To All Msg #204, 24-Oct-89 1213am Subject The Following (from New Federalist) The best art

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: Brad Hicks To: All Msg #204, 24-Oct-89 12:13am Subject: The Following (from New Federalist) The best article so far, really. Which isn't saying much. HEY, REPORTER FOR NEW FEDERALIST: Currently, we write things and you read them via MagickNet, then write your response and send it to New Federalist, who eventually publishes it, and mails it to one of your supporters who photocopies your response and sends it to me, and either I or Vicki posts it here and replies again...starting the circle all over again. Can't we do better than that? C'mon, either post or drop me a note with a phone number...direct dialog never killed anyone. You're already getting somewhat better at getting your facts straight. The rest of my comments follow the article. From: New Federalist Msg #205, 24-Oct-89 12:17am Subject: "Witches Wailing Over New Federalist Coverage" STOP SATAN The witches of MagickNet are wailing over the recent New Federalist expose of the Wiccan underground railroad, and the role of MagickNet as a Satanic communications channel. MagickNet is a computer bulletin board network which specializes in witchcraft and the occult. The coordinator of MagickNet, Brad Hicks of St. Louis, Mo., has described the network as an "electronic coven." Tap into MagickNet and you will find a wide array of rituals, spells, notices of upcoming events, conversations on various subjects, and even counterintelligence on what Hicks calls the "New Witchhunters." It's a regular witches' brew of gossip and information. The most interesting--and revealing--aspect of the discussion of the "underground railroad" case is that the witches are concerned almost entirely with their public reputation. The welfare of Guinevere Burke, the little girl who was spirited away by her Wiccan father, seems of little or no concern to these people. When Wiccan High Priestess Vicki Copeland of Colorado Springs, Colo., who goes by the name "Rowan Moonstone," discovered the New Federalist article, she immediately posted the entire article on MagickNet (thanks, Vicki!), to alert the other MagickNetters to watch what they say. Her message touched off a barrage of responses, attacking New Federalist and the LaRouche movement. MagickNet is not just for witches: there are also Druids, Odinists, devotees of Mithra, members of the O.T.O., and other assorted lunatics. While they all, with one or two exceptions, deny being Satanists, they do so on unusual grounds. Anthony Iannotti, the Secretary General of the Ordo Templi Orientis, asserts that it is unfair to call former O.T.O. supreme commander Aleister Crowley a Satanist, because Satan was only one of the gods Crowley worshipped. The more common claim is that only Christians can be Satanists, since Satan is a fallen Christian angel. Ergo, pre-Christian religions cannot be Satanic. They seem unable to grasp the fact that all the pre-Christians died out nearly two thousand years ago, and that today's Wicca and neo-paganism are children of the British Occult Bureau. Crowley, the man who called himself the "Great Beast 666," bragged in his book "Magick in Theory in [sic] Practice" of having committed some 2,400 human sacrifices between 1912 and 1928. His writings are full of invocations to Satan. Still, according to the O.T.O., it is unfair to call Crowley a Satanist. Such is the Orwellian newspeak practiced by modern Satanists: The Christians are the real Satanists, and the witches are the good guys. No wonder they don't like the New Federalist. From: Brad Hicks To: New Federalist Msg #206, 24-Oct-89 01:23am Subject: Re: "Witches Wailing Over New Federalist Coverage" Because the accuracy on this one is better than the previous ones, instead of giving up hope I'm going to go through it one little bite at a time. (The rest of you: if you're bored, hit Ctrl-K or Ctrl-C and skip the next two messages, as well.) NF> The witches of MagickNet are wailing over the recent NF> New Federalist expose of the Wiccan underground NF> railroad, and the role of MagickNet as a Satanic NF> communications channel. Considering that Burke was arrested long before anyone on MagickNet knew even who he was, I do think the "underground railroad" smear is misleading. Of course, I admit that some of us do admit that we would've helped if we could have. If you saw my message (2 previous) on the recent revelations of the Burke case, maybe even you'll agree that we might have been justified if we had. NF> MagickNet is a computer bulletin board network NF> which specializes in witchcraft and the occult. The NF> coordinator of MagickNet, Brad Hicks of St. Louis, NF> Mo., has described the network as an "electronic NF> coven." Tap into MagickNet and you will find a wide NF> array of rituals, spells, notices of upcoming events, NF> conversations on various subjects, and even NF> counterintelligence on what Hicks calls the "New NF> Witchhunters." It's a regular witches' brew of gossip NF> and information. Remarkably accurate journalism! Actually, we haven't run "notices of upcoming events" in a long, long while--and probably should, thanks for the reminder. Typographic complaints: (1) Why is "Satanist" capitalized and "witch" and "neo-pagan" not? (2) Suggestion: I always write that word "Witch-Hunters," with or without the capitalization. That extra hyphen does wonders for readability; a double-H is a pain to readers. NF> The most interesting--and revealing--aspect of the NF> discussion of the "underground railroad" case is that NF> the witches are concerned almost entirely with their NF> public reputation. The welfare of Guinevere Burke, NF> the little girl who was spirited away by her Wiccan NF> father, seems of little or no concern to these people. Inaccurate and ENTIRELY unfair. Yes, there was some concern expressed over MAGICKNET's "public image"--more accurately, our good name which you have dragged through the mud for a crime we couldn't possibly have committed. The entire rest of that discussion has centered on returning a happy, healthy child to her natural father. If that isn't "her welfare," then I don't know what is. NF> When Wiccan High Priestess Vicki Copeland of NF> Colorado Springs, Colo., who goes by the name "Rowan NF> Moonstone," discovered the New Federalist article, she NF> immediately posted the entire article on MagickNet NF> (thanks, Vicki!), to alert the other MagickNetters to NF> watch what they say. Her message touched off a NF> barrage of responses, attacking New Federalist and the NF> LaRouche movement. "Thanks, Vicki" indeed! Think about this: we print your stories unaltered and in their entirety. You print ours filtered through your prejudices, filled with inaccuracies, and out of context. Which one of us is showing a higher committment to decency and fairness? Which one of us is expressing greater faith in the power of Reason? As the Rocky Horror folk say, "Think about it, Janet!" "Attacking ... the LaRouche movement." First of all, by now you know that I too felt that some people were way, way out of line and I called them down for it. I hope you feel more comfortable now--no sarcasm, really! But you must admit that some vitriol is not unexpected when you print such direct attacks on our very right to live and exist, no? NF> MagickNet is not just for witches: there are also NF> Druids, Odinists, devotees of Mithra, members of the NF> O.T.O., and other assorted lunatics. ... We have Mithraists? Did I miss somebody? We have Odinists? Blackwolf, are you an Odinist? Is there anybody else? If we do, then I'm exceedingly glad--we're even more eclectic than I thought. But you missed not a few, too. "Assorted lunatics" could, I suppose, adequately cover we Discordians. But you left out (at the VERY least) a few ceremonial magicians, at least one New Ager, several Buddhists of one form or another, and at least one mystical Christian--not to mention at least one, maybe two, Staunch Atheists. (And that doesn't even get into the discussion of the Baskin Robbins 23 Flavors of Witches here, but I don't blame you for not going into that in a newspaper article.) NF> ... While they all, NF> with one or two exceptions, deny being Satanists, they NF> do so on unusual grounds. ... Excuse my flippancy, but are there "usual grounds"? I suppose you just meant "weird" or "strange." NF> ... Anthony Iannotti, the NF> Secretary General of the Ordo Templi Orientis, asserts NF> that it is unfair to call former O.T.O. supreme NF> commander Aleister Crowley a Satanist, because Satan NF> was only one of the gods Crowley worshipped. The more NF> common claim is that only Christians can be Satanists, NF> since Satan is a fallen Christian angel. Ergo, NF> pre-Christian religions cannot be Satanic. ... OK, this one looks like an honest misunderstanding, so let me clarify it for you some. (You see, it looks to me like you've heard the argument, but missed or got wrong a few key points.) We do NOT generally say that "only Christians can be Satanists." What is generally said is that Satanism is a Christian =heresy.= In the sense that most people mean the word, to believe in and worship Satan you must acknowledge that he exists--and since his existence is established primarily through the Christian Scriptures, to be what most people (including most Witches) consider a Satanist you must believe in the Christian Scriptures. Tim Maroney (the original "Mr. Flame," who will probably be quite surprised to read this) has done a reasonably good job of convincing at least most of the MagickNetters (I hate that word, but what else is there?) that most Satanists do not, in fact, "believe" in the literal existence of the Christian Satan, any more than most Discordians "believe" in the literal existence of Eris iscordia, or most Christians "believe" in a literal Old Man With A White Beard. Satan is, to them, first and foremost a literary symbol with which they identify. (They then collapse to squabbling among themselves, and backstabbing, and printing denunciations of each other, because they do not agree on what the symbol means. Which to my tastes, PROVES that they're a real religion. Grin.) NF> ... They seem NF> unable to grasp the fact that all the pre-Christians NF> died out nearly two thousand years ago, and that NF> today's Wicca and neo-paganism are children of the NF> British Occult Bureau. ALL died out? Prove THAT one! It seems highly unlikely to me that there were NO survivors. And even if there weren't, there's the historical record and physical evidence--and THAT is the foundation of most modern Neopaganism. Now yes, much of Wicca shows influence from Gerald Gardner, the British witch who seems to have introduced to the Craft such concepts as the ceremonial athame, the scourge, and the "containment" function of the magical circle, and re-popularized the long-neglected practice of ceremonial nudity. But Gardner did NOT make it up out of whole cloth. At the very least, even if you think he was lying about "Old Dorothy," you must admit that he based some of it on Charles Godfrey Leland's ARADIA, and that's (a) Italian, not British, and (b) while obviously altered over time, an at least partial survival of some Etruscan form of Witchcraft going back to at least pre-Christian Rome. Some Witches claim that the Craft is unaltered and unbroken since the caves at Lascaux. (Mostly new, ignorant ones.) You claim that it's all a modern British invention. The truth, as is not unusual, is almost certainly somewhere between the two. (Aside: British Occult Bureau? Capitalized? Is this supposed to be real, literal group? Who called themselves that?) NF> Crowley, the man who called himself the "Great NF> Beast 666," bragged in his book "Magick in Theory in NF> [sic] Practice" of having committed some 2,400 human NF> sacrifices between 1912 and 1928. His writings are NF> full of invocations to Satan. Still, according to the NF> O.T.O., it is unfair to call Crowley a Satanist. Somebody drags this dead fish in at least once every two months. Can you possibly not have heard the real "crime" that this code phrase referred to? Let me put it another way. Do you really think that one man got away with killing a child EVERY TWO WEEKS FOR TWELVE YEARS? As Crowley said of Gilles de Rais, don't you think someone would have noticed? Don't you imagine that the mothers would have raised some kind of fuss? Wouldn't the bodies begin to pile up? Of COURSE he wasn't being literal! NF> Such is the Orwellian newspeak practiced by modern NF> Satanists: The Christians are the real Satanists, and NF> the witches are the good guys. No wonder they don't NF> like the New Federalist. As above: REAL Christians are on our side, like most of the holy and religious people of history. We all want harmony, happiness, and an end to the harms that we inflict on each other. ORDINARY Christians are not Satanists--in fact, they're mostly people to whom Christianity has more to do with a sense of cultural continuity than any kind of internalized belief. HERETICAL Christians believe in both God and Satan, and worship Satan instead. If the New Federalist got its facts straight, and didn't make accusations of crimes when no crime existed, we'd probably love it (even if still not agree with it). At least, I would--I collect that kind of stuff.

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank