An e-mail correspondence between P.-R. Koenig and David Scriven, the
U.S. Grand Master of the New "Caliphate"
(Items in upper case refer to initial statements/facts/points by P.-R. Koenig
(denoted by }} in Part One) or insertion of titles for editorial purposes.
Indentations refer to further comments on side issues which took place later
on during the discussions.)
PART FOUR OF FIVE
Leading on from the original lines of discussion opened up in Parts One
and Two, the following areas of debate were examined in further detail.
MR HEIDRICK AND HIS FACTS
K: I'd like to quote Heidrick: "On 12th October 1977 e.v. Grady's leadership
of a formal OTO body starts from that date." (Heidrick to zirdo@ramhb.co.nz,
14 Nov 1995). Isn't that approving/admitting that the "Caliphate" is a new
invention?!
S: I don't think I understand your point. It would not appear to me that a
"Caliphate" would require leadership of a formal body such as a Lodge; it
would seem to me that such a thing could be held (in trust, as it were) by a
single individual.
K: Double standard: if the "Caliphate" could be held by a single individual,
then it invalidates everything in the Court proceedings made against Motta
for "not having an organization" or being a "legal entity" that can assume
copyrights.
[Editorial note: See also Afterword in the section from Part One headed "The
1925 Election".]
S: I do not believe that the Court's sole reason for finding that Motta did
not have an organization and did not possess the copyrights hinged on the
single fact that he claimed to be the only member of S.O.T.O. Quite a few
additional factors weighed in.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Not the SOLE reason, certainly. But definitely one of the
major ones, and one about which a considerable amount of "noise" was made at
the time.}}
...
K: I recently received many letters that B. Heidrick addressed to several
individuals and wherein Heidrick made extended use of his version of the
history and presence of the Order. Since many of his statements need further
substantiation I'd like to ask you some questions or I just mention some
topics that need further evaluation. Please don't flaw the arguments in
saying that I should ask Heidrick instead of you — My point is: I KNOW NOW
Heidrick's statements but would like to know YOURS! Even more since you
admitted that Heidrick's opinion is not always shared by the rest of the
high ranking members of your order.
H. very often changes the history re the date and fact of when and how the
"Caliphate" came into possession of the rituals: sometimes he approves that
(besides King's book) in 1977 only the grades 0*-II* were accessable (maybe
through Seckler and/or M. Burlingame, e.g. Heidrick to wizard@primenet.com on
8 Jan 1996 — also Martin Starr in a letter to me: "Yes, The Caliphate
O.T.O. did not have some of the rituals and papers before Francis King's
book was published, as amazing as this may seem.") while in other letters
he says that the "Caliphate" already did initiations in 1969. He also says
"The King book was used for study purposes in some rehersals [sic] while we
made copies", although I have been told by several witnesses that McMurtry
did all the initiations with the King-book in hand, throughout his
lifetime.---
S: I think, perhaps, we have not established a precise definition of
"Caliphate" we can all agree upon. Sometimes it seems to mean the
organization established by McMurtry in 1977, sometimes the "succession"
possessed by McMurtry by virtue of his letters from Crowley from the
1940's, as implemented in 1969/70, sometimes it appears to mean
McMurtry's relationship with the OTO since Germer's death.
K: OK, I thank you very much for showing me where I failed. Here's what I
think: Agape Lodge existed until 1953. Then there was NOX in the US
until October 1977, when the "Caliphate" was founded. In between, in the
US several ex-members of an ex-lodge did initiations into a
not-yet-existing body.
S: I do not know why McMurtry would have used the King rituals for
initiation, unless it were a matter of convenience; or, I suppose, that
he no longer had access to Phyllis's copies (a distinct possibility).---
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Therefore it is not disputed that the differences
between the "King" rituals and the "Caliphate" rituals are so
negligible as to make no difference?}}
S:---The fact is that Phyllis Seckler had the Agape Lodge rituals, that
McMurtry and M. Burlingame used them in 1969/70 (before the publication
of King's book) and they are in our archives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correspondence in November 1996 with an ex-McMurtry-IX° 1974-1981
To: Peter Koenig
From: x
K: When did you join McMurtry's group?
x: 1974
K: How many members did they have when you joined, how many left in the
time when you were members, how many did they have when you left.
x: Less than ten when I joined, I think. Possibly only three. I do not
know the later numbers.
K: Did Phyllis McMurtry or H.P. Smith ever do OTO-initiations BEFORE McMurtry
re-appeared in 1969?
x: Unknown, but they did not mention any. I was under the impression that they
did not do any. I was led to believe that none of the Agape members other
than the McMurtrys were working the oto.
K: Which initiation rituals did the group have? - or did they use only Francis
King's "Secret Rituals of the OTO"?
x: They were unclear as to details above II*. They had typewritten of the same
rituals that appeared in King plus at least one document that did not appear
in print at that time, but they needed help in reconstructing the III°-VI°.
I think the III° and V° were done correctly. The reconstruction of the IV°
had problems. I-III°. The IXõ was provisional, so IV-V° were done later. I
quit before the VI°.
I was told I was a provisional IX° and given the unpublished manual. The
basis was merit and work for the order. That was 1978. Different
accomplishments qualified individuals for the IX°. Women seemed to be given
it easier than men.
The IX° were not to exercise full authority until initiated through the
ranks or the McMurtry's death. At that point they still also needed the
advised consent of the governing body of the order. Whatever that was.
They had no initiation rituals above VI°. I never saw all of it, but knew
from their lack of details on the IV,PI,V,and VI° rituals that the archive
had lacunae.
K: Heidrick, nowadays, tells around that they always had a complete set of all
the rituals. The King book was used only for study purposes in rehearsals.
Is that true?
x: I believe they had the rituals, but not the passwords and abreviations of
the III°, IV°, V°, VI°. The password of the III° was written in a note with
a slight variation to get arround the prohibition of writing it. Anyone
could have corrected the variation to get the "true" password of the III°.
The abreviations used in the V° and VI° were also simple.
K: Heidrick says that Jane Wolfe's cheat sheat of the signs, grips and words
was always to hand and used. Is that true?
x: Yes, but it only went to the III° otherwise they would not have needed
others to reconstruct missing information.
K: Are the Francis King-rituals considered (when you were there) as corrupted
as Order members would have believe the lower degrees? if not, why do they
still claim so?
x: This is a new story. The King rituals were incomplete regarding passwords
and abreviated phrases above II*, but they matched the records that I saw.
K: Did they ever discuss or want to forbid King's book?
x: Not with me.
K: What about the "secrets" such as "de Homuculus"? Was the King version
considered "very corrupted" or was this only to fog the mind of the lower
degrees who also had King's book?
x: Valid question. Most of the upper degreed members recognised what Crowley
called "dust in the eyes of the profane" and ignored or supplemented
misinformation. That did not mean that the document was considered
corrupted, because such a statement meant that we would have had to "go
public" with the corrections. Unless the statement to the effect that the
documents were corrupted were issued as a warning.
K: Were the initations really ment to open the chakras or did McMurtry et alii
think that something else was happening?
x: They did not know about the chakras until 79-80.
K: What was thought before they found this out?: Why initiations then (before
they found out)?
x: It was noted that people initiated underwent experiences. Whether self
caused or from an external source, they felt that those experiences caused
growth.
K: How did they find out about the chakras?
x: I think Wasserman found some sort of document, a marginal note by Crowley
in a copy of the Equinox. I do not remember with any degree of certainty. I
do know that Heidrick informed me of the find and conveyed the information
in a backward order.
K: Did this change their attitude towards the rituals and/or the order? what
was instructed with the sexmagickal degrees aside from the text "Emblems and
Mode of Use"?
x: The VII° and VIII° were given materials from the King books. De Arte
Magicka was also used.
K: -tantra/kundalini/yoga?
x: McMurtry studied with the 3HO a Seik organization and taught some of it to
others. The Healthy Happy Holy Organization. Yes I meant Sikh. That was/is
their name.
K: What is to understand under the term "work for the organisation"? growth
of the Order?
x: Founding Lodges was usually sufficient. McMurtry was the only person
initiating above the V° when I left [in 1981], therefore the criteria were
his concern alone. He usually advanced people based on work for the
organization. Hence the term "ability".
K: Do you think that "quantity" was more important (in the "Caliphate") than
"quality"?
x: That was one of my complaints. Especially when forced to initiate Breeze to
II°.
Incidently, I would never have thought William Breeze a candidate for
successor.
There is also the possibility that there is an attempt here to shore up
Breeze's reputation. I only knew Breeze as someone who published materials
concerning that work, but personally knew little about it. He failed the
tests set for II° but I passed him provisionally (he later studied and
passed it), since I recognised that Heidrick would have him promoted
elsewhere. Breeze used to show up late for events and then act like we were
supposed to start all over again for his benefit. I refused to do so on at
least one occasion. That was when he turned up two-three hours after a 0*
initiation was scheduled and insisted that we initiate a friend of his. We
had finished hours ago, and that included a few people that had themselves
been an hour late.
The blind leading the blind. Breeze seemed to think that his publishing
somehow exempted him from knowing anything or doing any work. When asked to
show his diary he excused his lack of one with: "I know about magickal
diaries: I edited Crowley's". I know about vicarious suffering but vicarious
knowledge ... Sometimes I thought that WB looked upon the whole matter
merely as a source of income. It is not surprising that he is not doing
anything with the current membership.
Thank God I have nothing to do with that group any longer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
K:---Furthermore I can't understand Heidrick's statement that the OTO "had
been effectively dormant from about 1950 until the later 1970s" (note the
expression "the later 1970s"!)---
S:---I think by "effectively dormant" he must have meant "without a
significant amount of properly-coordinated activity."
K: You interpreted Heidrick's calling the OTO "effectively dormant"
between 1950 and the later 1970s to be to understand as "without a
signifcant amount of proper-coordinated activity": Isn't this history
re-written?
S: I don't think so; because McMurtry, Seckler, H. Smith and M. Burlingame
were performing limited OTO activities in the early 1970s.
K: You obviously try to re-define the term "effectively" into "limited".
Is THAT your understanding of objectivity and History?
{{AFTERWORD, 1997 "Dormant" does NOT mean "performing limited
activities": "inactive", "sleeping or comatose" and "inert" are a
few of its synonyms.}}
K:---Why does he suppress the activities of Smith, Culling and the like which
caused Germer to close Agape Lodge officially in 1953? And why doesn't
anyone mention the still existing Church of Thelema led by H.P. Smith?
S: Helen told me that she is the only member of this Church.
[Editorial note==> see first section in Part Two.]
K: Heidrick also one time heavily regrets that the court in 1985 "ruled" that
Germer was the OHO when it comes to the question of Germer's relation with
McMurtry (calling the latter a "Minus") while on the other hand, Heidrick
gladly refers to OHO Germer's expulsion of Grant in 1955. Accepting Germer
OHO (which legally was "ruled"/done in the court proceedings) makes the OHO
title and position nonexistent after Germer's death in 1962 (as the question
arises as to who's "head" in Germer's Last Will).
S: In either case, H. recognizes that Germer was OHO. There was unarguably a
distinct breach in OTO leadership after Germer's death.
K: Why can one pretend that the Reuss charter to Lewis (A.M.O.R.C.) should be
non-transferable while the "Caliphate" itself sits on a non-transferable
charter (==> Breeze can't be successor to the "Caliph" because the
"Caliph"-letters from Crowley to McMurtry were not-transferable)?
S: The difference between these documents is in what they authorize the
recipients to do. Lewis's Gauge of Amity makes him an "honorary member" of
the "Sovereign Sanctuary for Switzerland, Germany and Austria," and gave him
permission to represent said Sov. Sanc. "near" the Supreme Council of AMORC.
If AMORC would like to designate a liaison with the Sovereign Sanctuary for
Switzerland, Germany and Austria, then so be it! McMurtry's authorizations
from Crowley were much broader and more general in scope, and can be
interpreted to include the power of appointment of a successor if necessary.
K: Interpreted by whom?
S: By anyone who doesn't have a personal interest in seeing them interpreted
in another, less rational, way.
K: Since the "Caliphate" also sees the 1917 and 1919 Constitution as its base
(Heidrick e.g. says that "Crowley broke up the 1917 ev Constitution into
three commented Libers"), I'd like to know your statements re the following
uncertanties.
S: I don't think I agree with Heidrick's statement.
K: "You" criticize Grant or Motta (or Metzger?) for not being OTO because they
ignore parts of the Constitution but at the same time you admit that you
changed it several times. Do you see the Constitution itself as "descriptive
document" (as Liber LII, CI, CLXI or CXCIV) or a "binding regulation"?
S: Neither. We see it as a prescriptive model; as a normative guide to be
implemented on a practical basis in accordance with a reasonable time
schedule. McMurtry, and to an extent Germer also, were largely unfamiliar
with the Constitution and its procedures.---
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Why should McMurtry or Germer have been "largely
unfamiliar with the Constitution" - undoubtedly the Order's single most
important administrative document? That seems arbitrary and rather
presumptuous on S's part. Also, why is the Constitution seen as a
"normative guide" by the "Caliphate", yet when Grant, Motta or Metzger
wish to make changes in it themselves, it suddenly becomes
sacrosanct??}}
S:---We consider Libri LII, CI, CLXI, and CXCIV to be descriptive documents
rather than binding regulations. These documents represent Crowley's
"vision" for the Order; and we believe our duty, as Aleister Crowley's OTO,
is to implement these documents to the greatest extent practicable, and
according to a reasonable time schedule. ...We are a new generation of OTO
leaders that have made it our business to learn our original traditions and
constitutional procedures, and are working to reinstitute them.---
K: Earlier at other places, you Sabazius, gave me to understand that
historical matters only were of minor interests in your organisation.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: By this can S. possibly mean those "original traditions
and constitutional procedures" of Kellner, Reuss and Hartmann; and if
so, is the _old_ O.T.O. therefore to be seen as more, rather than less,
important than the Crowley and post-Crowley recension? - the very same
Crowley who wanted "a complete change" in the Order??}}
S:---Much of what happened under Germer and McMurtry was simply a result of
ignorance of this. They didn't, however, permanently change the
constitution.
K: Am I to understand that "you" are a "new generation" that is, a new
"Caliphate" and not McMurtry's one? — There is no coherence about the
History and the Structure: Sabazius contradicts Heidrick, Heidrick
contradicts Breeze, Breeze contradicts McMurtry, DuQuette changes his memory
in a blink, etc etc etc.
...
K: Since the "Caliph" is NO "real" OHO and it is ruled in XIV.2 that "No
Bye-Laws shall become operative until approved by the OHO", "your" new
constitutions again prove that the "Caliphate" is a NEW invention and NOT
any "original" OTO.
S: It is a "reconstitution" of OTO.
K: Aha, but not "the" OTO itself!? And I again refer to Article XI of the 1917
Constitution which makes ALL initiations after Germer's death invalid.
S: The continuation of Aleister Crowley's O.T.O. The office of Caliph is, by
our reckoning, de facto OHO.
K: If (quote:) "The office of Caliph is, by our reckoning, de facto O.H.O."
then why did Crowley NEVER once on any occasion refer to it as such? It was
an emergency measure, limited in time (for as long as any hypothetical
emergency lasted), in space (state of Calif.) and in authority (subject to
approval of the REAL OHO).
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: This important point was never finally satisfactorily dealt
with.}}
...
K: And why did Heidrick pretend last week (again) that I have been member of
the Swiss OTO and have been kicked out from there, when I NEVER was member
of the Swiss and therefore NEVER have been kicked out? [Ed. See
Correspondence between Nigris, Heidrick and Koenig]. If there
really should be friendly relations between you and the Swiss, he should
have known better.
S: Please do not ask me to answer for Bill Heidrick. He has his own opinions,
and not all of us always share them. I do not know where he got the idea
that you are an expelled member of the Swiss O.T.O., I never had that idea,
nor, to my knowledge, did Frater H.B. or Soror Helena. Bill Heidrick did not
attend the meeting with the Swiss. To my knowledge, he has not communicated
with them directly at all.
FOUNDING OF THE "CALIPHATE"/"RECONSTITUTION" OF THE OTO
S: Here is one example of what I believe is an actual error: You state in your
first TH 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.
K: The "Caliphate" did not exist in 1971: therefore: two ex-members of an
ex-lodge had some of the rituals (not all!). I have several witnesses to the
fact that McMurtry initiated with King's book, only.
S: In your opinion, then, the OTO Association formed in 1971 was not the
"Caliphate" OTO, despite McMurtry's participation? If your opinion is that
the Caliphate OTO did not exist until after 1973, when King's rituals were
published, then what is the basis of your statement in TH the Caliphate OTO
only obtained the Crowley rituals when they were published by King?---
K: I never said that:
S: Theosophical History, Vol. IV, No. 3, page 97: "After the publication
of the Crowley-OTO initiation rituals in 1973 by Francis King...The
`Caliphate,' on the other hand, only then came into possession of them."
K: See improvement at my URL: the group that later called itself
"Caliphate". ... My opinion is still: the "Caliphate" was founded in
1977.
S:---McMurtry evidently implemented his Letters of Authorization from Crowley
very soon after arriving in California in 1969 at Soror Meral's request.
There was also the OTO Association registered in 1971.---
K: I can't recall having heard of that 1971 event before. Maybe it's my
fault but can you show me a pertinent source in the old O.T.O.
Newsletter (Berkeley) or the court transcripts? Maybe I am wrong, but
this seems to be a new history invention. I would be thankful for your
help; my archive is stored in boxes and I cannot easily verify or
falsify such facts. Please send paper evidence - also in order I might
improve further articles or re-editions of my books.
S: I have asked for a copy.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Have these "registration" documents of the OTO as an
"Association" in 1971 been published? And how is this "Association"
different from Motta's OTO being a "Society"?}}
S:---Either of these could be seen as alternative dates for the beginning of
the Caliphate. ...In any case, there were four participants in McMurtry's
initial efforts in 1969, and the O.T.O. was legally registered as an
Association with the State of California in 1971.
K: Four? I am aware of only Phyllis Seckler, H.P. Smith and McMurtry. Or are
you taking Mildred B. out of the top hat? When did Heidrick join the
organization? By the way: Why, if the "Caliphate" was supposedly was around
by at least 1969 or 1971, was it necessary to make a big drama of pomp and
ceremony surrounding that 1977 founding?
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Asked and not answered.}}
By the way: a witness of that time just tells me that there were NO
initiations before 1971 by any members of the group that later was called
the "Caliphate".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX, 1997:
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:09:20 -0800
To: Peter Koenig
From: Steve Englehart
I don't have much to tell you. I was the first guy to join the OTO in April
1977, and was already planning to travel through Europe starting in June of
that year. At the time, the Swiss OTO was somewhat dismissive of Grady
McMurtry's credentials, so Grady asked me to deliver a message of
conciliation when I was in the neighborhood. My trip spent June in
Scotland, July in England, August in Scandinavia, and arrived in the
Germanies (there being two at the time) in September. I then wrote to the
Gasthof Rose — in German, since it was twenty years fresher in my
mind--asking if I could come by. They agreed that I could, I did, and
delivered the message (again, in functional German). They were not
particularly impressed with it, but they were friendly enough to me. I
spent the night, attended a gnostic mass the next day, and left.
So instead of "travelling through Europe on behalf of the OTO in the 80s,"
I made one call as a go-between in 1977.
After I returned to California in late 1978, I grew apart from the OTO,
though I still regard my time with them as both seminal and pleasant. It's
my understanding that relations between the two branches are much closer
now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
K: Please tell me to what "you", you and Heidrick always refer to saying
that there were such?! By the way: a IX° told me recently that the 1977
re-registration only took place because McMurtry had a falling out with
Phyllis Seckler. I would like to know HOW MANY TIMES the _Grand Lodge_ of
the "Caliphate" has been registered since 1971. Please with exact dates. I
am sure you don't have to ask around first.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: None of the above answered.}}
WILLS AND TESTAMENTS (1)
K: McMurtry was NOT mentioned in Crowley's Last Will and Testament which
nullified ALL previous papers, anyway.
S: Not necessarily. There was no need to mention OTO successional issues in
Crowley's LWT when such matters were dealt with in other documents.
K: So why not accept Smith (d. in 1957) as OHO? He was the ONLY ONE who ever
was addressed as a succeeding OHO in a Last Will (eg Crowley). (Although
later "expelled").---
S: What was the date on that Will? I don't seem to have a copy of that
one. Also, if Smith was OHO, who was his successor?
K: I think I have answered this. Haven't I published a facsimile of that
already? If not, I will do in the future. I don't know for sure who was
Smith's successor, although I might point at a living person...
S: I could point to two. One has no interest, the other supports Hymenaeus
Beta.
K: If we're speaking about the same man (who might have an interest) then
I have his written testimony that he does not support Breeze's claim.
S: I suppose we must not be talking about the same individuals. What is
the date of your written testimony, which, I presume, is from Martin
Starr?
K:---Neither Reuss, nor Crowley, nor Germer, nor Metzger, nor Motta, nor Grant
EVER were addressed OHO by their predecessor!---
S: How could a living OHO address someone else as OHO? Crowley certainly
did not designate Germer as his successor.
K: Sorry, wrong expression again: I wanted to use the term "designate".
Please read again my argument and try to react to it anew. Only Smith
ever was designated with the term "OHO". This is legally extremely
important.
K:---I stress again: McMurtry was not mentioned in Crowley's Last Will which
nullified earlier provisions.
S: Two courts have already dealt with Crowley's Will and Grady's
credentials.---
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Two courts have already dealt with Crowley's Will and
Grady's credentials IN THE UNITED STATES: their decisions affecting ONLY
that nation, and strongly contradicting one another in their findings in
that one of them considered OTO to be "too indefinite and amorphous"}}
S:---You are, again, entitled to your opinion; even though you are not (I
presume) an attorney.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: What difference is that supposed to make?! In the
"Caliphate"'s brave new world, are the opinions of attorneys for some reason
considered to be more valid than anyone else's?}}
K: Do you want some advice? Here we are: You're obviously not familiar
with the Law of Succession. I give some few points [sorry for probably
bad translation of terms]: The title is "Last Will" and not
"Haphazard/[Arbitrary] Will". It is a legal rule that any LAST Will
unilaterally nullifies EVERY earlier provision or statement.---
S: True, in regard to _previous Wills_. However, Crowley did not deal with
the OTO succession in his Will.
K:---First/prominent Say in the execution of a Last Will has ALWAYS the next
relative of the deceased (e.g. Sascha Germer); even if stated otherwise in
the Last Will: relatives can't be legally excluded [McMurtry's
children?].---
S: Neither Crowley nor Germer owned OTO as property. Wills can always
explicitly exclude relatives (immediate or distant) in California law,
so long as the issue is not community property. US wills name an
executor, in the case of Karl's Will: Sascha and Frederic Mellinger
together for the disposition of OTO property in Karl's custody.
K:---Other people named in a Last Will (e.g. Mellinger) can execute their
"power" only per quote (e.g. 10 per cent - organisations follow at the last
place). A Last Will or the wishes of the Executor can only be disputed
within ONE year.---
S: Perhaps, but Sascha failed to complete the probate proceedings. She
failed to legally affirm her intention to the satisfaction of a court.
Germer's Will in regard to the OTO property he held (he did not own it)
was not properly probated until the 1970's by McMurtry on behalf of OTO.
Also, the entire matter of Karl's Will is pertinent only to the property
of O.T.O. which he held in custody; not to the succession of O.T.O.
leadership. Sascha's "wish" that Metzger would be O.H.O. had nothing to
do with Germer's Will.
K: Since when has "property of OTO" become a different issue to the
"succession of OTO leadership"? They have always been intimately
connected so far as the Crowley OTO is concerned. Are "you"/you saying
that because Breeze is now "de-facto OHO", he is "not pertinent" to the
"property of OTO" issue?
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Most interesting. The "property of [the Crowley] OTO"
is, of course, the literary estate of Aleister Crowley - and if Breeze
as "new Caliph" is NOT "pertinent", then he has no right or claim to
it!}}
K:---Mellinger did so correctly right with Karl's Will (but he failed to do so
with Sascha's decision to designate Metzger), but Sascha (who lived with her
husband up to his death and as the closest relative to him) had more weight
in her say. Therefore, Sascha Germer's choice remains the ultimate and final
decision/rule, nevertheless what any judge ruled in an American hinterland
20 years later (without knowing all the facts because they have not been
produced by the partial parties). ==> Metzger is _de jure_ OHO since
1963.---
S: 1. This claim didn't seem to help him in his legal case against
Englert.
2. He is now dead, and according to you, he did not name a successor.
K: My dear. You should read my books. I gladly will send the pertinent
court decision in a future step of exchange of material. It was not the
term OHO nor the successorship nor the authority that was ruled over,
but the ownership of the copyrights to use the term OTO and the like. It
was ruled that such was NOT protectable! (This also was the decision
when there was a lawsuit between some Fraternitas Saturni members back
in the 1960s) And therefore Englert still can use the term OTO and the
like. Because Metzger lost his case he had to pay the costs. It was (and
still would be) impossible to have Metzger paying the costs. He simply
did not react and nothing happened.
K:---And Metzger had this legally registered. - If one (eg "you") fails to
read the pertinent publications (eg the "trade journal") one gives away the
chance to intervene at due time [eg: a courtal decision of 1985 will lose
its "solutions" due to improper formalities at the very moment when the
neglected legal responsibility becomes known fact). There's a difference to
a heir-contract which demands a public certification (eg McMurtry and his
successors, Crowley and his successors, Germer and his successors).
Advantage of such: both parties have to agree bilaterally with an
annullment, while a Last Will automatically and unilaterally nullifies
earlier provisions. And we have not yet discussed the term "heads of the
Order" in Germer's Last Will. Why did he NOT mean the AA?---
S: Because he defined "Order" as "Ordo Templi Orientis" earlier in the
sentence.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: S. avoids addressing the issue of a multiple candidacy
to the O.H.O.: e.g, an oligarchy, consisting of at least Motta and
Metzger, and at its loosest interpretation, all IX°s.}}
K:---Another point: As long as your (later registered) society is not
registered as a trading society, ALL members are liable solidarically. ==>
Eg because the German branch of the "Caliphate" was not able to have ALL its
members to file suit against Haenssler Verlag (although this fact was not
known to the Court), everyone can introduce this fact in later suits and
dissolve earlier rulings due to improper formalities.: The registration by
Norbert Straet et alii happened AFTER the court decision took place. "You"
therefore could be "accused" of "having misled the court" (in not listing
ALL members). Because of that, it might be that a future court would want a
very high bail in advance from "you" in Germany before one goes to court
again. And did you know that, legally, the "chief" of a registered
organisation is the Assembly of the members and NOT a single person?
WILLS AND TESTAMENTS (2)
K: Crowley designated the X* Smith on 1.1.1932 a OHO in his Last Will.
S: Crowley does not refer to Smith as OHO in any copy of a Will I have seen
(or Heidrick), including the one you published.---
K: I don't have my copy at hand at the moment, but I remember having seen the
term OHO on it. What does YOUR copy of the 1.1.35 Will say?
S: I don't have a copy of the 1936 Will,---
K: It is the 1935 Will
[==>appendix. I was wrong: the Will is dated 1-1-1932.]
S:---but I am told now that it did refer to Smith as Crowley's designated
successor as OHO at that time. The provisions of Wills are, of course,
activated only upon the death of the individual, and Crowley's later Will
(dated 19 June 1947, which is the one you published) doesn't mention Smith,
and revokes all previous Wills.---
K: This is exactly what I said all the time: and of course, Crowley's 1947
Will nullifies the so-called "Caliphate"-letters (and not-official
letters or diary entries) at least in terms of successorship. As long
there is no later Will than the 1935 [1932] version that mentions Smith
as next "OHO", there is only ONE SINGLE Will containing the term "OHO".
...And please tell me why you think Smith was expelled by Crowley?---
S: The provisions of Wills are only activated after the death of the
individual and Crowley later revoked that tentative designation in
favour of Germer.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997 But with absolutely no mention at all of Grady Louis
McMurtry whatsoever!}}
K:---According to your own argument about Crowley and Traenker and Jones,
once a new OHO appointment has been made it cannot be changed
afterwards!
S: Bill Heidrick says, "There are letters from after the 1940's temporary
closures of Agape and the formal removal of Smith which express a belief
that Smith had written a Will designating his own son as the heir to OTO
leadership. This appears to be based on "boiler plate" language
[standard legal/contractual language, -Sb.] in the "Church of Thelema"
incorporation articles — normal at that time when such documents relied
on the court tested language of wills and bequests to insure
continuation. Smith enounced this theory on grounds that he didn't have
a son at the time the articles were originally prepared in the 1930's.
Germer took this up again after Crowley died and Smith had a son."
S:---By that time, Crowley had established Karl Germer as his designated
successor.
K: re.cast-votes-of-Traenker-and-Jones-that-can't-be-withdrawn,-but-Seckler-
and-Smith-can-change-their-minds. What about the IX*s who could vote to
remove Breeze as "sitting" "Caliph"? How many times can they change their
opinion?
S: I thought that I had adequately clarified my comments on "changing minds,"
but evidently not. My point was that one can always change one's mind, but
that in the case of a _formal vote_, changing one's mind does not invalidate
the results of the vote. The vote must be formally recast. I do not know
whether the situation with Jones, Traenker and Crowley was a formal vote or
not. Whether it was or not, Crowley's diaries and correspondence show that
he never believed he required their votes to assume office as OHO. However,
he obviously accepted their show of support in the interest of unity.---
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: So S. does NOT consider the situation with Jones and
Traenker and Crowley to be a FORMAL vote? Then obviously, that claimed route
to O.H.O.ship holds NO VALIDITY for Crowley! AND if "Crowley's diaries and
correspondence show that he NEVER BELIEVED HE REQUIRED THEIR VOTES to assume
office as OHO", how is that supposed to carry any weight - especially given
the case that Crowley's own appointment by Reuss himself rather lacks
confirmation and is full of question marks? "Crowley obviously accepted
their show of support in the interest of unity": this does not make sense.
Unity, what unity? The majority - i.e. the remaining Reussian X*s - seem to
have been either against him or abstained!}}
K: Hmm. Do you say that he violated the Wills of Reuss, Traenker, Achad,
etc. etc.? You, Sabazius, tried to explain to me why "you" consider
Sascha Germer as unreliable. But wasn't Crowley even more; he who
_admitted_ being "mad"? Aren't his actions, double standards, changed
opinions, behaviour towards members and women, prove that he was "mad"
beyond the normal/average standards - and not in any positive sense of
the AA-reality? Maybe Heidrick was right in saying that if Crowley was
still alive he would have been expelled by "you". And of course, this
statement of Heidrick is a clear approvement that the "Caliphate" is NOT
Crowley's OTO. H. could not have expressed it more clearly/precisely!
Re. Sascha not being member of the OTO: "you" only have her entry in her
diary. But when "you" consider her "mad" or "distorted" why just take
THIS one statement as "true"?
S:---Removal and replacement of a sitting Caliph would be by a formal vote, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Bylaws.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Previously it was ONLY the so-called "elector ninths" who
could remove/unelect ONLY Bill Breeze as the sitting Caliph. Now it seems
that they are setting a precedent for all time: and wasn't the O.H.O.
originally meant to be in office _ad vitam_ i.e. for LIFE, and unimpeachable
like an "enlightened despot"? All of this is a little irrelevant anyway,
since there is no sign of Crowley's "codicil" to his Last Will and Testament
to justify ANY SORT of election by IX°s.}}
LAWSUITS LEADING TO O.T.O. EXPULSION
K: I also would like to know "your" handling of Crowley's paragraph 25 in his
Liber CI which leads to immediate expulsion and loss of all privileges when
members file suit against each other: Wouldn't McMurtry's office of "Caliph"
be forfeited and made null and void long before the court in California went
to admit his existence in 1985, because he filed suit against Motta?
S: The section of Liber CI to which you refer pertains to lawsuits "between
members." My interpretation of this is that it refers to personal disputes
between individual members who recognize the same authority within OTO. In
my opinion, the lawsuit filed by McMurtry against SOTO was not a dispute
between individuals, but a dispute between organizations; neither of which
recognized the other's OTO authority.
K: This is definitely NOT the case. It was a lawsuit between _members_ which
the court transcripts clearly and definitely show. OTO matters were touched
only as a SIDE-EFFECT. — Why therefore not consider McMurtry automatically
being expelled?
S: I completely disagree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion. I
think this is a very slim straw for you to be grasping at.
K: But the fact of automatic expulsion is not denied by you?
S: Liber CI: "25. Lawsuits between members of the Order are absolutely
forbidden, on pain of immediate expulsion and loss of all privileges..."
Note that it does not say "automatic" expulsion. The Grand Tribunal, or
other appropriate Governing Body or Officer, would have to do it. In
addition to my previous arguments (it was a suit betwen competing
organizations), which I stand by, I further submit that Motta could not
prove that he was a member of the Order (court transcripts), and he claims
to have expelled McMurtry (ibid). Therefore, neither of them would have
been a member of the Order in the eyes of the other.
K: First of all, it has taken you a few transmissions to get round to denying
that the expulsion might "not be automatic" after all. Why so long? It's
true: Liber CI;25 does not say "automatic" but "immediate". In other words:
INSTANT, without debating of all the whys and the wherefores and the rights
and wrongs of it. McMurtry initiated a lawsuit as the "leader" of his group
and therefore could not be expelled by any "Grand Tribunal" or "appropriate
Governing Body or Officer": any of such (since McMurtry was in charge) would
not have sufficient authority even if they existed. "You" have declared in
several places that SOTO amounted to one individual. Therefore the lawsuit
IS between McMurtry and Motta: two individuals. NOT two organisations.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: While it cannot (yet) be definitely proved that Motta was a
member of the Order, neither can it be disproved (see earlier debate on
Kellner as H.B.L. member and the existence or otherwise of a "Mellinger"
OTO). But there is enough circumstantial evidence in all the Germer-Motta
correspondence to give him the benefit of the doubt. In double standards, it
could be said to resemble the "did McMurtry have a charter to initiate?"
argument: there is no sign of that either, although the "Caliphate" assumes
he was entitled to. And Motta himself only "expelled" McMurtry in July, 1984
once the action of initiating the lawsuit HAD ALREADY BEEN TAKEN by McMurtry
in May 1983: indeed that was probably the main catalyst behind his action.
(Germer's expulsion of McMurtry, although still to be publicly demonstrated
documentively, would make all of this issue irrelevant anyway - see below.)}}
...
K: And coming back once more to the "fact" that members cannot file suit
against each other because that means immediate "expulsion": the physical
expulsion is "ruled" in Crowley's CI;25 — the "magickal" "expulsion" in the
"Emblems and Mode of Use".
S: "Emblems and Modes of Use" does not mention law suits; and I do not believe
that was the intended meaning of the passage to which you refer. Shouldn't
you also, for fairness and consistency, apply your argument to Metzger vs.
Englert if you are going to apply it to McMurtry et al. vs. SOTO?
K: Yes, of course. But this was not the topic of our discussion. It also goes
for the several Motta-offshoots who now are fighting each other. Or the
Krumm-Heller-offshoots in Colombia, or Peru!
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: In respect of CI-25 McMurtry was a renegade and a traitor
to Crowley's wishes, and in terms of the SPIRIT rather than the LETTER of
the law (something the "Caliphate" is fond of hailing on many occasions: for
instance, adherence to the "spirit" of the Constitution but not the thing
itself) McMurtry would have quite automatically forfeited all of his rights,
rank and privileges.}}
DID GERMER EXPEL McMURTRY?
K: I have recently been contacted by someone who states (s)he actually has the
carbon copy of McMurtry's letter of expulsion from Germer in his/her
possession. This letter comes from the Germer records that were stolen in
1967 or so. The person who possesses that document does wish to not disclose
this paper purely for amusement purposes but will be introducing it publicly
at a later, tactical date of his/her own choosing and this will then
immediately and totally invalidate all of the "Caliphate" claims at one
stroke. I am told that this person will at the present time, not enter into
further communication on this subject.
S: I would be extremely surprised if such a letter actually existed. We
recovered copies of most of the stolen correspondence along with the Liber
CCXX manuscript.
K: Also _I_ would like to see a copy of that letter. Can you a) please tell me
the complete story of the recovery of the correspondence that you are
hinting at above (plus list of the items!) and b) I then will try to squeeze
out the alleged owner of that carbon copy. Until now I have no reason to
doubt the sincerity of that person. I received many valuable material and
info from that person.
S: You've surely heard of the "Raiders of the Lost Basement" story. These
materials, along with the Liber AL manuscript, were discovered in a basement
in Berkeley, California by Tom Whitmore in May 1984. They included:
1. The manuscript of the Book of the Law.
2. Correspondence between Crowley, Karl Germer, Sascha Germer, McMurtry,
Mellinger, Motta, Metzger, Regardie, Bardon and others.
3. The financial records of OTO from the 40's to the 60's.
4. Photographs.
5. Agape Lodge minutes.
6. Fragments of Karl Germer's memoirs.
7. Legal papers establishing Sascha Germers actions and intentions
regarding the property of the Order.
8. Miscellaneous photographs, manuscripts, books, Christmas cards, check
stubs, doctor bills, etc.
K: ...I was sent a list of the content of "your" archives in 1992 or so.
Please find it attached alongside to this file [Ed. note: also at this URL].
I omitted the Crowley-stuff. Is the date correct, 1992? Or is it 1990? or
what? Liber CCXX was returned by a bookseller from property still held in
Sascha Germer's home at her death. It was never stolen. I showed your list
to my informant who likes to tell you (quote): "Please remind him [that is,
you Sabazius] that this carbon copy [of the expulsion letter of Germer to
McMurtry] was stolen before 1967 [appendix==> in 1967] (therefore long
before McMurtry appeared on the scene and would have been able to remove it
from the archives himself) and that whether S. himself remains "extremely
surprised" about its existence or not is quite irrelevant. To paraphrase
Crowley, as Aiwass might have said, S. is not being argued with, he's being
told! It's so-called existence is a fact, as S. and his organization will
discover when they continue to interfere, through external "legal process",
with the circulation of thelemic writings. [my correspondent] is simply
waiting for the most appropriate time under these set of circumstances to
present it - i.e. when the "Caliphate", by being litigously belligerent,
will have the most to lose. Please convey all of this as fully as possible,
Brother Koenig!"
S: Well, I suppose we'll both just have to wait and see. Until then, this
alleged letter will remain your "gorilla in the closet."
K: Maybe "you" already have that alleged expulsion letter (Germer expels
McMurtry); maybe it's "buried in stacks of old material" in "an archive
thousands of miles away"?!
WAS GERMER AN O.H.O.?
K: In Article XI of the 1917 Constitution (e.g. published in my Kleiner
Theodor Reuss Reader, 26) you find the declaration that: "Any person of full
age who has signed the preliminary pledge-form must have been approved by
the O.H.O." Question: since "you" (that is, the "Caliphate") does not accept
Germer as OHO, then there are absolutely NO new members of the Crowley OTO
since 1947.
S: But we do accept Germer as having been OHO.
K: If the "Caliphate" accepts Germer being the OHO then one has to accept the
fact that Germer judged McMurtry a "Minus".
S: We accept that. It is a problem which is overcome by Crowley's letters to
McMurtry considered as a forward, provisional appointment.
K: So you agree that Germer a) closed Agape in 1953,---
S: As I was told, Germer closed Agape Lodge well after it had fallen into
dormancy.
K: Nonsense. Crowley designated the X* Smith on 1.1.1932 a OHO in his Last
Will. In summer 1953, the very active [!] Smith and Culling wanted to
legally register the Church of Thelema and announce/proclaim Smith as
acting OHO. This aroused Germer's anger and led to the official closing
of Agape Lodge on 7 September 1953.
S: Bill Heidrick says, "About that time, Germer began finding plots all
over the place. He set OTO members to spy on each other and even took
the step of writing to the California Secretary of State to denounce a
fraudulent plot to file an OTO corporation — the CSS wrote back to him
stating positively that no such filing had appeared. By that time Agape
Lodge had died the quiet death, with no meetings with minutes in my
possession after August of 1948 e.v. There was no functioning Lodge
Master. Germer may have written that it "was closed", but there was
nothing to close at that point. "Germer did reactivate Smith to do
Montenegro's initiations, but Smith was never very active in OTO outside
of that from the date of Liber Apotheosis. Culling was a conman. He did
draft a fake charter making himself "Xth degree", and Helen Parsons
Smith knows about it from close relations with Culling — possibly after
W.T.Smith's death. Germer didn't know about that, writing to Motta in
the 1950's that Culling was only a IIIrd degree and that he (Germer)
didn't trust him — big news! Germer certainly suspected such things,
but he suspected everybody of everything."
K:---b) called McMurtry a minus, [discussed]
c) later favoured Motta (approved once by Sascha)---
S: Germer favoured Motta for AA not OTO leadership.
K: Proof of your statement, please. Why do you think it was the AA and not
the OTO?---
S: Because Motta was Germer's principal A.A. disciple. Because Motta had
no interest in O.T.O. until he found out that it owned Crowley's
copyrights. Because Motta was not an O.T.O. member.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Since Motta was very closely involved with Germer's
Thelema Publishing programme, surely he must have "found out" that the
O.T.O. owned Crowley's copyrights at a VERY early stage. S. cannot just
say "Motta was not an O.T.O. member" - that is poor historianship: he
CAN say "We do not know for sure at this stage whether Motta was an
O.T.O. member or not, but [and then give his personal opinion...]". This
is yet another of the "Caliphate"'s supposedly historical/factual
statements which turns out to be supposition not backed up with any
documented facts. To turn the situation around: if somebody simply
declared to S. "Crowley was not an O.T.O. HEAD" he would probably ask
for proof and then ask for the "not" part of the statement to be
modified! Also, Motta's letter to Sascha dated 30th August 1963 (on p.
253 of Materialien) states: "I am a Brother of the IX*; you will find
Karl's copy of my Oath of the Grade in the archives." I wonder: if/when
it should come to light in the archives, would the "Caliphate" ever
make it public? (assuming it has not already been stolen or destroyed,
of course...)}}
K:---and d) favoured Metzger (definitely approved by Sascha).---
S: Only according to Sascha, whose credibility is highly questionable.
What about the letters from Germer to Motta (which you published) which
were very critical of Metzger?
K: I am aware that the "Caliphate" considers Sascha Germer as "crazy" because
she talked to her cats (court transcripts) but since this is not a legal
psychological testimonial, it remains hearsay or slander by a "partial
party". Please give exact evidence/proof that Sascha Germer should have been
"highly questionable" in exactly 1963!---
S: 1. She contradicted herself: first Motta is the "follower," then
Metzger.
2. She ignored Germer's will by not including Mellinger in the
decisions regarding the OTO property.
3. She was not a member of O.T.O.
4. She claimed, absurdly, to have recognized Phyllis's daughter by
her hands, etc.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: However: (3) this is not known categorically: the
tone of her letters - "OUR MASTER is dead" - indeed suggests
otherwise. (4): This did not take place "in exactly 1963" but four
years afterwards in 1967! And why "absurd" - was S. present to see
for himself?}}
K:--- I think you have to face the strongest argument: she lived together with
Karl Germer up to his death and her approval of Metzger was soon thereafter
and more than a decade _before_ she died (when it is possible that her
decisions might be debatable, due to her age).
S: But she "approved" Motta even sooner thereafter! And Germer wrote
disparaging letters about Metzger to Motta before he died, letters you
have published! It seems very difficult to believe that Germer would
have named as his successor the crazy "Swiss man" discussed in the
letters reproduced on pp. 304-306 of _Materialien_, letters written only
a few months before Germer's death.
K:---Where's McMurtry in this scheme? I think that the "Caliphate" only has a
stand when it denounced Germer's stand as OHO. But then you have to accept
Grant.
S: You are entitled to your opinion. We can denounce his _performance_ as OHO,
but we have no grounds to deny the fact that he _was_ the OHO.
K: This is untrue. What if _Crowley_ considered McMurtry "a Minus" but Germer
would name McMurtry his successor?---
S: Then McMurtry would have been Germer's successor; but Germer did not
name a successor.
K:---It seems "you" desperately assume every opportunity to maintain "your"
claims. In both cases (either Germer or Crowley considering McMurtry a
Minus) you would only accept the "better" version?---
S: No. Reproofs, scoldings, and even threats, in letters do not nullify
official appointments.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: But McMurtry was NOT officially appointed - certainly
not by Karl Germer, nor by Crowley as any sort of a successor to either
him or Germer after they died.}}
K:---Are [you] really pretending that a OHO can make 2 OHOs: his own successor
and also the successor of the successor?
S: [I am] not pretending. There is plenty of legal precedent for the holder of
a successional office to make provisional successional appointments in cases
where the first successor fails to appoint his own successor.---
{{AFTERWORD 1997: What has EXOTERIC, mundane-world "legal precedent" got
to do with the workings of a supposedly ESOTERIC order which, according
to the writings of Crowley and the evidence of others (Smith, Germer,
Culling) did not want to have anything to do with external legal process
any more than it could possibly help? Furthermore, it was precisely
established in the U.S. Court itself(!) that ONLY the immediate
predecessor - who was Germer according to the "Caliphate", NOT Crowley -
can properly appoint the next O.H.O.}}
S:---Germer definitely failed to do so.
K: Of course not. He named Motta, he named Metzger.---
S: Actually, Sascha very ambiguously _said_ that he named them as
"Follower". That doesn't mean he _actually_ did name them "Follower,"
and it doesn't tell us what "Follower" means. At least in Motta's case,
it seems NOT to have meant head of O.T.O., because she later tried to
give that to Metzger. In Metzger's case, her statement that Germer
wanted him to be his successor as head of O.T.O is contradicted by
Germer's "Swiss man" letters to Motta. So, it appears, we cannot rely on
Sascha's letters as autoritative documents pertaining to Germer's
intentions for the succession of O.T.O. leadership.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: It is necessary to ask what S. is attempting to prove
here. On what grounds does it seem "NOT to have meant head of OTO" - in
S's very own words just a few lines back, he agrees that Sascha
"approved" Motta earlier than Metzger! Also, she wrote in her letter to
Motta dated 26th January 1963: "You have been the last "Great Joy" in
his oh so trying days... You are the Future of the Work...Spiritually
You are his heir". The fact that she later tried to give it to Metzger
is more puzzling although accountable if she was in reality a little
mentally disturbed. Or, just as likely, she just didn't like the way
Motta proceeded to order her around and say she must follow him in his
letters to her of early 1963; and her writing to her lawyer Chisholm on
20th March that year that Metzger was "to the best of my knowledge" the
only one who has "the right to be the next O.H.O." was her misguided way
of paying Motta back! None of this alters the fact that she referred to
Motta as Germer's heir FIRST OF ALL less than a week after Karl died. It
was revised to Metzger the following year, after Motta had had plenty of
time to upset and annoy her personally. She must have already known that
Germer thought Metzger completely unsuitable at the time of his death
(and for a couple of years previously), but probably felt under the
circumstances that Metzger would be "nicer" to her than Motta and that
she would have better treatment in all respects if she were to favor
him! (That was another "thought-argument".)}}
K:---These are two possible successors. But he did NEVER designate McMurtry.
See the point?! It does not matter whether he denounced _all_ of them. Also
"you" approve that he denounced each and every one. Even Mellinger. (By the
way, Mellinger being denounced by Germer would make Mellinger's statement re
Metzger worthless?).---
S: No, because of Germer's Will. My remarks about Karl's denunciations
were given as evidence against the likelihood of his having designated
them as his successors, as reported by Sascha.
K:---And as you asked: "You see no difference between a criticism and an
expulsion?": Germer might have criticized Motta and Metzger and McMurtry.
But he did NOT expel Motta nor Metzger but only McMurtry (if that carbon
copy really can prove this!) And he NEVER spoke of McMurtry as a possible
successor. Germer as the acting OHO has all the sayings and whatever he
says: he outrules Crowley's earlier designations. This is 100 per cent
certain! You accept Germer's _stand_ as OHO? Not accepting his
_performances_ as OHO would make your alleged "acceptance" a laugh!---
S: You misunderstand what I said. We recognize all of Germer's _proven_
formal actions as O.H.O. We may not _agree with_ or _approve of_
everything he did, but we do consider his formal decisions to have
carried the authority of the office of O.H.O.
K:---He, as OHO, had every right to do with the OTO what he wanted to do. Even
to change it completely, as it was suggested by Crowley. You often quote
McMurtry's "Caliphate" letters but always "forget" to add that Germer had
his right of veto and REVISION---
S: Meaning he could modify any decisions made by McMurtry acting as
Crowley's representative. He never did so.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Another example of poor historianship - see earlier
discussion. Just How does S. know that Germer "NEVER" modified any
decisions made by McMurtry? Is he aware of everything Germer ever did?
(e.g. that "McMurtry expulsion letter" which, by S's own admission,
could easily be "buried in an archive"? see next Part in the section
"The Electoral Legacy of GMcM".}}
K:---which he clearly outspoke when calling McMurtry "a minus" [plus that
alleged *expulsion letter*] or when changing the initiation-politic.
Furthermore it is nowhere defined what "authority" McMurtry was to represent
on Crowley's behalf: authority as an "agent" or as a "commissionary" or
what? You give me the strong impression NOT to accept Germer having been the
OHO. Your alleged "acceptance" is only lipsync or a tailor-made defensive
shield. In fact, you care NOX about Germer having been the OHO. Except when
you have the possibility to hold up Grant's expulsion letter.
S: We do accept Germer as having been OHO.
K: By the act of accepting the fact that Germer judged McMurtry to be a
"MINUS", at the same time "you" also HAVE TO ACCEPT that in no way Germer
wanted McMurtry to be his number 1 choice as a successor. He did NOT at all
"approve" or "revise" Crowley's "Caliph" charter but IMPLICITLY VETOED
it.---
S: There was no "implicit veto."----
K: Please list ALL evidences that you find saying Germer approved
McMurtry. And then, I want to see the proves.
S: In fact, he explicitly approved of McMurtry's appointments. Germer and
McMurtry even inspected Agape Lodge together, and Germer acknowledged A.C.'s
intent to have McMurtry as a member of the triumvirate.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Exactly which "appointments" did Germer explicitly approve?
And where has this alleged 1959 letter from Germer asking McMurtry to form a
nucleus ever been published? Germer DID acknowledge A.C.'s intent
originally, this is perfectly true: IN 1945 OR 1946. But then, as S. is fond
of saying: he "changed his mind"...."the circumstances were different". And
the reason why these circumstances were different was because after about
twelve years Germer had simply had enough of McMurtry's continual
parasitical "sponging on the Order" - to quote Germer's very own words on
the subject - and wanted him to have no more to do with it.}}
K: The "Caliph" charters are NO official appointments!
S: They certainly are.
K: Of course NOT: I see NO official OTO stationery on these papers (the
stamped OTO Lamen is too poor an evidence) nor am I aware that these papers
name the OTO as the Order nor do they say "Caliph of the OTO". As I state at
another place in this communication: McMurtry also considered the
"Caliphate" letters to be an authorization of AA activity as well.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: The "Caliph charters" to McMurtry (see Materialien zum OTO,
p.227) are all appointments SUBJECT TO AN APPROVAL WHICH WAS NEVER GIVEN.}}
K: Another angle: Germer did not want to be OHO: isn't this sufficient
"grounds" to be able to deny that Germer was the OHO?
S: He may have been ambivalent about his competence to hold the office; but he
made use of his authority as OHO a number of times.
K: List all of them, please. And also list ALL of Germer's actions and sayings
that "you" don't accept in his capacity as OHO. It seems "you" are forcing
Germer to posthumously behave as if he were an OHO in direct contravention
of his own free wishes and arguably his own true will in the matter.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Germer's letters to Grant: "I AM NOT THE O.H.O." (September
1948) and "What I appear to be in the OTO has been thrust on me, AGAINST MY
WILL. ... I am strictly speaking, the Grand Treasurer General of the OTO. NO
MORE, NO LESS." (May 1951). [emphasis added]}}
K: How can "you" suddenly accept Germer as OHO when "you" published in the
June 78 Newsletter that Germer was "not OHO in spirit or fact" or "any
authority given by Germer after Dec. 2nd 1948 is subject to dispute"?---
S: That was McMurtry voicing his opinion at that time.
K: But this was authoritative and formally judged and published. What else has
McMurtry uttered that is denied by "you"? Details, please.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Voicing his opinion at that time, of course! - BUT HE NEVER
WITHDREW IT SUBSEQUENTLY!! If so: where?? (Another "Double Standard/
Different Circumstance"!)}}
K:---And re "your" claim that Crowley's mentioning McMurtry as a possible
"Caliph" after Germer: wasn't it established in one of the court rulings
that "only the immediate predecessor, namely Germer (and not Crowley) can
appoint (the next OHO)"?
S: No. Judge Legge's language is unequivocal to the effect that McMurtry was
appointed by Crowley.
K: Are "you" in effect explicitly stating that Crowley made an official
appointment of McMurtry as the next (de facto) OHO after either himself or
Germer died?
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: McMurtry was never appointed a sort of "next-but-one de
facto" O.H.O. by Crowley. Or indeed anything else WITHOUT GERMER'S APPROVAL.
How about this for another "thought argument": Crowley was confident that
"Thelema" would survive with or without the OTO. He also knew all along that
McMurtry was an egotistical sponger and, also realizing that in spite of
everything Germer simply couldn't stand him (McMurtry), made that
"Caliphate" arrangement with McMurtry as a little joke - knowing full well
that when the time came, Germer would never stomach having to "approve" of
McMurtry as his (Crowley's) successor? That really would have been quite
funny of him, wouldn't it?!}}
K: I am somewhat flabberghasted by your double standards that you express in
our recent communication.
S: These are not double standards, they are different circumstances.
[see section in Part Five, "DOUBLE STANDARDS/DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES"]
END OF PART FOUR OF FIVE
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 5
The Templar's Reich - The Slaves Shall Serve. Aleister Crowley - Ordo Templi Orientis - Fraternitas Saturni - Theodor Reuss - Hanns Heinz Ewers - Lanz von Liebenfels - Karl Germer, Arnoldo Krumm-Heller - Martha Kuentzel - Friedrich Lekve - Hermann Joseph Metzger - Christian Bouchet - Paolo Fogagnolo - James Wasserman.
The 'Caliphate'
O.T.O. Phenomenon navigation
page | main page
| mail
Click here to go back to where you came from or use this Java Navigation Bar:
|
