Proof Albert Pike Affliated with KKK?

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
They then play games in order to justify their views. This is what I call re-enforcement of IGNORANCE via Fear - a Tactic that is decidedly favored by the Fear-Mongering, Pro-Ignorance, Fundamentalist Wing of "Christianity". I propose that this backwards way of thinking is HARDLEY Christian at all - that this is in-fact the REAL Phallacy!

>>You have voted Seraphim_Serpente for the Way Above Top Secret
>>award. You have one more vote left for this month.

A great statement!

Originally posted by eudaimonia
In short, just about any book you can find about the original KKK. Tell
you friend that many Klan leaders were also Free Masons and that in the
1920's half the Free Masons in the USA were also Klansmen. They are the ones who committed most of the lawless activities."

Nobody is denying that some masons may have also been in the KKK, there are ALL KINDS of Freemasons in this world. This is one of the things I always stress: Freemasons are as diverse as any other group of people in this world.

Do you know how many Freemasons there were in the US compared to Klansmen?!? There is no possible way that half of the masons were in the KKK because the numbers wouldn't add up. But nice try

>>>Nobody is denying that some masons may have also been in the KKK, >>>there are ALL KINDS of Freemasons in this world.


But the fact that they are prove that masonry is a failing system
as far as creating a moral fraternity.

Who want to take oath with a pseudo-"brother" who's in fact
your worst enemy with a smile ?


Cedric Phi

Originally posted by sebatwerk
Um, he knows what he's talking about far more than you do! You think Pike's klan affiliation is a fact! You think you're above logic and reason, so that you don't have to prove Pike's affiliation before stating it as fact! Who's the arrogant one?!

Let me say for the record that I am not saying Pike's affiliation with the Klan is a fact. The truth of the matter is that I could care less. I'm passionate about many things, but that is not one of them.

I'm saying that it can't be proven or disproven. This being so why is anyone making an argument for something like this.

I am saying that the concept of him being affiliated with this organization is not too far in left field given the climate of the times.

I don't believe it is a reflection of Freemasonry. I believe that any reasonable person will agree that you have good and bad people wherever you go regardless of race, religion, etc.

Originally posted by Osirisrisen
Let me say for the record that I am not saying Pike's affiliation with the Klan is a fact.

Then why did you say "for the record" in post #1533729:

"Well I guess that says a great deal about you. Since you chose to defend a KLANSMAN"

The Klansman in question was Albert Pike, whose membership in the Klan you now say cannot be proven. It doesn't bode well to the sincerity of your post to contradict yourself like that.

The truth of the matter is that I could care less. I'm passionate about many things, but that is not one of them.

Then I respectfully ask...why have you chosen to interject comments and opinions into this thread, what with you having no interest in it and all?

I'm saying that it can't be proven or disproven.

Which I, and others, have said REPEATEDLY. The complete lack of positive evidence that he WAS would tend to lead a thinking person to believe he was NOT, though.

I am saying that the concept of him being affiliated with this organization is not too far in left field given the climate of the times.

Agreed.

I don't believe it is a reflection of Freemasonry. I believe that any reasonable person will agree that you have good and bad people wherever you go regardless of race, religion, etc.

Agreed on that issue too. I guess that should suffice to demonstrate to you that you were mistaken in post #1533729 when you said to me:

"I don't believe we would ever agree on anything."

Nice to have you aboard!

Regards,

Originally posted by Osirisrisen
I am saying that the concept of him being affiliated with this organization is not too far in left field given the climate of the times.

I don't believe it is a reflection of Freemasonry. I believe that any reasonable person will agree that you have good and bad people wherever you go regardless of race, religion, etc.

OK, well in this case I would agree with you. You just came off differently, to me, in your last post. Nobody ever said that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Pike to be affiliated with the KKK, only that there is no proof to suggest this.

Originally posted by Centiment
But the fact that they are prove that masonry is a failing system as far as creating a moral fraternity.

This is an absurd statement! EVERY organization has bad apples, Freemasonry is no better. Keep in mind that Freemasonry claims to make GOOD MEN BETTER. We don't reform men, and Freemasonry can only teach those who want to learn.

That being said, there have been many masons who have misrepresented themselves and lied in their interviews in order to be able to join masonry for reasons other than self-improvement. We can't prevent this, unfortunately, but I think Freemasonry's GREAT record with creating great men speaks for itself. Quit trying to tear it down by finding exceptions.

Who want to take oath with a pseudo-"brother" who's in fact your worst enemy with a smile ?

There are many masons who I do not consider my brothers. They have no place in the Craft and should not have been let in to begin with. Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do about this.

Originally posted by sebatwerk
OK, well in this case I would agree with you. You just came off differently, to me, in your last post. Nobody ever said that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Pike to be affiliated with the KKK, only that there is no proof to suggest this.

Either you're intentionally avoiding the information I layed out here or you just won't accept the notion of his involvement EVEN IF there is undeniable documented proof that he was. Why are you so resistant to the facts? I just provided here all that you needed to know that does SUGGEST and indeed PROVE his affiliation with the KKK. You simply won't accept their sources where they get this information, you think it's biased, manipulated, and anti-masonic hate speech. There's many articles that ARE CREDIBLE and NON-CONSPIRATORIAL that leads one to make a logical conclusion that Pike was a KKK member. The question is whether you want to accept the fact or not. Everything for you is highly questionable and totally unbelievable unless there is HARDCORE PHYSICAL PROOF in your hands that says so. You can't be convinced, no matter what anybody says and no matter what sources are being used. masonicinfo.com is not the only source of information you know? there's many websites that aren't officially owned by masons but at least they back up their claims with large amounts of research. You could disagree with their findings, but it doesn't make it untrue and it doesn't make their findings "unsupported".

Originally posted by eudaimonia
Either you're intentionally avoiding the information I layed out here or you just won't accept the notion of his involvement

I can't speak for Sebatwerk, but it's been said in this thread several times that it's POSSIBLE that he was. The title of this thread suggested PROOF (actually "Proove") that he was.

EVEN IF there is undeniable documented proof that he was.

Which there isn't. Not one iota. No documents extant to prove it. Some have SAID it, but my old college room-mate often said he was the God of Love to whom all women must relent. He wasn't though.

Why are you so resistant to the facts?

None have been provided.

I just provided here all that you needed to know that does SUGGEST and indeed PROVE his affiliation with the KKK.

We have an obvious syntax problem here. Does it "suggest" it or does it "prove" it? I "suggest" you consult a dictionary and you'll perhaps come to understand why this statement is contradictory.

You simply won't accept their sources where they get this information, you think it's biased, manipulated, and anti-masonic hate speech.

Most hate sites are just that.

There's many articles that ARE CREDIBLE and NON-CONSPIRATORIAL that leads one to make a logical conclusion that Pike was a KKK member. The question is whether you want to accept the fact or not.

I think that it's been logically concluded that he certainly could have been one. But it has YET to be proven. (Suggestions don't count)

Everything for you is highly questionable and totally unbelievable unless there is HARDCORE PHYSICAL PROOF in your hands that says so.

That's certainly true of me. I'm from Missouri after all...the "Show Me" State. Give me proof. Not assumptions and conjecture.

You can't be convinced, no matter what anybody says and no matter what sources are being used.

Not true at all. Legitimate sources are fine...hate-sites and rumor-mongers aren't.

masonicinfo.com is not the only source of information you know? there's many websites that aren't officially owned by masons but at least they back up their claims with large amounts of research.

True. Just ask David Icke. He's done TONS of ....errrr... research...and his web-sites are literally FULL OF IT.

You could disagree with their findings, but it doesn't make it untrue and it doesn't make their findings "unsupported".

No, what makes their findings unsupported is their lack of actual proof. A picture of a banner with Pike's name on it doesn't PROOVE it.





[edit on 15-7-2005 by senrak]

Originally posted by ancientofdays33
You really need to do your research...
Just because a book or encyclopaedia is published by a company who stood the test of time does not mean it is valid Books are sold for MONEY!

And the ones that are sensationalistic and full of blather tend to get ignored in the long run, certainly by serious researchers. "Books", as a medium, are still far in advance of the internet. The best internet resources, for a serious reseacher, are almost universally one's where actual well respected books are replicated. True there are now emerging online databases of scientific materials and results, databases that are not even conceivable as workable 'books', but for the most part, web-only citations are perceived as being very poor, and that perception is generally accurate. Imagine trying to write a paper for publication in a historical journal and your citiatons are angelfire webpages. By the time the paper is published the original sources don't even exist anymore, or they've been edited drastically without any sort of notification or oversight. And that pages themselves only site other pages, and pages upon pages in a big useless rotating rumour mill. And half the time webpages don't even cite their sources. But a book, published by an established and well respected publishing company, does. The research is accurate, the citations are correct, etc etc. Thats why these institutions and their publications are often called 'Authoratative', because they are good. Websites simply haven't reached that standard yet, and no matter what 'google.com' never will, because its just a search engine. It'd be like saying that the Card Catalog at a library is an "good source", it doesn't even make sense.

Osirisrisen
What exactly is your point?

His point is that you are incorrect, and that if Pike had been a member of the vile and murderous clan that was engaged in an anti-reconstruction and anti-federal government movement, that he certainly wouldn't be lauded by the Federal Government and would be on there lists of people that were only potentially active in the Klan.

My point was to shed some light on your character.

Stick to the topic at hand, which is Pike being in the KKK, not whatever the heck you think senrak's character is.

becuase it is obvious the only reason he is defending Pike is becuase he was a Mason. He is adamantly arguing a moot point.

Do you know what the word moot means? Because your use of it in this context indicates that you don't. Its not a closed case of whether or not there is good evidence to enable us to say that Pike was in the klan. And what does it matter that anyone is intersted in this matter becuase Pike was a freemason? If he wasn't a freemason, no one would be trying to prove that he was a KKKer in the first place. We'd've never even heard of the guy probably.

Golfie
My point was that it didn't matter if Pike was a member or not. It does not or should not reflect on the group as a whole.

On that i do have to wonder at a particular related point. Masonry claims to teach men how to become better men, no? And yet, there is a strong history of past instituional racism, or at least segregation, amoung american masonic lodges, while at teh same time these racial matters weren't an issue for British masons, apparently. So it seems like, if masonry is teach big moral lessons thru the natural science of masonry, then masons would not be differentiated on matters like that in the same way that the profane are. IE, the institution of masonry was racist back in those days, mainly because the generla public was in america, and in england the institution wasn't, mainly because the public wasn't, not because of any lessons that masonry teaches. So it seems like, to a certain approximation, that the method of moral instruction in masonry isn't all that effective, if it can't undo the parochial and local mores of say american culture.

I hope my understanding is clear on that tho. If masonry teaches morality, then we'd expect british and american mason's to be generally equally moral, but instead we don't see any influence of masonry on the american group, and rather the local morals and mores and practices supersede and wash-out the masonic ones.

edudamonia
In short, just about any book you can find about the original KKK

Dear god man! Present some evidence! What part of the books says that he's a member just what in the world are they basing that on! It doesn't matter that there are books that say it. There are books that say that the Raelians are perverted sex cult. There are books that say that tin-foil hats will block the influence of alien mental rays. Just because its in a book doesn't mean that its true! THis is kind of a basic thing that most of us deal with. Here we have a couple of books recommended by a guy in the kkk. Why is it that all of masonry is suspect because pike might've been a KKKer, and yet we're taking the word of a KKKer as gospel on this matter? What possible evidence is in these books that other people, who aren't in the KKK, who've tried to find out if Pike was in it, have completely and absolutely and blindly missed?
Where's the evidence?

eudamonia
Either you're intentionally avoiding the information I layed out here

For the record, the only information you've presented so far is a photo of Pike. Other than that, you;'ve mentioned some KKK websites and some books that, according the a member of the KKK, prove that Pike was a KKKer. Thats not information. Its not being ignored, you've presented nothing.

There's many articles that ARE CREDIBLE and NON-CONSPIRATORIAL that leads one to make a logical conclusion that Pike was a KKK member.

How about presenting the evidence that they present?

You can't be convinced, no matter what anybody says and no matter what sources are being used

He's never said anything of the sorts, he's rejected a photo hosted on a website as being proof. Thats quite reasonable, especially considering that lots of people have researched the topic and have not found good evidence and have also found faked photos. Given that there are fake photos, and given that non-kkk researchers haven't been able to demonstrate that pike was in the KKK, wouldn't it be reasonable to not say that he's in the KKK until sufficient evidence has been examined?

You could disagree with their findings, but it doesn't make it untrue and it doesn't make their findings "unsupported".

What makes your conclusion that Pike was in the KKK unsupported is the fact that you have not presented enough evidence to support it.

Osirisrisen But the fact that they are prove that masonry is a failing system
as far as creating a moral fraternity.

It proves no such thing. It proves that its not an absolutely irresitable moral education method.

Who want to take oath with a pseudo-"brother" who's in fact
your worst enemy with a smile ?

Pike was also an american, does this mean that all americans need to disavow their citizenship because of pike? Or what about people who were as influential to america as pike was to masonry? Like Washington or any of the numerous slave-owning Founders? Americans should reject the Constitution because of them? Or what about christianity? There was some really bad peopel who were christians, does that mean that anyone associating with jesus is immoral? What about, I don't know, any group that has ever existed??

>>>>So it seems like, to a certain approximation, that the method of moral >>>>instruction in masonry isn't all that effective


What I am expressing since so many posts.


Difference being that I believe methods can be worked out
and that shocks a few conservateurs.



>>>Or what about people who were as influential to america as pike was >>to masonry?


They took the Stalin statue off, why not Pike's.


To me it's really about the statue.


The Bible is probably more racist than the book of Pike.


Cedric

Originally posted by eudaimonia
Either you're intentionally avoiding the information I layed out here or you just won't accept the notion of his involvement EVEN IF there is undeniable documented proof that he was.

I am avoiding nothing. I've told you many times that there is NO proof of his involvement, and you have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise.

Why are you so resistant to the facts?

You are the one resistant to the fact that there is NO proof to show Pike was in the KKK.

I just provided here all that you needed to know that does SUGGEST and indeed PROVE his affiliation with the KKK.

Well, which is it? Does what you posted SUGGEST, or PROVE, Pike's involvement?

You have provided NO proof WHATSOEVER! What did you post, a picture and some links to websites? There isn't even information to demonstrate that the artifacts in the picture you posted are real, and the website provided no evidence either!

You simply won't accept their sources where they get this information, you think it's biased, manipulated, and anti-masonic hate speech.

Just because it is written in a website does NOT mean it's true!!! Are you THAT gullible?!? Do you believe EVERYTHING you read??? Those websites provided NO evidence of their claims!

There's many articles that ARE CREDIBLE and NON-CONSPIRATORIAL that leads one to make a logical conclusion that Pike was a KKK member.

It cannot be a logical conclusion if there is no proof.

The question is whether you want to accept the fact or not. Everything for you is highly questionable and totally unbelievable unless there is HARDCORE PHYSICAL PROOF in your hands that says so.

OF COURSE!!! What else do you want!?!?!? Do you believe anything someone tells you?!? What you just said suggests to me that you believe what you want to believe, you are not using reason and logic in your thought process.

there's many websites that aren't officially owned by masons but at least they back up their claims with large amounts of research. You could disagree with their findings, but it doesn't make it untrue and it doesn't make their findings "unsupported".

Look, there's only one way that a statement can be called TRUE or FACT. That is if it is supported with undeniable conclusive evidence.

Listen to what you just said: "You may disagree with their findings..." But if their findings had solid evidence to back them up, it wouldn't matter if I agreed or not, because the evidence would show me that the claim is true.

Up until now, NONE of your sources has done this. Do you think your case would stand up in court? If Pike were on trial, do you think you have provided enough information to convict him? If not, then how can you call your claim FACT?!?

Quote: "a picture."

It was a Picture of a White (hoodless) Robe with a bunch of Crosses on it too! For all we know it could have been what Pike wore to Church on Sunday! What’s next - Priests are Racist KKK members? They have been known to wear robes with Crosses on them as well!

Now if there was a Picture of Pike standing in front of a Public Lynching of a Black Man - now that THAT would be a different story!

I doubt these sort of folks who live for trying to Smear FreeMasonry - in any way possible - could ever come up with such a thing! Like I said Pike may or may not have been a Racist - but using "Racial Superiority" as a Justification for Murder (or Genocide as the Nazi's did) is DEF a different story!!!

Has anybody considered that the KKK might have DEVOLVED into a bunch of Racist Illiterate Rednecks - but could have started as something else all together? Could it have started as a Legitimate Society that was then later Hijacked by Extremists?

On second thought (after firing up PhotoShop & examining that pic) - this Picture looks as if it might have been Doctored! First of all why are there FOUR "K" on the bottom? What does it say on the Bottom? The "Albert Pike" on the Top could have been EASILY pasted in there!

Secondly there is a Hood attached to the Waist section of the Robe - That looks as if a Face was draw on there with the Photoshop Pencil Tool (supposed to represent the Cut outs so that a Person could See through the hood huh - you sneaky devil!). The Hood could have easily been pasted into the Photo as well! Heck the Banner & the Robe could have been Spliced together from two different photo's even!

Were did you get that Picture from again "eudaimonia"? Do you know the guy who did the "Lee Harvey Oswald" photo's as well by chance?

Also who was it that said that they believed in "Devils" again? Your Credibility is quickly approaching ZERO - but nice try!


[edit on 16-7-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 16-7-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

The indisputable truth comes out...



I have a picture... I see no way that eudaimonia can deny this truth...

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
First of all why are there FOUR "K" on the bottom?

Knights of the Ku Klux Klan

Well, EVERY Klansman claims to be a god fearing christian, so take that as you will. There are more Christian Klansmen, than Freemason Klansmen ( Freemasonry is not a religion, but used here for comparison)

Originally posted by wiggy
Well, EVERY Klansman claims to be a god fearing christian, so take that as you will. There are more Christian Klansmen, than Freemason Klansmen ( Freemasonry is not a religion, but used here for comparison)

Indeed. The Ku Klux Klan is part of the so-called "Christian Identity" movement, and they, like their Fascist forefathers, are heavily anti-Masonic and are conspiracy theorists. Klan literature (as well as the lit of other hate groups) are heavily sprinkled with references to the "Illuminati", "new world order", etc., which of course they attempt to associate with non-WASPS.

Interestingly, most of the people who claim that Pike was some sort of satanist are also the ones who claim he was a Klansman. It is terribly obvious that this is contradictory, being that the Klan is a Christian-only organization.

Lastly, even if Pike had been an early officer or member in the Klan, that would prove nothing. What these anti-Pike people are using to deceive others with is in their failing to elborate on the original Klan, which was just an ordinary fraternity. Once some in the rank and file membership became violent and primarily racist, Nathan Bedford Forrest disbanded the organization, and all of its original leaders, who were respectable gentlemen, resigned in protest of such violence. The various Klans that exist today have no historical connection to the original, and the original leaders, whether or not Pike was included, realized that a monster had been created, and tried their best to remedy it.

[edit on 16-7-2005 by Masonic Light]