Jackpot! President Adams Calls Out Against Free Masonry!
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Well, i am now firmly settled in my convictions at all levels.
I've spent a fair amount of time recently trying to plunge through the morass of two hundred year old accounts of history and what not ...
trying to figure exactly what the fuck is going on.
Seems things really are as you have heard previously in "uber conspiracy" land.
The Freemasons are an organization LONG ago organized (or infiltrated by) by the original Illuminati themselves (who are a VERIFIABLY historical entity, spearheaded by Adam Weishaupt), and they DO function as a screen for the inner workings of a very nefarious plot against sovereign government and personal liberty.
HERE IS PRESIDENT JOHN QUINCY ADAMS HIMSELF:
"To speak of the Masonic Institution as favorable to the support of civil authority at this day, and in this country, would be a mockery of hte common sense and sensibility of mankind."
From the following book:
Letters on the Masonic Institution
a compilation of letters on the subject of Freemasonry by, and with an introduction from, Mr. JQ Adams himself.
He was VEHEMENENTLY against what he perceived as great plot against the fundamental ideals of America, and he said so extensively in writing.
I know of no greater source to trust than that of an ADAMS.
Here is the wiki page on an incident which gave great cause to "Anti-Masons" in our country:
William Morgan (anti-mason)
Why is this information not taught in schools?
Probably the greatest family that ever existed in our great republic.
I've spent a fair amount of time recently trying to plunge through the morass of two hundred year old accounts of history and what not ...
trying to figure exactly what the fuck is going on.
Seems things really are as you have heard previously in "uber conspiracy" land.
The Freemasons are an organization LONG ago organized (or infiltrated by) by the original Illuminati themselves (who are a VERIFIABLY historical entity, spearheaded by Adam Weishaupt), and they DO function as a screen for the inner workings of a very nefarious plot against sovereign government and personal liberty.
HERE IS PRESIDENT JOHN QUINCY ADAMS HIMSELF:
"To speak of the Masonic Institution as favorable to the support of civil authority at this day, and in this country, would be a mockery of hte common sense and sensibility of mankind."
From the following book:
Letters on the Masonic Institution
a compilation of letters on the subject of Freemasonry by, and with an introduction from, Mr. JQ Adams himself.
He was VEHEMENENTLY against what he perceived as great plot against the fundamental ideals of America, and he said so extensively in writing.
I know of no greater source to trust than that of an ADAMS.
Here is the wiki page on an incident which gave great cause to "Anti-Masons" in our country:
William Morgan (anti-mason)
Why is this information not taught in schools?
Probably the greatest family that ever existed in our great republic.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"I shall regret this, because the more attentively I have observed the character of the Masonic Institution as it now exists in the United States, the more thoroughly I am convinced that it is the greatest political evil with which we are now afflicted."
pg 36, Letters on the Masonic Institution
Letter To William H. Seward, Esq., Auburn, N.Y
John Quincy Adams, 17, October, 1831.
hmm.
:?:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
As for freemasonry in general, I'll agree that it isn't ideal that you have secret "Good old boy" club. But also remember at the time where freemasonry really got in the wind, was when Europe was controlled by absolute monarchs the actively suppressed any threat to their continued rule. So any new ideas, such as enlightenment ideals and democracy had to be discussed in secret. American conservatives adopted their European counterparts' boogey-man. Nevermind that European conservatives were royalists at this point...
And for the record, the opinion of a president is still just an opinion. They can be as misinformed, biased and wrong as we all can.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
At this point my patience for argument has run out, but with all due respect, dan, i am not sure i even understand your point.
MOST dictators think they are doing what is best for their country, or at least they public claim to believe as much. I have little doubt that Weishaupt was a high minded man. Jefferson having vouched for his ideals is enough for me to be content with as much. However I don't think the forces we are dealing with in this word today are anywhere near as pure in spirit as Weishaupt was (or seemed to be), and though "they" may be following his practical goals (the abolition of religious and political tyranny), they certainly aren't following in the spirit of his heart.
Further, it seems apparent that part of Weishaupt's vision was the establishment a new GLOBAL world order that very much stunk of impossible communist ideals. His 5 goals included, besides the elimination of popes and crowns, also the abolishment of personal property, inhereitance, religion, mariage, and the family. He sought a global "brotherhood" of sorts, and his vision is not only impractical, but outright stupid.
I'm sorry. it is just so.
Is no man to have his own charge, or to have his own investment in his own future?
No man is to be allowed to say "this is mine, which i created of mine own hands, and which i will defend, as it is of worth to many, and may you not destroy it"? For has man not the right to his OWN property?
???
And that wasn't even the real point.
I thought we were talking about conspiracies here.
And this is proven.
The Freemasonry scare you speak of, i believe you are refering (by your reference to English writings) to the ILLUMINATI \ JACOBINISM scare that occured nearly 50 years earlier than this account by John Quincy Adams.
In the late 1700's, 1797-98 i believe, several books came out (Robison, and Barruel being the prime authors) detailing the plot against monarchies and religions by the jacobinists (or the illuminati).
Further, THIS WAS PROVEN BY THE CAPTURE OF AN ILLUMINIST MESSENGER.
You make it sound as if it was a THEORY that some secret group was trying to manipulate the french revolution. IT IS A FACT, JJ Lanz (the messenger) was captured by and killed by Bavarian authorities, and that on his person were sewn papers that indicated a plot to disturb the power structure of Europe by way of France. The Bavarian authorities even attempted to warn France, but to no avail.
So again, i don't get the point.
And then 50 years later, a bunch of Freemasons murder one of their brothers, as he threatend to expose the masons in writing. This well publicized acount (happening in NY and word being spread quickly through the states) did in deed alarm the concerned American citizens, up to and including a one John Quincy Adams.
It disturbed him so much, in fact, that he was pressed to write or respond to over a dozen letters on the subject, in which he made it QUITE CLEAR that the threat of such a REAL secret society was SO OPPOSITE THE INTERESTS OF OUR COUNTRY and SO DANGEROUS that EVEN THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT EXCLUDED FROM ITS THREATS.
He says this outright in one of his letters.
And so all i ask here,
is what circumstances have changed so substantialy in the last 100 years or so to make you think that there is no great threat from colluding forces of "evil" or if you will simple magnified self-interest through the structures of secret agreement?
In other words,
why should i NOT be worried about secretive groups plotting schemes against the best interests of the general public TODAY?
and why should i turn my eyes away from SPECIFIC evidence of such an ongoing "conspiracy"?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
1. I'll admit that I may have misplaced the scare in time. But it does show the hysteria in the american public around freemasonry at that time. That people had fears, doesn't mean that there were anything to fear. True then, true now.
2. I will again highlight the context of the times around and after the french revolution with active state suppression of any ideas counter to the divine right monarchy that was prevalent in Europe. Whereas one might today start a political party to work for changes one believe in, around then you had to start a secret party, or join an existing secret society where you could speak freely.
3. What evidence exists, show that Illuminatus existed, was indeed a secret society working for more influence of their ideas (mostly secular enlightenment ideas like many others of the time), and a plan for spreading to other freemasonry organizations. Now, there is little indication that Illuminatus ever got past spreading some influence in select masonic lodges. There was conflict and squabbles inside lodges between progressive enlightenment elements, and the more esoterically mysticism crowd. (Which is where Robison comes from, a freemason of the latter bent) Also notice that there were splitting among the Illuminati themselves. Not so uncommon among radical groups.
4. Ah, the capture of the Illuminati messenger. Some accounts say he was struck by lightning, some say he just died and conveniently having blueprints for world domination in his pockets, while after most accounts on a spectacular detour on his way to Paris. Says the Bavarian (absolutist royal) authorities that of course has no interest whatsoever in the matter. I think you'll be hard pressed to find any evidence of that incident outside conspiracy literature drawing from Barruel, Robison or Webster.
As further proof is often presented that 2 of the Illuminati went to Paris under Jacobinian rule to meet. that is often presented as "master giving orders", when most likely, they were out to meet people of the same basic mindset. Visiting people that seemed to have accomplished something along the lines of what they themselves wanted.
5. The French Revolution
If they had any part on the French revolution, they failed rather miserably. After several revolutionary waves, they ended up with a new absolute ruler in Napoleon, and failure of the most radical ideas movements involved. It may be tempting to ascribe the revolution to a master plan made by someone, and it was certainly in the interest of royalist and church people of the day to find a suitable demon to pin the whole thing on. However, for anyone to have controlled the entire revolution seems highly unlikely based on the chaotic nature of the events unfolding. The part of the revolution that seemed to fit most closely to Illuminatus ideas, the jacobinean period, didn't at all prevail. After the reign of terror, that faction were mostly executed or faded from the public. It was replaced by the directory, and eventually by Napoleon's ascension as France's leader. And later the restoration of the monarchy after Napoleon's defeat.
So, he got caught up in the hysteria of his times as well. That he feared something, doesn't make it real even if he was president. And judging by the american sentiment of the times, there were some easy political points to score by highlighting stuff like that. Or do you think politicians of that time refrained from scoring easy points that would boost their popularity?
Kinda like our right-wing populist party these days starting a big hubbub about "sneak-islamification" of society, and people 150 years from now (with the world still not islamified) using that as justification that there indeed was an islamification of society that still exists.
Simple. Stuff doesnt have to have changed much, if they never happened like you and others speculate that they did.
[/quote][/quote]
One should always be wary of secret deals between power figures. However, rolling basically ALL power figures into the same mold with the same interests, mindset and goals is, well, paranoid for one thing, but also counter to just about anything we know about people, how they act, how organizations work etc etc. There are so many unlikelihoods to the whole scenario, and it's only upheld by a tiny number of "facts" which extend no further than normative pamphlets 200 years old, and various rumours and hearsay. That's for the "conspiracy since 1700s" view.
As for the world currently being governed by a shadow government of sorts with basically everybody being in on it, that's just paranoia. If anything leaders have always been protecting their own country's interest. Not because they're so noble, but that's also in their own real material and political interest. The conspiracy view takes marxist structural notions and turn them into a conspiracy instead. (there is a vast difference between conspiracy and structural traits of a system and society) The sheer number of people involved quickly becomes staggering, and the amount of control frankly impossible. (I can bring numerous example from my workplace in a public agency that is directly, legally controlled by a secretary of state, and still not responding the way the leader wishes in many cases) Major changes doesnt need to have major actors that actively pursue something, they are made from many people starting to think a little different. And even if there are people pushing for this change of minds, that forms organizations to promote it, doesnt mean they made it happen themselves through conspiracy. People setting a goal, does not mean they made it happen, even if it actually happened.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965