a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.


Basics of Thelema

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.freemasonry,alt.magick,talk.religion.misc,alt.magick.order,alt.pagan.magick,alt.magick.ethics
From: (nigris (333))
Subject: Re: Basics of Thelema (LONG)(was 'Who's a Thelemite?')
Date: 23 Mar 1997 12:49:50 -0800

49970225 AA1  Hail Satan!  


#> 'Thelemite' is an ideal, an auspicious individual who upholds and
#> embodies the Law of Thelema as understood by the great sages of its
#> propagation (to be determined, though this appears to include such
#> people as Rabelais, Crowley, Grant, possibly Achad, perhaps others).
#> compare this directly with 'Sage' as elaborated by _Tao Teh Ching_,
#> the Confucian _Analects_, or other Eastern sources.
Solis :
# ...what IS the Law of Thelema?  

the Law of Thelema is variably considered by religious cultists to be 
a regulatory dictate from some "higher authority" (as you suggest) or,
by Thelemic philosophers and mystics as a Law of Nature.

I prefer to see it as a principle of sentient behavior described in
brief by the dictum: do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

I interpret this literally and plainly as an exhortation to achieve
whatever we fervently desire, dismissing the restrictions others
would impose upon us in their moral and myopic approach to life.  it
is of course recommended that the repercussions of these achievements
and the extent of one's true will be kept firmly in mind so as to
avoid unnecessary pain and suffering, yet this is only a suggestion
(comparable to the 'Wiccan Rede').

# Who is that higher authority? Ra-hoor-khuit?  

I don't personally take it to be this kind of 'Law'.  I think
Crowley makes it plain he considers it to be a Law of Nature.  these
are much different than regulatory mechanisms, describing instead 
principles of activity or behavior which have been observed and to
which we may attune ourselves.

# Is the sentence for breaking such a Law self imposed by
# ones Higher Self, Unconscious, Ego, Id?  What?

the Law of Thelema as I understand it cannot be broken.  there is
no 'sentence' doled out and no 'higher authority' responsible for
imposing conformity to this Law.  such is a misunderstanding of
the Evil Book and the Beastmaster as I see it, though I would
welcome citations of refute.

#> the most inclusive definition I can think of is not particular:
#>         'Thelemite' means whatever the thinker thinks it means.
# I feel uncomfortable with that definition, here's why:  many
# inappropriate actions can be justified away with that statement.  

within the Law of Thelema there is no 'inappropriate action', there
is only 'that which is encompassed by one's orbit', and 'that which
interferes in the orbit of another' (fetching pain in response as
the individual whose true will is triumphant decimates the interloper).

# If I
# decide to kill some one, I could, in my defense say:  "It was my will"
# without considering the will or rights of my victim.  As far as my
# victim I could ever say:  "It must have been his or her will to dies,
# because, they did."  

this is the usual objection to 'do what thou wilt' in a literal
understanding, yet I would ask you from where you derive this
perspective.  Crowley gives the following example:

        (28) _Every man has a right to fulfil his own will without
        being afraid that it may interfere with that of others; for
        if he is in his proper place, it is the fault of others if
        they interfere with him._

        (Illustration: If a man like Napolean were actually appointed
        a destiny to control Europe, hs should not be blamed for
        exercising his rights.  To oppose him would be an error.  Any
        one so doing would have made a mistake as to his own destiny
        except in so far as it might be necessary to learn the lessons
        of defeat.  The Sun moves in space without interference.  The
        order of Nature provides an orbit for each star.  A clash
        proves that one or the other has strayed from its course.  But
        as to each man that keeps his true course, the more firmly he
        acts, the less likely are others to get in his way.  His
        example will help them to find their own paths and pursue them.
        Every man that becomes a Magician helps others to do likewise.
        The more firmly and surely men move, and the more such action
        is accepted as the standard of morality, the less will conflict
        and confusion hamper humanity.)

        _Magick_, by Aleister Crowley, eds. Grant/Symonds, 1973; p. 138.

so it appears that the Beastmaster contends your sort of morality, one
which is usually brought up by the religious and cultish of the Thelemic
community in lieu of whining and complaint about their will being
'interfered with', is not part of the Law of Thelema.  the woes of the
religious apologist are a type of parasitic moaning which I think the
wrathful 3rd chapter of the Evil Book puts down nicely.

# There must be some "ruler" by which we could measure or define this 
# law:  

must there?  perhaps if you were to quote some of your favorite writers
on the subject in support of your contentions that would assist me in
knowing from what 'Thelemic' tradition you draw.  I presume that you 
mean 'ruler' in a sense of an established standard.

# if we can't talk about what Thelema IS,

I think we can talk about it very plainly.  it is the will of life,
that 'goingness' symbolized by the ansate cross (ankh) and which
constitutes the energetic resource supporting all magical enterprises.

# perhaps we can talk about what Thelema IS NOT.

this is the usual recourse of the religious and cultish, and I would
say to this: the word of Sin is Restriction.  do thy will and no 
Thelemite shall say 'nay'.  more than this and you enter into peril.

Bill Thom :
#># Are there standards that must be met?  If so, who set(s) them?
#> these standards are designated by any particular authority involved.
#> that is, for an individual, that individual sets the standards.  for
#> an organization, the organization sets its own standards.  in this
#> way we can see plainly that there are a variety of meanings and
#> criteria brought to bear in evaluation.
# Aha!  But what if (by the definition of Thelemite, above) I decide that
# the actions of such an order are unThelemic (there's that word again)? 

the definition I offered was the most inclusive and therefore it would
be impossible to categorize someone or some group as 'unthelemic' unless
they believed it meant something in particular and then acted contrary
to their own beliefs.  your decision is illogical as long as you are
allowing that organization to have its chosen definition.

# Does that make that order unThelemic because I (a Thelemite) says it is?  

by the inclusive definition there is no logical means of determining
what is 'unthelemic', since this term becomes meaningless when the
definition of 'thelemic' becomes 'whatever a thinker thinks it is',
at least as a generalization.  you would be applying a univeral ruler
to a relative circumstance.

as regards the less inclusive, more pointed definition I offered within
these last two posts (vide supra 'dwtw' and one who supposedly conforms), 
firstly I don't know you to be a Thelemite.  I know few by this meaning
(as a personal evaluative of someone in conformity with the Law of Thelema),
though I also cannot say you do NOT so qualify.  however, given this,
just because you say an organization of any type (an order or a kaos)
does not mean that your evaluation is correct.  'Thelemite' need not
necessarily imply omniscience, infallability or deception.

# Were the Knights Templar a Thelemic Order, at least in spirit? 

I'm not sure I know enough about them to say.  typically the knightly
and Christian dissolves irretrievably the individual will in a miasma
of church and order, hamstringing through chivalric code and duty to
regent the innate and beautiful will which would otherwise thrive.

this does get into the question of 'what makes an organization Thelemic?'
and I think I've answered this succinctly previously though solely in 
application to the individual: the Thelemic org is that which supports
and encourages the Law of Thelema (i.e. the individual will and its
natural direction of accomplishment).  that which hampers or in some way
perverts or opposes this Law of Nature is 'unthelemic' by my standard,
and is one which I find value in opposing.

my Order (one of the few organizations to which I have ever belonged,
one whose relationship I still value and put effort into keeping clear),
the COTO, has taken actions in ways which I deem destructive of this
Law as I see it.  for this reason I oppose it through various artifices,
inclusive of undermining its tendency to capitalize on information
scarcity and advertizing my opposition in public ('nigris' reflects 
this), even while its overall Constitution and promulgation has great
importance to human liberation as I see it.

I'm not sure that 'Thelemic in spirit' is meaningful.  either we support
that Law or we don't.  half-assed support strikes me as failure, and it
is this reason more than any other that I take a hard line with COTO.

# Why?

there are a host of reasons why *not*.  it has become popular amongst
the throng of neuvo-religious to continue a longstanding trend of
martyrdom-identification, a bandwagon upon which Witches and 
Satanists have also jumped.  

the Knights Templar are a psuedo-Christian symbol, DeMolay and his 
band of free-wheeling banker-knights the subject of much adulation, 
mostly without our knowing very many details of their 

the story goes that they were destroyed and plundered by Church and 
State (the latter being France's King Phillip), usually followed up 
by martyrdom cultists with the claim that it survived the onslaught 
in fact or 'in spirit', though there is little evidence to support 
either claim (I'd be happy to see counter-evidence to this).

#> often people within the 'Thelemic community' will apply this title
#> to themselves, justifiably and egotistically so.  much like the
#> adoption of grandiose Masonic or Rosicrucian officenames, that of
#> 'Thelemite' indicates a (gradually dissolving) significance as an
#> appellation.
# For this reason, many good people keep silence about their beliefs.  

I gather that 'this reason' means the dissolution of the meaning of
the appellation.  it seems to me that if people retain the Evil Book's 
significance of 'Thelemite' as less of a social self-identification 
(cult/religion) and more one of respect and honor (philosophic and
esteem-supportive) it'd preserve the current more purely.  as it
is the whole thing gets bogged down in cultish fanaticism and idiocy.

# What is Thelema if not a religion?

I think I've said alot about how I disdain the religion of Thelema as
it manifests in unthinking slavishness.  as a religion I think Thelema
fails to conform to the Law from which it gets its name.  otherwise 
Thelema can be seen as a principle, a philosophy founded upon this
principle, and a context of a those dedicated to the preservation and
liberation of all living beings.  the religion and cult sacrifice
their principles and respectability for the purposes of belonging and
the propping up the semblance of authority.

# Ironically, I feel more comfortable with individuals who behave like
# Thelemites, and have no knowledge of Crowley or Liber Al, than those who
# wear it like a badge.

comfort is the enemy of mysticism.  I'm sure it is usually easier to
be around people who conform to our standards of morality.  I don't
think this indicates in the slightest its relation to Thelema, however.

#> 'knowledge of one's true will (Will)' usually amounts to a kind
#> of self-perception and awareness of one's place in the cosmos,
#> abilities as regards causing change, and where this leaves off
#> into the proper domains of other individuals (their 'orbits').
# You mean Self Realization?  Gnosis?

I'm unsure that these are necessarily connected.  from what I have
read of the gnosis it is best considered a 'knowledge of the heart'
(esp. amongst self-professed Gnostics), and does not necessarily
afford any type of worldly power or ability.  it need not carry a
functional orientation surrounding 'orbits' or 'destiny' either.
'self-realization' comes closer, perhaps, though this is another
over-used term.  one might also compare 'moksha', 'heaven' or 'nirvana'.

#> cultists typically only require a vocal (if not slavish) adherence
#> to _The Book of the Law_ (whatever this means).  sometimes this
#> enlarges to include the consideration of Crowley as the Prophet of
#> the Horusian Aeon, or other metaphysics.  in this way it takes on
#> the appearance of Western religious creed-membership.
# I see this too... this sloppyness need not be blamed on Thelema as a
# movement, but more on the organizations that require such oaths, and
# fail to enforce them.

I disagree strongly.  the social movement of Thelema *includes* these
organizations, in many cases is SUPPORTED by them.  as such, there is
no easy way to separate out those of the Thelemic community who
belong to organizations (esp. if these oaths be essentially thelemic ;>)
and say 'they are causing the problem'.  in fact, I see a great 
diversity amongst individuals and org-members, some of the former
adhering to slavish half-understood concepts, some of the latter
shining examples of what it means to be a Thelemite.  the simple
quality of membership (except in very horrid orgs) tells me little.

#> the most philosophic and stringent would probably claim that only
#> those whose exploits consist of finding and carrying out their true
#> will in the world are 'real Thelemites'.
# But there are other attributes:  The Thelemites of Rabelais, The Knights
# Templars, etc...  

please elaborate on these, if you would be so kind.  I admittedly
balked at reading Rabelais' 'gargantuous' masterwork which supposedly 
contains the essentials of his Thelemic philosophy, mostly because it was 
not properly indexed or reviewed to my taste in the books I found at my
local library.  I have seldom heard much about his ideas beyond that
he put a frenchy 'Do as you please' over the entrance to his 'Abbe 

I have no basis from which to support an assertion that the Templars
were in any way, shape or form associated with Thelema as a movement
or with its principles, though I would love to hear how you have
arrived at this assessment.  do the Sufis, with whom the Templars are 
sometimes associated, also qualify?  the Hashishins?  where do we 
draw the line and whose propaganda shall we use in this determination?

# Take a simple, rarely mentioned line from the Book of
# The Law:  "Compassion is the vice of Kings."  What means this?

the significance of any line of a revelatory text is usually best
determined through 1) its context and 2) the reflections of the
individual who penned it.  I suggest that you begin with these and
in another thread construct a context in which to understand its
meaning if you are seriously interested.  

I gather, however, that you intended to use this as some sort of
example, perhaps in relation to 'attributes of the Thelemite'.
if so, I'd like some elaboration, since I am not about to here
become a Centre of Pestilence by discussing the Evil Book.

#> ...the matter of where one's true will stops
#> and another's starts is often a matter of controversy within the
#> Thelemic community as a whole.  often the issue of legality and
#> morality, exemplifying the cultist-philosopher divide, comes to
#> the fore: the former usually requiring some sort of moral or
#> doctrinal standard, the latter sometimes disclaiming any agreement
#> save between an individual's actions and hir true will (this last
#> being an ambiguous parameter).

# ...The two examples you have used are
# perfect.  One attempts to apply Thelemic philosophy at solving the
# dispute:  the other, simply ignores or refuses to accept his opponent's
# philosophy and decides the most Thelemic thing to do is engage in some
# sort of "battle."  (Shouting, striking ones breast, making them look
# stupid on these lists, or some other primitive testosterone induced
# ecstatic ritual.)

I am frankly confused by your text here.  you have above demonstrated
your adherence to what I have classified in this exchange as 'Thelemic
cultishness' or 'religion', which I tend to oppose as corrupt.  and
yet you here support the notion that action based on principle without
regard to moral standards is a legitimate and mature course.  if I
have misunderstood, please correct me, thanks.

#># Can a King remain a King, regardless of personal behavior? Or are true
#># Kings identifiable through the wisdom of their actions?
#> ...a Regent is a Regent due to
#> having attained to a certain level of consciousness, awareness, and
#> that the actions or behavior undertaken by said Regent will reflect
#> this.  it is, I think, possible, for a person to avoid, obscure, deny
#> or disregard what they know to be a 'wise choice', and in this manner
#> 'abdicate their Regency'.  for this reason I would be hesitant to
#> offer unlimited latitude on the behavior of said Regents as
#> exemplifying their depth of virtue.
# Isn't it possible for a "King" to appear as a "slave" in order to
# improve communications between his house and his subjects?

of course, and this is why an evaluation of another (if said is at all
necessary) as "King" or "Slave" must needs be allowed some time, so
that the most essential qualities may be observed.  immediate exchange
is what I consider to be primary: how does this person interact with
me?  do I feel respected by them?  if not, are they truly offering
offense, reacting to something I am doing, myself, or have I somehow
misinterpreted their acts altogether?  what is my best response?

#># If I acknowledge certain rights for myself must I acknowledge those same
#># rights to others?
#> this brings to mind a comparative text (to that of the Evil Tome):
#> Crowley's _Liber Oz_, one of the few documents of which I am aware
#> that speaks directly to the concept of 'rights' within the popular
#> Thelemic textual body.
# There is also "Duty."

this is the usual response to the citation of Oz, yes, though I would
like you to quote from that work of Crowley's in support of its
description of how 'rights' are to be viewed and who has what 'rights'.
please note that it is rational to disclaim one work by an author
while supporting the maturity and lasting value of another.  I  have
not yet understood the value of 'Duty' as argued by its adherents.

# I have done a search on Liber Al  for the words "slave/s" "servant/s"
# and was much surprised in what manner the Book of The Law uses these
# terms.

please present and discuss these at your convenience.  it is one of
the things I have enjoyed in Thelema93-L to see how people utilize
the Evil Book to prop up their preferred ideologies. ;>

#># 1. There are a significant number of people who, having no knowledge of
#># Thelema, Liber Al, or the Equinox of the Gods, appear to truly be
#># practicing some form of the Law.
#> I would ask you to elaborate, since you mention it, on what precisely
#> you mean by "some form of the Law" and what qualities you can describe
#> which indicate to you that it is so "practiced".
# Okay... I'll throw in some for the sake of discussion (sorry if I hack
# the spelling to bits):  The freedom rally at Tienemen Square, the
# destruction of the Berlin Wall.  Thelemites?  Martin Luther King, Malcom
# X, Oskar Schindler, Mahatma Gandhi, Joan of Arc, Sapho, Valentinus,
# Nelson Mandala (sp), etc.....

names.  does 'Thelemite' equate to 'social hero'?  what qualities in
particular do you feel that these individuals share?  why and how do
these qualities symbolize or represent Thelema in a way others cannot?

#># 2. There are a significant number of people who have read Liber AL,
#># probably have read The Holy Books, belong to any number of Magickal
#># Orders, proclaim themselves to be Thelemites, and don't seem to have a
#># clue what the Law is, means, or care to DO much of anything.
#> pretend your audience is of this category.  how would you go about
#> informing us of what this "Law" consists?  what have we missed which
#> was ostensibly contained within the various sources or bodies you
#> mention?
# ...Rabelais gives good practical advice.  We can learn from the 
# Kings of OUR times:  no, I don't mean football players.

King Phillip of France? :>  Francis King?  Martin Luther King, Jr.?
I don't see that you have truly responded in clarity to my direct
questions above.

#> it seems you presume there is one "Law" to *be* understood, as if,
#> through examination, we will find a commonality amongst those who are
#> 'in the know' or 'correctly aware' of the curriculum the latter have
#> somehow overlooked.  how have you arrived at this presumption?  how
#> have you determined that you are not among those of us who 'missed'
#> it?  what qualities do you see in this "significant number of people"
#> which discloses to you that we "don't have a clue" what this "Law"
#> means?
# Do we want to start throwing verses of Liber Al at one another?  

I'm not at all sure what relevance that would have to the conversation.
is that like throwing verses from _The Holy Bible_ around in support
of Our Religious Conviction?  I've never found that strategy to be 
convincing, have you?

# ...If a person, is sincere, and has a vested
# interest in doing "the right thing" (what ever that is) then they will
# begin to REALLY study the Book of The Law.  

substitute 'Bible' for 'the Book of the Law' and perhaps you will come
to understand why I class all fundamentalists (whether Thelemic or
Christian or Buddhist) together as irrational progs.  I'll be happy to
be shown in error of this estimation regarding you or other 'religious

# If Thelema is really close
# to your heart, and you want to give your life to it, then you will not
# use the book to justify behavior you know runs against the grain of the
# words written therein.  

this exemplifies the cultist-philosophic divide nicely.  I suggest that
Frank Zappa's words are a due response here when attempting to argue
against the 'religions of the book' perspective:

			_Dumb All Over_


			Nurds on the left
			Nurds on the right
			Religious fanatics
			On the air every night
			Sayin' the Bible
			Tells the story
			Makes the details
			Sound real gory
			'Bout what to do
			If the geeks over there
			Don't believe in the book
			We got over here

			You can't run a race
			Without no feet
			'N pretty soon
			There won't be no street
			For dummies to jog on
			Or doggies to dog on
			Religious fanatics
			Can make it be all gone
			(I mean it won't blow up
			'N disappear
			It'll just look ugly
			For a thousand years...)

			You can't run a country
			By a book of religion
			Not by a heap
			Or a lump or a smidgeon
			Of foolish rules
			Of ancient date
			Designed to make
			You all feel great
			While you fold, spindle
			And mutilate
			Those unbelievers
			From a neighboring state

# Read, and remember the whole book.

(Zappa cont'd)

			Hooray!  That's great
			Two legs ain't bad
			Unless there's a crate
			They ship the parts
			To mama in
			For souvenirs: two ears (*Get Down!*)
			Not his, not hers (*but what the hey?*)
			The Good Book says:
			"*It's gotta be that way!"
			But their book says:
			With whips 'n chains
			'N hand grenades*..."
			Have another and another
			Our God says
			"*It's all okay!*"
			Our God says
			"*This is the way!"
			It says in the book:
			"*Burn 'n destroy...
			'N revenge, 'n redeem
			'N avenge, 'n deploy
			'N rumble thee forth
			To the land of the umbelieving scum on the other side
			'Cause they don't go for what's in the book
			'N that makes 'em* BAD
			*So verily we must choppeth them up
			And stompeth them down
			Or rent a nice French bomb
			To poof them out of existence
			While leaving their real estate just where we need it
			To use again
			For temples in which to praise*
			("*Cause he can really take care of business!*")
			And when his humble TV servant
			With humble white hair
			And humble glasses
			And a nice brown suit
			And maybe a blonde wife who takes phone calls
			Tells us our God says
			It's okay to do this stuff
			Then we gotta do it,
			'Cause if we don't do it,
			We ain't gwine up to *hebbin*!
			(Depending on which book you're using at the
			time... Can't use theirs... it don't work
			... it's all lies... Gotta use mine...)
			Ain't that right?
			That's what they say
			Every night...
			Every day...
			Hey, we can't really be dumb
			If we're just following *God's Orders*
			Hey, let's get serious...
			God knows what he's doin'...
			He wrote this book here
			An' the book says:
			"*He made us all to just like Him,*" so...
			If we're dumb...
			Then God is dumb...
			(An' maybe even a little ugly on the side)

				[Dumb all over
				 A little ugly on the side
				 Dumb all over
				 A little ugly on the side.....]

			'Dumb All Over', by Frank Zappa, from the
				album 'you are what you is',
				copyright 1981 Munchkin Music;
				 [my additions reflecting sonics - 333]

 3 3 3
nigris (333) -- --

The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist:

Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small
donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site.

The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories,
each dealing with a different branch of
religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge.
Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit:
interdisciplinary: geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness
occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells
religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo
societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc.


There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):

Search For:
Match:  Any word All words Exact phrase


Southern Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo, including slave narratives & interviews
Hoodoo in Theory and Practice by cat yronwode: an introduction to African-American rootwork
Lucky W Amulet Archive by cat yronwode: an online museum of worldwide talismans and charms
Sacred Sex: essays and articles on tantra yoga, neo-tantra, karezza, sex magic, and sex worship
Sacred Landscape: essays and articles on archaeoastronomy, sacred architecture, and sacred geometry
Lucky Mojo Forum: practitioners answer queries on conjure; sponsored by the Lucky Mojo Curio Co.
Herb Magic: illustrated descriptions of magic herbs with free spells, recipes, and an ordering option
Association of Independent Readers and Rootworkers: ethical diviners and hoodoo spell-casters
Freemasonry for Women by cat yronwode: a history of mixed-gender Freemasonic lodges
Missionary Independent Spiritual Church: spirit-led, inter-faith, the Smallest Church in the World
Satan Service Org: an archive presenting the theory, practice, and history of Satanism and Satanists
Gospel of Satan: the story of Jesus and the angels, from the perspective of the God of this World
Lucky Mojo Usenet FAQ Archive: FAQs and REFs for occult and magical usenet newsgroups
Candles and Curios: essays and articles on traditional African American conjure and folk magic
Aleister Crowley Text Archive: a multitude of texts by an early 20th century ceremonial occultist
Spiritual Spells: lessons in folk magic and spell casting from an eclectic Wiccan perspective
The Mystic Tea Room: divination by reading tea-leaves, with a museum of antique fortune telling cups
Yronwode Institution for the Preservation and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology
Yronwode Home: personal pages of catherine yronwode and nagasiva yronwode, magical archivists
Lucky Mojo Magic Spells Archives: love spells, money spells, luck spells, protection spells, etc.
      Free Love Spell Archive: love spells, attraction spells, sex magick, romance spells, and lust spells
      Free Money Spell Archive: money spells, prosperity spells, and wealth spells for job and business
      Free Protection Spell Archive: protection spells against witchcraft, jinxes, hexes, and the evil eye
      Free Gambling Luck Spell Archive: lucky gambling spells for the lottery, casinos, and races