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.

 

How do anti-masons know "whats really going on" when they claim most masons dont?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
This is a recurring theme on this board, so much so that I want anti-mason opinions to explain it to me because it just isn't making any sense. Non anti-masons can feel free to chime too.

Every single time a fantastical allegation is thrown at masons, and refuted, anti-masons on the board inform the masons that they don't know whats "really" going on and that the information about the truth is kept only for the "high level masons" (which don't exist either, but that is a whole other topic).

If the anti-masons are correct, we have a extremely secret and completely sealed higher echelon of masons that are capable of keeping all the secrets from the vast majority of members 100% of the time throughout masonic history. If the high level masons are so good at doing this such that all the rest of the masons are left in the dark, how exactly is it that anti-masons know the truth about what is "really" going on?

We have a group of ultra-secret masons so powerful and so elite that no one except them knows whats really going on and no actual other mason does, but anti-masons know all about it? This is a paradox to me.




posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 


I don't really think it is a paradox. Let's say for arguments sake that secret, sinister high level masons exist. It would then make sense for them to have an innocent looking front & hosts of lower level masons who knew nothing about the higher workings of the organization.

It could then be reasonable to assume that the members of the "inner circle" weren't necessarily recruited from the lower "uninitiated" masons but from positions of high power or important bloodlines.

I'm not necessarily saying this is how it is, it's just a plausible way it could be set up.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 


We were aparently stripped of all the resources that the "anti-masons" have in their desposal. OK... NOT.
The answers you will no doubt get will be along the lines as we know and won't admit it. We are brainwashed so we wouldn't know the truth if it bit us. We are so indoctrinated that were are apart of the eliet. etc... etc...

I am still waiting for the answer to "if the Grand Master is the highest ranking Mason in a jurisdiction, why is ithe only needs to be a Master Mason?".... or "why is it that the Grand Lodge of a jurisdiction defines who is and isn't a Mason or what appendent and corordinate bodies can be in a state, if the "higher Masons are in the Scottish/York Rites?".....



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrVertigo
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 


I don't really think it is a paradox. Let's say for arguments sake that secret, sinister high level masons exist. It would then make sense for them to have an innocent looking front & hosts of lower level masons who knew nothing about the higher workings of the organization.

It could then be reasonable to assume that the members of the "inner circle" weren't necessarily recruited from the lower "uninitiated" masons but from positions of high power or important bloodlines.

I'm not necessarily saying this is how it is, it's just a plausible way it could be set up.


You just perfectly demonstrated why this is a paradox.

We have a ultra secret cabal at the top, and no one in the organization knows what is really going on except them. They are so secretive they "recruit" from supposed "positions of high power." And yet everyone else claims they know exactly what is going on.

So powerful, so good at keeping secrets from members of their organization, and yet people who aren't even members know all about what is going on.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 


Well I think the key point you are missing is that the conspiracy theories regarding masons are, well theories. Hence the term.

If you assume that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by people within the Bush administration, it would stand to reason that only a select few within that administration actually knew what was really going on. In this scenario it would be likely that, say Cheney & Rumsfeld knew about it but Bush didn't. Because he wouldn't have a need to know.

It's like that scene in Independence Day where the president asks why he wasn't told about the UFO and the guy says: "Two words Mr. President: plausible deniability"

[edit on 11-1-2009 by MrVertigo]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MrVertigo
 


It doesn't matter - theories should be based on some sort of fact or evidence. The high level masonic cabal that is capable of keeping everything ultra-secret from the rest of us has somehow release enough information that non-masons claim they know what is "really" going on. Now, I've never actually seen any facts or evidence surrounding the assertions, but I am being generous and assume people at least believe it exists.

It doesn't make any sense - these people are SO good that NO MASON who is ever confronted about this stuff supposedly knows what is going on, and yet somehow there is enough information that non-masons know all about the truth of what is really going on.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by LowLevelMason]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Keep in mind, LowLevelmason,t hat people in this forum consider themselves more knowledgeable than people who either work in the fields dealing with the subjects or who've spent a good deal of time actually researching the subject.
Not that they don't necassarily provide anything useful. Debating them, or looking at what they are referring to gives me a better understanding of Masonry, or whatever subject they are working on.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by RuneSpider]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 


Well "some sort of fact or evidence" is a very broad concept. If there were any hard, factual evidence it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory but a court case.
As with other conspiracies the evidence regarding masons is circumstantial or speculative in nature.

A classic case would be that of William Morgan, who disappeared mysteriously after he proclaimed that he intended to write a book exposing the secrets of the masons. en.wikipedia.org...(anti-Mason)

This is case sparked massive anti-masonic sentiments & obviously a lot of speculation as to what else the masons could be hiding. It could, of course, also have been just an elaborate publicity stunt.


[edit on 11-1-2009 by MrVertigo]

[edit on 11-1-2009 by MrVertigo]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MrVertigo
 


Ah but you see, thats not fact or evidence at all. Although people have exhaustively attempted to prove some masonic connection to the Morgan case, the research actually shows no such thing. No one knows what happened to him and there is no evidence that there was any masonic involvement. It makes sense that there wouldn't be, because Morgan was supposedly going to expose the same ritual a century or so AFTER it WAS ALREADY EXPOSED. This is the same ritual, by the way, that ALL masons know. Why would a high level masonic cabal plot to kill someone for exposing something that was already exposed that all masons (and everyone else who reads it, and its easy to access) already know about?

You see - when you actually consider it, this is proof AGAINST a masonic cabal. That or the cabal is very dumb, which doesn't make any sense because they are good enough to keep secrets from all the masons but make dumb moves like that.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


An excellent point RuneSpider. Perhaps I am trying to hard to look for common reason in a process that is inherently not reasonable.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I agree with MrVertigo.

There is a atleast a 1% chance that there is something we don't know about about the Masons.


However, nothing more.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 


My point wasn't to prove a masonic cabal via the Morgan case but to give as an example of the speculative nature of the evidence.

But to demonstrate how members of an organization can & will keep secrets from each other, I'll give you an example from my own life:

I was raised in Scientology and in Scientology there is something referred to as "the wall of fire" that you go through once you reach a level of training called "OT3."

This is basically where you are told the creation myth of Scientology. (the whole "Xenu" business) Now it is forbidden to mention this to anyone who hasn't reached the level yet as it is believed to be dangerous information to the unprepared, in fact, it is even forbidden to speak of it with other high-level Scientologists.
Believe me when I say that these rules are strictly followed, & people who are at the lower levels do not want to know about this as they believe it could be harmful.
The irony of this is that when all the protesters wave signs with "Xenu" & aliens on them, the majority of Scientologists will say "That's ridiculous, these people know nothing about Scientology."
Simply because they don't know better. But some random kid who watches "South Park" or surfs the anti Scientology websites, will.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 


The problem would be, though, is that Morgan's book would not have been the first one. First one was printed around 1723, and other books followed.
It may have been that the specific Lodge he was attending, or a group of them in the area, was practicing a irregular form of Masonry while holding a charter.
Morgan was fairly unpopular, and was denied entrance to a few lodges, before then joining the Royal Arch degree.
Members of the degree then had him removed. At that point, he got angry and stated he would write the book.
Then the Masons got angry as well, and definetly went overboard in retaliation.

The men who supposedly killed Morgan were arrested and charged.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrVertigo
My point wasn't to prove a masonic cabal via the Morgan case but to give as an example of the speculative nature of the evidence.

But to demonstrate how members of an organization can & will keep secrets from each other, I'll give you an example from my own life:


But that example doesn't relate at all to the subject at hand. Scientology is a religion, freemasonry is a secular fraternity. There is no reason to believe that the structure of Scientology is similiar at all to freemasonry. In fact there is every reason to believe otherwise, as the foundation of freemasony is that all its members are equal in every way (which is another reason why the cabal doesn't exist).

Of course, none of this still explains how somehow this supposedly secret cabal of high level masons are able to keep secrets so well, and yet masons have never heard of it and are told that they dont know what's "really" going on - but anti-masons somehow do.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Arrogance. This is the fallacy of conspiracy theorists. They think themselves so smart that they have discovered some secret that no one else could...even the members of the group.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 


I realize that Scientology & masonry are quite different. What I am talking about is the compartmentalization of knowledge & how members of the same group, be they religious or secular can & will keep secrets from each other. This includes the very existence of these secrets.

I think you are also missing that when conspiracy theorists talk of "the shadowy masonic elite", they don't necessarily mean the free masons that you are a member of, but an elite organization that operates independently of that group.

In this case there might be similarities in rituals & titles etc, but it would be an entirely different organization.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
Arrogance. This is the fallacy of conspiracy theorists. They think themselves so smart that they have discovered some secret that no one else could...even the members of the group.


In many cases this is probably true. On the other hand I consider it extremely ignorant to believe that the government & media are presenting the facts accurately with no agenda of their own.

I would assume that you both agree with this to some extent since we are talking on this board.

Unless of course you are both here to convince us all that you are NOT secretly plotting world domination, when that is precisely what you are doing.

Hmmm...




posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
actually its not hard to know "whats going on".
you
this is what is going on

the freemasons, illuminati, call em what you want..are the ones that are responsible and take care of the world.
the masses (including those that blame everything on freemasons) are lazy, greedy, and delusional.
the masses do NOT want responsibility..that is why they always complain and do not research on their own.

the average person, including the anti-mason, sees things wrong in the world and instead of looking in the mirror, he/she starts pointing fingers at others.

the freemasons/illuminati are the ones that take responsibility and take care of the world.
the masses rather go off and fight in wars, or sit infront of the TV..basically live in fantasy land.
the freemasons provide OPTIONS for the masses..and the masses constantly show that they rather be oblivious or point fingers instead of observing reality.

anyone that is responsible and focused can be a freemason..get ahead in life..and protect planet earth.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
This is a recurring theme on this board, so much so that I want anti-mason opinions to explain it to me because it just isn't making any sense. Non anti-masons can feel free to chime too.

Every single time a fantastical allegation is thrown at masons, and refuted, anti-masons on the board inform the masons that they don't know whats "really" going on and that the information about the truth is kept only for the "high level masons" (which don't exist either, but that is a whole other topic).

If the anti-masons are correct, we have a extremely secret and completely sealed higher echelon of masons that are capable of keeping all the secrets from the vast majority of members 100% of the time throughout masonic history. If the high level masons are so good at doing this such that all the rest of the masons are left in the dark, how exactly is it that anti-masons know the truth about what is "really" going on?

We have a group of ultra-secret masons so powerful and so elite that no one except them knows whats really going on and no actual other mason does, but anti-masons know all about it? This is a paradox to me.



Most times it's because someone just watched a documentary or read a book by Albert Pike or Manly P. Hall or one of the other various "masonic" writers.

People read some of the material and instantly associate it with the semantic historical meanings without realizing that most of the allegory is used in "plays" or performances and end up with different connotation's than what is regularly portrayed through history or what is commonly known.

Aside from that though, from my understanding, it appears that most of it is left up to the mason to make sense of.

Because we are dealing with subjective symbolism that ends up with different connotations depending on the associations it would be very difficult to say there are people who know "exactly" what the performances are "supposed" to mean and then even further to say that the meanings are malicious.

I don't claim that most masons don't know what's going on, .. my argument is that they know or have a lot of information but that doesn't necessarily mean there is or that they have a right or wrong interpretation of the information especially since it is (imo) left up to the mason to interpret for themselves.

in my line of reasoning that would also mean that because some people think alike it would be easy for a bunch of masons to think it means a certain thing and for other masons to view its meaning as something entirely different, it doesn't mean the performances are different, just how they view those performances and because of this difference there ends up being different lodges, different degrees and possibly different circles within masonry but that wouldn't mean that it is malicious, sometimes even on sports teams certain people will have stronger associations and even though they are a team perhaps some of the people on the team may be serving a different function for the entire team even though their end goal is the same, how they accomplish the goal may be different.

I don't think there is any ONE thing going on .. but multiple things at once and as such some of it will be good and some will be bad... LOA (Law of Average) .. just like I've heard many masons say themselves that sure there are some weird people in masonry just like there are weird people in any club or community.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MrJelly
 


Ah! So the Masons DO secretly run the world!

The plot thickens...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join