Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

I would like to add additional conspiracy theories but the user Blueboar insists on using brute force to prevent it from happening

I spent several hours doing a major re-write of the article only for Blueboar to undo it. After I left a complaint about the undo in the changelog, he had the article rolled back to the version from August 25, 2008 -- before my edit. I tried to leave a message in his talk page which he has silently deleted. To me, this implies passive-aggressive malice. These kinds of actions only fuel suspicion and lend further credence to "conspiracy theories." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't. Your so-called neutral edits were not, and you didn't add new material so much as change what was already there from a list of statements made to implied certainties that in fact all the theories were true. Also, if Blueboar deleted your message, that means he had to have read it, and a lot of people do that. Complain all you want, but your edits added nothing of value to the article. I probably would have reverted them as well, since your edit summary was misleading. Don't misbehave and then get mad when you get caught. MSJapan (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The article, as it exists already, is highly biased and has a condescending tone which I found to be atrocious and misleading in itself. If you're going to bring up a topic like this, let's put the cards on the table.

The changes were deleted, but I will post them again here, so that you can actually look at it. I have no idea why you'd think that I'm "misbehaving" Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The changes I reverted are these... MSJapan has it right... your edit changed the carefully neutral tone of several of the entries. The key to this article is that it simply states that the theories exist... it is carefully worded so that it neither says nor implys truth nor falseness. If you wish to add theories (backed by reliable sources of course), that is fine... but you must do so using this established neutral tone. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
That is complete bullshit and you know it. Here's a quote from the article:

That Freemasonry is the Illuminati or New World Order, and secretly controls all aspects of society and government.

That idea is not even supported by most conspiracy theorists.

Additionally:

  • The article uses the phrase "in the broadest terms" which clearly shows intent to diminish or otherwise misrepresent the subject matter.
  • The article links to the Wikipedia entry for the Taxil hoax, which was also written in poor taste.
  • The concept of a "New World Order" is NOT a "theory." There is video on YouTube of the phrase being used by both George H W Bush and Henry Kissinger. Go look it up yourself, I'm not going to hold your hand this time.
  • The article uses loaded, hyperbolic phrases like "the Illuminati," "world domination," "hidden war," and "secretly control" in a context whereby they do NOT give the article a neutral tone.
  • The article obfuscates conspiracy theories regarding the events of September 11, 2001.
  • The article names the NSA, FEMA, NASA and Congress as "branches of the US government" which is COMPLETELY WRONG !!!
  • The article has only one external link, to a website which refutes the subject matter. This also does not give the article a neutral tone.
  • The article was sloppily written, so I changed a few sentences here and there.

Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The changes that I would like to make

No.
Why? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Already covered with better sources.
Then please include those sources here as well Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Again, we've already got this.
Added the CIA, along with 2 references Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Fails RS.
  • They control powerful Arab political leaders and heads of state.[12][13]
Fails RS.
Fails RS.
  • They are aligned with international organized crime.[15]
Fails RS.
How is this a conspiracy? MSJapan (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The entertainment industry is utilitized to engineer popular opinion Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Debunked, and already mentioned.
Please explain how it was debunked Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


We already have this.
Sentence re-write Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Gross speculation that fails RS. Art is subjective.
That doesn't preclude it from being a conspiracy theory Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


  • That even most members are unaware of hidden or secretive ruling bodies that govern their organization, conduct occult ritual, or control various positions of power. This is an example of a secret society within a secret society.[23]
Covered already.
Good, then readers will be pleased to see it again Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Debunked.
Albert Pike Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Debunked... suggest you read this book. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I normally don't read books "for dummies" but I might take a look at it next time I'm in a book store. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


  • That the owl is a hidden Masonic symbol found in the layout of the US Capitol building and the US dollar bill,[26] with the owl itself being an Ancient Egyptian symbol foreshadowing death.[27]
"Amazing Psychic Revelations.com"? No.
Don't hate the website, hate the author Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


No again.
Uh, yes yes and definitely yes. Now it seems like you're attempting a half-assed cover-up Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Nope. This is directly contradicted by plenty of reliable sources. The suposed "Masonic Deity" is no different than anyone else's.
I didn't even write this !! Can we say "busted" ??? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


This is Pike, it's been done, and we don't need to bulk it out with the same material from three different sources.
Lucifer, in Latin, means "bringer of light" and "light" is a prominent theme in Masonry Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


It wasn't a hoax, so what's the point?
Nobody knows for sure whether or not it was a hoax Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


  • They hold meetings with influential politicians and businessmen at Bohemian Grove. The large owl statue is a Masonic symbol.[39][40]
Where and who?
Anyhow, that should address the problems. We either don't need it, or it's not sourced properly woth reliable sources per Wikipedia. These are, by the way, theories. If they were provable, they would be fact. So, that may explain the tone; we cannot present somebody's guess as an empirical fact, and that is what you purport to do. MSJapan (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why they are not reliable sources for conspiracy theories. The article is not about Freemasonry itself. Let's not get the topic confused. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Ukufwakfgr, I am not at all sure what your changes are ... almost all of the items above are already mentioned in the article. It might help if you go item by item and explain what you want to change, and why. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If you are saying that they are "already mentioned" by inference then you really should stop editing Wikipedia articles. I'm sure you can figure it out, it's not like I wrote it in Klingon Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
That is not what I am saying... more than three quarters of the stuff you list above as "Changes you would like to make" are already in the article... using wording either exactly or almost exactly the way you wrote them above... for example you list:
This exact wording is already in the article (and has been there for more than a year). So I am confused as to why you list it as something you want to change. Do you mean you want to remove it? Do you mean that it needs to be worded differently? What is your change? Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I put it in for my own convenience, so that I wouldn't do 5,000 cuts and pastes. Diff is your friend Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
In other words, your changes are burried in there, somewhere among a lot of things that are not changes, and you expect us to find them... this is not helpful. Let me ask again... go slower and discuss each change one at a time rather than in bulk. Please outline the first change you wish to make... we will discuss it. Then we can move on to the next one. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of changes; they are not just "buried." If anything, portions of the original text are "buried" in my changes. Diff exists for a reason. MSJapan has critiqued the changes, albeit unsatisfactorally. You can start from there Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

One issue at a time

The first issue that Ukufwakfgr has an issue with is the line:

  • That Freemasonry is the Illuminati or New World Order, and secretly controls all aspects of society and government.

He states: "That idea is not even supported by most conspiracy theorists."

For an idea that is "not even supported by most conspiracy theorists", it sure is a popular theory. Searching Google for Freemasonry+Illuminati we get about 922,000 hits. It deserves to be mentioned. What we are very careful to do is not say whether the theory is true or not. Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned this in the other section as an example of biased speech.

No. According to conspiracy theorists, Freemasonry is controlled by the Illuminati, not that it is the Illuminati. Either you don't know much about conspiracy theory or you're trying to perpetuate a cover-up. Stick to the other Freemasonry articles. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this depends on which conspiracy theorists you talk to... this website certainly equates the two. As does this site, and this site.
So perhaps a compromise is to change the wording to... "That Freemasonry is (or is controled by) the Illuminati... " etc. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
What the fuck ... do you enjoy lying, or is it just a bad habit ? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Please be aware that a comments like that are considered personal attacks by Wikipeida's rules, and if repeated can result in the attacker being blocked or even banned. I will let it slide this time, but if you persist I will report your abuse to an admin.
Now, I gave you three conspiracy websites that treat the Illuminati and the Masons as being one in the same... and offered a good faith suggestion for compromise language. Do you reject that compromise? Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Your threat to report me to an admin, your making 2 reverts without a single explanation, and your general dishonesty constitute incivility. I could have put you on the noticeboard, and done lots of other things as well. The three links you provided do NOT support your claim. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If you really think I have done something wrong, please do report me. As to the links I provided, in what way do they not support what I claim? Blueboar (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
How about just owning up ?? Those websites contain the words "Freemason" and "Illuminati" but make no specific claim that "Freemasonry is the Illuminati." The Google search keyword you used is inefficient, given how the web and search engines work. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Um... from the first line of the first of my three links... note the hyphenation "Hiding the Meaning: If the Illuminati-Freemasonry mysteries are working for world government and want to keep it a secret, they must conceal and hide the truth of their actions. This is clearly indicating that the two are one. Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
It does not say that "Freemasonry is the Illuminati." It is describing a prototypical one-world mystery religion. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly ... the Illuminati-Freemasonry religion... ie they are one religion (at least according to the web site). Blueboar (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The word "mysteries," in reference to mysteries that actually exist, is plural. Anyway, Fritz Springmeier suggests that the Illuminati consists of 13 or more family bloodlines. He does not insinuate that they are all Freemasons by necessity. This image of the "Illuminati Pyramid Structure" seems more like a rip-off of Freemasonry. This page, which demonizes George W. Bush, places Freemasonry at about the middle third of the Illuminati hierarchy, below the Jesuits and the Catholic Church. There is also an Illuminati-structure image on that page, although I highly doubt its credibility since it also mentions the Priory of Sion. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, mysteries is plural... it often is in religious oriented writings... Catholic theologians often refer to the Mysteries of the Catholic Church... one organization with many mysteries.
There is no need to point me to conspiracy sites that place Freemasonry somewhere within a broader Illuminati... I have already conceded that not all conspiracy theorists say they are the identical... my only point is that some do say they are identical. Some say the Illuminati are part of the Freemasons (as the Illuminati was founded by the Freemasons), others that the Freemasons are part of the Illuminati (at least at the higher levels of Freemasonry), and still others say that they are one in the same (that Freemasonry is just the "public face" of the Illuminati) ... and one or two may say all three at the same time (we shouldn't expect the paraniod to always be logical). Blueboar (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I forgot to mention that there is no clear definition of "The Illuminati." It is just an informal nickname for a secretive organization which, in all likelihood, is not called "The Illuminati" by its members. As such the phrase "The Illuminati" does not lend itself to credibility, and for this reason I erased it when I made my changes. Freemasonry serving as a front organization to execute the plans of the Illuminati would cause one to imply that the Illuminati controlled, or at least was in cooperation with Freemasonry -- not that it is one and the same with Freemasonry. That would be like saying that eco-feminism is Marxism. The Bavarian Illuminati was founded by Freemasons, but it lasted only a few years. "The Illuminati" in its current usage does not reference the Bavarian Illuminati. Presenting conspiracy theories as "paranoia" is judgmental and, thus, biased. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You may believe that "The Illuminati" in its current usage does not reference the Bavarian Illuminati, but others hold different beliefs. Many conspiracy theorists believe that the Bavarian Illuminati still exists. They believe that this group infiltrated Freemasonry and took it over. This may not agree with your version of the theory, but the theory does exsist. This article is not about which of these theories is "true"... it is about the fact that the various theories exist. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, there is no clear definition of "The Illuminati." The groups to whom the phrase "The Illuminati" refers -- such as the Jesuits, the Catholic Church, and the 13 family bloodlines -- existed before May 1, 1776. Conspiracy theorists say that the Bavarian Illuminati existed until 1783 or 1784. If they still exist, they do not use the name "Bavarian Illuminati" or else conspiracy theorists would continue to use that name as well. Nowadays various groups call themselves "Illuminati" or have the word "Illuminati" in their name, but they are not "The Illuminati" per se. In comparison, there is no evidence that the current Knights Templar are the same group as the Knights Templar from the 12th century except whatever the current group could copy out of historical records. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see your problem... you are talking factual history... factual history often has little to do with conspiracy theory. Many conspiracy theorists get their historical facts wrong. Remember, this article isn't about the historical Illuminati (for that see the Wikipedia article on Illuminati), or even about the modern groups that call themselves Illuminati. This article is about the claims that are made by conspiracy theorists about the Masons... some of whom claim that when the historical Bavarian Illuminati were supressed, they continued on in secret, merging into the Freemasons. Yes, there is little to no evidence to support this theory, but that does not stop theorists from making the claim. In this sense, it is similar to the theories about the Templars... no real evidence, but lots of claims.
This is why the article takes the tone it does... if we were to get into which of these claims are "true", the article would quickly get into arguments about "proof" and "evidence" (and would probably be accused of taking a "pro-masonic" tone... because most if not all of the claims that are made are easily debunked when you examine the evidence.) We chose not to go that route... we avoid the entire issue of "truth" by not discussing it. We stick firmly to Verifiability. We simply say: "here are some of the common claims that are made about the Masons". We don't examine whether these claims are true or false... we don't try to "prove" or "debunk" the claims... we simply list them. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You have just demonstrated, multiple times, your intention to write this article with bias and malicious intent. In addition you have a vested interest in misrepresenting the subject matter (ie: being a 5th degree Scottish Rite Freemason). Leave it to people who actually know about conspiracy theory, and are not faced with a possible conflict of interest. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
How have I demonstrated an intention to write with bias and malicious intent? To the contrary, I am trying to avoid bias. Oh, and FYI, you are incorrect in thinking that I am a 5th Degree Scottish Rite Freemason... I have not taken any Scottish Rite degrees and do not belong to the Scottish Rite (for full disclosure, I have taken the York Rite degrees... although I am not currently active in that organization). Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Many Masons stop attending meetings, but they still hold onto their membership cards. In your user page you state that you mostly edit articles related to Freemasonry, so you are still involved with the organization, even if you are not active in lodge meetings. You have characterized conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorists in less-than-flattering terms. If this is because of a compulsion, then you obviously cannot provide unbiased information. In addition, you do not know about conspiracy theory, so you cannot talk about it, even in the context of a topic that you do know about. After all, the Masonic lodge has an interest in misrepresenting conspiracy theories for the sake self-preservation. I know about conspiracy theory, but I can't talk about how conspiracy theory relates to the textile industry, and I won't attempt to write a Wikipedia article in that regard. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand, I am quite active in Freemasonry - at the local lodge level and (to a lesser extent) at the Grand Lodge level ... I have let my membership in the York Rite laps due to lack of interest, but I remain very active in my local lodge.
As for my bias... of course I have a bias... we all have biases. The key is to not let them impact what we write in the article. We can express our biases on the talk page. From what you have said, I am assuming that you are a proponent of at least some of the conspiracy theories discussed in this article. If so, that is not a problem... unless you let your bias affect how you write and what you include and exclude from articles. The entire point behind the tone of this article write is avoid bias, no matter who is editing the article. By omitting both attempts to "prove" and attempts to "debunk" the theories, the article remains bluntly neutral, in line with the WP:NPOV policy. We stick firmly to WP:Verifiability (that "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth")... we say that the theories exist, and give a citation to a source that verifies that the claim exists. That's it. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Your bias seems to be particularly strong. You still do not know enough about conspiracy theory to write a Wikipedia article about it, and you refuse to address the other concerns that I expressed. This demonstrates your carelessness. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, I know quite a lot about the various Masonic conspiracy theories (being a Mason, it is in my interest to know what Anti-masons say about the organization). The most important thing I know is that there isn't just one theory out there. There are multiple theories (some of which contradict each other). Yes, I happen to think that all of them are complete bunk (my bias), but I do not let that attitude impact my article writing. Can you say the same? Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
So then you are attempting to provide contradictory information in order to invalidate the subject matter. Not "good faith." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I am attempting to adhear to Wikipedia policy... read WP:NPOV... when different sources give contradictory information, Wikipedia policy is to mention both. Our job is to report what the sources say, not to prove one right and the other wrong. If I wanted to "invalidate" the subject matter, I would add a paragraph to each item debunking it (which would not be difficult to do).
That view is in the minority, and there is no special reason to bring it up. You could say that a minority of Americans are left-handed, but it's not worth mentioning that "there are left-handed people who" use their left hand to perform a particular task unless it's for a reason. Wikipedia policy discourages inclusion for its own sake. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at the article on Handedness, it is mentioned. No, as per WP:NPOV, minority viewpoints must be expressed (and, isn't it is a bit silly to talk about majority/majority views here... as the entire masonic conspiracy idea is a fairly minority, even fringe, view in the first place.) Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but it seems like you did not even read what I wrote. Opinions are like noses -- everybody's got one. How many minority views are there on any topic? Again, you state your intention to present the subject matter in a biased way. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving on to the next issue

We seem to be talking in circles about the first issue... Perhaps we can make more progress if we move to another issue on your list... You say:

  • The article links to the Wikipedia entry for the Taxil hoax, which was also written in poor taste.

Please expand on this... why shouldn't this article link to Taxil hoax and what is in "poor taste" about that article? (note: problems with another article should really be discussed on that article's talk page... but since there is a link, we can briefly discuss it here) Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been dishonest and stubborn, and I refuse to collaborate with you. I suggest you talk to an admin about deleting this article or moving it out of the Freemasonry project. In the meantime, stay away. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going away, so I suggest that you at least try to collaborate with me, as I am trying to collaborate with you. In the meantime, I suggest you read up on the various policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, starting with: WP:Assume good faith.
Now, I ask again... Please elaborate on your comment. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You reverting my changes without a reason is not acting "in good faith." Also, the rules say to ignore the rules when it would improve Wikipedia, which is what I'm attempting to do. You, on the other hand, would prefer that the article stay as it is, even though it's been rated as stub-class. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I did give a reason... I did not believe your edit to be neutral. So my revert was made in good faith (WP:Assume good faith does not require you to always agree with someone or their edits). I have no objection to improving this article, and am more than willing to work with you to do so. However, I suspect that we will freequently disagree on wether a given edit is actually an improvement or not. Such disagreements are common on Wikipedia. The solution is to talk it out, and if possible, reach a compromise (and if a compromise is not possible there is a dispute resolution process... the first step of which is to seek other opinions). Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No, you are not trying to talk out anything. You are just trying to bulldoze you way through it. I told you already that your proposals attempt to obfuscate the article by including arbitrary views for no real reason other than inclusion, which is not good enough on Wikipedia, and which does not give the article a better sense of completion. These are not "compromises," they are attempts to invalidate the subject matter by including disinformation. You have demonstrated "bad faith" on numerous occasions. In addition, there is a possible conflict of interest, because the views expressed are detrimental to your lifestyle and possibly your personal safety. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPOV... when different sources disagree, the policy is to mention what they both say, and not attempt to judge between them. That is what I do, and what this article does. Blueboar (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
More bullshit. WP:NPOV says all significant views. The point that you are trying to include is not only insignificant, but based on non-credible information. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
In fact, I would suggest you read all of our core policies... WP:Verifiability (usually abreviated as WP:V), WP:No original research (WP:NOR) as well as WP:Neutral point of view]] (WP:NPOV)... it will probably save everyone's time and energy if you come to understand these core policies right from the start. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, more condescending language. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You know, I'd like for Uku to expand on his idea that the views expressed are detrimental to Blueboar's lifestyle, and particularly, his "personal safety", because I don't think I particularly like the tone of that statement when it comes from a hostile editor. MSJapan (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not at all worried for my "personal safety", but thanks for the concern. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar risks betraying his oath by divulging any secrets of Freemasonry, which is what I intend to do. That was not a threat, and calling me "a hostile editor" is a personal attack that is bordering on slander. If anything, you have contributed nothing, and you need to change your own attitude. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No he doesn't, and that total lack of knowledge on your part pretty much indicates that you have very little knowledge which is supported by fact in this area. I have no need to justify either my edit count or my contributions, but I would suggest that you think about what you are saying to whom before you say it. You're a hostile editor because you refuse to cooperate and refuse to acknowledge that maybe you really don't know what you;re talking about, and you'd rather create some nonsense about "violating obligations" or guessing at what holding membership in an organization you clearly don't understand means rather than trying to support your own statements with a reliable source. I'd suggest you read John J. Robinson's A Pilgrim's Path and note exactly the type of argument method he states most Masonic detractors use. You might see some similarities. MSJapan (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, he does, because that's part of what the Masonic oaths entail. Maybe you know better than I do because you are a Freemason as well? Specify this "'total' lack of knowledge on my part." My name is not "a hostile editor" so I suggest that you stop calling me that, and no one should have to cooperate with someone who is acting dishonest and stubborn. I said nothing about your general contributions to Wikipedia, rather your contribution to improving this article. How about you quote from that book instead of just pointing to it? And saying that I speak like "a typical Masonic detractor" is an ad-hominem attack. Again, you are contributing nothing. Don't be a sock puppet. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Several comments: First, you are correct that, as a Freemason, I have promised not to divulge the "secrets of Freemasonry"... these consist of the vartious grips and passwords used to gain admission to a lodge meeting. And since these grips and words play no real part in any Masonic conspiracy theory, I have no worries about "violating my obligation" by "divulging" them. Second, even if I were to divulge these grips and passwords, the only punishments I would or could face are repremand, suspension or expulsion (and I doubt I would even get a repremand, since these "secrets" have been divulged so many times over the last few centuries that no one really thinks they are "secret" anymore). So no, there is no threat to my personal safety... sorry to disapoint.
Finally... If you think that MSJapan is a sock puppet... feel free to report him (I am sure the admins could use a laugh).
Now... can we please stop attacking the editor and focus on the edits instead.
I opened this thread with a question... you have yet to answer it. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it is typical for members of secret societies to refute the claims of outsiders, saying confidently that they "don't know the secrets." The grips, signs and words do play a part in conspiracy theory, namely as they concern the entertainment industry and the mainstream media. The secrets also consist of rituals and symbology. Members who hold the lower degrees are told lies about them. In addition, I suppose that the activities of the Freemasons and their alignment with other groups would also count as secrets, and I think that you would agree. Suspension from the lodge means that you'd have more free time or even that other members may turn away from you, thus affecting your livelihood. Freemasons have been persecuted throughout history, especially after the publishing of William Morgan's book and during the 20th century. This would imply that many people in general do not know much about Freemasonry; after learning, people tend to disagree with it.
Why do you need to mention that "the admins could use a laugh?" Sounds like intimidation.
Like I said, I refuse to collaborate with you. If you think that my outbursts are irrational and would just "blow over" then you are mistaken. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Why do I mention that "the admins could use a laugh?" Simply because MSJ is a long time Wikipedian who is quite respected. The idea that he could be a sock puppet is amusing.
So then you are placing him on a pedestal. Try not to do that so much. Even Freemasonry says not to do that so much. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
As to your other comments... "The grips, signs and words do play a part in conspiracy theory, namely as they concern the entertainment industry and the mainstream media."... how do they play a part in conspiracy theory, and how do they concern the entertainment industry and the mainstream media?
People are routinely photographed while giving Masonic signs, getting Masonic grips, and using Masonic secret words (usually as double-entendre). Photos are manipulated such that the model appears to be giving a Masonic sign. Entertainers routinely use the cornuto -- to the point where it now has become known as like "metalhorns" or something. These seem like unnecessary superfluous embellishments, and people ask questions. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"The secrets also consist of rituals and symbology."... Nope... The ritual and symbology of Freemasonry are not secret... the ritual (which includes the explanation of the symbology) is actually published and can be purchased by the general public at Amazon.uk
Someone should tell Amazon.co.uk to start selling copies of Morals and Dogma Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"Members who hold the lower degrees are told lies about them." This is the only comment you have made that does relate to Masonic conspiracy theories. However, we already cover this claim...the article states: "That most Freemasons are unaware of hidden or secretive ruling bodies that govern their organization, conduct occult ritual, or control various positions of power. This is an example of a secret society within a secret society"... I suppose we could expand or reword it to specifically mention the claim that the lower degrees are lied to.
I never proposed this as a change to the article, I was simply responding to a question. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"In addition, I suppose that the activities of the Freemasons and their alignment with other groups would also count as secrets, and I think that you would agree". Nope... I don't agree. The only "secrets" are the grips and words. I am not even sure what "other groups" you are referring to (what "other groups" do you thik Freemasonry is aligned with?)
Refer to my changes. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"Suspension from the lodge means that you'd have more free time or even that other members may turn away from you, thus affecting your livelihood." Well... I suppose more free time might affect my livelihood (as I could spend more time at work earning money, instead of attending lodge meetings... perhaps I should consider trying to get myslef suspended!). But it is unlikely that people I grew up with and are long time friends will turn away just because I can't attend lodge.
I will not discuss your personal life any further. In short, you have a vested interest in misrepresenting the subject matter. Furthermore, you never explained your motivation for working on this article. All I have to go by are assumptions. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"Freemasons have been persecuted throughout history, especially after the publishing of William Morgan's book and during the 20th century. This would imply that many people in general do not know much about Freemasonry; after learning, people tend to disagree with it." - The first part of that is true... Freemasons has been persecuted many times. But I would argue that the persecution happens because people don't know much about Freemasonry, and they fear what they don't know... over the last fifty years or so, Freemasonry has become more open about it's rituals and activities... and more and more people have realized that there is nothing to fear. It seems most people actually like what they see when they find out more about the Craft. Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I recently watched a documentary on the History Channel about Freemasonry. The documentary was presented with a biased tone. The Master Masons who were interviewed refused to correctly answer a lot of the most common questions. In addition, their portrayal of the Masonic baptism was misleading. The documentary itself says that the portrayal was based on a composite of information. The baptism is only one part of the initiation ritual for a Master Mason, and it was included for the sake of illustrating the story of Hiram Abiff -- NOT to demonstrate the initiation ritual itself. Despite that, their description of the story of Hiram Abiff was still incomplete. That is not being "open." Secrecy is an integral part of Freemasonry's identity and practices. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

OK... Uku has tagged the article as not being neutral... so, what is not neutral about it? Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Respond to the points that I brought up, which continue to accumulate for each instance of bullshit that you post on here. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I am responding to your points ... you just don't like what I have to say. (I get the idea that you equate "agree with me" as a valid response, and "don't agree with me" as "bullshit".) And once again you are attempting to avoid the question... what is not neutral about the article? Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL refers to this as "feigned incomprehension." Learn how to scroll up. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Nothing feigned about it... I think this article is excrutiatingly neutral in tone, so I really do not see how you can think otherwise. In any case... since you don't seem to want to discuss your concerns point by point... I have responded to them all below. Blueboar (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You have not proven that this article is "excruciatingly neutral." You are simply reacting defensively and irrationally. You may have invested a lot into it already, and that may be distorting your perspective. As someone looking in from the outside, it appears, on no uncertain terms, that this article is biased. In addition, you have demonstrated a lack of self-control, compassion and objectivity, which are all needed to make unbiased statements. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I wish I had more time to take part in the discussions these days, but best guess is that 'current version' =! 'his version', therefore 'current version' =! neutral.
I would suggest that the current version is as close as an article of this kind is going to get - it reports simple facts (per WP:V) without taking a bias as far as possible (per WP:NPOV). This is not saying that todays version can't be improved though, but Ukufwakfgr's changes were not an improvement.
Off course, if we were apply WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE heavoly to this article we might as well delete the whole thing - but thats beside the point. I would argue that the neutrailty tag is misused on this article.
WegianWarrior (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You don't have enough time to engage in discussion, yet you are certain that the neutrality tag is misused and you apparently have enough time to click "undo." Your sincerity is questionnable. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice ad hominen there, but perhaps you had something more usefull to add to the discusson? WegianWarrior (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Flamebait. Sock puppeting. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


responding to Uku's points

Let's try again... since you don't seem to want to discuss them point by point, fine... I will deal with them all together:

  • The article uses the phrase "in the broadest terms" which clearly shows intent to diminish or otherwise misrepresent the subject matter.

The exact sentence is: Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. In broadest terms, these theories claim that Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. This is a statement that summarizes a broad concept that is common to most of the theories. Wikipedia's style guidelines say we are supposed to summarize the article in broad scope in the intro... that is what we do (even a quick look at the list shows that most of the theories claim this in some way. How is it not neutral?

It insinuates that the subject matter does not warrant serious consideration. Besides, that phrase is not only false, but exaggerated Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
False? It's a very accurate description, but the meaning don't change much if we rewrite it to "''Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. These theories claim that Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. - it just turns the last sentence into a fragment and a repeat of the first. As for being exaggerated... sources please? Preferable realiable ones? WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, here is the whole sentence as it currently appears in the article:

In broadest terms, these theories claim that Freemasonry exerts control over politics at all levels.

Incidentally, that proposal does not include the phrase "in the broadest terms." The phrase "Masonic conspiracy theories" itself is ambiguous. That usage of the word "involving" is also ambiguous. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The article links to the Wikipedia entry for the Taxil hoax, which was also written in poor taste. In order for me to respond to this complaint, I need to understand it... so, Uku... why shouldn't this article link to Taxil hoax and what is in "poor taste" about that article?
That article is biased, and written in a spirit similar to this one. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
And it is also verifiable, neutral and keeping to reliable sources... WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That article says

Léo Taxil was the pen name of Marie Joseph Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pagès, who had been accused earlier of libel regarding a book he wrote called The Secret Loves of Pope Pius IX.

That he was accused of libel is irrelevant to the rest of the article, and is a personal attack on Léo Taxil, which indirectly casts judgment the subject matter. Further down, the article states:

After this encyclical, Taxil underwent a public, feigned conversion to Roman Catholicism, and announced his intention of repairing the damage he had done to the true faith.

There is no citation for this claim. It further casts judgment on Léo Taxil and, by extension, the subject matter. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Taxil was accused of libel indicates a plausible reason for why he went through with the hoax, thus its relevant to the article. His less than honest "conversion" to the chatolic fate is amply documented in the external links. Apart from that, the discussion weither or not the article on the Taxil Hoax needs more citations should be brought up on the talkpage of that article, not here. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That is not a description of the hoax itself, it is "shooting the messenger." It should be cited instead of just placed in the external links. I brought it up stating that the article should not link to it. Scroll up !! Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, the right place for bringing up issues you have with the article on the Taxil hoax is tha talkpage for that article. A number of conspiracy theorists builds on the taxil hoax (usually without realising it was a hoax, or refusing to acknowledge that factoid), thus it's natural to link to it from here.WegianWarrior (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Then specify which parts of this article, and my changes, are based on the Taxil hoax. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The concept of a "New World Order" is NOT a "theory." There is video on YouTube of the phrase being used by both George H W Bush and Henry Kissinger. Go look it up yourself, I'm not going to hold your hand this time.

Fine... I will hold yours. Start with the Wikipedia article New World Order (conspiracy theory)

That article is all kinds of filth, and that's why I don't reference it in my changes to this article. This article represents the "New World Order" as an organization, which is false. Even that Wikipedia article refers to it as "a hypothetical totalitarian end of history." 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, no. This article refers to the verfiable fact that some conspirasy theorists refers to "New World Order" as an organisation. WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You did not quote it, and besides that is a moot point. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No, it's cited. Have you actually read the cited sources? WegianWarrior (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Quote it here Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Do your own damn homework. You might even learn something... WegianWarrior (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on you, because you brought it up. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The article uses loaded, hyperbolic phrases like "the Illuminati," "world domination," "hidden war," and "secretly control" in a context whereby they do NOT give the article a neutral tone.

Of course the article uses these phrases... as they are terms that are used by the cited sources, and express the POV of those who make the claim. It would be non-neutral to not use these terms.

No. Those are grossly exaggerated misquotations, which cause the subject matter to appear invalid. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Having taken time to go throught most of the sources (intrestingly enought, several are blocked at my workplace for being hate-sites), I would say that the article if anything is toning down the hyporbole and exagguration the sources display. WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
So what? They require further toning-down. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, why? Shouldn't wikipedia adhere to it's core policies and actually state whats verifiable, ie. what the conspiracy theorists actually says? Otherwise, whats the point? WegianWarrior (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy says "significant." How many times do I have to repeat that ???! Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If you look back in the edit history, you'll notice that a lot of insignificant and unverified conspiracy theories were weeded out. You were saying?
However, I fail to see what the word "significant" has to do with your demand to "tone down" and thus change what the cited sources says... keep to the issue at hand and dont change the subject.WegianWarrior (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The article obfuscates conspiracy theories regarding the events of September 11, 2001.
"A lot of ..." and "the cited sources" are not good enough. You have to be specific. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? How? (please remember that this isn't the 9/11 conspiracy page. We are only talking about those 9/11 theories that involve Masonry)

It states that, according to conspiracy theorists, 9/11 was about a hidden war between the Knights Templar and the Muslims or something like that, which is a minority viewpoint. I do not wish to discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories in this article, so I deleted it in my changes. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You may not wish to discuss it, but it's a verifiable fact that some conspiray theorists does make some form of connection between Freemasonery and 9/11. And last I checked this was the Wikipedia article on Masonic conspiracy theories, not the article on what Ukufwakfgr wants to discuss. WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
If those claims are valid, then we can add them in. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, if we were going to base this article on validity... the entire thing would be gone. No, validity is not a criteria here... this is an article about the claims that people make about the Masons. Many Anti-masonic Muslim websites repeat the idea that 9/11 was planned by the Freemasons (who they equate with the Templars) as part of a crusade against islam. You may not think this theory true... but that does not matter... the claim is made. It is a Masonic conspiracy theory... or should we only discuss conspiracy theories that come from western sources (talk about POV and non-neutrality)! Blueboar (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, stating intent not to present the subject matter in a neutral tone. Again, all possible views cannot be stated on Wikipedia. That claim is unpopular and possibly exaggerated. In addition, many Muslims are Freemasons, so those claims may actually be disinformation or misleading (by referencing the "Knights Templar" as opposed to the entire Freemasonic order). Again, I prefer not to use the phrase "Masonic conspiracy theory." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Why do you insist on picking only theories you like? Those claims are made and just as verifiable (ie: we can verfify that the claims are made) as the others cited. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I like them for a good reason. Scroll up. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:ILIKEIT is not grounds for inclusion, just as WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for deletion. WP:V is on the other hand, and is also a core policy of Wikipedia. WegianWarrior (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
My reasons for liking it have been already stated. Flamebait. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The article names the NSA, FEMA, NASA and Congress as "branches of the US government" which is COMPLETELY WRONG !!!

This one is a valid complaint... suggest changing it to "...agencies of the US government, such as NSA, FEMA, and NASA" and even branches of the government such as Congress."

No. NASA is a civilian agency, and I don't know enough about the NSA or FEMA to make a call on those. Congress is part of the legislative branch of US government. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone with a better working knowlegde of how the various agencies and organisations ties into the US goverment may want to reword that sentence. However, looking at the cited sources, it's obvious that some conspiracu theorists consider NSA, FEMA and NASA to be US goverment agencies - thats the likely source of the error. WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and please point them out, so that we may dismiss those sources as invalid. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, and I don't think you have grasped this nugget of fact yet, Wikipedia isn't about whats valid or not, its about what can be verified. It's a verfiable fact that these claims are made by a number of conspiracy theorists. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to read WP:NPOV yourself. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of the rules on neutral point of view, and I find that the page as it stands does adhere fairly closely to it. YOU need to have a good read through of WP:NPA though... WegianWarrior (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If you read it, then you would know that attributing a claim to "a number of experts" is not good enough. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The article has only one external link, to a website which refutes the subject matter. This also does not give the article a neutral tone.

You are right... the article probably does need more links expressing the pro-Masonic POV... given that this link is the only point in the article that presents that POV and the rest of the article is Anti-masonic.

This article should not be about proving that Freemasons are better than "conspiracy theorists" or "Masonic detractors." It should be about presenting the conspiracy theories themselves. The majority of conspiracy theories make overly negative allegations about Freemasonry, which would be an accurate way to describe the subject matter. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Which it attempts to do. Remember that in accordance to Wikipedia policies external sites that are listed in the notes and references should not be repeted as an external link. Taking those links into account, we need a lot more links to places debunking the theories to maintain 'balance'... WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No. You are stating an intention to invalidate the subject matter. This article is not about presenting "balanced" views about Freemasonry. I hope you're not engaging in a cover-up as well... Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
While you are correct that the article is not about presenting a balanced view of freemasonry, it is about presenting a balanced view of the various Masonic conspiracy theories... which includes the view that they are bunk... a significantly under represented viewpoint. Blueboar (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No, it's only about presenting significant conspiracy theories. If such a view is "signficantly under-represented" by conspiracy theorists, then it's a minority view. Maybe there is a special reason to include it? Again we have to avoid making inferences, or presenting the subject matter itself as "ludicrous," "paranoid" or "untrue." If you are claiming that such a view is under-represented among laymen, that is false. The average person has a negative bias towards conspiracy theories, including conspiracy theories pertaining to Freemasonry. This is due, in large part, by ad-hominem attacks and disinformation as well as other attempts at self-preservation by the accused. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand what I said... I am not saying that the the "anti-conspiracy theory" view point is under-represented among laymen ... I am saying that it is a view point that is under-represented in this article. Thus, if there is any lack of balance, it is that this article does not have enough "anti-conspiracy theory" links. Blueboar (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in this article unless it's pro-Masonic conspiracy theory. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No, read NPOV again... If a source discusses directly the theories that are the topic of this article, it does belong ... no matter what its viewpoint on the theory. But getting back to the external link under discussion, per WP:EL, External links are not considered part of an article... they are simply links to websites that give further information on the topic. Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Read the subsection called Links normally to be avoided Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
In what way does this link violate WP:EL:AVOID? Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You must be reading somethign else than I'm writing... where do I state an intent to 'invalidate the subject matter'? WegianWarrior (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
By stating that "we need ... more ... debunking." You can't write an article describing Santa Claus and then provide links to websites claming Santa Claus is false. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That is funny - Wikipedias article on Saunta Claus does in fact have at least one external link (and a fair nober of citations too) that testifies to the fact that Saunta Claus is in fact not real. I'm sorry if that burst your childhood beliefs, but thats the facts... Now, if you try to read what I wrote again, and not remove parts of that sentence to construct a new one, you might even understand what I was trying to say. WegianWarrior (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That was probably done in the interest of irony. It is common knowledge that Santa Claus is a fictional story. My impression of your sentence has not changed after reviewing it multiple times. Your proposal to maintain "balance" would mean providing a balanced view of Freemasonry, which is not the subject matter. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The article was sloppily written, so I changed a few sentences here and there.

You change a lot more than a few sentences. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did, so what? Flamebait. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah you're full of that, but at least Blueboar is trying to keep the discussion on track. WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"full of that" is not my name. He is pointing out something that is obvious and unimportant. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, he's pointing out that one of your statement is in fact not correct. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Flamebait. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ York Rites
  2. ^ Kinnock 'can't beat Euro-corruption'
  3. ^ Freemasons and New World Order at Freedomdomain.com.
  4. ^ Spooks in Blue by Doug Henwood
  5. ^ Propaganda Due - Wikipedia
  6. ^ "Why the NSA tried to recruit me" by James Casbolt in St Ives, UK -- October 31 2006
  7. ^ "The Road to Heart Mountain? Rumors, FEMA and the Future"
  8. ^ "Freemasons"
  9. ^ United States Presidents and The Illuminati / Masonic Power Structure
  10. ^ United States Presidents and The Illuminati / Masonic Power Structure Pt.4
  11. ^ Revelations
  12. ^ Historic Freemasonry in the Middle East by Isaac Bar-Moshe
  13. ^ My Eid Celebration by Layla Anwar
  14. ^ The American Red Double-Cross
  15. ^ [http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2000/features_nov00.html BUGNINI, BERNADIN & BASIL: MODERNIST MASONS OR MASONIC MODERNISTS?] by Michael McGrade
  16. ^ "James Cameron Conspiracy"
  17. ^ LiveLeak.com - matt groening 33rd mason
  18. ^ Masonic References in Television
  19. ^ Jack the Ripper, Masonic conspiracy
  20. ^ Hodapp, Christopher L. and VonKannon, Alice, Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies, Wiley, 2008, ISBN:978-0470184080
  21. ^ James Shelby Downard, and Michael A. Hoffman II. "King-Kill/33°: Masonic Symbolism in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy", 1987. Website excerpt, 1998. Retrieved 16 July 2007.
  22. ^ "Corporate Logos"
  23. ^ "Freemasonry -Conspiracy Within"
  24. ^ Freedomdomain.com
  25. ^ Trosch - Masonry exposed
  26. ^ United States Presidents and The Illuminati / Masonic Power Structure.
  27. ^ Creatures of the Rider Waite Deck - How They Speak to Us by Peggy Firth
  28. ^ G.A.O.T.U.
  29. ^ "Freemasonry is a Non-Christian Occult Religion"
  30. ^ "Islamic Party of Britain: What then is Freemasonry?"
  31. ^ "Satanic Voices: UNMASKING JEHOVAH JAH-BUL-ON"
  32. ^ "(Masonic) Name of Deity"
  33. ^ Robinson, John. A Pilgrim's Path: Freemasonry and the Religious Right. M. Evans, 1993. ISBN:087131732X
  34. ^ Hodapp, Christopher L. and VonKannon, Alice, Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies, Wiley, 2008, ISBN:978-0470184080
  35. ^ Freemasonry The worship of Lucifer, SATAN Part 1 of 5
  36. ^ DO FREEMASONS WORSHIP SATAN/LUCIFER ?
  37. ^ Freemasonry: Midwife to an Occult Empire
  38. ^ NASA Masonic Conspiracy - Apollo Missions Masonic Symbols
  39. ^ "Bohemian Grove Exposed!"
  40. ^ Freemasons, Illuminati and Associates
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Masonic_conspiracy_theories/Archive_2&oldid=269612444"