Has anyone ever met anyone who was a member of the illuminati or other society?

The Spanish killed off most 60% of all the indians that were killed over the 400 years since the arrival of colonies from Europe. Posted by hammerite, et al

Incorrect. European diseases carried by all Europeans by far took the highest toll on Native American life. Spaniards enslaved the Indians, the French traded with them. The english (and decendants) slaughtered them.

As far as whether or not my father was immoral in some way, and your denial of any form of racism in the masons, I find your point of view to be rather suspect considering that you have been known to characterize minorities as "'n-word's" and women as "whores" on more than a few occassions.

On the other hand, if that is the common moral ground for the lodge, I can see why my father would walk out.

Dragonrider when it came to diseases the Spanish openly were glad to give it to the Indians.

Gosh DAMN I'll have to go to a Lodge Brother and ask him the name of the movie.

It was a foriegn film an EXCELLENT foriegn film.

It's about a Spanish soldier, who runs around the south americas killing indians for a living...like a mercinary, paid by the head.

A priest of the church, meets up with him, and eventually teaches him that his life style is an afront to god, and that he should make up for his sins, and stop killing the natives, who must be taught Jesus.

But shortly after his "conversion" the Spanish order a decree to kill all Indians, and basically the story goes from there.

I do believe the film was made by a latin american country, but you can't quote me on that.

Your little "Americans are all bad killing indians and such" is a bit off the mark, the Spanish did a LOT worse.

You should really see that movie, very touching and moving.

And yes I'll outright deny racism yet again...if Freemasonry were racist, please explain the non-whites in my lodge.

After all Freemasonry while there may be different degree work and customs dealing with opening lodge and formal stuff, doesn't vary much in the way of beliefs and ideals.

Originally posted by TheWanderer
LoL mikromarius, you think the Vikings left because they didn't want to "hurt" indians, is that it?

No. If you read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I simply said that they left in order not to destroy the peace. After all the rest of Europe trembled when they heared the lur and saw the longships come out of the fog, it was not like they didn't know how to fight. The vikings were better warriors than the Brittish, only the vikings had no interrest in land. The old vikings were traders, and when business went bad, they left. And some prospecters went off and luted England for fun and supplies in tough times.

I sense much hostility in you, padawan. Hrrrm ja. Unless you have been instructed to carry the tone you do, please stop it. You gain nothing through hatred and rediculing. Looks like you have had your passport tagged quite good. Watch your tone if you want to continue to discuss these things here.

You are obviously very confused, in several ways.

My doctors and psychiatrists have all said that. They have all either become sick or have quit their jobs without notice. Not that I know why....

First off you think America is the only other to have commited an act such as killing Native Americans?

Guess how many Indians the British killed in India, then you'll see who was doing the Genocide.

Are you trying to justify genocide? Is it OK to crucify someone since someone else cut someone's head off before? Sic.

Lastly, the Vikings didn't go "oh sorry indians, we didn't mean to step on your sacred earth".

No, they traded sour milk with grapes? hehe. Too bad they didn't bring booze and glass pearls ha?

BTW. Have you ever seen children of mixed Scandinavian - Phillipene marriages? They look like Geronimo's children...

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Freemason,

The movie you mention was called "The Mission", it starred Robert DeNiro in one of his first parts. They were NOT Spaniards, but Portuguese. It was made, and set in Brazil.

Also DO NOT try to say that syphillis, ect, was specific to the spaniards, that is a lie.

Besides, are you saying there were no spanish masons?

[Edited on 4-6-2003 by dragonrider]

Uh miko whatever your name is, haven't you ever heard of the Dane Law? Vikings coquered half of England and stayed...though they did eventually lose power.

They also conquered the land of the Bulgars, now russian held territory.

They simply didn't conquere the Church held lands of mainland Europe, remember at this time England is still intertwined with Paganism, which wouldn't be more or less stomped out until the 1600s and indeed it still technically has not been stomped out in the great brittain as a whole.

Now Dragonrider, I can't think of where I ever called a woman a whore, unless she was one (if sleeping around with multiple sex partners without getting to know them well isn't a whore then what is oh wise one).

As for my calling people 'n-word's?

No I only use that term when someone else is being racist towards whites, to remind them that calling names will get them no where because we all have names for eachother, and it just leads to hate.

Again I'm sorry you are so blind with rage that you are becoming thick headed and can't read or understand well.


[Edited on 4-6-2003 by TheWanderer]

Dragonrider it is safe to say that in the 1500s and 1600s there were no Spanish Freemasons.

The Spaniards were very good at something called the "Inquisitions" and despised the Knights Templar, and the Freemasons at that time were directly influenced by the Templars.

No, the evil attrocities done by the spaniards in their time of conquest was all a result of themselves and the catholic church.

But if you want a Freemason who killed indians, try George Washington.

Tired of the killing of innocent farmers in the fringe lands of the fledgling nation at war with brittain, by the Iroqois indians, George Washington burnded down 48 of their 50 villages, to prevent them from continuing their slaughter.

Needless to say, the Iroqois never bothered the US ever again.

Now Dragonrider, I can't think of where I ever called a woman a whore, unless she was one (if sleeping around with multiple sex partners without getting to know them well isn't a whore then what is oh wise one). Posted by freemason

I guess you have a short memory.... Remember, in one of your previous incarnations, discussing sex in the book 1984 by George Orwell? Every female in the book was labeled (by you) as a whore.

I seem to remember the same during the first women in combat thread.

As I mentioned, The Mission was about the Portuguese, not the Spanish. However, that was NOTHING compared to what the British did. The movie was oppotunistic as it was set in South America, where the Brits had only limited dealings.

Uh no dragonrider, there you go again your head empty of memory. I remember 1984 well and I said that all the "ANTI-SEX LEAGUE" girls were whores.

Remember how they were sworn to not have sex, but where pilfered willingly (she admitted it remember?) by the inner party.

But this isn't a place to discuss that, however it's a shame you seem to make up your own history as we go along...what's next, I said that your dad smelt of elderberries?

*EDIT* Also are you forgetting that it was the Spanish, not the Portuguese who killed MILLIONS in slavery, through the harsh treatment.

Why do you think the spanish started bringing over Blacks to the new world? Because they ran out of Indians to enslave.

God learn history PLEASE!!!

You may be good with Geology but damn you don't know crap about history.

[Edited on 4-6-2003 by TheWanderer]

Originally posted by TheWanderer
Uh miko whatever your name is, haven't you ever heard of the Dane Law? Vikings coquered half of England and stayed...though they did eventually lose power.

They also conquered the land of the Bulgars, now russian held territory.

They simply didn't conquere the Church held lands of mainland Europe, remember at this time England is still intertwined with Paganism, which wouldn't be more or less stomped out until the 1600s and indeed it still technically has not been stomped out in the great brittain as a whole.

Was I speeking of the Danish and the Swedes? And don't come with that old Stamford Bridge story Why should they conquer when they could trade? Ever heared about an area in France called Normandie? France would go for a Church held country now wouldn't it, with the Holy Roman Emperorship on their shoulders?

And as a reply to your stuff about the masons being such tollerant people, that racism isn't found there: To say that each and every lodge rule by the exact same rightiousness, is to say that every church reads the bible in the exact same way. Just the thing that you dismiss a legitimate concern about the lodge and racism the way you do, leaves me wondering whether or not the ATS community is the right place for you. Perhaps you should try a little more humble approach next time.

May God bless you,
Mikromarius

I've never seen the like of such advocacy of genocide and ethnic cleansing. To justify horrible crimes like such Brittish settlers commited in North America by simply saying the Spanish were worse in South America, well even I can smell the rat here. With such moral and ethic standards I find it no wonder people speculate over the credibility of the Lodge as to whether it is the rightious system they claim it to be. You have hurt your order and your brothers greatly here, in my opinion. You have done nothing but confirming a distorted image many people have of the lodge. I see no purpose in continuing this discussion unless you are willing to rethink your strategy.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 4-6-2003 by mikromarius]

First off, if you could find evidence of racism in Freemasonry I'd be happy to say that there is some here or there, but I've yet seen racism as a standard in any lodge.

Now, as for the Norse not conquering lands, they conquered lands.

Obviously by you bringing the Danes into this you don't understand that Dane Law was NORDIC, technically Danemark is nordic too, and German is getting far away from it since in the early 100AD they were split by the Romans and influenced by outsiders.

But anyways, in final I don't advocate Genocide.

What I hate is people who go "oooo those naughty americans killed all those indians".

Yah so did the spanish so did the British, and the british have far more skeletons in their closet in India, which is why I find it most ironic when brits and spaniards and french men call Americans the first "hitler".

No, the Romans practiced genocide to a degree, so did many civilizations.

I don't like labeling because history is full of stuffs, and so when people pass it on to one thing like America or Masonry, I just list off the countless others who have partook in it, including the ethnicity of the person spouting the labels.

Dragonrider doesn't seem to pay a note to the fact that the Indians were far more brutal than the white man ever could be, long before white man came, which is probably why white man saw the value in paying indians for scalps of those they wanted killed.

Dragonrider doesn't seem to pay a note to the fact that the Indians were far more brutal than the white man ever could be, long before white man came, which is probably why white man saw the value in paying indians for scalps of those they wanted killed. Posted by freemason

You are regurgitating old stereotypes with no backing. Produce evidence to this, or admit you dont know what the hell you are talking about.

"The successors of Pius XII approved the Code of Canon Law of 1917 which explicitly condemned the Masons: "All those who enroll their names in the sect of Freemasons or similar associations which plot against the Church or the legitimate civil authorities incur by this very fact the penalty of excommunication, absolution from which is reserved simply to the Holy See." (Canon 2335)."

Link: www.biblebelievers.org.au...


Why is it that the Catholic church believed Freemasonry to ultimately plot against the Church? Does anyone know? Obviously they must have had some evidence, since it's grounds for excommunication!

Originally posted by MKULTRA
Why is it that the Catholic church believed Freemasonry to ultimately plot against the Church? Does anyone know? Obviously they must have had some evidence, since it's grounds for excommunication!

Well, it's probably not that difficult to understand. First, the Cathilic Church is an autocratic super governmental institution. The Masons have a thing with autocracy. Besides, look back to the reformation and see which forces that "excommunicated" the Holy See from power in Europe. An some time before that again, the Spanish inquisission tracked down tortured and killed quite a few masons and members from similar societies. What they found was that these societies didn't fit with the ideals of the Church. There are prolly millions of reasons why the RCC would come with such a statement...

Blessings,
Mikromarius

No actually the Catholic Church probably have several reasons.

The one I'd like to think is the fact that Freemasonry IS the extension of the Knights Templar.

When the Catholic Church, enslaved by France's King Philip, wrongfully pursecuted the Templars, many ran to Scotland, a hethenistic land known then as the "kingdom of the Celts".

Robert the Bruce was even threatened if NOT excommunicated, so of course it was a perfect place for outlaws of the Church to hide.

The Templars merged with the Opperative Masons there, hence the ritual surrounding King Solomon's Temple.

And from there a few things happend.

It is believed that the peasant revolts in 1380s were a direct result of these masons.

It is believed that the reformation movements were also aided by the remenants of Templars.

Now while how much Masonry and the Templars merged, or to what effect over the Church they had since then is no longer understood, this connection has made for bad relations now.

Which is sad because today Masonry has no quarrel with the Church, if Masonry ever did.

In fact, the only quarrel that probably ever stood, was the Church's inability to accept other religions as Masonry allows, a sort of safe house for "heathens" if you will.

Muslims, Jews, Hindus, whoever not christian can be Masons and the Roman Catholic Church especially in their high time did not like that.

Going back to the well travelled and well knowledged Templars this makes since, they having incountered other civilizations, knowing that the Heathen Muslims by far made Europe look like asses who ate dirt.

They knew that Europe's history was NOT christian, but pagan of various forms, and so the Templars included in their rituals, degrees that taught more about the history of the world.

And so Templars were indeed the first people in Europe since the dark ages, to recognize that the world was NOT christian, and that it probably never would be.

Which is why it seems that after their persecution the Templars took on a strong anti-crusade position.

And so all these things are findable in books, both historical and historically researched.

And is well worth your time.

The first signs of the Church being against Freemasonry was in the 1830s I think, and actually probably had more to do with the fact that Masonry was proving to be a great "tollerator" than anything to do with its old connection with the Knights Templar.

Though however, the connection that Masonry does share with the Templars, is what indeed, makes the events between Masonry and the Roman Catholic Church, ironic.

This is the U2U that Wanderer/FM/Hammerite, ect sent me "so as to spare him the embarrassment of making an a$$ of himself on the thread..."

Look man, as much as the Vikings were Savage and the Romans were "cruel" so were the indians.

So stop making them out to be some innocent child picked on by evil europeans.

The case of the Iroqois's demise at the hands of George Washington and 5,000 men is well doccumented.

There is also King Philips? war? The war led against colonies in the late 1600s I think it was.

A good thing to read however is "Cheif Seattle" which was a good account by said Cheif of the events unfolding in their time.

He didn't view his world as being "stolen" so neither should you. He recognized that the times were changing, his people's time had left, and he was accepting of it.

We should be so noble to accept our fate when it comes, but Europeans seem to have a bad habbit at not giving in so easily. Probably why it seems Europeans more than other civilizations, cause great wars. To save their ways as if they were in stone, which is wholy impossible.

However it has worked up till now, and still seems to be working for now.

Either way, I won't tollerate people who think of Indians as "innocent children beaten upon by well armed men".

They had their warriors as much as we did.

And they were just as savage to us as they were to eachother.

But I guess you forget the French and Indian wars where the indians would take forts and then kill those they captured.

Can you tell me the name of the fort where there were women and children passing through and so the gates were opened and Chief Pontiac I think it was and his men besieged it right then, killing the gaurd and took the fort slaughtering everyone?

I can't remember the name of that fort at the moment, but Cheif Pontiac's tactics led to his eventual down fall.

Either way I'm not trying to "reverse" the seeming descrimination here, I'm trying to show you that both sides are equally guilty of the same crimes.



I would agree that both sides, indeed, all sides in virtually any conflict will be guilty of war crimes and atrocities.

As I mentioned to another poster, dont forget to check your history...

Smallpox blankets
Despite his fame, Jeffrey Amherst's name became tarnished by stories of smallpox-infected blankets used as germ warfare against American Indians. These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763:

... Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort -- an early example of biological warfare -- which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]
www.nativeweb.org...

However, the point you are so vividly missing here is that the Native American Indian tribes were NOT committing atrocities against the French, British, or Spanish simply for thrill, or even for hatred. They were doing it for survival.

The Native Americans knew from the start that the numbers of europeans were not going to go down. They were not going away. There were only going to be more of them. And they were interested in what the Native Americans had, their land and resources. The fact that someone was already there troubled them very little. The fact that the europeans had the blessing of gunpowder did much to help ease this fact in their minds.

Indian atrocities committed during these acts of rebellion were acts of desperation. Indeed, to attack an enemy at its weakest point, an undefended settlement, is not an unsound tactical maneuver when you know for a fact that the enemies forces on the open battle field are far superior to yours. Guerrilla tactics are not new, and were developed for a reason.

And, Freemason, from this point on, if you decide to "educate" the fine people of ATS with your "facts", be prepared to back them up with links or verifiable quotes. "Facts" pulled from your a$$ and defined as fact simply because you say so is not an accepted method.

About the smallpox blankets, you forget and I think this was used against, actually it WAS against Pontiac's men, because Pontiac was so successful. They were given small pox infested blankets as "tokens" and thus helped turn the tide of battle.

Not an honorable tactic but it doesn't seem that there is much honor in wars of culture.

As for my signature because this will cause speculation, it is actually a response to all this indian talk.

I believe the quote shows that yes whites were racist, it seems inherant in US history, but George Crook did respect the Indian. It also shows that the indians were not "picked on" or else George Crook a teacher at West Point would probably just have said "go get those panzies!" No the Indians were capable fighters.

The reason for their down fall I think, while not really indepthly explained is a great truth however, and found in the link.

The Railroads drove out indians if nothing else, Indians were not "one nation" nor did they speak one language, they fought eachother as much as us and we had the power to go across country at ease.

This ruined the Indian...

Anyways, I don't frankly care, what happens in the past should not affect us, but teach us.

If we all sit here and say who's right or who's wrong because of what their heritage did, then we should kill all the Germans, hell we should kill everyone, because frankly at one point everyone's ancestors were slaves and masters.

It's kinda hard to pinpoint every little place I picked up my VAST wealth of historical knowledge, but it surpasses your own.

Furthermore your claim that Indian savagery was an act of desperation is only half true.

Indian tribes differened culturally and some were quite vicious and brutal long before White man.

I guess you never heard of the Incas or the Aztecs?

But also there were more peaceful indians, tribes through out the midwest and such, which weren't so brutal, but also in the end ended up doing acts of "desperation" usually influenced by more war-like tribes.

Also some indian tribes never stood up at all, they just got caught up in something too large for them and weren't "warriors" and never really did harm to anyone.

But it's hard to distinguish cultures, and the Europeans did not care. All indians were the same.

Of course they weren't however.

But to try and pawn of the attrocities of the Indians as "acts of desperation" is just stupid, it's only half true if even that.

Aztecs were ritual canibals.

As were many tribes through out North America.

This is seen as beyond reproach by any christian at the time all this happend, though today we'd probably be more tollerating of it.

If it wasn't someone in our culture doing it, such as in Borneo.

Oh and last point, sorry these are in three posts but it does help to seperate points

Some indians did kill and murder and rip people to pieces for nothing else than Thrill.

The Hurons are a good example.

So don't ever try to say a "people" are this or that, there are always exceptions.

Just as Europeans were not all Indian hating peoples, they weren't all "christians" they weren't all English...there are differences in every culture family you should call it.

Because Europeans are English, welsh, scottish, irish, french and I don't know the french subclasses, they are Spanish, which were mixes of moorish and other things, and there are those basque seperatists, Germans in Berlin until after WW2 would never call a Bavarian a German even though the country spans both those areas now. Russians have over 50 different ethnic groups let alone cultural breakdowns.

So trying to say "Indians didn't kill for thrill" is just stupid.

There were Indians who killed for thrill before white man came, Indians who killed for thrill when white man came and gave them incentives, and Indians who only killed to defend themselves.

My grandfather was a mason. I never knew him, he died when my mother was still young. My mother says that a lot of strange things happened after his death involving his masonic brothers. She remembers that they took everything out of the house that had to do with masonry.