View Full Version : What Do You Know About Freemasons?

an american saxon
Thursday, January 16th, 2003, 07:06 AM
Hey im new to this board, I wanted to start off with a qeustion. Does anyone body know anything about Freemasons? IF they have any real social impact and if they do , whats there goal? Ive heard weird rumors about them and ive gone to some websites but i can't ever find anything solid.

Thanks guys

Thursday, January 16th, 2003, 07:56 PM
I've read somewhere that they're highly anti-jewish, but then again, I'm not sure about that assumption. I'd have to look into it further.

Thursday, January 16th, 2003, 09:40 PM
Actually it’s the other way around Conquistador. The Freemason are pro Jewish and have countless Jewish members in their fraternity, this is one of the reasons why fascists such Hitler and Mussolini persecuted them.

Thursday, January 16th, 2003, 09:43 PM
Damn, I just realized that there's a FreeMason Temple in my hometown. :erm

Thursday, January 16th, 2003, 10:04 PM
I'm not new here, but I do have a question. Does anyone know anything about cosmopolitans? Have cosmopolitans had any real social impact and what's their goal? I've heard weird rumors about them but I can't find anything solid.

Thanks guys

Friday, January 17th, 2003, 02:24 AM
My grandfather is a free mason, I never ask him about it but I know there's a lot of Jews in the organization though not in the lodge my grandfather used to go to, he's really old and doesn't leave the house now. I had a black teacher from Nigeria once that was also a freemason. I know a lot of famous people were masons such as George Washington, Wolfgang Mozart, most of the royal families of England and France, the men that is, there's one for women that has another name but I don't know what it's called. I wouldn't join them but not because I'm against them, just my idea of fun ain't hanging around a bunch of old men and helping make charities for hospitals.

an american saxon
Friday, January 17th, 2003, 06:13 AM
Yeah i heard something along the lines of 90% or so of our presidents have been freemasons.

Abbess Ectoplasm
Friday, January 17th, 2003, 11:21 PM
A good book to -really- find out about the Masonic order is The Hiram Key by Sir Laurence Gardner.

The Order of the Eastern Star is for females... but it is not nearly so significant as the fraternal orders.

Saturday, January 18th, 2003, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by an american saxon
Yeah i heard something along the lines of 90% or so of our presidents have been freemasons.

I do not know if 90% is correct but the first 4 presidents were freemasons.

My father and grandfather were freemasons but both are deceased so I cannot ask them about the organization.

Tuesday, February 4th, 2003, 07:22 PM
Freemasons are responsible for 99% of all the control the Jews have and are into some freaky shit. Try to get your hands on a copy of a documentary called the Gunderson Chronicles

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Tuesday, February 4th, 2003, 09:18 PM
It seems that the Free Masons are at the root of every conspiracy...

There are lots of old masonic temples in my city....one of which is believed to be haunted *spoooooky* :erm

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Tuesday, February 4th, 2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by HammerSkinNation
Freemasons are responsible for 99% of all the control the Jews have

Who's responsible for the other 1%? The choisen themselves? I don't like them either but surely we can give them more credit than that LOL

Wednesday, February 5th, 2003, 07:47 AM
Check out this web site, http://freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/index.html there is no www to this. Sorry I don't know how to give you a html link. I didn't read it much, but it is a big site.:)

Wednesday, February 5th, 2003, 07:48 AM
The word before .com should be "freespeech", don't know what happened.

Wednesday, February 5th, 2003, 07:49 AM
Link is good, but you have a comma after the link, edit that out and your good to go

Wednesday, February 5th, 2003, 03:04 PM
The freemasons= jewish mafia
knights of columbus = Irish mob/Italian mafia

I know someone who was in the freemasons and left he was harassed and threatened for leaving.

It is my understanding that the only US president who was NOT a free mason was john f kennedy and that is because he was catholic.

These people are NOT our friends! I have had trouble with the knuts of columbus ever since I moved to this town.

Both groups are multiCULTural and the nuts of columbus are especially so.

Remember one thing, if it is a secret organization, it is no good.

Sorry if this post did not make much sense before I edited it.
I have a case of the flu and took a good dose of Nighttime Nyquil
before making the post.x_zzz

Wednesday, February 5th, 2003, 08:01 PM
The following Presidents were Freemasons-> Washington, Monroe,Andrew Jackson, Polk,Buchanan,Andrew Johnson,Garfield,Theodore Roosevelt,Taft,Harding,Franklin D Roosevelt, Truman and Ford..
The book that I'm reading also points to the Ku Klux Klan as having Masonic origins..

Monday, February 10th, 2003, 08:15 AM

Monday, February 10th, 2003, 08:18 AM
Harding I believe was the only US president who was a KKK member.

Monday, February 10th, 2003, 12:03 PM
It's rather simple. Masons are the Jewish Zionistic footsoldiers. They do all the "visible" work for there Jewish lords and get recommodations by them in form of materialistic bonusses or power. They work in degrees of wich the 33th is the highest and usually preserved for presidents and other high ranking members of our Juden society. These are the people we should first concentrate on in changing the existing system. I read of some people here wich there family belonged to these kind of filthy organisations ?! Get them out of there, that is if they really don't know for whom they are working and towards what cause.

Tuesday, February 18th, 2003, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by an american saxon
Yeah i heard something along the lines of 90% or so of our presidents have been freemasons.
its 90$ of the people who sighned the constitution were freemasons
george w senior was in the skull and bones

Wednesday, May 28th, 2003, 03:33 AM
freemasons are very pro jewish. alot of what their order consists of is a type of ceremonial magic tha ties in with the jewish kabbalah, and fringes into other types of ceremonial magical groups, like the illuminati, the golden dawn, and the o.t.o. yes alot of our nations presidents have been freemasons and i believe that the freemasons are one of the greatest conspiracies, along with the illuminati. they have a big part in the control of our money and i believe they too are part of the problem.

Friday, May 30th, 2003, 02:05 AM
are there any good websites exposing the freemasons and what their ideas and goals are?

Saturday, June 21st, 2003, 11:11 PM
Freemasons are a strong force but not as strong as they were in the last century.

They were a tight and highly controlled and controllable group of business people whose group , the Masons , was held together by a hybrid Christian / Pagan ideology.

Currently in England they are strong in the Law ( cops and lawyers ) but outside of this they lost ground since the industry which supported them has gone to Asia.

The loss of industrial power has killed the Masons power to influence they once weilded.

They can no longer control business since most of it is either in Jewish hands , or Asian hands. Masons were in general wealthy and white.

In America they have little power for the same reasons , they no longer pull the strings.

Many Temples have closed over the last decades.

They were a force of strength and unity in the White European community. I am not a Mason , most of the men in Family are and were Masons. I was never asked .

Again they were an important element in the white community.x_cheers

Tuesday, June 24th, 2003, 01:19 PM
You should try to read some Papal Encyclicals from the period of the 17th century - early 20th century.
The Catholic Church suffered enourmously during these times (French Revolution, Italian nationalists exiling the Pope from Rome,etc) And also many spiritual conspiracies as well as temporal and political ones.
The Church was under no doubt that Freemasonry was responsible and during this period issued countless condemnations regarding it.

"Humani Generis" is one I remember from the top of my head.
It details their methods and goals. How they start bt promoting tolernace and Liberalism, then to Socialism and Athiesm,etc.

Freemasonry frequently talks of re-building the Temple of Solomon, which certain Jews also desire. The Jewish influence in the Masonic ceremonies are obvious when studied.

That's not to say all Masons are bad people.
The majority belong to the first 3 degrees and most don't know that there are a further 30 degrees above that.
The first 3 degrees are basically a centre for novices to be brain-washed into unquestioning subservience by making them swear terrible oaths and partake in bizarre rituals without understanding the meaning of it all. Those who show promise are invited to the Royal Arch (degrees 4-33).
In fact there are real meanings behind all these ceremonies but I'm not about to go into detail. Ultimately there is an underlying Luciferian principle behind it coupled with the Cathars (who were Christian heretics, influenced by the Jews, and persecuted by the Church).

As for America. The dollar bank note tells a lot.
The pyramid with the Masonic eye with the words "Novus Ordo Seclorum" (New World Order). The date given is the date of the founding of the USA. The date of the founding of the NWO.
Also, the Catholic Church (despite the warnings of Pope St Pius X) eventually fell under Masonic sway, The changes since Vatican II, especially ecumenism, reconciling with the Jews,etc are all symptomatic. Traditional Catholics like myself cannot help but notice the name of the new Mass - Novus Ordo Missae. The New Order of the Mass (not a Mass at all) to go with their Novus Ordo Seclorum.

Tuesday, June 24th, 2003, 01:50 PM
Cathars? LOL. How much do you honestly know about them? They weren't "Christians" in the sense we know. They were Gnostics - built on an entirely different perspective to the bible. The Catholics were the fakes - they took power in Rome and stomped out the Gnostics wherever they were. The Knights Templar and the Cathars were both Gnostic groups. Gnosticism, for its time, was perhaps one of THE most anti-Jewish religions/subreligions in existance - they hated the idea of the Chosen ****s. Perhaps you should do some reading...? And where's evidence the Cathars were influenced by Jews? I know this because I was a Gnostic for about eight months last year (and then I went to Nietzsche...).

Tuesday, June 24th, 2003, 05:34 PM
The Cathars/Albigensians were peaceful, noble people. The Catholic Church launched a ruthless campaign of extermination against them. I don't have time to recount all the atrocities of the Church just now, but suffice it to say that Christianity has done tremendous harm to Europe, regardless of whatever minor benefits it may have had.

Tuesday, June 24th, 2003, 05:43 PM
I suspect I know far less about the Cathars than you do, if you were actually a Gnostic yourself.

I agree they weren't Christian. I don't regard any heretical sect as being Christian. But the Cathars passed themselves off as Christians. The Knights Templar were Cathars and yet they succesfully managed to keep up the pretence of being a Christian military order, till their practises were discovered and the order was suppressed.

I know the Cathars did not believe in marriage. I know they considered humans as fallen angels who could either lead a good life and regain their place in Heaven or lead a bad life and be re-incarnated to try again. All very Un-Christian as we both agree.

As for the Catholics being the "fakes", I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that. Fakes in what way? I assume you are suggesting that like the Cathars they were passing themselves off as something they weren't. In what way did they do that?
The Catholics didn't "take" power. The Emperor Constantine had a vision of the cross in the sky before a battle and claimed he heard the words " In Hoc Signo Vinces" (sp?) which means "By this sign you will conquer". He used the cross as his emblem and his outnumbered army won the battle. Subsequently, he became a Christian (and as the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church then, obviously he became Catholic.) He changed the official religion of Rome from Paganism to Christianity, and the Christians were no longer persecuted.

As for stamping out the Cathars, this happened at a much later date. The church considered the Cathars to be a grave threat.
The Cathars were very much like many cults today. They didn't believe in marriage, they were violent, the sometimes engaged in mass suicide, and they were spreading rapidly. Obviously such things were intolerable for the Church and eventually it called the Albigensian Crusdade to stamp out those who not stop.

Freemasonry is full of Luciferian and Catharian connections.
As Masonry is very much connected with Judaism, perhaps I just assumed that Judasim was too. The Jewish study of Kabbalism is gnostic too however. In your much more knowledgable opinion, do you believe that Catharism or Kabbalism could have been an influence on the other?

Wednesday, June 25th, 2003, 05:15 AM
William Joseph Simmons of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan was a Freemason.

Wednesday, June 25th, 2003, 05:17 AM
As was Albert Pike: a prominent early Klan leader, and originator of the Masonic Creed.

Wednesday, June 25th, 2003, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Milesian
I suspect I know far less about the Cathars than you do, if you were actually a Gnostic yourself.

I agree they weren't Christian. I don't regard any heretical sect as being Christian. But the Cathars passed themselves off as Christians. The Knights Templar were Cathars and yet they succesfully managed to keep up the pretence of being a Christian military order, till their practises were discovered and the order was suppressed.

I know the Cathars did not believe in marriage. I know they considered humans as fallen angels who could either lead a good life and regain their place in Heaven or lead a bad life and be re-incarnated to try again. All very Un-Christian as we both agree.

As for the Catholics being the "fakes", I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that. Fakes in what way?

Sure. I'm referring to the Gnostic interpretation of the Bible (New and Old Testament), so what I'm suggesting is a bit unorthodox. The Lord and God are two different beings. The Lord created God, who turned into a tyrannical bastard, but when he created the universe and man inside it, man carried the divine spark from the Lord. So God is faulty, but the Lord is perfect and benevolent - he took some of his essence to create God, and God built us a cage we know as the universe to shove us around and make us beg for mercy etc. The Serpent is actually Jesus, encouraging us to eat the fruit of knowledge, kicking off the divine spark which allows us to realise the universe is a prison. God of course "chose" the Jews and egged them on to annihilate entire peoples. Jesus was sent down by the Lord to guide people back to realising their divine spark, and that God is a tyrant and an evil bastard, and he was raised up to the Lord. The "evil creature" we know as God is essentially the same thing our ancestors called Satan. That's why Gnostics believe the Chosen myth is pure crap.

The Catholics said the Serpent was Satan and compressed "God" and "The Lord" into the same being. That's why the idea of an all-merciful yet genocidal God can (attempt) to exist in Christianity - Catholicism is a fake and everything since has been misinterpreted in order to control the European population. That's why the Gnostics can call themselves the true Christians - that's the only interpretation that allows the New and Old Testaments to exist side by side without contradiction. Notice Jesus always says "the Lord" instead of "God"? :gift

Some archeologist also managed to dig up the Nag Hammadi Library, containing a bunch of books that Gnosticism is built on - the Gnostics believe these were the books that Paul purposefully left out of the Bible, because if they were put in with it, then people would have to rely on reading this new version of the Bible and turning towards their own divine spark than bowing before the Catholic Church and the Rights of Kings.

Wednesday, June 25th, 2003, 07:05 PM
That's very interesting Anarch.
If you believe that then I'm sure you would feel right at home with Freemasonry.

So similar to the Masons, you are proposing that there is Lord (which is Satan/Jesus, a benevolent character) and God (Whom Satan /Jesus created).

I find that strange because in the Bible we find that Jesus seems very much at odd's with Satan. We remember how it was Satan that tempted Jesus in the desert , "all this I will give you if you will only fall down and worship me" and "throw yourself off this cliff and have your Father send his angels to save you". Also, Jesus condemns people as being not "children of God", but "Children of the devil, a liar and murderer from the start".
It seems to me that if we take the gnostic interpretation then not only does Jesus seem to have a very low regard for himself but he also seems schizophrenic.

Also, could you explain why this benevolent Lord created this horrible God person and raised him up to his level?

For true Christians, God and Lord do indeed mean different things.
They refer to different aspects of the Holy Trinity.
Three names are used in the Bible. God (Father), Lord (Jesus the son) and Spirit (The Holy Ghost). Three aspects of the one Divinity.
It was God who said "This is my son, with whom I am well please". This means that if God is the Father of Jesus.
But you say that the original Lord was Jesus. Then all this would make no sense. The words of Jesus himself make no sense.

"Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God ."
"You believe at last!" Jesus answered (John 17:30-31)

I do not take offense at you saying that Catholicism is a fake and was used to control the European population, that is your opinion.
However, who was using it to control the European population and controlling them in what way? How would Gnosticism been any less controlling or beneficial.
On the contrary, I believe Gnosticism would have been anything but beneficial:

The Catharist system was a simultaneous attack on the Catholic Church and the then existing State. The Church was directly assailed in its doctrine and hierarchy. The denial of the value of oaths, and the suppression, at least in theory, of the right to punish, undermined the basis of the Christian State. But the worst danger was that the triumph of the heretical principles meant the extinction of the human race. This annihilation was the direct consequence of the Catharist doctrine, that all intercourse between the sexes ought to be avoided and that suicide or the Endura, under certain circumstances, is not only lawful but commendable. The assertion of some writers, like Charles Molinier, that Catholic and Catharist teaching respecting marriage are identical, is an erroneous interpretation of Catholic doctrine and pratice. Among Catholics, the priest is forbidden to marry, but the faithful can merit eternal happiness in the married state. For the Cathari, no salvation was possible without previous renunciation of marriage. Mr. H.C. Lea, who cannot be suspected of partiality towards the Catholic Church, writes: "However much we may deprecate the means used for its (Catharism) suppression and commiserate those who suffered for conscience' sake, we cannot but admit that the cause of orthodoxy was in this case the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to prove disastrous." (See Lea, Inquisition, I, 106.)

As for the books that Paul left out of the Bible, if you are reffering to St Paul, then I do not understand. St Paul did not compile the Bible. He merely wrote some of the books contained in the New Testament as did St Peter and many others. The New Testament was compiled in the 4th century from writings that had been around from the Apostolic era or just after it.
Perhaps the reason they were not included is because they were false and heretical. The Church and the Right of Kings is something that Jesus seems fairly keen on.
He continually talks about His Church, that Peter will be "the rock upon which I found my Church". He also describes himself as a "King" and talks of His "Kingdom". So I don't see him having a problem with those concepts at all.