Unpopular opinion: You don't need to know the "traditional" way to practice witchcraft
There is no one traditional way.
Every culture, every region, every time period, every family lineage did magic differently.
The "you must do it this way or you're not a real witch" crowd? They're gatekeeping based on their own narrow experience or the one book they read.
Celtic witchcraft isn't more "authentic" than kitchen witchcraft.
Wicca isn't the default (it was literally invented in the 1950s).
You don't need to work with deities.
You don't need an altar.
You don't need to celebrate the sabbats.
You don't need to memorize correspondences.
You don't need to buy expensive tools.
You don't need to call yourself a witch if that word doesn't fit.
You need intention. That's it.
The rest is personal preference, cultural connection, aesthetic choices, or what makes your brain feel like magic is happening.
All valid. None required.
If your practice works for you, harms no one, and doesn't appropriate closed practices, you're doing it right.
There is no witch police. There is no cosmic authority checking if you're doing it "correctly."
Magic is older than any tradition trying to claim ownership of it.
Do what works. Ignore what doesn't.
End rant.
(If you want accessible, practical magic that doesn't require expensive supplies or gatekeeping knowledge, I have 100+ free spells at app.edgeandaltar.com. No "you're doing it wrong" energy. Just spells that work.)
this essay stems from a debate i had during my “witchy hot take hour", which you can read here for context and make your own mind up (https://www.tumblr.com/witchescollection/788519370587619328/witchy-hot-take-time-if-you-spell-magic-as?source=share). it sprawled into something far bigger than i expected, and i admit, i got a little heated in that discussion, and so I wanted to take a step back and do my own research and re-examine my beliefs and argument. as always, i encourage people to critique this and provide sources i may have missed!
this debate, especially, fascinated me because i received several asks after of arguments defending the idea that spelling magic with a k was racist, and it surprised me that this was such a common point that many people held, and I had yet to come across it. and with that, i wanted to do my due diligence and brush up on my crowley, and elaborate upon my argument: that using ‘magick’ does not make someone racist; it is a term that evolved far beyond crowley’s personal bigotry. that being said, it is crucial to understand crowley’s racism.
crowley’s racism
he was racist, absolutely, and sometimes he held complex stances that muddied the waters, that are incredibly interesting to understand. his work was often contradictory. so, it might be easier here to unpick the arguments made about crowley, and to tease through the exact specifics of crowley’s racism, so we can avoid it in our own practice.
first, is his bastardisation of the kabbalah. he wrote 777 and other qabalistic writings of aleister crowley, a collection of magical correspondences based on the hermetic qabalah, which forms the underlying framework for the hermetic order of the golden dawn. it has origins with the christian cabala, as well as influences in a bunch of other sources (crowley, like most occultists of the time, was a huge fan of mish-mashing “occult” concepts together).
additionally, he spoke ill of other races. this section of the quotev article gets shared around a lot (and therefore, i'm unsure what is the original), so here it is below but with citations added for your benefit.
About the Chinese: “One cannot fraternize with the Chinese of the lower classes; one must treat them with absolute contempt and callousness “(Ch. 55, The Confessions of Aleister Crowley). and "The Chinese does not respect the white man as the Indian does — for his possession of high moral qualities. “(I’m unable to find a source for this one, as of current date).
About Mexicans: “Neither the coyotes nor the turkey-buzzards will touch a dead Mexican. His flesh has been too thoroughly impregnated with chillies and other pungent condiments.” (Ch. 23, The Confessions of Aleister Crowley)
About Blacks: “Where Islam and Christianity meet in open competition, as in some parts of Africa, it is found that only the lowest type of Negro, such as is accustomed to arrange matters with conscience by hanging a rag on a piece of stick, accepts Christianity” (Ch. 36, The Confessions of Aleister Crowley)
About Indians: “I am not fond of Bengalis at the best and he as the worst specimen of his race I have ever seen. He was fat and oily, with small piglike treacherous eyes.” (the only source I can find is secondary (e.g. Leffman or other tumblr posts), if anyone locates the original please let me know).
wyntercraft (archived through thewitchylibrary) discusses how Crowley wrote an essay called “The Jewish Problem Re-Stated” which I’ve linked below and encourage you to read.
it is worth noting, that so far all of crowley’s racism has been contained to his autobiography and non-religious essays. this, of course, bleeds through into thelema, but is at odds with thelema’s more anarchistic (pasi, 2014) and universalistic approach. pasi (2021) does an excellent job analysing more broadly the influence islam and judaism had on crowley (chapter 8 of esoteric transfers and constructions) and the kind of image he constructs of both Islam and “westerners”. He also does a brilliant job analysing Crowley’s overarching political views, (aleister crowley and the temptation of politics, pasi, 2014) and the connection between esoterica and politics. i tell you all this, and invite you to read these sources, because it is essential that we deepen our understanding of crowley’s bigotry far beyond him simply being and asshole or a dickbag. understanding this helps us to understand more about thelema and it’s influences, and that racism is incredibly complex.
"magick" and racism
now, we get to the crux of the debate. is magic with a k racist? and does that, by proxy, make you a racist? to be explicitly clear, as i feel this nuance is often overlooked, my criticism is with the notion that using magic with a k makes you a racist - not that people might feel uncomfortable, or choose not to use it. it’s your practice, and your choice!
this to me, touches on several cornerstones of recent discussion, both political and spiritual.
one - the current ongoing anxiety about racism and anti-racism, especially in america. people feel the need now, more than ever, to know that someone is on their side, as it might mean life or death.
two - the “death of the author” debate, and whether supporting problematic creators makes you problematic (e.g., jk rowling).
three - the discussions around cultural appropriation and whiteness that have popped up around the last few years especially.
and four - tumblr’s social currency, that of virtue signalling. nobody wants to be racist, and it feels good knowing you’re not (and gets you notes).
so, let’s look at the arguments in favour of using magic with a k making an individual racist.
wyntercraft makes an interesting argument - they double down on the idea that crowley is awful (as we’ve discussed above) and how he is worshipped, and suggests that using magic with a k is indicating support for crowley, and that all that needs to happen is for people to be educated and stop using the term. additionally, a lot of arguments i’ve seen compare it to a swastika from nazi germany - an (obviously) racist symbol.
as someone who uses magic with a k, here are my arguments in favour of that spelling:
some practitioners on quora, and in other spaces, have found it useful for categorisation and distinguishing between magic with a c (as in, stage magic) (although many people think context clues are enough), and that it’s been adopted by many other practitioners - i’d argue that whilst the spelling started with crowley, it’s evolved so far beyond that and therefore loses a lot of trace of him. there are also several practitioners who use it to differentiate between “low” magic and “high” magick, or “folk” magic and “ceremonial” magick. flyingthehedge also suggests an interesting alternative if this distinction interests you but magic with a k give you the ick - calling stage magic “illusions”. aradia also suggests that spelling it with a k might help trick the subconscious mind into believing into witchcraft easier, therefore helping one manifest and work magic easier.
regarding the swastika analogy, it doesn’t hold. swastikas were symbols of the nazi party who committed the holocaust, and therefore the symbol is directly linked to harm. this was state violence, signified by the swastika. additionally, they’re still continually used by violent hate groups due to their inherent ties to the genocide, too, magic with a k is a linguistic device, not directly linked to any racial harm, and it’s reasoning for usage, and existence is not based in any racism either. the only link is that its original creator (who is now dead and so cannot benefit from the usage of this spelling in anyway, unlike, say, a book sale would) was racist - but i think it’s been so decoupled from crowley’s personal racism that the analogy overreaches. following barthes (death of the author, see above), once a work is public, it’s interpreted & reshaped by a community. magick is now a collective term with diverse meanings, untethered from crowley’s personal bigotry. additionally, as the cultkinkcoven put it best, going out of one’s way to “educate” others, on behalf of people of colour, about their “racism” without explaining the harm, comes across as white saviourism and virtue signalling, and risks watering down real racism.
however, i recognise that in some communities it can be used as a dog whistle. that is, a signifier towards racists that this is a safe space for them. whilst i can certainly understand why that would make someone cautious towards anyone who uses magic with a k (and rightly so, lest racists think they have a safe space with witches), i don’t think it’s enough to accuse someone without racism. their actions should give you an idea of if their racist or not, and you should critique those points. context is essential here.
why i still use it
my position is this: using ‘magick’ does not make someone racist, because while crowley was undeniably racist, the spelling has long since detached from his personal views and does not cause direct harm. the spelling is ethically neutral - it’s crowley’s personal racism we reject, not every tool or term he used. i will continue to use that spelling as i find it useful, even having thought about its origins critically. understanding history does not excuse it, and being anti-racist involves challenging ideas and arguments, rather than simply wanting to say the right things without investigating the reasons why.
I lowkey kinda hate how witchcraft seems to be viewed by most people, even some in the community, as something exlucively for women.
Men can be witches.
Non-binary people can be witches.
Anyone, of any gender, can be a witch.
Exclusively using feminine language when referring to the witch community, like calling fellow members in general "sisters", is exclusionary.
I thought I'd take some time to address something I found on TikTok.
I'm not going to post the video, however, if you're on witchtok you've probably already run across it. There was a video of a beginner witch (for the love fuck stop calling them babies) using minimal ingredients in a spell jar, and sealing it with a bead and Elmer's glue. Of course, the better than thou beginner witches with their $300+ wax sets, ingredients, etc. had something to say. And it wasn't very nice.
I don't give a damn if you put nothing but glitter in a bottle and put a lid on it and call it a day. Whoever bullied this witch clearly doesn't know the first thing about intention, and is making up "rules" as they go. Any crone, or witch with even the slightest amount of experience for that matter, is ashamed of the witches that were in those comments. Of course those comments are gone now but... the damage is still done.
Do better. Please do better.
Edit: (Please stop suggesting chaoticwitchaunt on tiktok as a substitute. I won't go into detail and everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but a while back she accused Athena/Artemis(?) of scratching her face after she didn't practice her shadow work or something along those lines. A God wouldn't do that. They just would not. Again, if you like her, great, but please know she's been full of shit before. End of discussion.)
Where does this whole "Hereditary Witches Are Stronger" idea even come from? I'll fully admit to not being the most well read in that field but the only place I've seen it be true is Sims 4 which I'm pretty sure isn't a good source for any sort of knowledge, much less anything related to witchcraft
Probably from the same line of thinking that has to insist that modern traditions and practices have some kind of ancient lineage. Some people just cannot get over the idea that things don't necessarily have to be ancient or ancestral in order to be meaningful, powerful, and valid. They buy into the myth that antiquity is the only thing that confers value. Clearly they are myth-taken.
Also some people just have a complex where they have to make themselves out to be special and mysterious (i.e. belonging to a secret coven, coming from an unbroken line of witches, claiming to have actual superpowers, etc). Mostly I think this comes from not feeling valued or acknowledged in their everyday lives, or from simple frustration at the feeling of powerlessness that we all experience at some point. Which I totally understand.
And, yanno, some people are just yahoos doing it for internet clout.
It's not nearly as prevalent as it used to be, but there are still some places where you can find Discourse that claims these hereditary witches are more inherently powerful than witches who had to pick up the craft on their own. Whether it's because of some fictional magical bloodline or simply because some people think being raised in a pagan household makes them superior, they're both incorrect.
The only advantage being raised in a witchy household gives you is a head start on your education. If you have access to materials and lessons from an early age and don't have to hide your practice, you're obviously going to be further along in your learning than someone who got interested as a teenager, had to hide their interests until college, and then had to teach themselves with whatever resources they could find.
Also my Sims witch cottage is ADORABLE and if I ever figure out how to download the screenshots, I'm sharing it with all of you.
Not trying to start any discourse, just putting my opinion out there and seeing how many people agree. If you don’t though I’d love to hear why, I’m always interested in challenging my opinions and learning more.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with love spells. I think when people say love spells are bad, what they mean is that person-specific love spells are bad - and I agree! But to make a generalised saying that all love spells are bad is dangerous and misinforming baby witches who are trying to do research into love magick. There’s plenty of love spells that aren’t person specific and are good - self love spells, spells for attracting a general sense of love into life, person specific spells with consent, all are just examples. I don’t see anything wrong with those spells and it bothers me when people say they are against love spells when what they mean is they are against person-specific love spells.
