Albert Pike!

[wazaaap]

Albert Pike and Three World Wars

Very few outsiders know about the intimate plans of Albert Pike and the architects of the New World Order. In the 19th Century Albert Pike established a framework for bringing about the One World Order. Based on a vision revealed to him, Albert Pike wrote a blueprint of events that would play themselves out in the 20th century, with even more of these events yet to come. It is this blueprint which we believe unseen leaders are following today, knowingly or not, to engineer the planned Third and Final World War.

About Albert Pike

Albert Pike was born on December 29, 1809, in Boston, and was the oldest of six children born to Benjamin and Sarah Andrews Pike. He studied at Harvard, and later served as a Brigadier-General in the Confederate Army. After the Civil War, Pike was found guilty of treason and jailed, only to be pardoned by fellow Freemason President Andrew Johnson on April 22, 1866, who met with him the next day at the White House. On June 20, 1867, Scottish Rite officials conferred upon Johnson the 4th to 32nd Freemasonry degrees, and he later went to Boston to dedicate a Masonic Temple.

Pike was said to be a genius, able to read and write in 16 different languages, although I cannot find a record anywhere of what those languages were. In addition, he is widely accused of plagiarism, so take with a pinch of salt. At various stages of his life we was a poet, philosopher, frontiersman, soldier, humanitarian and philanthropist. A 33rd degree Mason, he was one of the founding fathers, and head of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, being the Grand Commander of North American Freemasonry from 1859 and retained that position until his death in 1891. In 1869, he was a top leader in the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

Pike was said to be a Satanist, who indulged in the occult, and he apparently possessed a bracelet which he used to summon Lucifer, with whom he had constant communication. He was the Grand Master of a Luciferian group known as the Order of the Palladium (or Sovereign Council of Wisdom), which had been founded in Paris in 1737. Palladism had been brought to Greece from Egypt by Pythagoras in the fifth century, and it was this cult of Satan that was introduced to the inner circle of the Masonic lodges. It was aligned with the Palladium of the Templars. In 1801, Issac Long, a Jew, brought a statue of Baphomet (Satan) to Charleston, South Carolina, where he helped to establish the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Long apparently chose Charleston because it was geographically located on the 33rd parallel of latitude (incidentally, so is Baghdad), and this council is considered to be the Mother Supreme Council of all Masonic Lodges of the World.

Pike was Long's successor, and he changed the name of the Order to the New and Reformed Palladian Rite (or Reformed Palladium). The Order contained two degrees:

• Adelph (or Brother), and
• Companion of Ulysses (or Companion of Penelope).

Pike's right-hand man was Phileas Walder, from Switzerland, who was a former Lutheran minister, a Masonic leader, occultist, and spiritualist. Pike also worked closely with Giusseppe Mazzini of Italy (1805-1872) who was a 33rd degree Mason, who became head of the Illuminati in 1834, and who founded the Mafia in 1860. Together with Mazzini, Lord Henry Palmerston of England (1784-1865, 33rd degree Mason), and Otto von Bismarck from Germany (1815-1898, 33rd degree Mason), Albert Pike intended to use the Palladian Rite to create a Satanic umbrella group that would tie all Masonic groups together.

Albert Pike died on April 2, 1891, and was buried in Oak Hill Cemetery, although the corpse of Pike currently lies in the headquarters of the Council of the 33rd degree of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in Washington, D.C. (see The Deadly Deception, by Jim Shaw - former 33rd degree Mason and Past Master of all Scottish Rite bodies.)

The Albert Pike Monument

Albert Pike made his mark before the war in Arkansas as a lawyer and writer, but as a Confederate Brigadier General, he was, according to the Arkansas Democrat of July 31, 1978, a complete "WASH-OUT," not a hero. Yet, Gen. Albert Pike is the only Confederate general with a statue on federal property in Washington, DC. He was honoured, not as a commander or even as a lawyer, but as Southern regional leader of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. The statue stands on a pedestal near the foot of Capitol Hill, between the Department of Labor building and the Municipal Building, between 3rd and 4th Streets, on D Street, NW. More detail about the monument, including a photo and map can be found here. Further background on the colorful history of the statue can be found at the Masonic Info website. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Lyndon H. LaRouche and his vice presidential running mate, the Reverend James Bevel, launched a mobilization to remove the statue of General Albert Pike from Washington, D.C.'s Judiciary Square. On February 1, the campaign drew an angry attack from freemasonic leader C. Fred Kleinknecht, who attempted to defend both Pike and the Ku Klux Klan from LaRouche and Bevel's attack. A speech given by LaRouche defending his actions can be found here (March 20, 1992). And a speech by Anton Chaitkin entitled 'Why Albert Pike's Statue Must Fall' can be found here (September 21, 1992).

The Illuminati and Albert Pike

Adam Weishaupt (1748 - 1811) formed the Order of Perfectibilists on May 1, 1776 (to this day celebrated as May Day throughout many western countries), which later became known as the Illuminati, a secret society whose name means "Enlightened Ones". Although the Order was founded to provide an opportunity for the free exchange of ideas, Weishaupt's background as a Jesuit seems to have influenced the actual character of the society, such that the express aim of this Order became to abolish Christianity, and overturn all civil government.

An Italian revolutionary leader, Giusseppe Mazzini (1805-1872), a 33rd degree Mason, was selected by the Illuminati to head their worldwide operations in 1834. (Mazzini also founded the Mafia in 1860). Because of Mazzini's revolutionary activities in Europe, the Bavarian government cracked down on the Illuminati and other secret societies for allegedly plotting a massive overthrow of Europe's monarchies. As the secrets of the Illuminati were revealed, they were persecuted and eventually disbanded, only to re-establish themselves in the depths of other organizations, of which Freemasonry was one.

During his leadership, Mazzini enticed Albert Pike into the (now formally disbanded, but still operating) Illuminati. Pike was fascinated by the idea of a one world government, and when asked by Mazzini, readily agreed to write a ritual tome that guided the transition from average high-ranking mason into a top-ranking Illuminati mason (33rd degree). Since Mazzini also wanted Pike to head the Illuminati's American chapter, he clearly felt Pike was worthy of such a task. Mazzini's intention was that once a mason had made his way up the Freemason ladder and proven himself worthy, the highest ranking members would offer membership to the secret 'society within a society'.

It is for this reason that most Freemasons vehemently deny the evil intentions of their fraternity. Since the vast majority never reach the 30th degree, they would not be aware of the real purpose behind Masonry. When instructing Pike how the tome should be developed, Mazzini wrote the following to Pike in a letter dated January 22, 1870. Remember that Freemasonry wasn't started by Pike - rather it was infiltrated by the Illuminati who were looking for a respectable forum in which to hide their clandestine activities:

"We must allow all the federations to continue just as they are, with their systems, their central authorities and their diverse modes of correspondence between high grades of the same rite, organized as they are at the present, but we must create a super rite, which will remain unknown, to which we will call those Masons of high degree whom we shall select. With regard to our brothers in Masonry, these men must be pledges to the strictest secrecy. Through this supreme rite, we will govern all Freemasonry which will become the one international center, the more powerful because its direction will be unknown." 1

In 1871, Pike published the 861 page Masonic handbook known as the Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.

After Mazzini's death on March 11, 1872, Pike appointed Adriano Lemmi (1822-1896, 33rd degree Mason), a banker from Florence, Italy, to run their subversive activities in Europe. Lemmi was a supporter of patriot and revolutionary Giuseppe Garibaldi, and may have been active in the Luciferian Society founded by Pike. Lemmi, in turn, was succeeded by Lenin and Trotsky, then by Stalin. The revolutionary activities of all these men were financed by British, French, German, and American international bankers; all of them dominated by the House of Rothschild.

Between 1859 and 1871, Pike worked out a military blueprint for three world wars and various revolutions throughout the world which he considered would forward the conspiracy to its final stage in the 20th Century.

In addition to the Supreme Council in Charleston, South Carolina, Pike established Supreme Councils in Rome, Italy (led by Mazzini); London, England (led by Palmerston); and Berlin, Germany (led by Bismarck). He set up 23 subordinate councils in strategic places throughout the world, including five Grand Central Directories in Washington, DC (North America), Montevideo (South America), Naples (Europe), Calcutta (Asia), and Mauritius (Africa), which were used to gather information. All of these branches have been the secret headquarters for the Illuminati's activities ever since.

Albert Pike and Three World Wars

As do most occultists, Albert Pike had a "spirit guide," who dispensed "Divine Wisdom" and enlightened him regarding how to achieve the New World Order. A spirit guide is a being who meets someone who has given themselves over to the practice of the occult; however, people who are practitioners of the New Age Religion do not view this as a bad thing. In fact, they would strongly argue that they are filled with happiness and joy by interacting with their spirit guides.

One message that Albert Pike received from his spirit guide, and which in reality we know to be a demonic vision, he described in a letter that he wrote to Mazzini, dated August 15, 1871. This letter graphically outlined plans for three world wars that were seen as necessary to bring about the One World Order, and we can marvel at how accurately it has predicted events that have already taken place. This is not because the devil has powers of prophecy, but because his agents have undertaken to manipulate political events to closely follow his designs.

It is a commonly believed fallacy that for a short time, the Pike letter to Mazzini was on display in the British Museum Library in London, and it was copied by William Guy Carr, former Intelligence Officer in the Royal Canadian Navy. The British Library has confirmed to me that such a document has never been in their possession. Furthermore, in Carr's book, Satan, Prince of this World, Carr includes the following footnote:

"The Keeper of Manuscripts recently informed the author that this letter is NOT catalogued in the British Museum Library. It seems strange that a man of Cardinal Rodriguez's knowledge should have said that it WAS in 1925".

It appears that Carr learned about this letter from Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Santiago, Chile, who wrote The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled. To date, no conclusive proof exists to show that this letter was ever written.



Following are apparently extracts of the letter, showing how Three World Wars have been planned for many generations.

"The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions." 2

Students of history will recognize that the political alliances of England on one side and Germany on the other, forged between 1871 and 1898 by Otto von Bismarck, co-conspirator of Albert Pike, were instrumental in bringing about the First World War.

"The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm." 3

After this Second World War, Communism was made strong enough to begin taking over weaker governments. In 1945, at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill, and Stalin, a large portion of Europe was simply handed over to Russia, and on the other side of the world, the aftermath of the war with Japan helped to sweep the tide of Communism into China.

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time." 4

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, world events, and in particular in the Middle East, show a growing unrest and instability between Jews and Arabs. This is completely in line with the call for a Third World War to be fought between the two, and their allies on both sides. This Third World War is still to come, and recent events show us that it is not far off.

[meksar]

Albert Pike was a shite, his legacy still lives on in the deep south of Amerikkka to this day. He was a Khazar who knew that the "John Wayne mentality" was the best way forward for the illuminated ones to manipulate events. It was him who changed the name of the Knights of the Golden Circle to the Ku Klux Klan, also he instructed Jesse James(New Age Outlaw) to rob banks to further fund the civil war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEFatAzdgTo

[wazaaap]

Due to lack of interest tomorrow is canceled lol

[elirien]

Due to lack of interest tomorrow is canceled lol

lol :D

[wazaaap]

lol :D

it is amazing people dont comment on what seems very important info - maybe i have this whole place wrong lol

[lightgiver]

it is amazing people dont comment on what seems very important info - maybe i have this whole place wrong lol

Yes its all on the secret society section and a lot of people have had grief with the likes of thelonius and co on there ,check it out I will bump it up.;)

[elirien]

it is amazing people dont comment on what seems very important info - maybe i have this whole place wrong lol

dude I read this info probably the 25th time at the least. you are "people". why don't you comment?

let them read that think that everything is a coincidence and are ready for war. let them read that can't hear the symphony of the owl. wow. quite poetic (although I ripped it off from peggy kane :p ).

[thelonious]

it is amazing people dont comment on what seems very important info - maybe i have this whole place wrong lol

That is because practically everything said in the original post is, for lack of a better term, "complete horseshit".

Cheers.

[grandsecretary]

This appears on the current KKK Website: http://www.kkklan.com/briefhist.htm
(http://www.kkklan.com/briefhist.htm)
By early 1867, the Klan was spreading through out large sections of the South. It was still largely unstructured and unorganized. By the same token, the Reconstruction Acts of Congress were very organized and well structured. In short, the White South had no constitutional or legal rights at all. The freed Negroes, however, were given full rights. The end result was Negro rule through out most of the South, enforced by Union bayonets. To avoid chaos and to confront the oppression of reconstruction the Klan sought to organize itself. Spokesmen for the Klan first asked former general, Robert E. Lee, if he would head the organization. Lee declined citing his age and poor health. Lee suggested they ask the younger former general, Nathan Bedford Forrest. When the Klan spokesmen asked if they could count on Lee's support, Lee said, yes, but only if his support for their growing empire remained absolutely invisible. This inspired the Klan to adopt the nickname, "Invisible Empire". (Lee was never actually sworn into the KKK because he was not a "paroled" ex-Confederate and he thought that this could cause legal trouble for the fledgling organization. However, he was an active advisor to the Klan's leadership.) N.B. Forrest accepted the Klan's offer to lead the organization and in April 1867, at a convention in Nashville, TN., Forrest became the first Grand Wizard of the Order of the Ku Klux Klan. The rules and regulations of the order, called the Prescripts, were written by former general, John B. Gordon, who became the Grand Dragon or state leader of the KKK in Georgia. Former General, Albert Pike, became the chief judicial officer for the Klan. Pike was also a major figure in Scottish Rite Masonry in America. A notable Klansman and Freemason. Pike is buried in the Masonic Lodge in Washington, D.C., just a few blocks from the White House.

And by process of basic logic, Lee could not serve but Pike must have been "paroled" into the Klan.

[thelonious]

This appears on the current KKK Website: http://www.kkklan.com/briefhist.htm
(http://www.kkklan.com/briefhist.htm)


And by process of basic logic, Lee could not serve but Pike must have been "paroled" into the Klan.

This has been addressed numerous times around here, so there's no need to go into it all again. Suffice it to say that Pike was not a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

He also had nothing to do with Palladium order, nor did he "possess a bracelet that summoned Lucifer", just in case anyone had a doubt.

It should also be noted that Mazzini was not a Freemason, nor a member of the Illuminati, nor did he have anything to do with the Mafia.

Nor did Pike and Mazzini ever write any letters to each other.

[thirdwave]

never really read anything by pike.... I certainly wont judge him by hear say... the best way is to read his books and find out what he was like..

i will get around to it at some point..

[lightgiver]

This has been addressed numerous times around here, so there's no need to go into it all again. Suffice it to say that Pike was not a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

He also had nothing to do with Palladium order, nor did he "possess a bracelet that summoned Lucifer", just in case anyone had a doubt.

It should also be noted that Mazzini was not a Freemason, nor a member of the Illuminati, nor did he have anything to do with the Mafia.

Nor did Pike and Mazzini ever write any letters to each other.

well you are going to say that aren't you:rolleyes:

[thelonious]

never really read anything by pike.... I certainly wont judge him by hear say... the best way is to read his books and find out what he was like..

i will get around to it at some point..

Many of his writings are very good. Most people around here are fond of quoting from Morals and Dogma, although I'm not sure why. It is by no means his best work, and actually only consists of the degree lectures. Pike himself says in the preface that he was equally compiler and author, and that at least half the book was drawn from other authors.

His Legendas and Liturgies of the Ancient and Accepted Rite are superior, but not as commonly available.

[thirdwave]

Many of his writings are very good. Most people around here are fond of quoting from Morals and Dogma, although I'm not sure why. It is by no means his best work, and actually only consists of the degree lectures. Pike himself says in the preface that he was equally compiler and author, and that at least half the book was drawn from other authors.

His Legendas and Liturgies of the Ancient and Accepted Rite are superior, but not as commonly available.

I have read some of his quotes and stuff regarding his views on Lucifer and religion and so on and they have been spot of... so I can see he was a man of knowledge... what his morals were like I don't know..

mind you I do not limit y self to only people i like when it comes to what to read...

[thelonious]

I what his morals were like I don't know..



"Morals and Dogma", as the title implies, is supposed to be a commentary on the moral law, and the dogams or doctrines behind them.

In Pike's case, he adopted the Masonic system of moral values, and was perhaps a bit prudish. On the other hand, it would be difficult to go wrong as long as one was adhering to them. The book can be read in full here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

[thirdwave]

"Morals and Dogma", as the title implies, is supposed to be a commentary on the moral law, and the dogams or doctrines behind them.

In Pike's case, he adopted the Masonic system of moral values, and was perhaps a bit prudish. On the other hand, it would be difficult to go wrong as long as one was adhering to them. The book can be read in full here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

thanks.

[meksar]

Pike was a outright Luciferian who we know blueprinted the three world wars along with Giuseppe Mazzini. Mazzini himself invented the blood oath ritual which is used by the mafia til this day, many like myself are disgusted with their Novus Ordo Seclorum scheme but i cannot deny they were both extremely influential. The devilish memory of these 2 hidden masonic martyrs is something which is coming to the surface in the infinite battle between good and evil.

[metacomet]

Thanks for posting this. I know very little of Pike but have heard of him often.

For the life of me, I don't understand why Masons think they have authority on these topics. Unless you knew Albert Pike personally you have no certain knowledge on the man besides what you have heard, just like the rest of us.

Masons feed on table scraps... while telling everyone else to ignore the feast of free knowledge. They are like chaste priests who hate the common man for having a sex life. They took a vow of ignorance in an attempt to become wise men and as a result they seeth and writhe with anger when they see people who are not initiates talking about certain topics.

[thelonious]

Pike was a outright Luciferian who we know blueprinted the three world wars along with Giuseppe Mazzini. Mazzini himself invented the blood oath ritual which is used by the mafia til this day, many like myself are disgusted with their Novus Ordo Seclorum scheme but i cannot deny they were both extremely influential. The devilish memory of these 2 hidden masonic martyrs is something which is coming to the surface in the infinite battle between good and evil.

As already mentioned, Mazzini was not a Mason, nor did he have anything to do with the mafia, nor did he know Albert Pike. Mazzini was demonized by the Catholic Church, but is beloved by non-Catholic Italians, as the primary promoter of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. in that country.

It is forgivable to think that Mazzini was a Mason, even the Wikipedia article on him says he was. However, this is a result of confusion. Mazzini was a member of the Carbonari, which Italian Catholics confused withe Masons.

Pike was an Episcopalian, not a "Luciferian".

Repeating the same lies over and over will not make them true.

[meksar]

Look it is obvious you are a masonic shill who is here to only dismiss exposure of the likes of Pike and Mazzini.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1086

http://itwasjohnson.impiousdigest.com/page1cx.htm

[thelonious]

Look it is obvious you are a masonic shill who is here to only dismiss exposure of the likes of Pike and Mazzini.




The only thing you're exposing is your own brainwashed mentality, showing you'll believe in pretty much any ridiculous thing you're told provided it's stupid enough.

Read a history book, for Christ's sake.

[luciferhorus]

Pike was an Episcopalian, not a "Luciferian".

Repeating the same lies over and over will not make them true.


On Morals (the discernment of good and evil) and Dogma (correct belief)

Thank you for that clarification Thelonius.

Almost the entire George Bush family are Episcopalians (The Anglican Church or the Church of England) including father and son, as is the head of state of the British narco-terrorists (Elizabeth Windsor) and her numerous tyrant ancestors who were the slavemasters of British Imperialism and global narco-terrorism.

Moral. My Judgement.

Anyone who collaborates in any way with Anglican Christianity is in my judgement a morally worthless individual who is totally unworthy of life; I consider them untermenshce (moral inferiors).

Dogma. (correct belief). My Judgement.

Any person who considers Anglican theology to constitute correct belief is simply intellectually retarded; I consider them untermensche (intellectual inferiors).

Subhuman

The Anglicans are among the 'chaff (the morally sub-human)' of the earth who shall and must in time be cast into the fires of the Final Holocaust and be ruthlessly exterminated.

Genocide

Every soldier in the British army fights for the head of the Church; the officer ranks bear her mark and her name on their foreheads and are Q.C's (Queen's Commision) sworn to kill and be killed for her and for her Capitalist god.

Her army is full of Anglican chaplains who bury their dead promising them salvation in the eternity of Capitalist heaven.

The 'God' of their theologians is the Israelite Communist Jesus, and in his name they impoverish humanity and drop depleted uranium on the poor.

Shame.

Such devils are the living defintion of 'useless eaters,' 'vermin' and economic parasites.

Beyond Good and Evil.

As Nietzsche pointed out, religious morality is simply the morality of the slave.

The superior man (or woman) has no need of it and exists beyond good and evil.

Anglicanism and Masonry are simply anti-thelemic; they represent the most grevious mortal 'sin of restriction' and the tyranny of the priesthood and kings and their armies of lawyers, tax collectors and mercenaries; they will be and must be in time be eradicated from Eden.

Until the last priest is buried with the last tyrant, Heaven shall not come to earth.

Woe to Christendom.

Great and Terrible and Dreadful and Wrathful shall be thier apocalyptic Judgement. Their Kingdom of Capital shall turn to dust.

LL

Lux

No mercy or quarter on they who deserve none.

[thelonious]

Almost the entire George Bush family are Episcopalians (The Anglican Church or the Church of England) including father and son, as is the head of state of the British narco-terrorists (Elizabeth Windsor) and her numerous tyrant ancestors who were the slavemasters of British Imperialism and global narco-terrorism.

Actually, George W. is a Methodist.

Pike was born and raised in Episcopalianism, but American Episcopalianism is a pretty large umbrella. Pike considered himself a Christian Gnostic, as is clear in his writings.


[B]Moral. My Judgement.

Anyone who collaborates in any way with Anglican Christianity is in my judgement a morally worthless individual who is totally unworthy of life; I consider them untermenshce (moral inferiors).

Whatever happened to "Every man and every woman is a star"?



Any person who considers Anglican theology to constitute correct belief is simply intellectually retarded

Well, you're probably right, at least as far as the Canterbury line goes. But again, in the USA, there is not a specific "Anglican" doctrine, and Pike was a Hermetic Gnostic and Ceremonial Magician.

Anglicanism and Masonry are simply anti-thelemic; they represent the most grevious mortal 'sin of restriction' and the rule and tyranny of the priesthood and kings; they will in time be eradicated from Eden.

Masonry cannot be "anti-thelemic" simply because Thelema is a child of Masonry. Aleister Crowley himself was a Freemason, and it was in interpreting the symbolism and ritual of Freemasonry that he had his most profound insights and epiphanies.

Although, of course, in the above we have to separate Masonry as a system of communicating Truth from Masonry as a fraternal organization consisting of men who largely neither know nor care anything about communicating such Truth.

[luciferhorus]

Actually, George W. is a Methodist.

Pike was born and raised in Episcopalianism, but American Episcopalianism is a pretty large umbrella. Pike considered himself a Christian Gnostic, as is clear in his writings.



I am supposed to working today, but such debates are addictive.

Well Theolonious.

Christian Gnosticism is generally considered by anti-Capitalists to be a depoliticalisation of the anti-Capitalist teachings of Jesus.

I have no problem with Anarchist Christians who are gnostics, but Pike was an anti-Communist and the Grand Master of a Capitalist cult; to define an anti-Communist as a Christian is however practically quite accurate since Christianity is an generally an anti-Communist phenomenon and their god the god of Capital.


Whatever happened to "Every man and every woman is a star"?



Yes [Every man and woman is a star and "Love is the law, love under will," and thou hast no right but to do thy will. but also Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
--AL. II. 58 and Trample down the Heathen; be upon them, o warrior, I will give you of their flesh to eat!




"the law of
the strong:
this is our law
and the joy
of the world." AL. II. 2

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." --AL. I. 40

"thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay." --AL. I. 42-3

"Every man and every woman is a star." --AL. I. 3

There is no god but man.
1. Man has the right to live by his own law--
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.
2. Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will:--
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." --AL. I. 51
5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.


.
Masonry cannot be "anti-thelemic" simply because Thelema is a child of Masonry. Aleister Crowley himself was a Freemason, and it was in interpreting the symbolism and ritual of Freemasonry that he had his most profound insights and epiphanies.

Although, of course, in the above we have to separate Masonry as a system of communicating Truth from Masonry as a fraternal organization consisting of men who largely neither know nor care anything about communicating such Truth.

Thelemic philosophy in the West can be traced to the 16th century Christian humanist Francois Rabelais; it has nothing to do with Freemasonry which represents the anti-thesis of Thelema and the power of the state, of Capital and of the submission of the will to a Master; in the East it can be traced to the Sanskrit 'svecchachara,; which also can be translated as "Do what thou wilt

Among Masonry you find the Capitalist establishment and their lawyers; the world of Capital is essentially anti-thelemic; it is a prison planet, a police state; it is not a question of believing and not acting. it is as if I were to say that Christians cannot be anti-Communist since Jesus was a Communist, but in practice this is not true; Christianity is an anti-Communist phenomenon and a mockery of Jesus by the devotees of the god of Capital.


The fool says in his heart 'I love Jesus' and then devotes himself to the god of Capital; that practically defines Christianity.

With regards to George Bush, he was raised an Episcopalian by his parents; it is his wife Barabara Bush who is the methodist; he still attends church with his father.

LL

Lux

[luciferhorus]

"the law of
the strong:
this is our law
and the joy
of the world." AL. II. 2

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." --AL. I. 40

"thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay." --AL. I. 42-3

"Every man and every woman is a star." --AL. I. 3

There is no god but man.
1. Man has the right to live by his own law--
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.
2. Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will:--
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." --AL. I. 51
5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.




Addendum.

I should point out that these rights are only in part able to be fulfilled by those who have the keys to the Kingdom of Capital.

We who are among the very few who live in the elite nations of Capital are to a very limited extent able to follow our true will, but to the vast majority of our brothers and sisters (who constitute the 'every man and woman' of the 'are stars') who are the billions who are impoverished and trapped in Capital's prison, they have no right other than the rights of a slave, and as the enslaved they cannot live, work, play, rest, die, eat, drink, speak, write, dwell, fuck, love and move on the face of the earth as they will; that is the realm of the Capitalist elites.

I should point out that in common with other Thelemites that I part company with the anti-Communist Crowley in many ways and that all Anarchists are, by default Thelemites (whether they regard themselves as so or not), whereas many would be Thelemites are religious cultists and Capitalists who understand thelemic law in the same way that a Capitalist Christian understands the Communist Jesus (i.e., they are devoid of true understanding). I refer to Anarchist definitions of Thelema as an ultimate unwritten authority and not primarily to Crowley's.

I am not for the Masters who shall be eradicated from the earth, but for the enslaved who shall inherit the earth; I have no compassion for the masters; just as they have no mercy on the enslaved.

I should also point out that Aiwass was a priest of Horus; why evoke and awaken a slave when you can evoke and awaken his much more powerful master whom the slave worshipped? Thus by Thelema I refer ultimately to my own defintion, not to the defintion of a slave.

'Let my people go' is my demand; the current Pharoah's alternative is that is the 7 curses of the Angels of Apocalyptic war whom I have also summoned; unfortunately my 'war, revolution...anything good but strong' will have genocidal consequences for Capitalism, far beyond Crowley's expectations and the curses of Moses on Egypt.

Rivers of blood shall flow.

LL

Lux
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif
Give me war, revolution...anything good but strong.

[thelonious]

I am supposed to working today, but such debates are addictive.

True.


Christian Gnosticism is generally considered by anti-Capitalists to be a depoliticalisation of the anti-Capitalist teachings of Jesus.

Christian Gnosticism is the only pre-Crowley Gnosticism in the West. And even many of the Christian Gnostics, such as the Johannite Apostolic Church, promote Crowley's works.

I have no problem with Anarchist Christians who are gnostics, but Pike was an anti-Communist and the Grand Master of a Capitalist cult

Pike was not a capitalist, nor did he promote capitalism, nor was involved in a "capitalist cult". Pike blasted the evils of capitalism many times in "Morals and Dogma", as well as in his "Letters To The Northern States".


to define an anti-Communist as a Christian is however practically quite accurate since Christianity is an generally an anti-Communist phenomenon and their god the god of Capital.

This is true of the modern cults who call themselves "Christian", but not of the Gnostics, who always promoted common ownership between the faithful.


Thelemic philosophy in the West can be traced to the 16th century Christian humanist Francois Rabelais; it has nothing to do with Freemasonry which represents the anti-thesis of Thelema

It is true that Thelema can trace descent from Rabelais (whi is usually described as anti-Christian instead of Christian), but it is not true that Thelema has nothing to do with Freemasonry. As Crowley himself wrote in his preface to the Book of Lies, Freemasonry was the most important thing in his career. It was through Freemasonry and its derivatives, especially the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and O.T.O., that Crowley learned the Science of Magick, and the philosophies that would give birth to Thelema.



Among Masonry you find the Capitalist establishment and their lawyers; the world of Capital is essentially anti-thelemic;

Crowley, who was a stout anti-communist, disagreed. In his preface to the 1938 edition of Liber AL vel Legis, Crowley blasted both Communism and Fascism, saying that both systems restrict liberty, and were therefore "abortive births of the Aeon of Horus".

Crowley gives his idea of a perfect utopia in the Blue Equinox, which was an anti-communist vision, but also regulated capital to a certain extent without eliminating it. In Crowley's vision, civil government would be in the hands of the Sovereign Sanctuary of the Gnosis of the O.T.O., who would act as Philosopher Kings in the Platonist sense, whereas non-initiates would continue to practice a libertarian capitalism.

[thirdwave]

the thing is, you can look at communism and say it is not about freedom... some peoples ideal communism may be free and good but not easy to exercise
...
but in general with communism you can quite easily fall into a dictatorship with limited freedom for most... a NWO..

so although the idea of it is fair... the fact you have to have someone turn the wheel means its dangerous... perhaps this is the way Crowley say it... if you look at some of the communist countries and how terrible it has been... then this is probably what inspired him to have the views he had...

[luciferhorus]

the thing is, you can look at communism and say it is not about freedom... some peoples ideal communism may be free and good but not easy to exercise
...
but in general with communism you can quite easily fall into a dictatorship with limited freedom for most... a NWO..

so although the idea of it is fair... the fact you have to have someone turn the wheel means its dangerous... perhaps this is the way Crowley say it... if you look at some of the communist countries and how terrible it has been... then this is probably what inspired him to have the views he had...

Yes however bear in mind that Anarchist Communists oppose all forms of government and all forms of Capitalism including Leninist State Capitalism; generally we do not consider Marxists to be real Communists but rather pseudo-Communists; rather like the Christians who claim to be followers of Jesus but who are in fact Capitalists.

When the anti-Communists think of Communism I think they generally think of Stalin and the lack of freedom, but having lived in 'spiritual' communes and worked for the Israeli kibbutzists I think of a 'commune;' whereas in Capitalism most live very selfish non-communal lives, and the idea of sharing all resources, food and so forth is alien to them in their dog eat dog world.

For most of humanity, not having to pay rent, or to buy food and living with many other people sharing labour and resources would be economic heaven; whereas for the Capitalist who can buy cheap shoes for a $1 which some child in India took hours to make, Capitalism is heaven.

Capitalism works, just like slavery works; the slavemaster cannot be expected to be anti-slavery, just as the Capitalist cannot be expected to be anti-Capitalist. Revolution is about the liberation of the enslaved and the Third World proletariat; their Capitalist beneficiaries can be expected to complain about it.

This is a world of billions of impoverished hungry people; a third of humanity are just children under 16; for the Capitalist; only those with money can eat and the rest starve; food is a commodity and the idea of feeding the children of humanity is simply evil. 'Freedom' for the Capitalist is the freedom to trade food as a commodity to the highest bidder; 'freedom' to a communist has a completely different definition

LL

Lux

[luciferhorus]

True.



Christian Gnosticism is the only pre-Crowley Gnosticism in the West. And even many of the Christian Gnostics, such as the Johannite Apostolic Church, promote Crowley's works.

.

Well you seem to speak as if gnosticism is a good thing; I take a contrary view; to restate it is a depoliticalisation of the teachings of an anti-Capitalist martyr.
.
Pike was not a capitalist, nor did he promote capitalism, nor was involved in a "capitalist cult". Pike blasted the evils of capitalism many times in "Morals and Dogma", as well as in his "Letters To The Northern States"..

Well you are just doing contradiction here. Pike was not a Communist; he was a Capitalist and an overtly declared racist. Freemasonry is essentially a Capitalist cult. He was therefore the leader of a capitalist cult.

With regards to his attacks on the evil of Capitalism, David Icke does it all the time, but his counterproposal to Capitalism 'is' Capitalism; Capitalist politicians such as Obama are constantly in the media attacking the evils of Capitalism but they 'are' Capitalists. A man who is blind accusing the blind of being blind is simply a fool.

This is true of the modern cults who call themselves "Christian", but not of the Gnostics, who always promoted common ownership between the faithful.

There have been some Christian communists throughout history, but frankly I don't find that in modern Gnosticism; I been on numerous Gnostic debating forums and they are full of Freemasons who consider themselves to be Christian gnostics; I could care less what language they use to define themselves.


It is true that Thelema can trace descent from Rabelais (whi is usually described as anti-Christian instead of Christian),

He was a Catholic monk with radical ideas. Contradiction for the sake of it is often the sign of desparation in argument.


but it is not true that Thelema has nothing to do with Freemasonry. As Crowley himself wrote in his preface to the Book of Lies, Freemasonry was the most important thing in his career. It was through Freemasonry and its derivatives, especially the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and O.T.O., that Crowley learned the Science of Magick, and the philosophies that would give birth to Thelema.

I don't see this in Freemasonry; I have yet to meet a contemporary freemason committed to revolution against government, religion and Capitalism; all of which is necessary for thelemic revolution; indeed those terms define Freemasonry.


Crowley, who was a stout anti-communist, disagreed. In his preface to the 1938 edition of Liber AL vel Legis, Crowley blasted both Communism and Fascism, saying that both systems restrict liberty, and were therefore "abortive births of the Aeon of Horus".

I disagree; certainly Marxist/Leninist pseudo Communism constructs a police state and restricts liberty, but then so would some of the militant Anarchists, you would not have the liberty to form a government or issue Capital, exploit the labour of others or sell food for example; these are the liberties of a slavemaster.


Crowley gives his idea of a perfect utopia in the Blue Equinox, which was an anti-communist vision, but also regulated capital to a certain extent without eliminating it. In Crowley's vision, civil government would be in the hands of the Sovereign Sanctuary of the Gnosis of the O.T.O., who would act as Philosopher Kings in the Platonist sense, whereas non-initiates would continue to practice a libertarian capitalism.[/

Yes it sounds much like the world we live in where the O.T.O would take over the City of London from the Masons

I decline the agenda.

LL

Lux


_____________________________________________



Argument (Gr. dialectic) according to Socrates, Hegel and John Cleese.





3 universally accepted ground rules of debating



1: Abuse.

Abuse does not constitute an argument.



2: Contradiction.

Contradiction is not an argument. ’I don’t agree with you’ is not an

argument. An Argument would state ‘why’ you disagree.



3: Sophistry (sophist: ’sophisticated / educated).

A Sophist generally avoids the question and rambles on about something else, often avoiding the argument made by the opponent and often utilising straw man arguments (attacking arguments and positions which the opponent does not hold) and creates confusion with language.



The use of the combination of 1, 2 and 3 is generally defined as ’arrogance’ and ‘avoidance of debate, ’ and by default ‘conceding the point to the opponent’



For those who do not understand the meaning of the term ‘argument, ’ for further information watch the 3 min video on the ground rules of debate on:


http://www.youtube.com/v/kQFKtI6gn9Y&hl=en&fs=1

(Monty Python Argument Sketch)



Note that this only covers abuse and contradiction.

[thelonious]

Well you seem to speak as if gnosticism is a good thing; I take a contrary view; to restate it is a depoliticalisation of the teachings of an anti-Capitalist martyr.

Thelema is a form of Gnosticism. The Prophet Aleister Crowley made this clear many times.

Gnosticism, of course, is simply Scientific Illuminism, the Religion of Knowledge.


Well you are just doing contradiction here. Pike was not a Communist; he was a Capitalist and an overtly declared racist.

A "capitalist" is someone who owns the means of production, and pays wage laborers a fixed sum, the surplus of which is "capital", owned by the capitalist.

Pike was a school teacher and an attorney, not a capitalist who employed wage laborers.

Freemasonry is essentially a Capitalist cult.

No, Freemasonry is essentially a modern form of initiation into the mysteries. This is why Freemasonry, as a system, is generally well-regarded by occultists, and attacked by reactionaries and conservative religious institutions.


With regards to his attacks on the evil of Capitalism, David Icke does it all the time, but his counterproposal to Capitalism 'is' Capitalism; Capitalist politicians such as Obama are constantly in the media attacking the evils of Capitalism but they 'are' Capitalists. A man who is blind accusing the blind of being blind is simply a fool.

I do not entirely disagree, but just wanted to point out that Pike had little patience for exploitative capitalism, and wrote much in opposition to it.



There have been some Christian communists throughout history, but frankly I don't find that in modern Gnosticism; I been on numerous Gnostic debating forums and they are full of Freemasons who consider themselves to be Christian gnostics; I could care less what language they use to define themselves.




He was a Catholic monk with radical ideas. Contradiction for the sake of it is often the sign of desparation in argument.

I am unable to find a reference as to him ever being a monk, however all sources state he practiced as a physician and was a heavy critic of Roman Catholicism.



I don't see this in Freemasonry; I have yet to meet a contemporary freemason committed to revolution against government, religion and Capitalism; all of which is necessary for thelemic revolution; indeed those terms define Freemasonry.

I think you may be missing the point in this regard. Freemasonry is not about revolution against government in the sense that you mean, and neither is Thelema. "Let my servants be few and secret, they shall rule the many and the known".

Communism, as Crowley pointed out, fosters the herd mentality, and offers another slave religion. "Ye are against the people, O my chosen!" The Thelemite's rule is complete individuality, he or she will not allow themselves to be assimilated into "the masses".



Yes it sounds much like the world we live in where the O.T.O would take over the City of London from the Masons

Crowley believed that Masonry would eventually evolve into branches of the O.T.O., as he expected Freemasonry to officially accept the Law of Thelema. This may or may not eventually happen.

[thirdwave]

Yes however bear in mind that Anarchist Communists oppose all forms of government and all forms of Capitalism including Leninist State Capitalism; generally we do not consider Marxists to be real Communists but rather pseudo-Communists; rather like the Christians who claim to be followers of Jesus but who are in fact Capitalists.

When the anti-Communists think of Communism I think they generally think of Stalin and the lack of freedom, but having lived in 'spiritual' communes and worked for the Israeli kibbutzists I think of a 'commune;' whereas in Capitalism most live very selfish non-communal lives, and the idea of sharing all resources, food and so forth is alien to them in their dog eat dog world.

For most of humanity, not having to pay rent, or to buy food and living with many other people sharing labour and resources would be economic heaven; whereas for the Capitalist who can buy cheap shoes for a $1 which some child in India took hours to make, Capitalism is heaven.

Capitalism works, just like slavery works; the slavemaster cannot be expected to be anti-slavery, just as the Capitalist cannot be expected to be anti-Capitalist. Revolution is about the liberation of the enslaved and the Third World proletariat; their Capitalist beneficiaries can be expected to complain about it.

This is a world of billions of impoverished hungry people; a third of humanity are just children under 16; for the Capitalist; only those with money can eat and the rest starve; food is a commodity and the idea of feeding the children of humanity is simply evil. 'Freedom' for the Capitalist is the freedom to trade food as a commodity to the highest bidder; 'freedom' to a communist has a completely different definition

LL

Lux

I agree with your points... and I think half of what people "need" in this world is only needed because of the way they are made to feel and live anyway....

hence people want there fruit cut and put in boxes ... rather than have to peel it them selves... because they are too busy putting things in boxes for someone else.

It sounds like Crowley him self was just talking about commercialised communism if you like... again shows that not all wise men know it all.

[thirdwave]

As Crowley himself wrote in his preface to the Book of Lies, Freemasonry was the most important thing in his career. It was through Freemasonry and its derivatives, especially the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and O.T.O., that Crowley learned the Science of Magick, and the philosophies that would give birth to Thelema.


Crowley did not exactly get on like a house on fire with the Freemasons... and was never even officially one.... and to this day they deny that he was a member of the British Freemason... I believe he also took out all the Freemason stuff when he tool over the OTO ...

Crowley was the kind of person who probably wanted to become a Freemason so he could influence it... not follow it.

[luciferhorus]

Thelema is a form of Gnosticism. The Prophet Aleister Crowley made this clear many times.

Gnosticism, of course, is simply Scientific Illuminism, the Religion of Knowledge.

.

By that defintion all scientists are thus Gnostics. There are many Greek words for knowledge, but gnosis is not quite 'scientific illumination,' it should rather be interpreted as 'mystical knowedge' or 'inner enlightenment' which is dependent not so much on the scientific knowledge of the 5 senses, but upon an inner 'spiritual' or 'shamanic' experience, which is often in practice attained through the use of shamanic psychoactives.

By that defintion all shamans are gnostics.

I have no problem with this term since it is my own path, but to define Masons as gnostics, I think to be similar to alleging that Christians are the devotees of an anti-Capitalist, anti-propertyist; one can claim to be anything in human language; frankly I have found Masons to be a rather unenlightened lot, who are generally trapped in the material realm and whose god is very much the god of the villes and cities.

I do have a background in organic chemistry and I previously owned a company in London producing shamanic psychoactives until the government criminalised psilocybe and I was prosecuted for 120 skunk plants; my impression of Masons is that they represent the 'moral majority' and the conservative media view of 'restricting' such matters; they are hardly progressive thinkers in this area; indeed it is my view that the criminalisation of shamanic substances is merely so that the state terrorist establishment (i.e., the military, the police, the banks) can profit from them and there you will find also much of the Masonic establishment; futher a person who is shamanically enlightened and awakened by the psychoactive experience hardly makes a good Capitalist slave, which is of course what the economic elites desire.

Masonry in my view has little or nothing to do with gnosticism and much more to do with the worship of the god of Capital; their definition of a 'good' person is generally that of an effective and obedient slave of the Capitalist system; and their definition of 'moral' has more to do with Neitzche's definition of 'slave morality.'

They can call themselves gnostics if they wish as a result of their silly rituals, but exuse me for finding that ridiculous and considering them to represent the anti-thesis of gnosticism and indeed the enemies of gnosticism.


A "capitalist" is someone who owns the means of production, and pays wage laborers a fixed sum, the surplus of which is "capital", owned by the capitalist.

Pike was a school teacher and an attorney, not a capitalist who employed wage laborers.

I can assure you that Pike owned newspapers and employed wage laborers, and that it was through his editorials that he spoke out against African Amarican suffrage (the right to vote); Communism is not a racist or nationalist ideology.

However that he 'owned' propaganda journals is not the point; there are many Communists who own newspapers (such as the London Morning Star and various undergound Anarchist and Marxist publishing houses); we all live in a Capitalist world, even the Communists. One of my relatives who was probably Scotland's most famous Communists (James Maxton) was also a school teacher and an M.P. who sold his labour for Capital.

I think that you are rather missing the point; I would love to run a printing press and pay wages; Engels was indeed a factory owner; Kropotkin a wealthy aristocrat, Castro a lawyer; revolutions require propaganda, weapons, Capital etc.

You seem to have a very naive understanding of what exactly constitutes an anti-Capitalist; I am speaking in terms of ideological belief, not how one earns a living.

To suggest that Pike was an anti-Capitalist is simply ridiculous; might I suggest that you try suggesting this on some Marxist or Anarchist or American anti-racist forums; then sit back and await the ridicule; might I suggest raising this on the Black Panther forum on myspace which I am also subscribed to.

For a Capitalist to be a critic of Capitalism is often what Capitalists do; Obama and Gordon Brown do it constantly; indeed I was listening to an interview on the news last night where the head of the World Bank was speaking about the terrible poverty in the world and how something must be done (to enslave the world in further debt); that is what Capitalists do; it is just a game which impresses only the gullible.


No, Freemasonry is essentially a modern form of initiation into the mysteries. This is why Freemasonry, as a system, is generally well-regarded by occultists, and attacked by reactionaries and conservative religious institutions.

I think that if you raise such issues on the anti-Capitalist and especially Anarchist forums these days, that they have mostly had to plough through the piles of anti-Masonic propaganda on the Internet and that you will not have much sympathy; I think you will find that most care little for their silly rituals and have much greater concerns than earning new titles and degrees.

The highest concentration of Masonic Lodges anywhere in the world is in London's square mile (the financial district); that is hardly a coincidence; it is generally a cult of Capitalists.

I do understand that the 'conservative religious institutions' are as blinded by the sin of restriction as the Masons are, but Masonry is a 'conservative religious / ritualistic / temple institution' and certainly conservative in general in the practical economic sense; in Scotland and in the City one seems to join to advance up the Capitalist food chain. and it is clear that they represent the Capitalist establishment; it is not an organisation of Communists seeking to overthrow Captialism in armed violent revolution; on the contrary that would be their worst nightmare; indeed the Royal Bank of Scotland which crashed recently is well known to be an institution of Masons; I don't find them celebrating it's collapse; on the contrary.

In the recent anti-Capitalist demonstrations in the City of London, you would be quite likley to find the Masons among the police, the media, the banking institutions, but I very much doubt if your would find them among the Anarchists and anti-Capitalists unless they are infiltrators; they are generally to be found among the Capitalist state terrorist collaborators.

London is full of anti-Capitalists, and having lived among them for many years I can assure you that they are mostly Internet literate and quite aware of the David Icke / Alex Jones analysis of them.

My Judgement is entirely against them; my judgement is that they must be eradicated from the face of the earth, their temples torn down, and that none should be spared; howoever since many are part of the military apparatus and the police state, bear in mind that they are also Capitalist militants engaged in genocide and global Capitalist revolution.


I am unable to find a reference as to him ever being a monk, however all sources state he practiced as a physician and was a heavy critic of Roman Catholicism..


François Rabelais was a Franciscan and later a Benedictine monk of the 16th century. Eventually he left the monastery to study medicine,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema

I think that your initial description of his as an anti-Christian is more accurate than my desription of him as a 'Cathoic monk,' and I would concede the point; he apparently put his experience as a monk behind him; however some Christian humanists do consider him as one of their own; but since Christianity is generally a Capitalist belief which propagates the sin of restiction, I think I had better just concede the point to you and revise my desription of him as an 'ex-monk' and an anti-Catholic. Stalin after all was allegedly in the process of becoming a priest, but we do not remember him thus.


I think you may be missing the point in this regard. Freemasonry is not about revolution against government in the sense that you mean, and neither is Thelema. "Let my servants be few and secret, they shall rule the many and the known".

Communism, as Crowley pointed out, fosters the herd mentality, and offers another slave religion. "Ye are against the people, O my chosen!" The Thelemite's rule is complete individuality, he or she will not allow themselves to be assimilated into "the masses".

Crowley believed that Masonry would eventually evolve into branches of the O.T.O., as he expected Freemasonry to officially accept the Law of Thelema. This may or may not eventually happen.

Masonry is the defintion of 'herd mentality;' Anarchism is the anti-thesis of herd mentality and a thelemic philosophy.

If I quote a certain person or accept certain aspects of a person's philosophy, it does not follow that I have suspended critical thinking of that person (as you appear to have done with Crowley, if I understand you correctly) and thus accept every word they wrote as if the Gospel.

For example I find it hard to disagree with Marx's mentor, the Anarchist Proudhon on politics / economics, but he was certainly anti Jewish and certainly anti-feminist, so I attach my self to what is valuable and agreeable, but I also have detach myself from that which I disagree with; similarly with numerous other philosopher and political thinkers.

There are certain writers (such as Kropotkin) whom I am entirely in agreement with, perhaps in the same way that you appear to be with Crowley, but perhaps one day someone will quote me a line of Kropotkin which I do not agree with and I will say so (it just has not happened yet).

Thus, just as the LaVey Crowd have extracted Thelema from Crowley, but reject his spiritualism and other aspects of Crowleyanity, as an Anarchist I have extracted what is valuable from Crowley such as thelema (since all Anarchists are by default thelemites, but certainly not Crowleyists), his kabbalistic knowledge and I have gleaned much from reading his biographies and from his experiences with necromancy, sex magick and shamanic psychoactives.

I am also a thelemite, a kabbalist, I have indulged in sexual experimentation, a lifetime of phsycoactive useage and the practice of necromancy / magick, but I entirely dismiss Crowley's political vision of the future, his elitism and his anti-Communism.

Crowley may not have been critical of the Nazis but if we extract thelema from the Book of the Law, much of the remainder comes across as very much a Neo-Nazi tract; his vision of the future world ruled by an elite group of spiritualists, warring against their enemies, is very similar to the spiritual side of Nazism and indeed to Masonry (which is also a miltary order) and Capitalist Christianity; it is a vision of the future which I entirely reject, as do all Anarchists.

LL

Lux

[thelonious]

Crowley did not exactly get on like a house on fire with the Freemasons

That depends on which Masons we're talking about. Crowley's closest confidantes were Masons, as were some of his critics. For example, Frater Achad (Charles Stansfeld Jones), Crowley's "Magickal Childe", was a regular Master Mason in Detroit. He opposed many of the leaders of the UGLE, but that was because they had been players in the whole Golden Dawn scenario, and was not due to Freemasonry itself.

... and was never even officially one

Crowley was initiated, passed, and raised in Anglo-Saxon Lodge No. 343, an English-speaking Lodge in Paris, in 1904. He received the 90° of the Rite of Mitzraim and 96° of the Rite of Memphis from John Yarker in London several years later. Yarker also reconstituted Crowley's 33° in the Ancient and Accepted Rite according to the Cerneau Constitution, as his previous 33° received in Mexico had been irregular, even by Yarker's standards.

Crowley then became Grand Secretary General of the Sovereign Sanctuary of London, Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis, the minutes of the meeting which were published in The Equinox. Upon Yarker's death, Crowley was elected Grand Hierophant 97°. This was at abolut the same time that Harold Van Buren Voorhis, Grand Hierophant for North America, transferred the Rite's authority in the US to the Grand College of Rites of the United States, of which I am myself a member.

.... and to this day they deny that he was a member of the British Freemason

He was not a British Freemason, but then again, neither am I.

I believe he also took out all the Freemason stuff when he tool over the OTO ...

Only for the first three degrees (actually only for the first two...the Third Degree of O.T.O., Master Magician, strongly parallels the Third Degree of Master Mason). This was done at the time that Crowley was trying to regularize his masonic membership with the UGLE, having applied to the English Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons. The higher degrees were never "de-Masonicized" by Crowley, with the degree ceremonies being practically copies of several degrees of the Cerneau Scottish Rite (compare Francis King's "The Secret Rituals of the O.T.O." with Blanchard's "Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated").

Crowley was the kind of person who probably wanted to become a Freemason so he could influence it... not follow it.

I disagree, at least partly. He certainly wanted to influence it. When he came to America in the 1920's, he demanded seats on the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite for the Northern Jurisdiction USA for both he and Jones, which was denied. In a letter to Jones, Crowley wrote "We cannot admit that there is anyone higher in Masonry than ourselves."

On the other hand, it was Freemasonry and its outgrowths that he dedicated his life to. In his autobiography he wrote, "My association with Free Masonry was therefore destined to be more fertile that almost any other study, and that in a way despite itself."

[eternal_spirit]

Francis King's "The Secret Rituals of the O.T.O.

Is it factual? Some say he revealed too much.

[thelonious]

There are many Greek words for knowledge, but gnosis is not quite 'scientific illumination,' it should rather be interpreted as 'mystical knowedge' or 'inner enlightenment' which is dependent not so much on the scientific knowledge of the 5 senses, but upon an inner 'spiritual' or 'shamanic' experience, which is often in practice attained through the use of shamanic psychoactives.

I meant "Scientific Illuminism", as per Crowley's motto for The Equinox.



I have no problem with this term since it is my own path, but to define Masons as gnostics

And here's the rub. I don't claim that all Masons, or even most Masons, are Gnostics. As an active Mason myself, I can easily promise that Masons certainly aren't Gnostics. But Freemasonry, as a system, *is* Gnostic, even though most of the Craft's membership are not aware of it, or even care.

frankly I have found Masons to be a rather unenlightened lot, who are generally trapped in the material realm and whose god is very much the god of the villes and cities.

This not only applies to most Masons, but to most non-Masons as well. So instead of painting Masons with such a broad brush, I think it would be more correct to just say "people", regardless if they have membership in the Masons.


my impression of Masons is that they represent the 'moral majority' and the conservative media view of 'restricting' such matters

Why?

I think, for whatever reason, this is a common misunderstanding, and it seems to me to be possibly a "bait and switch" sort of thing.



Masonry in my view has little or nothing to do with gnosticism and much more to do with the worship of the god of Capital; their definition of a 'good' person is generally that of an effective and obedient slave of the Capitalist system; and their definition of 'moral' has more to do with Neitzche's definition of 'slave morality.'

But again, where did you derive this opinion? The rituals and teachings of Masonry are readily available, so where do you find those rituals and teachings to be harmonious with what you're describing?


To suggest that Pike was an anti-Capitalist is simply ridiculous; might I suggest that you try suggesting this on some Marxist or Anarchist or American anti-racist forums; then sit back and await the ridicule

I doubt that many Marxists have ever even heard of Albert Pike.

Nevertheless, some Communists have been interested in Freemasonry (Trotsky, for example), and some Communists even became Masons themselves (Bakunin, Allende, W.E.B. Dubois).


For a Capitalist to be a critic of Capitalism is often what Capitalists do; Obama and Gordon Brown do it constantly; indeed I was listening to an interview on the news last night where the head of the World Bank was speaking about the terrible poverty in the world and how something must be done (to enslave the world in further debt); that is what Capitalists do; it is just a game which impresses only the gullible.

But here, as always, we must look for guidance in the doctrines of the Mysteries, most notably, the Qabalah. We know that, in the Qabalistic understanding of the world, we must strike a balance, harmony and equilibrium. Capitalism by itself is oppression and violence, but so is Communism. The correct balance is represented by the Middle Pillar.



I think that if you raise such issues on the anti-Capitalist and especially Anarchist forums these days, that they have mostly had to plough through the piles of anti-Masonic propaganda on the Internet and that you will not have much sympathy; I think you will find that most care little for their silly rituals and have much greater concerns than earning new titles and degrees.

Perhaps, but I have no interest in the anarchists or anti-Masonic propagandists. As Crowley himself noted, if everyone minded their own business and concentrated on the Great Work, most of those problems would go away by themselves.

Masonry is the defintion of 'herd mentality;' Anarchism is the anti-thesis of herd mentality and a thelemic philosophy.

The Prophet of Thelema himself said the opposite (see "Magick Without Tears").


If I quote a certain person or accept certain aspects of a person's philosophy, it does not follow that I have suspended critical thinking of that person (as you appear to have done with Crowley, if I understand you correctly) and thus accept every word they wrote as if the Gospel.

Not at all. You certainly have the right to disagree with Crowley, but as the originator and prophet of the Thelemic movement, it is not logical to call his own teachings anti-thelemic.

Thus, just as the LaVey Crowd have extracted Thelema from Crowley, but reject his spiritualism and other aspects of Crowleyanity, as an Anarchist I have extracted what is valuable from Crowley such as thelema (since all Anarchists are by default thelemites, but certainly not Crowleyists), his kabbalistic knowledge and I have gleaned much from reading his biographies and from his experiences with necromancy, sex magick and shamanic psychoactives.

I disagree that all anarchists are thelemites....in fact, most are not. "Thelemite", in the Crowleyan sense, encompasses those who first know the True Will, then do it. The knowledge of the True Will can only be obtained through strict disciplinary practices, and all energies have to be concentrated on it. The anarchist, on the other hand, is busy with other things.

[thenewman11]

Wow! people defending Albert Pike, and spinning things to make him seem like a Great man on these forums! Unbelievable!
I think people are aloud to believe in whatever they want but I just don't understand some of these "know it all" giant ego's posting here.
More than likely anyone whom defends Pike is a FreeMAson and shouldn't be trusted for they are sworn to secrecy.

[thelonious]

Is it factual? Some say he revealed too much.

It is factual, inasmuch as it contains both the original Reuss rituals, as well as Crowley's revisions.

However, the so-called "Caliphate" O.T.O. of modern times have throughly revised them, so the Crowley rituals as given in King's book do not reflect the current ritual used by them (although I understand that there are some non-Caliphate O.T.O. groups out there who still use the original Crowley revisions).

[thirdwave]

That depends on which Masons we're talking about. Crowley's closest confidantes were Masons, as were some of his critics. For example, Frater Achad (Charles Stansfeld Jones), Crowley's "Magickal Childe", was a regular Master Mason in Detroit. He opposed many of the leaders of the UGLE, but that was because they had been players in the whole Golden Dawn scenario, and was not due to Freemasonry itself.



Crowley was initiated, passed, and raised in Anglo-Saxon Lodge No. 343, an English-speaking Lodge in Paris, in 1904. He received the 90° of the Rite of Mitzraim and 96° of the Rite of Memphis from John Yarker in London several years later. Yarker also reconstituted Crowley's 33° in the Ancient and Accepted Rite according to the Cerneau Constitution, as his previous 33° received in Mexico had been irregular, even by Yarker's standards.

Crowley then became Grand Secretary General of the Sovereign Sanctuary of London, Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis, the minutes of the meeting which were published in The Equinox. Upon Yarker's death, Crowley was elected Grand Hierophant 97°. This was at abolut the same time that Harold Van Buren Voorhis, Grand Hierophant for North America, transferred the Rite's authority in the US to the Grand College of Rites of the United States, of which I am myself a member.



He was not a British Freemason, but then again, neither am I.



Only for the first three degrees (actually only for the first two...the Third Degree of O.T.O., Master Magician, strongly parallels the Third Degree of Master Mason). This was done at the time that Crowley was trying to regularize his masonic membership with the UGLE, having applied to the English Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons. The higher degrees were never "de-Masonicized" by Crowley, with the degree ceremonies being practically copies of several degrees of the Cerneau Scottish Rite (compare Francis King's "The Secret Rituals of the O.T.O." with Blanchard's "Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated").



I disagree, at least partly. He certainly wanted to influence it. When he came to America in the 1920's, he demanded seats on the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite for the Northern Jurisdiction USA for both he and Jones, which was denied. In a letter to Jones, Crowley wrote "We cannot admit that there is anyone higher in Masonry than ourselves."

On the other hand, it was Freemasonry and its outgrowths that he dedicated his life to. In his autobiography he wrote, "My association with Free Masonry was therefore destined to be more fertile that almost any other study, and that in a way despite itself."

the bottom line though is when he ran his own order (OTO) which was known as a Freemason thing.... He changed it to his own Law of Thelema which in its self shows that he had differing views, there may have been similer stuff in there to Freemasons but thats simply because he learned from it... but why change something?... and the Fact that the reason he was not a British Freemason was because they would not except him also speaks volumes..

[thelonious]

the bottom line though is when he ran his own order (OTO) which was known as a Freemason thing.... He changed it to his own Law of Thelema which in its self shows that he had differing views, there may have been similer stuff in there to Freemasons but thats simply because he learned from it... but why change something?

The changes were actually very minor, as a comparison of the rituals show. The major changes were simply changes in emphasis. Traditionally, high degree Freemasonry has been based on Christian mysticism, whereas Crowley's revisions concentrate on Thelemic mysticism.

... and the Fact that the reason he was not a British Freemason was because they would not except him also speaks volumes..

But the matter of their refusal to accept him is an entirely different story. Crowley gives a comical version of what happened in The Equinox, when he applied for membership in the UGLE. In Crowley's version of the story, he explained to the Grand Secretary which Lodge he came from, after which the GS almost had a heart attack on the spot, calling upon the Great Architect of the Universe to "strike this imposter down", screaming about how all the French are atheists and share each other's wives.

It made for a funny story, but the actuality of it had to do with the Golden Dawn. Crowley had already been publishing the initial volumes of The Equinox, and had written several essays extremely critical of the GD leadership, accusing Mathers and several others of charlatanism. The problem here was that the people he was attacking were not only Golden Dawn chiefs, but also UGLE grand officers.

Naturally, they bore a grudge, even though it appears that Crowley was correct in his assesment. Regardless, they refused to recognize Crowley's Masonic standing probably as a personal grudge.

In reality, his Lodge at the time was under jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of France, which was partially regular, and had been unofficially recognized by the UGLE. After Crowley's death, his Lodge changed constitutions, and still exists under the National Grand Lodge of France, which is officially recognized by the UGLE.

It is my personal opinion that Masonic etiquette therefore requires that the UGLE grant full recognition to Crowley posthumously, but that's a matter for the Jurisprudence Committee.

[thirdwave]

The changes were actually very minor, as a comparison of the rituals show. The major changes were simply changes in emphasis. Traditionally, high degree Freemasonry has been based on Christian mysticism, whereas Crowley's revisions concentrate on Thelemic mysticism.



But the matter of their refusal to accept him is an entirely different story. Crowley gives a comical version of what happened in The Equinox, when he applied for membership in the UGLE. In Crowley's version of the story, he explained to the Grand Secretary which Lodge he came from, after which the GS almost had a heart attack on the spot, calling upon the Great Architect of the Universe to "strike this imposter down", screaming about how all the French are atheists and share each other's wives.

It made for a funny story, but the actuality of it had to do with the Golden Dawn. Crowley had already been publishing the initial volumes of The Equinox, and had written several essays extremely critical of the GD leadership, accusing Mathers and several others of charlatanism. The problem here was that the people he was attacking were not only Golden Dawn chiefs, but also UGLE grand officers.

Naturally, they bore a grudge, even though it appears that Crowley was correct in his assesment. Regardless, they refused to recognize Crowley's Masonic standing probably as a personal grudge.

In reality, his Lodge at the time was under jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of France, which was partially regular, and had been unofficially recognized by the UGLE. After Crowley's death, his Lodge changed constitutions, and still exists under the National Grand Lodge of France, which is officially recognized by the UGLE.

It is my personal opinion that Masonic etiquette therefore requires that the UGLE grant full recognition to Crowley posthumously, but that's a matter for the Jurisprudence Committee.

I know an OTO member and he does not think its anything like Freemasonry... I also know some Freemasons that are about as spiritual as a pound note (not generalising of course)

[thelonious]

I know an OTO member and he does not think its anything like Freemasonry

That probably depends on which O.T.O. he's a member of.

The largest O.T.O. group is the Caliphate, and they operate very much like Freemasonry, with the basic Crowley degree rituals. Most people who say they are members of the O.T.O. belong to this group.

They confer Masonic degrees (from the Rite of Memphis), wear Masonic aprons in their degree ceremonies, and their highest degrees compose an internal body called "The Academica Masonica".

If your friend is a member of the this O.T.O. and does not think it's anything like Fremasonry, he hasn't done his homework (or even stayed awake during his initiation!).

On the other hand, there is a much smaller O.T.O. group commonly known as the Typhonian O.T.O., led by Kenneth Grant, who is to my knowledge the last surviving personal student of Crowley's.

In the Typhonian O.T.O., Grant completely eliminated everything Masonic, including degree rituals, lodges, ceremonial initiations, the whole nine yards. So if your friend happens to be a member of this O.T.O., then he would be accurate. Much the same can be said of the Society Ordo Templi Orientis and United Rites - Ordo Templi Orientis. But these are relatively small groups when compared to the Caliphate, who use the Masonic model based on Crowley's Blue Equinox.

I also know some Freemasons that are about as spiritual as a pound note

Me too.

[luciferhorus]

And here's the rub. I don't claim that all Masons, or even most Masons, are Gnostics. As an active Mason myself, I can easily promise that Masons certainly aren't Gnostics. But Freemasonry, as a system, *is* Gnostic, even though most of the Craft's membership are not aware of it, or even care.

.

I think we are just defining 'Gnostic' in different ways; I would consider Timothy Leary a Gnostic, but I cannot imagine the lower echelons of Masonony of the ilk one meets on the Internet, such as our 'Grand Secretary' here, sitting in a cave on LSD and practicing sex magick; frankly I find them almost all of them I come accross to have more in common with the 'moral majority' and with conservatism; you can use private language any way you wish, just as in England the media constantly speak of Britain as a democracy (we are a monarchy) and the current war as a war against terrorism (Britain and America are the two leading terrorist states) for freedom (the freedom to exploit their colonies), but the terms freedom, democracy and 'terrorised' are defined differently by the enemies and victims of the Anglo-American state terrorists / narco-terrorists



But again, where did you derive this opinion? The rituals and teachings of Masonry are readily available, so where do you find those rituals and teachings to be harmonious with what you're describing?

Their teachings and rituals are only a problem for the Christians since they believe that it differs from the true faith of their genocidal Capitalist tyrant of a god; as an evangelical anti-Christian and neo-Pagan I don't have the same problem; my agenda is the total eradication of Capitalism and I concur with David Icke's view that they represent the Capitalist establishment, though I must point out that I do not accept either his 'reptilian theory (Capitalists are demons not reptiles)' nor his counterproposal to Capitalism which is essentially State Capitalism; taking the power away from private banks and giving it to different Archons is just a 'shuffling' of power; rather like a palace revolution where one tyrant is replaced for a new one.


Nevertheless, some Communists have been interested in Freemasonry (Trotsky, for example), and some Communists even became Masons themselves (Bakunin, Allende, W.E.B. Dubois).

I recall reading that when Trotsky was in prison he read some Masonic books and made comments in his diary; I also have an interest in Freemasonry, but it amounts to little more than the study of the enemy.

Certainly a number of Anarchists have been Masons including Proudhon and (as you mention) Bakunin. Some of the French and Russian lodges were infested with Communists in the 19th and early 20th centuries; however this is in the past when many joined masonry through their professions; Proudhon was a printer for example and it was rather like a printers union, the police in London allegedly tend to frequent a certain lodges and so forth. I don't find this trend today; do you know of a single contemporary Freemason activist dedicated to the eradication of private property, capital, government and religion? Furthermore a 'master' is an Archon; I cannot conceive of an Anarchist swearing oaths to obey a master; it is simply anti-thetical to Anarchism.


But here, as always, we must look for guidance in the doctrines of the Mysteries, most notably, the Qabalah. We know that, in the Qabalistic understanding of the world, we must strike a balance, harmony and equilibrium. Capitalism by itself is oppression and violence, but so is Communism. The correct balance is represented by the Middle Pillar.

Since the Masons are almost exclusively State terrorist collaborators and part of the Capitalist establishment, to say that 'Capitalism by itself is oppression and violence it obviously follows that Masons are the proponents of 'oppression and violence;' anti-Capitalism (which comes in many flavours) is simply a natural response to such oppression and violence; defence against a tyrant is quite in accord with our true nature and true will.


Perhaps, but I have no interest in the anarchists or anti-Masonic propagandists. As Crowley himself noted, if everyone minded their own business and concentrated on the Great Work, most of those problems would go away by themselves.

The Great Work demands the total eradication of the three pillars of Capitalism, Organsied Religion and Tryanny; I am not commited to Crowley's agenda, just as most Crowleyists are not involved with the Great Work; indeed they are against it, but I think we need to define what it is and I will take this matter up in a separate thread.

Not at all. You certainly have the right to disagree with Crowley, but as the originator and prophet of the Thelemic movement, it is not logical to call his own teachings anti-thelemic.

You speak as if he invented a TV set or holds copyright on a piece of music or a play. If I was to say, 'live in accordance with your nature and reject all the laws of restriction of the priesthood I am simply speaking according to my nature;' I don't hold a copyright on natural law.


.
I disagree that all anarchists are thelemites....in fact, most are not. "Thelemite", in the Crowleyan sense, encompasses those who first know the True Will, then do it. The knowledge of the True Will can only be obtained through strict disciplinary practices, and all energies have to be concentrated on it. The anarchist, on the other hand, is busy with other things.

Let me say that 'all' Anarchists are true thelemites whereas any anti-Communist (Anarchism being a particular brand of anti-statist Communism) who claims to be a thelemite is not a thelemite.

Now here I am merely contradicting you; I am not offering an argument against your position.

Since this is a thread on Albert Pike and Masonry, the issue of thelema, will and law is quite a separate issue which I think deserves an entire and thread on it's own. It seems to me that you consider thelema to be something which only intellectual and spiritual elties can understand while I consider it to be natural sacred law.

I have an entire essay which deals with this issue (What is Anarchism? On Capital, Property and Law) and the 'Great Work (The Final Revolution);' I will reformat it for this this forum and post it in a separate thread, though I doubt it will interest you if you consider thelema to be something within the mind of intellectual and spiritual elites.

Essentially the Anarchist form of thelema is not called thelema; it is simply what remains when Kropotkin's three categories of Law are eradicated, and which is better referred to as the 'natural law' which a child would naturally follow if free from the millions of laws of the tyrants and priests.

LL


Lux

[thirdwave]

That probably depends on which O.T.O. he's a member of.

The largest O.T.O. group is the Caliphate, and they operate very much like Freemasonry, with the basic Crowley degree rituals. Most people who say they are members of the O.T.O. belong to this group.

They confer Masonic degrees (from the Rite of Memphis), wear Masonic aprons in their degree ceremonies, and their highest degrees compose an internal body called "The Academica Masonica".

If your friend is a member of the this O.T.O. and does not think it's anything like Fremasonry, he hasn't done his homework (or even stayed awake during his initiation!).

On the other hand, there is a much smaller O.T.O. group commonly known as the Typhonian O.T.O., led by Kenneth Grant, who is to my knowledge the last surviving personal student of Crowley's.

In the Typhonian O.T.O., Grant completely eliminated everything Masonic, including degree rituals, lodges, ceremonial initiations, the whole nine yards. So if your friend happens to be a member of this O.T.O., then he would be accurate. Much the same can be said of the Society Ordo Templi Orientis and United Rites - Ordo Templi Orientis. But these are relatively small groups when compared to the Caliphate, who use the Masonic model based on Crowley's Blue Equinox.



Me too.

Im not sure what one he is with but he has brought up Kenneth Grant in convo... cant remember what he said about him though as it was just a passing comment.....but it might be that one...

the impression I have is most Freemasons today became inspired by Crowley.. not the other way around..

[thelonious]

I think we are just defining 'Gnostic' in different ways; I would consider Timothy Leary a Gnostic, but I cannot imagine the lower echelons of Masonony of the ilk one meets on the Internet, such as our 'Grand Secretary' here, sitting in a cave on LSD and practicing sex magick; frankly I find them almost all of them I come accross to have more in common with the 'moral majority' and with conservatism;

I think you're pretty close to being correct, but I don't want you to miss my point here. I'm not saying that most Masons are Gnostics or know anyting about Magick. I'm simply saying that the system of Freemasonry was designed by Adepts to teach esoteric knowledge through symbolism.

So the actual system of Freemasonry is pure and teaches Truth. It's just that most Masons don't get it. Crowley was one of the few that did, as was Pike.


I cannot conceive of an Anarchist swearing oaths to obey a master; it is simply anti-thetical to Anarchism.

Agreed, but I wouldn't either. Freemasonry does not require such an oath, and its system is based on equality, "the brotherhood of man".

I joined Freemasonry simply because I was interested in occultism. I have no interest in capitalism or communism, outside of a general interest in history.




Since this is a thread on Albert Pike and Masonry, the issue of thelema, will and law is quite a separate issue which I think deserves an entire and thread on it's own. It seems to me that you consider thelema to be something which only intellectual and spiritual elties can understand while I consider it to be natural sacred law.

My idea of Thelema is based on the writings of Aleister Crowley, who was the Prophet of the Thelemic Current.

[thelonious]

Im not sure what one he is with but he has brought up Kenneth Grant in convo... cant remember what he said about him though as it was just a passing comment.....but it might be that one...

Possibly. And just for the record, I consider Grant's O.T.O. to be the most historically legitimate, even though it's a lot different from the O.T.O. as envisioned by Crowley.



the impression I have is most Freemasons today became inspired by Crowley.. not the other way around..

Most Freemasons have probably never heard of Crowley, and would almost certainly be horrified if they read his books!

Although, it's important to make a distinction here. I do not think that Crowley was much influenced by *Freemasons* either. He was, however, extremely influenced by *Freemasonry*.

[luciferhorus]

I think you're pretty close to being correct, but I don't want you to miss my point here. I'm not saying that most Masons are Gnostics or know anyting about Magick. I'm simply saying that the system of Freemasonry was designed by Adepts to teach esoteric knowledge through symbolism.



So the actual system of Freemasonry is pure and teaches Truth. It's just that most Masons don't get it. Crowley was one of the few that did, as was Pike.



.

Thesis / Logos (idea) and Praxis (the manifestation of the idea)

Amended 21.00 GMT London 4/25/2009, Aeon of Lucifer.

http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

The Kabbalah and Masonry

Well Thelonius, you and I are referring to the Kabbalah, as was Crowley; an ancient received tradition of metaphysical knowledge, but bear in mind that we have the 'Grand Secretary' and other Masonic Sophists here who don't seem to have a clue what we are talking about, and who seem to be under the impression that they have joined a Capitalist cult where they can buy and sell esoteric titles for Capitalist coin and that this cult has little or nothing to do with the Kabbalah, but with some other form of knowledge which they are unable to explain in simple language and which it seems that they neither understand themselves nor are they able to bring others to an understanding of.

For example the Grand Secretary's response to my essay 'The Kabbalah Simplified (Part 1)' was a one-liner stating 'this person knows nothing;' that is entirely unacceptable in academic circles as 'a critique;' which would rather state an argument which expresses a better or truer understanding of the subject and which would explain errors of knowledge; simple contradiction and abuse is the debating strategy of the child (the fool).

When described as having ancient origins, the Masonic cultists bring out all the arguments that their cult is a new religious movement, and when described as being a new religious movement, they often refer to their ancient legacy; frankly I am growing tired of all their sophistry and word games. I frankly very much doubt if there is any understanding of the Kabbalah which permeates Masonry which cannot easily be retrieved from other sources; in fact I find most, if not virtually 'all' Masons to be Kabbalistically illiterate unless they have studied other sources; further I conclude that what little they do understand is generally a heresy (a corruption of the truth); further there are some things with regards to the Kabbalah which a cultist in a paternalistic cult of men, sworn to keep their knowledge secret from women, cannot hope to understand.

I have used this example so many times before, but if a person were to simply read the I-Ching from cover to cover, they would probably fall asleep with boredom at some point; it cannot be understood purely from a scholarly point of view; it has to be 'used.'

It is rather like the 'Cargo cults' where a primitive tribe would find some object like a 'glass bottle' from a ship and worship it as a sacred object, since they are unaware of it's practical use.

With the I-Ching, it is only at the point where one makes a practice of throwing the coins, looking up the trigram and considering the advice in terms of guiding one's journey through life that it's magick becomes apparent; the common parable which is told and retold is one where many great scholars are blindfolded and have to touch parts of an elephant, and then describe what the object is; they can only truly understand the parts they touch when they perceive the whole, and to do this they must remove their blindfolds.

19th and 20th century studies of the Kabbalah in written texts. Sources.

I think that Crowley had a similar opinion of 'Freemasons' but not of the kabbalistic metaphysics which permeates it and which is only obvious to those who have seen the entire elephant, so to speak, but this view I believe he gleaned from other sources, particularly written sources; for example I have a copy of Papus' 'Tarot of the Bohemians (1896)' on my shelf and the assignment of the Hebrew letters to the major Arcana are all there, as is the unpacking of YHVH and the Tarot's astrological significance, which I am quite sure Crowley adapted in his writings, changing only some relationships between the letters and the cards.

I am not suggesting plagiarism of text but merely the adaptation of Kabbalistic ideas and understandings which preceded Crowley; such written works by Papus and Eliphas Levi were widely known in esoteric circles and such knowledge was clearly gleaned from such sources, but I find none of this knowledge in Freemasonry; there is rather merely the faint glimpse of it; however were one to study Masonry 'after' having studied Papus, Levi and other esotericists, one's eyes would be 'open' so to speak, but in general the purpose of Masonry seems to be to confuse the neophyte rather than to impart knowledge of the ancient system of metaphysics and magick which encompasses astrology, sex magick, necromancy, psychoactive usage; all of which Masons in general appear to be entirely ignorant of.

I should point out that despite the brilliance of Crowley's analysis in the Book of Thoth, that since it is a syncretic analysis, gleaned from many sources, that if it were an academic essay at graduate or post graduate level (the latter being more the level of writing) that he would be failed on the grounds of a lack of bibliography and that he 'would' be accused of plagiarism since he has not clearly stated his sources; this then becomes a problem when considering the sources of his knowledge, since it becomes possible for some to claim that Masonry is the source, but I cannot assure you otherwise, and I base this upon my understanding of the esoteric literature of his era, having read works by his esoteric contemporaries with whom he was persoanally familiar and upon his numerous remarks regarding influences and so forth where Masonry is almost never mentioned; it is the writings of his esoteric contemporaries and predecessors which permeates his work, not the sophistry, confusion, Kabbalistic heresy, mumbo-jumbo and the pretentious arrogance of Masonry.

Although you have pulled out a few of his positive quotes on Masonry, having read a number of Crowley's biographies, Masonry is rarely and briefly mentioned, and indeed I recall he very much shared my judgement on them; at one point stating that he would 'wipe his ass' with their rituals and I think it clear that he considered himself to be intellectually and spiritually far beyond them, as frankly do I, and I say this without arrogance in the same way that for example, a teacher of history transcends the understanding of history that a child has, and he can come to such a judgement by simply speaking with the child as I can when I speak with Masons. Further in terms of the application of knowledge into the realm of the experiential, I fail to find a great many similarities between the tales of the Abbey of Thelema and the Masons of the Scottish or York Rites

Similarly (to the I-Ching) with Kabbalistic metaphysics; one has to use the system; I have done so since my youth and yet now almost 40 years later I can read books by scholars who do not seem to use it and yet write great works of confusion and sophistry, and it saddens me for they see complexity while I perceive the simplicity of the whole having used the system and thus can speak about it in very simple terms; just as the person who has 'used' the I-Ching can explain how to use it in a few minutes, whereas a scholar might research it and write great volumes on it without ever having used it. Similarly Crowley's Book of Thoth is perhaps 'the' classic work in my judgement, but if one never uses the system, I think one would be confused by it, reading it cover to cover, rather than using it as a reference.


Freemasonry does not require such an oath,

Masonic Oaths


Well you claim 1: to be a Mason and yet 2: that Masonry does not require an oath of obedience to a master.


There are only two possibilities; A: that you unaware that Masonry requires an oath of obedience to a master or B: that you simply like to practice contradiction; frankly Thelonious I suspect the latter.

As you have suggested yourself the rituals of Masonry litter the Internet for all to read, the evidence contradicts your claim; frankly all the rites and oaths take place in the presence of a person who is termed 'worshipful (worthy of worship) and 'Master (as in the 'opposite of slave);' if you prostrate yourself before another man and refer to him as 'Master' and 'worshipful,' as opposed to 'brother,' or 'sister' then you accept a position of servitude, not of equality.

It is among the Communists where you have the tradition of universal equality and where it is common to refer to someone as 'brother' and 'sister' and comrade (meaning a sharer of one's barracks or room) where there is a tradition of anti-racism and anti-nationalism and the belief in universal economic equality and so forth; I do not find this in Masonry where there is a clear hierarchy with pompous titles, some based upon terms of military rank being bought and sold.

All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steady resolution to perform the same, without any hesitation, myself, under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had of so vile and wicked a wretch as I would be, should I ever, knowingly, violate this my Master Mason's obligation.



and its system is based on equality, "the brotherhood of man".

Masonic Equality

'For every slave a master, and for every master a slave'

In my judgement, Freemasonry is a cult of Capitalists and an assortment of state terrorist collaborators and assorted chaff; they represent the anti-thesis of the idea of a brotherhood of man (and woman); Christian Capitalist state terrorism / narco-terrorism is the definition of inequality.

Further you cannot have equality if you prostrate yourself before another and refer to him as 'Master' and 'worshipful,' unless you are speaking in the private language of a hypnotised slave, where such terms are redefined in Orwellian Newspeak; 'freedom is slavery,' 'war is peace,' and so forth.

You can use private language any way you wish and redefine the term 'Master' as 'equal' but you are not in your lodge here but on a public forum and I refer to public definitions of language which will be commonly understood.


My idea of Thelema is based on the writings of Aleister Crowley, who was the Prophet of the Thelemic Current.

Thelema (true will)

I have a number of essays on thelema but I have posted quite a few new threads into this forum and I don't want to just litter it with new threads, but to simplify.

Simply put a slave hypnotised by the slave morality of the priesthood cannot possibly hope to understand his true will, since he (or she) has been indoctrinated and hypnotised to conform to the will of a master.

We are not born with a written instruction manual and under the rule of the priests and tyrants we have millions of laws, some are sexual laws; probably the 613 laws of Moses are a good example; I have pointed to the general Anarchist view of thelema which perhaps should simply be referred to as the unwritten intuitive natural law, since most Anarchists probably would not relate to the term 'Thelema,' despite their intuitive understanding of the idea, which frankly is preferable to an academic understanding.

Mentor (L. mentis: a mental influence or guide); the goats and the sheep.

Although I find myself in agreement with Crowley over many issues and consider him a mentor somewhat, I could say the same about Mao, Ho Chi, Guevara, Plato, Proudhon and numerous other philosophers and political writers in history but in none of these cases do I suspend critical thinking and simply state that I agree with them in entirety.

The only exceptions to this, thus far, are the Anarchist Saints 'Peter Kropotkin (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin)' and 'Emma Goldman (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman),' but only since I cannot yet find anything to disagree with; I may quote Masons such as Proudhon and Bakunin but I have a number of criticisms of their perspectives on correct politics (political correctness).

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/anarchism2sm.jpg

If we are free thinkers our mind should work syncretically and absorb that which we consider useful and reject that which we consider we have progressed beyond and disagree with; it is common for the mind of the slave / sheep to simply seek someone to 'follow,' but the goat has a tendency to seek to be free and to follow his own will and to think independently.


The Elitism of the Masters and the Guidance of Angels

Frankly to restate I find Crowley's view of a future world ruled by a spiritual elite, and much of his 'trample down the weak,' channeling in the Book of the Law to be anti-thetical to the Anarchist agenda.

Aiwass was after all allegedly a priest of the Egyptian aristocracy, not exactly one who represents universal equality and a 'Holy Guardian Angel' as most would understand that term with regards to a protector and guide to humanity; frankly he comes across more as 'demonic.'

The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.

If anything is forbidden, I tend to want to cross that boundary and taste the forbidden fruit

Nothing is forbidden to me; I am the manifestation of the Law as far as I am concerned, and it is not out of arrogance that I tend to feel that I have surpassed Crowley intellectually, spiritually, sexually, experimentally, experientally, and in terms of necromantic magick and as a 'drug fiend;' my debt of gratitude to him is only the same debt that I owe to all my mentors and teachers; but gratitude is not servitude.

It is very easy to criticise my ancestors since I am a 21st century revolutionary, and if Crowley were alive today he would have a different level of hindsight and would be a different person and he would have deal with the likes of me; the 21st century Anarchists and saviours of future humanity, and with Masons like yourself.

I am not the servant or host of the priest of Horus Aiwass; I make demands; I do not obey, I do not submit myself to the will of the gods; I expect their total and absolute submission to me on penalty of Hell for even the slightest disobedience.

"The best blood is of the moon, monthly: then the fresh blood of a child, or dropping from the host of heaven: then of enemies; then of the priest or of the worshippers: last of some beast, no matter what."


I have no problem with shedding the blood of the priesthood; on the contrary, I absolutely demand the sacrifice of all priests
on all altars of all temples in Eden prior to their destruction, and of all enemies of the Final Revolutionary War of Economic Salvation, sparing not one and and without mercy or compassion; I demand rivers of blood to flow until the last priest is dismembered and burned or buried with the last tyrant; none must be spared; not one.

Let the blood of the priesthood of Eden and all who collaborate with them stain my robes; so mote it be; my innocence shall remain; the guilt is theirs not mine.

However in the Christian nations we must expect collateral casualties among the innocents when apocalyptic war ensues; their blood shall not stain my robes, long have I cried out in warning of the consequences of collaboration with the Anglo-American Christian state terrorists; only the blood of the guilty I take upon myself; but ritual human sacrifice cultism of children is really not my thing; I am a Communist after all; it disgusts me; I seek only the blood of the guilty not the innocent, for otherwise I would err in judgement.

The Angelic and Demonic; evoking, commanding and banishing in necromancy

Obviously one cannot evoke the angelic without attracting the attention of the demonic and vice versa; so one evokes (calls upon) both, but having made one's commands and demands clear, one must then banish them, otherwise there is the danger of falling under their dominion, which is why I am also not fond of channelling, and I think you also made comments to this extent; I do not 'channel' anyone, demonic or angelic, I simply speak for myself and speak my own mind, it is my will I seek to impose on humanity's masters, tyrants, priests and oppressors; and that is not an expression of my own self interest, but rather stems from the desire to liberate the humanity's enslaved; to set the captives free so to speak, and to manifest the mantra of 'let my people go.'

I understand from your previous statements that you have no experiential understanding or belief in the gods (ancestral spirits) and reduce all such matters to psychology, however that was not Crowley's position, as we have discussed before, despite the odd quote which can be interpreted by those who reduce such matters to the psychological; I on the other hand concur with Crowley on the existence of the gods (ancestral spirits) in other dimensions; this should not be taken as an expression of 'belief' but as the consequence of shamanic experiences; belief implies doubt; experience implies the transcendence of doubt.

There is no need to turn thelema (true will) into a grand system accessible only to an intellectual and spiritual elite, it is simply the natural law which we would abide by if we were to remove the millions of laws of the priesthood which represent the morality of a slave, as opposed to one who is free.

Obviously one could not just walk around the ghettos of Capitalism and say 'Do what thou wilt,' since this would be understood as gang warfare, rape, murder etc., just as the Capitalists 'do what they will' to their victims and slaves in their colonies; so a little education is required


LL

Lux
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

War, revolution, apocalyptic guerilla war, genocide...anything good but strong, etc.



" A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate…..Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine--this is what our soldiers must become.".........Guevara




“It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.”

[thelonious]

This is a lot to answer, so let me take it a step at a time.




Well Thelonius, you and I are referring to the Kabbalah, as was Crowley; an ancient received tradition of metaphysical knowledge, but bear in mind that we have the 'Grand Secretary' and other Masonic Sophists here who don't seem to have a clue what we are talking about, and who seem to be under the impression that they have joined a Capitalist cult where they can buy and sell esoteric titles for Capitalist coin and that this cult has little or nothing to do with the Kabbalah, but with some other form of knowledge which they are unable to explain in simple language and which it seems that they neither understand themselves nor are they able to bring others to an understanding of.

I think you're probably right for the most part on this.



I frankly very much doubt if there is any understanding of the Kabbalah which permeates Masonry which cannot easily be retrieved from other sources; in fact I find most, if not virtually 'all' Masons to be Kabbalistically illiterate unless they have studied other sources; further I conclude that what little they do understand is generally a heresy (a corruption of the truth); further there are some things with regards to the Kabbalah which a cultist in a paternalistic cult of men, sworn to keep their knowledge secret from women, cannot hope to understand.

I agree with most everything you wrote here except the last part. For example, Freemasons aren't sworn to keep Kabalistic knowledge from women (or from anyone else).

And while it is technically true that there is nothing in Freemasonry that can't be learned elsewhere, the relevant point here is that things are generallky this way because of Freemasons, not in spite of them. It was, after all, mostly Freemasons that first translated the Kabalistic works into English, and wrote thousands of books on the subject, making the western public aware of the Kabalah's existence in the first place.

I think that Crowley had a similar opinion of 'Freemasons' but not of the kabbalistic metaphysics which permeates it

I think you may have reached a misunderstanding here, and I believe it is because you tend to generalize "Freemasons", and paint them with a single, broad brush. The reality is, however, that Freemasons are radically different from each other. Crowley had great respect for many Masons, while he ridiculed other Masons.

Much the same can be said of this thread's original topic, Albert Pike, who made it a point to distinguish Kabalistic Masons (whom he called "Adepts" and "Princes of Masonry") from the average moron who joins the fraternity for preconceived selfish reasons (whom he referred to as "those fit to be misled").

and which is only obvious to those who have seen the entire elephant, so to speak, but this view I believe he gleaned from other sources, particularly written sources; for example I have a copy of Papus' 'Tarot of the Bohemians (1896)' on my shelf and the assignment of the Hebrew letters to the major Arcana are all there, as is the unpacking of YHVH and the Tarot's astrological significance, which I am quite sure Crowley adapted in his writings, changing only some relationships between the letters and the cards.

Crowley learned the Tarot attributions when he was initiated into the Grade of Practicus in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Tarot correspondences being secrets of that degree. Due to a cryptic verse in Liber AL, he eventually pulled the old switcheroo on Tzaddi, re-assigning it to the The Emperor, moving Heh to The Star.

Previous to Papus' Tarot of the Bohemians, Levi also gave a list of Tarot correspondences in "Transcendental Magic", but like the Papus work, the correspondences were (probably) intentionally wrong, with the true attributions being considered a secret among Rosicrucians.

I am not suggesting plagiarism of text but merely the adaptation of Kabbalistic ideas and understandings which preceded Crowley; such written works by Papus and Eliphas Levi were widely known in esoteric circles and such knowledge was clearly gleaned from such sources, but I find none of this knowledge in Freemasonry; there is rather merely the faint glimpse of it; however were one to study Masonry 'after' having studied Papus, Levi and other esotericists, one's eyes would be 'open' so to speak,

True, but as you and other non-Masons tend to ignore, there is a rich oral tradition in Masonry. Thus while the non-Mason can study Masonry only in books and other documents, the actual initiates have access to further teaching that has never been written, should they show themselves worthy.



Although you have pulled out a few of his positive quotes on Masonry, having read a number of Crowley's biographies, Masonry is rarely and briefly mentioned, and indeed I recall he very much shared my judgement on them; at one point stating that he would 'wipe his ass' with their rituals

Actually, he wasn't talking about the rituals, which he considered sacred. The quote you're referring to comes from two letters to Frater Achad (Charles Stansfeld Jones). In the first letter, Crowley advises Jones to present the revised O.T.O. rituals to the Scottish Rite Supreme Council for approval. Crowley wrote:

With regard to the O.T.O., I take the liberty of advising you to get hold of the 33° man [Frank T. Lodge] in private. Sound him very carefully with regard to the principles of the 7°, and if you find him worthy, affiliate him to that degree. Your mental attitude should be, if 1 may dare say so, to regard the 32° people as so many pieces of rather nasty dirt. ... I am then determined to revise the rituals of the O.T.O. in such a sense that they will not conflict in any way with the Masonic ideals, and I suggest that you should arrange a conference between myself and these Masons, in which the rituals should be submitted to them for approval in this particular sense.

When the Supreme Council refused to admit Jones, Crowley wrote:

Affiliate Frank Lodge but rub it into him that even our eighth degree wipes its arse with the thirty third. As you and I need toilet paper, they can give us or sell us their dirty sheep skin.

While Crowley was fascinated with Masonic ritual, and promoted it through the O.T.O., he couldn't accept the fact that Masonic leaders would not accept him as a superior, which led him into some pretty wild temper tantrums.


Well you claim 1: to be a Mason and yet 2: that Masonry does not require an oath of obedience to a master.


There are only two possibilities; A: that you unaware that Masonry requires an oath of obedience to a master or B: that you simply like to practice contradiction; frankly Thelonious I suspect the latter.

There is no oath in legitimate Freemasonry that requires obedience to any "master". I have not only taken them all, but have administered them for many years, and am aware of their contents.

As you have suggested yourself the rituals of Masonry litter the Internet for all to read, the evidence contradicts your claim;

I am not aware of even spurious Masonic oaths on the Internet where it is claimed that candidates must take oaths of obedience to another Lodge member, but if you can post such a supposed oath, I'd be interested to read it.


frankly all the rites and oaths take place in the presence of a person who is termed 'worshipful (worthy of worship) and 'Master (as in the 'opposite of slave);' if you prostrate yourself before another man and refer to him as 'Master' and 'worshipful,' as opposed to 'brother,' or 'sister' then you accept a position of servitude, not of equality.

It is true that the presiding officer of a Lodge is called the worshipful master, but he functions as a "president", not somebody that one takes oaths of obedience to. I myself have served as master of my Lodge, as most active Masons have done, or will eventually do. The Master is an elected official, he generally serves a term of one year, and then goes back to being a regular member. In the Lodge equality is a reality, and the master only has one vote on all matters, just like everyone else.


It is among the Communists where you have the tradition of universal equality and where it is common to refer to someone as 'brother' and 'sister' and comrade (meaning a sharer of one's barracks or room) where there is a tradition of anti-racism and anti-nationalism and the belief in universal economic equality and so forth

I find this comment rather naive. While I share your concern that capitalism leads to oppression, it certainly cannot surpass the oppression brought about by Communists. Whether it be Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, or Pol Pot, Communists have throughout history been tyrants.

You can use private language any way you wish and redefine the term 'Master' as 'equal' but you are not in your lodge here but on a public forum and I refer to public definitions of language which will be commonly understood.

In Masonry, the term "master" refers to someone who has mastered a certain skill or trade. Thus all initiates who are full members of the fraternity are denoted "Master Masons". "Worshipful" is nothing but the medieval term for what we would now call "honorable".

This language, by the way, was also used by Crowley in the O.T.O. In the O.T.O. lower degrees, the presiding officer is called the "Most Mysterious Master", but in the higher degrees, the traditional Masonic titles are used.


Simply put a slave hypnotised by the slave morality of the priesthood cannot possibly hope to understand his true will, since he (or she) has been indoctrinated and hypnotised to conform to the will of a master.

This contradicts the word of Thelema itself. In Liber AL it is written "I am the master; thou art the Holy Chosen One".

Although I find myself in agreement with Crowley over many issues and consider him a mentor somewhat, I could say the same about Mao, Ho Chi, Guevara, Plato, Proudhon and numerous other philosophers and political writers in history but in none of these cases do I suspend critical thinking and simply state that I agree with them in entirety.

Agreed, and I don't agree with any of them completely either, including Crowley. I can respect, for example, Che Guevara and his constantly risking his skin to liberate the oppressed. On the other hand, his philosophy of "the ends justifies the means", shared by most Communists, is the very reason that Communism is opposed to nature, and therefore is doomed to failure.


Frankly to restate I find Crowley's view of a future world ruled by a spiritual elite, and much of his 'trample down the weak,' channeling in the Book of the Law to be anti-thetical to the Anarchist agenda.

True, but then again, the language of Liber AL, as is the case with all religious texts, is highly symbolic, and ridiculous if taken literally. In his commentaries on Liber AL, Crowley does not claim that such verses refer to literal people; rather, they give formulas for performing the Great Work.


Aiwass was after all allegedly a priest of the Egyptian aristocracy, not exactly one who represents universal equality and a 'Holy Guardian Angel' as most would understand that term with regards to a protector and guide to humanity; frankly he comes across more as 'demonic.'

Either/or. The word "demon" itself comes from the Greek "daemon", which itslef simply means "angel".

The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.

If anything is forbidden, I tend to want to cross that boundary and taste the forbidden fruit

Agreed. Crowley gave that warning due to what happened to Jones and several others. As for me, I have no problem in being a centre of pestilence. Neither did Crowley.


I am not the servant or host of the priest of Horus Aiwass; I make demands; I do not obey, I do not submit myself to the will of the gods; I expect their total and absolute submission to me on penalty of Hell for even the slightest disobedience.

Yet, the Gods represent the universal cosmic forces of creation, sustainment, destruction, and dissolution, while you (and I) are piles of dust held temporarily together by their own weird sense of humor. When the moment comes, at their own pleasure, they will withdraw the quickening force from you, and a pile of dust you will be once again.

Naturally, they will not submit to you anymore than you would submit to a ant.

[stewart edwards]

Aiwass was after all allegedly a priest of the Egyptian aristocracy, not exactly one who represents universal equality and a 'Holy Guardian Angel' as most would understand that term with regards to a protector and guide to humanity; frankly he comes across more as 'demonic.'Cant talk about Aiwass as apart form what I have read here I know nothing about Aiwass. But it was one of Pharoahs roles to represents universal equality and a 'Holy Guardian Angel' as most would understand that term with regards to a protector and guide to humanityAnd for the most of Ancient Egptian histiory he did a pretty good job at this. The intermediate periods were more problematic due to the ambitions of other nations and natural disasters. But without the wisdom of this age you may not have the safety and security and rights that you enjoy in your life today.

[stewart edwards]

True, but as you and other non-Masons tend to ignore, there is a rich oral tradition in Masonry. Thus while the non-Mason can study Masonry only in books and other documents, the actual initiates have access to further teaching that has never been written, should they show themselves worthy.Indeed. While I am a masonic reject I can confirm that thelonious is guiding you well here. I should listen to him.

[thelonious]

Cant talk about Aiwass as apart form what I have read here I know nothing about Aiwass.

Aiwass was the "preterhuman intelligence" (Crowley's term) that supposedly dictated to him the three chapters of the book Liber AL vel Legis, the culmination of the Cairo Working. This book is the "Bible", so to speak, of Thelema, the Magical Current founded by Crowley.

Crowley identified Aiwass as the "head of the A.'.A.'.", the Third Order of Masters, which the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was a manifestation.

He also identified Aiwass with "the Holy Guardian Angel", or so-called "Higher Self" which unites with the true Will. In other words, the mortal man Aleister Crowley was the outward manifestation of the spiritual force Aiwass, just as we are outward manifestations of our own divine sparks.

Crowley believed the mystery of Aiwass lay within the Genatria of the name, 418 and 93, depending on the spelling (Aiwass or Aiwaz).

[flyermay]

Hi Thelonious,

Can I ask you a question about Crowley?

In your opinion, what happened in Cefalu (North Sicily), and does it has any resemblance with the allegations of the Italian government and the media, or was just a farce to get them out of there?

If you think the allegations were not true: do you think it was just a sort of test of Thelema with his followers, and how do you think Crowley really went with his tests on his followers (if any)?

[thelonious]

Hi Thelonious,

Can I ask you a question about Crowley?

In your opinion, what happened in Cefalu (North Sicily), and does it has any resemblance with the allegations of the Italian government and the media, or was just a farce to get them out of there?

There are quite a few outlandish stories concerning the abbey of Cefalu. Crowley himself addressed most of them himself in his autobiohraphy ("The Confessions of Aleister Crowley", which he comically called an "autohagiography").

According to Crowley, and most everyone that was there, most of the stories were simply smears. In the autobiography, Crowley acknowledges, for example, that allegations of wild sex orgies were raised against them when in reality, they were all too busy working all the time, and being hungry, to be particularly interested in sex.

He also addressed the allegation that Raoul Loveday died as a result of drinking the blood of a sacrificed cat. Crowley notes that absurdity of sacrificing cats in the first place, then explained what really happened (Loveday died of fever brought on from drinking from a contaminated well).

Crowley's version was confirmed by the other abbey residents.


If you think the allegations were not true: do you think it was just a sort of test of Thelema with his followers, and how do you think Crowley really went with his tests on his followers (if any)?

He intentionally would ridicule those whom he thought were "followers". His viewpoint here was unique: he rejected the whole "follower" mentality, and required students to seek their true wills instead of following him as a guru.

This seems like a rational approach, but I also think he found out quickly that not many people were capable of such freedom, which resulted in his problems with personal relationships.

[luciferhorus]

In Masonry, the term "master" refers to someone who has mastered a certain skill or trade. Thus all initiates who are full members of the fraternity are denoted "Master Masons". "Worshipful" is nothing but the medieval term for what we would now call "honorable".

.

"For every slave a master and for every master a slave"

In the study of religion it is often the case that religious cutlists (victims of hypnosis) speak in their own 'private language; which is also often called 'insider language;' the student of religion however must 'study' and 'understand' rather than accept such definitions.

When an 'outsider (i.e., a non cultist)' studies a cult of hypnotic slaves (i.e., a religion), and considers half naked men swearing oaths and prostrated before a 'Master' who is considered 'worshipful,' in a hierarchical military order of 'knights (soldiers) with titles such as 'Master' and 'Grand Master' who sell titles or 'rank,' some of which are clearly named after miltary ranks (such as Sovereign Grand Commander, for example),' I think that for any non-cultist it would only be if they accepted such 'insider language' that they would find your response to be acceptible.

Further if we take the title 'Sovereign Grand Commander' with respect to an order of Knights, the term 'commander' alone implies a person who gives commands / orders to his knights and who expects obedience; which is clearly not a relationship of 'comrades' or 'equals' as Communists would understand it, since to obey commands of a master is clearly to enslave one's will to another.

Further since Masonry is a cult of Capitalists with numerous cutlists whom I would define as the 'priesthood of Capital (loan sharks/bankers, and the various flavours of state terrorist collaboraters, Capitalist military etc.), devoted to the god of Capital I simply cannot accept that universal 'equality' is possible among the devotees of Capital.

Of course I would not wish to suggest that it is 'merely' a heriarchical military or economic order since it also has many of the characteristics of a religious cult including the constuction of Temples and initiation rituals, swearing on Bibles etc., all of which non-religious people have no use for.

We contend, without any sort of hesitation, that Freemasonry is, in every sense of the word except one, and that its least philosophical, an eminently religious institution--that it is indebted solely to the religious element it contains for its origin as well as its continued existence.. ....Albert Mackey

Which would further imply beyond the meaning of 'military master' and 'economic master,' the meaning of cult master.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/dun/img/09400.jpg



There is no oath in legitimate Freemasonry that requires obedience to any "master". I have not only taken them all, but have administered them for many years, and am aware of their contents.

I am not aware of even spurious Masonic oaths on the Internet where it is claimed that candidates must take oaths of obedience to another Lodge member, but if you can post such a supposed oath, I'd be interested to read it.


Well I would be interested in the kind of 'insider language (Masonic-babble)' that you would use to explain the following:

All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steady resolution to perform the same, without any hesitation, myself, under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had of so vile and wicked a wretch as I would be, should I ever, knowingly, violate this my Master Mason's obligation.

All of which of course begs the question of 'who' would cut the cultist in two, burn him and scatter his ashes; this of course is not a 'suicide oath' since I doubt the cultist could scatter his own ashes after cutting his own body in two and tearing out his own bowels; this oath of 'ritual murder (since it cannot be a suicide oath)' is obviously made in the presence of others in a religious cult, and it seems to me to clearly imply that it is the penalty for disobedience, and thus 'disobedience to whom?' is an obvious question. It is thus clearly an obedience oath.



While I share your concern that capitalism leads to oppression, it certainly cannot surpass the oppression brought about by Communists. Whether it be Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, or Pol Pot, Communists have throughout history been tyrants.


The most common 'Straw Man' argument used against Anarchist (against the Archons) Communists is to compare them to the tyrannical (a tyrant, master, monarch or commander is an Archon) State Capitalist brand of Communism; further I should point out that according the research of the journalist John Pilger, Pol Pot's rise to power was engineered by the Americans who sought to destablise Cambodia and overthrow it's government who refused to collaborate with the Americans.

More about Anarchism on:


http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/graphics/banner/anarchism.gif


and

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/graphics/banner/anarkismobannersmall.jpg



I can respect, for example, Che Guevara and his constantly risking his skin to liberate the oppressed.

On the other hand, his philosophy of "the ends justifies the means", shared by most Communists, is the very reason that Communism is opposed to nature, and therefore is doomed to failure.

'Revolution...by all means necessary...no mercy on they who deserve none'

Militant Communism is a response to militant Capitalism. The Capitalists are engaged in armed violent militant world Capitalist revolution, the holocaust of all militant enemies, the economic ensalvement of humanity under Capital, and have a legacy of involvement in military coups, black operations, flase flag operations, torture, genocide and mayhem in general; their history is littered in the blood of their enemies and victims; for you to suggest that Communists believe in an 'by all means necessary' is to imply that their enemies Captialists do not, and that you have some kind of a 'higher moral ground,' which is clearly not the case.

Such are the rules of war; victory by all means necessary.

From the Communist perspective, we are relentlessly and incessantly (un-ceasingly) at war; similarly the Capitalists take the same perspective for their world Capitalist revolution. Obviously for we who live in the homelands of the god of Capital in the First World, we cannot at the moment go around sending police state collaborators to the firing squad, but that time shall and must come; currently we are merely seeking to create the conditions for revolution through political activism and the dissemination of revolutionary propaganda.

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary...These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! "
'Che' Guevara


True, but then again, the language of Liber AL, as is the case with all religious texts, is highly symbolic, and ridiculous if taken literally. In his commentaries on Liber AL, Crowley does not claim that such verses refer to literal people; rather, they give formulas for performing the Great Work.

I think that the attitude expressed in the Book of the Law is clearly one of 'by all means necessary,' and of course that is a Communist mantra, which will be necessary to eradicate humanity of the last priest and the last tyrant; as stated previously I absorb much of what I find of value in Crowley's writings, methods and maddness, just as I do with Marx and many others, but I am neither a Marxist or a Crowleyist; I merely extract that which I find useful.

.
Yet, the Gods represent the universal cosmic forces of creation, sustainment, destruction, and dissolution, while you (and I) are piles of dust held temporarily together by their own weird sense of humor. When the moment comes, at their own pleasure, they will withdraw the quickening force from you, and a pile of dust you will be once again. Naturally, they will not submit to you anymore than you would submit to a ant.[/
.

I am much too vain to have as low an opinion of myself as you and your Christian brothers (who consider themsleves unworthy sinners) seem to; further you appear to reduce Crowley and Abramelin and indeed religion to the psychological and you impose this view on those who did not share it; I am quite satisfied that Crowley was not a reductionist who reduced all spirituality to psychology; I certainly reduce all forms of organised religion to mass hypnosis, which is certainly a psychological persepective, but I differentiate between the terms spirtituality (our personal subjective metaphysical beliefs and interpretations of reality) and organised religion.

I am quite satisfied with the effects of my magickal workings, propaganda campaigns and my incitement of the conditions for Armageddon; I can percieve these effects on humanity, and have perfect faith that my sacred will shall be realised in earth in time and manifest in the Final Revolutionary War of Economic Salvation, the Final Holocaust (the spearation of the wheat from the chaff), the 1000 year agricultrual revolution and so forth.


Enemy of my Enemy

I should further point out in response to your comment that you consider your internet opponents to be mostly 'Evangelical Christians' that I fail to be able to place Evangelical Christianity and Masonry on scales of justice and find one more righteous than the other; they both constitute organised religions who are devotees of the god of Capital; that there is discord between you however is quite to my satisfaction.

I think that you shall find that in the Apocalyptic age to come, that the Evangelicals and the Masons both serve the same god (the Capitalist god) and that you will both have to deal with the same militant enemies dedicated to the eradication of all forms of organised religion. As far as I am concerned any differences an squabbles between you and your Christian brethren are 'insignificant details of history;' representatives of both faiths after all can be found in the miltiary and in the service of Capitalist revolution; whereas this is not something I can say about the Anarchists; on the contrary.

LL

Lux
Ordo ab chaos

http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif
Revolution in all the World. Apocalyptic Guerrila War by all means necessary.
One shall fight a thousand and ten thousand and the myraids.

_________


"The criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism....

Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.

But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world.

Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.



Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."

Karl Marx (1843) "A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right"

[grandsecretary]

All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steady resolution to perform the same, without any hesitation, myself, under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had of so vile and wicked a wretch as I would be, should I ever, knowingly, violate this my Master Mason's obligation.

This is the part of the obligation of the Moderns system's "Master Mason" degree which includes what is known as a "symbolic penalty". It is certainly not an oath of allegiance, but an acceptance of the loss of the immortal soul as the ultimate penalty for revealing the secrets imparted during the rest of the initiation ceremony.

[luciferhorus]

This is the part of the obligation of the Moderns system's "Master Mason" degree which includes what is known as a "symbolic penalty". It is certainly not an oath of allegiance, but an acceptance of the loss of the immortal soul as the ultimate penalty for revealing the secrets imparted during the rest of the initiation ceremony.

Newspeak: a practical defintion.

Here we have a classic case of 'insider language' which while being the 'English language' is simply 'Orwellian Newspeak' or 'double-speak' where the common definitions of language are redefined; 'war is peace, freedom is slavery, truth is ignorance, masters and slaves are equal and none is more equal than another (all meaningless phrases),' etc.

I am compelled to judge devotees of the Masonic military and religious cult as they have judged others; there are Muslims in jail for incitment to violence; other citizens have been jailed for swearing oaths on the Bible to tell the truth in a court and then failing to do so. I very much doubt if a member of this cult who is a professional legalist and state terrorist collaborator would accept a defence that alleged 'incitements to violence' by Muslims for example are to be taken 'symbolically' and not literally; the Masonic oath is clearly an oath which involves 'ritual murder,' not suicide, and yet they sit in judgement on their enemies for such incitements and argue that 'freedom of religion' and political freedom do not constitute a defence.

Warning: Explicit content image (http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/landmine.jpg)

Stepping on a landmine in Iraq is symbolic, Masonic throat cutting oaths are fun.

I am a reminded of a popular joke among the Scottish Freemasons. A man was found dead in a prison cell in Scotland. He had 1000 cuts on his body, his tongue was torn out, his throat cut accross, his body quartered and disembowled. At the inquest, the judge who was a Freemason remarked that it was the worst case of suicide he had ever come across. One could have told the same joke in Nazi Germany and have substituted 'Communist, Jew or trade unionist' for the prisioner and the 'meaning' would be the same.

Warning: Explicit content image (http://magus71.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/marine-throat-cut.jpg)

Some Masonic cultists may find this amusing but legalists who are Crown collaborators in our corrupt judicial system in reality consider such incitements to violence to be a criminal offence, thus far only if it is an enemy of the Capitalist revolution who makes such incitements, not if an ally. I shall be sure to refer to the Grand Secretary, should the police take up the matter with me again of confusing revolutionary propaganda with inciting violence, since it is not merely a matter of doublespeak but of double standards (i.e., judicial hypocrisy) with regards to Muslims and enemies of the Crown. I further recall the mass arrest of Anarchists during the Queen's Jubilee who were demonstrating in the streets of London and pulling through the streets a giant guillotine, demanding the head of the tyrant; fortunately their joint prosecution for 'false arrest' was successful, but since then new laws have been introduced to limit political freedom, which should certainly, if aplied to anyone, also apply to the Masonic cultists.

LL
Lux

"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!" - Che Guevara

[grandsecretary]

Newspeak: a practical defintion.

Here we have a classic case of 'insider language' which while being the 'English language' is simply 'Orwellian Newspeak' or 'double-speak' where the common definitions of language are redefined; 'war is peace, freedom is slavery, truth is ignorance, masters and slaves are equal and none is more equal than another (all meaningless phrases),' etc.

I am compelled to judge devotees of the Masonic military and religious cult as they have judged others; there are Muslims in jail for incitment to violence; other citizens have been jailed for swearing oaths on the Bible to tell the truth in a court and then failing to do so. I very much doubt if a member of this cult who is a professional legalist and state terrorist collaborator would accept a defence that alleged 'incitements to violence' by Muslims for example are to be taken 'symbolically' and not literally; the Masonic oath is clearly an oath which involves 'ritual murder,' not suicide, and yet they sit in judgement on their enemies for such incitements and argue that 'freedom of religion' and political freedom do not constitute a defence.

I am a reminded of a popular joke among the Scottish Freemasons. A man was found dead in a prison cell in Scotland. He had 1000 cuts on his body, his tongue was torn out, his throat cut accross, his body quartered and disembowled. At the inquest, the judge who was a Freemason remarked that it was the worst case of suicide he had ever come across. One could have told the same joke in Nazi Germany and have substituted 'Communist, Jew or trade unionist' for the prisioner and the 'meaning' would be the same.

Some Masonic cultists may find this amusing but legalists who are Crown collaborators in our corrupt judicial system in reality consider such incitements to violence to be a criminal offence, thus far only if it is an enemy of the Capitalist revolution who makes such incitements, not if an ally. I shall be sure to refer to the Grand Secretary, should the police take up the matter with me again of confusing revolutionary propaganda with inciting violence, since it is not merely a matter of doublespeak but of double standards (i.e., judicial hypocrisy) with regards to Muslims and enemies of the Crown. I further recall the mass arrest of Anarchists during the Queen's Jubilee who were demonstrating in the streets of London and pulling through the streets a giant guillotine, demanding the head of the tyrant; fortunately their joint prosecution for 'false arrest' was successful, but since then new laws have been introduced to limit political freedom, which should certainly, if aplied to anyone, also apply to the Masonic cultists.

LL
Lux

"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!" - Che Guevara

Actually it is pretty good English even if I say so myself, and is a clear explanation of the wording that you quoted. Your interpretation is, of course a politically motivated and quite deliberate distortion.

Whatever happened to that Berlin wall? Oh, that's right, it was pulled down after the defeat of Communism.

[lightgiver]

Lucifer is good at double speak.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62534&page=14

and is condescending to the less well off educated than him,true commie.

Communism is a disgusting Ideology.

Never again." The tyranny and atrocities of Nazi Germany have been justly condemned by world opinion for over 50 years. But it is only recently that Communist despotism has begun to receive remotely similar attention.

It would be a great tragedy if Communism disappeared from the earth without leaving behind an indelible memory of its horrors. Communism was not essentially about espionage, or power politics, or irreligion. Rather it was a grand theoretical synthesis of totalitarianism... a theory which millions of people experienced as the practice of murder and slavery.

The roots of Communism lie squarely in the works of the philosopher Karl Marx. But at the same time, as we shall see, the tradition of Czarist absolutism also became an important source of Communist inspiration. The first exhibit to open explores the Marxist and Czarist origins of the Communist movement.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/musframe.htm

[thelonious]

Further if we take the title 'Sovereign Grand Commander' with respect to an order of Knights, the term 'commander' alone implies a person who gives commands / orders to his knights and who expects obedience; which is clearly not a relationship of 'comrades' or 'equals' as Communists would understand it, since to obey commands of a master is clearly to enslave one's will to another.

It seems you have misunderstood the purpose of initiation.

Joe Smith (for example) is not a "Sovereign Grand Commander" or "Grand Master" in "real life". And thus no candidate for the mysteries is going to obligate himself to obey him personally.

Instead, in the Mysteries, both the Hierarchy and ritualistic drama are simply symbolic of things occuring and existing on the higher planes. "As above, so below". You are here focusing on the actual mortal men who are conferring a degree of initiation. This focus is a mistake because it misses the point.

In his introduction to the MMM degrees of O.T.O., Crowley states that each degree, to be effective, is designed to activate the latent Chakras, a theory seconded by Dion Fortune in her "The Mystical Qabalah". Everything in Masonry, including the titles of the officers, are symbolic and point to inner truths. When the ritual is concluded, the Grand Exalted Master High Priest Grand Commander goes back to being just plain old regular Brother Joe.

I'll also point out here that nothing in the quoted text alludes to one swearing to obey anybody, just to retain secrecy.

Further since Masonry is a cult of Capitalists

False premiss.

Well I would be interested in the kind of 'insider language (Masonic-babble)' that you would use to explain the following:

All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steady resolution to perform the same, without any hesitation, myself, under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had of so vile and wicked a wretch as I would be, should I ever, knowingly, violate this my Master Mason's obligation.

Probably derived from the times when the Church persecuted initiates. A good example is Cagliostro, a Magician and Brother of the Oriental Rites, who was arrested and tortured by the Inquisition for being a Mason. At the time when Masonry developed into today's form, absolute secrecy was not just a parlor game for Lodge amusement, but was strictly necessary as a matter of life and death.


The most common 'Straw Man' argument used against Anarchist (against the Archons) Communists is to compare them to the tyrannical (a tyrant, master, monarch or commander is an Archon) State Capitalist brand of Communism; further I should point out that according the research of the journalist John Pilger, Pol Pot's rise to power was engineered by the Americans who sought to destablise Cambodia and overthrow it's government who refused to collaborate with the Americans.

Pol Pot was originally supported by the CIA because he was opposed to the Vietnamese regime. Pol was fully supported by his fellow Communists in China, and opposed Vietnam because the Vietnamese Communists had allied themselves with the Soviet Union instead of China.

Such are the rules of war; victory by all means necessary.

With such a mentality, you may believe you have a world to win, but will quickly discover there would be no world left.


I think that the attitude expressed in the Book of the Law is clearly one of 'by all means necessary,'

On the contrary, the Book specifies an explicit discipline that must be followed at all costs. Furthermore, the Book does not promote armed revolution. "Let my servants be few and secret; they shall rule the many and the known".


I am much too vain to have as low an opinion of myself

Vanity and enlightenment are antithetical. But he who humbleth himself shall be exalted.

[luciferhorus]

False premiss.

.


Your response is in opposition to my statement that Masonry is anti-thetical to Anarchist Communism.

How so?

It is now for you Thelonius to make the argument that Masons are anti-Capitalist , anti-religionist, Communist, and opposed to all manner of private property, usury (loan sharking), tyranny and the worship of the god of Capital.

I await you response with the eager expectation of ridiculing you henceforth, as a substitute for your lingusitic confusion.

If I were to incite violence and throat-cutting here against the Masonic and Christian vermin, you would be be my greatest ally; since I would expect you to argue that it is all symbolism; I thus may have to call upon you at some future time.

Bitch.



http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

[thelonious]

Your response is in opposition to my statement that Masonry is anti-thetical to Anarchist Communism.

How so?

It was in response to your claim that Masonry is a "capitalist cult". In reality, Masonry has nothing to do with capitalism, and in fact, Masonry originated during feudalism, long before capitalism was even invented.


It is now for you Thelonius to make the argument that Masons are anti-Capitalist , anti-religionist, Communist, and opposed to all manner of private property

I didn't say that Masonry was any of those. It is not anti-capitalist, but neither is it pro-capitalist. It has nothing whatsoever to do with such things. Freemasonry is a method of initiation into the mysteries, and is not concerned with commerce or arguments about politics and economic systems.


If I were to incite violence and throat-cutting here against the Masonic and Christian vermin, you would be be my greatest ally

"But when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out?" - Lennon/McCartney



Bitch.



Dude, don't get your panties in a wad. It's just a discussion forum.

[meksar]

Further proof that Freemasonry is lying about Albert Pike and the Ku Klux Klan.

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/albertpikeandkkk.html

[boots]

It was in response to your claim that Masonry is a "capitalist cult". In reality, Masonry has nothing to do with capitalism, and in fact, Masonry originated during feudalism, long before capitalism was even invented.


Whats that mean:rolleyes: just because it came before capitalism doen't mean it never uses them. .


I didn't say that Masonry was any of those. It is not anti-capitalist, but neither is it pro-capitalist. It has nothing whatsoever to do with such things. Freemasonry is a method of initiation into the mysteries, and is not concerned with commerce or arguments about politics and economic systems.

By it's very existence and those that are freemasons ARE commercial entities. Ref: Admiralty law




"But when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out?"

You are a part of it and dont even know it. What a sheep:rolleyes:




.

[meksar]

Thelonious is a masonic agitator, he and his kind are pathetic enough to continue trying to hide Masonic secrets under the carpet.

[eternal_spirit]

"But when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out?" - Lennon/McCartney




Dude, don't get your panties in a wad. It's just a discussion forum.

Lennon used to sing in and out sometimes (in an interview he said he added the in because he was unsure how he'd react and it's human nature or something, not knowing how you'd react if you found yourself in certain situations)

[thenewman11]

Thelonious: Because you are a Mason inwhich you admit! Most of us know that You are required to make solemn blood oaths! Therfore You are a not a Good source of Information on the "craft" because you are allowed to lie and do whatever needs be done to protect the mysteries and rituals or other info....
How many blood oaths have you sworn?... (or will you simply lie and say none)

Freemason = Luciferian

[flyermay]

It was in response to your claim that Masonry is a "capitalist cult". In reality, Masonry has nothing to do with capitalism, and in fact, Masonry originated during feudalism, long before capitalism was even invented.

For those of you who think there is no relation between freemasonry and the Knights Templar, please disregard this message as irrelevant.

And for those of you who think there was a link between freemasonry and the Knights Templar: just say that the modern banking system is based on Templar's common banking practices; there is no doubt about it.

[eternal_spirit]

For those of you who think there is no relation between freemasonry and the Knights Templar, please disregard this message as irrelevant.

And for those of you who think there was a link between freemasonry and the Knights Templar: just say that the modern banking system is based on Templar's common banking practices; there is no doubt about it.

Cohen gave us the word coin. It means King/priest, the Priesthood who where kings, Usury goes back along way to Egypt. Jesus flipped out at the money lenders in the Temples/Synagogues.

[flyermay]

Cohen gave us the word coin. It means King/priest, the Priesthood who where kings, Usury goes back along way to Egypt. Jesus flipped out at the money lenders in the Temples/Synagogues.

And who used first the promissory notes (paper money, commonly known as bills), and developed the concept of fractional-reserve banking?

I'm not talking about money. Money existed even before biblical times; whether it was in the form of seashells, tobacco leaves, or precious metals. Money is just the means to exchange goods and services (or should be). However, Templars introduced Europe to the modern banking system (which is far more advanced than the simple use of money; and the root of current and future crisis).

Knights Templars were far more than simple warrior-monks; they were also the first modern bankers.

[grandsecretary]

And who used first the promissory notes (paper money, commonly known as bills), and developed the concept of fractional-reserve banking?

I'm not talking about money. Money existed even before biblical times; whether it was in the form of seashells, tobacco leaves, or precious metals. Money is just the means to exchange goods and services (or should be). However, Templars introduced Europe to the modern banking system (which is far more advanced than the simple use of money; and the root of current and future crisis).

Knights Templars were far more than simple warrior-monks; they were also the first modern bankers.

Absolutely, and there are clear links between the Knights Templar (the real ones) and Free Masonry. The two organisations were kept separate and distinct, but one has to remember that the Master of the Temple in England sat in Parliament as the first baron of the realm (primus baron Angliae).

Gilbert de Clare, Marquis of Pembroke, Lord Marshal of England, was also Prior of The Knights Templar in England under King Henry II. He was elevated to the baronetcy, obtaining the estates of his paternal uncles, Roger and Walter, including the baronetcies and castles of Bienfaite and Orbec in Normandy, the Lordship of Nether Gwent and the castle of Striguil (Chepstow). King Stephen created him Earl of Pembroke, and gave him the rape and castle of Pevensey. He was installed Grand Master of the Grand Lodge at York in 1135. He was succeeded by Richard de Hastings but served again as Grand Master in 1185.

Amongst the earliest of the Masters, or Grand Priors of the Temple whose names figure in history is Richard de Hastings. He was at the head of the Order in England on the accession of King Henry II to the throne. He was employed by King Henry in various important negotiations and was the friend and confidant of Thomas â Becket. Richard de Hastings became the Grand Master of The Grand Lodge at York in 1155.

Pierre d'Aubusson (1423-1503) was a Soldier, Statesman, and Grand Master of the Order of St John at Rhodes (1476). As Grand Master of the military-religious Order of St. John of Jerusalem, he was known for his defense of Rhodes against the Turks. For his military achievements, d'Aubusson received a cardinal's hat, and was revered by all Christendom as "the Shield of the Church". Pierre d'Aubusson was installed Grand Master of The Grand Lodge at York in 1485.

[thelonious]

And for those of you who think there was a link between freemasonry and the Knights Templar: just say that the modern banking system is based on Templar's common banking practices; there is no doubt about it.

It is true that the Templars started one of the first modern banking systems. But the Templar relationship to Freemasonry has been shown to be mythological, based on the infamous "Ramsay Oration", a speech given to a Lodge in the early 18th century by Michael Andrew Ramsay.

[thelonious]

Meksar and boots spend a lot of time calling people names. It is unfortuante that they don't seem to be able to use that time to construct a logical argument in defense of their claims.

[grandsecretary]

It is true that the Templars started one of the first modern banking systems. But the Templar relationship to Freemasonry has been shown to be mythological, based on the infamous "Ramsay Oration", a speech given to a Lodge in the early 18th century by Michael Andrew Ramsay.

Not true. See here. http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/heredom-files/volume1/andrew-michael-ramsay.htm

See my post above. History and fact.

[flyermay]

Absolutely, and there are clear links between the Knights Templar (the real ones) and Free Masonry. The two organisations were kept separate and distinct, but one has to remember that the Master of the Temple in England sat in Parliament as the first baron of the realm (primus baron Angliae).

Gilbert de Clare, Marquis of Pembroke, Lord Marshal of England, was also Prior of The Knights Templar in England under King Henry II. He was elevated to the baronetcy, obtaining the estates of his paternal uncles, Roger and Walter, including the baronetcies and castles of Bienfaite and Orbec in Normandy, the Lordship of Nether Gwent and the castle of Striguil (Chepstow). King Stephen created him Earl of Pembroke, and gave him the rape and castle of Pevensey. He was installed Grand Master of the Grand Lodge at York in 1135. He was succeeded by Richard de Hastings but served again as Grand Master in 1185.

Amongst the earliest of the Masters, or Grand Priors of the Temple whose names figure in history is Richard de Hastings. He was at the head of the Order in England on the accession of King Henry II to the throne. He was employed by King Henry in various important negotiations and was the friend and confidant of Thomas â Becket. Richard de Hastings became the Grand Master of The Grand Lodge at York in 1155.

Pierre d'Aubusson (1423-1503) was a Soldier, Statesman, and Grand Master of the Order of St John at Rhodes (1476). As Grand Master of the military-religious Order of St. John of Jerusalem, he was known for his defense of Rhodes against the Turks. For his military achievements, d'Aubusson received a cardinal's hat, and was revered by all Christendom as "the Shield of the Church". Pierre d'Aubusson was installed Grand Master of The Grand Lodge at York in 1485.

Wow, you are really a box full of surprises; that’s quite a lot to digest in one go…

Just to mention a few issues to what you have just described (and from the point of view of a humble beginner to all this):

First, I always thought that the Knights Templar and the Freemasons never coexisted; instead I was under the impression that the Templars who escaped prosecution from the pope and king Philip of France infiltrated mason’s guilds in Scotland; allegedly with the financing of the Sinclair family.

Second, it is commonly believed that Knights templar had to “donate” all their possessions and properties to the order, which contrasts with the idea of some of their members having a double life as Knights Templar and prosperous nobles.

About Pierre d'Aubusson, if I’m not wrong, he was born a little more than 100 years after the Templars were disbanded. His order, during both crusades, had more or less the same function as the Templars in the second crusade. I know they were the two most powerful Christian orders in Jerusalem during the 2nd Crusade, but I’m not sure about any other links between them.

Could you please go a bit further and comment on these or other matter related?

[flyermay]

Not true. See here. http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/heredom-files/volume1/andrew-michael-ramsay.htm

See my post above. History and fact.

Sorry for start with the questioning again (this time, is your fault :rolleyes:)

So... according to this statement from the webpage you pointed out: "... stating that only after the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders was the Book containing the secrets of the Order rediscovered." is this refering to the secret of the Knights Templar found in Solomon's temple?

[thelonious]

See my post above. History and fact.

GS, if the history you were telling us were true, and you could prove it, it would earn you a Nobel Prize in the field of history.

Just sayin'.

[grandsecretary]

GS, if the history you were telling us were true, and you could prove it, it would earn you a Nobel Prize in the field of history.

Just sayin'.

SOME SOURCES:

History of Freemasonry by William Preston, 1772; The Spirit of Masonry in Moral and Elucidatory Lecture by William Hutchinson, 1775; Acta Latomorum ou Chronologie de l'Histoire de la Franche-Maçonnerie Française et étrangére by Claude Antoine Thory (1784); The Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, Vol II, No.12, Early History of Masonry in England, p.356, by Charles Whitlock Moore;The History of Free Masonry and The Grand Lodge of Scotland with Chapters on the Knights Templar, Knights of St John etc., by Alexander Laurie, 1804; A Freemason's Pocket Companion Containing a Brief Sketch of the History of Masonry, A Chronology of Interesting Events, etc. etc., by a Brother of the Apollo Lodge, 711, Oxford, Constitution of The United Grand Lodge of England, published by Henry Washbourne, London (1831); The History of The Knights Templars by Charles G. Addison; Masonic Yearbook of the Grand Lodge of London (UGLE) pre-1738; The Craftsman by Cornelius Moore, 1859; History of the Knights Templar of the State of Pennsylvania by Alfred Creigh, 1867 in two volumes; Rosicrucian Chronology AD 1-1378 Society of Rosicrucians in America (2003); The Secret History of Freemasonry by Paul Naudon; World's Masonic Register by Leon Hyneman; the Templar registers, records of the Vatican Library; Parliamentary records in the reign of King Henry II; The Compasses and the Cross by Stephen Dafoe.

Although both writers (Anderson and Preston) observed that Freemasonry pre-dated the formation of the Knights Templar, Preston went a step futher by mentioning them specifically by name:

"During the reign of Henry II (1154-1189) the Grand Master of the Knights Templar superintended the Masons, and employed them in building their Temple in Fleet-street A.D. 1155. Masonry continued under the patronage of this order until the year 1199, when John (1199-1216) succeeded his brother Richard (Richard the Lionheart) on the throne of England. Peter de Colchurch was then appointed Grand Master. he began to rebuild London-bridge with stone, which was afterwards finished by William Alcmain in 1209. Peter de Rupibus succeeded Peter de Colchurch in the office of Grand Master, and Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, chief surveyor of the king's works, acted as deputy. Under the auspices of these two artists, Masonry flourished in England during the remainder of this and the following reign."

Preston

"No project or device could answer the purpose of the crusades better than those of masonry; the maxims and ceremonials attending the master's order had been previously established, and were materially necessary on that expedition ...

... separate nations might be distinguished by some seperate order; as were the singular ensigns: but be that as it may, it fully proves to us that masons were crusaders."

William Hutchinson

"To prove that the Order of the Knights Templars was a branch of Free Masonry would be useless labour, as the fact has been invariably acknowledged by Free Masons themselves, and none have been more zealous to establish it than the enemies of the Order ; the former have admitted the fact, not because it was creditable to them but because it was true; and the latter have supported it.

"We know, at least that they not only possessed the mysteries, but performed the ceremonies and inculcated the duties of Free Masons."

"The Order of the Knights Templars was instituted during the Crusades in the year 1119, by Hugo de Payens and Godfrey St Omer, and received the appellation because its members originally resided near the church in Jerusalem which was dedicated to our Saviour. Though their professed object was to protect those Christian pilgrims whose mistaken piety had led them to the Holy City, yet it is almost beyond a doubt that their chief and primary intention was to practise and preserve the rites and mysteries of Free Masonry."

Alexander Laurie


In reference to Gilbert de Clare:

"It is recorded that in this reign (Henry II) Knights Templar were first initiated into the mysteries of Freemasonry, from which period they gave patronage, and the Grand Maser of the Temple was appointed to superintend the Lodges, by which appointment pre-eminence was confined to [B]the Orders of Knighthood, over the Society of Freemasons. By this injunction of the two Orders, Freemasonry assumed a more important character and higher position in the eyes of the world and continued to increase in general estimation down to the reign of Richard I."

Alfred Creigh

I wouldn't qualify for a Nobel Prize. Too many distinguished historians have recorded these historical facts which took place 600 years before the Moderns' Anderson Constitutions of 1723.

[lightgiver]

Meksar and boots spend a lot of time calling people names. It is unfortuante that they don't seem to be able to use that time to construct a logical argument in defense of their claims.

I wonder if they give out death threats.

does being a mason give one a short memory,I feel it does.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54308

[thelonious]

I wonder if they give out death threats.

does being a mason give one a short memory,I feel it does.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54308

Ah, lightgiver....if the light that is within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

[thelonious]

SOME SOURCES:


GS, I'm not sure if you understood my meaning.

There are thousands of sources that make such claims, I don't deny that. However, the accounts are mythological, and are not taken seriously by historians.

So while you can quote any number of Masonic books, it does not make the proposition true. It would be like me quoting Salem Towne, who claimed that Moses was a Masonic Grand Master who ushered all the Israelites into Masonic Lodges while in the wilderness, and then use such a quote to prove that Moses was a Mason (and a Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of All England, no doubt).

[lightgiver]

Ah, lightgiver....if the light that is within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

You get away with to much on here with your insults,I wonder why.

just shining the light on your darkness.

[thelonious]

You get away with to much on here with your insults,I wonder why.

just shining the light on your darkness.

lightgiver, the only people you're impressing are meksar and boots, who are about your same caliber.

I'm far from the only one here who has exposed you for what you are.

[lightgiver]

lightgiver, the only people you're impressing are meksar and boots, who are about your same caliber.

I'm far from the only one here who has exposed you for what you are.

No you insult to many and have been getting away with it.

You have some neck coming on this forum in the 1st place,have you ever read any of Ickes books?

It does not shine any good light on you boys.

[flyermay]

"The Order of the Knights Templars was instituted during the Crusades in the year 1119, by Hugo de Payens and Godfrey St Omer, and received the appellation because its members originally resided near the church in Jerusalem which was dedicated to our Saviour. Though their professed object was to protect those Christian pilgrims whose mistaken piety had led them to the Holy City, yet it is almost beyond a doubt that their chief and primary intention was to practise and preserve the rites and mysteries of Free Masonry."


Please continue...

Can you tell us more about Hugo de Payens and Godfrey St Omer (previous to arriving at Jerusalem), their excavation works in Solomon's Temple, and what they supposed found; or at least speculate (I'm really interested in your opinion about his subject).

[flyermay]

Alo... Huston calling GS... do you receive me... over...

[grandsecretary]

Please continue...

Can you tell us more about Hugo de Payens and Godfrey St Omer (previous to arriving at Jerusalem), their excavation works in Solomon's Temple, and what they supposed found; or at least speculate (I'm really interested in your opinion about his subject).

flyermay I have proven the link between the Knights Templar and pre-Moderns Free Masonry. Please forgive me if I simply refer you to the references that I listed above and recommend that you continue your researches along the lines I have suggested.

[luciferhorus]

Please continue...

Can you tell us more about Hugo de Payens and Godfrey St Omer (previous to arriving at Jerusalem), their excavation works in Solomon's Temple, and what they supposed found; or at least speculate (I'm really interested in your opinion about his subject).

Well Flyermay I have dealt with this on the 'Alchemy' thread.

There are two main theories on the mythical ark of the covenant which the Templars and Masons have an obsession with.

One is that held by those who are essentially superstitious, non-scientific and believe in 'miracles;' that the Ark has some kind of 'miraculous' property, much like the relics which were bought and sold in the medieval world, such as the nail of the true cross, the fingernail clippings of Jesus, a splinter from the cross, etc.

The other is that the Ark was a weapon which Moses used in war against his enemies and can be explained scientifically.

On the Ark of the Covenant.


The alchemical quest was never about converting lead to gold, but rather of ‘transforming’ matter to Light and Energy. We can all transform matter to Light and Energy simply by burning a piece of paper; we can hold a magnifying glass up to the sun and convert Light to Energy, but nuclear process which occurs on the sun or in a nuclear weapon was a secret which if understood would deliver the most awesome military power to the alchemist; as it was in the legend of Moses.


Let us consider a few points regarding the Ark.

Biblical accounts of the Ark seem be depicting a weapon of war. Waging war with Ark of the Covenant seems to suggest that Moses was using some form of ‘advanced alchemcy.

At Jericho the Israelites held it before them and the city walls were blown over, in another battle it is placed ahead of the Israelites and their enemies are blinded by it’s Light.

Biblical accounts describe a Holy Ark that seems to strike down its caretakers with the same raw power unleashed against its caretakers' enemies. The sons of Aaron, Moses’ own nephews, were struck dead by the fire of the Lord. In 2 Samuel 6:7, during a celebration in Jerusalem, the driver of the cart bearing the Ark reaches out to steady the golden box and falls dead at its touch.

At one point, the Philistines defeated the Hebrews in battle and captured the Ark, which they took back to their home city of Ekron. But for them, the treasure turned into a torment. The Philistines themselves were afflicted with painful leprosy-like sores until the Ark was returned to the Hebrews.

To a modern person aware of the effects on the population surrounding Chernobyl and Hiroshima, no 'miraculous' explanation is required for this effect.

Wilhelm’s Reich’s Ark.

We must also consider the construction of the box and the layering of organic and inorganic substances.

The story of Reich’s Ark is well known, but to summarize, Reich constructed a box made out of numerous alternate layers of organic and inorganic substances; for example a layer of gold on top of a layer of paper, and so forth.

In this box he placed a radium needle. A radium needle is made of radioactive metal which has a certain ‘half-life;’ it is slowly transforming part of it’s matter and thus over periods of time, the radioactivity it emits measurably decreases.

The strange thing about Reich’s Ark is that the Radium needle quickly started to ‘increase’ the radiation being emitted, even doubling over just a few days.

Most of Reich’s co-workers felt physically sick in the presence of the needle and after a short time, the experiment had to end. It is a rather mysterious phenomenon that placing radioactive metal in such an Ark enriches’ the metal. Reich was eventually arrested, much of his research materials confiscated and he mysteriously died in prison.

Tablets of Stone.

In modern nuclear devices explosives such as TNT surround the two halves of a critical mass of nuclear material. The point of this is not to ‘blow up’ the plutonium but rather to compress the plutonium into a smaller space, thus creating a nuclear detonation; the conversion of Mass to Light and Energy, as opposed to simply scattering radiation which is what the depleted uranium shells used by the Christian state-terrorists on civillians do.

If one did not have TNT or conventional explosives to compress to the two halves of a critical mass, there are numerous other methods which could be employed including crushing the mass together between two large stones.

Enriching metal.

This is not as complicated as most people think. There are numerous articles circulating the Internet on making home made nuclear weapons. See for example "How to build homemade nuclear weapons for peaceful and defensive purposes" on http://reactor1967.fortunecity.com/nuke.html the simple technology required would not have been impossible for our ancient ancestors.


Modern Ark of the Covenant devices: nuclear weapons.

The secrets of the alchemical quest are secrets no more; we no longer require two tablets of stone to crush radioactive metal together; we have modern explosives which are more effective.

Final War.

When the Arc of the Covenant is once again rebuilt and revealed, by the hidden hand of the Seven Servants of Apocalyptic War, and the prophesies of the fall of Babylon's empire evoked (personified), in nuclear guerilla war, the financial command and control centres of Capitalism shall turn to dust; it shall not be a miracle but the consequence of physics.

Great and Terrible and Dreadful shall be the Day of Judgement.

Physics is War.

Lucifer

Aeon of Light 2009

[lightgiver]

No they are not Christian state terrorists,they are satanic state terrorists using religion(Christianity,Islam) to hide behind.

So they can destroy religion,one of the many aims of the Illuminati and quite a few on this forum.:)

LG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxgWMx2izP0

A little about Nuclear technology on here.

[luciferhorus]

This is the part of the obligation of the Moderns system's "Master Mason" degree which includes what is known as a "symbolic penalty". It is certainly not an oath of allegiance, but an acceptance of the loss of the immortal soul as the ultimate penalty for revealing the secrets imparted during the rest of the initiation ceremony.

"All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steady resolution to perform the same, without any hesitation, myself, under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had of so vile and wicked a wretch as I would be, should I ever, knowingly, violate this my Master Mason's obligation."


Having been an anti-cultist for many years, I am reminded of some debates I had with defenders of the Korean Moon cult, whose fuhrer has stated that gays and 'adulterers' should be 'sent to the spiritual world' (i.e., executed') and that American will be 'burned by fire' should they reject his words and edicts; the common response to this from cultists are that such claims are 'symbolic' only.

I fail to understand how one can 'symbolically' cut a person in two, disembowel them and scatter their ashes.

Further, and to restate, since this is clearly an oath involving ritual murder (since suicide in this manner is out of the question), since the corrupt British judiciary has been sending Muslims to prison merely for 'incitement to murder' I think it appropriate to judge the Masons in the same manner as their legal establishment judges their Islamic enemies.

LL

Lux

[flyermay]

No they are not Christian state terrorists,they are satanic state terrorists using religion(Christianity,Islam) to hide behind.

Oh, please... aren't you already "discussing" that subject in enough threads; can't you at least just follow the conversation on this one.

[flyermay]

flyermay I have proven the link between the Knights Templar and pre-Moderns Free Masonry. Please forgive me if I simply refer you to the references that I listed above and recommend that you continue your researches along the lines I have suggested.

Thanks GS, I appreciate all the information you have already posted.

[grandsecretary]

"All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steady resolution to perform the same, without any hesitation, myself, under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had of so vile and wicked a wretch as I would be, should I ever, knowingly, violate this my Master Mason's obligation."


Having been an anti-cultist for many years, I am reminded of some debates I had with defenders of the Korean Moon cult, whose fuhrer has stated that gays and 'adulterers' should be 'sent to the spiritual world' (i.e., executed') and that American will be 'burned by fire' should they reject his words and edicts; the common response to this from cultists are that such claims are 'symbolic' only.

I fail to understand how one can 'symbolically' cut a person in two, disembowel them and scatter their ashes.

Further, and to restate, since this is clearly an oath involving ritual murder (since suicide in this manner is out of the question), since the corrupt British judiciary has been sending Muslims to prison merely for 'incitement to murder' I think it appropriate to judge the Masons in the same manner as their legal establishment judges their Islamic enemies.

LL

Lux

I am simply explaining the reason for the symbolism in the wording.

It is only recently that Christians would allow their bodies to be cremated. Indeed, Catholics are still buried, and are not allowed cremation.

The most important symbol in this Moderns third degree ritual is the scattering of the ashes. This represents, as in the first and second degrees, a situation where the immortal soul would be denied eternal life in heaven, a concept that would be totally abhorent to initiates in the days when this ritual was first written.

[flyermay]

Thanks Lucifer,

Glad to hear from you; and it is always a pleasure to hear you opinion. In this case, I agree completely with your post; except for this doubt:

So… do you think that the Knights Templar were looking for (or even found) the Ark of the Covenant in Solomon’s Temple? You told me already that you are familiar with Graham Hancock’s work; I’m wondering if you had the chance to followed his research on this subject.

In my opinion, and I'm not discussing they were not looking for the Ark, what they found was something else; something that gave them enough power to almost rule over Europe behind the scenes for 200 years.

Well Flyermay I have dealt with this on the 'Alchemy' thread.

There are two main theories on the mythical ark of the covenant which the Templars and Masons have an obsession with.

One is that held by those who are essentially superstitious, non-scientific and believe in 'miracles;' that the Ark has some kind of 'miraculous' property, much like the relics which were bought and sold in the medieval world, such as the nail of the true cross, the fingernail clippings of Jesus, a splinter from the cross, etc.

The other is that the Ark was a weapon which Moses used in war against his enemies and can be explained scientifically.

Well… I guess you know me well enough already to suppose I will go for the later.

On the Ark of the Covenant.

The alchemical quest was never about converting lead to gold, but rather of ‘transforming’ matter to Light and Energy. We can all transform matter to Light and Energy simply by burning a piece of paper; we can hold a magnifying glass up to the sun and convert Light to Energy, but nuclear process which occurs on the sun or in a nuclear weapon was a secret which if understood would deliver the most awesome military power to the alchemist; as it was in the legend of Moses.

True, it was never about converting lead to gold (that’s a common misconception that is completely wrong; though for an uninitiated it would give than impression). I’ve been looking lately into alchemy, and I was pretty surprised and impress with what I found. Alchemy, as well as most occult arts, can only be fully understood by the initiated; though alchemical practices also referred in part to chemistry (but only in the sense of the Hermetic principle: “As above, so below”). But the true nature of alchemy was spiritual, and the concept of converting lead into gold referred to transforming the "lead" (or the undeveloped conscious) into "gold" (or the fully realised and enlighten soul).

[grandsecretary]

GS, I'm not sure if you understood my meaning.

There are thousands of sources that make such claims, I don't deny that. However, the accounts are mythological, and are not taken seriously by historians.

So while you can quote any number of Masonic books, it does not make the proposition true. It would be like me quoting Salem Towne, who claimed that Moses was a Masonic Grand Master who ushered all the Israelites into Masonic Lodges while in the wilderness, and then use such a quote to prove that Moses was a Mason (and a Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of All England, no doubt).

I am afraid that you are destined to remain hoodwinked thelonius. You are not connected to those times, and so you are not a party to either the secrets or the mysteries of the pure Anglo-Saxon Free Mason who, of necessity, still requires the governance of the Orders of The Holy and Royal Arch.

The Knights Templar (the real ones) knew the answers to the questions that I have put to you, for many months now, and which you have refused to attempt to provide an answer:

What is the Holy and Royal Arch?
What is Holy about the Royal arch?
What is Royal about the Holy arch?
Where is it?

Just to state a fact. The sources listed by me are NOT all "Masonic books", and even so are simply a list of book references. We do not rely on these alone, but the researches of two professors of Medieval history, one in England and one in Italy, amongst others on our historical committee. The Professor in Italy has full access to the Vatican libraries, hardly a Masonic bookshop.

I was shocked and disappointed when I found out that I had been fed a load of nonsense by my Moderns Grand Lodge, but I faced up to it and moved on.

[boots]

"All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steady resolution to perform the same, without any hesitation, myself, under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had of so vile and wicked a wretch as I would be, should I ever, knowingly, violate this my Master Mason's obligation."

Having been an anti-cultist for many years, I am reminded of some debates I had with defenders of the Korean Moon cult, whose fuhrer has stated that gays and 'adulterers' should be 'sent to the spiritual world' (i.e., executed') and that American will be 'burned by fire' should they reject his words and edicts; the common response to this from cultists are that such claims are 'symbolic' only.

I fail to understand how one can 'symbolically' cut a person in two, disembowel them and scatter their ashes.

Further, and to restate, since this is clearly an oath involving ritual murder (since suicide in this manner is out of the question), since the corrupt British judiciary has been sending Muslims to prison merely for 'incitement to murder' I think it appropriate to judge the Masons in the same manner as their legal establishment judges their Islamic enemies.

LL

Lux

That ritual, energetically is a mind controlled thought process. It is used to install fear into the person who joins this occult practice.

.

[grandsecretary]

That ritual, energetically is a mind controlled thought process. It is used to install fear into the person who joins this occult practice.

.

OCCULT: involving the supernatural; SOURCE: Oxford English Dictionary

Yes, the fear of God, and wording designed to influence (alter) the way an initiate thinks. At last a statement from boots that make some sense, provided we are using the word "occult" in the proper way. All religions which believe in the supernatural are, by dictionary definition, occult, and this Moderns ritual was written by a Huguenot Protestant Minister.

I expect that boots will now divert this away to the more lurid use of the word "occult" - devil worship and all that bunk. We'll see.

[boots]

That ritual, energetically is a mind controlled thought process. It is used to install fear into the person who joins this occult practice.

.


What part of that statement don't you get?

under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had of so vile and wicked a wretch as I would be, should I ever, knowingly, violate this my Master Mason's obligation."



Do you even understand what mind control is??

As I have stated. Anyone that fears god is not a god I would want. Anyone with a sane mind wouldn't.

The trouble with freemasonry is that it's symbols are used by the illuminati to use for negative purposes.

Freemasons are being used.


.

[thelonious]

It is only recently that Christians would allow their bodies to be cremated. Indeed, Catholics are still buried, and are not allowed cremation.

Catholics are indeed allowed to be cremated, providing only that such Catholics do not deny the resurrection of the flesh.

http://www.ccaw.org/resources/cremation.htm

[thelonious]

I am afraid that you are destined to remain hoodwinked thelonius. You are not connected to those times, and so you are not a party to either the secrets or the mysteries of the pure Anglo-Saxon Free Mason who, of necessity, still requires the governance of the Orders of The Holy and Royal Arch.

I hate to once again state the obvious, but your organization was founded in 2005, and mine is derived from the old Lodges. For you to claim that you are connected to the ancient Lodges is not only dishonest, but patently absurd.

As has been mentioned, there are no serious historians that accept the Templar-Masonic myth. By "serious" historians, I refer to those with acdemic credentials in the subject.

So what I see is that your organization, which is indeed Modern Freemasonry in the literal sense of the word, has invented a romantic but fictional history for itself in order to appeal to those who do not know any better. Fortunately, I am not in that class of folks.

[grandsecretary]

I hate to once again state the obvious, but your organization was founded in 2005, and mine is derived from the old Lodges. For you to claim that you are connected to the ancient Lodges is not only dishonest, but patently absurd.

As has been mentioned, there are no serious historians that accept the Templar-Masonic myth. By "serious" historians, I refer to those with acdemic credentials in the subject.

So what I see is that your organization, which is indeed Modern Freemasonry in the literal sense of the word, has invented a romantic but fictional history for itself in order to appeal to those who do not know any better. Fortunately, I am not in that class of folks.

thelonius let me make this quite clear. You and your Grand Lodge are guessing, and are motivated purely by jealousy and malevolence.

Neither you, nor they, were a party to the revival although invited to take part. You have not a clue how the Grand Lodge was revived. That is the first fact.

Secondly you have not a clue what we do, and so you cannot comment upon either the legitimacy or the status of our Free Masonry, or our Grand Lodge. That will not stop you from doing so of course, because you are so frightened of the consequences.

Thirdly, we revived The Grand Lodge of All England in December 2005. The Grand Lodge at York has been revived several times and history recognises each and every revival.

Our revival in December 2005 is no different in this respect. It will be considered to be a revival in exactly the same way, because it was revived in exactly the same way. There is nothing that you can do about it.

This Grand Lodge is recognised in English Law and protected by Acts of Parliament. You can do nothing about it, apart from bleat from the sidelines. It was formally revived according to English Law, European Law, Masonic Law, tradition and practice. Fact.

Fourthly, our SYSTEM of Free Masonry, its statutes, landmarks and rituals are all very ancient indeed, and that is the point.

"York being the established Place of Masonic Government, the whole fraternity successively paid Allegiance to its Authority, and whereas the Sacred Art flourished so much, that masonry in the South came to require some Nominal Patron to Superintend its Government. A person under the Title of Grand Master for the South was appointed, with the Approbation of the Grand Lodge at York, to which the whole fraternity at large were still bound, as they were before, to pay Tribute and acknowledge Subjection. And thus Masonry flourished for many years in the South, as well as in the North, but afterwards became again at so low a Ebb in the South that in the year 1717, only four Lodges remained extant in those parts, but those Lodges ever glorified in Originating from the Ancient York Masons, which they constantly testified. And whereas those very lodges cemented under a new Grand Master for the South, and hence arose what is now called the Nominal Grand Lodge in London, whose meetings have been by some considered as General Meetings, but without any Constitutional Authority to give such Meetings a Sanction to that Title.

"And whereas the Grand Lodge of All England, still existing at York, is the Supreme Legislature of Masonry in this kingdom. And hath, with Lamentations, beheld that the Nominal Grand Lodge, in London, have not only forgotten the Allegiance due to this Parent State of Masonry in England, but have proceeded to insult its Dignity, and depart from every ancient Landmark of the Order, assuming such arbitrary and unmasonic Measures, as ought not to be found among Maceons.

"Besides, which, many Masters and Lodges under their Sanction have been struck off their Books on trifling occasions, and particularly on Pecuniary ones, Motives which Masons ought to blush at, and, in fine, they have adopted Measures altogether arbitrary and repugnant to the principles of the Masonic Institution, whereby the true Spirit of Free Masonry in the South of England hath been subverted, and if not timely supported by the Masonic Legislature might become totally destroyed.

"Hence however, the Grand Lodge in London, from its Situation, being encouraged by some of the Principal Nobility of the Nation, arose at Great Power, and began to despise the origin from whence it sprang. In an unbrotherly manner, wishing the Gr. Lodge at York annihilated, which appears by one of their Almanacks, insinuating, that although there are some Brethren remaining, who act under the Old Constitution of York, yet that they are few in number, and will soon be annihilated.

"Upon the whole, let every dispassionate Mason but weigh impartially the several Facts here stated, and he must spurn at the daring Innovation offered by the Nominal Grand Lodge in London, to so sacred an Institution.

"If he wishes to partake of Masonry in its Original Purity, he will turn his attention to that source, where it hath been Inviolably maintained and continued for Successive Ages to this Day, and where the Legislature of Masonry for this Kingdom stands fixed by its true Title 'The Grand Lodge of All England, Established at the City of York.' "

ISSUED AT YORK 1779 AND REMAINING GRAND LODGE POLICY.


Fifthly, it is you, and your Moderns friends, who wish to focus on this spurious obsession with which Grand Lodge came first. You have a serious problem with this, but we do not. It is only your Grand Lodge that has to prove that it was "first and the only" because without establishing this derisory claim, your entire legitimacy, and your ludicrous claims are wholly compromised. That is your problem, not ours.

We are not concerned about this because we have no fear or concern about public opinion, and we have nothing to prove to anyone outside of our own Masonic community. Our sole interest is to be true and pure Anglo-Saxon Free Masons. You have no influence upon this whatsoever, and you never will have. Our Grand Lodge is NOT in competition with yours, so relax. We wouldn't allow you within a million miles of one of our Lodges and we would regard it as a gratuitous insult if we were ever invited to attend one of yours.

You do not know what comprises our concomitant parts or their history, you merely assume. You have not a clue what we do in our Masons Lodges; who our members are; where they come from; where we are active, and you certainly are not in possession of the true and original secrets of a Free Mason, dating from time immemorial.

How can we say this? Well, as you know, we know everything about your Grand Lodge, and we revived the Grand Lodge at York BECAUSE these secrets were missing, and we carefully replaced them.

The Orders of the Holy and Royal Arch (true Free Masonry) have been continuously conferred, uninterrupted in parts of Europe, since time immemorial, despite the dormancy and/or underground activities of the legislative centre of Free Masonry that is The Grand Lodge of All England, at York.

You have no idea about our organisation other than the propoganda that you have been fed by your masters. You don't know our structure; its rituals; its membership; what it is; who we are; where we are active; what we do; or where we came from, and you never will.

All we do know is that your freemasonry cannot be genuine Anglo-Saxon free Masonry because it does not confer the Ancient Orders of the Holy and Royal Arch which are absolutely essential for genuine religious Anglo-Saxon Free Masonry.

Now that is the situation. You may not like it, but you are very much an outsider in this matter. Those here who are not burdened by your prejudices are learning far more about true English Free Masonry than you ever will. Why, because your left foot is nailed to that dirty pub floor (1717).

If you are so desperate that you HAVE to continue to spread misinformation and disinformation, then so be it, but here you are dealing with intelligent people who are not gullible, deluded, obsessed, terrified robots.

Try as you may, we will NOT allow you, or anyone else, to airbrush our rich Anglo-Saxon heritage out of English history and as a matter of record, our historic committee includes two Professors of Medieval History, one English and one Italian, and other specialist academics including a Doctor of Divinity.

Your qualifications are? Simple prejudice and abject fear for the truth.

I will ask you again Mr freemason:

What is the Holy and Royal Arch of Free Masonry?
What is Holy about the Royal Arch?
What is Royal about the Holy Arch?
Where is it?

Without this essential knowledge there can be NO Free Masonry. The answers are within the religious Orders of the Holy and Royal Arch which do NOT form a part of the system known as the Moderns form of freemasonry.

And while you are at it, by what authority does The United Grand Lodge of England presume to initiate freemasons?

Anderson was one of the originators of the London Grand Lodge, and as a man of strong prejudices he was biased in all his inditings, evidences of which are seen throughout his two publications on every possible occasion, in the omission of historical facts, or giving the contrary construction to, and diverting attention in cases reflecting unfavourably upon the New Grand Lodge. The Books of Anderson, however, are almost universally accepted by the Masonic fraternity as containing a true history of Freemasonry, at least from the time our review commences, and the Ancient Charges, especially those contained in the 1723 edition, are as generally adopted as the fundamental law and basis of Masonic principles. But notwithstanding Anderson's Books of Constitutions were published by order of the London Grand Lodge, with its approval and sanction, yet no more untrustworthy, unreliable books were ever printed under the direction of any organised association. We affirm that Anderson is not to be credited. The Books of Constitutions were written purposely to deceive, to mislead and misrepresent facts as they existed; and if his reports of Grand Lodge Proceedings are true copies of Grand Lodge Records, then the records were corrupted with the design to mislead the reader." (SOURCE: Freemasonry in England from 1567 to 1813, Ancient York and London Grand Lodges , pages 15 and 16, by Leon Hyneman, 1877)

Nothing changes.

[thelonious]

Thirdly, we revived The Grand Lodge of All England in December 2005. The Grand Lodge at York has been revived several times and history recognises each and every revival.


Very well then. I just revived the Grand Lodge of All England on my back porch with my three dogs as Grand Officers.

Meet Spike, the new Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of All England.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_03/BulldogDM3004_468x627.jpg

[luciferhorus]

I hate to once again state the obvious, but your organization was founded in 2005, and mine is derived from the old Lodges. For you to claim that you are connected to the ancient Lodges is not only dishonest, but patently absurd.

As has been mentioned, there are no serious historians that accept the Templar-Masonic myth. By "serious" historians, I refer to those with acdemic credentials in the subject.

So what I see is that your organization, which is indeed Modern Freemasonry in the literal sense of the word, has invented a romantic but fictional history for itself in order to appeal to those who do not know any better. Fortunately, I am not in that class of folks.

http://www.unexplainable.net/brainbox/uploads/1/tem2.jpg

On the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.

I am coming from a 'Scottish perspective,' of one who has a 'Scottish Rite' father, and I must say that I find a clear, empirical, indisputable trail of evidence of the 'ancient' existence of the Templars in Scotland after the Templar Holocaust by Phillip the Fair. The historical evidence on this litters the Internet and historical writings, so I need not regurgitate it.

I plan to be visiting Rosslyn Chapel next week for a documentary I am making, and to visit my father (the Devil). Rosslyn which is accepted as a Templar chapel, is dated at about 150 years after the Templar exile to Scotland; I think I need not go into the history of the Sinclairs and the Templar families of Scotland, for much has been written about this; however the Templar exile to Scotland in the late 13th and early 14th centuries would of course have been an obvious choice since our king, Robert the Bruce was (like the Templars) also excommunicated by the Catholics and in need of military allies and finances in order to wage war against England's Catholic tyrant.

http://procinwarn.com/templar.jpg

As you have mentionied yourself, we speak of an age where the Templars were excommunicated and had they raised their head as an overt organisation, this would have been suicide, for the penalties would have been disnfranchisement of property, torture and death by the proto-Nazi Christian Church.

It is only with the Reformation in the 16th century that 'heretical' groups find 'breathing space' and not until the late 18th century that the Scottish Rite appears as a formal organisation, and even then it appears firstly in their original homeland (France) and not in Scotland, albeit founded by a Scotsman (Chavalier Ramsey).

If we were to argue that no heterical or underground groups existed in Europe prior to this time, simply because there is no record of the registration of any formal organisation with the various governments, this would simply not be historically true.

Technically no Baptist or Pentacostal churches existed in the Soviet union, but know this to be otherwise; it is merely that their existence was 'underground' for obvious reasons.

The argument here between Grand Secretary and Theolonious over whose religious cult / military order is more ancient is thus clearly spurious, since we speak of an ancient tradition which has been hidden from overt view.

It is rather like two Capitalist Christians having an argument, and one claims to be more authentic since his Capitalist cult was registed with the government prior that of his opponents.

LL

Lux

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45043000/jpg/_45043685_templegraves_226282.jpg

[thelonious]

On the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.

I am coming from a 'Scottish perspective,' of who has a 'Scottish Rite' father, and I must say that I find a clear, empirical, indiputable trail of evidence of the 'anceint' existence of the Templars in Scotland after the Templar Holocaust by Phillip the Fair. The historical evidence on this litters the Internet and historical writings, so I need not regurgitate it.

But consider this:

The Scottish Rite has no historical ties to Scotland. It was in fact founded in the USA, in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1801. The 33 degrees of the Scottish Rite came not from Scotland, but from France; the Rite of Perfection (25 degrees) was combined with 7 degrees from the Philosophical Rite. The Rite was called "Scottish" because the 29th degree in the system was called "Grand Scottish Knight of St. Andrew", which recounts the Templar legend.

However, the Templar legend itself in Masonry does not predate the Ramsay Oration, which historians agree gave birth to the myth of a Templar-Masonic connection.

As for me, I would love it if it could be shown that there was a Templar connection to Freemasonry. Such a thing would be both interesting and fascinating, so I'm certainly not opposed to it. I'm just saying that the evidence isn't there, and the whole story is based on Ramsay's speech, not historical evidence.

[lightgiver]

Oh, please... aren't you already "discussing" that subject in enough threads; can't you at least just follow the conversation on this one.

You oh please,you sound like mike martin,we know you are a pretend mason,I am following the conversation,if you watched the vid you would know.
You do not fool me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxgWMx2izP0

These so called Christian religious capitalists LH keeps harping on about have nothing to do with religion,they hide behind the label to carry out their demonic agenda.

If you read LH posts thoroughly he mentions nuclear technology which the vid I posted earlier mentions,if you can be bothered to watch it.

Oh please, that one made me laugh.

[flyermay]

You oh please,you sound like mike martin,we know you are a pretend mason,I am following the conversation,if you watched the vid you would know.
You do not fool me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxgWMx2izP0

These so called Christian religious capitalists LH keeps harping on about have nothing to do with religion,they hide behind the label to carry out their demonic agenda.

If you read LH posts thoroughly he mentions nuclear technology which the vid I posted earlier mentions,if you can be bothered to watch it.

Oh please, that one made me laugh.

:D I was waiting for your answer Lightgiver, but I didn’t thought you could be so mean as to blow my secret plan of becoming a freemason.

The truth is that given the fight between masons and non-masons in this forum (with the exception of Lucifer), you are getting the beating of your life. So why not join the winning team?

But, before I join, I didnt' catch what was it you didn’t like about freemasons???

[flyermay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxgWMx2izP0

Glad you like Chris Everard's documentaries, I have them all too: great stuff!!!

[flyermay]

By the way GS, I visited your fraternity's homepage (yes lightgiver, to become a freemason). And I was pretty surprised to find the same symbolism on the shield of your coat of arms as the one attributed to the Hendeye Cross that I was talking about the other day (build 60 years before freemasonry officialy existed).

[lightgiver]

:D I was waiting for your answer Lightgiver, but I didn’t thought you could be so mean as to blow my secret plan of becoming a freemason.

The truth is that given the fight between masons and non-masons in this forum (with the exception of Lucifer), you are getting the beating of your life. So why not join the winning team?

But, before I join, I didnt' catch what was it you didn’t like about freemasons???

Have I stated I dislike Masons?I dislike dishonesty and cover ups and people being led up the garden path.

Like I have stated many times there is good and bad in everything and everyone.:)

Getting the beating of my life? really, Ha Ha.:D you really do come out with some corkers of delusion.:D

More like the Bleating of my life.

“One man can conquer a thousand times thousand men in battle,
but one who conquers himself is the greatest of conquerors.

[lightgiver]

By the way GS, I visited your fraternity's homepage (yes lightgiver, to become a freemason). And I was pretty surprised to find the same symbolism on the shield of your coat of arms as the one attributed to the Hendeye Cross that I was talking about the other day (build 60 years before freemasonry officialy existed).

It would not surprise me if you are already a mason.:D

A Che Guevara mason.Ha Ha.:D dear dear me.

"LET THERE BE LIGHT" (Genesis 1:3). The first spiritual emanation was light. If our soul continues to follow the light, we will get back to our source. 1 stands for a beginning, a new start and unity.

[flyermay]

A Che Guevara mason.Ha Ha.:D dear dear me.

:confused: I don't understand why you associate me with "Che", but thanks!!!

About masons being revolutionaries: you better have a look in deep at the American and French revolutions; you might be surprised of what you find.

[lightgiver]

:confused: I don't understand why you associate me with "Che", but thanks!!!

About masons being revolutionaries: you better have a look in deep at the American and French revolutions; you might be surprised of what you find.

Yes FM,I have already done that :D

Maybe one needs to check out your albums ,http://www.davidicke.com/forum/album.php?albumid=309

come off it,you just want to Impress.;):D

[luciferhorus]

But consider this:

The Scottish Rite has no historical ties to Scotland. It was in fact founded in the USA, in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1801. The 33 degrees of the Scottish Rite came not from Scotland, but from France; the Rite of Perfection (25 degrees) was combined with 7 degrees from the Philosophical Rite. The Rite was called "Scottish" because the 29th degree in the system was called "Grand Scottish Knight of St. Andrew", which recounts the Templar legend.

However, the Templar legend itself in Masonry does not predate the Ramsay Oration, which historians agree gave birth to the myth of a Templar-Masonic connection.

As for me, I would love it if it could be shown that there was a Templar connection to Freemasonry. Such a thing would be both interesting and fascinating, so I'm certainly not opposed to it. I'm just saying that the evidence isn't there, and the whole story is based on Ramsay's speech, not historical evidence.

I think that in much the same way as the Church of the god of Capital (Christianity) claims that it's legacy relates to a first century anti-Capitalist, similarly the Masons in general tend to believe that they are carrying on the ancient tradition of the Templar loan-sharks; obviously the original Templars are all dead now, but the upper echelons of the York rite are in fact the 'Knight's Templars;' I think it rather ridiculous to argue that a cult named the 'Knight's Templars' do not believe that they are carrying on the legacy of Capitalist Imperialism and loan sharking of the original Knight's Templars who went underground in the early 14th century.

I did attend a lecture some years ago by a young Lawyer at the Masonic Research society in London on the links between the orginal Templars and the Templars today, this was not really a 'religious' lecture, but rather one which focused on their economic and laon sharking legacy.

When we speak of formal organisations with Temples which are registered with the state as charities and so forth, clearly 'historical links' become a little vague since the Templar loan sharks, for obvious obvious reasons had to go underground for centuries, but their legacy is written into the history of Scotland.

LL

Lux
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

[grandsecretary]

Very well then. I just revived the Grand Lodge of All England on my back porch with my three dogs as Grand Officers.

Meet Spike, the new Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of All England.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_03/BulldogDM3004_468x627.jpg

Quod et Demonstrandum.

[grandsecretary]

But consider this:

The Scottish Rite has no historical ties to Scotland. It was in fact founded in the USA, in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1801. The 33 degrees of the Scottish Rite came not from Scotland, but from France; the Rite of Perfection (25 degrees) was combined with 7 degrees from the Philosophical Rite. The Rite was called "Scottish" because the 29th degree in the system was called "Grand Scottish Knight of St. Andrew", which recounts the Templar legend.

However, the Templar legend itself in Masonry does not predate the Ramsay Oration, which historians agree gave birth to the myth of a Templar-Masonic connection.

As for me, I would love it if it could be shown that there was a Templar connection to Freemasonry. Such a thing would be both interesting and fascinating, so I'm certainly not opposed to it. I'm just saying that the evidence isn't there, and the whole story is based on Ramsay's speech, not historical evidence.

Propoganda.

[grandsecretary]

By the way GS, I visited your fraternity's homepage (yes lightgiver, to become a freemason). And I was pretty surprised to find the same symbolism on the shield of your coat of arms as the one attributed to the Hendeye Cross that I was talking about the other day (build 60 years before freemasonry officialy existed).

Precisely. This earliest known use of this symbolism may be found on artefacts that are at least 3,200 years old. Slightly older than that rather boozy, unrecorded, evening in a London Pub (1717).

[luciferhorus]

I am simply explaining the reason for the symbolism in the wording.

It is only recently that Christians would allow their bodies to be cremated. Indeed, Catholics are still buried, and are not allowed cremation.

The most important symbol in this Moderns third degree ritual is the scattering of the ashes. This represents, as in the first and second degrees, a situation where the immortal soul would be denied eternal life in heaven, a concept that would be totally abhorent to initiates in the days when this ritual was first written.

With regards to being denied eternal heaven.

Since the Knight's Templar loan sharking cult whom you claim your anceint legacy from only admits 'Christians,' might I ask you what this cut of Capitalists and loan sharks has to do with Christianity's mentor, who held that the Capitalists and hypocrites of religion would end up in hell, and whose words and edicts are clearly those of a homeless, penniless anti-propertyist and anti-monetarist who told a rich man that he could only be saved by giving 'all' his money to the poor?

I fail to see the connection, since it seems to me that according to the person whom the Capitalist Christians worship as an object of idolatry, it is the Capitalists are to end up eternally bound to my father (the Devil), and frankly that is not quite my understanding of heaven.


LL

Lux

http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

[grandsecretary]

With regards to being denied eternal heaven.

Since the Knight's Templar loan sharking cult whom you claim your anceint legacy from only admits 'Christians,' might I ask you what this cut of Capitalists and loan sharks has to do with Christianity's mentor, who held that the Capitalists and hypocrites of religion would end up in hell, and whose words and edicts are clearly those of a homeless, penniless anti-propertyist and anti-monetarist who told a rich man that he could only be saved by giving 'all' his money to the poor?

I fail to see the connection, since it seems to me that according to the person whom the Capitalist Christians worship as an object of idolatry, it is the Capitalists are to end up eternally bound to my father (the Devil), and frankly that is not quite my understanding of heaven.


LL

Lux

http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

Do you ever read postings? I have never claimed heritage FROM the Knights Templar. They inherited Free Masonry, quite different. I clearly stated that the Knights Templar and the Free Masons remained quite separate and distinct organisations.

[luciferhorus]

But consider this:

The Scottish Rite has no historical ties to Scotland. It was in fact founded in the USA, in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1801. .

This would seem to contradict:

Did the Scottish Rite originate in Scotland?

No, the Scottish Rite had it's beginnings in France. In 1740, Chavalier Ramsey, a Scottish nobleman, established a Lodge which he called Harodim, but the French called it Scotsman's Lodge Masonry, which may have something to do with the misnomer, "Scottish Rite."

When did Scottish Rite Masonry, as it is constituted today, come into being?

In 1754, the Chevalier de Bonneville established in the College of Claremont in Paris a chapter of twenty-five so-called High Degrees. This college was a sort of refuge for the Stuarts of Scotland, which also may have some bearing on the name, "Scottish Rite."
These degrees were then taken by Marquis de Lernais to Berlin and in 1762, Frederick the Great "formed and promulgated" what is known as the Constitutions of 1762. In 1786 eight degrees were added to the twenty-five and the name was changed to the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.

When and how was the Scottish Rite established in the United States?

By the creation of a Supreme Council in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1801.

http://www.lbscottishrite.org/lbeventcenter/aboutus.html

[luciferhorus]

Do you ever read postings? I have never claimed heritage FROM the Knights Templar.
.

My apologies if I have misunderstood you, however it is quite clear that some Freemasons do claim this heritage and have written numerous books on their obsession with all matters to do with the Templars.



They inherited Free Masonry, quite different. I clearly stated that the Knights Templar and the Free Masons remained quite separate and distinct organisations.

This still does not provide an adequate response to the relationship between the modern Knight's Templars and the anti-Capitalist / Communist Jesus, since the Templars claim to be Christian. Further the question is begged as to why the 10th level of the York Rite of Masonry is called the 'Knight's Templars,' if as you state they do not claim such heritage to the medieval loan sharks of the same name?

[grandsecretary]

My apologies if I have misunderstood you, however it is quite clear that some Freemasons do claim this heritage and have written numerous books on their obsession with all matters to do with the Templars.




This still does not provide an adequate response to the relationship between the modern Knight's Templars and the anti-Capitalist / Communist Jesus, since the Templars claim to be Christian.

No problem luciferhorus,

Well these freemasons are not Free Masons at all, they are Moderns freemasons who will claim almost anything if it suits their purpose.

For instance, Stephen Dafoe, who pretends to be the Moderns' resident expert on the Knights Templar, admitted to me in writing that he was not a historian but a propogandist on behalf of the Moderns.

Although he admitted the truth of the connections between the Knights Templar and The Grand Lodge at York, including our KT Grand Masters, he refused to confirm this in his latest book, "The Compasses and the Cross", to the contrary. The reason given to me was this: "I will not publish anything that assists the agenda of The Grand Lodge of All England".

The Knights Templar were Christians. They were initiated into the Orders of the Holy and Royal Arch, and we still use these rituals which have been in continuous existence since, at least, the early 10th century. These initiations are absolute necessities for the very existence of Free Masonry.

As you have seen here time and time again, the Moderns have not a clue what this is all about.

[luciferhorus]

The Knights Templar were Christians.

Yes and as I understand it only Christians are admitted to the current order of the Knight's Templars; just to restate my simple question, what does this have to do with the anti-Capitalist martyr Jesus and 'giving all one's welath to the poor,' etc.

[grandsecretary]

Yes and as I understand it only Christians are admitted to the current order of the Knight's Templars; just to restate my simple question, what does this have to do with the anti-Capitalist martyr Jesus and 'giving all one's welath to the poor,' etc.

Although The Knights Templar were international bankers, they were personally poor. Their proper nomenclature was the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon. They did, indeed accumulate wealth, by lending and charging interest, but this was distributed to the poor and the distressed.

They ended up entirely penniless of course when their assets were blagged by Philip IV of France.

[luciferhorus]

They did, indeed accumulate wealth, by lending and charging interest, but this was distributed to the poor and the distressed.

.

I frankly find no evidence of this. I am not suggesting that they did not do some works of charity but their wealth was legendary and if it had been distributed to the poor, I think we would know about that.

Further I don't find this trait among modern Masons, and further, since we are considering the fact that the ancient and modern Templars claim to be Christians, in light of the fact that Christ was an total anti-monetarist and anti-propertyist (i.e., Communist), I frankly do not find this political ideology among modern Masons.

LL

Lux

[lightgiver]

I frankly find no evidence of this. I am not suggesting that they did not do some works of charity but their wealth was legendary and if it had been distributed to the poor, I think we would know about that.

Further I don't find this trait among modern Masons, and further, since we are considering the fact that the ancient and modern Templars claim to be Christians, in light of the fact that Christ was an total anti-monetarist and anti-propertyist (i.e., Communist), I frankly do not find this political ideology among modern Masons.

LL

Lux

So what have you given to the poor lately?:)

[luciferhorus]

Thanks Lucifer,

So… do you think that the Knights Templar were looking for (or even found) the Ark of the Covenant in Solomon’s Temple? You told me already that you are familiar with Graham Hancock’s work; I’m wondering if you had the chance to followed his research on this subject.


I have a copy of Hancock's 'The Sign and the Seal: A Quest of the Lost Ark of the Covenant,' 1997.

Frankly there are numerous works which take a similar view; essentially it is a very 'Indiana Jones' perspective; that the Ark is some ancient and mysterious treasure; it is very much a view drowned in superstition.

We live in a modern scientific age. If Moses was able to destroy city walls and defeat his enemies with the Ark, then it must have had some kind of scientific component.

There is also the event to consider where some of the slave population sneak into Moses' tent in order to look at the Ark and find out what he was up to; he had them all executed. I doubt if this was for superstitious reasons and I entirely suspect that it was some form of miltary technology which he sought to keep secret; I simply don't believe in miracles.



In my opinion, and I'm not discussing they were not looking for the Ark, what they found was something else; something that gave them enough power to almost rule over Europe behind the scenes for 200 years.




Well the power which the Templars had was an economic power; there is no secret to the power of loan sharking and it's ability to enrich those who practice this; it is a very simple matter to understand.


LL

Lux.


__________________________



On Usury and Monetarism (Capitalism). What is Money? What is to be done? A brief history of the loan-sharking scam from the Knight’s Templars to the present.

For children.

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/66666666.gif

By Lucifer

Morning Star
Light of the World.
For Anarchist Communism
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

____________________

Introduction

Prior to the introduction of promissory notes, goods were exchanged for gold and silver coins. The production of gold and silver was a process which depended on sourcing natural deposits. When a tyrant (a statist) or private propertyist had deposits of precious metal on land he had stolen, the tyrant became rich and could pay his workers with such metal, often coins stamped with his face on them. Thus few people had much gold and silver, and many people had little gold and silver.

____________________

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/sterlingsilver.jpg

Part I: The Knight’s Templars

Once upon a time there was a religious cult called the Knight’s Templars (The soldiers / militants / mercenaries of Solomon’s Temple).

These men were heavily armed and had very safe and secure places (security depositories) where they would look after your gold and silver for you, so that no thief may break in and steal it.

Let us say that you had some Sterling silver (Sterling silver is an alloy that today must be 92.5% pure silver) to look after; they would give you a hand written note stating words to the effect of: <I> ‘I promise to pay the bearer on demand, one pound (16 ounces) of sterling silver.’ </I> This is still written on today’s pound sterling (UK) currency notes.

You could deposit one pound of sterling in the Templar depository in London, take one of their ships to Jerusalem, produce your promissory note and they would give you back the silver.

Eventually instead of purchasing things with silver, people began to exchange the promissory notes instead.
The bankers soon realised that they always had silver in their depositaries which few people came back to collect, and that their written promises alone could purchase commodities or be lent out at up to 30% interest. To issue a promise to pay on demand their depositor’s silver, when there could never possibly have enough silver to make good their promises, is the definition of ‘fraud’ and ‘theft.’

Eventually their cult became illegal in Europe and the Templars were tortured, imprisoned and executed; however their executioners who represented the religious tyrants (the European Church and the tyrannical states) were hardly any better than the Templar loan sharks.

Many of the knights of the Usury cult fled to Scotland. Some time later we see these knights appear again under different names.

______________________



Part II: The Freemasons / Secret Societies.

Once upon a time there were groups of religious cultists who opened many security depositaries under different names.
They issued promises on notes to their customers as the Knight’s Templars did, and they believed themsleves to be continuing their loan-sharking legacy.
Soon their depositaries were filled with gold and silver.

The run on the bank.

One day the people lost confidence in one of these cultists and there was a ‘run’ on his bank.
Rumour soon spread that the banker did not have enough silver and gold in his vault to make good all his promises.
All his customers demanded that he ‘make good’ his promises and return their silver and gold.
That day the banker closed his doors, and stated ‘come back tomorrow.’

Covering each other’s back. One cult, many faces.

That night the banker met up with his fellow bankers, who emptied their vaults and gave him enough money to make good his worthless promises.
The next day his customers returned and he paid them in full.
His customers then took their gold and silver to the banks of the men who had covered their fellow cultist’s back.
That night the same cult of bankers counted their common assets and found that they had all their gold and silver back.
Soon the banker who made good all his promissory notes, became the most respected banker in the land.

___________________________

Part III: the legalisation of reserve banking.

Eventually it became clear that all bankers operated such a scam, so the bankers sought to make their scam legal.
Once this scam was legal, for every pound of silver in a depository, the banker could legally issue silver notes for many pounds of silver.
This was simply the legalisation of theft, and soon the bankers, not the tyrants who ran the government, became the richest Capitalists (monetarists) on the face of the earth.


The worker must sell his labour hours for Capital (money), but the bankers can simply issue Capital; this is simply theft of ‘labour.’
Since no new money is ever issued without being lent at interest, and since the worker cannot produce his own currency to pay this interest, since for monetarism to work, only a select few are ever given the power to issue money, there is always more money owed to the bankers, including the interest, than there is money in the system; thus the worker is enslaved by a system where he/she is constantly ‘chasing his/her tail,’ since it is impossible for all debt to be repaid; thus Capitalism (monetarism) is a system where debt and bankruptcy are inevitable for some (the indebted) and great wealth are inevitable for the Usuryists (money creators and lenders).

____________________________

Money is power; power corrupts.

Whether gold or silver, or whether promissory notes; as long as there is monetarism, and some can create Capital from nothing and lend it at interest, and others have to sell their labour (as labour slaves or sexual slaves) and become indebted to survive, there will be crime and poverty and some shall have abundant wealth and others will starve.

Slavery works.

The slave master and those who benefit from slavery can always be expected to argue that ‘slavery works,’ and this is true for the slave master since the slaves do all the work and the master reaps all the rewards of their labour.

Capitalism (Monetarism) works.

Capitalism works for those who are the beneficiaries of Capitalism. Those in the First World who are the beneficiaries of Third World labour slavery can mostly be expected to argue that ‘Capitalism works,’ which is true for the Capitalists, since it is their labour slaves in the Third World who make the products which fill the bargain shops of the First World, and specifically the bankers (Usuryists) who are the richest of the rich can be expected to argue this most of all.

Communism (Fr. To share) does not work as much as Capitalism.

In a world without governments, private property or money, where agriculture was the priority, people would not have to do as much work; they could spend their time enjoying the fruits of their collective labour, eating, drinking, making love, travelling, listening to music or whatever they chose to do.

In India today, for example, there are 15 million child labourers. In a Communist society they would probably do the least amount of work, and the Capitalists would still be expected to argue ‘Communism does not work’ since for those 15 million children it would be true, they would not work, they would not be enslaved to Capital, they would not make trinkets to be shipped around the globe to fill the bargain shops of the First World where the products of their labour would be stolen by their enemies who convince themselves that Capitalism works each time they buy an item for a dollar that took a child a day to make.


The liberation of the Third World proletariat and globalisation. Monetarist Imperialism: the highest stage of Capitalism


The term globalisation sounds very nice; it suggests that we are living in a global village, and that all people in the world are becoming closer; nothing could be further from the truth.

In Marx’s day, the European proletariat were impoverished and they lived side by side with the rich; in today’s world there are no children working down mines in Europe, and few workers in the First World are working in such appalling conditions for subsistence wages as there were in 19th century Europe, for such labour slavery has been exported to the Third World, where appalling working conditions for subsistence wages are the norm for much of the population, and extreme poverty is the norm for many.

The poorest nations of the world service debt to the richest Usuryists in the richest nations and the poorest people in the world export the products of their labour to the proletariat of the First World. Nothing much has changed since the era of Marx and Kropotkin and the 19th century Communists, merely that the world has divided into exploited nations and those nations who are the beneficiaries of their slavery.

Only war can resolve this problem. The Capitalists of the First World are militant and totally committed to militant evangelical world Capitalist revolution; only militant resistance can stop them.

Lucifer

For Anarchist Communism



'The revolution will have to be (Anarchist) Communist or it will be drowned in blood and will have to begin all over again'

'Either the State forever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant with another.....Or the destruction of all states and new life starting again in thousands of centres on the principle that the lively initiative of the individual and groups of that Free Arrangement The choice lies with you'.. Kropotkin, 'Conquest of Bread' (1892).

On the Pan-German banner is written: Retention and strengthening of the State at any cost. On our banner, the social-revolutionary banner, on the contrary, are inscribed, in fiery and bloody letters: the destruction of all States, the annihilation of bourgeois civilization, free and spontaneous organization from below upward, by means of free associations, the organization of the unbridled rabble of toilers, of all emancipated humanity, and the creation of a new universally human world. Mikhail Bakunin

Addendum


Children often ask, 'Since there are so many poor people in the world, why don't they just issue more money?'

A response by Lucifer

I asked this question as a child to my father who is an accountant and a Masonic cultist. At the time he simply told me that it was a ridiculous thing to ask and that it could not be done, but he offered no explanation that a child could understand.

Thus in the language that a child could understand.

Capital and labour hours. Price and value.

Marx argued that the 'value' of a commodity was the amount of labour hours it took to produce the commodity. Thus a pound of silver was worth more than a pound of sand. What Marx suggested was the introduction of 'labour vouchers,' by a temporary tyranny (government) where everyone had the same amount of labour vouchers per week. Thus no person could possibly be better off than anyone else. In the history of Marxist governments however this has never occurred and what we have seen is the history of 'Leninist' state Capitalist governments where the banks are nationalised and the issue of money continues.

Printing more money in State Capitalism

Let us take the example of Cuba. Everyone gets the same wages, lives rent free and only the state bank can issue currency. Cuba, North Korea and China all have state banks which are not privately owned; they do not practice reserve banking; unlike in Capitalism, they do not borrow in order to issue new currency. Let us say that Castro increased everyone's wages by 100 times. What would occur? Frankly the same amount of goods would be in the shops, the same amount of agriculture would be produced, but everyone would have 100 times their usual salary; what would have to occur to stop the shops emptying in the first few hours after everyone got paid, would be instant inflation; the goods would have to cost 100 times more and nothing would really change. The wealth of the nation can be determined firstly by how much food they produce and the standard of living (healthcare etc), not by how much money they have, but if everyone had ten times more money, and the same amount of commodities were produced, nothing would change. Thus printing more money in a state Capitalist (Leninist) system would not enrich the population; all that would occur would be inflation.

Those with Capital (money) can demand labour slavery of others.

For example in the UK, the minimum wage is about $10 an hour ($1600 a month), whereas there are 15 million child workers in India who work for a few dollars a week, and also millions of adult prisoners in China who work in government factories and who cost the government a few dollars a week to feed. The Capitalist in Britain can walk into a bargain shop and pick up something for a dollar that represents the labour slavery of some Third World labour slave, and the Capitalist thinks 'Oh isn't Capitalism wonderful, it would take me hours to make that and it would cost $20 if it was made in the First World.' However it is not wonderful for the labour slave who has to make it.

Money makes the Capitalist world go around, not love.

The Capitalist does not have to say please do this for me my love; the power of Capital makes the demand, 'do this or be impoverished.'

Capital works for the Capitalist in the same way that slavery works for the slave master.

The State Capitalist solution.

There are many people in the First World who have studied private Capitalism and who oppose it, and who call for the introduction of State Capitalism in the First World; i.e., the nationalisation of banking. This type of Capitalist government however would not be Cuba where all persons have the same wages; on the contrary some would be rich and others would be poor.
Economic power would be transferred from the private usuryists to the governments (police states / tyrannies). This would simply be a 'modification' of Capitalism. People would still starve in some regions, there would still be labour slavery in the Third World. There is no reason to believe that state terrorists such as the governments of George Bush and Elizabeth Windsor would not still be committed to World Capitalist Revolution, the holocaust of all militant enemies and the economic enslavement of humanity under Capital.

Capitalism cannot be reformed; it has to be abolished.

For a world where all persons are economically equal, Capitalism (monetarism) would have to be totally eradicated; State Capitalism simply leads to the corruption of the tyrants and the political elites. Private Capitalism leads to empowering the Usuryists and all who collaborate with them and serve them.

Lucifer

For stateless collectivism (Anarchist Communism)


ZEITGEIST 2:ADDENDUM The Money System

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=7065205277695921912&hl=en&fs=true

[thenewman11]

Although The Knights Templar were international bankers, they were personally poor. Their proper nomenclature was the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon. They did, indeed accumulate wealth, by lending and charging interest, but this was distributed to the poor and the distressed.

They ended up entirely penniless of course when their assets were blagged by Philip IV of France.

Not just to but in; but the Templars where Christian in name only! just to clarify, for if they where true christians they would have not been of banking(ie,moneychangers in temple). And second Soldiers for Christ is an farce for if true to Christ Teachings they would turn the other cheek and let the example of their lives be the true "weapon"!...although I'm sure you already know all this. ;)

[thelonious]

Not just to but in; but the Templars where Christian in name only! just to clarify, for if they where true christians they would have not been of banking(ie,moneychangers in temple).

Hogwash. The Templars weren't "money changing in the temple", and the attempt to compare them to the moneychangers that Jesus attacked is absurd.

Like GS mentioned, the Templars were personally poor: they had all taken vows of poverty. The organization itself becag to accumulate wealth, wyhich just sat there.

The European royalty began borrowing from them because they were an easy source of cash. This also led to their downfall, as Phillip the Fair didn't want to pay them back.

[thelonious]

This would seem to contradict:
[I]
Did the Scottish Rite originate in Scotland?

No, the Scottish Rite had it's beginnings in France. In 1740, Chavalier Ramsey, a Scottish nobleman, established a Lodge which he called Harodim, but the French called it Scotsman's Lodge Masonry, which may have something to do with the misnomer, "Scottish Rite."

If you re-read my post, you'll see it does not contradice at all. I stated that the degrees originated in France, and were developed into a new Rite in the USA in 1801, when the first Supreme Council of the 33rd Degree was formed.

[thenewman11]

Hogwash. The Templars weren't "money changing in the temple", and the attempt to compare them to the moneychangers that Jesus attacked is absurd.

Like GS mentioned, the Templars were personally poor: they had all taken vows of poverty. The organization itself becag to accumulate wealth, wyhich just sat there.

The European royalty began borrowing from them because they were an easy source of cash. This also led to their downfall, as Phillip the Fair didn't want to pay them back.

I simply used the moneychangingtemple bit ONLY on the point inwhich if the Templars where the originators of the banking system system (which i personaly dont know as a fact just was said earlier on post) and the fact they killed(being soldiers) would make them obsolete as being pure followers of Christ for it is against his teachings. That is the point of my response.
Also, Being a Mason yourself and haven taken blood oaths of secrecy; to hide and twist the truth of the history of the mysteries;) to protect the "brotherhood" It's hard to take A freemason as a good source of facts!

[thelonious]

I simply used the moneychangingtemple bit ONLY on the point inwhich if the Templars where the originators of the banking system system (which i personaly dont know as a fact just was said earlier on post) and the fact they killed(being soldiers) would make them obsolete as being pure followers of Christ for it is against his teachings. That is the point of my response.

OK, I see what you're saying. But Jesus attacked the monetchangers in the temple because they were taxing people to worship. The Templars didn't anything like that, they just let people borrow money for their secular expenses.

As for killing being opposed to the "pure teachings of Christ", I cannot agree. Jesus himself said he came not to bring peace, but a sword. People not familiar with the Bible may find this surprising, but a reading of that book yields some pretty strange and unpredictable things.

Also, Being a Mason yourself and haven taken blood oaths of secrecy; to hide and twist the truth of the history of the mysteries;) to protect the "brotherhood" It's hard to take A freemason as a good source of facts!

It is true that I've taken an oath of secrecy concerning the actual secrets of Masonry, but it's certainly *not* true that I've taken oaths to hide and twist and the truth. Actually, Masonic oaths require *spreading* the truth. If a Masonic oath were anything else, I would have no use for it.

Concerning the secrets, if a non-Mason asked, I would simply say that I have promised on my honor to keep such matter private, which is true. Obviously, there is nothing secret about history or the story of the Templars.

[thenewman11]

OK, I see what you're saying. But Jesus attacked the monetchangers in the temple because they were taxing people to worship. The Templars didn't anything like that, they just let people borrow money for their secular expenses.

As for killing being opposed to the "pure teachings of Christ", I cannot agree. Jesus himself said he came not to bring peace, but a sword. People not familiar with the Bible may find this surprising, but a reading of that book yields some pretty strange and unpredictable things.



It is true that I've taken an oath of secrecy concerning the actual secrets of Masonry, but it's certainly *not* true that I've taken oaths to hide and twist and the truth. Actually, Masonic oaths require *spreading* the truth. If a Masonic oath were anything else, I would have no use for it.

Concerning the secrets, if a non-Mason asked, I would simply say that I have promised on my honor to keep such matter private, which is true. Obviously, there is nothing secret about history or the story of the Templars.


First off...Yes I know alot of the Bible and its teachings! This verse you speak of Math;10:34 you are taking out of context or misinterpreting.
What is meant is the division within families which results from the proclamation of the gospel. Peace in this context means peace in the household.
In this verse sir, he is talking about the family(immediate family) and other peoples families being torn apart..ie..
Luke 12:49-53
49 "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but DIVISION. 52 From now on there will be five in one FAMILY divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law etc..."
If he literaly meant sword as in BATTLE why did he let him self go to the "tree" without a fight! and Why did he teach "turn the other cheak..so forth.


Secondly "hele, conceal, and never reveal" (sound familiar)
If you don't twist truths of the mysteries of the craft, are you allowed to say "you are correct" if someone states something that is to be concealed or do you simply not answer!
I believe there are large secrets yet to be revieled about the Templars and their history.
My Grandfather an High level Mason I talk to often and try to get him to tell me things but like you said he simply says "he swore not to say"!
Myself I strongly believe by the words of masons of past that many have been set out to confuse and mix up the truth and history of freemasonry. Otherwise what would be the point of the oaths, if every un-initiated knew the truth and the rituals?

[thelonious]

If he literaly meant sword as in BATTLE why did he let him self go to the "tree" without a fight! and Why did he teach "turn the other cheak..so forth.

It depends on your viewpoint. I'm not a Christian, and believe most of the story is mythological.


Secondly "hele, conceal, and never reveal" (sound familiar)
If you don't twist truths of the mysteries of the craft, are you allowed to say "you are correct" if someone states something that is to be concealed or do you simply not answer!

If it concerned the secrets of Freemasonry, I would simply not answer. But the actual secrets of Freemasonry consist of the traditional signs, passwords, handshakes, etc. In othr words, the ecrets are the least important part of Freemasonry, although long ago, when Freemasons were persecuted, they were important.

I believe there are large secrets yet to be revieled about the Templars and their history.

You're probably right, and I believe he same thing.


Myself I strongly believe by the words of masons of past that many have been set out to confuse and mix up the truth and history of freemasonry. Otherwise what would be the point of the oaths, if every un-initiated knew the truth and the rituals?

The oath of secrecy as is given today originated when the church and governments were rounding up Masons and their families, torturing them, and at times even killing them. Obviously, secrecy was very necessary.

Today, in most countries, secrecy is no longer required, and the idea of Masonry being a secret society of sorts is more tradition than anything else.

[thenewman11]

It depends on your viewpoint. I'm not a Christian, and believe most of the story is mythological.



If it concerned the secrets of Freemasonry, I would simply not answer. But the actual secrets of Freemasonry consist of the traditional signs, passwords, handshakes, etc. In othr words, the ecrets are the least important part of Freemasonry, although long ago, when Freemasons were persecuted, they were important.



You're probably right, and I believe he same thing.



The oath of secrecy as is given today originated when the church and governments were rounding up Masons and their families, torturing them, and at times even killing them. Obviously, secrecy was very necessary.

Today, in most countries, secrecy is no longer required, and the idea of Masonry being a secret society of sorts is more tradition than anything else.

I suppose on the Bible we can agree to disagree! I myslelf am an Follower of Christ in the facts I adhere to what is attributed as his teachings! But I firmly believe it is to the individual alone to choose what are whom they wish to believe or not!!

onto Freemasonry if the secrets are not such the big deal then why are the rituals and ceremony's so significant and practiced so precisely. While most MAson's know not of what they are doing such as the Circumambulation and so forth.
Do you not personally believe that Freemasonry has anything to do with the vast consipicies of the day? And if they do that would be some heavy secrecy.
Unless they(elite masons) don't consider it secret because of the whole Truth in Plain view thing or Certain symbolism within newstorys that only elites MAson's pick up upon?

[grandsecretary]

If it concerned the secrets of Freemasonry, I would simply not answer. But the actual secrets of Freemasonry consist of the traditional signs, passwords, handshakes, etc. In other words, the secrets are the least important part of Freemasonry, although long ago, when Freemasons were persecuted, they were important.

And this sums up what thelonius knows about freemasonry. Apparently it doesn't have any secrets any more except a few handshakes on the way to the champagne bar.

They say that ignorance is bliss.

[thelonious]

I suppose on the Bible we can agree to disagree! I myslelf am an Follower of Christ in the facts I adhere to what is attributed as his teachings! But I firmly believe it is to the individual alone to choose what are whom they wish to believe or not!!

Agreed. If Jesus was an actual historical figure, I consider him to have been a very wise. I'm only concerned that some later writers have twisted his teachings to suit themselves.

onto Freemasonry if the secrets are not such the big deal then why are the rituals and ceremony's so significant and practiced so precisely.

I'm not sure that ritual itself has anything to do with secrecy. Take for example the communion servive of the Roman Catholic Church: the rituals are also carried out precisely, but secrecy is not a factor.


Do you not personally believe that Freemasonry has anything to do with the vast consipicies of the day? And if they do that would be some heavy secrecy.

Some non-Masons, and especially anti-Masons, exaggerate the secrecy aspect of Freemasonry. While secrecy is an important tradition in Freemasonry, there is nothing wrong with secrecy in itself, and anybody interested in the subject can inform himself easily.

Unless they(elite masons) don't consider it secret because of the whole Truth in Plain view thing or Certain symbolism within newstorys that only elites MAson's pick up upon?

Elitism is opposed to Freemasonry. In order to become a Freemason, it is necessary to believe in equality and the brotherhood of man.

[thenewman11]

Thanks for your time but one more thing!
Elitism is opposed to Freemasonry. In order to become a Freemason, it is necessary to believe in equality and the brotherhood of man
This may be so at the lower level but, if as they say over half the American Presidents have been masons and among those rich families(the elite) their are many a mason. And examples of Pike, Crowley,etc.

Also they quote I Have heard many a time about the Father whom told his son. about masonry.("IF you are not one of us, then you are nothing!") something i heard on B. Cooper's Mystery BAbylon series.

Oh well thanks for your time but I personaly am still very skeptical of the "PLOT" of the so called "Great Work"!!
PS Just got "Secret teachings of all ages" what books (IYO) would u recomend to further "inform myself"?

[thelonious]

Thanks for your time but one more thing!

This may be so at the lower level but, if as they say over half the American Presidents have been masons and among those rich families(the elite) their are many a mason. And examples of Pike, Crowley,etc.

14 US Presidents (15 if you count Lyndon B. Johnson, who was First Degree only). If we count LBJ therefore, 34% of the US Presidents have been Masons.

Concerning rich people in Masonry, this is an exception instead of the rule, at least here in the USA, where the vast majority of Masons (including Masonic leaders) fall well within the limits of what is called "middle class".

Concerning Pike and Crowley: Pike was a regular Mason and led some Masonic organizations in the US. He wasn't particularly wealthy, especially after the war, having been a school teacher and a journalist by profession before practicing law (which he did after the Civil War ended).

Crowley was an irregular Mason, mostly known today as an occult philosopher and social critic. He spent most of his adult life flat broke.


Also they quote I Have heard many a time about the Father whom told his son. about masonry.("IF you are not one of us, then you are nothing!") something i heard on B. Cooper's Mystery BAbylon series.

Obviously, I find such a quote highly suspect.


PS Just got "Secret teachings of all ages" what books (IYO) would u recomend to further "inform myself"?

I have that one, but I'm not a big fan of all of Hall's work, although "Secret Teachings" is worth the price just because of Knapp's great art work. If you like Hall, I think his "Lost Keys of Freemasonry" is probably his best book on Masonry.

Here are a few of my favorite books:

"The Builders" by Joseph Fort Newton
"The Mens House" by Joseph Fort Newton
"A comprehensive View of Freemasonry" by Henry Wilson Coil
"Morals and Dogma" by Albert Pike
"Liturgies and Legendas" by Albert Pike
"Encyclopedia of Freemasonry" by Albert G. Mackey

Since you mentioned Crowley, he didn't write any Masonic books, but some of his writings mentioned Freemasonry. If you're new to his work, I would recommend starting with his autobiography "The Confessions of Aleister Crowley", and a book of letters he'd written to various students published under the title "Magick Without Tears".

[thenewman11]

I have that one, but I'm not a big fan of all of Hall's work, although "Secret Teachings" is worth the price just because of Knapp's great art work. If you like Hall, I think his "Lost Keys of Freemasonry" is probably his best book on Masonry.

Here are a few of my favorite books:

"The Builders" by Joseph Fort Newton
"The Mens House" by Joseph Fort Newton
"A comprehensive View of Freemasonry" by Henry Wilson Coil
"Morals and Dogma" by Albert Pike
"Liturgies and Legendas" by Albert Pike
"Encyclopedia of Freemasonry" by Albert G. Mackey

Since you mentioned Crowley, he didn't write any Masonic books, but some of his writings mentioned Freemasonry. If you're new to his work, I would recommend starting with his autobiography "The Confessions of Aleister Crowley", and a book of letters he'd written to various students published under the title "Magick Without Tears".
Thanks for the list of books, I actually have a couple of those in my waiting to purchase page on amazon.
Considering Crowley, without an Informed knowledge of his actual rightings or beliefs and practices I cannot judge the man on the mainstream view of him cuz usually it in my study turns out the opposite. But good or bad I do intend to do some readings on his work and so forth and then I can form an REAL opinion. So quick today just because many people whom one even respects repeats things as we all know its best to research it for yourself.
Although I Respect your words of Masonry I am still a lil skeptical. Perhaps after my "edgucation" my mind may change but also perhaps not.

See U around the boards..

[flyermay]

I just realised that I have two different versions of "Morals and Dogmas", does anyone knows how many versions are they?

[grandsecretary]

I just realised that I have two different versions of "Morals and Dogmas", does anyone knows how many versions are they?

Too many. :)

[thelonious]

I just realised that I have two different versions of "Morals and Dogmas", does anyone knows how many versions are they?

I think there were 5 different editions, but they should be all the same version. The subsequent editions were released after Pike's death.

[flyermay]

I think there were 5 different editions, but they should be all the same version. The subsequent editions were released after Pike's death.

I'm not sure if they are just different editions, because some of the texts in one version do not show on the other one.

I'll try to copy and paste some examples tomorrow.

[thelonious]

I'm not sure if they are just different editions, because some of the texts in one version do not show on the other one.

I'll try to copy and paste some examples tomorrow.

Please do, I'd be interested in taking a look. I have two copies (different editions) that seem to be the same as the online versions.

Do you have an authorized version from the Supreme Council (hardback) or a Kessinger reprint? The Supreme Council took it out of print in the late '60's. They used to give it as a gift to new members, but then started giving "Clausen's Commentaries On Morals and Dogma" by Henry C. Clausen instead.

Today, they no longer give that one out either, but instead give Rex Hutchens' "A Bridge To Light", which is much better than the Clausen book, but still not as intricate as Morals and Dogma.

[luciferhorus]

Agreed. If Jesus was an actual historical figure, I consider him to have been a very wise.


http://bristol.indymedia.org/attachments/oct2007/major_tim_saunders_briefs_hrh_the_duke_of_kent.jpg
(above: the Duke of Kent)

Just curious Thelonious, so I have to ask if, based upon his words and edicts, would you consider Jesus to have been wiser than, for example, the current Grand Master the Duke of Kent, or less wise, and if so, why and in what way?

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/pics/michael.of.kent.jpg



Elitism is opposed to Freemasonry. In order to become a Freemason, it is necessary to believe in equality and the brotherhood of man.

???????????????

I am shocked to hear this Thelonious. Surely this is what the Communists believe?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-01/19/xin_0801021914561982809516.jpg



I am puzzled by the 'equality and the brotherhood of man' statement; surely this will only come about after the genocide, torture and sexual abuse of Muslims, and all the enemies of the aristocracy?

Don't you mean 'equality and the brotherhood' among the ruling elites?

http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/cartoons/new/2005-05-06%20Lynndie%20England%20Abu%20Ghraib%20torture%20 Iraq%20450.JPG


http://www.indybay.org/uploads/iraq_torture_j.jpg

http://www.mbads.org/Quickstart/ImageLib/iraq_torture1_narrowweb__200x259.jpg
'Oh how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.'

Sorry but I just have to ask; does this equality and brotherhood apply to the the victims of your Capitalist god 'before' or only after they have been humiliated and sexually abused?

And further after the men have been raped and tortured to bring them up to a sufficient standard of equality to meet the high standards of the Capitalist god, will this process be applied to the women also, or is it just a 'brotherhood' thing?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-01/19/xin_4701021914539802388815.jpg

"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity"

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/08GB4s44eid7r/610x.jpg

Salvation and entrance to Capitalist heaven through the blood sacrifice of a Communist has long been at the heart of the theology of the priesthood of Capital.

Do you forsee this torture and murder of the wise, for slavation ending at some point, and what do you consider would be necessary to bring this about?


http://images.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/06/07/torture/story.jpg

[grandsecretary]

Elitism is opposed to Freemasonry. In order to become a Freemason, it is necessary to believe in equality and the brotherhood of man.

This is just about as wrong as you can be. Whoever said this is delusional.

[flyermay]

Please do, I'd be interested in taking a look. I have two copies (different editions) that seem to be the same as the online versions.

Do you have an authorized version from the Supreme Council (hardback) or a Kessinger reprint? The Supreme Council took it out of print in the late '60's. They used to give it as a gift to new members, but then started giving "Clausen's Commentaries On Morals and Dogma" by Henry C. Clausen instead.

Today, they no longer give that one out either, but instead give Rex Hutchens' "A Bridge To Light", which is much better than the Clausen book, but still not as intricate as Morals and Dogma.

Sorry Thelonious, one of the books is incomplete. I realised that the reason why I couldn't find some paragraphs on the first book was simply because it ends on the 27º; while the other one goes all the way until the 32º.

The paragraph I was looking for is the following one, which I'm curious to hear what you all think about it:


"The end of the drama is well known, and how Jacques de Molai and his fellows perished in the flames. But before his execution, the Chief of the doomed Order organized and instituted what afterward came to be called the Occult, Hermetic, or Scottish Masonry. In the gloom of his prison, the Grand Master created four Metropolitan Lodges, at Naples for the East, at Edinburg for the West, at Stockholm for the North, and at Paris for the South."
Morals and Dogmas, p. 820 (Pike, A., 1871)

[thelonious]

This is just about as wrong as you can be. Whoever said this is delusional.

That means a lot, coming from someone who believes that Freemasonry is pre-Davidic and has a valid priesthood. :rolleyes:

[thelonious]

The paragraph I was looking for is the following one, which I'm curious to hear what you all think about it:

Please note that the quote itself was not Pike's. In this portion of the book, he is quoting an unnamed source (which he calls "an enemy of the Templars" on p. 815). Pike's personal comments to the quotes appear throughout the section in brackets.

After noting the quote you meantioned, Pike says:

The Order disappeared at once. Its estates and wealth were confiscated, and it seemed to have ceased to exist. Nevertheless it lived, under other names and governed by unknown Chiefs, revealing itself only to those who, in passing through a series of Degrees, had proven themselves worthy to be entrusted with the dangerous Secret. The modern Orders that style themselves Templars have assumed a name to which they have not the shadow of a title.

At the time Morals and Dogma was written, Pike was still under the notion that there was a historical connection between Freemasonry and the Templars. He changed his view on this after Gould published his "History of Freemasonry", which showed otherwise.

[grandsecretary]

That means a lot, coming from someone who believes that Freemasonry is pre-Davidic and has a valid priesthood. :rolleyes:

Well you have no idea what we are talking about, and that is why you come across as being so ignorant of the subject.

You still spin the tale that freemasonry started in the back room of a London pub.

[grandsecretary]

... it lived, under other names and governed by unknown Chiefs, revealing itself only to those who, in passing through a series of Degrees, had proven themselves worthy to be entrusted with the dangerous Secret. The modern Orders that style themselves Templars have assumed a name to which they have not the shadow of a title.

Now THINK for yourself thelonius. Your quote, not ours.

[grandsecretary]

Well the time has come to obliterate the false charge that there are no truly historical records of organised Free Masonry ever recorded prior to thelonius's meeting in the London pub (1717). And what about these four (yes only four) "independent lodges"?

This is a direct quotation from the most prestigious history site in the entire United Kingdom - British History Online, Chapter XXII.

In 1688 Wren was elected Grand Master of the Order, and he nominated his old fellow-workers at St. Paul's, Cibber, the sculptor, and Strong, the master mason, Grand Wardens. In Queen Anne's reign there were 129 lodges — eighty-six in London, thirty-six in provincial cities, and seven abroad.


Now please read this very carefully. Not four "independent lodges" but 129 lodges in Queen Anne's reign (1702-1714) under the Grand Mastership of Sir Christopher Wren.

This proves two things beyond doubt: firstly that there was a single Grand Master who presided over 129 lodges, sited both at home and abroad;

Secondly, that in the year 1688, 29 years prior to the alleged meeting at the Goose and Gridiron pub, there were 129 lodges who MUST have agreed to work under a single system of Free Masonry.

Add the fact that we have extant copies of a number of their Constitutions of Masonrie and there is no genuine argument, only propaganda to the contrary.

Now let us deal head on with the false charge made by thelonious, that NO truly qualified historian has ever provided such evidence:

British History Online is the digital library containing some of the core printed primary and secondary sources for the medieval and modern history of the British Isles. Created by the Institute of Historical Research and the History of Parliament Trust, we aim to support academic and personal users around the world in their learning, teaching and research.

History is history. Propoganda is propoganda.

[mike martin]

Well the time has come to obliterate the false charge that there are no truly historical records of organised Free Masonry ever recorded prior to thelonius's meeting in the London pub (1717). And what about these four (yes only four) "independent lodges"?
I really think it does your cause no good to keep harping on about "claims that Freemasonry starting in 1717 in a Tavern". The only person saying it is you.

Any Freemason who has studied its history, even slightly, will be aware of the Inititiations of Sir Robert Moray in 1641 and Elias Ashmole in 1646 and therefore is not guilty of this false charge.

The actual statement made is that Freemasonry as practised today was established in 1717 with the establishment of the Grand Lodge of England which initially comprised of 4 London Lodges and tried to group together other London Lodges within a centre of harmony and union. This was itself described as a "REVIVAL" by those involved so please why not stop chucking that one around.

I also find it hard to believe that you have forgotten that Anderson's (that you seem to dislike) Constitutions claimed Sir Christopher Wren as a Past Grand Master of England.

So much for us claiming that Freemasonry started in 1717!

Propoganda is propoganda.

Yes it is isn't it.

Mike

[slartibartfast]

Secondly, that in the year 1688, 29 years prior to the alleged meeting at the Goose and Gridiron pub, there were 129 lodges who MUST have agreed to work under a single system of Free Masonry.

...and using your source...

During the building of St. Paul's, Wren was the zealous Master of the St. Paul's Freemason's Lodge, which assembled at the "Goose and Gridiron," one of the most ancient lodges in London. He presided regularly at its meetings for upwards of eighteen years.

...and...

...four of the leading London Freemasons' lodges, considering themselves neglected by Sir Christopher Wren, met and chose a Grand Master, pro tem., until they should be able to place a noble brother at the head, which they did the year following, electing the Duke of Montague. Sir Christopher had been chosen in 1698.

which indicates some dissatisfaction with Wren (a member of one of the 4 lodges in question) as Grand Master and possibly the order.

The document was written in 1878, well after the events in question.

[grandsecretary]

...and using your source...



...and...



which indicates some dissatisfaction with Wren (a member of one of the 4 lodges in question) as Grand Master and possibly the order.

The document was written in 1878, well after the events in question.

Quite correct, five individuals only, of four of OUR lodges, were dissatisfied with Wren when he retired to the country, old and ill, withdrawing his financial support.

NONE of them were authorised by the lodges to do what they did, and NONE of them had even passed through the Wardens or Master's chairs.

In other words, classic clandestine, irregular freemasonry.

[grandsecretary]

I really think it does your cause no good to keep harping on about "claims that Freemasonry starting in 1717 in a Tavern". The only person saying it is you.

Any Freemason who has studied its history, even slightly, will be aware of the Inititiations of Sir Robert Moray in 1641 and Elias Ashmole in 1646 and therefore is not guilty of this false charge.

The actual statement made is that Freemasonry as practised today was established in 1717 with the establishment of the Grand Lodge of England which initially comprised of 4 London Lodges and tried to group together other London Lodges within a centre of harmony and union. This was itself described as a "REVIVAL" by those involved so please why not stop chucking that one around.

I also find it hard to believe that you have forgotten that Anderson's (that you seem to dislike) Constitutions claimed Sir Christopher Wren as a Past Grand Master of England.

So much for us claiming that Freemasonry started in 1717!



Yes it is isn't it.

Mike


The Grand Lodge of London was NEVER known as The Grand Lodge of England. It capitulated to the Antients Grand Lodge in 1813, and was NEVER recognised by The Grand Lodge of Scotland or The Grand Lodge of Ireland.

We have copies of the exchanges of letters and protocols if you would like copies.

Perhaps you should speak to thelonius who sings a very different song from you Mike.

As you know, Elias Ashmole was a member of The Grand Lodge at York, as was Sir Christopher Wren, as Anderson unequivocally stated in his first Book of Constitutions which theloniuius has obviously not read.

Neither Ashmole nor Wren, were EVER connected IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER with The Grand Lodge of London or The United Grand Lodge of England.

[thelonious]

Quite correct, five individuals only, of four of OUR lodges, were dissatisfied with Wren when he retired to the country, old and ill, withdrawing his financial support.

Your organization was founded in 2005. To suggest the Lodges that formed the Premiere Grand Lodge were "yours" is beyond ludicrous.

[slartibartfast]

Quite correct, five individuals only, of four of OUR lodges, were dissatisfied with Wren when he retired to the country, old and ill, withdrawing his financial support.

NONE of them were authorised by the lodges to do what they did, and NONE of them had even passed through the Wardens or Master's chairs.

In other words, classic clandestine, irregular freemasonry.

So you are suggesting that they should have done nothing and Freemasonry could possibly have died out?

Interested in the "NONE of them were authorised by the lodges" and would like to see your evidence. In a like view GLoAE is not authorised by the establish masonic authority to do what it does, therefore is classic clandestine, irregular freemasonry.

Anderson's view of the History of Freemasonry, which you put such store by, is about his Grand Lodge. He didn't put anything together and say this is nothing to do with us.

[mike martin]

Quite correct, five individuals only, of four of OUR lodges, were dissatisfied with Wren when he retired to the country, old and ill, withdrawing his financial support.

NONE of them were authorised by the lodges to do what they did, and NONE of them had even passed through the Wardens or Master's chairs.

You say that five individuals only (not four Lodges), working alone without the backing of their Lodges even, founded the first Grand Lodge of England. Meanwhile according to you there was a Grand Lodge operating in York that they actually belonged to.

How exactly did these 5 men manage to take away all of those Lodges that you claim were under the authority of a Grand Lodge at York (ie "yours")?

Mike

[grandsecretary]

You say that five individuals only (not four Lodges), working alone without the backing of their Lodges even, founded the first Grand Lodge of England. Meanwhile according to you there was a Grand Lodge operating in York that they actually belonged to.

How exactly did these 5 men manage to take away all of those Lodges that you claim were under the authority of a Grand Lodge at York (ie "yours")?

Mike

That is EXACTLY the point Mike, and why the minutes were NOT retained, or most probably suppressed. These individuals, none of them Masters or Wardens of their lodges, were EVER authorised by their lodges to do what they did in the tiny back room of that public house.

If anyone disagrees with this statement then let them provide ANY proof of authority to act on behalf of these York lodges under the Grand Mastership of Sir Christopher Wren.

This was a classic case of rebel clandestine freemasons being used by the political, anti-Catholic forces of the day.

"The other thing that we have to remember is that Catholics, in those days, could be Freemasons. In fact, it was the only organization in England that afforded them equality within society since the day King James VII of the Scots (James II of England) had been deposed. (He had wanted everyone within the boundaries of his kingdoms to worship according to their own conscience.) With the Stewarts out of the political picture in Britain, "liberty of conscience" and the concept of equality were firmly ousted. This meant that politics reverted back to the status quo, and no one but Anglicans had any rights at all. In order to retain this status quo, all lodges in England, or as many as possible, were to be taken over, subverted, even eradicated if necessary. Although 1717 saw a new, London-based Masonic impetus, working to restore the Stewarts to their rightful inheritance, the plan was foiled after the failure of the Atterbury plot to overthrow George I in 1722. In 1723, at the end of the Duke of Wharton's grand mastership, the Grand Lodge of England was taken over by Hanoverian infiltrators. (... It is interesting to note, in passing, that the lodge's archival records, from its inception in 1717 to June 24, 1723, have totally vanished.) (SOURCE: The Knights Templar of the Middle East by Michael James Alexander Stewart and Walid Amine Salhab, [Non-Masonic historians] published by Weiser, 2007)

"Besides, which, many Masters and Lodges under their Sanction have been struck off their Books on trifling occasions, and particularly on Pecuniary ones, Motives which Masons ought to blush at, and, in fine, they have adopted Measures altogether arbitrary and repugnant to the principles of the Masonic Institution, whereby the true Spirit of Free Masonry in the South of England hath been subverted, and if not timely supported by the Masonic Legislature might become totally destroyed.

"Hence however, the Grand Lodge in London, from its Situation, being encouraged by some of the Principal Nobility of the Nation, arose at Great Power, and began to despise the origin from whence it sprang. In an unbrotherly manner, wishing the Gr. Lodge at York annihilated, which appears by one of their Almanacks, insinuating, that although there are some Brethren remaining, who act under the Old Constitution of York, yet that they are few in number, and will soon be annihilated. SOURCE: Statement of York 1779, paragraphs 3,4.

Treasonable Practices Act (1795); Seditious Meetings Act (1795); Unlawful Oaths Act (1797); Newspaper Publications Act (1797); Corresponding Societies Act (1799); Unlawful Societies Act (1799).

"The amendment (to the Unlawful Societies Act) envisaged a system whereby the Grand Secretaries would each year deposit with the clerks of the peace a certificate containing details of the time and place of meeting of all approved lodges in the county, together with a declaration that the lodges were approved by the Grand Master. All lodges were to keep a book in which each member was to declare, on joining, 'that he is well affected to the constitution and government of this realm, by King, Lords, and Commons, as by law established'. This book was to be kept open for inspection by local magistrates. The Grand Lodges were thus to be made responsible for policing freemasonry; lodges whose names did not appear on the return made by the Grand Secretaries would be criminal conspiracies." (SOURCE: The Unlawful Societies Act 1799 by The Centre for Research into Freemasonry)

"I have pledged myself to His Majesty's ministers that should any set of men attempt to meet as a lodge without sanction, the Grand Master, or Acting Grand Master (whomsoever he might be), would apprise parliament." (SOURCE: statement by Lord Moira, Acting Grand Master - Antients Grand Lodge, the primary Grand Lodge which subjugated the Grand Lodge of London to form The United Grand Lodge of England in 1813.)

The record is there for all to see.

[grandsecretary]

Your organization was founded in 2005. To suggest the Lodges that formed the Premiere Grand Lodge were "yours" is beyond ludicrous.

Our organisation is the 2005 revival of the original religious Anglo-Saxon system of Free Masonry, using the Constitutions of Masonrie (AD926). This situation, and our Grand Lodge is a legal entity, protected by English Law, European Law, Masonic law tradition and practice, and Acts of Parliament.

The Orders of the Holy and Royal Arch have been practiced without interruption (including by the Knights templar) since time immemorial and are now, once again goeverned by this Grand Lodge.

However, your clandestine form of Moderns freemasonry (a meaningless substitute for the original) began by hi-jacking Free Masonry,and ruining it.

[slartibartfast]

That is EXACTLY the point Mike, and why the minutes were NOT retained, or most probably suppressed. These individuals, none of them Masters or Wardens of their lodges, were EVER authorised by their lodges to do what they did in the tiny back room of that public house.

If anyone disagrees with this statement then let them provide ANY proof of authority to act on behalf of these York lodges under the Grand Mastership of Sir Christopher Wren.

This was a classic case of rebel clandestine freemasons being used by the political, anti-Catholic forces of the day.

For the book quotation see...

http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/freemasonry_knights_templar.html

For the 1779 Statement. Anonymous Statement. Not a lot to find except your website.



Treasonable Practices Act (1795); Seditious Meetings Act (1795); Unlawful Oaths Act (1797); Newspaper Publications Act (1797); Corresponding Societies Act (1799); Unlawful Societies Act (1799).

The record is there for all to see.

...and your point is?

James II was kicked out. Plots afoot to get him back and the Government cracks down on possible groups who may support James. It is what you would expect.

[grandsecretary]

slatibartfast and thelonius.

Stop diverting attention away from EVERY SINGLE question that you have been asked to answer. All you can do is spread naked propoganda which seeks to rewrite English history and heritage.

IF you are Englishmen, then you ought to hang your heads in shame.

[mike martin]

That is EXACTLY the point Mike, and why the minutes were NOT retained, or most probably suppressed. These individuals, none of them Masters or Wardens of their lodges, were EVER authorised by their lodges to do what they did in the tiny back room of that public house.

If anyone disagrees with this statement then let them provide ANY proof of authority to act on behalf of these York lodges under the Grand Mastership of Sir Christopher Wren.

This was a classic case of rebel clandestine freemasons being used by the political, anti-Catholic forces of the day.

The record is there for all to see.
With the greatest of respect you have merely "danced" around a very direct and simple question! I'll word it differently and see if you can do better, it's important to me.

How exactly did five men with no backing from either their "claimed " Grand Lodge or even from their own individual Lodges manage to completely and utterly usurp the (according to you) extant Grand Lodge at York which was running English Freemasonry?

You see I find it hard to understand how this Grand Lodge with only five men running it and as its only members could have grown to have 64 Lodges under its banner in only 8 years (as illustrated by the "Engraved List of Lodges from 1725). The only way it could work would be if they started up their own Lodges whilst ignoring the Lodges of York, however, that seems nigh on impossible bearing in mind that your Grand Lodge would still be there in opposition and as an alternative.

Another question. You seem to make much of the fact that the Grand Lodge kept no minutes for the first few years of its existence, mainly as some kind of accusation. I take it that you are aware that the Grand Lodge of Ireland has no minutes before 1760, in other words the first 35 years of its existence. Do you also contend that they didn't form until 1760?

Sorry another question just came to me. You are citing as "authorities" documents written long after the fact. What have you got in the way of contemporaneous (ie written before say 1680 and actually mentioning it by name) evidence of the existence of the GL at York?

Mike

[grandsecretary]

With the greatest of respect you have merely "danced" around a very direct and simple question! I'll word it differently and see if you can do better, it's important to me.

How exactly did five men with no backing from either their "claimed " Grand Lodge or even from their own individual Lodges manage to completely and utterly usurp the (according to you) extant Grand Lodge at York which was running English Freemasonry?

You see I find it hard to understand how this Grand Lodge with only five men running it and as its only members could have grown to have 64 Lodges under its banner in only 8 years (as illustrated by the "Engraved List of Lodges from 1725). The only way it could work would be if they started up their own Lodges whilst ignoring the Lodges of York, however, that seems nigh on impossible bearing in mind that your Grand Lodge would still be there in opposition and as an alternative.

Another question. You seem to make much of the fact that the Grand Lodge kept no minutes for the first few years of its existence, mainly as some kind of accusation. I take it that you are aware that the Grand Lodge of Ireland has no minutes before 1760, in other words the first 35 years of its existence. Do you also contend that they didn't form until 1760?

Sorry another question just came to me. You are citing as "authorities" documents written long after the fact. What have you got in the way of contemporaneous (ie written before say 1680 and actually mentioning it by name) evidence of the existence of the GL at York?

Mike

The Grand Lodge of London DID keep minutes and I have never said that they didn't. These minutes have disappeared from view because they prove illegitimacy.

I will ask my historical committee to compile a list of sources, especially for you. I take it that Acta Latomorum, the most respected and comprehensive history of Free Masonry in Europe does not suit your purpose?

[slartibartfast]

The Grand Lodge of London DID keep minutes and I have never said that they didn't. These minutes have disappeared from view because they prove illegitimacy.

Supposition and unprovable. In the best tradition of the Conspiracy Theorists on this site.

I will ask my historical committee to compile a list of sources, especially for you. I take it that Acta Latomorum, the most respected and comprehensive history of Free Masonry in Europe does not suit your purpose?

According to Acta Latomorum:-

"1698 This Grand Master gives his responsibilities, to Christopher Wren, who remained there until 1702, the year the king died.

1703 Masonry progressed little under the reign of Anne Stuart. Its annual festivals were neglected, and the numbers of Masons decreased greatly."

Maybe some clues as to what happened.

[mike martin]

The Grand Lodge of London DID keep minutes and I have never said that they didn't. These minutes have disappeared from view because they prove illegitimacy.
Interesting claim but it is hard to see how they would. Bearing in mind that Anderson's Constitutions contained much of what was known of the Grand Assembly at York.

I will ask my historical committee to compile a list of sources, especially for you.
Excellent.

I take it that Acta Latomorum, the most respected and comprehensive history of Free Masonry in Europe does not suit your purpose?
I thought that was obvious, Acta Latomorum having been written in 1874 is no more authorative that any other 19th Century history. What I am asking for is a "taster" of the evidence proving the existence of the Grand Lodge at York written at the time, ie not after 1717.

BTW you still haven't given me any clues regarding the conundrum of how 5 individual Freemasons managed to completely relieve the Grand Lodge at York of its responsibility for Freemasonry in England.

I am really interested in finding out more but you're not giving me anything to work with.

Mike

[grandsecretary]

They didn't Mike. Their political masters appropriated the good name of Free Masonry by use of the Treasonable Practices Act (1795); Seditious Meetings Act (1795); Unlawful Oaths Act (1797); Newspaper Publications Act (1797); Corresponding Societies Act (1799); Unlawful Societies Act (1799).

The Grand Lodge of All England at York, was outlawed and branded " a criminal conspiracy", forced underground, its Lodges suspended, its Free Masons under threat of seizure of property, bankruptcy, prosecution, imprisonment, exile.

The Grand Lodge at York was fully active up until 1799, and minutes still exist. In fact, members of The Grand Lodge at York continued to meet in York as late as 1810. Some of its members were exiled to France and Austria and continued to meet there.

"It is worth noting again, as remarked earlier, that the Lodge records that are dated from 1705 are unquestionably regarded as being those of a Grand Lodge. Moreover they are nowhere referred to as being the first or early minutes and accounts. They are simply the earliest extant." (SOURCE: York Mysteries Revealed, Page 354 by the Revd Neville Barker Cryer, 2006)

These minutes are pre-1717.

[luciferhorus]

They didn't Mike. Their political masters appropriated the good name of Free Masonry by use of the Treasonable Practices Act (1795); Seditious Meetings Act (1795); Unlawful Oaths Act (1797); Newspaper Publications Act (1797); Corresponding Societies Act (1799); Unlawful Societies Act (1799).

The Grand Lodge of All England at York, was outlawed and branded " a criminal conspiracy", forced underground, its Lodges suspended, its Free Masons under threat of seizure of property, bankruptcy, prosecution, imprisonment, exile.

Dear Grand Secretary,

In order that I may I understand you correctly, could you clarify for me that you appear to claim to represent the ancestors who were the persecuted 'heretics,' whereas the York Rite of Masonry, represents the tradition of the 'establishment' who were the persecutors?

http://bristol.indymedia.org/attachments/oct2007/major_tim_saunders_briefs_hrh_the_duke_of_kent.jpg
Above the Grand Master; the Duke of Kent. a/k/a Prince Edward (Edward George Nicholas Patrick Paul)

Might I ask your opinion of the state terrorist / narco-terrorist collaborator, the aristocrat,Field Marshal His Royal Highness Prince Edward George Nicholas Patrick, Duke of Kent, Earl of Saint Andrews, Baron Downpatrick, Royal Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England and First Grand Principal of the Supreme Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of England, President of The Scout Association?

http://content9.clipmarks.com/blog_cache/www.dailymail.co.uk/img/D2E42AC6-CE7A-4B0F-A81D-A95E147C5E14

There is a joke among the Scottish proletariat that goes 'Thank goodness we won the two world wars or we would be ruled by Germans.' Those who understand the geneaology of our monarchy will understand this joke.


Might I ask you Grand Secreatary of your opinion on this neo-fascist, aristocratic, militant terrorist scum, His Royal Highness, the Duke of Kent, (Edward George Nicholas Patrick Paul)?

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/pics/hoovershrine.jpg

My apologies if I have in the past mistakenly associated you with the cult of whom the Duke of Kent is the puppet master, other scout masters, and the myriads of American Masonic cultists, assuming I have understood you correctly.


http://www.luciferia.tv/Law66666/masonic%20execution.jpg


Love and Light

Lucifer

http://th05.deviantart.com/fs25/300W/f/2008/148/2/8/Sigil_of_Lucifer_by_Monation.jpg
lux e tenebris
Prince of the Angels, Lord of Lords, Master and Commander of the 72 Goetic demons, bearer of the Key of Solomon, etc., etc.

Ex offico (in the office of) Christ, Pontifex Maximus, Servus Servorum Dei, Grand Master of Masters and numerous other pompous titles.

http://www.piusxiipope.info/popeseal.gif

Nb. I have spoken here 'ex cathedra' (from the seat) and thus I speak infallibly, in Final Judgement of the wheat from the chaff, and against all other blasphemies, heresies and competing 'World Saviours,' Grand Masters, Messiahs, Maitreyas, prophets, madhi's etc; accept no cheaper substitutes.

I, have sent my angel to testify these things to you for the assemblies. I am the root and the offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star."

[grandsecretary]

Supposition and unprovable. In the best tradition of the Conspiracy Theorists on this site.



According to Acta Latomorum:-

"1698 This Grand Master gives his responsibilities, to Christopher Wren, who remained there until 1702, the year the king died.

1703 Masonry progressed little under the reign of Anne Stuart. Its annual festivals were neglected, and the numbers of Masons decreased greatly."

Maybe some clues as to what happened.

Key clues indeed.

[boots]

Interesting stuff you have there luciferhorus (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/member.php?u=27212)

I hope it is answered by those that you have proposed the question too.

If they have the gut's.

.

[slartibartfast]

Interesting stuff you have there luciferhorus (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/member.php?u=27212)

I hope it is answered by those that you have proposed the question too.

If they have the gut's.

.

You mean what he thinks of the Duke of Kent? The only question there.

[tanya_suzanne]

The Grand Lodge of London DID keep minutes and I have never said that they didn't. These minutes have disappeared from view because they prove illegitimacy.

I will ask my historical committee to compile a list of sources, especially for you. I take it that Acta Latomorum, the most respected and comprehensive history of Free Masonry in Europe does not suit your purpose?


GS Is no freemason, you shouldn't reply to his cowan rubbish.

Oh and I am going to phone your so called grandlodge(Club house) to interdruce my self GS.

[grandsecretary]

GS Is no freemason, you shouldn't reply to his cowan rubbish.

Oh and I am going to phone your so called grandlodge(Club house) to interdruce my self GS.

We look forward to extending our usual courtesies.

[grandsecretary]

We cite these manuscripts 1390-1740, and others of later date:

The Regius Manuscript, British Library Royal Manuscript Collection, catalogue reference 17 A. I. (c.1390); The Matthew Cooke Manuscript, British Museum, "Additional M.S. 23,198" (1420); The Ashmole Manuscript written for King Henry VI by John Laylande (c.1436); The Dowland's Transcript (c.1500); The Landsdowne Manuscript (c.1560); The York Manuscript No.1 (1600); The Harleian Manuscript (1625); The Grand Lodge Manuscript (c.1632); The Sloane Manuscript 3848 (cert.1646); The Sloane Manuscript 3323 (cert.1659); The Harleian Manuscript 1942 (c.1660); The Aitcheson-Haven Manuscript (c.1666); The Edinburgh-Kilwinning Manuscript (c.1670); The York Manuscript No.5 (c.1670); The York Manuscript No.6 (c.1680); The Lodge of Antiquity Manuscript (cert.1686); The Scarborough MS (1693); The York Manuscript No.2 (cert.1693); The Alnwick Manuscript (cert.1701); The York Manuscript No.4 (cert.1704); Mr Wyatt Papworth's Manuscript (c.1714); Dr Rev. Rawlinson's Manuscript (c.1720); The Inigo Jones Manuscript, Worcester Masonic Library (1725); The Levander York Manuscript (1740).

This is the notation appended to the end of the York Manuscript Number 4 dated 1693:

These be the Constitutions of the noble and famous history called Masonry made and now in practice by the best Masters and Fellowes for directing and guiding all that use the said Craft, Scripted y me vicesimo terito die Octobris, Anno Regnis et regina Gulielmy et Marie quinto Annoque domini 1693.

MARK KYPLING

The names of the Lodg.

WILLIAM SIMPSON, ANTHONY HORSMAN, CHRISTOPHER THOMPSON, CHRISTOPHER GILL,
Mr. ISAAC BRENT, Lodg Ward.

This is an endorsment appended to the same scroll manuscript:

We, the undersigned, have compared this with the original Document in the possession of the "York Lodge," No. 236, and formerly belonging to "The Antient Grand Lodge of All England," held in the City of York, and hereby certify that it is a true and correct Copy.

WILLIAM COWLING, P.M. and Treasurer, 236
RALPH L. DAVISON, P.M. 236.

York May 13, 1870

Similar references and endorsements appear on other similar manuscripts.

And we now publish the following administrative extracts from selected minutes of The Grand Lodge of All England at York, The Society and Fraternity of Freemasons meeting since time immemorial in the City of York, dating from 1712:

March 19, 1712 - At a private Lodge, held at the house of James Boreham, situate in Stonegate, in the City of York, Mr Thomas Shipton, Mr Caleb Greenbury, Mr Jno. Norrison, Mr Jno. Russell, Jno. Whitehead, and Francis Norrison were all of them severally sworne and admitted into the honourable Society and fraternity of Free-Masons.

Geo. Bowes, Esq., Dep.- President.
Jno. Wilcock also Thos. Shipton. Caleb Greenbury.
admitted at the Jno. Norrison. John RusselL
same Lodge. Fran. Norrison. John Whitehead.
John Wilcock.

June 24, 1713. - At a General Lodge on St John's Day, at the house of James Borehm, situate in Stonegate, in the City of York, Mr John Langwith was admitted and sworn into the honourable Society and fraternity of Freemasons.

Sir Walter Hawksworth, Knt. and Bart,, President.
Jno. Langwith.

August 7, 1713. - At a private Lodge held there at the house of James Boreham, situate in Stonegate, in the City of York, Robert Fairfax, Esq., and Tobias Jenkings, Esq., were admitted and sworn into the honourable Society and fraternity of Freemasons, as also the Reverend Mr Robert Barker was then admitted and sworn as before.

Geo. Bowes, Esq., Dep.-President.
Robert Fairfax. T. Jenkyns. Robt. Barber

December 18, 1713. - At a private Lodge held there at the house of Mr James Boreham, in Stonegate, in the City of York, Mr Thos. Hardwick, Mr Godfrey Giles, and Mr Tho. Challoner was admitted and sworn into the honourable Society and Company of Freemasons before the Worshipful Sir Walter Hawksworth, Knt. and Bare., President.

Tho. Hardwicke.
Godfrey Giles.
Thomas T Challoner

1714. - At a General Lodge held there on the 24th June at Mr James Boreham, situate in Stonegate, in York, John Taylor, of Langton in the Woulds, was admitted and sworn into the honourable Society and Company of Freemasons in the City of York, before the Worshipful Charles Fairfax, Esq.

John Taylor

At St John's Lodge in Christmas, 1716. - At the house of Mr James Boreham, situate Stonegate, in York, being a General Lodge, held there by the honoble Society and Company of Free Masons, in the City of York, John Turner, Esq., was sworne and admitted into the said Honourable Society and Fraternity of Free Masons.

Charles Fairfax, Esq., Dep.-President.
John Turner

At St John's Lodge in Christmas, 1721 - At Mr Robert Chippendal's, in the Shambles, York, Robt. Fairfax, Esq., then Dep.-President, the said Robert Chippendal was admitted and sworn into the honourable Society of Free Masons.

Rob. Fairfax, Esq., D.P.
Robt. Chippendal.

January 10, 1722-3. - At a private Lodge, held at the house of Mrs Hall, in Thursday Market, in the City of York, the following persons were admitted and sworne into ye honourable Society of Free Masons:
Henry Legh. Richd. Marsh. Edward Paper.

At the same time the following persons wen acknowledged as Brethren of this ancient Society -
Edmd. Winwood. G. Rhodes. Josh. Hebson. John Vauner. Francis Hildyard, junr.


February 4, 1722-3. - At a private Lodge, held at Mr Boreham's, in Stonegate, York, the following persons were admitted and sworn into the Ancient and Honourable Society of Free Masons: -
John Lockwood. Mattw. Hall.

At the same time and place, the two persons whose names are underwritten were, upon their examinations, received as Masons, and as such were accordingly introduced and admitted into this Lodge.
Geo. Reynoldson. Barnaby Bawtry.

November 4, 1723. - At a private Lodge, held at Mr Wm. Stephenson's, in Petergate, York, the following persons were admitted and sworn into the Antient Society of Free Masons: -
John Taylor. Jno. Colling.

February 5, 1723-4. - At a private Lodge at Mr James Boreham's, in Stonegate, York, the underwritten persons were admitted and sworn into the Antient Society of Free Masons:
Wm. Tireman. Charles Pick. Will. Musgrave. John Jenkinson. John Sudell.

June 15, 1724. - At a private Lodge, held in Davy Hall, in the City of York, the under written persons were admitted and sworn into the Antient Society of Free Masons.
Daniel Harvey. Ralph Grayme.

June 22, 1724. - At a private Lodge, held at Mr Geo. Gibson's, in the City of York, were admitted and sworn into the Society of Free Masons the persons underwritten, viz.:
Robert Armorer. William Jackson. Geo. Gibson.

December 28, 1724. - At a private Lodge, held at Mr Jno. Colling's, in Petergate, the following persons were admitted and sworn. into ye Society of Free Masons.
Wm. Wright. Ric. Denton. Jno. Marsden. Ste. Bulkley

July 21, 1725. - At a private Lodge at Mr Jno. Colling's, in Petergate, York, the following persons were admitted and sworn into the Society of Free and Accepted Masons.
Luke Lowther. Chas. Hutton.

At an adjournment of a Lodge of Free Masons from Mr Jno. Colling, in Petergate, to Mr Luke Lowther's, in Stonegate, the following Persons were admitted and sworn into the Society of free and Accepted Masons - Ed. Bell, Esq., Master.
Chas. Bathurst. John Johnson. John Elsworth. Lewis Wood.

August 10, 1725. - At a private Lodge, held this day at the Star Inn in Stonegate, the underwritten Persons were admitted and sworne into the Antient Society of Free Masons, viz.
Jo. Bilton.

The Worshipful Wm. Scourfield Mr.
Mr Marsden, Warden
Mr Reynoldson, Warden

August 12, 1725. - At a private Lodge, held at the Starr, in Stonegate, the underwritten Person was sworn and admitted a member of the Antient Society of Free Masons, viz..
John Wilmer.

The Worshipful Philip Huddy, Mr
Mr Marsden, Warden
Mr Reynoldson, Warden

September 6, 1725. - At a private Lodge, held at the Starr Inn, in Stonegate, the underwritten Persons were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons.
William Pawson.

The Worsp. Wm. Scourfield,
Mr. Edmond Aylward, Jonathan Perritt,
Warden Jon. Pawson. Mr Marsden, Warden,
Francis Drake.
Malby Beckwith.


NOTE: Francis Drake was the Author of “Eboracum; or, History and Antiquities of the City and Cathedral Church of York, 1736. As Junior Grand Warden he delivered the famous speech at a meeting of the Grand Lodge of York, December 27, 1726.

"A new Lodge being call'd at the same time and Place, the following Person was admitted and sworn into this Antient and Honourable Society.

The Worshipful Mr Scourfield, Mr Henry Pawson.
Mr Jonathan Perritt, Warden
Mr Marsden, Warden

October 6, 1725. - At a private Lodge, held at Mr James Boreham's, the underwritten Person was admitted and sworn into the Antient Society of Free Masons.
Antho. Hall.

Philemon Marsh.

November 3, 1725. - At a private Lodge, held at Mr Hutton's, at the Bl. Swan in Coney Street, in York, the following Person was admitted and sworn into the Antient Society of Free Masons.
John Smith.

December 1, 1725. - At a private Lodge, held at Mr Geo. Gibson's, in the City of York, the following Persons were admitted and sworn into the Antient Society of Free Masons before
The Worshipful E. Bell, Esq., Mt.
Mr Etty, Warden Will. Sotheran. John Iveson. Jos. Lodge.

Mr Perritt, Warden

December 8, 1725. - At a private Lodge at Mr Lowther's, being the Starr, in Stonegate, the following Persons were admitted and sworn into the Antient Society of Free Masons.
Christof Coulton. Thos. Metcalfe. Francis Lowther. George Coates. William Day.

December 24, 1725. - At a private Lodge, held at Mr Lowther's, at ye Starr in Stonegate, the following Persons were admitted and sworn into the Antient Society of Free-Masons.
Matt. St Quintin. Tim. Thompson. Frans. Thompson. William Hendrick. Tho. Bean.

December 27, 1725. - At a Lodge, held at Mr Philemon Marsh's, in Petergate, the following gentlemen were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Freemasons. Leod Smith was also sworn and admitted at the same time.
Chas. Howard.
Richd. Thompson.

The same day the under mentioned Person was received, admitted, and acknowledged as a member of this Antient and Honourable Society.
John Hann.

Isaac T Scott.

This day Dec. 27, 1725, Being the Festival of St John the Evangelist, the Society went in Procession to Merchant's Hall, where, after the Grand Feast was over, they unanimously chose the Wors. Charles Bathurst, Esqre., their Grand Master, Mr Johnson his Deputy, Mr Pawson and Mr Drake, Wardens, Mr Scourfield, Treasurer, and John Russell, Clerk for the ensuing year."

December 31, 1725.- At a private Lodge held at Mr Luke Lowther's, at the Starr in Stonegate, the underwritten Gentleman was sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons." [Name omitted.]

January 5, 1725-6. - At a private Lodge held at Mr John Colling's at ye White Swan in Petergate, the underwritten persons were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons.
Thomas Preston. Martin Crofts.


February 4, 1725-6. - At a private Lodge at the Star in Stonegate, Sr William Milner, Bart, was sworn and admitted into the Society of Free Masons.

WM. Milner.

March 2, 1725-6. - At a private Lodge at the White Swan in Petergate, the under named Gentleman was sworn and admitted into the Society of Free Masons.
John Lewis.

April 2, 1726.- At a private Lodge at ye Starr in Stonegate, the following Gentlemen were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons.
Robert Kaye.
W. Wombell.
Wm. Kitchinman.
Cyril Arthington.

April 4, 1726.-At a private Lodge at the Star in Stonegate, the following Gentleman was sworn and admitted into ye Antient Society of Free Masons.
J. Kaye.

May 4, 1726. - At a private Lodge at Mr James Boreham's, the underwritten Persons were sworn and admitted into the Society of Free and Accepted Masons.
Charles Guarles.
Richd. Atkinson.
Samuel Ascough.

May 16, 1726. - At a private Lodge at Mr Lowther's at ye Star in Stonegate, the undermentioned Gentleman was sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons.
Gregory Rhodes.

June 24, 1726. - At a 'General Lodge held at Mr Boreham's in Stonegate, the undermentioned Gentlemen were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons.
John Cossley.
William Johnstone.

At the same time the following persons were sworn and admitted into the Honourable Society, vizt., William Marshall.
Matt \/\ Cellar, his mark.
Benjamin Campsall.
William Muschamp.
Wm. Robinson.
Matthew Groul.
John Bradley.
John Hawman.

July 6, 1726. -Whereas it has been certified to me that Mr William Scourfield has presumed to call a Lodge and make masons without the consent of the Grand Master or Deputy, and in opposition to the 8th article of the Constitutions, I do, with the consent of the Grand Master and the approbation of the whole Lodge, declare him to be disqualified from being a member of this Society, and he is for ever banished from the same.

Such members as were assisting in constituting and forming Mr Scourfield's Schismatical Lodge on the 24th of the last month, whose names are John Carpenter, William Musgrave, Thomas Allanson, and Thomas Preston, are by the same authority liable to the same sentence, yet upon their acknowledging their Error in being deluded, and making such submission as shall be judged Requisite by the Grand Master and Lodge at the next monthly Meeting, shall be received into the favour of the Brotherhood, otherwise to be banished, and Mr Scourfield and their names to be erased out of the Roll and Articles.

If any other Brother or Brothers shall hereafter separate from us, or be aiding and assisting in forming any Lodge under the said Mr Scouffield or any other Person without due Licence for the same, He or they so offending shall be disowned as members of this Lodge, and for ever Excluded from the same.


July 6, 1726. - At a private Lodge held at Mr Geo. Gibson's, the underwritten Persons were sworn and admitted into the Antient and Honourable Society of Free Masons, vizt.,
Henry Tireman.
Will. Thompson.

August 13, 1726. - At a private Lodge at Mr Lowther's at the Star in Stonegate, the underwritten Gentlemen were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons, vizt.,
Bellingham Graham.
Nic. Roberts.

December 13, 1726. - At a private Lodge at the Star in Stonegate, the Right Honourable Arthur Ld. Viscount Irvin was sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons.
A. Irwin.

December 15, 1726. - At a private Lodge at the Star in Stonegate, the under named Persons were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons.
Jno. Motley.
Wm. Davile.
Thomas Snowsell.

December 22, 1726. - At a private Lodge at the Star in Stonegate, the under named Persons were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Free Masons.
Richard Woodhouse.
Robart Tilburn.

June 24, 1729. - At St John's Lodge held at ye Starr in Stonegate, the following Gentlemen were sworn and admitted into the Antient Society of Freemasons, vizt.,
Basil Forcer.
John Lamb.

The same day Edward Thompson, Junior of Marston, Esqr., was chosen Grand Master Mr John Wilmer, Deputy Grand Master, Mr Geo. Rhodes and Mr Geo. Reynoldson, Grand Wardens, for ye year ensuing, and afterwards the Grand Master was pleased to order the following appointment, viz., I do appoint Dr Johnson, Mr Drake, Mr Marsden, Mr Denton, Mr Brigham, Mr R. Marsh, and Mr Etty to assist in regulating the state of the Lodge, and redressing from time to time any inconveniences that may arise.
Edward Thompson, Gr. Mr.

May 4, 1730. - At a private Lodge at Mr Colling's, being the Sign of ye White Swan in Petergate, York, it was ordered by the Dep. Master then present - That if from thenceforth any of the officers of ye Lodge should be absent from ye Company at ye Monthly Lodges, they shall forfeit the sum of one shilling for each omission. John Wilmer, Deputy Grand Master.

We are grateful to the estate of the late Mr William Cowling of York for the safe return of the minutes.

And this quotation from the Revd. Neville Barker Cryer, noted historian of York:

"It is worth noting again, as remarked earlier, that the Lodge records that are dated from 1705 are unquestionably regarded as being those of a Grand Lodge. Moreover they are nowhere referred to as being the first or early minutes and accounts. They are simply the earliest extant." (SOURCE: York Mysteries Revealed, Page 354

He quotes meetings of the Grand Lodge from 1705 onwards.

This should give you a feel for meetings, of the Grand Lodge at York, and its general and private lodges preceding and through the year of 1723 when the first Anderson's Book of Constitutions was issued by the Moderns Grand Lodge of London. We still use the same structure.

There are minutes of lodges of the fraternity meeting elsewhere as far back as 1429 and there are records in the accounts of the Dean and Chapter of the York Minster recording fees being paid in respect of meetings of the Holy and Royal Arch Chapter of England in the crypt of the York Minster from 1490 (available from the Librarian at the York Minster).

"After the establishment of the Kilwinning (c. AD 1140) and York Lodges (AD 926) (the jurisdiction and antiquity of the Grand Lodge of York over other English Lodges has invariably been acknowledged by the whole Fraternity), the principles of Freemasonry rapidly spread throughout both Kingdoms and several Lodges were erected in different parts of the island." (SOURCE: A Brief History of Lodge Mother Kilwinning No. 0, Grand Lodge of Scotland, June 1944)

There are dozens and dozens of other references post 1717, recorded in history, and cited on our website. For instance:

During the building of St. Paul's, Wren was the zealous Master of the St. Paul's Freemason's Lodge, which assembled at the "Goose and Gridiron," one of the most ancient lodges in London. He presided regularly at its meetings for upwards of eighteen years. He presented the lodge with three beautifully carved mahogany candlesticks, and the trowel and mallet which he used in laying the first stone of the great cathedral in 1675. In 1688 Wren was elected Grand Master of the order, and he nominated his old fellow-workers at St. Paul's, Cibber, the sculptor, and Strong, the master mason, Grand Wardens. In Queen Anne's reign there were 129 lodges—eighty-six in London, thirty-six in provincial cities, and seven abroad. Many of the oldest lodges in London are in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's. (SOURCE: British History Online - St Paul's Churchyard

Grand Master of the Order with Grand Wardens, 1688.

All of the references used for this statement including the Bills of Mortality, pre-date 1717. British History Online is not Masonic history, but the most respected source for English history in England which uses all available local, geographical, Parliamentary, Ecclesiastical and religious historical records and sources.

I have stuck to my promise.

[grandsecretary]

"It is worth noting again, as remarked earlier, that the Lodge records that are dated from 1705 are unquestionably regarded as being those of a Grand Lodge. Moreover they are nowhere referred to as being the first or early minutes and accounts. They are simply the earliest extant." (SOURCE: York Mysteries Revealed, Page 354 by the Revd Neville Barker Cryer, 2006)

The Revd Neville Barker Cryer – Past Grand Chaplain of The United Grand Lodge of England; Prestonian Lecturer 1974; Batham Lecturer 1996-1998; well- known and ever-popular Masonic author; international lecturer; senior member of the Society of Rosicrucians in Anglia; The Royal Order of Scotland; The Operatives; and The Order of Eri.

Apparently the minutes of The Grand Lodge of All England from 1705 to 1712 were not "lost" when he wanted to see them. The Reverend Neville Barker Cryer is also a member of the York Lodge No. 236 under the jurisdiction of The United Grand Lodge of England.

[mike martin]

The Revd Neville Barker Cryer – Past Grand Chaplain of The United Grand Lodge of England; Prestonian Lecturer 1974; Batham Lecturer 1996-1998; well- known and ever-popular Masonic author; international lecturer; senior member of the Society of Rosicrucians in Anglia; The Royal Order of Scotland; The Operatives; and The Order of Eri.

Apparently the minutes of The Grand Lodge of All England from 1705 to 1712 were not "lost" when he wanted to see them. The Reverend Neville Barker Cryer is also a member of the York Lodge No. 236 under the jurisdiction of The United Grand Lodge of England.

Have you spoken to Neville since you set up the GLoAE? I'd be interested to know what he thinks about it now?

Mike

[grandsecretary]

Have you spoken to Neville since you set up the GLoAE? I'd be interested to know what he thinks about it now?

Mike

No, I haven't Mike. He said at the time that he could not overtly approve of what we did although he did, very kindly, say that he understood why. He did put a disclaimer in the front of his book in order to distance himself from the revival, and I understand that entirely.

I have not bothered him since, because he relies on his UGLE lecture tours for his living and it would not be right to compromise his situation.