I used to think you were evil

B: I used to think you were evil …

A & B: …

B: Now I know you’re just ridiculous. That’s when I got bored of dealing with you, because it no longer had any urgency.

A: Coming from you … that criticism is surreal. It’s like you don’t recognize your own reflection in the mirror.

A & B: …

B: I’ve just realized that you’re a new kind of vampire, the one that sucks the joy out of any room and kills the reason for being there.

the price of a book

The price of a book should represent the cost o production plus a premium in accord with the quality of the artistry and technical excellence of that production. However, the price should forever be divorced from the usurious mechanisms of the artificial scarcity of the information contained within. The craft of the book is not the content of the book; the craft is not the content.

reasonable errors

So desperate to point out another’s reasonable errors as if they were transgressions against Nature herself, you are nothing more than an ass, off course and off your reservation, out of your jurisdiction and in violation of your professed beliefs. You insist to consistently prove yourself unworthy of any consideration or attention, which you so desperately seek like an addict scratching after the last dregs of their drugs.

I submit for consideration that your constant conflict with others, both presently and historically, at the lodge and elsewhere is because you are off your course. And, any time you manage to convince anyone that you are doing your Will, you are actually misleading them because you are really doing your villianous whim instead. Personally, I believe you are duplicitous and know you are misleading them, but even if you are as ignorant as you claim about your constant incitation and insurrection and therefore are also managing to mislead yourself about your actions, you should know what you claim not to and that failure then of self knowledge is no excuse for your criminal act of interference and breach of hospitality, more over that lack is really worse all in all, I suppose, because it makes you doubly false, instead of merely an ass.

And if those in the position to weigh in end up condoning your conduct, then they are as culpable as you, either seeing and overlooking or being blind and thus failing their position of oversight, and as deserving of the kind of death prescribed in Liber OZ.

And if my efforts to help overall are enabling your campaigns, against me or all the others whom you wrong, then I refuse to work against myself by working in general in ways which resolve equations indirectly into solutions which balance on your behalf.

The Thelema of these “thelemites”

For the Thelemite to say that the Wiccan, or Christian or whatever, is wrong in their path is not only to deny that it is possible for someone’s true will to be on their particular path, but is moreover to claim authority over another’s self determination of their will. If interference with another’s rights is to give up those rights, then for a Thelemite to engage in this kind of usurpation of another’s course, especially of an actual Thelemite, and presume to tell another what their Will is to renounce their own right to determine their course and their will. Therefore, the Thelemite who cannot mind their own business is not actually a Thelemite at all but is a kind of criminal against the law of liberty. This kind of Thelemite is canonically a heretic against the creeds they claim to profess. The Thelemite promulgating against another’s self determination is not promulgating the law of liberty, but rather merely another recidivistic and intolerant kind of slavery more appropriate to and reminiscent of an old aeon.

Moreover, it seems the blasphemous “thelemite” willing to interfere with another’s Will is merely a shift of whim away from thwarting any other. Blasphemy against any one Will is to blaspheme against all authentic expressions of Thelema, including, since these such are clearly aligned against the Universe, railing due to their own weakness of character against their own weakness of character via the proxy of nosing around another’s Will by claiming difference from their preference is weakness in another’s character, their own Will. This is a textbook case of a hypocrite, “endothermic” and “divided against himself”, exporting and deflecting his own failure onto likely immaculate and innocent others in order to attack what he is too lame and immature to fix in himself. In other words, the religion of this “thelemite” seems to be not much more than a complete failure to embrace the philosophy of Thelema.

The Thelema of these “thelemites” then appears to be an obstacle to the real spread of real Thelema and an attack on the course of every real Thelemite, and deserves nothing more than contempt and resistance from true Thelemites everywhere. This is the kind of righteous internal purity which should preclude the misguided crusades of these pretending inquisitors who aim to crush those that deviate from their deluded conception of things. It is the intolerance of these thelemites which no true Thelemite should tolerate.

If these “thelemites” were to focus where they should, on themselves, they would not be be thwartsome to others, and thus would be of no concern to anyone (ah, there’s the rub for these “thelemites” are so desperate for attention), seeing as they would only be harming themselves, and that merely a form of stupidity instead of a form of criminality. These are traitors in the camp betraying the hospitality they’ve been given. It is in fact the betrayal of this hospitality which is the true failure on their parts, because it is a violation against the ghosti-relationship they voluntarily entered and therefore agreed to uphold. Morevoer, a pack of these traitors claiming to be friends is one flying a false-flag attempting to trick and deceive with the goal of inducing the unweary to mistake a den of thieves for a camp of true friends. These such are cowans missing the true mortar of meaning and message that would prevent their falsely constructed wall from crumbling into the mere pile of rough stones that is, its true nature revealed to be rubble. These creatures lack the craft to fashion truly beautiful architecture.

When these false Thelemites come in constant conflict with others they merely prove themselves false. Especially when they provoke conflict, moreover when intentional, a fortiori when duplicitously claiming not to intend such, they are merely showing one and all that they are willfully set against every true Will, including their own.

The true Thelemite must respond to these false friends by saying simply, “I refuse to be moved from my course by you, I stand in defiance of your continued villainy, and I bear witness that your interference deserves to be resisted by one and all.”

Whatever it is which is the tree from which these false thelemites fall deserves to be chopped down and burned to ashes.

The point is not to deny another’s perception of the elephant

The point is not to deny another’s perception of the elephant, but to see all viewpoints as gifts which lead toward a better understanding of elephant-ness.

Like the oath of the Magister Templi, where all phenomenon are messages from god, all viewpoints are reflection of that message since they are facets of perception which lead to a more wholistic picture, comprised of the mosaic of views, of these phenomenon. This is as a composite telescope which can see further and more detail than each or any of the individual mirrors of which it is comprised. Such mosaics are opportunities to collectively come closer to apprehension of the imperceptibles of which each individual is unable alone. Together we have the chance to perceive more light than we have alone, and this only if we allow for the differential and parallax between individual views brought together, not to erase or remove the diversity; but rather to incorporate the diversity into a whole greater than the parts.

Tyranny of choice and illusion of choice

Both the tyranny of choice and the illusion of choice are example extremes of strategic conclusions to an enclosure initiated by someone tactically claiming to offer a framework of freedom while actually implementing a rigid proscription designed to interfere with the actual function of that freedom.

This enclosure is enacted by deliberately obfuscating the difference between levels of framework and of action. Allowing this confusion is dangerous and those doing it to another are doubly so.

The defense is not, as it might seem, to simply play Rage Against The Machine on repeat and do whatever one wants, fuck ’em. Rather the defense is to develop one’s own considered code of behavior and stick to that and that alone. Further defense is had by simply not participating in the manipulation game being played on others and being attempted against oneself. The defense against the manipulation of an extrinsic code is to have a solid and sure foundation in an intrinsic one.

These fanatics, these fanboys, are looking not to develop other fanboys, nor are they looking the help people make rational choices for themselves. Rather, these radical enclosure strategies are aimed at creating hostages, unable to make any choice but the one predetermined on their behalf.

These fanboys do not want other fanboys because that would be a potential status threat. Nor do they want rational actors to make their own ways, because then they might chose otherwise, again a threat the the desperate need for self-gratification through vicarious control and validation.

The radical fanboy is in fact a control-freak looking for victims, but using the rhetoric of advertising to negotiate a sale through manipulation. The radical fanboy seeks sycophants to the character flaws of the fanatic themselves as both a way to prop up their position and to marginalize potential threats to that position. The foundation of the radical fanboy is in fact not the ostensible object of their fandom, but rather is the desperate need for ego gratification.

Another form of this that is not deception but is either conscious or unconscious conceit is the way that all Libertarians advocate for individualism but always seem to assume that others will make the same choices as they. People suffering from this form of conceit seem to always be confused when people who have freedom of choice chose something different. I marvel at the similarity to the paternalism of parents that cannot fathom their children’s choices.

And here’s a clue to the nature of this dysfunction: it is at base a form of paternalism. And, when one person assumes this kind of hierarchical position of judgement over the choices of another, they are exhibiting a level of control freakishness that is dangerous to themselves and others. They are in fact insinuating they have the right and ability to know better and more than the other. This is a textbook example of one form of interference in the rights of another, and certainly seems to me to be internally inconsistent with the ideal of Liber OZ and the framework of the Law of Liberty.

At it’s core, campaigns of doctrinal purity are antithetical to actual individual freedom, but the trap of assuming that others would make the same choices is one that many Libertarian thinkers seem to make over and over so that’s a recurring endemic pattern.

No one may tell me what Thelema is or what Thelema is for me. Of course, they can express what Thelema is for themselves, but they no authority to speak. The only authority is to the Class A materials and comments each person for themselves. That does not contemplate in any way someone’s right to determine my will for me, quite the contrary.

But even Thelema within OTO. But, the authority of Baphomet, Hymenaeus Beta and the grand master is the authority on OTO. But the the former is larger than the latter, and the latter is neither sufficient nor necessary for the former. However, the former is necessary for the latter, but not sufficient. Therefore, promulgating Thelema is necessary for promoting OTO, but promulgating Thelema does not require OTO. The corollary Is quite obviously, that anyone trying to tell another that their Thelema is not Thelema is doing so without any authority whatsoever. However, there are authoritative voices which can speak to what forms of Thelemic activity is appropriate for OTO or not, and those are the voices of Baphomet, and the leadership of OTO where that leadership is acting on behalf of and based on the authority of the appropriate office.


i’ve been taking a step back lately from some things that have been present recently in my life; but, still keep bumping up against those things. and this bumping has a kind of rhythm to it. there’s an echo and a reminder of past dance music here, of interrupted but continuing movement. grinding and grooving through flashes of light, glimpsing others moving but without staring, but no place for conversation or connection.

any sketch of my thoughts would probably sound pretty self-important to someone else, and may sound like i’m ranting. but my thoughts to myself aren’t a rant at or to anyone, except maybe myself. i’m trying to get some grasp on what’s going on. my hope is that my thinking through thoughts is useful in further developing a way for my working to work in the world.

so much of my thinking i normally would never reveal publicly or share. sharing seems like such a mistake. this kind of thinking, i compartmentalize and put into a note in my journal never to see the light of day again or be seen by another. sometimes i may revisit these thoughts, unpacking them to take a look with nostalgia, but always in the privacy of my own dark attic and away from others. even that retreat is a kind of circus that comes back to town frequently.

even though i may often revisit on my own, recapitulation of my past thinking with others is tiresome and painful; fully explaining my thinking is too. but, having others assume my thinking is less than it has been is also painful, as if what isn’t explained hasn’t happened. and yet i crave the touch of others really truly there with me through it all. and yet i can’t hardly stand to be touched for long as much as i long for it.

most of my thinking is done intuitively and in a constant stream; and, i seem to have more thoughts in a moment than most; no speaking, writing or art has been something i could do fast enough to follow my own thoughts. these thoughts are lives that have flashed before my eyes, living them in a dream real and full.

for others to imagine that even after moments i wouldn’t already have ideas, maybe even several fully formed; is to imagine that when told not to think of an elephant that I actually wouldn’t.

however, having one or several fully formed ideas does not mean I’ve made up my mind; although, it does mean i may have strong opinions. opinions which i will strongly hold; but which also may radically change, maybe even in mid-sentence.

explaining even one of several provisional ideas is likely to take longer than actually making the idea happen; but, making an idea happen means selecting one of many provisional possibilities. for some reason, having to fully explain a provisional idea, or moreover just one of several, feels a little like dying inside.

first, it will take forever. it will be difficult to communicate the full range of thinking that led to the idea. taking someone through the process doesn’t work because they generally wouldn’t have made the same leaps where i did even if they had been part of it originally. it will be nigh impossible to be clear that the idea is provisional, in spite of how fully formed it is. or, if it’s not fully formed, it will be nigh impossible to be clear that the gaps aren’t flaws and leaps aren’t falls. it will appear that i’ve either made up my mind or adopted a flawed notion, or both. by the time i’m done, i could have just done it. by the time i’m done, i’ll have thought of a several new ideas that seem much more interesting to me. and, thus, as i explain it, i’ll go on tangents that lose people, not being able to simplify the complexity enough to take them along with me on that ride through the candy factory; i’ll not be satisfied with the idea anymore, and the whole attempt to communicate will seem to have been not only a waste but just painful.

i’ve never met anyone, ever, to whom i could fully and satisfactorily communicate. communicating to others seems to constantly be a reminder of just how alone i have always felt. in some ways, it seems like i’ve been alone so long, but even when i was young i was already old this way.

i very quickly scaffold various ideas to whatever various levels of completeness i can; and sometimes that means holding contradictory ideas in various levels of completeness at the same time.

but, i also work iteratively, and each idea reflects and informs others. i may abandon fully formed ideas in order to develop new ones while still holding other ideas; abandoned ideas may be replaced with newly developed ones that are only very subtly different, maybe even only in a feeling about them; and, the process of forming and abandoning ideas informs every subsequent process and my thoughts and feelings about the past of them.

at some point, one idea out of several may prove to be good enough to implement; but that doesn’t mean i don’t have others, equally or even more fully formed; it doesn’t mean that i don’t have ideas which contradict the idea being implemented; but for some reason a particular idea meets the moment best, for some value of best, meets the design goals and constraints well enough to justify implementing.

what does this mean? there’s the crux of this crossroads between horizons, for meaning to the journey evades. it may be that i am really alone in this. or, maybe there are others. this may merely be the human condition i suffer, and somehow the miracle cure is to normalize. or, this is a rare form of something or other that i’ll suffer until i grow old enough to slow down, and hopefully old enough not to see that i became slow.

as for thinking in the world, it seems like i am in a loop of film forever repeating the rug being pulled out from under me. unlike the trick of falling down and missing the ground to fly, rather i fall and never seem to be able to stop tripping. thoughts never stop but under me the world keeps slipping.

stele of revealing notes

I was thinking about a project for myself. I was going to check the Stèle of Revealing and figure out the best modern translation of the hieroglyphics into my own interpretation. Well, I forgot about the modern transcription of the Stèle in the back of The Holy Books of Thelema. So, I took that and did the rest of the project. I didn’t go to The Book of the Dead and use the passages that the text of these things is based on, but that is something I could do.

I started with two additional ideas. The first is that for egyptian art, images are also fully meaningful words. This is based on ideas from Reading Egyptian Art. The second is that I wanted to tease out the meaning of the names of places and entities instead of leaving them opaque.

So here’s my notes, which I didn’t do a great job of keeping track of my sources; since this is mostly an artistic project. But, I may want to go back at some point fill that in with good ones. I honestly didn’t get too strict about where I got my information from if it seemed mostly reasonable to me.

  • behdet: the winged solar disk, Heru of Edfu, he with coloured
    plumage, world saviour, protector of the sacred
  • re-herakty: horus on the horizon, all time, beginning to end
  • wesir/osiris: he sees the throne, immortal dead, the deceased
  • sem priest: funereal high-priest, shaman
  • monthu: nomad, war god, struggle, striving, scorching sun
  • thebes: waset, was; power; cult center for The Powerful, wasret;
    power, dominion; bull penis; animal of set
  • karnak: The Most Selected of Places
  • ankh-af-na-khonsu: he lives for khonsu
  • khonsu: the wanderer, the moon, devourer of hearts (devourer of hearts ~ eucharist, love under will)
  • justified: pure of voice, judged worthy
  • seat: throne, from the horizon
  • re: noon sun, the creator
  • atum: the first, the creation, the completion, setting sun, to be
  • kephre: the motive force, the becoming, the rising sun, self created
  • hathor: House of Heru (the falcon, the distant), the place of rest, the milky way, mother of light
  • son of a man: inheritor / in the traditional role / from the family
  • bes: protector – introduced, initiate
  • en: to, for, belonging to, through, because
  • mut: world-mother, primeval waters, uniter of two lands, queen of heaven
  • bes-en-mut: child of midnight, initiate into secrets, fraternity of initiates
  • amun-re: setting sun – noon
  • taneshi: land of nesh?


she wanted me to memorize the words others had written, but she never asked me to write my own words for her. I wanted to write words of pure love, dripping molten hot silver, like a troubadour praising the divine feminine. I wanted to pray to her on bended knee and raise my voice in song to her strength and beauty. but, my words failed me. but, I feared she did not want to hear me.

did I even have the words to say how much I felt for her? I stumbled to even say anything at all. I struggled to speak as I was caught up in my head. my voice was silent when my heart wanted to sing. my heart tried to code a message to her but was muted by my fears and my clouded mind.

I should have not feared to say what I felt. I should have felt joy instead of fear. But, I feared that she would not hear me if I said the words I longed to say. I feared to say what I felt because I felt too much.

so I wrote about her in ritual and spoke what I felt to the directions. I called for candles to light her way and worshiped at her holy well. but, I did not tell that I was worshiping the divinity of her.