|
Letters
Mon chat, elle est un homme.
(My cat, she is a male.)
We have had a few responses from both sides regarding the issue brought up in last issue's "Letters" section (the gender of the general case; e.g., using "Man" for all people). So far, this tempest still fits neatly inside its teapot. Since what response we've had has been equivocal, we shall equivocate. "Editorial consistency" goes out the window and the gender you see shall be the authors'. I have shared my feelings on the matter. As editor, my feelings have up until now been the default. But, as I said last issue, New Moon Rising will reflect the readers' desires on this matter. If you have an opinion, please share it. The question is still unresolved. My thanks to those who took the time to respond!
—S.R.
Rearing Its Ugly Head
If I have been doing my job, few readers have escaped our entreaties to submit to our magazine. I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality of much of the material people have sent us (I hope you have, too). I have also used a lot of print space decrying the negative attitudes that burden the renaissance of Paganism and magick. Even a movement that demands new paradigms is not safe from closed-mindedness. Until now, however, it had remained little more than rumor to me.
Recently, I received the following letter from a group that had told me they wanted to submit an article. After receiving this, a note arrived suggesting that the group would be interested in buying advertising from us contingent upon our printing the letter. (Hey, I'm cheap, but even I have a bottom price.)
The New Moon Rising is to be a forum of exchange. We seldom print anything with the idea that people ought to believe it. We publish with the idea that people should consider everything and use what they like. When someone disagrees with what they read, I hope it will inspire them to share alternatives, but not in an atmosphere of "I'm right and you're wrong." It is with the hope of illustrating, addressing and dispelling this atmosphere that I print the letter and Don Kraig's reply.
—S.R.
Dear Editor:
You have an excellent magazine, but enough is enough! With the rest of your quality writers and contributing authors, must you include Donald Michael Kraig's uneducated pieces. I find that Mr. Kraig is uninformed in the area of Magic, Paganism and the New Age movement in general.
Let me just sight a few examples of his ineptitude, before I address a specific piece from your magazine. First and foremost is his book Modern Magick, a work he says is the result of over 20 years of research and experimentation. If this is true, why so many errors in the Western Mystery Tradition that he is trying to impart to his readers. A few examples should be enough to show the incompetence of this so-called expert.
As a 1st example, his instructions on the use of the Four Adorations is incorrect as it applies to the Western Mystery Tradition. For the Earth sign he says one is to raise the arm as an Indian does saying "How!" Where did he some up with this nonsense? The elemental signs are intended to command and control the various elementals. The Earth sign is given by raising the right arm straight up to a 45 degree angle and holding it there for a few seconds. The way he performs it the Earth Elementals would laugh at best and at worse cause havoc during ritual. Does he have a problem with the correct method of doing the Earth sign? Even though the Nazis took this sign and were constantly raising Earth power without balancing it with the other three Elements, is this any reason not to teach is to students properly and in balance?
He gives, or tries to give a pronunciation of the Hebrew in his book. Where did he learn this so-called "Hebrew." True, there are two main dialects of Hebrew, but is he trying to invent his own? With magical work, since hundreds of years of power have been built into the Hebrew language, one draws upon tradition for the best results.
Another example from the book, which indicates Mr. Kraig is not an expert in these matters, are directions for the Earth Pantacle. He mentions that this magical weapon is a pentacle and therefore should have a pentagram and not a hexagram in the center. When one has studied the Hermetic texts it becomes obvious that the magical weapon is an Earth "Pantacle," not "Pentacle." We are dealing with the Earth forces that must be controlled. The pentagram is a symbol of all four elements under the power of Spirit, the symbol of Man. But with the hexagram on the Pantacle, we have the symbol of creation into matter, or "EARTH," as symbol the Earth elementals will respond to.
After giving a few examples which negate Mr. Kraig's knowledge in such matters, let me address his article "Magickal Currents" from your magazine, vol. 1, no. 4. Is Mr. Kraig trying to pass himself off as an expert in Paganism and the English language as well?
Mr. Kraig's rather opinionated statement "the word Wiccan or Witch should be used to describe only someone practicing a British form of Paganism. There are, therefore, no American Witches, no Hawaiian Witches, no Italian Witches, etc." He excuses his rather obnoxious statement by referring to semantics. It seems this article might be better served by a less inflammatory statement but perhaps he is attempting to show his erudition on such matters at the expense of other's feelings. Less ego and more sensitivity might be called for.
Now I'd like to address his statements regarding Magickal Currents. There are various Current which one can link into and draw from, but it is obvious that Mr. Kraig has not been able to tap into any of the ones he lists.
Some of Mr. Kraig's statements about "Magical Currents" are as follows:
a) Some members of the O.T.O. have linked with the 93 current—others have not. (Does he have a list?)
b) One can link with the 93 current by doing published work on the O.T.O. You need not become a member.
c) Real Golden Dawn, Real Aurom Solis, Real Rosicrucians,
Real Illuminati, Real Martinists, etc. may have documents of "direct succession" (Mr. Kraig makes a statement that these documents are readily forged or obtained through misrepresentation).
Is Mr. Kraig inferring that all such documents are forgeries of misrepresentations? It seems he is. If so, it's rather a foolish and misleading statement. Any document—or currency—can be forged. Because it is possible does not make it so.
Mr. Kraig seem rather obsessed with "the authority questions" when it comes to magical groups, links or individuals. It sounds suspiciously like "sour grapes" from an individual who has none. Does he protest too much? When reading his works, doesn't he present himself as an "authority"? (Especially an authority on the fraudulent authority of others?)
Mr. Kraig states one can spot a fraudulent group (or individual) by:
a) Outrageous sums of money they charge for information readily in print.
b) The fact they intimidate you.
c) Is the person's word law?
He describes these symptoms as representing a "personality cult."
In this instance I might agree with Mr. Kraig. Let's see if it applies to one example. As an author he has represented himself an authority, used character assassinations and innuendo to dismiss the teachings of others (c), he uses intimidation against other to make himself right and coerce and convince the student his way is "the Only Way" (b & c).
Finally he receives a great deal of money (a) purporting to teach students and convince them only his book is necessary to successfully practice magic. One needs no further guidance than his words? Incidentally, Mr. Kraig has "borrowed" every idea and thought in his writings from other writers and teachers. Therefore he is charging outrageous sums of money for information readily available in print elsewhere (a).
Does the author infer that by his "great knowledge" he has reached the stage of adept? If so, why is it that no recognized adept of order has granted him recognition? Could it perhaps be related to his inflated ego? His separation from his companions on the path? His spiritual pride? His lack of Hermetic Knowledge? Of course, one has to draw their own conclusions, but Mr. Kraig is right when he says, "You should closely examine those who profess to teach." He should have included himself in that statement. Self-righteous individuals and charlatans rarely do.
Sincerely,
A lover of the Western Mysteries
concerned with its preservation.
T.F.Y.—Q.A.
Donald Michael Kraig
Over the past several years I have received hundreds of letters. Most have been supportive, many have asked questions and a few have disagreed with what I have written. Recently I received a copy of an anonymously written letter about me that had been mailed to this magazine. Normally, I advise people who receive angry, anonymous letters simply to discard them. I would have discarded this letter, too, but within its anger and rage it brought up some important points that others may wonder about. I talked with the editor of this magazine and suggested that I do a column which presented "Mr. X's" assertions and responded to them. Such a column would also let people learn more about me. That is this column.
First, I would like to send a direct message to Mr. X. I have nothing against you. The anger and rage that you are expressing towards me has no effect on me. However, such emotions will have the effect of controlling you. Israel Regardie urged all who chose to follow the magickal path to have at least a year of psychotherapy. I would suggest that you try such therapy also, before your emotions ruin your friendships and your health and threaten your life. Think of the positive effects you could have had on your life by doing the Work instead attacking me. Better yet, if you are so sure that I am wrong, why don't you write a book?
You say that my pieces are "uneducated." In fact, I graduated from UCLA with a B.A. in philosophy. I also studied public speaking at UCLA and music at Santa Monica College, UCLA and UCSD.
You repeat that my book, Modern Magick, is based on over 20 years of research and experimentation. This is true. It is also based on ten years of teaching. But you want to know why it has "so many errors." Well, if it has errors in it, I would certainly like to know so that they can be corrected in future editions.
The first "error" you point out has to do with one of the four adorations. In my book I say that the right hand should be raised as in a greeting with the palm forward. You say that it should be like a Nazi salute. You also say that the Nazis "took this sign and were constantly raising Earth power."
It is absolutely true that the Golden Dawn used the "Nazi salute" form. Please note, however, that at the start of the description of the ritual I clearly state that this material is based on a piece by Crowley (who used the Golden Down forms). So in a dogmatic and superficial sense you are correct.
I imagine that many of you saw "Raiders of the Lost Ark." In it, a monkey gives a Nazi salute. Certainly you are not going to imply that a monkey giving a Nazi salute is going to raise Earth power and "cause havoc during a ritual." So what is the difference between a monkey, a Nazi and a magician doing any form of this salute?
In my opinion it is not the hand's position that matters. Rather, it is the intent, knowledge and understanding of the person (or animal) making the action. For the monkey it meant nothing. To the Nazis it was a salute to Hitler, to a superior officer and to the fatherland. To the magician following the system I share, it is alignment with the Earth elementals, the Sun and the universe. One magician using the description I give—fully aware of the intent of the action, the meaning behind the action and understanding the link between the conscious and subconscious—will be far more potent than a roomful of hand wavers. I have a letter (dated August 24, 1984) from Israel Regardie in which he says that the adoration as I described them "can even be simplified. Surround oneself with a colored sphere relative to the quarter one turns towards."
Mr. X berates me for saying that a pentagram (pent meaning five) should be on the Earth pentacle rather than a hexagram. He assumes—falsely—that I was not aware that some people call it a pantacle ("pan" meaning all). I wonder if Mr. X knows that the "pent" may have actually come from pend meaning something that hangs (as in a pendant)?
But in the Golden Dawn system, which is a basis of Modern Magick, the tool is not called a Pendacle or a Pantacle—it is a Pentacle. I again must wonder if Mr. X read my book. On page 119 I wrote, " . . . if you feel it necessary to make a Golden Dawn style pentacle there is no reason why you should not." On page 118 there is even a picture of a Golden Dawn pentacle!
Modern Magick is over 550 pages in length. From all those pages Mr. X's only three complaints are those listed above. Were I complaining about a book having "many errors" I would certainly list my strongest arguments. If Mr. X's real complaint is that I am not dogmatic and not blindly following the past, I plead guilty.
Mr. X then refers to my article in volume 1 number 4 of the Rose and Quill. In it I discussed the word "Witch." While I do not claim to be an expert in English as Mr. X wrongly asserts, I do know how to use libraries, dictionaries and encyclopedias. The word "Witch" comes from the Old English Wicca or Wicce. It does not, for example, come from the Italian Strega. Thus, someone who is part of an Italian Pagan tradition is more appropriately called a Strega (masc.: Stregone) rather than a Witch. Does that make him or her any less of a Pagan? Of course not. The popular translation of the Old Testament says, "Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live" when it should read "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." Is language important? Ask the millions tortured and killed during the Burning Times.
You said I might have been less inflammatory and that I was trying to prove my "erudition . . . at the expense of other's feelings." Once again, you are wrong. Erudition had nothing to do with it. Currently there is a discussion in the Pagan community around the world as to who is a Witch. Some traditionalists feel that the word should only apply to them. I wrote the column trying to excite people into a discussion of the matter so that we can get beyond it. You also miss the point of the article that what we call ourselves is not as important as what we do.
In my article, I discussed linking onto "magickal currents"—the currents of magickal energy that are often embodied in the physical world by one or more magickal groups. But if this is so, it means that anyone can tap into that energy without being a member of a particular group. That is, a person can tap into the energy of the Golden Dawn, Wicca, the O.T.O., Chaos magick, etc. without becoming a member of any group. I realize that this is frightening and threatening to authoritarians and those who have a vested interest in having a group, but the fact is that you can start up your own Golden Dawn group or Pagan group or work alone and be just as successful as a person in any of those in the group. I discussed this all on pages 121-124 of Modem Magick. I am now ever more inclined to believe that Mr. X never bothered to read my book.
I also referred to the idea that documents showing direct succession of authority can be forged or obtained through misrepresentation. Contrary to Mr. X's claim, I did not mean to imply that all such documents are so. But because the possibility is there it is important to look for other proofs. In particular, let success be your proof.
Mr. X claims that my talk of authority in groups sounds like sour grapes. Again, I would suggest he read my book. On page 164 I say that I agree with Crowley who said ". . . others have said, `Believe me!' He (Crowley) says `Don't believe me!' . . . He wants an independent and self-reliant body of students to follow out their own research . . ."
When I lecture, one of the first things I always say is. "Don't take my word for anything. Try it out yourself and see if it works." That's why the title of this column is T.F.Y. Q.A.: Think For Yourself, Question Authority. Mr. X quotes me as saying, "you should closely examine those who profess to teach." He then says that I should have included myself in that statement. As I clearly indicate above, I do.
I stated that you can spot a fraudulent group (or individual) if they charge outrageous sums of money for information readily in print, if the person running a group tries to intimidate you, or if the words of the person running the group are considered law. Mr. X ends with a personal attack on me, claiming that I qualify in all three ways. He says that I have borrowed every idea and thought in my writings from other writers and teachers. While I could list dozens of ideas and subjects in Modern Magick that are totally original, I do not deny that I have borrowed from those who went before me. In fact, I am proud of it. In each chapter of my book I have a bibliography of the books used as major sources for the chapter. He says that I am charging outrageous sums of money for information readily available in print elsewhere. If you purchased all the books I used as sources it would cost you hundreds of dollars or more. Depending on how you value it, the time you spend sorting through those books might cost you thousands more. In light of this, the price of my book is a bargain! By the way, stores that sell my book make at least six times what I make per copy.
I was talking about people | 
