Why are we still Talking about it?

And back again!!

Recently I said on a forum:

“I am so glad that our side of the fence has no requirement to look cool, to champion Pratchett, impress teenygoths or pay lipservice to crazy neo wiccans. I have seen the problems that all of those cause for anyone who wants to play them and so regard them like bear traps!”

Now I should point out here that I meant it – but now on to the subject at hand. I said that I would address the subject:

“Why is Bill Liddell trying to convince us otherwise by all
the information he posts on the Pagan Network boards etc?”

My reason for this is due to two reasons in the main. That those involved, (especially over on the UK board and the few related clique members that are so easy to track onto other boards and etc) don’t seem to be able to remember the reason from day to day even though it has been told to them repeatedly and secondly that I get accused of it too. My reasons are the same - I simply don't feel the need to repeat them as often.

Especially as I am going to state them here! lol

Now to begin with let us deal firstly with number one on the list.

On this particular board Bill has been gracious enough to provide literally oodles of information on the subject of the texts that comprise the Pickingill Corpus. Without wanting to go into detail, (YET!) on the rudeness and folly this has been met with, I will point out that one big reason that I can see FOR the same is simple.

They don’t “get” why he is doing it. Not even close in most cases.

There is a perceived constant belief among them that Bill somehow wants them to believe what he does or that the Pickingill Corpus is all correct – or that these apply to anyone for that matter. They are wrong.

Now some people may not believe what I have said in the past that Bill has, (as long as I have known him) constantly challenged me to prove him wrong – if for no other reason that such may provide useful new perspectives or information. Ok fair enough then don’t.

He has stated that the only reason he talks about this stuff at all is simply because people have asked questions. That many of them are based in misunderstandings and false assumptions is besides the point. If you are going to champion a cause you must expect to be called to stand by it and ask the questions that SHOULD be asked of it.

That in this case the original material was designed to provoke exactly that simply makes the duty twice as clear.

Now some on the board may not believe that this is the case. Ok fair enough. However, I find it amusing that the simple salient fact that ANY information must be taken on board in the context it belongs to if it is to be understood at all is so frequently forgotten by so many alleged “scholars” and “academics”!

This is basic theory that should be adhered to as primary gathering and assessment for any researcher – especially in the case of folk lore and anthropology!! True that this context should not be considered factual is a given BUT if the information gathered is divorced from it's context imprimis – it simply won’t make sense and be if anything a collection of unrelated pseudo factoids.

It is in this light easy to see how so many of the objections that have been raised have formed – and what soil they sprang from!

What this means is simple – the information Bill has presented must be taken on board in the context that it is simply “answering the queries raised”. In this manner it may be understood as it is intended. To engage it in any other way will render it nonsensical and contradictory. At the simplest, to engage material in a manner not intended as a conscious choice is also what can be considered willfully misunderstanding the same.

Now I am sure that some would plead ignorance and in some cases it may well be fair comment, (even discounting the several instances that members on said board have bought up their knowledge of such procedures!) The infamous instance of Christina of Treadwells bookshop (#188) not even reading the back line of the thread (and therefore not even knowing to whom she was speaking) or perhaps the constant misreading of some old quotes as originating from Bill even though they have been stipulated as not immediately springs to mind as possible situations and fine examples.

However, I ask how many allowances must be made? No less than eleven quotes follow this that make it clear why Bill is posting. They clarify in what manner the information should be taken, (not to mention the reasoning for the information originally!) So on average out of the 228 posts, (to date) on that thread, Bill has posted 11 times specifically regarding this issue.

If Bill has posted 58 times on that site that is one reminder about every six posts ….

I say it is simple – if these people ARE academics and scholars, then why is it that they willfully misconstrue simple information that is repeated at regular intervals? Why is it that they willfully ignore simple information that is repeated at regular intervals? Why is it that they forget simple information that is repeated at regular intervals?

The reason for the continued information is simple - Queries were asked and even though most of them were irrelevant based in total misconstruction and assumption it is only POLITE to answer them and a duty to finish a job started. It is as simple as that a terrible shame that even this cannot be grasped by many in the modern occult movements.

Frankly, this information is put "out there" so those who are receptive to the idea of doing something constructive with information may have something to work with other than the dreary suppositions of self professed academics who have never been "inside" anyway and related barrow pushing and axe grinding.

It is simple and important to remember - if you are inside then you are not unbiased - if you are biased then a good academic you are unlikely to make. One needs to choose the well one drinks from carefully!!

The likes of those most vocal these days were never expected to agree and it has long since been known that the information will be treated as worthless by them. That being known; the stink that they would kick up was used purposefully in order to advertise. That way those who might have otherwise not been able to access it will have no difficulty finding it - all thanks to those who self style themselves as such opponents!

Such as they have asked questions and now complain that they are answered. Capering about in whatever form they imagine makes them look most witty and cool to the crowd is fine and dandy but one day these same will no doubt wonder why they did so. One notices no landscape reading a book on the train and can only blame ones self if you miss your station!

At least one has even gone on to lament the fact that there are none now that remain from that time to talk about it, (elsewhere where there is no cool crowd to play to naturally!) I wonder why that should be considered a problem as Bill IS one and they don't listen to him!

The answer is obvious and has more to do with politics and barrow pushing than anything else.

All of which is just as well.

As per usual it teaches the lesson: "One's opponents are one's best advertising!"

I will leave you now with the quotes I had in mind. Soon I will address most specifically some of the more comedy inducing retorts that have occurred there.

Quotes to say What and Why - Taken From Comments made Re: George Pickingill's nine covens
« Reply #7 on: 2006/Aug/15 @ 11:56:59 »
The criticism of the Lugh letters is highlighted by assumptions. Anybody want me to elucidate?

« Reply #20 on: 2006/Aug/18 @ 23:46:02 »
I did not originate any material in the Lugh letters except for Chapter Twenty Five - my refutation of Aidan Kelly's claims. I did not know that anything was false when it was published.

« Reply #21 on: 2006/Aug/19 @ 05:45:44 »
It will be helpful if I stress why my Elders initiated the Lugh letters. (See the Preface to the Pickingill Papers). They were alarmed at Gardner's attempt to found a Mystery tradition, and wanted it known that Wica bore no relationship to the Old style witchcraft. It is stressed that they were not the first to link the revival of witchcraft to George Pickingill.

« Reply #40 on: 2006/Aug/22 @ 03:08:36 »
My Elders believed totally in the material they gave me. I also believed it at the time of publication. There was never any question on my part, or on theirs, of distributing false information! …..

It is important to stress the magical onslaught launched by my Elders and Brethren. I was instructed to impart the material given to me as first person accounts. They concluded - rightly in my opinion - that a personal account would gain more attention, and be more readily acceptable, than dry-as-dust arguments about Craft rites which were not in the public forum. Each Lugh article was drafted to be deliberately confrontational. People were expected to sit bolt-upright, and say... what? It was an attention-seeking exercise. I reiterate that at no time did my Elders knowingly disseminate false information! Once the phraseology of each article was agreed, I was not permitted to change one word. My Elders charged each word with magical potency. Each article was viewed as a magical ritual, and was "energised" to have the maximum impact on the Astral and Mental planes. My Elders were not attempting to topple Gardner from his perfectly-justified preeminent position. Let's face it! Without Gardner we would not have this forum! It was never their intention to denigrate Wicca. Their primary motivation was to convince the public that Gardner was publicising his own version of witchcraft.

« Reply #52 on: 2006/Aug/24 @ 07:10:01 »
The "Lugh" exercise was not intended to last quite so long. As I said in the Preface to The Pickingill Papers: "The Lugh articles were not initiated by me and they ended in 1988 when my Bretren believed my work had been done." (P17) In hindsight, the material from England would have ceased before 1984, the year in which I removed from New Zealand to Australia. It may well be that 1982 or 1983 was the end of the enterprise? Doreen Valiente commented: "To this day, Lugh remains an enigma. Letters to his last known address have been returned marked 'Gone Away.' (P206 The Rebirth of Witchcraft). I was home free! My Elders had finished their work, and my anonymity had been preserved. I could get on with my own life. Man proposes and the Horned One disposes! Years later I was in a Brisbane shop. I saw a copy of Crafting the Art of Magic. Naturally, I had no intention of buying it. By one of those "coincidences" which we all know about, the book opened at the page with the sub-heading Lugh and Disinformation. I bought the book, and was so outraged that I contacted Mike Howard. It was suggested that the Lugh letters be published in a book. I accepted this offer with alacrity! I filled out the legal papers and returned them, assuming that "Lugh" would be the listed author. It just didn't occur to me that my name would appear as the author - not after all these years. Yes, I was incredibly stupid and naive. I have to stress that this oversight was mine alone! At not time did I ask Mike Howard or Capall Bann to preserve my anonymity. My oversight has proved very costly. There is always a heavy price to pay for any major magical work. My Elders had the experience and acuity to avoid fallout. I have been hoisted on my own petard.

« Reply #98 on: 2006/Sep/25 @ 14:22:27 »
the Lugh corpus was a group effort, I will attempt to address the controversial subject matter and clarify the various assumptions which have also raised doubts.

« Reply #96 on: 2006/Sep/19 @ 07:34:24 »
I would ask - and I am asking nicely - Sethur to list those Lugh contents "which have been entirely disproved on all checkable points."I will then attempt to clarify each point he raises. I can't be fairer than that. This was the sole reason I joined this forum: to expand on the Nine Covens and the meagre details of the controversial material.

« Reply #112 on: 2006/Oct/07 @ 02:40:26 »
Academics have one criterion when formulating theories or propounding conclusions: they require concrete evidence. Such tangible evidence needs to be in documentary form. This highlights the problem which I have; recounting local folklore and reciting anecdotal evidence will never meet the criteria of academia. This means by extension that people who adhere to the findings of contemporary research will also be unable to accept anything but solid, tangible evidence. This places me in a most invidious position.The Pickingill Ladies understood this problem. The first three letters to The Wiccan were so confrontational that they didn't need to produce evidence of any sort. They believed everything that they wrote, but simple facts were couched in such a preposterous and outrageous way that their initial purpose was achieved: discussions and controversies raged even though no proof was forthcoming.

« Reply #126 on: 2006/Oct/19 @ 04:29:01 »
I have never been remotely concerned whether or not people believed me. My Elders never gave a tinker's curse if their information was accepted or rejected.I have obviously been remiss for not stating right at the beginning my sole motive for subscribing to this forum.For many years I have read countless threads on numerous websites which rubbished the Lugh corpus, and accused me of originating the Lugh material. I treated these with both disdain and amusement. It was no skin off my nose what people thought. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.Recent circumstances have changed my former attitude. My only surviving Elder is now 95 and dying. I am in my seventies and my own health is a serious concern. It seemed high time to pay the Craft world the courtesy of supplying some details about the people who supplied the Lugh material.I have already received an unexpected bonus. Sethur, my old sparring partner, has stated on a previous post on this thread that there was a group behind the Lugh corpus and that I had Elders.

« Reply #130 on: 2006/Oct/21 @ 00:21:52 »
Nobody has ever been asked to accept the Lugh corpus. Neither my Elders nor I would have lost a minute's sleep if everybody had rejected the material.The Lugh corpus achieved all its intended purposes. It had reached the few for whom it was meant, and caused endless controversy, soul-searching, and some imitation. Two Craft groups, only one of them admitting to a Pickingill connection, use old style techniques. Indeed, these practices have only been published in the Lugh corpus.It is really quite immaterial whether anybody believes in the Lugh corpus today. The work of my Elders is still progressing apace. They originated the material, and each of them had far more knowledge and power than I could ever aspire to.

« Reply #138 on: 2006/Nov/02 @ 14:16:02 »
I quite agree with you that anecdotal evidence cannot be considered persuasive. This is the crux of my problem. It was remiss of me not to stress that the Lugh material was based on the oral tradition which is peculiar to areas of East Anglia. I meant no discourtesy to you or any other viewer.

« Reply #198 on: 2007/Feb/07 @ 11:31:53 »
My sole reason for discussing the Lugh material is to clarify the controversial claims, and to correct the ludicrous and false assumptions made by highly respected authors. I will expand on these assumptions in my next post.

Previous Pickingill related Post

Next Pickingill related Post

Pickingill Influence on Modern Wicca?

Ok we are back and on the air …

Now you remember that last time I said that I’d address the subject raised by the paragraph:

“It could perhaps have been hoped for that he quote: "Bill is aware that I am extremely sceptical of any relationship between Pickingill and Gardner, or indeed with any modern Wiccan tradition" might have been appended with a statement that to the effect of saying "as are WE" - but I suppose "them's the breaks" as they say and the alteration is sufficient.”

Now this one is a bit of a doozy and is kin to the usual assumptions made about information that many readers can’t clearly make out.

Many people seem to think that the current members think that Pickingill is a large and direct influence on modern Wicca. Not so. The word “relationship” needs to be treated with care and taken the same way too.

Let's look at some stumbling blocks most commonly found when considering the possible links and influence between Old George and Modern Wicca.

What about Gardner?

It is pretty obvious to anyone, (I should imagine) who even gives Gardner a cursory examination that what he learnt over the years and what he set down for others to do weren’t exactly what we would call congruent. No more in fact than what is splashed about on the web these days bears resemblance to what Gardner set down.

I believe that there was influence of sorts between the two in that I do tend to believe that Gardner was inside one of the Pickingill descended groups.

Now – to be precise, I DON’T know how faithful this group’s practice was to that which Old George fostered in the initiate who founded that group.

I DON’T know whether or not this group practiced the particular contact that is found in our circles to ensure continued Pickingill influence and guidance.

I DON’T know how much of Gardner’s parent coven’s workings went in to Gardner’s “Wica” much less the later “Wicca” – and the less said about what goes on at modern Wiccan groups again here the better!

Now, all that taken on board; let us look at another possible angle.

What about the Crowley dilemma?

Well now again, in my case, I don’t find it too difficult a stretch to believe that Crowley had some contact with one of the Pickingill descended groups.

Some have said that they find it difficult to believe – what I find difficult to believe is that someone as knowledge hungry and (in some ways) methodically encyclopedic as Crowley would NOT have hunted some of them down!

Crowley in some regards was encyclopedic in his knowledge. Crowley, especially as a young man was ever hungry for new information, new secrets, new adventures, new rebellions and new experience. It is frankly unfeasible to believe that he would NOT have heard about witches – especially in East Anglia where they were legendary! It is likewise unfeasible to expect that he would not have attempted to contact and join witch groups. It is ridiculous to believe that he would not have investigated theories put forward by Murray, or investigated stories in East Anglia. It is nothing sort of ludicrous to believe that the young Crowley would have not joined up a group descended from George Pickingill if given the chance.

This is ESPECIALLY the case if, (as some modern barrow pushers aver)there was confusion between George and Cunning Murrell etc!!

I further find it somewhat easy to believe that what he got when he was there was not to his taste for several reasons.

Now I came from a background of various forms of magical practice before taking my Traditional Initiation into the Pickingill Line. One thing that to this day still amazes me is the remarkable absence of any form of practice designed to exult the initiate in terms of magical prowess.

To be sure there are practices that may be used to this end and some of them could be augmented by some practices native to this line but at every turn it is iscouraged. Another thing that is discouraged over and over both overtly and covertly within the practices etc themselves is the avoidance of fame in this regard. To be clear, this line is somewhat inimical to the development of magical ability as an end in itself, it likewise does not foster any time or patience for the development of any of it’s constituents as a magically powerful force to be reckoned with and openly stands against any action that would encourage the individual toward any renown for the same.

How much of this is due to George’s influence and how much since or prior to are secrets we will probably never know the answers to irrelevant of that which my Elders and guides tell me. At the end of the day such intimations are unverifiable.

I find it easy to believe that it would not have been a happy union.

From everything I have ever been able to read on the nature of the young Crowley and everything that his writings, ritual work and even poetry and artwork reveals – Crowley would not have been happy in the framework I have been told existent in the Pickingill line in that place at the time. This would probably be even more so these days. I can easily see how some of the beliefs and actions of this line and it’s adherents would not be held in high regard to someone with Crowley’s tastes.

Certain aspects of exploration, personal liberty, definition and accuracy in terms of procedural detail simply aren’t given the emphasis that he would have demanded. As for some of the beliefs of some of the older practitioners of the Pickingill descended lines .. well to put it politely … these likewise would have been derided by someone of Crowley’s desire for precision, history and professionalism. Given what I can surmise of the whole persona of young Crowley and that which I know of those in the line at the time - this personal dissatisfaction would not have remained hidden for long.

I find it easy to believe that parting would more than likely be slightly less than amicable.

Much has been said of the abrasive nature of Crowley. I personally tend to see him more as being possessed of a perverse and betimes nasty sense of humour. Many times this has been alluded to as a possible reason why his parting from the line was less than straightforward. I will state categorically that from some things that I have heard tell of, many of those responsible on “this side of the fence” were every bit as unyieldingly prudent and scathing themselves. I have noted over the years that when one rubs two pieces of like grade sandpaper together “there is skin off both sides and broken glass between” and find this perhaps a slightly more accurate understanding of the situation.

I find it easy to believe that some of the Pickingills would have been thrilled to get rid of him and furthermore would not have been above saying nasty things about him.

As I have alluded previously, some of the Pickingill Elders are a prickly, horn headed bunch who are about as unlikely to recant as they are to take kindly to tom foolery, deviation from the party line or any for of wave making whatsoever. From personal experience I can say that which I have sometimes witnessed being called normal treatment would be unacceptable to most modern practitioners let alone someone as prickly as Crowley. Over the years some have accused me of a form of hero worship, (in an inverse “nastier than thou” sort of way) due to some of my comments and views and here I say that is not the case – simply that some of those I have had some contact with were just not those you’d call pleasant company.

I find it easy to believe that Crowley would not have made the song and dance all through his writings about this as some modern supporters would prefer.

Many these days point to the fact that these things are not written up in Crowley’s diaries. The argument is that he was a compulsive diarist that included everything no matter how trivial in them. Many of these same get rather defensive and prickly when other things we know happened are pointed out to not be in his diaries. The other thing that I note is that the writings, (subsequent and otherwise) of some of the most vociferous on this line of thought make it pretty clear that their understandings of what it means to be part of a group that has actual power over it’s people is next to nil.

One thing that should be stated really clearly here as well, (it is about time) is the following: in our experience there is no such thing as “fudging by”. In our line we still get punished for wrongs – conscious and otherwise. Some of the old groups were sticklers for silence and I will point out this was in an era where the state of affairs “you never know all the members and you could just easily wind up missing if you crossed the group” was very real. This was a time where a group would take a measure and stay close. If you worked against the group the measure would be made use of to silence you. It is fashionable these days to not bring the weight of groups to bear on individuals and not to take measures and not (really) to even believe in the efficacity of magic.

Crowley believed in the efficacity of magic and knew full well how may myriad were the ways that one could be gotten at.

Most certainly later on he considered himself above the ability of most to cause any misfortune to him and would therefore consider such gaggles of witches beneath notice. None of these things are anything but common sense and observation.

Let us examine now the idea of the influence of Pickingill …

We know that there was indirect influence on Gardner via his parent coven.

We know that this coven was descended from one of the Pickingill nine – however oddly appended to.

There is enough of an incongruity to suggest the possibility of Crowley having had contact with a Pickingill descended group.

We know that there was contact, (however scanty) between Gardner and Crowley.

Gardner created what became “Wicca” from “bits and bobs”, basic magical practice embellished with bits that suited his particular fancies and finished off by the implied invocation of his Traditional Craft Authority – just like every old style witch I have ever encountered.

Was there influence on Gardner from Pickingill?

Pretty obviously I would say.

Can it be proven?

In the way that most these days would desire, (that is to say a written document written by one of their preferred sources and verified by their other preferred sources) well of course not. Such is by definition not simply unlikely but, in reality totally impossible! At the end of the day, like most things regarding old style witchcraft it is as unable to prove as it is to DISprove.

The difference between us and many who are vocal against us is that we state this as fact rather than simply stopping at the “you can’t PROVE it” part. That we often also are heard to say “well of course not” as a response, is also often selectively missed and rarely ever reported. This is due to the fact that it doesn’t matter to us whether it ever is or is not proved.

We don’t need to have academic articles in folklore or anthropology journals believed and accepted. What we know is what we have proved to our satisfaction as being as
far as it can BE proved – and that is enough for us.

It is THIS background and none other that I have eve,r witnessed that tends to culminate in the understanding that should the question be asked:

“Do the practices of George Pickingill have an influence on Modern Wicca?”

The best answer is perhaps:

“In as much as Gardner was possibly one his downline and Goddess favoured groups are considered by many these days as emblematic of British Craft … yes. Beyond that – not a hell of a lot.”

It is further more; one that I have seen that favours the further response:

“Why does it matter?”

It seems that, (oddly enough) the impact of Old George Pickingill is more felt by those who are NOT a part of his line. Most certainly they are those who most seem interested in the same – even though very few if any are inclined to ask those who have the best likelihood of knowing the answer.

Of course some these days say in response to this: “Then why is Bill Liddell trying to convince us otherwise by all the information he posts on the Pagan Network boards etc?”

The answer to that one will be better answered in it’s own article.

Previous Pickingill related Article

Next Pickingill related Article

Worthy of Note

It has often been said of me that I will never admit it if I have been wrong and that once I hold a grudge it is there for good.

Now I can easily see how this comes about as frankly I have often seen that the main result of being generous enough to allow people to squeeze through the doors of reasonable doubt or face saving is generally that they snipe from a distance while touting how they were too damn clever.

This is not necessarily always the case though - in either situation. When I think I have been wrong I will admit it and as for grudges well it is true I don't forget I am happy to bury the hatchet where the sentiment is shared.

Ok, that out of the way, let's have an example!

Today I am going to let you in on a a bit of a secret.

You may remember a while back on a page entitled "More Retail Therapy from Pickingill Plaza"; I took something of a close look at the most prolific detraction of the Pickingill corpus - the Talk by Julia Philips.

Now you would have to be dodging pretty hard to have not encountered this talk that was given at the Wiccan Conference in Canberra, 1991 as, (by the words of Julia herself) "now exists on over 500 websites". It also should go without saying that I'd reckon it pretty difficult to believe that if you are here reading this you had no idea about it whatsoever. Of course the fact that there is a link above which goes to a discussion on some points of it and if you have ignored that then more fool you! lol

But anyway, we will let that rest in favour of a little known fact that will soon be revealed.

Over the years some like our mate Steve in England and several who (I have it on good authority) have been known to "sign their name in Mulberry juice" have pointed to this article to support the laughable "it is all rubbish and no one takes it seriously" campaign (now THERE is scholarship for you!!)

Well, I wonder if any of them are aware of the fact that there is a revised edition of the talk out.

I know I have a copy of it and have made sure everyone I know has one too. This can be found at:

http://www.geraldgardner.com/History_of_Wicca_Revised.pdf

It is worth reading the introduction as it in itself places context in a way that all documents would be lucky to get. All documents are historical but must be understood in their context and this does it justice.

The article has been altered quite a bit as it regards us.

I still stand by everything I have said previously as I feel them to be fair comment but applaud the fact that the parts of the old talk that I would label as being manifestly "playing the man and not the ball" have been removed and subtle tweaking here and there have rendered it now as a worthy document free from unnecessary bias.


It could perhaps have been hoped for that the quote: "Bill is aware that I am extremely sceptical of any relationship between Pickingill and Gardner, or indeed with any modern Wiccan tradition" might have been appended with a statement that to the effect of saying "as are WE" - but I suppose "them's the breaks" as they say and the alteration is sufficient.

This will be explored further in the next installment.


Previous Pickingill Related Article
Next Pickingill related Article