My Failed Attempt to Become a Freemason, page 5

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
I would ask you to somehow prove there are as many millionaires as paycheck-to-paychers in the ascended ranks, then I would retract any correlation between power and prestigious membership in Freemasonry.

You know, you're the one making the assertions about Masons being (by and large) filthy, stinking rich. Ergo, it's incumbent upon you to back up your assertion or to admit you pulled said assertion from your nether regions, not for Masons to disprove your assertion.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
Moving on.

I am of the opinion that the masons who don't fly in private jets are generally the non-psychopathic type.

Mighty generous of you there, guvnor!

Are we also generally not paedophiles and thieves too? Sheesh!

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
The practice of selective advancement is not at all out of the question when dealing with secret societies, right?

Not at all out of the question when dealing with non-secret societies oddly enough. But that wouldn't be sexy now would it?

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
So leave what you and everyone else you know in masonry has to say about nefarious goings on gathered by peer to peer heresay[sic] at the door.

Oddly enough, my experience with fellow Masons (who by definition have non-hearsay knowledge of Masonic practices) is that accusations of 'nefarious goings-on' are the bailiwick of those with an active imagination untethered by a clue.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
After seeing what the Freemason apologists have to say, they really paint the whole thing as it looks in small towns.

Oddly enough, Masonry in cities of millions is remarkably similar to Masonry in "small towns". However, that's just such a buzzkill to the gentleman conspiracy theorist with an opinion.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
Just a generally nondescript building where the movers and shakers get together for potlucks and bingo night, donating time at the local animal shelter or erecting a playground.

Oddly enough, meeting on the level happens in the small town and the city of millions. We all give of our labour and monies to those less fortunate. I'm sorry you find it so distasteful. I'm sure you must have a better way for society to function.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
Maybe going on school building missions in Kenya or dropping supplies in Afghanistan. This seems to be the consensus of the apologist and generally all of the societies active in public(Knights of Columbus, Shriners, BPOE, and whatnot).

Golly! Groups of good men helping others! Such a terrible waste!

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
In fact, my mother was conducted into the ranks of the Knights of Malta. This was for her work in natural family planning, her outspoken involvement in the catholic church, and some aid she's given to our African friend's school. Great people all around. At the banquet after the knighting, she introduced me to the most active and powerful men in the room, he'd been doing high risk relief missions to all the major war zones for at least 20 years. He was harried, no doubt.

No doubt. There are some exceptional individuals on this planet who give extraordinarily of themselves in this life and that man sounds like one of them. Bully for him. Talk about laying up riches.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
After talking to him over about an hour, I got the impression that he was up against a lot of internal pressure to cease his actions, though he made clear these actions weren't necessarily his humanitarian deeds.

Great. You got an impression. Any chance your impression was ill-founded? Did you ask him directly? Or anyone else? Or did you just assume?

I bet you can guess which one I think you did.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
His uppers seemed to be a bunch of bastards, and he was one of the few in the whole room(maybe 1000 big shots from all over the country) who knew about this problem and actually cared.

Oddly enough, life's like that. That's what amkes the Jane Goodalls, Michael Moores and Craig Kielburgers of this world so special.

But it seems you'd just prefer to assume that these non-caring people were evil instead of just banal.

Tant pit!

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
This is just an example of the nature of a closed society.

Ah! So as long as nobody whose opinion and favour people want to curry is watching all society will devolve into uncaring, thoughtless troglodytes, is that it?

High opinion of society at large you have!

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
You can reach a glass ceiling if you refuse to capitulate or just appear to be a guy who would balk at evil ideas.

Why would the banal evil even allow you to rise at all? Banal evil would kick your carcass to the curb if it really was the way you pretend it is.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
From what I can gather, the various high rankers from various orders kind of mesh towards the top, each little iteration unaware of affiliation with other societies thought to be separate.

Now without being part-and-parcel to this high echelon, how on Earth would you have a clue what happens above your station? If the high-and-mighty have no clue of the affiliations of their peers, how do you pretend that you know more than the elites you call down?

Answer? You don't! You're just an angry little boy with a chip on his shoulder.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
Anyone who is in on the game is implicit,

The word's "complicit" genius!

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
therefore probably not going to squeal due to some amount of leverage against him.

What makes you think that everyone's going to go down with the ship? There's always a weak link. It just takes more leverage with some than others.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
It is perfectly understandable that low level, or even high level innocents in the masonic structure would be indignant about claims of skulduggery, but I still don't think anything they've convinced themselves to say will be a good reference point.

Yet here we are again at the old anti-Mason canard of 'I, who am outside of your organisation and hence, am at best privy to your 'secrets' in a tertiary manner, know more than those who have been personally trusted with those selfsame secrets. And (to add insult to injury) I don't for a moment question the veracity of the tertiary 'secrets' divulged to me.

You, my friend, are the kind of individual that bridge salesmen have wet dreams over.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
Who or what would I believe? Hard evidence would be nice, maybe opening up everything the entire order has ever done, throwing some daylight on it, but this will never happen willingly.

Time and time and time again, the Masons on this board have pointed out to you and your 'throw the doors open so that I might see what I'm not really interested in' brethren that the secrets are easily found and that the true secret of a Mason is found within one's self as to whether he is a just and upright man or not.

But that's just too old school and lacking in sex appeal. So, like 9/11 'truthers', you prefer to believe that some greater, deeper, darker, more dangerous 'secret' is kept not only from you but from real Masons. You call us "porch Masons" and "sheep". But you, your ilk and your fragile little egos just can't stand the notion that [U]YOU'RE WRONG!!![/U] It just wouldn't do that Masonry really is about making good men of all stripes better. You'd much rather it be something closer to "Eyes Wide Shut". Sorry Charlie!

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
So, this leaves whistleblowers, all of whom have be panned by active masons responding to "outrageous claims."

Gee! I wonder why? I don't suppose it could possibly be because their outrageous claims are......you know.....outrageous?

Naaaaah! Couldn't be!

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
The sheer denial of perniciousness is itself a denial of the possibility of corruptionm,

Wrong! It's a denial of the banal, facile commonality of corruption that lazy anti-Masons want to believe exists outside the internet.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
which comes of as condescending, if not naive. If you guys out there calling us nuts would admit that there is very likely stuff going on that they aren't powerful enough to know, then the debate will move forward by leaps and bounds.

Here's a clue, Jethro! I've yet to see an actual Mason outright deny the possibility of 'cliques' within Masonry. But here's where the rubber hits the road. Because you're obviously unfamiliar with the direct democracy that's at the heart of all Masonic activities of any consequence, you're clearly unaware that any such "clique" would, in relatively short order, wither on the vine under the light of exposure. And if it's done in secret by a small group, then how is it representative of Masonry and Masons? That's like saying Richard Nixon and the Watergate 'plumbers' are emblematic of Americans.

I think your average Yank might take exception to that.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
And the whole condescending bit about me and people like me having our minds made up before we began, the same could be said about the accusers, that is just some blatant word sorcery, which apparently is one of the masonic mysteries taught once within the ranks.

I see your games, yes I do!

Oy!

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
"duder"... sweet, that is such an awesome American slang term, I find myself calling most people duder when I can't remember their name.

I'm actually Australian, but the term stuck with me from when I first saw "Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey"...

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
Ah yes, we were talking about something.
First, the bit about power and monetary gain, I would ask you to somehow prove there are as many millionaires as paycheck-to-paychers in the ascended ranks, then I would retract any correlation between power and prestigious membership in Freemasonry. Moving on.

Err, first of all, can you prove to me that the Bumsville Crocheting Society has as many people who live hand-to-mouth as there are millionaires in their upper ranks?

If you can't prove this, then I think it's obvious that knitting doilies in a small backwater town is clearly about power and monetary gain.

Bad way to submit your argument, mate.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
I am of the opinion that the masons who don't fly in private jets are generally the non-psychopathic type. The practice of selective advancement is not at all out of the question when dealing with secret societies, right? So leave what you and everyone else you know in masonry has to say about nefarious goings on gathered by peer to peer heresay at the door.

I have met the Grandmaster of our juridiction. There is no higher ranking Mason is my country, and I can tell you right now that he does not fly in a private jet. Nor is he a millionaire. So I think there are a couple of assumptions that YOU need to "leave at the door" as you say.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
After seeing what the Freemason apologists have to say, they really paint the whole thing as it looks in small towns. Just a generally nondescript building where the movers and shakers get together for potlucks and bingo night, donating time at the local animal shelter or erecting a playground. Maybe going on school building missions in Kenya or dropping supplies in Afghanistan. This seems to be the consensus of the apologist and generally all of the societies active in public(Knights of Columbus, Shriners, BPOE, and whatnot).

These kind of activities are indeed staples of Masonic charity, and important sources of funding for Masonic causes.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
In fact, my mother was conducted into the ranks of the Knights of Malta. This was for her work in natural family planning, her outspoken involvement in the catholic church, and some aid she's given to our African friend's school. Great people all around. At the banquet after the knighting, she introduced me to the most active and powerful men in the room, he'd been doing high risk relief missions to all the major war zones for at least 20 years. He was harried, no doubt. After talking to him over about an hour, I got the impression that he was up against a lot of internal pressure to cease his actions, though he made clear these actions weren't necessarily his humanitarian deeds. His uppers seemed to be a bunch of bastards, and he was one of the few in the whole room(maybe 1000 big shots from all over the country) who knew about this problem and actually cared.

Cool story, but its relevance is extremely limited in terms of this particular discussion.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
This is just an example of the nature of a closed society. You can reach a glass ceiling if you refuse to capitulate or just appear to be a guy who would balk at evil ideas. From what I can gather, the various high rankers from various orders kind of mesh towards the top, each little iteration unaware of affiliation with other societies thought to be separate.
Anyone who is in on the game is implicit, therefore probably not going to squeal due to some amount of leverage against him.

Capitulate to what? Balk at what evil deeds? What "game", dude? I'm sorry, but you've presented little but vagaries and impressions about one guy within an organisation that isn't Freemasonry.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
It is perfectly understandable that low level, or even high level innocents in the masonic structure would be indignant about claims of skulduggery, but I still don't think anything they've convinced themselves to say will be a good reference point.

And what would be a good reference point?: Examining the many and varied crimes that are constantly brought up against Freemasonry? Wait, there aren't any... How about conspiracy forum fodder? Again, there seems to be nothing to support it except for personal stories like "I was followed through a supermarket by Freemasons who looked really shifty".

Where are the charges of corruption, of inappropriate behaviour in serious legal and law enforcement circles?

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
Who or what would I believe? Hard evidence would be nice, maybe opening up everything the entire order has ever done, throwing some daylight on it, but this will never happen willingly. So, this leaves whistleblowers, all of whom have be panned by active masons responding to "outrageous claims."

And there's the rub. "Hard evidence". Yes, it would be nice. How about someone... anyone... present some hard evidence that there is ANYTHING dodgy going on at all within Freemasonry before we ask the organisation to turn itself inside out in entirety for your (and others) viewing pleasure?

Surely, that's where the burden of proof lies initially!

It would be like if I was a police officer or magistrate, and asked you to turn out the contents of your house and computer because one of your neighbours said that you were a criminal. Would you welcome that? Of course not. Adn it would be completely unreasonable.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
The sheer denial of perniciousness is itself a denial of the possibility of corruptionm, which comes of as condescending, if not naive. If you guys out there calling us nuts would admit that there is very likely stuff going on that they aren't powerful enough to know, then the debate will move forward by leaps and bounds.

Look, a lot of these guys are intimate with the inner working of Freemasonry and have been so for many years. Many of them cross paths with the most senior Freemasons of their jurisdictions. Like I said, I've personally met and befriended Grand Lodge staff myself. I'm not even a Freemason anymore, but it still happened.

There is plenty of stuff going on with Grand Lodge staff that none of us know much about, but it is on the NATURE of that "stuff" that Freemasons disagree with conspiracy theorists. For the most part, it's simply administration of the organisation (and they've certainly got their hands full with that!). Not very interesting fodder for the conspiracy theorists.

Many conspiracy theorists seem to think that Freemasonry is some vast, shadowy, tentacular, pyramidic organisation with a centralised leadership sitting in an underground fortress, wringing their hands with glee as they play puppeteer with the world. They don't understand about jurisdictions, or the number of Grand Lodges, and the autonomy of each in relation to the others.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
And the whole condescending bit about me and people like me having our minds made up before we began,

Actually, I didn't say that. I said that Masons and Masonic apologists were's going to convince you otherwise, based on this:

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
Asking a mason if masons are pernicious is stupid and listening to a masonic apologist is even worse.

That was a pretty safe call, I thought, unless you're in the habit of believing "stupid" things. I assumed not.

If you found it condescending, then sorry but I find you overly-sensitive.

Originally posted by theflyingscudman
the same could be said about the accusers, that is just some blatant word sorcery, which apparently is one of the masonic mysteries taught once within the ranks.

I see your games, yes I do!

I didn't accuse you of anything, and I'm not sure who did, so I really don't follow your accusations of word sorcery. It's certainly not in the ritual. Acting "on the square" is, though, and it equates to being straight with people. I'm not in the habit of playing games, and I've been straight with you the whole time. If you choose not to believe my words are truth, that's fine mate, although I would be interested to know why.