T Nation

Was George Washington Gay?


"Albert Pike was Sovereign Grand Commander of the (Masonic) Scottish Rite's Southern Jurisdiction from 1859-1891. He published a book called Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in 1871, of which there were several subsequent editions. Citations from Pike's magnum opus will be featured here.

Like other esoteric groups and some fraternities, the Masons have secret doctrines and initiations. Now, as Pike mysteriously put it, Freemasonry "conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it, or would pervert it."1

He states that an initiate "commemorates in sacramental observance this mysterious passion; and while partaking of the raw flesh of the victim, seems to be invigorated by a fresh draught from the fountain of universal life....Hence the significance of the phallus."7 As is his wont, Pike does not explain these words. For example, he does not spell out what he means by "this mysterious passion." But elsewhere in the book he twice notes that phallic worship is a part of their "Ancient Mysteries."8

Not only does homosexual sex apparently play a role in Masonry, but homosexual orgies evidently do too."


So if Masons do this gay stuff and Washington was a Mason...

Note: Of course, Pike is writing later, but would the gaydom have already existed?


Who seriously cares?


So, I suppose, using similar outstandingly intellectual logic, all the Eastern Star are quite likely lesbians. And would presumably have lesbian rituals.

Which is one of those thoughts one wishes hadn't occurred, as while attractive lesbians are one thing, the only women I've ever seen that I knew were Eastern Star were hideous hags.

And as for lesbian rituals with hideous hags, that just isn't right.


Shhh...I'm trying to bait Forlife into another discussion. :wink:

The reason I'm interested is because Lincoln is condemned as gay, yet he had 4 children and the officer he was supposedly gay with had 9 kids. Yet GW had none.

The Founding Fathers are interesting and I'd like to understand why they did what they did. Why, for example, didn't they forbid the use of anything but gold and silver as money? Why didn't they put a proviso in the Constitution that any state may leave the Union, if it so desires? Why didn't they permanently eliminate the curse of taxes and make government dependent on user fees?

If the 'inner' person can be understood, then maybe I can answer those questions.


So are you thinking, Washington was going to propose these things, but kept getting distracted by thinking "Stick it in his pooper" ?

A noble theory, to be sure.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Great thread HH. A classic.


Only 8 total posts and already at classic status. That must be a record.


What's going on here?


A revolutionary FAIL.


Because Hamilton's greatest fail(and it pains me to say since I've been accused of being a one-man Hamilton defamation league) was that he was a proto-Keynsian. And despite what anyone says, I consider the Constitution more Hamilton's baby than Madison's.

This also answers the previous question in part as well. Many of the problems came from the fact that The Constitution was drafted rather quickly, particularly when you place it against how long it took them to write the AoC.

Jefferson was off nailing French chicks and was pretty much inconsequential in the Constitution despite being the leading voice of anti-federalist thought. Combine that with the fact that other leading anti-federalists like Patrick Henry refused to take part in the drafting of the Constitution because they were charged only with amending the AoC.



The opening post alone. Perhaps our humor is too different I fear.


This is what's known as revisionist history. You see, there are more historians in universities today who need to write a doctorial thesis etc, than there are new discoveries. Pretty much every piece of evidence from every age and culture has been throughly examined and written about. History has been exhausted. There is nothing new to talk about. We are in the age where people just make up random shit on the flimsiest of evidence, just so they'll have something new and different to talk about.


That's a very fair critique. Any idea how we could fix that?



Never change Headhunter. T-Nation wouldn't be the same without ya!


Not really. We'd have to shut down most of the bullshit higher education industry in this country. Not only do most of the kids in college not need a college education, most are functionally illiterate and shouldn't have graduated highschool. I'm not talking about affirmative action cases, I'm talking about white upper middle class kids from the suburbs who write like they flunked out of kindergarten. Aside from elite fields like law, medicine, engineering, etc. most would do better with apprenticeships. For example, look at most of the teleprompter readers on the evening news. The only thing they learned in college was how to shotgun a beer and use a plan-b contraceptive. They would have learned far more from a year interning full time at a local station, going out with reporters and camera crews into the field, helping to edit stories. And this internship could have been done in highschool, instead of having a bunch of spanish and geometry shoved down their throats that they forgot within weeks of graduation. But there's too much money to be extracted from the middle class with book costs, student loans, etc.

So to do away with revisionist history, you'd have to shut down 90% of the universities, which are superfluous anyway, which would thin out the number of history professors in this world, and that would reduce the pressure to make up new shit. Or you can just about ignore everything that's been written in the last 50 years, which doesn't draw very heavily from what I guess you could consider the established dogma.

I guess part of the problem is that history is treated as a science, but it's not, it's a narrative. In science, you run experiments to test a theory. The best you can do in the study of history is check the archeological record to see if it matches the narrative. But all this tells us is whether or not something happened where people say it happened. It doesn't tell you whether or not it could have happened somewhere else. You can also run carbon dating to see if an artifact is as old as it should be. But all of that has been done pretty thoroughly in the last 100 years.

The problem with treating history as a science is, In science, if you can find one exception to the rule, the rule is no longer valid, and has to be re-shaped to fit the exception or thrown out entirely to make a new rule. And a lot of these revisionist historians build their entire case on a single new straw, as if anytime you find a new letter, or artifact that doesn't fit, you can just throw everything else out. If someone found a 200 year old letter in Vienna by someone who claimed to have had gay sex with Mozart, suddenly Barnes and Noble's is flooded with books about how Mozart was a closet case. But history doesn't work like that. It's like reviewing a play in football, you have to have overwhelming evidence to override to ruling on the field. If you find one letter, or ten letters it means nothing. They could have been written by a crack pot, or a pathological liar. But some fool will try to make a buck off it, because everybody wants to be published, and he'll probably get published, because it's new and interesting and different.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Yes and no. I think Madison was at least equally responsible for the constitution (he did co-author the federalist papers). Hamilton ended up having a much larger impact on itsâ?? interpretation. Hamilton, by virtue of being in power in the federal government first, set the precedence for executive use of power.

Jefferson was a flip flopper. He wasnâ??t so anti-federalist until later on. Jefferson is one of the guys that the more I learn about him the more I donâ??t like him. He was against the slavery (a federalist position), but lived off the back of slaves. He even tried to put the slave trade in the list of grievances in the DOE. He was politically hard to challenge because he never took a firm stance. He was against the Hamilton interpretation of â??necessary and properâ??, but expanded executive power with the Louisiana purchase. Really in the likes of Hamilton, Madison, Adams, est. Jefferson was just an eloquent pen. IMHO.


I don't think Jefferson was a flip-flopper so much as he was a hippocrite. He was another guy (like Teddy Roosevelt) who go in my book as a great man, but a shitty president. Despite the man's failings, he continues on as one of my personal heroes.



He lived as a rich aristocrat and left his family deeply in debt. Not my kind of personal hero.