Why I don't like the Wicca movement

Post Reply New Topic

My opinions on the matter are controversial within the community, but honestly "Gardnerian" Wicca ought to be called Valentine or something similar; Wicca as we know it today is mostly Doreen Valiente's creation, and Gardner actually innovated very little.

Not that it really matters, since Robert Cochrane's Clan of Tubalcain was the real deal (and Doreen Valiente was involved with both)

Those are decent points, Luciferian witchcraft has pretty deep roots, and Lucifer is also paired with goddesses such as Diana (and Aradia etc.) in early modern witch lore.

I wasn't aware that they also paired Lucifer with Diana. I learn something new every day. Seems like a bit of an odd match considering that according to Greco-Roman mythology Diana/Artemis was a virgin Goddess who vowed never to marry men.

I know she's popular among female neopagans and wiccans due to the fact that she was regarded as the protector of young women in ancient times and her temple was regardes as being like a sanctuary for women.

Cleopatra from what I understand even had a younger sister who was sent to live at this temple of Diana for her safety but Cleopatra managed to have her assassinated. According to this documentary I saw.

https://youtu.be/KeIgC27gWNY?si=N8Q7PahHz4aUkw3d



There's even something called Dianic Wicca which is supposed to be for women only but they caused a lot of controversy and were accused of being transphobic for not allowing transgender members into their coven from what I understand.

There was a book written/published by a British dude about 125 years ago titled "Aradia. Or The Gospel of the Witches". It claims to be based upon notes that the author got from an Italian witch acquaintance, detailing the beliefs of Tuscan witches. The basics being that the witch Goddess Diana had a relationship with Lucifer that resulted in a daughter, Aradia, who was sent to earth to teach witchcraft as a tool to fight against the oppression handed down by the Catholic church.

I think that why people struggle with it is that they look to Diana as depicted 2000 years ago. But the key to understanding this story is that it recognises that there's been a lot of change since then. For a start, a middle eastern god took over Rome and evicted the native religion and its gods. But Diana was always a goddess outside the city limits. She avoided a lot of that.

Now consider that when this foreign god moved to Rome, the opposition forces from the middle east probably followed along and settled outside the city limits to continue the resistance that started when this god evicted the religions at the last place he haunted. So is it any wonder that the leader of those forces (Lucifer), should eventually run into the local resistance forces and their leader (Diana)? And following a practice as old as time, they allied and... well... Aradia.

Diana is the Goddess that the Catholic church mostly attributed to craft. She's the Goddess named in the New Testament, and her name was conflated with some human woman in the Gospels whom the church hated.
But I'm guessing the two were conflated in 19th century Catholic folk religion.

While the book has been criticised and debunked as a creation of the author, when I consider the elements that occurred to me about the intervening centuries... the idea seems plausible. Not as a continuous witch religion over the millennia, but maybe as where a 19th century Tuscan local tradition might have reasoned itself into existence.

Or a modern neo-pagan.

I think a lot of that was probably invented by the writer but I can see it having some truth to it. Diana was a Goddess of Wildlife and Hunting so she would have no doubt been more important to the farmers and hunters living outside of the city of Rome even long after Rome fell and decided to adopt the foreign religion of Christiainity as their own and decided they would force on the world.

A lot of these people in rural areas probably would not give up their beliefs and traditions so easily.