Thanks for these comments, which display your passion and emotions well, but really add nothing to the discourse or argument. Normally I would not respond so directly to such comments, but what the hell, it’s a Monday morning and I’m having fun

First off, your comment, “Wiccans and Neo-Pagans do feel the need to have to defend their beliefs by trying to site (sic) a source, give their religion a roadmap thru (sic) history, because thats (sic) the only way people would accept them.”

Well, there are plenty of new religions that are boldly open about their provenance and innovations and are as accepted or more so than Wicca. The reason why Wicca has yet to receive acceptance from some parts of society is for other reasons, such as … well its use of iconography traditionally associated with EVIL. Funny about that.

Your declaration, “…after all science is a known killer of cultures” is extraordinary. What can you mean? I cannot even begin to rebut this statement as I cannot believe you mean what it clearly says, as such a view would surely not be held by anyone capable of reading a single book on the history and development of ‘science’.

Jeff, you say Wicca’s Gods and rituals are “very old”. Sorry you are wrong. The rituals are new, based on a bad understanding of western magical rituals circa early 20th century and some Grimoire traditions no older than the medieval period. This is clearly proven. Just read a bit please, people like Kelly and Hutton. Also the Gods of Wicca, as Hutton points out are new, only a few centuries old at best, gaining their coherent form and myth in the 17th-19th centuries.

You go on to write, “The belief system is based on the belief systems of the ancient world.” Wrong again. The belief system of Wicca is based on western magic and modernity, a few centuries old at best. Again, just read the material, read some studies and think a bit. See also the work of Jo Pearson who points out how much Wicca owes to Christianity in its beliefs, theologies and rituals. The reality and mindset of people in the ancient world is a far removed from that of the average Wiccan as it is from the average Sunday Christian.

You also say, “It’s a well known fact that the Abrahamic religions took their beliefs from the Egyptians and Sumerians.” Oh, please not this old chestnut again. Yes, in part…BUT and it’s a big but, there were significant innovations, changes, reforms and completely new understandings. Just look at the Christian conception of salvation through personal relationship with Christ, not through ritual forms, sacrifices, etc. For an accessible reference on these topics see the History of God by Karen Armstrong.

I just love your passion Jeff, when you say: “I only hope this post didn’t poison the mind of anyone who’s path this might be. If there are believers in Wicca reading this I only hope you don’t base your beliefs on what a stranger who wants nothing more then (sic) to invade and try to explain away another persons religion has to try to prove, but base it on what your religion has proved to you.”

It is a pity your passion is not tempered by thought. What am I invading? My own Blog? Someone’s relationship with their Gods – how is that possible by a few pixels on a screen? If you have read elsewhere on MOTO you will know that I view the Gods as real, far more real than we can experience. This does not however stop me from trying to inject some truth and sanity into the morass of pagan and Wiccan dysfunction that masquerades as esoteric tradition.

And Jeff, God how I love this end bit: “There will be those Atheist (sic) and skeptics that would love nothing more then (sic) to see, in the end of days as the world burns, the whole of civilization perish as non believers.”

How the holy hell could atheists and sceptics love anything in “the end of days”, the end of days being a religious concept that they do not and cannot recognise? Lovely expression though – the image of Richard Dawkins cackling manically during the Apocalypse, fire all around him, happy that so many people have turned from religion. There must be a cartoon in that somewhere.

Not sure if you will reply or not Jeff, or anyone else, but if you do…please think before hammering away at those keys, huh? Ta.

I’m sorry you copped flack for your article. I had a fleeting hope it was only silly fluffy people responsible, but this hope is probably futile. 10, 20 and 30 year veterans of a religion can still be insufferable and ignorant as fluffy bunnies do not have a mortgage on these traits.

Some last points to rack up some fundamentalist Gardnerian credibility and punt a couple for team Wicca;

Aiden Kelly dated the Charge to before 1948. That is _early_ in the evolution of Gardner’s craft. It is not a “little” poem, it is one of the most powerful pieces of writing Wicca possesses, and is recited at the height of the drawing down of the moon, for me the central and most crucial Wiccan ceremony. It is exceptionally representative of Wicca, and other than noting Valiente was influenced by the esoteric traditions (which I don’t doubt) you have nothing to add to Serith’s analysis. My point stands.

On Gardner and his penchant for scourges; the first person to read anything sinister into this was Aiden Kelly. He found it so sinister he devoted an enormous amount of space in “Crafting” to Gardner’s sexual predelictions, and failed to cite any evidence. Donald Frew’s uneven but excellent review of Kelly’s book is strongest when refuting these claims. See for example http://www.wildideas.net/temple/library/frew/frew12.html. I don’t know if anyone has substantiated Kelly’s claims in the meantime. Sexuality is a big part of Wicca however, and it doesn’t have to apologise for that just because followers of different paths have different rules governing it.

Gardner was keen on the OTO. Using his motto as a pseudonym indicates that as does his OTO charter, and the heavy use of Crowley material through his book of shadows. Your original point was that “he [Gardner] had no lineage to impart other than an incomplete and low version of Crowley’s debased adaptation of the OTO, which Gardner misunderstood anyway.” The problem with this obsession about lineage is that Gardner fabricated or distorted what he told others and drew widely from a variety of sources other than the OTO. His thoughts on the OTO would have been rendered irrelevant by finding himself the founder of a small but bourgeoning witch cult in the mid to late fifties. “The Wica” by now were practicing their innovative techniques, many of them based on OGD, Masonry or from the Greater Key but now in a different context. The OGD took their ritual forms from Masonry. Same dog, different leg.

On the appropriation of techniques by western esoteric groups, I referred to Druidism, Crowley’s OTO and the OGD. I will admit I should have written “such as” rather than “including”. The aim was to be more specific. Some strands of druidism were influenced by Wicca, Crowley’s OTO was OGD+channelled egotistical gibberish+Buddhist meditation, and the OGD appropriated Rosicrucian elements, Grimoire magic, and Enochian to make them their own.

I have to claim ignorance of the Tibetan Rite of dead as it isn’t in my Shadows. This a pretty futile argument because you first have to define which sections of Wicca are doing this then deny the large number of esoteric movements who use both traditional material and anything else that takes their fancy and isn’t nailed down. Because of the watering down of Wicca and its splintering into myriads of smaller and smaller movements the overall prize for outside technique pilfering must go to Wicca. Just as there are esoteric movements who use only traditional material, there so called “old school” wiccans who use material largely unchanged since the fifties. You also have the difficulty of defining what is outside of Wiccan tradition.

Kellys, Gardners and techniques aside, I hope that your upcoming book will spur local occult people, Wiccans especially to reconsider inner workings of ritual. The diversity of the Wiccan movement has had a cost, and that’s the dumbing down of the tradition.

Thanks for these further comments, which I appreciate along with your open and visible honesty. I have received the inevitable private abusive emails – all from people seeming to be Wiccans. This is not surprising as when I first raised questions of this nature back in the 80s the same thing happened. I was also cursed up hill and down dale, though of course I felt nothing (the cursing was verified years later when one of the High Priestesses who oversaw it confided in me and apologised. These are probably the same people who trained most of contemporary Perth Wicca and are now ‘elders’).

To be honest, I am not sure we are getting anywhere with this. But anyway…

Your quoted analysis of the Charge: (1) refers to one little poem composed mid-way through the evolution of ‘classical’ Gardnerian craft, hardly a good representation of Wicca, (2) assumes Valiente was not influenced by the esoteric traditions when she knocked up the charge in one evening, which is not likely since she read widely and intelligently before entering Wicca.

I am glad we are in agreement in concluding Wicca is not part of the Western esoteric tradition.

What I am saying is that besides the religious elements (see below) Wicca in its original form was comprised largely of misunderstood western esoteric and magical elements.

Yes, I have agreed before and now: the GD et al made up their histories, they created new forms of practice. The difference between the GD (and other magical groups) and Wicca is the sources of their inspiration: effective, traditional esoteric motifs, lineages, practices, the Christian and Jewish mysteries etc.

Where does Wicca derive its magical sources?

If it is through the esoteric traditions it is clear, when comparing with even the published sources such as the GD versions, Wicca is woefully short, which is too be expected since Garnder had no esoteric lineage to speak of.

If it is by inspiration (and I concede some practices are), then we must judge by merit, which is a personal judgement and there is no point in discussing it in this forum.

Please be clear I am talking here about magic, not religion.

On to religion: I would agree partially with Hutton – a religious force did manifest to (not through) Gardner, or to him and many others around the same time. How effective his opening to that force and how true he represented it is another question.

I have no problem with Wicca as a religion; and like all religions it will appeal to different people and can be judged on its merits. The more religion the better. I am with Hutton and others; Wicca has provided a nice little niche religion for certain people in our society who cannot, for various reasons, find religious fulfilment elsewhere. As to whether Gardner was divinely inspired … I will leave that to history to judge.

I am sorry if you think I was being a weasel when talking of Gardner. I thought I was clear – but perhaps I should have used your colourful language: yes, I DO think Gardner was a “perv” who had no idea what he was doing in the magical traditions. I don’t think he was nasty though. Gardner’s inclusion of overt and physical sexuality within Wicca (ignoring the scourging for erection issue) shows both these points. Again, I will restate: in traditional and authentic traditions sexuality is not included (if at all) until mastery of the self, after many changes and transformations in consciousness.

As for Gardner not caring about his lineage to the OTO – well, sorry, but I think you are wrong. Firstly, look at the way he used his OTO motto and (incorrectly formed) grade symbol as the author’s name for his first Craft book, “High Magic’s Aid”. This shows the importance Gardner placed on his OTO credentials.

Secondly, look at how he ran around after Crowley’s death trying to be the head of the OTO and gather documents together. It was only after the OTO move failed that Gardner focused on Wicca (after giving up his Christian priest attempts too). There’s an essay by Prof Hutton which he kindly sent me which details this; I am sure it must have been published by now, so look it up.

I realise that the Book of Shadows is not the entire corpus of Wiccan teachings. It is however fruitful to compare, and the point I was trying to make is that the outer teachings of Wicca have little substance compared to the outer teachings of western esoteric schools.

As to the inner workings; well really I have yet to see much evidence they are considered fully in Wicca. If you have different experiences, I am glad. However, I keep coming across Wiccans of all degrees who are stunned and amazed when showed them the inner work that should be happening in their own circles and rituals. I would like to think this is changing, so thanks for encouraging me on this.

As for appropriating techniques etc. Sorry, again I think you are wrong. There are authentic esoteric traditions in the West, Christian naturally, that are complete and full in themselves, without taking from anywhere at all.

Even if we look at the GD we can see this. It was essentially fully formed by the late 1890s and even the thin slice of material published by Regardie shows the depth of the tradition. There is no need for a GD / RR et AC magician, an esoteric Christian, a Anthrosophist, a true Rosicrucian etc to look outside of their own traditions. I have worked within traditions that use only traditional material entirely.

Wicca however, in book and coven, has since the 1950s been incorporating much material. A good example of this is the so called ‘Tibetan Rite’ for the dead that is in many Perth Shadows which is taken form T.S. Rampa’s pseudo Tibetan mysticism publications.

OK, hope we are getting somewhere here??

The problem with your article is not the demolishing of Wicca’s mythical past. What’s troubling is your insistence that ALL of Wicca’s character is derived from western esoteric traditions. Even more troubling is the notion that because no actual lineage to these traditions is present, Wicca has no basis for mysteries that will lead to transformation.

On the first issue, I’ll use an example that has already been picked over pretty thoroughly by Aiden Kelly and others, namely the Charge of the Goddess. On Ceisiwr Serith’s website http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/wicca/charge.htm there is an excellent analysis of the origins of the charge, including estimated percentages of each source. Serith uses the final version of the charge taken from Kelly’s book. The breakdown was as follows:

Valiente: 174 – (34.9%)
Gardner: 66 – (15%)
Crowley: 83 – (16.7%)
Crowley
(edited by
either Gardner
or Valiente): 40 – (8.0%)
Gardner (edited
by Valiente): 12 – (2.4%)
Cahagnet: 18 – (3.6%)
Golden Dawn: 12 – (2.4%)
Leland: 93 – (18.7%)

Is there a large amount of Crowley in there? Absolutely. Is the Charge solely from Western Esoteric sources? No. 68.6% was not from western esoteric sources, unless you care to count Leland which would drop it to 50%.

If Wicca’s lack of lineage to the year dot of esoteric movements means it can provide no substance for transformation, this provides no room for innovation. Orders such as the OGD have already proved you can make a whole bunch of stuff up, crib from here and there, produce some stunning innovation and create a lasting legacy. In “Triumph of the Moon”, Hutton in one of his kinder moments suggested that in religious terms a divine force that had been at work for 200 years manifested through Gardner (p239). Hutton then goes on to say in the same paragraph that the secular equivalent would be that cultural forces produced the same result. How then, is this different from the OGD story? Everyone gets to be divinely inspired except for poor old Gerald? Do you honestly believe that Wicca has produced no innovations?

I have to wonder if you were reading the same section of the book and neglected to cite Hutton in context. Hutton’s assessment was infinitely more generous than your own. The OGD certainly drew from sources going back a long way. It categorically did NOT have some kind of lineage to many of these sources. The OGD produced a lot of innovation, and did not require unbroken lineage in order to do so successfully. This is precisely my point that the OGD in producing innovations and falsifying its history is EXACTLY like Wicca.

Before I go further, I concede you did not describe Gardner’s craft as an incomplete version of Crowley’s. I also concede the OTO and Thelema are not the same thing. However, describing Gardner’s OTO lineage as “corrupted through Gardner’s own sexual and personal needs and wants” is a weasely way of saying Gardner was a nasty perv who had no idea what he was doing magic wise. Gardner would not have cared one jot about lineage to Crowley’s OTO with his brand of witchcraft because it was his innovation, not Crowley’s. Later Wiccans carrying on this fine tradition of nicking esoteric bits and pieces to flesh out their path can hardly be chastised for further corrupting a link that in reality never existed.

On the Book of Shadows, this is not the entirety of Wiccan teachings, nor is it meant to be so. What it lacks, and this is an area you are acutely aware of, Peregrin, is the inner workings of rituals. Without initiation, without careful teaching, the mysteries are deficient in meaning. As for appropriating various techniques and ideas into Wicca, esoteric movements of the modern era including Druidism, Crowley’s OTO and the OGD have done so much of that, one has to start contemplating pots and kettles.

I concur that the authentic western esoteric traditions should not be equated with Wicca. They are not the same as each other. Wicca should be concerned with its heritage, but not with lineage to an imagined past.

Regarding your point of Gardner’s original work, I’ve no doubt it is so, of course, but my point of view was that I understood it to be such, not a continuous tradition. Is this what you take offence to or have I misunderstood you?

sincerely yours,
Asher

For plagiarism shenanigans, see
http://www.outofthedark.com/Plagiarized/
http://www.geocities.com/ferigold/yttfiles/index.html
http://www.pagan.com/Plagiarized/The_Wheelers_Are_Thieves.html
http://www.homecircle.info/Atraditions.html (Y Tylwyth Teg entry)

There is room for a thousand more Wiccan paths out there. What there isn’t room for is plagiarists of modern copyrighted material. Read the above articles to see what I mean. You cannot steal a Wiccan’s work and pass it off as your own, merely because said Wiccan occasionally utters a couple of Crowley lines during his rituals. Gardner’s material adapted from outside sources is no longer in it’s original context and has not been for over 50 years. Gardner’s Craft produced numerous innovations from its patchwork origins and is recognised as having done so by no less than Mr Hutton himself. This does not constitute a practice that is unoriginal. This point seems utterly lost on Peregrin and yourself so I’ll move on.

My points to Peregrin on the Wiccan foundational myth obviously weren’t clear. People who pass for Wiccan orthodoxy don’t believe in it. Read Margot Adler on the topic for example http://www.beliefnet.com/story/40/story_4007_1.html
Contrast this with my fluffy Welsh-American chums at
http://www.dynionmwyn.net/dynionmwyn/dynionmwyn23.html with their torturously mangled history.

In an anachronistic irony, they even have a swipe at their older pregenitors.

“Modern Wicca has become an attempt by twentieth century humanity, to deny the responsibilities of the twentieth century. They have developed the secure and naive belief that Nature is always good and kind”

Oh yeah, that’s all of us alright. The nonsense comes even thicker at http://www.dynionmwyn.net/dynion1.html with howlers such as

“During the past one thousand nine hundred years, most people have misunderstood the Religion of Witchcraft, causing its violent repression and near destruction. But, a few families in the rural areas of Wales, England, Ireland, Scotland and Brittany have continued to secretly practice their mysterious craft, and passed their religious beliefs and traditional arts to their descendants, thereby preserving religious and esoteric knowledge that is the source of today’s Faerie tradition of Welsh Witchcraft.”

You don’t think there’s something just a teensy bit problematic with that entire paragraph? or with

“Anciently, the Welsh People believed that Y Dynion Mwyn were benevolent spirits who lived in the forests and wilds and could help them in their everyday lives. But Roman invasions and later Christianity gradually drove the Old Religion underground.

Because of these repressions, many people fell into the abyss of superstition, fear and confusion, adopting the Christian propaganda that any spirit or deity other than the Christian God, was evil and dangerous. It didn’t take long before Witches throughout Europe, were being imprisoned, tortured and killed. The Old Religion with its connection to the Faerie Folk, was in danger of disappearing forever. ”

To quote my cat, “O Rly?”. If it’s Pharasaic to call a nonsense, “nonsense”, I plead guilty.

I really don’t know enough of intimate details of Y Tylwyth Teg to claim as much. What I can say is that to me, their writings cover similar Wiccan topics in greater detail that I have previously read. I beg ignorance here. In terms of me intuition, they do seem serious and respect worthy. I find little wrong with them at present, but leave total conclusions to a later date. Where can I find material proving their plagiarism?
To be honest, I don’t understand what you mean, given that (a) the Wiccan material is not original and (b) the many terms, ideas, rituals etc seem traditional enough. I’m glad to see a group firmly rooted in its native tree. As for all Wiccan unorthodoxy becoming orthodox and setting the criteria for all such things, I find that hard to believe. They have no authority for such a thing, and if honest, would admit to no lineage either. Wicca isn’t something you would find becoming Pharasaic, is it?

I praise whom I feel is worthy. God bless.

Y Tylwyth Teg are known plagiarists of existing Wiccan and Faery material. Not only does that postdate them to Gardnerians, along with the a long line of imitators, it makes them dishonest. But I’m sure you knew that when you first wrote so feel free to keep praising them.

It is interesting, though I guess inevitable, that this post is generating such responses. I am glad i didn’t put the whole essay up

I agree with Asher regarding the Y Tylwyth Teg material being more substantial. I also think it provides potentially better links to traditional mythic and cultural blessings. I came across a whole raft of this material in the Simon Goodman collection when cataloging it way back and was impressed enough to spend several days with it. God knows where Simon got it from

A few of my points have obviously not been explained well.

Wicca is a religion. Witchcraft, cunning craft etc never was. Therefore Wicca is a NEW religion.

Many Wiccans i know accept it as a new religion but assume it is in essence the same as the ancient European pagan religions. It is NOT, as it is a result of the cultural forces of modernity (as shown clearly by Hutton) acting through a small group.

The esoteric and magical components in Wicca are based on published magical and esoteric works. Wicca has no lineage. Some people may find Wicca’s magical system to their taste or have a reality that it is effective. That is fine. But there is no way it can be considered a complete system with lineage. Just look at it. And look at how so many teachers, covens, books add to Wicca to make up the shortfall.

Yes, the GD etc made up histories. Yes, a whole system was birthed (given by the Masters). That is not the point.

The GD and other paths drew on and draws on esoteric imagery, lineage, practices going back millennia.

Wicca does not, drawing instead on modern cultural forces, traditional iconography of evil (the witch) and what little published sources Gardner could get. Again, Hutton is clear; as ritual magic, Wicca has history and lineage. As religion it does not. I would argue that in the magical sphere the lineage is incomplete (based on only limited published materials) and corrupted through Gardner’s own sexual and personal needs and wants (and later Wiccans).

Wiccans and others can make up whatever rites, magic etc they want, and it may be wonderful. They may even be doing so for compassionate reasons, based on Inner Plane directions and for the welfare of all beings. I do not know. I have seen little evidence of it, that is all.

The Drawing Down the Moon and Great Rite i agree are two potent mysteries. I have yet to see evidence that Wicca as a whole understand these things fully. In traditional esoteric systems, western and eastern, the equivalent of these mysteries are not even approached until a great dealing of preparation and training is undertaken and a high level of consciousness achieved. Far more than what goes on in Wicca, and in most GD lodges to be honest.

Terry, I did not described Gardner’s craft as “incomplete and low version” of Crowley’s work. I said Gardner only had lineage to “an incomplete and low version of Crowley’s debased adaptation of the OTO”.

Now firstly, Crowley’s OTO and Thelema are not identical (as you suggest to compare Wicca and Thelema, when we were discussing only the OTO).

Secondly, Crowley’s OTO is considered lower and debased when compared to the original OTO, as many commentators and anyone initiated into the latter will agree.

Thirdly, Gardner was only chartered to a low degree – probably through Crowley reading the initiation ritual after receiving a hefty sum. He did not understand the system, as he had no teaching material and searched for it furiously after Crowley’s death.

I hope this is clear.

Of course, Wiccans do not like feeling under attack, and i understand this. I am just wanting to make clear that the authentic western esoteric traditions are not equated with Wicca.