My theory on Freemasons & "secret societies", and how they relate to "conspiracy"

First off, happy new year to everyone! I very rarely post in this section, but read it a lot...

I'm gonna sign off soon, as the egg-nog and whatsis of the season is admittedly having its desired effect. But first, I want to attempt to share a theory of mine with the fine folks of ATS... Be they Freemasons, Anti-Masons, or "fence-sitters".

I am a "conspiracy theorist". I could try to deny that "label", but really, I have lots of theories, and many of them involve what I consider to be 'conspiracies' on one level or another. Ok, that means I'm just like 99% (or more) of everyone here.

That being said, I don't really have a "belief system". I have a bunch of ideas that I follow and keep track of, but I guess I'm too 'open minded' for any of them to actually dominate the others. Perhaps that is my problem. But I digress.

I'll cut to the chase.

I think that the only 'secret' among modern-day Masonry is about keeping secrets. Not any particular secrets, but the very art of keeping secrets.

From my research on the subject, which includes following many of the posts in the ATS "secret societies" forum, there is really nothing 'sinister' going on. Where it goes from there is the proverbial 'gray area'.

I think the so-called "high-level" Masons - the ones who have completed the most degrees - have proven one thing: that they know how to keep a secret. Heads of industry, government and military consider this a commodity. Therein lies the 'sinister'.

No one can deny (though many try to) that a large number of the heads of state, industry and military are Masons. Nor can anyone deny that an even larger number are just jolly old 'Fred Flintstone' types, who have no interest in "world domination". Is this evidence of a "pyramid" made up of 'lower levels' that have no idea of the larger picture? Maybe, but that larger picture may not be so large.

NOW... We know that there are entities in this world that are interested in 'world domination', as well as any number of not-so-innocuous agendas. I believe it's possible that they have taken the 'Masonic formula' and used it to their own advantage. Yes, I'm talking about the "Illuminati", or more specifically, groups like the 'Skull & Bones", Bilderbergers, etc...

SO... if what I'm suggesting here is correct, can we make a distinction between "good" Freemasons, and the ones who decide to use what they've learned from their trials for something not so "good"?

Am I all wet? Is there no practical (excusable?) use for 'secrets'?

Is there such a thing as "too much information"? Things that the human mind is not designed to comprehend? ..."TOP SECRET" information that is so only for OUR protection, and not that of the "PTB"? I like to think that I could handle any truth, but in my day-to-day dealings with the (m)asses, I have to stop and think...

Does that make me sound like an elitist? I don't qualify. But I don't want to be thought of as an 'elitist-sympathizer' either.

Please don't think of this as a 'trolling' post - I want to hear from both sides of the debate equally...




[edit on 1/1/2009 by Teratoma]

Secretive actions are not unethical when one is being victimized, attacked, or in any way harmed for no good reason, if the secrets help to save innocent lives.
Sadly, more often they are used to compete, and get some degree of power or money.
If Freemasons are doing evil, I feel that it will be exposed, and for the most part it has not been.

reply to post by BlackGuardXIII


That I can go along with. Along the same lines, perhaps the original 'secrecy' of such organizations was a result of the way their members saw things were headed - which could be construed as the 'subversive element" of today.

Only its effectiveness (the very commodity I mentioned above) was assimilated by the very powers it may have been trying to subvert in the first place.

FREE + MASON: the freedom of the common worker? What could be more noble than that? Until the PTB come along and exploit whatever usefulness that might've entailed.



[edit on 1/1/2009 by Teratoma]

No one can deny (though many try to) that a large number of the heads of state, industry and military are Masons.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Go there and name five current, folks then, please.

The first book containing the secrets of Masonry were published about 16 or so years after the Fraternity.
The rituals and such haven't been out of print for long at all pretty much since then.

Masons have only a couple of "secrets": the rituals and modes of recognition. Again, those have been in print for awhile now.

Originally posted by Teratoma
I think the so-called "high-level" Masons - the ones who have completed the most degrees - have proven one thing: that they know how to keep a secret. Heads of industry, government and military consider this a commodity. Therein lies the 'sinister'.

Well first off I am so happy someone finally defined "high level masons" but it doesn't really make any sense to me. If high level masons is whoever has completed the most degrees, its most certainly not a good gauge of their actual rank/authority/power. For example, the York Rite has fewer degrees than the Scottish Rite, and the leaders of the York Rite certainly yield far more administrative power than someone who went through the Scottish Rite in a 3 day reunion.

Also, a Grand Master of a Grand Lodge, who need only to have completed 3 degrees, has far more power than a 33rd degree Scottish Rite Mason. The GM can decree regularity and all sorts of things no 33rd degree can. So this method really doesn't fit reality. The reality is there is no "high level mason" or "low level mason." Just masons.

Also, as RuneSpider points out, its not clear at all that the "heads of industry, government, etc." are in fact masons at all.

Originally posted by Teratoma
No one can deny (though many try to) that a large number of the heads of state, industry and military are Masons. Nor can anyone deny that an even larger number are just jolly old 'Fred Flintstone' types, who have no interest in "world domination". Is this evidence of a "pyramid" made up of 'lower levels' that have no idea of the larger picture? Maybe, but that larger picture may not be so large.

Actually its quite easy to deny because no one has brought forth any evidence that "a large number" of anything are masons. In fact facts are quite the opposite - any list of "famous" masons shows most of them are from 50 to 100 years ago or more - none of them are living anymore.

And again there are no "high level masons" or "low level masons". Thats a construction people have made up in order to fit their need to craft a conspiracy.

Originally posted by Teratoma
NOW... We know that there are entities in this world that are interested in 'world domination', as well as any number of not-so-innocuous agendas. I believe it's possible that they have taken the 'Masonic formula' and used it to their own advantage. Yes, I'm talking about the "Illuminati", or more specifically, groups like the 'Skull & Bones", Bilderbergers, etc...

Actually, the only thing we KNOW are that conspiracy theorists are convinced there are groups intent on world domination. I have never seen any of these groups declare their intent to rule the world.

Its even less clear that there is a "masonic formula" for world domination. Please explain what that is.

Originally posted by Teratoma
SO... if what I'm suggesting here is correct, can we make a distinction between "good" Freemasons, and the ones who decide to use what they've learned from their trials for something not so "good"?

First you'd have to show that freemasons can use what they've learned for something not so "good" - its not clear at all how freemasonry can be used for evil. As I've said before, I'm not sure how one holds evil fish fries.

Originally posted by Teratoma
Am I all wet? Is there no practical (excusable?) use for 'secrets'?

The act of holding secrets is neither right or wrong, it depends on the secret. Since you can find out all the masonic secrets in 5 minutes, you can know there i nothing bad about them.

Thank you for taking time to respond. I do appreciate it. I'd also like to say that if what I'm trying to say seems like an attack of any kind, it isn't. I realize you guys often deal with threads that start out like mine then immediately become trolling and accusatory. I've seen it plenty of times.

The 'Masonic formula' I referred to is simply that of the 'fraternal organization'. Perhaps I'm wrong to credit Freemasonry with that, but I was simply referring to the concept of degree-oriented teaching. My point was that the more degrees one has, the more they've shown they can maintain confidence.

I didn't say 'masonic formula for world domination' anywhere in my post, and I'm not here to debate whether the Bilderbergers are intent on world domination. One could argue that groups like them are only interested in 'maintaining the status-quo', not 'world domination' but to me those terms are interchangeable. I'm of the opinion that they are interested primarily in maintaining their elite status, and use their resources to that end by whatever means necessary.

The point made by RuneSpider about Masons only being 'prominent' 50 to 100 years ago is slightly sidestepping the point I was making. The term 'large number' is ambiguous, I know, but many Masonic websites list prominent Masons throughout history. Yes I realize I'm contradicting the way I worded it in my post but whether they're current or not doesn't really change what I'm trying to say.

Which is: degree-oriented fraternal organizations (from the Cub Scouts to the Skull & Bones) are comprised of people who have proven they can keep secrets. This is a skill that is coveted in the worlds of industry, government and military.

Yes I know that the 'Skull & Bones' has 'nothing to do with Masonry'. But from what little I know about both organizations, there are some similarities, and those are pertinent to my argument. I'm talking about progressive degrees and rituals that teach a lesson that is to be kept secret from those who haven't been through them. If I'm wrong about Masonry being a main progenitor to this way of teaching then I stand corrected, but even if you remove the words "Freemasons &" from the title I chose I still think my theory is valid.

I don't think you are attempting to troll and you seem to be genuine in your questions and thoughts - which is actually quite refreshing. Sadly, such is NOT the norm on this forum.

I thought you meant masonic formula = plan for world domination because you referenced it right after all the groups conspiracy theorists believe are trying to do just that. If you mean simply the fraternal organization, then you have to understand the organization is not what you think. As masons go through side degrees (notice I didn't mention up through the degrees, because there is no upward movement after the 3rd degree), the only things they are asked to keep secret are the lessons of the degree. Not because anyone actually cares if they get out - all of them have been out now for centuries - but because it kind of ruins it for everyone else if you go around talking about them. It also shows you are a man of your word, which is a important character quality.

Yes, each degree has its own sign/password/whatever. I doubt anyone remembers any of them after the third unless they are a degree team member and only for the degree they put on - after all, in the Scottish Rite its 4-32 in days, no one can remember all that. I could not prove that I was a Scottish Rite mason by putting on all the signs or anything else from all the degrees. I can talk about what quite a few of them involve, particularly the ones I like and study more in depth, but thats it.

It is true that there have been many prominent masons throughout history. The mistake I believe people make is assuming they were prominent BECAUSE they were masons. They would have been prominent with or without their affiliation. Also, just because there WAS prominent masons doesn't mean the same holds true today. Its a different world - people just don't join fraternal or service organizations like they used to.

I don't think the qualifier for fraternal organization "advancement" is who can keep a secret. The "secrets" involved are not really secrets, simply things men are asked not to tell others as a sign that they keep their word. There has been much obsession over this over the years by various people, but its really quite a small part of what masons do. People become officers (they don't really move up the ranks, there are no ranks to move up on) because they show they are committed to the organization, and they have the time and drive to do the work required. There are masons who have been in the lodge for 30 years and never held a office - not because they can't keep a secret, but because they don't have the time or inclination to do so.

Skull & bones is quite different from masonry - there is nothing similar about them to my knowledge. It is a private college club that admits men and women. If anything the skull & bones is actually good at keeping their secrets - certainly not true of freemasonry as the ritual has been in print since the 1700s.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by LowLevelMason]

I think you need to look at it as if you and your mates need to keep your mouths shut, you do.

I think that Masonry is a formalised representation of this, but groups of people who get influence will defend it.

I think there is a Masonic conspiracy, I think there is a Judaic conspiracy, and in the US there are definitely Democrat and Republican conspiracies, even within their parties.

People talk and people keep secrets and therin lie conspiracies.

reply to post by Teratoma


I do want to say one thing to you.

Imagine a secret society if you like.

You have to ask to get into it.

Everyone helps the local community in this society of secrets.

The more you help, the more you learn and when you demonstrate what you have learned the more you are respected by other members.

In turn opportunity knocks, for what goes around comes around due to efforts by yourself to HELP OTHERS!

Take this philosophy throughout life and teach it to others who might be smart enough to ask that question.

What do you have?????????????????????????????????????????????

As you might have guessed this is a big question and I am not a freemason but I almost get it. Even if I do not I do think this a respectful viewpoint that a mason will agree with.

Im all for masons and I deeply respect them as society slaps them back in the face for their help and they are good people who deserve a pat on the back not for recognition but for their efforts.

To anyone who does not get it from this paragraph above, you are on a one way ticket to hell and im not talking biblical.

Cough cough :lol

I used to question why some masons would be annoyed at the crap that is spoken of them and I get it. They do a mans job, good on you guys and keep it up cause you are the only thing in the way of horror whether you acknowledge it or not. I just hope you have some scary guys to beat whats coming for I fear the worst.......

You know I just wished we all did this for I really do fear the worst right now despite feeling good myself.

Deep Respect and uttermost to the shadows of society, the Masonic lodge members.



[edit on 1-1-2009 by XXXN3O]

reply to post by XXXN3O


If you read everything I've posted in this forum, you'll see that I lean towards agreeing with you.

This thread itself is actually in their defense.

If what they learn through their trials is of any value, then it is also 'exploitable' by a system that uses any means necessary to maintain its own position of power. This is not the fault of Freemasons or Freemasonry, much less its purpose.

Now, I'm not contradicting myself by stating my concerns that starting with the Cub Scouts, there seems to be a system of rewards for being able to prove that one is willing to follow directions implicitly, without question. That trusting in one's superiors is all important. This isn't inherently 'bad', but it presupposes that one's 'superiors', having previously been through the same trials, are worthy of implicit trust. Which can't always be the case. Individuals are capable of less-than-innocuous affiliations and agendas.

I've seen people try to explain how the notion of "Masonic conspiracies" started, and in my opinion this is just as fruitless as trying to prove the very existence of "Masonic conspiracies". A chicken-and-egg scenario which ironically is the very basis of this thread. Anyone else have a headache now?

Many conspiracy theorists have suggested that the noble brotherhood of Freemasons has been 'infiltrated' by the 'Illuminati'. I suppose that what I'm saying is along those lines, but it's not so black-and-white. In reality, it's probably the other way around, and by that I mean that ambitious men have used all of their resources - including what they've learned from (and the connections they've made in) 'secret societies' - to secure and maintain their positions of power in the worlds of industry, government and military. This is bound to cause the uninformed to fear them.

[edit - punctuation]




[edit on 1/1/2009 by Teratoma]

Just for a changes something that was actually worth reading, and no sign of the lunatic fringe.