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.

 

An odd question for all the anti NWO people

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Winston only came to "love" Big Brother because he was physically and psychologically abused to such an extent that he had to fall into line.

It'll take all that and more before I switch sides or accept the NWO.




posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   
"Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Fascist Spain and Italy, and Cambodia"

Masonic Light, have you actually done any research, or did you just go with what you learnt in high school history class 33 years ago?

I guess what I am saying is, Do you think the Battle is the Left versus the Right?

If you actually are open-minded, please go to:
www.reformed-theology.org...
About the financing of Nazi Germany (by n on-Conspiracy theorists, can you believe it)
www.reformed-theology.org...
And here, the beginnings of the Bolshevik revolution

Let us suggest that you're now in the position of a householder awakened at 3 a.m. by someone pounding on the door screaming,
"Fire — your house is on fire!"
The householder either can get up and investigate for himself or he can roll over and go back to sleep, admonishing the alarmist to stop disturbing the peace.

If he investigates and finds no fire, he will have lost some sleep. If he goes back to sleep and there is truly a fire, he may lose his home and even his life. How sleepy are you?



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles


Masonic Light... How sleepy are you?


Yawn.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
For those who have an interest in history, and how finance shapes it
here it is again:
Open-minded, please go to:
www.reformed-theology.org...
About the financing of Nazi Germany (by non-Conspiracy theorists, can you believe it)
www.reformed-theology.org...
And here, the beginnings of the Bolshevik revolution

Let us suggest that you're now in the position of a householder awakened at 3 a.m. by someone pounding on the door screaming,
"Fire — your house is on fire!"
The householder either can get up and investigate for himself or he can roll over and go back to sleep, admonishing the alarmist to stop disturbing the peace.

If he investigates and finds no fire, he will have lost some sleep. If he goes back to sleep and there is truly a fire, he may lose his home and even his life. How sleepy are you?

Masonic Light would have you scoff at the notion any one wouldn't KNOW their OWN house is burning. Wouldn't the person setting your house ablaze hope for your indifference? Wouldn't it be their only hope of actually burning it down?



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Relax man, who cares what Masonic Light thinks or whatever. And of course, Masonic Light forgot to answer MKULTRA and Federal Reserve Bank of America.


I would disagree that bankers have the most power; real power seems to lie with inherited wealth, which manipulates political power. These people seem to me have the most power and leverage.


Inherited wealth? Citibank profitted 5 billion last year and I work for those guys. Banks hold the most money of any business entity and have the distinctinction of being able to make interest off of it and charge absurd user fees. They also have the enormous leverage of being able to decide who goes into business and who doesn't.

I ask again, Federal Reserve Bank of America? MKULTRA!

Oh and, when somebody insults you ML, I am sure they know they did, so you don't have to point out ad hominen attacks. It's like someone telling you you are a loser and then you say, "Hey, you insulted me!" And then the person should reply, "Ya, I did! Nice observation!"



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by freudling
Relax man, who cares what Masonic Light thinks or whatever. And of course, Masonic Light forgot to answer MKULTRA and Federal Reserve Bank of America.
I ask again, Federal Reserve Bank of America? MKULTRA!



Well, obviously you care. Otherwise you wouldn't be repeating dumb questions would you?
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that yourself and akilles are obsessive.

Let me ask you and akilles a question: Do you have trouble making relationships with people when you are away from the PC?

By the way. Read into that what you like. If you see an insult there, feel free to apply it to yourselves and then whine on about it for days, as if it's the worst thing that ever happened to you.
I would like an answer though. I'd hate to have to repeat myself as you have just done.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by zombiemann
Okay this mainly goes out to all the people who insist that masons are a branch of the illuminati and NWO. Is that REALY such a bad thing? I mean I know darned good and well that they arent but if they were wouldnt you rather be on the side with power than the side being crushed? Just my own personal opinion here and I would like to hear some other opinions without any flames or snotty attitudes. Lets discuss this. I mean even winston learned to love big brother in the end.

And please lets leave religion out of this. That has been gone over a million times.



NWO is wrong. It's a matter of principles and ideals, if your ideals match the NWO ones, feel free to support it, this however does not mean you are part of the circle.
Those part of the circle don't have any doubt, YES, the NWO is right, as it is the only way to preserve power.

I am not attracted to the NWO at all, as I believe in peace and the coexistence of all human beings without the need of oppression and domination.

However I strongly believe that large corporations should be protected in order to preserve jobs and promote the country image, but in today's world the oil, pharmaceutical and music industry have gone too far.

In any case these forms of secret societies are illegal.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Hrmmm, topic is drifting off a bit, but I'll add my two cents for what its worth.

To the question whether the NWO is a bad thing. I'll leave personal opinion out of this one (but if you look for my other posts, you may find it there), however I'll go on with what I've read other people say about the NWO.

Some people believe that the Illuminati exist, and that they are the top ruling families on the planet. People fear the NWO because some believe its controlled by satanists, and are there to destroy the current religious belief systems and introduce a new World Religion of its own that will be forced upon the individual. Mostly (and now this is my opinion) I think its a fear of losing freedom of the individual, and to be controlled by a small group where basically our thoughts are guided and mislead into a false belief system.

IMO, I personally do not believe the Masons are behind it all anyway, and if any were, it would be a small percentage of corrupt men, as there is corruption everywhere you go......

All the best
Merger



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Leveller, that was an ad hominen attack! Shame on you.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by freudling
Leveller, that was an ad hominen attack! Shame on you.



Yup. But I'm not falling for your trap and repeating my question.


Seriously though. Do you honestly believe that because one Freemason may have an opinion on a political subject, he speaks for Freemasonry itself? Isn't it obvious by now that individual Freemasons have political beliefs that are as diverse as anyone else's?



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I never implied that Leveller. And that is cool that Freemasonary allows diversity within the confines of its "sect". That is something difficult to find in other Religions/organizations/societies, since most have at least a set of axioms as their foundations for thought and practical principles; strict in its essence so as to exclude the kind of dymanic interaction I presume is contained within Freemasonary, not that freemasonary does not contain a foundation.

However, I fail to see how inner conflict is not imminent when you allow such diversity, if in fact one can be that diverse, specially in terms of Political views. No easy answers here, since I am sitting on the fence in terms of hating being confined to a packaged system of thought, as described above, since it limits freedom of thought and can limit evolution both good and bad.

Question (no, I won't repeat it :duh
: Can a communist be a member of Freemasonary? Can a satanist? A Democrat? A Republican? A Facist? A Christian? An Anarchist?

[edit on 13-2-2005 by freudling]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by freudling

However, I fail to see how inner conflict is not imminent when you allow such diversity, if in fact one can be that diverse, specially in terms of Political views. No easy answers here, since I am sitting on the fence in terms of hating being confined to a packaged system of thought, as described above, since it limits freedom of thought and can limit evolution both good and bad.

Question (no, I won't repeat it :duh
: Can a communist be a member of Freemasonary? Can a satanist? A Democrat? A Rebulican? A facist? A christian? An anarchist?


"On the fence"? Come off it, you're kidding nobody.

The vast majority of detractors of Freemasonry rely on packaged thought. We're talking propaganda here!!!
The bulk of information that the adverse questioner of Freemasonry has available, is that which has been packaged for mass-consumption. They are simplifications of issues which the accuser is often too ignorant or too lazy to study. The only time I've seen original, individual critisism of Freemasonry, it has been proven to be false and easily picked apart or it's even questionable as to if it could be viewed as critisism - it's raw and erroneous. Packaged thought is much harder to pick apart because the detractor will normally already have made his mind up. It's packaged to give it that impact on the user. Not only that, but the source will have covered it's tracks with lies and innuendo - easy enough to pick apart with logic and fact if you work at it, but harder to dispel because of the emotion that it has already imparted to it's user.
The only genuine critisisms of Freemasonry tend to be those of a much gentler nature than those that packaged thought users attack with. Those who criticise Freemasonry with a reasoned, logic mind can't normally find many gaps in it. Believe me - I've tried!!!

It often amazes me that the anti-Mason automatically assumes that a Freemason is more ignorant of the subject of Freemasonry than himself. He totally disregards the fact that the Freemason may be studying the subject far more objectively than he is capable or motivated to. He assumes that the Freemason will throw himself into an organisation without questioning. Rather a contradiction when one realises that a large part of Freemasonry is all about questioning and choice (to me anyway). Not only that, but the Freemason is able to view the subject with an open mind because he can see packaged thought for what it is - propaganda!!! It's aimed at the mass detractor and not at him individually.


There may be diversity in individual political views, but those individual views have no place in Freemasonry. We do not talk politics when we attend our Lodges. The same goes for religion - a vast array of individual faiths, but again, not discussed at Lodge.
You could say that Freemasons are restricted by this refusal to discuss these two emotive subjects, but that really isn't the case. Outside of the Lodge building, we can and do discuss them - just as anyone else may.
Look at the world around you. What are the two most divisive issues amongst man? By refusing to discuss them at Lodge, we merely safeguard against disharmony. This doesn't mean that we are losing out - Lodge meetings are generally for 4 to 5 hours, once a month. There are plenty of other times when we can discuss them. I personally find that because I tend to gravitate towards the philisophical side of Freemasonry, I naturally progress to studying these two subjects in depth anyway - probably a far greater depth than I would have done if I wasn't a Freemason!!! Philosophy does have a tendency to lead to religion and politics.

As for your questions above. Freemasonry accepts men of all political outlooks with the exception of anarchists. A true anarchist would refuse to obey the laws set down by the majority and would therefore have a hard time adjusting to the Masonic obligation of obeying the laws of his country. True anarchism thrives on chaos and disharmony - one of the tenets of Freemasonry is harmony. The two are naturally opposed.

Although Freemasonry would not bar a man for his political beliefs, excepting the above, he may find himself demitted from the Order if he were to expect his beliefs to be forced upon and followed by others in the Lodge. Therefore, those with a political view that thrives on control are not normally in the Order for long (if they join at all).
This is exactly the opposite of the claim that you make. Because Freemasonry does not promote the individual who will demand his political doctrine followed, freedom of choice is enhanced. Without a laid down policy and without coercion, a Freemason may naturally gravitate to his own political view, independently of Freemasonry.
So there is a double safeguard on political freedom. One cannot promote political ideaology within Freemasonry because one cannot converse about it or promote it within the Lodge.
I don't see this as disadvantageous or even entirely relevant anyway. Freemasonry is definitely not a political organisation and therefore the subject should not be an issue.


Freemasonry accepts men of all religions apart from Satanists (although I personally don't class Satanism as a religion). The requirement for a Freemason is that he believes in a Supreme Being. Satan is not viewed as a Supreme Being as he is secondary to the Christian god from whence he evolved.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I am not attacking it, rather curious, since I simply don't know.

As for sitting on the fence, I think you misinterpreted my post. I am sitting on the fence in terms of a packaged system of thought, period, no matter what organization it is. The reason is that from experience, I have found that Religions, for example, limit my freedom of thought, especially its direction. I like bits and pieces of many belief systems and organizations, dare I say Religion. As such, I cannot say I prescribe to any one. Freemasonry, in this light, sounds interesting. Although I have attacked it before, that is not to say I wouldn't take things I like from it and integrate it into my belief system.

But I always fall back on "objective morality" and stand hard fast with a few overarching moral axioms that I base my acceptance of information on. For example, I don't accept the many things I have read from Satanism. Not just that, but some of it is silly. "We are naturally animals and we should celebrate our animalistic, blah, blah". Anton Szandor LaVey, the author of the Satanic Bible from the 1960's and founder of the Satanic Church makes me laugh. One of the tenets is something as I elluded to above: that we are animals... He overgeneralizes. Because he thinks we are primal and such, so then we are? You can observe animals in nature acting totally opposite to the way he describes the way we are, as animals, naturally.

Some moral axioms I cling to are, for example, the Golden rule. I also believe strongly in empathy and never being hypocritcal, specically in the context of physicality.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by freudling
Citibank profitted 5 billion last year and I work for those guys.


Interesting how all the talk about high ideals and fighting the N.W.O. goes
out the window when it's time to cash the ol' paycheck.

What's the word I'm trying to think of ?

Starts with an h.......



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by freudling
I am sitting on the fence in terms of a packaged system of thought, period, no matter what organization it is. The reason is that from experience, I have found that Religions, for example, limit my freedom of thought, especially its direction.


The danger here is not that you aren't necessarily using packaged thought to interpret specifics, but that it may have given you a generalised view that is hard to shake in the first place.
As already stated, there is absolutely no religious doctrine within Freemasonry. You may find a spiritual aspect and that allusions to god are made, but they are free for individual interpretation. This is probably the reason why religious fundamentalists don't like Freemasonry - it gives room for personal interpretation and there is always a chance that this will expose dogma. If a man chooses to recognise dogma, the fundamentalist will realise that it will be very hard to control him.

But the above is not always the scenario. I know good Freemasons who have decided not to question their religion. Who am I or anyone else to judge them? What matters is that they have that right to question if they so choose. Freemasonry specifically states that a man should not slander the beliefs of others. That goes for those who follow religions as much as for those who have their own individual Faith. As all religion is open to interpretation either by the mass or by the individual, I believe that this is the correct way of looking at things. The individual should be allowed to reach his own conclusions with whatever means he sees fit. Following the mass or intepreting individually - they are the individual's choice to make.



[edit on 13-2-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
So really, all we have established is that a Satanist might have to lie to get into Freemasonry.

So you speak for each personal Satanist? Because I was under the impression that THE SAME AS FREEMASONRY, Satanists could decide for themselves exactly what they believe regarding a supreme being (such that said supreme being is one of destruction, and chaos, and utilizing that power makes one closer to God).

The number one Satanic sin, surprisingly enough, is the one Freemasons accuse people of around here most frequently. 1) Stupidity -- The top of the list for Satanic Sins. The Cardinal Sin of Satanism. "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful."



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful."


How delightfully ironic for you to make such a statement.


You are missing the point. Again. A Statnist, by definition, would not want to be a Freemason any more than a Freemason would want him to be. The tenets and values of Freemasonry are incompatible with the beliefs and values of a Satanist. WHY would a Satanist lie to get in if the whole point is to study philosophies and ideas that are abhorrent to him?



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merger
Hrmmm, topic is drifting off a bit, but I'll add my two cents for what its worth.

To the question whether the NWO is a bad thing. I'll leave personal opinion out of this one (but if you look for my other posts, you may find it there), however I'll go on with what I've read other people say about the NWO.

Some people believe that the Illuminati exist, and that they are the top ruling families on the planet. People fear the NWO because some believe its controlled by satanists, and are there to destroy the current religious belief systems and introduce a new World Religion of its own that will be forced upon the individual. Mostly (and now this is my opinion) I think its a fear of losing freedom of the individual, and to be controlled by a small group where basically our thoughts are guided and mislead into a false belief system.

IMO, I personally do not believe the Masons are behind it all anyway, and if any were, it would be a small percentage of corrupt men, as there is corruption everywhere you go......

All the best
Merger


I'd like to thank Merger for attempting to get this thread back on topic.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

The danger here is not that you aren't necessarily using packaged thought to interpret specifics, but that it may have given you a generalised view that is hard to shake in the first place.

No, my exact point is that I have taken great lengths to shake the programmed, generalized world view. What is left is empathy and a strong belief in the Golden Rule, most particularly in the context of physicality. Those two cover much ground and if I were to die right now, I would feel good that I took those two to my grave.

As already stated, there is absolutely no religious doctrine within Freemasonry

Then what doctrine is there in Freemasonary? If Freemasonary advocates a belief in a Supreme Being, how does that not make it, Religious? Would you say it is a Metaphysical system of knowledge, with practicality and an acceptance of modern science? That is what I have at this point about it, but it still has ingredients of Religion (i.e. Divine Illumination)


This is probably the reason why religious fundamentalists don't like Freemasonry - it gives room for personal interpretation and there is always a chance that this will expose dogma. If a man chooses to recognise dogma, the fundamentalist will realise that it will be very hard to control him.

Ya, I totally agree.


That goes for those who follow religions as much as for those who have their own individual Faith. As all religion is open to interpretation either by the mass or by the individual, I believe that this is the correct way of looking at things. The individual should be allowed to reach his own conclusions with whatever means he sees fit.

With whatever means he sees fit?



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by freudling

No, my exact point is that I have taken great lengths to shake the programmed, generalized world view.


With respect, you don't seem to display that line when discussing Freemasonry judging from some of your posts, and they do look to be from the pre-programmed viewpoint. Most of your aspersions seem to be cast precisely because of that generalised view. I don't totally blame you as Freemasonry has been the victim of propaganda for centuries and it is almost impossible for the onlooker to avoid it - especially if he approaches the subject with anything but an open mind. If you are interested in the subject you really do have to start again with a clean slate. Don't start with negatives or positives.


Then what doctrine is there in Freemasonary? If Freemasonary advocates a belief in a Supreme Being, how does that not make it, Religious? Would you say it is a Metaphysical system of knowledge, with practicality and an acceptance of modern science? That is what I have at this point about it, but it still has ingredients of Religion (i.e. Divine Illumination)


There is no doctrine. It is a system based upon morality, but that morality is not dictated by Freemasonry itself - it is generated from what is accepted as the meaning of the word by society. Advocating a Supreme Being is not religious. It's spiritual. As I've already stated elsewhere, religion is a system of worship - there are dos and don'ts. The only suggestion that Freemasonry makes to any man regarding his Supreme Being is that he should treat Him with reverence.


With whatever means he sees fit?


Why not? How can Freemasonry judge what a man does in the search for his god? That's not to say that ritual abuse or anything sinister like that is acceptable. There are obviously boundaries that can't be crossed and these are laid down in the obligation to obey moral and legal law. But if I want to dance around a teapot, invoking the name of my god in my own home, what right has anyone to tell me that I'm wrong? Remember, we don't go to Lodge to worship - it's not a church. If we wish to worship, we either go to churches or participate in our own individual ways.



akilles. Before you start typing, why don't you actually try to use a little bit of logic in your statements?
Satanism has evolved from Christianity. The whole concept rests on the belief of the Christian god within the Bible. Without a Christian god there would be no Satan. As Satan was the weaker adversary of the Christian god it is therefore logical that he is not a Supreme Being as the Christian god already holds that title.



[edit on 13-2-2005 by Leveller]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join