The Heretic’s Guide to Thelema
By Gerald Del Campo
Thelema. This ancient Greek word meaning ‘will’ first took prominence in Rabelais’ famous 16th century religious satire Gargantua and Pantagruel. Rabelais’ book featured the ‘Abbey of Thelema’, whose monks and nuns proclaimed no law other than ‘Do as thou wilt’. Conceived as a humorous literary criticism of the strictures of late medieval religious hegemony, the book caused considerable controversy in its day for daring to poke fun at the establishment. In fact, the book’s cultural impact was such that it heavily influenced the various Hellfire Clubs that came into vogue amongst the European gentry some two centuries later. By 1922, an English occultist by the name of Aleister Crowley was to form a real Abbey of Thelema, based on his own magickal and mystical system of the same name. Crowley’s Abbey was doomed to failure, but his version of Thelema with its oft-misunderstood central maxim of ‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law’ lives on to this day. Crowley’s writings, now in much wider circulation than they ever were during his lifetime, have since gone on to spur generations to seek after the hidden truths at the heart of the Western occult tradition.
Gerald Del Campo, the author of a Heretic’s Guide to Thelema is one such seeker and this book is the result of many years’ experimentation with the philosophy of ‘Do what thou wilt’.
The Heretic’s Guide is actually three books in one. The first two, New Aeon Magick: Thelema Without Tears and New Aeon English Qabalah Revealed have been published previously and will be familiar to most people with an interest in Crowley’s philosophy of Thelema. Here they are reproduced in a largely unchanged format and it has to be said they stand up to a second read. New Aeon Magick, written as a Thelemic magickal primer aimed at educating the author’s children, looks at the specifics of Thelemic philosophy and symbolism, giving concise breakdowns of the Qabalah, key Thelemic rituals and the primary Thelemic gods. It easily ranks alongside the DuQuettes of this world and while experienced practitioners may find it a little too basic, it nevertheless presents a perfect entry point for the newcomer.
New Aeon English Qabalah Revealed is a little more recondite in that it deals with the decoding of a particularly cryptic passage in Crowley’s received holy text, Liber Al vel Legis, which Del Campo claims, opens up the English alphabet for use as a tool for Qabalistic analysis in much the same way that Hebrew has been used by Western occultists for centuries. It makes a convincing case for a new understanding of Qabalah and the system is well worth experimenting with if the pursuit of enlightenment through occult Sudoku is your kind of thing.
The Ethics of Thelema is the most recently penned and only previously unpublished section of The Heretic’s Guide. While undoubtedly serving as a thinly veiled manifesto for Del Campo’s own chivalric Order of Thelemic Knights, it nevertheless manages to examine the question of ethics with a degree of insight rarely seen in modern Thelemic writings.
Del Campo’s message is clear: Thelema is nothing without nobility of spirit. The polemical essays collected under the title The Ethics of Thelema are largely concerned with arguing the case for a modern take on knightly chivalry within the Thelemic paradigm. Compassion here is the vice of kings alright, but this is very much seen as a positive trait to be encouraged.
Del Campo obviously has no truck with Social Darwinist Thelemites who often seem to allow their appreciation of Nietzsche to overshadow that of Crowley. Del Campo is quick to point out that Nietzsche rarely walked his own talk and died insane (with a moustache like that is it any wonder?) and is therefore perhaps not the best role model to follow, despite his status as Thelemic ‘Saint’.
Crowley doesn’t avoid coming under fire either, nor do the current leaders of the larger Thelemic organisations, but Del Campo’s main thrust is this: if Scientific Illuminism is to sow the seeds of world transformation, and be sure he is quite certain that it can, we must move beyond attempts to impose rigid interpretations onto Crowley’s inconsistent writings, and instead push forward in developing our own personal understandings of Thelema through direct action in the real world.
Del Campo is upfront about accepting Thelema as a religion. As such he acknowledges that sectarianism is inevitable and indeed preferable to watering down the message in an attempt to make it palatable to all. He is very clear on acknowledging right thinking as preceding right action and takes a very definite stand on matters of charity, which he considers to be one and the same with magickal sacrifice. Incidentally, none of this is empty posturing; his US-based Order of Thelemic Knights is well-known for their charitable works in the wider community.
There is much to consider within these pages. It is truly refreshing to read a book that can ably compare the merits of Jeremy Bentham’ s philosophy of Utilitarianism with those of Crowley’s Thelema. Del Campo must be applauded for attempting to drag Thelema out of the occult ghetto in which it currently languishes by encouraging comparison with other areas of government, commerce, religion and philosophy. Even the passages critiquing modern society, while obviously coming from a North American angle, still hold enough relevance for the average Westerner to be worth taking seriously.
If I have one criticism it is that a good proofreading would have done this last section of the book a world of good. English is not Del Campo’s first language and while he is certainly no stranger to the greatest tongue on Earth, The Ethics of Thelema is littered with annoying typos that really should have been picked up on prior to publication. A minor gripe, but one that does rather undermine the otherwise authoritative tone of an extremely readable and informative book. Recommended.
Adrian Dobbie









Comments
I edited this book, and I turned it in with the last 30 pages incomplete. Are these typos within that portion of the book, or elsewhere? I was very thorough, to the point that Gerald sort of thwapped me for changing his spelling of “Hathoor” (and so on) because it has implications in gematria or something.
He sent me the final draft, and I was cringing at the errors still in place in the unedited section, but I assumed it was an earlier draft sent by mistake and that Taylor Ellwood (my managing ed) had finished those pages, since I’d informed him that they were not done. I was taking so long on the book that they were getting really impatient with me.
I feel bad that there are so many errors that you found it necessary to comment, but if it’s not too much trouble, can you specify whether the entire Ethics section was a mess or just those final pages? Thanks!
Taylor Ellwood was your managing editor? Hmmm. I guess that explains why the book is full of typos.
I saw that one coming lol
Discussing business online, in a public forum is pretty unprofessional. I wonder if Sheta is still employed, or if anyone will use her again after this. I wouldn’t.
Hello Sheta
It is a while since I read the book but it was the last section that I recall was pretty full of minor typos. Couldn’t say whether they were specifically confined to the last 30 pages or not.
I guess if you turn in a draft without checking a section then you’re bound to have errors. What can I say?
Hi back, Adrian,
I did tell my managing editor about those thirty pages. Oh well. My fault, but not my fault alone.
to mortimer:
Yeah, I take pride in my work and can’t badmouth the boss without catching hell, but I will say that Taylor and I disagree on many editing points. I edited his (and Lupa’s) “Kink Magic” and I really hope my edit is what ended up published. My brother has my copy but he hasn’t mentioned any mistakes. I’m going to have to look over “Heretic’s” with a fine-toothed comb, I guess. sheta@rendingtheveil.com
Anyone wishing to reply to me is welcome to email me — I don’t see a subscribe to comments option.
@Peron: Strong words from a person who doesn’t provide a link for his own point of contact.