Guess what … it is NOT about YOU for once!

Some people just don’t get it. I mean that …..

They just …. Don’t …..GET …. IT – not even a little bit.

Here is a story that I reckon I would have difficulty believing or understanding if it hadn’t happened to me.

There is an individual who, on occasion I have left my son in the care of. One weekend, at the end of the day I am treated to something that I really thought little of. Like all storms, this one announced itself as a gentle breeze.

Apparently he did not eat much lunch. “So what?” I think as he has been slightly off the chum for a couple of days. This nonchalance turns a bit off colour when it then transpires that this was thought odd because he had no trouble eating the Tiny Teddies he had earlier.

“What … the … hell?” It is one of those moments where you can’t … quite wrap your brain around something someone says because you just think it is so obviously stupid that you don’t know where to begin.

Soooo … he didn’t eat much lunch because he was given biscuits earlier … well that makes it fairly obvious wouldn’t you say? I mean not only will he not be real hungry as he has been eating biscuits but also – why the hell would anyone eat anything else when there are sugar loaded “bee biks”, (as my son refers to them) to be had!?

So like so many other instances you smile wryly, roll your eyes and shake your head – cause what else can you say? All I had in mind was: “What were you thinking? Now I have it on good authority that you have raised a child … but now I am wondering how you managed it!?” That is clearly not going to “go down too well” so you keep the trap shut and get on with the day.

As I say, you just let it slide and mark it up to experience and write it off as a really relatively minor annoyance.

Then we go round again a while later on account of he is going to spend the day with this woman again. Now I freely admit that I was as “crook as a dog” and not in the mood for “silly buggers”. On this day we have packed a lunch bag full of everything needed. Not only did we reckon this wise, (it is what you do – you see it go wrong and next time you plan ahead) but it is also polite. This time it is over someone’s place … not just with heaps of people over at a house.

So there we are and the subject of food comes up. It does so namely by way of a statement of there being some sausage rolls for lunch to which we say that we have packed his stuff. The response is simply: “What is that for? I *DO* feed him you know!”

I respond tersely that we have packed his lunch for a reason and would prefer he ate something other than junk food. Was I perhaps more harsh than usual? Yes. Would anyone in their right mind take this as something of a clue as to where this is going? You betcher. Personally, no mater what I thought, were I looking after someone’s kid and it was made clear that my choices weren’t appreciated and that a set menu has been prepared; I’d be thinking: “Ok your choice” – because let’s be real it IS.

Anyhow this is responded to in turn with an acidic statement to the extent that that is what she is for and that rules and menus don’t mean much. At this stage I have had enough and curtly reply that if that is the case than she can be woken up at three in the morning like everyone else due to his rhythm being thrown out. (He doesn’t have a lot of sugar and stuff like this throws him out for a couple of days.)

This particular conversation ends like this:

“Oh whatever Scott”
*Snarls* “Well good I am glad you agree with my stance.”

Now this is a simple case of “don’t poke the bear” and this woman has known me for many years and frankly does know better. I am sick and shitty and frankly, I don’t tolerate challenges to my authority like this too well on my best days!

Anyway the rest of the day passes fairly uneventfully until we return. The lunch bag has not been touched and he is being given sausage rolls. This is a further tense moment that we brush off in favour of the day not being entirely ruined. And so it rolls on .. you let it slide, once … twice … and so on.

Then it happens … later that night when said woman has had some time to get herself pleasantly addled, (and frankly, I would imagine it would take a few drinks if you were in your right mind in the first place) she decides to ring me up and take me to task.

As you might guess – it goes pretty badly as I am just not real good at letting something that shits me slide THREE times in the space of six hours. It ends quickly with me reaffirming that such decisions are MINE to make and that should she not like hearing what has been said then it would be something that I would ensure she didn’t have to worry about again.

This was weeks ago. There has been a wonderful time of peace since then.

Until tonight.

I get a call that I respond to so well that my wife did not even know it was her I was talking to. She asks when she is going to see the kids again … well to be precise she asks when she is going to “see Raistlin and … the kids..” It is a slight pause. Not more than a second but it is there and I say to myself firmly: “NO you will not say: “Her name is Romana – a name you should know!” - I will instead remain calm and pleasant.

It is at this point that I knew where this was heading. This is especially the case when the further statement about how her birthday has come and gone and she hasn’t heard anything. (My wife replied when she heard this that so did our anniversary!)

The tone hardens when I do not immediately say sorry – well after all I am not. None the less I am genial and say that she can come and visit whenever she wanted. She says she will make a point of it and then says good bye.

*Shakes Head*

So basically what we have here is a situation whereby the whole scenario is pivoting not on the children, or how she and I interact – it is that she didn’t get a stroking for her birthday. In short, the objection here is that it is not all about her.

This sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?

I’ll stretch your credulity further and let you in on a secret – she is family.

It just goes to show that people who don’t GET IT are everywhere.

I hear my son squealing with delight as he talks to his “Gamma” through a camera on the internet. He is totally oblivious to the shit storm this other person has caused. If I have a thought that is careening through my head in amidst this fairly surreal situation, it has to be:

“Guess what … it is NOT about YOU for once! You pushed buttons and didn’t like the outcome. You didn’t hear from us on your birthday because we were in no mood to subject ourselves to this sort of nonsense. Now, just like anyone else who has repeatedly irritated and disappointed us by demonstrating your unsuitability to supervise our child - you have been curtailed back to parameters that we deem appropriate.”

Some people just don’t get it. I mean that …..

They just …. Don’t …..GET …. IT – not even a little bit.

Why I am NOT the Devil’s Advocate!

For many years I have been a staunch advocate of various ideals that are unpopular. They are most often unpopular because they require care, thought and precision … oh and most of all they require EFFORT! For such standpoints, I have often been given a specific label which I rather vehemently object to these days. This rejection is the end result of the fact that one thing that often has galled me beyond belief is that when certain ideas are challenged, it is enquired whether one is serious … or if one is “just playing the Devil’s Advocate”. That pisses me off.

The “Devil’s Advocate” was the name given to the legal representation provided for the accused in old “Heresy/Witchcraft” Trials. As guilt was most often assumed, the onus was on the accused to prove themselves innocent. This was of course virtually impossible in times and places whereby things like any three men saying that a woman was a witch and so-called “spectral evidence” was considered sufficient proof.

Suffice to say that the reality was that the accused was given someone to put “as much of a case as they felt fit” in their defence. In many cases it was something of a sham and analogous to something of a “straw man” to stand in to satisfy the requirements for a legal proceeding – as the old gag states: “Boy, you gonna get a first class trial followed by a first class hangin’!”

In reality, neither they nor their representatives were expected to succeed in arguing such a hopeless case. Furthermore; the representatives were considered decidedly suspect if they took their roles seriously and did what anyone in the modern era would expect of even a “cut rate” lawyer! Indeed even the name exposes the expected outcome. The “Devil” is of course, always guilty and if one is the “Devil’s Advocate” then obviously one has been saddled with the onerous duty of attempting to defend the guilty against the righteous.

Let us now think for a moment as to what light that puts the modern query in. I argue that when people ask if you are: “just playing the devil’s Advocate” the emphasis should be on the “just”. It rather implies that you are putting forward a useless argument for the sake of show and that; furthermore you are arguing a lost cause that does not deserve serious consideration.

That is why I am NOT the Devils Advocate.

I put forward other points of view that, (were the people debating to have done their job or even thought the issue through properly) I should not have to. These days, (more than ever before) those who argue in favour of what could be considered “popular” viewpoints do so in a manner that implies that all else is rubbish to be derided. They do this so that they themselves are not scrutinised by way of the arguments they prefer. These are the modern hypocrisy riddled witch finders and judges of yesteryear and now, more often than not they masquerade in our very midst using our own names.

Why is this tolerated and how may it be combated?

On the Importance of Deconstruction

Now we always hear that there are “two sides to every issue” and that is all good and well if you are a bit of a dullard.

That’s right – a DULLARD!

The fact is that there are any number of approaches open to the quick witted.

Often ideas are put forward in a manner which implies not only some sort of spurious moral “high ground” but also consensus. This is often done so with a heavy dose of sarcasm to foreshadow the implied threat of ostracism as a penalty for dissent.

This is typified as bold statements made in short orders that are often of the sort that I categorise as “too short to be accurate”. These are, (to put it bluntly) the sort of statements that one is not supposed to question or disagree with. The implication is that no one in their “right mind” would question what is said. Never mind the fact that they often don’t make much sense or follow anything even coming close to reasonable logic – it is the one who argues or questions who is the odd man out here.

It is PRECISELY this sort of thing that is the reason why critical observation is so important. Communication is a complex business and even innocuous conversation, (if taken on board “whole cloth”) can result in the individual being programmed to accept even the most outlandish of scenarios as acceptable and even the most fatuous comments as somehow “informed” and/or “authoritative”. This occurs because even simple explanations contain implications that can be far reaching.

Every explanation implies certain shared understandings and values. When these are slightly altered in ways that aren’t too noticeable they can be very sharp tools indeed. If these are then inculcated into debate as implied shared values and the like, the observers can easily be swayed by degrees; not simply from their own position but also from rationality itself.

Put succinctly, the best propaganda relies on emotion and only small deviations from accepted belief structures. This happens literally every day and did not die out with the fall of the last public enemy.

I always wonder at the number of times I see this state of affairs played out, (consciously and otherwise) in places like net forums and so on simply because I believe that literally everything should be questioned. Now I know a lot of people say that they believe this as well, but frankly they don’t often really mean it – much less exercise that belief.

One must continually ask: “Why?” of all things until one has one’s own answer to the “actual” question that underlies the statements you have witnessed. This most often occurs literally when one cannot break down the argument any further – you are left with a simple set of questions to which you yourself must formulate answers in accordance with your own personal beliefs and biases. It is only here that you start to discover what you really think and believe and to what extent.

How about this example: “Starving Children in Africa should be aided.”

REALLY? Should they? Why?

No mealy mouth answers now. Tell me WHY in a real and concrete way.

“Because it is humane?” That is not a real answer.
“Because it is the “right thing” to do?” Well who says so?
“Because in their position you would hope for help?” Well I am not obviously or you would not be asking for my aid so that rather invalidates the stance!

These all have one thing in common and it is the key to understanding what is amiss. All of these “answers” are still susceptible to the further question we have already highlighted: “Why?”

I can’t repeat or stress the importance of this key enough! You need to keep asking this question of ANY assertion made in support of a social issue position. You need to KEEP asking it until you are left with a purely personal answer.

That is then YOUR answer and it really is the only one that is valid. This pass time forces the observer to reveal the agenda of the original announcement and it is this as a habit that makes observing conversation so interesting, (for real laughs try using it while watching news broadcasts prior to a political election!) This is a pastime which assists the individual to make informed decisions – even about the validity of the options on offer!

Let us return to our example: “Starving Children in Africa should be aided” and now ask:
“Why?” and look at the process. Query the statement itself. When we do we see that in fact there are some assumptions cleverly hidden in it.

It assumes that there ARE starving children in Africa,
that they CAN be aided and
that not only are WE in a position TO aid them –
it is WE who SHOULD be doing the aiding.

This last moment is where the shared values come in. If you agree with the shared values underlying the statement you will tend to agree with the rest of the assertion and probably anything that follows in the same vein as long as it does not deviate away from this initial premise too much.

All that being kept in mind … we remember that “Why?” should be asked until one has an answer. This teases out real useful information and allows us to look more closely at why we react the way we do to it. The more complex the assertion the more important a question this is. In this example I will state no opinion of my own – it is up to you to ask and see what you come up with. Bear in mind now that it really doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with what is said – that isn’t the aim of this exercise.

Now here is where we come into my views on being the “Devil’s Advocate”.

These days if one takes a stance, (either way really!) on these sort of things one will be attacked. There is no point in denying it or even attempting to avoid it. If you have an opinion that you have thought through and express it in public you are, in effect sticking your head up over the trench wall and so you really rather have to expect to have people take shots at you.

We live in a world where the best public persona to project in order to be liked, is to have no hard convictions of one’s own – unless everyone else does in which case you must agree with them. If you do anything else you stigmatise yourself as “other” and will be treated accordingly.

If you don’t believe it then start asking “Why?” of popular issues and see what happens. One of my favourite examples is to see what happens when you start arguing that “Rights” are nothing more than concessions granted by the powerful to the powerless. You won’t be popular but the fact is that asking this question actively leads you to some interesting places and understandings.

If you are lucky you may well be stigmatised, categorised as a “Devil’s Advocate” and summarily dismissed. It will irritate you but then stop and ask yourself if correcting them will bring you to any useful place. If it does then by all means proceed, if not then perhaps you may join me at the bar for grimace and spite cocktails. If I see you there perhaps we may even say: “I am NOT the Devil’s Advocate” to each other. If we are feeling especially “saucy” we may also ask each other: “Why?”

In the mean time, for further startling insights into your own beliefs you might try the process out on the following list:

Aboriginals should not be granted “Land Rights” they should save up like everyone else.
Children should be protected from Paedophiles
Old People are worthy of respect
Nazi German War Criminals got what they deserved at Nuremberg
Allied Prisoners of War were treated badly by the Japanese
The Inuit should be allowed to use modern methods for killing traditional game
The Church is the enemy/friend of the witch movement
Witchcraft is my religion
Tarrantino films are a good barometer of over all human decency
Reality television teaches children modern values
Western values permeate our schools for good reason
My mother and Father love me more than yours love you

Don’t be the Devil’s Advocate – have your own ACTUAL OPINION!

An Ancient Power by Any Other Name ….

The New Age which birthed itself noisily in the sixties and grew into strapping power in the eighties was a mixed blessing. It may often provide annoyance and irritation but it has also allowed one of our greater strengths from the old times to be alchemically preserved for our use today.

In one way, it did make much head way against the bigotries of the past. The sheer numbers of unwashed and obscurely scented bodies focussing on bizarre pastimes that slammed against the walls of the “Moral Majorities” was enormous. It most certainly eroded many of the sharp points that have been used against witches and the like in the past.

This happened in largely two ways. On one hand it slowly became “the norm” that virtually everyone suddenly had at least one friend or acquaintance who was into Yoga or some other vaguely illegitimate exercise of conscious will and personal power. Soon even the most “respectable” pillars of society had visited a Tarot reader or palmist at least once.

Many of these would wind up scoffing and this too was useful. The simple truth is, (to use a local example) more people watch “A Current Affair” intently than they do any actual news broadcast. “A Current Affair” is tabloid TV and this mode is rarely as interested in the “I went to a Fortune Teller and they were right” story as they are in the “Fortune Tellers Scam single Mother out of Pension Cheque” story. If you want to get the message out that you exist, (provided you can weather a bit of adverse opinion) the legitimate News Broadcasts really should be avoided in favour of their more “crowd pleasing” cousins.

This is especially the case if you can turn this same to your advantage.

The fact is that once one is stigmatised as something of a “harmless loony”, no one thinks it is necessary to stop you doing anything. Indeed as any examination of the modern New Age and Neo Pagan communities will show, being seen as a bit of a “harmless loony” actually assists in one being seen as safe and popular! If you manage this sort of thing, (and can tolerate it!) you will soon discover that people start letting you “get away” with things great and small.

This can be made even to extend to behaviours that are all but publicly unacceptable. Under the guise of the implied idea that: “it simply isn’t worth the effort to stop a toddler from trying to knock out Muhammad Ali”; you will soon see people begin to say things like: “It is just the way they are – just let it slide like everyone else does!” The fact is that this is more to do with their personal fears than any real personal conviction but as long as you don’t point that out you will note that no one else will either!

The ramifications of all of this on the larger scale that we were discussing can be considered to be literally enormous. In the case of the birthing of the “New Age” it suddenly meant that for every allegedly scientifically supported Eastern practice, (which may or may not bolster one’s health while sapping one’s wallet!) one or two further collections of wild eyed crazies “snuck under the radar” as well.

This is precisely what I meant when I said it was a mixed blessing and proves exemplary of the theory advanced so far in that; when these other “crazies” were spotted they were stigmatised as such and then largely ignored.

Suddenly the scope for what rat bags like us could get away with changed from a small portable black and white telly to an IMAX Theatre of our very own. All that is required for “icing” on this cake is to take this supposed “harmless lunacy” of ours and coat it thinly in social acceptability. That is the final piece if the puzzle.

For those whose pride does not overweeningly choke out the advantages on offer, the modern era, (in that which is somewhat erroneously referred to as “The Western World”) provides a time and a place wherein things are brighter than they ever have been before.

A modicum of respectability lends greater ability to work without the need for stringent security measures and public displays of benevolent indulgence for our follies allows, (in time) for actual changes to laws to ensure our safety!

Consider:

Times have changed to allow greater deviation than ever before from the norm.
Times have progressed in such a way to allow any number of pseudo scientific reasonings for such to be largely known and accepted by the mainstream of society.
Times have changed to allow greater tolerance for deviation – even laws have been created for our protection!

All one needs to do is accept, (when required) the mantle of “harmless loony” that society confers; pay a modicum of “lip service” to its requirements for the social contract and just about anything is suddenly possible. Quite literally the fears that wider society has of confrontation and the unknown, (as expressed, modified and manifested through modern social fashions, like political correctness) will “foot the bill” for you.

In short, to put it succinctly, superstition is actually at an all time high despite the modern claims of logic and reason – it now simply goes by other names. This was ever our tool and now is as sharp as ever. There have been some who have traded upon this in the modern era and even some who have explained some of it’s uses – few have learnt from their examples, preferring needlessly convoluted mysticism.

How much better than that does a free lunch come I ask!?

The Danger of “Bums on Pews”

One of the things I have always agreed with that is inherent in the organisational structure of the Church of Satan is its Church format as expressed through the Grottoes. It ensures, (besides the obviously intelligent process of keeping a close eye on the ‘faithful’ and those admitted for serious consideration) that any actual media liaison for the organisation has been running an established group, along established guidelines for some time before they get to blab to the media. Representation of this sort should be based on actual experience and knowledge as well as being sourced from an accepted and ratified individual.

This is good as it not only ensures that the individual in question will have something for the “show and tell”, but also they will have been practicing the rotes and know full well that any of the best laid plans of mice and men go awry. This practical experience is invaluable in that theory rarely shows our own weaknesses quite like being “in the trenches”. In this way it rather ensures that they are able to “think on their feet” which is especially necessary when dealing with the media.

One trap that does lie in wait in this sort of situation, (that is to say those modelled on some sort of Church model) however is the “bums on pews” mentality of any established religion. Membership is required in any religious structure. You need a ruling cadre, clergy and a laity. It is these lowest class of religious/superstitious lay men who keep the “whole show” rolling. The more parishioners, the better the “wheels are greased”, the more power the gestalt gathers and the better the forward and upward momentum – resulting in gaining speed smoothly.

(All of this is something those in the modern neo pagan community would do well to take note of in their often overweening searches for unity and so on. At the simplest, it is unnatural and without this understanding how can the idea that such groupings are transitory things to achieve specific goals be approached?)

There is one thing however, that sets the Satanic congregation’s activities apart from that at the local “God Botherers” and that is that our ritual is still primarily about the gathering and directing of magical power to achieve goals. Practical experience shows us that the feelings of “well being” and the psychological balancing of the participants will occur, (or not) on its own as a by product of the workings if they are done correctly. As this is the case, it is vital that we do not fall into “the scam” of getting as many as possible simply to swell numbers.

In our fields, one person who is properly aligned, competent and aware is worth five hundred well wishers. Even though they may mean well – they will, at best be still “siphoning off” the proceeds in a way that will reduce the efficacy of the work to hand.

A dynamic balance must be struck between those who are enthusiastic and those that are really useful. Some may advocate getting rid of “any but the best” but these same spend the rest of their lives waiting and rarely get much done in the mean time while they wait for these “best of the best” to arrive, (the fact remains that without those who are a bit dull, there is no frame of reference by which to judge the up and coming “bright young things”!) Besides, to quote Charles Schulz: “The well informed lay man makes up the basis of a well ordered society!” The fact also remains that one or two kept present to later “let slip” “this or that” out to a hungry public is still good advertising – one must simply be careful to keep the ratios in balance.

I recommend no more than three enthusiastics and two well wishers to every competent operator. This is the ratio that I have found over the years to be most effective and it sets up a most natural stratification that is very workable and all but self sustaining. Some times this may mean that you may even have to say “no” to an “A Grade” assistant who shows incredible promise just so as it all stays stable but it is worth it in the end. Always remember that the ones most worth having rarely go far away but wait the chance to try again at least once! This will inevitably needle you far more than saying “no” to an enthusiastic; but the ratio is best this way and needs to remain pretty much the same as a constant varying no more than one either way in any given destabilisation of the over all number.

Some say we need numbers and other trumpet “quality over quantity” and I say that both are unrealistic idealisms that really should have no place in our tac tics. If, (as the New Zealand OSV said some years ago now) we have “a world to win” then planing and realism must go hand in hand to keep things economical.

These days we say that “working smart” beats “working hard” and I think it’s time we did so but as usual; don’t take my word for it – try it for your self and see!

Afternote:

It is worth noting that the actual Grotto system has been disbanded due to certain problems some had with their own aggrandizement (I stress that is reading between the lines but that it is most certainly the main reason I can see for such a persistence in the problem as hereafter delineated.) Still I contend that the current state of affairs still, (in the context discussed herein) is still addressed in much the same way and spirit if not the "letter". In many ways this also tends to reflect the change of audience towards a much more internet savvy system. Whether this will work as well is a subject that only time will tell.

Personally I was somewhat saddened to see that some were apparently not capable of wrapping their heads around the frist point hereafter raised - I really rather thought it was totally obvious .. apparently some others did not!

I quote in explanation: The whole point to dissolving the Grottos was that we do not want members to get the mistaken idea that there are sub-organizations or branches of our organization. You are members of the Church of Satan who happen to live in Australia the Church of Satan is the organization you belong to. You are not a branch, not an Australian Church of Satan. You are part of a worldwide cabal; you are not a community.

We currently allow local message boards with the expectation that the members whom we entrust to moderating them will wean participants from localized parochialism, so that they see how our paradigm is different from that of the huddling of traditional churches and other groups. In these boards issues germane to your nation can be addressed, however, the point that you are members of a large and continually growing cabal should not be lost. Since you speak English and enjoy dealing with other members you might want to spend some time on the Letters to the Devil board which properly has international participation.

You can meet, you can socialize, you can have rituals, but you do not need to create a sub-organization to do this. The current state of electronic telecommunications makes our former concept for Grottos obsolete. I would expect you to be proud members of the Church of Satan who might enjoy each others company (that too is not required). Additionally, you can enjoy the company of other members should you travel to other nations (as so many of our people do) or if and when you interact with them online or via other modes of communication.

– Magus Gilmore

And that is another thing ...

Another thing that irritates me about the modern so called Pagan scene is that by far the vast majority of its constituents are really only involved in an intellectual “Psycho-Social” capacity.

By this I mean that they are really only interested in being “different enough” from the norm to feel “special” in some way. At the same time, these people wish to be NOT different from certain others of like thinking. In this way they, (and the others like them) may constitute some rough sort of sub-grouping of people who are “different” in much the same way. They are still “like enough” to feel that they “belong” to a grouping with some level of legitimacy, but at the same time remain replete in their “otherness” so as to retain their “special” nature.

In other words, these people wind up constituting a veritable collection of individuals all expressing their individuality in an uncannily similar fashion.

It was precisely this sort of thing that Johnny Hart alluded to in one of his B.C cartoons years ago with the exchange:

“I am a part of the Last of the Rugged Individualists Club”
“What’s with the crazy “get up”?
“It’s our uniform.”

At the time I found this particularly droll. At that time I had no experience of many of the modern neo pagan subcultures and their alleged communities. I now still find it droll but simply in a different manner.

Many in the Modern Neo Pagan communities furthermore, tend to engage in the activities they do, largely as an intellectual process and have little in the way of actual belief that is not safely bounded by all manner of modern, middle class, popular rationalisations.

We see this lack of belief quite clearly in the number of people who openly profess belief in various ill defined Gods and Goddesses, but firmly deny the possibility of demons, (for example). We see this lack of belief quite clearly in the number of people who profess open and public belief in the powers of witchcraft, but don’t believe in the power of curses or anything that even approaches the sort of predestined fatalism that their religious forebears took on board without question. We most certainly see this lack of belief in the number of articles and such like that profess a belief in the power of magic, while trivialising and belittling past beliefs such as supernatural effects. We most certainly see this lack of belief in action when we see those who profess belief and practice; state that another’s workings are “rubbish” because they are unlike.

Their forebears regarded unlike beliefs and practices with fear and terror – not disbelief because that would imply a lack of belief in the general efficacy of such practices!

All of these things are dismissed and scoffed at as not being realistic, rational or sensible - largely because these things have never occurred to the listener and because these same beliefs would render much of their every day a never ending fear of possibility.

Modern humanity salves their fear of the unknown by way of the presence of everyday, mundane, controllable things that act in predictable ways. Beliefs in the unseen world in any real way render the everyday disturbingly free of the boundaries that we as humans generally require for “peace of mind”. To the modern person, the television is a known quantity which behaves in a pleasantly predictable fashion bringing them calming ego stroking infotainment. In the world where the boundaries are not set, the television is no longer safe, it might turn on and off by itself in a fashion that warns of events, it may show things that are yet to happen or happening far away – it may even, (as we are told by several court transcripts) give orders from discarnate entities in a fashion that may not be resisted.

This is vastly different to the safe entertaining, controllable appliance that is desired by most people.

It is, (furthermore) often the case, (in the modern neo pagan communities) that anything that approaches actual, straightforward belief, (the kind that is “in for a penny in for a pound”) is not simply derided as “backward or foolish superstition”; but also, (by way of spurious rule mongering) put forward as something to be avoided by the serious and safe practitioner.

We see this lack of actual belief in the fact that, while much of the modern neo pagan community practice a much diluted “pseudo wiccan” praxis and practice; they decry any professed belief or observance of many of the older belief sets - preferring instead highly eclectic selections from modern popular psychology and the like.

It is painfully evident that many of the ritual workings of the modern neo pagan world are the sort generally described as “wiccan” in their form and content. (By “Wiccan” it is taken to mean that it does not deviate substantially from the three fold belief structure borrowed from them, it has a circle, calling of quarters and a certain religious overtones to the ensuing form which follows fairly set guidelines.) While this is the case, there is none of the standard required mind sets for actual initiated Wiccan practice.

By this I mean that the circle is not literally believed to be a place between worlds where the discarnate Old Gods can have physical contact with their congregation. There is also most certainly no belief in the Gods and the Priesthood as there used to be, rather more often there is talk of “archetypes” and “psychopomps”. Ritual is more considered a manner in which to alter the “mind set” and psychology of the participants rather than these same raising power to breach the mundane world in order to make contact with vast preternatural entities.

We see this lack of actual belief in the fact that any form of possession occurring during any ritual is viewed with horror and opprobrium. This starkly flies in the face of actual Wiccan practise wherein the gods are meant to speak through the Priest and Priestess! This is meant to imply at least partial possession!

In such cases, this perilous undertaking is the duty of those most likely to be able to do so without damage to self or others and those others present are meant to show all due deference to their Gods – this is most certainly out of step with the idea of “democratic” covens where everyone “has a go” at being the “High Priest and Priestess”, (where they even have them!) and the duly elected leaders say things that they feel are “pithy, topical and educational” in a manner that suggests pseudo archaism to others more interested in gaining knowledge rather than congress with Gods.

We see this lack of actual belief in the fact that any talk of actual psychokinetic, (or otherwise) observable phenomena is often spoken about in mock horror as being either the result of rustic wishful thinking, psychological derangement or insufficient protective workings/groundings etc.

The witches of old, Wiccans and those seriously engaged in magical practice share some things in common. One of these things is that they all are aware that certain otherwise pretty unbelievable things can and do happen. They all believe that magic is capable of so called “supernatural” effects. They all believe that ritual working of any proper or real kind involves the manipulation of subtle energies that are focussed and redirected in order to achieve real and actual, quantifiable effects. These effects do NOT require wishful thinking or the necessity of psychological dysfunction to be identified or observed. They also most certainly avow that such effects are not simply the realm of improper technique, (as implied by insufficient protective workings or “groundings”!)

Indeed, (like the ceremonialist whose actual outcomes are labelled as the product of negligent practice) we see this lack of faith in virtually every facet of interaction on the subject, (by “them that do”) and to be honest, it drives many of us to derision and back - but what can be done?

Well unfortunately not much!

The fact is that in any church there will be the devout and those who know “when to stand up and when to kneel”. There will be those who actually believe and those that “kind of” believe or are selective about the “bits” they believe. These same refer to allegories, metaphors and issues a lot – just like ours do. Unfortunately, as long as we stay “in the temple” we will be forced to withstand these same people diluting the efficacy of any works to hand with their “lack lustre” input.

It has been wryly observed that we have tumbled out of the middle ages with the church - both being afflicted with much the same problems. We do both tend to have the same kind of problems within our beliefs. We are both the products of anachronism. We are both confronted with a world wherein our most cherished chants are bowdlerised, bastardised and then redone in digital 5.0 by a small pieces of plastic we can barely work out how to use. In short we are to some extent being trivialised by a world that requires neither our aid or hindrance and openly scoffs at our very existence. It is a world that now, (perhaps more than ever!) demands of us that we find our own reasoning for existence.

It is in this untenable future that we find ourselves sharply stung by those in our midst that offend us with their lacks. Most often we are stung so hard that we forget that we have always had such in our midst and without. We have weathered worse and we will survive again.

Doctor Operator Teacher – Observer - Patient Afflicted (Administrated) Student

Those suffering from an illness and those suffering from ignorance share several things in common.

In the first instance they both share a misalignment of the spirit resulting in faulty manifestation and secondly their incondignity, (if you will) is adjudged as a malady.

In any healing or teaching situation there is the one with the misalignment or lack and, (whether it be sooner or later) the observer who attempts to rectify the situation.

Whether this be by providing an addition to fill the breach or readjustment in order to realign the mismatching, the process is roughly the same in many ways.

Not the least of the similarity is found in the fact that it is not the Doctor, nor the Method of Treatment but the Medicine itself which in many ways is the active consideration on behalf of the teacher for the healing of the patient. Despite this being the case, whether the patient will be healed or the student learn is due to that proponent’s ability to rally to the medicine given.

Also native to any interaction of this sort is the fact of administration of some form of remedy or medicine.

In this there are required things.

There is required an administrator, the medicine, the method of administration and the administrated, (or the student or the patient).

We also should begin by accepting that the healer, (whether they be teacher or doctor) is also afflicted. They are afflicted with a desire to see the way the world is changed in some way that they assume is “better”. In this they are afflicted with an illusion.

This illusion is based on an assumption that the object of their desire is “better” than what is apparent and existent.

In the simplest sense, this means that the doctor assumes that assisting people to become congruent with their vision of “healthy” will result in something “good”. This is often typified or exemplified as a utopic world “free” of whatever malady they have chosen to “fight”.

By this it should not be assumed that I feel sick people/the ignorant should lay down and die or that the wounded/unschooled should not be assisted to survive or better their situation, (quite the contrary!) it is simply that I recognise it as an artificial situation that attempts to overturn, (to whatever degree) the natural order of manifestation.

In this sense, the diagnosis of any, (whether it be healer or teacher) is based in a private illusion and is, (by definition) a perversion of the natural order or process.

In the natural world, the body repairs any problem, (to whatever degree) or it is over run and dies; it learns or it remains ignorant and both of these processes occur by variant ratios of the virtues of inherent ability, learned ability, environment and chance.

When an individual, (in accordance with their personal preference) alters this course they are by definition, perverting the natural order so as to attempt to insure that this progress results in the manifestation of their desires.

Diagnosis

It is in the adjudgement of personal desires as worthy of being promoted over the natural order that diagnosis really begins. (This is the case because a preferred vision is endemic to the enaction of any process to insure that desired goal - or indeed even the discovery of any process to insure the desired end!)

The healer or teacher observes the student or patient and gauges them against their own preferences. Should they find these two images unequal, they begin deciding the best way in order to render them congruent. This is the case even when the student or patient approaches a teacher or healer.

The only real difference lies in the fact that, (in this case) there is another desired form “in the mix” so to speak. This is modified by and modifies that which is considered “superior”, (to some extent) by virtue of greater experience and or knowledge.

In many cases, it is a moot point to say that the easiest way to rectify the incongruity between the “preferred” and the “actual” is to alter the student or patient until they conform to the preferred form. This is the case due to the fact that, (by definition) one is naturally unlikely to desire the alteration of any preferred scenario.

This decision as to how simplest and best to alter manifestation to the point that it becomes somewhat congruent with a particular desired goal is termed diagnosis.

It is a decision on how best to alter the natural order to one’s own ends.
It is also totally required if one is to be of any efficient assistance in any situation.

Administration

It is in this section of the over all transaction that teaching can vary from healing, (and vice versa) by way of process but overall the same basic steps are required.

Both require the gifting of something, (physically or otherwise) directly or indirectly in order to change the state of another. Whether this is a gifting of experience, information, physical alteration, medication or other like remedy, counselling etc. is really not the point. In each of these cases there is a gifting from the one to the other. In some cases this is from the petitioned to the petitioner, in other cases it is unsolicited.

As there are different gifts given to rectify the perceived lack or misalignment, there are also different ways in which these may be given.

There is a long history of understanding that, (by and large) simply giving what is asked for or what is required, (no matter how morally superior we might believe or wish it to be!) is often not the most efficient form at all. Throughout time, both teacher and healer alike have had to take into account the contrary nature of those they seek to assist.

Whether this is seen as the fact that “objects at rest tend to remain at rest” or that all individuals have a form of “Thanatoic Urge” that manifests in their Psyche I feel is nothing other than personal preference. In this, the observer only manages to change the nature of the observed to their own belief structure and this rarely influences the actuality very much – whatever it’s form in actuality.

More often than not, (whether we are discussing the student/teacher or the patient/healer relationship) we see that the “acted upon”, (that is to say the patient or student) will unconsciously and subconsciously object and indeed even reject any method which does not involve some level of personal discomfiture presented as necessary “for the cure to work”.

In many cases the only way to make a cure more attractive to someone, (and often more efficacious!) than making it unpleasant; is to then make some obvious and somewhat ostentatiously ineffectual attempt to render it more palatable again. This is often especially efficient if the student or patient is allowed to know that the change to render it palatable serves no point other than this – any other change may well lead the patient to believe that the cure has in some way been diluted.

It is also worth pointing out that it is also important to betray no real doubt as to the cure or teaching. Such doubt sows doubt in the subject and can lead to rejection of the scenario on these grounds entirely. While there is no doubt that various maladies can and are cured by actual agents that work biochemical changes upon the body, it is also factual that even the most appropriate medications for all manner of lack may be rendered totally useless by the subject’s doubt, which can in some cases actually override the treatment. This is especially the case in the situation of teaching – arguably even more so than healing!

This highlights a very important fact - the administration is not the medicine. Just as the map is not the territory the lore is not the teaching. These sound particularly trite and obvious observations but frankly, they are some of the most often ignored and or forgotten. Facts from a mass murderer are still facts – the nature of the speaker is not, (and should not!) really be the issue.

While it is simple and obvious to state that all modes of delivery and that which is delivered will be coloured by the essential nature and bias of the one delivering; if the subject does their job properly and shows the requisite respect for such an action by accepting and questioning judiciously this should not really be an issue.

To be more precise in the contexts we are examining by way of example, the well being is not provided by the healer, it is not the manner in which the medicine is given, nor even truly the remedy itself but rather; wellbeing is what the patient achieves themselves by making proper use of the assistance given. The education, (to say nothing of anything approaching wisdom!) is not provided by the teacher, it is not the mode in which it is given, nor even truly the knowledge itself but rather; education is what the student achieves themselves by making proper use of the assistance given – whether it be by working with or striving against!

Churches

For a little over a decade now I have had, (on and off) with several different bodies an ongoing conversation about the role, (if any) witches/pagans/wiccans etc have in wider society.

Before examining that in a certain way I wish to make something else known to you about myself - as far as I am concerned these are often all the same person.

Does that sound odd to you? Do I sound vaguely unhinged or delusional? I assure you I am not.

I know you reading this as one of a small number of people. You are here because I know of you and thought you may resonate well with what is here or might find it illuminating or amusing. In this the several of you are very much alike. For that reason I will now talk to you. As you are an observant and astute lot, I m sure that you will note that I speak to you now as if you to were one person. I don’t think that is a coincidence.

Do you remember the last time you were, (to use a most obvious example) railed against by someone and thought later:

“Well what they said was certainly nothing NEW. They may as well have been “so and so” who did just the same thing x number of days/months/years ago?”

Did you find yourself thinking a little later that, (now you come to think on it) they may as well have also actually been “such and such” who did the same thing for pretty much the same reasons x number of months before that last one again?

The first time this happens it can be quite unsettling. You get that same sort of conspiracy fear one can only resolve be remembering that the world has NOT suddenly turned threatening – you are simply seeing it that way for the first time. You may well even, begin thinking of many different people who act in certain ways and categorizing them like this as well. It is remarkably easy from this point in one’s life to see that some things are now, have always been (and probably always will be!) railed against by particular people who share many similar attributes. All pseudo mysticism aside, this is of course why it happens and furthermore why it should be the case.

I for example have several “Mr. X’s” and “Mrs. Y’s” who support, deny or ignore certain things. I consider them a constant manifestation of certain stereotypes. I see parts of them rise up in totally unrelated people from time to time, over and over again and always for the same reason to enact the same actions or manifest the same essential understandings. The only thing that these people share is this connection at their base, to these essential currents. As such they are urged to move, act, think and believe in the same ways irrelevant of the fact that they come from different cultures, socio economic backgrounds with different cultural experiences etc etc ad nauseum. The only way to recognise these people is essentially – otherwise they are unlike and hard to spot. You know the saying that there is “always one in every hundred?” Well that is them.

They are the “one in a hundred” and to be blatantly honest, if you were to spot the and actually shoot them stone dead, that current would then manifest in some other who is closest essentially to the one you just shot. It is creepy but true and it basically explains that all situations require certain urges and currents in order to be what they are – remove this or that outlet and the same will manifest in another convenient way. That alone s food for thought often I find.

For me, these people are like bookmarks and tell me that it is time to enact certain parts of my own ability for particular ends. I take their appearance like omens. An example of this can be show by one of my personal maxims: “When the agitator and the sycophant group with the undecided then it is time to shore up the boundaries of one’s own views”. Sometimes such manifestations mean I need to assist some people and sometimes, (to be blunt) it means I have to “surgically alter” something.

People who have known me for a while know several of these disembodied stereotype entities I have danced with for many years and may even know some of the names I have given them, (generally I name them after the first person who displayed such or those who have done so repeatedly over the years I have watched them.)

Now that you know that about me you will understand as I correct that first line of this article so I am more comfortable with it.

For a little over a decade now I have had, (on and off) an ongoing conversation about the role, (if any) witches/pagans/wiccans etc have in wider society. I find that my advice is like a self help book: “those who need them won’t read them or heed them!”

There – that’s better.

Over the years it has been regarding the role, (beneficial and maleficent) “we” (plural – myself and all our collective cousins legitimate and otherwise) we should be actively taking in tandem and upon the suspecting and unsuspecting fellow sentients on this planet.

To be clear, I personally think that we all have a role and that it becomes obvious to all that need to actively engage their time in any particular way. These poor sods find that they have a “duty” to go with their “calling”. All else don’t even know what these people mean when they talk about it. That also is how it should be.

We all have roles – it is only some of us that need to be aware and consciously about them. Many find themselves for one reason or another simply doing something out of the ordinary one day and never knowing why – they were simply pressed to service briefly to fill a gap. There are even more who never even get that level of malodorous ness pressed upon them and go their own way forever simply filling out ranks where needed. Lucky bastards I call them!

I am an active supporter of the idea that this “cuts both ways”. This is much to the horror or the average “card carrier” (read as: “Spear carrier” in the theatrical sense!) The fact is that there are some that should and indeed must actively sow seeds, tend them, or harvest them amongst their sisters and brothers. For some this means an ongoing healing of people, places or things; for others it means maintaining the same in a form of stewardship if you like and for others still it requires them to destroy, savage, undermine and eat anything slow or weak.
Now I should point out here that I don’t see any one of these as being in any way “superior”, (in the commonly understood frame of reference) to any of the others. They are all required in ratios that are known only to observers of the ebb and flow of time and events. In some places things must be eaten today by multitudes only so that they (in turn) may be repulsed or barred tomorrow by stewards and healers. This is why there are such things as the “Kali Yuga” and why, (furthermore) it did not come to all places simultaneously in the same guise or strength.

The only time I get irritated at people is when it is patently obvious to me that whatever their job is – they aren’t doing a real good job of it. Sometimes this has inspired me to rip people apart in public only to quietly later forward them the answer and a better argument for the next time they stand in public with their banner. It also is why sometimes I have savaged people who championed ideals I agree with. It is often harder to explain to them that while I agree with their goals – they are doing the same a disservice with their lackluster performance or threadbare argument. That is the way of the world I guess.

Now that you know all this you will perhaps be better in a position to understand why I have reacted as I have over the years. More often than not I have replied to the questions like: “What do we think we should be doing?” with this simple explanation as I think it explains quite well that I believe that we all do need to do something and we are doing it. I generally wind this up with a statement that the only thing I think that holds us all back from being as effective as we might be is that many people are too narrow minded to see that for every ivory tower there MUST be a wrecking ball and there are furthermore too many people doing shoddy work that they are not “called up for”.

Apparently this has not been enough.

Recently the same turgid subject regarding “Pagan Clergy” and so on has been bought up again. Indeed it is beginning to come up with all the rapacity and tedious repetition of the “What does the word ‘Witch’ mean?” question. Very soon I fear that, (like this latterly mentioned) you will be able to say in response to its appearance: “Oh has it been six months again already? I wonder if anyone will listen this time or will they instead, simply not hear common sense and wait another half year and ‘try it on’ again?”

The latest guise this urge, (yes I do mean that word – no I don’t have the time now to explain what I mean by it – remind me later and I’ll do a write up on that as well!) has taken is hassling and fussing over the idea of “Pagan Chaplaincy”. It was, (briefly) a while back, “Pagan Clergy” but this mask got broken by me and some others of vaguely like mind so now it returns under a slightly amended title. I can only see this as being an attempt to try the same trick under a hastily altered name tag.

“Pagan Clergy” was simply defused by pointing out that only the newly born, academically inspired, don’t see themselves that way anyway. (Amusingly enough this same argument was later used to bolster the need for the same – go figure!) The actual Wicca are clergy and (furthermore) have their own clergy on top of that. Only solitaries who don’t know what they are about or have their heads too stuffed with crap on pop psych and archetypes to get on with actual work really have this desperate need. The fact remains that if you are in a proper group you will have this access and these ‘perks’ – just as you will if you are a solitary working with your own external agency. For these people need no clergy as they DO in fact, have direct contact with their meta agencies. If one HAS such a thing you need neither a priest nor someone to counsel you – that is what one’s contacts are for after all!

(On the subject of this modern love for all things “archetypical”, it is worth remembering, (for the record people!) that archetypes are what allowed that poor wee alchemist Jung to sleep safe and sound in his bed – free from the fear that the bogey man was indeed real after all! We don’t worship or petition abstracts any more than one might beseech a fork to spear a bit of sausage on our plates!)

Returning to this new push on the idea of “Pagan Clergy” however, this new move was born out of the idea of having “Pagan Churches”. This idea was brutally maimed – as it should be. ACTUAL pagan faiths have guidelines and they should be followed. If one wants to make up an invented mish mash then one should also create guidelines for organized work or leave well enough alone. Every time I heard that one come out it was from an obviously damaged individual with a sublimated power lust who had little experience of anything other than their own short lived experiments. Not once have I heard it from anyone with the inclination and/or ability to set it up so it would work. This is to say nothing of the fact that every time I heard it used, the word “pagan” should be understood as a poorly collected bunch of free for all new age diluted odds and ends, (often used as a poor mask for individual agendas) – not any actual “pagan” faith.

I once actually heard one actually and enthusiastically say: “if we had our own churches with regular services and attendees we could get tax cuts and representation and be every bit as good as any established church!” at an inter coven meeting!!

Disgusting as it was, this statement was useful in that it made it easy to spot others who eagerly rallied to this individual. It rendered them easy to spot on account of the fact that they all had the same feverish gleam of greed in their eyes. Everyone else, (to their credit) were ‘up in arms’ and indeed some of them actually physically flinched away from the individuals in questions as the words were spoken. Several very harsh words were said which naturally went in one ear and out the other. I stood and said for those I represented at the time: “What a curious idea. It tells more about you than you might think. I and those like me were raised to believe implicitly that we were already superior to established churches for exactly those same lacks!”

But let us now return to this latest mask – “Pagan Chaplaincy”. This is used extremely loosely and seems to mean that these same ‘mob’ want to see some sort of “publicly acceptable” representatives to “swan about” in the public eye counseling people in hospitals and other places and so on. I have a hard time not considering them “professionally nosy shit disturbers” myself but hey – I am like that and, (again) would remind you that even though that is the way I tend to think of them – that doesn’t mean I don’t think these sort of people are not required. Hell even the fact that I think it an inherently doomed pastime hasn’t stopped me doing my bit to see it comes about when that was an on going concern for me.

Now, when confronted by this new wave of public “best intentionalism”, some have pointed out bits and pieces of past pagan practice here and there that is in opposition to such and this, (inevitably) has been met with the same in kind to support the other side of the coin. It is hardly news and entirely commonplace.

One thing however that has been birthed out of this is something of a wholesale “nobbling” of linguistic terms. I have even noted the odd instance of this being done intentionally to bolster shaky points by those who I KNOW DO know better. I have also noted the inevitable wholesale lumping together of “related” terms and issues under very tenuous banners. It was this intolerable state of affairs which has prompted me to take you on this little journey.

Now to be sure I have pointed out pretty much all of this to these most recent exponents before but frankly they don’t want to hear it. It conflicts with their personal agendas. So I will tell it to you few who I feel might actually get something of worth out of it. I at least will sleep better knowing that there are some few people out there who look with clear eyes and shake their heads at this sort of agenda driven banter and see it for what it is – a time waster to score “popularity and public recognition points” largely at the expense of those they most claim to be protecting.

Hypocrisy like that should be rewarded and this is a down payment. I will include no names here and will say that I only use the words I do in here due to the fact that they are totally exemplary of the sort of arguments that go round. It is not, (per se) that I have a problem with these people other than the fact that these words have been seized upon by others to create metaphorical castles of fatuous folly. That much at least they are responsible for.

Pagan priesthoods didn't necessarily have a ministerial, or counselling role, their job (I'm thinking of Greek priests and priestesses) was to mediate between deity and worshipper, they worked *for the deity*, not as a counsellor of minister for the "congregation", they mediated, they didn't attempt to convert or incorporate people into their deity's particular cult

Now I had several things to say on this subject ages ago, (and in this forum too I might add) and they can, (I am sure) be still seen elsewhere in the “Best of Silence” series somewhere. The idea that I was driving at was that basically the lack of counseling to the masses is largely due to the fact that no one wants to be in a group anymore and so they do not have access to the perks of such. It also follows therefore that as this is the case, (to use wicca as a convenient example) there won’t be “the thirds” to go through such training, they won’t have a cohesive background or even those to counsel in it’s ways and as such they are “breeding themselves out” as it were.

Of course the usual few carried on like they should have access to the same while “slagging” off the whole idea of groups in an attempt to be seen as virtuously defending against elitism but hey – “girly pants pagans” who never cut it enough to get into a group a zloty a dozen these days.

Which puts it at odds with much of modern paganism, that militantlyclaims its right to need *no* mediation between deity andworshipper. Vivienne Crowley in particular was very, very vocalabout this subject when it comes to Wicca - all Wiccans are, bydefinition, priest/esses, and Wicca is a religion of clergy.

Well yes and no depending on how you wish to take the terms “clergy” and “priest/ess” and also on how technical you want to be about a priest/esses ability to interface directly with the Godforms while in a group scenario. This statement in no way contradicts my earlier statement on this subject – you need to think carefully to see why.

The simple fact is that the whole “we are all clergy and interface directly with the gods” is not really technically the case in earlier forms of wicca at all. If that had been the case then there would not have been all the dramas over the ideas of solitary practice! This is further shown obviously in the fact of there being a High Priest and Priestess.

Let me be clear so there can be no confusion – if you go through someone else, (or make use of their assistance) to contact your gods, (or whatever) then you are NOT in direct contact with them. This is the same level of comprehension that leads some second hand retailers to sell a DVD, (for example) as “mint condition” because “it has only been watched once”!

If it has been watched or read then it is NOT “mint” which is a term to denote that the item has NOT been used.

The same can be said of direct communication – the key word is DIRECT. If there is mediation then there is mediation and all else is semantic wrangling.

That being said, I feel that this particular statement is basically a victim of inaccuracy by way of emphasis. This happens a lot these days where in their haste to seem knowledgeable and sure, answers are truncated to a point where they aren’t actually correct anymore. This is largely born of the fact that these days, (as I am reliably informed) generally speaking, no one reads long posts or articles anymore, (especially if they don’t have pictures etc!) because they haven’t the attention span – poor wee mites.

One of the more common objections to chaplaincy in *any* form when it comes to paganism is the idea that one pagan will be granted spiritual authority over another, which is seen as a distortion of the principles of modern paganism. And the finger is squarely pointedat Christian priests as coming between the worshipper and the deity - yet the Christian priests, at least in this aspect, are more in tune with Classical and earlier times than we are. :-)

Ok now this here is why I object to being short to the point of inaccuracy. One degree off as one starts navigating turns into a complete “180” further down the track. I agree that one of the more common concerns in this issue is the view here stated – and I would argue that it is with good reason! The fact remains that the idea is in fact steeped in the idea of a religious hierarchy. If you have a group of priests or chaplains or clergy of any kind; implicit in the argument is the fact that these same must be elected or ordained such. There you have a hierarchy. There really is no escaping it unfortunately.

I would also agree here that this is often seen as a, (lovely turn of phrase!) “distortion of the principles of modern paganism” but only because most modern pagans have no clue whatsoever ads to the actual nature of their shared history or the requirements for a cohesive, working organism for that matter. Actual pagan religions of yesteryear bore NO resemblance to the clear “free for all” that is generally pointed to as “modern paganism”.

It is true that this “take whatever you want and have no leaders” pseudo anarchic movement exists but it owes more to the NEW AGE than any form of recognized paganism from history.

Wicca has a recognized hierarchy – it is an initiatory religion after all!!

The modern series of solitary practitioners are by definition not in the same boat – irrelevant of the wishful thinking of many.

Here the idea that the Christian church, (with its established set of priests) is most certainly more kin to the actual pagan cults of yesteryear, (and indeed wicca!) and this is because, they based their organization on those of the old pagan cults! This same can be said of several these days who have set themselves the task of studying established religious hierarchies to see how they work specifically for later adaptation and use. The irony of such a situation is quite thick.

Now for those of you who may have been wondering at the basis for my views on the requirement of ordination etc; consider the following taken from the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, (1958), The New Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, (1978), The Pocket Oxford Dictionary, (1978), the Collins English Dictionary, (1979). The reasoning behind these selections over time is so that some semblance of agreement can be seen between several different sources over time. Consider carefully, (as I did) the following:

Chaplain:
1) a clergyman who has a chapel
2) a clergyman officially attached to the arm or navy to some public institution or to a family or court
3) a clergyman or layman chosen to conduct religious exercises for a society
WNC 1958

Priest of chapel, clergyman officiating in private chapel of sovereign or institution, on board ship of for regiment etc
New Oxford Illustrated - 1978

Clergyman of institution, private chapel, ship regiment etc
Pocket Oxford 1924 – 78

A Christian cleryman attached to a private chapel of a prominent person or institution or ministering to a military body professional group etc (From Old French Cjappelain from Late Latin cappelanus) - - (Ministering – Person who attends to the needs of others esp. in religious maters)
Collins English 1979

n a clergyman
Webster’s 1989

Chapel:
1) a subordinate place of worship esp. Christian a sanctuary other than a parish or cathedral church
2) room recess or cell in a cathedral or other church containing an altar separately dedicated …
5) print formerly a printing office
6) British A place of worship used by others esp. non conformist than members of an established church
WNC – 1958

1) place of Christian worship other than a parish church or cathedral esp. one attached to a private house or institution; oratory in a larger building with altar, esp. compartment or cell of cathedral etc separately dedicated and with its own altar; place pf public worship of established Church subordinate to and dependant on parish church …
2) In England and Wales, Nonconformist place of worship …
4) Printer’s workshop, printing office, meeting or association of journeyman printers fro keeping order, settling price disputes etc
New oxford Illustrated - 1978

Place of Christian worship other than cathedral or parish church esp. attached to or part of a institution or private house; separate part of cathedral or church with its own altar; place of worship for non conformist bodies; association or meeting of workers in a printing office (from Latin Cappa – cloak St Martins cloak was kept by cappelani – or chaplains – in a sanctuary)
Pocket Oxford 1978

1) A place of Christian worship in a larger building esp. a place set apart with a separate altar in a church or cathedral
2) similar place of worship in or attached to a large house or institution such as a college hospital or prison
3) Church subordinate to Parish Church
4) (in Britain)a non conformist place of worship for non conformist religious practices or doctrine c (adj – he is chapel but his wife is church)
5a) the members of a trade union in a particular newspaper office, printing house etc b) a meeting of these members
6) a printing office
Collins English 1979

a private church, subordinate place of worship, a division of a church with its own altar (from Late Latin Capella – sanctuary for relics)
Webster’s 1989

Clergy:
in the Christian church the body of men ordained to the service of God: ministry
W N C – 1958

n the body of men ordained for religious service (from Latin clericus – clerk (one who is employed to do correspondence or keep accounts) considered widely as belonging to the church – as evidenced by use of “cleric” from Old English Clerc – “priest”)
Webster’s 1989

Usually treated as plural - All persons ordained for religious duties
Pocket Oxford 1978

1) The clerical order; all persons ordained for religious service; clergymen
2) Clerkly skill, learning, scholarship … (ability to read being the originally the test of “clergy” or clerical position of the accused [of any applying for benefit of the clergy exemption from sentence for certain offences …
The New Oxford Illustrated 1978

N the collective body of men and women ordained as ministers of the Christian Church (From old French clergie, from clerc ecclesiastics)
Collins English – 1979

Ordained :
1) To establish by appointment decree or law, to enact esp. of the Deity fate etc to destine predestine
2) Obs To appoint to a duty or office
3) Ecclesiastical To invest with ministerial (from Minister – one duly authorized to conduct Christian worship, preach the gospel, administer the sacraments etc) or sacerdotal functions; to introduce into the office of the Christian ministry
Webster’s New Collegiate - 1958

Ordain to confer holy orders, esp. those of deacon or priest upon; destine, appoint, enact
Pocket Oxford 1978

V tr – 1) to consecrate someone as a priest; confer holy orders upon
2) to decree, appoint or predestine irrevocably
3) to order establish or enact with authority
4) obsolete to select for an office (From Latin Ordo – order)
Collins English 1979

Vt to decree; to destine; to appoint; to admit to the Christian ministry; to confer holy orders upon. Ordination n the act of ordaining admission to the ministry
Webster’s 1989

It should be obvious that upon considering the ramifications of Ordination and notions of the way “benefit of the clergy” could be manipulated. Indeed were I of a particularly cynical caste I might suggest that this is the reason behind the fact that it is always self styled academics, scholars and the comfortably new age “I go to University” sect that always push these barrows!! Ideas such as the clergy, and chaplaincy in particular appeal to those who wish very much to be seen as important and who already exercise this desire by being “knowledgeable”.

I am more now than ever wary of the ideas of self identification as any form of pre requisite for any form of public representation. I point directly at people such as Tim Ryan, aka Robin Fletcher as an example. If any group is to be represented in any way it must be by popular support and then we have rule by the most popular – which is never good for the long term!

I wouldn't say that "initiation" - as we have in modern magickal groups - was necessarily the same as the "Seven sacraments" either. While sure initiation is a way to incorporate someone into a group, in say, the Roman mystery cults, or in Greco-Egyptian texts like the Greek Magical Papyri, initiation was also supposed to confer [magical] power. This is what I always thought initiation was, I always heartily disagreed with Vivianne Crowley's definition of initiation as the process of becoming a member of a "group mind". Sure, that's one definition...

Here we see the dangers inherent in being brief – eventually some come to think that one part of the whole is the whole – or by personal preference could be considers the same. Initiation is most definitely one way to incorporate someone into the group concerned. Initiation is also most certainly one way to confer upon another magical power. Initiation is ALSO a way in which one in incorporated into the “group mind”, (to a certain degree) – this is because, (in the simplest sense) that is a PART of incorporating them into the group. Initiation ALSO grants one access to the shared past of the group and those of the group and more besides.

Some may say here that I am simply “hedging my bets”. I say that my preference has always been to incorporate as many obvious extras as are existent at any given time. To exclude obviously related items and options for any reason smacks of personalizing reality in favour with a desired version. These things are all manifestly the case, (the reasoning behind such a statement is so obvious to my mind that I won’t bore you all with it!) – so I include them – if that is “hedging bets” then so be it.

The idea that initiation confers magickal power is fairly new,although I suppose it could be argued that the enlightenment grantedto an initiate of a Mystery cult counts as the same thing. Thepractical *effect* of initiation, though, was to create an elitegroup privy to certain ideas (and, it must be said, socialadvantage).

The granting of magical power via initiation is not new by any stretch of the imagination – only by narrowing it selectively down in defiance of common sense.

As for the *effect* of initiation, well, I will point out that this is not what was being discussed – the thing and the effects of a thing are not the same! This is something of an interesting deviation from the path (especially by an academic who surely knows this!) Well again we see what happens when we selectively narrow and project our desired version instead of actuality. Elitism and social snobbery is undeniably ONE of the effects of initiation in CERTAIN circumstances, places and times but surely that is a given I would argue! I will point out here that the person who wrote this is somewhat notorious for summarily dismissing all forms of closed groups in this fashion to and beyond a point that smacks incredibly of “sour grapes”. This is even in the face of the fact that she, herself is in this category both by her work at a university and in one of the larger Pagan networking groups – the mirror reflects selectively obviously!

I think Crowley does speak about the conferring of magickal power,but she sees it as an *element* of initiation, rather than theprimary purpose of the initiatory experience.

There at least she and I agree wholeheartedly in defiance of much of this conversation it would seem!

(I seem to have digressed a bit from the church model topic...)
It never ceases to amaze me how hung up people get on terminology.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people say this directly after treating several related terms as if they were interchangeable and then getting queried on it. Dogs are dogs and cats are cats even though they are both pets. That may sound silly but we have the same difficulty time and time again when we substitute the words, “Witch, Wiccan, Pagan” for “Dogs, cats, Pets”! It is EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT!

I remember a bunfight at Pagans in the Pub a few years ago on thevery subject of chaplaincy, where it rapidly became clear that oneof the primary objections was not to the idea of chaplaincy, but the*word* "chaplain". As it was explained, many people there felt ithad too much of a Christian connotation - yet the tradition ofclaiming (or reclaiming) a word is firmly entrenched in paganism, aswell as other areas such as GLBTI and women's rights.

Ok now here I HAVE to say something. WHY SHOULDN’T there be objection!? There should most definitely BE OBJECTION … AND on the grounds stated! If these terms were NOT grounded very definitely in the soil being objected to then fair enough it would be knee jerking but in this case there are very good reasons for the terms to be found objectionable and I can’t help but imagine that if certain people spent more time considering the actual meanings of the words used than they do trying to reform and push agendas, the arguments they give would not be so self defeating. One cannot argue for chaplaincy on the same grounds that one argues against it if you wish to motivate in an active form. The only way this is really acceptable is as an academic or philosophical exercise to make people think about what they may be agreeing or objecting to.

Another thing I object to is this whole statement: “yet the tradition ofclaiming (or reclaiming) a word is firmly entrenched in paganism, aswell as other areas such as GLBTI and women's rights.”

Let me make something clear once and for all. It is NOT “firmly entrenched in paganism”. It is firmly entrenched in some factions of modern heavily new age and feminist influenced NEO PAGANISM!!!! These two things are NOT THE SAME THING and SHOULD NEVER BE TREATED AS BEING THE SAME!!!

Now before anyone starts saying it is the same thing or railing against me let me explain.

This person assists in education at a UNIVERSITY level. The difference should be so clear to her it should HURT! I learnt to be VERY leery of this sort of confusion in my Foundation Year of a Bachelor of Arts! The map is NOT the territory and different terms should always be used to differentiate things that are different lest they be erroneously treated as interchangeable. This is fundamental academic thinking. The author of this statement is supposed to be part of the History faculty and she has a marked sympathy with the feminist movement so the ideas that: “what was, is not the same as what is” and implied language can be used as a weapon to distort meaning and skew terminology should be second nature to her.

So should the idea that GLBTI and Women’s rights are not the same thing and so don’t really support the assertion. This is either sloppy work or agenda. Choose for yourself.

We've re/claimed "witch", "queer", "faggot", "dyke" - all of which,it could be argued, gained their negative connotations viaChristianity (or at least via pseudo-Christian condemnation).

Ok here I have to wave some more academic “Red Cards”. Who is this “We”? Here it is implied that all are like, (to at least some degree) the author. It implies a shared set of values which simply aren’t. Feminism and the Gay Right’s movement may well be related to some elements of the Neo Pagan movement but not all, (as a point of example these same have nothing whatsoever to do with my practice – they simply aren’t issues that affect the same at all!) All that aside, I would make the point that they may be related in some places but it is nearly as inseparable as this implies! To make it simple – I am related to my aunt but she is not a part of me.

Card two is the use of these terms at all. These are not pagan terms so the inclusion can only be an act of solipsism or one of straightforward inclusion to bolster the argument or reinforce the implied rules of “belonging”.

Furthermore you would NOT find these things even two hundred years ago so let us rule out the straight forward use of the word: “Pagan” all together, (to say nothing of how these two “rights movements” tend to suffer in out of the way rural areas!)

Another reason this “gets my goat” is simply that I am sick and tired of this whole “reclaiming” nonsense.

These are all pejorative terms. There was no golden age where they were actually “positive” and thereby twisted by this or that group. GET OVER IT!

THIS is the reason why you will note that, every time you look closely, carefully and objectively at the process of “reclaiming” in this sense you will see a minority group who objects to rough treatment. They dislike being teased and so decide to try to get as many people as possible to change their definitions of the word in some way to disable the level of offence the terms impart to them. While this is fair enough, (no one likes being teased after all and it is one way of psychologically learning to cope with one’s deviation from societal norms!) this is not “reclaiming” - it is simply redefining in accordance with one’s personal desires. It is by definition, a minority group enforcing acceptance of their difference by way of language. It is a minority group rewriting the larger reality to suit themselves and often then attempting to back the same with legal threat.

This is why it is acceptable for young Afro Americans to call each other “nigger”, (and in all probability why the spell check on my machine did not suggest capitalizing the “Afro” but did “American”!!) but no one else. It is why some people are trying to get dictionaries to change the definitions found under the term “Witch”. Often this latter is touted as being “due to the fact that the majority do not use the term in that old outdated and erroneous sense”.

That is an outright lie – were that to be the case then they would have no grounds for crying discrimination! Such things become clear when liberal doses of logic and common sense are applied. Let us not pretend – otherwise we are simply building on lies.

If we wish to change definitions of words I say it should be only after we have worn them and accepted their true natures and in a direct and honest way. Oddly enough, I know several gay men and women – who also happen to be witches who say exactly the same thing. As with most “affirmative action fronts” those they pretend to represent are often the last to know or agree!

Part of claiming those words has been the idea of transforming apejorative idea into a positive one.

That I have no problem with. Indeed I claim that turning a negative to one’s advantage is at the very heart of being a witch! It is instead, the obvious preference for “reclaiming” even though the word “claiming” is hinted then definitively used in its stead. Claiming is not REclaiming and I note that we are now most definitely calling for the former rather than the latter. There is along tradition of proudly “reclaiming” in the Modern Neo Pagan New Age inspired movements as well as other “Rights Movements” - but I can’t quite remember them championing “claiming”!

I do not advocate “claiming” as some sort of a “pseudo reclaiming”. If you are going to take someone else’s terms for your own usage then fine – it should be clearly delineated and understood as the linguistic and cultural theft it really is. Confusion between the two could be every bit as dangerous as believing that all forms of Paganism, (or even Neo Paganism!) necessarily include Feminism and Gay Rights as a part of themselves.

It puzzles me that there is a resistance to claiming the idea of "church" or "chaplain", forexactly the same reasons we have claimed others, and makes me wonderif there's something a bit deeper going on there that we're notlooking at.

I agree whole heartedly but for different reasons it seems.

I see and understand the resistance to use of the words for reasons I think have been made clear.

I too find it difficult to understand why peoples who have a long association with, (let us try to be polite now) “cultural and linguistic appropriation” should have any qualms about taking from those they wish to pretend they don’t dislike.

I don’t however find it at all difficult to see that there is vast under currents of ideological clashes and many and varied attempts to superimpose hegemony and solipsistically implied consensus upon audiences without the wit to object, (or in some cases see the act!)

The line between, (and leading from) “Reclaiming”, through “Claiming”, to “Appropriation” and, (by way of redefinition) terminating at “Misappropriation” it seems is a blurry fast lane that the laity, clergy and academics alike may all transverse like a transit lane. I wonder if this implies some sort of parallel with the old adage: “When more than three share the illusion it becomes reality”?

Either way of course, it makes little difference to me as I live in s wee tin shack well off the highway on a backroad. I have no need of chaplains or clergy as I actually DO enjoy DIRECT communication with my Gods. This is something that most these days show their lacks in all too readily.

If one has a direct connection to one’s gods, one needs no clergy or chaplains to counsel you. When you have a problem you ask them and they tell you what to do. If you do as you are told, then the problems go away. How hard is that? Well for those who have never actually had that which I now take for granted I expect it is very hard and maybe this is why they are forever pushing for such things. As an analogy - I can call my relatives and parents on the phone whenever I want and so have no need of transit lanes, highways or even cars, (stolen or otherwise!) much less the populist car pooling and the redefinition of road rules the same implies. Funny old world ain’t it?

Another Statement on the Whole Redefinition Thing

This is one of my favourite statements on the whole subject. It is perhaps a little extreme in some ways but the argument is a valid one and there is etymological validity for the example used.

An analogy might be made concerning “white” and “black” witches. Let us assume that warfare had, for centuries been called “wholesale murder” and the men who fought called “murderers”. One day it was decided that there was something quite noble and dignified about this old activity of wholesale murder. All the murderers, basking in the light of new-found legitimacy, began calling themselves “good murderers.” The enemies troops, of course, were the “bad murderers.” The stigma of the word, “murderer” still remained, but at least the good murderers felt a little more at ease. Now, maybe these murderers always had a fairly legitimate reason for going into battle. Maybe they succeeded in saving their homeland from that which threatened it. They might have even had a scholar among them who traced the origin of the word “murder” to an ancient word which meant “mother.” But the fact remained, “murder” was still a negative term in the public’s mind. So instead of simply revelling in their subsequent acceptance by the public, their guilts, bought about by long years of stigma, necessitated their placing of the word “good” in front of “murderer” as a sort of self–reassurance that they were doing the right thing!

You will find this on page 9 of the Satanic Witch by Anton La Vey.

Does it surprise you that such a rational statement was made by someone as allegedly deluded and hysterical as Anton? Or are you, (like me) more amazed at the fact that simple keys that unlock and deflate the whole issues, (like this one does!) are largely ignored simply due to where they come from?

This fact however is totally explained within the Satanic Statements and indeed this excerpt! Allow me to explain it clearly.

The modern neo pagan occult movement is obsessed with its public appearance.

It will do anything to present itself as “legitimate” and coming from a “squeaky clean” but/and “misunderstood” background. This also extends to many individuals of the same who constantly spend endless amounts of time doing anything to attract attention away from what they perceive, (in many cases with good reason!) as their “dodgy background”.

For this reason do not expect the denizens of the modern movement(s) to publicly use or reference, anything that could even be remotely related to Satanism, (no matter how useful or accurate it may be!) This is even the case though, (in many cases) the Church of Satan has, (as a cohesive practice set down by organisational guidelines) been around longer than the organisations they belong to!! This is amusing when one considers that one would often be surprised how many modern “white lighters” are very conversant with the tenets and practices of Satanism away from the public gaze!