I would like to extend a warm welcome to everyone here. It has certainly been quite a learning experience and quite a bit of research in maintaining this blog page. Some of our regular readers are more than familiar with the debates that Dan Harms and myself have had for the past year or so. Websites like Mythostomes have stated the following in review of the GateWalker’s Page:,com_weblinks/catid,40/Itemid,23/


A Necronomicon believer blog, featuring copious amounts of information for believers in Simon’s book. Not to be confused with “Papers Falling From an Attic Window,” a skeptical blog. The two blogs seem to have an… interesting relationship.”


I must say that I have learned quite a bit of information from our debates. It is useful in a sense because I had to go into researching areas that I might have not investigated if it weren’t brought up by Harms. Although some of our debates have gotten into an exchange of words at times, I still have a great respect for the authors of the Necronomicon Files committee. John Wisdom Gonce III is a Reiki Master, like myself, and for those who are not familiar with Reiki there are five principles that must be maintained, so I know that for the most part they are working from a somewhat sincere perspective. Yet sincerity alone is not enough when it comes to getting to a core understanding of the Ancient Necronomicon Tradition and its Mesopotamian roots. Research is involved and a comparative mind is more than necessary in determining what is actually real from what is symbolic. However, while research is essential in the field of anthropology and occult history, these  things in themselves are not enough, and this is one fallacy in the western world of occultism. John Wisdom Gonce III , who is a practicing Occultist, should be well aware that an individual’s emotional state has an effect on the outcome of one’s magic. This would also apply in our research of the ancient occult practices of Ancient Mesopotamia. If the student has not taken the time to employ the same rituals that were used by the peoples of Ancient Mesopotamia, he or she, will be completely unable to understand the emotional perspective of these people. This is why Dan Harms and John Wisdom Gonce III are not able to understand the Simon Necronomicon Tradition and can make no valid argument or critique against it to a fellow practitioner of the Simon Necronomicon. This is the very same reason why anthropologists and scholars, who have spent a tremendous amount of time and effort in uncovering a most priceless treasure, can only theorize and toss around ideas and possible perspectives of the ancient world, but no solid facts on how ancient people viewed life. Keeping this is mind let us review a recent comment left on the Gatewalker’s Page by Mister Dan Harms, which could be found here:


“Third, your assertion that I was implying that our knowledge of Sumer was now complete is completely off-base. I never said anything of the sort, and I certainly would know better than to say anything like it. The study of Mesopotamian religion is ongoing, and it is likely to have surprises for all of us – but we certainly know more about it than the people Simon used to write about it.”

Upon reading the above words, I thought to myself that is it worth responding to. Dan Harms has never really understood the Simon Necronomicon Tradition, which is why Gonce and himself call it a hoax. EVERY PRACTITIONER OF THE SIMON NECRONOMICON KNOWS THAT IT IS NOT A BOOK THAT LOVECRAFT WAS TALKING ABOUT! Simon himself states this in the Introduction of the Simon Necronomicon under the subheading The Mythos and the Magick:

While the latter was a sophisticated psychological structure, intended to bring the initiate into contact with his higher Self, via a process of individuation that is active and dynamic (being brought about by the “patient” himself) as opposed to the passive depth analysis of the Jungian adepts, Lovecraft’s Cthulhu Mythos was meant for entertainment.”



Simon’s words clearly define that Lovecraft’s work is indeed fiction and that Lovecraft’s works are for entertainment purposes only. Therefore, we know as practitioners of the Simon Necronomicon that this idea of a discovery of a Necronomicon is also fictional. However, we are also able to appreciate that the Simon Necronomicon is a grimoire that is a collection of  ancient incantations that actually existed in Mesopotamia. The work of the Simon Necronomicon was not put together by those who were just only studious, but adepts in Egyptian, Enochian, and Sumerian sources. If one were to look back upon my initial argument with Harms, they could easily see that no one here at the GateWalker’s Page were ever of the opinion that the Simon Necronomicon was discovered, but was inspired through the craftsmanship of Aleister Crowley, Eliphas Levi, Kenneth Grant, John Dee, and even Afro-Atlantean sources.



Despite the difference between harms and myself, I must admit that the work of Gonce and Harms as “agitators” in the Simon Necronomicon Tradition is quite valuable because it allows the practitioner of the Simon Necronomicon to go even deeper, which is why I consider our debates a Gate for “divine forces” to intervene and new perspectives and facts are uncovered. These discoveries not only pertain to perspectives of Crowley, Levenda, or even Lovecraft himself, but open the door to understanding that even scholars were not able to obtain. I can only reflect upon an understanding of some information  written by Maurice Nicoll, a student of Gurdjeiff, who stated that if we confine reality to just that which can be touched by the five senses, then we must consider our dreams, emotions, and thoughts as unreal. Western science has not come to the realization that “occult science” is actually a study of our dreams, emotions, and thoughts, and is a way of measuring how these things effect “reality.”



Harms words clearly indicate that he and his staff have fallen into the error of believing that what is modern is advanced. He seems to insinuate that ‘we know more about Mesopotamia than Simon did’ because of some modern discovery. Yet what Harms has not recognized is that the more we discover about an ancient civilization that is highly advanced the more valuable it becomes, and human nature can at times cause even the most noble scholar to face things that go against the grain of his/her religion, view of history and etc. For example, reports from the American media and its entertainment can be quite deceiving. I remember as a youth when the media often portrayed the faces of Ancient Egyptian Kings as looking like George Washington and Christian ministers often described, “wicked Babylon’s” first ruler, ‘a descendant of Ham’ Nimrod as having African features. Today, it has been accepted that many of the Egyptian Dynasty rulers were Afro-Asiatic. Yet the image of Babylonian rulers are no longer clearly defined as ministers of the Christian Church  would have us think, since the area of where Babylon existed may have been where civilization began, or so scholars say. While these changes in the face of ancient cultures have revolved in a seemingly 100 years, many of today’s researchers still hold faith in what they read and do not look beyond the surface, and only accept as fact what a college graduate has to say, with no background check into this individual’s world view, which may affect how, he or she, is presenting this “scholarly” information. It is because of such that the debates between Dan Harms and me have indeed become an essential tool for the Occult student and his/her search for clarity. Dan Harms presents a fallacy that at times turns out to be a key in unlocking something greater, and while Dan Harms thinks that ‘we know more today than the writers of the Simon Necronomicon,’ he is quite wrong. The Simon Necronomicon is a “divine” book just like the Holy Bible and The Qu’ran.



Since Dan Harms believes that we know more today than the writers of the Simon Necronomicon (which is like saying that we know more today about the teaching’s of Jesus than the Bible writers do)then why did Dan Harms, John Wisdom Gonce III, and Dan Clore, make crucial errors in the Necronomicon Files. We have already dismissed the idea that the Simon Necronomicon is a hoax by just one simple passage in its Introduction.. However, Clore, Gonce, and Harms have made themselves appear to be the Three Stooges of the occult community by there critique of the Simon Necronomicon that were written about in the Necronomicon Files, notice what is stated on page 154:

Simon’s pseudo-Sumerian demon, Azag-Thoth (AzaThoth), never existed at all. While there was a hideous demon called Asag (Akkadian Asakku), Thoth is a Coptic version of the name of the Egyptian God Tehuti. Simon never explains how a Sumerian demon and an Egyptian God separated by hundreds of miles and years could have made such an unlikely fusion.”



Dan Clore erroneously decides to follow the steps of Gone and Harms, and develops a page for debunking “Fake Necronomicons.” (like Lovecraft made him the Keeper of the Tradition) which can be found here : where Clore states the following:

“Simon derives Azathoth from a compound AZAG-THOTH, where AZAG is indeed a Sumerian demon, and THOTH is the Coptic name for the Egyptian deity Tehuti. As to how this compound name could have come about, however, he gives us no clue. Nor does he tell us why it had never appeared in print before. “


Although these errors were made in ignorance  Dan Clore gives us no evidence as to how he knows that Simon got the term Azag-Thoth from AzaThoth, and like Harms he is not able to see how the Egyptian God Thoth could be connected to Mesopotamia.  Iwas surprised that neither Gonce, Harms, or Dan Clore even took the time to review history from the perspective of the relationship that Mesopotamia had with Egypt. One example of this relationship is found in the Bentresh-stela.

In the 4th Century bc, a group of priests at Karnak forge a stela to appear as being from some 800 years earlier, in the reign of Ramesses II. This probably in order to give it more authority. The content of the stela is more or less following:
Ramesses II married a princess in far off Bakhtan and she comes to Egypt as the Great Royal Wife Neferure. During a festival in Thebes, the king and queen learns that the sister of the princess, Bentresh, has fallen very ill in Bakhtan. The king sends his scribe Djeheutyemheb out there, and he reports back that the princess is possessed by an evil spirit.
Back at Thebes Ramesses consults Khonsu em-Waset Nefer-Hetep who approaches his other aspect of Khonsu pa-ir-sekher. The statue of this aspect of Khonsu is sent to Bakhtan and arrives there after seventeen months, and cures the princess Bentresh.
Instead of returning the statue of Khonsu pa-ir-sekher, the prince of Bakhtan keeps it for three years and nine months, until Khonsu appeared to him in a dream of in the form of a golden falcon, clearly stating that he wanted to return home. The statue is then returned to Egypt, laden with gifts for the Khonsu em-Waset Nefer-Hetep at Karnak


This information is covered in the book Chaldean Magic: Its Origin and Development on pages 31-34, yet  I guess this occurance between Mesopotamia and Egypt was overlooked by Dan harms and his staff since they believe that modern sources are more  accurate. Although this is a well known epic. What is even more interesting about the above account and Khonsu iare the words found in this online article found at this website:

“Khonsu was a very old god of primitive times. Khonsu was associated with the moon and was considered a form of Thoth by the Thebens, and it was in Thebes that Ramses III built the “House of Khonsu in Thebes, Nefer-hetep”


This answers the question posed by Harms, Gonce, and Dan Clore Dan Harms is right. The work of uncovering Ancient Mespotamia is endless, and because of such we should not rule out the authenticity of the Simon Necronomicon as a grimoire corresponding to Ancient Mesopotamian practices. and rituals. It is alittle sad to see how a group of young people would just  make it a business of debunking Simon, when that time can be used for humanitarian purposes. The same indignation that John Wisdom Gone III, Dan Harms, and Dan Clore have expressed towards the Simon Necronomicon Tradition, is the same indignation that fueled the Witch burnings of the Inquisition in Europe. It is already evident that one member of the Necronomicon Files Staff is working with the authorities in occult crimes. This is a worthy thing. However, when we read the tone that was set in the book the Necronomicon Files, it sort of reminds us of the same innuendos that must of have been used against Witches just before the inquisition, which made a  horrific genocide allowable amongst the masses. The Simon Necronomicon is no more dangerous than the Bible The Qu’ran, or the works of Lovecraft. All of these writings affect our emotional state of being. If a person has a weak emotional constitution, these works can affect him if he/she allows it.

Although we have made quite a remarkable discovery today, we must keep in mind that Dan Harms, John Wisdom Gonce III, and DanClore are still our brethren in the great Necronomicon Tradition. Let us work earnestly in encouraging them to rise from the stricken condition that they are in. Doing so we not only experience the joy of sharing blessings with them, but we are also able to empower ourselves in the evolving work of being vessels for the divine. It is them we give honor.



Warlock Asylum




  1. Warlock,

    Very sloppy. Did you even read what you quoted? John is correct. Simon does not explain how the name Azag-Thoth originated.

    Proving that there were links between Sumer and Egypt is basic anthropology – one hardly needs a forged stela to prove it. What you need to do is find a Coptic reference to the Asag, which you have yet to do.

  2. warlockasylum says:

    This is what your book says:

    “Simon’s pseudo-Sumerian demon, Azag-Thoth (AzaThoth), never existed at all. While there was a hideous demon called Asag (Akkadian Asakku), Thoth is a Coptic version of the name of the Egyptian God Tehuti. Simon never explains how a Sumerian demon and an Egyptian God separated by hundreds of miles ”

    My post explains that Thoth did make a cameo appearance in Mesopotamian history. This is something that your book, nor Dan Clore never entertained. Dan Clore say on his “Fake” Necronomicon page the following:

    “Simon derives Azathoth from a compound AZAG-THOTH, where AZAG is indeed a Sumerian demon, and THOTH is the Coptic name for the Egyptian deity Tehuti. As to how this compound name could have come about, however, he gives us no clue. Nor does he tell us why it had never appeared in print before. ”

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Azag-Thoth is a conjoined word. Simon explains this in his Introduction:

    “AZAG-THOTH, a combination of two words, the first Sumerian and the second Coptic, which gives us a clue as to Its identity. AZAG in Sumerian means “Enchanter” or “Magician”; THOTH in Coptic is the name given to the Egyptian God of Magick and Wisdom, TAHUTI, who was evoked by both the Golden Dawn and by Crowley himself (and known to the Greeks as Hermes, from whence we get “Hermetic”). AZAG-THOTH is, therefore, a Lord of Magicians, but of the “Black” magicians, or the sorcerers of the “Other Side”.”

    My post explains how Thoth made his way into the Simon Necronomicon, as a reference to Crowley is made once again, which goes back to my original point about the Mad Arab’s identity. Your right in the sense that Mesopotamian history is an endless adventure, but if your going to stick to an opinion without taking into consideration new perspectives, then you are actually blocking the process of coming into a new understanding by ignoring the discoveries of other who are actually on the same path. This doesn’t mean that the Necronomicon Files isn’t a progressive work, but why shouldn’t the steps continue. Now you have become guilty of the same things that you have accused Simon of, and that is a “sloppy” hoax!

  3. “My post explains that Thoth did make a cameo appearance in Mesopotamian history. This is something that your book, nor Dan Clore never entertained.”

    I’m sorry, but it doesn’t. It states that an Egyptian source – not a Mesopotamian one, mind you – states that a sacred object of the god Khonsu – who was sometimes syncretized with Thoth, but who can hardly be considered identical to him – journeyed to a land called Bakhtan, which Lenormant identifies as Mesopotamia but later scholars consider to be Bactria, near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and many miles from Mesopotamia. This sort of argument wouldn’t stand muster in a basic history course.

    None of this shows that the Sumerian demon Asag to have been known at the same time as the Coptic name Thoth, or any reason why they would be connected.

    “Since Dan Harms believes that we know more today than the writers of the Simon Necronomicon (which is like saying that we know more today about the teaching’s of Jesus than the Bible writers do)…”

    How is this in any way equivalent? Simon was writing thousands of years after cuneiform ceased to be used. Even if we take his story as accurate, he was reading someone’s translation of a Greek book taken from older Mesopotamian sources. How can this compare to the work of scholars who actually can read Sumerian and Akkadian and Assyrian and publish texts based thereon?

    Further, you’ve completely glossed over why Simon states that “asag” means “black magician” and not “demon,” which is a significant discrepancy between our sources.

  4. warlockasylum says:

    yes you are right Harms, a basic history course would teach you that the Hittite Empire stretcfhed from Mesopotamia those lands, and modern sources are not exactly certain if Bakhtan is Bactria. Khous and Thoth were syncretized by Theban Priests. These are some of the options that you could have considered before saying that Thoth has no relationship with Mesopotamia. I will get back to you on the “asag” aspects shortly

    The Dark Knight

  5. Can you provide a source for the assertion that the Hittite Empire reached to Bactria?

    It might be debatable where exactly Bakhtan is, but the majority of sources I’ve examined point to Bactria. Nonetheless, you’ve just contradicted your own assertion. If you can’t prove that Bakhtan is Mesopotamia, then you can’t use the Bentresh stela to prove that an Egyptian god was known there, can you?

    You’ve also jumped past my point that an Egyptian source regarding a foreign land might not reflect the reality of that land. Could you please answer that?

    I’ve stated that Khonsu and Thoth were syncretized, but it seems you view that process like Superglue. Gods could be seen as combined at some times, but not at others.

    You’ve still provided no source from Mesopotamia that proves that Thoth was known or worshiped there. That would be the appropriate place to start.

  6. warlockasylum says:

    wait a second! I will write a post shortly specifically with your thoughts in mind. What you have to think of is why would a King entreat his son-in-law for a second time..,and the King then senta statue of the god Khous? and what was Khous doing in the land for quite some time? I don’t think they just put him in the closet….He must have been prominent in the Hittite King’s mind, if he were to receive a dream from himwhich was a signal to send him back. We also have to taake into consideration that Khous did take on some Thoth aspects since he was sent for healing, or his statue I should say, and from Thebes, the city that corresponded Khous to Thoth. And this doesn’t raise an eyebrow to you? I thought you would now better

    Be Well my friend

Leave a Reply