On Duplicity

 Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Over the last decade, the O.T.O. and its attendant A.'.A.'. group have gradually taken center stage in Thelemic discourse. Naturally, the O.T.O. is perhaps the largest and best-known Thelemic order today. I was a member from 2010 to 2014 before resigning to pursue my own path.

Around that time, J.D. Gunther began to gain attention, particularly within the O.T.O. It was said that he was the head of the A.'.A.'. and closely associated with senior O.T.O. members, including the O.H.O. This was intriguing, especially for those familiar with A.'.A.'. history. It’s worth noting that discussion of the A.'.A.'. during O.T.O. meetings was generally frowned upon. While this didn't stop us, it did lend a clandestine air to the whole affair.

Gunther authored a couple of fascinating books combining Jungian psychology, Thelemic doctrine, references to various ancient sources, and a concept he called 'duplexity.' This doctrine posited that the A.'.A.'. and O.T.O. function as dual currents, akin to the two serpents entwined on Hermes' rod. I read these works with interest but must admit that much of their content felt tangential to my path. Gunther’s interpretations of the A.'.A.'. seemed idiosyncratic, and I found Crowley’s vision to be both purer and more compelling.

Despite flying in the face of Crowley's assertions in various places that there is no essential connection between A.'.A.'. and OTO, the idea of duplexity, from what I can gather born of the imaginings of the author, was seized upon by OTO people as proof of the validity of the order, to the extent that it is today taken as dogma in those circles. It doesn't take much analysis to see what the idea gained traction, despite being at odds with what Crowley himself said on the matter. (For the record, when it comes to Crowley's legacy, I trust what he himself said, rather than trusting interpretations of later commentators). At the time we lapped up what appeared to be new teachings, and all wanted to join the official A.'.A.'., to meet the elusive 'world teacher', get invitations to his lectures, and generally be in the 'in crowd'. Gunther gave off an air of academic rigour and depth that leant weight to his writings, of course we were all ears. 

Despite contradicting Crowley's repeated assertions that there is no essential connection between the A.'.A.'. and the O.T.O., the concept of 'duplexity'—seemingly a product of the author’s imagination—was eagerly adopted by O.T.O. members as validation of their order. This idea has since been elevated to dogma within those circles. It doesn’t require much analysis to see why this concept gained traction, even though it conflicts with Crowley’s own statements on the matter. For the record, I trust Crowley’s direct words over the interpretations of later commentators when it comes to his legacy.

At the time, we eagerly embraced what seemed like fresh teachings. We were all keen to join the official A.'.A.'., meet the enigmatic 'world teacher,' receive invitations to his lectures, and be part of the 'in crowd.' Gunther exuded an aura of academic rigor and intellectual depth that gave his writings a certain authority—and naturally, we were all ears.

I did some digging into J.D. Gunther—his background and the reliability of the claims surrounding him. The earliest reference I could find comes from James Wasserman (anecdotal, but from a credible source). Wasserman recounted Gunther walking into their shop in New York, claiming to represent the A.'.A.'. Upon learning that they were students of Marcelo Motta, Gunther immediately reached out to Motta and became his student.

From this, two points become clear:

1. Gunther had a history of making questionable claims to authority, as he had no formal contact with the A.'.A.'. prior to this encounter, as evidenced by his subsequent actions.

2. He did eventually become a student of Motta, thereby establishing himself as an A.'.A.'. initiate under a traceable instructor.

To his credit, once confronted with a legitimate link to the Order, Gunther acknowledged it and petitioned for admission. However, it’s evident that the idea of a pre-existing connection was already in his mind at the time. I would classify this connection as a spiritual link, and it’s worth noting that such claims are difficult to dispute, provided the claimant adheres to them. After all, "Success is your proof."

Motta was well-known, even then, for being something of a firebrand. He attempted—unsuccessfully—to claim leadership of the O.T.O., ultimately losing that battle in court to Grady McMurtry and a group of Motta's own former students. These ex-students went on to form the current leadership of the O.T.O. Their ongoing affiliation with Gunther as his students in the A.'.A.'. is, in fact, the true foundation of the concept of 'duplexity.'

I believe that the later introduction of the term itself, along with its apparent significance, is largely a concoction designed to justify their position rather than stemming from any genuine mystical revelation.

It is well known that Motta, a student of Karl Germer, had a contentious history with many of his own students. He was often described as domineering, demanding absolute loyalty, and expelling most of his students for various perceived infractions. My current superior was briefly in communication with Motta, but when faced with the same demands for loyalty, he politely declined.

With the exception of Frater Sphinx (David Berssen), nearly every student or associate of Motta eventually found themselves expelled or severing ties with him for one reason or another. Gunther's case, however, was somewhat different. He wasn’t expelled from the A.'.A.'. by Motta; instead, he chose to resign.

How do I know this? from the hand of Motta himself. In his volume of the equinox (https://archive.org/details/TheEquinoxVol5No4SexAndReligion), he clearly states the following:

"James Daniel Gunther, once a legitimate OTO representative, demoted for planning to murder his hierarchic superior. Withdrew voluntarily from the A.'.A.'. and was expelled from the OTO" (editorial, sex and religion, page 11).

Perhaps this is hyperbole. Motta was, after all, somewhat unbalanced—paranoid, to say the least. So why should we believe him? My reasoning is as follows: the editorial notes in several places that Motta expelled various individuals from the A.'.A.'., clearly demonstrating that he had no hesitation in severing ties with students who displeased him. Moreover, he had no qualms about publicly outing individuals he claimed were falsely asserting A.'.A.'. status.

If Motta had truly wanted Gunther out, he could have easily done so. This raises an important point: if Motta expelled Gunther from the O.T.O., why did he not do the same with the A.'.A.'.? It suggests that, at least on some level, Motta recognized Gunther's legitimacy within the A.'.A.'. framework, even if their paths eventually diverged.

It's essentially Gunther's word against Motta's, and both men have a track record of making questionable claims—neither seems above bending the truth. So, who should we believe? Personally, I side with Motta. The reason he didn’t sever ties with Gunther was simple: he didn’t need to. Motta, known for his tendency to expel students with relish, would likely have taken great satisfaction in formally dismissing Gunther. He certainly had the authority to do so, as Gunther appeared to regard him as his superior—a lineage that, as far as I know, is still claimed today.

However, expulsion wasn’t necessary. Given the accusations levelled against him, Gunther made the choice to remove himself.

As any Probationer knows, "Only once does the Great Order knock on any one door" (The Preliminary Lection, verse 6). This implies that each individual receives only one opportunity per incarnation—no second chances. Therefore, given that Gunther resigned, as seems likely based on the evidence, his claim to represent the A.'.A.'. cannot hold true.

If Gunther can provide evidence to disprove this, then I’m all ears. So far, though—crickets. I was once told by one of his Probationers that the real magical link was through Krumm Heller. However, since the O.T.O. has consistently stated that they do not recognize this initiate in any capacity, this seems unlikely. Furthermore, I have not encountered this story being repeated.

Given what we know about Motta, I can’t say I blame him for withdrawing, if only for the sake of his mental health. In his position, I’d probably have done the same—high-tailed it out of there—and, like him, continued the work independently. Could he have aligned himself with another initiate? Perhaps. When my own supervisor resigned, I sought out another and successfully retained a formal link to the Order, one that I was able to verify to my own satisfaction.

However, times were different back then; perhaps that opportunity wasn’t available to him. In such cases—which, as it turns out, are not uncommon—someone may lose their direct, flesh-and-blood link to the Order. But that doesn’t mean the quest must come to an end.

Withdrawing from Motta's discipleship does not necessarily equate to withdrawing from the Great Work. By Gunther’s own admission, he subsequently entered a lengthy period of introspection before reemerging in the 1980s as the leader of what was then the most prominent A.'.A.'. group—the one with its address printed in the back of most O.T.O.-published Crowley books.

If we take Crowley at his word that the A.'.A.'. is a sempiternal Order, then it transcends the mundane concerns of interpersonal politics. I fully accept that one can withdraw from discipleship while still maintaining an inner connection to the A.'.A.'., as the notion of an unbroken chain of transmission from the dawn of time seems highly improbable. That idea resembles the fanciful dreams of the Theosophists more than grounded reality.

This leads to a critical dichotomy: either the A.'.A.'. is a sempiternal spiritual order accessible to anyone who genuinely seeks it, or it is a mundane hierarchical organization where membership hinges on a direct, flesh-and-blood link. If the latter is true, we can reasonably conclude that the A.'.A.'. was merely a creation of Aleister Crowley in his more idealistic youth, and the talk of sempiternal orders is little more than decorative fantasy.

 Personally, I side with Crowley and regard the A.'.A.'. as a sempiternal order of the spirit. “The Brothers of the A∴A∴ refuse none. They have no objection to anyone claiming to be of themselves. If he does so, let him abide by it” (Liber LXXI III:24). This means I have no issue with anyone claiming membership. It doesn’t concern me as long as they don’t impose on or interfere with others.

The A.'.A.'. is an immensely powerful thought-form, directly resonating with the highest ideals of many spiritual seekers. In a sense, once you’re in—once you’ve received the brand—you are in for life. I’ve had students who, despite formally resigning, continue to think in A.'.A.'. terms and use the grade system. They are fully aware that their resignation forfeits their right to claim affiliation with the mundane Order, yet they persist in the work.

I don’t blame them for continuing; after all, their commitment to the principles remains. Importantly, however, they aren’t out making claims of authority, nor are they questioning the legitimacy or integrity of those who choose not to operate under the same banner or submit to their authority. For this reason, I choose not to comment.

Generally, I adopt a live-and-let-live approach, but I draw the line at dishonesty—especially when it is used to deceive others and sow division for personal gain. When duplicity arises, I feel a responsibility to speak out.

I know several people within both the O.T.O. and the Gunther-led A.'.A.'., adherents to the concept of duplexity. To avoid unnecessary arguments, I generally keep my peace, as this has little bearing on my day-to-day life. On the whole, good work is being done within that camp. Some valuable books are being published—some less so—but there are a few truly brilliant occultists and writers affiliated with the group whom I hold in high regard, even though I view the leadership's claims to sole authority as spurious.

Gunther continues to remain active on the lecture circuit. The notion that all A.'.A.'. groups, except theirs, are pretenders surfaces regularly. They have honed the art of authoritative assertion to a fine degree—so much so that their air of certainty leaves little room for challenge. At this point, it feels like finely tuned propaganda, almost convincing in its assuredness. Yet, engaging with it is akin to drinking a draft that initially seems pleasant but harbours a hidden bitterness beneath the surface.

Crowley wrote, to paraphrase, that the hallmark of the Black Brothers is their exclusivity: "We are the men," "ours is the only way." When I look at the Gunther-led A.'.A.'., this is precisely what I see. Not only is the claim to be head of the Order—by my assessment and in the opinion of his superior (who ought to have the final say)—most likely false, but the group’s claims of exclusivity are also highly suspect. It’s worth noting that no other known A.'.A.'. individuals make such claims, even though much stronger assertions could arguably be made by others. This, to me, is a significant red flag.

The projected air of authority from this group feels brittle, like a cracked vase—it appears polished on the surface, but when tapped, it emits a hollow, false note. A little digging into readily available archives quickly reveals the underlying deception. To be clear, I’m not accusing them of being 'Black Brothers' outright, but they certainly display traits commonly associated with that type and may well be heading down that path.

This approach also leans heavily on an anchoring bias among new recruits. People naturally tend to rely on the first piece of information they receive on a topic when evaluating subsequent evidence. Most of us encounter this particular A.'.A.'. group first—often through references in the backs of books. Impressed by its aura of gravitas and lacking any immediate reason to question it, many, at least subconsciously, measure all other claims against this initial impression. I must admit, if you overlook the crucial fact of Motta’s testimony, their presentation is quite convincing.

My (now resigned) superior fell into this pattern, as have some of my students—and I did as well, for quite some time. Simply put, I didn’t know any better until I started examining the evidence.

In any case, it will persist. There is nothing I can do to stop it, and that’s alright. History, after all, is written by the victors—just ask the Catholic Church. My own path with the mundane A.'.A.'. is nearly complete; you could say I’ve passed through Crowley’s system and emerged in clearer waters.

It is only the lingering attachments of my lower self—formed during my time as an aspirant in a small lineage of the A.'.A.'., coupled with my strong aversion to dishonesty, especially in spiritual matters—that make me sensitive to these issues.

Love is the law, love under will.