I wouldn't recommend masonry to any one.

Originally posted by GrandKitaro777

Who are these high-level Masons? Where do they meet? What do they do? What positions do they hold?

As I said before I'm going off the user confirmatory statements. No evidence has been given to me that mason do not make up the rich and wealthy, such lack of evidence give this user more credibility then people who claim mason do not make up the rich and wealthy.

Prove a negative in short, eh? Mug's game. What next shall we disprove? That all Masons are reptilians?

Originally posted by GrandKitaro777

So now we are to take people who post anonymously at face value for their claims as to being 'high ranking' Masons? Fine, I am an even higher-ranking Mason then they are and what they said is a total prevarication. See how that works?

I'm sure you are.

Unlike you he proven himself credible.

By what manner and in which mode has he proved himself credible? You claim to have done much Masonic study but you haven't proved anything of the kind. Why're your pronouncements on anything to be taken as worth the phosphor degeneration it takes to read them?

Originally posted by GrandKitaro777

But these ultra powerful people suddenly had the compulsion to come to a conspiracy site and inform you of what they were perpetrating?

Right, because if I was really doing what they alleged I would want to tell as many people as possible....

It's a paradox.

That's one word. Not the one I'd use.

It's more like the villain's exclamatory in a Dan Brown novel or an old James Bond flick (circa Sean Connery) where the otherwise fabulously evil and well-organised villain has to explain his next linchpin step in his plot in time to be frustrated by the hero.

Don't wash outside of fiction.

Of course there are not many Freemason's in politics or big business, you always ask for proof on this. You are a secret society and as such you can't just get that proof to prove the point as easily, funny that.

But here is a little taste for you. As mentioned a historic and very incomplete list..

Does point out some of the "average" jobs and positions they held as well.

Whilst you seem to claim that you are all normal guys and have no influence I could spend all day picking out influentual Mason's from your own online publications. Won't bother because you will come up with some other fluff to divert from the fact as has happened time and time again. Now the question is which came first the position or the fraternal membership, interesting thought..

reply to post by Bunker or Bust

We're not a secret society: we don't hide our meeting locations, our meeting times, or our membership. We have decals for their vehicle, some get tattoos, and others have clothing/apparel that they wear. This SITE has an accurate list of who is a Mason. Hell, your source doesn't have any current ones. I mean Butch Otter, Governor of Idaho, is in my Lodge, but I didn't see his name anywhere.

Does it really matter to you which came first? Because no matter what it is I'm sure you have a problem with it.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Of course there are not many Freemason's in politics or big business, you always ask for proof on this.

Yet oddly enough in this post you claim:

Originally posted by GrandKitaro777
High level masons make up the rich and wealthy

Care to enlighten as to how they became "rich and wealthy" if not through politics or big business? Lottery wins? And if they're not involved in politics or big business, how exactly are they supposed to be so influential as to be changing the direction of mankind?

Bit of a logical disconnect there.

Either we're rich and powerful or we're not. Pick a posture and stick with it.

Originally posted by GrandKitaro777
You are a secret society and as such you can't just get that proof to prove the point as easily, funny that.

Yet oddly, we announce ourselves hither and nigh as being Masons. Funny that unless your argument is that the posters here who claim to be Masons aren't in fact and the 'real' Masons who wield real worldly power disguise their membership to avoid scrutiny. Odd that two Bonesmen (a non-Masonic group BTW despite the repeated assertions of anti-Masons), a much more secret and exclusive group managed to become heads of their respective political parties for the 2004 U.S. election. I mean, generally speaking who'd heard of Skull and Bones before then? Yet their membership became known.

How much easier to 'out' a political Mason if he hasn't already 'outted' himself?

Originally posted by GrandKitaro777
But here is a little taste for you. As mentioned a historic and very incomplete list..

And you notice a recurring theme there [sic] a decided paucity of dead Masons in the last couple of decades? Ah say you!!!! But the remaining really powerful Masons extant are in the shadows of the wings, waiting for the right moment!

Oy!

Originally posted by GrandKitaro777
Does point out some of the "average" jobs and positions they held as well.

Not really surprising. One would expect such a résumé from someone for whom political office is a goal.

You thinking that kind of Type-A personality is going to take a job on a garbage truck? But that speaks to the Type-A personality rather than any 'Masonic' personality (such that there is one).

Originally posted by GrandKitaro777
Whilst you seem to claim that you are all normal guys and have no influence I could spend all day picking out influentual Mason's from your own online publications.

We brag. Every group does. Doesn't mean that Masons are exclusively made up of the rich and influential any more than the Rotarians are.

I'm a television editor. You may have even seen some of my work (although given the amount of stuff out there, I'd be surprised and wouldn't hold it against you if you hadn't). Does that make me somehow rich and influential? Not by half. But don't come back and spout something ridiculous like I'm either:

a) Not an actual Mason
b) An actual Mason but here as a stalking horse to fool the unwary

or

c) Actually a rich and powerful Mason lying about my riches and power by pretending to be a television editor. T'ain't nobody claims to be an editor who isn't. That'd be like claiming to have a social disease when you don't.

But I digress.

Originally posted by GrandKitaro777
Won't bother because you will come up with some other fluff to divert from the fact as has happened time and time again. Now the question is which came first the position or the fraternal membership, interesting thought..

Since there's no uniformity insofar as Masons' backgrounds are concerned, it's safe to say that the fraternal membership came first. Generally speaking, the only similarity amongst Masons is a shared desire to improve themselves in the service of their community and to improve themselves as members of that community and society at large.

If you take issue with that, I'm sorry; it wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list. But it's (for your apparent viewpoint) the unfortunate unvarnished reality.

reply to post by KSigMason


So your not secret and don't hide membership, the logo for the secret society board is a Masonic sign?!? You best ask that to be changed then.

And Judges and the like don't want to reveal membership.. Can refuse so and not be discovered as a Mason, umm because your not secret. Right that makes sense then... If I could just do a search on all Masonic members in an area and pick out the Judge then the legislation wouldn't be needed. But such information is not in the public domain and as such by this very fact is secret.

So why the problem with membership declaration for civic roles? If your not a secret society then as you have stated? I think it should go a step further but then I'm a Nazi apparently with fear based on nothing. Because people have said there is no institutional elitist group that has a strange hold on all the money and power.

You can't disagree that the objective and non Masonic bashing source I provided lists many movers and shakers, all either in legal, political, banking or big business. All Masons along with several other fraternal groups, as I said the time line of membership and career change from school teacher to lawyer to political figure would be interesting. Look at the source, it's there. I am not making it up as some paranoid anti masonic hate fit.

Can we at least now agree Masons have members which hold positions of power or wealth? Based on the source provided as an example a significant representation compared to your membership base..

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


Firstly that is me being sarcastic, I know many Masons hold positions of influence and I provided a source that kind of backs that up

I have no alter ego on ATS I am not GrandKit.

So your either made up of average guys doing it for the improvement of mankind, charity work but not a registered charity and everyone can join or your the A-type people which is it? TV editor is a position of power and influence is it not? You have a say on what appears on the one eyed monster in the corner of peoples living room, you don't deliver pizza now do you?

Please no more fluff, you asked for proof of Masonic influence and I gave you a taster. Apart from breaking the law and stalking Mason's and compiling a list I can't do much more can I? That information is private and fair enough, but don't say that the Masonic fraternity cannot influence anything and does not. There are bad people in your group and they have powerful friends as is proven, providing proof of wrong doing is almost impossible and you know it. But it does not mean it doesn't go on and you know that also.

The public are aware of this hence the concern, hence the calls for some kind of oversight. Fraternity groups have representation in the halls of power far in excess of their numbers, the primary issue.

That is the case and the point that I have been trying to make.. Nothing wrong, offensive or draconian at all. Democratic, open and honest maybe.

Anyway I have to take the dogs for a goose step around the park (No not German shepards)


[edit on 13-1-2010 by Bunker or Bust]

[edit on 13-1-2010 by Bunker or Bust]

reply to post by Bunker or Bust


I go to the Masonic Lodge in my hoe town, the current Worshipful Master and Steward's name and contact number is on the outside o the Lodge, as well as the heads of the Eastern Star.
At least they were, until the sign with the WM's information was stolen.

I'm pretty friendly with a few of the members, as there was a point I wanted to join, and for what it's worth the lodge is primarily made up of country boys, garage workers, and with some guys and gals who also work at different levels of local government. A fair few are busy in the historic programs in the are,a the Lodge itself was open for the ghost walk past October.

As far as it goes, I no more feel a Judge or anyone else in a place of relative power should have to reveal their membership than announce they are Christian, follow evolution, or ate a bean burrito for breakfast, despite the horrors these (especially the last one) may inflict.

However, should a conflict of interest come about, or be proved in court, then the particular person should be removed from this proccess.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Of course there are not many Freemason's in politics or big business, you always ask for proof on this. You are a secret society and as such you can't just get that proof to prove the point as easily, funny that.

the only problem with your list is they are all dead. The only power they have now is to be worm food. And they have no choice of which worms will feast. I doubt anyone would disagree that there are some masons who hold positions of power. There are a lot of positions of power held by non masons as well. For me to tell you about the type of people in my lodge would be pointless. But they make up the demographic of my town. A few guys with money, and most like me. Dirt friggin poor. Hell, our Worshipful Master is currently unemployed. Quite powerful indeed.

But here is a little taste for you. As mentioned a historic and very incomplete list..

Does point out some of the "average" jobs and positions they held as well.

Whilst you seem to claim that you are all normal guys and have no influence I could spend all day picking out influentual Mason's from your own online publications. Won't bother because you will come up with some other fluff to divert from the fact as has happened time and time again. Now the question is which came first the position or the fraternal membership, interesting thought..

How many people in power were in the same college frat? perhaps the real link to power comes from there? Or from those affiliated with the First Baptist Church. Every town around here has one. I smell conspiracy! Or it might be Rune's burrito working.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by network dude]

reply to post by network dude


Yep they are all dead, can't get anything current as it would be an invasion of privacy. Never said ALL Mason's were the mighty rich and powerful but a significant number in certain locations are that's fair to say. Geography does play a part in it as well.

Yes there are non Mason's in power as well, this I know.

Also I think your correct, some of these people do meet up at school and then go on to join other groups, It is not about Mason's specifically, but more about a mindset. There are not many senior political figures in the UK that did not go to Oxford or Cambridge, it could be argued they are the best brains but also that to get to such a position you MUST have come from that background. In fact coming from that background puts them well out of touch of the people they are supposed to represent.

Thus the birth of the elitist conspiracy, both sides can be argued equally as well. The B type feels that the A type are the elite and that as a B type he can never get to such a position is influence regardless of intellect either because he was a late developer or mommy and daddy couldn't afford to place at Oxford. And you know what, he would be correct and that's a sad fact.

I never said the Mason's were the hub of all evil either, just that some lurks there and does get up to no good.

The source provided was indicative only, historic Masonic membership in politics nothing more and was in response to the prove Mason's hold position of power request. So historically yes it is fair to say they did, now you prove that tradition has not continued.. Compare percentage based on Masonic membership and Mason's holding such positions and you will see the conflict in representation.

Not all mind you, there are good Masons but there are also bad ones and with all those connections temptation can be a real pig I am sure.. So the wolf can hide among the A-type sheep and cause chaos for self benefit..

Type B just has to take it on the chin, hence the complaints and distrust. Too note Type B and the poor Type C are the majority and in a democratic country that is supposed to count for something..

reply to post by Bunker or Bust


Being a person of no wealth or power, and seeing what masonry truly is, I can't see what draw it would have to someone who just wanted to advance in the political arena and flaunt their masonic ring as some kind of credential. It seems so counterproductive. In the lodge there is no rank or power structure among brethren. If the Governor of NC was a member of my lodge (neat trick since she is Bev Perdue) but if she was, then she would be no different during a meeting than the guy who sweeps up at the hog plant. Power hungry people hate that. They want to be respected for their position. Now I am not in the UK and there seems to be a lot of differences in some areas, so I am no authority on masonry in your area. I just can't see it being that much of a difference. I hope to be able to travel overseas again and visit a lodge to see what the differences might be. I suspect that masons more often than not, get the sharp end of the stick simply because of the secrecy thing. People always want to know what they don't' know.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
reply to post by KSigMason

 

So your not secret and don't hide membership, the logo for the secret society board is a Masonic sign?!? You best ask that to be changed then.

Change it to what (that'd be recognised as readily)? The paradox that this subforum uses a Square and Compasses, that universally-known sign of the Freemasons as an icon for secret societies is something of a paradox given how well-known it is.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
And Judges and the like don't want to reveal membership.. Can refuse so and not be discovered as a Mason, umm because your not secret.

Unless you prove relevance that would have Masonic membership hindering their ability to do their job, it's about as relevant as them being left-handed and about as sinister. Add to that the (likely) behaviour of a vocal fringe minority with a particular axe to grind who'd treat Masons like modern-day Typhoid Mary's for no reason more substantive than membership in a fraternity and is such reticence so hard for you to understand?

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Right that makes sense then... If I could just do a search on all Masonic members in an area and pick out the Judge then the legislation wouldn't be needed. But such information is not in the public domain and as such by this very fact is secret.

Anymore than who in society has had a 'social' disease is relevant (or your business). You seem to have a group in your sights who you choose to believe the worst about not for anything you can actually cite but because you feel there might possibly be something underhanded going on from time to time.

Guess what? You're free to let unfounded suspicion direct and control YOUR actions and behaviour. But don't be surprised or upset when the rest of society doesn't move in lockstep with you. And if they do? Then society has far bigger problems to attend to when it heels to unfounded whim. Hence the earlier Goebbels reference. Feel free to insert Stalin or Idi Amin Dada if it works better for you.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
So why the problem with membership declaration for civic roles?

Because you're proposing functionally criminalising something that isn't a criminal activity. Society already has safeguards in place and if those safeguards are ignored, then the penalties already outweigh any possible benefit of secrecy.

Why reinvent the wheel?

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
If your not a secret society then as you have stated? I think it should go a step further but then I'm a Nazi apparently with fear based on nothing.

You could be a Marxist-Leninist. Absolutism tends to blur distinctions when it comes to the extremes.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Because people have said there is no institutional elitist group that has a strange hold on all the money and power.

I can't speak for all people. However the Masons here on ATS (and in the world in general) have repeatedly for years on end said that if such a group exists that Freemasons aren't it.

Sorry if you don't care to believe me.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
You can't disagree that the objective and non Masonic bashing source I provided lists many movers and shakers, all either in legal, political, banking or big business.

Which came first: their membership in the fraternity or their Type-A personalities? I've argued the latter elsewhere because look how few of such movers-and-shakers are Masons. Such people tend to cultivate memberships like most of us acquire keys; where they happen to be Masons, Freemasonry's just one arrow in their quiver and not even a defining one at that.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
All Masons along with several other fraternal groups, as I said the time line of membership and career change from school teacher to lawyer to political figure would be interesting. Look at the source, it's there. I am not making it up as some paranoid anti masonic hate fit.

No. Somebody else could have though. However, you've yet to demonstrate a supportable rationale why such a Draconian invasion of privacy is justifiable. Certainly you've avoided acknowledging that such a demand taken to its extreme could easily put the very personal freedoms we've taken for granted since 1066 at real risk.

All for a 'might be'.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Can we at least now agree Masons have members which hold positions of power or wealth? Based on the source provided as an example a significant representation compared to your membership base..

It hasn't as a concept been denied; just a qualifier added for accuracy which you seem not to want to acknowledge. It can't be denied that under Masonry's banners, we have many members of rank and affluence and others who, perhaps from circumstances of unforeseen misfortune and calamity, are being reduced to the lowest depths of poverty and distress.

To claim a homogeneity among Masons is no more accurate than any other stereotyping. It doesn't bear any degree of scrutiny in the cold hard light of day.

Sorry if that doesn't fit with your world view.

reply to post by Bunker or Bust

That is a Masonic sign, no we are not a secret society, but its not up to me what the logo is.

No, they shouldn't have to reveal anything personal (that is legal) about themselves because they have privacy. It's my business not yours, stay out of it. If I want to reveal it, I will on my terms.

So would you want sexual preferences on applications then?

Just because you don't have access to it doesn't make it secret. Do you have access to everyone's medical, financial, or administrative information? No, because its private.

Why are you also fascinated with Judges that are Masons? Why not go after the store owner? After all he's probably giving secret discounts to Brethren customer or perks to employees that are in the Craft. Come on, let the baseless conspiracies run wild.

Again, my right to privacy shouldn't be stomped on...ever. It is a legal organization, I have committed no crime, so it should be up to me how, if, and when I declare my membership. I do have my membership listed on my resumes, but if I don't want to put it down I shouldn't have to be forced.

Yes, I'm apart of an elitist group, what with all my $36,000 income/year. Whooo! Big money!

We can agree that there are Masons that are high on the social/political ladder, but there are much more non-Masons.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

 

Firstly that is me being sarcastic, I know many Masons hold positions of influence and I provided a source that kind of backs that up

I have no alter ego on ATS I am not GrandKit.

Sorry. My bad. I got on a rant-and-roll.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
So your either made up of average guys doing it for the improvement of mankind, charity work but not a registered charity and everyone can join or your the A-type people which is it?

Unregistered charities? I don't have extensive specifics but I know the Shriners in the States (Masons all) run (IIRC) no-charge burn facilities nationwide. Using my own Lodge as an example while we don't run a charity, the year's Master of the Lodge will choose a charity in our area to support and the District Deputy Grand Master will have a charity selected. I believe Grand Lodge also has a designated charity as well.

As for the personality types that make up a Lodge, literally it takes all kinds. Certain Lodges may have greater attraction for certain personality types. However, as a general observation Masonry isn't attractive to the type of person who's going to be looking for personal advantage out of membership. At its core, it really is about making good men better. It tries to inject some humility in even the most hardened Alpha male.

Type-A personalities already think they're the alpha and omega of perfection.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
TV editor is a position of power and influence is it not?

Don't know much about the business, do you?

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
You have a say on what appears on the one eyed monster in the corner of peoples living room, you don't deliver pizza now do you?

I may have some influence in how it's presented. But if the director and/or producer (or their wives or girlfriends [sometimes both]) think differently, it's their baby. He who pays the piper and all that.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Please no more fluff, you asked for proof of Masonic influence and I gave you a taster.

You gave me a 'what if', a hypothetical. It certainly doesn't bear scrutiny and is the hallmark of a slippery slope to a potentially much greater evil.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Apart from breaking the law and stalking Mason's and compiling a list I can't do much more can I?

You could petition to join, bite your tongue when asked whether you're joining out of mercenary motives, gather your intelligence and break it to the world from a former-insider's perspective were there anything to break. However I predict much disappointment down that path as the day-to-day reality would prove far less thrilling and sexy than the shadowy potential.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
That information is private and fair enough, but don't say that the Masonic fraternity cannot influence anything and does not.

As a fraternity? No. As individuals? Yes, potentially. But then they're acting as individuals; no different from anyone else you'd meet in the street insofar as that's concerned. Then they're behaviour is indicative of them as people rather than as a facile stereotype.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
There are bad people in your group

There have been, may well still be and possibly will be again in the future. We do our best to self-police on that front but absolute perfection's a tricky target.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
...and they have powerful friends as is proven,

Uh....sorry. I guess I missed that 'proof'.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
providing proof of wrong doing is almost impossible and you know it. But it does not mean it doesn't go on and you know that also.

Addressing your first point, that's true of any person who has friends. Hence the earlier suggestion to only hire isolationist mountaintop gurus to sit in judgment if what you seek is an absolute removal of potential social influence over judgments. However, I'm sure that you'll agree that isn't feasible not to mention that the lack of social interaction may lead to a judge who lacks understanding of day-to-day social realities. In short, he may take us back to a Les Miserables-level of justice. Cure'd be worse than the 'disease'.

As for the second part, I haven't claimed it. Ever. What I have stated repeatedly is that it's against the teachings of the world's major religions, teachings which Masonry echoes. Men will act in certain ways despite on the surface saying that they won't. Such is the nature of the human animal and generally speaking we leave it to a higher judge to exact the requisite punishment in due time.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
The public are aware of this hence the concern, hence the calls for some kind of oversight.

Hence the calls by some, the same some who have an axe to grind. The same some who're remarkably short on providing fact when challenged to back their assertions. The same some who seem unmindful of the existing oversights believing their judgment somehow superior by being more myopic.

You'll pardon me if I challenge the same some.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
Fraternity groups have representation in the halls of power far in excess of their numbers, the primary issue.

Source please? Comparables? Statistics can be your friend.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
That is the case and the point that I have been trying to make.. Nothing wrong, offensive or draconian at all. Democratic, open and honest maybe.

Anyway I have to take the dogs for a goose step around the park (No not German shepards)

Draconian, Goebbels (or Stalin o Kim Jung Il)-like definitely. The proverbial thin edge of the wedge, the slippery slope, the Road to Hell. Full stop.

Enjoy your walk. Just mind that eye-patch-wearing character following you with the suitcase; he might be up to no good.

reply to post by network dude


Freemasonary may well be different in the UK I am sure, I would be very interested in your findings. Also we have an inconsistant story coming from the group, one second there is no influence in masonary and when proven its half accepted but it is a fact. You may all stand on the level together in a meeting but it is a group which does draw the wealthy and powerful. The reasons for which we could argue for the end of time but are largely irrelevant anyway. Then its a secret group and then it's not?!? These are the words of Masons not me.

The concern of the masses is that Freemasonary is a secret group, that members are A-type people and have seats in power and social responsibility. It can be abused as you yourself have said and there in lays the problem, I understand that anyone can abuse a position of power so it's not exculsive to Masons. As Grandkit stated, people fear what they don't know, the secret part implies something to hide.

In response to this:-

No. Somebody else could have though. However, you've yet to demonstrate a supportable rationale why such a Draconian invasion of privacy is justifiable. Certainly you've avoided acknowledging that such a demand taken to its extreme could easily put the very personal freedoms we've taken for granted since 1066 at real risk.

How about because the majority want it in a democratic society? A motion can be tabled with a petition of millions and it can be rejected with a paper thin excuse by a man who may or may not be a Mason. An elected civic figure, so it won't change due to the volume of Masons in positions of power. It is not democratic, that is why stronger oversight is needed with all fraternal groups as you said it does attract the A type person, It can also be said a bee goes to pollen. It improves the security of the democratic system which should be fully transparent all the way through because it represents the majority and not just your A-types.

Just like draconian security measures are introduced which really invade your privacy (full body scanner) for air travel. I am not a terrorist so I should not be scanned, I have done nothing wrong yet we are all treated as if we might regardless. A loss of freedom for improved security, I don't agree with it but its a fact and a requirement. Yet you feel such a parallel cannot be applied specifically to fraternal groups when your ranks as the source proves contain significant membership in positions of power which could be abused or membership could ease such an action. The threat is just as elusive to quantify is it not? How many terrorist have done bad things on plane versus billions who will have there privacy invaded as a result?

As they say if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust

As they say if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide.

Ahh, my friend, if it were only that simple.

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


It was asked for a list of Freemasons in power, I provided a historic list. A source of reference, your turn provide a current one and debunk my claim that the halls of power full of your brothers.

reply to post by Bunker or Bust


This list is much more current and details the 33 Masons in the United States Houses of Congress at the time of its publication. That amounts to 6% of the total membership of 535. For what it is worth the current Congress has more:

Women-75
Blacks-42

and nearly as many:

Jews-30
Hispanics-25

Originally posted by GrandKitaro777
I'm going off the credible user word. Now if you bother not to read and see why I labeled him noteworthy, then it's pointless for you to continue responding to me.

Credible? Really? From a guy who rattles on about Atlantis and bloodlines?

He also mentioned nothing about Masons.

As I said before I'm going off the user confirmatory statements. No evidence has been given to me that mason do not make up the rich and wealthy, such lack of evidence give this user more credibility then people who claim mason do not make up the rich and wealthy.

Which he did not list so I find it difficult to see how you arrived at this determination.

I'm sure you are.

Unlike you he proven himself credible.

Ask him his lodge number. Mine is Clifton #203 in Clifton, New Jersey. I would wager that you will not get a verifiable response, or as you like to phrase it, credible.

It's a paradox.

No, it is bull excrement.

Every so often, as per the directives of the Law of our Creator, a brief window of opportunity opens, whereby a select handful of our Family are required to make communication with our subjects, and offer you the chance to ask us any questions you would like answered.

I am double-bound in this duty. It is required of me by The Law of our Creator to offer this opportunity to you at this time, though I am also bound by the Law of (planetary) Free Will and by Family Oaths, that there is only so much I am able to say.

And the relevance of this is what?

Well obviously if you at least scan the first page of the thread, then this statement is contradicted.

Great, another person with multiple screen names.

I waded through all of this iterations posts and found nothing that backs up what you said regarding Masons and the statements you made and subsequently attributed to this person.

Credible? Really? From a guy who rattles on about Atlantis and bloodlines? He also mentioned nothing about Masons.

I wish I had a facepalm icon.

ATS: I am a 32nd degree Mason, although if you were really a royal bloodline person you would know that it means nothing.

HH: If you have Genuinely attained the level of "Sublime Prince of The Royal Secret" through the Scottish Rite, or that of the "Order of the Knight's Templar" through the York Rite, and have not been taught of the Truths of Creation, then I would be very interested indeed to know which area Lodge you attend, as I would very much like to speak with your current Worshipful Master.

Naturally I completely understand and respect if you do not wish to make such personal details known publicly though. Of course. what you said in another post about there only being three degrees is true, for those attending the Blue or Craft Lodges, though as you've stated that you are 32nd degree, I'm presuming you are either Scottish Rite, or the York Rite's equivalent.

I hope to be able to be present personally in the event that you are ever invited to progress beyond the 33rd Degree. I would like to be the one tasked with introducing you to Lucifer. I expect you will likely come back and say how there is no further progression beyond 33rd. Well, if you're lucky, there will be a nice surprise in store for you, somewhere down the line. I sincerely hope that make it that far.

He didn't mention anything masonic, really???

Ask him his lodge number. Mine is Clifton #203 in Clifton, New Jersey. I would wager that you will not get a verifiable response, or as you like to phrase it, credible.

Wow...You really did scam through the thread.

Of course I won't get a verifiable response, the user posted here last year and his time was expiring.

Edit: Unneeded response



[edit on 13-1-2010 by GrandKitaro777]

[edit on 13-1-2010 by GrandKitaro777]

[edit on 13-1-2010 by GrandKitaro777]

reply to post by GrandKitaro777

From the terminology you were using or your source was using I'm wanting to question his validity. A Lodge is not associated with the Knights Templars neither is Worshipful Master associated with either York or Scottish Rite, its Blue Lodge only.

32nd degree only applies to Scottish Rite, York Rite doesn't apply numbers to its degrees and orders. And you do not progress beyond the 33rd in any regular body of Freemasonry.