Now, I don’t know how to use the quote feature, and I’m too damned old to learn so bear with me. Also I just had an ice cream and it was tasty as fuck.
“The books are nice from one perspective”
Sure, we can agree on that. Fair call.
“but my advice is, if you are worshiping demons (and no, not in the sense of the sort of service that is given to, say, the Loa, which no Vodouisant would say he worships in the commonly understood sense of the word)”
First of all, the worst vice is advice. I don’t give it, and unless I ask for it, I’m sure as hell not taking it. Your advice is worth nothing except the irritation of having it forced upon others. Second, you go so far as to infer a differences in interpretation of the word “worship” - what you see as the “commonly understood sense of the word” and how you perceive Voudon practise as being apart from this. As EA is heavily involved with Voudon, and Mz. Connolly is not, I can only draw the conclusion that you are sucking EA’s dick and trying to earn brownie points by making this weak distinction. If you understood daemonolatry, you would also understand how the term “worship” fits into the system as a whole, but you don’t and thus by your very “advice”, you also demonstrate both ignorance and arrogance.
“you are selling yourself short as a being that is - potentially at least - far, far above them.”
Tell that to a daemon (or an angel etc) and see how much they agree with your theory. Human beings are not above anything until they have proven themselves to have earned that position. So far, I have not met a person who has been able to rise above even themselves, let alone anything else. Your claim at superiority is a hollow pretension.
“Sure, they are more powerful than you are, but to measure station in this way is to think of the burly peasant warrior as above the infant of a nobleman. That is not to compare any demon to a peasant.”
Do I really need to point out that if they are “more powerful” than us, then that is, at least, one way in which we are most certainly not “above them”? You’re starting to contradict yourself. Also, your analogy is lame. When the “nobleman” grows up, the “burly peasant” is still going to rape the shit out of them. That’s called power, and if you have trouble accepting the simplicity of the argument, it’s because your analogy was poor from the beginning. Also, you did just compare a daemon to a peasant, so now you’re contradicting yourself again. If you weren’t comparing them as such, you wouldn’t need to make a big deal of pointing out that you weren’t, but again, your analogy is poor and your pretension is the only support you have for a faulty rationale.
“Once you have understood your true nature, however, you will have understood how absurd it is for you as a man to be, not merely loving as you should, but worshiping any creation.”
To advise others on their “true nature”, you must have already found it. What are you, god? And you go on to assume that the true nature of others will in fact be congruent with your own experience - assuming you actually know anything at all about your “true nature” - which is not only narrow-minded but downright insulting. Who said anything about love? Why “should” I love, or do anything else that you tell me? How about I tell you what you should or shouldn’t do? And I worship myself, and I was created. Others worship nature, and that was created. Others still worship any number of things, and I challenge you to prove that any of these things weren’t created.
“That is not the way to work with them to bring yourself fulfillment.”
Really? If you know so much about how to work with daemons, why haven’t you written a book on the subject, or even a single constructive post on this forum? Some people use the term “armchair theorist” as a derogative against those who don’t actively practise, but I doubt you even have a solid grounding in theory, based on the nonsensical assumptions you like to pass off as fact. Moreover, who is to say what is fulfilling for others? I mean, sex with me may very well be one of those life-changing experiences that provide people with meaning, deep spiritual satisfaction and their sole reason to live, but I understand if a girl doesn’t think so. Clearly she’d have to be a lesbian, but that doesn’t mean that my own standards of personal fulfillment are in any say superior or more correct than those of others.
“In fact, it’s downright unhealthy in the long term.”
What, are you a doctor now?
“Just take a look at these demonolators. Take a look at Mrs Connolly and tell me that hers is the image of a living god.”
Oh yes, it’s easy to condemn someone who isn’t here to defend themselves. I take a look at the daemonolators and I see a small group of dedicated magicians who produce material for others to use. Or, to discard as they see fit. I judge them based on their writings and on the use their writings are to me, personally. The same has been said about EA, what with his having been addicted to various narcotics etc. However, EA isn’t hassling me for money to buy dope, or stealing my shit, or ripping me off, so I don’t care about his personal life and where it has taken him in the past. What matters is the content and usefulness of his books, and I have found them to be very useful indeed. Similarly, the daemonolators have put out a good deal of material, and I find their work to be similarly as useful. Some will not agree, and yet others will. The difference between EA, the daemonolators, and you, is that they have material on which educated, informed and personal judgments can be made well aside from all other factors. If their magic works - whoever they are - then I’m interested. If all they have are half-baked, pretentious opinions with no demonstrable basis in reality, then I take a very cynical perspective. Again, when was the last time you wrote a book on the subject of magic? And for the record, I have been published by Scarlet Imprint. Just an essay, but something by which my standard of education and rhetoric may be judged, and something which I put out there as a contribution to the magical community at large. Finally, when I look at Mz. Connolly, I see a dedicated magician with a long history (~30 years) of practise, a dozen or so books on the subject which I am free to accept or reject as I please, a series of informative YouTube videos offered free of charge and a wealth of experience on the topic of evocation and daemonolatry to which I have never before had access. I see someone that I respect, who has also produced a great deal of interesting and helpful material which I both use on a regular basis, and am most grateful for. Also, I see a sexy, sexy lady. Rowl!
Don’t you understand that your unfounded criticism of Mz. Connolly in particular, and daemonolatry at large, is as much a proxy attack on EA and the work he’s contributed to the field? Marginalising daemonolaters is just another way that you reinforce your own sense of pretentious and completely unfounded superiority, while relying on the work that EA has done to provide you a sense of commonality with others on this forum. At the end of the day, you, and everyone else are only as good as their results. So far, however, you’re the only one in the room who hasn’t got any to share.