Alexander the Great and the Grail Tradition

The following article contains excerpts from the new book, Alexander the Great: Beyond the Divide, which is available at the author’s web site:

If you are a TDG member, please use the built-in TDG utility to contact me for a free copy of the full-length (PDF) book. If for any reason that doesn't work, please use the Contact Page on my website and identify yourself as a TDG member and I'll email you the book. Thanks!

This article (and the full-length book) on Alexander the Great touches on ancient beliefs about ghosts and resurrection. Ancient peoples clearly believed in both ghosts and an afterlife, and the royal family was also clearly capable of exploiting those popular beliefs. Regardless of whether an afterlife is real/possible or not, the issue remains important and worthy of study.

Charles N. Pope is the author of TDG Feature Article: "Mary Magdalene, Harlot or Queen"

Book Cover

Cover Image: “A Tale of Two Rivers”
Photographer: Payal Vora (CC-BY-2.0)
Like the hesitant mixing of two distinct cultures is the confluence of the Indus and Zanskar rivers in the locale where Alexander’s first attempt to conquer India was turned back.

Alexander as Archetypal Jesus

Virtually everything about Alexander the Great is repurposed in the New Testament accounts of Jesus and should sound eerily familiar to us. Alexander the Great’s birth had been “immaculately conceived” and then “celestially announced.” Alexander was a precocious youth that confounded his elders. He railed against conventional thinking (orthodoxy) and was revered everywhere, except by his own family and home town. His campaign began with a wedding. He traveled incessantly. He cast out demons and was accused of having a demon. He fed the multitudes and spoke in parables. He was particularly fond of the mustard seed. He prayed for those that spitefully used him. He showed concern for runaway slaves. He walked on water and calmed the tempest. He was warned against entering his capital, but approached his prophesized demise with flint-like resolve. He was lifted up into the “heavens” and also descended to the “underworld.” His higher calling was to attain a faraway kingdom, and one that could only be gained through a symbolic death and ascension. He comforted and later appeared to his followers. He moved mountains and walled off those who believed in him from the onslaught of the godless.

Jesus of the Gospels plainly alludes to Alexander when he says, “For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life.” (Mark 8:36) This statement sums up Alexander’s obsession with global conquest perfectly, and it also reflects the need to temper the perceived excesses of Alexander in the time and place of Jesus (1st Century Jewish Palestine under Roman rule). It was considered appropriate for a substitute of Jesus (as the redeemed Alexander), to be crucified between two robbers, because Alexander had himself crucified those who attempted to rob him of his claim to divinity, i.e., to be called the “Son of God,” the very phrase placed above the head of Jesus on the cross. Curtius, a Roman historian writing during the Julio-Claudian Dynasty said, “You [Alexander] who boasted of your coming to eradicate robbers are yourself the greatest robber upon earth.” Curtius also has Alexander say, “I am abandoned, forsaken, delivered up to the enemy. But even alone, I shall press on.” Similarly, Jesus is made to cry out on the cross in a symbolic protest. Signs of sun and moon were associated with the deaths of both Alexander and of Jesus. It was said that Alexander’s body did not decay in the days following his death. Likewise, the body of Jesus is miraculously preserved.

Image: A graffiti from the temple at Deir el-Haggar (Dakhla Oasis in Egypt) in which Alexander is depicted as a pre-Christian Messianic figure.

Alexander did not want his death to be mourned, and especially not by the royal women. He even made light of it by requesting that one of his hands be allowed to dangle outside the coffin. Alexander did not actually die at this time, and this is clearly mirrored in the New Testament accounts of Jesus. In the Gospel of John, Chapter 20, Mary is asked not once but twice (verses 13 & 15), “Woman, why are you weeping?” She is told that the person believed to have died is very much alive. Alexander had also appeared “posthumously” to encourage and promise victory to his followers, whose “vacated” throne was even used on occasion as a prop during negotiations between fellow princes. This peculiar tradition related to Alexander is echoed in the Gospel pronouncement of Jesus, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matt 18:20) The implication is that Alexander remained a living, acting, dynastic force.

Jesus is endowed with all of the good qualities of Alexander and none of the bad. In other words, Jesus is depicted as a rehabilitated Alexander, and therefore in a sense, an even greater “god-king” than Alexander had been. Likewise, the leading figures of Alexander’s life are also “reincarnated” in the Gospels. Olympias (Mura), the “virgin mother goddess” of Alexander became a pattern for Mary mother of Jesus. Roxane, the bride that Alexander claimed by storming a high fortress, prefigured the much-maligned Mary Magdalene, “Lady of the Tower.” All of Christ’s disciples (later Apostles) were also typecast after the companions (later “Successors”) of Alexander and other leading figures of the time. Hephaestion became the archetype of John the Beloved; Perdiccas the “first leader” after Alexander’s “Passion” provided inspiration for James the Just (the first head of the Church); the role model for Peter was supplied by Seleucus, who denied Alexander in his hour of need, but later built his empire and his cult following; Diogenes of Sinope, who mocked the resurrection of Alexander, was unquestionably the inspiration for “Doubting Thomas;” and the role of Ptolemy the tireless evangelist of Alexander was played by the zealous Paul. And the list goes on.

The Gospel figures are supposed to have been uneducated provincials with little or no knowledge of events outside the narrow confines of Palestine. They should not have been capable of emulating much earlier Greek nobility, and especially drawing a slick parallel between Israel in the time of the Julio-Claudian emperors and Greece in the time of the Persian kings. However, they absolutely did, and it is past time that we got some answers!

The above associations between Alexander and Jesus can be better appreciated through study of a sizable corpus of information about Alexander’s life (and “afterlife”) that is excluded from modern (“rational/ proper”) histories. The Life of Alexander of Macedon is now consiered an apocryphal work, and referred to condescendingly as the “Alexander Romance.” However, it was first composed as early as one generation after Alexander’s “Passion Play” in Babylon. This original history of Alexander steadily increased in popularity in the following centuries and did not reach its zenith until well into the Middle Ages. Even more shocking to a modern Christian, a condensed version of this work was for a time actually included in authorized “History Bibles” of both Germany and the Netherlands during the Middle Ages,[1] at which time Alexander was clearly identified by clerics as a type of Christ from the Intertestamental Period.[2] In these Bibles, The Life of Alexander of Macedon was followed immediately by the Book of I Maccabees (still included in Catholic Bibles), which itself begins with an unequivocal proclamation that Alexander had reached the furthest extent of the earth and became ruler over all the world.

Image: Alexander as Kosmokrator, "Ruler of the Universe" (note the star and crescent on the headress).

In the Alexander Romance, Alexander accepts mortality only after achieving complete satisfaction in his conquests. This is definitely NOT the same Alexander we know from today’s text books and popular histories. That Alexander was planning ever greater campaigns and construction projects up until the time of his sudden illness and death. In the so-called apocryphal accounts, after the conquest of all India is complete, Alexander sails up the mighty Ganges River and actually reaches a kind of Paradise. He is not granted eternal life there, but nevertheless fulfills his goal of reaching this remote and privileged locale. In contrast, the Alexander of (Western) history was completely frustrated in his attempt to conquer India and only reached the Indus River, well short of the Ganges, and nowhere near the mouth of Ganges on the Eastern coast of India.

The conqueror of the Indian sub-continent is known by a different name, Chandra-Gupta, who is one of the most celebrated kings of all of Indian history. Curiously, almost nothing is known about his early life until after the death of Alexander the Great. No sooner did the attempted conquest of Alexander end than that of Chandragupta began. The name Chandra Gupta can be interpreted as “Alexander the Copt/ Upper Egyptian” as Gupta has been linguistically associated with Coptos (a Greek word for a critical locale in Upper Egypt), and Chandra is a transliteration of Sander (a hypocorism of Alexander/ Iksander). There is a claim by ancient rulers of Bukhara/ Bochara on the Silk Road (in Sogdiana) that they were descended from Alexander – a claim which becomes far more credible (and even inevitable) when one realizes that Alexander’s dynastic line did not actually die out.

According to an important Indian source, the Mudrarakshasa, Chandragupta made extensive use of a Persian army, at least in the initial phase of the conquest. Chandragupta is also known for employing Macedonian military training and tactics. This is consistent with Alexander’s recruitment of Persian troops prior to his exit from Babylon. He also attracted many mercenary troops (called “outlaws” by one biographer). The many provinces of this vast land, which were formerly fragmented as a means of external (“foreign”) domination, were quickly united under Chandragupta and his chief minister Chanakya. In 305 BC, Chandra-Gupta also defeated Seleucus (the leading “Successor” of Alexander the Great in the West) and imposed terms upon him. Alexander received some of the former satrapies of Persia and the daughter of Seleucus in marriage. Seleucus remained infertile and even received a sardonic gift of aphrodisiacs from Chandra-Gupta! A powerful new dynasty, the first of its kind in Indian history, had been founded by Chandra-Gupta. Further consolidation of the Indian subcontinent was made by his son Bindusara and grandson Ashoka.

In Egypt, Barsine was called by the close variant, Berenice, “Bringer of Victory.” She was the consort of King Ptolemy, who was obliged to accept two of her three sons as his own potential heirs. The older prince, Ptolemy Ceraunos/ Keraunus (“Thunderbolt”), Candaules of the Romance, was at least initially the more prominent in the West. The epithet Ceraunos associates him with the late Artaxerxes III Ochus, the forth prince or “Judah” (Cheiron, Adad, Horus the Elder) figure of the previous generation. As his natural son, Ceraunos was logically designated as a Horus the Younger, that is, a Heracles in the Greek typecasting system. Barsine’s second son was in fact called Heracles. Her first son had been named Ochus III, also after Artaxerxes III (Ochus II). However, the third son of Barsine was the ultimate successor to the throne of Egypt as Ptolemy II. He was also appointed by the childless Ochus III/Antiochus I as heir to the so-called “Seleucid Kingdom.” Upon the death of Antiochus, Ptolemy II succeeded him as Antiochus II Theos (“the God”). Young Thoas of the Alexander Romance became “Theos” (the Great King). What’s more, he also succeeded Alexander the Great (Chandra-Gupta) directly in India under the Indian king-name of Bindusara.

Image: An elaborate Medieval mosaic of the Otranto Cathedral (Italy), restored in the 1990’s, depicting the Tree of Life (supported by two Indian elephants) and scenes from biblical and extra-biblical history, including Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel, The Life Alexander the Great, King Arthur and the Round Table, Knights of Charlemagne’s Dynasty, and even the Zodiac.

Princely Birth Order

Western scholarship has rejected the explicit memory of Alexander in the Persian Book of Kings as a bonafide prince of Persia, and by virtue of being the son of Artaxerxes II Memnon (“Kai Bahman”) and half-brother of Darius III (“Darab”). No one today is taught that such a relationship was even remotely possible in ancient times, much less taken as gospel in certain parts of the world. Nevertheless, the case can readily be made that the little kingdom of Macedon had been part of the Persian Empire from the time of Darius the Great. In fact, the very first Persian-appointed overseer of Macedon had the Persian name Bubares (son of Megabyzus), and subsequent kings of Macedon are said to have descended from him. It is certainly no mystery that Egypt had become a Persian province. Alexander’s rapid and even enthusiastic acceptance in Babylon, Egypt and Persia demonstrates that his legitimacy was not questioned anywhere within the Empire and its so-called “tributary states.”

It is known that Barsine (who has been correctly equated by some scholars with Princess Statiera of Persia) already had two children when she became the consort of Alexander. These would have been Ochus III and a daughter. She would later have two more sons, Heracles and Alexander IV. Unexpectedly, Seleucus, Ptolemy, Ochus III and Heracles all proved infertile with eligible royal women, whereas the equally inbred Alexander IV was able to produce an heir. Neither was Darius III or Philip III (Arrhidaeus) able to produce one. This is the most significant element of the “miracle” that was Alexander’s ascendency. The childless Seleucus adopted Heracles (Ptolemy Keraunos) and Ochus III (Antiochus) as his own sons. Ptolemy adopted Alexander’s son as his own heir.

Birth Order of the Last Persian Royal Generation:

1) Alcetas of Epirus (Oxyarthes/ Arta-Sata/ Darius III)
2) Aecides of Epirus/ Seleucus (Arses/ Artaxerxes IV)
3) Neoptolemus of Epirus/ Ptolemy/ Hephaestion (Arbupales)
4) Arrhidaeus/ Philip III of Macedon (an invalid)
5) Alexander III of Macedon (Bupares)

Birth Order in the First Greek Royal Generation:

1) Ochus III/Antiochus I, considered a son of Darius III (and later of Seleucus), but actually sired by Artaxerxes III Ochus.
2) Heracles/Ptolemy Karaunus, considered a son of Alexander (and later of Seleucus), but actually sired by Artaxerxes III Ochus.
3) Alexander IV (true son and heir of Alexander the Great)

A Date in Babylon

The Greek writers claimed to know so much about the order of the battle of Alexander and Darius III at Issus, because the plans were supposedly left behind by the fleeing Darius. In reality, there was ever only one plan for both armies. The success of Alexander depended more upon simple faith rather than “military genius.” His royal enablers parted a sea of soldiers, and Alexander (ala Moses) needed only to blindly pass through. After Alexander’s first triumph at Issus, he did not pursue Darius toward the east. Military analysts have criticized him for this, however at this time Alexander was still following the script. And that script required him to lead his Greek conglomerate army southward toward Palestine and Egypt, even as the hodge-podge Sea Peoples overran Asia Minor and advanced southward in earlier times after the “Fall of Troy.”

As Helen of Troy was “stolen away” from mighty Menelaus and paired with Paris for a season, so had Barsine been “taken” by Darius III from Memnon of Rhodes, the first husband of Barsine. However, this second match proved infertile, and it was therefore necessary for Barsine (as a new “Briseis”) to become the reward of Alexander the Great (in the role Achilles). One by one, the great cities of the Empire were formally surrendered to Alexander. The Greek victory was predetermined. The only thing yet to be settled was which former Persian prince would be ruling the Empire when the Greek conquest concluded. And that was not to be decided on the battlefield, but in the royal boudoir.

The “ancient historians” that wrote about Alexander and his conquest had very specific knowledge about the Persians, the royal family, its administration and leadership and even their private council meetings - what we would call “insider information.” They also knew Alexander’s place within the Persian hierarchy, however they were not at liberty to disclose it directly. They however did quite clearly spell it out for all who “had eyes to see” and “ears to hear.” The Persian name that maps to Alexander is Bupares. Bupares/ Bubares is an odd and uncommon name, but it just so happens to have been that of an earlier Persian magnate, the very first Persian appointee as overseer in Macedon (and also the governor/ viceroy of Babylon of that earlier time), who dates back to the reign of the first Persian king named Darius (“The Great”). The latter Bupares (Alexander the Great) was likewise made king of Macedon by Persian decree, as well as being the contemporary Persian-appointed military commander and governor of Babylon at the beginning of Darius III’s reign. Both titles were worthy of a Persian prince.

Alexander was in no particular hurry to leave his beloved Babylon. Neither was there any urgent need for Alexander to rush into Persia in order to capitalize on his victories over Darius III. This was not a real invasion, but a scripted transition from a Persian to Hellenistic Empire. Although it was only October, there was no point in pushing it. Alexander stalled by ordering a prolonged siege of Tyre along the Phoenician coast that was supposedly holding out against him (as the Phoenician island of Arwad was singled out in the previous “Coming of the Sea Peoples.” He also took time to drag the body of Batis of Gaza behind his chariot as Achilles had done to his enemy Hector in the Iliad. A third minor skirmish was required to deal with the turncoat Amyntas son of Antiochus in Egypt, but this did not even require the direct involvement of Alexander. Alexander (like Jesus of the Gospels) needed only to speak the word and the situation was resolved. Thus was completed the second phase of the “Conquest.”

Everyone Loves a Charade

Bessus, the “killer of Darius III,” was Satrap of Bactria, which was traditionally the domain of the heir apparent to the Persian throne. At the Battle of Gaugamela, Bessus intentionally stretched the Persian line to allow Alexander opportunity to make a direct attack on Darius. At Gaugamela and afterwards, Bessus was clearly calling the shots. The name Bessus (Bess/ Bes) is itself highly curious. It appears to have been derived from the Persian name/ suffix -bazus or from Baryaxes, a Persian “rebel” that like Bessus had declared himself a Persian king and was delivered to Alexander. The name Bes first appeared during the Ptolemaic Era when the histories of Alexander were first written, and was applied to one of the more comical gods of the Egyptian pantheon. Bes was squatty and unabashedly well-endowed. He had a broad face and the hair and mane of a lion. Bes typically held a weapon, especially a knife/ sword, or the hieroglyphic sign for “protection.” He might also firmly grasp a pair of serpents or other potentially harmful creatures. Bes was invoked by women as a charm during coitus and pregnancy, and as a defender of their newborn children.

Cippo di Bes, inizio epoca tolemaica, calcare.JPG
Image: Bes, protector of women and the newborn.

Image: Coin depicting a Persian Period king.

The grotesque Bes made for a ready caricature of Persian Great Kings, espeically as they were depicted on coins. A carving of Artaxerxes III Ochus in Egypt was thoroughly gnomish and unflattering. Prior to the Ptolemaic Period, Bes was referred to as Aha or close variants of the name Aha (as in the early dynastic figure of Horus Aha). The Persian given-name Ochus (and the Judah/ Horus typecasting of Artaxerxes III) would certainly have fit the mold. During the Egyptian New Kingdom, this god had been a particular favorite of the prolific breeder Amenhotep III (“Memnon”) and his artisans, and therefore Aha/ Bes was an ideal image with which to lampoon Grand “Persian Poobahs,” such as Artaxerxes II Memnon and Memnon of Rhodes.

The Greek Conquest was a carefully choreographed crisis. What gave it real suspense from the royal perspective was that the succession had not been settled. Because there was not a clear succession, the script was not entirely canned, but by definition had to allow for “alternate endings.” None of the older princes (Alcetas-Arta-sata-Darius III; Amyntas IV-Seleucus-Artaxerxes IV; Ptolemy-Neoptolemus-Hephaestion-Arbupales; Arrhidaeus-Philip III; or Bupares-Alexander III) had yet sired a qualified heir. The only young prince, Ochus III, was still a toddler when the Conquest began. His ability to produce an heir was obviously also uncertain. The longer his rivals went without a son the longer Alexander could stay in the game.

Two Funerals and a Wedding

Upon reaching the furthest extents of the Persian Empire, Alexander stormed the fortress of Cryopolis (founded and named for Cyrus the Great) upon the Jaxartes River, and was knocked senseless by a large stone about the head and neck. Although his vision and speech was seriously impaired, Alexander immediately ordered construction of a new city named after himself (“Alexandria-the-Furthest”) to begin. Upon his recovery, Alexander then crossed the Jaxartes River into wild Scythian territory and nearly died of dysentery. Cyrus the Great had himself died at the hands of Scythians after crossing the Jaxartes, and Alexander could now claim to have excelled him. Another role model, the over-zealous Biblical upstart Abimelech, “Father of the King,” (Thutmose, true father of the mighty Thutmose III) had himself died after a stone was thrown down upon his head when trying to take a city. Yet, Alexander had one-upped this great royal ancestor as well.

In the Gospel of John, there are three separate attempts to kill Jesus. The first occurred somewhat spontaneously and was actually initiated by Jews that supported (“believed in”) him. They became incensed by his exclusive claims of divinity (special relationship with the true Father God) and equally audacious claims of immortality (past, present and future). The second attempt came from those Jews that were on the fence, so to speak, or should we say “on the wall.” They not only took issue with Jesus claiming to be God, but also for rejecting them as not even being worthy to be his “sheep.” All three incidents took place at major Jewish holidays when people were the most fervent. In the first two situations, Jesus had put himself in harms way and then had to quickly make an escape. The third attempt was initiated by the authorities, and with Jesus as an active and willing participant.
After his near death experiences in Sogdiana, Alexander announced that he was being betrayed even as Darius had been sold out by Bessus. In other words, it was Alexander’s turn to “take the fall.” (In the Gospels, Jesus announces - in remembrance of Alexander and the god Osiris before him- that he must be delivered up, ill-treated, and put to death.)

Alexander then signaled that his officer Cleitus should be struck down for his insolence. Cleitus had foolishly boasted the he had cut off the arm of Alexander’s attacker at Granicus and thereby saved Alexander’s life and campaign almost before it had even begun. However, it was never wise to boast that the king was indebted to anyone. Cleitus was ushered out of the room. A substitute immediately returned through another entrance, and after another taunt from Cleitus’ double Alexander ran him through with a lance. It was all an act. The “character” of Cleitus had been made an object lesson for those who would stir up dissent and challenge the traditional inviolability of kingship, particularly the type of kingship Alexander intended to pursue in India.

The New Testament parallel is the scene (immediately following the statement by Jesus about his own betrayal) in which Peter lops off the ear of the High Priest’s servant, who had come to arrest Jesus and have him put to death. Jesus rebukes Peter for this act of protection, but not murderously so (as in the case of Alexander). However, he does prophesy that Peter will deny him three times before transforming back into the “Rock (of Sogdia)” upon which his church would be built. Peter’s career was only getting started, and so was that of Cleitus, who emerges as an alter ego of Seleucus. Seleucus would in fact “deny” Alexander three (or more) times in the coming months and years, at least once in India, again back in Ecbatana, and once more at Babylon.

The demise of Cleitus was accompanied by that of Spitamenes, the satrap of Sogdiana and last Persian magnate resisting Greek total victory. The royal women were understandably tiring of the unending action sports. It was high time for more staged weddings and less faked beheadings. Barsine was again pregnant “by the will of God” and was in need of an “earthly” husband as a covering. Conception of this ostensibly Messianic child, who was also to be called Heracles as a direct affront to Alexander, required a wedding, as Olympias had once-upon-a-time married Philip after conceiving Alexander.

To gain his bride, Alexander contrived to now best Joshua (also of the “Benjamin” type) too. He would capture a mighty fortress with just 300 men (there’s that number again). These storm troopers were commanded to scale the Sogdian Rock that was being held by a certain “Ariamazes” (an encore presentation of Mazaeus/Mazacus, who earlier had handed Egypt and Babylon over to Alexander) and where “Roxane” (the erstwhile Barsine now being called the “daughter of Oxyarthes”) was also being held! When his Macedonian troops murmured about his marriage to a “Persian” woman, Alexander famously said that even the doomed Achilles had demanded (and received) the consolation prize of Briseus, with Briseus of course being a word play on Barsine. This exploit not only served to identify Barsine/ Roxane with the “goddess” Rahab (the bride of Joshua), but also further asserted Alexander’s claim to the role of Joshua (of the Horus/ Benjamin typecasting).

Roxane was “rescued” and the two were married a short time later (ala the controversial “secret marriage” of Rehab and Joshua in the Old Testament). In turn, this event became an important pattern to be followed by the New Testament Jesus and Mary Magdalene (“The Lady of the Tower”). The precedent set by both Joshua and Alexander (as a neo-Joshua/ Horus) was that he needed to heroically claim his bride for dynastic purposes, and save her from the clutches of “less worthy” royal rivals. Alexander would have welcomed a marriage to the already pregnant Roxane. If the child was a male, then he would at least be recognized as the founder of an important dynastic line, even if he was not the biological father. It was a highly desirable consolation prize. The child was in fact a boy, who was named Heracles. This son became the first heir of Alexander, but was later demoted when Alexander gained a son of his own.

Carrying Koinonia to Cush

By the following spring (326 BC), Alexander was again on the move and defeated a king named Assacenes en route to the Punjab region of India. The queen there, called Cleophis, surrendered a major city to Alexander and was said to have become pregnant by him (later bearing him a son). Several months prior to this (late 327 BC), Roxane had given birth to Heracles (her second son) and was available once again for well-qualified suitors. Like Cleophis, Roxane was also old enough (barely) to be a grandmother, particularly through her daughter (the eldest of her children). After a month or two, Alexander would have become anxious to have his turn, especially considering that Roxane was now considered to be his lawful wife.

Image: Alexander offering to the god and receiving his fertility (Temple of Luxor).

The Alexander biographies do not directly mention that Roxane conceived during this time, however there is evidence that she lost a child, either through miscarriage or shortly after birth, when Alexander reached the Hyphasis River nine months (more or less) later. Putting two and two together, Cleophis was just a local representation of Roxane and Assacenes yet another alias of Artaxerxes III (Bessus, throttler of serpents), who had already sired two sons upon Roxane and was once again allowing other royal males an opportunity to do so as well. (In the Gospels, Mary of Cleophis (“Mary of Cleopatra”) is considered a close relation of Mary Magdalene, but perhaps the two should actually be considered one and the same princess.)

In the coming months, the Indian campaign met with success upon roaring success. However, it suddenly came to an elephant’s screeching halt. While camped at the Hyphasis River, Alexander was informed of the death of his son by Roxane. (See the Metz Epitome, verse 70). This devastating event more than anything brought the expedition to an abrupt end and cast a somber mood over the entire camp. It clearly demonstrates how much royal activities revolved around the outcomes of royal pregnancies.

Lost in Paradise

During his withdrawal from India, Alexander entered the territory of a cheiftain named Sopeithes, whose name connotes, “Serpent of Wisdom.” Sopeithes feigned submission to Alexander, but was surreptitiously laying a trap for him. Upon entering a city of the region, Alexander was shot by an arrow, not from the front or the back, but in the “side.” It was “friendly fire” from his so-called partners in the royal business of world domination. Alexander miraculously survived the assassination attempt, but found himself effectively under arrest. Chief among his wardens were a “brood of vipers,” to use another New Testament allusion. They were the two sons of the Persian Queen Atossa, and Atossa herself plays the role of the jealous goddess Hera (who wants to kill the son of Zeus) and attacks him (unsuccessfully) with two deadly snakes. Consistent with this imagery, Atossa’s shape-shifting serpentine sons are identified as Peithon son of Cratueas and Peithon son Agenor (Artaxerxes II Memnon). The name Peithon (a homonym of Python, “serpent”) has the direct meaning of “Persuader,” and derives from the Greek peitho, “to convince, to pacify.” Alexander had been made an offer he could not refuse. Persuasion (rather than coercion) is also a byword in later Christianity. (1 Tim 1:12; Romans 4:21; 8:38).

The Madness of King Alexander

In preparation for Alexander’s extradition back to the West, the Indus Delta was turned over to Peithon son of Agenor (the former Darius III)! Alexander would not receive it back until he fulfilled his end of the contract, that is, by returning to Mesopotamia and relinquishing his claim to the Great Throne. Peithon would hold this strategic territory in earnest until Alexander fulfilled his obligations, but in the meantime he permitted (if not directly ordered) the harbors and other structures Alexander had built there to be destroyed by locals. The other Peithon, Peithon son of Crateuas (the former Artaxerxes IV) was appointed ruler over the Medes, which represented the heart of the Empire and therefore the strategic center. The very core of the greatest and largest empire of all time was conceded by Alexander to others, and seemingly to inconsequential, low-ranking soldiers (to whom he was now completely beholden).

The Greatest Companion

After the “extradition party” reached Ecbatana (Western Iran), Hephaestion suddenly took ill and died. The intimate relationship with Alexander had already gone on far longer than was proper, even in Greek society. It was also time for Hephaestion to look after his own dynastic future, especially considering that Barsine/ Roxane had just become pregnant by Alexander again! In order to do so, it was necessary for this intimate and trusted companion to (at least temporarily) “lift up his heel” against Alexander (Psalms 41:9; John 13:18). Hephaestion does however not do this as Hephaestion, but under other aliases, such as Ptolemy.

Although Ptolemy did not come into prominence until late in the Greek conquest, he is oddly named first among the illustrius “Pella Five,” those constant companions of Alexander from his childhood in Macedon. Hephaestion, despite being considered Alexander’s closest friend, is not even included in that short list. However, when it is realized that Hephaestion is one and the same as Ptolemy, the apparent omission is resolved. The name Hephaestion itself connotes lameness. Bone problems were perhaps the most common of all royal defects. The god Hephaestus was the archetypal lame god, but his condition is often downplayed. He is typically shown sitting down, and occupied with his metallurgy work. If standing, he subtly leans against an implement. If walking, he carries a walking stick.
Hephaestion was generally described as tall and attractive. His lameness is not made explicit, but can be guessed, not only by his very name and dependence upon Alexander, but his general avoidance of physical activity.

The name Ptolemy (a.k.a. Neo-Ptolemus II of Epirus) also derives from one of the epithets of the god Hephaestus, that being Polúmētis, meaning "shrewd, crafty" or "of many devices." It appears that Hephaestion, after being born lame, was dedicated by Olympias on the island of Samothrace, and specifically at the temple of the Cabeiri, "the Great Gods," who were said to have descended from Hephaestus and were further distinguished as lame gods. Likely during the same visit, Alexander would have been conceived in one of the traditional “orgiastic rites” of the Cabeiri on Samothrace. Immediately afterward Olympias was betrothed to Philip II although Philip was not the true father. (In the Gospels, Mary is betrothed to Joseph upon her pregnancy with Jesus.) Tellingly, Alexander and his Successors lavished donations upon this temple.

Image: A ceremonial fan asserting (in Arabic) that Alexander the Great was the literal ancestor of a dynastic line in Southest Asia.

Death and Resurrection in Babylon

Alexander returned to Babylon “bearing his cross.” As he approached the city, the priests (of Bel) came out to warn against entering (and as Jesus is warned against entering Jerusalem). Alexander disregarded them, because he knew that his life was not literally about to end. Rather, the situation was identical to that of Jesus in the Gospels, who is made to say: “I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:17-18) Nonetheless, Alexander’s keepers brought a provisional army of 20,000 to Babylon to ensure that Alexander did not try to back out of his contract! Debate began to break out over Alexander’s supposed divinity. Preparations intensified for an expected military campaign. And then it was all over. Alexander entered the ancient “Witness Protection Program” and began another kingly life back in India under the name of Chandragupta. Jesus of the Gospels would do the same under the Indian (Kushan) name of Kujula Kadphises.[3]

Isis Sarapis Harpocrates Dionysos Louvre Ma3128.jpg
Image: Isis (left), Sarapis (rear), Harpocrates (front) and Dionysos (right). Provenance: 2nd Century, Tunisia (North Africa). Displayed: The Louvre (Paris, France). Photographer: I, Jastrow (placed in the public domain). Interpretation: Harpocrates (heir to the throne of Egypt as Alexander IV) signifies his inheritance from Serapis (the deified Alexander) by holding the cornucopia.

Ptolemy’s devotion to Alexander was renewed in Babylon, and as demonstrated by the establishment of a Hellenized makeover of the Osiris Mystery Cult. In Egypt, this new religion was dubbed Serapis (or Sarapis), and in effect became the mortuary cult of Alexander. Serapis was associated with the star and crescent moon, as was Alexander and his successors. The prophesy that Alexander would be worshipped as a god during his own lifetime was literally fulfilled though the creation of this brand new faith. In emulation of Osiris, Alexander had submitted to a symbolic death and resurrection. Horus the son of Osiris was said to have been born after the death of Osiris and his resurrection accomplished through the action of Thoth and Isis. Alexander’s son and heir, Alexander IV, was likewise born after his own symbolic death and resurrection. The son of Serapis is called Harpocrates, and together with Isis, they formed a type of holy trinity. Harpocrates represented Alexander IV (the future pharaoh Ptolemy II), and Isis represented his mother, Queen Berenice (the former Barsine/ Roxane).

Serapis, Harpocrates, Isis
Image: Sarapis and Isis as a Naga and Nagini (with Harpocrates, center).

Serapis, besides having a serpent/ uraeus at his feet, was also linked to the Agathodaemon (or Agathos Daemon), which Alexander had declared to be the “guardian spirit” of the new city of Alexandria in Egypt. During the early Hellenistic period, the Greek word daemon was closely associated with India, the land of spirits. Daemon could apply to either a good or bad spirit, however in the later Jewish context of 1st Century Palestine, it takes on a largely evil connotation. The emphasis, however, on “demons” in the Gospels is nevertheless another obvious parallel to the Life of Alexander and his own adoption of the daemon as an icon of his shadowy rule. It is certainly also another major sign as to the whereabouts of Alexander in the years following his staged death in Babylon. The Agathodaemon of Alexandria was a direct equivalent to the Indian Naga (a.k.a. Sarppas) serpent, and the god Serapis could transform himself into a Naga form. Serapis also had a distinct association with the Underworld as did the Indian Naga.

Image: A coin of Ptolemy showing Alexander in an elephant drawn chariot.

Alexander himself could also take the appearance of Agathodaemon. The name Agathodaemon itself would have been parsed as, "The Rich/ Noble/ Fortunate Indian." If Alexander were truly dead, he would not have been referred to in such terms. Nor would Ptolemy have been issuing coins "in the name of Alexander," much less deliberately showing Alexander with an Indian (elephant) headdress and riding around in an elephant-drawn chariot. There was also a female Naga (Nagini) and the two were often coupled. The legend about Alexander's sister being turned into a mermaid after Alexander's "death" must be related to her identification with Alexander in India. In other words he was the Naga Raja and she was the serpent goddess Nagini in an Indian context.

[1] Richard Stoneman, Alexander the Great: A Life in Legend, p 213. (New Haven/ London: Yale University Press, 2008) (a) (b)
[2] Ibid, p 214.

Recognition of the State of Palestine

Here in the states, the stories about the international recognition of the State of Palestine are generally not being reported.

You have to google them to find them.

My Interview On Far Out Radio

Far Out Radio interviewed me about orgonite and my particular slant on it with my business Orgonia.

The Essence of Deknowing


What is the essence of unknowing? Un-becoming, un-being, un-desireless; in which all transparent identities fade into a non-dual awareness, illuminating the logos of each persona. The element of distraction, attachment, and illusion create the fabric of Maya that suspends each person to their own astral plane. Once this plane, orb, or whole is realized; a suggestion of time adds a confusion to the nightmare of existence, creating a fascination of self; narcissism, and confusion that splits the identity of self into a duality. When this being is realized, the walls drop, the ego falls, and the awareness of vast energy distracts the ammunition of reality and allows for the hollow bamboo of delight. When the entropy expands throughout the mind-body-soul complex, the densities awareness is succumbed into a rebirth of the ethereal matrix; rebirth, as Nicodemus asked. In all realities, the essence of unknowing comes as a magical mixture of suspension to the essences emptiness, in which, the creation of the Other-Emptiness is founded. Once the Other-Emptiness is seen, as a witness, that imagination of Self is located and transversed into a collective unity were connections and intentions are set that define the non-local linear pathway of quantum entanglement. The smell of Being comes through, and as non-dual awareness is in essence Order; nothingness, hollow; the course of “thought” must current through the electrical waves of disorder; everything, perception; the course of “matter”.

As you can see, this is me un-doing nothing; transparent, radiating, essence conflating. The fire of Sun-Reality is in essence a white-hole that comes through the unknowing of the black hole. When one enters into the Hell / Heaven, the awareness surrounds the being, who is still misunderstanding the persona of their identity; nothing, yet as the thought one thinks they are something, the development of crisis starts to involve and evolve into a continuum of the rare-field. A rare-field is a spiritual assignment in the Otherworld that comes as a presence; esprit; allowing the being to dive into the projection of the mental imagination of the homo-sapien current, then transfixing the gaze of the elements; confused, arrayed, and primed; allowing the being the digest the information (light) into a transparent colour of either white, black or grey. These colours suggest the the difference of time allows the dream, nightmare, or delusion to persist in one’s assignment. As these barriers and walls are seen, the dream of life is confirmed by dreaming life; so the nightmare dissolves and the delusions fade while the dream becomes Reality.

So, the essence of unknowing, in all probability, is the momentum of this Reality. In an open system, such as the Being, the circumference expands at a continuous rate, but as gravity of Being and time deplete over a space-time field, the unknowing, projects into a reflective pattern of Self and allows the design of order to become into coherence.

The main reason why BEING is AM; dissolving who we are, you are not, am I AM, is in relativity, all a assignment of a duality the persists in the delusion of the Akasha. Once the unknowing, the magic of presence, the essence of nothing, and the non-dual awareness of Being comes into projection, the rejection and negation of the density allows for the muse of time to flow through the element of destiny.

Love, that is what everything evolves. The non-dual Self projects an experience of the Helen of Troy; the blind man see’s the universe; a man who see’s is a Seer, the man who hears is deaf, and the man who lives is dead. Love, the universal gravity of consciousness, collecting the unity of consciousness into a form of awareness that mirrors the reflection of the collision of Being(s).

The un-doing of Self, the mirror of the eye, is an Apollonian (white hole existence) nature of the Bacchus (Self-Reflection of Christo) who came before the un-forming of Dionysus (Hell Realm Experience). The pattern of un-forming results from the splicing of atoms, creating the duality of existence, and as the duality is formed, the nightmare of existence returns; conforming the unity of disorder to the property of everything; Being. So in this un-forming, the reforming brings the unity of One to a collective Mind that that comes from a Source; all thought, this Source is Self. Once the witness see that Ultimate Reality, the experience relates from the Source of Being; dissolving into the non-dual presence and awareness of a unity of nothingnessless. As the nothing resides within everything, the without is a projection of the EyE, (electrical y energy) the vibration’s waves of electrical occurrence results in the tendencies to deny the negation of the duality of existence. When the negation occurs, the Self realizes a Being within the being, (entity within an entity).

Thus in accordance, the no-self realizes that the individualization of the part fragments from the unity and collectively reassembles the persona into an identity that resembles nobody. When the essence of nobody is realized, the department from reality embarks through the vision of confinement. When in confinement, the prison of nightmares coincides with the vision of the fundamental reasoning of ones perspective; a Otherworld projection of fabrics interrelated existence of the non-dual. The vision allows the Being to be seen as a representation of the eternal matrix of ones character, integrity, and purity; transcending the bonds of existence's shackles. Once the key, the key of inner activity; resting upon the shore of nothingness, comes to fruition, the awareness of the projected state of mind actively informs a passive agreement with the understanding of the inner relationship to the non-dual presence.

Un-becoming; the process of existential dissertation of ones perpetual existence; deju-view confinement; an addressing state that must come through the shedding of skin. The skin of identity is a woven cocoon of fabric that projects a rejection of relationship to Others. When the skin is identified, the identity is skinned from the being. This process is within a nightmare; a casual interference of the inward speed of gravity; pulling the being into the Being of non-existence. This conscious storm of universal destruction creates a co-bonding “wash-stream” that removes the paints from the canvas. The pigments are not worth the ambient support of colors, allowing and asserting that the right passage on awareness is identifying the projection of who one thinks they are and embracing the awareness of who-you-are-not.

Un-desirelessness is a form that combines the fancy of creating a private hell. When there is no desire, the ambitions create a frequency that generates and amplifies the awakening world around one. As one can’t see, the un-desirelessness is in essence, a duality; non-dual, yet present within everything and nothing. To deconstruct the feelings of desire, one must allow the flow of prana accelerate the situation that requires further un-fixing. As nothing is to be fixed; everything to be realized in the flux. The mixture of existence waves through the current and allows for the desire of nothing, an eternal matrix of substitution for the requisition of “thought”.

What is this you may ask? Nothing, everything, something. This is all the Being in my thought of a whole. This Reality suggests the Sun-Reality; creating information through light. The Sun is created for the light to form, thus, the fate of light is to create Suns. These Apollo witnesses come through alignment of non-duality; in a presence of nobody.

Nobody is the awareness of the non-duality of Adviati. When the unforming of identify creates a vision of serendipity, the projection of the universe ceases to cause. Thus, there is no effect, for everything is one stillness; one movement; one whole; one-one. This could be called a Multiverse, where the Universe of each Being collects through a field of imagination. The imagination is nobody, that comes to awareness from everything, within the complexes of the confinement of their own reality. As each reality must dissolve, the fabric of awareness begins to resolve.

Somebody is the becoming of the witness. This instance, the imagination creates a shifted perspective that allows for the events of the mind to collectively combine into a vision of information. The light that is within the complexes being; individualized; the compartment of the collective activity is processed, allowing for the suggestion to request an admittance to the entrance to their own gateway. This gateway, the perception of their dissociated states, allows for the witness to observe the patterns of Self, no-Self, self and no-self. By seeing and hearing, speaking and listening; to the words and embrace of the unity of nothingness, the non-dual shifted perspective creates a something of the awareness of the identity that has been dissolved. Thus, somebody entertains the thought of something, and the identity resumes form in the state of an anawared state. So, by embracing the identity of something, the relativity of reality creates a univocal bond of awareness; an entity of being which wishes to be present in the something of nothing.

Everybody is embracing the unity of existence. Were the Sums of beings collect into a affinity that connects into the universal element of coherence. The essence of everything; in the Elect, comes through the sensation of the electrical synapses that promote the wire-interference of the rare-field. As to say, the everything is an illusion that creates the identity that must be dissolved. When the unity of the Sums dissolves, and complacency is reached; the dread, comes and is suspended into the frame of mind. Yet, the mind hopes; desires, creates sensations; these things all reach out to the connection of everything. When the thought process is seen as “open-wide-system”, the interference of everything; the Being(s), come and promote a new fixation of the minds relation. Asinmuch, the everything of existence is the mind-body-soul complex acting in the flow of the stillness; a soluble solvent.

The unknowing of reality, dissolving fabrics illusion, constructing new pillars from the free-fall into the ledge; is in all factually non-dual. A continuous flow from the Prime Pinnacle (insertion of Reality), allows for the weakening of confusion and allows for the light of information to construct a new panacea that develops into a land of reason. Thus, unknowing, is in all abstract forms, the essence of becoming; the duality of both contradictions of the Being/being identity. What I am saying, is that the being dissolves from infinite to zero, reaching the state of everything to nothing; while the Being starts from nothing ot everything; zero to infinite. As the progression of regression of both entities construct the premise for a duality; the essence of non-duality comes forth so that all can be seen from a Truth.

Non-duality is a reference to subjectivity, yet remains without objectivity. Objectivity is what arises; subjectivity is what subsides. Subjunctive, when both fields become dissonanced from the illusion, is where Maya un-forms, and deconstructs into a loving connection.

The strings of Reality are cut; fragmented into parts, yet are collective in the unity from awareness. When the transference of the egoistic self to the objectivity of what arises, it forms into a union ship with subjectivity, and thus, subobjectivity arises. This is when both constructs of a field merge into a central relationship, when the unity of both existence and non-existence are a fabrication of Maya. Astosay; everything and nothing are just an illusion. Everything beyond is before nothing, Before nothing; awareness; sparkling a kindling; fascinating a Self, entertaining a “thought”. Yet no thoughts are all thoughts; all awareness is no awareness; everything is nothing.

So if everything is a reflection of nothing; then nothing is a reflection of everything. The mirror is not always a mirror, but is always.


The law of the fold of Manu has come through the intervention of this beings companionship to the tethering world. The master of the universe is the Deity that withholds all information from the outer sources and fuels the inside with the element of destiny.

The element of destiny is the representation of a transmigration of the soul through the various planes of existence. This existence, were the merger into an awareness of non-duality, comes through, is an product of the laws within the inner relationships to the outer Akasha.

O my son, can’t you feel the words of time come through the surprise reflection and deep seeded fixation. The love of emotion is now opening, and by using your heart, you will bring yourself into a coherence that will develop through the laws of manipulation.

The manipulation of energy comes through a constant stream of undivided attention. This attention, splits reality into separate forms and dictates the ether of permeance. The radiation from the objects can be perceived with the ability of an open heart, open mind, and pure body. This lack of desire, sense-gratification, and relation, all come through the power of the Being who is connected to Source.

This Source, or everything and nothing, comes and weds the mind with a simple suggestion that the calling of a higher destiny must represent the lineage of disengaged proportions. This proportion of reflection, the inward lad, is expressed within the orb of translucent energy. This soul, white whole, black hole, heart, mind, body; anything you wish to call it, comes through the temptation of reality and transfixes a basic presumption that the time within the time will come and the calling of a segmented download must express the environment in which the steady gaze is represented. The gaze, or an outward cone of power, must express the elements without and within. When without, the reality shapes its ether into various forms and light beings, the colours have a presentation of auric fields. When within, the emptiness creates anything your mind desires. The manifestation of this state comes to be in power when both these attributes merge together and allow for the change of Being to come into completion. The diseases, illnesses, and worries and dissipate through a reflective membrane that correlates to a higher densities awareness.

When in these states, the only rational thing to do is nothing. When the mind tries to take over, the ability of disorder represents itself to itself. The mind creates a split in which the heart and body do not exist as one, but as a duality that can’t transcend it’s own limitations. Once this realization that the realms in which you live can be within and without, the understanding of the cosmos will flow through your self and clear the blockages and dissension that created the tension.

The spheres have now connected to me. I am downloading information from Krishna.

Aye! Here at last! I am the beginning and the last. I am the opening portal to the realms beyond the consciousness. This awakening of all beings represents the universal construct of the insight of one common man. The man who understands that life is a joke, comes to realize that one must debate through the turmoil of tokes.

O, can’t you feel my energy, it is so amplified right now. Listen, I am the light of all times, the information in my package comes through the times of an amplified verse. This being is in a stillness that radiates his consciousness through hyper supra consciousness. Which means, that the metemphysics of reality and metemphyschosis of existence has realized that the plane in which all beings develop is in ratio to the development to the being who is in contact with his true self. The self, no self, or Self, is all the same. There is no difference between states of mind, only a opening of coherence to the universe. This coherence is reflected through heart and gives the mind a subset analysis that comes through the membrane of the veil. Once one overcomes the veil, all beings become him, and all him becomes all beings. This is in effect with the many and the one.

O the sea, the temptation of my essence, has now come to full advancement. This being has allowed for full communication of the realms through his being. This opening portal of light now succumbs to what I wish the tempo to be. Slow, steady, let the words echo this silent embrace. The love and feeling I rush over this being, is within his destiny. The tension of all suffering has existed in life, and must be overcome by a surrender to everything. When surrendering, one becomes nothing and allows for the flow of existence to enter his being.
This flow, or common reaction to the higher beings, allows for the existential thought that coherently bonds to the subject and object. The object, in which the subject perceives, has a fixation of control to the mind. It’s thought that these words are always a lie, because when brought into reality, one must realize the lie. But to overcome the lie, one must know the lie is occurring. Once the understanding that all works of men are lies, and the only true source of knowledge is through the non-dual subjection of works. The works, common to man, must be shown to give him a sheeple experience. The experience of obeying not the law, but the law revealed, is in essence, the true wisdom of this Reality. Thus, as one comes to understand he is the law, then nothing can change his radiation other than a pacification of denotation.

I can tell you, that the love which resides in every being, must come naturally through detection of providence. The love which is pure, resides in the heart and flies outward and blows open all the chakras and allows for the mind to subset into a non-linear appreciation of time.

This is for you my friend, you know the words are touching you now, the time of reflection of all ages comes through my words. As I, Krishna, invoke the realms of energy, I suspect the information presented will relate the madness of reality. Yet, order is revealed once the chaos has subjected itself to infinity. Thus, the law correlates a simple suggestion that all must be reborn the the death and life of non-duality.

I end now with love and light, may you be a blessing on the blight.

An Excerpt from Revolutionaries of the Soul

Revolutionaries of the Soul (Quest 2014) is a collection of my essays and articles over the last twenty years or so, taken from Fortean TimesQuest MagazineLapis and other journals. The essays amount to potted biographies of many esoteric greats, from Rudolf Steiner and Madame Blavatsky, to C.G. Jung and Dion Fortune. There are also pieces on Manly P. Hall, the brilliant historian of the occult James Webb, and the late Colin Wilson, as well as many others. The unintended result amounts to a brief history of modern esotericism - but I imagine I should leave that to the reader to decide. Here is an excerpt from my piece on Julius Evola, one of the most fascinating and controversial figures in occult philosophy. I hope you enjoy it.


Julius Evola: Mussolini’s Mystic


          In the late spring of 1980, Italians felt the return of a terrorist threat that for the previous decade had kept a low profile. Since the end of World War II and the rise of the cold war, neo-fascism had been a fact of life in Italian politics, the right-wing ideals of “tradition” and “order” seeming the only alternative to American domination or the threat of communism. In December 1969, the destabilizing tactics employed by the neo-fascists reached a new height with the Piazza Fontana bombing in Milan, a violent spark that ignited a wave of far-right terrorism. By the mid-1970s, however, the neo-fascist threat appeared to have faded, only to be replaced by its left-wing opposite when radical groups took to shattering university professors’ kneecaps for teaching the doctrines of “the establishment.” Their counterparts, however, were merely lying low, and on May 28, 1980, it was clear that they were back and ready for action. On that day, an Italian policeman Franco Evangelista – nicknamed “Serpico” after the legendary New York cop, for his success in arresting drug dealers – was assassinated by right-wing terrorists in Rome. Then, in June, a judge who had led an investigation into right-wing terrorist activities was murdered. But the major attack came last, on August 2, when a bomb in the Bologna railway station killed 85 people and wounded hundreds more. Many of the victims, including children, were maimed horribly. Like the Omagh bombing and 9/11, the event punched a hole in the nation’s psyche – which was precisely what its authors intended.

          Keeping to its “strategy of tension,” the group responsible for the blast kept its identity secret, yet the police had a good idea who to look for. Names were mentioned: Paolo Signorelli, Franco Frela, Claudio Mutti, Stefano delle Chiaie and others from the right-wing “usual suspects” list were questioned. And, when the investigation began to close in, several members of the Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari, an influential far-right group, fled the country for Britain. One man, however, whose name was mentioned by all, had no need to fear the police, as he had been dead for the last six years. But if a single person could be held accountable for the Bologna bombing, the dead man was a good candidate. His name was Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola, better known to his more recent English speaking readers as Baron Julius Evola, author of several books on magic, esotericism and the occult, as well as a withering attack of Western civilization, Revolt Against the Modern World (1934).

          Born on May 19 1898 to a noble Sicilian family, Julius Evola was a bright but self-willed child who early on rebelled against his strict Catholic upbringing. This resentment against Christianity remained with him throughout his life, and fuelled a Nietzschean disdain for the “weak” and ignorant masses. Although he left university before earning a degree, a sense of precision and objectivity, a cold clarity and logic, came from his studies in industrial engineering. But it was the new movements in modern literature that had the most influence on Evola’s early years. In later life he was to become a staunch defender of tradition, but in his teens Evola came under the spell of the literary avant-garde, absorbing the work of writers like Giovanni Papini and Giuseppe Prezzolini. Papini introduced him to new ideas in art and fashion, as well as to the writings of Meister Eckhart and several Oriental sages. But the most influential discovery was the work of Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, whose Futurist movement would later find favor with Italy’s Fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, a position Evola himself would occupy in years to come. Marinetti, who sang the praises of the modernity Evola would eventually come to despise, may seem an unlikely mentor for a philosopher whose polemics against the modern world would later guide several violent attacks on it. Yet Marinetti’s own fascistic sensibility – a virulent rejection of nature, a celebration of regimen and machine-like efficiency, and above all an embrace of speed and violence for their own sake – are in keeping with Evola’s character.

          Marinetti’s Futurists scandalized the bourgeoisie with their penchant for avant-garde hooliganism and artistic thuggery, starting fights at art galleries, and shouting abuse at poetry readings, tactics that less cultured individuals would later employ against a variety of human targets. War, for Marinetti, was an aesthetic affair, and his reports from the Turkish front in World War I spoke of the “joy” of hearing “the machine guns screaming a breathelessness under the stings slaps traak-traak whips pic-pac-pum-tum…” These and other brutal onomatopoeia informed Marinetti’s ideas of parole in libertia, “free words”, which later formed the basis of much of today’s rap and “performance poetry”.

          At 19, Evola had an opportunity to test Marinetti’s theory when he joined the Italian army in the last days of the war. Although serving as an artillery officer at the Austrian front, Evola saw no action, yet the discipline, order and hierarchy of the military impressed him and left him unsuited for civilian life, with its muddling chaos and growing egalitarianism. It was then that he began his search for “transcendence”, first through drugs, then through a study of the occult.

          These experiences seemed only to increase Evola’s sense of purposelessness and the idea of suicide came to dominate his consciousness, a morbid opinion made attractive through his interest in the brilliant but disturbed Austrian writer Otto Weininger. The Jewish Weininger wrote an influential book, Sex and Character (1903), in which he argued that man alone is a spiritual creature, yearning for the celestial heights, while woman, a denizen of the Earth, tries to trap him in her corrupting embrace: the archetype of the femme fatale. He also argued that the Jews as a race displayed distinctly “feminine” characteristics, most importantly a hatred of all things of a “higher” nature: hence Marx and his reduction of religion to the “opium fo the people.” An unhappy individual, obsessed with sex and his own Jewishness, Weininger committed suicide at 23, in a room in Vienna once occupied by Beethoven. His ideas about women and Jews, however, lived on in several minds, not the least of which was Evola’s.

          A Buddhist text saved Evola from suicide, and the discovery of a new avant-garde movement gave him a sense of direction. Futurism, he came to believe, was vulgar and showy. But Dada, the new anti-art movement seeping across the border from Switzerland, struck him as more intellectual, as well as more ambitious. Dada seemed more than a mere art movement, something along the lines of a total reconstruction of the world, the need for which Evola had come to believe in passionately.  It is also quite possible that in Dada’s leader, Tristan Tzara, Evola found a new role model: photographs of Evola displaying his elegant, smooth shave face, immaculate dress and imperious gaze – complete with monocle – are strikingly similar to Tzara. For the later advocate of tradition this is ironic, as Tzara, with his hunger for notoriety and scandal, would today more than likely be more at home on talk shows and Twitter, than in the workshops of anti-art.

          Evola plunged into Dada, reading his poetry to the music of Schönberg, Satie and Bartok at the Cabaret Grotte dell’Augusteo, Rome’s version of Zürich’s infamous Cabaret Voltaire. He also took up painting, and exhibited his work in Rome, Milan, Lausanne and Berlin; today his “Inner Landscape at 10:30 am” still hangs in Rome’s National Gallery of Modern Art. Evola also wrote an influential essay on abstract art, arguing that it is only in abstraction that the existence of an “eternal self” could be expressed – an indication, again, of his anti-natural, anti-earthly bias.

          Yet Dada was not enough. Disgusted with the increasing commercialization of the avant-garde, in 1922 Evola abandoned painting and poetry. He now gave himself to philosophy, writing several books of an idealistic character in which he spelled out the metaphysics of the “absolute individual.” This boiled down to the doctrine that such an individual enjoyed “the ability to be unconditionally whatever he wants,” and that for him “the world is my representation.” For the nobly born Evola, this spiritual solipsism seems appropriate: it provided an ontological underpinning for his near-absolute lack of interest in other people.

          This focus on the “unconditional” freedom of the self led to a still deeper study of occultism. Evola became involved with an Italian theosophical group, and wrote an introduction to a translation of the Tao Te Ching. A correspondence with Sir John Woodroffe – as Arthur Avalon, author of several works on Hindu philosophy – led to a fascination with Tantra, which surfaced in Evola’s books The Yoga of Power  (1949) and The Metaphysics of Sex (1958) – this last also shows the influence of Weininger. Evola soon lost interest in theosophy, but not in the occult, and by the mid-1920s he had become involved in an esoteric society, the UR group, who looked at magic as “the science of the ego.” Formed around the occultist Arturo Reghini, editor of two influential occult journals, Atanòr  and Ignis , the UR group embarked on a variety of esoteric investigations. Along with Tantra, Evola studied alchemy, Taoism and Buddhism. The link between these studies was the idea of “initiation”, the sense that through them Evola was participating in ancient initiatory practices, living manifestations of a lost, primal tradition. 


Shanah Tovah!

Wishing everyone a good 5775 this Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year).

Amelia's Magazine open call

Hi all,

As you can probalby tell from my activity log, I've not been very active recently, as I've been spending most of what free time I have pursuing my various interests as an illustrator and artist. If you're interested, you could google 'grthink', it'll be mostly stuff by me.

I've still been lurking, though, and it's great (for me, at least) that my two worlds are finally colliding. Amelia's Magazine, who I've been illustrating and writing for pretty regularly over the past few years, are running an Open Brief for their next anthology, titled 'That Which We Do Not Understand'.

They're looking for writing and illustration on pretty broad themes, most of which have a place here, so I thought some of you might be interested in taking a look, and maybe submitting something?

I'm planning to do an illustration, although on what I'm still to decide. Number Stations (in particular the Lincolnshire Poacher), Indrid Cold (and other topics covered in The Mothman Prophecies), The Max Headroom Piracy Incident and some vague stuff on mediumship have all crossed my mind, but I've still got a lot of work to do before I can single out an idea worth drawing.

I'm also open to working with a writer on any ideas, maybe a joint submission?

Anyway, hope I've piqued some interest, it would be really great to get some input from this community. And please share -- the wider the net cna be cast the more interesting the fish we'll pull in.

Here's the link to the brief:


WHAT IS THIS? Seriously!

What is this?

Mars Curiosity Rover Raw Image shows an anomalous object. See it here:

See video


Media games being played out in the open. Here we catch the New York Times and others posting manipulated photos of Obama making him look like a goat horned Baphomet. This is not, by the way, a condemnation of Obama - more like a celebration perpetrated by fear mongers trying to paint the string pullers as powerful satanists to whom it is futile to resist and who control Obama thoroughly.

See video