Highest Level, and Most Powerful Masons Revealed!, page 2

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:36 PM

link

I wonder what Karl von Eckartshausen would think if he knew what conspiracy theories his The Cloud Upon The Sanctuary published in 1795 had spawned.

Ever since that book, everyone has jumped on the idea of Secret or Hidden "Masters" or "Chiefs" influencing, guiding and intervening in humanity's destiny over the centuries via an outwardly lodge system.

At what point where the Freemasons attributed to being the outward system of the "Secret Masters"? Was it after the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn attributed their formation to the "Secret Masters", just as the Theosophical Society had done, but since the founding three members of the Golden Dawn were Masons, and two of them belonged to the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia, is this where the Freemasons = "Secret Masters" idea originated, or is there an earlier precedent for this belief?

Although I don't believe Freemasons control the world and are TPTB, I do totally agree with the quote about never trusting a man who wears a bow-tie! Those are definitely words to live by!

Killuminatus

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:26 PM

link

How could be Masonic symbolism be wrongly interpreted by Masons?

Christians interpret as a symbol of their version of God, the Egyptians interpreted it as a symbol of their version of God, and so on. That's actually an outward, exoteric interpretation of that symbolism: the Hermetic understanding goes much deeper, and has nothing to do with being a symbol of a god per se.

The more recent usage of the all seeing eye (like other ancient egyptian and greek symbols still in use today) originates with medieval hermetic cults. They were the first to use it and give it meaning, at least in more recent times. One can say freemasonry itself started as a hermetic cult, or at the very least has deep roots into it. And like you said, the meaning of the eye in those cults go in pretty deep.

My point is, freemasonry today has lost touch with those roots. Yes different groups may give the eye their own meaning but those are just perversions of the true meaning.

... the true meanings were already there, and have been there since they were invented....

since they were invented , huh? so why doesn't the masonic all seeing eye mean the same thing as the hermetic all seeing eye?

Shadow18433

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:51 PM

link

reply to post by JoshNorton

Those Masons you presented, seems more like puppets use as a front figure...

Why not talk about other Highest Level, and Most Powerful Masons Revealed!

i will try to post pictures, i hope it will work, not sure how to do it...

JoshNorton

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:11 PM

link

reply to post by Shadow18433

Can you explain what we're looking at?

RuneSpider

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:23 PM

link

reply to post by JoshNorton

Obviously he's saying that Obama is a Mason.

Also, Pike is always the head Mason.

AugustusMasonicus

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:54 PM

link

Originally posted by RuneSpider
Obviously he's saying that Obama is a Mason.

Also, Pike is always the head Mason.

What about the Nosferatu looking character? Is he a Mason?

RuneSpider

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:16 PM

link

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

Not sure who he is, nor the woman.

I think the woman might be either Elizabeth Aldworth, or another member of Co-Masonry. I know I've seen the picture before, but I cannot place it.

Dunno who the fellow is with the turban is either.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by RuneSpider]

D'oh. It's Crowley. In my defense, he looks like a rather ugly woman. ^^;

[edit on 23-9-2009 by RuneSpider]

AugustusMasonicus

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:41 PM

link

Originally posted by Shadow18433
Why not talk about other Highest Level, and Most Powerful Masons Revealed!

i will try to post pictures, i hope it will work, not sure how to do it...

Let us see.....

Yup, those are some mighty powerful Masons you presented.

Edit: To correct two of the names as kindly supplied by fraterformus.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]

fraterormus

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:41 PM

link

Everyone got Albert Pike and Aleister Crowley correct.

The turban wearing figure is Grady Louis McMurtry, a.k.a. Hymenaeus Alpha, O.H.O. of the Caliphate O.T.O. A kinder, gentler soul you could never meet. Occultist, yes, Hippie, yes, but Machiavellian Overlord he was not. Grady McMurtry is most definitely dead, having taken his Greater Feast on July 12, 1985.

The Nosferatu figure, if I recall correctly is a sculpture of Aiwass or the Enochian Angel LAM. Aiwass was Crowley's Holy Guardian Angel, whereas LAM was influential especially in Kenneth Grant's Typhonian O.T.O.

With the exception of Pike in that picture, all that are pictured are Thelemites belonging to the O.T.O., not Freemasons...however, those that consider the O.T.O. is made up of the Elite or Powerful obviously haven't met any O.T.O. members (especially those serving on the Electoral College).

Masonic Light

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:39 AM

link

Originally posted by Shadow18433

Those Masons you presented, seems more like puppets use as a front figure...

Why not talk about other Highest Level, and Most Powerful Masons Revealed!

Ronnie Seale now occupies the same position that Albert Pike did: Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33°, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America. He is today's Albert Pike, so to speak.

President Obama is not a Freemason, although it would be great if he applied. McMurtry was not a Freemason, Crowley was an irregular Mason.

articulus

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:23 PM

link

reply to post by Masonic Light

Forgive my ignorance, but as Pike was obviously a prolific Masonic philosopher in addition to holding this position, is it common or required at all that Masons who hold this position to have published or written papers, essays, books, etc.? As was mentioned by JoshNorton earlier, Mr. Seale has a great deal of knowledge and dedication to Masonry. I suppose what I'm asking is whether scholasticism in Masonry is part of achieving high "ranks."

You often hear people here say that Freemasonry has lost touch with its roots and such. It seems to me that the roots are still very much present.

cheers

KSigMason

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:33 PM

link

Isn't the Scottish Rite Council meeting this week anyway? My friend Joe is the SGIG of Idaho and his wife and him went to DC this week. Lucky.

reply to post by Shadow18433

Obama is not a Mason (Prince Hall, AFAM, or FAM). And...um...Pike died...a while ago. I don't think Masons have figured out how to defeat death. We don't have the abilities of the Sith

reply to post by articulus

To become a 33rd Scottish Rite Mason you have to do a lot for the Masonic community and I believe do something for the benefit of the public. I know it takes a lot of time and dedication to be invited to the 33rd degree. I'm not sure if publication is required - I'll ask my friend.

AugustusMasonicus

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:39 PM

link

Originally posted by KSigMason
We don't have the abilities of the Sith.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

*holds index and thumb up while slowly bringing them together*

Alethea

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:22 PM

link

Originally posted by Killuminatus
But most of the symbolism is wrongly interpreted by masons. Like the all seeing eye; in masonry it signifies the architect of the universe overseeing his creation

So the head hancho..the all-seeing singular eye.... is really a Cyclops after all?

And now the architect needs CCTV installed all over the country so the all seeing eye can spy us all at one time. Guess this is how the architect looks over his creation. Does nothing to help anyone...just satisfies his vouyeristic tendencies.

Once again, ole Cyclops will be blinded. All it takes is a can of foam that shoots 25 ft.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Alethea]

blondemoment

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:09 PM

link

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by network dude
but....but, they don't look like reptilians at all!

Well, Ronnie Seale is a lawyer by profession. Just sayin'.

\

I didn't know sharks were reptiles!!!! Yikes!

Masonic Light

posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 07:29 AM

link

Originally posted by articulus

Forgive my ignorance, but as Pike was obviously a prolific Masonic philosopher in addition to holding this position, is it common or required at all that Masons who hold this position to have published or written papers, essays, books, etc.? As was mentioned by JoshNorton earlier, Mr. Seale has a great deal of knowledge and dedication to Masonry. I suppose what I'm asking is whether scholasticism in Masonry is part of achieving high "ranks."

No. Brother Seale has written many articles and essays on Masonry, but nowhere near the volumes of Albert Pike. I meant that Seale was a modern day Pike in the administrative sense: i.e., that he holds the same office that Pike did (presiding officer of the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite), and is therefore Pike's successor.

You often hear people here say that Freemasonry has lost touch with its roots and such. It seems to me that the roots are still very much present.

True. If you read Pike's work from the late 1800's, he complained about the same stuff then: Masons not taking Masonry seriously, not putting the fraternity's teachings into practice, etc. There has always been a contingent in Masonry, usually a large one, that considers the fraternity little more than a social club. On the other hand, there has also always been the more serious minded Masons, whom Pike referred to as "Adepts".

articulus

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 12:38 PM

link

reply to post by Masonic Light

Thanks for your answer, and thanks to KSigMason as well. I should clarify that I didn't believe that Peale is a "spiritual" successor (for lack of a better phrase) to Pike, but I wondered whether the title and position in question were more likely to be occupied by someone with an established body of Masonic literature, or whether it was, as you say, more of an administrative/managerial thing.

Following on from that, is there anyone within Masonry today who is or might be looked at as a "modern Pike" from an academic/literary/esoteric standpoint? My impression is that there is not currently such a figure, but I may be distracted by all of the attention and credit that Pike is given.

Cheers

EnlightenUp

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 02:01 PM

link

Originally posted by Masonic Light
...there has also always been the more serious minded Masons, whom Pike referred to as "Adepts".

While my knowledge in spiritual matters tends to be more fluid and gained from intuition than crystalized and learned, I consider myself serious at the core. I still wouldn't label myself an "Adept". As I understand it, adepthood comes out of attainment and is not equivalent to being serious, though I would say the quality is required to achieve adepthood.

In other words, the serious are the ones that are interested in earing their PhD's rather than having keggers every night. The adepts actually have earned their PhD's.

Fluid is better for me. Words are often used imprecisely to confuse. I wonder what Pike's intentions were by using that term in the manner as I read your description. I'd expect him to know but then again, who's to say?

JoshNorton

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 06:13 PM

link

Originally posted by articulus
reply to [Following on from that, is there anyone within Masonry today who is or might be looked at as a "modern Pike" from an academic/literary/esoteric standpoint? My impression is that there is not currently such a figure, but I may be distracted by all of the attention and credit that Pike is given.

IMHO, the 4 top Masonic authors at the moment, in no particular order, are Rex Hutchins, Arturo De Hoyos, Chris Hodapp and Brent Morris. They're usually the ones that get called up for comments when Dan Brown opens his mouth, or when the History Channel needs a soundbyte...

Masonic Light

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link

Originally posted by articulus

Thanks for your answer, and thanks to KSigMason as well. I should clarify that I didn't believe that Peale is a "spiritual" successor (for lack of a better phrase) to Pike, but I wondered whether the title and position in question were more likely to be occupied by someone with an established body of Masonic literature, or whether it was, as you say, more of an administrative/managerial thing.

I would say administrative/managerial. Brother seale is in charge of the day-to-day administration of the Supreme Council. But obviously, Pike's shoes are big ones to fill.

Henry C. Clausen sat in the Chair of Albert Pike for over a quarter of a century. As Grand Commander, he wrote and published many books on Masonry. None of which, in my opinion, even remotely touch Pike, and often showing a lack of understanding on esoteric subjects, especially Magick, which Clausen called "a pious fraud" (whereas Pike considered it important symbolically in Freemasonry).

Following on from that, is there anyone within Masonry today who is or might be looked at as a "modern Pike" from an academic/literary/esoteric standpoint? My impression is that there is not currently such a figure, but I may be distracted by all of the attention and credit that Pike is given.

I would say no. Some point to Manly P. Hall (now deceased), but with the exception of "Lost Keys of Freemasonry", I've never been particularly impressed. Paul Foster Case was great, but his writings focused more on Hermeticism that Freemasonry per se.

Chris Hodapp gets a lot of attention, but his writings are basically worthless IMO. In his "Freemasonry For Dummies" he mentions Pike, Mackey, Yarker, then says "they wrote a lot of crap". But anyone wishing to really read a lot of crap need only crack open Hodapp's book.

Rex Hutchens is probably the modern author closest to the spirit of Pike. His brilliant book "A Bridge To Light" is now given as a gift to all new members of the Scottish Rite in the Mother Jurisdiction. His "Pillars of Wisdom" is also very good.