Masonic Government involved with Child Abuse and Pedophilia?

I'm afraid these are all issues for the police and judiciary.

You have failed to link freemasonry with child abuse. I have sympathy for your viewpoint but you are chasing the wrong target and consequently wasting your time.

Ah. It's amazing what a good night's sleep and 3 extra pages of verbal diarrhea will do for a girl.

Right.

Suzy and Eudamonia:

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT CHILDREN ARE NOT BEING ABUSED.

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT THESE VICTIMS ARE NOT VICTIMS, OR THAT THEY ARE NOT DAMAGED BY THE EVENTS THEREIN.

Do I have to make some kind of cute signpost graphic to make sure that message is even clearer? I could add music, but I'm not nearly as caffeinated as I'd need to be, and it is the weekend; I'll do it if necessary

We know that children are being abused.

But it's time to take this point by point.

1. Children do actually lie at times - yes, even about abuse. Are you familiar with the concept of children needing approval? I'm sure you are. In the past, it's been shown over and over that an overzealous investigator and/or therapist can ask a leading question to a child who will answer "yes", because that's what s/he thinks the investigator wants to hear. It's less about truth in these cases than it is about lousy investigative methods. And this doesn't just apply to abuse, it applies across the board in psychology and psychiatry, and indeed across the entire judicial arena. It's painfully easy to verify independently, unless of course it's all part of a much larger conspiracy which would involve adults too, as they're often "led" into similar statements.

2. Children who have been abused don't have to be lying about what happened to be confused or misled into saying who did it.

A question back to both of you now.

Have either of you investigated (there's a rabid keenness to discredit "false memories", and the entire "this has been debunked" train of thought) fully the McMartin trials, for example?

Have either of you actually read any of the supplied material relating to SRA and how easy it has been to disprove the allegations thereof?

Have either of you been able to offer any evidence that Satanic Ritual Abuse (either by Masons, Bakers, Candlestickmakers or other groups) actually happens?

Or are you just going to believe every anecdote, every accusation and every allegation that might just have no merit at all?

Denying ignorance = hearing ALL sides of a story. Or at the very least, bothering to investigate the opposing theory.

Please, don't be offended by my admittedly lame attempts at humour - the thread does need to perhaps take a look at itself and stop bandying around the more insulting comments; that's all I was going for. A bit of humour. So sue me.

Hmmm... Can we say "persecution complex"?

Okay, so Freemasonry is not secretive, it's just a club. And if I understand correctly, all the ceremonies about Hiram on my left and Solomon on my right and the golden trowel between my thighs, etc blah blah blah, that's all harmless play, and really has no significance that outsiders need to see? Is that right?

So why doesn't this massively powerful club work a little harder to oust those brethren who are involved in heinous crap as some (perhaps only a few) obviously are?

Tinkleflower: Have you watched Conspiracy of Silence, which I posted a link for? You haven't mentioned it yet. Have you heard about the cases in france and europe of children being kept in cages until their deaths? You don't think there are pedophiles who see these kids as disposable delicacies or whatever? Because from what I've read, this is a problem that simmers right underneath our normal society. I'd be happy to post some links to these cases. There was even one photo of the brick wall where you could see how the girl had scraped her fingernails off trying to escape her cage. She and her friend starved to death in those cages in that guy's basement. He said he was part of a pedophilic slave ring for powerful elites.

I don't like the title of this thread, but I feel compelled to continue to post now, because of your "children sometimes lie" comment. You don't really want to defend your current position, do you? Because I'm ready for that conversation.

Get this through your heads: If your little "club" has produced the most powerful members in a society, AND THERE ARE CHILDREN BEING RAPED AND TORTURED IN THAT SOCIETY, then that club must be held to a higher standard and it is not unreasonable to ask them to police their own members in this regard.

Whomever is the jailer (whomever holds the keys) can be held accountable for the actions within the jail. If Masons run America and the world (which they do and have for decades) and there is heinous abuse against children going on (which it is) then the citizens have a right to ask that secret club to look into it, which Masons don't seem too keen to do. Hell, even the Catholics are willing to make a pretense at hunting child molestors.

So why is that? If someone cares about the human race, their primary goal should be to ensure that kids remain safe. Masons seem only mildly concerned about what abuses of power their brethren may conduct. In my opinion, that causes the whole loaf to stink.

Not to mention that currently there is a massive scandal of child molestation (generational and organized in some cases) within the Watchtower society, which cult has masonic roots, and which cult I came out of. If you deny that such acts are done against children by at least some Masons and their decendants, you are either ignorant, unlearned or just stupid.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
You don't think there are pedophiles who see these kids as disposable delicacies or whatever? .

Let me try this once more.

Nobody has said - anywhere - that there are not pedophiles in the world. Nobody. Why are you continuing to follow the inane assumption that people are denying the existence of pedophiles and child sex abuse?

but I feel compelled to continue to post now, because of your "children sometimes lie" comment. You don't really want to defend your current position, do you? Because I'm ready for that conversation.

Go ahead. Which part of the conversation do you want to try and rebuke? Have you never met a child who lies? Please be clearer in your next post, as to which part you'd like to discuss.

Get this through your heads: If your little "club" has produced the most powerful members in a society, AND THERE ARE CHILDREN BEING RAPED AND TORTURED IN THAT SOCIETY, then that club must be held to a higher standard and it is not unreasonable to ask them to police their own members in this regard.

A) I'm not a Mason.
B) If you actually read my posts, you'll see that I'm actually disputing the notion of RSA. Once again, nothing has been offered up in terms of proof that supports such allegations.
C) Nobody is even disputing the fact that there will be, in all likelihood, child molestors who are also Masons. Just as there are child molestors who happen to be Catholic, Pagan, Jewish, Presbytarian, KKK members, etc etc. Every one of these people should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
You see the point here? The same allegation can be made if you make "Christianity" the club instead of Masonry, and it would be equally inappropriate, wouldn't it?

Once again:

I'm not disputing the presence and existence of child molestors.

What I am disputing is the veracity of these many SRA claims, and the veracity of the SRA=Masons link.

Tinkleflower, if you are able to accept these horrors go on then why do think so few people are successfully prosecuted?

My experience and that of people working at the front lines of trying to get justice, is that there is a great battle against conspiracies, coverups, lost evidence, denigration of witnesses and serious threats against the lives and wellbeing of those willing to give evidence...the list goes on.

Please read all of neonhelmets very lenghthy post on this thread. It contains just a tiny bit of what goes on in one country. Despite mountains of evidence, justice is all but impossible to come by.

Sorry if freemason involvment is one of the most common factors that crops up with the brickwalls folk run into when trying to seek justice but if it wasn't there wouldn't be so much distrust of it's members.

Please, Oh please, stop attacking the credibility of survivers you have never met, in your effort to defend freemasons. We don't lump all freemasons together so don't don't try to say all survivers don't know what really happened to them. That is just cruel, heartless and stinks of being closed minded.

Trinity, this issue has gone way past something the police and judiciary can handle as they are amoungst the perpetraters who stone wall attempts to seek justice.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Okay, so Freemasonry is not secretive, it's just a club. And if I understand correctly, all the ceremonies about Hiram on my left and Solomon on my right and the golden trowel between my thighs, etc blah blah blah, that's all harmless play, and really has no significance that outsiders need to see? Is that right?

That's the closest you've got so far. It'll do as a working understanding of freemasonry.

So why doesn't this massively powerful club work a little harder to oust those brethren who are involved in heinous crap as some (perhaps only a few) obviously are?

Any freemason found to have engaged in any criminal activity, let alone child abuse, is summarily expelled from the Craft. However in the UK we leave it up to the courts to decide guilt. If you don't have confidence in the courts then that becomes a circular argument (although bear in mind that I have already pointed out the lack of masonic membership in the police and judiciary). In the US some Grand Lodges have masonic trials and brethren are expelled without necessarily legal guilt.

Get this through your heads: If your little "club" has produced the most powerful members in a society, AND THERE ARE CHILDREN BEING RAPED AND TORTURED IN THAT SOCIETY, then that club must be held to a higher standard and it is not unreasonable to ask them to police their own members in this regard.

This 'little' club as you so gently put it, has had powerful members of society join it. It has never made anyone powerful. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT MASONIC SOCIETY IS RAPING AND TORTURING CHILDREN. Freemasons are expected to act to the highest possible standards and strong measures are taken against those who transgress.

Get that through your head.

Masons seem only mildly concerned about what abuses of power their brethren may conduct.

Now where did you get that little gem from?

If you deny that such acts are done against children by at least some Masons and their decendants, you are either ignorant, unlearned or just stupid.

Nobody has denied that individual freemasons may have done bad things. It's the whole 'branding the entire organisation on the behavior of a tiny minority' that gets my goat.

Your whole post, indeed your whole argument, is a series of IF IF IF statements. They are, just like your knowledge of freemasonry, extremely iffy.

Get this through your heads: If your little "club" has produced the most powerful members in a society, AND THERE ARE CHILDREN BEING RAPED AND TORTURED IN THAT SOCIETY, then that club must be held to a higher standard and it is not unreasonable to ask them to police their own members in this regard.

This 'little' club as you so gently put it, has had powerful members of society join it. It has never made anyone powerful. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT MASONIC SOCIETY IS RAPING AND TORTURING CHILDREN. Freemasons are expected to act to the highest possible standards and strong measures are taken against those who transgress.

You cannot be serious.

You are saying that Masons only join ONCE they are powerful? That is completely untrue. Masons have big time graft and pull with each other and they CREATE careers for their people. In times of trouble they will cover for each other and they will keep intimate secrets of their brethren, above law. If you don't know this then you need to examine your club. Of course, you'll respond with some verbage about how I'm just saying this and where is my proof, but I count some Masons among my friends and the truth is known to me, at least in this regard.

Can you examine the quote above and see your own error? I'm saying:

1: American power circles are populated by masons in an inordinate amount.

2: American power circles are also covering for some of their members who have a prediliction for child-sex.

3: Ergo, Masons on ATS shouldn't get their panties knotted when a thread like this is posted.

...Is there a difficult item in this list above?

Allow me to simplify this: If there's a country called "Masonia", of which the rulers have mostly been masons and in which the higher power structure is heavily masonic, and in this society, there is a heavily disguised and controlled trade in children for sex, then I'd say it behooves the Masons of Masonia to spend a little less time in obfuscation and a little more time checking up on what their so-called-brothers are up to. If you're loyal to the group, and the group is being secretly misrepresented in any way, all Masons would presumably share in their punishment for those crimes, at least in that they'd (hopefully) feel remorse that the halls of their lodges were used to foment crimes upon any innocents.

I am all for transparency in society. Transparent money, in particular. It's cute to see Masons say "I guess you don't believe in privacy" when they practically run our country. No, I do not grant the Mason his right to privacy above the right of unheard and unacknowledged children who are crushed and tossed aside by the powerful people (some who are or may be Masons) in this world. The person who sets themselves up in power also accepts the responsibility of protecting the innocent. When the innocent are not protected, those in power will be pulled down, eventually.


Tinkleflower: Okay, so you're not a Mason (or Masonic-defense pit-bull) but you are just so irate about the SRA meme that you will post to a Masonic thread about it. Is that right? So you don't believe that SRA exists?

What would constitute proof? Really now? If I told the results of my own personal investigation into this subject, what would be accomplished? It's not my job to educate you. For a third time: Have you watched "Conspiracy of Silence" and do you have an opinion on the testimony of the abused children in that movie?

What " American power circles are populated by masons in an inordinate amount. "? Bush is not a mason, Trump is not a mason, Bill Gates is not a mason. What power circles are you talking about?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Tinkleflower: Okay, so you're not a Mason (or Masonic-defense pit-bull) but you are just so irate about the SRA meme that you will post to a Masonic thread about it. Is that right? So you don't believe that SRA exists?

Right I'm not a Mason. I'm not very pit-bullish in the slightest, really, either (though I can bite occasionally).

If you're asking about why I'm posting on this thread, the answer is simple, really; there have been numerous allegations that a) Masons are - as a group - involved in "satanic ritual abuse", and/or b) Masons are - as a group - involved in ritual abuse of a perhaps non-satanic nature. Not only is there no evidence of SRA being anything more than fear-mongering, there's also no evidence to support the notion that there's SRA involvement amongst a particular group of Higher Uppers who coincidentally happen to be world leaders and/or holy men and/or other influential figures.

Hope that clarifies that part.

What would constitute proof? Really now? If I told the results of my own personal investigation into this subject, what would be accomplished? It's not my job to educate you. For a third time: Have you watched "Conspiracy of Silence" and do you have an opinion on the testimony of the abused children in that movie?

Hmmm. I thought long and hard about this one before answering, and I'll try to do so as succinctly as I'm able.

Yes, I watched "CoS". My opinion on the testimony is this:

It appears clear that there was abuse.

But I still cannot, in good conscience, agree that any of this was proof of either Satanic or other Occult/Ritual Abuse.

Please, understand that this does not mean no abuse took place. That's not - and never has been - in dispute. I have set aside time tomorrow to actually watch the piece again, to see if my own previous conclusions have clouded my judgement, and in case I'm missing something.

As for your own investigations, I could ask the same thing. We've both apparently been studying this, and we've both arrived at difference conclusions. My own investigations have been conducted over two continents, over a period spanning more than 10 years. My own investigations involved two children who were involved in the Cleveland Child Abuse scandal in England, and one who was involved in a similar alleged Satanic Abuse case in England (this was direct contact with all three children; as a result I was able to obtain access to the testimonies of other children involved). My conclusions are that though abuse exists, and is tragic, and absolutely needs to be stopped, there is simply no evidence that this abuse involves Satanic groups, cults, or Masonic orders.

Whilst this is not suggesting that there have never been abusers who are Masons, please understand that these are two different ideas; just as Joe Abuser might be a Christian, his actions are not representative of the religion, and just as he might also be an upstanding member of his Church Choir, this in no way means that the Choir is involved in a pedophile ring.

Please, take the time to read - for example, as the authors are much more able to put it together I've been - this information relating to SRA and the controversies therein.

Also, please, look into the concepts that surround the ideas of "false memories" - they are important. There's a page here which presents the basic premise quite clearly, and though I'm expecting the source (a somewhat controversial skeptic site) to be questioned the material contained therein can be verified elsewhere - the reason I use it here is simply out of convenience of having everything on one page.

tinkleflower wrote;
My own investigations have been conducted over two continents, over a period spanning more than 10 years. My own investigations involved two children who were involved in the Cleveland Child Abuse scandal in England, and one who was involved in a similar alleged Satanic Abuse case in England (this was direct contact with all three children; as a result I was able to obtain access to the testimonies of other children involved). My conclusions are that though abuse exists, and is tragic, and absolutely needs to be stopped, there is simply no evidence that this abuse involves Satanic groups, cults, or Masonic orders.

O.K. I would really like to know if these children claimed ritual satanic abuse and then recanted without any 'presure' from you or anyone or if you and others just decided they were lying. Sorry but I'm not familier with the case as there is far too much of it going on in my country.

I have to say it angers and scares me to know that people with your lack of acceptance of ritual satanic abuse get to study the files of these of these victims.

In what capacity were you 'involved'? Police, doctor, social worker, what?

What I have found working with social workers and doctors is that these horrific acts are far from uncommon but that the children don't have anyone to back up their claims as they are alone and powerless. The idea is that a trial would be too much for most to cope with so they are advised to concentrate on 'healing' and "forgetting", yet another form of coverup.

In the old days before things like the "stranger danger" campaigns children were much more easily silenced but now we've had decades of young and old taught to keep telling 'till someone believes you, but they then find out, if they are still children, they are acussed of lying or being confused by offical investigators (coverup) and if they are grown adults, they are acussed of 'false memoury'.

Originally posted by suzy ryan
O.K. I would really like to know if these children claimed ritual satanic abuse and then recanted without any 'presure' from you or anyone or if you and others just decided they were lying.

When the children in question first made the allegations, they had been "coached", by two social workers in particular. The questions asked of the children involved some dubious techniques, involving leads such as "Did Mrs X ever touch you anywhere bad?". Leading questions such as this are absolutely not considered valid, ethical or even "ok", by psychiatrists, psychologists and police departments. I do hope you can see why this is the case.

After the investigations were completed, the children were questioned in a much more ambiguous manner, using questions such as:

"When you were at Mrs X's house, tell us what happened after you had dinner". In other words, answers were solicited using a much more objective technique, allowing the children to use their own words to describe what happened, instead of trying to appease the questioner by answering what they thought was the right answer. In summary, the children either recanted through simple voluntary admittals that "well, it wasn't really like that...." and similar answers, or they admitted that though some abuse happened, it was by two male relatives. No Satanism, and no occult or ritualistic elements.

I have to say it angers and scares me to know that people with your lack of acceptance of ritual satanic abuse get to study the files of these of these victims.

You're objecting to an observer or other interested party having access to files simply because they're questioning the circumstances?! Your anger might be misplaced; I'd be more angry at the people who are duping these kids to begin with.

In what capacity were you 'involved'? Police, doctor, social worker, what?

And this is where we go much further into my own "resume" than I initially wanted or anticipated; but if it will satisfy your curiosity, so be it.

Two of these children were actually relatives.

I was initially called as a witness (being a teen myself at the start).

In the latter part of my own investigation, I was both an observer and a psychology intern working with the police as charges were filed against two psychologists and a social worker.

The idea is that a trial would be too much for most to cope with so they are advised to concentrate on 'healing' and "forgetting", yet another form of coverup.

There is some truth to the fact that most children find the trial process to be very, very difficult. But where are you jumping from "no trial" to "nobody is punished"? More often than not, when proof of abuse is obtained (and this happens with more regularity than you're apparently aware), the offender is convicted and sentenced. Sometimes this involves a plea agreement, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the child will testify via videotape (more and more common these days), and - honestly - the days of dragging a five year old into court to face the accused have been over for the most part, for quite some time.

Once again, I'm going to respectfully request that you seperate a couple of issues.

The first is actual sexual abuse. This happens. We know this happens. And we also know that sometimes, kids do tell lies - the motivation can vary from trying to please an adult investigator, to actually trying to cause harm/revenge against someone in particular. If you don't think this has ever happened, then I can't really answer any further - you'd be denying such an obvious truth that I wouldn't honestly know where to go from thereon.

The second is that the existence of sexual abuse is not dependent upon the belief in SRA.

Do you understand that it's the latter that you have simply not been able to prove exists?

Please understand when I say this:

Nobody is disputing the abuse.

But the questions of whether the allegations of Satanism and/or other Occult/Masonic/whatever are actually fact-based, or have been suggested by third parties, have remained unanswered by you, or anyone else on the thread.

I'm sure you'll agree to this very simple truth:

Children are suggestive.
Children sometimes lie.

And once more I'll ask, have you looked seriously into the ideas surrounding false memories?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
You are saying that Masons only join ONCE they are powerful? That is completely untrue. Masons have big time graft and pull with each other and they CREATE careers for their people. In times of trouble they will cover for each other and they will keep intimate secrets of their brethren, above law.

That is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. In our obligations (oaths), a mason is first made to state that he understands that the obligations DO NOT interfere with "the duty he owes to God (religion), His country (law), his neighbor (friendship/family) or himself (honor, fortitude, fidelity)!

Additionally, in the part where the mason swears to keep his brethren's secrets, he states that they are only to be LAWFUL secrets.

So much for your silly theory. Do some research before spouting off falsities and lies.

If there's a country called "Masonia", of which the rulers have mostly been masons and in which the higher power structure is heavily masonic, and in this society, there is a heavily disguised and controlled trade in children for sex, then I'd say it behooves the Masons of Masonia to spend a little less time in obfuscation and a little more time checking up on what their so-called-brothers are up to.

So you're saying Freemasonry should SPY on its members? Like Trinityman already stated. ANY mason can bring masonic charges upon any of his brothers, regardless of degree or position. If a mason knows of wrongdoing by a mason, he should take action against him. There is nothing in masonic oaths that protect a brother from legal persecution for criminal activities, NOTHING!!!

For example, the masons on this forum have made an offer MANY TIMES to people such as MrNECROS (who states that masons have blown up his toilet and dig through his trash) that if he would tell us who the masons are doing this, we would bring masonic charges against them. Of course he refuses, I wonder why

Maybe there's not as many "wrongdoings", as you call them, going on in the fraternity as you might like to think.

[edit on 13-8-2005 by sebatwerk]

Tinkleflower, you explained alot, thank you.

Please, just understand that organized, ritual abuse is a much bigger problem than you want to accept. As these people who believe,"do what thou will is the whole law" by nature, ultimately, only have loyalty to themselves. The group, circle, club etc. doesn't matter so long as they can satisfy their desires. Some groups are just better at protecting themselves from successfull, just sentencing and simple masons ARE NOT AT THE TOP OF THE LIST.

You are right about children being swayed by adults. The facial expresions, tone and body language of adults with power or authority can very easily shut down a child from telling what THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR, ESSPECIALLY WHEN THEY HAVE ALREADY SUFFERED HORRORS AT THE HAND OF ADULTS.

Far more children have 'false memouries' about "happy childhoods" than you would like to contemplate because of always being told so by their "loved ones". That is a fact. One of the most common factors in adult breakdowns is a history of childhood abuse. That is a fact.

Originally posted by suzy ryan
just sentencing and simple masons ARE NOT AT THE TOP OF THE LIST.

Actually, I know many (what you would call) "high-ranking" masons. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM are probably simpler, nicer, more god fearing and upright and just than many of the newer, younger masons I know.

Your argument doesn't hold. MOST people's arguments in this respect doesn't hold, because I, as a mason, see the complete opposite.

Originally posted by suzy ryan

Please, just understand that organized, ritual abuse is a much bigger problem than you want to accept. As these people who believe,"do what thou will is the whole law" by nature, ultimately, only have loyalty to themselves.

Gee thanks for the slam. I guess I have to go find a baby to eat now. :-(

Sebatwerk you sound as if you're saying that masons ARE at the top of the list of those who avoid just sentencing. I was giving the 'good old boys' a break but, oh well... Anyway my experience is that their are people with more power than good old simple masons who get away with murder and worse.

It looks like, from your experiances, you misunderstand every thing you read. Constanley you fail to see what people are saying, and contort it to fit your twisted sense of reality.

Please, let's discuss the topic, not each other.

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Sebatwerk you sound as if you're saying that masons ARE at the top of the list of those who avoid just sentencing. I was giving the 'good old boys' a break but, oh well...

I was saying no such thing. What I was trying to say is that, while you seem to think that high-ranking masons (is there such thing?) are the baby-eaters, I'm telling you that all of the older and more accomplished masons are, if anything, more upright, just and honorable, than younger, less accomplished masons.

But let's get one thing straight: with few exceptions, ALL masons that I know are GREAT men, NONE which would do what you accuse masons of.

Anyway my experience is that their are people with more power than good old simple masons who get away with murder and worse.

No offense, but I don't believe that you have ANY experience with Freemasons (real ones) of any kind.