I'm going to do an occult theme story

[Desiremakesmeweak]

What I'm finding, as I research things, is that there is waa-a-a-a-ay just as much dogma in the field of the occult, the mysterious, the satanic or other similar ideas, as there is in standard mainstream religion!!

To cut a long story short, what I have found is that virtually ALL, of the common icons of occultism and the occult - are bullshit. They are TOTALLY incorrect when you go back and look at the actual origins of whatever motif or symbolism or iconic 'occult' idea has been spouted into the public perception.

I mean take one example here: Count Dracula.

1. HE was not the blood-sucker - it was the Islamic hordes he was fighting who indulged quite literally, in eating the flesh of their victims both alive as well as dead!! The very word 'macabre' that we all know - comes from the Arabic word for a graveyard in which flesh-eating ARAB and MUSLIM ghouls dwell. Not Romanian vampires!

2. He never 'cursed god' and god never cursed him. He cursed the Mohammedan deity (which he regarded as Satanic) in his own handwriting - contained in texts still available in the Vatican libraries, the Vatican having bestowed upon him a knighthood and a particular religious order, namely that of the dragon, of which there are 'noble' forms thereof, apparently. He was an ordained priest and he was NEVER ex-communicated! He was never cruel to anyone who followed him and NEVER EVER cruel to peasants at all. The local people looked upon him as a saviour with supernatural powers FROM GOD. He had nothing to do with anything diabolical or satanic at all.

3. He was highly cultured and very sophisticated and spoke a form of Latin as his normal speech, but he was multilingual and was a trained ambassador in royal courts.

And there are a lot of other aspects to the vampire myth in which the memex's have all been jumbled upside down - it is in fact an Islamic idea that you can kill a slave and have them come back to life, or a kind of un-dead life; it's not Dracula's idea nor his actual legend in reality.


...And so I have encountered a bit of a problem. All the common tropes that Joe Citizen thinks of as evil or scary or whatever, are all back to front and upside down. As far as I can tell.

Anyone with any particular trope or memex that appeals to them as 'scary' or diabolic - just please post it here, because I am in need of some that I can use based on research that actually supports it. My research has led me all over the place and very far away from common belief!

Here's one other example of what I have been encountering: the Gorgon Medusa was not a bad person, nor 'punished' by a god; she bore the flying white horse Pegasus as one of her children, which Zeus took as his own. Athena gave her the ability to scare her rapist away!!! And that is all that happened there.

 

[oggbashan]

Most ancient European myths - Norse, Greek and Roman and some Egyptian ones had variations, sometimes contradictory or had changed over hundreds of years. What we think are the standard versions of the myths are only those which modern scholars (i.e. post 1500 AD) think are the standard versions.

Satanism? Alastair Crowley and the author Dennis Wheatley are jointly responsible for most of the satanic rituals but some earlier Gothic authors made up their own versions of Satanism.

Witchcraft? Despite the Salem Trials and the persecution of witches throughout Europe most of what we think we know about witchcraft comes from their enemies. Most modern witchcraft, including the rituals, were invented in my lifetime and codified in the 1960s.

Even older texts that are available for practices in the Middle Ages were deliberately made obscure so that what witches actually did was not made explicit, only by hints within the texts. The texts used to justify persecution of witches were 'fake news' at its best.

Druidism? We know more about the ancient Celtic druids from Roman authors who saw Druidism as an opposition to the Roman Pantheon and worse, denied the divinity of the current Emperor. The modern Druids who meet at Stonehenge have no idea what rituals were performed by the builders of Stonehenge (who were NOT Druids) - neither has anyone else except that they seemed to eat and drink a lot!

 

[sr71plt]

I would take this as an opportunity to pick and choose how I melded the story I wanted to write to the various interpretations. I've done that with vampires and have been happy with the result. It's best not to overthink and overfret these things.

 

[Handley_Page]

Most ancient European myths - Norse, Greek and Roman and some Egyptian ones had variations, sometimes contradictory or had changed over hundreds of years. What we think are the standard versions of the myths are only those which modern scholars (i.e. post 1500 AD) think are the standard versions.

Satanism? Alastair Crowley and the author Dennis Wheatley are jointly responsible for most of the satanic rituals but some earlier Gothic authors made up their own versions of Satanism.

Witchcraft? Despite the Salem Trials and the persecution of witches throughout Europe most of what we think we know about witchcraft comes from their enemies. Most modern witchcraft, including the rituals, were invented in my lifetime and codified in the 1960s.

Even older texts that are available for practices in the Middle Ages were deliberately made obscure so that what witches actually did was not made explicit, only by hints within the texts. The texts used to justify persecution of witches were 'fake news' at its best.

Druidism? We know more about the ancient Celtic druids from Roman authors who saw Druidism as an opposition to the Roman Pantheon and worse, denied the divinity of the current Emperor. The modern Druids who meet at Stonehenge have no idea what rituals were performed by the builders of Stonehenge (who were NOT Druids) - neither has anyone else except that they seemed to eat and drink a lot!

Well said, Ogg.

The late Harry Price assembled an interesting collection of "Magical Literature" (it's in Manchester, I believe), reputed to have just about the last word on the subject.

 

[Bramblethorn]

What I'm finding, as I research things, is that there is waa-a-a-a-ay just as much dogma in the field of the occult, the mysterious, the satanic or other similar ideas, as there is in standard mainstream religion!!

Yes indeed, but...

I mean take one example here: Count Dracula.

1. HE was not the blood-sucker - it was the Islamic hordes he was fighting who indulged quite literally, in eating the flesh of their victims both alive as well as dead!! The very word 'macabre' that we all know - comes from the Arabic word for a graveyard in which flesh-eating ARAB and MUSLIM ghouls dwell. Not Romanian vampires!

Merriam-Webster on "macabre":

"First Known [English] Use: 1889... We trace the origins of macabre to the name of the Book of Maccabees which is included in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons of the Old Testament and in the Protestant Apocrypha. ... In medieval France, representations of these passages were performed as a procession or dance which became known as the “dance of death” or “dance Maccabee,” which was spelled in several different ways, including danse macabre."

OED gives a similar etymology.

Vlad III (Vlad Țepeș, "the Impaler") was born somewhere around 1428-31, by which time "danse Macabre" was already documented in French use; see e.g. discussion at http://www.lamortdanslart.com/danse/dance.htm. So clearly it didn't come from events during Vlad's lifetime.

Googling, I do find some mention of a purported Arabic etymology, but it looks to be a fringe theory that's been rejected by Romance linguists.

The word ghul does come from Muslim/Arabic folklore, but it carries pretty much the same baggage as "demon"; "Muslim ghouls" per se would be an oxymoron in the same sort of way as "Christian demons".

Making up atrocity stories about the other side is a time-honoured custom of war, and cannibalism is one of the standards, so I'd take such claims with a large grain of salt unless supported by strong evidence. By my understanding of Islamic dietary law, cannibalism falls into the same category as eating pork: it's only permissible in cases of necessity where the alternative is starvation.

2. He never 'cursed god' and god never cursed him. He cursed the Mohammedan deity (which he regarded as Satanic) in his own handwriting - contained in texts still available in the Vatican libraries, the Vatican having bestowed upon him a knighthood and a particular religious order, namely that of the dragon, of which there are 'noble' forms thereof, apparently. He was an ordained priest and he was NEVER ex-communicated! He was never cruel to anyone who followed him and NEVER EVER cruel to peasants at all. The local people looked upon him as a saviour with supernatural powers FROM GOD. He had nothing to do with anything diabolical or satanic at all.

Vlad certainly was much more popular with his own people than his Anglosphere reputation would suggest. I used to visit the "Transylvania Winery" near Cooma; the owners had a big portrait of Vlad up on the wall, because they considered him a national hero.

And there are a lot of other aspects to the vampire myth in which the memex's have all been jumbled upside down - it is in fact an Islamic idea that you can kill a slave and have them come back to life, or a kind of un-dead life; it's not Dracula's idea nor his actual legend in reality.

Yep, Stoker and subsequent authors added a huge amount of fiction to what was already a highly fictionalised and politicised story. Even since Stoker, vampire mythology has changed greatly. Stoker's Dracula wasn't harmed by sunlight, he just didn't have his powers during the daylight - except at noon.

...And so I have encountered a bit of a problem. All the common tropes that Joe Citizen thinks of as evil or scary or whatever, are all back to front and upside down. As far as I can tell.

Seems to me like a good opportunity to go back to the lesser-known perspective!

 

[Blind_Justice]

If all else fails, bake your own. Unsettling books describing unwholesome rituals, isolated communities honoring their own twisted versions of "established" holidays or idolizing long-dead ancestors - you don't need to reference any existing occult tradition. Most modern-day cults and sects don't. All it takes is one charismatic or dominating individual and a handful of easily impressed followers and you have a cult, sect, murder family.

 

[NotWise]

Seems to me like a good opportunity to go back to the lesser-known perspective!

I use (and abuse) American Indian and Spanish folklore for occult effects in "A Valentine's Day Mess" (part 3 due out tomorrow).

 

[oggbashan]

I have left an anonymous comment on one of my stories involving White Witchcraft:

story's not to bad if some one knows nothing of the arts .

My trouble is that I know a fair amount about 'the arts' and I know most of it is recently invented bullshit.

So for my stories I invent my own version of witchcraft, just as 1960s practitioners did for modern witchcraft rituals.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Most ancient European myths - Norse, Greek and Roman and some Egyptian ones had variations, sometimes contradictory or had changed over hundreds of years. What we think are the standard versions of the myths are only those which modern scholars (i.e. post 1500 AD) think are the standard versions.

Satanism? Alastair Crowley and the author Dennis Wheatley are jointly responsible for most of the satanic rituals but some earlier Gothic authors made up their own versions of Satanism.

Witchcraft? Despite the Salem Trials and the persecution of witches throughout Europe most of what we think we know about witchcraft comes from their enemies. Most modern witchcraft, including the rituals, were invented in my lifetime and codified in the 1960s.

Even older texts that are available for practices in the Middle Ages were deliberately made obscure so that what witches actually did was not made explicit, only by hints within the texts. The texts used to justify persecution of witches were 'fake news' at its best.

Druidism? We know more about the ancient Celtic druids from Roman authors who saw Druidism as an opposition to the Roman Pantheon and worse, denied the divinity of the current Emperor. The modern Druids who meet at Stonehenge have no idea what rituals were performed by the builders of Stonehenge (who were NOT Druids) - neither has anyone else except that they seemed to eat and drink a lot!

You are spot on, for mine.

Thanks to all who have contributed - this is going to be somewhat challenging to me...

Quote from Blind_Justice: "Unsettling books describing unwholesome rituals." This is priceless to me - and I mean valuable; here is an exact example of words themselves conveying substantial meaning, almost palpable meaning. There's a template in five mere words, if I ever saw one. I think it's brilliant.

 

[Blind_Justice]

Heh. Don't thank me, thank H.P. Lovecraft. Most of my atmosphere building techniques I lear... stole from him

 

[beachbum1958]

I have left an anonymous comment on one of my stories involving White Witchcraft:

story's not to bad if some one knows nothing of the arts .

My trouble is that I know a fair amount about 'the arts' and I know most of it is recently invented bullshit.

So for my stories I invent my own version of witchcraft, just as 1960s practitioners did for modern witchcraft rituals.

I think Lori would really love to sit down and have a chat with you, Og, you echo her sentiments about modern 'ars arcana' and its flaky origins perfectly

 

[beachbum1958]

...double post, sorry...

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Heh. Don't thank me, thank H.P. Lovecraft. Most of my atmosphere building techniques I lear... stole from him

Hehehe (which is olden days speak for 'lol').

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

I think Lori would really love to sit down and have a chat with you, Og, you echo her sentiments about modern 'ars arcana' and its flaky origins perfectly

Researching it recently (and I have been employed at government level as a um 'researcher...') I tend to think too, that it IS flaky. Frankly I am quite surprised NOW, that I have been doing more detailed research at this late stage in my life. Like all of us, probably, I had more or less the same exposure to the popular ideas as everyone else - and held false views. I'm surprised I was that far wrong. Although, to be fair, I always felt there was a lot missing as far as internally satisfying explanations went.

There probably is 'real' stuff being actively practiced somewhere - as in real/authentic witchcraft and occult practice that is genuine and AUTHENTICALLY KNOWLINGLY genuine - but that stuff would all be (in terms of actual groups of people) an extremely well-kept secret and not at all like the mythology and iconic imagery that is popular (baphomet/goats/freemasonic stuff/... even the Illuminati stuff that we see almost everywhere nowadays especially in conspiracy theory talk). It's definitely not CERN either, who don't know what they are doing although it is clear to me there is occult aspects they are DABBLING in.

Yes sure some of the imagery is based on real things, but the reasons given by 'experts' are all categorically way off the mark. There is some Gardnerian material that has some basis and some of the versions of 'why' given by Gardner and his associates like Crowther have some basis but nowhere near the full meaning that would explain any of it properly.


Not properly anyway - and I mean, what is easily available out there is very misleading.

I haven't been able to find or locate or even get vaguely close to what I would infer are 'real' knowledgeable occult practitioners, albeit I believe Mongolian, Aboriginal and quite a number of shamanic people have genuine insights that are never fully explained by Nat Geo. They would be the only groups or individuals I would say fit into what I have found in archive and library material research. These shamanic groups have much MUCH more advanced, 'technical' (as in science and technology) comprehension of what they doing and what they are seeking to do than many people probably realize.

 

[PanzerFeck]

History is written by the victor...

Reading history might be fun and insightful, but the reason any dogma exists can come down to the fact that everybody has a different version of events for any notable time in history, but none speaking louder than the most powerful authority; that which is always best preserved in time and thus accepted as the original gospel.

Take a look at the rife propaganda today. The truth is just another story, and sometimes appearing as nothing more than bias. What makes history authentic is the material proof of culture and custom. It gives us the ability to visualise how life appeared, and what customs people practiced.

Readers are happy to entertain one question though: "what if..."

And that's as good as it gets. With the media industry trying to turn convention on its head every few years to avoid audience apathy caused by cliché or general repetition, "what if..." is the writer's bread and butter.

History is written by the victor. But nobody owns the copyright!

 

[Hypoxia]

If all else fails, bake your own. Unsettling books describing unwholesome rituals, isolated communities honoring their own twisted versions of "established" holidays or idolizing long-dead ancestors - you don't need to reference any existing occult tradition. Most modern-day cults and sects don't. All it takes is one charismatic or dominating individual and a handful of easily impressed followers and you have a cult, sect, murder family.

Analytically, I see a few ways of handling occult-religious stuff:

* Learn some dogma and stick with it (orthodoxy).
* Turn some existing dogma on its head (iconoclasm).
* Use a well-known existing dogma as shorthand -- merely mention Scientology and you needn't describe its secrets.
* As BJ suggests, invent a more-or-less elaborate dogma.
* Invent the skin of a dogma but don't sweat the details.

I've taken the last approach a couple times. Yes, there's a cult, and they do or don't do certain things, but I don't spew the theology because unneeded for the tales. But if you need a grimoire, by all means write it.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

PanzerFeck

"What makes history authentic is the material proof of culture and custom."

Gee, that's a good sentence. To my way of thinking.

...I'm really appreciating some internal segments of the comments here - they are really gold.

 

[oggbashan]

...

History is written by the victor. But nobody owns the copyright!

History is also rewritten by every generation; and worse, by every TV or movie producer who thinks his/her version of reality is more likely to make money; and then the TV programme or movie is remade every 10 years for a new audience (or to make more dollars).

Vietnam? Of course US forces won. You can tell that from the movies.

Korea? Of course it was fought by US forces only. No Allies were present. You can tell that from the movies.

And so on... You can tell that from the movies made in American for Americans.

 

[Hypoxia]

History is also rewritten by every generation; and worse, by every TV or movie producer who thinks his/her version of reality is more likely to make money; and then the TV programme or movie is remade every 10 years for a new audience (or to make more dollars).
<snip>
You can tell that from the movies made in American for Americans.

Then we should look forward to Chinese taking over more USA film studios. The product may remain cartoon history but the paradigms may shift.

IMHO a society's visualization of history is a palimpsest, an overlay of transparencies, each layer masking previous renditions which still manage to peek through. No, a Western wagon train wouldn't form a circle to withstand a mounted Indian attack -- that was how Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show could present the action for fairground audiences. The fictive formation is now HISTORY for subsequent dramatizations to build upon along with truer backgrounds.

We invent the future as we live our lives. We can re-invent the past, too. Or [ObTopic] invent a demonology to suit our storyline. Whatever.

 

[igottapussy]

Occult theme

As a practicing occultist, I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. I'm not an expert, I only know what I do, but that might be worthwhile. I'm an initiate of the Ordo Templi Orientis and while I can't share details of our rituals, I can certainly respond to general inquiries about our practices. Personally, I perform ceremonial magic and divination for myself, and work toward the understanding and accomplishment of my true will. In my opinion alchemy is about the transformation of the self, and this to me is the ultimate 'occult' topic - 'occult' meaning 'hidden' - the discovery of the self, our desires, motivations, reactions - these are the aspects that bring us to enlightenment and fulfillment in life. As a Thelemite, I believe in all expressions of love among consenting adults. I'm toying with an idea for a tale of sex magick, or sigil charging through sex magick, something like this.

Let me know if I can help.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Yeah I have a question. Why do you do it? I mean 'be a practicing occultist?'

 

[igottapussy]

Read my entire post. I think it's pretty self-explanatory.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Quoted: "Personally, I perform ceremonial magic and divination for myself, and work toward the understanding and accomplishment of my true will. In my opinion alchemy is about the transformation of the self, and this to me is the ultimate 'occult' topic - 'occult' meaning 'hidden' - the discovery of the self, our desires, motivations, reactions - these are the aspects that bring us to enlightenment and fulfillment in life."

Is that what you mean by 'self-explanatory?'

What I draw from this - if it is what you are referring to as self-explanatory - are the following:

1. Accomplishment of true will

2. Transformation of self (the ultimate 'occult' topic)

3. Discovery of self, desires, motivations, reactions - which are aspects that bring us to enlightenment and fulfillment (in life).

 

[PervOtaku]

Even though we think of Dracula as the archetypal vampire, pretty much all vampire lore as used by modern pop culture is totally different from the original Dracula novel. The various vampire or vampire-esque lore from around the world is different still.

There's a lot of stuff like this. King Arthur is another example. A lot of the major literary sources for Arthurian legends remixed stuff from the historical lore and each other.

It's older than dirt, really. Even in Greek mythology, you'll see later-era stuff with Apollo driving the sun chariot across the sky each day, while in older stuff Apollo and the sun chariot driver Helios were different guys.

 

[Black_and_White_Writer]

What I'm finding, as I research things, is that there is waa-a-a-a-ay just as much dogma in the field of the occult, the mysterious, the satanic or other similar ideas, as there is in standard mainstream religion!!

To cut a long story short, what I have found is that virtually ALL, of the common icons of occultism and the occult - are bullshit. They are TOTALLY incorrect when you go back and look at the actual origins of whatever motif or symbolism or iconic 'occult' idea has been spouted into the public perception.

I mean take one example here: Count Dracula.

1. HE was not the blood-sucker - it was the Islamic hordes he was fighting who indulged quite literally, in eating the flesh of their victims both alive as well as dead!! The very word 'macabre' that we all know - comes from the Arabic word for a graveyard in which flesh-eating ARAB and MUSLIM ghouls dwell. Not Romanian vampires!

2. He never 'cursed god' and god never cursed him. He cursed the Mohammedan deity (which he regarded as Satanic) in his own handwriting - contained in texts still available in the Vatican libraries, the Vatican having bestowed upon him a knighthood and a particular religious order, namely that of the dragon, of which there are 'noble' forms thereof, apparently. He was an ordained priest and he was NEVER ex-communicated! He was never cruel to anyone who followed him and NEVER EVER cruel to peasants at all. The local people looked upon him as a saviour with supernatural powers FROM GOD. He had nothing to do with anything diabolical or satanic at all.

3. He was highly cultured and very sophisticated and spoke a form of Latin as his normal speech, but he was multilingual and was a trained ambassador in royal courts.

And there are a lot of other aspects to the vampire myth in which the memex's have all been jumbled upside down - it is in fact an Islamic idea that you can kill a slave and have them come back to life, or a kind of un-dead life; it's not Dracula's idea nor his actual legend in reality.


...And so I have encountered a bit of a problem. All the common tropes that Joe Citizen thinks of as evil or scary or whatever, are all back to front and upside down. As far as I can tell.

Anyone with any particular trope or memex that appeals to them as 'scary' or diabolic - just please post it here, because I am in need of some that I can use based on research that actually supports it. My research has led me all over the place and very far away from common belief!

Here's one other example of what I have been encountering: the Gorgon Medusa was not a bad person, nor 'punished' by a god; she bore the flying white horse Pegasus as one of her children, which Zeus took as his own. Athena gave her the ability to scare her rapist away!!! And that is all that happened there.

Where you're getting your Dracula lore from seems to be a mixture of recent films from Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula, to other films since then.

The Islamic angle never really plays into the story in any great way.

Vlad the Impaler was a rough sketch of an idea that he represented to Bram Stoker to model his fictional Count upon.