With the United Kingdom adopting a cabin-baggage device ban similar to that of the United States of America, discussion of the arbitrary (and purposeless) nature of the ban has increased. However, what if there is a purpose; not in what is banned, but in what is not.
Disdain for the ban centres around two arguments: there is no hard line between a large smart phone and a small tablet; and the threat hasn’t appreciably increased in the last few months due to the banned countries suddenly leaping forward in technology. Both of which are strong arguments against banning tablets, laptops, ereaders, and so forth on flights from certain destinations.
However, while functionally there is no clear line between a smart phone and a computer, there is a spiritual one: a phone has as an essential quality the ability to make calls; whereas a computer does not. Although there might be no way of defining the boundary in a usable way, the majority of people familiar with the ideas of phones and computers would say instinctively that they were different things; so, metaphysically, there is a division.
And, as anyone who has tried to stop a bad habit knows, sometimes it is the very lack of change that causes the issue.
If we bear in mind, as inter alia Heraclitus holds, each half of a binary contains within it its opposite, then we see that a ban of things that are not phones is an implicit permission for phones. People who would have brought a tablet might now bring a phone instead. The ban does not seek to reduce the threat from an (un)identifiable category of devices; it seeks to increase phone carrying.
But why would the Western world seek to increase phone carrying? For that we must look to the locational quality: certain areas within the Middle East. As critics have pointed out, a terrorist could travel outside the named countries then catch a flight, so it doesn’t make sense as a ban. However, viewed in a permissive paradigm, the location provides a starting point for a privileged action: in this case, carrying a phone.
When inverted the ban matches the structure of a return from pilgrimage – only instead of carrying back a token from a shrine, the travellers carry a phone from the Middle East to the West.
But why? Clearly a computer is just as open to intelligence agencies spying on it as a phone. But remember, this is about the metaphysical concept of a phone. Not the data or actual use but the ideal of a phone: an artefact for spoken communication.
And what is special about the Middle East? It is the birthplace of both hekau and Qabalah, both of which are based around the power of names, i.e. speech-as-magic. Not, of course, the only mystical traditions that treat speech as a magical technique, but – critically – the ones that form much of the foundation of the high Western magical tradition.
This ban is nothing to do with hindering terrorism. It is a giant ritual enacted by the Golden Dawn and other Western hermetic orders to strengthen their paradigm at the cost of other metaphysical perspectives.
Such as the word magic of the Norse. Far from being a defence against Middle Eastern incursion, this ban is an assault on the purity of Northern European life and soul. The white races must rise up and stand against this pollution of our folk. For the sake of our children and our gods we must resist with full force any attempt to limit travel from the Middle East.