A recent thread over on LAShTAL.com dealing with “promulgation” was recently locked and then deleted, and resulting in the closure of the accounts on that site of Joseph Thiebes and “Frater Oz“. While the goings-on over at, and the moderating decisions of the owner of, LAShTAL.com are not the concern of this blog, the ideas of “promulgation” that were raised in that thread – and the reaction to them which resulted in its closure – are, and this entry will deal with them.

Joseph Thiebes has posted a six-part youtube series of videos of a “Promulgation Lecture” he gave at the 2009 National OTO Conference. We’ll begin by examining that lecture, because the approach to “promulgation” embodied in it is directly relevant to the reaction that the aforementioned LAShTAL.com thread received, and directly relevant to the observations on that approach that we shall later make.

In Part One and Part Two of the lecture, Thiebes lists the following five answers to the question “why promulgate?”:

1. “For the freedom to do our Will. It is in our best interest to establish the Law of Liberty in the society in which we live”;
2. “It is our Duty as Thelemites”;
3. “The U.S. Grand Lodge Mission, Program, Vision and Values demand it”;
4. “It was the most important feature of Crowley’s vision for the Order as he expressed it to C.S. Jones”; and
5. “Modern research suggests that dissemination of core teachings is necessary for the survival of any new religious movement”

After setting down these reasons, Thiebes then proposes a fourfold “elemental model for promulgation”, consisting of:

• “imprinting” – consisting of O.T.O. initiatory rites and rites of passage including “baptism” and “confirmation”;
• “conditioning” – consisting of “daily, weekly, seasonal and annual ritual”;
• “socialisation” – consisting of education and enculturation, or “teaching people how to act appropriately”; and
• “social bonding” – consisting of social events.

Finally, Thiebes presents some “strategies for promulgation” in the context of this model. The majority of these are drawn from Rodney Stark’s model of of religion revised in Why religious movements succeed or fail: A revised general model and which can be seen in Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Grow so rapidly: A Theoretical Application (pdf link) by Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannoccone. Stark & Iannoccone’s paper offers “a general theory of why religious movements succeed or fail to explain why the Jehovah’s Witnesses are the most rapidly growing religious movement in the western world”, and appears to define “success” and “failure” in terms of levels of growth. The factors from this model adopted by Thiebes to develop his “strategies for promulgation” include:

• “Medium strictness” – Stark & Iannoccone’s model (“the Model”) states that “New religious movements are likely to succeed to the extent that they maintain a medium level of tension with their surrounding environment—are strict, but not too strict.” In other words, to be successful a group needs to offer something distinctive from society at large, or the individual will have no motivation for joining it. Conversely, the demands cannot be so strict that the cost of joining that movement (in terms of actual effort as well as other factors such as isolation from society as a whole) exceeds the perceived benefits of doing so;
• “Cultural continuity” – the Model states that “New religious movements are likely to succeed to the extent that they retain cultural continuity with the conventional faith(s) of the societies in which they seek converts.” Thiebes suggests celebrating regular secular holidays but with a Thelemic “twist” to retain such continuity;
• “Fraternity and world-engagement” – the Model states that “Religious movements will succeed to the extent that they sustain strong internal attachments, while remaining an open social network, able to maintain and form close ties to outsiders”; and
• “childhood socialization” – the Model states that “Religious movements must maintain a level of fertility sufficient to offset member mortality.” Thiebes suggests that we must “socialise the young”, and “teach them our customs”.

(Regular readers will recognize the Stark & Iannoccone model as the exact same model described by Kjetil Fjell – not coincidentally a close friend of Thiebes, which the latter clearly points out in his lecture – and reviewed in the entries Stuff and nonsense and Will? What will? on this blog. Interestingly, despite those two posts [which were part of a larger series on Fjell’s blog] having been freely available for well over a year, Fjell has since removed them and the rest of the entire series – or made them viewable to his livejournal “friends” only – soon after those reviews were published. Whether this is because Fjell is embarrassed by them, or has changed his mind, or because of some other reason, is a question only Fjell can answer.)

The model itself sounds perfectly reasonable. The ten listed success factors, while perhaps not being immediately obvious, nevertheless sound sensible enough as presented. In terms of growing religious movements, we may therefore suggest that both the “elemental model” and the “strategies” presented by Thiebes in his lecture are, if implemented properly, likely to do what he seems to suspect they will do. In that sense, the lecture as it stands seems like a worthwhile and intelligent offering. So far, so good.

But wait a minute. This lecture purported to be about “promulgation”, and when Thelemites talk about “promulgation”, they are referring to promulgation of the Law of Thelema. However, as should be immediately apparent from the above, this lecture was not actually about promulgation of the Law of Thelema at all, but about growing the O.T.O.

Take a look back at the five reasons that were given for promulgation at the start of the lecture. The first reason concerns itself with “the freedom to do our Will”, but all the other four are concerned with the O.T.O. in particular and with religious groups in general. The third and fourth reasons directly reference the O.T.O., and the fifth explicitly references “the survival of any new religious movement”. The second, although less explicit, also clearly arises from the context of a religious movement by its reference to “Duty”. Thelemites as a group, of course, clearly have no such duty at all; that duty only arises when it is imposed as an obligation on its members by a religious organisation, as indeed “Frater Sabazius”, the U.S. National Grand Master General of the O.T.O., recently did (pdf link).

The lecture itself is completely devoid of content relating to promulgation of the Law, and concerns itself solely with promoting the religion of the O.T.O., with promoting the growth of a “cult-like group” – to adopt the term used by Thiebes in the aforementioned LAShTAL.com thread (and, by the way, note the creepy, cultish way in which the audience dutifully and rhythmically chants, in unison, “Love is the law, love under will” in response to the speaker’s greeting in Part One of the lecture.) The very fact that the lecture is little more than a tailored presentation of Stark & Iannoccone’s model – which, we remind the reader, concerns itself with the question of “why religious movements succeed”, “success” being defined in terms of numbers – is by itself indisputable evidence of this. The emphasis is clearly on promoting the organisation of the O.T.O. and the Thelema-inspired religion that it practises, and not on promoting Thelema at all. Indeed, the aforementioned LAShTAL.com thread was locked and then deleted – resulting in the closure of two accounts – precisely when it became apparent that the subject of “promulgation” was not being advanced in terms of Thelema, but in terms of promoting the “cult-like group” – or, more accurately, the cult-like religious presentation of Thelema in general, since the webmaster of LAShTAL.com has consistently showed no signs of being hostile towards the O.T.O. per se, and quite the opposite on some occasions – in question.

Naturally, the objection that this lecture was given at the O.T.O. National Conference, and that it of course therefore is aimed at promoting the O.T.O. is no excuse. Thiebes began the lecture by stating that one of the primary objectives of the O.T.O. was promulgating the Law. Yet, no instructions whatsoever were given with respect to promulgating the Law; only with growing a “cult-like group”. Indeed, this must necessarily be so; as Will? What will? showed, the O.T.O. has no position on what the “will” or “true will” even is, and, since the Law of Thelema is “Do what thou wilt”, without such a position it can also have no position on what the Law of Thelema is either, and is therefore unable to “promulgate the Law” at all.

Further evidence of this can be seen from the other antagonist of the thread in question, “Frater Oz”. In a video entitled “Promulgating the Law of Thelema”, in amongst cringingly inane injunctions to leave embarrassing leaflets in restaurant menu holders, “Oz” says:

I hate to make the distinction between “active” and “passive” promulgation, because it has spurred some debate lately, which is a good thing in a way, but I hate to see people fighting against promulgating the Law of Thelema in just about any form, which is what I’ve been seeing as this debate has been going on between “active” and “passive” promulgation. And, you know, some people don’t even like the distinction being made because they feel like, you know, you’re denigrating people when you say that they are not actively promulgating the Law…

The distinction between sitting back and saying, well, “I prefer to lead by example”, or actually taking an active, participatory role in promulgating the Law of Thelema…because as much as, you know…like say for instance if you wear a unicursal hexagram outside of your shirt, or wear an Aleister Crowley shirt, or whatever, and you are setting a good example, then perhaps people can relate your example back to Thelema. But if you’re just being a bad-ass person, people are not going to equate that back to Thelema, so really there’s no promulgation taking place in that case. Surely you can see what I mean. You know, it’s not a common practice for someone to say, “well, you’re a really bad-ass person…what’s your religion?” It just doesn’t work like that, you know, people have to be able to associate you with Thelema and have an idea of what Thelema is, or even that it exists before they will ever associate any kind of example that you may make back to Thelema. And this is something that you hear a lot – “well, I prefer to lead by example” – and, you know, not to necessarily try to call anybody out with this…it’s kind of hard not to make it come off that way. But, you know, I mean, it seems to me…it feels to me like that’s an excuse for not doing the work. If you’re not going to promulgate, then, you know, just be honest about it…I mean, don’t try to make it like you’re doing the work when you’re not.

(Incidentally, since the author is not fluent in Retard, it’s not immediately clear what “bad-ass person” is intended to mean, but we surmise that “twat” is a reasonable enough translation.)

The important point to note here is that “Oz” continually returns to the importance of “relat[ing]” or “equat[ing] back to Thelema” when “lead[ing] by example”. Now, suppose that we really were interested in “establish[ing] the Law of Thelema as the sole basis of conduct” in legal and social matters. What would really count for success in that respect is getting lots of people to act on that basis. If, by leading by example, you succeed in getting lots of people to act on that basis, does it matter whether or not “people can relate your example back to Thelema”? If lots of people are indeed acting in accordance with that law, does it make any difference at all if they don’t “have an idea of what Thelema is, or even [know] that it exists”? No, of course it doesn’t, and the insistence that people must be able to “relate [an] example back to Thelema” again demonstrates that it is the religion that is being “promulgated” here, and not the Law at all. Once again, despite protestations to the contrary, the emphasis in this video and the associated bizarre activities advocated by “Oz” is squarely on promoting and growing the “cult-like group” that this contingent confuses for “Thelema”. And it is this confusion, this oblivious mistaken belief that everyone else uses the word “Thelema” to refer to the O.T.O. or any other “cult-like group” is seemingly what led to the offence which resulted in the locking and subsequent deletion of the LAShTAL.com thread and the deletion of the accounts of Thiebes and “Oz”.

It could be argued, of course, that growing the O.T.O. – or any “cult-like group” – is merely a necessary, or at least helpful, precursor to promulgating the Law of Thelema itself. But this is fairly self-evidently nonsense. To any sane and rational person, it should be clear than an obvious way to marginalise Thelema, an obvious way to make the Law of Thelema little more than a laughing stock in the eyes of the general public – who must be won over if the “Law of Liberty” is ever to be established as the “sole basis of conduct” – is to insist on associating it with a weird “cult-like group” who enjoy pretending to cast magic spells and dressing up as wizards. Not only that, the very essence of the Stark & Iannoccone model is that there be tension between the “religious movement” and society at large. By definition, if there is such tension then the values of the group cannot be shared with those of society at large, because if they were then the group wouldn’t be “cult-like” at all; it would be mainstream. By the logic presented by the model, the religious movement must to an extent cut itself off from society as a whole (although the divisions must not be too strict) so that a group identity can be created in the first place, and this insular group identity is precisely what is going to prevent widespread adoption of that group’s values.

In the LAShTAL.com thread, Thiebes suggested that the election of George W. Bush showed the influence that one group of religious believers – i.e. fundamental Christians – could have on “real world” affairs, but even that was a total failure from the perspective of the values and the objectives of the religious group. Despite the elevation to power of a president who believed God told him to invade Iraq, abortion remains legal in all fifty U. S. states, stem-cell research continues to this day, it is still illegal to teach creationism in U.S. public schools on a equal footing with evolution, and the Ten Commandments still cannot be legally displayed in American courthouses. In terms of converting fundamental Christian values into the “sole basis of conduct” in legal and social affairs, for instance, the elevation of George W. Bush to the White House achieved precisely nothing. “Cult-like groups” such as the O.T.O. – and others mentioned by Thiebes including Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and Moonies (what a motley bunch to include as examples of “successful religious movements” to look up to, by the way) – cannot hope to achieve anything like the numbers or the power that fundamentalist Christians currently hold in the U.S., so quite how growing a religious cult by a few thousand more members can be expected to magically result in the Law of Thelema becoming the “sole basis of conduct” is a complete mystery; indeed, perhaps this is one of the celebrated “mysteries” Thiebes referred to at the beginning of his lecture. Being apparently completely out of ideas for achieving that particular objective, the emphasis of the “Thelemic” religious believers has clearly shifted towards merely promoting their own “cult-like group” as an end in itself, merely hoping – mistakenly – that the overall objective with then somehow magically fulfill itself.