View Single Post
Old December 18th, 2017 #111
John Smithwick
A White ethnic group too!
John Smithwick's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Gottgläubig Crackertown, in a honkey home, away from Multicultia lol, building National Folk Faith:)
Posts: 130
Blog Entries: 3
John Smithwick

Before New Age and the revival of paganism in the latter half of the 20th century (or things like Klassen and Pierce's religions), one's only alternative to Christianity would have been Fremasonry (although it was considered a supplement).

I find it reasonable:


Freemasonry is a fraternity, not a religion. They don't really have any beliefs or teachings, so much as they have allegory, legend, and only allow men of good moral character to join.

There is absolutely NO requirement to 'believe in God.' There is only a requirement to believe in a Supreme Being.

To correct some misconceptions:
  • Freemasonry is a social fraternity. It doesn’t operate as a “tool” for some imaginary “Messianic agenda.” Why? Because there’s no such thing.
  • Anyone who isn’t a member of the fraternity but claims to know “secrets” of the fraternity that even Freemasons don’t know can be safely ignored; they don’t know what they’re talking about. The ONLY people who do know what Freemasonry is about are Freemasons. Duh.
  • There are no “ranks” in Freemasonry.
  • There is no “rigid hierarchic structure” in Freemasonry.
  • The Illuminati were a Bavarian political group - completely unrelated to Freemasonry - that advocated the overthrow of hereditary European monarchies. They were founded in 1776 and disbanded in 1785. They only ever had 6 members. B'nai B'rith was founded in New York City in 1843 - 13 years after the last member of the Illuminati died (in Bavaria), and 58 years after the Illuminati ceased to exist. The two groups are completely unrelated. Duh.
  • Freemasonry isn’t a secret society; neither are the Oddfellows, Rotary Club, Skull & Bones, and the Bohemian Club. And they’re completely unrelated as well.
  • Zionism has nothing to do with Freemasonry.
  • Freemasonry has nothing to do with Jewish mythology.
  • The image from the anti-Semite rant that says that all the masonic symbols and pictures refer to the Temple of Solomon DO NOT refer to the Temple of Solomon. Duh.
  • Harry Truman was NOT a “protégé of the Pendergast organised crime dynasty of Kansas City” nor was he a “highly ranked mason.” There’s no such thing as a “highly ranked mason.” Someone who claims to know secrets of Freemasonry that even Freemasons don’t know about should have known that…
  • “Eyes Wide Shut” was not inspired by some party. It was inspired by something else entirely.
  • The image that an anti-Semite answerer claims is a “A simple overview of the masonic hierarchy” isn’t . It’s an image that shows the different groups a Freemason can join.
  • There’s no “Masonic High Council.”
  • There’s no “World Governing body of Craft Freemasonry."
The Christinsanitian view of Freemasonry:

Christians often claimed that Masons worshiped the Devil/Satan/Lucifer. It's what they did to the Pagans before sometimes murdering them and destroying their temples. They did the same to skeptics i.e. Giordano_Bruno. This article clarifies the issue:



Nothing thrills the anti-Mason as much as Pike's references to Lucifer which most of them refer to as the fallen angel, as Satan.

Few quotes in the history of mankind have attracted the attention of so many as the quote from Pike's Morals & Dogma which reads:

"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!"

First of all, it’s only three sentences (of which two are actually exclamations), taken from a book of 861 pages. Does this seem a bit disingenuous right from the start? And what about all the other examples that Pike refers to in his belief in God, for instance .....

“That God is One, immutable, unchangeable, infinitely just and good; that Light will finally overcome Darkness” (p. 275)

Next, exactly what is Lucifer?

The name Lucifer makes it’s appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, twelfth verse: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"

The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. How did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? Scholars at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati say that Lucifer, in the original Hebrew text, is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel.

Why refer to him as Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, "bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King")."

Scholars speculate that early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."

Scholars authorized by the militantly Catholic King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated from the Catholic Vulgate Bible produced largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and - ironically- the Prince of Darkness.

Henceforth, emphasis should be placed on his intent. When Albert Pike and other Masonic scholars spoke over a century ago about the "Luciferian path," or the "energies of Lucifer," they were referring to the morning star, the light bearer, the search for light; the very antithesis of dark, satanic evil.

Generations of biblical scholars of all faiths have been aware of mistranslations and misunderstandings that arise from the use of archaic terms whose meanings have been lost, or have evolved into different usages. To address these problems, a conference was held in October 1946, attended by delegates of the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, and the Baptists, Methodists, and Congregationalist churches. At another meeting four months later, delegates from the Presbyterians and Quakers joined the original group, along with representatives of various Bible societies. Still later, observers were sent as representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.

The work on a new translation of the Bible, direct from the sources, stretched out over several years. The most distinguished biblical scholars and specialists in the world were invited to contribute, and every delegate was given the opportunity to review and express his own views on every verse, every word, as presented by the translators. The result of this prodigious joint effort was The New English Bible.

For example, the verse in the King James version (Isaiah 14:12) that begins "How art thou fallen from heaven, 0 Lucifer..." has now been translated directly from the Hebrew in the New English Bible as "How you have fallen from heaven, bright morning star..." There is no mention of Lucifer, no reference to any disobedient angel plunging to hell, nor should there be.

In closing, have you heard about Albert Pike's so-called "Luciferian Doctrine," which teaches Masons that Lucifer is God? This story about Albert Pike and Lucifer, was created by Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pages (writing as Leo Taxil) to conceive a hoax that was designed to slander Freemasonry and to embarrass the Catholic Church. It has been repeated by anti-Masons who accept this without basis to eagerly slur our craft.

Taxil ultimately realized the time had come to end the deceit so in a conference in Paris (April 19, 1897), he personally admitted his hoax, whose aim, he said, was to hold up Catholicism to derision.
Edit (I found this on the teachings of Freemasonry):

My only criticisms of the Masons is there's nothing nationalist/ethnic about what they offer, and they seem to overly reference Jewish/Middle Eastern mythologies; however, it's refreshing to see something other than strictly the Hebrew's myths and the Romans' version of their Messiah as the reference points. Still, why is it that only Hebrews/Judeans/Jews/Israelis and the Japanese can have something national-cultural-ethnicist as a faith for their people whereas Europeans are denied the same?

The Church of England should be reformed to add real history, philosophy, science, British culture and nationalism.
True diversity is preserving all ethnic groups. We have a group identity to maintain. We ought to have spiritual community centers for us, to have closure for our history, celebrate our heritage & look to the future. National Folk Faith AFA CT

Last edited by John Smithwick; December 21st, 2017 at 11:10 AM.