Fragment 53

In this "Fragment" I am going to continue with my philosophy of reading, and get to the book reviews. I am going to look at reading from another perspective than I did in the last "Fragment". I want to begin with an old memory of mine that stuck with me for decades. I was watching "Nightline" with Ted Koppel. The topic for the show was celibacy in the Catholic Church. The two guests were Father Andrew Greeely, and John Cardinal Krol. When I was young I was a big fan of "rapier wit" (this is actually a misnomer, Rapiers are long heavy swords, but Rapier wit sounds better than Colichemarde wit.), and the art of conversation. I remember people saying that the art of conversation was a dying art. Of course now, the art of conversation is dead and has been dead so long that on one even remembers the art. Back to Greeley and Krol. The first question was about the reason for celibacy. Greeley was first up. Greeley told Koppel that part of his job as a Priest was to be fascinating as representing the invisible world. I loved this answer, it delivered up a chance for Krol to display Rapier wit. The problem was Krol did not have any Rapier wit. When it was Krol's time to respond to whether it was part of his job to be fascinating. He answered "not at all". What Krol should have said was "Being a Cardinal I am way more fascinating than Father Greeley. I was disappointed. I thought of the comeback instantly. The weird thing is this memory stayed with me for decades. I realized there was more to this memory than a lost opportunity to deliver a clever ripost. Decades later I realized Greeley was right. It was part of his job to be fascinating. Before leaving Greeley, I want to say he deserves better than to be forgotten. Greeley was a college professor of sociology, and wrote many books. Some of these books were best selling novels that did not make him popular with the Church hierarchy. Father Greely claimed he never had an unpublished thought. Greeley was fascinating. This memory came back to me while I was reading the books I am reviewing in this "Fragment", and like a kaleidoscope gave me various ideas, and views.Once I realized that Greeley was right. I thought about two of my favorite modern spiritual leaders. I thought about Gurdjieff and Crowley because we do not have much of an account of ancient spiritual leaders' conversations. Both Gurdjieff and Crowley were great conversationalists.they could talk to different classes of people with ease; both could either dominate the conversation or withdraw and let people make fools of themselves. They were interesting men, they were fascinating. And both like Fr. Greeley realized it was part of the job to be fascinating. This led me to think more about the concept of being an interesting person. Interesting people are great conversationalists, and great communicators. So what is it that makes one interesting? The answer is simple: interesting people have read memorable books,and had memorable experiences. This answer surely fits for Gurdjieff,and Crowley. The next realization was our current society does not produce interesting people. The reasons are obvious. Playing video games does not give memorable experiences, and modern popular fiction does not produce memorable books. At this point I should connect this with occultism, but I am not. Instead, I shall give a hint. It has to do with building the magical mind.I am going to explore this topic in future "Fragments". This review is going to be my meditations on some popular fiction, both authors and their creations. This should become pellucid as we continue. Let me also add that when I started reading the following books I had none of this in mind. I just wanted to talk to people about books. The trouble with most modern fiction is one forgets it right after finishing the story. So I did not get the stimulating conversations I was hoping for. My criteria for the following books is that they have to be bestsellers. (I was thinking if I read bestsellers there would be a lot of people to talk to about the books. I was wrong.) I shall start with the worst first. The venerable Steven King. King has many bestsellers and is seen as an icon of modern horror fiction. I am not a big fan of King, I find him almost unreadable. I have only read one of his books from cover to cover. (The Stand) The rest I gave up on long before I reached the middle of the books. I have heard people say: that King's style is to mix the horrific with the banal. I find too much of the banal and not enough of the horrific to keep me interested. I do like some of the movies, but not the books. to get to particulars: I find his characters boring and have trouble identifying with them. I find the stories too long, and full of banal incidents. His handling of disabled characters is a disgrace. Does he do any research? Next let me move to James Pattterson who is probably the best example of what I am talking about. I have finished all the Patterson books I have started, found them well paced and no problem to read. The trouble is when I finish the book it is instantly forgotten. As I said he is the perfect author for our times; disposable fiction. He writes disposable literature that is meant to be disposable, like a razor. After reading it is forgotten like throwing out a used razor. This is why Patterson is more of a media empire than a serious author. LIke junk food his books are enjoyed and forgotten. I have read a lot of pulp fiction and I can remember Sax Rohme and Ian Flemming that I read decades ago. I have also asked people who are fans of Patterson if they can remember his novels and things about them after reading them? The answer is always "no". It seems Patterson's books are read for a bit of euphoria and then be forgotten. I noticed this after I read one of his novels, and then came across the title again in a few days, and realized I could not remember any of the book. Let me say this about Patterson's novels, they are paced well and keep your interest while you are reading them, but there is nothing challenging about them, or memorable. Patterson's books remind me of "Romance Novels". I remember when I briefly worked in a used bookstore. There were older ladies that would come looking for "Romance Novels" weekly; they read one or two of them a day. And remembered nothing about them. Since they are all the same, being memorable would be a flaw. They are not memorable books. Let us now move to Lisa Scottline. She has had many bestselling books. I find her unreadable, but this may be a flaw in me. I found it impossible to identify with her main characters. Her main characters alway seem to be female attorneys entering middle age. Something I cannot seem to get any interest in. Which might say more about me than Scottline. The flaw in all the above books is they are not memorable. One does not become interesting reading these books. But is not seen as a flaw by fans of the above authors. I have tried to have conversations about the above books, but that is not the purpose of these books. Another problem with the above books: is that fans of these books do not read much else, so there is no comparing them to other books or events. I want to look at three characters from three popular series of books. The three characters that I have chosen are Jack Reacher (Lee Child), Jeremy Logan (Linclon Child), and Aloysius Pendergast (Doug Preston & Lincoln Child). I shall refer to Lincoln Child as "Child" and Lee Child as "Lee Child''. There are several reasons I picked the above characters.The first reason is I could actually read the above books with interest. And one of the series features a psychic detective (Child) and another another series where there are strange almost occult situations. Except they are mostly built around pseudoscience. I tried to write some psychic detective stories that feature my character of Gwen Chu. I have stopped writing the stories because the character of Gwen Chu seemed to talk with me but stopped. It seems she became independent of me and now belongs to the world. The inspiration for the stories was Rohmer's psychic detective Maurice Klaw. I am not the only occultist who has tried to write in this genre. Anyone remember Crowley's detective "Simon Iff"? Let me make my first evaluation of the three series: I would not buy any of these books, but I will reserve them at the library. I shall start with the worst first going to the best. So let us begin with the Jeremy Logan books. (Child) There are only six books in this series. I have read four of them. Jeremy Logan is an art history professor. He also calls moonlights as an enigmatologist. He investigates unusual mysteries for people at a very high price. Logan is called into consult on problems that defy ordinary explanations. Sometimes there are occult elements, but most of the time the problem is caused by science which, most of the science in the books is pseudoscience. I guess that's why the books are called techno-thrillers. A good example of this is Child's novel "Full Wolf Moon". It is about a werewolf, but the werewolf is not cursed, instead he was created by pseudoscience. Jeremy Logan is not that interesting of a character. Even though he is the most realistic of the lead characters I am examining. He has mastered some eastern meditation techniques and seems to be an empath. And of course, he is exceptionally smart. We know he has a dead wife he talks to, but we never really get to know what motivates Logan. He is an opaque character. The books follow a formula. Logan is called in by some incredibly rich private institution to solve an unusual problem. He also has champagne taste; he loves the finer things in life. I did enjoy the books, but had no trouble putting it down when I had something else to do. Do not think I am going to read any others in the series. Next up is Alysius Pendergast. Pendergast is the character created by Preston and child as the hero of the very popular Pendergast series of novels. The first novel in the series (Relic) was made into a movie. The movie illustrates some of the problems with the character. The producers of the movie cut Pendergast out of the script. It does seem in the first novel that Pendergast is a superfluous character. The rest of the novels are centered around Pendergast. Pendergast is supposed to be an F.B.I. agent. Although he seems to freelance and is given wide jurisdiction by the agency. Pendergast is also supposed to be exceptionally smart and an expert in combat, both armed and unarmed. Pendergast is also exceptionally rich. Like Logan; he likes the finer things in life. Which he indulges in constantly; gourmet food, super expensive clothes, and so on. Which seems a contradiction to his exceptional physical abilities. I have never heard of an athlete that trains of faug gras, and the finest wines. We never see him working out or at the pistol range. Instead, we see him in his leisure time reading Latin literature, and listening to classical music. These do not seem like the pastimes of a supersoldier. He is also an opaque character. He is extremely secretive. And continues this in all the novels, even though it seems to constantly get him and his associates in a lot of trouble. He never learns. When one is reading the novels one wonders why the characters never check in with one another. Not even a cell phone message to say where they are or what they are doing. This is a common occurrence in the novels. The characters go off to investigate some dangerous place and never leave an email or a voice message with their associates. One wonders why Pendergast, who is supposed to be a super genius, never learns this. Pendergast is another billionaire crimefighter. He often uses his money to bribe people or buy some expensive piece of equipment. As for the evaluation of the books. I have read most of the books in the series, even though Pendergast is not a great character. LIke the Logan novels we never find out what it is that motivates Pendergast to fight crime. Again they are techno-thrillers. Most of the science in the novels is pseudoscience. There is a sort of "Dark Shadows" vibe to the novels that has kept my interest in them.Pendergast's family are all super geniuses. And most of them are evil and insane. I have read most of the novels in the series. The cast of characters has kept me reading. The novels are paced well. Although I never had trouble putting them down when I had something else to do. The stories are entertaining. I will probably read all the novels, but again they are disposable literature. The last character we are going to examine is Jack Reacher. Reacher is the brainchild of Lee Child. Reacher is the best character of the three. He is a wandering vigilante. His ancestors would be Mack Bolan of the "Executioner" series, the movie "Death Wish", and so on. Reacher travels around the country getting involved in defending people against organized crime. I do not mean the mob, but corrupt law enforcement and business. The novels are formulaic. Reacher wanders into a town and some incident, usually violent, gets him involved. Reacher is a vagabond, he only owns the clothes he is wearing, clothes that he throws away when they get dirty. He is supposed to be ex-military: a military policeman. Of course he is an expert in hand to hand combat. The latter novels get more violent, and less romance. This was the only series that I had trouble putting down. I read about half the novels. I shall probably read more, but I would not buy them. Lee Child created a memorable character even though the stories are all the same. -P.S.- I am working on some more "Fragments" that shall involve the Jesuits. If anyone wants to get a head start I recommend reading Malachai Martin's book "The Jesuits". Maybe there is a real Illuminati pulling strings behind the scenes?

Fragment 52

I was going to do some book reviews in this "Fragment", but I decided to explain some of my philosophy of literacy. Two incidents changed my mind about doing book reviews. The first is that Sadguru said something very important about books, and One of the most prominent West coast occultists has been carrying out a polemic against beginner books. A position I endorse. So let us begin with an analogy that should prove illustrative. There are two men around twenty years old, we shall call one Theon and the other Dan. Theon is an olympic gymnast and Dan is a circus fat man. Both are at the peak of their ability in their chosen vocations. I am going to posit that this is the state that exists between literate and the illiterate person. Theon can do amazing things with his body, he can execute difficult gymnastic moves with simplicity, and grace. Dan on the other hand is lucky to walk around all day. Even his basic physical movements are impaired because of his bulk. To understand this analogy all we have to do is substitute mind for body. A literate person can understand and deal with highly abstract thought, an illiterate person can not understand and deal with highly abstract ideas. Like athletes, a literate person can improve their reading through practice, but the basic skills have to already exist to do this. Dan does not have even the basic skills associated with gymnastics; he has trouble moving his fat body around. What I am calling for is that the literate person must challenge themselves like the gymnast does. I remember back when I was eighteen years old, I read the "Ethics" of Spinoza. It was the first hard book I read. I felt like I was walking in deep mud. It was slow going, and I had to keep backing up to understand the book, but I persevered. And I did not persevere in a gloomy mood. Instead I was exhilarated by challenging myself and observing my improvement. This is of course, the same feeling an olympic gymnast has mastering difficult tricks. On the other hand the circus fat man is challenged by everyday movements, like sleeping, walking, etc. If beginner books make one feel like they have mastered a subject, it is a lie. A good beginner book should challenge the reader to go on to the more difficult material. The trouble with beginner books is they dumb down a subject, and leave out essential nuances that are necessary to master the material. I shall give two examples that I found in academia. The first is Spinoza. Many beginner books state that Spinoza is a materialist. This makes teaching his thought a lot easier, and is easily connected with the Enlightenments' project of overthrowing the grip of religion in society. Once one progresses in the study of Spinoza the materialist position is undermined. So the position that Spinoza is a materialist causes little trouble. Everyone who has read Spinoza knows that the materialist position is a simplification of his metaphysics. The second example is that of Giordano Bruno. The myth created by beginner books states he was burned at the stake because of his astronomical theories. He thus becomes a martyr to science. This is all false. I have heard this position echoed by grad students. Bruno was burned at the stake because of religious heresy, he was not an astronomer. The Church did not care about his astronomical theories, it was Bruno trying to start a new hermetic religion that got him burned. Bruno was a martyr to occultism not science. This lie persists because Bruno's original writings are not read in academia.The view of Bruno as a scientist would be destroyed if people read his writings. This shows the trouble with beginner books.Since we are talking about the Enlightenment let us remember the seventeenth century philosophers wanted to bring clarity to thought. They wanted idas to be clear and distinct. This can only be achieved by reading, and challenging reading. Every occultist should get a copy of William of Ockham's bood "Summa Logicae" This book is very concise and has razor sharp distinctions. So it becomes a perfect book to test one's reading ability. Think of it as a very advanced manual for mastering mental gymnastics. Start reading and take note how many times one must back up to master the arguments. Clear and distinct ideas are a must to be successful in occultism. Countless magical operations have failed due to lack of clarity. To riff on Crowley, when you master Ockham you will have forged your mind into a formidable weapon. I have discussed the undervaluation of books, now I shall turn to the overvaluation of books. To understand the overvaluation of books we must embark on a digression. In the Bronze Age reading was regarded as magical. Which of course, it is. Literacy is one of the most powerful conscious altering methods there is. J.Jaynes says that reading was a psychedelic experience throughout most of the ancient world. I think this is still true today. When one sees someone reading they have no idea what dreams and emotions that the reader is having. This would very much seem like magic in the ancient world; a reader is transported to a different place and time while they are reading. To gain new knowledge from looking at symbols, This was and still is magic. Reading to an illiterate society is magical. In some parts of Africa western education is seen as magic. So it is not hard to observe the overvaluation of books in an illiterate society. How many times during an argument has someone responded that they read it in a book. The argument for authority. I used to have a High School History teacher that would exclaim "What book did you read it in, Mein Kampf or Das Kapital? The very medium of reading is given authority. How many cultures have sacred books that one must respect? Think of the protests that go on when a Quran is burned and disrespected. One can even get the death penalty in some Islamic countries for questioning the Quran, not to mention just vandalizing the Quran can get one killed. This brings me to Sadguru who explained we must move from religion to responsibility. Spirituality is in practice not blind obedience. Again let us use an example to understand. We shall take Judaism and Islam as our examples. Anyone who has read the Old Testament knows it is full of harsh punishments. So what happened to these harsh punishments in modern Judaism? They redacted them out when they wrote the Talmud. Judaism had clarity and took the responsibility to change the book. Muslims have made redacting the Quran almost impossible. They are scared of the book. They have not reached the age of responsibility. They live in fear of an ancient Egregore (El) who is the exemplar for Canaanite KIngs. Like Horus was for Egyptian Pharaohs. If you doubt my claims about the absurd embarrassing nature of Islam go to "Sunnah.com" and put in words such as Jew,, Infidel and if you really want to experience the horror show that is Islam put in the words "semen and menstruation". The information age is killing Islam. I want to go back to Sadguru and what he said and how it relates to occultism. Many occultists talk about the coming Aeon of Horus or the age of the child. What does this mean? To answer that question we must ask another question: What are the duties of a child? the duties of a child are to grow up to be an autonomous, responsible adult. This is why the coming age is seen as one of turmoil. People do not want to grow up and stop acting childish. But like Horus we must grow up and claim our birthright through the adversity. P.S. i will get to the book reviews soon.

Fragment 51

We are now going to go back and examine the Death Goddesses. As everyone who has read these "Fragments" knows, I am a Setian with a special devotion to Great Nephthys. So it should not be surprising that I am going to choose Persephone as the Goddess of "On Nature". This "Fragment shall probably reveal some of my unconscious bias, and will definitely show my conscious bias. Although I admit there is evidence for Aphrodite. If one wants they can write up their arguments and evidence for Aphrodite. I would love to read someone's arguments for a different Goddess. Ereshkigal the Death Goddess who encountered Ishtar went off to become Hecate. Yes I believe Nephthys and Ereshkigal are different Goddesses. When we get to Nephthys we have a different encounter: the two Goddesses cooperate with each other. Also we observe in the Greek mythology in the beginning Persephone and Aphrodite also cooperated before having a falling out on who gets to keep Adonis. I think there are only three options on who the Goddess is: first option is Aphrodite, second option is Peresphone, third option it is both Aphrodite and Persephone. I know Nyx has been proposed as the Goddess but I find the evidence underwhelming. I do not want to discourage anyone from arguing it is Nyx. Make your case. A case I shall try to make for Nephthys. Both Nephthys and Kali are Goddesses of the death and rebirth experience. This should remind the reader of the most famous Death Goddess Kali. Nephthys and Kali are both the Goddess controlling the coming into being and death of forms. Compare Shakti and death and rebirth. There are many parallels between Nephthys and Kali. They both have" the Destroyer as consort". There are many parallels between Nephthys and Kali that need to be studied. When we examine the text of the poem I shall provide more evidence. Let us sum up so far. I think that Persephone is the Goddess, and the poem describes a death and rebirth experience. I want to turn to the Initiation experience in the poem What is the Initiation about and why is it formatted as an Initiation experience? Again we must go far back into history to Anaximander (610-546 B.C.). Anaximander was one of the greatest thinkers of all time. He does not get much credit because he was so early and most of his writings are lost. The part of Anaximander that I want to focus on, Is he believed that the new knowledge should be publicly accessible to anyone. For Anaximander all the forces of the cosmos are physical and should be examined in a physical way. This is why the Pre-Socratic called themselves "Physical explainers". Anaximander had two pupils that we know of: Anaximenes and Pythagoras. Here we shall only be concerned with Pythagoras. Pythagoras disagreed with his teacher in that he thought the new knowledge should be private and not shared outside of a cult. We have seen this scenario play out in Occultism many times; the most famous being the Crowley-Mather disputes over secrecy. It seems that Parmenides was a rebel Pythagorean. Parmenides was a rebel because he wanted the new knowledge public. So let us move to the Mystery Schools of the ancient world. The subject of the Mystery Schools was always death and rebirth. So What is it they did in the Initiation process? Let us look at some modern examples. Modern examples would be passion plays and Easter vigils, but they seem to be missing something. Like the best parts. People still watch and participate in activities where the best parts have been taken out. An example would be Coca Cola even though they took the cocaine out people kept drinking the cola. What is missing in modern Initiation is that there is no esoteric knowledge that is given to the devotee, and certain activities have been removed. Sex might have been one of those removed parts. Let us look at the New Testament. It would seem that in early Christianity there was an esoteric doctrine that would be revealed to One. There are two resurrections in the New Testament. Let us briefly look at the first resurrection in the Gospels; that of Lazarus. The first thing that one is struck with is the cave Tomb that Lazarus is in is identical to the tomb Jesus was put into. This suggests that it was not a real death but an Initiation into esoteric Christianity. Instead of a Priestess it is Christ that raises Lazarus. Again El is taking out the female principle. This is where I think that sex may have been involved. Remember Isis had to fashion an artificial phallus. It is also said the Pythagoras had a golden thigh, this actually means he had a golden phallus. My fellow Setian Don Webb once claimed that Isis invented the blow job. Now I am wondering if he was joking? To bolster my speculation we shall go to Plutarch. Plutarch mentions the Jews celebrating the God, Bacchus. Where the leader of the Jews says" the Holy Rites of Bacchus are agreeable to the Jews". I wonder if this may have been early Christians or Jewish Christians. In simpler terms there was a lot of overlap in the religions of the time. I think many people of the time knew El was the God of Jews and Christians. Bacchus and Dionysus were equivalent to Christ. Thus it would seem that the resurrection of Lazarus was an Initiation ceremony. The early followers of Jesus had a cave tomb they used for initiation rites. I do think that there are many people throughout history that know that El is the God of the Christians and Jews. Like a certain rich royal family of a middle eastern country, and In the Holy City in Italy. When one looks at Michelangelo's paintings of God one is looking at El. Now let us turn again to Christ's resurrection. Where Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb to raise Jesus, her lover, but he is already gone. I guess after El divorced his troublesome wife that he soured on women altogether. Time to get back to Persephone. My argument is that Persephone is the Goddess and that the poem is a reverse Initiation. Instead, Parmenides gaining esoteric knowledge he brings the knowledge to the public. the Knowledge that Parmenides reveals logic and reason. This process may have started with Parmenides but the project was completed by the Sophists. The Sophists disseminated the knowledge to the public at large. All quotes shall be from David Gallop's book "Parmenides of Elea". So let us go to the poem "On Nature". I have also found D. Gallop's commentaries useful. So let us begin with "Fragment 1" :"Of the Goddess that carries everywhere unscathed the man Who Knows." The person who knows is the person that has been Initiated into esoteric knowledge. All the commentaries I have read agree with this. On his journey, Parmenides meets with the Daughters of the Sun with a chariot The trouble with this line is what is the direction of the journey. This is one of the weak points in my argument. There were the mysteries of Aphrodite and Adonis for women only. No men were allowed in their rites. The answer I give is that the maidens came to escourt Parmenides from light into darkness ; the realm of Persephone. Let us go to Gallop: and they escort him back into the House of Life. " But the words into the light" are more plausibly both in grammar and sense, not with the Daughters immediately after they collect their passenger, and So instead of travelling into rebirth the Initiate travels to the underworld to be taught by the Goddess of the underworld; Persephone. So instead of going from death to life Parmenides goes from life to death. If the Goddess is Persephone does that mean this is a satire of parody of the Mysteries of Aphrodite much like Plato's "Symposium" So there is no question in my mind that the poem has to do with death and rebirth myth, but it is reversed instead of but is reversed instead of going into the light he goes to the House of Night. Now we shall turn to "Fragment 11":" There are the gates of the paths of Night and Day, And a lintel and threshold of Stone surround them, And the Aetherial gates themselves are filled with great doors." Gallop explains thus: "Entry to it is gained through the Gates of the Paths of Night and Day. These gates whose structure and machinery occupy no fewer than ten lines have a special significance . They are the point at which Night and Day meet, a place where opposites are undivided and where the familiar contrasts of human experience can therefore no longer be drawn. Thus the Goddess is located where all difference or contrast has disappeared" For me this is the strongest proof that Persephone is the Goddess of the poem. Those of my readers who are not devotees of a Death Goddess may find this unconvincing. Let me explain. It is alway the Death Goddess that is beyond opposites this was said of both Nephthys and Kali.There are many parallels between Death Goddesses Nephthys, Kali and Persephone that should be explored. Being a devotee of a Death Goddess has taught me a lot about Death Goddesses. Although Aphrodite does make an appearance in the poem in "Fragment 10" :"In the midst of of these is the Goddess who steers the stars; For she rules over hateful birth and the union of all things. Sending female to mingle with male, and again conversely." This is Persephone talking about her sister Aphrodite. One notices that Aphrodite is not the Goddess that knows things as undivided. Most of the ancient commentaries agree this section is about Aphrodite. I have had my say. This whole "Fragment" has been inspired by my meditations on Great Nephthys. So I dedicate this "Fragment" to the glory of Nephthys

Fragment 50

This "Fragment" is going to ramble some. I have a lot of material to cover. The main focus of the "Fragment" shall be on the Goddess in Parmenides's poem "On Nature '' (Fragments). I have several questions I want to look at: Who is the Goddess? Was the poem based on an Initiation ceremony or an inverted Initiation ceremony? (The Mysteries)? And what is the message of the poem? In order to do this we must cover some background information. The foundational myth of Western spirituality is the myth of death and rebirth. So let us briefly examine some ancient examples of this myth. We shall look at Ishtar and Tammuz, Isis, Aphrodite and Adonis, and the Christian myth of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. So let us begin with Ishtar and Tammuz. We all know the story of Ishtar and Tammuz. Tammuz gets killed trying to please Ishtar and gets killed. Ishtar descends into the underworld to rescue her lover. At the lowest level Ishtar has to confront her sister Ereshkigal the Death Goddess. Ishtar dies as a result of the confrontation. Ishtar's servant begs the gods to help her, finally Enki does save her. Ishtar and her lover Tammuz are resurrected. Take note of the sister Death Goddess. Ishtar the Great Mother Goddess has to confront her sister Ereshkigal the Death Goddess. Next we shall move to Isis and Osiris. In the Isis and Osiris myth, Set kills Osiris and Isis and Nephthys bring him back to life. Again we see the Great Mother Goddess Isis must encounter her sister the Death Goddess Nephthys. Instead of killing Isis, Nephthys cooperates and together they bring Isis' lover back to life. Let us move to the classical Greek myth of Aphrodite and Adonis. An important point to note is Adonis is a god. If the reader is in doubt just remove the "s" off the end of his name. Adonis gets killed and Aphrodite has to go into the underworld to rescue her lover. Again we observe the encounter with the Death Goddess, Persephone. This time it is because Persephone has an attraction for Adonis and does not want to let him go. So they have Zeus arbitrate the dispute and end up sharing Adonis. Lastly, let us turn to the Christian myth. This time it is Mary Magdalene that goes to the underworld (the tomb) but finds it empty. So let us examine the Death Goddess in more detail in these myths. In the Canaanite myth Ereshkigal kills Ishtar. This probably reflects the brutal society of the Canaanites'. And I believe that a new Goddess took over as Death Goddess. Ereshkigal evolved into Hecate. The confrontation between Isis and Nephthys is different from the confrontation between Ishtar and Ereshkigal. This probably also reflects the more peaceful, and secure society of ancient Egypt. But I do think Nephthys is a different Goddess than Ereshkigal. In the classical Greek myth the two Goddesses begin in cooperation but have a conflict which is settled through arbitration. This seems a reflection of a mercantile society like the classical Greeks, also less brutal than Canaanite society. If anyone doubts the brutality of Canaanite society all they have to do is read the "Old Testament". And at last we come to the Christian myth where there is no Death Goddess, and it is not the lover that resurrects the Young God. Instead it is the Father God, who does it without female help. I am going to take a diversion here to examine what happened to the Goddesses in the Christian myth of death and rebirth. In the Christian myth it is Mary Magdalene that goes into the underworld (the tomb), but instead of finding the body and bringing it back to life the tomb is empty. Christ has risen without any female help. Why the change? One could give the Christian answer that Christ overcame death that is why there is no Death Goddess. This still leaves the question why was it not Mary Magdalene that brought her lover the Young God back to life? In order to answer this we must ask who is the God of the Bible? The first question I asked as a young child when first told about God? For over 50 years I have researched and tried every way I could think of to find out. It led to long years of dead ends, depression and false hope. When you strip the final mask off the Yahweh, he is El the Canaanite Sky Father. I am going to use a mythological approach to answer what happened to the Goddesses, and observe how El became the only god. El is the head of the Canaanite pantheon of gods,but El was deeply troubled, the other gods and especially his wife Asherah were giving El nothing but trouble. While El was pondering this his ruffian son Jah brought him the answer. Jah was the patron god of a Canaanite tribe called Israel. He was a god of a raiding tribe very concerned with how the plunder should be divided up. Recently part of Jah's tribe returned from Egypt and brought a most extraordinary God: Aten.Jah brought Aten to El. And in Aten El found his answer on what to do with the other gods; get rid of them. There can only be a single God. So El reabsorbs his son Jah, and also combines with Aten. Remember Aten is empty, he is the non resting law of non-contradiction. El divorces his troublesome wife Asherah, and declares war on the other Gods. El makes his chosen tribe into fearsome warriors to destroy all the other Gods. The Old Testament is a chronicle of the clash of Gods. El keeps looking deeply into Aten, and encounters the classical Greeks who have also discovered Aten (the law of non-contradiction) he makes a new discovery that his goal cannot be reached by violence. El takes up the reason and logic of the Greeks to again create a new religion: Christianity. El gives up the violence of the old religion to found a new religion that shall conquer the world and the other Gods by conversion. It seems that El's divorce from Asherah left El very bitter towards women, not that he was ever a supporter of women. That is why there is no Goddess in Christianity. El does not need any female principles, that is why when Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb the tomb is empty. El does not want a feminine aspect to his worship.This can also be observed in Islam where El as Allah actively works to keep women as an underclass. There should be no doubt that Allah is just another mask for El. And not even a good mask. One can hear the name El in Allah. So ends part one I shall continue this discussion in the next "Fragment" . We still have a lot of material to cover.

Fragment 49

I never intended to write a "Fragment" on "Exemplarism", but I felt there was a need. It seems these days almost everyone has trouble with exemplarism.Including Occultists, Theologians, and philosophers. Exemplarism played a pivotal role in the history of Western consciousness. So I shall try to define exemplarism, and provide why it was so crucial in the history of western consciousness. Most of the articles I have read and videos I have watched on "you tube" define exemplarism by saying "that it is the belief that the material world is dependent on Exemplars." Exemplars are, of course, identified as Platonic Forms. This is all true but it does not give the definition of Exemplarism. One can believe in Platonic Forms without believing in Exemplarism. After all Plato did not teach Exemplarism. It is best to examine the teaching that is opposed to Exemplariem to understand that doctrine is Ontologism. Both believe in Platonic Forms. The difference is that in ontologism one can reach the mind of God without any help. In Exemplarism one cannot reach the divine without the help of a God. In Ontologism one can reach God by one's own efforts. In Exemplarism one must have the help of a God to reach into the divine mind. In simple terms in Exemplarism one needs a God to pull the seeker over the finish line. Let us now move to a very brief history of the history and highlights of Exemplarism. The first person known who taught Exemplarism was Iamblichus (245 A.D-325 A.D.) Iamblichus taught Exemplarism in contrast to Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism. Plotinus taught that the Self can reach up to the divine Oneness by itself, without outside help. Plotinus divided the Self into higher and lower parts, but they are connected into one Self. Iamblichus taught that one needs an intervention of a god to pull one into the divine realms. There is an impassable line between the human intellect and the divine realms. Only a god can drag one over the finish line. As one might expect, the early Christian Fathers loved the idea of Exemplarism. They replaced Iamblichus polytheism with one God: Jesus the Son. For Christians only Jesus the Son can pull one over the finish line to the divine realms. Let us move ahead to St. Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century to observe how Exemparism developed in the Christian world, and the crucial effect it had on Western thought. In the metaphysics of both St. Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas our physical realm only contains analogies to the divine realm. A simple example should prove illustrative. Water is often used as an analogy to explain how electricity functions. But, no matter how much or how little water one has it is never electricity. Water is not electricity. In the philosophies of Bonaventure and Aquinas this is all we have of the knowledge we can have about the divine qualities, unless God intervenes. I have used Bonaventure and Aquinas because they were the last Christian thinkers to use Exemplarism in this way. The decisive break in the way Exemplarism works came with Duns Scotus. Duns Scotus redefined Exemplarism, instead of an analogy the difference between the physical realm and the divine realm is only power. In simpler terms God's power and love are the same as human love and power; it is just that God's love and power are a lot more powerful than human love and power. This was the crack that broke the qualitative paradigm, and brought about the present quantitative paradigm. People started to think if there is no difference except for quantity then there might not be a qualitative difference between the matter above and below the rotation of the Moon. After Duns Scotus, William of Ockham took a crowbar to the crack Duns Scotus had made. This is how the quantitative paradigm triumphed over the qualitative paradigm. Thus the modern world with the quantitative paradigm was born. I have decided to add some bonus material to this "Fragment". The reason being this "Fragment" is very short, and I do not have any place this material would fit. I could write another "Fragment" but that seems unnecessary. It seems that I am destined to play the part of Balaam to my Christian and Jewish friends and readers. As I am trying to take a third person view of the clash of Gods, and Goddesses. As a note Balaam is my favorite character in the Bible since I first met him in my youth when I first encountered him in Numbers 22-24. I want to present some ideas and they are speculative ideas on Moses and the ten commandments. The episode in Moses' life I want to explore is what the Isrealites were doing when Moses was on the mountain. The question I am trying to answer is: Why was Moses so angry at the Israelites when he came down from the mountain. According to the Catholic Bible I use, Moses ordered the slaughter of 50 men because of the incident. It seems an over reaction if all they were doing was feasting and doing sensual dances with glistening, oiled bodies. LIke it is usually portrayed in movies and comic book versions. So let us go back and examine the refugees that Moses was leading. The first thing we can get rid of out of the official narrative is the feasting. The crowd that followed Moses were starving and afraid. They were not carrying a lot of food. It hardly seems worth slaughtering 50 men over some dancing and sensuality. What I think happened. Moses left his afraid, starving people while he took a month to go talk to God. Leaving his starving, scared people leaderless. The key to what happened is the Golden Calf. The answer to our question lies in the symbol of the Golden Calf. The Golden Calf was a symbol of Moloch. The Bible tells us they were sacrificing, but what were they sacrificing? Probably not the animals they were so dependent on. The answer is of course they were sacrificing their children. Moloch is a God one looks to for prosperity. And I am sure Moloch would look kindly on eating some of the sacrificial victims, since our word for cannibal comes from the ancient term for a Priest of Baal, and probably for Moloch. The starving and afraid Israelites were sacrificing their children. This is why Moses was so extra-angry

Fragment 48

This "Fragment" is going to be a short one due to the fact my personal situation still has not been resolved. At the end of my last "Fragment" I said that I would explore some of the material from a more mythological point of view. In this Fragment I shall take up two topics. The first topic shall be on the patron demon of serial killers; another addition to modern Demonology, and the second topic shall be on practice. I shall give some tips on self- remembering. So let us begin. I have coined the name "Cyrax" for the name of the demon of serial killers. The "Cyr" for serial and the "ax" for "Factor X" as Dennis Rader called it. "Factor X" stands for the compulsion to kill. Cyrax is a modern demon that was born due to compartmentalized thinking. Cyrax usually possess young males of all races, and sometimes women. The idea he was a demon confined to young white males has been exploded. Cyrax, like all Egregores, wants to be in charge; to be a person's homunculus. The trouble is a person cannot function in daily life if Cyrax is in charge. So Cyrax gets hidden in a compartment, where he can grow in power, to break out when the pressure becomes too much. When the pressure becomes too strong the possessed Cyrax take over the person to vent his rage in killing, rape, and torture. The reason Cyrax can take over a person is because of the lack of a permanent self. In compartmentalized thinking there are a bunch of different selves competing for control. Serial killers never have a strong sense of self, instead they feel weak, and divided. Remember Freud said the mission of psychoanalysis is to strengthen the self. At the same time as Freud, both Aleister Crowley and G.I. Gurdjieff were also proposing ways to strengthen the self. (In a future Fragment I shall talk about the timing of this movement to strengthen the self) If one does not have a permanent self he-she this becomes an invitation for Egregores. I call Cyrax a demon because he does not care much what happens to the host body. Cyrax is an Egregore that has its own agenda, and cares nothing about the host. In her book The person becomes a servant of Cyrax. In her book "The Stranger besides Me" Ann rule felt that as a child Ted Bundy did not develop a self; there was no depth to Ted Bundy, he had lost control of the different compartments that took turns running his life. This is why he had almost no control over his compulsions. Let us leave serial killers for now and move on to practice. Rituals, meditations, and self-remembering should be practiced every day. As Aleister Crowley said somewhere it is the drip, drip, drip of everyday practice that leads to results. If you want to take one day off a week; go ahead. It is best to view your daily practice like a diet. it does no good to stick to a diet for a day,or a week. Also remember that daily practice gives access to powerful energies. It is the discipline of daily practice that keeps the energies in balance. Your practice should be integrated into your daily life like a diet. I am not going into the "nuts and bolts" of daily practice, but I have some tips on self-remembering that have helped me in the past. Unlike most spiritual practices self-remembering can be done around people; one can practice while doing daily errands, or having a conversation. We shall begin with the first exercise that is best practiced while walking around. I used to use it every day walking to work. Try to shift your center of consciousness to the region of the solar plexus while doing your daily errands. If you lose focus, remind yourself. I used to tell myself to "wake up" when I lost focus. The purpose of self-remembering is to observe the mechanical reactions to stimuli. Brief conversations can be helpful, most of our responses in small talk are all mechanical. I used to think of it as tapes going off in my head when certain stimuli happened. I found out most of my daily life was mechanical. Let us now move to the second exercise which is a lot more difficult, and requires other people. This is not a difficulty since they are not required to do anything special. This self-remembeing exercise was inspired by Aleister Crowley and his command at the Abbey of Thelema at Cefalu Italy. Crowley commanded his follower to say "one" instead of "I". I have modified this practice for use in conversations. What one does is drop the word "I" from the conversation. Some examples ,instead of saying "I will meet you at the park, " I would say "meet you at the park". Another example: instead of saying "here I am' I would say "here am" Do not worry anyone shall notice their minds put in the missing I without them being aware of it. And when a fellow seeker tried it on me I did not notice either. This exercise is incredibly hard; try to do it for 15 minutes. I got to an hour once. These exercises really show one how mechanical they are.

Fragment 47

Due to unfortunate circumstances that have gone on longer than I thought they would, I have been unable to write. Thus, no "Fragments" recently. The main reason I was unable to write is because I had to put my library in storage. I do have access to the Public Library, and the internet, but it is not the same. In the time I have had without my library; I have been watching "You Tube" videos, and reading some "True Crime" books. The "YouTube" videos have included many by and about Iain McGilchrist, and his split brain theories. I have never had an interest in true crime. It was my psychologist that suggested the genre to me. It turned out for the best. While I was reading true crime books, I started to read about serial killers. I soon realized that serial killers are a microcosm of the problems with compartmentalized thinking. The serial killers that most interested me were Ted Bundy (The Ted killer), Dennis Rader (the B.T.K. killer), and Gary Ridgeway (the Green river killer). I like to give credit where credit is due. So here are some of the books I found useful: Paul Holes "Unmasked" S. Singular "Unholy Messenger" Ann Rule "The Stranger Beside Me" and "Green River Running Red". I want to make a note on Ann Rule. Her book "The Stranger Beside Me" is her masterpiece, and well worth reading. Besides giving us an illuminating portrait of Ted Bundy, it also should be read by "Would be" writers. It details the work Rule put into becoming a well known writer. All the pulps she started writing for and how she eventually got into the slick magazines, until finally reaching success with her book about Ted Bundy. It also shows her integrity, something every writer should have. She never burned a source, she never lied to Police or the killers and criminals she wrote about. So in this "Fragment" I shall explore some of the insights that the study of serial killers and split brain psychology has given me. I shall also mention some topics that may become future "Fragments". So let us begin. In some ways I agree with McGilchrist and in some way I do not. I agree with much of his diagnosis of our society, but have reservations about his prescriptions on how to heal society. To begin we shall examine serial killers to observe they are in many ways the "Canary in the Coal Mine" of what is wrong with modern society, and our thinking. The first characteristic that impresses one about serial killers is that they are great at compartmentalized thinking. They can go on brutal killing sprees, and then go back to a normal life. Having families and normal jobs. Compartmentalized thinking is, of course, the left brain that controls rational thought. Yes, rational thinking is not enough to insure morality, but more on this point later. I was naive about this, thinking that anyone capable of such violence would stand out. Which is not the case. Dennis Rader (who I found the most fascinating of the serial killers I studied) had a steady job, a stable home life, was President of his congregation at church, and held some low level municipal office. In simple terms: Rader was a pillar of the community. Gary Ridgeway had a stable family life and held the same job for decades. He was considered a model employee. Ted Bundy was the celebrity serial killer, he was as much a part of the seventies and eighties as John Travolta, Eddie Murphy, and Harrison Ford. He was good looking, highly intelligent and the easy cocksure arrogance of the age. LIke Charles Manson was part of the sixties and the hippie movement, and Bonnie and Clyde was the depression era, so was Ted Bundy was an exemplar of the eighties. His flamboyant behavior in court was as much a part of the eighties as MTV. Bundy when he was free was also a high functioning member of society. He worked on political campaigns, has a high grade point average in College, and also worked at a suicide hot lime. The suicide hot line is where Ann Rule met him. She says he was patient and understanding on the phone to the troubled callers. As one can observe Rader, Ridgeway, and Bundy were all very different people, leading very different lives. Bundy had a high I.Q., Ridgeway was low normal. There was nothing about Ridgeway that would remind anyone of Bundy. Ridgeway had the same job for decades painting Kenworth trucks. Found his dates at "Parents without Partners'. Ridgeway screams average guy, as Bundy screams 80s celebrity. Yet, they all had some things in common: they were all experts at compartmentalized thinking and serial killers. Notice how high functioning in society they were, they were all higher functioning than most occultists I know. The answer is compartmentalized thinking, the mentally ill fit well into a society that is mentally ill. Our society and thinking are controlled by compartmentalized thinking and the left brain. Serial killers resemble in many ways our demented insane ruling class. As I said before, serial killers are the canary in the coal mine. They tell us something has gone radically wrong with our society. We know that the left brain or compartmentalized thinking tries to deny the reality of magickal thinking or right brain thinking. Denying reality is a characteristic of left brain thinking. The left brain is absurdly optimistic, and it also suffers from Narcissism. All characteristics of our worthless, corrupt media, and our leaders. Let us move to some examples. The modern day journalist-activist acts like that only the stories they report on really happened. There is no problem finding examples. The Hunter Biden laptop and Russiagate are two wonderful examples of this. Even when the stories are proven true, the news media never acknowledges its mistakes or apologizes for their errors. The Journalism awards given reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election were never given back or recalled because they were wrong. Like Serial killers our worthless, corrupt news media makes absurd excuses, and blame other people for their failings. This is all typical of compartmentalized thinking. This is why serial killers can go from brutal assaults back to ordinary life without trouble with no problem. Serial killers can put all their rage into a box when they are at their jobs or with their families. Dennis Rader would even give up carefully planned attacks to get back before his wife worried about him. In the recent murders in Moscow Idaho the killer went to class after his attack on the students. This is also why our leaders can implement dangerous policies and then act like nothing's wrong. In a previous "Fragment" I discussed E.S.G. E.S.G. caused the collapse and pain in Sri Lanka. Like serial killers the people that brought about the collapse felt no guilt or remorse, in fact they still feel like they are the good people that are trying to save the planet, even if they have to starve many many people to death. In a similar fashion Ridgeway felt he was performing a public service in getting prostitutes off the street. It is the right brain or magickal thinking that ties everything together. Compartmentalized thinking allows one to distance themselves from their crimes whether it is killing prostitutes or starving a population. Like I said, serial killers and our leaders share a mind set. They are narcissistic, and masters of compartmentalized thinking. Serial killers are weak, they are pursued by law enforcement and get called out by the media. Our leaders are strong, there is no one to police them, and the media covers for them. As I said serial killers are a microcosm to the ruling class they both share the same thinking. Let us look at another topic to illustrate my thesis. In a previous "Fragment" I did a review of Lenord Shlain's book: "The Goddess versus the Alphabet" . In the book Shlain examines the animus that compartmentalized thinking has against women. He examines the Witch Hunters of the Medieval times and Renaissance. I have also been doing some study of the Witch Hunters and may write a future "Fragment" on them. Anyways, to the point. Compartmentalized thinking does not like femininity. The Witch Hunters would have been fine with not hurting or killing women if they could have removed the femininity from women. Compartmentalized thinking prefers machines or non living things to living things. This can be observed in all the killers I mentioned above. Ann Rule talks about how Bundy had better relationships with things (cars, equipment, etc.) than people. Women are the life bearers, the creators of new life, so of course, compartmentalized thinking does not like them. Modern Feminism and the Trans rights movements are extensions of this. The same people that want to transition children are the same type to people that became Witch Hunters. I have learned that the vast majority of teenage transitioners are girls. I have heard up to 70%.are young women. What a perfect way to remove the feminine from women. Again we see compartmentalized thinking at work. The trans rights activists have shut away in a box all the negative effects of transitioning. That one has taken a healthy teenage girl and made her dependent on drugs for the rest of their lives. Not to mention that they lose fertility and have their genitals mutilated. I remember in the not too distant past that feminists had rallies and fought against genital mutilation. A lot of feminism is about taking the feminine out of women. Modern feminism wants women to act like men. Telling them not to have families or children. There are too many examples for me to list. I am sure the reader can find them with no problem. One more example of the connection between serial killers and our ruling and chattering classes. As I said serial killers can put their rage in a box only to release when the tension becomes unbearable. Of course, serial killers vent their rage by murdering people, mostly women. Our elites do the same thing. The easiest example of this is the George Floyd riots. The Establishment class was mad about the election of the 45th president, so they vented their rage on helpless people, just like Ridgeway and Bundy took out their rage on an innocent and largely helpless population. They approached just like a serial killer plans an attack. They had everything set up; they only needed an opportunity. That opportunity came in the arrest and death of George Floyd. It was all a manipulation. The press blew up the story making sure it would go national. The Progressive Governors, and Mayors pulled back the police so the rioters could have a free hand. They even set up a bail fund to get violent protestors back on the streets quickly. The 2020 riots were the elites venting their rage on the population. One may have noticed that there has been no congressional investigation or a media investigation on the victims of the riots. I know two people that were harmed during the riots. The Police Officer that got shot in the back of the head in Las Vegas while directing traffic. This led to a 29 yr. old man becoming a paraplegic. The other person was a friend in San Diego that got thrown into oncoming traffic by B.L.M protestors, again he had his back to them so it was not provoked. Why were people getting shot and being physically assaulted so far away from Minnesota? The reason is of course the press was all in on the plan, they did not care who got hurt. As a matter of record, they acted just like a serial killer when called out. The excuse that it was mostly peaceful and that it was a good thing that happened. This is just like Ridgeway telling the police that he was doing a service by getting rid of prostitutes, or all of Bundy's excuses. The Ukraine war is another example which I will not go into, of the elites venting their rage. I started this "Fragment" with a medical analogy so I shall continue with another medical analogy. That of side effects of drugs. There really are no side effects to drugs, all effects are direct effects. What are called "side effects" are the unwanted effects of a drug. The trouble with calling them "side effects' is it gives the impression that these are secondary effects of the drug that can easily be mitigated. And this is not true, all effects are direct effects of the drug. So let us take another example from the ruling class. That of social engineering. The term "Social engineering" is another misleading term. It gives the impression of precision. There is no precision in social engineering. It is just experimenting on people. The bad effects of social engineering are all direct effects, there are no side effects that can be easily mitigated. Let me use an example to illustrate. I shall start with two perspectives I have heard from very smart African-Americans. The first one was a lady who is involved with economics and its effect on Black families. She was talking about how Black families have very low human capital. This would be when an older relative loans a young couple money to buy a house, and then they work like hell to pay it off. The trouble with many Black families is there are no wealthy relatives to help a young couple. This is of course all true, but why is it true? The second perspective was from an old Black Minister. He told me that the Black community withstood slavery, the Civil War, reconstruction and Jim Crow. but could not stand against two Columbia professors. He was of course referring to Cloward and Piven. They are the ones that came up with the strategy to destroy the Black family. The Left has long wanted to radicalize Blacks. They fit the criteria the Left loves: fragile , vulnerable community. The left loves vulnerable populations. Just like in the Trans-rights movement they have picked teenagers who are still searching for a sense of self. The method they used to destroy black families was to separate the father from the wife and children. They did this through welfare benefits. Destroying the Black family has long and still is a goal of the left. When B.L.M. They used to have a statement of their goals and beliefs, which has since been taken down. One of the statements was to destroy the nuclear family. I know a lot of people want to say this just means accepting non-traditional families but that is not the real purpose. They have said what they mean; they want to destroy your family. Anyone who wants to destroy your family is not your friend and does not have your best interests at heart. For those who want further information on this subject should read Manning Johnson's book: "Color, Communism, and Common Sense". This is all typical of left brain thinking, the desire for everything to be mechanical. Compartmentalized thinking is how all this happened. Communities are not thought of as living breathing individuals who have something in common. Instead they are thought of as abstractions to be used and experimented on. This is also why all Utopians want perfect conformity in thought and doctrine. They want to deal with humans as if they were machines. So let us conclude with some final thoughts. The effects of compartmentalized thinking should be obvious. This is why our leaders and serial killers have so much in common. They have both become experts in compartmentalized thinking. The difference between serial killers and the ruling class is that serial killers are weak; while our ruling class is strong. There is no police to answer to, we have a worthless, corrupt media that covers for them. It is all mass manipulation. In this "Fragment" I have only looked at one side of this. In a future "Fragment" I shall look at the same issues from an occult point of view. One final topic to deal with: what is the prescription? As I said, I do not agree with McGilchrists prescription to the problem. McGilchrist believes that all we have to do is make people aware of what is happening. This fallacy goes back to the Classical Greeks idea: That if you show men the good, they shall follow it. This fallacy seems to stick around no matter how many times it fails in practice, but then again, education has always been a great hope to Utopians. This is a case where we do not want to recognize the truth. My prescription is occult practice. Why the occult and not some religion? In this age many of the traditional ways to experience the divine are closed. The right hand path is too corrupted, its way to the divine is closed to us. When I say practice I mean sustained practice. Do the rituals so many times that the ritual seems to be doing you, meditate, and self-remember every day. Our leaders are insane and dangerous.