Dont get it.
And I cant for the life of me see the problem in putting ones insignia, coat of arms (entiled to posses or not) on any tarot card that anyone makes even if it is an hermetic deck revealing 'special' knowledge. Why would that make the whole authors analysis of the card bs?
I was greatly enjoying reading the posts of those who had a feel, interpretation, insight, varient approach and are dismayed (if I read the posts right) that there will be no more of this - first and last!
Okay, thats your trip, and your conclusion but werent all your previous understandings and postings a compendium of what you knew from your own personal experience and life? "This reminds me of this because .... and so I feel this about the card." ?
Couldnt one, if the energy of a specific card was represented in the symbols of a specific personal symbol, coat of arms, even ... pet cat, utalise that as well as the other symbols crowded around and artistically displayed on the card? Why not? I cant see why its a problem and leads to the bs conclusion. And given what Similia added above, that makes it double suitible.
Its typical Crowley, brilliant, funny, amusing, pressing buttons for people who ...? Bravo! I say, and does not detract one bit from the mystical, magical, hermetic subtext also going on in each card. AND a relief to encounter these teachings without the outward sniding pomposoty of many who profess occult knowledge and write those tedious books.
Heaven knows what they think of Lom Milo DuQuette's tarot, all thgose drawings of him and his wife! ... "That's DuQuettes wife - this is all bs!"