Summer’s Lease Hath All Too Short a Stay

We are now coming to the end of August, and soon summer will end and autumn will begin. Because I was sick with a very nasty cold in July, I lost close to three weeks of the warmest and most wonderful days of summer this year. While I am kind of saddened by that loss, I look forward to the more productive but less outdoorsy oriented days ahead. Autumn is a time to begin to plan for some interesting indoor temple magick, and winter is the time to do it. As a pagan, I greatly appreciate the changing of the seasons, but climate change is making the temperate climate of the northern regions of the U.S. more extreme. I hope that autumn will be glorious, and that winter will be short and mild - or at least I can hope for the best and brace myself for the worst. What often does occur is somewhere in the middle.

The controversy over Reconstructionism vs. Tradition is still a hotly disputed topic in some of the various Golden Dawn group discussion sites. Some have said that to give reconstructionism a pejorative meaning is to mislead folks into believing that somehow tradition is superior to reconstructionism, and I think that a few leaders in the HOGD organization who are calling some of their peers “bad reconstructionists” isn’t the same thing as being somehow misleading, egotistical or even nasty. Let’s just consider it as the moderated voices of the followers of the GD tradition who are very likely internally outraged, but are actually being civil about it. I think that like everything else, taking things in moderation is a proper way to promote any kind of perspective, and that being an aggressive reconstructionist while simultaneously denying the validity or existence of others who are traditionalists is the same thing as being a bad reconstructionist.

Since I started the whole imbroglio with my two articles posted this last Spring, where I compared a couple of the GD organizations to Frankenstein monsters (without a head), some might say that I am mostly to blame for this exchange of umbrage. However, I think that I was correct in pointing out where reconstructionism can go wrong, especially when it is promoted as the “only true way,” and denying that other organizations who are following an extent tradition must somehow be deluded or fraudulent. I suspect that these two parties will never agree, and as long as the aggressive reconstructionists continue to deny the possibility of there being a true third order with actual (mortal) secret chiefs, there won’t be any peace between these two groups. Anyway, I have spent far too much time either discussing or thinking about this topic, and I would like to move on to other more interesting themes.

On a positive note, David Griffin is offering the Golden Dawn community the opportunity to engage with his organization and therein receive the newly transmitted lore for the second order, with a possible ultimate access to the third order. This is very generous of David, considering the flack that he has taken every since he was contacted by those same secret chiefs. It would certainly be the way for anyone to test any and all of David’s claims. These are truly interesting times for the Golden Dawn, since such discussions have become the impetus for further development, particularly with those GD organizations who want to proceed without the aid and intercession of the secret chiefs. I only wish that I was either starting out my magickal and occult journey today, or if I would have had access to a proper GD group back in my formative period in the early 1980's, so that I, too, could take advantage of this generous offer. Yet because I had to determine my own direction and develop a magickal system that is now quite distinct and different from any of the GD methodologies, it would likely not be profitable for me to seek any kind of GD initiation at this late date of my development. It’s a great thing for the Golden Dawn organization as a whole, but it does leave out those of us who have built up occult systems that are not based on that system. 

As for myself, I am happy to be completely independent of any organization or group. I follow my own path and determine my own direction. I have learned the hard way that dependence on anyone for my spiritual and magickal development only leads to disappointment, as I so bitterly found out when I chose many years ago to hitch my horses to the “Bill Schnoebelen” wagon. That situation only lasted for four years, but the harsh lessons learned have lasted me all of these years. Since that time, I have decided not to join any organization without clear objectives, and once those objectives were met, to freely leave and continue my wanderings through other disciplines. Only I know what is important, relevant, insightful and key to my own spiritual development. No one else has this knowledge or insight into my internal process. I also believe that this is true for everyone on the occult path of magick and mysticism. Teachers and mentors, as well as initiatory organizations, should be temporary and non-binding, otherwise the teacher or group will readily substitute the student’s process for their own agenda. When this substitution occurs, it has the terrible effect of shunting or even turning off that person’s ability to grow and evolve through their own inner contacts.

When I was a member of Bill Schnoebelen’s witchcraft cult whatever spiritual and magickal progress I had made during my first year in that group was effectively put on hold for the following three years. I came out of that “Coven from Hell” stunted and underdeveloped, like some creature that had lived its whole life in a cave. Getting back on track and unlearning some of the bad habits that I had acquired took at least two to four years, and I was supposedly a prodigy. I could easily imagine someone getting sidetracked and not finding their own true path again for the rest of their life. I would find such a fate for myself to be grievously sad and deeply disappointing, so that is why I am so concerned about maintaining my freedom and independence.

I have written two articles that very plainly stated my opinions about self-made remarkable men and women, and how, as a self-made pagan and ritual magician, I was able to find my way without any outside intervention. These articles communicate something of my internal essence, and they show why I am not interested in giving up my hard earned independence and freedom that allows me to seek, discover and expound on whatever I feel is important or vital to my personal development. You can find the articles here, and here. If you want to really understand what makes me tick, then these two articles would represent my essential modus operandi.

These article were not written with multiple levels and they don’t require any kind of “reading between the lines.” They are as straightforward and written plainly as I am able to make them. I have always been a terrible liar and had problems disguising my motives or dissembling my communication. If I am diplomatic, it’s only because I have learned the hard way that sharing my undeveloped opinions have often caused me more harm than good. However, I have never shirked from sharing opinions that are developed and based on what I passionately believe. So you can be certain that what I write in this blog represents what I currently believe, even though those beliefs may change or evolve over time.

Now on to other topics - I am starting to write up my book temporarily entitled “Qabalah for Beginners,” and that will be one of my most important writing tasks for the next several weeks. Hopefully, I will get it done sooner than that, but it will be my main focus for a while. I will also be volunteering for the Minnesota Pagan Pride Day to be held at Minnehaha Falls Park on September 10th. I recently created a Yahoo! group for Order of the Gnostic Star, which is an online group for initiated members, affiliates and interested parties. The group is closed and requires either an invitation or approval to join. I will consider any requests sent to my blog associated email address. I also plan on getting in some last minute outdoor activities, such as kayaking and doing some tourist type activities over the next couple of weeks. Since I lost three weeks, I am hoping to catch up on them in the next three weeks; hopefully the weather will stay warm and sunny for some of that time.

So, make certain that you take some time off and have a wonderful time for the rest of the summer. Drink some beer or wine, spend time outdoors, go to some parties, and generally have a great time. Winter will all too soon be upon us again, and we will regret any time not taken to enjoy the great outdoors while we can.

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 Tale of Three Perspectives

Often when occultists, pagans and witches get into a heated discussion, I have found that the reason for such strong sentiments and strident disagreements is because there are three very different and distinct philosophical perspectives being communicated. If two or more individuals talk at cross purposes with each other, and none of them understand the other person’s basic philosophical foundation, then unresolvable arguments will occur. Of course, there are more than three different philosophical perspectives, but these three usually cause the most egregious misunderstandings.

These three different philosophical perspectives are based on three different approaches to engaging with a tradition. I call these three perspectives “traditional lore,” “reconstructionist” and the middle ground of “objectified traditional lore,” or “revisionism.” If you ever wanted to be entertained, just get together three individuals who are die-hard adherents of these three different perspectives, introduce them to a strategic point of disagreement, and then let the fur fly. This could be a different way of fostering a kind of pagan “fight club.” Now that I have revealed these three perspectives, let me discuss them in detail so you will know  exactly what I am referring to by using these three terms.

Traditional Lore: This is a perspective that consists entirely of esoteric knowledge, occult liturgies, magickal or mystical rites and subjective or experiential commentaries. The only way that an individual can acquire this knowledge is to be indoctrinated or initiated into a very specific tradition, and then incrementally taught various “inside” lore, usually by a teacher or elder. All of the information included within an occult tradition is kept strictly confidential and is warded by oaths of secrecy, even if much of it is already known to the public in books and web-based files. What is important is the context of the information and the personal experiences associated with the techniques and methods taught.

Along with this knowledge and methodology is a historical narrative and an ontology, or world-view, and definitions of what could be called a “true reality.” This world view would contain a mixture of actual history, myth and allegory that is blended together to create an apparent seamless “quilt-work” reality. The context for that world-view is steeped in the lore and the personal experiences of the rites, practices and liturgies of that organization. Any examination of that lore outside of the tradition would violate the context, and render it to be less profound and meaningful than it otherwise might be. It can also make elements of that lore seem ridiculous or even completely mythical, since many traditional occult systems rely on a world-view whose foundation is on the “mind before matter” model.

Groups who espouse traditional lore are numerous, but represent the older occult organizations, such as quasi Masonic occult groups (Golden Dawn, O.T.O., etc.), various Theosophical groups and their associated off-shoot organizations, Eastern mystical traditions transplanted in the West, and even more recent groups, such as Gardnerian and Alexandrian witchcraft. Individuals who are members of such an organization would espouse a world-view and a system of occult beliefs that would be occluded by oaths of secrecy and confidentiality, and they would be highly dependent on a dense context of foundational practices and beliefs. Traditionalists would appear to have a mythical perspective of history and reality to an outsider, even though their perspectives are completely rational and objective when considered through the context of their tradition. Individuals who belong to a tradition are unable to completely justify their beliefs and practices to outsiders because they are unable to reveal the full context and justification for their beliefs. Instead, they often delight in being evasive or mysterious, much to the frustration of others who are outside of that tradition.

Reconstructionism: This is a perspective that is more recent (1990's) but has been building quite an extensive following. Reconstructionism is a methodology that relies heavily on academic writings and research to build a system of beliefs and practices based on a tradition that is either completely extinct or that exists in a very truncated form. This methodology was initially pushed by Northern European and British (Anglo Saxon) Heathenism, Nordic Asatru and Druidism. Now, some twenty years later, reconstructionism has been greatly expanded to include many other renewed pagan traditions, such as Greek, Roman, Slavic, Egyptian, Jewish, Mesopotamian (Akkadian and Sumerian), Native American, and numerous others. Because in many cases the traditional lore has been lost, adherents must rely on academic findings (archeological sites), older ethnographic studies, examination of artifacts, and where possible, written texts and fragments of rites and beliefs. Reconstructionism relies on the most current and up-to-date academic information, and when that information is adjusted or new information becomes available, then the reconstructionists have to adjust their tradition accordingly. So, a reconstructionist is someone who is building and adapting their tradition, using intuition and creative insight when there is a lack of useful or credible information.

A reconstructionist can take a very purist perspective and seek to carefully ensure that their built up tradition is closely based on academic information. Those who are less careful or who create something completely contrived have found their practices and beliefs severely questioned and even rejected by others who are more carefully following that tradition. Thus, reconstructionists will take a very scientific and academic bias and approach to their beliefs and practices. A reconstructionist would therefore find the practices and beliefs of a traditionalist to be at the very least, unwarranted, and at the worst, utter nonsense. This is because a reconstructionist relies heavily on academic information, and everything must be either verifiable, or at the very least, plausible.

What I have found is that reconstructionism has been able to reproduce pagan traditions that are very rational, acceptable and accessible to the average person. There are no secrets or oath bound beliefs and practices, since everything has its source in publically available information. What mysteries do exist in this world-view are based on the experiences of the individual or group who are able to bring an ancient tradition alive so that it can be shared with others. There are often two kinds of adherents in a reconstructed tradition - the creative tradition builder, path maker and pioneer, and the individual who takes this reconstruction and gives it a renewed life within the community. Both of these individuals are important for the successful reconstruction of an antique tradition, but sometimes the creative reconstructionist wears both hats.

As you can see, a traditionalist and a reconstructionist could have a serious problem in understanding each other. Reconstructionists require their lore to be validated by academia or at least shown to be plausible, while a traditionalist must accept most of what they are given by their elders and teachers, even if those beliefs and practices are contradicted by academics.

However, a third perspective can also occur, and that is where a traditionalist begins to validate and augment their lore by researching academic or scientific information - such a one is called a revisionist. This can cause the tradition and its lore to be adjusted, made objective and  more accessible to outside individuals. Often the very beginning of this process is started when someone within a tradition publishes its beliefs and practices, becoming a kind of oath breaker. Some have accused Aleister Crowley or Israel Regardie of being oath breakers with the Golden Dawn tradition, and others have accused Lady Sheba, Alex Sanders, Janet and Stewart Farrar of being oath breakers. Whatever you think of these individuals (and so many others), they have caused the secret lore of a tradition to become preserved for posterity, thus making it more accessible to outsiders, who, in their turn, have used parts of it to build new traditions and practices.

Other members of traditions have used their inside knowledge to gain access to other traditions or obscure academic information so as to more fully develop their own tradition, and then passing that amended lore on to their initiated progeny. Sometimes, the need to develop a hybrid tradition is caused by the fact that the original tradition was incomplete or lacking in a strategic area. This is true of both the Golden Dawn and British Traditional Witchcraft, where many hybrids and derivations have occurred, all of which were incited by the lack of a comprehensive traditional lore. In other cases, some individuals have found that the mythical and allegorical quality of the lore needs to be validated and made more rational through the inclusion and adjustment of academic and scientific information.

Those espousing a traditional occult perspective can either believe that their tradition, in whatever form it exists, must be preserved at all costs, or they can be less conservative, allowing their tradition to be augmented, adjusted and even changed when deemed necessary. Those who are comfortable with a hybridization of their tradition would undoubtedly find themselves in a difficult situation when confronted by a member of their same tradition who was against any form of revisionism. I have seen this kind of dispute rage between adherents of my own Alexandrian witchcraft tradition for days on the “Lexie” e-list, without any kind of resolution, other than the tacit admittance that there are different initiatory lines who do things differently. Some have expressed themselves as indignant protectors of the faith, while others (such as myself) are much more pragmatic.

Correspondingly, a revisionist and a reconstructionist would likely be able to agree on a number topical areas, but at some point, the revisionist would take a stand on some point of traditional lore, and the reconstructionist would not be able to understand why, especially if that bit of lore was contradicted by academia or by science. Conversely, a revisionist could have adopted some practice or lore that can’t be validated, which would then have to be rejected by the reconstructionist. However, if you got a revisionist, a reconstructionist and a hide-bound traditionalist together in a room, and their respective beliefs and practices were analogous, it wouldn’t take much to set off an emotionally heated argument. It could also produce a very enlightening exchange as well, if the individuals involved were willing to respect each others viewpoint. Most of time such an exchange produces a train wreck with a lot of hurt feelings, confusion and misunderstanding.

I believe that one way that such a conflict can be avoided is for individuals to state their perspective in a general manner first before engaging in a heated exchange. If someone tells their fellow occultists that he or she is a strict adherent of British Traditional Witchcraft, then everyone else should realize the scope and nature of the conversation. Those who are involved in a Saxon Heathen reconstruction won’t ridicule some outward belief and practice (that is not oath bound) or require the witch to validate his or her stated beliefs with some kind of academic authority. Likewise, a more lax adherent of a witchcraft tradition who has derived a hybrid system won’t snipe at the traditionalist for continuing to hold certain beliefs and practices, which he or she has abandoned. The traditionalist will understand that the other two require more outside validation than he or she, and is less comfortable with just accepting lore because it has a pedigree.

If the three of these individuals can find a common ground and focus on the fact that they are all modern pagans, then their exchange may be quite illuminating for everyone involved. This is my hope, of course, and why I believe that it’s important for individuals to understand and know where they fit in as regards to traditionalism, revisionism and reconstructionism. All three perspectives are valid and important, and they all produce an authentic experience of magick and the mysteries within a modern pagan world definition.

The bottom line is that we who practice some form of paganism in the western world are a small exclusive minority. We may differ strategically in how we worship and practice our rites, but we are all part of the same general family of religions. Therefore, we should work a little harder to respect and accept each others perspective and at the very least seek to realize that there are three different perspectives - the traditionalist, the revisionist and the reconstructionist.

As Rodney King said so many years ago, “Can’t we all just get along?”

Frater Barrabbas