This article is from a little over a month back, but for I'm just seeing it now. Maybe it's the law of attraction or something, because just like yesterday's post this one is about another Christian media host who is spouting ridiculous nonsense. Donald Trump complains about "fake news" all the time, but the news that is the fakest of the fake comes from folks in evangelical Christian media - most of whom support him.
For today's post, I'm going to point out that prominent Democrats don't drink blood and cast evil spells. Really? That I have to explain that to anyone is pretty amazing. When I differ with Republicans it's on policy - it's no secret that I'm a lefty and that therefore I don't vote for them. In fact, if I'm a single-issue voter it would be that I'm an anti-theocrat who won't support any candidate who caters to the religious right.
But while I can't stand Trump and do make fun of him on a pretty regular basis, you'll never see me posting that, say, he sacrifices hobos or eats babies. Not only are those sorts of allegations toxic to all reasonable political debate, there apparently really are people out there who are stupid enough to believe that they are literally true.
Yes, as a Thelemite I can tell you there's nothing Thelemic about that at all. Abramavic is a performance artist, and as far as I know not a magical practitioner of any kind. As a matter of fact, if the Clintons were Thelemites I would like them more - but still probably not enough to support their brand of DLC neoliberalism.
And let me add that I do get tired of defending the Clintons, which I do here from time to time. I'm not some sort of fanboy at all - in the Democratic primaries I supported Obama in 2008 and Sanders in 2016 because I have some significant policy disagreements with that aforementioned DLC neoliberalism. And I was disappointed when Obama, who ran as more progressive in 2008, supported more of the same.
But anyway, it also is true that the Clintons have also attracted far more than their fair share of rumor-mongering and goofy allegations from their political opponents. I keep posing this question - if the Clintons really do go around murdering anybody who is a political liability, as has been alleged, why is Anthony Weiner still alive? Now in the political arena they have done some of the things they've been accused of, but if you look into that it's still a relatively small percentage only because so much bullshit keeps getting circulated.
The deal with Hillary Clinton's health scare was that she caught pneumonia on the campaign trail. If you've ever had pneumonia, you'll know that it's a weird, sneaky illness. It's like you have a cold, but your lung capacity slowly drops and you get the point where you get out of breath climbing a couple stairs. And the cure isn't drinking blood, it's antibiotics - and not magical ones either.
In fact, Wiles' comment about blood transfusions alludes back to a rumor that circulated about conservative libertarian Peter Thiel, which also turned out to be false. Thiel wasn't actually doing it - nobody is, it's not FDA approved and therefore is illegal - but rather was interested in researching the possibility of slowing aging with blood transfusions to work because some animal models look promising.
I'll even go so far as to say this. What people need to understand is that in today's age of social media, anything that generates outrage, true or false, is going to get more traction than the less-outrageous truth. So this is a key critical thinking skill - when you see something outrageous, research it before you react. Usually the truth is a lot less sensational.
For today's post, I'm going to point out that prominent Democrats don't drink blood and cast evil spells. Really? That I have to explain that to anyone is pretty amazing. When I differ with Republicans it's on policy - it's no secret that I'm a lefty and that therefore I don't vote for them. In fact, if I'm a single-issue voter it would be that I'm an anti-theocrat who won't support any candidate who caters to the religious right.
But while I can't stand Trump and do make fun of him on a pretty regular basis, you'll never see me posting that, say, he sacrifices hobos or eats babies. Not only are those sorts of allegations toxic to all reasonable political debate, there apparently really are people out there who are stupid enough to believe that they are literally true.
On the Wednesday edition of his TruNews TV show, Wiles mentioned that Hillary Clinton is looking much better these days than she did when she was on the 2016 campaign trail.
“Physically, she’s looking much better,” Wiles said to his co-hosts. “She must be drinking a lot of blood. … I mean, because she’s definitely getting transfusions because she’s stronger.”
Wiles went to say that Clinton was “definitely pretty weak back there in 2016.” “That woman was falling apart. Obviously, they’ve been taking her to a lot of spirit cooking events, and she’s been revived.”
As New York Magazine pointed out back in 2016, Wiles’ sinister interpretation of “spirit cooking” first debuted on InfoWars, which referred to it as “a sacrament in the religion of Thelema” founded by Aleister Crowley.
In reality, spirit cooking was conceived by world-renowned performance artist Marina Abramovic, and it “included absurdist recipes featuring such ingredients as ‘fingertips of the artist’ and ‘a ruby that has been soaking for three days.'”
Yes, as a Thelemite I can tell you there's nothing Thelemic about that at all. Abramavic is a performance artist, and as far as I know not a magical practitioner of any kind. As a matter of fact, if the Clintons were Thelemites I would like them more - but still probably not enough to support their brand of DLC neoliberalism.
And let me add that I do get tired of defending the Clintons, which I do here from time to time. I'm not some sort of fanboy at all - in the Democratic primaries I supported Obama in 2008 and Sanders in 2016 because I have some significant policy disagreements with that aforementioned DLC neoliberalism. And I was disappointed when Obama, who ran as more progressive in 2008, supported more of the same.
But anyway, it also is true that the Clintons have also attracted far more than their fair share of rumor-mongering and goofy allegations from their political opponents. I keep posing this question - if the Clintons really do go around murdering anybody who is a political liability, as has been alleged, why is Anthony Weiner still alive? Now in the political arena they have done some of the things they've been accused of, but if you look into that it's still a relatively small percentage only because so much bullshit keeps getting circulated.
The deal with Hillary Clinton's health scare was that she caught pneumonia on the campaign trail. If you've ever had pneumonia, you'll know that it's a weird, sneaky illness. It's like you have a cold, but your lung capacity slowly drops and you get the point where you get out of breath climbing a couple stairs. And the cure isn't drinking blood, it's antibiotics - and not magical ones either.
In fact, Wiles' comment about blood transfusions alludes back to a rumor that circulated about conservative libertarian Peter Thiel, which also turned out to be false. Thiel wasn't actually doing it - nobody is, it's not FDA approved and therefore is illegal - but rather was interested in researching the possibility of slowing aging with blood transfusions to work because some animal models look promising.
I'll even go so far as to say this. What people need to understand is that in today's age of social media, anything that generates outrage, true or false, is going to get more traction than the less-outrageous truth. So this is a key critical thinking skill - when you see something outrageous, research it before you react. Usually the truth is a lot less sensational.
Scott, i have one quick question non related to the topic.
ReplyDeleteDo you think burning my petitions and charms/paper amulets and keeping the ashes in pots is a way to keep the spell? Or will it weaken or cancel?
Thank you
That is actually a question that I have seem some pretty divergent answers to. Personally I might do this with petitions but not with amulets or talismans. My feeling is that when you make a talisman, the effect is dependent upon the physical object and if you destroy that object you break the effect.
ReplyDeleteA petition is different, though. Writing out a charge and burning it shouldn't change the spell. I can see an argument that it sends the charge more firmly into the spirit world or something, kind of like hos the Chinese believe you can burn paper replicas of things to send them to their deceased ancestors in the spirit world.
Generally, though, I don't burn petitions either. I often deliver them to spirits verbally and don't write them up ahead of time. Really, the best way to get an answer for this is to try it with and without burning and see what the difference is.
Thanks for always being helpful, Scott.
ReplyDeleteI am not very comfortable with having legible petitions indoors, fearing that someone will see, and even causing the person to become astrally involved with the energy of magic.
Do you find it valid to use tarot or pendulum for this answer?
I do not think that burning a petition, or, really, getting rid of it any other way is going to cause a problem, and I can understand you not wanting anyone to come across it.
ReplyDeleteThe written petition is just a description of what you want the spell to do. It's not generally a talismanic object that is automatically linked to the spell. You can create something like that if, for example, you wanted to create some sort of written contract or pact with a spirit, but you have to explicitly do that and it's not necessary for most magical operations or spirit work.
I've found that both Tarot and pendulum can be valid divinatory methods for all sorts of questions. I imagine both would work here as well.