Conspiracies and seditious activities within secret societies: the evidence thread

This thread concerns the fact that masonic organizations, being "societies with secrets," have always been open to infiltration by seditious elements and that some seditious elements have often been prominent freemasons themselves.
The thread will also showcase information pertaining to masonic and other such organizations who have, and might well have had a hand in organised conspiracy. Sound evidence must be presented here, and/or solid reasoning should be adhered to, not wild, irrational ad hominem attacks and argument.
This is not a thread designed to attack masons per se, but a genuine discussion invited on this important subject. I will stick to my end of the bargain. I expect all others to do the same.

First, evidence presented relating to the often debunked, but apparently not erroneous theory that masonic institutes had a hand in the Jacobin incitement of the French Revolution. The following are merely set up quotes from a current respected historian of masonry (himself a non-mason):

Quotations from Pietre-Stones Review of Freemasonry - A History of British Freemasonry 1425 - 2000

From 1763, there is definitely a major change which continues until 1797-8, the dates of the publication of the works by Barruel and Robison alleging masonic complicity in the French Revolution. The ensuing loyalist anxiety engulfed British Freemasonry until long after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, and perhaps still casts a shadow over Freemasonry today.

1797-1834 This drive to enhance the social prestige of English Freemasonry received a body blow in 1797-8 with the publication of works alleging that Freemasonry had been used as a cover organisation by Jacobin elements promoting the French revolution.

The natured of the "alleged" involvement is severely under question here. From the book by Terry Melanson, "Perfectibilists: The 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati":

Secret Lodge of Les Philadelphes: An Illuminist Cell in France and the French Revolution

Perfectibilists, Secret Cell of Les Philadelphes, pages 68 - 73 (some non-essential text left out).

"It is ridiculous to explain the [French] Revolution by an Illuminist plot, it is no less ridiculous to suppose that the friends and ideas of the Illuminists played no role in it." - Albert Mathiez.

A perfect illustration of the deficient state of Bavarian Illuminati research in the English language is the case of J.J.C. Bode and his trip to Paris in 1787, which he undertook together with fellow Illuminates Christian Wilhelm von dem Bussche (1756-1817). Due to the dearth of relevant literature available in English, we in North America can be forgiven, I suppose, for not really understanding that Bode successfully imported Bavarian Illuminism into France. He not only succeeded in recruiting prominent members of French Freemasonry, but, together with these new initiates, established a fully-functioning secret Illuminati Lodge. This flies in the face of Masonic "debunkers" who've made it their business to assure potential believers of "conspiracy theories" that there's no validity whatsoever to the proposition that the Illuminati - and especially Freemasonry proper - had any tangible influence on the French Revolution. The Illuminati Lodge of which Bode instituted a branch in Paris was Les Amis Reunis; specifically within the inner circle of the Lodge were those who were affliated with the Rite of the Philatheses.

(Cont.)

[edit on 18/10/09 by Extant Taxon]

The real purpose of Bode's 1787 trip to Paris, then, was to convince the Philatheses to discard its penchant for useless superstition and mysticism, and instead adopt a the tenants of the more rationalist, anti-religious, egalitarian, utopian schemes of the Bavarian Illuminati - a tall order, to be sure, but one which he felt was essential. After all, the Bavarian Illuminati had been under siege for three years, and he thought that in France there was still a chance to recruit members into the order who still had measurable influence upon society. (In addition to being a perfect opportunity to gain some first-hand knowledge of the mysterious animal magnetism of Mesmer). It turns out that Bode kept a journal. From May to August, 1787 he recorded for posterity his whereabouts, the people he met, and what it was they'd discussed. The second Philalethes Convention had already finished by the time of his arrival in Paris on June 24, 1787. Bode wasn't dissuaded, however. He quickly set his plan in motion and went about trying to convince important members of the Philalethes of the superiority of the system of the Bavarian Illuminati over that of any other. In an interview with the official organ of the Grand Orient of France, Humanisme: Revue des Francs-Macons du Grand Orient de France, historian and Mason, professor Charles Porset of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique [National Scientific Research Center), brings us up to date, and in one fell swoop completely demolishes the Bode-Paris- 1787 "conspiracy theory" debunkers. The interview was conducted in November 1995, by Brother Pierre Ysmal, and published in the December issue. The following is an extract (which I've translated from the original French):

Humanisme: But [ ... ] in your book you explain that the history of the Convents [of the Philalethes: 1785 and 1787 respectively] does not stop there ... it re-establishes the legend of the "conspiracy"?

Charles Porset: In effect; and that has been my great surprise. You know that in his Memoires pour servir a l'histoire du Jacobinisme, Barruel ascribes to Masons the Revolution, or rather, the "arriere-Loges" [occult, or hidden Lodges]. Clearly he is not saying that Freemasonry started the Revolution (he admits to having known masons of excellent character), but he says, to the point of hyperbole, that some of them conspired, and had organized to destabilize the Old Regime. And he cites the Amis Reunis and, of course, our Philalethes. His pronouncements are vague and often inaccurate, but the least we can say is that Barruel was informed. He had been informed by [ Johann Augustus] Starck who, along with others, I'm thinking of [Leopold Alois] Hoffmann, had denounced the collusion between the Bavarian Illuminati and certain French Freemasons. Though we knew that Bode—the German Illuminati—had come to Paris and that he had met with the Philalethes, the exact nature of the encounter, until recently, remained unknown. [Adolf] Rossberg, Nazi Masonic [archivist and] historian ([Freimaurerei and Politik im Zeitalter der franzosischen Revolution] 1942), had made brief remarks concerning the then unpublished Travel Journal of Bode, but the testimony from a well known anti-Mason might appear suspect.

(Cont.)

However, the Journal has now been published [in 1994] by a German scholar, Hermann Schiittler, and it confirms in all respects the idea put forward by Rossberg of collusion between the Illuminati and the Philalethes. Moreover, "a secret lodge is then created"—the Lodge of the Philadelphes—who decide to turn their backs on esoteric folly and commit themselves, in a Masonic setting, to the happiness of man: members of the Lodge, in addition to Bode, are Savalette de Langes, Chefdebien, Beyerle, Daubermesnil, Le Sage, and ... Roettiers de Montaleau — the latter will restore Freemasonry after the Revolution. The unedited correspondences found in the Kloss archives housed in the Library of Grand Orient of the Netherlands, between Bode, von Busch and the Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt, which I've published, prove it. We are right at the arriere-Loges so dear to Barruel! "We agreed, wrote Bode, that for France, we would adopt the name Philadelphes instead of Illuminati and instead of M[intervals] — we could say preparatory grades, aspirants ..."

Humanisme.What a scoop! How did this secret Masonry function beyond the pious intentions of its creators?

Charles Porset. The documents are missing, but I provide three elements. The register of the Amis Reunis to which I have already referred, specifies, in 1789, which Brothers called for the recommencement of the Convent of Paris on the occasion of the reunion of the Estates-General. The notes are dry, but I suppose this was not the time to speculate about the Luminous Delta, but to organize fraternally ... In anticipation of the events that lay ahead. Montmorency-Luxembourg, who fled to England on the first day of the Revolution, was a member of the Philalethes, but he was not a revolutionary. Yet in a very interesting letter written at that time, to Chataigner, he blames the Philalethes and explains that he never wanted to give in to their pressure, but he adds that he didn't want to betray them - whom he respected; and finally, Chaillon de Jonville, deputy Grand Master of the Grand Lodge, thus the institution which preceded the Grand Orient, denounced the Philadelphes in a text which appeared in 1789; he held them responsible for the revolutionary disturbances. What more can be said? These Brothers of the foremost Lodges, weren't they in a position to speak [candidly] about what they had experienced?

It would be very difficult to overemphasize how explosive this material is. Charles Porset most certainly realizes it, as does Hermann Schuttler, I'm sure. It's been well over a decade since the diary was published, but it hardly surprises me that it has seemingly been kept under wraps. Masonic websites haven't exactly been keen to correct their much lauded, official debunking webpages, either. For Illuminati "conspiracy theorists," though—whose foundation is the writings Of Barruel, Robison, and Nesta Webster—this is tantamount to discovering the Holy Grail. Confirmation by modern scholars of the conspiracy plot of 1789, replete with Illuminati infiltration of key high-ranking members of French Freemasonry, is pure gold! Moreover, Dorset's additional information at the end, that two respectable Masons affiliated with the secret Illuminati Lodge of the Philadelphes actually accused them by name (Philadelphes and Philadelphes, respectively), of instigating "revolutionary disturbances"—well, let's just say, it doesn't get any better than that.

James H. Billington in his superb "Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith," lends further support to these facts, which really don't seem to need them. But for the sake of further argumentation:

(Cont.)

"The Masonic lodges of Geneva provided the ambience in which [Philippe]Buonarroti formulated in 1811 his first full blueprint for a new society of revolutionary republicans: the Sublime Perfect Masters. Both the society's name and the three levels of membership proposed for it had been adopted from Masonry. Indeed, Buonarotti sought to work through existing Masonic lodges: to recruit through them, influence them, use them as a cover, and (if necessary) even undermine them."

- p. 91

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9f6f30271564.jpg[/atsimg]
Wikipedia: Philippe Buonarroti

Filippo Giuseppe Maria Ludovico Buonarroti more usually referred to under the French version Philippe Buonarroti (1761 - 1837) was an Italian egalitarian and utopian socialist, revolutionary, journalist, writer, agitator, and freemason; he was mainly active in France.

Again, from "Fire in the Minds of Men":

'"Free" masonry was, thus, a moral meritocracy - implicitly subversive within any static society based on a traditional hierarchy.'

- p. 92

Barrington comments further on the seemingly occultic aspect to the French Revolution and its "solar myth of revolution" (p. 6 "FITMOM"). Many of the infamous conspirators were occultists and members of many secret societies. Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon is another name to look into, beyond the Wikipedia information starved article. Whilst not explicitly known as a freemason he mixed in all those circles.

The points raised here should be enough to substantiate the thrust of my argument on this sub-topic alone for the time being.

On to the more modern age. As a result of this thread: Highest Level, and Most Powerful Freemasons Revealed!, I made this reply here, also my further comment here. The prime contention of mine is the so-called "black lodge" in Italy (now defunct they claim) known as Propaganda Due (P2). The previous Wikipedia link gives some idea of what these characters were up to. Just do an internet search with the following keywords: "P2 Roberto Calvi Vatican Banco Ambrosiano" and the fun shall commence.
The major players in this little show such as Licio Gelli just carry on as normal today. Previous Propaganda Due member Silvio Berlusconi, a multi-billionnaire media tycoon, is presently Prime Minister of Italy. A position he has held various times.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3e761602e2e8.gif[/atsimg]
Receipt for membership of Silvio Berlusconi to "Propaganda 2" (P2) masonic lodge

When certain factions cry out here on ATS for "Proof!", conspiracies by their nature are not so forthcoming with said documentation. So when it is argued that certain figureheads in masonry (and laughably only U.S. masonry. America is not the entire world, as much as it tries to be ) are the most powerful in the world, I would contend that no, mere visible figureheads. Ornamentation for the profane:

Cont.)

[edit on 18/10/09 by Extant Taxon]

[edit on 18/10/09 by Extant Taxon]

I'll refer the interested reader to a comment I made from the prior mentioned thread:

And isn't there strong evidence that Silvio Berlusconi was/is Propaganda Due? Yet another candidate for world's most powerful freemason perhaps? Whether you would want to argue that P2 was/is a "black" lodge disowned by the Grand Orient of Italy. Berlusconi being a multi-billionnaire media tycoon and Prime Minister of Italy. His membership would never have come to light if not for official investigations into P2's misdeeds. How many more elite authority figures today are unrecognised as masons? And abuse that privilege?

Questions, questions....

Its only the available evidence that indicates the strong possibility that such connections to what was a previously fully sanctioned lodge were instrumental in berlusconi's rise to power. And vast riches. And being happy as pig in s**t in Italy, despite the storm that has arisen around him now. The status quo remains.

I'll leave it there for now. More to come though. Till next time good readers.

Bonus info: Synarchism and Rule by Secret Societies

I think the two biggest objections you may face pursing this line of inquiry are that of responsibility and regularity. To link the actions of an individual to the agenda of a group is tenuous without supporting documentation or testimony, which you'll agree is rarely forthcoming in conspiracies of the nature you've presented.

Recognition is an even more nebulous thing, but one which inevitably must be addressed when again scaling the actions of a few to the intent of a many. An IRA soldier would fight you tooth and nail over the differences between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, but to an outsider, we'd call either person "Irish". An ignorant westerner might never distinguish between Kurds, Assyrians, Mandeans, Iraqi Turkmen, Shabaks and Roma, but such distinctions are very important in Iraq. Likewise to someone in Europe, the American distinctions between the Democratic & Republican parties in US politics might seem laughable.

What's recognition to a Freemason?

Within a few years after Freemasonry appeared in England (1717) it was found in France and spreading rapidly throughout the Continent. As it moved there, however, it took on a quite different form. Removed from the altar was the Bible (considered by Masons as an essential part of the lodge) and available in lodge was discussion of politics and religion, something banned in English Freemasonry. The format of these these French/Continental lodges veered wildly away from Freemasonry's principles as shown in England and other countries including Scotland and Ireland then embracing the fraternity following England's format. From this difference of formats, beliefs, and agendas developed what was (and is) known as 'Grand Orient' Freemasonry. It was this politicized 'freemasonry' - not recognized by the Grand Lodges of England, Ireland, Scotland and the colonies forming into the United States - and it was Grand Orient Freemasonry about which Robison wrote.

Later writers, vehement in their condemnation of Freemasonry such as Edith Starr Miller and Madame Blavatsky fell into the same trap: condemning Freemasonry without realizing that the lodges under the Grand Orient were not recognized as 'regular' by mainstream Masons.

In a somewhat more modern comparison: had the founder of the Boy Scouts of America founded the group upon the principles of Baden-Powell's boys group in England but immediately eliminated the requirement to 'do a good turn daily', stopped the requirement for uniforms, and encouraged troops to participate in partisan political rallies. Would the world Scouting movement consider such an organization as 'Scouts'? Not likely....
www.masonicinfo.com...

There's no one body overarching all of Freemasonry, and, in fact, anybody or any group can call itself Masonic without any consequence. But recognition of regularity by other established groups is what gives any lodge or grand lodge its "power". Grand Orient of France, or the P2 lodge were neither recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England, so I, personally, do not consider them legitimate Masonic institutions. In my own opinion they were pretenders who marred the good name of regular Masonry. That's just my opinion. There are other regular Masons who feel differently of course, and to a non-Mason, such distinctions may seem silly. (If it quacks, it must be a duck!)

There's an ATS member going by the name "grandsecretary" who is, in fact, the secretary of "The Grand Lodge of All England", a group that is not recognized by UGLE. He'll go on for pages about how his group predates UGLE in England, and how he considers it "true" Masonry, coming from York traditions. Others would disagree. Again, just my own position, but I'd never knowingly sit in a lodge with "grandsecretary", because it would be in violation of my oaths as a Mason to do so. He may do the exact same rituals, he may be saying the same words, but because my lodge doesn't recognize his lodge, we can't meet on Masonic terms.

I know this may seem like it's sidestepping the heart of the thesis you've presented above, but I just wanted to give you some additional data to consider. As I've pointed out, to an outsider it's easy to lump a group together, but on the inside, the distinctions are much more important.

Could a splinter, non-recognized Masonic organization have been behind the French Revolution? Maybe. Was a corrupt non-recognized lodge in Italy behind some financial scandals and possibly murder? There's evidence to suggest that's true. Does that mean that Freemasonry is to blame? I say no. But that's because I'm on the inside. Making such a blanketing statement would be akin to blaming Muslims for 9/11.

So the actions of the individual aren't necessarily the intent of the group, and the group itself may be more fractured internally than an outsider would necessarily know.

[edit on 10/18/2009 by JoshNorton]

reply to post by JoshNorton


You're right. You skirted around the main thrust of my post, including many points that address nothing content wise in my OP.
I'll clear these up anyway.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
Grand Orient of France, or the P2 lodge were neither recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England, so I, personally, do not consider them legitimate Masonic institutions.

As you have said previously, there is, and never was, a single unified entity known as global freemasonry.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
There's no one body overarching all of Freemasonry...

Nor did I claim this in my OP. Legitimacy and recognition are mere ploys and internal masonic politics between Grand Lodges. Some of these intractable it seems.
So whether UGLE would have ever recognized these lodges at the periods of time I mention is of no matter.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
There's an ATS member going by the name "grandsecretary" who is, in fact, the secretary of "The Grand Lodge of All England", a group that is not recognized by UGLE. He'll go on for pages about how his group predates UGLE in England, and how he considers it "true" Masonry, coming from York traditions.

I'm aware of the state of play with UGLE and GLOAE. It doesn't concern me or the content of my OP.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
So the actions of the individual aren't necessarily the intent of the group, and the group itself may be more fractured internally than an outsider would necessarily know.

It was never stated in my OP that I considered masonry to be a unified, homogeneous group. I quite categorically referred to specific historical incidents, individual freemasons, and lodges. The point was to show how such organizations have been used for seditious purposes.

Your statements in defense of freemasonry are not needed right now, as I'm not building a case against freemasonry in the manner you claim. I begun this thread to detail evidence relating to seditious activities, plots, and conspiracies hatched by different forms of masonry and masons worldwide.
As my thread title indicates:

Conspiracies and seditious activities within secret societies: the evidence thread

This thread won't be exclusive to freemasonry.

Thanks for taking the time to answer this thread however.
The only mason here who seems willing thus far. Usually the brethren here would be chomping at the bit to get their teeth into this content. Where are they?

To conclude, I'll say this: whilst masonry seems not to be a unified, singular entity under the guidance of, say, a "World Grand Lodge," I intend to show that the "moral meritocracy" referred to by James H. Billington in connection with freemasonry has massive relevance as regards the thrust of this thread. Societies with secrets, meeting behind closed doors, often elitist, and professing the best ideals of mankind, often Utopian ideals; have always been open to infiltration, abuse, and misuse of said institution's influence. "The road to hell is often paved with the best intentions," so they say.
The spirit of freemasonry, as professed (at least) by those selfsame egalitarian freemen, seems to have a lot to say for it. Masonic history and philosophy does indeed fascinate me, the dark, often unintended consequences of those oh so noble intentions perhaps holds sway for me as much.
It is also said that the two great streams of esoteric thought that run parallel though the history of secret orders, Rosicrucianism on one hand, Freemasonry on the other; lead towards one place: totalitarianism. Its not so much the more open edifice that is freemasonry, but rather the philosophy that is its foundation and also transcends it.
But for that, another time.


[edit on 18/10/09 by Extant Taxon]

The following video is not evidence of acts of conspiracy by freemasons. Yet it still illustrates that there are powerful, prominent freemasons in positions of prime influence in the U.S. Connections are the thing.





[edit on 20/10/09 by Extant Taxon]

Have you ever been to a lodge? Let alone sat in one...

While it is possible for a lodge to be taken over, it would be blatantly obvious to the members what was transpiring.

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
The following video is not evidence of acts of conspiracy by freemasons. Yet it still illustrates that there are powerful, prominent freemasons in positions of prime influence in the U.S. Connections are the thing.

It is true that are Freemasons in Congress; in fact, in large part it was the Masons who created Congress. But a conspiracy in this seems off base.

For example, both Charles Rangel and Chuck Grassley are 33° Masons. Yet they stand on opposite sides of practically every issue. I think the record will show that Masons in Congress are just like the non-Masons: they divide on party lines, not fraternity associations.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
It is true that are Freemasons in Congress; in fact, in large part it was the Masons who created Congress. But a conspiracy in this seems off base.

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
The following video is not evidence of acts of conspiracy by freemasons. Yet it still illustrates that there are powerful, prominent freemasons in positions of prime influence in the U.S. Connections are the thing.

As per the previous quote I didn't present this as evidence, merely that these facts, when seen in the light of the main thrust of this thread, fully demonstrate how open freemasonry could be to such things as conspiracies and seditious acts. The potential remains....


reply to post by Choronzon


Unless you're able to engage here in a constructive manner, addressing the solid facts and points I have made in my original posts, I suggest that you take your paltry reply consisting primarily of an erroneous grasp of the subject matter and an "eyes roll icon," and go brush up on your history.
Specifically of the many conspiracies and seditious acts that have transpired from within lodges. If you ask nicely I may provide further support to this fact.



[edit on 20/10/09 by Extant Taxon]

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
As per the previous quote I didn't present this as evidence, merely that these facts, when seen in the light of the main thrust of this thread, fully demonstrate how open freemasonry could be to such things as conspiracies and seditious acts. The potential remains....

They do nothing of the sort though. Is it a fact that a few members of Congress are also Masons? Yes. You've shown that and we accept that as presented. The words "potential" and "could be" do not belong in presentation of fact, however. You either have evidence that the members of Congress named in that video have contributed to conspiracies and seditious acts or you don't. If you have no such evidence, presenting that video in this thread was misleading and ignoble.

reply to post by JoshNorton


Nothing "misleading or ignoble" about it. I qualified quite categorically in my post including said video what I regarded it as.
The point being, as some masons here seem unable to hold together the thrust of my entire argument, is that as James H. Billington has said, '"Free" masonry was, thus, a moral meritocracy - implicitly subversive within any static society based on a traditional hierarchy.'

And it very likely still is. Masonry is presented. The hierarchy is presented. The rest I will leave up to reader to assess. If certain posters are unable to heed qualifying statements this debate is a non-starter. Which it pretty much is in fact.
As regards charges of misleading, you yourself have skirted any of the solid points and evidences I've previously, paying them only a cursory and unsubstantial comment. Primarily you saw fit to detail facts so basic and irrelevant as to not be worth addressing.
The brethren here aren't even bothered to engage on those points in the slightest, attacking a single post, and misrepresenting the background it is set against in the context of this thread.

Should I have expected better from masons than to deliberately misconstrue, be evasive, engage in petty, trifling points scoring, belittle sound presentation, avoid a level playing field in debate, basically failing to engage with anything I have presented whatsoever?

I mean, should I?

Originally posted by Extant TaxonI suggest that you take your paltry reply consisting primarily of an erroneous grasp of the subject matter and an "eyes roll icon," and go brush up on your history.

Hmm, and here I thought the years of my life I have dedicated to Freemasonry actually represented a good grasp on the subject matter. Although by all means I implore any criticism that a non-mason may hold...

reply to post by Choronzon


It seems that you are unable to engage in any of the points I have raised since I begun this thread. Here is a hint. Go to the top of the page and start from there. You know, from the beginning?
But do go on using the eyes roll icon and shallow sarcasm as a substitute for genuine debate. It further demonstrates a complete unwillingless to engage in any meaningful discussion.

And isn't it sweet to note the brethren here with no stomach for entering the discussion giving fellow masons stars like it means anything. Bless.


[edit on 20/10/09 by Extant Taxon]

An IRA soldier would fight you tooth and nail over the differences between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, but to an outsider, we'd call either person "Irish".

Brother Josh i don't like going off topic but please have consideration for the people of the United Kingdom who have suffered at the hands of this terrorist group.

Firstly IRA members are not soldiers they are terrorists. Real soldiers dress in Uniform and go into war facing their enemy. The IRA do not, they plant bombs and have murdered and maimed fathers in front of their wife's and children. They have done drive by shootings. Their is no similarity between them and soldiers whatsoever!

How would you feel if i called an Al Qaeda combatant a Soldier?







[edit on 20-10-2009 by adama1]

[edit on 20-10-2009 by adama1]

reply to post by adama1


That is a damn good point and one that slipped by me entirely when I was debating Josh Norton.

This is not meant to be a slight aimed at you for points scoring Josh, but the IRA are terrorists. No matter how legitimate the big, big issues the Irish in Northern Ireland have with us Brits over there.

Originally posted by adama1
An IRA soldier would fight you tooth and nail over the differences between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, but to an outsider, we'd call either person "Irish".

Brother Josh i don't like going off topic but please have consideration for the people of the United Kingdom who have suffered at the hands of this terrorist group.

Firstly IRA members are not soldiers they are terrorists. Real soldiers dress in Uniform and go into war facing their enemy. The IRA do not, they plant bombs and have murdered and maimed fathers in front of their wife's and children. They have done drive by shootings. Their is no similarity between them and soldiers whatsoever!

How would you feel if i called an Al Qaeda combatant a Soldier?

Depends on who I am, doesn't it? That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. It's context. The things American troops are doing in the Middle East today could be (and perhaps are) considered terrorism by people who call those lands home. I have no sympathy for the IRA (I was in London shortly after the 1982 parade bombing and it left an indelible impression on my sense of the world as I was fairly young at the time...but old enough to know that sand in the streets soaking up the blood was not a good site.), but I haven't lived in their shoes. I don't know their struggles first hand. So how harshly can I judge their actions without being a hypocrite?

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by adama1
An IRA soldier would fight you tooth and nail over the differences between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, but to an outsider, we'd call either person "Irish".

Brother Josh i don't like going off topic but please have consideration for the people of the United Kingdom who have suffered at the hands of this terrorist group.

Firstly IRA members are not soldiers they are terrorists. Real soldiers dress in Uniform and go into war facing their enemy. The IRA do not, they plant bombs and have murdered and maimed fathers in front of their wife's and children. They have done drive by shootings. Their is no similarity between them and soldiers whatsoever!

How would you feel if i called an Al Qaeda combatant a Soldier?

Depends on who I am, doesn't it? That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. It's context. The things American troops are doing in the Middle East today could be (and perhaps are) considered terrorism by people who call those lands home. I have no sympathy for the IRA (I was in London shortly after the 1982 parade bombing and it left an indelible impression on my sense of the world as I was fairly young at the time...but old enough to know that sand in the streets soaking up the blood was not a good site.), but I haven't lived in their shoes. I don't know their struggles first hand. So how harshly can I judge their actions without being a hypocrite?

Ok, if you think that people that go against the majority of the populations wishes and start trying to bomb a community into submission because they want to remain British qualifies them to be called soldiers that's fine.

Do you want me to list all the people the IRA have killed then maybe you will have an idea into the atrocities they committed? 1,821

I would choose my words more carefully! Yet again why would you Americans have only heard one half of the story for long enough and much of the funds came from Boston that was used to kill Protestants, Policemen, women and children.

Only when 911 happened did they to get a taste of terrorism after sponsoring it for long enough.

As they say The Great Architect of the Universe works in mysterious ways!

I in no way intend to tar all Americans the same, but how can a person call a group that has killed almost 2000 people soldiers?

[edit on 20-10-2009 by adama1]

This is not what this thread is about. The OP presents a large amount of information that obviously took a bit of time, and he is interested in discussing it or he wouldn't have made the thread. Lets put the other stuff out of the discussion.

Extant Taxon
From your post:

The point being, as some masons here seem unable to hold together the thrust of my entire argument, is that as James H. Billington has said, '"Free" masonry was, thus, a moral meritocracy - implicitly subversive within any static society based on a traditional hierarchy.' And it very likely still is. Masonry is presented. The hierarchy is presented. The rest I will leave up to reader to assess.

Before I can discuss your post, I need to understand what "hierarchy" you are referring to. I am not trying to deflect anything, or misdirect the thread, I just don't know what that statement refers to.