It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

links between secret societies

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
So what if you worship the Morning Star, or the Light, or the Unconquered Sun, or the Moriah Conquering Wind?

Are you saying that Foster Bailey WASN'T a Freemason? He was director of the LUCIFER Trust, renamed LUCIS Trust to reduce heat.

Kinda reminds you of Lucent Technologies, which was formerly Bell.
Hmm, changed their name from Baal to Lucifer Enterprises (Luc. Ent.)

www.freedomdomain.com...

I always knew if Hitler woulda won, he woulda formed the EU, "Hitler's
Plan for Europe was to establish a Europe of Regions"




posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I think you're all getting sidetracked on a great debate. Links between Secret Societies, remember?

anyways...

El Supremo = Creator

If you believe in a Creator, then you are open for admittance (or so my understanding has it...unless, of course, you're a Pantheist- whereby it is still a debatable situation.)





[edit on 16-2-2005 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Perhaps it was just the Skull and Bones reference...but I think there's something to this first post that's really interesting. I'm assuming a connection with the I.O.O.F., the Shriners and perhaps a few more which are related to the Masons...but how about some of the more shadowy types of groups?

What's the status of Templar Lodges compared to Masons?
Is there a Bilderburgher connection?
How about the O.T.O. ?
What relationship exists between Masons and the Rosicrucians (A.M.O.R.C. et al)?

Are secret societies drawn towards each other inevitably to bring about the NWO?

ok...I know I'm stretching things a bit, but you see my point...



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
Are secret societies drawn towards each other inevitably to bring about the NWO?


Where did people ever start thinking that the purpose of all these secret societies is a New World Order/ one-world government!?!? I mean seriously...does this even seem like a realistic goal to you guys!?!?



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
oh...i dunno...eric the red, lief the lucky, alexander the great, hitler, the bushers...just about anybody who has the same thought as, say, the mongol hordes ravaging towards Constantinople...

The NWO is just another attempt at world domination...

Any group that wishes to expand itself until it encompasses the globe can be said to allude to a NWO.

I figure there's never been a time when somebody wasn't planning to rule the world...and there's never been a time when it's more feasable like today.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
I figure there's never been a time when somebody wasn't planning to rule the world...and there's never been a time when it's more feasable like today.



ARE YOU KIDDING!?!?!? MORE FEASILBLE!?!? Discounting the ability to mobilize military forces in this century as opposed to others, there's no way the political spectrum makes it MORE FEASIBLE for there to be one government in the world. Look how well the UN is working out, and you think it's possible for someone like the Bush administration and Co. to bring together all the countries of the world, including the Mid-East/ African countries, Eastern Europe and North Korea!?!? You're insane...


[edit on 16-2-2005 by sebatwerk]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Hmmm...insanity...

Thanks for hanging me with that, sebatwerk...that's quite a compliment.

I never took you for a troll, though...it surprised me.

If you read the entire posts made previously in this thread by me...you would have noticed I was asking to get back to the question; "is there a connection between secret societies?"

The comment you took affront to was actually a 'comic aside'' relating to the oft heard connection between the Illuminati and the Masons (not that I subscribe to it).

Anyways, since you took me to task on the subject...yes, I believe there will always be an attempt by SOMEONE to put down all opposition and make the world into what they see as right. One could say that the War on Terror could be a vehicle for just that and quite a few have said so on these very boards.

So I'm not the only insane one here.

Such a future has always been the main purpose of religion, for instance...to spread and become the primary all encompassing theology... The old 'One God, One Land, One People' made large.

Has it not been the identical purpose behind the spread of Catholicism throughout the world? Does Islam not have the same desire? Of course it has...

I'm asking you, what was the Roman Empire but not the desire to control the world as they saw it? Did Ghenghis Khan not wish to rule what he saw as the world?
NWO is not so new after all, is it? Just another tyrant wishing to impose his will on everyone.

I will say this though...If America cannot spread its particular brand of capitalism and democracy across the globe as it seems bent on doing, there will be some-one else come along soon enough to try their turn.

In this age of airplanes, ships and roads there has never been a better chance for world domination. All it takes is ruthlessness and the desire to conquer. The only thing holding anyone back is the distaste for killing, but I'm sure someone will get around to that eventually.

About the UN...could you please tell me how much $$$ the USA has invested in them over the last 60 years? All I ever hear is how it's a communist failure and how they should be disbanded. If you're going to use the UN as an example of the inevitable failure of the NWO, then perhaps they should be given a chance first, by the financial backing of the most powerful nation on earth.



[edit on 16-2-2005 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
About the UN...could you please tell me how much $$$ the USA has invested in them over the last 60 years? All I ever hear is how it's a communist failure and how they should be disbanded. If you're going to use the UN as an example of the inevitable failure of the NWO, then perhaps they should be given a chance first, by the financial backing of the most powerful nation on earth.


Well it's not 60 years but you get the idea:


from: www.gao.gov...
The United States directly contributed an estimated $3.45 billion to support U.N. peacekeeping, from fiscal years 1996 through 2001...

...We estimate that U.S. indirect contributions that benifited U.N. peacekeeping were about $24.2 billion, from fiscal years 1996 through 2001.


That's only within 5 years.

Show me another country that has contributed so much, and I'll show you a pink flying elephant with purple polka dots. It lives in my neice's closet with the Grand Master of the Illuminati.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   


Freemasonry might profess to accept any religion but it does not accept men of blemished moral character.

again by christian standards.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf



Freemasonry might profess to accept any religion but it does not accept men of blemished moral character.

again by christian standards.


I think morality kind of transcends religions though, don't you? I mean a good deed is a good deed, and an evil deed is evil no matter who is observing. It's one of those universal truths. Most of us with any sense and no chemical imbalance know the difference between moral and immoral, though some just don't seem to care.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
Hmmm...insanity...

Thanks for hanging me with that, sebatwerk...that's quite a compliment.

I never took you for a troll, though...it surprised me.



Hey I wasn't trying to insult you, I'm sorry. It was just an exaggerated way of saying "that's a crazy thing to say". Forgive me?



If you read the entire posts made previously in this thread by me...you would have noticed I was asking to get back to the question; "is there a connection between secret societies?"

The comment you took affront to was actually a 'comic aside'' relating to the oft heard connection between the Illuminati and the Masons (not that I subscribe to it).


I realized that, and my post is waaaay off topic, but not many people usually reply to my posts anyways so I didn't think it'd start a whole sub-thread.



Anyways, since you took me to task on the subject...yes, I believe there will always be an attempt by SOMEONE to put down all opposition and make the world into what they see as right.

Has it not been the identical purpose behind the spread of Catholicism throughout the world? Does Islam not have the same desire? Of course it has...

I'm asking you, what was the Roman Empire but not the desire to control the world as they saw it? Did Ghenghis Khan not wish to rule what he saw as the world?
NWO is not so new after all, is it? Just another tyrant wishing to impose his will on everyone.


I never challenged your statement about people and their intentions, I just simply said that your claim about it being more feasible now than it has ever been is just wild. The logistics of it alone is enough to discourage anyone. Throw in the current state of world affairs, and I just don't see how you can say that.



I will say this though...If America cannot spread its particular brand of capitalism and democracy across the globe as it seems bent on doing, there will be some-one else come along soon enough to try their turn.


Are you talking about one gov't, or ONE FORM of gov't!?!?!?



In this age of airplanes, ships and roads there has never been a better chance for world domination. All it takes is ruthlessness and the desire to conquer. The only thing holding anyone back is the distaste for killing, but I'm sure someone will get around to that eventually.


It's just wouldn't be as easy as conspiracy theorists think it is... even if there was a super-secret society pulling the strings, how could you think that they would be able to do this against the will of the rest of the US, much less the World!? The Romans would not have gotten as far as they did if they had no support from the Roman citizens.



If you're going to use the UN as an example of the inevitable failure of the NWO, then perhaps they should be given a chance first, by the financial backing of the most powerful nation on earth.


The US's constant departures of policy and action from the UN tells you enough about how much the current administration is seeking a one-world gov't.

Anyways, I wasn't saying people haven't tried, of course they have. Of course they wanted to. But, especially in this century, anyone can see that the international political climate makes anyone's claims about an ultra-secret society fighting to control the whole world by controlling the IMF or the US adminitrative branch or whatever are just silly.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   


I think morality kind of transcends religions though, don't you? I mean a good deed is a good deed, and an evil deed is evil no matter who is observing.


in the confines of the senerio being discussed i would have to say that
your statement and the assumptions that Leveler is making are " assuming
facts not in evidence". you are both assuming that the person will act in
specific way or manner based on what others have said people who believe
thusly believe. there is no first hand evidence that this individual will infact
act "as the legends say."

I find it interesting that today fundimentalists charge all who do not believe
as they do(and this includes Masons) with being satanist, performing ritual sacrifice, blood rituals, eating babies, ( i like mine BBQd), etc etc etc.

1000 years ago The RCC said that anyone that did not follow the tenet and
"revealed truths" of Holy Mother Church was a satanist, yada,yada,yada.

6-800 years before that the Roman government said the exact same thing
about the fledgling cult of the jew jesus

Go figure.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf



Freemasonry might profess to accept any religion but it does not accept men of blemished moral character.

again by christian standards.


No. By society's standards.

That doesn't mean that Christianity doesn't have an effect on the interpretation - that would be utterly impossible. We do live in a society based on Christian values after all.
But in general, people know what's regarded as right and what's regarded as wrong. You also have to understand that if somebody of a devious or malignant nature tries to join Freemasonry, the people who would refuse his entry are not necessarily Christian.
You also forget that Freemasonry is a world-wide Fraternity. A Satanist would probably be no more welcome in a Lodge in the Muslim, Hindu or Jewish world than he would anywhere else - therefore it is illogical to blame the definition on Christianity alone.

I also find it amusing that you defend Satanism as an innocent belief system that is being persecuted. If you take a look at most of the various ways that it is practiced you will find that one common underlying factor - service to self. That isn't innocent or benign. It is selfishness. Personally, I would not want to sit in my Lodge with a selfish person. Freemasonry is not an organisation where the focus is entirely on the individual - it is a fraternity. Somebody who joined with the attitude of service to self would be opposed to the Three Grand Principles that Freemasonry is founded on and would therefore be opposed to the Order itself.

[edit on 17-2-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   
We got a petition to our lodge the other day and it never even made it to be voted on because the guy had a long criminal record. They tore it up and threw it in the trash. A member of our lodge was a friend to him, vouching for him and left angry, said he wasn't coming back. The Masons really are a good organization, good men trying to improve themsleves in Freemasonry.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
TGSoe:

Point being?

He had already been caught too many times to still be useful?

Do you guys really think the Royalty of Europe consider you their equals, their brethren, (I ask because of the prominent role in Freemasonry many have had)?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
TGSoe:

Point being?

He had already been caught too many times to still be useful?

Do you guys really think the Royalty of Europe consider you their equals, their brethren, (I ask because of the prominent role in Freemasonry many have had)?





posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   


But in general, people know what's regarded as right and what's regarded as wrong. You also have to understand that if somebody of a devious or malignant nature tries to join Freemasonry

please support this statement. show that ALL
those that profess to be Satanists meet this criteria. Is this something you
know of yourself or have others told you it?

how many Satanists do you Personally know?

which of these men are satanists? which would you accept in your fraternity?










you seem to be qualified to tell by looking so please do.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf

please support this statement. show that ALL
those that profess to be Satanists meet this criteria. Is this something you
know of yourself or have others told you it?




So you are telling me that Satanists don't believe primarily in service to self?

Here's the link.

www.google.com...

Look it up for yourself.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
which of these men are satanists? which would you accept in your fraternity?










you seem to be qualified to tell by looking so please do.


Looks like the same dude to me.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
They both look like Anton LaVey, don't they?

IMO... Morality is dependant upon free will and intent.

I was wrong to think that the U.S.A. does not contribute to the U.N., but I still think it is a price paid for the spread of Capitalism and Democracy.

www.state.gov...

Not that I could sit here as a Canadian and feel proud of our paltry contributions...
But, then again, it's nothing new to the U.N....it seems to be the standard.
I still stand behind the notion that the U.N. has been grossly underfunded since it's beginnings in 1945. Perhaps it was doomed from the beginning and only serves as a venue for political drama.

Axeman...I read the GAO report...and it convinced me that the U.S.A. is not the culprit for the paupacy of the U.N. It is the rest of the world that bears the burden of guilt. However, that being said, it is interesting that through the years 1996-2001, the indirect contribution totals 24 billion and change...or, about 5 billion / year average, of which 90% was to "provide secure environments for U.N. operations. On page 11 of the report, it states that "U.S. operations are undertaken to promote U.S. interests.

Breakdown...
90% DOD
6% USAID
4% Department of State



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join