Take Care: B.O.T.A.
Michael Green
> I am attempting to fund my education in the Qabalah (not very expensive,
> but with my budget, I need all the help I can get!) I am signing up with
> the B.O.T.A as soon as I can afford it...
I can tell you some things about BOTA which you might need to know.
I don't know whether you're straight or gay. One of the things I can tell
you is that BOTA leadership, at least as of about 6-8 years ago, was
extremely homophobic. I have a letter from BOTA stating explicitly that it
would not initiate gay individuals into the "higher planes" because it
considered all gays "angry" and therefore potentially unstable.
What bothers me most about this revelation is that BOTA is too hypocritical
and cowardly to admit it.
Some uninvited ruminations:
I have no doubt that Case and Davies were contacted onto a "GD" current.
BOTA-graduates enter into the same trance-plane as the GD, but they're
handicapped.
The GD recruited bright, innovative, highly dynamic minds and spirits.
BOTA has recruited some very dull spirits with submissive, indiscriminate
minds.
Case and the early BOTA had the ability to confer a kind of initiation:
One awakened to the sudden, lightning-flash realization
that the World was a Monad.
One awakened to eidetic vision.
One awakened to one's role as the Hanged Man.
One awakened to the Macrocosm.
One awakened to the Microcosm.
One awakened to the Resplendent Intelligence,
the Bride, the Presence, the Temple, Malkuth.
Colors were a hundred times more vivid then,
trees had discernible souls,
things were very beautiful.
But that was then,
and this is now.
BOTA changed in magical ways
and became a shell of what it might otherwise have been capable of.
There was civil war after Ann Davies died.
The group split into several factions.
The current died.
Or so it seemed--
but the truth was that BOTA had become too opaque, too rigid.
It could no longer contain the current.
The lesson here: Gnosis is never the property
of self-important, evangelical "esoteric" groups.
Avoid these groups where at all possible.
And remember that the current has not died.
It lives in all of us and only waits to be invoked.
I believe that the Western tradition is phenomenologically distinct from
the Buddhist tradition.
In the East, matter is at best regarded as non-sentient, at worst dead.
In the West, matter is destined to become alive and conscious.
There is a "Gnostic seed" within the GD formula.
It's destiny is to impregnate Sophia.
As Crowley observed, the demons in the GD world are required to appear
outside the circle.
In the Buddhist circle, they dwell within.
You must decide which is your way.
Remember your values throughout the journey.
Is it power or compassion that you value?
Power or creativity?
If you step into the GD current,
remember that your peers are a reflection of your own soul.
If you wish BOTA to be your "spiritual family," I wish you bon voyage.
Take care.
Michael Green
hermes95
Robert Word
Many of Michael Green's comments are correct. Although B.O.T.A.
initiated homosexuals into "Pronaos", homosexuals were not allowed to
become officers in Pronaos. Also, B.O.T.A. did not initiate homosexuals
into "Chapter" (the GD-like ritual of B.O.T.A.). This policy was
adopted in 1977, and it may still be in effect. It was carried on after
1977 as a "secret policy" -- that is, the officers were to practice the
stated discrimination against homosexuals, but they were to keep the
fact of the policy secret from the public and the membership.
I am in possession of secret correspondance of G.H. Soror Fredda Harris,
a past Grand Prolocutor of the B.O.T.A. (now expelled), delineating in
great detail her raison d'etre for discriminating against homosexuals.
This policy was instituted after the time of Paul Case, and after the
time of Ann Davies. There is no evidence that either Paul Case or Ann
Davies practiced a discrimination against homosexuals. One of the Grand
Chiefs of B.O.T.A., Eugene Emard (G.H. Frater Sinceritas) was known by
the inner circle of B.O.T.A. (i.e. Ann Davies, and a very few close to
Ann Davies) to have been a "closet" homosexual.
The offshoots of B.O.T.A., of which there are perhaps seven in the U.S.,
are not known to have practiced any discrimination against homosexuals
of this kind, and it is my information that these offshoots initiate
homosexuals to this very day.
Michael Green
> Many of Michael Green's comments are correct. Although B.O.T.A.
> initiated homosexuals into "Pronaos", homosexuals were not allowed to
> become officers in Pronaos. Also, B.O.T.A. did not initiate homosexuals
> into "Chapter" (the GD-like ritual of B.O.T.A.). This policy was
> adopted in 1977, and it may still be in effect. It was carried on after
> 1977 as a "secret policy" -- that is, the officers were to practice the
> stated discrimination against homosexuals, but they were to keep the
> fact of the policy secret from the public and the membership.
>
> I am in possession of secret correspondance of G.H. Soror Fredda Harris,
> a past Grand Prolocutor of the B.O.T.A. (now expelled), delineating in
> great detail her raison d'etre for discriminating against homosexuals.
This is weird/ironic. Is this the same Fredda Harris who painted the
Crowley Thoth deck? It's hard to imagine Lady Harris having a problem with
homosexuality given her affinity with Crowley.
>
> This policy was instituted after the time of Paul Case, and after the
> time of Ann Davies. There is no evidence that either Paul Case or Ann
> Davies practiced a discrimination against homosexuals. One of the Grand
> Chiefs of B.O.T.A., Eugene Emard (G.H. Frater Sinceritas) was known by
> the inner circle of B.O.T.A. (i.e. Ann Davies, and a very few close to
> Ann Davies) to have been a "closet" homosexual.
I knew Emard. Gene Emard was extremely homophobic. He was perceived as
having a "problem" (being closeted) but in no way could Ann Davies be said
to have been a supportive influence. My perception was that Ann Davies was
as homophobic as Emard.
>
> The offshoots of B.O.T.A., of which there are perhaps seven in the U.S.,
> are not known to have practiced any discrimination against homosexuals
> of this kind, and it is my information that these offshoots initiate
> homosexuals to this very day.
The letter from BOTA that I alluded to was written by a Frater Joseph, who
served as a minister to the Order for many years. The letter is available
to anyone who wants a copy. (E-mail me your address so that I can send it
to you via snail-mail.)
My problem with BOTA's "secret policy" is that it is potentially very
injurious to sexual minority persons. There is a view that holds that
growth within an occult order is more a matter of self-remembrance than in
learning new things. We have all built "walls" around ourselves and
suppressed/repressed our latent psychic powers and our intuition. It is
essential that the mentors we look toward be worthy of our trust and be
trustworthy. Initiation plays an essential role in the Western Mystery
Tradition. To treat sexual minorities (gay/ lesbian/ bi/ transgendered) as
if they were "unworthy" of initiation constitutes a particularly brutal
form of rejection. It's a rejection not just of the would-be initiate's
"sexual or gender orientation," but it's also a rejection of the subject's
very being (the "Scorpio Force" flowing through the person). BOTA has a
right to define itself if it publicly acknowledges its homophobic policies,
but it has no right to "lead people on" in the expectation that initiation
may be waiting when, in fact, it secretly rejects these people. This
position is cowardly and contemptible, and I believe it deserves the
condemnation of the general occult community.
Michael Green
herm...@accessone.com
Robert Word
Michael Green wrote:
>
> >
> > I am in possession of secret correspondance of G.H. Soror Fredda Harris,
> > a past Grand Prolocutor of the B.O.T.A. (now expelled), delineating in
> > great detail her raison d'etre for discriminating against homosexuals.
>
> This is weird/ironic. Is this the same Fredda Harris who painted the
> Crowley Thoth deck? It's hard to imagine Lady Harris having a problem with
> homosexuality given her affinity with Crowley.
No. This was my mistake, sorry. Her married name was Fredda Rizzo, and
under that name she was known as a Minister of the BOTA. In fact, she
was Grand Prolocutor, and architect of all the BOTA policies when she
was in power in the Order. Later she fell from favor, was ousted from
the position of leadership; ultimately, she was expelled from the Order.
"Frieda Harris" of Crowley Tarot fame is not involved.
>
> >
> > This policy was instituted after the time of Paul Case, and after the
> > time of Ann Davies. There is no evidence that either Paul Case or Ann
> > Davies practiced a discrimination against homosexuals. One of the Grand
> > Chiefs of B.O.T.A., Eugene Emard (G.H. Frater Sinceritas) was known by
> > the inner circle of B.O.T.A. (i.e. Ann Davies, and a very few close to
> > Ann Davies) to have been a "closet" homosexual.
>
> I knew Emard. Gene Emard was extremely homophobic. He was perceived as
> having a "problem" (being closeted) but in no way could Ann Davies be said
> to have been a supportive influence. My perception was that Ann Davies was
> as homophobic as Emard.
I knew Ann Davies also, and I don't have any evidence that she was
actually homophobic. The statements about Emard were transmitted to me
by reliable sources, and I don't have any explanation of your claim that
he was homophobic also. Eugene died in the 1980's, and the truth can
now be known.
>
> >
> > The offshoots of B.O.T.A., of which there are perhaps seven in the U.S.,
> > are not known to have practiced any discrimination against homosexuals
> > of this kind, and it is my information that these offshoots initiate
> > homosexuals to this very day.
>
> The letter from BOTA that I alluded to was written by a Frater Joseph, who
> served as a minister to the Order for many years. The letter is available
> to anyone who wants a copy.
I obtained a copy of your letter years ago. Joseph Nolen was obviously
speaking out of school in informing you of what was a secret policy.
Soon thereafter, he left the Order, a circumstance apparantly connected
with the fact that he was no longer observing the secrecy of the Order.
Joseph Nolen went out on a limb to explain some things to you Michael,
and it got him in trouble with his Order. This is something that I
think you never realized, given the widespread circulation of your
letters. Effectively you got Joseph Nolen kicked out of the Order just
because he was trying to explain some things to you in a discrete way.
Did you ever have even the smallest comprehension of the consequences of
your indiscretion, or was your hostility against the Order so great that
you just didn't understand?
>(E-mail me your address so that I can send it
> to you via snail-mail.)
>
> My problem with BOTA's "secret policy" is that it is potentially very
> injurious to sexual minority persons.
On the contrary, studying Tarot with the BOTA is kind of fun. They let
you do that, and also to attend the Pronaos. And who said you ever had a
right to get into Chapter? BOTA initiates less than 0.1% of its members
into Chapter, and I can assure you that the 99.9% rest of the members
who weren't so initiated weren't all homosexual.
> There is a view that holds that
> growth within an occult order is more a matter of self-remembrance than in
> learning new things. We have all built "walls" around ourselves and
> suppressed/repressed our latent psychic powers and our intuition. It is
> essential that the mentors we look toward be worthy of our trust and be
> trustworthy. Initiation plays an essential role in the Western Mystery
> Tradition.
BOTA initiates practically no one into Chapter, and the homosexuality
issue is a complete red herring.
If you want to know the truth, the private correspondance that I possess
from Fredda Rizzo stated that they did indeed intend to initiate
homosexuals from time to time.
In my opinion, Michael, you were never excluded from anything just
because you were a homosexual.
>To treat sexual minorities (gay/ lesbian/ bi/ transgendered) as
> if they were "unworthy" of initiation constitutes a particularly brutal
> form of rejection. It's a rejection not just of the would-be initiate's
> "sexual or gender orientation," but it's also a rejection of the subject's
> very being (the "Scorpio Force" flowing through the person). BOTA has a
> right to define itself if it publicly acknowledges its homophobic
>policies,
I have read the secret inner order correspondance of BOTA regarding this
issue, and in my opinion, the BOTA is not homophobic.
> but it has no right to "lead people on" in the expectation that initiation
> may be waiting when, in fact, it secretly rejects these people.
This is true, but as I said, the BOTA initiates practically no one
anyway. So why does it matter?
>This
> position is cowardly and contemptible, and I believe it deserves the
> condemnation of the general occult community.
>
> Michael Green
> herm...@accessone.com
Dear Michael,
BOTA has much of a positive nature to offer besides the Chapter Work,
which they keep reserved in highest secrecy and offer to very few. My
advice in working with an Order like this is to "go with the flow", take
the cash, and let the credit go. Why did you want to get into the
BOTA/GD anyway? Just because it's secret? Did it ever occur to you
that you might lose your sanity, and maybe they were protecting you? I
don't want to go into the cases of the Italians who have wound up in
insane asylums from practicing unwisely published arcana, without doing
the preliminary works essential.
LVX,
Robert
Robert Word
joshua geller wrote:
>
> In article <01bbfd1d$f7cce5a0$c243d5ce@hermes95>,
> Michael Green <herm...@accessone.com> wrote:
>
> >> I am in possession of secret correspondance of G.H. Soror Fredda Harris,
> >> a past Grand Prolocutor of the B.O.T.A. (now expelled), delineating in
> >> great detail her raison d'etre for discriminating against homosexuals.
>
> >This is weird/ironic. Is this the same Fredda Harris who painted the
> >Crowley Thoth deck? It's hard to imagine Lady Harris having a problem with
> >homosexuality given her affinity with Crowley.
>
> frieda. she was not in her first youth in the 30's.
>
> josh
Sorry, josh. I was not referring to Lady Frieda Harris. Sorry for the
confusion.
Michael Green
Dear Robert,
> > I knew Emard. Gene Emard was extremely homophobic. He was
perceived as
> > having a "problem" (being closeted) but in no way could Ann
Davies be said
> > to have been a supportive influence. My perception was that
Ann Davies was
> > as homophobic as Emard.
> I knew Ann Davies also, and I don't have any evidence that she
was
> actually homophobic. The statements about Emard were
transmitted to me
> by reliable sources, and I don't have any explanation of your
claim that
> he was homophobic also. Eugene died in the 1980's, and the
truth can
> now be known.
>
I talked about it with Emard. He was described by other members
after his death as having struggled with his homosexuality and
being very self-rejecting because of it.
I didn't talk to Ann about the subject so I can't offer up that
kind of evidence. Her having "signed on" to BOTA's policy of
refusing initiation to gays suggests to me she was homophobic.
My impression from her demeanor was that she had some fairly
rigid "pictures" of what constitutes "maleness" and
"femaleness." Whether she actually was homophobic or not is
something we can only speculate about.
Were your conclusions justified, I would be shamed and humbled.
But Joseph left the Order long before my letter went public. I
didn't get him kicked out of the Order. He left because he
wanted to start his own newsletter enterprise in Laguna, and he
wasn't able to print his newsletter and remain in the Order. I
was still in the Order when Joseph left.
I am aware that Joseph did go out on a limb for me, and I am
grateful for it. I send him my heartfelt thanks for that. That
in no way obviates the fact that other people, besides myself,
need to know about BOTA policy. Other people are being hurt.
I have no problem acknowledging BOTA's right to define its
policy anyway it likes, but I have a major problem with a
"secret" policy that rejects people because of their sexual
preference. I tried in vain for several months (well into 1991)
to get the ear of BOTA's leadership and change their opinion
regarding "persons of homosexual persuasion." Only after I
concluded that there was no way their opinion would be changed
did I quit the Order and mail off copies of Joseph Nolan's
letter to about 20 different people. This was long after Joseph
got "beaten up" by the Order for having mailed me the letter in
the first place.
Any hostility I feel is directed against the homophobia and the
hypocrisy of the Order in failing to admit this policy publicly.
If I were Black and the Order had a secret policy rejecting
people of color I would feel the same way.
I have no apologies for recirculating the letter and raising
people awareness of the homophobia issue at this time.
> On the contrary, studying Tarot with the BOTA is kind of fun.
They let
> you do that, and also to attend the Pronaos. And who said you
ever had a
> right to get into Chapter? BOTA initiates less than 0.1% of
its members
> into Chapter, and I can assure you that the 99.9% rest of the
members
> who weren't so initiated weren't all homosexual.
> BOTA initiates practically no one into Chapter, and the
homosexuality
> issue is a complete red herring.
Really? That's like saying that because most Whites in apartheid
South Africa never got to the top of the social strata, that the
policy of apartheid in South Africa was a red-herring. That's
either pure disingenuousness on your part, or you've been
trancing out on too many tarot cards.
>
> If you want to know the truth, the private correspondance that
I possess
> from Fredda Rizzo stated that they did indeed intend to
initiate
> homosexuals from time to time.
The token queer? Gene Emard, for example? I feel sorry for
people like Gene. They were square pegs trying desperately to
fit into a round hole.
What you don't know is that I WAS initiated to Malkuth (with the
lightning flash, LVX, the whole enchilada) way back when Ann was
in her prime. It was like breaking out of the cosmic egg--to use
a hackneyed simile.
One discovers oneself within a large psychic field....and it's
very important that this field be SAFE.
Policies/group auras that espouses apartheid and that
"magically" reject people on the basis of their sexual
orientation aren't safe!
> In my opinion, Michael, you were never excluded from anything
just
> because you were a homosexual.
Well, in further discussion with BOTA leadership I was told it
was because I was bi.
So while I guess your opinion counts for something, in his
instance it doesn't appear to count for much.
>
> >To treat sexual minorities (gay/ lesbian/ bi/ transgendered)
as
> > if they were "unworthy" of initiation constitutes a
particularly brutal
> > form of rejection. It's a rejection not just of the would-be
initiate's
> > "sexual or gender orientation," but it's also a rejection of
the subject's
> > very being (the "Scorpio Force" flowing through the person).
BOTA has a
> > right to define itself if it publicly acknowledges its
homophobic
> >policies,
>
> I have read the secret inner order correspondance of BOTA
regarding this
> issue, and in my opinion, the BOTA is not homophobic.
>
I appreciate the opportunity to correspond with you this way,
Robert, but I totally disagree with you opinion on this issue.
B.O.T.A.'s letter could have been written for Blacks or Jews: If
the Order said that Blacks have a lot of anger (many have good
reasons for this anger) and, therefore, they shouldn't be
initiated because the anger would come forward after the
initiation (same argument as Joseph used with gays), I'd
consider this a racist position. The position of B.O.T.A. is
patently homophobic.
Principle: If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and
quacks like a duck, it's OK to call it a duck--even if Jesse
Helms wants to call it a goose
....
>
> > but it has no right to "lead people on" in the expectation
that initiation
> > may be waiting when, in fact, it secretly rejects these
people.
>
> This is true, but as I said, the BOTA initiates practically no
one
> anyway. So why does it matter?
It mattered a lot to me. It matters to anyone who's gay, lesbian
or bi, and whose psychic aura interfaces with that of the group.
I don't understand why you fail to see this. Sexual minority
persons have internalized a lot of the world's rejection of
them. And yes, anger is as much a part of the "coming out"
experience for gays as it is for people of color--maybe more.
But these are all moot issues.
The important thing is that occult aspirants who happen to be
gay (etc.) be accepted as good and not be rejected (ad hominem,
because they're gay) as bad. Initiation is really an end-stage
in the process. The important thing is that the JOURNEY be
amongst friends. It's not friendly to reject people because of
their sexual orientation. It's a bummer. It can even be
psychically damaging, when the person in question trusts the
"authority" and "opens" to the occult Order.
If the Order sugarcoats its own homophobia the way B.O.T.A.
does, it's especially noxious. The individual feels rejected but
doesn't know why. Instead of being validated, they're
invalidated. The group reflects a distorted picture and the
individual easily can introject that picture--reinforcing the
homophobic patterns they have carried for years (or lifetimes).
So, you see, it does matter. It matters a lot! Please try to
understand that.
> Dear Michael,
>
> BOTA has much of a positive nature to offer besides the
Chapter Work,
> which they keep reserved in highest secrecy and offer to very
few. My
> advice in working with an Order like this is to "go with the
flow", take
> the cash, and let the credit go. Why did you want to get into
the
> BOTA/GD anyway? Just because it's secret? Did it ever occur
to you
> that you might lose your sanity, and maybe they were
protecting you? I
> don't want to go into the cases of the Italians who have wound
up in
> insane asylums from practicing unwisely published arcana,
without doing
> the preliminary works essential.
Why is grandiose condescension and secrecy so ubiquitous within
the occult community?
FYI, I was interested in the GD because I wanted to see that
everything is alive and conscious and to grow as an individual.
I wanted to create a world with like-minded souls. I wanted to
experience LVX and know that microcosm and macrocosm were in
harmony. I sensed that the GD carried a Gnostic seed, and I was
right.
But that was then and this is now. B.O.T.A. seems to have become
mostly a shell. You are correct: VERY FEW members experience the
Gnostic current alluded to above. Most of them wouldn't know
Malkuth if it bit them on the foot.
For the record, I have no hostility to persons in the Order (I'm
fine conversing with you, for example), but I do take issue with
the homophobic principles (secretly) espoused by the Order. This
I'll go the wall for.
All best,
Michael Green
herm...@accessone.com
Michael Green
Sorry about the multiple postings, Robert. My newsreader hung
and it seems it did it in triplicates before I knew what it was
up to. :)
--
Michael Green
herm...@accessone.com
Michael Green
Dear Robert,
> > I knew Emard. Gene Emard was extremely homophobic. He was
perceived as
> > having a "problem" (being closeted) but in no way could Ann
Davies be said
> > to have been a supportive influence. My perception was that
Ann Davies was
> > as homophobic as Emard.
> I knew Ann Davies also, and I don't have any evidence that she
was
> actually homophobic. The statements about Emard were
transmitted to me
> by reliable sources, and I don't have any explanation of your
claim that
> he was homophobic also. Eugene died in the 1980's, and the
truth can
> now be known.
>
I talked about it with Emard. He was described by other members
after his death as having struggled with his homosexuality and
being very self-rejecting because of it.
I didn't talk to Ann about the subject so I can't offer up that
kind of evidence. Her having "signed on" to BOTA's policy of
refusing initiation to gays suggests to me she was homophobic.
My impression from her demeanor was that she had some fairly
rigid "pictures" of what constitutes "maleness" and
"femaleness." Whether she actually was homophobic or not is
something we can only speculate about.
> > The letter from BOTA that I alluded to was written by a
Were your conclusions justified, I would be shamed and humbled.
> On the contrary, studying Tarot with the BOTA is kind of fun.
They let
> you do that, and also to attend the Pronaos. And who said you
ever had a
> right to get into Chapter? BOTA initiates less than 0.1% of
its members
> into Chapter, and I can assure you that the 99.9% rest of the
members
> who weren't so initiated weren't all homosexual.
> BOTA initiates practically no one into Chapter, and the
homosexuality
> issue is a complete red herring.
Really? That's like saying that because most Whites in apartheid
South Africa never got to the top of the social strata, that the
policy of apartheid in South Africa was a red-herring. That's
either pure disingenuousness on your part, or you've been
trancing out on too many tarot cards.
>
> If you want to know the truth, the private correspondance that
I possess
> from Fredda Rizzo stated that they did indeed intend to
initiate
> homosexuals from time to time.
The token queer? Gene Emard, for example? I feel sorry for
people like Gene. They were square pegs trying desperately to
fit into a round hole.
What you don't know is that I WAS initiated to Malkuth (with the
lightning flash, LVX, the whole enchilada) way back when Ann was
in her prime. It was like breaking out of the cosmic egg--to use
a hackneyed simile.
One discovers oneself within a large psychic field....and it's
very important that this field be SAFE.
Policies/group auras that espouses apartheid and that
"magically" reject people on the basis of their sexual
orientation aren't safe!
> In my opinion, Michael, you were never excluded from anything
just
> because you were a homosexual.
Well, in further discussion with BOTA leadership I was told it
was because I was bi.
So while I guess your opinion counts for something, in his
instance it doesn't appear to count for much.
>
> >To treat sexual minorities (gay/ lesbian/ bi/ transgendered)
as
> > if they were "unworthy" of initiation constitutes a
particularly brutal
> > form of rejection. It's a rejection not just of the would-be
initiate's
> > "sexual or gender orientation," but it's also a rejection of
the subject's
> > very being (the "Scorpio Force" flowing through the person).
BOTA has a
> > right to define itself if it publicly acknowledges its
homophobic
> >policies,
>
> I have read the secret inner order correspondance of BOTA
regarding this
> issue, and in my opinion, the BOTA is not homophobic.
>
I appreciate the opportunity to correspond with you this way,
Robert, but I totally disagree with you opinion on this issue.
B.O.T.A.'s letter could have been written for Blacks or Jews: If
the Order said that Blacks have a lot of anger (many have good
reasons for this anger) and, therefore, they shouldn't be
initiated because the anger would come forward after the
initiation (same argument as Joseph used with gays), I'd
consider this a racist position. The position of B.O.T.A. is
patently homophobic.
Principle: If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and
quacks like a duck, it's OK to call it a duck--even if Jesse
Helms wants to call it a goose
.
>
> > but it has no right to "lead people on" in the expectation
that initiation
> > may be waiting when, in fact, it secretly rejects these
people.
>
> This is true, but as I said, the BOTA initiates practically no
one
> anyway. So why does it matter?
It mattered a lot to me. It matters to anyone who's gay, lesbian
or bi, and whose psychic aura interfaces with that of the group.
I don't understand why you fail to see this. Sexual minority
persons have internalized a lot of the world's rejection of
them. And yes, anger is as much a part of the "coming out"
experience for gays as it is for people of color--maybe more.
But these are all moot issues.
The important thing is that occult aspirants who happen to be
gay (etc.) be accepted as good and not be rejected (ad hominem,
because they're gay) as bad. Initiation is really an end-stage
in the process. The important thing is that the JOURNEY be
amongst friends. It's not friendly to reject people because of
their sexual orientation. It's a bummer. It can even be
psychically damaging, when the person in question trusts the
"authority" and "opens" to the occult Order.
If the Order sugarcoats its own homophobia the way B.O.T.A.
does, it's especially noxious. The individual feels rejected but
doesn't know why. Instead of being validated, they're
invalidated. The group reflects a distorted picture and the
individual easily can introject that picture--reinforcing the
homophobic patterns they have carried for years (or lifetimes).
So, you see, it does matter. It matters a lot! Please try to
understand that.
> Dear Michael,
>
> BOTA has much of a positive nature to offer besides the
Chapter Work,
> which they keep reserved in highest secrecy and offer to very
few. My
> advice in working with an Order like this is to "go with the
flow", take
> the cash, and let the credit go. Why did you want to get into
the
> BOTA/GD anyway? Just because it's secret? Did it ever occur
to you
> that you might lose your sanity, and maybe they were
protecting you? I
> don't want to go into the cases of the Italians who have wound
up in
> insane asylums from practicing unwisely published arcana,
without doing
> the preliminary works essential.
Why is grandiose condescension and secrecy so ubiquitous within
Michael Green
Dear Robert,
> > I knew Emard. Gene Emard was extremely homophobic. He was
perceived as
> > having a "problem" (being closeted) but in no way could Ann
Davies be said
> > to have been a supportive influence. My perception was that
Ann Davies was
> > as homophobic as Emard.
> I knew Ann Davies also, and I don't have any evidence that she
was
> actually homophobic. The statements about Emard were
transmitted to me
> by reliable sources, and I don't have any explanation of your
claim that
> he was homophobic also. Eugene died in the 1980's, and the
truth can
> now be known.
>
I talked about it with Emard. He was described by other members
after his death as having struggled with his homosexuality and
being very self-rejecting because of it.
I didn't talk to Ann about the subject so I can't offer up that
kind of evidence. Her having "signed on" to BOTA's policy of
refusing initiation to gays suggests to me she was homophobic.
My impression from her demeanor was that she had some fairly
rigid "pictures" of what constitutes "maleness" and
"femaleness." Whether she actually was homophobic or not is
something we can only speculate about.
> > The letter from BOTA that I alluded to was written by a
Were your conclusions justified, I would be shamed and humbled.
> On the contrary, studying Tarot with the BOTA is kind of fun.
They let
> you do that, and also to attend the Pronaos. And who said you
ever had a
> right to get into Chapter? BOTA initiates less than 0.1% of
its members
> into Chapter, and I can assure you that the 99.9% rest of the
members
> who weren't so initiated weren't all homosexual.
> BOTA initiates practically no one into Chapter, and the
homosexuality
> issue is a complete red herring.
Really? That's like saying that because most Whites in apartheid
South Africa never got to the top of the social strata, that the
policy of apartheid in South Africa was a red-herring. That's
either pure disingenuousness on your part, or you've been
trancing out on too many tarot cards.
>
> If you want to know the truth, the private correspondance that
I possess
> from Fredda Rizzo stated that they did indeed intend to
initiate
> homosexuals from time to time.
The token queer? Gene Emard, for example? I feel sorry for
people like Gene. They were square pegs trying desperately to
fit into a round hole.
What you don't know is that I WAS initiated to Malkuth (with the
lightning flash, LVX, the whole enchilada) way back when Ann was
in her prime. It was like breaking out of the cosmic egg--to use
a hackneyed simile.
One discovers oneself within a large psychic field....and it's
very important that this field be SAFE.
Policies/group auras that espouses apartheid and that
"magically" reject people on the basis of their sexual
orientation aren't safe!
> In my opinion, Michael, you were never excluded from anything
just
> because you were a homosexual.
Well, in further discussion with BOTA leadership I was told it
was because I was bi.
So while I guess your opinion counts for something, in his
instance it doesn't appear to count for much.
>
> >To treat sexual minorities (gay/ lesbian/ bi/ transgendered)
as
> > if they were "unworthy" of initiation constitutes a
particularly brutal
> > form of rejection. It's a rejection not just of the would-be
initiate's
> > "sexual or gender orientation," but it's also a rejection of
the subject's
> > very being (the "Scorpio Force" flowing through the person).
BOTA has a
> > right to define itself if it publicly acknowledges its
homophobic
> >policies,
>
> I have read the secret inner order correspondance of BOTA
regarding this
> issue, and in my opinion, the BOTA is not homophobic.
>
I appreciate the opportunity to correspond with you this way,
Robert, but I totally disagree with you opinion on this issue.
B.O.T.A.'s letter could have been written for Blacks or Jews: If
the Order said that Blacks have a lot of anger (many have good
reasons for this anger) and, therefore, they shouldn't be
initiated because the anger would come forward after the
initiation (same argument as Joseph used with gays), I'd
consider this a racist position. The position of B.O.T.A. is
patently homophobic.
Principle: If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and
quacks like a duck, it's OK to call it a duck--even if Jesse
Helms wants to call it a goose
...
>
> > but it has no right to "lead people on" in the expectation
that initiation
> > may be waiting when, in fact, it secretly rejects these
people.
>
> This is true, but as I said, the BOTA initiates practically no
one
> anyway. So why does it matter?
It mattered a lot to me. It matters to anyone who's gay, lesbian
or bi, and whose psychic aura interfaces with that of the group.
I don't understand why you fail to see this. Sexual minority
persons have internalized a lot of the world's rejection of
them. And yes, anger is as much a part of the "coming out"
experience for gays as it is for people of color--maybe more.
But these are all moot issues.
The important thing is that occult aspirants who happen to be
gay (etc.) be accepted as good and not be rejected (ad hominem,
because they're gay) as bad. Initiation is really an end-stage
in the process. The important thing is that the JOURNEY be
amongst friends. It's not friendly to reject people because of
their sexual orientation. It's a bummer. It can even be
psychically damaging, when the person in question trusts the
"authority" and "opens" to the occult Order.
If the Order sugarcoats its own homophobia the way B.O.T.A.
does, it's especially noxious. The individual feels rejected but
doesn't know why. Instead of being validated, they're
invalidated. The group reflects a distorted picture and the
individual easily can introject that picture--reinforcing the
homophobic patterns they have carried for years (or lifetimes).
So, you see, it does matter. It matters a lot! Please try to
understand that.
> Dear Michael,
>
> BOTA has much of a positive nature to offer besides the
Chapter Work,
> which they keep reserved in highest secrecy and offer to very
few. My
> advice in working with an Order like this is to "go with the
flow", take
> the cash, and let the credit go. Why did you want to get into
the
> BOTA/GD anyway? Just because it's secret? Did it ever occur
to you
> that you might lose your sanity, and maybe they were
protecting you? I
> don't want to go into the cases of the Italians who have wound
up in
> insane asylums from practicing unwisely published arcana,
without doing
> the preliminary works essential.
Why is grandiose condescension and secrecy so ubiquitous within
Robert Word
Michael Green wrote:
>
> Sorry about the multiple postings, Robert. My newsreader hung
> and it seems it did it in triplicates before I knew what it was
> up to. :)
>
> --
> herm...@accessone.com
Dear Michael,
I am not authorized to speak for B.O.T.A. They must now defend
themselves, if they choose to do so.
The present Chief is named Will Chesterman. He lives in New Zealand,
and he holds the office of Prolocutor General in B.O.T.A.
His representatives in the U.S. include Geoff Gobles (president of the
Board of Directors), who resides in San Jose, California; also Diane
Shaw, who can be reached at Temple Headquarters in Los Angeles,
California.
However, I am not sure that any of these individuals can have anything
to say in their own defense.
LVX,
Robert Word
Frater S.A.
> I don't know whether you're straight or gay. One of the things I can tell
> you is that BOTA leadership, at least as of about 6-8 years ago, was
> extremely homophobic. I have a letter from BOTA stating explicitly that
it
> would not initiate gay individuals into the "higher planes" because it
> considered all gays "angry" and therefore potentially unstable.
Michael,
please see my web site at http://www.diac.com/~stone/ There is some
BOTA stuff there which you might be interested in. I'm am also willing to
trade such things as the letter you mentioned which deal with the order. I
have a fair collection of uncirculated material, so hopefully we can help
each other out!
LVX
auriel
"Michael Green" <herm...@accessone.com> wrote:
>> I am attempting to fund my education in the Qabalah (not very expensive,
>> but with my budget, I need all the help I can get!) I am signing up with
>> the B.O.T.A as soon as I can afford it...
>I can tell you some things about BOTA which you might need to know.
>I don't know whether you're straight or gay. One of the things I can tell
>you is that BOTA leadership, at least as of about 6-8 years ago, was
>extremely homophobic. I have a letter from BOTA stating explicitly that it
>would not initiate gay individuals into the "higher planes" because it
>considered all gays "angry" and therefore potentially unstable.
>What bothers me most about this revelation is that BOTA is too hypocritical
>Michael Green
>hermes95
Thanks for the Good information, it was very well put with a lot of
valid points. I will add that one should always look carefully when
joining any group in that it carries the true current and propounds
the mysteries in the proper way...
Frater I.L.