I have read this a while ago, it was free online. I don't know much about Motta other than he was Brazilian. Do you disagree with any of the principles in his CALLING THE CHILDREN OF THE SUN? If so which bits and why?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
I don't know much about Motta other than he was Brazilian.
I will add another fact to your store of knowledge about Marcello Motta: he was a raving egotistical loon, who became convinced he was "Chosen".
Here is a good summary of his occult career and claims, including this expulsion from his "A.'. A.'." of James Wasserman, Bill Breeze, and J. Daniel "Handsome Dan" Gunther:
I have read this a while ago, it was free online. I don't know much about Motta other than he was Brazilian. Do you disagree with any of the principles in his CALLING THE CHILDREN OF THE SUN? If so which bits and why?
I have not read it but am reading it now. Thank you.
Didn't he ask for nudes from people who applied for membership in his groups?
And didn't one of his followers try to blow up a publisher's warehouse because of Motta's claims to own sole rights to all of Crowley's works?
Thank you for the link, I'll read that too!
I don't know much about Motta other than he was Brazilian.
I will add another fact to your store of knowledge about Marcello Motta: he was a raving egotistical loon, who became convinced he was "Chosen".
Here is a good summary of his occult career and claims, including this expulsion from his "A.'. A.'." of James Wasserman, Bill Breeze, and J. Daniel "Handsome Dan" Gunther:
So his CALLING THE CHILDREN OF THE SUN, was it a momentary lapse of sanity or part of his raving? I'm not really interested in he said/ she said cult-stories.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
I salute your devotion to ignorance about authors you are reading, and apologize for offering you a long, well-sourced exposition of Motta's relationship with Thelema, OTO, and A.'. A.'.. But you see, this is a public forum, and i am not just addressing you. I thought some might find it useful background, which appears to have been the case.
I read it and Letter to a Brazilian Freemason years ago, and recall both as fairly nutty politically, and quasi-fascist, but of course Brazil was governed by a Fascist ("Integralist") dictatorship throughout almost his entire life, so that was the politics he grew up on.
If you care to post a link, i will reread. Very easy to find in Portuguese, but i would prefer to read in it English as i can do that much faster, and no complete text turned up on first search.
And of course, you have the benefit of having read it recently. Why don't you get the ball rolling and give us your opinions as to "the principles" therein, letting us know "which bits and why" you agree/disagree with?
Motta did write the lyrics to a couple good songs recorded by Raul Seixas on his Thelemic-themed album Novo Aeon; here is the title track, lyrics (naturally in Portuguese) by our man included in the video credits below it. Seixas and Paulo Coelho were his A.'. A.'. disciples.
Raul Seixas
Never heard of him before but just listened to the track you linked to-which (despite my inability to understand a word) was great (esp. the "monologue" at the end!). Hints of Neil Diamond in his voice for sure. Definitely better than "Ghost."
A pretty big Brazilian rock star of the '70s-'80s (he died in '89), still considered one of the greatest ever in Br. The albums Gita and Novo Aeon are the peak of his mystical interests musically, though he kept up with his Work from what i've heard. Kind of a one-man Grateful Dead, or a less smug and sarcastic Frank Zappa? Hard to compare him to any US/UK stars.
I thought some might find it useful background, which appears to have been the case.
It was too long for me to read this morn, what with The End of the World occurring, with all its loose ends, but on perusal I see that I have read all this before, so it doesn't matter (to me).
But for persons great and small, who think this twit had anything important to say, they should read your linked biography - so that they really know what a "manic maniac" is.
As far as him have a "moment of sanity," this does not count. We can find precious statements in the works of RTC - so what? We demand consistent sanity (at least at the 80% level). Motta is currently classified (by me) in the 10-15% range.
Why don't you get the ball rolling and give us your opinions as to "the principles" therein, letting us know "which bits and why" you agree/disagree with?
In case you haven't noticed (in relation to any business deal - like your bank, cc's, insurance, etc), the trend is to provide "you" (us) with more convenience through digital AI interation ... which results in "you" (us) doing all the work and having all the answers before trying to resolve anything. Dom is presently using this approach (on us) and, personally, I have no time for psychological abhorrence right now.
Who really gives a can of Shinola what the ego-radiant Motta had to say about anything? (If he has produced a thing of practical value - and not just the usual philosophical drivel - please correct my mis-assumptive assumption).
Anyone find a free online link to the essay referenced in the OP? From memory I read his essay as a young guy and found it to be right on.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Anyone find a free online link to the essay referenced in the OP? From memory I read his essay as a young guy and found it to be right on.
This? 😀
http://www.astrumargenteum.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Calling-the-Children-of-the-Sun-1.pdf
Thanx, @katrice for your superior google fu.
Have now re-read it, and can confirm that it is indeed the same loony quasi-fascist product of very immature AC imitation that i recall. Utter crap, with the few good bits more or less directly cribbed from AC.
I can imagine myself writing similar things around age 19 or so. Of course, Motta was 31, not 19, when he published this- somewhat less excuse for taking this shit seriously by that age. In fact, sadly, i did write crap like this, but unlike some, i had the sense to burn them as embarrassing evidence of inflated self-importance on getting my first few "results".
Many do not; sad.
Thanx, @katrice for your superior google fu.
No problem! I'm glad I could help. 😀
Have now re-read it, and can confirm that it is indeed the same loony quasi-fascist product of very immature AC imitation that i recall. Utter crap, with the few good bits more or less directly cribbed from AC.
Oh, goodness. What a review.
The shame of it all.
From Motta's essay ( I am reminded of a young Killing Joke's diatribe against Live Aid);
. For he who gives alms to beggars
incites his neighbor to pauperhood; he who helps the famished often drives
away the goad that awakes animal consciousness to human activity; he who
builds orphanages should rather teach ignorant people to control their
instincts; and he who indiscriminately offers jobs to the unemployed most
of the time stops a phase of displacement that leads a man to the discovery
of his true vocation and will. Therefore the Masters do not help men, but
make men learn how to help themselves.
I think the term to describe to describe pieces of the the above passage would be 'Social Darwinism' i.e. evil. Likewise some of this passage;
A word to tell you of communism. Whether it disguises itself as
primitive Christianism, whether it call itself scientific materialism, it is
neither one nor the other thing, for the primitive Christians worshipped
God in Themselves; I refer to the Gnostics, ...... As for scientific materialism,
this is one thing communism never was, it being based on an a certain
number of axioms which are idealistic and romantic and have nothing in
common with the facts of science; as, for instance, that men are all equal,
when evidence is plentiful that natural law in this is variation from the
norm; and that, for instance, that personal possessions blaspheme the
human community, which is fundamentally false and even silly, for if
personal property were theft, as the socialists want, then men would all
have a single body, a single brain, a single tongue, a single penis and a
single anus.
More, the social organization preached by this "scientific materialism"
is in flagrant contrast with the natural law of evolution by mutation and by
selection of the species; for genetics teaches us, and the observation of the
behavior of the species confirms the teaching, that variations from the norm
produce evolution, and that survival must always be of the fittest. Every
human society, therefore, that does not allow the maximum of freedom for
each individual to develop freely and by personal choice his natural
tendencies, and to compete freely and equally with others upon life’s field
of battle, is an idealistic society, having nothing to do with materialism or
with science.
Therefore, communism, as any other tendency to uniformity
and subjection of the individual to the interests of a herd or a fictional
entity (the "State"), is an unhealthy tendency, idealistic and vicious; fight
it with all the forces of your individuality, ye who are true men! Thou hast
noright but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay. Let him who
has ears listen.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Let him who has ears listen.
It is well-known that I have auditory deficiencies, so I was not able to hear and listen. But I was able to peruse the monograph, and even focus closely on some lines that purported to make a point.
As far as I can tell, this is Motta talking/writing to himself, explaining his personal yama/niyama and other drivelalities. If anybody printed this text, it is wise to burn it immediately or risk getting Mental Covid.
David's excerpts of Motta's essay make him sound small minded trying to think significant.
I'm a Motta guy, Probationer in good standing at the time of his death. Never had anything to do with the OTO, was never interested in it. Plus it was too much of a PITA to get the nude photos sorted at the time - there were no cellphones in those days! - and I was too embarrassed anyways. I should say the photos required were plain standing front and side shots, it's not as if he asked people to take them in lascivious poses or anything 🙂
To me, he was the only lineal successor from Crowley who actually wrote stuff that has the same numinous quality, and layered depth as Crowley (and Germer, if you read his letters). I've never really rated anyone else. Frankly, some people here are better than most of the former "big names." Except Motta, he was the real deal as far as I'm concerned. The way he was treated by the then-current Thelemic "establishment" and some of his former students was disgusting.
I think I posted on this many years ago, but I recall at the time when Motta mentioned in a letter that he was about to embark on the lawsuits, I had a feeling of dread in the pit of my stomach. I didn't say anything of course. Then a while later I remember asking him how the cases had gone, and with a true teacher's wry wit he said, "All lost - did you think it would be otherwise?"
So I'm a fan, and always have been (even though I don't agree with everything he said). But ofc YMMV (as it seems to for many here 🙂 ).
Just on an exoteric level, I think four of his notable achievements were a) bringing into his curriculum some of the "2nd wave" Feminist classics (plus an anti-Feminist tract, for balance), b) weaving the Darwinian "new synthesis" (Edmund Wilson, etc.) into his teachings, c) his "Field Theory of Sex" (which is really just a suggestive outline for future research, but still quite thought-provoking, and an extension of some of the things Ida Craddock was talking about - can't remember the details now, but I recall thinking that at the time, after reading Craddock), and d) his absolute insistence on what's now called "nofap" as one of the key foundations of Yama.
I'm a Motta guy, Probationer in good standing at the time of his death.
Condolences are expressed, all the way around.
Then a while later I remember asking him how the cases had gone, and with a true teacher's wry wit he said, "All lost - did you think it would be otherwise?"
So I'm a fan
I'm trying to see how these two sentences connect. You like losers? Success is your proof, and somebody who demonstrates failure is to be admired? Especially in the OTO, where lawsuits are (were - past tense) strictly forbidden.
I'm trying to see how these two sentences connect. You like losers? Success is your proof, and somebody who demonstrates failure is to be admired? Especially in the OTO, where lawsuits are (were - past tense) strictly forbidden.
Lawsuits between brothers IIRC.
As to success - who rates the OTO nowadays? I notice there's a fair amount of contempt for it here now. (For some that might only be because it's now run by failed Motta students - but eh, two birds with one stone and all that.)
Sure, it would have been nice if he'd won the lawsuits, if people had suddenly been thunderstruck with common sense, but it was always unlikely. Really, I think his main purpose was just to get a lot of stuff out in the open and on record for future investigators and historians. I think Claudia Canuto (one of Motta's best students, who retired from the scene ages ago) mentioned that he'd said to her something to the effect of "the battlefield of the OTO was fully mined." Any good leader has a Plan A, B and C, no plan survives contact with the enemy, etc.
I don't think it's any secret that Motta didn't think much of the Thelemic "establishment" at that time, and it's not as if he hadn't made honest attempts at sounding out the various putative "leaders" (e.g. Grant, the Fraternatis Saturni guy, etc.) before the Commentaries of AL broadside. But it was all shit.
That's why I much prefer the more "open source" - or perhaps one might say Darwinian - approach. (As I said in my comments about LAShtAL recently.) Better to just throw it all against the wall and see what sticks. It's going to take longer for a solid thing to emerge than if people had been more disciplined and dedicated in the old days. But it is what it is now.
Nobody said this was going to be easy 🙂 Well, someone might have said that at some point it may become easy, but nobody said that would be easy in the mere first few hundred years of a several-thousand-year movement. Look at the complete shitshow that was the start of the Old Aeon/Christianity. Nobody really knows what the hell went on then, there were so many people hatching cunning schemes at cross-purposes with each other. And there are no records - unless there's a jar somewhere buried in the desert with some smoking guns (although the Nag Hammadi text that shows some old Greek philosophical text Christianized as a "gospel" spoken by "Jesus" is something of a minor smoking gun).
As to success - who rates the OTO nowadays?
We do. The Grand Tribunal of LAShTAL. Anyone who can get to Geburah, even temporarily, is eligible to join, vote, or engage. This is why the OTO duplexity has eith advised or ordered acolytes to stay away from our Halls.
I notice there's a fair amount of contempt for it here now. (For some that might only be because it's now run by failed Motta students - but eh, two birds with one stone and all that.)
Any disfavoritism around here is mostly based on objective facts (failure to publish as promised, fill/kill/lawsuits/changing the constitution/rules, poor acting/scenery in the Mass, etc). The Bailiff may recite the litany). They also claim to be The One True Order and the rest of us are Fakirs. This last is inexcusable. They are the elite. Give me, and us, a break.
Sure, it would have been nice if he'd won the lawsuits, if people had suddenly been thunderstruck w
Give me, and us, another break. McM had a Written Charter from AC. Motta had nothing. There was no chance. What a tremendous ego that man had.
Nobody said this was going to be easy
Yes, this is the time-honored phase.
Give me, and us, another break. McM had a Written Charter from AC. Motta had nothing.
McMurtry's "charter" (if you mean the Caliphate thing) was conditional on approval from Germer, which he never gave.
If you just mean a charter to work the O.T.O., Germer had written to Motta in 1962 proposing to send him a charter, but Motta never received that letter - just as he never received the confirmation from Mrs. Germer (in response to Motta's request for clarification) that by "Follower" (in the letter she'd sent 5 days after Germer's death, relaying Germer's dying wish), she had meant “Follower to the Crown of the O.T.O.” (She was an old lady, give her a break 😉 )
Motta never received either of those two crucial letters, yet somehow they ended up in McMurtry's hands, and had to be extracted from them via court order. Seems fishy to me, and not in a Christian sense.
But it's all water under the bridge now anyway. Again, the point is that because of the testimonies and documents on record (which relate not just to the Motta side of things, but to some of the earliest developments in the post-AC Thelemic movement in general), researchers in the future will at least have a better picture of the messy origins than any similar (and putatively, eventually large scale) religious movement (or whatever you might want to call it) has had in the past. That, plus the original handwriting for Liber AL should put things on a better footing than the last few times some kind of mass enlightenment has been tried.
McMurtry's "charter" (if you mean the Caliphate thing) was conditional on approval from Germer, which he never gave.
I see you want to drag this out ... again ... about ten years after it was dissected here. Guess what? Germer died. McM was a full IX* - Motta was nothing. Not even a 0* Minerval. How could he be the inherited holder of an Order he never joined? The court gave it to McM. I would have given it to McM.
I do not remember seeing the word "Caliphate" on the doc, which was a "formal (but apparently, legal) note, authorizing McM to "reorganize" the OTO (subject to Germer's approval). Germer died. That's one factor out of the equation.
If you just mean a charter to work the O.T.O., Germer had written to Motta in 1962 proposing to send him a charter, but Motta never received that letter
Yes, yes. We all know about the "intended" actions and "proposed" schemes that never materialized and were never proven. Courts and The Grand Tribunal in The Citadel of geburah like to see "proof" for "claims." The court didn't buy it. I don't buy it. And if anybody else around here buys it, please feel free to write up and join the Motta Defense League, non-Inc.
she had meant “Follower to the Crown of the O.T.O.”
No breaks given. We know all about the "follower." There cometh one to follow the ... has become a well-used and abused phrase around here.
Wait! Hark - the Angels just came to me. They said you were wondering about why we (here at LAShTAL) might have dim views of the current Tong, and maybe hold Motta up as a fool. This is probably because almost everybody here is a solo practitioner. That is, we don't belong to some Tong (where we know from experience, they all go bananas). Now there are actually the heads of some Orders posting here, but they are fortunate to have survived The Burning Ground, and they know better than to strut or even be concerned about the wild antics that take place in the Outer Order(s).
These comments do not apply to vertical lineages where politics and personas are set aside, and only the work counts. There are a few of these.
Seems fishy to me, and not in a Christian sense.
We (Solar Lodge) offered to work with McM, by letter. He chose to destroy us by alerting the FBI to our location. I don't see why he wouldn't conceal anything that helped his opponents. He was a prick. But he still was a IX* with a note, and Motta had letters that spoke of "intentions," not actions. I am not a lawyer, but I have had to deal with a lot of legal matters in my government dealings, and I suggest that Motta and yourself not take up the practice of law.
In fact, your reliance on "proposals" and "intentions" without proof(s) eliminates you from sitting on The Grand tribunal - because you don't know what proof is.
(Maybe you're just playing Motta's Devil's Advocate)
some kind of mass enlightenment
Another paradox. The law is for all. But my servants shall be few and secret. This implies that the gates are open for anyone who cares to (is able to), walk in. But, you know, manay are called but few can get through the gate.
I see you want to drag this out ... again ...
Well you did ask "I'm trying to see how the two sentences connect." I have no interest in "dragging this out" either, I was explaining how I see it.
The court didn't buy it.
But it did (through clenched teeth) when Weiser tried to sue for damages. Why did the court not accept Motta's claim the first time, but find it "non-frivolous and colorable" enough to deny Weiser damages the second time?
Because by that time the letter McMurtry had been holding onto from Mrs. Germer, in which she had clarified to Motta that by "Follower" she had meant "Follower in the Crown of the O.T.O.", had been forced out of him by court order.
Was Motta trying to "muscle in on the action"? It seems like that kind of thought was getting a lot of peoples' panties in a bunch in those days. Well, maybe, but on the other hand omnia munda mundis.
This is probably because almost everybody here is a solo practitioner. That is, we don't belong to some Tong (where we know from experience, they all go bananas).
Sort of, I get your point; but the O.T.O. was supposed to be an attempt to set up a public order. It may indeed be impossible, but if one tries such a thing it has to have "movement discipline." The boss is the boss. Reuss was the boss, he made Crowley the boss, Crowley made Germer the boss and Germer made Motta the boss (as is now obvious, and would have been obvious from the start if certain bits of correspondence hadn't mysteriously disappeared until years later - although it should have been obvious from the quality of Motta's writings anyway). But the apprentices were too busy putting straws in their hair, thinking they were Jesus Christ, and laughing at the size of Motta's penis.
Thanks for your personal anecdote regarding Mr. Motta and his statement about the lawsuits, which demonstrate not a loser mentality as suggested...but something of a higher nature, for as i think many understand, the legal system is not necessarily fair and actually corrupt, rotten and immoral as it is served by a priest class that serves itself first.
While i have only one of Mr. Motta's books, The Commentaries on AL, there is one comment in there of Mr. Motta's that is quite striking, and featured on the back of the book:
26. These slay, naming your enemies; & they shall fall before you.
" Serious students will understand that "they shall fall before you" does not necessarily mean that you shall slay them. Also, unserious students had better beware of trying to employ this magical formula: "thou has no right but to do they will."
Perhaps the following apologue will help:
A profane slew a battle before Ra-Hoor-Khuit, naming a person he considered his enemy; and soon after the profane went mad.
An initiate slew a beetle before Ra-Hoor-Khuit, naming a person he considered his enemy; and soon after, this person fell before him.
An Exempt Adept slew a beetle before Ra-Hoor-Khuit, naming the person he considered his worst enemy, that is, himself; and soon after, he became a Master of the Temple.
AUMGN."
Marcello Motta
I take this to be an excellent insight!
for as i think many understand, the legal system is not necessarily fair and actually corrupt, rotten and immoral as it is served by a priest class that serves itself first.
Yes exactly. It would have been nice if he'd won, not just for his sake, for the sake of the succession and Thelema, and Thelemic material published, but also as a sign that the American system wasn't totally the degenerate tool of an oligarchy.
But at least a whole bunch of stuff is now on record (including a snapshot of the degeneracy of the American system, if anyone were in any doubt about that 🙂 )
You have some amazingly uninformed opinions about the USA, @gurugeorge - can we just confirm that this is entirely second-hand info, based on what you've been told, and that you have never actually spent more than a month or so in the USA? Of course, @hadgigegenraum has no such excuse, so i suppose one can convince oneself of anything, if one tries hard enough, and restricts one's information inputs to suit one's beliefs.
Having been a lawyer, a criminal defendant, a small-claims court litigant, a NYC housing court litigant, and having been engaged personally in protracted, big-$ Federal litigation, i have a pretty broad experience of US courts stretching over 5 decades. There are many aspects of American law that i wish were different, in fact the systemic bias against my poor/working-class clients was why i stopped practicing law, and went into academia. And, of course, the current Supreme Court majority is a body of partisan hacks.
But US courts, in the 50 very different state systems, and the Federal courts, are hardly a monolithic body, and to imagine that they are somehow controlled by an "oligarchy" is to venture far beyond anything remotely supportable with real-world evidence into unhinged kook/nut territory.
One lunatic losing in court over a total lack of any evidence to support his case, and, of course, his arrogance, (and Motta admitting in testimony that he was a habitual liar was also not entirely helpful (we know this from the fact that the "corrupt" judge quoted this rather startling admission in the judgement)) does not exactly provide persuasive evidence that "the American system [is] the degenerate tool of an oligarchy."
What interest would you imagine this "oligarchy" might have in which of two obscure claimants to the legacy of a forgotten English charlatan wins? Why on earth would this "oligarchy" give a shit either way?
Perhaps it can be said that Motta's comments concerned a situation where he knew that he would lose, but felt obliged to press the effort anyways...i really do no know.
As regards America having a two class legal system, well this is true and while Ignant666 might claim that their is no oligarchy, his closing to leave the practice of law relative to his being a witness to the treatment of the poor (anyone who can not afford a lawyer) is proof that the legal system is run by a class of plutocratic measure.
Yes the legal system is fair: when you know the rules and appear as sovereign, as people among We the People, and as the tribunal before a Court of Record....
But Motta probably hired an attorney, to represent him, rather than hired one for an opinion or expert witness to records, etc which thus made Motta by legal definition, an infant and unable to take care of his own affairs; and perhaps wrongly advised to sue in the first place.....Anyways by making himself an infant, Motta surrendered his claims to being a sovereign, so how could he be convincing in claiming to be Sovereign as OHO of the OTO, as a matter of Law.
Thus by relegating himself to an inferior legal position Motta became a Judas to the very law of Thelema that he claimed to be authoritative.... the same could be said for others...
But Motta probably hired an attorney, to represent him, rather than hired one for an opinion or expert witness to records, etc which thus made Motta by legal definition, an infant
Can you cite some authority for this novel claim, which i have never heard before?
My ex-sister-in-law is a "sovereign citizen" from way back, and i thought i had heard every nut argument commonly made by crazy people in US courts, but this is a new one to me. BTW, an attorney would almost never qualify as an "expert witness" on anything- lawyers hire expert witnesses who know about subjects under litigation, they don't serve as them.
In case there is any chance you will believe me, as a person who has both been an attorney and hired lots of them, hiring an attorney to represent you does not make you "by legal definition, an infant", or cause you to "surrender [your] claims to being a sovereign" [whatever those might be].
I will accept that you are unable to understand what i said about why i quit the law, but can assure you that it has nothing to do with "proof that the legal system is run by a class of plutocratic measure."
Also, as to "the poor (anyone who can not afford a lawyer)", all of my work as a lawyer was for clients who could not afford a lawyer. Apparently you have never been arrested, or seen a US cop show- if you can't afford a lawyer in a criminal case, the government has to provide you with a free one.
Social Darwinist Motta lost the case because he couldn't afford a good lawyer? The irony.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
can we just confirm that this is entirely second-hand info, based on what you've been told, and that you have never actually spent more than a month or so in the USA?
Wrong again, I lived for about six months in Texas 😉 But I'm not sure why you think living somewhere gives you a better insight into the system. In some cases it might, but in some cases it might be the opposite, in that you're so immersed in the system you can't see it objectively.
and of course, his arrogance
Is that a legal term?
Is that a legal term?
I take it you haven't read the trial judgement? I don't think it is reasonably disputable that his testimony was arrogant in tone.
I also note that you have not responded to my point that Motta admitting in testimony that he was a habitual liar was not helpful to his case.
I lived for about six months in Texas
Impressive indeed to have such detailed knowledge of the "degenerate" Federal courts of Maine from that six month stint a mere 2,000 or so miles (3,200 km) away in Texas!
Roughly the distance from London to St Petersburg, in the True Land Of Freedom (Russia).
Before you say "But the UK and Russia are different countries!", let me point out that Texas and Maine are also in different states, and in different Federal court circuits. They are also roughly as culturally similar as Great Britain and Russia.
she had meant "Follower in the Crown of the O.T.O.",
Okay, I understand that. My only point is that this was deathbed hearsay, and Motta was never a member of the OTO ... so Germer had an "intention" to pass on the X* or OHO-ship, but he never did it. I don't see how this leaves Motta with much ground to stand on.
By the way, I'm not just picking on a self-declared "Motta fan" because of the illogic I have always seen in his case, with which I am familiar ... but because I have dealt with the man, personally, in the past. Goodness, I refer you to my rambling expose of psychological disorders on the path, just finished and now showing on the "Magical Instruments" thread.
A second point involves the idea that nothing I have read, heard, or corresponded with, in any single concept, practice, or idea, from Motta, caught my attention, was memorable, or stood out in any way ... except for personal insults, racial surs (that were, amusingly, way off based. Haha. He slandered my Jewishness, when in fact I am Aryan), and dreadful proclamations.
He presented himself to me as an 8=3, and he offered me the Directorship of his org, in California, which is where I lived. So we're talking about high-level dice being rolled. He also submitted demands, if I accepted. They involved totalitarian dictatorship, and I was not offered that position.
Maybe you can bail him out a little by copying and posting one new concept or practice that he proclaimed, which adds to, or refines, the general paradigm of Thelema. Not a long essay. Just a 3-4 extract of something that would be practical to anyone (among the chosen secret few, of course) ...?
(I know you liked his adding of old books to the curriculum, but this is not necessary for the average aspirant. It is appreciated by folks who are readers and philosophers)
Reuss was the boss, he made Crowley the boss
Oops. Error. Crowley stole the Order boss-ship from Reuss by declaring him mentally unfit, and declaring himself the new Boss. . Reuss challenged back. Stalemate. Then Reuss died. AC was affirmed as OHO-boss by a Council (Germer, Jones, who-else? {blank] Kunzel?, were there, and they made him the boss. But the Order of succession works out fine according to the exoteric history.
One lunatic losing in court over a total lack of any evidence to support his case, and, of course, his arrogance, (and Motta admitting in testimony that he was a habitual liar was also not entirely helpful ...
Yes, this is our interpretation of the M.'.M.'. (Motta Mystery). I thought everybody knew this version. Now we have GGeorge who is "a Motta fan" and who thinks he was "the real deal." I don't get the joke and I am attempting to determine if we missed something, or otherwise how the Svengali thing works.
Perhaps it can be said that Motta's comments concerned a situation where he knew that he would lose, but felt obliged to press the effort anyways...i really do no know.
You are ("what if?") describing a scenario that could be termed "crazy." Of course you don't really know. You don't need to.
Motta was a self-confessed alcoholic, habitual liar, and obviously fell under spells of para-noya. This apparently broke out into schizophrenia ("dangerous to self or others") when he attempted the magical assassination of four expelled students who planned to murder him.
Please unravel that puzzle ... and make sense out of it.
i thought i had heard every nut argument commonly made by crazy people
This is why you are still among us. Apparently your destiny is to actually hear every aberration under the stars and the law ... simultaneously.
Once you have heard every claim, then either Jesus, YHVH, elohim, or Lao Tze will take you up into Heaven ... without the inconvenience of mortal death.
lawyers hire expert witnesses who know about subjects under litigation
This is True. I was such an "expert." The term Adeptus Expetness should not be applied. I was on the "subject matter expert" list of the Caliphornia Establishment, and I got called up to testify (in a criminal case of practicing medicine without a license). They paid better than my regular job (per hour).
You've read Motta's writings/letters and ravings and you don't find him totally batshit insane? I am flabbergasted.
He makes Crowley look like a Daoist sage.
Germer never made Motta the boss. Is this not clear enough:
“You blithering, miserable IDIOT! I have seen and had to observe several similar cases of Demonitis (including my own) but yours beats all records in our files. I saw the disease creeping up months ago; it is good that it broke out in the open. The most charitable interpretation I could put on it is that you prematurely took the oath of the Abyss, without being prepared by previous initiation.” — Letter from Germer to Motta, Dec. 23, 1961.
you don't find him totally batshit insane? I am flabbergasted.
This is why I am pursuing his position. What spell has Motta cast?
Germer never made Motta the boss. Is this not clear enough:
But he apparently thought about it. So why not take down the OTO Winmill Dragon in court?
Who is the dragon?
the OHO?
Please see Don Quixote. Windmills or Standing Orders are perceived as Dragons that must be slain.
In the Bon tradition, they have a list of ten grades/degrees. The first, and highest, is Naga. This is both an ancient serpent-man (dragon), but simply a common term used for a "wise old man."
You are the dragon. And the quicker you realize it, the quicker we can wrap this whole thing up for a thousand years ... maybe two.
Wasn't he?
Yeah. If we follow orders, like a Probationer is supposed to do, we look for references to Taoism hidden in plain sight throughout AC's works. He always seems to hold it in awe. Even Ra-Hoor, in AL, doesn't go after the Tao with claw, beak, and spit. In fact AL mentions, "I call it 8, 80 ..." Is is just coincidental that T+A+O = 80 ?
This is why Sorcerers tone down the Goetic Mass to begin attending the Mass of the Phoenix, why Phoenii birds burn up into Emptiness - why Thelemites tend to gravitate towards the Orient as they age, and I don't mean Buddhism or the CCP.
Crowley constantly stopped his (admittedly high-level) rhetoric to glance in admiration of the Tao. So, to answer your question: "Yes, he was." Sort of.
I was disappointed in his "translation" of the Tao Teh King. I was once a great fan of his Yi King, even to the point of typesetting, printing, and binding it, all by hand (a team effort - I typeset), and then releasing it onto the marketplace at reasonable prices. Then, alas, I later became disenchanted with the Yi King when I used it for divination. I had to return to the I Ching for understandable guidance.
But he pointed me in that direction, so sure, he can be a Sage or a Secret Chief or even an (Outer) Head of an Order, because we all know that those tings don't count for beans in the long run.
He always seems to hold it in awe
Indeed. In Liber Aleph, he writes: "Lao Tze, whose Word was Tao...his Doctrine hath been lost or misinterpreted, and it is most needful to restore it...Tao is the true Nature of Things, being itself a Way or Going...He taught this Way of Harmony in Will, which I myself have sought to show thee...this Tao is Truth, and the Way of Truth."
I'd say that counts for due awe.
Even Ra-Hoor, in AL, doesn't go after the Tao with claw, beak, and spit
What could there be to go after?
I was disappointed in his "translation" of the Tao Teh King
He may have been, also:
"I completed my translation within three days, but during the last five years I have constantly reconsidered every sentence." -AC, from the Intro to TTK
Apparently, AC tends to do lots of things in "three days" only to go on "reconsidering."
he pointed me in that direction
And myself. I first read Lao Tze in AC's translation, borrowed through the inter-library loan system and pondered over on railroad tracks outside my college campus where I'd go to read.
he can be a Sage or a Secret Chief or even an (Outer) Head of an Order, because we all know that those tings don't count for beans in the long run.
He was a Tao-Lama. 🙂
Were you a student of Motta?
Yes. Probationer level. As he just stated.
Were you a student of Motta?
Yes. Probationer level. As he just stated.
Motta was your teacher? Was he a loon?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Motta was your teacher? Was he a loon?
Confusion is creeping in. I merely answered the question directed at GG. Motta offered to be my Grand Master 8=3 Guru Guide Dictator. I did not accept. Yes, he was loony tooney in all departments.
Okay, I understand that. My only point is that this was deathbed hearsay, and Motta was never a member of the OTO ... so Germer had an "intention" to pass on the X* or OHO-ship, but he never did it. I don't see how this leaves Motta with much ground to stand on.
It was a death-bed wish, passed on by his wife, to Motta (who, be it noted, she didn't personally like), and it was clarified in the subsequent letter that Motta never received (and that hadn't appeared in the main case). As I say, that was apparently enough for the judge in the second trial in this (from the official point of view, no doubt "storm in a teacup" affair, as ignant666 pointed out) affair, to consider Motta's claim "non-frivolous" and "colorable" (thus negating Weiser's claim for damages). Now of course that just means the judge felt Motta had been sincere. But it should have been pretty much a slam-dunk for people who considered themselves "spiritual seekers."
A second point involves the idea that nothing I have read, heard, or corresponded with, in any single concept, practice, or idea, from Motta, caught my attention, was memorable, or stood out in any way
I am sorry for your loss 🙂
Oops. Error. Crowley stole the Order boss-ship from Reuss by declaring him mentally unfit, and declaring himself the new Boss. . Reuss challenged back. Stalemate. Then Reuss died. AC was affirmed as OHO-boss by a Council (Germer, Jones, who-else? {blank] Kunzel?, were there, and they made him the boss. But the Order of succession works out fine according to the exoteric history.
That's Koenig stuff isn't it? I dunno, my understanding was that Yorke had letters from Reuss that he'd copied himself which showed Reuss handing the deal over to AC after the "stalemate." It's a side-issue though, since everyone involved agreed re. AC -> Germer, re. whatever "the O.T.O." was at the relevant time.
Germer never made Motta the boss. Is this not clear enough:
The handover was on his death-bed (via his wife) in 1962. Earlier letters are irrelevant. Students, aspirants, fall in and out of "favour" all the time. Sometimes people look promising and turn out to be loons, sometimes people look like loons and turn out to be promising, and sometimes people look promising, turn out to be loons, and then recover their sanity. Essentially, those kinds of letters are very private, an intimate snapshot of a phase in the interaction between teacher and student.
Motta was your teacher? Was he a loon?
No, he was lovely - very kind, gentle, patient and forthcoming. He was strict, in the sense that if he asked you specifically to do something (on the rare occasions he did) he expected you to do it, no excuses. And he didn't mince words when pointing out your character flaws - but that was just him being kind, gentle, patient and forthcoming 🙂
(One might ask, "What right does a teacher have to say mean things to the student?" Well, it's the right you give them when you sign up. If you don't think they're in a spiritual position ahead of you enough to be able to give that kind of advice, wtf are you doing piddling about pretending to be a student?)
I am sorry for your loss
There can be no loss when there was nothing there to lose in the first place.
No, he was lovely - very kind, gentle, patient and forthcoming.
Sure he was. Your description perfectly matches every encounter I had with him, as well as the encounters described by his closest associates (who he attempted to magically assassinate). What a kind fellow.
Well, it's the right you give them when you sign up.
That's why some folks never sign up. Also, those of us who did sign up had to find a way to unsign when the guru begins to lose his/her grip ... and becomes kranky. This is very tricky, for one has signed or spoken an Oath of eternal servitude, and you know how you can't break a magical Oath? You think you can, but you can't ... so were were written at by Therion. But there is a simple way to slip out.
Also, I have been exposed to mentor-guru-teachers who did not display this arrogant form of teaching. The kranky teachers are merely expressing a kranky persona, and we would think they could get a better grip on their krank.
Now there are some historical men (maybe nemow) who had terrible tempers ... but they also displayed an abnormally high incidence of phenomena or magical powers, so we call them eccentric and elevate them to Saint Hood.
Then we have fellows like AC, Motta, Capricornus, and those who krank out their orders (and Ordos) with dripping condescension.
GG, you have now put yourself in the position of defending the foulest stench that creeps into the terrorous path of guru-intimidation via dripping sarcasm. I haven't yet seen one person stand on your side of the Motta aisle ... except for hg, who liked the beetle assassination scenes.
WTF?
... wtf are you doing piddling about pretending to be a student?
Some folks stick out the curriculum. Despite the crumbing insanity of a teacher who has obviously become a black brother/sistrum of the sinster-hand path, they just do the work ... and graduation day finally comes. If the guru won't graduate the student (to the Inner Order), then the initiatory process steps in with a cosmic overdrive and things get messy indeed. But guess what? The Graduation occurs anyway. For a historical case history, watch P.'. as he moves from 4=7 to 5=6. What a mess.
It is wise, when posting one's email address in public fora, to at least obscure it a little to frustrate the spam-bots that harvest email addresses to bombard you with spam (most of which gmail will filter, but still).
At least put spaces around the @, or even better, write [name] (at symbol) gmail , leaving off the ".com", putting "(at symbol)" instead of "@", and spaces. This will still confound the spam-scrapers, i think.
Or you can do what Shiva does and have an email that you publicize and check occasionally, and then reply from your real email to anything interesting. Or you can hire a Corresponding Secretary to filter the junk, as i have done.
I try to communicate with all his living disciples.
I see. So you want to spread out horizontally (Horus-zone-totality) and establish a network that is socially, or at least grouply, connected?
Why is it, that when I put on the siddhi bonnet, I detect the subtle vibration of hero worship in the aethyr? I mean it's as strong as a Christian quoting verses. I am now writing these rhetoricals to my not-self and as scribbling on the wall for other readers who possess this siddhi.
There is also a lot of referencing other authors, holding up the Motta statue, discussions of philosophy. This is not against The Guidelines, so no Tribunal need be convened.
This is, of course, all my fault. I was expecting to hear tales of Advaita and Dzogchen. Discussions of Perdurabo and Choronzon. How to do The Work. I think I'll just be ...
Waiting for RTCTM
I try to communicate with all his living disciples.
I see. So you want to spread out horizontally (Horus-zone-totality) and establish a network that is socially, or at least grouply, connected?
Why is it, that when I put on the siddhi bonnet, I detect the subtle vibration of hero worship in the aethyr? I mean it's as strong as a Christian quoting verses. I am now writing these rhetoricals to my not-self and as scribbling on the wall for other readers who possess this siddhi.
There is also a lot of referencing other authors, holding up the Motta statue, discussions of philosophy. This is not against The Guidelines, so no Tribunal need be convened.
This is, of course, all my fault. I was expecting to hear tales of Advaita and Dzogchen. Discussions of Perdurabo and Choronzon. How to do The Work. I think I'll just be ...
Waiting for RTCTM
Care Frater,
I hope I understood you correctly - although poor speaking skills. I see and realize everyone's mistakes as my own. Have a blog in Turkey about Thelema, Neoplatonism, and also another one about Tantra/Yoga. Doing translations & research since 2020, the reason I speak to his living students is to gather as much information as possible, like a historian's research. I discovered your youtube channel and videos before I knew you were from the Solar Lodge, very nice work! I also read the articles on your website yesterday while chatting with my friend about Solar Lodge, McMurtry, Grant, Motta, etc. I would like to chat with you from time to time.
Fraternally
It is wise, when posting one's email address in public fora, to at least obscure it a little to frustrate the spam-bots that harvest email addresses to bombard you with spam (most of which gmail will filter, but still).
At least put spaces around the @, or even better, write [name] (at symbol) gmail , leaving off the ".com", putting "(at symbol)" instead of "@", and spaces. This will still confound the spam-scrapers, i think.
Or you can do what Shiva does and have an email that you publicize and check occasionally, and then reply from your real email to anything interesting. Or you can hire a Corresponding Secretary to filter the junk, as i have done.
Thank you for the warnings and advice!