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.

 

Is there special treatment for Masons from Masons

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sebatwerk

Originally posted by Modulok
Lots've people knew slavery was wrong and were being quite vocal about it. Sides were drawn and people like George Washington made a concious and educated decision to stand on the evil side.


You cannot claim to know what people knew or didnt know at the time. Ans you also cannot claim that you know somebody's reason for taking an action.


If you want to insist on believing, given the available historical evidence, that people like George Washington "didn't know better" and that this affirms their moral character, thats your choice. However I would ask you to think about what conclusion this type of reasoning leads us.



Oh please! Freemasonry is not responsible for the actions of its members when what they were doing was not considered immoral! In the society in which they were living and active, it was perfectly acceptable to own slaves and kill indians,


I've already pointed out that lots've people knew slavery was wrong and were being quite vocal about it. The people your defending made a choice what side to take.



You seem to have a bone to pick with Freemasons, but why are you singling them out only? What about the thousands of other organizations that the people doing these things represented?


Despite what you have repeatedly assumed I don't have a bone to pick with Freemasons or some kind of agenda, I'm here to learn and discuss and share information. I never started this thread, but it was about Freemasons. Should I have contributed with a post about Jews For Jesus? Start a discussion about any other organization and i will glady share my opinons on them.



You cannot blame an organization for men's actions by saying that the fraternity should have taught them better! That's absolutely absurd! This is not about freemasonry, and you will not hold the fraternity responsible for these things.


I never blamed freemason as an organization for anything. I merely pointed out the masonic involvement in the worst genocide in history and raised the question if you can judge an organization by the moral character of its members. You obviously don't think you can, thats fine, but i would advise you to objectively consider my point about the Quakers.



Again, these were individual lodges acting on their own, and did not represent the views of positions of the fraternity.


I understand this and have never stated otherwise.



I told you that based on your post, I could tell that you were. Don't write something if you can't stand to be criticized for it. On the other hand, a personal attack/ insult based on nothing I wrote is uncalled for. THAT is unfair.


Don't worry, I can take your insults, there actually quite amusing. Me saying you were "acting like a child" was entirely based on what you wrote. Again, don't dish it out if you can't take it.




posted on May, 27 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Modulok
If you want to insist on believing, given the available historical evidence, that people like George Washington "didn't know better" and that this affirms their moral character, thats your choice. However I would ask you to think about what conclusion this type of reasoning leads us.


I never said they didn't know any better, I just said that what they believed was considered acceptable. People tend to do the things they cann get away with, this is no exception. You cannot criticize a person for doing the things that society allowed them to do!



I've already pointed out that lots've people knew slavery was wrong and were being quite vocal about it. The people your defending made a choice what side to take.


True, but you still don't know their reason for doing so. Neither do I.



I never blamed freemason as an organization for anything. I merely pointed out the masonic involvement in the worst genocide in history and raised the question if you can judge an organization by the moral character of its members.


So what about all the other groups these men "represented"? Some were masons, some were politicians, some were military, all were christian, some were all those, etc etc etc?





Again, these were individual lodges acting on their own, and did not represent the views of positions of the fraternity.


I understand this and have never stated otherwise.


Fair enough.



Don't worry, I can take your insults, there actually quite amusing. Me saying you were "acting like a child" was entirely based on what you wrote. Again, don't dish it out if you can't take it.


Ok dude, whatever you say



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   


So from your list... You the bibliography of a book, veracity denied. You inferred that you read these books, then when confronted with the fact the list had been duplicated in order from another source, verbatim, you produce that source and then obfuscate by trying to impugn the website I used. I knew exactly what it was, my use was based on the ridiculousness of your claim to have read those books in a library. The reason quotes and links are used in a discussion forum is to facilitate access in a rapid and verifiable manner. That may be an impediment to what you are trying to accomplish, yet it's the only real way to be believed around here.


Because I cosnsulted the bibliography of a book in order to get the titles and authors I was looking for, does not mean I'm lying. If you want to believe that I'm lying, that I haven't read or consulted those books, go ahead. You seem to forget that this all started by you accusing me of posting false information, and I was nice enough to provide you with the names of some books where you can find those facts. It seems you'd rather enagage in a pitiful attempt at character assasination that debate the facts.



All U.S. Presidents used a "Masonic Bible” during their inauguration..



Actually I didn't, I merely told you that thats what one of your fellow Masons told me. And Sebatwerk seems to agree. Of course neither of these things means its true.


George H. Bush and George W. Bush are Freemasons..


Wrong again, I never said that. I don't know whether or not George H. Bush and George W. Bush are Freemasons, unfortunately I've never met them. That fact that senior was sworn in on a masonic bible and junior wanted to be though, is suspicous, if not conclusive.


Freemasons are the architects of the worst genocide in history..


And I stand by that, but i should clarify that i meant these criminals were masons, not that freemasonry as an institution was responsible. And yes, your forefathers did murder many more people than stalin or hitler or pol pot. I can give you the figures later if you'd like.


As for J. Sakai, here is an interesting assessment of his “work.”

www.newsocialist.org....


Thanks I will. How fortunate for you that you've found a negative review of the book so that you can justify never reading it. Challenging your entrenched views is far too exhausting, isn't it?

Your nonsense remains demolished.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Modulok
Actually I didn't, I merely told you that thats what one of your fellow Masons told me. And Sebatwerk seems to agree. Of course neither of these things means its true.


Did you read the post where I retracted this? Bush Sr. and Jr. wanted to be sworn in on the Bible that George Washington was sworn in on, the fact that it's a masonic bible was important only to Washinngton, as he was a mason. Neither Bush's are masons, therefore this means nothing. To them, it was just Washington's bible.

You see, most people don't see a conspiracy in Freemasonry. People who know better, such as Presidents who see the good deeds that Freemasonry carries out day after day, know it is a benevolent, harmless institution who's sole purpose is the betterment of man. Only silly conspiracy theorists see it for what it is not.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   


You seem to like tooting your own horn quite a bit. The fact of the matter is that YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE who believes you "utterly demolished" his post.


Really?



And again, you resort to baseless attacks and opinions to try to make someone seem the way you are painting them. You're been on these forums a VERY short time, and have the slightest clue as to the status of Mirthful's credibility.


Baseless attacks? I don't think so. I was quite justified in questioning mirthfuls credibility based on his posts. If you can break your masonic-solidarity thing for a second and look at this thread objectively, you'd agree that he responded by my posts not with reasonable arguments but instead resorted to absurd and basless accusations that I was posting misinformation, that I was lying, that I don't really go to libraries, and implied that I was a communist.



You, on the other hand, haven't done much to gain any credibility, yet you don't see anyone resorting to attacking YOUR credibility.


My credibility has been demonstrated by the objectivity and solidity of my posts and your failure to prove serious flaw in them. And you and your friends have repeatedly attacked my credibility.

Better luck next time...



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   

I never said they didn't know any better, I just said that what they believed was considered acceptable. People tend to do the things they cann get away with, this is no exception. You cannot criticize a person for doing the things that society allowed them to do!


I think we've hit some kind of 'agree to disagree' points. But again, i would ask you to think about what kind of conclusion this type of reasoning take us. i think you know what i mean.



So what about all the other groups these men "represented"? Some were masons, some were politicians, some were military, all were christian, some were all those, etc etc etc?


Of course, but keep in mind this is a discussion forum about *secret socities* and a thread about *freemasonry.* of course its bigger than this.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Modulok

Freemasons are the architects of the worst genocide in history..


And I stand by that, but i should clarify that i meant these criminals were masons, not that freemasonry as an institution was responsible. And yes, your forefathers did murder many more people than stalin or hitler or pol pot. I can give you the figures later if you'd like.


Actually the sad reality is that about 90% of the total Native population in North and South America was destroyed by disease long before the "genocide" began. (one well documented source: www.wealth4freedom.com...)

By the time the American government started moving Native tribes Westward in the 18th an 19th century, there were not enough of them left to put up much resistance. Of course, I guess you could argue that unknowingly transmitting diseases from one civilization to another is a kind of "murder", but I think you'd have a hard time proving that.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Modulok posted on 26/5/2005 at 10:17 Post Number: 1411619 (post id: 1433512)
Wrong again, I never said that. I don't know whether or not George H. Bush and George W. Bush are Freemasons, unfortunately I've never met them. That fact that senior was sworn in on a masonic bible and junior wanted to be though, is suspicous, if not conclusive.


Where you said it.


Originally posted by Modulok posted on 27/5/2005 at 10:28 Post Number: 1414197 (post id: 1436090)
In fact the link you provided stated that George Bush Senior was sworn in on the same masonic bible as George Washington, and that that Bush Junior wanted to be sworn in on the same one but it "had been transported, under guard, from New York to Washington for the inauguration but, due to inclement weather, a family Bible was substituted instead." Weren't you masons just claiming that neither of these two men were masons?



Emphasis mine.

Revisionist posting again? No matter. Bush 41, and 43 are not Freemasons and we will continue refute anything to the contrary, because they aren’t (I would say most freemasons would be happy to call them Brother, some, like MaskedAvatar, would not). What difference if they are? It’s a fraternal membership, not leprosy.


Originally posted by Modulok posted on 26/5/2005 at 10:17 Post Number: 1411619 (post id: 1433512)
And I stand by that, but i should clarify that i meant these criminals were masons, not that freemasonry as an institution was responsible. And yes, your forefathers did murder many more people than stalin or hitler or pol pot. I can give you the figures later if you'd like.


Assumptions are the death of a position, my forefathers, could not have participated in this grand genocide you claim; I’m first generation American, expatriated from Eastern Europe courtesy of Hitler and Stalin, (Pol Pot doesn’t figure in the top five), my family here is all that survived, they murdered no one. Your assertion that Freemasons conducted some form of organized (or disorganized for that matter) genocide on the indigenous population of North America is also patently false. You would have better luck blaming the Roman Catholic Missionaries than Ben Franklin (he was a lover, not a fighter
), and yes you did mention Ben Franklin:


Originally posted by Modulok posted on 26/5/2005 at 09:53 Post Number: 1411574 (post id: 1433467)
Only here the Adolph Eichmanns and Heinrich Himmlers had names like Benjamin Franklin and Andrew Jackson.


I know it’s a quote from the “esteemed” J. Sakai, and not your own words, but your fervent embrace of such tripe does more to discredit your assertions than I ever could. Yes, you do have an agenda, it’s some twisted hate as Sebatwerk has previously alluded to, a need to smear someone, just to “right your wrong.”


Originally posted by Modulok
Your nonsense remains demolished.


Are you related to Baghdad Bob?

Tired Monkeys, not just for pointing out the truth anymore…



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Modulok
Baseless attacks? I don't think so. I was quite justified in questioning mirthfuls credibility based on his posts. If you can break your masonic-solidarity thing for a second and look at this thread objectively, you'd agree that he responded by my posts not with reasonable arguments but instead resorted to absurd and basless accusations that I was posting misinformation, that I was lying, that I don't really go to libraries, and implied that I was a communist.


This has nothing to do with masonic solidarity. You are very arrogant regarding your posts, and it seems in this case that you are using arrogance, and exclaiming tat you "demolished his post" in order to cover up the insecurity you have regarding your discussion with Mirthful. In other words, you tried to announce your own victory because you were unable to make a valid point.

Also, you had no reason to attack his credibility. Credibility did not factor into the subject of the posts, and there was no reason to bring it into the conversation. It was a blatant attack to try to discredit the validity of his arguments, nothing more.



My credibility has been demonstrated by the objectivity and solidity of my posts and your failure to prove serious flaw in them. And you and your friends have repeatedly attacked my credibility.


There you go again, tooting your own horn. You are VERY VERY arrogant, and this arrogance is unfounded. I fail to see the objectivity and solidity of your post. They were nothing but bad assumptions, supported by circumstancial evidence, hardly what I would call "conclusive". If you were able to make a valid point, there would be no need for you to claim your own victory.

Tooting your own horn merely sidetracks the discussion, and is a tactic often used by those that have no further arguments to add to the discussion. If your posts were truly solid and objective, there would be no need for you to say so.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Perhaps there is some truth to this. I never recall Perry Mason allowing the conviction of any one else similarly named.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustMe74
Actually the sad reality is that about 90% of the total Native population in North and South America was destroyed by disease long before the "genocide" began. (one well documented source: www.wealth4freedom.com...)
By the time the American government started moving Native tribes Westward in the 18th an 19th century, there were not enough of them left to put up much resistance. Of course, I guess you could argue that unknowingly transmitting diseases from one civilization to another is a kind of "murder", but I think you'd have a hard time proving that.

They also gave the Native Americans blankets which had been deliberately infected with small pox. Probably one of the earliest examples of the US using Biological Warfare.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
They also gave the Native Americans blankets which had been deliberately infected with small pox. Probably one of the earliest examples of the US using Biological Warfare.


I'd like to see some documentation on that; even for the time period, that seems pretty brutal. Also, alot of the pillaging was done by the Frendch and Spanish, not the "U.S" on top of the fact that at that time the "US" was a colony of Britain.

So do you have something to back up that blanket comment? I've never heard that before. Not saying it's false, I don't know, but do you have some source for that?

[edit on 5/27/05 by The Axeman]



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   



I know it’s a quote from the “esteemed” J. Sakai, and not your own words, but your fervent embrace of such tripe does more to discredit your assertions than I ever could. Yes, you do have an agenda, it’s some twisted hate as Sebatwerk has previously alluded to, a need to smear someone, just to “right your wrong.”




your nonsensical trash talking has become quite laughable. but unfortunately as laughable as it is its even more boring.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   

This has nothing to do with masonic solidarity. You are very arrogant regarding your posts, and it seems in this case that you are using arrogance, and exclaiming tat you "demolished his post" in order to cover up the insecurity you have regarding your discussion with Mirthful. In other words, you tried to announce your own victory because you were unable to make a valid point.


It has everything to do with masonic soidarity. The pure irrationality of your reasonig has gotten quite boring. But i wasn't expecting more.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Modulok
It has everything to do with masonic soidarity. The pure irrationality of your reasonig has gotten quite boring. But i wasn't expecting more.




your nonsensical trash talking has become quite laughable. but unfortunately as laughable as it is its even more boring.


Could you be ANY MORE unoriginal in your attempts at belittling respected members of this forum? You're very full of yourself, and unreasonably so. You may be able to get away with that around the kinds of people you associate with, but around here we subscribe to a higher form of discussion. Please save the high school semantics for another forum.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman
So do you have something to back up that blanket comment? I've never heard that before. Not saying it's false, I don't know, but do you have some source for that?


Ask and ye shall receive...


www.nativeweb.org...
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]

Note the word "innoculate" in the following letter to Amherst himself...





(from the same source)
Several other letters from the summer of 1763 show the smallpox idea was not an anomaly. The letters are filled with comments that indicate a genocidal intent, with phrases such as:
"...that Vermine ... have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity" (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [149k]
"I would rather chuse the liberty to kill any Savage...." (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [121k]
"...Measures to be taken as would Bring about the Total Extirpation of those Indian Nations" (Amherst to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department, 9 July) [229k]
"...their Total Extirpation is scarce sufficient Attonement...." (Amherst to George Croghan, Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs, 7 August) [145k]
"...put a most Effectual Stop to their very Being" (Amherst to Johnson, 27 August [292k]; emphasis in original).
Amherst's correspondence during this time includes many letters on routine matters, such as officers who are sick or want to be relieved of duty; accounts of provisions on hand, costs for supplies, number of people garrisoned; negotiations with provincial governors (the army is upset with the Pennsylvania assembly, for example, for refusing to draft men for service); and so on. None of these other letters show a deranged mind or an obsession with cruelty. Amherst's venom was strictly reserved for Indians.

In other words we wiped the Native Americans out, end of story. They were an "excreable" race, they were literally no more than "#e" to the founding fathers, masons escaping 'religous' persecution from the rightful rulers of europe. It's pretty common knowlege.



[edit on 30-5-2005 by twitchy]



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Wow, that is truly sick and twisted, I have to hand it to you.

I do, however, think it is unfair for you to single out Masons in your last statement there, as Masons are/were Americans and Brits (French, Spaniards, whatever) first, and these atrocities were not solely perpetrated by Masons, and in the cases where Masons may have been involved (not to say this was one, unless you can show that Amherst was a Mason), it CERTAINLY was not done in the name of Masonry. Of that I feel confident.

Thanks for the info though, I wish more folks here would follow your lead in that respect.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman
unless you can show that Amherst was a Mason




www.antiamerica.com...
An egalitarian brand of Freemasonry
spread through the rank and file of Lord Jeffrey Amherst's army... It was not uncommon for low level officers to hold Masonic authority over their military superiors and Freemasonry "spilled over from the British army to the fledgling lodges already established in the colonies." Colonial military men and political figures joined up. The most famous were George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and John Hancock. Benedict Arnold, who later sold out the colonists' cause, also became a Mason.


And right you are, nothing ever is done in the name of Freemasonry, that's kind of the point. Secret Society.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
twitchy, you are masterful. How could a society be secret, if things were done in its name?

The M, I don't know why they still even bother. I mean, their ideas of genocide are twisted, to say the least, pretending it didn't happen, and that it was in such and such a time frame, so MY ancestors can't be blamed, although they moved onto the land made available... Hmmm...

The point is, Secret Societies instigated racism as a way to better control the group of people 'being shown favor', in this case, Whiteys.

And their ideas of secret society involved in colonization, in fact, is absurd. Like it was planned! Where will it end?



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
twitchy, you are masterful. How could a society be secret, if things were done in its name?


This is the question I beg of those who still cling to the notion that Freemasonry is a "secret society". The plain truth is it just isn't. Plenty of things are done in the name of Freemasonry, so by your logic, how can it be secret? Hmmm?


The M, I don't know why they still even bother. I mean, their ideas of genocide are twisted, to say the least, pretending it didn't happen, and that it was in such and such a time frame, so MY ancestors can't be blamed, although they moved onto the land made available... Hmmm...


Akilles, I don't know why you still bother. No one is saying that the colonization of the Americas, by way of the extermination (pretty much) of the Native Americans wasn't genocide. By definition I think it was. The point I'm trying to argue is that it wasn't a "Masonic undertaking". There are, were, and probably always will be more non-Masons in positions of authority than Masons, I just don't see the logic in you trying to say that every freakin' thing in history has some kind of Masonic conspiracy behind it. Come on, guys.


The point is, Secret Societies instigated racism as a way to better control the group of people 'being shown favor', in this case, Whiteys.

And their ideas of secret society involved in colonization, in fact, is absurd. Like it was planned! Where will it end?


I don't know what the hell you just said lil' dude, but you special, man. You special.


[edit on 5/30/05 by The Axeman]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join