It's extremely well-established as a general point
Any claim about being "extremely" knowledgeable about a segment of the dark ages of history of the continent of Europe concerning those who are considered witches is an exaggeration. First, the dark ages themselves we are lacking in knowledge relative to the eras which came before and after it. Second, the subset of that history about witches is even less well known now. There is a distinct lack of records and artifacts from that era, particularly that subset of study, relative to the eras which came before and after it. These circumstances do not lend themselves to anyone claiming our level of knowledge is certain enough to claim anything about it is "extremely well established".
I notice there's a total lack of sources for your claims, too
You didn't ask for any but I was quoting from good sources. If you'd like to start discussing sources I can do that - googling those quotes will get you to them. But If we're going to go down that route, you will need to produce "extraordinary" levels of evidence that it's "well established" across Europe in the dark ages. Which is the claim you made. I strongly suspect you don't want to go down that route. But, here's the opportunity.
If we want more nuance, we could say that fairly reliably in Britain at least, up until the later middle ages, people make some kind of distinction between "evil magic" and "good or neutral magic". This tends to be true in antiquity as well, where we have sources. What changes later on is that all magic becomes regarded as evil. That's what I'm calling an aberration. It's rarely the case in human history that that approach is taken.
None of that new "nuanced" claim bares even a vague resemblance to the claims you made earlier. I find it far more compelling, but it would have been a heck of a lot more appreciated if you had started there rather than with the claims of certainty that everyone was wrong for daring to imply your prior extreme claim was anything but pure and accurate.