: Since Rayelan's post dated Wednesday 13th of December
: concerning the retraction of the Harry Potter article I
: feel it necessary to post a retraction of my own post,
: "Harry Potter Books and Draco - Warning To
: Parents". I would further like to apologise to any
: RMNews Agents to which this caused any sort of offence.

('Kat, no kidding: you're "a class act". Well done.)

: However, I still hold very grave concerns for children being
: lured into facination with the occult through various media
: including "Harry Potter Books".

[big snip]

: I do not make claims and concerns as some half cocked, bigoted
: Christian either, but out of concern for the innocence of
: children being lured into a very dark world of existence.
: This statement I do not make half heartedly, because it was
: the lure of the occult via such media as
: "harmless" childrens books, TV programs, like
: "Katweazel" (This program may not be known to
: Americans - but it is to Britians and Australians), and
: movies like the "Exorcist", that seduced me into
: a dark world which led me to the thresh hold of committing
: murder in a Satanic Ritual and almost cost my own life as
: well. The one indelible marks it did leave were emotional
: and psychological scars.

(Yes.) You've got a unique, and authoritative, perspective
to speak from on this particular topic, and I'm appreciative
of your willingness to step forward and speak out with regard
to it.

I'm gonna suggest, though, that (as any one person would be),
you're a "one-rat experiment" - meaning, your personal history,
valid and authoritative as it is, nevertheless cannot by itself
provide the basis for "a general principle applicable to all or
even most all youthful human beings". May I offer some counter-
balancing bits of my own history...?

I grew up in a painfully normal dysfunctional household - both
parents, Mom's mom, a brother, a sister, a dog, a parakeet; in
the suburbs of a major American city. I was eventually in the
Cub Scouts, was a paperboy; took 3 years of Latin, played in
the high school band; like that. I remember my sister (ten
years older) chasing me through the house and slapping me once,
because I'd said, "Good Lord!" at something-or-other. We all
went (were dragged) to Episcopal church on Sundays, till the kids
were old enough to say "no" to that. Mom had been raised a
Baptist; Dad couldn't find any use for religion; Episcopal church
was the dutiful compromise that they'd come up with for us.

The arrival of "Twilight Zone" on television coincided with the
awakening of my conscious mind - I couldn't get enough of it,
or of anything that was like it, either. I stayed up late on
Friday nights, watching old horror movies - Dracula was without
question my favorite "monster". I assembled all the Aurora kits
of (plastic) monster models that they sold, and devised clever
ways to use Tester's fume-laden plastic model paint, to make
them look as real as possible.

To this day, I _like_ "monster movies" - but I don't like
"slasher movies", and there's a clear distinction between the
two types. Monster movies are allegorical; slasher movies are
all-gore-ical, violence and mayhem that calls to our baser
instincts - folks watch the gorey movies to see someone else
get a very serious comeuppance - vengeance; retribution;
judgment, condemnation, and general rage and hatefulness.

But also to this day, I observe and recognize that a great
many of my friends _cannot_ watch horror movies. There's
something about what's being depicted on the movie or tv screen,
that their _subconscious_ minds simply cannot abide (nor would
I ask them to; I realize I ended up different, for some reason,
and would never presume that anyone else should be obliged to
"entertain" in his or her thinking, what I know I'm able to
entertain without harm or upset).

Okay - whenever LaVey's "Satanic Bible" first appeared in print,
I (logically enough) picked up a copy of it. I remember scanning
it, finding it boring, and putting it on the shelf - it had a
very pretty purple cover :) - until, some day years later, I
tossed it out or gave it away or something. I remember the photo
of LaVey on the book's back cover: he looked piggish, to me; not
at all like a living example of anything I wanted to be, or that
had any relevance in my living whatsoever.

So, I'm saying _my_ "one-rat experiment" could be said to prove
that there is no intrinsic "seductive power" to what we're
referring to as "the occult" or "magic". (It doesn't quite
prove that, of course, but you get my point.)

You'll remmeber my favorite monster was Dracula. Vampires
(as watchers of 'Buffy' and 'Angel' will know) cannot enter
a house unless invited to. The very word 'seduction' comes from
Latin, "se ducere", which means, "to lead oneself", suggesting
that seduction requires that it be invited or at least welcomed.

You (and many others) have a noble concern for the welfare of
the kids and the possibility that they might be "sucked into"
something that is more than they can handle. I'm absolutely
with you in that - nothing is as personally upsetting to me as
some of the tales we've heard, about how the NWO folks in some
cases have "used" children; it's as close to being "ready to
kill" as I ever get, when I hear about that.

But I want to suggest that the way to handle _ideas_ about
"magic" and "the occult" is to bring them into the light, rather
than pressing them down into the darkness of the subconscious,
where they tend to thrive and grow, unobserved.

: Look at the list of programs today that are specifically
: targeted at our children - there are an endless list of
: films, cartoons, and programs that advocate violence and
: retribution, selfishness and self indulgence, advocation of
: witchcraft/paganism.

I agree, themes of self-indlugence are prevalent, these days.

However, I must report some of my favorite people in all of
cyberspace have turned out to be 'wiccans'; they turn out to
have both a loving heart, and the assuredness that they're
able to love without being "taken for a ride". The "magic"
that they work with has precious little to do with imposing
their will on anyone else, much more to do with insuring
no one else's will gets imposed on them. Bearing in mind
that, historically, it was people who appeared to represent
"the Christian church" who persecuted witches and burned them
at the stake, wiccans have no love for the Christian _religion_
as found in churches - but they have no disdain for the one known
as Jesus when considered apart from the dogma and doctrine that
has grown up around his memory, his story, and his teachings.

[big snip]

: Mr Norfolk said: "Our youth officer will explain things
: like the principle ethic of witchcraft - that you should
: not cause harm to anyone - and that it's not just an easy
: way to get a new boyfriend!"

Mr. Norfolk's statements are consistent with 'wiccans' I've
met in cyberspace.

[snip]

: He said: "The growing number of books and TV shows like
: Harry Potter and Sabrina the Teenage Witch encourage an
: interest in magic as harmless fun. However for some young
: people it could fuel a fascination that leads to dangerous
: dabbling with occult powers. So what starts out as spooks
: and spells can lead to psychological and spiritual damage."

Hmm; all right, I think we have to give him that point. But I
would suggest again that avoidance of the topic, suppression
of the information, does _not_ produce the hoped-for result,
and that the reverse approach is mechanically necessary. It's
equivalent to saying, "Your kids should hear from you what you
think about drugs and using drugs." Generally true, but tone
and timing would be critical elements. Same with "magic" -
parents and other looked-up to adults are where the 'tone' of
the thing has to come from. A 'tone' of, "We're terribly
frightened about his!" suggests the adults believe in the great
power of the thing feared. A more useful message by far would
be one that signals, "God is vastly more powerful than whatever
powers these folks might have access to - so don't be fearful,
but _do_ stay close to God, and be wise and careful."

: "Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!"

(You bet; and it's boring. :)

: "Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other
: cheek!" [Ibid.]

(blah blah, woof woof) (yawn)

: "Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all
: lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!"
: [Ibid.]

And the point would be...? (Piggy LaVey imagines "gratification"
is fulfilling? For him, maybe.)

: "Hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite
: you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other!; smite him hip
: and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law! He who
: turns the other cheek is a cowardly dog" [p. 33;
: Emphasis was in the original]

Baloney. :) Just 'cause Piggy LaVey says it strongly doesn't
make it so, and won't convince anyone who's had a chance to
see "a better way" exemplified in living by a real-live adult.

: If you feel this is just all rhetoric and does not concern the
: media aimed at children, then do some simple research. Find
: out who are the organisations that are fronting the money
: for all the media that is being thrown at our children and
: what is their motive behind it? What organisations are they
: afilliated with? Finally do some historical research into
: ancient paganistic societies and practices. I assure you
: that as you learn of the practices of ancient paganism the
: picture will become rather grim.

Understood, but do bear in mind those "ancient histories" can
be every bit as biased in their reporting as today's media. For
example, someone asserted that "Druids" were into animal sacrifice.
Looking into it, I found that it was common practice among the
folks who lived in Druid country, to "thin the livestock" each
winter - because they didn't have space or a way to keep all the
animals _warm_ during very inclement weather. Those they left
alive were brought indoors, into their _houses_, for the winter
season. It's easy enough to theorize that this customary practice,
observed by someone who either knew no better or who hoped to find
that Druids were "not nice people" could have fueled a very
emotional assertion that they "sacrificed" animals as an aspect
of thier spiritual practices. (I don't know; I wasn't there - but
I can see there's room for doubting the "historical assertions" on
this.)

: Finally, if you think none of this has anything to do with the
: NWO, and that is not to say that JK Rowling intentionally
: has, consider the following. Below is two of the main
: points of the Illuminati Manifesto, authored by Adam
: Weishaupt.

: "...the aboliton of: ...5. social order in families,
: sexual laws,
: and moral codes, 6. all religious discilplines based on faith
: in God as oppossed to faith in nature, man, and reason
: (deism)."

Yeah, but: God is the ruler yet. Churches may tumble; God's
still where God has always been. And God (being the Supreme
Being, after all, and not completely dim :) can readily handle
any planned challenges by li'l ol' mortals, whether they've
ganged themselves together and called themselves "Iluminati"
or not. We can help, by withholding our energy from them and
their deviant plans - without us, they've got no "stuff" to
build them with; and we do that most readily by _placing_ our
energy where it belongs, with the Creator of all this creation.

"Glory to God in the highest;
[and then, as a result]
Peace on earth, good will toward men."