r es on ato n J Cre Si & r ito Ed

It is with great pleasure that I introduce to you the contributors of the Grotto Magazine. Inspired by Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, each issue will present a unique approach to social issues, while providing critical thinking and coping tools in discourse analysis and conflict resolution. As Editor and Chief, I will be your guide to a descent into the mind.

Marly Preston
Composer, Black Artist

Wayne Lee
A man on a mission

Lori Robinson
Writer, Press Agent

Steven J. Leyba Artist

Dan Dread

Joseph Gitchuway



The Grotto magazine… A descent into power.

Spring 2012

Through an honest approach of social issues, culture, and politics; we offer a peek into the rationality of people who live it. It is through their own personal disciplines, self-awareness, and judgment that we leave no stone un-turned. We are the explorers of the abysmal self, the fearless descent inward before we can ever spiral upward. It is our hope that readers will find their own way down into the depths of Truth.

4.Musings with Wayne Lee
Mouse to Ear: Computer Mediated Communication

7. Forms of Life by Steven Leyba
Shadow of being

10. R.I.P America by Marly Preston

An American Death March

11. Interrogistic Respect, by Interrogist
Interrogist Methodologies

13. We creators, by Lori Robinson
A fiction?

14. Honor, by Dan Dread

Spiraling Upward

15. Confessions of a Ceremonialist

Joseph Gitchuway confession
Modern thinkers come together in the Grotto, to share their ideas, and provide a platform for a mind to mind exchange.

17. Taming Primal Essence, by SIN JONES

A question for a new age

20. Conversational Intolerance, by SIN JONES

Experiential knowledge, method, and primal essence; a way to refine our human experience.


Editor’s Note: Identifying the conflict is one thing, and resolving it is another. In moments of social discourse, in order to foster healthy disagreements for contrast and comparison, it would behoove you to understand the importance of thinking more critically, while utilizing useful coping skills which directly affect your own experience.

ommunication is the activity of conveying information. It requires a sender, a message and a recipient. The commucation process is completed once the recipient has understood the message of the sender. Sounds simple, right? Well, sometimes looks can be deceiving. For over 20 years, I have worked as a grassroots community organizer in Chicago. My focus was primarily on low-income minority neighborhoods plagued by poverty, unemployment, drugs, crime, violence, and various other social maladies. My mission was to help empower those communities by organizing neighborhood residents so that they could collectively pursue solutions to the problems facing them.

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”
- George Bernard Shaw

My mission was to help empower those communities by organizing neighborhood residents so that they could collectively pursue solutions to the problems facing them. Needless to say, the ability to communicate effectively was essential to my work. As an integral part of my job, I was frequently required to speak publicly to groups of inner-city residents about various social issues. Eager to prove myself knowledgeable, and to inspire confidence in my audience, I would often deliver bombastic, over-the-top performances; liberally quoting poets and philosophers, and referencing other obscure historical

figures and events. Keep in mind; the large majority of my audience never finished high school. I’ll never forget one occasion where, after what I considered to be a particularly awesome speech, a community member approached me and said, “As usual, you were great! I have absolutely no idea what you were talking about, but you sure sounded convincing!” That rather embarrassing incident taught me an important (and obvious) lesson: No matter how clever you think you are, no matter how large your vocabulary might be, you are only communicating if your listener understands what you are trying to say.

Sadly, I no longer live in Chicago or work as an organizer. In fact, I’m not working at all. The irony of my situation does not escape me. After all those years of championing the cause of the poor and unemployed, I now find myself squarely among their ranks. But the bright side is that now I have a lot of free time on my hands. And I spend a great deal of that time online. Much has been said in the media recently about the danger of Americans (especially youth) spending excessive amounts of time online. Specifically, the concern is that more time spent socializing in cyberspace means less time spent engaged in in-person, face-to-face conversation. According to the experts, this trend may retard the development of social skills in general, and communication skills in particular. Face-to-face communication relies, not merely on the meaning of the words spoken, but also on a variety of verbal and physical clues, including voice volume and tenor, intonation, verbal emphasis, facial expression, eye contact, body language, hand gestures and posture. These all color and shade the meaning of the words uttered. In other words, in-person dialogue entails not just what one says, but also how one says it. Written communication, on the other hand, lacks the support of any such clues.

It must rely solely on the naked meaning of the written word. Thus, precision in word selection, and the utilization of a writing style appropriate for the target audience, are paramount in conveying the meaning intended. The key to successful written communication, online or otherwise, is the realization that words are tools. You would not attempt to perform brain surgery with a chainsaw, or chop down a tree with a butter knife. You would select the right tool for the job. The same should hold true for written language. The wrong choice of words can be disastrous when attempting to make a subtle point in writing. Needless formality, or use of technical jargon, is not appropriate for casual conversation. Conversely, use of slang, or local dialect, may prove ineffective in making a technical point, or when dialoguing with someone who is unfamiliar with the vernacular. The educational and cultural background of the person(s) being addressed, as well as the overall purpose of the conversation, must always be considered in determining what words should be utilized. A major pet peeve of mine is the overuse of popular online abbreviations (i.e., chat acronyms, text message shorthand). Personally, I view this lexicon of acronyms, keyboard symbols and shortened words as a sort of “cyber-Ebonics.” Although originally developed as convenient timesavers, these writing shortcuts are rapidly becoming cyber-culture memes.

The notion that they should be unquestioningly accepted as a legitimate part of online culture is as disingenuous as the parallel apologist argument regarding the inappropriate use of ethnic slang by certain poorly-educated African-Americans. Bad English the inappropriate use of ethnic slang by certain poorly-educated African-Americans. Bad English is bad English…period. In my opinion, though somewhat useful when moderately employed as parenthetic asides (e.g., LOL), excessive use of this socalled “netspeak” serves only to foster confusion, obscure meaning and stifle understanding. On the other hand, the ever popular “emoticons” actually serve a practical purpose. They have evolved to compensate for the absence of physical and verbal clues. These sickeningly cute, stylized facial expressions help supplement the meaning of a written statement by providing an emotional subtext. For example, consider the following statement:

“You suck!”
Now, the same statement with an emoticon:

“You suck!” :)
See the difference?

“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I„m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.” - Robert McCloskey


Although not appropriate in all situations, used sparingly, emoticons can be useful tools for clarifying the meaning of an otherwise ambiguous written statement. Even more important than precise wording, careful phrasing, and the strategic use of emoticons in clarifying meaning online is good ol’ fashioned dialogue. I spend a great deal of time online in discussion forums debating emotionally-charged topics such as culture, politics, religion, sex and spirituality. Routinely, I will intentionally suggest a controversial idea, or advocate an unpopular position, merely to provoke thought or generate conversation. And routinely, I am initially perceived as a “troll,” or worse yet, just some ignorant asshole who doesn’t know any better. Needless to say, I am neither a troll, nor am I ignorant. As for my being an asshole; well, reasonable minds may disagree. Anyway, my point is that usually the ideas and positions that I advance are carefully calculated to provoke a visceral response, even though at first glance they I advance are carefully calculated to provoke a visceral response, even though at first glance they may appear to be uninformed or
1 2

mean-spirited. It is only through dialectic interaction…dialogue… that my true intentions eventually become apparent.

It could be argued that the perceived limitations of written online communication actually serve to promote dialogue, and, consequently, the critical reexamination and creative recombination of old ideas, which invariably leads to the synthesis of exciting new ideas with direct contact with so many minds easily accessed. In conclusion, I proffer the following: While the growing trend of online interpersonal interaction may potentially weaken some communication skills, it may also potentially strengthen others. Instead of decrying the potential detriments, we should embrace the potential benefits. Computer-mediated communication is only going to increase in coming years, notwithstanding the dire warnings from the experts. For better or worse, our lives are becoming increasingly d e pe n de n t o n co m pu t e r technology. That includes our social lives. We must evolve. We must adapt. We have no choice. In other words…Resistance is

Dialectic1 is derived from the Greek word dialektos meaning conversation. Ancient Greek
philosophers2, such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, employed this method as a means of acquiring and imparting knowledge. The process involves systematically testing ideas by comparing and contrasting them against opposing ideas. The underlying premise is that it is easier to understand something when it is seen in relationship to what it is not. In theory, this back and forth exchange of ideas eventually leads to truth (or some semblance thereof). In any event, dialectic, or dialogue, in person verbally or online in writing, tends to be the most effective way for two parties to achieve a meeting of minds3ii.


Douglas - Harper Etymology Dictionary Readings in ancient Greek philosophy: From Thales to Aristotle S. Marc Cohen, Patricia Curd, C. D. C. Reeve 3 Savigny, Friedrich Carl von: System des heutigen römischen Rechts Berlin , 1840, Will Theory of Contract

Computer-mediated communication refers to communicative transactions that occur between two or more networked computers. This article is concerned primarily with text-based communication, including chats, blogs and e-zines (like this one).
ii iii

See: Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Volume 1, Issue 4, March 1996

Meetings of the Mind, implies a mutual agreement of cooperation. Even if the discussion ensued unsolicited, in order for it to be mutually beneficial for all parties involved, there must be a mutual cooperation to engage in conversation; otherwise there will be further conflict arising to be resolved.


model our others. We s of g the shadow like anythin our lives in n’t seem to e do and We live me is that w hilosophy, dead ideas rse of our ti p art, dead e becomes ad. The cu al and activ es of the de things, dead liv ad and vit mstyle by the ) we like de ss is proble w and fluid lives and life est (especially America t this realne Anything ne al bu dead. viding 1 ew d from the at may be re lness, rather than pro REAL . In th mething th lives scripte e rea for so live their to symboliz laceholders people that and an icon s. We like p ideal our live d and r simplified a threat to sy, automate an image o e want they are ea is ause atic, so w on authority d death bec ing real. n. To questi ilt on lies an n upo ty” bu someth nd d our “reali looked dow our times a our lives an spection is pectacle of intro the s We live terriinking and ke. We love roclaim it a bellion’s sa l. Critical th s flag and p g for re f contro bellin d State e to devices o presentativ g of a Unite aranoia or re a form of p nted and re t the burnin s prese rotes d now seen a refer the re Many will p okesmen an sents. We p elves why? refer the sp urs ep g repre do to never ask o shunned. W hat that fla are going to level and is w talk of w n every what they t but fe al ared o about ble affron o well if actu ll kinds is fe ers talking . Truth of a nowing all to whole care eir nge k the actuality at spend th mbol of cha ideas and im of politics th nslaved by me other sy en ct so e are e spokeswom er do we ele The manuuld hurt. W controlled. en they nev nd that wo and es a nd wh ves. make chang ey are dead “save us” a ty” of our li e’d have to broadcast th place w pt the “reali es are k imag nd scri change too e ideas and ent define a elves. oment thes entertainm rote it ours em nd inced we w “leaders”, a ages and th d conv edia, nd controlle orse we are ality: The m to defined a ter, even w turers of re fac st-wri slaves ey are also en by a gho edom yet th a story writt of fre We live e do s as symbols n so that w d celebritie nd expressio ders an dom a We see lea signify free tems. They free. ys lves or live ideas and s ves. press ourse y of their li ctually ex e screen-pla ot have to a n ing th vie and how , led, follow in some mo o distracted to lebrity at People are ut some ce they were and on abo how great ink o on ause at film, I th Many will g lievable bec hen I see th ere. W ovie is unbe w the m ter great they The charac character in mselves. elves. The ms g the playing the brity playin of the cele think I can only celebrity”. known as “

Guy Debford, Society of Spectacle, AK Press, 2006, ISBN# 0946061122


It does not matter what you do or think it only matters what you feel. Emotional truth is the only truth in our so-called culture these days. How one “FEEEEEELLLSSSSZZ” is more important than any other truth. We are living in a time and culture that encourages and rewards us if we stay children. Arrested development is somehow an American luxury and advancement of the human condition. Grown men and woman act like children. People say “oops” rather than “excuse me” when they bump into someone. Everyone is a play-thing to someone else, and we are all playthings of the Global Media Multi-National Corporate State. It doesn’t matter how someone else feels, it matters how “I” feel. We see the dumbing down of the sciences, philosophy, politics, the arts and even architecture is dead (replaced by standard unified engineered prototypes). I think it is pathetic to walk into an art supply store and the first things I see are toys as if the very act of “creating” is looked upon by the opulent like a child playing with his own shit, “Go play now Billy”. The dominant painting style in America is what is called “Pop-Surrealism” but it is neither “Pop” nor “Surrealism” it is a sort of candy colored realistically rendered depiction of toys, toy logos and infant like figures. Many modern Painters paint cartoons like Batman and Scooby-Doo or some breakfast cereal mascots, isn’t it ironic don’t ya think? I have a deep-seated hatred for these artists and what they paint and what shallow and hollow things they represent. I see them as propagandists for the Multi-nationals not unlike the Soviet “Socialist Realism” style what they paint is also for the state the Corporate State “Cartoon Corporate Socialist Realism”. I know it is some sort of scripted rebellion against abstraction and much of modernism and a glorification of some dumb ideal of youth. Why does their work not make me feel young again or yearn for my childhood days? I feel nothing but contempt for the POPagandists. I find our times pretty silly and appalling. We are in the age of bankruptcy of the imagination. I am 45 not 5 and the way I am talked down to by the media, celebrities and so called leaders and elected “officials” is disgusting. I am not a child and I am not a thing. Am I the only one sick of being treated like a child by the culture at large and the cultural fashion police and the celebrity Pop-slaves? Why are we told to “express ourselves” when all we are expressing are copies of copies of copies scripted by the manufacturer? Expressing what someone else has expressed before without making it your own is hardly “expressing yourself”. In the current western system, it is only in sports and economy that anyone can truly be better than anyone else. Sports figures are encouraged to act like children in public and at no time in history have there been so many people with so much money acting so fucking stupid.

The famous are good at playing themselves but what they are playing is a lie, a symbol of some ideal. We see ourselves in them somehow but they are not real they play an idea of themselves as do most people. It is easier for us to think of them as us than to be ourselves. They are shadows of some simplified water down idea or stereotype that is a dumb symbol that signifies nothing and most people are the shadow of the shadow of the shadow. A person was asked on the streets of New York City on September 11th 2001 what it was like to see the planes crash into the buildings and they replied “It was like a movie.” somehow movies have become more real than reality. The movie is the placeholder for actual real events. We see ourselves as things and see our shadows as living beings or worse we see the shadows of what someone else is represented as and we identify with that moving shadow and ignore ourselves and bodies as vital living beings. We prefer the shadows of the dead to signify who and what we are because we cannot or will not deal with our own actual reality.

Infantilism: An infantile trait found in an adult. Patterns of behavior that are typically found in small children. Used in psychology: Infantilism Disorder. See: Ronald Grey Gordon, "Personality", Routledge, 1999, ISBN# 0415210577


Their faces generally have the facial characteristics of children! The New Infantilism of our time puts us at the mercy of the control grid of multi-national corporate culture. I never thought I would ever want to grow up till I saw my Nation’s people grow down. Americans are truly a shadow of what we say and think we are and a shadow of what we used to be. As the shadow casts a shadow and so on is our degenerate devolution.
Steven Johnson Leyba Coyotel Rising!


We are in the age of bankruptcy of the imagination.


Looking around me, I see the slow decay of my liberty, brought on deliberately by the powers that be through the diabolical method of dumbing down the populous. Our complacency grows with every stupid TV show watched, every standard of education lowered and every analytical thought avoided.

THE PETROL!!! The American dream was beautiful but it has become obsolete. It is time for a new and altogether different age. As the sun sets on the American dream, we look to a new dawn, the dawn of the American experience. These are no longer the days when our biggest dread was hearing them shout:

Now is the time to WAKE UP AND SMELL … "THE BRITISH We are distracted by mediocre art, music, dress, culture and entertainment. We walk around as proud billboards of the corporations that exploit us, actively participating in our own degradation. We have so many mechanisms to assure the arrested development in adults. We have men obsessed with ball -games. Like little boys they yell at the TV screen. We have women running around thinking that their value is in their Prada bags and their designer shoes, forever teenage girls, ad nauseum. Remember the great American spirit? Remember when people believed in such concepts as "liberty or death"? At what point did this American spirit become a ghost of a bygone era? And what of the American dream? It's dead! Stop digging it up and poking it with a stick as if it were still alive. It is as dead as dreams. It remains dead because we have killed it with our stupid TV complacency and Hollywood orgasms. Let it rest in peace. It's gone. Now is no time for dreaming anyhow. We should start hating the people in the blue helmets: For it is ARE COMING'!!! “ (In fact I think we might laugh if we heard such a thing. They're not what they used to be.) We don't hate people in red coats any more. That time has past. Let it stay in the past. The town-cry has changed. A new enemy is on the horizon to our Liberty! "THE GLOBALISTS ARE COMING!!! OH FUCK! THE GLOBALISTS ARE COMING!!!"

they who have made the final blow to the American dream.
Rest in peace America. I offer you a death march in your honor. Written by, Marly Preston 10

~Interrogistic Respect and Effective Dialog~
Other than the issue of 'how' to have effective dialog, their exist that question of 'what' an effective dialog is, and addresses the precursors of 'when' and 'why' to have the said dialog in the first place. 'Where' need not be addressed, in the Interrogistic sense, due to my standards being unwavering regardless of the company in which I find myself, and it’s that solidity of standards which sets the Interrogist apart from the common Lefthand pather or Satanist, as most would advocate the changing of philosophical mask in order to accommodate ones company, so as to communicate effectively by way of blending in and adopting the local language and titles. What few realize is that this exposes that the LHP commoner makes many inaccurate and unnecessary pre judgments before adequately assessing the situation. The Interrogistic approach to effective dialog differs in that the interaction in question determines the method, and rejects that inadvertent issue of everyone getting the same treatment or care. This article will discuss the criteria by which intelligent judgments is to be made, and address the issue of respect, on which that judgment is founded. Now I'm not making the claim that the masks are ineffective, as they most certainly are, (in certain circumstances). The thing is, those circumstances are not always present as the mask approach seems to insist. I simply choose not to use that method of communication by default, as my approach is rather direct and omits the desire to gain the respect of everyone that I meet, as do some whom I have met.

or manipulation. I simply don't have that level of respect for 'persons in' or 'the (collective' society of this age; nor do I suspect, it has the true sorcerers of any given age. It’s an issue of respect, and how one defines and enacts that respect, which begs the question, (What is respect)? The Interrogistic approach takes the responsibility of assessing the subject with whom the prospective dialog is to be conducted. The subject’s aptitude is judged in comparison to one’s own, that assessment is judged in comparison with the circumstances present at that time and location. Thus, the issue becomes understanding the criteria by which one ought to judge the situation, rather than the overly simplistic question of how to have an effective dialog. The circumstance is the only factor actually being questioned, as only circumstances pertaining to personal gain would logically dictate that an Interrogist should go out of his/her way so as to communicate effectively with persons of sub-par intellect. The circumstance alone determines the proceedings, as one has no need of effective communication outside of the context of one’s own personal gain, for when one has a dialog with a person of equal intellect, there hardly exist any need to help the other understand your intent, and in the event that the subject is of inferior intellect, the dialog is abandoned in the event that nothing can be gained. If something is indeed to be gained, a deceiving mask is to be drawn from one’s arsenal, so as to fool... The fool. Over all, the common LHPer pays too much respect to the layperson in that the masked approach is held to be the default Occult) position of communication and/ What is respect? Well it’s a word for one, and like any other word, it has its textbook definition. The thing is, like most words, it only indicates what must be experienced rather than read. One must spend a bit of time on both the giving and receiving ends of respect in order to fully appreciate its actual meaning and use. However, it’s more often than not the case that I am witness to those undeserving of respect making the highest demands of respect. It’s odd how that works, don’t you think? So who deserves respect? And why? If someone is clearly in the wrong, is respect to be given anyway, simply because they have ”status?” I think not. If someone is clearly right, should respect be withheld because they possess a negative societal status, and who is it that determines another person’s status for me, as though I have no right to judge the person for myself? Ultimately, I question how it is that respect and status have come to be merged at all? Perhaps respect, much like war, is to be recorded by those who are writing the history, and in fact has nothing to do, whatsoever, with the actual events being just or true.

Interrogist, Wordpress Blog: Obligations of those Interrogistic


Perhaps respect is to be defined by those whose words are permitted to the public ear. Such is the power of the media. Such is the immunity of those who are not subject to the masses and the societal norms.
I hold it to be a sort of truth that I see no need to respect one who has little respect for him/herself, and likewise, no need for interaction. This sentiment has been laid out in my “Obligations of those Interrogistic” Wordpress. After all, it seems only natural to me that the most basic requisite of such a notion is that respect should already be somewhat present where the request is being made. Respect as I see it, is a personal matter, and may be administered or withheld at my disclosure. It has nothing to do with what another thinks it ought to be. The thoughts of others matter little to Interrogist for the simple reason that most Interrogist are more intellectually honest and honorable than the hubris that is the modern world. Respect is much like honor in that regard, and likewise, those confused about respect have about as much of a grasp of honor. Honor and respect are personal issues founded in the mind of the individual, and are not social concepts to which one conforms in order to make headway with a pack or herd. This implies, quite simply, that effective dialog of any sort is sought with others of an equal and respectable aptitude. This level of communication has no issue and may be conducted with relative ease, thus my underlining point would be that, in fact, to (strive) for an effective dialog implies that you are communicating with an inferior being for your own selfish reasons, and respect for that person is not necessary or due. If one’s idea of respect is based on the societal standard, they are not of my kind, and fail to meet my standards, thus fail to earn my respect due to lacking standards of their own. To codify one’s own standard of respect, and of honor, is the recognition of responsibility, and indeed the obligation of the Interrogist. These are my thoughts and only a bit of elaboration on how respect works in the Interrogistic framework which is selfsufficient in that outsiders are not honored or given respect unless circumstances dictate that personal gain is possible and desired. Society’s concept of respect fails on a multitude of levels. For example, if someone were to state a claim which was clearly incorrect, and I accurately correct them, it matters little how polite I was being when doing so. More often than not, the correction is viewed as being rude, and the other party becomes indignant, claiming that I am a being rude or impolite, thus disrespectful. Thus I have often been a rude asshole for simply having taken the time to study a subject and become more knowledgeable than someone who did not. One’s level of knowledge is ignored and only tact is evaluated, thus the society’s judgment adds up to the intellectual/sorcerer (lacking) in manners rather than (gaining) in intelligence. The picture being painted by the western world is one in which intellect is set aside to make the most room for those who kiss the most ass and seek meaningless titles or status. With these lesser persons, an effective dialog is hardly worthwhile.

I have no need of adhering to the idea that I am disrespectful by default of being more informed or of greater aptitude for learning than another who absentmindedly runs off at the mouth. Thus, being a prick or being rude is in the eye of the beholder, as is respect, and often is the response to having been shown up. So, is that to say that I am lacking in respect? Fuck no! It’s to say that I respect the data more than the idiot who misquoted the facts. The Stone is at the core of Interrogistic thought, and the very purpose of the methodology of “Interrogistic philosophical filtration”. I respect the factual data. Look to my Wordpress blog for an explanation of what the "Stone" represents. My natural Interrogation is one that pleases some and displeases others. In all honesty I can say that those who I offend are rarely of any concern to me. Those of sub-par intellect do not merit my politeness even in the event that they have status. I recognize my position on that scale, and fully expect those above myself to dismiss me, and they do. Those who enjoy my company are among the few that I respect, and that respect is in part due to the fact that they don’t become offended when I call them out on their bullshit. Dialog with these persons is hardly ever stressed. Sure, there have been the few exceptions, but very few. It’s the criteria by which one is to make the call that I feel one ought to codify for one’s self. Interrogate, judge and dominate this modern watered down Satanism and those would be Satanist/occultist who lack even the most fundamental understanding, and withhold your respect and dialog for those who are able to earn it. Let others kiss the ring, let others grovel at the feet of modern Satanism's politically correct status quo. Not I. Not an Interrogist. Control is a requisite skill set in any arsenal worth its salt. The thing is, I do not personally equate being rude to being out of control. Control itself, lead to my studies and in the examples above, Interrogist asks the questions and makes me rude towards anyone lacking that level of knowledge. It’s as though some are saying that one should have a sort of default position of calm polite respectfulness, whereas I recognize that as only one of the many available options.

At what point does being polite blur into petting the stupid on the head like some admirable pet?

Written by, Interogist 1

It’s a dirty job waking up the sheep. It’s thankless also. My name is Melody Kreger. Occupation? Destroyer of Perception. I live in what some would call an alternate reality but I would sum it up in one word as 'actuality'. It’s been about two years since the forces that control the population made themselves known to the world. How those who are controlled have no idea that they’re mere puppets is beyond me but in my time fighting to free humanity from its enslavement, I’ve learned that to some, ignorance is bliss. You go on about your daily life unaware that everything you see, hear and touch or taste is a product of mind control. You look at your bank account and see the numbers go up when your paycheck is deposited and you think, “Another week done and there’s the product of my efforts.” You’d be thinking wrong. Money doesn’t exist. Money has been an illusion to make you think you’re a productive member of society when in fact; you’re just the doll dangling from an endless spider web of strings that hold you suspended in this mass delusion you call reality. It’s my job to cut those strings and again, let me say, it’s a thankless job. Did I mention dirty? You would think shaking the sheep from their slumber would inspire gratitude. Not so; at least not at first. You’d be surprised how many people are happy in their delusion and not so happy when you shatter it. Can you imagine presenting a wealthy doctor with the idea that his house, his cars, his vacations are funded by an invisible force that serves only to keep him in service to it? And should that force decide tomorrow to cut its ties with him, he’d be naught but a beggar in the street wondering how he got there and why? As quickly as those “powers that be” can elevate you so too can they rip the rug out from under you and bring you down. Such is life. Such is The Way1. When the first ship uncloaked its self, there was the expected mass panic. People ran screaming in the streets, tried to evacuate; but evacuate away from what? Earth? Unlikely- because these bastards are everywhere and have been since the beginning of time. Good luck with that evacuation plan; let me know how it goes. The life forms that manned the ships stepped out of them looking not unlike something you’d see in a comic book. Scaly, green tinted skin, slit pupils, forked tongues. The serpent come to Eden, except rather than Eden, this place has been hell for a long, long time. Our so-called good intentioned government issued the usual warnings and assurances.

Yada, yada, yada- bullshit. You get the idea. After a few days, humanity resumed its mundane task of going on with its life, treating the visitors with courtesy but making a concerted effort to stay out of their way. At least Eve had the guts to interact with her serpent when it came a ’calling. It was comical to me then- and still is, that when presented with the puppeteers that have been jerking humanity’s strings for eons, rather than be incensed, rather than demand more information or explanation, the people quietly went back to grazing on the fatted cud of illusion they’d been gnawing at for centuries. Since then, others like me have moved through the ranks of the common people, one by one, pointing out the illusion and waking them up to the fact that this world they live in is more fictitious than the tallest tall tale. The result is always the same. Anger. Denial. More anger. Stronger denial. Sudden realization. When the sudden realization kicks in, it brings with it the shroud of fear that paralyzes them in that vortex between action and inaction. It’s our job after waking up the masses to show them that fear equates to survival but is only useful to a point. It’s also our job to shake them out of paralysis and into motion. We show them once the strings to the puppet master are cut, reality then becomes a thing of individual making; that they become the creator gods of their own universe. We show them that cultivating themselves rather than the illusion, builds the foundation for the new life they’ll have once they’re out of the matrix of alien influence; a matrix that no longer recognizes those people as living once they drop from it. We teach them how to live beyond the glaring eye of society’s lens but more importantly how they are dead to it. Once liberated from the all seeing-eye, they can create a new world, one out of reach of control. We hand them tools of their own True Will and stand back to see what they’ll build, We now watch. We are many. We will not sit back idle, and allow them the comforts of the illusion. No. We are here to destroy it. I’m Melody Kreger and I live my life with one foot in both worlds: The world as you know it, surrounded by controlling devices to keep you properly in your place, and the world We are here to create.

“These beings come in peace…. They’re just exploring the far reaches of the galaxy… stay out of their way… “

The Way: A precept for distraction, control, and systems of civilization. 13

In the course of learning about oneself, through reactions to personal trials, tribulations, fire and pathei mathos1, every so often a core element is found. This can manifest in a line that can’t be crossed, a principle or idea for which one would die, or kill or a bond to one of your own that goes deeper than, and transcends, anything that can be articulated with language or reasoned with thought. This is the root of the tree that is true honor, dark or hidden honor. Something understood only to those far enough to the periphery of the nomian apparatus2 to put it into perspective, and to those with the certain dark fire burning within them to act on their true will rather than sublimate it. To discover these elements, from where I sit, is the ultimate goal of the Left-hand Path3 in general, and certainly AutoDiabolic Method (ADM)4 more specifically. Shattering boundaries is pointless if it would leave you an undefined amorphous mess, some wishy washy ‘relativist’ that stands for nothing. This I fear is something that has been overlooked by many. This is a methodology of discovery, and sometimes that which is discovered, that which stands up to the heated fire of scrutiny, stands up to the cold reality of real world experience, over and over again does so because you have hit bedrock. A dose of personal Gnosis, actual knowledge of self, has been realized. It is these nuggets of truth that are what stands between ‘honor’ and ‘morality’ in terms of definition. Morality is bullshit. Morality is any and all adopted sets of external dictates, internalized, that constitute ‘right and wrong’, in a universal sense. Honor on the other hand is built of the fruits of pathei mathos and fire, and rather than offering an objective idea of what is right and what is wrong, instead a sense of what drives you to act, and how, in a personal sense is discovered and thus honor is discovered rather than adopted. To the outsider these ideas seem quite similar in appearance, after all both personal honor and morality provide lines in the sand, do’s and don’ts, and even sometimes similar logical affirmations, the underworking of how they function are as night and day. One is hollow, the other solid.

Our society trains us to marginalize personal honor in favor of impersonal groupthink. We are told of rights and wrongs, impersonal boundaries in which we are to function, predefined ways which we are to deal with things based upon this moral apparatus. We are taught to seek our own justice is wrong, and qualified to define justice for ourselves, and instead to defer it to something impersonal requiring the marginalization of our own honor based on our own path traveled, for what is true justice if not an extension of honor itself? Those that enact their own justice are branded vigilantes, outlaws, for this is a safeguard of the apparatus to ensure total control. Those that react in a way demanded by this accumulated honor based on their personal core elements are labeled as extremists, psychos, crazies, or at the very least over reactors. Sometimes, to those that do not share in this sense of personal honor, reactions might seem extreme or overplayed, but that too is an element of the nomian apparatus. To keep us as slaves requires actions that fall outside of what is accepted be demonized, and to enact one’s own justice, being innately an act of personal rather than collective autonomy will always fall outside of that line. My sense of personal honor drives me to be fiercely protective and loyal to my own. My dark honor requires me to act when required, sometimes violently, shockingly, to those that do not share in the sorts of experiences that have driven me to this core bedrock from which there is no backing down, no retreat. My honor is built of the things I will not permit, and is the root of the upward spiral insofar as I personally, esoterically feel it, and exoterically demonstrate it. This is a concept manifested in praxis and realized through praxis that separates ‘my kind’ from those of a more mundane sort. Once morality is destroyed, one is either destroyed with it or is discovered beneath it. Once one knows where one’s own lines are, through crossing them, through facing them, morality becomes honor, the right hand becomes the left. It is then and only then, that those honor-bound can come together and begin to reverse the spiral downwards to something more organic. It is the realization of honor that spirals into justice, into meaningful community, meaningful personal bonds, into something real and solid.


Pathei Mathos: Greek: πάθει μάθος (pathei-mathos) derives from The Agamemnon of Aeschylus (written c. 458 BCE), and can be interpreted, or translated to mean: Learning from adversary, or wisdom arises from (personal) suffering; or personal experience is the genesis of true learning. *Source: The Classical Foundations Numinous Way, D.M., Order of Nine Angles Memetics.+ 2 Nomian Apparatus: A body of teaching used to determine principles or law. 3 Left-hand Path: The left-side of a philosophical dichotomy that addresses practical approach. To be left, is to be considered to be more aggressive, and sinister vs. Right-hand Path which is more passive and apparent. 4 Auto-Diabolic Method: To be of the Devil. Manifest as the Adversary.


“All hail and praise ME! Bow Down before the shining Glory that is my might! Breathe in the essence that is my will! Blah, Blah, Blah….Hocus pocus!” Thus to some, the words of a Ceremonialist ring. As one of these supposedly superluminal Ilk, even I have to wonder how head fucked we can be. Pretentiousness and personalities of near megalomania run deep in many circle of Ceremonialism. Anyone that tells you different is either deluded or just plain lying. In your traditional occultic lore, a Ceremonialist was a person who studied “High Magick” (in this article High Magick refers to rituals/spells for the advancement of one’s spiritual growth), who was usually was well versed in Kabbalah/the Goetia/the Lemegeton and could afford all the absurd ornamentation and tools needed to perform these rites. Most saw themselves as a “God Fearing”, pious person who was one of God’s elite. It was usually this group that penned down what we modern day seekers find as the various Grimoires and books containing complex circle and seals. So, is this the group I refer to when I call myself a Ceremonialist? Yes and No. To be fair the term Modern Ceremonialist may be more appropriate. By saying yes to the question above, I mean that I take the sublimely complex mechanics they used, their mystery systems, and the sheer grandiose pageantry they fostered. By No, I mean that I do not believe that I need to fast for a month, and draw a circle that takes weeks to make. Nor do I feel I need to perform a ritual where I dress in an old curtain, burn some candles/ incense, chant and hopscotch a certain way to obtain my goals. With all that said, one could be forgiven for thinking that this was a bash against that particular type of “Magician”. That couldn’t be further from the truth. If being the High Holy Magus of Low Fat Milk gets you to achieve the results you are looking for, then you go, your Milkiness! As with all supposed “Paths” in the occult it is one’s perception that often gets the most results. ,Queue the montage-like personal history.} Me today: Average looking husky, Mixed, Big Dude. I’m what is termed a brittle diabetic. I have a giant hole in my foot from the aforementioned disease, and I am sometimes called 8-toe Joe. I think you get the point. I can be rather humble and self-denigrating at times, loving, angry…..etc, etc. However when I put on my robes, step into my sacred space and begin my Ritual motions and orations, I am now a Son of the infinite. All hosts and entities bow before my thoughts and will. I have become that which this universe was created to nourish. Marvel at my shiny doohickeys and various staves, wands, blades and stones.

What’s the difference between me and those I mentioned before? I would say that I understand the real purpose and meaning behind my brand of Ceremonialism. Magick has been described many different ways, one of the best being attributed to the infamous Aleister Crowley: "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will". For many this is a clear cut definition. It fits well into their paradigms and they go running forward. As for me this was but a guideline since it only told me WHAT Magick does, but not HOW it works or WHERE it is derived from. Like most jumping into the murky waters of the Occult world, I truly believed that it all came from this hidden subdimension where angels, fairies, Gods, demons, and such held sway. I personally was hooked by the Kabbalah and its wonderful system for filing and relating everything in existence. It was just complex enough for me without being overwhelming. This was my formal introduction to ceremonialism. As I studied and practiced, I began to understand what all the props actually stood for. They had very little to do with the actual accoutrements and everything to do with my mental mind set. That was where the Magick was worked. Everything else was just to psyche myself into the proper mood. In this slow but steady way I stumbled onto another occult axiom “Fake it until you make it”. I started to notice how my thought processes would swivel, how I could see so many more points of view. Now this is not to say the effects of my rituals were imaginary or just cognitive events, I experienced some really scary shit in my time. However in the end, this was one of the effects, probably the most profound. Imagine the mental contrast of” every day Joe” and “HE That Speaks the WORDS of the Most High” and everything in between. It allows for quite a dizzying array of views on just about any issue one would care to conjure. 15

Oh the Mundane...

What about everyday living and coping with life? Trust me; it’s a lot easier to deal with hard times when you feel you are just a bit special and that you have this awesome tool that can help. Beware though, I have found that those who try and Break the rules of reality instead of just Bending them a bit either find themselves lock in a mental ward and just get plain crushed by life itself. Either way, it’s a sad and pathetic thing to watch happen to someone. I once knew a man who claimed he stopped time on a navy battleship so he could fight a Balrog to keep it from destroying his crewmates! No Joke! There was even an enchanted torpedo involved…

When I am standing in enrobed and encircled and in my supposed glory, I understand that there is only so much I can make manifest physically according to my will. In essence it becomes me against the world in the sense that it’s my will against all of creation. There are rules and laws to existence that extend from the cosmic to the molecular. They are what keep this place we call “The Universe” running. However, like most rules we learn about, these have loop-holes and ways to be bent in accordance to my will, using the powerful mental tools I have grown. Uh, oh….

Written by Joseph Gitchuway, Ceremonial Magician, Virginia, USA


What is Primal Essence?

First we must address what it means to be 'primal', this
term implies it was the first of its kind; the original and key important feature of a being. When addressing primal man, we must roll back civilization to his basic and chief needs: Feasting, Fucking, and Fundamentalism. What I mean by fundamentalism, is the lowest possible frequency of a vibrating system (physics). Man is that system. He eats, he mates, he multiplies, and he fiddles. In his fiddling he begins with the very foundation of his needs and wants; it beings with the "I". When man beats his hand against his chest and identifies himself as a being, he addresses this from his needs or wants. I Need to Eat. I Need to Fuck. I Need to Fiddle. I want what other men eat, fuck and fiddle with! The “I” is never truly satisfied. The being in its primal form is nothing more than an uncivilized animal. While this is certainly useful, and can become part of man’s methods, there is a level of taming of the savage beast necessary to get what it wants. The essence of man is the most crucial part. If we were to extract the essence of primal man, what would it look like? Smell like? Feel like? Taste Like? Sound like? Perhaps it would be much like the crawling darkness, that which lies beneath the surface and will tear a hole and find its way out by tooth and by claw. In all of man's fiddling he has come into a new system in which he grooms his primal impulses but he has been unsuccessful in oppressing his primal essence. Some would describe this primal essence as SINISTER1. The development of this term is interesting, in the 14th Century it was in use by the French to mean unfavorable, directly connected with an act of ill-will. The connection to the term ‘left’ was developed around that time as the French made contact with the parts Southern and Northern England. To be considered left implied to be of the weaker hand, lame, foolish, limp (to dangle). It emerged around the turn of the 12th century derived from the Northern English ‘lyft’ which meant lameness, or paralysis. In the Kentish dialect, a euphemism was developed to avoid that which invoked superstitious beliefs attached to being lyft: Winestra (Friendlier). Sinestre ,Middle English-2 derived from Old French, and the Latin form Sinister. The Latin is connected to the divination practice of Augury3. On the left-side we can find a direct link to reading omens. In Heraldry 4(13th century), to be Sinister was in use to note an achievement in arms as noted by the left-side placement of a crest. The right side was referred to as dexter.
1 Douglas - Harper Etymology Dictionary 2001 2 Collins English Dictionary, Harper-Collins Publishing 1991 3 Birds of a Feather, SIN JONES, 2008 4 American Heraldry Society, 2009

This term used in proper context was in use to avoid the taboo of bringing about unlucky incident .associated with being lyft. In every attempt to avoid the taboo, this language caught on throughout parts of Europe, in the 13th century it emerged in lower Germany as ‘Luft’, and later ‘Link’, meaning to move left. The Dutch used ‘Linker’, in Middle Dutch ‘Slinker’ derived from ‘Slincan’ meaning: To crawl. In Sweden ‘linka’ meant limp and later ‘slinka’ to dangle. Left was used in political moves, to communicate an ‘unfavored’ body in legislation, as members were assigned to the left-side of the chamber as Nobles were seated to the right of the leader, most notable in the French Revolution, and documented by Thomas Caryle a Scottish historian, philosopher and writer. The English use was documented in his work The French Revolution: A History. Left was used frequently in the 16th century, to convey an ‘irregular’ or ‘illicit’ way of being. As early as the 15th century it was used to imply the opposite of what was expressed. This is another link between left and sinister, some irregularity in expression and form that does not appear to reveal the hidden intent, it is speculated based upon the artful use of expressionism. It is in this time period we can find the phrase “Out in Left Field”, which implied that one, was out of touch with certain realities (mid-15th Century). La Rive Gauche in France is the left bank of the River Sein. The river flows westward cutting the city into two halves. The southern bank is the left, while the northern is the right. The ‘left bank’ also refers to Paris in an earlier era. Many famous artists, writers and philosophers used it as a euphemism for the creativity and bohemianism once found in the old days. The Left-Bank area is referred to as the Latin Quarter (5th arrondissement of Paris) attributed to the Latin language spoken by University students. To imply clumsiness, or having ‘Two LeftFeet’, is in heavy use by the turn of the 17th century in various forms, it’s more blatant in phrasing by the 20th century. All of this is important when placing these terms into proper context. Language mediates understanding, each word is symbolic of a definition, but in order to extrapolate its meaning each word is linked and strung together to place ideas expressed upon a platform for understanding. If language is mis-used, this sets the stage for a conflicted audience. "The Crawling Darkness, the Unknown Dark we fear and

despise, which haunts the depths of our collective psyche, and even our unconscious dreams." 5
What is being referred to here in lieu of primal essence is that sinister force. That which does not conform to ‘normal’ parameters, its daunting creativity will claw its way out, even if it is forced down deep, oppressed and subjugated by a commanding master.
5 Order of Nine Angles, Seven Fundamentals of ONA, Memetics ONA-NXS:352


When considering the darkness, it is the unseen force; one that may seemingly do one thing, but means something else entirely in that act. It may or may not be a well-plotted out deception. It’s all reliant on the being in question. This is why terms such as Left and Sinister are associated with ‘evil’, because of this deceptive motif. It is within man’s nature, his very essence to be deceptive. Not just for basic survival needs, but in striving to get more, have more, and be more. The terms Sinister and Sly, can be synonymous in the correct context. Sly is derived from the 12th century notion of hitting a target by cunning means6. Germanic ‘slogis’, later ‘slu’, and later still ‘ verschlagen’, ‘ schlagfertig’ implied slaying by crafty method. In general, the term was used in a pejorative manner but there are a few non-pejorative uses which survived in the English language (Northern England Dialect) until the 20th century7. The phrase ‘on the sly’ simply meant to meet in secret or to acquire by hidden means. Using sinister methods is often the Modus-Operand of the Sly Man. The man that chooses to resurrect his primal essence from under the rubble of influences, experiences, and a false sense of the core-self using cunning means to reach his goals8. It takes great personal work, and often involves constructing and deconstructing psyche, the acquisition of knowledge, processing it into wisdom but above all else, it requires praxis9.

- Albert Einstein This quote is relevant, when considering the nature of being ‘left’ in one’s thinking. This brings me to the nature of Magic. Whether you choose to spell it ‘magic’ or ‘magick’, I see no literal difference in the slight of hand, and coercion of events or people in accordance to one’s will. If I can direct you to do something I need or want, and have lead you to believe that it was your idea in the first place, well... The magic not only occurred but was a success the moment you try to convince me to get behind an idea that was mine. The less effort I have to put forth to accomplish this, the more successful I have been ‘on the Sly’. The Sly will be considered Sinister as a pejorative, because it has wholly selfish ends as its means. Selfishness in a socially correct society is viewed in a negative connotation as anarcho-communists demand that we govern ourselves to be the same; the same in our thinking, our social classification, intelligence, and with our wants and needs; never mind the attainment. I hardly find these fools capable of governing themselves, let alone having the merit behind their ideas to presume to govern ME in their weakly structured plans to push me into servitude. At closer examination, you will find that there is no pure act of altruism that all things stem from the self, and thus return to the self.

There is a distinction to be made between holding knowledge, and having wisdom. I am Hermetic in my thinking, I find the duality needless when I can see that right is left, and left is right. All things being relative, the relativism10 of dissolving duality allows me to see things in a much wider span of view than dividing it between this or that. I’m using the left-thinking model to provide a context, a point of reference for the reader to understand the common platform in which the sly man can dance his jig for the viewing audience. Being too hardline ‘right’ or ‘left’ can be selfdefeating. When you cannot go another way, or see beyond your own knowledge and experience, you tend to imagine that everyone you meet thinks like you do, holds the same understanding as you, or has had similar experiences to yours (if not the same). So, when met with opposing viewpoints, you may take this very personally, and begin to ‘react’, which isn’t very sly at all. In fact, you tell those around you so much about yourself, you reveal the trick before ever having a chance to attempt the deception. That primal essence is caterwauling, telling the audience a tiger cannot change its stripes. While we are all equally ‘human-beings’, no two beings Homosapien are identically the same, but even tigers have a leaning towards polymorphism11; a biological phenotype which causes more than one of the species to form or morph, differently than the others, Tigersi included. Equally, in object-polymorphs, terms can mean precise things when delivered to a specific object target. For example, take the term: CUT. This term can mean different and precise things to a Film Director, Surgeon, and Hairdresser. There is no need to set the platform, when the object target already holds an understanding. Thus, language is a one of the most valuable tools to the Sly Man. One can be directed or misdirected by the simple and meticulous use of language and it’s not limited to the written or spoken word, there are unspoken languages we use that often speak which can be used among the many devices available to primal essence. We can make unique markings with mere gesture and expression. An image speaks volumes but what is spoken may be ineffective without training your beast to do parlor tricks.

The primal essence of our being is always at work; it snarls and crawls under the surface of its cage (the presentation). We present ourselves as beings to other beings; how we present ourselves and our purposes is but a divine comedyii. Are we predestined to begin in Purgatory and find our way to Heaven? For many this is The Way12, this is not my Way13.
11 Polymorphism, from Greek πολύ = many, and μορφή = form, figure, silhouette. 12 The Way: A phrase in use by Chinese Tao (esotericism), meaning The Path. Adopted by Zen Buddhism, Confucianism, and Chan, later adopted by early Christianity as the path of God. 13 Sintristic Methodology: www.the-poison-apple.com, BIO of SIN JONES.

6 Sly, Etymology, Ernest Klein, Klein’s Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, 1971 7 See: Dictionary of the Canting Crew, 1700 8 See, The Portal, SIN JONES, 9 From Greek Praxis, Practice in Action. The opposite of theory. 10 See: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, especially when dealing with descriptive relativism.


We should plot our own destiny, and manifest our own heaven on earth. It is wise to know when to tame primal essence, and when to allow it out of its cage. While we struggle with the ontological14 argument with other beings, we are still working towards what we want for ourselves. Even if all we want is to be feasting, fucking and fiddling other beings; the music played often sounds like the Music of Erich Zanniii playing his old viol. We dance in the frenzy of the old Dionysian cultsiv dedicated to bringing forth the blessings of the old gods (our former selves). And this is the paradoxical nature of our being, as we create our gods from ourselves, then projects them outward as if they are some estranged part of our essence, otherwise known as the fractal “I’s”15 . Our sense of self shattered as we reach to the heavens as if it were some floating kingdom for our being to attain. We build The tower of Babel to this imagined place in vain, whether our gods are the divine heroes of old myths, or the modern luminaires of science, philosophy or the liberal arts; equally role-models which demand admiration and adoration as they set examples and lead by them. Instead we should be spiraling inward to the root, the place in which the parable begins in the cradle of civilization, warning man of the poison seed of ignorance. The luscious gardens where the Gnostic Tree grows tall, and deep, each branch a pathway to taming our primal essence. The tree above, the tree below; it can be the nourishment we both need and desire, or it can be an entanglement of thorn and vine… Nature’s cage. Satan is the poetry of the world, and Nature is its church. In the climb inward and upward, we can exceed nature, and allow the musings of Satan carried on the winds to provoke us, inspire us, oppose us, and liberate us and our true will to push us to create and attain, to achieve being more. To use a familiar Eastern thought: To be the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end 16 of our “reality”. A reality which; can directly affect what is considered actual reality17. Be of the Sly Man, know when taming your essence is a valuable tool. By method, a way in which you seize power and control, over your own being and become truly autonomous. You make the choices, you are no longer choosing from the choices available to you by those in power, the power is now yours among them. Otherwise, you remain a beast of burden, working harder not smarter.

The most familiar, but relevant here, in capturing the age-old quest for knowledge and the beast crawling in the dark, climbing its way up and down the tree, the structure in which he processes information with the very essence of the being inside its shell. The seed. Why do the Stars have seeds? Every man and woman is a star19. “Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well! He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the fortress, and the great mystery of the House of God.19” The mystery was solved by those who received its nourishment, and have attained power. It is evident in demonstrable results. Words…All these words! If the words do not represent or symbolize attainment of power, and autonomy; then it’s shit-talk. I don’t believe in people who talk a lot of shit, and follow through with zero action20. Show me the beast, and I’ll show you its need for a tamer. If you want to get things out of this life, make changes by becoming a forcing current, then you may need to work ‘On the Sly’. If you think you really know what’s going on in the world today, and that you are not being used by the Sly Man dancing, you have been be-witched and should break the spell. Raise your awareness, become more self-conscious, and learn the trick behind the trade. Written by SIN JONES, www.the-poison-apple.com

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. . . .And he placed at the east of the Garden of Eden cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned in every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." 18
16 Book of Genesis, Young’s Literal Translation, Holy Bible 17 Consensus Reality, a philosophical approach to determining what is real, by either resources or agreement that something seems to be real. This is in lieu of the biological nature of our being. As biological organisms, information is received through organs which project perception. The idea that perception is reality is in use by most world religions and is a heavy influence on the nature of our being. 18 Genesis 3, Young’s Literal Translation, Holy Bible 19 Liber vel Legis, Aiwass, Aliester Crowley, 1904

20 The Book of SIN, personal axioms of SIN JONES. Trickster’s Koran, ISBN#978-1-105-46111-8
I See: Poison Apple Radio by SIN JONES, Conformity & Polymorphism Ii See: Dante’s Divine Comedy, a poetic epic taking man from the pits of hell into the ascension of heaven. Iii See: H.P. Lovecraft’s short-story, The Music of Erich Zann, 1921 Iv See: Cult of Dionysus, Theo Project, Aaron J. Atsma, 2008 V See: The Tower of Babel, Book of Genesis 11, Young’s Literal Translation Holy Bible Vi See: The Gnostic Tree, Kundalini paradigm, article: Evolution of the Gnostic Tree of Life, Kundalini Foundation Ltd., 2007


This unicorn is both pink, and invisible. It exists. It is not
subject to any law, of any kind. It just is. It created the universe, but is not subject to the same laws as human beings are. And, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can however; see through it. The IPU is satire, and is no different than most of the conversational intolerance that occurs in social strata; whether on Internet forums, social networking platforms, or meet-ups in person but especially in venues with a strong focus on personal beliefs. The IPU is often used as a symbol for Atheism or in use by Atheists; the IPU itself is not Atheism. The IPU is considered to be the goddess of parody and paradox. It is used to levy arguments with Theists that hold beliefs in the supernatural, venerate a deity, and adhere to a theologically -based faith system. The IPU serves as an allegory to demonstrate the paradoxical nature of deity. If the IPU were to replace *fill in the blank+ deity, it would have no literal difference in interpretation (to a non-believer). The IPU does not follow the laws that apply to man, as thus it can be both invisible and pink. It is considered to have great magical powers, because it can be both invisible and pink. The reasoning here is juxtaposed with faith-based logic found in many religions. Just because you cannot see her, doesn’t mean she is not pink, or does not exist. This concept is used to point out to Theists the absurdity of their defense of such a belief. The contradiction of terms, that a deity can be both invisible and pink defeats itself within the satire. The satire has already stated that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not adhere to the laws of man. Thus, it cannot be a contradiction of terms that it can be both invisible and pink. The IPU becomes a circular argument levied against Theism. In fact, it can run around in circles all day and achieve nothing but the discourse it desires. The ‘debate’ presented is merely to mock the beliefs of a Theist. This can only incite the Theist to point out the intentionality of the mockery. It may also be used to point to Theists (Group A) and label them as *fill in the blank+ insult by Non-Believers (Group B), to position arguments in socio-political arenas. The IPU’s defining aspect is that it satirically ridicules those that hold beliefs considered by the self-identified rational, to be irrational. The irrational would then also be considered incapable of having the proper logic needed to make political decisions and/or deal with social issues. It does not however resolve conflict between believers and non-believers.

The IPU presents its own argument against non-believers; thus spinning the paradoxical wheel of fortune. If the IPU represents the irrationality of believing in something that cannot be proven to exist (thus not true), this opens the issue of belief wide-open. There are many beliefs held that have not been scientifically proven; in fact many may be based solely on theory in the absence of evidence to support it. It would then be considered invisible by evidence, but pink by faith. When considering the laws conceived by man, there are many things we consider law, simply because we have stated it is law. Take for instance mathematics as the universal language of the known universe. There are volumes of writing which associates math with complex notions, simply because we have applied it. Newtonian mechanics1 would disagree with this notion, but to levy the ‘proof’ required to support a truth, Newton’ then would have to be invalidated. If you are well-read in the area of physics, I’m sure that statement made the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. If face to face, I would be prepared for your intolerance of my ideas, and your disputes with how I use ‘facts’, to provide the wedge needed to demonstrate the absence of Absolute Truth2. And so the wheel spins round and round. It is one thing to bring these ideas into our own minds, it’s quite another to have conversations about them.

“I don’t agree with you.” “I think you’ve misunderstood.” “I believe you are misinformed.” “Your demonstrable lack of comprehension tells me much about you”. “I will not accept your ideas as my own.” “I cannot relate to your position.”

This is polite, in real world situations people tend to speak more frankly and direct. “What are you fuckin’ stupid or something?” “Are you insane?” “LMAO you believe what?” “Why don’t you go back into your cave and worship your imaginary friends!” “Thank spaghetti you are not in politics!”

1 Newtonian Mechanics:

Causal relationship in the natural world between force, mass and motion

Newtonian Mechanics (M.I.T. Introduction text), W.W. Norton & Co, 1971, ISBN# 0393099709 2 Absolute Truth: Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. Philosophy, Stanford University


What is Conversational Tolerance?
Conversational tolerance implies that all conversation will be tolerated. When a social group enforces such a policy it tends to segregates the group: Group A - Tolerant Group B - Intolerant

This deals directly with UPG as well as UGG presented as evidence to support. Comparably, it can be levied against a non-believer of deity that holds beliefs in the super-natural or para-normal. If say you don’t believe in ‘gods’ but believe in displaced spirits; how different a belief is this really? Many non-religious believers of the supernatural provide just as much (if not more) UPG evidence, to support their extraordinary claims. So, this is not limited to dealing with the ‘religious’ exclusively, even if the religious is its primary focus.

Thus, any person within the social group that falls into Group B would be treated accordingly. A group may choose to also enforce a Code of Conduct3. Any person joining the group would then agree to the Terms and Conditions4 of the group. This sounds all very cut and dry, but I assure you that it is not. Policies are often ignored, even if a person has agreed to the terms in a verbal or written contract.

So, where does this leave us in social strata?
Conflict: Group B does not agree with the policy in place of Group A. A disagreement will challenge the policy in place. If the policy is challenged, those enforcing it are faced with conflicted participants. How then is this conflict resolved? There are a number of choices one could make, from the choices available: 1. Enforce the policy; remove those that fall in Group B from the social group. 2. Discuss the policy: Administrators could open the floor for discussion to foster an understanding as to why the policy is important to the group. 3. Take a poll: Administrators may opt for an opinion poll from the participants. If the majority does not agree with the policy, it may be the catalyst for the administrators to change policy.

What is Conversational Intolerance?
Conversational Intolerance may be (but not limited to) a blatant disregard of policy. This is often due to personal experience, and emotionality. Sometimes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When dealing with the religious, that evidence may not be available to everyone. It would be considered UPG (Unverifiable Personal Gnosis), and in some cases UGG (Unverifiable Group Gnosis) Conversational Intolerance implies that some conversation will not be tolerated. When a social group enforces a Conversational Tolerance Policy (CTP), it invites discourse. A CTP should be all encompassing and not exclusionary of any topic; even if those topics are uncomfortable, taboo, or challenging. Many social groups will exclude touchy subjects from a CTP to maintain harmony in a group and avoid discourse. Topics such as Cannibalism, Incest, Nazism, Genocide, Sexuality, Rape, Murder, Abuse, Discrimination, Bigotry, Racism, just to name a few are often avoided. If a social group has a CT policy, but exceptions to the rule, the group’s focus has now shifted to a paradox and parody of its original purpose; much like the IPU. The brain as an organ is highly complex. We learn more about it all the time, and its truth is not absolute. In existential ontological arguments, the organ is often divided between ‘brain’ and ‘mind’. The brain being the biological organ, the mind what the organ produces in human experience. Take for example the idea of ‘witnessing’ in religious faith. This concept is to allow the adherent the validity needed to testify to the extraordinary claims made by the religious group he belongs to.

Say for instance your social group is faith-based, and non-believers want to participate. Would they be tolerated? Would their ‘conversations’ be tolerated?

Why are people so afraid of being intolerant?
In the last few decades a strong focus on being politically and socially ‘correct’ has been forced upon us by influencing agents. Being intolerant has become a dirty word in the U.S. and even more so in other nations as it becomes a personal danger to discuss taboo topics, or use what is considered archaic language. In some instances, depending on the culture, there are beliefs that will not be tolerated, and are punishable by imprisonment or death. Fear is a survival mechanism, but it can also be an avoidance shield. When people feel powerless, they avoid any opportunity that may arise to enact their personal power. Fear is often used to avoid important sociological issues. Many of those issues affect not just the individual, but entire populations of people. People have become so bankrupt of any real sense of self, that they don’t even know how to recognize power in their very being.

3 Code of Conduct: Responsibilities used to manage behavior, group ethics, and honor. 4 Terms and Conditions: Terms outlined by the group’s administrators. Conditions for continued participation in the group.


What does it mean to be tolerant in a forum?
When people assemble to discuss a specific focus topic, movement, or body of ideas, it becomes a forum. Social Networking on various websites is interchangeable with ‘forum’, when focus groups form. When a group has a strict CTP, it may be implied that all conversations should be tolerated to participate. If you decide to be intolerant, and the administrators have made both the policy and code of behavior clear; you should be willing to be held accountable for your behavior and words; but especially when it regards your own principles and key aim. A forum is often a platform that can be used to assert discourse with an individual or group objective. Self-management allows you to hit your target with a more sinister approach. This is particularly important when addressing ‘cyberbullying’. If you’ve been issued the Scarlet Letter B, you can either wear it proudly or refuse to be identified as this modus operand (MO). This label is often applied when no bullying has occurred. It’s a pretty common ad hominem debate tactic. Your key aim5 may be to cause discourse. Discourse is ‘friction’ and is often the catalyst for growth, and action; it is not bullying unto itself. Harmony could be considered stagnation and inaction. Especially when your key aim is to accomplish goals through group efforts.

I hold humanistic values, in that I recognize the trials and tribulations of the human condition, and I work actively to exceed my own humanity. In my personal axioms, I believe all men can be redeemed by their actions; words are words. Just because the words have been spoken, does not mean they symbolize an action worthy of redemption. While I have a minor concern with what people believe, my major concern is what people do. What people do may require both my intolerance and action to neutralize a current on the move. In neutralizing it, I am directly blocking its path to allow it momentum. Even if I am only a minor obstacle, the movement will have to find a way around me, over me, or through me thus creating the potential to become a major block in its path. With enough focus, and self-management I can become a formidable force in the face of the mass. Lest we forget that movements begin with an idea, followed through with an action, and gaining momentum as it gains density. I will go directly to the source of that fuel, and stomp it out with my boot.

In a world of such diverse people and on-going social conflict, each person will have their own internal morality; which may or may not have been fostered by social ethics. They may even be considered immoral or amoral depending. If your moral principles dictate that you be intolerant, then follow through with an action; and learn your target. I don’t believe in people that talk a lot of shit, and follow through with zero action. Have the back-bone to stand by your convictions; or else find yourself the serpent under foot, never realizing your power, and destined to become nothing more than parody and paradox.

How do I regard Conversational Intolerance?
While I will guard a person's right to believe in the most whacked-out ideas, it doesn't mean I have to tolerate them. There is much I do not tolerate. Conversational intolerance is policed by imposing morality, e.g. “That's Intolerant! You should Respect another person's beliefs! ”Says who? By what authority? Yours? A person, as well as their beliefs, have to earn my respect. In earning my respect there must be some demonstrable deed backed by those beliefs. If those beliefs cause a person to take an action that is not beneficial to me in any way, my natural course is to oppose it. Why then should I tolerate their views? Beliefs? Actions? I will not. I will not tolerate beliefs or actions that oppose me. This does not mean that I don’t explore dissenting views and opinions. I explore them as a matter of habit for contrasting and comparing to my world view (introspect). It is often in that way that I am able to make my own thoughts and ideas distinctly mine.

The age of the Politically Correct, is coming to an end. What will this new age bring us?

Behold! I present to you the INVISIBLE PINK UNICORN!

What actions do I take when being intolerant?
Each person and situation is unique, but there are often times when ‘groups’ of people are intolerable. Just because I am intolerant, does not mean that intolerance and hatred are synonymous. I can be intolerant to child abuse, for example. It does not mean I hate the child abuser. There are often extenuating circumstances in each case, and I don’t believe in profiling or pigeon-holing individuals.
5 Target or Goal

Written by SIN JONES Editor


$10 Your Marketplace AD HERE


$10 Create your ad space





Writers, illustrators, cartoon artists


The Trickster’s Koran $5 Www.lulu.com


Your ad here

ART WAR! Declare a Jihad against the Art System!

Create your own clas- $5 sified ad. Personals, social meet ups, personal advertisements, promote your website or social network.

Spring Fling Sale: $20% off all purchases over $50 Code: SPRING


Writers, artists, poets, mad alchemists, and chaos magicians needed!




Subscribe to the Grotto Magazine! Contribute by offering your critique’s of pastissues, discuss the content in our forum or write the Editor.


The Beat Down! A critical analysis of articles published in the Grotto Magazine, published in the next quarterly.


Summer Edition Theme: “Group Efforts” 180 word min Deadline: 5/1/12








Letter from the Editor...
A thought, a vision, imagination… It all starts somewhere right? We creators manifest. Want to get involved? See future issues? Contribute.

For more information about The Grotto, I encourage you to read: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79269458/The-Grotto-Magazine

Send your submissions to, sales@the-poison-apple.com.

It is my hope to expand into a forum platform for readers to write in with thoughts, ideas, questions and offer their critiques. Creating a print publication is a labor of love. It takes a group effort. Another set of eyes for editing, creative layouts, illustrations, and technologically savvy individuals to produce something worth reading. Ezines come and go, if you want to have something worth holding beyond the Internet age, it takes dedication and dependable people to contribute. Suffice to say, I’m deeply disappointed with the number of people who couldn’t meet deadlines, or sent in mediocre writing. A few people dropped the ball, and I was left holding the bag. This ‘sample’ issue is just a glimpse into the potential of such a publication. This is by no means what I had in mind when I embarked upon this project, but it is what I managed to throw together with software at my finger tips and the learning curve of magazine layouts.

If you are interested in seeing a Summer edition, then I encourage you to get involved. Otherwise, this project rests on the merits of those who claim they have something to bring to the table, but all they deliver is empty promises.

A special Thank You, to the contributors:

Wayne Lee Steven Johnson Leyba Marly Preston Interrogist1 Lori Robinson Dan Dread Joseph Gitchuway Mr. BC

What’s Inside…
Dynamic individuals come together in the Grotto to approach matters of social discourse. Computer Mediated communication. Respect Honor Forms of Life Americanism Ceremony Primal Essence Conversational Intolerance Are we merely shadows dancing on the wall?

Descend into Power