'Caliphate' Ordo Templi Orientis
David Scriven
P.R. Koenig
An e-mail correspondence between P.-R. Koenig and David Scriven, the
U.S. Grand Master of the New "Caliphate"
(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 THREE OF FIVE
CRITICAL THEORY and THE O.T.O. PHENOMENON
K: In order that you understand my position, and to tidy away some of the
outrageous rumours about me that have been spread by some high ranking
members of your Order (eg Heidrick who really knows how to invent fantasies
about me in very rude language which give a good example/impression of the
Order he invented), I will outline my position. I will NOT write a book
again about the OTO (only one short lecture for an university a year): all
my future books will contain facsimiles only: in a limited edition for
scientifical research, not advertised, not available in the bookstores and
still published "by" the Lutheran Church of Bavaria (although I am NOT
member of it). After my last book is out (13 are planned) I will get rid of
my archive as soon as possible. It will become part of an open library in
Italy. Personally I am not interested in any OTO matter and my research has
to be considered as a research of the occult underground of Western
civilisation, only. I simply want to document. Occultists don't like my
books because they feel criticized; "scientists" don't like them because
they feel that I did NOT criticize. — I am aware that most people who move
around in the occult "field" (be it as participant or as "scholarly"
observer) tend to (ab)use that grey zone (that is, occultism, with its
inhabitants) as their projection screen. On a lower level I would be
"happy" to see all OTO groups being united and accepting each other.
S: I hope you are sincere about this; but I doubt it. You seem to be adamantly
opposed to them all.
K: Please understand: Even if you feel that I should be adamantly opposed to
all OTO groups (which must be an emotional projection of you upon some
objective facts since I am personally completely disinterested), why can't
you accept (under the assumption that you are right) that I nevertheless
wish those groups to be united?
S: For one thing, you put the word "happy" in quotation marks! For another,
you _seem_ to have such a low opinion of all these groups and leaders that
it makes little sense for you to wish that they would all join together to
perpetrate their "antics" on an even larger scale! But, if you insist on
this point, I will have to take your word for it. However, such a
unification would pose considerable problems, logistically. The different
groups claiming OTO lineage today have very significant differences between
each other; differences which would be very difficult to reconcile in
practice. In reality, I think the best that can be hoped is that the various
groups will some day agree to terms which will enable them to stop fighting
each other and proceed their separate ways in peace.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: No legal suits, for example?! Will the "Caliphate" lead the
way here - or will it simply try to make all the competition impotent
first?!}}
K: ...Why do you have the feeling that I wanted you to sever from your
Caliphate"?
S: Actually, I was under the impression that you simply wanted to express your
viewpoint that the Caliphate has no better claim than any other OTO "branch"
on being the "one"/"real" OTO.
K: Do you assume that I might feel happy if you would give up your opinions on
History? I tell you for sure: I am not interested in to convincing someone
or taking someone out of a "sect", or some atrocity like that. I want
information only.
S: Thank you for the clarification.
K: You complain that I see always only the worst of it. This is not true. And
even it would be true: why not measure something by its weakest part? Or cut
it with Ockham's Scalpel/Razor?
S: To a certain extent, you are right. If you wish to test the strength of
something, you try to bend it. I recognize the value of an intelligent,
persistent critic. However, if a photographer were to prepare a book about a
great river, and include mainly photographs of its slimy backwaters, it
would not be a very accurate book.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: But if some of the main features of this so-called great
river did actually happen to consist of its slimy backwaters, would it not
THEN be accurate?!}}
K: You say that I believe stories by disgruntled ex-members. Well, some are
ex, some are not. Being an "ex-member" does not disvalue its experiences!
And I have my own experiences, as well. In order to research those "wild
tribes in the jungle" I became a member. And I have seen those drunks being
dragged through the rituals,---
S: I, too, have been appalled at some of the rituals I have witnessed in
the past. But I have also seen many rituals of inspiring beauty and
solemnity. I, and others, have worked very hard for years to establish
high standards for our rituals, and I intend to make this a major focus
of my service as X°. Drunken candidates, and drunken officers, will no
longer be tolerated in the U.S., and progress is being made in other
countries as well.
K:---I have experienced what happened with my money,---
S: We try to implement policies which will result in reasonable rates for
dues and fees, and which ensure that such monies are used for
appropriate purposes. We have not always been entirely successful in
communicating these policies to some of our local representatives, but
we are working hard to correct any such problems.
K:---I have been told personally into my face by high ranking members about
drug abuse of other high ranking members,---
S: I do not abuse drugs. I do not advocate drug abuse. I am not aware of
current drug abuse among any of our top leaders. It is not our policy to
advocate drug abuse. Illegal drugs are prohibited at OTO events. Despite
all this, there has been drug abuse among the members of our Order, as
there has been among a broad cross-section of society; of which we are a
microcosm. It was a much more serious problem in the past; and was, in
my opinion, a reflection of the popular culture of the 70's and 80's.
Most of our members, to my knowledge, have learned their lesson on drug
abuse.
K:---I have been told by witnesses of the raping of children,---
S: I am aware on only one confirmed incident of sexual child abuse by one
of our members. The member was expelled immediately.
K:---and and and and and.---
S: Certainly we have problems! Our membership is composed of human beings,
with human flaws! Most of them are wonderful people, some of them are
seriously troubled; and their troubled nature can remain concealed from
us for many years. As Thelemites, most of our members have very strong
attitudes about independence and personal liberty. We cannot get away
with telling them how they should run their personal lives, nor should
we. Sometimes, even our officers give us trouble, especially in areas
where communication is difficult. It is not fair to hold our Order
responsible for the individual behavior of all its members.
K: In such a Phenomena as you live in (Microsocm - Macrocosm) "you" have
to be measured by such. Certainly not all the members of your Order are
"low" individuals,---
S: What is a "low" individual?---
K: Sorry: wrong expression: I prefer "unstable" now!
S:---What percentage of our membership consists of "low" individuals?
During what time period? In what locality? Where do you get your
statistics?
K: See attached file on the fascistoid elements
K:---but the fact that a very high percentage of your Order consists of
such, shows the characteristica of your Order: "Likes attract the
Likes". You can also introduce another argument: "You" do the propaganda
and "I do" the unveiling of what is going on behind the curtain.---
S: I see your point, but I don't think you can really unveil what goes
on behind the curtain unless you are behind it yourself. A lot of
very complex things are going on back here, and there are curtains
behind curtains, as well. I do not have perfect knowledge of what
goes on at all of our local bodies, I do not know what most of our
members do in their private lives. How can you, once a peripheral
insider, but now an outsider, ever have enough knowledge to make an
accurate judgment without oversimplifing?
K:---Re. your question whether I ever told someone about my being a
Thelemite: I'd like to quote here my good old "colleague" Oscar Schlag:
"Consider me a brother in abeyance"!
S: Fair enough.
K:---Most of the worst things I did NOT publish .... because it would attract
the yellow press. I'd like here to mention the very unpleasant fact that I
have been (mis)quoted (sometimes at length) in a very shallow book by two
trashy journalists: Guido and (? forgotten) Grant: "Schwarzbuch Satanismus".
Those brothers reduced the facts to such a low level of satanism, drug
abuse, child molestation and the like, that I got immensly upset and had
long correspondence with the publishing house and the authors in order to
avoid any second edition. I also wrote to many German occultists, explaining
the facts, having them threating the publishing house with the court,
correcting the journalists, and I think now, that this book never will be
reprinted.---
S: That is commendable. Thank you.
K:---Here I can add something else "good" I did to the occultists: when
someone wanted titles from me: I gave them immediately. Also to members of
your "Caliphate", as you certainly know. - This also to document the
mechanisms of occultism (that is: ORGANIZED occultism).
...
K: Personally I am against "power oriented structures" that tend to
protofascistic suppression of individuals (and money milking of the mass to
the favour of a few).---
S: From your "Chat on the Crowley Copyrights," [Editorial note: one early
German article in the occult magazine AHA] you evidently believe at
least the latter of us. I'm not sure what you mean by "protofascistic
suppression of individuals," [Editorial note: see Appendix 1 to this
Part] but you believe, for example, that we pocketed the money from our
"Balkan Relief Fund." I am not an international officer, but I was told
by one of them that one portion of the money collected for this fund was
forwarded to our principle representative in Ljubljana when he had
Bosnian refugees staying in his house; that another portion was used to
pay for medical tests for Bosnian refugees, and that the remainder of
the total amount collected will be transferred to our people in the
South Slavic States soon by one of our Canadian members. With our
assistance, five of our Bosnian members, and the young child of two of
them, were able to leave Bosnia and take up residence in a safer area.
The publishing dispute you refer to did is reported inaccurately. The
gentleman's publishing initiative was unauthorized and improperly
handled, and it placed some of our contracts with other publishers in
jeopardy. He ignored our letters to him about this. We have had
publishing disputes with other members with much happier resolutions,
because they listened to us. You may choose to believe the stories told
you by disgruntled ex-members, but you should realize that you are
getting only half the story. Also, when multiple languages are involved,
compounded by malfunctioning mail and other communication problems, the
half of the story you hear can be complicated by miscommunications and
misunderstandings. We have had to deal with a number of very unfortunate
situations which were caused entirely by poor communication. Our dues
and fees are small compared to other similar organizations (compare them
with those of SOTO, for example, or with Christian churches which
require tithing), and we take great pains to use these funds for the
benefit of the Order and its members. Breeze, Heidrick and I have not
profited at all (in a monetary sense) from our involvement with the
Order. On the contrary, we have spent a considerable portion of our own
incomes, not to mention our time, keeping this organization going.
[Editorial note: see "afterword" on "getting rich" in the "Loudness and
the Secret Society" section of Part Two for comment.] You told David
Poole that you think the Caliphate leadership use the money they collect
from their membership to feed their drug habits. This accusation is
untrue and unfair. As for us allegedly being a "power-oriented
structure," we do have a hierarchical organization; and we are
established as an "Outer Order"; that is, as an Order which is
"coordinate and practical," intended to perform practical works in the
world. We lack the actual power to perform "fascistoid suppression of
individuals" even if we wanted to, which we don't.
K:---We have to differ between what can be documented and what is construed
only in someone's mind, although it is written down then.
S: I agree, if you mean that we must distinguish opinion and speculation from
documented fact. However, opinion and speculation can provide valuable
insights, provided that they are clearly labelled as such and not presented
as fact.
[Editorial note: see following section, "THE THOUGHT ARGUMENT".]
S. thinks many occultists think I have not only criticized them, but that I
have treated them unfairly; or that, in some cases, I have deceived them and
betrayed their trust. S. has heard such opinions expressed by quite a number
of people, not just Bill Heidrick. Regardless of what others have said, S. has
found in his own study of my writings that I will often indulge in techniques
which are, in his opinion, more suited to the propagandist than to the
objective historian. I may level the same accusation against him; but S. is an
official representative of the "Caliphate" O.T.O., and as such, he will never
be accepted by academic historians as being objective; which is what I purport
to be. S. feels to have the duty to give the claims of other OTO claimants a
fair consideration, and to avoid actual errors. However, when historical
events are subject to multiple reasonable interpretations, he reserves the
right to select that interpretation which is most favorable to the interests
of the organization he represents. In my [Koenig's] case, when such multiple
reasonable interpretations are present, I always seem to select the _least_
favorable interpretation for my emphasis; even if that interpretation
conflicts with other interpretations I have made.
THE ATTACHMENT:
K: Please be aware that I don't intend to sound unfriendly, harsh or
insulting. I hope that we can discuss some topics straight out without
annoying anyone.---
S: I'm willing to try.
K:---I fully agree with you that it is a waste of precious time to pointlessly
argue and quibble over "opinions" although I am still convinced that a
discussion often might be useful in clearing out uncertainties,
disagreements and/or disputes.---
S: I agree.
K:---In this part I try to collect together some of your arguments into one
answer. I am only halfway astonished that a lot of "occultists" close their
eyes from "facts" and prefer to manipulate themselves as others (e.g.
researchers, critics) who want to find an "objective" truth or only do some
research or analysis. Let's look at an example: your so-called Balkan War
Funds, which you allegedly find somewhat distortingly described in one of my
earlier articles. a) I did not know that you REALLY helped people, b) I
unveiled the hypocrisy of threatening your Yugoslavian members (they have
been expelled only AFTER my article), and c): Before I collected my
information into books I have published dozens of articles and written to a
lot of protagonists in order to get corrected. If afflicted parties declined
to correct me (although I asked them several times to do so, publicly and in
personal letters) it is very revealing how YOU (those capital letters shall
show that I don't know exactly who to address) try to deal with the
"outside" (that is: outside the scheme of your dogma) reality (e.g.
critics).
...
K: Before I collected my information into books I published dozens of
articles---
S: Primarily in German
K:---and wrote to lots of protagonists in order to get corrected. If afflicted
parties declined to correct me (although I asked them several times to do
so, publicly and in personal letters) it is very revealing how YOU (those
capital letters shall show that I don't know exactly who to address) try to
deal with the "outside" (that is: outside the scheme of your dogma) reality
(e.g. critics).
S: There are a number of problems here. One is that many of these issues are
considered internal matters: I think most organizations, occultist and
otherwise, are very reluctant to "air their dirty laundry" in public.---
K: Which is part of the History and, of course, part of the Phenomenon.
(as defined in my foreword to "Das OTO-Phaenomen") see a later paragraph
below, as well.
S: Of course, _every_ organization, occultist, religious and secular, has
their pile of dirty laundry, which is part of their own "phenomenon." We
would be truly remarkable if we didn't. It is the life blood of Soap
Operas, the Tabloid Press, and sensationalist writers.
S:---Another problem is simply time and effort. I, and most of my colleagues,
do our work for O.T.O. in the little free time we have apart from our
careers and family obligations. We have plenty of responsibilities to deal
with, and making the time to have lengthy discussions — or arguments --
with critics is very difficult; especially when the critic appears to be
hostile. Note that I said "appears." Whether you are or not, most of the
O.T.O. members I know believe you are, and you admit that you think of us as
"wild tribes in the jungle."
{{APPENDIX, 1997: Scriven obviously is unaware of scholarly field research and
pertinent epxressions.}}
K: I always gave open access to my archive - I even invited the Swiss OTO, in
vain. If YOU had asked me while you were here in Switzerland to shovel
through my archive I gladly would have given complete access.---
S: Thank you for the offer.
K:---I always did so. And I am used to people who trample through my apartment
yelling at me that I have to whitewash my study in favour of the
"Caliphate"s version. - But I still give full access to my archive.---
S: I can imagine people doing that.
K:---This is why I want it to become an open library, hosted by the juristical
counselor of the Vatican. He and the publisher of my books (part of the
Bavarian Lutheran Church) have turned out to be the most objective observers
of the occult underground of Western Civilisation that I ever met.---
S: Am I to take the Roman Catholic Church and the Bavarian Lutheran Church
as good examples of organizations without any fascistic, oppressive or
materialistic aspects? Or am I to take it that you willing to accept and
work with these individuals _despite_ their organizational ties?
K: Yes, of course. I would also have worked with "you" if "you" had not
turned out to be so unwilling to do so. This simply shows/mirrors your
general attitudes, it seems: There is only black and white, good or bad,
the Thelemites and the Slaves, etc etc.
K:---YOU seem to feel that many occultists think that I not only have
criticized them but also have treated them unfairly, have deceived them. I
absolutely DISAGREE with this.---
S: Do you disagree that they feel this way? Perhaps you disagree with
them, and believe that they have no grounds for feeling this way, but
these feelings have been expressed to me by a number of people, and not
just Caliphate.
K:---I ALWAYS made it clear that I am going to publish a large "history" on
"the" OTO and therefore everything that I was told or given was therefore
meant to go into those publications.
...
S: I hope you will appreciate some of the information I have provided. My
impression that your opinions are unalterably fixed against us has been, so
far, strengthened by this interchange. If I believed that you were truly an
objective scholar, interested only in a fair and equitable evaluation of
facts, I would be very happy to cooperate with you without reservation.
However, this is not the case, and I am not inclined to spend a great deal
of my time continuing to quibble with you over what are, in my life, rather
trivial issues. My conviction that the "Caliphate" O.T.O. is the legitimate
successor to Aleister Crowley's O.T.O. has not been weakened by your
arguments. Instead, it has actually been strengthened. I must also say that
I have found your challenges to be stimulating, and I have learned a great
deal from our interchange, as well as from your books. If we can, in the
future, avoid pointless arguments and quibbling over ancient disagreements,
disputes and uncertainties, over which you and I both know we will never
agree, then I would be happy to continue our communication.
K: Please show me those examples of which you think that I used techniques
which are more suited to the propagandist than to the objective
historian!!---
S: By propagandist I mean someone who is a protagonist, a "stake holder,"
in the matter he writes about. My meaning was that I believe you have an
agenda to advance in you writings, rather than functioning simply as an
objective observer. I am aware that you do not see yourself as having
such an agenda. I jotted down five pages of notes in preparing to answer
this question;---
K: Please send them in order to correct further editions of my books
or eventual translations. Maybe I write a special book with
corrections? or post an article to the Internet ... But to differ
your "opinions" from "hearsay" and "facts": send paper material.
S: I have already thrown away the five pages. We have already
discussed a lot of what I had written down. It was not a simple list
of individual examples, some of it was argumentation of general
principles. A lot of it had to do with matters of interpretation and
emphasis, which is difficult to argue conclusively. Also, I think I
may understand your point-of-view better, now. Nevertheless, I will
begin compiling a list of items I think deserve your consideration
for correction or clarification.
[Editorial note: see following Appendix, "Corrections To Books And
Articles Of P.R. Koenig."]
S:---but when I was finished, it occured to me that you would respond with
defenses and counter-accusations, and our discussion would degenerate
into pointless arguments. After all, you cannot retract statements you
have published in the past, even if you no longer really believe them;
and I do not wish to provoke further hostilities with you. However, in
writing these ideas down, I did notice a pattern, which showed me that
there is a fundamental, and probably irreconcilable, difference betwen
your viewpoint and mine. To us, the continuous existence of Crowley's
OTO is _axiomatic_. According to our point-of-view, the leadership of
this organization is held by whoever can demonstrate the best claim to
it. We think we have the _best_ claim, so far. Your approach, on the
other hand, differs from ours in that it is not based on any postulate
regarding the continuous existence of Reuss's or Crowley's or even
Germer's OTO as an organization. You evaluate each claim independently,
and evidently conclude that, since each of these claims are somehow
flawed, that Reuss's and Crowley's and Germer's OTOs have all simply
ceased to exist as organizations. While I disagree with this conclusion
and this approach, I think our disagreement is a reasonable one because
it is based on differences in our fundamental, underlying assumptions on
the nature of the Order itself. These assumptions, being essentially
metaphysical, are not subject to rational analysis. Perhaps we can
simply "agree to disagree" on this point.
K:---Compared with the books by Ellic Howe or that trash novel by Ellic Howe
and Helmut Moeller (biography on Reuss, which is so full of inaccurate facts
and of hostile attacks against Reuss and Crowley that it makes Symonds'
biography a glorification of those characters) I am 100% sure that my books
are as objective as one can be describing a PHENOMENON. It might interest
you that Ellic Howe wanted to write his next book completely based upon my
findings. But alas, he never came further than some drafts. YOU have to be
clearly aware that I don't write the History of something but that I am
describing a PHENOMENON (please read the forewords in my "Das OTO-
Phaenomen", and "Ein Leben fuer die Rose"). The history only is a part of
the Phenomenon. Therefore it is only of minor interest whether you send me
the integral transcript of your interview with Parsival Krumm-Heller. For
describing a Phenomenon the info also counts that you a) don't give me a
transcript, b) that Parsival gave that interview to you and not to me, c)
that you prefer to lower Parsival's statements to "only hear say" in not
giving the transcript to the public!
S: I do hope to release the transcript to the public, at some point and in
some form. Perhaps to you, perhaps not. Other scholars may come after you.
Why did you not answer my questions on the Reuss OTO Grand Lodge of
Switzerland?
K: Because they don't want me to. They consider themselves a secret society---
S: I am very puzzled. - Why do you honor their request for secrecy and
nobody else's? I thought you opposed secrecy, and told all your OTO
contacts that everything you were told or given would go into your
publications. - I did not ask for names and addresses, only general
information on the nature of their orgnanization. Why would such
information as whether they operate according to Reuss's 1917
Constitution need to be kept secret? -If they are this secretive, why
did you mentioned them to me at all?
K:---(unlike "you" as it seems)---
S: We may not be a "secret society," per se, but we do have secrets.
K:---and they don't want to deal with people from other "OTO"-lookalikes. But
I gladly tell you about my own experiences. I have been ceremonially and
ritually initiated into their highest degree (it was a ***act) but never
given any written evidence of that: I don't know whether I can consider
myself a member of it. I met a few people of that group and they did not
impress me. They accept at most 3 new members a year. I have been told that
they would sell some of their material only for one million $, but am not
sure whether this was a joke.
S: Were you also initiated into their lower degrees, or just the highest one?
Isn't the XI° a post-Reuss idea? Did you have an opportunity to examine
their documents? If so, did you find them convincing?
K: No, no lower degrees. the XI° was already the highest degree under Reuss!
The few documents/evidences I have seen were convincing (at least to me).
Again: I did not receive anything at all (to be published about them), I
have hinted at them countless times in personal correspondences and between
the lines in my books as well. ...[later:] I must again apologise. These
days I am keying in the Reuss OTO rituals (I've posted some already to my
site: please have a look at https://www.parareligion.ch/rituals.htm)
and discovered that I went through the I° together with Oscar Schlag. It
also was Schlag who established my contact with that Reuss Grand Lodge. It
might interest you that Schlag and I (on the ground of my XI°) founded a new
"order": the BB. — I have completely forgotten this and it came only into
my mind when I keyed in the I° ritual! (I remembered Schlag making a joke
when looking in the mirror).
...
K: You asked me whether I think that "you" have knowingly published the
un-truth about other OTO-groups in order to "damaging" them. My answer is:
But why are there so many false statements e.g. in the Magical Link or
letters or statements while "you" should know "better"?
S: In the Magical Link: I don't think there are any.---
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Indeed! How about Breeze's denial of Metzger's-X* in
the Link, apparently since revoked? (see discussion in Part One). Also
consider the following (for example): Vol. III No. 4 (Winter 1990), p.
28: Breeze writes that Sascha Germer "accepted Mellinger's [round
denunciation] of Metzger": she did not, but from 1963 and against
Mellinger's recommendation carried on supporting Metzger's OHO-ship
until the end. Another instance: Vol. VII No. 3 (Fall 1993), p. 1:
Breeze states "W.T. Smith' establishment of the Agape Lodge in Southern
California ensured the OTO's survival, as its modern form owes its
existence to members initiated there". The OTO did not "survive" from
there at all: Germer closed it in 1953 and it was undergoing rigor
mortis by the time Smith himself died in 1957 - even McMurtry's
"reconstitution" did not begin until twenty years after Smith's
death!...}}
S:---We try to avoid discussing other groups there, unless something
significant has happened, like Metzger's death. There may have been some
errors in that announcement, but they were not intentional, and not
significant. There is, of course, discussion of other groups in the history
draft posted on our website. As you know, I am willing to accept criticism
on that and make changes if necessary. As for correspondence, personal
correspondence is a lot like personal conversation, the writer often
considers what he is saying in a personal letter will be ephemeral, and may
not give as much thought to it as if he/she were writing in a more permanent
venue, such as an article in a newsletter, or a book. All the above applies
to statements which are actually erroneous; as opposed to statements in
which we may express our opinions. Stating that Kenneth Grant is not the OHO
is not a falsehood, it is an opinion. ...When I first began asking questions
on OTO history, I received many confused and confusing answers. When I began
doing my own research, some things became clearer, others became more
puzzling; because (a) the sources contradict each other, (b) people have
different memories of the same events, (c) many people have a tendency to
"fill in" the gaps in their knowledge with speculation, and (d) few members
of the U.S. O.T.O. are fluent in German. With as much material as you have
accumulated, and with as much time as you have spent researching all these
things, do you truly believe that you perfectly understand with firm
certainty the absolute truth about all the complexities of the OTO
phenomenon?
...
K: All of these connotations I would never write out expressively: I want my
reader to be intelligent enough to read BETWEEN THE LINES.
APPENDIX 1:
PROTOFASCISTIC ELEMENTS
K: Again: please be aware that English is not my mother language. Due to your
reaction upon my recent short list of what I consider to be protofascistic
elements in the OTO/thelemic continuum, [Editorial note: see section in Part
Two, "Loudness and the Secret Society".] I have the feeling that I have to
express myself in a more concrete way. My understanding of the term
"protofascistic" consists of several connections of meanings and points of
view. All of them compound together consist my understanding of the term
"protofascistic elements". The following short explanation does not contain
any specific sources but is based upon my knowledge of Liber AL, all Reuss-,
Crowley-OTO- and "Caliphate"- constitutions, plus the several appendices to
those (Liber CI, LII, CLXI, CXCIV), the OTO-rituals (including Liber OZ) and
my experiences with afflicted individuals, including our recent
correspondence.---
S: I hope you do not consider me to be "afflicted."
K:---The writing of this short explanation of what I think to be
protofascistic elements in the OTO/thelemic continuum includes my knowledge
of the biographies of Reuss, Crowley (including his diaries, e.g. entry of
May 29, 1923), Kurtzahn, Metzger and some members of the Theosophical
Society (an organzation that teaches racism, e.g. antisemitism) who also
have been protagonists of one of the many OTO-versions: Traenker, Grosche,
Krumm-Heller, Mellinger (although the latter was a Jew).---
S: Crowley did make a number of racist and antisemitic comments in his
writings. I deplore these; and, to the best of my knowledge, my opinions
in this are shared by the majority of Caliphate O.T.O. members.
K:---The thelemite experiences him(her)self as a "subject" - others are
"slaves" and comparable to "things"/"objects"/"material" (an expression by
Grosche).---
S: Many Thelemites would disagree with you.
K:---As an occultist, the thelemite is a dichotomist: he is the superior, the
chosen one - others are nothing:---
S: Again, many Thelemites would disagree with you. Your description
resembles Crowley's description of the Black Brother, who "shuts himself
up" and isolates himself from ecstatic union with All. The idea of
"others" and the idea of "self" are both destroyed in the experience of
Samadhi, which is one of the goals on the Thelemic path.
K:---(s)he lives in a world ruled by good and evil (as a superior (s)he might
achieve a level above that - but nevertheless the world "below" (the abyss)
consists of only black and white).---
S: This is more a description of a traditional Christian Gnostic (dualist)
than a Thelemite. The dualism of Thelema is the "play" of Nuit and
Hadit.
K:---The thelemite is imprisoned in such relations: victims and culprits,
masters and slaves, Gods and subhumans. (This is mirrored in the language of
some protagonists in describing their critics).---
S: More a statement of the "human condition" than of Thelemic doctrine.
You can no more condemn all of Thelema by the language of "some
protagonists" as condemn all of Christianity by the language of the
Protestant Fundamentalists; or condemn all of Islam by the language of
the terrorists.
K:---Here is the Thelemite and there the (Christian/fundamental) Church.---
S: There are real distinctions between individual religions and
philosophies. These, however, do not require us to make broad, sweeping
generalizations, or to impose guilt by association.
K:---Here is Reuss' translation of Liber XV and there is Crowley's
"orthodoxal" version (although they differ only irrelevantly).---
S: Now you're getting personal, and you are either twisting or
misunderstanding my words. I did indeed refer to the Thelema of Reuss's
translation as "unorthodox," but you have taken my words out of context;
thus imposing on them a meaning that was never intended. First, I do not
consider "unorthodox" a perjorative term. Second, my statement was made
in a definite context. You had said (essentially) that Reuss rejected
Thelema. I was providing examples against your statement, examples
indicating Reuss's f miliarity with Thelema. My use of the term
"unorthodox" was meant to _allow_ that Reuss's ideas on Thelema were,
perhaps, not exactly the same as Crowley's. It was a _qualification_ of
my argument that Reuss was enthusiastic about Thelema. This matter of
interpreting statements in isolation from their proper context, which
you seem to do rather frequently in your writings, is highly
problematic, in my eyes. I hope it is unintentional.
K:---One has to keep pure the doctrine of Thelema (no Grant, please) ==>
flawing of the reality.---
S: To be sure, we have not formally adopted any of Grant's original ideas;
as his organization has. We view Crowley's original Thelemic O.T.O. as
something worth preserving and developing. However, we have never forbad
any of our members from owning, reading, or talking about Grant's books.
A lot of our members like Grant's books and ideas, and that is entirely
their own affair.
K:---Current writers on OTO history, practices and beliefs show a manipulative
camouflage of lacking qualification---
S: I do not understand what you mean by this. It sounds as though you were
saying, "They pretend they don't know all the facts, but they are
lying." Sorry, but I really don't have unlimited knowledge.
K:---(e.g. David Scriven,---
S: Hah. Don't listen to that idiot.
K:---Bill Heidrick) and substitute any flaws with oral exhibitionism
(Heidrick). If they can't argue on the same level as their critics they
fight on a minor/irrelevant "place of war" (excessive use of German and
Hebrew expressions (that are obviously wrongly spelt) in order to profess a
certain level of education or point of view)---
S: Even if true, this is a typical human flaw you are describing; not
fascism. Are you entirely free of this yourself?
K:---("he's not a member", "not a member of the real OTO", "once a peripheral
insider, now an outsider",---
S: Again, the matter of _proper context_ comes into focus. Yes, I used
that phrase about you being an "outsider." Why? To dismiss you with a
disparaging label? No: my point was that someone who does not have
direct, current experience with the actual workings of an organization
(i.e., an outsider) is not in a position to make definitive judgments
about them — he does not have sufficient data to do so. I included the
phrase "once an insider" in anticipation of a possible objection from
you that your previous membership status may have been significant.
K:---"Peter Pill Popping" "He's kicked out", "below the anthropodiea") ==>
deafening of thinking, replacing of arguments with prejudice, flawing of
communication; emotionalising of the topic and defamation of critics.---
S: Who are you talking about here? Are you saying we do these things, or
that we accuse you of doing these things? If you think _my_ statements
(and questions) to you have all been worthless tactical propaganda,
therefore meriting no serious consideration, then why should I bother to
talk to you any more? If you are saying that we accuse _you_ of these
things, then do you also say that there is no validity in such
criticisms?
{{APPENDIX, 1997: above quotations were from Heidrick about Koenig.}}
K:---This also gives an insight into the psychology of the user of such tricks
(Heidrick --> Reinhard Heydrich?)---
S: Is your Heidrick/Heydrich pun intended as an analysis of Heidrick's
psychology, or an example of "such tricks"?
K:---and when such language is used by the "chiefs" of an OTO group it
reflects the group itself.---
S: Then _all_ groups are doomed.
K:---Thelema seeks a historical legitimation: replacing Christianity; the list
of the Saints in Liber XV; the line of succession. Sources that speak
against the own version of History are ignored, facts are ignored, critics
are denounced.---
S: Not true. We learn from our mistakes, and we correct our errors when we
feel that we have actually erred.
K:---Endless repetition of the own version. (eg: "the had the
rituals already in 1971" although the "Caliphate" did not exist before
1977)---
S: Are you accusing me of failing to correct my errors when I am advised
of them? Or, perhaps, are you accusing us of failing to "admit" defeat
in the face of your "superior logic"? What if "the own version" happens
to be _true_?
K:---The concept of Thelema attracts people with a positive self-conception
and with a tendency to self-delusion/conceitedness (homo est deus). Man is
not equal, but according to Darwin: "life is hard, only the strong survive"
(Liber OZ).---
S: "Every man and every woman is a star."
K:---Often, the self-upvaluation happens in opposite to/is nourished by a
degradation of the outside.---
S: Thelema is not a disease.---
K: But of course it is. Please don't cry out but go on with reading.
There are several levels on which one can achieve to understand and
"exercise"/experience Thelema and to benefit from it (also
"disgusting" it is a sort of benefiction). There's the political
level (which we slightly touched in our recent communication),
there's the social level (which we touch all the time), there's the
psychological venu (as it is tried in Metzger's OTO, and in a more
complex way maybe in the "Caliphate" as well) (wich I have also
described in my "Ein Leben fuer die Rose), there's the magical
level, the ethnological level (which is covered by me in my "Das
OTO-Phaenomen") and of course, there is the gnostic level (on which
I wrote my university lectures, e.g. the "Spermo-gnostic" speech).
Here I developed/discovered the base saying that you (and me as
well) are gnostics who live in rotten places (where by definition
all gnostics live). And of course, the more rotten this place is,
the more gnosis may arise/happen to/from the boundary station of/to
the Pleroma). This is why Thelema causes so much troubles. On the
psychological level Thelema (and the OTOs) is a defect in the
oedipal phase of the development of the New Aeon (not in the
individual but in the course of the development of humankind) (as I
have described in my "Ein Leben fuer die Rose"). On the gnostic
level: this is the best thing that can be said about Thelema because
only NOW Thelema can offer Gnosis. Gnosis does not happen when
watching TV or happily repeating some pseudo-freemasonic rituals:
Gnosis has to be sweated out in libertine or ascetic practices which
are very demanding. The harder it is the more overflown (with
Pneuma) the gnostic becomes. If you would precisley read my books
and texts: I am extremely praising Thelema. But of course, not on
the level for the masses.
S:---It is not paranoia; it is not egocentrism. There are unstable Thelemic
aspirants just as there are Christian paranoids, Gnostic egocentrists,
Buddhist depressives, etc. etc. etc.
K:---Crowleyites are often attracted by the biography of Crowley (who cannot
be described as a integrated and coherent personality) and orientate their
lives according Crowley's. This reflects the biography and life situation of
the Crowleyite who often suffers from instability (ego, drug- and sex)
problems.---
S: The "imitatio Crowley" is, indeed, an unfortunate phenomenon; though
not universal, or even demonstrably widespread, within Thelema.
Crowley-worship is not the same as Thelema. Buddha-worship is not the
same as Buddhism. Note Crowley's comment to Germer in the letter
published on page 219 of your _Materialen_: "About your being miles
ahead of me spiritually, that is only natural, because I have been set
down by the Masters to do a definite job, which is quite incompatible
with my concentrating on my personal advancement..." Much of what you
criticize about Thelema is what is often referred to within Thelema as
"Thelemic Fundamentalism."
K:---Organized Thelema (e.g. as OTO) attracts juveniles who often suffer from
contact problems and who now find themselves centre of attention (e.g. in a
ritual) and becoming superior thereafter/therefore.---
S: This would apply to a lot of religious and non-religious organizations,
as would many of your other criticisms.
K:---The concept of an "order" consisting of "thelemites" serves the "idol of
a secretive and chosen" society and eases the burden of differentiated
thinking: it serves a friend-enemy-scheme and releases fears of being
threatened. Instead of only blahblah it gives "action" (initiation).---
S: This would apply to Masonry, Mormonism, Pentecostalism, Judaism,
Catholicism, the Navy, the Boy Scouts, etc.---
K: You should avoid flattening your arguments in pointing to other
"bad boys".---
S: So you consider such organizations to be "bad boys." This does help
clarify your views on what is "fascistoid" and what is not. If you
consider Masonry as being within the "fascistoid" milieu, I will not
feel so obligated to defend our organization against that label. Of
course the behavior of other groups is insufficient justification;
but when the brush of criticism is so wide as to blacken a major
portion of widely-accepted human institutions, that criticism begins
to assume the character of a critcism against society itself; and
thus loses some of its pointedness and even meaningfulness.
K:---And it nourishes the general opinion that Thelema and the OTO
exist only in the context of Christianity ("satanism", "black mass";
use of the terms "Patriarch, Bishop, Priest" etc).
S: That's why I provided a few non-Christian examples as well. Thelema
is discovering one's own True Will, and doing it. Thelema is the
Book of the Law, and _The Vision and the Voice_, and Libri VII and
LXV. Thelema is the magical religion founded in 1904 by the Master
Therion. Thelema is the O.T.O. initiation rituals, and the A:.A:.
system, and the Gnostic Mass (and its associated ecclesiastical
rites), and me, and Bill Heidrick, and Bill Breeze, and Sallie
Glassman, and Clive Harper, and Phyllis Seckler and James Eshelman,
and Kenneth Grant, and Sr. Chokhmah, and Martin Starr, and many,
many living people you've never heard of; it is the A:.A:., the
Caliphate O.T.O., Grant's O.T.O., the Swiss O.T.O., S.O.T.O., the
College of Thelema, and other diverse organizations, some of which
have little use for sexual magick. You seem to think you have
discovered the ultimate identity of Thelema, and all its other
facets are, to you, mere "camouflage." It doesn't seem to matter to
you that hundreds, perhaps thousand's, of people who consider
themselves Thelemites disagree with you. It seems they are, to you,
"afflicted," and thus incapable of recognizing your "truth."
K: a) Thelema and the OTO-Phenomen are also: Me and you, Lyndon
LaRouche and everyone who has a touch with it, also the very
distorted individuals who run around pretending to be the mother of
Crowley, or so.---
S: Truly. To use Christianity as an example again (forgive me): Cortez
and St. Francis are also in the same boat.
K:---And tell me: where is the frontier between Thelema and the rest
of the world?---
S: I don't know. Certainly not OTO membership; certainly not my
personal opinions. What right have I to say someone is not a
Thelemite when that person says he/she is? And even if I were so
presumptuous as to do so; why should that person care?
K:---b) of course I haven't discovered the ultimate identity of
Thelema - I describe it by its own "words" (quotations) and document
it by its interactions with its "membership"/followers. I consider
Thelema a "living and being lived" dogma rather than something solid
and strict---
S: Good; so do I. Now: I think you perceive "us" as being rigid and
dogmatic in our approach to Thelema: am I correct?
K:---c) why don't you consider me a "secret" revolutionary as
mentioned in Liber CXCIV?---
S: Perhaps I do. If I did, it would be a secret.
K:---d) I think the "afflicted"misunderstanding is out of the way now.
Please try to read again my "protofascistic"essay!---
S: Done.
K: "We are x..., but the Christians are x..., as well" turns one's
attention away from the original topic. The fact that "Christians do
as well" does not give you "any rights". And it nourishes the
general opinion that Thelema and the OTO exist only in the context
of Christianity ("satanism", "black mass"; use of the terms
"Patriarch, Bishop, Priest" etc).
S:---However, after any initiation, the real world is only as far away as
the front door. It cannot be escaped when you have to go home
afterwards. We do not keep our initiates locked up in communes (Of
course, I do not speak for the "Solar Lodge" and its descendants).
K:---The language of Thelema wants to render/make superfluous the rational
thinking and to that purpose uses the manipulative clever trick of the
camouflage: "method: science; aim: religion". Thelema has to disguise itself
in order not to be recognized (Thelema = Crowley, spermo-gnosticism). It
uses euphemisms, bagatellisations, polysemies ("family", "duties",
"privileges", "make the world a nobler place" [while evoking demons in order
to attack enemies?],---
S: Are there not Christian black magicians as well? Gnostic? Wiccan?
Muslim? Bon? Voudon? Palero? etc. etc. etc. -?
K:---Nuit, Hadit, the aegyptian mythology, etc) in order to level down
elements of reality (to the level of a soap opera) [which calls the need to
research a "phenomenon" in order to equate all those elements]. There is
only one person who knows the "correct" interpretation.---
S: Yes, each individual for himself.
K:---As a doctrine, Thelema (be it disguised as "the new Aeon", "the new
religion", the "new magick" or whatever) does "pretend" and "claim" and does
not prove evidently and objectively, but prejudicedly.---
S: A criticism applicable to all religions and all philosophies. This is
David Hume's objection to "metaphysics."
K:---The inventor of the doctrine (Crowley) is valued as infallible---
S: Not so.
K:---and as the only standard: discussion of Liber AL is forbidden: only AC's
three comments are "allowed".---
S: This policy is to protect each individual's right to make his or her
own decisions on these matters.
K:---Crowley-cult (a strict following his "teachings", "orders", "ideas" etc)
create a step by step abstraction of reality. There begins a tendency to
differ between the "man Crowley" and the "thelemite/prophet" Crowley.---
S: Failing to make a distinction between Crowley's personality and his
status as "prophet" would be problematic. Making that distinction allows
the individual to see the futility of imitating Crowley's life (or
anyone else's life), and to focus of the proper work: his or her _own_
life.
K:---This prevents critical thinking and replaces it with activism, believes,
cult, rituals and mythos.---
S: Actually, what often happens is that the individual becomes able to
distinguish between what is mythic and what is logical, without losing
the value of either.
K:---Thelema wants to communicate itself. It aims at a breaking of the basic
orientations/landmarks of society and achieves at a claim of education (e.g.
"College" of Thelema, Hermetic "School" of Science, "seminars" on
gnosticism, and the order structure itself). Of what does a "school" remind
that teaches an ideology?---
S: What school does not teach ideology? There is ideology even within the
sciences.
K: Your statement is very revealing! Of course, outside of religious and
political dogmatic societies there is no dogma neither in the school
teaching system or in science. I don't know the American school system
but here in Europe no official school system allows ideological teaching
(the last time this was done was in Nazi-Germany). The teaching
authorities try to have the scholar/student/pupil learning to differ
between the different forms of ideology; they try to furnish them with
the suitable tools to recognise ideology and to have the individual to
chose for himself which ideology to follow (if at all).---
S: Perhaps we differ in our definitions of "ideology." Here are a few
examples of how I perceive dogma and ideology being promulgated in the
sciences:
-The suppression of the works of Wilhelm Reich
-The blanket rejection of all forms of Oriental medicine
-Studies on the health effects of food and chemicals funded by food
and chemical companies
-Environmental studies funded by environmental activist organizations
and by industrial advocacy groups
-Control of archaeological research (Dead Sea Scrolls, Turin Shroud,
etc.) by religious organizations
The list goes on and on.---
K: Ha! the same as you do! It sounds like a trash novel. Or a world
conspiracy theory. In the case of the "Caliphate" it is very clear, for
example the German statutes rule: "that the last saying in religious
questions has W. Breeze." ... [Editorial note: see earlier section on
the EGC for continuation of this debate].
S:---Every group, every individual, has its/his/her model of reality to
push; at the expense of incompatible/competing models.---
K: There are always groups and individuals trying to be objective.
S: Back to the subject of ideology: I think ideology is ubiquitous and
inescapable in human culture. The best that can be done is to learn
_about_ ideology; so as to ultimately be able to transcend it on a
personal level. It is impossible to transcend ideology on a group level,
because once one individual accepts the opinion of another, a new
ideology is born. It is possible, however, for groups to discuss
ideologies and contrast them, pointing out their differences and
similarities. Good students will learn that ideologies can be useful as
myth, metaphor and allegory; but that truth and ideology are not the
same thing. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon itself.
S:---The method in which ideology is approached is very important, as you
point out. Some individuals teach Thelemic doctrine as if it were
"right," and other doctrines were "wrong." I favor a different approach.
I approach all religions/philosophies/occultist doctrines as if they
were maps prepared by past travellers, to borrow a metaphor from (I
believe) Robert A. Wilson. The "reality," the "truth," is the territory
itself, not the map; and even the territory is not truly real until one
travels there ersonally. When one does so, one will most likely have to
annotate or modify his maps, or perhaps even draw entirely new ones;
based on his own experiences. However, it is important to keep in mind
that one's personal experiences in the journey depend on many subjective
and changeable factors: so my personal map and your personal map will
probably look quite different. Our personal maps do not replace the maps
made by those who went before us; they complement them. Especially, I
think, when they appear to contradict each other. When a student is
presented with maps which contradict each other, he is stimulated to go
to the territory to see for himself. On the other hand, if a student is
simply given a map and told that it is "correct" and that other maps are
faulty, he is given no other impetus but to frame the map and hang it
over his mantel-piece.
K:---Thelema has to be prepared for critics and therefore uses the tactic of
the "restricted rationality". The afflicted parties learn to use arguments
that serve their doctrine and exclude critical arguments.---
S: Evidently, you do think I'm "afflicted." I disagree about excluding
critical arguments. You seem to think that our "doctrine" is so fragile
that any serious criticism, if seriously taken, would destroy it.
Rather, I think that criticism helps to refine any system of thought, to
shine through the garments and trappings and reveal the core truths.
[See previous section in Part Two, "LOUDNESS AND THE SECRET SOCIETY", for
continuation of this discussion.]
CONCLUSION TO THE APPENDIX:
K:---I hope that you don't feel offended but challenged! These my arguments
are not given from a Historian point of view but just are thoughts that
occurred while sitting on a plane to Rio, seen from a psychological and
ethnological angle (remember the "wild tribes in the jungle"?). But as
larger your organisation gets and advertises e.g. on the Internet, the more
you have to face the possibility of being analysed one day by a Historian
who possibly might come to similar findings as I do.---
S: Your points are understood.
K:---Nevertheless, I'd be very interested in your detailed opinion, arguments,
and answer.
S: I probably did not provide as much detail as you had hoped. As I have
mentioned to you before, it would be pointless for me to attempt to argue
with you over issues of opinion; your opinions seem to be firmly set, and I
have no business trying to change your opinions. However, I am now wondering
about whether there is any point in attempting to argue with you even over
matters other than opinion. I was somewhat dismayed by what appeared to be a
dismissal of my previous comments to you as "arguments that serve their
doctrine and exclude critical arguments," as "Endless repetition of the own
version," as "deafening of thinking, replacing of arguments with prejudice,
flawing of communication; emotionalising of the topic and defamation of
critics," and as "manipulative camouflage." You seem to think that Thelema
is a form of pathology, and that all its adherents are "afflicted" by it.
This enables you to simply dismiss anything I or any other Thelemite might
have to say as, essentially, the ravings of a lunatic. Rather than
listening to me as one human being to another, you seem to be merely taking
notes on my peculiar and amusing behavior. Perhaps I am wrong about this; I
hope I am. Even if I have not, in your eyes, successfully "defended" our
positions against your arguments, I do appreciate your arguments. Some of
them are things I have wrestled with myself; and, believe it or not, we
debate many of these matters frequently amongst ourselves.
APPENDIX 2:
CORRECTIONS BY SABAZIUS TO BOOKS AND ARTICLES BY KOENIG
S: Here [are some examples] of what I believe [are] actual error[s]: You state
in your first TH [Theosophical History, magazine published by the Department
of Religious Studies, California State University, P.O. Box 6868, Fulerton,
CA 92834-6868, USA) article that the Caliphate OTO only obtained the Crowley
rituals when they were published by King. Actually, Jane Wolfe had conserved
the Agape Lodge papers, including the initiation rituals, and had passed
them all on to Phyllis Seckler. Thus, the Caliphate had them in 1971 at the
very latest. I believe you can probably find documentation of this in P.
Seckler's "Jane Wolfe" series in ITC. You say this in "Veritas Mystica
Maxima" in TH V:1: "`Baphomet' was the term used by the person who held the
office of OHO. It was the founder of the OTO, Carl Kellner, who first
assumed this term." Crowley is identified with this name from very early on
in his OTO carreer. Crowley often signed his letters to Reuss as "Baphomet."
The "Manifesto of the M.M.M." (London), is signed by "L. Bathurst, IX* Grand
Secretary General," "Baphomet X*" with Crowley's unique seal, and "O.H.O."
with Reuss's blazing star seal. J.T. Windram's 1913 charter has three
signatures: "Theodor Reuss 33*, 90*, 96*, X*," "Henry Klein 33* 95*", and,
in Crowley's hand, "Baphomet 33* 90* 96* X*" Surely you don't mean to imply
by your statement that Crowley, as Baphomet, was secretly the "real" OHO
even during Reuss's life?
K: a) I doubt that Reuss was aware of the nature of "Baphomet". b)
Kellner's Baphomet was NOT Levi's/Crowley's.
S:---The letter from Montenegro to McMurtry you publish in "Materialen zum
OTO," in which both he and Soror Grimaud express their opposition to
McMurtry, is dated Nov. 21, 1960. It had nothing to do with McMurtry's
attempts to revive OTO after Germer's death. Germer died in 1962. In 1959,
McMurtry had called a meeting in Los Angeles, to which members of Agape
Lodge and others were invited, with the purpose of attempting to create a
unified front to pressure Karl Germer into resuming OTO initiations.
McMurtry received no support for this venture. However, when the OTO
Association was registered in 1971, Soror Meral was one of the members, and
Soror Grimaud became involved either at that time or shortly thereafter.
Montenegro, of course, died in 1969. Here are some comments on your
"Stranded Bishops" article in TH V:5. You identify Tau Synesius as
Bernard-Raymond Fabre des Essarts, evidently following Frick. This is
incorrect. His name was actually Leonce-Eugene Joseph Fabre des Essarts. You
say he died in 1907, and was succeeded by Bricaud. This also is incorrect.
He died in 1917; Bricaud, along with Fugairon and Encausse, formed a schism
in 1907. My source is Please excuse the lack of accent marks, they do
not carry in American e-mail very well. The Caliphate consecration scheme
you present has been dropped. Interestingly, however, we have recently found
a 1917 letter from Crowley to Jones (it is in Hymenaeus Beta's files, I do
not have a copy) in which he states, "I am a bishop, and an archbishop, by
the laying on of hands." McMurtry maintained to a number of his followers
that his IX* as received from Crowley included the laying on of hands. A
number of us have obtained our own traditional "apostolic successions" from
various "wandering bishops." I obtained one in the lineage of "Eglise
Gnostique Catholique Apostolique (Primatie de Colombia, Amerique du Sud)"
from Msgr. Jorge Rodriguez in 1994. Such successions are not, in my opinion,
of critical importance or major significance within the context of a
Thelemic church, although I once thought they were. As I was reminded by one
of my correspondents, Michael Bertiaux, our use of ther term "bishop" is
shared by a number of non-Catholic sects, such as Mormon and Mennonite, and
even some not-Christian ones, such as Tenrikyo. The fact that our Thelemic
E.G.C. uses some terminology and structural elements from its Christian
predecessors does not subject it to Roman Catholic theological ideas or to
the rigors of Roman Catholic canon law; any more than the Roman Catholic
Church is subject to the doctrines and regulations of the College of
Pontiffs of pagan Rome, or any of its other predecessors. We have no need of
obtaining the sanction or recognition of the Vatican. The policy you refer
to as "backdated" in the Feb. 1992 Magical Link was not actually
"backdated," it was simply adopted before the Magical Link was issued. No
mention of the "Holy Ghost" was made in that article. Phyllis Seckler did
not, as you say, equate EGC with EGU in ITC. The article you refer to was
written by James A. Eshelman, not by Phyllis Seckler;---
K: I gladly correct my error in my writings, soon.
S:---and in it, the Latin "Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica" was translated into
English as "the Universal Gnostic Church." This does not represent an
attempt to identify Crowley's E.G.C. with Bricaud's E.G.U., it represents a
free attempt at the translation of the word "catholic" as "universal." We
definitely do not equate our E.G.C. with Bricaud's E.G.U. Our E.G.C. is
Thelemic, the successors of Bricaud's E.G.U. are generally still Christian.
The term "catholic" has never been dropped from Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica
as the name we use for our church. Here is what happened: we used to have a
clause permitting members of the "Gnostic Catholic Church" who are not
members of O.T.O. to affiliate with us upon mutual recognition. We changed
it to allow affiliation of members of the "Gnostic Church," rather than the
"Gnostic Catholic Church," to make the clause more inclusive. It is a policy
which is very seldom used, and will probably be dropped altogether
eventually. Your statement about the alleged "illegality" of the Caliph
holding the title of Patriarch is inexplicable. Here is an example of
presenting true information in a misleading context: you state at your URL
that Breeze refers to himself as "His Most Sacred Majesty." You fail to
point out that this form of address has been traditionally used for the X*
since at least Crowley's day, cf. the "Styles of Address" paper as an
example. Certainly you know this, but you want to make Breeze look
ridiculous. He definitely does not ask people to call him that!
...
S: It is very important that you understand that there is a significant
diversity of opinion on many topics among the membership, and even among the
officers, of our organization. There is a great deal of discussion and
debate, sometimes heated, but _usually_ good-natured.
K: OK, but the higher ranking a person is, the more substance has his (her)
statements?!---
S: Not necessarily. It depends on the subject they are speaking on, on how
well they have kept up-to-date with Order developments, and on their
personal field of expertise. For questions of Order policy, administrative
position is far more important than degree. Even IX* members have been known
to repeat rumors.
K:---"_Usually_ good-natured": generally, this is my point of view/stance
towards "you". But usually I've met "Caliphate"members who proved to be
otherwise. Fortunately you are one of the very few persons who does answer
to my questions. I again stress my Will to improve all my studies and to do
everything to avoid misunderstandings and errors. Only too late I met you -
so many times I called on to "your" members to correct me: before I
published my books. In order to fulfil the criteria of "journalistic"
carefulness/scrupulousness and thoroughness I published my earlier findings
in that occult magazine AHA which gave opportunity to take stance and to
correct me. For my books I consulted three lawyers: 2 for Germany and one
for Switzerland. And I can tell you, Sabazius, that I omitted many passages
that might have caused harm to "you" or "me"! You might guess (even from not
having "read" my German books) that I tried to avoid aspects that easily
attract trashy yellow-press journalists - although they lurk at my threshold
for the release of spicy material. [By the way, do you know about some
Italian events: I recently was sent some documents that proved that an
Italian OTO [?] group kidnapped a prostitute, raped and violated her in
order to create a magical egg in her vagina. Another Italian group, where
the local "caliphate"man seemingly was involved with, got headlines in the
press: "Vittime di un rito satanico": After a mass, the police found two
dead bodies: the group's leader and a woman. Investigations lead to
Greece...] I consider my behaviour towards "you" as friendly, open and
polite. I met unfriendliness from some of "your" high ranking members even
before I published one single word [more below]. I always wanted
Co-Operation! I heard it through the grape vine that "you" intend to file
suit against me. If "you" really do so, don't "you" think that it is better
to talk before?
S: I have always been skeptical of those rumors, and I have never heard the
ones you attribute to Breeze and Heidrick. Tell me, though, did you have
nothing to do with the inception of those rumors?
K: You ask me and you will have your answer with one example: eg Andrea
Bacuzzi. She was running around at my flat, wanting me to reconstructing the
walls in order to build an even more beautiful temple; planning to use my
money for her planned newspaper magazin; planning to use my money for the
food after the planned initiations and her new blue robe that she "deserved"
as a bishop. Since she was an "original McMurtry IX*" I listened very
closely to what she said, and what I heard "opened my eyes". For example,
she yelled at me that I have to "whitewash" my planned study and I was told
that Breeze would give only "censored" material (if at all); and so I gained
my first impression of the truth-suppressing elements of your organisation.
[and until today I am impressed by the fear that some of "your" members
express that they get expelled when they say their opinions or discuss
sexmagick in the open]. Bacuzzi also told that if I ever wanted to climb to
higher degrees then I had to give over my complete archive to the "heads" of
your order. Bacuzzi also uttered that if an "officer"/"executive" of the
Mass makes only one single "false" alteration (that is, differently to what
Crowley wanted) then this member would immediately be "out!". (Here I gained
another glimpse of the hard-core doctrine "you" follow) — Well, I then
wrote Breeze that my home will NOT be used as _European Grand Lodge_, which
upset Bacuzzi very much. I was not aware that this was a _secret_ plan
[which showed me another aspect of your organisation]. She got very
hysterical and "promised" that she now had to find a way to save her skin. -
And of course, because she is one of the elected and chosen ones, she chose
slander [which, coming from such a high ranking member, was and still is
very revealing]. I guess that Bacuzzi seeked revenge because I spoiled her
plan to invest my home apartment as the seat of the projected independant
European Grand Lodge of the "Caliphate".
S: This seems to upset you a great deal! I now understand why you seem to hold
such hatred towards them, and why you have decided to dedicate so much of
your time towards enacting vengeance upon them.
K: "Vengeance"? I always remained friendly and polite - I even gave Bacuzzi
all the Crowley OTO rituals that she eagerly wanted (I was astonished that
she did not have them already). I don't feel any "hatred" towards those
people: they don't touch me emotionally at all. They leave me cold: my
researches are completely separated from my personal life. - But of course,
they (and their behaviour) give "material" which speaks for itself, resp.
qualifies themselves. [I have met members of your "Caliphate" (and
once-active ex-members) who did not leave me cold, whom I liked very much
and still do - but I can't treat them un-objectively.] Dear Sabazius,
explain me where you think that I express "hatred" or "vengeance" in any of
my books or articles?: I think you have not read any of them. I only quote
J. Godwin (who has) who comes to the conclusion that I am "displaying them
without praise or blame". There are several non-partial German reviewers who
come to the same conclusion. There is even one freemasonic review which
complains that I did not take a point of view!
S: Most of "us" judge your books based on two factors:
1. The parts that have been translated into English, and
2. The information we receive from our German-speaking members.
K: a) Please give exact details of my English texts in order I might improve
those parts b) tell me why you consider "your" German speaking members as
objective? Those I have met and had correspondence with left a 90% negative
impression on/with (?) me: they could not understand one single sentence I
wrote (they became aggressive or upset only when I opened my mouth, while
others, unconsciously tried to use all the manipulative tricks I have
described in my "protofascistic elements" essay. Sorry, Fr.·.Sabazius, but
you admitted to believe in hear-say and prejudices.
S: I utilize the information which is available to me, as does everybody. When
I receive new information, I modify my opinions as appropriate. My opinions
about you will be shaped primarily on the basis of your writings and these
discussions.
S: We do not claim to be democratic; but we do consider ourselves to be fair.
However, it seems that nothing will ever convince you that any of "us" are
fair, or that we have any positive attributes at all. For you to acknowledge
this would run counter to the theories expounded in your essays.
K: It seems that you, Fr. Sabazius, turn out to be one of the few "fair" ones,
at least you are listening and answering. Again: tell me which "positive
attributes" I can/shall add to my essays/books - what did I omitt? I always
tried to be objective and to give ALL material/info; which you certainly
might see in my "Materialien zum OTO" [please note the "i" after
"Material..."]: here you find material that supports "your" claims! Give a
list of what you think I shall add, and we will discuss it and I will do my
best to improve my work. [Editorial note: listed in earlier part of this
Appendix 2. Scriven did not furnish any material, that is prove.]
THE "THOUGHT ARGUMENT"
K: It is, on a certain level of conception and discussion, of absolutely NO
relevance as to what Crowley thought (Reuss' alleged stroke),---
S: Let me say that I, personally, do not know whether Reuss had a stroke
or not; neither do you. All I can say is that there is some evidence for
it (Crowley's diary, King, Reuss's angry letter to Crowley, etc.) and
some evidence against it (yours). Regardless of whether it actually
happened or not, Crowley's perception of it having happened is
significant. I do not mean that because Crowley thought it, it was
therefore true (how absurd!), but that Crowley's subsequent actions
would have been explained by his having thought that Reuss had had a
stroke. The matter of Reuss's stroke has, for a long time, been taken
for granted within our organization. However, I agree with you that the
matter is somewhat doubtful, and I will therefore cause our history
essay to be modified to reflect this.
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: for Afterword comment,
see Part One discussion on "Germer was aware that any Reuss-OTO had more
authority than the Crowley-OTO".]
K:---what Germer thought (McMurtry being a "minus")
S: It is important to try to understand Germer's motives to understand his
behavior.
K:---or what Parsival Krumm-Heller thought (no Krumm-Heller OTO around).
S: P. K-H. is, in this case, somewhat of an authority. He possesses his
father's archives, he knew most of his father's associates, and he was
very involved in his father's activities...
{{APPENDIX, 1997: Krumm-Heller's archive reportedly was destroyed/vanished
during WWII.}}
K:---Only documented facts count!---
S: Do you apply this criterion to all of your own arguments?
K:---Primarily YOU seem to be accepting everything that stresses YOUR opinion
(quoting Crowley as the "ultimate" source) which, objectively, must be
considered as a critically immune self-reverentiality (regulated by a
hierarchical organization) which narrows down the level of discussion.
S: I don't think you're being fair. I do not always view Crowley as the
ultimate source, but I am more familiar with Crowley's writings than I
am with most other sources. Thus, I would naturally tend to quote him
more often.
K: And because critics are never mentioned, their findings have to be
taken over as one's own findings (I doubt, for example, that "you"
publicly admit that I have found out a lot of valuable new "landmarks"
for any Thelemite).
S: You may recall that you were mentioned on page 27 of the Winter 1990
issue of the Magical Link: "He [Koenig] has turned up facts that, if
verified, could shed light on the evolution of the EGC in the OTO during
a critical period in its history (1912-1920 ev)." Actually, I have
included a reference to one of your works in my own essay on E.G.C.
history; and in the latest revision of my capsule biography of Reuss. I
often tell people that you have uncovered a great deal of interesting
information, and that you have made a number of valid points, though I
disagree with many of your opinions. Our attitude toward critics seems
to be a major theme with you. Critics are individuals, too; and should
expect their subjects to treat them as such. Those who approach their
subjects with respect and professionalism are usually treated with
respect. Those who approach them with sneering scorn, manifest bias,
and/or a careless disregard for privacy should expect to be treated
accordingly.
K:---Please be aware that the "thought"-argument also was used by Heidrick in
his letter to Kenneth Grant, September 9, 1985, page 3)---
S: On the contrary, in my opinion he was trying to counter a "thought
argument." According to Heidrick's argument, the Germer reference does
not document the fact of Grant's IX*, it only represents Germer's
thought.
K:---If you carefully read my books you would know that I came to the
conclusion that there is NO real OTO of the old days-style.
S: I did understand that, but I find it difficult to visualize what a
"real OTO of the old days-style" whould be like. Which period of time do
you mean? 1906? 1912? 1917? 1920? 1925? 1930? 1950? The O.T.O. was
rather different during each of those years. In any case, "the old
days," whatever they may have been, are gone and we are now in the
present. Kellner, Reuss, Hartmann, Steiner, A. Krumm-Heller, Hilfiker,
Crowley, Germer, Mellinger, Motta, Metzger and McMurtry are all dead and
gone.
K:---Only several OTO groups that differ from each other. If there is a "real"
Crowley OTO (to be differed from any Reuss OTO, or Motta OTO, or Germer
OTO...) then we have to account Crowley's wish of a complete change of the
Order. This makes (and measuring something by its potenciality of creativity
then I'd say that) only Kenneth Grant's OTO (is) a "real" OTO.---
S: Demonstrate to me that the "complete change" envisioned by Crowley was
fully and correctly implemented in all its particulars by Grant, and by
Grant alone. Show me where Germer gave Grant the authority to make such
changes. Show me Germer's rescission of his letter expelling Grant from
membership. The Order is changing and evolving under us, as well. Our
approach is more cautious than Grant's, and we are attempting to let it
develop according to its own "aggregate will" to the greatest extent
possible.
K:---Re. succession: Grant and Symonds (who has the copyrights) are the sole
still living OTO authorities that knew Crowley, are still alive, and acclaim
the OHO-ship.
S: McMurtry knew Crowley also. McMurtry received his IX* directly from
Crowley's hand, Grant did not. Grant and Symonds are still alive, to be
sure, and McMurtry is dead, but Grant and Symonds will die someday as
well....
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: And Grant will be replaced, though Symonds has stated that
he has no current claim re. OHO-ship for himself or anyone else other than
Grant.}}
...
K: The "thought" argument: Re Metzger's "accepting" Germer's OHO-ship in
letters while he verbally admitted only to ingratiate himself with Germer in
order for this or that. You argue that it doesn't matter what Metzger
"thought". But in your same letter to me you consider it important to know
what Germer thought calling McMurtry "a minus". This is not objective. The
same goes for Phyllis Seckler's "McMurtry's OTO is not the real OTO".
S: Perhaps we are miscommunicating due to language problems. You say I am not
objective, but I think you mean I am not consistent. In either case, I think
you misunderstand me. With respect to Metzger: his actions, as expressed in
his documents, are more important than his motives. He expressed his
recognition of Germer as OHO in correspondence and, more importantly, in a
published document. It may be interesting and even important to know that he
was insincere, but he may, nevertheless, be held to his actions. Crossing
one's fingers while making a promise does not, despite the childhood belief,
relieve one from the obligation to perform.---
S:---With respect to Germer: again, his thoughts are of interest and perhaps
even important for our understanding of the broad situation; but his
actions, and inactions, are more important. With respect to Seckler: Her
opinion is interesting in the context of the broad situation; but she did
change her mind; and, more important, her opinion did not have enough weight
to change the facts. Certainly what someone thought, if we have sufficient
evidence to make a reasonable assessment of what someone thought, is always
of interest, and can often shed some light on otherwise inexplicable
actions. However, as you pointed out, documented facts should take
precedence over our speculations on thoughts. Charters, warrants, diplomas,
certificates, letters-patent, letters of authorization, announcements,
decrees, edicts, testaments, wills, and other formally executed, issued
and/or published documents represent documented _actions_ and should be
given high precedence (unless, of course, they are forged). Material from
correspondence is more tenuous; sometimes it documents facts, sometimes it
only represents thoughts or opinions....
END OF PART THREE OF FIVE
Part 1
Part 2
Part 4
Part 5
Read also The Templar's Reich - The Slaves Shall Serve
Proto-Fascist Elements in the O.T.O.
The 'Caliphate'
O.T.O. Phenomenon navigation
page | main page
| mail
Click here to go back to where you came from or use this Java Navigation Bar:
|
