What do you think?
Rate this book
The Red Triangle: A History of Anti-Masonry
For at least two hundred years, Freemasonry has been subjected to witch-hunts. Conspiracy theories abound in which Freemasons manipulate whole governments, incite revolution, control the world banking system, and will engage in any activity, even murder, to advance their aims. Even today, Freemasonry is still seen a legitimate group to attack on the grounds of politics, religion and conspiracy theories. The Red Triangle uncovers the reality of this persecution of Freemasons from its first manifestation soon after people became aware of their existence in the seventeenth century. Attacks and persecution took place in many countries as Freemasonry spread around the world—there was even an anti-Masonic political party in nineteenth-century America that stood against Masonic politicians. In complete contrast, Freemasonry and the American Civil War provides a fascinating inside view of the ethos of Freemasons in extreme, life-threatening, situations when Freemasons offered assistance to their fellow Freemasons on opposite sides during the war.
311 pages, Hardcover
First published October 14, 2010
4 people are currently reading
86 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 11, 2012
I really enjoyed reading this book. Cooper's examination of Masonophobia (his term for Anti-Masonry) brought to light some fascinating and disturbing facts. For example, Adolf Eichmann identified and cataloged information on Freemasons and their organizations before he was called away to deal with the so-called "Jewish problem." The author also gives evidence that the Germans specifically hunted down and murdered Masons in the same systematic manner as they did with the Jews. The Red Triangle from the title refers to the Nazi concentration camp badge used to identify Freemasons and other political enemies. The author also reports on modern Masonophobia in Scotland, where ignorant people recently demanded that the government require employees to register as Freemasons. It concludes with an analysis of Masonophobia and its causes. Highly recommended.
I wonder if anyone has written about Masonophobia in America? That sounds like a good read.
I wonder if anyone has written about Masonophobia in America? That sounds like a good read.
October 2, 2023
A good book. The first half is fantastic with a wonderful history of anti-masonic thought in the 20th century, however, the second half is very repetitive and pandering. It also feels quite outdated. Worth a read though.
December 31, 2024
A relentlessly meandering history, which I believe the author acknowledges. Surprisingly well written, despite the extremely narrow focus, obscenely ponderous musings, and long-winded journalistic case-studies. The author's precise voice, and clear intellect, had the unlikely effect of allowing me to finish the work.
There is much here worthy of further research. The case of Freemasons in World War II is an unwritten book. The opening, which charts the rise of Masonry in Scotland, is one of the single best histories of early Freemasonry I have ever read.
However, near the end things start to fizzle out. Anyone who actually takes the time to carefully read this work will find the author begins to repeat himself. Near the end I swear we were just going in circles. Easily, 100-200 pages could have been entirely cut out, and likely should have been. I also found it very strange that the author kept repeating that Freemasons could not talk about politics, so that he could not write about politics or state any of his opinions as such. He may be a Freemason, but we are not at a Masonic meeting, surely he can just write his own opinions and findings without being locked into some identity as a Mason? This was mentioned at least 5 or more times throughout the work, as a Mason I cannot comment on A or B..etc. Very strange to me. It was almost like he was writing through the character of someone at a Masonic meeting, not as an actual person with his own views and opinions.
Finally, I generally disagree with his main thesis that asking Freemasons to declare themselves as such in politics is discrimination. The author seems so confused by the concept that in politics or law, it could be against the public's best interest, if people with a great deal of power are organizing under the table to have conversations and meet-up. The author made similar arguments against this, saying well it's no different to those who go to church, or go to a book club. However, it’s totally different, because anyone can join a public book-club or church, and no one ever tries to hide the fact, they would in fact be happy to announce it and ask others to join them. If the book-club or church was shrouded in secrecy, only took certain members and asked them to pay a “book club fee”, and then refused to even admit that they were members, or even outline what happens behind those walls, then people would start to ask questions.
The author would argue that this infringes on freedom of association. That members of the public have every right to join organizations, and they don’t need to disclose that, which is true. However, no one ever argued that every member of the public should have to disclose their Masonic allegiance, that would be a massive violation. The ones in question are public officials, police officers, politicians, and government servants, who signed oaths to uphold the public good. Membership in Masonry directly impacts their duties, and threatens this oath. They are public officials and we don't know what they are discussing in these meetings, which often include other local officials. The author is broadening the argument, and entirely neglecting the fact that it centers around public officials, not the general population. Likely, because he realized Freemasonry disproportionately includes public officials as members, which would undermine his thesis.
In summary, either the author was being purposefully obtuse to make a point, or he is really so blinded by the dogma of Masonry that he can’t see the public's perspective, instead he only views himself and his institution as attacked. Maybe if he spent more time writing as an individual, and less time writing as a “Mason”, he would be able to think through these logical flaws.
There is much here worthy of further research. The case of Freemasons in World War II is an unwritten book. The opening, which charts the rise of Masonry in Scotland, is one of the single best histories of early Freemasonry I have ever read.
However, near the end things start to fizzle out. Anyone who actually takes the time to carefully read this work will find the author begins to repeat himself. Near the end I swear we were just going in circles. Easily, 100-200 pages could have been entirely cut out, and likely should have been. I also found it very strange that the author kept repeating that Freemasons could not talk about politics, so that he could not write about politics or state any of his opinions as such. He may be a Freemason, but we are not at a Masonic meeting, surely he can just write his own opinions and findings without being locked into some identity as a Mason? This was mentioned at least 5 or more times throughout the work, as a Mason I cannot comment on A or B..etc. Very strange to me. It was almost like he was writing through the character of someone at a Masonic meeting, not as an actual person with his own views and opinions.
Finally, I generally disagree with his main thesis that asking Freemasons to declare themselves as such in politics is discrimination. The author seems so confused by the concept that in politics or law, it could be against the public's best interest, if people with a great deal of power are organizing under the table to have conversations and meet-up. The author made similar arguments against this, saying well it's no different to those who go to church, or go to a book club. However, it’s totally different, because anyone can join a public book-club or church, and no one ever tries to hide the fact, they would in fact be happy to announce it and ask others to join them. If the book-club or church was shrouded in secrecy, only took certain members and asked them to pay a “book club fee”, and then refused to even admit that they were members, or even outline what happens behind those walls, then people would start to ask questions.
The author would argue that this infringes on freedom of association. That members of the public have every right to join organizations, and they don’t need to disclose that, which is true. However, no one ever argued that every member of the public should have to disclose their Masonic allegiance, that would be a massive violation. The ones in question are public officials, police officers, politicians, and government servants, who signed oaths to uphold the public good. Membership in Masonry directly impacts their duties, and threatens this oath. They are public officials and we don't know what they are discussing in these meetings, which often include other local officials. The author is broadening the argument, and entirely neglecting the fact that it centers around public officials, not the general population. Likely, because he realized Freemasonry disproportionately includes public officials as members, which would undermine his thesis.
In summary, either the author was being purposefully obtuse to make a point, or he is really so blinded by the dogma of Masonry that he can’t see the public's perspective, instead he only views himself and his institution as attacked. Maybe if he spent more time writing as an individual, and less time writing as a “Mason”, he would be able to think through these logical flaws.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews