"The Argument That Took the Wrong Turning" is an all-too-apt title for Michael Effertz's 33-page pamphlet, written in reply to my 700-word review of his book Priest/ess. He treats my brief book review as though it were an attempt at an exhaustive critque of his position and his writing. Despite his ability to quote me accurately, he often misrepresents my views, drawing inaccurate inferences and overlooking the genuine implications in my review. It is a disappointing but hardly surprising outcome.

Effertz follows up his first book with this incisive response to those seeking to sidetrack his original thesis. While worthwhile in its own right, this essay reveals more of the sad, transparent bankruptcy of the official policy and the intellectual failings, and the hollow pretensions, of the defenders of the current USGL policies.

I had to add this, because it's so priceless and so damning:

Bishop Harber rated it 4 of 5 stars
The Argument That Took the Wrong Turning: A Vindication of Priest/ess and Queer Gnostic Mass in Reply to T Polyphilus is the elegant and amazing response to what seems to pass as a critique of Priest/ess by an E.G.C. Bishop, T Polyphilus.

In full disclosure, T Polyphilus is one of the strongest positive influences on my religious instinct in regard to E.G.C. and Thelema as a whole. However, I have also found incredible differences as to his apparent "O.T.O. equals Thelema" and "Crowley wrote it, I believe it, that settles it" approach that I find very hard to swallow despite the amazing work he's produced over the years. His critique of Priest/ess falls within this frame of mind that would impose dogma over doctrine and apply the immutable aspects of religion toward Thelema causing Crowley to spin in his grave. After reading it, I had to honestly question (again) my participation in O.T.O./E.G.C. because I was in shock that the Church, which I adore and have studied intently for almost two decades, appeared to promote the very nightmares of religious praxis the Book of the Law decimates in its pages.

There is very little additional material in this small piece insofar as the main thesis is concerned. The difference here—aside from being a response to a poorly thought-out dismissal cleverly disguised as a critique—is that we see the politics of O.T.O./E.G.C. laid bare and exposed to the elements of critical thought. In this regard, it is a wealth of wisdom poured out and applied in a manner that is both responsible and compassionate without any unseemly disparagement. Michael Effertz comes across here as he did in Priest/ess: well-mannered, even-handed, and completely intelligent. He understands his material, his argument, and the nature of the issues at hand. Would that T Polyphilus could have come across the same.

This Vindication, as it were, is a vital piece of the whole package. ( )