Someone suggested going through the list and commenting on their disagreements, so I will do that.
1. Using Jehovah instead of Yahweh. The Catholics and Most Protestant religions use the term less than the JWs, but almost always when they do they use the word Jehovah. So this similiarity between the Witnesses and Masons is meaningless.
2. Do not teach that teach that Jesus was the mediator. This is not true Russell taught that he was the mediator.
3. Teach that "the church is a mysterious secred body" This is a stretch. I don't see this in Russell's ideas.
4. Teach that the church is like a pyramid. Quite the contrary, Russell put very little emphasis on organization, the local eclsias had a great deal of autonomy
5. That they both had another Bible: what was Russell's other Bible. I don't see this at all.
6. "Christian scholars don't understand the Bible" This is a truism of all scholars of many other Christian religions when they veiw the scholars of other denominations. This is not unique to Russell or the Masons.
7. Both will lie under oath: So will members of almost any organization if their organization or its members are threatened. Again, this is not unique.
8. Many ranks in the organization. This was not true in Russell's day. It was a fairly small, warm group, with a flat organizational structure.
9. Both have secret oaths: Russell didn't have secret oaths.
10. Give high ranking to Abraham and Melchizideck: so did the apostle Paul.
11. "fail to understand the atonement": Not true, Russell fully understood it.
11. Catholics as Babylon the Great: Russell taught that all churches made up Babylon the Great not just the Catholics. However, he was much more tolerant than later Witness leaders. He believed you could be in any church and still be in the true church, Christ's church".
As Gray Wolf wrote, I don't think that the autor knew much about JWs, especially Russell.