Secrecy, the Revolutionary, and Public Criticism

Fr. Αληθέυω

To the best of my knowledge, the practice of not revealing one’s O.T.O. degree to members of lower Triads is not something that was part of the O.T.O. prior to the reign of Hymenæus Beta. I have never heard of there being such a policy in Hymanæus Alpha’s time or earlier, nor do my readings in the history of the O.T.O. offer any indication that initiates’ degrees were not known to all their associates in the Order. This seems to be a modern innovation, and a very unfortunate one, for it disrupts the proper functioning of the organization in a number of ways.

To take only the most blatantly obvious (and far from the most serious) example, the Minerval Guide has an entire page listing proper forms of address for members of various degrees. But how can anyone correctly address a letter if he or she by policy is not supposed to know what degree that person holds?

Another, far more serious problem caused by degree secrecy is its effect on the selection of Revolutionaries and the functioning of that office. Liber 194 says that the EC shall “choose two persons from the Ninth Degree” to serve as Revolutionaries. This implies that the EC knows who the IX°s are. However, in the face of the degree secrecy rule, the plain language of Liber 194 has been rather desperately reinterpreted to mean that members of the IX° must volunteer for the office. This act of volunteering obviously reveals the fact that they are of the IX°, but that’s not really germane here.

Worse, though, the degree secrecy rule, combined with an unfortunate lack of detail in Liber 194 concerning the work of the Revolutionaries, has allowed the current administration of the Order to define the Revolutionary’s “constant attack” on the decisions of the Supreme and Holy King as private communication. Liber 194 does not specify either that the Revolutionary’s criticisms should be made publicly or that they should be transmitted privately to the King, but the very word “revolutionary” strongly suggests that public criticism is intended. Did Robespierre deliver his criticisms of King Louis only in private? No. Did Martin Luther hand his 95 theses to a churchman in private? No. Did Lenin sit down for tea with Nicholas Romanoff to explain why he thought Romanoff was not the right leader for Russia? No. A revolutionary is someone who stands publicly in opposition to the authorities and speaks his mind openly without fear. He is not, as the O.T.O.’s current leaders seem to want to believe, a confidential advisor.

One objection I have heard to the value of public criticism within the Order is that, since the O.T.O. is not a democracy, public pressure is irrelevant and inappropriate. This excuse may sound good to literal-minded people with little awareness of how monarchies and other authoritarian organizations operate in the real world, but it is profoundly wrong. Kings have been overthrown by popular pressure many times in history; corporate leaders have lost their jobs over matters of public or employee confidence; and when a military leader loses the confidence of his subordinates, the army had better get a new leader quickly or it is doomed. I think this is directly relevant to Crowley’s purpose in creating the office of the Revolutionary. The Revolutionary is supposed to try to stir up popular pressure against the King. If the King is truly a King (in Liber AL’s terms), and is doing a good job, he need not fear, for the people will not easily turn against him.

The Revolutionary is one of Crowley’s most interesting and daring innovations in the structure of the Order’s governance. It is deeply unfortunate and greatly to the Order’s loss that our leaders will not implement it as he clearly intended, instead relying on tortured reasoning that ignores the most basic connotations of the word “revolutionary” to convert it into a secret advisory position with no real teeth— because our leaders, as recent events show conclusively, fear public criticism and seek to suppress it.

4 August 2006 e.v.