'Caliphate' Ordo Templi Orientis

PART TWO OF FIVE
Leading on from the original lines of discussion opened up in Part One, the
following areas of debate were examined in further detail.

HELEN PARSONS SMITH AND HER "CHURCH OF THELEMA"
S: The Church of Thelema is still registered. It was, according to Heidrick,
  proposed to be the legal entity for OTO in the USA until "Crowley shot it
  down by forbidding the authorization." The Church of Thelema ceased to be
  connected with Agape Lodge in 1943 when Smith was replaced by Parsons as
  Lodge Master.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Parsons reluctantly succeeded Smith as Agape Lodgemaster on
  August 14th 1945, not 1943. It would appear that the "Caliphate"'s historian
  does not know his organization's own history very well! Also: if Crowley
  "shot it down" and offered no substitute replacement, does that not rather
  suggest he was definitely NOT in favour of any sort of a "legal entity" for
  OTO?}}
S: ...The Church of Thelema is both dormant and of no importance.---
    K: Why? And how could that situation change? ...You admit that H.P. Smith
      is the only member of the Church of Thelema. But why then, was Motta
      ridiculed in the court of 1985 as being the sole member of the SOTO?
S:---There is certainly no rational basis for comparing it with SOTO.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: By "dormant" (using S's own definition given later - see
  section in Part Four entitled "FOUNDING OF THE CALIPHATE"!) does S. mean
  that Smith's "Church of Thelema" is "performing limited activities - and if
  so, what are they?! Also, whether one views that there is "certainly no
  rational basis for comparing it with SOTO" is, as S. would say, "a matter of
  opinion"... RATIONALLY COMPARING them, for a start both apparently only had
  one member!}}

"BISHOP" ALEISTER CROWLEY
S: Despite all the tangled issues, the flurry of documents and contradictory
  claims, there are only two groups which are successfully working the O.T.O.
  on any significant scale along lines at all resembling those drafted by
  Reuss and Crowley: us and the Swiss...
K: Untrue: What about Crowley's 12 grade system (appendix to his IV°)?--- [Ed.
   1997: Facsimile published in "How to make your own McOTO"]
    S: The "Synopsis of Grades." That is an interesting little table, and it
      is difficult to assign a precise date to it. Its primary purpose appears
      to be to compare the degrees of the M.M.M. and the three principle rites
      of high-grade Masonry. There is actually very little in that document
      that we do not conform to. In our archives, we have a number of brief,
      sometimes fragmentary documents penned by both Crowley and Reuss, which
      represent either explanations of, or ideas for development of, the
      O.T.O. system. A lot of this sort of material is simply contradictory.
      When we come across such a contradiction, we must, of course, make a
      decision on which document is more authoritative. In this case, the
      "Synopsis of Grades" appears to be more of a comment than an edict, and
      Liber 194 should probably be viewed as more authoritative. Perhaps, when
      the de jure O.H.O. is elected, he or she will choose to claim the XII*.
K:---which was manifested alone by W.B. Crow---
    S: There is, to my knowledge, no W.B. Crow-derived O.T.O. currently in
      operation. In fact, I have a copy of a letter from Dr. Gregory Tillett
      to Martin P. Starr, (with whom I believe you are acquainted) dated Sept.
      5, 1995. This letter is a response to a letter sent by Mr. Starr to His
      Grace Metropolitan Seraphim, the Most Reverend W.H.H. Newman-Norton. Dr.
      Tillett responded to Mr. Starr on behalf of His Grace, at His Grace's
      request. The Metropolitan Seraphim is the successor to Dr. W.B. Crow for
      the Ord er of Holy Wisdom, and the heir of its archives. The letter
      contains the following quote, "Metropolitan Seraphim is not aware of Dr.
      Crow ever having made any claim to have succeeded Aleister Crowley as
      OHO of the OTO. While correspondence does exist between Dr. Crow and
      Crowley, I have seen no evidence of contact between Dr. Crow and those
      who claimed to have succeeded Crowley. Although I have, in past years,
      worked on the material in the Warburg Institute, I cannot recall any
      claim by Dr. Crow in this reg ard, and, since I was specifically looking
      for material on him, I think I would have noted such a claim if it was
      made." If you would like a copy of this letter, it would be best if you
      would obtain it directly from Mr. Starr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX, 1997:
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 08:50:48 +1000
To: koenig...
From: Greg Tillett
My comments on Poling come on the basis of a thorough search of (1) the
archives of William Bernard Crow and (2) the archives of Mar Georgius.
These contain, amongst other things, very extensive and detailed
correspondence between Crow and Mar Georgius in which they discuss church
matters. The name of Poling does not occur anywhere in the archives. Nor
does Mar Seraphim, who was successor to both Mar Georgius in his church and
to Crow in the Order of the Holy Wisdom (and was a close friend of Crow in
his latter years), know anything of Poling, let alone of his alleged
consecration. Crow never travelled to the USA, so presumably the
consecration must have occurred in London. If it did so, none of those
associated with Crow (including members of his clergy) knew of it, and no
record of it appeared in Crow's papers, his letters to Mar Georgius, or the
publications of the Order of the Holy Wisdom (which reported all his other
church activities). I suppose such a consecration is possible, but it seems
to me very highly improbable, and, unless Poling can produce a convincing
document in support of his claim, I would conclude it did not happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
K:---(who was made Patriarch of Crowley's Gnostic Catholic Church by Crowley
  in August 1944).---
    S: ...I am in possession of what appears to be a complete collection of
      Crowley's letters to Crow, and I am unable to find any document in which
      Crowley bestows upon Crow a patriachate of any sort.
K: Re Crowley making Crow Patriarch of the Gnostic Catholic Church. If you
  don't know this document: I DO !!!!! I have quoted it and you will have to
  wait for my tome on the "Gnostic Catholic Churches". I have a full set of
  all the French Gnostic- and OTO magazines (from 1895 or so on) and also the
  handwritten mass of 1902.
S: There is no need to "shout." I have seen your quote on page 240 of _Das OTO
  Phanomenon_. The date you give is August 1944. I have letters from Crowley
  to Crow dated August 16th and August 27, the latter including proofs for the
  "manifesto" of the Gnostic Catholic Church. The entire correspondence dates
  from May 18, 1944 through September 27, 1947. Parts of it could well be
  missing. Was the document you referred to a letter or a diploma? What was
  the date? Does the document contain Crowley's notice of abdication, or does
  he retain whatever title enabled him to confer this patriarchate upon Crow?
  By the way, the letter from Tillett to Starr I referred to in my last
  message to you also had the following: "Dr. Crow conferred no authority on
  Ronald Powell, nor, it should be mentioned, did he consecrate to the
  episcopate or confer authority on a man named Polding who claims to have
  been consecrated by Dr. Crow. This claim is repeated in a number of books."
  If the document you refer to is indeed genuine, then it is apparent that Dr.
  Crow's only legitimate successor (Msgr. Seraphim) does not claim the
  patriarchate of the Gnostic Catholic Church or the leadership of O.T.O. The
  Crow lineage, if there is one, is a dead end.
...
S: 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."
K: Please send more details (exact date, wording and context) and I will add
  it EVERYwhere possible!
S: I have asked for a copy of the letter, and will provide this information
  when I receive it. However, I would like to restate my personal opinion that
  this matter of the traditional Apostolic Succession is of little importance
  within the context of Thelema.---
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: How "little importance"? - Important enough for Breeze to
  try to claim not one but TWO successions!}}
S:---In _Magick Without Tears_, Crowley says that his authority, though it "is
  at least as absolute as that of the Pope and the Church of Rome, it does not
  confer upon me any power transferrable to others by any act of Our will. Our
  own authority came to Us because it was earned, and when We confer grades
  upon other people Our gift is entirely nugatory unless the beneficiary has
  won his spurs."

"BISHOPS" AND IX°
K: I would like to see a document or a specific text that says that the IX*
  includes bishopric.
S: There isn't one. I don't fully agree with my good friend Allen Greenfield
  on the IX° - episcopate equation; though I think I understand why he made
  that linkage (Sov. Sanc. of the _Gnosis_ = _Gnostic_ Catholic Church).
K: Greenfield sounds desperate in view of its lack of historical authenticity.
  And also has a comical aspect. Let's look at following example: My
  supermarket around the corner takes a new name: "Gnostical Cookies". And all
  the employees (cashiers etc) become bishops and priests, by decision of the
  manager only. They don't care whether these terms have a traditional
  background and a very specific meaning. As long as they are "recognised" by
  their chiefs and regularly receive their money, it is OK.
S: Greenfield has no need to be desperate, he has his own apostolic succession
  from Bertiaux. Your analogy makes no sense to me; you dislike our
  organization so you ridicule it with an absurd mockery. A supermarket is not
  a religious organization. More on the "traditional background" and "very
  specific meaning" of those terms later.
K: ...I haven't found the slightest reference in any of the VII*-XI*-papers
  that gives evidence of bishopric in pseudo-freemasonic rituals or
  sexmagickal instructions.
S: Neither have I; though Crowley's VII° paper does shed some light on the
  nature of religion and churches in general.
K: Heidrick approves of being made a bishop by laying on of hands in the back
  seat of the car taking him and McMurtry to the notary to get the papers of
  incorporation witnessed and signed. Don't you think that this makes such
  worthless/invalid (by its lack of valid circumstances and lack of rituals
  and its lack of apostolic succession, anyway)?
S: I don't like it: it places too much emphasis on the cheirotonia. We have
  much better procedures now. However, my principle criterion for validity of
  _any_ clerical status is the recognition of the church's governing body and
  of its membership.
K: Are you aware of the roots of Liber XV?: the pre-Tridentine English Roman
  Catholic Mass, Sarum viz. Salisbury Mass? It makes Crowley's version
  something like a copy of the Gnostic Churches of the late 19th century.
S: Yes, there is a member in Australia who pointed out to me (and perhaps to
  you?) some close similarities in language between the Sarum Mass and certain
  passages of Liber XV; particularly in the rubric of consecration. Some of
  the roots of Liber XV are undeniably in Christian liturgy (the roots of
  which are in Judaic and Pagan liturgy). However, Liber XV is also heavily
  influenced by Masonic liturgy and the Qabalah, and its theology is
  Solar/Phallic and Liber AL Thelemic. This clearly distinguishes it from the
  Gnostic Church material, which was explicitly Christian. I have translated
  Doinel's "Fraction du Pain" into English from Forestier and Geyraud, and I
  have copies of all the materials used by E.G.C.A. and most of the E.G.A.
  materials, so I am somewhat familiar with the fin de siecle French Gnostic
  material. While I would consider Doinel's "Fraction" a predecessor of Liber
  XV; the two rituals are really quite different. I like some of the old
  Gnostic Church material, and I hope someone out there is stil l attempting
  to use it faithfully....

THE EGC - OLD EXPRESSIONS FOR NEW RELIGIONS
S: The E.G.C. bishops are, of course, simply the supervising officers of the
  E.G.C. within O.T.O., and I see no reason why the governing bodies of the
  organization cannot determine their own criteria and procedures for
  appointing such officers.
K: Terms that have another traditional meaning.
S: Are you saying we have no right to break with tradition? Would you also
  have said that to Jesus or Gautama or Zoroaster or Muhammad or any other
  religious reformer or revolutionary?
K: Of course you can break with every"thing" that you want to. But tell me
  exactly, why then take over heavy-burdened traditional terms that give the
  impression that you still dwell in the old traditions? Or consists your
  "revolution" in simply providing old terms with a new meaning?
S: If you will permit me to offer one of my detested comparisons, why did the
  Roman Catholic Church retain terminology from the Roman Pagan Church?
  Because that terminology was convenient, expressive and meaningful.
  Successful revolutions do not destroy all the social institutions of the old
  regime. Some must be done away with, while others may be reformed and put to
  good use. When Horus assumes the Throne of Osiris, he takes up the scepter
  used by the Officer preceding him.
    K: What are you talking about when you say "Horus takes up his scepter of
      Osiris"?
S: We are actually implementing Thelema as an independent religion.---
    K: How can you define Thelema as an independent religion when Crowley so
      obviously put it together from countless other sources?---
        S: Ex nihilo nihil fit. I said independent, not "completely original."
          All modern religions incorporate elements from their predecessors.
          Thelema is very syncretistic, and openly so. This does not preclude
          it from asserting its own unique, independent identity.
    K:---Neither his "Love is the Law" nor the "Do what thou wilt" are from
      him! His rituals are simply copies of the "regular" English ritual
      (Royal Arch, Rose Croix), his Kadosh degree is copied from a
      Cerneau-version and an early ritual by Albert Pike and Laffon de Ladebat.---
        S: There are some distinct similarities, and Masonry was one of
          Crowley's principal sources for ligurgical technique; but it is
          absurd to say that Crowley's M.M.M. rituals are "simply copies" of
          their Masonic parallels. They contain much original material which
          is not to be found in the Masonic versions, and much that is
          included in the Masonic rituals was left out of the M.M.M. rituals.
        [Editorial note: see later section in this Part: "The OTO, "Caliphate"
          and Freemasonry."]
    K:---Liber Aleph was written by Reuss (and only stuffed up with a little
      bit of Thelema),
    S: Liber Aleph!? I think not!
    K: Sorry, of course I meant Liber C! Please react again: *Liber Aleph [C]
      was written by Reuss (and only stuffed up with a little bit of Thelema),
      De Homunculo and the rest only was an outline of the books that Reuss
      gave as a reading-list.*
S:---In our view, this is not a euphemism.
K: Again: to completely avoid misunderstandings you should completely quit
  old-aeon-tradition terms which have a connotation of their own.---
    S: Like "priest," "prophet," "minister," "heaven," "hell," and "temple"?
      All these occur in Liber AL.---
    {{AFTERWORD, 1997: But not "bishop", "archbishop", "patriarch" and
      "Father", referring to ecclesiastical hierarchies...}}
    S:---We inherit our language in toto from the "old aeon." What words do
      not have their own connotations? Connotations, by definition, are
      mutable.---
    {{AFTERWORD, 1997: Rather than doing something new with these words, which
      was what "Liber AL" presumably intended, S. and his EGC associates are
      instead content to ossify them in the residue of redundant (old aeon)
      religious awareness; for example his earlier comment "I like some of the
      old ["explicitly Christian"] Gnostic Church material, and I hope someone
      out there is still attempting to use it faithfully" - is a ridiculous
      comment for a devotee of Horus to make! In attempting to turn Thelema
      into anot her church, with all the same tired trappings and lazy
      mentality of the old aeon's mistakes, the "Caliphate" EGC (for example)
      among other things is appearing to aim at a totalitarianism of public
      worship with its Gnostic Mass.}}
    S:---We inherited the term "bishop" from Reuss's G.K.K., for which Crowley
      wrote Liber XV. I think it is doubtful that Reuss had a "valid"
      traditional apostolic succession at the time that A.C. wrote Liber XV,
      because Bricaud did not have his in 1908. So the term was in place at
      the time Liber XV was written, but the "connotation" was not.
K:---Otherwise one very easily could "accuse you" of "false competition" (eg
  defaming other OTO versions as "not the real OTO") or "deception".
S: Who might accuse us of false competition? E.G.C.A.? E.G.A.? They're
  Christian, we're Thelemic. I know a few E.G.C.A. bishops; their work is
  substantially different from ours. Grant? He has no interest in the Gnostic
  Mass. If I may again resort to a comparison, I would like to point out that
  most Anglican bishops do not have "valid" apostolic successions. Are they
  guilty of "false competition" and "deception"? I really doubt that very many
  people (other than Roman Catholic bishops, "wandering bishops," and
  E.G.A./E.G.C.A. bishops) give a fig about the traditional apostolic
  succession. Perhaps it is more important in Catholic countries, such as
  France, where many occultists are still Roman Catholics at heart, and need
  the reassurance that their sins are officially forgiven.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: I wonder whether the "Caliphate"'s branches in France would
  agree with that statement, which seems a little "racist"! Also, if
  "apostolic succession" is not relevant, why is it there (e.g., in the form
  of laying on of hands) - and is the "Caliphate" EGC therefore going to
  accept or deny that as being Old Aeon or what? If "Caliphate" want to "break
  with tradition", why not start with a CLEAN break and call it something else
  (NEW aeon?) altogether?}}
...
K: Is it like Scientology that also changes the definitions of daily life
  terms and even assumes religious expressions?
S: Does "priest" only mean "Roman Catholic Priest" to you? What about
  "Buddhist Priest," "Priest of Osiris," "Shinto Priest"? How about "Mormon
  Bishop," "Mennonite Bishop" or "Tenrikyo Bishop"? The word "priest" is
  derived from the Greek "presbyteros," meaning "elder." The word "bishop" is
  derived from the Greek "episcopos," meaning "supervisor."---
    {{AFTERWORD, 1997: Then why not "elders" and "supervisors" if "you" want
      to return to the origin??}}
S:---These terms convey a sense of rank within their respective churches; but
  individual churches are not bound by the specific definitions or regulations
  or traditions of _other_ churches.---
    K: see above: new definitions of traditional terms?
S:---We have our own (dynamic) traditions. The tradition of the "apostolic
  succession" derives from the Christian myth that Jesus bestowed particular
  powers upon his apostles, which they were supposedly able to pass on to
  their successors. While still alive, He was supposed to have given Peter the
  "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and the power to "bind" and to "loose" in
  heaven as on earth (Matthew XVI:18-19). At the ressurection, Jesus was
  supposed to have bestowed the power to remit and retain sins upon th e
  assembled apostles by breathing upon them and saying "Receive ye the Holy
  Ghost" (John XX:22-23). The power to remit and retain sins, which is the
  _entire point_ of the Christian apostolic succession, is not particularly
  relevant---
    {{AFTERWORD, 1997: Forget about "particularly"! What IS its relevance??}}
S:---to those who work within Thelema as an independent religion.
K: What a diplomatic euphemism for spermo-gnosticism. How many times have the
  procedures changed until now? And why?---
    S: Many times, because we were, and still are, growing and learning;
      making mistakes and correcting them. They will, undoubtedly, change many
      times again in the future. ...How many times have such procedures
      changed in the history of the French Gnostic Church(es), or any other
      Church? Do such things spring into being fully formed, and remain
      changeless throughout the aeons?
    K: How many aeons does the "Caliphate" exist already? As usual, you
      compare with other groups in order to upvalue or defend "yourself". But
      why? Can't "you" stand on your own feet?
    S: I compare with other groups in order to establish a baseline. Some of
      your criticisms of "us" are applicable to all, or many, other
      organizations, as well. It does not appear fair that I should be
      required to defend "our" organization against criticisms that are
      applicable to organizations in general; _unless_ the critic is willing
      to admit the generalized nature of his criticisms and to include other
      organizations within their scope.
K:---The gnostic redeemer in Thelema is Aiwaz (except for the XI*s)!

DOES THE "CALIPHATE" EGC EVER MAKE MISTAKES?
K: How do you define a "Caliph's" role in Thelema? "Caliph" equals "Pope" who
  speaks ex cathedra?! Or is "Caliph" an OTO-term only?
S: It is my understanding that the Caliph, per se, has no formal jurisdiction
  outside O.T.O. I view his authority on Thelemic doctrine to be more that of
  a well-informed expert than that of an infallible authority.
K: And what about the EGC? Breeze being "infallible" or simple an "expert"?
  See the statutes of "your" German branch ...registered on 27 July 1992, they
  say on page 2 that "the last word in religious questions has" Breeze. ...Is
  every branch of the "Caliphate" outside the 9th Circuit of Appeals only a
  _religious side-church_ (German statutes: "The last word in religious
  questions has Breeze") and therefore NOT a masonic body?
S: I have not seen the German "statutes," and, therefore, cannot comment.
K: How many times do I have to translate and quote them for you? They say: the
  last say in spiritual matters has Breeze. ==> Please answer my question!
{{AFTERWORD, 1997:. Where "the German statutes rule that the last saying in
  religious questions has W. Breeze", this suggests the same thing in
  "Caliphate" EGC terms as papal infallability. However, QUITE IRRESPECTIVE of
  any German statutes the question of whether S. HIMSELF regards Breeze's
  authority on doctrine within the EGC as unquestionable/infallible remains
  unanswered.}} ...
K: Well, are you open enough to give me list of all your mistakes?
S: Such a list could be reconstructed by examining all the changes made year
  by year to our Bylaws. Most of them are trivial, and the more significant
  ones would be subject to a certain amount of debate as to whether they were
  actually "mistakes" (someone had to think they were good ideas at some
  time). I consider "our" attempt at self-legitimization through trying to
  demonstrate a valid traditional apostolic succession to have been a
  mistake.---
    K: Please give more details, please. This sounds intriguing!
S:---I also think the adoption of procedures based on Roman Catholic canon law
  to have been a mistake.

THE "CALIPHATE" AS ANTI-CROWLEY?
S: I am an admirer of many of Crowley's writings and ideas (including the
  Gnostic Mass and OTO initiation rituals), though I do not view Crowley
  personally as an appropriate role model for myself or my children. ...We, I
  admit it, admire many facets of Crowley's life and work, though not all of
  them.
K: That's VERY interesting. Please list those that "you" don't admit.
S: We don't have a formal list, and it differs from person to person. We try
  not to dictate to our members what they should and should not think; though
  we do have rules of conduct. However, here's an incomplete list of a few
  things that _I_ personally reject, though I am not necessarily implicating
  Crowley in any of these things:
  -Racism
  -Antisemitism
  -Abuse of illegal drugs
  -Sex between anyone other than consenting adults
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: But unless Crowley IS "necessarily implicated", what is the
  point of otherwise listing him/them?}}
K: So you also differ Crowley from Thelema?
S: Yes.
K: Although he equalled it!
S: So says John Symonds, and you. I note the diary entry you quote in support
  of this position, but any Thelemite can legitimately say "I am Thelema,"
  provided they recognize the right of all other Thelemites to do likewise.
  Magick Without Tears and many other Crowley works are full of indications
  that Thelema, as a system, is something much larger and more significant
  that Crowley's personality.
K: Please explain also why the US and the regions of (Ex)Yugoslavia are
  geographical concentration areas of "Caliphate"members. (is there more
  Fluoride in the drinking water, or what?)
S: I'm not really sure; a number of us have wondered about why our
  organization "caught on" in the South Slavic area more than in other
  portions of Eastern Europe. It may simply be that we attracted a few very
  hard-working people there. It may also have something to do with the
  particular nature of Tito's old regime; which was totalitarian by nature but
  which admitted more freedom than other communist governments. This situation
  may have made the idea of a new religion of liberation both attractive and
  feasible.
K: I emphasise that you answer because the American situation might be quite
  different to the European one. Here, the public attention is very much
  focused on antisemitism and racism. Example: here in Switzerland, a branch
  of the christian fundamental "Universal Church". Its chief sits somewhere in
  the US or Australia (can't remember and it does not matter, although this
  independance also goes for the "Caliphate" see the court ruling in
  "Caliphate" versus Haenssler Verlag). The Swiss group sent some very few
  members-only-flyers around which contained some antisemitical statements.
  Recently, a court ruled that also flyers have to be regarded as a publication!
  - A director of a public school had to give up his job because he was member
  of that church and he did NOT publicly distance himself from the
  antisemitical statements of the leader of that church.
S: Well, actually, we have quite a few high-ranking members of Jewish
  ancestry, including my G.S.G., my one official Revolutionary (so far), and
  myself. Perhaps we may be in more danger of being accused of being part of
  the "Judaeo-Masonic Conspiracy" (as "Lady Queenborough" thought) than of
  being anti-semitic (as "Lady Queenborough" was). — Crowley made a number of
  crude and puerile remarks involving racial epithets, but these do not, in my
  opinion, reflect anything like a racist doctrine which his "foll owers" are
  supposed to "believe."
K: Well, I am interested to learn what "you" do with Crowley's antisemitic and
  racist statements?! This also goes for Franz Hartmann's membership of the
  Guido von List Gesellschaft. (I remember once having sent a copy of the
  membership list to Norbert Straet).
S: I was unaware of Hartmann's memberhip in the Guido von List organization,
  but I am not really surprised, because he seems to have been a "joiner" who
  accepted membership in any esoteric organization which would admit him. I
  have not noticed any expressions of antisemitism in Hartmann's writings.
K: How about Liber CI that says that non-members of the OTO are animals?
S: I find that paragraph rather objectionable. It was not included in our
  Bylaws.
...
S: A.C.'s writings are to be given serious consideration, then the individual
  has to try to make his or her own judgements.
K: You describe "your" *wishful* thinking about the maturity of "your" members
  but did NOT explain the psychological mechanisms that allow to differ
  between Crowley and Thelema. You also did not answer my question as to an
  official dogma on Thelema. I regularly receive reports that such exists and
  I would like to see it.
S: What would "an official dogma on Thelema" look like? Who is supposed to
  have issued it? Where it is supposed to be published?
K: You indirectly admitted its existence in stating that "administrative
  position is far more important than degree". [Editorial note: see Appendix 2
  in Part Three.] It makes the "Caliphate" a bureaucratic office: more a
  masonic organisation than a magical one. We will touch this topic again and
  again. Furthermore it is clearly stated in the German statutes that the
  "last say" has Breeze. So there's only one question open: are "your members"
  dependent on Breeze's mood or on a written dogma?! Grips, signs and
  symbolism of AC's OTO rituals are classified A [i.e, Class A writings in
  Crowley's A.·. A.·.system]: is Crowley's OTO dependent from the AA? And YOU,
  Sabazius, tell me that you don't deal with AA-business: as a Xth? As far as
  I understand, McMurtry considered his "office" of "Caliph" also as the
  highest authority in the AA. Is this still the held opinion of Breeze? The
  same goes with the alleged authority in the Gnostic Catholic Church. It's
  only paper but no Holy Logos (because there was never either apostolic-
  succession nor consecration-in-flesh between McMurtry and Crowley): only the
  so-called "Caliphate"-letters ... By the way, is the "new" Liber MCLI
  (developed by you know whom) also considered Class A? Here I'd like to
  attach several statements from you:
   - you said that members mostly were attracted to join the order via
     other members who are their friends
   - "you" consider the fees not as a business-transaction but a
     contribution for the _privilege to be a member_ and a contribution to
     the "Great Work".
  With all of above topics in mind I want it now make easier for you to answer
  my earlier question about the psychological mechanisms that allow to differ
  between Crowley and Thelema. Would you agree that people who have become
  member of your Order or have converted from another religion find:
   - a stabilisation of their ego? or even a new identity?
   - experience an increase of their social potency?
   - experience an increase of social resonance?
   - changed landmarks?
   - become more open?
   - experience a degradation of their depressive behaviour and
     feelings of inferiority and an increase of a slightly brighter
     general mood?
   - often have "trance" experiences?
   - learn easier (than before their entry) to accept extraordinary body
     experiences and experiences of enlarged consciousness?
   - experience "strange" body emotions which they now learn to explain?
  Would you generally agree that a lot of people who have suffered of fears,
  pointlessness, futility, hopelessness BEFORE they became member NOW have a
  tool to deal with such? Or even got rid of such? Would you agree that the
  concept of Babalon riding on the Beast and the Quest for the Graal are two
  of the major attractive topics for members (although most of them would not
  say it in these words because they don't know already them)? Babalon
  psychologically refers to the "killing of the mother" while the Graal-quest
  psychologically refers to the "killing of the father." How significant is
  this, in your opinion, for new members? How old are those? In that context I
  would like to ask you why Heidrick so often expresses satisfaction about the
  high figure of Jews who have converted to the Thelemic OTO?
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Most of the above points still remain unanswered.}}

THE "CALIPHATE" AND BRAYTON/SOLAR LODGE INVOLVEMENT
K: I also would like to see any such paper [= charter to initiate] for
  individuals like Seckler, H.P. Smith and the Burlingames (who, according to
  Heidrick, did initiations in the late 1960s) (Heidrick to me194@delphi.com).
  If you can't show such paper I would like to hear your explanation why any
  initiations done by above mentioned individuals should be "real"
  initiations? (the "emergency" argument does not count because it does not
  mention/assert "initiations"!)---
    S: By McMurtry's recognition of them.
    K: Therefore, the Solar Lodge is a "real" OTO lodge or is McMurtry's
      recognition haphazard or selective?
K:---Heidrick told that some members of the Solar Lodge now are members of the
  "Caliphate". (Heidrick to me194@delphi.com, 9 Oct 1994) Is that true? If
  yes: Since when? And why? I thought that members with a criminal history are
  excluded ...
S: I am aware of the initiation of the son of a former Solar Lodge member. We
  also have members who were once members of the "Order of Thelema," a later
  successor organization to the Solar Lodge. I do not believe we have any
  members who were members of the original Solar Lodge who would have been
  involved in the Germer/Regardie/Burlingame thefts or the "boy in the box"
  scandal. People with criminal histories are not _necessarily_ excluded from
  membership. The nature of the crime, the age of the individual when the
  crime was committed, and the individual's behavior during and after civil
  punishment are taken into consideration. Brayton's initiation occurred
  before McMurtry's implementation of the Caliphate, which was, according to
  my current reckoning, in 1969; or according to your reckoning, in 1977.
K: In other words: there is uncertainty as to why Mildred B's initiation of
  the Brayton woman should have been not valid because Mildred had no charter
  to do initiations - while McMurtry's initiations should have been valid
  although he never had such charter.
S: This is a good point, but I believe I have answered it above.
K: But M.Burlingame's initiation of Brayton is not denied!
S: She did perform the initiation, but we do not recognize its validity,
  because it was performed in 1963 or 1964; both after Karl Germer's death and
  before McMurtry's activation of the Caliphate. McMurtry could have
  recognized it retroactively, but he did not do so.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Not after the "boy in the box" scandal, understandably - he
  tried to put as much distance between himself and the Solar Lodge as
  possible in the FBI's eyes! It begs the question: does "Caliphate"
  recognition of an initiation rest upon moral grounds, i.e., can it be
  "retracted" later if the "Caliphate" doesn't like/ approve the initiate?
  Another double standard is operating here: according to S's own criteria,
  Burlingame was actually entitled to be performing limited OTO activities
  along side McMurtry, Seckler and Smith. Otherwise the "Caliphate" would
  simply have been McMurtry by himself holding it in trust, just as Motta
  could have been said to have done with SOTO.}}

THE OTO, "CALIPHATE" AND FREEMASONRY
K: This [!] arises one of the most important questions: Is the "Caliphate" a
  magical or a masonical order? You are very contradictory in each of your
  letters, Sabazius. Are you aware what you are saying? (in the
  Brayton-context). And if McMurtry would have recognized her
  "magical"/"masonic" act: with what kind of action/ritual would his
  recognition have been? Again I have to attract your attention to the fact
  that Heidrick et alii countless times stated the "Caliphate" to be a masonic
  body. For example, Heidrick once wrote "If we dumped the structure of the
  OTO, abandoning our degree system, initiation ceremonies (which are all are
  so close to Craft Masonry and Scottish Rites that the same thing in a book
  would invite charges of plagiarism!), hierarchy and the rest, there wouldn't
  be any OTO to split from." Has it to do with the only recent try to
  emphasise upon the masonic elements of the OTO? Why? Do you only want
  preferential treatment at a small number of Masonic locations because you
  profess to be masonic?
S: We do not profess to be Masonic. Membership in our organization does not
  make one a Mason. However, our M.M.M. rites are rooted in the rites of
  Masonry and other organizations, as listed in Liber 52. The discussions of
  Masonry in the recent issue of the Magical Link were not intended to
  establish a claim to Masonic regularity and privilege, but to clarify
  certain points of O.T.O. history; particularly the fact that, while O.T.O.
  is rooted in Masonry, it is no longer a Masonic organization, and our membe
  rs should not be claiming any Masonic privileges based on their O.T.O.
  membership.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: There seems to be a considerable amount of backtracking and
  appeasement going on by the "Caliphate" with regard to masonry, probably
  because they are worried that the freemasons might one day themselves
  "legally" challenge some of the claims of the O.T.O. in court on their own
  ground (e.g. being a SYNTHESIS of all their own masonic wisdom,
  organizations, etc., as listed in Liber 52...)}}
...
K: Where are all the _secrets of this degree_ that are now _entrusted to you_
  and are now _open for you to study_ or are to be _conferred_ upon the
  "candidate"? Can't they be found in Richard Carlile's "Manual of
  Freemasonry", Reeves & Turner, London?---
    S: It is an interesting book, with a lot of information that will help
      elucidate some of the symbolism of our rites; but it does not contain or
      explain all the secrets of our degrees.
    {{AFTERWORD, 1997: From those with first hand experience: there ARE NO
      secrets! (This looks like a big confidence trick by the "Caliphate"!)}}
    K: This makes again a nonsense out of your claims "not profess to be
      masonic".
K:---For example: The Fourth Degree "pendant" to the Third in Liber CXCIV
  (that contains the "lost word"): What has the candidate of the Fourth from
  the storm of titles that rains down on him? Titles that are meaningless and
  useless in any practical sense.
S: This storm of useless titles is a form of preparation for what is to
  follow. Consider the analogy of the old pagan rites described by Frazer, in
  which a suitable individual (ego) is selected, proclaimed king and duly
  adorned, then offered up as a sacrifice for the renewal/regeneration of the
  land (soul).
K: Again, this makes again a nonsense out of your claims "not profess to be
  masonic". You call them a "preparation for what is to follow". For what to
  follow? Aren't these titles at all useFUL with respect to the sexmagical
  secrets and "real OTO" or VII° upwards?
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Interesting that the U.S. "Grand Master" accepts that these
  IV* honorifics ARE "useless titles"! But if (according to him) the "storm of
  titles" is a form of preparation - which is highly debatable - how is that
  then useless?
K: Why all those grips, signs, steps, pass words in modern Thelema of the
  end-20th-century? They give no information, are methodically inefficient,
  irrational and if thelemic, then quite accidentally so (see also Crowley to
  Wolfe, 20th March 1942). All the importance of the OTO lies in its SS. And
  the instructions of/for the SS don't need any freemasonic ballast. So, why
  then, emphasize on the masonic character? Has Heidrick expressed it
  correctly right?: If the OTO would abandon its initiation rituals etc ,
  there would be nothing left but the name. If changed into something else
  there would be only "one more pack of innovative, iconoclastic neo-pagans"
  left?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 {{APPENDIX, 1997:
 James Eshelman, ex-Deputy Grand Master General (that is Vice-"Caliph")
 to Paul Josef Rovelli, Tuesday, April 08, 1997 7:23 AM: "But O.T.O. is
 just a club. A simple club. A wholly mundane thing. Its fate is in no
 sense tied into that of the Aeon itself."
 Saturday, April 12, 1997 4:08 PM: "You continue to regard the O.T.O. as
 a spiritual Order. Note that in speaking of it myself, I never
 (intentionally) capitalize "order." I regard O.T.O. as "Thelemic
 freemasonry," first and last. Nothing more, nothing less. I did not, of
 course, always have this view. I had projections and expectations of
 what it was or was supposed to be. But none of them conformed to
 reality. If we simply regard O.T.O. as a mundane association
 constituting what amounts to Thelemic freemasonry, responsible for
 handling publications and other mundane responsibilities concerning the
 Aleister Crowley Literary Estate, we can let go of all of this ire and
 not pay very much attention to them."}}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: The rites of the M.M.M. are rooted in the rites of its "Constituent
  Originating Asemblies" of the Order. The rites of these organizations, in
  turn, are rooted in the archetypal world of Mythical Templarism,
  Rosicrucianism, Hermeticism, Grail Mysticism, Alchemy, Magic and ultimately
  the Mithraic, Egyptian, Harranian, Qarmatian (etc.) Mysteries; which embody
  (at their cores) essentially universal, timeless principles. Ideas about the
  New Aeon do not automatically invalidate systems such as Masonry; though
  they may modify our interpretation of their Mysteries. In the Ritual of the
  Equinox, when Horus the Hiereus assumes the throne of Osiris the Hierophant,
  he _becomes_ the new Hierophant, and the new Osiris.---
    {{AFTERWORD, 1997: ...and takes up the "scepter of Osiris"? But what does
      this mean - that he is no longer (the old) Horus? What is this "new
      Osiris"? Why the fuss with those Golden Dawn concepts?}}
S:---The Past Hierophant takes his place on the Dais; but the Temple remains
  essentially the same. The sun and moon did not explode in 1904, the stars
  did not wink out, the planets did not stray from their orbits, the Earth's
  magnetic field did not reverse itself. The mysteries of nature: the Three
  Principles, the Four Elements, the Seven Chakras, the Twelve Houses of the
  Sun, all these things are still with us;---
    K: But it is quite clearly stated in Crowley's Commentary to AL that in
      1904 "the world was destroyed by fire". These things are NOT still with
      us. Furthermore, it is widely recognised that "Seven" is a quite
      arbitrary figure of the number of chakras, based on traditions as much
      as anything else, while there have been new developments in astrology
      which speak of a 13th even a 17th House. AL II;2 "The rituals of the old
      time are black" III;2 "all is not aught" plus III;54 and III;49-51.
S:---though we may now view them in a somewhat different perspective. It is
  these mysteries, the mysteries of Nature, of birth, life and death, into
  which the Candidate is initiated in the rites of the M.M.M. I have spent
  many hours teaching classes on the symbolism of the M.M.M. degrees to
  initiates. I consider the symbolic teachings of the M.M.M. degrees to be
  extremely valuable; both on their own _and_ as preparatory training for the
  proper understanding of the teachings of the Sovereign Sanctuary. My op
  inions are shared, I believe, by the majority of those who have passed
  through them.
...
K: Re. Crowley-rituals: Well, let's look at the history of those rituals.
  During Crowley's Detroit, Michigan, period, circa 1918, some Masons
  complained that his early Lower OTO rituals were too much like FM. This
  resulted in him rewriting them several times (I have appr. 5 or six
  versions). The lower degrees gradually stepped away from "regular" FM
  towards the rituals of the presence. The higher degree rituals remain
  pilferred, shamelessly, from English Masonry.

DISABLED MEMBERS
S: We have initiated deaf individuals using sign language during the rituals.
K: That sounds very impressive and interesting! What about blind persons? Can
  a blind person ever be an officer in an initiation?
S: Obviously that would be difficult; but I wouldn't rule it out as
  impossible. We have not yet had an opportunity to have a blind person serve
  as an officer in an initiation. We have modified some of the more physically
  difficult aspects of our initiation rituals for individuals with injuries or
  disabilities. I, personally, once initiated a woman with no legs and only
  one arm into the IV°.
K: I thought that it is "magical" thinking (below as above/inside as outside)
  that physical disability would affect the elixir via its psychological
  effect. Wouldn't the production of the Amrita be but only by accident?: I
  think production of anything of value would be rare or impossible at all. So
  why should such persons want to become members of the SS, or the OTO at all?
S: Such factors _might_ have an effect, but totally undetectable psychological
  factors might have an equal or greater effect. Nobody is entirely perfect,
  physically or psychologically; and the imperfections of each individual can
  be viewed as magical expressions of individuality rather than as deviations
  from an abstract ideal. Performance, or potential performance, is the sole
  concern of the practitioner. We do not have performance standards in these
  matters. If we restrict membership in the Sovereign Sanctuary only to those
  who, in our own experience (or opinion), can make successful, practical use
  of its teachings, then we deny ourselves the potential benefit of enlarging
  our knowledge through experience which diverges from our own.
K: Don't we find here the delicate question of "secrecy" about the ultimate
  degrees in any OTO? Would a disabled person want to become a member of the
  OTO when (s)he knows in advance about the "secrets" or the non-monogamous
  life-style---
    S: Matters of lifestyle in O.T.O. are determined by personal choice. I
      know a number of Sovereign Sanctuary members who live monogamous and
      "mono-androus" lifestyles. Certainly, many members accept a polyamorous
      lifestyle, but this is a result of their own preference, and is not a
      result of any policy or coercion on the part of the Order.
K:---above the Vth degree (as I am told by several witnesses)?
S: The general nature of the teachings of the Sovereign Sanctuary are pretty
  widely known. Most members I know have gained enough from participation in
  the M.M.M. degrees, and from being given a chance to help promulgate the Law
  of Thelema, that they would not feel cheated even if the secret of the
  Sovereign Sanctuary pertained to the Ligno-Sulphite Process. Most O.T.O.
  members who make it to the higher degrees (these days) do so because they
  consider O.T.O. membership a privilege, not a business transaction.---
    K: This is also what Scientology says about their "privileges". The courts
      ruled otherwise!
S:---They consider their dues to be contributions to the Work of the Order;
  not "payment" for "products and services."
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Probably because they are in an unfortunate state of
  ignorance about the true nature of the history of the "Caliphate" and
  misguidedly ascribe to it a provenance and an authenticity which are
  patently lacking.}}
...
K: Re disabled persons: I don't know whether you are an "official" IX*,
  therefore I quote only a part of a "secret" IX*paper that makes your earlier
  statement of accepting disabled persons _untrue_: "IX* Examination" [not in
  use under McMurtry! [Paragraph #18: "For this working, one needs to be in
  top physical condition." Paragraph 26 of this paper again makes allusions to
  the good physical life that parallels the spiritual life.] Therefore am I
  correctly right in saying that the "Caliphate" accepts disabled persons but
  only up to the VI*? Maybe Breeze agrees with Reuss' and Metzger's assumption
  that the "real OTO" is only comprised of VII* and above? — We here touch
  the topic of "Caliphate" = _masonic body_ again: FM's landmark of accepting
  only able-bodied persons. In your last letter you also arose the argument as
  to if "you" *restrict membership in the SS ... then we deny ourselves the
  potential benefit of enlarging our knowledge through experience which
  diverges from our own.* I therefore ask you: so why not accept ME as a
  member of "your" SS? ...Here I'd like to ask a juicy question. What about
  disabled people who want to become members? Men who had vasectomies, women
  who have had hysterectomies or are past menopause: can't they become members
  of the Sovereign San ctuary of the Gnosis? What about people being
  HIV-positive? Can't they benefit of psychosexual fluids on the physical? --
  Can those individuals "really" become OTO-Members? Low degrees only?
S: Accomodations can be made for most such cases, and have in many.
K: I would like to know details about the specific help/accomodation "you"
  give in those cases! Please give exact details (without the names, of
  course): This might be one of the "good aspects" of the "Caliphate" that I
  might publish. A lot of "occult" organisations only accept people of good
  health (as it is also stated in one of the original OTO statutes!).
S: Background: one of the Ancient Landmarks of Freemasonry is to accept only
  able-bodied men with all their members intact. This is one good reason for
  abandoning claims to being a Masonic body.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Yet it may be recalled from the previous section that,
  according to Heidrick, the "Caliphate" is that and not much else besides!}}

LOUDNESS AND THE "SECRET" SOCIETY
K: The trick of the disinformation/supression of information (e.g. COTO v.
  Haenssler Verlag, COTO v. Berkeley) serves the creation of "false"
  self-images and bogeymen. The indoctrination suppresses information
  (secrets, history), refuses access to sources of information (no access to
  order archive for most members,---
    S: The lack of archival access to most members is primarily a matter of
      not having the time or money to copy and distribute all the documents
      people would request. Members engaged in serious research are usually
      allowed access to archival material, especially if they are willing to
      come to the archive.
    [See following section, "HISTORICAL METHODS OF ARCHIVISTS".]
K:---paying for secret papers)---
    S: Paying dues for membership.
K:---and achieves control of the flow of information (censorship).---
    S: We do have secrets. So does your alleged Reuss Grand Lodge survival.
K:---Thelema itself pretends "to remove the old" which is a very common
  manipuation trick of totalitarian groups---
    S: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism,
      Mormonism and many other "revolutionary" or reform-oriented religious
      systems have used this same "trick."
K:---to switch off rational thinking.---
    S: Do you think that "rational thinking" is always desirable? It is a
      tenet of mysticism that rational thinking is ultimately a bar to
      mystical experience, and must, at some point, be transcended. Do you
      disagree with this?
K:---The concept of "an order" raises/increases the "WE"-experience and serves
  the levelling and depersonalization of the individual (as many
  exercises/libri of the AA, as well). The "people" must be in agreement (e.g.
  re other "claimants" or critics) and have to take one's seat (grade) and/or
  position. Dynamical group processes create a pressure/need for conformity
  and a uniform reaction and verbal stereotype of symbols of integration
  (passwords, 729 = Baphomet, Lamen, Nuit, Hadit, "the fundamentalists hate
  us") which serve as a substitute for rational analysis and experience or
  serve as a judging/valuating with prejudice (e.g. against critics).
S: So you're accusing us of being what is called a "cult" here in the U.S. All
  these arguments apply to Orders and esoteric groups in general; and rather
  well to some major religious groups also. Most of these criticisms are
  actually much less applicable to O.T.O., as I know it, that to other groups.
  We are much more tolerant of individual opinion and expression than you
  think we are.
...
K: You think that you are not a protofascist group: but you fulfil almost all
  the criteria for such: libeling other groups, censorship---
    S: We like to exercise quality control over what is published under our
      name, but we don't attempt to control what people publish on their own.
      How can we stop them, anyway?
K:---inner circle with secrets,---
    S: Technically, we do have that; but how secret are they, really? And why
      does that make us "protofascistics"?
K:---pretending to be chosen,---
    S: That seems pretty harmless.
K:---pretending to be the "only"/"real" one,---
    S: I think our basis for that is comparatively good.
K:---no other opinions allowed, manipulation, money for secrets, money for an
  inner circle,---
    S: Money for membership. Money for initiation expenses. Money for handouts
      and newsletters. Money for running an organization.
    {{AFTERWORD, 1997: ...Money for a not-for-profit organization accumulating
      royalties and assets in order to gain and maintain a monopoly position
      in the occult books trade?}}
K:---treating lower members as non-existent---
    S: Not true.
K:---adoring a protofascist leader (Crowley) for his protofascist dogma,---
    S: You evidently oppose Thelema - did you ever tell Martin Starr, or
      anyone else, that you were a Thelemite?
K:---trying to establish a marketing business (insignia, copyrights) in order
  to exercise power,
    S: Why does that make us "protofascistic"?
K:---and and and...
S: At least now I know your definition of "protofascistic." There is probably
  no point arguing this with you, because the word "protofascistic" appears to
  be something you have designed yourself to apply to us. You can, of course,
  label us with any derogatory epithet you choose.
...
S: It is pretty easy to discuss Tantra (Eastern and Western) without
  infringing on formal Order secrecy.
K: Just today I received e-mail that expressed such fear (to discuss sexmagick
  as members). As far as I understand "you" oppress discussion that uses
  OTO-terms or quotations of pertinent OTO-documents (e.g. EMBLEMS AND MODES
  OF USE, etc).
S: Our members are under oath to treat the specific contents of those
  particular documents as secret. I would expect a certain amount of
  circumspection on their part when they are asked by persons such as yourself
  to discuss them.---
    K: Some do, a lot don't! If the "general nature of the teachings of the
      Sovereign Sanctuary are pretty widely known" (to quote you), then why is
      there all this irrelevant secrecy, legal threats etc, about them? Is
      there anything *apart* from the "general" nature? (The Lesser Mass of
      the Gnostics?) [which was NOT in use under McMurtry] — Either "you" are
      a secret(ive) society or an open society (with no secrets).
S:---From a letter from Crowley to Germer, dated 19 June, 1946: "Anyone who is
  in legitimate possession of those documents...has fixed his True Will
  publicly by oaths so that he cannot possibly use the formula in opposition
  to those oaths."
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Exactly why are members still under oath in this regard -
  when the "specific contents of those particular documents" are no longer
  secret nor have been since Germer's time, thanks to Gerald Yorke and others
  and as Heidrick himself admits?}}
...
K: My opinion remains: If there is an OTO of some old-days-style: it is
  Metzger's. If there's a magickally functioning OTO: it is "Grant's". If
  there's a "loud" OTO: it is "yours".
S: At least we don't advertise in magazines.---
    K: but your presence on the Internet even is more "publicity" than a
      magazine!
S:---You seem to object to such things, perhaps from a Gnostic
  anti-materialist, anti-authoritarian perspective (which I can respect), but
  we feel Crowley intended OTO to become involved in secular activities. He
  envisioned OTO owning property, operating "profess houses," publishing, etc.
  He saw it as a way to "promulgate the Law of Thelema," to influence the
  course of history and, if it doesn't sound too ridiculous at this point, to
  make the world a nobler place. I am the first to admit that we have a very ,
  very long way to go before we can claim to have accomplished any of this, if
  any of it is even possible. However, this is our reason for pursuing what
  many would label as "temporal power." We are definitely not doing it to get
  rich!
    {{AFTERWORD, 1997: There are other ways to "profit" than "getting rich",
      all the same. For example: a degree of power might be wielded over those
      lower down in the hierarchy, there may be veneration encouraged from new
      initiates, etc. etc.}}
K: ...Heidrick wrote that the OTO is not democratic. With what political form
  would you compare the "Caliphate", or Crowley's OTO, or Reuss' OTO, or
  Grant's OTO, or Metzger's OTO ... Doesn't "your" presence on the Internet
  collide with the OTO's original character/nature of being a "secret
  society"? Or do you say that a prosperous OTO can't be a secret society any
  longer?
S: Was OTO really intended to be a secret society? Neither of the Reuss
  constitutions give me that idea; nor do Crowley's writings on it. As the
  Masons say, "We are not a secret society; we are a society with secrets."
K: I think that the OTO's nature is a "secret society".
S: I disagree; especially with respect to Crowley's version of the O.T.O. An
  argument could be made for the secrecy of the Sovereign Sanctuary; but the
  Lover Triad and Man of Earth Triad were pretty obviously intended to operate
  within a very social context, rather like Freemasonry, with a few added
  social elements such as Guilds and Profess Houses.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: And yet Breeze agrees with the 1917 Constitution that the
  "real" O.T.O. is only comprised of VII° and above - i.e., that self- same
  "secret" Sovereign Sanctuary? In other words, that the "real" O.T.O. in
  "Caliphate" eyes IS a secret society??}}
...
K: Don't you mistake the OTO with Thelema which is for the masses?
S: It is interesting to contrast this question with your previous statement:
  "I am extremely praising Thelema. But of course, not on the level for the
  masses." [Editorial note: see discussion in Part Three.] I believe that all
  religions, including Thelema, are human institutions. I do not believe that
  any religion has ever been established by God or the Gods; they have all
  been established by Man, and in the service of Man — to deal with Man's
  ideas and emotions about God. There are so many of them becaus e there are
  so many diverse ways of thinking and feeling about Divinity. As an operative
  in one such institution, it is my duty to it that my institution serves the
  needs of its particular human adherents. To do this, it must serve "the
  masses" within Thelema as well as the "elect." It is not really within my
  purview to judge who is who, but rather to set the table with enough variety
  that each guest will find his or her appropriate nourishment.

HISTORICAL METHODS OF ARCHIVISTS
K: Everyone can make judgements about everything.
S: Truly, and they do. Sometimes their judgments are well-reasoned, based on
  adequate information, even-handed, and sound; sometimes not.
...
S: Members engaged in serious research are usually allowed access to archival
  material, especially if they are willing to come to the archive.
K: And of course, it is "you" who decides about the "seriosity" of the
  researcher?
S: Of course: they're "our" archives. A lot of libraries won't allow people
  into special collections unless they are judged to be "serious." We have had
  a lot of archival requests which were _obviously_ frivolous. Lawrence Sutin,
  who is writing a biography of Aleister Crowley, spent the past week at our
  archives.
K: And of course, he was pro-Crowley and pro-"Caliphate" before he was allowed
  to come?!
S: I don't believe he was subjected to a litmus test. However, to my
  knowledge, he has never expressed any overt hostility to us.
...
S: 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: This sounds fair, but only in theory. Usually the/any thelemite considers
  himself to be the ultimate standard in interpreting the critic's approach
  and usually judges _every_ critical statement as a prove for the critic's
  subhuman condition. There are plenty examples (e.g. G.M. Kelly/Martin who is
  a part of the Thelemic/OTO continuum as you or I). I'll give you another
  example: some freemasons write articles in freemasonic books and only quote
  other freemasonic articles/books as their source - although they are a pile
  of very valuable writings written by non-masons. It is like Scientology
  quoting Hubbard as the "sole and supreme authority". Or David Scriven
  quoting Crowley as "the" source. — This is what I have described in my
  "Ecstatic Creation", as well. By the way, I finally would like to learn why
  "you" think that I approach "my subject with sneering scorn, manifest bias".
  It really makes me laugh because everyone who was "able" to read my books
  _thoroughly_ came to the same conclusion as Joscelyn Godwin in his TH
  review. I again refer to Manfred Ach's booklet "Under Cover". - I repeat
  myself in saying that any so-called "axes to grind" that I should have or
  "sneering scorns" and "manifest bias" only reflect the state of mind of the
  person that utters such statement. - I only collect documents and voices and
  "copy" them.---
    S: But this can be done in such a way as to convey _any_ point of view. A
      little cutting and pasting, a little ellipsis, a little juxtaposition of
      time frames, removal from the original context, emphasis of certain
      documents and quotations, de-emphasis of others, a touch of editorial
      comment here and there — all can be used to influence the
      interpretation of historical facts.
    {{AFTERWORD, 1997: This could be said to be a fairly accurate description
      of the "Caliphate"'s own methods as well; and not only that, this
      approach is often used by any practising historian coming from their own
      individual point-of-view. It is therefore hard to see the exact point S.
      is trying to make.}}
K:---Some very few times (e.g. in my lectures for universities) I try to
  mirror the complexity of my subject with its own contradictory paradoxes or
  fixed schemes. Personally, I consider myself an Anarchist. This might be a
  keyword for you to understand my writings.

END OF PART TWO OF FIVE
 Part 1
 Part 3
 Part 4
 Part 5