I am not the biggest fan of Freemasonry, but this is complete nonsense. I did research on this years back, most of these claims are completely nonsensical.
1. Albert Pike and his book represented only the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. He wasn't the Pope of Freemasonry and Morals and Dogmas wasn't the bible. When he wrote his book, the Southern Scottish Rite made up 5% of all Freemasons.
Furthermore, his claims of Gnosticism are wildly misinterpreted, for one thing he never actually praises gnosticism. His work, which is a dense and hard to read monstrosity, is him positively (As in the chair is made of wood, the sky is blue) not normatively stating parallels he observed in Freemasonic rituals to all various different belief systems whether he actually agreed with any given one or not because he was a massive perennialist. If you sift through his works beyond the surface it becomes clear he actually wasn't a fan of the Gnosticism however. He says Masonry merely separates the wheat from the chaff of all these philosophy, and ends up rejecting the "wild and baseless claims of Gnosticism."
Not that his word matters. Aside for his geographical insignificance of influencing 5% of Freemasons, René Guénon noted that Pike basically plagiarized all of his observances from Éliphas Lévi’s Transcendental Magic. Éliphas Lévi was an occultist weirdo and definitely a gnostic, but also knew jack shit about anything and was writing historical fanfiction of esotericism. He was called out for that by people like A.E Waite. So Pike was basing all of his observances and claims of Masonry's esotericism off a con artist. His opinion is basically useless beyond the authority he had within his specific jurisdiction, which doesn't even use Morals and Dogma anymore.
2. Morgan was a known scumbag hated by the whole town even before he got into the Masonic business where he only "exposed them" because he was a constant deadbeat never paying his debts and only getting into shadier business. His disappearance is iffy and I wouldn't be surprised if he pissed off enough people and just got lynched (Potentially by Masons who got sick of his bs), however Morgan's bluster and his actual expose don't reveal much beyond him being a deadbeat. Also, as much as I hate to admit it, Freemasons literally founded most of America. Like half of the signers of the constitution were Freemasons or had ties to it. The Boston Tea Party was organized within the Boston Lodge.
3. The Illuminati was started by Adam Weishaupt because he got pissy that the Catholic Church actually had rules and expectations for him and threw the chess board and decided he wanted to overthrow Europe. He infiltrated Freemasonry thinking that's what they'll do, found out they weren't so radical, and orchestrated his own schismatic great lodge using an intellectual named Adolph Knigge to come up with bogus degrees to give the Illuminati historical legitimacy, and when it was revealed to most of its members he was just a psychopathic manchild who wanted to overthrow European tradition, it collapsed into infighting. Freemasonry has never defended or praised the Illuminati, and actually despises them. George Washington, a Freemason, has a whole letter to his priest about how the Illuminati is a legitimate threat that Americans have to look out for.
An actual criticism of Freemasonry goes like this: They are a fraternity heavily influenced by the Rosicrucians. There is a poem from the 17th century where Rosicrucians literally brag that Freemasonry is under their wing. The Rosicrucians were Lutherans (With Hermetic and Cabbalistic tendencies, but this isn't some weird outlier, a lot of renaissance and early modern Christian thinkers believed Hermeticism and Cabbala had secret knowledge that could aid Christian mysticism) were heavily inspired by Ioachim of Fiore. Ioachim of Fiore is considered the beginning of Postmillenial thought, the belief that the world can be perfected and brought to salvation through human means. This creates a tendency in Freemasonry for utopian thinking. Sometimes it's tempered like with the American revolution where they were more pragmatic and more bounded by Christian values because Anglo-American Freemasonry still had a religious requirement, but continental Freemasonry abandoned this requirement and became unmoored and had more dangerous beliefs as a result such as Illuminism. However Christian or not, Postmillenialist has always been a dangerous and subversive theological idea (The first communist state was Munster, ran by postmillenial ananbaptists who speedran the communist tyranny timeline) due to its utopian thinking. I also would not be surprised if the postmillenialist outlook of Freemasonry explains why they supported the Progressive movement. Murray Rothbard has a whole book on the progressive movement was a coalition between postmillenialist pietists and business owners who wanted to raise the barriers of entry for business to keep their monopolies. Freemasons supported many of the insurance and certificate of need legislation during the Progressive Era which hurt fraternities, which makes me believe Freemasons behaved the same way as the businessmen in using the progressive movement to crush competition and remain the only surviving fraternity.
