THE SINKING TEMPLE
Why O.T.O. Leadership is Failing Aleister Crowley’s Legacy
I’ve been wildly vocal about my criticism of Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.) leadership since I resigned in 2018.
Over the years, the original reason for my discontent got buried beneath the larger tide of socio-political turmoil that O.T.O. has increasingly fostered since the far-right rally in Charlottesville in 2017—an event I addressed at length when it first cast a long shadow on the organization.
What began as a smaller-scale crisis within this insular occult order soon spread like a cancer, eventually morphing into a contagion that seeped into the world at large. This is particularly ironic given the oft-repeated notion that O.T.O. is a “mirror” of society, supposedly striving to heal rather than to infect.
Today, I’d like to refocus on the very issue that first compelled me to speak out: the incontrovertible fact that O.T.O. is failing, and it fails primarily because its leadership is simply not up to the task of leading anything. No matter how much attention the organization diverts to external controversies, the basic incompetence at the top remains an inescapable truth.
In 2004, Bill Breeze, aka Hymenaeus Beta (HB), the Outer Head of O.T.O., announced plans for a new edition of Magick Without Tears, one of Aleister Crowley’s key works, so crucial that I called my own attempts at teaching this system by the same name. Over two decades after the original announcement, that promised edition has yet to materialise, and a distressing number of other Crowley texts have slipped out of print altogether. Despite presiding over such glaring editorial and administrative failures, HB stays on in a leadership role—while appearing to have no other occupation and providing no significant explanation for why crucial projects remain stalled.
Critics of O.T.O. (myself included) have repeatedly pointed out that for an organization built around Crowley’s dictum of “success as your proof”, its leadership seems conspicuously short on tangible accomplishments. O.T.O.’s official website posted updates in 2013, announcing ongoing editorial work and the intention to release new and improved editions of Crowley’s writings. But all these years later, there’s little evidence that any meaningful progress was made on those projects. Instead, HB has maintained a very low profile, interacting primarily with niche academics, producing neither the necessary publications nor the vital communication that concerned members and observers have long requested.
O.T.O. loyalists often counter by pointing to the apparent uptick in published works—chiefly those promoting the late J. Daniel Gunther’s books in an effort to solidify a specific A∴A∴ lineage (now, unsurprisingly, under Breeze’s auspices). None of these, however, contain original Crowley material. Others will argue that local projects—such as Casa418 in Italy or the Polish LAShTAL Press—have diligently worked on localising Crowley’s writings.
Yet despite these claims, we are now more than two decades from the original announcement with fewer Crowley texts reliably in print. Meanwhile, as key titles enter the public domain, a proliferation of low-quality editions continues to “fill” the gap—further underscoring the leadership’s inability to deliver on its own longstanding promises.
Adding to the sense of frustration is the fact that, if O.T.O. is indeed “a mirror of society”, then one would hope the organisation could offer a constructive model—a cure for the problems it reflects, rather than an echo chamber that amplifies them. In reality, the leadership’s inaction and lack of accountability have only contributed to internal strife, while the rest of the world grapples with the very same societal divisions that have plagued O.T.O. since at least 2017, if not much earlier.
All of this brings me right back to the core complaint I’ve made since before my resignation: a leader who can’t shepherd crucial publications into existence, who fails to keep seminal works in print, and who scarcely communicates with the membership is ill-suited for any leadership position, let alone the highest seat in an organisation claiming Crowley’s legacy.
From the editorial failures to the absence of transparency, HB’s tenure epitomizes why O.T.O. has become stuck in a chronic cycle of unmet promises and internal upheavals.
One might have hoped that the controversies arising from Charlottesville would spur a genuine reevaluation of O.T.O.’s leadership practices and public stance. But rather than instituting a more open, accountable model, the organisation has gone the opposite route—clamping down, growing more reclusive, and offering little beyond the faint hope of eventually publishing that long-promised Magick Without Tears. As more years pass, the credibility gap between O.T.O.’s stated ideals and its observable achievements only widens.1
Ultimately, if “success is your proof”, O.T.O.’s leadership has failed to provide any. No amount of rhetorical smoke or mirrors can change that. Unless and until the organisation confronts this leadership crisis head-on—replacing vague promises with concrete results, and cultivating leaders who can actually lead—members and onlookers will continue to see the same cyclical pattern of bold announcements with no follow-through.
And that, sadly, is the original issue: O.T.O. fails because its leadership is simply unfit to lead.
There are other issues at play, and I highlighted them in two of my previous articles:
WHEN IT’S TIME TO LEAVE YOUR MAGICAL ORDER
Since I first published the article about leaving behind Ordo Templi Orientis, I have received dozens of messages and emails, all asking a version of the same question. This one:
YOU GET OUT WHAT YOU PUT IN
The promise that effort yields reward lies at the heart of many spiritual and magical orders. “You get out what you put in” is an alluring maxim, speaking to the hope that sincerity, perseverance, and dedication will bear fruit.
Marco, while I am probably far more critical of the corporate OTO than yourself, mine is a more broadly based critique. I don't know of anyone else who keeps track of OTO demographics and finances external to that club other than me, and I do it because I spent 20 years in said club, and watched the (in effect) revolving door of Minerval and lowest triad members leaving, an uncertain but likely very large number of these disillusioned and alienated folk from not just OTO, but from occultism more generally. I think occultism and occulture are important, but play, even theoretically, to a rather small section of humanity. Thus, for every disillusioned Ex member, an unknown but probably large number of potential aspirants are lost to occulture.
As far as I am aware, the OTO doesn't consider Minervals to be 'real members' and, though I was a rather high-level member and a (supposedly) Sovereign Grand Inspector General, I never was able to obtain any kind of breakdown of how many in-and-out Minervals there were in OTO generally and U.S. Grand Lodge, in which I was an officer. But the number is certainly very considerable. Yet, in financial reports, one can see that Minerval and lowest triad initiation fees and dues in most years constitute the bulk of revenue.
Furthermore, I think there is, shall we say, a certain amount of c.y.a. in even these annual reports from U.S. Grand Lodge and, I presume, the boss David Scriven. In the most recent annual report I have at hand there are a couple of items worth mentioning. King Dave tells us that, "In May of 2022 e.v., a Brother in New England, Alex Tietsch, died and left us a bequest worth just under $600,000. He directed that the funds be used “for the benefit of the New England O.T.O.,” defined as the existing local bodies in the New England area(Mithras, Knights Templar, and Abrahadabra). Over the past couple of years, we have worked through the legal proceedings necessary
to secure the money and place it in a separate account dedicated to the benefit of the New England local bodies. This year, we have established a committee to evaluate alternatives for appropriate uses of these funds."
Now, I can recall no other recent bequest or income bonanza in their pocket$ so, I noted that Dave tells us that "the New England OTO" is the designated beneficiary, not OTO International nor U.S. Grand Lodge, and then that last peculiar sentence, "This year we have established a committee to evaluate alternatives for appropriate uses of these funds." Uhm, yeah, I catch the drift.
I think King Dave is afraid of Superchief Breeze, and perhaps that explains some mathematical razzle dazzle in the report. Dave tells us
"Active members as of February 29, 2024
1,413 Minervals
389 Full members
1,024 Active membership change from last year 156 (-10%)
Active membership change from U.S.G.L. founding 330 (31%)
New U.S.G.L membership 181"
Now Dave likes to calculate based largely on figures from the year USGL began publishing a 'mission statement' (2005-2007) which was a decade in from Dave's elevation and the incorporation of USGL (March 30, 1996). If we skip the intervening years (stats for the 'salad days 'or 'halcyon days' are hard to come by) circa 1998-2004, Dave tells us membership since the founding of USGL is 'up' by 31%. Year by year is not there given, but if we average that for, say, 22 years under Dave's estimable leadership, we get an average of about 15 new members per year. But, of course, one can't ignore intervening years, as in the spot check say Active members as of Feb 29, 2016 .1,482 Minervals included. If we look at 'full members' in 2016 we see 1,119, contrasting with Full members 389 as of February 29 2024.
Some might think there was selective reporting of USGL growth, or lack thereof. But I use this illustration to point out not only the decline of the club over time but also the general surreal atmosphere you find in the corporate OTO, where "Calif." the old postal standard abbreviation for "California" becomes the quasi-imaginary rather Shrineresque title of "Caliph". Certain degrees once conferred as a bridge to the 'next level' are omitted, because, I surmise, Superchief Bill is paranoid about Freemasons not wanting OTO to confer these degrees. La la land indeed. But, at our expense.
I think the explanation is quite simple. Crowley's writings are now in the public domain. They can no longer sue people for publishing them, so they are not interested in them anymore since they don't generate any income. But you are right, they never were up to the task. There were people who were serious and committed to the organization, unfortunately didn't want those people to lead.