---
title: "Evaluating the Critique of Bardon: A Practitioner’s Response to Nick Farrell (by Virgil)"
url: https://staging13.perseusarcaneacademy.com/post/evaluating-the-critique-of-bardon-a-practitioners-response-to-nick-farrell-by-virgil/
date: 2026-04-02
modified: 2026-07-03
lang: en
author: "Perseus Arcane Academy"
description: "Introduction Recently, Nick Farrell wrote a piece about the Bardon system and the Bardon tradition with several critical claims. It can be read here. While I did not initially intend..."
categories:
  - "Franz Bardon"
  - "Guest Post"
tags:
  - "Franz Bardon"
  - "Hermetics"
image: https://staging13.perseusarcaneacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/ChatGPT-Image-Apr-2-2026-01_21_24-PM-1024x683.png
word_count: 3138
---

# Evaluating the Critique of Bardon: A Practitioner’s Response to Nick Farrell (by Virgil)

## Introduction

Recently, Nick Farrell wrote a piece about the Bardon system and the Bardon tradition with several critical claims. It can be read [here](https://substack.com/home/post/p-190491124). While I did not initially intend to read, let alone respond to it, certain close friends of mine in the Bardon world have asked me about some of the claims made in the piece. I figured if I am going to type a response for them, I might as well share it openly in case others find it helpful. I have not read any other responses to Farrell’s piece or discussions of it, so some of what I’ve written below may have already been said by others. 

### Neatness

Farrell’s first criticism of IIH is that everything is too neat. It’s all packaged into ten net boxes, which are the ten steps of IIH. This is a bizarre criticism to me since there is nothing at all wrong with being neat. If the creators of other systems died before they could tidy up the systems they created, why should this reflect poorly on Bardon? If anything, the neatness of Bardon’s system should be a point in its favor. 

Farrell goes on to mention that the Golden Dawn tradition and Crowley’s tradition are messes. Yes, they are. That’s a large part of why I have no interest in them. But again, the fact that Bardon is more coherent than other traditions is a good thing, not a bad thing. It’s just strange to think otherwise. For what it’s worth, Quareia, another system I highly respect, is also very neat, with everything being packaged into modules and lessons. 

### Intellectual and Practical

Farrell writes “In real magical training, there is a leaning towards intellectual information first.” This statement betrays a strong and problematic bias. What Farrell considers “real magical training” is just the training he is familiar with, which is the kind of training undergone in Western magical orders. As someone who is initiated into a Taoist, a Buddhist, and a Druidic tradition of magic, I can affirm that none of these traditions requires that students spend a long time studying theory and accumulating intellectual information before beginning any kind of practice, especially basic practices like meditation. The comment Farrell makes about astral projection is very strange. Pretty much every magical training system includes some version of astral projection. I’m pretty sure even the GD system does. So it’s weird to imply it’s wrong for IIH to include its version of the practice. 

### “Bardon Fanboys”

Farrell then goes on to describe what he refers to as “Bardon fanboys,” which are people overly fanatical about Bardon’s system. While it is unfortunate that such people are the way they are, every spiritual tradition has people like that. So the existence of such people shouldn’t necessarily reflect badly on Bardon’s tradition. It certainly does not imply that the entire Bardon tradition is just some personality-cult for Bardon. 

### Bardon’s Pancreatitis

Farrell at some point gives his summary of Bardon’s life, mentioning that Bardon died of pancreatitis and claiming this should cast doubts on his ability as a healer. I’m not sure if Farrell is aware, but Bardon actually committed suicide. He deliberately requested and consumed a kind of bacon that he knew would inflame his pancreas to the point of killing him. By this point in his life, he had already completed his life’s work of revealing the practical mysteries behind the first three cards of the Major Arcana.

### Bardon’s Sources

Farrell next discusses Bardon’s sources. He begins by questioning the idea that Bardon’s Hermetics is truly related to the Hermeticism hailing from ancient Greece and Egypt. Whether or not Bardon’s Hermetics is really Hermetic is subjective to some extent. Rawn Clark was of the opinion that Bardon’s material truly is Hermetic. His reasoning was that what Bardon teaches is in line with what is taught in the Corpus Hermeticum. As for me, I’m actually in agreement with Farrell that Bardon’s material isn’t that Hermetic. Since there was a ton of interest in Hermeticism around Bardon’s time, I believe he largely just attached the “Hermetic” label to his material to help promote it (I could be wrong though). If I had to choose an adjective to describe his material, it would be “universal” rather than “Hermetic.” That said, whether or not Bardon’s material is Hermetic really doesn’t matter at all. The only thing that matters is that it works. 

Farrell then brings up the issue of the names of spirits. If you think the names of spirits are something that are really important (as is the case for most grimoire-influenced occultists), then it makes sense to be concerned that some of the names given in PME seem to be garbled versions of names from other sources. But in practice, names are really not that important. The most important thing is the spirit’s role, because that is what determines your intent. If you perform an evocation with the intent of evoking, say, the ruling genius of the fourth degree of Aquarius, then you will get that spirit. Next to the role, the sigil is the most useful thing. When used properly, it allows you to directly connect with the spirit and thus get its attention and open a channel of communication between you and it. A long time ago, when asked about the controversy regarding the names in PME, a teacher in the Bardon tradition responded that he could refer to any spirit using the name Pee-wee Herman and still evoke it; if he knew the spirit’s role and sigil, then he had everything he truly needed. If Bardon were writing PME in modern times, he very well could have written a Python program to put together random syllables to generate names for the spirits he mentioned. 

### Fluid Condensers

Farrell goes on to question the usefulness of fluid condensers. He says that he has seen them employed in rituals and been underwhelmed by their effectiveness. If that is his experience, then that is his experience. But what I can say is that I have engaged in Golden Dawn rituals myself and also been underwhelmed by their effectiveness. That is my experience, and merely throwing a fluid condenser into these rituals is not going to fix the fundamental problems with the rituals themselves or with the training of those trying to do them.  Every magician I’ve met who’s actually been through IIH has found fluid condensers to be useful tools that work in the manner described by Bardon. Why? Because they are tools for magicians. They are not tools for just anyone who wants to dress up in robes and wave a wand around while vibrating names. 

### The Nature of Magical Development

Farrell then says that the ten steps of IIH give the illusion that magical development occurs in a linear fashion, when in reality, people undergoing magical training “encounter insight, crisis, regression, and transformation in unpredictable ways.” This is another strange criticism to me. The ten steps of IIH can indeed give the illusion that magical development occurs in a linear fashion, but so can the grades of the Golden Dawn or the levels of any system of magical training, and they all have levels of some sort. Even if development isn’t linear, on average there should still be an upward trend, so to speak. Anyone who has actually been through IIH can tell you that in the process of working through the book, you do indeed “encounter insight, crisis, regression, and transformation in unpredictable ways.” IIH is just a single book. Its primary purpose is to provide instructions for the exercises the student must master. It’s very good for what it is. As for other things like discussions of the non-linear nature of magical advancement, Bardon left it to later practitioners of his system to write about. William Mistele in particular has done a thorough and fantastic job of writing about this particular topic. His “Problems in the Study of Magic” series of essays focuses a lot on it. 

### The Bardon Tradition vs the Bardon System

Farrell then claims that there is no tradition that has developed from Bardon’s works. This is just objectively wrong. By this point I’m sure someone has pointed this out to Farrell already, but there are many communities of Bardon practitioners and many occult authors who consider themselves Bardonists and write about his system. All of these authors, without exception, myself included, do mention improvements that could be made to the IIH system. For example, I often say that breath-awareness should be inserted into Step 1 and precede thought-awareness. Spending time practicing breath-awareness (which is easier than thought-awareness) will develop one’s awareness to the point where thought-awareness becomes easy too. And when thought-awareness is easy, VOM is also easy.

Farrell’s statement that “most practitioners use the original exercises without further development” is funny to me. First of all, the IIH system is fine as it is. Even if it’s not perfect and improvements can be made to it, it’s still good enough to be workable in it original form so there’s nothing wrong with trying to work through the system as is. But also, although Farrell’s statement may have been true twenty years ago, at this current time the opposite is true. Thanks to the publication of highly-questionable commentaries, many practitioners change the exercises to the point where they’re not even the same exercises. At this point they’re basically practicing a different system and will not attain to what Bardon’s actual system was designed to help practitioners attain. 

To return to the topic of the Bardon tradition, ultimately you don’t become an adept by being part of a tradition. You become an adept by working through a good system. Therefore, although the Bardon tradition is nice (and does exist), it is really the Bardon system that is the most important thing. The system can exist by itself even without the tradition and still do its job. Fixation on being part of a tradition without giving adequate attention to working through the system is wholly unproductive. This just leads to people calling themselves Bardonists and arguing all day on Facebook about who Bardon’s teacher was or wasting countless hours chatting with other Bardonists on Discord about astrology and other random occult topics. And yes, this does happen all the time.

### On Bardon’s Greatness

After trying to deny the Bardon tradition’s existence, Farrell writes the following:

> *The image of Bardon as a master Hermetic adept primarily stems from stories created by his students. Such mythmaking is common in occult history, where a teacher’s reputation grows despite limited evidence, and their biography becomes more dramatic over time.*

The second sentence is undoubtedly true. That said, in every field and art, there do exist exceptional geniuses. For example, Mozart composed his first opera around the age of twelve. By the time he died, he had composed more than 600 pieces of music, many of them elaborate and highly-acclaimed. In the world of physics there’s Einstein and in the world of chess there’s Magnus Carlsen. Whether or not Bardon was an example of such an exceptional genius is subjective. But it would be crazy to deny that such exceptional geniuses do exist, and it’s certainly not wrong to acknowledge their amazingness when they come along, or to recognize the value in learning from such people. While there are many legends around Bardon and some of them may not be true, his three published books, when viewed through unbiased eyes, are truly incredible, and the writings of adepts who have been through his system, such as William Mistele and Rawn Clark, show that it is a solid and workable system that can take practitioners to great heights. It’s hard to imagine someone who isn’t a genuine master creating a system like this. 

Farrell’s discussion of the image of Bardon ends with this statement.

> *If you have hung around occultists, or even especially religious people, this desire to make people gods, or convert others, is usually a sign that there is something lacking in the system.*

For all Farrell’s talk about citing sources, it’s interesting he does not provide a source for this claim. The desire to make people gods is just a general human behavior. It’s actually extremely common in Eastern esoteric traditions, but this does not at all mean the systems used by those traditions are somehow incomplete. In fact, they’re actually more complete than anything I’ve seen in the West, with the exception IIH and Quareia. And in any case, if there are Bardonists trying to make Bardon into a god, those Bardonists are in the minority and are in error. [As Rawn once explained](https://www.abardoncompanion.de/BardonPraxis/msg02386.html), “Hermetic initiation as Bardon presented it is not about following another person's revelation. Instead, it is about empowering the student's own abilities to attain their own personal revelations.”

### Bardon’s Sources (Again)

Later in his piece, Farrell brings up the topic of Bardon’s sources a second time, taking a guess as to what they are and then questioning whether his system is “a continuation of a known lineage.” A thorough analysis of Bardon’s sources is too much to get into here. However, ultimately it doesn’t matter. At least from a standard Bardonist point of view, the only thing that matters is whether it works. But I guess if GD practitioners cared about whether something works, they wouldn’t be GD practitioners? 

Farrell goes on to say that Bardon’s content differs from how things are done in the world of Western ceremonial magic, and that they also differ from how things are done in the grimoires. This is, frankly speaking, a very good thing. A large part of Western ceremonial magic is egomaniacs LARPing as wizards from Ancient Egypt. As for the grimoires, while there are some gems hidden in some of them (especially the *Arbatel of Magic*), there is also a ton of silly superstition in them. This doesn’t mean people won’t get any results from trying to work the grimoires, but any positive results they get will be despite the issues grimoires have, and not because the grimoires are some kind of perfect source of magical insight and instruction. If people doubt the existence of the spirits Bardon mentions in PME, they can read William’s writings of his experiences evoking them. Inner Traditions will be publishing an updated version of *Mermaids, Sylphs, Gnomes, and Salamanders* soon, so the timing is apt. 

### Ritual Culture and Group Practice

Farrell then criticizes Bardon’s system by saying it “downplays ritual culture and group practice.” Here, his bias is showing again. Just because these things are important in Western ceremonial magic doesn’t mean they have to be important in every magical tradition. Also, I would not say that Bardon’s system really “downplays” these things anyway. He just doesn’t discuss them, because it’s not the focus of his writings. But Bardonists are nevertheless free to practice exercises together and work magic together if they want to. Rawn worked with many others to create the Eight Temples. And William often invites various spiritual practitioners, including Bardonists, over to his house in Hawaii to talk and engage in spiritual practice together. I myself paid a visit to William near the end of last year and we had a great time connecting with the undine Istiphul together on the beach by his house. 

### Bardon Not for Beginners

Farrell makes the statement that Bardon “can’t even be recommended to beginners.” I actually agree with this, but I don’t think it’s a bad thing. Calculus can’t be recommended to beginners in mathematics, but this doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with calculus. Near the end of Step 1, Bardon pretty much says that his system is for those who already have a background in meditation. He could have made his statement clearer, but this is an issue with the wording of one passage in IIH, not something fundamentally wrong with the entire system. 

### Conclusion

So, what are my overall thoughts on Farrells piece after reading it? Farrell seems largely sincere in trying to fairly evaluate Bardon’s work and legacy. However, Farrell has a very obvious bias, which ultimately makes his evaluation far from fair. This bias is that he thinks GD-derived Western ceremonial magic is some kind of gold standard for how magic should be trained and practiced. In fact, a large portion of Farrell’s criticism can be summarized as “It’s different from what we do in GD-derived Western ceremonial magic, therefore it’s bad and not real magic.” But it’s not actually a bad thing to differ from GD-derived Western ceremonial magic. In fact, as someone who was previously involved in GD-derived Western ceremonial magic and found it to be a waste of time, I consider it very good that Bardon does many things differently. Buddhist, Taoist, and shamanic traditions also do things very differently from GD-derived Western ceremonial magic. 

Farrell does make some correct statements in his piece. He is correct that people in spiritual traditions have a tendency to deify the tradition’s founders, although I do not really see that happening with Bardon (again, admiration and recognition of accomplishment does not equate to deification). Also, I do agree with Farrell that Bardon’s material isn’t that Hermetic and that it’s not for beginners; but again, none of that is bad. 

Farrell took the time to read Bardon’s books while researching his piece. I do applaud him for that. However, it clearly wasn’t enough. This is because there is the Bardon system and also the Bardon tradition. If Farrell had only wanted to comment on the Bardon system, it would have been enough to just read Bardon’s writings. But since Farrell comments on not just the Bardon system but the Bardon tradition as well, it would have been highly advisable to read other writings from the tradition to get a better and more comprehensive familiarity with it. This would have included, first and foremost, the writings of Bardon-trained adepts like Rawn Clark and William Mistele, and in particular the second edition of *[A Bardon Companion](https://www.abardoncompanion.de/shop.html);* *[Mermaids, Sylphs, Gnomes, and Salamanders](https://www.amazon.com/Mermaids-Sylphs-Gnomes-Salamanders-Dialogues/dp/1583944931);* and at least a few of the chapters of *Twenty-Five Earth-zone Spirits*.

---

## About the Author

Virgil is a contemporary Christian magician and author dedicated to distilling Franz Bardon’s Hermetic system into concise, accessible guides for modern practitioners. His work focuses on practical self-initiation and the cultivation of elemental equilibrium—a foundational practice in Bardon’s teachings. Virgil’s clear and structured approach has made his writings valuable resources for those seeking to embark on or deepen their Hermetic journey.​

One of his notable contributions is *[The Elemental Equilibrium: Notes on the Foundation of Magical Practice](https://www.amazon.com/Elemental-Equilibrium-Foundation-Magical-Adepthood-ebook/dp/B0768FPDKF/ref=sr_1_1?crid=83HELNQQNU5W&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.mzDOeruOwuX0PHKSSdpTYWQ3ku-XruVEDU1QKU824OU7lVY0ZFFUu_x1O-IVbhtLfuTHW9Sjf3h-RtyBkkEhwzv8RqF7cvIOdSRMC0jy6hUpRw_1lZLQHsFNuC_IUbP1qSLBEmGVEY_Rz3mLt2ar2zCPxV1rly6t-Yj_xEEgsnjWjV0QWV8yedrsJbwDlcsi0c-dXndcNKhuGYSnGThBCmfWb2JcRj-mUpPp6kCDOKk.gTEGcrVxyuEb5ZwEavybdgnbOZ6Jgt1tV-CcyATOexk&dib_tag=se&keywords=the%2Belemental%2Bequilibrium&qid=1745221351&sprefix=the%2Belemental%2Bequi%2Caps%2C237&sr=8-1)*, which offers a thorough and easily understandable guide to establishing an elemental equilibrium. This work emphasizes the importance of balancing and purifying the elements constituting one’s soul and spirit, a crucial step in the path of magical development.

---