I have searched high and low for a chink in the Freemasons armour, tried every angle and investigated the background of those who admit to being
freemasons. Nothing untoward at all. Not a dickie bird.
I have read many of the claims made by those who openly slander the organisation and I have followed that up with my own exploration of their claims,
and concluded that they have very little substance whatsoever.
I have engaged in conversation, here on ATS, with a number of Freemasons and found consistently that they are good, honest, hardworking people who
overall find strength and companionship in their membership of the Freemasons.
I don't think I will ever become a freemason, I don't think that we would suit each other in many respects, but I would certainly feel no
compunction to dissuade any one else from doing so. They are what they say they are and I have found nothing to the contrary to suggest otherwise.
Lol the worst I could find in terms of famous members - Ernest Borgnine; He was charged with assaulting his wife, Burl Ives; racist and Jim Davidson
(British comedian/entertainer); racist/nationalist. That is about the sum total of depravity. You can almost guarentee that when someone is accused
of freemasonry on sites such as freemasonrywatch or save the males, who can be described as an immoral person, that that person in reality has no
connection to the craft. Like George Bush and Tony Blair etc etc.
I think that often the exception proves the rule. I like the fact that Lyndon B Johnson only made it to initiation. His morals may have benefitted
from progress. The Duke of Edinburgh the same. I find it very interesting that Churchill while a mason, was not practicing, IMO he may have changed
the direction of history in a more positive direction had he adhered more closely to its teaching.
From what I can gather, the most fervent opposition in the US in particular, originates from the protestant faiths, it reaches into fever pitch
amongst many of the more fundamental practioners but this seems to me more reactionism than dissemination. Much of it seems to be bundled up in
anti-judiac sentiment. It is really very much like the arguments put forward by the Nazi party and disseminated by the Ministry of Propaganda, just
without the excuse of race or as yet, an SS to implement them.
Some of the material, like that deseminated by Eric Phelps, has been doing the rounds since the early 1800s and was designed then to appeal to the
easily titilated, newly educated minds of the emerging professional class. At this time too, it was being printed and published by either the
Catholic Church, the nouveau riche capital imperialists or despot rulers (who invariable was recieving it from one of the previous two). There seems
little change, the real enemies of Freemasonry remain the same.
Eric Phelps himself seems to maintain a cabal of dissemination, where by some mutual agreement or simple-like-mindedness, he, Greg Symanski and Henry
Makow, proliferate, reference and promote each others work and ideas. Their viewpoints are almost inseperable, it simply varies in the spectrum of
extremity and approach, and by doing so appeals to a wide demographic. Whether it is organised and who pays the 'salaries' if it is, I do not
know
