So, I do read classics from time to time and recently have started to notice how awfully lot of them were freemasons.
-
Bram Stoker, author of Dracula - Buckingham and Chandos Lodge No. 1150.
-
Mark Twain, author of Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn and many more - Grand Lodge of Ohio.
-
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of those cozy Sherlock Holmes mysteries - Phoenix Lodge No. 257 in Southsea.
-
Rudyard Kipling, author of The Jungle Book - Hope and Perseverance Lodge, No. 782, in Lahore.
-
Sir Walter Scott, author of numerous historical novels, including Ivanhoe, Rob Roy and many more - Lodge St David, No. 36 in Edinburgh.
You get the idea. A lot of classic authors were freemasons. Now, even if we discount all the theories about masonry etc, it's still a lot. No, really! Why almost all of our historical, adventure and other classics were written by freemasons? Would those books even be considered classics, if not for the mason membership of those authors? Hell, maybe those books were written with a specific purpose and were made into "famous" classics deliberately, precisely because of freemasonry of their respective authors?
Back then book reading was kind of like Hollywood and Netflix of today and we all know how much propaganda and ridiculous lies are in movies these days... So, seems to me a lot of our history and general worldview might have been created deliberately... and we might be living in an essentially manufactured world, where everything we think we know, might actually be not what it seems to be...
So, what are your thoughts? Does anyone know any more famous freemasons?
a) Mason/mag - "to knead; fashion; fit"...a writer kneads, a reader is FREE to read.
b) Suggested information implies brick; ones consent implies mortar...a mason of free will utilizes these to build walls of ignorance within others.
c) Words are shaped by LETTERS, yet only if one LETS another shape words onto which meaning is added.
d) Ones consent AUTHORIZES the suggested information by another aka ones choice selects chosen ones offer.
information does not imply brick
a) Inspiration cannot be held onto....
b) Information requires ones consent to hold onto it, hence "bricking" ones memory with a burden.
c) Brick/break implies something set apart...flow (inception towards death) sets form (life) apart from one another. Few "inform" many by tempting consent and suggestion together within a contract aka religion (Latin religio; to bind anew).
d) "not" implies suggested nihilism (Latin nihilo; nothing)...consenting to it tempts one to de-nial everything perceivable.
In short...nothing implies suggested information; everything implies perceivable inspiration.
e) IN (being within) FORM (formed by) ATION (action) + IN (being within) SPIRIT (breathing within) ATION (action).
f) Holding onto information makes adapting to inspiration harder...
no it doesn’t.
shut up!
There's the brick within self...de-nial (Latin nihilo; nothing)
A brick wall set within self as a line of defense against others coming in.