Anti-Masons...What if?

Originally posted by pepsi78

But since I promised to keep them secret, I will not be the one printing them. I will keep my word.

Then you are no use to this community, if you don't like to share.

What may I presume would be the case to keep your word. 1 of the 3.
1 You don't want humanity to find out the truth.
2 Something ugly is contained in the secrets.
3 Because your fraternity said so.


All you do on ATS is defend masonry, it's all you do on this board, you don;t debate with people on subjects, you don't share ideas, you don't get involved with the community.

So it's why you joined here I presume, for you to defend your brotherhood.

It is the truth, Not about ATS at all and becoming a member, what a great plan, lets join ATS and see who is talking crap about our brotherhood so we may confront them.What a load of

...

edit on 11-4-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)

I am not here to please you, I am here because I enjoy it. I learn lots of things I am interested in by being here, and not just about masonry, although I have leaned much more about masonry here than I have in the lodge. It won't matter what I say, because you already have your mind made up, but nothing I have learned will affect humanity in any other way than positively. And I would share any of it with anyone here who was inclined to ask, much as has been done here on this thread.

if you stop looking for negativity, you will be amazed at what you might find.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by 051r15
That's not true; plenty of dictatorships have left Freemasons alone -including the ones which have been started by them. See the Bolshevik revolution for details.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Bolsheviks outlawed Freemasonry in 1922, the same time they consolidated full power. Freemasonry was not legalized in Russia until after the fall of the Communist regime.

What is "legal"? Outwardly, the United States Government and all those who support their claim, say the Federal Reserve Bank is actually a government agency, but further research suggests it is privately owned and utilizes a dangerous form of usury to perpetually endebt the nation. Outwardly, many things appear as something they are not.

Lenin was a freemason of the 31st degree (Grand Inspecteur Inquisiteur Commandeur) and a member of the French lodge Art et Travail (Oleg Platonov, “Russia’s Crown of Thorns: The Secret History of Freemasonry 1731-1996″, Moscow, 2000, Volume 2, p. 417).

On his visit to the Grand Orient headquarters on rue Cadet in Paris in 1905, Lenin wrote his name in the visitors’ book (Viktor Kuznetsov, “The Secret of the October Coup”, St. Petersburg, 2001, p. 42). Lenin was a member of the most malicious lodge of the Grand Orient, the Nine Sisters, in 1914 (Soviet Analyst, June, 2002, p. 12). Lenin also belonged to the Union de Belville Lodge.

The French freemason Rozie of the Jean Georges lodge in Paris hailed his masonic brothers Lenin and Trotsky (La Libre Parole, 6 February 1918).

Many of the bolsheviks, apart from Lenin and Trotsky, were freemasons: Boris Solovyov, Vikenti Veresayev, Grigori Zinoviev (Grand Orient), Maxim Litvinov, Nikolai Bukharin (actually Moshe Pinkhus-Dolgolevsky), Christian Rakovsky, Yakov Sverdlov, Anatoli Lunacharsky (actually Balich-Mandelstam), Mechislav Kozlovsky (Polish freemason), Karl Radek (Grand Orient), Mikhail Borodin, Leonid Krasin, Vladimir Dzhunkovsky, and many more. In the KGB archives, the historian Viktor Bratyev found a document according to which Lunacharsky belonged to the Grand Orient of France (Anton Pervushin, “The Occult Secret of the NKVD and the SS”, St. Petersburg, Moscow 1999, p. 133).

Lenin, Zinoviev, Radek and Sverdlov were also members of B’nai B’rith. This was confirmed by those specializing in the activities of B’nai B’rith, among them Schwartz-Bostunich (Viktor Ostretsov, “Freemasonry, Culture, and Russian History”, Moscow, 1999, pp. 582- 583).

And what about Lord Milner and his round table and their ties to communism in Russia? It's fascinating, for sure.

reply to post by network dude


Thank you for that. And I do appreciate the intention of honesty you have conveyed. I believe (not know) that there are good people in the order, and it is because of this alone I do not go "off the hook" and make bold statements. I always try to back up a claim and show as much evidence as possible, but ultimately we must all accept the fact that there exists an abuse of power at the top of Freemasonry despite those who swell its ranks with honor and good will.

I will definitely check out that link you suggested.

*edit* I wanted to add that making unsupported claims and heralding the entire Freemason establishment as being some kind of "illuminati" out to kill everybody is not only wrong, it is essentially harmful to those who do good in the world and also to those who provide accurate historical account.

Originally posted by 051r15

we must all accept the fact that there exists an abuse of power at the top of Freemasonry despite those who swell its ranks with honor and good will.

Why?

And while we're at it, what's the "top" of Freemasonry?

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213
Why?

That's already been covered.

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213
And while we're at it, what's the "top" of Freemasonry?

Corruption.

reply to post by 051r15


I think by "top" he wants you to explain where this corruption exists. Which part of Masonry? Who would be in charge? How would they be seperated from the general Masons? Considering everything changes each year, how would the 'top' maintain their power?

reply to post by 051r15

I'm still wondering who these financial elite are in the Masons. Plus you'd have to prove that we're conspiring. Meetings are not that interesting.  In America at least we have the right to assemble.

I don't want my personal information out to the world unless I freely decide to. I wear a ring but if the US military started a survey of members in order to establish a registry I'd take my ring off and refuse to answer. 

There are those who would harass members and interrupt their lives. Your right to know ends at our right to privacy. 

Nowhere in our obligations do we swear that the fraternity comes above others and our jobs. To say otherwise is a lie. As I've said God, family/friends and country always come before Freemasonry. Anyone who does otherwise is not following the charges to be a good father, husband, and law abiding citizen. 

 What dictatorships did Freemasonry start? What tyrannical governments truly left Freemasonry alone? What evidence do you have?

Under Communist Russia Freemasonry was banned.

Only 14 Presidents have been Freemasons the last being Ford. Politically I'm against much of what FDR did, but nothing of his political life was motivated by the Masons or our beliefs.

Are you saying the Freemasons come the Templars? Are you saying you've found the missing documents no historian has discovered?

reply to post by illuminazislayer

There are only claims that those men were Freemasons. I can find no credible source that supports your "article". As well as it should be said that militant or radical Islam has never held a kind thought toward Freemasonry. Hamas has Freemasonry labeled as an enemy in their charter. 

reply to post by 051r15

If there are so many secrets within Freemasonry how do you know about them? Not that secret if non-members know about them.

Again, our obligations in Freemasonry do not interfere with other obligations and duties.

Cops are supposed to let off Freemasons? Please go tell that dick cop who cited me last May because he must have missed that memo. Cops letting people go with a warning is not exclusive to Freemasonry. It could be friends or relatives of a cop's friend, or for numerous reasons he let them go. Cops let other cops go all the time - I come from a long line of law enforcement officers, none of them Masons.

Again, who are these powerful elite in Freemasonry? Can you give us names?

reply to post by Agarta

The legend of the Templars is veiled in mystery due to the lack information and their missing records. The true history of Freemasonry is also clouded in the fog of time.

The Mason-Templar connection is a romanticized idea.

reply to post by 051r15

Lenin was not a Freemason let alone a SGIG, which occurs at the 33rd degree. As well as the Grand Orient of France is not a recognized form of Freemasonry. Plus Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were atheists, and thereby incapable of being Freemasons.

To all the gentlemen who demand answers to question they can seek for themselves, I have only to remind them that "their" lodge may not have anything to do with this topic. At all.

If you would like to know about powerful men in our history who have existed as masons and shown to have "questionable" goals, then pay attention. Does any of this mean all masons are the same as these men in question? Absolutely not. I am not you, and you are not they, but they have existed and do exist. Now, we can continue to play coy and we can demand answers all we like, but if you are not primed to receive the answers or even seek them in the first place, what's the point?

To this, I will take time to answer each question I feel is valid as best I can. I should remind, that I do not have all the answers. I was not expecting to be assaulted by "XYZ" lodge member who has no idea about the corruption of the past and has a stake in supporting their own agenda, or in the very least simply doesn't wish for masonry to be tarnished in any way. Well, I have sad news for you. More later.

reply to post by KSigMason

reply to post by Agarta

The legend of the Templars is veiled in mystery due to the lack information and their missing records. The true history of Freemasonry is also clouded in the fog of time.

The Mason-Templar connection is a romanticized idea.

By "romanticized idea" you mean?

Nazareth is a romanticized idea as it didn't exist until a 4th century love poem and didn't become a city until the 6th century. Yet it is believed as Jesus came from there. Legend becomes truth.

Davie Crockett was a man that created history and has become a romanticized idea. Fact becomes legend.

Dragons, at least at this point, are a romanticized idea. Legend becomes legend.

I'm Just asking for clarification.

reply to post by 051r15

Yes we demand answers (proof of your accusations). Several of the men you have claimed in previous posts are not Masons.

What I don't know in Masonic history others such as Josh or Masonic Light do know.

What you have presented is nothing new nor accurate. We have said not every person who has donned the apron was or is a good person, but you have yet to prove widespread corruption among the Craft.

To this date, no anti-Mason can accurately describe the structure of Freemasonry and it's role with the appendant bodies and rites. As well as the widespread use of anti-Masonic use of known lies and hoaxes as their evidence. This being said I want concrete evidence not based on passed anti-Masonic writers who fabricated lies to meet their agenda.

reply to post by 051r15


Your assumptions are illogical. Yes, out of the 100s of 1000s of Masons throughout history, some have been bad apples. Also, some were members of clandestine groups that only mimicked Masons. That does not mean their deeds had anything to do with their affiliation with Masonry, or that Masonry had anything to do with their deeds. If one were to apply that logic, all of mankind would be evil, because we are all part of that group, and that group has many bad apples.

I know you are trying to say that most Masons are good, but you continually come back to the argument that good Masons are just naive or uninformed, and that is exactly opposite of the truth.

Crime syndicates happen, organized crime happens, dictatorships happen, but that does not mean that any affiliation with any other group was a part of the larger scheme, or that other members of the groups were uninformed.

Lenin was Baptised as a Russian Orthodox, and he attended Kazan University. Is it to be assumed that a secret society exists at the top of those two entities, and although most people come out of them as good people, they are just uninformed of the true purpose of the church and the universithy?

The argument that some secret small group of Masons define the group as a whole is illogical. The argument that some secret small group of Masons are hiding from all the rest of Masonry for decade after decade, and manipulating some master plan without the support of the entire group is illogical. Even if some small group did exist, on its own terms, the relationship with Freemasonry would simply be a coincidence, just like the relationship with a church, or a university, or a certain employer.

reply to post by Agarta

As there us no concrete evidence of the connection.

Originally posted by 051r15
but ultimately we must all accept the fact that there exists an abuse of power at the top of Freemasonry despite those who swell its ranks with honor and good will.

please don't feel that I am attacking you over this, I just wanted to try to clear this up. If a group of very powerful people exists ( I am convinced that is exactly the case) and some of them happen to be masons, that would have nothing to do with masonry as a group. What we learn in masonry would be of no use to anyone looking for power or control. It's almost the exact opposite. Over time people have used masonry as a very convenient scapegoat since only the members "really" know what goes on inside the lodge, despite the millions of members who all say the same thing.

If someone was to go on a witch hunt and look for the "top leaders", they would be wasting their time to look at a masonic meeting as the root of the problem. (IMHO) I will add the disclaimer that I don't know everything about masonry, and I am not a 33rd degree mason so it is possible that you grow horns after you attain that degree. (although the ones I know seem to hide them if that's the case.)

Thanks for your kind tone. It is appreciated.

Originally posted by 051r15
What is "legal"?

Legal, as in, in compliance with applicable law.

Lenin was a freemason of the 31st degree (Grand Inspecteur Inquisiteur Commandeur) and a member of the French lodge Art et Travail (Oleg Platonov, “Russia’s Crown of Thorns: The Secret History of Freemasonry 1731-1996″, Moscow, 2000, Volume 2, p. 417).

On his visit to the Grand Orient headquarters on rue Cadet in Paris in 1905, Lenin wrote his name in the visitors’ book (Viktor Kuznetsov, “The Secret of the October Coup”, St. Petersburg, 2001, p. 42). Lenin was a member of the most malicious lodge of the Grand Orient, the Nine Sisters, in 1914 (Soviet Analyst, June, 2002, p. 12). Lenin also belonged to the Union de Belville Lodge.

These accounts are apocryphal, and are generally considered hoaxes. There is no actual Lodge visitor's register with Lenin's signature in it that has ever come to light, despite the above claim being made, not even in one of the Grand Orient's fake lodges.

While Lenin himself generally ignored Freemasonry, the Supreme Soviet outlawed the fraternity in 1922. After Lenin's death in 1924, following Stalin's ascent to power, the persecution of Freemasons in the USSR gained steam, regardless whether they were actually still attending meetings.

The Grand Lodge formally re-opened in 1995, by warrant of the National Grand Lodge of France.

Many of the bolsheviks, apart from Lenin and Trotsky, were freemasons: Boris Solovyov, Vikenti Veresayev, Grigori Zinoviev (Grand Orient), Maxim Litvinov, Nikolai Bukharin (actually Moshe Pinkhus-Dolgolevsky), Christian Rakovsky, Yakov Sverdlov, Anatoli Lunacharsky (actually Balich-Mandelstam), Mechislav Kozlovsky (Polish freemason), Karl Radek (Grand Orient), Mikhail Borodin, Leonid Krasin, Vladimir Dzhunkovsky, and many more. In the KGB archives, the historian Viktor Bratyev found a document according to which Lunacharsky belonged to the Grand Orient of France (Anton Pervushin, “The Occult Secret of the NKVD and the SS”, St. Petersburg, Moscow 1999, p. 133).

The above information is erroneous. None of those listed are known to have been Freemasons, not even fake Masons in the Grand Orient.

Lenin, Zinoviev, Radek and Sverdlov were also members of B’nai B’rith. This was confirmed by those specializing in the activities of B’nai B’rith, among them Schwartz-Bostunich (Viktor Ostretsov, “Freemasonry, Culture, and Russian History”, Moscow, 1999, pp. 582- 583).

This is also incorrect. None of them were members of B'nai B'rith. Such "history" is absolutely fictitious.

thank you guys for correcting this "antimason" lol. to all you know it alls, if your as smart as you say you are then you would know that youtube videos are not a valid source for facts and information. you must read both sides of the story and make your conclusion yourself. others have agendas also.

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by Agarta

 

As there us no concrete evidence of the connection.

I understand that the original connection if true is lost to time however I have found a connection that still exists today.

The Knights Templar is the final order joined in the York Rite, and the only not to deal with Hiramic Legend. Also unlike other Masonic bodies which only require a belief in a Supreme Being regardless of religion, membership in the Knights Templar is open only to Freemasons who profess a belief in the Christian religion and who have completed their Royal Arch (and in some jurisdictions their Cryptic degrees).

en.wikipedia.org...

The Connection Between the Knights Templar and Operative Masons Presentation, by R.W. Bro. James Kirk-White, Guest Speaker, Muskoka Scottish Rite Club, Nov. 28, 2005, Port Carling, Ontario

muskoka-parrysoundmasons.ca...

Using medieval archives housed throughout Europe, historian Paul Naudon reveals that there was in fact a very intimate connection between the Masons and the Knights Templar. Church records of medieval Paris show that most, if not all, the Masons of that time were residents of the Templar censive district, which allowed them to enjoy great exemptions and liberties from both church and state as a result of the protection afforded them by this powerful Templar order.

To what extent the true values and beliefs of the ancient order have penetrated modern Freemasonry is a matter of opinion, but it is a fact that York Rite Masonic Templars take great personal pride in their connection to this unique and cherished order.

hubpages.com...


Please offer your opinion. I am not attempting to discredit, simply to understand the possible implications of this "merger"

reply to post by Agarta

The Masonic Knights Templar, of which I am a member and officer of, doesn't claim to be descended from the Crusaders, but take the name in commemoration. As for the speaker, I have never heard that claim before.

Originally posted by KSigMason
The Masonic Knights Templar, of which I am a member and officer of, doesn't claim to be descended from the Crusaders, but take the name in commemoration.

This is true of the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the United States, of which I'm also a member.

However, there are other Templar orders and degrees that do lay claim to a historical connection, for example, the 29° AASR or the Rite of Strict Observance.

osiris cant you see that there are many masons on this website, which means that they share common beliefs and interests with you. they obviously are awake. so take a second look at your stance on the freemasons. you might find your calling lol :p

Originally posted by Masonic Light
However, there are other Templar orders and degrees that do lay claim to a historical connection, for example, the 29° AASR or the Rite of Strict Observance.

Not that it's necessarily true, but yes, the legend of the 29th degree is as follows:

The order of “The Knights of the Temple of Solomon,” or “The Knights of the Temple,” originally called the “Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Jesus Christ,” was established in 1118. Pope Clement V declared it heretical, at the insistence of Philip the Fair of France in 1307. The leadership of the Order in France was arrested and imprisoned, many executed and more tortured, and all impoverished. When the Grand Master had been burned alive, on the 15th of March 1314, the Templars no longer had a common head, nor could they maintain their organization under their old name, which had become so famous.

In Portugal, where they were pronounced innocent, the name of the Order was changed to that of the Order of Christ. In England, King Edward proscribed them, and forbade them to remain in the realm, unless they entered the Preceptories of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. There is a legend that in Scotland they found protection, and joined the army with which King Robert Bruce met the invasions of his country by Edward II of England.

The Battle of Bannockburn was fought on the 24th of June 1314. In consequence of the assistance reputedly rendered him on that memorable day by the Templars, Bruce created, and received them into, the Order of Saint Andrew du Chardon, meaning “of the Thistle”, of Scotland. King Robert reserved to himself and to his successors forever the title of Grand Master of the new Order.

Prince Charles Edward Stuart was the last Grand Master of the Order in Scotland, and exercised his powers in France, by establishing a Chapter of Rose Croix of Heredom at Arras. The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite was finally organized, by men in possession of the Degrees of the Rites of Heredom and Perfection, and of other Rites and detached degrees that had been from time to time established in Scotland, France, Germany and elsewhere. The Order of Scottish Knights of Saint Andrew became the 29th of the new Rite, formed by selecting, from the different Rites and Observances, seven degrees, in addition to the twenty-five of Perfection; and creating the 33rd, as the Supreme and last degree, to rule the whole.