Friday, February 15, 2019

A Pseudo-Review of One Truth and One Spirit

Keith Readdy has recently published One Truth and One Spirit, subtitled "Aleister Crowley's Spiritual Legacy." This is not a true review, this is just a tribute.

In this work, Keith has put together a lot of his personal research and published it for consumption by the masses. Overall, his research is interesting and provides an insight into history from a perspective that quite a few people will find useful in years to come.

His academic and political presentations have been properly (in my humble opinion) analyzed, exposed, and addressed nicely in the following reviews:

Review 1: By an OTO member who values Thelemic promulgation, sees the failures of the OTO in this regard, and wants to see it do better; also, I think, he feels that the Southern Baptist approach to Thelema is stupid, and that the idea of Duplexity is inbred white trash bullshit (paraphrasing, with intent). Neutral in terms of A.'.A.'. affiliation (he won't join my preferred group, the bastard), and an honest expression of his likes and dislikes of Readdy's work.

Review 2: By an OTO member who values historic accuracy. Tons of historically provable facts, relies primarily on his 20 years of experience in the OTO and documentation he's had access to, and his personal research. Totally one of Grady's lineage in regards to the A.'.A.'., as becomes clear in his discourse.

As much as I would LOVE to contribute another rebuttal to the presuppositions Keith's book assumes, I don't think it's entirely necessary. People aware of the facts are aware of the facts, and there will be plenty of links to these reviews available online.

Suffice it to say, the public face of the A.'.A.'. claimant group that the OTO is currently partnering with is founded on a dude from Tennessee's assertion that he talked to the Secret Chiefs sometime in the 70s, and they told him he's the leader of the A.'.A.'., for real, for real, he means it.

Meanwhile the actual A.'.A.'.'s outer face continues its work, regardless of OTO recognition or affiliation, as it has since Aleister Crowley oversaw Jane Wolfe's progress at Cefalu. There is only one A.'.A.'., and there is only one group that has maintained its link to its root and core. If you're interested in the real A.'.A.'., check out

But Keith Readdy put a ton of work into producing this book, and I know how hard that can be. I respect the work he's done, and the information he provides. I've read most of it previously, when he published it under other pseudonyms publicly.

I initially described this book as a Frankenstein's monster sewn together from other works into a shambling golem stumbling towards some unsustainable view of the OTO dictated by Shiva X, a dude in Texas, and J. Daniel Gunther.

That was probably a little harsh.

My brother Keith spent a lot of time putting together his book, and that shit's hard to do. This is a sizable chunk of his life, and I admire his ability to put this all together. I feel like he's sincere in what he presents, and is super focused on making certain points, documenting them clearly and concisely.

I also think he's a pawn being used by a tiny little cabal in the OTO to further their overall plans of invalidating all other A.'.A.'. claimant groups, with a specific hard on against Phyllis Seckler and her heirs.

Keith uses a lot of source-citing in his book, which is good. Unfortunately, I know the magical motto and civilian names of at least one of the people he cites repeatedly. He cites them as if they were different people in the footnotes, and that is kinda cool, you don't want to out your brothers and sisters for sure, but it makes it look like he's got twice as many sources supporting the Duplexity argument than he does. In real life, it's one guy who had a thought and wrote an essay that Shiva X thought was cool, and then it got spun up into some kind of big deal. I happen to  like him as a brother in the OTO, even though we disagree about things A.'.A.'. in all the possible ways.

His Duplexity argument is just trash. Not worth worrying over.

I super enjoyed reading Keith's book. It's a snapshot of what some OTO Thelemites think about Thelema in general. It's full of contradictions, and would fail every kind of basic internal consistency checks required by most documents, but it gives an interesting perspective on the history, present, and future of the OTO and the A.'.A.'. as it is currently viewed by one faction of organized Thelema.

And it has interesting anecdotes.

I would recommend reading it in context of the diaries of Jane Wolf, the Red Flame books regarding Jane and Crowley, and Karl Germer's correspondence with Phyllis and Jane. Understanding the roots of the animosity against Phyllis that is expressed in this book also requires reading James Wasserman's Through the Fire. It puts the whole thing into perspective, young pup meets A.'.A.'. leadership, doesn't like that it's a woman who tells him he's doing something he shouldn't be doing yet based on his obvious drug addictions and incomplete preparation for the rite, rebels and goes to someone else who has an actual penis because that's what matters most to him.


Anyway, if you read Keith's book, respect the work that he put into it, forgive his bias, and spend some effort learning the full story of how things work. It's not his fault.

The Law that was adopted by the O.T.O. comes from the A.'.A.'., as Crowley states in Liber CCC. I support the OTO because it's easy. At the end of the day though, the OTO is not the One True Thelemic body that will carry out the work of the A.'.A.'. if it loses sight of the actual Law; it's only the most convenient at the moment. If members in positions of authority continue to push against the legitimate heirs to the A.'.A.'. in favor of 1970's would-be gurus who hear voices confirming their innermost desires, the A.'.A.'. will find a better vehicle to support its work.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comments, your opinions are valued, even if I disagree with them. Please feel free to criticize my ideas and arguments, question my observations, and push back if you disagree.