XPost: alt.religion.wicca, alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.writing   
   XPost: alt.magick   
   From: Aetyr@nc.rr.com   
      
   "Arlon Staywell"  wrote in message   
   news:utlVd.311631$w62.255160@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...   
   >   
   > "Rhyanon"  wrote   
   >   
   > > Words aren't necessary for "spells". which is a misnomer in itself. I   
   > > don't   
   > > have the patience to dumb down the basics for you nimrods.   
   >   
   >      I wrote a paper for an English class on whether the election of   
   Clinton   
   > was the result of a spell witches put on the United States.  It is   
   important   
   > to understand that it was not a political science class, not mathematics,   
   > nothing "serious."  It was a topic "for fun."  The English professor   
   didn't   
   > want another paper on Clinton because he said he was sick and tired of   
   them   
   > after grading so many.  By making the paper about witchcraft I made it   
   > different enough to be allowed the topic.   
   >   
   >     My point is this though, I read many books on the topic.  I read most   
   of   
   > them the James Branch Cabbell Library had about it.  I tore my best book   
   bag   
   > loading it with so many books.  The paper had to be over 20 pages long and   
   > have at least 25 references.  Consistently the essence of the matter is   
   > accessing the subconscious through symbolism.  Carl Jung of course wrote   
   > quite seriously on that (and I included references to him and other   
   > scientific sorts), but books on "magic" and "witchcraft" (often misused   
   > terms) made much the same point, to whit:  Symbolism is the key to the   
   > influence, such as it might be, exercised by those believed to be or   
   > purporting to be practicing "magick."  Words are the ultimate symbols.   
   > Practicing "magick" without word power is like practicing medicine with   
   > leeches and poultices.   
   >   
   >      It is quite possible to make people sick, healthy, apprehensive,   
   > courageous, contented, empowered, to laugh, to cry or almost any other way   
   > through the "magic" of words and symbols.  Other methods aren't really   
   > "magic" although possibly more sinister.   
   >   
      
   Good point.  However, you are talking about propaganda, not magic.  Whether   
   or not propaganda works is a much studied subject, and we know that it DOES   
   work. Brain washing works, and so does conversion. Talking about Jung....he   
   is sometimes credited for giving the initial inspiration to one of the   
   founders of AA, and in that, the twelve step program.  He told the guy that   
   he could not cure him of alcoholism, that only a complete conversion to a   
   new way of thinking may help him.   
   Psychological methods are always part of public witchcraft.  Some people   
   here are talking about private witchcraft.  To argue with them about private   
   witchcraft is like arguing with a devout believer in any faith or viewpoint.   
   This does not mean that it isn't valid, or cannot be "personally" proven.   
   When one starts to argue over a personal proof, its like arguing about love.   
   How does someone know when they are in love?  Can they show this to other   
   people?  Is it considered a delusion?  Is there such a thing as being in   
   love, OR is it a cultural assumption?   
      
   Pip   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)