I am happy to waste a bit of your honoured space with a snippet that may help. This was revealed during my exploration of the history of this body in England. Under my classification of Folklore (Civic Memory) into Structural, Constructed, and Transformational - to be explained elsewhere - the Freemason Organisation fits straight into Constructed: for the evolution and maintenance of a well-governed citizenry.
This is my first note:
--------------------->
1717: The Grand Lodge and the Post-Revolution Order
The date of the founding of the Premier Grand Lodge of England (1717) is extremely telling. It comes on the heels of a massive constitutional reformation:
1688–1689: The Glorious Revolution removes James II, installs William and Mary under Parliamentary supremacy.
1701: The Act of Settlement ensures a Protestant succession, deeply tying religion, law, and monarchy into a new ideological framework.
1707: The Acts of Union merge England and Scotland into Great Britain.
1714: The Hanoverian dynasty begins with George I, a foreign Protestant king reliant on English institutions to legitimize rule.
1717: Grand Lodge is established in London.
That sequence is not accidental.
The early 18th century required new forms of legitimacy, loyalty, and elite cohesion—especially ones that could bypass religious factionalism (Catholic/Protestant), class antagonism, and dynastic instability. Freemasonry offered a ritual-neutral zone, where Protestant elites (and eventually Enlightenment thinkers) could participate in the cultivation of civil order, reason, and unity.
<--------------------
Here is the second response
--------------------->
Strategic Obscurity: Folklore That Hides Its Function
Here’s where the folklore aspect gets even sharper:
The "obscure" origins and contradictory histories are a feature, not a bug. They create mystique, which draws attention away from real power relations.
The claim to ancientness allows Masonic values to feel perennial, not contingent—making the post-1688 order feel natural, even sacred.
The very secrecy and theatricality prevent rational scrutiny, reinforcing Masonic power as metapolitical—not overtly political, but framing what kind of politics is possible.
So Freemasonry, in this view, is folklore for the ruling class—a theater of ancient continuity constructed precisely at a time of rupture, redefinition, and regime change.
<--------------------
If the above is consistent with verifiable (not propagandic) history then the body of Freemasons are simply water carriers for the Crown (including its European Baronry) and pose no threat at all to persons of Good Will and Clear Thought.
As a sideline, I saw recently a claim that French Armed Forces Officers have to be Freemasons: were this to be true it would detract greatly from their military character and frighten their enemies even less.
I thank you, Professor Dugin and readers, for permitting me this interruption.
I appreciate your comment that it seems the Lodge or Masons members were “water carriers” for Royalty and the Elites of the time… on reflection this would make a great deal of sense, a means for the aforementioned to establish a de facto coterie of loyalty, readily manipulated, the rank and file duped into believing they are part of something special, becoming a national and international corp of for want of a better descriptive, spies able to be called upon as and when required. Meanwhile those in the the upper ranks, at the very top undertook as we know from the vast amounts of written disclosures available a completely different task, more sinister one could reasonably posit.
For as long as my rectum points toward the ground I still wouldn’t trust nor wish to be part of it.. cults or anything reeking of such definitely do not spin my wheels in any way, shape or form.. thank you again your post was indeed interesting…
Your chronology of major constitutional reforms (1688–1717) and the founding of the Premier Grand Lodge of England in 1717 is broadly accurate in its sequence. However, it simplifies the complex evolution from operative craft lodges to a speculative fraternity and overlooks competing lodges and earlier informal networks of “gentlemen masons.” Your classification of Freemasonry as “Constructed” folklore is a useful heuristic but needs clearer definitions and engagement with Anderson’s 1723 Constitutions as the moment when mythmaking was formalized. The claim of “strategic obscurity” rightly highlights Masonic mythmaking, yet omits the 19th–20th-century transparency reforms and the fraternity’s philanthropic activities. Asserting Freemasonry as merely “water carriers for the Crown” neglects its autonomous civic functions and transnational spread independent of royal patronage. Finally, the notion that French Armed Forces officers must be Freemasons is unfounded—there is no requirement, though many individual officers have joined lodges.
1. Historical Context and Chronology
1.1 Constitutional Milestones
• 1688–1689: Glorious Revolution. William III and Mary II replace James II under Parliamentary supremacy, inaugurating constitutional limits on monarchy and establishing Protestant primacy .
• 1701: Act of Settlement. Bars Catholics from the throne and designates Sophia of Hanover’s line, securing a Protestant succession—thus shaping the ideological environment that valued institutions over dynastic absolutism .
• 1707: Acts of Union. England and Scotland unite into Great Britain, creating a larger political space for trans-national elite societies to operate beyond purely local guild networks .
• 1714: Hanoverian Accession. George I, a foreign Protestant, ascends on 1 August 1714, relying on English networks—both official (Parliament, Privy Council) and unofficial (e.g., Masonic lodges)—to legitimize his rule  .
• 1717: Premier Grand Lodge Founded. Four London lodges formalize a Grand Lodge on 24 June 1717, marking the transition to a speculative fraternity that transcended operative masonry  .
1.2 Nuances and Omissions
• Pre-1717 Lodges and Informal Networks. Operative lodges existed since the early 17th century; the jump to a centralized Grand Lodge was built on decades of convivial “gentlemen’s clubs” and informal gatherings .
• Antients vs. Moderns Split (1753). The PGLE (“Moderns”) faced schism from the “Antients” over ritual changes, showing that early unity was contested, not a single smooth evolution .
• Anderson’s Constitutions (1723). James Anderson’s publication codified legends and constitutions, institutionalizing myth over history, a key moment for your “folklore” thesis .
• Constructed Legitimacy. Your label captures how Freemasonry deliberately crafted rituals and origin-stories to foster cohesion among elites across religious and regional divides .
• Ritual Neutrality. By eschewing overt religious content and focusing on moral allegory, lodges offered a “neutral zone” for discussion .
2.2 Need for Clarification
• Structural vs. Transformational. How does “Constructed” differ in practice from your other categories? For instance, Anderson’s Constitutions are both structural (codifying) and transformational (shifting from operative to speculative).
• Role of Texts. The Constitutions (1723, 1738) and Ramsay’s historical essays need discussion as primary vehicles of construction .
3. Strategic Obscurity and Mythmaking
3.1 Strengths of the Argument
• Myth as Method. Obscure origin-stories (Solomon’s Temple, Templars) create a sense of perennial wisdom, deflecting scrutiny from real power structures .
• Secrecy as Power. Ritual secrecy fosters in-group cohesion and mystique, which scholars credit for Freemasonry’s enduring appeal .
3.2 Oversights
• 19th–20th-Century Reforms. Public lodges, published proceedings, and philanthropy (e.g., Freemasons’ Hall as WW I memorial) complicate the notion of perpetual obscurity .
• Social Functions. Beyond elite cohesion, lodges engaged in charity, education, and civic projects—functions your critique should acknowledge.
4. Freemasonry and the Crown: Beyond “Water Carriers”
• Royal Patronage vs. Autonomy. While early Grand Masters included nobility, lodges developed their own networks (provincial grand lodges, overseas expansion) independent of direct Crown control .
• Philanthropy and Civic Order. Freemasons funded schools, hospitals, and relief societies, playing a proactive civic role not reducible to Crown-service.
• Transnational Diffusion. By mid-18th century, Grand Lodges existed in France, Germany, and North America—an expansion driven by local elites rather than London’s directives .
5. Debunking the French Armed Forces Claim
“I saw recently a claim that French Armed Forces Officers have to be Freemasons …”
• No Institutional Requirement. Neither the French Armed Forces nor the Grand Orient de France mandates Masonic membership for officers .
• Historical Presence vs. Obligation. Many 19th-century officers joined lodges (e.g., under Napoleon, see Macdonald, Sebastiani), but this was voluntary camaraderie, not a formal prerequisite .
• Vichy Bans and Post-War Suspicion. Freemasonry was banned under Vichy (1940), an action antithetical to any presumed military-wide requirement .
• Scholarly Consensus. Academic surveys of officer corps show a minority affiliation rate and no promotion advantage tied to masonry .
⸻
In sum, your notes capture important contours of Freemasonry’s emergence in post-1688 Britain and its mythic framing. To strengthen the analysis:
1. Deepen the historiographical layer by engaging Anderson’s 1723 Constitutions and the Antients/Moderns debate.
2. Balance the emphasis on secrecy with later transparency and civic roles.
3. Refine your folklore taxonomy with clearer distinctions and examples.
4. Reject the French military “requirement” as a baseless rumor unsupported by institutional records.
This more nuanced account acknowledges Freemasonry’s constructed rituals and elite functions without reducing it to mere Crown agents or omnipotent conspirators.
In regard to your " Anderson’s Constitutions are both structural (codifying) and transformational (shifting from operative to speculative)." I need to specify my structures. They are based on a concept of Human Instrumentality I develop to highlight the difference between the Norman heritage (Five Eyes) and other gross philosophical indicators such as those of Latin America, India, China, modern Africa in general, and Relict or Reawakened Indigenous Values (also in general)
Human instrumentality comprises: Mentality, Sentimentality, and Spiritual. The first is dominant of the Five Eyes nations and elsewhere in other geographical node (such as Democracies and Cities in general) where its influence is accepted; the second in Native America, and the third is not usually found anywhere at a national level (with the possible exceptions of Bhutan, Mongolia, and Bolívia)
Mentality is based on linear thinking, obsession, and desire for power or comfort.
Sentimentality is based on what Ibn Khaldun called group feeling and comprises the acceptance in general of the idea that humankind achieves most of its long-lasting "upgrades" through a process of consensus: this, largely on the notion that more eyes find more truths,
Spirituality is based on the understanding that other entities (which I do not specify) influence our outcomes and requires that some individuals are receptive to signals which, after eating the proverbial pudding, prove to have opened space for necessary cures and improvements in the Group psychology. This notion is not to be compared with the mundane phenomenon of attending regular services or opening one's own Church, items largely of the instrument of Mentality, to say, pertaining to individual ambition.
On this basis I classify Folklore ("received wisdom") the following 3 ways,
Constructed Folklore subsumes Mentality and is identified as assisting political or monarchic leadership in overcoming existing popular bias to a change in societal mechanisms. A good example is that of Shakespeare's works when the Henry VIII sanction of the R C Church failed to take root due to existing Catholic feelings at the level of Royalty (Mary Q of S, the Stuarts).
Structural Folklore is that arising from Popular interpretation of events. This subsumes Sentimentality. Ballads such as "The Minstrel Boy", "Juana Azurduy", and "Spanish Ladies", and institutions such as English Music Hall exemplify such.
Transformational Folklore, based on the Human Instrument of Spirituality, is more difficult for the English mind to understand because it requires the recipient to allow time for the ingredients to mature and we English are always in a hurry. The Persian story of Mushkil Gusha, and indeed the anecdotes of Mullah Nasrudin, and some Anishinaabe tales like Pauguk and those of the Weendigo, are of this nature.
Anderson's Constitutions are made up. If Folklore at all (which they are clearly not, as the general public is unaware) they would be Constructed. Transformational comes from intuition and insight and in general the Unknown,
Clearly, your response is strong enough to suggest a defence mechanism.
1. Anderson's is a reframing that does nothing for the general public, and my interest is in the mentality and sociality of the general public, so Anderson's is either an adaptive internal reform and/or the putting of lipstick on the porker.
2. The secrecy continues and the civic injection cannot reject wholesale the charge of reputational rent-seeking.
3. My initial paragraph here.
4. Neutral response, but my assertion remarks on resonance with the Five Eyes attack on "disinformation", which attack was employed to mollify public concern about the "covid" "pandemic", now widely seen as wholesale government abuse of the general public. Certainly there is a feeling out here of suspicion of the true aims of your noble instituition, which such suspicion I extend to something that has always existed, the mechanism by which the "absolutely necessary" monarch can preserve his Operating System. I say nothing here for or against this, BTW.
In wrapping up:
I am grateful for your response and its implied invitation to qualify my original comment.
This text is rich in intellectual ambition, but it also contains a number of conceptual, structural, and rhetorical tensions that merit detailed critical attention. What follows is a breakdown of strengths, weaknesses, and ambiguities in conceptual clarity, logical structure, historical grounding, rhetorical strategy, and tone.
⸻
1. Conceptual Architecture: Ambitious but Overburdened
Strengths:
• The author aims to construct a typology of folklore based on a metaphysical schema of “Human Instrumentality”: Mentality, Sentimentality, Spirituality. This is an interesting and potentially rich philosophical system, allowing for multi-layered cultural analysis.
• There is an effort to link this schema to geopolitical and civilizational formations (e.g. Five Eyes vs. Latin America, India, Africa, Indigenous cultures).
Weaknesses:
• The categories of Mentality, Sentimentality, and Spirituality are underdefined and highly generalized, risking cultural essentialism. For example, the claim that “Spirituality is not usually found anywhere at a national level” is sweeping and excludes complex traditions in India, Tibet, Ethiopia, and even postcolonial spiritual movements in the West.
• The use of terms like “Human Instrumentality” and “Operating System” suggests a kind of philosophical technicism, but they are not sufficiently anchored in either philosophical or systems theory to carry analytic weight.
• The attempt to classify Anderson’s Constitutions using this schema becomes circular—if the public is unaware of them, they are “not folklore,” but then they are labeled “Constructed Folklore,” which contradicts the previous assertion.
⸻
2. Logical Structure and Internal Coherence
Strengths:
• The text attempts a layered argument: it begins with metaphysical classification, then moves to application in examples of folklore, before returning to critique Freemasonry’s civic role via Anderson’s Constitutions.
Weaknesses:
• The logic collapses in several places:
• The argument that Anderson’s Constitutions are irrelevant because the general public is unaware of them contradicts the author’s own classification system, which allows for elite manipulation of constructed folklore.
• The text fluctuates between cultural typology, political critique, and folkloric interpretation without clearly distinguishing the boundaries of these discourses.
• The summary points (1–4) are underdeveloped. For example, Point 1 dismisses Anderson’s Constitutions as “lipstick on the porker” without explaining what substantial civic effects or symbolic functions they might serve.
⸻
3. Use of Historical and Cultural References
Strengths:
• References to Shakespeare, Juana Azurduy, Mushkil Gusha, and Nasrudin show a wide-ranging engagement with global folklore and suggest an intention to transcend Eurocentric paradigms.
• Ibn Khaldun is cited with some appropriateness in the description of “group feeling” (‘asabiyyah), although the link to “sentimentality” is interpretive.
Weaknesses:
• Several historical claims are vague or poorly contextualized:
• The statement that “Henry VIII sanction of the R C Church failed to take root due to existing Catholic feelings at the level of Royalty” overlooks the fact that the Anglican schism was not a failure of institutional sanction but rather a success at the state level, despite later Catholic restoration attempts (e.g., Mary I, not Mary Q of Scots).
• The classification of ballads like “The Minstrel Boy” as exemplars of Structural Folklore lacks a definition of the mechanism by which “popular interpretation” differs from Constructed—especially given how many ballads were propagated by state and elite institutions.
⸻
4. Rhetorical Strategy and Style
Strengths:
• The tone is measured, even when challenging opposing viewpoints. There is an underlying politeness (“thank you for your explicit commentary,” “grateful for your response”) that maintains an open discursive frame.
• The closing note (“ATB”) implies continued intellectual engagement rather than finality or antagonism.
Weaknesses:
• The dense prose, mixing metaphor, academic jargon, and speculative metaphysics, can make the argument opaque and exhausting to follow.
• Several metaphors (e.g., “lipstick on the porker,” “Operating System”) are mixed or underdeveloped, leading to confusion rather than clarification.
• The mention of COVID disinformation, monarchic control, and suspicion of institutions veers into conspiratorial tone without sufficient evidence. This introduces an undercurrent of cynicism that, while not illegitimate in itself, weakens the analytical authority of the argument unless supported by rigorously argued facts.
⸻
5. Overall Effect and Suggestions
Overall Impression:
The author is clearly attempting to build a meta-framework that combines folklore, geopolitics, and speculative anthropology into a synthetic theory of cultural power. However, this framework is hindered by overgeneralization, internal inconsistency, and a reliance on metaphors that require elaboration to be analytically effective.
Suggestions for Improvement:
• Define your core terms—especially “Human Instrumentality,” “Constructed,” “Structural,” and “Transformational.” Use clear, contrasting examples.
• Separate speculative anthropology from empirical claims. Philosophical speculation is valuable but needs to be clearly delineated from historical analysis.
• Avoid sweeping generalizations about national or civilizational traits without supporting sources.
• Ground political critique (e.g., of Five Eyes or COVID policy) in specific citations or verifiable events, or state clearly that this is interpretive.
• Clarify your argumentative arc—begin with thesis, define your system, apply it consistently, and conclude.
⸻
In sum, the statement demonstrates impressive ambition and philosophical range but suffers from conceptual ambiguity, logical slippage, and speculative overreach. With more precise definitions, cleaner argumentation, and grounded examples, it could develop into a compelling alternative theory of folklore and institutional power.
1. This is a substack, so comments from those outside Academe - such as mine, here, are customary and do not need to conform to academic standards.
2. I have material available and an internet search on your part would have obviated your intervention here to a considerable extent.
3. I am not your student and regret any impression to the contrary you may have assumed.
4. I note on your own substack a regular and frequent commentary which has the flavour of an ad-hominem response to Professor Dugin.
5. To relieve the pressure on Professor Dugin's own substack I invite you courteously* to resume this discussion on my own, as either posts or messages.
Thank you for understanding the above.
*English grammar allows the position of this adverb to carry a double, contrary, semantic.
This statement, addressed to an unnamed interlocutor in the context of a public (or semi-public) online forum—presumably a Substack comment section—presents itself as a courteous and measured reply. However, a close critique reveals several contradictions, strategic ambiguities, and rhetorical maneuvers that subtly undermine its apparent civility. The tone is passive-aggressive, the logic is defensive, and the structure suggests a deep concern with controlling the terms of debate rather than engaging it transparently. Let’s examine this in detail.
⸻
1. Opening Invocation: “On behalf of Doctor Professor Dugin.”
Analysis:
• This phrase attempts to lend authority by association, but in doing so raises questions: who has deputized the speaker? Is this self-appointed advocacy, or a sanctioned role? The phrase is performative rather than evidentiary.
• The use of both “Doctor” and “Professor” is redundant and exaggerated—it may be intended ironically or reverently, but in either case comes off as self-important or overly deferential, depending on tone.
Critique:
• If the speaker is attempting to deflect critique from Dugin, this could be clarified. Otherwise, it risks appearing as pretextual gatekeeping or name-dropping.
⸻
2. “This is a Substack, so comments from those outside Academe… do not need to conform to academic standards.”
Analysis:
• This line attempts to preemptively disqualify criticism by shifting the standard of discourse. It’s a classic form of lowering the bar while demanding respect for content.
• There’s an implied dichotomy: academic standards = elitism; public commentary = valid regardless of rigor.
Critique:
• The logic here is suspect. If one is contributing to a public intellectual forum discussing figures like Dugin, then rigor, evidence, and clarity are still necessary, whether or not one belongs to the academy.
• The claim reads as a defensive maneuver, not a principled argument about discourse inclusivity.
⸻
3. “I have material available and an internet search on your part would have obviated your intervention here…”
Analysis:
• This line shifts the burden of proof onto the critic, implying that they have spoken out of turn due to ignorance.
• The tone is patronizing and presumes that the material in question is both easily available and definitively persuasive.
Critique:
• This is a rhetorical dodge, deflecting rather than addressing criticism. If the material is important, a summary or citation should be provided.
• It implies epistemic superiority without demonstrating it—a move that undermines open dialogue.
⸻
4. “I am not your student and regret any impression to the contrary you may have assumed.”
Analysis:
• This sentence is combative and laced with passive-aggression. It constructs a straw man: that the critic assumed a position of authority over the speaker.
Critique:
• Even if the critic took a condescending tone, this response doubles down in kind. It sacrifices generosity for status assertion.
• The phrase may appear to reclaim dignity, but it reads more as ego defense than principled stance.
⸻
5. “I note on your own Substack a regular and frequent commentary which has the flavour of an ad-hominem response to Professor Dugin.”
Analysis:
• This is an indirect accusation disguised as observation. The phrase “has the flavour of” is rhetorically slippery—it casts suspicion without providing evidence.
• The use of “ad hominem” suggests that the critic attacks Dugin’s character rather than engaging his arguments, but this is left unsubstantiated.
Critique:
• This is a classic undermining tactic: accuse the interlocutor of bad faith without committing to a direct confrontation.
• Without direct quotes or examples, this line weakens the credibility of the speaker rather than the critic.
⸻
6. “To relieve the pressure on Professor Dugin’s own Substack I invite you courteously to resume this discussion on my own…”
Analysis:
• This phrasing implies that the critic is a burden on Dugin’s space—a way of politely ejecting them.
• The use of “courteously” as a performative modifier is pointed.
Critique:
• While phrased as an invitation, it functions more as a dismissal cloaked in decorum.
• It raises the question: why not continue the discussion publicly, especially if the subject is of public interest?
⸻
7. “English grammar allows the position of this adverb to carry a double, contrary, semantic.”
Analysis:
• This is a metalinguistic flex, designed to show mastery over language and perhaps to signal cleverness or irony.
• It suggests that “courteously” might mean the opposite depending on placement—thus admitting a veiled insult.
Critique:
• This is both pedantic and slyly hostile—a way of saying “I may have just insulted you and you’re too unsophisticated to notice.”
• It undermines the apparent courtesy of the prior statement, confirming that the politeness is strategic rather than sincere.
⸻
Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses:
Strengths:
• Maintains surface-level decorum.
• Demonstrates syntactic control and rhetorical awareness.
• Attempts to manage the discourse environment diplomatically.
Weaknesses:
• Fundamentally defensive in tone, betraying insecurity.
• Lacks engagement with actual arguments; evades content-level critique.
• Veiled condescension, ad hominem deflection, and passive aggression weaken the ethos of the speaker.
• Intellectual posturing without substance (e.g., the final grammar note) undercuts credibility.
⸻
Overall Evaluation:
This is a performance of civility masking a subtle retreat from argument. Rather than meeting critique with evidence, the speaker deploys rhetorical redirection, status defensiveness, and metalinguistic flourishes to evade deeper engagement. While it may sound composed to a casual reader, the text—under scrutiny—reveals more concern with control, reputation, and shielding Dugin than with genuine dialogue. A more constructive response would meet critique with substance, citation, and generosity, not affectation.
I recommend ignoring Mel and his sidekick HAL, the guy relies on A.I to do his thinking appears he cannot think for himself … further his responses once you’ve read one all seem similar, clearly it seems his query each time for articles he critiques is a copy and paste … talk about brain lazy, it seems even to raise a A.I critique he’s that lazy of mind he likely hasn’t read the comment, instead… boom, copy and paste and out comes his A.I response, the similarities of response so manifest it seems obvious that is his M.O.. laughable really an unimaginative brain lazy intellectual poseur …. My advice, ignore completely the tool it’s not worth the time energy or effort to respond, lastly, it cannot be a reputable A.I model, likely a free access model given the non factual responses an example of A.I relied upon, promulgated as all knowing but which in and of itself underscores its limitations predicate lack of obvious funding enabling its data base relied upon to be built to the highest spec, after all we must always remember that as with any tech … its impact and effect including accuracy relied upon is only as good as its programming and data sets used… sort of like people who infuriated because they relied completely upon whatever a P.C or network response or record was, you’ll recall the days when the response was invariably “ it’s in the computer, the computer has confirmed” as if a computer is all knowing 😂😂😂😂😂 how quickly the brain lazy lose and forget the ability to think for themselves to challenge what is patently absurd, inaccurate and therein is the greatest danger to humanity, ourselves, relying completely upon this tech instead of the greatest computer ever devised, the human brain… just saying Kia Kaha From New Zealand
Poor Mr. Dugin. I would like to see evidence of his Doctorate and Professor status. Both need scrutiny. Also, why does he need someone else to speak on his behalf ?
Your response reeks of verbal spaghetti but with a sly and veiled verbal aggression. Substack ought to be for ‘quality’ debate. Yours would be better suited for Facebook or X.
I think what annoys you is the fact that your rhetoric can so easily be dismantled and shown for what it really is.
If you make sweeping rhetorical statements, then, academic rigor has to be applied, in order to reveal the factual and rhetorical mistakes.
If you make ‘statements’ you must expect to be challenged. If you are unable to accept criticism, then, you have a ‘problem’.
It looks to me that the 'passive' bit got omitted. I am not prepared to refute your evident ad-hominem attention-seeking. Neither am I prepared to study your language ambience as I don't have time to waste.
I am not related to the work or person of Professor Dugin. I do however note your frequent negative attention to his statements which I found on your own substack which to me resemble exactly the tone for which you criticise mine.
I would like you to let us know whether you are an enrolled Freemason and if so whether your Degree or whatever you call it is somewhere in the middle as, it seems, your perseverance in this thread is engendered by some things I mentioned earlier.
Thank you.
Having plenty of productive stuff that calls, I won't bother to follow up any further interventions on your part.
Yep. My conclusions too while studying English literature. No need to apologize. This should be taught at schools. Unfortunately, too often it is all hidden in plain sight because the teachers do not know or fail on purpose to connect the dots for us, so we have to do it on our own. Kudos to you.
LOL water carriers. If you need that sort of water you won't identify the uniform or the horrid putrid smell.
Sir or Madam, if you care to follow the hint with some level of God-given Diligence, you may find that you will do almost as well as have I. Good Luck!
Thank you Alexander, this is not only revealing but underscores what has long been known, that the upper echelon of this turgid organisation far from being altruistic is it seems a Trojan Horse, Satanism dressed up as being a noble benign communal good,… far from it, you only need read the tomes of written essays, reports, disclosures to fully 7nderstand the truly nefarious and dark aspect of this organisation.
Masons have for centuries hidden behind benevolent deeds and acts, sadly many at the lower echelons having no real idea of what the organisation truly represents.
For those who have spent the time and made the effort to look into, research and to get to understand this Society, understanding that the very top tier, those at the apex of the structural pyramid of this structure, that it is occupied by serious cultists with a distorted and unrealistic view on humanity, a view and perspective that is completely antithetical to the public good or health.
Indeed a lot of their symbolism when decoded, as has been done by many scholars as well as those once inculcated into the Society but who having their Damascene moment have turned, renouncing it, have revealed a great deal, a lot of their disclosures revealing Masons agnostic view, their disdain for anything that touches upon or infers God as our higher authority… as being supreme…
As I infer, the symbols Masons use are telling as are many of the rituals they engage in, right down to the naff and outright weird and bizarre spectrum of handshakes deployed, handshakes denoting individual status and position as a mason…
Thus, having learnt and understanding the handshakes used I can say that for a period travelling the globe I decided as an experiment that would deploy and use use various handshakes whenever meeting or being greeted… the results of which were telling, at times disbelief, furtive glances, whispered comments seeking reassurance enquiring if I was “associated” “in the Order”, albeit such direct enquiry I also have researched is anathema to Masons, there is even a protocol to be used for establishing bona fides of the Order or Societies members, especially when it comes to the upper echelons of office bearers, nevertheless human nature being what it is, far easier I guess to just ask outright as on occasions I came to experience, many times I would be asked following said use of handshake if I was a mason or in the Order….
My response to such enquiry would be that I would merely smile… neither confirming nor denying, leaving those who did enquire albeit not with much subtlety…. I found it amusing and cause for a bit of mirth, if nothing else it was entertaining as well as revealing, knowing that the those who understood, some of whom as I found out were senior in the organisation responded to my smile with a seriousness and change in demeanour akin a junior officer saluting a senior… priceless… and a lot of fun as well as cause for a great deal of mirth… knowing these clowns predicate a handshake would respond as they did.. always left wondering as I could tell by the looks given…
Eventually these fools and clowns will get theirs of that we can be certain … after all there is but one outcome we know and trust in, those of us who believe in our creator, that we know and understand will impact each and everyone of us… when weighed in the balances I’ll be glad of one thing, such an anachronistic organisation was never part of my life, why would you want it to be… for now the battle rages… personally speaking I thin’ the seventh trumpet has already sounded, the days we are living of late seeming to bear that out… time will tell… just saying ..
The statement in question presents a conspiratorial and theologically charged critique of Freemasonry, blending anecdotal claims, religious dogma, and unsubstantiated accusations. Below is a structured critique addressing its core flaws:
---
### **1. Conspiratorial Framing Without Evidence**
**Key Issue**: The author asserts Freemasonry is a Satanic "Trojan Horse" masquerading as benevolent, yet provides no credible evidence to support this claim.
- **Lack of Citations**: References to "tomes of written essays, reports, disclosures" are vague and unsubstantiated. Conspiracy theories often rely on such nebulous appeals to authority to avoid scrutiny.
- **Hierarchical Secrecy Trope**: The claim that lower-level Masons are ignorant of the "true agenda" is a common conspiracy device to explain away the absence of widespread acknowledgment. In reality, Freemasonry’s structure and rituals are well-documented and emphasize moral development, charity, and fraternity—not secrecy about sinister goals.
---
### **2. Misrepresentation of Symbolism and Rituals**
**Key Issue**: The author conflates Masonic symbolism with Satanism and agnosticism, misinterpreting their purpose.
- **Symbolic Misreadings**: Masonic symbols (e.g., the square and compass) derive from Enlightenment-era values of reason, ethics, and self-improvement. Linking them to anti-religious or occult agendas ignores their historical context.
- **Handshake Anecdotes**: The author’s experiment with Masonic handshakes is anecdotal and prone to confirmation bias. Reactions like "furtive glances" or inquiries about affiliation likely stem from confusion or curiosity, not proof of a secret cult. Freemasonry’s recognition protocols are mundane, akin to organizational membership checks (e.g., Rotary Club passwords).
---
### **3. Religious Dogma as Argument**
**Key Issue**: The critique hinges on theological assumptions rather than factual analysis.
- **Divine Judgment Narrative**: Claims that Masons will "get theirs" and references to the "seventh trumpet" (Revelation 11:15) frame the argument through eschatological belief, not empirical critique. This appeals to faith, not reason, and cannot be falsified.
- **Projection of Antagonism**: The author assumes Freemasonry opposes "God as our higher authority," despite many Masons being devout members of organized religions. Lodges often require belief in a Supreme Being, and figures like George Washington (a Christian Mason) contradict the idea of inherent anti-theism.
---
### **4. Logical Fallacies and Rhetorical Flaws**
- **Ad Hominem Attacks**: Labeling Masons as "clowns," "fools," and "cultists" substitutes ridicule for reasoned argument.
- **Guilt by Association**: Linking Freemasonry to Satanism relies on centuries-old anti-Masonic tropes (e.g., Léo Taxil’s 19th-century hoaxes) without evidence.
- **Anecdotal Overreach**: Personal stories about handshakes and smirking responses are theatrics, not proof of systemic corruption.
---
### **5. Structural Misunderstanding of Freemasonry**
- **Diversity Ignored**: Freemasonry is not monolithic. Lodges vary by jurisdiction and tradition (e.g., Swedenborgian vs. Scottish Rite). The author treats it as a unified entity with a "distorted view of humanity," ignoring its decentralized, apolitical nature.
- **Historical Context**: Freemasonry’s role in Enlightenment thought and charitable work (e.g., Shriners Hospitals) is disregarded. Its decline in modern influence (e.g., dwindling membership) contradicts the idea of a "global force."
---
### **6. Apocalyptic Rhetoric and Unfalsifiable Claims**
- **End-Times Speculation**: The assertion that the "seventh trumpet has sounded" is a faith-based, unfalsifiable claim. Such rhetoric deflects from engaging with Freemasonry’s tangible actions (e.g., philanthropy).
- **Moral Superiority Posturing**: The author’s smug tone ("I’ll be glad... such an anachronistic organisation was never part of my life") substitutes self-congratulation for critical engagement.
---
### **Conclusion**
The statement is a polemic, not a reasoned critique. It relies on conspiracy tropes, theological bias, and anecdotal theatrics to vilify Freemasonry. While legitimate criticisms of the organization exist (e.g., historical exclusivity, opacity), this argument fails to engage with them coherently. A credible analysis would:
1. Differentiate between verified historical facts and conspiracy myths.
2. Avoid conflating personal religious beliefs with objective critique.
3. Acknowledge Freemasonry’s documented contributions and limitations.
By contrast, the author’s approach mirrors the very "anachronistic" thinking they deride—resurrecting centuries-old fears rather than addressing modern realities.
Basically you are a Conspiracy Theorist ‘Drama Queen / King’.
Clear your mind. Go walk in the beautiful lands of New Zealand.
Still at it, relying on a machine that is as flawed as the operator querying a response from said machine, learn to differentiate an opinion machine derived and rely upon your own research, how dare you via a proxy challenge established fact… via your machine suggesting that said facts are theoretical… what an out that is for tools like you… This is the last time I will ever respond to your banal, nonsensical machine derived opinion, unless your prepared to write up your own .. don’t bother Mel, everyone has warned me about you, your predilection for responding via A.I albeit it was spotted your very post, indeed I feel sorry for you, your so unoriginal, what a sad human being amongst the first to fall victim to a bloody machine, transhumanism at its worst, its ugliest, its most pathetic… goodbye Mel and to your friend HAL… simply put, go fuck each other, I’m sure you’ll likely have tried or at least have enquired as to that possibility between you as well.. Kia Kaha
Your statement is really dramatic and over the top. Using abusive language is really not helpful. If you are so sure of your ‘facts’, provide evidence which supports your claims rather than ‘attacking’ in a verbal ‘spaghetti’ mode of rhetoric.
Below is a detailed critique of the statement in question, organized into thematic sections. First, a concise summary of the key issues identified; then, analyses of tone, logical structure, rhetorical fallacies, and likely effects on an audience; finally, some suggestions for a more constructive approach.
Summary of Key Findings
The statement is dominated by aggressive, abusive tone and ad hominem attacks that substitute insults for substantive argument. It commits multiple logical fallacies—notably ad hominem, straw man, tu quoque/whataboutism, and false dilemma—undermining any genuine critique. Its rhetorical strategy relies on intimidation (“how dare you…”), conflates “machine-derived opinion” with epistemic invalidity, and erects a false dichotomy between AI-assisted commentary and “real” human reasoning. Such tactics tend to alienate readers, damage the speaker’s own credibility, and derail constructive debate.
⸻
1. Tone and Style
1.1 Abusive, Aggressive Language
The speaker peppers the text with profanity and personal insults (“go fuck each other,” “sad human being,” “bloody machine”) rather than addressing any specific points. This is characteristic of an aggressive communication style, which research shows tends to reduce likeability and hinder persuasion among even sympathetic audiences .
1.2 Emotional Overload vs. Reasoned Discourse
Relying on high-intensity emotional language (e.g., “transhumanism at its worst, its ugliest, its most pathetic…”) appeals to pathos at the expense of logos and ethos . While emotion has its place, its overuse without factual backing often signals a weak argument.
⸻
2. Logical Fallacies
2.1 Ad Hominem (Abusive)
Rather than engaging the content, the speaker attacks the interlocutor’s character (“you’re so unoriginal,” “victim to a bloody machine”). This is the classic abusive ad hominem—discrediting the person instead of the argument .
2.2 Straw Man
The statement caricatures AI-based critique as “machine-derived opinion” that automatically rejects “established fact,” which misrepresents any nuanced position about AI’s limitations. This is a straw man fallacy, attacking an oversimplified version of the opponent’s view .
2.3 Tu Quoque / Whataboutism
By framing AI assistance as inherently flawed because “the operator” is flawed, the speaker tries to shift blame to the human user rather than addressing the actual claims made. This resembles tu quoque or whataboutism, deflecting criticism with “you too” rhetoric  .
2.4 False Dichotomy
The opening—“rely upon your own research” versus “machine-derived opinion”—sets up a false dilemma that one cannot combine AI tools with independent research, ignoring the hybrid approaches most experts use.
⸻
3. Rhetorical Effects on the Audience
3.1 Alienation and Credibility Loss
Insults and profanity may momentarily shock, but aggressive rhetoric generally alienates neutral or undecided readers, who may judge the speaker as lacking credibility or composure .
3.2 Undermining Persuasive Potential
While strong emotions can galvanize a like-minded in-group, overuse of ad hominem and profanity prevents broader persuasion. A more balanced ethos–logos–pathos blend is needed for lasting impact .
⸻
4. Constructive Alternatives
1. Target Arguments, Not Persons. Replace insults with specific counter-evidence or reasoned objections to particular claims.
2. Acknowledge Nuance. Recognize both the potential and limitations of AI as a tool, rather than declaring it wholly invalid.
3. Use Qualified Language. Swap absolute curses for measured critiques (“The reliance on X may risk…”) to maintain credibility.
4. Cite Evidence. Support any claim about AI or research methods with concrete examples, studies, or references.
⸻
In sum, the original statement’s reliance on abusive tone and fallacious reasoning severely weakens its force. A more effective critique would eschew personal attacks, address points one by one, and ground objections in evidence—thus fostering genuine dialogue rather than scorched-earth rhetoric.
"The truth about the origins of Freemasonry is important, as the truth always is, because Freemasonry has been shown by recent scholarship to be not only essential, but to be the actual core of the creation of the British Empire and today’s ‘globalist’ movement. Nothing comes close to the importance of the British Empire for impact and influence on world events over the last four hundred years, up to and including events of the present day, like war in Ukraine, the mysterious unified hype and response to the global pandemic and all of the zero-carbon initiatives to a manufactured global warming crisis.
Jessica Harland-Jacobs' brilliant BUILDERS OF EMPIRE: FREEMASONS AND BRITISH IMPERIALISM 1717-1927 (Princeton 2012), shows Freemasonry to be the origin of Globalism, the philosophy of which is embedded in the very beliefs and teachings of the Craft. She presents this evidence in painstaking detail."
Despite grandiose conspiracy theories , there is zero evidence that the Masons today are anything more than a bunch of aging old farts who dress up in aprons and pretend they are descendants of the Egyptians who built the pyramids. The fact that pocket Napoleon addressed them confirms how desperate he and they are.
Not a bug, but a feature. Masons, like Politicians, are salaried employees of the Monarchy, which is not Constitutional (see: Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley)
The whole edifice was handcrafted by William I and has retuned itself in times of crisis.
Charles III sits in Civics School of some 1100 years of accumulated knowledge, principally in how to keep the Eaters working and dumb.
If you doubt this:
(1) figure out how many useless Prime Ministers GB has had in recent years and whatever they achieved from the country they swore to serve
(2) understand how we keep getting even more useless Govs, unless their true role is to destroy the national willpower and mentality.
The population of the UK is still operated as Feudal.
Inept? Who's the cretin? They have you fooled, which isn't too difficult. You probably think the moon landings were real and that Australia is under your arse!
Dark, Light.... whatever you want to brand it. it's all trash and lies. Till the Truth is revealed to the world and this bad jokes reaches it's punchline.
Macron is a former banker & used to work for David de Rothschild. Candace Owens even made the claim that Macron's tranny wife (Brigitte), is a Rothschild as well.
When Trotsky & Lenin started Communism, it was including Socialism as well. Stalin came by, and discarded all, for the favour of gulags
The Capitalism which started end of 20th century got hijacked, too, by something unknown. Hopefully, Trump got elected so the host that was parasiting Capitalism died
That's where you see that there are no more 240 genders, no more migrants allowed in, etc etc
Something was up, inside, and infiltrating all the institutions
The process of takeover of ideologies is now known, and I betcha that freemasonry is no exception as a target
Given the scope of political and social power that freemasonry has been building everywhere, no wonder that this may attract interests: would suffice to infiltrate it in some way to then possess all that power
First question I would ask a mason is if this is the case
Did the goals of freemasonry change? Did some old members who were favouring the old ways, get discarded in favour of something new, revolutionary? It would be a hint.
I couldn’t help but notice recently that the globalist CFR VIP membership process is identical to that of Freemasonry. Invitation by a prominent member only. If offer declined, then banned for life. The 19th century Freemasonic “Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita” was not merely a roadmap to the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church. It was directed towards the erasure of Christianity from the West. And it’s been phenomenally successful.
I am happy to waste a bit of your honoured space with a snippet that may help. This was revealed during my exploration of the history of this body in England. Under my classification of Folklore (Civic Memory) into Structural, Constructed, and Transformational - to be explained elsewhere - the Freemason Organisation fits straight into Constructed: for the evolution and maintenance of a well-governed citizenry.
This is my first note:
--------------------->
1717: The Grand Lodge and the Post-Revolution Order
The date of the founding of the Premier Grand Lodge of England (1717) is extremely telling. It comes on the heels of a massive constitutional reformation:
1688–1689: The Glorious Revolution removes James II, installs William and Mary under Parliamentary supremacy.
1701: The Act of Settlement ensures a Protestant succession, deeply tying religion, law, and monarchy into a new ideological framework.
1707: The Acts of Union merge England and Scotland into Great Britain.
1714: The Hanoverian dynasty begins with George I, a foreign Protestant king reliant on English institutions to legitimize rule.
1717: Grand Lodge is established in London.
That sequence is not accidental.
The early 18th century required new forms of legitimacy, loyalty, and elite cohesion—especially ones that could bypass religious factionalism (Catholic/Protestant), class antagonism, and dynastic instability. Freemasonry offered a ritual-neutral zone, where Protestant elites (and eventually Enlightenment thinkers) could participate in the cultivation of civil order, reason, and unity.
<--------------------
Here is the second response
--------------------->
Strategic Obscurity: Folklore That Hides Its Function
Here’s where the folklore aspect gets even sharper:
The "obscure" origins and contradictory histories are a feature, not a bug. They create mystique, which draws attention away from real power relations.
The claim to ancientness allows Masonic values to feel perennial, not contingent—making the post-1688 order feel natural, even sacred.
The very secrecy and theatricality prevent rational scrutiny, reinforcing Masonic power as metapolitical—not overtly political, but framing what kind of politics is possible.
So Freemasonry, in this view, is folklore for the ruling class—a theater of ancient continuity constructed precisely at a time of rupture, redefinition, and regime change.
<--------------------
If the above is consistent with verifiable (not propagandic) history then the body of Freemasons are simply water carriers for the Crown (including its European Baronry) and pose no threat at all to persons of Good Will and Clear Thought.
As a sideline, I saw recently a claim that French Armed Forces Officers have to be Freemasons: were this to be true it would detract greatly from their military character and frighten their enemies even less.
I thank you, Professor Dugin and readers, for permitting me this interruption.
XXX
Thank you DD
I appreciate your comment that it seems the Lodge or Masons members were “water carriers” for Royalty and the Elites of the time… on reflection this would make a great deal of sense, a means for the aforementioned to establish a de facto coterie of loyalty, readily manipulated, the rank and file duped into believing they are part of something special, becoming a national and international corp of for want of a better descriptive, spies able to be called upon as and when required. Meanwhile those in the the upper ranks, at the very top undertook as we know from the vast amounts of written disclosures available a completely different task, more sinister one could reasonably posit.
For as long as my rectum points toward the ground I still wouldn’t trust nor wish to be part of it.. cults or anything reeking of such definitely do not spin my wheels in any way, shape or form.. thank you again your post was indeed interesting…
Kia Kaha (stay strong) from New Zealand
LOL The Empire Strikes Back (see below)!
Thanks for your resonance. Take Care.
BTW "Melvin" is using a Chatbot, possibly ChatGPT, to compose replies. I recognise the style.
Kia Kaha from t'other side of the Great Moana.
Your chronology of major constitutional reforms (1688–1717) and the founding of the Premier Grand Lodge of England in 1717 is broadly accurate in its sequence. However, it simplifies the complex evolution from operative craft lodges to a speculative fraternity and overlooks competing lodges and earlier informal networks of “gentlemen masons.” Your classification of Freemasonry as “Constructed” folklore is a useful heuristic but needs clearer definitions and engagement with Anderson’s 1723 Constitutions as the moment when mythmaking was formalized. The claim of “strategic obscurity” rightly highlights Masonic mythmaking, yet omits the 19th–20th-century transparency reforms and the fraternity’s philanthropic activities. Asserting Freemasonry as merely “water carriers for the Crown” neglects its autonomous civic functions and transnational spread independent of royal patronage. Finally, the notion that French Armed Forces officers must be Freemasons is unfounded—there is no requirement, though many individual officers have joined lodges.
1. Historical Context and Chronology
1.1 Constitutional Milestones
• 1688–1689: Glorious Revolution. William III and Mary II replace James II under Parliamentary supremacy, inaugurating constitutional limits on monarchy and establishing Protestant primacy .
• 1701: Act of Settlement. Bars Catholics from the throne and designates Sophia of Hanover’s line, securing a Protestant succession—thus shaping the ideological environment that valued institutions over dynastic absolutism .
• 1707: Acts of Union. England and Scotland unite into Great Britain, creating a larger political space for trans-national elite societies to operate beyond purely local guild networks .
• 1714: Hanoverian Accession. George I, a foreign Protestant, ascends on 1 August 1714, relying on English networks—both official (Parliament, Privy Council) and unofficial (e.g., Masonic lodges)—to legitimize his rule  .
• 1717: Premier Grand Lodge Founded. Four London lodges formalize a Grand Lodge on 24 June 1717, marking the transition to a speculative fraternity that transcended operative masonry  .
1.2 Nuances and Omissions
• Pre-1717 Lodges and Informal Networks. Operative lodges existed since the early 17th century; the jump to a centralized Grand Lodge was built on decades of convivial “gentlemen’s clubs” and informal gatherings .
• Antients vs. Moderns Split (1753). The PGLE (“Moderns”) faced schism from the “Antients” over ritual changes, showing that early unity was contested, not a single smooth evolution .
• Anderson’s Constitutions (1723). James Anderson’s publication codified legends and constitutions, institutionalizing myth over history, a key moment for your “folklore” thesis .
2. Theoretical Classification: Constructed Folklore
2.1 Merits of “Constructed” Category
• Constructed Legitimacy. Your label captures how Freemasonry deliberately crafted rituals and origin-stories to foster cohesion among elites across religious and regional divides .
• Ritual Neutrality. By eschewing overt religious content and focusing on moral allegory, lodges offered a “neutral zone” for discussion .
2.2 Need for Clarification
• Structural vs. Transformational. How does “Constructed” differ in practice from your other categories? For instance, Anderson’s Constitutions are both structural (codifying) and transformational (shifting from operative to speculative).
• Role of Texts. The Constitutions (1723, 1738) and Ramsay’s historical essays need discussion as primary vehicles of construction .
3. Strategic Obscurity and Mythmaking
3.1 Strengths of the Argument
• Myth as Method. Obscure origin-stories (Solomon’s Temple, Templars) create a sense of perennial wisdom, deflecting scrutiny from real power structures .
• Secrecy as Power. Ritual secrecy fosters in-group cohesion and mystique, which scholars credit for Freemasonry’s enduring appeal .
3.2 Oversights
• 19th–20th-Century Reforms. Public lodges, published proceedings, and philanthropy (e.g., Freemasons’ Hall as WW I memorial) complicate the notion of perpetual obscurity .
• Social Functions. Beyond elite cohesion, lodges engaged in charity, education, and civic projects—functions your critique should acknowledge.
4. Freemasonry and the Crown: Beyond “Water Carriers”
• Royal Patronage vs. Autonomy. While early Grand Masters included nobility, lodges developed their own networks (provincial grand lodges, overseas expansion) independent of direct Crown control .
• Philanthropy and Civic Order. Freemasons funded schools, hospitals, and relief societies, playing a proactive civic role not reducible to Crown-service.
• Transnational Diffusion. By mid-18th century, Grand Lodges existed in France, Germany, and North America—an expansion driven by local elites rather than London’s directives .
5. Debunking the French Armed Forces Claim
“I saw recently a claim that French Armed Forces Officers have to be Freemasons …”
• No Institutional Requirement. Neither the French Armed Forces nor the Grand Orient de France mandates Masonic membership for officers .
• Historical Presence vs. Obligation. Many 19th-century officers joined lodges (e.g., under Napoleon, see Macdonald, Sebastiani), but this was voluntary camaraderie, not a formal prerequisite .
• Vichy Bans and Post-War Suspicion. Freemasonry was banned under Vichy (1940), an action antithetical to any presumed military-wide requirement .
• Scholarly Consensus. Academic surveys of officer corps show a minority affiliation rate and no promotion advantage tied to masonry .
⸻
In sum, your notes capture important contours of Freemasonry’s emergence in post-1688 Britain and its mythic framing. To strengthen the analysis:
1. Deepen the historiographical layer by engaging Anderson’s 1723 Constitutions and the Antients/Moderns debate.
2. Balance the emphasis on secrecy with later transparency and civic roles.
3. Refine your folklore taxonomy with clearer distinctions and examples.
4. Reject the French military “requirement” as a baseless rumor unsupported by institutional records.
This more nuanced account acknowledges Freemasonry’s constructed rituals and elite functions without reducing it to mere Crown agents or omnipotent conspirators.
Thank you for your explicit commentary.
In regard to your " Anderson’s Constitutions are both structural (codifying) and transformational (shifting from operative to speculative)." I need to specify my structures. They are based on a concept of Human Instrumentality I develop to highlight the difference between the Norman heritage (Five Eyes) and other gross philosophical indicators such as those of Latin America, India, China, modern Africa in general, and Relict or Reawakened Indigenous Values (also in general)
Human instrumentality comprises: Mentality, Sentimentality, and Spiritual. The first is dominant of the Five Eyes nations and elsewhere in other geographical node (such as Democracies and Cities in general) where its influence is accepted; the second in Native America, and the third is not usually found anywhere at a national level (with the possible exceptions of Bhutan, Mongolia, and Bolívia)
Mentality is based on linear thinking, obsession, and desire for power or comfort.
Sentimentality is based on what Ibn Khaldun called group feeling and comprises the acceptance in general of the idea that humankind achieves most of its long-lasting "upgrades" through a process of consensus: this, largely on the notion that more eyes find more truths,
Spirituality is based on the understanding that other entities (which I do not specify) influence our outcomes and requires that some individuals are receptive to signals which, after eating the proverbial pudding, prove to have opened space for necessary cures and improvements in the Group psychology. This notion is not to be compared with the mundane phenomenon of attending regular services or opening one's own Church, items largely of the instrument of Mentality, to say, pertaining to individual ambition.
On this basis I classify Folklore ("received wisdom") the following 3 ways,
Constructed Folklore subsumes Mentality and is identified as assisting political or monarchic leadership in overcoming existing popular bias to a change in societal mechanisms. A good example is that of Shakespeare's works when the Henry VIII sanction of the R C Church failed to take root due to existing Catholic feelings at the level of Royalty (Mary Q of S, the Stuarts).
Structural Folklore is that arising from Popular interpretation of events. This subsumes Sentimentality. Ballads such as "The Minstrel Boy", "Juana Azurduy", and "Spanish Ladies", and institutions such as English Music Hall exemplify such.
Transformational Folklore, based on the Human Instrument of Spirituality, is more difficult for the English mind to understand because it requires the recipient to allow time for the ingredients to mature and we English are always in a hurry. The Persian story of Mushkil Gusha, and indeed the anecdotes of Mullah Nasrudin, and some Anishinaabe tales like Pauguk and those of the Weendigo, are of this nature.
Anderson's Constitutions are made up. If Folklore at all (which they are clearly not, as the general public is unaware) they would be Constructed. Transformational comes from intuition and insight and in general the Unknown,
Clearly, your response is strong enough to suggest a defence mechanism.
1. Anderson's is a reframing that does nothing for the general public, and my interest is in the mentality and sociality of the general public, so Anderson's is either an adaptive internal reform and/or the putting of lipstick on the porker.
2. The secrecy continues and the civic injection cannot reject wholesale the charge of reputational rent-seeking.
3. My initial paragraph here.
4. Neutral response, but my assertion remarks on resonance with the Five Eyes attack on "disinformation", which attack was employed to mollify public concern about the "covid" "pandemic", now widely seen as wholesale government abuse of the general public. Certainly there is a feeling out here of suspicion of the true aims of your noble instituition, which such suspicion I extend to something that has always existed, the mechanism by which the "absolutely necessary" monarch can preserve his Operating System. I say nothing here for or against this, BTW.
In wrapping up:
I am grateful for your response and its implied invitation to qualify my original comment.
ATB
This text is rich in intellectual ambition, but it also contains a number of conceptual, structural, and rhetorical tensions that merit detailed critical attention. What follows is a breakdown of strengths, weaknesses, and ambiguities in conceptual clarity, logical structure, historical grounding, rhetorical strategy, and tone.
⸻
1. Conceptual Architecture: Ambitious but Overburdened
Strengths:
• The author aims to construct a typology of folklore based on a metaphysical schema of “Human Instrumentality”: Mentality, Sentimentality, Spirituality. This is an interesting and potentially rich philosophical system, allowing for multi-layered cultural analysis.
• There is an effort to link this schema to geopolitical and civilizational formations (e.g. Five Eyes vs. Latin America, India, Africa, Indigenous cultures).
Weaknesses:
• The categories of Mentality, Sentimentality, and Spirituality are underdefined and highly generalized, risking cultural essentialism. For example, the claim that “Spirituality is not usually found anywhere at a national level” is sweeping and excludes complex traditions in India, Tibet, Ethiopia, and even postcolonial spiritual movements in the West.
• The use of terms like “Human Instrumentality” and “Operating System” suggests a kind of philosophical technicism, but they are not sufficiently anchored in either philosophical or systems theory to carry analytic weight.
• The attempt to classify Anderson’s Constitutions using this schema becomes circular—if the public is unaware of them, they are “not folklore,” but then they are labeled “Constructed Folklore,” which contradicts the previous assertion.
⸻
2. Logical Structure and Internal Coherence
Strengths:
• The text attempts a layered argument: it begins with metaphysical classification, then moves to application in examples of folklore, before returning to critique Freemasonry’s civic role via Anderson’s Constitutions.
Weaknesses:
• The logic collapses in several places:
• The argument that Anderson’s Constitutions are irrelevant because the general public is unaware of them contradicts the author’s own classification system, which allows for elite manipulation of constructed folklore.
• The text fluctuates between cultural typology, political critique, and folkloric interpretation without clearly distinguishing the boundaries of these discourses.
• The summary points (1–4) are underdeveloped. For example, Point 1 dismisses Anderson’s Constitutions as “lipstick on the porker” without explaining what substantial civic effects or symbolic functions they might serve.
⸻
3. Use of Historical and Cultural References
Strengths:
• References to Shakespeare, Juana Azurduy, Mushkil Gusha, and Nasrudin show a wide-ranging engagement with global folklore and suggest an intention to transcend Eurocentric paradigms.
• Ibn Khaldun is cited with some appropriateness in the description of “group feeling” (‘asabiyyah), although the link to “sentimentality” is interpretive.
Weaknesses:
• Several historical claims are vague or poorly contextualized:
• The statement that “Henry VIII sanction of the R C Church failed to take root due to existing Catholic feelings at the level of Royalty” overlooks the fact that the Anglican schism was not a failure of institutional sanction but rather a success at the state level, despite later Catholic restoration attempts (e.g., Mary I, not Mary Q of Scots).
• The classification of ballads like “The Minstrel Boy” as exemplars of Structural Folklore lacks a definition of the mechanism by which “popular interpretation” differs from Constructed—especially given how many ballads were propagated by state and elite institutions.
⸻
4. Rhetorical Strategy and Style
Strengths:
• The tone is measured, even when challenging opposing viewpoints. There is an underlying politeness (“thank you for your explicit commentary,” “grateful for your response”) that maintains an open discursive frame.
• The closing note (“ATB”) implies continued intellectual engagement rather than finality or antagonism.
Weaknesses:
• The dense prose, mixing metaphor, academic jargon, and speculative metaphysics, can make the argument opaque and exhausting to follow.
• Several metaphors (e.g., “lipstick on the porker,” “Operating System”) are mixed or underdeveloped, leading to confusion rather than clarification.
• The mention of COVID disinformation, monarchic control, and suspicion of institutions veers into conspiratorial tone without sufficient evidence. This introduces an undercurrent of cynicism that, while not illegitimate in itself, weakens the analytical authority of the argument unless supported by rigorously argued facts.
⸻
5. Overall Effect and Suggestions
Overall Impression:
The author is clearly attempting to build a meta-framework that combines folklore, geopolitics, and speculative anthropology into a synthetic theory of cultural power. However, this framework is hindered by overgeneralization, internal inconsistency, and a reliance on metaphors that require elaboration to be analytically effective.
Suggestions for Improvement:
• Define your core terms—especially “Human Instrumentality,” “Constructed,” “Structural,” and “Transformational.” Use clear, contrasting examples.
• Separate speculative anthropology from empirical claims. Philosophical speculation is valuable but needs to be clearly delineated from historical analysis.
• Avoid sweeping generalizations about national or civilizational traits without supporting sources.
• Ground political critique (e.g., of Five Eyes or COVID policy) in specific citations or verifiable events, or state clearly that this is interpretive.
• Clarify your argumentative arc—begin with thesis, define your system, apply it consistently, and conclude.
⸻
In sum, the statement demonstrates impressive ambition and philosophical range but suffers from conceptual ambiguity, logical slippage, and speculative overreach. With more precise definitions, cleaner argumentation, and grounded examples, it could develop into a compelling alternative theory of folklore and institutional power.
Thank you for those well-considered remarks.
1. This is a substack, so comments from those outside Academe - such as mine, here, are customary and do not need to conform to academic standards.
2. I have material available and an internet search on your part would have obviated your intervention here to a considerable extent.
3. I am not your student and regret any impression to the contrary you may have assumed.
4. I note on your own substack a regular and frequent commentary which has the flavour of an ad-hominem response to Professor Dugin.
5. To relieve the pressure on Professor Dugin's own substack I invite you courteously* to resume this discussion on my own, as either posts or messages.
Thank you for understanding the above.
*English grammar allows the position of this adverb to carry a double, contrary, semantic.
This statement, addressed to an unnamed interlocutor in the context of a public (or semi-public) online forum—presumably a Substack comment section—presents itself as a courteous and measured reply. However, a close critique reveals several contradictions, strategic ambiguities, and rhetorical maneuvers that subtly undermine its apparent civility. The tone is passive-aggressive, the logic is defensive, and the structure suggests a deep concern with controlling the terms of debate rather than engaging it transparently. Let’s examine this in detail.
⸻
1. Opening Invocation: “On behalf of Doctor Professor Dugin.”
Analysis:
• This phrase attempts to lend authority by association, but in doing so raises questions: who has deputized the speaker? Is this self-appointed advocacy, or a sanctioned role? The phrase is performative rather than evidentiary.
• The use of both “Doctor” and “Professor” is redundant and exaggerated—it may be intended ironically or reverently, but in either case comes off as self-important or overly deferential, depending on tone.
Critique:
• If the speaker is attempting to deflect critique from Dugin, this could be clarified. Otherwise, it risks appearing as pretextual gatekeeping or name-dropping.
⸻
2. “This is a Substack, so comments from those outside Academe… do not need to conform to academic standards.”
Analysis:
• This line attempts to preemptively disqualify criticism by shifting the standard of discourse. It’s a classic form of lowering the bar while demanding respect for content.
• There’s an implied dichotomy: academic standards = elitism; public commentary = valid regardless of rigor.
Critique:
• The logic here is suspect. If one is contributing to a public intellectual forum discussing figures like Dugin, then rigor, evidence, and clarity are still necessary, whether or not one belongs to the academy.
• The claim reads as a defensive maneuver, not a principled argument about discourse inclusivity.
⸻
3. “I have material available and an internet search on your part would have obviated your intervention here…”
Analysis:
• This line shifts the burden of proof onto the critic, implying that they have spoken out of turn due to ignorance.
• The tone is patronizing and presumes that the material in question is both easily available and definitively persuasive.
Critique:
• This is a rhetorical dodge, deflecting rather than addressing criticism. If the material is important, a summary or citation should be provided.
• It implies epistemic superiority without demonstrating it—a move that undermines open dialogue.
⸻
4. “I am not your student and regret any impression to the contrary you may have assumed.”
Analysis:
• This sentence is combative and laced with passive-aggression. It constructs a straw man: that the critic assumed a position of authority over the speaker.
Critique:
• Even if the critic took a condescending tone, this response doubles down in kind. It sacrifices generosity for status assertion.
• The phrase may appear to reclaim dignity, but it reads more as ego defense than principled stance.
⸻
5. “I note on your own Substack a regular and frequent commentary which has the flavour of an ad-hominem response to Professor Dugin.”
Analysis:
• This is an indirect accusation disguised as observation. The phrase “has the flavour of” is rhetorically slippery—it casts suspicion without providing evidence.
• The use of “ad hominem” suggests that the critic attacks Dugin’s character rather than engaging his arguments, but this is left unsubstantiated.
Critique:
• This is a classic undermining tactic: accuse the interlocutor of bad faith without committing to a direct confrontation.
• Without direct quotes or examples, this line weakens the credibility of the speaker rather than the critic.
⸻
6. “To relieve the pressure on Professor Dugin’s own Substack I invite you courteously to resume this discussion on my own…”
Analysis:
• This phrasing implies that the critic is a burden on Dugin’s space—a way of politely ejecting them.
• The use of “courteously” as a performative modifier is pointed.
Critique:
• While phrased as an invitation, it functions more as a dismissal cloaked in decorum.
• It raises the question: why not continue the discussion publicly, especially if the subject is of public interest?
⸻
7. “English grammar allows the position of this adverb to carry a double, contrary, semantic.”
Analysis:
• This is a metalinguistic flex, designed to show mastery over language and perhaps to signal cleverness or irony.
• It suggests that “courteously” might mean the opposite depending on placement—thus admitting a veiled insult.
Critique:
• This is both pedantic and slyly hostile—a way of saying “I may have just insulted you and you’re too unsophisticated to notice.”
• It undermines the apparent courtesy of the prior statement, confirming that the politeness is strategic rather than sincere.
⸻
Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses:
Strengths:
• Maintains surface-level decorum.
• Demonstrates syntactic control and rhetorical awareness.
• Attempts to manage the discourse environment diplomatically.
Weaknesses:
• Fundamentally defensive in tone, betraying insecurity.
• Lacks engagement with actual arguments; evades content-level critique.
• Veiled condescension, ad hominem deflection, and passive aggression weaken the ethos of the speaker.
• Intellectual posturing without substance (e.g., the final grammar note) undercuts credibility.
⸻
Overall Evaluation:
This is a performance of civility masking a subtle retreat from argument. Rather than meeting critique with evidence, the speaker deploys rhetorical redirection, status defensiveness, and metalinguistic flourishes to evade deeper engagement. While it may sound composed to a casual reader, the text—under scrutiny—reveals more concern with control, reputation, and shielding Dugin than with genuine dialogue. A more constructive response would meet critique with substance, citation, and generosity, not affectation.
Your objective is achieved. I apologise to Professor Dugin for any injury felt or caused.
D.D
I recommend ignoring Mel and his sidekick HAL, the guy relies on A.I to do his thinking appears he cannot think for himself … further his responses once you’ve read one all seem similar, clearly it seems his query each time for articles he critiques is a copy and paste … talk about brain lazy, it seems even to raise a A.I critique he’s that lazy of mind he likely hasn’t read the comment, instead… boom, copy and paste and out comes his A.I response, the similarities of response so manifest it seems obvious that is his M.O.. laughable really an unimaginative brain lazy intellectual poseur …. My advice, ignore completely the tool it’s not worth the time energy or effort to respond, lastly, it cannot be a reputable A.I model, likely a free access model given the non factual responses an example of A.I relied upon, promulgated as all knowing but which in and of itself underscores its limitations predicate lack of obvious funding enabling its data base relied upon to be built to the highest spec, after all we must always remember that as with any tech … its impact and effect including accuracy relied upon is only as good as its programming and data sets used… sort of like people who infuriated because they relied completely upon whatever a P.C or network response or record was, you’ll recall the days when the response was invariably “ it’s in the computer, the computer has confirmed” as if a computer is all knowing 😂😂😂😂😂 how quickly the brain lazy lose and forget the ability to think for themselves to challenge what is patently absurd, inaccurate and therein is the greatest danger to humanity, ourselves, relying completely upon this tech instead of the greatest computer ever devised, the human brain… just saying Kia Kaha From New Zealand
Poor Mr. Dugin. I would like to see evidence of his Doctorate and Professor status. Both need scrutiny. Also, why does he need someone else to speak on his behalf ?
Your response reeks of verbal spaghetti but with a sly and veiled verbal aggression. Substack ought to be for ‘quality’ debate. Yours would be better suited for Facebook or X.
I think what annoys you is the fact that your rhetoric can so easily be dismantled and shown for what it really is.
If you make sweeping rhetorical statements, then, academic rigor has to be applied, in order to reveal the factual and rhetorical mistakes.
If you make ‘statements’ you must expect to be challenged. If you are unable to accept criticism, then, you have a ‘problem’.
Dear Sir
It looks to me that the 'passive' bit got omitted. I am not prepared to refute your evident ad-hominem attention-seeking. Neither am I prepared to study your language ambience as I don't have time to waste.
I am not related to the work or person of Professor Dugin. I do however note your frequent negative attention to his statements which I found on your own substack which to me resemble exactly the tone for which you criticise mine.
I would like you to let us know whether you are an enrolled Freemason and if so whether your Degree or whatever you call it is somewhere in the middle as, it seems, your perseverance in this thread is engendered by some things I mentioned earlier.
Thank you.
Having plenty of productive stuff that calls, I won't bother to follow up any further interventions on your part.
Yep. My conclusions too while studying English literature. No need to apologize. This should be taught at schools. Unfortunately, too often it is all hidden in plain sight because the teachers do not know or fail on purpose to connect the dots for us, so we have to do it on our own. Kudos to you.
Ho hum latest date 1717 , if they did have any power it has long since gone the way of all the earth. Is that the best you do?
LOL water carriers. If you need that sort of water you won't identify the uniform or the horrid putrid smell.
Sir or Madam, if you care to follow the hint with some level of God-given Diligence, you may find that you will do almost as well as have I. Good Luck!
Your reply is as incoherent as the rest of your demented rants. You clearly suffer from mentalas well as verbal diarrhoea.
Thank you Alexander, this is not only revealing but underscores what has long been known, that the upper echelon of this turgid organisation far from being altruistic is it seems a Trojan Horse, Satanism dressed up as being a noble benign communal good,… far from it, you only need read the tomes of written essays, reports, disclosures to fully 7nderstand the truly nefarious and dark aspect of this organisation.
Masons have for centuries hidden behind benevolent deeds and acts, sadly many at the lower echelons having no real idea of what the organisation truly represents.
For those who have spent the time and made the effort to look into, research and to get to understand this Society, understanding that the very top tier, those at the apex of the structural pyramid of this structure, that it is occupied by serious cultists with a distorted and unrealistic view on humanity, a view and perspective that is completely antithetical to the public good or health.
Indeed a lot of their symbolism when decoded, as has been done by many scholars as well as those once inculcated into the Society but who having their Damascene moment have turned, renouncing it, have revealed a great deal, a lot of their disclosures revealing Masons agnostic view, their disdain for anything that touches upon or infers God as our higher authority… as being supreme…
As I infer, the symbols Masons use are telling as are many of the rituals they engage in, right down to the naff and outright weird and bizarre spectrum of handshakes deployed, handshakes denoting individual status and position as a mason…
Thus, having learnt and understanding the handshakes used I can say that for a period travelling the globe I decided as an experiment that would deploy and use use various handshakes whenever meeting or being greeted… the results of which were telling, at times disbelief, furtive glances, whispered comments seeking reassurance enquiring if I was “associated” “in the Order”, albeit such direct enquiry I also have researched is anathema to Masons, there is even a protocol to be used for establishing bona fides of the Order or Societies members, especially when it comes to the upper echelons of office bearers, nevertheless human nature being what it is, far easier I guess to just ask outright as on occasions I came to experience, many times I would be asked following said use of handshake if I was a mason or in the Order….
My response to such enquiry would be that I would merely smile… neither confirming nor denying, leaving those who did enquire albeit not with much subtlety…. I found it amusing and cause for a bit of mirth, if nothing else it was entertaining as well as revealing, knowing that the those who understood, some of whom as I found out were senior in the organisation responded to my smile with a seriousness and change in demeanour akin a junior officer saluting a senior… priceless… and a lot of fun as well as cause for a great deal of mirth… knowing these clowns predicate a handshake would respond as they did.. always left wondering as I could tell by the looks given…
Eventually these fools and clowns will get theirs of that we can be certain … after all there is but one outcome we know and trust in, those of us who believe in our creator, that we know and understand will impact each and everyone of us… when weighed in the balances I’ll be glad of one thing, such an anachronistic organisation was never part of my life, why would you want it to be… for now the battle rages… personally speaking I thin’ the seventh trumpet has already sounded, the days we are living of late seeming to bear that out… time will tell… just saying ..
Kia Kaha ( stay strong) from New Zealand
The statement in question presents a conspiratorial and theologically charged critique of Freemasonry, blending anecdotal claims, religious dogma, and unsubstantiated accusations. Below is a structured critique addressing its core flaws:
---
### **1. Conspiratorial Framing Without Evidence**
**Key Issue**: The author asserts Freemasonry is a Satanic "Trojan Horse" masquerading as benevolent, yet provides no credible evidence to support this claim.
- **Lack of Citations**: References to "tomes of written essays, reports, disclosures" are vague and unsubstantiated. Conspiracy theories often rely on such nebulous appeals to authority to avoid scrutiny.
- **Hierarchical Secrecy Trope**: The claim that lower-level Masons are ignorant of the "true agenda" is a common conspiracy device to explain away the absence of widespread acknowledgment. In reality, Freemasonry’s structure and rituals are well-documented and emphasize moral development, charity, and fraternity—not secrecy about sinister goals.
---
### **2. Misrepresentation of Symbolism and Rituals**
**Key Issue**: The author conflates Masonic symbolism with Satanism and agnosticism, misinterpreting their purpose.
- **Symbolic Misreadings**: Masonic symbols (e.g., the square and compass) derive from Enlightenment-era values of reason, ethics, and self-improvement. Linking them to anti-religious or occult agendas ignores their historical context.
- **Handshake Anecdotes**: The author’s experiment with Masonic handshakes is anecdotal and prone to confirmation bias. Reactions like "furtive glances" or inquiries about affiliation likely stem from confusion or curiosity, not proof of a secret cult. Freemasonry’s recognition protocols are mundane, akin to organizational membership checks (e.g., Rotary Club passwords).
---
### **3. Religious Dogma as Argument**
**Key Issue**: The critique hinges on theological assumptions rather than factual analysis.
- **Divine Judgment Narrative**: Claims that Masons will "get theirs" and references to the "seventh trumpet" (Revelation 11:15) frame the argument through eschatological belief, not empirical critique. This appeals to faith, not reason, and cannot be falsified.
- **Projection of Antagonism**: The author assumes Freemasonry opposes "God as our higher authority," despite many Masons being devout members of organized religions. Lodges often require belief in a Supreme Being, and figures like George Washington (a Christian Mason) contradict the idea of inherent anti-theism.
---
### **4. Logical Fallacies and Rhetorical Flaws**
- **Ad Hominem Attacks**: Labeling Masons as "clowns," "fools," and "cultists" substitutes ridicule for reasoned argument.
- **Guilt by Association**: Linking Freemasonry to Satanism relies on centuries-old anti-Masonic tropes (e.g., Léo Taxil’s 19th-century hoaxes) without evidence.
- **Anecdotal Overreach**: Personal stories about handshakes and smirking responses are theatrics, not proof of systemic corruption.
---
### **5. Structural Misunderstanding of Freemasonry**
- **Diversity Ignored**: Freemasonry is not monolithic. Lodges vary by jurisdiction and tradition (e.g., Swedenborgian vs. Scottish Rite). The author treats it as a unified entity with a "distorted view of humanity," ignoring its decentralized, apolitical nature.
- **Historical Context**: Freemasonry’s role in Enlightenment thought and charitable work (e.g., Shriners Hospitals) is disregarded. Its decline in modern influence (e.g., dwindling membership) contradicts the idea of a "global force."
---
### **6. Apocalyptic Rhetoric and Unfalsifiable Claims**
- **End-Times Speculation**: The assertion that the "seventh trumpet has sounded" is a faith-based, unfalsifiable claim. Such rhetoric deflects from engaging with Freemasonry’s tangible actions (e.g., philanthropy).
- **Moral Superiority Posturing**: The author’s smug tone ("I’ll be glad... such an anachronistic organisation was never part of my life") substitutes self-congratulation for critical engagement.
---
### **Conclusion**
The statement is a polemic, not a reasoned critique. It relies on conspiracy tropes, theological bias, and anecdotal theatrics to vilify Freemasonry. While legitimate criticisms of the organization exist (e.g., historical exclusivity, opacity), this argument fails to engage with them coherently. A credible analysis would:
1. Differentiate between verified historical facts and conspiracy myths.
2. Avoid conflating personal religious beliefs with objective critique.
3. Acknowledge Freemasonry’s documented contributions and limitations.
By contrast, the author’s approach mirrors the very "anachronistic" thinking they deride—resurrecting centuries-old fears rather than addressing modern realities.
Basically you are a Conspiracy Theorist ‘Drama Queen / King’.
Clear your mind. Go walk in the beautiful lands of New Zealand.
Still at it, relying on a machine that is as flawed as the operator querying a response from said machine, learn to differentiate an opinion machine derived and rely upon your own research, how dare you via a proxy challenge established fact… via your machine suggesting that said facts are theoretical… what an out that is for tools like you… This is the last time I will ever respond to your banal, nonsensical machine derived opinion, unless your prepared to write up your own .. don’t bother Mel, everyone has warned me about you, your predilection for responding via A.I albeit it was spotted your very post, indeed I feel sorry for you, your so unoriginal, what a sad human being amongst the first to fall victim to a bloody machine, transhumanism at its worst, its ugliest, its most pathetic… goodbye Mel and to your friend HAL… simply put, go fuck each other, I’m sure you’ll likely have tried or at least have enquired as to that possibility between you as well.. Kia Kaha
Your statement is really dramatic and over the top. Using abusive language is really not helpful. If you are so sure of your ‘facts’, provide evidence which supports your claims rather than ‘attacking’ in a verbal ‘spaghetti’ mode of rhetoric.
Below is a detailed critique of the statement in question, organized into thematic sections. First, a concise summary of the key issues identified; then, analyses of tone, logical structure, rhetorical fallacies, and likely effects on an audience; finally, some suggestions for a more constructive approach.
Summary of Key Findings
The statement is dominated by aggressive, abusive tone and ad hominem attacks that substitute insults for substantive argument. It commits multiple logical fallacies—notably ad hominem, straw man, tu quoque/whataboutism, and false dilemma—undermining any genuine critique. Its rhetorical strategy relies on intimidation (“how dare you…”), conflates “machine-derived opinion” with epistemic invalidity, and erects a false dichotomy between AI-assisted commentary and “real” human reasoning. Such tactics tend to alienate readers, damage the speaker’s own credibility, and derail constructive debate.
⸻
1. Tone and Style
1.1 Abusive, Aggressive Language
The speaker peppers the text with profanity and personal insults (“go fuck each other,” “sad human being,” “bloody machine”) rather than addressing any specific points. This is characteristic of an aggressive communication style, which research shows tends to reduce likeability and hinder persuasion among even sympathetic audiences .
1.2 Emotional Overload vs. Reasoned Discourse
Relying on high-intensity emotional language (e.g., “transhumanism at its worst, its ugliest, its most pathetic…”) appeals to pathos at the expense of logos and ethos . While emotion has its place, its overuse without factual backing often signals a weak argument.
⸻
2. Logical Fallacies
2.1 Ad Hominem (Abusive)
Rather than engaging the content, the speaker attacks the interlocutor’s character (“you’re so unoriginal,” “victim to a bloody machine”). This is the classic abusive ad hominem—discrediting the person instead of the argument .
2.2 Straw Man
The statement caricatures AI-based critique as “machine-derived opinion” that automatically rejects “established fact,” which misrepresents any nuanced position about AI’s limitations. This is a straw man fallacy, attacking an oversimplified version of the opponent’s view .
2.3 Tu Quoque / Whataboutism
By framing AI assistance as inherently flawed because “the operator” is flawed, the speaker tries to shift blame to the human user rather than addressing the actual claims made. This resembles tu quoque or whataboutism, deflecting criticism with “you too” rhetoric  .
2.4 False Dichotomy
The opening—“rely upon your own research” versus “machine-derived opinion”—sets up a false dilemma that one cannot combine AI tools with independent research, ignoring the hybrid approaches most experts use.
⸻
3. Rhetorical Effects on the Audience
3.1 Alienation and Credibility Loss
Insults and profanity may momentarily shock, but aggressive rhetoric generally alienates neutral or undecided readers, who may judge the speaker as lacking credibility or composure .
3.2 Undermining Persuasive Potential
While strong emotions can galvanize a like-minded in-group, overuse of ad hominem and profanity prevents broader persuasion. A more balanced ethos–logos–pathos blend is needed for lasting impact .
⸻
4. Constructive Alternatives
1. Target Arguments, Not Persons. Replace insults with specific counter-evidence or reasoned objections to particular claims.
2. Acknowledge Nuance. Recognize both the potential and limitations of AI as a tool, rather than declaring it wholly invalid.
3. Use Qualified Language. Swap absolute curses for measured critiques (“The reliance on X may risk…”) to maintain credibility.
4. Cite Evidence. Support any claim about AI or research methods with concrete examples, studies, or references.
⸻
In sum, the original statement’s reliance on abusive tone and fallacious reasoning severely weakens its force. A more effective critique would eschew personal attacks, address points one by one, and ground objections in evidence—thus fostering genuine dialogue rather than scorched-earth rhetoric.
https://robertfrederick.substack.com/p/francis-bacon-science-freemasonry
"The truth about the origins of Freemasonry is important, as the truth always is, because Freemasonry has been shown by recent scholarship to be not only essential, but to be the actual core of the creation of the British Empire and today’s ‘globalist’ movement. Nothing comes close to the importance of the British Empire for impact and influence on world events over the last four hundred years, up to and including events of the present day, like war in Ukraine, the mysterious unified hype and response to the global pandemic and all of the zero-carbon initiatives to a manufactured global warming crisis.
Jessica Harland-Jacobs' brilliant BUILDERS OF EMPIRE: FREEMASONS AND BRITISH IMPERIALISM 1717-1927 (Princeton 2012), shows Freemasonry to be the origin of Globalism, the philosophy of which is embedded in the very beliefs and teachings of the Craft. She presents this evidence in painstaking detail."
Despite grandiose conspiracy theories , there is zero evidence that the Masons today are anything more than a bunch of aging old farts who dress up in aprons and pretend they are descendants of the Egyptians who built the pyramids. The fact that pocket Napoleon addressed them confirms how desperate he and they are.
Exactly.
No, they are still in control of western civilisation
Which if true proves they are fucking inept , look at the state of it you cretin.
Not a bug, but a feature. Masons, like Politicians, are salaried employees of the Monarchy, which is not Constitutional (see: Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley)
The whole edifice was handcrafted by William I and has retuned itself in times of crisis.
Charles III sits in Civics School of some 1100 years of accumulated knowledge, principally in how to keep the Eaters working and dumb.
If you doubt this:
(1) figure out how many useless Prime Ministers GB has had in recent years and whatever they achieved from the country they swore to serve
(2) understand how we keep getting even more useless Govs, unless their true role is to destroy the national willpower and mentality.
The population of the UK is still operated as Feudal.
And now we are redundant ... say some!
Just my 2p
Oh fuck its the tinfoil hat brigade, who would have thought it! Any evidence under your hat, because clearly not much else there.
Inept? Who's the cretin? They have you fooled, which isn't too difficult. You probably think the moon landings were real and that Australia is under your arse!
Keep scaring yourself with conspiracy boogeyman, gives your miserable existence some semblance of meaning.
Dark, Light.... whatever you want to brand it. it's all trash and lies. Till the Truth is revealed to the world and this bad jokes reaches it's punchline.
Macron is a former banker & used to work for David de Rothschild. Candace Owens even made the claim that Macron's tranny wife (Brigitte), is a Rothschild as well.
I tempi sono oscuri, i globalisti sono in caduta libera ma sputano ancora veleno.
They are SATANIC.
When Trotsky & Lenin started Communism, it was including Socialism as well. Stalin came by, and discarded all, for the favour of gulags
The Capitalism which started end of 20th century got hijacked, too, by something unknown. Hopefully, Trump got elected so the host that was parasiting Capitalism died
That's where you see that there are no more 240 genders, no more migrants allowed in, etc etc
Something was up, inside, and infiltrating all the institutions
The process of takeover of ideologies is now known, and I betcha that freemasonry is no exception as a target
Given the scope of political and social power that freemasonry has been building everywhere, no wonder that this may attract interests: would suffice to infiltrate it in some way to then possess all that power
First question I would ask a mason is if this is the case
Did the goals of freemasonry change? Did some old members who were favouring the old ways, get discarded in favour of something new, revolutionary? It would be a hint.
100%
https://fartbackpack.substack.com/p/the-time-where-the-us-gave-itself
By populist, they surely mean popular, or more blantly what people want. And they see it as a bad thing. Lest the will of the majority prevails!
Not a fan of masons😞
I couldn’t help but notice recently that the globalist CFR VIP membership process is identical to that of Freemasonry. Invitation by a prominent member only. If offer declined, then banned for life. The 19th century Freemasonic “Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita” was not merely a roadmap to the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church. It was directed towards the erasure of Christianity from the West. And it’s been phenomenally successful.
Pity he didn't succeed!
http://www.christiebooks.com/PDFs/freemasonry.pdf
Real talk Брат. 💐👍
Let's see, if you ready to dig deeper....