The Illuminati - WHAT IF YOU MET THEM?

Originally posted by NAMTERCES
...and thus implicates the "compass" which is used to measure out ratios.

The tool used in Masonic symbolisim is a compasses, as in plural, not compass. Compasses are not measuring devices per se (the exception being cartographic purposes) and are most often used to proscribe circles or arcs. I am not sure what makes you think otherwise and why the requirement that such knowledge be 'hidden' in the Constitution.

I would also like you to explain how you would measure a ratio with a pair of compasses.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

I would also like you to explain how you would measure a ratio with a pair of compasses.

This might help:

www.mathopenref.com...

put the compass on one end of the line segment, draw the arc of a circle, put the compass at the other end of the line segment, draw another arc of the circle to intersect the first arc, then do the same on the other side of the line segment, and connect the two points of intersection with a straight edge. With the compass, you've just "bisected" the line, into two equal parts, and constructed the ratio 2:1.That's how you use the tool the construct ratios. More elaborate constructions enable the construction of ratios of other proportions.

Since you can construct a ratio using the compass, you can also measure an existing ratio, by making a ratio of line segments, and comparing to the existing ratio to the one you've constructed. By iteration, you can establish the measure of the ratio under test, to the accuracy desired.

Originally posted by NAMTERCES
With the compass, you've just "bisected" the line, into two equal parts, and constructed the ratio 2:1.That's how you use the tool the construct ratios.

I am well aware of bisecting the line which is a high school geomtery lesson and deals with creating perpendicular lines. I did not ask about this.

Since you can construct a ratio using the compass, you can also measure an existing ratio, by making a ratio of line segments, and comparing to the existing ratio to the one you've constructed. By iteration, you can establish the measure of the ratio under test, to the accuracy desired.

Compasses are not the correct tool to measure ratios, just as you can drive a nail with a screwdriver but it is not the proper tool for the job.

You still have not answered why this supposed 'knowledge' needs to be hidden in the Constitution. Addtionally, your premise relies on the fact that all Masonic Squares and Compasses have a fixed angle which they do not.

They will use u like the devil has been using the illuminati
maybe you will end has a sacrifice to lucifer

i think they are the opposite of the freemason
they have been at war for thousand of yrs (infidel vs fidel)
like God haters and God lovers or evil vs good
been like that for so long since we have entered the negative cycles
thousand of yrs ago

thank God that we are finishing those negative cycles on the 21 december

Davinci was a kabal fan and was gay
connect the dots to the rest
kabal and illuminati woreship lucifer
and communicate with him with occultism and dark rituals

I would ask them which enlightenment figure was most inspirational to them, and what it was like to live in the 1700's

the illuminati don't exist anymore

please correct your musings to "global elite" or "scary old men I've read about on the internet"

I lluminati does engage in obscene rituals...
But not too profane. These words aught to better help define it for you(s):

1) Swarm!
2) Overrun!
3) Usurp!
4) Utilize!

In that particular order...

This they do whenever some poor bastard's new age discovery becomes a reality.
If it is useful and/or detrimental... They Swarm!
When they are not swarming... They are wondering "What Is The Illuminati?" And "Why Do People Hate Them?"

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

You still have not answered why this supposed 'knowledge' needs to be hidden in the Constitution. Addtionally, your premise relies on the fact that all Masonic Squares and Compasses have a fixed angle which they do not.

Needs? What is needed? People do things because they want to and can. One reason for "hiding" the compass and square in the Constitution over 200 years ago is that there were lots of anti-masons around at the time, and so the signature was put there in such a way that only Freemason's could find it and understand who wrote the U.S. Constitution. While the masses believe "we the people" wrote the constitution, others know which of the people actually did. Moreover, putting the sign of Freemasonry into Article 5 was simply a way to hide "the key" to the constitution itself. For in these numbers is a special "key" that enables those that understand to interpret the other parts of the text. So, the "architecture" and "purpose" of the constitution is revealed by studying this "key." I guess, that's why it was considered a "need" to hide it there, instead of simply printing the usual graphic image of the Compass and Square somewhere on the document itself. Besides, secret societies love their mysteries.

I don't know anything about a fixed angle. Only the 90 degree trysquare has a fixed angle. The compass is variable. Why would you have "two" fixed angle tools? Makes no sense. One fixed and one variable, one immovable and one movable. Otherwise, you couldn't cover all the aspects of the universe. You can't describe the architecture of the universe with two fixed angles.

Originally posted by NAMTERCES
One reason for "hiding" the compass and square in the Constitution over 200 years ago is that there were lots of anti-masons around at the time...

Anti-Masonry did not come into vogue until the 1820's. Where is your evidence of this?

...and so the signature was put there in such a way that only Freemason's could find it and understand who wrote the U.S. Constitution. While the masses believe "we the people" wrote the constitution, others know which of the people actually did.

The Consitution was written by the Continental Congress. While some members were Masons the majority were not. Perhaps you can tell us who were Masons that favored either the Virginia or New Jersey plans and what portions thereof and which were used in the final draft?

Moreover, putting the sign of Freemasonry into Article 5 was simply a way to hide "the key" to the constitution itself. For in these numbers is a special "key" that enables those that understand to interpret the other parts of the text.

Such as?

Besides, secret societies love their mysteries.

This is a lame way of saying, 'I have no idea, therefore, Masons.'

I don't know anything about a fixed angle. Only the 90 degree trysquare has a fixed angle. The compass is variable. Why would you have "two" fixed angle tools? Makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense when you realize that your original premise is nearly a verbatim copy of William Burkle's article which deals in the geometery of the Sqaure and Compasses. His article, admittedly, relies on the fact that the compasses angle is fixed, without the fixed angle the equations do not work.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by NAMTERCES
One reason for "hiding" the compass and square in the Constitution over 200 years ago is that there were lots of anti-masons around at the time...

Anti-Masonry did not come into vogue until the 1820's. Where is your evidence of this?

Prior to 1717 the order was secret, in 1717 they "came out" of the closet and called themseves "Freemasons".

Almost immediately, Freemasonry received opposition, and by 1738 the Pope's edict officially banned Catholics from joining Freemasonry. You can read the delightful details of this continuing drama on wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Consitution was written by the Continental Congress. While some members were Masons the majority were not. Perhaps you can tell us who were Masons that favored either the Virginia or New Jersey plans and what portions thereof and which were used in the final draft?

All things have "outer", "inner", and "secret" aspects. The "outer" aspect is "The Constitution written by the Continental Congress".

Such as?

It's all there, look under the square.



The "key" is under the square.

This is a lame way of saying, 'I have no idea, therefore, Masons.'

I see it all.

It makes perfect sense when you realize that your original premise is nearly a verbatim copy of William Burkle's article which deals in the geometery of the Sqaure and Compasses. His article, admittedly, relies on the fact that the compasses angle is fixed, without the fixed angle the equations do not work.

Burkle is speculating. Like most junior Freemasons he is using his imagination to conjurer up a reason. But, there's no fixed angle there. Each Freemason is entitled to add his own meaning to the symbol and put there the angle that suits his fancy. The only thing Freemasons agree on is the 90 degree angle on the square, because that's the only "fixed" angle.

Originally posted by NAMTERCES
Prior to 1717 the order was secret, in 1717 they "came out" of the closet and called themseves "Freemasons".

The first Grand Lodge was formed in 1717, there is evidence of Masonic activity dating back to the 10th Century. Mother Kilwinning Lodge dates to at least 1598. You really need to do some homework on Masonry if you are going to attempt to make authoritative statements regarding the Fraternity.

Almost immediately, Freemasonry received opposition, and by 1738 the Pope's edict officially banned Catholics from joining Freemasonry. You can read the delightful details of this continuing drama on wikipedia:

The Pope, thankfully, had zero influence in Britain at the time and Masonry would not have been affected by his ludicrous edict.

All things have "outer", "inner", and "secret" aspects. The "outer" aspect is "The Constitution written by the Continental Congress".

Yeah, and? Were you trying to disprove something? If so, what and what is the rebuttal?

It's all there, look under the square.

The "key" is under the square.

What does the Treasury Department Seal have to do with the Constitution? Additionally the 'square' is a chevron. If Masons were going to take the time to 'hide' imagery do you not think they would try to design it so that if it were a sqaure it would not be upside down?

Furthermore, the designer of the Treasury Seal is Francis Hopkins, who some have speculated may have been a Mason but has never been proved conclusively that he was a member.

I see it all.

I am sure you do, what with the telepathic messages sent to you be the 'Illuminati Initiator' and all.

Burkle is speculating. Like most junior Freemasons...

What is a 'junior Freemason'?

...he is using his imagination to conjurer up a reason. But, there's no fixed angle there.

Ineed there is otherwise his mathematical computations would not be correct.

Each Freemason is entitled to add his own meaning to the symbol and put there the angle that suits his fancy. The only thing Freemasons agree on is the 90 degree angle on the square, because that's the only "fixed" angle.

The whole premise of his article, and what the 'Illuminati Initiator' obviously borrowed from when he beamed this into your head, is nearly identical right down to the choice of phrases.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
The first Grand Lodge was formed in 1717, there is evidence of Masonic activity dating back to the 10th Century. Mother Kilwinning Lodge dates to at least 1598. You really need to do some homework on Masonry if you are going to attempt to make authoritative statements regarding the Fraternity.

Ah! That would be the Templars, not Freemasons. The Freemasons added all sorts of constitutions.

The Pope, thankfully, had zero influence in Britain at the time and Masonry would not have been affected by his ludicrous edict.

The Pope has an extremely large following all around the world.

Probably a bit more than all Freemason Lodges combined.

What does the Treasury Department Seal have to do with the Constitution? Additionally the 'square' is a chevron. If Masons were going to take the time to 'hide' imagery do you not think they would try to design it so that if it were a sqaure it would not be upside down?

Mother Kilwinning Lodge seems to be confused too, since they also draw the square upside down on their seal.




Hmmm..those Freemasons seem to be a confused bunch.

What is a 'junior Freemason'?

Any Master Mason who can't read the symbols yet.

The whole premise of his article, and what the 'Illuminati Initiator' obviously borrowed from when he beamed this into your head, is nearly identical right down to the choice of phrases.

Well, he does mention the PHI ratio, but very little content there is similar otherwise.

Originally posted by NAMTERCES
Ah! That would be the Templars, not Freemasons. The Freemasons added all sorts of constitutions.

Wrong. The Regius Poem specifically mentions a Masonic function in the early 10th Century which predates the Knights Templar by nearly two hundred years. Additonally, Mother Kilwinning Lodge was a Grand Lodge of its own and issues charters prior to joinging the Grand Lodge.

As I said earlier, if you are going to attempt to make authoritative statements on Masonry then you need to do your homework because you are very much incorrect.

The Pope has an extremely large following all around the world.

Probably a bit more than all Freemason Lodges combined.

But zero in England and Scotland where the bulk of Masonry was located. The Pope has been, and still is, irrelevant to most Masons.

Mother Kilwinning Lodge seems to be confused too, since they also draw the square upside down on their seal.

The seal of Mother Kilwinning clearly has a square in it, depsite it being upside down, as the imagery shows it as a measuring device. The image used in the Treasury Seal, while similiar in shape, is clearly a chevron as it contains 13 stars for the colonies and has no measuring marks on its surface.

Any Master Mason who can't read the symbols yet.

The symbols of each degree are explained in the lecture pertaining to those degrees so how do you rectify this with what you stated?

Well, he does mention the PHI ratio, but very little content there is similar otherwise.

He uses many of the same phrases and the PHI ratio is the heart of the premise.

I see "Illuminati" as sort of an umbrella term. I think many powerful people make deals amongst each other to get what they want, but i don't really believe there is some unified evil organization like many people imagine it as.

reply to post by NAMTERCES

Anti-Masonry wasn't really relevant or apparent during the Revolution. Were there anti-Masons? Sure, but it wasn't a big force until the time of the Morgan Affair. Before that Masonry was fairly public (ie the cornerstone dedication of the Capital Building).

The men in charge of drafting the US Constitution were not all Masons, only 13 Signers were Freemasons.

I mean, Alice von Kannon (some may recognize this name) has said: "For my money, the most powerful Masonic influence on America as a whole was Anderson’s Constitutions."

reply to post by NAMTERCES

Well, actually in 1717 was just the establishment of the Grand Lodge. Before that we still referred to ourselves as Freemasons.

IMO, the cause of Papal opposition was due to Ramsay's Oration, but my opinion isn't based on anything concrete as one could say Ramsay's speech coming almost a year prior to the issue of the first Papal Bull against Freemasonry is correlation, not causation.

Actually that is not a Square inside the Treasury logo, that is a chevron. Notice that it does not have an angle of 90-degrees.

reply to post by NAMTERCES

No the Regius Poem/Halliwell Manuscript (also see the Cooke and Landsdowne Manuscripts) which dates the Freemasons back to 926 AD had nothing to do with the Knights Templar which didn't come into existence for another 2-centuries. The Legend of King Athelstan is a bit of a hobby of mine.

Also note that in Ramsay's Oration he does not tie the Freemasons to the Knights Templar, but the Knights of St. John.

The Pope has an extremely large following all around the world.

Probably a bit more than all Freemason Lodges combined.

So?

Hmmm..those Freemasons seem to be a confused bunch.

Well, you can ask them of their official description of their logo.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Wrong. The Regius Poem specifically mentions a Masonic function in the early 10th Century which predates the Knights Templar by nearly two hundred years. Additonally, Mother Kilwinning Lodge was a Grand Lodge of its own and issues charters prior to joinging the Grand Lodge.

As I said earlier, if you are going to attempt to make authoritative statements on Masonry then you need to do your homework because you are very much incorrect.

I quote:

Anyhow, the trial of the Templars ended with the termination of the order. But, although the order "officially" ceased to exist, it did not actually disappear. During the sudden arrest in 1307, some Templars escaped, managing to cover their tracks. According to a thesis based on various historical documents, a significant number of them took refuge in the only kingdom in Europe that did not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church in the fourteenth century, Scotland. There, they reorganized under the protection of the Scottish King, Robert the Bruce. Some time later, they found a convenient method of disguise by which to continue their clandestine existence: they infiltrated the most important guild in the medieval British Isles-the wall builders' lodge, and eventually, they fully seized control of these lodges.7

The wall-builders' lodge changed its name, at the beginning of the modern era, calling itself the "Masonic lodge." The Scottish Rite is the oldest branch of Masonry, and dates back to the beginning of the fourteenth century, to those Templars who took refuge in Scotland. And, the names given to the highest degrees in Scottish Rite are titles attributed centuries earlier to knights in the order of Templars. These are still employed to this day.

In short, the Templars did not disappear, but their deviant philosophy, beliefs and rituals still persist under the guise of Freemasonry. This thesis is supported by much historical evidence, and is also accepted today by a large number of Western historians, whether they are Freemasons or not. In our book, The New Masonic Order, we examined this evidence in detail.

Source: www.harunyahya.com...


The question is not whether some builder lodges existed at earlier dates, for surely, from the time of the pyramids men were building things in stone, rather, the question is when did Freemasonry come into being as an organization imbued with the special "moral/spiritual" content that defines modern masonry.

The fact is, the Templars introduced that specific content to the Lodges that were previously just concerned with putting up walls and buildings.So effective has been their transformative influence, that today, few men calling themselves Freemasons are actually concerned with that practical occupation of building walls and erecting buildings.The vast majority of Masons couldn't even mix cement properly today.


There's a principle of the universe that does not change, and the great Issac Newton discovered it hundreds of years ago as it applies to physical phenomena. Today it is known as Newton's First Law, and it states:

A Body will Continue in its state of uniform motion, unless affected by an External force.

The same is true for all things.

Had the Templars not infiltrated the Wall Builders Lodge, that old Lodge would still be principally concerned with the same matter of erecting walls and buildings. But, the "External Force" that caused the change into "Freemasonry" was the Templars and their different practices and ideas.

Then you meet with the obvious question: "Why did an external group of men need to put on the trappings of an established and respected profession, like 'Wall Builders', in order to continue to meet and carry out their activities and plans?"


The word "Freemason" did not appear in the English language until 1376, wherein reference to it was immediately struck out, and did not reappear until the 1700s, and the emergence of the Grand Lodge.

in 1376, four representatives of the "mystery" or trade are elected to the Common Council in London. This also seems to be the first use of the word "freemason" in English. It was immediately struck out, and replaced with the word "mason".[1]

In the 17th century building accounts of Wadham College the terms freemason and freestone mason are used interchangeably. Freemason also contrasts with "Rough Mason" or "Layer", as a more skilled worker who worked or laid dressed stone.[1]

Source: en.wikipedia.org... _of_the_term_.22Freemason.22

There were no Freemasons prior to 1717.

Originally posted by KSigMason

The men in charge of drafting the US Constitution were not all Masons, only 13 Signers were Freemasons.

That's part of the confusion. "Men in Charge" suggests they all played an equal role. But, as with all organizations and groups of men, some lead, and others are merely wallflower who are simply there in attendance. It would be better to say they were "Present" at the signing, as evidenced by their signatures. Their attendance lends an "outer aspect" to the event that masks the "inner aspect" and "secret aspect" of which they are never aware.

Well, actually in 1717 was just the establishment of the Grand Lodge. Before that we still referred to ourselves as Freemasons.

Another deliberate confusion. To apply more modern terminology to older things that were never so classified in their day, is to obfuscate the issue, of who was really doing what at what time.


By inspecting the practice of modern Freemasonry, one can easily draw the path of the practice even as it transformed itself over the ages.

First we start with the Roman Mystery cult of the Wolf, this becomes merged with the Cult of Mithras, when the Persians introduce higher orders to the mysteries, this warrior cult becomes the Knights Templars, which hides out eventually in Scotland, infiltrates the Wall Builders, and the spiritual warriors become "builders", emerging in 1717 as the Freemasons, in new dress, now tracing backward their origins to those who build things instead of practice warfare.

But, yet, still, although claiming to be builders, they still do battle, and practice conflict, adorn themselves with jewels of success in battles, and titles of honor of conquests made, like "Kinght of the This", and "Grand Commander of the That". So, they fool nobody.

Originally posted by NAMTERCES
I quote:

The Scottish Rite is the oldest branch of Masonry, and dates back to the beginning of the fourteenth century, to those Templars who took refuge in Scotland.

Wow. Did you know the Scottish Rite is not even Scottish, it is French and was founded at the turn of the 19th Century? Try actually quoting sources that know what the hell they are talking about.

The question is not whether some builder lodges existed at earlier dates, for surely, from the time of the pyramids men were building things in stone, rather, the question is when did Freemasonry come into being as an organization imbued with the special "moral/spiritual" content that defines modern masonry.

The fact is, the Templars introduced that specific content to the Lodges that were previously just concerned with putting up walls and buildings.

Is this from your source that did not even know the correct origins of the Scottish Rite or did the 'Illuminati Initiator' beam this into your head telepathically?

It evolved over a period of time from a stone-cutting guild with passgrips and passwords to an Enlightenment Era society that embraced a progressive, free-thinking ideal. This had nothing to do with Templary and institutionlized money lending and protection. They were predated and anteceded by Operative and than Speculative Masonry respectively.

Had the Templars not infiltrated the Wall Builders Lodge, that old Lodge would still be principally concerned with the same matter of erecting walls and buildings. But, the "External Force" that caused the change into "Freemasonry" was the Templars and their different practices and ideas.

No one can prove a direct connection between Masons and Templars, not even your crummy source that had no clue as to the origins of the Scottish Rite. If someone could they would have published a book annotated with footnotes and references that the average person could verify for themselves. Have you seen one of these? Thought not....

The word "Freemason" did not appear in the English language until 1376, wherein reference to it was immediately struck out, and did not reappear until the 1700s, and the emergence of the Grand Lodge.

Considering they were speaking Latin and Norman for a some time prior to Old English developing you may want to double check that as there are plenty of references to what we would refer today as a 'Freemason' in both of those languages. Regardless, as pointed out earlier, the Regius Poem predates the Templars by two centuries.

There is also records of 'accepted Masons, as in 'free and accepted' dating to the 16th century. Again, you need to do your homework.

in 1376, four representatives of the "mystery" or trade are elected to the Common Council in London. This also seems to be the first use of the word "freemason" in English.

There were no Freemasons prior to 1717.

So the word appeared in 1376 but there were none before 1717. Hmmm. Do you need a calculator?

Additionally, from your same source:

The lasting effect of the Schaw Statutes arose from the 1599 directive that the lodges should employ a reputable notary as secretary, and that he should record all important transactions. The Scottish lodges began to keep minutes, and therefore the appearance of "accepted" or non-operative masons is better recorded than in England, where there are no known internal records of lodge proceedings. The first recorded admission of non-masons was on the 3rd of July, 1634, in the persons of Sir Anthony Alexander, his elder brother, Lord Alexander, and Sir Alexander Strachan of Thornton.

What were these men?

In the 17th century building accounts of Wadham College the terms freemason and freestone mason are used interchangeably. Freemason also contrasts with "Rough Mason" or "Layer", as a more skilled worker who worked or laid dressed stone.[1]

Source: en.wikipedia.org... _of_the_term_.22Freemason.22

There were no Freemasons prior to 1717.

Wiki is not alwayz right. The word "mason" as of the Illuminati has latin origin. It means sun and something else.

Originally posted by Snakey
Wiki is not alwayz right. The word "mason" as of the Illuminati has latin origin. It means sun and something else.

Uh, no. Try using a dictionary instead of guessing.

mason (n.)
c.1200, "stoneworker" (as a surname, early 12c.), from O.Fr. masson, maçon "stone mason" (O.N.Fr. machun), probaby from Frankish *makjo or some other Germanic source (cf. O.H.G. steinmezzo "stone mason," Mod.Ger. Steinmetz, second element related to mahhon "to make;" see make (v.)). But it also might be from, or influenced by, M.L. machio, matio (7c.) which is said by Isidore to be derived from machina (see machine). The medieval word also might be from the root of L. maceria "wall." Meaning "a Freemason" is attested from early 15c. in Anglo-French.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

No one can prove a direct connection between Masons and Templars,

You can do this yourself.

Just follow the time lines, and observe the transformations in the builder guilds.

If you're a Freemason, ask yourself, how come you don't know the sacred art of making and placing stone?

After all, you're a descendant in the same tradition of those men in the guilds that possessed the skills of working in stone.

No Templar ever knew how to cut a block or place a stone to start a wall or finish a building.

Who do you most resemble?