>>7830223 (PB)

Hardly a masons, would never take an oath of secrecy.

>>7830266 (PB)

Agreed, secret societies are dangerous, if for no other reason that you never know if the top has been captured by people who may not have your or your communities best interests at heart.

Bill was a great researcher, his conclusions often did not follow logic, at least in what he wrote or said. He told everyone to think for themselves, which is indeed what a democracy depends on, but he never explained how his belief in the constitution held up after he pointed out that the majority of the founders where masons and as such, people he would not trust. His disdain for the 'great work' seemed shallow, saying it was problematic because of all the flaws of the people associated with it but then touting one of its achievements one of his core beliefs. He lumped big groups of people and thinking together, dismissing them because of obvious flaws in their systems or thinking, but ignored that by that logic the basis for his own thinking would also be dismissed.

He hated some grouping of people, but embarrassed others that supported his theories.

No doubt he was a great patriot and he was the first to admit his own flaws, cautioning others against putting him up on a pedestal. I very much appreciate the path he trod, exposing that which was hidden. But he was flawed and in my humble opinion (as someone who has not accomplished nearly as much as he did bringing the truth to light) that he had the makings of the fire that burns it all to the ground, but not much in the way of something that would realistically replace it. How is that different than the archetype he so diligently exposed of the consuming fire, leaving the phoenix to rise from the ashes?