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