On the Kabbalah. On Esoteric “Secrets.” A Luciferian Perspective. On the Prophet of the New Aeon

Originally posted by pepsi78
Masonry is full of the occult, not all masons study it, but the majority do

I disagree with your opinion that the majority of Masons study the occult. Some of us do, to be sure, but the numbers are quite small in the grand scale of Masonry. Most members don't have any knowledge in Kabbalah or alchemy or any of the other mysteries, and they have no desire to learn.

reply to post by JoshNorton

I don't know what you are talking about, your lodges starting from the floors to the walls have occultic symbols.
As for the masons that don't they are just soft masons, that are really not into the craft of masonry.

Originally posted by pepsi78
I don't know what you are talking about, your lodges starting from the floors to the walls have occultic symbols.

Of the seven lodges in my home district only one has symbols on the walls of the lodge room and none of them has a checkered floor. We are in the process of having some artwork framed that will eventually be adorning our lodge room but at present the walls are bare.

Originally posted by pepsi78
I don't know what you are talking about, your lodges starting from the floors to the walls have occultic symbols.

Yes, they do. But again, most members won't take the trouble to study the meanings of those symbols.

Originally posted by pepsi78
reply to post by JoshNorton

 

I don't know what you are talking about, your lodges starting from the floors to the walls have occultic symbols.
As for the masons that don't they are just soft masons, that are really not into the craft of masonry.

you do know what Occult means right?

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by pepsi78
reply to post by JoshNorton

 

I don't know what you are talking about, your lodges starting from the floors to the walls have occultic symbols.
As for the masons that don't they are just soft masons, that are really not into the craft of masonry.

you do know what Occult means right?

dude,

Good to see you again!!! And nice to see you are still have patience with the unenlightened! You deserve to be a saint! LOL.... Okay, maybe that's stretching it a bit....

Note to Pepsi78 - the symbols are not "occult" to masons just as braille is not unreadable to the blind.

reply to post by Lucifer777

I got to your second paragraph. Yes a deluded person may be described as "having lost their way", but "lost to the world" is quite a stretch. Using inaccurate analogies one can come to any conclusion with just about any text.
Why do you aim to deceive?

I really don't appreciate when non-members think they can speak for an organization they don't belong to or really understand.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
Note to Pepsi78 - the symbols are not "occult" to masons just as braille is not unreadable to the blind.

I like that saying.

Originally posted by lestweforget
Why do you aim to deceive?

It is not my intent to deceive anyone. I consider organised religion to be a form of mass deception and mass hypnosis. My intent in the OP was to explain, as simply as possible, some of the simple concepts of Kabbalistic philosophy and the Kabbalistic archetypes which anyone can understand without having to join a professional religious cult and go through an often expensive process of indoctrination and mind control.

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by Lucifer777

 

Not all consider themselves to be Knights Templar. Not all are a part of that organization. Your mixing up your terms and labels. Not all who are Masons are Christian and even if they are Christian they may not necessarily be members of the Templar Order. All regular Masons are naturally members of the Blue Lodge, but not all Masons are a part of the appendant bodies. It's illogical to say otherwise.

Freemasonry never seeks to convert anyone from the faith they choose to follow.

reply to post by pepsi78

 

And you know this how? Can you really speak for us?

Sectarianism and the Study of Religion

Lucifer



When the scholar (student) or academic in the field of "religious studies" undertakes a study of a particular religious cult, for the sake of objectivity, the person generally does not "join" that particular cult. The student must take care to consider not only the propaganda of the cult itself, but also writings which are critical of the cult and the writings of cult opponents and apostates (ex-cultists).

Here on ATS we seem to have an army of Masonic cult apologists, however if one were merely to consider only their writings and responses, again we would be lose objectivity. Consider for example what would occur if we were to attempt to study the Scientology cult without attempting to comprehend the writings of critics and apostates of the cult? Of course the Scientologist may remark that only a Scientologist truly understands Scientology; however this is an entirely subjective statement; of course the Scientologist who has undergone years of auditing (confessions of one's thoughts and behaviour essentially), hypnosis and indoctrination will have a different perspective than an academic who is merely studying the process and literature of cult indoctrination.
Further Scientologists are partly sectarian, since there is the independent "Freezone" movement of cultists who still consider themselves to be Scientologists and who still practice Hubbard's form of auditing, but who consider the "Church of Scientology" to be a heretical movement.

When it comes to the study of Freemasonry, this is also the study of a sectarian (many sects or sections) movement. The main groups of sects would include the various Masonic lodge franchises which are in amity (friendship) with the United Grand Lodge of England (U.G.L.E.), however there are also a large number of sects who are not in amity with the U.G.L.E. For example conspiracy theorists commonly claim that Aleister Crowley was a Freemason and Freemasons commonly claim that he was "not" a Freemason; however from the perspective of a scholar who is studying Freemasonry we can say that it is a fact that Crowley was a Freemason and that the claim that he was not a Freemason is factually incorrect and an expression of Masonic sectarianism. For example a Catholic might say that the Pope is a Christian and that Elizabeth Windsor (the head of the Anglican church) is not a Christian, and this is simply a subjective and sectarian statement, while it is a fact that both the Pope and Windsor claim to be Christians and are the heads of major Christian sects. The largest Masonic organisation in France, for example, the Grandrient de France is not in amnity with UGLE, and so the minority of French Masons who are part of lodges in amnity with UGLE might refer to the Grand Orient as "fake Masonry," caclandestineasonry" or "irregular Masonry" however these are simply expressions of sectarianism, similar to the view taken by the Westborough Baptist Church that only members of their rather tiny cult are Christians and that all other Christians are "fake Christians," or "false Christians. From the perspective of an academic studying Christianity and Freemasonry however, there is no such a thing as "true" or "false" Christianity or "true" or "false" Freemasonry as these are only subjective terms used by religious cultists themselves, and what is "true" about Christianity and Freemasonry has to be derived from facts, and from the beliefs and behaviour of the cultists themselves and take into account the various sects.



I have referred to Masonry as "ultimately" seeming to be a "Christian cult" or a "Messianic cult," however I refer only to the main body of Freemasons whose upper levels are restricted to Christians; the two main bodies of Masons, the York Rite and the Scottish Rite apparently consider themselves to be "Christian Knights" and "Knight's Templates." Of course "any" religious fanatic can join a purchase the lower degrees of Masonry irrespective of whatever form of religious fanaticism they adhere to, however an essentially qualification is a belief in a sky god, and by "sky god" I refer to a transcendent (up above) being, since human beings are also often referred to as "gods." The tendency to believe in a sky-god seems to be derived from a pre-scientific era, but even Masons who have travelled in an aircraft up in the clouds of heaven still seem to believe such nonsense, and so I think that it is appropriate to refer to them as “religious fanatics.”

I think that it could be stated that many Scientologists who have not undergone all the various “degrees” of Scientology indoctrination may not believe that L.Ron Hubbard is the “Messiah” or the Maitreya Buddha, but I still think that it would be fair to ultimately describe Scientology as a Messianic cult, since in the upper echelons of the organisation, such as their elite paramilitary “Sea Org” all the members have a such a belief, a belief which in the past has been hidden from the lower levels of the cult; similarly with Masonry, cultists who only do the “outer temple” blue lodge indoctrination may or many not consider themselves to be Christian knights, but this is certainly the case with the “upper” levels of the cult, though of course by “Christ” I do not refer to the 2000 year old fictional, religious fanatic, the Jesus of the Gospels, and to a living mortal “Imperial Majesty” and “Messiah,” would would be the “Grand Master of Masters,” the “Lord of Lords” and “King of Kings” to Masonic cultists.

”And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of Kings and Lord of Lords." Rev 19



Unfortunately a belief in Messianic military cultism is not a victimless crime. Human history has had it's fill of theocratic (God government) dictators, and the history of cult theocracy is dipped in the blood, enslavement and human misery of hundreds of millions of our ancestors who were often enslaved and considered heretics and radicals. The cure for this kind of militant cult theocratic fanaticism is unfortunately likely to be a future history which is also dipped in the blood of tyrants and martyrs. Diderot's “Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest," demands the renunciation of the diabolical ideology of pacifism and the renunciation of tolerance towards the fanatics of religion. Of course I am not suggesting that anyone rush out and start executing Christians; on the contrary; just as Marx and Engels did not rush around executing the priesthood of Capitalistm; the conditions for such a mass revolution have yet to be created and I speak to the world of the future; the sword that is issued from the mouth of philosophers often outlives their mortal form and live on for aeons and be dipped in oceans of blood.

"There is no god but man (and woman)"

Words are weapons. Propaganda is the first stage of war,

His Imperial Satanic Majesty.

Lucifer
Blasphemy, Heresy, War, Revolution.




".....the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths,” i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. Karl Marx

reply to post by Lucifer777

A scholar? Are you kidding me?! You are a vortex of academic compromise.

With your "study of the sects" you misrepresent the various sects by mismatching terms. If you really wanted to talk about Freemasonry and represent them all you'd refer to them simply as "Masonic Brothers" as all Masons belong to the Blue Lodge and all hold that title.

I have referred to Masonry as "ultimately" seeming to be a "Christian cult" or a "Messianic cult," however I refer only to the main body of Freemasons whose upper levels are restricted to Christians; the two main bodies of Masons, the York Rite and the Scottish Rite apparently consider themselves to be "Christian Knights" and "Knight's Templates."

This is simply a lie. The York Rite does require a Christian faith only in the Chivalric Orders, but the Scottish Rite does not (unless they've changed recently). Neither are the two rites the "upper level" of the Blue Lodge (or main body as you put it), they are branches.

"There is no god but man (and woman)"

God is man and woman. Alpha and Omega, what are you talking about ?
God is the force, the creator of everything, it is clear that it has inteligent design in it's creation evidence of awareness in what it is doing, just look around you if you want proof of god.

precise, informing, interesting, clear to read. lucifer777 thank you for your work.

Originally posted by pepsi78

"There is no god but man (and woman)"

God is man and woman. Alpha and Omega, what are you talking about ?
God is the force, the creator of everything, it is clear that it has inteligent design in it's creation evidence of awareness in what it is doing, just look around you if you want proof of god.

"There is no God but man (and woman)" A.C.

I have no problem with the term "God is man and woman," and I don't think that Crowley would either, but it is not very good English grammar, since "god is" is singular and "man and woman" are plural; "men and women are gods and goddeses" is probably a better way of saying that.

I do concede that the human form and the cosmos gives the appearance of intelligent design, and I accept the many arguments made by Deists to this effect, but the jump to mono-Deism, theism and monotheism are "giant leaps," and I usually find that the theists take the arguments of the Deists as starting point to promoting all manner of irrational and primitive fanatical metapyhsical ramblings.

It is quite possible that our holographic universe has had "millions" or even "billions" of designers and programmers working on it from another dimension of our multiverse, but they would probably have to be beings of very advanced intelligence, much like ourselves. I think that the virtual reality world of "Second Life" is probably a useful analogy; it is world created by myriads of programmers and designers over since 2003; however our universe is more likely to have been a virtual reality project that has been billions of years in creation. A person who undertook a journey through "Second Life" without understanding anything about computer programming may well come to falsely "believe" that perhaps that virtual world has a singular creator, but that would be incorrect.

Infinite causal regression and the limits of "pure reason."

The argument that we have been genetically engineered and programmed in a certain way, and that the universe is a product of intelligence and design should be considered separately to the arguments for mono-deism theism and monotheism.

The belief that the universe or even the multiverse has a singular creator is only a "belief" and it is not a belief that can be substantiated by science; the question of the origins of our universe is anyway beyond the limits of "pure reason" since the matter of "infinite causal regression arises," which is essentially the question of "Who created God's great, great (ad infinitum) grandmother?" For a materialist, the question of "What existed before the beginning of time, and before that, and before that (ad infinitum)?" or "What was the origin of matter, and what was the origin of the origin (ad infinitum) of matter " are also questions which are beyond the scope of modern science and beyond the limits of pure reason.

I should point out however that the Biblical religion was not originally a monotheistic faith, but a polytheistic faith; Moses' deity was just one of many tribal deities and he was just considered to be bigger, badder and better than all his competitors. The "God created the heavens and the earth" is widely understood to be a mistransaltion of Elohim (the plural of El), and should read "the gods created the heavens and the earth," however I am not in anyway suggesting that such a primitive and barbaric book of myths should be taken seriously.

Lux

I have no problem with the term "God is man and woman," and I don't think that Crowley would either, but it is not very good English grammar, since "god is" is singular and "man and woman" are plural;

They are not plural, only taken a part, and god made us in it's image, individual, meaning two sides, you see you hate the bible but as bad as it's translated and with lots of the stories altered it still holds value.

And god made us in it's image, individuals, you do know what an individual is ?
I take it that every animal on this earth is an individual, made just like the universe is, if you hold and wait to see the pattern, you will notice that everything has a blue print.

God is a singular form, only if you disect it you will find just like a human that it has a liver, a heart and other functions, or agencies, parts.

I come to the conclusion that knowlege in the end will only delude us more, as we don't really see the big picture anymore in it's simplicity.

Originally posted by pepsi78

I have no problem with the term "God is man and woman," and I don't think that Crowley would either, but it is not very good English grammar, since "god is" is singular and "man and woman" are plural;

They are not plural, only taken a part, and god made us in it's image, individual, meaning two sides, you see you hate the bible but as bad as it's translated and with lots of the stories altered it still holds value.

And god made us in it's image, individuals, you do know what an individual is ?
I take it that every animal on this earth is an individual, made just like the universe is, if you hold and wait to see the pattern, you will notice that everything has a blue print.

God is a singular form, only if you disect it you will find just like a human that it has a liver, a heart and other functions, or agencies, parts.

I have written the OP in this thread to explain Kabbalistic philosophy and it is written from the perspective of mono-deism, but mono-deism does not necessarily imply a singular "creator;" the holographic virtual reality program which our consciousness is programmed to perceive as "the universe" may have had countless millions of intelligent designers working on on it over many billions of years, and such intelligent beings may well be in another parallel dimension of the multiverse. With regards to the question of a "Prime Creator" or "First Cause" to restate, this is beyond the limits of human reason, and thus theists can only speak about what they "believe."

Abramelin Magick (which I have explained in the OP) would simply be meaningless to a person who did not believe that intelligent being reside in parallel universes, and it is such beings which are often referred to as "guardian angels" or "spirit guides" or devils or "ancestral spirits" and I believe that it is the mystical experience of such beings which gives rise to a belief in the "gods" however since the three major religious texts of the world's organised religions (the Bible, the Koran and the Vedas) appear to be essentially malevolent texts derived from primitive and savage slave societies, which promote slavery, bigotry and have genocidal war gods, it is my judgement that religion in general is of malevolent and diabolical origin.

I come to the conclusion that knowlege in the end will only delude us more, as we don't really see the big picture anymore in it's simplicity.

By "knowledge," in post Enlightenment terms, this is a vast field which includes the study of history, psychology, the study of religion, psychology of religion (the study of the methods and effects of mass hypnosis and indoctrination), anthropology and all the various physical sciences. It is certainly the case that the study of "knowledge" is detrimental to religious fanaticism and that the more intelligent, scientfic, rational, criticial, analytical and educated a person is, the less likely they will be vulnerable to religious hypnosis and indoctirnation; thus "knowledge" and education is certainly a threat to the religious fanatics who would wish to regress our world back to an age of primitive and barbaric theocratic slave societies; as Martin Luther pointed out "reason is the enemy of fath" and this certainly seems to be the case; a rational mind would never accept the primitive and barbaric war gods and fairy tales of the world's religions.

There is no Biblical sky god. I have flown in the clouds of heaven (in an aircraft) and I can testify that I did not see this god anywhere, and if I had found the god of the Biblical fanatics in the clouds of heaven, I would have cursed him and torn his heart out as a blood sacrifice to the gods of nature (i.e., human beings), who are the only gods who are worthy of love. If there is an original singular Creator of the multiverse, She has never made herself known to me. There are those make claims to the contrary and the churches, temples and psychiatric institutions are full of them; they are just the ramblings of religious fanatics; by my use of the term "Enemy of God" it is the God and gods of the religous fanatics I am referring to, and not to Mother Nature Herself.

"There is no God where I am."

Lucifer
Eternal enemy of God.

reply to post by Lucifer777

I can't agree with you, there is the universal force that is aware and around us, god.
We are independent from it but connected to it, it's the creative force of light and dark combined.
I further would say that you have no evidence of programmers programming our reality and the universe, there is no evidence to sustain such claim, with the computer era everyone started to say that our reality is programmed and it';s a computer, next in line when something else will appear in stead of the computer people will use that as an example and point to that as being our existance. Oh my god people have discovered the computer, let's use this term to define the whole universe. What if this is it and there is nothing outside of the universe ? no computer programmers. How do you know ? To me it makes sense, I see inteligent design where I look, so there must be a creator or a creative force what I call god.

Originally posted by pepsi78
I can't agree with you, there is the universal force that is aware and around us, god.
We are independent from it but connected to it, it's the creative force of light and dark combined.
I further would say that you have no evidence of programmers programming our reality and the universe, there is no evidence to sustain such claim, with the computer era everyone started to say that our reality is programmed and it';s a computer, next in line when something else will appear in stead of the computer people will use that as an example and point to that as being our existance. Oh my god people have discovered the computer, let's use this term to define the whole universe. What if this is it and there is nothing outside of the universe ? no computer programmers. How do you know ? To me it makes sense, I see inteligent design where I look, so there must be a creator or a creative force what I call god.

I pointed out that my views on this subject (the Holographic Universe) were speculative and theoretical and had nothing to do with objective knowledge. The Holographic Universe cosmology is a theory of physics which suggests that the basic building blocks of matter are "information" and that our mind is simply programmed to perceive that information in a certain way; it is not a "proof" of the non existence or existence of a creator, however it does seem to "imply" that if we are living in a intricately programmed universe, that there would need to be programmers, and that they may well live in a parallel dimension, outside of our universe, but to suggest that there is only a singular "programmer" is a giant leap of faith.

Really, discussions regarding whether the multiverse had a an original singular uncreated Creator of the program tend to go nowhere, since it goes back the question of who created the creator's creator, etc. The idea of an uncreated creator would seem to beyond the limits of pure reason to comprehend, and yet there are many questions which are beyond the limits of pure reason.

I do "believe" that the mutiverse is a product of intelligent designers, however monotheism and monodeism cannot be proven or disproven, and so such discussions just become an endless series of expressions of faith.

The Holographic universe cosmology does not in any way negate a belief in Deism, monodeism, monotheism or polytheism; and you seem to misuderstand this perspective; in fact it is compatable with all views. I would suggest that you check out www.crystalinks.com...

If the universe is a virtual reality program, it would seem to me that it would have to have had programmers who were highly "intelligent," but it does lead to the question of who originally created the programmers and so forth, and this is beyond the limits of human reason and science to answer.

It is my belief that something has gone seriously wrong with the experiment with life on earth, and thus we have aeons of barbarism, tyranny, war, slavery and religious fanaticism, and that the Enlightenment (the Age of Science and Reason) has given birth to an attempt to address such problems and to create a utopian and socialist paradise on earth; however this may still take centuries or longer and the two main problems to surmount would appear to be religion, which creates psychological hell and tyrannical political and economic systems which create economic hell on earth, for which the Enlightenment political philosophies, of republicanism, socialism, Communism and ultimately political Anarchism are all attempts to resolve this

I really have no problem with atheists, Deists and monodeists; these are entirely innocent and progressive Enlightenment "beliefs;" the problem is with the theists and their allegedly "revelatory" ramblngs and their barbaric and primitive, human hating and human-nature-hating sky gods and systems of "slave morality;" and with their claims to "know" for certain what is unknowable.

Lucifer

____________________

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by Lucifer777

 

A scholar? Are you kidding me?! You are a vortex of academic compromise.

With your "study of the sects" you misrepresent the various sects by mismatching terms. If you really wanted to talk about Freemasonry and represent them all you'd refer to them simply as "Masonic Brothers" as all Masons belong to the Blue Lodge and all hold that title.

There are numerous Masonic cult Franchises which do not recognise each other and which refer to each other as "fake Masonry," "candelestine Masonry, "irregular Masonry," "corrupt Masonry" or "false Masonry," I have been listening to these arguments going back and forth for years and frankly if they are all "Masonic brothers" that comes as a great surprise to me; frankly I find such sectarianism to be as ridiculous as the arguments in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" between the "People's Front of Judea" and the heretical spliters, the "Judean Peopl's Front" and the "Judean Popular Front;" it is all the rambling of lunatics as far as I am concerned.

IThis is simply a lie. The York Rite does require a Christian faith only in the Chivalric Orders, but the Scottish Rite does not (unless they've changed recently). Neither are the two rites the "upper level" of the Blue Lodge (or main body as you put it), they are branches.

The York Rite

The Knights Templar is the final order joined in the York Rite. Unlike other Masonic bodies which only require a belief in a Supreme Being regardless of religion, membership in the Knights Templar is open only to Christian Masons who have completed their Royal Arch and in some jurisdictions their Cryptic Degrees. This body is modeled off of the historical Knights Templar in hopes to carry on the spirit of their organization

en.wikipedia.org...

The Scottish Rite

KNIGHTS TEMPLAR:

www.themasonictrowel.com...

Some misquided Masons join the York Rite, instead of the Scottish Rite, under the impression that this is the only way to "become a Knight Templar." What they don't understand is that the Scottish Rite IS the Knights Templar, and no less a Templar body, and possibly more so, than the York Rite Templars.

The full name of the Scottish Rite is "The Knights Commander of the House of the Temple of Solomon of the Thirty-Third and Last Degree of the Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry." (whew) This IS the Knights Templar, or Knights of the Temple of Solomon, "Militiae Templo Hierosolomitanae."

Further, there is not just one "Templar" Degree in the Scottish Rite, but several. The 27th Degree is "Knight Commander of the Temple." In the 28th Degree, "Scottish Knight of St. Andrew," the candidate represents a Knight Templar after the suppression of the Order. He seeks admission into the Order of Knights of St. Andrew who are but Templars who have been given refuge by Robert the Bruce, King of Scotland. The candidate is captured by what appears to be the Holy Inquisition of the Church who accuse him of being of the heresy of being a Freemason. But this is only a test, and because he refuses to renounce his previous vows, he is admitted and made a Knight of St. Andrew.

.....

KNIGHT KADOSH.
But the most important Knight Templar degree of the Scottish Rite is the 30th Degree of "Knight Kadosh." The word "Kadosh" means "Holy" or "separated," as anything "holy" is "separate" and apart from the rest. It refers to the "Kadosh Kadoshem," or "Sanctum Sanctorum," of Solomon's Temple. Part of the degree is set in an asylum of Knights Templar where the assembly decides whether the candidate is worthy to be advanced any further. While standing guard as part of his vigil, he is confronted by the spirit of a deceased knight who advises him to abandon his post and flee with his life. He remains steadfast and is eventually rewarded.

As a side note, just to show the pedigree of the name "Kadosh" as part of the Templar orders of the Scottish Rite, in 1791, a controlling body of the order in England was known officially as "the Grand Elect Knights Templar Kadosh and Holy Sepulchre of St. John of Jerusalem, Palestine, Rhodes and Malta." Two years later, the Duke of kent, Grand Patron of the Order, name Thomas Dunckerly Grand Master of the Knights of Rosy Cross, Knights Kadosh, and Knights Templar."

Many would argue that the Scottish Rite 18th Degree, "Knight Rose Croix," is a Templar Degree in disguise. I would agree.

Nevertheless, the structure of the Supreme Council, the governing body of the Rite, is that of the Knights Templar. That is why the presiding officer is called "The Grand Commander." The Scottish Rite Caps are in fact caps of knighthood. They are the last remaining vestige of chivalric regalia.

Since my father is a Scottish Freemason, I can assure you that they are conspiracy theorists who believe themselves to be guardians of the legacy of the original Knight's Templars who fled to Scotland during the great persecution of Phillip the Fair. The terms "Scottish Freemasonry" and "The Knight's Templars" are synonymous (the same). However I should also point out that there are numerous "Knight's Templars" sects, all of which claim to represent the "true" knights Templars and who consider competing sects to be heretics or "fake masonry," etc., it is all a rather bizarre form of tin foil hat conspiracy theoryism and religious fanaticism as far as I am concerned.


His Imperial Satanic Majesty

Lucifer

Originally posted by Lucifer777
There are numerous Masonic cult Franchises which do not recognise each other and which refer to each other as "fake Masonry," "candelestine Masonry, "irregular Masonry," "corrupt Masonry" or "false Masonry," I have been listening to these arguments going back and forth for years and frankly if they are all "Masonic brothers" that comes as a great surprise to me; frankly I find such sectarianism to be as ridiculous as the arguments in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" between the "People's Front of Judea" and the heretical spliters, the "Judean Peopl's Front" and the "Judean Popular Front;" it is all the rambling of lunatics as far as I am concerned.

The Lodges in amity with GOdF don't regard Lodges in amity with UGLE as "clandestine", "fake" or "irregular". On the contrary, as long as the brother (or sister) is Initiated, Passed and Raised in a Lodge of a known Obedience (meaning they have a historical Charter) they are recognized as Freemasons within the Continental system with the right of visitation, etc. Lodges that are considered "clandestine" by GOdF don't have a Charter or legitimate descent from a historical Lodge.

On the other hand, the position of Lodges in amity with the UGLE is currently dismissive of the so-called "clandestine" Lodges, especially in the USA. The UGLE recognizes that two Lodges in the UK, one Co-Masonic the other Feminine Obedience are regular except for the admission of women. They are not permitted inter-visitation with them but they are allowed to explain that there are female Freemasons. When I was still a mainstream Freemason, I met a Provincial Grand Lodge Officer and his wife from the UK as they were touring our local Masonic Temple. As we talked, it became clear that his wife was a member of the Feminine Obedience from the UK.

Originally posted by no1smootha
The Lodges in amity with GOdF don't regard Lodges in amity with UGLE as "clandestine", "fake" or "irregular". On the contrary, as long as the brother (or sister) is Initiated, Passed and Raised in a Lodge of a known Obedience (meaning they have a historical Charter) they are recognized as Freemasons within the Continental system with the right of visitation, etc. Lodges that are considered "clandestine" by GOdF don't have a Charter or legitimate descent from a historical Lodge.

New Religious Movements and on "How to start your own secret society"

All religious cults begin at some point with a "New Religious Movement," which is often derived from a pre-existing religion, and is often a reformation of that religion or a syncretic mix of various religions. I recall reading of so called "fake" Masonic cults which are slagged off by "regular" Masons as havng been founded by a few guys in a pub, however what is referred to as "regular" Masonry is also a relatively New Religious Movement which was founded by a few guys iin a pub back in the 18th century.

By the term "historical charter" you are referring simply to a Masonic lodge franchise from an existing cult. A person cannot just go out and open a McDonald's franchise without the approval of the McDonald's corporation, but anyone can open a hamburger restaurant and sell an almost identical product; there is no "copyright" on selling meat, french fries, salads and coffees.

Similarly in the world of cult religions; anyone can start a "secret society" without purchasing a franchise from an existing secret society; indeed many of the modern esoteric societies have been started by Freemasons who have left regular Masonry to start their own cult. When Freemasons complain about this and refer to them as being "fake Masons," it must be borne in mind that regular Freemasonry is similarly a system entirely invented by persons in the professional religious cultist business and that it can be duplicated and modified by anyone. There is no copyright on inane and silly rites and rituals, and "religoius freedom".in Capitalism means that anyone can start Capitalist religious cult.

Similarly with Lodges like the O.T.O., which was started by the Freemason Theodor Reuss and whose rituals were later modified by Aleister Crowley. Just as Freemasons claim to represent an ancient legacy, that of the medieval Knight's Templars, so too did Reuss's O.T.O., claim to represent the revival of a more ancient legacy, that of the 18th century Bavarian Illuminati, and I think that this may in part be where the modern "Illuminati" conspiracy theory derives from; however just like many of the new modern Masonic cults and esoteric societies formed in last century or so, the the O.T.O. had relatively recent origins.

Crowley, for example, referred to American Scottish Rite Masons as "so many pieces of rather nasty dirt," and wrote that " even our eighth degree wipes its arse with the thirty third. As you and I need toilet paper, they can give us or sell us their dirty sheep skin." This kind of rivalry between various esoteric cults, is rather like the rivalry between the various sects of the multi-billion dollar "Jesus" business, each claiming to have a better salvation product, or a more established "older" product; it is simply the lunatic ramblings of religious fanatics, though certainly I consider the O.T.O., which is essentially an Aleister Crowley fan club to be among the more progressive of such societies.

I should point out that the United Grand Lodge of England and lodges in amnity do not have a charters from me and that "I am not amused" by them and consider them to be "unlawful" organisations; although frankly I consider all religious cults to be "unlawful." My position is consistent with that of most Communists, that the religion business should be outlawed and that militant religionists should be exterminated; however I am not suggesting that anyone should start killing off the priesthood and religious cultists; I merely speak to a future age where the conditions for such a revolution have been created. All religious oaths are null and void; all charters are cancelled, all religious charlatans, priests and holy knights (militants) should be cursed, despised and removed from the earth to their eternal abodes with their accursed and diabolical sky gods.

His Imperial Satanic Majesty

Lucifer.
Eternal Enemy of God.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
Similarly with Lodges like the O.T.O., which was started by the Freemason Theodor Reuss and whose rituals were later modified by Aleister Crowley. Just as Freemasons claim to represent an ancient legacy, that of the medieval Knight's Templars, so too did Reuss's O.T.O., claim to represent the revival of a more ancient legacy, that of the 18th century Bavarian Illuminati, and I think that this may in part be where the modern "Illuminati" conspiracy theory derives from; however just like many of the new modern Masonic cults and esoteric societies formed in last century or so, the the O.T.O. had relatively recent origins.

Most contemporary Freemasons don't to make claims of an ancient lineage from the Knights Templar. It was certainly in vogue in the past to make such fantastic claims, to the Templars, to Noah, to the builders of the pyramids and ziggurats. or even to Adam. However, most modern Freemasons acknowledge these are mythological and allegorical origin stories not grounded in fact.

Originally posted by Lucifer777Crowley, for example, referred to American Scottish Rite Masons as "so many pieces of rather nasty dirt," and wrote that " even our eighth degree wipes its arse with the thirty third. As you and I need toilet paper, they can give us or sell us their dirty sheep skin." This kind of rivalry between various esoteric cults, is rather like the rivalry between the various sects of the multi-billion dollar "Jesus" business, each claiming to have a better salvation product, or a more established "older" product; it is simply the lunatic ramblings of religious fanatics, though certainly I consider the O.T.O., which is essentially an Aleister Crowley fan club to be among the more progressive of such societies.

Crowley was naively trying to get a seat on the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in the Northern Jurisdiction in the USA by suggesting the Memphis and Misraim degree system was superior to the AASR.

"My point about our 33rd is this, that we cannot admit that any one soever is higher in Masonry than ourselves ... My idea is to hele the breach with Memphis and Mizraim; these rites, though messy, keep going. Now I am Patriarch Grand Administrator General, and can be S.G.M.G. at the election, which, by the way is overdue. Now I propose that the Scottish Rite absorb M. and M., conferring all its degrees formally upon their 32nds. Our price for this is seats on the S.C. of the Scottish in America. Otherwise, we use our energy to run every rite, Scottish and the rest, on our own ... Remember, we don't admit that their rite is any good until it has our O.K. Theirs is a forged charter."