Sympathizers of the ICC

[Rafiq]

Do not mistake this for a provocation - I ask this genuinely. I had previously been aware that there were some... 'questionable' positions regarding certain fringe Left communist organizations which absorbed the general aroma of conspiracy theories that have arisen in the past few decades but I think I have truly stumbled upon the epitome of ridiculousness: http://en.internationalism.org/node/3741

Is this characteristic of the positions and views of most Left Communists, or is this unrepresentative of their membership as a whole? Frankly this utterly reactionary, petite bourgeois drivel has me for a loss of words. What is this if not a blatant attempt to reconcile Marx with the pathology of modern day conspiracy theories?

[newdayrising]

I for one don't believe freemasons run the world in secret or anything of the sort, but I do believe it is a reactionary entity that is indeed, incompatible with socialism.

[RedWorker]

I for one don't believe freemasons run the world in secret or anything of the sort, but I do believe it is a reactionary entity that is indeed, incompatible with socialism.

I do not know much about this organization. What else, apart from possibly this (I haven't checked it) makes it reactionary?

Also, for Left Communists: Is this organization representative?

edit: nvm, i thought he meant the ICC

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Ugh, this bullshit again.

Look, I have freemasons in my family and have been in a masonic lodge a few times. Trust me, the conspiracy theorists' idea of the freemasons is far more interesting than the reality.

In truth, it's just a club for old men (or african american christians) with lots of esoteric gobbledygook thrown in. The days when freemasonry was a force for political change (or reaction) has long sense disappeard into the past.

[newdayrising]

I didn't say the ICC is reactionary, I meant the freemasons.
As far as their being "representative", depends on what. The ICC is the largest left-communist organization, I think and they are influential. But different leftcom organizations have different views on many things, for sure. The ICC's positions on internationalism, participation on bourgeois politics and so on are pretty much the mainstream leftcom view, but they have their own takes on other themes as well.
As far the freemasonry thing goes, I don't remember reading anything on the subject from other groups in the communist left.

[Lily Briscoe]

The ICC comes across as a really pathologically paranoid organization tbh.

[Thirsty Crow]

Do not mistake this for a provocation - I ask this genuinely. I had previously been aware that there were some... 'questionable' positions regarding certain fringe Left communist organizations which absorbed the general aroma of conspiracy theories that have arisen in the past few decades but I think I have truly stumbled upon the epitome of ridiculousness: http://en.internationalism.org/node/3741

Is this characteristic of the positions and views of most Left Communists, or is this unrepresentative of their membership as a whole? Frankly this utterly reactionary, petite bourgeois drivel has me for a loss of words. What is this if not a blatant attempt to reconcile Marx with the pathology of modern day conspiracy theories?

Why don't you, you know, actually explain what you find wring, ridiculous even, with this article. Apart from the fact that where ought to be a definite article, there's "me" which is kinda ridiculous (or is it something with my computer?).

I guess it has something to do with the views on freemasonry. They're far from ridiculous:


Whereas the bourgeois aspect of freemasonry attracted many bourgeois revolutionaries in the 18th and early 19th century, especially in France and the United States, its profoundly reactionary character was soon to make it a weapon above all against the working class. This was the case after the rise of the working class socialist movement, prompting the bourgeoisie to abandon me materialistic atheism of its own revolutionary youth. In the second half of the 19th century, European freemasonry, which until then had been above all an amusement of a bored aristocracy which had lost its social function, increasingly became a bastion of the new anti-materialistic "religiosity" of the bourgeoisie, directed essentially against the workers' movement.

Now tell me, does this sound like some typical anti-freemasonry conspiracy theory (those usually rest on some idea about a hidden ruling clique which appears as divided and conflicted elites, but is actually a monolithic entity)? Obviously, it doesn't.

From little I know of freemasonry, the notion of it as a social club for the amusement of gentlemen is basically correct; I'd have to get to know more about this to have an actual opinion on these views. As for masonry today, it is nothing more than an inter-class social club aimed at humanitarian actions and cultivation of some forms of personal spirituality and/or moral fortitude and creativity, though the French tradition (one split from and pretty much opposed to - in their own way - the original Scottish Rite) is definitely more political (and generally hostile to conservatives, from what I hear). It is clear from the article though that their attitude is that masonry in the 19th century represented a fertile ground for mysticism which was in some way directed, and worked against the workers' movement (at least in its idealogical, anti-materialist aspect).

This is how they relate this problem to the present state of affairs:


This weakness is all the more dangerous, since the employment in this century of mystical sects and ideologies has reached dimensions going far beyond the simple question of freemasonry posed in the ascendant phase of capitalism.


And finally, they do present actual historical antagonism from the communist movement towards such clubs and organizations, best summed up by the quote they provide by Marx:


...this kind of organisation stands in contradiction to the development of the proletarian movement, since these societies, instead of educating the workers, submit them to authoritarian and mystical laws, which hinder their independence and direct their consciousness in a wrong direction

Source is given in the article.

So, all in all, much fuss about nothing at all. At best, one could criticize the emphasis given to such forms of counter-revolutionary activity, but there's primary sources (also provided) which document occasions of infiltration and so on. The idea that


More generally, the development of occult sects and esoteric groupings in the past years is not only an expression of the petty bourgeoisie's hopelessness and hysteria at the historic situation, but is encouraged and organised by the state. The role of these sects in inter-imperialist rivalries is known (e.g the use of Scientology by the US bourgeoisie against Germany). But this whole "esoteric" movement is equally part of the bourgeois ideological onslaught against marxism, especially after 1989 with the alleged "death of communism".

...seems both an exaggeration and too simplistic since it would appear there's a government agency of sorts dealing with inflirtration and has as one of the sections "The Occult Group Formation Group".

But there is no valid grounds to claim anything like a conspiracy theory bent in this; I'd also say that there is simply no sense, and that long active communists and grassroots activists ought to know this either from personal experience and/or information of others, in denying that shadowy and covert operations on the terrain of social and political struggle take place. I guess that the ICC's explicit thematization of that lead to accusations of "Machiavellianism" they mention.

So you might want to try again and come up for some other, valid reason for this outrage of yours.

Oh yes, as for the question of ICC being representative, it seems like a silly question. I don't think they're representative at all of anyone but themselves (also given the fact of intense sectarian - and I don't use this term lightly - feud with the ICT and other tiny groups, which comes in the package of differences in theory and some political stances and practices). I stated my views which broadly align with that of the ICC in that article, even though I think they're overstating the matter here (I'm actually quite surprised they didn't mention the occult Temple of Set group, formed by a CIA operative whose name I can't recall at the moment and am too lazy to google). I don't think either Masons or other occult groups represent a viable tool for the bourgeoisie in smashing proletarian organizations and movements today. There are other points of disagreement but they concern particular assessments and aren't interesting in the overarching context of alleged conspiracy theory influence at work here - of which there is zero and none.

Oh yes, and this. It's unfortunate if those crazy conspiracy theories have managed to provoke such an effect in the world of internet so that any talk of covert, non-publicized, inflitration like, operations is automatically labelled with some vague notion of "aroma of conspiracy theory". It's as if anything associated with those simply must be avoided, no doubt for respectability at least. The only problem is that this from the very start cuts out state and para-state activities which did take place, and can take place, from any possible consideration.


The ICC comes across as a really pathologically paranoid organization tbh.This, on the other hand, is an impression that indeed has basis in reality.
This is the context, practical and political, of overemphasizing these phenomena and distorting some of the history behind it; and it's fuelled not least by past and present relations within the communist millieu.

If this is what is ridiculous, then I'd pretty much, though not totally, agree.


I do not know much about this organization. What else, apart from possibly this (I haven't checked it) makes it reactionary?

Why don't you read the article with its simple yet adequate enough outline of the history of antagonism towards this kind of organizations from the three Internationals?

[Lily Briscoe]

This, on the other hand, is an impression that indeed has basis in reality.
This is the context, practical and political, of overemphasizing these phenomena and distorting some of the history behind it; and it's fuelled not least by past and present relations within the communist millieu.
Yeah, that was really my point. I don't think this piece on freemasonry was a piece on the history of freemasonry for its on sake, but was related to 'the center's' creepy internal maneuverings (dissenting views within the organization have been not-infrequently chalked up to Freemasons and state agents, have they not?)

Even if I agreed with the central positions of the ICC (and frankly I agree with most of them), there's no way in hell I would ever even get in contact with them, let alone contemplate the possibility of joining at some point. The organization will be dead before long in my opinion, which I'm not sure is such a bad thing.

Don't really get why you would bother defending anything they put out tbh... If it were me, I think I'd be distancing myself from them as much as humanly possible...

[Devrim]

I agree with Lily. I haven't read this article, nor do I intend to, but I am pretty sure it is about the ICC centre's internal campaigns that any real Freemasons.

Devrim

[Sasha]

Haven't read the article but just puting out there that (rogue) Masonic lodges have been at the front of anti-communist violence, esp in Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due). That is not conspiracy crap. On the other hand many worthwhile communists had a background in masonry too earlier in history.

[Sasha]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/FRE-AIT.svg/180px-FRE-AIT.svg.png

god damned masonic infiltrators been infiltrating marxism since day one.... :)

(yes, that was the logo of the spanish section of the first international, probably the origin of the circle A of anarchism and chock full of masonic symbolism)

[Devrim]

Sasha, I don't think that any of this is about freemasonry. Rather it's about to he disturbed internal life of the ICC.

Devrim

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The ICC knows nothing of our work!

[Sasha]

it was only time before the relentless seeking of criticism towards other leftists would come to eat the ICC from the inside. you cant always point fingers at other without being exposed as hypocrites by people in your own organization.
still waiting with intrest for the article by the turkish ex-ICC section

[newdayrising]

I agree with the general point made by LinksRadical. I suppose, at least for people like me, who know very little about the inner drama in the ICC but have had some contact with them, the worst thing about this text is that it gives a distorted idea on the current importance of Freemasonry. But it is interesting historically anyway.
I have to say though, the thing about the ICC accusing people of being Freemasons have always seemed weird to me, but I know almost nothing about it or what freemasonry currently represents in other countries, so it has little influence on my understanding of this text.
Where I live though, it looks like a kind of a hobby for middle class men that fit a certain profile, not any sort of shadow government or conspiratorial organization.

[Decolonize The Left]

I, personally, have little interest in the ICC's opinion of freemasonry, or any leftist organization's opinion thereof. What interests me is the emergence of general conspiracy theorists (not saying that the ICC is guilty of this, but seeing a trend) as a valid form of political opinion and theory. It seems to me as though this trend, if it is true, reveals a general lack of focused and poignant theory, or perhaps a lack of mobilization capable of sustaining said theory, and so the theory peters out into conspiracy. We should be on watch for this as times progress.

[Blake's Baby]

When was this published? I thought it was the 1990s.

Links - the articles were I think photocopied then scanned by a company in India and the optical character recognition software sometimes gets words on the blurry copies wrong. I did some proofing for them in about 2004, correcting some of the typos.

[Rafiq]

Why don't you, you know, actually explain what you find wring, ridiculous even, with this article. Apart from the fact that where ought to be a definite article, there's "me" which is kinda ridiculous (or is it something with my computer?).

I guess it has something to do with the views on freemasonry. They're far from ridiculous:


They're only far from ridiculous if we judge them solely by their empirical validity, but as you yourself recognize, the holistic paradigm of emphasis, the means by which they convey this information in reference to a wider idea speaks volumes. It is not particularly difficult to see that the pathology of petite-bourgeois conspiracy theories are present, albeit justified and presented with (consistently utilized, undoubtedly) Marxist phraseology. Some will call philosophy a confused abstraction from ordinary language - the article is thus a re-phrased abstraction from the ordinary language of conspiracy theorists with the twist of a "Marxist" facade. The notion that there is even a semblance of something close to an inherent, significant antagonism or dichotomy between Communists and conspiratorial bourgeois mystics is absolutely ridiculous. The inherent aversion towards "mysticism" here is not a triumphant insistence on enlightenment values, but clearly an expression of an aversion towards the occult in general - particularly present in the petite bourgeoisie. Of course Communists, true to enlightenment values oppose "mysticism" as such - but not because it "manipulates" people - precisely because it is not powerful or sublime enough, we have always regarded them as pathetic, empty pretensions to power that we simply do not take seriously. Here the ICC conversely articulates the "mysticism" of fringe bourgeois fraternities as something serious, something which poses a real threat to our movement. Of course we ought not to tolerate such drivel within our own ranks, not because it is "dangerous" but because it is blatantly worthless. I mean the phraseology is clear - the "gold builders" who were quickly "crushed" by the Bolsheviks. This is utterly fucking ridiculous! Following the October revolution, there was a clear immense rise in popularity in biocosmism, i.e. "mysticism" which pervaded not only in thought and the sciences, but significantly was characteristic of the Bolshevik aesthetics, form cinema to architecture until socialist realism. What was this if not "mysticism" as it is employed by the ICC?

I was absolutely shocked at seeing some of the shit - really, the notion that there are French freemasons attempting to achieve Communism today by manipulating people - what? What evidence is presented to support this, if we are even going to concern ourselves with the empirical validity of the text? This is the underlying problem - and it's how conspiracy theories work. Facts are given which are true, but are presented and further articulated into a wider argument as though the very validity of them confirms the wider pathology. Yes there may have been minor efforts by the third international to exclude freemasons - yes Marx and Engels were opposed to adopting the ritualistic mysticism of many anti-establishment organizations (and how this is presented is utterly atrocious - as though Marx and Engels were somehow to be grouped with these fringe mystics - only to make a noble break, i.e. that it was even possible for the organization of Marx and Engels, derived from conditions of class struggle and not the minds of men, was even capable of being anything similar to the bavarian illuminati) - this does not confirm that there has been some kind of long struggle between the revolutionary proletariat and fringe bourgeois mystics, or that they in any way pose a threat to us. Anti-freemasonry as far as revolutionary politics goes has always been marginal and insignificant. Salvador Allende, by no means a reactionary, was an active Freemason and no one opposed him on these grounds.


The KPD, for example, regularly published lists of agents provocateurs and police spies excluded from its ranks, complete with their photos and descriptions of their methods. "From August 1921 to August 1922, the Information department uncovered 124 informers, agents provocateurs and swindlers. These were either sent into the KPD by the police or right wing organisations, or had hoped to exploit the KPD financially on their own account"[11]. Pamphlets were prepared on this question. The KPD also found out who had murdered Liebknecht and Luxemburg and published their photos, asking for the help of the population in hunting them down. A special organisation was established to defend the party against the secret societies and para-military organisations of the bourgeoisie. This work included spectacular actions. Thus, in 1921, KPD members, disguised as policemen, searched the premises and confiscated papers of a Russian White Army office in Berlin. Undercover raids were undertaken against secret offices of the criminal "Organisation Consul".

Above all, the Comintern regularly supplied all workers' organisations with concrete warnings and information about lie attempts of the occult arm of the bourgeoisie to destroy them.


I mean... What? What the FUCK am I reading? Preemptive measures taken against spies in general against the international somehow translates into vigilance against, specifically, the "occult"? Why are freemasons now associated with para-military organizations? I mean, undoubtedly this is all true regarding the latter, but absolutely zero credible evidence is given as far as any "occult" infiltration of the international in Germany or elsewhere. It is beyond fucking ridiculous to suggest that the "bourgeoisie", who apparently are now a class-conscious political organization "uses" the occult against revolutionary fervor. Some fringe mystic organizations can be characterized as bourgeois, but this does not designate that they are consciously, with sinister intent acting on behalf of the "bourgeoisie".

This is an absolutely revolting blasphemy against Marxism - groups like the ICC, often praised for being "principled" and "refusing to cave in" have vulgarized and bastardized Marxism better than all the spineless reformists combined in the process of refusing to engage with the concrete circumstances of struggle and capitalism in the 21st century. It is a given that the state will attempt to deal with all elements which pose a threat to its existence, revolutionary or otherwise in times in which class struggle is at an all time low. In these times, i.e. in times where the Communist movement is dead, not much separates what infiltration by the police there is in radical circles and the extent to which they do the same to right-wing militias in the South or Islamist groups. Here in Detroit the FBI has planted agents in some Mosques - are Muslims the greatest threat to capitalism, after all?


But when the massive workers' struggles of 1968 in France put an end to the counter-revolution and opened a period of rising class struggle, the bourgeoisie began to revive its hidden anti-proletarian apparatus. In May 1968 in France, the masonic Grand Orient greeted with enthusiasm the "magnificent movement of the students and workers" and sent food and medication to the occupied Sorbonne[12].

This "greeting" was lip-service. In France, already after 1968, the bourgeoisie was using its "neo- Templar", "Rosicrucian" and "Martinist" sects in order to infiltrate leftist and other groups, in collaboration with the SAC services. For example, Luc Jeuret, the guru of the "Sun Temple" began his career by infiltrating Maoist groups (L 'Ordre du Temple Solaire, from page 145 on).

[...]

Left-wing versions of such counter-revolutionary organisations are no less active. In France, for instance, new sects have been established in the tradition of "Martinism", a variant of freemasonry historically specialised in the infiltration and subversion of workers' organisations. Such groups put forward the idea that communism can best be achieved by the manipulations of an enlightened minority. Like other sects, they are specialised in the art of manipulating people.


No evidence is given for ANY of these claims. Luc Jeuret was the guru of the Sun Temple, and may have been involved in Maoist groups - this does NOT indicate that they was "collaborating" with a conscious group called the bourgeoisie in order to undermine the movement of the "proletariat". And this logic, for what it is, is completely schizophrenic - are Maoists the forefront of proletarian struggle now? Do they truly believe this (No!)? Why does the ICC pick and choose which instances of possible dissonance between the "occult" and "the proletariat" there are? We all know that Maoism and mysticism are no strangers, Mao himself being something of a crypto-mystic.

So what do we have to explain all of this? The fact of the matter is that the ICC is a thoroughly petite-bourgeois organization which has attempted to reconcile the tradition of Communism with modern day conspiracy theories in order to safeguard Marxism from being integrally a target of this conspiracy-fetish pathology. What does this mean? It means they are fighting against their own temptations, predisposed to thinking that Marxism was a "part of it all" all along. This is generally symptomatic of much of the so-called principled Left, the notion that all that is powerful, all that is given a platform is rotten and corrupted, the notion that being a "part of it all" is somehow indicative of anything - Marxists should be PROUD to be the recipients of conspiracy theories - we should be proud that we are accused of being a product of masonic, occult or jewish conspiracies at world domination. It suggests that, panicked, even in their spontaneous reactionary attempts to find a world-grounding, to establish universal coordinates of understanding in a world devoid of any, Marxists can only be articulated as having been part of a conspiracy. Again, there are only two explanations for Communists by non-Communists - our movement is either composed of delusional madmen, or was a rational conspiracy all along. Unlike Fascism, or Liberalism for that matter, NO ONE benefited from the ideas of Communism except the group of focus - the proletariat. What distinguishes Marxists, however, is that we don't play the game of conspiracy theories - we don't say that the bourgeoisie consciously "created" fascism in such a manner - we can recognize scientifically a paradigm of axiomatic interest without seeing it as conscious. There are no conspiracy theories which claim that the Jews, or Freemasons rule the world without knowing it or understanding the intricacies of their world domination- there HAS to be some kind of conscious conspiracy. Marxists, conversely, recognize that those in power are idiots who cannot even fathom the extent of their power and are just as susceptible to the forces of ideology as anyone else - they are not "above it". Our enemy is capitalism as a whole, as an agentless system, an insistence of consciousness where there is none.

This is why, ultimately, the ICC are not composed of Marxists but phrase-mongerers.

[Rafiq]

Haven't read the article but just puting out there that (rogue) Masonic lodges have been at the front of anti-communist violence, esp in Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due). That is not conspiracy crap. On the other hand many worthwhile communists had a background in masonry too earlier in history.

Yes, but was Propaganda Due not 'excommunicated' from Freemasonry in 1976? Freemasons generally consist of powerful people - more specifically capitalists, politicians and other gentlemen of bourgeois society. Logically it would not be ridiculous to assume that it is possible that certain masonic organisations, which compose of rather powerful people, could utilize effort against a worker's movement.

This, however, has nothing to do with freemasonry as such but their demographic.

[Subversive]

Yes, but was Propaganda Due not 'excommunicated' from Freemasonry in 1976? Freemasons generally consist of powerful people - more specifically capitalists, politicians and other gentlemen of bourgeois society. Logically it would not be ridiculous to assume that it is possible that certain masonic organisations, which compose of rather powerful people, could utilize effort against a worker's movement.

This, however, has nothing to do with freemasonry as such but their demographic.
According to this logic, events like the Crusades were due to the demographic, not Christianity.

It is not the same thing, but it is the same logic. You are using a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

[parallax]

You know it's a troll thread when the OP has to say it's not a troll thread.

[Rafiq]

According to this logic, events like the Crusades were due to the demographic, not Christianity.

It is not the same thing, but it is the same logic. You are using a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Did I fucking say they werent freemasons because they didn't conform to the ideas of freemasonry? How can you even take yourself seriously? I said that their actions had nothing to do with freemasonry. I went on to say that they were officially shut down by Italian freemasons. The bourgeoisie suppresses the workers movement WITH or WITHOUT freemasons even existing. Do you deny this? Is anti-communism inherently Masonic? Was Hitler not an anti-communist?

Conversely, the CRUSADES would have been impossible without the pre-requisite of Christianity (and it is beyond stupid to say it was "due to Christianity". It was due to Christianity as it had existed during the middle ages and the specific function it had during then). And what an unfathomably stupid comparison. Christianity was the spiritual soul of feudalism, freemasonry is not even close to being an equivalent in our society. The crusades were Christian in character - anti-communism is not Masonic in character.

I'm curious to see how you'll defend such indefensible stupidity.

[Subversive]

I expected you to rationalize your arguments rather than admitting fault. Again, as usual.


Did I fucking say they werent freemasons because they didn't conform to the ideas of freemasonry?
No, you don't need to say something like that to use a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.
You merely need to indicate that a group which doesn't conform to the standards of the larger group is somehow inferior, or not actually a part of, the higher group.
This is exactly what you did. You indicated that 'P2' was somehow a 'loose cannon' in terms of freemasons and implied that they weren't simply just doing what freemasons do. You were, essentially and ultimately, suggesting that they were acting outside of the definition of freemasonry.

You even indicate this directly, below. Which I will point out to you in a moment.

This is very much a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.



How can you even take yourself seriously?
I have actually been wondering that about you. Moreso, how others take you seriously and less how you take yourself seriously. But that is an irrelevant and off-topic discussion, which is exactly part of the problem, but I digress.



I said that their actions had nothing to do with freemasonry.
This is the relevant point that I indicated above. This is the root cause of your fallacy, a false premise.



I went on to say that they were officially shut down by Italian freemasons.
If a Catholic Church is officially excommunicated by the Catholic church, does that mean they are no longer Catholics? Are they no longer Christians, as well? What are they exactly, to you, at that point?

Further, if a group of Communists are attacked, beaten, tortured, and assassinated/killed by another larger group of Communists, does that mean the smaller group are no longer Communists?

Disassociation by a group does not somehow separate them from a label.

This just goes to prove that you used the fallacy, it certainly does not prove otherwise.


The bourgeoisie suppresses the workers movement WITH or WITHOUT freemasons even existing. Do you deny this?
I was pointing out your logical error. I was not arguing or even referencing the larger topic.
The ICC are rather paranoid, or at least the writer of this particular article, but you can demonstrate that in other ways without pursuing logical fallacies to do it.



Conversely, the CRUSADES would have been impossible without the pre-requisite of Christianity
Would they?
I would argue that imperialists will be imperialists no matter what their excuse be for war. If they did not use one means to accomplish their goal, they would have found another. But again, that is another topic.


and it is beyond stupid to say it was "due to Christianity". It was due to Christianity as it had existed during the middle ages and the specific function it had during then
And the Freemasons never had functions which would cause them to try to align power and authority among their group members? Never in all history?

It is obvious that the freemasons were at some points in history a very influential group. I don't think you could argue otherwise even if you wanted to.

Again, another misleading argument that seems to miss my point entirely.


And what an unfathomably stupid comparison.
To be fair, I find it rather "unfathomably stupid" to use 'No True Scotsman' fallacies like yours.



Can't wait for a response. I'm curious to see how you'll defend such indefensible stupidity.
Just to note, but I find the irony of your overwhelming ignorance very funny.

[Rafiq]

I'm an American. I also eat children. This is obviously because I'm an American. To add insult to injury I got deported after my first. Saying that this has nothing to do with being one is no true Scotsman in Subversive's mind.

You don't fucking understand logic. I mentioned that they were excommunicated not to make a point about whether they adhere to Masonic ideas but the fact that they weren't operating on behalf of Freemasons as a holistic society. If a Catholic church removed a smaller church, the point isn't that the smaller church is no longer Catholic but that they aren't acting on behalf of the Papacy. The difference is that freemasonry in this context isn't a fucking ideology or religion but a society which is perceived to engage in conscious endeavours - an INTEREST, not an identity. You're completely full of shit and frankly it is childish that you attempt to redeem your pathetic retreat in another thread by making arguments from your ass in this one.

You're dishonest, plain and simple. First you try and use the argument that "this is like saying the crusades wasn't because of Christianity" and now, as an infantile contrarian you're saying it was because of "imperialism" (which didn't exist before the 19th century in any meaningful sense of the word) after all. So how the FUCK do you not violate your own terms of a logical fallacy? Do you ACTUALLY fucking know what a no true Scotsman fallacy is? The point isn't about "true" or fake freemasons, it's about tracing actions to causes. Freemasons are generally composed of powerful people. The powerful are predisposed to suppressing that which could threaten their existence. That freemasons can engage in hindering such threats even as freemasons has fuck all to do with freemasonry. Unless you can expose to us some kind of inherent predisposition in the structure and pathology of the society (rather than the demographic) that leads them to actively struggle against the movement, you cannot argue otherwise. In other words: Would the bourgeoisie, or powerful people actively oppose Communists without freemasons? Answer the fucking question. Do freemasons have some notorious reputation of behaving like P2 did? No, they don't. If child abuse occurred only once or twice by Catholic priests, they would be anomalies and not because of Catholicism. So tell me: Is p2 an anomaly or were it's actions solely a result of its Masonic character?

Try again.

[Rafiq]

No true Scotsman only works when the foundations of dissociation (or rather lack of causation) are not valid. You have failed to demonstrate this. Freemasons as a monolithic group which has an interest, if they exist to begin with, can h disassociated with P2. The notion that P2's endeavours was part of a wider conspiracy is wrong.

Freemasonry "as such", with its "mysticism" and stupid rituals is politically insignificant. The fact that it is composed of powerful people is where there is significance. No one said anything about whether they were "real" freemasons or not but that their actions weren't sanctioned by authorities. Since these authorities are the point of reference, I.e. a group with conscious intent and motives, that is where they get their relevance. A rogue church can still be "Catholic" (Which is debatable anyway) but the point is that they no longer act on behalf of the Papacy.

And as a side note, P2 were in every sense of the word a loose cannon. It's not up for debate. Freemasonry isn't a religion, or personal belief, it's an organization. Excommunication from the grand orient means they aren't identified with freemasons. It's not a matter of debate: Freemasonry is de-facto structurally defined, its a club. If you get kicked out of a college fraternity but still use their symbols and identify with them in a new house you're still not part of THAT fraternity. My fucking god.

[Rafiq]

You know it's a troll thread when the OP has to say it's not a troll thread.

I said it wasn't meant to be provocative. Considering the fact that sympathizers with the ICC here, or Left Communists in general are more than capable of expressing their views coherently, I see no reason why there can be no open discussion regarding a topic such as this without infantile jabs or sectarian dick waving.

[Subversive]

I'm an American. I also eat children. This is obviously because I'm an American. To add insult to injury I got deported after my first. Saying that this has nothing to do with being one is no true Scotsman in Subversive's mind.
Irrelevancy. As usual you are irrational and avoiding the point.

The point was obviously that, historically speaking, the freemasons have indeed used their status (as a club) to impact politics and society.

The fact that P2 was a larger arm of political and social corruption does not somehow separate them from the freemasons. You need to do better than that.

For this reason, you need to provide some sort of reasoning why you believe that their actions have nothing to do with being freemasons, or else you void your own point due to it being unsupported nonsense; a 'no true scotsman' fallacy, as I said.



You don't fucking understand logic.
Yet you're the one sitting there hazardly typing away at a computer in an extremely frustrated manner, completely avoiding the point of an argument against you and doing absolutely nothing but spilling out anger, irrelevance, straw men, and ad hominem; all the while completely missing the point, as usual.

So, oh yeah, I am the one who doesn't understand logic.
You must be right, Rafiq, because when you say something like that it simply must be true, right? Because it's you, the magnificent Rafiq, the person of perfection who can never be wrong.



You're dishonest, plain and simple.
Yet here you sit, with all your anger, your nonsense, your straw men, and your ad hominem just as before, like in the other topics when you insanely beat up on a complete straw man of my post, completely and utterly ignoring reality and my actual statements.

... Go back to your day job. You aren't very good at this whole 'logic' thing, yourself.


So tell me: Is p2 an anomaly or were it's actions solely a result of its Masonic character?
I approach history using historical materialism. Their actions were due to their social relationships.
The primary relationship here, in this case and context, being their membership of the freemasons (under the greater whole of Capitalism, of course).

Throw a bunch of Capitalists together, of the same "demographic", especially in secret, and you don't think they will unite together to more fully oppress the worker? Historically speaking, P2 was not the first masonic group to use this centralization of Capitalist power to influence society, and certainly not the first group of its kind to do this. It is rather naive, rather ignorant, of you to suggest this is somehow 'new' for the freemasons or that this activity of theirs was somehow separate from the freemasons. They were not the first, they were merely just the most prolific, and their crimes the worst of those identified.

Now sure, if you don't want to analyze their actions in a Marxist context. Feel free to provide other insight, if you think it would be valuable. Though I don't see why I, or anyone else here, would feel the need to agree with you when you come to a different conclusion.

Inevitably, I just wanted to see you support your conclusion. You know, with real logic. Not with this charade that you think is logic.
Though, as I saw the other day, I knew what would most likely result from this point is the disassembling of your ego and the demonstration of your ignorance. Silly nonsense from you, as usual. Though, personally, I am always hoping to be surprised one day, by anyone I come into contact.

Have a good day. Rafiq.

[John Nada]

I, personally, have little interest in the ICC's opinion of freemasonry, or any leftist organization's opinion thereof. What interests me is the emergence of general conspiracy theorists (not saying that the ICC is guilty of this, but seeing a trend) as a valid form of political opinion and theory. It seems to me as though this trend, if it is true, reveals a general lack of focused and poignant theory, or perhaps a lack of mobilization capable of sustaining said theory, and so the theory peters out into conspiracy. We should be on watch for this as times progress.In my experience, the problem isn't that the worker's or what passes for the "left" are ignorant of or enamored with the "occult", quite the opposite. Many of them imagine the Illuminati/NWO/Freemasons to be an unstoppable supernatural force. It's a simple explanation for a complicated combination of (often contradictory)interests and events under capitalism. What hope is there against a powerful enemy that has controlled every aspect of life for hundreds of years? They end up chasing chem-trails or watching 9/11 videos over and over for proof. It demobilizes and demoralizes them, often swinging them to the far-right.

I'm reminded of this article: http://libcom.org/library/how-overthrow-illuminati .The anarchist have a better line on this! Though to be fare, they have inside knowledge, seeing as anarchist are part of the Masonic conspiracy, according to the ICC article.:laugh:
We’ve offered a critique of Illuminati theory. We’ve demonstrated that it leaves no room for chance or error, and so views the enemy as unbeatable. It relies on circular logic and innuendo, rather than logical scientific argument. And it provides no clear strategy to end oppression and liberate humankind.I agree, conspiracy theories are fucking toxic to a would-be revolutionary movement. A sign of hopelessness.

But enemy isn't as united and strong as some would like us to think. Look at the news. You have infighting between different governments, businesses, bourgeois parties, law enforcement agencies, PAC/NGOs, and conflict inside of all of them. Just look at the US gov. Senate against the CIA, Democrats against their own president, Republicans against the ATF, fucking ex-employees of the NSA against them. Is this all just one big staged spectacle by the Freemasons till the antichrist"state capitalism" appears?
So what do we have to explain all of this? The fact of the matter is that the ICC is a thoroughly petite-bourgeois organization which has attempted to reconcile the tradition of Communism with modern day conspiracy theories in order to safeguard Marxism from being integrally a target of this conspiracy-fetish pathology. What does this mean? It means they are fighting against their own temptations, predisposed to thinking that Marxism was a "part of it all" all along. This is generally symptomatic of much of the so-called principled Left, the notion that all that is powerful, all that is given a platform is rotten and corrupted, the notion that being a "part of it all" is somehow indicative of anything - Marxists should be PROUD to be the recipients of conspiracy theories - we should be proud that we are accused of being a product of masonic, occult or jewish conspiracies at world domination. It suggests that, panicked, even in their spontaneous reactionary attempts to find a world-grounding, to establish universal coordinates of understanding in a world devoid of any, Marxists can only be articulated as having been part of a conspiracy. Again, there are only two explanations for Communists by non-Communists - our movement is either composed of delusional madmen, or was a rational conspiracy all along. Unlike Fascism, or Liberalism for that matter, NO ONE benefited from the ideas of Communism except the group of focus - the proletariat. What distinguishes Marxists, however, is that we don't play the game of conspiracy theories - we don't say that the bourgeoisie consciously "created" fascism in such a manner - we can recognize scientifically a paradigm of axiomatic interest without seeing it as conscious. There are no conspiracy theories which claim that the Jews, or Freemasons rule the world without knowing it or understanding the intricacies of their world domination- there HAS to be some kind of conscious conspiracy. Marxists, conversely, recognize that those in power are idiots who cannot even fathom the extent of their power and are just as susceptible to the forces of ideology as anyone else - they are not "above it". Our enemy is capitalism as a whole, as an agentless system, an insistence of consciousness where there is none. QFT, especially the part I put in bold. It reminds me of a friend. At their job the boss started going on a rant about how communists and socialists are out to get everyone. Most worker's don't know anything about these theories, but looked at him like he was smoking crack!:lol: The fact that many of the bourgeoisie are scared shitless of us even when(for the most part) we're weak is a good thing.

[Lily Briscoe]

Aside from general paranoia, the stuff about Illuminati and 'chem trails' really has nothing at all to do with the article in the OP. Kinda confused about why people keep talking about that.

[Rafiq]

The point was obviously that, historically speaking, the freemasons have indeed used their status (as a club) to impact politics and society.

The fact that P2 was a larger arm of political and social corruption does not somehow separate them from the freemasons. You need to do better than that.

For this reason, you need to provide some sort of reasoning why you believe that their actions have nothing to do with being freemasons, or else you void your own point due to it being unsupported nonsense; a 'no true scotsman' fallacy, as I said.

No, actually that wasn't the point, coward. This is what you had previously said: I was pointing out your logical error. I was not arguing or even referencing the larger topic. Have you changed your mind, Subversive? Freemasons have used their "status" to impact politics and society: But how exactly do they impact society and with what reference point of agency? Do freemasons, homogeneously have some kind of goal? The fact of the matter is that freemasons are no longer a political force - with the rise of bourgeois civic society they have exhausted their significance and are a formalized antique of a political epoch long passed. Most grand orients, formally at least, claim that they attempt to disassociate themselves or their organizations from politics and even business affairs (while for example, members can discuss these things amongst themselves and even us the organizations as a common meeting ground from which they can conduct them). If you are going ot deny this, you need to provide evidence: The fact that p2 no longer acted on behalf of the Italian grand orient should suffice as evidence that they were NOT acting on behalf of freemasonry: But in your mind, this somehow constitutes a "no true scotsman" fallacy.

You have demonstrated that not only do you not understand logic, you have no fucking clue what freemasonry actually is. Now, let's be absolutely clear: Was the structural retention of the masonic society's hierarchically perhaps vital to the endeavors and functions of P2? Of course, no one has even hinted at denying this. Did they, perhaps, engage in the same ceremonies and rituals as other freemasons do? Undoubtedly. Is it therefore possible to associate them with freemasonry as a structured organization with agency? Absolutely not. P2 was officially closed down by the Italian grand orient, its leader simply retained the structure of the organisation. They were not a "larger arm" of freemasonry: They were kicked out. The fact of the matter is that freemasonry is not simply defined by their stupid rituals or adherence to masonic ideas. It is a structured group: You can splinter off and do whatever the fuck you want, but you are no longer a part of the freemasons if you do not act as an extension of whatever grand orient resides in your country. This isn't hard to fucking understand.

Again, no true Scotsman only works if the point of disassociation is faulty. It is not. Since freemasonry isn't whatever the fuck we want it to be but a real society with real qualifications, it would be stupid to say that p2 was representative of official freemasonry. Now, would I have a problem with calling p2 masonic, or even identifying them with freemasonry on a casual level? Absolutely not: the point is context - if they are going to be used as an example of freemason's conspiring against Communists, this would be a pretty ridiculous fucking example.

Now, why do their actions have nothing to do with freemasonry? Simply because as a society their actions where necessarily dependent on their demographic: Powerful businessmen and politicians acting not on behalf of "freemasonry" but using the group as a front to fulfill their ends as powerful businessmen and politicians. Another fringe organization, or secret society, masonic or not, could have been possible with the same effect. So what was my point? My point was that in circumstances wherein people who are freemasons might use their society as a forefront for counter-revolutionary activity, this has NOTHING to do with freemasonry but the people of whom compose masonic societies: Who could really give fuck all about the alleged "interests" of freemasonry (Hint: there are none) but acheiving their own ends. You tried to use the example of the crusades which was stupid because: If we don't want to get technical, yes Christianity as an ideology had "ends" it wanted to fulfill, yes Jerusalem was a point of significance for Christians and so on. These men perceived themselves as fighting not for the retention of feudalism but for their religion. This alone disqualifies it.

Freemasons, conversely, as an organization are politically irrelevant. There is no "masonic" conspiracy: Capitalists who are freemasons do not have interests opposed to capitalists who are not freemasons - there are no "masonic" interests - freemasons do not desire political power as freemasons but as whatever according prior qualifications are necessary for the desire for power for individuals who happen to be freemasons. This has nothing to do with what constitutes "true" or "false" freemasonry but a point of significance: That is - what the FUCK has freemasonry got to do with it? That's the point. Masonic organisations have often been useful tools where previously the political bourgeoisie, or perhaps capitalists can get meet their ends. They do not do it "for" freemasonry, rather, freemasonry exists for them. Do you fucking understand? Or do you want to keep incessantly abusing logic?


Yet you're the one sitting there hazardly typing away at a computer in an extremely frustrated manner, completely avoiding the point of an argument against you and doing absolutely nothing but spilling out anger, irrelevance, straw men, and ad hominem; all the while completely missing the point, as usual.


Yes I'm fucking frustrated: You're either a troll or you're a complete moron. And how's this for a fallacious argument: the fact that I'm frustrated doesn't say anything about whether I understand logic or not. Do you know how ironic it is that you've yet again erroneously deployed logic in the process of trying to call me illogical? You make these grand declarations: but who the FUCK are you to qualify anything I type as "irrelevant"? The qualifications for your "irrelevance", as we see above, apparently require no elaboration. Why? Because you said so? You have yet to demonstrate any of these - you have yet to demonstrate a single iota of irrelevance or straw men. And frankly I don't care if I hurt your feelings: I don't really give a fuck about you in general - I see you tout a lot of bullshit and you bet I'm going to call you out on it.

You're so righteously ignorant that you can't even fathom the possibility that your garbage is being demonstrated as wrong - I'm not missing the point Subversive, in all of our encounters I understand exactly what you've been trying to say. I am simply telling you that you are full of shit: the fact that your nonsense is still articulated, in your mind as valid does not reflect my understanding of it. You're trying to say that I can't disassociate p2 with a freemasonic identity because it would qualify as a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Yet you have failed to establish credible qualifications for association with freemasonry and have simply said "just because they did this doesn't meant they aren't freemasons". Well, within the context of this fucking discussion: Yes it does - it means they aren't acting on behalf of the freemasons as a society. Which was the whole point to begin with: It wasn't about whether freemasons are inherently predisposed to actively engage in anti-Communist activity (which in itself would still be wrong), it was about allegations of a freemasonic conspiracy against Communists.

You talk directly out of your fucking ass, haughtily, and you expect me not to be frustrated? Oh, so civil, so rational are you Subversive! I don't care about your standards of rationality. Stop arguing by identity and directly engage the points at hand beyond vague declarations without further elaboration. And here's something simple: because you don't want to confront the truth of your error does not constitute demonstration of its invalidity as a 'straw man". Truth doesn't care about your identity: you are wrong, whether you want to own up to your nonsense has fuck all to do with logic. I have accused you of thing which you have not directly identified with: This isn't straw man, it's called forming a logical conclusion from your arguments - it's called attacking the implications of them. I have absolutely zero tolerance for your pluralistic standards for debate. I do not regard the positions of an opponent as equal if they are wrong - understand? I do not respect them for what they WANT to be, I approach them for what they ARE.


I approach history using historical materialism. Their actions were due to their social relationships.
The primary relationship here, in this case and context, being their membership of the freemasons (under the greater whole of Capitalism, of course).

Throw a bunch of Capitalists together, of the same "demographic", especially in secret, and you don't think they will unite together to more fully oppress the worker? Historically speaking, P2 was not the first masonic group to use this centralization of Capitalist power to influence society, and certainly not the first group of its kind to do this. It is rather naive, rather ignorant, of you to suggest this is somehow 'new' for the freemasons or that this activity of theirs was somehow separate from the freemasons. They were not the first, they were merely just the most prolific, and their crimes the worst of those identified.


You would dare prattle of Marxism and 'historical materialism' after demonstrating yourself as an apologist for the perpetration of ignorance and religion as though they are "equal" as ideas? Now, are you fucking kidding me? This is your employment of historical materialism? Let me ask you something: Do you think that recognition of capitalists alone as a demographic somehow constitutes a materialist analysis? Frankly, all actions are "due to social relationships", ultimately. this disqualifies freemasons as special. I never even hinted at denying that masonic organisations are capable of fulfilling the interests of capitalists in a unique manner, I simply said that it has fuck all to do with the fact that they're freemasons. In case you haven't read the fucking article, what we are being told is that freemasons, among other forms of the "occult" are used to INFILTRATE Communist organizations, not simply as useful forefronts for the rich and powerful to conspire against the worker's movement. Why don't you be so kind, however, as to enlighten us with all of these examples (after the demise of the active political bourgeoisie during the 19th century, of course) wherein freemasons try to "influence" society to fulfill their ends as freemasons, rather than as capitalists? What does this have to do with freemasonry, even if we contest that p2 isn't an anomaly or a loose cannon (still waiting for more examples like p2)?

Do you even KNOW what freemasonry is? Or somehow, do you think that it's literally just a big cover up so the bourgeoisie, apparently class conscious under Marxist qualifications, can "influence" society? Here's a hint: the bourgeoisie doesn't need freemasonry to influence society, the fact of the matter is that the bourgeoisie don't even exist as a group which knows about the intricacies of its power. Do you ACTUALLY think capitalism and the state are literally a conspiracy rather than a system? The bourgeoisie by merit of existing already possesses complete hegemony. So tell me: If capitalists are already in power, what fucking difference does it make if they want to indulge in stupid big boy clubs? This is why freemasons don't have political relevance: The political bourgeoisie no longer exists as an opposing force to the hegemony of the state, as they did during the time freemasons were actually relevant.

The conclusion we draw to is that freemasons operate in an extra-state based fashion on behalf of "the bourgeoisie". This would necessarily designate them as forms of bourgeois corruption: Unless of course the state isn't bourgeois in nature. The fact of the matter is that freemasons are a glorified gentleman's club and nothing more.


Have a good day. Rafiq.

No, you don't get to waltz in here and throw a bunch of groundless garbage my way and then, once proven to be full of shit, casually walk away pretending like I'm some big asshole. I expect you to either apologize or defend your accusation to the very bitter end.

[Subversive]

No, actually that wasn't the point, coward. This is what you had previously said: I was pointing out your logical error. I was not arguing or even referencing the larger topic. Have you changed your mind, Subversive?
Uh, no.
My last reply still has nothing to do with the larger topic. I was merely further explaining to you the logical error, why it was and what supports it, because you did not accept it the first time.
I have not changed my position even slightly. Only a dishonest coward would try to make it seem otherwise.



No, you don't get to waltz in here and throw a bunch of groundless garbage my way and then, once proven to be full of shit, casually walk away pretending like I'm some big asshole. I expect you to either apologize or defend your accusation to the very bitter end.
Oh, but I can waltz in here, demonstrate and prove some logical fallacies, and then casually walk away because you really are a huge jerk who does not listen to reason.
Personally, I expect everyone to be civil and keep a level head when discussing and arguing, especially on a forum where everyone roughly believes in the same thing, but hey, that's life, we don't always get what we want.

Good day, Rafiq.
Maybe if you took my advice and actually had a good day for once you wouldn't be so angry and irrational all the time?

[Rafiq]

Uh, no.
My last reply still has nothing to do with the larger topic. I was merely further explaining to you the logical error, why it was and what supports it, because you did not accept it the first time.
I have not changed my position even slightly. Only a dishonest coward would try to make it seem otherwise.

You were not "explaining" anything - you explicitly said "the point" is that freemasons use their power to influence society. This was your underlying presumption which led you to your groundless accusations. And it is completely faulty: The "occult" nature of freemasonry has fuck all to do with any organized attempt to subvert the worker's movement that may be conducted by masonic organizations - absolutely nothing. The fact that these are fraternities composed of powerful people who have everything to lose from a revolution does. Their "occult" rituals, traditions, and code of conduct - everything that separates freemasonry from any other group of old white men has fuck all to do with anything.

The fact of the matter is that rather than being a part of some grand conspiracy, or elaboration of the occult, if freemasons have in the past engaged in reactionary activity it is purely a result of the demographic. The crusades, conversely, entirely resided on the facade of regaining the holy land. So what have you proven, Subversive? That you're a moron.

[Subversive]

You were not "explaining" anything - you explicitly said "the point" is that freemasons use their power to influence society. This was your underlying presumption which led you to your groundless accusations.
You are making careless assumptions, as usual.

I was stating this as a minor point that you missed. One which, if understood, would explain part of the whole.
As in, a singular point of which was part of my explanations to you which you seemed to be missing in the cohesive whole. There were, of course, many points in the explanation as a whole.

In other words: You are taking this out of context, completely. Seemingly intentionally, though perhaps possibly just because you don't actually read people's posts before you reply to them. Either way it is due to ignorance and apathy.

And I've already rejected your other arguments, if you would care to read my previous replies. I won't be going into them again or repeating myself. The reasoning is there and it is sound. You can repeat yourself if you'd like, which you do seem to want to do, but that does not make your arguments anymore meaningful, nor does it make them correct.

And, in the future, if you wish to rudely insult people as such, and objectively speak in anger, futility, and ignorance, you could at least do yourself the favor of being the one who is correct on an issue.
Attacking others in such a disgraceful and pitiful manner when you have yet to even accurately demonstrate a single point just seems sadly pathetic. Though, honestly, it is always so pathetic.

As I said before, Good day, Rafiq.
I think my time here is done. I feel no need to continue allowing you to troll.

[Rafiq]

I said this to rebuke any accusations of a logical fallacy present in my argument: I'm an American. I also eat children. This is obviously because I'm an American. To add insult to injury I got deported after my first. Saying that this has nothing to do with being one is no true Scotsman in Subversive's mind.

You replied by claiming this was irrelevant, in the very beginning of your post, by establishing an apex of relevancy grounded in an underlying point: The point was obviously that, historically speaking, the freemasons have indeed used their status (as a club) to impact politics and society.

So no, this was not a minor point in any meaningful sense of the phrase. It was the underlying justification for your accusation of logical fallacy. You see, had you NOT justified yourself through this "minor point", my initial rebuke would have had to been accepted and your accusations of "no true scotsman" would have been conceded as false. You further went on to say that I need to "prove" how: But the proof is self evident, considering that only very few of all the world's masonic lodges engage in such behavior. Even if we contest that MOST of them do, the very exception that some do not demonstrates the faulty attribution that it somehow has something to do with freemasonry specifically. That does not mean exceptions are definitive, it merely demonstrates a point of reference: There are no masonic organizations not composed of powerful business people which have ever conspired against a worker's movement in any way - and that there are masonic organizations which while possessing both pre-requisites to significance were utterly insignificant in the domain of politics and economics (while for example, powerful business men will do as they do with or without being a part of such fraternities as a rule). So even if most masonic organizations did engage in such behavior, you could say that freemasons are generally predisposed to engage in "political" and "economic" influence, but this in no way could be established by merit of them being "freemasons" as such, but their demographic composition.

The point is simple: One does not join the freemasons and end up a gentlemen, the reverse is true.

So this is not simply a debate: It is an utter demonstration that you're completely full of shit.