Saturday, 31 May 2014

Tyler

Night by William Hogarth

 George W. Speth suggests that the picture is of Hartshorn Lane, Charing Cross, the principal figure, wearing a collar with square, is Sir Thomas de Veil, a member of Hogarth’s first Lodge, meeting at the Vine in 1729 and the supporting figure, in Tyler’s regalia with sword, key and lamp, is Bro. Montgomerie, the Grand Tyler. 


"When the king's party finally went out to meet with the leaders of the rebellion, two men conspicuously not in the party were the Archbishop of Canturbury and the prior of the Knights Hospitaller. 

Tyler and a few men found them anyway in the Tower of London and beheaded them. 

The young king agreed to parley with Tyler, but Tyler was stabbed by members of the king's excourt as he spoke. 

As Tyler lay wounded, the king rode to the rebels and announced to them that he would personally see to their concerns. "



"Tyler issued the command that men within 36 miles of the coast should stay put, lest the French take advantage of the upheaval in order to stage an invasion.

Tyler was a man used to giving commands and apparently accustomed to having those commands carried out, which in this case they were. Further, these commands covered ranges miles from London and coordinated concurrent rebellions as far north as Scotland. 

Robinson takes this coordination and discipline as evidence that a command structure was in place and ready to go when the rebellion erupted. 

That's a lot to expect of a roof tiler, but all in a day's work for a sergeant at arms of a secret society."



UNC Press - John Tyler, the Accidental President

John Tyler, the Accidental President

By Edward P. Crapol

The first vice president to become president on the death of the incumbent, John Tyler (1790-1862) was derided by critics as "His Accidency." Yet he proved to be a bold leader who used the malleable executive system to his advantage. In this biography of the tenth President of the United States, Edward P. Crapol challenges previous depictions of Tyler as a die-hard advocate of states' rights, limited government, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

In pursuit of his agenda, Crapol argues, Tyler exploited executive prerogatives and manipulated constitutional requirements in ways that violated his professed allegiance to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. He set precedents that his successors in the White House invoked to create an American empire and expand presidential power.

Crapol also highlights Tyler's enduring faith in America's national destiny and his belief that boundless territorial expansion would preserve the Union as a slaveholding republic. When Tyler, a Virginian, opted for secession and the Confederacy in 1861, he was stigmatized as America's "traitor" president for having betrayed the republic he once led. As Crapol demonstrates, Tyler's story anticipates the modern imperial presidency in all its power and grandeur, as well as its darker side.

About the Author

Edward P. Crapol is William E. Pullen Professor of American History, Emeritus, at the College of William and Mary. He is author of James G. Blaine: Architect of Empire and editor of Women and American Foreign Policy: Lobbyists, Critics, and Insiders.


" The unhappy people of Kent, Essex, Sussex and Bedford began to stir, because, they said, they were kept in great servage. And in the beginning of the world, they said, there were no bondmen; wherefore they maintained that none ought to be bond, without he did treason to his lord; for they were neither angels nor spirits, but men formed to the similitude of their lords; saying why should they then be kept so under like beasts? The which they said they would no longer suffer. For they would be all one, and if they laboured or did anything for their lords, they would have wages therefor." 

" And they had a captain called Walter Tyler, and with him in company was Jack Straw and John Ball: these three were chief sovereign captains, but the head of all was Walter Tyler, and he was indeed a tiler of houses, an ungracious patron." 

" When these unhappy men began thus to stir, they of London, except such as were of their band, were greatly affrayed. Then the mayor of London and the rich men of the city took counsel together, and when they saw the people thus coming on every side, they caused the gates of the city to be closed and would suffer no man to enter into the city." 

Then they cried all with one voice, 'Let us go to London,' and so they took their way thither, and so came to the Savoy in the way to Westminster, which was a goodly house and it pertained to the duke of Lancaster. And when they entered, they slew the keepers thereof and robbed and pillaged the house, and when they had so done, then they set fire on it and clean destroyed and burnt it." 

BORN IN BLOOD THE LOST SECRETS OF FREEMASONRY

by
John J. Robinson
pub. M. Evans and Company, Inc., New York, 1989


The author purports to prove that Freemasonry is directly descended from the medieval monastic Knights Templar, and in the process to solve a number of minor mysteries concerning Masonic ritual, including the meanings and origins of words like cowan, cabletow and tyler, which occur in Masonic ritual and nowhere else in the English language. His best evidence centers on the English Peasant's Revolt of 1381.

In 14th Century England life sucked for all but a very few people. You worked hard and were paid little if you were freeborn and nothing if you weren't. You had no rights at all. Anything you grew or built or invented belonged either to the king or the pope. Malnutrition was a way of life, and if you were caught hunting on land that belonged to an aristocrat you could be beaten or executed. The penalty for criticizing the church was that your lower lip would be cut off. And if you did it again, you had another lip, didn't you?

Into the mix add frequent crop failures from 1315 to 1318 and then a big famine in 1340 then follow that up with three plagues and a simultaneous war with Scotland and by 1350 the population of England had gone from 4M to 2.5M.  Life's a bitch!

For a moment there seemed to be a silver lining to the cloud. The labor shortage caused by all your friends and family dropping dead meant that for the first time ever, a commoner could get some meaningful cash for his labor. The authorities didn't like the idea of working people having economic clout, so they passed the Statute of Labourers which, among other things, fixed wages at preplague levels. Also at about that time the Hundred Years War had begun, so that meant increased taxes. Landowners who wanted to reduce the cost of their human resources could hire a lawyer to comb genealogies to discover freemen who had descended from serfs, thus forcing them into unpaid servitude.

WAT TYLER'S REVOLT

There's only so much a people can take, and in 1381 a peasants' rebellion occurred, organized by reform-minded parish priests in contact with a shadowy, secretive "Great Society" and led by a guy called Walter the Tyler. Now it may be that tyler is an obsolete spelling of the occupation roof tiler, but Robinson contends that tyler in this case is sergeant at arms of a Masonic lodge, a natural choice to lead a violent mob. During this insurrection, there was a great deal of lopping off of heads of aristocrats and upper church officials, lawyers and authority in general; but the mob seems to have been deliberately guided toward the destruction of property, particularly property belonging to the Knights Hospitaller and the Church. One piece of Hospitaller property was spared, that temple which had been the principal temple of the Knights Templar prior to the suppression of the order in 1307.

When the king's party finally went out to meet with the leaders of the rebellion, two men conspicuously not in the party were the Archbishop of Canturbury and the prior of the Knights Hospitaller. Tyler and a few men found them anyway in the Tower of London and beheaded them. The young king agreed to parley with Tyler, but Tyler was stabbed by members of the king's excourt as he spoke. As Tyler lay wounded, the king rode to the rebels and announced to them that he would personally see to their concerns. The now leaderless rebellion petered out in London and carried on for a couple more days in outlying towns.

So that's the closest Robinson came to a historical smoking gun. The shadowy Great Society of the Peasant's Revolt has one foot in the Masons, based on the name Walter the Tyler, and one foot in the Templars, based on the fact that the mob singled out Hospitaller leadership and property, the Hospitallers being the rival monastic order which had most directly participated in and profited from the Pope's supression of the Templars.

It's not perfect evidence, but it's pretty good. The troublesome part is the possibility that tyler might be an alternate spelling of tiler. Robinson tries to add weight to his argument mainly in that it just makes so much sense that a man who occupied the position of sergeant at arms of a secret society would be a natural choice to lead a violent rebellion and that a roof tiler would be a less likely leader. Also, from the moment he appeared on the scene he was universally recognized as the leader of the rebellion, even though rioting had been taking place under other leaders for a couple of days before he arrived. Robinson doubts that could have happened so easily if Wat had been a "tiler" and not a "tyler."

Tyler issued the command that men within 36 miles of the coast should stay put, lest the French take advantage of the upheaval in order to stage an invasion. Tyler was a man used to giving commands and apparently accustomed to having those commands carried out, which in this case they were. Further, these commands covered ranges miles from London and coordinated concurrent rebellions as far north as Scotland. Robinson takes this coordination and discipline as evidence that a command structure was in place and ready to go when the rebellion erupted. That's a lot to expect of a roof tiler, but all in a day's work for a sergeant at arms of a secret society.

THUMBNAIL HISTORY OF THE KNIGHTS OF THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON

For supporting evidence, Robinson backtracks to the history of the Knights of the Temple of Solomon. These guys were soldier monks who fought in the crusades and had as their stated purpose the aid of pilgrims traveling from Europe to the Holy Land (from West to East, and possibly the other way, too). To accomplish this, they maintained chains of castles, supply depots, armed escorts, banks, secret intelligence networks, farms, vineyards, ranches and so on throughout Europe and the Middle East. In modern terms they were a diversified multinational religious and financial corporation which became stinking rich offering support services to the crusades.

For example, if you were a young knight on your way from Paris to Jerusalem, you could carry a box of gold with you with which to purchase supplies along the way. You could camp in the woods exposed to robbers while you sleep. Or you could deposit your gold with the Templars in Paris and carry a note for the amount with you like a traveler's check. Templar facilities were conveniently spaced and feed, pack animals, supplies, even armaments could be purchased there and debited against the note you carried.

Of course, these notes were just that. Handwritten notes. In order to guard against the possibility of disbursing gold to people carrying forged notes, the Templar clerics developed secret signs, and ciphers, apparently accidental marks, tears, and the like which one Templar could use to authenticate a document written by another a thousand miles away and presented by a stranger. When you're handing out gold, you want to be sure. Also with a large geographically diffuse organization requiring the frequent disbursement of funds among its members, you have to know that the guy you're handing the cash to is a brother Templar and not a fake. So they developed other secret signs, handshakes, knocks and so on, manners of speaking and dressing that would allow them to identify their own. Those signs, customs, raps and marks would have to be standardized throughout the order across Europe and the Middle East from the Atlantic to the Euphrates.

In this way, Robinson begins to pile up a mountain of circumstantial evidence. The Templars did this --the Masons do something similar. The Templars had ciphers and secret grips -- the Masons have ciphers and secret grips. The Templar order took its name from the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem -- elements of Masonic ritual revolve around the construction of the Temple of Solomon. Masons wear sheepskin aprons, Templars wore a sheepskin loincloth under their robes. The Templars were monks and called one another "brother." Masons refer to themselves as "brother" Masons, and since the Templars were a French order, "brother Mason" might once have been "frére macon" which is transliterated into English as "freemason."

THE FRENCH CONNECTION

While we're on the subject of French, there's an old French word "tailleur," meaning "one who cuts." The pronunciation approximates "tyler," and it would be an appropriate name for a man who is stationed at an entrance to a Masonic lodge with his sword drawn and deciding who does and doesn't "make the cut."

Still on the subject of French, there's a phrase in Masonic ritual, "cowans and eves droppers" which has confused people over the years. Noplace else in the English language does the word "cowan" appear, but there's an old French word "couenne" which is pronounced kuh-WAHN and means ignoramus or bumpkin. The French word for protective gesture is geste du garde, which Robinson posits as the source of the Masonic identifying gesture, or "due guard" for each degree. There's an old French equivalent for the enigmatic "cable-tow" as well, although it's meaning is not all that surprisingly a rope used tie down a ship.

Still on the subjects both of French and the Temple of Solomon, the biblical telling of the story of the temple's construction names the chief builder as Hiram. The Masonic version gives him a last name, Abiff. That last name is not mentioned in the Bible. But in French, "Hiram à Biffe" means "Hiram who was eliminated," or perhaps "Hiram, the guy who got whacked," which is exactly what happens to Hiram in the Masonic telling of the story, not in the biblical version.

There was a pirate city in Muslim North Africa known as Mahadia. Robinson speculates that the Templar fleet escaping from La Rochelle might have gained refuge in a Muslim port like Mahadia, possibly referring to it as "Mahadia the Good." In French, Mahadia le Bon, later shortened to "mahabone," is the substitute word for the one that was lost at the death of Hiram Abif.

THE SUPRESSION OF THE ORDER

King Philip of France and Pope Clement conspired in 1307 to arrest the Templars on trumped up charges of everything from blasphemy to buggery (the usual accusations in the time of the Inquisition). Once confessions were tortured out of them, their lands and fortunes would be forfeit, turned over to Philip and Clement, and their real estate and charter turned over to the Knights of the Hospital of St. John -- the Hospitallers.

That was a lot of wealth. At the time, the Templars had property every few miles from Scotland to Egypt and from Portugal to Palestine. In addition to that, they were lending money to every nobleman in Europe and renting out their knights as mercenaries and security guards. They were managing agricultural property for a fee. They were required to recognize no political boundaries within all cristendom and were bound only by the laws of their own order, so they acted as bonded couriers, political messengers and mediators. If there was a dispute between a feudal lord and some church authority, the Pope might have dispatched a couple of Templars to settle the matter instead of an army of soldiers.

So concentrated within that order was more money and power than any individual king in the world. Although they were sworn to obey the pope, it's easy to see that Clement could have seen them as a threat, like having a lion in your house, even if it's YOUR lion....

The arrest operation was a disappointment for Philip and Clement. Templars in Germany simply declared their innocence and offered trial by combat to anybody who cared to cross the Rhine and say that. When the order was outlawed five years later, one assumes the Templars would have entered civilian life or joined the Teutonic Knights or some other order. Templars in Portugal and Spain changed their names to the Knights of Christ and melded into the feudal systems of those countries. The English King stalled for almost a month before carrying out the pope's order, so that by the time he had to make the arrests, all the treasure and all the Templars had vanished. And in Scotland, well, forget it. Any pain in the pope's neck was a friend of the Scots.

Even in France much of what wasn't nailed down was gone when the soldiers showed up to arrest the Templars. Only a few older members of the Order stayed behind, letting themselves be arrested. Possibly they hoped to delay the authorities so the others could make good their escape. Possibly they thought they had the best chance of legally defending their charter. Whatever the reason, only a small fraction of the Templars were ever apprehended. The 18 ships in the Templar fleet vanished from their port of La Rochelle and were never hear from again. This might explain why a man undergoing the rite of a Master Mason is told that this degree will make him a "brother of pirates and corsairs."

BLOODY OATHS AND OTHER MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS

Robinson demolishes the widely held notion that the Freemasonry arose from medieval stonemasons craft guilds. In his chapter describing medieval craft guilds, he mentions that he visited the archives of some of the world's great libraries in London, Oxford and Lincoln, towns known for having lots of medieval stonework. Although he found documentation for guilds covering everything from vintners to fishmongers to gold wire drawers, he was unable to find even one documented instance of a medieval guild of English stonemasons.

A Mason swears to keep the order's secrets under the threat of having his body chopped into pieces, his throat cut, his tongue ripped out by the roots, his entrails burned and many other gruesome fates. What secret could a stonemason have that requires that kind of oath? This wasn't just a matter of "cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye." Guys running from the inquisition would have a good reason to require that kind of oath from his brothers, because that "burning entrail" stuff is right down the inquisition's alley.

Masonic membership requires that the candidate be freeborn. Like Masonry there were three classes of Templars, (Knights, Sergeants and Clerics) all of which were required to be freeborn. Masons require a professed belief in a Supreme Being, but require that the specifics of religion not be discussed in the lodge. Doesn't make much sense from the point of view of a stonecutter's union, but regarding men evading religious persecution it makes a lot of sense.

THE OLD CHARGES

Some of the oldest documents in Freemasonry, one dating right back to the fourteenth century, are known as the Old Charges. This is a short list of rules about how Masons are to treat one another. One rule goes that a Mason may not reveal a secret that would result in a brother Mason losing life or property. A Mason may not have illicit sex with the female relations of a brother Mason. A Mason visiting a town should not go about the town unless escorted by a brother Mason who can vouch for him. A Mason passing through is to be given two weeks' employment by a brother Mason, then given some spending money and sent on his way to the next lodge.

Seriously, doesn't this sound like rules of conduct for an underground railroad? And what possible relevance could these rules hold for a craft guild of stonecutters?

SO WHERE DID ALL THE STONEMASON STUFF COME FROM?

According to Robinson the veneer of stonemasonry is the most convenient available cover story. If a bunch of guys are gathered in an inn and the authorities burst in wanting to know what you lot are up to, you're a bunch of Masons relaxing. Scattered around the room can be seen rules, compasses, squares and mauls. A suspicious authority can't verify your name with the roll of the local stonemason guild, because as Robinson discovered to his surprise earlier, there were no stonemason guilds in England. Masonry was the perfect unfalsifiable cover for an underground organization. They couldn't very well pretend to be fishmongers. Their names would have to be on the rolls at the local fishmongers guild. Not only that, it would be hard to keep your lodge secret due to the telltale aroma of mackerel.

Ritual might have arisen around the stonecutting paraphernalia early on. In this way, even people who didn't know or care anything about the Templar supression could be recruited and used for the underground railroad and still have some ritual that they could make sense of, inoccuous parables about self-improvement.

At some point all the Templars are going to die of old age and the original purpose of the secret society dies with them. However, those original Templars persecuted by their monarch and their church had over the course of their lives recruited a body of men who were anti-pope and anti-authoritarian while on the surface being churchgoing, taxpaying upright citizens. That's the kind of men they would have to recruit. So by the time of the Peasants Revolt of 1381, the secret lodges consisted entirely of men who thought that common people were getting screwed by the authorities, and when a revolt spontaneously broke out, the post-templars (or proto-Masons if you prefer) were ready to leap to the fore and aim the mob at the specific authorities which they considered to be the source of the most immediate social ills.

Of all the connections with Masons and Templars that Robinson links to the Peasants Revolt, none of them involve the, rule, maul, compass, square and so on. It's tempting, but not really warranted to say that the Masonry trappings were added after 1381. The clues are just too sparse to be that specific.

So if there's an intellectual inheritance the Masons got from the Templars it's anti-authoritarianism, anti-tyrranism. You can't read the Bill of Rights (written by Masons) without hearing the echoes of Masonic ritual. For example, the constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion, Masonry also leaves religious observance to the conscience of the individual.

Perhaps those Masonic sermons about improving one's self bit by bit and rebuilding Solomon's Temple brick by brick are an admonishment favoring gradual improvement of our political environment, and warning against the mistake made by the Great Society when it tried to uproot all authority in one grand violent swoop. If this is the case, the addition of the Masonic trappings would have occurred after 1381, and the story of Hiram Abiff, the builder murdered before the Temple could be completed, roughly corresponds to the story of Wat Tyler's revolt.

JUBELA, JUBELUM AND JUBELO

In the story of Hiram Abiff, the three Jewes (or Jubes) named Jubela, Jubelum and Jubelo, use the implements of their lower degrees, the setting maul, the rule and the square, kill Master Mason Hiram in an attempt to get the Master's Masonic secrets before the completion of the Temple. They hide the body, which is later "raised" and properly buried. Later in the story they wail mournfully that it would have been better to have suffered the fates of their bloody oaths than to have killed their master.

In a medieval church there's a thing called a "rood screen." It's a latticework screen on which is hung a cross. In a spot in front of the rood screen is where monks do their pennace in front of the assembled order. In France, that screen is called a jubé. There's a french colloquialism venir à jubé, which means "to do one's pennance," and the three Juwes in the story certainly were loudly and publicly penitent.

Robinson interprets this story as the naming of parties guilty of the attempted destruction of the Templars. Hiram represents not any one person, but Masonry itself and the three Juwes represent the Crown, the Pope and the Hospitallers, the three conspirators of the arrest and suppression.

FOUR HUNDRED YEARS OF SECRET OPERATION

Masonry, whether or not it was called that, operated in secret in Britain from 1307 to the formation of the Grand Lodge of London in 1717. That's over four hundred years. How is that possible? Robinson's explanation is that Masonry was formed around refugees fleeing religious and political persecution. The Pope kept right on burning heretics, and England was Protestant/Catholic off and on right up through Elizabeth I. Once established, a secret organization that protected heretics would have no trouble finding new members. Masons wouldn't have felt safe about revealing themselves unless England was a political non-catholic superpower and her heretics protected by law, thus making secret lodges unnecessary. In 1685 the last claim of a Catholic to the British throne fell apart. In 1701 it was made law that the British Royal Family would be members of the Church of England. Shortly thereafter the Grand Lodge of London was formed.

Masonic Lodges have from time to time served their ancient purpose right up through the twentieth century. While outlawed by fascist countries in WWII Europe, some Masonic lodges went underground in the old fashioned way and served as the foci of resistance efforts. Masonic initiations are even said to have taken place in prison camps, using a pair of sticks to inscribe a circle in the dust, just as described in Masonry's oldest rituals, the ones most closely resembling the Templar secret rituals.

In the WWII example, Masonry provided what the Templar organization provided 640 years earlier, a force in readiness, a pre-existing organization with a tradition of secret communication and a charter focused on religious and political tolerance.

YOUR HOST COMMENTS

There's lots more in this book (The Masonic mosaic pavement resembles the black and white Templar Beau Seant, for example.), but if you aren't convinced by now, doubling up on the coincidences isn't going to convince you. If you're interested in the material, get a copy of "Born in Blood" and read it for yourself. The author's reasoning is impeccable, even if he does stretch things a bit at times. For example, the proposed etymology of the word "mahabone" is little more than a guess. To his credit, when he does put forth a weak argument he's not shy about letting you know that it's a weak argument.

Most of his arguments are pretty strong, however, and given that the Templar trail has had seven centuries to cool, Robinson has put together a wholly convincing argument for the proposition that the three degrees of Craft Masonry are rooted in the fugitive Knights Templar in hiding in 14th Century England. Period.

Of course the whole time I was reading I was wondering just what you've been wondering. "What happened to all the stuff?" All the treasure that disappeared. Where is it hidden? Then I read the part about the Old Charges and how money was to be distributed to brothers passing through, and how lodging was to be provided and so on.  My suspicion is that all that treasure went to hide the Templars, shift them around the country, lodge them in safe houses, find new identities for them, buy them new clothes to replace the monks robes, set them up in new professions and so on and was probably gone within a generation of the suppression. If the fabled Templar Treasure was not spent, it was wasted.

According to Robinson, though, there is a treasure of sorts which might yet exist.  Along with the Templars and their treasure and their fleet, their records also vanished. This would include everything from membership rolls to expense accounts for military expeditions to wine recipes. Those might still be around, maybe all in one place, maybe in fragments, maybe dispersed throughout the world, but maybe somewhere. In 1717, when a few London lodges "went public" and Masons first publicly admitted that Masonry existed, a number of Lodges, fearing persecution, panicked and burned their records. Let's hope the Templars didn't do that back in 1307.

THE SON OF A WIDOW

One place where Robinson and I disagree is in the interpretation of the story of Hiram Abiff. Robinson represents the story as a roman a clef with the three Juwes representing Clement, Phillip and the Prior of the Hospitallers.  While this reading is valid, I think there's a more reasonable interpretation that is more introspective from the Mason's point of view.  Hiram represents not any one person, but Masonry itself and the three Juwes represent the impatient elements of the membership who very nearly destroyed the secret order in a premature attempt to accomplish its goals.  As evidence for this proposition recall that Hiram was killed by Masons with implements pertaining to all three degrees of Masonry.

The point that the workers proceed in the rest of the story repeatedly mentioning that no plans were left for the workers by the master builder might indicate that the executions at the end of the Peasants' Revolt effectively removed the leadership of the secret society. And at the end of the story they install a makeshift Mason's secret word to take the place of the genuine article until somebody comes along who can figure out what that secret word was. It's an allegorical expression of the order's loss of purpose.

I find Robinson's explanation regarding mention of a Widow's Son a little vague and cursory. He holds that every Master Mason symbolically becomes Hiram Abiff, the son of a widow, the phrase being merely a description of Hiram. I interpret that phrase as an allegorical lament about an absent father. The Templars, a holy order, have lost their Holy Father, the Pope, or in Latin Papa, literally, father. The Templars are the widow's son. The Pope is the absent father.

"Russell T. Johnson is a non-mason and a writer on the subject of Arkansas. His self-published work can be found atwww.arkansasroadstories.com/index.html 

This review reprinted by permission."


To get books related to Freemasonry and the Ancient Mysteries.

 



"Davies explained in length his writing process to Cook in The Writer's Tale. When he creates characters, he initially assigns a character a name and fits attributes around it. In the case of Rose Tyler (Billie Piper) in his inaugural series of Doctor Who, he chose the name because he considered it a "good luck charm" after he used it for Lesley Sharp's character in Bob & Rose. "

Vince Tyler

Johnny Tyler (aka Satan)

Pete Tyler

The Other Pete Tyler

Jackie Tyler

The Other Jackie Tyler

Jackie Tyler's Knickers


CooperHave either of you fellas heard of the White Lodge?

HawkWhere’d you hear of it?

CooperWell, it was the last thing Major Briggs said to me before he disappeared.

HawkCooper, you may be fearless in this world, but there are other worlds.

Cooper: Tell me more.

Hawk: My people believe the White Lodge is the place where the spirits that rule men and nature here reside

Truman: Local legend, goes way back.

Hawk: There is also a legend of a place called the Black Lodge, the shadow-self of the White Lodge. The legend says that every soul must pass through there on the way to perfection. 

There you will meet your own shadow-self. 

My people call it The Dweller on the Threshold…but it is said if you face the Lodge with imperfect courage, it will utterly annihilate your soul.

Night, a print by William Hogarth. 
The figure on the right is the Master of a lodge, probably escorted by his Tyler.

William Hogarth’s Night,1 the fourth and last of a series entitled "Times of the Day" is of especial interest to freemasons, for "...if the whole intention is burlesque or satire, the tavern may be identified as the Rummer and Grapes, Channel Row, Westminster, the meeting place of Lodge No. 4 from 1717 to 1723."2
George W. Speth suggests that the picture is of Hartshorn Lane, Charing Cross, the principal figure, wearing a collar with square, is Sir Thomas de Veil, a member of Hogarth’s first Lodge, meeting at the Vine in 1729 and the supporting figure, in Tyler’s regalia with sword, key and lamp, is Bro. Montgomerie, the Grand Tyler. Note the figure on the right holding a mop, a possible allusion to the practice of drawing symbols on the lodge room floor and washing them off when the lodge was closed.3

1. Reproduced from The Works of William Hogarth, by the Rev. John Trusler. London : Jones and Co., 1833. plate facing p. 73. Engraving by W. Radclyffe. 
2. Freemason’s Guide and Compendium. Bernard E. Jones. 1952, plate X, following p. 176. "engraved by Charles Spooner." (1979 : p. 192) 
3. Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, vol. ii. pp. 116-17, 146-55 . A plate facing page 90 AQC vol. ii, reproduces an original print in the British Museum "Invented, Painted Engraved & Published by Wm. Hogarth March 25, 1738"




A Tyler’s Toast
by Iain Macdonald

The Craftsmen’s work of day is done, the Brethren now must part.

"A Tyler’s Toast" our Master cries, "to warm each faithful heart."
For though we go our separate ways, our bond is ever strong.
The magic of the mystic tie will draw us back ere long.

Until then, think, each time you meet a Brother down on luck,
Whose life is marked by poverty, perhaps by illness struck.
That "If not for the Grace of God, I might walk in his shoes,
I wonder how much I can spare, to help him meet his dues."

And spare a wish for Brethren, who through no fault, their own,
May find themselves in foreign lands, and labouring alone.
That once the day shall come when they no longer need to roam,
May each enjoy a swift and happy voyage to his home.

Long may our Lodges welcome Craftsmen, travelling to the East.
And may our secrets guide good hearts, until each soul’s release
To wing its own way Heav'nward, these heartfelt words ingrain,
We're happy to meet, sorry to part, happy to meet again.


To our next merry meeting.

R.W. Bro. Iain Macdonald is a member of Mount Lebanon Lodge No. 72 in Vancouver, BC, where he has often given the Tyler’s Toast.



“A name, for me, is a short way of working out what class that child comes from [And I can decide from that] do I want my child to play with them?

Tyler! Stop hitting 'im.!!"



Wednesday, 28 May 2014

Trouble Brewing

Philip



Oh, I can guess.... But I hardly need to.

"Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” 

- Julian Huxley, UNESCO: It's Purpose and Philosophy, 1946

Operation Mind-Fuck: The Scandal behind "The Scandal of Scientology" - by Paulette Cooper

The Scandal behind "The Scandal of Scientology"
By Paulette Cooper




"Bomb threat" against the New York Church of Scientology, supposedly from en:Paulette Cooper but actually a forgery created by the Church's "Guardian Office". c. 1982
You may not believe this, but you can write something that some group doesn't approve of and then have a quarter of your life almost ruined. I know because it happened to me.
I haven't previously written about this from beginning to end because it’s still painful, but here goes.  In 1968 I was a struggling New York freelance writer, searching for an investigative story that would make a difference. I was already used to controversy -- and publicity -- when a year earlier I had successfully stowed away on an ocean liner and  wrote an article  (and sold movie rights) about it that had appeared all over the world.
But when I next decided to expose a then relatively unknown organization called Scientology (and the related Dianetics) I ended up falsely arrested and facing 15 years in jail, had 19 lawsuits filed against me all over the world by Scientology, was the almost victim of a near murder, was the subject of 5 disgusting anonymous smear letters sent to my family and neighbors about me, and endured constant and continual harassment for almost 15 years.
 I had obtained a master’s degree in psychology and had studied comparative religion at Harvard for a summer.  So I became interested in researching a newly-popular quasi-religious mental-health cult founded by science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard. I started by writing an article exposing Scientology for the British Harper/Queen, (now Harper's Bazaar) and expanded this into a book. 
In it, among other things, I stated that the crux of Scientology their e-meter which they say acts like a lie detector produced questionable results; that Hubbard had lied about his credentials; that Charles Manson had called himself a Scientologist; that some auditors had behaved improperly toward their "parishioners"; that some who left may have feared being blackmailed; that some defectors claimed that they had been psychologically damaged by Scientology, financially ripped-off, and/or harassed when they tried to leave or speak out.
I got used to telephone death threats, harassing calls -- and lawsuits.
I was followed, and people seemed to be trying to gain access to my apartment. Then, in the basement of my small building, I discovered alligator clips on my phone wires likely the remnants of a phone tap.
Next, my cousin  who was also short and slim like me-- was in my apartment alone when a man arrived with a flower delivery. When she opened the door, the intruder pulled a gun out of the flowers and put it to her temple. Fortunately, the gun jammed, misfired or was empty. The man then began to choke her, and when she pulled away and screamed, he ran off. The police said afterward that they were mystified, because there appeared to be no motive for the attack.
I quickly moved to a safer doorman building. But soon afterwards, 300 of my new neighbors received an anonymous smear letter about me, outrageously describing me as a part-time prostitute with VD!
Then, a few weeks later, I received a visit from a pompous FBI agent named Bruce Brotman. He said the spokesman for the Church of Scientology in New York, James Meisler, claimed to have received 2 anonymous bomb threats and named me as a likely suspect.
I didn't take it seriously until I was called to appear before a federal grand jury--and was shocked to learn that I was the target (suspect).  I had to hire a top law firm (I chose one headed by Charles Stillman) who required a $5,000 retainer on my meager freelance income. Little did I realize that they would ultimately cost me $28,000 (like $75,000 today) and they would unsuccessfully sue me after the case was over for even more money!
Even worse, during the grand jury, the prosecutor, John D. Gordon III, told me that if this Grand Jury decided that I had sent Scientology the 2 bomb threats, I faced 5 years in jail for each letter, 5 more for perjury for denying it, and  $15,000 in fines.
He showed me the letters, and I truthfully testified that I had never touched or seen them before. Then Gordon dropped the real bomb. “Then how did your fingerprint get on one of them?” he asked.
I was so shocked I think I momentarily lost consciousness because the room turned upside down. I then rightly explained that Scientology could have obtained a blank piece of paper that I had touched, and typed threats on it afterwards.  
But Gordon was unconvinced. On May 9th, 1973, I was indicted on all 3 three counts by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. And 10 days later I was arrested, released on my own recognizance, and forbidden to leave the state without the court's permission. 
For months, my anxiety was so terrible I could taste it in my throat.  I was in a total panic.  I could barely write, and my bills, especially legal ones, kept mounting. I couldn’t eat. I couldn’t sleep. I smoked 4 packs of cigarettes a day, popped Valium like M&Ms, and drank too much vodka. 
I worried obsessively about the possibility of going to jail.  And also about my career. I had been doing extremely well. I had 4 books out and I wasn't yet 30. But once these accusations came out at trial,  what editor would give an assignment to a writer believed to have sent bomb threats to the people she wrote about? I had wanted to be a writer since I was 8 years old, and my dream life was about to be over.
I was also very concerned about my parents. They had adopted me from an orphanage in Belgium when I was 6, and I had always tried to make them proud of me. However, I knew they would soon be humiliated when the trial started. 
The sexual revolution was going on then, and young people were also experimenting with pot, considering horrifying by adults (and jurors no doubt!) in those days.  As a single photogenic woman involved in a bizarre case, I knew I would become a page 1 scandal for the tabloids during the anticipated 3-week trial. 
I tried desperately to prevent a trial. I  made a writing barter arrangement with a private investigator, Anthony Pellicano the same one in jail and in the news now -- but he did nothing. I also volunteered to take lie-detector tests to prove my innocence. But they returned contradictory and inconclusive results, although not surprisingly, they did show me to be highly stressed.
My state of mind got worse when the man I had been dating for a year and planned to marry, a lawyer
named Bob Straus, left me. Most of my friends also stopped calling because I was so obsessed with the  horrors that were happening that it was all I could talk (or think) about.
On July 26th on my 30th birthday, I decided to end it. Fortunately, an editor friend at the New York Times stuck by me and called me. She kept me on the phone for hours to stop me from continuing to take the entire bottle of Valium I admitted that I had started to take that evening.
Another loyal friend was a new one, a short smiling redhead named Jerry Levin.  He was sympathetic to what was going on and moved in with me late that summer. Since I was too depressed to go out much, he did my errands and walked my dog Tiki while I compulsively watched the Watergate hearings.
Occasionally, he would persuade me to go up to the rooftop pool with him at night when no one was there. He was a gutsy guy, and he would leap up to the 33-story high ledge and try to get me to join him. “You have to be brave if you’re going to take on those bastards,” he'd say. But I huddled below, a shadow of my former adventurous self. 
Toward the beginning of September, I was in such a bad state that I even became slightly suspicious of him.  When I questioned him, he turned on me, berating me for not even being able to trust my closest friend any more.  Then he too walked out of my life, leaving me alone to face the trial.
The court date, October 31, 1973, was approaching when, a Professor and researcher from Scotland, Dr. Roy Wallis, came to interview me. Earlier, he had interviewed others who had left Scientology. including L Ron Hubbard Jr., the son of the founder who I suspected was involved in my frame-up.
Boastfully, the son gave Roy a letter he wrote to his father, saying he could "bring the enemy to their [sic] knees” - -- and he suddenly purchased an expensive house right after I was indicted.  Roy brought this and other information he had gathered on Scientology's dirty tricks to Gordon, who had a growing file I had also given him on Scientology’s “fair game law”:  That stated that an “‘enemy’ of Scientology” such as me ”May be  injured by any means by any Scientologist May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed..”
But no prosecutor wants to give up a high publicity case.  So I started searching for a doctor to give me a truth-serum test. After months of barely eating, I had gone down to only 83 pounds, and my health had deteriorated from the stress.  Doctors refused me, saying I could die from the anesthesia. But I didn't care.  I had decided to kill myself right before the trial rather than humiliate my parents (and myself) once the news stories came out. 
Finally, a neurologist, Dr. David Coddon of Mount Sinai Hospital, agreed, and after several hours of questioning me while I was out, he was so convinced I was innocent, that he said not only would he testify for me, but he would chain himself to the courthouse steps if they proceeded with this case. (Just what I needed; more publicity!)
On Halloween day, 1973, the government postponed -- and ultimately canceled -- the trial, agreeing to file a nolle prosequi.  I went into therapy for a year, and the depression lifted somewhat.  But the threat of a trial and scandalous publicity remained over my head, because the government could still try me, and the press could still discover that I had been arrested for sending bomb threats and ruin me. 
So for four long years, I was bitter--and broke--feeling that everything I had done was right and it had all come out so wrong.  Strangers from all over the world continued to call me for help on Scientology,  unaware of what I had just gone though.  Since no one else was doing anything or speaking out against them, I continued to try to help Scientology's many victims (free), including those they were suing or who were suing them, 
So the Scientologists therefore kept suing following and harassing me.As one example, when they found out I had seen a shrink, they broke into his offices and stole my records to find out what I had said during therapy--then sent excerpts of what I had said about them to my friends and parents. Nice, eh?
And then in July of 1977, I was shocked -- and thrilled to read front-page stories in the Washington PostThe Boston Globe, and in fact news papers all over the world stating that documents had just been seized from inside Scientology revealing that they had once framed a writer critical of them -- me. 
It seems the FBI had raided 3 Scientology offices and seized their internal memos and “dirty trick” papers. I was so happy; at last I would be able to prove my innocence, which had become an obsession with me.  But it took me 4 more frustrating years (during which time they sent more lawyers and unscrupulous private investigators against me ) before I at last saw those documents.
And then I spent 3 months in Washington D.C., reading all the nasty stuff they had done not only to me but to anyone who had ever said or done anything against Scientology.  As I later told Mike Wallace when I was on 60 Minutes discussing the frame-up: "Scientology turned out to be worse than anything I ever said or even imagined."
For example, one series of documents dated 1976 was a plot of theirs against me called "Operation Freakout." to get me "incarcerated in a mental institution or jail or at least to hit her so hard that she drops her attacks” on Scientology.  It seems that after the first frame-up--a plot they apparently called "Operation Dynamite"--had failed to imprison (or silence) me, they plotted again to make it look like I was making bomb threats against them and others with fake threats sounding eerily like the '72 ones. 
Mysteriously, there was also an anonymous diary someone wrote of what I did each day during the “frame-up” period, and how close I was to suicide. “Wouldn't that be great for Scientology?” the person wrote
And then I realized the writer could only have been Jerry Levin. He must have been a Scientologist whom they sent to  spy on me and help Scientology set me up. He and his friends, Paula Tyler and a woman calling herself Margie Shepherd, had been in and out of my old apartment back when the threats were sent.  And they had access to paper on which Scientology could have obtained my fingerprint and then typed the threats
Even now I still wonder: why did Jerry want me to go up on that ledge with him? If he had pushed me over, everyone would have simply assumed that in my depressed state of mind, and rather than face a trial, I had committed suicide. Operation Freakout indeed.
A new grand jury in New York spent 3 years investigating my frame-up. Alas, the case went nowhere because the Scientologists refused to talk about what they knew about the frame-up. One, a Charles Batdorf, was even jailed for months for refusal to speak but still wouldn't talk.
But a simultaneous Washington, D.C., grand jury (and trial) ultimately jailed 11 Scientologists who were involved in wiretapping, infiltration and theft of government documents. Some had also been involved in the frame-up and harassment of me so I finally had some justice. I also  initiated my own legal actions against Scientology while they piled on more suits, spies and harassment against me. Finally, in 1985, we reached an “amicable” settlement of all lawsuits. 
Indirectly, through the lawyer who handled this settlement, I became reacquainted with Paul Noble, a New York TV producer, whom I had dated in my 20's, long before this all happened and we have been very happily married for 19 years (update:25) now. I went on to write 11 more books (update:15 besides the first four), win 6 writing awards (including 2 for "The Scandal of Scientology,") do some travel writing, and have a newspaper column on pets.  True, it's not as "glamorous" as the investigative reporting I did with Scientology, but at least dogs don’t harass and cats don’t sue.
I also quit smoking, barely drink, and try to forget what happened. Try. But when I see the news, or my e-mail, I’m often reminded of the years of torment I endured. Whenever I hear about litigation,or depositions, I remember the years (and money) I spent fighting the 19 lawsuits they filed against me from all over the world that I had to defend--not to mention that I was subjected to 50 days of depositions.
Or someone will send me inside information from a higher-up who left, like the affidavit from Margie Wakefield swearing that:  "The second murder that I heard planned was of Paulette Cooper, who had written a book critical of Scientology, and they were planning to shoot her”
Other names keep bringing me back as well. My useless private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, is all over the news. My former attorney Charles Stillman often defends high-publicity clients. like the Reverend  Moon. Bob Straus, the boyfriend who left me, went on to head a large New York organization that investigates judges. John D. Gordon III is with the high profile law firm of Morgan Lewis.
Bruce Brotman retired from the FBI and I was pleased to read negative news stories that appeared about him.  It seems he left the FBI and became head of security at an Airport and the local papers reported that he was fired when he refused to go through the security system, reportedly saying, “I make the rules.”
Dr. Roy Wallis committed suicide in 1990, blowing his brains out when his wife left him.  Dr. David Coddon died in 2002.   And while I’ve never heard further of James Meisler or Charles Batdorf, I heard that Jerry Levin which I'm sure waas not his real name is still a Scientologist.
Yes, I often wish I had never ever heard the word “Scientology,” But despite all that happened, I would still have done the same today, because no one else was speaking out or working to expose them then.  I would not have been capable of remaining quiet because I learned too many scary things and talked to too many people who were being hurt to turn my back on them. 
Nowadays, thanks to the Internet, others are speaking out.  And fortunately Scientology is not as litigious or vicious toward their critics.  But if you think there's nothing bad happening to (former) members and/or critics, go read lermanet.com,  xenu.netxenutv.com&.holysmoke.org/theta.htm for starters. The best source is Tony Ortega's Underground Bunker which you can subscribe to and find out daily what the Scientologists are up to. Mark Bunker's XenuTV is infrequent but excellent.  
Sometimes I get discouraged because Scientology gets so much publicity from people like Tom Cruise, John Travolta, etc.  And I wonder whether it was worth wrecking so many years of my life when they're so powerful again.  But then I remind myself that I did help a lot of people. My book sold 154,000 copies--not that I ever saw any money from it and it cost me a fortune--and what I called "The Book That Launched a Thousand Suits" is really "The Book they Couldn't Kill, since it's still read today (free) on the Internet--in several languages. 
Finally, some of the people who read my book (or this story of what they did to me which is also on the Internet,) e-mail me from all over the world to thank me, and that  gives me satisfaction. My favorite was the man in his 50's who e-mailed me to say that years ago, after learning the truth about Scientology from me, he left the cult, married, has 4 children (2 are twins) and now runs a computer company employing 40+ people. He wrote to tell me that he feels that I am responsible for his happiness.
That reminded me of why I did what I did, and why we journalists do what we do: we try to tell the truth so that we can help others.
Unfortunately, we sometimes pay a terrible price for it.  

The Scandal of Scientology

Thumbnail image of paperback coverby Paulette Cooper

A chilling examination of the nature, beliefs, and practices of the "Now religion."
The book the Scientologists tried to stop!
Available as a ZIP file for downloading

Contents

    Prologue: The Tragi-Farce of Scientology
    Queen magazine article which Cooper expanded into the book.
    Paperback Cover Notes
    Preface

    Epigraph 1
    Introduction

  1. From Dianetics to Scientology
  2. The Confessionals
  3. Life and Sex in the Womb
  4. Have You Lived Before This Life?
  5. Spreading the Word
  6. The Org
  7. The Sea Org
  8. The British and Australian Orgs
  9. Attacking the Attackers
  10. The Suppressives
  11. The Sexual and Criminal Security Check
  12. The World of Scientology
  13. Children and Celebrities
  14. Scientology -- Business or Religion?
  15. Is Scientology Political?
  16. Scientology Versus Medicine
  17. The Secret Scientology Sessions
  18. The E-Meter
  19. The High Cost of Scientology
  20. The Truth About L. Ron Hubbard
  21. Does Scientology Work?
    Conclusion
    Epigraph 2
    Appendix: The Scientologist's Story
    Bibliography of Sources Consulted

    About the Author
    Changes from the Paperback Edition

    Index / Paperback Page Index
    Epilogue: The Story of Paulette Cooper
    Paulette Cooper vs. Scientology

    The Scandal Behind "The Scandal of Scientology", by Paulette Cooper


Download the HTML source for this book.


The Scandal of Scientology, Web edition (28 November 1997)

Monday, 26 May 2014

Out of the Mouths of Forbes...




"YouTube on the other hand was where Rodger expressed his despair, in video after video “vlogging” the unfairness of the world and his not having a woman in his... the most disturbing favorites I saw in his YouTube videos were eight minutes of the gory Game Of Thrones “Red Wedding” episode and Philosophy of the Knife, a graphic film about Japanese torture during World War II. 

Thrown in among the video game and cartoon videos, they almost seem planted for dramatic effect."

Yeah, ya think...?

None of this is true.

And it's obviously not true. Ignore it, get on with your lives.



Or, don't.

It's not a crisis, it's a completely fictitious event, exactly like Sandy Hook.

It's a totally synthetic event, created out of whole cloth.

It never happened.

Why do you think in the scenario he starts off by stabbing people? 

This is a Strategy of Tension.



No one died at Sandy Hook.

There isn't even a school there.



"The greatest barrier to 9/11 Truth is the Left Liberals." - Webster Tarpley.

As is the case here. The Anti-Gun Lobby is blind to the fact that this is a domestic covert operation, like Operation Chaos, exactly like the Phoenix Programme.

That isn't my opinion, that's historical fact.

And there is a whole stack of dead people behind that fact as evidence that it's true.

If you don't believe me, and don't WANT to believe that it's true, then you answer the question : Why does this never happen in Canada...?

The Right Wing are not the only people who blindly overlay their agenda and prejudices onto every reported tragedy; 

As soon as this happened, half the country stepped up to overlay their own Second Ammendment Lost Cause Victim narrative about Gun Rights, and the other half overplayed their prejudices about Gun Control and Mental Health.

I say, and the evidence shows, your BOTH wrong. And being played.

But no one looks at the evidence.

"This is a mass shooting - we need Gun Control"

"This is a mass shooting - we need Open Carry"

What if....? It ISN'T a Mass Shooting. Which is what appears to be the case.

This is the essence of a Strategy of Tension.

Y'all bin GLADIO'd.

Ya bin took; ya been had....