Templars, Freemasons and the Illuminati

That is an interesting clip. The guy definately has a place on ATS.
I'm not done watching the clip yet, but the guy makes a pretty good case. So far, he has produced many sources, images, etc. Though, it's difficult to take him seriously when he's sitting there surfing the net for illuminati and masonic sites while puffing on a blizzunt. I personally don't know anything about the Assassins' history, so I couldn't say if it's all bull or not. Very intertaining clip, though.

Originally posted by sebatwerk
Potheads are unmotivated sterile junk-food eating vegetables watching bad TV and working at Starbucks.

Hey, potheads are NOT sterile!

Those damn Knights, always changing the meaning of 'abstinence'...

I guess I know now why they had to make up all the stories about Knights saving damsels, because in real life, Knights were only seeing action with other Knights.

Or maybe their pretty young squire. But what is really interesting is how these practices tied in with some Knights Templar's occult practices.

Originally posted by akilles
Those damn Knights, always changing the meaning of 'abstinence'...

I guess I know now why they had to make up all the stories about Knights saving damsels, because in real life, Knights were only seeing action with other Knights.

Or maybe their pretty young squire. But what is really interesting is how these practices tied in with some Knights Templar's occult practices.

Good grief, Akilles! WHEN are you going to prove you claims like I asked!?!?!? Can you not? You talk about templars being gay like you were there and saw it yourself. You must have seen SOMETHING that makes you so absolutely certain that it was true, so please share that something with us. PROVE YOUR CLAIM OR STOP POSTING!

maybe he channeled an experience. Or would that be tunneled in this case?

Originally posted by akilles
Fact: The Knights Templar rode two Knights per horse!

*snip*

Seems Abstinence has just meant 'no sex with women' all this time...

The Seal of the Knights Templar shows two Knights on a single horse. The conventional symbolism is said to be that this was a demonstration of their committment to the monastic (remember, they were warrior monks!) virtue of poverty.

The less conventional symbolism ties to alchemy.

The nasty accusation (?) is that the Templars practiced sodomy.

This was one of the accusations leveled by Phillip the Fair, King of France, when he wanted to size the Templar's money because he had, in a matter of a few short years of reign, managed to bankrupt the Crown. The Templars were a sort of early banking system and had managed to accumulate a great deal of wealth.

By using accusations of heresy and sodomy against the Templars, Philip the Fair made their property forfeit to the crown. It was an elegant solution. The only thing that stood in his way was the life and dignity of a few thousand men.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
I can never get over the rabid Masonic anti-pot stance, I mean it's really out of context for a drug that two thirds of British adults have admitted to taking during their life and probably sits somewhere slightly behind tabacco as being a dangerous drug.

I think the stance (if you can call it that, which I wouldn't) has more to do with the fact that marijuana is illegal than the act of smoking or otherwise using it. Masons are obligated to obey the law of the land, regardless of whether they agree with said law or not. IMHO, the marijuana laws are nothing short of ridiculous, but they are laws just the same.

I used to smoke. When I was in my interview with the investigators in Arkansas it came up, and the guy said "...of course, you don't so that anymore, right?" I got the distinct impression that if I had said "yes" it would have probably had an adverse effect on their report to the lodge. I'm sure it's different everywhere but in the Bible Belt they tend to frown on things like that, and not just the Masons.

Guess they're dropping the "you must war incessantly against vice..." bit of the directions to an Initiate.
Be serious.

That "bit of direction" is not given to the initiate, as far as I know (If someone in a position to know would be so kind as to correct me if I am wrong I'd appreciate it.). That particular snippet is a direct quote from Morals and Dogma, Ch. 1 (Apprentice) pg 17.And actually it is: "Thou shalt unceasingly war against vice!"

Tell that to all the beer drinking Masons though. Wouldn't you say alcohol is a vice? And IMO alcohol is FAR more dangerous than marijuana. By a looooong shot.

As has been said here time and time again, Pike does not speak for all of Masonry.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
Hemp however was used predominantly for rope, paper and cloth manufacture until it was banned during the mid 20th century as part of Presedent Kennedy's push for an international agreement on prohibbited narcotics which was originally intended to stop Red China from openly exporting Heroine to generate cash.
Marijauna was really added as an afterthought, the accidental upshot of this was that it was put on equal terms with Heroine and Cocaine in the original mandates and it has taken more than half a century to re-address this.

It was actually legal in most countries (including Britain) before that time but was not widely used.

[edit on 9-4-2005 by MrNECROS]

Perhaps you should smoke less and read more

www.concept420.com...

Marijuana was actually made illegal in the US in 1937. If my memory serves me correctly Mr. Kennedy wasn't elected President until 1960 or so.

Another site that explains in a little more detail hemp use by "assassins" and how its linked to that word here ....

www.druglibrary.org...

And if you really want to research a good conspiracy theory with a few facts you can start here .....

www.usmjparty.com...

There's literally hundreds more sites on the net about when marijuana was outlawed and who lobbied to illegallize said substance. Here's a hint ... it wasn't the Freemasons haha. It has more to do with DuPont and big Oil.... Google it and learn for yourself!!

Peace!

Originally posted by The Axeman
I think the stance (if you can call it that, which I wouldn't) has more to do with the fact that marijuana is illegal than the act of smoking or otherwise using it. Masons are obligated to obey the law of the land, regardless of whether they agree with said law or not. IMHO, the marijuana laws are nothing short of ridiculous, but they are laws just the same.

It all depends on where you are. I had a friend who wanted to be a mason, but I told him he couldn't because he liked to smoke pot. I told my lodge's Master about it, and he told me that as long as my friend does not allow marijuana to interfere with his regular duties as a father, husband, neighbor, employee and citizen, that our Lodge has no restrictions on what he does in his own time. Then again, Southern California is VERY liberal (most people receive only a ticket and small fine for getting caught with pot).

But the typical masonic stance is to obey ALL laws, ridiculous or not.

Originally posted by sebatwerk
It all depends on where you are. I had a friend who wanted to be a mason, but I told him he couldn't because he liked to smoke pot. I told my lodge's Master about it, and he told me that as long as my friend does not allow marijuana to interfere with his regular duties as a father, husband, neighbor, employee and citizen, that our Lodge has no restrictions on what he does in his own time. Then again, Southern California is VERY liberal (most people receive only a ticket and small fine for getting caught with pot).

But the typical masonic stance is to obey ALL laws, ridiculous or not.

That's the impression I get. The thing is it's no different that someone having a beer or two (in fact, I would say marijuana is less dangerous and problematic than alcohol). It's just a technicality with the law I think. At least it should be IMO.

Originally posted by The Axeman
That's the impression I get. The thing is it's no different that someone having a beer or two (in fact, I would say marijuana is less dangerous and problematic than alcohol). It's just a technicality with the law I think. At least it should be IMO.

Well, the fact that pot is against the law is no fluke. Pot was made illegal for, what people thought was, a very good reason. Have you ever seen "Reefer Madness"? If you have, you'd understand the stance that was taken against marijuana in the 30's, and you'd see the image that was created of pot, as a "scourge" and "danger" to society in every way. Propaganda or not, this view that people had back then is the reason laws exist now. Only now, in this age of understanding, are we all beginning to realize that MANY things are not as we were once led to believe.

By the way, I do not smoke pot myself, I don't like it at all. But I know it is not as dangerous as we were all led to think.



[edit on 23-4-2005 by sebatwerk]

Originally posted by sebatwerk

Originally posted by The Axeman
That's the impression I get. The thing is it's no different that someone having a beer or two (in fact, I would say marijuana is less dangerous and problematic than alcohol). It's just a technicality with the law I think. At least it should be IMO.

Well, the fact that pot is against the law is no fluke. Pot was made illegal for, what people thought was, a very good reason. Have you ever seen "Reefer Madness"? If you have, you'd understand the stance that was taken against marijuana in the 30's, and you'd see the image that was created of pot, as a "scourge" and "danger" to society in every way. Propaganda or not, this view that people had back then is the reason laws exist now. Only now, in this age of understanding, are we all beginning to realize that MANY things are not as we were once led to believe.

By the way, I do not smoke pot myself, I don't like it at all. But I know it is not as dangerous as we were all led to think.



[edit on 23-4-2005 by sebatwerk]

Yeah I saw "Reefer Madness" It made me laugh soooo much... Hahaha. Oh what comedy.

I'm not saying pot is great, but it's not as bad as it's made out to be. The problem is people become dependent on it (even if it's not a physical addiction with withdrawals and all that). I know people back home that don't go a few hours without getting high. To each his own I say, but then these people wonder why they never get anything done.

It's all about moderation, as with anything. I don't smoke anymore, but not because I think it's any worse than drinking. I want to be a Mason, and that means obeyong the law, and that's what I will do. Plus there is another good reason I told you about privately...

Anyways the point was the deal with Masonry and pot is more than likely the fact that it is illegal, nothing more... Except perhaps in the good ol' Bible belt... Home sweet home...*sniff*

I love Texas already though.

Originally posted by The Axeman
Yeah I saw "Reefer Madness" It made me laugh soooo much... Hahaha. Oh what comedy.

Reefer madness was some good stuff. I just couldn't believe that anyone made that film with a straight face.

I'm not saying pot is great, but it's not as bad as it's made out to be. The problem is people become dependent on it (even if it's not a physical addiction with withdrawals and all that). I know people back home that don't go a few hours without getting high. To each his own I say, but then these people wonder why they never get anything done.

It's all about moderation, as with anything. I don't smoke anymore, but not because I think it's any worse than drinking. I want to be a Mason, and that means obeyong the law, and that's what I will do. Plus there is another good reason I told you about privately...

Yup exactly. Some people DO abuse it like it was heroin, and they can't go a day without it. Moderation is the key. Once it begins affecting your life, the fun is over and what you are doing is now considered "bad". And it's a good thing you don't smoke, not just cuz you don't want to be a mason. I personally find it hard to respect people that smoke a lot. I've just known LOTS of stoners, and their lack of desire and common sense makes it hard to have any respect for them.


[edit on 23-4-2005 by sebatwerk]

Don't forget William Randolph Hearst! That guy poured a LOT of Money into the Campaign to make it Illegal & Criminalize it! This was all Monopoly Politics back then (and Now too Actually) - it was all about Corporations Protecting their Profits & Revenues Streams!

The interesting thing about "Reefer Madness" films is that they showed a Cannabis Leaf & Joints but never their actual Stuff itself! It was so funny (especially when you know that most of the Pot that is available - when you smoke it - it just kind of Mellows you Out) when they just took like one or two hits off of a Joint & they Instantly turned into Raving Maniacs!

What about that one scene when the Teenage kid Killed his Mom because he was "High on the Devil Grass"! Funny yet also Sad. So much Dis-Information & Propaganda out there on so much stuff & for such a Long Time! People start to buy into it & help spread the Lies - even if in Reality they have no Idea or Experience of what they are talking about - Whether it be Pot or Masonry! It makes me Sick!

[edit on 24-4-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

I fully recommend the documentry "Grass" which follows the whole prohibition cycle.
www.dvdmoviecentral.com...

As is common with his kinfolk Axeman assumes I'm talking about the USA in regard to why and when canibis was made illegal, even though I stated UK ...errr that's short for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" for those who may be unaware :-)

Heh, I also like the way the reaction to my statement about Freemasons being so "anti-pot" was to ask me to provide them with a written statement from a Grand Lodge on the matter, more hints to the fact that the cult IS heirachical afterall.

Last time I checked the Catholic Church also had an Established "Hierarchy" (Pope, Bishops, Cardinals, Priests) - Most Governments & Militaries in the World are also "Hierarchical". Heck even Islam is "Hierarchical" with their Muftis & Mullahs & Sheiks & Ayatollahs & Caliphs. So FreeMasonry also has a "Hierarchy" - Big Deal! What is it to you or anyone else unless they are part of the Masonic Order? I take it that you are certainly NOT a Mason Mr. Necros!

Ah Mr. Necros – still up to your old tricks again I see! May I ask what "Cult" do you Personally belong to - are a Member of? I bet you that it is all Sinister & Evil & Satanic - but of course I have no Proof of that - I am just talking out of my A** & so are you apparently - STILL!

Originally posted by MrNECROS
As is common with his kinfolk Axeman assumes I'm talking about the USA in regard to why and when canibis was made illegal, even though I stated UK ...errr that's short for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" for those who may be unaware :-)

I assume nothing and I am having a bit of trouble figuring how you got that from my post. I didn't say anything abou the time or circumstances of it becoming illegal, I simply stated that the law is (IMO) ridiculous, and that the reason Freemasons might have a problem with it is probably because of the fact that it is against the law.

Heh, I also like the way the reaction to my statement about Freemasons being so "anti-pot" was to ask me to provide them with a written statement from a Grand Lodge on the matter, more hints to the fact that the cult IS heirachical afterall.

And who asked you for a written statement from a Grand Lodge? I don't recall reading that...

It has already been stated that Maonry takes no official stance on the issue.

Do you ever post anything that you haven't twisted to fit your agenda?



[edit on 4/24/05 by The Axeman]

Originally posted by MrNECROS
Heh, I also like the way the reaction to my statement about Freemasons being so "anti-pot" was to ask me to provide them with a written statement from a Grand Lodge on the matter, more hints to the fact that the cult IS heirachical afterall.

There is NO hirearchy in masonry. There are only masons, and the lodge officers. A Grand Lodge is no different than any other lodge, except that it deals with masonic business for it's entire jurisdiction, in order so that local lodges do not have to worry about this. We have ALWAYS stated that the ONLY people in masonry that have any authority ARE the OFFICERS. Grand Lodges are composed ENTIRELY of officers who are appointed to one-year terms.