Why should I care if kidlets call themselves "wiccan" again?

[Yanueh]

First of all, read these articles: 1, 2

Or, just this snippet from the first article:

Quote:

The Book of the Law was received by Crowley in Egypt, and contains the utterances of Egyptian entities. The Gnostic Mass, which as we have seen Gardner plagiarized, contains Egyptian and Graeco-Roman elements. What we clearly have here, then, is Gardner's attempt to retroactively explain the presence of material which he has drawn upon. The whole iron-agey 'Horned God and Great Mother' bits which Gardner wanted to include in Wicca are compelling to the imagination, but don't have much in the way of a literary heritage. So Gardner drew upon Thelemic texts, which are potent, resonant and evocative, worked them in, and then wrote the above paragraph to tackle the predictable question of what the hell the utterances of an Egyptian Goddess were doing turning up in the rites of an allegedly Old Religion which was allegedly indigenous to Europe.

The final nail in the coffin of the Crowley-as-author theory requires an intimate knowledge of Crowley himself, beyond the crude caricature presented by the likes of 'Lugh'. Crowley couldn't have done it for one very simple reason. He would not have permitted, much less committed, the alteration and mutilation of the Book of the Law which was performed by the author of the Wiccan rites. Why? Well, one reason is simple veneration, but a more significant reason is that the very book itself forbade him to perform any such alteration in the strongest terms, and whatever Crowley's other foibles, he took the Book of the Law utterly seriously. He never changed any of it, or suffered anyone else to do so.

From the Book of the Law:

'My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book...' (c1 v36) 'Change not so much as the style of a letter...' (c1 v 54)

Gardner, by contrast, changed such things as 'I am alone; there is no God where I am' to 'I am alone, the Lord within ourselves' and 'peace unutterable, rest, ecstacy' to 'peace unutterable, rest, the ecstacy of the Goddess'. Crowley would have been furious if he'd known about it; rightly so, in my opinion, since Gardner was an OTO member and was supposed to hold the Book of the Law sacred, defending its principles with his life.

Basically, Gerald Gardner copied and altered some of Aleister Crowley's material for Wicca - material that was absolutely, unequivocally not up for grabs and lied about where he'd gotten it. In other words, Wicca is born of misappropriation.

In light of this, why should I care if kids go around "misappropriating" the name "wicca?" It seems almost poetic.  

[maenad nuri]

Gardner may have been a lying cad, but that doesn't excuse other lying cads.

At least Gardner created something new (even if he claimed it was old) and called it something else. These folks aren't doing that.  

[Collowrath]

maenad nuri

At least Gardner created something new (even if he claimed it was old) and called it something else. These folks aren't doing that.

I think the argument here is that he didn't, in fact, create something new; rather, he took Crowley's work and rebranded it with some of his own terminology and passed it off as new - and exclusive.

My understanding though is that this isn't new or unusual for that era, and I was under the impression that Crowley was an active participant in the creation of Wica. I'm going to have to read the cited pages before commenting further on that situation, though my knee-jerk reaction is that two wrongs don't make a right. Even if Wica isn't 100% new and unique doesn't at all mean that it can just be coopted - it's still the intellectual property of Wiccans.  

[maenad nuri]

I'm thinking theres more to Wicca than rebranded Thelema, based on my other readings, but I'd let someone who knows more than me comment on that.  

[AniMajor]

I've thought about this, too, especially whenever I see a thread grind to a halt and become everyone shouting that someone isn't Wiccan. I mean, I understand that if the person is not informed then, in a way, it hurts us all, but I don't see why it should be such a big deal to me.  

[Collowrath]

AniMajor

I've thought about this, too, especially whenever I see a thread grind to a halt and become everyone shouting that someone isn't Wiccan. I mean, I understand that if the person is not informed then, in a way, it hurts us all, but I don't see why it should be such a big deal to me.

I've seen it mentioned by the couple of Wiccans in M&R that part of their oaths includes a vow to protect and defend Wicca, which makes it a big deal for initiates to combat people spreading misinformation.

From what I've understood of M&R and this guild, is that we take a particular stance in favor of BTW because of the academic weight in its favor and also, I think, for ease of understanding - if the forum defaults to a particular definition of Wicca we avoid having a thread with four people talking about four wildly different things by one name.

Personally, it's not a huge deal to me because I know that among Wiccans there is some disagreement; that's thoroughly a discussion for them to have among themselves though. I'm a sucker for accuracy though so in personal usage my stance is pretty much the forum stance.

maenad nuri

I'm thinking theres more to Wicca than rebranded Thelema, based on my other readings, but I'd let someone who knows more than me comment on that.

I agree on both counts.

Edit for clarity.  

[AniMajor]

Collowrath

I've seen it mentioned by the couple of Wiccans in M&R that part of their oaths includes a vow to protect and defend Wicca, which makes it a big deal for initiates to combat people spreading misinformation.

From what I've understood of M&R and this guild, is that we take a particular stance in favor of BTW because of the academic weight in its favor and also, I think, for ease of understanding - if the forum defaults to a particular definition of Wicca we avoid having a thread with four people talking about four wildly different things by one name.

Personally, it's not a huge deal to me because I know that among Wiccans there is some disagreement; that's thoroughly a discussion for them to have among themselves though. I'm a sucker for accuracy though so in personal usage my stance is pretty much the forum stance.

I understand the need for accuracy and how Wiccans are duty-bound to prevent the spread of misinformation. I just feel like it's not very helpful to anyone to discuss, at length, why a person isn't Wiccan when their question was " I'm Wiccan and does anyone know if housepaint is edible?"

It's not just that I feel it's not my fight, but that I really have no right to defend Wicca. I will never understand it, so I'm really just parroting second-hand information (as far as I know, reliable second-hand info, but still).  

[Collowrath]

AniMajor

I understand the need for accuracy and how Wiccans are duty-bound to prevent the spread of misinformation. I just feel like it's not very helpful to anyone to discuss, at length, why a person isn't Wiccan when their question was " I'm Wiccan and does anyone know if housepaint is edible?"

It's not just that I feel it's not my fight, but that I really have no right to defend Wicca. I will never understand it, so I'm really just parroting second-hand information (as far as I know, reliable second-hand info, but still).

I get you - it really isn't a pertinent discussion most of the time it's discussed.

I avoid the Wicca discussions in M&R particularly because I don't have the first hand information (not to mention that it's like, a rule of the forum that once it's settled someone else is going to rush in, not read, and go off on them). The most that can be said by a lot of us is just that "This forum uses such and such definition of Wicca, here are our sources [Triumph of the Moon, infodumps, FAQ, etc]." *shrug*

PS: I advise anyone reading to NOT eat housepaint.  

[AniMajor]

Collowrath

I get you - it really isn't a pertinent discussion most of the time it's discussed.

I avoid the Wicca discussions in M&R particularly because I don't have the first hand information (not to mention that it's like, a rule of the forum that once it's settled someone else is going to rush in, not read, and go off on them). The most that can be said by a lot of us is just that "This forum uses such and such definition of Wicca, here are our sources [Triumph of the Moon, infodumps, FAQ, etc]." *shrug*

PS: I advise anyone reading to NOT eat housepaint.

I think even a lot of the information falls on deaf ears because it's not easy information to process and it's not easy to accept when every easily accessible sources says something different.

Also, like you brought up that everyone's going to jump on the poster regardless of whether it's been settled, I'm not sure it's even worth it. Every mention of the word "Wicca" brings about pages and pages of infodumps and "what's your lineage?". I'd be put off if my whole thread got taken over by a group of people telling me that my use of a word was incorrect and that, essentially, every time I used it I punched a kitten.

It's not just M&R, though. I see it in the Supernatural forum, too, and our rules are totally different. "Proof" comes in the form of "If you don't believe me, then just leave."  

[Esiris]

What doesn't make sense to me is how people claim to know the third degree rituals without oathbreaking. The Wiccans I have spoken to have said that their rituals haven't been revealed or published- so how can someone know the 3* ritual and be able to compare it to Crowley's?

Wicca is it's mysteries- I think passing this on to my HPS would be interesting.

It's also worth noting that after cross initiation to protect oaths, there seem to have been at least 2- maybe even 3 groups in the New Forest area- one of which included Sybil Leek, so we know at the very least there were 2 covens that shared a lot of similar practices.  

[Collowrath]

AniMajor

I think even a lot of the information falls on deaf ears because it's not easy information to process and it's not easy to accept when every easily accessible sources says something different.

Also, like you brought up that everyone's going to jump on the poster regardless of whether it's been settled, I'm not sure it's even worth it. Every mention of the word "Wicca" brings about pages and pages of infodumps and "what's your lineage?". I'd be put off if my whole thread got taken over by a group of people telling me that my use of a word was incorrect and that, essentially, every time I used it I punched a kitten.

It's not just M&R, though. I see it in the Supernatural forum, too, and our rules are totally different. "Proof" comes in the form of "If you don't believe me, then just leave."

Yeah, I've seen a lot of that in Supernatural about a couple of subjects. It's put me off from trying to have serious discussion in the forum. >.< The best you can do really is to put what you know out there and hope for the best. If it's not worth it to you to put yourself in that position, then don't worry about it.

Esiris

What doesn't make sense to me is how people claim to know the third degree rituals without oathbreaking. The Wiccans I have spoken to have said that their rituals haven't been revealed or published- so how can someone know the 3* ritual and be able to compare it to Crowley's?

This occurred to me - but then the thought occurred that maybe the text is available but the text isn't really the core of the ritual; ie, it could exist in the open but that wouldn't really give anything away because it's meaningless sans context.

That "context" being, like you said, the Mysteries - the Wiccan part of it.  

[Esiris]

Collowrath

This occurred to me - but then the thought occurred that maybe the text is available but the text isn't really the core of the ritual; ie, it could exist in the open but that wouldn't really give anything away because it's meaningless sans context.

That "context" being, like you said, the Mysteries - the Wiccan part of it.

It's possible that some of Gardner's OTO notes are being mistaken for Wiccan rituals- especially since I don't see where they say they got the 3* materials.

Another option that I've heard was that Gardner paid Crowley for his writings. I think that appeared in Francis King's book on Ritual Magic in England. Given Crowley's age when he and Gardner were in contact- it wouldn't surprise me if he handed over things he had already written. I think Gardner even hinted that Crowley had a hand in it's creation in Witchcraft Today.

The other thing that comes to mind is an interview Doreen Valiente gave- well, a few of them really.

Quote:

FH: I think one of the reasons --- and I can't really speak for Aidan or the way he thinks --- is that you wrote what's really the major liturgy or the major piece of poetry for the Goddess in the Charge.

DV: Oh yes. I wrote that, Gerald had a version of the Charge which had a lot of Aleister Crowley's writing in it. And mind you, Aleister Crowley, in my opinion, was a marvelous poet and he has always been undervalued in English literature simply because of the notoriety which he made for himself and reveled in. He loved being called the wickedest man in the world and all that sort of nonsense. The thing is --- as his latest biographer, John Symonds, says --- he couldn't have it both ways. If he wanted to get himself that lurid reputation, which he worked very hard at for many years, then he wasn't, at the same time, going to get a good reputation in English literature, in spite of the fact that a couple of his poems are in The Oxford Book of English Mystical Verse. I think it's a pity that he's not had the recognition that he deserves, really, and perhaps later years will remedy that.

But Gerald had a version of the Charge, which I think was quoted in Stewart Farrar's book. And I told Gerald, "Look, so long as you've got all this stuff from Aleister Crowley in your liturgies, you're not going to get accepted as being anything connected with white magic, because his reputation is such" --- and unfortunately, most of it was quite well deserved --- "that people are just not going to accept this and take it seriously so long as they think you're an offshoot of Crowley's OTO." What he said, in effect, was, "If you think you can do any better, get on with it," and that's just what I tried to do. I did the best I could with what I had available, and no one has been more surprised than myself to see the influence that the Charge has had.

Fireheart  

[too2sweet]

AniMajor

I understand the need for accuracy and how Wiccans are duty-bound to prevent the spread of misinformation. I just feel like it's not very helpful to anyone to discuss, at length, why a person isn't Wiccan when their question was " I'm Wiccan and does anyone know if housepaint is edible?"

This is probably what drives me crazy the most - it's that perfectly legitimate discussion gets completely derailed because some poor unfortunate person made the mistake of saying the "W" word.

As someone who is looking for a coven to join, I feel it's important to pass on as much proper information as possible, but I also realize that there is a ton of misinformation out there, so it's really not their fault that they don't know any better.  

[AniMajor]

too2sweet

This is probably what drives me crazy the most - it's that perfectly legitimate discussion gets completely derailed because some poor unfortunate person made the mistake of saying the "W" word.

As someone who is looking for a coven to join, I feel it's important to pass on as much proper information as possible, but I also realize that there is a ton of misinformation out there, so it's really not their fault that they don't know any better.

There's also the issue that most of those people who claim to be Wiccan are probably teenagers going through a "Xtanity is ebil! Goddess 4eva!" phase, so that a couple years down the line, it's not even going to matter whether they have the correct information about Wicca. Then it becomes like the 10% use of brain fact: annoying, but not destructive.  

[Esiris]

Yanueh

Basically, Gerald Gardner copied and altered some of Aleister Crowley's material for Wicca - material that was absolutely, unequivocally not up for grabs and lied about where he'd gotten it. In other words, Wicca is born of misappropriation.

In light of this, why should I care if kids go around "misappropriating" the name "wicca?" It seems almost poetic.

Did you ever find an explanation for how they got a hold of oathbound material?
Or if they are even using stuff in use in Wicca and not mistaking Gardner's notes or even early copies of his books that aren't in use?