Koenig - Scriven - 1

'Caliphate' Ordo Templi Orientis

David Scriven
P.R. Koenig

Early days of the O.T.O., Theodor Reuss, Arnoldo Krumm-Heller
The 1925 "election"
The "Emergency"
Powers of the IXth degrees
Kingdoms and Nationhood
Church of Thelema
"Bishop" Aleister Crowley
EGC: old expressions for a new religion?
The "Caliphate" as anti-Crowley?
The Solar Lodge
O.T.O., "Caliphate" and Freemasonry
Disabled members
Loudness and the "secret society"
Historical methods of archivists
Critical theory
Protofascistic elements
The "thought" argument
Mr Heidrick and his "facts"
Wills and Testaments, Lawsuits
The electoral legacy of Grady McMurtry
The "New Caliphate"
Double standards
Argenteum Astrum

Aleister Crowley Stele of Revealing


An e-mail correspondence between P.-R. Koenig and David Scriven, the U.S. Grand Master of the New "Caliphate"

EDITORIAL NOTE: This correspondence, September 01, 1996 - November 29, 1996, was prompted by the posting of the early official history of the founding of the "Caliphate O.T.O." by David Scriven, "Sabazius", their Grand Master for North America - who as William Breeze [Hymenaeus Beta]'s only "X°" is effectively second in command in the hierarchy. This differed significantly in some respects from P.-R. Koenig's chronology "Song of the Whitewash", to be found at this URL. This correspondence may be read with profit in conjunction with a three-way exchange between the Peter-R. Koenig, Tyagi Nagasiva (Nigris) and William Heidrick, Grand Treasurer General of the "Caliphate" O.T.O.. Due to legal reasons, some of Scriven's _ actual_ reactions to previous mails have been put into reported speech. After Scriven stated to be an official representative of his organization, no reported speech was necessary any more. Other reactions remain "quotations" of _my_ own previous mail or "official" statements ("we"-statements). There are also some other minor editorial adjustments, spelling and stylistic corrections consistent with the collation of the text into continuous sections, with some contributions and additional commentary by Victor Conquest who is separately contactable by non-electronic mail through "the company of heaven" at BM LAYLAH, LONDON WC1N 3XX.)

(Items in upper case refer to initial statements/facts/points by P.-R. Koenig (denoted by }} in Part One) or insertion of titles for editorial purposes. Indentations refer to further comments on side issues which took place later on during the discussions.)

PART ONE OF FIVE

K: ... While running through your fancy history tale I found these "false" statements/facts/missing points. Please, be aware that I will not give sources of the exact findings (you may find them in my many books) nor will I list ALL of the mistakes and false statements in your article: {{APPENDIX, 1997 September: there are 10 books now.}}

ORDO TEMPLI ORIENTIS: EARLY DAYS

}}OTO WAS NOT FOUNDED IN 1902: ITS FIRST APPEARANCE WAS IN 1906. S: The following statement occurs on page 15 of the Jubilee Issue of the Oriflamme (1912): "When, then in June, 1902, the final separation occurred between Brother:. Reuss and his disciple, Leopold E., Brother:. Kellner immediately communicated with Brother:. Reuss and caused steps to be taken for the acquisition of a Charter admitting the Memphis and Mizraim Rites of Freemasonry in Germany for the reason that Brother:. Kellner considered these rites, with their 95 and 90 degrees respectively, as the most suitable ones to realize his idea with regard to the founding of a `Masonic Academy'." So, while in 1895, Reuss and Kellner had discussions on the founding of their "Academia Masonica" to be called the Oriental Templar Order, they only formally agreed to proceed with it in 1902. We consider this to represent the date of the actual conceptual founding of O.T.O., even though no formal documents were issued at the time, and all the elements were not in final place until 1906. K: This is propaganda material of Reuss. S: This is your interpretation, and it is possible. However, can you document that it did not happen? K: Why did he wait until Kellner's death to write a constitution? S: Why indeed? If I express any other possible reason, you will say I am only twisting the facts to suit my purposes; but you are doing the same. What you say is certainly possible, but it is not proven. K: And did not Reuss invent his (hi)story only AFTER Hartmann's death? S: Again, this is a matter of interpretation and opinion about Reuss's motives. You may interpret it one way, I may interpret it differently. K: I am in possession of the 1903 constitution which is void of OTO and the like, although Kellner is mentioned. S: Do you mean the 1906 Constitution, or the 1903 Manifesto published in the 1904 Oriflamme and reprinted in Frick? K: The 1903 constitution [is] not in the Oriflamme: I have the full text (appr. 60 pages) and it will be published in my "Der Grosse Theodor Reuss Reader". There you will also find some documents re Bricaud and Reuss wanting Liber XV as the "central religion of Freemasonry". S: 1906 Constit.: Evidently I have a different version. Mine is titled "Allgemeine Satzungen des Ordens der Orientalischen Templer O.T.O." London, the Frederick Printing Co., Ltd., 21` Garlick Hill, E.C. It is in German, 7 pages long, and is signed "London, den 21. Juni 1906. Der Ordensmeister." K: As soon as you are sending me paper material I gladly will send you a copy of my January 22 [sic] version which indeed is different to the January 21st one! Once more: I have the impression that OTO was not founded before 1906 as a consequence of Reuss' loss of almost all founding MM-members when they filed suit in August 1905 because he used their membership fees to pay his own private magazine called "Oriflamme" (the suit papers are void of the term "OTO" and refer to MM only). Of course, these events were not known to either Ellic Howe nor Helmut Moeller (as they also had not access to the Swiss archive of Hilfiker with ALL Reuss' charters): their Reuss biography is incredibly full of factual errors and hostility and un-readable by Historians so that you can throw it away. With all the material that I have now I'd say that OTO was founded in January 1906. Do you have evidence that Yarker was aware of the OTO?--- S: Given the volume of correspondence between Yarker and Crowley and between Yarker and Reuss, it would be surprising if he had been unaware of O.T.O. K:---By the way, how did you like the Reuss-stuff at my rituals.htm page? Find Reuss' Parsifal there, now. 90 per cent of the stuff was prepared by two "Caliphate" members! - I also enlarged my copy.htm on the copyrights and datatransfer in the internet" plus some links to lawyers on copyright etc.

DID CROWLEY INVENT THE EXPRESSION "OHO"?

S: Interestingly, I noticed that the 1912 Oriflamme identified X* as "Supr. Rex (O.H.O.)," while identifying Kellner, Reuss and Crowley as X*. Neither Reuss nor anyone else is identified as "O.H.O." in that issue, and Reuss did not sign himself "O.H.O." on Crowleys 1912 Charter. I wonder when the term "O.H.O." first came into use: perhaps Crowley's _Manifesto of the M:.M:.M:._? K: I understand that "Crowleyites" tend to believe that "the Prophet" either invented everything or used it for the first time. But just have a look at Reuss' 1906 Constitution. S: I don't "believe" any such nonsense, I was merely raising what I thought might be an interesting topic for discussion. The 1906 Constitution uses the terms "Ordensmeister" and "Ordensleiter." K: Completely wrong. The 1906 uses the term "OHO and Frater Superior" at least 24 times (inclusive in the signature of Reuss).--- S: Evidently I have a different version... My question about the term O.H.O. was not to make a point: it was simple curiosity. I hope that is allowed in our discussions. K:---There were other terms for the leader of the OTO: "SOTOM", "Termaximus Regens" and others I can't recall at the moment ... This arises another interesting question. "Frater Superior" does NOT appear as a title on its own in the Constitution and therefore Germer's expulsion letter to Grant is technically meaningless as it is not from the OHO. }}I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE DOCUMENT OF THE OFFICIAL FOUNDING OF THE OTO IN 1902. S: See above. }}KELLNER WAS _NOT_ A MEMBER OF THE HBL S: The Jubilee Issue of the Oriflamme mentions Kellner's contact with the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light, and the name was later used by Reuss to refer to the inner circle of O.T.O. We believe there is sufficient evidence to believe that Kellner was, in fact, a member, on some level, of the organization referred to. K: [See above]. There NEVER has been any other source than Reuss' mind. S: Do you know this for a fact? Do you have access to the complete membership records for the H.B.L. in all its forms? Is every fact of history documented? If the documentation for something is lost or destroyed, does that mean that it never really happened? You can say there is a lack of substantiation; but you can't say positively that it didn't happen. However, since there does appear to be so little substantiation of this, I have revised the language in our essay. }}KELLNER WAS _NEVER_ A MEMBER OF ANY MASONIC GROUP. S: According to the Jubilee Issue of the Oriflamme, Kellner was initiated at the Lodge Humanitas in Neuhaeusl. Ellic Howe, in his AQC article, "Theodor Reuss: Irregular Freemasonry in Germany, 1900-23," was unable to trace this lodge, but C.I. Kapralik, in his comment appended to Howe's article, was able to do so. He states that the Lodge Humanitas was actually located in Neudorfl, not Neuhaeusl. K: As long as there are NO documents: Kellner was no mason. Do you have access to the surviving archive of Kellner? S: We do not. I cannot prove Kellner was a Mason beyond the shadow of a doubt, even though I believe he probably was. I have changed our essay to reflect this. }}REUSS DID _NOT_ OBTAIN RIGHTS FROM YARKER IN 1902 K: This only happened in Reuss' mind): you can find a facsimile of that 1902 charter in my "Materialien zum OTO"--- S: It appears to have happened in Yarker's mind as well. K:---where you can also find ALL of Reuss' charters (which went over to his successor Hans Rudolf Hilfiker) S: That is interesting, since both Traenker and Crowley mention in their correspondence that Reuss's papers were in the possession of a woman, I believe her name was Paula Reuss. Perhaps Hilfiker was better able to afford the purchase price for Reuss's papers than either Crowley or Traenker were. Of course, the mere physical possession of a Charter does not convey any authority whatever, unless such Charter is properly executed with the bearer's name on it. {{APPENDIX, 1997: This is very interesting since there exists no such paper making Crowley the OHO of the OTO, or making McMurtry the OHO of the OTO.}}

REUSS' WILL AND WHAT HAPPENED TO HIS PAPERS

K: I don't think that Paula Reuss (who is mentioned in Reuss' Last Will and Testament as heir! which leaves out Crowley and other claimants!) ever possessed anything of importance.--- S: We have known all along that Crowley was not heir to Reuss's estate or papers. K:---Otherwise Germer, Crowley, Traenker or Krumm-Heller (who, like Germer, was a wealthy man) would have bought that stuff! S: You may be right, but Crowley and Traenker did seem to be under the impression that she did have something. As I recall, Crowley says somewhere, in his Confessions, or diaries, that she tried to sell him Reuss's papers. Tranker says in his correspondence with Jones that her papers ended up in Russia. We may never know for sure. K: Reuss wanted his wife as heir. You say that this only goes for Reuss' "papers". I say "no"! S: No, I said "estate or papers." In your article in TH, "Veritas Mystica Maxima," you say that Reuss's "last will of 27 June 1923 was in favour of his wife and his housekeeper without provisions relating to OTO, MM or Gnostic Church." ... K: I doubt that her papers ended in Russia, as Traenker said. Why have they been found in Hilfiker's possession? }}YARKER, BY THE WAY, HAD NO AUTHORITY TO GIVE OVER ANY "REGULAR" MM-DEGREES: HE WAS EXPELLED MANY YEARS BEFORE. S: Actually, the only Masonic body Yarker was ever expelled from was the English Ancient and Accepted Rite, of which he was a Rose Croix member, on Nov. 19, 1870. However, prior to 1870, he had resigned all his other "establishment" Masonic memberships except Rose Croix and Knights Templar. We, by the way, do not claim to give out regular Masonic degrees. [Editorial note: See discussion in Part Two on "The OTO, "Caliphate" and Freemasonry".] }}RUDOLF STEINER ONLY WAS CHARTERED A 30., 67., AND 89 K: And he quit with Reuss after several weeks; after he found out that Reuss' Order was of no value. S: You are probably correct that Steiner was not a X°. His short-term relationship with Reuss is a fact, but not one we considered relevant for our article. }}ON THE SAME DAY AS CROWLEY ANOTHER X° WAS APPOINTED: CZESLAW CYZNSKI. WHAT IS THE SOURCE THAT TRAENKER WAS CHARTERED THAT SAME DAY? K: Please send a paper copy of your source. S: Traenker was chartered on the same date as Jones, not Crowley. ... My source for the date of Traenker's X° charter is the Traenker/Jones correspondence. I reviewed this file while I was at Hymenaeus Beta's house in March. I don't think I made a copy of this particular letter, I only made a note of the date. [Re. Czesław Czyński:] Thank you. We have no information on this individual. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: But this individual was mentioned by W. Breeze himself in "The Magical Link" as a X° for all the Slavs (along with Quilliam as X° for Turkey).}}

THEODOR REUSS

}}REUSS NEVER WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE CONCEPT OF THELEMA--- K: (see Reuss' mis-spellings in his "1917 Constitution"). Of course he was NOT "enthusiastic" about it. He did NOT translate the Liber AL into German--- S: We disagree. The following is from an undated letter of Reuss to Crowley, which is believed to have been written in 1917: "The consecration of the New Temple on Monte Verita took place midsummersday and your "Invocation" was fervently recited by me!! All learn it now by heart. — On Easter Sunday the "Message from Therion" was read to a gathering of Vegetarians who had foregathered on Monte Verita for establishing a cooperative settlement on Monte Verita... "You are ever-present, whenever we meet for work! "Energized Enthusiasm" is studied by the Brothers and Sisters with holy Awe! I am translating the _Liber Legis_! And "The Ship" will be performed on Monte Verita as a Mystery Play!! Let this News encourage you! We live in your Work!!!" Such language belies a certain degree of enthusiasm. Of course, Reuss also translated the Gnostic Mass, a very Thelemic ritual, into German. His misspellings in the 1917 Constitution are only evidence of bad spelling and/or proof-reading. Certainly, however, he and Crowley had their own individual ideas regarding Thelema; his translation of the Gnostic Mass is unorthodox. He does seem to have, at least, begun a translation of Liber AL, though he may well have never finished it. Reuss's enthusiasm for Crowley's "Work" seems to have cooled off somewhat after 1921, possibly for reasons discussed below. In a letter to Traenker dated Feb. 14, 1925, Crowley said that "Reuss was very uncertain in temper, and in many ways unreliable. In his last years he seems to have completely lost his grip, even accusing _The Book of the Law_ of communistic tendencies, than which no statement could be more absurd." K:---This is only in Crowley's mind to give his activities a base. S: Perhaps, perhaps not. Your opinion versus mine. K: I would like to see a copy of Reuss' accusation. S: So would I. I have never seen it, I was only quoting Crowley. K: By the way - an appendix - Reuss did not translate/publish Liber XV in 1920 as you wrote in your History draft: he translated it in 1917 and it was published in 1918! Before Crowley! S: I was never very sure about the 1920 date, since Howe gave 1918. I had based that date on M. Jungkurth's translation. I recently received a copy of Reuss's original German version which has "A.O. 800." Clearly, A.O. 800 would be 1918 and not 1920. Crowley's first publication of the Gnostic Mass was in _The International_, Volume XIII No. 3, dated March 1918. Obviously, Crowley gave Reuss a manuscript or typescript some time during the previous five years. He may have done so at the same time that he for warded a typescript to Jones in 1917. K: You say that the misspellings in the 1917 Constitution was bad spelling and/or proof-reading. I can hardly follow your argument since Reuss and Crowley allegedly worked "closely together" in 1914! There are NO other misspellings in that Constitution and why should they only occur when it touches Thelima [sic]?--- S: I don't know, neither do you. However, I can't accept your assertion that Reuss's misspellings indicate his rejection of Thelema; when Reuss translates Crowley's books and says to Crowley things like, "We live in your Work!!!" Here's a thought, perhaps Reuss preferred to transliterate the Greek letter "eta" using the Roman letter "i" rather than "e," which is more in accordance with modern (and Byzantine) Greek pronunciation. Hence, "Thelima" and "Thirion." K:---What is your source that Reuss' translation of Liber XV should be "unorthodox"? Jungkurt's translation? I compared Reuss' to Crowley's translation already 10 years ago and found it rather correct (except one addition to the Law). S: The term "unorthodox" is, I suppose, subject to dispute. This was a statement of my personal opinion, based primarily on Reuss's addition to the Law. However, Reuss did rewrite the ritual fairly substantially. }}---AND SUFFERED NO STROKE IN 1920: IN THIS SUMMER HE HAPPILY HELD A MASONIC CONGRESS IN ZUERICH AND WAS VERY HEALTHY. IN NOVEMBER 1921 REUSS FORBADE CROWLEY TO MIX THE OTO WITH THELEMA, S: Crowley recorded in his diary--- K: quoting Crowley as the sole source narrows down the credibility of the topic because it is easy to draw the conclusion (knowing Crowley's treating of other people) that he abuses "silence" to interpret it as a "stroke" in the same way as YOU do!--- S: As I said before, I am more familiar with Crowley's writings. I do not believe that Reuss's stroke is a proven fact, and have modified our history essay accordingly. However, I do not believe it has been entirely disproven, either. K:---You only believe Crowley because it suits/serves your needs.--- S: You take the opposite position because that suits/serves _your_ needs. We both have the same evidence before us. The matter is not clearly proven either way. We can either take a stand one way or another, or leave it alone as being unclear. [Editorial note: see also later discussion in Part Three on "Critical Theory"] K:---As long as you don't have any other source Crowley's entry in his diary is of no relevance. S: Do you not occasionally come to conclusions on the basis of a single source? Or is the problem here that you consider Crowley a _bad_ source? S:---that he had been informed that Reuss had suffered a stroke. Reuss's stroke is also mentioned on page 149 of _The Magical World of Aleister Crowley_ by Francis King.--- K: Since when do you accept Francis King as relevant? S: Why shouldn't I? I may disagree with his opinions, but I can usually distinguish his opinions from his reportage. In certain cases, for instance when Soror Grimaud tells me that Smith never performed cunnilingus during Gnostic Mass at Agape Lodge, I believe her rather than King, because she was there and King wasn't. Now, to be sure, King wasn't in Zuerich, either; but I'm no longer making a positive assertion about Reuss's stroke, only reserving doubt. S: ...Charges of inaccuracy must be backed up by contradictory information. When I quoted King about Reuss's stroke I had no information to contradict what he said. Now that I have additional information, I have some reason to doubt his statement. He probably got his information from Crowley's correspondence with W.T.Smith. K: AC was maybe jealous because Reuss had given several Xth charters to others than to Crowley's disciples, and most of all: Reuss had made Achad the Xth for America on 10 May 1921, which aroused Crowley's anger. Crowley was NEVER in a position to rule over the US-countries as long as Achad was alive. Therefore Crowley "expelled" poor old Achad on 1 October 1934 in order to claim supremacy over the US. But, unfortunately for Crowley, Achad only died on 24 February 1950: which makes EVERYthing that Crowley ruled in the US null and void. Achad (collaborating with Traenker) remained responsible for the US because he had a Reuss-X° and not a Crowley-X°. Older and stronger rights! I almost wonder why Crowley did not expel Reuss in 1921 or so. Well, he "only" invented that famous "stroke" in order to "invalidate" those Traenker- and other-charters of 1921, and in order to invalidate Reuss' separation OTO from Thelema. S:---Strokes are not always physically disabling. How healthy Reuss was at the July 1920 Zuerich Congress must remain a matter of conjecture, since none of us were there personally. However, according to Howe, Matthew McBlain Thomson, who also attended the Conference, reported some rather irrational behavior on Reuss's part; and Reuss was only able to attend the first day of the Congress.--- K: I have the surviving papers of that Zuerich congress. Reuss was in a good health, attended the first day because he wanted to realise Bricaud's idea to introduce Crowley's Liber XV as the central religion for freemasonry. But when the mood of the congress went against him he did not return the other day. Any suggestion that Reuss suffered from a mental disease or a physical stroke is NONSENSE and propaganda in order to disclaim Reuss' authority. S: I think this matter of Reuss's stroke has been dealt with now. I am quite fascinated by the idea that Reuss and Bricaud would want to "introduce Crowley's Liber XV as the central religion for freemasonry." I would like to see more information on this. It seems so out of character, especially for Bricaud; I was under the impression that Bricaud and Crowley were at odds. I do not understand what you mean by "the central religion for freemasonry." How can a single document, a single ritual, be considered a "religion"? (Editorial note: see later discussion on "Bishop" Aleister Crowley and "The EGC".] {{APPENDIX, 1997: Some of the above mentioned papers meanwhile are published as fascimile in Koenig: "Der Grosse Theodor Reuss Reader".}} S:---In any case, Crowley definitely believed--- K: a) It is of no matter what Crowley believed (also Geoffrey Basil Smith of England believes to be the OHO); and b) see [earlier remark re. quoting Crowley] S: I don't think you understood my point. Crowley's belief that Reuss had had a stroke would not have made it true if his belief had been incorrect. However, even if his belief was incorrect, the fact that he believed it would be an important factor to take into account in evaluating his motives for his subsequent actions. S:---that Reuss had suffered a stroke. Crowley wrote to his Viceroy Frank Bennett in Australia informing him of Reuss's alleged stroke. We do not have a copy of this letter, but in it, Crowley evidently referred to Reuss as having become demented as a result of the stroke and thus unfit to remain/ perform the functions of O.H.O.--- K: Only because Crowley wanted to become OHO: therefore he had do denounce Reuss. S: You impute bad motives. I must admit that Crowley often behaved badly, but this does not justify always assuming the worst. S:---Crowley apparently suggested that the existing X°s--- K: But he did not notify ALL X°. Only those who followed him. This makes his attempt (as McMurtry's) unauthoritative. S: I never said it was authoritative. I'm not even sure it happened. I don't think you or I will ever be sure what happened. S:---should depose Reuss. Reuss evidently discovered the correspondence. In response, he wrote an angry, defensive, and irrational letter to Crowley dated November 9, 1921. This is the letter you are so fond of quoting, in which he appears to distance himself and O.T.O. from Thelema. His change of heart vis-a-vis Thelema appears to have been the result of a temper tantrum over the challenge to his authority, possibly aggravated by the onset of dementia. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: Reading from the FACTS - i.e. the letter itself - there is very little which "appears" or is "irrational" about the fact that Reuss would naturally have been made very irate by any attempted coup by Crowley aimed at usurping his authority, and this has nothing to do with any alleged "dementia"! And since there is no known sequel to this letter retracting Reuss's point of view, it seems very unlikely under the circumstances that he would have chosen Aleister Crowley to have succeeded him less than two years afterwards!}} }}CROWLEY SELF PROCLAIMED HIMSELF SULKINGLY OHO S: Your adverbial embellishment is, perhaps, more prejudice than fact--- K: This is funny because it is YOU (as well?) who argues with prejudice. [Editorial note: see also later discussion in Part Three on "Critical Theory".] S: I was referring only to your use of the word "sulkingly." Was I too harsh? S:---In Crowley's letter to Traenker dated Feb. 14, 1925, he states that Reuss "must have been to some extent correctly led, on account of his having made the appointments of yourself and Frater Achad, and designating me in his last letter his successor."--- K: Show me that letter! S: If I had it, there would be no argument over this issue. S:---Crowley did proclaim himself O.H.O. in his diary on November 27, 1921. He also wrote to Reuss on November 23, 1921, stating "It is my will to be O.H.O. and Frater Superior of the Order and avail myself of your abdication--- K: Show me a document of Reuss' abdication! S: If I had it, there would be no argument over this issue. S:---to proclaim myself as such." It would not be surprising, given his probable mental condition,--- K: You follow Crowley's fantasy S: Possibly. S:---that Reuss would have appointed one or more additional "successors" after Crowley; Crowley later established cordial relations with Krumm-Heller (they worked together in opposition to Lewis.) K: Please show me a document! (when I ask for documents I prefer a copy on paper to a quotation). [Editorial note: see next section for continuation of Krumm-Heller discussion.] ... K: And it might interest you that the Reuss OTO Grand Lodge of Switzerland still exists in an unbroken line to these days. It is NOT Metzger's version. S: Yes, that does interest me. Perhaps you might be so good as to answer the following questions about them: 1. Do they observe the 1917 Constitution? 2. Do they admit women? 3. Are they all Freemasons? 4. Do they accept Liber XV as the "official religion of Freemasonry?" 5. Do they operate according to Reuss's "Programme of Construction and Guiding Principles of the Gnostic Neo-Christians, O.T.O."?

ARNOLDO KRUMM-HELLER

}}WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE THAT KRUMM-HELLER NEVER FOUNDED ANY OTO-LODGE? S. says that he was told this by Parsival Krumm-Heller when he and several other O.T.O. members interviewed him on September 7, 1994. The interview notes were sent to Mr. Krumm-Heller for verification of the accuracy of his statements recorded therein. They were so confirmed by letter from him dated Dec. 2, 1994. }}THERE ARE SEVERAL KNOWN KRUMM-HELLER-X°s! S: According to Parsival K.-H., his father only authorized his successors in F.R.A. and the Iglesia Gnostica; keeping these quite separate from O.T.O. per se. One must presume that any claim to O.T.O. (per se) deriving from Krumm-Heller would be based on some sort of "misunderstanding." On being informed of Dr. Toca's claim to have been appointed OHO of OTO and FRA through the Krumm-Heller lineage by Sar Thelemako in Cuba, Parsival K.-H. responded as follows in a letter dated Dec. 2, 1994: "Dr. Roberto C. Toca is not known to me and I am quite sure that he could never have been appointed to OHO through the K.-H. lineage. He would have to produce his missing documents to prove it. I have inherited my father's complete paperworks and could find no evidence." Also according to P. K.-H., his father only authorized F.R.A. and Iglesia Gnostica to be operated in countries where Spanish and Portuguese are the principal languages. He also never appointed a successor as world-wide head for F.R.A., preferring to allow the national heads of F.R.A. to work independently. This is in contrast with O.T.O., which was always intended to operate under an O.H.O. K: Re: interview with Parsival Krumm-Heller: I am glad that you could do that interview because Parsival Krumm-Heller refused to do so with me all those years. I would like to know: WHO was appointed successor to FRA and Gnostic Church by Krumm-Heller? S: Here is the portion of my interview which pertained to the K.-H. succession: "Krumm-Heller left no successor as worldwide head of F.R.A., but instead designated an independent regional successor in each country in which he had established F.R.A., as follows: Spain: D.R. Ballester (d. 1980) Venezuela: Anna Delia Gonzales Brazil: Dr. Albert Wolf (director of a health resort in Germany. His wife was a physician in Sao Paolo. After the war, Wolf lived with Krumm-Heller in Marburg. He was the only one of the successors to receive the Gnostic Church succession as well as the F.R.A. succession. He died shortly after Krumm-Heller's death.) Mexico: Mario Alvarez Cuba: Johannes Muller Rider (Frater Thelemako) Argentina: ? Arquia Philippines: ? Israel Rojas Romero, though he had been a student of Krumm-Heller, was never appointed head of F.R.A. for Colombia by Krumm-Heller. Eduard Munninger's claim to have been appointed by Krumm-Heller as head of F.R.A. for Austria is false: Krumm-Heller never established or authorized any F.R.A. activity in Europe except in Spain. Krumm-Heller considered F.R.A. to be for the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking world only. Krumm-Heller initially gave H. Spencer Lewis authority to operate F.R.A. in the US. However, he later severed his ties with Lewis because he came to believe that AMORC was being operated as a business, rather than as a charitable fraternity. He later established ties with R. Swinburne Clymer, head of the Rosicrucian Fraternity in Quakertown, Pennsylvania." {{APPENDIX, 1997: Parsifal Krumm-Heller openly aped the same conclusions that Koenig had drawn in the articles that he (Koenig) had sent him prior in a printed format: "Rosenkreuz und Baphomet", in AHA #5, Bergen, 1991, ISSN 0936-8841}}

Eduard Munninger: Roses in Austria. The successor to Arnoldo Krumm-Heller

S: The question marks above indicate names he was unable to recall. He did not have his complete notes with him. K: But again: it is of NO relevance what Parsival Krumm-Heller thought or still thinks. S: Perhaps his recollections and access to papers, however, are of some importance. K: Do you always believe what a son tells about his father's activities: would YOU accept Aleister Ataturk ruling your Order? S: No, and I don't believe P. K.-H. rules F.R.A. K: Or do you believe what Ataturk told about his father and the Order? S: I would listen to him, compare what he had to say with other sources, evaluate the possible sources of his information, then make my own conclusions. K: Would YOU accept that McMurtry's children "in reality" have a saying in your Order? S: They would have nothing to offer but their opinions, they would have no useful recollections or access to useful papers. K: E.g. Metzger's children, still alive, are absolutely NOT interested in their father's activities, but do they rule the order or do they know about their father's activities? S: You've made your point, I hope I've made mine. K: Don't forget: Almost ALL FRA lodges did NOT accept Parsival. He vanished in the mid50s but the FRA still was active. S: I make no argument that Parsival should be head of F.R.A., although I found him a very amiable person. K: But I agree with you that there is NO worldwide leader of the FRA. Can you send me a copy of that interview, please? S: I will consider it. However, I think Parsival would, perhaps, be rather upset with me if he found my interview of him published in one of your books. }}REUSS PUBLISHED IN DECEMBER 1921 THAT HE HIMSELF TOGETHER WITH ARNOLDO KRUMM-HELLER WERE THE HEIRS TO CARL KELLNER AND FRANZ HARTMANN (THAT IS, THE OTO). LATER REUSS MADE HILFIKER HIS SUCCESSOR. BUT CERTAINLY NOT CROWLEY. K: Crowley's OTO-group is only a breakaway group from the original OTO. S: Reuss and A.K.-H. certainly were heirs to the tradition of Kellner and Hartmann, but so was Crowley. Note that the portraits of Kellner and Hartmann, along with those of Steiner, Reuss and Crowley, hung in the F.R.A. Lodge in Brazil. Kellner and Hartmann were considered guiding influences of F.R.A. as well as of O.T.O. It would not be surprising, given his probable mental condition, that Reuss would have appointed one or more additional "successors" after Crowley; although I do not believe you have thoroughly documented this. As you note in your TH article, Hilfiker admitted that OTO — at least his putative "branch" of it — died with Reuss. {{APPENDIX, 1997: no member of the Brazilian FRA is aware that Scriven ever was visiting one of their temples.}} ... [following refers to exchange from "Crowley self-proclaimed himself sulkingly OHO":] K: Please show me a document! Except of Krumm-Heller meeting Crowley in 1930 I never was aware that the both had anything in common. "Au contraire"!!!! I heavily doubt that they conspired together against Lewis: proof please! S: Here are a number of Crowley diary entries for 1930-32 in which Crowley mentions A.K.-H. He usually misspelled his name "Krum Heller," I have corrected his spelling. "Wed. 23 April 1930 At Birven's. Met Dr. Krumm-Heller. Plantikow (artist — good) Birven to dinner — asked alone in private — Worner sculptor (good draughtsman) bobs up with him. I showed black rage. The pompous idiot is too mannerless. Sun. 27 April 1930 Drove Heiligensee to 4 o'c with Krumm-Heller Tiegel 1840. Jaegerweg 10 Heiligensee. Berlin. Played chess won all but 1st game — lost on a trick. Wed. 30 April 1930 Wrote Birven. Krumm Heller lunch 12.30 Pelzer. He agrees visit London May 10- 12. Steiner & Miss Jaeger to dinner. KH says Krishnamurti is most important to rope in. Tues. 27 May 1930 Konody lunch 1.0. Onjaira v. good. Call for G.K. 7.30 p.m. dinner. Germer & Dr. Krumm Heller arrived. Party at 31. K.H. left early, tired (?). The Konody's. McAllen, stewed, & his whore. Germer. Yorke. Wed. 15 October 1930 — love again. Dr. Krumm Heller called. He explained his attitude satisfactorily But there is something which rings false. Mon. 24 November 1930 Karl came & talked re Krumm-Heller. Wrote K.H. accordingly. Wed. December 10, 1930 [I Ching reading] Steiner & Krumm-Heller in p.m. Sun. 17 May 1931 Soror I.W.E. brought Geo. Brinkmann & wife to consult. Case just as I thought Conference with her and Krumm-Heller & the wreched Germer in p.m. A very bad Kilbsmich at Eden. Painted a superb picture - tree in storm at sea - the love between myself and Hanni Jaeger. Tues. 6 October 1931 Woke up full of energy and youth. Frau v. Alvensleben rang up re Germer's insanity. Krumm-Heller called with one Muller, an anthropophagist. Went to movies - everything got very late. Thur. 4 Feb. 1932 Rather brilliant chess. Krumm-Heller called with Peryt Shou. [circled cross symbol] 105 [Sigma alpha nu sigma] Bill v. nervous. Thur. 11 Feb. 1932 K-H here with Peryt Shou." S: The following is from my interview with Parsival: "Krumm-Heller met with Crowley on several occasions and, according to his unpublished memoirs, held him in high esteem. He may have visited Crowley in Cefalu. On June 7, 1930, Crowley, Karl Germer and Karl's first wife Cora met with Krumm-Heller at Krumm-Heller's house in Berlin, Germany. Parsival, then 5 1/2 years old, was there. Parsival remembers being terrified at first at the presence of Therion. Crowley asked Krumm-Heller why he had named his son Parsival, and Krumm-Heller responded that Parsival h ad been born at the foot of Monsalvat in Spain. Crowley, who spoke in fluent Spanish to Parsival's father, addressed Parsival in broken German, and predicted that Parsival would always be "a loner." S: I have not been able to corroborate the June 7, 1930 meeting with Crowley's diaries. Martin Starr sent me a copy of a letter from Crowley to K.-H. dated Dec. 28, 1936, in which he asks for K.-H.'s help in a proposed legal action against Lewis. If you require a copy of this letter, it would be best if you could obtain it from Mr. Starr. K: Re. Parsival Krumm-Heller's history account. I do know a certain Mario Alvarez, but he is not from Mexico. There is still a Memphis-Misraim-temple in Mexico (when I was there) ... I doubt heavily that Krumm-Heller gave Lewis authority to operate an FRA lodge in the US. As long as I don't have any proof there only is Parsival's memory. I also doubt that Krumm-Heller ever answered to that 1937 letter from Crowley re. Lewis. S: I have no information on this. K: I will add a pertinent note to my present FRA-piece at my URL, soon. Meanwhile you may read some interesting NAZI-links that Arnoldo and Parsival had. S: Parsival was reluctant to discuss his own history, but he did mention that he had fought on the German side during WWII. K: I never found evidence that Krumm-Heller really was member of any Red Cross section. All the Red Cross authorities I asked (in Spain, in Switzerland and in Germany) reacted very strangeley, also the embassies that I have asked. I have the impression that Krumm-Heller had a political career of his own (see also my "Abramelin & Co"). I doubt that Krumm-heller was cremated in his Red Cross uniform: look at the picture in my "Ein Leben fuer die Rose" on his death bed. ...

THE 1925 ELECTION

}}CROWLEY WAS CONFIRMED "OHO" IN 1925 ONLY BY _TWO_ OF APPROX. 10 SURVIVING X* OF THAT TIME--- S: Presumably you mean Bricaud, Krumm-Heller and Hansen; and possibly Czynski (uncertain), Hilfiker (undocumented), Hoffman (uncertain) and Lincke (uncertain). Encausse and Detre were dead by then. Windram was bankrupt and inactive. Jean-Maine's claim is undocumented and probably spurious. Crowley later established cordial relations with Krumm-Heller (they worked together in opposition to Lewis). The remainder failed to put forth a viable challenger to Crowley for the O.H.O. successorship. }}K:---AND BOTH, JONES AND TRAENKER WITHDREW THEIR VOICE QUICKLY!!!! S: Nevertheless, the votes had been irrevocably cast. They never came together to depose Crowley from his office, or to replace him with someone else. Despite all the controversies you cite, Crowley's flag remained waving at the end of the day. K: Withdrawn remains withdrawn!--- S: Whenever I have cast a vote to elect a person to an office of authority, I have never been given the opportunity to withdraw my vote later. If I tried to, no-one would listen to me. K:---a) Crowley was not elected OHO but only a "World Saviour",--- S: "Traenker and the American Grand Master, C.R.J. Stansfeld Jones ("Frater Achad," 1886-1950, who also had a Reuss charter), elected X* Crowley OHO in 1925." - P.-R. Koenig, "The OTO Phenomenon," _Theosophical History_, V. IV, No. 3, July 1992. K:---b) he was not elected by ALL X°.--- S: Was such an election necessary? Did they elect someone else? K:---and c) a withdrawal has to be seen as the contrary of "irrevocably cast". S: Then what was the point of voting in the first place? Withdrawal of votes: Now if the votes were merely confirming someone in an office he already claimed, then such votes would represent no more than a show of support anyway. Their revocation would only indicate withdrawal of support: the person would remain in the claimed office without their formal support. K: So, why then, please tell me, did Traenker consider himself to be the OHO of OTO, Head of Memphis-Misraim and the Gnostic Church etc etc. until he died? [see my "Das Beste von Heinrich Traenker"]. This automatically nullifies his earlier "approval" of Crowley as "World Saviour" (if that's equated with OHO, at all). Traenker's heir still is alive... S: Surely a rhetorical question. If there were a "Traenker O.T.O." still out there, then this might be an interesting discussion; but there isn't. K: How do you know? Only because "you" are a loud group, others don't have to be as well! In a further step of productive exchange of info and material I am prepared to give you all needed addresses. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: And also, could not Traenker's O.T.O. feasibly be held by his heir "in trust", in similar fashion to what S. suggests McMurtry did as the "Caliphate"'s only _bona fide_ functioning representative between 1962 and 1977?}} ... K: Re. your assumption that Traenker's and Achad's withdrawal of Crowley accepting a "World Saviour" as "irrevocably cast": prove it:--- S: This is pointless. If I were Crowley, I'd say the votes had been irrevocably cast, and that they were technically unnecessary anyway. If I were Traenker, I'd say that I had been misled, and that my vote was, therefore, invalid. If I were Jones, I'd be unable to make up my mind what I wanted. We side with Crowley, you say they were all wrong. K:---And why did Traenker from 1925 call himself OHO of the OTO? This certainly makes his earlier acknowledgement of the World Saviour null and void. This also is the reason why Crowley never mentioned Traenker again. Or why Krumm-Heller put his back towards Traenker. EVERYONE WANTED TO BE OHO.

THE "EMERGENCY"

}}THERE WERE COUNTLESS OTO BRANCHES _ACTIVE_ DURING WORLD WAR II, NONE OF THE EUROPEAN BRANCHES WAS DESTROYED: S: I'm afraid we disagree completely on this. We have no evidence of active O.T.O. groups in Europe during WWII. K: Maybe YOU don't know but only because it does not exist in your archive or in your "official statement" it does not wipe the facts out of reality. S: It isn't a fact on your say-so; I'll need to see some evidence if you want to convince me of this. K: Re. your allegation that Metzger had no activities outside of Europe:--- S: Actually, I reviewed our essay, and we didn't say that. We only said that he never operated in the U.S. K:---a) he appointed Montenegro a X° for North America--- S: I asked Martin Starr about this, and here is his reply: "I have never heard from Helen Smith that Montenegro was appointed anything by Metzger. There is nothing in their surviving correspondence (Metzger and Smith) mentioning anything of the sort, nor have I ever seen anything written by Montenegro claming any degree in OTO beyond the IXth."--- K: I have a very detailed written testimony of Montenegro's enthronement as X° by a witness of that time. S: How strange. I wonder why Montenegro never mentioned it to anyone in the U.S. One would think he would have mentioned it to Soror Grimaud [Editorial note: magical name of Helen P. Smith], at least, but apparently not. S:---I then asked him for further clarification, and he responded with this: "Bottom line with Montenegro and Metzger is that Montenegro held Metzger to be a black magician, did not accept him as OHO and wanted nothing to do with him after he returned to the USA. Metzger could have done and said anything, but of what consequence is it?" I am aware of your reference to the Englert article in "Zion," do you have other sources as well? K: see above. I furthermore have a pile of original letters from Montenegro where he told to some Metzger collaborators that he does not know of any OTO activities in the US. Letters dated ca 1967 or so. S: I believe that. I don't think there were any OTO activities in the U.S. during 1967. K:---and b) Ana Delia Gonzales for South America.--- S: That is less debatable, and probably warrants a change to our essay. K:--What else do you want? If YOU don't have any documents proving that, others have! You introduce Mellinger in your argument that Metzger was not aware of any IX* outside Europe. Why Mellinger? He was in Germany and not in the US! S: Did he notify Mellinger or not? K:---Metzger knew of no other OTO activity outside Europe! Therefore he enthroned Montenegro and Delia.--- S: Here is some more information I received from Starr: Metzger sent Wilfred Smith, dead since 1957, a copy of his Manifesto claiming to follow Germer as OHO." So Metzger was, at least, aware of the Agape Lodge address; and thought that there was someone there worth notifying (after the fact).--- K: This only shows that he was not aware of any OTO activities, otherwise he would have known of Smith's death. S: "Aware of" and "knowledgeable about" are quite different things. K:---As Smith was expelled in 1945 why consider him a vote in any election?--- S: Why bother to send him an announcement afterwards, then? K:---I only can outline and repeat my opinion: Metzger was an active OTO (whether "real" or not). He spent all his money and energy to have also other groups going on in/after the desperate situation in Europe after WWII. He was not aware of any other such groups outside Europe and made representatives and efforts to keep these groups alive outside Europe. And suddenly he is confronted by someone pretending to be "the real" OTO in 1977 who was not active for 20 years or so and considered non existent (re the Order's activities).--- S: His efforts in this regard were laudable. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that he and McMurtry were not able to agree on how to proceed with the Order. K:---Metzger made Walter ENGLERT a X° for Germany although this was (allegedly) withdrawn later (I never have seen any evidence that Metzger cancelled the X°-ship, only the right to run a lodge). I have written testimonies to the enthronisation of Englert into the X° by witnesses. When Metzger sued Englert, he lost. Therefore Englert must be considered a "real" X* according to YOUR definitions! Legally seen, Englert has the older rights in Germany for the OTO. S: If we recognize Englert as a X°, then what does that make Metzger?--- K: The O.H.O. S:---Also, didn't Metzger also appoint Englert OHO? If Englert is OHO, then what is Metzger? Didn't Englert "expel" Metzger? If Metzger sued Englert, wouldn't he have done everything in his power to remove any authority he had given Englert first? It's a complicated matter, isn't it? You think such a knot can be easily unravelled? Anyway, Englert doesn't appear to have any interest in dealing with us. K: ...My opinion remains: If there is an OTO of some old-days-style: it is Metzger's. If there's a magickally functioning OTO: it is "Grant's". If there's a "loud" OTO: it is "yours". But none of them has a traditionally background in the sense of "succession documented with papers". I think that I keep the Reuss-Grand Lodge here in Switzerland out of the argument. K:---By the way, that story that Heidrick is spreading about Montenegro being in Stein is completely false (Heidrick's letter to me, dated 18 November 1987, which he quoted again in his Thelema Lodge Newsletter, February 1993). Montenegro was not sent on behalf OF ANYBODY: the Agape Lodge did not exist any longer, Montenegro was a IX* (as he told several times to Oscar Schlag), etc etc. }}THE ORDER NEVER WAS IN ANY EMERGENCY. S: Presumably you refer to McMurtry's justification to activate his letters of emergency authorization from Crowley. If so, then we must disagree again. Germer had failed to designate a successor.--- K: Please see my "Materialien zum OTO", Sascha Germer appointing Motta first, then Metzger (several times). See her letter to her lawyers where she explicitly said that it was Karl Germer's (and also her) wish that Metzger takes over the office of OHO. S: What Sasha Germer did or _thought_ is rather unimportant to me. Germer's will stated that she was supposed to execute all OTO matters jointly with Mellinger, which didn't happen. If she and Mellinger had jointly designated either Metzger or Motta, then things would have been very different indeed. S:---The Order was in a state of utter collapse in the U.S. The "Solar Lodge" affair had taken place. In McMurtry's eyes, Metzger and Grant were ready to tear the Order apart.--- K: a) it does not matter what McMurtry believed (although he was aware of the facts, see his attempt to have the police to take away the archive from Sascha Germer in 1972, already!); b) this gives him NO rights to call all the X° together; c) he did not call together anybody! S: He did not have himself elected, he activated his letters of emergency authority from Crowley. It is very plain to me and many others that there was, indeed, an emergency. K: (He made new IX° to elect him chief) S: The IX°s made by McMurtry voted to elect his successor. S:---Certainly, from McMurtry's point of view (though, evidently, not from yours), emergency action was warranted. }}CROWLEY PREFERRED MELLINGER (TO MCMURTRY) AS HIS SUCCESSOR. S: Possibly, but Mellinger never claimed Crowley's successorship. K: He was not aware of McMurtry, only of Metzger. Germer closed Agape lodge in 1957 [editorial correction: 1953] and never mentioned any (ex)member again. Therefore, for Mellinger only the European OTO existed.--- S: Mellinger never claimed Germer's or Crowley's successorship. He never claimed to be OHO or Caliph. Stating that he had letters of emergency authorization from Crowley similar to McMurtry's is irrelevant, because there is no "Mellinger OTO." {{AFTERWORD, 1997: As S. previously himself remarked re. Kellner and the H.B.L., How do you know this for a fact? "Do you have access to the complete membership records for the [Mellinger OTO] in all its forms? Is every fact of history documented? If the documentation for something is lost or destroyed, does that mean that it never really happened? You can say there is a lack of substantiation; but you can't say positively that it didn't happen."!}} K:---And why did McMurtry only become active AFTER Mellinger's death? S: I believe that is explained in our history essay. }}GERMER HELD A VERY LOW OPINION OF MCMURTRY AND CLOSED AGAPE LODGE IN 1957. [=1953.] S: True, but Germer never expelled McMurtry or revoked any of his authority. K: He maybe was not expelled (who knows, maybe McMurtry has destroyed the pertinent document when he had access to the archive while still living with Phyllis Seckler)--- S: Wild, unjustified and unfair speculation. Why must you constantly impute the worst possible motives to these people? K:---but certainly was considered non-existent as a member! How is it possible to expel a non-existing member from a non-existing order (in the US)? S: Do you mean to say that the closure of Agape Lodge resulted in all U.S. members losing their membership? {{AFTERWORD, 1997: Yes! If Germer WAS an OHO then this could perfectly well be construed as a political act saying he did not wish the U.S. OTO to continue! And Germer called the U.S. a "spiritual desert".}} }}GERMER WAS AWARE THAT ANY REUSS OTO HAD MORE AUTHORITY THAN ANY CROWLEY OTO--- S: More precisely, Germer was _under the false impression_ that Reuss charters held more weight than Crowley charters, because Yorke had misinformed him to that effect. K: Proof to the contrary, please! S: No, you show me something in the Constitution or other pertinent document which states that X° charters issued by one OHO have precedence over those issued by subsequent OHOs. I won't be convinced by a "thought argument." K: What Yorke thought (Reuss' OTO superior to Crowley's breakaway) S: This is a case where Yorke's unfounded opinion contributed to the subsequent behavior of Germer. [Editorial note: see section in Part Three, "The Thought Argument", for wider discussion.] {{AFTERWORD, 1997: The "Caliphate" are fond of stating that the reason why Germer never claimed to be the OHO was because Yorke "misinformed" Germer and thereby put him off. Whether Yorke was right or wrong in his view (and evidence seems to suggest he was right inasmuch as there was no question about Reuss being the OHO, whereas there was certainly at least a question mark over whether Crowley was fully entitled), it also begs the question as to WHY Germer, "OHO as he was", should allow himself to be so " misinformed" by Yorke, given that Yorke was not apparently even a member of the OTO or any aligned masonic body and Germer had over twenty years direct experience. Why are the "Caliphate" so keen to belittle Yorke's (valid) opinions? Surely as a senior OTO figure Germer was capable and experienced enough to make up his own mind by himself on these matters?}} }}---AND SINCE METZGER APPEARED TO BE A REUSS OTO, GERMER GAVE ALL OVER TO METZGER. S: As you well know, Germer did not give "all over" to Metzger. Germer was never very sure of the exact nature of Metzger's claim to authority. He tentatively supported him at first, but later withdrew his support. Metzger later cajoled Sasha Germer into giving "all over" to him after Germer's death; in violation of Germer's last will and testament. K: Please see my "Materialien zum OTO". }}RE GRANT: AN IX° CAN'T BE EXPELLED! S: We disagree. A IX° can, most certainly, be expelled by an O.H.O. Grant wasn't made a IX° by Crowley or even by a X°, but by David Curwen, another IX°. Would it not be a rather ridiculous situation if any IX° could make any man on the street a IX°, and no IX° could ever be expelled from the Order? K: Before the "Caliphate" invented/introduced (after the court case Motta vs Weiser, or so) that only possession of the "Emblems and Mode of Use" plus paying to the "Caliph" makes one a IX°--- S: The dues rate for IX°, and all other degrees of O.T.O. and M.M.M., was published in The Equinox, Vol. III, No. 1, March 1919. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: But were never collected at all during Germer's "reign", and never strictly during Crowley's. Even Reuss complained to Crowley that he NEVER received his dues!}} K:---it was custom to only ask "have you the IX°?". If the answer was "Yes", then the grade was "recognized". If the answer was "no", it wasn't. It seems that you don't know this! S: I had heard that it was done in a manner similar to the way you describe it during a certain period of time at Agape Lodge; but according to Phyllis Seckler, there was a great deal of uncertainty about who possessed the IX°. Some "possessors" of the IX° were not considered entirely valid, and Germer did not recognize all of the ones that seem to have been recognized by Smith and others. It was certainly not done in such a haphazard way under Crowley or Reuss. Crowley's policy, as stated in his _Confessions_, was that the IX° "is never conferred upon anyone who has not already divined from previous indications the nature of the secret." So, knowledge of the secret was supposed to be one of the qualifications for IX°, not equivalent to possession of the IX°. Germer's own confusion about OTO matters probably led to the confusion about possession of the IX°.

POWERS OF THE IX°

K: Do IX° automatically have the right to initiate? (I always assumed they can only "recognize" another IX°) S: There is some ambiguity here; and I don't think I will be able to give you a clear answer. I have seen no document clearly stating that the IX° automatically possess such powers. The way we operate now, those who do not have initiatory experience are not likely to ever reach IX° (through "us"). According to Jim Graeb, there was an oral tradition that all IX° had the power to initiate, and that the IX° members had the duty to reconstitute the Order should there be a crisis of leadership. I am unaware of the origin of this oral tradition; though it may have some relation to the IX° "part proprietorship" of the Order specified in Liber 52 and the 1917 Constitution. Although it is not documented by any papers issued prior to Germer's death, McMurtry indicated his awareness of it in the IX° charters he issued, by specifying that the IX* initiates were not to exercise their full initiatory powers until after his death. K: Is this admitting that it is a purely "Caliphate" invention? ...Please give exact words! S: I will try to get a copy of one of them. My information is from a phone conversation with a person who holds one of these charters. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: It is certainly unfortunate that this "tradition" is "not documented by any papers prior to Germer's death", i.e. before 1962(!)}} }}METZGER APPOINTED GABRIEL MONTENEGRO A X* FOR THE UNITED STATES: MONTENEGRO HELD A LOW OPINION OF MCMURTRY. S: We were aware that Montenegro did not support McMurtry. I was unable to find any documentation for this X°. K: Maybe YOU don't know but only because it does not exist in your archive or in your "official statement" it does not wipe the facts out of reality. S: Are you trying to convince me with this? The documentation of Montenegro's alleged X° is not even in your book. ... K: By the way: If Montenegro is accepted and respected as a "Caliphate" elder stateman figure: how about his X°-ship via Metzger? What about his (and HP Smith's) negative opinion of McMurtry's claims. Is HPS allowed to revise her opinion (as Seckler) or is it allowed to stand firm (as Traenker's or Jones's)? S: The circumstances were different. The Montenegro/Smith letter you published was written while K. Germer was still alive. H. Smith recognized McMurtry's authorizations from Crowley in 1969. K: I've been told otherwise! And you did not answer my questions. By the way there is substantiated proof that H.P. Smith changes her opinion/memories as the wind goes. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: That 1960 Montenegro/Smith letter discussed AND SUMMARILY DISMISSED the idea of McMurtry becoming the next "Caliph". Also where has H.P. Smith since then ever "recognized McMurtry's authorizations" in any way other than humouring him in the absence of anything better - and where is there anything in writing from her to him to that effect (i.e., giving him as the "de facto O.H.O." her unequivocal support?)}} }}YES, METZGER WAS ELECTED BY HIS OWN IX°, BUT MCMURTRY NEITHER WAS ELECTED NOR ANYTHING ELSE.--- S: There is no need to reiterate our claim with respect to McMurtry here. ...However, it should also be pointed out that McMurtry was the last surviving administrative and governing-level officer of O.T.O. under Crowley and Germer (Sovereign Grand Inspector General and IX°, both directly from Crowley's hand) who had any interest in claiming O.T.O. leadership.--- K: How about Grant and Symonds (under Crowley and Germer — see Heidrick's approval that Germer's expulsion of Grant only was "professed", Heidrick to Symonds, 9 September 1985)? S: I am looking at a letter from Bill H. to Grant of that date, and I see no such language. The expulsion is referred to as a fact. Grant had been expelled, period.--- K:... Heidrick's letter to Grant INDEED makes use of the term "professed". See my "Materialien", 233. K:---How about Crowley's wish of a" complete change of an order" that manifests only in Grant's OTO?--- S: See my previous comments on this matter. K:---What about Motta in Sascha Germer's letter "You are the Follower"? (Here we have another example of the "think/believe"argument: Motta believed/thought he was the OHO)?--- S: Show me a document signed by either Crowley or Germer appointing Motta to_any_ position of authority, or even conditional authority, within O.T.O. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: Ditto with Reuss concerning the appointment of Crowley to O.H.O., as so claimed!!}} S:---Symonds had never been an O.T.O. member or even claimed such. {{APPENDIX, 1997: Obviously Scriven denies the fact that John Symonds is the Assistant Treasurer of Crowley's OTO, which fact was published in a flyer to OLLA, in 1944.}} S:---[McMurtry] was, for all intents and purposes, the ranking surviving member of the Crowley/Germer O.T.O. administration who was capable and willing to hold office.--- K: NO! Only your words. How about Grant and Symonds [see earlier remark] S: I stand by them, until you can give me something better than you have so far. S:---The point of our statement about Metzger's election was that he was aware of the existence of other IX* members in the U.S.,--- K: This is untrue. Show me a document that says that Metzger was aware of any IX° or X° outside Europe! Please send a paper copy! S: What about Mellinger? [Editorial note: see earlier discussion in "THE EMERGENCY".] S:---but he failed to notify them of his upcoming election.--- K: And so did McMurtry: NONE of the surviving members of Agape Lodge or outside the US wanted McMurtry, therefore he quickly made several IX* who voted him the day after. Metzger, at least, had the decency to get elected by long-standing IX°s and not IX°-made-overnights. S: The Caliphate was not based on an election. S:---He based his claim to the office of O.H.O., world-wide head of O.T.O., on an election; but it was not a world-wide election.--- K: Neither was McMurtry's S:---His election would have been appropriate for a national head, because it was a national election. McMurtry's claim was not based on election but on administrative authorization and appointment. K: Maybe in some new made statutes. S: Crowley's letters. }}---AND WHAT OF BREEZE?: HE ALSO WAS ELECTED ONLY BY HIS OWN IX°--- S: He assumed office of X° and Caliph, or de-facto O.H.O., in accordance with the procedure designated in McMurtry's last will and testament. As such, he is McMurtry's legitimate successor. K: Maybe in some new made statutes. Can a "Caliph" (who is NOT OHO) make someone OHO by Last Will and Testament? Can a X° be given over in a Testament? S: The Caliph is, in our terminology, the "de facto" or "acting" OHO, who is to serve as such until a "de jure" OHO can be elected. The Caliph designates his or her successor as Caliph in the manner of his or her choosing; and now, in accordance with our provisions for this in our Bylaws. We operate according to our Bylaws, which are based primarily on Liber 194 and the 1917 Constitution. The Bylaws were adopted by the Areopagus, which includes the surviving members of Agape Lodge. All amendments of the Bylaws must be approved by the same body, and have, to date, been so approved. Our Bylaws allow the de facto OHO to appoint X°s. I do not expect you to accept this explanation, but I don't see any point in arguing it further. [Editorial note: see later section, "The Electoral Legacy of Grady McMurtry" in Part Five, for further discussion.] {{AFTERWORD, 1997: And where might the "Caliphate"'s "Frater Superior" fit into all of this - as the exact equivalent of "Caliph"? In which case, why does Breeze NOW prefer to call himself the former rather than the latter"?}} K: How does the "Caliphate" make a X°? How are YOU made a X°?---

X° KINGDOMS AND NATIONHOOD

K:---Nationalism. What makes the nation? Of what are YOU a X°? Of the English-SPEAKING countries? Or is it a geographical territory? Or a political? Or do you assume following definition of a nation: "those belong to a nation who WANT to belong to a nation"? S: I don't understand what nationalism has to do with us. To answer your questions, my jurisdictional boundaries correspond exactly to those of the U.S.A. This was done because it is a _practical_ way to do it. I don't consider my jurisdiction in O.T.O. to be a "nation" or "ethnos." It is not something that one can be born into, one must seek it out and enter into it as an act of will. K: This is contradictory to Heidrick who says that to apply for it is not to "receive" it. S: I don't think it's contradictory. The "act of will" is necessary, but not sufficient, to become a member. K: You wrote that you were not born into the X° but "must seek it out". S: I did _not_ write that. What I wrote was this: "I don't consider my jurisdiction in O.T.O. to be a `nation' or `ethnos.' It is not something that one can be born into, one must seek it out and enter into it as an act of will." The "it" that one cannot be born into is the O.T.O. organization. My meaning was that O.T.O. is a membership organization which must be joined intentionally; and not a nation or ethnos into which one is born. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: The meaning is ambiguous - "it" could equally well refer to S's jurisdiction in OTO - i.e., to Kingship or X°.}} K: Does it mean you had to personally petition Breeze for the Ninth or the Tenth degree? S: I made no such petition. K: So then, please explain your definition of the office of X°. With all details. In this context I'd like to learn more about Breeze's recent note in a Link where he mentioned (in a footnote) some earlier Reuss' Xth for Sweden, Spain and Italy. Can you tell me his source, please? Or does he equate 96° with X°? [And] Is there a King (X°) without a Kingdom? {{AFTERWORD, 1997: Not answered.}} K: ...By the way, do you have the X° initiation ritual? I published some grips and signs and a magical seal in my "Kleiner Theodor Reuss Reader". I also remember having seen in Crowley's hand a "IX° secret paper" with some funny X° costumes. S: I was installed ceremonially. I have your materials, as well as the funny costume paper. [Editorial note: see "How to Make your Own McOTO", page 138.] K: Coming back to your X°-installment. Did "you" use those Reuss-X°grips, etc. that I have published? Or did "you" use a new ritual? S: H.B. wrote an original ritual for the occasion. }}---WHILE AN OHO ONLY CAN BE ELECTED BY THE X°--- S: The O.H.O. is designated by his predecessor.--- {{AFTERWORD, 1997: NOT, let it be noted carefully, his predecessor's predecessor. In other words: Crowley could not have "designated" Grady McMurtry, for example.}} S:---Election is required only for disputed succession.--- {{AFTERWORD, 1997: In which case therefore, in view of his own election, is Breeze's succession "disputed" by the "Caliphate"?}} S:---We fully intend to conduct an election for the de-jure O.H.O. when the time is right.--- K: Why is it YOU who conduct an election? S: Who else? K: WHEN is the time right? S: Not before there are five X°. K: When will the election of OHO by Xth degrees be held? Will it be during our lifetime? S: I don't know. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: This answer is astonishing given the insinuation of Heidrick and others in c. 1978 that the election was to be fairly imminent!}} K: Why does the "Caliphate" need to make five X° in order to elect himself an own OHO? Why five? Why not accept the vote of all those other still living X° (e.g. Grant, Toca, or Fraeulein Aeschbach, or Motta's successors, or or or or)? S: The number five was, I believe, established by the voting members when the Bylaws were written. They do not need to be X° made by the Caliph. Any individual who can demonstrate a legitimate claim to X° from Reuss, Crowley or Germer would also be eligible. We will also consider others who have less definite credentials, if they are capable and willing to work with us. We have discussed Fraeulein Aeschbach, she has been invited to vote; I believe she has declined. As for the others, Grant and Toca already consider themselves OHO. Motta's successors despise us more than you do, and will have nothing to do with us. The OTO of Grant, Toca and Motta bear very little resemblance, other than the name, to what we are doing.--- {{AFTERWORD, 1997: What ARE "you" doing, apart that is from charging money for initiations/annual membership fees and publishing books?}} ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- {{APPENDIX, 1997: From: James Eshelman to Paul Joseph Rovelli Sent: Saturday, April 12, 1997 4:08 PM J.A. Eshelman, ex-Vice-Caliph, about William Breeze publishing Crowley books: "I believe their point of view — at least that of H.B., though I doubt he would ever admit it in words resembling these — is that he is willing to sacrifice the spiritual development of the present generation (since it's impossible to reform the post-Grady version of the Order anyway) in order to lay the best foundation for the spiritual growth of humanity for the next couple of thousand years."}} ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- S:---As I mentioned before, it would be very difficult to reconcile any of their systems with ours. S:---We have met with Soror Chokhmah of the Swiss O.T.O., and she is fully aware of our intentions. She has been invited--- K: Why do YOU invite? S: Who else? S:---to participate in the election--- K: Why SHE? Metzger did not leave neither written Last Will nor an oral designation of successor. Is she a X°? Made by what? S: She is viewed by the remaining members of her organization as its leader. S:---if she so chooses. If we can find any other individuals who can produce papers demonstrating a legitimate claim to the X° of O.T.O. from the hand of an OHO (Reuss, Crowley or Germer),--- K: Can she? As I showed, the Reuss charter to Hofmann and Linke (please note he correct spelling!) dated 1918 was a fake made by Metzger. S: Do you believe _anyone_ can? S:---we will also invite them to participate. We have always been willing to recognize any authority in O.T.O. when the claimant can produce valid and legitimate documentation. ...At this time, we have established very friendly relations with Soror Chokhmah and her associates, and hope to work closely with them in the future. K: This is hard to believe (because they said a lot in the past) and I will check that soon. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: S's words re. Soror Chokmah being one "other" legitimate X° REMAIN UNSUBSTANTIATED. Motta was viewed by the remaining members of his organization as its leader, also, yet he was never credited with being a X° by the "Caliphate"! As with access to their archive, is recognition now dependent on how "friendly" individuals are to the "Caliphate", rather than any other criteria?}} S: I hope you will refrain from misrepresenting my statements to them. "Friendly relations" means nothing more than precisely that at this time. We have made no agreements, and there are significant differences between our systems. K: Re Fraeulein Aeschbach and your alleged "friendly contacts": I have checked that and am really amused ... S: What an unfriendly and annoying thing for you to say. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- {{APPENDIX, 1997: Bill Heidrick's comment and reaction to the Swiss OTO: "They were doing fine just last year. Nice place, attentive membership, all of that. I do have the impression that they don't like lime-light or quite as much fuss as we experience. Basically good people. Metzger's successor is a venerable and sociable older soror. The younger members seem well balanced. ... If you contact them, don't mention me initially. It would complicate things if there was a confusion." [sic!] Also very interesting: Heidrick in 1997: "Present rule is that HOOR membership is not a bar to OTO membership, at least through the Man of Earth degrees — that gives three years to see if the two organizations can continue to avoid juristdictional problems. Incidentally, BOTA or AMORC membership is not a bar to any degree of OTO membership, although BOTA bans OTO members from holding office in BOTA and AMORC has occasionally also imposed internal restrictions. SOTO and TOTO membership is a bar to OTO membership, at present; but membership in the Swiss OTO claimant group does not bar OTO membership under Hymenaeus Beta."}} (from correspondence between Heidrick and Jason Carpenter ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- K: Why do you want/need Fraeulein Aeschbach as Xth? (you mentioned her several times in that context! Although you told me, Sabazius, that Breeze did not formal judge over Metzger: this is untrue: he officially denied Metzger's Xth in a M.Link. S: I was not able to find such a formal denial. He affirmed in a recent e-mail to me that I was right in stating that he is withholding judgment on whether Metzger was a X°. K: So please explain to me why the formal denial of Metzger's X° in the Magical Link Vol IV;2 suddenly is not formal any longer? And how's about Thelema Lodge Newsletter February 1993? — For my taste, there are a little bit too many factual "errors" in the Link. It smells of "propagandistic manipulation". {{AFTERWORD, 1997: The Link passage in question expressing formal denial (author: Breeze) reads: "There is no evidence in Germer's correspondence file with Metzger at Grand Lodge that the Metzger group was accorded national sovereignty by appointment of National Grand Master General of Switzerland." (Summer 1990, page 9.) There is also the Winter 1990 number (Vol. 3, no. 4, p.28) where Breeze states: "In a future issue of the Link or the Oriflamme I will publish the relevant documents, but for the present it is sufficient to state that Metzger's group was a provincial one (Crowley's term, not mine) much like Agape Lodge in California. I've not seen proof that Metzger was Swiss National Grand Master General _ad vitam_, let alone OHO. If he were, one would think some hint of it would survive in Germer's correspondence with Germer."}} }}GIVE ME THE SOURCE THAT MELLINGER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE SUPERIOR OF METZGER!--- S: He was deputized by Germer, who was O.H.O., to oversee Metzger's regularization. He was acting as Germer's duly authorized agent. K: Please send a document. Until when was Mellinger deputized? Also after the quarrel between Germer and Mellinger? S: This is irrelevant if Metzger was not a genuine Reuss Head. Nevertheless, I have changed the word "superior" to the word "mentor," which is perhaps more accurate. {{AFTERWORD, 1997: But not if he really WAS Germer's "duly authorized" agent and deputy: then Mellinger WOULD have been his superior in the Crowley-OTO! (So why the turnaround?)}} }}---METZGER WAS HIS OWN SUPERIOR SINCE HE WAS A REUSS HEAD. S: As you well know, Metzger was never chartered by Reuss; the two never met or corresponded. Your own article in _Theosophical History_ (Vol. V, No.1) would not give anyone the impression that Metzger was a legitimate "Reuss Head." Even if Metzger had been a legitimate X°, Germer, as O.H.O. (despite his personal misgivings), would have had absolute authority over him. Metzger himself acknowledged Germer's authority over him by acknowledging Germer as being the legitimate O.H.O., which he did a number of t imes. K: Metzger is no "real" OTO as you are no "real" OTO. As Metzger dozens of times told to several witnesses: he only ingratiated himself with Germer in order to get the copyrights. When one knew Metzger's personality it is hard to believe that he accepted anyone as his superior except himself. S: He acknowledged Germer as OHO in his correspondence and publications; in particular, in his announcement of Germer's death and of his own election. It doesn't matter what he "thought." [Editorial note: see section "The Thought Argument" in Part Three.] }}_NONE_ OF THE SURVIVING MEMBERS OF THE AGAPE LODGE WANTED MCMURTRY (EXCEPT SECKLER). S: They were all duly notified and invited to participate, however, which was the point of the statement.--- K: a) not all have been invited, b) no one came, c) no one accepted (except Seckler for a while, but as she admitted in several letters to G.M Kelly: "this is not the real OTO ... McMurtry gives out false and phony documents".) S: Phyllis and Grady were, as you know, married at one time. After they cooperatively reactivated O.T.O. using Grady's papers and status as the last remaining officer of the CrowlcMurtry's "Caliphate", for instance??!}} S:---Phyllis Seckler has long been a very strong supporter of ours. S:---Despite her initial opposition alongside Montenegro, Soror Grimaud has supported us (from a certain distance) for many years now. K: What is this: "certain distance"? S: Soror Grimaud's main interests lie elsewhere. She generally prefers to keep to herself, and maintains light contact with only a few of us. However, she actively participated in the election of Grady's successor, and she continues to offer her advice to us on issues she deems important. She served as one of the officers in an O.T.O. initiation I took in 1992.

END OF PART ONE OF FIVE

Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5
sitemap advanced
Search the O.T.O. Phenomenon Website


The Early Days of the O.T.O.
The 'Caliphate'
The Gnostic Churches
The McMurtry Succession
Lawsuits
The Templar's Reich - The Slaves Shall Serve
Proto-fascist Elements in the O.T.O.
The Solar Lodge and Charles Manson
Arnoldo Krumm-Heller's F.R.A.
Rudolf Steiner was never a member of the O.T.O.

More about all this in: Andreas Huettl and Peter-R. Koenig: Satan - Jünger, Jäger und Justiz






O.T.O. Phenomenon   navigation page   |    main page    |    mail

 

       Reuss' Memphis Misraim Emblem

one of Reuss' O.T.O. seals



Click here to go back to where you came from or use this Java Navigation Bar:

Memphis Misraim Carl Kellner Spermo-Gnostics The Early Years O.T.O. Rituals Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica Fraternitas Rosicruciana Antiqua Fraternitas Saturni Typhonian O.T.O. 'Caliphate' Pictures RealAudio and MP3 David Bowie Self Portrait Books on O.T.O. Deutsche Beiträge Charles Manson Illuminati