R.I.P. Dave Lettelier

David Lettelier was the Founding President of Phoenix Masonry and curator of its extensive museum, much of which came from his personal collection.  Over the years Phoenix Masonry has become one of the most visited Masonic websites in North America, if not the world.  Dave's interest in Masonry was broad and the museum showcases all manner of Masonic articles, from Co-Masonry, Prince Hall, Grand Orients....The world of Masonry is vast, complex, and diverse, and on Phoenix Masonry one can find a little of everything.

I wrote a few Masonic essays some years ago that caught Dave's eye and he asked to publish them on the Phoenix Masonry site. I was happy to do so. He later sent me a Phoenix coin which still sits on my mantle with other treasured Masonic items. We never met in person, but had talked about meeting up next time I went back home to Florida. He'd even looked into sending me some Cuban sandwiches packed in dry ice and shipped express to France after I bemoaned not having any Cuban sandwiches here. Dave was just a nice, thoughtful, and generous guy, a broad-minded Mason, and even though we never actually met in person, a friend as well as a Brother.

 

 

We hadn't been in contact for a long time, but a few days back I got a strong urge to write him about a project I am working on in which I thought he might be interested.  Maybe something (GA?) was letting me know that it was then or never, I don't know, because yesterday a mutual acquaintance contacted me to inform me that David had passed. Sad thing is I never sent the letter, and it's my loss not having been able to exchange ideas with him one last time.

 

David was a real mensch and a vital presence in Freemasonry. I will miss him. My sincere condolences go out to his friends and family. I hope it brings them a small measure of comfort to know that David was well-liked and respected and had a positive impact on many lives, including my own.

 

Peace be with you Brother.

 

Please feel free to share your memories in the comments.

Apocalypse France: La France Maçonnique

La France maçonnique from TOPDOC on Vimeo.

La France maçonnique is the first episode in a series of documentaries entitled Apocalypse France.  It's currently only available in French, but will eventually be subtitled for the wider world.

The film takes a dim view of French Masonry, especially the Grand Orient, which is described as a lobby with strong ties to the Socialist Party and a historically strong influence in French politics, from the Revolution to today.  It claims, for example, that Masonic nepotism resulted in a disproportionate number of Masonic generals in the French Army at the beginning of the First World War, chosen regardless of competence, with disastrous results.  The documentary also proposes that Masonry is essentially the religion of the Republic!  There are certainly links in the expressed values of the Republic and the Craft, attested to by its language and symbols.  How this translates into concrete policy actions is another story.

Does the film exaggerate Masonic influence in France?  This is a good question, and I'm not sure the film makes a tight case; the interviewees generally have a negative view of the Craft, and with one or two exceptions, positive views are not well represented.  I think the film has some valid points to make, but it suffers from a lack of historical background, context and examples of if and how specific Masonic initiatives have been implemented as official state policy.  For example, the film mentions that Jules Ferry, a Freemason, succeeded in passing the laws which bear his name in 1881 and 1882; these laws made public education free, non-clerical, and mandatory.  But that's the extent of the reference.  In Argentina, in 1884, education also became free, compulsory, universal and non-clerical.  In both countries these laws harmed relations between the Church and the State, and were actively promoted by their respective Grand Orients.  In Argentina, the "father" of Argentine education is President Domingo Sarmiento; his tomb is considerably strong enough to support a good many large bronze Masonic plaques and emblems.  Some development of the references made in this film, more details, such as the link between Freemasonry and public education, would have made for a better film.  I recognize the one-hour format limits content, but perhaps a more historical narrative and fewer musings by the talking heads could have permitted the inclusion of more fact, as opposed to the opinions of its interviewees.

Still, it's interesting viewing and the questions it raises are worthy of consideration.  It's strange for me to have participated in what is essentially a negative view of Masonry, but I think it's better to be open and acknowledge opposing points of view than pretend these points of view don't exist.  Masons have usually deigned not to answer its critics and in this silence, critics have had free reign to present their case without rebuttal, thus controlling the narrative.  As I said in my last post, there's a lot of BS floating around out there about Masonry; if there are valid criticisms of Masonry to be made, the currency of the BS can only cloud the issue, functioning as a kind of disinformation where there is so much to be disbelieved that even true information is tainted with suspicion.  People are lazy or simply not that interested to sift through and distinguish wheat from chaff; it ends up where a person simply believes whatever scurrilous invention comes down the Pike, or on the contrary scoffs away everything which hints of secret dealings and unseen hands in action.  I had that experience when I wrote about the links between Scouting and Masonry; people are so used to dodging BS that they wrote it off as "conspiracy theory".  Those that had actually read the work and examined the facts presented still seemed reluctant to recommend my writings without the disclaimer that the author didn't seem to be a nut job....

If Masons acknowledge their critics, it will certainly be much more useful than simply letting them go unanswered.  One also has to bear in mind that this is not a documentary about Masonry as a whole, but in France; a lot of Anglo-Saxon Masons will be surprised, shocked even, at the level of political involvement by Masonry in France, something officially forbidden by Masonic bodies in the UK and the US.  The Grand Orient certainly has friends in high places and is clearly operating to influence the political life of the Republic.  How successful it has been is another issue, and I'm not sure the film gives us enough "history" and concrete examples to justify its claim that it has been extremely successful in its efforts.  Which isn't to say that is hasn't.  If you're looking for answers, this film might be a good starting point, but there are no smoking guns or jaw-droppers here.  It will probably be more interesting to someone already familiar with Masonic history and its rivalries; for a newcomer, not enough is done to explain what Masonry is; what different Grand Lodges and Orients currently operate in France; and how these Lodges relate to each other and the other Lodges in the world.  There are some killer shots inside various Lodges as well as extensive historical illustrations (again, without much context), as well as some thoughtful commentary by the interviewees.  French-speaking Masons should definitely check it out.  We'll keep you posted if a sub-titled version is made available.

Freemasonries: David Henry X°, Clandestinity and Recognition

I began this post months ago -- when it was more relevant -- and have only just tidied it up and readied it for posting.  I'd like to thank Fred Milliken, who read an earlier draft and corrected some of my errors regarding recognition issues and my misuse of the words "irregular" and "clandestine".  Any mistakes that have persisted in this post are entirely my fault and should not reflect adversely on Bro. Milliken.  I'd like to thank him for his time and consideration for helping me out.  My appreciation and respect, always.

Update 11 Aug.:  My site stats show significant traffic from a reddit discussion about this post in which a couple of participants criticize what they see as its lack of clarity vis-a-vis Prince Hall Masonry.  I think understanding these "Masonic Police" requires providing as much context as possible, which to my mind means that an explanation of Prince Hall and it's relationship to other duly-chartered Grand Lodges is necessary.  That said, I'd like to point out that while David Henry, his cohorts, and his "Masonic" associates identify themselves as Prince Hall Masons, they are considered to be clandestine, or Masonically "illegal" (and thus not recognized) by the legitimate Grand Lodges of California and the United Grand Lodge of England.  Although I think a modicum of attention while reading this post makes that clear, I add this preface so that if you're skimming (as I often do) you won't think I'm identifying this "Police Dept." -- or the Lodges associated with it -- as legitimate Prince Hall Lodges.  Though costumed as Cops and Freemasons, they are, in the words of The Phylaxis Society, bogus.  But please, read on and judge for yourself.  I know it's a long post, but knowledge is bought with time.  Fair enough?

When news of the Masonic Fraternal Police Department broke a few months ago (see Grandmaster Flashy), Freemasons everywhere rolled their eyes and sighed "here we go again."

David Henry X°

Many people hear the word "Freemasonry" and think that one Lodge is the same as any other.  For the general public, Masonry is a monolithic structure, controlled from on-high by a single, secretive cabal of old dudes in top hats.  

But any Mason will tell you that this is simply not the case.  Freemasonry has its rivalries, factions, competing Grand Lodges and Orients, with disputes as noisy and fractious as any number of national parliaments one can witness jeering and hissing on C-SPAN.  The difference is that these disputes usually aren't carried out in public.

There are several different traditions within Masonry.  Christianity has its Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox adherents.  Islam, its Sunni, Shiite and Sufi varieties.  Buddhism is divided into Theravada, Mahayana, Zen....etc.  In Masonry we can speak of both "Anglo-Saxon" and "Continental" Masonry, as well as Lodges who are neither one nor the other (such as the Scandinavian Rites).  Very (very) simply put, Continental (aka Liberal, Dogmatic or "Red") Masonry is organized into Grand Orients and derives from a French model.  Anglo-Saxon, ("Blue") Masonry is organized into Grand Lodges and based on the English model.

There are significant ritual differences between the two traditions, and even many Masons may not be aware that relations between "Red" and "Blue" Masonry are sometimes strained; while they might recognize each other as legitimate forms of Masonry -- and even this is not always the case -- diplomatic relations are sporadic.  Their differences are also related to politics, but for the purposes of this article let it suffice to say that Lodges are not directed from on high by a single Masonic authority.

In Anglo-Saxon Masonry, each country is governed by an independent Grand Lodge with its own officers, rules, ritual particularities and diplomatic protocols.  In the U.S., each state has its own Grand Lodge and accordingly, there are variations within their practices.  More importantly, they are all independent, none of them beholden to or under the authority of another.  What holds all these Lodges together is that they are recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England.  If a Mason visits any (U.G.L.E.-recognized) Lodge and presents a dues card issued by a Lodge recognized by the U.G.L.E., he is considered a "non-clandestine" Mason and welcome to participate in the Lodge.

This patchwork of authorities is not without its problems.  Recognizing the "legitimacy" of  a Lodge is considered to be of critical importance.  If I cross state lines and want to attend a Lodge meeting, the host Lodge must be certain that my "Mother" Lodge is not clandestine.  This is quite easy, because there is a directory of recognized Grand Lodges and Lodges to which the Worshipful Master can refer.  For the public however, it's not so simple; anybody can buy Masonic regalia, find the rituals and present themselves as a duly recognized Mason.  As far as practice and ritual goes, they may in fact be genuine; given the sorry state of ritual I've witnessed in some mainstream Lodges, some of the "clandestine" Lodges may even be superior in the quality of their practice. 

For many years, a controversy has existed within Freemasonry -- tied up with the issues of regularity and recognition -- and it's still being worked out today.  I'm speaking about Prince Hall Masonry.

I'm no expert in Masonic jurisprudence and there are people far more informed about this topic than I, but indulge me for a few moments while I try to sum up the history and problems involved.

At some point prior to the onset of American War of Independence, an African-American educator and intellectual named Prince Hall led a group of African-American petitioners to Boston's St. John's Lodge, with the ultimate goal of creating a charter and forming their own Lodge.  St. John's refused their petition.

In 1775, the group tried again with a military Lodge under the aegis of the Grand Lodge of Ireland. This time they were successful; Hall and his fellows were initiated and went on to found African Lodge No. 1.  Unable to create a charter without the assent of a Grand Lodge, African Lodge No. 1 applied to the Mother Grand Lodge of England, who issued a charter as African Lodge no. 459 in 1784.  Prince Hall then helped to establish Lodges in Philadelphia and Rhode Island.  These Lodges were generally excluded from the (white) mainstream.  The Prince Hall Masons understood that integration with the mostly-white was unlikely so they focused instead on being recognized.  In 1808, still excluded from mainstream Masonic society, they formed African Grand Lodge to oversee the Lodges they had created. 

In 1813, the Mother Grand Lodge merged with another Grand Lodge to form the U.G.L.E., thus ending a schism in England that had arisen from ritual differences and that had led to the existence of what was called "Antient" and "Modern" Freemasonry.  As a result of the merger, the African Grand Lodge was stricken from the U.G.L.E.'s rolls due to a lack of contact between the African Grand Lodge and the Mother Grand Lodge for many years.  Newly independent, they petitioned for recognition from the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts but were refused.  So in 1827 they formally declared independence from the U.G.L.E. and all other American Grand Lodges, who had themselves already declared independence from the English Grand Lodges after the Revolution.  This formal separation led to a separate and independent tradition of African-American Masonry, which today we call Prince Hall Masonry.  Freemasonry, like the rest of American society, was segregated, and most Grand Lodges viewed the African Lodges as irregular and clandestine. 

In 1994 the U.G.L.E., recognizing that racism had in effect forced the African Grand Lodge into a separate tradition, ruled that the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts "should now be accepted as regular, and be recognised."

While many Masons in both mainstream and Prince Hall Lodges had been pushing for some sort of reconciliation for decades, the U.G.L.E.'s decision set the gears in motion for concrete action.  For if the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was recognized, then the Lodges it chartered could also be considered as recognized; and if they were recognized by the U.G.L.E., one could no longer use the issue of clandestinity as a justification for not recognizing them.

Merging

At this point, one might ask why the Prince Hall Lodges and mainstream Grand Lodges didn't consider merging, thus eliminating the grotesque spectacle of a racially-segregated brotherhood.  This was indeed considered, but it quickly became apparent that this "solution" was anything but.

First of all, what would happen to the leadership of each Grand Lodge?  Each Lodge had its own officers and those administrations would either have to be dissolved and new elections held, or one administration would have to give up their offices and defer to the other.  Obviously, given human nature, this would be a thorny issue.  Not to mention succession.  What would happen to the Masonic veteran who'd worked his way through the Grand Line with the hopes of becoming Grand Master?  Both Grand Lodges would have Brothers who risked having the carpet yanked from under their feet.

There's also the question of identity and ritual differences  Prince Hall had a 250+ year history and over time has developed its own identity, customs and traditions.  Why risk losing all that in a merger?

Then there's the issue of property.  The Masons own buildings, sponsor charities, own retirement homes, hospitals etc.  How would this be handled?  Not impossible, companies merge all the time, but it's still a complex and expensive process.  Contrary to popular belief, most Grand Lodges are not rolling in piles of cash.  Would the Grand Lodges have the money to effectuate a merger?

Needless to say, no Grand Lodges and Prince Hall Grand Lodges have merged.

Mutual Recognition

For practical reasons, the best solution has been mutual recognition.  Each group maintains its leadership structure and preserves its individual identity, its ritual differences and traditions.

In some  ways, this has been easier for Prince Hall Lodges.  There is in each state a Grand Lodge that all Lodges in that State report to.  They are chartered by that Grand Lodge and must respect its decisions in matters of jurisprudence and ritual, suspensions, visiting rights, etc.  The criteria for determining the legitimate Grand Lodge is clear; one need only look to see which one is recognized by the U.G.L.E.  But on the Prince Hall side things are a bit less clear.  Prince Hall Masonry has historically seen more schisms and the creation of clandestine Lodges than non-Prince Hall Masonry.  In some jurisdictions, there is more than one Prince Hall Grand Lodge; some of these have equally large numbers of Brothers and can trace their origins back to the original African Grand Lodge.  So the issue facing the non-Prince Hall Grand Lodges is that it isn't always clear which one to recognize.

There is also a supposed legal question.  Some Masons in America have interpreted Masonic jurisprudence to mean that there can only be one Grand Lodge per jurisdiction (The Right of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction, a.k.a. the American Doctrine).  They would argue that recognizing another Grand Lodge is Masonically "illegal".  But clearly the U.G.L.E. disagrees, or they would not have recognized the Prince Hall Lodges.  In fact, without going into the technical details, the U.G.L.E. has stated that two Grand Lodges can in fact operate in the same jurisdiction.  The principal caveat being that a Lodge can only declare loyalty to one Grand Lodge and that a Grand Lodge has no authority over a Lodge that has declared loyalty to another.  It also is clear that raiding -- where one Grand Lodge sets itself up and tries to poach member-Lodges from another -- is strictly forbidden.

Personally, I'm one of those people who think mutual recognition with full visiting rights was something that needed to be done years ago and Lodges which haven't done it yet should make this their number one priority.  Lodges have long accepted black members and Prince Hall has long accepted white members.  The groups are not officially racially segregated.  The reality may have lagged behind due to racist attitudes, but these attitudes have changed and you'll find fewer and fewer Lodges that would refuse to admit a black man.  Thing is, a lot of black men prefer to join Prince Hall Lodges.  After all, the Prince Hall Lodges have a long history and are held in high regard in many black communities.  Black men are often simply more comfortable in a Prince Hall Lodge.  Still, when you look at this map from Paul Bessel's website about recognition issues, it's clear that all of the Grand Lodges which have not recognized their Prince Hall counterparts, except for West Virginia, are states which belonged to the Confederacy.

A cautionary tale

Let's get back to the Masonic Fraternal Police Force.  In addition to saying something to the general public about not looking at Masonry as one monolithic entity, it can also be instructive to Masons about the pitfalls of non-recognition.

The ringleader of the M.F.P.F. is a guy who goes by the name of Grandmaster David Henry X°.

A quick look at Henry's Google + profile immediately raises red flags.  Henry claims degrees and titles that don't even exist in Freemasonry or are presented in a very odd manner.  He calls himself a Illuminati Grandmaster and Absolute Most Illuminated Sovereign Grand Baphomet.  (He forgot "Grand Wazoo", but that's another story.)  Then there are his degrees: 32°, 33°, 90°, 96°, 98°, X°, 360°.

For the edification of the non-Mason out there, this is pure nonsense.  In the Scottish Rite a man can earn the 32°, and the 33° is awarded for outstanding contributions to the Craft.  But a 33° Mason will only identify himself as 33°, not 32° as well.  The Rite of Misraïm did have 90 degrees but this Rite no longer exists independently.  It merged with the Rite of Memphis, and as of 1980 the Rite of Memphis-Misraïm did indeed have 99 degrees.  So, it's possible Henry did the 98 degrees, but the same question remains, why list 90° and 96° as well?  As for 360°, the only place I've heard tell of something similar is among the 5 Percent Nation.  He may have been a 5 Percenter, I can't say otherwise, which is fine by me.  But it's not exactly Masonry.  As for an X degree, I suppose he's referring to the O.T.O., whose X° (tenth) degree is called Rex Summus Sanctissimus (Supreme and Most Holy King!)  Llewellyn states "It is the title held by the National Master General of the O.T.O. in a particular country."  I'm sure the O.T.O. would beg to differ.

Thing is, researching this guy I came across the following video:

In this video, made in the wake of the demonstrations following the Zimmerman verdict, a group of Masons stands with an L.A.P.D. spokesman to call for peace and calm.  Are all these Masons members of Henry's group?  In the preview image you see here (click to see video), Henry is the guy on the far left with the killer beard and the shades.  By what authority is Henry there?

On 19 June 2014 the L.A. Watts Times reports on the 10th annual St. John's Day ceremony in L.A.  In attendance were several Masonic leaders, including Brandon Kiel, the Justice Department staffer arrested along with Henry in connection with the the Police Department imbroglio.  Surprisingly, also present was one Van A. Hibbler (sic), who Henry thanks for "making [me?] a Grand Master years ago." 

Interesting.  While researching my first post on this subject, I came across an article in the L.A. Weekly written after Henry and Kiel were arrested, in which Hibler distanced himself from Henry.  He says "a while ago" Henry approached him about forming a new Lodge, and he'd insisted that he go through proper channels.  After the new Lodge didn't pan out, he came back and talked about his police department scheme.  Hibler said he wasn't interested.

I wonder if these meetings occurred before or after the St. John's Day ceremony in 2014, where Hibler was in attendance as Henry thanked him for making him a Grand Master....

Henry is on the far left, Hibler is second from right.  June 3, 2014

The LA Sentinel also ran an article on this event, mentioning that it was organized by the

The Southern California Conference, founded by Honorable Grand Master Willie G. Gauff, Sr., 33°; was designed to create unity among the Grand Lodges in Southern California.

Are all of those who participated in this conference clandestine Masons?  Outside of this article, I can't find a single online reference to the conference and references to Hibler are likewise sparse.  Outside of the  interview in the L.A. Weekly and various reprints of the L.A. Watts Time article, I can only find one other reference to him as a Masonic leader, also in the LA Watts times from 7 February 2013

The M.W. Illustrious Scottish Knights Grand Supreme Council under the leadership of M.W. Grandmaster Hon. David Henry 33rd (giving honor to his M.W. Grand Master Hon. Van A. Hibler 33rd) presented the Della Smith Queen Sheba Legacy Award to Wilma Smith Kiel. Grand High Priest Brandon Kiel 33rd, Deputy Grandmaster Kevin Briley 33rd, and Illustrious Assemblyman Mike Davis (ret.) 33rd, were also in attendance to present this award.

There is also reference to the VH Hibler Youth and Outreach Corporation, a non-profit organization incorporated in 2005 which appears to have been suspended by the California Secretary of State.  This may have resulted from not filing a Statement of Information listing officers and directors.

According to the Phylaxis Society, a Prince hall research organization

There are more African American Bogus Grand Lodges in the United States than there are Legitimate Grand Lodges around the World.

Not surprisingly there are quite a few in  California.  The specific Lodges the three people arrested claimed to have belonged to -- the Knights of Luxor Knights Templars Grand Lodge AASR (Henry, Kiel) and Lady Jewel of the Nile Grand Chapter (Hayes) -- are not on the list, but spokesmen for various recognized Prince Hall Grand Lodges contacted by the Guardian stated that the groups the individuals in question were unaffiliated with them.  Hayes also claimed to be a minister at L.A.'s Israel Missionary Baptist Church, but yet again, staffers there denied this when contacted.  Hibler was associated with the Prince of Peace Grand Lodge (here), and this site mentions him as a key figure in the Lodge and the president of the Youth and Outreach Corp.  Phylaxis specifically lists the Prince of Peace Lodge as clandestine, i.e., bogus.

So Henry appears to be a self-aggrandizing "Grand Master" of a clandestine Lodge, having been made a Mason in yet another clandestine Lodge, mentored by a man who despite appearing together in photographs as recent as last year, both as "Grand Masters", claims to have discouraged Henry from pursuing the creation of a new Lodge and Police Department.  But there's a lot more to this guy, if any of his claims are to be believed.  Judging from the articles we've read, he's certainly regarded as a community leader, at least in some communities and, unless it's all lies, seems to run in pretty diverse circles....

Given our recent post about our intention to write a piece about Freemasonry and the Illuminati in Hip-Hop, one video on his YouTube channel entitled ILLUMINATI GRANDMASTER HENRY X°, ICE T & SYNDICATE caught our eye.  I didn't see Henry but in a comment on that video he writes (it's always caps lock with this guy)

....YES I WAS A ORIGINAL MEMBER OF ICE T AND THE RHYME SYNDICATE I WAS WITH ICE T FROM 1983 TO 1991 MY NAME WAS (INKK) I'M THE SAME PERSON ON THE POWER ALBUM HIGH ROLLERS I'M THE YOUNG GUY STANDING NEXT TO THE DJ EVIL E ON THIS VIDEO ALSO ON HIGH ROLLERS I'M THE GUY IN THE RED SHIRT THAT ASK ICE ABOUT PEOPLE GETTING SHOT UP ON CRENSHAW!!! WE WERE ON THR DOPE JAM TOUR , PUBLIC ENEMY, EPMD, BIG DADDY KANE, N.W.A. , THE LIST GOES ON!!!

The photos page on his Google + profile do show him with a host of industry-looking types, so he may well have been involved in the game at one point.  This would be an interesting avenue to explore in my eventual post about Freemasonry and Hip-Hop.  It's actually not that far out an idea.  Masonry has always been popular among the police and the military (Prince Hall's entree into Freemasonry was via a military Lodge comprised of soldiers stationed in Boston), but it has also counted a number of entertainers among its ranks.  A large number of big stars have been members of the Craft since before the age of cinema.  Maybe this has something to do with why Masons are called "traveling men", either in the role of chicken or egg.

Henry does have bona fide entertainment creds, I think.  In 2002 he won a local Emmy for a story he produced entitled Info Thieves.  He was nominated again in 2005 for a segment called School Violence.  At least, a David Henry from L.A. was nominated.  Ya see, Henry?  Start spreading outlandish tales about who you are and people will even begin to question the true stuff.  If what he says is to be believed, he also designs some pretty badass Masonic bling.

Other photos on his profile are more relevant to this post, and shed some troubling light on Henry's purpose behind his police force.  Some have written him off as a deluded man with good intentions who did something incredibly stupid and naive.  Maybe all that is true.  He's clearly also a man with a need for power, recognition and obedience.

Here he is as Grandmaster with the text:  "Seek and Destroy all who broke their oath."  Other photos indicate he thinks he was at war with the hacker collective Anonymous, touting freedom, equality and justice.  But for whom, really?  Not oath-breakers.  One pictures wolves and says (caps lock always): "For Masons who forgot their obligation the Grandmaster the wolves are watching".  He's also pictured with Maxine Waters, Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown.

So who the hell is this guy?  He's (possibly) consorting with rappers and high-ranking politicians, collecting an Emmy, threatening apostates, recruiting an aide from the Attorney General's office, appearing with the L.A.P.D., at the inauguration of a street named after a local civil rights activist.  Is it all the same guy?  And if it is, does that make his Police Department, more, or less sinister?  A lot of Masonic imposters have been more or less ingenious and accomplished people, so it's not like this type of character is totally foreign to Masonic history.

There are some lessons to be learned from all this by Mason and non-Mason alike.  All this took me was a couple of hours of poking through the Internet, but most people aren't going to do that.  They'll just read the headline and assume that THE Masons are pulling some shenanigans yet again.  It also puts into sharp relief the reason why the mainstream Lodges have been cautious about recognition.  Years ago this was a convenient excuse, but the will just simply wasn't there to push very hard.  Now the Craft is changing; a few years ago the average age was 71.  That has since dropped to 65, which is still old, but it's expected to drop.  This article in the L.A. Times speaks about the resurgence in interest among younger people; one man interviewed will be the first black Worshipful Master in his Lodge's history.  As the average age of members decreases I think we'll see a more diverse group of men.  Prince Hall will still continue to attract its traditional membership but I also think we'll see more and more African-Americans in non-Prince Hall Lodges.

"Mainstream" Grand Lodges have been ignoring Prince Hall for over two centuries but that hasn't stopped the latter from flowering, working with an enviable ritual quality and serving their communities to the point that Masonry is held in higher esteem among African-American communities than among whites, where it has become seen by many as something of an atavistic joke, full of racist, doddering old men in goofy hats and tiny cars.  Perhaps it isn't a coincidence that since recognition has had some years under its belt, the Craft is starting to attract younger men as described in the L.A. Times article.  This may also be part of the resurgence in so-called Traditional Observance Lodges, which aspire to return to the contemplative and esoteric aspects of the craft, rejecting the "instant Mason" formula of one-day classes in favor of taking one's time, not foregoing the memory work and even requiring candidates to research and present aspects of the Craft before going on to the next degree.  There is also an emphasis on perfecting ritual and often Lodge is held as a black-tie affair, as in times past.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn that these last two items, ritual excellence and more formal attire, might be a reaction to visits to Prince Hall Lodges, where Mainstream masons learned a thing or two about how ritual should be done.  For the most part, we can at least say that now we're doing it together.

Working together fosters openness, which in the future can only benefit the Craft.  Think of Henry David on the podium behind an L.A.P.D. officer, representing Freemasonry.  Recognition will help the public distinguish between the legitimate and the clandestine, hopefully with the result that they will reject the spurious and self-appointed Grandmasters that for the moment, it seems, can easily delude the public.  If Henry and his crew hadn't gone the extra step of playing police officer, they might still be up there among the "community leaders" in pursuit of whatever goals they were trying to obtain.

Hip-Hop & Freemasonry: Example 1

If the way all those MCs hold their hands up like triangles is any indication, the Spirit of '76 -- Bavaria-style -- is alive in well in Hip-Hop.

In Freemasonry and Black Nationalism I touched (far too) briefly on Freemasonry in the Hip-Hop community.  I should have said a lot more, but I ran out of steam -- but not out of information.  It seems at quick glance that both pro- and anti-Masonic lyrics are fairly common in Hip-Hop, as are references to the the Illuminati.  Indeed, a whole genre of conspiracy theory has grown up around this subject and a Google or two will bring up scores of videos, articles and even books dedicated to the Illuminati's Hip-Hop hijinx.  A word or two is required to light up the shadows cast by these large-looming and wonky ashlars of bad information.  Or to put it another way, there are a lot of turds caught up in the slick green threads of the Internets!

If my memory serves me well, Public Enemy and X Clan referred to Masonry quite frequently, often echoing the teachings of Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam.  Quite a few groups had NOI affiliations to some degree or other.  The Five Percent Nation, an offshoot of the NOI with Masonic influences, was a huge influence on the development of Hip-Hop slang.  It's clear some MCs were drawing from a rather deep lyrical well when addressing the subject. 

On the other hand, it almost appears that in recent years dropping references to Masonry or the Illuminati has been a kind of fashion among MCs, perhaps as a way to enhance their mystique, or as another means of projecting power, much like references to firearms and symbols of physical prowess, sexual charisma, financial success and lyrical mastery.

I'm hoping perhaps LoS follower Burger Boy will help us out here!  He had this to say in response to a recent post

Jamaican DJ Vybz Kartel openly displays his Masonic affiliation, especially prior to his recent arrest on murder charges (in no way am I attempting to connect his Masonry with his arrest). He proudly displayed his Masonic ring on one of his most recent CD releases. Vybz is not what dancehall fans would call 'conscious' or 'Rasta.' He's more along the lines of guys like Bounty Killer or Ninja Man, in that they are 'slack' with their themes/lyrics.

The Wu Tang Clan was overtly 5%'er, as were groups like Poor Righteous Teachers. Wu Tang would wear you out with 5% proselytizing, and I've read that ODB was, suprisingly, the most adept at its teachings.

So whaddaya say, BB?  For that matter, it's an open call to anybody.

• Can you cite us any references to Masonry and/or the Illuminati in Hip-Hop lyrics?  I know a few, but I haven't really listened to Hip-Hop on a regular basis since the 90s.
• Do you know of any MCs or DJs who are Masons?  What about affiliations or sympathies with the Nation of Islam?? The 5 Percenters?

I'd like to tackle this one in a bit more depth, but I'll be fishing for leads for a while.  For the moment I'll just whet yer thirst with an example by Rick Ro$$, featuring Jay-Z, whose appearances last year in Five Percenter gear prompted a minor media hubbub....not to mention my own post.  This track appeared on Ro$$' album Teflon Don (2010), a critical and modest commercial success.

from Ro$$' Free Mason

Free Mason, freelancer, free agents, we faster
Big contracts, big contractors, built pyramids, period we masters
No caterpillars, it was just a lot of niggas
A lot of great thinkers and a lot of great inventors

I have nowhere near the breadth of knowledge necessary to do this topic full justice, so any advice or references are welcome.  I think my track will be to look at the origin of the conspiracy theory and its variations, a broad overview of lyrical references and finally, try to see if I can compile a reliable list of Masons in Hip-Hop.  But I'm open to suggestions and collaboration on this one.

Pies

January 23 was National Pie Day -- not to be confused with National Pi Day (March 14, natch) -- which gave me an opportunity to reflect on one of my favorite subjects: Pie.



And pied, too!



Some of my favorite Americans were great pie (tossing) devotes, including the Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, Jackie Gleason, Johnny Carson, Charlie Chaplin, Tyrone Slothrop, Bugs Bunny, Gilligan, the Beastie Boys, Lucille Ball, Dr. Strangelove....

What a strong endorsement! But what, after all, could be more American than apple pie, hotdogs, and mom? (Although we might reconsider the wieners, what with all of the hot dog eating contest controversies -- it's enough to make the Black Sox look clean!) Furthermore, what goes better together than pie and tea? And what's more American these days than considerations of tea?

You think, perhaps, that this is a joke. "Why pie," asks the regular reader of LoS? Consider, however, that the Catholic's Lord's body is baked dough, the very staff of life, as we've previously reported. Consider, too, that the Montpelier Argus and Patriot once wrote that:

Mince pie, like Masonry, arouses curiosity from the mystery attaching to it. Its popularity shall never wane until faith is lost in sight.

So let's step back a bit, peek under the crust, and dig into the pie ... er, rather, dig into the history of the pie.

As far as I can tell (using my google-fu & a bit of guess work), Egyptians are credited with inventing pie, but this accreditation appears to simply stem from their invention (again, as far as I can tell) of a flaky baked crust that they layered with honey -- more like a pastry, I expect, than a pie. The notion spread from the Egyptians to the Greeks to the Roman to Europe at large, where the pie slowly evolved into a method for preserving meats (i.e., meats were spiced, sugared, and encrusted to prevent the growth of bacteria).

I would imagine that the expansion from a pastry-like product was slow going. Consider that Greek spinach pie is--let's face it--not pie at all. It's probably, I would guess, the Romans who really created the first dishes that we might recognize as the modern pie. (Wikipedia disagrees.)

But Rome fell and the Dark Ages descended upon the pie.

Of course they say that the Dark Ages are only dark because we've failed to shine a light upon them. Did the pie survive this age of great European migrations because pie made meat portable? Did local varieties emerge and and take root when Rome fell? We lack, it appears, the historical documents (like "Ye Dark Ages Cookbook") to know.

At any rate, once kingdoms were formed, the wealth and security of nations allowed the pie to flourish. It seems, in fact, that pie creativity may have pinnacled in the 1500s. Cookbooks from the time feature (or so my google-fu tells me) meat pies of all sorts, from turtle to peacock, with bird legs often extruding the crust to form convenient handles. Fruits first entered the fillings around this time, and, incredibly, even living things were encrusted:

Sing a song of sixpence,
A pocket full of rye.
Four and twenty blackbirds,
Baked in a pie.

When the pie was opened,
The birds began to sing;
Wasn't that a dainty dish,
To set before the king?

This isn't just some make believe tune. Kings had large pocket books and major entertainment needs; their chefs soon had all sorts of living things bursting forth from of pies, from song birds, to human dwarfs, to jugglers who emerged a-juggling.

But if the pie's creative zenith resulted from exorbitant wealth and kingly boredom, it declined with the emergence of democracies and the settlements of frontiers.

America, in fact, took the pie for its own. Someone once asked Answers.com "Did ben franklin like pie?"; the "favorited" answer (provided by Cheese445532) was "yep, if he was normal in that regard".

But to turn to more authoritative sources, there's a great article entitled "The Real American Pie" that I hope you'll read. I've stuck a lot of links into this post, but if you read just one, this should be it. (And if you read two, well, this history of the pie is pretty damn good, too.)

In "The Real American Pie", Cliff Doerksen spins a wonderful yarn of the pie's evolution in America, which I'll try to butcher down into one or two bloody paragraphs. Pie was, for this frontier land, a return to the pie as preserved meat. Mince meat was the pie of the day -- the pie of America, in fact. It was apparently reviled on the one hand as a papist abomination that caused murder-inducing nightmares if not outright death; it was proclaimed as a Darwinian winnowing agent of weak genetic lines on the American frontier and was decried by abolitionists thanks to its alcohol level that was closer to brandy than beer.

On the other hand, it was widely popular. Doerksen seems to consider it the cheeseburger of its day.

Until, Doerksen reports, it was mysteriously supplanted by apple pie, all of sudden-like in the 40s.

Doerksen illuminates, struggles, and leaves us with this paradox of the pie, both hated and loved, popular yet vanishing; we shall, however, forge ahead into contemporary times, well aware of the irony that the past that is closest is murkiest.

Of today we can say safely, at least, that mince meat is a watered-down dish, safe for children and vegetarians, and consumed almost chiefly on Thanksgiving and Christmas (and, hopefully, National Pie Day and National Pi Day, too). It's been replaced by apple pie in popular American culture, where, since the 40s, apple pie has reigned as the American dish; today it feels only natural to declare apple pie so, for we assume it is linked straight back to Johnny Appleseed, a great American mythos, right up there with my home-state's hero, Acrefoot Johnson.

But how appropriate that, as Doerksen exposed, our national pie changed in the 40s -- for the world was a-changin' to.

Here, my friends, I am afraid that I begin to struggle as a writer, finding it difficult to present the Truth within the Narrative -- at least without bending the Truth. I suspect that if you want to challenge me on the Truth of this post, you will challenge the veracity of the next few paragraphs as I try to trace the national mood of the United States through its use of the pie.

But I will try.

Or at least I would like to try. I would like, for example, to describe the thrown pie's arc in terms of the US' transition from the patriot zeal of the World Wars, to the growing distrust of the 60s, and on to the violence of contemporary terrorism. I would like to see "American as apple pie" as a concept in motion, a symbol that evolves over time as revolutionaries grapple for control of the nation. Consider the great prank of "The Pieman" splatting NY's mayor with apple crumb because he's a crumby mayor of the Big Apple: Does this not represent the pie wrestled from its status as a symbol of stolidness and patriotism only to be flung back at the power elite?

Were the elite not brought down to earth, reduced to clowns, just as the pie itself is reduced to clownery?

And from these prankish beginnings, these counter-cultural flings, can we further describe the changing national character by showing pie tossers moving from coconut cream fillings (a tasty prank for the pied) to bitter shaving cream and on to the Al Pieda who were ready to kill ideas with pie?

And if the apple pie is America, might we then trace the trajectory of the nation in the arc described by the tossed pie?

Or may we at least pie chart the national mood?



No. I think I've stretched the truth too far to fit my yearning for a narrative. Pie tossings have, I do truly think, moved from merriment, to prank-ish protests, to acts of anger. But I have no proof that their fillings graduated from coconut cream to shaving cream for the purpose of spite; likewise, it's patronizing to imagine that the counter-cultural movements of the 60s and 70s were pranks, and it's dishonest to suggest that terrorism is something new.

But would it be too much for me to misquote Pynchon's opening line in that great American novel, Mason & Dixon, in order to suggest that the pies have flown their Arcs and starr'd our national character? Is it too much to suggest that as pie attacks and our culture have moved toward more extremes, it behooves our national leaders to duck quickly as the public's arsenal moves to ever less tasty tossings?



Ahh, well. Yesterday's pies might always be the best. In times like these, one might do well to remember the immortal words of Jonathon Swift:

Promises and pie-crusts are meant to be broken.

We admit it: We love a good prank, for we imagine that it betters society.

In the good words of Daurade:

Better to throw pies than to pull triggers.