The secret history of America, the greatest conspiracy on earth.. (READ)

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by saladfingers123456
Which Scottish Rite?

The Scottish Rite that is part of Masonry. It did not exist at the time the Great Seal was designed.

Well the Grand Lodge of Scotland goes back to 1736, and the Great seal was designed in 1782. So how did you come to that conclusion?

Are you saying that Masonry started in the late 1700s, early 1800s?

Edit to add: Just because there is an official date for the Scottish Rite, doesn't mean to say that the degrees were not a part of it before then. So that doesn't discount the concept that it could very easily (and most likely) represent the degrees.

Originally posted by saladfingers123456
Well the Grand Lodge of Scotland goes back to 1736, and the Great seal was designed in 1782. So how did you come to that conclusion?

Are you saying that Masonry started in the late 1700s, early 1800s?

The Scottish Rite has nothing to do with Scotland, it is of French origin.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Fair enough, I'm sure you know more than I. But see my edit on the previous post.

Originally posted by saladfingers123456
But see my edit on the previous post.

There were less degrees prior to its official founding, the 32 degrees appear at the turn of the 19th century and the 33rd does not start until 1813..

So the following information is wrong, referring to the Scottish Rite?

There are records of lodges conferring the degree of "Scots Master" or "Scotch Master" as early as 1733.

A lodge at Temple Bar in London is the earliest such lodge on record. Other lodges include a lodge at Bath in 1735, and the French lodge, St. George de l'Observance No. 49 at Covent Garden in 1736.

The references to these few occasions indicate that these were special meetings held for the purpose of performing unusual ceremonies, probably by visiting Freemasons.

Source

And that the concept of the 33 degrees did not exist up until 1813?

That the ideas and notions of the powers of the time wouldn't bring such hidden symbolism into a seal (that was to represent the future of the United States) before an official observance of the Rite?

Given that Washington is designed around Masonic symbolism. Or are you saying that it is all coincidence?

I'd be genuinely interested in your opinion on this.

Edited, because that sounded a bit rude "want". Sorry, not how I intended it!

Originally posted by saladfingers123456
So the following information is wrong, referring to the Scottish Rite?

There are records of lodges conferring the degree of "Scots Master" or "Scotch Master" as early as 1733...

If you read the footnote they are in reference to the Rose Croix.

And that the concept of the 33 degrees did not exist up until 1813?

My mistake, that is the Northern Jursidiction, the Southern predates it slightly.

That the ideas and notions of the powers of the time wouldn't bring such hidden symbolism into a seal (that was to represent the future of the United States) before an official observance of the Rite?

It is a bit difficult to use a degree system that was not perfected to represent something that preceded it.

Given that Washington is designed around Masonic symbolism. Or are you saying that it is all coincidence?

I'd be genuinely interested in your opinion on this.

My opinion is that if Washington is desgined around Masonic symbolism they did a poor job. Streets are not completely connected and the angles of the alleged symbols are incorrect. Sandusky, Ohio is perfect example of how a city would have its streets laid out in a Masonic pattern.

Originally posted by saladfingers123456
So the following information is wrong, referring to the Scottish Rite?

There are records of lodges conferring the degree of "Scots Master" or "Scotch Master" as early as 1733.

A lodge at Temple Bar in London is the earliest such lodge on record. Other lodges include a lodge at Bath in 1735, and the French lodge, St. George de l'Observance No. 49 at Covent Garden in 1736.

The references to these few occasions indicate that these were special meetings held for the purpose of performing unusual ceremonies, probably by visiting Freemasons.

Source

And that the concept of the 33 degrees did not exist up until 1813?

That the ideas and notions of the powers of the time wouldn't bring such hidden symbolism into a seal (that was to represent the future of the United States) before an official observance of the Rite?

Given that Washington is designed around Masonic symbolism. Or are you saying that it is all coincidence?

I'd be genuinely interested in your opinion on this.

Edited, because that sounded a bit rude "want". Sorry, not how I intended it!

edit on 6-8-2012 by saladfingers123456 because: (no reason given)

33 is an important number long before the Scottish Rite Jurisdiction. Jesus was said to have died at 33. The Sun of God sets at 33 degrees. It's only natural that 32 and 33 both would be esteemed by the Masons.

I love david icke . He has taught me alot in this subject and other subjects aswell, and Im truly amazed by his countless attempts to let the world know what he knows despite being on tv and made fun of . I for one am intriged by his work. Ive got alot of respect for him and wish him good health and love .. peace ..

Originally posted by magickmaster
33 is an important number long before the Scottish Rite Jurisdiction.

But not in Freemasonry. The really important numbers in Freemasonry are 3, 5 and 7… Hell, people who want to see things always claim 13 is a Masonic number, but it's not in any of the lectures or symbolism actually used by the Masons either.

Originally posted by headb
Do you know that most of our moderators and site owners are free-masons?

None of the site owners, and only a handful of the moderators. Off the top of my head, I think I can only name 4 at the moment: Skyfloating, Mirthful Me, Sauron, and gaotu789.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by saladfingers123456
Well the Grand Lodge of Scotland goes back to 1736, and the Great seal was designed in 1782. So how did you come to that conclusion?

Are you saying that Masonry started in the late 1700s, early 1800s?

The Scottish Rite has nothing to do with Scotland, it is of French origin.

Then why would they call it Scottish? Why not French Rite?

The Rite originated in Scotland, left there for France, disappeared from France and showed up in Switzerland, from where it was then "reintroduced" into France, and began it's new roots from there. So, it's called Scottish, because that's the ultimate origin, even though it underwent transformations over time.

I read that somewhere, can't remember exactly where right now.

Originally posted by Agoyahtah
Then why would they call it Scottish? Why not French Rite?

The origins can possibly be traced to England (which has nothing to do with Scotland) but the name originates in France where it was refered to as 'Eccosais' (Scottish).

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Agoyahtah
Then why would they call it Scottish? Why not French Rite?

The origins can possibly be traced to England (which has nothing to do with Scotland) but the name originates in France where it was refered to as 'Eccosais' (Scottish).

Well, in Scotland it certainly wasn't called "Scottish Rite". It might have been the "Rite of Perfection" or some such thing, I can't remember exactly. But, it's understandable that the French would add the appellation "Scottish" because it was a Rite "foreign" to their ways, and they simply attributed an origin to the Rite, having known from whence it came. They could have said "English Rite", but they didn't. Logic suggests that the origin is as the name implies, or else someone sought to enter some confusion into Freemasonry.

reply to post by TechUnique

David Icke is just another mouth piece of Fear Inc. Your exert is a little off on the accuracy of the Templars. Plus, the charges leveled against the Templars were initially fabricated by the French Crown so he could attack them and dissolve his debt he owed to them. Once the Inquisition started, confessions were taken through freakishly heinous torture methods. The king had De Molay murdered because he had found out that the Pope was going to absolve the Templars (see the Chinon Parchment).

Actually very little of their wealth was ever found to include their documents, but their land was handed over to the Hospitalliers via the Pope. The Hospitalliers were not a branch of the Templars, they were a completely separate knighthood operating in the Holy Land (and in Europe).

France was the area hardest hit by the Inquisition, obviously, but the Papacy did push the trials in other countries with lesser outcomes. In Germany, a group of Knights appeared at the trials in full armament...shockingly they were found innocent. In Spain they were just disbanded under that banner and came to be known as the Order of Christ. In England, so much time went by that very few Knights were actually captured and tried. Every knows the legends of Scotland, but fact is that no trials were held in the Highlands. Scotland isn't the only possible location of Templar sanctuary.

There is no actual evidence that suggests anything after they were disbanded.

That motto you cite is one from the Scottish Rite, a single branch of Freemasonry.

If such information is so tightly controlled, how can little old Icke find out about it and still go on as he has?

Weishaupt is irrelevant in discussions of Masonry. Where did Weishaupt say anything about abolishing religion, government, orders of class, right of property, or parenting?

If anything anti-Masons seem to be the ones who believe the ends justify the means as they often use lies and fabrications to accomplish their agenda and slander campaign.

The documents were recovered and displayed in the British museum where they exist today.

Or...fabricated by the Bavarian government to demonize them.

They circulated printed papers showing falsities of religion and abuses of government and promoted a general state of desperation throughout society, all the while blaming it on religion and government.

Yes because the governments of that time never did anything wrong...

And it must be so evil to establish a government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

reply to post by TechUnique

Not all of the Founders were Freemasons. Several were, but not every single one and there are particular instances such as the creation of the Great Seal that it was a non-Mason who designed it.

The term York Rite is misleading. It should actually be called the American Rite because outside of America they do not refer to it as York Rite and it is not remotely close in structure as it is here in America, which structure didn't come about until many years AFTER the Revolution was over.

The Scottish Rite is not the "highest degrees" of Freemasonry. As I said before, it is only one branch of the Masonic tree.

Underneath the pyramid, the Latin term "Novus Ordo Secolorum" means "New World Order" (click image right) .

Negative ghost rider. That is not what it means at all.

reply to post by Murgatroid

That would be a 1,000 warehouses filled with nothing, but rumors and fairy tales told by despots, fascists, the ignorant, and the intolerant to scare the masses into following their agenda.

It's almost as if they enjoy being lied to and deceived.

I'd say this applies to your kind as well.

reply to post by OhZone



reply to post by JoshNorton

I'm actually doing some research into Thomas Smith-Webb, the Father of the American York Rite.

reply to post by magickmaster

Actually it does matter quite a bit as his entire premise relies on if "York Rite Masonry" existed at that time. History proves that "York Rite Masonry" was not.

What matters is the fact that Masons controlled York, England, and Masons set up New York in the US.

Can this actually be proven or is this going to be an assumption? I would like names.

BTW, what Lodge do you belong to?

I belong to three, but that is personal information and to answer it could subject both of us to T&C violations.

reply to post by Sinny

Not to sound like a dick, it was John Robison, not Robinsons, and many have written about this book...and its inaccuracies.

reply to post by magickmaster

None of us have ever hidden our Masonic affiliation so this really isn't a "AH HA! GOTCHA!" moment that you want it to be.

reply to post by Iam'___'

I didn't realize that the truth was obnoxious.

reply to post by totallackey

Actually the American York Rite was not founded in New York, so BWAHAHAHAHAHA! In fact Rhode Island played a more important role in the founding of the York Rite.

reply to post by JesusChristwins

I'm curious as to what you mean by "myth of alchemists".

reply to post by GeorgeHunt

I'm so glad we have the anti-Jewish guy show up.

reply to post by saladfingers123456

Now you're confusing Scottish Masonry with Scottish Rite Masonry, they are two different things.

You should probably research the Francken Manuscript.

reply to post by saladfingers123456

L'Enfant was not a Mason and after he was fired by Washington, Bannacker and Ellicott redrew the designs taken by L'Enfant when he went back to Europe. None of these men were Masons. L'Enfant used the grid square, but was originally thought of by Jefferson who was not a Mason. Atop these grids he place radials from which you can get many designs. You can even spell "JESUS" in the streets.

reply to post by Agoyahtah

You should probably research Chevalier Andrew Michael Ramsay.

Considering this was written by a pot activist who was 22 years old, over 20 years ago, I would think there would be more that the Masons could write off about what he has written, but I guess it's only a couple small points here and there. I'm supposing Josh was actually right about most of what he laid out in that document then, since 99% of it has not even been addressed.

Since he had one or two details wrong, I guess we can just discredit the rest of the 15 pages or so.
I've been told by so many Masons for years now, that there is nothing wrong with Freemasonry, and yet every one of those people who I spoke with, never had a clue about the craft, or it's real purpose or history or the would even admit that it's a cesspool of corruption, used and abused by like minded psychopaths, for world domination, even occasionally. We'll that's pretty much insane to deny.

reply to post by magickmaster

How do we disprove a negative?

Originally posted by magickmaster
Considering this was written by a pot activist who was 22 years old, over 20 years ago, I would think there would be more that the Masons could write off about what he has written, but I guess it's only a couple small points here and there. I'm supposing Josh was actually right about most of what he laid out in that document then, since 99% of it has not even been addressed.

Since he had one or two details wrong, I guess we can just discredit the rest of the 15 pages or so.
I've been told by so many Masons for years now, that there is nothing wrong with Freemasonry, and yet every one of those people who I spoke with, never had a clue about the craft, or it's real purpose or history or the would even admit that it's a cesspool of corruption, used and abused by like minded psychopaths, for world domination, even occasionally. We'll that's pretty much insane to deny.

nope, you got it pretty close. We rule the world, we own your ass and there nothing you can do about it. Now go make us a turkey pot pie.

Originally posted by Agoyahtah
It might have been the "Rite of Perfection" or some such thing, I can't remember exactly.

The degree system was not similar. The Scottish Rite refers to a degree system similar to what exists now. There may have been progenitor degrees which bore a semblance to degrees used in the Scottish Rite but the progression, amount or content was not what was in the Scottish Rite when it was active in France, let alone constituted in the United States in 1801.