>>24687150
So you expect me to believe on the basis of quite literally no evidence that people in power are secretly occultists and that's why they're in power? Are you retarded? I have been paid to study the occult as a historical phenomenon as part of my career in Classics and academia. I'm familiar with the corpus hermeticum, I've translated Ptolemy's Tetrabiblios, Cornelius Aggripa's Three Books of Occult Philosophy, I've lectured on the mysticism of Paracelsus, and I helped with a recent translation of Moses de Leon's Zohar. Literally all of it seems to me to be premodern pseudoscientific nonsense that makes claims that can quite literally never be validated or never be falsified. What sort of history and mainstream science do you recommend to give someone "sufficient conviction of the possibility of 'occult' phenomena?"