New Age, the Occult, and Strategic Sorcery

Over at The Lions Den, Michael Cecchetelli posted a field report from some work he did using the Jupiterian material from my new book Financial Sorcery. Someone posted a comment about Strategic Sorcery being New Age, and… well you have probably already seen the comments and follow up post over at Lions Den. If you don’t read it, you really should as MC is one of the rising stars of the Occult world.

Anyway, the point I wanted to address here is that Strategic Sorcery is not meant to be an occult system like other occult systems. It is a mode of Life Hacking and and Spirituality that employs several methods, both magical and mundane.

Some techniques like meditation, visualization, energy work, breath work, etc are starting to get viewed as “New Age” by some people who think all magic is practiced the same way it is in the Grimoires or in Folk Magic where these elements are not as strongly present. Nothing could be further from the truth of course, as these elements are all staples of magic in the east – especially Tibet which is what most effects my thinking.

Than again, I also am not shy about delving into something that IS generally considered New Age if that is where spirit leads me. Some New Thought is solid and has made its way into the course. Though not a part of the course, even things like Drunvalo’s spinning Tetrehedrons have a¬†startling¬†effect when you cut through the New Age crap that surrounds it and get down to practice. Ekhankar is about as crazy new age as you can get, but their methods of Soul Travel are quite solid.

I am often amazed at the crap people are willing to swallow wholesale if it is in the right “Occult” packaging, but once it is out of that packaging it is either ridiculed or not even recognized.

Someone on formspring just asked me where all the magic is in Tibetan Buddhism, claiming that he has never been taught any. Yes he was taught how to consecrate and protect a space with Vajra Fence. Yes he was taught how to make offerings to the 8 classes of spirits and ask for their kindness in return. Yes he was given wrathful guardian spirits that he is bound to make offerings to. And yes, he was taught how to make a linga (doll) and summon obstructing demons and entities into it, than destroy it with the phurba…. But none of that is magic because no one was saying “HELLO THIS IS MAGIC”.

Same with Catholics. Yes you can buy a “Sell your House Kit” at the church – but that isn’t magic right?

I have seen New Age stuff get results that most occultists only dream of, and have seen utter crap get taken seriously just because it was published in a limited edition goatskin text.

I am concerned with what works – that is all.

About Inominandum

Author. Sorcerer. Consultant. I have 30 plus years of experience making magic a reality for myself, my clients, and my students. For a complete background go to www.strategicsorcery.net
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to New Age, the Occult, and Strategic Sorcery

  1. Andrew B. says:

    I did a consultation with someone just recently, and I think that I used quite a lot of techniques from your book and your course. I’d have to say, it was quite effective, probably some of the most effective work I’ve done for someone else, though admittedly with their very direct assistance.

  2. Al says:

    You tell us to read it on the Lion’s Den but provide no URL. I don’t know that site. :-)

  3. Rose Weaver says:

    “…but once it is out of that packaging it is either ridiculed or not even recognized.”

    Bingo… thank you for that.

  4. There’s a tendency to say, “That sounds like new age, and I think X about new age stuff, so I think X about that, too.” Everyone does it sometimes, including me. That sounds like what you’re running into.

    Part of exploring is recognizing that tendency and moving past it, and doing the experiment to find out what actually works.

    It sounds like you think about this stuff, too. Any lifehacking tips on it?

    • Inominandum says:

      The lifehacking tip for it is to look at what you do from the outside in and see how someone else might feel the same way about it. Wiccan? Look at the sort of shady myth building that Gardner did. Grimouire Purist? Are you really getting markedly better results following a book that was written 400 years ago? Instant Magic can be looked at as mental masturbation lacking any real roots – that is IF you don’t actually try it out. As it is I know that there is worth in what you are espousing because I have and do, occasionally do magic that way.

      Today, people take Hoodoo quite seriously, but just 15 years ago most people in western occultism did not.

      Basically:
      1. Deconstruct your own sacred cows and see how they might be seen as lame or new age or inept. This should shift how you view X slightly.
      2. Look for people that are getting results with X, and see if there is enough evidence to warrant a personal experimentation.
      3. Try it out and see for yourself. As you do so, focus on technique and method rather than dross that surrounds it. Vortex Healing for instance is exceptionally potent and works wonder – but is surrounded by the silliest, most inane mythology and back story ever invented.

  5. Drew Jacob says:

    Good post. It’s an interesting line and always fun to see where people draw it. I do understand where your Tibetan Buddhist friend is coming from. There’s a difference between magic and spiritual practice. I tend to stick to the classical definition: prayer or spiritual practice appeals to a deity who might say no; the magician expects his spell to work reliably, like a tool. The wood doesn’t say no to the drill.

    • Inominandum says:

      The difference you give between magic and spirituality doesnt usually hold up.

      In this case for instance in Buddhism there is no god. The Tantrika IS expecting the Kilaya ritual to work like a machine – it is not up the whim of some external god.

      On the flip side all magicians know that what they do has a chance of not manifesting how they like, and very often spells and rituals DO invoke gods who will not work if they dont want to.

      A better definition would be that pure spirituality is praying for intercession while magic involves bargaining, compelling, or more direct application, but even this does not hold up.

  6. Alisa says:

    With my natural aversion to any kind of dogma, I fully support the “concerned with what works” view. I guess, this is where the transition from a novice into a practitioner begins – when you learn to look beyond the framework of any given methodology and create your own system. If I can get my stuff done by sprinkling rose water on a cinnamon bun, I’ll do it. Anyway, it’s a question of preference. Some like being dark, mysterious and authentic, others like to open the quarters and have a fluffy rabbit as a spirit guide. In the end a lot magic work is based on a symbolic representation of material reality and when you get the underlying principles, it doesn’t matter what you include in your practice as long as it is put in the right place with the right intention.

  7. Pingback: Being part of the system | Magic and Pandas

  8. Jake Stratton-Kent says:

    a lot of stuff in occult covers is crap notwithstanding. There is a whole genre of ‘Dark Fluff’ with words like ‘dark’ and ‘transgressive’ sprinkled liberally about in the hope of appearing edgy. Apparently fans think if it is ‘dark’ it can’t be fluffy – WRONG!

    Fluffy means puffed up and lightweight, and comes from the school of MSU (making shit up) regardless of being light or dark.

    • Inominandum says:

      AMEN AMEN AMEN!

      Dark magic is more often than not Dork Magic.

      If I had to choose between sweetness and light fluff vs “Dark” fluff I would probably go sweetness and light. At least the motivations are good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>