Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Sub Rosa Issue 2

Phew, it’s ready! Issue 2 of Sub Rosa is now available for download, and it’s a hell of an issue (if I do say so myself). We have a massive interview with alternative icon Graham Hancock on the eve of his new book release, Supernatural, covering such controversial topics as shamanic hallucinogens, Intelligent Design and alien abductions. We also have a fascinating article from Blair M. Blake on Aleister Crowley and DMT, an essay on the possibility of a ‘second sun’ which is causing the precession of the equinox, and an historical investigation into the ‘serpent cult’ of Norway. Our profile this issue is on ‘alien abduction’ researcher John Mack, a piece accompanied by some personal photos and essays. We review Supernatural, DMT: The Spirit Molecule, Shpongle’s Nothing Lasts and Paul Collins’ novel King Without an Empire. As usual, we also have columns from Ian Lawton, Michael Grosso and myself.

The cover image for this issue is by ayahuasca artist Pablo Amaringo – our thanks go to Pablo for his permission. Also, we have a new illustrator helping out, Adam S. Miller – he’s done some great graphics for this issue, if you’re interested in Adam’s work then check out the ‘About Us‘ page at the Sub Rosa website for details. As always, Mark Foster has done an impeccable job of making sure the layout shines. I’m blown away by how good this issue is – hope you are too. The only downside for me is that we don’t have a print version, because this one would look something special.

  1. No Comment?
    Hmmm, up a whole day and not a single comment? Perhaps it wasn’t worth four weeks of solid work…

    Peace and Respect
    You monkeys only think you’re running things

    1. sorry
      but my browser is not working properly and I am waiting for Number 2 son to come here and fix it.
      I really enjoyed the last sub rosa so I know I will love this one.


    2. No, it wasn’t
      I find it appalling that this person is trying to pass off research when stoned on a hallucinogen that contains Dimethyltryptamine. I guess objectiveness went out the window.

        1. LOL!
          Jealous of what? I am not the envious type.

          I am quite content with my life thus far, though I wouldn’t mind winning the lottery; who wouldn’t.

          Why is it that you alternative types discard evidence that would destroy the theories that popular authors pander? Instead, they collect information that only supports their ideaology.

          Recall what Thomas Huxley said:

          The Great tragedy of science: The slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.

          1. You’re right, we’re going to have to look into that
            We alternative types do have a problem with spending all our time collecting evidence to support our theories.

            And one of our theories is that people who constantly put down solid evidence that there is more going on in this universe than we could possibly know about, have their own agenda.

            Is it fear?

            You tell us.

          2. And one of our theories is th

            And one of our theories is that people who constantly put down solid evidence that there is more going on in this universe than we could possibly know about, have their own agenda.

            LOL! What solid evidence would that be?

      1. Laughable comment
        Hi Steve,

        Do you dismiss Frances Crick’s discovery of DNA because he was ‘stoned on a hallucinogen’ (LSD) at the time? Perhaps Steven Jay Gould didn’t have any worthwhile ideas because he was ‘stoned on marijuana’ from the early 1980s. Likewise, Carl Sagan, who said “the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights; the main problem is putting these insights in a form acceptable to the quite different self that we are when we’re down the next day.” Or Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of this century, who used LSD and marijuana and claimed to have learnt through these experiences.

        Besides which, I don’t think that Graham was ‘stoned on DMT’ when he wrote the book. He may have had some experiences on DMT/ayahuasca during his research, but if you think he was ‘stoned on DMT’ when he committed his thoughts to paper, then you have absolutely no idea of the DMT trip.

        Your comment would be laughable if it didn’t rely on such immense ignorance of the subject. Have you read ‘Supernatural’ yet?

        Peace and Respect
        You monkeys only think you’re running things

          1. No DNA?
            Okay, so DNA theory is all out the window then?

            Peace and Respect
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

          2. Where did I say anything abou
            Where did I say anything about DNA?

            Let’s take a look shall we:

            A parallel for what I do is to be found in the work of an attorney defending a client in a court of law. My ‘client’ is a lost civilisation and it is my responsibility to persuade the jury – the public – that this civilisation did exist. Since the ‘prosecution’ – orthodox academics – naturally seek to make the opposite case as effectively as they can, I must be equally effective and, where necessary, equally ruthless.

            So it is certainly true, as many of my critics have pointed out, that I am selective with the evidence I present. Of course I’m selective! It isn’t my job to show my client in a bad light!

            Nice of him to make that statement about using selective evidence. Now, how can anyone be taken seriously when one admits to using selective evidence?

            And this:

            So what would be the Jewish justification for erecting a sanctuary in Egypt? Hancock suggests the reason was that during the reign of Manasseh, priests from the Jerusalem Temple had brought the Ark with them.

            Somewhat disingenuously, Hancock quotes me as follows in support of his view:

            “Manasseh’s reign was accompanied by much bloodshed (2 Kings 21:10-16) and it may be surmised that priests as well as prophets opposed his paganization. Some of these priests fled to Egypt, joined the Jewish garrison at Elephantine, and there…erected the Temple to YHW.”

            Hancock then notes that “Porten nevertheless remains puzzled by the fact that a Jewish temple could have been built at Elephantine at all.”

            Hancock thus indicates that I had simply left open the question as to why the Jews of Elephantine felt free to build a temple.

            Hancock is wrong, however. I did explain what I thought the likely justification was. And the reason had nothing to do with speculation that it was to house the Ark. My explanation was in the part of my text that Hancock omitted from the quotation and that he replaced with three dots to indicate the omission. Let me repeat the quotation, replacing the ellipsis with the complete text, putting the part that Hancock omitted in italics:

            “Manasseh’s reign was accompanied by much bloodshed (2 Kings 21:10-16) and it may be surmised that priests as well as prophets opposed his paganization. Some of these priests fled to Egypt, joined the Jewish garrison at Elephantine, and there inspired by Isaiah’s prophecy of a pillar to the Lord at the border of Egypt , erected the Temple to YHW.”

            Isaiah uttered five eschatological oracles about what will be “on that day” when the “Lord will smite Egypt.” The third oracle states, “On that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt and a pillar to the Lord at its border” (Isaiah 19:19) Elephantine is on Egypt’s border. Isaiah’s prophecy may well have inspired the Elephantine Jews during the oppressive years of Manasseh’s reign. I conjecture that a scared pillar to the Lord, in fulfillment of this prophecy may have stood in the adytum (innermost sanctuary) of the Elephantine temple, just as a sacred pillar was placed in the adytum of the temple to Yahweh that archaeologists have excavated in Arad.

            I would be furious too, if somebody misrepresented what I said.

          3. Clouded by Drugs
            I mentioned DNA, in terms of your assertion that:

            I dismiss anyone’s ‘work’ when their mind is clouded with hallucinogens.

            Crick regularly used LSD as a ‘thinking tool’ during the 50s and 60s. Do you therefore dismiss Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA when his “mind was clouded with drugs”?

            Beyond that, the point is that many great thinkers (for example, as I mentioned, Feynman, Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould) used drugs and supported their positive aspects as ‘thinking tools’, and yet still produced stunning research and written works. Do you dismiss their work because their “minds were clouded with hallucinogens”?

            Instead, you failed to answer my question and simply regurgitated the tired old hack criticisms of Hancock from days past.

            Sounds to me like you might like to explore the idea of objectivity yourself…you certainly seem to be arguing from a predefined position.

            Peace and Respect
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

          4. Ok, so what about Crick and w
            Ok, so what about Crick and what does this Illicit Major have to do with anything? But, I see that you are no different then others and commit Existential Fallacies, Post and Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.
            You also tend to use subverted support when trying to link any existing anomoly that can’t readily be explained to the historical record.
            It wouldn’t be so bad if one stated right up front that their theory is speculation.

            I have cited two instances of subversion, I can cite more. The only thing that you can come up with is a strawman argument in regards to Crick and other people.

            Is this the best you can do?

          5. Throw the Book
            LOL. Don’t bring up logical fallacies when you are refusing to answer a very logical question (again, how tired am I of the ‘new skeptics’ bringing their logical fallacy book to the table, when they refuse to apply it to their own statements). Here it is in case you keep missing it:

            Steve LeMaster: “I dismiss anyone’s ‘work’ when their mind is clouded with hallucinogens.”

            Me: So do you dismiss Frances Crick’s work in discovering the structure of DNA, while using LSD as a thinking tool?

            Now, about Straw Men (such misunderstood things, no wonder they go stand out in fields). If you had said that you specifically dismiss “Graham Hancock’s” work while his mind is clouded with hallucinogens, then yes, my statement would have been a straw man – because I am introducing Crick when you are specifically talking about another person. However, that is not what you said – see above. You said “I dismiss anybody’s..”. As such, my argument (well, question really) is not a straw man at all. You have said ‘anyone’, I have asked if ‘anyone’ includes Frances Crick (as he appears to refute your hypothesis – unless of course you refute Crick’s work as well).

            [* The above follows the standard ABC model of a straw man argument:

            # Person A has position X.
            # Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
            # Person B attacks position Y. ]

            If you turn to “H” in your logical fallacy book, you’ll find the problem with your position is that it was a “Hasty Generalisation”.

            By the way, if you want to everyone to start deconstructing posts with the ever tiresome logical fallacy argument (one that will soon need a logical fallacy definition itself), your post about Hancock’s past statements fits under ‘genetic fallacy’, ‘poisoning the well’, and perhaps even pushing into ‘guilt by association’. And is your dislike for people using hallucinogens as a thinking tool an argument from evidence, or is it simply an ‘appeal to consequences of a belief’?

            Is that better, or are you still looking for my ‘best’?

            Peace and Respect
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

          6. Way to go Greg!
            I didn’t know that about strawman arguments.I didn’t even know what you were talking about.
            I must find out about all this stuff.

            Well done


          7. Natural Selection
            Now, how can anyone be taken seriously when one admits to using selective evidence?

            Then the same can be said for Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner, regarding the Pyramids of Giza? The same can be said of Richard Leakey, who is very selective of evidence when it comes to the Out-of-Africa theory. Teuku Jacobs ofIndonesia also selects specific evidence to prove that Homo Floresiensis is not a new species of human, blatantly ignoring all the evidence that suggests it is. The list goes on.

            Seems to me you’re using selective arguing, Steve.

          8. Prithy, why is that?

            Prithy, why is that?

            Indeed, the truth shall set you free, but it will make you angry first.

          9. Years? Not that long methinks . . .
            I’ve been up and down shadows. It’s a terribly long tale and perhaps I’ll blog it one day, but for now suffice it to say I’m still whole, generally happy, and wiser than before. I’ve lurked in from time to time at TDG, but I’m now in a space to add to the community like before. Thanks for the welcome.


            The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

            George Bernard Shaw

          10. what if your “work” is writin
            what if your “work” is writing an article about shamans and their rituals–wouldnt it be inadequate to speculate? seems to me like you wouldnt make a very good investigator or writer if you invite bias of “any” type

          11. Porcelain throne
            I doubt very much Graham Hancock was stoned throughout the writing of Supernatural. Considering the side effects of Ayahuasca, Graham must have writtn the book entirely whilst sitting on the porcelain throne. That’s quite a feat!

            Some things can not be taught, they have to be experienced.

      2. While I’m about it, I will add…
        …that the only posts I have seen from you on this website are disparaging people.
        You had a go at Tracy Twyman.
        And I also know that you had a very nasty swipe at a member of the TDG community on another site which was just gratutitous bastardry.

        Is that what you do?
        You go around the alternative sites and swipe at people when they have a success because you can’t do the same?

        Have you ever produced anything that is not nasty putdowns of people?

        No, I thought not.

        So think about it


        1. >>…that the only posts I ha
          >>…that the only posts I have seen from you on this website are disparaging people.
          You had a go at Tracy Twyman.

          Since I have rarely posted on this site, I can see how you can come up with that conclusion. However, Twyman is attempting to place mystery in a subject where there is no mystery. This subject, I am well versed in and if she wishes to debate me over it she can email me and that goes for anyone else.

          >>You go around the alternative sites and swipe at people when they have a success because you can’t do the same?

          Only when I see somebody trying to misrepresent the facts.

          >>Have you ever produced anything that is not nasty putdowns of people?

          Sure have. Even though I am no longer Schoch’s webmaster, I still support his conclusions in regards to the Great Sphinx.

          Oh, I also think that your ezine is very well designed.

          1. Your support of Schoch’s conclusions…
            …is your own production?

            Sorry,I don’t quite understand you.

            Are we talking the same language here?

            Try ENGLISH…it is the language mostly used on TDG.

          2. Sorry, but I don’t quite see
            Sorry, but I don’t quite see what you are attempting to point out.

            Please elucidate.

          3. Addendum
            There is a mystery!

            And the mystery is why a vast amount of people cling to these tall tales! WOW! Dan Brown, Baigent, Lincoln, et al, have really outdone themselves!

            Of course they did manage to do something quite rare. Create a mystery while claiming to have solved one.

          4. Dan Brown
            In Dan Brown’s defence, he has never stated the theories are his own. In interviews I have read and seen, he has always stated that his book is a work of fiction based on the work of investigative researchers.

            I’m waiting for you to bring Harry Potter into the argument against Graham Hancock, Steve …

          5. another addendum
            When people, like the Cathoholic Church for instance come out and say that Brown et al are lying they never offer proof of that.
            Where is your proof that they are lying?

            I can do a Bill O’Reilly argument and scream “You are lying” at everyone but it doesn’t make it the truth.

            So, although I personally believe these writers are not exactly declaring that they have the total truth, you obviously think that they are writing total lies.

            So what is the truth?

      3. research whilst stoned…
        Hmmm, edition 2 of Sub Rosa did not really work for me – I am more into ancient history that one can see and touch, or speculate about. This edition seemed to concentrate more on the affects of chemicals on the human mind.

        Regarding the comment from Steve LeMaster – it is a fair comment. Not to say though that he is right or wrong, it is just that taking a hallucinogenic such as LSD (the only one I’ve had experience of) will have a bearing on the ‘objectiveness’ of any subsequent thoughts of the user. All deeply personal experience have this influence, and taking LSD would come under this category.

        LSD can and does affect people quite differently, so what works for one, could be the total opposite for another. Also, the circumstances under which the ‘experience’ happens also has a huge effect: on your own in a room will be very different from sitting on a windswept cliff top, or combined with drinks etc. at a loud party.

        My last trip involved me having had a long conversation with God, who managed to convince me that he did not exist. This experience has remained with me ever since and certainly has an underlying influence on my life. Since then I have tried to stick with reality, but I do wonder if LSD ever lets you go…



        1. Reality Indoctrination
          Nostradumus wrote:

          Regarding the comment from Steve LeMaster – it is a fair comment. Not to say though that he is right or wrong, it is just that taking a hallucinogenic such as LSD (the only one I’ve had experience of) will have a bearing on the ‘objectiveness’ of any subsequent thoughts of the user.

          Nostra: one might say that being brought up in the Western positivist tradition, indoctrinated into the Enlightenment tradition of physical, measurable reality as the only possible reality, has just as much a bearing on the ‘objectiveness’ (sic) of any subsequent thoughts. Even worse, it’s self-affirming because it defines objectivity itself.

          If you read my review, you’ll find that Hancock actually provides quite a bit of evidence, and doesn’t conclude one way or the other (although he makes his personal feelings known). What he does present is a fascinating number of correspondences between different ‘mythologies’, such as alien abductions, fairy folklore and shamanistic myths.

          Further, Steve didn’t reference LSD, he referenced DMT. And that’s quite a different kettle of fish, so to speak. It certainly will shake up your worldview though.

          Peace and Respect
          You monkeys only think you’re running things

        2. Regarding the comment from St

          Regarding the comment from Steve LeMaster – it is a fair comment. Not to say though that he is right or wrong, it is just that taking a hallucinogenic such as LSD (the only one I’ve had experience of) will have a bearing on the ‘objectiveness’ of any subsequent thoughts of the user. All deeply personal experience have this influence, and taking LSD would come under this category.

          Correct. Let me also point out that I am not denegrating tribal belief systems as it is part of their rituals. However, anyone who claims to be doing research and is under the influence of a hallucinogen loses their objectivity and critical thinking goes out the window. IMHO, of course.

          1. Well said, Rick
            That’s right, you have to experience things.
            That’s why when skeptics get together and rubbish supernatural experiences of others’, they are out of their depth.

            Its like a woman trying to explain childbirth to a man.It can’t be done.You have to be there and experience it.

            I keep getting amazed at John Mack and his acceptance of alien abduction, however it happens.
            That’s real science at work.

            Was it Carl Sagan who said that when you accept the supernatural can happen, it is not supernatural anymore, it is science?
            Or something like that.


          2. Sometimes
            After a time you have to stop looking and do the work, there was nothing else to do but take the magic mushroom .

    3. Sub Rosa + Crowley, Amalantra and DMT

      This is fantastic. Thank you for such as awesome publication

      I especially enjoyed Blair’s article on Amalantra and DMT. It was very nicely timed as I was at last nights talk in Treadwells bookshop in London on the Amalantra working

      More info on The Amalantrah workings can be found here – Here also is Kenneth Grants take on Lam in his own words And another article by Mick Staley of the Typhonian OTO on the same

      I’ll pass on the link to SubRosa to the speaker. I am sure he would be very interested.

      cheers Paolo

    4. Sure, you get 4 weeks, but we
      Sure, you get 4 weeks, but we only get a day! Anyway, looks great to me. And as someone from the west who’s never used tobacco, let along taken illegal drugs, that’s probably saying something. You’ve done a very good job of introducing us to these subjects from a logical perspective over the past few years. Ignore the critics, their criticisms make it apparent that they aren’t even reading the material.
      “We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.”
      — Carl Sagan

    5. Do not quit. Probably there a
      Do not quit. Probably there are some things which are worth quitting, like smoking, or a job as a Nazi. This magazine is the opposite of something worth quitting, it’s the opposite of something terrible and rotting, which you would be better without.

    6. Well worth it!
      This issue of Sub Rosa was well worth the wait. Thanks for taking your time to put it together. I stumbled upon TDG while searching around and have been back every day since.

      Keep up the good work.


  2. download
    i am only finding the issue 1 link–is it just me?

    “Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it… The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.”
    Woodrow T. Wilson

    1. Some changes
      Hi SynKronos

      Over 1100 downloads of Issue 2 so far, so there’s definitely a link there! 😉

      I have added some navigational help to the site though, for those who are having trouble finding the download (which is half-way down the “Download” page). If you’re still not getting the Issue 2 link, then I suggest reloading the page in your browser in case you are looking at a cached version.

      Peace and Respect
      You monkeys only think you’re running things

        1. Fist pass
          Nicely crafted issue. Very professional in its presentation. BUT, in the end, its what is in the little jar that counts. Here are some half-baked impressions on what I have read so far:

          About ‘A Life or Death Question’ by Greg Taylor

          Greg’s article resumes well the debate on the subject, to which I would like to add my 2 cents:

          I do not adhere to the idea that mind-machine interfaces or bio-mechanical interfaces will have an evolutive impact on the mind or consciousness. Transhumanism would rather seem like an exercise in perpetuating while amplifying the current human psychological paradigm.

          This is not evolution but rather an attempt at leveraging perceived advantages. It would seem a mistake to me to try and interchange evolution and progress as identical measures of the movement of consciousness in time since one should be a succession of discrete steps, only related to each other by their particular progressive functions while progress should only be a subset of a progressive function necessary for the refinement of a step, the finalization of a function necessary to allow an expansion of consciousness.

          Said differently, evolution’s whole is greater than the sum of its steps while progress is the mechanized process leading to the finalization of a step.

          The other aspect at hand is the drive to immortalize consciousness, which in this optic is the hope of putting an end to a paradigm by using artificial methods based on a temporary state of consciousness that we wish would become permanent. To me, this is nearly, if not absolutely, an unconscious choice of putting personal evolution to death as an alternative to dying to oneself and gain access to higher registers. It is almost the epitome of the occult pressures through the human psyche to prevent him from taking the next step that takes shape through these concepts that call upon the empiric self.

          Is Transhumanism the answer to an absence of consciousness after death or is it even an insidious method of the realm of the dead to retain its domination on the incarnate? While we are looking at means to prolong or reinforce the current psychological paradigm via artificial add-ons, we avoid the possibility of realizing that there is more to consciousness than death the way we understand it or the way we imagine it. Likewise, there is more to consciousness than the unicellular.

          It is as if in the evolution of biochemical entities there would have been the realization of the impression of self long ago and that such primitive organisms had sought to retain and crystallize their state of consciousness.

          Would we today be like ants consciousness wise? Of course not. There are no artificial processes that can forever prevent the mutations that are part of the evolutionary steps taken by ‘life’. There can then only a branching of species and the old models end up in an evolutive dead end, artificially enhanced or not.

          You can make a computer faster and more powerful but it remains a computer nonetheless.

          About ‘There Must Be A Better Way’ by Ian Lawton,

          The argumentation is sensible and holds much merits. I was a bit surprised though by the following sentence:

          “Are George Bush and Tony Blair genuinely men of integrity and conviction, who invaded Iraq in order to effect regime change and liberate a horribly oppressed people?”

          This is forgetful of even recent history. Initially, the pitch to go to Irak were the presence of WMD in Irak and the then current pursuing by Saddam of a nuclear weapon program, even using forged documents claiming that he sought ‘Yellow Cake’ in Niger. This of course eventually led to Fitzgerald’s grand juries which may lead to indictments of highly placed hawks in the Bush administration.

          There was also the claim by Blair that Saddam could have missiles ready and pointing at us within 45 minutes if I remember well.

          The article also unfortunately forgets to mention the PNAC plan that required such an event as 911 to happen to allow the implant of advanced based on all the continents, as it was projected by ‘Scooter’ Libby, Cheney and their peers within that group (Project for a New American Century).

          As goodwilled as Ian may have been in his depiction of the situation I could not repress the distinct feeling that his proposed planetary ‘rational spiritual’ view is hopeful but still wishful thinking.

          Unless we are ready to really look at the roots of the cosmic conspiracy for world domination, unless we are ready to look straight into the eyes of the devil made civilization, that we are capable of considering the ugliest of things, such as our leaders being totally sold to a cabal that has separated itself from the mundane, from human lowlife, and who could not care less for life but who have embraced mammon, the money god, whose avatar is the so called market forces that totally possess the world culture today that in turn dictates the limit of what is now sacred or not, the only thing that will save humanity is a great kick in the balls. Only those with steel balls can make it through.

          I don’t see how spirituality can help developing balls though since it rather tends to castrate.

          About ‘Near Life Experiences’ by Michael Grosso

          At first it seemed a misnomer but as I read further, I found myself engaged in a rather enjoyable read. Almost kind of describe the beast, the new Babylon, mammon, if only indirectly.
          Nice light hearted read peppered with hidden treasures.

          That’s it for now.

      1. great work!!!the ayahuasca ar
        great work!!!the ayahuasca article came at a peculiar time as i have very recently become interested in the subject–the artwork was unbelievable! loved every article–thanks

        “fear not the path of truth for the lack of those that walk it”R.F.K.

  3. Crystal ball
    I’m looking forward to the new Dan Pinchbeck book (and web site) you say he plans to launch in 2006. I hope you get an early copy to review. Your review of his last book and interview with him were quite good.

    Ron D

  4. Sub Rosa #2
    Hi greg,

    Awesome stuff mate. You really have got together a great collaboration of writers. I was glued to the monitor for hours last night, infact I went to bed at 3am. I have yet to digest the rest of the mag but will give you further detailed feedback later on.

    I agree with your comment on the front cover. Exceptional artwork!! Would have looked good on my coffee table as a nice glossy conversation piece 😉

    Blown away…….again….
    Regards H

      1. Hey there shadows
        I’ve missed you!! I have been wandering the halls of dejectedness in the last few months and have been fighting a sort of personal depression, really letting things get on top of me. You know the stuff, what’s it all about? Why am I here? What the hell is wrong with me? etc…

        I turned the computer on a few days ago and saw the latest issue of Sub Rosa and I really connected with some of the topics. I realised I had missed this site more than ever and presto, here I am.

        Hope you are fantastically well and hope to chat with you more over the coming weeks

        H xxxxxxxx

    I love it, and I got it all for nothing.

    Greg,I just love the new Sub Rosa and I would absolutely love to buy it if you ever do hard copy.

    I loved everything…the graphics are sensational, the interview with Hancock terrific,the story about John Mack wonderful and so on and so on.
    Your little sweet face is there Greg for those who haven’t seen you.I loved your article and all the articles and have not quite finished reading.

    And Rick sweetie, I loooved your review.What are you doing next time?

    I recommend that everyone download it and save it as it is the best value you are going to get for nothing these days.


    And may I just add, that I, personally, all by myself downloaded Mozilla so that I could get Sub Rosa.
    My son will come over and say I am wonderful and I can do all his computer stuff in future.
    I know he is only joking and wouldn’t let me within miles of his expensive set-up but it is lovely to hear him say it.

    1. Future projects …

      I’m posting a short interview I did with Paul Collins this weekend, most probably Saturday. His novel needs a good editor, and it can be a mess grammatically and narratively, but he has a vivid imagination and intriguing philosophies that I hope people will find interesting.

      There may be an interview with Michael Hayes in the near future, depending how busy he is, and if he’s willing to spare me some time to pick his brain. His research is dear to my heart because it’s inspiring my fiction novel. It’s serendipitous because my line of research originally began with Fritjof Capra and Robert Temple’s own work into Eastern Mysticism (especially the I Ching) and it’s connections to music, DNA and physics. And then along came Mike Hayes, to add another piece to the puzzle …

      And maybe, just maybe, I’ll interview JJ Abrams or David Lindelhof about their television series, “Lost”. You’d be surprised how much philosophy, both Eastern and Western, is involved in this show. If any of you watch “Lost”, then you’ll love this mock website I suspect the makers of Lost created to tease us. Here’s another website for Dharma Industries. Note the hexagram/yin yang design. Curiouser and curiouser …

      I’m also lining up an interview with Neil Gaiman, to talk about stories mythological, and his script for a Beuwolf film, which just began shooting recently.

      I’ve also got an article about the Dropa Disc hoax that’s been languishing in my to-do box for years. Erich Von Daniken and Hartwig Hausdorf are refusing to even reply, and I’ve had no luck tracking down the elusive David Gamon.

      Wish me luck!


      1. Wow Rick that’s fantastic!
        I can’t believe you’re doing all this stuff.You’re a clever little Dickens you know, you just need to have more confidence.

        I’ve got a book of Fritjof Capra’s but I don’t think I understood it very well

        And Neil Gaiman, you just looove him.

        You’re going to have a wonderful time.Let us know how you get on please.

        You don’t need luck, you’ve got talent.

        love shadows

  6. Greg………
    my apparent laziness in spelling disallows me to discribe how good this issue of Sub Rosa is. So I’ll just say…..gee that is great….
    The tardiness in commenting is due to reading as much as possible first.
    I take my hat off to you…..mind you, you have set a rather high precedence for yourself.

    DISCLAIMER: the opinions and veiws in this post are mine only and are not those of others or of TDG. Any similarities are by chance only.

  7. God fearing.
    Don’t worry about that God-fearing group at the top of the comments list Greg. Discoveries are never made possible without sacrifice and the stepping over of current boundaries. That’s a general rule of thumb, I think. Anyway, great job on the issue. It’s always great to see BMB offering his wisdom on the topic of Crowleyana.

    ” There is no Religion higher than the Truth. “

  8. Layout Issues
    Hi Greg, I just came over from GHMB to let you know of some problems I had with Issue 2. Nothing to do with content, I have enjoyed the articles I have read so far. I don’t know if the problems have to do with my system or not. I d/l’d Issue 1 when it first came online but I havn’t been able to read it because I had computer hassles. I am now using Mac OSX and was able to read Issue 2 in Preview, the OSX PDF viewer. Now I can read it I can’t find Issue 1…Anyway, there were a few issues with the text and here they are:

    Starting on Page 18, the last letters of the words in the insert boxes, in some cases almost entire words, have been cut off.

    On Page 23, the beginning of the Crowley article, there is white text on a white background. The only reason I know there is text at all is that some letters are visible over the blue and black.

    Throughout the Crowley article, that black symbol obscures the black text meaning I can’t read this article at all.

    So there they are. Again, I don’t know if this is anything to do with Preview (I have the original OSX which had a few issues of it’s own), but I would assume it displays PDF’s in the same way as Acrobat. Perhaps I got an early version and this has been corrected now? Other than that it was great, keep up the good work and I look forward to Issue 3 (and Issue 1 when I find it on my mangled harddrive).

  9. Very professional
    I’ve enjoyed both issues so far. It is very well put together. Although I certainly don’t agree with all the points, I have found it all very interesting and thought provoking. I look forward to future issues (as well as TDG)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal