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.

 

Why can no one prove a Masonic conspiracy?

page: 17
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Capozzelli
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


So is it typical for the grand lodges to change the ritual in response to how anti-masons feel about the words? Is there any other instance like this that you know about?
I can't quote the specifics (not because I'm not allowed, but because I don't know them...) but I believe some jurisdictions have changed the penalties of the obligations so that they're no longer the symbolic "throat slit from ear to ear", etc to something less inflammatory such as "I'd be a very dishonorable person if I stooped so low as to reveal..." That's probably the biggest change, and though I can't say for certain, most likely caused by outside opinion and misconstruction of the traditional text.




posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Have you attempted to cross-reference any of the individuals on the list to determine if they have any type of Masonic affiliation?


Masonic membership is private, thus we cannot cross-reference anything to any degree of accuracy. The Lodges don't provide non-masons any type of lists when they ask, and the only way to confirm membership is if the individual wants it known or it's finally revealed in his obituary (almost always the latter).

I have attempted to get official confirmation of masonic membership from my Provincial Lodge, but was refused outright. Thus, "cross-reference" isn't a possibility as guesswork doesn't count for anything.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by fire-in-the-minds-of-men
 



While I understand that these lists are not published I do not feel that Masons hide or avoid mentioning their affiliation. In my lodge alone we have Mayors from three surrounding townships as well as several police chiefs and officers and other 'notable' members of the community. As far as I have seen none of them are attemtping to hide or cloak their affiliation and their membership in the lodge is well known as they often appear at public events in Masonic regalia.

While I understand a published list may help you in whatever endeavor you are undertaking it I feel the more public members of the Fraternity are relatively easy to locate as they are not ashamed to mention this aspect.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 



Masonic membership is private, thus we cannot cross-reference anything to any degree of accuracy. The Lodges don't provide non-masons any type of lists when they ask, and the only way to confirm membership is if the individual wants it known or it's finally revealed in his obituary (almost always the latter).

I have attempted to get official confirmation of masonic membership from my Provincial Lodge, but was refused outright. Thus, "cross-reference" isn't a possibility as guesswork doesn't count for anything.


Why do you believe that these lists should be available? It doesn't seem reasonable to expect that they be so as it is a private organization and has the same right to privacy as any other private organization. There are many organizations that do not publish lists of it's members such as country clubs, Kiwanis, KoC and a host of others.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Capozzelli


So is it typical for the grand lodges to change the ritual in response to how anti-masons feel about the words? Is there any other instance like this that you know about?


I don't think that Grand Lodges change Ritual in response to non-Masons. Generally, the ritual rarely changes. The one used in my jurisdiction has not changed anything in 200 years.

But each Grand Lodge uses its own ritual version, so while Masonic ritual is similar the world over, they are not 100% identical to each other.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 


I didn't have any trouble confirming my Grandfather's membership, and I was a non-Mason at the time. I just called his Lodge and Valley and asked. Hell the AASR even sent me his class photo from the reunion when he was initiated. Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy.

A list? No. If you have a specific person in mind and you have an idea where he may/may not have been a member, just ask.

The GL of Washington has a membership list posted on its website but I think it is optional for the members to be listed.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


I already answered his question sufficiently and honestly. He asked if I had "cross-referenced" the elite with those who are also Freemasons; I told him no, because it was impossible.

I think it's a good enough answer.

I'm not going to get in back-and-forth with Masons over this AGAIN, anonymous or otherwise.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
While I understand a published list may help you in whatever endeavor you are undertaking


I'm a precise person, and if asked a precise question, I will answer it in as precise a manner as possible.

No, not in "whatever endeavor" I'm "undertaking"; in the exact "endeavor" in which you have questioned me about: i.e., "cross-referencing." A "published list" would be the only way to "cross-reference" in the manner you had inquired if I had done.

Let me be very clear - I have lists of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg in my hardrive right now, just waiting to be "cross-referenced", searched and indexed (my next big project; but alas I detest data entry). Lists of members: the CFR oblige; the Trilats oblige; the Bilderbergs send out list as a press release. The Bohemian Club membership list, on the other hand, is more difficult, but still much easier to come by than any attempt at confirming Freemasonic membership. The Bohos distribute the membership lists amongst themselves every year as a sort of scrapbook - replete with pictures of the shenanigans which some members have partaken in at the Bohemian Grove that season. Whether you steal it from a member or someone close to him does or he passes away and his relatives sell it on eBay for a small fortune, the lists of members still exist in a tangible sense, and will eventually be possessed and perused by someone who is determined enough.

It's a matter-of-fact thing I'm stating here. There is nothing "anti-masonic" about it. And my answer does not contain disparaging remarks about the brethren. .... So why do I get the feeling the usual onslaught is inevitable.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 


The reason why you sense an onslaught from people interested in the truth (masons and non-masons, not "the brethren") is because your line of reasoning about this is invalid. No one has yet to provide any reason as to why the membership list should be public. Its an important question to answer, and one which so far...has been completely ignored or deflected.

I understand though. There is of course no reason why any private organization should be forced to reveal its membership. If we lived in a world without rabid anti-masons, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but because we do, its simply not safe.

The reasons why the CFR and Trilateral Commission lists exist is because they are not private organizations whose goal is to improve their communities. They are think tanks and policy groups, they perform a professional function in an advisory role to policy makers. I realize thats not the typical stuff made up by conspiracy theorists, but its the truth. I know of no policy advocate organizations that do not list their members - for good reason - because the essential function of these groups is different.

Its just not a valid comparison - because masonry is not the same in form or function as those groups which do publish their member lists.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
No one has yet to provide any reason as to why the membership list should be public. Its an important question to answer, and one which so far...has been completely ignored or deflected.

I understand though. There is of course no reason why any private organization should be forced to reveal its membership.


I'll answer it right now, but preface it with a statement by AugustusMasonicus:


Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
In my lodge alone we have Mayors from three surrounding townships as well as several police chiefs and officers


I rest my case.

Those are exactly the types of people that, if compromised, could cause real damage since they have the public (not Masonic) trust in their hands. Mayors and police chiefs? Come on! The things that they do in an official capacity (appointments, favoritism, etc.) have to be scrutinized to the utmost degree. And without knowledge of Masonic membership, one can hardly investigate if anyone is up to any shenanigans (simply because they both belong to Freemasonry), now can they?

The example in his town is repeated everywhere in North America and no doubt the world over. Whether they wear their rings or not, is totally besides the point. The point that matters, is why has this been allowed to continue with transparency being only voluntary.

I'm not talking about, quote: "world domination by 'high-level' Masons, conversion to a one-world religion, the practice of worshipping Satan and/or Lucifer, pedophilia, mind-control and gang-stalking."

No, the things I'm concerned with are much more worthy of serious attention than that.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
CFR and Trilateral Commission lists exist is because they are not private organizations


Wrong. Who are you trying to fool? Why? is more to the point.

When's the last time the annual CFR, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg meetings were attended by reporters, taped by news agencies and written about in detail in the mainstream media? Answer: !!!!!!!NEVER!!!!!!!

Private is too quaint a word for what it is that they have been up to! Conspiracy is the only way to describe it; and the shameful "media" is complicit.

I'm really starting to question what dimension you operate in.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
I rest my case.


Do you? Thats not much to rest on then. Correlation does not equal causation. In order for you to have a case, you would need to prove, in order:

A) That a definitive casual relationship exists between membership in masonry and obtaining power.
B) That the nature of this power is not good, and has been/is likely to be used for "evil" by its members.
C) That membership in masonry is, as such due to A) and B) an affiliation that is by its very nature a quality which is evidence that power is not being exercised in a legitimate way.

You have yet to prove, or offer evidence to lend credence to, any of these theories - and yet you've jumped to the conclusion that Masons with power must have power due to being masons, and that since they are masons they must be not exercising it in a good way. Its a huge logical leap. Until you can prove A-C, your desire to have membership public is a moot. I'll go along with it anyways.


Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
Those are exactly the types of people that, if compromised, could cause real damage since they have the public (not Masonic) trust in their hands. Mayors and police chiefs? Come on! The things that they do in an official capacity (appointments, favoritism, etc.) have to be scrutinized to the utmost degree. And without knowledge of Masonic membership, one can hardly investigate if anyone is up to any shenanigans (simply because they both belong to Freemasonry), now can they?


You even hint that you know you have yet to prove A-C - you say "if compromised." Thats the problem. You or anyone else has yet to prove there is any sort of institutional structure in masonry that makes it likely that anyone can be compromised. As such, the current status of your argument is much akin to claiming you need to know who the Mayor is having sex with, because that could compromise him or her. It just doesn't make sense.

What a Mayor - or any other public servant - does in a lodge is no more subject to public scrutiny than what they had for dinner last night. Why? Because the evidence shows neither what someone eats or their masonic affiliation in any way impacts public decisions.

The problem is your making a gigantic logic leap to the end of the train before proving before hand that there is anything which even suggests something is going on. You can't just demand to investigate every aspect of someones life because it could impact their public decision making.

As usual, I do note and applaud that you are not concerned with the normal rabid anti-mason points that have been debunked before. If the rabid anti's could move on, as you have, then we could get somewhere.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 


Yes you are quite wrong. You don't seem to have any knowledge of what a policy advocacy group does.

A public advocacy agency does not have open public meetings. When was the last time you saw media cameras involved in moveon.org's meetings? You won't. They are private. Does this mean moveon.org is involved in a plot to rule the world? No. It means - like all other advocacy agencies - they meet in private to discuss their advocacy agenda.

The reality is CFR, trilateral commission, and the rest of the groups that are used by conspiracy theorists to explain their designs on world domination are simply advoacy groups. Powerful groups - no doubt - but there are many such powerful advocacy groups in the US.

And yet due to the nature of these groups their membership is public, because of what they do - they attempt to influence policy. Its hard to do that when no one knows who you are.

This is, again quite different from masonry - which has no designs on influencing policy. Which is why...again...membership is private.

By the way - my dimension? Reality. Yours? Populist alternate dimension


[edit on 5-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
A) That a definitive casual relationship exists between membership in masonry and obtaining power.
B) That the nature of this power is not good, and has been/is likely to be used for "evil" by its members.
C) That membership in masonry is, as such due to A) and B) an affiliation that is by its very nature a quality which is evidence that power is not being exercised in a legitimate way.

You have yet to prove, or offer evidence to lend credence to, any of these theories


The simple answer is - that's because they're not my theories. I have never said anything such as that, ever.

What you just wrote is what you assume I believe, because you have tagged me with the moniker of an "anti-mason."

Those are your "theories" about what my beliefs are. Nothing more.

You are debating yourself. Having fun yet?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 


Well that was quick, your already deflecting. Didn't take much time at all.

You think masonic membership should be public. Why - according to you - because there may be shennangins going on. In order for you to prove the possibility of shennanings, your going to have to prove A-C. You can't, because this is conspiracy theory.

Nice try though. Your deflection skills need work though...



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


You are the biggest shill I have ever come across. How much money do you make? If nothing; you should be. Call up the elite and see if they're taking applications in the propaganda department.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
In order for you to prove the possibility of shennanings, your going to have to prove A-C. You can't, because this is conspiracy theory.


You talk through your ... you know what.

The reason I can't prove any shenanigans is because there are no lists. A child could understand this.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 


Whats that fire? Already, you've got..nothing. Again.

Classical move when you've been shown your wrong - OMG, DISINFORMATION AGENT !!!1111

Sorry, thats only going to work with the anti-masons. No one else here falls for it.

Instead of deflecting, why don't you address the facts? It should be easy, if its all propaganda.

Reality, truth, logic - they hurt.

As I have said, you don't have to prove something is going on. But you must - if anyone beyond your anti-mason army is to take you seriously - provide evidence that suggests the possibility of shennagins occurring. You cannot do that unless you prove A-C, which you can't because...you've got nothing.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
Instead of deflecting, why don't you address the facts? It should be easy, if its all propaganda.


Show me one and I'll address it.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Those facts. Thanks


Need a second line.




top topics



 
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join