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: 23
23
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Capozzelli
 



your opinion about if you think cronyism occurs often in masonry and if you think this is a problem.


My opinion is only my opinion. And besides, I don't feel like fighting with the Masons.

If you're okay with someone else's opinion, however, I recommend Stephen Knight's The Brotherhood. You can buy it second hand now for pennies. Read that and come to your own conclusion about masonic favoritism, cronyism, or corruption.




posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
 


Thank you, I will make sure to try and find this and read it. Sorry if you can't give your opinion but I would still like to here it if you change your mind and I don't think all the masons dislike you anyway, maybe some, but not all.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I have a question for all the masons, fire-in-the-minds said that he felt the revolution was a masonic conspiracy. I read in you ritual that you are supposed to be 'true to your government and just to your country. Does this mean that masons did not do these things? How do you explain that the ritual says one thing but people did other things to start the revolution? Do the masons think this is a conspiracy?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Capozzelli
I have a question for all the masons, fire-in-the-minds said that he felt the revolution was a masonic conspiracy.


Woe ... wait a second. Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say the [American] revolution was a masonic conspiracy. It was much bigger and nuanced than that. The only thing I did was point out two works in which masonic influence is documented (it aided and abetted the cause); and reminded people that this very fact is significant.

And please don't take my word for anything. Even the books I cited on Masonic influence during America's struggle are Masonic-friendly books. But, they still document certain things that happened, and probably wouldn't have happened without the Masonic element.

And when I used the word "subversion," it is in the context of this definition: a deliberate action designed to undermine the current order. I happen to respect everything that happened in America during the revolution. And - I too - would have used any means necessary (masonic connections or otherwise) to win my freedom from tyranny.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Capozzelli
 


From what I understand, the Masons support a government as long as it's a just government. When or if that's no longer the case, then moving against the government is considered warraanted.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Capozzelli
 


I've got him on ignore, but if he said that its pretty special. Special enough that I briefly thought about taking him off ignore and reading it for the comedy of it, but decided it wasn't worth it.

If thats his evidence of cronoyism, its about the weakest I've ever heard of. In order to make his fears and claims of masonic cronoyism legitimate, he would need to show evidence that there is an institution wide tendency toward it - that there is something about the structure of freemasonry that promotes it.

Hes done the exact opposite. What hes done is basically pointed out people who were masons who played important roles in the revolution. I also suspect he also fails to point out the majority of them were Christians or Deists. Does this mean that Christianity and Deism is ripe for cronoyism? No. Hes intentionally trying to make casual links where none exist. Masonry as a institution did not encourage the revolution, members who were masons were revolutionaries.

Finding masons in revolutions does not support his theory. It hurts it. Much like the entire templar theory, masons have occasionally made more out of the role of masons in the revolution than reality suggests. He thought he'd pick one that made masons look friendly in order to prove his point, but current research shows the role of masonry in the revolution as an institution was almost none - just that famous revolutionaries were masons (they were also other things).

The principles of masonry make it very clear when we are to be true to our government just to our country - whenever the government does the same to its citizens. Certainly you wouldn't feel better if masons sat back and allowed something like Hitler to rise?

[edit on 11-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
You may as well take him off of ignore, that wasn't exactly what he said.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]
Woe ... wait a second. Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say the [American] revolution was a masonic conspiracy. It was much bigger and nuanced than that. The only thing I did was point out two works in which masonic influence is documented (it aided and abetted the cause); and reminded people that this very fact is significant.

And please don't take my word for anything. Even the books I cited on Masonic influence during America's struggle are Masonic-friendly books. But, they still document certain things that happened, and probably wouldn't have happened without the Masonic element.

And when I used the word "subversion," it is in the context of this definition: a deliberate action designed to undermine the current order. I happen to respect everything that happened



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


No need, it still fits perfectly. Masons participating in the revolution does not make institutional masonic cronoyism. They participated in the revolution in the way that they did due to values they had before coming to masonry. Surely those values are echoed by the rituals they experienced, but they were not implanted in them by the fraternity nor were there actions institutionally endorsed. As such, this is not "proof" of anything, its the same old tactic of finding masons doing something and then proclaiming that it has some larger meaning beyond its face value.

In order for his conspiracy theories to be correct, he must present a historical case where - if it had not been for the explicit influences of masonry as an institution - an event of some notable significance where worldly power was exchanged/favor was granted, would have not occurred. You won't find one, because masonry for all the conspiracy theories are not filled with cases of influence over history. People that are masons have important places in our history - not because they are masons - but because they were good men who would have been involved to begin with.

Showing anything else does not support his theory which...as we've covered before, falls flat.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
You won't find one, because masonry for all the conspiracy theories are not filled with cases of influence over history. People that are masons have important places in our history - not because they are masons - but because they were good men who would have been involved to begin with.


But in a sense this can be classed as cronyism - just because you do not see it, doesn't give you the power to dismiss it. For example, look at the government that FDR formed, there was a disproportiate amount of freemasons. Does this imply a conspiracy? No, not necessarily. Does it show that FDR felt that he could better trust Freemasons? Possibly. You can conspire for what you feel is of benefit to the whole, conspiracies can be positive as well as negative remember. The point is that without transparency the conspiracy tag can always be raised. FDR, to my knowledge never explained why so many freemasons were in his government, were they his fraternal brothers, was it a co-incidence, did he even know that they were freemasons? The point is we don't know, which leaves us free to guess and theorise and this is what ATS is for.

There was also a number of Soviet agents working at high levels in the FDR administration. Without transparency, we could assume that the freemasons attract or encourage communism. It is not true, or is it? We don't know because there is no transparency.

While i may not agree with Fire's stance, the point he makes regarding Bush is a good one. Unless every single freemasonry lodge in the US and possibly beyond, is contacted individually, we cannot for sure ascertain whether Bush is or is not a freemason. As a freemason, you may find it obvious that a man of Bush's moral character could not possibly be a freemason - but others outside of the organisation do not have your insight. Without transparency, without an open declaration of affiliation we cannot be sure who is what. I personally find it a very remote possibility that Bush is a freemason, but who can know for sure unless freemasonry comes out publicly and states that Bush is not a member of the fraternity, or is, or if he is obliged by law to declare ALL affiliations. Perhaps you may argue that why should they, or perhaps you could consider how often that accusation is made and that if I was a freemason i would want to know for sure that that immoral SOB was not a part of an organisation that I valued.

Since the conception of speculative freemason it has attracted powerful and influencial men, it has helped forge powerful institutions and international bonds. Like minded people are drawn together, no this isn't a conspiracy in the 'classical' sense, but it is enough to seed doubt in the organisation as a whole. Some of those men may have appeared to become more powerful after joining freemasonry...and appearances count. Without transparency there will always be doubt and this doubt can always be exploited by others to the detriment of everyone concerned.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Perhaps you may argue that why should they, or perhaps you could consider how often that accusation is made and that if I was a freemason i would want to know for sure that that immoral SOB was not a part of an organisation that I valued.


If he were a Mason, which he is not, he would still be your Brother dispite your dislike for his Presidency. I do not agree with Barack Obama's poliitics but I hear how often peope think he is a Mason and I would still call him Brother. Jesse Jackson, who's motives I detest, is still a Brother; I could go on and on. I may disagree with their politics but they are still Masons and while I may not agree with their political undertakings there are others who are members of the fratenrity who are in accordance with them.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


I get your point, but I was not referring to politics I was referring to morality. I know that you cannot talk politics, religion and the such like, but isn't the main core of Freemasonry about applying tools to morality? Therefore I would want to make sure that someone of Bush's status was not a mason, if I was a mason. It isn't important to me, I am not a mason, he isn't my leader. To bring it into perspective from my point of view, I would much rather I had known Blair's intention to become a Roman Catholic before I voted for him. Not that I specifically have any problem with Roman Catholics but I do think that as the leader of my country that that affiliation would conflict with the conditions of office and only by him being honest about that intention could the matter be addressed and assessed. It is not the best example, but the point I am making is that transparency is the only way to ensure consistency and prevent any form of corruption.

There is nothing wrong with being a Mason, I find much to admire in the fraternity but others find it suspicious and the only way to allieviate suspicion is to confront it head on with transparency. Sure you don't see the need, but that is because you are on the inside looking out...for my purposes I don't really see the need, but i can see why others might. What I would perhaps like to see is freemasonry downright offended by the very notion of someone of Bush's questionable morality being erroneously or otherwise stated to be a freemason, just saying he isn't obviously isn't enough.

In terms of cronyism, I think that there are far worse offenders than the freemasons, but I think to suggest that one brother would not favour another is naive at best. Two people before you, entirely equal in qualification, experience and ability - would you not choose the one who differentiates himself by being a mason? ie You know that he is of good moral character because like you, he is a mason. The difficulty though is, can you be honest about that? And, if not why not? It is not necessarily the masons that are the problem here.

I have got jobs before because my potential employer went to the same school as me or knew my parents or a friend of a friend - they therefore were better able to assess my reliability and integrity. That is only important because corruption is very much a part of the society that we live in. It is still cronyism though. I have lost out on just as many jobs because I didn't have a route to the inside, despite being the best person for the job. yes laws exist to protect us from nepotism and discrimination but most of us just want to be given an equal chance to prove ourselves. And when you have no contacts whatsoever, it can seem that the world is conspiring against you.

I am not about to say you're right and they are wrong, or vice versa, all I am trying to point out is that I can UNDERSTAND why some may see the Freemasons as operating cronyism and more over look at this board and tell me you don't favour the opinions of each other even here. You may not agree but you certainly show a greater degree of courtesy to your brothers.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


No, it doesn't. If you are going to use a definition that wide then no one better ever meet in groups or join any group, because someone from that group will at some time do something of his or her own accord that has no organizational backing from the groups he or she belongs to, but under this definition because he or she is associated with the group it MUST be cronyism!

This is not evidence of masonic back slapping, its expanding the definition of what cronyism means so wide that it becomes absurd.

I can find lots of real cronyism backed by governments, corporations, and even some religions. Real historical cases where who got power depended more on favors than their qualifications, etc. Lots of them. Why is it the same cannot be done in masonry?

It is absurd to proclaim that Bush is a mason when every other state and national level politician in the history of the United States whom has been a freemason is advertised by the fraternity. It would be a complete break from what the evidence suggests to say Bush is somehow a mason and for some reason no one ever found out, and no lodge has ever advertised his affiliation as they have for all other politicians. Possible? In the sense that all things are technically possible, sure. Likely? No.

Your personal dislike for the man has nothing to do with whether or not hes a brother. If he is, then I would welcome him as such. As I would Barack Obama, who is more immoral than Bush in my eyes. But neither of them are masons.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


Then I have misinterpreted masonry as an beacon of morality, my apologies, I stand corrected.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Obviously, masonry attracts moral people - but not all people who join are the epitome of morality. When an organization is this big, bad apples slip through. When people act on something and they are masons, they are acting as individuals unless their has been some sort of institutional backing of their actions. There has been none that anyone can find in the historical record for any instance of masonic "cronyism" that I've ever seen.

I am lots of things. I am a Christian, a mason, a graduate student. I have been a state government employee, local government employee, and a university employee. All of these are voluntary affiliations, like masonry. When I do something - be it good or bad - I am acting on my own will unless one of these affiliations have given me some sort of institutional backing. When I go an academic conference I am presenting on behalf of my department. That is institutional backing. If I screw up, it looks bad on my department and it should.

However... when I go shopping, I am not representing my university. If I were to do something bad while going shopping, people wouldn't stand up and say "OMG! HIS UNIVERSITY IS EVIL!"

But if they find out I'm a mason? Well, look for it to be on the evening news at 11. And within days we'd find the resulting news article on here, claiming masons must be up to something.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
However... when I go shopping, I am not representing my university. If I were to do something bad while going shopping, people wouldn't stand up and say "OMG! HIS UNIVERSITY IS EVIL!"

But if they find out I'm a mason? Well, look for it to be on the evening news at 11. And within days we'd find the resulting news article on here, claiming masons must be up to something.



I do understand this, honestly I do and I realise your frustration. However, as I understood it, Freemasonry at its essence sought to instil a moral code amongst the men who joined. Yes it is just a path to enlightenment and a path that not all are willing or able to complete but even so, I would expect a heightened moral awareness. I have read a number of the lectures, I found them fascinating and heavily infused with references to moral codes and the desire for the 'perfectibility' of the man.

I have no personal grudge or dislike of Bush, I think the man is a buffoon certainly, but I don't think that he can even be described as a politician, he is a figure head - but that aside he is not a man of good morals in my opinion. He is a liar, he uses the faith of others to manipulate and he betrays the democratic ideals of your country (remember the 'them and us' speech!!!). Therefore my only point was that if I was a freemason, who had gone to the effort of learning the lectures, absorbing that information and held it to my way of life then I would be deeply offended that Bush was a mason, because that would mean that the words were just sounds without meaning. To me those words are far weightier than that and I am not even a mason.

I am sorry to say this, and I know that many Masons do hold those words very dear, that on the whole the organisation must have lost its way...so perhaps it is just a dining club with a little charity thrown in. And that is a crying shame.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I do understand this, honestly I do and I realise your frustration. However, as I understood it, Freemasonry at its essence sought to instil a moral code amongst the men who joined. Yes it is just a path to enlightenment and a path that not all are willing or able to complete but even so, I would expect a heightened moral awareness. I have read a number of the lectures, I found them fascinating and heavily infused with references to moral codes and the desire for the 'perfectibility' of the man.
It is my personal opinion that the Shriners are often cut from a different cloth than regular Masons. While it is still a requirement that a Shriner be a Master Mason, quite often there are men who join Masonry with the sole goal of becoming a Shriner, not taking the lessons of the Blue Lodge to heart.


I have no personal grudge or dislike of Bush, I think the man is a buffoon certainly, but I don't think that he can even be described as a politician, he is a figure head - but that aside he is not a man of good morals in my opinion. He is a liar, he uses the faith of others to manipulate and he betrays the democratic ideals of your country (remember the 'them and us' speech!!!). Therefore my only point was that if I was a freemason, who had gone to the effort of learning the lectures, absorbing that information and held it to my way of life then I would be deeply offended that Bush was a mason, because that would mean that the words were just sounds without meaning. To me those words are far weightier than that and I am not even a mason.
Well, it's a good thing he's NOT a Mason then, isn't it?



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


I realize on the marketing logos lodges sling around is "making good men better," so I understand why people might perceive masonry makes someone more moral. However, while I think it does this, it can only work with what you have. If someone joins the fraternity for bad reasons, and they slip through the interview process, we cannot make bad men better. Given the size of masonry, its simple statistics that says we WILL end up with bad people.

Masonry has no magical ability to make people better. Most of its members become better people because they were good people to begin with, but not all will.

If you let political demagoguery infuse you with opinions about politicians that influences your views so much that you couldn't look past it to the person behind the politics, than masonry probably isn't for you. Masonry has people of all political persuasions, so if your going to hate one then it won't work out well. George Bush is not a brother, but if he was, I personally would be proud to have him. As I would Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Ted Kennedy. And I think Obama is one of the most morally questionable politicians on earth. I have the same - or probably more - dislike for Obama than you have for Bush. But whats great about masonry is that in the lodge, political differences do not matter. If that is something you couldn't abide with due an overwhelming hatred (and by what you type, it IS hatred) of someones politics - then it probably isn't for you. And thats OK - its not for everyone and it isn't the only way to try to work towards being more enlightened.

I think I am beginning to understand why so many ATS members - not you, by the way - have a unexplained hatred for masonry. ATS is about as left-wing as you can get, and so its understandable people who are consumed with one single ideology (in this case, left-wing) would hate any organization where people who disagree with them work together in harmony. If Bush was a mason, it would absolutely enrage people who are consumed with liberalism that people who disagreed with him could work with him in a lodge and not hate him.

If you think the organization has lost its way its not clear to me what your evidence is - because some masons have done bad things? You can go back to 1717 and even before that, and you will find that happening. Or is it because it does not embrace your particular political ideology? It embraces none. Which is why I love it.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I have no personal grudge or dislike of Bush, I think the man is a buffoon certainly, but I don't think that he can even be described as a politician, he is a figure head - but that aside he is not a man of good morals in my opinion.


This, to me, sums up the rationale on why I would not be bothered with George Bush being a Mason; it is your opinion. It may be the opinion of others that think he is moral and upright and to think that Sentator Obama is immoral. All the more reason for us not to discuss politics or religion while in lodge.

Just to add, I hope you do not think I am being too critical of you, I find you to be very erudite and lucid in your many posts and I am offering my explanation on what I believe Masonry to entail.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


Believe me or not, I don't hate anyone, nor do I have any political affiliations, certainly not to US politics, whats the point I don't have to make any sort of decision in that arena. In fact push come to shove I think politics is an archaic term, there is in reality only economics - but I am sure you will beg to differ.

As I said I have obviously misinterpreted freemasonry and I apologise for my idealistic optimism, or rather I don't, I'll just take my admiration elsewhere in future.

However, I would like to point out that George Washington did become a better man after he became a freemason, and I can think of any number of men for whom the same can be said. It may not be true now, but it certainly was once. In fact, hang it all, there is still work to be done, but Rockpuck is a prime example (and I hope he doesn't mind the mention). The personal growth that I have observed in Rockpuck is tangible and yes he is a work in progress and he still has his moments, but he has grown immeasurably as a person in the time I have been on ATS either way. It may be 'normal' maturing but I also think that Freemasonry is a part of it, so I'll retain a little of my optimism if you don't mind.

Perhaps the problem is that Freemasonry just got a little too lazy and forgot to ensure that the meanings were understood and implemented, it maybe became just a matter of bums on seats, I don't know, but seemingly it doesn't matter to you, so it should certainly not matter to an outsider like me.

(I'm sorry Rockpuck:@@



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
As I said I have obviously misinterpreted freemasonry and I apologise for my idealistic optimism, or rather I don't, I'll just take my admiration elsewhere in future.


I sincerely doubt you had an admiration to begin with if you make statements like this. This is exactly the sort of rhetoric used by those who have been looking for a reason to bash an institution "well...I thought it was great, but now I know you guys are just horrible."

If you had any real like for the institution you would not be easily persuaded by the fact that no - the institution does not line up with your ideology and no - we wouldn't kick George Bush out if he were a mason just because you hate him. If you are that easily swayed, it will be difficult to find many groups you like, as your ideology is very narrowly defined.

As I said, I believe masonry can make good men better - but it does not make all men better. Nor can it make bad men better, which are the people who are always singled out by anti-masons en masse.


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Perhaps the problem is that Freemasonry just got a little too lazy and forgot to ensure that the meanings were understood and implemented, it maybe became just a matter of bums on seats, I don't know, but seemingly it doesn't matter to you, so it should certainly not matter to an outsider like me.


I find this rather insulting, and it continues your line of rhetoric like this that is condescending at best. Just because an institution doesn't line up with your ideology does not mean its "lost itself" - the worthiness of an institution is not measured by how much you agree with its (lack of) political stances. If you have any evidence of how freemasonry has lost its way, please provide it.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join