Neo-Pagan Witchcraft vs. Satanism: Confusions and Distinctionsby Otter and Morning Glory Zell It seems to be necessary to preface every discussion of Witchcraft with an explanation that, no, Neo-Pagan Witches aren't Satanists. The Christian anti-God, Satan, has no place in Pagan pantheons, either mythologically or theologically. Plainly and simply, Satanism is the dark side of Christianity, and Satan is nothing other than the collective Id of Christendom. Even today, Witchcraft is frequently misrepresented by being confused with Satanism. Often the word Witchcraft is used to represent two wholly opposite phenomena: the survival of ancient Paganism in one instance, and the inversion of Christianity in another. Let us make it clear: a Satanist is a renegade Christian, who, in his rebellion against the authority of the church, worships Satan rather than Christ. Such people are at times called witches and warlocks in popular books and movies but they have little to do with Pagan Witches. Satanists, for one thing, accept the Christian duality between good and evil; Pagans do not. Satanists may choose to worship evil rather than good: but they have utterly bought the Christian world view".1 The word Pagan derives from the Latin paganus, meaning "peasant" or "country dweller". It is correctly applied to indigenous (native) pantheistic folk religions and peoples. The term "Neo-Paganism" is applied to the current revival of ancient Pagan religious values, including the sacredness of all Life and the worship of Nature. Modern Witchcraft has been a major component of the Neo-Pagan resurgence since England repealed its anti-Witchcraft laws in 1951.The Goddess and the God of Witchcraft The many traditions of Neo-Pagan Witchcraft have few universal theological precepts, but one of them is certainly the veneration of the Moon Goddess, known most commonly by her Roman name, Diana. She is perceived as manifesting in triple form: as Maiden, Mother and Crone. These triple aspects are identified respectively with the waxing, full, and waning moons. Witches gather at esbats every full moon, to sing and dance in Her moonlight, share cakes and wine, and work magic to heal each other, their friends, and the Earth. Many modern Witches expand the concept of the Goddess considerably, and see Her also as Mother Earth and Mother Nature. Most traditions of Neo-Pagan Witchcraft also honor the Consort of the Goddess in the form of the Horned God, who is seen as Lord of Animals as well as seasonal ruler of the Underworld. The most familiar version of the Horned God is the Greek Pan, goathorned and goat-hooved, playing His panpipes, guzzling wine from His freely-flowing wineskin, and seducing nymphs in the woods. He is regarded as lusty and jovial, epitomizing masculine attributes of ideal father, brother or lover. As the Goddess of Witchcraft is closely identified with the Moon, so the God is identified with the Sun. In this way He may be seen mythologically as the lover both of the Moon and of the Earth. Another of His many epithets is "Lord of Light". Every light casts its shadows, and the

Lord of Shadows is the other face of the Lord of Light. Lord of the Underworld is the title of the God in Winter when He goes underground with the animals to hibernate. Some traditions had Him alternate with His brother as husband to the eternal Goddess. Others, as in the Greek Hades, had a year-round God of the Underworld, "The Devil." It is essential to clarify the historic relationship of Pan and the Devil, as Christianity has tended to confuse the two, giving rise to the accusation that Pagans are Devil-worshipers because some Pagan gods have horns. Once and for all, the Christian Devil is not the God of the Witches! The genesis of the Devil comes from a merging of two concepts: Satan and Lucifer. The original meaning of the word satan is "adversary", and his inclusion in the Bible represents an attempt by later apologists of the Old Testament to justify the more negative actions of a benevolent God (such as the persecution of Job) by attributing the actual dirty work to a testing spirit; the original "devil's advocate". This entity was not considered evil until after the Persian conquest introduced the Hebrews to the Zoroastrian dualism of Ahura-Mazda (the good God) vs. Ahriman (the evil God). This later manifested in Christianity as Manichean dualism. The Manichean equation was brutally simple: God=Good; Devil=Evil. But it was not until the year 447 CE that the Council of Toledo declared the legal existence of the Devil as an actual entity, though he was still not thought of as necessarily manifesting in human form. The Lucifer story is a mish-mashed retelling of the Canaanite myth about the overthrow of Baal by Mot and the usurpation of Baal's throne by Athar, the god of the morning star. The original Hebrew name for Lucifer was helel ben shahar meaning "son of the day star" (the planet Venus). The name Lucifer ("light bearer"), a RomanoEtruscan title of the Sun God, was erroneously used when the Bible was first translated into Latin.2 Various shadow gods or divine adversaries contributed to the creation of the Devil, including the Canaanite Moloch or Mot, the Egyptian Set or Suteck and the Roman Saturn. Judeo-Christian theologians placed all Pagan gods and goddesses in an adversary position to Yahweh, the god of Israel, who, as a monotheistic deity, cannot share a pantheon. This is a profound cultural difference from Pagan pantheons and polytheistic peoples who co-existed together, whether or not in harmony. Also since unbridled sexuality, especially for females, was defined by Judeo-Christianity as evil, Pagan gods and goddesses who were especially sexual or sensual garnered the new sect's particular hatred. Pan (who instills panic) and Dionysus were neither evil nor adversary deities, but because of their riotous celebrations the Devil acquired Pan's horns and hooves and Dionysus' ambiguously mad and bibulous nature. This final equation of the Pagan Horned God with Satan was not established, however, until the year 1486, when the Dominicans Kramer and Sprenger published the Malleus Malificarum, or "Hammer of the Witches", wherein they gave the first physical description of the Devil as he is commonly depicted today, declaring that this was the god worshiped by those they wanted to call "witches", thereby justifying the centuries of terrible persecution inflicted

upon those who clung faithfully to their worship of the elder gods. and Shamanism Witches were the shamans, or medicine men and women, of the tribal Celtic peoples of Europe, and they functioned in the same fashion as shamans of any other tribal culture, be it American Indians, Africans, or Australian Aborigines. In fact, and in time-honored tradition, shamans are still commonly referred to as "Witch Doctors". Shamans are specialists in herbal lore, and the Witches of Pagan Europe were no exception. Usually, but not exclusively, women, they practiced herbal medicine, midwifery, augury, spellcasting, and counseling. Often dwelling alone out in the woods, Witches lived close to Nature, and attuned to Her cycles. Their gardens grew not only food, but also many kinds of herbs, including those valued for their medicinal, anesthetic and hallucinogenic properties. In a period of time when good Christian folk maintained only those domestic animals that could be considered "livestock" (i.e., useful to humans), Witches frequently kept wild animal pets: foxes, ferrets, owls, ravens and of course, the ubiquitous cats. Such became known, appropriately enough, as familiars. When Witches came to be persecuted, so did these familiar animals, and the brutal capture, torture and burning of millions of cats that accompanied the Witch burnings begat the horrible Black Plague that devastated Europe in the 14th century, for the cats had kept the rat populations under control, and it was rat fleas that were the carrier of the bubonic plague bacillus."The Burning Times" It is sadly ironic that, though the practitioners of Witchcraft have historically suffered real abuse and persecution, the Witch has somehow continued to be misrepresented as the villain. Christianity did not become the world's dominant religion by peaceful conversion, but by the sword and stake. As the legions of Caesar had forged the Roman Empire over the dead bodies of countless tribal peoples of Europe, so did its heir, the Holy Roman Empire, continue the tradition. Declaring them "heresies", agents of the Holy Inquisition hunted out and ruth-lessly exterminated every religion, sect or tradition that would not convert to "The One True Right And Only Way". Witches, however, lived outside of any organized religious structure and were largely ignored until the 13th century, when the Church had finally gained enough power to deal with grassroots Paganism. "In the 13th century the Church opened its long-drawn-out conflict with Paganism in Europe by declaring "Witchcraft' to be a "sect' and heretical. It was not til the 14th century that the two religions came to grips. . . In 1324 the bishop of Ossory tried Dame Alice Kyteler in his ecclesiastical court for the crime of worshiping a deity other than the Christian God... "The 15th century marks the first great victories of the Church. Beginning with the trials in Lorraine in 1408, the Church moved triumphantly against Joan of Arc and her followers in 1431, against Gilles de Rais and his coven in 1440, and against the Witches of Brescia in 1457. Towards the end of the century the Christian power was so wellestablished that the Church felt the time had come for an organized attack, and in 1484 Pope Innocent VIII published his Bull against "Witches.' All through the 16th and 17th centuries the battle raged. The Pagans fought a gallant, though losing, fight against a remorseless and unscrupulous enemy; every inch of the field was disputed, but the Christian policy of obtaining influence over the rulers and law-givers was irresistible.

Vae victis ["woe to the conquered"] was also the policy of the Christians, and we see the priests of the Papacy gloating over the thousands they had consigned to the flames while the ministers of the Reformed Churches hounded on the administrators of the law to condemn the "devil worshipers.' What could have been the feelings with which those unhappy victims regarded the vaunted God of Love, the Prince of Peace, whose votaries condemned them to torture and death? What wonder that they clung to their old faith, and died in agony unspeakable rather than deny their God".3 It should also be pointed out that the court recorders at the Witch trials were specifically instructed that, whatever gods or goddesses the accused actually claimed to worship, what went into the record was "Satan" or "The Devil". And what wonder if some of those who had come to believe the Biblical history taught them by the missionaries, monks and priests of the conquering faith, concluded that the story must have gotten it wrong somehow? That if there had indeed been a rebellion in heaven, it was clearly evident that the winner had not been the God of love and peace, as his propagandists claimed, but rather a God of cruelty and evil; of war and violence, wrath and jealousy. (This had, in fact, been an old Gnostic tradition.) The clear implication was that the defeated Lucifer must have been the good guy, and surely many must have swarmed to his allegiance in this belief. While true adherents of the Old Religions certainly knew better, and continued their faith entirely distinct from Christianity, there were surely, then as now, many ignorant people who were simply too unsophisticated or too illiterate to question the Christian paradigm once it became established. And thus did Satanism as a belief and a practice come into being, spawned by the Church, and forever to be locked together with it in a fatal embrace of mutual antagonism. Whether or not the persecuted peasantry who came to side with Satan against their oppressors thought of themselves as "Witches", the Church and the authorities of the Holy Inquisition certainly identified them as such: "The heart and centre of the persecution of Witches was that they were Satanists, that they had rejected the rightful God and given their allegiance to his arch-opponent, and that in their ''sabbaths'' or meetings they worshiped the ruler of evil, carnality and filth. Some of those accused as Witches do seem to have taken the Devil for their god, worshiping him as an equal opponent of the Christian God, over whom he would eventually triumph. They looked to Satan for power and pleasure in this world and for a happy future in the next, and they vilified Christ as a traitor and a cheat, who had made promises which he did not keep, and who had gone away to live in heaven while Satan remained with his faithful on earth".4 "The Witches and sorcerers of early times were a widely spread class who had retained the beliefs and traditions of heathenism with all its license and romance and charm of the forbidden... in their ranks every one who was oppressed or injured either by the nobility or the church. They were treated with indescribable cruelty, in most cases worse than beasts of burden, for they were outraged in all their feelings, not at intervals for punishment, but habitually by custom, and they revenged themselves by secret orgies and fancied devil-worship, and occult ties, and stupendous sins, or what they fancied were such. I can seriously conceive: what no writer seems to have considered: that there must have been an immense satisfaction in selling or giving one's self to the devil, or to

any power which was at war with their oppressors. So they went by night, at the full moon, and sacrificed to Diana, or ''later on'' to Satan, and they danced and rebelled. It is very well worth noting that we have all our accounts of sorcerers and heretics from Catholic priests, who had every earthly reason for misrepresenting them, and did so. In the vast amount of ancient Witchcraft still surviving in Italy, there is not much antiChristianity, but a great deal of early heathenism. Diana, not Satan, is still the real head of the Witches".5 Since Witchcraft is still little understood by the general public, whose images are shaped mostly by the popular media, Witches continue to be easy targets for persecution. It must be remembered that, in the previous episodes of Witchcraft persecution hysteria, it was the Witches who were the victims, not the Christians. Witches, and those conveniently accused of being Witches, died by the millions during the terrible centuries of the holocaust they remember as "The Burning Times". They do not wish to repeat that experience today.6 Notes and References: 1. Jong, Erica, Witches (New American Library, New York,1981) p. 52 2. Zell, Morning Glory, "The Lord of Light", Green Egg, Vol. XXI, No. 82; Aug. 1, 1988 (POB 1542, Ukiah, CA 95482) p. 12 3. Murray, Margaret, The God of the Witches (Oxford Univ. Press, NY, 1931) pp. 21-22 4. Cavendish, Richard, "Satanism", Encyclopedia of Man, Myth and Magic, Vol. 18 (Marshall Cavendish, NY, 1970) p. 2479 5. Leland, Charles Godfrey, Legends of Florence, (David Nutt, London, 1896) 6. Guiley, Rosemary, Encyclopedia of Witches and Witchcraft (Facts on File, NY, 1989)

Against The Witch HuntersRobin Culain "All this has happened before. And all this will happen again. But this time it happened to ..." Well, us. The beginning of Sir James Barrie's Peter Pan must echo what many of us are feeling, as we watch a new and loosely-knit conglomerate of yellow journalists, rightwing eco-spoilers and Evangelical and Fundamental Christians move slowly towards a Witch hunt for the 90's. Our spiritual ancestors faced similar problems in many times and many lands. Recall the Priestesses of Eleusis, last of an ancient line, in decline, falling at last to the stratagems of Theseus and his new Attic Gods. Recall the Etruscans, their vision of sexual-political balance overpowered by the might and organization of the husband-headed Roman empire. And most tender to the touch, recall the agony of the

middle ages, as the Catholic, then Protestant churches consolidated their grip on the rural population, killing six million alleged or actual Witches in the process. The hunt is in a beginning stage and beginnings are important. The formal focus of the television specials, Redbook articles, diatribes in the LaRouchite New Federalist, "Occult Crime" seminars and newspaper articles is some thing called "Satanism", which bears little or no relationship to Wicca and Neo-Paganism. In fact, media "Satanism" bears little resemblance to any historically verifiable Satanism. It is neither classical Egyptian Set-worship", Romantic Ceremonial Satanism a la Huysmanns nor modern Egoist flamboyance per La Vey. Sometimes it's heavy metal sullenness, drugs and violence, but that's usually only for starters. The heavy metal boys, we're usually told, are just dupes of the Great Conspiracy. And when you get down to the real stuff, the genuine complaint, it's generally the stuff of horror movies and nightmare - baby-eating, virgin-sacrificing bloodsucking monsters! All this has happened before. And all this will happen again. There's a limited range of things that can be used to stir up the anger of a populace against a group, or deaden moral sensitivity to a persecution. It pretty much boils down to baby-eating, virgin-sacrificing and bloodsucking. This has been the century of Hitler's Holocaust. but the Russians who butchered entire Jewish villages in the Pogroms, the inhabitants of York who slaughtered nearly every Jew in the city in the 1100's didn't merely think the Yiddim dressed and talked funny. The accusations were the same. By Jesus, those Jews ate babies! They were just like Satanists, with one exception. You could find the Jews. There probably aren't any "Satanists" as portrayedin the articles, seminars and diatribes. If there are, they're certainly not Neo-Pagans or Wiccans. But in the lucrative atmosphere in which the press, missionaries and so-called "Crime Advisers" publicize and proselytize, the word "Witch" creeps in every third sentence. Naturally, we Witches and Neo-Pagans have spent a certain amount of effort pointing out that we love children like anybody else, have no particular attraction to virginity, and tend, in the most extreme of our diets, to vegetarianism. In short, we have tried to educate our detractors and the media to our harmlessness. This tactic is true, and this tactic is good, but I think that if it becomes our primary response to persecution we will ultimately fail to endure. Imagine a Witch in the Middle Ages in front of a Catholic or Protestant tribunal. In some cases she has been denounced by a business competitor, or an envious rival in love, or a spiteful neighbor. In other cases she has been brought to the dock by an

expert in "Occult Crime" - the traveling Witch Finder. She stands bound before her Inquisitors, plain or pompous depending on their religious persuasion. Perhaps there's a crowd around. She tries to educate them to the simple fact that she's a worshipper of the Old Gods, loves children like anybody else, has no particular attraction to virginity, and tends, in the most extreme of her diets, to vegetarianism. They, in turn, accuse her of worshipping a living fiend, blighting the cattle, and eating babies. She doesn't stand a chance. Now picture another scene, one that has not occurred often. She stands before those assembled, and begins, shall I say, to point out some facts. She points out the medieval physician with the two per cent live delivery rate who wants the local midwifery practice shut down. She points out the priest and bishop who are terrifying the once fun-loving populace into penury and pestilence with the twin threats of damnation and the noose. She denounces the Christian nobles who will brook no interference with their rule, least of all from the old Nobility of the land. She'd be shut up in short order, but in a different way, for she would be addressing the real issues. The nonsense about babies, Black Men and cattle was then, and is now nothing more than a smoke screen to mask real and significant religious and political differences. It's all a cheap trick, a coward's cheat, a way of throwing muck until some sticks. It is only used when the real terms of debate cannot stand the light of day, and it works only if we permit it! Our situation is in no way as dire as that of our ancestors. Only now have things moved to the stage where one group, the far-right and sometimes farcical Limonites, actively bait Wiccans and Neo-Pagans as being "as bad as Satanists". And unlike our ancestors, we have a freedom of speech they could only dream of. We will not be silenced if we speak, certainly not at this time. So let's not waste our opportunity! Whenever the "Witch-Hunters" bait us or attempt to smear us with their cannibal taunts, let's find out what the real agenda is, and address it. Make the Lyndonite defend himself against whipping up the population against a minority religion as Hitler stirred hatred against the Jews. Make the entire La Rouche crew explain their suicidal environmental policies, and their editorial statement that "the worship of Mother Earth does indirectly lead to mass murder ..." Engage them on the real issues -- just what the worship of the Mother really means, and what people are really like that scapegoat innocents and despise nature! Likewise with the "Occult Crimewatch". Ask them about theirsources of revenue. About their religious agendas and connection with Evangelical missions. Ask the if they support religious freedom, and if non-Evangelical religious belief, in their opinion,

is a hazard to the public. Ask them, if you can corner them into a frank reply, what on earth they are doing lecturing hate to police officers sworn to protect all the public, Christian and Pagan! The media deserve the same. Let's not spend more than a breath denying lurid charges. Instead, ask them why they are sensationalizing and smearing a legitimate religion to make sales. Inquire as to whether the German press in the 30's had a responsibility for the slanders on the Jews that they printed. Ask them how they'll feel if harm comes to one Pagan woman or man, girl or boy through their negligence, indifference to non sensational fact and search for sales. In every case we have an opportunity to turn the tide, by coming right out with our real differences in front of the public, and insisting that the terms of debate be on genuine issues. We must refuse to be backed into a defensive posture, denying ever wilder charges. Instead let us bring our active advocacy and love of our Gods, of Mother Earth, of our families and children and ourselves to the fore in every debate. We must require our opponents to bare their genuine beliefs and motives, and contrast them clearly with our own in full view. We must sharpen the terms of debate so keenly that no person can leave the scene without having to make a clear and conscious choice about what they value and believe is right. There's no point in lecturing to the Cardinal. The audience for every debate is not the Witch Hunter, it is the neutral observer. Let them see the love of the Earth, and contrast it to nearsighted greed and poverty of emotion. Let them see the love of the Old Gods and contrast it to a cringing fear of the Father's judgment. Let them see generosity and intelligence and refusal to be sacrificed, and contrast them to venality, cunning and scape goating. In every debate, let us rise to the height of our capability, and let our opponents have it in the Values - right where it hurts!

Intro to Satanismby Diane Vera As promised in the PAGAN RELIGIOUS STUDIES echo, here's my brief introductory essay on Satanism (though Corwynt won't be seeing it, alas). I'll confine myself to discussing ''serious occultists'' who identify as Satanists. I have no interest in the teen-age glue-sniffing "Satin rulz" crowd, who are into "Satanism" as a way to shock the grown-ups, and who usually (as far as I know) outgrow it. Nor am I interested in criminals who say the Devil made them do it (often, I suspect, as a way to get themselves declared insane). Since I don't know how much you don't know, perhaps I should start with the usual elementary disclaimers:

(a) Most Satanists do not think of themselves as "worshipping evil". Satan is associated with a variety of human traits and magic(k)al energies which Christianity traditionally considers "evil", but which the Satanists themselves do not consider "evil" though some Satanists may describe themselves as "evil" in an ironic sense. (b) In what there is of a Satanist subculture (for serious occultists), nobody advocates sacrificing animals or babies, sexually abusing children, or other horrific activities described in fundamentalist propaganda. As Anton LaVey explains in ''The Satanic Bible'', such activities serve no useful magic(k)al purpose. (c) Although Satan is, obviously, a figure from Christian mythology (derived from Judaism and Zoroastrianism), Satanism is not just "reverse Christianity". I have yet to meet even one Satanist who believed in Christian theology, or a simple reversal thereof. (I've heard that such Satanists do exist, but they don't seem to be part of the organized Satanist scene.) All Satanists I've ever encountered have some alternative explanation of who/what Satan is. There are many alternative explanations and, correspondingly, many different kinds of Satanism. Following is a list of ''some'' of the many different possible interpretations of who/what Satan is: (1) Satan is the Christian-era guise of some pre-Christian deity, e.g. Set or Pan. (2) Satan is not a real entity at all, but just a symbol of human individuality, pride, thinking for oneself, sensuality, etc. (3) Satan is an actual discarnate intelligence, and is the bringer of wisdom in a form of Gnosticism with the Christian "God" cast as the Demiurge. This idea is based on a form of Gnosticism that actually existed in the early centuries C.E., which venerated the serpent of the Garden of Eden myth. (4) Satan is not an actual discarnate, sentient being, but is more than just a symbol. Satan is, at the very least, today's most powerful magic(k)al egregore. "Satan" is present-day society's number-one magic(k)al Name of Power. (5) Satan is an impersonal "Dark Force in Nature". (6) Satan is one of many gods, all of whom are in some sense real. There is no one all-powerful "God" like the Christian idea of "God". There are many gods who are powerful, but not all-powerful. Of the above possiblities, my own personal beliefs lean toward a combination of interpretations #4, #5, and #6. The Church of Satan, founded in 1966 C.E. by Anton LaVey, usually espouses interpretation #2 and sometimes #5. The Temple of Set is into something like (but not quite) a combination of #1 and #3.

La> If you haven't been around other satanists, how do you know what is being practiced, is what you would do? I could call myself a Dianic Wiccan, but what I might practice is not what is generally practiced... and there is no way for me to really learn "right way" from "wrong way". It doesn't matter. Satanism isn't really just one religion, but a category of religions, some of which are radically different from each other. (See my message to Deborah Kest on "Satanism 101".) Since most forms of Satanism do celebrate individuality, the lack of standardization is just fine, in my opinion. The only "right way" or "wrong way" has to do with ''what works'', and this will vary from one individual to another. . La> The reason you are being "punished" I think ostracized is a better word, is that most Satanists, and people who follow left-handed Magick/spirituality (folks I know it is not a fair term, but it works for this arguement) are considered by many of us the true enemies of Spiritualism that we would practice. The term "Left-Hand Path" is OK. We use it too. You and I would probably define it very differently, however. What's your definition? La>Even more than Christaniaty folks who follow your system of are very differnt than we. Pagan and Christanity, have very similar ideas and ethics, and while not at all tolerant of each other (generally) can live and let live. La>Satanists et.all on the other hand, have such a different view of life, love and the pursuit of the Divine, it is hard for us to accept you into our midsts. Could you please be more specific? What do you see as the similarities between neo-Paganism and Christianity? I too see some profound differences between Satanism and neo-Paganism. And I too see enough similarities between neo-Paganism and Christianity that one can meaningfully use a term like "Right-Hand Path", which includes both Christianity and neo-Paganism but not Satanism. But I also see some profound similarities between Satanism and neo-Paganism (especially Wicca) as well, which set them both apart from Christianity. For example, Satanism and Wicca-based Paganism are both much more tolerant toward sexual variety than Christianity traditionally is. (To be more exact, Wicca is now tolerant toward sexual variety, though there was a time when it was quite homophobic.) And in general, Satanism and Wicca-based Paganism both emphasize individuality in ways that Christianity doesn't. Also, as I've discussed at length both here and in the PAGAN and PAGAN RELIGIOUS STUDIES echoes, Satanism and most forms of neo-Paganism (especially Wicca) are both part of the family of modern Western magic(k)al religions, with many common roots and many basic magic(k)al concepts in common. We have natural reasons

to be part of the same magic(k)al community (e.g. occult bookstores and this computer network). It would be much more pleasant for everyone concerned if neo-Pagans could get used to Satanists, because you are going to keep running into more and more of us whether you like it or not.

Modern Wiccan Concepts based in Literary Satanismby Diane Vera As I pointed out to Warren Grant in the PAGAN echo recently, Charles G. Leland mentions Michelet in the Appendix to Aradia: Gospel of the Witches: "Now be it observed, that every leading point which forms the plot or centre of this Vangel [...] had been told or written out for me in fragments by Maddalena (not to mention other authorities), even as it had been chronicled by Horst or Michelet." (pp.101-102, 1974 Weiser paperback edition) In A History of Witchcraft, Jeffrey B. Russell writes: "Michelet's argument that witchcraft was a form of social protest was adapted later by Marxists; his argument that it was based on a fertility cult was adopted by anthropologists at the turn of the century, influenig Sir James Frazer's Golden Bough, Jessie Weston's From Ritual to Romance, Magaret Murray's Witch-Cult in Western Europe, and indirectly T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land." (A History of Witchcraft, p.133) Russell states further: "Neopagan witchcraft has roots in the tradition of Michelet, who argued that European witchcraft was the survival of an ancient religion. This idea influenced Sir James Frazer and a number of other anthropologists and writers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The publication of Charles Leland's Aradia in 1899 was an important step in the evolution of the new religion of witchcraft. [...] The doctrines and practices of the witches as reported by Leland are a melange of sorcery, medieval heresy, witch-craze concepts, and political radicalism, and Leland reports ingenuously that this is just what he expected, since it fitted with what he had read in Michelet" (Russell, p.148). As far as I know, it's possible that Michelet's influence on Gardner was only indirect, via the other above-named writers. This would not invalidate my point, which is that Michelet played a key role in the development of the ideas in question. Michelet has had a more direct influence on feminist Goddess religion than on Wicca proper. Michelet's La Sorciere (Satanism and Witchcraft) is listed in the bibliography of Woman, Church, and State by Matilda Gage (19th-century Women's Suffrage leader and the founder of pre-Wiccan feminist Goddess religion) and, more recently, in Witches, Midwives, and Nurses: A History of Women Healers by Barbara Ehrenreich and Dierdre English (1973). In my opinion, Michelet's most important contribution to both Wicca and feminist Goddess religion was that, as far as I know, he was the first well-known writer (in recent centuries, anyway) to use the word "Witch" (capital W) with its present-day positive

connotations of healing and opposition to tyranny.

Satanism vs. Wiccaby Diane Vera Since your main worry seems to be public relations, here's how I would make the distinction between Wicca and Satanism, in a way that is fair to both sides and does not throw Satanists to the dogs: Wicca and Satanism are quite distinct. Wiccans worship pre-Christian deities (or a modern-day composite of pre-Christian deities) and do not worship the Christian antiGod. Some Satanists also worship a pre-Christian deity, but regard the Christian anti-God as a manifestation of their deity, which Wiccans do not. Wicca and Satanism are very different in their aims and tone. Wicca emphasizes harmony and balance, whereas Satanism emphasizes spiritual self-liberation via iconoclasm and catharsis. I should mention, though, there's one possible problem with that last sentence. Some feminist Wiccans might take offense at it, since it implies the more radical forms of feminist Wicca are really more like Satanism than like Wicca. Which in my opinion they are. If you've read some of Mary Daly's books, you'll know what I mean. I myself identify as a feminist Goddess-oriented neo-Pagan, as well as a Satanist. Indeed, feminist Goddess religion is still my primary religious identification. (Satanism is how Irelate to "male" energy.) I don't and never did call myself a feminist "Wiccan". By the way, while I accept today's use of the word Wicca (with a capital W) to refer to aspecific European-based religion with a very specific worldview, I do not accept thea ttempt by Wiccans to copyright the words "witch" and "witchcraft". Thesewords are generic terms, not the property of any one religion. They refer to occult practices found in many religions around the world. A Satanist has as much right to the word "witch" as anyone else. (It so happens that I don't call myself a"witch", but for a different reason: I think many "witches" are making exaggerated claims to occult power, and I don't want to give the appearance of making such an exaggerated claim.)

Satanism and the History of Wiccaby Diane Vera Copyright 1992, 1994, 1996 by Diane Vera. All rights reserved. In their attempts to dissociate themselves from Satanism, Wiccans have tended to distort their own history. Wicca and Satanism are indeed very distinct religious categories. But there are some intimate historical ties between the two, as even some

Wiccan scholars are finally starting to admit. See, for example, Aidan Kelly's book Crafting the Art of Magic (pp.21-22, 25-26, and 176). Wicca is not "the Old Religion", though it does draw inspiration from various old religions. Wicca as we now know it is derived from 19th-century occult philosophy -including literary Satanic philosophy, among others -- projected onto a non-Christian Goddess and God, plus some de-Christianized Golden Dawn style ceremonial magick, plus assorted turn-of-the-century British folklore, more recently re-shaped by neo-Pagan scholarship and by modern feminist and ecological concerns. At least several different sides of Wicca's convoluted family tree can be traced to 19th-century literary Satanism, some forms of which had more in common with present-day Wicca than with present-day Satanism. The prime example of literary Satanism that strongly influenced Wicca, especially feminist Wicca, is the book La Sorciere by the 19th-century French historian Jules Michelet (published in English by Citadel Press under the title Satanism and Witchcraft). Michelet's ideas, as paraphrased by feminist writers such as Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English in their booklet Witches, Midwives, and Nurses: A History of Women Healers (Feminist Press, 1973), have played an important role today's women's health movement. (At least Ehrenreich and English were honest enough to list Michelet in their bibliography.) See especially Michelet's introduction. Michelet was, as far as I know, the literary origin of today's feminist image of the Witch as a healer. Among other things, he theorized that the witchhunts were used by the emerging male medical profession to wipe out their peasant female competition. According to Jeffrey B. Russell in A History of Witchcraft, pre-feminist classical Wicca also drew lots of inspiration indirectly from Michelet. Michelet was a major source of inspiration to Margaret Murray, Charles G. Leland, and Sir James Frazer, whom most knowledgeable Wiccans do recognize as influential. (Russell points this out, yet neglects to inform the reader that Michelet's book is full of passionate, sympathetic depictions of Satan as well as of the medieval witches. Russell too perpetuates the false counter-myth that Wicca Has Nothing To Do With Satanism.) I'll leave it to folks more scholarly than myself to debate just how indebted Murray and Leland were to Michelet. In any case, the Italian witch mythology Leland presented in Aradia: Gospel of the Witches (originally published 1899), one of Wicca's major sources, contains some diabolical-witchcraft elements of its own. The very first paragraph reads: ''Diana greatly loved her brother Lucifer, the god of the Sun and of the Moon, the god of Light, who was so proud of his beauty, and who for his pride was driven from Paradise.'' Wiccans usually argue that "Lucifer" is not the Christian Devil but is just "the god of the Sun and of the Moon". (I too distinguish between Satan and Lucifer, as do many occultists.) Yet the statement that Lucifer was "driven from Paradise" for his "pride" is clearly a reference to Christianity's Devil myth. Aradia contains a mix of mythologies. Wiccans are correct to say that their Horned God is not Satan. But it isn't historically true that the Christian image of Satan is a re-interpretation of the Wiccan

God. On the contrary, the modern Wiccan concept of the Horned God has its literary origin in a Paganized re-interpretation of medieval Christian Devil imagery (as in Margaret Murray's and earlier writings). It's true that medieval Christian Devil imagery, in turn, incorporates distorted versions of many ancient Gods (not all of whom were Horned, e.g. the trident comes from Poseidon/Neptune). But the Wiccan image of its Horned God is not a direct continuation of any ancient religion, and at least one key aspect does come from no source other than the medieval Christian Devil concept as manifest in the witchhunts. The idea of a Horned God associated specifically with witchcraft is derived from the Christian witchhunts, and from no previous source. In preChristian European religion, there were Goddesses associated with witchcraft, e.g. Hecate; but Pan and other horned male Gods were not associated with witchcraft, as far as I know. Much of Wicca's self-image is based on the Paganized re-interpretation of alleged Devil-worship, rather than on actual ancient religion. Much of Wicca's terminology and imagery, e.g. the words "witch", "coven", and "sabbat", are used because of the Wiccan myth that Wicca is the survival of an underground medieval religion that was the target of the witchhunts. (Regardless of the linguistic origin of the words themselves, this constellation of terms comes from the witchhunts.) The related idea that modern Wiccans too are in continual danger of being confused with Satanists is at least partly a self-fulfilling prophecy. Far fewer people would confuse modern Wicca with Satanism if Wicca didn't use so many witchhunt-derived words and other trappings popularly associated with diabolical witchcraft. My point here is not that Wiccans shouldn't use the words "witch", "coven", and "sabbat". My point is that if they do use these and other diabolical-witchcraft trappings, they should accept responsibility for the consequences. For example, when explaining that Wicca Is Not Satanism, they should acknowledge the main real reason for the confusion: that modern Wiccans have chosen to identify with the victims of European witchhunts and have chosen their terminology accordingly. Wiccans certainly should not blame Satanists for Wicca's own public-relations difficulties, as some Wiccans do. It also bothers me when Wiccans, in an attempt to distance themselves from Satanism, perpetuate popular misconceptions about Satanism, e.g. saying "We're not Satanists!" in a tone which implies you think Satanists are monsters, or saying "We're not Satanists!" in the same breath as saying "We don't sacrifice babies." (The latter point can be made separately and is an obvious corollary of the Wiccan Rede and/or the Threefold Law.) Back to Wicca's history. Besides Murray, Leland, and other writers on witchcraft, another of Wicca's main sources is Aleister Crowley. Many knowledgeable Wiccans (e.g. the Farrars and Doreen Valiente) do realize that Gardner's rituals were heavily based on Crowley's rituals, though they tend to overstate the "Crowley was not a Satanist" disclaimer. Crowley was not a Satanist per se, but he definitely was into Satanic symbolism, in addition to the zillion other things he was into. In some defensive neo-Pagan writings (e.g. the Church of All Worlds booklet "Witchcraft, Satanism, and Occult Crime: Who's Who and What's What"), it is claimed that Crowley was neither a Satanist nor a Pagan but was just into Judaeo-Christian ceremonial magick. In fact, Crowley was very eclectic. Even Golden Dawn ceremonial magick included not only Qabalah and the medieval Christian grimoires, but also Egyptian deities, Greek deities, and Yoga. Crowley

emphasized the Egyptian elements, downplayed the Christian elements, and added plenty of other things to the mix, including Satanic imagery galore (such as his invocation of Satan in Liber Samekh, not to mention his constant references to himself as "the Beast 666"). Some will insist that Crowley's Satanic symbolism was merely a joke; but Crowley's attitudes were well within the 19th-century Satanic literary tradition. (In most of the more sophisticated forms of Satanism, the name "Satan" is understood in an ironic sense.) Others will explain that most of Crowley's Satanic symbolism can be reinterpreted in Pagan terms, but this too is true of many forms of Satanism. There's also a possibility that Wicca borrowed ideas from writings about actual Satanists living in the late-19th or early-20th century. In Crafting the Art of Magic, Aidan Kelly says Gerald Gardner drew key concepts from the description of Ozark folk witchcraft, including folk Satanism, in the 1947 book Ozark Superstition by Vance Randolph. I'll admit that Kelly's conclusions have been challenged by other historicallyknowledgeable Wiccans. Of course, if Gardner was influenced by Randolph's account, Gardner would probably have assumed that the Satanic folk witches were "really" Pagans whom Randolph misrepresented as Satanists. But Gardner's assumption wouldn't necessarily have been correct. An unlettered folk-witch would be far more likely to be either (1) a Satanist or (2) a devout though unorthodox Christian than to have preserved an ancient Pagan religion intact. Various Pagan customs have certainly survived, but this is very different from the intact survival of a Pagan religion, for which there is very little evidence. (For a critique of alleged evidence for Pagan survival, see A Razor for a Goat by Elliot Rose. Regarding a possible medieval witch-cult very different from what Murray hypothesized, see The Night Battles by Carlo Ginzburg. Regarding contemporary hereditary witches, many of whom are Christian, see Bluenose Magic by Helen Creighton. For an example of a decidedly non-Pagan grimoire that is very popular among European folk witches today, see The Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses, available in some botanicas.) Some forms of Wicca may have been influenced by Satanists more directly than via Murray, Leland, Crowley, Ehrenreich/English, and possibly Randolph. Two possible examples: 1. Historically-knowledgeable Wiccans have debated what role, if any, was played in the development of modern Wiccan by a 19th-century English farm laborer named George Pickingill who was reputed to be a witch. Aidan Kelly, who does not believe Pickingill contributed anything to Wicca, describes Pickingill as "a garden-variety folk-magic witch and a home-grown Satanist." The assertion that Pickingill did play a major role was originally made by "Lugh" in a newsletter called The Wiccan in 1974. "Lugh", who claimed to be a hereditary witch, described Pickingill as "the world's greatest living authority on Witchcraft, Satanism, and Black Magic" (quoted by Doreen Valiente in Rebirth of Witchcraft). 2. Starhawk was initiated by Victor Anderson, who once belonged to a coven whose form of witchcraft included a form of "literature-based Satanism" (or at least a religion closely akin to "literature-based Satanism"); or so says Kelly, based on research by Valerie Voigt. [Postscript, November 2002: Kelly's statements are quite

likely not accurate. See update.] Whether or not Kelly is correct about Victor Anderson, and whether or not Pickingill had anything to do with Wicca, it shouldn't be considered unlikely that some traditions of Wicca originated as forms of Satanism and then gradually grew away from Satanism. To this day, there are occultists who start out as Satanists and eventually become Wiccans or other types of neo-Pagans. It would be very odd if such people's understanding of Wicca was not at all influenced by their previous experience with Satanism. Theistic forms of Satanism have a natural tendency to give birth to new, nonSatanic religions. If you reject Christian theology (as nearly all intelligent Satanists do), but if you nonetheless venerate Satan as a real being or force (not just a symbol as in LaVey Satanism), then the question inevitably arises: Who and what is "Satan"? Different forms of Satanism have different answers to this question. One of the easier answers is to re-interpret Satan as a pre-Christian deity, usually either Set or Pan. However, once you equate Satan with a specific ancient deity, you have taken the first step away from Satanism. You are no longer venerating Satan per se; you are now venerating a Pagan deity with Satanic overtones. And then, once you develop your Paganized belief system further, the Satanic overtones will eventually seem less and less important. Such has apparently been the case with the Temple of Set, an offshoot of LaVey's Church of Satan. (Setians disagree on whether to call themselves "Satanists".) It seems not at all unlikely that some forms of Wicca, with all its diabolical-witchcraft trappings, would have a similar origin. A group of theistic Satanists who equated Satan with Pan, as some Satanists do, would very likely tend to evolve in a Wicca-like direction. More about Wicca's diabolical-witchcraft trappings. Wicca's self-image is based on the records of witchhunts, re-interpreting the alleged activities of accused diabolical witches as the worship of a Pagan "Horned God". Wicca thus makes a new use of the same source material that Satanists have been using for centuries. An interesting question is: Why reconstruct an "Old Religion" this way, rather than just going back to the records of actual old religions? Other forms of neo-Paganism, e.g. Asatru and neo-Druidism, which do base themselves more on what's known about actual ancient religions, are far less likely than Wicca to be confused with Satanism by outsiders. Why do Wiccans insist on using words like "witch" and "coven" when they could easily use other, more respectable-sounding words? Despite Wicca's diabolical-witchcraft trappings, or perhaps partly because of those trappings, Wicca has more popular appeal than any other form of neo-Paganism. Certainly Wicca's hot-button terminology has helped Wicca get lots more publicity than it otherwise could. Wiccan spokespeople sometimes bemoan the fact that newspapers interview them only at Halloween, but most small religious sects don't get nearly so much free publicity at any time of the year, not even on Halloween. And, judging by the way some Wiccans keep repeating "We're Not Satanists!" far more often than they actually get accused of being Satanists, it seems logical to suspect that at least some of them are using words and images popularly associated with Satanism as a way to attract attention, and/or because they themselves enjoy feeling naughty. (I've actually heard some Wiccans say that if the word "witch" ever became too respectable, it would lose some of its

power.) Modern Satanists have long felt that the basis of Wicca's appeal lies in the paradoxical (some would say hypocritical) combination of Wicca's Satanic connotations and the denial of same. Thus, Satanists tend to regard Wicca as a ripoff of Satanism. I personally don't regard Wicca as a ripoff. In my opinion, Wiccans' use of witchhunt-derived trappings is neither more nor less legitimate than the use of those same trappings by Satanists. And Wicca, as a religion, does have much more substance to it than just its deliberately-adopted superficial resemblances to diabolical witchcraft. But I'm very irritated by those endless "Wicca Has Nothing To Do With Satanism!" disclaimers. I wouldn't mind if Wiccans merely said that Wicca is not Satanism (at least if they said it without repeating it unnecessarily). It's true that Wicca is not Satanism, but it isn't historically true that Wicca "has nothing to do with" Satanism. Nor is it true that Wicca has nothing in common with Satanism. Some forms of Wicca and neo-Paganism have a lot in common with (some forms of) Satanism. Oddly enough, of the many Wicca-based forms of neo-Paganism, one of the most "Satanic" (in terms of 19th-century literary Satanism) is feminist Goddess religion, despite its frequent omission of even the "Horned God". See, for example, some of Mary Daly's writings. When it comes to inverting and parodying Christian symbolism, Daly's wordplay does it better than an old-fashioned Black Mass. Daly also reclaims and venerates almost every demonized female category conceivable, from Furies to Hags. And let's not forget the many feminists who venerate Lilith, a Jewish folkloric nearequivalent of the Christian Satan. Lilith never made it to the status of a full-fledged antigod, but otherwise her myth is almost identical to the Christian Satan myth: banished for her pride, she became a dreaded demon and was even blamed for people's sins, especially sexual ones. To be fair, I should mention that not all feminist Goddess-worshippers are into either Mary Daly's writings or the veneration of Lilith. But the feminist counterculture, because it is a counterculture, tends generally to include an extra dose of demon-reclamation beyond what is found in classical Wicca, e.g. magazine titles like Sinister Wisdom. All these parallels to Satanism reflect the quintessentially Satanic central theme of some forms of feminist Goddess religion: self-liberation from a sociallyimposed mainstream "spiritual" order -- even though Goddess religion is in other ways quite "un-Satanic" by the standards of most modern Satanists. One of the earliest feminist writers on religion had a much friendlier attitude toward Satanism than is common today. As far as I know, the very first feminist writer on witchcraft and Goddess religion was 19th-century womens's suffrage leader Matilda Joslyn Gage. Her book Woman, Church, and State contains an enthusiastic depiction of a medieval peasant Black Mass, based on Michelet's account. I hope today's Wiccans and feminist Goddess-worshippers will stop fearing to recognize that, just as Christianity borrowed heavily from Greek mystery religion yet is a very different religion from the Greek mysteries, so too Wicca and feminist Goddess religion have drawn lots of inspiration from Satanism, though they are very different religions. Kelly's honesty is refreshing. If today's Satanists are sometimes nasty to Wiccans, well, how would you react to a bunch of people who went out of their way to deny their own roots, just so they could disown you?

What's especially annoying is the way many Wiccans claim the word "Witchcraft" as a name for their own religion, defining not only "Wicca" but also "Witchcraft" as a religion distinct from Satanism. Excuse me, but witchcraft is not a religion. There are witches all over the world, in many different cultures. They don't all belong to one religion. A witch can be any religion. One of my great-grandfathers was a "water witch" who told people where to dig wells. He was a devout Christian. If a Christian can be a witch, then so can a Satanist. There have been both Christians and Satanists calling themselves witches long before today's Wiccans came along. (See Randolph's and Creighton's books, for example.) So I really wish Wiccans would stop using the word "witchcraft" as a name for their own specific religion. I don't object to Wiccans calling themselves witches, but I do object to the idea that all true witches are Wiccan (or at least Pagan) and that, therefore, Satanists can't be witches. Wiccans are welcome to call their specific religion "Wicca", an archaic word that they themselves resurrected. Another good name for their specific religion is "Neo-Pagan Witchcraft", a phrase suggesting that their religion is a subcategory of witchcraft, not witchcraft as a whole. Thus, it's accurate to say, "Neo-Pagan Witchcraft is not Satanism", whereas it's misleading to say, "witchcraft (in general) is not Satanism". It would also be nice if Wiccans would stop making inaccurate pronouncements on what Satanism is, such as, "Satanism is a form of Christianity" or "To be a Satanist, you must believe in the Christian God". Diane Vera Originally written January 1992. Revised January 1994, March 1996. BEYOND REASON: A new look at an old Devil by Aries Inside my mind is a court room. It is dark and sombre, a few shafts of light from high slit windows etch out sloping pillars of swirling dust. In the public gallery are a representative sample of the great unwashed; fighting, fornicating, eating, suckling piglets, and other sub-Bosch activities that lend atmosphere to the Baroque wanderings of my imagination. The judge is unhappy. Whatever happens, someone, somewhere, will hate him for it. In the dock are the three grand-dames from Shakespeare's "Scottish" play, and I am counsel for the defence. The Advocatus Diaboli, I guess. In the witness stand is "Dance with the Devil" by Audrey Harper and Harry Pugh, and grave are its accusations. But first, let's have its story. Audrey Harper; a familiar tale of degradation and final redemption through our Saviour Jesu Christos; sent to a Dr Barnado's home by her mother, she grew up with deprivation and social stigma. In time she becomes a WRAF, falls in love, gets pregnant, boyfriend dies, she turns to booze, gives up her baby and becomes homeless. Wandering to Piccadilly Circus she meets some Flower Children with the killer weed, and her descent into Hell is assured. By day she gets stoned and eats junk food; by night she sleeps in squats and doorways. Along comes Molly; the whore with a heart of gold who

teaches Audrey the art of streetwalking. She flirts with shoplifting, gets into pills, and then gets talent spotted and invited to a Chelsea party, where wealth, power and tasteful decor are dangled as bait. At the next party she is hooked by the "group", which meets "every month in Virginia Water". She agrees to go to the next meeting which is to be held at Hallowe'en. Inside the dark Temple lit by black candles and full of "A heady, sickly sweet smell from burning incense", she is "initiated" by the "warlock", whose "face was deathly pale and skeletal... his eyes ... were dark and sunken" and whose "breath and body seemed to exude a strange smell, a little like stale alcohol." She signs herself over to Satan with her own blood on a parchment scroll, whereupon a baby is produced, its throat cut, and the blood drank. Following this she getsm dumped on the "altar" and fucked as the "sacrifice of the White Virgin". The meeting finishes with a little ritual cursing and she's left to wander "home" in the dark. Her life falls into a steady routine of meetings in Virginia Water, getting screwed by the "warlock", drug abuse, petty crime, and recruiting runaways for parties, where the drinks are spiked "probably LSD" - and candles injected with heroin release "stupefying fumes into the air"; the object being sex kicks and pornography. She falls pregnant again, gets committed to a psychiatric hospital, has the baby, and gives it away convinced that the "warlock" would sacrifice it. Things then become a confusion of Church desecration, drug addiction, ritual abuse, psychiatric hospital, and falling in with Christian folk who try vainly to save her soul. For rather vague reasons the "coven" decide to drop her from the team, and she dedicates herself to a true junkie's lifestyle with a steady round of overdosing, jaundice, and detoxification units. The "warlock" drops by to threaten her, and she makes her way north via some psychiatric hospitals to a Christian Rehabilitation farm. She gets married, has a child which she keeps and becomes a regular churchgoer. But beneath the surface are recurring nightmares, insane anger and murderous feelings towards her brethren. At the Emmanual Pentecostal Church in Stourport she asks the Minister, Roy Davies, for help. He prays, and God tells him that she was involved with witchcraft. An exorcism has her born again, cleansed of her sin. She gets baptised and has no more nightmares, becoming a generally nicer person. She becomes the "occult expert" of the Reach-out Trust and Evangelical Alliance, and makes a career out of telling an edited version of her tale. Geoffrey Dickens MP persuades her to tell all on live TV; "Audrey, to your knowledge is child sacrifice still going on?" To this she replies, "To my knowledge, yes." After this the whole thing rambles into an untidy conclusion of self-congratulation, selfpromotion, and self-justification; and for a grand finale pulls out a list of horrendous child abuse, which is shamelessly exploited in typically journalistic fashion, and by the usual fallacious arguments which links it to anything "occult"; help-lines, astro predictions in newspapers, and even New Age festivals. And so we are left with a horrifying vision of hordes of Satanists swarming the

country, buggering kids, sacrificing babies, and feeding their own faeces to the flock. I would be tempted to consider this story a modern parable; a Rakes Progress for the late 20th century, were it not for the claim of truth and the accusations cast. Throughout her tale Mrs Harper shows herself to be a clumsy dissembler; inconsistencies appear throughout, and the tone is shrill and hysterical. "I know parts of my story are hard to believe. I realise there are some sceptics who will not accept that such things can happen." This is a perfect example of the fallacy known as "poisoning the well", but what part might we find hard to believe? On page 79 with her bare face hanging out she tells us that, "I was, by now, quite an accomplished young witch. I could levitate. I could bring down the powers of darkness to move furniture about." Better a wilful sceptic than having us believe in levitating junkies. But was she a witch? When the Chelsea girl invites her along, "she never mentioned witchcraft. But somehow, as she spoke, her words conjured up an eerie atmosphere." And according to her testimony, nobody actually mentions witchcraft prior to Roy Davies, who is tipped the wink by Lord God Almighty. Regardless of that, she still promiscuously mixes up the terms; witchcraft, Satanism and Paganism, playing free and easy with the rules of evidence. However, it does appear that there is a thing called Wicca or White Witches who "certainly do not set out to do evil", but are still damned because "even if they don't do deliberate harm, their activities are opposed to Christian teachings because they worship false gods." Obviously possessed of the spirit of discernment, or as Joseph Campbell said, "You can't fool around with Yahweh." 1 Okay, so where is the evidence? In Mrs Harper's reality tunnel the evidence is everywhere, for the world is full of "evils that are the work of Satan." Not for Mrs Harper the easy road of "hardfacts" when she assures us that "There have been mounting suspicions over the years that child sacrifices take place regularly. I believe that they do. I have no evidence to support this belief." "It's my belief that some of the hundreds of children and adults who go missing every year end up being sacrificed." All that she offers us is her belief, but is it a rational belief? Consider these words from another book, in a chapter called "Schizophrenia: The Demon in Control" - Let's say that when you awake tomorrow, you find standing at your bedside a man with purple scale skin...from Mars... visible and audible only to you... he warns you not to reveal his presence; if you attempt to do so, he threatens, he will kill you instantly... On the basis of what you can so clearly see and hear, you accept the fact, astounding as it is, that the stranger is what he says he is."2 Barbara O'Brien then goes on to describe the schizophrenic trip and how she toured America in Greyhound buses in an attempt to escape the "hook operators". But, what if someone woke up to find Satan by their bed? Mrs Harper is one of the sad minority to do just that. In hospital, after an over-dose she returned to her bed to find on it "a miniature hooded figure- ... I was sure it was Satan manifesting himself to me." If we check the diagnosis of schizophrenia we find that the schizophrenic "ceases to experience his mental processes and his will as under his own control; he may insist that thoughts are being put into his mind."3

And what does Mrs Harper tell us? She signed in blood a parchment scroll which stated that, "I am no longer my own. Satan is my master." As for arranging her social calendar, "I was rarely summoned... Some inner compulsion told me when, and where, to go...Satan could direct me to the coven by remote control." At other times there was "just the telepathic message buzzing in my head... Satan was beckoning... There was no resistance. I had to go." In fact most of the time "Satan was at the helm of my thinking processes." This is not all, for we also read that the schizophrenic "hears voices telling him what to do."3 Three or four weeks after her "initiation", Mrs Harper experienced a blinding headache. "Then a voice came to me, telling me to be at Highgate Cemetery just before midnight." The voice went on to give her some travel directions, which was very obliging. "In acute stages of the illness other hallucinations and delusions of varied kinds may be present."3 I think we can safely classify levitation and telekinesis under the heading of hallucination and delusion, but what about babies being killed? Or coven meetings even? "The paranoid schizophrenic has ''a persistent idea...that there is a conspiracy or concerted action against him...a delusion of grandeur."3 Whenever she took an overdose, "I knew who was behind it all - the coven. This was Satan attacking me." Whenever things went wrong for Mrs Harper it was Satan, "making me follow foolish impulses...causing me to behave in a stupid way." Every time she got moving "Satan played another of his little tricks" to stop her short. "Delusions of unworthiness occur in depressive illnesses in association with misery and hopelessness." 3 Any comment Mrs Harper? "I felt myself wishing that I could be good, like these nurses, instead of a servant of the Devil." "...how inadequate I was compared with the other churchgoers." On her first TV programme she was asked, "How do you know you were not just on a bad trip?", to which she replied, "A bad trip doesn't last five years." But if this bad trip is schizophrenia, it could. As far as backgrounds go, hers was ideal for inducing psychosis; harsh, cold and alienating. Significantly she had nicknamed the matron of the home "the witch", and after her escape attempts "It didn't take the police long...they soon had me back under the spell of the witch." A process of learned helplessness. Bob Wilson 4 discusses the possible role of schizophrenia and self-medication in heroin addiction, and certainly at the more stable periods of her life she seems to have no problem giving up her drugs. Although this may not be important, it is worth bearing in mind that Virginia Water is home to the Royal Holloway Psychiatric Hospital, which, at the time of her tale, had a bustling schizophrenic population. Maybe this explains how she ended up so often wandering around dazed in the dark. Of course this is all speculation, but the mere possibility that an undiagnosed schizophrenic with a medieval delusion is trying to drag us into her fantasy, and to restrict the civil liberties of others has me worried. Even more worrying was a "Despatches" documentary shown on Channel 4 TV on the 19th February 1992, portraying an alleged expose of Satanism and ritual abuse. An array of "survivors" were brought before us; some of whom were severely traumatised individuals and in need of much care and help to re-build their lives. Others had me

suspecting malice as a motivating force. These "survivors" refuse to go to the police, just like our Mrs Harper neglected to report a whole heap of crimes such as; desecration, rape, child abuse, drug running, animal brutality, murder, eating foetuses and stealing library books. When at long last someone goes as far as pointing to where the bodies are buried, the police do a lot of digging, but find nothing. Similarly, those cases that come to trial are thrown out on the grounds of insufficient evidence or doubts about the social workers' methods. Therapists and social workers assure us that the physical reactions of these people when under analysis are authentic, but this proves little. The link between mind and body is profound; the body reacts to the mind's content regardless of the authenticity of that content; i.e., belief will evoke as great a response as actual recall. What do these "carers" have to gain by their behaviour? I guess it's much sexier to be on a special Satanic ritual abuse group, rather than just another social worker in the child unit. After the "Operation Julie" team split up, the majority of its members left the police rather than return to normal duties - the power of being in a special elite seduces the best of us. As is usual Uncle Aleister comes in for some ritual abuse; this evil black magician (sic) on the "Bloody Sacrifice"; and "Dispatches" quotes those infamous lines from page 219: "A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim."5 But they neglected the all-important footnote: "It is the sacrifice of oneself spiritually. And the intelligence and innocence of that male child are the perfect understanding of the Magician, his one aim, without lust of result. And male he must be, because what he sacrifices is not the material blood, but his creative power."5 We can surmise that either the "Dispatches" team are totally incompetent to have missed that footnote, or deliberately dishonest. As far as I can tell the only sin in what Uncle Aleister suggests is the Sin of Onan. (See: gSacred Mushroom and the Crossh by J M Allegro for a full explanation of the link between sperm and sin.) Finally, after teasing us overmuch with hints of a secret Satanic group that regularly murders babes in arms and worships Uncle Aleister in a basement Temple in the East End of London, they were going to reveal all. Well, actually not all: they stop short of naming names, due no doubt to a sharp eye on this country's libel laws. Instead we get shown clips of an arty video from The Temple ov Psychic Youth's playroom; a video I thought was available by mail order, and some of which was shown publicly as far back as 1987 at the 2nd Thelemic Conference at Oxford. The offending content was a little low-level S&M (low-level compared to what is currently available from Amsterdam), and certainly not as visually gripping as some films by Dali or Kenneth Anger. What seemed to have been forgotten is that Sadomasochistic behaviour is ritualistic, but that doesn't mean that ritual is an incidence of intention of abuse. It was confidently stated that claims of identical detail concerning Satanic ritual abuse go back 700 years; but in all this time, those tricky Satanists have evaded capture. "Dispatches" claimed that the wily Satanists escape the net because their crimes are

"beyond belief", and hence not believed. Personally I wonder whether the claims themselves may well be beyond reason. Suppose these survivors claimed to have been abducted by fairies, or the Evil Space Brothers; how would we react? Evidence is coming through that suggests that Multiple Personalities and UFO abductees show a tendency of abuse of some sort as a child. Hypnotised subjects are able to construct a detailed and realistic UFO kidnap scenario without having any UFO knowledge or experience.6 We are obviously talking about something that is coming up from the deeper structures of the mind, possibly at the level of the Archetypes, and I'm sure we can agree that the "Satanic Ritual" scenario is well embedded in the group consciousness. We should bear in mind two things; firstly, the mind is a much more complex entity than our current models allow for. Also that memory is symbolic; it does not run back like a film; rather it is reconstructed from elements that "seem right", but the result is always partial, leaving room for symbolism to dress the events in a ways that serves a deeper need. A child being treated brutally by parents it believes should be loving, could then "demonise" them, so that images of "satanic parents" will slowly emerge in therapy as the real trauma is dealt with. The symbolic nature of this recalled material allows it to be easily dealt with by psychodrama such as exorcism. Maybe it's all true; many abusers use ritual trappings to induce fear, so maybe there are Satanic abusers; Lord knows there are more than enough Christian and non-Satanic abusers about. But to politicise others' pain and suffering is to my mind, both wrong-headed and dangerous. The truth is that there are a lot of sick people out there, both perpetrators and victims who are hurt and traumatised. They need all the help we can give, not exploitation. We have seen the effect of mass hysteria before; from the Pendle Witches and Jews up to the Guildford Four and Orkney Twelve. The Witch Hunts died out because wilful sceptics refused to believe on women flying about the country-side on broomsticks, and tended to (rather unkindly) laugh at the people who believed in such things. The UK is currently in its worse recession this century, and we can confidently expect a rise in the rates of suicide, child abuse and scape-goating. Right now we have a greater need of wilful sceptics than we do of fanatics fresh from a medieval reality tunnel. I rest my case. FOOTNOTES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Joseph Campbell: The Power of Myth Barbara O'Brien: Operators and Things - The Inner Life of a Schizophrenic Richard L Gregory (Ed.): The Oxford Companion to the Mind Robert Anton Wilson: Sex and Drugs - A Journey Beyond Limits Aleister Crowley: Magick Hilary Evans: Visions, Apparitions, Alien Visitors

And not forgetting DANCE WITH THE DEVIL: A Young Woman's Struggle to Escape the Coven's Curse, by Audrey Harper with Harry Pugh, published by Kingsway Publications. (As an interesting postscript to this article: readers may be interested to learn that it was Audrey Harper's appearance on Australian TV, telling us all about the dangers of Satanic/Witchcraft ritual child abuse that prompted me to found the Pan

Pacific Pagan Alliance - Julia) (Texts from: http://sacred-texts.com/bos/index.htm from: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/pagan/intro.html#bos and from: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/pagan/index.html )