Category Archives: anomalistics

Should I summon ‘Charlie’, the Mexican demon?

“I’m so not ready for the ’10’s.”

I think I said that for the first time earlier this month when I received an email for coldplay being in a musical version of ‘game of thrones’. And I’ve been saying it several times since. The last time was yesterday, when reading about the ‘Charlie Charlie challenge’. (google is your friend, I’m not going to link it!). I was even in the Flemish newspapers in my own language! A viral kids game involving pencils and summoning Charlie the Mexican demon….

Wait, what was that last one?

Well, it seems like the current hype among teenagers on the internet is ‘Charlie Charlie challenge’, a ‘game’ consisting of summoning some entity called ‘Charlie’ (said to be a Mexican demon) using something that can best be described as a very primitive spirit board  consisting of 4 words scribbled on a paper, and 2 pencils.

Yes you read that correctly: a ‘Mexican demon’ called ‘Charlie’ (not even Carlos) is called upon through a rudimentary ouicharlieja-board-like device that anyone can make in 2 seconds. Just write rite yes, ye, no no on the 4 corners of a piece of paper and let 2 pencils balance on each other and you’re ready to contact said entity. And that’s going viral as a game among teenagers…

Oh, and if you’re too 2015 to use prehistoric means as paper and pencils you can buy an app for it too. (Because using your phone as a portal to the demonic does not sound at all like the plot for a bad supernatural thriller?°)

Like I said, I’m so not ready for the ’10’s…

Let’s not go into the dumb name. (Would a ‘Mexican demon’ not rather have a name in Spanish, or Nahuatl some local language?) Because that’s too dumb to react too.

There’s more interesting questions. It seems impossible to find the origin of this stuff (will it turn out to be a viral marketing campaign?) so some things about it are not that clear.

The question why people think it a good idea to summon ‘Mexican demons’ named Charlie is probably one that is not asked by everyone, but isn’t a very bad question either. (hint: it might not at all be a good idea…) But then again teenage hypes on the internet can be pretty bad ideas, and facebook drinking games are not harmless either.

One of the things that I found a while ago when reading up on the occult is that a lot of occultists (and other people that are seen as ‘into the occult’ by Christians who have an enormous fear of such things) will also warn against the use of ouija-boards, or about summoning spirits and entities without knowing what the hell you’re messing with…

(I don’t think I need to quote bible versions here to provide ‘proof’ for Christians that summoning demons or spirits might be a bad idea. You’ve all seen those before probably and google is still your friend…)

So, the big question:  what’s on the other side of the line, if there’s anything at all (results will probably vary)?

Sometimes it will be just gravity and chance probably.
But at least from some videos (not linking, watch at your own risk. And don’t get infected by stupidity…) it seems that the Charlie Charlie challenge might actually in some instances work to contact ‘something’ that answers questions. And that also plagues people with some minor paranormal bullying if you don’t say goodbye properly to close the connection. Yes, evidently, ancient Mexican demons want their customers to be polite…
(Or maybe it’s just better to break off the connection and don’t keep the line open after connecting a paranormal entity? If you can completely get rid of it after inviting it that is…)

So what is it that shows up for a game of ‘je suis Charlie’ when the invited guest actually shows up?

Like I said before, I expect the results to be varied. Is there an actual demon behind it with a cunning plan to lure dumb teenagers to the caverns of hell with a lot of minions called Charlie? I don’t know. Sounds a bit too conspiracy-ish to me actually. But who knows what kind of evil plot there is behind this.. (Like a marketing strategy or so. Mammon might be the most dangerous demon for the state of the planet anyway currently…)

Is it any nearby entity that can use the occasion? Not a very good idea either then… Don’t open portals to the spiritual dimension to invite things  you don’t know that clearly operate under a false identity, when you don’t even know what you’re doing. (Even a bit of an occultist would probably learn some protection and banishment spells before doing such a thing…*).

Or was there initially nothing but did the game call Charlie into existence as a thoughtform-being? (In which case he might be a quite powerful egregore by now, and probably a bit bored from answering dumb questions from teenagers all the time.)

I have no intention to find out actually. I just want the ’10’s to be over as soon as possible at the moment… And the answer to my question in the title is probably clear by now…

Simply said: NO!

Btw, when I looked for how people who are more into the occult react to the whole thing,they generally have the same reactions as I had. they or laugh at the idea of a Mexican demon called ‘Charlie’, they or think a thoughtform might be created, or suggest that any stray spirit will use the occasion to play… No-one seems very enthusiastic about this game…
(No, the bogus idea that all people who are into the occult are part of a worldwide Satanic conspiracy against Christianity is actually nonsense. )

And this brings me to my last point: if indeed, as some say, occultism is on the rise in Western cultures, then there are 2 opposing things we should avoid at all cost. (I’m speaking to both my Christian audience and all the others here)
The first one is to laugh it all away from a naturalist/materialist perspective². The second one is the classical ‘demons of the gaps’ approach, in which everything that is even remotely seen as ‘occult’ or even paranormal is attributed to ‘demons’, and all people who engage in such things pushed away as dangerous  devil-worshippers. Neither of both is very helpful for different reasons, and we will need a more nuanced approach, both in communication with those who are engaged in the occult as in approaching the ‘invisible’ itself.

What do you think?


° The idea of using iphone-apps to connect to the spirit world and make connections to demons (Mexican or not) does have some terrifying implications that I won’t venture into here. It’s too much the stuff of anime and comics…

* Sending demons away in the name of Jesus Christ is the most simple Christian ‘banishing ritual’ which is quite effective if you stand in the Power of Jesus. If you are not a Christian or do not live connected to the Living Christ, using the name of Christ just as a spell is not a good idea, it might result in the spirit answering “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?” and still bothering you, as happened to the sons of Sceva in acts 15..

² Atheism as a paradigm, combined a strond disbelief in the supernatural, can indeed work as a medium-strong shield to not encounter anything supernatural/paranormal, just as believing in it does surely help to encounter it. But don’t count on that to always work… (see also this post)
Quite chaos magick anyway to use a paradigm and the power of belief to manifest it…


the fear of the occult because of ‘demons of the gaps’

This is a short post that fits in my ‘occultmergent’ series. (for those who like these kinds of subjects I have an announcement to make here soon. For those who like other stuff more, I need to finish my series on 1 Cor 13, and hope to write about asexuality and faith in times of rising oceans too…)

I saw a very interesting blog-post this morning called Introduction to the Chakras for Christians (and other nervous people), which incidentally connects very well to a discussion I’ve been having in various facebook groups lately, about what I call the ‘demons of the gaps’ approach that leads to a big fear of ‘the occult’.

adam_eve_behamAs an evangelical in my younger years I was taught a lot to fear ‘the occult’ and to stay away from it as much as I could, as if that were some very important  biblical commandment. But no, the word actually isn’t in the bible! (Just as the word ‘Antichrist’ isn’t in the book of revelation…). So where does it come from then? In the end it mostly came down to the idea that everything outside of the scientific laws of nature (paranormal, alternative medicine, homoeopathy, aliens, sixth sense, hypnosis, chakra theory, UFO’s even, new age, magic in fantasy stories…) is feared because it is most likely to be demons for some kind of reason.

And fear of demons is very important for some. Think about the ‘darkness’ books of Frank Perettti…

This approach towards the invisible world can be called ‘demons of the gaps’. I’ve named it that way since it works in almost the same way as a ‘God of the gaps’ reasoning: everything that cannot be explained by current science and laws of nature (that does not clearly come from God) is not natural, so: DEMONS!!! And because of that, run away from it. If it can be scientifically proven it is safe though…

This is sold as ‘solidly biblical’ because it can be illustrated with verses about witchcraft and stuff like that. As if it’s biblical to treat everything that falls outside of of our current understanding of the physical laws of nature. But no, this is not from the bible, the bible has nothing at al to do with lines that are drawn only after the enlightenment, so there is no reason to treat for example chakras as less ‘biblical’ than anything we have come up with in the last 2000 years in Western science.. Atom theory, gen therapy nuclear energy, whatever,… is not more biblical than let’s say chakra theory or the idea of auras. (It’s actually just a variation on the more liberal tendency to just push everything beyond that line away as ‘superstition’)

And let’s not forget that most things inside the scope of modern science can be used in very dark ways! The word ‘pharmakeia’ which is translated with witchcraft in the NT is the root for our word ‘pharmacy’ and does also mean the art of making poisons. Chemistry is as much its heir as alchemy and occultism!

This whole thing has nothing at all to do with the authority of the bible. It’s following the authority of modernist thought and then giving a Christian twist to it, nothing more or less. The bible has nothing at al to do with lines that are drawn only after the enlightenment, so there is no reason to treat chakras for example as less ‘biblical’ than anything we have come up with in the last 2000 years in Western science…

Not that I say there are no demons, and that we need to be careful with the invisible world.  We need to be careful with anything, be it humans, nature, animals, whatever, and the invisible world is harder to understand because it is, ehm, invisible . If lions and weirdos with guns can kill us in the visible world, and eating a random plant can poison us, this is a sign we need to be equally careful with the invisible world.

But the ‘demons of the gaps’ approach is as bad a way to get an understanding of them as the ‘God of the gaps’ approach is a good way to lead us to God…

What do you think?



Charles Fort as the ultimate free thinker…

charles Fort“So, by the damned, I mean the excluded.
But by the excluded I mean that
which will some day be the excluding.
Or everything that is,
won’t be.
And everything that isn’t,
will be
But, of course,
will be that which won’t be”
– Charles Fort

I’ve written before about ‘anomalist’ Charles Fort as a required reading for thinking people. He was a ground-breaking writer about the paranomal, who also had a very interesting philosophy of how the world works. I don’t agree at all with either, but he’s still very interesting to read. What also can be said about him is that his work does not align with any tradition (let alone the dominant paradigm of his time and culture).  So if such a thing as a free thinker exists, Charles Fort is one of the best examples I have ever encountered.

Some people right now do seem to have a very weird idea of what a ‘free thinker’ is. Basically for them its just someone who agrees with everything they believe and aligns with a very strict line of rigid enlightenment thought that denies all the supernatural and treats ‘science’ in the same way as some religious fundamentalists treat their holy book. (Which is completely the wrong way anyway and a modern phenomenon…)
But let’s not even get into this kind of freethinkerism. Anything who puts a lot of rules rules up to define what ‘free thought’ and what is not is lost in Orwellian Newspeak at best… A lot of things can be said about ‘new atheism’, but calling them and their very strict tradition ‘free thinkers’ is just a tragic illusion…

A free thinker (if the term has any meaning at all) is an original thinker that is not at all invested in affirming any existing line of thought. A real free thinker is not bound by any tradition, and will most probably come up with ideas that shock everyone. He or she will say things that no-one wants to hear, and he or she will not be listened to by most people.

A real free thinker is often a lone heretic.

In some times and cultures people like that get executed, because they can be considered dangerous and become persecuted, since they do question every basic assumption. They show that there is no reason to take the dominant paradigm for granted, whatever it is that the majority believes. Which is always risky…

So, there is a role for free thinkers that makes them incredible important. They are heretics like I said. They are the ones that plant seeds to break with the traditions that have hardened and might be completely beyond criticism sometimes. Even if we can’t follow them, they still should help us to see that our certainties are very relative. And they are ironically the only possible starting point of new movements, new traditions. They bring on renewal and reformation, and are agents of change…

Does this mean that ‘free thinkers’ will be right all the time? Not at all. A lot of them will be completely wrong, while a lot of the people inside of certain traditions will often be much closer to being right. Some of them will just be full of wacko nonsense even. Some others do have the gift of seeing what’s wrong but not really a clue about a more valid alternative. But even those freethinkers should not be ignored. Questions should be allowed, answers should be questioned.

To use Forts terminology, the ‘damned’ should be acknowledged and their existence affirmed.

There is an interesting paradox here though: a real free thinker will remain alone. A follower of a free thinker is just a follower of someone elses though, and will never be a free thinker. From the moment people start following him you get a second generation of thinkers that build a tradition around him, and the real freethinkerism is lost already. People will build a system around the ‘free thinker’, which will end up having walls, and some kind of orthodoxy that decides who does and dos not follow the original guy. And in this stage even schism can come up, and other interpretations, and so on… You can even get a reversal, in which the original consensus becomes ‘damned’ and excluded, and what once was an alternative proposed by a freethinker is now the rigid orthodoxy, which in most cases means that there’s progress in certain ways, but in other ways things have been lost too in the new dogma…

The stage of a free thinker can only last for one generation, for one single individual even. A group of agreeing freethinkers is an oxymoron (or at least a statistical improbability as they should come separately to the same conclusions) and a tradition of freethinkerism is even more a contradictio in terminis… Or like I said, delusional Orwellian newspeak…

The view that by definition free thinkers are right while the ‘bad’ traditions are wrong is very naive and not very realistic. (Are there really people who believe that you can say ‘follow your own reason’ to everybody and then have everybody come to the same conclusions as they do themselves? Are people so delusional?) It is as nonsensical as the opposite idea that the traditions are right and the freethinkers are always wrong. Every tradition has good and bad points, and the free thinkers often (in the positive cases) are the ones who see the bad points, the blind spots, or the unintended consequences of a line of thought that end up somewhere horrible…

Let’s take Charles Fort for example. His thoughts are completely out of the box sometimes. He does not seem to follow any dogma of his culture (including the ridid rules of freethinkerism) and sometimes comes to conclusions that make one genuinely scratch his head… But their originality alone shows us how much our way of thinking is pigeonholed into very rigid paths.

That’s why we need free thinkers

(And why we need to read people from other times, other cultures, and expose ourselves to as much diverse views as possible! The dominant paradigm is always way too narrow to give us a balanced outlook on reality…)