ecosophia | How Not To Do Magic: The Saga Continues

Two more tales from the ongoing story of the anti-Trump magicians...

1) On October 20, a Wiccan bookstore in Brooklyn will be hosting a hex party aimed at the newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh. Tickets (already sold out) are $10 a head. Kavanaugh, according to the organizers, will be "the focal point, but by no means the only target, so bring your rage and all the axes you've got to grind."

I suppose that's one way to guarantee a successful fundraiser at a time when rage has become the most fashionable addictive drug, and it's also a good example of the particular return of the repressed I talked about last year on the blog; now that hate has become subject to the same kind of taboos that Victorians applied to sex, people are frantically looking around for excuses to hate and still feel good about themselves. Donald Trump has thus come to occupy a vitally necessary role in the emotional lives of a great many Americans, and events like the bookstore hex party play exactly the same role in today's culture that weekend spouse-swapping parties played in the 1950s. (We're still a few years out from people marching down the street chanting, "Say it now and say it loud, I hate and I'm proud.")

In terms of magical efficacy, though, Justice Kavanaugh can sleep easy in his bed. Successful magic requires focus; if the 60 attendees at the hex party all bring everything that makes them angry and cast a group spell intended to curse everything on everybody's laundry list of hatreds, each target will get considerably less than 1/60th of a curse -- little enough that any residual effect will be drowned out by the ordinary workings of randomness. Mind you, the participants will doubtless go home smiling and relaxed, and I suspect that's the actual point of it all.

2) On a considerably more serious plane, Celtic Pagan Morpheus Ravenna has been talking some practical common sense to the anti-Trump magical scene, pointing out that hostile magic is difficult and dangerous stuff that should probably be left to people who know what they're doing, that spiritual hygiene and protection are crucial in that sort of work, and -- most impressive of all -- that Trump is a symptom of a broader problem and those who hate him need to deal with their own contributions to that broader problem. These are excellent points; we're looking at a far more competent and knowledgeable occultist than the ones I've discussed in earlier posts on this theme.

The problem with Ravenna's work is subtler, though no less lethal. She's smart enough not to give the details of her own working -- another mark in her favor -- but discusses the general focus of it, which is to try to use Trump's oath of office as the basis for a curse, in the belief that he's broken it and is therefore vulnerable. That's potentially a very clever move, except for one thing: Trump hasn't broken his oath of office.

Here's the oath of office of the President of the United States:

""I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That's all. So far, Trump has carried out his duties as President, as specified by the Constitution, and none of his actions have violated the specific terms of the Constitution. Please remember here that the Constitution is a legal document setting out how the US government is to be run and, as amended, giving the citizens of the United States specific rights relative to the government. Nowhere does it contain a clause saying "The Democratic Party always gets its way," or allowing people to insist that additional rights must be enforced even though they're not enumerated in the Constitution.

The difficulty Ravenna faces here is that the Celtic magical traditions in which she works have very specific warnings about what happens if you curse someone who doesn't deserve it. What happens is that you get whatever you're trying to send to the other person. Since Trump hasn't committed the offense she insists he has, she's in line for a whale of a backlash.

There's a great scene at the beginning of Bruce Lee's film Enter the Dragon where he's teaching a student how to fight, and he makes a point about the difference between emotional energy and anger. Emotional energy is an important source of magical power, but if you're too deeply mired in an emotional state to think clearly, you probably need to set aside your magical tools until you've calmed down. That's true of any strong emotion, but it's especially true of anger -- and at a time when a great many people on all sides of the political spectrum are basically rage junkies these days, that's worth keeping in mind.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the president from accepting money from foreign governments; the emoluments clause (Article II, section 1, paragraph 7) prohibits him from receiving any emolument other than his salary from the US government, or from the government of any US state. (You can find an accurate copy of the US Constitution here; I strongly encourage you to take the time to read it in full.)

As for fame hurting fortune, it happens all the time. When a celebrity does something that offends a large part of their audience, their fame goes up but their income very often goes down. The binding spell against Trump, for what it's worth, said nothing about his wealth; it was supposed to bind him politically -- and that's been a pretty clear flop.

Edited 2018-10-14 05:22 (UTC)

Sorry if this is OT, no need to post. But I'm not sure I agree that "nothing in the Constitution prohibits the president from accepting money from foreign governments". what about Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 8? As I understand, that is the clause that is commonly understood as prohibiting federal officers, including the president, from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." True, congress can authorize such gifts,but it seems to me that there is a provision that, absent such authorization, the president cannot accept money from foreign states. Could be wrong, but thought I'd raise the point. As always, thanks for your time, effort, and insight!

See my comment below.

I suppose I will enjoy the show and see where it goes.
As has been said, I can't imagine trying to curse or hex someone, especially someone who isn't in my life at all.

FYI, I think Trump is accused of breaking the emoluments clause farther down in section 9 - it's a misc section after talking in detail about congress. But it may have been intended to apply to congress, it's a novel question.

Quoted below.

8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

I defer to your wisdom in matters of magic.

Congress, over the last two and a quarter centuries, has passed quite a number of bills setting out the conditions under which it consents to federal officials, including the president, receiving presents and emoluments from foreign states. That consent has been given very broadly over the years, and as far as I know, nothing Donald Trump has done has violated any of the specific provisions of those bills. Equally, though the Clintons raked in quite a bit of money from foreign governments while Bill was president, and then again while Hillary was a Senator and then when she was Secretary of State, nothing they did conflicted with that clause. (Can you imagine the GOP not jumping on that as a weapon against them?) So once again, it's a non-issue.

What, I said to myself, is an emolument? Webster's, here I come. According to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate 10th edition, an emolument is "the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites." I would suggest that what the Founders had in mind was preventing any Federal officer holder from also holding an office or employment from a foreign government--for obvious reasons of conflict of interest. As JMG has observed, Congress has passed various bills on the subject. Some office holders have been more scrupulous than others--refusing even minor personal gifts. Being one of those people given to finding strange pictures in uncommon words I will note that emoluments sound oily to me. I picture slaves bringing in alabaster bottles of richly scented unguents, although the word actually derives from grinding, as of meal. So derived from payments in grain or bread?

I think it is worth noting that it has been some time since any president or cabinet official has left office poorer than they went in, or been found in genteel poverty after retirement. Neither party, at any level of government, wants to turn the spotlight on why that is the case. So, while outside groups may push for Trump to be accused and indicted under this clause I doubt there will be any support for the notion in the Capitol, even if the Democrats achieve a majority in one or both houses.

Rita

How Not To Do Magic: The Saga Continues

Re: what about emoluments?

Re: what about emoluments?

Re: what about emoluments?

Re: what about emoluments?

Re: what about emoluments?

Re: what about emoluments?