I think there is "anti-masonry" and what I suggested as skepticism. For example, nepotism and cronyism aren't de-facto bad (e.g. a father handing the family bus

I think there is "anti-masonry" and what I suggested as skepticism. For example, nepotism and cronyism aren't de-facto bad (e.g. a father handing the family business to his son or a person hiring a trusted and loyal friend). But if someone is a member of the "cronyism promotion society" and they write an article extolling the benefits of cronyism then that opinion ought to be digested with a large grain of salt. It is worth pointing out that there are some negative aspects to cronyism, just as there are negative aspects to secretive initiative societies. At it's core, this article is a stealth motte and bailey argument. It points out the benefits of guilds (where there is a legitimate argument to be made about skill transfer and quality of work) to support a deeper ideology about hierarchical structures of society. If one wants to make the argument that the ritualization present in free masonry is a net benefit to X, then present that argument directly.