ATS -> Pro Masons?

Originally posted by Trinityman
Wow! Interesting thread. Goes to show just how easy it is for things to go off the rails.

hmmm and that means?

Would you mind answering a question? R u a member of the Freemasons?

i shall quote myself from another thread i think its relevant here

Originally posted by Judgeofdarkness
to be frank (im earnest next week) even if their was anything sinister evil or manipulating aspects about them then they wouldnt admit it here, they are under oath after all.

think about it if you the devil your gonna hide, not shout it out at the top of your voice.

if masons are evil, and thats a big if, then their probalably only on this site to discredit the truth about them, but thats only one perception.

and yes it does seem pro mason, but i guess thats why there here if there is a conspiracy, why else would they tell us all about there suposed history and different rites while still keeping their secerts.

im still find humour with the freemasons, im starting to see them as monty python type goofs smoking cigars while being constantly conditioned by their rituals,

ritual=psychological coditioning, is this agood thing or an evil thing, is this used to better the indiviual or is it to further the cult, craft, or the lodges,but thats up to the indiviual to figure out not for me to shove in peoples faces hehe

Originally posted by NJE777
\
Ok, I will give you an example and to be fair I will highlight the negatives on both sides...

Looking @ SR post...Satanic Ritual Abuse 'assisted' by the Vic Govt...
SR provides link and states people who raise these issues are refered to as 'crazy'...2nd point...suggests certain groups, including Masons/occultists demand proof... and further claims thread is vulnerable to being hijacked. At this point we don't know if this claim is specifically directed to masons. But we do know that SR feels posting SRA info is 'unacceptable' to mason & co...

The subject of SRA has nothing to do with Freemasonry or any other fraternal societies, but I personally opted to post concerning it for the following reasons:

I do believe there are plenty of victims of SRA, but I believe these people are not being victimized by satanic cults. Instead, they are being victimized by quack therapists, religious loonies, and money-grubbing lawyers.

I have no doubt that some people believe that they have been victims of SRA. But let's look at the facts here. The SRA panic began with a few books, most importantly "Michelle Remembers" by Michelle Smith and "The Satan Seller" by Mike Warnke. Both of these books have been exposed as hoaxes. However, other books in the same genre have been written, and all likewise lack credibility.

Now, hoaxers aside, after these books came out, many people believed them. Unethical therapists began probing their patients for "memories" of SRA, and, just like Freud said they would, they responded positively (due to psychiatric suggestion). Here, we see the cases of SRA stem not from actual satanic ritual abuse, but instead from pseudo-hypnotic suggestion by therapists who believe in SRA.

This victimization has caused the complete break-up of families, innocent people having their names tarnished, and also even sent to jail. Children are the most open to suggestion, and they are led along this line by therapists who believe in SRA. Here, it is important to remember that adults who believe they were victims of SRA do not have linear memories of it: instead they "discovered memories" during therapy, where the therapists suggest SRA.

www.religioustolerance.org...

answers.org...

whoa just dont know what truth these days

hmm who to trust, secertive club or doctors who want to help people? i dont know who to beleive?

Originally posted by NJE777

Originally posted by Trinityman
Wow! Interesting thread. Goes to show just how easy it is for things to go off the rails.

hmmm and that means?

Just how quickly you and gps777 got sidetracked away from the main topic

Would you mind answering a question? R u a member of the Freemasons?

No I don't mind at all. Yes I am a freemason. BTW there is a clue in my avatar

Originally posted by NJE777
In some ways, it seems Mason's have better PR damage control than any of the abovementioned...

Everyone jumps on everyone else here. If a member is offended and something that they hold in high regard has mud slung at it, they can be harsh in their response.

Anyway, this is still a conspiracy site. If the board and moderators were only intersted in protecting masonry, we'd shut down the SS forum and we wouldn't allow the topic be discussed at all, or we'd have a 'FAQ" written by masons and just refer people to that whenver a question comes up.

But we don't, because we're not pro-masonry and we're not pro-anti-masonry. The board itself is neutral, outside of being a conspiracy theory board. We're not going to force people to be quite simply because they are masons, anymore than we're going to force people to make up wild and baseless accusations against masonry to be quite.

If a person makes an allegation against masonry, everyone on the board has a right to respond to it. If a person doesn't want to hear criticism, then what are they doing here in the first place?

Originally posted by Judgeofdarkness
whoa just dont know what truth these days

hmm who to trust, secertive club or doctors who want to help people? i dont know who to beleive?

I'm not talking about "secretive clubs" nor am I talking about "doctors who want to help people". I'm talking about psychoanalyst quacks with religious agendas who victimize their patients, and which is where the whole SRA thing originated. There's a perfect example here.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by NJE777
\
Ok, I will give you an example and to be fair I will highlight the negatives on both sides...

Looking @ SR post...Satanic Ritual Abuse 'assisted' by the Vic Govt...
SR provides link and states people who raise these issues are refered to as 'crazy'...2nd point...suggests certain groups, including Masons/occultists demand proof... and further claims thread is vulnerable to being hijacked. At this point we don't know if this claim is specifically directed to masons. But we do know that SR feels posting SRA info is 'unacceptable' to mason & co...

The subject of SRA has nothing to do with Freemasonry or any other fraternal societies, but I personally opted to post concerning it for the following reasons:

I do believe there are plenty of victims of SRA, but I believe these people are not being victimized by satanic cults. Instead, they are being victimized by quack therapists, religious loonies, and money-grubbing lawyers.

I have no doubt that some people believe that they have been victims of SRA. But let's look at the facts here. The SRA panic began with a few books, most importantly "Michelle Remembers" by Michelle Smith and "The Satan Seller" by Mike Warnke. Both of these books have been exposed as hoaxes. However, other books in the same genre have been written, and all likewise lack credibility.

Now, hoaxers aside, after these books came out, many people believed them. Unethical therapists began probing their patients for "memories" of SRA, and, just like Freud said they would, they responded positively (due to psychiatric suggestion). Here, we see the cases of SRA stem not from actual satanic ritual abuse, but instead from pseudo-hypnotic suggestion by therapists who believe in SRA.

This victimization has caused the complete break-up of families, innocent people having their names tarnished, and also even sent to jail. Children are the most open to suggestion, and they are led along this line by therapists who believe in SRA. Here, it is important to remember that adults who believe they were victims of SRA do not have linear memories of it: instead they "discovered memories" during therapy, where the therapists suggest SRA.

www.religioustolerance.org...

answers.org...

With all due respect MasonicLight -> this should be under Vic Govt 'assisted' SRA...

I am not discussing SRA here -> imho I think this is an excellent reply and should be an example to other Masons...you have discussed this without being defensive and provided links to actually contribute to the discussion.





[edit on 2-2-2006 by NJE777]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by NJE777
In some ways, it seems Mason's have better PR damage control than any of the abovementioned...

Anyway, this is still a conspiracy site. If the board and moderators were only intersted in protecting masonry, we'd shut down the SS forum and we wouldn't allow the topic be discussed at all, or we'd have a 'FAQ" written by masons and just refer people to that whenver a question comes up.

good point but people will go somewhere else and discuss it...so keeping it close is a good way of managing the conspiracy.

But we don't, because we're not pro-masonry and we're not pro-anti-masonry. The board itself is neutral, outside of being a conspiracy theory board. We're not going to force people to be quite simply because they are masons, anymore than we're going to force people to make up wild and baseless accusations against masonry to be quite.

another good comment! -> reminds me somewhat of a 'Media Release?' lol...
The issue here is with moderation... I feel its a bit like the parent who needs to bring a child back into line..yanno when kids are stretching/testing you...same sort of thing. Just seems that in some threads there is some 'stretching' going on and the moderators need to snap them back into line.

If a person makes an allegation against masonry, everyone on the board has a right to respond to it. If a person doesn't want to hear criticism, then what are they doing here in the first place?

Yes everyone has a right to respond but that is where the moderation comes in.

Originally posted by NJE777
Well Roark... your response is typically 'defensive'....no discussion...just give me the 'proof' and then some other negative historical minimalistic approach...and sing praise praise praise...reminds me of the Howard Govt position on 'detention centres'...

My response was typically "defensive"? I just said I was keen for an example...

A lot of untruths float around here at times. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask for a bit of background info, or a citation, before wholeheartedly believing something that I'm told. That's just plain sensible in my book.

Thou protesteth too much.

Thanks for the negative comparison with the Howard government. Your hostility is noted, and I look forward debating with you when you present something of substance.

Originally posted by Trinityman

Just how quickly you and gps777 got sidetracked away from the main topic

That will be me to take the blame for beginning the sidetrack,in the SRA thread i mentioned Crowley's rituals that include human sacrifice,though was`nt meant as a hijack rather a possible cause,and of coarse realized that people would either agree or disagree.I still believe its quit possible.
So i would in hind sight mention it again until i have reason to believe otherwise,and i`m not joining the OTO and all other followers of Crowley's to find out whether they take it literally or not.

So apologies in advance that i`ll probably do the same thing again.



[edit on 3-2-2006 by gps777]

Originally posted by Judgeofdarkness

im still find humour with the freemasons, im starting to see them as monty python type goofs smoking cigars while being constantly conditioned by their rituals

oh thanks for that...I dont think I will ever be the same again... lol lmao.... ya just had to mention monty python rotflmao

Originally posted by Roark

Thou protesteth too much.

areth youth doingeth a bibleth sortofeth quoteth thingeth?

lmao

Originally posted by Trinityman

Originally posted by NJE777

Would you mind answering a question? R u a member of the Freemasons?

No I don't mind at all. Yes I am a freemason. BTW there is a clue in my avatar

Was there a purpose to your question? Did you want to ask me something or were you just curious?

I asked because at that point in time I was curious...

but in all honesty, It was a pre emptive strategy... and suggested that if you were a mason then that would mean 'you have a tainted view' of what I am trying to discuss here... so indirectly discrediting you to begin with, which is wrong of me to do that

My perspective at that time was if your a mason then you will not give an unbiased nuetral discussion, but MasonicLight has shown otherwise. It can be done.

I would like to see a discussion rather than defensive reactions...



[edit on 3-2-2006 by NJE777]

Well as I said, there's going to be defense always online as long as there's two options and two sides of the story. That's everywhere, it's impossible to do what you're suggesting.

Originally posted by NJE777

My perspective at that time was if your a mason then you will not give an unbiased nuetral discussion, but MasonicLight has shown otherwise.

How does throwing in his promotion of the false memoury lie (look into the background of those who 'developed' and promote this tactic against victims) and down playing SRA, show him to be unbiased and nuetral?

Did he balance his little off topic lecture with the facts of the countless survivers who never forgot, spoke out from the start and still got no more than a 'crazy' lable?

He wasn't defending his brotherhood but belittling, insulting and so attacking the integrity of all survivers, who may or may not, one day seek justice and so add to their difficulty in "proving" their case.

Future jury members in trials of this nature could have this little exchange as their only understanding of the issues and so have thier verdict tainted against the victim.

In fact this sort of 'drip fed' information (that people tend to 'remember' as their own opinion) is far more effective in directing peoples opinions than the 'saturation' method.

Do not underestimate the calculated, far reaching cunning of many of these 'enlightened' people.

Originally posted by suzy ryan

How does throwing in his promotion of the false memoury lie (look into the background of those who 'developed' and promote this tactic against victims) and down playing SRA, show him to be unbiased and nuetral?

Discussed the issue, provided links...discussed being the operative word...did not jump in with defensive unsubstantiated opinion. The way I see it is he put his point across in a constructive manner, even if I disagree but it provides room for further discussion... as your questions illustrate:

Did he balance his little off topic lecture with the facts of the countless survivers who never forgot, spoke out from the start and still got no more than a 'crazy' lable?

He wasn't defending his brotherhood but belittling, insulting and so attacking the integrity of all survivers, who may or may not, one day seek justice and so add to their difficulty in "proving" their case.

Future jury members in trials of this nature could have this little exchange as their only understanding of the issues and so have thier verdict tainted against the victim.

In fact this sort of 'drip fed' information (that people tend to 'remember' as their own opinion) is far more effective in directing peoples opinions than the 'saturation' method.

Do not underestimate the calculated, far reaching cunning of many of these 'enlightened' people.

If the issue is discussed thoroughly whatever argument people are advancing will either be negated or futher advanced. Of course a masonic member will be biased and advance points contrary to the other side...but rather than contribute in a defensive way, if they discuss as MasonicLight has done.. ur half way there to reaching an outcome... and if no result is reached logically you can form your own opinion based on that. And sometimes silence is deafening....

Main thing is if you are discussing a masonic consipiracy issue then the moderators have to step in to stop thread hijacking so the discussion has the freedom to develop into whatever it does....

Originally posted by NJE777
Of course a masonic member will be biased and advance points contrary to the other side...

First, thanks for your other kind words. In the above quote, however, I'm just curious as to why you would think I'm biased. I'm neither a therapist or a lawyer, but I am a father, and like all parents, have been concerned about the upward surge in crimes against children.

I do not, and have never, denied that crimes against children take place. Nor can I think of anything more heinous. However, since this is indeed the case, I can't even begin to imagine how bad it must be to be wrongfully accused of such a thing, if you're innocent, based largely (or entirely) on nothing more than religious belief.

Nor do I deny that there have been isolated cases of satanic ritual abuse. But, almost always, this comes from teenagers with psychological and/or emotional problems, who, for whatever reason, are rebelling against the Christianity of their parents. They often act alone or, at most, with one or two of their peers.

But the idea of adults being involved in some sort of satanic conspiracy to harm children is lacking in evidence. Suzy mentioned some adults who claim to have linear memories, but I'm not aware of any such testimony that has been able to withstand the test of serious scrutiny. Adult religious satanists do not even believe in Satan, much less worship him. They are just atheists who enjoy employing shock value.

As for Crowley and the religion of Thelema, I don't think the Australians have anything to worry about. Crowley was even an outspoken opponent of abortion (in his commentaries to the Book of the Law, he called it most heinous and cowardly form of murder). The fact that his writings were almost always (and purposely) outrageous to the point of comedy was in fact a breath of fresh air in occult literature (most occult authors are super-serious, dry, and stodgy to the point of needing a constant dose of Ex-Lax). In The Book of Thoth, Crowley's last book, written when he was 70 years old, he himself admitted that he had always masked his inherent shyness behind eccentricity. I would go even further and state that, remembering that Crowley was a product of puritan Victorian England, he also constantly (though subconsciously) attempted to mask his homosexuality behind a mask of bravado.

Regardless, during his lifetime, no one ever charged him with trying to hurt any children. Dr. Israel Regardie, who himself had a falling out with Crowley and was not a fan, came to his defense against author John Symonds (who wrote the Crowley biography "The Great Beast"). Symonds charged that Crowley was not a gentleman; Regardie, although it probably pained him to do so, defended Crowley as a perfect Victorian gentleman.

I am a former Associate Member of O.T.O. I no longer belong to the organization in any way, and I certainly have my share of criticisms against them. But my criticisms are philosophical and administrative: I've never met any Thelemite with whom I would not trust with children. I cannot say the same with many in the Christian clergy.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by NJE777
However, since this is indeed the case, I can't even begin to imagine how bad it must be to be wrongfully accused of such a thing, if you're innocent, based largely (or entirely) on nothing more than religious belief.

Nor do I deny that there have been isolated cases of satanic ritual abuse. But, almost always, this comes from teenagers with psychological and/or emotional problems, who, for whatever reason, are rebelling against the Christianity of their parents. They often act alone or, at most, with one or two of their peers.

But the idea of adults being involved in some sort of satanic conspiracy to harm children is lacking in evidence. Suzy mentioned some adults who claim to have linear memories, but I'm not aware of any such testimony that has been able to withstand the test of serious scrutiny. Adult religious satanists do not even believe in Satan, much less worship him. They are just atheists who enjoy employing shock value.

See, now constantly repeating this propaganda, designed to make people less inclined to believe those who speak out, is part of the Pro-Mason info. war.

They will actually create situations to raise the issue, for the purpose of discrediting victims.

As to the horrors of being falsely accused, unless you have corrupt police or others of that ilk backing you, for the purpose of 'destroying' someone, finding anyone to proceed with laying charges is useually too traumatic for most survivers to succeed at.

ML's first quote above, is just a standard war cry to get the fearfull to enlist in the, "SRA doesn't exist, only crazy people say otherwise." propaganda campaign.

If ML were to read the records of survivers who don't want to persue justice through the courts (often because they they know those who did the harm control the courts) but just want to 'heal', he would know how far from isolated these cases are. Not that I believe he doesn't already, but hey, that's just my concidered opinion.

Haven't there already been enough threads on who believes and practices what, (concluding that no one is restricted as to 'how far they will go' and no one can speak for the practices of other groups or individuals) to be suspicious of ML's claim Satanist don't believe in Satan? What an outrageous claim!

Now see, if I were to make the same insulting claims of masons, as ML made of survivers of Organized Child Sex Abuse (emotional and psychological problems; unable to withstand scrutiny, etc.) a mod. would be sure jump in and ask for 'proof', a 'clarification', whatever would make followers of the thread 'think twice' before believing 'anything' bad about any mason, but ML plays down and fobs off the survivers of the Multi Billion Dollar International Child Sex Slave Trade, without a check.

There are more than enough Gov., FBI and other official sourced links on ATS to show these crimes are far from 'isolated' among a few 'fruit loops', but indeed, a massive International Industry, involving powerfull people (DynCorp transporting over 200, 000 women and children as SLAVES and still getting enormous Gov. war contracts isn't good enough evidence of the reality of the power behind the Industry and it's PROTECTION?) . Still, a good mason will ignor these facts and keep pushing the, "They're all crazy!" line.

Lacking in evidence, is proof that ML isn't a dis-info. agent, working to silence survivers and stop any who do hear them, from believing. The mutilation I suffered (by a miracle I was still able to have children) at the hands of powerfull, educated professionals, as a baby, are on record, and will be with me for life.

I'm lucky in that I survived and have had a fruitfull life, what I can't stomach is the general acceptance that attacking the sanity and credablity of survivers, and those currently being abused, is a fine method of defending those who practice evil.

If every report of such practices was 'fully' investigated, without interferance and corruption, or witnesses "dying", etc. (the actual 'tests' one has to withstand to win at the 'game of law') no one would be game to make the pathetic defence of evil by claiming, "it just exists in the minds of a few 'damged' people".

Those "emotional problems" etc., that folk like ML and others use to try to discredit survivers, is actually 'evidence' of the trauma they endured, so it is a particularly cruel and heartless tactic (turning the evidence of the victim into the defence for the perp.) to be expected of that ilk.

One such 'emotionally troubled' surviver of long term abuse, who had spoken out since childhood, and constantly called crazy for it, ended up hacking his abuser up with an axe, which finally led to him being believed and vindicated by the courts.

The injustices, endemic in the legal system, create those who feel forced to take the law into their own hands, something I'd rather not happen, and denying there is a problem big enough to justify a thorough, no one too big to be 'untouchable', clean sweep of 'proper channels', just puts more from 'both sides', in danger of losing their lives.

Is ATS Pro Mason? ML took the thread off this topic to slam claims of survivers of SRA, I responded. Will I get the 'check' he didn't, as has happened on other threads?