welcome to white feather walks -blog- The places I've been and the beauty I have Seen!

A great (small) question from a fan on youtube.
Asking why we have magic and dont need to use ritual books where as others do.

Define magic? Our clear sight and intuition is internal, much like fight or flight panic.
We dont need a book of spells to make us see clearer, or give us the ability to manifest, as most of us that can understand that our abilities are more prominant, or that we know that we have god within, we have the abiilty to create and are the govenors of our own destiny.

So lets dive deeper,
Why did these "occult ritual books exist" she asks on a video that does not mention solomons key, yes dad said rituals by solomons lot, so it needs to be addressed.

Firstly ive never needed a ritual book because i have never felt the need to control or use my abilities for dark purposes, I certainly do not and have never had a coven of witches skipping around a pentagram summoning demons 🤣 to me thats all a bit far fetched. But i know that some people have tried this and is further fantasied in movies etc.

Ritual books did not appear from nowhere. They existed because human beings have always tried to make sense of death, illness, fear, misfortune, spirits, dreams, omens, and the unknown.

Long before medieval grimoires, ancient cultures were already writing sacred instructions for the unseen world. The Egyptian Book of the Dead is one of the clearest examples. It was not one fixed “book” in the modern sense, but a collection of spells and instructions designed to guide the dead safely through the afterlife. The British Museum describes it as a collection of magical spells used to help the deceased reach the afterlife, while the University of Chicago describes it as a series of spells promising transformation into an immortal divine state after death.

That tells us something very important. Ritual texts often begin when people believe the unseen world has rules, dangers, gatekeepers, names, tests, and powers that must be navigated correctly. The written word becomes a map. A spell becomes a key, name becomes authority. A priest, scribe, monk, or religious specialist becomes the person who claims to know how that world works.

By the medieval Christian period, this same pattern had moved into church and monastic manuscript culture. This is where things become more complicated, because many of the books later labelled “occult” were not created in some separate fantasy world outside religion. They were often copied, preserved, adapted, condemned, or quietly used by educated religious men, clerics, monks, physicians, astrologers, and scribes.

The Codex Gigas, also known as the “Devil’s Bible,” is a perfect example of that uncomfortable overlap. It was produced in thirteenth-century Bohemia and is now kept by the National Library of Sweden. It is famous for being one of the largest surviving medieval manuscripts and for containing a full-page image of the Devil. Yet it is not simply a “Devil book.” It contains the Latin Bible, historical writings, medical material, a calendar, prayers, charms, and exorcistic material. In other words, the demonic image sits inside a Christian manuscript world, not outside it.

That is the point people often miss.

The Church did not gain power only by preaching heaven. It also gained power by defining hell, sin, demons, possession, heresy, spiritual danger, and the need for mediation. Once people were taught that invisible enemies surrounded them, the institution offering protection, confession, exorcism, absolution, relics, prayers, blessings, and salvation gained enormous authority.

Banishing demons gave the Church weight. Naming evil gave it power. Declaring what was forbidden allowed it to police thought, body, belief, sexuality, healing, women, folk customs, and private spiritual practice. The more terrifying the unseen world became, the more necessary the official gatekeepers appeared.

This does not mean every priest or monk was knowingly manipulating people, nor does it mean every ritual text was officially approved. Many were condemned. Cambridge University Library notes that church courts pursued both clergy and laity for forbidden arts for centuries, while examples of medieval charms show practices being copied into manuscripts even when marked as forbidden by the Catholic Church.

That contradiction is exactly what matters.

The religious world created the fear, named the forces, preserved the language, trained the scribes, controlled the books, and then often condemned the same practices when they escaped official control. The boundary between prayer, exorcism, healing charm, protection rite, and “magic” was not always as clean as later people pretend.

Solomonic grimoires fit into this same pattern. Solomon’s name carried biblical authority, so later ritual writers attached his name to books of spells, seals, invocations, and ceremonial instructions. That does not mean Solomon wrote them. It means his reputation was useful. A text bearing the name of a biblical king sounded older, holier, and more powerful.

Ritual books were created for people who needed external systems: words to recite, seals to draw, spirits to command, demons to banish, forces to bind, and rules to follow. That is a very different thing from internal sight.

The real question is not whether these books exist. Of course they do.

The real question is who created the fear that made such books necessary, who claimed authority over that fear, who preserved the texts, who condemned them, who profited from controlling access to the unseen, and why people still confuse the existence of ritual manuals with genuine spiritual understanding.

Who benefited later, and the hypocrisy of anti-Church occult movements still leaning on texts and systems produced inside Christian manuscript culture.

The later hypocrisy is impossible to ignore.
Many modern occult movements presented themselves as alternatives to the Church, or even as rebellions against it, while still borrowing heavily from the very ritual structures preserved by priests, monks, clerics, and Christian manuscript culture. The seals, divine names, angelic hierarchies, conjurations, ceremonial tools, circles, invocations, exorcistic language, and Solomonic authority did not appear from nowhere.
Later groups and figures benefited from this inheritance.

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn repackaged older ceremonial magic, Kabbalistic structures, angelic systems, Enochian material, tarot, astrology, and grimoire traditions into an initiatory occult order. Gerald Gardner’s modern Wicca presented itself as a revival of older witchcraft, yet it also drew from ceremonial magic, Freemasonry, folklore, romanticised paganism, and the occult revival.

Anton LaVey’s Satanism styled itself as an anti-Christian alternative, but its power still depended on Christian symbolism, Christian inversion, and the shock value of the Devil as defined by the very religious culture it claimed to oppose.

That is the oxymoron.

The people claiming to be free from the Church often remained trapped inside its symbolic machinery. They needed the Church’s Devil, the demons, the Church’s forbidden books, the fear, and the Church’s language of rebellion in order to sell themselves as different.

So who benefited?
Those who could repackage fear as secret knowledge.

Those who could turn forbidden manuscripts into movements, orders, books, initiations, lectures, status, notoriety, and money.

The Church first gained authority by naming evil and offering protection from it. Later occultists gained authority by claiming to reveal, reverse, or master the same hidden forces.
Different costume. Same theatre.
That is why these ritual books need to be understood properly. They are not proof of higher truth. They are proof of a long historical cycle: fear is created, authority is claimed, symbols are controlled, and then the next movement comes along and sells the same fear back to people under a new name.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why it is still a load of plop.

You are not suddenly free because you call it New Age, Wicca, occult wisdom, spiritual awakening, hidden knowledge, or a different pathway. If the system still relies on the same ritual structures, the same fear of unseen forces, the same hierarchies, the same invocations, the same forbidden books, the same promises of secret power, and the same need for someone to teach you what you apparently cannot access yourself, then it is not liberation. It is rebranded indoctrination.

The irony is impossible to miss.

Many of these movements present themselves as alternatives to the Church, yet they still borrow from texts, symbols, demons, angels, seals, rituals, and ceremonial methods preserved within the very religious manuscript culture they claim to reject. They dress it differently, rename it, romanticise it, monetise it, and sell it back as “ancient wisdom” or “hidden truth.”

But a label does not make you enlightened.

Calling yourself different does not mean you have escaped the system. Sometimes it only proves you walked straight into the same structure wearing a new costume, thinking the bow on the box made the contents original.

These labels do not define you. They often expose the lack of research behind the performance. Because once you understand where many of these ritual books, methods, fears, and symbols came from, the whole thing starts to look far less rebellious and far more recycled.

Different name. Same control.

Different costume. Same theatre.

And yes — still a load of plop.

🤣
And yes, I will probably lose people over this.

Some came to the Royal Dragon Court with their own confirmation bias already packed and polished. They thought they knew what it was. They hoped it would fit their preferred version of hidden knowledge, ritual magic, New Age labels, occult fantasy, or whatever spiritual pathway they had already decided was true.

But that is not research.

Research is not looking for whatever confirms what you already wanted to believe. Research means following the evidence even when it dismantles your favourite theory. It means asking where the books came from, who copied them, who benefited from them, who repackaged them, who monetised them, and why people are still using the same old systems while pretending they are free from them.

So if people walk away because I do not conform to the version of the Royal Dragon Court they invented in their own heads, that is fine.

It teaches one thing very clearly: I do not build my work around fantasy, flattery, or fashionable labels. I do the depth of research required to make rational and informed decisions.

And sometimes that means telling people the uncomfortable truth:

Different name. Same control.
Different costume. Same theatre.
Still a load of plop.

This information and the way i have written, laid it out, for the benefit of the context of manipulation and control is protected under the Bearne convention of copyright law.

Note to apparent authors who dont fully understand copyright law.
(You may not pop over to my page, scrape information for your latest click bait post, attempting to look like the authority over my research. My work is based on academic structured research, not for the conspiracy theorist who chucks everything in a pot of misinformation to dumb  people down. Ive seen your posts and the level of research you do is brain numbing when i have to teach you new stuff because you were too lazy.)

Note to apparent authors who dont fully understand copyright law.
(You may not pop over to my page, scrape information for your latest click bait post, attempting to look like the authority over my research. My work is based on academic structured research, not for the conspiracy theorist who chucks everything in a pot of misinformation to dumb  people down. Ive seen your posts and the level of research you do is brain numbing when i have to teach you new stuff because you were too lazy.)And yes, I will probably lose people over this.

Some came to the Royal Dragon Court with their own confirmation bias already packed and polished. They thought they knew what it was. They hoped it would fit their preferred version of hidden knowledge, ritual magic, New Age labels, occult fantasy, or whatever spiritual pathway they had already decided was true.

But that is not research.

Research is not looking for whatever confirms what you already wanted to believe. Research means following the evidence even when it dismantles your favourite theory. It means asking where the books came from, who copied them, who benefited from them, who repackaged them, who monetised them, and why people are still using the same old systems while pretending they are free from them.

So if people walk away because I do not conform to the version of the Royal Dragon Court they invented in their own heads, that is fine.

It teaches one thing very clearly: I do not build my work around fantasy, flattery, or fashionable labels. I do the depth of research required to make rational and informed decisions.

And sometimes that means telling people the uncomfortable truth:

Different name. Same control.
Different costume. Same theatre.
Still a load of plop.