My question now becomes whether I believe that the “Satan a Phobia” of the fundamentalists is worse than the ingrained “Satan a Phobia” one experiences as a side effect of allowing so many new age philosophies spawn and multiply. Do we have another form of fundamentalism in the west that has less to do with religion as per se and more to do with simply held ignorance’s and prejudice? If we do it will be surely harder to spot than this last article. Then again, perhaps it won’t be perhaps it will just be harder to get rid of!
Many of the “new age” come directly from fundamentalist backgrounds. They bury it but it remains “down deep” and it can quickly and easily be seen from the most cursory examinations of any mailing list or forum that certain aspects of this repressed fundamentalism never get eroded out. The “Satan a Phobia” is one repression that gets even more deeply ingrained as they struggle against their own demons and look for some sort of ratification of their new lives. As the refrain goes: “Witches are not Satanists, Witches do NOT worship Satan!”
In short, many come from backgrounds that regard all forms of spirituality other than their own, all manner of occultism, spiritism, witchcraft and so on as simply publicly acceptable terms for “Satanic Belief and Practice”. In defecting for whatever reason to another faith and way of life, their ingrained frames of reference nag at them that they are now “Satanists”. All manner of over compensation results from this inability to reckon with such ingrained biases. We see this evident in the number that feel the need to explain their beliefs, the latter day proselytisers, those who to be accepted by mainstream society, those wishing to gain social minority advantages, church tax kick backs, legal “pagan” weddings, census figures and so on. In some cases it is painfully and embarrassingly obvious – in others not so.
Fundamentalist religions after all have an excuse for their “Satan A Phobia” … but what excuse have those who submitted this article or any number of other virulently anti satanic texts written by the “whitest” and most charitable of the modern occult community?
What excuse do they have which exempts them from the stern words of Anton La Vey when he said in his text, The Satanic Bible: “Their talk of "charity", when applied to His Infernal Majesty, becomes an empty sham – and most unfairly, too, considering the obvious fact that without their Satanic foe their very religions would collapse. How sad, that the allegorical personage most responsible for the success of spiritual religions is shown the least amount of charity and the most consistent abuse - and by those who most unctuously preach the rules of fair play!”
This next article was titled “Spelling it Out”. It featured as a editorial by She D’ Montford in the Australian Spellcraft magazine. You will find my responses after each salient part of the text.
"We Have Come A Long Way Baby!"
Have we indeed!? It is an amusing truism that “no matter how much things change they still stay the same”. This article is going to be used as an example to point out many misunderstandings that many who are largely ignorant of modern Satanism are unaware of.
Marian Dalton, from the history department of La Trobe University, who is herself a long term Pagan,
If Marian is being named, why? If it is as a member of the history department then why is her being a pagan important? What we have here is two facets of the same person being stressed to begin with to make a point. If that point is academic credibility than her status as a pagan is not overly relevant, if here status as a pagan is being invoked then why make mention of her affiliation with La Trobe?
I have had the pleasure of reading some of Marian’s work over the past couple of years. To my mind some of it has been quite pithy and “of the moment”, (as it were) and some I thought showed fundamental flaws stemming from a quite narrow background. At last investigation she is currently an area representative for the Pagan Awareness Network in Melbourne and has had, (from diverse areas) the good and bad revues that one might expect. She here focuses on her involvement, (without stating what it actually is!) with the history department of La Trobe University. One can only assume this is to underline the alleged acceptability of her as an authority figure well versed in the sort of scholastic and academic pastimes that are becoming so valued by certain segments of the modern Witchcraft and Occult scenes. It should be said here that she does so to the exclusion of any of the other figures who would fulfill such a position such as for example Doug Ezzy though to be fair, it is unlikely that he would be mentioned as they are well known for their clashing over She’s use of an allegedly suspect academic title (Dr.)
Were this to be an academically sound article I would however applaud such an inclusion, though I must say that I would be more interested in hearing her actual “pagan” and “occult” affiliations, as they would explain what her stance on the issues raised here might be rather better than a vague reference to La Trobe University. More than this to my mind, it would be these credentials that would not simply more accurately shed light on what could be expected in the article here mentioned, (as She makes it clear that she was pleasantly inspired by some example of Marian’s writings) but also, (as it is in an allegedly “pagan/occult” magazine) may well carry more weight with the bedrock of the magazine’s readership as it is implied in this article. This may sound picky but, as her status as a “long term pagan”, (which it may be said should perhaps be given some sort of definition) has been directly invoked some explanation should really be given however cursory.
[Marian] has pointed out to us just how sensational the first witchcraft magazines used to be in the 1960's and 70's. (see http://www.badmags.com/bmoccultsex.html)
Why is it important that Marian points this out? Why use a website that is morally opposed to the stance you occupy as a reference?
As the article that Maria wrote is still unidentified, I suppose we shall have to take She’s word on this, though I don’t doubt that it would be so. The web citation is an interesting inclusion though. One might imagine that this is where you might find this elusive article by Marian but you would be wrong! It is in fact a website devoted to the love of these same magazines that held the sort of sensationalist articles that She refers to. One can only assume that it was a referenced citation Marian used in her article and that She has just put it in hers (one can only hope so anyway for reasons to be explored later!)
There are other things about this citation that is interesting. To begin with, it is erroneous to suggest that these early magazines are “the first witchcraft magazines”. They are in fact “men’s” magazines and by this we mean in the simplest sense “Girlie Magazines”.
The website concerned extols the salubrious, suggestive and often, (as She will later point out) “smutty” glory of these magazines in a lovingly nostalgic fashion that only an aficionado could muster and truly appreciate. It furthermore advertises a new book on the same subject!
In those days, sexist by-lines, and sensational, inaccurate, occult horror stories were the fare. If you look closely at the black-and-white ad for "Witchcraft Today" you can read some hilarious stuff about Maxine Sanders.
This implies that the articles written now are not of this nature. The fact is that some written then were piss poor – just as some these days are. It is also worth noting that an article can be all these things and still do a job that is beneficial.
This is only true for those who suffer from attempting to project the moral and social standards of today upon the past. I would argue that not much has really changed greatly. The main difference is that the bylines, the writers and their composite agendas have altered. Today the magazines are generally vaginocentric rather than phallocentric, sensational by use of the latest name celebrity rather than nudity and vague or dilute to the point of inaccuracy rather than attempting to provide shocks and thrills! To be sure there is also one more difference – there actually are “Witchcraft” magazines in public circulation these days! Let us ignore this for the moment and instead first deal with the content of those early articles and get that out of the way.
The early articles on witchcraft and the occult were indeed generally appearing in “girlie magazines” and what we would now call “tabloid articles”. They were most certainly sexist and sensational by today’s standards, - in hindsight virtually everything is in one way or another! Many of the articles we consider inaccurate when we look back upon them from our modern practices and beliefs, but it must be said that in many cases they were not much more inaccurate than many of the “slicker” articles we see gracing the pages of modern periodicals! At least then they weren’t thinly veiled advertisements - as often many of those we see in today’s periodicals are!
The fact that these things were so has something of an odd ramification for this article.
Apart from the fact that, (in that day) there was little, (if anything) that would be analogous to what we would consider an “anti sexism” movement to complain about the articles to anyone in the wider community; (that would seriously listen with a view to social reform) these articles were, (after all) in “girlie magazines” – do the math!
The objections due to sensationalism and inaccuracy are highly subjective. Though it should be said that there were plenty of articles that were fluff pieces of inaccurate titillation, it should also be said the same occurs today and furthermore that there were many instances where the stories were designed to be sensational – a fact which She herself argues later.
This being said, it does still seem that it is a fact that seems to be unknown, or ignored in this article by She were we have the beginnings of an implied: “Damn those magazines and all who sail in them for tainting our images!!” This wouldn’t be so odd if it weren’t for the fact that, (as has already been pointed out) the website concerned revels in the outlandish and suggestive glory of these magazines and even advertises a new book on the same subject! Is it just me that is wondering exactly how this website is suitable as an example that well supports her implied stance? Again, I can ONLY imagine that Marian must have had this link in her article somewhere and She has simply lifted it.
The early witchcraft articles were often only found in girly magazines and tabloids because they were the only magazines interested in running articles on the subject. It is also worth noting that the projected audiences of these magazines were often also the only people in the wider community interested in reading about the subject. Obviously they were often presented in a titillating fashion – one tailors information to suit those who one believes will read it.
The proselytizers of the time wanted to reach a wider audience. The best way to do that is to provide a juicy story. The same can be said most simply of the reporters of the time. If one wants to make a name for ones self, then one must be read, if you want people to read then the “juicier” the better – anything other than this is pure naiveté. (If you believe that, (having said that) I consider many articles produced in the recent years to be examples of this sort of naiveté then you’d be right – I don’t deny it at all. Many of the examples I have seen have fallen prey to a desire to be all inclusive and the sort of thing that offends no one and in so doing sacrifices most if not all of its accuracy and self respect.)
There were of course the occult fringe sort of investigators but they were long since used to the idea that where they would get information from would be often less than reputable and so often expected little less than they found. The fact remains that there was, (by and large) no other outlet. There were pitifully few even underground periodicals to submit to or buy to read. There were certainly no occult magazines as we would know them today on the news racks and the norm of today, (where one can see an assortment of magazines on different occult subjects in just about any newsagent) was nothing but wishful thinking the occultist of yesteryear. They simply did not exist any more than stores devoted to occult literature!!
The fact remains also that the underground periodicals that did exist were not much use in reaching a wider audience and were most often devoted solely to the subject that the producers were concerned with. If you were in the know of a particular subject you may know of a periodical that did the rounds on that subject. The magazine would be about that subject and generally give little or no information, (outside that of a comparative nature) on any other subject. These same, (once obtained) were jealously guarded.
Such sorts of “magazines” were, (and are) totally unsuited to the aim or goal of reaching the wider public both by definition and design and so were largely ignored by those who wanted to “get the message out” in favour of others which had obvious drawbacks.
It is hard for many today to understand that in those days, the subject you wished to discuss was TABOO and therefore the only place where you would be accorded any time or place to discuss it would be in those places that were concerned with other TABOO subjects. Having to provide “spice” and “juice” was not simply an unfortunate fact but, (in the tradition of many of those old practitioners) turned out to be a useful tool! One need only look as far as the early forays of Gardner in the public media to see this in action. Alex Sanders even went as far to proclaim that he was going to make Aliester Crowley, (the supreme reigning heavyweight of occult scandal) look like a “boy scout”. This is to say nothing of some of the fantastic capering of the likes of Sibyl Leek and even Leo Martello in the U.S!
So we see that back “in them bad old days” that we view with opprobrium, (from our modern standards) things weren’t really so different from today - other than to say that the tools were calibrated differently and often used with greater efficiency!
Anton LaVey's 'Church of Satan' cashed in on this. His grease painted face and cheap theatrics mis-represented 'the dark arts' to a whole generation of gullible pulp fiction addicts.
This is bias and frankly a case of sour grapes. The modern new agedness of the author is shining through nice and clear here. Why not simply say: “Me good and Satan bad – La Vey bad. Him silly and know nothing – me so much better.” Credibility went RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW the second it became a Satan bash. She D’Montford does NOT have a good or overly credible name in much of the occult world and the same could be said of La Vey. Perhaps this is about the fact that he was more famous – perhaps it is just safe to do amongst others who decry those they know little or nothing of now that he is dead.
Well now let us be very clear and accurate about this! Anton La Vey certainly did cash in on the use of the popular media as an effective means of advertising and getting his message across. He did so quite skillfully over the years of his life, ever mindful that it was a dangerous tool. This is so much the case that anyone who did even cursory reading into his works would be aware of it. He mentions the dangers and foibles of the use of media in girlie magazines in every publication he ever published. He further more wrote several articles specifically on the subject!
Now let us look at some of the others that have made liberal use of the media – especially those who, (it is a matter of public record) have allowed themselves to be placed in less than serious or desirable publications. Well we have to begin with Gerald Gardner who had the first coven splits over his media use. It is said that when some of the early reporters came round dear ol Gerald roped in a couple of “local girls” for the flash so to speak and Doreen’s split from him had its beginning in her disapproval of his handling of media attention. It must be said that while at the time she had strict ideas about it, this changed as she started getting books published. Some of the places that she has been advertised in, (whether it be with regards to print or lecturing) are shall we say open to interpretation as to whether one thinks they are on the square and/or a desirable place to gain attention.
Alex and Maxine Sanders were darlings of the media and again, their exploits are so common knowledge that not much needs be said of it. Then of course there are the numerous scandals that seem to plague notable figures in the modern occult, neopagan and goddess cult world. The Bonewit’s embarrassment and historical revisionism over his early involvement in the Church of Satan, the Zellish embarrassment over their stance on Polyamoury. The on going battle between Martello and the anti gay rights movement, the OTO copyright wars that Chumbley would also have difficulties with, the Buckland adverts in comic books – all the way down to allegations of misrepresentation of academic credentials and plagiarism made of the very author of this very article!
Now don’t get me wrong here. As far as I am concerned, Gerald was right to use local colour – I have known many competent witches, (some of them the most serious and effective I have ever known!) to have done some time in various avenues of the “skin trade”. That Doreen has had odd ads here and there meant I knew where and when she would be talking in town. Bonewit’s only folly, (to my mind) was to not say: “Yes I was in the CoS – I have been everywhere!” from the very start. The Zells should have made MORE of a platform out of their private arrangements. Martello did pioneering work for the rights of gay neopagans in the U.S and should be lauded for it, (instead of it being something of a quieter part of his biography!) I actually BOUGHT the book Ray advertised in the DC Comic and I was one of the few people who argued for the use of proof or an end to baseless allegations in She’s case. So you see I don’t disagree with their various public relations problems. My only qualm is with the multitude of modern neo pagans that are intent on disavowing their colourful past – it is the best and simplest way to invite people to discover and “pig stick” you with it!
Now besides all of this, the magazine this article was in costs money and is a potent vehicle for the very large amounts of revenue it generates in advertising. Al one has to do is read the rates for advertising to see it is so – though again, to be fair these rates are nothing compared to the sport of rates that used to be all but extorted by the so called “occult advertising cartel” that existed down south in the late 80’s and 90’s!!
Now let’s talk about the allegations made about Anton’s presentation. His presentation was a matter of course which he, (then and subsequently all the years up to his death) explained quite candidly. Indeed, again I must say that he talks about it in every book he ever published and even wrote specific articles on it as even the most cursory of research will show. This is not a case of taking sides, it is simply a case of being accurate. ANY, (even) high school level of research will turn these up and to pretend like they don’t exist is inexcusable in any article that even pretends to inform – not to even mention academic scholarship. Frankly, it smacks of an agenda, (not that this is unknown – Anton also wrote articles about people who paraphrase him without citation, use him and his presentation as an excuse for sectarian snobbery or “Satan Bashing” and of course, those who use his name to sell magazine articles!!)
As for the true nature of the ‘dark arts’, well She would most certainly not compare what she does to what Anton did and so this inclusion is either little more than bias stirring or worse – something that she has really not thought deeply about enough to be presenting here properly. There is more that could be said, (such as: “If Anton was reporting on the “dark arts” and you don’t practice them how can you accurately reflect upon the job he did?”) but really what would be the point?
As for “gullible pulp addicts” well I see in this magazine, (that She gives her editorial to) Oberon Zell dressed up in his finest Harry Potter inspired robes. I see liberal usage of all manner of stereotypes to promote various causes and agendas. I am reliably informed that the sales arm of this magazine is doing fairly well and so therefore it has a good ratio of return readers. I personally be reluctant to refer to them as “addicts” (pulp, gullible or otherwise) but that is of course a personal choice that not everybody shares. To my mind, we all have our audiences and “name calling” of another’s audience is surely missing the point. After all, if we are being truly honest, no matter who you are, one wants a readership that comes back again and again. The nature of “pulp”, (kindly or otherwise) is that it is not in depth and by nature “popular”. I am hard pressed to think of any occult magazine available on the news stands whose readership could not be malignantly characterized in this fashion. In this case I believe that the pot and the kettle may be both black depending on which perspective one has – which is of course another reason as to why I would be reluctant to “buy into” such slurring.
The media capitalised on his antics, and his openly stated intention to make money out of the foolish, as they knew that spreading fear and inaccurate information sold copy and that the concepts of political correctness and the non-marginalisation of minority groups just did not make money.
I just love it when people use big words carelessly. This article already is so poorly put together and thought out it is almost laughable. It would be funny if it wasn’t for the number of people who will buy this magazine and knowing no better think it is somehow worthwhile. Poor old She – if you are going to say how crap someone is because of what they did – you need to not be demonstrably doing the same thing yourself. The word for that is hypocrisy. Here you marginalize a minority group and make money out of it – pure and simple.
Oh dear, not only did the concepts of political correctness and inclusivity not make money at that time – they didn’t even exist! What a clanger – quite embarrassing. The unfortunate fact is that this sort of thing is something we see all too much of amongst those who would rate and review the past by current standards. It leads to ridiculously skewed information and highly irregular conclusions without much basis in fact. In many circles the result of this sort of thing is called: “Revisionism” and is amply characterized by a statement I heard many years ago: “There are two sorts of main historical representation of our predecessors – the way they WERE and the way we DEARLY WISH THEY HAD OF BEEN”. Naturally the second of thee two is ever the more popular especially in the public domain. It sells far more copy these days than problematic factual representations of the past as all who have had even marginal contact with the publishing industry will tell you!
There was no such thing as political correctness then. Minority groups had no need of further marginalization and as Anton himself belonged to one he fully expected the marginalization he got and made use of the sort inherent in the mode of transmissive media. Indeed he used that as a focal point to spread his message.
This is a major difference between the practitioner of yesterday and those of today. Once upon a time one realized one was a minority, turned that to an advantage and profited by it. These days the only form of this known to the masses seems to be “whine on long enough and someone will inevitably fall prey to your passive aggression”. To my mind victory by the other team not turning up is still victory but nothing to crow about. It certainly does not show one’s strength, (never mind one’s rectitude!) It simply shows that one’s opposition doesn’t give enough of a damn to play with you!
The other irony I see is that most of the arguments here are almost lifted from Anton’s writings on the subject. Indeed the misrepresentation and that “Satan has always made good copy” is touched on (however briefly) in EVERY publication by him – generally within the introduction!! Hell much of the opine in here could even be considered to be as close to plagiarism as one can get without it actually being quotation! This is not unknown, and not unique – indeed it happened so often Anton wrote articles on it!
As for the information he presented being inaccurate; well – he was not even talking about the same thing that She is so it is a hard thing, (and I think a good revelation of her bias!) that she says. What he did he did long before her with good results over time and so it is hard to consider her refutation, (offered with no examples mind you!) little more than the baseless allegations they are, (if not plain “sour grapes” against an older competitor!) Hell, come to think of it that very act could be considered marginalizing a minority group!!
I guess that if we agree with She that there was cash in such victimization THEN this has most certainly not changed with the rise of pagan only magazines selling like hotcakes – especially when they talk about Satanism! Irony again! I seem to remember Anton saying something about “Satan being the best friend the church has ever had as he keeps it in business” I would assume that this also applies to any and all other forms of “righteousness” and their users.
Of course where this places the advocacy of this article and its target audience is a cause for wonderment I, (for one) can not riddle out!
Though we are moving away from these concepts about the craft in the popular media,
This very article negates the truth of this. Many others all over the popular media in all it’s phases does not agree.
It is worth again stating here for the record, (and it is a very important point!!) that La Vey was not talking about “the craft”, (as She puts it.) Come to think of it, what Gerald, Alex, Sibyl, Doreen, Leo, Ray, Isaac, Oberon, Starhawk and many others were talking about, (more than likely) would not “square” with what She is talking about here. It is salient that in all of these cases their definitions of what did and did not constitute “the craft” would vary. They would also vary markedly from what the magazine discusses over all. Few of these if any would agree properly with each other or She so the implied unity in the statement is somewhat short of the mark. Even Anton would have been outraged at the comparison between what he did and the sort of free for all that goes on in this magazine.
Besides of which, again I would argue that we are NOT moving away from the concepts She has decried them. I would be amazed if anyone who had read any articles in the mainstream with anything approaching an objective eye could agree with the optimistic stance She proposes here. When such articles are less than foolish scandal mongering they are so only due to the over load of alleged academics who make clear their willingness to sue and so on over anything they view as misrepresentation (not to mention the fact that really very few of them agree to talk at all!)
Indeed it is so much the case that many in this supposedly “free from consequence” modern society actually studiously avoid those who talk to the media – much less create their own! It is true that these numbers are not as high as they were say twenty years ago – but the numbers having slumped are on the upsurge again in the circles I am acquainted with. This is simply because, that there are now a slew of occult magazines and laws to curb excess does not mean that the position implied by the media, (of those labouring under popular denotation) is any brighter than it ever has been before! Having laws to make victimization illegal does not make us friends - it simply makes enmity more trouble than it is often worth.
it is a shame that some academics, (and Marian is defiantly not one of those) in their papers, are seeking to reduce us back to the level of the fictitious ignorant savages portrayed in those former smutty occult magazines.
It is a shame that many authors use the media to advance their own dogma while pretending that they are not. This article is exemplary of this very problem. More over it is not well written or argued and it is an even greater shame that it will be lauded as being precisely what it is not. It will no doubt be used as fodder by other equally unable to set aside their personal views to provide others with actual information.
There are so many things I could say here, but only few suffice. A good example would be: “What has She got against smut?” She is renowned in pagan circles for, (and I am quoting several people I have known over the years now): “Getting “them out” at every conceivable occasion”!)
If She won’t name these “dastardly evil doers” who are allegedly “hell bent” on making us all out to be something she thinks we aren’t, then I would argue that she can’t care too much about them or stemming the damage they allegedly do! Were I to be facetious, I might suggest that they would be named if they were dead like Anton – but no; surely I am being too cynical.
To my mind, this is one of the points where I must say I am forced to see the bias in this editorial showed the strongest. Anyone with even first year textual analysis skills would love this article. – Nuff said!
It is logical that academics from outside of the Pagan community cannot understand us from within the context of our ontological landscape.
She has been accused in the past of misrepresenting herself as an academic. I argued strenuously at the time for her to not be labeled in this way without proof of such conduct. That this article seems to hope that it will be received as an academic, scholarly and unbiased article to inform others that is merely presented in an informal manner. I can see why She gets under the skin of people who actually are academics if this is the general level of her presentation.
Oh dear. I really don’t want to say that a sprinkling of big words does not help this stance or the article in general which has unfortunately been somewhat lamed by the problems existent in the rest of the article!
One of my major irritations about this article is that it seems to be something of a blatant attempt to sound impressive and scholastic without actually being so. We see this in the prevalence of moments such as mentioning an author but not actually quoting or citing them, using the occasional “big word” and so on. The problem is that such things are not any substitute for an actual academic or even well researched article.
One of the first rules in a well presented article, (never mind anything of an academic nature) is that one must have a stance and argue it logically and with some form of supporting evidence. In my opinion, in this article the argument is simply implied in a vague way that leaves little doubt that it really hasn’t even been thought through properly (much less based on actual information, debate or inquiry) or even checked before it goes out! The point of any article is that it is meant to argue one’s stance well and leave no gaping holes that one can be “pulled up on”. If this is the level to be aspired to for future authors we may as well forgo any attempt at academia.
I do so try to not be personally “snipey” if I can help it but here in this article I am having a hard time of it. The fact is that if you want to sound good and professional – it helps if the article you do it in actually IS. Now I a by far not the most professional or academic in my articles but then again I make no bones about the “Gonzo” nature of my reporting. I am not overly interested in people being dazzled with my rapier sharp, academic stylings.
None the less this section does touch on a situation I am well acquainted with that I think should be reduced and made clear for the average reader who may be unaware of it – or indeed the ramifications it has for articles that put their authors in an allegedly informing position.
Here in this article we are told that it is only logical that those unlike “us”, (exemplified here as academics) will not be able to properly understand “us” as they are not “one of us” (as if we were actually a cohesive or even homogenous collective!) As this is the case they can not represent “us” accurately in their reports. This is fair comment and quite a quandary for those people who feel the need, (for whatever reason) to believe that it is important that academics understand and represent us at all. Personally I don’t have it so I couldn’t comment accurately.
My view on this advisedly thorny issue is that it is somewhat doomed from the start. As far as I was taught, Sociologists and Anthropologists, (indeed academics of any caliber) are meant to try keep their objectivity. If one is a part of the group being studied or critiqued then one, (by definition) cannot properly do this. The further problem, (of course) is that if one is NOT a part of the group being studied, (and thereby retaining your “otherness” and “objectivity”) you cannot hope to understand the group you are studying – much less represent them in an objective fashion. The nature of the position of the academic in such situations is attempting to not be held back by this inherent tightrope. One must attempt to understand and report accurately and insightfully without “going native”.
This is quite a quandary really! It is almost as much of a quandary as the fact that the ONLY people I never hear discussing this obvious problem; are those that go to lengths to comment on their university/academic/scholastic backgrounds while at the same time trying desperately to retain, (or manufacture!) their alleged deep “grass roots” association as a member of the “in-group” being studied. The result is often as amusing as the juggling act it most certainly is.
Perhaps academic papers on Witchcraft and Paganism should only be written by academics from within the pagan community, who have been immersed in our culture for more than 15 years, of which there are many.
I wonder how many years of active service She gives herself when asked – would it be over fifteen do you think? Is this the number Marian gives? Is this the number her friends all give? This statement is just pure foolishness that seems to be calibrated simply to make She sound authoritative and important. Unfortunately it comes off making her sound like a name dropping high school aged neophyte. She seems to want to be seen as railing against poor work done and those who self aggrandize – this is not a good way to do it.
I would argue most strenuously against this, not only for the reasons I have stated above, but also as many of the academics we have been laboured with over the years are not very strenuous in their search for anything they have not prior beliefs upon. This is to say nothing of the several that have been canonized despite their bias and hidden agendas coming out after the event. This sort of thing does NOT make good academic or scholastic copy at all.
Many of the leading written lights in the modern pagan world are woefully poor when examined in the light of historical accuracy or the sort of attempts at objectivism that we SHOULD be demanding. A good example is a fine largely academic examination that is lauded lately that was written by someone who went to great lengths to not be identified as belonging to one of the wiccan lines – one can only assume it was to protect his stance as being someone with no vested interest either way.
Why is this the case? Why is it that this sort of thing is frankly, not challenged and largely ignored? Well for much the same reasons She has cited herself. In light of this, have things really changed over the years? Well, again, other than to say that the subversion is thicker but put to less constructive use in the modern era, I have to argue not!
As for the idea of articles only being written by those with more than fifteen years well that is fatuous to say the least. Fifteen years is an excellent time to see how things work – just as it is a excellent amount of time to become set in one’s ways and dogmatic. After all, I have that amount of time but I would not suppose that I would be considered acceptable!
It is our desire that "The Spirit Guide to Spellcraft" will help bridge the gap and lack of understanding and help to create a more egalitarian place in society for practitioners of the craft.
“Egalitarian” is a specific word. “The craft” is another specification. Frankly I tend to believe that progress socially is best made transparently doing a good job for the right reasons. Having read and re read this article I can not with any honesty say I think it does this.
The problem with using words is that occasionally people understand them. I NEVER want egalitarianism – I prefer equality. This, (I feel) is best served by not supposing that anyone gives a good god damn what religion you are and you just “getting on with life” like you have one. The fact remains that if one is doing what one should to the best of one’s abilities, there is often little time left for anything else.
Again such views as these are not particularly popular in academic circles, (or new age occult circles for that matter!) and from what I see they would not be welcome here either if this article is indicative of the state of the times.
We believe in the intelligence and the thirst for accurate craft knowledge of our readership.
I would have to say that any audience that accepted this article at face value and considered it to have worth or be of an acceptable standard would not be the sort of people I would consider congruent with this statement. Indeed I would tend to characterize them more along the lines that She has reserved for the audiences of the early 60 and 70’s articles.
Well I don’t know if the thirst for accurate craft knowledge, (whatever that might be) would be served fulsomely herein. A thirst for irony and bias would most certainly be served by this article however. These others quoted lie outside of my scope as I pretend no level of omnipotence of understanding of what the readership of this magazine may, (or may not) accept as “reality” or consider “intelligence”.
As for accurate “craft knowledge”, well here are some points from someone who has been to University that might be pertinent:
1. “Accurate craft knowledge” is meaningless without there being clear cut definition of all three of these terms.
· Accurate by whose standards?
· To what degree?
2. Craft?
· Of what kind,
· from whose perspective,
· to what ends?
3. Knowledge?
· In what way,
· what form,
· what depth,
· what subject?
Without this level of clarification, I find myself thinking that perhaps these sort of statements should be confined to well written articles or better yet, (as has been suggested) some sort of more narrow authorship. Without this extra information I can’t comment accurately on the article – even though I should be able to.
You are rewarding us for our belief in you. Every day the praise for "Spellcraft" keeps pouring in from Spellcrafters everywhere. We keep hearing that you love what we are doing with this magazine and that there's nothing like it in the world with its mix of beginners, intermediate and advanced articles on so many diverse forms of Magick and spell work.
Where I come from we also call this being “rewarded”. I would characterize it however as simply playing to an audience for cash. One “cases the mark” and tells them what they want to hear. Then they will pay for it. I have no doubt that they enjoy it and that they come back for more and this much, I freely admit I do not disagree with at all. The thing I find obnoxious is pretending some sort of implied moral high ground from people who do exactly this and deriding them at the same time as you do it yourself.
Here is an interesting shift in language. Before this we were allegedly talking about “the craft” but now it is “Magick” (sic) and “spell work”! This may sound like pedantry but it isn’t. These three terms are not interchangeable in the strict senses of their meaning and they most certainly would not be used interchangeably without explained reason in any academic article.
Another thing that immediately springs to mind which tends to illustrate the dangers of such action is that if we wish to use the spelling that Crowley made popular, (the much imitated “Magic with a “k”) then positioning oneself as having some sort of moral high ground above anyone is inadvisable as anyone can get a hold of those “Leah Sublime” writings of Aliester’s – and they are, (let’s be honest and blunt here) well beyond smut!
As for this sort of article and the number of problems I have pointed out with it being considered acceptable, (let alone the sort of praise that is implied for it being existent – well I consider that this is again, another good argument that “things haven’t changed much at all” over the years!
It is well known that the media and mode of public presentation of any information is shaped by the demands of its audience over time – so what, (if we look at the sort of thing in this magazine) can we say of its audience? What can we say of the audience form the past – how, (if indeed quantoifiably they do) do they differ and do these ways “matter” overly in the wider scheme of things?
Thank you for taking the time to send in your feedback. Every letter is read and taken into consideration by our team, so that we can make Spellcraft everything you would like it to be.
If this level of text is the result of requests on behalf of the audience, (and I don’t actually automatically discount this) then I frankly grieve for the future. The fact of any occult circle is that amidst many who will forever remain largely ignorant move a few who capitalize thereupon. Again, I actually have no particular problem with this – what I do object to is hypocrisy. It is more than possible to fulfill one’s role without falling prey to this failing. If in doubt, one should perhaps consult the writings of Anton La Vey – he spelled it out quite clearly.
Well I won’t be sending this one in as I am sure this sort of screed would not only not be taken well but would, (obviously) also be in the minority. I would not want any magazine to change to suit a minority – I am not a fan of egalitarianism. This article has been called “Spelling it out!” and for all the reasons I have mentioned all I can say is: “Yes indeed – just not the way you think!”
Blessings to you all.
She D'Montford
I have long made it clear to any who ask that the only difference between a blessing and a curse is whether or not the energy offered is the sort that will do you good or not. At the base they are both a gift of influence. The blessing is a gift of energy that agrees with the essence of the recipient and does them benefit. A curse is a gift of energy that disagrees with the essence of the recipient and does them harm. If I believe She’s article and take as read that her article refects the desires of her readership then I believe she thinks it is a blessing – and perhaps it is. To the future and the wider populace, this sort of article is a curse and all the worse for it due to my belief that She doesn’t even know it.
Ok all the minutiae out of the way, (this article being considered in tandem with the last one about Middle Eastern doings) over all I think I can say that it sounds like crazy fundamentalism is not only in the Middle East.
The part that still kermuzzles me though, is how do I categorise this article? If I can not accurately categorise it how can I asses it?
To my mind three options jump right on out there:
1. This article demonstrates woeful ignorance of the material it purports to inform about (not only on the works of Anton La Vey but the very nature of the magazines that were exemplified and the nature of the philosophy and practice as reported therein as compared to modern modes)
2. This article demonstrates wilful ignorance of the material is purports to inform about (for the purposes of advancing an agenda or bias for reasons of identification with an implied audience for further reasons only to be conjectured about)
3. This article demonstrates a desire to expect levels of woeful and wilful ignorance on behalf of it’s implied audience on virtually all of the subjects touched upon
To be honest this article is biased to the point of advertisement, inaccurate to the point of deliberate misdirection, sensationalist to the point of aggrandisement and misrepresentative to the point of complete disregard for factuality or historical continuity. All this results in an article that misrepresents many facets of the public record of representation of different occult viewpoints in a way that undoubtably sell copy by way of subverting common decency and accuracy in order to marginalise a minority group while making money.
Perhaps academic papers on Witchcraft and Paganism SHOULD only be written by a minority within the community! I would suggest those with long memories, no fears of their own spotty pasts, few biases openly admitted to and those with the ability to own up to their agendas who can accurately and honestly create equality – within the occult societies and without. Most certainly they should believe in the intelligence and thirst for accurate knowledges of their readership, but I would further suggest that they not then actually provide information that demonstrates a lack of the same rather than relying on the same problems they see in the eyes of others as a modus opperandi – however unconscious this process may be.
Then again, perhaps not. It is quite clear, (should the article be truthful) that the readers themselves, (by the nature of their on going lauds for various articles that are presumably of this sort) would not recognise nor accept such things. To be frank, in many ways this article is highly representative of what is currently being passed off as informed comment these days in many different places across the board.
It pretends honesty, transparency and accuracy in a scholarly academic fashion. It provides transparency to be sure but little in the way of honesty or accuracy. It provides little if any scholarship and rather seems to rely on its audience likewise disdaining such activities.
The only thing about these sort of articles that is academic to my mind, is which of the three options I would choose to categorise the article – the end result is the same: “Business as Ususal”!
Things haven’t changed much over the years – just the names of the authors.
