Anders Breivik and "hidden" Freemasons

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

ORLY? Dare I ask what lodges in your vast experience "possess it"? Certainly these lodges bear no resemblance to any lodge I've visited.

Right. Things which you have not seen, do not exist.

How would a blind man, and a deaf man, communicate with each other?

The blind man, being blind from birth, knows nothing of the light. But, he can speak. His ears work, and his voice is intact.

The deaf man, being deaf from birth, knows nothing of sound. He never learned to use his voice. Didn't even know he had one. But, he can well see.

Now these two men meet in the city. They bump into each other on the street. Both, by "touch" recognize someone else is there. The blind man shouts out to the other, "Careful where you're going!" The deaf man doesn't hear a thing. The deaf man draws a big circle on the ground. And writes on the perimeter, this is my SPOT, I'm working here, "Watch where you step!"

How could either follow the instruction of the other?

Without realizing it, both men go on their way, believing the other understood their remark.

But, the only thing they understood, was what was in their own mind already.

Nothing new entered there.

The words that were precious to one, could not pass through the door of the other's ear to enlighten his mind.

And the precious architectural artwork of the other drawn on the level by the other, made absolutely no impact to the first.

What is beauty, if it is not seen? What value is strength, where there is no struggle? What is wisdom, where all things are free?

Can anyone see the riddle?

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

However, it does have to present a reasonable accommodation to the normal everyday day-to-day requirements of its membership or else it withers and dies. Which is why your assertion of absolute attendance is an absolute fallacy.

I have used the word "obligation", and have marveled how't turn out to be in the mind of each. Of one it means the same as "optional", and no different from what he had already said. Yet another sees "absolute" in the very word. And even though I gave reference, and drew links to official masonic webpages that use the term in place, yet those here calling themselves masons would still deny that any mason would be obligated to attend anywhere.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Most people join masonry, because they want more light now.

Really? Is that so? And you 'know' this because you're.....what exactly? A Mason? A Lodge officer? A Grand Lodge Officer maybe? What jurisdiction?

Would it add any, to the words I have already said? To know a title, what effect would it have upon the meaning of the word? Seeing as how little is understood of the words herein I have presented. Dare I now reveal myself to the deaf, the blind, and the dumb?

Seriously, though. Freemasons get too carried away by the jewels and the rank. If you must display an outward sign, that you have some inner light, isn't it better that the sign be by deed done in the moment, than a badge worn upon the breast? What merit is there in a shining jewel, which sits outside the soul?

I've pointed to official masonic references "accepted by many masons", that should be enough.

Very interesting debate the last few pages or so, anyway i'm going to throw out a hypothesis and i'm not saying i believe this but it's where this debate has lead me to and it might as well be said....

Masonry in part is the study of symbolism and its true meaning to the Mason learning the craft, Josh Norton says some Masons may get the meanings right away and it may take some a life time depending on the student, well because all human beings are different the symbolism could (and in most cases does) mean something different to each Mason learning his craft because a large part of it is based on perception.

So and again i don't say i believe this but here's where i'm going with this (deep breath) what if the teaching of Masonry lead Anders Breivik to kill all those people what if he took the symbols and the symbology to mean to do this act?

Sure 99.9 percent of Masons aren't going to interpret the symbols this way but what if one does should Masonry be held accountable in anyway if it was the way Anders Breivik interpreted the symbology that lead to this act?

Figured i'd throw it out there....

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

ORLY? Dare I ask what lodges in your vast experience "possess it"? Certainly these lodges bear no resemblance to any lodge I've visited.

[snip]

Can anyone see the riddle?

Can you answer the question asked?

It's a straightforward one really.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

However, it does have to present a reasonable accommodation to the normal everyday day-to-day requirements of its membership or else it withers and dies. Which is why your assertion of absolute attendance is an absolute fallacy.

I have used the word "obligation", and have marveled how't turn out to be in the mind of each. Of one it means the same as "optional", and no different from what he had already said. Yet another sees "absolute" in the very word. And even though I gave reference, and drew links to official masonic webpages that use the term in place, yet those here calling themselves masons would still deny that any mason would be obligated to attend anywhere.

You link to a scan of a book 130 years old which in passing refers to then-ancient practise (a quote which I might add, still refers to making allowance for non-absolute attendance in ancient times) and you posit that this demands that even today, attendance is obligatory? Yet when current Masons point out to you that this is not in fact present-day practise or requirement, suddenly you make up the existence of some unspecified group where this absolute attendance of members exists and then wonder why all and sundry call Bravo Sierra?

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Most people join masonry, because they want more light now.

Really? Is that so? And you 'know' this because you're.....what exactly? A Mason? A Lodge officer? A Grand Lodge Officer maybe? What jurisdiction?

Would it add any, to the words I have already said? To know a title, what effect would it have upon the meaning of the word?

You made a blanket assertion. Do you really find it that surprising that someone would challenge your bona fides to make such an assertion?

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Seeing as how little is understood of the words herein I have presented. Dare I now reveal myself to the deaf, the blind, and the dumb?

Thank you. Clearly you've demonstrated that you haven't a clue. You're here looking for a Billy Goat Gruff. Enough time wasted

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Would it add any, to the words I have already said?

Given that you're telling multiple Freemasons about a major element of Freemasonry that none of them have ever heard about, it'd certainly add credibility to the words you've already said.

Seriously, though. Freemasons get too carried away by the jewels and the rank. If you must display an outward sign, that you have some inner light, isn't it better that the sign be by deed done in the moment, than a badge worn upon the breast? What merit is there in a shining jewel, which sits outside the soul?

Perhaps we should all meet on the level, and look at the external and not internal qualities of a man. It's a shame none of that appears in Masonic ritual, as you, the resident ATS expert on Freemasonry, would certainly know.

I've pointed to official masonic references "accepted by many masons", that should be enough.

And you've been shown the exceptions to the "rules" outlined in those sources, and been given numerous testimonials from actual Freemasons. You just prefer the worldview you've crafted for yourself. You know, like the attitude you condescendingly accuse others of holding.

Originally posted by King Seesar
So and again i don't say i believe this but here's where i'm going with this (deep breath) what if the teaching of Masonry lead Anders Breivik to kill all those people what if he took the symbols and the symbology to mean to do this act?

I'd need two things cleared up before I even regard this as possible, let alone plausible:

1) What remotely reasonable reading of what part of Freemasonry allows for this? (Please quote from Duncan's or any of the available public monitors.)
2) Whether it was actually there or not, this line of thought presumes he found what he was looking for in Freemasonry. Why then, would he only attend one non-degree meeting, and why did he condemn it as unsuitably Islamophobic in his manifesto*?

should Masonry be held accountable in anyway if it was the way Anders Breivik interpreted the symbology that lead to this act?

He was as active and enthusiastic a Freemason as he was a Christian. You cannot absolve either group eithout the other (I am both and find the tenets of neither should be on trial here).

*This is an important point that hasn't been made yet: Breivik didn't actually like or even understand Freemasonry to any great degree. Breivik revealed in his manifesto an erroneous belief that the Knights Templar created Freemasonry, and expected of them the same militant anti-Islam he saw in the historical Knights Templar, and criticized them for not being a political or militant organization. That mainstream Freemasonry had anything to do with this is clearly contradicted by his own words.

Originally posted by King Seesar

So and again i don't say i believe this but here's where i'm going with this (deep breath) what if the teaching of Masonry lead Anders Breivik to kill all those people what if he took the symbols and the symbology to mean to do this act?

Right. What if he took the name "Knights Templar" to mean protection of the temple. The temple being the body. The body being the Norwegian type. Since masonry only teaches with symbols, his imagination fills in the rest. He sees the "Temple" coming under threat by the new muslim immigrants. They have a different temple. It's corrupting the temple of the land. He thinks it's a war, to replace the Nordic type temple with the Arabic type temple, and hence his fight to protect the temple.

Symbols are dangerous things, when there's no real guidance on the meaning given.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Would it add any, to the words I have already said? To know a title, what effect would it have upon the meaning of the word?

You made a blanket assertion. Do you really find it that surprising that someone would challenge your bona fides to make such an assertion?

I stated a simple fact. It is a fact that I can see. Bona fides are not neccessary here. It would add nothing useful to the debate.

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Would it add any, to the words I have already said?

Given that you're telling multiple Freemasons about a major element of Freemasonry that none of them have ever heard about, it'd certainly add credibility to the words you've already said.

These are all birds of the same flock. Who obviously never heard of other types of birds in other domains. So even when they are shown the things of other birds, they still see and interpret what is there in their own feather colors.

reply to post by DRAZIW


Though it's not supported by the manifesto, I could agree to disagree on that note (especially since you think the manifesto is useless). The problem is when you either A) decide on zero evidence that Breivik is some kind of hero on an illogical and inhumane crusade expose some far worse crime on Freemasonry's part, or B) decide on even less evidence that Freemasons and Freemasonry were and are complicit in his crimes and in helping him escape punishment.

I'm substantially more against the former.

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

He was as active and enthusiastic a Freemason as he was a Christian. You cannot absolve either group eithout the other (I am both and find the tenets of neither should be on trial here).

An active and enthusiastic Freemason? Common fellas. With supposedly 4 attendances? I do believe he was much more active in Freemasonry than we are led to believe, however, but who knows. Maybe he was "visiting" other lodges, and just neglected his home lodge. You know, that handshake can open doors. He took the title of "Christian" only to enter the Freemason Lodge in Norway. He, himself, said he did not believe in Jesus Christ. But, he was probably baptized a christian at birth. And by birthright, he was entitled to call himself a christian.

The only thing that might get the Freemasons off the hook, is the fact that he started his explorations into his plans in 2005, but only in 2007 did he enter Freemasonry. So, he came in with some of his ideas already in place. He was probably seeking more light, the kind of light he was looking for, was such as would support his already partly formed views. In the "symbolism" and rituals, he obviously found some verification of his ideas, for he went on to the master mason degree, obviously satisfied from the inkling in the EA and FC that this is where he wanted to explore his ideas.

Since Freemasons have no beliefs, he took that symbolism blank slate, and turned it into his own design, erecting his own building, of which he was master and commander, and took action accordingly, as his imagination was directed. I see demonic influences there. But, the Tibetan Buddhists believe that the only demons that exist are in each man's own mind.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
These are all birds of the same flock. Who obviously never heard of other types of birds in other domains. So even when they are shown the things of other birds, they still see and interpret what is there in their own feather colors.

To use your analogy, it's more like someone taking a look at a few blue barbs under a microscope and insisting that peacocks are blue. Then, when seasoned ornithologists tell him what he's actually looking at, the layman insists that the blue peacocks are confined to some area they haven't explored, which is always just outside the research area of each new ornithologist.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
An active and enthusiastic Freemason? Common fellas. With supposedly 4 attendances?

That was my point.

Maybe he was "visiting" other lodges, and just neglected his home lodge.

At every meeting, a Mason signs the register as a member or visitor. If he visited a lodge, his name would be on a log somewhere.

You know, that handshake can open doors.

Not to a lodge, though. With everything on the Internet, he'd have to show proof of membership.

He took the title of "Christian" only to enter the Freemason Lodge in Norway. He, himself, said he did not believe in Jesus Christ. But, he was probably baptized a christian at birth. And by birthright, he was entitled to call himself a christian.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Swedish Rite merely required him to affirm that he was a Christian. As he considered himself one by his own definition (I agree that it's meaningless), the Swedish Rite probably didn't question it when he did so.

The only thing that might get the Freemasons off the hook

Really? He's only been to four meetings, he publicly declared it an insufficient vehicle for his views, and you still consider it open-and-shut? There are none so blind as those who will not see.

He was probably seeking more light, the kind of light he was looking for, was such as would support his already partly formed views. In the "symbolism" and rituals, he obviously found some verification of his ideas, for he went on to the master mason degree, obviously satisfied from the inkling in the EA and FC that this is where he wanted to explore his ideas.

Please show me in any of the publicly available monitors which of his ideas were verified in Masonic ritual. I'd prefer Duncan's Ritual but will accept any on the Internet Sacred Texts Archive.

It's more likely that he expected active participation in Freemasonry would be a good venue for his anti-Islam activism and was dissatisfied with the result. You know, like he said.

Since Freemasons have no beliefs

That's a gross mischaracterization of Freemasonry, and I'm not sure it's unintentional.

he took that symbolism blank slate, and turned it into his own design, erecting his own building, of which he was master and commander, and took action accordingly, as his imagination was directed.

So, in other words...nothing actually present in Masonic ritual was behind the Utoya massacre.

I see demonic influences there. But, the Tibetan Buddhists believe that the only demons that exist are in each man's own mind.

I certainly believe that spiritual malevolence gets far too much credit for the evil in the world.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

ORLY? Dare I ask what lodges in your vast experience "possess it"? Certainly these lodges bear no resemblance to any lodge I've visited.

[snip]

Can anyone see the riddle?

Can you answer the question asked?

It's a straightforward one really.

The answer is there already in my posts. If you would but read carefully what I wrote.

I agree with points both you guys make (OnTheLevel213 and DRAZIW) first he could of in theory interpreted the perceptions of the symbology wrong as in the case DRAZIW pointed out, when teaching lessons on life i think reading in words or words spoken to you flat out is a better option when trying to get a point across.

Also you make a great point OnTheLevel213 on why the Masons shouldn't be blamed if this what happened because this wasen't the intent of Masonry for Anders Breivik to take such action, it's not like he was forced to seek out Masonry he chose it.

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213
[
So, in other words...nothing actually present in Masonic ritual was behind the Utoya massacre.

I don't know that. What goes on inside a particular lodge is the business of the lodge, and is secret.

His entire action could be part of a ritual, to become a Dark Knight of the Order, walking on the black squares.

Human sacrifice has long been claimed to be part of some cult rituals.

It is necessary for the candidate to prove he is capable, and not just theorizing.

One does not become a Knight by merely reading books, and answering questions in a test.

A Knight must show actual valor on the battlefield.

He needed a battlefield, an enemy target, a weapon of choice for the battle, a cause, and to actually take action in the role playing ritual before he could earn the right to wear that badge of Knight's Templar. Most importantly, he needed to sacrifice the lives of others in reality, to show "will".

He did all this to impress somebody else. The question is "who".

Who gave him the knighthood?

Who told him he would get a "reward" for this action?

We do not Knight ourselves. That would be meaningless.

I see demonic influences there. But, the Tibetan Buddhists believe that the only demons that exist are in each man's own mind.

I certainly believe that spiritual malevolence gets far too much credit for the evil in the world.

While I accept that each man may have his own demons, of a kind, I certainly believe there are demons outside of self that can and do influence us, or at least influence those around us, when they can't get to us directly.

I cannot find any other way to explain the many genocides that occurr from time to time in places around the earth, but that there is a larger deamon out there, to whome these deaths are important sacrifices.

The men may think they are "clensing" their environment of others, but the deamon or deamons that inspire them are "reaping" the crop.

Anders Breivik did not kill the old retired nor the alien immigrant, he selected the young fresh blood of his own for the sacrifice. So, his intention does not really match up with the type of blood he shed. The manifesto is misdirection,. the objective was the sacrifice to prove he was worthy of his Knighthood degree. That makes most sense to me. For then, it fits in better with all the recurring genocides and mass murders that occur around the world.

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213
Breivik revealed in his manifesto an erroneous belief that the Knights Templar created Freemasonry, and expected of them the same militant anti-Islam he saw in the historical Knights Templar, and criticized them for not being a political or militant organization. That mainstream Freemasonry had anything to do with this is clearly contradicted by his own words.

KT influence on FM is an old story, believed in by some, yet denied by others.

In my own research, I've traced the path this way

Cult of Mithra becomes Knights Templar becomes Freemasonry.

The name keeps changing. The cult becomes more organized and structured. Comes partly above the ground with more respectable trappings and is gradually becoming more open in general as the world becomes more enlightened.

How much of the old ways were dropped, in the process of transformation, I'm not sure.

I believe that the real secrets and rituals of the older cults always remained hidden somewhere within the hierarchy of Freemasonry, being reserved more and more to the higher and higher degrees, as the cult became more open.

Masonry has 3 degrees. Mithraism had 3 rings. Each ring in the Cult of Mithra had 2 levels, the dependent and the provider, making 6 grades. Then there was a final grade called "Father" that overlooked the whole club. Cult of Mithra was a military cult, was introduced to Rome by Pirates of Persian origin. The seven grades had names like Raven, Nymphus, Soldier, Lion, Pirate, Messenger, and finally Father. Sometimes, the grade "Pirate" was called "Persian", in honor of those who brought the cult to Rome. The "Messenger" degree was often "Messenger of Death" or "Betrayer", oftentimes using a fancy name like "Heliodromus" for Sun Runner..etc..

This was a very dark cult. It dealth in death.

It was the opposite of Christianity, and often parodied the rituals and symbols of the Christians to mock them. The Christians eventually wiped them out. But, the Cult of Mithra survived, only went deeper underground and re-emerged as the Knights Templar, once again wearing the Christian garb.

The way this cult operates is like a virus or chameleon bacteria, it takes up residence in a host organization somewhere and adopts it's dress to disguise itself as something else. So, it's very hard to find them out.

However, Jesus did tell us how to find them. For which he was crucified on the cross. They were, after all, Roman soldiers mostly, at the time of Jesus. Remember Jesus was "betrayed" by one of his own. All these grades have parallel open roles in society today. The Lion is the King, or president, the Messenger is the Diplomat etc..and so on. Interestingly, Norway's dispute with Sweden was that the Swedish King would not let Norway have their own Embassies abroad, so Norway had to rely on Swedish Messengers i.e. diplomats. This was a big issue that nearly came to war, and finally caused the split between Sweden and Norway. As you can see from the Cult of Mithras the Messenger is above the King. That's because the King relies on the Messengers to transmit faithfully his commands. Many a King was betrayed by the messengers who altered the Kings word before delivery. So, the messenger had power over the king, even though, to the outer world it seemed the King was the head and most powerful actor in the realm. In fact, he wasn't. Above him was the Pirate, who obeyed no law, the messenger, on whome he relied on for messages, and of course the hidden ruler called "Father" who was the real top of the pyramid.

Now, coming back to the grades of Mithra. The cult of Mithra used an image of a man slaying a bull. The bull represented the "uninitiated", like the Freemason's "COWan" today. While, Mithra was the initiate, victorious over the bull. This image had two meanings. On the one hand, the bull was like the cowan, the outsider to the cult, and mithra was the initiated insider. On the other hand, the bull was the physical body, the animal nature of the initiate, and mithra was his spirit who slayed his own animal nature and won victory over the self.

Take it which way you like. But in the outer world, the soldiers of mithra slew the un-initiated enemy combatants in battle for real. This was not meditative fiction.

What gave the soldiers of Mithra an edge?

Well, like the Knights Templar shows with their horse of two riders, each soldier was caring an extra pair of eyes around with him. The horse is the body. And the two riders were the spirit of the man, and a helper spirit that attached itself to the man to help him fight in battle. This is why the Knights Templar were so feared. They seemed to have magical powers, but really they just had a bit of extra help. They could anticipate the enemy moves better because two spirits occupied one body, when a man went into battle. That is the simple secret of the real Knights Templar.

[to be continued]

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213
Breivik didn't actually like or even understand Freemasonry to any great degree. Breivik revealed in his manifesto an erroneous belief that the Knights Templar created Freemasonry, and expected of them the same militant anti-Islam he saw in the historical Knights Templar, and criticized them for not being a political or militant organization. That mainstream Freemasonry had anything to do with this is clearly contradicted by his own words.

Now lets get to the grades of Mithra.

First Ring:
1..Raven
2..Nymphus

Raven is the dependent candidate, Nymphus is the provider. This is the "Vampyre" rung. I don't really want to get into this in any depth here. Suffice it to say a "Raven" is a bird that depends on a "Wolf" to kill the prey which he feeds on. Others have to provide him with his food. This is the first grade or level, learning how to eat unholy food. In the case of the Christians, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", should give you the picture of the parody here. Except, they are not eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ. They are violating the biblical command of Genesis 9:4. This is the first initiation, dinner with the mates (c.f. mit, mitra = mate; think pirate) Lots of stuff going on here, being baptized in the fresh blood of a "bull" etc..not going into this.

Nymphus, or "male bride". In this second grade, the vampyre spirit of the candidate initiate possesses the body of another and shows him things. This is another parody on the Christian doctrine of the holy spirit cleansing the body of the true believer [Gospel of Thomas, 75, 104; Matthew 9:15; Mark 2:19-20, Luke 5:34-35 etc..].. In this case, the vampyre spirit "feeds" the man, (and also feeds on him) helping to control his limbs, showing him sights etc..here the Nymphus is the provider. This is like the spirit of Christ feeding the christian, but of course, twisted and different to the extreme.

These two grades are really one but the role playing is reversed. First the candidate is possessed in Raven, then he is possessor in Nymphus. He learns what it's like to play both roles. The words "male" and "female" is used to describe who's "will is dominant". The weaker will is the female. The stronger will is the male. Usually, the stonger will is the freed spirit that plays the role of vampyre, but not always. These are all men in the flesh, at any rate. No real females allowed.


Second Ring:
3..Soldier
4..Lion

So, now that the initiate of mithras has learnt the art of possessing and being possessed by a mate, he moves up the the ladder to the next rung. Using that knowledge to do things--the "Werewolf" rung.

Soldier: here the soldier of mitras is playing the role of dependent. He needs someone to give him his fights, to tell him where to go to do battle, to try out his skills. In his initiation ceremony, a helmet is put on his head, which he knocks off with his hand and proclaims he will never wear a helmet (or crown as the case maybe in the Christ parody) for "Mitras is his Crown". etc...actually, since metal interferes with spirit possession he really needs to go into battle bear headed if he's to get any help from his "mate", and those extra pair of eyes. But, it seems a brave thing to do. So, the soldiers of mithras fight bearheaded, driving fear into the enemy. Just the thought that he doesn't need a helmet for protection creates the fear.

Lion: ok. so soldiers fight battles, but somebody has to lead them, to provide them with the contests, duals, and challenges. This is where the Lion comes in. The Lion is the spirit of a mate that leaves his body and possesses another mate, for the purpose of direction and battle. This is why Jesus warns,

Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man." Gospel of Thomas #7

The Soldier who is possessed is putting his life at risk. But the Lion is blessed because he is fighting with another's body, and not his own.

That brings us to Anders Breivik. Is he the Soldier or the Lion?

This death cult, of mithras, is a very harsh cult. If any of it has survived into modern times, and Anders has stumbled upon it in some ritual, then his soul is in grave danger. He thinks of himself as a Knight's Templar, but in reality he is either soldier or lion, if so, and the Lion is the lucky one, and the soldier is cursed.


Third Ring:
5..Pirate
6..Messenger

7..Father

No real need to get into these since Anders Breivik could not be at these levels anyway. The Messenger is a delightful fellow, he runs messages between the underworld and the world above, i.e. the secret orders and the open society. The Father, again a parody on the Church Father, runs the show on the dark side.

The cult of mithras became extinct in this form described above some time in 300-400 A.D. But, really, names change, rituals get modified...etc..

Originally posted by DRAZIW
I don't know that. What goes on inside a particular lodge is the business of the lodge, and is secret.

Assuming that's right (and, as mentioned, the existence of a number of public monitors suggests otherwise), then apply it consistently. You're trying to butter your bread on both sides, throwing your imagination into overdrive as to what in Freemasonry could have set off Anders Breivik but pulling the secrecy card when presented with the possibility that it could not.

His entire action could be part of a ritual, to become a Dark Knight of the Order, walking on the black squares.

This is exactly what I'm talking about; you don't mind speculating on the affirmative but "reserve judgement" on the negative.

For the record, neither the black nor the white tiles are trod upon exclusively, and the manner upon which they are stepped is not specified in Masonic ritual.

Human sacrifice has long been claimed to be part of some cult rituals. It is necessary for the candidate to prove he is capable, and not just theorizing.

If it's "not just theorizing", then it's not just "claimed". I want evidence, not "claims", if you want to enter this into discussion. Let me guess: it's "secret", so you don't have to prove it.

One does not become a Knight by merely reading books, and answering questions in a test.

That's exactly how someone becomes a Mason, though.

He needed a battlefield, an enemy target, a weapon of choice for the battle, a cause, and to actually take action in the role playing ritual before he could earn the right to wear that badge of Knight's Templar.

Which he did not receive through any body affiliated with Freemasonry. Look it up.

Most importantly, he needed to sacrifice the lives of others in reality, to show "will". He did all this to impress somebody else. The question is "who".

And we're back to my original point: it's okay to say all that about a supposedly secret ritual but not that it didn't make him crazy.

Who gave him the knighthood?

Not a Mason.

Who told him he would get a "reward" for this action?

How do you know this even happened? Oh, yeah, because it supports your conclusion.

We do not Knight ourselves. That would be meaningless.

Mass murderers aren't really known for their adherence to social norms.

I cannot find any other way to explain the many genocides that occurr from time to time in places around the earth, but that there is a larger deamon out there, to whome these deaths are important sacrifices.

While I do at the very least acknowledge the possibility of (and in some sense believe in) a supernatural amplification of evil, to automatically elevate it to the level of religious rite doesn't fit with any legitimate religious/anthropological scholarship, and is more at home in bigoted screeds.

The manifesto is misdirection,. the objective was the sacrifice to prove he was worthy of his Knighthood degree.

When your theory requires you to disregard the only available evidence and invent others out of whole cloth, that should raise red flags.

For the record, I should reiterate that his self-conferred title of Knight Templar was not connected to any Masonic body.