Since I began criticizing OTO publicly, nearly all the pushback has been personal attacks. There have been no rebuttals, no responses to the substance of my arguments. Just insults. One person even said I was right—and then launched into a character attack, apparently not bright enough to realize they were making my point for me.
The only person who even tried a counterargument was that mattqatsi guy, and his take was basically: “Sure, all those things happened. But they weren’t harmful. You’re just too arrogant realize they were good for you.” It was a bad argument, but hey, at least it was an argument.
And that got me thinking about something I used to notice inside OTO. Any time someone brought up a known critic—IAO131, keith418, Michael Effertz—the response was always the same:
“They’re an asshole.”
“They’re a grifter.”
“They looked at me funny in 2007.”
“I’d kill him if I saw him.” (Yes, that was actually said to me.)
No one ever addressed the criticisms. It was just personal attacks. And I used to wonder: Are these people stupid? Because there were often obvious counterpoints. But no one would ever make them.
If you’re an MOE or a newer member, maybe you’re wondering the same thing right now. You see flaws in my arguments. You see what doesn’t add up. And you ask, “Why isn’t anyone addressing this?”
Let me offer you the answer I couldn’t see until I left:
They don’t respond because the person at the top doesn’t respond.
The National Grand Master of the U.S. is petty, vindictive, and insecure. He doesn’t engage. He punishes. So everyone beneath him copies that behavior, because in OTO, imitation is the only path to promotion. If you want to go far, you learn to flatter, not to think.
And even he isn’t the top. He reports to an international authority that forces him to bend the knee to predators. That’s how you get leaders who’ve lost all dignity and who lash out at critics instead of reflecting.
The deeper truth is this: OTO doesn’t produce anything good because it’s not designed to. It’s not a spiritual engine. It’s a power-preservation machine. It doesn’t publish books. It doesn’t serve communities. It doesn’t even study Thelema. It rewards compliance and punishes curiosity.
What it does produce is a sense of belonging—until you challenge harm. Then the mask comes off.
If you’re in OTO and think you’re going to reform it from the inside, ask yourself: Have you changed it? Has anyone? And no, I’m not talking about introducing a form or process. I mean accountability and stopping harm.
OTO is not a spiritual order. It is an Aleister Crowley-themed carnival ride, one that’s failed every safety inspection known to man. And if you think you’re going to “improve” it by becoming the person who tells drunk people to keep their arms inside the ride—good luck. But don’t confuse that for liberation.
You’re far more likely to get tetanus.