Freemasonry and its Involvement In Colonialism, Wars, Genocides and Revolutions.

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by vinay86
Freemason lord chelmsford was viceroy of India from 4 April 1916- 2 April 1921, the massacre happened on 13 April 1919. A viceroy has full military powers, all military orders were passed only after seeking his permission, the massacre happened under his supervision.
I believe Gandhi disagreed with you.

The Army Council has found General Dyer guilty of error of judgment and advised that he should not receive any office under the Crown. Mr. Montagu has been unsparing in his criticism of General Dyer's conduct. And yet somehow or other I cannot help feeling that General Dyer is by no means the worst offender. His brutality is unmistakable. His abject and unsoldier-like cowardice is apparent in every line of his amazing defence before the Army Council. He has called an unarmed crowd of men and children--mostly holiday-makers--'a rebel army.' He believes himself to be the saviour of the Punjab in that he was able to shoot down like rabbits men who were penned in an inclosure. Such a man is unworthy of being considered a soldier. There was no bravery in his action. He ran no risk. He shot without the slightest opposition and without warning. This is not an 'error of judgement.' It is paralysis of it in the face of fancied danger. It is proof of criminal incapacity and heartlessness.*
Dyer acted without orders, reacting in fear to the numbers that faced him, even though they were mostly unarmed. This was not a premeditated act. He didn't wake up that morning and say "let's go kill 1500 innocent people." He held a position, got overwhelmed by the number of people who showed up, and panicked.
edit on 2011.3.2 by JoshNorton because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
Dyer,acted without orders, reacting in fear to the numbers that faced him, even though they were mostly unarmed.

That's a very naive statement you have made, and saying they were unarmed is. completely wrong, as his troops emptied entire magazines. can you provide here any links that disprove he was a Freemason.
edit on 2/3/11 by vinay86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by vinay86

Originally posted by JoshNorton
Dyer,acted without orders, reacting in fear to the numbers that faced him, even though they were mostly unarmed.

That's a very naive statement you have made, and saying they were unarmed is. completely wrong, as his troops emptied entire magazines. can you provide here any links that disprove he was a Freemason.
edit on 2/3/11 by vinay86 because: (no reason given)


This is not how debates work , the burden of proof is on you . You made these statements , it is up to you to PROVE he was a Freemason .
edit on 2-3-2011 by whenandwhere because: Grammar



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by vinay86

Originally posted by JoshNorton
Dyer,acted without orders, reacting in fear to the numbers that faced him, even though they were mostly unarmed.


saying they were unarmed is. completely wrong, as his troops emptied entire magazines.


He's saying that the crowd was unarmed.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
Your post is flawed and outrageous. Freemasonry would never do such despicable things. Neither can your prove that any Grand Lodge sanctioned such things.


I have brought up this point before, but "Freemasonry" has no independent existence from "Freemasons (i.e., persons who are Freemasons)." Thus you should thus say "Freemasons would never do such despicable things" and produce evidence to substantiate that claim.

It is as if a Christian stated "Christianity would never wage wars" instead of "Christians would never wage wars" since "Christianity" is some concept in his mind, whereas Christians are people who have a long and bloody history.

edit on 1-3-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Addendum


Odd that this complaint didn't come up with the thread title.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

Originally posted by KSigMason
Your post is flawed and outrageous. Freemasonry would never do such despicable things. Neither can your prove that any Grand Lodge sanctioned such things.


I have brought up this point before, but "Freemasonry" has no independent existence from "Freemasons (i.e., persons who are Freemasons)." Thus you should thus say "Freemasons would never do such despicable things" and produce evidence to substantiate that claim.

It is as if a Christian stated "Christianity would never wage wars" instead of "Christians would never wage wars" since "Christianity" is some concept in his mind, whereas Christians are people who have a long and bloody history.

edit on 1-3-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Addendum


Odd that this complaint didn't come up with the thread title.


I think that it is generally understood that "Freemasonry" refers to "The Freemasons;" thus when the statement is made "Freemasonry would never do such despicable things," this is obviously not true with reference to Freemasons, since Freemasons "have" done such things.



However, "Freemasonry" can also be a concept in a person's mind, just as Christianity can be a concept in a person's mind, so perhaps the concept in "KSigMason's" mind of "Freemasonry" as some kind of an "idea" or a "belief" in a system of rather silly "hazing" rituals, has never done such despicable things, since ideas and beliefs do not "do" anything, however it is clear that Freemasons have done such despicable things.

In a court of Law, a person is usually never judged for "thought crime" and there is anyway no way to prove what they are thinking; they are generally always judged by their behaviour, just as "Freemasonry" is judged by the behaviour of the Freemasons.

An idea in a Freemason's mind cannot "actually" carry out colonialism, wars, genocides, revolutions, Anglo-American state terrorism / narco-terrorism etc., but clearly a Freemason can not only think about such actions and defend such actions of other, but also actively do such things.

To establish that Freemasons never do such things, as alleged in the OP and that they actively oppose such actions, I await the argument and evidence which suggests that Freemasons in general have a long history of opposing Anglo-American imperialism, colonialism, state terrorism, narco-terrorism, etc.


Above: Masonic cult leader: The Grand Master, Field Marshal,l His Royal Highness Prince Edward George Nicholas Patrick, Duke of Kent, Earl of Saint Andrews, Baron Downpatrick, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) and First Grand Principal of the Supreme Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of England, Grand Master of the Order of St Michael and St George, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight of the Order of St George and St Constantine, Knight Grand Band, the Order of the Star of Africa, Knight of the Most Illustrious Order of Tri Shakti Patta, Grand Cordon, the Order of the Renaissance, Knight of the Order of St Olav (Grand Cross), Royal Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty, Royal Knight of the Garter, Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George, Colonel, of the Scots Guards, Colonel-in-Chief, of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, Royal Colonel, of the 1st Battalion, The Rifles, Deputy Colonel-in-Chief, of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, Honorary Air Commodore, RAF Leuchars, Honorary Air Chief Marshal, Royal Air Force Commonwealth, Colonel-in-Chief, of The Lorne Scots (Peel, Dufferin and Halton Regiment) and 'President of The Scout Association.'

I recall when George "God told me to invade Iraq" W. Bush came to London to dine with our current tyrant, H.R.H., Elizabeth Windsor. I recall being with the Anarchists at the demonstration outside Buckingham Palace, and that on the guest list for the Queen's banquet was Her cousin, the Grand Master, the Duke of Kent (aka Prince Edward; pictured above), and the then Grand Master of the Scottish rite, Angus Ogilvie. For some unknown reason, the Masonic cult leaders Angus and Prince Edward did not come outside to join in the demonstration against US imperialism and the British monarchy. I was most dissapointed, since I thought that the Angus and Edward could have carried a few anti-US Imperialism placards and joined in the "f*** the Queen; f*** the Bush; napalm the White House, etc.," chanting. Well perhaps another time. But in the mean time, please do continue to evidence of widespread Masonic opposition to Anglo-American imperialism, genocide, war, etc.

Lux

edit on 2-3-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Addition to text; and text was not diabolical enough.
edit on 2-3-2011 by Lucifer777 because: The text was "still" not diabolical enough. I seem not to be in a diabolical enough mood today. Not enough Christian Flesh and Blood to devour.

edit on 2-3-2011 by Lucifer777 because: even more (supersize) diabolical



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by whenandwhere
This is not how debates work , the burden of proof is on you . You made these statements , it is up to you to PROVE he was a Freemason .
edit on 2-3-2011 by whenandwhere because: Grammar


British Freemason colonists came to India, they made lodges here, we in India very well know who was a mason and who was not. you are in a no position to comment on that, and I do not need to prove to you anything. Not everything is lying on the internet.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
You guys think repeating this libelous garbage will make it more true? How do you feel in your heart when writing such OPs?

Well if you were living in a victim country, only then you will be able to understand my feelings. Making baseless accusations would not serve anything, and if you are a forum moderator than you are doing a pathetic job of holding a debate. Here I will help you, from the OP :

The Royal African Company was a slave trading company ran by Free-masonic Stuart family of House of Stuarts. It traded 100,000 slaves, and made huge profits.

Now, you provide some counter - evidence for that claim.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Shame on Freemasons, despite of clear evidence of Freemasons being involved in colonization, which is nothing but forcibly dominating other countries by murdering, plundering, exploitation. Freemasons have still blindfolded themselves to the truth, may be it is part of the mind control programming that has made them mad and ignorant.

One such Freemason colonist Robert Clive went mad and killed several in bloody battles and starved millions to death, and made humongous profits out of sufferings of others. He even tried to commit suicides but failed, just like mind controlled terrorists are implanted with suicidal tendencies by their slave masters.

Robert Clive : Another Genocidal Freemason.



Clive of India
Brother Robert Clive 1725-1774
Lodge of Rock No. 260 EC, Kolkata.
The history of Lodge of Rock is the history of Freemasonry in South India. The Lodge of Rock is the second oldest Freemasonry Lodge in India and is now one of the few lodges in the country still functioning under the English Constitution (EC).
The first Masonic Lodge in India was started in Kolkata in 1728, and the Lodge of Rock came into being in 1765. Many great men were members like Robert Clive; His Highness Umdat-Ul-Umrah Bahadur, Nawab of Carnatic; and Prince BR Thondiman Sahib. Source.

I will be quoting now from multiple websites, the wrongdoings of this genocidal Freemason :

Clive's lust for power and dominion, Paine explained, had crashed like a storm upon the people of Bengal, whom he represented as a widow and orphan. Wherever Clive and the East India Company had ventured, "murder and rapine" had followed, with "famine and wretchedness" not far behind.

At the heart of this new, more aggressive imperialism were the East India Company and its most visible spokesman, Robert Clive. Son of a provincial lawyer, Clive was a self-made man of the least admirable kind. Haughty, manic-depressive, and very, very ambitious, he got his start as a company clerk, helping to bring the silks and spices of southern Asia to the precocious consumers of the North Atlantic.

In 1761, Robert Clive became Baron Clive—a merely Irish peerage, he complained, but a major honor all the same. Three years later, a company force won the decisive Battle of Buxar, solidifying British control over northern and eastern India. Never one for subtlety, Clive wrote to his nominal superiors about future dominion over the entire subcontinent.

After the beleaguered Mughals handed Clive the diwani, or civil administration and land revenues, of Bengal and the nearby provinces of Bihar and Orissa, the Baron returned to Britain in pomp and splendor. Rumors circulated that he carried egg-sized gems from the east, and in fact he had profited as few imperialists before and many since from a combination of gifts, bribes, and sheer plunder.

Still, Clive could not shake his parvenu insecurities. So he chased more wealth, more power, more honor.

When red-blooded Britons like Clive boasted of their liberties, they did have a point. Compared to the Frenchman or Hessian of the day, the average Englishman was not only safe from arbitrary arrest but also free (and able) to read unflattering things about his government. The sheer amount of circulating ink—newspaper sales reached 12 million in the 1770s.

In May 1773, after much sound and fury, Parliament scolded Clive for his extravagance but also commended his "great and meritorious service to this country." The exposés of plunder and murder came and went, and the imperial consensus held. However tarnished, Clive emerged free, rich, and famous—a hero, more or less.

With "British Sword" in hand, Clive had bullied and bribed the natives, treating them as nothing more than stepping stones to "an unbounded fortune." He had then returned in glory to a fatuous nation, Paine continued. Yet the bloody deeds had reappeared in the newspapers like "specters from the grave," whispering "murder" and demanding justice.

The tying men to the mouths of cannon and 'blowing them away' was never acted by any but an English General, or approved by any but a British Court*—read the proceeding of the Select Committee on India affairs." (The endnote: "*Lord Clive, the chief of Eastern plunderers, received the thanks of Parliament for 'his honorable conduct in the East-Indies.'") Source.

Battle Of Plassey
At Battle of Plassey in 1757 British troops commanded by Robert Clive defeated the Bengal ruler a Mughal viceroy and put in British puppet. Robert Clive said there would be little or no difficulty in obtaining absolute possession of these rich kingdoms.Source.

As Robert Clive watched the ongoing war from the rooftop of the Plassey House, the foundation of a 200 years old British Indian Empire was being laid down. Though not so sure of his victory at the beginning, Clive was emboldened by reinforcement from Madras.

Finally, in Plassey, the British company used 2 Howitzer ‘Rapid Fire’ field guns for the first time that was an invincible weapon for that time in history. The war gave Clive the glory of winning the Indian Empire for the British, latter known as ‘The Jewel in the Crown’. By promoting treason and forgery, the company rule started with an unsavory beginning and something of that bitter taste has clung to it ever since.

Right after Plassey, the looting and exploitation by the company started unabated. As per agreement with Mir Jafar, Clive collected £ 2.5 million for the company and £ 234,000 for himself from the Nawab’s treasury. In addition, Watts collected £ 114,000 for his efforts. The annual rent of £ 30,000 payable to the Nawab for use of the land around Fort William was also transferred to Clive for life. To put this wealth in context, an average British nobleman could live a life of luxury on an annual income of £ 800. Source.

"Robert Clive, hero of Plassey, who came with nothing returned home with a fortune of over £250,000."

The British commander Robert Clive returned to Britain with the huge fortune of £300,000, making him one of the richest self-made men in Europe; after one single battle-Plassey-he transferred to the company treasury no less than £2.5 million that he had seized from the defeated Nawab of Bengal. The conquered province was left devastated by war and high taxation, and stricken by the famine of 1769. [10 million died] Source.


10 Million Starved to Death due to Freemason Clive


The Heavy taxes imposed upon people of Bengal, India during famine by Clive, lead to starvation and deaths of millions.

Salt is exuded in perspiration and other body excretions and must be replaced; therefore salt is absolutely necessary for human beings. In 1765 severe taxation of salt in India was initiated by Robert Clive, governor of Bengal, as a private monopoly.
At the beginning it cost a peasant about two months' wages to provide yearly salt for his family; by 1879 it was nearer one month's wages.Source.

Salt Starvation in British India – Consequences of High Salt Taxation in the Bengal Presidency, 1765 to 1878.

Swingeing taxation of salt developed from the establishment of the Exclusive Company by Clive in 1765. This private company, owned by the East India Company’s senior servants, was given a total monopoly on salt. All production by others was declared illegal. This enabled the Exclusive Company to double the wholesale price of salt to Rs 2.47 a maund.

From the above testimonies, it seems clear that salt consumption was severely reduced by the high level of Salt Tax, and at times was perhaps not sufficient to restore even the losses in sweat. This would have led to “a mild breathlessness at first and sense of fatigue” (McCance 1936a, 251), with consequent loss of economic output and resistance to disease. For the very poor, extremely low salt levels would possibly have resulted in “cramps, weakness, lassitude, and severe cardio-respiratory distress on exertion” (267). They would have been particularly at risk from salt-depleting illnesses, such as sweat-inducing fevers, and especially from diarrhoeas. Whatever the minimal salt requirement of the healthy, those with fevers and diarrhoeas would have been adversely affected by any restriction on salt intake needed to replace losses.

A household of four persons, say two adults and two children, reduced to one meal a day, consume 1 ½ seers of rice. In order to enable the father to do his daily work, he would require a second meal of half a seer, making 2 seers a day. If the daily consumption dropped below this, severe suffering would have to be endured. Now, at even the point that I take to be the beginning of the famine, namely, Rs 4 a maund, or 10 seers to the rupee, this lower scale of diet would cost Rs 6 a month. When rates rise to 8 seers for the rupee, or Rs 5 per maund, 2 seers a day would cost Rs 7 – 8 [Rs 7 ½] a month. Yet about a fourth of the families in Bengal do not earn more than Rs 5 a month even in prosperous times.

In such circumstances, there would have been no spare money to buy salt Source.


I have shown you how Freemason Robert Clive pillaged India and murdered several innocents, he entered India with nothing and went out of India with huge wealth. Their are thousands of corrupt Freemasons who murdered, robbed and exploited people and took wealth of many other third world countries, and made themselves rich.

I think, the people living in first world countries, are at a better advantage to take some action against such secret societies like freemasonry. As most of them originated from there, because when the whole paradigm shifts and you become their next victim of pilfer, brutality and oppression.
edit on 3/3/11 by vinay86 because: content.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by vinay86
Here I will help you, from the OP :

The Royal African Company was a slave trading company ran by Free-masonic Stuart family of House of Stuarts. It traded 100,000 slaves, and made huge profits.



And here, I will help you:

There's no such thing as "Free-masonic" family, and if you can provide evidence that owners of the Royal African Company were Freemasons by showing which Lodge they were members of, I'd be very interested, thank you.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
There's no such thing as "Free-masonic" family, and if you can provide evidence that owners of the Royal African Company were Freemasons by showing which Lodge they were members of, I'd be very interested, thank you.

I provided all relevant links in the OP, and I am presenting it to you here:

The Royal African Company was a slaving company set up by the Stuart family and London merchants once the former retook the English throne in the English Restoration of 1660. It was led by James, Duke of York, Charles II's brother.
Wikipedia

Go to the Wikipedia link, and click on Stuart, you will be directed to House Of Stuarts. The association of House of Stuarts with freemasonry can be checked here.

Stuart Masonry
This title is given by Masonic historians to that system of Freemasonry Which is supposed to have been invented by the adherents of the exiled House of Stuart for the purpose of being used as a political means of restoring, first, James II, and afterward his son and grandson, James and Charles Edward, respectively known in history as the Chevalier Saint George and the Young Pretender. Most of the conclusions to which Masonic writers have arrived on the subject of this connection of the Stuarts with the advanced Degrees of Freemasonry are based on conjecture; but in the opinion of Doctor Mackey there is sufficient internal evidence in the character of some of these Degrees, as well as in the known history of their organization, to establish the fact that such a connection did actually exist. masonicdictionary

edit on 3/3/11 by vinay86 because: content



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by vinay86

Go to the Wikipedia link, and click on Stuart, you will be directed to House Of Stuarts. The association of House of Stuarts with freemasonry can be checked here.


I'm aware of the story, and in fact have written on the subject before for a Masonic journal. As your own quote makes clear, a link between the Stuarts and Freemasonry is not taken seriously by historians.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by vinay86
 


from your source:

Military history [show]v · d · e Wars of the Three Kingdoms [show]v · d · e Anglo–Dutch Wars [edit]English Civil War (1629-1651) The English Civil War(s), also known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, took place in the reign of Charles I, the second 'British' Stuart monarch. This ended in victory for the Parliamentarians under Oliver Cromwell, when Charles I was executed in 1649. Charles I Royalists v. Cromwell Parliamentarians Charles I (1625–1649) 1629 Charles I dissolves Parliament determined to govern without one. 1633 Archbishop Laud translated to be Archbishop of Canterbury 1634-40 Ship Money Case 1637 Hampden's case supports Charles I's claim to collect Ship money 1637-40 Breakdown of Charles's government of Scotland and two attempts to impose his will by force 1640 Long Parliament summoned 1641 Remodeling of the government in England and Scotland; abolition of conciliar courts. 1642 King Charles raised standard at Nottingham. The Battle of Edgehill (Indecisive). 1644 Battle of Marston Moor (Parliamentary Victory) 1645 Battle of Naseby (Parliamentary Victory) 1646 Charles I surrendered to Scottish Army. 1648 Royalist and Presbyterian rising suppressed by Cromwell and New Model Army. 1649 Charles I beheaded. 1649-50 Cromwell Invaded Ireland 1650 Cromwell defeated Royalists under "King Charles II" at Dunbar, Scotland. 1651 Battle of Worcester, the last battle of the Civil War, Parliamentary Victory. After this conflict the line of Stuart monarchs was temporarily displaced by the Commonwealth of England (1649–1660). This was ruled directly by Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659). After Cromwell's death the Commonwealth fell apart and the Convention Parliament welcomed Charles II, to return from exile to become king. This is known as the Restoration. This family had no ties to Freemasonry. [edit]



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I'm aware of the story, and in fact have written on the subject before for a Masonic journal. As your own quote makes clear, a link between the Stuarts and Freemasonry is not taken seriously by historians.

That doesn't prove they were not Freemasons, you don't even know who actually started freemasonry, from where it originated. There were thousands of free masons, throughout the history who committed several crimes against humanity, you can't disprove them. Your masters have taken care of everything. Look at this masonic website trying to find its origins :

Another school saw in Freemasonry political objectives, and gave credit for its beginning to the Jacobites
supporting the restoration of the House of Stuart. So,Masonic writings multiplied until, for the most part, they
became a heterogeneous mixture of error, assumption, and imagination. If the bulk of them be examined, no less than twenty-five different theories of the origin of the Society will
be found as follows:
(1) King Solomon; (2) The Temple of King Solomon; (3)
Euclid; (4) Pythagoras; (5) The Creation of the World; (6) The Patriarchal Religion;
(7) Moses; (8) The Ancient Pagan Mysteries; (9) The Essenes; (10) the
Culdees; (11) The Druids; (12) The Gypsies; (13) The Rosicrucians;
(14) The Crusades; (15) The Knights Templar; (16) Oliver Cromwell; (17) The Pretender for the Restoration
of the House of Stuart; (18) Lord Bacon; (19) Dr. Desaguliers and his associates in
1717; (20) The Roman Collegia of Artificers; (21) The Comacine Masters; (22) The Steinmetzen; (23) The French Compagnons; (24) Sir Christopher Wren at the building of St. Paul's Cathedral; and (25) The English and Scots
operative Freemasons of the Middle Ages.

Evidently, most of these theories must be false. An
hypothesis, in order to ripen into a valid conclusion must be
supported not merely by some fact, but by sufficient fact to
carry moral conviction and remove it from the realm of
conjecture, and, moreover, it must be consistent with all
other known facts. Truth is an entire fabric; anything that is
true will conform to every other thing that is true; what is
false will not match what is true.

The twenty-five theories listed fall into seven general
classes:

The first group, items (1) to (4), inclusive, are suggested by
the Gothic Legends as explained in a subsequent chapter.
But legends are only legends and, when they are not only
unsupported by proof, but contain within themselves
anachronisms and inconsistencies, they cease to be
persuasive or even plausible.

The second group, items (5) to (7), inclusive, purports to give
Freemasonry Scriptural authority and identify it more or less
with the religion of the ancient Hebrews.

The third group, items (8) to (13), inclusive, contains the
mystical theories based upon the supposed resemblances
between the symbols and ceremonies of Freemasonry and
those of ancient and medieval cults. This kind of treatment
was carried to such extreme that it became discredited,
because it made Freemasonry a type of sun worship, sex
worship, and cabalistic mysticism designed to obscure rather
than to elucidate, to conceal rather than to reveal.

The fourth group, items (14) and (15), presents the chivalric
or military theories, which are detected to be quite fanciful
when we consider that there was never the slightest
evidence of any such element in Freemasonry until it was
added during the multiplication of degrees in the eighteenth
century.

The fifth group, items (16) and (17) makes Freemasonry a
political tool, first, of Cromwell against the Stuart Kings,
secondly, of the Jacobites to restore the House of Stuart,
and, lastly, of the House of Hanover, which succeeded the
Stuarts. All of these simmer down to the triviality that some
of the French degrees of the eighteenth century contained
references or language indicating that the author or authors
were partisans of the Pretender to the Throne of England,
then a refugee in France.

The sixth group, items (18) and (19), suggest personal
action, influence, or motives. The claim that Dr. John T.
Desaguliers and his associates created the Society in 1717
is an oversimplification of the revival or modification which
took place in that year, but has the advantage of casting the
burden of proof upon one asserting an earlier origin. It is
based on the scarcity of English lodge records prior to the
Grand Lodge era, but, obviously, must fall if any records at
all of that kind exist, as they do.

The seventh group, items (20) to (25), inclusive, may be
called the operative theories, and, as these finally developed
into the conclusion generally accepted at the present day, it
is appropriate to treat this group at some length.

We indulge here in no such gossamer thesis. By the origin of
Freemasonry, we mean that arising in an earlier body or
order which as a permanent sodality having the same
general laws, customs, and doctrines has existed by a
continuously replenished membership from the earlier times
to the present. It is not necessary that each or any unit of the
society show a continuous life throughout but only that the
same system and kind of lodges, chapters or other meetings
were held, ceremonies practiced or doctrine inculcated with
continuity of purpose so as to constitute a recognizable
whole without substantial break or disconnection, indicating
an abandonment or destruction of the movement. Source.


House Of Stuarts



The Habsburg King Philip of Spain and the Catholics in France plotted for Mary Queen of Scots’ accession to the throne of England, and when Elizabeth discovered that plots to place the Scottish queen on the English throne threatened her life, she had Mary Stuart imprisoned and eventually executed. However, Mary had married Henry Stuart, who was the great-grandson of Eleanor Sinclair, the daughter of William Sinclair, and John Stewart. And, following Elizabeth’s childless death in 1603, the throne was left vacant. Thus, James VI of Scots, the son of Mary Queen of Scots and Henry Stuart, was deemed to be Elizabeth’s closest living relative. He became King James I of England, the rst monarch of England of the Stuart line. It would be concern for the preservation of this line which would become the central theme of that branch of the Illuminati at the center of all its intrigues, Scottish Rite Freemasonry. Source
edit on 3/3/11 by vinay86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 

House of Stuart and Freemasonry

"The esoteric element was more prominent in the 'Red' Masonry than in the 'Blue'. But Red or Scottish Masonry can also be seen as a return to more traditional ideas of hierarchy and social order....But the Scottish higher degrees meant the implied rejection of at least a part of the ideal of egalitarianism. The higher grades involved the subordination of the lower, and also the ignorance on the part of the lower grades of the wisdom enjoyed by the higher."
- Peter Partner, The Murdered Magicians

"To affect their pro-Stuart political aims, the Scottish lodges changed the Biblical symbolism of the third Blue Degree into political symbolism to represent the House of Stuart. Ramsey's 'higher' degrees contained additional symbolism 'revealing' why Freemasons had a duty to help the Stuarts against the throne of England. Because of this, manly people viewed Scottish Freemasonry as a clever attempt to lure freemasons away from the Mother Grand Lodge system which supported the Hanoverian monarchy and turn the new converts into pro-Stuart Masons.

During their stay in France in 1745, the "Young Pretender" Bonnie Prince Charlie and other Stuarts "had become deeply involved in the dissemination [to spread] of Freemasonry. Indeed they are generally regarded as the source of the particular form of Freemasonry known as 'Scottish Rite'. They Were Freemasons Source.
edit on 3/3/11 by vinay86 because: content.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by vinay86
 


but you have contradicting sources. Oh, now I am confused. But on the main point, how does a man being a Freemason make all of his actions "masonic" in the sense that you should have the right to blame all of freemasonry for the actions of one man? I think you are a bit hard headed and obstinate, therefore should I assume that all of India is that way? Is there nobody in your country that will listen to reason? It's a shame with that many people, nobody will accept answers that go against what their preconceived notions are. India is such a silly country. Perhaps that is why so many are living in lower income situations.

BTW, your source is a paper written on a free web site and when you try to go back to the main page, it's broken. I think you need to find a bit more credible sources.
edit on 3-3-2011 by network dude because: added link info



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 

What degree is that "electronic branding iron" used in?

Freemasonry teaches such things that go against genocide and acts described in the OP. I will admit not all Freemasons have been good men, but others often speak against those acts, and those often that commit a crime are up to expulsion. Freemasons are individuals with their own thoughts. The Lodges and Grand Lodges do not control every aspect of our lives nor are they held accountable for what we do outside the Lodge.

This thread is clearly biased and is illogical. I can clearly paint a picture that shows non-Masons doing all sorts of repulsive acts, even Marxist atheists.

The Duke of Kent is the leader of the UGLE, just English Freemasons.

reply to post by vinay86
 

JoshNorton clearly showed plenty of evidence of who was and wasn't a Mason. He also clearly stated he had exhausted his resources. Unless you have some kind of source that proves Dyer was a Mason (to include Lodge and date of initiations), its nothing more than an accusation



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by vinay86
British Freemason colonists came to India, they made lodges here, we in India very well know who was a mason and who was not.


So he's a Freemason because you say so?


you are in a no position to comment on that, and I do not need to prove to you anything.


If you want people to believe you, you have every responsibility to provide concrete evidence for your claims, and to answer questions relating to this evidence. You have failed to do the former and are refusing to do the latter.
edit on 3-3-2011 by OnTheLevel213 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
..... India is such a silly country. Perhaps that is why so many are living in lower income situations.




Originally posted by vinay86
British Freemason colonists came to India, they made lodges here, we in India very well know who was a mason and who was not. you are in a no position to comment on that, and I do not need to prove to you anything. Not everything is lying on the internet.


I see that the Indians are now getting slagged off. I have travelled throughout India and I am even thinking of emigrating there for a few months every year, since I only really need an Internet connection these days. I do have a great love of India, but there is also so much economic suffering there. Certainly Masonry is part of the "International Dictatorship of Capitalism" and I think that they are certainly the most powerful Capitalist gang in the world of banking; but India has it's own problems with it's own Captialist elites. The only political solution which would transform India is Communism; and despite millions of Communists in India and extreme poverty, the conditions for revolution seem a long way off.

Lux
edit on 3-3-2011 by Lucifer777 because: edited text



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by vinay86
That doesn't prove they were not Freemasons


That's not his responsibility; it's your responsibility to prove they were.


you don't even know who actually started freemasonry, from where it originated.


Neither does anyone in the world. That a clearly right answer does not exist is not a license for you to propagate one that is clearly wrong.


There were thousands of free masons, throughout the history who committed several crimes against humanity, you can't disprove them.


You appear to have inside a dozen examples of these "thousands", several of which are suspicious in their Masonic ties.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join