There are magicians and there are those who play at magick…
I was once participating on an internet forum discussing chaos magick. One person posted that the great thing about magick [meaning chaos magick] is that you didn't have to accomplish anything, you could just do it. I asked why go to all the bother of doing magick if you didn't accomplish anything? I also pointed out that one of the earliest names of what is now called chaos magick was "results magick," indicating that obtaining results through magick was the purpose of doing the magick.
He didn't respond for a few days. I imagine several of his friends PMed him about this. Eventually, he posted that I "just didn't get it"
We need more lerts!
<snark>Last week I had the honor of performing a civic service: jury duty. For the massive time of one day I was required by law to wait in a big room, doing nothing, hoping to be called to serve on a trial. I wasn't, and I went home filled with feelings of civic pride and responsibility.</snark>
I brought with me a couple of books, and during the day I was able to start and finish an odd little self-published book entitled Cult Control: The Building of a Cult by Dantalion Jones. As I read it I was drawn to recall the saying above. I don't know who came up with the saying first. I do remember the first time I heard it: I was living in
Many years ago, before the debacle that brought down the guru known as Osho, a friend of mine was a follower of him. She went to his ashram in Pune, India, to experience him directly. Known then as Rajneesh (or more fully, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), he had numerous allergies. Before she was allowed to see him she had to go past people who would sniff her to make sure she wasn't wearing any perfumes, scented oils, etc. When she finally met him he told her, "You don't need me any more." She returned to America and from that time rarely attended any of his groups, although she still practiced what he had taught.
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Osho)
Many Westerners don't like the very concept of
In my post entitled Labels, Cults, and Politics I focused on the idea that by not defining terms, people (ab)use the terms to influence others. They use a term to get your support because you believe the term means one thing even though they use the term to mean something different. An example of this phenomenon, used in politics, might be a politician seeking your vote by saying, "I'm going to vote to improve our education system." To some people that might mean, "I'm going to increase funding to schools." To others it might mean, "I'm going to cut funding to teachers." To others it might mean something else. What does it mean to the politician? Unless that person defines what is meant,