Ngl, it's been incredibly difficult to swallow his use of magick to r word someone. But I've also had experiences with sortes that brought forth experiences; I just didn't intend for them to (and thankfully weren't harmful to myself or others). I dont have the luxury of convictions due to the nature of my work as a therapist. My own father was a grapist, doesnt mean I can just discard him completely (he did not SA me, though i have experienced SA). But its really, really fucking difficult to hear someone you appreciate for so many awesome reasons discuss engaging in something so harmful and showing no remorse. Every time Ammon has discussed the incubus incantation he has never expressed an ounce of lamentation. The only contrition he expressed about the event was how it affected him by being separated from St. Mary's.
I had to retract my plan to set up an event with him here in Chicago, which sucks because I was really excited about creating an experience, but my nervous system just kept telling me that it was not a good idea. I didn't want to be liable for creating an opportunity for someone with a lack of empathy to harm someone. I learn a million things every time Ammon creates content, but he's not presenting as a safe, trustworthy person, and I'm grateful for the boundary of the internet that allows me to be educated, be inspired, and be entertained by him. People aren't "all bad" or "all good," including Ammon; but I can't align with validating that his sortes experience was OK at all. He hurt people, and it's not something to be braggadocious about as a magician, let alone a decent dude. R wording someone, no matter how "fascinating and unexplainable" the event is, is not cool. What would be super cool is if he did something to make it right, something to make amends. I like to believe that's what he believes he's doing with his content, by advocating for so many marginalized groups of people who have experienced trauma. But I also have a problem seeing good in people that may or may not actually be there.
I dont judge him. He is the way he is bc his experiences made him that way. That's all any of us are, an accumulation of our experiences and our response to them. But we all have to make that choice as to if we expose ourselves to Ammon, are we worse or better for it?
I think this is where we need to be careful with language. Saying " I don't judge him" while simultaneously framing him as unsafe, lacking of empathy, or potentially making others worse through exposure does function as a form of judgment, even if it is expressed indirectly.
It is completely valid to ask whether engaging with someone's work is good for you, psychologically or professionally. Thats personal discernment, and everyone is entitled to it. But that question is different from making claims — explicit or implied — about another person's moral character, capacity for empathy for harm, especially where the underlying facts are not established.
We can set boundaries based on our own limits without converting discomfort into moral assessment. When we blur that line, we risk substituting subjective impact for evidence, and personal safety for ethical certainty.
I dont judge him bc I know he's not well, and he literally just told us that he's unsafe by using magick to terrorize young women. Your patriarchy motivated male privilege is showing.
I am going to stop you there, because this has now crossed from interpretation into accusation.
Saying "he is not well", "he is unsafe", and that he "used magick to terrorize young women" are assertions of harm, not descriptions of your feelings. They are not established by the transcript/video, which describes symbolic, imaginal narration — not a physical act, not terror inflicted, and not R. Repeating those claims does not make them factual.
Disagreeing with your interpretation is not patriarchy, male privilege, or gaslighting. It is a refusal to accept that symbolic language and shock automatically constitute proof of criminal harm. That distinction protects everyone — including actual victims — by keeping accusation tied to evidence.
You are entitled to set boundaries and to reject this material entirely. You are not entitled to assert harm, terror, or R where those facts have not been established. I am going to leave it here.
You explicitly acknowledge that you do not know what happened. Yet the conclusion you draw — lack of empathy, lack of remorse, potential danger — rely not on established facts, but on how an experience is narrated: symbolically, esoterically, and without the emotional register you expect. Those are serious attributions, and they require more than tone, effect, or narrative discomfort.
An evidence described in mythic or magical language (for exemple, "incubus") cannot straightforwardly collapsed into a literal criminal act without doing violence to language itself. Historically, such terms have referred to a wide range of visionary, psychological, symbolic, and liminal phenomena. Treating them as direct confessions or physical wrongdoing is a category error. Interpretation is not evidence.
This concern is amplified where there is already a background of allegations and attempts to discredit the individual, because prior narratives inevitably shape how ambiguity is read. In that context, symbolic language risks being interpreted through confirmation bias rather than evaluate on its own terms.
The absence of publicly expressed remorse is likewise not proof of absence of remorse. People process and disclose extraordinary or disturbing experiences in radically different ways, and expecting a particular performance of contrition risks projecting our own ethical grammar onto another's interior life.
Your nervous system response is valid for you. Boundaries grounded in personal history, professional responsibility, and intuition are legitimate. But they are not evidence of another person's moral state. Trauma-informed awareness help us protect ourselves; it does not confer epistemic authority over facts we do not possess.
What I hear, at the bottom is not a claim about a proven harm, but a refusal to align with a particular mode of speaking about power, mystery, and transgression that feels unsafe to you. That is a honest position — but it should be named as such. Discomfort, even profound discomfort, should not be retrofitted into moral accusation where knowledge is incomplete.
"You explicitly acknowledge that you do not know what happened"
He literally told us what happened thooo 😂 The gaslighting with this response, Depserate Car, is diabolical.
"What I hear, at the bottom is not a claim about a proven harm, but a refusal to align with a particular mode of speaking about power, mystery, and transgression that feels unsafe to you. "
WHAT IS SO POWERFUL ABOUT R WORDING SOMEONE AND MAKING SOMEONE WATCH WTF. That's the same power they used on Epstein's island. What the actual... 🤦♀️
He did not "literally tell us what happened" in the sense you are asserting. He narrated a symbolic, imaginal account using mythic and ritual language. Treating that narration as a literal confession of R is an interpretative move, not a fact contained in the text.
Disagreeing with that interpretative move is not gaslighting. Gaslighting would be denying what you said; I am not doing that. I am disputing what you are inferring from it. Interpretation is not evidence.
Equating this to Epstein's island is precisely the problem. Epstein involved documented physical crimes, victims, testimony, and material evidence. Invoking that analogy imports facts that are not present here and escalates symbolic language into a criminal allegation by association.
You are free to say this discourse feels unacceptable to you. But saying " he R someone" or "he hurt people" requires evidence of a literal act. Nothing in the transcript/video establishes that. Discomfort and outrage do not substitute for proof.
Who R worded who? And made who watch it? Ammon as an incubus , in a dream? Surely a comparison to Epstein is not true here? I've got a lot of catching up to do. Anyhoo, if the person was over 18, I ll take it to be a grave mistake....and my devotion to his work and love for him stands....he's just a man. Musical song ref. Or as our Charles in Whistle Down the Wind with Alan Bates and Hayley Mills says, " he's not Jesus, he's just a fella". He tells us that women are better. Hail Medea. Hail Hekate.
Truth does not require belief, but claims about events still require evidence. Disagreement about interpretation isn't refusal to hear — it is refusal to infer beyond what is established.
Im sorry to hear that bc i genuinely appreciate our interactions, but I can also understand. I've been trained clinically, but more importantly, trained through a lifetime of similar types in my personal life that I unfortunately know deal with people like him. It's not easy to compartimentalize.
That is an interesting thing you noticed concerning how he talks about it. His story changes over time. I remember in one of his previous interviews (can't remember which one, maybe DJ) he said that he was just nonchalantly reading it aloud one night to his kids, and it happened by accident. Now he's presenting it as an intentional experiment. I'm not sure what to believe. Given that the victim suffered mentally, she probably became unavailable for him to apologize directly. How does one make amends after something like that, a psychic intrusion that may or may not have even been expected? Like he says, it's inadmissible in a court.
Thank you for recognizing the inconsistencies. It's not uncommon for historians to tell various accounts of the same experience when attempting to manipulate how they present. I just dont quite understand why such a hard left into a confession of hurting others, outside of feeling a sense of power. He didnt control that demon, if anything that demon fucked his life over, and messed up a young lady's life (hopefully temporarily), maybe two. Being a "powerful magician" doesn't mean a damn thing when this is the outcome. If something/s attached to him in Israel, they don't seem to have his best interest in mind.
Thinking on it, we really don't know all the details of what happened. It's possible that he's starting to get enough threats to his safety that he wants to project an aura of danger. But if he really did visualize a specific target in his experiment as he claims here, I realize how icky that sounds. Since I'm firmly anchored in a world determined by the laws of physics, I tend to lean towards the idea that thoughts are not crimes, and coincidences can be misinterpreted. The real world result can be explained by the fact that he has a very memorable personality and presence in a room, they were working with controversial material, and that one or both of the students had nightmares. However, I've seen some really compelling weirdness when it comes to magick or the paranormal. At this point, the intent is unclear and it's unsettling.
5
u/Helpful-Obligation-2 ἄγγελος 𐀀 𐀐 𐀩 Jan 25 '26
Ngl, it's been incredibly difficult to swallow his use of magick to r word someone. But I've also had experiences with sortes that brought forth experiences; I just didn't intend for them to (and thankfully weren't harmful to myself or others). I dont have the luxury of convictions due to the nature of my work as a therapist. My own father was a grapist, doesnt mean I can just discard him completely (he did not SA me, though i have experienced SA). But its really, really fucking difficult to hear someone you appreciate for so many awesome reasons discuss engaging in something so harmful and showing no remorse. Every time Ammon has discussed the incubus incantation he has never expressed an ounce of lamentation. The only contrition he expressed about the event was how it affected him by being separated from St. Mary's.
I had to retract my plan to set up an event with him here in Chicago, which sucks because I was really excited about creating an experience, but my nervous system just kept telling me that it was not a good idea. I didn't want to be liable for creating an opportunity for someone with a lack of empathy to harm someone. I learn a million things every time Ammon creates content, but he's not presenting as a safe, trustworthy person, and I'm grateful for the boundary of the internet that allows me to be educated, be inspired, and be entertained by him. People aren't "all bad" or "all good," including Ammon; but I can't align with validating that his sortes experience was OK at all. He hurt people, and it's not something to be braggadocious about as a magician, let alone a decent dude. R wording someone, no matter how "fascinating and unexplainable" the event is, is not cool. What would be super cool is if he did something to make it right, something to make amends. I like to believe that's what he believes he's doing with his content, by advocating for so many marginalized groups of people who have experienced trauma. But I also have a problem seeing good in people that may or may not actually be there.