The Temple of Set II

by Michael A Aquino

  In 1934 the Ennis House made its film debut in The Black Cat, inspiring the chillingly beautiful residence of

  Boris Karloff, the Satanist who preserved his paramours in glass Deco showcases. For years thereafter the house was

  rumored to be Karloff’s in actuality, and many a teenaged boy dared a nocturnal trespass over the wall hoping, no

  doubt, for a glimpse of nameless rites & unspeakable orgies within.

  In 1958, presumably in an effort to improve its image, the House starred again as the House on Haunted Hill,

  wherein a gloating Vincent Price lures guests into vats of acid and such. In a decadent detour it served as the

  residence of art director Claude Estee in the film version of Nathaniel West’s Day of the Locust, and entered science

  fiction in Terminal Man. Most recently it was chosen as the site for Harrison Ford’s residence in Blade Runner -

  with an amusing twist as noted below. If you have managed to miss all of the above [shame on you!], you may catch

  it once more in Howling II, wherein it is overrun with slavering werewolves.

  - 365 -

  Frank Lloyd Wright, we are told, did not do Deco - or Mayan - or Moderne - but [ahem!] Frank Lloyd

  Wright. If the Ennis house looks Mayan/Deco, it is thus purely coincidental. As was his practice at the time, Wright

  created a unique, geometrically-decorated 16” concrete block to be used within and without the building. Each block

  is reinforced by steel rods embedded in the concrete. This sounds like a nice idea, but when it rained the steel

  became wet and expanded, with the result that many of the blocks are disintegrating [and the roof leaks]. In the

  interests of authenticity the Trust has not stooped to the manufacture of new blocks, but when more were needed

  for a Blade Runner set, Hollywood cranked out a batch of fakes. Upon completion of filming these were donated to

  the Trust, which used them to build a Frank Lloyd Wright dog house for the Dobermans who escort trespassers

  briskly off the premises.

  The entrance-hall with its stern stone symmetry, 6’ ceiling, and subdued lighting, does not exactly dispel the

  notion that one is entering a pre-Columbian tomb. We were informed by the Trust docent that Wright intended the

  ceiling to reflect the height of the inhabitants. Since the ceiling jumps to 22’ shortly thereafter, one can’t help

  wondering at the odd dimensions of said inhabitants. Happily no 22’ denizen appeared, though one of the

  Dobermans [at least I hope it was only a Doberman!] sent a mournful howl echoing through the passageways at

  about the time we reached the main hall.

  If you are into geometric concrete blocks, you would be very happy here, as they are everywhere. In fact the

  basic difference between the inside and the outside of the house is that the inside is on the inside and the outside is

  on the outside. Wright wanted slate floors, but Ennis put his foot down [sorry!] and had white marble installed

  instead, which we were told went better with Hollywood bacchanalia of the 1920s. Wright also wanted a dark,

  rugged wood for the main ceilings; Ennis opted for a beautifully-finished teak. A later owner added a [Mayan/

  Deco?] swimming pool to the outside patio, from which - if you look out across the Hollywood Hills - you can see a

  large white Richard Neutra mansion glaring back at the House on Haunted Hill like Siegfried confronting Fafnir.

  Even assuming that the Trust docent didn’t show us the room where Boris K. preserved his ladies, HHH is

  surprisingly small in terms of living space. Count: living room, dining room, kitchen, two bedrooms w/bath, and

  den. Wright expected southern California to be warm & sunny all the time, so there are just two small fireplaces

  which, considering all the concrete and glass around, ain’t ’nuff. One begins to understand why the place has

  changed owners so frequently: Despite its undeniable beauty and drama, cozy it isn’t. Dazzling guests is all well and

  good, but you also want to be able to raid the fridge in the middle of the night without barking your shins on Deco

  concrete, donning a coat, or taking a pratfall on the marble.

  The Ennis house is occasionally confused with another house not too far away - the Ramon Novarro house built

  in 1928 by Lloyd Wright, son of Frank L.W., at 5699 Valley Oak Drive.

  This dramatic mansion of pale concrete and hammered bronze trim was originally decorated by MGM set

  designer Frank Gibbons entirely in black fur and silver, and Novarro’s dinner guests were expected to complement

  same by wearing only black/white/silver attire. [Novarro later moved to a simple ranch-style house at 3110 Laurel

  Canyon where, as Kenneth Anger recounts, “his ghastly death by beating in 1968 brought to mind the bizarre crimes

  of Hollywood’s past. Here was a man dying, as he had lived, extravagantly, choked in his own blood - the lead Art

  Deco dildo which Valentino had given him 45 years earlier thrust down his throat.”

  Tours of the Novarro house are not conducted, as it remains a private residence. Tours of the Ennis house are

  no longer conducted as of 2009, as the property is presently up for sale: http://www.ennishouse.org/ Be careful not

  to step in the big vat with the bubbling stuff in it.

  Comment

  April 27, 2006

  My Dear Michael,

  Enjoyed your article. However, as amusing as it was to hear you waxing lyrically at length about the significance

  of the decor, all much appreciated I might say, it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that this was a low-budget

  project designed as a vehicle for Vincent Price who, contract-wise, owed AIP three movies.

  Bob Fuest (ex Art Director of note) and myself sat down over a few bottles of wine and tried to write some sense

  into what was then an appalling outline. Our motivation? Keep it light and tongue-in-cheek.

  As a young designer in the industry (this was my third or fourth film), I happened to have a passing interest in

  Art Nouveau/Deco at the time and a reasonable supply of reference materials to hand in my library. It all just

  happened, so there.

  My best wishes to you,

  Brian Eatwell

  Production Designer

  Los Angeles

  - 366 -

  A61: Parastrology

  - by Michael A. Aquino VI°, GM.Tr.

  Runes #III-1 (January 1985) and #III-2 (March 1985)

  Order of the Trapezoidt

  Astrology had rather a rough time of it in the Age of Satan.

  First there was Anton LaVey’s essay “God in Sports Clothes -or- The Stars: Supplement for Weak Egos”. In this

  diatribe (ca. III/1968) Dr. LaVey focused not on the merit of astrology, but rather on its social/psychological impact:

  If one considers the facts, it is easy to understand why astrology has become the popular delusion it has.

  A wise sorcerer “believes“ in astrology, because he knows that the majority of the peoples of the civilized

  world believe in astrology [at least part of the time]; and if enough people are motivated by a hoax, then the

  hoax becomes as reality. Therefore, in the manipulation of humans who are affected by astrology, it is

  necessary to know how, where, and when the stars will supposedly guide their human followers so the

  manipulator will be waiting first in line to deal with his star-led subjects.

  As all religions are the work of human minds and hands, so astrology must stand out as a monumental

  brainstorm on the part of one of the most Satanic enchanters of all time. Astrology always wins, because of

  that most effective sales appeal of all: ego, alias vanity! Every
one who has ever been exposed to astrology

  believes in it - at least for a few minutes - because in those few short moments of first exposure to astrology

  the listener is told about something he cannot ignore: himself - the most interesting, scintillating, awe-

  inspiring, contemplative, and emotionally acceptable subject on this green Earth!”

  Warlock II° Michael A. Aquino was not much kinder. In a V/1970 issue of the Cloven Hoof I commented:

  Upon turning his attention to the expanses of space that encompass his planet, man confronts the

  physical reality of natural infinity, a concept extremely frustrating to his desire to categorize his

  environment. Consequently the priests of the ancient civilizations groped for explanations of the firmament

  which would be sufficiently finite to uphold man’s sense of self-importance.

  The result was astrology, or star-worship, which has endured in one form or another since its first major

  codification by the Babylonians in the 10th century BCE. Supposing the external universe to be a spherical

  shell circumnavigating the Earth, the astrologer-priests represented the Sun, Moon, and known planets as

  agents of prophecy and personality determination. Their positions within the star-beings of the zodiac were

  thought to exert a direct influence upon the fortunes of Earth and its inhabitants.

  The zodiac itself consisted of a band of constellations extending the length of the ecliptic and

  approximately 9° in each perpendicular direction. Each constellation occupied a supposedly fixed position

  along this band, and the star-beings themselves were located according to calculations based upon the

  equinoxes.

  Unfortunately the Babylonians’ admirable calculations did not allow for the gradual change in the tilt of

  Earth’s axis, with the result that the signs of the zodiac eventually ceased to coincide with their approximate

  constellations. Modern astrologers, therefore, proclaim not only the influence of gigantic masses of flaming

  rock and gas in human fortunes, but also the influence of random areas of deep space!

  ... Following which the Church of Satan and Temple of Set paid zero attention to astrology until this past month,

  when one brave astrologer from New York City, Robert Zoller, was admitted to the Temple under the sponsorship of

  Stephen Flowers, M.Tr. When the Executive Director showed me Zoller’s application, I said, “Astrologer, hmm?

  Why not send him Watson’s analysis in Supernature and see how he reacts to it? Ask him if he’s run into Playfair &

  Hill for good measure.”

  I am ashamed to say my motives were somewhat on the order of Wile E. Coyote setting a trap for the road-

  runner. I expected either (a) an angry snarl from a charlatan whose balloon has been pricked, or (b) a sort of

  stupefied inability to come to grips with Watson’s criticisms [which are as incisive as, if somewhat more polite than

  Carl Sagan’s in Cosmos]. Zoller’s response left me feeling even more like W.E.C. - just after his latest r-r trap has

  backfired on him! Quoth Zoller:

  I will have to acquire a copy of Playfair & Hill’s Cycles of Heaven before I can comment on it. Regarding

  Lyall Watson’s bit on astrology which you forwarded, however, I will say that it is overall a very nice piece

  for a non-astrologer. The tone is refreshingly balanced, and the author has done his homework.

  There are, however, a few criticisms I could make. As an astrologer I see things which the general

  reading public might not find noteworthy. If an astrologer had written the article, it would have been done

  differently in spots.

  Page #62: In the calculation it is actually the MC “midheaven sign” (specifically the degree of the sign)

  which is found first, then the ascendent. Secondly it seems to me that paragraph #2 confuses the signs with

  - 367 -

  the constellations - a distinction which Watson attempts to rectify later, but which might better have been

  handled first [that is, in the paragraph beginning page #62: “The planets ...”]. The problem is that the

  wobbling of the Earth’s poles causes the phenomenon known as the “precession of the equinoxes”. This

  results in the signs no longer coinciding with the constellations as they did [according at least to some

  astronomers] ca. 1 CE. This is the first thing on which astronomers fault the Western astrologer. So

  Watson’s statement on page #63 that the scientists cannot take exception [to the initial logic of astrology] is

  a bit misleading.

  The following paragraph introduces the fact that there is in fact a bit of agreement between astrology

  and science. Watson could have gone further had be brought in the research done at Mount Sinai Hospital

  [and elsewhere] in NYC on what has been dubbed “chronobiology”. This new science, begun in Germany

  about 30 years ago, involves a study of the cycles of physiological functions in human and animal bodies.

  The major cycles studied are the circadian or almost-24-hour cycles exhibited by the the body’s hormonal

  secretions. These cycles have been found to greatly affect a patient’s reaction to a given drug at a particular

  time. Modern physicians are finding that the same drug administered at different times may have different

  effects. This was known during the middle ages, and medieval physicians endeavored to intensify the effect

  of medicines by timing their administration according to astrological principles.

  The circadian cycle seems to be due to some kind of light-sensitivity of the pineal gland which secretes a

  greater or lesser amount of serotonin at different times of the cycle. Besides the circadian cycle there are 28-

  day cycles [in both sexes] and annual cycles. All three cycles are identical with [or directly related to] the

  movements of the Earth on its axis, of the Moon around the Earth, and of the Earth around the Sun.

  All this is known to, but not discussed by scientists. The problem faced by astrologers is that none of

  these cycles - nor Nelson’s work [pages #63-4], nor Gauquelin’s report of the electrolyte quality of water

  varying with the Lunar phase - shows how an individual’s being born at a particular time and place

  differentiates him from others born at other times and places. The above-mentioned influences apply to all

  inhabitants of Earth. Still it has led some astrologers to develop a scientifically acceptable ’astrology of

  humanity’, so to speak.

  Page #64, paragraph #2: Watson appears to confuse sidereal signs with tropical constellations. Does he

  mean Mercury in the sign or the constellation of Virgo?

  Page #65, paragraph #1: Watson says that “each house occupies 30°”. This is is true only of the Equal

  House System, which is the oldest system but is now used by few Western astrologers. Perhaps Watson is

  confusing Eastern and Western approaches to astrology, since the EHS is still used in India. Western

  astrologers use a variety of house systems - and argue about “which one is right?”.

  Page #65, paragraph #2: It is interesting that the Arabs also held - at least during the middle ages - that

  the rising planet is the key to one’s profession. My experience seems to confirm this. Gauquelin’s work is

  good, but he often rediscovers concepts “lost” to astrologers unwilling or unable to consult classical sources.

  Page #67, paragraph #1: Watson states that astrology lacks a clear philosophic basis. It had such in the

  middle ages, and can be said still to have one when we consider that medieval astrology was never

  disproven; ra
ther it fell out of favor as the intelligentsia went over to a new scientific paradigm in the 17th

  century. As modern physics is now supplanting this paradigm with a kind of neo-Pythagoreanism and a

  willingness to examine the energy/consciousness equation, it may well be that many, if not all of the old

  scientific arguments against astrology will become obsolete. The major threat to astrology today is neither

  science nor [as some fear] the religious right; it is the space race. There is nothing like a radical change of

  venue from Earth to Mars to screw up your cycles! The 28-day cycle, which plays such an important role on

  Earth, is nowhere to be found on Mars. Should we colonize that planet, we’d need a new astrology for the

  colonists.

  Pages #67-8: The discussion of Clark’s experiments is interesting. The is is the first time I’ve heard of

  them, but then I’ve been in the 13th century for years. Most of my work is on medieval astrology, as will be

  apparent from Lost Key when you see it.

  Watch out for Eugen Jonas’ stuff. In Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain [unless I’m mistaken]

  Jonas was credited with or developed certain birth-control methods. These were elaborated on in the

  authors’ second book. One method dealt with predicting the sex of the child on the basis of the Moon’s

  position in certain “critical degrees” at conception. It doesn’t work. In fact it is a “well-known astrological

  method” that has been known not to work for some time. Apparently Jonas learned a little astrology from a

  book and jumped to his conclusion. The authors reported it, people over here began to apply it, and it failed.

  Several years ago I attempted to get a copy of the book. The publisher advised me that the authors had

  withdrawn it from publication because of the scandal.

  Addey’s work with harmonics is well regarded in the astrological field - at least among the astrologers I

  know. The funny thing is that his harmonic system, which he undoubtedly contributed sincerely, was known

  to medieval astrologers. We have evidence of it in Guido Bonatti’s Liber Astronomiæ, ca. 1282.

  Many years ago Diane LaVey told me the story of the scientists who tested a pessimistic child and an optimistic

  one. The pessimist was placed in a roomful of toys, but he refused to play with them. “What’s the use?” he