manipulative magic

Technically, there are no "evil" spells; rather it is the *manner* and *spirit* which they are cast in that causes it be good or evil. Manipulative magic is truly wrong, unethical, and if that's not enough, karma or the law of three *will* bite you in the ass if you do this.

Magic is considered manipulative in these ways:

1) casting a spell upon a person without their knowledge. This DOES include "Oh i'll just do this for my friend, it will help her get better grades." NO. it is *fine* to cast a spell for another person--but get their *permission* first. Spellcasting unasked to them is like someone telling you "oh i'll pray for you!" if you don't want them to pray to a god you don't believe in for a "salvation" you don't want. on *top* of that there's that "threes" factor -_- This act is passive-manipulative, as it was done with no intent for ill, but it is still manipulative.

2) cursing someone. Umm, DUH? This is like the above except *with* malicious intent. if you thought helpful unasked casting was bad..... you must remember, if you do this *you may just get what you asked for*. Don't EVER cast with the assumption "oh it won't work anyways!" That will be the one time it DOES.

3) the least obvious form of manipulative magic is, well, anything that influences another against their will. the *same spell* can be used in manipulative or non-manipulative ways. The easiest example is this:

If you cast a love spell saying in essence "please, if it is your will, bring me love i need companionship i'm lonely" that is fine and good and safe. And someone else who is questing for love may find it easier to find you hereafter.

But if you take the exact same ceremony and put the intent of "Make (insert name of very specific person here) fall madly in love with me, marry me, spend the rest of his life with me!" that is manipulative in the worst sense. that spell was cast with the intent of *influencing another*. And what if it works? What if you *do* win his affections? (i am using 'he' because it tends to be lovesick 14-year old girls that cast love spells like this. They frequently get from teen magazines quasi-spells that are factually correct but contextually *wrong*, aka "write his name on a piece of paper and burn it in a red candle, chanting (foo)" this is a massive irresponsibility of these publications but that's a rant for another time.) Again i ask what if it works? What if he *does* "fall in love" with you? two things tend to happen here--you 'win' him and realize he's NOT what you thought, you don't' want him anymore, but you DONT know how to undo this, so he is still head over heels for you and you cannot get yourself out. the other is, you "win". he loves you, he is what you wanted. But gradually the thought becomes... do you really want a *slave*? because this is what in essence he is. He is bound to you thru little will of his own but a massive act of manipulation. And you will never quite know if he truly loves you, or *believes* he does from your work. You don't have a lover, but a possession. This can even be compounded by the victim *realizing* over time what happened--but with the knowledge they are *still* powerless to change it, and grow resentful. But they still can't leave unless you set them free. They grow resentful, you get unhappy... it all goes straight to hell. you get your work back, not "in spades" but in threes.

It's not the spell itself. it's what you *mean* by it. i cannot emphasize enough, BE CAREFUL. an harm ye none, do what ye will. But making someone they're not, doing something for someone they don't want done... is doing harm.
HARM NONE.
so mote it be.

I respectfully beg to differ.

But first, a definition:

Manipulative magic is the use of will, using means beyond the scope of science, to cause others to do things that, other than by this application of will, they would not do.

Manipulative magic is perhaps the most lucrative application of magic. Those who have experienced the benefits of the occult need not limit themselves to the pedantic and neurotic superstitions of so-called "Masters" and their naturalistic fallacies. Power is not limited by human insecurity, and anyone who is willing and able to tap this power can reap a shameless harvest.

Here's a little Occam surgery for you. "Karma" and the "Law" of Threes are simply the neo-pagan equivalents of the "God will smite you with lightening if you sin" arguments. Their effects collapse nicely into far simpler theory:--

If you come to believe that you are doing something which goes against the order of nature, you will make yourself fail.

Magic works mainly in terms of positive visualisation. If your visualisation ain't positive, what do you think the result will be?

Manipulative magic is something to which you are subjected every day, and the "perpetrators" suffer no karmic retribution whatsoever. More often than not, it works on you.

People cast spells on you without your knowledge. If these benefit you, are you going to complain? Wouldn't it actually be a shame if karma bit the ass of your secret benefactor? Of course, this backlash doesn't even occur among free-spirited participants in the first place.

And in case you're worried that magic might override free will -- will and magic occupy the same continuum of power relations. Magic does not dominate will; it is merely the medium for one will (that of the magician) to dominate that of the subject. That's no different from social domination. If you're suceptible to magic, you're suceptible to social domination, and vice versa. That's the problem of the subject, the target -- not the magician.

You think you aren't cursed from a bajillion different sources every day? People you know visualise you coming into negative situations. People you know hate you and you don't even know it. Depending on who you are and who they are, it might be warranted and it might not. That's not the point. The point is that everyone, on some basic level, believes in the power of hex. Even if they're enlightened and scientific and all that crap, there's still some part of them that worries. That doubt is what the hexer takes advantage of. But even more dangerous is the fact that, the more you try to convince yourself you don't believe in curses, the less likely you will be to take measures against them -- and therefore the more likely they will be to work on you. Again, it's simply a matter of preventing people from taking advantage of you.

That's why so many neo-pagans hate it so much when their Christian "friends" tell them, "I'll pray for you." It's not really that the pagan just doesn't believe in the Christian God, because hey, who gives a shit if the Christian is mumbling his orisons to his imaginary friend in the sky? Not me, that's for sure. So why get mad? Because you think it will affect you anyway. Like the Christian had the balls to pull off any sort of mind-magic! Hear me scoff!

Magic is subtle. You cannot create armies of mindless zombie slaves with magic -- unless you have supplemental means, such as fame. Magic cannot turn you into a mindless zombie slave unless you already are a mindless zombie slave. Ever get a commercial advertisement ditty stuck in your head and then make a purchasing decision based purely on that mental plug, rather than an objective consumer analysis of the product in question? Do you think karma is going to bite the advertiser or the corporation for compelling you to make that decision? Hell no. They're going to get rich off your weakness of will. That's the same principle as magic -- if you were all that strong of will, you'd know the magic for what it was right away.

What magic can do is achieve ends via the application of will which would not be within the scope of rational or scientific means.

If there are people who are manipulating you with magic, chances are you don't have what it takes to stop them anyway. And have no illusions: Karma isn't going to get them for you. Because of your own refusal to see the way power operates around you, you have left yourself open to oppression and compulsion on all sides -- occult and otherwise.

Noder's Note (December 18, 2000): Please do not downvote this because you disagree. It's not like it's a troll, it's not like it's irrelevant, and I don't think it's particularly sloppy. If you think I'm just plain wrong, why not add a writeup of your own explaining why?

JerboaKolinowski: Science deals with mechanical causation, exclusively. Magic is a metaphysics divorced from mechanical conception. The causation I'm referring to, therefore, is magical causation -- that is, it need not have mechanical media.

JK again: In everyday life, the mundane agent employs at least two metaphysical systems: intention and mechanics -- or, in more exaggerated terms, "free will" and "determinism." "Intention" is not a "science" -- and yet an intentional working can alter the physical world. That is how literature and art work; art is causal, but not mechanical. These two metaphysics are mutually exclusive, but neither is inconsistent with the data of the world in which we live; reality itself does not sufficiently determine which of these is "true." It is unenlightening to analyse one in terms of the other. So too is it if you add a third metaphysics, magic.

I do believe somewhat in karmic retribution, in some cases. For instance, one of my very first magickal workings was a big mistake. In my mind, I was trying to help someone escape a potentially dangerous situation, but looking back on it, I know I only saw the situation as dangerous because I was prejudiced against it being "happiness" for the involved person just because it would not be "happiness" for me. In this working I attempted to lead my subject away from something that made her happy just because I didn't like it; I tried to enforce my will on another person, and not twenty-four hours later I got food poisoning after eating the same thing my sister did, yet she didn't get sick, and my body was rejecting the food just like my spell's subject ended up rejecting my intended "protection." I got the point, of course. And scientifically speaking, this could have been a coincidence, or a nervous reaction to subconsciously knowing I did something wrong. But speaking of karma . . .

It is very likely that karma is less mysterious than we imagine. Say a magick user tends to work spells that meddle in her friends' lives for the worse. Someone who would do something like that is also likely to gossip and talk behind people's backs, and is not likely to be trusted or held close by many people. It seems that there may be a third variable causing karma to bite this woman's ass: she is a bitch. And bitches who meddle in their friends' lives are often bitches outside the magick circle too, and their bitchiness will end up burning them more than once. In short:

These people are their own worst punishment.

I agree that manipulative magick is dangerous, mostly because trying to manipulate anyone against their will is dangerous. It's not necessarily dangerous because you will be smitten for it (you might not be, especially if you don't know what you're doing), but more because it is dangerous to hold the desire to dominate other people under your power. People who abuse power like this can become terrorists, whose lives are never happy. And they deserve it if they act on these impulses to get others cowering under their thumbs.

Addressing some other points in the above writeups:

I do think that in some cases it's all right to work magick for people without their express permission. This is okay in my opinion if you either have their general permission (just not for a particular working) or just want to send some energy their way. Or if the person is truly out of control and is a danger to him/herself and others, a binding may be necessary, but that is best left to very experienced people. I think that if someone is known to be opposed to the magickal equivalent of praying, it is best not to do it, or to just give the person a "good luck" charm to aid their needs rather than actually casting a spell on the person. (That way the person can subconsciously invoke what he/she needs from the inspiration of the charm, when/if the person chooses to.)

On the subject of love spells involving a particular person: I think that trying to evoke the desired impulses in a mate is not an unwholesome thing to do; as Wuukiee said, it is all in how ya do it. Just like dressing nice and being groomed might get your dream lover to look your way, a push in the right direction is nothing shameful. Wearing too much perfume and wearing a push-up bra right in his face, however, is not only tacky but ultimately ineffective for staying in a relationship. And as you might have guessed, the dressing nice and being groomed is just like casting a "make me attractive to people who might love me" spell, while the tacky flaunting I mentioned is similar to a "make HIM fall in love with me" spell.

On the subject of teen girl magazines suggesting love spells: Yes. Totally irresponsible. And equated to the levels of Mystery Date and the MASH game so many of us played as giggling adolescents. I frown on their practice of publishing what is essentially a magickal prayer as if it were just fun and games, but I can only hope that these might awaken a few new pagans with every issue.

All magick is in some way manipulative; that's what it's all about, or why use it? But a "curse" is a hell of a lot different than a healing spell, even if both manipulate whatever energy you envision. And if you begin studying magick so that you can get revenge on the teachers who flunked you or the boss who fired you, you're already in the negative energy up to your neck before you even pick up your wand. You don't even have to cast the spell because you're already a bitch. And you deserve yourself.

If we take the view (as Cletus obviously does not) that the scope of science extends to the whole arena of causality, Cletus' interesting definition:

'using means beyond the scope of science, to cause [...]'

As a non-occultist, I can live with that consequence, but practitioners less philosophically motivated (dare I say sophisticated?) than Mr Foetus may find Aleister Crowley's definition:

'Magick is the Art and Science of causing change in conformity with Will'

If so, they may appreciate his motto:

We place no reliance
On Virgin or Pigeon
Our Method is Science
Our aim is Religion.