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: 18
23
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

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?
Wouldn't that be true of any friendships someone in public office might have, regardless of any group memberships? You don't need to prop up Masonry as the source of good-ole'-boy networking. It may be one form of such networking, but cliques within the halls of power would exist without Masons...




posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
cliques within the halls of power would exist without Masons


You're right. Cronyism is the most insidious display of affection known to man - whether masonic or otherwise.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men

Originally posted by JoshNorton
cliques within the halls of power would exist without Masons


You're right. Cronyism is the most insidious display of affection known to man - whether masonic or otherwise.
Then is your concern that Masonry facilitates Cronyism? By having regularly scheduled, attendance optional meetings? I suppose sometimes it is just easier to show up at lodge because it's Thursday, so that's where I should be, rather than actually taking the trouble to organize going to lunch with a friend at some other time. We've already kinda debunked the whole "binding oath to brothers taking precedence over duty to God, country & family" myth elsewhere. So with that gone, what about our structure would warrant your call for additional transparency?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
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.


Short of a prepared list falling into your lap have you attempted to cross-reference (other then your Provincal Lodge) any of the individuals on your CFR, Tri-Lateral, Bildegberg group to determine their Masonic, if any, affiliation?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Those facts. Thanks


Need a second line.


No. I need to have my hand held.

You'll have to show specifically, exactly what it is in that post that states a fact. Facts have qualitative sentences that end in periods and claim something that is easily checked through at least 2 or 3 other authoritative sources. Usually they have already been unanimously vetted, and are called facts for a reason.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
Facts have qualitative sentences that end in periods and claim something that is easily checked through at least 2 or 3 other authoritative sources. Usually they have already been unanimously vetted, and are called facts for a reason.


I disagree. For example, it's a fact that I woke up at 6:00am this morning. Nobody in the world can verify that other than me, however it's still a fact - regardless of unanimous vetting or being checked by authoritative sources. Extrapolate from there.

The "facts" you seem to hint at are more of the Napoleonic definition:

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Short of a prepared list falling into your lap have you attempted to cross-reference (other then your Provincal Lodge) any of the individuals on your CFR, Tri-Lateral, Bildegberg group to determine their Masonic, if any, affiliation?


Yes. And if it isn't in the historical record already (in scholarly books, memoirs, official bibliographic material, or personal archives donated to the public, etc.), or hasn't been mentioned in a press report - poop out of luck. It's tedious and time consuming to conduct such research without official transparency - same with any "secret society." Such inquiries are usually abandoned by everyone who attempts it - very quickly.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 


More deflection.

You want your hand held? Fine. Start with the fact that your claiming masonic cronoyism makes a huge leap of logic (see A-C) for which you have not proven - wheres your evidence? Then we'll move on from there.

It is a fact that unless you can prove there is some sort of institutional reason as to why freemasonry supports cronoyism, your demands for a public list is moot. Go at it, I can't wait to see the reasoning.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist

I disagree. For example, it's a fact that I woke up at 6:00am this morning. Nobody in the world can verify that other than me, however it's still a fact - regardless of unanimous vetting or being checked by authoritative sources. Extrapolate from there.

The "facts" you seem to hint at are more of the Napoleonic definition:

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."


You make some good points. And I agree, for the most part.

But he's the one that said I refuse to see the facts. Let him put one or two sentences together for an answer. We - all of us here - can in turn look at exactly what fact(s) he claims I refuse to see.

You'd be very surprised what I would agree with, despite the fat hat it comes from a Mason or not. Facts, after all, even if they have a modicum of familiarity to many people, have a tendency to be very hard to refute successfully. I may just say, "ya ... this is indeed fact." But I could also say: "...but, no, I have never claimed such a thing."



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 


More deflection.

You want your hand held? Fine. Start with the fact that your claiming masonic cronoyism makes a huge leap of logic (see A-C) for which you have not proven - wheres your evidence? Then we'll move on from there.

It is a fact that unless you can prove there is some sort of institutional reason as to why freemasonry supports cronoyism, your demands for a public list is moot. Go at it, I can't wait to see the reasoning.


You see, you can't reason logically. You assertions are false. I have no need to officially debate you - I already clean your clock every time on every thread.

Your hatred of anyone who has the balls to even question your cherished institution, has clouded your perceptions of the so-called antis.

You: "Start with the fact that your claiming masonic cronoyism [sic] makes a huge leap of logic "

False. I did NOT "claim masonic cronyism." I suspect it; I would like the opportunity to prove it - but, no, I don't have the goods as of yet.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
(see A-C)


A-C is your words, not mine. I've already pointed that out to you.

But if you insist.

What follows is my official response to your inane A-C:


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.


A) Probably there is - especially at the local level. One need not recount the entire history of Masonry to pick up the fact that on occasion, people have joined because it is a sure way to ascend to power. Specific examples? I'd say see the numerous ones in Stephen Knight's The Brotherhood.

B) I distrust power in all its forms - masonic, governmental, or otherwise. I also am distrustful an organization that boast millions of adherents, that takes oaths and obligations together in the midst of solemn ceremonies meant to effect the person psychologically. This naturally creates a cult-like atmosphere. You can apprehend its effects (innocent or not) even in this forum.

C) this doesn't make sense; so I can' answer it.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 


This is so comical. Point out that you've jumped to the end of the logic train and you deny that the logic train exists. Little wonder you can't debate anyone, with logic like there isn't much of a reason to prove you wrong formally.

Accusations have meaning. You cannot claim that you deserve to see a public list of masons without a reason. Your reason is supposedly because there may be cronyism going on.

In order for you to have a justified point, you must provide evidence that supports masonry is somehow as a institution supportive of cronyism. Otherwise, your original claim is moot. This is very simple. Its like me claiming that there should be a world-wide anti-mason list published because they're up to something. I have to prove that anti-masonry as a movement has some sort of institutional characteristic which suggests they may, in fact, be up to something.

Your statements have precepts - precepts that exist whether you care to acknowledge them or not - for which you have not proven. What you have shown in attempting to answer these precepts if that you have no evidence which suggests that there is some sort of institutional quality about masonry which makes it likely to support cronyism. What you have done is basically said "well, I've got nothing..but it COULD HAPPEN!" This is not evidence.

As such, your idea that there should be some sort of masonic master-list of names is moot.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
I do not know of any particular instance where the ritual wording was changed due to anti-masonry, but I can think of some times where proposed amendments were made to make language more clarifying and easy to understand for the membership.


Did any of these changes you know about change the ritual to make it appear less like there was a form of control over the membership? Do you think at one time maybe that was the actual meaning and it has been changed because masons don't feel that way anymore?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
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..."


I never thought there was a problem with the oaths, I understand they are symbolic and I didn't think they would kill you if you told the secrets. I'm more worried about oaths that make you obey others over the law. It would look like you are saying that this does not happen. Do you feel that the older version of the ritual was more literal? I know I asked alightindarkenss but I would like your answer as well, you seem to know alot about being a mason and would like to hear what you have to say.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Capozzelli]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 


Do you think that there are any masonic conspiracys other then cronyism? Is cronyism something that you think happens in masonry often? Have you attempted to prove that it is happening?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Capozzelli
 


Mate, there are no oaths that tie a Mason in over their fellow man.
The ones folk's claim that do are either taken out of context or are from generally known hoaxes. But then I might be wrong, I'm just picking up from what I've read here on the site.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Capozzelli
 


I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Much of the ritual remains in a very old English style in my jurisdiction, and words that were used to emphasize loyalty or allegiance in the language of the time the ritual was written might appear to emphasize instead more harsh concepts of control in todays language. However...the grand lodge can do nothing to me except kick me out. Thats the extent to which they can control me. And since I joined of my own free will and can leave of my own free will at any time for any reason, even if they wanted to insert things about control in the ritual it would not have any practical meaning.

By the way, thank you for approaching these questions without malice or an agenda. It is absolutely refreshing to see ATS members who are interested in seeking truth on things like this. Unfortunately, most of the people "against" the masons in these debates end up having an overt agenda with no interest in reality. Kudos to you.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Ten years before I became a Mason I was working at a dot com company doing web work in Los Angeles. A year or so after I moved out there, one of my friends brought his family out to LA as well, hoping to find work in the entertainment industry. After a few months of him not having any luck, I suggested him for a position at my company. I wasn't in a hiring or managerial position, but I put in a good word, passed along his resume and yes, he got the job (and, in fact, still works for them...)

Is that cronyism? I saw a friend in need, I knew his qualifications as well as his personality and thought both were right for the job at hand. I suggested him based on my personal experience with him and he got the job.

Cronyism? Friendship? Did he have an unfair advantage over other candidates? *shrug* I wouldn't have staked my reputation at my job by suggesting him if he'd been a fool or a thief. But I knew he was a smart guy, and a good guy, and it obviously worked out well for all parties involved.

And, as I said, I did this before I became a Mason. Today, would I do the same thing for a brother in my lodge? Well, again, if I knew him to be qualified, knew his character, and thought he'd be a good match, you bet I would.

Is there something wrong with that?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Capozzelli
I'm more worried about oaths that make you obey others over the law. It would look like you are saying that this does not happen. Do you feel that the older version of the ritual was more literal?
Well, I'd say there are no oaths that make you obey others over the law. As I demonstrated in this post, using Duncan's Ritual (published almost 150 years ago), your duty to the laws of your country come before any Masonic duty placed upon you by your obligation.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
Ten years before I became a Mason I was working at a dot com company doing web work in Los Angeles. A year or so after I moved out there, one of my friends brought his family out to LA as well, hoping to find work in the entertainment industry. After a few months of him not having any luck, I suggested him for a position at my company. I wasn't in a hiring or managerial position, but I put in a good word, passed along his resume and yes, he got the job (and, in fact, still works for them...)

Is there something wrong with that?


Excellent point Brother Norton, I do believe they call that networking and some companies actually charge you for the same service. It is in fact how I acquired my present position-and no, it was not from a Mason-and is an invaluable tool when one is seeking employment.



[edit on 6-6-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join