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: 27
23
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Found this list of Masons, wasn't going to post it originally, but Benedict Arnold was on it, as well as a few famous Masons I know about, and several I don't. It's not a perfect source, or course. It's from a Masonry site, so it's not unbiased, but it's probably worth a look over. Liked the disclaimer personaly.
masonicinfo.com...
Yes I know this site gets posted fairly often, but I found it on Google trying to find some info about the Masons and the Revoltuion and the affect on the lodges from it.

Edit: Forgot to mention, there's a list on Wiki to. Though Miss Elizabeth Aldworth's story was pretty interesting.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by RuneSpider]




posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
And shame on his gang of Catholic-haters, whom he mentored and encouraged to go post on the internet when they don't know jack-poop about history - even less than Phelps himself, if that's even possible.


I’ve noticed this, I perhaps wouldn’t put it as harshly but I do agree entirely with you. For some, ‘wanting to believe’, translates as ‘I want to believe everything that I’m told, because I’m too lazy to find out for myself.’ It is usually qualified by the remark that everything else that they have been taught is lies (or victor’s history) and that the truth is hidden – which I can accept if you live in an oppressive regime and perhaps only have access religious teaching/texts and have never wondered what that big building marked ‘Library’ is there for.


Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 



I was merely interested in whether you knew whether there was any reason why the Goethe association to the Illuminati would be something that wasn't widely known, especially by someone who (supposedly) conducted research into these things?


Just to be more helpful and specific - Goethe was "busted" in 1787 when the Bavarian Elector published the confiscated correspondences of the Bavarian Illuminati. So, yes, he was always known to have been a member. For sometime though Goethe's Illuminati activities was always claimed as negligible; however, his rank was that of Regent, so he was given real power, became a censor of a Minerval Academy, and was one of the top assets in Weimar for sure.

A little factoid: Goethe's life is the most documented of anyone in history. His collected works comprise some 133 volumes! (much of it autobiographical), and his superstar status in Europe rivaled that of Voltaire.


More along the lines I was looking for, I wasn’t clear though. I looked Goethe up in the Fulop-Miller book and he isn’t associated with the Illuminati in that – which I think was written 1920-24 ish (it’s upstairs and I’m not that interested in knowing for sure) and is therefore roughly contemporary to Luddendorff’s remarks. The reference to Goethe is significant (to me), because Josef Goebbels was a student of Professor Frederick Gundolf, evidently a leading expert on Goethe, at Heidelberg and had even written a (by all accounts very poor) novel called Michael, based on The Sorrows of Young Werther. Would someone with that background, do you think, be aware of Goethe’s attachment to the Illuminati? I am not sure that it is even significant other than as a means of colouring in the picture.

Ludendorff was obviously being fed this information from somewhere, he was an old man and it is clear from events that he was being manipulated. He became a liability because he continued to attack capitalism. Even though the Nazis continued their campaign against freemasons, Jesuits and ‘Jewry’, they had to drop the ‘capitalist’ angle for obvious reasons. Goebbels was working for Gregor Strasser (who was also an anti-capitalist and an affiliate of Ludendorff) at this time and it seems likely to me that Goebbels could have been the source of much of Ludendorff’s material. It is a minor detail but a detail all the same, and of course it depends upon interest in the subject. I just like conspiracies and this period is jam-packed, with Ludendorff involved in a couple of really good ones. Various types of ‘synarchy’ were working from the end of the 1800s onwards in an attempt to inflict their own form of ‘harmonious rule’ over Europe. Ludendorff is very representative of this in the first war and for some time beyond, his fall from grace is representative of a power shift not just within Germany but in Europe as a whole. One thing that I have found, is that sometimes the clue is in what is notable by its absence, it may lead to a dead end but as there is some truth in the accusation of ‘victor’s justice’ you can sometimes find what they are trying to hide and therefore where to look.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman
There were masons on all sides of the Revolutionary War - how many people know that the great British patriot and war hero Benedict Arnold was a freemason?


I think that this highlights the differences between our nations as well...isn't it considered an insult in the US to be compared to Benedict Arnold? I think they consider him a turn-coat.


Originally posted by Trinityman
There is a school of thought amongst masonic scholars that many British freemason Officers fighting in the "colonies" had a great deal of sympathy with the American position and didn't try too hard to win the war. I'm not aware of any evidence to support this view but it has a nice ring to it IMO.


And they say romance is dead.
This is one of the things I like about freemasonry, there is a definate quest for common ground and an optimistic outlook. If you ask me, (and since nobody will I'll opine freely) you would be much closer to attaining this if only you could cast off the outdated notion of gender segregation, and in the same breath, the US would also be better off it if allowed the constitution to recognise the equality of women. The two are not unconnected in my opinion.

On a tangent, I have wondered whether considering Hilary's inferiority under law in the US and the allowance that only all men are equal, whether it was even legally possible for her to be President and that considering that the ratification to change the consistution to recognise the equality of women has failed to obtain enough congressional votes how anyone expected Hilary to attain the highest office in the country by a similar process.

Either way I think little is said about this side of Freemasonry (conspiratorially) and I don't find the charge of male eliteism too hard to prove either. I know there are many arguments as to why, but I still don't consider it properly addressed. I myself don't want to open another discussion about it either, but thought I'd note it for the record.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 




And they say romance is dead. This is one of the things I like about freemasonry, there is a definate quest for common ground and an optimistic outlook.


Not all men thought this way in regards to war. Some did though. In the revolutionary war and the civil war Freemasons where ordered secretly by commanding officers who where also Freemasons to give quarter to fallen enemy combatants who where Freemasons.. there are stories of Freemasons lying mangled in the fields screaming phrases and other Freemasons regardless of their allegiances coming to the rescue. Of course other stories like that of the Alamo paint another picture where commanding Freemasons had no regard for other Masons unless it was trying to save their own life.



If you ask me, (and since nobody will I'll opine freely) you would be much closer to attaining this if only you could cast off the outdated notion of gender segregation, and in the same breath, the US would also be better off it if allowed the constitution to recognise the equality of women. The two are not unconnected in my opinion.


What is equality? .. Is equality giving the rights to another while denying the rights of segregation to another? No it's not. Privilege and Rights are different, as is Equality. Women have the equal right to start their own organization - and there are - and men have the equal right to start or hold THEIR own organization.

I know your feelings about Freemasonry and Women, and it may not be fair to some, but it has nothing what so ever to do with equality!

Equality is the notion that in fact men are looking down on women and declaring them unfit in some emotion, intellectual, spiritual, appearance, or in some other short coming compared to men. While in fact Masonry was designed for men, and only for the sake of being men and holding a lodge with men. Because we hold no degrading thought towards women as an institution we do not bar the initiation of women on that level and thus, hold them to equal light as we would a man. However Freemasonry is a Fraternity and as a Fraternity for the sake of tradition and to keep it's purpose alive it will forever remain a Fraternity and never allow the initiation of women.

There was once a time in this world where the sexes where different in their own respects. This difference has been known and noted throughout history, and only since the destruction of the Female identity and the Male identity have we had a society spiraling into a morally defunct and degenerated cesspool of mixed and confused ideologies and personal identities! Respect the mans right to congregate as men, and respect the identity of men, just as one should respect the identity and role of women.

The one great thing I love about the French, is even in this era of generalized ignorance of personal roll identity, a French Woman still knows shes a Woman. The rest of the world forgot.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
What is equality? .. Is equality giving the rights to another while denying the rights of segregation to another? No it's not. Privilege and Rights are different, as is Equality. Women have the equal right to start their own organization - and there are - and men have the equal right to start or hold THEIR own organization.


We've been there done that and you used the same argument then, at least this time you admit your inability to comprehend what equality is, although you do go onto qualify your lack of understanding too.

The US chooses not to amend the constitution to read ALL are equal, it continues to proclaim that only all MEN are equal. More than once I have noted Freemasons on this board extolling the role of freemasons in the drafting of the constitution and the founding of the Republic itself. That is the only point that I raised.

As I recall last time we discussed this you confused equality with both communism and feminism, it seems you're still stuck on the feminism issue. I have no intention of discussing your perception of womanhood or of your no doubt considerable experience of french women. The point is that the constitution of the US, does not recognise women as equals under law. That some freemasons do not recognise women as freemasons, or co-masonry as 'regular', I think ties in to a doctrine of male elitism. You assert, that freemasonry was created for men, by men. A conspiracy to keep men and women apart? A conspiracy to place secrets (however insignificant) between man and wife? Perhaps not but as I said it is still worthy of note and i am yet to find a satisfactory explanation.

To summarise - a male only organisation that helped to create a constitution that denies women equality. An organisation designed by men for men, influencing the design of a legal system that favours men. Equal is quite simply, equal. Given equal weight and equal value. It has nothing to do with femininity, just as it has nothing to with masculinity.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Completely absurd! Ask any man who goes against a women within the legal system .. completely absurd for you to even remark on that! How many men will serve years and years behind bars because a jealous lover cried rape? How many men will loose their kids because the judicial system AND society declare men unimportant? How many men will loose their life work because of a greedy ex wife?

Femnazis like your self view equality as the destruction of rights for the sake of the few. If Freemasonry where to allow women you would have 95% of Masons against it, just so the few women that give a rats arse can sit in a meeting for a feeling of self importance.

Next lets expand upon your lack of understanding in regards to history:

Freemasonry had no part directly in influencing the constitution, rather, the constitution and Freemasonry where influenced by Enlightenment ideologies!

All Men are created equal. This includes women.

Or would you rather the Constitution say, just so your politically correct narrow mind can comprehend, "all Men, females, transsexuals, gender confused and sexual unknown Homo Sapiens are created equal"

There is no arguing logic with a Fem Nazi.

(You also may just represent the very reason Men create fraternities to begin with! .. First we let you in, what then will you force us to change? Make the lodge carpet pink and add little frillies on aprons?)



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck


There is no arguing logic with a Fem Nazi.



Hey! Is this Rush Limbaugh?




posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I think that this highlights the differences between our nations as well...isn't it considered an insult in the US to be compared to Benedict Arnold? I think they consider him a turn-coat.


Actually we do consider him a turncoat. It is interesting to point out the Benedict Arnold has a rather famous memorial dedicated to him at Saratoga Springs which many Revolutionary historians consider the turning point of the war. While he is not mentioned by name the memorial reads:

"In memory of the most brilliant soldier of the Continental army, who was desperately wounded on this spot, winning for his countrymen the decisive battle of the American Revolution, and for himself the rank of Major General."




On a tangent, I have wondered whether considering Hilary's inferiority under law in the US and the allowance that only all men are equal, whether it was even legally possible for her to be President and that considering that the ratification to change the consistution to recognise the equality of women has failed to obtain enough congressional votes how anyone expected Hilary to attain the highest office in the country by a similar process.


May I direct you to the 19th amendment to the Constitution of The United States which reads...

''The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.''

This amendment was ratified, by the signing of the State of Tennesse, on August 18th, 1920. Hillary Clinton is indeed allowed to run for and become, if elected, the President of the United States.

I believe you refer to the Declaration of Independence which reads, ''...that all men are created equal.'' This document can not be amended and was meant to inform King George and the British Parliment of the Colonies intention to become independent and listed the grievences that they felt made this act a nescessity.








[edit on 17-6-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 

because there is no masonic conspiricy they are involved in the matters they are supposed to be involved in just because a mason is involved in something doesnt mean the whole group is involved the only time they were macking an inpact as a group on the world and more speciffacally americawas the gov't of america



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by iesus_freak
...only time they were macking an inpact as a group on the world and more speciffacally americawas the gov't of america


I am not quite sure what you mean by this last remark. Can you please elaborate or expound upon it further?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by iesus_freak
 


Freemasonry has impacted many thousands of Americans, however on a global or national level aside from personal influences, Freemasonry played no major part in anything. The ideas behind Freemasonry are not exclusively Masonic in any way, in fact most of the ideas are Enlightenment ideas, and also the ideas of Deism which was popular amongst Enlightenment supporters.

these ideas, which was more of a philosophical movement, gave rise to societies in the form of governments and also social societies which where designed to incorporate these ideas and expand upon them.

The entire Western World had been influenced by these new ideas, which radical as they may be did not need a secret society to push them. The American Revolution, the French Revolution and the political changes of Great Britain and Ireland where all directly influenced by this ideologies. Freemasonry was simply a tool to channel these ideas.

It is important to note this: When a Freemason does something, or a group of Freemasons do something, or Masonic ideas are used to do something.. it does not make it Masonic in any way except through the transfer of ideas and actions. Masonry it's self are the ideas that countless people believe in, and the actions of Masonry are confined to the Lodge. So when a Mason, Masons, or Masonic ideas are used, they are used exclusively from those individuals involved, and not Freemasonry it's self. At no point in history has an entire population of Freemasons moved for anyone goal, be it through political, economic or military means.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I think that this highlights the differences between our nations as well...isn't it considered an insult in the US to be compared to Benedict Arnold? I think they consider him a turn-coat.

Absolutely. I was just teasing the Americans really. Benedict Arnold is not really that well known in modern-day England other than through the notoriety he has gained in the States. Actually he was quite a talented soldier and had a difficult time reconciling his loyalties at a time when the world seemed to be turning upside down.


If you ask me, (and since nobody will I'll opine freely) you would be much closer to attaining this if only you could cast off the outdated notion of gender segregation, and in the same breath, the US would also be better off it if allowed the constitution to recognise the equality of women. The two are not unconnected in my opinion.

Gender segregation is a much wider issue than just freemasonry IMO, it very much depends on whether you believe there is a place for such a thing in the wider community. Most people think some sort of gender segregation is quite appropriate (separate rest rooms, changing rooms, sports events, etc) so the issue really is how far this should go (separate gender schools are still quite common, for example). IMO one can still be separate and equal - one might argue that ladies rest rooms having carpets and scents while mens just get tiled floors and graffitti could be an inequality


Within freemasonry in the UK there is men's freemasonry, women's freemasonry and mixed freemasonry. You take your pick and join the one you want. Doesn't get much fairer than that. In the US there is a much stronger social legacy of fraternities and sororities and this doesn't seem to be as much of an issue. Practically demonstrated by the fact that that there is relatively little demand for women's freemasonry although the OES exists as an alternative.

I think we must be careful when looking at segregation to understand whether it is forced or self-imposed, and also whether the two (or more) groups have a wider equality of opportunity.


... and I don't find the charge of male eliteism too hard to prove either.

Well then go right ahead and show me what you mean. Just because freemasonry matured at a time when huge inequalities existed in society (it wasn't just the women y'know...) doesn't mean the modern Craft is chockablock full of misogynists. Just ask the HFAF or OWF what they think of single-sex masonry!

www.owf.org.uk...

www.hfaf.org...

[edit on 6/17/08 by Trinityman]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:27 AM
link   
I dont know if this has already been said but there is a masonic conspiracy that be proved with evidence. I was watching a show on the history channel about freemasonry. A Lodge met at the green dragon tavern in boston, mass in the late 1700's. the same place that the boston tea party was planned. The show said that a many a mason were there throwing the tea overboard. Now was this a conspiracy that was planned by the head lodge of boston or by the leaders of masonry in the colonies? no. but we do have a group of masons planning and executing a political statement and ruining a bunch of tea.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   
I'm a little dumbfounded by the fact that Rockpuck gets two stars for name calling and generally voicing some fairly serious issues he has with women, and AugustusMasonicus gets two (one incidently from me) for totally blowing me out of the water and proving that I was wrong on a number of counts (not completely sunk, just a few things mixed up with each other and forced to actually look up what I was talking about to confirm my sanity). But, as he pointed out I was proved to be wrong on a couple of counts. But the feminazis argument wins by popular vote. Nice reflection.

This is what i was incorrectly describing, apologies for the confusion I should have checked the details before igniting the issue.


The Equal Rights Amendment
Freedom from legal sex discrimination, Alice Paul believed, required an Equal Rights Amendment that affirmed the equal application of the Constitution to all citizens. In 1923, in Seneca Falls for the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the 1848 Woman’s Rights Convention, she introduced the "Lucretia Mott Amendment," which read: "Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction." The amendment was introduced in every session of Congress until it passed in reworded form in 1972.

Although the National Woman’s Party and professional women such as Amelia Earhart supported the amendment, reformers who had worked for protective labor laws that treated women differently from men were afraid that the ERA would wipe out the progress they had made.



The Equal Rights Amendment passed the U.S. Senate and then the House of Representatives, and on March 22, 1972, the proposed 27th Amendment to the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification. But as it had done for every amendment since the 18th (Prohibition), with the exception of the 19th Amendment, Congress placed a seven-year deadline on the ratification process. This time limit was placed not in the words of the ERA itself, but in the proposing clause.



Like the 19th Amendment before it, the ERA barreled out of Congress, getting 22 of the necessary 38 state ratifications in the first year. But the pace slowed as opposition began to organize – only eight ratifications in 1973, three in 1974, one in 1975, and none in 1976.



As the 1979 deadline approached, some pro-ERA groups, like the League of Women Voters, wanted to retain the eleventh-hour pressure as a political strategy. But many ERA advocates appealed to Congress for an indefinite extension of the time limit, and in July 1978, NOW coordinated a successful march of 100,000 supporters in Washington, DC. Bowing to public pressure, Congress granted an extension until June 30, 1982.

The political tide continued to turn more conservative. In 1980 the Republican Party removed ERA support from its platform, and Ronald Reagan was elected president. Although pro-ERA activities increased with massive lobbying, petitioning, countdown rallies, walkathons, fundraisers, and even the radical suffragist tactics of hunger strikes, White House picketing, and civil disobedience, ERA did not succeed in getting three more state ratifications before the deadline. The country was still unwilling to guarantee women constitutional rights equal to those of men.

The Equal Rights Amendment was reintroduced in Congress on July 14, 1982 and has been before every session of Congress since that time. In the 110th Congress (2007-2008), it has been introduced as S.J.Res. 10 (lead sponsor: Sen. Edward Kennedy, MA) and H.J.Res. 40 (lead sponsor: Rep. Carolyn Maloney, NY). These bills impose no deadline on the ERA ratification process. Success in putting the ERA into the Constitution via this process would require passage by a two-thirds in each house of Congress and ratification by 38 states.

An alternative strategy for ERA ratification has arisen from the "Madison Amendment," concerning changes in Congressional pay, which was passed by Congress in 1789 and finally ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. The acceptance of an amendment after a 203-year ratification period has led some ERA supporters to propose that Congress has the power to maintain the legal viability of the ERA’s existing 35 state ratifications. The legal analysis for this strategy is outlined in "The Equal Rights Amendment: Why the ERA Remains Legally Viable and Properly Before the States," an article by Allison Held, Sheryl Herndon, and Danielle Stager in the Spring 1997 issue of William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law.



www.equalrightsamendment.org...

Equal Rights was not wholly introduced into the UK until 1991 and the US are not alone in their reluctance to give women legal equality. I am sure that Switzerland only gave women the vote in the mid '70s.

Women were let down by the men of the enlightenment and they reinforced the laws that kept women firmly in their place. Every change in those laws has been fought for and rightly so, it doesn't mean that the battle has ended and that all women have equal rights to those of their male counterparts just because the vote has been obtained. A country as advanced as the US should have made those changes to their laws by now, but they have been resisted all along the way. Why? If they are not important, if women already have de facto equality why the reluctance to have it formerly and permanently made binding? The answer is very clearly given in the links, because the major employers want to retain the right to pay women less. That way while all the men are away fighting wars, the women can keep the economy moving and the employers can pay the women less than the men that have just been drafted. Everyone's happy


Rockpuck, if you think I'm a 'feminazi' you are in for some serious strife in your life.
From you I take it as a compliment.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   
What does everyone think about the news from italy that has masons mixed up with with the mafia? Do the masons think that this is a masonic conspiracy or is it nepotism? Is this something that happens in the US?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Capozzelli
 


I think it has a bit about one fellow who is (and now, probably was) a Mason getting arrested for crimes. I mean, there was a cop and a gynocologsit arrested as welll, are they all evil then to?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Capozzelli
 


i think what your talking about is the P2 incident. and no that doesn't happen here in the United States. Freemasonry is different in every country. we don't get ourselves in that kind of trouble here



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


I don't think they are all evill, I just want to know if the guy used his masonic conections to further himself at the expense of others and if this happens often. I still really haven't gotten too many answers from the masons here about what they think of nepotism taking place in their lodges. Only alightindarkness really gave me some good answers but he is only one person.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bushidomason
 


I read about the p2 thing but I was really talking about the guy that was just arrested in Italy who was a mason. I wanted to post on the other thread but there is too much fighting for me and I don't think any good info will come from it. Everyone here has been very calm, for the most part, and answered my questions. What is your take on the whole situation with this guy getting arrested? Do you think that there is a bigger conspiracy then what is reported? This isn't the first time the mafia has done this with masons. Is there a reason that this happens more often? Are the lodges different form here?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Capozzelli
 


Yes, there is Nepotism in Freemasonry. Perhaps not as prevelent as one would innitially expect, but it would be even more ignorant to assume it never happens. That goes essentially for any organization.

I would treat a Mason no different then I would a good friend however. I also consider Masons, above other men to be of better moral fiber, better ethically and more trustworthy. My biased opinion.

I have never hired a Freemason though. I have never been employed by a Mason either. But if a Mason was unemployed and needed help, I would most gladly give him a job. I would help in any way I possibly can.

I know, I know.. I is evil .. can't help it ..



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join