Koenig - Scriven - 3

'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.)



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.


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.


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.]


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.


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.]


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....


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.

Search Parareligion Website

The 'Caliphate'
O.T.O. Phenomenon   navigation page   |    main page    |    mail


       Reuss' Memphis Misraim Emblem

one of Reuss' O.T.O. seals

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

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