Freemasonry and the Illuminati

Since there is no quantifiable proof that the 'Illuminati' exist as anything more than a long extinct Bavarian group of Religious Freedom Fighters, it could be Said that 'they' have literally every symbol ever desgined at their disposal.

If they exist.

No proof, without long suppositions.

Once again, Masonry pays the price for keeping their collective privacy in tact.

reply to post by King Seesar


Im basically saying Masonry was the boot of the Noble houses. They put their influence into masonry - and masonry acts as a vehicle to effect the grand goals of humanities "elite - the Nobles. Hence the concept of a "Mason" - one who works, or effects the symbolic plans of the elite Nobles.

So, at no point do i believe Masonry was 'infiltrated'. I think from the very beginning, as symbolically indicated by the fact that a British Noble has headed Masonry since 1813. Citing Masonry is all about symbolism, what do you think is meant by this particular symbolism? That a Duke of Kent or Duke of Sussex always stands as the symbolic head of the organization? I think my inference is perfectly spot on.

To some people this isnt evil. And even if the Nobles were the elect who guide the body of world Freemasonry - it wouldnt change anything, since God has invested his power in the Noble Houses; the Nobles being the "men of renown".

Originally posted by dontreally
I think from the very beginning, as symbolically indicated by the fact that a British Noble has headed Masonry since 1813. Citing Masonry is all about symbolism, what do you think is meant by this particular symbolism?

And what is the symbolic relevance to a Mason who is not part of the United Grand Lodge of England?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


I dont really think that matters. Symbolically, the United Grand Lodge of England is the core of Freemasonry.

Seriously, just take a gander elsehwere if you doubt my thesis that Freemasonry is merely the vehicle of the Noble Houses..

The United Grand Lodge of Ireland has also been headed by a Nobleman; the first being - in 1725 - Richard Parsons, the first Earl of Posse. Each head of the United Grand Lodge of Ireland has been of Noble stock.

Election Name
1725 Richard Parsons, 1st Earl of Rosse
1731 James King, 4th Baron Kingston
1732 Nicholas Netterville, 5th Viscount Netterville
1733 Henry Barnewall, 4th Viscount Kingsland
1735 James King, 4th Baron Kingston
1736 Marcus Beresford, 1st Viscount Tyrone (later Earl of Tyrone)
1738 William Stewart, 3rd Viscount Mountjoy
1740 Arthur St Leger, 3rd Viscount Doneraile
1741 Charles Moore, 2nd Baron Moore of Tullamore
1743 Thomas Southwell, 2nd Baron Southwell
1744 John Allen, 3rd Viscount Allen
1747 Sir Marmaduke Wyvill, 6th Bt
1749 Robert King, 1st Baron Kingsborough
1751 Lord George Sackville (later Viscount Sackville)
1753 Hon. Thomas George Southwell
1757 Brinsley Butler, Lord Newtown-Butler
1758 Charles Moore, 6th Earl of Drogheda
1760 Charles Moore, 1st Earl of Charleville
1761 Sir Edward King, 5th Bt
1763 Thomas Nugent, 6th Earl of Westmeath
1767 Ford Lambart, 5th Earl of Cavan
1769 Edward King, 1st Earl of Kingston
1770 William FitzGerald, Marquess of Kildare
1772 Randal MacDonnell, Viscount Dunluce
1774 George Rochfort, 2nd Earl of Belvedere
1776 Garret Wesley, 1st Earl of Mornington
1777 William FitzGerald, 2nd Duke of Leinster
1778 Randal MacDonnell, 6th Earl of Antrim
1782 Richard Wellesley, 2nd Earl of Mornington
1783 Robert Deane, 1st Baron Muskerry
1785 Arthur Hill, Viscount Kilwarlin
1787 Francis Annesley, 2nd Viscount Glerawley (later Earl of Annesley)
1789 Richard Hely-Hutchinson, 2nd Baron Donoughmore
1813 Augustus FitzGerald, 3rd Duke of Leinster
1874 James Hamilton, 1st Duke of Abercorn
1886 James Hamilton, 2nd Duke of Abercorn
1913 Richard Hely-Hutchinson, 6th Earl of Donoughmore
1948 Raymond Frederick Brooke
1964 John Hely-Hutchinson, 7th Earl of Donoughmore
1981 Dermot Chichester, 7th Marquess of Donegall
1992 Darwin Herbert Templeton
2001 Eric Noel Waller
2006 George Dunlop

Same thing with the Grand lodge of Scotland

Link

Ignoring that the last 3 leaders of Irish masonry lack a title before their name, the trend has predominantly been men of Noble stock. This continues especially within the United Grand Lodge of England, which is the symbolic core inasmuch as England and the British Monarchy is the symbolic head of the UK and the commonwealth of nations (and you might aswell say the world, since English - the language of England - has become the universal language of our era)...

Originally posted by dontreally
I dont really think that matters.

If it does not matter than why mention the symbolism?

Symbolically, the United Grand Lodge of England is the core of Freemasonry.

Uh, no. For me, the Grand Lodge of the State of New Jersey is the core of Masonry. I have no loyalty in Masonry elsewhere. There may be mutual amity between my jurisdiction and others but it has no effect on my person or on the ritual.

Seriously, just take a gander elsehwere if you doubt my thesis that Freemasonry is merely the vehicle of the Noble Houses..

The United Grand Lodge of Ireland has also been headed by a Nobleman

Ireland? I live in the United States. Completely irrelevant.

Same thing with the Grand lodge of Scotland.

See above. Equally as irrelevant.

Ignoring that the last 3 leaders of Irish masonry lack a title before their name, the trend has predominantly been men of Noble stock. This continues especially within the United Grand Lodge of England, which is the symbolic core inasmuch as England and the British Monarchy is the symbolic head of the UK and the commonwealth of nations (and you might aswell say the world, since English - the language of England - has become the universal language of our era)...

Once again. Where is the relevance to Masons not a part of these jurisidctions?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

And what is the symbolic relevance to a Mason who is not part of the United Grand Lodge of England?

You seem to have forgotten what that comment referred to. I said it doesnt matter whether YOU - a freemason from America - know how the Noble Houses relate with Masonry.

Symbolically, the head of Freemasonry is the Duke of Kent, Prince Philip. Does it matter whether you know it? Symbols tend to be more the interest of those in the know than those who dont know. But those who dont know can learn something about the symbolic structure of Freemasonry by noting that the head of the United Grand Lodge - in every generation - is a member of the British royal family. Is that democratic? Or perhaps the same 'divine right' that Nobles invoke anyhow?

reply to post by dontreally


And what you fail to understand is that every lodge is autonomous.

We are 'certified legit' by the Grand lodge, but otherwise have no political affiliations.

This is the 'you aren't high up in the order enough to know the Real Freemasonry' argument.

Royalty means nothing to Free and Accepted Masons.

reply to post by jimnuggits


If thats so, why is the head of the United Grand Lodge of England always a member of the British royal family? Are non-nobles not allowed to be the head? It always has to be a noble who leads the "free and accepted masons"?

Also, you dont have to get snipey. Isnt this question worth pondering? Or are you taught in Freemasonry to unequivocally accept Freemasonry? I find this very odd, that almost every mason i speak with defends the order as a matter of principle; he doesnt even make logical exceptions like "some lodges are corrupt". Nope. Its all Kosher. All certified and justified. You sound more like PR representative then someone who really cares about the truth.

Im not saying Freemasonry is satanic. Im merely saying its a vehicle created by the various Western European Nobles houses. And there is ample evidence showing it.

Originally posted by dontreallyIf thats so, why is the head of the United Grand Lodge of England always a member of the British royal family? Are non-nobles not allowed to be the head?

Because it's the Grand Lodge of England?

It always has to be a noble who leads the "free and accepted masons"?

For British Masons, it would seem so, yes.

reply to post by dontreally


No snipeyness implied my friend, it is a simple misunderstanding.

You seem to be under the impression that we are people whom are admonished to do the 'Noble Houses' bidding.

I am saying that, whomever the Grand Lodge of England's Big Cheese may be is irrelevant to any and every Mason whom does not belong to that particular lodge.

Originally posted by dontreally
Symbolically, the head of Freemasonry is the Duke of Kent, Prince Philip. Does it matter whether you know it?

The more relevant question (and the one you continue to skirt) is why does it matter to anyone but a Mason in the United Kingdom? What is the relevant symbolism to me?

Symbols tend to be more the interest of those in the know than those who dont know. But those who dont know can learn something about the symbolic structure of Freemasonry...

In the United Kingdom, but not anywhere else. There are more Masons who this means NOTHING to than those who it means something to.

...by noting that the head of the United Grand Lodge - in every generation - is a member of the British royal family. Is that democratic? Or perhaps the same 'divine right' that Nobles invoke anyhow?

Who cares, nobility means nothing to me in any aspect of my life, let alone Masonry. Again, what is the relevance?

Originally posted by jimnuggits
Since there is no quantifiable proof that the 'Illuminati' exist as anything more than a long extinct Bavarian group of Religious Freedom Fighters, it could be Said that 'they' have literally every symbol ever desgined at their disposal.

If they exist.

No proof, without long suppositions.

Once again, Masonry pays the price for keeping their collective privacy in tact.

Of course, no mater if the so called Illuminati is remnants of Adam Weishaupt's group or even before that with the Brotherhood of the Snake or just a name givin to a group to lump all the crooked elements into one, segments of this group for sure stole some of Masonry's symobols in my opinion.


As far as the head of the United Grand Lodge of England always being a member of the British royal family this is why i stated i feel European Masnory has more corrupt elements in its organization then any where else and part of this is because more people with clout in a range of spectrums occupy Euro Masonry and people join to try and get close to these Masons for some times nefarius means and that i say is your Illuminati elements within European Masonry and the corruption could have been happing (more then likely has) for a very long time now.

reply to post by jimnuggits

You seem to be under the impression that we are people whom are admonished to do the 'Noble Houses' bidding.

Well that would be the natural result of the Noble Houses having created Freemasonry. But that doesnt mean that you are "admonished" to do so.

You do so because you believe you are playing a part in a cosmic drama. What in earlier times was restricted mainly to Nobility and certain select individuals, in the 18th century was expanded to become Freemasonry.

Freemasonry was needed because the world was growing. We were entering a new epoch of history which required a large and interconnected network of organizations: Freemasonry.

I do not believe for one instant and i actually consider it a complete insult to a persons intelligence to think Masonry and Masons arent involved in some social agenda. This agenda is ultimately based in what Masonry teaches; Metaphysics and mysticism, which is the inner esoteric wisdom of exoteric religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc. Aswell as the inner ideas behind popular works of mythology and fiction. Hesiods theogony, Homers Illiad and other famous Greek dramas. All of this has a metaphysical interpretation and it is this wisdom which has been the sole heritage of the Noble classes.

I am saying that, whomever the Grand Lodge of England's Big Cheese may be is irrelevant to any and every Mason whom does not belong to that particular lodge.

I am not a Mason so i dont know for certain what is done in masonic lodges. But I do know that there is fraternizing, lectures, symbolic rituals, discussion of esoteric subjects (metaphysics)......However, does every lodge and every master mason privy to a social agenda? If hes an average joe, probably not. But if hes a influential person in the outer world im sure this man will become privy to the larger agenda and what he can do to help effect it, in his own little sphere of influence.

Does he reason and deduce that hes ultimately performing the will of the Noble houses - the guys who are at th very top? Perhaps it never occurs to him. If it did, would he still do it? Probably.

Ultimately, it depends on your relationship to the knowledge studied in Masonry; which is mostly gnostic in nature. If you approve of Gnosticism, particularly in its antinomian aspect, than you wouldnt disapprove of the methods or merit of the Noble classes. If however you hold to a different, more conservative morality, you would consider such people corrupt, deranged, narcissistic in their self righteousness, and simply evil.

This discussion is of increasing interest and there are valid ideas fusing from all directions. It appears that those of masonic affiliation are not aware of any sort of hierarchy promoting hidden agendas which might operate within Freemasonry, yet George Washington was himself alarmed and warned of penetration of Freemasonry by Illuminati agents using this power network for their own agenda. Whenever you have a secret hierarchy with influence or authority over their subservient members brought by deception to perceive orders as emerging from their own discussions and choices, we find ourselves in a system which can be at any time subverted or infiltrated by parties unknown and virtually undetectable even from other members in subsidiary filiation. Who is behind any initiative and for what purpose? It is anyone's guess and there are merely appearances of autonomy except for lesser local matters left to the attention of each local lodge. The "Great Plan" is left to the planning of the Great Architect who could be anyone imaginable, human or not. For Albert Pike he was Lucifer, but as masons will all say he was just one man and of course not in any way representative of other freemasons or of what constitutes masonry.

What might be an additional clue adding fuel to the OP's original theory is that there is a potentially demonstrable hypothesis that the Illuminati Power Elite could be a "Stealth Royalty" constituted of the offspring of blood nobles born illegitimaty from royal issue and who are equally as congenital being brought to intermarry between these same bloodlines outside of official aristocratic titles or wealth. These individuals constitute a similar web of royal descent although officially "low born" instead of born to lofty social status. We can denote thus that most American Presidents are connected by blood to aristocratic bloodlines and that the are for the most part all cousins, something quite similar in nature to the European royal lineages where at a given time first cousins ruled the world - arguably together if in appearance against one another, as per example in the 19th Century the Tsar of all the Russias, his cousin the German Kaiser and their cousin, the Queen of the British Empire. Similar power elites exist in what pass as democracies, with cousins alternating as "elected" rulers. The selfsame are members of Secret Societies said to constitute branches of the Illuminati such as Skull & Bones or Scroll & Key in the USA and their numerous counterparts in other regions of the world.

GS

Originally posted by dontreally
Does he reason and deduce that hes ultimately performing the will of the Noble houses - the guys who are at th very top? Perhaps it never occurs to him. If it did, would he still do it? Probably.

I don't know how many times we can keep stressing this, but the Duke of Kent being the symbolic head of the United Grand Lodge of England only matters to Masons under the jurisdiction of the United Grand Lodge of England.

You keep acting as if Masonry is one thing—one nebulous body under one over-arching umbrella—but it's not.

As Augustus stated, he's a member of a lodge which owes its allegiance to (and derives its charter from) the Grand Lodge of New Jersey. I'm a member of a lodge which owes its allegiance to (and derives its charter from) the Grand Lodge of Texas. The Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of New Jersey and the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Texas are both elected officers, each serving one year terms, and they are the ultimate authority for the lodges under their supervision. And there's no Masonic individual nor body above them that has ANY sway over their policies or actions. Each Grand Lodge is an independent and sovereign body. So what I do as a Texas Mason has little to do with what Augie does as a New Jersey Mason, and little to do with what anyone under UGLE does as a British Mason. We recognize each other; we acknowledge a historical and philosophical bond between our bodies. But when it comes to matters of policy, no Grand Lodge has sway over the actions of another Grand Lodge.

Originally posted by Getsmart
This discussion is of increasing interest and there are valid ideas fusing from all directions. It appears that those of masonic affiliation are not aware of any sort of hierarchy promoting hidden agendas which might operate within Freemasonry

Because we know that no such hierarchy is possible within Freemasonry. We've seen the mechanics, we've pulled back the curtain, and we know that there are no puppet masters above the Grand Masters.

yet George Washington was himself alarmed and warned of penetration of Freemasonry by Illuminati agents using this power network for their own agenda.

It's been a while since I read the Washington letter, but I believe it wasn't concern, so much as an observation particular to continental european Freemasonry of the time. The Bavarian Illuminati infiltrated Masonry in, well, Bavaria. This isn't terribly troubling to someone thousands of miles away operating under an entirely different Grand Lodge.

Whenever you have a secret hierarchy with influence or authority over their subservient members brought by deception to perceive orders as emerging from their own discussions and choices, we find ourselves in a system which can be at any time subverted or infiltrated by parties unknown and virtually undetectable even from other members in subsidiary filiation.

Except for the fact that no such secret hierarchy exists.

The "Great Plan" is left to the planning of the Great Architect who could be anyone imaginable, human or not. For Albert Pike he was Lucifer

And you've been around here long enough to recognize the Taxil Hoax when you see it. Pike didn't believe in a Lucifer. He laughed at the idea, actually, but understood why the primitive early religions invented such concepts and mythologies to explain the world around them.

We can denote thus that most American Presidents are connected by blood to aristocratic bloodlines and that the are for the most part all cousins, something quite similar in nature to the European royal lineages where at a given time first cousins ruled the world - arguably together if in appearance against one another, as per example in the 19th Century the Tsar of all the Russias, his cousin the German Kaiser and their cousin, the Queen of the British Empire. Similar power elites exist in what pass as democracies, with cousins alternating as "elected" rulers.

And if you spend ten minutes on a genealogical website you'll soon discover that you too are a cousin to all of the presidents, tsars, kaisers and kings. We all are. There are no bloodlines.

Why is it so incredibly difficult for non Masons to understand that what we do at our lodge has nothing whatsoever to do with any other lodge?

Masonry is not like Christianity, it does not radiate out from a central source, and take its orders from others.

Masonry exists without a traditional hierarchy.

Our leaders are only such for one year, and cannot be such for more than that.

So, while your argument is valid perhaps to British Masonry, it has little relevance to Masonry at large.

We don't believe in Nepotism, nor would such an obvious favoritism prevail for generations.

reply to post by Getsmart


Well said with the first paragraph.

I dont mean to say that Freemasonry is "luciferian" because such a hypothesis misses the whole point of what Freemasonry is: Pluralistic. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, every person of every kind is found within their ranks. Some of the most noble and at the same time ignoble individuals can be Freemasons.

However, what you explained about not being able to know whos policy or plan you are affecting is a symptom of Masonrys heirarchial and secretive structure. Im merely pointing out the individals who make up the Symbolic head. I am pointing out that Nobles preexist Masonry as a "mystical society" unto themselves. It only makes sense to deduce that Masonry is related and subservient to the Noble classes, who till this day exercize power, albeit, in a much more clandestine way than they have for the last 4000+ years.

Thats another thing. Who were the leaders of the Roman empire? Noble families. Senators were more often then not individuals of Noble birth. The emperor was always a member of a Noble family. Did this change between the period of the collapse of the Roman empire and the beginning of the Byzantium empire? Clearly, it did not. As noted in my OP, Henry Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Otto Van Habsburg, are just two examples of present day Noble leaders (Otto, who died just a few months back was given a state funeral by Austria: strange for a man who had no formal government position. Typically, ceremonial heads, ie; Kings, Queens, or Presidents, as in countries which have prime ministers, such as Israel, these people have a more elusive influence on government and seem to do alot of 'travelling' behind the scenes, while the PM deals more with the exoteric issues; domestic, foreign etc) who have a paternal linage that goes back into Byzantium times, in both Western and Central Europe. Why not further? Is 1500 years of continued dominance and temporal authority not a good indicator that such power probably goes into Roman and pre-Roman times? This might explain Rabbinic statements like Edom, a kingdom historically located in modern day Jordan, is "Rome". This seems to imply that the powers that be have their pimordial origins in the near east; from there they went forth and founded the Roman empire. The same religion, the same metaphysics, underlies both religions: near eastern paganism (Egyptian and Babylonian) and Christianity.

I am often shocked sometimes by how archetypally similar the earliar pagan myths of Greece, Egypt, Rome, Babylona and India are to Christian myth. For instance, Gaia - the Sophia principle - which is both progenitor and wife to Uranous; this being archetypally akin to the Gnostic doctrine of Sophia, the 8th sphere, "creating", or being the hidden impetus behind the demiurge, or Uranous. So, she is "mother", and at the same time "Virgin" ie; co-equal with Uranous, the demiurge, who is the established order. Thus, saying Mary gave birth to Jesus through an "immaculate conception", is essentially the same as saying Gaia was wife and mother to Uranous. Gaia impels Cronus - the flow of time, and change, to destroy the established order of Uranous, by castrating him (ending his influence). Nonetheless, the 'essence' of order remains, to fall into the unformed chaos and void of the ocean, and from the blood and semen (the essence) of Uranous is produced a foam, where Aphrodite - desire - comes forth. This process is what probably induced Percy Shelly to say "we are all Greeks", because this essential doctrine runs beneath even Christianity. Christianity is subject to the change required. Change is the essence of Pagan doctrine, and it is present in the symbolism of all religions (minus the Judaic revelation, and to a lesser extent, Islam).

This is what makes me so interested in Frederick the II of Hohenstaufen, who built the mysterious castel del monte, the octagonal structure, reminding one of another octagonal strucure, the dome of the rock.

Frederick was the first great King of the Era of Yesod; or the time in the Hebrew Calendar when the energies of Yesod enter the dimension of time. Frederick is often regarded as the 'first scientist', and he himself was called the 'antichrist' by Pope Gregory IX. In other words, Frederick was the prototype of the future man, as he is today. This is the whole idea of "the king embodies the whole people". Frederick was also intensely interested in Sufism - Islam, and had ambitions to unite the two great western religions, Islam and Christianity.

See, i dont believe the whole plotline. I dont think the pope really believed frederick was the 'antichrist', in the same way ignorant christians think it. Both sides play a part, knowingly and complicitly, to effect the "Great plan". Islam as much as Christianity. Both destined to unite.

Originally posted by Getsmart
The "Great Plan" is left to the planning of the Great Architect who could be anyone imaginable, human or not. For Albert Pike he was Lucifer, but as masons will all say he was just one man and of course not in any way representative of other freemasons or of what constitutes masonry.

It needs to be categorically stated that, to Pike, the Great Architect of the Universe was not "Lucifer". While Pike believed that most of the Bible was allegorical instead of literal, he nevertheless believed in the existence of the God of the Patriarchs, and he himself was a Christian mystic.