by guest blogger
VH Frater A.A. (5=6)
Rosicrucian Order of A.O.
Carete Fratres et Sorores,
Nick Farrell is really spinning now – I will make a few quotes from today’s whacky blog post, but the essence of it is that he has now taken to framing parts of his critique against the A+O and our GH Imperator behind the words and opinions of others who are not named. One a German Rosicrucian who plans to publish material that “will show that the Golden Dawn was a waste of space and will identify the real sources of magic and Rosicrucianism” (!) and another, a lady from the UK who allegedly sees “the flame wars within the Golden Dawn as symptomatic of kids playing with matches” as a result of “not receiving valid training within the Golden Dawn system.” Furthermore, Farrell assures us that both of these are writers… (are we invited to play pin the tail on the esoteric donkey yet?)
Well, well. What do we have here then? Farrell is bringing his big guns out to the playground to spread his message of shock and awe. His own opinion is no longer adequate to the task at hand, so he is now announcing his own “Secret Chiefs”!
He will probably now say that he didn’t attack GH Frater L.e.S. in this blog, after all, he is now using quotes from others to do that for him.
What he now publishes is a broadside against the ENTIRE Golden Dawn – as a ding an sich… and so now we must respond not just to Farrell but to his secret friends in German Masonic circles! Allegedly: “His theory was that because too many people who should not rise to the top have done so the Golden Dawn is completely tainted.”
Sigh. One does not have to dig too deep to realize who Farrell aims to label here as tainting the entire GD Egregore. He didn’t have the courage to say it in his own words, but this is plainly Farrell’s response to the trouncing he has had in various public fora over the last few days.
In essence then:
1) Farrell and his reconstructionist, pseudo-academic buddies attack A+O at every opportunity – publishing our rituals, promoting vile rumours, using information hacked from our private spaces, writing snide accusations in his books behind a cover of not explicitly naming us, using spies… the list goes on…
2) When A+O defends itself against this aggression – the same attackers then turn on us and accuse us of promoting flame wars and poisoning the GD Egregore.
Of course, I am forgetting myself – Farrell didn’t say that did he – no, it was only his German friend who said that. Farrell just used it to create the implication when he quoted the same source as saying: “When the head of a Golden Dawn order, like David Griffin feels that it is perfectly acceptable to order his group to attack a writer online there is something deeply rotten in the egregrore of the system.”
Let us be clear. This was not an ORDER. This was an answer to a request made to him in person at the recent Conclave. The request was “how can we help you with all these constant attacks that you have on the Internet? How can we free your time so that you can work instead on providing us with the New Magic?” The irony of it is that at that moment all was quiet on the Western Front, but we all knew that our success might all too soon bring the jealous crazies out in force.
Later in this polemic Farrell adds: “People who accept what their leadership says, without question, have no place in magic. Neither do leaders who think of making such orders.” What a shame he intends this as a slur on our Order – he finally wrote something that we all agree on!
I refer the reader to what I already wrote above. This slur does not in any way describe the RO of A+O and if his spies are doing their jobs then Farrell actually knows this all too well.
In the final paragraphs, Farrell does not appear to be directly implicating our Order of being anti-women, or anti-gay, or anti-whatever when he says that some GD groups have such members, but as usual, he does not choose to specifically exclude us from this criticism either. Only one GD leader has been specifically named in the blog. Only one GD related group is implicated directly in the blog. Guess who!!!
The same technique employed in the offensive paragraph in his book is now applied here. It is less overt, but the method is unchanged. Some will obviously read this and draw those false conclusions. Farrell will once again have spread some hatred and lies through his journalistic flourish, and will be ready with the rote denials.
At some point this vomiting of filth and poison will turn and bite the source. The shady German Rosicrucian who is so experienced in magic will be able to confirm this Occult Law to Farrell.
We can at best but wish him healing; he is clearly a tortured soul.
We can all invent talking heads to spout our opinionating for us.
ReplyDeleteNot quite sure why we should be impressed by the opinions of two anonymous writers...
It is tragically comic to watch how Nick Farrell refuses to take any responsibility for his own actions and instead keeps trying desperately to blame an imaginary straw man he is creating called "the evil David Griffin".
ReplyDeleteFarrell, caught defaming an entire order, is trying to drag the entire Golden Dawn community into a third grade food fight, merely to divert attantion from that he is caught slagging your order in his book.
Good for you guys, for not fighting back, but instead just holding up a mirror exposing his sick antics.
This sort of sick behavior blaming others did not work for Zink. It will not work for Farrell either. Like Zink before him, Farrell will wind up on the rubbish heap of Golden Dawn history if he keeps this up.
The funny thing is that Nick's mysterious German friend told me that Nick specifically published his book just to attack the HOGD/A+O.
ReplyDeleteHe also conveniently ignores any voice that gives clarity on the actual valid use of non-contiguous quotation. As a pro writer you would think he would know...
ReplyDeleteFrom a lawyer: With all due respect, Mr. Farrell, your writer friends are probably not giving you an unbiased opinion. Without question, the HOGD/AO is caught up in the wide net that you cast regarding your discussion of modern personality golden dawn cults in your Introduction. It is not explicit, it is implied. The very fact that your negative description in your Introduction is so lose as to potentially include potentially several groups and/or individuals (including the HOGD/AO), gives one pause to wonder how this could not be intentional on your part. It is the effect of the negative association, however, that is damaging to the reputation of the HOGD/AO. Whether or not you intended this is irrelevant. The effect is there, and only you have the power to alter that, whether or not it was intended in the first instance.
You say that Mr. Griffin bothched your words in his quotation of your work, and that he did this with specific intent to deceive people and to twist your words into something that they are not.
This did not happen. Your writers' analysis as to whether your introduction, as selectively quoted by Mr. Griffin, somehow changes the content and meaning of your work is hardly compelling. In fact, when your introduction is read in whole, not solely the selective quote by Mr. Griffin, it is even more clear to the reader that the HOGD/AO is implicated in your disparaging assessment. So, the missing material from Mr. Griffin's quotation (the irrelevant material) only adds strength to Mr. Griffin's argument. This set of circumstances strongly leads me to believe that there was no intent to deceive by Mr. Griffin, because the redacted material would have helped the Mr. Griffin's argument, not detracted from it.
I don't want to parse and analyze Mr. Griffin's quotation piece by piece in this forum and compare it to the source from whence it came. I don't believe that is necessary because it is so simple. Any curious reader can do this themselves and come to their own conclusion.
In sum, your words were quoted, not concocted. They were quoted in context, because the context did not change from where the quotes were extracted. And the minimal mistake made by Mr. Griffin in not showing there was a break in the quote in the last sentence changes nothing in the larger analysis.