reply to post by browsey
And if you'd said that from the beginning, I'd have no argument. But your first post in this thread made two specific, unwavering claims, which you
now acknowledge you shouldn't have made, or would have worded differently given the chance to revise them.
If you claim a positive that I believe to be false, I will ask you to show me the foundations of your assertion. If they hold merit, they may change
my own views on the topic. I'm fully willing to admit when I'm proven wrong, and I'm always open to learning new things.
But bombshells like "You can be given the 33rd degree from the 3rd without need to obtain 4-32" (direct quote from your post), and "Tony Blair, the
apparent figurehead of the labour party, is himself a 33rd degree mason" are clearly not coached as hypothesis or speculation.
My intent in arguing the matter with you is to urge you to take ownership of your words and convictions, to give you a stronger stance even if it's
not one with which I agree. I'm tired of people one these forums repeating half-assed claims based on some YouTube video they saw, or some picture of
a handshake. I enjoy well founded, reasonable & logical debate, and become frustrated when most of the posts on ATS fail to rise to any level of
intellectual credulity.
So let us start over.
my point was if he were a mason, degree irrelevant, how difficult would it be for it to be hidden and covered up for the
reasons i presented above
That's a good question, and one we can certainly build on.
To even become a "high level" Mason, such a politician would still have to take the 3 regular degrees in a Masonic lodge acting under a charter
issued to them by a Grand Lodge. If we're talking about political figures in England, then they would, by necessity, be members of the UGLE. This
cannot happen in a vacuum, and it takes a certain amount of time and work.
Another hypothetical to consider would be, was he a Mason before he became a public figure? Or did he join the fraternity after he was already in
office? If the former, then commoners would have sat in lodge with him at some point or another. SOMEBODY would know he was a brother. If it was the
latter, wouldn't it actually be harder to get to lodge unnoticed? Particularly when one is hounded by photographers, journalists & the like?
im too used to my crazed debating rantings which sometimes without my own knowledge can lead me to "go off on one" if you
will. 
) and his fellow lodge brother will know, if he were.
