Marilyn Manson
Riordan McGrath
Just read an MTV press release over the weekend regarding Marilyn
Manson's new album. Apparently, he discusses an interest in the "Ordo
Templi Orientis"..which MTV identified as a 'spiritual group'.
I had heard via the Internet that he was part of the OTO.
So, does anyone have an opinion on this?
My fear is that the Order will get lots of unwanted attention both from
the teenybopper Mansonites as well as the vehemently anti-Manson fundie
groups.
Still...there could be good points to this.. What's the statute on
hospitality? Think we can arrange a visit to Brother Manson's mansion?
<j/k>
Seriously, I just wanted to put this out there....see what sort of
opinions anyone had regarding this.
If anything, perhaps his music (which I actually like most of)..will
become a voice of Thelemic ideas furthering our current to those whose
Will it is to number among our ranks. Perhaps this will attract some
decent folks who otherwise would not have heard of us. Chances are,
they'll be in the minority though.
93 93/93
Fr. Riordan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
wo...@my-deja.com
>
> If anything, perhaps his music (which I actually like most of)..will
> become a voice of Thelemic ideas furthering our current to those whose
> Will it is to number among our ranks. Perhaps this will attract some
> decent folks who otherwise would not have heard of us. Chances are,
> they'll be in the minority though.
>
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I believe that it would be possibly both positive and negative however,
I lean more to the side of negative. Because I believe anything he does
is to promote his career. It's Not a sincere interest in occult
sciences.
For the Record I happened to like his music particularly songs from
Antichrist superstar. But that doesn't mean that I believe anything
that the man says or does is sincere. However I do believe that he has
a sincere dislike for Christianity which is always a plus.
I hope if it ever came to the point that he decided to join Ordo Templi
Orientis the higher ups would raise an eyebrow in question his
membership precisely because of who he is, too many people would welcome
him with open arms because of the publicity. I would hope that the
O.T.O. is better than that.
I think he does everything with publicity in mind I bet he'll mention
A.A. next. Can you post the link to the story?
Love is the law, love under will.
Abydos
I3M
93 all, Hope your Nu Year is going well! THis is a cool topic,
here's some of my 93 cents.
OK, Riordan said
> >
> > If anything, perhaps his music (which I actually like most of)
Me too, there are times when only Manson will fill the bill, similiar
to the times when NIN is the only thing, or Tool.
..will
> > become a voice of Thelemic ideas furthering our current to those
whose
> > Will it is to number among our ranks.
Hmmm, now there's a thought! I have not seen any qoutes from the Holy
Books in his songs, but he definitly has an individual streak!
>Perhaps this will attract some
>decent folks who otherwise would not have heard of us.
Good Point, because I listen to Manson, and so do a LOT of my OTO
buddies, so excluding folks on the pure basis of "liking Manson" would
be a bit late...:)
Chances are,
> > they'll be in the minority though.
The good ones always are.
Abydos wrote:
> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
>
> I believe that it would be possibly both positive and negative
however,
> I lean more to the side of negative. Because I believe anything he
does
> is to promote his career. It's Not a sincere interest in occult
> sciences.
>
93 Abydos, do you really think so? I read his book, and while it was
not a model of spirituality, I am prepared to give him the basics of a
shadow of a doubt. I have never met him and am uncomfortable judging
him on the basis of his music and flamboyance. Believe it, I have
heard stranger musical stuff from really nice guys. Besides, I think a
lot of what we as the public see is 100% pure horseshit, all Public
Relations and spin doctoring. I remind the Forum that David Bowie was
associated with the Golden Dawn, and mentions Crowley and the GD in
song. Ozzy wrote about Uncle Al, and we all know what he is legendary
for, would we deny these men entrance too? What about Jimmy Page and
his occult interests? My point is that complex noteriety or wild music
is no basis for exclusion, what about Uncle Al??
> For the Record I happened to like his music particularly songs from
> Antichrist superstar. But that doesn't mean that I believe anything
> that the man says or does is sincere.
How come?
However I do believe that he has
> a sincere dislike for Christianity which is always a plus.
I agree.
>
> I hope if it ever came to the point that he decided to join Ordo
Templi
> Orientis the higher ups would raise an eyebrow in question his
> membership precisely because of who he is, too many people would
welcome
> him with open arms because of the publicity. I would hope that the
> O.T.O. is better than that.
II: 58 "Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other.
Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves
shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all
is ever as it was. Yet there are masked ones my servants: it may be
that yonder beggar is a King. A King may choose his garment as he
will: there is no certain test: but a beggar cannot hide his poverty."
II:59 "Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King
concealed!..."
>
> I think he does everything with publicity in mind I bet he'll mention
> A.A. next. Can you post the link to the story?
I'd like to see that too, but I also heard about it - I heard he
claimed Associate status but can't remember where though. Urban legend
in the making. While I cannot support excluding him because of his
noteriety, I would like to point out the the Order could most likely
(dare I say) benefit from a benevolent millionaire minerval!!
Also, please think about the thrill involved for the Initiator who gets
to do his minerval!!! Insanvs says he'd love to Initiate the Reverend
Manson!! (But Marilyn's gotta wear the big silver suit.) Plus, Manson
hung with LaVey before LaVeys Greater Feast, a point in his favor.
Yet, and in closing, I pity the Camp that has to deal with him as a
member, I dont think I could handle communicating during Mass with him,
unless he was in street clothes - those contacts would really ruin my
focus!!
93, 93/93
Love,
Soror I3M..
--
A Witty Saying Proves Nothing ~ Voltaire
I3M
93, I found the link!
> > I think he does everything with publicity in mind I bet he'll
mention
> > A.A. next. Can you post the link to the story?
http://www.marilyn-manson.com/news.htm and go to the 12-16-99 story
about the new album about the Valley of the Shadow of Death.
I'll keep looking for more data...
93, 93/93
I3M
Still not against Manson joining up!!
ghou...@my-deja.com
Here is the article, in case you didnt want to use the link..
News
12/15/99
IS ADULT ENTERTAINMENT KILLING OUR CHILDREN?
OR IS KILLING OUR CHILDREN ENTERTAINING ADULTS?
“The title of our forthcoming album is “In the Shadow of the Valley of
Death.” We have written over 100 songs that tell the story that will be
presented in my upcoming film HOLY WOOD. We are recording in parts of
Death Valley as well as other undisclosed residences. The band is
working with seminal electronic mastermind Bon Harris (Nitzer Ebb) and
Dave Sardy (Bark Market, Slayer). I am producing the album. It is being
co-produced and mixed by Dave Sardy.
This record finishes what ACSS began and its sound is unlike any of our
other albums. I can say, however, it is the most violent, yet beautiful
creation we have accomplished. My inspirations are being drawn from
alchemy, my association with the O.T.O., JFK and our very own Holy
Bible. This is a soundtrack for a world that is being sold to kids and
then being destroyed by them. But maybe that’s exactly what it deserves.
I have a hope for a new, stronger humanity. An age of enlightenment, an
Age of Horus. The “great” are only “great” because we are on our knees.
It is time to rise and time to create.
We are now the people our parents warned us about. And we should be,
because they were naďve.
We truly sit in the shadow of death, or rather the billboard that
advertises it. We’re all going to die…and if enough people are taking
photos, we will all be stars.
But it’s all really a popularity contest now.
How you die.
How many people you take with you.
What your cause was.
How good is your sound byte.
We even make martyrs where others, equally and brutally murdered fall
as just statistics.
Murder sells, grief sells but boy does Jesus Christ sell. “Well, she
died for God. Because if she had denied her faith she would have lived!”
SURE.
So if this school-shooting victim had said, “No spare me, I hate God,”
the deranged killer would have followed his own “Christian values” and
turned the other pimply cheek. Right, maybe on the WB NETWORK made-for-
TV version we can expect any day now. Sadly and simply that poor girl
and her classmates didn’t die for Christ or anyone else. She died
because her head was where Dylan Klebold had his rifle aimed. We can
all agree these deaths were unnecessary. So was my grandfather’s and
your brother or dad or JFK or Christ himself. But let’s not make
martyrdom a popularity contest based on cash, guilt and fear. I’m sure
if they could bottle every tear we’ve shed in these events, they’d sell
it back to us as bottled water. The crucifix is already the highest
grossing mass-market piece of merchandise sold worldwide in the history
of mankind. So where does that leave us? I say our art. That is all
that makes us worth being alive. It’s surely not what drives us to
death. Each artist is a duality. On one hand he has human feelings and
on the other he is an impersonal machine or process. But you cannot
understand his psyche; you can only understand his creative
achievements. I am a vehicle. An artist cannot be expected to interpret
what he does for us. It must change us and in the change, we become the
interpretation. The answer.
There is a thin line between psychosis and creation. Who’s to say
madness isn’t pure enlightenment?
YOU CAN ONLY DO!
Everything you do is part of a plane plummeting towards our pitiful,
dying earth. But your art, what you create is stepping onto the burning
wing and forgetting silly things like life and death for a moment. Just
to enjoy for one second a glimpse of beauty before you are reduced to
ashes.”
I3M
his official website www.marilyn-manson.com
And here is a Great quote from it: "My inspirations are being drawn
from alchemy, my association with the O.T.O., JFK and our very own Holy
Bible. This is a soundtrack for a world that is being sold to kids and
then being destroyed by them. But maybe that’s exactly what it deserves.
I have a hope for a new, stronger humanity. An age of enlightenment, an
Age of Horus. The “great” are only “great” because we are on our knees.
It is time to rise and time to create."
Hmmm sounds pretty thelemic to me!! I am still in favor of him joining
up, what do you think?
93's
I3Mmmmmmmm..
ghou...@my-deja.com
I thought I would toss the ball at the Rev Manson. I emailed him from
his official site. I don't know if he will get it, but who knows. I
asked if he would like to be a member? Hell, why not? I'll let you know
if I get any replies. Hehehehe!
93 9393
Ghoul418
- and this is the Wrath of God that these things should be thus -
Liber Cheth
Riordan McGrath
From Bill Heidrick on the subject (via the OTO message board on AOL):
"Marilyn Manson is not an OTO member either by his stage name or his
legal name... There is of course a remote possibility that he's
involved with some group that claims to be OTO but is not the same as
OTO in a legal identity sense."
93 93/93
-R.
Riordan McGrath
I3M
Riordan McGrath <riord...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> 93!
> From Bill Heidrick on the subject (via the OTO message board on AOL):
AOL has an OTO Board? Wow, can I get to it if I am not on AOL?
Can you forward the good stuff? Fascinating!
> "Marilyn Manson is not an OTO member either by his stage name or his
> legal name... There is of course a remote possibility that he's
> involved with some group that claims to be OTO but is not the same as
> OTO in a legal identity sense."
>
> 93 93/93
> -R.
Awww Riordan, you take all the fun out of it!! Oh well, maybe he will
respond to the offer to talk to an Initiator, who knows? And wouldn't
that be funny, if he is associated with some wanna-be OTO, maybe
Bersson has got him! Rofflmtao!!
Love,
I3MMmmmmmm..
and xoxox to Riordan, my favorite Cappie!!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
A Witty Saying Proves Nothing ~ Voltaire
Riordan McGrath
> AOL has an OTO Board? Wow, can I get to it if I am not on AOL?
> Can you forward the good stuff? Fascinating!
93!
Unfortunately, no.. Only AOL members can access the CM Boards.
I'll try to forward interesting things. They have several boards
there.. from OTO..to Temple of Set.. A.A...Enochian..whathaveyou.
> and xoxox to Riordan, my favorite Cappie!!
Awww.. you're too kind! Thanks! Miss you guys!
Seriously, though.. re: Manson.. perhaps he's a part of Berggson
or Grant's OTO. I think he just meant that he's associated with some
members or perhaps a group of people who happen to be initiates. If
he's not a member.. I don't really think he should be using our name as
something he's 'associated' with. I mean...Thelema is one thing..
OTO is a very specific organization. But then again, perhaps he will
become an initiate. I'd love to help out at THAT initiation!
93 93/93
-R.
paul...@my-deja.com
> Just read an MTV press release over the weekend regarding Marilyn
> Manson's new album. Apparently, he discusses an interest in the
"Ordo
> Templi Orientis"..which MTV identified as a 'spiritual group'.
> I had heard via the Internet that he was part of the OTO.
> So, does anyone have an opinion on this?
When it first came out, several people asked Bill Heidrick to check.
He's not an initiate under his civil name (which is the name you
initiate under, after all). Which doesn't mean he wasn't or isn't a
member of SOTO, Solar Lodge, etc. of course.
Since my musical tastes run elsewhere, can't speak to that side of the
topic.
Someone noted that a distaste for Christianity is always a plus. Why
would that be so?
93,
Paul
sha...@my-deja.com
> Someone noted that a distaste for Christianity is always a plus. Why
> would that be so?
>
> 93,
> Paul
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
93 Paul,
It's not Christianity as a whole they were getting at I suppose. Just
the particularly obnoxious and vocal adherants who would restrict
everyone's rights to suit their personal worldview. That's probably why
that would be so. (wonders if that was really a rhetorical question
after all)
93,93/93
Sharash
BTW, nice to see you again Paul!
paul...@my-deja.com
93.
> > Someone noted that a distaste for Christianity is always a plus. Why
> > would that be so?
> It's not Christianity as a whole they were getting at I suppose. Just
> the particularly obnoxious and vocal adherants who would restrict
> everyone's rights to suit their personal worldview.
It isn't always that clear cut, after all. Kneejerk Thelemic response
to the Christian mythos often doesn't care if it fires off at an
estimable champion of human freedom or a tub-thumping bigot...both of
whom are, of course, protected by the same rights as everyone else
under Liber OZ.
> (wonders if that was really a rhetorical question
> after all)
Nope (g).
Love,
ghou...@my-deja.com
Boy this one got some mileage.
> It isn't always that clear cut, after all. Kneejerk Thelemic response
> to the Christian mythos often doesn't care if it fires off at an
> estimable champion of human freedom or a tub-thumping bigot...both of
> whom are, of course, protected by the same rights as everyone else
> under Liber OZ.
Yeah, sometimes it sucks, but even the christers have those same Liber
Oz rights...dammit.
True enough too, are the knee jerk Thelemic repsonses. A lot of us are
wetwired with xtianity and seem to spend a good deeal of our magical
time trying to get rid of it, as opposed to integrating it and
understanding it. "Just throw it out". Or rebelling against it, like
that is going to make it stop.
I think it sometimes takes a while to fully "get over" the scars that
xtians have made on some of us. Or worse, on ourselves.
> > (wonders if that was really a rhetorical question
> > after all)
>
> Nope (g).
Sure Shar...sure...hehehe
93x3
Ghoul418
-The Goats are after my Roses again-
wo...@my-deja.com
II: 58 "Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other.
Therefore the kings of the earth shall be
Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be
cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was.
Yet there are masked ones my servants: it may be that yonder beggar is
a King. A King may choose his
garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a beggar cannot
hide his poverty." II:59 "Beware therefore!
Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed!..."
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
hi I3M,
What about this:
56. Begone! ye mockers; even though ye laugh in my honour ye shall laugh
not long: then
when ye are sad know that I have forsaken you.
57. He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy
shall be filthy still.
Love is the law, love under will.
Abydos
I3M
>II:59 "Beware therefore!
> Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed!..."
Abydos wrote:
> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
>
> hi I3M,
>
> What about this:
>
> 56. Begone! ye mockers; even though ye laugh in my honour ye shall
laugh
> not long: then
> when ye are sad know that I have forsaken you.
>
> 57. He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy
> shall be filthy still.
>
> Love is the law, love under will.
93 Abydos, it seems to me that you are coming from a viewpoint of "I
cannot stand Marilyn Manson, therefore based on his career and
sometimes offensive theatrical (!) lifestyle, he should be excluded
from our noble Order."
Am I reading this right? Please let me know. Here is more of my 93
cents:
My point essentially is this, unless he is in jail/on probation (ie not
free), on bad report or under 18, he cannot be kept out of the Order.
See my previous reply about Ozzy and Bowie. Would you also exclude
them? When does this become rank censorship? Who is to say who is or is
not worthy? Shall we also exclude people based on thier (percieved)
shortcomings and flaws?
I would have a mighty big problem with this sort of exclusion. If he
can commit to the oath, and take Minerval without his entourage, who
are you or me or anyone to deny him?
Crowley did not set up the OTO to exclude "offensive" people, imho,
ymmv. It does seem that we have our fair share of the offensive! But
I would ask you to remember your Minerval and the line in there that
pertains to this situation. All is ever as it was, there was a time
when a woman was not considered worthy of joining a fraternal order and
indeed women can STILL not join the Masons.(Cartman voice:"Screw the
Masons, I am going over here-ah").
On the other hand, say we exclude him, based on his public persona.
Who else shall we exclude, and based on what? Shall we exclude the
disabled because they cannot stand and fight? Shall we exclude the ugly
and the diseased and the obese because they are not as pretty or have
terminal illnesses or are so big one cannot see the Priestess when they
communicate? Who decides who should be excluded? Then who shall guard
these selfsame guardians? Do we let Ozzy in and exclude Marilyn?
Simply not liking someone is not a good enough reason to exclude them,
Abydos, not by my lights. We can toss Liber Al quotes at each other
all day but I'd really appreciate it if you would respond to my above
points.
No flames here either, I really want to know! Hope you are well, aren't
you coming up to Austin soon? :) See you then!
93, 93/93
I3MMmmmmmmmmm..
A Witty Saying Proves Nothing ~ Voltaire
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
paul...@my-deja.com
> Crowley did not set up the OTO to exclude "offensive" people, imho,
> ymmv. It does seem that we have our fair share of the offensive!
After 10 years of dealing with idiots who think self-proclaimed
enlightenment, or the quest for it, entitles them to violate my
hospitality, freely attempt to intimidate their Brothers and Sisters,
etc., I will say that offensive people have no place in the Order. As
long as Brian conducted himself with courtesy in the temple, of course,
it matters not a whit what he does onstage, which is a different medium.
> But
> I would ask you to remember your Minerval and the line in there that
> pertains to this situation.
Remember also the elaborate obligations inherent in the relationship of
guest and host in all the cultures where that relationship is sacred.
Freedom to do one's Will has bupkiss to do with freedom to act like an
asshole and call it macaron...er...Thelema.
None of which has to do with a public persona, Manson's or anyone
else's. But say he was selling Neo-nazi propaganda instead of
something more palatable to the bulk of OTO initiates? Would that
aspect of a public persona come into play?
As for Ozzie, as long as he demonstrates control when around pigeons
(or snakes...there is, after all, the dove and there is the serpent), I
have no objection.
Love,
Paul
wo...@my-deja.com
No. 1 He is not a member of the order so therefore I do not see how
this discussion is really relevant.
No. 2 The Book of the Law says that I should allow people to do there
will it didn't say that I have like it or that I have to associate with
people who I don't agree with. That is my right if that is my will.
No. 3 In my opinion having him as a member of the order could have as
many bad effects as it would good. I never said that the O.T.O. should
exclude him. I said that I believed the higher ups in the order should
question him and question his motives more thoroughly than they do other
people because of the potential problems his membership could cause.
Again I never said exclude him!!!
No. 4 The way I see it I'm not OHO, so it really doesn't matter what my
opinions are about Manson or anybody else for that matter, because I
have no authority whatsoever to hinder anybody's will to join O.T.O..
93 93/93
Abydos
wo...@my-deja.com
aren't you coming up to Austin soon?
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I3M,
Yes, I am coming to Austin on Friday February 11th.
Love is the law, love under will.
Abydos
sha...@my-deja.com
> No. 1 He is not a member of the order so therefore I do not see how
> this discussion is really relevant.
Just to discuss possibilities to better prepare ourselves for this or
like situations.
> No. 2 The Book of the Law says that I should allow people to do there
> will it didn't say that I have like it or that I have to associate
with
> people who I don't agree with. That is my right if that is my will.
That is you're interpretation of course. (and mine is pretty much along
the same lines)
> No. 3 In my opinion having him as a member of the order could have as
> many bad effects as it would good. I never said that the O.T.O.
should
> exclude him. I said that I believed the higher ups in the order should
> question him and question his motives more thoroughly than they do
other
> people because of the potential problems his membership could cause.
> Again I never said exclude him!!!
Having the O.H.O. in my home town caused much the same type of
concerns. Everything eventually worked itself out. But.. yeah big
but.. in this case, there are certain restrictions about how Order
members can be public with their membership.
> No. 4 The way I see it I'm not OHO, so it really doesn't matter what
my
> opinions are about Manson or anybody else for that matter, because I
> have no authority whatsoever to hinder anybody's will to join O.T.O..
Being as we have no clue as to what the other person's will is in any
case (imo) these things are best decided on a case by case basis based
on good judgement and what we know about a persons present behavior.
If a problem exists, there are means within the Order where these
concerns can be given voice.
> 93 93/93
>
> Abydos
93,93/93 back atcha
Sharash