How amusing ...
You know often I say that the ususal level of investigation into the Pickingill Mythos is so weak as to be a joke that cripples those giving most comment on it before they even start. (Don't even get me started on the continual attempts to say that everyone who doesn't laugh at Bill IS Bill under a pseudonym! If you think so get the moderators to look it up and have it sorted out once and for all! Of course if you did so then you wouldn't have that "card to play" anymore though ... so .... *smile*)
I know that many of you think that when I say these sort of things I am just "having a go" due to my irritation at the sort of ad hominem that is de rigeuer over at Pagan Network.
Well the truth is that it does anger me that the moderators view moderation as allowing all but actionable abuse from their mates ... BUUUUT .. today lets have a touch of proof of how little the average sort does to check any point of enquiry ...
****************************************************************
Amberlady sez:
So what we have here is Alistair pretending he has a "theory" (read as this is slander but in a clever way to entrap someone into engaging me!) that he sets out "expecting to be mobbed by rambunctions antipodeans" ooo *snort* it sounds like a Tim Brooke Taylor moment complete with God Save the Queen to me!
If he wanted to know, he'd have done a search (it took me less than five seconds!) and then done something intelligent like contacting me and ASKED (that is after all what one does with theories one actually is interested in - they research them and test them!)
In fact anyone who is actually even good at the sort of character assination he goes on with would have done so too!
.. but of course that won't happen will it?
It won't happen for the same reason as everything else. These bunch don't want answers - they want to draw whatever assumption suits them up as a conclusion and then tell people it is the fact of the matter.
Apiskouros (or however you spell the new recruit to the defamation league) says Bill doesn't give out info and hides showing his total lack of reading even in these threads etc ... well even that aside I ask you ... when have they actually asked a straight question without it being simply and invitation to ignore the answer and engage in personality based schoolyard shenanigans? *Shrugs* I am pretty sure I haven't seen it if it has happened!
No the simple truth is that this whole bunch are NOT interested in finding anything out about it (if indeed they ever were and I think it is pretty obvious that very few of them have done any real work on it!) and that is proved entirely by their own actions.
To be blunt they don't need us to smear campaign against them - they do that perfectly well by themselves.
Their interest is in delivering a party line (pity one can't see the photos that used to be up of the whole bunch of them at moots drinking together - it made it all quite clear!) Their interest is in brow beating anyone or thing else that dares to raise the head that may somehow question their self imposed "authority" - however spurious it may be. I suppose I should be thankful for the small mercy that there really is only a couple of them. Selective breeding and all that ..
Now all of that in mind .. let me quote a later amusement from dear wee Ali. I think I will reply point by point to Ali's wee snivel - just for the record.
He sez:
That "fake" Tradition steered me clear of yet another trap it seems! Not bad for something Bill alegedly made up is it!?
******************************************************
Greetings Alistair,
I noted one of your recent posts and thought I may be in a position to assist you.
As a simple modicum of investigation will show I am one of the people you are referring to (albeit indirectly) in this post.
If you have any actual direct questions you wish to ask of me you must feel free to do so.
I am not in the least bit interested in subjecting myself to the mob mauling that goes on but am happy to address the points privately one to one.
In the mean time, I thought it may be of interest to you to hear some direct responses to your theories.
So to keep the "scales balanced" I will be equally honest in return. I personally suspect that this is a rather obvious attempt at setting a trap by way of using a parallel in case you are "called out" on such action ... but none the less - in the interests of actual information I will let it pass and treat it as a sincere if indirect request for clarification.
We do not seek new members at all – and not under any banner or barrow whether that be ours or anyone elses.
IF someone approaches us and petitions for entry, we put it to our guides and see what they say. Sometimes they say yes and sometimes not. Sometimes there is a reason given and sometimes not.
That may sound like a “dodge” to some but it is never the less the process that we go through and take quite seriously no matter what others may tend to imagine or believe of us. It is also worth noting that there is a difference between these two scenarios and that difference is important to us irrelevant of what others may think.
When I have been approached I refer them on to Bill and the same process applies because I have no interest in students or mentoring.
Not really. We don’t advertise but it is known where we are. We don’t discuss sensitive information out side the circles – but this is no more or less I imagine than the average coven – or the average circle of friends for that matter.
LOL Oh deary me no. This is fair comment for the suspicious but doesn't hold up under logic really. Besides that again, let me tell you that the man who turned up to my wedding in a polo t shirt and trainers would try to get prestige any way he could were he interested in such - so if this were true it doesn't seem to be working! lol
Let me first thank you again for the “might”. It certainly beats some of the accusations veiled and otherwise that have been leveled at us over the years. There have in fact, been some groups elsewhere in the southern states that this might be accurate of however they have no connections to us or in fact the line itself – as it is said even on the Pickingill.com website.
We make it, (our background) clear so that there is no mistake who we are and the direction the information comes from. I tend to think of it as acually just good manners to outline one's affiliations at the beginning of any interaction so there can be little in the way of veiled political maneuvring. Another good example of this is that in recent years when I have given a talk at certain places I have stated what line I belong to before anything else and then stated if anything I have to say is in any way related to or from that line. I do so in order to be clear with that audience not because I am recruiting or because I think it lends “weight” or “influence” (in fact I find it does exactly the opposite!)
In short it is actually more akin to the law requiring ingredients be listed on the side of a product than anything else. That way everyone knows where I am coming from and there can be no surprises of that sort. I note also that it is a courtesy rarely accorded in return.
But to address your concerns directly. There is very little by way of exploitation - unless of course you count the work I do for Bill quite of my own volition because he is a good freind to me and has been for a number of years now! lol I have had experience of a number of magical systems and frankly the line to which I now belong has fewer rules and pressures than any other I have ever encountered.
Prestige is not something really that works either, given that there is surprisingly little prestige to be gained from being what most consider the “laughing stock” that several of your close acquaintance would have us seen as. To be direct, as we are generally considered “loonies, liars and fools” there is not a large amount of control that can be exerted by the adoption of such a title!
It is also worth noting that the loose manner in which the line works ensures actually that very little of such can be exerted. I myself have been given my authority. This actually means I can now go and do as I please. I could found groups, and take students and teach as I wish and have no requirement to do as Bill has done at all – nor to do as he may wish me to. To be explicit I do not have to do as he says at all – and it was no different before I was given my authority!
I have been mentored often over the years of my involvement in various practices and again can say very directly that the present line to which I belong has exerted less pressures on me than anything else I have experienced. Contrary to the sneering “How convenient” I have heard in response to that statement before, let me say again that actually it is NOT! A simple set of rules and orders make life much easier and being left to one’s own head is a much harder life style.
Beyond “the ear” I may give anyone who has been my friend for years I have no requirement to take orders or direction from the one I still refer to as my Magister – even though I have since been released to “go my own way”. Indeed Bill has never attempted to exert any control over me at all – even when I should have had some – or indeed would have found it of assistance to have some!
Well yes and no I expect dependant on how one views it. It is in our interests to keep it open as such as these do occasionally unearth some info that we actually didn’t have and forces us to continually reexamine our views on things with fresh eyes. Contrary to popular opine we do actually question all of the info we get and approach the whole corpus of ideas skeptically if not pragmatically.
As for maintaining some sort of public image and etc, well I don’t actually see how being continually abused and belittled in public helps our “standing” (if you will) nor do I see how such actually may assist in arriving at reasonable conclusions but there is; (as I would hope I have implied already) two sides to everything. I am somewhat at a loss as to how anyone might take the threads in here to be giving us an air of “authenticity” though – perhaps you might explain to me how you think being continually attacked might do so? I actually don’t follow that at all.
It is also worth noting that our claims are rarely as they are portrayed by others and this follows on to those whom I have encountered elsewhere. It is common to assert what others think we mean but rare that anyone ASKS what we mean.
In short, many do not seem to be actually aware of “where we are coming from” at all and so again, if people out there are reading them a particular way that seems to be the norm in modern "paganism" I imagine the threads on Pagan Network aren’t helping to portray us as any sort of huge clandestine group weilding power and prestige to control our people at all!
So again, I still don’t see how that might help us at all. Maybe it might make us seem infamous (at a long bow pull!) but I would assume that most would simply read the threads and assume that we are fools and loonies! *Shrugs* Again there is the “two sides” issue rearing its head I imagine.
Umm ok fair comment, (from a particular point of view!) but it is still (and yes I am talking subjectively again now) a case of “Yes and No” I’d say.
I will tell you what I said to Bill many years before all of this info started coming out. I will do so simply because it may help to dispel the view that still continues about what "we are like" and the sort of things we think are important. That these views are peddled by those with particular obvious agendas that colour the way we are protrayed by them seems to be missed by most - so you will forgive my elucidation in the pursuit of the accuracy we all crave.
Again, to be direct, we are vastly more interested in whether what we have been given works than who might have championed it long ago. The “who” is an interesting and romantic extra but not a great deal more than squabbling over what anyone of our ancestors may have thought good at one stage or other.
That is slippery of you. That sounds like a fair comment but it isn’t is it. It is of interest to us to get as much information as possible because that is one of our lines forebears and a famous one to boot!
However, (and let us be honest now!) many of those being referred to as “researchers” have in fact done a pretty shoddy job of their work, they have done so very selectively and what’s more with great bias too. Their results have been presented in a decidedly lack luster fashion that doesn’t actually stand up to scrutiny much less the rigours of academia that it pretends to be.
I know I went to University and looking at the sort of "Drivel passed off as Champagne" that so many place creedence in I am worried constantly for the future. And when all of this is then lauded as a reason to treat others in a fashion that borders on the actionably abusive ... well let us just say I find such positioning neither "reasonable" nor what I woudl expect as a "conclusiuon" from anyone worthy of the title "researcher" - never mind anytthing else!
The fact remains that it hasn’t been shown to be a dead end. That would require all avenues to have been explored and they haven't. It has not shown to be disproven at all.
That would require actual point by point investigation, actual research and direct and specific argument. I certainly haven't seen this and given the fact that it is continually requested of those most vocal and it still after all these years has failed to materialise. Again I trust you will forgive my skepticism. If indeed it is all so easily dismissed why don't ANY of them (yes I say ANY!) actually ever manage to DO it? Interesting question which I still have found no satisfactory objective answer to.
But don't take my word for it - take the word of an actual researcher and historin such as Hutton. While I have prodlems with several of his conclusions and his methodologies to boot he certainly is a cut above those who most use his name as some sort of "Neo Platonist Banishing Ritual". lol
I now repeat for those who get lost in lengthy reasoning: It has been shown to be one that has not been conclusively proven or disproven. There is a difference.
It is also worth noting that it is rather implied here that the Exile and Jeremy are part of our group or that at the very least this is an easy implication to assume from reading this in the context it is presented. They are not.
Before reading their words on the threads I had never heard of either of them and they are in no way connected to our line, our group or anyone we know of, (we did ask all of our acquaintances as you might expect!) As I understand it the Exile is in America somewhere and Jeremy is in one of the Southern States of Australia. *Shrugs*
We do not “trade” on such a reputation - indeed quite the contrary.
The whole “Good Guys/Bad Guys” thing is a modernism that should be treated like many of the new spurious hard lines of demarcation we see bruited about. (That there IS a hard and fast demarcation between the "Witch" and "Cunning Man" milieus is a good example of this actually!)
There are aspects to our line that advocate the direct opposition of deliberately harming others. There are also aspects of our line that is deliberately and consciously ambivalent about harming others. That is just human nature. If we can avoid hassle we do so quietly, if we can’t – we have options to deal with the situation in ways from acquiescence, to misdirection, to mediation and all the way to direct attack.
We threaten no one if we can help it because it invites trouble and the vast majority of our line prefer to stay “under the radar” – to do such would be simply not good common sense. To do so would draw attention to ourselves.
There are aspects of our line that could be considered as such amusingly modern descriptions as "Folk Satanism", but again, this is an outsiders analytical view. We do what we see to be required to get our way in the simplest and lest bothersome fashion – such could be defined in any number of ways and that is just one of them.
I refer you to one thing Bill once said to a petitioner: “Old George a Satanist? Well when that was being said; anyone who didn’t act just like anyone else religiously was considered one! I will set you straight and say that George helped as many as otherwise.”
This view you allude to is being pursued by Jeremy. We have no need to pursue a line of analysis based in speculation upon what we are actually already doing. Simple logic alone should point out the problems with such a passtime. As far as I can see it, this perspective is a way in which he can understand what he thinks may have been going on. Perhaps he has read some of the Diana Vera referencing or perhaps has read some other articles (I forget who wrote them now) a while back where this subject was raised as a possibility in very like if not just those words!
I know these articles are available on the web and that a simple google search will pick them up very quickly and easily ... so if you are interested further you have the opportiunity readily available to you.
As for Jeremy's reasons for his investigation well I haven’t actually asked him his whys and wherefores so I couldn't say beyond what he has openly ventured. Personally, I don’t see it as being overly important what label is posthumously leveled at people in this manner so it isn't a great concern to me why he might do so. I do suggest however that if you want to know why Jeremy does what he does you might do worse than ask him directly.
Well at least now we can see rather clearly where you are "coming from".
Lol Well this “Antipodean” (how quaint I haven’t been called that for a long time!) is now directly wondering if you were indirectly referring to me. I have my suspicions and I am just one of them actually. I can easily imagine that your insight and it’s rather obvious misinformation (no offence meant - there is no reason why you would be aware of the way we or I view these things after all!) would lead you to assume I (or others) would doubtless deny it all and on the "double quick" as it were.
You would be very right to be suspicious but I can tell you now that this view rather requires us to be more reliant on what others think than we actually are. Believe this and everything else or not as you please. If you have information to add that is constructive or that can actually refute such properly then feel free to add it; but again, at the end of the day all this is quite irrelevant to us.
We are often asked "what we believe and what we have been told" so we have responded as best we may.
Other than that the only time we actually bring the subject up outside our own circles is when we are being described in a way that is simply incorrect. You might remember that this is excatly how the original thread began. Thereafter questions were asked and answers given. Answers that were disliked, disregarded, dismissed and howled down. I also point out that as far as my memory is concerned not ONCE were the answers actually demonstrated to be wrong - they were simply labelled as such with much attempts at projecting the united front in opposition spiced with the usual ad hominem attacks.
For the record: it takes more than repeating "it is wrong" to make it so. It takes more than that again to demonstrate that something is, (in fact) wrong.
It is also not, (in this context) actually up to Bill or any of us to prove the statements as true either. It is, (in fact) up to others to prove them wrong. This really is standard academic process and I am astounded that so many seem to be ignorant of it.
I will, (furthermore) use an amusing example that Amber has bought up in response to the very sensible statement made by a moderator to keep the responses inactionable: Bill would not have to prove his claims in court! Those in opposition would have to prove him wrong! One can drag people into court under as many false allegations as one has the pocket book to do so - it is up to them to show that the allegations are false. As not one of those over there were in any position to have been injured in anyway by what Bill had said they oculd hardly take him to court.
On the flip side were he to haul one of them into court and for example accuse them of libel or slander all he would need to do is show how their comments had affected his income. Several people on that thread who have made a habit out of crowing how long they have publically opposed the Pickingill information would have a hard time showing how his words had not done so. Again we see the standard "Prove it Bill!" line to be rather bizarrely to the contrary of common proceedure.
All of which is a moot point anyway - Bill makes no money out of the sales of the Pickingill Papers and given the ignorance shown of how courts work by some in the Pickingill Thread on Pagan Network it is never liable to happen vice versa either anyhow.
IF Bill was interested in swaying your opinions (and he has already straightforwardly made it clear he was not - he was only interested in giving the information in response to queries made! - Look it up!) then the onus might be on him to prove it BUT the simple truth is that anyone can put forward ANY theory and it is up to those opposing them to prove otherwise - not vice versa as some may prefer! the might only comes into effect if he wanted to do so.
As it is constantly stated that Bill's ideas belong to a time before the aleged "light of modern research" he is in the position of having forwarded the information first so it is up to others to prove it wrong. I realise this is hard for many to understand but that doesn't invalidate it I am afraid. Many have tried. One even admitted it could not be done either way. Again I suggest you look it up ... you will find it in Hutton!
I personally have little interest in debating the information in public – I second guess and "tear into" everything I get whether it is about this or any of my other interests. I look at each thing and test it till it proves to my satisfaction to be "on the square or not". If I encounter something to change that opine then fine, but more often than not I don’t. This is not because I don't look or take new information on board it is simply because I test things throroughly in the first instance so generally already note what does and does not work. Simply put -because I am pretty leery of most information in the first instance and therefore am rarely surprised by new developments. I trust nothing and consider everything to be a trap of sorts. *Shrugs* I find it saves time.
I suppose it is only natural that there is suspicion all round and only time tells. In the meantime all we have is what our actual investigations reveal. Accept or not as you please - I can only answer your implied query as the possible subject of it after all! lol
To address your implied concern that we want it to go on forever; (for some reason I am not quite grasping - for reasons I have outlined above) I can tell you directly that for a very long time Bill and I used to "see saw" from day to day as to whom it was, (at any given time) who would argue that we were sick of the bloody sight of it all first! Often we have both looked and quietly hoped that it would be closed and forgotten.
We rarely get anything out of it except insults, headaches and time wastage.
We are not all that bothered that others don’t believe as we do – indeed without wanting to sound nasty about it; the last thing I personally would want is to find myself suddenly somehow related (if you will) to some of the people I have had to listen to over the years.
I value what I have and it works for me – I am therefore loathe to think that some of the people who have offended me over the years may wind up with it and somehow better their lives with it. It is petty I admit but hey – I have my good and bad days like anyone else.
To be direct, the only reason we see these threads as interesting is that they occasionally turns up an interesting factoid or trivium that we find we didn’t already have and that lately there has been something of a concerted effort to actually address the issues point by point. The constant attempts at derailing the same by way of spurious opinion, implication, smearing and outright abuse frankly just informs us that the stance and back up of those who constantly oppose any investigation into this subject is shaky indeed. The same can be said for the constant avoidance of wht is routinely suggested already done. If it is all disproven then show it.
In fact to repeat a phrase that is often directed at us: "If that is the case then PROVE IT!" The difference between when we say it and when it is said to us is that we have no need for swaying teh opposition and are in the logical position to have it done! So where is this proof? Nowhere. Maybe Caroline Wise has it like the infamous letter in which Bill allegedly says he made it all up! (or has that changed to: "Actually got it from others and knew it was wrong but said it anyway?")
However, all that said, not a day goes by that we don’t tire of the continual silliness that goes on and wonder how good things might have been if we had just kept, (as some of the others have said to us) “our damn fool mouths shut!”
That I believe covers most of the concerns I could see you raised in your post. If you have any wish to do so you must feel free to query me further. The same can obviously be said of anyone else with the usual proviso: "there is no harm in asking but also no obligation to answer!"
When I get snide attempts at traps dressed up as genuine investigation I often send those people off with a boot up the bum on any number of wild goose chases I have especially prepared for such occasions.
Can’t say fairer than that.
Fraternally
Scott
I know that many of you think that when I say these sort of things I am just "having a go" due to my irritation at the sort of ad hominem that is de rigeuer over at Pagan Network.
Well the truth is that it does anger me that the moderators view moderation as allowing all but actionable abuse from their mates ... BUUUUT .. today lets have a touch of proof of how little the average sort does to check any point of enquiry ...
****************************************************************
Amberlady sez:
2009/Jan/11 @ 12:14:22 »
(Quoted from Jeremy)
There are pagan witches currently active who regard themselves as
being of Pickingill lineage.
Show me one and I will show you a liar
****************************************************************
Alistair sez:
2009/Jan/11 @ 12:51:51 »
(Quoted from Jeremy)There are pagan witches currently active who regard themselves as being of
Pickingill lineage.
Where? Who? I've met a fair few witches of all kinds of shades and varieties, including New Forest Gardnerians and East Anglian and Essex Trad Crafters, and none of them have made these claims. I've only ever heard of one person in the UK that claims to have links to Pickingill and that's Ralph Harvey, and he doesn't even claim direct lineage anyway, just some kind of nebulous 'inspiration'. I very much doubt this claim.
****************************************************************
Well now perhaps Amberlady is as ignorant of my existence as she was of Granny Garner - but you know what? She isn't actually! The Pagan Network grapevine isn't THAT ineffective - well not on this sort of thing anyway.
Now all the faux "Land of Hope and Glory" BS that Amber, Steve, Ali, and Cav have all gone on with in the past ("well you aren't in England so what else can we expect from you ?" etc) let us see now ...
To be honest I am absolutely livid BUT also find it funny.
Consider that typing "Pickingill Initiate" into the google search engine yields (at my end) what .. five results .... third down is one referring to me and says and I quote:
"OccultCorpus - View Profile: yup-that_scott Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Au; Gender: Male; Paradigm: Pickingill Initiate. yup-that_scott is not a member of any public groups ...the one after it says:
www.occultcorpus.com/forum/member.php?u=199 - 23k - Cached - Similar pages -"
"Traditional Witchcraft Forums I am a Pickingill initiate under the Magistracy of Bill Liddell, fully authorized but not interested in starting my own group. ...Wow yet MORE evidence of their wide ranging investigation into a subject they claim to "know backwards" - now it is shown that in this instance they haven't even googled it. Now THAT'S what I CALL EXHAUSTIVE RESEARCH! LOL
www.traditionalwitchcraft.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=4278 - 82k - Cached - Similar pages -"
So what we have here is Alistair pretending he has a "theory" (read as this is slander but in a clever way to entrap someone into engaging me!) that he sets out "expecting to be mobbed by rambunctions antipodeans" ooo *snort* it sounds like a Tim Brooke Taylor moment complete with God Save the Queen to me!
If he wanted to know, he'd have done a search (it took me less than five seconds!) and then done something intelligent like contacting me and ASKED (that is after all what one does with theories one actually is interested in - they research them and test them!)
In fact anyone who is actually even good at the sort of character assination he goes on with would have done so too!
.. but of course that won't happen will it?
It won't happen for the same reason as everything else. These bunch don't want answers - they want to draw whatever assumption suits them up as a conclusion and then tell people it is the fact of the matter.
Apiskouros (or however you spell the new recruit to the defamation league) says Bill doesn't give out info and hides showing his total lack of reading even in these threads etc ... well even that aside I ask you ... when have they actually asked a straight question without it being simply and invitation to ignore the answer and engage in personality based schoolyard shenanigans? *Shrugs* I am pretty sure I haven't seen it if it has happened!
No the simple truth is that this whole bunch are NOT interested in finding anything out about it (if indeed they ever were and I think it is pretty obvious that very few of them have done any real work on it!) and that is proved entirely by their own actions.
To be blunt they don't need us to smear campaign against them - they do that perfectly well by themselves.
Their interest is in delivering a party line (pity one can't see the photos that used to be up of the whole bunch of them at moots drinking together - it made it all quite clear!) Their interest is in brow beating anyone or thing else that dares to raise the head that may somehow question their self imposed "authority" - however spurious it may be. I suppose I should be thankful for the small mercy that there really is only a couple of them. Selective breeding and all that ..
Now all of that in mind .. let me quote a later amusement from dear wee Ali. I think I will reply point by point to Ali's wee snivel - just for the record.
He sez:
Reply #23 on: 2009/Jan/13 @ 14:50:57 » QuoteOho! Ok then .. here is a response that is NOT based in pure supposition but in actual experience of fact. I did consider sending it but frankly, the "imaginary voice" of a particular old man advised me to just sit and wait. A day later there was a "feeding frenzy" as it was revealed to be a trap of sorts. My amazement at his momentary sense was a chimera - within hours he went right back to rabid B.S. In light of that I have fleshed out one or two of the points a bit with the phrases I would have left out in the cause of "diplomacy". As it seems that won't be needed I present it as is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a theory. Based on nothing but my own supposition and a few bits and pieces that have come up on this thread and in other places like the Cauldron. Some of the recent posts by Jeremyetc and the Exile seem to support the idea, but I'm going to outright say that it is mostly guesswork and may be an unproveable hypothesis.
Right - here you go:
There are some people, in the southern hemisphere who are running covens or other magical groups that they are claiming are directly linked to George Pickingill. They are recruiting on the basis that they have this direct lineage. They may well be fairly underground and are reasonably secretive.
What they might be doing is exploiting this link to a greater or lesser degree, either for reasons of prestige, or to control members. It is in their interest to keep discussions such as this one open and continuing, without reasonable conclusions being arrived at, in order to maintain the element of authenticity that their claims suggest they have.
If it is concluded from the evidence that Pickingill wasn't a magician of any worth and also didn't have any forward influence, then these groups lose their standing. So it's in their interest to dig up absolutely any and all possible lines of enquiry and also to try to discredit researchers who have drawn the reasonable conclusion that Pickingill is a dead end.
It's also possible that this group or groups are trading on a reputation of being 'black' witches or satanists, possibly in order to control its members or to threaten outsiders, and this is why claims of an authentic folk satanism are also being pursued.
As I said, this is based on nothing but my own insight into the situation, and of course, certain Antipodeans will doubtless deny it outright immediately, but I can't help but wonder if something along these lines is going on.
That "fake" Tradition steered me clear of yet another trap it seems! Not bad for something Bill alegedly made up is it!?
******************************************************
Greetings Alistair,
I noted one of your recent posts and thought I may be in a position to assist you.
As a simple modicum of investigation will show I am one of the people you are referring to (albeit indirectly) in this post.
If you have any actual direct questions you wish to ask of me you must feel free to do so.
I am not in the least bit interested in subjecting myself to the mob mauling that goes on but am happy to address the points privately one to one.
In the mean time, I thought it may be of interest to you to hear some direct responses to your theories.
Here is a theory. Based on nothing but my own supposition and a few bits and pieces that have come up on this thread and in other places like the Cauldron. Some of the recent posts by Jeremy etc and the Exile seem to support the idea, but I'm going to outright say that it is mostly guesswork and may be an improvable hypothesis.That is remarkably fair of you to admit openly that you have made this all up from your own suspicion and that what you perceive from your openly stated bias seems to lend creedence to it if it is viewed with no desire for any actual evidence. I say this only because it is not something we are used to hearing anyone admit - generally accusations are made of us based on what people themselves do without admission that they do it to. It is frankly more manners than we are generally offered and it makes a refreshing change.
So to keep the "scales balanced" I will be equally honest in return. I personally suspect that this is a rather obvious attempt at setting a trap by way of using a parallel in case you are "called out" on such action ... but none the less - in the interests of actual information I will let it pass and treat it as a sincere if indirect request for clarification.
Right - here you go:That is correct. In fact there are some in the Northern Hemisphere too. Feel free to do a bit of research into it and you will hear the name crop up all over the place. These may or may not be as they represent - we have had no contact with them so I couldn't say.
There are some people, in the southern hemisphere who are running covens or other magical groups that they are claiming are directly linked to George Pickingill.
They are recruiting on the basis that they have this direct lineage.Well I can only speak for "our own" over here, (in line with my previous assertion) when I say "Not particularly." It is known to others in our locality and elsewhere that we are of that line BUT there the similarity ends.
We do not seek new members at all – and not under any banner or barrow whether that be ours or anyone elses.
IF someone approaches us and petitions for entry, we put it to our guides and see what they say. Sometimes they say yes and sometimes not. Sometimes there is a reason given and sometimes not.
That may sound like a “dodge” to some but it is never the less the process that we go through and take quite seriously no matter what others may tend to imagine or believe of us. It is also worth noting that there is a difference between these two scenarios and that difference is important to us irrelevant of what others may think.
When I have been approached I refer them on to Bill and the same process applies because I have no interest in students or mentoring.
They may well be fairly underground and are reasonably secretive.
Not really. We don’t advertise but it is known where we are. We don’t discuss sensitive information out side the circles – but this is no more or less I imagine than the average coven – or the average circle of friends for that matter.
What they might be doing is exploiting this link to a greater or lesser degree, either for reasons of prestige, or to control members.
LOL Oh deary me no. This is fair comment for the suspicious but doesn't hold up under logic really. Besides that again, let me tell you that the man who turned up to my wedding in a polo t shirt and trainers would try to get prestige any way he could were he interested in such - so if this were true it doesn't seem to be working! lol
Let me first thank you again for the “might”. It certainly beats some of the accusations veiled and otherwise that have been leveled at us over the years. There have in fact, been some groups elsewhere in the southern states that this might be accurate of however they have no connections to us or in fact the line itself – as it is said even on the Pickingill.com website.
We make it, (our background) clear so that there is no mistake who we are and the direction the information comes from. I tend to think of it as acually just good manners to outline one's affiliations at the beginning of any interaction so there can be little in the way of veiled political maneuvring. Another good example of this is that in recent years when I have given a talk at certain places I have stated what line I belong to before anything else and then stated if anything I have to say is in any way related to or from that line. I do so in order to be clear with that audience not because I am recruiting or because I think it lends “weight” or “influence” (in fact I find it does exactly the opposite!)
In short it is actually more akin to the law requiring ingredients be listed on the side of a product than anything else. That way everyone knows where I am coming from and there can be no surprises of that sort. I note also that it is a courtesy rarely accorded in return.
But to address your concerns directly. There is very little by way of exploitation - unless of course you count the work I do for Bill quite of my own volition because he is a good freind to me and has been for a number of years now! lol I have had experience of a number of magical systems and frankly the line to which I now belong has fewer rules and pressures than any other I have ever encountered.
Prestige is not something really that works either, given that there is surprisingly little prestige to be gained from being what most consider the “laughing stock” that several of your close acquaintance would have us seen as. To be direct, as we are generally considered “loonies, liars and fools” there is not a large amount of control that can be exerted by the adoption of such a title!
It is also worth noting that the loose manner in which the line works ensures actually that very little of such can be exerted. I myself have been given my authority. This actually means I can now go and do as I please. I could found groups, and take students and teach as I wish and have no requirement to do as Bill has done at all – nor to do as he may wish me to. To be explicit I do not have to do as he says at all – and it was no different before I was given my authority!
I have been mentored often over the years of my involvement in various practices and again can say very directly that the present line to which I belong has exerted less pressures on me than anything else I have experienced. Contrary to the sneering “How convenient” I have heard in response to that statement before, let me say again that actually it is NOT! A simple set of rules and orders make life much easier and being left to one’s own head is a much harder life style.
Beyond “the ear” I may give anyone who has been my friend for years I have no requirement to take orders or direction from the one I still refer to as my Magister – even though I have since been released to “go my own way”. Indeed Bill has never attempted to exert any control over me at all – even when I should have had some – or indeed would have found it of assistance to have some!
It is in their interest to keep discussions such as this one open and continuing, without reasonable conclusions being arrived at, in order to maintain the element of authenticity that their claims suggest they have.
Well yes and no I expect dependant on how one views it. It is in our interests to keep it open as such as these do occasionally unearth some info that we actually didn’t have and forces us to continually reexamine our views on things with fresh eyes. Contrary to popular opine we do actually question all of the info we get and approach the whole corpus of ideas skeptically if not pragmatically.
As for maintaining some sort of public image and etc, well I don’t actually see how being continually abused and belittled in public helps our “standing” (if you will) nor do I see how such actually may assist in arriving at reasonable conclusions but there is; (as I would hope I have implied already) two sides to everything. I am somewhat at a loss as to how anyone might take the threads in here to be giving us an air of “authenticity” though – perhaps you might explain to me how you think being continually attacked might do so? I actually don’t follow that at all.
It is also worth noting that our claims are rarely as they are portrayed by others and this follows on to those whom I have encountered elsewhere. It is common to assert what others think we mean but rare that anyone ASKS what we mean.
In short, many do not seem to be actually aware of “where we are coming from” at all and so again, if people out there are reading them a particular way that seems to be the norm in modern "paganism" I imagine the threads on Pagan Network aren’t helping to portray us as any sort of huge clandestine group weilding power and prestige to control our people at all!
So again, I still don’t see how that might help us at all. Maybe it might make us seem infamous (at a long bow pull!) but I would assume that most would simply read the threads and assume that we are fools and loonies! *Shrugs* Again there is the “two sides” issue rearing its head I imagine.
If it is concluded from the evidence that Pickingill wasn't a magician of any worth and also didn't have any forward influence, then these groups lose their standing.
Umm ok fair comment, (from a particular point of view!) but it is still (and yes I am talking subjectively again now) a case of “Yes and No” I’d say.
I will tell you what I said to Bill many years before all of this info started coming out. I will do so simply because it may help to dispel the view that still continues about what "we are like" and the sort of things we think are important. That these views are peddled by those with particular obvious agendas that colour the way we are protrayed by them seems to be missed by most - so you will forgive my elucidation in the pursuit of the accuracy we all crave.
“It really doesn’t matter to me if “George” is from Canewdon, Norfolk or Disneyland – his main influence is that … well that it is what we call the line and frankly I only call it that because it makes it easy for others to understand where I am coming from. What you have initiated me into has worked and given actual results time and again in ways I wouldn’t have expected so .... whether George Pickingill initated some elders or Queen Victoria initiated them is really of no never mind to me any more than the rest of it! If I want something I get it – what name it is given is really not as important as that. It works who cares what it is called or who was in it!”The fact is that Old George’s part in it is by far of more interest and importance to outsiders than it is to us. To us this is just one bit of a long list of interesting questions that seems to have captured some peoples imaginations and ire far more than we can really understand.
Again, to be direct, we are vastly more interested in whether what we have been given works than who might have championed it long ago. The “who” is an interesting and romantic extra but not a great deal more than squabbling over what anyone of our ancestors may have thought good at one stage or other.
So it's in their interest to dig up absolutely any and all possible lines of enquiry and also to try to discredit researchers who have drawn the reasonable conclusion that Pickingill is a dead end.
That is slippery of you. That sounds like a fair comment but it isn’t is it. It is of interest to us to get as much information as possible because that is one of our lines forebears and a famous one to boot!
However, (and let us be honest now!) many of those being referred to as “researchers” have in fact done a pretty shoddy job of their work, they have done so very selectively and what’s more with great bias too. Their results have been presented in a decidedly lack luster fashion that doesn’t actually stand up to scrutiny much less the rigours of academia that it pretends to be.
I know I went to University and looking at the sort of "Drivel passed off as Champagne" that so many place creedence in I am worried constantly for the future. And when all of this is then lauded as a reason to treat others in a fashion that borders on the actionably abusive ... well let us just say I find such positioning neither "reasonable" nor what I woudl expect as a "conclusiuon" from anyone worthy of the title "researcher" - never mind anytthing else!
The fact remains that it hasn’t been shown to be a dead end. That would require all avenues to have been explored and they haven't. It has not shown to be disproven at all.
That would require actual point by point investigation, actual research and direct and specific argument. I certainly haven't seen this and given the fact that it is continually requested of those most vocal and it still after all these years has failed to materialise. Again I trust you will forgive my skepticism. If indeed it is all so easily dismissed why don't ANY of them (yes I say ANY!) actually ever manage to DO it? Interesting question which I still have found no satisfactory objective answer to.
But don't take my word for it - take the word of an actual researcher and historin such as Hutton. While I have prodlems with several of his conclusions and his methodologies to boot he certainly is a cut above those who most use his name as some sort of "Neo Platonist Banishing Ritual". lol
I now repeat for those who get lost in lengthy reasoning: It has been shown to be one that has not been conclusively proven or disproven. There is a difference.
It is also worth noting that it is rather implied here that the Exile and Jeremy are part of our group or that at the very least this is an easy implication to assume from reading this in the context it is presented. They are not.
Before reading their words on the threads I had never heard of either of them and they are in no way connected to our line, our group or anyone we know of, (we did ask all of our acquaintances as you might expect!) As I understand it the Exile is in America somewhere and Jeremy is in one of the Southern States of Australia. *Shrugs*
It's also possible that this group or groups are trading on a reputation of being 'black' witches or satanists, possibly in order to control its members or to threaten outsiders, and this is why claims of an authentic folk satanism are also being pursued.LOL Oh dear no again. Let me set you straight. Jeremy is NOT one of us. Not at all indeed. Nor, (I say again) is “the Exile” – we have no idea where they are “coming from” beyond what they have said openly.
We do not “trade” on such a reputation - indeed quite the contrary.
The whole “Good Guys/Bad Guys” thing is a modernism that should be treated like many of the new spurious hard lines of demarcation we see bruited about. (That there IS a hard and fast demarcation between the "Witch" and "Cunning Man" milieus is a good example of this actually!)
There are aspects to our line that advocate the direct opposition of deliberately harming others. There are also aspects of our line that is deliberately and consciously ambivalent about harming others. That is just human nature. If we can avoid hassle we do so quietly, if we can’t – we have options to deal with the situation in ways from acquiescence, to misdirection, to mediation and all the way to direct attack.
We threaten no one if we can help it because it invites trouble and the vast majority of our line prefer to stay “under the radar” – to do such would be simply not good common sense. To do so would draw attention to ourselves.
There are aspects of our line that could be considered as such amusingly modern descriptions as "Folk Satanism", but again, this is an outsiders analytical view. We do what we see to be required to get our way in the simplest and lest bothersome fashion – such could be defined in any number of ways and that is just one of them.
I refer you to one thing Bill once said to a petitioner: “Old George a Satanist? Well when that was being said; anyone who didn’t act just like anyone else religiously was considered one! I will set you straight and say that George helped as many as otherwise.”
This view you allude to is being pursued by Jeremy. We have no need to pursue a line of analysis based in speculation upon what we are actually already doing. Simple logic alone should point out the problems with such a passtime. As far as I can see it, this perspective is a way in which he can understand what he thinks may have been going on. Perhaps he has read some of the Diana Vera referencing or perhaps has read some other articles (I forget who wrote them now) a while back where this subject was raised as a possibility in very like if not just those words!
I know these articles are available on the web and that a simple google search will pick them up very quickly and easily ... so if you are interested further you have the opportiunity readily available to you.
As for Jeremy's reasons for his investigation well I haven’t actually asked him his whys and wherefores so I couldn't say beyond what he has openly ventured. Personally, I don’t see it as being overly important what label is posthumously leveled at people in this manner so it isn't a great concern to me why he might do so. I do suggest however that if you want to know why Jeremy does what he does you might do worse than ask him directly.
As I said, this is based on nothing but my own insight into the situation, and of course, certain Antipodeans will doubtless deny it outright immediately, but I can't help but wonder if something along these lines is going on.
Well at least now we can see rather clearly where you are "coming from".
Lol Well this “Antipodean” (how quaint I haven’t been called that for a long time!) is now directly wondering if you were indirectly referring to me. I have my suspicions and I am just one of them actually. I can easily imagine that your insight and it’s rather obvious misinformation (no offence meant - there is no reason why you would be aware of the way we or I view these things after all!) would lead you to assume I (or others) would doubtless deny it all and on the "double quick" as it were.
You would be very right to be suspicious but I can tell you now that this view rather requires us to be more reliant on what others think than we actually are. Believe this and everything else or not as you please. If you have information to add that is constructive or that can actually refute such properly then feel free to add it; but again, at the end of the day all this is quite irrelevant to us.
We are often asked "what we believe and what we have been told" so we have responded as best we may.
Other than that the only time we actually bring the subject up outside our own circles is when we are being described in a way that is simply incorrect. You might remember that this is excatly how the original thread began. Thereafter questions were asked and answers given. Answers that were disliked, disregarded, dismissed and howled down. I also point out that as far as my memory is concerned not ONCE were the answers actually demonstrated to be wrong - they were simply labelled as such with much attempts at projecting the united front in opposition spiced with the usual ad hominem attacks.
For the record: it takes more than repeating "it is wrong" to make it so. It takes more than that again to demonstrate that something is, (in fact) wrong.
It is also not, (in this context) actually up to Bill or any of us to prove the statements as true either. It is, (in fact) up to others to prove them wrong. This really is standard academic process and I am astounded that so many seem to be ignorant of it.
I will, (furthermore) use an amusing example that Amber has bought up in response to the very sensible statement made by a moderator to keep the responses inactionable: Bill would not have to prove his claims in court! Those in opposition would have to prove him wrong! One can drag people into court under as many false allegations as one has the pocket book to do so - it is up to them to show that the allegations are false. As not one of those over there were in any position to have been injured in anyway by what Bill had said they oculd hardly take him to court.
On the flip side were he to haul one of them into court and for example accuse them of libel or slander all he would need to do is show how their comments had affected his income. Several people on that thread who have made a habit out of crowing how long they have publically opposed the Pickingill information would have a hard time showing how his words had not done so. Again we see the standard "Prove it Bill!" line to be rather bizarrely to the contrary of common proceedure.
All of which is a moot point anyway - Bill makes no money out of the sales of the Pickingill Papers and given the ignorance shown of how courts work by some in the Pickingill Thread on Pagan Network it is never liable to happen vice versa either anyhow.
IF Bill was interested in swaying your opinions (and he has already straightforwardly made it clear he was not - he was only interested in giving the information in response to queries made! - Look it up!) then the onus might be on him to prove it BUT the simple truth is that anyone can put forward ANY theory and it is up to those opposing them to prove otherwise - not vice versa as some may prefer! the might only comes into effect if he wanted to do so.
As it is constantly stated that Bill's ideas belong to a time before the aleged "light of modern research" he is in the position of having forwarded the information first so it is up to others to prove it wrong. I realise this is hard for many to understand but that doesn't invalidate it I am afraid. Many have tried. One even admitted it could not be done either way. Again I suggest you look it up ... you will find it in Hutton!
I personally have little interest in debating the information in public – I second guess and "tear into" everything I get whether it is about this or any of my other interests. I look at each thing and test it till it proves to my satisfaction to be "on the square or not". If I encounter something to change that opine then fine, but more often than not I don’t. This is not because I don't look or take new information on board it is simply because I test things throroughly in the first instance so generally already note what does and does not work. Simply put -because I am pretty leery of most information in the first instance and therefore am rarely surprised by new developments. I trust nothing and consider everything to be a trap of sorts. *Shrugs* I find it saves time.
I suppose it is only natural that there is suspicion all round and only time tells. In the meantime all we have is what our actual investigations reveal. Accept or not as you please - I can only answer your implied query as the possible subject of it after all! lol
To address your implied concern that we want it to go on forever; (for some reason I am not quite grasping - for reasons I have outlined above) I can tell you directly that for a very long time Bill and I used to "see saw" from day to day as to whom it was, (at any given time) who would argue that we were sick of the bloody sight of it all first! Often we have both looked and quietly hoped that it would be closed and forgotten.
We rarely get anything out of it except insults, headaches and time wastage.
We are not all that bothered that others don’t believe as we do – indeed without wanting to sound nasty about it; the last thing I personally would want is to find myself suddenly somehow related (if you will) to some of the people I have had to listen to over the years.
I value what I have and it works for me – I am therefore loathe to think that some of the people who have offended me over the years may wind up with it and somehow better their lives with it. It is petty I admit but hey – I have my good and bad days like anyone else.
To be direct, the only reason we see these threads as interesting is that they occasionally turns up an interesting factoid or trivium that we find we didn’t already have and that lately there has been something of a concerted effort to actually address the issues point by point. The constant attempts at derailing the same by way of spurious opinion, implication, smearing and outright abuse frankly just informs us that the stance and back up of those who constantly oppose any investigation into this subject is shaky indeed. The same can be said for the constant avoidance of wht is routinely suggested already done. If it is all disproven then show it.
In fact to repeat a phrase that is often directed at us: "If that is the case then PROVE IT!" The difference between when we say it and when it is said to us is that we have no need for swaying teh opposition and are in the logical position to have it done! So where is this proof? Nowhere. Maybe Caroline Wise has it like the infamous letter in which Bill allegedly says he made it all up! (or has that changed to: "Actually got it from others and knew it was wrong but said it anyway?")
However, all that said, not a day goes by that we don’t tire of the continual silliness that goes on and wonder how good things might have been if we had just kept, (as some of the others have said to us) “our damn fool mouths shut!”
That I believe covers most of the concerns I could see you raised in your post. If you have any wish to do so you must feel free to query me further. The same can obviously be said of anyone else with the usual proviso: "there is no harm in asking but also no obligation to answer!"
When I get snide attempts at traps dressed up as genuine investigation I often send those people off with a boot up the bum on any number of wild goose chases I have especially prepared for such occasions.
Can’t say fairer than that.
Fraternally
Scott
posted by BissekArt at 8:23 am
0 comments
