posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:48 PM
with that argument, my side is completely doomed.
A man becomes a mason, and then becomes powerful in your version of things. That must be the way it is, or masonry would not be necessary to gain
power. So how would people know that they should hide their masonic affiliation from others when they are not powerful leaders yet, and may never
All leaders are going to be either part of one or all of the following , bilderberg , CRT , Trilateral Commision A lot are in all 3 , This is why
the idea that we have democracy is a joke , leaders are picked, then groomed long before they become leaders in the public eye .
Each lodge keeps minutes of everything that happens. So If Tony Blair was initiated into Glasgow lodge number #144 in June of 1968, there would
have been a record of it and there would be men who were present when he went through. I just don't think he could hide it that well
Dude you know that some people are hiding the truth of 911 so if they can do that they can hide this . smallfry in comparison .
and I certainly don't think the masons as a group would let an opportunity to flaunt an important person as a mason pass by.
Yes but whoever was behind the rise of Blair they knew he would be in the future labelled as a war criminal, hence his involvement in the masons
would not look good for your organisation and was concealed
We love telling people who the famous mason were/are. It's a conversation starter that hopefully will make people interested in finding out what
masonry is all about. I just hope they don't come here first for that info.
I think most of your presidents have been masons and most of our primeministers too.
I just think your good work is being tarnished by the actions of elites who may be masons
It would be in both your and my favour to expose if this is the case , Their selfish actions hinder both our causes .