New Book By Simon Options

In other words, you only like the sources that support your theories.

In other words, I base my judgment on sources I have actually witnessed, instead of someone else's report of a television program created by people of whose views and motivations I know nothing. If someone has a copy, let me know.

We did actually try to talk with Roderick Ferrell, but he had just discharged his "agent" at the time. That would have been useful. As I said, we did reject a number of cases from the book on closer examination.

So, what you're saying is that this manuscript should have been buried, deep-sixed, and not allowed to see the light of day lest it go the way of the Bible and the Qu'ran? Should the same have been done with the Anarchist Cookbook? What are your views on censorship, Dan?

This is exactly what I mean by the book's singular nature. As you've said, the Necronomicon as a powerful book, one that brings supernatural danger and strangeness in its wake, one that can lead the weak-minded to kill and for which its owner should be held criminally liable if anything goes wrong...

...unless, of course, someone suggests that it had a role in actual crimes or that you might share this guilt, which is absolutely ridiculous because it's just a book, no different from any other, and anyone who says otherwise is a hysterical censor.

If the Necronomicon is "the most... dangerous book in the history of humankind," how can one argue that it should be treated in exactly the same way as others?

The lack of revenue on The Necronomicon Files is not due, I submit, to your idealistic zeal or scholarly ... what? integrity or umbrage? ... but to the mere fact that the book did not sell. How many times have I heard from authors that their books did not sell because they were too good for the market, or were written for too small an audience, or they didn't really want it to sell, etc. If I had a nickel for every time an author has said that in my presence, my income would "approach or exceed six figures"! No, Dan, don't make your book's relative lack of success a red badge of courage, or something.

You claim we were motivated by the money. I am pointing out we had other reasons, not that we gain any virtue from our sales, which we are told are fine for what the book is, or the lack thereof. We knew what we were getting into in terms of money, and it had no effect on our decision.

I am also pointing out that, if money is to enter our discussion, your own revenue stream is also a fair topic.

It was a hatchet job, and seen as a hatchet job, rather than a sober attempt to understand, define, or even debunk the Necronomicon. You committed the cardinal sin of scholarship: beginning with a preconceived notion and making your evidence fit the theory rather than the other way around. If you have a master's in anthropology then you understand what I am saying.

Pages 213-14 of Dead Names:

Here, Parsons associates the Bornless One ritual with Sumeria and specifically with the Goddess Inanna and her trial before the Anunnaki. One is compelled to wonder if Parsons had access to another copy of the Necronomicon, for the provenance of this invocation is generally believed to be a Greco-Egyptian magical papyrus from about the time of Christ, as we learn from Budge’s work originally published in 1901.

As I understand it, your theory is that another copy of this book exists that no one has located or mentioned, that it contained an incantation from a different cultural background that does not exist in your version, and that this fell into the hands of an occultist who never mentioned it save for a cryptic reference in a single letter that could have very well been a mistaken attribution. Is this correct?

It's late. Perhaps we should delay the discussion of the cardinal sin of scholarship for another time.

Questions for the master sage Simon.

I was very pleased with the eighth chapter. It is an interesting idea that the Mad Arab could have had a muslim background. I was raised against my will with a christian background from which I immediately rebelled. I was surprised to find words like Ala and Malah and Marutukka <The Qurans Marut>. Eventually I wound up with a devout Sunni Muslim wife. I am not myself Muslim but after my increasingly strange experiances with Allah and the Necronomicon it may be safe to say I am half Muslim. As far as that goes I do not eat pork and call Allah Marduk. A far cry from a devout Muslim. My strangest Allah concerned event was on a Muslim holy day very recently when I summoned Malah and at the sound of his name a six foot long shelf with 3 1/2 wood screw firmly set into 3 2x4's was ripped off my wall. It appears Marduk is trying to tell me he is the supreme being and has many names.

Could you possibly give us any insight to the Sumerian word Ala which means god and any possible connection to the word it sounds like Allah?

About your studys with the Lemegeton or the book within it The Greater Key of Soloman. Many years ago before I started getting much better results with the Necronomicon I was startled to find that one of the seals in the Greater Key looks very simular to the Nanna Gate. I am fairly sure that it was a moon spirit seal but do not quote me on that because I long ago turned my back on ceremonial magick as I began the transformation into the sorcerer I am today. It should be fairly easy to find in the Greater Key as it is the only seal that looks like the Nanna Gate. Any insight on that? It is well known that some of the seals in the Greater Key are also found in the 5th 6th and 7th books of Moses. Many of the seals in the Book of Moses are actually Egyptian in nature and not Sumerian. Ashnook tells me Moses died on mount Nebo. Deuteronomy 34-1 Deut 34-5. Any possible insight on the connection between the Necronomicon and that seal in the Greater Key?

On the four gates mentioned in the eighth chapter. I have long noticed that the 4 watchtowers or the north south east and west gates clearly oint to four gods by manner of describing thier attributes. My notes in my handwritten copy of the Necronomicon are the North Gate Silver Hunter from the sacred city of Ur is Nanna / Sin. The East Gate. The mistress of the rising star <Easten Star?> Queen of the Eastern ways very clearly is Inanna. South Gate. In the names of the mighty hosts of Marduk. Of course Marduk.
West Gate. Who else can offer protection to the priest from the underworld other than mistress Inanna? Of course Nergal. Any thoughts on the four watchtowers being 4 of the stars on the ladder of lights?

On page 235 you hit the nail right on the head in a beautiful paragraph. It is one of your statements which shows how like minded we are possibly by being influenced by the same sources. The Elders. It also shows the good will you have towards this planet in general.
"One should always keep in mind that the Necronomicon magician is a unique type of occultist. Wheras most modern magicians see thier quest as a deeply personal one related to individual spiritual goals of enlightenment or individualisation the Necronomican magician has a broader social purpose and that is to defend this planet against the hostile forces that lie in wait both in the underworld and in the vast reaches of outer space. Etc

Bingo!

A comment on that. As one who has passed all of the gates within the Necronomicon and stumbled upon a few not mentioned. I have in the past fallen into a trance like state entered the astral and done battle with demonic forces banging at the outer gates in attempt to gain entrance into that which has been created. Although the underworld is perhaps some sort of buffer zone to the outside and surely connected the outer gates at least in my mind seemed to be at the far corners of our bubble universe. Past the stars perhaps on the curve of the cosmos.

I also liked your closing note.

The Necronomicon is a red flare lit at the top of a desert Ziggurat. The Necronomicon magician is a man or woman who has popped smoke to remind the gods we are here and to let them know the Earth is a hot LZ.

Exactly.

This post has been edited by smasher666: May 23 2006, 10:46 PM

Ah, the Toda. Sometimes referred to as "Dodha" in Indian publications and on Indian sites. And, ah, Anthony Walker and the whole school of social anthropology.

I also have a background (at the master's level) in anthropology and religious studies. We both know how ambiguous is this "science" and how partisan it has become. If you like, I can trade the same references with you -- Tyler, Frazier, Eliade, Levi-Strauss, Durkheim, Malinowski, Geertz, Douglas, Evans-Pritchard, et al -- until the cows (or, in this case, the buffaloes) come home. We know how Margaret Meade found one set of "facts" in Samoa, which were later criticized by another anthropologist decades later; or even how some anthropologists return to a site after an absence of ten years only to realize that what they thought they knew, they didn't (due to poor relationships with the local people, language and translation difficulties, being of the wrong sex, wrong religion, wrong age, etc etc). The observer changes the event observed, especially (as is now realized) in anthropology and ethnography.

That being said, my sources on the Toda are many and varied. My interest in them began with a reference in a work by Octavio Paz, the Nobel-Prize-winning Ambassador of Mexico to India who spent many years there and understood the controversy over the Toda but was disinclined to reject the Sumerian hypothesis out of hand. After that, I read the ideas of Prince Peter (who was commenting on the Toda decades after Emenau's sojourn there in the 1930s) and the admittedly dubious concepts of Mme Blavatsky, and began then to contact friends and associates from India -- among them persons working to improve the lot of the "indigenous peoples" in general -- and including a trip to India myself in the late 1990s, beginning in Mumbai. The Todas are convinced that their origins are ancient, and that their liturgical language is a survival of a time when "the whole world was Toda"; at least, that was how it was expressed to me. We may credit Walker's implication that the Toda have romanticized themselves to a great extent in order to attract the attention of the world and improve tourism, but as any traveler to India can tell you very few Europeans or Americans are intrepid enough to have made the trip to the Nilgiri Hills unless they had an ulterior motive, such as "social anthropology". In fact, I have known American tourists to India who never got further than the airport in Delhi or Mumbai ... they turned right around and took the next flight out!

It is not my intention to discredit your or any degree in anthropology, but generally-speaking I am rather contemptuous of what has happened to the field. Anthropology, like sociology and psychology, pretends to be a "hard science" in order to claim the same academic and scholarly prestige as, say, particle physics. In order to do this, anthropologists and sociologists and psychologists have reduced their study as much as possible to mathematics and statistics, since these are the linguae francae of science. They refuse to take a universalist or reductionist approach to their fields, and instead insist that each social group be studied without reference to any other, an-sich , and these studies are then neatly bound and placed on a reference shelf somewhere to gather dust. While I much prefer the approach of an Eliade, for instance, to the field -- and sympathize with his contempt for modern anthropology -- I realize that the intent to perfect their science is laudable. I just simply do not accept that their approach is the right one; at least, they should admit up front that the results of their work are largely subjective and seen through the eyes of a foreigner with no common culture, language, or religion with the group being studied and that, indeed, their informants may have been (a) playing tricks on them; or (b) thinking that their deeper mysteries are not for the outsiders; or © the wrong informants from the start with regard to the information being sought. Prof Tyler's objections to Walker's work may indicate a general dissatisfaction with the approach: how do you begin to study a foreign -- especially an ancient -- culture from a privileged position of an outsider? What relationship does language have to truth, in an existential sense if nothing else? What is the relationship between sign and signed?

I'm going to stop now before I start quoting Derrida! To paraphrase Goering, when I hear the word "anthropology" I reach for my revolver. I will try to answer your objections more specifically in a later posting.

Don't worry; I'm well aware of anthropology's sins and shortcomings. Nonetheless, I can see considerable worth in its methods. Sure, someone's fieldwork may yield different responses based on a wide range of factors, but its emphasis on close contact with other cultures (living with them, learning the language, and so forth) nonetheless yields data that can provide insights about others - and ourselves - that we wouldn't get otherwise. Also, the greater acceptance of behavior which had in the past been called "going native," the foregrounding of the discourse between the people and the ethnographer, and continuing work (at different times and with different people) in the same areas have also been helpful in alleviating some of those problems with the fieldwork methods.

In short, gaining an understanding of other cultures via fieldwork has its problems - but so does every other way of doing that, and many of those are much worse.

Anyway, let me know when you've got those Toda references.

This post has been edited by Danharms: May 24 2006, 08:40 PM

...It appears Dan that the majority of the people who read your review find it distasteful. It also appears that judging by your rating on this forum that almost everyone here also finds your reviews distasteful In comparision Simon has one of the highest ratings on this forum. I wonder of the psychological basis of your attacks... However regardless of whatever you say or believe as I have clearly pointed out for you the Sumerian tradition still exists in modern religion. As long as I have breathe you can rest assured that the Sumerian Gods will continue to be worshiped. So call me the king of fools if so you deem me. Sometimes those who claim to be wise men are actually fools. Sometimes those who claim to be fools are actually wise.

My co-author is a priest of Inanna, so I won't call you a fool. You are free to worship as you will.

Nonetheless, I am uncertain as to why a person with great faith would see popularity as a measure of any worth.

Tranquilson (a questionable source cited several times by Gonce), in the guise of academic contempt, states—among many other objections - that I “make some extremely untenable historical assertions such as that the Sumerian language is ‘closely allied to that of the Aryan race, having in fact many words identical to that of Sanskrit (and it is said, to Chinese).”
I respectfully submit that these assertions are not untenable at all. At the time the Introduction was being written this was being seriously discussed among scholars of Sumer, and it is still discussed today.

Simon follows this with a list of scholars working on this problem. The question is, how do we know that this matter is being "seriously discussed"? Do these scholars represent the mainstream of linguistic thought?

Here's how we might figure this out. If scholars are discussing something seriously, they're writing about it in papers they place before their colleagues. If they're writing about it to any great degree, they're quoting each other's work. If they're quoting each other's work, there are tools we can use to track it, like a citation database. The more citations, the more influential the article. If you cite yourself, that's worth nothing. The database is not a perfect tool, and other factors need to be considered, but it's a way to find out matters we might not be able to judge otherwise as outsiders.

Let's get started:

A Web site devoted to Sumerian and Indo-European equivalence (www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi37.htm): In this case, it's Sumerian to Latvian, and the author asks us to reject all Indo-European scholarship to accept it. No dice.

Dr. Jahanshah Derakhshani: No citations.

Paul Kekai Manansala: One citation, not of a publication, but of an email sent to another author.

After them, we've got three scholars with sizable bodies of work. We'll narrow our search down to what articles I can locate detailing ties between the languages of India and Mesopotamia.

I. M. Diakanoff, "External Connections of the Sumerian Language" Mother Tongue - Two citations, one in which he cites himself, and another I came across on my own. He might have another article I'm tracking down.

Professor Gordon Whittaker: Simon cites his paper "Euphratic: An Indo-European Answer to the Sumerian Question" (no citations). I'll also throw in the article "Traces of an Early Indo-European Language in Southern Mesopotamia" (no citations) and "The Dawn of Writing and Phoneticism" (no citations).

Professor Michael Witzel: Simon cites "Aryan and non-Aryan Names in Vedic India: Data for the Linguistic Situation, c. 1900-500 B.C." That's got five citations (one of them is Witzel citing himself), though the paper barely mentions Mesopotamia. We might also add "Early Sources for South Asian Substrate Languages" (one self-citation) and "Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan
(Rgvedic, Middle and Late Vedic)" (one citation and one self-citation).

To be thorough, I also checked the MLA database for similar articles. In the last twenty years, I found one article on possible Sumerian-Indo-European links - with no citations.

So, we've got very few people quoting others. Ideally, we should be seeing multiple citations for each article as ideas are exchanged and debated. It seems their ideas aren't being debated in the linguistic community. From what I can see, even these scholars are, for the most part, arguing for loan-word exchange through trade, instead of deeper and more lasting connections or relations between language.

This raises a couple of other questions. First, even if "serious debate" was going on, how could it be said, as on page 291, that John was "untrue" to say there were not connections between Sumerian and other languages? Doesn't serious debate mean that the truth is still being determined?

Finally, there's the rest of that quote. Simon offers no justification in recent scholarship on the Sumerian-Chinese comment or for the curious mention of the "Aryan race." Surely those had something to do with Karyn's opinion that the statement was "extremely untenable"?

About your studys with the Lemegeton or the book within it The Greater Key of Soloman. Many years ago before I started getting much better results with the Necronomicon I was startled to find that one of the seals in the Greater Key looks very simular to the Nanna Gate. I am fairly sure that it was a moon spirit seal but do not quote me on that because I long ago turned my back on ceremonial magick as I began the transformation into the sorcerer I am today. It should be fairly easy to find in the Greater Key as it is the only seal that looks like the Nanna Gate. Any insight on that? It is well known that some of the seals in the Greater Key are also found in the 5th 6th and 7th books of Moses. Many of the seals in the Book of Moses are actually Egyptian in nature and not Sumerian. Ashnook tells me Moses died on mount Nebo. Deuteronomy 34-1 Deut 34-5. Any possible insight on the connection between the Necronomicon and that seal in the Greater Key?

I looked up the seal I am refering to. It is the 1st seal of Luna, Opens all doors and locks no matter what they are fastened with.
It looks like the Hebrew version of the Gate of Nanna.

Tranquilson (a questionable source cited several times by Gonce), in the guise of academic contempt, states—among many other objections - that I “make some extremely untenable historical assertions such as that the Sumerian language is ‘closely allied to that of the Aryan race, having in fact many words identical to that of Sanskrit (and it is said, to Chinese).”
I respectfully submit that these assertions are not untenable at all. At the time the Introduction was being written this was being seriously discussed among scholars of Sumer, and it is still discussed today.

This raises a couple of other questions. First, even if "serious debate" was going on, how could it be said, as on page 291, that John was "untrue" to say there were not connections between Sumerian and other languages? Doesn't serious debate mean that the truth is still being determined?

According to your book, truth is not "still being determined" on this issue. Your book gives the distinct impression that I had somehow made all this up (the connections between Sumerian and other languages) when it is obvious that I have not, and that other scholars are grappling. and have been grappling, with this very issue. Actual scholars, Dan, and not some mysterious mages on the internet, regardless of the number of their citations. Once I produce scholars -- professors at reputable universities, like Harvard -- then you feel you must find some way to attack their bona fides anyway.

Finally, there's the rest of that quote. Simon offers no justification in recent scholarship on the Sumerian-Chinese comment or for the curious mention of the "Aryan race." Surely those had something to do with Karyn's opinion that the statement was "extremely untenable"?

The Sumerian-Chinese comment was published in the Necronomicon in 1977 as a passing reference on page xviii ("and, it is said, to Chinese!" is the citation in its entirety), but of course it is something you have to jump on, Dan, regardless of its context which is in this case a parenthetical aside. Nevertheless, for those who are interested, there is a book in the New York City Library, Main Branch, that shows the relationship between Chinese and Sumerian words. Unfortunately, I have lost the citation (it was published sometime in the 1920s, I believe) but will rummage around and see if I can find it if anyone cares. As for the Aryan references, that goes back to Waddell as specifically mentioned in the text: the Sumero-Aryan Dictionary (cited on page xxxiii).

Questions for the master sage Simon.

Deuteronomy 34-1 Deut 34-5. Any possible insight on the connection between the Necronomicon and that seal in the Greater Key?

I only noticed the similarity long after the Necronomicon was published. There is a reference to that similarity, I believe, in Gates of the Necronomicon which comes out later this year.

On the four gates mentioned in the eighth chapter. I have long noticed that the 4 watchtowers or the north south east and west gates clearly oint to four gods by manner of describing thier attributes. My notes in my handwritten copy of the Necronomicon are the North Gate Silver Hunter from the sacred city of Ur is Nanna / Sin. The East Gate. The mistress of the rising star <Easten Star?> Queen of the Eastern ways very clearly is Inanna. South Gate. In the names of the mighty hosts of Marduk. Of course Marduk.
West Gate. Who else can offer protection to the priest from the underworld other than mistress Inanna? Of course Nergal. Any thoughts on the four watchtowers being 4 of the stars on the ladder of lights?

This is also mentioned in Gates of the Necronomicon. The entire concept of the ladder of lights is explored in much more detail, with referants to other occult systems from different cultures. (I am not trying to promote my book, here, though it may seem that way to some. Gates of the Necronomicon was originally supposed to have been published more than a decade ago, when Herman Slater was still alive, and the entire book was set in type and ready to go. What has happened to it, I don't know, but I suppose it will turn up one day -- a company was advertising it some years ago, but when they were contacted about it they dropped out of sight, so the book exists somewhere. The version coming out this year is based on that original manuscript, with a very few additions and virtually no changes.)

On page 235 you hit the nail right on the head in a beautiful paragraph. It is one of your statements which shows how like minded we are possibly by being influenced by the same sources. The Elders. It also shows the good will you have towards this planet in general.
"One should always keep in mind that the Necronomicon magician is a unique type of occultist. Wheras most modern magicians see thier quest as a deeply personal one related to individual spiritual goals of enlightenment or individualisation the Necronomican magician has a broader social purpose and that is to defend this planet against the hostile forces that lie in wait both in the underworld and in the vast reaches of outer space. Etc

I feel this is an important element of the book, one that is usually ignored by its critics. Most grimoires reflect the greed and lusts of their intended audiences: get rich, get the woman of your dreams, obtain power over others, etc etc. Others, more dignified and altruistic, still emphasize the personal attainment of the magician. There is virtually no grimoire that insists on the social responsibilities of the magician; the two don't seem to go together. Yet, the thrust of the Necronomicon is twofold: one, the magician must prepare him/herself via the walking of the Gates and two, the magician must take responsibility for protecting humanity from the harmful forces being invoked by others. The grimoire appealed to my Sixties' sensibilities for that reason, for I struggled personally with this very issue: how to justify a personal, spiritual path when the war in Vietnam was raging and people were being slaughtered, and there was worldwide poverty, etc etc.? At the same time, how to devote oneself to helping others while, at the same time, ignoring one's personal salvation? Merely being a priest and performing the priestly functions was not enough. For those of us who know there is a deeper path, one that transcends the liturgies of the Church, it was impossible to ignore the reality of the occult technologies that not only existed, but were being misused by others: government agencies on both sides of the Iron Curtain. And we have to help the poor and the disenfranchised, no question. The Necronomicon seemed to present a mindset that enabled one to do both.

I also liked your closing note.

The Necronomicon is a red flare lit at the top of a desert Ziggurat. The Necronomicon magician is a man or woman who has popped smoke to remind the gods we are here and to let them know the Earth is a hot LZ.

Exactly.

Reminding the gods is perhaps the most important function of the Necronomicon magician. It fulfills a dual role: it reminds Them, and by reminding Them we keep our purpose firmly before us. We, as humans, are capable of much generosity and much courage when others are at stake. (Anyone who has been in New York City during a blackout or a tragic event knows what I mean.) As long as we understand that our personal attainments are important to the salvation of humanity at large, we will keep at the Work because it means it is socially-relevant, much more so than the average magician, satanist, alchemist, sorcerer, etc.

There's another point I wish to make, now that I have some time this evening and that is: Why do I keep replying to Dan's criticisms?

Dan keeps harping on the fact that the Necronomicon is a dangerous work, and that it says so, up front. He feels that it should never have been published in that case, I guess. I feel otherwise, obviously. To keep something like that a secret, passed hand to hand among a small circle of initiates or mafiosi or whatever, would have been far more dangerous for the tool would rest in the hands of the very people we have come to distrust: clergymen, politicians, scientists, crackpots, moral imbeciles. By putting it into the hands of everyone we have made it possible for everyone to know what it is and to make use of it if they choose. It is not an easy system to use; it requires the magician to work it sincerely. The passwords of the Gates are not given beyond the first: the magician must obtain these him/herself.

Dan's example of Ferrell and his vampire cult is, I submit, pathetically lame. There is no evidence that I have seen that the Necronomicon was a central feature of Ferrell's fantasy, which was vampirism and which extended to "saving" a girlfriend from her parents, people she despised and wanted dead. Nothing to do with the Necronomicon. (By contrast a week ago we learned that a woman who threw her children off the Golden Gate Bridge a few years ago did so because God told her to do it. Not the Necronomicon.) Yet, Dan would have us believe that the Necronomicon is responsible for all sorts of evil and can only come up with two cases in which the book is even mentioned, much less proved -- according to Dan's otherwise stringent requirements for proof! -- to have been responsible. So we must constantly belabor this point, even though I feel it holds no water and that further discussion has reached the point of tedium.

He is struggling to prove the book is either (a) evil, (b) a hoax, or © both. In order to do this, he is focusing on whatever minutiae he can quibble with while ignoring the main argument. It is, as I have said, an intellectually dishonest approach to the material but Dan is not liable to back down from this struggle. If the Necronomicon is all that he says it is, and if it is indeed the hoax he insists it is, then I have "created" the writer's dream: a book that actually does cause changes to occur in consciousness by merely reading it or, in some cases, merely owning it! I submit that the reality is something else, something much more mundane if you will: and that is, the Necronomicon is exactly what it says it is, nothing more or less.

By criticizing my Introduction to the book he ignores the text of the system itself. By his own admission, he seems not to be an occultist so does not feel competent to criticize the system; instead he is satisfied to attack the Introduction I wrote in 1977. In Dead Names, I present the history of the book from its discovery among the stolen mss of the Slavonic Orthodox Church to its publication. I have heard no argument from anyone concerning that history, since it is backed up by all sorts of documentation. Instead, Dan wants to defend himself against the counter-charges I made against The Necronomicon Files, which is his right; but his arguments are, to me, weak and rather desperate. However, we must not merely dismiss criticism without looking at it honestly and answering it if we can. While I am not supportive of Dan's motive --which seems restricted to attacking my platform wherever he can -- I can support a free and open discussion of the book's merits and weaknesses. Since the book is not a hoax Dan and I will never be talking to each other on the same level since he has to take the position that I am a baldfaced liar, implying that I am a dishonest merchant of occult nonsense that I am perpetrating upon an unsuspecting populace (as if!). It is difficult to have a conversation with someone who feels everything you say is a lie.

But for the sake of others who may be reading these exchanges, I feel it is necessary -- or at least courteous -- to continue to answer these objections as calmly and as clearly as I can.

[quote name='Danharms' date='May 23 2006, 10:57 PM' post='14992']
[[quote][quote]The lack of revenue on The Necronomicon Files is not due, I submit, to your idealistic zeal or scholarly ... what? integrity or umbrage? ... but to the mere fact that the book did not sell. How many times have I heard from authors that their books did not sell because they were too good for the market, or were written for too small an audience, or they didn't really want it to sell, etc. If I had a nickel for every time an author has said that in my presence, my income would "approach or exceed six figures"! No, Dan, don't make your book's relative lack of success a red badge of courage, or something.[/quote]

You claim we were motivated by the money. I am pointing out we had other reasons, not that we gain any virtue from our sales, which we are told are fine for what the book is, or the lack thereof. We knew what we were getting into in terms of money, and it had no effect on our decision.

Yeah, right.

I am also pointing out that, if money is to enter our discussion, your own revenue stream is also a fair topic.

You brought up the question of money, Dan, not me. And let's say that my motive was money, for the sake of argument. Does that necessarily mean that the book will be financially successful? How many writers write books to make money, and make little or none? Yet, I constantly hear snide references to the money people assume I have made on the book as if it was a bad thing. I guess, in order for grimoires to be taken seriously, they have to be remaindered ... Anyway, I made my point on the money issue in Dead Names.

[
Pages 213-14 of Dead Names:

[quote]Here, Parsons associates the Bornless One ritual with Sumeria and specifically with the Goddess Inanna and her trial before the Anunnaki. One is compelled to wonder if Parsons had access to another copy of the Necronomicon, for the provenance of this invocation is generally believed to be a Greco-Egyptian magical papyrus from about the time of Christ, as we learn from Budge’s work originally published in 1901.[/quote]

As I understand it, your theory is that another copy of this book exists that no one has located or mentioned, that it contained an incantation from a different cultural background that does not exist in your version, and that this fell into the hands of an occultist who never mentioned it save for a cryptic reference in a single letter that could have very well been a mistaken attribution. Is this correct?


It's not a theory, Dan, just as the Chinese-Sumerian link briefly mentioned in the Necronomicon's Introduction is not a "theory". I mentioned it as a possibility, nothing more. I think my writing is pretty clear. The assumptions are yours, not mine.

According to your book, truth is not "still being determined" on this issue. Your book gives the distinct impression that I had somehow made all this up (the connections between Sumerian and other languages) when it is obvious that I have not, and that other scholars are grappling. and have been grappling, with this very issue. Actual scholars, Dan, and not some mysterious mages on the internet, regardless of the number of their citations. Once I produce scholars -- professors at reputable universities, like Harvard -- then you feel you must find some way to attack their bona fides anyway.

I'm merely pointing out that bona fides come in more than one shape. That a professor has a chair at Harvard and a body of publications is one way of examining his credentials. If his work in a particular area is often published in low-circulation journals that he himself edits, and is rarely cited elsewhere, that might indicate that those particular ideas are not debated, or even regarded with esteem, by his colleagues.

The Sumerian-Chinese comment was published in the Necronomicon in 1977 as a passing reference on page xviii ("and, it is said, to Chinese!" is the citation in its entirety), but of course it is something you have to jump on, Dan, regardless of its context which is in this case a parenthetical aside. Nevertheless, for those who are interested, there is a book in the New York City Library, Main Branch, that shows the relationship between Chinese and Sumerian words. Unfortunately, I have lost the citation (it was published sometime in the 1920s, I believe) but will rummage around and see if I can find it if anyone cares. As for the Aryan references, that goes back to Waddell as specifically mentioned in the text: the Sumero-Aryan Dictionary (cited on page xxxiii).

The context is a paranthetical aside, but it is nonetheless relevant because it was quoted by Karyn as evidence of the Necronomicon's untenable assertions.

Don't worry about the Chinese-Sumerian dictionary - I believe I ran across that during my research. At the same time, it does not reflect the current thought in the field.

As for Waddell's 1927 work, John gives some examples of how his conclusions are no longer accepted by scholars. That aside, I'm vastly surprised to find any work from 1977 talking about a scientifically discredited idea such as the "Aryan race." Add that Waddell's book sets out to prove that fair-skinned Aryans were the founders of the Sumerian, Egyptian, and Phoenician civilizations, and that the purest example of their ancient language can be found in the English language, three-fourths of which derives directly from Sumerian, and I think it's very relevant to Karyn's quote.

Yeah, right.

I'm sorry you don't believe me. Still, by the time The Necronomicon Files rolled around, my first book had already gone into its second printing (and a second edition was in the works). I knew that we were marketing the Files to the same market, with a first-time small-press publisher and an uptick in price for a limited-edition hardcover that moved it out of the casual buy range for many fans. If anything, selling out the Night Shade edition in three months was a pleasant surprise. The Weiser edition was harder for me to predict, but I also knew the general market for that as well, so I can hardly say I was caught unawares by its performance.

You brought up the question of money, Dan, not me. And let's say that my motive was money, for the sake of argument. Does that necessarily mean that the book will be financially successful? How many writers write books to make money, and make little or none? Yet, I constantly hear snide references to the money people assume I have made on the book as if it was a bad thing. I guess, in order for grimoires to be taken seriously, they have to be remaindered ... Anyway, I made my point on the money issue in Dead Names.

There's hardly anything wrong with making money off a book. Nonetheless, if someone is making money off a book that might not be on the up-and-up - and you can certainly understand why someone would think that when a sourceless ancient manuscript that supposed to be fictional appears - the question of how much money is being made becomes relevant.

It is curious that a man who writes books dedicated to the salvation of humanity from the forces of darkness has such a hard time believing that people write for reasons other than money.

It's not a theory, Dan, just as the Chinese-Sumerian link briefly mentioned in the Necronomicon's Introduction is not a "theory". I mentioned it as a possibility, nothing more. I think my writing is pretty clear. The assumptions are yours, not mine.

Well, you said the reader should be "compelled to wonder" about it. I didn't feel compelled, so it made me wonder. Frankly, my poor scholarship is based around eliminating those interesting possibilities in favor of matters that actually are probable based on the evidence, so you'll excuse me if I misunderstood the intent.

I must say, it's good of Simon to continue to answer my weak and desperate arguments. Yet I believe I should answer his charge that I'm ignoring the bulk of material in DEAD NAMES in favor of nitpicking.

Bear with me on this one.

Frankly, I'm not asking questions about the main narrative in DEAD NAMES because it's just that - a narrative. After twenty-five years, Simon has reappeared to defend himself. He knows that I, not to mention the bulk of the occult community, have ridiculed his book as a fake. This would be the instant to present all the evidence he has, to finally justify himself in front of all of these doubters, to rub in our faces just how wrong we were. So, what do we have?

We don't have a manuscript. We don't have copies of the manuscript. We don't have an original owner. We don't have notes on the translation, or documentation that it occurred. We don't have accounts from other people who saw or worked on it and who can verify it. In short, we have no new evidence.

Now, some of you'd say that I wouldn't believe in the NECRONOMICON if someone waved a 9th century Greek manuscript in my face. (The answer is, maybe not, but I'd find some way to test it.) Still, those things would be something on his side of the scales, and it wouldn't hurt to have them there.

What we've got instead is a story. Some parts of it are true, but as a Lovecraft fan I know that part of a story can be true without all of it being true. The story may give reasons for the lack of the evidence above, but in the end, they're just reasons, and I can come up with others that also account for the lack of evidence. Also, I know that story has changed over the years (just the original date of discovery has slipped from 1968 to 1972). A story in itself is not proof of anything.

As to not believing Simon - when someone tell me they're an ex-wandering bishop involved in a shady deal and writing under a pseudonym, it's not a big boost to their credibility. I think it's fine to ask for something more, especially when I'm dealing with a supposedly fictitious book.

As nothing substantive has changed between the SPELLBOOK and DEAD NAMES, why talk about it?

Simon brings up occultism, so let's talk about it.

Now, I may not have much street cred in that department, but I have known a number of people who practiced various systems of it over the years. I know how important it is to them. It's integral to their whole identity. It's what moves them to be better people, to strive for something beyond the material. It's who they are.

So, here are some observations.

First, in DEAD NAMES, Simon is constantly talking about the lack of credentials in the magical community. Sure, he singles out John for special treatment, and there's quite a number of people who a some puncturing of their exotic, meaningless titles. Nonetheless, Simon's constantly talking about “self-proclaimed occultists and ‘ceremonial magicians,’” “self-appointed critics and judges of occult and pagan societies,” “self-described pagan and ceremonial magician,” “the self-anointed, self-appointed elders of the Western occult tradition,” “other, self-appointed ‘mages’ and magicians,” yet more “self-appointed experts” on the occult, and “self-annointed [sic], self-described magicians”.

After a certain point, it's just ridiculous. How many magicians do you know who aren't self-proclaimed, self-appointed, self-described, or self-anointed? What does that have to do with anything about who they are, or the validity of what they experience? If you're like most occultists I've met, you'd say it doesn't. So why does Simon keep bringing it up? And what about his own status as a magician, which he briefly proclaims on page 250? Couldn't his title be described using the same terms?

Now, let's look at page 304, where Simon's talking about the seals. He seems incensed that we conclude that the seals were not drawn via gematria and scrying (largely based on my examining Khem's typescript, on which the sigils were drawn hastily in black magic marker - you'd think something that important would get more attention). He asks how someone could know that a seal wasn't drawn using gematria without seeing the magic square. As I said, I lack occult street cred, but even I can look at a sigil with multiple lines and large gentle curves and know that gematria wasn't used to create it. (That is, unless there's been an update to the method since Agrippa - and not all of his sigils fit those criteria.)

Then he starts deploring John's use of "spectral evidence" - by which he means, the use of non-material experiences to critique his work. I think it's John's prerogative as a magician to use evidence beyond that of the five senses, but Simon ridicules any attempt to do so, here or elsewhere. He doesn't say he doesn't agree with them, mind you; he mocks the very concept of using such evidence to make any determination on a subject.

That brings us to personal testimonies.

When people come to me with complaints about THE NECRONOMICON FILES, their usual one is, "I used the NECRONOMICON, and it worked for me." Now, as you know, I may not agree with that person's interpretation of the evidence, or that it relates in any way to the historical evidence, but I can nonetheless respect that they have had an experience that's important to them. So much of occult discussion is based on that - trying out something for yourself, finding out what happens, and talking about it, to give a testimony about what they witnessed. I've hardly ever met an occultist who wasn't willing to do this.

Still, over the course of three books, I don't think Simon has ever talked about what he himself has done with the NECRONOMICON. Sure, there's talk about method and results, but it's always some vague notion that it's universal, or a particular person somewhere had an experience. Simon's works talk a great deal about democracy and equality and how the NECRONOMICON is going to be the salvation of the world, but when it gets down to the testimony - his own experiences that led him to realize this, his own practice with either the Necronomicon or any other magical system - he goes silent.

I submit - and strictly as an interesting possibility - that Simon's been rhetorically distancing himself from magic, not to mention any proof that he himself has practiced the magic in the Necronomicon. He brings up the fact that he's a magician on a rare occasion in order to establish his own credential against someone else's, but he cries "spectral evidence" when faced with non-material assertions, seems baffled by sigil interpretation, and ridicules anyone who claims even a modest mystical title. That doesn't mean the book's not valid - there was enough magical knowledge in Magickal Childe to fill a bookcase - but it's certainly a very odd way for an occult author to look at magic and the occult community.

I'll be gone for a few days, and I thought I'd give everyone something to tear apart. Take care, folks.

Simon,

Thanks for replying on the similarities between the first seal of Luna. From an occult perspective if indeed the seal of Luna unlocks all doors in any manner which they are fastened. Then its perhaps Sumerian predecessor perhaps unlocks the gates of the Necronomicon. It is the only Gate which is not constructed in a manner which the Seal of the star can be placed in the center of the gate. <Although the symbols can be written on the sides.>

This first gate I found much easier to push open and pass than the rest of the gates which become harder in succession.

I have also noticed that the ladder of lights is in the order of which a Sumerian astrologer would have viewed the spheres in speed of movement. A certified astrologer has told me that it is the speed which these orbs would have appeared to circle the earth.

Also that it is the rate of speed which the planets circle the Sun. If Shamash is replaced with the Earth.

Many astrological references are in the Necronomicon. This is not surprising considering that the Sumerians invented astrology and passed it on to the Babylonians Chaldea’s and Hebrews.

I am looking forward to the upcoming Gates of the Necronomicon.

Anything that is good will always encounter an evil resistance which seeks to surpress or destroy it.

If you plan to continue replying to Danharms, good luck. I would compare arguing with him to smashing my head into the wall. Although the latter may be more desirable and produce greater creative thought. <Along with a headache.>

You stomped up and down on Danharms in dead names in an entertaining fashion. I am surprised he continues to tango after being so denounced.

I would miss reading your posts however. It shows how well versed you are in these matters.

Peace

Dan

Your observations are obstinate. Simon used to give lectures on occult right here in New York City. Even though it has been years since he has given testamony he still has quite a following here. So it is not really a question as to whether or not he is an occutist.

This post has been edited by smasher666: May 29 2006, 09:53 PM

According to your book, truth is not "still being determined" on this issue. Your book gives the distinct impression that I had somehow made all this up (the connections between Sumerian and other languages) when it is obvious that I have not, and that other scholars are grappling. and have been grappling, with this very issue. Actual scholars, Dan, and not some mysterious mages on the internet, regardless of the number of their citations. Once I produce scholars -- professors at reputable universities, like Harvard -- then you feel you must find some way to attack their bona fides anyway.

I'm merely pointing out that bona fides come in more than one shape. That a professor has a chair at Harvard and a body of publications is one way of examining his credentials. If his work in a particular area is often published in low-circulation journals that he himself edits, and is rarely cited elsewhere, that might indicate that those particular ideas are not debated, or even regarded with esteem, by his colleagues.

The Sumerian-Chinese comment was published in the Necronomicon in 1977 as a passing reference on page xviii ("and, it is said, to Chinese!" is the citation in its entirety), but of course it is something you have to jump on, Dan, regardless of its context which is in this case a parenthetical aside. Nevertheless, for those who are interested, there is a book in the New York City Library, Main Branch, that shows the relationship between Chinese and Sumerian words. Unfortunately, I have lost the citation (it was published sometime in the 1920s, I believe) but will rummage around and see if I can find it if anyone cares. As for the Aryan references, that goes back to Waddell as specifically mentioned in the text: the Sumero-Aryan Dictionary (cited on page xxxiii).

The context is a paranthetical aside, but it is nonetheless relevant because it was quoted by Karyn as evidence of the Necronomicon's untenable assertions.

Don't worry about the Chinese-Sumerian dictionary - I believe I ran across that during my research. At the same time, it does not reflect the current thought in the field.

As for Waddell's 1927 work, John gives some examples of how his conclusions are no longer accepted by scholars. That aside, I'm vastly surprised to find any work from 1977 talking about a scientifically discredited idea such as the "Aryan race." Add that Waddell's book sets out to prove that fair-skinned Aryans were the founders of the Sumerian, Egyptian, and Phoenician civilizations, and that the purest example of their ancient language can be found in the English language, three-fourths of which derives directly from Sumerian, and I think it's very relevant to Karyn's quote.

[quote name='Danharms' date='May 29 2006, 09:49 PM' post='15086']
Simon brings up occultism, so let's talk about it.

Now, I may not have much street cred in that department, but I have known a number of people who practiced various systems of it over the years. I know how important it is to them. It's integral to their whole identity. It's what moves them to be better people, to strive for something beyond the material. It's who they are.

So, here are some observations.

First, in DEAD NAMES, Simon is constantly talking about the lack of credentials in the magical community. Sure, he singles out John for special treatment, and there's quite a number of people who a some puncturing of their exotic, meaningless titles. Nonetheless, Simon's constantly talking about “self-proclaimed occultists and ‘ceremonial magicians,’” “self-appointed critics and judges of occult and pagan societies,” “self-described pagan and ceremonial magician,” “the self-anointed, self-appointed elders of the Western occult tradition,” “other, self-appointed ‘mages’ and magicians,” yet more “self-appointed experts” on the occult, and “self-annointed [sic], self-described magicians”.

After a certain point, it's just ridiculous. How many magicians do you know who aren't self-proclaimed, self-appointed, self-described, or self-anointed? What does that have to do with anything about who they are, or the validity of what they experience? If you're like most occultists I've met, you'd say it doesn't. So why does Simon keep bringing it up? And what about his own status as a magician, which he briefly proclaims on page 250? Couldn't his title be described using the same terms?


As smasher666 brings up below, and as you are already aware, I gave lectures at the Warlock Shop/Magickal Childe for years, which included liturgical instruction, performance of rituals, etc. I also lectured privately to various secret societies in New York, including the OTO. I was therefore under the impression that my bonafides as an occultist did not need clarification or justification.

Now, let's look at page 304, where Simon's talking about the seals. He seems incensed that we conclude that the seals were not drawn via gematria and scrying (largely based on my examining Khem's typescript, on which the sigils were drawn hastily in black magic marker - you'd think something that important would get more attention). He asks how someone could know that a seal wasn't drawn using gematria without seeing the magic square. As I said, I lack occult street cred, but even I can look at a sigil with multiple lines and large gentle curves and know that gematria wasn't used to create it. (That is, unless there's been an update to the method since Agrippa - and not all of his sigils fit those criteria.)

You left out "scrying". Were you also able to determine whether or not the seals were composed through scrying? Also, the methods for obtaining seals are not restricted to these two methods, and the method of obtaining a sigil via "gematria" varies from culture to culture. I'm sorry, but you have set up a straw man to knock down here. Nowhere in the Necronomicon does it state that the seals were obtained by "gematria" or was any other method identified. I have no idea how they were obtained. I reproduced them as they appeared.

Then he starts deploring John's use of "spectral evidence" - by which he means, the use of non-material experiences to critique his work. I think it's John's prerogative as a magician to use evidence beyond that of the five senses, but Simon ridicules any attempt to do so, here or elsewhere. He doesn't say he doesn't agree with them, mind you; he mocks the very concept of using such evidence to make any determination on a subject.

That brings us to personal testimonies.

When people come to me with complaints about THE NECRONOMICON FILES, their usual one is, "I used the NECRONOMICON, and it worked for me." Now, as you know, I may not agree with that person's interpretation of the evidence, or that it relates in any way to the historical evidence, but I can nonetheless respect that they have had an experience that's important to them. So much of occult discussion is based on that - trying out something for yourself, finding out what happens, and talking about it, to give a testimony about what they witnessed. I've hardly ever met an occultist who wasn't willing to do this.

Still, over the course of three books, I don't think Simon has ever talked about what he himself has done with the NECRONOMICON. Sure, there's talk about method and results, but it's always some vague notion that it's universal, or a particular person somewhere had an experience. Simon's works talk a great deal about democracy and equality and how the NECRONOMICON is going to be the salvation of the world, but when it gets down to the testimony - his own experiences that led him to realize this, his own practice with either the Necronomicon or any other magical system - he goes silent.

There's a reason for this, and the reason is embedded in the system itself and the means of its distribution. Should I publish a diary, journal, or other record of my own use of the system I would be placing a psychological restriction upon others who would either attempt to duplicate my experiences, or pretend to have the same experiences, or feel that if they don't have the same experiences then they have done something wrong. While at Magickal Childe, I deliberately distanced myself from any idea that I would be some kind of guru: that I would lead a cult or be the "personal trainer" for a generation of would-be magicians. I detest gurus, self-proclaimed spiritual teachers,and the like. I believe that spiritual attainment is there for anyone, and that reliance on a spiritual teacher -- in this day and age when spiritual teachers are venal, self-absorbed and greedy individuals -- is dangerous. There is a system in the Necronomicon. Use it, or not. Believe it, or not. (I prefer you didn't believe it, but tested it to see if and how it works.) It's up to you, not me. And not the guy next door. Or the latest "great mage".

I submit - and strictly as an interesting possibility - that Simon's been rhetorically distancing himself from magic, not to mention any proof that he himself has practiced the magic in the Necronomicon. He brings up the fact that he's a magician on a rare occasion in order to establish his own credential against someone else's, but he cries "spectral evidence" when faced with non-material assertions, seems baffled by sigil interpretation, and ridicules anyone who claims even a modest mystical title. That doesn't mean the book's not valid - there was enough magical knowledge in Magickal Childe to fill a bookcase - but it's certainly a very odd way for an occult author to look at magic and the occult community.

Oy, vey! How can I be distancing myself from magic, when I am publishing it? Dead Names now. Gates of the Necronomicon in November. And another coming out next year. Hardly distancing myself from magic, Dan! Damn, you'll say anything no matter how inconsistent and bizarre. Give it up, already. You think the Necronomicon is a hoax; we know that. Everyone knows how you feel. They also know you don't have much of a leg to stand on, since your quibbles are just that: quibbles. Most people think the book is a hoax, so you have no worries there. You've done your bit in saving us all from Simon's evil agenda of world domination, or something. I am not "baffled by sigil interpretation", but it seems you and John are because you read the Golden Dawn or Agrippa and figure you have the last word in that. I don't "ridicule anyone who claims even a modest mystical title", just those you have cited in your book who obviously had very little knowledge of their subject, as I demonstrated in Dead Names. If I ridiculed everyone like that, I wouldn't be posting on this site, would I?

Wake up and smell the incense, Dan.

Simon - your reply to the Waddell post includes my quotes, but not your responses. I don't wish to leave you without a reply.

As smasher666 brings up below, and as you are already aware, I gave lectures at the Warlock Shop/Magickal Childe for years, which included liturgical instruction, performance of rituals, etc. I also lectured privately to various secret societies in New York, including the OTO. I was therefore under the impression that my bonafides as an occultist did not need clarification or justification.

I'll get to this in a minute.

You left out "scrying". Were you also able to determine whether or not the seals were composed through scrying? Also, the methods for obtaining seals are not restricted to these two methods, and the method of obtaining a sigil via "gematria" varies from culture to culture. I'm sorry, but you have set up a straw man to knock down here. Nowhere in the Necronomicon does it state that the seals were obtained by "gematria" or was any other method identified. I have no idea how they were obtained. I reproduced them as they appeared.

We based our judgment on viewing the typescript and talking with Khem Caigan. Neither supports the intention that much care was put into the accuracy of the sigils, which I'd generally associate with those created via an occult process.

My question is why you so confidently stated that the seals were not created via gematria. If there is some gap in my knowledge
thereof, I'd appreciate enlightenment.

There's a reason for this, and the reason is embedded in the system itself and the means of its distribution. Should I publish a diary, journal, or other record of my own use of the system I would be placing a psychological restriction upon others who would either attempt to duplicate my experiences, or pretend to have the same experiences, or feel that if they don't have the same experiences then they have done something wrong. While at Magickal Childe, I deliberately distanced myself from any idea that I would be some kind of guru: that I would lead a cult or be the "personal trainer" for a generation of would-be magicians. I detest gurus, self-proclaimed spiritual teachers,and the like. I believe that spiritual attainment is there for anyone, and that reliance on a spiritual teacher -- in this day and age when spiritual teachers are venal, self-absorbed and greedy individuals -- is dangerous. There is a system in the Necronomicon. Use it, or not. Believe it, or not. (I prefer you didn't believe it, but tested it to see if and how it works.) It's up to you, not me. And not the guy next door. Or the latest "great mage".

Despite your claims, you already have commented in the third person in both the Necronomicon and the Spellbook, as well as describing the effects of various experiments done by others. It seems odd that these would not form "psychological restrictions" as well.

I can understand the bit about not wanting to become a guru. Of course, it might add conviction if you would inform one of our fellow posters that you do not consider yourself a prophet of the New Aeon.

Oy, vey! How can I be distancing myself from magic, when I am publishing it? Dead Names now. Gates of the Necronomicon in November. And another coming out next year. Hardly distancing myself from magic, Dan! Damn, you'll say anything no matter how inconsistent and bizarre. Give it up, already. You think the Necronomicon is a hoax; we know that. Everyone knows how you feel. They also know you don't have much of a leg to stand on, since your quibbles are just that: quibbles. Most people think the book is a hoax, so you have no worries there. You've done your bit in saving us all from Simon's evil agenda of world domination, or something. I am not "baffled by sigil interpretation", but it seems you and John are because you read the Golden Dawn or Agrippa and figure you have the last word in that. I don't "ridicule anyone who claims even a modest mystical title", just those you have cited in your book who obviously had very little knowledge of their subject, as I demonstrated in Dead Names. If I ridiculed everyone like that, I wouldn't be posting on this site, would I?

Wake up and smell the incense, Dan.

If you had said in Dead Names, "These people haven't worked with the Necronomicon, so their opinions are irrevelant," I could understand that. Yet you not only attack their opinion, but also whether they can call themselves practicing occultists at all. It's language I generally associate with small-town newspapers, playing up how members of a Western mystical tradition are "self-professed" while ignoring the same distinctions with regard to mainstream faiths. At the same time, you are marketing your own brand of magic as an egalitarian project, based outside the bounds of hierarchies, in which each practitioner declares himself a priest.

By harping on "self-appointed" and "self-described" occultists, you criticize your foes for the same qualities that you praise in your friends. Is it so bizarre to wonder at this?

As to lectures and books - out of the three books you cite, two I have not seen. The other is based on the principles of sigil magic, which I am told are effective, but which can be found in several introductory works on magic. I took the opportunity to re-examine the taped lecture at hand, and there is certainly new material therein. Still, as you tell it, a number of people worked on the Necronomicon, so any of the insights expressed could possibly be those of others.

Often, books and lectures only reflect upon the ability of the person to present information, not the information itself. At the worst, they are simply rehashed material derived from other sources to make a quick buck. At their best, they reflect an in-depth personal knowledge of, and love for, the material.

So, what is your personal experience with the Necronomicon system, or with any other?

As smasher666 brings up below, and as you are already aware, I gave lectures at the Warlock Shop/Magickal Childe for years, which included liturgical instruction, performance of rituals, etc. I also lectured privately to various secret societies in New York, including the OTO. I was therefore under the impression that my bonafides as an occultist did not need clarification or justification.

I'll get to this in a minute.
"I can understand the bit about not wanting to become a guru. Of course, it might add conviction if you would inform one of our fellow posters that you do not consider yourself a prophet of the New Aeon."Quote by Danharms.

Dan you seem to think that everyone on this forum besides yourself is an idiot. As you rant on to pad your fragile ego I urge you to seek psychological help. In thumbing your nose at everyone all you display is that rather large booger hanging from your nostril.

You seem to think that Simon is bent on overthrowing the planet. You seem long overdue for your shot of Thorzine and straight jacket.

If you are looking for an idiot you should not have to look very long or far. That is if you can stand to look at yourself in the mirror.

You are a very sick individual. Please seek help.

This post has been edited by smasher666: Jun 5 2006, 12:51 AM

Simon - your reply to the Waddell post includes my quotes, but not your responses. I don't wish to leave you without a reply.

As smasher666 brings up below, and as you are already aware, I gave lectures at the Warlock Shop/Magickal Childe for years, which included liturgical instruction, performance of rituals, etc. I also lectured privately to various secret societies in New York, including the OTO. I was therefore under the impression that my bonafides as an occultist did not need clarification or justification.

I'll get to this in a minute.

You left out "scrying". Were you also able to determine whether or not the seals were composed through scrying? Also, the methods for obtaining seals are not restricted to these two methods, and the method of obtaining a sigil via "gematria" varies from culture to culture. I'm sorry, but you have set up a straw man to knock down here. Nowhere in the Necronomicon does it state that the seals were obtained by "gematria" or was any other method identified. I have no idea how they were obtained. I reproduced them as they appeared.

We based our judgment on viewing the typescript and talking with Khem Caigan. Neither supports the intention that much care was put into the accuracy of the sigils, which I'd generally associate with those created via an occult process.

As I have said in Dead Names, Khem Caigan is hardly an authority on this issue. He was hired by Larry Barnes to prepare the art for publication, not as an expert witness on sigil manufacture! I recommend you consult original grimoires -- not the ones printed in the last century or so, but the manuscripts or original published versions themselves -- for an idea as to how some sigils appear. You will see a wide range of styles and levels of complexity, uniformity, etc. as well as many, many mistakes in copying as pointed out by all sorts of people you might consider expert on the subject, such as Waite, Crowley, Mathers, etc. I submit that the Necronomicon is consistent with this literature in that regard, at least.

My question is why you so confidently stated that the seals were not created via gematria. If there is some gap in my knowledge
thereof, I'd appreciate enlightenment.

Gematria implies the use of kamea's or magic squares of the kind commonly used in old Jewish occult systems, along with notariqon and various cyphers. There are no magic squares of the kamea variety in the Necronomicon: i.e., no cells with numbers that are used qabalistically to derive Divine Names or to trace Angelic names or seals. Since there is no evidence that the author of the Necronomicon was using such a system --which would have been Judeao-Christian and not Sumerian -- my proposal is that gematria was not used. Rather, I believe a system closer to the Chinese Daoist method was used which was more shamanistic than calculative.

There's a reason for this, and the reason is embedded in the system itself and the means of its distribution. Should I publish a diary, journal, or other record of my own use of the system I would be placing a psychological restriction upon others who would either attempt to duplicate my experiences, or pretend to have the same experiences, or feel that if they don't have the same experiences then they have done something wrong. While at Magickal Childe, I deliberately distanced myself from any idea that I would be some kind of guru: that I would lead a cult or be the "personal trainer" for a generation of would-be magicians. I detest gurus, self-proclaimed spiritual teachers,and the like. I believe that spiritual attainment is there for anyone, and that reliance on a spiritual teacher -- in this day and age when spiritual teachers are venal, self-absorbed and greedy individuals -- is dangerous. There is a system in the Necronomicon. Use it, or not. Believe it, or not. (I prefer you didn't believe it, but tested it to see if and how it works.) It's up to you, not me. And not the guy next door. Or the latest "great mage".

Despite your claims, you already have commented in the third person in both the Necronomicon and the Spellbook, as well as describing the effects of various experiments done by others. It seems odd that these would not form "psychological restrictions" as well.

You are again grasping at straws to make your point. I have not published a catalogue of either my or others' experiences with the Necronomicon. All I have offered are a handful of "for instance"'s and not much else. By design.

I can understand the bit about not wanting to become a guru. Of course, it might add conviction if you would inform one of our fellow posters that you do not consider yourself a prophet of the New Aeon.

To nitpick the way you do: gurus and prophets are not identical. Gurus teach, prophets merely point the way and let others create the schools. John the Baptist was a prophet; Jesus was a teacher. Anyway, convincing you is not my goal here since -- as I have pointed out repeatedly ad nauseam -- you have already decided that the book is a hoax and I am a liar, so there is no point in my attempting to convince you otherwise. If you should instead approach the subject matter from a purely academic and open-minded point of view, I would applaud your efforts and try my best to cooperate. But your approach has been a scatter-shot method of trying to shoot down as many statements -- many out of context -- as possible in order to win debating points.


If you had said in Dead Names, "These people haven't worked with the Necronomicon, so their opinions are irrevelant," I could understand that. Yet you not only attack their opinion, but also whether they can call themselves practicing occultists at all. It's language I generally associate with small-town newspapers, playing up how members of a Western mystical tradition are "self-professed" while ignoring the same distinctions with regard to mainstream faiths. At the same time, you are marketing your own brand of magic as an egalitarian project, based outside the bounds of hierarchies, in which each practitioner declares himself a priest.

By harping on "self-appointed" and "self-described" occultists, you criticize your foes for the same qualities that you praise in your friends. Is it so bizarre to wonder at this?

What friends am I praising, pray tell? I don't follow you here.


So, what is your personal experience with the Necronomicon system, or with any other?

Nice try.

As to lectures and books - out of the three books you cite, two I have not seen. The other is based on the principles of sigil magic, which I am told are effective, but which can be found in several introductory works on magic. I took the opportunity to re-examine the taped lecture at hand, and there is certainly new material therein. Still, as you tell it, a number of people worked on the Necronomicon, so any of the insights expressed could possibly be those of others.

Often, books and lectures only reflect upon the ability of the person to present information, not the information itself. At the worst, they are simply rehashed material derived from other sources to make a quick buck. At their best, they reflect an in-depth personal knowledge of, and love for, the material.

I'm not sure I follow you here. My background in the subject -- and in the field -- is, I feel, beyond reproach. It began long before the Necronomicon was discovered, during classes held at the Warlock Shop in Brooklyn, and continued through classes and lectures in many forms of occultism, magic and religion (most of them free of charge) for private individuals, for the public, and for members of the secret societies, as mentioned. The Necronomicon was only one of many subjects covered and discussed at considerable length, including intensive courses in ceremonial magic. For the life of me, I don't know what other credentials can be required or expected. My books, my classes, lectures, ritual instruction, etc.

As for "wandering bishop" I never said I was a wandering bishop, only that some of my best friends were (and are). Even so, other "wandering bishops" include some of the most famous luminaries of the Theosophical Society, the SRIA, the Golden Dawn, etc. As for "shady deals" involving manuscripts, I submit for your perusal the Book of Mormon (written by the ceremonial magician Joseph Smith, Jr who used Francis Barrett's book The Magus). Where do we draw this line, Dan? We could include the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts, as well.

Simon - your reply to the Waddell post includes my quotes, but not your responses. I don't wish to leave you without a reply.

My reply on this matter disappeared into cyberspace. I'll try to resurrect it (!). In the meantime, I will be hors-de-combat for the next few days and shall return to the forum next week.

This has been a very interesting thread. It is good to see stimulating conversations on many peoples parts. Also as a side note I would love to build you guys a ring and sell tickets to see the cage match. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sport_boxing.gif)

While I have enjoyed watching two authors bust each others balls I would like to ask a question that is a little off subject. Although this thread was started to discuss Dead Names I am curious if Simon could give us a few details on his other up coming title, The Gates of the Necronomicon. Will this be more scholorship such as Dead Names was or something more on the practical side such as the Necronomicon Spellbook?

P.S. Also this may be a bit personal but I just have to ask. Your pseudonym "Simon", did you by chance get the idea to use this name from the novella by Lovecraft "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward"? I have always assumed so and thought it was your idea of being funny.

Also this may be a bit personal but I just have to ask. Your pseudonym "Simon", did you by chance get the idea to use this name from the novella by Lovecraft "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward"? I have always assumed so and thought it was your idea of being funny.

:-)

I have to throw in my guess here as well, because I have always assumed your pseudonym Simon to be an allusion to the bible-guy. Not the one who was also called Peter, but the other one, Simon the samarian sorcerer.

Nox

Apologies for my silence lately.

It's been brought to my attention that some think I'm not responding to Simon's charges because they can't see the ongoing discussion. Thus, I'm afraid I have to move the venue for more comments to my new blog:

http://danharms.wordpress.com

It may mean some backtracking on my part, but I think it's worth the effort.

Thanks for giving me this opportunity to discuss matters with Simon. I may check back in periodically, to see if anything else comes up.

...and I've heard Simon Moon (from Illuminatus!), Simon Iff (Crowley's famous detective), and Simon Peter as possibilities.

Dan I take you leaving this forum as admiting your defeat. You will not be missed. Here is hate mail I got off your web sytes Guest Book. Back in 2001 I posted on this site under my real name George Dekle. <Not the attorney who prosecuted Ted Bundy that is my father.> For those who side with us sorcerers you may find Dan Harms hate mail quite funny. I have removed email addresses to conform to the rules of this forum. With repspect to all users and moderators this contains profanity so please do not read this if it will offend you.

Friday 05/05/2006 3:58:11am
Name: Orphen Nyxth Ivaletine
E-Mail:

Pastry:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Search Engine
Location:
Comments: Hi. Yeah I would just like to point out (and I'm sure you get this a LOT!) but you people are ignorant and cynical. I personally don't care what you think about the NECRONOMICON but to post (and I understand this is your site)that it is all a hoax is outrageous you could not possibly know unless you did the research for your self but is obvious you did not, and you choose to believe everything people tell you to when it's easy to believe. SIMON's work is real and authentic he may not care that you say these things but I and many other people do. we believe in it, not because we were all told to but some of us actually practice Necromancy and it is not an evil magick but an art of the dead and a part of our live so I ask you on behalf of all necromancer's (except the infernal one's) pleas do not judge thing's you have no clue about if you want true answers research it.


Thank you. Orphen
Wednesday 03/22/2006 3:45:40pm
Name: satan
E-Mail:

Pastry: jellyroll
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Search Engine
Location: Hell
Comments: the Necronomicon book is a book of peace and love. it is shared by all faiths as the single most family orientated book of non-fiction ever conceived. i don't see why so many people think that this novel is slanted toward evil, when it is obvious that there can be no other book in existence which can compare to the sheer beauty that this book does.
Name: Frater Jaguar
E-Mail:

Pastry: Nothing is true, Everything is permitted
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Search Engine
Location:
Comments: From a practicing Chaos magician view the Simon Necronomicon is worth its weight in gold...

Do gods and demons really exist in the paradigm of Chaos Magick?

Well, yes and no. Humanity has always conjured up things in its own image whilst pretending that it didn't. Chaos magick says that we can deliberately manufacture our own gods and demons and spirits and get more powerful from them than from second hand antique deities.

Another note....One of you claim to be a practicing magician or occultist, You should know that no thought or idea has its origins in man....thoughts and ideas come from the Akasha or Ether. We are the receivers...

Let us think on that........
Sunday 05/30/2004 9:17:49pm
Name: Alric Thomas
E-Mail:

Pastry:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Search Engine
Location: U.S.A.
Comments: The Necronomicon Files show that the authors have no clue of the Necronomicon Power. They are blind fools the book works and works very well.
Wednesday 08/20/2003 9:35:09pm
Name: Thee Nameless One
E-Mail:

Pastry: yes, thank you, that would be nice.
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Search Engine
Location: the Nexus which connects and divides all
Comments: I have just finished reading all the entries within the guest-book, and have come to the conclusion that only a few of you are deeply serious about such arcane matters and the truths behind them. Those few write clearly, distinctly, and a tone about their words that speaks volumes that the type does not. To those, I hope to have contact. Now, for the rest.
Granted, most of you reading this probably have never read Lovecraft, and only know the Necronomicon through AVON Publishing (or maybe Army of Darkness). You may be surfing, trying to find answers... to those, I give this bit of advice:
The people writing on this board, claiming this and claiming that, know nothing! A teacher (or sage) does not gain students by screaming "Look at me!" or "Look at what I can do!" Those are the people who the beginners out there should stay away from.
Am I saying follow me? No. My path goes throu the shadows, ever leaning towards the dark. I have taught some people some things, but I to am always learning.
Lastly, for the morons coming in and writing non related crap, please stay out so the rest of us can learn and discover seriously.
Thursday 04/10/2003 8:16:29am
Name: rhaag
E-Mail:

Pastry:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Search Engine
Location:
Comments: I believe that the Necronomicon is a real book that Aleister Crowley tried to make unbelievable through different sources and partly succeeded in that he created an alternate hoax so large that some choose to believe, others did not believe, and others have no idea it exists. The real Necronomicon is out there somewhere but the John Dee manuscript from the Bodleian Library is gone and around the time it disappeared many other occultic text were also stolen. Evidence points to Aleister Crowley as the chief suspect or the man behind the theft. for more in depth info please email me

Name: Helen of Troy
E-Mail:

Pastry:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Search Engine
Location: Rancho Cucamonga
Comments: The audacity you have, claiming something is a fabrication without research. For you information the Necronomicon does have base in fact. Here is one of them, the people of ancient Egypt speak of the mouth of the Nile river being the breast of TIAMAT.TIAMAT is also mentioned throughout history .The Assyrians depict her as a fierce dragon. Please the next time you are going to tear apart a belief system be sure to know what you're talking about!..(IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)I am very displeased.
Thursday 08/29/2002 10:42:45am
Name: Bob
E-Mail:

Pastry:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Search Engine
Location: Sydney
Comments: I'd just like to say that i think, this whole debate is rather pointless, one thing just rules out the other, and what proves what evidence is valid either...there is nothing any of you to really convince either the believers all the skeptics that it is or isn’t so. There is to much in both sides to really even consider proving anything. So there it is.....i conclude this with, are you even certain that your proof or evidence, itself is valid....
Tuesday 02/26/2002 5:16:18pm
Name: brandi
E-Mail:

Pastry:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Search Engine
Location:
Comments: you people need to cut out of the media saturated society you live in. This stuff does exist. Is the proof not in front of your eyes? If it didn’t exist why would you people babble and feud over this subject?

Saturday 01/05/2002 8:04:44pm
Name: MALACHI
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Search Engine
Location:
Comments: THEBOOKEXISTSISHALLSOONPROOVETHISANDMOREITHOWEVERISFINETONOTBELIEVEFORIAMTHEONE ANDISHALLENLIGHTENYOUALLFORTHISISMYFATE ZI DINGER ANNA KANPA ZI DINGER KIA KANPA
Wednesday 01/02/2002 10:59:07pm
Name: MALACHI
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Search Engine
Location:
Comments: Why spend so much time on what you believe to be false

Wednesday 01/02/2002 7:31:35am
Name: Sin
E-Mail:

Homepage Title: Sin's Realm ov Magick & Filth
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Search Engine
Location: earth...
Comments: The Necronomicon is based on the spiritual system of ancient Sumer...
Lovecraft was reintroducing us to Sumerian Mythology...
Their are people who want to keep it a fictional account...
That's why they would have the U.S.
nuke Iraq....
Monday 12/31/2001 11:31:16pm
Name: Dead Human Collection
E-Mail:

Homepage Title: my little dark corner of the world
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Search Engine
Location: in the burning flames of hell!
Comments: You guys are all full of shit and don't know what you're talking about! You wouldn't know a real copy of the Necronomicon from a fake one if it came and bit you in the ass! You buy any copy of it that you see that looks different from any others and think "OH MY GOD I HAVE THE BOOK!!" and suddenly all these series of coincidences happen afterwards and you think "It must be those demons everyone's talking about!" You're all a bunch of sheep! Get a grip and get a life! It seems so funny how there were only a limited number of copies were made of the original book and it seems that sooooo many people have found it...wow!!! Everyone must of run to the same bookstore!

And a message to "Jasmine" who wrote asking how to contact "Simon"...are you on crack???? The guy has been dead for a millennium, do you want some spell on how to conjure him from the dead, and ask him what? "What was it like writing a fake copy of the Necronomicon?" I'm sure he'd really manifest himself in front of you.

I think I've said enough. Burn in hell!




Wednesday 11/14/2001 9:52:14pm
Name: George Dekle
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Search Engine
Location:
Comments: The power that you seek is not external. It is internal. Open the gates whithin your mind. Astrally project through them and there you shall find all that you seek and much more.
Wednesday 11/14/2001 10:39:00pm
Name: George Dekle
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Name: Luis Abbadie
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Search Engine
Location: You don't want to know
Comments: All right, enough is enough. Let's tell the truth about it all, OK?
Daniel Harms & John W. Gonce III are fictional characters in August Derleth's posthumous novel (finished by Lin Carter) "Cthulhu, She Wrote" (Starry Wisdom Press, 1987); "The Necronomicon Files" is a fictional book, and Carter created such a detailed storyline for it that many befuddled readers have actually delved into the dusty shelves at Amazon.com looking for it! Nightshade Books' edition is just a hoax written by Kenneth Grant, as he clearly stated in an interview for the Feb. 28, 2001 issue of "Arkham Advertiser", when famed horror writer Gordon Lachance asked him about it. Even if Umberto Eco is also rumored to have claimed authorship.
For God's sake, next thing you know, people are going to believe Wes Craven & Robert Englund, from the movie "Wes Craven's New Nightmare", are real people!

Sunday 06/10/2001 1:56:45am
Name: jason
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Just Surfed In
Location: NY
Comments: i have been into this book and the forces surrounding it for 8 plus years.

in my opinion this book is real. the forces in it are real, and the spells and incantations are real. i have used this book to great success throughout the years. sometimes at a price. i have one of the "limited edition" Simon necros, 1st printing back in 1977 limited to 3333 copies. it is in no way a spoof or hoax in my opinion. granted there is some filler in it and you have to separate that from the useful info like any book. there was definitely a book like this before h.p.l. wrote about it. i believe h.p. was a messenger of sorts, to kick this stuff into the mainstream and back into humanity's face for the forthcoming events.
do i think the Necronomicon is the book that tells the creation of all? hell no. even though the text claims that the "ancients" were the first before all and all that crap, they weren’t. there was something before even them. the "great nameless one" that is talked about in the Sauthenerom. the Sauthenerom is the text the necro could have very well come from. i m also trying to find info on the Typhonian Texts to see where they fall into all of this.

anyways good page keep up the good work.

also anyone with info on the Sauthenerom, Typhonian Texts, or the "ripel" Necronomicon, or Sabean trilogy by frank g. ripel(italy) please email me with info. also any female necromancers into this, or anyone in general who wants to chat about this stuff drop me an email (put "Necronomicon" in subject).

see ya on the other side.
BARRA URUKKU!!
Thursday 09/14/2000 0:31:18am
Name: Realmwatcher
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Just Surfed On In
Location:
Comments: You are full of crap writing what you did about the Simon Necronomicon. if you do not revoke what you have falsely stated about it, I will be forced to send the creatures it can conjure after you and your "friend". Then see if it is just a mish-mash of different beliefs.

HA HA HA HA HA HA
Saturday 08/19/2000 8:20:18pm
Name: Arachne
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Signing another Guestbook
Location: U.S.A
Comments: IA NAMRASIT! IA SIN! IA NANNA!
BASTAMAAGANASTA IA KIA KANPA!
MAGABATHI-YA NANNA KANPA!
MASHRITA NANNA ZIA KANPA!
IA MAG! IA GAMAG! IA ZAGASTHENA KIA!
ASHTAG KARELLIOSH!
Friday 05/12/2000 4:22:24am
Name: AVRAXAS
E-Mail: [email protected]

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL: http://

Referred By: Just Surfed On In
Location: MEXICO
Comments: I am a WICCAN I DO NOT LIKE THE WAY YOU TALK ABOUT THE BOOK AS IF IT WAS DARK AND SCARY , IF YOU THINK THAT IT MUST BE BECAUSE U CANT HANDEL THE BOOK CORRECTLY OR UNDERSTAND IT.

ATTE
AVRAXAS
Wednesday 05/10/2000 2:14:50pm
Name: Necrolord
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Just Surfed On In
Location: Finland
Comments: YOU FUCKERS!YOU SHALL DIE!No-one claims the true lord to be myth and survives his hideous curses!I am a true obeyer and you shall die soon!
Monday 04/17/2000 2:08:45am
Name: Tia
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Net Search
Location: Earth *I think*
Comments: The book has power...there is nothing you or anyone else can say to make it anything else!
-Tia
Monday 02/21/2000 10:26:11pm
Name: eric
E-Mail:

Homepage Title: pa college of technology
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Net Search
Location: Bloomsburg Pa
Comments: your bases on truth is far fetched ,it's based on someone else’s say so! If you don't believe that’s your problem!
If your not a practitioner then you really don’t know to much about what’s going on do you?


Thursday 12/16/1999 6:24:26pm
Name: mike
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Just Surfed On In
Location: California
Comments: I think that every one should read the Necronomicon at least once, then decide whether they have the strength to perform the rituals or not. Please ask me questions about these things!!

Tuesday 12/14/1999 8:48:28pm
Name: Caanwulf
E-Mail:

Homepage Title: Wizards Inc.
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Just Surfed On In
Location: America
Comments: If you only knew...
Monday 10/25/1999 9:43:44am
Name: marduk
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Just Surfed On In
Location: USA
Comments: I am not here to disturb people with the enormous feats of the journey into the magick of the dreaded Necronomicon just simply here to say that people like you destroy the hearts of a thousand men every day so you can never again call we magicians the "lesser" or the "evils" of the world and we of the ordinance do not need to see the views of a single group cover up the reality that must surely come. I have experienced these horrors first hand(some of them much more to travel)and do not need anyone to prove their views to me. So why do you feel the need to prove it does not exist anyway? or are you just scared. Feel the call!
KAKKAMU! SELLAH!
Friday 10/08/1999 4:48:22am
Name: God
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Name: marduk
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Just Surfed On In
Location:
Comments: The forces contained within the Necronomicon are great and of a most ancient nature. You should watch what you decide to be reality. for the darkness is not of reality it is not straight but twisted and distorted. i have seen the potential of this greatness since my earliest memories. the time draws near be prepared followers of the elder race for kutulu calls. Be ever watch full and remind the god that we are here in every spare second you have for the gods are forgetful and needs be reminded of our sacred covenant.
Wednesday 07/14/1999 1:41:44am
Name: BARON CRAIG M. GOLDSBERRY
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Just Surfed On In
Location: SAN JOSE,CALIF.
Comments: THE NECRONOMICON IS REAL THOSE WHO SAY IT ISNT ARE NOT ARCHEOLOGISTS,ANCIENT HISTORIANS ECT. OR ANYONE OF NOTE-DO YOURSELVES A BIG FAVOR-FORGET THAT HTIS BOOK EVEN EXISTS BECAUSE YOU DONT KNOW WHATS OUT THERE AND WHAT YOU ARE MESSING WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tuesday 02/16/1999 5:17:21pm
Name: David Padgett
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Just Surfed On In
Location: Indiana
Comments: I am a practicing Warlock, and I find the information in the Necronomicon [Simons] to function within the parameters of my existing magickal system.
Tuesday 09/08/1998 1:38:07am
Name: Agaku
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Just Surfed On In
Location: Greeley,COLO
Comments: I have been practicing the art of Necromancy for nearly ten years now, and I STRONGLY suggest that anyone who has enough gall to go as far as trying to invoke the spirits whose secrets are withheld in this book of dead names, not to do so unless you are fully prepared to single handedly stop Armageddon, for if not done correctly, that is possibly the responsibility that you will face!
Tuesday 06/09/1998 1:06:17pm
Name: Jim Morrison
E-Mail:

Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:

Referred By: Just Surfed On In!
Location: Hell
Comments: Your all a bunch of fucking slaves!!!!

This post has been edited by smasher666: Jun 11 2006, 10:32 PM

This has been a very interesting thread. It is good to see stimulating conversations on many peoples parts. Also as a side note I would love to build you guys a ring and sell tickets to see the cage match. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sport_boxing.gif)

While I have enjoyed watching two authors bust each others balls I would like to ask a question that is a little off subject. Although this thread was started to discuss Dead Names I am curious if Simon could give us a few details on his other up coming title, The Gates of the Necronomicon. Will this be more scholorship such as Dead Names was or something more on the practical side such as the Necronomicon Spellbook?

P.S. Also this may be a bit personal but I just have to ask. Your pseudonym "Simon", did you by chance get the idea to use this name from the novella by Lovecraft "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward"? I have always assumed so and thought it was your idea of being funny.

Sorry for my long absence from the site. Other matters demanded my attention, and I am afraid I have been amiss in keeping up to date here. This will be a busy year for me, so please accept my apologies in advance if I can't back to you or this forum on a regular basis.

As for the Gates of the Necronomicon -- this was written years ago, and even set in type and ready to publish when Herman Slater (of the Magickal Childe) died and the whole project disappeared into the Aether. One publishing company actually advertised it briefly -- I assume they had possession of the original plates -- but when contacted they dropped out of sight. After my travels abroad which lasted about two decades, I discovered that a copy of the manuscript still existed (on the old 5-1/4" floppy disks) and so was able to provide this to the publisher. I revised it slightly from the original (as anyone will see if and when the original shows up, which I'm sure it will one day) and updated the occult calendar at the back of the book.

The Gates is a more practical text, a guide to using the Necronomicon itself. It also contains much additional, corroborative, information from other cultures (notably the Egyptian and the Chinese) to demonstrate that the system of the Walking was known to other magical sects. What is the most fascinating part of the book, to me, is the revelation that the Seven Gates refers to something more than the seven "platonic" planets. This realization came after the Necronomicon was first published and did not become obvious to me until about 1990 when I undertook a deep investigation of some of the more gnomic and cryptic references in the text. This analysis has led me to conclude that the Necronomicon does, indeed, represent a very ancient form of magic and it has enabled myself and several colleagues to revisit Kabbalistic and other texts and systems using the information I uncovered and to come up with some surprising results.

Anyway, the book should be out in November. I hope everyone is pleased with the results.

As for "Simon". In the first place, why wouldn't it be my actual name? It could happen.
In the second place, Dan Harms probably thinks it should be "Simon LeGree"...
It isn't Shimon Peres. Or Paul Simon.
I like Simon Magus, as the first major proponent of a school of Gnosticism.
Simon Iff is good, too.
So is Simon Moon. The Illuminatus! Trilogy was very influential among us in New York at the time (as discussed in Dead Names), but I'm afraid I was around before the Trilogy was published so that doesn't work.
There was also a Simon in the Dennis Wheatley occult novels; The Satanist, I think, and The Devil Rides Out. I kind of liked him.
It didn't come from the Lovecraft story, though, although I agree it would have been funny.

Pick one!

As for "Simon". In the first place, why wouldn't it be my actual name? It could happen.
In the second place, Dan Harms probably thinks it should be "Simon LeGree"...
It isn't Shimon Peres. Or Paul Simon.
I like Simon Magus, as the first major proponent of a school of Gnosticism.
Simon Iff is good, too.
So is Simon Moon. The Illuminatus! Trilogy was very influential among us in New York at the time (as discussed in Dead Names), but I'm afraid I was around before the Trilogy was published so that doesn't work.
There was also a Simon in the Dennis Wheatley occult novels; The Satanist, I think, and The Devil Rides Out. I kind of liked him.
It didn't come from the Lovecraft story, though, although I agree it would have been funny.

Pick one!

I find the name Simon, wether real name or psuedonym, to be particularly relavent to the work you seem to have done so far. Just a preliminary investigation into the Gematria of the name Simon (Simeon, trns.lit. hebrew) yields a connection to a theme of Servant, initially, and through the reductions, to the themes of Awakening, Bringer, Messenger, and finally at its base it reduces to 4, the number of Dalet, designating and 'Open Door'.

Just having a little fun...

peace

The Gates is a more practical text, a guide to using the Necronomicon itself. It also contains much additional, corroborative, information from other cultures (notably the Egyptian and the Chinese) to demonstrate that the system of the Walking was known to other magical sects. What is the most fascinating part of the book, to me, is the revelation that the Seven Gates refers to something more than the seven "platonic" planets. This realization came after the Necronomicon was first published and did not become obvious to me until about 1990 when I undertook a deep investigation of some of the more gnomic and cryptic references in the text. This analysis has led me to conclude that the Necronomicon does, indeed, represent a very ancient form of magic and it has enabled myself and several colleagues to revisit Kabbalistic and other texts and systems using the information I uncovered and to come up with some surprising results.

Anyway, the book should be out in November. I hope everyone is pleased with the results.


Pick one!

I can not help but ask this question. All who have passed any of the gates have had similar experiences to mine. In which the KA enters the spiritual world after falling to the floor and passing through the gate.

You say there is more to the spheres. Are you talking about the cities of the gods in their spheres where many of us have visited? Is anything about this in the Gates?

Have you walked the Gates yourself? I am of course guessing that you know much of which you are not telling. Nor do I at all blame you if you think higher knowledge should not be given to all. You can PM me if you do not want to discuss these matters here.
I am actually hoping at least a chapter is given to astral travel and gate walking as I feel many good souls would be initiated into such things.

What you said in the later chapters of Dead Names was reassuring to me as it matched perfectly the ideology I had already gained about how the Necronomicon should be used. I am glad to see that you are pointing people in the right direction as there are many pathways to darkness. From warrior priest to protector of the planet you echoed my personal experiances with the Necronomicon. I also hope to see more of this in The Gates.

I have pre-ordered a copy of The Gates from Amazon.com

Peace

This post has been edited by smasher666: Jun 27 2006, 01:34 AM

As for "Simon". In the first place, why wouldn't it be my actual name? It could happen.
In the second place, Dan Harms probably thinks it should be "Simon LeGree"...
It isn't Shimon Peres. Or Paul Simon.
I like Simon Magus, as the first major proponent of a school of Gnosticism.
Simon Iff is good, too.
So is Simon Moon. The Illuminatus! Trilogy was very influential among us in New York at the time (as discussed in Dead Names), but I'm afraid I was around before the Trilogy was published so that doesn't work.
There was also a Simon in the Dennis Wheatley occult novels; The Satanist, I think, and The Devil Rides Out. I kind of liked him.
It didn't come from the Lovecraft story, though, although I agree it would have been funny.

Pick one!

I find the name Simon, wether real name or psuedonym, to be particularly relavent to the work you seem to have done so far. Just a preliminary investigation into the Gematria of the name Simon (Simeon, trns.lit. hebrew) yields a connection to a theme of Servant, initially, and through the reductions, to the themes of Awakening, Bringer, Messenger, and finally at its base it reduces to 4, the number of Dalet, designating and 'Open Door'.

Just having a little fun...

peace

You are on the right track, though. "Simon" can be translated as either "one who hears" or "one who is heard". Both are appropriate, I think.
One must also consider something that no one yet has thought about, and that is that "Simon" may be a title, and not a pseudonym.