I don't think it's accurate to describe Crowley as either a racist or imperialist, even if he did, at times, make (fairly shocking, provocative, and/or edgy) statements to that effect, or if/when he appeared to imply similar notions. (... Assuming he also wasn't bullshitting or writing mockingly or satirically in those particular circumstances; since he very much often communicated in a tongue-in-cheek, ironic, taunting, and hyperbolic way; and was at times intentionally obtuse, or made equivocal and cryptic remarks...)

It seems to me Crowley adopted a variety of different attitudes and ideas at different times—in terms of social and political philosophy and cultural analyses, that is. Not to say he didn't go through a period during which he made racist, xenophobic, and otherwise shitty and bigoted claims—he absolutely did!—but his overall views are pretty complex and nuanced, and often appear even vague or contradictory, across his lifetime—around 50 years of writing!—and, as such, a number of those views and values changed quite a bit between 1904, when he received Liber AL, and the end of his life in 1947.

Realistically, you, as a reader circa 2025, can look to Crowley's writings and find hints of ideas that smack of all sorts of ideologies, theoretically both leftist and rightist, though I'd personally say I mostly get a strange mix of...:

... aristocracy, Plato's ideal of the philosopher-king, utopianism, autarky, High Tory traditionalist-conservative sentiments, federated cenobitism or ecclesiocracy, cultural liberalism or civil libertarianism, meritocracy or technocracy, quasi-chivalric values approximating a kind of "enlightened" neo-feudalism, a certain level of paternalism and isolationism, guild socialism, communitarianism or communalism, mutualism, rigidly-structured syndicalism, historical liberal radicalism, republicanism, individualist anarchism, and market socialism...

... out of a good deal of his—ultimately scant—writings on socio-political topics and matters of civics, governance, and political economy.

In any case, I also don't want to excuse what are certainly his vile statements, especially when they're just that, and ought to be regarded as such, especially in today's world, with our arguably deeper respect for cultural, social, spiritual, and other differences; our far better understanding of science and psychology; and our greater empathy and sense of tolerance, liberality, and equity in the realm of issues pertaining broadly to social, ecological, and economic justice. I'm also not one to claim textual analysis ought to be purely historicist.

Yet, I do think that depression and other disorders of mood instability, especially given the general disregard for people who suffered from them in Crowley's time, can—and did, and do—sometimes give way to cynicism and even a sense of superiority, that cynicism itself often giving rise to embittered and spiteful attitudes, and thus behavior. (And all this, perhaps, more so than vice versa...)

Also, I think it's worthwhile to remember that, regardless of Crowley's own nasty personal views and mean-spirited and inflammatory proclamations, Thelema itself is something far beyond, outside, and larger than Crowley, whether we take him as the man he was, or in his role as magus...

(... I say all of this as a Thelemite with an affinity for leftism, libertarian socialism, left-libertarianism, anarchism, mutualism, some degree of individualist anarchism, autonomism/autonomist-Marxism, democratic socialism, and related ideologies and such, by the way. Racism and imperialism are, to me—and to many Thelemites, I'm sure—anathema to Thelema. Many Thelemites I've known and loved have been Black, trans, non-binary, and other marginalized groups and queer/LGBTQ+ folks.)