I have just installed a Tarot Card Module which you will find over on the left margin of the site screen. It features four different kinds of spreads.

The Tarot card designs are quite nice, being the work of  

http://nerrawsoft.com/hosting/

Recently a topic about Margaret Murrays work and the treatment of same in Ronald Huttons

research was being discussed on Dawn Jacksons "Traditional Witchcraft Yahoo List"

and the following is a rant that I posted as a response.

I'm converting it to a blog entry here and pointing it at

a Forum Posting for further discussion

I confess that I had never read Huttons books in full and have thus
far relied upon smaller articles and paraphrasing of his findings by
others.

Recently I encountered a rather strongly worded polemic with negative
connotations regarding Andrew Chumbley and the Cultus Sabbati which
cited Hutton as evidence for some of the the accusations. I was rather
taken back by that as I had not previously encountered anything
negative regarding that institution and it's most illustrious member.

This led me to purchase a copy of the most recent Edition of Huttons
"Triumph of the Moon" allowing me to look the citations up myself.
I found that the sections cited not only did not support the claims I
had read, IMNSHO they asserted quite the opposite.

At that point I decided I might as well read the whole book since I
had it in hand.

I'm only about five chapters into it, and I can see that Professor
Hutton is taking a massively comprehensive approach and leaving very
little off the table in setting up the modern historical conditions
which led us to the revival of interest in Witchcraft that some of us
old farts experienced during the second half of the twentieth century.

Undoubtedly this makes for tedious reading for those who may only be
interested in building a stage for their pet Neo-Neo Romantic notions
regarding survival of Pagan Theology and I can see how some might wind
up glossing over Huttons extensive treatment of the details involved
in the 19th century Greek Revival, Celtic Revival and other Neo
Romantic flotsam that entered the popular vernacular in the first half
of the twentieth century.

The sense I get is that Hutton does not heap particular scorn or blame
on Murray but rather includes her as just ONE of many who succumbed to
the "tone of the times" and like so many even today she simply sought
to prove what she already believed for all the best reasons.

I think one of the things that bugs me the most is our all too human
tendency to throw shit on others and then complain that they stink.

I get particularly annoyed that derision is often cast on some public
and semi public figures from the Neo Pagan Revival of the last
century for erroneously believing the Wiccan Hype and making specious
claims to cover up their adoption of such material in an attempt to
backfill what seemed to be gaps and holes in otherwise traditional
holdings. While at the same time those throwing the rocks claim
Cochranes overt efforts of "Truth bending" cleverly renamed "Grey
Magic" was perfectly acceptable.

I prefer to believe this was mostly done for "all the best reasons"
and I tend not to buy into the invective that they were just trying to
feather their own nest for personal gain. If Cochrane lied his ass off
to impress his audience and is lauded for doing so, then I don't see
why others should be tarred and feathered for doing the same thing.

I suspect that getting others to believe you is a core skill of the
cunning art and that the true masters of our art, like the master of
the illusory arts of legerdemain, never descend to the scurrilous act
of attempting to raise their own credibility at the expense of others.
(IE: Stage Magicians do not expose the secrets of how their
competition achieve their effects.)

From my own experience the era between the mid 1960's and our current
time has been riddled with a succession of "Witch Wars" and campaigns
of "Bad Mouthing" and I for one am just tired of it. When I see others
engage in it my first instinct is to back away and keep my distance
because I don't think it takes a huge store of Wisdom to know that
someone who "turns on" one associate will eventually get around to
working the same drill on others and that it should be no surprise
when the target winds up on your own back.

I'm fairly well read regarding the history of Witchcraft and it seems
to me that this tendency of modern Witches to savage each other over
differences in traditional belief has no analog in the past. If there
is I'm perfectly happy to be corrected on that score.


LUX ./. owen

So it seems that the Roman Catholic Church is  in an uproar over "The Golden Compass" a Movie adaption of "His Dark Materials" by religious skeptic Philip Pullman. They fear that it will indoctrinate their precious little babes into scorning the churches spiritual authority.  Call me a cynic, but I'm just not impressed by the Vaticans sincerity in opposing  the indoctrination of children into  religious dogma.  Considering the infamous Jesuit motto "Give me the child until he is seven, and I shall give you the man" and the theocratic blackmail that The Roman church exerts upon those who marry outside their faith I feel quite certain that the real beef is that they cannot stand anyone else elbowing in on what they see as "Their Territory".

Welcome to our world, Hollywood has been characterizing Witches and Witchcraft as everything that is evil in the western world since it's earliest era while largely giving the very real historical evils that were perpetrated in the name of Jesus a complete pass.  So they will just have to excuse me while I snicker softly to myself about their current consternation.

Please join me in discussion of this topic in our forum .

On my various travels around the Internet to other Witchcraft related sites and in a number of publications I run into jokes and statements of derison about "Fluffy Bunny Wiccans/Pagans".

It is quite a humerous term but I'm wondering what does it really mean?

A Site which advertises itself as "Wicca for the rest of us" presents one authors take of the subject of Fluffy Bunnies but frankly I find myself wondering about someone who describes Fluffies as " people who, most broadly categorized, give the rest of us a bad name, not by doing bad or objectionable things but instead being unserious, sophomoric, or just plain wrong" on one line and then "Those who refuse to learn, refuse to think and refuse to consider the possibility that they could possibly ever be wrong" three lines later.

Well - whatever - I really don't take serious issue with the article, it is quite fun and when it gets down to brass tacks sums it up as "Fluffy Bunnies are frequently attracted to Wicca for the sake of appearance".

I couldn't agree more.