Wow. I am overwhelmed with the positive response this site is generating. I actually have an email buildup every single day to reply to, suggestions for the site are a common thing, and sometimes people just send letters of appreciation. The enormous feedback really makes me feel like this whole effort was worthwhile.
Here is a list of Frequently Asked Questions (and their respective responses) which should help out those who are beginning or travelling an already beaten path, metaphysically speaking. These questions should reduce the repetitive nature of email responses. If you don't see your answer here, feel free to message the appropriate Master for more information. Also, please forgive the first few questions and their rather blunt "No" answer, but I'd like to get them out of the way first.
Q: Can you help me choose an art?
A: No. End of story.
Q: I really like the art of __________ but I also like the art of __________. Which should I pick?
A: Why are you practicing magic, again? It's not about which is cooler or which one looks better or is more interesting to you. It's a pure matter of utilitiarian theory. Figure out why you need magic in the first place and choose the most appropriate route to claim that end. Not I nor any of the other advisors will be able to help you choose. (See also the previous question.) There are too many people that think they'll learn magic only to go blast their friends and be the talk of the town. The idea behind the fourteen castes is to create a functional nomenclature that can encompass the unique "strains" of occultism and give one's overall practice an effective blanket term based on the primary energy used to create an effect. Much like we say "teacher" or "doctor" or "lawyer" as a substitute for describing each component of our occupation to everyone who asks, the caste labels help us broadly identify where we fit in the world of occult cosmology and give a common ground for like-minded practitioners to discuss their art. See also the Intermediate 3 page entitled "An Isagoge of the Castes" for further explanation.
Q: Can you give me a starter spell to begin in my art? or Can you give me a spell for _________?
Q: Why is there such an enormous discrepancy between the PDF ebook titled "The Library of Knowledge" and this site?
Q: Why are the advanced pages so small, and why is there a lack of explicit instructions on how to evolve through a caste?
Q: Why have you missed certain arts or components, like Dragon Magick and Thelema and Enochian script and .... ?
Q: Do you really have to [some ability here] to be a [some caste here]?
Q: Here's my life story. [insert enormous description of every major development from birth until tomorrow here] So what do you think?
Q: I need help. I can't get the _________ spell to work. Can you tell me how it's done?
Q: I see magic as a whole system. You can't just make arbitrary breaks in magic and call them exclusive. Why have you segregated segments of magic like this when it is actually a whole system?
Q: Why do the caste names on The Library of Knowledge seem to mirror the game Dungeons and Dragons?
Q: Do you have or know of any additional links or books not posted on the site or in the Links page?
Q: Why do you separate Psi and Chi on this site?
Q: Do you take students?
Q: Why do you have no spells on this site? Where are the spells for the specific castes?
Q: I'm just looking for proof that magic exists. How can I know that this is real before investing time in it?
Q: Can I learn more than one magicial art?
Q: Do I have to practice that much to become powerful?
Q: What do you mean about "fizzling out" energies? How can you attempt to distinguish between Life and Death magics at all? Life is an integral part of Death, and Death can not be without Life!
Q: Where did you get all this information from?
Q: Are you a Dualist or do you believe in Dualism?
Q: Aren't you afraid of the Karma from using and teaching these evil magics?
Q: I see your point against ritualism, but that covers a lot of arts! Isn't it more realistic to believe in ritualism and less fantastic magics than you describe here?
Q: If magic is real, why don't you see people throwing lightning bolts around on TV and in the newspaper, etc.?
Q: If magic is real, why haven't people taken the cash prizes available for showing their power? Surely financial need overpowers any of the things previously mentioned, sometimes.
Q: Magic is fake, this whole site is fake, there's no such thing as magic and all of you people are liars.
Opinions? Questions? Complaints? Send to:
A: No. Each magician's "first spell" should be intimately related to their answer to the third question of The Three Questions of Magic. Not even with a full, detailed description of your situation, desires, goals and whatnot could I ever determine exactly how you should begin. The first spell sets the trend, often, for the rest of the magical workings you'll ever do; such an important thing should not be set by strangers. Also, spells can not be traded as though they were hockey cards. If you want a spell, you'll have to write it on your own. Your own ability will never exactly match that of any other person, so your spells may be anything from strikingly similar to vaguely related when compared to the rest of the spell-writing occult community. (See also the previous two questions.)
A: The PDF entitled "The Library of Knowledge" is indeed based off this site, as is obvious from the direct abstraction of many phrases from the pages, but it should also be equally clear that this PDF is barely speaking of the same thing in practice. It is a derivative work which is both unliscenced and which inaccurately portrays the views expressed on this site, yet still carries the site's title and large portions of the text. The Library of Knowledge has undergone a great deal of change over the last few years as the site has changed webmasters, ideas are re-analysed, semantics are tinkered with, and new ideas and feedback from practitioners emerge, but no amount of retrograde modification on my part has produced the abomination seen in the PDF version stolen and rewritten by "The Preacher". This copy is unauthorized because the site is not yet at the point where I am completely content with the way things are portrayed, and also because it is always being updated with new information as it becomes available, but mostly simply because it barely resembles this site in many respects and gives many people ideas, implicitly or explictly, that will likely hinder their progress. People familiar with the plagiarist "The Preacher", having looked at other works he has "converted" illicitly, will quickly notice the nasty habit of altering texts so they're more fun, perverted, or entertaining (such as his rewrite of the Papyrus of Ani). I do not endorse this PDF copy and would encourage people to delete the tainted PDFs (or, for that matter, any other site or book rewrites that The Preacher has spawned) so that queries concerning it no longer leak into my email inbox. This site is the one and only official copy of The Library of Knowledge and I am always working to improve the texts. It has been here for seven years at the time of my writing this FAQ answer and there is no indication or reason to believe that The Library of Knowledge will ever disappear; the PDF version is worthless and I am in the habit of disregarding emails concerning it since neither I nor any other writer for this site are directly responsible for it.
A: The advanced pages, and the beginning pages, are not meant as a comprehensive how-to. The introductory and beginning pages lay out the premise of the three pillars which comprise this site -- direct magic, caste system, and rational occultism -- and are meant, as the page names imply, to present an overview to occultists how they might remodel their personal casting system into something more effective or purposeful. Each of these pillars can be taken individually, or as a bundle, but the site presents them as an intertwined amalgamation. The advanced pages, concomittantly, are not meant as manuals of the occult. The Library of Knowledge, in its entirety, is not (and never was) supposed to be a step-by-step instruction series, nor is it here to tell people what to practice or why to practice. It simply gives another view of how and the reasoning behind this approach. If someone is stupid enough to presume they can learn magic off this website, or any website, or any book, or any instructor, or by devoting themselves to any order or sect or cult or philosophy, they may as well pack up their tarot cards and go home right now to spare the rest of the world the trouble of explaining that magic, now and forever, is primarily based on personal exploration of a vast network of probabilities and forecasts that have been collectively called "the occult". The advanced pages are descriptions of what a person may or may not already practice. The descriptions, if they generally apply, indicate that there may be a connection between the caste and the practitioner's interest. Will it tell you what to do? No. Why? No. What? No. It is no one's place to tell these things to another person. What it simply does is suggest how by painting a portrait of potentials, and that is the entire point. Given that, by now, one should understand that the system is another way of doing rather than yet another revisionist rehash, if they find this system lacking, the best place to find out why is in the mirror.
A: This page series is dedicated to Direct Magics (i.e. Zero Rituals required); they are omitted by design, not negligence. I find there is more than enough information elsewhere on these things and that most of it is not at all hard to find, so try a query on any given search engine for things of that nature.
A: The better question is "Why would you want the title if your abilities do not match that caste?" Sure, maybe it sounds more impressive to say you're one thing and practice something else, but that's not the point at all. The castes are defined by methodology. If you don't use that method, you are not of that caste. Flat. That's all there is to it. It would be meaningless to call yourself a Wizard, for example, if you don't work with the astral. If you don't decay the living, don't call yourself a Necromancer. Sorcery is not Sorcery if there is no ability to work through the Twilight. etc etc etc. The names, in themselves, are just labels. They are assigned to certain abilities for clairity's sake, not so people can take more interesting titles for themselves. Use the titles, if they fit, but don't pervert them so you can sound more amazing.
A: I'm pretty sure I don't care. Thanks for playing.
A: I don't teach, but I (and probably most of the other advisors) will look over your spell and make suggestions if you send in a complete copy of everything you've tried so far in a proper (organized) BoS format. When all the components are clearly laid out, we might be able to help by looking specifically at what you have already tried and how you have tried it. This is a volunteer-based service, so please keep this kind of request very rare. It is time-consuming and difficult to create stable and usable spells, even for those that have practiced forever and a day, but we may help from time to time. Examples of things NOT to include are: Anecdotal Reminiscing, Life Stories, What Your Friend Said, Outside Philosophies (Eternal Balance, God, Fate, Karma, etc). Things you SHOULD include: Which Energy Used, How It Is Being Used, The Spell's Purpose, The Method(s) Already Tried, The Expected Result(s). I would like to reiterate, at this point, that these types of requests should be very rare. Supposing you've tried absolutely everything you can possibly think of and it still won't work, send it in to the appropriate advisor. This excludes requests to help with time travel spells, killing your parents, getting laid, and other such things; those will be ignored.
A: Though it is true that, to an extent, magic is a whole system, the point of picking a single caster type or school of magic to specialise in is for elite ability. Though one is definitely allowed to choose any and all of the arts to practice, it just can not be reasonably done (See the answer to "Can I learn more than one magical art?" for more on that thread of thought.) In school, you take English, History, Chemisty, Biology, Physics, Math, Music, Art, Phys-Ed, and others. In the real world, for example, we know that English, History, Psychology, Sociology, and Anthropology overlap a great deal, but are they taught as a single thread of thought? No. Of course not. Why? To attain any decent degree of mastery, the academic world has acknowledged that these disciplines are best understood when isolated. B.A., Ma., and Ph. Ds are assigned to people who have mastered these arts to varying degrees and have attained proficiency in their application. Along the road of studying History, for example, you will also cross English many times, but it is not a topic of primary concern. Likewise, the magics here are isolated as unique strands of study even though in real life they all interlace and concern each other intimately. They are related but it would be idiocy of the highest order to attempt to try to practice them all. Keeping with the academic examples I cited earlier, it would be like a person attempting to get their Ph. D. in every formal educational discipline.
A: Back in 1974 a man named Gary Gygax created the game Dungeons and Dragons. It was a role-playing game that utilized many different types of mythological characters of different backgrounds (whose strengths and weaknesses (within limits) are randomly generated by the roll of a die or dice). Gygax created these types of players and similar characters based on his love of fantasy and science fiction literature. Though Gygax took the artistic liberty of distorting what he found in his novels to fit a game scenario, as any true entertainment artist does, the fact remains that his source was fantasy literature with a twist of imagination. Now we look to fantasy literature and see where that came from. Fantasy literature, as a genre, draws mostly upon legend. Though "gremlins" appear in some fantasy literature, it has roots in devil-tales of England. Other terms, such as "elf", though often considered a relatively modern invention, can be found in literature as early as the works of Geoffrey Chaucer, who wrote in the late 1300s. His description of many types of magic in his work, and later again in the works of Edmund Spenser and John Milton causes the reader and historian to rightfully believe that such ideas fell into common knowledge of the time and needed no explaination. References to "Enchaunter most fawoul", and the "dreded necromancies" show these terms and ideas far predate Gygax (with all due respect to his efforts) or other fantasy writers like J. R. R. Tolkien, and indicate the validity of using the classic names again to rightfully reacquaint them with their true mystic origins. Most basically put, Gygax's source's sources and my own (that being ancient/medieval/folk literatures) are the same, hence the similarities in caste names, though the purposes are vastly different. The names and origins are not from RPGs so I see no reason to be concerned with aesthetic similarities.
A: No. That would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? (Yes, I really mean it. I didn't put this here to fill up the page. If you have a good site, send it in, but most internet sites are thrown together with virtually no thought and are riddled in errors, hence I do not recommend them.)
A: Where have you ever seen it considered the same thing? That's what I thought. Dragonball Z and sites that play magic but use cartoons and fad as evidence are NOT a valid source of information. I realise there are sites out there that, in all seriousness, attempt to bring DBZ philosophy into real magic practice, but it doesn't change the fact that there is no historical weight to what they're saying and there is no power in that kind of philosophy. Things that sound nice in theory, such as "It's all how you perceive it" and "You can make your own form of magic" and "Psi and Chi are One!" are usually not so wonderful in practice. It sounds liberating and unifying and intellectual and free-thinking and innovative and all kinds of new age click-words for Great to try to amalgamate things into one conceptual lump but that doesn't make it true. Chi of Chinese is equivalent of Life Force in Western Healing. There is no overlap with Psi, which is strictly the baliwick of the mind, championed by Psi Mages. There is absolutely no natural overlap and people that are saying otherwise, I'm finding, are using pop-culture cartoons as evidence. Psi is Mind (not brain), Chi is Etheric Body (healing).
A: No. Teachers defeat the purpose of using the Trial and Error method of spellcasting. Though they'll be able to guide you in the ways of magic, it will be their ways, so you'll end up learning things as they do, not like you may need or desire. As Cerberus once said, "... [advisors] are a supplement to your knowledge, not a replacement." I have been tempted many a time to simply say Yes, but the fact of the matter is that if I or any of the advisors ended up accepting students we would end up teaching the things we think are important and emphasising the points we think need most attention in the way we understand.
A: I do not go into extensive detail on such things for a few main reasons. The first and foremost of these reasons is that the site already devotes a great deal of attention to the art of creating one's own spells, regardless of caste, thus saving me the hassle of posting spells which may or may not mean anything to the reader or, moreover, may or may not be practical in a given situation. The second reason I do not post such fine details is that I firmly believe in the "No Pain, No Gain" philosophy. A master craftsman becomes skillful by taking raw and unfinished materials and making their own mistakes while learning to turn it into something beautiful/functional. The craftsman never becomes skilled by always being given the finished works. I have posted only one complete spell as an example, much like the craftsman may be shown a finished product as a template, so that, from that point, the practitioner's own style may emerge unimpeded by my own unique personal preferences, interpretations, sensations, and casting biases. Borrowing from another old axiom, I furthermore believe in "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime". What I attempt to do here is teach people to be independent practitioners, not clinging apprentices. Instead of always running back here to download spells off the internet (a vulgar and disgusting practice), I've designed this site to show people how to write their own working spells, thus side-stepping the Master/Apprentice relationship yet again. The overall pattern in this is that I hate spoon-feeding people and find that the most robust magicians are ones that learn the old way (through their own struggles) instead of being coddled and given everything. Instructions for energy manipulation (generic) can be found on the Beginning 2 and Beginning 3 pages. Spell writing and casting (generic) can be found on the Intermediate 1 and Intermediate 2 pages. Identifiable energies to be manipulated are found on the Advanced pages (specific), and on the Beginning 1 page (generic and specific). Between these pages you have instructions on how to manipulate energy, and specific ones are mentioned separately without instructions. Taken as a whole, it is a complete system to train real magicians to solve their own puzzles, not create internet spell junkies or mindless apprentices who always need "teachers" to write their spells for them. In short, I don't give away spells and certain other pieces of information for the same reason your school teachers didn't do your homework for you.
A: This is the Great Divide between magician and mundane. You must be willing to sacrifice to learn, and this is the first one of those sacrifices you make while learning magic -- the disquieting possibility that it may not exist (at first). You should quickly learn otherwise, but before actually having done it and invested the time to learn, there is no way to tell.
A: Doubtfully. One would have to be immeasurably old to fully explore more than one art. Even one art is enough to fill a lifetime. Getting a true grasp on what it takes to Master an art may be a bit sobering. I personally immerse myself in a minimum of three and as much as ten hours of magical study per day, as time permits. This means 3 - 10 hours of perfectly quiet and uninterrupted study of only magic. I am wary to call myself a master even still. Two arts now, supposing you meant to match me in studies, would require you to spend from 6 - 20 hours of study per day (this has gone on for years). This, most obviously, is an entirely unrealistic aspiration (however noble). Another snag encountered while trying to learn multiple arts is the polarity or methodology of an art. If I were to take up healing, for example, it would be directly against my own practice which, at the time of writing this, is Necromancy. Necromancy depends on the power of death to be present, and healing requires the power of life; they do not rest well together and one will fizzle the other out.
A: No. If you want to spend 30 seconds every month on all the arts, go right ahead -- just don't expect much. The saying "Garbage in, garbage out" should be remembered, and know that the benefits of occultism are directly proportional to the time you spend refining your skill.
A: This style of observation usually comes from people that have read The Library of Knowledge but have attempted to weave its texts into a foreign system of thought rather than trying to understand it on its own merits. Drawing undue implications spawns this question. This site's information is not posted for people to manipulate as they see fit and try to cram it into their newest form of Galactic Dragons of the Sons of Eternal Harmony philosophy or similar nonsense. Evaluating the site and its content within the context provided is the only way to interpret it as the authors have intended. Life and Death, as universal concepts, are never referred to on this site. Life magic (Healing) is not a way of tapping into the global processes of Birth, Renewal, Regeneration, and Growth. Death magic (Necromancy), likewise, is not about tapping the will of deified Death, or touching chaos/void/oblivion, or taking part in some spiritual aspect of Global Suffering. These are references only to two types of opposing energies which, though similar, are different and conflicting. They are terrestrial, common, and are oblivious to any philosopies we may have attached to them. They have opposing effects and, like hot and cold, will not coexist in purity. Hot and cold is a very good example, since only by the presence of one can we understand the other, yet we also understand that they do not co-exist. Dropping preconceived notions at the door, it will be seen that the site refers only to energy, not philosophical facets of the nature of life, existence, creation, harmony, balance, or other wider ideologies. I find this error common to other questions, as well. Remember not to read more into a statement than it directly implies. It is the duty of a good author, not the reader, to expand on a concept until it is clear. I have left the concepts where they stand by design with the expectation that people will read this "open-mindedly", though I usually abhor that term. "Open-minded" means to first listen then evaluate afterwards. Take it as it is to understand it and forget the rest until you are done reading.
A: I have collected my information from one or more of three potential sources: Masters, Media, or Personal Experience. I have always required that authorities on the individual magical arts be forthcoming before I add them to TLoK. I have, as such, interviewed and gathered information from a Master of each of the arts. Media is another way to get information. This includes grimoires, university libraries, public libraries, and occasionally informative television documentaries (I place most trust in scholarly journals, books, articles and whatnot, lesser faith in grimoires, and least trust in documentaries). The last source is personal experience, through which I gained the knowledge I now have written in Advanced Necromancy page, the "Beginning Occult Magic" series of pages, the "Intermediate Occult Magic" page. I have knowledge, if not skill, in most areas of magic, having had an eclectic taste of all the arts before beginning one devotedly. I have an absolute abhorrence for sites that pretend one or two spells makes you a master. Too many people rely on angst-ridden or teen witch internet sites (!) for their information. Anyone may rest assured that no such thing was used for sourcing here. I find graphics applied to useful information to be very tasteful and stimulating, but too often absolutely worthless sources are used as scripture.
A: I was actually asked this question and I believe it to be an excellent one. For the short of it, no, I am not a dualist. The 14 arts, which can be balanced against each other in their practice and method, are simply what I have found to be fact. I do not find the fact that there is an even number of balanced arts to be compelling evidence to believe in dualism of any nature, though it has made me stop to think about the possibility. Dualism, for what it is worth, is a fine concept but, no, I do not believe in it.
A: There are two elements in this question that I disgree with. The first is Karma itself, but I'd like to address the second one first. Evil, as a concept, is not something I believe exists. The reason that I do not believe in Evil is that I do not believe in Good either. Both of these concepts require some kind of higher moral authority to define which is which. Absolute good and absolute evil require an absolute authority which is above either to define their existence in any given situation (meaning some kind of absolute God figure, as I see it). To claim that either Good or Evil exists directly implies the presence of an omnipotent God which defines the two. To speak now of Karma, I can not believe in it either because of its implications as well. Karma is not to be confused with Cause and Effect, I should note from the outset. I do believe firmly in cause and effect which can be seen in every day life. Holding a bottle over the floor (situation), when it is let go (cause), will fall to the ground and shatter (effect). This is not an example of Karma. That is simple, scientific, Cause and Effect -- nothing more. Karma is the belief that actions on this earth will affect you in the afterlife and in the next life. That requires, much like the concept of Good and Evil, a higher intelligence which can coordinate these forces to be revisted upon the caster. Just for the sake of argument though, let's humour the "karma in this life" idea. For one, I can not simply accept the idea prima facie that retribution or reward will naturally, without any kind of guidance whatsoever, blindly find its way back to the magician who has acted as they saw fit. I see no evidence of governing intelligence in this universe and, as such, do not believe in its ability to revisit "good" and "evil" on the caster. Supporters of karma ignore this rather important point. Karma is not causation because that would make it a very easy system to cheat and thus the term becomes meaningless. Karma can not be understood properly without believing also in intelligent revisitation too or else we start trusting moralistic folk myths before reason. If karma is not one or the other, the only conclusion left is that karma simply is not. In essence, karma is a scare tactic. It is an infantile appeal to some wishful intellectual embodiment of justice which does not exist to provide emotional security for people who can not accept that there is no cosmic policing system out there to deliver X degree of good to Person A because they opened a door for someone (which already says something about their idea of what's "good" or not) and Y degree of vindication to Person B who slammed a door in someone's face. Karma follows the same error as "Universal Post Office", which is labelled and defined on the Spell Troubleshooting page.
A: I've had witch, thelemite, cabbalist, pagan, neopagan, wiccan, satanist, and a few dozen other less mentionable magicians write me about this. With all due respect to most witches, whom I have more respect for than most other arts, this question comes largely from digruntled elitists or philosophical non-occultists. To put it plainly: Little children can not expect to compete in the olympics -- only athletes. The concepts sometimes sound surprising or abnormal, but there's a very good reason for that: magic is about tapping the unknown (which is always surprising and abnormal) and is responsive to change. I won't apologize for mentioning extreme abilities because I clearly state on the index page that advanced magic is being discussed (did they think I was kidding?), not child's-play ritual-encumbered systems or structureless "anything goes" malarky. Furthermore, the scope of this site is fantastically broad. It is not only about one strain of magic, but 14 strains of magic construed to address all problems and possibilities of "occultism" (!). "Face East, Face North, Face West, Face South, Swing a Sword, Chant a Phrase, Sprinkle Salt, Praise the Lady, BOOM! -- magic." I don't buy that either, and for reasons I clearly explain on this site. I am just as digusted with hardcore ritualist and "there are no rules" sites as they are with mine. They say my site is harsh, narrow, or too critical, but I would definitely favour that particular "error" before wallowing in symbolism so thick it renders the magic inert. Call Lord and Lady if you will, and be satisfied that "Good Luck, Good Health, Light A Candle, Blesséd Be" is the extent of magic if you have no more need for the occult beyond that, but many of us are capable of more, know it, and are tired of being hindered by superstition or ignorance. Plainly, this is the challenge: If I'm wrong, tell me why. Don't pick at semantics or labels -- tell me why I'm wrong on the conceptual and practical level. Some people have sent in letters to attempt this very thing but have rarely written back after I respond to them with critical analysis of their arguments. The point in all this, as with many things I teach, is think for yourself. Don't be bullied by majority sway or mud-slinging -- only by sound argument and personal experience. For an insightful look at what is and is not a valid method of analysing material, try The Nizkor Project.
A: You won't ever see a magician doing things like that for quite a few reasons:
#1. Such a raw display of power invokes the worst kind of fear. There is a chance that it will simply lead to the death or supression of the caster by one means or another. #2. The large amounts of energy required limits how often one can perform such powerful phenomenon (if it is possible at all). One display of anything and even an Elemental Master would be drained to nothing. #3. By the time you're powerful enough to do that, anyhow, you would have learned that showing people magic only brings trouble. Firstly, nobody would believe it if you show them. Technology can often gives results which are indistinguishable from magic, as Arthur C. Clarke so aptly said, so people will call you a hoax and say you use equipment that can't be seen. In this age of technology, most magic can be technologically duplicated. #4. Elemental Magic, the most flashy of the arts, is only one of fourteen, and the most commonly misunderstood. Before asking "Why isn't it done?" try asking "Can it be done?" #5. It's immature, plain and simple. #6. Most magicians would rather have their power but not have everyone examining them like a newly discovered breed of plant. To keep your powers sacred is something guarded by many magicians, and, even within the echalons of the occult, you'll find people willing to point their skills at an unruly magus for the sole reason of making sure they won't draw too much attention to themselves. #7. There is simply no good reason to show your power. Aside from wow-ing a few friends and mystically wracking yourself in the process, potentially damaging yourself or others, there is no pay-off. #8. There is a principle known as "effect ratio" which plays a large part in trying to nail down occultism to single feats of fantastic power.
A: I was emailed by one person who was deciding whether to take this site seriously or not and she pointed to the JREF Million Dollar Challenge as an argument against occultism. For feedback I've received about the JREF challenge, consider the material on this separate page I've created which directly counterpoints his reasonably extensive "challenge" : www.angelfire.com/mi3/tomekeeper/jref.html.
A: Go away until you have a more convincing argument than that. Here's a good spot.
Click the spot if you're one of these creatures --->> • <<--- Click the spot if you're one of these creatures.
Tomekeeper
tomekeeper@xyzoccultmail.com
Remember to Remove the Anti-Spam "xyz"