It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Masonic Influence:

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 07:49 PM
Axman’s analogy of the dog’s response to the kid is one of the best I’ve run into lately.

While I will not claim to have read every Masonic thread on this board, I will state that I have read at least 90% of them in their entirety. Over the life of this particular forum there has defiantly been a pendulum effect present. At times there have been a preponderance of antis and at others a preponderance of masons. The “ganging on” has been on both sides at various times.

At one point, one of the moderators (initials TC) basically “shut down” Masonic responses for a period. While lately there seem to be more masons than anti masons on ATS it is more appearance than fact.

I will readily admit that on all too many times the Masonic responses have been less than professional. The teaching of masonry tell us to be tolerant and to help all men, but masons are human. And after repeatedly answering the same chares and out right lies time after time anyone can get tired. This may be the reason behind the attitude exhibited at times.

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:55 PM
The full illuminating light of brilliance that is the widow sons architecture is evident in the very structure of this thread

The masonic construct is a template for Heleglian synthesis. The world is reduced to masons and anti - masons.

When we offer an opinion that runs counter to masonic principles we are give a label of an anti mason.

When we offer an opinion that aligns with masonic principles we are labeled a mason

The genius of this construct is that we are not allowed to be something wholly individual humans with independent thoughts and ideals

I mean this type of construct must have taken thousands of years to become so embedded in our social thought process.

It like the masons invented the fabric of civilization. they are the "Google" of
civilized thought. They have layered a template over reality, then convinced us that the template is reality. there has been no greater accomplishment in the history of civilization. The concern is when you have such a powerful tool, there is always the chance that the wrong forces may gain control of it

However well meaning, this constructed structure is a reality trap. It limits potential and forces participants into a left brained dogmatic duality.

Its like a chain letter that serves no purpose other than to perpetuate itself

but I really do enjoy those Shriners on the little bikes !

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by NWRHINO

I just think that the sides that scream the loudest are the ones heard. Pure anti-masons scream loud, and the masons will scream loud back at them. Those in between get drowned out.

Of course, I have offered the counter to this thread in the Anti-Masonic Influence thread, but - interestingly - no anti-masons have decided to respond. You notice in THIS thread the masons are all responding and we are stumbling over ourselves to explain our actions and offering apologies.

The anti-mason silence speaks all the volume in the world without saying a thing.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 05:29 AM
This thread is a thoroughly enjoyable read from both sides of the debate.

On a scale from 10 to -10, 0 being neutral, there will be fanatics and moderates on both sides of any given debate. Debate with the 5 to -5 people is a healthy and fun experience, while debate with the extremists is usually a waste of time and energy.

Those 5 upwards on the scale will never ever be swayed by anything you say, prove, explain. If it all, they can be swayed by you being a nice person.

Personally, I´ve never really felt the need to defend freemasonry becase, while liking it, I was never attached to as one might be attached to some religion. As Freemasonry is not a religion, there´s no mission to defend some belief-system. And besides, life does not judge us by our association with a certain group or belief-system, it judges us by our actions.

Tolerance is easy when we understand that "hurting people often hurt". So when someone is viciously attacking me, my first thought is not "how do I counter that?" but "I feel your pain"

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 06:38 AM
Looks to me like Tetragrammaton´s point(well maybe not point, but point of debate) was pretty much made thanks to various replies. Actually this post is ridiculous since I usually don´t post just to show my support, but they have this nice rule that says you can´t u2u before you have made 20 posts.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by FedtStensDyr]
To clarify

[edit on 12-12-2007 by FedtStensDyr]

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Tetragrammaton

There are currently a large amount of masons on the Above Top Secret forum. Their agenda for being here, is according to the majority not to discuss conspiracy theory, but to defend the brotherhood from hatemongering produced by their term; Anti-Mason.

Hi Tetragrammaton

I have a problem with your analysis.

Which majority takes this viewpoint? The majority of anti-masons? Neutrals?

If this is your opinion too, I would like to offer my viewpoint:

In my opinion, the reason for the large numbers of members on ATS has to do with masons' near-obsession with truth, rather than to defend the society.

There is a saying: "If you see something wrong and don't correct it, you have just set a new standard."

Since 'Truth' plays a large part in mason's lives, most of us subscribe to the lesson in the quote above. Hence, our eagerness to argue against fallacies.

I believe it is this, rather than any masonic agenda, which explains the phenomenon which you mention.

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 07:57 AM
Tetra: If you honestly wanted a ceasefire, maybe you should stop shooting.

I'm definitely not a fan of freemasonry, but I see no point in harassing them. I've discovered that asking the Freemasons at ATS simple and direct questions will tend to get you simple and direct (and honest) responses... to the best of their knowledge. You don't like how they defend themselves against attacks? I'd say tough luck, and if I were a mason I'd have a lot less patience than is being shown. My respect for them has grown significantly having watched them patiently endure endless and repetitive assaults over the years.

They are not taking over ATS or any subforum, and their presence here tbh is a true blessing for those of us with genuine inquiry in a wide variety of matters. If something about masonry bugs you so much, boil it down to a simple line and phrase it concisely so you have the best chance of getting a direct response.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by Shar_Chi]

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:00 AM
Allow me to throw my hat in the ring, and offer my own $0.02 worth, as well as attempt to summarize the whole thing in a nutshell.

First, I commend Tet on a well thought-out post. I disagree with a lot of it, but many critics of Freemasonry are not as systematic in their approach, much less in applying formal logic.

My disagreement with the OP lies in his accusations of straw man fallacy and ad hominem. I don't recall seeing a Mason using a straw man argument here; I'm not saying it didn't happen, only if it did, it isn't the norm, because I've been on ATS quite a wgile and don't remember seeing it.

As for ad hominem, yes, I've seen Masons use it, and unfortunately have probably done so myself. However, not to the extent that many anti-Masons on the forum have used ad hominem, at least in general.

As for "undermining" ATS: when I became a member here, there were only a couple of other Masons here. When ATS began to expand and really take off, lots of other people signed up, including Masons. I disagree that Masons, as such, are here to undermine anything or restrict critical thinking. Rather, I would argue, in general, that most of the Masons here are trying to persuade people to think critically. Obviously, some folks (both Masons and anti-Masons) just simply like to argue, so again, my point should be taken as a general overview.

As for Masonry itself, here's my take on it:

At Some point in the past, circa the early 17th century, various mystics and philosophers began joining the Craft, and some saw the opportunity to use the fraternity as a method of carrying on the Western Mystery Tradition, most notably, by transmitting the knowledge of the Kabalah to posterity, as well as by enforcing a strict code of moral conduct without which any endeavor of spiritual development is fruitless. This is what separates Freemasonry from civic clubs and secular charitable organizations, and the Institution continues to attempt to instill high morality and esoteric research in its Initiates.

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Tetragrammaton
... I was however once many years ago here on Above Top Secret a Anti-Masonic tinfoil madman, storming in here with my propaganda spewing ignorance all over the place. The masons here at that time, did not do a particular good job in convincing me that there weren’t anything sinister going on, they did however debunk a lot of the disinformation I had scooped up over my short time researching these topics, and for that I owe them my thanks.

Heheh. We get those from time to time, and I like the term: "Anti-Masonic tinfoil madman" -- has a nice ring to it.

My view is this: I don't need to harp on the fact that nothing sinister is going on, for 2 reasons.

First, you can't prove a negative. I can't prove that nothing sinister is happening any more than our detractors can prove that something is. Why waste my time? I have found that those who demand you prove a negative are not good debaters, and typically their threads/posts fade and go largely unnoticed and unreplied to (the odd ad hominem notwithstanding, of course
). It's not worth my time to debate or reply to someone who is set in their preconceived notions and rejects reason and intellectual discussion and/or investigation.

Second, by focusing on what can be shown to be true, and showing the reasoning behind it, I have found that people are much more receptive and typically will concede to having been wrong. I have seen it happen enough times for me to believe that my time on ATS is not wasted time; something good has come from it, and I like that. People have read my words and done their own homework because of it, only to come back and thank me later for my help. I find this to be the more constructive (and satisfying) route, and while I used to be hot-headed and perhaps a bit arrogant at times (it's the beer), the last couple of years have been good to me and I seem to have mellowed somewhat.

That said, catch me on the right day with an off comment and I might just tear loose on ya. It's happened recently, and while it will happen from time to time, I'm working on it, because it's still not kosher.

But when I continued my criticism of the nepotistic organisation of the fraternity as a whole, and produced postulates about ancient sun worship dating back to the time before Sumeria etc. and provided data regarding this it was refuted by the 3 mentioned tactics, not viable counter argumentation etc.

Nepotism in Masonry is not as common a practice as one might think, at least in my experience. The extent of it might be that if the employer was a Mason, and two EQUALLY QUALIFIED applicants were applying for a position and one of them happens to be a Mason, he will probably be hired over the other. Why? Because there is a bond between Masons, and typically we are sure we can trust someone who is a Mason, perhaps more so than someone who is not. It's not always true, we are just men, and I'm sure there are Masons out there who are less-than-trustworthy (I have yet to meet one), but still. Blatant nepotism is not an issue, at least in my experience.

I might ask around the lodge if anyone is a mechanic, or handyman, etc. before I go to the yellow pages, though, I will say that. Why wouldn't I want to give a friend the business, and be at ease knowing he won't rip me off?

As far as Sumerian Sun-worship, etc.? There's nothing like that, at least in the Blue degrees (there is some mention of it in the Scottish Rite, if I'm not terribly mistaken, but it is from a historical standpoint -- not a practical one). There is mention of the Sun and Moon, etc. but it's not in a worshipping sense; they are representative of Light and leadership -- Light is obvious, leadership because the sun "presides" over the day, and the moon the night.

I won't dare to sit here and claim that there are not ways you could relate the symbols, etc. to what you describe. A lot of people have that opinion because Pike called Freemasonry "The successor to the Ancient Mysteries," and a lot of those were sun-worship cults. The thing is though, Masonry is only like them in structure; we have certain rituals for the various degrees of initiation, we ask that the candidate come of his own free will, the candidate is kept in the dark (literally) for a time to emphasize that he is among trusted friends, etc. We're certainly not sacrificing virgins to Apollo, or anything like that.

There is a difference in similarity of structure and similarity of content.

But here's the thing about Sun-worship: I don't think it was about worshipping a big ball of gas; it was their personification of the Deity. The Sun was simply a symbol for God. The sun brings warmth and makes the plants grow, etc. It is a "giver of life," so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to imagine these folks who don't understand physics and science to imagine that the sun is in some way representative of God Himself.

To me, it seems more likely that the sun was merely a symbol, and that the Adepts of the time knew that, but to the unwashed masses they were just "worshipping the sun."

The preceding was my own opinion, no sources other than my own various readings and reasoning.

Anyways, to sum this up, yes I indeed have an agenda, but as stated it is not Anti-Masonic. But recently I tire of all the noise produced here by the masons, hence the reason for creating this topic.

We are equally -- no -- probably even MORE tired of the "noise" produced by ignorant fanatics in this forum. They cling to their bibles (that most do not understand) and thump it and tell us how we're devil-lovers when they don't know the first thing about Masonry past what tells them.

THAT is tiresome, let me tell you.

I want to debate if by chance there are a slim possibility that we can find co-existence on these boards and that we can produce a constructive debate and information sharing in the secret societies forum, concerning every secret society not just freemasonry.

I doubt you will find a single complaint about that from "our camp." If people would check their tin-foil at the door, this would be a much happier place -- but this site is for tin-foilers, so there's no hope of that ever happening.

And if possible, to have a debate about freemasonry without the interference of the freemasons as the ultimate arbiters, but subjective individuals like the rest of us.

You must understand that as a member of the group in question it is very hard to be (I think you were looking for: ) objective. A "subjective opinion" is what we give here every day -- as members, of course we have bias, and not only that, but real-life experience upon which to draw to make our conclusions.

Now a question for you: Who should be the objective arbiters?

I have tried on numerous occasions to set up a Masonic debate... never happened. You know why? Because no one would take the anti-Mason side! All they can do is post regurgitated crap from anti-Masonic websites (which all repeat the same weak-ass accusations and "proofs") and cry that the Masons are bullying them! I mean give me a break!

Trust me; the debate idea has been thrown around. I was once on the ATS Steering Committee (DISC) and it came up there, too. The final decision was it was too wide a topic and no one would take the opposing side anyway.

I'd be game for a debate, though.

So I say, that you (read: masons) are deliberately undermining the very fabric of ATS, by ridiculing any critical thinking, of course you would not admit to the fact that there could indeed be some situations where your ancient and accepted order does not come to par.

The Freemasons undermining ATS idea has already been addressed, so I'll leave it at that; and look around -- we'll be the first to admit that the Fraternity is not perfect; it has its weaknesses, some of them we can fix, some are "set in stone," so to speak. Either way, the fraternity is what it is. We accept it for that, and what's more, we don't ask if outsiders accept it, and at the end of the day we don't really care if they do or don't.

Freemasonry has survived this long; I don't think Jack Chick or Bill Shnoebelen is going to bring us down.

In addition since this thread is up I would like to discuss if possible the social, religious, economic and political influence of fraternities as a whole…

Lord have mercy, let's keep it manageable! You're asking to open a whole other can of worms there... perhaps another thread?

OK I think I got to all of it; let me know if I missed anything and I'll be looking forward to your response(s).

[edit on 12/12/07 by The Axeman]

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:32 PM
reply to post by Tetragrammaton

Everyone else is here so I might as well chip in

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment, as indeed apparently do most of the "masons" here. I don't agree with much else of your original post though, to be fair. But you'll be pleased to know that only one post got a star from me on this thread, and it was one of yours (and no it wasn't the first one lol).

I star constructive, or funny posts. I don't focus on "masons" - quite frankly half the time I forget who is who!

This whole problem has been created by the age old mistake of boxing people up. "Masons" are simply not a homogeneous group. Neither are "anti-masons". Go back though this, or any other thread and substitute "black" and "white" for those two terms and see how offensive things become. Or how about "men" and "women". Or "teachers" and "astronauts". The very thought that anyone, ANYONE posting to ATS is so dramatically simplistic as to be characterized by just one facet of their character is so laughable it's tragic. Sometimes I'm a mason, sometimes I'm a father, sometimes I'm a football fan, sometimes I'm a grumpy git.

I'll talk to you with authority on subjects that I am knowledgeable about. In this context that is freemasonry. Somewhere else it might be Tolkien, or architecture, or Star Trek.

Just imagine how a Trekker might feel if someone comes wandering along, having never seen a single episode of Star Trek (OK I know thats not very likely but go with me on this one), spouting off how rubbish it all is based what someone else told them. It would be messy, I can tell you.

Have you not noticed that every mason posting on this board is different? Different style, different viewpoint, different personality. All quite different. Such is also the case with "anti-masons" also (can we find a more attractively-labeled box please for these folks?).

The sooner we start treating each other as people and not pixels the sooner these problems will go away.

Thanks for the thread.

[edit on 12/12/07 by Trinityman]

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:21 AM
reply to post by Trinityman

Starred. Excellent post.

Rather than a logical fallacy there´s a special perceptual fallacy we all fall victim to sometimes: "Putting them all into one pot".

I notice this sometimes when debating an "other side" where suddenly all debunkers of my topic seem "the same" to me...which they are obviously not.

The mistake I then make is to project my anger at one of them on another of them.

Internet-Forum Boards are especially predestined for this mistake because we dont actually SEE anyone so we have a hard time discerning between Person A and Person B.

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:35 PM
reply to post by The Axeman

I would like to thank all the posters in this thread; you caught me off guard there. I am sorry for the delayed response.

Next I would like to ask the masons on this board fore forgiveness, I have acted wrong, again. And made a huge generalisation, some of my statements where insinuating at some places, and I could have produced a more streamlined post, old habits die slow.

Now down to business.

Axeman, thank you for your honest post, you are indeed walking the walk. Thank you for your compliments.
Overall I would like to say I agree with everything you posted, almost that is. There are some points I feel most important, and would like to address these first. Also an excellent written post by your self and I can see replying to this will take up most of my evening.

I completely agree with your dog analogy, and I have heard it before from masons, such as your self. It is an understandable reaction, a defence mechanism you might call it.

Your first point about the same could be said about anti-masons is equally true, perhaps more than we think. It is an interesting and absolutely no unique behaviour in conflicting groups. We are holding each other up, to a visible or invisible code of behaviour. Judging each other, I judge everyone around me, not a trait you would like on your resume.

Actually reading your posts, well I have spent a lot of time thinking… Well bottom line self-realisation can be a pain.

My OP was judging every mason, I am judging every mason, that in it self is wrong. I know this, yet I do it, that is the history of man.
Before I venture of on my epic journey to Elysium, perhaps I should ground myself, for a while.

Masons are defending themselves against outrageous accusations. They are the most visible secret society, so visible that they have to deny the obvious, that they themselves are indeed what they claim not to be.
Fatigue has struck the masons, every time an attack is launched, forceful and well planned counter attacks, slaying any aggression, and their defence makes the Israeli military look like boy scouts. The anti-masonic propaganda machine seems to be running on endless supplies every time a mason gets another notch on his pummel stick, another anti-mason just seems to reappear out of thin air. Like god himself have send them here to test faith and will of the followers of enlightenment.

In addition the catch-22 occurrence is problematic, I had the same problem when I first got here, to me it was like listening to the preaching devil, I now know how grievously I was mistaken, as mentioned thanks to most importantly Masonic Light, who I cannot praise enough.

You also mention the problem that the masses to use your label, hold you to higher standards, this is incorrect in my opinion, the masses hold you against your own high standards, which they should, like you would a politician or a police officer.

And you aren’t all guilty, if I could rephrase it, you are acting like a guilty party, most of the time, because you react so strongly against attacks. (Best defence is offence?) Of course I know why you react that way, and I understand it, it does not make you guilty, it just makes you look guilty.
If someone where to say to me, a person I did not know, and did not care for; you are worshipping the devil! I would ignore the retard. But if a person of same traits, said to me, all Asatrue, or all Danish people are worshiping the devil, I would not hesitate to counterattack that person in full force, so as I said, I do understand your reaction.

Ill hold to my claim, that the masons on this board are allowed more than any other party to ridicule their opponents. Several times have I seen a mason attack a person, though not directly but with subliminal pseudo-academic ad hominem attacks. And getting away from it, I can only see two possible scenarios. One, the mason has a friend or someone holding his hand over the mason, who has a position in the executive administration of Above Top Secret. Or secondly, the moderators on these boards don’t have either the intellectual capacity to understand these attacks or simply don’t have the time to get deep enough under the skin of the board i.e. the moderators are spread to thin.

And we shall leave the capitalistic west out of this; I only used them as an example.

I have a military leadership education, and I sure do know why you don’t attack or call out a fellow brother in front of the public audience. But this is exactly one of the circumstances that give you the appearance I am talking about. But I understand why.

Regarding the stars, perhaps this should be labelled irrelevant I know I brought it up, but it just have a wrong taste to it. And I have no statistic anyways to back up my claim, I just have the appearance that, masons just get more stars in threads here on the Secret Society forums, than most other, and this isn’t for the great posts, like the one I am replying to, but in my opinion, hidden slander and slur, at people who have a different point of view. Well this was a great way for me leaving out this particular subject…

I don’t know how many masons are in the administration and neither does the administration, but for the record, yes I know only of one, at the moment, and for the record, I have never seen him, or heard of him to have misused his authority on these boards.

But perhaps as you say, there is just a bigger concentration of freemasons on the Secret Society forums, and I never denied that this was a subjective point of reference.

I will not bring facts into this discussion at the moment; I have several times shown acknowledged sources and data, regarding the development and evolution of esoteric teachings, religions and man itself. These can of course always be refuted; this is exactly the trouble with science.
And it is not that you don’t agree, it is that you always categorically deny that the sources that are presented, could indeed have a valid point! Well subjective again, but it is no less how I feel.

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:37 PM
A continuation of post by Tetragrammaton

Lastly I will remain headstrong in the claim, about where the control lies on the Secret Societies forum at the moment, you are the majority and at least the intellectual powerhouse currently on the Secret Society forums, if I would take you all head on, I would surely loose, no matter how true my words where, you could bomb me back to the stone age, with pure blessed walls of text, I would have no defence, but to ignore you, and would in turn look like the intolerable one, that could not stand getting his arguments shot down.

I will retract my statement as a whole and come back with a better well thought together one.

Moreover, i would like to say to all again, thanks for replying, i will get to you all in time, but it takes time to write a proper response for you all, i am sorry for the delay.

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:57 PM
Hi. As an often time lurker I agree with several of Tet's arguments in theory.

Several of the Masons on this board have a tendency to react as if you just called his mother a wh0r3.

I have seen several very vocal members reacting to someting in someone's post that isn't necessarily offensive...unless you personally add that context to the post in order to make it offensive. Basically the response from various Masons tends to assume that the posters is looking to create Anti-Masonic rhetoric that is pure BS. However, the Mason has made the assumption and inevitably makes an ass of himself and the Brotherhood.

What I believe would help several of these posts is Masons remembering that Masonry has stood for several centuries without you blasting every skeptic (crazy or sane) along the way (remember the Anti-Mason Party...the first major 3rd party in the US).

My brethern need to apply the compass and circumscribe himself so as to only reply to the alledge facts posted by the various people. Stepping down and reacting as the beat dog makes us all look petty and weak willed. Instead of constantly attacking those that fear us perhaps replying to the directed information with more correct information would be a better response?

For that matter my Great-Aunt sent me several missives eariler this year via email asking how I could in good conscience be a Mason. We spent a good week or two emailing back and forth. Finally we came to the decision that we will agree to disagree and no longer discuss it. Because I was unable to shake her fear of the Fraternity and she was unable to instill in me a fear of the Fraternity. And I'm still unsure where most of her information came from, but I'm fairly certain it was from such sites as Masonicwatch and ephisians 5-12.

Handle the responses on here as you would respond to your Great-Aunt and remember that most people are posting something they genuinely believe. Calling it BS before truly understanding the argument or the reasons the poster place the argument will only further their distaste for you and the Fraternity.

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 02:14 PM
reply to post by dynamiclysane

Sorry for interrupting, but I just wanted to say that was one of the best posts I've read in quite a while. Thanks for contributing; hopefully, everyone on both sides of the issue will consider your words.

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by Masonic Light

I agree with ML, gave him a star already.

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:58 PM

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
So, basically you're saying that Masons should just passively sit back while people make unsubstantiated claims against their society...
Yeah, that's the problem, that is what the Masons have done for far too long and look at the ridiculosusness of the anti-Masonic movement because of it.

That is the basis I got out of it as well..

It was a good read OP, interesting ideas. Most of which I don't think could be directed at Masons but at everyone as a whole.

The whole "victimization" thing, I don't get. Masons here may sometimes come off as saying we are victimized here.. but honestly what is the alternative? .. Usually its a thread started that attacked the organization - thus we are the victim of a rant. Not all the time.. some of the time. Masons have been known to attack other organizations though - I despise organized religion, not afraid to say so.. there have been Masonic written anti-antimason threads which is essentially the same thing a anti does to us.

Another comment..

We clearly see a pattern here, masons defending masons, masons attacking any criticism or scepticism. Masons ganging up on others, back padding each other and bending the system to their own favour.

I know people seem to think all Masons here are best pals and star each other or when there used to be WATS give WATS .. but thats not true at all. I have not spoken to 75% of Masons on the site.. some people announce they are Masons and I never would have guessed. Among us who DO talk .. I don't think we have ever EVER organized an attack on ANYONE even an anti-mason.. We do not always agree either.. the only thing Masons defend is Masonry its self. As said above.. should we sit back, and let ignorance run rampant? Masonry is not even a Secret Society, and the smear we face is astounding, for no reason what so ever. I don't see how any one could think Masons defending Masonry is a bad thing?

and this....

Also the fact that several masons have penetrated the administration of Above Top Secret, only further leads to the conclusion that in fact they (read: administration) are not impartial.

I will deem pure ignorance.

Only two Masons are Mods on this site. Mirthful Me I believe is the only open Mason and is the ONLY Mason that monitors the SS forum (not the only mod.. the only Mason) .. Intrepid many think is a Mason.. he just happens to be a good Mod and does not take bias to one side or the other.. some think hes a Mason perhaps because he engages in the arguments at some of the more ignorant posts (on both sides) ..

No one infiltrated anything.

even when a mason steps over board the “enlightened” ones just remain silent

Actually.... thats not true either.

From my long time on ATS, do not let the join date fool you; I have seen this problem escalating, from tolerable to intolerable. Masons have indeed literally taken over control of the secret societies forum.

What could have been a conversation that you started, and could have gone in such a better way, its comments like this that give you no credibility. Intolerable? .. Why do people attack Masonry with no basis on their claims? .. Why do they expect to get away with it? .. Why is Masonry the most targeted society attacked warentlessly?

You can have your opinion, it was well laid out. I happen to not agree, with most of it.. little parts perhaps. When it comes down to it though, you still support hate of a group with no basis for your claims.. that is something I find disheartening.

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:09 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

That's about it. Mirthful Me is the only Mason that is a mod. I just enjoy debate and there is some good debate here. Some less than good. If you see my posts in other forums I state that I am a member first, a mod when I have to be.

That being said, I am not a Mason, never have been. Long term members will see this.

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:18 PM
reply to post by intrepid

Just MM eh? Could have sworn someone told me there was a second Mod and I just never knew the name of. I said you where not a Mason .. I just said that a lot of the anti's think you are. Well some think all mods are apparently but people seem to class you as a Mason before even MM.

Of course.... we could pull you over to our side and have you initiated

[edit on 12/13/2007 by Rockpuck]

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Well some think all mods are apparently but people seem to class you as a Mason before even MM.

He has a life, thus I post more.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in