmission of AL. Has he made a semi-veiled attempt to correct an error? And yet, is he then trying to save face? Probably not…closer to the truth seems this was more an oversight on his part. Though even that would be speculation. But if the Secret Chiefs (especially Aiwass) are praeterhuman intelligences, then one would look to find more a corroboration of this in the April "first" date, rather than the "7th." But it would take a Qabalist and not a mundane editor and his court to see this.

Who’s telling what truth?
Who’s lying?
What sort of ‘Trickster’ is at play here?
Yes, April Fool's (111) Day!!!

AL I.48: "My prophet is a fool with his one, one, one; are not they the Ox, and none by the Book?"

As a final thought, Crowley was exceptionally prolific, Grant, Achad, Russell and Motta; somewhat prolific. Even the detestable McMurtry wrote a few things; some bad poetry, etc. Bill Breeze–nada, zip and after more than fifteen years of being Crowley's alleged heir. I guess it's better to keep quiet and let the world think you might be stupid, rather than writing something and convincing them of it. Then Hymenaeus Beta would have to join the likes of David Bersson and G.M. Kelly, who prove it to the World Wide Web on a daily basis.

And to have misled so many for so long now, well, that's a moral crime if nothing else. And so the legalized dupe of the Black Lodge shall continue with his legions of drones paying their dues in support. Two hives, two herds of sheep, Caliphate Drones and Nema Drones. The former with their Caliphate-envy laden rivals (the various SOTOs and HOOR) and the latter fluff-bunny Pagans disguised as Thelemics.


For a number of years now, there have been rumours of "inconsistencies" in the story told by Aleister Crowley of his reception of The Book Of The Law.

Here’s a taste of some of the information that has recently come into my hands. Although I am planning to publish my findings, my sources are given for independent verification.

According to passenger lists I have acquired from the Mormon genealogical library at Salt Lake City the only “A Crowley” or “E Crowley” to make a First Class sea crossing from Egypt to England or France between February and June 1904 is an entry for “E Crowley and wife” that left the Suez port of Port Said on 6 April 1904 and arrived at Marseilles on 13 April they disembarked. “Edward Crowley” is, of course, what would have been on his passport. What is curious about this is that another first class passenger on this ship, The Commonwealth, was a “Mrs A Besant”, and of course Crowley explicitly claims that he and Annie Besant were on the same ship on his return from Egypt. She disembarked later at London. There is also apparently an extant Hotel record of Crowley's from the period, which is a receipt for 5 April 1904, which would likely indicate that he checked out of his Hotel on Cairo on that date, since he was paying up his bill. I am in the process of verifying Mrs Besant's itinerary for 1904 (she was on a speaking tour that included Sydney, Australia, and Calcutta, both ports of call for Barclay Curie & Co's “Commonwealth”, later sold to the P&O Line from which the record is derived.

It is curious there are so many discrepancies in the story. I recommend Dr R Kaczynski's excellent biography, not for what it says about this matter, but more for what it doesn't say. For every other travel event in Crowley's life he gives details such as Hotels and Ships, yet here he is silent. Why? Because the record is largely silent.

Crowley's diaries are extant for his whole life from his induction into the Golden Dawn to his death, with two exceptions, this one and a period from 1933-4. How did he lose this one?

Read his reconstructions in Equinox of the Gods and Temple of Solomon the King, and note that they too are full of vagueness completely untypical of Crowley. Likewise, Crowley initially stated that the Book of the Law was received on April 1; he changed this but never gave any explanation. All our knowledge of this event depends on Crowley's veracity and yet there seem to be numerous discrepancies. For example, the Boulaq Museum closed in 1902, Crowley changed the date of the reception, and if my data is accurate then he wasn't even in Cairo on the dates of the so-called reception.

Note his own comments in Temple of Solomon the King:

"(This diary is extremely incomplete and fragmentary. Many entries, too, are evidently irrelevant or "blinds." We omit much of the latter two types.)"

and again
" (Blot) wch trouble with ds.
(Blot) P.B. (All unintelligible; possibly a blind.)
"April" 6. Go off again to H, taking A's p.
(This probably a blind.)"

What is going on here? And why is this of all his diaries "apparently missing"? It actually makes sense in terms of what Crowley really did, i.e. left Egypt on 6 April. We have the ones before it, and though there is apparently a gap of about a month after the reception we have the ones after it. Crowley claims to have it in the Temple of Solomon the King account. I am hoping to publish these results when I get them all collected and have invitations to examine both the P&O Shipping records and the Theosophical Society records, including Mrs Besant’s papers this coming summer in London. More hopefully will follow, but the more I look into this matter the more and more it appears to be what in religious circles is called a "pious fraud". Why I am not sure, but it does bring up the whole question of what surrounded the genesis of Liber L and that the magical trappings and psychic phenomena used as proofs by Crowley of its validity are probably simply window dressing. It does certainly put his later attempts to restrict commentary and study in a new light. And explain his reverence for Blavatsky's dishonesty in a similar context.

Love is the law, love under will.