Letter to Dan Harms Part 5: Return of the Dark Knight

Greetings! I would like to extend a warm welcome to all who have taken the time to visit the Necronomicon Gate-Walker’s Info Page. What better time is it than the present to resume my conversation with Mister Dan Harms, now that the new Batman movie is out. I would like to begin my response to Mister Dan Harms’ most recent post about the Warlock by first addressing a recent comment that was made by “Mike”, about my Kiss of the Dragon Blog.

 “I find Mr. Harms thoughts on the matter to be correct, and I feel as though You are simply another bitter person mad that he helped exposed the Fraud that is the Simon Necronomicon. NOTHING remotely “positive” can be gained from that book, and frankly I grow tired of its supporters offering claims of its “usefulness”. With all due respect.. GROW UP”

It seems that Mike is a little upset at me. Mike also thinks that I am a bitter person. It is really sad how the Dan Harms Machine can move so many people to make judgments of character based on what other people hold personally to them, as there way of exploring the Ancient Tradition, one that is ignored vastly by the New Age community. Personally, I have nothing against Mister Dan Harms. What I do find interesting though, is that Simon or Gate-Walkers do not go around expressing critique of others.

Mister Dan Harms seems to think that he is on some sort of ‘divine’ mission’ by trying to prove that the Simon Necronomicon is a hoax. He is very superstitious! I have never threatened to do harm or magick against Mister Dan Harms, unlike some of the estranged people that he has offered his opinion about, like the Cult of Cthulhu sect. Yet for some reason, the writer that was quoted above, seems to believe that I am a ‘bitter’ person. Maybe Mister Harms should start an anti-Simon Necronomicon church or something? I respect Mister Harms’ role as a critique to a point. His opinions can help the practitioner of the Simon Necronomicon separate the ‘wheat’ from the ‘chaff’, as Simon even says is important in his introduction to the Simon Necronomicon. One requirement that I give to all of my students, is that they must purchase and read the Necronomicon Files. Dan Harms does provide some useful information in his book, though it may come from an angle that seems to be anti-Simon Necronomicon. I do this in honor of how ancient occultist used to debate for hours about certain occult sciences.

The problem today is that to many people, who lack the bare necessities of common sense and self-esteem, devote themselves faithfully to a magickal order, or the workings of a grimoire, without studying the background of the work, or these internet magickal groups objectively. The left-hand path is the study of ancient nanotechnology. It is a science not a faith. I can respect some facets of the work that Mister Dan Harms presents because at times, because he does provide some objective views in his study. I have provided quite a bit of information here at this site, which proves the Simon Necronomicon to be an authentic grimoire. Is it the same Necronomicon that Lovecraft spoke about? Maybe. Maybe not.  I find it amazing that Lovecraft just came with all these stories out of the blue, although they compare greatly to the ancient occult secret doctrines. I guess it’s too far beyond for Mister Dan Harms to believe that Lovecraft was indeed involved with some sort of knowledge. I mean let’s face it Mister Harms, anybody can blow up a printing press and create a Webster’s Dictionary, at least that’s what most evolutionist believe. Love craft just thought of these occult relationships through his fiction all by chance., right Mr. Harms? For those who have been following our debate, checkout this website:

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/scripts/necronomicon.html

I see no reason that once your point is stated you have to keep whipping the horse, over and over again. This is what Mister Dan Harms seems to enjoy, by his years spent in trying to disprove something that he claims isn’t real. My point here is that just because the Simon Necronomicon may not be the Necronomicon that Lovecraft wrote about, it doesn’t mean that it is not the Necronomicon. Think about it. If anything, Dan Harms seems to have some inner resentment towards Simon, notice what he mentions in one of his posts:

It’s been a while since I posted anything on “Simon.”  That’s largely because his material in Gates is less outraged and petulant, meaning that he’s a lot less fun to write about.  There’s also another factor – that I realize that, to be intellectually honest, I have to give “Simon” his props for some of his statements in Gates.  He really has made some impressive and important points therein that we should stress, as much as I hate to admit it.

Thanks Mike for writing in and reminding us of how the sincerity of “good mature” people could actually be the seeds to the next Inquisition.  Now let us look at Mister Dan Harms latest reply, his response can be found at this site:

http://danharms.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/we-get-necronomicon-posts-part-4/

Warlock begins by giving us some information on the herb olieribos from this website. He maintains that it is actually the herb reed canary grass. Oddly enough, his quotation regarding the herb are contradicted by the very source he uses (see the upper right of the page he quotes)!

 Yes, I quoted I site that seem to give a different reference to the herb olieribos on purpose. I’ve known for quite some time about the definition of olieribos, and the definition that Agrippa gives to it. I am also aware that if you can’t obtain some of the hard-to-find writings of Agrippa, then the only resource you have is through the Necronomicon Files, so why I’m I going to take money off of Dan Harms plate. I leave that to Mister Dan Harms’ karma, since he seems to find a lot of joy in taking money off the plate of Simon. I reflected on it after reading posts like the ones posted here:

http://www.necfiles.org/contact.htm

So why should I give it away freely unto the one who has discernment. So I posted the link with the wheat and the chaff, if you use your common sense then you can understand.. Anyway Harms continues by saying:

 We once again return to Crowley’s supposed authorship of the Necronomicon. Warlock once again does not engage with my questions about the book’s theme with regard to Crowley’s work and its superficial adoption of his doctrine. Rather, we turn once again to the number of times Crowley’s name is mentioned in the introduction, which hardly carries the same weight. He goes on to assert that the number of times “Messiah” is mentioned in the Old Testament is equal to the mentions of Crowley in the introduction to the book – thirty-nine – and that this is significant.

 Nonetheless, to be fair, we must consider all the material under the heading of “Introduction” in the Simon book – and this, including the bibliography, give us a grand total of forty-one. I’m not certain what the justification could be for taking every section but one under this heading for numerological purposes.”

Grow up Harms! I can’t believe you would actually degrade our discussion by resorting to a cheap trick. We both know that Crowley is mentioned in the Introduction 39 times, the same amount of times that the Hebrew word for Messiah appears in the Old Testament. Since when is the bibliography part of the text? That is such a cheap comment and one that is made to avoid the issue that Crowley’s name in the text must have some significance as to his contribution to the Simon Necronomicon. The bibliography is not a part of the text Harms! You know good and well the significance to Crowley being mentioned 39 times, and what it truly means. Since when is the bibliography part of the text? Has anyone ever offered a reference to the bibliography of another person’s book? No, because it is not part of the text. Grow up Harms! Make sense by not trying to win an argument Harms! Kenneth Grant had this to say about the number 39:

“In qabalistic terms the twin currents are 93 and 39. 93 is thrice 31, and 39 is thrice 13, and they merge in the supreme number of the Goddess 393: She who is the ‘secret glory’ behind the Mask of the Beast, the Veil of the Abyss,. 39 is the number of IHVH AchD, meaning ‘The Eternal is One’ which is describeed in Sepher Sephiroth as the affirmation of aspiring soul.’ This is the mystical aspect of the process that leads the aspirant to the threshold of the Abyss. 39 is therefore the mystical key to Daath, the window in space through which the ego vanishes forever,…”

This quote is a very interesting passage in light of our discussion. The Mad Arab often writes, as if he is about to depart the world and venture into another universe. Now keeping in mind what value Grant gives to the number 39, we can now understand what is mentioned in the Simon Necronomicon:

“Crowley’s Magick was a testimony of what he had found in his researches into the forbidden, and forgotten..,”

Was not Crowley’s testimony the same as the Mad Arab’s? This is clear indication that Mister Dan Harms will say anything just to cover himself, even if it means covering the truth.. As far as the comment he makes in regard to Theodorus Philetas, a name that means “gift of god-brother love” I guess Mister Harms cannot see how that definition relates anything to “Love is the law.” So do you think it’s possible that maybe Mister Lovecraft was inspired to write his mythos with Crowley in mind? It’s just to far fetched. Isn’t it Mister Dan Harms? I guess Mister Dan Harms might be better off letting his little brother Paul take over the site. At least, he would be able to post some information that is not inspired resentment, unlike his brother, Mister Dan Harms.

I will continue with my Simon Necronomicon writings, and sharing some insights for those who are Gate-Walkers. I guess Mister Harms sees me as that occult vigilante, who has been wrongly accused, just like the Dark Knight. Well at least the Joker (Mister Dan Harms) will be behind the bars of his ego for quite some time, as he, due to his pride, is unable to see what the world around him is beginning to understand, The Simon Necronomicon.

Warlock Asylum (the Dark Knight)

.


Advertisements

1 reply »

  1. I am composing a response. To do so, could you please provide the following?

    1) The reference in Agrippa to olieribos;

    2) A source for the guidelines that the number of textual appearances of an author’s name shows authorship, and that the bibliography should be excluded from the same; and

    3) Crowley’s own words confirming that the Greek term “philia” is key in Thelema.

    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