Saturday, September 3, 2011

A Penultimate Statement, perhaps?

Chops was recently given this reply -

Here's the problem. "Lady" Isadora Raven Avalon has been asked for her lineage as a Gardnerian. She never has been forthcoming. Now she states that she was active in the Coven Oroborous et Ova in LA. The only "Donna" that Chops is aware of associated with that coven would be Donna Cole Schultz.

In any case, that is not a lineage. How would a Gardnerian not understand what a lineage is. A Gardnerian should be able to state that "I was initiated by x, who was initiated by x, who was initiated by x" and so on, back to the original Gardnerian covens.

These will be easily verifiable people, not random pictures pulled off the internet and relabeled with others names on them. So, please, once again Chops awaits a lineage. But we won't hold our breath.

Should anyone care to address the questions Chops has been asking for over a week now, feel free.
We reiterate:

1. Why is Black Raven Coven's url Rochelle Moores Facebook group page, when they claim they don't know Rochelle?

2. Why is Raven Avalon and BRC using two of Rochelles book covers as their logo and book cover? (The book that Lulu just dropped for plagiarism, the other is the coven logo from Rochelles cover, 'When the Levee Breaks.')

3. Why did the artist of the purple pentagram book cover (Fanny Price) state that she was told Rochelle gave Raven permission to use her book cover, when Raven and BTC principles claimed they did not know Rochelle?

4. Why are all the 'coven' self-publishings Rochelle Moores plagiarized content?

5. Why won't a Gardnerian provide her degree/teaching credentials?

6.Why are the same few coven admins/members constantly speaking for Raven?

7. Why did Lulu pull the 'coven book' if it wasn't plagiarized materials from real authors?


  1. All excellent questions that any author who is legitimate and has nothing to hide should be able to answer, however, as I know Rochelle Moore, aka Isadora Raven Avalon is no such creature, I expect only silence or hatred from her camp.

  2. And unfortunately, Diana, you'll get it. There is a noticeable atmosphere of hysteria at the BRC in terms of spreading lies about the members of the FB of C and PAP. They do not, however, see a correlation between their cries of "hate group!" and the Goblin group that they created...even though they are publicly attacking many of the people on the Goblin list. I'm very curious to discover what the Pagan Federation will make of their behaviour, and the harassment of Chattering Magpie.

  3. By the stars in heaven! "Lineage"! Does one have to prove their legitimacy as a heathen these days by listing which witches and witch-masters initiated one going back to Gerald Gardner? They call Wicca NEO-PAGANISM. It's not older than 1939. Gerald only claimed to be initiated by Wiccans. He's not around to claim which "lineage" he had, and if he were, what could he prove? He was initiated by the Rosicrucians? Or did he initiate himself? This "lineage" smacks of the Bible. "Adam begat Cain, Cain begat... and pages later ... Saul begat David, David begat... and more pages later...Mary begat Jesus".
    Plagerism is one thing, but having "creditials" from coven doesn't prove anything. It's like when you prove a man went to seminary school and become a Catholic priest. It doesn't make him automatically free from sin.

  4. Actually, yes. When one claims to be a third degree HP of Gardnerian lineage, then one must be able to support that lineage. Lineage is very important and an absolute in Gardnerian tradition.

    To simply be a Gardnerian, one must be lineaged by other Garnderians and that lineage is quite important within that community. If one's lineage is asked, it should be given freely. Otherwise one has no validity as a Gardnerian Wiccan and it is fraud.

    This not Wiccanesque eclectic neo-paganism. This is an initiated mystery tradition. To claim to be a third degree Gardnerian is just more untruths heaped upon stolen work.

  5. Be aware that the usual nonsense is kicking off again. The BRC's usual suspects and the new edition, Susie Major, are spouting their spurious, self-righteous and moronic crap all over the BRC homepage. Plus ca change, eh?