Freemasonry and the Illuminati

reply to post by JoshNorton


Deism ah i forgot, Deism: belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation.

It still seems some what in conjecture with there real basis of that of a scientific nature in earnest with what the sound mind and body conjure up or perceive to be the existence of God it seems like nature is more what they are talking about, but you're right in that it was populer amongst the intelligentsia of the enlightenment age as conflicting as it would seem.

As far as the "all seeing eye" it has mulitple meanings and what not, some say it is of a evil plot to bring in a New World Order and that it's the eye of Lucifer or a Babylon deity ect ect....

My thesis is that at this point Masons (American) are being used as some what of a smoke screen for TPTB, it's givin the facade that what happens at American Mason meetings is the same thing that happen at the Trilateral commission the council on foreign relations and the meetings at Bohemian Grove, which it's not if anything it's done behind close doors and most Masons wouldn't even recognize these brothers if they were using Masonry for that, like i said i feel TPTB have point men in any type of organization to keep tabs on the inter workings of such which is why i brought up cointelpro, even if most Mason's don't believe it you guys have been checked out by TPTB the fact your a so called secret society makes that a definite.

But back on point, what i was getting at with the Symbol of "the all seeing eye" is i think forces are using some of Mason's symbology as a mis-direct to get peoples attention off the groups i mentioned above, Ted Gunderson former head of the F.B.I in California said that satanic cults were used as front groups for the C.I.A and F.B.I, now i'm not suggesting Freemasonry is satanic or what not but make no mistake things like this happen.


As far as European Masonry i agree with some points dontreally is talking about, i feel corruption exist within these confinds because of the powerful connections that establish such, meaning the nobels ect ect of said Masonry.

reply to post by JoshNorton

But the British royal family does not, to the best of my knowledge, include any Hapsburgs. At least not recently. Find a point. Stick to it.

So? There is a point. Noble families.

MOST Americans are related to the same nobility for the same reason. For that matter, by extension, MOST Europeans are related to the same nobility.

Oh please.... Ive heard this argument before. No. The American presidents are only a few lines off from the Nobility. In addition, historians can actually PROVE their connection to the Noble houses.

For instance, if you read that article i provided, the Bushes are derived from upper class nobility; not middle class.

Chances are, so are you.

No, i am not. This argument is pathetic. It completely ignores the fact that Habsburg, the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, are the direct heirs; DIRECT, that means, their father, and their father, and their father, back to the 5th and 6th century CE (which can be proven) were temporal rulers.

Originally posted by dontreally
No, i am not. This argument is pathetic. It completely ignores the fact that Habsburg, the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, are the direct heirs; DIRECT, that means, their father, and their father, and their father, back to the 5th and 6th century CE (which can be proven) were temporal rulers.

For the last time, who gives a rat's ass about the Hapsburgs? What do they have to do with ANYTHING in global politics TODAY?????????

reply to post by JoshNorton


Ok, Josh Norton. Reread my Original post. I explained it all there.

Originally posted by dontreally
You did formulate a theory when you said " The further you go from Augustus's reign towards the fall of the Western Empire the more frequent it becomes that non-noble emperors rose to the purple. ". Meaning, as the Roman Empire evolved, Nobles had less of an influence.

It is not a 'theory' to say that the further one gets away from Augustus the more Emperors arise that are of non-noble lineage, it is a proveable, historic FACT. I have given you several Emperors who, over the short span of a few decades, came from non-noble ancestry and were the overwhelming majority of the Emperors of that period. There are many more after them. Use the links I provided and do some reading.

If that is so, answer this question.

It is not so.

STOP IGNOIRING THE CRUX of the thread, as you masons typically do.

The crux of your thread does not interest me. I saw you making wildly inaccurate claims to support your statements and pointed out the inaccuracies which you subsequently failed to acknowledge, and sadly tried to distort instead.

Explain this to me. Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Otto Van Bismark, who just a few generations back had a paternal ancestor as Holy Roman Emperor - with his earliest ancestor going back to a mythical figure named "aymes".

What is the relevance of a lineage that can trace itself back to a mythic figure (which by defintion may not even exist)? Julius Caesar claimed to be descended from Venus (another mythic figure), does that really make the son of a god?

Is it ridiculous to think that before Aymes, or Robert, mayor of Austrasia, this paternal lineage continues into Roman and pre Roman times.

Yes, as there is no accurate data to support that it even goes as far back as you have alleged.

Is 48 generations not impressive? You must think im a bafoon to think this isnt meaningful!

The bafoonery is in thinking that some minor dukes and such have any relevance in today's world.

Go to wikipedia and play the game of tracing the names of Kings back and back.

You mean the same site were people can edit information in and out? No thanks. Maybe when you have a more reputable source on geneology.

The House of Bragaza - a portuguese noble house (which is also the ruling family in Brazil, and provided the emperors when the Brazil was a kingdom) which is derived from the house of Borbon, also has impressive longevity.

Manuel II died hierless and the enitre Bragaza family of pretenders and usurpers are irrelevant.

Forgive me for stating the obvious, which you disregard in your annonying arrogance as unimportant.

Awww...so sorry. Too bad I like facts and not supposition (or superstition).

You can complain about my lack of knowledge of Roman history, fine. Were past that.

Are we?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


I realize i was wrong in asserting that every emperor or senator was of Noble stock. However, i still maintain that the majorirty - and the essential power - lies with the established noble families.

What is the relevance of a lineage that can trace itself back to a mythic figure (which by defintion may not even exist)?

I made a mistake. I was thinking about Merovach - the mythical heir of the merovingian dynasty, and not Aymes.. Aymes was a real person. Merovach was probably a real person aswell

Mythological figures were probably real persons, whose own legendary and fantastic exploits while alive meritted their becoming apart of the very fabric of the upper world, and transfigured into heros.

Since the Noble houses often traces themselves to such legendary figures, for instance, the Massimo family of Rome traces their ancestory back to the Roman Maximi, who in turn are derived from the Fabii, who, according to Plutarch, were born from Hercules - another mythical Hero figure.

In anycase, the point of tracing themselves back to a mythical figure is not to displace the reality that their ancestory goes back further in history. Rather, it alludes to their primordial origin; that each Noble inherits, as a divine right, the heroic powers of Hercules, or a Merovach. It refers to their archetpal origins.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

You mean the same site were people can edit information in and out? No thanks. Maybe when you have a more reputable source on geneology

You know, you can go to wikipedia (if wikipedia were so worthless, why does it exist? It has value, it just requires discernment to know what is and isnt reasonable) and trace each Noble back and back by clicking on their father, unless you think that too is a falsification. This will lead you back to the 9th century. The earlier figures, the ones without a wikipedia profile, are assumed to be real, since its reasonable to assume a professional genealogist posted that genealogy.

reply to post by dontreally

That is great that the UGLE Grand Master is British royalty. That's British Masonry which has no merit on American Masonry or really any Masonic jurisdiction outside the realm of that Grand Lodge.

I bet there are tons of people who have distant relations to British and French royalty. That is just a result of our country's history. My surname is of British-Scottish descent so I bet I have some connection to royalty and I am a first generation Mason.

Who cares about the Bush's ancestry. Neither of the Bush laterpresidents were or are Masons. You say nearly all Presidents are related to royalty, but not all Presidents were Masons, only 14 have been Masons. This is well known and documented.

Your premise that Freemasonry is controlled by royalty is misleading and incorrect as really only British Masonry has royal leadership and, they as most Grand Lodges do, annually elect their leadership. Nor does British Masonry exercise authority over other Grand Lodges.

Here are some points to focus on:

- Less than 1/3 of all US Presidents have been Masons, the last being Gerald Ford.

- Of those 14: 6 went through the Royal Arch, 4 became Knights Templar, 2 were Grand Masters of a Grand Lodge, 1 was a Deputy Grand Master of a Grand Lodge, 1 only made it to the 14° of the Scottish Rite, 3 were 32°, 2 were 33° Scottish Rite Masons (one of them being Harry Truman, the 33rd US President), and Harry Truman was the only 50 year Mason.

- Every Grand Lodge is sovereign and independent. No other Grand Lodge or concordant body can usurp that authority from the voting members.

- The leadership is chosen by the voting members. And those leaders govern within the bounds set forth by the voting members written down in the Constitution and By-Laws.

- Freemasonry doesn't discriminate based on ones worldly wealth or honors.

Originally posted by dontreally
I realize i was wrong in asserting that every emperor or senator was of Noble stock. However, i still maintain that the majorirty - and the essential power - lies with the established noble families.

Are you refering to Rome again? If so, the Emperor had the ability-and frequently did-purge the Senate (read: expell, execute) resulting in many non-noble families being elevated from the equestrian rank, or lower, to senatorial rank. While some of the ancient senatorial families survived owing to their multiude, there were others that cease to be except in memory.

The further the trajectory travels from Augustus the more prevalent this becomes where the Legions determined who would rise to the purple and then this emperor would subsequently have say over the constituents of the Senate. Rome was very fractalized after the first quarter of the third century and this fractilization existed in one form or another of the intervening centuries with very few breaks.

Mythological figures were probably real persons, whose own legendary and fantastic exploits while alive meritted their becoming apart of the very fabric of the upper world, and transfigured into heros.

'Were probably real' and were definetly real are very disparate things. I mentioned earlier Caeser's claimed lineage to Venus. Many emperors used this to add legitmacy to their reighns, others, like you listed claimed paretage from Hercules. Niether one of these people, in my opinion, was real, so any claims to ancestry are radical embellishments.

Since the Noble houses often traces themselves to such legendary figures, for instance, the Massimo family of Rome traces their ancestory back to the Roman Maximi, who in turn are derived from the Fabii, who, according to Plutarch, were born from Hercules - another mythical Hero figure.

I am familiar with the legend of the Maximi, whom Napoleon himself is said to have questioned in regards their lineage whilst negotiating a treaty.

In anycase, the point of tracing themselves back to a mythical figure is not to displace the reality that their ancestory goes back further in history. Rather, it alludes to their primordial origin; that each Noble inherits, as a divine right, the heroic powers of Hercules, or a Merovach. It refers to their archetpal origins.

Claims and allusions are not definitive and the reason the claims and allusions were made is to supplant their original lineage and, for the sake of future history, appear to have descended from the ranks of myth and nobility.

Originally posted by dontreally
The earlier figures, the ones without a wikipedia profile, are assumed to be real, since its reasonable to assume a professional genealogist posted that genealogy.

I would prefer to see this professional genealogist's site as wikipedia is not trustworty enough in this circumstance. Anyone can edit the information and claim to be from the family in question. Conflation of ones origins is a proven historical phenomenom.