OK, why might we not take the remarks we see at face value?

Because we aren't babes in the Pagan woods and we've seen the technique of "provoke and disarm" used often enough to be able to recognize it. As a matter of fact, many of us probably saw it used in Margot Adler's "Drawing Down the Moon", one of the first books many of us looked at after our initial decisions to break with our Judeo-Christian pasts (some of us, obviously, breaking more cleanly than others). Note some of her examples of what Ms. Adler means by "magic" and what follows.

Putting a spin on one's earlier remarks in order to make them seen trivially common sensical, when challenged, is standard operating procedure among Occultists. (Note how many times one will see the word "Magic" redefined at a moment's notice). This practice allows its user to stifle rebuttals before they can even be formulated. Push ahead, if meeting no solid opposition; pull back and deny otherwise, willfully forgetting one's earlier denials later on. This is a handy technique for those willing to resort to it, because listeners (or readers) will tend to remember the provocative hypothesis (and the break in tension that comes when a former skeptic accepts the plausibility of the hypothesis, after it has been spun in the right way), but they will forget the disclaimers. In their minds, the falsely achieved consensus will be interpreted in the easy-to-remember conventional way which has been ingrained into one, not in the contrived way, which would require them to remember the whole conceptual set-up used to rationalize the hypothesis.

Recognizing that this does go on, how can I justify taking Ankhesenamun's remarks to mean what they seem to mean? By noting that no other meanings are hinted at, prior to the clarification. Ankhesenamun has left nothing behind on the verbal field of battle, so the presence of ulterior motives would seem to be plausible.

"You mean, Ankhesenamun is dodging Ramessu's rebuttals through this method of tactical retreat and reassertion?", one might ask. No. Ankhesenamun dodges the rebuttal she might expect from the reader, which Ramessu merely gives voice to. How 'handy' for her that Ramessu does so. Note that Ramessu seems to be very much at home in the conceptual framework being set up by Leah, an upper level administrator in the organization of which Ankhesenamun is a member. So, are these arguments we see between Ramessu and Ankhesenamun for real or are they staged, and could we really trust the two of them to be forthcoming on this topic? Because Ankhesenamun's board administrator (Leah) over at her organization is quite open about her acceptance of manipulation as a valid tool for gaining power, and you are about to see Ramessu, in the record, being anything but straightforward.

What are we, as readers, being sold? In Leah's posts, on a conscious level, supernatural power. Here, on a subconscious level, that thought Leah ended on, made deliberately vague, complete with her signature emoticon wink, used with annoying frequency. ( or ^_~ in Lynx) While,(consciously) almost all would deny it, in the back of one's mind will be left the thought, "all of the power, and none of the responsibility". To openly pitch an escape from moral responsibility was a great sales tool for "high priests", until the results became too notoriously sordid and paying lip service to the importance of values starting coming back into style.

But, people miss their old vices and childish fantasies, in which everything is as they wish, at no cost to themselves or anybody one cares about. That which one is ashamed to admit that one desires on a conscious level, becomes a great motivator on the subconscious level, when our spiritual snake oil salesmen merely leave a whispered hint today of what was shamelessly hawked yesterday. Why not? The painful lessons we learn today are not eagerly received, and so the source of our hidden desires will fight to not hear them. The salesman offers that source the validation it desires, at a time when it can see no other place to find such support. Thus, perhaps, that knowing wink that tells the conscious mind of the still dishonest man and the subconscious of the one who has just recently decided to reform, "don't worry about that silly conscience, we're about to put one over on it, today". Vagueness is condemned for a reason.

But it does sell books. Click here to return to the body of the post.