New Book By Simon Options

I just wanted everyone to know there is a new book coming out by our old friend Simon. Yes the same author of the Necronomicon.

The title of the new book which is Dead Names : The Dark History of the Necronomicon has been out for awhile and it is still not released as of yet BUT they have finally released a picture of the book and a quick overview.

Here is the picture of the new book:

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Frater_Nero/newbook.jpg)

and here is the Book Description:


The most feared, fascinating, and dangerous book in the history of humankind . . . Necronomicon

An ancient Arabic text -- a powerful book of spells that could, in the wrong hands, create unimaginable and irreversible devastation -- the Necronomicon featured prominently in the stories of legendary horror writer H.P. Lovecraft. For many generations, few believed it to be anything other than pure fiction.

But in 1972, a young man who, for his own protection, must be known simply as "Simon," stumbled upon an old, handwritten manuscript that ultimately proved to be an authentic edition of the unholy work.

Dead Names is the startling true account of the dark and violent history of this most fearsome of books: from its Middle Eastern origins to its reemergence centuries later; its role in pivotal events of the twentieth century, from the JFK assassination to the Son of Sam murders; and the terrible fates that befell those who helped bring the Necronomicon out of the shadows and into the light of day.

The above might sound harsh, so let me give an example. BTW, if you want a response of mine to a particular piece in either book, please let me know.

Dead Names, pp. 287-88:

Page 134-36: In this section, Gonce attacks the entire idea that there is a “Sumerian Tradition” in modern magic, a patently untenable position that flies in the face of the (documented) facts... Although they claim to be familiar with the works of Kenneth Grant, Gonce and Harms fail to note in their tirade against the Necronomicon that Grant refers to the Sumerian Tradition himself many times over the course of his body of work... Jack Parsons, one of the members of the OTO’s Pasadena lodge in the 1940s, refers to the Sumerian Tradition several times in his own writings, thus demonstrating that it was not unknown to the “mages” of that time and that Order.

Simon's conclusion?

I cannot imagine what sort of occult experts Harms and Gonce had contacted, or of what books their considerable libraries consist, but these references to Sumer are in Parsons, Crowley, and Grant.

It's a pretty damning indictment, no?

Maybe looking back at the first few sentences to the section covering pages 134-36 of The Necronomicon Files will help:

In the introduction to his Necronomicon, SImon claims that H. P. Lovecraft and Aleister Crowley met (at least mentally) on the "common soil" of Sumer. Simon also quotes Aleister Crowley as saying: "Our work is therefore historically authentic; the rediscovery of the Sumerian tradition." So, how important was the Sumerian Tradition to Crowley?

The section goes on to discuss the references to "Sumer" and "Chaldaea" in Crowley - not Grant, not Parsons, and certainly not modern magic in general. I'm not certain why anyone would have expected otherwise.

The above might sound harsh, so let me give an example. BTW, if you want a response of mine to a particular piece in either book, please let me know.

Dead Names, pp. 287-88:

Page 134-36: In this section, Gonce attacks the entire idea that there is a “Sumerian Tradition” in modern magic, a patently untenable position that flies in the face of the (documented) facts... Although they claim to be familiar with the works of Kenneth Grant, Gonce and Harms fail to note in their tirade against the Necronomicon that Grant refers to the Sumerian Tradition himself many times over the course of his body of work... Jack Parsons, one of the members of the OTO’s Pasadena lodge in the 1940s, refers to the Sumerian Tradition several times in his own writings, thus demonstrating that it was not unknown to the “mages” of that time and that Order.

Simon's conclusion?

I cannot imagine what sort of occult experts Harms and Gonce had contacted, or of what books their considerable libraries consist, but these references to Sumer are in Parsons, Crowley, and Grant.

It's a pretty damning indictment, no?

Maybe looking back at the first few sentences to the section covering pages 134-36 of The Necronomicon Files will help:

In the introduction to his Necronomicon, SImon claims that H. P. Lovecraft and Aleister Crowley met (at least mentally) on the "common soil" of Sumer. Simon also quotes Aleister Crowley as saying: "Our work is therefore historically authentic; the rediscovery of the Sumerian tradition." So, how important was the Sumerian Tradition to Crowley?

The section goes on to discuss the references to "Sumer" and "Chaldaea" in Crowley - not Grant, not Parsons, and certainly not modern magic in general. I'm not certain why anyone would have expected otherwise.

Dan, the next line in your book after "So, how important was the Sumerian Tradition to Crowley?" is: "Daniel and I have both searched diligently for this quote and haven't found it yet, though we have sifted painstakingly through our considerable libraries and enlisted the help of mages on the alt.magick newsgroup on the Internet, many of whom are dedicated Thelemites with a knowledge of Crowley's writing that exceeds our own." (p. 134)

I then go on to show that this quote, which no one in your circle could find, is standing right there in the same book by Grant, the Magical Revival, that was cited in yours. It is a quote by Crowley. Not Grant, not Parsons. I think it is a pretty damning indictment, if you ask me, of your painstaking sifting.

As for the Hamblin reference, you are focused on that but I wasn't. It wasn't important. What was important was the relation of the Arabic -- and Quranic -- khadhulu to Cthulhu. It's still important, whether brought to my attention by Hamblin, Ryan, or Milton Berle. I gave Ryan his due, as was only proper, then went on to investigate it myself from the original, primary source: the Quran. I then went and referenced other works by Islamic scholars on the same point. I figure that was better than looking for Hamblin. I think that's scholarship, not relying on the Internet and some unidentified "mages" who couldn't find an important quote by Crowley on Sumer.

But ...I could be wrong.

I also don't want to sound harsh, but The Necronomicon Files were an extended attack on me and my contribution to the field so I feel entitled to a little harshness! Anyway, no hard feelings. Life's too short. I stand behind my statements regarding Crowley and the Sumerian tradition, and how it was picked up and amplified by Parsons and Grant. I also stand behind my research concerning khadhulu/Cthulhu and, yes, even KUTU-LU. I feel that the research presented in Dead Names more than adequately answered the objections in The Necronomicon Files; of course, I don't expect you to feel that way. C'est la vie. I am perfectly willing to respond to other criticisms as best I can, though.

I was quite surprised to find the Book of Dead Names in Barnes and Nobles in the east 40's of Manhattan NY. It is well written and a good read. I think its pretty apparant from the introduction that Simon says alot of people have died in connection to the book. He says.

" I hope that when the reader is finished with this account -this memento mori this confessio, this summa necronomica- that he or she comes away with the certain knowledge that no matter what the necronomicon is or isn't it is most definitly not a hoax.

It seems like Simon is trying to get it off his chest. Alot of his friends connected with the book are now dead. So it must be bothersome for him to hear the babbling of idiots which does not exclude postings on this syte.

Whatever whatever anyone who has ever read the Necronomicon files from cover to cover without vomiting is most notably and outstandingly a dork wad. I love Lovecraft but lets not compare apples to bannanas.

This post has been edited by smasher666: Apr 15 2006, 09:47 PM

Hi Simon,

and thank you for a thrilling read. I picked up dead names a week ago, and it is the first book which has kept me up half night because I couldn't put it down for a long time.

I also look forward immensely to the gates. Having had a brief brush with your nec I have not wanted to touch it since :-) but given even more info that may very well become an option. My only complaint is that I shall have to wait until september before I can get my hands on the gates.

Sometimes I have had the feeling that it is - will be with these two books that the fondly nicked Simonomicon current will entrench itself as one of the stronger currents of contemporality.

I guess I _may_ have hundreds of questions when/if I start working with it, so I really hope you will be online after the publication of gates. But for now I only have one, which is more the idle curiosity kind: since the publication of dead names I figure your anonymity will be pretty much gone - I mean, people must be able to identify you given the new data.

Noxlux

This post has been edited by nox: Apr 16 2006, 12:50 PM

Hi Simon,

and thank you for a thrilling read. I picked up dead names a week ago, and it is the first book which has kept me up half night because I couldn't put it down for a long time.

I also look forward immensely to the gates. Having had a brief brush with your nec I have not wanted to touch it since :-) but given even more info that may very well become an option. My only complaint is that I shall have to wait until september before I can get my hands on the gates.

Sometimes I have had the feeling that it is - will be with these two books that the fondly nicked Simonomicon current will entrench itself as one of the stronger currents of contemporality.

I guess I _may_ have hundreds of questions when/if I start working with it, so I really hope you will be online after the publication of gates. But for now I only have one, which is more the idle curiosity kind: since the publication of dead names I figure your anonymity will be pretty much gone - I mean, people must be able to identify you given the new data.

Noxlux

Thanks for your kind comments. I hope Gates lives up to its reputation!

As for my identity ... well, people will assume they know who I am, and they may be in for a surprise! In any event, I am not the first writer to use a pseudonym and I won't be the last. Some very famous authors use them, just to keep their identity secret when they try a new genre, for instance. No one complains to them! And guys like J.D. Salinger and Thomas Pynchon don't use pseudonyms ...but then they disappear completely anyway. In the past few decades we've learned that writers such as Anne Rice, Stephen King, and many others have written and published books under other names. Somehow, though, when it comes to the Necronomicon and Simon there seems to be this cottage industry in revealing my identity. Weird, huh?

Let the book stand for itself. Who I am is not important at all. Think of me as just a means to an end for getting the Necronomicon to the public.

I am willing to answer any questions you might have, though, insh'allah.

Thanks for your kind comments. I hope Gates lives up to its reputation!

As for my identity ... well, people will assume they know who I am, and they may be in for a surprise! In any event, I am not the first writer to use a pseudonym and I won't be the last. Some very famous authors use them, just to keep their identity secret when they try a new genre, for instance. No one complains to them! And guys like J.D. Salinger and Thomas Pynchon don't use pseudonyms ...but then they disappear completely anyway. In the past few decades we've learned that writers such as Anne Rice, Stephen King, and many others have written and published books under other names. Somehow, though, when it comes to the Necronomicon and Simon there seems to be this cottage industry in revealing my identity. Weird, huh?

Let the book stand for itself. Who I am is not important at all. Think of me as just a means to an end for getting the Necronomicon to the public.

I am willing to answer any questions you might have, though, insh'allah.

Hello Simon,

thank you for your reply.

Of course you are correct in your observation, and to me as a member of said public the most important thing is the book. I do have a second question of this idle curiosity/secondary importance, it regards the translators listed in the Necronomicon, i.e. Ms I Celms, Ms N pasapycou, Mr Peter Levenda, Mr X and Mr Y.

Just so you know that I have done my homework I am aware of what you wrote on page 104 and 105 of dead names about splitting up the mss, so different translators worked with different parts of it, and about Ms Papaspyrous invovlement and the other gentleman who was inolved in the process.

As I am writing this in an internet cafe I do not have the books in front of me, just some notes - so I hope that I haven't gotten the facts mixed up, but anyway, my first question is where there two or more translators? I am also very curious about the translators regarding what parts of the mss they translated and of course if they had any kind of background within the occult? - Is there anything more you can tell us about this?

---

Now, since your presense on this forum (and especially the chance that you may answer further questions :-)is quite inspiring I decided to pick up my old copy of the necronomicon again. First I have to say that it impressed me deeply - there were a lot in it which a dismissed when I encountered it many years ago, which I now consider to be valuable material. This was the same kind of transformation with which I have reevaluated parts of the work of Crowley and Grant, i.e. after first considering parts of the work as nonsensical it starts to provide great value.

I also decided that I am not willing to wait until September with the gatewalking - so I started working with this again a couple of days ago. This far I only have one question regarding classification - the previous time when I worked with the book and tried to go through the first gate ended a bit disastrously, it took me some time to recover, and then later under the pseudonym of "Anfänger" I asked some questions about this on the internet, and someone suggested that the forces I had encountered where rather of the Maskim variety than the kind of forces one was expected to find behind the first gate.

Now, of course this kind of question can be tricky to answer, since most magickal experiences are quite personal. Anyway, I shall not bother to describe my procedures, but a couple of days ago I approached the first gate. The energy I encountered was nothing like anything I have ever encountered while working with any other system, not like any qliffotic or similar energy I have encountered. I would be tempted to describe it as a sickly-sweet moon brightness fluid menstrually tainted energy. I was not able to repel it using any of my normal defences, in fact my 'vehicle' the shape I assumed while entering the gate was quickly indisposed by the energy - the trick I finally came upon for manipulating the energy and sending it away from my body which was not altogether comfortable with being invaded by it (I have to admit that for some time there I was questioning my own sanity for considering working with energies which are as sometimes uncomfortable as this one), was to identify with the energy and consider it me and sending this part of myself far away from my body. Sort of like there is no spoon.

(I also tested the classical repelling sigil on the energy, and it worked fine)

I have a rather busy schedule at the present so I have not been able to experiment extensively with this, but I have noted that when I watch the world through the filter of this energy the word "necro" seems very appropriate for describing parts of the experience. It is quite interesting and fascinating, though presently I have not been able to find any practical uses for it - and I have to admit that the primary uses of this force I am able to imagine would be martial (and fortunately I consider it quite unlikely that I would be in a situation where I would have to defend myself against these forces - or use them for attack).

So, anyway, my question of primary importance would be if it is possible from this brief description to say that I have indeed taken part of the stuff on the other side of the first gate - or if this sounds more like maskim?

Either way I will of course continue my exploration. This is far to fascinating, although a bit perilous :-)

All the best
Noxlux

This post has been edited by nox: Apr 22 2006, 12:11 PM

Nox quote
"I also decided that I am not willing to wait until September with the gatewalking - so I started working with this again a couple of days ago. This far I only have one question regarding classification - the previous time when I worked with the book and tried to go through the first gate ended a bit disastrously, it took me some time to recover, and then later under the pseudonym of "Anfänger" I asked some questions about this on the internet, and someone suggested that the forces I had encountered where rather of the Maskim variety than the kind of forces one was expected to find behind the first gate."

Greetings Nox,

The night of walking for this year are. May 23, June11, July 10, August 9, September 7, October 6, November 5, December 4th. You should start the lunar month of purification one full moon before the night of walking which always takes place on the full moon.
Please contact me if you would like help with the gates or anything else within the Necronomicon. I could prep you for the june 11 date if you like. There is much that I can tell you about the gates but I will not tell it here. So contact me for more info.
Smasher666

This post has been edited by smasher666: Apr 22 2006, 02:12 PM