'Caliphate' Ordo Templi Orientis
David Scriven
P.R. Koenig
[AI-generated image]
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 FIVELeading 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 McMURTRYK: 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" CALIPHATEK: 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 ASTRUMK: 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?PROPOSALSK: 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 ENDSK: 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
|
