The Death Of Post-Thelema
Post-Thelema is dead. Long live "Traditional Thelema".
Post-thelema is dead.
To understand how this happened, it is important to look back on what Post-Thelema was, who are the minds behind the movement, and how the entire movement fell apart. In January 2021, a Thelemic organization known as Ecclesia Gnostica Unversalis, released a short pamphlet called “The Post-Thelemic Manifesto”. This manifesto was written by controversial left-wing Thelemic blogger Marco Visconti, who stated a variety of goals in this short document.
The manifesto opens by casting doubt on the reception of “The Book Of The Law”, going so far as to say that it doesn't matter whether or not the Cairo channeling story is true. This is a hot take, as accepting the reception of this text is seen as one of the key elements of being a Thelemite. For those who are among the most liberal in the application of the title of “Thelemite”, they define being a Thelemite based on two criteria–the first being the desire and pursuit of True will, and the second being the acceptance of “The Book Of The Law” as a legitimately channeled holy text. This alone is a major deviation.
The manifesto continues with arguing for a desire to move beyond The Aeon Of Horus and into The Aeon Ma’at. This theory, that we are no longer living in The Age Of Horus, is a theory held by a number of Thelemites, especially those interested in Nema or Kenneth Grant. Personally, I feel as if we are still in The Aeon Of Hours for a variety of reasons, but this alone is not the most unorthodox take. In fact, this take is probably the position held by Post-Thelemites that ended up spreading the most. Amongst younger Thelemites, particularly the progressive side of Thelemic youth, there has been a massive resurgence in interest in Grant and Nema, and I feel as if Post-Thelema may have spurred this revival.
At this point, the manifesto states a desire to move beyond Crowley, and condemns Thelemites who are closely attached to the idea of Aleister Crowley. To this, I personally agree. When this manifesto was released, this was the part of it that I connected the most to. I feel as if Crowley’s personal choices and lifestyle are rather unpleasant, and in many ways blocked him from achieving his True Will throughout his life. I am strongly opposed to hedonism, which Crowley tended to lean into, as I find it can block people from their goals. I have seen too many Thelemites become slaves to this apsect of life. I want nothing more than for the Thelemic community to move beyond roleplaying as Aleister Crowley, and towards a more mature developed religious perspective. However, where I vary from this, is that the idea of removing Crowley from Thelema is a lost cause. The vast majority of Thelemic writing was done by Alesiter Crowley, and his philosophic and religious ideas are built into every level of the paradigm. Even in a ritual, there are pangs of philosophy and symbolism from Crowley.
The final bit of this manifesto states that they will be continuing with many of the religious traditions of Thelema, but are desiring to move beyond hierarchical orders. This is where the manifesto truly bothered swaths of the community, as a large percentage of the Thelemic community is part of an organization known as The Ordo Templi Orientis (henceforth referred to as “OTO”). To many, this manifesto read as an attack on the OTO, and to a large extent it was. The creator of this manifesto is an outspoken critic of the OTO, with his platform originally built on a series of articles he wrote about the OTO called “The Wasteland”.
After the release of this manifesto, there was a lot of debate and discourse within the Thelemic community about the idea of Post-Thelema. Particularly, Brother Sol-Om-On, a right-wing commentator commonly featured on Thelemic Union, wrote a rebuttal to the manifesto. From his rebuttal:
I would argue there is a single simple idea at the heart of this supposedly Post-Thelema Manifesto. It says basically: “We like Thelema and every concept created by Crowley, but we don’t like Crowley himself, because he was a sexist, xenophobe, racist, misogynist, etc. Crowley is cancelled because he does not live up to progressive values from 2021… But we still like the entire magical and philosophical system of Thelema he left behind.” Really, what is offered in the Manifesto is not “Post-Thelema” whatsoever. It is simply “Post-Crowley Thelema”, which is still Thelema. “Post” means “beyond”, and this manifesto is just absolutely dripping in what might be called Traditional Thelema. You can tell it is not “Post-Thelema” from the insistence on using the formal greeting/salutations of Thelema from The Book of the Law, and the use of concepts that were either created or molded by Crowley such as “Nuit, Hadit, Ra-Hoor-Kuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, Therion, Chaos, Pan, Baphomet… and Babalon”. None of this is “beyond Thelema.” It is about as Thelema as you can get.”
This is the truth. The core of this manifesto is written into its subtext. What is Visconti’s problem with Crowley? For me, my issue with Crowley is hedonism, but Visconti’s is far more politically oriented. Visconti has made this increasingly more clear with time. In the past year and a half, the development of Post-Thelema has been less in the way of a religious movement, and more in the way of a political reform. If one turns to Marco’s social media, he has produced predominantly videos critiquing other Thelemites, typically by insulting them as either creeps or fascists, depending on who you are. The movement has been focused on deconstruction, and not on building anything new. There has been no rise in new Post-Thelemic rituals, or even further essays, there was simply this manifesto, then things seemed to disappear. Post-Thelema was mentioned off-handedly, but it never really amounted to anything.
The next blow to Post-Thelema was the shift of discourse. In October 2021, an essay called “What Is Consensus Thelema” by Frater Entelechia was released. Entelechia is an open member of the OTO who provides Thelemic commentary on both Thelemic Union and on his personal blog. His idea of Consensus Thelema was the idea that throughout the past few decades, Thelema has become so open-ended and abstract that the word Thelemite has ceased to have any meaning. In practice, this calls for a return to a first-principles based approach to Thelema. It rejects the definition of a Thelemite that I listed above, instead calling for a far more rigid and strict one. After this point, the theological overton window of Thelema shifted back, and moved further towards a more traditional approach. Unlike Marco, Entelechia continued to argue about this, and developed the notion of Consensus Thelema so extensively that it has become a common term brought up in contemporary Thelemic discourse.
The next blow to Post-Thelema comes in the form of hypocrisy. Marco Visconti claims to be a radical opponent of Crowley, with most of his gripes with Crowley being of a political and personal nature. However, he does not just seek to remove Crowley, he seeks to remove any and every Thelemite who disagrees with him. On a personal level, Marco Visconti helped lead the campaign to get my book unpublished, calling me “far-right”. He also has argued that every single member of the OTO, including those who are left-wing, are “fascists”. This is an absurd opinion, as the OTO is a largely apolitical organization, who’s membership ranks are filled with liberals, leftists, libertarians, conservatives, and those of other ideologies. Marco seems to be in the camp of ideologically brainwashed liberals who are convinced that everyone who disagrees with him on any issue is a literal nazi. I don’t think that I need to explain why this is ridiculous.
For someone who critiques the behavior of everyone else around him, Marco does not have a squeaky clean record. On a now-deleted burner account, he falsely accused numerous high-profile Thelemites of sexual assualt. As well, on a discord account, he repeatedly told another Thelemite who disagreed with him on theological matters to commit suicide. Beyond this, Marco, on his public social media, has run numerous slander campaigns against occultists who disagree with him. In one disturbing moment, he stated that a woman named esotericariel (who has since deleted her accounts) who had accused one of Marco’s close friends of sexual misconduct that he did not care whether or not she was assaulted, because she was mean to Marco. Truly, the behavior of a virtuous male feminist who cares about defending and protecting women.
Personally, I am not a supporter of cancel culture, and believe people can change. However, it is deeply hypocritical to build an entire movement based around canceling other people and organizations, while having a long history of poor conduct online.
Disturbingly, this story gets a lot darker. Post-Thelema, the seemingly peaceful movement about reforming Thelema, is tied to a militant antifascist extremist organization called “The Blood Rose Cabal”. This organization was started by Frater Pera, an antifascist occult blogger, who has written hit-pieces on numerous high-profile esoteric creators. In pretty much every hit-piece, he accuses his opponents of being neoreactionary accelerationists, a niche ideology within the broader esoteric right. To combat this, Pera wrote a manifesto of his own, which had a far darker tone than Post-Thelema’s.
The manifesto is mostly an aimless ramble about right-wing politics, and it makes very little sense. The message is clear though, it is critical to “declare war” on those you oppose. When this was released, I pointed out my concerns with their use of violent language and rhetoric. I was called an alarmist, but later on their social media, they posted photos of guns. This is rather concerning, as the man behind this manifesto has spent months calling his opponents fascists, then wrote a manifesto about how we need to go to war against said fascists, made posters with guns and violent imagery on it, then posted photos of actual loaded weapons. Together, it looks a little bit alarming, but of course, they are just a friendly antifascist group who totally have no desire in harming random people who they suddenly decide are bad.
Visconti would go on to endorse this manifesto. As Thelemites, we should find this disturbing. He has repeatedly said that every single member of mainstream Thelemic organizations are fascists, which is not true, then endorsed a group who are arming up to do a war against fascists. I think we can all tell that this is leading in a dark and disturbing direction.
The final nail in the coffin that fully killed Post-Thelema happened earlier this week. WatkinsWisdom announced in tandem with Marco Visconti that a book called “The Aleister Crowley Manual” would be released. This immediately raised eyebrows across the Thelemasphere, because Visconti has spent the past year fighting against Crowley. Visconti defended the title of his book by arguing that his publisher made him put Crowley in the title for better search engine optimization. As a Thelemic author myself, I know that this is not true, as my book on Thelema never mentioned Crowley in the title or subtitle, with only a brief mention in the description. From the looks of Visconti’s book, the entire title is about educating people on Crowley’s personal ideology and magick, which seems completely incompatible with the vision of a Thelema without any connection to Crowley or the OTO. In one statement on it, he stated that Post-Thelema is still a belief he holds, but that Post-Thelema is nothing more than a Post-Crowley Thelema, which interesting Brother Sol-Om-On said in his initial critique of the Post-Thelemic Manifesto. In the end, Visconti sacrificed his ideological principles and agreed with one of his biggest critics for a bit more money. He turned his back on the movement that he originally started.
For this reason, I think it is clear, Post-Thelema is dead. Long live “Traditional Thelema”.
-GR
I read through this entire work in order to give equal time to the tensions and issues within Thelema and the larger pagan community lately.
I had a hard time with this piece due to some of the writing and style choices, which I generally don't critique too harshly. However, when one writes on Thelema - assuming a mantle of authority or expertise, it would be a good idea to make sure you correctly refer to the Aeon of Horus as such and not as Hours otherwise it sets a strange tone for a defense of traditional Thelema.
Next, I'm a little unclear what the point of this is. Is this is a hit piece on Marco Visconti or a hit piece on Post-Thelema? I understand that it may make sense to attack the philosophy by attacking the philosopher but is that, in essense, not all that disimilar from your issue with the Post-Thelemic viewpoint? You point out some of the criticisms of Crowley - comparing them to your own - and suggest that still Thelema is inextricably entwined with Crowley's philosophy and symbolism and therefore one should not take Crowley out of Thelema for his supposed wrongdoings or out of date attitudes. Then you suggest that due to Visconti's alleged issues, Post-Thelema is inherently flawed. Yes, it's fine if you make the argument that it's hypocritical - which you do - but you suggest that it is still a blow against the ideology. Either people's personal faults are a blow to an ideology or they are not. You can't have it both ways. Hypocrisy is a problem unto itself but it can't be your argument against Post-Thelema if you are also arguing that Crowley's issues should not be cause to remove him from the practice.
You say that you are "not a supporter of cancel culture, and believe people can change," but you devote merely a sentence to that and then claim that Visconti attempts to cancel others; however, I'm not sure if I agree with the statement let alone that anyone has been tangibly harmed or cancelled by any of the discourse going on right now, particularly in pagan circles where there isn't any real governing body. Attempts at "cancellation" happens on both sides of the political spectrum, no matter what folks want to believe. The dedication right-wing circles have towards erasing movements seeking to be less "traditional" is intense and is an essential piece of what makes up their framework of thought. You can see this in their rigid view of gender, of divine concepts of femininity and masculinity, etc. While I'm a proponent of free speech, it seems to me many misunderstand the differences between cancel culture, discourse and reaction, consequences, etc. The point of cancellation is to ostracize or silence others. Very, very rarely have I seen anyone truly ostracized or silenced on either side of the aisle. If I cease talking to someone because of their actions, it is not because someone else cancelled them; it's because I find what they said or believe to be reprehensible and don't wish to spend time on them.
I'm clearly reading your words, which you've freely written, so you are not cancelled or silenced. However, you've never made clear what some of your beliefs are and the vague statements you've made regarding perceptions of divine femininity, views on plastic surgery - which can include reconstructive or gender affirmative procedures, and a whole host of other topics do provide some framework for the suggestion that your views are in opposition to mine and others. You can't fault people for not wanting to befriend or converse with someone who they feel is opposed their existence. Still, right now, there is interaction and you've still got a following. Do you feel entitled to more than that? Is there something you are denied because of people's perception of you?
I don't know enough about your book to be able to make any statements of fact on it. I have no idea what your publisher said to you nor what was said to your publisher. Likewise, I don't think you can know for certain what was said to Visconti in terms of the titling of his book. Often publishers exert control over that and given you and he are very different people with books only tangentially related (being Thelemic and pagan in nature), you can't know anything about how they would want to sell the book. I think any statements on that account are misleading and not strong evidence for your point, coming from a place of pure conjecture.
If you are going to throw accusations around, show some kind of evidence. It goes a long way to proving what you say instead of merely your reader taking your word for it.
I'm not entirely certain I agree with your point that Thelemites MUST believe that "The Book of the Law" is a legitimately channeled holy text. I know many who believe it is a holy text, but the word "channeled" is doing a lot of heavy lifting for the variety of schools of thought I see in the Thelemic community.
To be an effective essay with a clear point, I feel as if evidence must be provided. When you say, "The manifesto is mostly an aimless ramble about right-wing politics, and it makes very little sense," you do not provide any examples of the points that don't make sense. It seems strange to me to make a blanket statement about the nonsensical nature of something and pivot in the next sentence to "the message is clear." Either it lacks clarity or it doesn't.
I think just a point by point analysis of the original Post-Thelema Manifesto would have been a stronger argument. I'd also love to know what you define as hedonism - simple excess of pleasures or is there more to it. Also, what justifies Crowley's misogyny, racism, etc.? Is there something inherently wrong with Visconti's problem with Crowley for being politically oriented over your issues with Crowley? Is there something purer in your criticisms than Visconti's? Do you believe that politically based critiques are separate from personal or philosophical, even when the political is entrenched in our belief systems and sense of self?
Frankly, yes, I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water when we look at systems that originated prior to the 21st century. Of course. But being of your time does not absolve you of the judgments of the future. We can read his works and believe experiences with some degree of critique. Just how traditional must traditional be? Instead of being on the offense, why not introduce what you think is the best view and practice of Thelema? I feel like I never see you draw out your system so it can only be obliquely critiqued and yet you wrote paragraphs on the what others feel.
Well done, Georgina!