Necromancy

Confusionomicon – Bringing Light to the Darkness – Part One

Wafubeh to all!

Today I would like to address some interesting issues regarding the books written by Simon, most notably among these of course, the Simon Necronomicon. Naturally there are still many unknowns regarding this most infamous occult text, and bringing such things to light is a painstakingly difficult task at the best of times. Therefore, in these writings, we will present, to the reader, a variety of subjects found in the Necronomicon, as well as in Simon’s other books, which will hopefully put the mind of the practitioner at work, in order to try and create some order out of chaos, and bring some understanding to the confusion which these subjects present.

On page 69 of the Simon Necronomicon, concerning the Conjuration of the Watcher, we read the following:

“The sacrifice must be new bread, pine resin, and the grass Olieribos.”

Not much more is said about the aforementioned sacrifices.

However, in Simon’s book Dead Names, on page 225, we are told the following:

“As long as the rituals are properly observed and the appropriate sacrifices made, the Watcher will continue to protect the candidate during his lifetime.”

And on the same page Simon continues:

“The controversy among occultists, pagans, and “cult cops” over the subject of blood sacrifice and the Watcher of the Necronomicon is only comprehensible to a modern-day Westerner. To a Muslim, the idea of bloody sacrifice is a common one, and indeed, it is mandated during the performance of the hajj, the sacred pilgrimage to Mecca and every healthy and able Muslim is expected to take at least once in his or her lifetime. Therefore, to find it included as a requirement for the invocation of the Watcher in a book penned by an Arab of the eight century is neither unexpected nor somehow sinister. To those whose modern sensitivities are offended by the idea of sacrifice, I can only apologize for our bad taste in translating that portion into English (rather than have it appear in Latin in the manner of Victorian historians writing about the sexual practices of the ancient Romans).”

With those words Simon does not allude to making a blood sacrifice to the Watcher. Instead he downright admits that it was included as a requirement for the invocation of the Watcher. He even apologizes for their bad taste in translating that portion of the text in English!

What portion of the text?!

The Necronomicon’s chapter regarding the Watcher contains no such thing.

Yet we do find another reference to the sacrifices and to blood sacrifice in The Gates of the Necronomicon, on pages 175 and 176, which state the following:

“New bread, pine resin, and the grass Olieribos (nettle) must be burned in a new bowl that has the three signs – the ARRA, AGGA, and BANDAR – inscribed thereupon.”

“These three elements – bread, resin, and nettle – are all plant products and may hint at an early agricultural mythos behind the idea of the Watcher. Note that no blood offering of any kind is required. The burnt offering of the Three Elements is satisfactory and sufficient for the purpose.”

Does this not contradict the words we find in Dead Names?

He does continue, however, by telling us:

“A blood offering to the Watcher may be made, but that serves to render the Watcher extremely violent and uncontrollable and may lead to the destruction of the magician in a blind lust for blood. This is similar to the reaction one might expect if a fresh kill is given to a dog who has heretofore only consumed packaged dog food.”

This does not come as a surprise when we become aware of the Watcher’s actual nature, and where it originates from.

https://warlockasyluminternationalnews.com/2016/09/18/how-to-live-a-post-simon-necronomicon-life-part-2-breaking-the-chaldean-covenant-the-watcher-shinto/

“But is the Necronomicon speaking in veiled terms as well?”

” Listen to this comment from an old grimoire, the Fourth Book of Cornelius Agrippa, in the section entitled “Necromancy”; “

“From hence it is, that the Souls of the dead are not to be called up without blood…”

Was there ever a requirement for blood sacrifice in the original manuscript?

And if there was, did they substitute the three agricultural elements for this, perhaps, too controversial form of sacrifice?

Dumu Abzu-a

 

Advertisements

5 replies »

  1. Cliff hanger! I got two points to throw at you:
    – I remember reading somewhere that Red Wine is often used as a replacement for actual blood and that in some cultures Red Wine would just be called blood because of the color. So a blood sacrifice could possibly be a Red Wine sacrifice.
    – Aleister Crowley is always being thrown under the bus for his reference to “human sacrifice” in his works. Again I can’t remember exactly where I came across this but I remember reading that he would often use the term “human sacrifice” to mask the actual sacrifice of male sperm. Which when you think about it, is still technically a “human sacrifice”
    Great work Dumu! I always enjoy your articles!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s