On Jews and Freemasons

Any group that has generated as much paranoid hysteria as Jews and Freemasons have must be doing something right.  And I think what these groups have done right is that both are fundamentally set up to be dominated by co-alphas.

I am ethnically Jewish but I was not raised Jewish, so what I know, I learned as an adult.  The intellectual side of conservative Judaism is completely male dominated.  It is men who are expected to study religion while women are expected to take care of their families.  Men and women are clearly separated socially and monogamism is enforced.

Traditional Judaism is based on the Old Testament.  Here are some web pages describing the role of women:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl1.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/commandment07.htm

The original meaning of the Seventh Commandment is particularly important.  It says that men may not have sex with other men's wives.  This is the core of the co-alpha mating strategy.

The Jews have survived for thousands of years, mostly as a cooperative male-dominated group.  It is one of the oldest cultures around, so it is certainly worth studying what the Jews have done right to last this long.  Here are some resources that I recommend:

movie - A Life Apart: Hasidism in America
movie - Arranged
book -  This is my God by Herman Wouk

I knew nothing about Freemasons until I recently started reading about brotherhoods.  In truth, after reading about them, I still don't feel like I know very much.  They are somewhat secretive.  But they seem to follow the co-alpha model.  They are an all-male group and they have managed to keep this even in modern times.  They all must follow the rules of the group and any male hierarchy from the mainstream world doesn't apply within their group.  From the web, I found it claimed that one of their oaths says:

"I will not have illegal carnal intercourse with a Master Mason's wife, his mother, sister, or daughter knowing them to be such, nor suffer the same to be done by others, if in my power to prevent."

This again is very co-alpha.


Note that I made this post to see what if anything can be learned from these co-alpha groups.  Please do not respond to this post with comments that are not relevant to the CoAlpha Brotherhood.

Was it you who included the "I will not sleep with another man's wife" thing in Ragnar's Vow Of Brotherhood?

It's a good idea.  It keeps out those Beta Chimpanzees from messing with our families.

wordserpent wrote

Was it you who included the "I will not sleep with another man's wife" thing in Ragnar's Vow Of Brotherhood?

Yes, me and Type 5.  Here is the thread:

http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40055

I had an opportunity to become a Mason. Didn't know what to make of the organization and I'm not much of a subordinate, so I opted not to. I worked under a man who was a high ranking Mason, and he reached out to me, as the masons in Massachusetts are hurting for members, and well I'm pretty damn great. I was like 19 at the time. I look back with regret, but I also firmly believe that i walk the seemingly nonsensical path that I walk with divine purpose.

something I read in the OP reminded me of this song...

DMX- The Convo

There is much to learn from our enemies, but treating strangers or people we don't know dishonorabley is not one of them. As I stated in my book, these fox-traits are effete-traits and is why these men prefer to raise women to higher positions above better males, for they must distort how effete they in prefering indirect war over direct war. They must go to war with lion-males and co-alpha males as they can't find them in a fair fight and so go to war indirectly to get status and rank. They are foxes and weasels, and we must learn to do as them on them only and others like them that practice these ways, but not to do so on unknowns or others that we really don't know, for we would be no better than the other side.

Sure learn everything we can about their methods, but we must have an iron rule to stop us becoming the same as them.

Perseus, your book arrived from Amazon a few days ago and I plan to read it on my flight to Argentina, so I will better understand what you are saying then and I will reply to this post later.

Great Frank, thanks. Feel free to hammer me on points if you see problems. You will find some ideas that I have are the same as yours in view of science.

I from what I have been hearing and reading of the Co Alpha Brotherhood I really like. The basis of any society is the men of that society. And for a stable and productive society that requires a stable brotherhood.

My personal view of Masonic Orders is that for the most part they are simply predecessors to the current Men's Movement. The main difference is that the MRA movement is for the most part an active and entirely rationality based movement, with very little of the ceremony of the Masons. It is entirely about the rights of men, and their potion in society. Masons also had these themes but there was allot of what I would call clutter of ceremony involved.

Also I would say the MRA movement is considerably more  of a militant movement when it comes to enforcing those rights. Case and point is MRA feel entirely comfortable confronting feminist and others that are attempting to advance feminism on young men, and will take action to stop such things.

Masons would not take such actions, because they are not completely a rights or activism movement, but their central goal is often more involved in the ceremony of the Masonic Order, than it is affecting change in society.

This is the reason Feminist considerably fear MRA more than masons, even though it is a young movement, with far less infrastructure and support.

As far as Jews go, most of the paranoia surrounding them boils down to events happening in eastern Europe regarding Communism, and various relations with Mayer Amschel Rothschild's invention of the international banking system.  Which might I say has little or noting to do with being ethnically Jewish.

How this ties in with the MRA and men's rights is the existence of many high profile Jewish women that are feminist, and the fact that non feminist Jewish women are ignored. Women such as Ayn Rand are completely ignored.

This is not helped by the fact that, there are plenty of Jewish men that have been man-vagina-ised, by the liberal/socialist society we find ourselves in today.

But I would say in reality Traditional/ or Orthodox Judaism for the most part is protective of the Rights of men, and implements many protections in that way.

I will say that in spite of the number of High Profile Jewish Feminist, at the end of the day there is no despising with the inclusion of Jewish men into a successful Men's Rights Movement.

I think, the real challenge in my opinion, will be defusing some of the radical elements of certain Nationalist movements and proving to those men that it is in their best interest to side with Jewish, and other men to achieve a common goal for all men.

But I think the First step is setting up brotherhoods, such as the Co Alpha Brotherhood.

Thanks, I agree with what you wrote.  I hope that whatever men's beliefs about race and other issues, we will be able to work together for our mutual benefit.  You are welcome to join the CoAlpha Brotherhood if you think it is a good idea.

Damn good thread - just bumping for future reference.

Sure we can overcome racial divisions.

Well I think one of the areas i think i can best contribute is in the area of cheap affordable living and communities for men. Ways for men to survive and still drop out of this collapsing society.

Only when men put on the pressure will there be any recognition of the problem.
As far as the Freemasons go I believe they are mostly a dieing institution, the MRA movement has more or less taken their place and are more relevant to the 21st century than are Masons.

Take Care Guys Ill be posting here some when time permits.

At this point, we don't have a large enough group to be thinking about communities and constructing housing.  I hope we do get large enough someday for this to become worth investigating.

I only discussed the Freemasons as a historical example of a co-alpha organization.  I agree that they are not relevant today.  But I wouldn't consider today's MRA movement to be anything like the Freemasons.

I just watched a lightweight documentary on the Freemasons done by the discovery channel. I watched it to see what we could learn from this group. I'll tell my observations below.

I think the first thing that's important to note is their goal. The Freemason's goal in a nutshell is to "make good men better". I see this as a goal for improving society in general. This is different from our goal, because our goal first and foremost is to abandon society. We don't think society can be saved, we only think individual members of society who have the foresight to leave society, can be saved. The goal of saving society as opposed to leaving society, also reflects membership goals. Since we don't plan to save all men, only those whom choose to leave, our membership will be much smaller. A smaller membership doesn't conflict with our goal. A smaller membership in Freemasonry, does conflict with their goal. Freemasonry is geared to a much larger membership, thus the reason they have five million members.

My next point will focus on what I'll call organizational "layers". This may not be the best way to describe organizations, but it will have to do. I think every organization can be described in "layers". These "layers" makeup what an organization is. Race, ethnicity, nationality, religion and politics are all layers. Every organization falls into different layers. Some organizations utilize all layers, some organizations use only some.

If I was to create a chart on say Hasidic Jews, it'd look like this:

[_] Politics
[x] Religion
[_] Nationality
[x] Ethnicity
[x] Race

Hasidic Jews only operate at race, ethnicity and religious layers.

Freemasons on the other hand are more difficult to categorize. On the one hand members are required to "declare a belief in a supreme being". Yet no single faith is rejected or required. Politics and religion are also forbidden discussion in lodges. The Freemasons don't seem to be an ethnic organization and operate in all countries, therefore are international. So In review of the chart they look like this:

[_] Politics
[_] Religion
[_] Nationality
[_] Ethnicity
[_] Race

But in actuality I think the Freemasons have created another layer that operates above all other layers:

[x] Freemasonry
[_] Politics
[_] Religion
[_] Nationality
[_] Ethnicity
[_] Race

The brilliance of their organizational model, is they can have members whom conflict at every other layer, yet still retain membership. In a way, Freemasons allow a sort of freedom and individualism to exist as long as it doesn't conflict with the top layer "Freemasonry". This is somewhat similar to a prison gang I researched a while back known as "The Mexican Mafia". This gang is similar in that they also create a top layer as opposed to controlling bottom layers. Many members of the Mexican Mafia come from opposing street gangs, whom fight each other on the street. Yet when in prison, they're required to put aside differences and form under one single entity, The Mexican Mafia. As soon as members are released from prison, they're allowed to kill each other again.

So while most street gangs may have a chart like this:

[x] Territory
[x] Race

The Mexican Mafia seems to have one like this:

[x] Mexican Mafia
[_] Territory
[_] Race

So I think what we can take away from this, is most groups fall into one of two organizational models. On the one hand we have organizations that control every layer. On the other hand, we have organizations that allow lots of freedom and individualism to grow as long as this freedom and individualism is subordinate to a top layer. I'll call these "bottom layer" and "top layer" organizations.

I think one reason top layer organizations exist, is to drastically increase manpower. Bottom layer organizations have a harder time recruiting members, due to more requirements. Another reason to use a top layer organizational model, is if the goal of the organization is to leave most of society intact, while changing only a single element.

So a question is, do we want to be a "top layer" organization or a "bottom layer" organization?

CoAlpha is obviously trying to be a "top layer" organization.  I can't see any other approach.

fschmidt wrote

CoAlpha is obviously trying to be a "top layer" organization.  I can't see any other approach.

I've thought of another way to view organizations. Instead of identifying organizations according to "layers", we can identify them according to "in sourcing" and "out sourcing", just like companies. Maybe this point applies more to religion, beliefs, culture, customs, ect, rather than race or ethnicity.

To put it another way, Freemasons "out source" religion. Hasidic Jews "in source" religion.