P.R. Koenig - Ordo Templi Orientis Phenomenon - What Will I Give For An Encore ?
Ordo Templi Orientis Phenomenon background information
What Will I Give For An Encore
When The Serpent Once Has Bitten... ?
A reaction on internet discussion groups and emails
January 2005 Peter-Robert Koenig
What happens when you say something that makes people think? They
become afraid of you, and they neutralize your message by pinning a
label on you which is not open to interpretation or is a postmodern
puzzle piece in the endless laybrinth of fragmented realities.
Obviously, in the context of my research on the O.T.O. Phenomenon,
several of the protagonists regard me as some kind of repulsive slime
that had trickled out of a sewer and filthied their manicured thelemic
lives.
Available Information
I like to freshen up your memory: My books contain thousands of
facsimiles of insider documents not only of the early years (e.g.
illustrating why St.-Marcq's text has such an importance) of the O.T.O.
but also of the old and the new 'Caliphate'.
A lot of people confuse me with their "supermarket-McDonald-supersize-me-hamburger- provider ". Alas, my time
does not allow me to do what they obviously want me to do: Parrot my
own work over and over again, repeating myself ad nauseam. Try
conducting a proper research of your own: Most answers to many
questions are to be found easily. Don't wait until the cheeseburger
will be served. Buy my books and read my website. Don't be illiterate.
Aleister Crowley
I am interested in "the" O.T.O. as a body. I am aware that Crowley had
an influence on at least a portion of the 'O.T.O. phenomenon'. Crowley
is insofar a part of my study as he appears to have influenced Theodor
Reuss. He shaped the O.T.O within his reach according to his own
standards (which he designated with the term "Thelemic"), instituted
new themes and rituals and even put some kind of church above the
order. But Crowley's biography or Thelema never interested me. And
after all, Crowley did not create Thelema. He distilled it from other
people's books.
I think that Crowley was a prudish and bored man of the petty
bourgeoisie with a boring sexual life. It seems that there are
thelemites with a rather dull and uninspired sexlife, too. Sometimes I
get the impression that they need their pseudo-gnostic concepts in
order to hide their sad sexual lives by wrapping pseudo-religious
terminology around the most boring stereotypes. It is no wonder that
the O.T.O. (that is, the 'Caliphate' version) is so prosperous in the
US: The most prudish country in western civilisation. Thelema and
especially the 'Caliphate' seem to offer a cosy home for people with
stereotypical and conventional sexual behaviour, as manifest in the
large number of internet forums, chat rooms and e-groups.
Magic ?
I never doubted that there are earnest and 'serious' seekers (call them
magicians or gnostics) in any of the many O.T.O.-versions. But there is
too much money and copyright business involved; too much whitewashing:
Lies Inc.
And what about the so-called magic? Isn't it a shame that higher
ranking members of the 'Caliphate' don't publish their magical
research? I am not speaking about book publishing in general, but about
genuine magical research. From amongst the 'Caliphate' there is mabye
Heidrick? What about Wasserman, Cornelius, DuQuette, Seckler? Or do
these people simply chew the cud, like H.J. Metzger's bunch did within that
huge bulge of Swiss O.T.O material they wildly produced between the 1950ies and 1970ies?
Aren't the books published by them either simple "beginners' guides" or glossolalia on Crowley, or random
speculations? And what about Kenneth Grant's books?
What about the creative insights of Motta and Krumm-Heller? What about Herbert Fritsche who largely influenced naturopathy in the 1950s and
1960s? Where are the pertinent writings of Lekve's who had helped Thelema to survive after WWII? What about Grosche and his most
influental Fraternitas Saturni, Typhonians like Staley, Falorio,
Ingalls, whose insights greatly influenced and contaminated our sub-culture?
Look at how the 'Caliphate' started: Some students discovered that they
could make use of an organisation which had prospered elsewhere for
dozens of years. Quickly they initiated themselves by issuing pompous
papers while at the same time hiding behind "mysterious" silence. Did
they ever do magical work? What about at the sudden explosion of IX°s
in the 'Caliphate'. What did those people have to do to reach this
grade?
And my question not only applies to the 'Caliphate' but also to
Metzger's O.T.O. in Switzerland. Please read the pertinent documents :
I have published a huge part of Metzger's history of the Order.
If I give you the most obvious answer, i.e. that in some cases they
simply had sex with each other, will you stamp your feet and kill the
messenger?
Money-Milking Machines
From what one gathers about the history of the many Order-versions it
appears that money making might be their primary motive. Maybe a lot of their adherents see this as a means to an end. Yes, and there are
people who get spiritual insights from licking champagne out of high
heels.
What I want to say: You are the one who defines your universe. As soon
as you let other people decide what it is you need (e.g. which angel is
responsible for this or that, which sefira means this or that): You
surrender your freedom and turn into a slave. And what's more: You are
going to pay money for your status as a slave !
As to the the argument, that followers of Crowley benefit from those
who buy the copyrights: What if I say: Nonsense? Without restrictions
every single Crowley item would be freely available to all interested
parties. On the Net. For free. Why defend Fahrenheit 418 ? Who knows to
what extent or in what way the 'Caliphate'- editors will subject
hitherto unpublished texts to censorship before admitting publication?
Crowley titles don't need the 'Caliphate' to sell. A lot of publishers
like Weiser, Symonds, Grant, Spearman, Naylor and others have profited
from their publication. Insofar as that almost every member of the
'Caliphate' (which bought the copyrights(so far as subsisting) ) helped purchase them, the expenditure was just a sort of addition to the ordinary dues.
'Caliphate' sub-groups like Camps, Oasii, Lodges are financially self
supporting, so all monies obviously end up at the top, with the heads of the
Order. The other O.T.O.-versions like Metzger's, Motta's seem to be
just as bad about managing finances: A similar redirection of the cash
flow "upwards" can be detected.
Speaking for those who dance naked – well, some of them just for fun and
not for money
Some people pretend they don't hold my website in high esteem because
they feel that there is this undertone of spite in a lot of the
published material. They regard material simply for being on my site or
meeting the criteria of my "agenda" as twisted and dishonest. That
leads them to believe similarly that everything on my site is
inaccurate, wrong or dishonest, and that is most certainly not the
case.
In many cases I am not the author, but just the archivist of documents,
which renders most of my critics' statements meaningless and leaves
them with only a small portion of propagandistic value that affects
just the "corporate drones".
Even if others corroborate the material, confirming that they got the
same stories straight from the horse's mouth – which means that
obviously not everything I publish on the Net is inaccurate or
incorrect – critics resort to arguing "guilt by association", i.e.
stating that disgruntled ex members could not possibly be telling the
truth. Luckily I do not reply likewise, as those critics might not
enjoy to be lumped in with some of the racist and mysoginist thelemites
I came across during my research. It is equally true that the O.T.O. is
not ALWAYS wrong, inaccurate or dishonest. After all, even a broken
clock is right twice a day. But in many cases it is and we all know it.
The obvious energy and effort that I have extended in creating and
maintaining my site indicates a strong motivation. One might suspect
that I only do it for money. But I don't see I am making that much, if
any at all. If I planned on raking it in, I'd probably turn to writing
a shortstory, novel or screenplay instead of spending such a lot of
energy on what at the very best will only appeal to a small, teeny,
tiny, even minuscule part of the internet community.
Amused I quote Friedrich Duerrenmatt:
"A story has been thought to its conclusion when it has taken its
worst possible turn."
I am a collector of puzzle pieces. As such I sometimes regarded it as a
sort of duty to do away with pieces that sounded like "a personal
opinion". Why? I started my publishings as simple accounts of
historical events. Academics who wanted me to write for their magazines
or deliver speeches for university lectures heavily complained: Heeeey,
what does Koenig want to tell us: What does he personally think about
all this? I couldn't tell them because it doesn't interest me
personally. It's my work, isn't that enough? It's what I am doing. Do I
have to define myself by what I am doing? Do you want me to become
your slave? Your stereotype? What about simply having fun?
What Will You Give For An Encore ?
Please keep contributing to my work; pop-art-anthropology thrives on you.
There are loads of variegated various versions of O.T.O.s out there.
As long as you're offering up yourselves, I shall exploit you.
You support my postmodern exploitation of capitalist manouevres in the dark.
Yet publishing is an uninteresting side effect.
It's research which makes my work such fun.
Raiding your playground for pieces of the puzzle.
Collecting the jagged edges of the jigsaw.
Mirroring them on the side.
Food for the interested. Fun for me. It's free.
At least for me.
You give such joy to the world.
You are a cabaret.
Keep entertaining me.
You wear such sweet transvestites' garb.
Applause! Bravo! Da Capo, come again...
So stay alive
Be active
Please keep going
And thanks so much for all the merriment
An Example
Most often those articles of mine which might sound like personal
opinions are products of a situation in which an "urge" for them to be
written was created. As an example, see my article "Halo of Flies". I was contacted by Richard Metzger, an editor who had collaborated with me on one of my earlier pieces on
Rudolf Steiner, who wanted me to write a somewhat mordant piece about
his "friends". He offered keywords and suggested the direction he wanted
me to follow. And so I delivered a sort of mongrel: Tidbits, particles
from here and there, utterings and opinions I had collected, assembled
within an amusing context, using the editor's cue, key- and catchwords
while moving in the direction he had indicated. I offer myself as a
"filter". Become an arranger of set pieces which then make up another
scenery, another new piece. A kaleidoscope.
Consider me as a sort of intermediary between puzzle pieces but not as
google itself. Neither am I a yahoo group. Regarding my attitude as a
scholar and my artistic approach to what I find when researching: Do
you read German? I have discussed this in depth in my interwiev with
the Steiner-people in the "Flensburger Hefte", when we (the Steiner
people, their lawyers and some experts) blocked some hate campaign
(against O.T.O. as well) in the German speaking area of Europe.
See also my other interviews in German.
Entertainment vs Art vs Science vs Deconstructivism
a) What material do I have access to?
b) What kind of material do I attract (such as commissioned or submitted reports)?
c) How do I select material?
d) How do I edit, present, and comment my material?
e) Do biases reflect on my work? Does my effort also generate pieces?
Read my German Interviews where I have clearly outlined my position!
And let me again quote Johannes Baader:
What exactly Dada is, even the Dadaists don't know
Only the Chief-Dada knows
And he isn't telling.
Q: Why does the O.T.O. occupy such an important place in your research? What drew you to it?
A: I sense that neither you nor I can give a clear answer to what you're getting at. [...] One thing's sure: I have a need to mirror something about society - for your and my amusement both.
Does this make sense in a world where values of cultural codes are in
permanent (transformation) flux?
Is My Site Mirror Or Window ?
My personal opinion: I don't care about all that. My personal life does
not enter into what I am writing at all. Expect for having fun.
As a collector I mirror those puzzle pieces I can collect/gather. If
there are only voices of people with nasty, acerbic opinions to be
collected – well, that's what I get. And after all: Those many O.T.O.
versions – aren't they constantly trumpeting their own propaganda? Do
you want me to rehash that saccharine love-and-peace-pudding? Do you
want me to turn into some sort of google: mirroring and linking the
hooray-shouts of yahoo-groups, forums? Seriously: Where are the
detailed positive stories about how they were of benefit to anyone?
Even setting aside the argument concerning lineage (amply discussed on
my site) for a moment - what good is it to have dancing shoes if you do
not know how to dance? Tell me in detail, and I will introduce such a
section on my website. Just don't restrict yourself to being simple as
in: "I really liked it. I made me a friend." Or: "The O.T.O is cool and
if it weren't for the O.T.O. I would have never found my love match."
Try to be neutral: There are many O.T.O.-versions: I write about all of
them. If you think that I mostly write about the 'Caliphate': why so?
Is your perception focussed or is mine? Could it not be that simply
because the 'Caliphate' is the most clamorous of them all, forever
barking loudly in that forest, I might collect some truly
stentorian puzzle pieces? Have you counted the sub-pages I wrote on
Metzger's O.T.O.? On the time between Reuss' or Crowley's death and the sprouting of the
other O.T.O offshoots?
In fact, I treat them all alike. If William Heidrick or Annemarie
Aeschbach or anyone else writes something interesting for my website I
publish it. I always do. Everything is a puzzle piece. The Typhonian
O.T.O constitutes one of the few exceptions: Some Typhonians understand
what it is I am doing. They are aware that my existence also offers
them their platform. Every O.T.O.-version can "use me" for grinding
their own axe. I don't care about their motives as long as they don't
want me to make their money or suppress women or children. And what's
more: I am a big fan of transparency and accountability.
Das Milieu des Templer Reichs - Die Sklaven Sollen Dienen. Hanns Heinz Ewers - Lanz von Liebenfels - Karl Germer, Arnoldo Krumm-Heller - Martha Kuentzel - Friedrich Lekve - Hermann Joseph Metzger - Christian Bouchet - Paolo Fogagnolo - James Wasserman. Unbequeme Aspekte in der Geschichte von O.T.O. und Thelema
