4 ms·
To be clear, are you suggesting that these were successive generations of opportunistic grifters, working with the material left behind from the previous genera
by hbchbc556556 3y ago
To be clear, are you suggesting that these were successive generations of opportunistic grifters, working with the material left behind from the previous generation, or a deliberate project to develop a maximally syncretic religion?
My confusion is that I detect a conspiratorial tone that I'm nonplussed by.
- hello_computer 3y agoNo. I'm saying that Watts and McKenna (specifically Watts and McKenna) are bullshitters, floating along a much deeper and powerful current. As for the actual currents (as partially enumerated), some were true believers, some weren't. Until proven otherwise, I think Guenon was legit--that his ideas were his own, he took both the credit and the blame for them, and gave credit where it was due--as opposed to someone like Blavatsky who was a mascot, or someone like Huxley who was really more of an engineer, but delivering his blueprints in a wrapper of plausible deniability. Whereas the characters and schisms within Masonry are so broad that a hundred books could be written, and we still wouldn't have scratched the surface. Conspiracy or not, I have outlined a genealogy which is easy enough to verify--at the touch of your fingertips.