The Freemasons

enno99 wrote: »

What major differences are there between english freemasonry and Irish freemasonry that you think sets them apart ?

Has the Irish grand Lodge ever been been a logggerheads with other grand lodges ? UGLE or other recognised freemasonic grand lodges

Has England policy ever encroached on Irish policy? Is not the Irish constitution and laws copied from the British? Do lawyers and judges operate under British jurisdiction in Ireland. Are not all barristers member of the BAR the British accredited register? Is Scotland seperate from England Wales and Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, Falklands,? Jersey, Canada??? Answer this with clarity and with authority and you will know the positions and place of UGLE, and York and Scotish Rite. Know this and you qualified to comment on Freemasonry

My GF's father is a freemason (he was worshipful master at one point in his local lodge), and he was actually quite open about it. Even read some of the literature he had in regards to it and suggested I'd join. I'd pass, mainly because I'm not religious.

Frankly, they're harmless. The symbolism is mostly to keep with traditions of old, rather than to keep any secrets. Few pop fiction books later, and suddenly they're part of a massive conspiracy. *roll*

Substantial seems to be a step too far from what we've seen on the pages so far though :-)

Torakx wrote: »

So you class court cases and tribunals as fictional as those books? Surely not! My point was that compared to those fictional books, the topics in this thread are more substantial. I ment comparisons. There is no solid evidence or judges and poiticians would have to be dragged out of office

Well, court cases and tribunals that result in a demonstrable links to Masonic misdeeds would be, but where there are vague allusions to Freemasonry and elaborate conspiracy theories which result in no evidence or actionable material, I'd certainly class them as just as fictional as those books, though generally less well researched (which is saying something!).
As you say there is no solid evidence, so it's just fiction in another setting...

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

The top levels of Freemasonry, both Scottish and Grand Orient, worship Lucifer as their god. This is stated by masons themselves ie. Pike in 'Morals and Dogma' and Crowley's books.

That's not true. I'd expand, but let's just go with; it's simply nonsense.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

Some people refuse to believe the truth even if it hits them straight in the face:

And some people are remarkably selective in the portions of documents they read, almost as if they're only reading other peoples excerpts....

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

"Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!" (Morals and Dogma, p.321) Want more?

Absolutely. Why don't you qoute the entire passage, so you can read your quote in context?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

"Masonry is a search after Light. That search leads us directly back, as you see, to the Kabalah." (Morals and Dogma, p.741)

So, no reference to Lucifer there then?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

For those who do not know what the Kabalah is : it is a book on occult Jewish black magic, again= pure satanism.

And for those who don't actually know what Qabbālâ is, it is Judaic esotericism. Judaism, of course, doesn't include a devil called Satan, rather the concept of satan ( yetzer hara) refers to the personal inclination to do wrong. Though if you just think Judaism is Satanism anyway maybe it's a different discussion you're wanting...

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

More Albert Pike lucifer quotes?
Here is one from another book, Occult Theocracy:
"That which we must say to the crowd is - We worship a God, but it is the God that one adores without superstition.
To you Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees - The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine....Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also God." (Occult Theocrasy, p.220-221)(Pike's letter to Masonic supreme council, dated July 14 1889)

Ah. Presuming you didn't go to the source on this one then? Because if you had you'd know Pike didn't write this, but it was a forgery created as part of Taxils hoax? Here's a quick linky to a better reference for you Idiots Guide To Freemasonry 2nd Edition , or if you prefer Wikipedia: Leo Taxil

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

The messed up thing is Pike was Scottish rite, which is considered "softer" than Grand Orient. So for those people involved in Masonry or considering joining, please stay away. It will cost you your soul and you will be eternally damned in the afterlife.

Isn't the messed up thing that you're offering advice without actually knowing what you're talking about? Like knowing the difference between Scottish, Scottish Rite, and Grand Orient? Or how Crowley fits into the story of Freemasonry, never mind Pike, who requires some study.
So, lets return to your original assertion:

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

The top levels of Freemasonry, both Scottish and Grand Orient, worship Lucifer as their god.

Are you going to enlighten us with the basis for your statement? Then you might tell us why two of the three main forms of Freemasonry are absent from your assertion? After which we can move on to Pike and Crowley.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

Look im going to find it very hard to discuss this topic with someone who refers to Satanism as "esotericism" (makes you feel better inside, doesn't it ? )

Well the dictionary says this is satanism and this is esotericism. It's pretty easy to tell the difference between the two, so please rest assured when I refer to esotericism I'm not referring to satanism, or vice versa. However, if you can't distinguish between a Christian sub-cult and a Judaic one then you probably will have difficulty discussing the topic, yes. And no, of course your lack of comprehension doesn't make me feel better inside, it makes me feel a little sadder that people can understand so little when so much information is available to them.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

and replies to genuine quotes from Freemasons' prime text with a Wikipedia reference and Idiot's Guides.

I'm not sure what you think you mean when you say "Freemasons' prime text" since you didn't link to your source material. To be fair, I thought my links were at about the right comprehension level for your understanding at this point. I note you haven't addressed my replies to your quotes though; is it too inconvenient?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

I sense you are a Mason yourself

I sincerely hope that's because you read my posts on this thread saying "I am a Freemason" rather than you believe you've used some mystical power to divine the truth?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

and are desperately afraid of the truth as it will break the brainwashing you received courtesy of fellow craftsmen and some of the mainstream publications on the subject.

I've never yet found a truth to be feared, though it's interesting that you think brainwashing is so minimal in effect that your 'truth' could 'break' it. Perhaps you should consider the brainwashing effect of your own cult before you worry about how the opinions of my fellow craftsmen may affect me? I don't worry too much about the brainwashing effect of 'mainstream publications', since as you might imagine I have access to quite a substantial body of non mainstream literature as well, including the majority of anti-masonic publications.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

However I sincerely hope you get out of this cult before its too late.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm afraid your own religious views demonstrate far more cultish inculcation than my own rather more secular ones.

Anyways, just to recap in case you were losing track;
1) Can you quote the Pike passage in its' entirety so we can decide from the context of the line you posted whether he is in fact saying he worships Lucifer as his god?

2) Are you prepared to withdraw your attribution of the work of Taxil to Pike?

3) Do you acknowledge that Judaism doesn't include a devil called Satan?

4) Do you believe Judaism is Satanism?

5) Do you know the difference between Scottish, Scottish Rite, and Grand Orient? Can you demonstrate your understanding of the difference?

6) Can you enlighten us with the basis for your assertion that top levels of Freemasonry, both Scottish and Grand Orient, worship Lucifer as their god?

7) Can you tell us why two of the three main forms of Freemasonry are absent from your assertion?

Oh, and just one more, as a matter of interest. Who considers Scottish Rite to be 'softer' than Grand Orient, and in what way?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

I see a few ad hominem attacks there, getting a bit desperate are we?

That's quite rich, given I replied directly to your own comments about me. You obviously abide by the maxim 'tis better to give than receive.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

Also I would like to point out that nowhere have I equated Judaism with Satanism, so again your logic escapes me.

Let me help. You said:

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

For those who do not know what the Kabalah is : it is a book on occult Jewish black magic, again= pure satanism.

Qabbālâ (or Kabalah, as you say) is a part of Judaism. And you have said it is (pure!) satanism.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

I see that you will just refuse to take anything I have to say on board

I'd be happy to take on board the answers to the questions I asked you?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

so I will instead just direct you to the one of the most authoritative books on Freemasonry out there , its available on pdf doing a quick google search: "Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked" by George F. Dillon. The writer quotes extensively from Masonic texts.

What makes you think the book is in any way authoritative at all? Leaving aside the fact that it's written by a non Mason, who has never witnessed any Masonic activity, about the Grand Orient, held by Freemasonry to be 'irregular' and not part of Freemasonry, the writer is a self confessed anti-Mason (and anti-Semite) who believed there was a Masonic war against Christian civilisation. Really, the lectures aren't actually about Freemasonry of any sort either; they're about defaming any philosophy which does not exalt Catholic Christianity. Jews, Republicans, the Illuminati, the Templars, Jacobites and Athiests.. they all get thrown in the mix. And then of course there is the fact that it was written in 1884, so probably can't give a great deal of insight into a modern organistion one hundred and thirty years later.
No, sorry, you can't really contend it's even an authoritative text on Freemasonry, never mind one of the most authoritive . You'll have to try a little harder. Still, back to the questions, eh?

1) Can you quote the Pike passage in its' entirety so we can decide from the context of the line you posted whether he is in fact saying he worships Lucifer as his god?

2) Are you prepared to withdraw your attribution of the work of Taxil to Pike?

3) Do you acknowledge that Judaism doesn't include a devil called Satan?

4) Do you believe Judaism is Satanism?

5) Do you know the difference between Scottish, Scottish Rite, and Grand Orient? Can you demonstrate your understanding of the difference?

6) Can you enlighten us with the basis for your assertion that top levels of Freemasonry, both Scottish and Grand Orient, worship Lucifer as their god?

7) Can you tell us why two of the three main forms of Freemasonry are absent from your assertion?

8) Who considers Scottish Rite to be 'softer' than Grand Orient, and in what way?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

You criticize Dillon for claiming there is a Masonic plot against Christian civilization. However that is exactly what is happening.

Except of course that there is no such thing as christian civilisation? And if there was, it must be a pretty ineffective plot to have been in play for over one hundred and thirty years yet have had no discernable effect. Unless of course that's why there's no such thing as christian civilisation.....

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

Dillon proves that it was in fact the Masons who were responsible for most of the "great" revolutions in the last centuries.

Ah now, proves is a bit strong for 'wildly accuses' don't you think?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

It is not a hypothesis, anyone who does some basic research will soon reach the same conclusion.

This at least is true. A hypothesis is a working theory based on available evidence, and Dillons hyperbole contains neither. So it's more a diatribe than a hypothesis.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

For example, "brother" Lenin was a 33rd degree Mason and de facto responsible for some 100 million deaths.

Excellent example, since there's no evidence at all that Lenin was a Mason, but there is ample evidence that he was an avowed atheist, which meant he was excluded from becoming a Freemason even if he wanted to be one. If you want to check on the requirements for becoming a Freemason, you'll find them in this thread.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

For more on Masons and the Russian Revolution I direct you to the works of Juri Lina who has come up with some outstanding works on the subject.

How about the works of a historian, rather than an anti Masonic activist? They'd be a tiny bit more convincing..... And when you say outstanding, I'm not sure what qualities you're comparing?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

The Catholic Church is aware of Masonry's destructive plotting and a number of encyclicals have been issued condemning the craft.

Six I think. I don't think any of them specifically mention any particular destructive plotting by Masonry though, which you'd think they'd get to after six attempts?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

The absolute ban on Catholics entering Freemasonry remains in place and whoever disregards this is automatically excommunicated.

You are aware that's not actually true, aren't you? It has been discussed at length in this thread if not. Worth a read.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

Surely the Church is not an organization that would absolutely ban something based on some obscure conspiracy theory?

Surely not. Anyway, the Churches issues with Freemasonry, and the reasons for them, have also been covered in this thread, which you could have a read of.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

1) I will not quote the passage in its entirety. How much do you want? A page? Maybe a chapter? I'm sorry but I have better things to do than trawl through a book written by a Satanist and type up whole pages. Anyways I thought the line "Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!" (Morals and Dogma, p.321) is pretty self explanatory. I mean Pike does not condemn Lucifer, the father of all evil, but instead proclaims him as a light-bearer. If you miss the point here you simply do not want to accept it.

Oh gosh. Since you're obviously so awfully busy, I'll quote the passage in its entirety for you.
"The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apothesis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, for traditions are full of sensual or selfish Souls ? Doubt it not! Divine Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato and Philo, also, were inspired. The Apocalypse, indeed, is a book as obscure as the Sohar. It is written hieroglyphically with numbers and images; and the Apostle often appeals to the intelligence of the Initiated. “Let him who hath knowledge, understand! let him who understands, calculate !” he often says, after an allegory or the mention of a number. Saint John, the favorite Apostle, and the Depositary of all the Secrets of the Saviour, therefore did not write to be understood by the multitude."
Rather than explain it to you point by point, I suggest you read this, written by a christian mason I think (bit of a shocker for you; there are quite a few christian freemasons). Or if you like, just read the first line of the quote. The one that comes before the bit you quoted, and talks about "Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer". There are quite a number of passages in Morals and Dogma where Pike affirms his Christian faith, but you have to actually read the book, rather than repeat the five line quote that every anti-Masonry site drags out. Or you can just assume the quote is self explanatory and not bother thinking, whatever suits.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

2) The whole 'Taxil conspiracy' has not been wholly proven. There are people who claim the "Protocols" are a forgery, but there are people who claim they are authentic. Both purport to use real evidence to support their claims.

Well, not wholly proven, aside of course from Marie Joseph Jogand-Pagès himself admitting they were a hoax at the press conference he called for that very purpose. After that I don't think a lot of effort went into proving it was a hoax.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

Anyway, it would be strange that the passage would appear in the book "Occult Theocracy", a book written by Masons for Masons. Why would they be trying to deceive themselves?

Have you actually read any of the ideas you're parroting?
Occult Theocracy wasn't written by Masons for Masons, it was written by Edith Starr Miller. As a clue, Edith is a female name. It's on the cover. It's on the wikipedia page.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

3) The entity known as satan is very real, however major religions do have different names for him.

I didn't ask if you believe in Satan; I think you've left us in no doubt where you're coming from on that score. I asked if you acknowledge that Judaism doesn't include a devil called Satan. It's a simple question, only requiring you to acquire a modicum of knowledge about a religion you professed some understanding of when you asserted one of its facets was satanism.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

4) Judaism is not satanism nor did I ever state it was. Christianity was to some extent based on Judaism.

What does Christianity being 'to some extent based on Judaism' have to do with Judaism?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

However, the Kabbalah is an occult book which draws on Judaic concepts.

So, what exactly makes it occult? And what differentiates this book from the Torah and the Zohar?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

Most Jews do not identify with this filth and abhor its contents.

Seriously? I suggest you consider the term 'Mekubal'. Study of the zohar, and 'kabbalah', are readily identifiable in orthodox judaism.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

Therefore, as with any black magic, I would equate the Kabbalah with satanism. Judaism I would not.

It would be nice if you could explain what you mean by black magic too....

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

5) I do realize that Freemasonry has many strands. For example it could be said that the Scottish Rite is slightly less aggressive and generally less anti-Christian than the ominous Grand Orient of the mainland.

Yes, i think that's similar to something you already said. I'd still ask, who might say that? Why would they say that? What mainland would they be referring too?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

However, Freemasonry as a whole has been condemned by religious leaders around the world many times therefore I do not occupy myself extensively with differentiating between them.

That would probably account for your lack of understanding, though it doesn't excuse it if you're posting on a thread about Freemasonry.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

6) Please see point 1.

I did. It doesn't account for your assertion that top levels of Freemasonry, both Scottish and Grand Orient, worship Lucifer as their god. Although, your answer to question 5) does indicate that you probably simply have no idea what you're asserting.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

Also Alister Crolwley, the most famous satanist of the 20th century, was whether you like it or not a Freemason.

Or, whether you like it or not, he was neither a Satanist nor a Freemason. Since you've made the assertions, feel free to prove them. Primary sources only though, please. By the way, being an self professed occultist is not the same as being a satanist. And claiming to have been initiated is not the same as being a Freemason.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

7)See point 5

So, no you can't because you don't know what they are?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

8) Softer as in not so aggressively anti-Christian. The Grand Orient was involved in some major Christian holocausts throughout history ( French Revolution, Russian Revolution) while in contrast the American revolution orchestrated by the Scottish rite was not anti-Christian in character.

I really don't think you can parlay Freemasons being involved in revolutions into orchestrating them. But let's follow your logic. There were far more Catholics involved in all three revolutions than there were Freemasons. So by your logic, the Catholic Church is responsible for major Christian holocausts throughout history, but went easy in America? I don't think so.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

The Grand Orient's stance on Catholics is perfectly demonstrated by the Affaire Des Fiches (1904-1905) where it was discovered that the Masons effectively blocked promotions of Catholic civil servants in France.

The Grand Orients stance on religion overall has always been clear; and a large part of the reason it has not been considered a Masonic organisation by Freemasonry since 1877. Scottish Rite on the other hand, is an appendant body of Freemasonry. That does not make Scottish Rite softer than Grand Orient, it makes them different things. But I suppose you'd only know that if you'd bothered finding out what you're talking about? You could have read this thread for instance...

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

I would also like to point to the fact that most low level masons are simply well meaning dupes, thinking they are entering an organization twhich makes "good men better" and gets involved in charity. This is because humans are attracted to good and repulsed by evil in general. If the Grand Masters exposed their true occultism and sinister plans no one would join.

That really sounds like something someone else has said before.... are you lifting other peoples lines again?
I'd also like to point out that this line gets trotted out just before the "you're obviously not a high enough level to know what's really going on" line. An argument that has also been covered in this thread if you look.

It's only the ones who are also chinese vampires.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You mean like this Mason? The biggest mass killer of recent times?

The Deja Vu is strong today, I'm sure you brought this up on this very thread before BB. And just like the last time you neglected to mention that Breivik attended four Masonic meetings in his life, and stated that Freemasonry was in his opinion a 'novelty network' which makes him not very representative of Freemasonry. However, he himself said he was "100% christian"...

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Or how about this "law abiding" mason who carried out the two single largest terrorist attacks against civilians in human history?

That's a remarkably elastic re-interpretation of history! Freemason terrorist or American president who ended the greatest war in history, it just depends on how you spin it, eh? Also a christian by the way... just saying. If you're connecting people, we should consider all of the connections, surely.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Assuming you are telling the truth then we are left with the following possibilities:
1- He is being honest with you and is correct in what he says.
2 - He is being honest with you but is incorrect in what he says i.e. he is a "parrot mason".
3. He is intentionally misleading you - the profane - to protect the secrets of his brotherhood he has vowed to conceal from outsiders, even those closest to him. Emphasis mine.
I think it's fair to say that 1 is the least likely.

Given the amount of information presented to you, and the fact that you doubt the veracity of the poster in the first place, would it not be more fair to say you are in no position to judge based on anything other than your own bias?
2) Since you've no way of knowing if he ever learned more about Freemasonry than the required ceremonies, he might easily be a well published erudite Masonic scholar? Or somewhere in-between? Just mathematically, the chances of his being a 'parrot mason' seem slim?
3) Given he's the ops grandfather, allowing the op a maximum age of say, 85, and that his father and grandfather didn't have children until the were 60, that means his grandfather, at best was born in 1809, and was an entered apprentice in 1830. Am I being generous enough for you? That would make him 107 years too late to assent to Anderson's charges. The 19th century charges were somewhat different from the 18th century ones, and of course the Irish ones were different to the American ones (the op hasn't said what constitution his grandfather was a Mason under, but since we're on an Irish board, I'll take the liberty of assuming). 20th Century charges of course were different again. In fact, it's quite possible the Ops grandfather never even heard of Anderson's charges, especially when we allow he could have been a 'parrot mason' as you say.
So, no, I don't think it's fair to say 1 is the least likely.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Perhaps he is "lifting" masonic luminaries Albert Pike and Manly P. Hall?

I'm pretty sure he isn't, since he's already told us he refuses to read what 'satanist' Pike writes, and I doubt he's dipping into Manly P Hall for the very same reasons. No, I think we'd have to look at those who express the same sentiment and use the same argument. I wonder where we'd find that sort of thing?
http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/freemasonry_3.html
http://www.bibleprobe.com/freemasonry.htm
http://henrymakow.com/_left_albert_pike_1809-1891by.html
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masons.htm
I know it's been a couple of years since you last assayed Pike and Hall on this thread, but still to repeat history; Manly P Hall was also an occultist (before he was ever a Freemason). So he obviously came to Freemasonry with a particular perspective; just as the Christians who find the teachings of Christianity important to the teachings of freemasonry (to use your words) come with a particular perspective. In short, what Pike and Hall wrote and believed is interesting, and as relevant to Freemasonry as the thousands of academic papers written by Freemasons every year, many of which disagree with Pike and Hall, more of which disagree with each other, and none of which alter the principles, rules, or structure of Freemasonry.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

You are one of these people that ignores points that do not suit you and try to spin the rest. I find any further major debate on the nature of Freemasonry pointless.

My apologies then; if there is any point you've made that you feel I've ignored please feel free to draw my attention to it. As I will draw your attention to the questions I asked you...
However I should point out that you haven't yet debated the nature of Freemasonry; you've thrown out a few second or third hand wild accusations and that's about it.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

But people reading this should be aware that Freemasonry is linked to Communism, the most evil system the human race has yet come up with imo, in a major way.

Well, to be fair, the two are only linked by the enormous leaps of faith of people who are intent on linking the two. By the way, there are quite a few people who would say the christian church is far more suitable contender for the most evil system the human race has yet come up with. Or Islam. Depends on your point of view I suppose.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

As mentioned earlier, Lenin was a 33rd degree mason. He has his own statue in front of a Masonic lodge in Seattle.

As also mentioned earlier, there's no evidence whatsoever that Lenin was a Freemason. There is however evidence that Lenin was an atheist, which would preclude him from Freemasonry. A little rich that you say I ignore points that don't suit me, yet you ignored that one (amongst so many others).
By the way, when you say 'in front of' are you sure you don't mean 'half a block away from'? Not that being in front of the Lodge building would mean it has anything to do with the the Lodge, I'm sure the tree that is outside has nothing to do with the Lodge either to be honest, but if you're going to try and create an association by location, you really at least should get the locations right.... and in the interests of fairness, you really should provide a list of everything else within a block of the statue?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

Many Americans gave their lives fighting Marxism which means the Masons are pretty much spitting on their corpses.

Which Americans died fighting Marxism? And which Masons (pretty much) spit on their corpses? Two very interesting assertions I look forward to you substantiating.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

Also consider this quote from Trotsky's personal memoirs: "It was during that period that I became interested in freemasonry.

Since (I assume) you've been reading his memoirs, would you like to specify the period he was talking about? Would it have been a period, do you think, in which he was free to come and go as he pleased, and say, join the Freemasons and attend meetings? Or would it have been a period perhaps when he was, shall we say, somewhat more confined, but had ample time for reading?

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

In the eighteenth century freemasonry became expressive of a militant policy of enlightenment, as in the case of the Illuminati, who were the forerunners of the revolution; on its left it culminated in the Carbonari. Freemasons counted among their members both Louis XVI and the Dr. Guillotin who invented the guillotine. In southern Germany freemasonry assumed an openly revolutionary character, whereas at the court of Catherine the Great it was a masquerade reflecting the aristocratic and bureaucratic hierarchy. A freemason Novikov was exiled to Siberia by a freemason Empress." (L. Trotsky, 1930, My life: the rise and fall of a dictator)

His opinions on Freemasonry in the 18th century are certainly interesting, if not first hand. As a matter of interest, whilst working through his memoirs, did you find a bit where he describes becoming a Freemason?