-
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 06:38:18 -0500 (EST)
To: Peter Koenig koenig @ cyberlink.ch
From: xxx
>I assumed that you were a so-called "original IXth degree"
>of the "Caliphate". Have you resigned? When and why? Did you not participate
>in the vote for William Breeze?
I participated in no election. I do not know the details of the vote
since I was not a member at that time.
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 07:28:16 -0500 (EST)
To: Peter Koenig koenig @ cyberlink.ch
From: xxx
>I assumed that you were a so-called "original IXth degree"
>of the "Caliphate". Have you resigned? When and why?
I resigned in 1981. By that time the 1975 document you are citing was
superceded by a corporate-type board of directors when the organization
incorporated. The "authority" to determine succession was turned over
to that board.
There were many reasons to resign. The foremost was the beginning of a
conversion process toward xxx. OTO and other such groups talk about
Theosis ("deification"), but do not know what it is. Firing sexual
energies in a controlled fashion to shape reality is just another
method of suspension of disbelief. It is delusional and creates no
permanent effect other than the confusion of the practitioners. If
anything, that is what the history you have written shows.
I renounced all of that in 1982
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 07:43:50 -0500 (EST) To: koenig @ cyberlink.ch From: xxx >By that time the 1975 document you are citing was superceded by a >corporate-type board of directors when the organization incorporated. I realized you were citing a document from around 1977-78 issued to withdraw the "authority" granted in the original 1975 document. The board of directors business came after that. So I was little more than an observer to the history. Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 07:33:45 -0500 (EST) To: Peter Koenig koenig @ cyberlink.ch From: xxx >- when did you join McMurtry's group? 1974 >- was there (in this group at that time) any discussion whether this OTO was >"authentic" or not? Yes: Discussion of the 'Caliphate Letters'. >- how were other OTO groups being talked about (Metzger, Grant, Motta, etc)? Grant and Metzger. >- when exactly did you leave? Feb. 1981 >- what reasons did you give them (for your leaving them)? None. I subsequently told their lawyers that I had begun to doubt the validity of their claims. >- what role did the Gnostic Catholic Church play? I think it was only used >because the formal registration in 1971 demanded such in order to get the >tax free status ... I do not know these details. >- Which initiation rituals did the group have? - or did they use only >Francis King's "Secret Rituals of the OTO"? They were unclear as to details above II*. They had typewritten of the same rituals that appeared in King plus at least one document that did not appear in print at that time, but they needed help in reconstructing the III*-VI*. I think the III* and V* were done correctly. The reconstruction of the IV* had problems. >- Have you had lower degree initations or did you jump directly into the IX*? I-III*. The IX* was provisional, so IV-V* were done later. I quit before the VI*. Incidently, I would never have thought William Breeze a candidate for successor. >- Was this OTO considered to be "real" only for the VII*-IX*status: and the >lower degrees were considered only some easy money income? No. >- How exactly were the mechanisms that allowed this group to grow? If you mean "What" (Was) not "How" (Wie) then primarily public interest. Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 18:11:43 -0800 From: xxx To: Peter Koenig koenig @ cyberlink.ch > Maybe you are still willing to answer more questions? > - who brought you into the "Caliphate"? This was done by McMurty and his wife, at the time, Phyllis. I had contacted them at the address given on a card in the first Weiser Thoth deck publication. > - did they consider the Solar Lodge of the OTO (Jayne Brayton) to be a > regular lodge? I only know the details as Phyllis McMurtry told them to me. Brayton was a student of Jane Wolfe (I think that was the spelling). Jane had copies most of the O.T.O. ritual materials. Brayton stole duplicates of the rituals and set up her own community. She had never been initiated into the OTO. The community was never recognised, in fact they helped close it down. It was because of Brayton's robbery of the Germer home that McMurtry was informed of the death of Germer and the state of the organization. As a result he left Washington DC and moved to California. The Caliphate was set up after that move. I do not know the year. > - did they consider Metzger and Grant member of the OTO? And in which degrees? Grant, no he had set up his own organization. They felt the same about Metzger. > >>- what reasons did you give them (for your leaving them)? > >None. I subsequently told their lawyers that I had begun to doubt the > >validity of their claims. > - what kind of claims? First of all, I no longer believed (and still do not believe) that the OTO or the AA have the knowledge or depth of understanding that they claim. Hence my calling to xxx. Secondly, I no longer believed their claims of being the continuation of the OTO. They might have the best claim. But best is a matter of civil law, not of completeness of information/knowledge. > >>- Which initiation rituals did the group have? - or did they use only > >>Francis King's "Secret Rituals of the OTO"? > - did they not have the VIII*? What did they say about the lacking ritual? > How did they replace that initiation? They had no initiation rituals above VI*. > >They were unclear as to details above II*. They had typewritten of the same > >rituals that appeared in King plus at least one document that did not appear > >in print at that time, > - can you remember the titles of these? No. > - am I to understand that you knew Breeze? Why did you think he would not > fit for the office? I did not think him qualified by skill or knowledge. However at that time had a higher opinion of the organization. McMurtry and Heidrick's desire to see him promoted through the grades just fed my doubts about the organization. Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:07:24 -0500 (EST) To: Peter Koenig koenig @ cyberlink.ch From: xxx Incidently, I was wrong on at least one date. The letter assigning Phyllis McMurtry, HP Smith, myself and L M DuQuette to elect a successor was written in the Summer of 1976. The reregistration of the Caliphate may have been related to McMurtry's final falling out with Phyllis. That was in 1977. I did not know that the reregistration had occurred. Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 07:39:10 -0800 From: xxx To: Peter Koenig koenig @ cyberlink.ch > Dear Mr xxx > I still have more questions. First of all: do you maybe have copies of some > of the pertinent documents? If yes, would it be possible to receive copies > of them: with deleted names of course!!? As stated, I no longer have copies of any of the documents. > I am especially interested in that > paper that says that you are a IX*. I heard that Mcmurtry always added a > note that the IX* were not to exercise their full initiatory powers until > after his death. Is that true ? Those were provisional IX*. They were not to exercise full authority until initiated through the ranks or the McMurtry's death. At that point they still also needed the advised consent of the governing body of the order. Whatever that was. > I want to see the exact wording. > How did you become a IX*? Why? Were there different examinations for women > and men? I was told I was a provisional IX* and given the unpublished manual. The basis was merit and work for the order. That was 1978. Different accomplishments qualified individuals for the IX*. Women seemed to be given it easier than men. > How did McMurtry excuse the fact that he did not have a charter to initiate? His IX* and the caliphate letters were used to cover that. > Did you have access to their archives? How were their feelings about that > archive: did they feel that it was insufficient to pretend to be a "real" > OTO? I never saw all of it, but knew from their lack of details on the IV,PI,V,and VI* rituals that the archive had lacunae. > How did they deal with Crowley paraphernalia, with thelemic artefacts? Not well. The Germer collection had been reduced by at least one robbery and those materials were lost in a fire at the Brayton ranch. What they did recover through the courts in 1976 was apparently stolen from a storage place. That was the last I heard of it. This last theft may have been a hoax, I do not know. > It is strange that you don't know about the 1977 reregistration. This is the > official starting point of the "Caliphate" as Grand Lodge. I knew about the "Grand Lodge" but not the paperwork behind it. In 1977 > Did they consider themselves Grand Lodge before that date? They considered themselves the only oto body. > Did Phyllis McMurtry or H.P. Smith ever do OTO-initiations BEFORE McMurtry > re-appeared in 1969? Unknown, but they did not mention any. I was under the impression that they did not do any. > You tell me that Phyllis told you that J. Brayton came through Jane Wolfe. > The official version, today, is: that Brayton came through Mildred > Burlingame. Do you know the Burlingame couple? Which persons of the I am sorry. I had names confused. It was Mildred Burlingame. Wolf was Phyllis's teacher and long dead. Thank you for pointing this out. The only original members I knew as active were Grady, Phyllis, and Helen. > How did McMurtry help to close down the Solar Lodge? I do not recall. I know that he worked with the local authorities. The main concern was to recover the materials stolen from the Germer home. I think that he pushed the authorities on the child abuse charges. > When and through whom did Breeze come into the McMurtry-group? I do not know the details. I know that he and James Wasserman were friends. I do not recall where or by whom he was initiated. I was ordered to initiate him to II*. > Why was Breeze promoted > through the grades, in your opinion? Fame as editor of Crowley materials. Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 21:01:45 -0500 (EST) To: Peter Koenig koenig @ cyberlink.ch From: xxx >I was told that in ca. 1976, McMurtry began to receive death threats over >the telephone. Phyllis McMurtry, H.P. Smith and you, Mr xxx, were >worried about the possibility of McMurtry being killed by some crazed Motta >follower, so you drafted a plan to elect a successor to McMurtry in the >event of his death. Is that true? What did that draft say? - This plan was >presented to McMurtry around June of 1976 and he signed it. As indicated before, my memory of events and persons is not infallible. I do not recall death threats, there may have been some. There was concern also about accident or incapacitation. We cornered McMurtry and told him that something had to be prepared in the event of his death or incapacitation. He prepared a brief note. If memory serves it began with the usual greeting and then said "the criteria of succession being continuity" (or words to that effect) and appointed those listed and L M DuQuette to select a successor in the event of his death or incapacitation. That would have been July or August of 1976. I was traveling elsewhere in June. >Motta and McMurtry corresponded in July 1976. Can you remember what about >and how McMurtry et alii reacted? That was before the succession document. The letter was a statement of intent to sue for order property and status. >What can you tell me about Steve Grochocinski/Cosmos/Stevenson? Was he only >a II* or also a IX*? McMurtry lived in his house. Was Groc... the archivist >before Iannoti appeared? I did not know either of those people. >What can you tell me about Ianotti? When did he join? I did not know him. >What can you tell me about Gernon? When did he join? Formerly with Motta. 1980. >What can you tell me about James Graeb? When did he join? Lawyer who incorporated the oto for McMurtry. I do not know when he joined but it would have been between 1977 and 1979. >What can you tell me about Heidrick? When did he join? He had inherited some money and had the leasure to pursue his interests. I think he joined in 1977. >What can you tell me about David Scriven? When did he join? I did not know him. >Is there another "important" member that maybe invisibly remains in the back? James Wasserman. He was the link to Weisers. >How many IX*s did the organisation have when you joined it and at the moment >when you left it? Three when I joined. I knew of nine when I left. They were the 7 directors on the incorporation and Andrea whom you mention below. The nonth was James Wasserman. > Did any other IX* leave the "Caliphate" while you were >still active, and why? P McMurtry. I do not know what happened about that. >The widow of Max Schneider, Jean Shivonen, set her face against McMurtry's >re-starting a new OTO. How did McMurtry and Heidrick et alii react when some >of the old Agape Lodge members did not join him? (Montenegro, as well). I do not know their personal feelings. >How did McMurtry et alii react when they found out that they had sold the >"copyrights" of the Thoth deck too cheap to Weschke? I did not know they had sold the copyright until I read your history. >How were the bishops made? Were there papers given? A laying on of hands and a certification. I do not recall the wordings. > What did they say? >Was there an urge to contact bishops outside the thelemic continuum in order >to receive a "valid apostolic consecration" or was this only a later >introduction? Those claims came later. >Did everyone consecrate everyone? McMurtry consecrated a few. I do not know more. >Do you know the "Lesser Mass of the Gnostics", the IX* version, or is this >maybe a newer invention? I think I saw something on the WWW. That was not in use when I was involved. >What was the FRA (Fraternitas Rosicruciana Antiqua) of Krumm-Heller >considered to be in the context of the "Caliphate"? >What did they think about the Order of the Illuminates in connection to >their own group? They were considered outsiders. >Did they consider themselves to be somehow Memphis-Misraim? Apparently they did, but only as nominal inheritors of those traditions. >Has McMurtry left a Last Will? Unknown. >What were the names of his wife and children? Unknown. >Did they participate in the Order's activities? No. >How did they exactly react when they found out in 1976 that Sascha Germer >died in 1975? How did they try to get her archive? They went to court and were given the oto property in the Germer house. Among those items were Sasha's diary. >Did they ever consider >Sascha Germer being crazy/mad? They were concerned about her being afraid of everything. >Have you seen Germer's diary? Only Sasha's. She said on one page that she had never been a member of oto. I cannot prove it of course, but I told that to others in a public lecture in 1977. >Was the office of the "Caliph" considered as "de facto" OHO (Outer Head of >the Order) or also "de juro"? "Acting OHO" was a title claimed later. But in effect that was the belief all along. > How did they attempt to solve the problem that so > many X* were around who did not want McMurtry as their OHO? At the time there were no recognised X*. >What was the role of Andrea Bacuzzi? She told me that she received her IX* >while having sexual intercourse with McMurty. Was this the usual procedure >for women? Was that Andrea Lacedonia? If so, I believe her. I she still involved? I hope not. Is she well? No, I am not looking for free calligraphy anymore. >Is it true that several members appeared several times in the statistics in >order that those statistics can show a high figure and someone in a peculiar >degree? E.g. Bacuzzi told me that, although she was in reality a IX*, she >also figured as a VIII* in the statistics because otherwise there would be >no one else there to counted. That was after my time. >What were their relation to AMORC, their intentions? There were no intentions that I knew. >Was the "Caliphate" to be considered a masonic or a magical body? Magical by some; masonic by others. >Did you assist in the magical enlightment of the Grand Lodge at Crowley's >birthday in 1977? No. I did not visit any oto site in California after 1976. >What did they fear most? the police? the law? the taxes? members publishing >secret manuscripts? other OTO-groups? ... or what ...? Other oto groups were the issue that I heard most. >What did they think the AA was in connection with their OTO? Which was the >highest AA-degree they could provide? via Wolfe (that is, Seckler)? What did >the Motta-branch of the AA bring in? (Wassermann, Starr, etc.) I do not know much about this. I think that McMurtry thought that his letters authorized AA activity as well. I know that he selected a chancellor at one point. He forbade me to sign as a Neophyte with Phyllis. >What did they think/discuss re. copyrights? Were they aware that John >Symonds possesses them? They were very concerned about securing the copyrights. I knew about Symonds. >Did Phyllis and McMurtry ever end their fall out? Unknown. >Was there a thelemic dogma, saying something like "If you do this you are >out" "but if you do that you are a IX*"? I never heard that. >What did they say about H.P. Smith's Church of Thelema? Unknown. >Was Karl Germer accepted as OHO? How did they react to Germer's >disapprovement of McMurtry's claims (Germer calling him a "Big Minus")? Germer was considered OHO. I never heard that quote before. It might fit with McMurtry's reference to the Big Heinie. I never thought that reference was a reference to Germer. >How dependent were the members from McMurtry and Heidrick? Which of the two >had more powers, more authority? Is it true that Heidrick manipulated McMurtry? At one point everything was done through Heidrick. That was 1977 on until I left. >How did you react about that 1977-nullifying-paper issued by McMurtry? How >did the others react? It did not matter since at the time Phyllis had raised the question of his competence. If he had been incompetent, his nullifying paper would have been invalid. If he were competent, then we did not need to take action. Also other events were in motion to create local lodges. >Whom else wanted McMurtry to elect his successor at >exactly that time when he released that null.paper? Unknown. More likely he was afraid he was going to be deposed and only was concerned about his future and not the future of the organization. >Did he ever mention a name whom he wanted as his successor? Maybe DuQuette? >Maybe Wassermann? DuQuette impressed him the most as an organiser. He never mentioned anyone as a successor. >Was >it the attached "Emblems and Mode of use"? Yes that was it. > Did you pass a sort of an >IX*-Examination? No. There was none. >Did you NOT receive a paper that said that you now were a IX*? I received a certificate outlining my position as provisional IX*. I no longer have it. Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:01:06 -0800 From: xxx To: Peter Koenig koenig @ cyberlink.ch > Dear Mr xxx > many thanks. And here we go again: > >We cornered McMurtry and told him that something had to be prepared in the > >event of his death or incapacitation. He prepared a brief note. If memory > >serves it began with the usual greeting and then said "the criteria of > >succession being continuity" (or words to that effect) and appointed those > >listed and L M DuQuette to select a successor in the event of his death or > >incapacitation. > Were there any signs that McMurtry might die soon or of his incapacity? > (maybe drug abuse or lost interest?) One cause of concern was that McMurtry was hypoglycimic (I do not know the spelling). His excessive insulin was a problem since he did like a drink and he did like sugar. One drink had more effect than five on someone that did not have his problem. A candy bar or even a prepackaged food could contain enough sugar to make him act drunk. As a result we were not always confident of his judgement. > >>The widow of Max Schneider, Jean Shivonen, set her face against McMurtry's > >>re-starting a new OTO. How did McMurtry and Heidrick et alii react when some > >>of the old Agape Lodge members did not join him? (Montenegro, as well). > >I do not know their personal feelings. > What were the official statements regarding the fact that not all of the > original 2nd Agape Lodge members went over to McMurtry? What were the > internal discussions about that matter? It was stated that they had lost interest in the organization. I heard nothing further than that. > >>How were the bishops made? Were there papers given? > >A laying on of hands and a certification. I do not recall the wordings. > Am I to assume that there was no ritual? Where were the hands layed upon? Head, then shoulders. > Had McMurtry (and Heidrick) been aware that > there was NO bishop consecration in flesh between Crowley and McMurtry? > Did they think that it was all in the "Caliphate"letters? I later found that they assumed that the letters granted everything. > How about the Holy > Logos who/which only is transmitted in a consecration in flesh? They had nothing to say. Fortunately they did not know enough Church history to find a precedent. Yes, there is one. However, since succession requires unity of belief, it does not matter whether or not they had physical contact or even a flesh graft! There is no consecration where belief is not that of the CHURCH of CHRIST. > What were the discussions about the copyrights? Did they think that they > possess them or did they discuss how to obtaim them via Symonds or Grant or > Metzger? I am not sure what they thought about this. Apparently some court statement led them to believe that they possessed the copyrights on the organizational (oto,aa,egc) works. I do not know how they understood Symond's copyrights. They made no mention of securing his copyrights, but of enforcing the copyrights they thought they held. As to what they REALLY DID/DO hold, I do not know. I never saw it as a source of income since some publishers simply refused to publish materials whose copyrights were held by the oto. > Why did you need a lawyer in order to quit the "Caliphate"? What did you > fear that you needed such? I did not need an lawyer. OTO was trying to sue a publisher over the book "Ghost Story" by Peter Straub. Since I had submitted the first letter of protest which allowed them to submit the file the lawsuit before the statute of limitations, they needed my release even though I had already quit the organization. A release that had been already signed by of the trustee's (IX*s) was sent with a request for my signature. I did not sign. I simply sent a letter telling them that I doubted their claims as oto (as I told you before). I was later told that they had to agree to help the publisher in defense of any lawsuit brought by any other oto. > I am leaving now for a weekend-trip to sweet Austria. Nice country. I have been to Innsbruck, Salzburg, Wien, Graz during three visits. If there are further questions send them. It takes a while to remember what one has no reason to remember. Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:05:30 -0800 From: xxx To: koenig @ cyberlink.ch You did not answer if Andrea B is Andrea L and is well. Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 07:29:52 -0800 From: xxx To: koenig @ cyberlink.ch I realized that I did not understand one of your questions. In that they all considered oto an "outer" order with meetings and bureaucratic structure, they all considered it masonic. They considered the aa the "inner", magickal organization. In that the aa structure is not supposed to let one know the grade of another (McMurtry later required that all of the people reporting to him send a list/"geneology" of all below him to his cancellarius) I never knew the grade he thought he held. Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 16:48:42 -0800 From: xxx To: Peter Koenig koenig @ cyberlink.ch > Dear Mr xxx > sometimes I have difficulties in understanding English. So I completely was > puzzled by your recent paragraph about suing Peter Straub and your > signature. Can you please tell me again?! > Please always try to be as detailed/overflowing as possible. Everything that > comes to your mind might be useful. In July of 1979 we learned that one of the 10 best-selling novels of that month, _Ghost Story_ by Peter Straub had used the name of the oto as the name of a cult to which vampires belonged. I immediately delivered a letter to the publisher requesting that the name be changed and damages worked out. The order eventually filed suit (it never went to trial). Since they filed late, the claim was based on the date of delivery of my letter. As a result the publisher needed my release as well as that of all those who were trustees of the caliphate oto at the time the letter was delivered. I had resigned before the letter requesting release was sent to me. So I told them my reasons for resigning. > Why did you have to to write to their Lawyer and not to Heidrick or McMurtry in > order to leave the Order? Was this lawyer James Graeb or outside the Order? I wrote to one of the above, Heidrick or McMurtry, to resign in 1981. Graeb was not the lawyer that handled the suit. > Am I also to understand that you did not "officially"/"formally" quit the > Order but "simply sent a letter telling them that I doubted their claims as > oto"? I quit the organization. > Is it possible to say that a IXth can't leave the Order because this degree > consists of "knowing the secrets" and not having went through a ritual? > Which other IXth degree members did also quit? If they or anyone else still consider me IX that is their problem. I think that Phyllis tried to separate from Grady's group. I do not know that she officially quit or whether they came to an agreement. > Have you ever met Mildrd Burlingame? When did she die? What degree did she > have? Did she do initiation before 1971? or after? > Do you know Martin Starr? What about him? I knew neither of these. I thought Mildred was IX because she had a "complete" set of the rituals, but never was told her degree. I was led to believe that none of the Agape members other than the McMurtrys were working the oto. > After McMurtry forbade you to join Phyllis' AA — did you join his branch? > What were your feelings about this? Yes. I do not recall my feeling other than wondering what, other than a pro-forma, value it held. I tended to know more than he. > If the general nature of the teachings of the IXth are pretty widely known, > then why was there all this irrelevant secrecy, legal threats etc about them? I do not understand the question. > Did they consider themselves to be a "secret society" (with secrets) or an > open society (with only a few secrets)? What did they think/say/discuss > about openly advertising? (besides the address in the Tarot deck) They considered oto a society with secret teachings, but allowed to function publicly. Therefore they advertised. > What about disabled persons? Did they accept such persons and up to which > degree? Were there ever discussions about disabled persons to produce the > "Amrita"? I never heard of someone being denied membership based on disability. As to higher degrees, that would be based on ability, though that was never anyone's concern but McMurtry. So no guidelines were ever set forth. > Please read my "Spermo-Gnostics and the OTO" at my URL where I > recently added a very interesting remark from a woman! I will read it, but the remark may relate to events after I left or of which I was unaware. > Can you describe to me the development of the Order as detailed and as long as > possible: with emphasis in the age of the newcomer, their expectations, what > they found, All of these factors varied greatly. > how they reacted to the proves(proofs) of loyality that was wanted > from them and which role the figure of Aleister Crowley played in it? Belief in thelema and all that attached was central. Eventually that was extended to a loyalty cult surrounding McMurtry and those personally loyal to him. I never followed the McMurtry cult part. > What were the criteria to enter the VIIth-IXth degrees? (I know that you > already answered, but please more details). That varied with the individual. Significant advancement of the growth of the organization was usually involved. But as you know there were at least two exceptions to that. > Please try to describe Heidrick as detailed as possible: his age, his > behaviour towards women, towards other members of the Order, why does he not > travel? I never met Heidrick. He had taken over most control of the organization before I became aware of him. > Who was McMurtry's Cancellarius in the AA? I do not know, but think Bacuzzi knew. > Do you know why she suddenly became inactive? That was after I left. Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 12:32:32 -0800 From: xxx To: koenig @ cyberlink.ch I have not heard from you for a while. In reading the discussion the issue of disabilities and so-called upper degrees: Since the activity is supposed to involved the activation of endocrine glands, especially upper centers there is a possiblity that the physical aspect of the works need not be in 100% "working order" for someone to accomplish the same result. This assumes, of course, that the whole system does anything at all. As to Phyllis' comment to GM Kelly about certificates and grades, I believe that referred to his administration of AA grades and not of oto. I suggest you recheck your source. I think there were a few intervening statements during which the topic (AA or oto) is changed. Dear Mr xxx >have you ever heard of or had the IX*paper "Sign of the seal of Hermes"? >I thought it was the same as the "Emblems and mode of use". If not, can >you please try to tell me what it was about? I do not know these term, sounds like something Heidrick or another added. >Was there a list of "people to avoid contact with"? Probably. I was probably on it. >Did they initiate each and everyone? I witnessed that drunk people >have been carried through the rituals because they could not walk anymore. At least to the 0* (Minerval). >Were pregnant women near term asked to wait until delivery? Unknown. I knew a few that were initiated to a new grade at that time. Nothing was said. >What were the criteria to get expelled? WHo has been expelled and why? Varied. Just protesting abuses could get one tossed out. >I heard that Andrea Bacuzzi's first husband has been expelled. You know why? Who was Andrea's first husband? I knew a few that might have become her husband. >Did you feel that Heidrick or someone else threatened other people in referring to broken oaths that eventually led to death? Yes. >I have e.g. >Heidrick's letter in which he refered to "two IXth degree members" >who "did in fact die of medical conditions before 1965ev which >remarkably approximate an initiation penalty". I only know of Germer who died of infection/shock after radical surgery for prostate cancer. All of the inner and outer genitalia had to be removed. Since Sascha was incapable of changing his dressings, he died of shock when they were removed. If memory serves that was from her diary. >Were the initations really ment to open the chakras or did McMurtry >et alii think that something else was happening? They did not know about the chakras until 79-80. >Well, on one hand they say that all the "secrets" and techniques >are common knowledge, be they written in tantric books or published >by "traitors", they still threaten their members to file suit as soon >as they start to openly discuss e.g. "Emblems and Mode of Use" and the >like. Was this already common under McMurtry? And why? I did not hear of such a thing under McMurtry, but I left before he died. I never heard of someone being denied membership based on disability. As to higher degrees, that would be based on ability, though that was never anyone's concern but McMurtry. So no guidelines were ever set forth. >Due to my limited knowledge of English I would like you to again >explain what you understand with above "would be based on ability, >though that was never anyone's concern but McMurtry". What is >"ability" in that context and why do you mention McMurtry in that > context? Please be detailed as possible. McMurtry was the only person initiating above the V* when I left, therefore the criteria were his concern alone. He usually advanced people based on work for the organization. Hence the term "ability". >I heard that regular Freemasonry in the 1980s complained about the >Crowley-rituals which were only shamelessly copies of regular >FMrituals. Have you heard of this? No. >What did they think of Gerald Yorke and his Warburg-Collection? Did >they think that Yorke possessed the copyrights on the manuscripts of >Crowley that he had in his collection? Unknown. >> Can you describe me the development of the Order as detailed and as long as >> possible: with emphasis in the age of the newcomer, their expectations, what >> they found, >All of these factors varied greatly. >How many members did they have when you joined, how many left in the >time when you were members, how many did they have when you left. Less than ten when I joined, I think. Possibly only three. I do not know the later numbers. Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 12:11:18 -0800 From: xxx To: Peter Koenig koenig @ cyberlink.ch > The Crowley Cross Index, dated 1976, mentions the "Sign of the Seal of > Hermes" as one of the secret IX*degree papers. You really have not heard > of this nor seen it? Am I to assume that the McMurtry-group did not have > it when you were a member? I never heard of it. It may have been a name for Emblems and Signs. Since that was the only IX* document known to McMurtry, Seckler, Parsons-Smith. > I did not understand your English. What were "protesting abuses"? Please > give an example. I cannot be specific. General complaints about the hierarchy was sufficient to make one of "bad report". > You mentioned Sascha Germer's diary. Have you seen it? > Do you remember what it was all about? I saw it and reviewed it for a few days. I cannot recall all of it. It seemed to cover the death of Germer with an entry that said "the Master is dead" or words to that effect. I do not recall if she gave the details of his death or if I obtained them elsewhere (from Phyllis). Sascha also stated that she had never been a member of oto. An odd entry. > Did it give one reason to assume that she had gone "nuts"? It could be interpreted that she was unwell. She was definitely afraid of something. I do not know of what. > Did it mention Metzger or Grant? If yes: in what manner? I did not see anything on either, but I did not read it all. > Is it something that the "Caliphate" wants to be kept secret (because it > contains unfavorable remarks on McMurtry, e.g.)? I do not recall anything about McMurtry. I also do not know who has it. It was at Phyllis' home the last time I saw it and that was in 1976. > >>Were the initations really meant to open the chakras or did McMurtry > >>et alii think that something else was happening? > >They did not know about the chakras until 79-80. > What was thought before they found this out?: Why initiations then (before > they found out)? It was noted that people initiated underwent experiences. Whether self caused or from an external source, they felt that those experiences caused growth. > How did they find out about the chakras? I think Wasserman found some sort of document, a marginal note by Crowley in a copy of the Equinox. I do not remember with any degree of certainty. I do know that Heidrick informed me of the find and conveyed the information in a backward order. > Did this change their attitude towards the rituals and/or the order? > what was instructed with the sexmagickal degrees aside from the text > "Emblems and Mode of Use"? The VII and VIII were given materials from the King books. De Arte Magicka was also used. > -tantra/kundalini/yoga? McMurtry studied with the 3HO a Seik organization and taught some of it to others. > What is one to understand by your term "work for the organisation"? > growth of the Order? Founding Lodges was usually sufficient. > was it similar to Jehovas Wittness', where the brethren only comes into > Heaven when collected/attracted a certain figure of new-comers/converts? There was no figure. > Do you think that "quantity" was more important (in the "Caliphate") than > "quality"? That was one of my complaints. Especially when forced to initiate Breeze to II*. > You told me that there were less than 10 members when you joined. May I ask > how many have YOU brought into the Order? And how? I used to know. There was no xxx > Who was most responsible for the growth of the Order? Heidrick? .... I do not know. > What is the reason why the "Caliphate" did not attempt to resolve > differences with other OTO groups besides money? Unknown. That was after I left. > Are the Francis King-rituals considered (when you were there) as corrupted > as Order members would have one believe in the lower degrees? if not, why do they > still claim so? This is a new story. The King rituals were incomplete regarding passwords and abreviated phrases above II*, but they matched the records that I saw. > Today, I hear from disappointed members that the high degree members of the > "Caliphate" behave very arrogantly. The "Caliph" does not speak to lower > members and if he has to initiate lower members, he does not look into their > eyes. Have there been (when you were member) similar experiences (expressed > and discussed among others)? This is a new bag of tricks. > When McMurtry "ruled" something for the Order: was it looked at as doubtful > or were his sayings and actions considered always as OK? > What were the topics which were not met with approval? After the board of trustees was set up, his control was restricted to iniations. Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 07:51:58 -0500 (EST) To: Peter Koenig koenig @ cyberlink.ch From: xxx At 10:01 AM 12/12/96 +0100, you wrote: >Equinox volumes. The original >note attributing the Hindu Chakras appeared in Diagram 83 to "The Temple of >Sol. the King", facing page 90 in Volume I;4. Does this match up? I do not recall. >>> -tantra/kundalini/yoga? >>McMurtry studied with the 3HO a Seik organization and taught some of it >>to others. >What is the 3HO? The Healthy Happy Holy Organization. Yes I meant Sikh. That was/is their name. >Where might I find the most reliable info on 3HO? Unknown. >I presume you mean "sikh". is this organisazion still around? Unknown. >Were there any attendant "Thelemic" visualisations included within the >instruction given to Order initiates in reflection of these tantric >disciplines? No. Perhaps later than 1982. >>> Are the Francis King-rituals considered (when you were there) as corrupted >>> as Order members would have one believe in the lower degrees? if not, why do they >>> still claim so? >>This is a new story. The King rituals were incomplete regarding >>passwords and abreviated phrases above II*, but they matched the records >>that I saw. >What about the "secrets" such as "de Homuculus"? Was the King version >considered "very corrupted" or was this only to fog the mind of the lower >degrees who also had King's book? Valid question. Most of the upper degreed members recognised what Crowley called "dust in the eyes of the profane" and ignored or supplemented misinformation. That did not mean that the document was considered corrupted, because such a statement meant that we would have had to "go public" with the corrections. Unless the statement to the effect that the documents were corrupted were issued as a warning. >What was considered to be the "usual desired result" of the "Homuculus" or >"Magical Childe"? Various things to various people. Look at what that unfortunate, Martha Kunzel (spelling uncertain) thought she wanted. >What was (under McMurtry, as you are aware) the Supreme Secret of the OTO by >his assessments? The way he acted, it was the IX*. >Was one rule: "To request these higher degrees is to be refused admission"? That's new to me. I requested and received them. >>> When McMurtry "ruled" something for the Order: was it looked at as doubtful >>> or were his sayings and actions considered always as OK? >>> What were the topics which were not met with approval? >>After the board of trustees was set up, his control was restricted to >>iniations. >But McMurtry was the "Caliph", as such his opinions on other matters than >initiations are in the Highest, as well? Sometimes the board thwarted him. >Restricting McMurtry's control to initations: doesn't this make McMurtry a >puppet, an instrument only, for the quantity-growth of the Order? Not if he packed the IX* which elected the board. >Regarding the Gnostic Catholic Church. Have you been a bishop? >How? >Where? >By whom? yes. laying on of hands. McMurtry. >How did they legitimate their self-legitimazion through trying to >demonstrate a valid traditional apostolic succession? Or did such NOT exist >under McMurtry? They claimed but as you show could not prove it. >Haven't they adopted procedures based on Roman Catholic canon law (and >introduced offices like priest, bishop, archbisoph, patriarch, and the like)? I do not know about archbishop. They had the other titles. >re the rituals: Heidrick, nowadays, tells around that they always had a >complete set of all the rituals. The King book was used only for study >purposes in rehearsals. Is that true? I believe they had the rituals, but not the passwords and abreviations of the III*, IV*, V*, VI*. The password of the III was written in a note with a slight variation to get arround the prohibition of writing it. Anyone could have corrected the variation to get the "true" password of the III*. The abreviations used in the V* and VI* were also simple. I have no records of the reconstructions. Nor will I reconstruct those. >Heidrick says that Jane Wolfe's cheat sheet of the signs, grips and words >was always to hand and used. Is that true? Yes, but it only went to the III* otherwise they would not have needed others to reconstruct missing information. >Did they ever discuss or want to forbid King's book? Not with me. >What did they discuss about the XIth degree? Was it abandoned? The ritual? or the grade. I know nothing after 1982. There was no ritual before 1982. >What can you tell me about Rusty Sporor, J. Harris and a certain Janice who >was murdered by an unknown assailant? I new the name Sporor, but that is all. >McMurtry invented several ghostly orders, like the OTB Knights of Baphomet? >Weren't they considered a joke? >What were their connection to the OTO? I never heard of them. >What were the discussions about Michael Bertiaux' OTO? He was considered a crank. >Below I quote a larger portion of an early Heidrick letter to someone >unknown: Please do comment all numbers (mine): >"Around 1982 ev, We (Grady McMurtry, myself and some others in OTO) [1: who >else? and was it really 1982] I am unaware of filling around 1982. It was earlier. I, Graeb, Ripple, Morton, Heidrick, McMurtry, DuQuette were the first trustees. >had just completed filing of OTO papers for >incorporation with the state of California. At the time, we didn't have a >clear understanding of what constituted the legal criteria for a "Church" in >tax law. [2: why only so late? Why not in 1971 when the first registration >took place? Why not in 1977 or 1979?] The cost of filing for incorporation is higher than that of filing as an association. > Since OTO has always possessed the >forms of lodges, members and dues, [3: I thought this was untrue since >McMurtry had NO lodge when he started his "Caliphate" in 1969 or 1971?] we There was no lodge in title, but there were always dues. >were a little worried that all those characteristics would automatically >make the OTO a "mere" fraternal organization in the eyes of the law [4. What >would have been so negative about that?] Fraternal organizations do not have the same legal rights as churches in US law. > About that time James Town happened >and there was a lot of talk about cracking down on the application >procedures for recognizing churches. Accordingly, we set up a separate EGC >corporation, without requirement of OTO membership below the level of board >of directors. [5: is that true? Weren't there other reasons?] That one we He was talking about the Jones town suicides in central America. It was true to my knowledge. Remember I had to accept the information they gave me since I was not in California. >filed as a formal and simple "Church" with no fraternal qualifications or >language — in effect OTO was a religious order and EGC was a public >membership church available outside OTo membership [6. how about the IX* >version of the Gnostic Mass?] as well, as a religious chapel aspect of OTO >proper." The Gnostic Mass was considered a symbol of the IX* just as many things were considered symbols of the IX* that had nothing to do with oto. >Please react also to topics that I failed to number. >Heidrick recalls the founding of the "Caliphate", which, according to his >words, was "culminating in the formal opening and chartering of Thelema >Lodge in Berkely, CA USA at the instant of emergance from full eclipse of >the sun on 12th October 1977 ev." >Were there when that happened? No. >Heidrick: "Grady's leadership of a formal OTO body starts from that date". >question to you: Why not prior to that date? Unknown. >Heidrick: Prior to that time McMurtry ran OTO from the stand point of his >rank under Crowley and Germer as Sovereign Grand Inspector General. >question: how did they legitimate McMurtry's rise from the SGIG to the >"Caliph" as OHO? In connection with above date: 12th October 1977? Based on the references to the Caliph as Germer's successor. >Please try to be as detailed as possible. >Thanks in adcvance Since it is Advent, I have to put this discussion off to January. It has been painful and deleterous to my spiritual welfare to have to recall this material. Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:49:53 -0800 From: xxx To: koenig @ cyberlink.ch I also notice an attempt by S (whom I never met) to cover for what neither he nor DuQuette knew about the election document of the Summer of 1976. DuQuette was O* as noted. We thought he had promise, so McM included him. I confess shock that Breeze was proposed for anything. DuQuette was the better man. Then again, where thelema is concerned, quality is not the motivation nor the result. It is too political. Phyllis was the prime motivator for the creation of a document to guarantee continuity. She and McM separated sometime in 1974-1975. There was reason for concern that she might make a power grab. She attempted to alienate us all from McM by bringing us into the issue of their personal conflict. She tried to demand that we take action based on the document. I do not know that that was the primary reason she wanted him to write and sign that document, however. However, McM was a hypoglycemic (spelling uncertain) and loved more than an occasional drink, so there was reason for concern for his health/mental clarity. Helen, Phyllis and I stated that we wanted him to write and sign a document to guarantee the succession. He was left alone (I think I was the only one in the house at the time, but was reading in another room) to compose the document to guarantee succession. When all returned the whole document was only a few sentences. It said something about the criteria of succession being continuity or the criteria of continuity being succession. I cannot recall for certain. We stood around bewildered, but decided that it was all we would get and it would have to do. Question: Why are you bothering with this research? OTO is a dead issue. Yes there are legal entities that can claim succession, but they do not have the knowledge (what little there was) of the original. All such organizations are like those discussed by Irenaeus of Lyons: "they make up new ideas every [week] so that they may claim to have the superior knowledge." Much of 19-20th century occultism was reconstructed from references in Irenaeus writings which showed their deficiencies. I wrote to Metzger hoping to find better, but never received a reply. Based on that, I concluded that there was no OTO. I spent some time on that issue, but realized that I had to do something for myself and that there was something seriously wrong with my thinking. One thing that showed me was that thelema was not a philosophy upon which anything could be built. "Will" has problems. I will not go into the details of my conversion to xxxxxx. I prefer to let people think that it was the result of analysis. The analysis, as in any philosophical/theological change-of-mind, came afterwards. The cause is an event that I only recently came to understand. Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:07:20 -0800 From: xxx To: koenig @ cyberlink.ch I was told in 1980 by Wasserman that nowhere did his document call him a provisional IX*. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:34:20 -0800 From: xxx To: koenig @ cyberlink.ch >Breeze declared himself to be a deep figure of mystery (in the October >85 ML) > who wants to keep his identy hidden except to those that elected him: > Seckler, > Smith, Heidrick, DuQuette, Graeb, Iannotti, Lewis, Bacuzzi, Gernon and > Wasserman. The IX* members in my time were: Heidrick, Graeb, DuQuette, S. Morton, M. Ripple, G McMurtry,J Wasserman, and I. What happened to S. Morton and M. Ripple? Did they quit? Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 07:48:01 -0500 (EST) To: Peter Koenig koenig @ cyberlink.ch From: xxx At 10:16 AM 2/26/97 +0100, you wrote: >Dear Mr xxx >>The IX* members in my time were: >>Heidrick, Graeb, DuQuette, S. Morton, M. Ripple, G McMurtry,J Wasserman, >>and I. >>What happened to S. Morton and M. Ripple? Did they quit? >I have absolutely NO idea. tell me more about those two individuals, please. Shereen or Shireen or ???? (spelling uncertain) Morton was a woman with whom McMurtry lived around 1976. She had a few kids. If memory serves, she was the first "provisional" IX*. She was on the original list of Directors under the incorporation of OTO. Michael Ripple was made provisional IX* shortly after I was (1978) and was also one of the original Directors, as was I. He ran a lodge in or near Syracuse xxx. He was a real "Gradyite" and I never trusted him to be loyal to anything but personalities. >Have you thought about the proposal in my last mail (posting an improved >version of our correspondence to the Net)? I have thought about it, but do not feel it would be wise at this time. Keep it as evidence, but do not post it yet. >Why did Scriven tell me that DuQuette only was a Minerval at the time when >they voted for Breeze? That is news to me. Lon may not have taken any of the intermediate degrees. That is unlikely, but I do not know anything to support either position. However: 1) Lon knew more about the subject material than the rest of them put together. 2) Based on the provisions of the provisional IX*, he was de jure and de facto IX*. There is also the possibility that there is an attempt here to shore up Breeze's reputation. I only knew Breeze as someone who published materials concerning that work, but personally knew little about it. He failed the tests set for II* but I passed him provisionally (he later studied and passed it), since I recognised that Heidrick would have him promoted elsewhere. Breeze used to show up late for events and then act like we were supposed to start all over again for his benefit. I refused to do so on at least one occasion. That was when he turned up two-three hours after a 0* initiation was scheduled and insisted that we initiate a friend of his. We had finished hours ago, and that included a few people that had themselves been an hour late. Thank God I have nothing to do with that group any longer. Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 08:45:30 -0800 From: xxx To: koenig @ cyberlink.ch I had thought that the Equinox III,i Constitution was the active document. I would be curious to see the last document to supercede it. I need a laugh. Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 14:00:06 -0800 From: xxx To: Peter Koenig koenig @ cyberlink.ch > Do you remember that someone published the "EMBLEMS AND MODE OF USE" in the > 1980s in Mezla? Was this after your time? I heard it was done by a member of > Grant's OTO AND a member of the "Caliphate" ... I quit in the early 80's. Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 16:02:25 -0800 From: xxx To: Peter Koenig koenig @ cyberlink.ch > >> I also heard about a Mr Cozzi. What can you tell me about him? > >He was a friend of the secretary of my group in xxx. What do you > >want to know? > everything that pops into your mind Surprisingly little to tell. Perhaps what I consider minor is not. He alienated McM. That was not hard to do since McM had no sense of humor about himself. Quit oto before I did. Other than that I know nothing. Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 07:33:25 -0700 From: xxx To: Peter Koenig koenig @ cyberlink.ch > You know James Eshelman? He used to be the "Caliph's" Vice and Deputy Grand Breeze had a few people trailing around after him. I assume that is one of them. As to the use of that group just as an adjunct to his publishing efforts, that was always obvious. he wrote about Breeze: > ... in order to lay the best foundation for the spiritual growth of humanity > for the next couple of thousand years [in publishing Crowley-books]. That is funny. The blind leading the blind. Breeze seemed to think that his publishing somehow exempted him from knowing anything or doing any work. When asked to show his diary he excused his lack of one with: "I know about magickal diaries: I edited Crowley's". I know about vicarious suffering but vicarious knowledge ... Sometimes I thought that WB looked upon the whole matter merely as a source of income. It is not surprising that he is not doing anything with the current membership. Then again, that is the way with Thelemites: 'I follow my will, not what I promised to do'.
