BOTA, anti-gay policy and Gene Emard
teletourgos
This was a correspondence posted on the newsgroup
alt.consciousness.mysticism in Jan 9, 1997 by Robert Word and Michael
Green, under the header 'Take Care: BOTA' concerning an alleged, secret
'anti-gay' policy of BOTA.
We are now 9 years down the track from this exchange, and I am
wondering if anyone has anything useful to contribute on this issue- it
concerned events from around 1990 or 1991 so we are talking about
things that largely occured 16 years ago.
Does the state of affairs within BOTA remain the same ? Or have there
been changes ? If so, what ?
Jean
Dear Robert,
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > 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
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?
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.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> >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.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> 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
herme...@accessone.com
Reply