Overly Honest History #1: Wicca

Dramatis Personae:

Aleister "The Great Beast 666" Crowley - a Wizard

JFC "Jesus Fucking Christ" Fuller - a Fascist

Jack "Motherfucking Antichrist" Parsons - a Rocket Scientist

Numerous Crazy, Useless and Dead Thelemites

L Ron "Xenu" Hubbard - a Science-Fiction Writer

Arnold "Younghusband" Crowther - a Ventriloquist

Gerald "Old Gerald" Gardner - a Civil Servant

Dorothy "Glove Puppet" Clutterbuck - an Alleged Witch

Kenneth "Fhtagn" Grant - a Lovecraft Enthusiast

Thomas "Witchcraft Act" Brooks - an MP

Numerous Spiritualists, Witches, and the Like

Cecil "Witchcraft Research Centre" Williamson - an MI6 Agent

The Ghost of Dr. John "Sixteenth Century Swinger" Dee - an Alchemist

Edith "Dafo" Woodford-Grimes - a Witch

Doreen "Red Pen" Valiente - a Witch

The Narrator - an Overly Honest Occultist

Silver RavenWolf - an Ass

Scene One: A Hotel, 1947

Crowley: Blergh. I am dying, and everything has more or less gone to shit. Also, pretty much all my followers are crazy, useless, or dead.

*Fuller, Parsons, Hubbard, and assorted Crazy, Useless and Dead Thelemites wave through the window. Crowley throws a book at them, and they scatter. There is a knock on the door.*

Crowley: Enter!

*Enter Crowther and Gardner.*

Crowther: Evening, Al. Here's the chap that I wanted you to meet.

Gardner: Hello, Al. I'm Gerald Gardner, Royal Arch Mason and naturist, and I would like to join your cult.

Crowley: Which one, I have, like, eight?

Gardner: The err... Ordo Templi... um... *reads smudge on back of hand* Origami.

Crowley: *shrugs* close enough. I hear you're a witch or something.

Gardner: Yep.

Crowley: Can you prove it?

Gardner: Certainly. *produces puppet of Dorothy Clutterbuck* This is the woman who initiated me, who I most certainly have not just made up.

Crowther: *speaking through the puppet as Gardner moves his hand* I an Gorothy Gluttercuck and I acsolutely will attest to Goctor Gardner geing a witch. We gid nagic and stocked the Nazis grom invaging ang everything.

Crowley: Aah, Frau Sprengel, good to hear from you again.

*Gardner and Crowther look at each other, and shrug.*

Crowther: Huh?

Crowley: Never mind, I think that joke's going to be in a later post. Anyway, whatever, you appear to be quarter-competent. Think of a number.

Gardner: Err... seven?

Crowley: Sure. *scribbles something on the back of an envelope, hands it to Gardner* Congratulations, welcome to the 7th degree of the OTO.

Gardner: What does that mean?

Crowley: [This OTO grade secret removed on legal advice]

Gardner: *aghast* Really? But that's anatomically impossible!

Crowley: Only if you don't lubricate the kazoo. And here's a writ of authorisation for you to start up a new OTO lodge. *Hands over another piece of paper*

Gardner: *confusedly reading the document* This is literally the title deeds to a field in Surrey.

Crowley: Turn it over.

Gardner: *does so; reads from document* "Do what thou wilt shall be the law, We Baphomet X degree Ordo Templi Orientis, Sovereign Grandmaster General of all English Speaking Countries of the Earth do hereby Authorise our beloved son Scire, (Dr. GB Gardner), Prince of Jerusalem, to constitute a camp of the Ordo Templi Orentis in the degree of Minerval. Love is the Law, Love Under Will. Witness my hand and seal, Baphomet X." Thanks, Al!

Crowley: Let's face it, you can't do any worse than that idiot *points out of window, to where Kenneth Grant is performing some kind of ridiculous Black Mass*

Grant: Ia! Ia! Hail Yog-Sothoth!

Gardner: I'll certainly try.

Crowley: Thanks. And now, I'm afraid I'm dreadfully sorry but I've got some very important trolling to attend to. I'm going to see if it is actually possible to scandalise Brighton.

*Crowley dies. His funeral is, indeed, quite scandalous*

Scene Two: Outside Parliament, 1951

Brooks: And t'Witchcraft Act of 1735 has now been repealed.

Spiritualists, Witches and the Like: Yay!

Gardner: At last! Now I can complete my dream of moving to the Isle of Man and opening a museum!

Williamson: At last! Now I can complete my dream of moving to the Isle of Man and opening a museum!

*Gardner and Williamson look at each other, and grin*

Gardner: I see the beginnings of a beautiful friendship...

Williamson: Indeed, I see no way that this could go wrong. Let us open a museum together!

Scene Three: A Museum, 1952

Williamson: This has all gone terribly wrong, and it's your fault. I'm going back to England.

Gardner: Bugger. How didn't I see this coming?

Williamson: Unrelatedly, ever noticed how, like, 90% of occultists have worked for some manner of intelligence agency at some point?

*The Ghost of Dr John Dee fades into view and waves*

Scene Four: The house of Edith Woodford-Grimes, 1952

Gardner: Aah, hello Doreen, and welcome to the Bricket Wood Coven. I see you have met Edith, my fellow witch from the New Forest Coven, which-was-totally-the-last-remnant-of-an-ancient-witch-cult-and-not-something-made-up-by-some-bored-Rosicrucians-honest.

Woodford-Grimes: *resignedly, with the puppet of Dorothy Clutterbuck* It's totally true. Ask Nargaret Nurray.

Valiente: Thank you, Uncle Gerald. I'd like to join your cult.

Gardner: Good good. Tell me, how are you with nudity?

Valiente: Fine, I guess?

Gardner: How about... rope.

Valiente: Er, sure...

Gardner: Flogging?

Valiente: I...

Woodford-Grimes: Gerald, is this an actual coven or one of those "Specialist Clubs"...

Gardner: Yes. Now, Doreen, how about knives?

Woodford-Grimes: Sod this. I quit. *Drops the Clutterbuck puppet, storms out*

Gardner: Bugger. How didn't I see this coming?

Valiente: Um...

Gardner: Never mind all that. Blah blah, I initiate you into the Seeeecrets of Witchcraft. Here's your complementary Book of Shadows. *He hands Valiente a large leather-bound tome*

Valiente: *flicking through the tome* Ooh, this is intere... wait, this is literally a copy of Crowley's "Liber AL vel Legis".

Gardner: *whistling innocently* No it isn't.

Valiente: Yes it is. You've literally crossed out "Nuit" and written "Aradia" in this bit.

Gardner: *grabbing the book back* No! Total coincidence! Can't prove a thing! Authentic ancient document, very sacred.

Valiente: It was written in the margins. In crayon.

Gardner: Look, nobody else has noticed yet, so let's just keep it between us, shall we?

Valiente: Fine. But at least let me rewrite it so it's a little less... Crowley.

Gardner: Deal.

Scene Five: A coven gathering, 1957

Valiente: Gerald, we need to talk about all this ridiculous publicity-seeking.

Gardner: Sorry, can we talk about this later? I'm running late for my interview with Witching Today magazine...

Valiente: Gerald. This is an intervention. We're worried about you. Also, I'm High Priestess now, so you're probably meant to listen to me.

Gardner: Urgh, whatever. Make it quick.

Valiente: I've written these proposed rules of the Craft, which I would like you to read... *hands over a sheaf of papers* Now, these are just a draft, but...

Gardner: *chucking the papers over his shoulder* Pft, never mind with that. I've got the ancient and authentic Wiccan Laws here, which say that you're wrong. *He reaches into his pocket, and hands a piece of paper to Valiente*

Valiente: *reading* "Item One: Doreen is wrong, and also she smells." Seriously?

Gardner: Remarkably prescient, the ancients.

Valiente: This is literally written on the back of a gas bill.

Gardner: As is traditional.

Valiente: In crayon.

Gardner: Sacred crayon.

Valiente: Whatever, fuck this shit. I quit. *storms off*

Gardner: Bugger. How didn't I see this coming?

Scene Six: A Pub, 2016

Narrator: And things pretty much spiraled out from there. Doreen Valiente got involved with various other Gardnerian offshoots, such as Cochrane's Craft, and continued to go down the "anything but Crowley" route. Various other Gardnerians like Alex Sanders and Raymond Buckland developed their own variant traditions, which crossbred with various other ceremonial magic groups and New Age movements. Sooner or later, "Wicca" became near synonymous with paganism, much to the consternation of the few remaining "True" Gardnerian initiates. But nobody really paid any attention to them, especially after Janet and Stewart Farrar published the vast majority of Gardner's Book of Shadows - the core texts of Wicca - in the 1970's. There are a few claims that there is a "secret" doctrine of Gardnerian texts that have never been published openly - which, in all likelihood, are probably variations on a theme of OTO doctrine. And then, there are people like this...

*Enter Silver RavenWolf*

Silver RavenWolf: One cannot be a Satanic Witch, because Witches do not believe in Satan! Society has encouraged the negative view of menstruation that has many feeling weak, tired and disorientated because they think they are supposed to feel this way! Astarte is a Greek fertility goddess! Lilith was a Star Woman who bred with Adam!

*As she speaks, the ground begins vibrating*

Narrator: Those are all actual quotes, by the way. Now, what's that rumbling noise?

Crowley: *speaking as a disembodied voice, spinning rapidly under the ground* DAMN IT RAVENWOOOOLF....

Fin.

The Locusts of Control

A friend and co-conspirator of mine linked me to a rather interesting article in the New Yorker today, which got me thinking about the ways in which we conceptualize the degree of control we have over our lives, and how belief and culture shape these.

The concept of a locus of control is a valuable one when it comes to thinking about the psychology of health, politics, religion and so on. The brainchild of the fantastically named Julian B Rotter, the theory describes loci of control as either being internal, signifying that one believes one's actions and circumstances are generally under one's own control, or external, and beyond one's control. Rotter's I-E scale is one way of measuring one's belief in the internal or external nature of one's locus of control - not the best one, admittedly, as it conflates a number of concepts, so is better described as a measure of one's assessment of societal loci of control.

There is a certain amount of evidence that having an internal locus of control is associated with a more "healthy" psychological state (whatever that means), and in particular with better outcomes in certain areas, such as smoking cessation and academic performance.

On an esoteric level, it is clear that the practice of ceremonial magick relies upon a conception of one's locus of control being internal - leaving aside, for the moment, discussions about the nature of ego-death and the interminable question of spirit guides, augoeides, Holy Guardian Angels and the like. The magician positions themselves as the fulcrum of the universe, and then acts by applying force through whatever method they choose. On this level, one might consider an internalised locus of control as being a factor in the Law of Attraction.

It is perhaps interesting to note the tendency that certain worldviews have on conceptualizing the general locus of control as being external. Indeed, the greater part of the philosophy and science of the historical-conceptual era that in Thelemic jargon is referred to as the "Aeon of Osiris" does exactly this. Consider how the ultimate formulation of Christianity and of materialistic science completely abolish the possibility of an internal locus of control - through the creation of an omnipotent God beyond all human understanding and morality, that punishes and redeems on His whim alone as in Calvinism; or through the models of biological determinism which reduce the human condition to nothing more than the interaction of neurotransmitters. Both are inimical to free will; both tend towards the creation of a kind of learned helplessness as an ultimate outcome.

"Oh, and we should have nuked the middle east into a
desolate wasteland as a response to 9/11... because science."
- Satoshi Kanazawa, alleged scientist

This is never applied evenly throughout society - indeed, one might see many social structures as dividing and classifying individuals into whether or not they are permitted to have an internal locus of control. All systems of oppression could be seen as taking their roots, or at least their justifications, from this fact. Consider the way in which the oft-dubious discipline of evolutionary psychology is practically a byword for misogyny and rape apologia (CW: misogyny and rape apologia, obviously), or the "scientific" racism that produced drapetomania and which still tiptoes around the fringes of scientific respectability - the theme that can be seen as running between all these examples is that people within oppressed groups are seen as not having the same intellectual or social capacity for having an internal locus of control as those of the dominant groups.
It has been noted that there is something of a political divide in the loci of control - those with more typically right-wing views tends to have a more internal locus of control, where as left-wingers tend towards a more external one - though this is by no means a simple relationship. It may be better to think of the difference between personal loci of control ("I am free to act" vs "I am controlled by outside forces") and societal loci of control ("people should be free to act" vs "people should be controlled by outside forces") - in such areas there is often a great degree of doublethink.

Authoritarians of all stripes seek to impose a paradigm upon society whereby the societal locus of control is externalised, whilst social liberals and anti-authoritarians tend towards a more internalised societal locus of control. Equally, self-styled Libertarians tend towards externalising the societal locus of control in much the same way that authoritarians do - creating the paradigm of Market-as-God - whilst at the same time preaching the doctrine of personal internalisation. Consider as an example of this the politician who promotes entrepreneurship and personal responsibility (personal internalisation) whilst implementing policies which lead to a decrease in social mobility and personal economic freedom of the masses (societal externalisation).

Even within the progressive left, which arguably sees as an end goal the internalisation of control, there can be seen some remnants of the externalist viewpoint - mostly as a Shibboleth whereby attempting to advocate for the internalisation of personal loci is seen as elitism and privilege. Indeed, this can often be the case - the well-meaning ally coming up with some preposterous rubbish about self-empowerment that entirely misunderstands the situation is practically a trope. However, this does also possibly point towards one of the reasons that such movements often struggle with significant inertia - the very idea that one might be able to change one's situation is somewhat taboo, and thus a sort of resigned apathy is the inevitable result.

It seems to me that there is a certain amount of reconciliation that needs to be made between the two positions of internal and external loci of control, recognising the external factors which influence one and simultaneously acknowledging one's capacity for action. As for societal loci, I shall end by quoting without comment Aleister Crowley (or Aiwass, or Whatever):

"Do as thou wilt shall be all of the Law." - Liber AL vel Legis, I:40
"Love is the Law, Love under Will." - Liber AL vel Legis, I:57