Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: bloodofenoch@goddamnfruit.com ({ Secret Chief }) Newsgroups: alt.magick Subject: Aurum Solis: Phoney? Date: 26 Jan 2003 15:01:08 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 28 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.196.123.87 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1043622069 9372 127.0.0.1 (26 Jan 2003 23:01:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Jan 2003 23:01:09 GMT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick:333934 After I wrote some nasty things about Aurum Solis, Al Billings responded: > Take a look at the ENTIRE corpus of published Aurum Solis work. You will > find that it is, in most ways, not like the Golden Dawn at all. The nature > of the work and its structure is quite different. The main similarities are > in a couple of personal rites, such as the Setting of the Wards, and even > there it is often quite different. Prove to me that you actually know the > material... I don't deny that Denning and Phillips departed from the Golden Dawn material in some substantial and interesting ways. So did Crowley and P.F. Case. In that sense, Aurum Solis is no more phoney than the A.'.A.'. or BOTA. But what I do object to is the phoney baloney historical narrative concocted for AS, attempting to pass it off as a wholly separate "tradition" with no roots in GD theory or practice. If I can see any documentation whatsoever on the purported AS-ancestory organization, Societas Rotae Fulgentis, or the alleged founders, George Stanton or Charles Kingold, I will be happy to revise my opinion. Until then, I see the way AS presents itself as a particularly egregious example of occult tradition-mongering.