?

Log in

No account? Create an account

January 22nd, 2007

INQUISITION IN AMERICA - PART ONE


A RELIGIOUS INQUISITION IN AMERICA? - PART ONE

8 DAYS LAST SUMMER

“This Order has existed already in the most remote times and it has manifested its activity secretly and openly in the world under different names and in various forms: it has caused social and political revolutions and proved to be the rock of salvation in times of danger and misfortune. It has always upheld the banner of freedom against tyranny in whatever shape this appeared, whether as clerical or political or social despotism or oppression of any kind.”  OTO Constitution

Eulis Lodge, circa 1988.  OTO Members from Southeast USA. All are gone.

 

Unfortunately, by the early years of the 21st Century, OTO policies had rendered it a more and more bureaucratized, less effective, and, frankly, more dog-eat-dog body. It was destined for the usual one generation “old boy” system that tends not to last any longer than the generation that abuses its prerogatives.  By the time I was prepared to speak at NOTOCON 2005 in Virginia, I was determined to draw a firm line by  (A) Presenting a to-the-point talk,  and  insure I earned my keep as a four-time guest speaker at NOTOCONs; (B) Make a ‘fashion statement’ about the OTO I joined and the OTO today by wearing a tee shirt with “I JOINED FOR THE SEX MAGICK” emblazoned on its front; (C) To throw the best damn NOTOCON party ever. This was intended to make a ‘social statement’ about the true purpose of OTO, built around the themes of ‘the green goddess’ absinthe, and “Carnivale” and (D) Have a one-on-one meeting with “King” Dave Scriven. At this meeting, I intended to present him with what became my “Statement on the OTO” and resign all managerial offices in protest of failed and ill-developed policies.  I was successful in all but the last, thrown off track by a very senior brother and friend who asked to speak with me privately, and told me of his own disillusionment.  We agreed to see Scriven together on Sunday Morning, but after hours of searching for him, as I later found out, he had left town, and when I ran into Scriven, after a most demanding morning of a most demanding weekend, I was not up for doing my original plan at that time. This was August of 2005.


 Part One of Four Parts

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

INQUISITION IN AMERICA - PART TWO

A RELIGIOUS INQUISITION IN AMERICA? - PART TWO

8 DAYS LAST SUMMER

 

 

THE EDICT AND CURIOUSLY LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE “MILITARY BODY” CONCEPT

 

(Again, note date, note the understanding of term “amenable”, see below)


 

Part One
Part Two of Four Parts
Part Three
Part Four

INQUISITION IN AMERICA - PART THREE

A RELIGIOUS INQUISITION IN AMERICA?  - PART THREE

8 DAYS LAST SUMMER

PING-PONG

 

Jul 28, 2006 1:42 PM

 

Dear David,

re

>I absolutely agree. Dissent - respectfully stated - and designed to

>inform rather than agitate is an absolute right.

 

Your motivation is not that clear, however.

 

Well, motivation is a tricky thing, especially to non-mind-readers.  I should think that people could read and judge for themselves. That’s >kind of the point of free speech. The point for me is whether my >fundamental obligations are to individuals or to the Work of the Order,

 

The oaths you have taken are explicit. I do not accept your story that your love for the Order, or for the Work, required you to denounce me in public. Nor do I accept most of what you said about me in your denunciation.

 

>I did not “denounce” you—I said what I believed and believe to be true...that you are not a competent administrator, and should step down.  There were no, repeat NO personal attacks, vulgar language or anything about your personal life, nor do I have much of an opinion on same.  I spoke only to the same issues you addressed in your 10 year review, but from a very different point of view.  Was my statement strongly worded?  Moderately, but it stuck to issues of substance. Was my statement in any way an attack on you as a person?  Absolutely not.

>To be specific, if you don’t like what I have to say, don’t attempt to >hide behind ‘impersonal” after-the-fact blanket rules.

 

There was no attempt to “hide” behind anything. I knew that you would know immediately what I was talking about, and voila. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with whether or not I personally “like” what you have had to say. However, what you have chosen to say, and the way you have chosen to say it, has had specific and unavoidable effects. You have publicly broken faith with your Grand Master, and your offices in OTO depended on maintaining that faith.

 

It has everything to do with what you “like” and I doubt that you are

so blind as not to see that, having spoken to you in person in your own home, in Austin, and elsewhere on various of these matters long before going public with my concerns, I had exhausted this possibility.  When one sees the problem as upper management, who does one go to?  Properly speaking, you appear so personally hot about this-as well as being the subject of my rather formally worded missive, you should recuse yourself from judging it; you can hardly be objective. Do you really think yourself so above it all that a call for your resignation is something that you can render objective verdict upon?  You should defer to others not so called upon, under, at minimum, the strictures of the oath of a GIC.

 

I would have been happy to have continued to work with you, and to try to work out our differences. You were once one of my closest allies, or so I thought. I will always be grateful to you for your past service, which was considerable. It was not I who cut you off—it was you who cut me off.

 

This is playing to the crowd, I think.  I stated, in my missive, that I do not presume to know what is in your heart, nor in Bill’s. You might grant me the same assumption.

I regarded you as the most competent Secretary General the Order has ever had. I believe you to be a victim of “the Peter Principle” and have on the whole served the Order poorly as USGM.  This has nothing to do with personal friendship.

I didn’t consider you an “ally” but a friend, a word I use VERY sparingly. Before your elevation (if that’s what it was) the Caliph told me that I was your biggest booster, as you were mine.  Ask him.  Further, you know very well that I have harbored increasing reservations about the Order’s conduct for years, expressed to you in private (shall I cite dates from my magical diary) to little effect for years, on this and other private Order lists, et al, before feeling I was compelled to become a whistleblower. Further, at another ranking brother’s request, I attempted to meet privately with you on these matters at NOTOCON, hoping to avoid public confrontation.  When that failed to work out, it is my understanding that said ranking brother did meet with you, and was authorized to represent both himself and me with the views expressed in my missive and current book, word-for-word essentially, SIX MONTHS before I went public.  The fact that you equate “allies” with those who agree with you is itself most revealing.  I cannot imagine being further apart on Thelemic philosophy than I am from John Crow - my views are actually closer to yours - but we have remained friends throughout.  The old boy approach which a then very new Acting OHO once told me would be the death of the OTO if it stayed in place - is based in the idea that we cover each other’s backs regardless.  This kind of misses the point of the II* I think, in which the (intended) program of OTO is laid out.

 My motivations are out of love of the essential Work of the Order, not out of personal dislike of anyone.

 

Your attempts at justification aside, the effects have not been

beneficial. I heard plenty about that last weekend.

 

“Justification” is one of those loaded terms.  This is my take...I do

not have to justify free speech to you or anyone else, unless I defame your character and I have not.  I merely think you and Bill are WRONG, not “evil”. That said, it depends on how you define “beneficial”.  If it caused your immediate entourage distress, or caused some members to “Question Authority” it is good—better than I had hoped, in fact.

 

>BTW, I entered OTO as a recognized Bishop in the Gnosis under the

>policy then in place, and representations directly made to me in

>person and in writing as to the ad vitam nature of this office, I

>cannot imagine anyone having the audacity to presume to take from me

>that which was not given to me by OTO, though explicitly recognized

>by the Acting Frater Superior in writing and in person as legitimate

>and as valid as his own credentials.

 

Whatever you received outside OTO and EGC is not under discussion

here. When I speak of resigning from offices, I mean offices in OTO and EGC.

 

Then you should so state.  As I recall, among many things we have cross-consecrated, and you sought consecration yourself outside OTO, at a time when you still understood the value of such things.

 

Also, as you know, one can only resign outwardly from membership in the Order. Any effects on your subtle body, along with your oaths, remain for the duration of your current incarnation.

 

My “subtle body” is just fine.  I thought it was uncouth to “engage in magical wars” whatever that may be. ;-)

>If you wish me to depart in peace, when I stepped down from what I

>consider managerial positions, in a private letter, that would have

>been a suitable time and place to ask for my stepping down altogether.

 

That may have been more optimal, but this will have to do. It certainly can’t wait much longer, and there’s no going back now.

 

I knew that when I wrote it David.  It was a test of your chivalry and

respect for dissent.  You flunked it, sadly.  I am the first to stand up in public, but others will follow.  I think you are ruining the OTO.

 

As for the private letter part, your denunciation of me was hardly private. At least I restricted this discussion to the body of your peers—and I think they needed to hear it.

 

“Denunciation”?  Well, I guess we define this very differently.  I have

said nothing about you personally of a negative nature, nor do I especially have anything to say of a negative nature.  See above.  I made every effort to air these matters privately first, at a most difficult time in my personal life.

 The approach taken here is a reflection of the bad taste shown since some symbolic crowns seem to have gone to the head of some adult American citizens who should know better.

 

This has nothing to do with European versus American attitudes

towards traditional monarchy.

 

In an organization founded on being a model for civilization (IMO), it has EVERYTHING to do with monarchy, government, fanaticism, free speech and democracy in the post 9/11 reality.  Not understanding this is one of your most glaring failures.

 

In any American corporation, you would have been fired for doing to your boss what you have done to me.

 

This is not a corporation, you are not my boss, and in corporate America (which I grew up in BTW) it is rarely that simple. Whistleblowers have a special status under some circumstances, there are no ad vitam chairs of the board, and the board answers to the investors.  None of this applies at all.  BTW, sometimes, in fact, the Boss gets fired.  Today, often, in fact.

 

>Its a sad day when this is no longer the understanding of the

>National Grand Master General. Perhaps it is not me who should resign.

 

No, Allen, I’m afraid it’s definitely you. It is necessary that you resign.

 

You may be able to execute your wish - you are in the position of advantage, but that does not, ipso facto, make you right.

 

  My resignation, or lack thereof, is not going to topple OTO.  Your resignation might actually save the organization. It is, therefore, necessary.  Whether you do so or not, now or later, is another matter.  You are not the root problem; that lies higher, and is a matter for another forum.

I suggest you do me the same courtesy I would do you, if the situation were reversed, and write me privately asking for my resignation. 

ITBOTO

T Allen Greenfield, Bishop

 

 

Part One
Part Two
Part Three of Four
Part Four

INQUISITION IN AMERICA - PART FOUR

A RELIGIOUS INQUISITION IN AMERICA?  - PART FOUR

8 DAYS LAST SUMMER

 

 

“AD VERITATEM’S” TWELVE YEAR GRUDGE SURFACES

 

Jul 28, 2006 8:53 PM

 

93 All

Well you know folks, sometimes a person should just keep his mouth shut.

This is one of those times for me. So in what follows, you’ll understand my demon (or daemon) made me do it. I apologize in advance to my common sense which clearly tells me to shut up rather than write this or, worse yet, press the send button.

Perhaps 15 years ago or maybe a mere dozen, Mr. T Allen accused me and Nancy of lying. I had by this time developed a pretty thick skin about myself, but calling Nancy a liar really got under that skin.

And I watched the progress of Mr. T Allen ever since.

He did a credible job at Graeb’s trial.

But I always knew him to be an ass-kissing, brown-nosing, lying son of a bitch.

And I knew that in time, if this was the real O.T.O., my opinion would be validated and Nancy’s honor publicly restored.

And just as she takes her VIIth, this comes down the pike.

If anyone has had more violent disagreements with Sabazius than I have, I challenge him or her to say so. But I respect and love our Grand Master. And he and I continue to have our disagreements. And he is always the first to know my opinion. And that is the way it should be.

Because you see, 30 plus years later, I still affirm this is the real

O.T.O.

Sometimes it takes a while. But like Grady always said, we’re just sorting ourselves out here.

Mr. T Allen: Gooodbye and good riddance. You are an asshole.

93 93/93

AD VERITATEM IX°


PART ONE

PART TWO

PART THREE

PART FOUR OF FOUR

 

 

Latest Month

October 2019
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow