The Best of Silence - Part 3

There are far too many young and new without sufficient and responsible mentoring. That I believe is one of the main arguments in the modern age for exclusion. Many people “doing” but a great many not really “understanding”.

The subject questions of "work or celebration" and "in what form"? This is vital to debates on inclusion. I work in one tradition these days and what we do is not for children. Not simply as it is believed to be so in some sort of mythical way but for it's actual physical effects and their ability to be detrimental to unformed psyches – and otherwise.

I have little problems with the standard forms of neo pagan worship styles about these days as it really is little more than ritualised personal veneration intent in a celebration shell. As long as all is explained very little ill effect can occur even on a psychological level. I also agree that if well planned by those who know what they are about - it can even be beneficial to all concerned.

I have seen so many scenarios of young people being damaged EXACTLY because both they and in some cases their supposed guardians do not know what they were dealing with both short and long term. Connection with *ANY* current - benign or otherwise makes changes within the subject on every level. It goes without saying (just to be clear on the issue that was stated) that I believe that children should be absent in ALL cases of and pertaining to demonology - both from working, tools, the places of study and work etc. for precisely these same reasons.

I have no problem with those who know what they are on about including their own children in say a no-contact part of celebrations (personal moral choices affecting the self and one's own is a moral conundrum we all must face in one way or another) - but working ritual? NOPE. NOT AT ALL. Children should be full of possibilities - and free to make their own choices. If we believe that other or unseen forces can have physical and real effect I don't believe that we can be so naive to at the same time say we believe that contact with other realities, entities and power currents does not warp their futures in one way or another. In fact some traditions have made use of exactly that reality for precisely those reasons! Afterall, give me the child till they are five and I will give you the adult.

Certainly I will allow as I have said that some may know well enough how to properly supervise and shield their children in limited modern neo pagan craft contact - but these days why even take the risk? Especially when there are numbers of other craft related activities that perhaps are more suited to their age and experience?

*In Mock Horrified tone*
Sip? SIP?! Like old women in diapers!?!

*Strikes best hairy behemoth pose waving a tankard about*
Pagans don't SIP!

If something is influential - it doesn't really require one to like it. It is interesting to see that many of the things said so long ago which were so thoroughly objected to by so many have now acquired some sort of acceptance. Who knows? In years to come we may even see a flourishing of witch groups that don't sprout from women's groups! To all things a time I guess ... *G*

I was unaware that the church's view of homosexuality (and hence homosexual marriage as well) as “deviant” was a new thing. Also while I am on the line there ... I must say while I personally have no problem with homosexuality I must say though that while I disagree with the Church’s point I admire their stance. It is after all a part of their religion to reject such unions and while we are all saying that we should not force our ideas on anyone else - that surely has to extend even to the church. And YES before it starts, while I am aware that the church is one of the foremost institutions on this planet NOTORIOUS for their zeal to enforce their religious and moral views on anyone and everyone ... my point here is put simply: "There but for the grace of Baphomet go we" not that I agree with what they say. I am simply saying that I do applaud their stance of not recanting what they believe simply because it is no longer politically correct (however feeble minded and backward their views may be!)

The church has a view of homosexuality and therefore marriage between the same as deviant ... and while such a view point (amongst others) I might find somewhat disturbing - it is however their religious view and I must admire at least their NOT changing what they actually believe simply because it is not politically correct .... not that any particular religion is homosexual ... ALTHOUGH ... whoever takes that idea and runs with it may have a popular idea .... leave out the stern father god routine but keep those FABulous cassocks!

I realise that these days there is a great movement that tends to believe that literally any form of scripture from the most loose set of codes to the most stringent dogma can be altered pretty much at will with the statement "Oh but surely that doesn't really mean me" (article 14 of the Young Ones - "Except for Mike" anyone?) but I really have to ask people that find this sort of info startling: "Have you never actually read the bible?"

It has some really hair raising stuff in it - and that is even if you make use of the new "Oh but this term doesn't actually MEAN this" ... (witches, sodomites etc here spring to mind as two examples I have heard elsewhere in recent times). This certainly extends to the notion of utilising "metaphor" whenever it suits people.

As I have said before - none of this is in any way surprising and if one finds themself being shocked perhaps articles such as this one are a good starting point for dare I suggest more study (?) Still and all, even in the face of my actual opinions on the Church etc (which are known to many here) I still have to admire a man who says: "My religion says THIS - and it is THIS that I believe and THIS that I will enforce in my sphere as is my DUTY".

That many of the Churches views may be outdated, willful and harmful is a MOOT POINT - and this is NOT the point to hand here. This is a man who has stood for what he believed and as his station demanded - he really doesn't have any say in it (there's this finicky thing called "obedience" see ..)

What I believe to be of far greater interest is now that HE HAS a position to do something useful - will he? All speculation on it is somewhat pointless - he either will or will not and we shall see either way in the passage of time.

Either way I feel can be of great use to us if we are capable of being more than we believe of everyone else it seems. You are stuck in this, I believe you are this that and the other, and as for HIM well! - These views I am sure will always be with us until the end of time whether they be about people who irritate us or persons in the public eye who's MYSTIQUE and PUBLIC IMAGE irritate us but they are not useful and largely just label us as being too facile to adapt to whatever life offers us.

Ok so there is now a hard line Catholic Pope - great so ... the question I believe that would be more useful to address is this: rather than going on about it (or rather has been the norm the back and forth regarding how much we, me, him, I know about the church ... or think we do at any rate) let us ask as Circe's other article raised an Issue .... What is next?

So we have a Hardline Pope in Rome .... how will we each in our own ways (singularly for solitaries and collectively for Traditions and groups) deal with this situation? What do we see as the effects it will have on public opinion and what that might mean to us? How can we best benefit from these things - is there really any point in doing so!?

Should we oppose someone who may do more to further our cause by their
narrow mindedness (an important lesson to note really!) or should we wait and see? Further on the "Wicca" becoming a big religion ... will his edicts aid or harm this do we think? Is it in turn useful to us or not? How may we best make use of times and effects? We cannot alter the causes but I flatter us all that were we not capable of making good use of our REACTIONS we would not be on this list no?

And just to start a ball rolling to my mind I happen to know that as far as what I do is concerned and my position - a hard line Pope is useful (both physically and magically!) and the rise of "Wicca" as a global religious power is likewise. It should also therefore go without saying that the more people who stay rigid to their backgrounds and do not change are more than I could possibly wish for - the very air I breathe.

Reading all that has gone recently and these thoughts as they occurred to me gave me real pause for thought. So now I will do what I feel to be best - PAUSE, THINK, WATCH, DISCERN and THEN ACT.

Witchcraft (if you like) is what witches do. The craft of the witches – and this may or MAY NOT include religion of various sorts. The word witch can be dissected any number of ways depending on what linguistic argument you favour. It is worth noting that the word witch does not mean "wise one" and generally had a negative connotation historically speaking. One of the simpler definitions that I have seen that takes into account many of the different derivations, their cultural and historical biases & etc simply states that the witch was a practitioner of non state sanctioned religious and magical practices .. therefore their practices and motives were considered suspect - hence the generally negative connotation of the word.

The notion of the "Wise One" - is actually covered by different words
altogether and was linked up here in this way shortly after Gerald Gardner's exposition(s). Think of it as a PR campaign for witches: "Oh no - we aren't satanists, or nasty or evil ... we are good people!" It takes not much of a hop step and a jump in the eyes of those from without the circle (as it were) from Good/nice witch to Wiccan.

(It is also worth reading Gardner's works and noting that he specifically uses different terms to talk about different practices "Witch, Witch Cult, Wica etc")

Wicca is a modern neo-pagan religion that endorses the use of magic when allowed by that religion's moral code - and by the sanction of the Gods of the same. The magic most often employed is modern versions of various culture's folk magic and superstitious practices molded to be congruent with that religion's moral and ethical stance. This stance is outlined in the various charges and etc that are given to the initiate and are (in my opinion) quite masterfully incorporated into the very bedrock of accepted practice within that faith. New interpretations and additions are quite often easy to spot due to their different "flavour". That there is a difference (and quite pronounced depending on who you talk to!) between the practices of "the Wica" and what is generally termed "Wicca" these days I would say is obvious to even the most casual observer but here I would be offering opinion of a particular bias - and leading perhaps down a different avenue of debate.

Point of order without the barrow pushing? Witches are not necessarily bound by the tenets of the Wican/Wiccan faith - hence the difference.

The casting of spells as a part of the usage of magic has some standard
modes in this subculture (if you will) that are fairly common to all magic and certainly run as thematic and as bedrock of sorts within this sub grouping. That many of the books about these days generally say the same thing is due to them largely being written by the same kinds of people with much the same views and practices (where that word is appropriate). There are some books that contain some very different information and modes of practice about and these demonstrate rather elegantly the differences that do exist from the ground up between many different traditions. Here also note that many older groups have oaths of secrecy that pertain to the exact nature of practice, rites, workings and the names and nature of deity (if at all) worked with. As this is the case it is no great elaboration to say that in relation to some forms of Wic(c)a and witchcraft you will never see anything in print - it would be in contradiction of these same oaths.

Generally most of these books are written by people making use of modern wiccan and ceremonial modes of practice - hence the same style of divinity being present.

Unbalanced? - consider this line of thought, could that mean "unbalanced" as in "I have nothing to do with this or that?"

I have found that being "unbalanced" is rather more something that occurs to people who take little care with their work and pay little heed to information they are given about what they need to do. I am saying that it is in short, generally something that people become as a result of their actions - not due to their being subjected to the bright wonderful gleam of Crowley's forehead. *G*

While I have no particular love for "Unca Al", I can also understand the revulsion and fear that many have of his works. I will say however, in his defense that he advocated trying to know all one can about all things, irrelevant of what other people thought of the attempts. He also was a stickler in places for being strict and stringent with one's investigations, orderly and attentive in ones devotions and attentive to all one hears, sees and learns. Hardly an unbalanced approach.

On the other hand it can and has been said that in many regards he failed in his goals - but well I tend to see failures as unique experiences ... they tell us so much more about scenarios than successes. Personally, I have had a fair bit to do with his works, his comedy and his teachings and while I personally think there are some glaring omissions with his work - it is well worth checking out ... even if only to see what things someone walking their path may encounter. Do I agree with much of it ? Not really, do I think his works are invaluable study matter - a resounding YES indeed!

BTW it is interesting to note that you use the spelling "Magick" for magic. This is something that he started actually to differentiate stage/Presdigitation, from the use of forces in accordance with will! (Yes to some will say that is the way it used to be spelled blah blah but really the simple fact is that prior to the accepted standardizing laws (possibly Lores?) of English many words (yes this one included) was spelled however the individual saw fit as to how their regional dialect made it sound.

Many writings of (post) modernists tend to regard anyone who went further and dared more greatly as being evil. This certainly is the case when the individuals in question do not or would not share their political leanings. Add to this that he was very right about some things and was in fact really quite good at what he did (irrelevant of whether we like it or not ... he may have been a total ASSHOLE from time to time but that doesn't mean he wasn't right or good at what he did!). Still the same and worse as has been said about "Unca Al" would be said by him about the masses were he still about so perhaps it all evens out in the end. After all I have heard much the same as this sentence but longer said about Silver Ravenwolf – hell about ME (would you believe!?! *BG*)

A good point here is to study up. There is plenty of info on the web for NIX - and it is worth sussing out everyone as much as you can and drawing your own conclusions. ESPECIALLY read those things that at first REALLY make you mad. FORCE yourself to go over it again and ask yourself "WHY?" if it is simply because it challenges your beliefs, print it out, keep it and come back to it in a month or so and keep doing so. It is very illustrative to do this and note the changes in your reactions to it.

Another thing I have found invaluable over the years is this statement: "Oh he is EVIL/NASTY/A SATANIST/WHATEVER!" should always be asked the question of: "Oh really? How so? Why?"

Consider: "You should stay away from him/her".
"Oh really? Why?"
"Oh s/he is EVIL/NASTY/A SATANIST/A WITCH/A WICCAN/A WHATEVER!"
"Oh really? How so?"
"S/He was nasty to me/S/He does this/that/the other ..."
"Oh really? WHY?"

If one believes such and such or so and so to be "nasty" then there MUST be a reason and this reason is often more enlightening than the statement that expresses the emotion.

Certain parts allied to my line have various things to say on the Aliester as pre/o-genitor of the modern occult movement .... from the "Hate him - filthy wee slug!" to "Well he did start Wicca". I feel it is somewheer in between - more akin to the fact that whether one likes or HATES him - he was influential in both practice and theory. He poularised or rather was instrumental in the poularisation of sexual practices asa method of awakening and contacting the devine (I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say re Theodore Reuss and that segment of history!) ... sooo ... it is like saying one cannot choose family ......... only friends !

Hmmm ... ok you know what I really think of Crowley's that SHOULD be on everyones reading list if they are to get into Witch craft or any works of summoning adoration etc ?

Liber Astarte ..... lovely article that says so many things that are missed in modern times. Of special note should be the chapters: 6 "Concerning the Ceremonies" and 43 "Concerning a Notable Danger of Success".

It is of special interest to those who are into Witch Craft history or who wish to excel.

It has been said that the somewhat 'closed' circles of traditional Wicca are trying to hide something which is already *very* common knowledge and that it is self-destructive.

Apart from the fact that the statement is incorrect judging by the internet and the caliber of operators one meets today, I wonder if the person concerned ever stopped to think that far from being self destructive, it could just as easily be considered rather simply holding fast to ones oaths.

The idea of the "Warrior Class" did not exist in a vacuum. Any code of behaviour designed to check the actions of a warrior class (or any social class for that matter!) MUST by definition be discussing the relationships between that class and others. While yes I agree with your point here given as regards the basis for chivalry being the insistance on, shall we say honourable codes of practice, I think it should also be stated that it is hardly divorced from the codification of interactions between say Knights and Ladies (and "Ladies" for that matter!). If we include this statement I believe that which "goes without saying" is also on the table with the rest of the cards so to speak. Perhaps the middle grounds between the two view points on Chivalry are not so far apart afterall?

Personally I feel any such codes should begin or be based in common courtesy (not so common these days sadly) and EQUALITY rather than socio political theories or EGALITARIANISM - which I feel are more suited to critique of the "experience" of the social times. - If you follow my drift there .. the right words for that last sentance don't want to come out right now.

I'd be interested to hear what both sides of this debate make of a further idea:

If we proceed with the given that there are two sides of such a debate that could loosely be labeled as feminist and masculinist points of view ...

How much of the dislike of both sides of this debate can be attributed to the actions experienced at the hands of those who misunderstood their place and the actual party lines of each so to speak?

For example, I see and have heard statements of males wondering if they should even be polite to females any more due to bad experiences at the hands of what I'd consider to be females more interested in working out their frustrations against one man being extended via the convenience of poorly understood feminist theory. The same can be said in reverse.

To clarify: As I have heard argued ... many of the staunchest opponents of feminism have grown virulently from a fertile ground of unpleasant experiences at the hands of women (whether they were women who actually understood feminist theory or not is debatable) .... and I think it goes without saying that much of the social need for feminist input has sprouted from unpleasant experience at the hands of male oriented institutions and individuals (whether they were men who were chauvinists or simply assholes is like wise debatable).

So the question remains ... or perhaps it should read: How much of the vehemence on both sides is due to unpleasant people committing unpleasant acts (and thus reinforcing sexist stereotypes irrelevant of sex, gender or experiential understanding of their respective social placings, social/political theories & etc) and how much is due to actual ideological dissagreement?

On the subject of historical erosion ... well it is important to remember that reconstructionism is most often carried out by those with no desire to unearth the actual past - which is why I always encourage everyone to not just take up and read - but rather also to dig and ask!

Personally I’d say both and that I think it would be dehumanizing to even believe that they could be separated (ie the feeling, the memory, the gender politics). Take away someone’s memories and experiences, they are diminished, take away their feelings as well – and well I’d argue they have been dehumanized. After that what would be the POINT in investigating their place in humanity as a whole when they aren't human anymore? No, no any debate requires giving a damn to be lively and if there were no feelings or memories then giving a damn would be difficult. While that was not exactly what I was driving at (hey I did say my words weren’t coming out well today didn’t I!?) you do address it here:

True – I’d also raise the point that there are many that having done so; then stop half way. They have a vague understanding of some of the issues and then make the rest up as they see fit in order that the wider stance becomes buckled to suit their preferred views. It is most often these same people that become those that cause the most damage to the causes they profess to support – generally in small ways such as allowing seekers to believe that they are some how representative of that social grouping. I would argue that it is THESE people that are the main cause of the rejection of said views – on both sides. I think we’d all tend to agree on that but if it is not raised as a point it may be lost on some – and we may ourselves selectively allow it to be lost on us as we debate.

I simply assert that while such is a part of the debate (ie that there have been bad experiences, that they may be because of shite disturbers OR NOT and that the memories of these scenarios are shared experiences that flavour the debates) it should be asserted AS SUCH, so it cannot be a silent point that may be lost on some. When that happens the fact that we both agree that there have been some of these shared experiences can not become shared understandings. As communication really only occurs due to shared overlapping experiences and therefore understandings – it becomes easy to see how some of the finer points on both sides may be lost on some of the audience – simply due to lack of sophistication or in depth study.

Like perhaps me saying that ‘some of “mankind”’ should perhaps be
understanding that when I said that phrase (‘some of “mankind”‘) I mean all of humanity. Had I not qualified it (to some extent) and furthermore pointed out that I had used it as a specific example the silent point of the sexism of the language that can be used ITSELF may be lost on some. The result? People may say I am a sexist because I used sexist language – even though I had done so to illustrate a point … a point that becomes lost.

While this may be seen as divergent from the issue to hand for some … well I’d say that debate is important to explore issues but actual communication between the sides of the coin (and here I do not simply mean here but in a wider sense) is vital to the exploration of what to DO next. So there is division, and yes we see some of the issues raised by both … what happens next? Are we going to do anything to better the worlds for everyone or simply ‘wind it up’ in true “Humanities” fashion by leaving the questions unanswered. Debated yes – answered? No.

We can after all, all argue our own points well, and rail against opposition but what happens then? Is there any reconciliation of views between us or ourselves – or must the two poles forever be apart? If that is the case the problems are unlikely ever to be solved. A rather philosophical statement perhaps but well I try never to debate an issue unless it leads to some sort of change.

Exploiting the proclivities of latent dominance always works well to be sure. I am reminded of the cartoon in the Book of the Subgenius of "Bob" counting dollars while being beaten into the ground by cops who are wielding the truncheons he sold them. Still the carefully worded response can make use of the situation. It is all matter of selecting the information you want anyone to have so as to maximise desired outcomes. Ooops ... there goes a secret ... damn! I always get that bit wrong! heheheh

There is a lot of stuff about on energy and most of it is overly laden with superstition and mythology to make it palatable to one group or another. Vampiric studies is one such example. While yes they do exist in many forms - most people don't actually know much about them. I have studies several different traditions even within this subject and there is much to be learned there and much that is missed and much more again even there that still needs myths for the study to be comfortable.

Try instead:

Energy is, energy moves, energy affects. One can sense, one can draw to, one can draw from, one can send away, one can send to. Energy is, energy changes, energy nourishes - and can destroy. One can grow, one can age, one can stay, one can diminish. Energy is, energy was and energy will be. One can see, one can feel, one can perceive and one can remember. Energy is all this and more or less, we are energy and can be all this or more or less. We are energy and we are limited only by what we are. What we do is the first step toward what we can be.

There are many different lines of thought and they are all as valid as each practitioner's need for fantasy requires. Finding a fantasy that is fulfilling and comfortable is a very useful first step. One can then explore all manner of forms, distill them and then refine one's own practices until the fantasy falls away. Vampires are what many people need them to be. The various truths are different but well we can each only see as far as we can see. It is worth noting that many of them are every bit as helpless and fantasy addicted as we are. This same could be said for ghosts, Fae – you name it. Simply because a thing exists in a slightly different realm does not mean it is omniscient. *G*

Hmmm as hokey as it sounds .... both Yoda and Emperor were scripted far more accurately than most of the psuedo-factual accounts about these days. Luminous beings are we - not this crude matter says the novel of the Empire Strikes Back and even more useful insights are to be found in The Revenge of the Sith. For those rolling their eyes it is worth remembering that George Lucas said in an interview many years ago when questioned about the force that he wondered what makes a man whose been in an accident and should be dieing live ... some force or other ... and that his view of it is along those lines.

There are some articles about that deal with energy work shorn of strange myths and superstitions for those who want to be special and interesting (and of course the strange and interesting price tags some of the neo-certificate style energy courses ask for!) but largely it is more fiction layered over a single set of simple understandings and practices. I did an article a while back that I can send you if you (or anyone else interested for that matter) are interested on basics of energy work if I can dig it up. I still have a bunch of stuff on Vampires but it is largely better suited to answering questions than a basic primer – also some of it is not really public domain stuff. Not a matter of superior I know something … just stuff that is like leaving knives in the hands of toddlers – they either cut you or themselves and you get blamed for it later. As that has been the case in the past I’m sure you’ll forgive my reticence.

It is worth noting that the White Wolf Games systems and their spin offs were written with aid from occultists of various kinds. Some of their extra materials provide some interesting paradigms and doors - but not a great many answers. The Vampire codex amongst the others of it’s and like kind make for amusing reading - almost as interesting but not as informative as the Star Wars novels I mentioned earlier.

Such things can be latent - many things are in even the most mundane and ordinary individuals. And yes these may be bought to the surface, nurtured and honed as skills with the right conditions and guidance. And YES - everyone has certain predispositions that may be refined to certain levels. It is no more mysterious than being ambidextrous or being good at sketch work really. Some have different to others, some have more some have less ... luck of draw affected by conditions, environment, heredity and etc.

In advanced vampiric work many different forms of energy are drained and utilised in many different ways for different ends. That is a vague statement but it saves wasting everyone's time with pages of possibilities and flailing information about in a manner that would be both irresponsible and in contravention of past agreements. *G* Beware also prematurely assigning positive and negative ideas to energy. Remember "Energy is ..." it is our perceptions that make energy positive or negative - and our perceptions of the affects that the form of energy being observed have. Consider the formation of Reichian DOR - we may say not beneficial to flowers ... but certain lower levels of it can be very useful for negating psychic attack and for the calming of hysterics and those sensitives who become easily overcome at times of high psychic activity!

This is a huge subject and I think one that it is sorely under rated
and avoided in circles who claim to achieve change via magical means. If you or anyone else for that matter have any rather specific questions I'll also be happy to answer them personally.

The Best of Silence - On the Subject of Old George Pickingill

From here on in you will find a variety of statements and the answers I gave to them on this subject. Perhaps they may be of interest to some who weren’t there originally. With any luck some of the less coherent and more rabid will read and take some of this on board - we'd be in business and the saying goes.

>Simon Goodman was Alexandrian. Any perception of connection to a 'Pickingill' Craft arises simply from taking literally Lugh's assertions that all Gardnerian (and thus Alexandrian) Craft is in fact derived from Pickingill. It is my understanding that any such claim by or regarding Goodman should be seen in this light.

In this example it rather arose from that claim being made “after the fact” as it were. It is more a case of someone saying, "I am of this line" rather than the line "claiming them" and this quote here given being a reflection of that.

While it is true (it seems to me from what I have observed) that Goodman accepted many of the claims made in the articles given by 'Lugh' and that he believed Wicca to be "the Pickingill Craft" - there are many glaring differences between the two.

From all information at our disposal, Goodman read the articles, agreed with their premises and as a result decided that he would 'claim' a Pickingill lineage based on the premises accepted, (i.e. if Wicca was perhaps ultimately derived from one or more practices etc from one or more of the Pickingill Nine ... then Wicca is of the Pickingill 'line' - so to speak). He did not apparently claim he was an actual Pickingill Initiate - but rater, that due to what he did, he was a part of the line ... different things to be sure. This is often missed as being different by today’s audiences who quite often are unaccustomed to the difference between lineage and practice and authority.

Personally I have heard much about Goodman and his practices that makes it clear to me he was not working as a Pickingill initiate.

>Any belief that Goodman was somehow 'Pickingill' extends simply from the argument (presented by Lugh in his very first submission to 'The Wiccan' in 75) that Gardnerian Craft (and thence Alexandrian) was derived from Pickingill.

And sadly enough it is by no means the silliest statement I have heard. I have relegated myself on this issue in a couple of instances simply to the statement: “Goodman’s work may be many things but there are some parts of it that are utterly alien to the Pickingill craft and make it clear that this is not it’s genesis – why not instead give the man the credit he is due?” As I understand it (not being a part of the descendant of Goodman’s work although I may be wrong here – servant’s gossip don’tcha know) there are some rather innovative inclusions that mark a Goodman Group apart from straightforward standard Alexandrianism. I think “GoodmanCraft” has a certain ring to it …

This is one I often stress when I have had to deal with the modern “Wiccan vs. Witch is it this or that” debates that have sprung up due to the claims of some people to lines that have no claim to. I have INFINATELY more respect for the practitioner who carves their own place by their OWN HAND than someone who simply works in the framework of the line of someone else.

While certainly all have their place and a certain amount of respect I feel is due to those who keep our collective pasts alive, I can attest to being more impressed by successes that came without the help of others. As I often have said: “If you’ve carved your own space why not give it a name of your own choosing?” I think it is a crying shame that some young “Wiccans” I have met feel ashamed to use the name and claim the background – however recent or otherwise. Be who you are and proud – how hard is that? But I digress.

>Whether this assertion of Lugh's should, in fact be given any credence is a totally different discussion. ( .. that all Gardnerian (and thus Alexandrian) Craft is in fact derived from Pickingill)

I would argue not actually, not in this case. As 'Lugh' is a Pickingill and there were claims and attempts to connect with not only with that line but also with what the man himself does, surely he would be best qualified to say whether or not there was a connection or whether or not a practice by someone is of his group or derived from such. I should think that is only logical yes?

To use a rather crude example: if I said "I am a "Pickingill" and I do "these things". I do these things *because* I am a "Pickingill". If you don't believe that "Pickingills" do these things then go ask Pickingill. Wouldn't it be only obvious that "Pickingill" be the authority on it?

>Lugh's asserted that all Wicca came from Pickingill craft.

An interesting point - he doesn't necessarily think that all "Wicca" came from Pickingill craft (nor do I for that matter!). As I have also already stated there are some really quite major differences. Add to this the fact that what is modernly referred to as "Wicca" bears only passing resemblance to "Wica" and that much of the modern eclecticism comes from even (it seems) disparate and (in some cases) antithetical sources and I am sure I would imagine some steps have been made toward clarifying that position.

As for 'Lugh's" assertions on any number of other points I would repeat what he said to me about four minutes ago "Funny how so many people believe I have said what I haven't! I often think people didn't actually read what was written - on the website and otherwise.")

>However, in the first of his letters, to the "Wiccan" magazine in 1974(issues 40 and 41) 'Lugh' did most assuredly state this. The whole basis of this letter (and several subsequent ones) was in identifying the initiatory links between both Crowley and Gardner to one (or in Gardner's case two) of the 'Nine Covens' he asserted were "personally founded by 'Old George' Pickingill". He goes on to state quite clearly that Gardner's basic ritual forms and Craft authority extends from Pickingill's.

Ok - simply put, no he didn't. The actual author did and he submitted the works. Small difference say some but a difference none the less. (There is more to that point later on in ref to your later statement about authorial irrelevance.) I realize here this is not an attack ... but it is one of the most often encountered errors that we have faced - and it makes for the biggest problems.

(Understand that at a couple of points here I will likewise be making some statements that are illustrative of various other points that have been raised on this subject over the years – they also are not statements against anyone else particular but rather addressing points most often raised.)

He merely submitted the writings of others at their request - some of which he did not even agree with. A simple point to overlook but one that has, frankly given several people I know of careers of their own. The "daft old" and "liar 'Lugh" fan clubs are out there - and quite often are based in this single error.

Others said these things and asked him ('Lugh') to submit them to protect their identity. While protect their identity it did - it also caused endless problems due to the way it was done. Information from unidentified sources should always be treated as suspect. The main aim of said articles was basically to say that 'what was publicly being touted at the time was by no means all there was' - and that the historical views of the time were likewise by no means as simple as some were suggesting.

In short - the goal of the letters being submitted was simply to make the public aware that there were other views that weren't being heard. Basically - alternative views put forward to make people stop, think and hell – maybe even question the ideas that were in danger of being canonized at the time.

Some of these voices thought Gardner had been hard done by and some thought he should be given a flogging. Some raised the stories of Old George and opinion on him likewise goes back and forth.

A good example of this is the "Goddess Cult" under a "High Priestess" ideal, which was largely being accepted as the norm representation for British covens. A misrepresentation due to the oversimplified ways many people took much of the info being released at the time. Many (esp. Magisters - as one would guess) were not pleased - some wanted their voice heard too – hence articles to point out that Gardner's "Wica" and that which was following hard on it's heels was NOT the be all and end all.

That all being said, let us address the point raised: “Extends” … well yes - much as present day "Wicca" extends from, (in some places) Gardnerian "Wica" and that that extends from some practices of old, traditional witches. There is however a world of difference between many traditional witch practices and say, (as an example) the average article in "Witchcraft" magazine, or even (lest it be said I have chosen something with no involved initiates of that line) even much of Dear old Doreen's work. It should at the same time be said that there is an interesting situation now days where some of the more patently "made up" styles of "Wicca" (& etc.) are now starting to become more and more accurate to what some witches did long ago - at least in tone.

It is important to note that as George did found several covens - it by no means suggests that they were all thereafter doing what he did. Many assume that he ran these groups – he did not. Initiates who are allowed to go and found their own groups often vary the practices to suit their own agendas and specialties. It is also worth noting that George was capable in several different avenues of witchcraft - and was certainly not above deciding what that meant at any given time – he was certainly capable of being “one thing or the next to those who wanted to see him thus”. Not all of the Nine were of the same persuasion. Indeed from this point of view, although the members of the nine were under George's jurisdiction *technically* it certainly does not necessarily mean that they all did the same things or even believed the same things exactly.

It could (and has been) argued here and there that if we take on board the idea of at least basic connection between George and Gardner, than this also obviously means that this connection extends to Doreen Valiente. Did much of her work bear any real resemblance to the practices of George's? Not really no. The point I was driving at was that even though George taught the originators of several groups ... those groups were not bound to do as he did. As such although descendants may have certain attributes of their parents ... they don't always look alike – let alone act alike.

Further on the subject of “initiatory links” … as could be surmised from the preceding, the structure of traditional craft is different. As I have asserted, simply that one was initiated by a parent coven does not mean that you will be doing just as they have done or do. This is perhaps especially the case with George Pickingill who had a reputation of being a renegade, different from other Traditional Groups in several particular ways that were considered “unacceptable” by many at the time and because he was also a cunning man – which is different again. The whole of which was largely very different from much of what he was taught as a young man amongst his kin.

Where you have said “(‘Lugh’) states quite clearly that Gardner’s basic
ritual forms and craft authority extend from Pickingill’s” … you have
touched on quite a complex issue when viewed from certain angles. To not be perhaps unnecessarily long winded I will deal with it in it’s simplest sense. In the simplest manner, Gardner’s basic ritual forms are those that you will find also in just about any ritual occult persuasion. That in itself says something more about the connection! That his craft authority extends from George Pickingill likewise says many things about Gardner that can either support or distance the claims. Indeed many of those who have this initiatory lineage are as chalk and cheese as anyone else (we don’t all agree on this subject!).

This also raises a very central issue regarding the articles that would
eventually be put together to form the Pickingill Papers. It is summed up best in the preface of that book by two paragraphs:

“A careful reading of the Lugh corpus in this book will reveal both
inconsistencies and conflicting views. Brethren from at least four
affiliated 'covens' forwarded me basic information which they wanted
presented to a Craft audience. Almost a dozen of my Elders from such
disparate factions as a cunning lodge, Pickingill covens and Hereditary
'companies' used me as a letter box.”

And ..

“The misnomers and inconsistencies in the material which will be recognized by perceptive readers is only to be expected because all the information emanated from disparate sources and several of these had a personal axe to grind. My only role was as a sort of sub-editor.”

While this certainly sums up the disparities in opinion and belief even
amongst those groups connected to Old George, it does bring up one other factor that is perhaps even more important to the reader of such articles – that the articles presented are not necessarily things which “Lugh” himself believes. To my mind this is perhaps the single most important thing to keep in mind while reading these articles (especially as it seems to be the single most overlooked point in the whole of the “Lugh” corpus extent) that “Lugh” did not write these articles to advance his own theories. He put them forward at others request.

> 'Lugh' states:

"The rites of my parent persuasion are too similar to the Gardnerian Book of Shadows to cause any shift in basic allegiance - or to be a coincidence!".

True and also, from the same preface I have already quoted in part:

“My Elders were not prepared to reveal their identities. They chose me to be their scapegoat because nothing could be traced to them if they used my New Zealand address as a letter box. Material was forwarded to me. I drafted suitable articles from the detailed facts submitted and returned them to their respective 'authors' for correction and/or comment. The approved article was then returned to New Zealand and forwarded for publication to a Craft magazine they themselves had nominated I was the ostensible author because my nom-de-plume of 'Lugh' was appended to these articles.”

That should certainly explain this situation somewhat. He was given the copy and told to submit them. There are several reasons as to why he did so, none of which it is really my place to discuss openly or otherwise. I can say however, that as you might expect there have been many headaches as a result of what may have seemed an attractive offer at the time! I tend to agree with “Lugh” as he has often said that it is a shame but that due to the tack his Elders of the time took – many of their points have in fact done little other than muddy the point they were trying to make and back fire on them.

Again though, it is not really my place to question the same – they had
their reasons just as I have had mine for certain actions that didn’t really turn out exactly as I had hoped. *G*

That aside however, the point raised is a valid one – just not as something necessarily incorrect on “Lugh’s” part! Bear in mind that as I have said, the descendant covens and individuals of George’s line do not all do the same things – nor do they believe the same things. Some practices and beliefs from one coven are in fact at complete odds with some of the others.

In this particular case I can assert that there are certainly many things of shared ancestry shall we say, and certain rites that indeed are calibrated in much the same way for some of the same reasons. In one particular strain of work descended we can say that of course there is little difference as George himself was very keen to see Gardner’s new tradition take root – it was after all based very closely on one of the traditional religious persuasions he taught! (Here we should liken this case to the situation of “I have taught you all of what you know – not all of what I know!”)

>Well, perhaps the most glaringly obvious error in the Lugh corpus is the existence of that supposed Crowley BoS. It simply does not exist, and never has.

Doesn’t now – never did is still a matter open to debate.

>Of course, ‘Lugh’ also bases a large part of his reasoning on the presence of a BoS in Crowley's handwriting - which has later proved to be an unfounded rumour based on several misunderstandings by people close to neither Crowley, nor Gardner.

Hmmm that is one part of one of the one of the explanations – and again info sent and resubmitted as per request by “Lugh”. That this argument is doubted now is not new – we doubted it for a long time as it simply didn’t make a lot of sense – not even then. However, it was believed by the author at the time and submitted as is. It was furthermore insisted that it go out to the press “as is”. As I have never quite understood the reasons behind this argument and never really believed it I cannot say what, (if any) ulterior purposes were behind it. I must say that the story of BoS in Crowley’s handwriting has never made much sense to me and so I have never really questioned it too much.

More has been put on this subject since which actually mirrors “Lugh’s”
actual beliefs and understandings on the subject. Like “Lugh” I go back and forth on this scenario. There is more to it than simply that explanation. The book there being referred to was as far as I am concerned “Ye Bok of Ye Art Magical” and was a scrapbook of notes and miscellany. To my mind it does support several other notions about connections of the time and subject – but it is not in Crowley’s hand to my knowledge, nor is it a “Book of Shadows” as we would understand it today. Crowley’s Book, containing what he may have learnt from his coven days (in whatever format it may have had !) I would agree with the person who penned that article – has been safely destroyed as was requested – and only right.

Furthermore: “Unfortunately, my Brethren were obdurate on a number of matters and would not brook improvements or changes in phraseology. One such oversight was to refer to the Book of Shadows (the book of rituals of Gardnerian Wicca) or BoS when Gardner had not yet invented the term or the concept. Crowley and Gardner in 1946 simply compared their respective rituals.”

>Actually, I suspect the book referenced was one of Gardner's BoS, what the Farrar's called "Text C" rather than the BAM. This was on display with a page opened at his Museum of Witchcraft on the Isle of Mann. It seems that someone recognised that the handwriting on Gardner's OTO charter and this BoS were the same, and erroneously concluded that the BoS was in Crowley's hand.

Yes - that same "Ye Bok" that contained Gardner's notes which were the first trial run before BoS fame. It is fair comment I would think to say that this along with the Book supplied by Crowley (should it have existed) and several other sources besides would have been referred to when formulating the early drafts of BoS material. There are after all parts of the BoS of Gardner's that come from just about everywhere – this being one of the reasons that this particular avenue of investigations began I would suppose. It however does go without saying that Ye Bok, the BoS and Crowley's Book (again should it have existed) The Key of Solomon, Leland's Aradia, and Crowley’s OTO works should not be confused one for another.

>There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate such a book ever existed, and a good deal of evidence (Crowley's diaries being chief amongst them, he was a compulsive diarist) to suggest otherwise.

True, his diary certainly was a tool he made large and liberal use of I would say! However I would also state that this is not the sort of thing Crowley would really have wanted anyone knowing either! That there was a certain cross-pollination of info between them is dealt with amply elsewhere by others again - much to the sometimes dismay of the author in this case I am sure. Either way, I am not a Crowley historian and once again we have what is more of a stalemate than a refutation. Again as I feel certain I have stated further up there .... it is a pity that we will never know for sure.

>But this has been handled in more depth by such research historians as Prof. Ronald Hutton in his "Triumph of the Moon" (pp216-223) and the same historian also treated the Lugh Corpus more generally in the same text (pp289-298).

"I am satisfied that the supposed BoS in Crowley's handwriting is none other than Gardner's 'Ye Bok of ye Art Magical.' Professor Ron Hutton agrees with this identification. "

http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/angelic/361/1.htm

Not that this really means much though, after all many are the people who have supported .... and then NOT the 'Lugh' corpus. *Shrugs* It makes little difference really as I have said we have no problem with any of them save where they have persisted in the "It's all Lugh" or the "It's all wrong ... evidence what evidence?" follies.

>Well, he certainly committed an awful lot of other stuff one would tend to place in that category into his diaries, including amazing amounts about those members of the various occult societies he engaged with whom he was at odds. My feeling is if he did have anything specific against a coven of witches, or had had any prior experience with such it would have been mentioned, at least as a passing reference.

Depends on whether or not he thought it might cast him in his desired light before his audience. After all – the bits of his diaries that I have seen are some of the most obviously audience written texts I have ever encountered. Very useful to the occult student – possibly more so than many primary texts and grimoires – but still written to an audience. Also consider the measure taken – Crowley was no fool and knew only too well the virtue of oaths of secrecy. Break 'em when there is more power in doing so – and here I can think of no angle to be gained. It is for all of those reasons that I always arrive back at the “It is never proved either way to any satisfaction” – mores the pity … I think if it had of been in there it would make for some fascinating (and highly entertaining) personal insights on a very cloudy era!

> I have a number of serious doubts as to that ‘BoS/BaM” whole argument.

Good. Excellent in fact. It is important here to remember that every time I have raised such issues with 'Lugh' about both the letters to the mags and indeed even HIS information on the website he says pretty much the same five things.

1) From all the info he has been able to find there is simple enough basic circumstantial evidence to support the claim that Gardner and Crowley were at one stage or another more than first degree in one of the Nine Covens - he then tells me to go off and review it

2) That what he learned from his experiences due to the initiation in his family line AND as Gardnerian tend to support this - he then asks me if I don't agree

3) That there will probably never be any way of actually proving so
conclusively with evidence - he then asks me if I have discovered any lately

4) That there will literally never be ANY way whatsoever to prove it to the satisfaction of the masses who tend to believe that the histories they have learnt in recent years from books with hidden agendas are gospel - he then tells me to go and read some of the info from those who literally have made their careers on disputation

5) That in the final analysis - it does not matter one bit. *G*

I don't debate much of the source material. I know where I stand on all
of it - having checked out every bit of it as much as I could in every way I could. Some I agree with and some I believe to be little more than mistaken. As such, I don't debate it - I simply answer questions as far as I can on it and correct errors as I see them. The one most often is simply that "Lugh" wrote it all (implicit then is the idea that everything else he says is mistaken or a lie or an agenda). Not only did he not write it - he also doesn't believe it all.

I know this to not be an attack and am happy to have been given an
opportunity to raise some points in public. The attack type of disputation we have come to know and grit our teeth to is pretty easy to spot. It is generally based in three things - often run concurrently:

1) "Lugh' is wrong and a Liar because he doesn't agree with me, is not consistent, doesn't blah blah blah

2) NO it MUST be HIM - I read that his name was on the end of it - if I allowed the possibility of it being several other people's words my arguments would make no sense - so it MUST be him!

3) I have 'evidence' that I believe disagrees with him (if anyone says other wise I will go nyaa nyaa can't hear you!) Goto point 1.

The fact is, (and many people miss this - by error or on purpose) the articles were differing - not from just what was about at the time but also from each other. They were to make people think, react, check, inquire and maybe even to flush out some evidence either way! So far it has managed to squeeze out only a few drops of decidedly circumstantial hearsay evidence which tends to support some of the claims albeit peripherally. It has also flushed out much more disputation and unfortunately the few most jumping about on it have had recourse to even worse and much more shaky evidence. At the end of the day, it is largely all old news for us. We have had it all (each in our own way - he encourages us to prove him wrong!) proven and otherwise to our satisfaction.

That there are likenesses and differences between Gardner's 'Wica' and Pickingill Craft that tend to support the idea of a continuation of sorts is obvious to an initiate. I can't prove that to anyone else so why try? No I simply correct the views on the material which are most often containing that one error which leads to so many others. If ‘Lugh’ wrote it then it is his agenda - but he didn't.

It is pleasant to be handed an opportunity to discuss this basic stumbling block and some of it's 'children' (for wont of a better term) in public.

>Certainly, though just how one defines 'traditional witch' will tend to dictate what differences precisely.

Exactly - which is why many of the actual practices and (shall we say)
theologies presented in the articles differ. It is also one of the main
reasons that there will never be any definitive answers of proof that many will accept either way on so many of the issues presented therein.

>Do we accept the central tenet of all of the so-called Pickingill papers: the relevance of Pickingill and his connection to modern Craft? I'd suggest that even this needs to be examined carefully!

I agree with the need for careful examination. As I have said there is basic circumstantial evidence for the connection but this is far from the Fanatical cries on both sides of the coin. There are some things that come out in our line's works that concern the origins, use and the importance of the modern movements ('Wica', 'Wicca', 'Eclectic Witchcraft' and the Solitary Movements) but on the whole beyond the idea that George was influential in the formation of 'Wica' I personally don't think he is all that relevant to the modern movements. I liken it to a statement from the film "Being there" which goes something like: 'I have no time for them, yet if I am honest with myself they have no time for me either".

>The value of 'Pickingill' folks, or their system is surely best judged by the efficacy of that system for its members

Very true - something far too many people miss. After all we have been
considered both hijackers of the modern craft to defame Gardner and at the same time a Gardnerian conspiracy! Talk about having the cake and eating too! *G*

In the simplest manner, Gardner’s basic ritual forms are those that you will find also in just about any ritual occult persuasion. That in itself says something more about the connection!

>Are we to accept the assertion that the limit of any connection is that they both work within an esoteric form common to all occult work?

Not at all. To be as clear as I am allowed - the basic forms that Gardner's 'Wica' displays when all is simmered down so to speak are much the same as any basic occult magical system. This holds to my mind not simply in what forms 'Wican' magic takes, nor simply the rites but also it's theological composition. Much more has been written and debated about what elements are actually required in order to enact a magical effect in recent years than would have ever been dreamed of in George's day, BUT there is at least one component that makes several connections somewhat clearer.

While we all would be familiar with the idea of choosing a goal, choosing appropriate symbolism, raising power and directing that in order to achieve the desired goals, we would all also agree that any tradition has certain forms of doing all of this that are uniquely calibrated to their orientation. This includes particular methods, symbols and so on.

To be explicit, the use of sexual congress in a way as a method not only of raising power but also of divine connection utilising certain other adjuncts of particular mode, exposes the background of some of Gardner's education.

While we take such a thing for granted now days, (so much so that in some circles it does not even occur anymore - being totally consumed by
symbolism) it was certainly not taken for granted at the time. It is indeed an interesting thing to trace certain forms of sexual magic through it's practitioners from Gardner's time back. At each stop we must also consider the circles of society that surrounded each practitioner and where these overlap. Suffice to say that there are some quite obvious traces of George in Gardner's 'Wican' rites.

I say not simply the framework betrays the work of George but rather the frills on the outside. To allow an analogy of sorts the framework is common but when examining the oil painting we find styles that are from a particular school. As (I believe you suggest) this is likewise one of the reasons I PERSONALLY don't agree with the 'Goodman argument' as far as I have heard it.

Simply that a practitioner these days uses certain tools (as I have heard one argue) that they believe George used does not mean they are working the Pickingill Craft - nor even less that they have any claim to some sort of lineage. This obviously extends to the idea that simply because the basic framework of magic is used it is Pickingill Craft. Following this idea - that would mean that every see-saw on earth is from the Lineage of Hermes Trismegistus! No there are certain modes of practice, certain Deisms (obviously) passwords and etc that show something as being the Pickingill Craft or not. That certain 'icings on the cake' (if you will) are present shows some connection and to what degree.

Gardner’s basic ritual forms are those that you will find also in just about any ritual occult persuasion as I explored just before. That in itself I would argue shows how influential Gardner's work was - irrelevant of any Pickingill influence. That there are some parts of Gardner's work that is quite recognisably Pickingill and that much of this is stripped right out of what is commonly called "Wicca" these days shows exactly how acceptable Old George's ideas would be to many. Frankly, George would have little time for the way things are these days and he would probably have been vilified faster than his attention span waned.

On the same hand, if we accept that there IS a background there (from Gardner to George) then the longevity of this magical child so to speak argues for the influence Old George may have had on Gardner at the time (can have on the present?) On the other hand some say that the fact that he is still being debated makes him laugh hard from beyond the veil.

The point here is that many of the arguments presented for or against a
background leading to George CAN be used either way. We know of George that he would "shine anyone on" just "for the lark" and go a mile to annoy the righteous - the same could be said of Gardner. And yet both in their own way were very seriously sincere about what they did ... which they were never averse to making up stuff about to simply to suit themselves and their audience. Both have various qualities that would, in short make them as well suited to the same work as they were likely to invent the same stories.

Consider all of this when I say that there are as many fiddly variants in Pickingill descended groups as there are in modern Wiccan groups! In short not all who are connected with George's line even come CLOSE to agreeing on much. I’d say that the idea of a uniform "Pickingill Front" agreeing on the finer point of anything is not much more than wishful thinking. As such we don't even all agree that Gardner's works have anything relevant to do with the Pickingill line.

Remember at this point though also that I agree totally with the assertion of worth from earlier, (that the worth of a tradition is finally only to be judged by how well it works for it's members) does it mean that every one who can demonstrate Pickingill heritage is worth spitting on when in flames? Or that it is 'worth' more than any other form? Obviously not, in fact in some ways I am surprised that there aren't more people being strenuous in their efforts to dispel all traces of George from their traditions! It would not be the first time - he was not after all well received by many traditional groups and was considered by most to be a rogue and a villain. He was generally only tolerated by some groups simply because he tended to be good at getting his own way. The same could be said and has been said of me!

>And presumably one would need to be an initiate of both Pickingill and Wicca in order to be able to completely compare and contrast the two...

Hmmm .. ok I am getting a nasty feeling in my gut on this one – maybe I will get into trouble here BUT I would argue NOT actually. While certainly there are some things that would be missed by one not from “inside” both circles; that being said I will assert that given careful, critical examination of the material given in the Lugh Letters and that which has been given of the Gardnerian BoS, many parallels can be noted as quite glaring. I can say that if you read the GBoS between each of the articles and contemplate the way the two interact in some ways – it can be quite enlightening. Here let me also say that this will work even with what you will get off various sites as being scalped from Kelly!

>Possibly, though it is hardly completely unique, but rather is a nexus
which reappears across a number of cultural contexts. People have certainly pointed at tantric practice, and I could happily add a number of differing precedents within an operative folk-magical context without even needing to touch on any possible connection to the OTO.

True and to further it I would point to the connections between those who bought it to the wider public’s notice. That various groups and etc used it is beyond doubt – did they share the secret outside their own though? No. Furthermore the attitudes shown toward this practice in it’s varied facets, the opinions on what it is most useful for though, while certainly tantric to a degree are a far cry from group to group.

>In fact, the simple attestation to such practice within the broader
context of a popular culture of Witchcraft beliefs would provide some
credible explanation for such features.

True but here note the use of the word “Popular” … for something to be
popular it needs to be made to a certain degree common knowledge and these same have not been common knowledge very long in the western spheres.

>Of course, this also gives us the classic chicken and egg dilemma; did would-be witches behave this way because it was what everyone believed witches did, or did people believe this about witches because some of it at least was based on actual witch practice?

Interestingly enough I more argue with the question. Many people feel a need for it to be one or the other when the most obvious and sensible answer is to accept both. There is a perception in some circles that the answer “BOTH” is a cop out … I see it more as simple common sense! Would be witches certainly did so because people believed it was the practice de rigueur … and they certainly believed such due to some practices being used BY witches. I think this is summed up greatly in the subject of the “Obscene Kiss” becoming the Gardnerian blessing of feet, womb etc etc etc … all the way down to the virtual obliteration of sexual rites in the modern “Wicca(n)” experience.

The same can be said here for some of the inclusions that so embarrass some young modern “Wiccans” who get flustered over the old “Witchcraft NOT Satanism” debate. Did some of the old witches worship the horned God … well obviously. Did some of them investigate this lovely new vengeful guise called Satan? Naturally. To say anything else is to sacrifice common sense and history in the name of political correctness.

>While evidence of the latter is sketchy and tantalising, we really can't dismiss the effect of the former, or the related effect that concerted pressure brought by an exterior perception (especially a hostile and oppressive one) can have on modifying a subcultures understandings of itself.

As an aside I think an excellent example of the effect this sort of thing can have “down the track” (as it were) was shown in a text by Tani Jantsang I read the other day. It pointed out some of the problems that were created by Anton La Vey’s Church of Satan. For every liberation there is an oppression and for every oppression a liberation. Do both sides feed the other? Of course they do .. it is just such a pity that there is SO little out there that addresses this obvious and important point in occult literature. I will add here as an aside that perhaps returns us to a kindred issue … this is one of the reasons I firmly support the solitary and self-dedicant movements. Efficacy of such as we have already agreed is a different issue all together – after all there are many things I CAN do – but only a couple I do well *G*

>What about the 'discrepancies' evident in the Pickingill Papers – some are really glaring instances, reliance on hearsay since disproved, and some remarkable shifts in position.

Ok this I why I say it is so important to constantly have the manifold
authorship issue at the forefront of the mind when reading. I agree that we need to be very careful in acceptance of the arguments put forward in the Pickingill/Lugh texts. I argue strongly that each should be tested on it's own merit and considered suspect until proven by the investigator to themselves as not so (so no just reading “so and so” and saying “Oh yeah I agree!” It must be researched for the self to my mind). I further agree (as per my somewhat garbled chalk and cheese statement) that there are some chasms of difference of opinion represented therein.

In the clearest sense, as the authorship is manifold and not really interested in presenting a unified front, there should be expected many discrepancies and that they really in no way represent shifts in position – simply different positions being expressed.

However I dispute the use of the terms "hearsay since disproved" and
"remarkable shifts in position" - let me say why. I shall say first again that it is difficult to have a shift in position when no one unified position is really evident. The idea of there being one position and then altering it is often used by people who assume single authorship and also, (therefore) a single argument. There was no single author and well I think it could be politely put that there were a 'plethora' of arguments and positions. (Not the word I had in mind but as I say much politer!)

The only thing that even comes close (to my mind) to being a single shared statement is a general one suggesting some sort of link from Gardner back via various ways to George Pickingill - and that is only in a general sort of way when we consider the variance on how and why. I don't believe that totally simplified view (that there is a linkage between Gardner and George) changes. Some might say that the actual position is that "Wicca' is because of George's influence on Gardner" but this is such a generalization of so many different arguments I don't feel it is worth even bothering with. To my mind this is reducing a great amount of information down to the level of the "Dog's head causes it's tail".

On the subject of hearsay ..... there is a LOT of hearsay (heresy?) evidence in the Pickingill texts and a large reason for this is simply that the subject being dealt with does not lend itself to written evidence. Just as it does not lend itself to agreement - even from those with knowledge of him. Now to further the idea of "hearsay since disproved" is again simplifying to the point of "baby out the window". I have heard this point being raised often and rarely does anyone ever seriously address the point. Which points are disproved and how? I have read much to the contrary of the ‘Lugh’ corpus and while impassioned – it fails to persuade … much the same as some aspects of the original letters!

>The whole corpus is surely open to question on a number of fronts,
not least because some of it is so clearly erroneous. That these errors may not have originated with Lugh is really immaterial.

It should, (if the authors were to have their wishes granted) be entirely open to question. It is a pity that it is not they who are left to hold this series of arguments. After all it was their "axe" and their arguments.

We have a stance certainly but rarely are we questioned on that - only what the articles said. That the 'errors' may not have originated with 'Lugh' most certainly is immaterial ... it is a pity that many of the points raised that are supposed to, (shall I paraphrase?) relegate the 'Lugh' corpus ‘to the dustbins of history’ .. are so mired in the fact of it being originating with him and in so doing ignore this central issue! Likewise they rarely go “point to point” and offer anything by the way of damning evidence.

Most often the material being presented is not addressed, simply disagreed with … and that not even being the norm. Simply most often it is ‘Lugh’s’ words that are disagreed with – even though they weren’t his! So much for carefully reading the texts and attempting disproval point for point!

> I don't believe this alters the implication of the statement though, regardless of whether it was Lugh's own, or the statement of one of his Elders of Brethren who was using him as a public mouthpiece.

For sure … I only stickle on this one because there were fors and againsts in the corpus … while they all generally said there was a connection there were so many differences here and there. I think if you will excuse a vulgar metaphor of sorts it is important to remember that the many heads of this Hydra each have a mind of their own. I have certainly noted in my experience of unraveling the whys and wherefores of them that each must be dealt with exclusively so as to render them even comprehensible singly …. And that this must be done piece meal well before the whole becomes useful in any stretch of the imagination.

>It still asserts a close and direct relationship between 'Pickingill'
Craft and Gardner's own practice. Of course, whether we accept that at
face value or not is another matter.

Yes indeed!

>It is also worth noting the overall tone change around 1977 (from
being relatively pro-Gardner to being quite virulently anti) also coincided with a switch from publishing in "The Wiccan" (with obviously Wiccan focus) to "The Cauldron" with a much more 'Traditional Craft' focus.

Well that is certainly to be expected with the change in magazine, possible readership, authorship, ‘mores’ of the times & etc. More importantly though I would say is that whether or not one thinks well of Gardner is somewhat immaterial when it comes to whether or not he is connected to George (and vice versa). After all, as an example, I myself have some real issues with Gardner's work and his publicising of "Wica" in general AND YET - I find myself defending his work in some instances against erroneous views being projected thereon! *Shrugs* Either way as far as I am concerned it is irrelevant - you don't have to like someone to say they were influential - indeed many of the most influential figures in history were the most hated.

>To be fair, I found a lot of the thinking and speculation presented in the original articles to be fascinating, and Lugh's recognition of the importance of Scandinavian influences and mythology and continental influences was quite revolutionary for its time in public Craft discussion.

I would have said 'dangerous' for the time .... I can well see why they
wanted their names kept out of the public eye! ehehhehe

>Much of the arguments presented simply don't add up, and this renders the whole open to serious question as an historical source.

This is a common problem. Apart from the implication that many derive from such a statement, (i.e. that we want people to believe this set of suggestions) it more straightforwardly implies that it is desired by us that it IS taken as a serious “historical source”.

I for one would prefer that people took it for what it is – a series of suggestions from various disparate factions that should be investigated so that we all have a better understanding of some of the machinations that may have led to the common era of practice. If people want to believe it fine and well, if not that’s good for me too. I can tell you for a fact that the only time I get irritated on this subject is when I am subjected to the scenarios I have discussed. We certainly have no real need for the masses to suddenly love and accept the Pickingill Papers! (Gods! Fame simply means no more quiet pints at the pub!)

Hell even if someone wants to dispute it I’d be happy if it was actually done in some manner other than the ‘knee jerk’ agendas we have seen. At the very least it would be neat for some of the detractors to be a tad more accurate about many of their refutations – that many of them are every bit as fabulous as some of the material they are commenting on.

When I see a huge amount of data, I question it. When I find that some parts are wrong, some parts are dubious and some sound like fair comment; I call the wrong, wrong; further investigate to my satisfaction the dubious and call the fair comment as I find it. It is pretty obvious that would most normal people who don’t feel threatened by anything ‘other’, however this statement is all too often where everyone leaves it. That something may be perceived as "open to serious question" should surely lead people to do so and more often than not this simply has not been done.

I am familiar with many statements from certain people and they are often reluctant to actually show what is disproved and how. More often than not the "evidence" that disproves is likewise hearsay, likewise difficult to prove - or simply incorrectness stemming from faulty first premise or wishful/pseudo/revisionist history. Note here that I do not assert there is none of this in the Pickingill corpus - quite the opposite! I simply have asked often when told how it has been (even in part) disproved: "WHAT has been disproved and HOW?"

Rarely has there been much in the way of convincing evidence to the contrary short of pointing out the obvious blunders in some of the articles or those things which are assertions literally impossible to prove - the sort that anyone would spot and not claim as “damning evidence overturning the whole” without there being serious issues of an axe kind to grind. Many of these we ourselves have been quick to query in public or point out. Still I must say that we are grateful to the other side of the coin ... as funny as some of the objections are they have rattled further information out of the woodwork for us and provided us with some details we ourselves had no access to. The study of the past in this sense is a large part piecing together folklore and social connections. It is unfortunate that much of said history will remain forever a matter of insiders spotting things that others would not.

The other point here of course is that it does tend to get tiring for us as it can lead to a response we have been accused of but not given. "I can't tell you that - you are not an initiate!" At all points we have strenuously avoided all evidence of this nature where possible because it is simply pointless and causes more problems than it solves.

I think it is of vital importance that occult history be explored WITHOUT a purview of “proving” something to others. What I like about this is the lack of requirement for anyone to BELIEVE anything at all. All the best tracts I have read go along the lines of : “I found this and that ,,, which I think this and that of …. Take it, leave it whatever!” The second there is a need on behalf of the reporter for their audience to believe them … I find it falls by degrees to a need being served by increasingly long bows! (And I wonder why I don’t write as much as I used to! Hahahhah)

>I'm guessing that no such authorial issues cloud the defense of his 'Pickingill Papers' presented on the web site you cited though?

Certainly aren't *G*.. the idea of the website basically evolved from discussions on the effects that the articles had. Basically, there had been a lot of talk on the subjects presented and not much of it was really very pretty OR worthwhile. It generally tended to come down to several points that he was at pains to put right.

Firstly that it was not his authorship, being in a position to say “No – this is ACTUALLY the case” he wanted to say so but was at a loss as to how to get that info out. Word of mouth is great but it’s spread is somewhat limited especially when such things often tend to get treated as cherished secrets of info decidedly NOT to be passed on by some!)

Secondly he wished to address some issues that stemmed from selective readings of said articles. In that case of those articles there were certain parts that were specifically worded for specific effect. This sort of thing tends to be (bluntly put) completely lost on many people who, (it seems) lack even basic comprehension skills.

Thirdly, much of the commentary based on these subjects was MORE hearsay than the articles! There have been quotes that we have seen touted as damning that are taken at anywhere up to three times the remove of the context. Someone read an article, quoted a bit they liked. Someone else read that quote assumed it to be “whole cloth” and repeated it. Someone else again regarded this new thing as gospel dogma and spoke what they remembered of it – and then someone wrote the definitive article on how “Lugh” was an idiot on account of what they remembered someone thinking about it! *Shakes Head*

Basically he wanted to say “No – *THIS* is what *I* think, read it and let that be an end to the matter!” but being a self confessed technophobe did not know how to go about it. I volunteered to put up a website for him. This was actually before I had even read the letters! Certainly long before my initiations – basically I thought that everyone has a right to answer their accusers – and so the website that answered the main points of criticisms so that the arena of web witches (so to speak) could have TWO voices on the subject. For far too long had many people only heard the voices critical with no chance of hearing them answered.

To be precise, that he believes some parts and is more reluctant on others of the Pickingill Papers and so on is simple fact. The site is there to answer some of the more rabidly frothing criticisms he has had leveled against him. Having done that he went on to some subjects he finds far more useful and interesting.

>The Pickingill Papers certainly sparked considerable public debate, which is by no means a bad thing. It also presented some fascinating opinions and ideas that are certainly worth further investigation, though I would also argue that there is a good deal which is at best unsubstantiated and at worst obviously erroneous.

I would personally say that almost all of it (the “Lugh letters” and ”Pickingill Papers”) could be considered unsubstantiated in that much of it is very difficult to prove. I would further say that some of it I will hazard to say is incorrect in it’s workings and a deliberate tour through Red Herring country. The funniest thing is that while on the whole I would tend to agree with this statement – oddly enough our assertions on this same tack are most often unheard! That there is a connection between George and Gardner we believe (though we do tend to vary in our reasons why and how). That the same could be said for George and Crowley and Gardner and Crowley is something everyone hears.

Likewise everyone hears what is said in the articles (to a certain degree) but when it comes to us saying “Wait on a minute I actually think this is ok .. this is a long bow and this is right but will never be proven” i.e. that we have actual opinions and that they don’t ALL say the original articles are golden gospel to be followed completely …. The audience gets amnesia! If I could only harness this power for good instead of evil! Hahahah

>There are certainly other instances as well of this nature, or of erroneous attribution - one article spends a lot of time basing practices of French Craft on a wood-cut published in an early English text... but the original is actually placed into a significantly different context and relates to the Waldensians, not witches at all.

There is a connection between the Waldensians and what we might refer to as the practices that give rise to modern witchcraft but it is convoluted and I feel a tad tenuous. I would have been happier in that instance if it had been presented as how it can be perceived as our earlier “chicken is IN the egg – not separate” exploration. I think this instance actually suffers from a need to be perceived as making a clear cut historical authority statement.

Yes there is a connection .. is it straightforward as it is presented in the article ? No. That you point this out here quite correctly I feel was an oversight on the author’s side. I have often wondered at some of the material in this regard: surely the author(s) must have known it would be looked into? If some of the connections given were exploded or shown to be under a pretext that is perhaps not really “on the square” as it was presented – surely that hurts the overall “believe-ability” of the articles in question? So why be so lacking in the obvious actual connections?

*Shrugs* I guess that is something we can now only ponder for the future.

>This isn't to say that it is all in error by any means, and in fact I still think there is some fascinating observations and conclusions one can draw from parts of that corpus. But as I think we are agreed, only from parts, and that must be done with considerable care.

This is at the heart of the matter. I believe the Pickingill Papers,
irrelevant of anything else is an “Occult Manuscript” in EVERY sense of the word. Everyone I have met who actually sat and critically read and considered it has been changed from who they were – their outlook altered in various ways. Furthermore I feel that in accordance with this description you are right on the money here – EVERY point made must be considered ON IT’S OWN and THEN considered within the framework of each INDIVIDUAL article and ONLY THEN – in terms of the whole book/corpus. It is amazing what a difference such a course of action can make and how obvious it is in retrospect when encountering people who did not do this. Like any other actual occult manuscript, there is fact, there is fantasy and there are layers and layers of meanings to be teased out by the attentive student.

I liken much of the objection (on both sides – for an against) to those who use the Key of Solomon without actually having ordered and rewritten the text in their own hand – it is not until one has done so that the gaps, the contradictions and etc become clear. It certainly then goes without saying that the meanings of the straightforward, the red herrings and the omissions cannot be addressed to any degree without following the directions given.

Hell at the end of the day the same Statement holds: “Is it for real?’ is a different question to “Is it useful?” and both have their place in the world of the savvy seeker.”

>The pages in Hutton's ToTM give what I think is actually both a gentle and a fair overview of the corpus and some of the problems associated with it as an historical source.

It is certainly more fair than most AND I would say highlights the idea that historical sources come in many forms. Should this be considered one? Yes and no I say. Like ALL sources it must be handled with care, examined carefully and then reconsidered in context … as yet I have not seen the text that does so.

>So far, while the Lugh Corpus presents us with many interesting anecdotes, very little can be independently verified, and a lot is open to considerable question

Like much of actual occult history really. I think that the use of this word is important to note. There is “History” that everyone knows and then there are layers and layers again that will always be considered as questionable and largely unverifiable. I always look at this “Occult” or “Shadow” “History” and ask: “does it make the public historical progress and connections make more sense or not?” as my first point for analysis.

>The relationship between Pickingill and the SRIA, early members of the GD, or to visits from occultists from far and wide have, alas, left absolutely no documentary trail whatsoever.

Nor would it be wanted – from either side of the coin! Hahah But no on that score my opinion is that people want it to be all or nothing and therefore ignore that “influence” need not necessarily mean a straightforward forging in his own hand so to speak. I have my own problems with that angle …

>As for his own fame, far from being widespread, even if only within occult circles, seems rather to have been totally absent until after the appearance of Maple's book.

Like every form of fame it depends on who you associate with. Finding ones self becoming an urban myth is not so far removed from the stories of George’s actions in varying circles. My mentor once taught me long ago: “Be ye he of a past NO MAN may accurately recall – therein lies a power you can use!” I would say more to the point he has been done a disservice by those who would have others believe he was an “international man of witchy mystery” and that it is a pity to many that they have been done disservices of like kind from those against and for. There have been many people very famous in certain circles that one would be hard pressed to trace – and we must not forget that in those times there is no mass media, no internet, no well established conspiracy theory webs and that anyone who was in on it was told to shut their mouths about it. Again it is a pity that this state of affairs has been taken so advantage of.

>This isn't to say that it is all spurious necessarily, but on the weight of the evidence presented, and the lack of anything to concretely corroborate it, it has to be considered somewhat dubiously at best I think, especially when various other assertions within that corpus have indeed been found wanting.

I agree and that is one of my main reasons for my belief that it’s use is hugely under rated as a result of the actions of certain people who have failed to harness it for themselves and the furthering of their need for a neat, black and white history. As a provable historical document it is largely useless and I feel that not only is that a somewhat obvious statement but it is also missing the point. It has many other uses that have been totally ignored (it’s original purpose to stir up controversy and devil’s advocate being the primary!) – but then again that is often the result of history as told by those who weren’t part of it. Lest we forget the experiential nature of our respective paths … there but for the grace of Baphomet go I! hhahah

Likewise I could go on and on at length as to the failings of those who have crowed about their taking it as solemn gospel – and then having refuted it. This has always put me in a mind of those who make paper gods only so they may kill them – but again is it useful to do so? Much time could be spent refuting the originals, or substantiating the originals; or refuting the refutations or the rebuttals or the etc etc etc – but really I leave these pass times for those who feel a need. The best and most constructive use of time on this subject is for the individual to question and find their OWN ANSWER. Where do I personally fit in? When that is established we see responses rather much more like the existent website coming forth. “I am not here to refute you so much as to explain to you what has been said and why and to answer the questions (most often put so fearfully as virulent attacks) thereon.” Bill said the other day that he simply cannot be bothered in addressing many of the standard blarts about simply because they are the result of miscomprehension, allied agenda and the refusal to listen. That and my stance on the individual’s need to experience their quest and answers found is likewise why I answer questions but rarely debate the original documents. I simply don’t feel it is very constructive. Instead let us consider the following:

As a possibly historical document that gives many places for the student to spring from in order to discover many of the less famous byways and traditions of witchcraft and etc it is more useful. It is even more useful again when used as a tool for the progress of the seeker in their understanding of the political and contextual rise of the modern movement.

It can be invaluable when used as a tool for the expanding of a student’s consciousness and abilities. It’s acquisition itself can render an almost Lovecraftian journey that can be used as a source of power for the seeker.

>Gardner claimed to have been initiated into an existing Coven, certainly, but evidence for even this much is scanty to say the least.

I find this interesting as I tend to have a bias (petty and childish though it is I do confess) against Wicca – or rather what it has spawned. I likewise would not disagree that such foolish as I can clearly see how the current trends are useful but, hey enough of my personal squabbles!

I agree totally that the evidence is scanty – but to my mind it really is only scanty because by it’s nature you will possibly only have written testimony that can be cross verified. And that should such be actually evident - the case will be little short of asides in personal correspondence and diaries – both which are as notorious for their “omissionary” evidence as for their circumstantial nature. Hmm perhaps we are mired in an “Omissionary Position” !??!

However, I have been playing around with an idea for the last couple of days that is, (I believe) fascinating if not much else. Now, one of the ideas put forward re the New Forest Group name a black book, a measure taken and a blood marking. Would it not be an interesting extrapolation to consider that out there somewhere may be (if this be true) Gerald’s measure or mark? With the advances made in forensic investigations and other such DNA tests and etc (does it show that I’m no medical scientist!?) does it not make for at the least an interesting day dream that certain relics of the modern movements be investigated in these ways? To be sure it is not much more than an extrapolation based on a speculation and there are any number of hurdles (not the least of which being that such should have all been long since destroyed in accordance with the values surrounding such relics/artifacts)….. but well just imagine – we ourselves are supposedly not much more than wife’s tales to some!

>Philip Heselton has done some great work, but there is little enough
to trace back even a few years before Gardner's involvement.

I know the name and have heard these and those so to speak but have yet to sit down with a copy for my own …. It’s on my list though especially on account of the facsimile pix I have heard tell of. Obviously “reading” such is not as good as “reading” the originals but well – I am looking for my own evidence not such for others! *G*

>I am (quite naturally I'm sure) predisposed to believe that there was at least fragmentary folk witchcraft remnants and that people such as Gardner did reconstruct from these.

Agreed – I think one would be a fool to oppose that statement these days – but again that’s just me! *G*

>We know for certain that the cunning folk were still extant, and that
magical lore was still used. Pagan folklore and mythology survived, often in quite modified forms, but still there... Whether one George Pickingill was, in fact, a key player in such a revival, and whether he had links with any group Gardner stumbled across remains a fascinating, but to my mind as yet unproven conjecture.

For myself I say “Key player in that revival?” Not really .. Very influential on it’s occurrence from several different angles and simply due to his existence prior to it? Yes. Links to groups Gardner “stumbled across”? Definitely. Provably so to the tastes of many of a historical bent? No, nor will it ever be. It should not be and had I the evidence of it in my hand I also would flatly deny it. I like everyone else have my reasons for all I have said and an agenda. At this point at least that agenda would preclude me from proving anything of the sort to anyone.

>For Crowley there is even less evidence for any connection with witchcraft, at least that I have ever seen. I'm certainly open to any such however...

Well as should we all be! I think the most tantalizing clue would be the Walter 5 message. I really have to rattle that cage again and see if there was any follow up to the message we got after putting that up (he was amazed that anyone even remembered his post!) regarding further evidence along that line. While it would only go as supporting, with the famous (infamous?) charter and etc .. it would certainly be shedding some light on a shadowy zone if nothing else!

>While I am fascinated by the history and development of Wicca, and paganism in general, I don't for a minute confuse its history with its worth or efficacy, as either a spiritual path or as a magical system.

Or furthermore the fact that practices change to degrees in line with the needs of the adherents of the times and etc. This is especially true of times before Gardner’s “Wica” which in comparison with some older forms seems as stiff as a flag pole! This is a real stumbling block for us I must admit when we are considering descent from George via the Nine. As I have mentioned, these while technically under George’s jurisdiction should he have wished to exercise it would by no means have all done the same things or even the same as he did. If there is certainly one thing to be said for the modern eclectic solitary movement it is that it has re-introduced a certain level of free form use of power and self authority! Self dedicated witches making use of their power as progressive wyrd and need dictates?
What a Blasphemy! *G*

>One of the things I find fascinating is simply the identification of George in the first place. He seems such an unlikely choice amongst the Cunning men of his day, and all the research I've seen that looks at Pickingill himself supports the very first mention of him in Eric Maple's book. A Cunning Man, certainly, but one much less connected to any but local clients than (for instance) Cunning Murrell.

Indeed from what I have heard, the mentor in question here (re Cunning Society) really only tutored him in an attempt to curb and harness him. Very much the itinerant, George was often only interested in following his own whims and getting his own way. If you are good at it people tend to want to know that you’ll at least be sympathetic to them .. so “get him on side and perhaps he won’t cause as much trouble as he might otherwise” seems to have been a large reason for his inclusion. The connections on that score and also re Murrell are interesting to follow although I can’t say I agree with much of the info that has been bruited about in recent times on that score – it is largely controversy driven unfortunately.

>As far as I am aware there has only really been one academic treatment of the work specifically, by James W. Baker in 'White Witches: Historic Fact and Romantic Fantasy' which appeared in 'Magical religion and Modern Witchcraft' ed. James Lewis (Albany, State University of New York Press, 1996, pp185-7) and that concluded that the work was a hoax.

I would dearly love the time and place to go through it line by line. While his work was actually quite useful in one regard for us .. it is also a good example of how one little slip up in the beginning can snow ball into huge leaps of faith – which is a pity because there is (like so much else) some good stuff there. Oh well as they say every book has at least one good line! *G* But yes it is as they say “Faulty first premise …” Well that was the reason I am often given for my existence! Not to mention all this information so I guess we shouldn’t complain too much! hahahah