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 FIVE OF FIVE
Leading on from the original lines of discussion opened up in previous Parts,
the following areas of debate were examined in further detail.
THE ELECTORAL LEGACY OF GRADY McMURTRY
K: In the September 1985 issue of the Magical Link, Heidrick wrote that "the
IXth degree elective process became established. ... In [McMurtry's] last
will and testament, the past Caliph simply gave approval to the elective
process". ==> a) What about that note of nullification (re Seckler, H.P.
Smith, K.D**** and DuQuette) that I published on page 224 of my "Materialien
zum OTO"? Before, in the July issue 1985 of the ML, Heidrick wrote "Our
Corporate Articles and Bylaws prescribe what is to be done for succession -
vote of the IX*. Grady approved and signed these legally binding documents
over five years ago... If no election has taken place a fixed number of days
(about three months) from the Greater Feast of a reigning Caliph, any IX*
may expressly call such an election.... Grady will not have to worry about
this anymore - his expressed wishes have been made as solid as can be." b)
Please explain this to me and describe the "expressed wishes" of McMurtry.
S: I asked Lon DuQuette (who is now my Deputy National Grand Master General)
about this. He says that Grady began to receive death threats over the
telephone after the release of the galley proofs of Motta's Equinox in which
he accused Grady & co. of having murdered Sascha Germer.---
{{APPENDIX, 1997: Heidrick's role: "Treasurer General is the international
title. A Grand Treasurer General is a national OTO financial officer. Until
last year, I served as both Treasurer General internationally and as the US
Grand Treasurer General — but there is a separate USGTG now, under my
authority for the international OTO."
K: This all seems to be somewhat untrue: a) Motta started to publish his
accusations only in the early 1980s, b) Sascha died in 1975 and only in
1976 HPSmith noticed it. c) Motta got upset only when McMurtry started
to show around his correspondence with Germer (penis). ...
S:---Phyllis, Helen and K.D***** were worried about the possibility of
Grady being killed by some crazed Motta follower, so they drafted a plan to
elect a successor to Grady in the event of his death. This plan was
presented to Grady around June of 1976, as Lon recalls, and Grady signed
it.---
K: Odd! send me a copy!
S: I doubt that it still exists, but I'll ask...
K: Why should it NOT exist any longer? Who has parts of "your" archive you
don't have access to? L. Stevenson? H.P.Smith/P.Seckler, still? Doesn't
the right hand know what the left does and has?
S: The "Thoth Tarot" was published in 1970. Motta's "Commentaries of AL"
was published in 1976. I don't know why Lon would lie about such a
thing, he has no motive for doing so. Perhaps you think I am lying about
Lon?
K: I would never say such a nonsense! But I think there is a huge mess in
your organisation. Too much is based on non-existing documents,
no-longer-existing documents, "garbled" new statutes, hearsay or phone
conversations, or a dubious diary entry. Don't mistake me: the same goes
for the other OTO-groups as well!
S: Part of the problem with your dealing with me is that I do not have
immediate access to most of these materials, and it takes me a
considerable amount of time to get my hands on them. It is a time
consuming process to find a letter on a particular topic when there are
hundreds of letters from the same individual in that file; and H.B. has
very little time available to dedicate to searching through files on my
request. Also, you're asking for some very old, neglected, and (to us)
relatively unimportant documents, which are buried in stacks of old
material. ...I have very little archival material here. Smith & Seckler
have their own personal archives. Heidrick has a lot of material on
microfilm. Iannotti and H.B. have the official archives. All these
people live hundreds, or thousands, of miles from me.
K: Here I'd like to add my puzzlement about your misled papers, eg. why
should the plan of June 1976 not exist any longer? I doubt that these
days the archives are as disorganized as may have previously been the
case. Breeze certainly would have had the willing volunteers to do that.
And you Sabazius, as a X* would have full access to a list of what was
there, if not the documents themselves. Or is my recently sent
archive.txt the first list that you have in hands? In these days of
instant electronic communication and faxing, isn't it rather tame and
unconvincing to make the excuse, not that it was "too costly" or "too
time-consuming" to collect the information, but that "all these people
live hundreds, or thousands of miles from me" ??
Re. Election of Breeze as "Caliph":
S:---Lon was only a Minerval at the time, but the others included him as a
voting member as a courtesy. Later, after Grady and Phyllis had broken up,
Grady nullified the document to prevent Phyllis, as Lon speculates, from
using it against him.---
K: Motta's accusations did not start until the 1980s and his Equinox V,1
(Commentaries of AL, 1976) did not mention anything about McMurtry and
Sascha Germer together!
S: Unfortunately, I am working from other people's memory of events which
took place 20 years ago. I asked Lon again about this particular point,
and he agreed that the source of McMurtry's consternation was probably
not the Commentaries of AL. He then said that he remembered something
about some strange telephone calls and/or correspondence between
McMurtry and Motta. I checked the archives catalog, and there is a copy
of a letter from McMurtry to Motta dated July 21 1976, "describing the
rescue of the Germer archives and proposing a working relationship." The
response, dated July 29, 1976, is described as "refusing the proposals,
and offering new ones." There is no record in the archives catalog of a
response to Motta from McMurtry, and Lon recalls that McMurtry was
disturbed by the Motta's letter, or perhaps by a phone conversation they
had. It turns out that we do have in our archives the document that the
"Notice of Nullification" nullified, and I will obtain a copy of it.
{{APPENDIX, 1997: Seckler, HPSMith and DuQuette were told by McMurtry that
"none of the above named shall vote" in choosing his successor (see
"Materialien zum OTO", p.224) ==> what were they doing as "elector ninths"
in appointing Breeze? Wouldn't that render the whole process of that election
faulty and at least require another contest without those three
participating in it?}}
K: I wonder what kind of paper that will be and whether it contains any
names. In 1976, McMurtry grants authorities. In 1977 he nullifies them.
And later, in 1979, the "authority" to determine succession is turned
over to a corporate-type board of directors (see earlier paragraph on
McMurtry's final decision in the Bylaws). I'd like to know what part
played IX* K.D****** in it? He, as an "original McMurtry-IX*",
did NOT vote for Breeze. Is this one of the reasons why "you" are a "New
Caliphate"?
I asked a witness of the event that DuQuette recalled as either
"McMurtry feared being killed by some crazed Motta follower" or
"Motta-McMurtry-correspondence" that led to the 1976 authority paper. I
am told that McMurtry was cornered and told that something had to be
prepared in the event of his death or incapacitation. He prepared a
brief note about "the criteria of succession being continuity". This was
in July or August of 1976. McMurtry was always afraid that he was going
to be deposed and only was concerned about his future and not the future
of the organisation. Re. the nullification paper: it was considered that
if McMurtry had been incompetent, his nullifying paper would have been
invalid. If he were competent, then one did not need to take action. --
How shall an objective observer take such serious? ... The
"McMurtry-Motta-correspondence" was a statement of intent to sue for
order property and status.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
{{APPENDIX, 1997: a witness of that event: "One cause of concern was that
McMurtry was hypoglycimic (I do not know the spelling). His excessive
insulin was a problem since he did like a drink and he did like sugar. One
drink had more effect than five on someone that did not have his problem. A
candy bar or even a prepackaged food could contain enough sugar to make him
act drunk. As a result we were not always confident of his judgement. After
the board of trustees was set up, his control was restricted to iniations.
Phyllis was the prime motivator for the creation of a document to guarantee
continuity. She and McM separated sometime in 1974-1975. There was reason
for concern that she might make a power grab. She attempted to alienate us
all from McM by bringing us into the issue of their personal conflict. She
tried to demand that we take action based on the document. I do not know
that that was the primary reason she wanted him to write and sign that
document, however.
However, McM was a hypoglycemic (spelling uncertain) and loved more than an
occasional drink, so there was reason for concern for his health/mental
clarity.
Helen, Phyllis and I stated that we wanted him to write and sign a document
to guarantee the succession. He was left alone (I think I was the only one
in the house at the time, but was reading in another room) to compose the
document to guarantee succession. When all returned the whole document was
only a few sentences. It said something about the criteria of succession
being continuity or the criteria of continuity being succession. I cannot
recall for certain.
We stood around bewildered, but decided that it was all we would get and it
would have to do."}}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
{{APPENDIX, 1997:
James Eshelman, ex-Deputy Grand Master General (that is Vice-"Caliph")
to Paul Josef Rovelli, Tuesday, April 08, 1997 7:23 AM:
"I am generally one of the biggest Grady critics you can find. I
generally think of him as a joke — especially in the past. This,
however, changed in the last month of his life, when I visited him in
his hospital bed in the I.C.U. and we made contact with all the walls
and veils down. I am still in no sense "in Grady's camp," but, to my
utter surprise, I came away from those visits convinced that, despite
the drugs, despite the drunkenness, despite the degeneracy, despite the
brain burnout — despite all that, and the embarassing behaviors and
everything else — Grady WAS Caliph. He WAS the successor to the
Prophet (which is all that the term "Caliph" means), hand-picked by
that Prophet. I don't think even Grady's personality appreciated it.
But as he verged on his death, his destiny came to fulfillment, and
despite the outer flaws, he was the best A.C. could find, and he pulled
off what was needed. And in those last couple of visits I also touched
his soul and got to experience that there really was a person inside
there, and not just a burned-out drunk. (Having said that, I'll now
return to my usual Grady-bashing."}}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: Grady's ideas about his successorship changed a number of times after this,
but he ended up deciding that a posthumous election would be best.
K: A posthumous election would absolve McMurtry from any criticism that he had
made an error of judgement choice over his successor. This could even be
said to amount to a case of shirking his responsibility in the matter, like
Germer?
S: An unsympathetic observer might characterize it that way. However, at least
he provided a mechanism for succession.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: A neutral observer might characterize it that way as well.
And where is this document providing "a mechanism for succession"? And Why
was it never published in The Magic(k)al Link or "OTO Newsletter" at the
time?}}
K: I would like to see a copy of McMurtry's "final" decisions for the
"Caliphate".---
S: It was in the O.T.O. Bylaws before Grady died.
K: So please tell me which paragraphs exactly?! Were they taken over in
the 1987 provisional Constitution and are they now part of the present
constitution?
S: Yes, but the term is Bylaws, not Constitution. The election of the
Caliph's successor was provided for in Section 4.09 of the 1979 Bylaws.
See the O.T.O. Newsletter, Vol. III, No. 10-11 (Double Issue), Winter
1979/Spring 1980. Note that this post-dates the "Notice of
Nullification" of 1977.
K: This appears to be an admission that "you" have in effect rewritten the
Constitution (or "reconstituted" the organisation), but to avoid taking
responsibility for it and to insure/ensure against later blame, "you"
act under the euphemism of "bylaws". In connection with the IX*elective
process, when Heidrick wrote in the July 85 issue of ML that McMurtry
"approved and signed these legally binding documents": In whose eyes
were they "legally binding"? and were these older McMurtry Bylaws
altogether superseded by Breeze's Bylaws of 1987?
{{AFTERWORD: Asked and not answered. The implication is of course that
each "new Caliph" has greater powers and authority than his
predecessor/s, and can overturn any and all of their judgements,
including presumably Crowley's himself.}} Another most important point:
the IX* that McMurtry gave, always was only "provisional" (as I am told
by one of such IX*s) - in some cases, the lower grades were given
afterwards, some times not (and certainly the VII* was not given). How
can "provisional" "original McMurtry-IX*s" elect someone "de facto" or
"de jure"? Has Breeze made them, AFTERWARDS, *de facto*-IXths? This is a
bit more complicated than what Metzger did, but generally the same.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Asked and not answered.}}
K:---Also his "Last Will".---
S: I don't have a copy, but I'll ask for one.
K: I wonder whether he could have left something for the "Caliphate" in 1985
since he did never know in advance that he even possesses anything (re OTO)
(because he died before he heard the court decision of the 9th Circuit of
Appeals). And didn't his family remain executor of his Will? How are these
problems being solved?
S: He [McMurtry] may have died before the Appeals Court decision, but not
before the U.S. (9th) District Court Decision (7/10/85). He died two days
later.---
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: But _before_ hearing the actual news!}}
S:---Even without the knowledge of the court decisions, he could/would have
made provisions for those things to which he had previously laid claim.---
K: But this is of fine and subtle legal importance: "knowingly" and
"unknowingly". Same re. the terms "possessor" and "owner" ... I could go
on endlessly like that ...
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: So McMurtry "could/would (etc)" - but DID he?}}
THE BIRTH OF THE "NEW GENERATION" CALIPHATE
K: I wonder how many IX° that have been "made" by McMurtry have not been
invited to vote for Breeze?!
S: I wasn't around then. All McMurtry's IX°s I know of, active and inactive,
now recognize Breeze as McMurtry's legitimate successor as Caliph, even
though some of them voted for Bill Heidrick.
[Appendix December 1996 by K: There are McMurtry IX°s who did NOT recognize
Breeze and left the "Caliphate"]
K: In the May 1987 ML Heidrick wrote "Because of the role of IX°s from the
McMurtry years in electing the present Caliph, the original [sic!!] IX* who
participated in that election have the power to remove and replace this
acting O.H.O. by unanimous action" ==> Doesn't this contradict [previous]
statements where ALL IX° can/must act?
S: It was decided to exclude from the removal/replacement process those who
had received IX° after Breeze's election. This was done to prevent Breeze
(or his successor) from "stacking the deck" in his/her favor. This action
was taken as an amendment to the Bylaws, duly voted on by all IX° members.
K: In other words when the last of the original IX*s is dead, the "Caliphate
is dead?
S: No, remember, this provision has to do with removal of a sitting Caliph.
The OHO, de jure or de facto, has the power to appoint his/her own
successor. The power to remove and replace a sitting OHO will be transferred
to the body of the X° when there are enough X°s to make this feasible.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: But this is absurd - all of the X°s will be Breeze's
own appointments: how is this meant to stop Breeze "stacking the deck in
his favor" then??}}
K: I don't understand. Are you saying that
a) all "original McMurtry"-IX° [sic!] elect a "Caliph" who allegedly
becomes _de facto_ OHO (of what? the "Caliphate" only or of ALL
OTO-groups?)
b) the "Caliph" then makes 5 Xth thereafter
c) and then those 5 "Caliph"-Xth elect a WORLDWIDE _de jure_ OHO?
==> and when does the hamster leave his wheel?
Mmmh. Maybe we disagree on the term OHO. Do you equate OHO with a
rulership over ALL existing OTO groups or only over your OTO-version?
S: 1. A de facto O.H.O. has interim authority as O.H.O. of O.T.O. in the
absence of a de jure O.H.O.
2. Grady McMurtry, as Caliph, was de facto O.H.O. of O.T.O.
3. McMurtry's successor, Hymenaeus Beta, is de facto O.H.O. of O.T.O.
4. In accordance with the wishes of the Sovereign Sanctuary, the de jure
O.H.O. will be elected by 5 X°. X°s made by the de facto O.H.O. will be
eligible to vote, as will any other X° who can produce satisfactory
documentation of his/her right to that office. The adequacy of
documentation will be based on reference to the historical policies of
the Order and on ordinary, legal standards for documentation.:
5. The de jure O.H.O. so elected will have jurisdiction over the O.T.O.
members who accepts the results of this election. The authority of this
de jure O.H.O. will extend over all organizations which choose to
participate in this election, or which choose to recognize him/her as
O.H.O.
K: This is interesting. The first sentence [of 5.] seems to suggest that if
"Caliphate" members do not happen to like, and do NOT accept the result of
this five X°-election, then they will not get the "OHO" having
"jurisdiction" OVER THEM - the same applies to those organisations who do
not choose to participate, or to recognise the new OHO. In effect, does this
therefore licence a legitimate schism within the "Caliphate" (Similar to
that in "your" EGC)? That there will be one OHO for all those who happen to
want him/her and everyone else is left to make other arrangements?
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Asked and not answered.}}
...
K: Is it a secret or can you tell me how many members above the V* "you
have"?---
S: About 50.
K:---Well, is there a breakdown of how many there are in *each* degree, i.e.
in the V°, the VI°, the VII°, the IX°, X°, and XI°.---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
{{APPENDIX, 1997: Here the alleged figures for
Feb'88 Feb'89 Feb'90 Feb'91 Feb'92 Feb'93 Feb'94 Feb'95
ADV N/A 42 49 54 72 91 90 87
Assoc. 170 194 245 211 273 317 221 246
Min. 397 403 443 526 605 660 642 706
Ist 236 358 380 457 483 485 487 573
IInd 154 173 217 249 291 290 311 378
IIIrd 97 109 145 178 198 221 226 225
IVth 35 64 66 80 111 125 160 194
Vth 40 49 63 65 67 70 66 102
Higher 16 16 19 24 31 29 35 35
== == == == == == == ==
Total 1,145 1,408 1,627 1,844 2,131 2,288 2,238 2,546
Europe 1997:
IXth Degrees — 3
VIIIth Degrees — 1
VIIth Degrees — 3
No members above IXth degree are in Europe in early 1997.
A witness (ex-member) about the figures of the IX°s: "Three when I joined
[in 1974). I knew of nine when I left [in 1981]. They were the 7 directors
on the incorporation and Andrea [Bacuzzi]. The ninth was James Wasserman.}}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
K:---And please don't count Bacuzzi (and others) twice (as she proudly told
me!). Please differ between female and male members and indicate the age of
each! (This is also very significant to one of our next topics: the
psychological mechanisms that allow to differ between Crowley and Thelema).
[Editorial note: see Part Three.] — Please give a percentual comparison
with those who leave the Order and those who stay and tell me why you think
do they leave. Is it due to "your" wanted proves of loyality? Or do they
have difficulties with the psychological interactions between the schemes:
member <==> Order
member <==> Thelema
member <==> Crowley
...
K: As far as I know, Breeze only has been third-best solution: Many of
Heidrick's opponents favoured his main rival Lon Milo DuQuette until Seckler
and H.P. Smith proposed Breeze as a compromise. This caused a still existing
unsteady peace within the "Caliphate".
S: Lon tells me that he originally intended to be a candidate in the election,
but on discussing the matter with Jim Wasserman, decided that his candidacy
could result in a schism due to the antagonism that existed at that time
between he and Heidrick (which no longer exists, by the way.) According to
Lon, it was he and Jim Wasserman who decided to ask Bill Breeze to stand for
election, as an individual who could be accepted by all parties involved.
The three registered candidates ended up being Jim Eshelman, Bill Breeze,
and Bill Heidrick. During the discussions, Jim Eshelman ceded his standing
to Breeze. The final, formal results of the election were unanimous for
Breeze.
...
K: Breeze declared himself to be a deep figure of mystery (in the October 85
ML) who wants to keep his identity hidden except to those that elected him:
Seckler, Smith, Heidrick, DuQuette, Graeb, Iannotti, Lewis, Bacuzzi, Gernon
and Wasserman.
S: Iannotti and Gernon did not vote in that election. The "elector ninths"
were all the ninths who did vote in the election. Breeze wanted to keep his
identity confidential except among high-ranking and administrative members.
LIST OF SOME "CALIPHATE"
DOUBLE STANDARDS/"DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES"
K: a) It seems quite acceptable for Phyllis Seckler to change her mind and
admit that she was mistaken about McMurtry and the legitimacy of his
charter, while Traenker and Jones are not permitted to revise their own
views about Crowley's suitability to become OHO ("irrevocably cast" votes).
S: I never said they couldn't change their views, or refuse to lend their
support, or decide to denounce A.C. and go their own way. Certainly they
were free to do all these things. — However, when a body of individuals
formally casts a vote to elect a leader, they can't just decide to
unilaterally change their votes afterward and simply leave it at that. The
leader would rightfully remain in office. Another vote would have to be cast
to recall him, and he would then have to be replaced. — Now if the vote s
were merely confirming someone in an office he already claimed, then such
votes would represent no more than a show of support anyway. Their
revocation would only indicate withdrawal of support: the person would
remain in the claimed office without their formal support.
K: b) Germer was wrong about McMurtry being a "big Minus" although he was
correct/right in expelling Grant [?]
S: You see no difference between a criticism and an expulsion? And what
individual on this planet has ever been _always_ wrong or _always_ right?
K: - c) Crowley could not have been similarly mistaken about Reuss' illness in
1920: in 1920 Reuss was "nuts", but in 1921 he allegedly made Crowley OHO.
S: Crowley _may_ indeed have been mistaken about Reuss's illness. I have
already attempted to clarify this to you, and I hope I do not have to do so
again. By the way, neurologic impairment from a stroke need not result in
complete disability or insanity. It can, depending on the severity of the
individual case, result only in impaired memory, localized paralysis,
increased fatigue, etc.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: This is a meaningless amplification, which imparts no
historical information of value in real terms.}}
K: d) Francis King is criticised as inaccurate but suddenly it is all right to
selectively quote him as a reference as long as he is backing up the
"Caliphate"s favourite points.
S: Charges of inaccuracy must be backed up by contradictory information. When
I quoted King about Reuss's stroke, I had no information to contradict what
he said. Now that I have additional information, I have some reason to doubt
his statement. He probably got his information from Crowley's correspondence
with W.T. Smith.
K: e) Frl. Aeschbach is reckoned to be Head of the Swiss OTO and a proper X*.
simply because "the majority" of the Swiss members support her as leader,
S: When did I say we reckoned her to be a "proper X°"? We have made no such
judgment.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: If not "proper", what other sort is there? And if none, why
bring her up to begin with, since she is then effectively no more than one
of the Swiss O.T.O.'s ordinary, though long-standing/senior members?}}
K: f) suddenly Metzger did not originally ingratiate himself with Germer in
order to eventually take over the OTO.
S: When did I say that?
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: This was not a personal remark of S. but stated by others
elsewhere (see correspondence between Nigris, Heidrick and Koenig at this
URL). S. did himself say: "...Metzger later cajoled Sascha Germer into
giving "all over" to him after Germer's death...", where "cajole" can be
seen as having a very similar motive to "ingratiate".}}
K: g) "Your" stance towards Metzger seems to be highly changeable. First
Heidrick and McMurtry accept his faith as X°.---
S: This was, according to Heidrick, extended unilaterally as a gesture of
good will.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Why should acceptance of Metzger's "X°" be "extended as
a gesture of good will", given the fact that Metzger completely rejected
and/or ignored any of the Californian members of the OTO in his
"election"? Is this not a little unusual? And that being so, why did
McMurtry not (pre-trial) extend a similar "good will" recognition of
Motta as a "X°" of Brazil?}}
K:---Then Breeze, as a new "OHO" withdraws any recognition posthumously.
S: Breeze did not recognize Metzger as OHO; neither did McMurtry. To my
knowledge, Breeze withholds formal judgment as to whether or not Metzger was
actually a X°.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Not so - Breeze quite clearly and categorically states
there is "no evidence" to support the claim in both the Magical Link IV No.
2 (Summer 1990) page 9, and III No. 4 page 28 [see section "An OHO Can Only
Be Elected By The X°" in Part One for full quotation.]}}
K: On what ground can Breeze make "formal" or "informal" judgements over
Metzger's stance in any OTO? Is it like Metzger (or Aeschbach) saying that
Breeze is not an OTO member, or not a "Caliph" or not the OHO?
S: He can evaluate the information available to him and formulate an opinion,
just as you and I can.
K: And suddenly Soror Chockmah is X°-recognized?
S: You are jumping to conclusions.
K: This seems to be very clever and manipulative on the basis that she is not
interested in "friendly relations" and will therefore abstain from the
process and not cause Breeze problems. He can therefore appear to be fair
and democratically minded.
S: She has told us she _is_ interested in friendly relations, meaning friendly
communication, sharing of documents, etc.; but not, evidently, to include
actual unification at this time. I am disappointed about this,---
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: One wonders if this disappointment would apply in the
"unification" if SHE were "Caliph" and Breeze just some "provincial" X*?! As
it is, this time around it is Breeze and not Metzger who is declaring: "I AM
the OHO! I _AM_ the OHO!"}}
S:---but I cannot blame her; our organizations have grown quite distinct. We
do not claim to be democratic; but we do consider ourselves to be fair.
However, it seems that nothing will ever convince you that any of "us" are
fair, or that we have any positive attributes at all. For you to acknowledge
this would run counter to the theories expounded in your essays.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: If one is "jumping to conclusions", just why was the
reference made in the first place with respect to her association with
Breeze and the election by X°s (again, to be found in the section in Part
One headed "}}---An OHO Only Can Be Elected By The X°", q.v.)?}}
...
K: Furthermore "you" excluded such clauses (also to be found in the BLUE
EQUINOX) (it was/is Breeze who tries to give the impression that e.g.
Crowley's Liber CXCIV means the same thing as the OTO Constitution.) as: all
freemasons are allowed to affiliate as lay-brethren; long-standing members
may reside for six months in a Home; the Treasurer and members of the Senate
are compelled to take a vow of poverty (Liber CXCIV, 34), members have the
right to the hospitality of the Lodge Master (CLXI), children are adopted
(CI, 14,55); invest or transfer property (CXCIV, 32); for the highest
degrees to vest their material assets into OTO becoming in return
"part-proprietors" of the "Estates and Goods" (Liber LII, 13g); to bestow
all goods to the order in the Last Will (CI, 33); AND MOST IMPORTANT: before
anybody can first proceed to the SS one must have "induced 111 persons to
the Order" (CXCIV, 17); also CI, 64: fees handed over to heirs and legates.
S: Yes, we did. Had all these clauses been in practical effect before? Are you
saying that if we can't implement every last detail of the 1917
Constitution, Libri 194, 101 and 52, and Reuss's "Aufbau-Programm" that we
are "invalid" and should just give up?
K: Either you want to be the "real" OTO with ALL its implements or just a
"poor" copy of it.
S: Perhaps we differ on the meaning of the word "real." In fact, this seems
rather certain.
K: Please explain.
S: We have implemented more of them than ever have been implemented before.
K: But this is completeley irrelevant! Unless you have implemented everything
you are not the "real" OTO but only a newer variation of it.
S: By the way, CXCIV-17 is qualified "except by special order from the Supreme
and Holy King."
K: That is? sexual intercourse with the leader?
S: Very funny!
K: However, no bona fide and properly appointed S+HKing appears to have lived
beyond 1957. McMurtry, whom "you" maybe re-define as a SHK to be able to
get-around this clause, was certainly never officially appointed a X* either
by Crowley nor Germer.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: In factual terms his highest administrative rank under
either Crowley or Germer was Sovereign Grand Inspector General - a VII*. Not
ever X*.}}
...
K: And furthermore I'd like to see a paper written and signed by Crowley that
gave McMurtry right to initiate. As it is part of the III* initiation that
the candidate must recognize the authority of Baphomet and swear that
"without regular charter from him, I will not initiate or purport to
initiate any person...
S: _Materialen Zum OTO_, page 217. In confirmation of this, in a letter to
Germer dated 19 June 1946, Crowley says "Frater H.A. has an authority which
enables him to supersede Frater 210 whenever he pleases." All Lodge Masters
have the power to initiate, by virtue of their Lodge Charter (at least). So
Parsons, as Lodge Master, had the power to initiate, and McMurtry, in
possessing the authority to supersede Parsons, also had such authority.
K: This authority was never granted to McMurtry by Crowley: it was indirectly
via Germer.
S: No, it was by Crowley.
K: Why? of course because it was subject to Germer's approval, too!---
S: A.C. to K. Germer, 19 June 1946: "...even apart from you, Frater H.A.
has an authority which enables him to supersede Frater 210 whenever he
pleases. The only limitation on his power in California is that any
decision which he takes is subject to revision or veto by yourself."
Nothing about approval by Germer there. Revision or veto only.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: No. Mention of Germer's "approval" definitely appears
in both of the "official" Crowley-McMurtry "Caliphate" letters - see
"Materialien zum OTO", page 217. And as stated, the "Caliphate charters"
were only appointments conditional on an approval which was never
granted by Germer to McMurtry: Germer did not approve (of) McMurtry.}}
K: You quote it exactly right: "power in California". Everywhere else any
authority automatically expires.
K:---By the way, had Germer the power to initiate too (as a IX°)?
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Despite never having received any degree other than IX*
and possibly X°, and despite being _incapable_ of officiating in any of
the "lower magick" (as he called them) degrees - as Germer freely
admitted.}}
K:---Lodge Masters only had the authority to initiate into the 0°-III° And I
again refer to article XI of the 1917 constitution which makes ALL
initiations after Germer's death invalid.
S: "...take charge of the whole work of the Order..."
"...his authority is to be considered as Ours..."
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: But again: ONLY in California and subject to the APPROVAL
of Karl Germer!}}
ARGENTEUM ASTRUM
K: RE. AA: Heidrick wrote on 6 May 1995 that "living members [of the AA] must
sponsor and a chartered initiator must initiate according to external rules
for O.T.O. membership".* Am I to understand that "your" AA-"members" must be
members of an OTO (group) (*: Heidrick's use of the term "according")?---
S: He must have been talking about A.·. A.·. members performing O.T.O.
initiations. I am not an A.·. A.·. member, but as far as I know, there is
no requirement for members of A.·. A.·. to be members of O.T.O. I am aware
of several A.·. A.·. members of high rank who are not O.T.O. members.
Authority in O.T.O. does not give authority in A.·. A.·. I claim no rank or
authority whatsoever in A.·. A.·. at this time.
K:---Has this to do with Heidrick's try of trademarking the Star of Babalon in
order to file suit against others and in order to recover full control of
the AA-work of Crowley?---
S: I am unaware of that having happened. I think it would be inappropriate
for OTO to trademark the Sigillum Sanctum of the A.·. A.·.
K: But do you think it inappropriate for "any" AA group to trademark the
Sigillum Sanctum?
S: My opinion doesn't matter on issues pertaining solely to AA.
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Why does S's opinion not "matter" here - a rather
disingenuous claim? Does he not have one at all on this important
subject but is content to sit (unbecomingly bashful) upon the fence?
Perhaps the "Caliphate" do not have anything against any AA group
trademarking the sigil - particularly if that group is run by
"Caliphate" personnel! Nor is it quite such an irrelevant matter in
relation to the "Caliphate"'s new "Equinox" (Vol. IV No.1.): was this
not originally meant to be the organ the AA and not OTO? (In its last
three numbers produced by Crowley, it was only ever an organ of AA and
OTO, NEVER OTO on its own). Why has it then been copyrighted by the
OTO rather than the AA? Could the answer possibly be because no AA has
ever had any copyright claim WHATSOEVER?!)}}
K:---Isn't this somewhat contradictory to Crowley's "The Preaemonstrator of
the AA permit it to be known that there is not at present any necessary
incompatibility between the AA and the OTO and MMM, and allows memberships
of the same as a valuable preliminary training".? - Although James A.
Eshelman tries to prove otherwise in his "Mystical & Magical System of the
AA". Furthermore, Phyllis Seckler's "Grade"/"Degree" from Wolfe was not a
"high" one and what Motta's AA has to give is also NO "high" advancement in
the AA! Clear praemonstration died with Gerald Yorke.---
S: Although I am not directly involved, it is my understanding that the
A.·. A.·.for which a contact address is provided at the back of Book 4 is a
reunification of several A.·. A.·. lineages. It is also my understanding
that advancement in A.·. A.·. cannot be _given,_ but must, instead, be
_achieved._
K:---It seems that the "Caliphate" is not aware of all the AA-lineages that
draw back to Crowley. I have somewhat touched a Swiss one in my
"OTO-Phaenomen" in the chapter on Mellinger.
{{APPENDIX, 1997: there are even more: Arnoldo Krumm-Heller was a 8=3...}}
S: I'm afraid I will not be able to be of much assistance to you with respect
to A.·. A.·. matters.
"HOW TO MAKE YOUR OWN McOTO"
S: Unfortunately, it has just now come to my attention that you have published
original Crowley material from the Warburg Institute in your latest book,---
K: A "book"? Do you have a copy of these photocopies that were sent by
Gerald Yorke personally (when he still was alive)???
S:---material for which we, as you well know, claim the copyright.
Unfortunately, your decision to do so will result in a rather drastic change
in our relationship,---
K: Why so? Do historical facts change now?
S:---which I had thought was finally developing into something potentially
productive. I am very disappointed about this. I am not sure whether it
would be wise of me to send you anything at this point.---
K: Of course, it would! It would show that different opinioners can work
together. - I still would be happy to co-publish with you.
S:---Since so much could go wrong with my reading of your books, it would be
better for you to simply tell me. — What legal right do you have to publish
copyrighted Crowley material? Have you consulted your attorneys on this
particular matter? Were you not formally notified by Hymenaeus Beta some
time ago that infringement of our copyrights by you would be acted on?
...Why did you think you had the right to publish this material? Do you
think someone gave you permission, or do you simply deny that we posse ss
the Crowley copyrights?
K: It's all in my books. You should thoroughly study them and not rely on
hearsay or bad translations by partial parties who might fail to read
"between the lines"/or recognize the implements. It surely interests you
that ARW, on the same day as the photocopies called McOTO, also published
ALL the secret rituals of Rudolph Steiner's Anthroposophy. I hope you know
what ARW stands for: Arbeitsgemeinschaft fuer Religions- und
Weltanschauungsfragen: "Working society for religious and
weltanschauungs-questions". I gladly list some of the collaborators of ARW:
[...] ... I was just informed by my provider that someone tried to hack me.
I am very amused.
S: Why should that be amusing? I think it's deplorable. Why did you mention
this to me?
PROPOSALS
K: I think one of the next steps in our correspondence might be the exchange
of needed paper evidence in order I can make alterations, improvements and
additions to my articles and to/in the planned re-editions of all of my
books. E.g. send a copy of Germer's authorisation to McMurtry in late 1959
to "form a nucleus",
S: I will try to obtain a copy.
K: And that famous "codicil" to Crowley's Last Will which supposedly
establishes the precedent of a convocation of IX°s. I wonder why such an
important document has not been published yet?!
S: I am rather doubtful about this. I think it may simply have been the
"Constitutions of the Order of Thelemites," which had a similar provision;
and which Crowley had entrusted to Germer.
K: If no "Codicil attached to Crowley's Last Will" exists (you mention the
"Constitution of the Order of Thelemites) then this is a very serious matter
for "you". Because then there is NO justification for the existence of a
"Caliphate" OTO after McMurtry's death since there is no constitutional
apparatus (even if McMurtry were in fact "de facto" OHO) for either an
actual or de facto OHO to be elected other than by direct appointment or
convocation of Xths. Neither of which happened.
K: ...If you really will send all requested items/evidences I assure you that
I will do my best to give an improved version of my texts to my public (that
is, since one can't buy my stuff in bookstores: researchers, scientists and
"concerned parties").---
S: I have intended all along to do so, but it may take me some time to
compile these materials. I have asked for copies of most of the ones you
have asked for.
K:---But why not "publish" TOGETHER a special issue in my serial of books on
the OTO? We could improve our recent correspondence. I publish a translated
German version and you do an English "original" (maybe on the Internet where
you can prove to be "open and fair"): so we reach all "concerned parties".
Of course, you receive half of the income of the book or we donate it all to
a beneficiary organisation (WWF, Greenpeace, People with Aids...), as I do
with my next book, anyway!
{{AFTERWORD, 1997: Sabazius did not reply further to this correspondence and,
as expected, did not send any of the promised documents.}}
SOME LOOSE ENDS
K: Why Israel Regardie thought it necessary to "ask permission" of Metzger in
1972 to publish VISION AND THE VOICE, if Metzger had unclear credentials?
Why wouldn't Regardie just have asked McMurtry who lived "around the
corner"?
S: Letters survive in which McMurtry gives Regardie his blessings to proceed
with the book. If Regardie did write to Metzger, he may simply have wanted
to "cover his bets," to avoid potential challenges by any party.
K: Regardie's first choice always was Metzger. McMurtry only was 2nd choice.
This can be substantiated by letters. Prove the contrary, please.
...
K: I recently received a letter with "your" new official letterhead that
contains MMM. But what about the missing MMV and MMA? It seems that "you"
fear to claim worldwide supremacy with "your" "Caliph".
{{No reply.}}
- END OF PART FIVE OF FIVE -
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
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:
|
