Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Lovecraft -- Occultist

Expand Messages
  • jgwr
    This whole question of HPL was he or wasn t he an occultist is an extremely vexed one, isn t it? If I may add some further fuel to the fire����� This
    Message 1 of 2129 , Jul 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      This whole question of HPL was he or wasn't he an
      occultist is an extremely vexed one, isn't it? If I may add
      some further fuel to the fire�<br><br>This example may
      not sound like it has anything to do with Lovecraft
      and to be perfectly honest it doesn't. But
      nonetheless. I was reading a book today called "Lords of
      Chaos", which is a study of the black metal music scene
      in Norway and elsewhere. For those of us who don't
      know what black metal is, it's probably the most
      extreme form of heavy metal and indeed music in general
      going round today, with assorted connections to
      far-right politics and Satanism. Very big in Norway, where
      the black metal scene as such began in the early
      1990s, though the real progenitors of black metal are
      usually supposed to be a bunch of likely lads from
      England called Venom, who invented the term "black metal"
      on a record of that name in 1982.<br><br>Now, metal
      has traditionally had a fairly dark image and has
      usually drawn on "Satanic" imagery, and you can trace
      this as far back as Black Sabbath at the start of the
      '70s. Venom purported to be different and to take their
      Satanism seriously, as opposed to Black Sabbath and other
      acts copping the Devil imagery for shock effect. This
      was a complete lie, as Venom eventually admitted they
      knew practically nothing about real Satanism and were
      themselves just drawing on the imagery. Much of the
      Scandinavian scene, however, is the real deal, they DO take
      their Satanism seriously. And in the book "Lords of
      Chaos" there's a reproduction of a 1993 Kerrang article
      on the emerging black metal scene, which features
      this intriguing comment in relation to the scene's two
      main figures Oystein Aarseth and Varg
      Vikernes:<br><br>"They both cite Venom and Bathory as early influences
      and although they're aware that neither band were
      involved in Satanism in practice, they 'choose to believe
      otherwise'."<br><br>Which (to finally get to my point) made me wonder, do
      those folks who say HPL was a genuine occultist think
      in a similar way? Does it suit them in some way to
      believe HPL was an occultist even though he wasn't, in
      the same way Messrs Aarseth and Vikernes prefer to
      see their predecessors as real Satanists even though
      they weren't? It might be fairly asked precisely what
      people gain by such a belief, although I think it's
      still an interesting point. Over to the rest of you
      fine people�<br><br>Incidentally, the book "Lords of
      Chaos" is really good. I don't even like black metal and
      I still found it fascinating� though be warned if
      you do happen across it and decide to peek inside
      there's a rather charming photo of a man with the top of
      his head blown off and bits of his brain lying about
      the place. That's the black metal scene for you
      though�<br><br>As per usual,<br>James
    • ovidbrazil
      Uholyjason, I completely understand your connexion to the Lovecraftian/Sumerian/Babylonian current of magick. I myself am a practitioner of Lovecraftian
      Message 2129 of 2129 , Mar 13, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Uholyjason,

        I completely understand your connexion to the
        Lovecraftian/Sumerian/Babylonian current of magick. I myself am a
        practitioner of Lovecraftian Magick.

        The Simon Necronomicon actually does hold authentic
        Babylonian/Sumerian references within it, but alas, that was because
        the person who wrote it (His name escapes me at the moment, but I am
        fairly sure that he was the owner of the Magickal Childe [?]
        bookstore in NYC) wrote the fake grimoire with precisely that in mind.
        At any rate, yes, the Simon Necronomicon as well as all of the other
        purported Necronomicon are indeed not legitimate grimoires as far as
        they claim themselves to be. That is, they are not the Necronomicon
        as put forth in HPL's works, but that does not make them any less
        magickally valid.

        If you have not already and would like some good resources on
        Lovecraftian magick you should visit the Old One's Sanctuary
        http://www.stormloader.com/sanctuary . Unfortunately, you cannot
        download or copy any of their texts but if you really want them I
        have a way to procure them for you.

        Regards,

        Julian

        --- In hplovecraft@y..., unholyjason wrote:
        > While I understand that many disagree on the
        > validity of the Ed Simon "Necro", REGARDLESS,<br>whether
        > one considers it factual or fiction, I believe that
        > the careful comparisons made in the forward between
        > Lovecraft, Crowley, and Sumerian Lore make it worth the
        > $5.99 that one would have to pay to check it out,
        > therefore, I would hardly consider it "junk".<br>If nothing
        > else, one might use it as an appendix to the Cthulhu
        > mythos.<br>So I have to humbly disagree on that
        > respect...<br>...it's not exactly "junk", HOWEVER you look at
        > it...<br><br>"Oderint dum metuant"<br>~Jason~
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.