A Proposed Framework for Analyzing Anti-Masonry

reply to post by freight tomsen


Yet again, we have another post from freight tomsen who - yet again - is trying to hide the truth. Where are my peer reviewed sources? Right in the OP. You know that of course. The problem is you can't dispute them. You can't argue against them - because the OP exposes how people like you think, and it shows the methods to your lieing. You have yet to even attempt to refute one singe point, because you spend all your posts here trying to drop red herrings and go off topic.

If your going to post lies, be prepared to answer them. Your libel will not go unanswered here - or elsewhere.

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
I used the PEER REVIEWED NON-MASONIC SOURCES to draw together how people like you think, and each time I used information from a particular article or book I put the author's name in parenthesis with the year the source was published.

It does me no good. If you're going to take it that far, and make an abridged academic a paper out of forum post, at least cite your sources correctly. There's no page numbers. "I put the author's name in parenthesis with the year the source was published," he says. Exactly. Without the exact page number(s) I can't properly "review" your "peer-reviewed" citations.

For instance. I have two highly intelligent authors who write for my site., Paul & Phillip D. Collins. They give me what amounts to academic papers instead of just your average "article." They can't help themselves. University has ingrained into their very being that there's a certain way to write, and by God that's the way they do it - every time. They cite in the correct manner that is required by academia. When they first started I'd check their work. If they cite (Raschke 47), then I look at the bibliography and I check that Raschke, Carl A. The Interruption of Eternity: Modern Gnosticism and the Origins of the New Religious Consciousness. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1980 (p. 47) has precisely what they claimed would be there.

reply to post by freight tomsen


"I think what I'm going to do now instead, is post an article about how your New World Order puts fluoride into our public water to dumb us down and keep us docile. Have fun defending your ultra-benevolent organization. "

You forgot the great pecan roll conspiracy, and the sinister fork and spoon degree.

honestly fluoride? you still watching Dr. Strage Love after all these years?

reply to post by LightinDarkness


Brilliant post. Although I am not a Mason, I wholeheartedly concur with the psycho-social dynamic assumed in such a bold framework. Some of the highlights of your astute take on Anti-Masonry:

1) No one is truly happy with their life, and therefore they require a scapegoat
2) Since Masons are typically happier, healthier, wealthier, more institutionally entrenched, and more secure than the profane, they present the perfect target for such misplaced emotional baggage
3) Freemasons are a mixed group. They can be of different ethnicities (they may be in separate but equal halls) and they can be of different sexual orientations or diverse political views (unless they are blackballed by other Masons, who know best after all how to serve their communities). They can't be felons, typically (unless they belong to prominent families), but this is an indicator of the high moral standards that Masons try to uphold. The point is, if any Mason or group of Masons does something out of line or espouses some crazy ideas, this should not reflect on the Freemasons as a group. However, Anti-Masons come in only two flavors, and even if they ever really had some small, legitimate bone to pick it would be impossible to separate the wheat of their grievance from the chaff of their obvious psychological maladaptions (see points 1 and 2).

"Anti-Mason" is a nomenclature that gives Anti-Masons a linguistic equality with Masons, however, and I would suggest that they be referred to as "Suppressive Persons", or SPs. Just a suggestion. Carry on with the brilliant work.