Shouldn't Secrets be hidden?

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


Ya, you would say something like that wouldn't you?

Apparently.

Your comment wasn't that profound.

I disagree.

It is MY business if a judge and the prosecutor are both Masons;

Why?

Masons who've taken oaths to help each other out above all else - to collude, if you will. Nowhere in your obligations does it explicitly state that God and country comes first - nowhere!

Again, you're using your straw man fallacy. Masonic obligations do *not* say anything about "helping each other out above all else". In fact, Masons are much more strict on its members behavior than other organizations, and it's a lot easier to get booted out of Masonry for doing wrong than, say, the Rotary Club.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by TheBorg

 

Possible debate titles (pro and con):

The Illuminati control the world

The Bavarian Illuminati still exist

The Illuminati secretly control Freemasonry.


(Sorry for your thread being temporarily used for this AccessDenied)

None of the above, because it's not true.

It certainly seems like questions and assumptions you guys would think I would adhere too - being an ignorant anti-mason and all. But I'm an expert at the Bavarian Illuminati - the historical secret society from 1776 - 87/93.

You guy's are hot and bothered for your so-called debates, well this is my subject.

Barring that, I will only debate another published author. That means that you have to provide your real name, and after we exchange CVs to confirm that we are both published (includes: books, magazines or journals) we will proceed. If - and only if - I agree to the question or assumption as arguable on my part, that is.

There will be no strong-arming or coercing. These are my conditions. That is all.

If not find another mark.

Bye.

reply to post by Masonic Light


Bravo.

You're right, I'm wrong.

Plaque it if you like.

There, we have nothing more to bicker about.

Originally posted by TheBorg
Again though, if you could expound upon what specifically you would like to debate about the Bavarian Illuminati, then please DO let me know.

Huddle together; consolidate all your combined knowledge on the subject.

Come see me with your conclusions, and a question or assumption to debate.

After I've assessed that indeed it is hot-air, the debate is on. I tear you apart.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


In goes on like this ad infinitum on every thread in the secret societies forum. The Masons think it is their own play-thing in which to proselytize with.

Your faith in your belief is really quite surprisingly annoying.

So what if it is their plaything?

What exactly is your goal, the goal you have for here and now.

Why is it so nessecary for you to spread this information/force it down people's throats?

Did it never occur to you that members of ATS may have considered what you say to be a sincere possibility?

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by TheBorg

 

Possible debate titles (pro and con):

The Illuminati control the world

The Bavarian Illuminati still exist

The Illuminati secretly control Freemasonry.


(Sorry for your thread being temporarily used for this AccessDenied)

None of the above, because it's not true.

When has truth ever stopped you from posting?

But fine. If those topics aren't acceptable, list some alternatives that might be. What's a misnomer about the Illuminati, in your opinion, that you'd like to defend, and let someone else take the opposing view. Should be easy for you if you've got all the facts on your side.

reply to post by JoshNorton


Now you're talking! Don't get me started.

The big two:

a) The inane claim by William Guy Carr that Rothschild and his evil minions got together to plot the formation of the Illuminati; it was out of this fateful meeting of the Synagogue of Satan that the plan was hatched to finance and support Weishaupt as their man to head up and coordinate this master-plan secret society known as the Illuminati.

b) In case you haven't noticed, the internet is awash in the asinine "Jesuits-rule-the-world" theories. They usually center upon the work of Eric Jon Phelps, but the meme goes like this: Weishaupt was not only "Jesuit-trained" as history is correct in telling us, but in fact it was much more; Weishaupt, they spew, was a full-blown Jesuit Priest; and therefore, the Jesuits are (logically, then) the masterminds once again - since at Jesuit-Ingolstadt, Jesuit-Weishaupt instituted the Jesuit-Illuminati.

My passion for debunking Illuminati conspiracy crud parallels some of the efforts here to debunk myths about Masonry. I suppose in this way, we have a lot in common (I can even respect it; grudgingly).

reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


Being a published author is not indicative of any sort of status or knowledge that makes you incapable of debating other people who are not published authors. They are not "below" you, they simply didn't write anything sensational enough to be picked up by a publisher. Anyone can write a book. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the average ATS member could wipe the floor with any "published author" - because its just not a big deal.

However, I will take you up on your challenge. I have been published in both peer reviewed journals, edited journals, and in the annals of academic conferences. That I have, of course, means little, but you set up this arbitrary barrier in order to stop people from debating you. Unfortunately for you, you didn't set up this meaningless barrier high enough.

How funny you stay there will be no strong arming, and that is exactly what you are doing.

So when shall we debate masonry? Oh, yeah, thats the only thing I'm debating. I have no interest in the Bavarian Illuminati . By the way, to debate me you must have a research masters degree - I'll need to see the thesis. Your not the only one that can set up arbitrary qualifiers.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


You again, how lovely to see those words from your keyboard.

Your not the only one that can set up arbitrary qualifiers.

You're the masons who want to "debate" me. I don't care about your "arbitrary qualifiers," simply because I am not the one shouting "ooga, ooga" "debate, debate!"

My conditions are my conditions. They are recorded. Take them or leave.

If you want a piece of me, play by my rules; or you don't get to play at all.

reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


It is clear to me that your attempt to group everyone who disagrees with you into "the masons" and insult them is not only elementary, but frankly quite sad. This is quite a turn from your more reasonable posts. You seem to categorize everyone who disagrees with you as a mason, even though a majority of people are not. Have you not considered that even non-masons believe the whole "masonic conspiracy" is nothing more than a red herring to distract people from what is really going on?

You set up arbitrary conditions in the hopes that no one could meet them. Then you could laud your accomplishments over ATS members, show your superiority, and continue these attempts to avoid a real debate. Unfortunately for you, I meet your standards. Let's debate. I could play your game, really I could. I could demand that the only people who debate me have research masters degrees, or be current doctoral students or PhD holders. I could place all sorts of arbitrary and pointless demands to show my level of education and accomplishment in order to stop everyone who disagrees with me from being able to meet my absurd qualifiers, and ensuring you could never debate me.

But I realize these qualifers are not only meaningless, they have no importance in the context of the debate. And since I am not the one interested in obsfucation, I will not play along.

I meet your requirements. Let's debate masonry. Enough with the insults and hiding.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


"It is clear to me that your attempt to group everyone who disagrees with you into 'the masons' and insult them is not only elementary"

You - Mason - have insulted me first, PERSONALLY. Mason.

Nope, I grouped you Masons into Masons because you are Masons. You Masons are surrounding me and badgering me - MASONS! You Masons. If you don't like me calling you Masons, then you shouldn't have been proselytizing to the board as MASONS! Mason.

"You set up arbitrary conditions in the hopes that no one could meet them."

Then leave me the hell alone, Mason.

Meet them or don't.

CV, please.

Or.... Bavarian Illuminati. I clean clock!

reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


Thanks for using the word "mason" over and over. I'm proud to be one! However, your attempts to call EVERYONE a mason when they disagree with you is quite funny. However, this recent outburst literally reminds me of a 5 year old cousin who throws a temper tantrum and screams at people. Its really a drop in your decorum - I guess its showing you for who you really are. I am kind of sad, I thought you were different.

Your upset that I pointed out you have yet to produce any research on your claims. I previously told you this was not meant to be insulting, and apologized if it was perceived that way. You can't seem to get over it. If you have any research, I'm more than happy to read it and discuss it. But you don't, which is why you sit around and insult people. Its sad.

When you associate everyone that disagrees with you as being a member of a certain group, its not a good sign. Its either the product of paranoia or an attempt to project - probably a combination of both.

I'm not playing your games. Let's debate masonry. Lets see your CV, since you are the one proposing this absurd qualifier. You can PM it to me if you don't want it to be public - I wouldn't expect it should be public, although I sense this is yet another of your attempts to hide and stop a debate. I await your PM, and you'll receive mine in response.

Or...we could skip the silly games and debate. But you'd rather play games. I'll play along, but only briefly, if you don't debate after meeting your absurd qualifiers your credibility will be even further damaged. After all, if you think being a published author puts you so above everyone else, it should be easy to debate and beat the peons.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
You can PM it to me if you don't want it to be public.

You are the one who needs to do that.

Me:

Books:
Perfectibilists: The 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati, August 2008

I am also published in the following: Alexandra Bruce, Beyond The Secret: The Definitive Unauthorized Guide to The Secret, 2008, pp. 17-27; Erik Fortman, Webs of Power 2, 2005, pp. 208-18.

Magazines:
The following articles of mine were also published:
- North American Forum: The Secret Cabal of Trinational Elites
- The Earth Charter and the Ark of the Gaia Covenant
(The former in the November 2006 issue of The Eco-logic Powerhouse; and the latter in Springboard Magazine, the official organ of the Washington Contract Loggers Association, Inc. [late 2001 or early 2002])

And before you laugh and mock - because I know you just can't help yourself - send me your "private" CV.

Put up or shut up.

reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


Thats not a CV. CVs highlight academic and professional credentials and publications. Its a list of vanity press publications and non-academic magazines. But since you decided to be public about it. I will point out again this is a pointless exercise and the data below mean nothing - however - you are the one insisting on playing this silly game. Copying and pasting my entire CV would be quite long so I just did a few selected things.

I could link to my publications (although some require the purchasing of the journal) if I wanted to stroke my ego, but its not necessary. I'm only doing this to play your game. Now, lets debate.

Edit: Someone pointed out to me that what fire in the minds of men doing is essentially trying to establish a "whose is bigger" contest over the internet. I am not arrogant enough that I need to see CVs before debating someone, nor do I need to stroke my own ego so much that I constantly link to my own publications. Fire has seen my info, and so now I am removing it so no one accuses me of the same arrogance. If anyone genuinely wants to know and didnt see it, PM me.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Wow Access .. your thread pretty much blew up didn't it? Welcome to the SS Forum.

Should secrets be ... hidden? Yes and no. To be quite honest even though Masonry labels it's buildings, when and where we meet, all of our functions, and even post pictures and details on our websites.. We still do not discuss detailed lodge meetings, nor do we (openly) discuss the ritual.

So in a sense, Masonry is in a no mans land when it comes to secrecy. It's no secret we exist, and our secrets are out there on the net and in books, but we still consider it a taboo to talk about the subjects.

So we are open to the public. Yet we are closed to the public. While you can see a Masonic building, and we label them well, you cannot however see what goes inside.

I find the concept mysterious and inviting.

So you have to take it from us Masons we don't do anything sinister. But you'll never know for fact because, well, it's taboo for us to tell you the details

So I can assure you our secrets are more along the lines of privacy. And I can tell you I swore an oath to never discuss the secrets of Freemasonry. And I can tell you no true Mason would ever commit himself to something that is not pure. But it's a secret unless you join. But you can't. Cause your a female.

By the way AD, just to add.. I believe it is important that Masonry retains it's secret-ness .. see .. in this world we are void of the unknown, the unexplored and the unexplained. When we see something we are quick to label, to guess and dismiss, and we don't take the time to delve into things we otherwise would have explained in a cliff notes type briefing. Masonry's "secretiveness" is essential to the members because we all need something to call our own, to explore and to find out on our own without truly knowing what lies before. Something that I have found you can only truly understand once you have "traveled" the same path as all the brethren in the room, leading you blind on a quest for light. Freemasonry is a harboring of a bygone age, and a hidden jewel being rediscovered by our younger generation as a source for mystery and esoteric studies in an age where Google tells us everything without having to experience it.

So secrecy is not always sinister, as you see, secrecy can be a saving grace from the modern world. We all need a little "secretiveness" in our lives.

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
“The Changing Two-Party Political System in the United States: the Evolution
of the Libertarian Party in the Context of Philosophy, History, and Politics,” The
Recorder, Spring 2007.

I said published.

This is the only one I can verify, and I will if I can. Where can I do so? Who can I contact, or where can I confirm?

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
I said published.

This is the only one I can verify, and I will if I can. Where can I do so? Who can I contact, or where can I confirm?

Actually you can verify all of it. Call up the universities, and use google. I am not going to help you play these pointless games. You are the one that set up these ridculous and elementary barriers as a stalling mechanism, I'm not going to help you continue to play the game. If I wanted to stroke my own ego I'd paste my whole CV, I'm only doing this to get you to debate me because your hoping no one will meet your extremely silly qualifiers.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
Actually you can verify all of it. Call up the universities, and use google. I am not going to help you play these pointless games.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Because, 1) I don't care about your degrees (but I will call tomorrow just for kicks), even the ones you hope to be getting in 2012 or 2098; and 2) nothing, ZILCH, comes up on Google (certainly not in Google Scholar; but especially not in Google proper).

Nice try.

reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


Oops...wait a sec, I may have spoken too soon.

Will get back to you.

reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


You don't care, yet your going to spend all that time verifying? Interesting. It must be sad to have this sort of anger that it consumes that much time. Of course, someone like you wouldn't care about degrees - where are yours, by the way? That is of course a normal item to list on a CV, and since you said we had to show CVs where are your higher education credentials?

Also, I just sent a link to Augustus to verify the things Ive said. But I refuse to help you play these games to continue to hide from debating.

I'd like to point out you've yet to show anything academic or peer reviewed in nature. It doesn't have to be peer reviewed, but it needs to at least be academic (academically edited journals will do). You haven't shown your own CV. I don't really care of course, as I know this is just you stalling, but the irony is interesting.

Now...how about this...and this is just a CRAZY idea on my part. Lets stop the games and delaying tactics and debate. AMAZING IDEA! Who would have thought of such a thing...

This entire tangent of yours is smoke and mirrors that your using to not debate me. Either debate me, or stop the games.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by ALightinDarkness]