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philosophy and symbolism and therefore one should not take Crowley out of Thelema for his supposed wrongdoings or out of date attitudes.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.
What evidence is there that any of these people are on the political left? If anything, the way they accuse any opponent of being a nazi or a sex abuser is from the playbook of the extreme right: to demonize opponents and sow confusion about what these terms really mean. Look at the way Putin justifies his invasion of Ukraine ("they are Nazis") or the way Republicans in the United States attack gay and transgender people (they're "groomers"). Anything the hard right accuses opponents of is usually a confession. Really makes you wonder what some of these accusers in the occult community are up to.
Still waiting to hear from your attorneys, Marco. I'm guessing the court papers will arrive around the same time your article on the Gnostic Mass is complete. :)
Not suprised to see you're still incapable of anything above the level of an incoherent hot-take, Soror Nemo. :D But please, keep raging about my article. Your hate only makes me stronger. :)
Why, instead of criticizing everyone else in the community, don't you offer something of your own other than rehashed takes? All of your content is Wikipedia pages and petty drama...
"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."
As someone who saw in discord what Marco went through to try and get the title and cover he preferred for his book, he did not in any way choose that title but for the sake of being easy going he went along with the publisher's recommendation. Like any publisher they want to sell books and will make any adjustments they think are necessary for the best outcome. So no, Marco did not use Crowley's name to gain monetarily.
Correction. The gun in that photo was clearly not loaded. The slide was back and the magazine was sitting right next to it. Also, I never wrote a hit piece about someone that didn’t deserve it.
This seems to me like a problem of gringos in a sphere where thelema is relevant. I don't think one should believe in the reception story in order to think that the thelema law is a good way of living, the philosophy is good with or without the mythical narrative. I also don't think that there is an orthodox way of being Thelemite, like if Enchilada was the thelemic pope in the true church of thelema. I think that in order to grow, thelema needs new interpretations, and people will disagree with each other like always have been in philosophy and religion. But let me tell you that a large portion of the non gringo world is uninterested in all of this, and if thelema keeps being OTOcentric, that won't change.
1) Post-Thelema is not dead, no matter what you want to say to your neonazi followers.
2) Your ex-boyfriend River, aka The Nemeton, is not my friend not ever was. All I did was listening to his points when you dumped him. Turns out, he was right on you 100%. It also turned out, he has his host of issues and I distanced my self from him.
3) I am not a "leftist". I am kinda tired of repeating it by now, but here we are. I guess I appear like one to you and your neonazi followers because you are, guess what, neonazis.
4) Every single person still paying dues to OTO is complicit in an abusive cult. Deal with it.
5) You seem very worried about the Blood Rose Cabal. Why is that, exactly?
In the end, Georgina, you need to learn to cope harder.
And please, can we get your book somewhere? Anywhere? I am itching to review it, as I did from the day you announced it.
He just banned me from his Substack for writing a perfectly polite response to his latest piece questioning the premises of the same. Had I first read this piece, doubtless I would not have bothered. Nevertheless, you are gracious enough to allow him to comment below, which is all to your credit. I know nothing more about him, but all curiosity is now extinguished.
I see 'occulture' is still the swirling shitstorm it was when I left it a few years ago. I don't miss it one bit.
I do want to address some points in your article:
1) Kenneth Grant did not believe in linear progression of time (chronology), so he did not believe we had transitioned from the Aeon of Horus to the Aeon of Maat. Instead, he posited the simultaneous existence of multiple dimensions (spatial, temporal, *essential*, in varying degrees). The fact that some Adepts had glimpsed into a timeless "Maatian" dimension doesn't invalidate the Aeon of Horus from a more ego-driven or contingent standpoint (perhaps related to personal/present karma or "true will").
2) Grant is NOT in accord with Nema about Maat Magick. Grant merely took inspiration from her gnosis, and developed it in a much more mythical and cosmic manner. He is an imaginative weaver of symbolic threads. His Typhonian Trilogies are not meant to be read literally or from a merely theoretical perspective. His work is very much a "vibe"...it is to be understood allegorically, or even 'meta-fictionally"...think Finnegans Wake but for occultists!
3) You might be interested in an article I wrote about the phenomenological element in Grant's writings. I noticed there is so much misunderstanding about the nature of his Typhonian Tradition (the only 'occultism' I still advocate today, after jumping ship a while ago!)--you can find it here: https://madamez.substack.com/p/the-end-of-human-experience
4) As a Traditionalist based in Julius Evola's work, I agree with most of your criticisms. Leftism and liberalism are NOT traditional and have no place in any esoteric tradition rooted in wisdom.
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!
What evidence is there that any of these people are on the political left? If anything, the way they accuse any opponent of being a nazi or a sex abuser is from the playbook of the extreme right: to demonize opponents and sow confusion about what these terms really mean. Look at the way Putin justifies his invasion of Ukraine ("they are Nazis") or the way Republicans in the United States attack gay and transgender people (they're "groomers"). Anything the hard right accuses opponents of is usually a confession. Really makes you wonder what some of these accusers in the occult community are up to.
I keep saying I am not a "leftist". I keep saying I am a progressive, and a militant antifascist.
Unfortunately, people like you are just not intelligent enough, or cultured enough, to understand how the political spectrum works outside the USA.
You keep trying to frame me in the most uncharitable way only as a way to diverge from the fact you are a very involved member of an abusive cult.
Still waiting to hear from your attorneys, Marco. I'm guessing the court papers will arrive around the same time your article on the Gnostic Mass is complete. :)
Good. Learning to wait will teach you your proper place in the world 🤡
Not suprised to see you're still incapable of anything above the level of an incoherent hot-take, Soror Nemo. :D But please, keep raging about my article. Your hate only makes me stronger. :)
What the fuck are you on about?
Well, I'm glad someone said it. Another timely, well-written article, Georgina.
Why, instead of criticizing everyone else in the community, don't you offer something of your own other than rehashed takes? All of your content is Wikipedia pages and petty drama...
"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."
Exactly.
Typo. You refer to the Age of Horus as “the Aeon of Hours” in there at least once
Way to shine the light. Dogma is dead.
As someone who saw in discord what Marco went through to try and get the title and cover he preferred for his book, he did not in any way choose that title but for the sake of being easy going he went along with the publisher's recommendation. Like any publisher they want to sell books and will make any adjustments they think are necessary for the best outcome. So no, Marco did not use Crowley's name to gain monetarily.
Correction. The gun in that photo was clearly not loaded. The slide was back and the magazine was sitting right next to it. Also, I never wrote a hit piece about someone that didn’t deserve it.
This seems to me like a problem of gringos in a sphere where thelema is relevant. I don't think one should believe in the reception story in order to think that the thelema law is a good way of living, the philosophy is good with or without the mythical narrative. I also don't think that there is an orthodox way of being Thelemite, like if Enchilada was the thelemic pope in the true church of thelema. I think that in order to grow, thelema needs new interpretations, and people will disagree with each other like always have been in philosophy and religion. But let me tell you that a large portion of the non gringo world is uninterested in all of this, and if thelema keeps being OTOcentric, that won't change.
Some clarifications:
1) Post-Thelema is not dead, no matter what you want to say to your neonazi followers.
2) Your ex-boyfriend River, aka The Nemeton, is not my friend not ever was. All I did was listening to his points when you dumped him. Turns out, he was right on you 100%. It also turned out, he has his host of issues and I distanced my self from him.
3) I am not a "leftist". I am kinda tired of repeating it by now, but here we are. I guess I appear like one to you and your neonazi followers because you are, guess what, neonazis.
4) Every single person still paying dues to OTO is complicit in an abusive cult. Deal with it.
5) You seem very worried about the Blood Rose Cabal. Why is that, exactly?
In the end, Georgina, you need to learn to cope harder.
And please, can we get your book somewhere? Anywhere? I am itching to review it, as I did from the day you announced it.
"Every single person still paying dues to OTO is complicit in an abusive cult."
Slander some more.
You don't take the OTO seriously because they didn't take your ego seriously thus your back stabbing, oath breaking behavior.
You have no clues 🤣
But feel free to keep showing off how pathetically clueless you are, cult boy 🤡
He just banned me from his Substack for writing a perfectly polite response to his latest piece questioning the premises of the same. Had I first read this piece, doubtless I would not have bothered. Nevertheless, you are gracious enough to allow him to comment below, which is all to your credit. I know nothing more about him, but all curiosity is now extinguished.
I see 'occulture' is still the swirling shitstorm it was when I left it a few years ago. I don't miss it one bit.
I do want to address some points in your article:
1) Kenneth Grant did not believe in linear progression of time (chronology), so he did not believe we had transitioned from the Aeon of Horus to the Aeon of Maat. Instead, he posited the simultaneous existence of multiple dimensions (spatial, temporal, *essential*, in varying degrees). The fact that some Adepts had glimpsed into a timeless "Maatian" dimension doesn't invalidate the Aeon of Horus from a more ego-driven or contingent standpoint (perhaps related to personal/present karma or "true will").
2) Grant is NOT in accord with Nema about Maat Magick. Grant merely took inspiration from her gnosis, and developed it in a much more mythical and cosmic manner. He is an imaginative weaver of symbolic threads. His Typhonian Trilogies are not meant to be read literally or from a merely theoretical perspective. His work is very much a "vibe"...it is to be understood allegorically, or even 'meta-fictionally"...think Finnegans Wake but for occultists!
3) You might be interested in an article I wrote about the phenomenological element in Grant's writings. I noticed there is so much misunderstanding about the nature of his Typhonian Tradition (the only 'occultism' I still advocate today, after jumping ship a while ago!)--you can find it here: https://madamez.substack.com/p/the-end-of-human-experience
4) As a Traditionalist based in Julius Evola's work, I agree with most of your criticisms. Leftism and liberalism are NOT traditional and have no place in any esoteric tradition rooted in wisdom.
While I am not a thelemite I did enjoy reading this. It is interesting that thelema as a religion has just as much issues as other religions do.