Public Interpretation is a Writer’s Responsibility

There is quite a dust-up going on in the Golden Dawn community, and I am not particularly interested in getting too deep into it. However, the source of the controversy is the latest book that Nick Farrell has writen about one of the founders of the Golden Dawn, S. L. MacGregor Mathers. I will admit that Mathers was quite a controversial figure in his time, and like all human beings, he had great virtues and terrible failings. Like most founders of occult organizations, he was a complex man who is now both honored and maligned by modern posterity. 

Ever since Ellic Howe’s book “Magicians of the Golden Dawn” and Francis King’s book “Ritual Magic in England,” it has been fashionable to paint Mathers as a sociopath and to declare that the Golden Dawn was based on deception and ruled by tyranny. Of course, my favorite book about the Golden Dawn’s history is still the one penned by Ithell Colquhoun, entitled “Sword of Wisdom: MacGregor Mathers and the Golden Dawn.” I truly wish that this book was republished in a paper back, since it is one of the few books that deals with the various personalities of the Golden Dawn and its various offshoot orders in a fair and compassionate manner. I am lucky that I own a copy of this book, and it’s one of my treasures.

Ms. Colquhoun wrote her book in manner that she did because she was an occultist and a one time member of the order. Ellic Howe and Francis King were never members of the Golden Dawn, and in fact, Mr. Howe was a historian with little compassion or actual sympathy for the order or its various members. Francis King’s relationship with occultism was very complex. While he managed to write and publish some excellent occult books, he also delighted in reporting on the most salacious and scandalous aspects of the modern occult movement. To this day, I don’t really know if Mr. King ever belonged to any occult organization, so if he wasn’t very sympathetic to the various founders of western occultism, it shouldn’t be too surprising.

Therefore, if someone is a member of an occult organization, you would think that they would be sympathetic to their subject matter if they happened to write a history of their order. However, the latest writer attempting to write the history of the Golden Dawn, and to make a name for himself as both the cutting edge historian and insightful occultist, is Nick Farrell. In his latest book, “King Over the Water,” he has sought to enlighten the public about Mathers and his various failings while attempting to exonerate the order and its teachings. This is quite a balancing act, to be sure. To quote the advertising on this book as it is marketed in Amazon dot com:

“In King Over the Water, Golden Dawn magician Nick Farrell paints a picture of the founders of the Golden Dawn becoming out of their depth as the Order began to create magicians. Rather than painting Mathers as an eccentric genius, Farrell sees him as an autocratic fantasist. He sees Mathers struggling to keep up as his students rapidly became better than him at the system he created, and shows how he was unable to raise his game to help the Order develop further. ”

You can read over this advertisement and it becomes pretty obvious that the book seeks to show Mathers in a particularly bad light. Instead of giving him credit for having founded the order and written most of its lore, he instead seeks to show that the lore stands above and beyond Mathers, who wasn’t apparently up to the job of building a comprehensive system of magickal occultism. I had judged this book to be just another a “hatchet job” on Mathers, so I haven’t bothered to purchase this book yet, but maybe I will so I can at least do a modest job of critiquing it. I am not an expert when it comes to the history of the Golden Dawn and its various affiliates, but I know the basic history. 

The Golden Dawn was founded around 116 years ago, so attempting to investigate the intentions and motives of its founder ends up being nothing more than a guessing game. There are historical records to be certain, but the individuals are now long dead, and their life stories are fragmentary at best, or in the case of Mathers, there are still a lot of mysteries. I believe that it would be better to honor the founders of the Golden Dawn for their unwitting contribution to western occultism and the practice of magick rather than attempting to reveal them as failed human beings. After all, we all have virtues and flaws, and we all accomplish some things and fail to accomplish others in our all too brief of a lifespan.

However, one thing that Nick Farrell did write up in his book that has particularly offended the active organization and honored initiates of the Alpha et Omega is an ambiguous line that he wrote in his book. David Griffin has quoted that part of the book which he found quite offensive, taking some sentences that were actually in two paragraphs and putting them together. However, after examining the actual two paragraphs, I still believe that David presented the basic idea of what was being said. The wording is very ambiguous, and of course, no names are named, so it’s up to the reader to determine the actual meaning implied. 

Whenever an author uses such phrases it’s because he or she doesn’t want to get sued for libel, or at least create a greater controversy. David and his colleagues at the one and only Alpha et Omega operating in the world (as far as I know) have taken this to mean that Nick is calling their organization a “cult.” Here is a paraphrase of the what was said in Nick’s book, and what has gotten the A+O crowd royally pissed off. 

“By the end of the 20th Century this availability of [Golden Dawn] information enabled various reenactment groups to be established. Some of these groups are sound... Unfortunately, other groups border on religious or political cults, typically centered on a single leader.... Typically such groups claim a link to that section of the Golden Dawn Order known as the Alpha et Omega or AO.”

 

I don’t know about you, but if someone wrote something like that about my organization, even if it was couched in ambiguity, I would be quite upset. Nick has denied that he was singling out David’s organization, and has said that he was referring to the recently fallen GD patriarch, Bob Zink and his group. Whatever Nick Farrell’s intention when he wrote these two paragraphs, the interpretation is wholly in the provenance of the reader, since he elected to use innuendo instead of clearly stating his meaning. If the A+O organization is upset at what Nick wrote, then they are fully justified, in my opinion.

As a writer, I am responsible for how people interpret my words, regardless of my intentions. I might say something that I consider innocuous in one of my blog articles or in one of my books, but if a group of people find it offensive, then I am responsible for their umbrage. I can ignore it, or attempt to explain my meaning, or just wade into the conflict and call my detractors names and start a flame-war. The sensible thing to do is to apologize and to write a retraction. I had to do that act of humble contrition on more than one occasion when I wrote something which was erroneous or managed to anger some of my readers. This can happen to any writer, and whether one’s intention was pure and the offending writing was an honest mistake, it doesn’t really matter. You wrote it and so therefore, you own it. It’s just a fact of life that anyone who seeks to be a writer has to deal with this kind of public backlash at some point in their career. The best advice is to be compassionate and seek to amend the wrong if possible.

However, instead of attempting to mitigate the anger that some in the Golden Dawn community felt about what Nick Farrell had written, he has steadfastly refused to take any responsibility, and in fact has resorted to calling his detractors “Brown Shirts,” as if to say that they represent some kind of fascist wing of the Golden Dawn community. That was like throwing gasoline on a brush fire, and it only made things a lot worse. Not only did Mr. Farrell write a hatchet job book on Mathers, but he also insulted some of the members of an operating second order faction. Why anyone would do this is beyond my comprehension. The notoriety will undoubtedly sell more books than what might have happened without the controversy, but the legacy that Nick Farrell is leaving to the rest of us is anything but positive and constructive.

Of course, to deal with this issue, David Griffin has decided to engage in some melodrama and a bit of tongue in cheek, talking about a Godfather-like conspiracy operating behind the scenes. (The only real conspiracy is hubris, personal vanity and egotism.) Some months ago David was comparing Farrell and Zelewski to the Star Trek Borg, which I might add was a humorous way of dealing with individuals who had caused him no small outrage. I guess making fun of your adversaries is better than trying to somehow silence them. If the propaganda against David was correct, then we could expect a mafia style assassination of his detractors, but of course, that won’t really happen. (We won’t get a blog article telling us that Nick Farrell sleeps with the fishes.) What has really happened is a number of adepts in the A+O are quite upset at their treatment by Farrell and company. They are outraged by the slander and the constant attacks against their organization. They aren’t guilty of starting any of these altercations, but they are quite zealous in defending themselves. Who can blame them for that?

As for myself, I am watching this all happen on the internet through the venue of various Yahoo groups and blog articles. There are those who are defending Mr. Farrell and showing their disdain and disklike for David Griffin and his associates, while others are defending their right to practice their lore in peace and goodwill.

All of this is very simple to sort out. The A+O has declared that it is in contact with the same group of secret chiefs that Mathers was originally in contact with. Having met the gate-keepers of this clandestine organization, I can say for a fact that I believe that their claim is legitimate. That really shouldn’t matter to any other faction of the Golden Dawn. They can seek out a connection to this group, or find their own connections, or use the various available inner plane contacts to develop their own lore. There isn’t any need to defame the A+O for making this claim, and there is plenty of room in the world for more than one faction of the Golden Dawn to peacefully coexist.

Still, in order for there to be peace in the Golden Dawn community, various individuals need to refrain from writing and publishing negative broadsides about other factions in the overall organization - or for that matter, writing hatchet jobs on the founders. Until that happens, then it seems obvious that there will be a lot of friction and occasional flame-war flare-ups.

I find this overall state of the Golden Dawn community very sad and disheartening. Instead of engaging in a war of words, I think that it would be better to teach the public (and other magicians, such as myself) about the benefits and social obligations of being an initiate and adept of the Golden Dawn. In time, even this latest flame-war will die down, but I hope it does end soon. Maybe if Mr. Farrell would apologize for what he wrote about the A+O (regardless of his intentions), that would be a good place to start, in my opinion.

Frater Barrabbas 

Summer Solstice Thoughts

Summer is now officially here in the great tundra that is Minnesota, even though the Solstice is not yet arrived. The days alternate between cool and rainy, perfectly sunny and cool, and hot and steamy, with little balance in between. It’s hard to predict what the rest of the summer is going to be like at this juncture, but perhaps it might be warmer than last year. I have some plans for getting out on the water this summer, and experiencing the delights of paddling a kayak or a paddle board - we shall see. Summer days forces me to alternate between working outside in the yard and the grove, as well as keeping things maintained indoors. I have a lot of writing projects and work related tasks to complete during this period as well. Half of the year is already done, and there is much that needs to be accomplished before the short period of warm weather retreats in the face of the oncoming winter. Harsh winters make the summer days precious and infectious with their joy and zeal for spending time outside - even if it is hot and sweltering, with a very generous supply of gnats, mosquitoes, ticks and deer flies. Despite those annoying pests, I intend on enjoying the summer as best as I can, knowing that as the poets say: “and summer’s lease hath all to short a stay.”

During this month I will be presenting a series on the history of the Qabbalah and also a continuation of an analysis of the Twenty-two Pathways. This will likely take up most of the posts for the rest of this month, but I will seek to put in my two cents on various controversies and issues as they come up. I have already completed my articles on the methodologies that I use to perform invocations and evocations - hope you found them useful. Speaking of putting in my two cents, there is an issue that I would like to discuss here, particularly since it concerns a couple of posts that I made in the past.

One such scuffle is about a rather compelling issue that is being debated within the blogsphere, and it is the continuing exchange between David Griffin and his faction of the HOGD, and the Australian and New Zealand contingent, headed by Nick Farrell and Peregrin, with some occasional background heckling from Pat Zelewski. These folks are still arguing over the two articles that I posted back in March, where I discussed the three perspectives that seem to occupy and consume various individuals within the esoteric communities of the Western Mystery Tradition. Those three perspectives revolve around the practices associated with traditionalism, reconstructionism and revisionism. Often times, there can be a mixture of perspectives, such as with my own personal practice, where I engage in two paths simultaneously, which is Alexandrian traditional witchcraft and eclectic ritual magick. There is also the perspective of eclectic pragmatism. Still, I think that most people approach their practice in a pragmatic manner, using what works, discarding what doesn’t, and revising what is cumbersome and ineffective. You can find my two articles here, and here.

The essential significance of this battle royal between the above named combatants is really about whether there can be any kind of traditional approach within the Golden Dawn, or whether it is a defunct organization that can only be approximated through a reconstructive effort. I believe that both approaches are valid, and in my above two previous articles, I never said that traditionalism was better or more valid than reconstructionism. However, one thing that has been pointed out in the comments is that taking one’s approach in an aggressive manner can be hurtful and deleterious to others who may be operating within the same lore, but taking a very different perspective. Is the Golden Dawn able to support both a reconstructionist and a traditionalist approach? I believe that it is, and so both factions should be happy to operate unmolested within their sphere of influence and practice. However, when one organization attempts to attack the foundational creed of the other organization, that’s when there is trouble for the whole community.

In my second article I took a certain amount of umbrage to Nick Farrell because instead of being the good reconstructionist (in my opinion), and at some point accepting and believing in the myths and legends of the founders and their lore, he instead seeks to systematically destroy, defame and snuff out the myths and legends about Mathers and the GD organization, through which he founded his own version. Farrell has also taken it upon himself to publish material associated with the A+O inner court of the GD that could only be considered confidential and oathbound. The reason why he is doing these various nefarious deeds seems to be beyond my comprehension, since they not only hurt the Golden Dawn as a whole, but they even damage the credibility of the organization that Nick purports to represent. I liken these actions to someone poisoning a well so that no one is able to take a drink from the source. It is pernicious and shows that Nick Farrell really wants to hurt the entire Golden Dawn community. I, as an outsider, have found this activity to be disturbing and even a bit hateful.

Why do I even care? As I have said, I am an outsider to the Golden Dawn. Yet my reason for caring is that Mathers, Westcott, and even Crowley and Regardie are my heroes. They were flawed men with whom some might find fault and even discover mistakes in their work - some have even been vilified! Even so, I feel a great debt to them all because without their writings and creations, I would not have been able to invent the system of magick that I currently use and enjoy. So for that reason, I honor these individuals and feel a great esteem for the organizations that they founded. It’s my hope that someday I can perhaps believe that I have accomplished even a small part of what they were able to do in their lifetimes. I am humbled by the product of their work and I acknowledge the gift that they gave to the world, and to me. We can talk about their errors, vices, follies and we can disparage them, but they are luminaries in the history of magick, and we are but small men and women who are seeking to find a way in the world guided by the light that they have provided us.

As a traditional Alexandrian witch, what would my associates think of me if I wrote books defaming Alex Sanders, declaring that he wasn’t ever initiated and elevated as a High Priest into the Gardnerian tradition, and that he stole a Book of Shadows from his sponsoring coven, and from that, illicitly started his own tradition? If I said that Alex was a fraud and that his whole tradition was a poor and illegitimate simulacrum of Gardnerian witchcraft, and that because of this I felt compelled to publish my Book Shadows and other lineage related materials, I suspect that my fellow Alexandrians would be appalled at my words and actions. I would be branded an oath breaker and cast out of the tradition, and few would want to have anything to do with me. This has happened to other individuals in the craft, and I don’t need to mention any names at this point. I also believe that if I publicly stated that my tradition was a scam which Alex pulled off for a gullible craft hungry community, who would want to receive an initiation from me into that so-called “fake” tradition? Amazingly, these accusation have been made by a minority of Gardnerians against Alex Sanders and the Alexandrian tradition of witchcraft.

Of course, Alex Sanders was completely legitimate, even if the story about his grandmother initiating him wasn’t true. Alex was a real and true witch, and the early photographs and films that captured his work demonstrate how he sought, in an innovative manner, to merge high magick with practical earth based witchcraft. Alex Sanders is another supremely great hero of mine. Was he a perfect exemplar of enlightened practice and behavior - absolutely not! He was a complex individual, with virtues and flaws all mixed together. I never got to meet Alex, and for that I am deeply regretful, since he was one great occultist, witch and magician that I could have, and would have, loved to meet.

As an Alexandrian traditionalist, I safeguard my oathbound secrets and lore, whether or not any of it has ever been published or could be found on the internet. It is an important matter of honor, integrity and ethics, and these are the very qualities that I hold sacred, which I feel are very important to one following such a traditionalist path. Therefore, I can relate to David Griffin and Frater S.R. who act and behave in a similar manner with their organization of the Golden Dawn. However, I have found that Nick Farrell appears to lack any of these qualities, and he doesn’t care if he offends or hurts the practices, sensibilities or the beliefs of those in his community who are faithfully following a traditional perspective.

Just recently, Peregrin has entered into the fray with a recent article, which you can find here. He has taken issue with both David and S.R., who have translated their anger and hurt into humor by comparing Farrell and Zelewski with the Star Trek enemies called the Borg. I suspect that nearly everyone knows who the Borg are, so I don’t have to waste any time defining them. I can’t really blame them for making this analogy, since it was a way of dealing with what they see as an aggressive form of reconstructionism, where Farrell’s faction is seeking to completely negate the foundation upon which the Golden Dawn is established. As I have stated, these actions not only hurt other factions of the Golden Dawn, but they also discredit Nick and his organization as well. Still, Nick continues this line of aggressive behavior in his writings, and he appears to be backed up by Pat Zelewski. Peregrin pretends to be impartial and declares that David and S.R. are guilty of behaving in bad faith and seeking to hurt Farrell’s reputation with a slanderous campaign of comparing him to the Borg. It would seem that Peregrin hasn’t been following all of the exchanges that have been going on between these two fractious factions, and I suspect that he doesn’t see the humor in this depiction, either. It’s done to deflect a real sense of outrage and anger, and I see that as constructive.

As an outsider, it would seem to me that Farrell is seeking to poison the well and ignore any credible critique of his recent published work, in fact he is arrogant and quite insulting about it. Of course, what Peregrin is really doing is just fanning the flames, which seems to be his habit.  He does this in such a manner that it becomes quite obvious that he cares nothing for the HOGD organization and what they are seeking to do, with their honorable efforts to re-establish a link with the secret chiefs and inaugurate a third order. Peregrin compares David to someone who wants to be the Pope of the Golden Dawn. Of course that is absurd, since he has to answer to others more elevated and advanced than himself - those secret chiefs, who are not secretive to him. David has obligations, both to those below him, and to those who are above him. If he has made some radical changes to his version Golden Dawn tradition, he has done so with their permission and guidance. Whether we believe that the secret chiefs are legitimate, I can state for a fact that they aren’t fake or imaginary. David doesn’t operate outside of his authority, since that authority is vested in him from others, and could be taken away just as easily.

I found Peregrin's long winded article to be somewhat convoluted and even a bit confusing. He conflates tradition with a small “t” with Tradition with a large “T,” and also goes outside of the narrow scope of my original posts, which were confined to esoteric organizations operating within the Western Mystery Tradition (with a capital “T”). I won’t go too deeply into critiquing this article, you can read it for yourself and see if my comments are reasonable. David Griffin has responded to Peregrin’s article rather quite well, and you can find his response here.

My final word on this whole issue (and that means that I will have nothing more to say about it) is that peace can reign between these different factions using different approaches and perspectives if Farrell will stop seeking to defame Mathers, declaring that the Golden Dawn is a fraudulent organization and cease from publishing sensitive and confidential materials. The damage has already been done, but I think that things can continue in a peaceful manner if Nick just stops acting in a cavalier manner and doing any more damage to the Golden Dawn’s reputation. We don’t need to see the secret documents of the A+O and we don’t need to treat Mathers in a completely disreputable manner. I have no interest in buying any of Nick Farrell’s books because I want to keep my heroes intact and held up high, even if, in reality, they were guilty of the sins of being imperfect human beings.

Frater Barrabbas  

More Thoughts On A Tale of Three Perspectives

Reconstructing a Golden Dawn Tradition?

My previous article on traditionalism, reconstructionalism and revisionism got a lot of mileage in the blogosphere lately, and seemed to answer some important questions about legitimacy and authenticity as well. I would like to use this article to briefly discuss some of the recent and relevant issues that my article seemed to encapsulate.

First off, there seems to be yet another dust up between Nick Farrell and his Golden Dawn tradition, and David Griffin and his Golden Dawn tradition. Noting the distinctions between the traditionalist and reconstructionist perspectives, it would seem that both Nick and David are talking at cross purposes with each other, and neither will ever find themselves in agreement. It has to do with whether the Golden Dawn is a fully revived living tradition, or whether it is a dead tradition that has been reconstructed from various sources to become a kind of living tradition. We will ignore some of Nick’s claims about the history of the order that have been shown to be quite erroneous, and instead focus on these two perspectives. You can see Nick’s article here, and David’s response, there.

If we are to accept what Nick Farrell is saying, then the Golden Dawn is truly a dead order, whose demise occurred when the mother temple collapsed and the Stella Matutina became moribund. Since Israel Regardie was supposedly only 5th degree, and never designated as a chief of that body (as far as I can tell), then the current branches of the Golden Dawn are based on what documents and materials that either Regardie published, or other sources of information that have subsequently come to light. Nick appears to say that all branches and factions of the Golden Dawn, since they no longer have any connection to the living tradition or the secret chiefs, are reconstructions of what that tradition might have been like if it have survived intact into the 21st century. Nick is clearly pushing a reconstructionist line, since he has stated that the Golden Dawn is discontinuous and headless, because it is bereft of its higher leadership (secret chiefs) and the third order lore.

Nick goes on to declare that the third order is a myth (one of many that he is seeking to completely debunk), and that secret chiefs and their ilk are completely irrelevant to the work. All lineages are suspect or false in the Golden Dawn, and that the warrants for the founding of the order were forged - it is, in this sense, a fake order. According to Nick, all we have left is the body of reconstructed lore, so the only relevant practice is the magickal rites and initiations encapsulated within that material. Of course, Nick will argue and negate anything that anyone might say that would contradict his belief that the current Golden Dawn is nothing more than a reconstruction. However, Nick is forgetting one very important feature about how one gives life to a reconstructed tradition.

In order to give life to a reconstructed tradition, you must believe in it as a thing unto itself, thus generating a kind of egregore. In many ways, a reconstructionist and a traditionalist meet at the point where the reconstructionist has assembled a spiritual system, then dubs it a viable and living tradition, and treats it with the same respect that one would accord a real tradition. A reconstructionist never says that his or her tradition is fake, but that it exists in a kind of metaphysical sense, “as if” it had never disappeared. There is a kind of passion in taking this perspective, but if reconstructionists don’t believe in the tradition that they have built, then it is still a dead tradition consisting of various assembled parts (with some missing), like some half finished Frankenstein monster laying on the operating table. Nick may have made the mistake of retaining the mind-set of the overly skeptical researcher who has rejected all of the myths of his adopted tradition, but others are probably not as foolish. I have no doubt that there are some Golden Dawn reconstructionists who have made the passage from critical researcher to true believer, where the myths have become real, the egregore has stirred to life, and the assembled system begins to function as a living one - although still headless. As Ben Whitmore has so eloquently said in his book “Trials of the Moon” about traditions (such as modern witchcraft and paganism) that they must “have not just myths, but history as well.” (Whitmore, p. 4) In other words, they must consist of both.

Nick’s role of nay-sayer and myth-busting iconoclast doesn’t help his cause of reconstructing a Golden Dawn tradition, since in order to give life to a reconstruction, one must emphatically believe in it. There is quite a lot of disagreement about what really happened during the founding of the Golden Dawn and about the source of its rituals and lore. Certainly, there isn’t an authentic history of the order that hasn’t been declared overly biased or poorly researched. Some would doubtlessly agree with what Nick is saying, and would believe that his claims of forgery, deceit and human folly are true. Yet suppose for a moment that the Golden Dawn rediscovered its roots and re-established the third order through the intercession of the secret chiefs. Would that not cause the Golden Dawn vehicle to be fully resuscitated into a viable and complete tradition?

This is precisely what David Griffin is claiming. Since I have met him and some of his associates, and privately talked with them about these subjects, I am inclined to believe that his claims are true. I may not agree with everything that David says or does, but in this matter, I believe that he is being completely honest and truthful. In the last twelve years, David Griffin has inexplicably found the source root of the Golden Dawn tradition and re-attached the “head” to the order so that it could fully function as a living and dynamic tradition. He has offered substantive proof and has declared that the entire second order of his faction has been modified so as to be in alignment with that current living tradition. What has been published by other branches of the Golden Dawn are mostly just a rehashing of the old documents and materials associated with the “dead” tradition, and supposedly, these documents and materials are not the same as what is used in the HOGD. Unfortunately, David can’t give any definitive proof, since that would violate his oaths, but enough has been shown to satisfy a reasonable inquiry - there’s obviously something there.

If we step back for a moment and admit to ourselves that even if what David is claiming is half true, than what he has presented to the Golden Dawn community is nothing less than a profoundly living, breathing tradition. That claim should have been embraced by the whole GD community, and the proof carefully examined and shared by all. It could have united the factions into a single organization, although retaining the various faction heads, but alas, individual egos prevailed and the flame-war of words and vicious litigation ensued. The opportunity for a Golden Dawn resurgence passed into oblivion, and now there are two perspectives amongst the Golden Dawn factions, one that’s a poor reconstruction (that only some believe in), and the other is a completely living tradition.

According to what Nick has declared in his recent blog, and what other leaders and members of the other reconstructionist factions have said, it would appear that what they are offering to the occult community is a sad testimonial to the Golden Dawn tradition - a headless corpse being passed off as a living thing.

Even a body must have a head or it’s just a decapitated corpse. To remedy that problem, some of the various faction chiefs have attempted to pass themselves off as the heads of their order, but they’re a poor substitute for the real thing. Three of those chiefs (I won’t name any names) never received any kind of third order initiation, and in fact, may have not received any kind of valid initiation in their respective traditions. So now we have a corpse, which has been barely resuscitated, modeling a kind of diminutive head, sort of like the comic characters Zippy the Pinhead or Popeye’s nemesis, Bluto.

Still, I have a problem with someone who is the supposed head of his order and who claims that the tradition he represents is fake and based on lies and deceit. It would be like the Pope declaring that he was really an agnostic, or the European Counsel of Religious Leaders announcing that organized religion was a farce. Unfortunately, pretending to have a living tradition that you don’t really believe in is the true farce. It boils down to the fact that you can’t occupy both sides of that argument - either you believe in your tradition (reconstructed or not) despite historical irregularities, or you don’t. Thus, I find Nick Farrell’s campaign self destructive and highly disingenuous. 

I think that we can easily see that choosing a living tradition over one that is a headless corpse is a wise decision. One thing that is equally clear is that if there is no third order and no secret chiefs, then the leaders of each reconstructed faction of the Golden Dawn are accountable to nobody, and oaths are easily set aside for the sake of self promotion and expediency. Conversely, if one is promoting an order that has a direct line to the secret chiefs and a body of third order adepts, then the outer head of that order is accountable for his actions and how he governs that organization. It also means that oaths are to be taken very seriously. I think that I would rather trust someone who is accountable to higher authorities than someone who is answerable to none. There’s a lot less chance of corruption and tyranny if the leaders are accountable for their actions.

What we have here is an never ending argument between traditionalists and reconstructionists in the Golden Dawn. It also centers on whether legitimacy or authenticity is important - but a living tradition has both. None of what I have said here about the different factions of the Golden Dawn indicates that any of the various parties in the squabble are somehow incapable of doing the work or acting like competent magicians. Still, it does allow those of us who are outsiders to judge the organizations that they are promoting, whether they realize it or not. 

The next point that I would like to discuss has to do with the article recently written by Ananael in his blog “Augoeides” about my article - you can find it here. I consider him to be a good friend, so I can comment on what he wrote and add my own two cents with a certain impunity. Ananael and I are both blatant revisionists, and we both consider that to be an optimal position in which to operate. Still, I wonder if he has ever met any bonafide reconstructionists, since I have found their work to be as sound and satisfying as my own. I must also give a certain high degree of respect to traditionalists, since like them, I also honor and respect a system of practice and belief that was given to me through initiation years ago.

Two points where I find that I differ with what Ananael said has to do with some minor adjustments to my declarations about traditionalists and reconstructionalists. Ananael has said that traditionalists are blinded by dogma because they are unable to change or amend their tradition. Also, he has said that reconstructionalists are required to carry archaic practices in their derived tradition, even if they would be considered illegal or socially reprehensible. I think that both of his opinions about the inherent flaws in the role of traditionalists and reconstructionists are over simplifications and need some further clarification.

Most traditions are reformed over time, and that is a fact of human existence; either they are reformed or they eventually fail. Nothing ever remains the same, so there are situations where a practice or belief is modified in a tradition. However, the process of modification is done in a careful and completely acceptable manner, with precedents cited and other evidential information given as a compelling reason for the change. The change doesn’t just happen, but it evolves and is given the stamp of orthodoxy by the elders of that tradition. A clear case of this kind of change is the reforms proposed and implemented by the Catholic Church in accordance with Vatican II. This kind of authorized ecumenical change has occurred in other traditions as well, including witchcraft and paganism. Change does happen in a tradition, although it isn’t immediate or arbitrary, as it might be in a revisionist methodology. Revisionists make changes to things that can be changed, which are those things that have been added to a tradition, but they rely on the authorities of their own tradition to modify or change anything in that tradition.

A case in point is that I am certain that Ananael would never deem to change any of the wording of the sacred writings of Liber Al in accordance with his opinions or sentiments, or because he found something there that he thought was revealed in error. If he really believed that something was amiss with Liber Al, he would present it to the authorities of the O.T.O. for their consideration. A revisionist and a traditionalist are closely related, except that a revisionist will add and accumulate other lore, while a traditionalist will work with what they have until that tradition has been properly amended or changed.

Reconstructionism, as I defined it in my previous article, builds a modern tradition using properly vetted historical information. The basic premise is to build an antique system as if it had survived into the modern times. Obviously, a Celtic reconstruction wouldn’t include human sacrifice, nor would it likely include animal sacrifice or any of the other culturally archaic and inappropriate practices and beliefs. It would represent what that Celtic pagan religion would have been like if it had survived to the present time, not as it existed in the early Iron age.

There are certain built-in limitations associated with reconstructionism, such as being able to gather together a complete set of data to reconstruct an antique system or being able to reconstruct the mind-set and culture of that period. Gaps and holes in the data are typical, particularly if that targeted system of belief is old and far in the past. Often, reconstructionists have to use their imagination to fill in the blanks. However, this is not a form of revisionism, since even the creative endeavors of a reconstructionist must be feasible and defensible based on current historical evidence. A revisionist will use whatever works, but a reconstructionist can’t behave in such a cavalier manner, since he or she is attempting to build something that has the aesthetic quality of being historically feasible and legitimate.

Curiously enough, a reconstructionist must also fashion a “head” for his or her tradition, and this is aptly done by working intimately with the chosen principal Godhead or pantheon of that tradition. A personal cult for that Godhead is created and it is imbued with power and authority through constant offerings, devotions and selfless spiritual love, often making use of a shrine with an altar and statues. After a time, the Godhead becomes a potent spiritual embodiment that the adherents of the reconstructed faith can easily relate to, having become a living and breathing Deity within the core of their tradition. It is far better for the “head” of a resuscitated and reconstructed faith to be a Godhead than some self appointed and flawed human being. Even the masters have a powerful spiritual alignment to a Deity that is beyond them.

I also wanted to remark on the issue of the importance of historical precedence to a pagan or a witch. As a traditionalist witch in the Alexandrian Tradition, I am not at all concerned about the accuracy or relevancy of the historical claims made by my past teachers. I don’t buy that witchcraft is the Old Religion, and it has no bearing on what I do as a witch. However, if an academic claims that there are no verifiable vestiges of pagan beliefs or practices in the modern world, then any amount of research into the historical precedents for pagan beliefs and practices would be groundless, particularly since pre-Christian European pagan folk beliefs were not adequately documented. Since the witchcraft tradition consists of a certain amount of reconstruction and creative invention, it is important for many who honor and guard those traditions to know that there were some precedents in the past upon which to base their beliefs. It signifies to them that their beliefs and practices weren’t recently made up out of nothing. What Hutton and some other academics have done is to judge modern paganism and witchcraft as being completely invented modern traditions without any historical precedence, which I feel is incorrect.

While this may not be important to a Thelemite, whose principal founder lived during the late 19th and early 20th century and whose life was well documented, it is important and not at all foolish for modern pagans to gather together some historical practices and beliefs to bolster their tradition. Otherwise, why even bother to call it a tradition, or for that matter, to passionately believe in it? Paganism and witchcraft may be magickal religions, but they are still religious, and such sentiment requires a history, as well as myths, mysticism and magick.

Finally, I think that a fourth perspective can be added to my list of philosophical perspectives in the occult arena. That fourth perspective is where people just cobble together all the various parts that work for them, and then from that collection generate for themselves a kind of ad hoc tradition. I would call this fourth perspective “eclectic pragmatism.” An eclectic pragmatist is someone who never acquires a tradition or assiduously avoids taking any vows, but who doesn’t have the discipline or sense of aesthetics to be a reconstructionist. Often, such people are dilettantes, but their desire to perform magick or engage in mystical practices causes them to adopt whatever is at hand. Potential sources are found in books, on the internet, copying what others do or by word of mouth. Some chaos magicians have used this approach to great effect, and the plethora of book reading solitaire pagan and wiccan practitioners could also be included in this category.  

So these are my thoughts and opinions about the recent controversies, but I am certain that there will be more opinions and discussions on this matter in the future. If some other interesting factors come out of the discussion, you can bet that I will present them here for you to read.

Frater Barrabbas

A Matter of Oath Breaking

Recently, Nick Ferrell wrote a blog article where he criticized the necessity for the oath of secrecy for Golden Dawn initiates. While I am not a Golden Dawn initiate, I do have some opinions about oaths of secrecy and confidentiality. I have also incorporated a kind of oath for members of my own order, but that oath is more engaged with confidentiality and ethics than actual secrecy. Still I can understand the need for such an oath as well as its limitations. You can find Nick’s article here.

The Golden Dawn has been rife over the last century or more with various kinds of individual oath breakers. Certainly, Crowley could be considered one of the first, who published the Golden Dawn lore in his periodical “Equinox.” Then we have Israel Regardie, Dion Fortune, and a host of others. I have to admit that if these individuals had not circumvented their oaths, none of their writings about the Golden Dawn would have been produced. We would have known next to nothing about this secret organization and its precious lore, and there would have been a dearth of popular occultism, paganism, wicca and magick today. Some might have been quite happy if the occult explosion of the last hundred years had not occurred, but I can tell you that I would have been quite unhappy. In fact, the thought of not being an occultist and having my mono-mania of magick to pursue is quite daunting indeed. (Ha! Maybe I need to get a life and stop being such an occult nerd.)

So I can’t either blame or condemn any of these occultists for breaking their solemn oath to the egregore of the Order of the Golden Dawn, because I and many others profited from it. However, I can look at what motivated each of these individuals and determine what the driving force was that caused them to take this step. For all of the occultists except Crowley, the reason was selfless. They were driven by the desire to enlighten and inform the public. It doesn’t matter too much that the material was given out of context, since it did indeed inform and enlighten many individuals. In fact, it is probably what saved the Order from complete extinction, so perhaps the egregore of the Order was behind these illicit transmissions.

Crowley’s reason for publishing the Golden Dawn material was undoubtedly for pure spite. He despised Mathers and the other members of the Order. He also sought to abrogate the lore for his own personal magickal order, and he published some of Mather’s manuscripts and passed them off for his own work. However, Crowley also produced his own stellar work and had many great contributions to the study and practice of magick. However, his intentions were not selfless or positive, even though the final outcome did end up being good. I suspect that Crowley got to taste the full bitterness of his betrayal of a powerful order and its egregore, if we attribute his final days to that consequence. We can also just as well believe that Crowley was just being himself to the very end, brilliant, pathological, addicted, profoundly creative, notorious and controversial.  Despite his final pitiful days, I think that Crowley would be pleased with the number of occultists today who read and study his works.

Other occultists have published Golden Dawn material - much of it has been in the public domain for quite some time, so I would assume that such material couldn’t be part of an oath of secrecy and confidentiality. So for this reason I couldn’t condemn someone like David Griffin for being an oath breaker. In fact, I am quite happy that many Golden Dawn initiates have written books for me to read and study. However, where I draw the line is the consideration of the author’s motive. Why are they writing about this material when it properly belongs to the Order of the Golden Dawn. Answering that question is very important, as I have already shown in the examples above. If the motive is a selfless desire to inform and enlighten the public, then it must be a positive development, perhaps one that the egregore has sanctioned itself in some manner. If not, then what is revealed is probably not only illicit but against the spirit of the organization.

Nick Ferrell has written a lengthy article that outlines what he thinks is invalid and wrong about the oath of secrecy in the Golden Dawn. There are things that he finds agreeable and things that he doesn’t agree with and feels should be changed. That is all well and good, and probably it would be better stated by someone who has never taken that oath than someone who has.

Say you take an oath. Later on you pick it apart to determine which sections are agreeable to you. Those you agree with, you follow, the rest you ignore. Does that make any sense at all? It seems kind of fast and loose to me. It’s almost like getting your driver’s license and then deciding which traffic laws are relevant and which ones can be broken. A lot of drivers get away with ignoring some traffic laws, like coming to complete stop at a stop sign, but sooner or later either a traffic cop or an accident will force them to change their mind.

I believe that if you make an oath, it doesn’t matter how ridiculous it is, or whether you can obey some parts of it and ignore others. If you don’t respect the oath as a whole, then picking it apart will only completely undo it. In other words, if you can’t respect any part of an oath, then you have no business taking it in the first place.

Confidentiality is, preeminently, the most important part of an oath. Yet confidentiality extends beyond just the names, addresses and personal characteristics of the members of the organization. It is also includes the daily business and personal interactions of the group, the magick they are jointly working, the rituals and lore that they use, group politics and interactions - all of this is strictly confidential. If materials are not already in the common domain, then they shouldn’t be published except without proper authorization from the organizational heads.

 I wouldn’t like it if some clown in my local magickal temple decided to publish the group’s rituals and activities without telling the whole group about it and getting our consent. Maybe someone might have good reasons to publish confidential or unpublished information, but if their reasons are good and if they took an oath to retain all such information as confidential, then they need to ask permission and get approval. In our order, such approval is strictly limited to the local temple, and then it is by full consensus. These are matters of ethics, and anyone who is in a formal group should take them quite seriously.

Here is an example of the oath of ethics taken by an initiate of the first degree (Neophyte) in the Order of the Gnostic Star. I can share this information with you because it has been available on the internet for the past several years.

“I ______________, in the presence of the Lords of the Universe, who work in silence and whom none but silence can express, in this temple of the most high and holy Graal (Isis-Sophia). By the order E. S. S. G. do of my own free will solemnly promise to keep secret this order, its members, its rituals and proceedings. To undertake a benevolent revelation with all the fratres and sorores of this Order. To reveal to no one except the initiates of this order the rituals, ceremonies and documents of this order. That I shall never debase my mystical knowledge in the labor and service of negative magick at anytime nor under any temptation. If I should break this sacred vow, my soul stands before those powers conjured in this sacred place to judge my actions.”

Does taking this oath mean that the rituals and documents of the Order must remain inviolable secrets?  No, actually, it doesn’t. It means that a member of a temple of the Order must keep in confidence all that occurs within it, to protect the members and the workings that they are undergoing. The rituals are not what is kept confidential - only the ritual lore of the temple. There is an important distinction here that should be understood. I usually make certain that prospective members understand the nuances of this oath, but often, I find such an explanation to be superfluous, since it’s so obvious what is being kept confidential.

Thus I would never take an oath that I didn’t wholly believe in and follow to the end, and I would obey an oath that I took to the fullest possible definition. This is what is expected of occultists, and there is an important reason for behaving in this manner. That reason is rather mysterious at first glance, but if you think about it, it becomes more evident. If you break your oath with a spiritual or magickal organization, then you set up a powerful wave of negativity, distrust and dissonance that has a subtle but powerful over-all impact. If it is egregious and based purely upon one’s own lust for power and self aggrandizement, then it will cause a permanent disconnect from the egregore of that organization.

Once such a breakage occurs, as a kind of willful sundering, then it becomes more difficult for any other doors or future possibilities to open for that person. If they have left a bad group, then there is no blame. If not, then they are culpable. If we consider that there are possible higher levels of spiritual and magickal development that are neither in print or held by any known organization, then its possible that such lore would be in the hands of individuals who have achieved the highest level of spiritual and magickal attainment in this world. These individuals would very likely judge an oath breaker as not trustworthy for the greater lore, thus he would be overlooked even if his achievements were monumental.

As far as the Golden Dawn is concerned, a branch or a temple may be bad or corrupt, however, the egregore is still a powerful and positive vehicle in the spiritual and magick world. An oath made in that temple is to the egregore, not to the temple hierarchy. Violations of that oath will be measured against the good and the harm that such an action has caused. The intent of the violation must also be weighed, and that should indicate whether someone meant to do it for the greater good, or did it for ego or spite.

Nick has bragged that when he published an ebook version of the Book of the Tombs, a document that hadn’t ever been published before, he managed to single handedly silence a dispute between two warring factions of the Order that were fighting over the disposition of the Vault of Adepti. The vault is a chamber device that is used in the inner order to conduct intensive forms of magick and initiation, which the document outlined in detail. Supposedly, the two groups then ceased their bickering when they managed to review the original dimensions and qualifications of the vault. Of course, that’s his opinion, we can just as easily assume that they were silenced by his audacity and outraged at his illicit actions.  

I believe the real issue is Nick's cavalier attitude to the very organization that taught him magick and revealed to him the inner mysteries. What is Nick’s intention but his own self aggrandizement, which is in a word, “ego.” Nick seeks to make himself a great man at the expense of the egregore of the Order that took him into its bosom. That makes him not only an oath breaker, but a real blackguard as well. Nick seems to be ruled by his piratical rapaciousness for secret occult lore, which he turns around and publishes, all for the greater glory of himself. He seeks not to inform the general public, but instead to promote himself as an authority and a master of secrets. In declaring himself to be an oath breaker, he has shown the world that he can't be trusted, and has unwittingly slammed the door on any future transmission of even greater occult lore. Potential higher adepts would never consider him as a colleague, and who in their right mind would want to have that option negated?

I don’t feel impressed by what Nick has done, instead I feel sorry for him. Who could ever trust this man with their lore or their mysteries? However you attempt to spin this dilemma, an oath breaker is just that, an oath breaker. It’s someone who betrayed the trust that other individuals placed in them, all for the greater glory of themselves.

Frater Barrabbas