Ordo Templi Orientis Phenomenon - P.R. Koenig - biographical interview 1998
Ordo Templi Orientis background information
ONE MAN'S MEAT IS ANOTHER MAN'S POISON
A chat with P.R. Koenig
"No, I shan't eat this Light"
Q: Some biographical indications would undoubtedly help our readers to
get a better purchase on your distinctly complex statements. So, if
you can put it into words, please could you give us a bit of
autobiography?
A: I was born in Zurich, to an Austrian mother and a Swiss
father - my parents met in London after the Second World War. I
inherited my deep-seated dislike of totalitarianism from my mother,
and my critical tendencies from my father. When it was pointed out
to me at university that you couldn't do a thesis on 1920's light
music, as it didn't suit the syllabus in the faculty of Ethnology
and Psychology, I went to Berlin in 1981, and managed to sing on a record with some of the leading lights of the 'Neue Wilde' artists - 'Geile Tiere Berlin' (Lewd/Horny Berlin Animals). Otherwise, I
indulged in a few excesses. Oh yes, and since 1985 I've been putting
together the bits of the puzzle that make the O.T.O. phenomenon.
Q: Nobody less than the reconstructor of the O.T.O. phenomenon seems to
be hiding behind your books, interviews, articles, and lectures. You
certainly seem to thrive on controversy. Kindly put yourself into a
state of ecstasy before you answer that.
A: That goes without saying. I'm a victim of two "petit-bourgeois"
sins: gluttony and anger.
Appeasement or political correctness leads to all sorts of regrettable
and messy confusion, to the most stifling spiritual atmosphere, and
the most pernicious influences. Vigorous polemics against such
things throw your values and standpoint into sharp relief, and
provide a healthy spiritual disinfectant. I limit myself to being
objectively ironical about the FACTS (the functional electric flex
is worth as much as the beautiful shiny toaster) and consequently, I
tear the anal taboo into little brown pieces. 'Occulture' is
swarming with a great mass of creatures who work anonymously and
non-creatively. In general, I stigmatise failures of judgement and
courage; I point out people's fear of new things, of words, of the
risk of being laughed at - and especially the somnolence of fusty
occult milieus, and their critics in intellectual circles.
The most extraordinary of determination and skill will always be
redundant if they are are wasted in producing specialised studies
that follow a useless methodology. Nevertheless, it would be
terribly easy to smuggle all sorts of stuff into such works. No new
tradition called into question, but the idea to challenge 'a
tradition'. Then anyone who isn't sufficiently well-read (who isn't
fully informed) can take something commonplace as being
revolutionary.
Unhappily, the rule in 'Occulture' is to engage in a bourgeois revolt
against traditional values, while at the same time wallowing in such
values. Hence the contradictions between revolution, anarchy, and
the domestic bedroom, over-familiarity with the élite, money, and
politics. If Aleister Crowley was still alive, or had someone to
manage his affairs better, he would have been turned into a
philistine icon by now, just as Andy Warhol has become a
parlour-decoration.
The media have superseded one sort of reality. Everything seems to
be a 'given', and is nothing more than what it isn't. And so the void
beckons as the last resort, the last open space on the map of
popular resorts. Pop culture (in which 'Occulture' has found a
niche) reflects the conflicts and values of this culture. And so I
wend my way between alarm and bemusement, and have to put up with
the blatant lack of originality (in 'Occulture' as well), and
overcome the high obstacles of absurdity and platitude, which
inhabit the territory nowadays. Even in "Gnostika" [the magazin
where this interview appeared in print] the patina that's lent to
ideas by the passage of time gets praised more and more. This is the
result of all those 'antiqued' products that come into the world
pre-aged.
Our 'Occulture' is a half-baked reflection of the sort of outlook
which can't grasp creativity, unless it confines itself to monstrous
platitudes which echo in a void of speculation and vagueness. Silly
rumours and unspoken snobbery also serve to ornament the gossip and
corruption of people who cloak themselves as arbiters of religious
wisdom. Only after the longest hesitation have academics (with their
absurd rules and insipid formulæ) taken an interest in 'Occulture';
while 'Occulture' itself is now bred "in vitro" as produce for the
publisher's supermarket, or disembowelled asexually at so-called
international congresses, where it's given a first-class burial; the
cadaver shivers until people are sure that it'll dance again.
So I hold a piece of raw, hard-won, truth in my mind, so that others
may toy with it afterwards. For that I use the language that comes
to me most naturally - a language that I've earned the right to use
by making sure that I've been as accurate and honest as possible,
drawing strength from my sense of humour, and then still be able to
sing Friedrich Hollander's 1958 song about the clown:
"In den Klischees hausen die Motten Und bringen nicht die grossen
Sujets Spötterdammerung kommt auf leisen Sohlen Aus der
Belämmerung ist kein Witz zu holen."
("Moths live in clichés And do not produce the greatest themes
Mockery's twilight comes on tiptoe You can't get a joke out of
lameness.")
Q: Do you make use of post-modern rôle-play as well?
A: The post-modern discloses the incipient resemblance between the
personality and its rôles. These rôles are the multiplex or
decentralised selves of the new landmarks in understanding. The
connections between its fragments (or the fragmented perception) has
a basis now as it did before, but it still doesn't bring any finally
worthwhile truth with it. This leads one to the postulate of the
instability of meanings, and their simulation as rôles.
One of the favourite (oc)cultural rôle-plays is to make the world
magical again by signs, icons, or archetypal symbols, and to
question what they signify. For a long time we have been persuaded
that the icon is the dress for the new spirituality, the magic wand
which grants power to define things, which fills the wasteland with
a new life. The formula goes like this: if the world conforms to a
homogenous lifestyle, and icons (even religious ones) are
responsible for illusion, then the opposite needs to happen; where
everything is ambiguous and leaves you confused, why, Adidas and the
OTO, family values and Aleister Crowley will give your icons weight
and support! The icon serves as existence's cosmetic mask, so when
belief disappears, style takes its place. Fashion is a fixed test of
character, self-knowledge and taste. The right choice mirrors our
innermost feelings about the world. And as long as I'm going to wear
a pair of Jean-Paul Gaultier designer glasses, then I'm interested
in that sort of rhetoric.
It isn't about swapping one piece of reality's jigsaw-puzzle with
another, but about how those pieces co-exist absolutely. Or how to
survive as a free Thelemite - that is, one not bound to an O.T.O.
The Æon of Horus and the Æon of Maat are already immanent "today".
This means that it's worth leaving yourself open to creativity. On that
account I make use of a pre-romantic concept, in which it wasn't a
case of 'History/story' but alone 'Histories/stories' - + I put
myself into a condition of non-linear 'trance', outside daily
consciousness; it was like the artists in Gugging's 'House of Art'
when I produced such pieces as 'The Ecstatic Creation of Culture',
'The McDonaldisation of "Occulture"', or this interview. I create
particles of worlds by accident.
Q: Now we come to the part where we talk about what you're known for.
Why does the O.T.O. occupy such an important place in your research?
What drew you to it?
A: I sense that neither you nor I can give a clear answer to what
you're getting at. Obviously, 'the' O.T.O. is the sort of place
where typical small-scale dramas take place, the sort that stem from
our simian ancestry. It's like a safari-park filled with a noisy but
common life-form, free to roam where it will, but which can only
define itself through a bunch of characteristic beliefs that spawns
interminable new kinds of behaviour. In connection with
Spermo-Gnosis these complexities appear in a strain with which I am
only too well acquainted. One thing's sure: I have a need to mirror
something about society - for your and my amusement both. And so
I've portrayed the American O.T.O. (for instance) as a
manipulationist compromise, a suitable victim to the demands of
Western consumerism; this is a group which uses Mozart and Mahler as
background music for its weekly initiation rituals. Apart from
trying to put their complicated statements and ideas into some sort
of order, I have no connection at all between the O.T.O. and my
personal life. Because of that, I've also been able to keep myself
sucessfully free of being corrupted, and offer myself as a sort of
projection-screen to show the void I mentioned before.
I have anticipate being on the receiving end of some pretty funny gifts
in connection with my work on the O.T.O.: people (supposedly) taking
me to court over my works ('Materialien zum OTO' and 'How to make
your own McOTO'); someone or other forging my identity on the
Internet; somebody once set up a fan-page on the Internet called
'The P.R. Koenig Phenomenon' [defunct now]; someone else sent
pornography to my home address (and here I'd like to take the
opportunity to thank that benefactor for their anonymity); and I
wasn't frightened off by threats of murder either.
Q: Have you got any any stories about your researches that come to
mind, which would let us interpret one or any of your states of
mind?
A: February 1997 at Cefalù; an international Aleister Crowley Congress
funded by the City of Palermo, with a list of participants selected
by Massimo Introvigne. Despite complaints of the head of the
American O.T.O. (the 'Caliph') who hadn't flown in - hence there
weren't any occultists there to spoil the august experts' good
image.
Lots of 'dottori e professori' took part in the lectures, and obviously
thought that they had a lot to say on the theme of Crowley. But they
didn't; and in spite of the very Italianate way they did it, I still
didn't understand what they were on about. Amazingly, lots of these
people genuinely wanted to talk about Crowley as a poet. It was
plain these Italians thought that Crowley had been a ladies' man,
and as a result they completely ignored the fact of Crowley's
partiality for having oral and anal intercourse with men. I decided
to enrich my lecture - given in Italian - with a verbal cocktail of
sperm and vaginal secretions (although Massimo Introvigne, who had
invited me to the event's fringe, wanted me to refrain from doing
this). Afterwards a heated debate broke out among the journalists
who were attending. One leapt to his feet in a rage and moaned that
Crowley was being scandalised here - to which Introvigne calmly
responded that to speak on Crowley and omit Spermo-Gnosis was like
talking about Rubens and not mentioning his paintings, or referring
to Freud without sex. Even Roberto Negrini (head of the Italian
OTOA) sprang up from the first row of the audience (the second row
was filled with cravatted Italian adherents of H.J. Metzger's Swiss
O.T.O.), and held forth with a long opposing monologue. Gradually I
began to doze off, and stared absent-mindedly into space. Suddenly I
was shocked back into reality by Introvigne (he was sitting next to
me) - his head was turning to me; he said "Maybe Mr. Koenig wants
to answer this." Startled, I stared at the audience, and decided not
to answer in Italian: "Erm, well, I did not understand everything
that Negrini said. Could you please translate it into English?"
Which Introvigne then did as well. Despite that, and to my renewed
surprise, I still didn't understand a thing. Baffled, I then got
hold of the microphone and said: "Listen, you have to get behind
things!" gazing to Negrini; then I went back through everything I'd
said in the lecture, explaining once again the significance of sperm
as the vessel of the Logos, and the misogyny that derives from that.
I referred to the most secret O.T.O. document, Clement de
Saint-Marcq's "'L'Eucharistie', and that in the consumption of sperm
for becoming divine, no woman was consequently required. They all
fell into a sober silence, apparently bewildered at such disrespect
for Italianità.
The circus continued the next day. All the lecturers had received an
invitation to go on a tour of the Palermo from the city's local
authority representatives. I thought that would be better than
seeing Crowley's crumbling Abbey of Thelema amidst horrible and
rapid new developments of blocks of flats (which we saw the day
before).
We started from Cefalù at 6 that evening. The journey to Palermo
took an hour, with us all crammed together into a tiny minivan. I
discovered that every Italian owns "at least" one mobile phone, and
there were often three people chattering away at the same time in
the van regardless; sometimes they were phoning each other, but
mostly not...
We'd only just got to Palermo when Adele X, the town's rep., said that
we'd have to do our admiring the city from inside the van. Thus we
spent three hours trailing slowly through the darkness - of course,
we couldn't see a thing. Then Adele wanted to show us round a famous
church; needless to say it was shut, and so then we suddenly found
ourselves in the local wax museum. There Adele got the vastly
original idea that we should sample some sort of local delicacy, and
she knew of a 'secret' address where we could get whatever it was,
too. "E dopo bambini, andiamo a casa mia, to have some champagne!"
Uh-oh, I thought - I'd detected a dangerous glint in Adele's eyes;
she was about 60, but very plainly interested in the IX° OTO...
So we wedged ourselves back into the minivan again, and were driven
along some sort of waterfront, where Adele said she had some
friends. And so she did; they were the 'aristocracy' of Palermo:
ladies in sumptuous furs, dangling what looked like ten kilos of
gold jewellery from each wrist, wearing very expensive shoes, and
hairdos straight out of a John Waters film. We finally fetched up at
a greasy fast-food stall in the middle of the night, which served
oily hamburgers of unknown composition. Gordon Melton whispered to
me "In America we call these slums." I whispered back "But here they
call it Italy." You can imagine the scene: on one side the weird
religion weirdos Negrini, Introvigne, Melton, Koenig, etc., and on
the other these fur-coated ladies, chewing on their burgers and
swigging Coca-Cola; one of them was soon smoking a cigar.
Finally we were dragged up to Adele's de-luxe apartment, which looked
like a mixture of Federico Fellini and Luchino Visconti. We sipped
our champagne and dutifully paid our compliments: "Che bella casa,
veramente bellissima!" Introvigne looked like a clown with his
beret, telling weird and odd stories, while we stood there like a
gaggle of exotic birds in a zoo. I muttered to Introvigne: "Hey, why
don't we let Negrini do a Black Mass?" but after some hesitation, he
declined, mentioning the chances of something like that resulting in
a completely ruined reputation. Ah...
After a few minutes, Adele said loudly: "Eee bambini, non sono invitati
per dieci giorni, ma per dieci minuti soltanto!" And so we stood
ready by the door again, each smoker had an ashtray pressed into
their hands as a present to take home, and by about half-past three
that morning we were back in Cefalù.
Q: Oh dear...
As we've been able to infer from 'Under Cover' (ARW), 'Aries', and
certain facsimiles in some of your books, you have an immense number
of esoteric and occult titles. Doesn't that contradict what Ellic
Howe told you - "Never trust an occultist"?
A: No. Proper ethnological work requires demands involvement with the
specific person. That's another reason for me giving this interview.
In order to pursue detailed (ethnological) field-studies, I became
an under-cover member in a number of rival O.T.O. groups; this was
so that in time I could (a) find out how easy it was to join them,
(b) see what techniques each group used, (c) obtain internal
material, (d) collect information about the members, and (e) publish
"all" this information. Perhaps you'd understand it better if I
compared it to being a researcher with a primitive jungle tribe?
I made it clear right from the start that I would treat "all" O.T.O.
groups critically, and that I never had "any" intention of dealing
with occultism "per se". My contacts with 'Occulture', just like the
accumulation of the titles, offices and dignities you mentioned,
were made with the "sole object" of gathering information and then
publishing it.
Q: Were you trying to sketch out a kind of philosophy of
marginalisation with your field-research?
A: Your question answers itself. One of 'my' themes seems to be
marginalisation and alienation within society.
There are various sorts of alien discourse: pop-cultural, scientific,
and what can only be called paranoid / pseudo-religious / esoteric.
All three impinge on, surround, and infect each other. It results in
a hidden legitimation; whenever someone distances themself from any
alien discourse they've adopted - displacement (pop), pedantry
(occultism), or rigidity (science) - they believe that they can
convert the 'substance': "the discourse of the Self is thus real."
Aren't occultists' alien(ated) fantasies really the same as those of
'abductees', the exponents of Free Jazz or hip-hop, or SF fans?
Also in occultism one finds a current of coded marginalisation stories,
about repression and submerged races (as in Nema's revelations and
Lovecraft's pulp fiction). The interest in iconography, presences,
penetration, and the spread of the Alien figure (e.g. Aiwaz,
Abra-Melin's demons, Lam, etc.) leads to the reality of Aleister
Crowley's Thelema. Depending on the area of interest, the Alien can
be anything today; a virus, a particular body, something to be
resisted, an identification, a criticism, or yet another kind of
religion. Yet the coding may turn out to be so variable, that the
explanation of motives gathers itself increasingly into the figure
of the Alien, whatever the history of ideas was concerned with at
the start: the relationship between the self and others, ageing and
self-regard: a madness of ideas that can upset all complex
relationships, such as body and pain, majorities and minorities,
racism and sexism, etc. When and why did the Aliens become admirable
friends or angels from 'out there'? Of course it was when we found
the right distractions - drugs, Yoga, soap-opera - and were able to
turn ourselves into a plant, a waterfall, or Lucifer for the first
time. So how long has it been since Aiwaz and incarnations of Lam
have been grateful for finding asylum in Germany?
Q: As you have often stressed, you are pretty much able to retreat
behind your works; I mean that your personality is almost hidden by
your books. Is this why - with your last couple of books - you've
only acted as editor, because although you're out there in the
field, you had to make good by writing a couple of updates?
A:"I am a very diverse person," as a postmodern Sphinx, Therese Giehse
said.
Your readers will find the answer in issue one of "Gnostika" for
October 1996.
After my most recent book, and two more articles for "Gnostika", I
hope to finally retire from this field in 1999. But I remember
complaining to Oscar Schlag ten years ago that it wouldn't be too
soon if I never heard of the O.T.O. phenomenon again; he grinned,
and said: "Whom the serpent once has bitten..."
Q: Could you recommend some reading to our readers, so they can
understand your attitude to 'Occulture' better?
A: Well:
Salvador Dalí: "Unabhängigkeitserklärung der Phantasie
und Erklärung der Rechte des Menschen auf seine Verrücktheit"
(Autonomous Manifesto of Fantasy, and Manifesto of the Rights of Man
in his madness). Rogner und Berhard, Munich, 1974.
Alfred Bader & Leo Navratil: "Zwischen Wahn und Wirklichkeit" (Between
Illusion and Reality), Verlag Bucher, Lucerne and Frankfurt, 1976.
"On Homoeopathic Theory", J.T. Kent's lectures on Hahnemann's
Organon, 1954.
And of course the complete works of David Bowie, the richest
Threepenny-Gnostic of the New Age, who created the masterly line:
"For you're dancing where the dogs decay, defecating ecstasy".
Das Milieu des Templer Reichs - Die Sklaven Sollen Dienen. Hanns Heinz Ewers - Lanz von Liebenfels - Karl Germer, Arnoldo Krumm-Heller - Martha Kuentzel - Friedrich Lekve - Hermann Joseph Metzger - Christian Bouchet - Paolo Fogagnolo - James Wasserman. Unbequeme Aspekte in der Geschichte von O.T.O. und Thelema