Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
Also, being a freemason can help one achieve promotion in some lines of work and can get you further in your chosen career. I've known instances
where the best, most qualified, for a promotion was over looked for someone who was in the boss's lodge. That can't be right can it? Could be a
simple case of friends helping a friend or could it be that the business only promotes like minded freemasons? And if so, to what ends?
To what
ends indeed? What company can ever succeed if they promote slackers over better qualified employees? Sounds like a good way to go out of business, not
take over the world.
|
Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
[snip]Also, being a freemason can help one achieve promotion in some lines of work and can get you further in your chosen career.
Many social connections will help advance one's career, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with Masonry.
Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
I've known instances where the best, most qualified, for a promotion was over looked for someone who was in the boss's lodge.
Without knowing the circumstances of the position, could an aspect of sociability been a factor in the final decision (assuming both candidates were
otherwise equally qualified)? If a clearly inferior candidate was selected for the sole reason of being a brethren in a boss's Lodge then I wouldn't
condone it. Mind you, by the same token, any shared focus has the potential to generate unearned advancement, like say a shared support of Liverpool
FC fer instance.  And so the social circumstance goes. The cream does not always rise to the top in a social environment.
Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
That can't be right can it? Could be a simple case of friends helping a friend or could it be that the business only promotes like minded freemasons?
There reasons could be myriad or it could be a simple case of there being a qualification or advantage that the advancee had (having nothing to do
with Lodge membership) that the nominal "best" candidate lacked or had less of. In any case, to advance someone in business solely on shared
membership in a group is counterproductive and an invitation to corporate underperformance and/or disaster over the long term.
Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
And if so, to what ends? Pile the secrecy aspect on top of this and you can see why the brotherhood fascinates people like me.
But the 'secrecy' hasn't been secret in pushing 3 centuries. The nominal 'secrecy' is an excuse rather than an actuality.
|
Masons, like Illuminati, Jesuits, Rothchilds, Rockefellers, Asters, Duponts, Mansons, Bundys, etc., are neither good, nor bad collectively. It is the
individual and subgroup within them that represent problems. The generalization of saying the Masons are bad is incorrect, some groups and certainly
some individuals in leadership are "bad". Ignorance is a universal attribute we all possess. None of us is immune, it is part and parcel with being
near the bottom of the creation is vast darkness with leaches and pariah everywhere around and within us body and mind.
|
Originally posted by ReelView
Masons, like Illuminati, Jesuits, Rothchilds, Rockefellers, Asters, Duponts, Mansons, Bundys, etc., are neither good, nor bad collectively. It is the
individual and subgroup within them that represent problems.
Surely this can be extended to Christians, Hindus, Salvation Army, Girl scouts, and just about any other society or organization you can think of...
|
