"My Necronomicon Curse: Answering the Critics" by Joshua Free

[nabu]

Perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of being involved with the Necronomicon gestalt, at least in the modern literary sense, is that more energy is spent on the 'answering to the critics' concerning the use of the name and title – Necronomicon – rather than what the content within actually is. Again – this is one of the key reasons I worked so hard to retain the more unique 'brands', such as Mardukite or even Systemology, conceptual ideals that are not already hard-fixed in human consciousness. For, even when I am forced into a corner to be genre-specific regarding the work and any words come flowing out – such as 'ancient aliens' or 'anunnaki' or 'arcane arts' – the functions of the mind take over once more and someone previously familiar with Daniken or Sitchen, perhaps a documentary on television, or an occult grimoire from Simon; well, they have 'heard it all before' and presume to 'know' what my work is 'all' about. Seriously?

All along the pathway, details of why and how these materials have come to be culminated by Mardukites under the 'Necronomicon' guise have been given: in the prefatory information to the 'Necronomicon Anunnaki Bible', in the introduction to the 'Book of Elven-Faerie' (first released by the Mardukites as 'Druids of the Necronomicon'), in the very text of “Liber R” or 'Necronomicon Revelations' (also known as the revised Mardukite 'Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows') and in the companion handbook to the three-year legacy of intensive work, titled: Mardukite Guardians of the Gates. But all of this has been missed by most of the critics and curious outsiders who are restricted to only a handful of public reviews that all follow the basic fallacy I have described in the previous paragraph.

Let us first address the most pertinent of ridiculous notions that the more naïve critics put forth – that the “Necronomicon” is purely the fictional creation of a horror-writer H.P. Lovecraft and that any and all references to this work or comparisons to the Cthulhu Mythos are likewise fictional in any and all respects for the mere mentioning of the word: Necronomicon, regardless of what is being compared: even historical Babylon, Sumer and the Anunnaki.

This statement is barely even worth the time and space of response as anyone who has an I.Q. of greater than 100 can see its flawed thinking. Let us put aside the fact that the Mardukites are examining the historical aspects of the ancients and are not interpreting a worldview through a 'Lovecraftian' paradigm at all. True, there are very real relationships between some of the themes and ideals that connect the Necronomicon of H.P. Lovecraft and the neo-Mardukite revival of learning that is using the same title, but never once attempting to present itself as a book that existed in Lovecraft's time. These connections are explored most intensely in 'Necronomicon Revelations', and they do nothing more than to serve a lesson in the universality of the fundamental messages. Quite simply, the Mardukite movement is not a 'Cthulhu Cult' built in the image of H.P. Lovecraft's writings, and any mystical, literary and spiritual connections between the two are academically discussed in my prior work and need not be repeated here.

The more 'serious' critics were short-changed from the get-go, 'set-up' so to speak, and nearly all of their critical responses were predicted by our Home Office with the separation of “Liber N” from the larger corpus of materials. First and foremost, we positioned ourselves into a unique sect of 'Necronomicon gnosis' that is not representative one-to-one with H.P. Lovecraft's Necronomicon at all, and never was – and that is by clinging instead to the actually more famous use of the Necronomicon archetype of “Simon” in the 1970's; not Lovecraft. In fact, let's get real and be honest here: a million more people are now first aware of the Necronomicon under the guise of Simon's grimoire than some forgotten pulp-fiction from a hundred years ago. Avon (now Harper Collins) boasts a million copies of Simon's paperback in print through them, not to mention how many have been passed along second-hand or worse, reproduced illegally... Somehow, I doubt the work of Lovecraft has shared the same circulation success.

And what do we find in Simon's work? A grimoire of horror-ridden necromancy? HA! Far from it. Only a fragmentary system of the very real Babylonian Anunnaki Tradition known as “Mardukite” to the ancients. So, critics really need to get a clue and get a bit wiser in their approach and maybe even get over the fact that they, themselves, are failed authors. There are only so many ways in which this distinction can be made and I find myself still, these years later, making the same points about the work again and again to those outside the strictly “Mardukite” circles. My solution has been to keep taking steps back until those who can follow along far enough unaided are still able to reach me.

The outsiders don't see much of the work that goes into the reestablishment of the ancient alien 'Anunnaki' tradition from the Mardukite perspective. They see the word – Necronomicon – and the references to the Mesopotamian region and the schema-based mind takes over.

The critics profess – this is clearly “Simon”, this is all “Simon”, this is just another version of “Simon” – end of story.

I am still amazed some of these 'New Age critics' claim to seek 'enlightenment' in this life.

Here, some explanation should be provided to say that ALL of the public critics that speak of the “Mardukite Necronomicon” or the “Necronomicon of Joshua Free” are referring, of course, to the smaller stand-alone “Liber N” tome that was released in 2009 as the Necronomicon edited by Joshua Free (and in hardcover with foreword by Tracy R. Twyman). This was done with the intention of bridging the gap with what 'esotericists' would already be most familiar with in regards to our 'greater' work and that is Simon's Necronomicon! We didn't take the Simon Necronomicon and build a tradition as some have proposed – we instead selected parts of the very real, very ancient, very living Babylonian Anunnaki Tradition that had already been partially gleaned at in Simon's work, and separated them as a “Mardukite Necronomicon.”

The circulation of the “Necronomicon Anunnaki Bible” has already doubled the original stand-alone “Liber N,” which comprises only 30% of the complete anthology and would never have been so loosely compared to Simon's work had it been released in total from the start, but that wasn't how the plan was set. We were relying on the skeptics and betting on the naïve critics to help bring more public attention to the still up-and-coming Mardukite revival sect of the underground by supplying a more complete vision of Simon's original venture. The Simon Necronomicon was not a “launch-point” as the critics have surmised, parts of the greater legacy that matched what was originally being relayed were selected to aid in completing the picture. This was a much easier approach than initiating a generic 'alien cult' or trying to start by educating a world on the misinformation and/or lack of self-honest information regarding the 'ancient' world.

A perfect example is the Enuma Elis, which is actually the heart of the Mardukite system-based divine and worldly politics that ruled ancient Babylon. All of the priestly 'magick' and the star-gate division and religious power of that world was rooted in this creation epic. Since its discovery over a century ago, significant work has been done in reconstructing the full message of these tablets, which also includes (on the seventh tablet), the Book of Fifty Names of Marduk, which not only served as the primary 'grimoire' portion of the Simon Necronomicon, but also as the main tenet of the Necronomicon Spellbook by the same editor.

Naturally, these seven tablets of creation have already been academically compared to the Judeo-Christian biblical 'seven days of creation'. Actually, six days of creation and a seventh spent in glorification of the “Creator.” In the Enuma Elis, we have six tablets describing the systematic creation and ordering of the universe followed by a seventh glorifying the self-made king of the gods for the Babylonian paradigm, Marduk. Rather than take Simon's fragments and embelish, or use as a basis (as the critics presume), we simply identify his 'Magan Text' as the Enuma Elis and provide our translation of the complete text in its stead. And so on and so on – selecting parts that match the main sections of Simon's work but replacing them with the more recent and complete research. The Mardukites did, in a way. essentially reconstruct Simon's Necronomicon with parts taken from a larger work we call the Necronomicon Anunnaki Bible. . .

. . .to be continued.