Masons and the NWO: The Darker Soul

Ah, but I have more negative things to say about Freemasonry than you might think! The fraternity is not perfect, it has MANY flaws, and the brethren have even more! BUT the negative points of Freemasonry are NOTHING like what you people accuse the Craft of!

If you want to see Freemasons, including me, complain about the down side of the fraternity, visit www.thelodgeroom.com... and read some of the threads in there. It is a forum for masons by masons, and will give you a pretty damn accurate description of what life is like behind the closed doors of the lodge. The whiny masons on that forum have no problem condeming Freemasonry of the REAL negative parts of the Craft.

If you're still willing to accuse Freemasonry of what you do AFTER that, then I dont know what else to say to you.



That's not evidence. MANY people here seem to think that just because it has been written in a book, or posted on a prettyt website, that it is FACT... but that is as ignorant as the claims themselves! I have NEVER seen a legitimate, solid piece of evidence to back up the claims made against Freemasonry on this forum! I am not exaggerating, I am not being blind, I have NEVER seen such evidence (and I have asked for it MANY times!)



Actually, among college students (and even highschoolers nowadays with all the information available on the internet) there is indeed a standard criteria of methodology for researching, referencing and giving credit to the sources of your materials. Conspiracy theory is severely lacking in this department, but seems to think that rumor, heresay and circumstance is a viable alternative.



I don't know what you say you saw, and I don't know what may have caused it, but I, and most of the brethren on this forum, have been masons long enough to know what does and what does not happen on a regular basis within the fraternity.

He was just giving you a taste of your own medicine, and did a good job at it. We are all equal here. Therefore, what is enough to condemn a group of masons should be enough to condemn anyone else. By your logic, I can accuse you of being a murderer, show that you have no way of proving me wrong and pass judgement based on that alone. Sound reasonable?

I don't think he expected you to get the point, of course; you would never think that your methods of judgement are flawed or incorrect. But it doesn't seem so great to be on the other side, does it?

Actually it is.




On that I would agree with you. But nowhere did I say anything about any charges for or against Masonry being facts. In fact,I specifically said I've not researched the matter enough to say either way.




The legitimacy of the evidence will naturally be subjective. What you may not find legitimate another my find damning. It depends on the individual.







And there are books and writings that speak of a malevolent side to Masonry that do all three of these things. So obviously it's still subject to the individual's choice to believe it or not.






I'm sure you do. Nevertheless,that doesn't in any way change what I was a witness to.





Actually what he did was attempt a rather blatant strawman argument. Which is why he purposely skipped the bulk of my actual quotes and fabricated a stance of his own creation to argue against that instead. If you think he did such a good job,then you're free to try what he couldn't do:which is find anything in any of my posts where I condemned Masonry of any of the conspiracy charges. And I mean show the actual quote,not create a strawman.




[edit on 16-8-2005 by Loungerist]

originally posted by sebatwerk


I am trying to get across the point that, though there are masons, and lodges including all members that are engaged in completely respectable and legal doings, there is a certain sect of the masons that is connected with the Illuminati and the New World Order. Because of these connections to the Globalist Movement, those freemasons who are using their craft for selfish purposes are perhaps not true Masonic Brothers in the sense that they are committing acts that go against true masonic principles.

It is unlikely that the [Grand Poobah] of your fraternity is unaware of these masons and lodges that undertake unscrupulous tasks. I suppose it is possible for a lodge to be able to choose, through its leadership, what sorts of functions a given lodge would endorse. The one thing that I keep hearing from the masonic point of view is that there simply is no masonic connection to the New World Order. But how can someone continually see arguments stating that there is a connection, and not entertain the possibility?

I do know that it is a matter of history that a man named Adam Weishaupt started a fraternal order that came to be known as the Illuminati. Part of the History of the Illuminati is revealed when reading the history of the Jesuits. Another part is made known just by simply reading material written by famous masons- ie; Manly et al. Albert Pike is another notable author that comprises yet another thread where the fabric of all these matters is woven into this absurd quilt. So it's through the words of other masons that it is learned that the occultism, secrecy, and ritual that is practiced by the Illuminati was carbon-copied from masonic tomes. Adam Weishaupt wanted a New World Order. HE is the culprit that took Feemasonry's framework and shored-up the foundation of his Illuminati.

Again, it isn't that the Illuminati is a masonic organization... rather, the Illuminati is an organization that uses masonic-inspired practices to extract a convoluted, aggressive method of attempting to dominate the world. There remains within the Illuminati a need for the occult-power that hastens the coming of the NWO. This is where the powerful master-masons, but only those with lust for power, who break away from the good side of freemasonry, are an asset to the global-domination cause. These masons are adept at many techniques that can both expediate untidy tasks, and help to influence others, including fellow-masons, to break away and to influence new recruits to perform without questioning orders from above.

Those who are involved in unselfish deeds, and merely use the occultism of masonry as decorative tradition and ceremonious custom are not involved in the Illuminati. But those masons, or former-masons, who have sided with criminal conspirators to wreak havoc upon the citizenry, to effect a one-government control of wealth and power, and to engage in subterfuge that makes secret handshakes seem very harmless, are not doing anyone any good, least of all the freemasons.

So, the claim is made that I know nothing about freemasonry. I know as much as a person can know, and not be a member of the masononic order. I believe that I am being cautious in my analysis. Careful study reveals that there is also a breed of mason whose function is to perpetuate the idea that freemasonry is a wholly benevolent organization. This is due to either a) the disagreeing mason believing I am mistaken about the masons, or b) the disagreeing mason is purposefully trying to throw a smokescreen around the truth.

Sect implies an organised or quasi-organised sub-group within freemasonry - would this be correct? Do you have any feel for how this 'sect' might operate within freemasonry? How might this group pevert freemasonry for its own ends?


I would suggest to you that structurally freemasonry in utterly incapable of nurturing a movement that is so diametrically opposed to its stated aims, and manage to keep it quiet.


Can you comment on why these 'masons' would so blatently and carelessly break their obligation in this way. Surely it would be easier to chose an organisation where members don't take a specific vow to uphold the law.


I have no doubt that you believe you understand freemasonry. But every freemason on this thread has told you (in so many words) that you have misunderstood freemasonry. Had you been taught to be cautious you would not make so many unprovable claims


There is no role as described. Freemasons will explain how their organisation works to anyone prepared to listen.


Or, (c) because it really is a wholly benevolent society.

Dave

I can't help feeling that much of the suspicion about freemasonry revolves around the fact that (a) it is perceived as being 'secret', and (b) freemasons take oaths to protect their fellow freemason against... well... pretty much anything. Once these misconceptions are stripped away I believe we will start getting to the bottom of things.

However despite my attempts to get dialogs going on these, and other specific masonic issues, so far no-one has taken me up on it.

Actually I feel a new thread coming on...

I think one of the major problems here is that the original poster lacks historical knowledge of the Illuminati, and, for some reason, has just assumed that the conspiracy theorists' views on them are correct.

The stuff about the Illuminati trying to build a "new world order" or whatever, is simply the result of Jesuit propaganda. The Catholic clergy controlled the Bavarian government at the time, and the result was a united church/state dictatorship. The goal of the Illuminati was to overthrow the Jesuit Electorate, and set up a liberal democracy in its place. They patterned their methods and goals after the American revolution, which gave them their inspiration.

After only a very short time, the Illuminati was infiltrated by government spies, and many of its members were either arrested or fled into exile. Because the average guy in the street was less than super intelligent, the government knew it could dupe them through an anti-liberal, anti-illuminati hoax. The Jesuits began launching propaganda that the illuminati wanted to take over the world, abolish religion, that sort of thing. And since the members of the Illuminati could not defend themselves, the populace bought it hook, line, and sinker, just as conspiracy theorists today still do.

Demonizing and scapegoating opponents is a powerful method of controlling people, and the fathers of the modern conspiracy theory understood this quite well. Fear is often more powerful than reason, and if the author of conspiracy theory can strike fear into people, he can gain converts. This sort of mentality reached its zenith in Nazi Germany, where a regime of fanatical conspiracy theorists turned the entire world into a bloodbath.

When the Illuminati called for separation of church and states, the Church accused them of trying to abolish religion. When the Illuminati called for equal rights for women, the Church accused them of trying to destroy the family. When the Illuminati called for open, peaceful relations between nations, the Church accused them of seeking global domination.

In other words, the Church saw its own ultimate authority being threatened, and was willing to hold onto its power by inventing conspiracy theories in order to scare people into submission. Ironically, the Illuminati, who had strived to establish liberty, were viewed as devils, while the Church, who intended to keep its subjects in chains, were seen as saviours.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Masonic Light]

originally posted by sabatwerk


You should try to believe that a person such as myself is capable of retaining knowledge that they have gathered over many years. I have been reading material on these subjects for so many years. I just have come to certain conclusions regarding the Global-Domination movement.

You continue to ask for proof. Have you not read the works of PIKE and others who laid out the designs for the very fraternity of which you are a member? These books, written by the founders of the Masons are in wide-circulation.

To me, the things I am posting about are the way I see them, after doing a lot of reading. When a person has tons of stuff on a subject, it is difficult to come up with exact quotes from the sources. I am going to go over some of the old books, and I will try to provide any hard-source that I can, IF that is the source of my knowledge.

Contray to what you may believe about my motives or methods, I am not getting any of this information from any particular web-sites, nor am I constantly surfing-the-web, trying to find bad stuff on freemasonry. I did go to a few sites lately; for example, I was not sure of the spelling of Weishaupt... should I cite a source when I am just looking into dates and proper spellings? Actually, I do go to Wikipedia a lot just for basic facts and spellings.

The importance of correct spelling should never be overlooked. In a recent post, I was set-straight on the word plagarism. I had spelled this extremely significant word as "plagerism, and the person who thankfully saved me from the abyss of incorrectness used it as an example of my defective knowledge. It was revealing about that particualr responder (name slips me, it is in a previous post on this thread) that they could not wrap their head around the concept of a typo. Instead, they used it to belittle me on a personal level. That is that particular members M-O, it appears.

I will try to come with a page-number somewhere on something that infected me with the magick of knowledge.

Also, consider that your constant nit-picking at all these historical points could, in time, paint a picture of someone who has no thoughts of their own on certain matters, and they are content to dissect others' posts for typos an to repsond with challenges to their knowledge. Suffice it to say that each of your repsonses to me have not offered any new defenses, and your implications that I am completely " ridiculous" in my views, makes me feel that you are not in the least bit open-minded about resonable challenges to your secrect-society, the Freemasons.

But that is all part of this very thin smokescreen that dissenters to my views continue to attempt, in spite of the winds that are taking that smoke and making it quite transparent.

How could an American Masonic author (Albert Pike) born in 1809 be a founder of a fraternity that revealed itself in 1717 in England?

Maybe you don't know as much as you think you do.

Chronological Monkeys, not just for the space time continuum anymore...

I assume that many of the texts I have read, many of which are written by the likes of Albert Pike and Manly Hall are just books of evil-masonic fallacies.

originally posted by Masonic Light


Would I be obtuse to ask a MASON to provide a source, or should I assume that this is knowledge that you feel is part of your memories?



So you are telling the Illumminati itself has been the victim of lies that shortened its life as an organization?

Why then, is it any different that another group ( masons) would launch propaganda that discredit people who claim that knowledge of their occult, Illuminati, and New World Order connections is a very real thing that exists, and is currently still an active plan for World Domination.

The word hypocritical comes to mind. Other terms come to mind too. But the rules of ATS clearly prohibit profane language.

I hope it doesn't doesn't hurt the credibility you have so plainly yet 'poeticly' earned but I gotta say I love your style Dave. If you ever write a book I'd love to read it.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me


Perhaps you and others like you are not aware that Albert Pike is the Father of the Modern Masonic Order. He wrote your RULES, the ones you apply as vigorously as ANY religious group applies their OWN RULES. Your buddy Pike is also credited with the creation of the Ku Klux Klan.

I know as much as I know, and I am learning more and more about how responding Masons like yourself are into the dissection of others' posts with the intent of citing nit-picky items to divert attention from the true point of the post. The POINT is... freemasonry is completely culpable in the New World Order's plans for world-domination.

Your claims to the contrary, as usual, lack the proof that you and like-minded smoke-screeners are so desperate for members like me to provide.

Your regurgitation of Albert Pike myths are indicative of you ignorance, and your reliance on anti-Masonic sites is demonstrated by this undue focus on Albert Pike.

Albert Pike was the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction (SRSJ), a concordant body, and not actually Freemasonry. He was a Confederate General, but your assertion that he created the Klu Klux Klan has been dispelled countless times before, and I attribute this remark as an attempt by you to that mask the inadequacies of your previous statements. Albert Pike didn’t control, organize, or found any aspect of Freemasonry, and was only of consequence to the body he was elected to govern, the SRSJ. The SRSJ is only relevant within it’s own confines, and has no bearing on Freemasonry throughout the world. Morals & Dogma is a fantastic work, but by no means is it recognized by any Masonic body as an official publication, or manual, not even the SRSJ.

Links to refute your inept accusation:

freemasonry.bcy.ca...

www.masonicinfo.com...

Freemasonry (not to be mistaken for your "Modern Masonic Order" which only exists in your imagination) cannot be controlled or spoken for by any one individual, nor can it be subverted to participate in you ill contrived fantasies. Each Grand Lodge is sovereign, and it's leadership changes each year (by an electoral process), thereby eliminating the possibility of your claims of control, or single authorship of rules, much less universal acceptance and enforcement. The rules of Freemasonry are based upon the Ancient Masonic Landmarks, The Ancient Charges, and The Old Regulations, none of which were written by Albert Pike, and which predate him, once again, so much for your "Modern Masonic Order." You have demonstrated time and time again your flawed “knowledge,” which you are resigned to dismiss it as the “nitpicky-ness” of the Masons (which of course, can be nowhere near as well informed as you), and I can only expect another round of convoluted claims and barely cogent accusations.

SRSJ Monkeys, not just for the Royal Secret anymore…

originally posted by Trintyman


The higher ranking masons, the 33rd degree masons, are privvy to many things that the lower-masons are completely niave about. Either you are one of the niave, or you are part of the network that is trying to perpetuate spurious notions about this secret-scociety, the masons.

originally posted by Dave Ravin


originally posted by Trintyman


Yes, true, I have been told in LOTS of words (all eerily repetitive) that I have misunderstood freemasonry. But you fail to provide anything other than your own assertions that freemasonry is a pure, charitable organization.

originally posted by Dave Ravin


originally posted by Trintyman


According to the works of Albert Pike, the success of the Masonic Order is dependent on a number of lower-ranking masons professing that the fraternity is merely an innocuos brotherhood that happens to use clever handshakes, and other harmless rituals, all in the name of comraderie and to engage in civic accomplishments designed to better theirs respective communities... but it is easy for them to 'convince' others, because the higher-ups have kept them in the dark about many things. It is no accident that those of you that are very low on the masonic totem-pole truly believe what you are claiming about freemasonry's virtues. So, perhaps you would explore that possibility, since apparently legions of well-intentioned masons are being mislead, in fact outright hoodwinked by the leaders of their precious fraternity.

Originally posted by Dave Ravin


Originally poted by Trinityman


The suspicion arises from repeated denials form masons that there is remotely anything that is unscrupulous about freemasonry. I would love to hear some explanations from some masons about what exactly the occultism of freemasonry is all about. I would also like to hear a good argument against the symbols of Masonic Order being on our paper money as it is excruciatingly obvious to us non-masons that those are masonic symbols.

Also your claim that masons are not subject to reprimand by superior masons for revealing the truth about the oaths you take, and the inner-goings-on of the proceedings is not very convincing. The way I read it, as per the oaths you swear to--- any of you who reveal anything substantial about freemasonry have the penalty of death with which to contend.

It has been asserted by several masons that freemasonry is 'not very' secretive. Well, Albert Pike would very much not like those of you who would utter these sacred secrets, so since HE is the guy that wrote your bible, it makes sense that you are honoring his intentions by continuing to deny what many of us have come to see as the simple truth of the matter.

Hi Dave


Your knowldge is incomplete. There is no relationship between the progression in a Side Order (A&AR, Scottish Rite) and the senior freemasons in Craft Masonry who make all the decisions. They are two entirely seperate organisations.

Furthermore the A&AR is nothing like as widespread in the UK as it is in the US. There must be millions of 32 degree masons in the US and a few hundred in the UK.

Senior freemasons administrate the Craft. The is no additional esoteric knowledge available to them.

I can assure you I am neither niaive or part of a conspiracy. I am a freemason of many years standing who understands well the organisation of which he is a member.



I have posted much information to this end. What would you regard as 'proof'?


I do not believe Albert Pike said any such thing, but as I practice my freemasonry outside of the US I know very little about Albert Pike except what I see on the net. I think I ought to defer to other US masons who might be able to answer this better.

One thing I will say about Pike, is that he is far greater an influence on masonic critics than he ever has been on freemasonry. 99% of English freemasons have never even heard of him. He is not a leader of the fraternity.


Some freemasons are very interested in the occult and I hope one of them will be along presently to assist.


The symbols to which you are referring are not exclusively masonic, but can be found in masonry as well as a number of other places. I would be interested in any exclusively masonic symbols on your currency (square and compass, level, plumb rule, etc).


Isn't it? Perhaps you could explain to me what would convince you. I'm still here... having escaped the clutches of the evil 33 degree masons again


Please read my seperate thread about masonic obligations. The real penalties are outlined in full. I suggest you purchase a masonic ritual book to see for yourself. As I have repeated before, there are a number of ex-masons around revealing quite a lot about the fraternity and generally breaking their obligation. But no deaths... unless you know something I don't.


Your 'piece de resistance' of ignorance places Albert Pike at the top of a mythical masonic structure. I don't blame you for any of this - you have picked it up from a number of ill-informed conspiracy and religious sites, some of which may have books for sale.

The Truth is somewhat different from this fiction, and although it may not necessarily set you free as such, it will certainly enable you to place freemasonry in its proper perspective.

I agree with you that these are 2 major reasons behind the suspicion toward Masons. But I strongly disagree that these are mere misconceptions. There is much secrecy in Masonry. You can say this is not official or what have you,but it's undeniably there. So (a) will never dissolve until this dissolves. As for (b),I think it's immediately visible that Masons defend other Masons well beyond the point of objectivity and at times credibility. You can argue that this is subjective,but I have little doubt most non-Masons or non-aspiring Masons would reach this conclusion as well after seeing some of the discussions.


Nothing may be inherently evil or illegal with either of these things,but they do understandably create suspicion.



Well,you're having a dialogue on it now. But since I've seen both of these things to be true I would imagine others in contact with Masons have too. So it would be very difficult if at all possible to write these off as misconceptions.

So you keep saying. Please be more specific.

As I said earlier,specifically,husbands not even telling their own wives what goes on in their meetings. Masons reprimanding a brother for speaking of their activities to non-Masons. You say this is not official(though you also say each lodge has different rules,which clouds that statement),but the fact remains that the secrecy is there for whatever reason. And behavior that extreme will always garner suspicion.

[edit on 17-8-2005 by Loungerist]

That's up to them. Some jurisdictions like to keep the content of their meetings more private than others, but there is nothing anywhere that stops a freemason explaining in broad terms what a meeting is about. Maybe he doesn't want his wife to know for other reasons?


This is not official, and there would be no formal reprimand. If one freemason has a personal opinion that we are being too open and shares that with others that isn't the same thing.

The fact remains that different freemasons have differing views about how much should remain secret and how much should be formally placed in the public domain. That's not the same as the society itself being secret.

Have a read of www.grandlodge-england.org...


Freemasons who act 'suspiciously' don't do us any favors in this regard, but in my country this is not a crime.

I ask you again... where is the secrecy?

I'd be very interested in hearing exactly what you find "evil" in the books of the abovementioned authors. I've seriously studied Pike's works for years, and am quite familiar with them. As for Hall, even though he wrote most of his books a long time before he himself became a Mason, and therefore they contain many factual errors due to the fact that he relied on hearsay, I've certainly never found anything "evil" in them. I had the good fortune to know Brother Hall personally, and can honestly say that if more people were as kind and generous as he, the world would be a much better place.



The sources aren't difficult to find, practically any history book on the Enlightenment in Europe is chock full of information. I would suggest "Rousseau and Revolution", which is Volume 8 (I think) in the Durants' "History of Western Civilization" as well as "Europe: A History" by Norman Davies, and, if you want it straight from the horse's mouth, "In Defense of Illuminism" by Adam Weishaupt, the last of which was written in order to dispell the myths about the organization.



It seems like you are surprised to hear this. I don't mean to be rude by calling your scholarship credentials into question, but this stuff has been scrutinized by historians for 300 years, and pretty much all of them who were unbiased reached the same conclusion. Even the online Roman Catholic encyclopedia admits that most of the propaganda against the Illuminati was nonsense.

www.newadvent.org...

The secular encyclopedia entry is even less biased:

en.wikipedia.org...



Because such claims are unfounded, and have no factual basis. In short, it is generally either a case of paranoia, or a wilfull attempt to deceive the gullible through fear-mongering.

Because their wives are not Masons.







If you want to say the society isn't secret,just the members that the society is composed of are,then you're free to do so. It's semantic at this point. But the end result remains the same:a society of people acting vehemently in secret from those who are not members. Which according to my view,the encyclopedia,and wikipedia,is the very definition of a secret society.




It's not a crime. Neither is being extremely wary of a group of people like this.