This is why I had to declare a revolution in October 2002 – the Maximal entheogen theory of religion – aka 20 years of tremendous maximal breakthrough sussess; i’ve been running absolute circles around this tiny clown car filled with clowns, called the Moderate entheogen theory of religion, a.k.a. the Deny & Remove Mushrooms Theory of Religion.
October 16 2002, 6 pages. Subject: Entheogen use constant in religion
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-23/#message1162
🚫🍄 👎🍄 ⛔️🍄 🛑🍄 ❌🍄 ✋🍄 – per Ruck, McKenna, Brown & Hatsis, et al: the Main Message of the Moderate Entheogen Theory of Religion
You’ve got this assembly line, mass production, popular, ever present temptation for the people who pretend to be contributing to the field, who are actually striving to work against entheogen scholarship.
🚫🍄 – Carl Rut
You have Carl Rut trapping us in orbit forever around the assumption of suppression of mushrooms, ever since day one, he says, mushrooms were never main stream, they were never in real religion, never ever did normal, main stream, regular, ordinary, Religion contain mushrooms and understanding of them
but mushrooms in our religion was always secret, hidden, underground, forgotten, suppressed, SECRET SECRET SECRET TRIPLE SECRET; PUNISHABLE BY DEATH to reveal; missing, absent, gone, null, nil, nada. 🚫👎⛔️🛑❌✋
🚫🍄 – Terence McKenna
McKenna says that our Christian religion was never tainted by the touch of mushrooms ever, and so then the supreme court says OK have It Your Way, Christianity according to McKenna has nothing to do ever with mushrooms, says the expert
🚫🍄 – Timothy Leary
then we have Tim Leary going to Congress asking for ergot to be made illegal and then pretending, a phony fake actor pretending to be trying to get it to be made legal, when in fact he’s actually striving and working hard to ask Congress to make it illegal – what a fraud!!
citation: Jan Irvin – The Secret History of Magic Mushrooms
🚫🍄 – Andy Letcher
then we have Letcher and his copy/paste secretary Hatsis with the book Shroom asserting that there were no mushrooms Psilocybin in England before 1975 , or whatever the fcking hell his garbled, scrambled brain, biased, DOGMATIST, incoherent, waffling, ever in flux, non-position position is, depending on exactly what time of day it is.
🚫🍄 – Brown & Brown
then you’ve got Brown & Brown, who strive to set up three positions and counter-signal against those Ardent Advocates:
never see any mushrooms;
see only a fraction of the mushrooms; or
see the mushroom imagery that are everywhere.
God forbid you should be an Ardent Advocate, like Egodeath.com, which he mentions first in the section of the 2019 article section titled Ardent Advocates, with his message being:
We must be serious critical scholars; we must not be Ardent Advocates of mushrooms.
With friends like these, the field doesn’t even need enemies; it has the guys who are in the field.
It’s all controlled opposition.
The guys in the field are working as hard as they can to try to not see mushrooms.
Brown said be sure to not see too many mushrooms, because you don’t wanna have too many mushrooms, Professor Brown cautions.
And then if I am an artist and I want to depict a vial in the medium of tapestry that looks as much like amanita as I can represent while I’m trying to depict the traditional vial, and I want to depict the traditional vial in the form of an amanita, what will it look like?
it will look precisely what this tapestry looks like.
but then brown cautions:
be sure to not see too many mushrooms!
God forbid that this field should have too many mushrooms!
we need to take a moderate, mild, Self defeating, mushroom-removing, anti-mushroom position,
because you don’t wanna have too many mushrooms Professor Brown cautions
or else you’ll be at an Ardent Advocate of mushrooms in religion – wouldn’t want that!
🚫🍄 – Mirceau Eliade
then you have Mirceau Eliad, who Wasson even mocks and pokes fun at his ridiculous position in wassons book Soma, before five seconds later Wasson turns around and does the exact same ridiculous dance moves, the mushroom minimizing dance moves.
Wasson makes fun of Eliade for an obvious fabrication.
and Carl Rut in the book the road to Eleusis complains about how he’s being coerced into telling a bunch of lies in his published books, the way the Eliade was coerced into a certain asserting sht that he didn’t fcking believe.
everyone knows Mirceau Eliade doesn’t believe his own transparently obvious prejudice-compliant bullsht about “The shamans of the day are morally week and no longer have the traditional methods of the shaman mystics” – manifest made-up, fabricated, prejudiced baloney!
🚫🍄 – Dan Merkur
and remember Dan Merkur arguing – so convincing! – that of course gnostics wouldn’t eat mushrooms, because: the reason they wouldn’t eat mushrooms is because mushrooms are physical.
this is on the last page of his book Gnosis
Mushrooms are physical, and therefore of course gnostics would not eat mushrooms, because gnostics never eat anything physical.
This is Dan Merkur’s argument of why there were no mushrooms in Gnosticism.
🚫🍄 – Gordon Wasson
Even Wasson accuses Eliade of not believing his own Prohibition-compliant bullsht.
Gordon Wasson – two times, Erwin Panofsky commends Brinckmann’s book to him, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings
and Wasson writes-out and follows up on this lead, to discover the discussion and treatment of the subject of mushrooms in Christian art.
Wasson hand-writes Brinckmann’s full name Albert Erich Brinckmann, and the full German title of his 1906 book, the so-called “little” book, twice called “little” by Panofsky.
and then Wasson deliberately withholds this lead from us and fails to provide any citation to back up Panofsky’s enormous claim that art historians have thoroughly, very thoroughly written lots and lots of papers, and lots of articles, and had many discussions, many intensive, thorough, adequate, appropriate discussions, in many articles, and many books –
for example, one book: 1906
and Wasson deliberately omits mention of this book, which Panofsky twice recommended to him for more information.
but Wasson is against “for more information”; Wasson wanted us to have less information about mushrooms in Christian art, pilzbaum.
Wasson did not want us to have more information, or else he definitely would have recommended, passed on the citation of Brinkman’s book to us, to “the public”, for “public consumption”, citation fckng needed!!, jerk!, Wasson: evil, anti-mushroom Wasson, bankster for the pope; maximum conflict of financial interest for the Salvation Salesmen; phony, censor, pretender, fraud!
Wasson, lying, fraud, censor; anti-mushroom “father of ethnomycology”
“father of ethnomycology”, my azz!
anti-mushroom, prejudiced, biased, doing the exact same thing he accused Eliade of : caving to pressure, convention, prejudice, bias, and censorship
So much for the “father of ethnomycology” – what a fraud!!
This is deliberate, multiply repeated obstructionism.
it is scholarly obstructionism.
Gordon Wasson is an obstructionist trying to block progress in the field of mycology and art and cultural mycology – Gordon Wasson, the father of anti-ethnomycology.
with friends like these driving the field (into a ditch), who needs enemies of the field, with the very guys who are driving ilthe field are the enemies trying to hold back the field and remove the mushrooms from history and from scholarly research and investigation
Wasson is striving to prevent and impede and obstruct investigation – in his own handwriting – guilty, guilty, guilty! 🏛️
🚫🍄 – Thomas Hatsis
The shape of the Liberty Cap is anachronistic.
Thomas Hatsis, https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/02/19/idea-development-page-12/#Tom-Hatsis-Reply-to-Me
Liberty Caps and Panaeolus Caps in the Canterbury Psalter
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=liberty+cap+mushroom
The Egodeath theory 