It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Exposed: Luciferians/Freemasons: Barack Obama & Ron Paul

page: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men

If that's all we'll ever get on matters such as this, it's no wonder why there's conspiracy theories regarding people who are accused of being masons. Seems like Masonry as an organization is an accomplice.



I dunno. The simple fcat is that Lodges like to advertise celebrity members, and celebrity members normally stump for masonic charities, fundraisers, etc.




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 


Wow, thats a non sequitur if I've ever seen one. Because there is not a single repository where everyone can find out who is a mason, they must be an "accomplice" (to whom/what, by the way?).

And yet...you will find no such public repository for any fraternal organization or sorority I can think of. Does this mean the boy scouts, college sororities, and the elks are also up to something?

I also do not get this "accused" of being masons. I think this is what makes watching masonic conspiracy so fascinating - with all evidence pointing to the fact that there is nothing evil going on here, masonic conspiracy theorists completely ignore it and make the leap into claiming certain people are masons. They never think about the fact that it doesn't mean anything since they never proved their presupposition (that the "masons" are up to something).

[edit on 29-5-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
Wow, thats a non sequitur if I've ever seen one. Because there is not a single repository where everyone can find out who is a mason, they must be an "accomplice" (to whom/what, by the way?).


Complicit is the word I should have used. Complicit in perpetuating conspiracy theories. Ignorance or credulousness is overrated, as far as it being the overarching factor in "conspiracy theories." Laziness, to me, is much more important. A lot of things could be settled one way or another, if only the effort were put into it in the first place.

"Just trust us"; or "Move along now ... nothing to see here"; shouldn't be accepted as a viable answer - for anything.

Judging from the information I've received in the last few posts, there is a single repository; it should be a possibility for one enterprising Mason (non-Masons sure as hell can't do it) to embark upon a few inquiries to various Secretaries regarding the membership of, say, Paul or Obama. From what I gather, the Secretaries must be the holders of all the lists of members in their jurisdiction; and supposedly, their job description entails responding to just such a request for membership information. They i turn can make inquiries of their own, to other Secretaries in other parts of the country.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 


Your setting up a false dichotomy. No one is saying "just trust us," since if you suspect anyone is a mason you are free to check into the archives of any lodge (which are free, and are usually stored by your local university) to find out. No, were not going to help you find out if each and every person you think is a mason is in fact one, because this wastes our time and resources. At the same time, by going through all the trouble of giving you or anyone else a detailed list of who is and is not a mason would violate peoples privacy and would give anti-masons more fodder against us.

I can see it now - "SEE! They know they are up to something evil, why else would they come forward and give us everyones name? If they weren't up to anything, they wouldn't go through the trouble of doing all that to try to give an appearance of not being evil!!!!111"

There is not one single repository of information. You are free to call any grand lodge you want and they may or may not give you the information they want. They wouldn't give it to me either, due to privacy reasons.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 


So you'd end up with denials from 51 Grand Lodges in the US. And another 40+ Prince Hall Grand Lodges. And who knows how many splinter, clandestine or irregular lodges and whatever bodies can speak for them. And even then, there would be people who'd claim some unfounded BS about a "higher, secretive order" who hadn't chimed in yet.

And you'd have to do that with EVERY SINGLE person who'd been branded a Mason by someone who had no foundation of proof.

You know as well as I do that proving a negative is far more difficult (and often impossible) than proving a positive.

[edit on 5/29/2008 by JoshNorton]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
"Move along now ... nothing to see here"; shouldn't be accepted as a viable answer - for anything.
Then how should one respond when there is, in fact, nothing to see?



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
They wouldn't give it to me either, due to privacy reasons.


There we go with the assumptions again.

I'll check my University for Masonic archives. You may have just given me quite a valuable tip. Thanks.

No luck with the Provincial Grand Lodge itself though; they basically just refused outright and were not very nice at all. (I, however, was a perfect gentleman - of course .... [I've inserted a special place for you ALightinDarkness: begin laughter here])

[edit on 29-5-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I think that you just said the most ironic statement I have ever seen on ATS. And that is saying something.


Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
There we go with the assumptions again. It seems that is all you can do.


This comes from someone who assumes that all public officals should be required to declare their membership, because he assumes that they must be up to something due to their oaths, even given that all evidence points in the other direction.

This comes from someone who assumes that masons must be up to something, be it diabolical conspiracy or cronyism, even though he has no evidence of this.

I could go on, and on, and on.

I am a member of this fraternity, I would in fact be the one who is not assuming. I think you've shown that your another run of the mill anti-mason - not only do you have zilch for evidence, you can't go one post without insulting someone (in this case, me).

Each lodge has its own policy when it comes to privacy - just like every organization has its own privacy policy. That policy would dictate whether or not they are going to release anyones name. This is fact, not assumption. I also doubt any grand lodge was rude to you, but I would bet money that your perception of what constitutes being a "perfect gentlemen" is not anything any reasonable person would be familiar with.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
Judging from the information I've received in the last few posts, there is a single repository; it should be a possibility for one enterprising Mason (non-Masons sure as hell can't do it) to embark upon a few inquiries to various Secretaries regarding the membership of, say, Paul or Obama.



Yeah, but oddly enough, different jurisdictions of pretty much any group jealously guard their turf. Is there any particular reason you think this shouldn't be the case with Masonry? If I can't even Google whether or not Sir Isaac Brock was a Mason (for those who don't know, he died nearly two centuries ago and is a Canadian legend), what makes you think that info about Obama or anyone else of present notoriety should be on the 'Net?


Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
From what I gather, the Secretaries must be the holders of all the lists of members in their jurisdiction; and supposedly, their job description entails responding to just such a request for membership information. They i turn can make inquiries of their own, to other Secretaries in other parts of the country.


Try that stunt with all the private clubs across the country and cry bloody blue murder when they tell you to take a hike. Privacy's still a right (especially given your track record for stirring the manure)



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Not all certain degree or certain lodges of free masonry are evil...just like not all jesuits are..or all white people...or black people are...but i have no doubt with certain lodges and certain high official memebers are influenced by satanic worship...the word satanic doesnt mean anything to me personally....but i have no doubt alot of high memebers are influenced much by the Cabal and mystery school teachings...which may have been distorted through the times....



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Lethil
 


What proof or evidence do you have of this? There are no "high ranking" members of freemasonry, because everyone is the same title upon full initiation - Master Mason. Office holders only serve 1 year terms, and there are a ton of past masters and past grand masters out there - why has not 1 revealed this? Who would be those influenced by "satanic worship"?



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Judging by all the polemics given thus far by members of a certain secret society (or a "society with secrets"), nothing will ever be settled as far as who is or isn't a member at the present time.

Loud and clear, ye brethren.

...And the conspiracy theories necessarily roll on.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Lethil
 


Well, this may be dangerously close to a single-line reply but I have to ask what (aside from mathematical probability) makes you feel this way? Simple mathematics makes it inevitable that x percentage of a group will reflect poorly or badly on the rest of the group. It then becomes an issue of whether or not by associating the actions of that percentage with the group as a whole you are tarring others unreasonably with the same brush.

Here in Canada, we have the legacy of Paul Bernardo to deal with even though no sentient being of my acquaintance would make the huge leap in logic of equating the actions of a group with the actions of an individual. It's just counterintuitive. But some would insist on doing that double-backflip-with-a-half-gainer' in logic just to unfairly associate blameless individuals with the actions of a blameworthy one. How fair is that?

Are Masons to a man pure as the new-driven snow? No. Simple mathematics decries that as a possibility. But I'd posit that they're better on average than the population at large. Why that would be is a chicken-and-egg kind of argument.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
...And the conspiracy theories necessarily roll on.


Necessarily? Or did you mean inevitably? Would you rather have a conversation or indulge in an unanswered polemic?

Making good men better just doesn't create so much wood as 'taking-over-the-world-one-unsuspecting-soul-at-a-time'. T'is a pity the unsexy reality wouldn't live up to the sexy unreality.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Would you rather have a conversation or indulge in an unanswered polemic?


Given my penchant for spiteful defiance, you'd think that it would be the latter. You'd be wrong.

I'm quite ready to have a simple conversation (mason, mime or Smurf - it matters not), and have really tried on a few occasions; but alas, .... well you know the result.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
The evolutionary ancestor of the chicken....



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
I'm quite ready to have a simple conversation (mason, mime or Smurf - it matters not)


Most interesting. Yet every time someone (mason, non-mason, you name it) tries to have one with you and they disagree, you ignore them or blatantly ignore the contents of their post and start insulting masons. In fact, you were given multiple opportunities to participate in just about the most constructive and fair conversation ATS offers, and refused.


Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
well you know the result.


Indeed I do my friend. You end up using every tactic possible to avoid any sort of conversation. I wish you'd stop doing that, maybe then we could get somewhere...

[edit on 29-5-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


I hear you loud and clear - I'm the problem.

That accomplishes a lot. Thank you.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness


Most interesting. Yet every time someone (mason, non-mason, you name it) tries to have one with you and they disagree, you ignore them or blatantly ignore the contents of their post and start insulting everyone.


I've disagreed with him before and he's never once insulted me. He didn't even insult me when I sent him insane private messages about Cardassians or couldn't even spell "for" properly.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


I hear you loud and clear - I'm the problem.

That accomplishes a lot. Thank you.


Stepping back and taking an honest look at your response pattern, do you really think he's being harsh? It isn't like you've been reaching out, only to have your kind bridgehead rebuffed. As I recall, even some of the Mods have attempted to engage you in an unbiased venue to no avail. You pride yourself on your knowledge of the Illuminati; why not stand and deliver?




top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join