Freemasons and politics

For those who don't know and if someone already posted this (or if it was common knowledge)... sorry.
Here's a list of US presidents who were masons:

-George Washington, Fredericksburg Lodge No. 4; Alexandria Lodge No. 22, VA
-James Monroe, Williamsburgh Lodge No. 6, VA
-Andrew Jackson, Harmony Lodge No. 1; Past Grand Master of Tennessee.
-James K. Polk, Columbia Lodge No. 31, TN
-James Buchanan, Past Master of Lancaster Lodge No. 43, Lancaster, PA; Past District Deputy Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania
-Andrew Johnson, Greenville Lodge No. 119, TN
-James A. Garfield, Magnolia Lodge No. 20, OH
-William McKinley, Hiram Lodge No. 21, VA
-Theodore Roosevelt, Matinecock Lodge No. 806, Oyster Bay, NY
-William Howard Taft, "Mason at sight"; affiliated Kilwinning Lodge No. 356, OH
-Warren G. Harding, Marion Lodge No. 70, OH
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Holland Lodge No. 8, NY
-Harry S Truman, 33° Belton Lodge No. 450, Belton, MO; Past Grand Master of Missouri
-Gerald Ford Columbia Lodge No. 3, Washington, DC, courtesy to Malta Lodge No. 465, Grand Rapids, MI

I just presented the list for those masons/people who want to bash me with anything ranging from insults to harassment... I'm not picking any sides.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by The_unraveller]

Originally posted by Roark
How exactly is Freemasonry controlled by the "real" Illuminati, when each Lodge and Grand Lodge is led independently by elected officials?

Controlled in what way? What are the Freemasons made to do exactly in the capacity of minions of the "real" Illuminati?

How can your referenced organization be the "real" Illuminati, when Weishaupt's original Illuminati first bore the name and brought it into common parlance? Especially when we have historical evidence of the latter existing, but not the former.
(...)

It seems Vatican is behind most of them, more precisely Jesuits. Illuminati was always a Jesuit operation. Check links/videos from this thread. I am not saying they are 100% responsible, but some of the things stated make perfect sense.

It "seems"? How exactly does it "seem" that the Vatican is behind it all?

Because that Geocities website says so??? I can make a website which says that Africa's heads of state all report directly to a sockpuppet I keep under my bed, and I can draw up an organisational chart depicting this, but it doesn't make it true.

I'm sorry, my friend, but I fail to understand what the Vatican has to gain from establishing the "real Illuminati" which is supposedly a satanic organisation (according to the website). Isn't that in direct contravention to its articles of faith? Or is the charity and righteousness thing just a cover up, and only the top Catholics/Jesuits know about the real "satanic" agenda? The whole things is frankly counter-intuitive.

Once again, how do the Freemasons serve in this grand caper? How are they controlled (without knowing about it), and what are they commanded to do? Give to the poor?

Originally posted by Roark
It "seems"? How exactly does it "seem" that the Vatican is behind it all?
(...)

By analyzing provided information, it seems they are involved and behind a lot of stuff happening. Check the videos, sites and Google a bit, if you are interested. Also it makes sense since they had most power in past centuries, so why abandon it all now anyway.

Another long wait for a reply from me KT - sorry about that.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
My point is though, dragging myself back to the title of the thread, is that the involvement in politics does not have to be overt. Influence can be exercised through shear numbers and the elevated social position of those involved. If a group that is responsible for social policy contains a disproportionate amount of people of a certain mind-set then they will have undue influence. Though fairly mundane to most minds this is to me still a political conspiracy, whether it is circumstantial or planned.

I can see where you are coming from with this, and as you describe it freemasonry has certainly influenced millions of men throughout the years, almost invariably IMO for the better. However, with specific reference to political thinking, the revolutionary concepts of 18th century freemasonry has given way to conservatism, as society has 'caught up' with the Craft. But without any form of ideology, and with the broad maxim of 'be the best you can be', freemasonry will influence each man differently in his own chosen direction. Freemasons span the political spectrum and have as diverse opinions as freemasons as they did before their membership.

To conspire is to actively influence, freemasonry has no such aspiration. And despite the obvious involvement of many prominent freemasons in the Revolutionary War, freemasonry itself played no part. No Grand Lodge ever has, or ever will, give a political opinion. They are constitutionally incapable of such a thing - if they did they would cease to be masonic.

I would add though that given some of the alternatives, it could have been far worse for the colonies, as indeed it was for those who were conquered by some of the other Imperialist powers.

IMPO given the way the US has developed, freedom from the fledgling British Empire was the best thing that could have happened to 'the colonies', and by extension to the world at large. And as it turned out it wasn't such a bad thing for Britain either!

Originally posted by The_unraveller
I just presented the list for those masons/people who want to bash me with anything ranging from insults to harassment... I'm not picking any sides.

No bashing from me unraveller, that's probably the most accurate list of masonic US presidents posted on ATS by a non-mason.

Originally posted by sb2012

Originally posted by Roark
It "seems"? How exactly does it "seem" that the Vatican is behind it all?
(...)

By analyzing provided information, it seems they are involved and behind a lot of stuff happening. Check the videos, sites and Google a bit, if you are interested. Also it makes sense since they had most power in past centuries, so why abandon it all now anyway.

By analyzing just one (narrow) viewpoint, sb, you are always going to come to a skewed conclusion. Freemasonry evolved in a disparate and complex manner. There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests it was orchestrated, although intriguing possibilities exist for the integration of Templar remnants in some Scottish lodges.

The Church had nothing to do with it. Some lodges no doubt contained people with Jacobite tendencies but that's not quite the same thing. If you want to bring up some specifics from this website you refer to I'd be happy to discuss them with you.

Originally posted by Trinityman
Another long wait for a reply from me KT - sorry about that.

No problem Trinityman - we all have differing time constraints - at least you have taken the time and it is that that I appreciate.

Originally posted by Trinityman
To conspire is to actively influence, freemasonry has no such aspiration. And despite the obvious involvement of many prominent freemasons in the Revolutionary War, freemasonry itself played no part. No Grand Lodge ever has, or ever will, give a political opinion. They are constitutionally incapable of such a thing - if they did they would cease to be masonic.

You are of course right. I fail to see, no matter how hard I look, any 'active' conspiracy. There is simply the repetition of the like minded and this in itself is relatively benign.

What is interesting is the transistion from 'radical' to conservative or conformist would be my choice of words. I am particularly interested in the events in Nazi Germany and the expressions of conformity to that regime - but then I am most interested in Nazi Germany generally. This very much flies in the face of any supposed involvement that the Freemasons may have had in the 'Illuminati', unless some former members wished to cover up their involvement with the fraternity....but that is another story.

I think that more than anything the fraternity has been from time to time utilised by others for more neferious means, while some may have been uncovered quickly others have not. Unfortunately this seems to have tarred everyone with the same brush.

Originally posted by Trinityman
...wasn't such a bad thing for Britain either!

Seems some in government and military still have difficulty in letting go though, even after all this time and still insist on playing Mummy to their former wards.

All the best

Originally posted by Trinityman
...although intriguing possibilities exist for the integration of Templar remnants in some Scottish lodges.

Me again.

There are some pretty intriguing links here in York too. Would love to discuss this if you are willing as I do not even pretend to know the significance, but even as an outsider I can see similarities between the practices. I haven't as yet got hold of the book you recommended and this may answer my questions but in the meantime can you fill me in as to the significance of York to Freemasonry?

Many thanks

Originally posted by Trinityman
No bashing from me unraveller, that's probably the most accurate list of masonic US presidents posted on ATS by a non-mason.

Thanks

I thought of becoming a mason but I don't know if I am able to join them ( I don't know if I meet the prerequisites). I have no quarrel with masons and as far as I have read about them (not the conspiracy bs) it sounds like a nice... "club"/thing (I don't know what to call it exactly). People help each other out, and I kind of like masonry.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
No problem Trinityman - we all have differing time constraints - at least you have taken the time and it is that that I appreciate.

What is interesting is the transistion from 'radical' to conservative or conformist would be my choice of words. I am particularly interested in the events in Nazi Germany and the expressions of conformity to that regime - but then I am most interested in Nazi Germany generally.

I'm not a great expert on freemasonry in Germany during WWII, I'm sorry to say. I have heard speculation that freemasonry colluded with the Nazis, but I suspect they mean to say 'freemasons' rather than 'freemasonry'. (There is quite a difference between the two which many seem to miss)

I think it's hard for us now to appreciate the horror of living in Germany in the late 30s and early 40s - normal people would have done what they had to do to ensure their survival and the survival of their families. Nothing for humanity to be proud of, I'm sure.

Freemasons are a product of the culture that they come from. English freemasons are quite different to Italian freemasons and both are different to freemasons from the Southern States of the USA. The culture of the region drives the culture of the lodge, sounds obvious but you'd be surprised how some people think freemasons are a breed apart - divorced from reality if you like. Freemasons in mid-20th century Germany would have been exactly the same.

It's worth mentioning though, that as freemasons are expected to obey the law of the land in which they are based, many GLs in Germany chose to shut down rather than "pledge allegiance" to the Nazi regime.

There's an interesting story about what the Nazis did to the masonic temple in Jersey, which can be read here

I think that more than anything the fraternity has been from time to time utilised by others for more neferious means, while some may have been uncovered quickly others have not. Unfortunately this seems to have tarred everyone with the same brush.

I don't personally think this has happened in any organized fashion since the jacobites of the 18th century. However on an ad-hoc basis there are any number of people who have joined freemasonry because they think it will gain them some sort of advantage in business dealings, etc. They tend not to last long.

Originally posted by Trinityman


I'm not a great expert on freemasonry in Germany during WWII, I'm sorry to say. I have heard speculation that freemasonry colluded with the Nazis, but I suspect they mean to say 'freemasons' rather than 'freemasonry'. (There is quite a difference between the two which many seem to miss)

Some Freemasons went over to the Nazi side, and renounced their Masonic membership. These men then formed a pro-Nazi, anti-Masonic group called the Christian Society of Frederick the Great. It was based on the lie that Frederick had renounced his Masonic membership later in life (when in fact, he was alsways a proud Mason, and was buried with Masonic honors).

The Masonic lodges were then outlawed, and Freemasons who did not renounce their membership were subject to arrest and imprisonment (and in a few cases, even execution).

The traitors who renounced their Masonry didn't fare much better. Only a couple of years later, the Nazis suppressed the Frederick Society, expelled their members from the Nazi Party, and arrested their leaders.

Originally posted by Trinityman
I have heard speculation that freemasonry colluded with the Nazis, but I suspect they mean to say 'freemasons' rather than 'freemasonry'.

I think there was a bit too much talk of colluding and general finger pointing after the war and very little understanding of the very hard choices some people had to make and I agree with your distinction.

Originally posted by Trinityman
I think it's hard for us now to appreciate the horror of living in Germany in the late 30s and early 40s - normal people would have done what they had to do to ensure their survival and the survival of their families.

“There but for the grace of god go I.” Those of us who have always lived in (relative) freedom are in no position to judge in my opinion.

Originally posted by Trinityman
It's worth mentioning though, that as freemasons are expected to obey the law of the land in which they are based, many GLs in Germany chose to shut down rather than "pledge allegiance" to the Nazi regime.

I believe that most of the Humanitarian Lodges disbanded rather than ban their Jewish Brothers, there were a few exceptions, the Old Prussians on the other hand attempted to carry on, making compromise after compromise, as I understand it they were predominantly christian in the first place, although the two Lodges did interact. Both Lodges also severed relations with the British Lodges on Nazis orders. They cannot therefore be accused of disobeying the law of the land.

The reasons why the Nazis persecuted the Freemasons remains at best, ambiguous.
Unfortunately I have found that the in depth studies are all in German so useless to me and I have only read one detailed article on the subject in English.

Originally posted by Trinityman
There's an interesting story about what the Nazis did to the masonic temple in Jersey, which can be read here

Much of the persecution exacted by the SS was motivated by financial gain, they were scavengers who let nothing go to waste. Combined with the value of the Freemasons as expendable skilled workers for his industrial concerns, Himmler would have been convinced that it was a sound move to carry the persecution all the way through. Himmler would also have been keen to get his hands on any esoterica from the sackings. He is said to have a very strange collection of items in the attic of his mistresses house according to Martin Bormann Jnr.

Incidently I didn’t mean to give the impression that I am only interested in Nazi Germany, more that I can be a bore when it comes to that period. I am still keen to know more of the origins of freemasonry and particularly the history with York. Given the significance of York to the politics of the country at that time, I am sure we can muster some vague connection to the OP….

I found this – which I have to say takes us back to the relationship between freemasonry and the church. This raises further questions for me and I certainly can see a more direct connection to the Templars than I first envisaged. I'd be very interested in your opinion on this.

www.grandlodgeofallengland.org...

The Freemasons aren't some evil organization built on world domination. So what if they're involved in politics? so is the AARP and I don't think they're trying to take over the world either. As a matter of fact, if you really think something mysterious is going on inside the organization, why don't you join and find out? My local paper recently had an article about the Freemasons stating that they are starting a membership drive.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I found this – which I have to say takes us back to the relationship between freemasonry and the church. This raises further questions for me and I certainly can see a more direct connection to the Templars than I first envisaged. I'd be very interested in your opinion on this.

www.grandlodgeofallengland.org...

Heh. Can't be more than about 10 people in that particular Grand Lodge

From the presence of operative masons at the building of York Minster, through to much evidence of early speculative masonry at the end of the C17th and early C18th, freemasonry and York have long been connected.

The Regius Manuscript (1390) notes a meeting of masons at York in 925AD, presided over by Prince Edwin. This may be the earliest mentioning of masons in any document, operative or otherwise. There's an interesting article about this here.

There was a Grand Lodge at York for some years in the C18th, in fact it is this Grand Lodge that a small independent group of masons seeks to emulate (re your link). There are a couple of independent breakaway Grand Lodges in England, espousing a 'back to basics' approach for freemasonry, but I seriously doubt more than 50 people are involved in total across all of them .

The oldest active masonic lodge in York these days is York Lodge No. 236. Although entering the Modern's Grand Lodge register in 1777, the lodge is significantly older than that and is likely IMO to predate organized freemasonry in England. It was a part of the original Grand Lodge of All England in York.

Sorry, I'm rambling and I suspect we've gone pretty far off topic already . u2u me if you would like some more links to York masonry and I'll see what I can come up with.

Originally posted by Trinityman
Heh. Can't be more than about 10 people in that particular Grand Lodge

Their Grandmasters' building firm went into receivership at the beginning of this year which flies in the face of any percieved advantages to be gained from membership, though I doubt that it will have effected on a personal level - given the nature of the construction business in York and its lack of morals perhaps freemasonry actually acted against him - just not cut-throat enough. (Just a bit of local gossip there).

Originally posted by Trinityman
From the presence of operative masons at the building of York Minster, through to much evidence of early speculative masonry at the end of the C17th and early C18th, freemasonry and York have long been connected.

I was reading through the Grand Lodge of All England website and there is some very interesting tit-bits and some very, very interesting past Grand masters which hint at a highly politicised history. If even half of the names on that list are true, then these Freemasons were highly embroiled in the political intrigues of England - not to mention the machination of the Roman Church. I need to do a little cross-referencing but to say that I am intrigued is an understatement.

Obviously the Freemasons have evolved but I can see some contradictions with the modern constitution. The past Grandmaster of the All England lodge certainly did not always obey the law of the land, and in many cases can be described as having been involved in internecine plots and interference of the Church in English affairs. This does have some implication on what Feemasonry may have been representive of in its earliest origins and what service it provided in fuedalistic England.



The Regius Manuscript (1390) notes a meeting of masons at York in 925AD, presided over by Prince Edwin. This may be the earliest mentioning of masons in any document, operative or otherwise. There's an interesting article about this here.

There was a Grand Lodge at York for some years in the C18th, in fact it is this Grand Lodge that a small independent group of masons seeks to emulate (re your link). There are a couple of independent breakaway Grand Lodges in England, espousing a 'back to basics' approach for freemasonry, but I seriously doubt more than 50 people are involved in total across all of them .

The oldest active masonic lodge in York these days is York Lodge No. 236. Although entering the Modern's Grand Lodge register in 1777, the lodge is significantly older than that and is likely IMO to predate organized freemasonry in England. It was a part of the original Grand Lodge of All England in York.

Sorry, I'm rambling and I suspect we've gone pretty far off topic already . u2u me if you would like some more links to York masonry and I'll see what I can come up with.

Originally posted by Trinityman
Heh. Can't be more than about 10 people in that particular Grand Lodge

They may not be very popular now but they certainly had some welly at one time if the veracity of the list of past Grand Masters is to go by. That is QUITE a collection of influence.

There current Grand Master hasn't faired so well, his building company went into receivership at the beginning of the year, just goes to prove that Freemasons fare no better than others.

Originally posted by Trinityman
The Regius Manuscript (1390) notes a meeting of masons at York in 925AD, presided over by Prince Edwin. This may be the earliest mentioning of masons in any document, operative or otherwise. There's an interesting article about this here.

This is very interesting and I will look into this a little more. The north of England at this time was largely populated by Angles not Saxons, and since the early beginnings of freemasonry seem to have Norman undertones this document raises some interesting possibilities.

Originally posted by Trinityman
There was a Grand Lodge at York for some years in the C18th, in fact it is this Grand Lodge that a small independent group of masons seeks to emulate (re your link). There are a couple of independent breakaway Grand Lodges in England, espousing a 'back to basics' approach for freemasonry, but I seriously doubt more than 50 people are involved in total across all of them

.

Popularity isn't everything you know. What has perhaps interested me is the sneaky suspicion that Freemason has evolved into something more benign than its early origins. I may be very wrong but the history of the Grand Lodge of All England seems to suggest that I may be right.

It is interesting that the Grand Lodge of All England didn't seem to feature the obeiance to the law of the land - or if it did many of them didn't follow it at all times. I wonder if you are toying with me a little. This lot do seem to fit in with my earlier hypothese - the title of Grand Master seems to have feudalist connections and I can only wonder what benefits the title carried with it. From those Grand Masters we also come round later to connections with the Old Prussians and Frederick the Great. Either way these men were certainly rewarded for service to Church and later the Crown....you may feel that we are deviating from the the OP I think that we are just starting to get warm.

All I need now is to find that Francis Walsingham was connected to the Freemasons and my vision will be complete!!!


Thanks for the U2U offer and I may just take you up on that a little later - I have plenty to occupy me for the time being and I need to check whether the Grand Masters are based on historical documentation or fancy.

All the very best

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout


They may not be very popular now but they certainly had some welly at one time if the veracity of the list of past Grand Masters is to go by. That is QUITE a collection of influence.

Actually, the list is fictitious, as is the organization. The real York Grand Lodge merged with the Premiere London Grand Lodge in the late 18th century, which gave birth to the present United Grand Lodge of England. This is the legitimate Masonic body in England. The "Grand Lodge of England" is what we call "clandestine" and "irregular", i.e., fake.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Actually, the list is fictitious, as is the organization. The real York Grand Lodge merged with the Premiere London Grand Lodge in the late 18th century, which gave birth to the present United Grand Lodge of England. This is the legitimate Masonic body in England. The "Grand Lodge of England" is what we call "clandestine" and "irregular", i.e., fake.

That seems a little harsh. I understand that there are different 'forms' of Freemasonry and some are 'irregular'. But 'fictitious' and 'fake' are quite strong words (in fact thats practically fighting talk where I come from - which is co-incidentially where they come from).

Obviously I realise (or think I do), that by fictitious you don't mean literally, they are of course a real organisation with real people. They certainly take themselves very seriously and their web-site is very good (compared to others I've seen) and very comprehensive. I know OF the Grand Master as he is a relatively prominent member of the community. They are also permitted to use the crypt of York Minster which is quite a big deal in these 'ere parts.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek in my post, but it is a pretty contentious list of people. I don't know if you have read it, but there are some infamous names on there, BUT they are also people who did have buildings built. They would have been 'architects' in the true sense of the word at that time. They would have employed large teams of freemasons (as in stonemasons and carpenters).

The Guilds can be compared to Trade Unions in purpose and the more highly skilled the profession the more exclusive and stringent the admissions policy would be. I am sure that I needn't go on...it is pretty mundane stuff and probably only I am interested. In short Archbishops and Kings would have been the first to use these tradesmen in such numbers and it is documented that stonemasons were brought from abroad (as early as the seventh century by the Archbishop of York).

Later on the names get even more interesting but probably only if you are me - so I won't bore you. To be very brief - internecine conflicts, civil wars,'Priest holes', political uprisings etc etc - there is a definate need for a relationship of secrecy between 'architect' and builder. I would certainly expect there to be branches of freemasons that were loyal to one side or the other.

Some of the Grand Masters are politically contentious characters, it contradicts what I understand of 'regular' freemasonry. Its demise parallels growing unity in England and then Britain. Seemingly, if as they claim they predate UGLE, they have been marginalised because the main body adapted and they didn't.

Thank you for pointing out the terms 'irregular' and 'regular' and what they imply - as engrossing as the history is I don't know my arse from my elbow when it comes to the distinctions and forms, just when I think I've got it - it seems I don't - luckily I'm only interested up to 1900s as it appears to get REALLY complicated after that.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
They may not be very popular now but they certainly had some welly at one time if the veracity of the list of past Grand Masters is to go by. That is QUITE a collection of influence.

Or it would be, if it were true. There is no evidence whatso ever that the vast majority of known names on that list were freemasons. The later names are connected with the original Grand Lodge at York which, as ML has observed, disappeared in the mid 18th Century. Its only real claim to fame is the relationship between GLoY and one William Preston and the Lodge of Antiquity. A further grand lodge, Grand Lodge South of the River Trent, was spawnwd as the result of a spat between Preston and the (Moderns) Grand Lodge. It split the Lodge of Antiquity and lasted but a few short years before it went the way of its parent GL.

The current "Grand Lodge" has simply adopted the name and history of the original Grand Lodge of York to lend itself some legitimacy. In reality is was founded by a small group of freemasons (well, one actually) who became disillusioned with the UGLE and wanted to start their own GL, which they did in 2005. Freemasonry is littered with micro-Grand Lodges formed by former masons. They tend to last just a few years before folding.

Popularity isn't everything you know. What has perhaps interested me is the sneaky suspicion that Freemason has evolved into something more benign than its early origins. I may be very wrong but the history of the Grand Lodge of All England seems to suggest that I may be right.

Quite right. It isn't. But equally there is often a reason for lack of popularity.
There is not much information about the original GLoY on the net, but its probable dates of existence as a grand lodge are 1725 to 1741 and 1761 to 1792. It is not to be confused with the 'Antients' Grand Lodge which was founded in 1751 and later merged with the Premier (Moderns) GL to form UGLE.

I wonder if you are toying with me a little.

Not at all (as if I would ). I'm simply trying to tell you that the Grand Lodge of All England (mark II) is not connected with the original one in any way.

All the very best

And to you too.