It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Freemasonry: a Cult of Neofascist, Militant, Genocidal, Capitalists and anti-Communists.

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy
 


Honestly, I don't know who or what you are replying to but if by human nature you mean how people act and what thoughts and ideas they have then it is not innate at all. But products of upbringing and a reflection of what exists around them. i.e actually existing material conditions not some invisible puppet master in the sky or 'soul' within the body or some other fantastic notion.

Forgive me for quoting lengthy passages of Marx but I have resisted thus far in my posts. Marx said in 1845:


The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.”


The German Ideology - Karl Marx

Some of you may be interested in reading the ICC on conspiracy!

edit on 9-5-2011 by Desired1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2011 by Desired1 because: Added a link




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Desired1
 




Honestly, I don't know who or what you are replying to but if by human nature you mean how people act and what thoughts and ideas they have then it is not innate at all.


What I am describing is the human capacity for both creation and destruction, preservation and defilement, love and fear/hate. Even a young child can express these notions.

History shows that humans tend to be schizophrenic, probably due to our higher faculties conflicting with mammalian tendencies.
edit on 9-5-2011 by DeReK DaRkLy because: typo



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I still see no proof of the outlandish claims made by the OP.

I understand he considers himself to be quite the thinker and quite the expert on the topic, I would simply like the proof of what is being claimed. Not additional ramblings and stories, but real concrete proof. Proof that Masons are evil. Proof that they are Neofascist. Proof that they are militant. Proof that they are Genocidal. Proof that they are capitalists and anti-communists.

Proof, or every point made is simply B as in B and S as in S.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Desired1
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Sorry for the delay in responding.

I haven't been to a 'meeting' with the ICC so I can only offer an opinion on that basis. It does sound odd to be a member of an organisation (they're not a Party but a 'current' hence International Communist Current - sorry to be pedantic) and not speak on behalf of it. However, it is not uncommon for members to speak as minorities within an organisation and not represent the majority position i.e they're not speaking on behalf of the organisation on a particular question - because they're opinion is in opposition to the majority or 'official' position.

In regards to comparison with the SWP (Socialist Workers Party) I don't think there are many similarities. I think they are two completely different animals. For a start the ICC explicitly seeks to educate its militants and provoke intellectual debate and discussion, the advancement of theory within and in its press and literature. I am not a member myself so this is purely my reflection of them and taking them at face value on what they say themselves. I don't know much about their internal organisation but apparently you don't have to agree with their 'secondary' programmatic declarations and whole international sections reject particular thesis etc. As I'm sure you're aware the SWP has been criticised by about every far leftist, communist and anarchist for being completely un-democratic, beauracratic, and more Stalinist than Trotskyist. i.e the Central Committee come up with all the theory and have all control, no internal factions are allowed except for a limited time then they must dissolve. They take control/stifle (of) struggles, make reactionary alliances, are class collaborationist etc etc.

I think you're saying the SWP gaining power rather than the ICC - who make it clear that is not their aim or desire. They don't even seek to 'organise the class' like other organisations may seek to do. For anyone interested in what the ICC are about, their aims etc check out what they say themselves:

International Communist Current


I'm not quite sure about what you mean by the SWP being "class collaborationists," however broadly speaking I would consider both the ICC and the SWP to be part of the International Revolutionary Vanguard and generally ideologically progressive. Ideologically, I would consider myself to be an Anarchist Communist, however I believe that this is an ideal for the future and unless a society consisted of persons who were Anarchist Communists, it would probably fall into "Anarchy" by the most negative definition of the term; thus transitionary revolutionary governments would probably have to be necessary, however I do worry about this, since Communist regimes have been essentially dictatorships; it ony needs one particular person in a revolutionary Republic to have more power than anyone else for it to become a presidential Republic and then a total dictatorship which transforms into an "Animal Farm" scenario. I also don't really like the idea of repressive poice states and the old Eastern European form of Communism, though in the early stages of a revolution it generally has to be militant, since the gangster Capitalists are unlikely to surrender without a fight.



As for the ICC being old fashioned, they do use a lot of language associated with revolutionary currents from the last centuries and take a certain amount of pride in their historical origins and workers movements traditions so I can see what you're saying. But personally I don't see it as a criticism. It's up to people to educate themselves in the rich history of the workers movement and its traditions not to be dumbed down or reject the history in its entirety. After all words do have meaning.


I think that it is just that I have been hanging out with the Anarchists for so many years. I'm not really that "critical" of the ICC in a hostile way. The ICC are just a very serious and rather formal political organisation whereas the Anarchists tend to be very social and rather "party animals." Some Anarchists like to spend their time bashing the Trotskyists, Maoists, Marxists and assorted Socialists, but the Anarchists by themselves are not a sufficient majority in the world to create the conditions for revolution by themselves, and in many regions, such as Nepal, which has a Maoist government, there simply are almost no Anarchists anyway, and the mass of Communists essentially "are" only the Maoists.


To be fair I saw quite a few Anarchists all dressed in black at the anarchist bookfair in London a couple of years ago, and people wearing fair trade slippers, shoulder bags and whatnot ; ). Though I don't think that's the end of the world, it certainly can be a route for more radical politics. But to highlight how silly it can be for a brief moment I actually thought #! I'm wearing Nike trainers! Later I realised not buying certain commodities wasn't a form of struggle....though I'm not sure I ever did, probably thought it was just 'the thing to do' once you were aware of how these products were produced etc. What it turned out I was actually doing was buying more expensive commodities which I didn't need anyway. I think 'fair trade' ideology is much the same as the ideology of 'green' commodities.


I'm generally an anti-fashionista; I won't wear anything which has a designer label, and although I would not describe myself as being poor, I generally buy from charity shops, simply because I consider it wasteful to do otherwise. Even if one avoids designer labels, even stores such as Primark in the UK, which is certainly the cheapest high street clothing store, outsources to China and the Third World, and are selling the produce of labour slaves who probably are no better off than those than in the Nike factories. Unfortunately a vast amount of goods in our shops are produced by Third World labour slaves and with many it is virtually impossible to check out the situation of the workers who made them; our supermarkets are also full of produce from often some of the poorest regions on earth where food is needed the most. Unfortunately totally ethical shopping and organic homegrown produce is very much a luxury which many cannot afford.


As for punk rock etc a lot of it is utter # but to be fair a lot of it was 'political' and introduced a lot of people to new ideas and a lot of it was also honest etc something which is lacking in a lot of todays music. I'm in my late twenties so I missed punk at the time but a post-punk outfit like Gang of Four got a hell of a lot of Marx into their songs and produced some good tunes at the same time. I'm not aware of anything like that today. Though I hear they were actually anarcho-sydicalists? But anyway you see my point.


Many of the established counterculture rock music bands and music celebrities of the hippy period of the Vietnam war were highly politicalised and anti-war; Lennon, Marley, Baez, Dylan and so forth; however that has almost dissapeared and mainstream music is now mostly depoliticised entertainment. Anti-war and anti-Capitalism just don't seem to go together with the music scene anymore. Perhaps it angers advertisers who are the major Capitalist corporations and who essentially pay for every commercial TV channel and music station.


Just a short point on Iran as you mention it, according to Iranian socialist Torab Soleth the state militias which number in their millions are made up of heavily 'brainwashed' youngsters, lumpen proletariat and so forth. In his opinion the vastness and depth of the Iranian state is quite a thing to overcome. But despite this he looks back on the Shah's regime which at the time was one of the most feared and vicious states, machine gunning crowds from helicopters etc and was thought could never be overthrown, but it was. For anyone interested on Iran he gives a very interesting perspective which can be found on Google Videos.


Iran is a lost nation; it is completely overrun by religious fanatics and "Communism" is equated with Satanism. There would seem to be more "hope" in Iran's middle classes where you will find the intellectuals and the Socialists and secularists, but the proletariat are largely religionists. Iran has over twice the population of Iran, and if the Americans do expand their war zone to Iraq, it could well be the American's "Vietnam." I don't like militant Islam, but it may well turn out to be the major resistance against the US imperialists. It is a bit like WW2 and war between the Germans and Soviets; the British and Americans did not want the Nazis to take over Russia and Estern Europe, but the certainly did not want the Soviet to take over Germany and the German colonies, Austria, France etc. Similarly with the US imperialists and the Muslims, they are both anti-Communist factions whose conflict may very well become nuclear, and they are both the common enemies of the Communists.

Apocalyptic Wars

The future of warfare is about to change very soon. The advanced military technologies the Cubans and the Chinese are working on (to keep up with the Americans) such as DEW (Direct Energy Weapons) are not bizarre "conspiracy theories;" Some DEW weaponry is apparently quite simple; it is not "rocket science;" I even personally know of a South African who was in London trying to get financing for a microwave weapon that he claimed he could build by himself in his barn. I believe that the Americans, who have such technology, don't openly use such weapons, as I think they know that once such weaponry begins to be used against them, they would no longer be able to sustain armies of occupation; such weapons are potentially genocidal and a single anonymous guerilla could silently take out the inhabits of entire military bases, police stations, aircraft, government buildings, ships, banks,.... whatever. Such weapons are the ideal "guerilla" weapons since having a large army would become a handicap, not an advantage.

Ultimately this is one reason why I think that large police states could not be sustained in a world with such weaponry. Unfortunately I think that the introduction of such technology will lead to possibly the most genocidal era in all of human history and there is really little which can be done to stop this. Drive-by shootings by gangster Capitalists are bad enough, but imagine a world with drive-by DEW attacks where no wall of bricks will protect anyone; and drive by DEW attacks on the White House and the Pentagon; it is only a matter of time before the Muslims get smart about such matters.

Of course the "Apocalypse" is term used by religious fanatics, but militant religious fanatics could quite possibly create that scenario and unfortunately most of the Muslims and most of the population of the world's leading terrorist state (America) are religious fanatics.



About the working class/proletariat it's not that I idealise this class (not sure if you are saying I do) it's that what you refer to as middle class I see as part of the proletariat. Just as students are a section of the working class so are the unemployed, because they are simply unemployed workers.


I recently returned from Africa and the impoverishment of the masses is pitiful, however there too we find that many of them are religous fanatics and bound by barbaric cultural traditions and superstitions and they don't really have a "revolutionary consciousness;" the Revolutionary Vanguard has generally always been composed of many of the highly educated classes, and in a world where education is not universally free, it has often been mostly the middle classes who have been educated. Of course the purpose of revolution is the liberation of the proletariat and of especially the Third World proletariate, but their political education and their abandonment of religious fanaticism is often dependent on the intellectuals, teachers and the educated classes who are Socialists, and it is going to be a long hard struggle to create the conditions for world revolution.

Revolutions and changes in governments in Africa are often just palace revolutions where one gang of corrupt gangster Capitalists replaces another, and in the police states of the Third World, the police are generally all "gangsters" themselves and are blatantly and openly corrupt. It is not uncommon in the Third World to see policemen who only earn a few dollars a week driving Mercedes Benzes. Our world of gangster Capitalism is going to take an educational process (inc. political education) and literal fight to change it.


I don't think we can really blue print or imagine what an "advanced Communist society" would be. But I certainly don't think it would be run by 'educated classes' - as I've already tried to explain I don't think there is such a thing.


Well a class of people is not necessarily an economic class, but clearly we would not wish to live in a world run by thugs and primitive religious fanatics. Almost all Communists that I can think of are technocrats. In a technocracy, engineers would build bridges and produce car engines and tractors, etc. Experts in the medical sciences would run hospitals, teachers would run schools; otherwise you could have the kind of savage primitivism of Pol Pot's Cambodia; instead of killing off the educated classes, it is the scientists, engineers and the various technical experts who would be most needed to create a modern mechanised industrial and technological society.


Going back to Iran, maybe what you experienced was what Soleth refers to as "Out of Bounds People"? People beyond city limits who aren't eligible for state benefits, neglected, ostracised and so forth.


Iran is actually a very wealthy country; I have not been there for many years, but I would not describe it as a Third World nation; you can see a great deal of prosperity in the cities and it is quite developed, however it is certainly not a Socialist state, though it could well afford to instigate socialist reforms. I think that the central problem is religious fanaticism. The Sharia system of Law and government is certainly not Socialism.


Marx explained that once the state and classes disappeared it would be the start of human history and the end of the stage of pre-history if I have that correct. If there is no class, there is no state and no ownership. People will work (as part of ones life) but they will not be a class of workers. One cannot imagine a classless society within todays socio-economic organisation. When you do you can often end up thinking all that will change in a communist society will be the goods and how they are distributed. Many anarchists seem to fall into this trap. (I'm not saying you do, many on Libcom seem to take this approach). Marx did not even see communism as the final stage of society or human history, he saw it as the beginning. Essentially that human society will progress further, beyond communism.


One of the main "hives" where the radicalised politcal left are produced are in the universities, among the academics, students and the intellectuals. This is very much where "Communism" had it's philosophical origins among the philosophers of the 19th century who were the product of the Enlightenment (the Age of Science and Reason). Much of Marx and Proudhon's thought was probably derived from the conversations with philosophers and political radicals in the French "cafe" culture where Proudhon allegedly converted Marx to Communism. The future world will hopefully be "designed" similarly by modern, rational, scientific, humanistic socialists and not by the primitive and savage religious fanatics, theocrats and tyrants who have shaped the world of the past and the present. However obviously it will be an ongoing and evolving process.

With regards to "beyond Communism," well the term Communism is derived from the French "communare," meaning "to share;" to share all resources, and that is not what occurs in gangster Capitalism; thus I think that a world of shared resources is an "ultimate" ideal of economic heaven; however the "details" of that will have to be worked out by the population of the future, but I don't think that there is an economic ideal beyond Communism; the "Venus Project" for example is an interesting concept, but it does not appear to be different from traditional Anarcho-Communism in principle.


I take your point about consumerism, but it's not 'natural' your girlfriend wants loads of pairs of shoes, even when she already has lots of pairs. There is the heavy weight of constant propaganda and alienation at work. The situationists were especially good on Marx's theory of alienation for anyone interested.


Unfortunately "shopping" is a hobby for many Capitalist women, but I have lived for periods in non-consumerist societies such as Africa and India, and really it is just an addiction developed in Capitalist societies with shopping malls full of trinkets, much of which is just a waste of labour hours in a hungry and impoverished world; most of the world's population don't live like that and it really has little to do with the simple requirements one needs to "be happy."


I broadly agree about the lack of working class/socialist consciousness. The result of many things I think. The legacy of Stalinism, the lack of a break with the Labour Party by many organisations, consumerism, increasing isolation within society and individualism, anti-strike legislation, destruction and break down of communities, massive defeats of workers struggle, and so on.


The proponents of the International Dictatorship of Capitalism also seem to be operating quite skilfully and strategically. Trotsky described Fabianism (the strategy of gradual Socialist changes, rather than revolutionary Socialism) as the upper economic classes' attempt to save themselves, and while the proletariat of the First World have been given more and more benefits and a higher standard of living than previous generations, the economic elites have also maintained and consolodated their power, and I think they operate also on Lenin's "one step backwards and two steps forwards" policy. A happy and contented proletatiate is less likely to become radicalised. Society's new "heroes" are not political revolutionaries; they are footballers or celebrites of the mass media whose very new dress or hairstyle is examined; it is very much a masses hooked on bread and circuses. They don't experience the same slave labour conidtions as their ancestors, and the slave labour factories have been exported out of sight to China and the Third World.


Honestly I don't have any knowledge on co-ops and collectives but I am aware a lot of it was critiqued in the 19th and 20th century before and after it was attempted in places like Scotland and America. It's something I should read about.


I think that the most successful model of such Communist collectives were the Israeli Kibbutzim, which I see as an ideal model of agricultural and technological syndicalism which could be exported to the Third World and could produce the non-miraculous feeding of the seven billion; but the political will to do this does not yet exist.

Lux

edit on 9-5-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Just as I suspected...

No proof.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Desired1
 





I don't think we can really blue print or imagine what an "advanced Communist society" would be.


Simple: An advanced Communist society would render money obsolete.

Money is a control mechanism.. the barter system was fine for HONEST living.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy
 



Damn, I must have cooties or somethin'.....



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy
 



Damn, I must have cooties or somethin'.....


Don't feel bad... I seem to have that same effect on a thread.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy

Simple: An advanced Communist society would render money obsolete.


Yes.


Money is a control mechanism.. the barter system was fine for HONEST living.


Capitalism & State Capitalism

Modern Capitalism is essentially based on a "barter" system which has been taken over by elite bankers who have the power to issue Capital, but this Capital is simply a token which certain individuals have the power to create, and these are the ultimate economic "Masters" while everyone else is essentially their "slaves."

In a primitive agricultural society one farmer might grow wheat and another might grow opium. So it is quite simple for the opium grower to exchange a bag of opium for a bag of wheat. Once society becomes more advanced, this system becomes less and less efficient. Let us say that you wanted to purchase a tractor or a piece of land or a property; even if you offered 20 tons of wheat, the seller might not want it and have nowhere to store it, and further it is a perishable commodity? Then consider the tractor manufacturer who has to pay wages and has to buy numerous components; it would be farcical to try to do this with lorry loads of wheat. Thus what happened in the development of Capitalism is that gold, silver and copper coinage were introduced, and these were small items which had a commonly recognised value. So the farmer would then sell perhaps a ton of wheat for a bag of silver coins, and then use the silver coins to buy a variety of goods, rather than having to barter for everything with his wheat. Thus primitive Capitalism "is" essentially a bartering system.

With the introduction of paper money, this paper money was simply a "bearer bond" for a certain amount of precious metals. On a modern British 20 pound sterling note, it still reads "I promise to pay the bearer on demand 20 pounds."" A "pound" is 16 ounces and this was originally a sterling silver bearer bond. Sterling silver is just silver which is 92.5% pure silver, mixed with an alloy. However the British currency cannot be redeemed for sterling silver. A 20 pound sterling note if it were redeemable for 320 ounces of silver at the current rate of almost $40 an ounce, would be worth almost $13,000, but actually it is only worth around $15.

Even if one buys gold or silver on the stock market, one is essentially only purchasing a derivative which is linked to the price at which banks and jewellery manufacturers pay for such metals.

Since the issuance of currency is no longer the issuance of a bearer bond for previous metals, but rather simply a token, this gives incredible power to those who issue this currency, who essentially become the ultimate economic masters.

Even when paper currency was linked to precious metals, it was simply a scam, and a great deal more paper was issued that there were metals. Some Capitalists of the far Right such as Ross Perot wish to see a return to this scam, but this would not resolve the problems of Capitalism; further the main gold producing nations such as South Africa and China would become the "economic elites" of the world, or whoever owned the gold mines and the US imperialist wars would probably not be essentially about oil and drugs, but about gold, silver and precious metals..




Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

"The Communist Manifesto."


Rationing and "Labour Vouchers"

What Marx and Engels suggested to solve this problem was the temporary introduction of "State Capitalism," where only the state would have the power to issue currency. With Cuban currency for example, the state simply prints and issues this currency. It is not linked to the price of any commodity, and the state does not "borrow" the currency from anyone to issue it, and thus they have no national debt which has been created by issuing their own currency, they only have short term debts in foreign currencies which are caused by the purchase of imports, since Cuba long ago anyway defaulted on it's long term debts.

Capital in a Socialist and State Capitalist society is essentially a form of "rationing." One of the suggestions made initially by Robert Owen and then later by Marx and others is that a system of "labour vouchers" could be introduced where, for example, a factory worker who works 40 hours a week would receive 40 labour vouchers and the management of the factory would also similarly receive labour vouchers for the hours they worked; thus there would be a "technocracy;" a hierarchy of technical professionals, but they would all be economic equals. This was essentially the system in the Soviet states and it is the system in Cuba today, though such currency is not referred to as "labour vouchers."

Whether one is a Cuban doctor or an unskilled or semi-skilled worker, every one receives about "$20 a month; however this $20 has no relation to what $20 can buy in America, since a Cuban can take a state rationing card to a government shop and receive a month's supply of basic foodstuffs and tobacco for one US dollar; in addition the Cubans live rent free, have free healthcare and education, and utilities and transportation are all subsidised; they are not run for profit. it is essentially just a system of rationing resources equally.

Since ATS is a predominately American forum, I do realise that idea of rationing all resources equally is simply a "Satanic" and diabolical idea to the ideological militant Capitalists and Christian religious fanatics of America, which is a nation of only 4% of the world's population and which consumes around 25% of the world's resources, and where human greed and selfishness is a virtue. It simply would not be possible for every nation to copy the model of US economic imperialism, since to have such a nation of economic elites, requires many other populations to be exploited and enslaved.

I don't want to suggest that Cuban society is perfect, but probably the vast majority of the population of the Third World, including the neighbouring Haitians would emigrate their instantly if they could, in order to enjoy a higher standard of living.




Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
...........
Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
..................
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. combination of education with industrial production.

"Communist Manifesto"



In the Britain of the 1960's where I grew up, a great deal of progress had been made by the Fabian Socialist, Leftists, trade unionists etc., in achieving some of the above aims. transportation and utilities (gas, water, electricity and telephone lines), and certain major industries such as coal mining and steel production were all essentially public services provided by the the government, and owned by the government, and they were not run for profit. Some major industries such as coal mining and steel production were also nationalised; this all changed particularly in the Thatcher period and Britain has regressed back into a more Capitalist era.

I should point out that the Communist Manifesto is not really a "Communist" Manifesto; there were only "transitionary" suggestions. For example a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax Would be unnecessary in Communist state, as there would be no such a thing as "profit" or "taxation."

Anyway, back to the matter of "bartering;" this is not a Communist objective; however in a transitional period, certainly if the "price" in labour hours of bag of wheat was calculated to cost "one labour" hour to a farming collective the factory worker would have to work for one hour to receive a labour voucher to buy the wheat, however it would not be sold at a "profit," but it is a temporary form of bartering.

In the original system of the Israeli Communist collectives (the kibbutzim), there was no bartering, food was free accommodation and utilities were free and there was simply no need to carry money inside the collective; it was only once one left the collective and walked into a Capitalist town that one needed to carry money.

In the transition from slave societies (inc. Feudalism) to Capitalism, to Socialism, to Communism, to stateless Communism, "bartering" of various forms are necessary in order to ration goods and services. In a slave society it might be progressive to be "anti-slavery" and "pro-Capitalist" just as in America it may be appropriate to introduce the nationalisation of banking, even if American remains Capitalist, however these are all transitional solutions and not the "Final Solution."

Lux


edit on 11-5-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
And one again, no proof.

Let's not go letting stats and evidence go messing up the OP's agenda. They would simply cloud the issue and prove everything he says incorrect. Thus, they must clearly be avoided at all costs.

No proof = it didn't happen.

Mods, might as well file this one under "Hoax" unless some proof is forthcoming.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by YourPopRock
And one again, no proof.



If there are any claims which I have made in the numerous threads here on Freemasonry, which you can show to be incorrect, I will happily retract such claims. I suggest that you read through the threads and the numerous testimonials of Masons, ex-Masons, Mason's wivies, media articles, FBI and police reports which litter particularly the thread "On Masonic Charity. The world's largest non religious charity scam. On the Shriners and Jesters" www.abovetopsecret.com... and if you have any evidence to suggest that any of such allegations are false, then please present it. It is you who presents "no proof" that any allegations made here are false..

When evidence, argument and analysis of Masonic cultism is presented, then simple contradition is generally one of the cries of the despairing in debate by the Masonic cult apologists here, and is not really part of the defintion of inteliigent debate. "I don't agree with that" and "that is not true" are simple contradictions; an "argument" would attempt to establish "why" facts, testimonials and analysis is untrue or incorrect or not factual.



Above: On how "not" to construct an argument. From "Monty Python."

My Judgement

A moral judgment (a subjective discernment of good and evil) is never a "fact" which an be weighed or measured; it is a subjective judgement based on evidence and testimonials regarding human behaviour. Since this is predominately an American forum, and Americans are predominately religious fanatics and anti-Communists, and the majority of contributers to this forum appear to be "pro-cultist," apologists for religious fanaticism who consider ideological Capitalism, anti-Communism and Anglo-American Imperialism, state terrorism, narcoterrorism, etc., to be "good" they will probably not share my judgement on the Masonic culists; that is irrelevant to me, since as far as I am concerned, "I" am the judge of the matter, and I judge the matter of Masonic cultism as an ideologcal Anarchist, a Communist and evangelical anti-Christian, anti-cultist and an opponent of all forms of organised religion and ganster Captialism; all of which is sufficient to define me as diabolical Satanic by the various religious fanatics and terrorist apologists here.

His Imperial Satanic Majesty

Lucifer

edit on 11-5-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Not enough Christians sacrificed. Not enough Christian flesh and blood consumed.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   




I have created a post specifically to respond to the constant Masonic cult apologetics and denialism, which I can repost when such denials are made and I suggest that you offer argument and evidence which shows that any of the allegations made below are false. If any of these allegations can be shown to be false, I will happily amend the post and repost it.

Frankly if the Masonic apologists did not keep insisting that such allegations were false, I would not have to keep restating them.

His Imperial Satanic Majesty

Lucifer





edit on 11-5-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Diabolus fecit, ut id facerem (The devil made me do it).



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Yet if we are meaningless as you suggest, why do we bother you so? Do we get under your scaly skin?

If we are evil baby-eating McCarthyist neo-capitalicists then aren't we playing for your team?


Also, playing devil's advocate, did you consider the possibility that we masons are manipulating you by NOT manipulating you?

You may be the first entity in a billion years to commit a felony against the law "Do What Thou Wilt".


Surely masonic zealotry would validate your points, but rational responses to your accusations only serve to infuriate you and make you look silly.

You may be right,
I may be crazy...



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucifer777





The quoted post appears here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
On Masonic BDSM style "hazing" allegations and assorted drunken revelry with prostitutes and strppers etc.



Originally posted by emsed1
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Yet if we are meaningless as you suggest, why do we bother you so? Do we get under your scaly skin?



Yes I believe that it is my duty to persecute all religious fanatics and organised gangs of gangster Capitalists.



If we are evil baby-eating McCarthyist neo-capitalicists then aren't we playing for your team?


No I am not that kind of Satanist.


Also, playing devil's advocate, did you consider the possibility that we masons are manipulating you by NOT manipulating you?

You may be the first entity in a billion years to commit a felony against the law "Do What Thou Wilt".


"Do what thou wilt" should not be confused with the "will" of a religious cult of gangster Capitalists; a slave master may also follow the mantra of "Do what thou wil" and do as he will with his slaves, but his slaves cannot do as they will; they have to follow the will of their master. If you believe that by applying whipped cream and strawberries to a person's genitals and electrocuting them that this holy and sacred ritual transforms them into holy and sacred Christian warrior knights, priests and "nobility," then I conisder it important to ridicule such religious cultism, however much stranger thing happen in the world of gay BDSM and since such acts are consensual, I have no objections, but with regards to religious cults and Capitalist gangs, I consider it my duty to persecute them.


Surely masonic zealotry would validate your points, but rational responses to your accusations only serve to infuriate you and make you look silly.


Frankly "rational" refutations of such accusations that I have made here have no happened; the Masonic gang here don't really operate that way; it is generally just abuse, contradiction, obfuscation, temper tantrums, cult denialism and general deception; much like a gang of football hooligans really.


You may be right,
I may be crazy...


Oh well if you believe that the whipped cream and strawberry ritual intiation or the holy and sacred electrocution rituals, BDSM hazings, the holy golden shower ritual and the sacred dog urunation ritual is going to turn you into a "holy knight" then I think that your sanity should be questioned somewhat; however most Americans are religious fanatics and "insanity" is perfectly normal for an American.

HIs Imperial Satanic Majesty

Lucifer




edit on 11-5-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
LOLOLOLOL!!!!

OP makes silly and unsubstantiated claimes with no evidence, and for some reason I have to prove his B as in B and S as in S to be false.

You have it backwards sponge-bob satan-pants.

YOU have the burden of proof for your claims... otherwise, you are simply a wordy wacko!



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by YourPopRock
LOLOLOLOL!!!!

OP makes silly and unsubstantiated claimes with no evidence, and for some reason I have to prove his B as in B and S as in S to be false.

You have it backwards sponge-bob satan-pants.

YOU have the burden of proof for your claims... otherwise, you are simply a wordy wacko!


I generally consider it to be beneath myself to respond to abuse and simple contradiction; however the post which is at the top of this page on: "On Masonic Charity. The world's largest non religious charity scam. On the Shriners and Jesters" on: www.abovetopsecret.com... contains a summary of the "allegations" on this thread; to simply argue that this does not represent "a single shred of proof of ANYTHING" as you have stated on the hyperked page above is just indicative of your lack of literacy skills; since I think that anyone with sufficient literacy skills to actually read that post before responding to it would find that it establishes a great many "facts;" including facts generated from police and FBI reports and the testimonials of Masons themselves; contradiction without argument is essentially also indicative of a person who has an inability to contruct an argument.

Just to help you out, let us say that you were a defence lawyer, defending Masonic cultism in a court or in a philosophers' debating society; if the allegations in the post at the top of this page were made, it would not be sufficient to claim "I don't agree with that" or "this does not prove anything;" that is the kind of simple contradiction which any football hooligan, a drunk or a child in a playground could make; rather you would have to offer argument and evidence that the claims stated above were false or fabricated, and it would be "you" who would have to prove that; thus it is "you" who have failed to present any proof of your claims.

With regards to "repeating" the same accusations, this is simply because of constant denialism by Masonic cult apologists regarding the allegations; if a person states "there is no evdence of such allegations" it is thus perfectly appropriate for me to restate that evidence, and if the "Trolls for Masonry" continue to make such denials, and to dispute that such evidence exists, it is quite appropriate for me to restate what that evidence is.

Your response above is simply a statement of "I am not interested in offering argument and evidence to support my allegation, I just want to be a troll and engage in contradiction and abuse;" I have to say that this is quite typical of Masonic cult apologists on this sub forum and indeed on the Internet in general; please feel free to continue with such behaviour.



Above: Monty Python's "Argument Clinic;" a beginners guide to how "not" to construct an argument.

His Imperial Satanic Majesty

Lucifer



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   
All you do is spam the same photos on every masonic thread. You fail to offer proof of ANYTHING you claim.

Incredible claims such as yours require incredible proof. It is not my job to provide that proof of your homo-erotic bdsm obsessed claims being false, it is your job to back up your gay-obsession laden claims with proof.

You can't do it because you have none.

(ps, embrace the baldness... growing the back of your hair long doesn't compensate for it)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by Desired1
 




Honestly, I don't know who or what you are replying to but if by human nature you mean how people act and what thoughts and ideas they have then it is not innate at all.


What I am describing is the human capacity for both creation and destruction, preservation and defilement, love and fear/hate. Even a young child can express these notions.

History shows that humans tend to be schizophrenic, probably due to our higher faculties conflicting with mammalian tendencies.
edit on 9-5-2011 by DeReK DaRkLy because: typo


Sorry for the delay in replying. Of course we interact with the world, what surrounds us, what physically and materially exists through our senses. In general I am saying our feelings, emotions etc are mainly a result of this world. Therefore if you change the world, people change. This is the foundation of Marxism as opposed to something like 'before anything can change (for the better) you have to change yourself'.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Just a quick one, I was wondering if you were in either of the significant anarchist federations in Britain. I would have thought you'd be in the openly syndicalist one?

My main problems with the approach in general is it's lack of explicit internationalism and the theory of building a new society literally within the old. Despite this I am only just starting on the task of reading Lenin's arguments against 'Lefts' - anti-parliament, anti-union etc and the replies of communists like Gorter, Pankhurst, and other 'Left Communists' and also 'anti-bolshevik' communists. Maybe all my 'prejudices' will fall away?

However, if I understand Marxism correctly, in essence the understanding of consciousness, the state etc these methods will always be futile (anarchist ones I mean). I am open minded though. I really want to get to the bottom of the arguments for the 'Lefts' and 'anti-bolshevik' communists against Lenin, what was happening in Russia and general tactics etc. On the face of it, Lenin seems to be making some very vaild points in Infantile Disorder. However, if the general historical conditions aren't understood these texts mean nothing. That's why it's so much harder to understand them now. You can't just read them abstractly, you have to read around the whole subject and polemics.

On a point that stands out you made a few posts ago. I don't see people who I discuss with enemies unlike yourself! I am not or never trying to convince people to think how I think. I aim for clarity and a deeper understanding of my own views and others through the clash of the ideas and our differences. We are both communists but we diverge on many points, that's the way it should be. Perhaps when I am more travelled, read more and have more practical experience of class struggle I will come around to your views or further divergences will arise. Of course, the world situation also changes things.

It's interesting what's happening in Spain at the moment (mass public square protests and 'sit-ins'). I am not sure what to make of it. It has also been copied around Europe on a smaller scale - inspired by the original Egypt, Tahir Square demonstrations. From 'reports' I've read they are mostly apolitical. I also note that what appears to be the main slogan "Real Democracy" is confusing at best. I have trouble with any slogan using 'democracy' in general. In my view 'democracy' is one of the major ideological brick walls.

It is the mistaken belief that bourgeois democracy can solve problems or be progressive in this day and age that makes people call for a No Fly Zone in Libya to bomb people for humanitarian reasons. "Real Democracy" to me says we want capitalism run better, more in the mass interest and more participation at a local level. The 'manifestos' I have read don't suggest this at all however, so it may just be a bad slogan - or that I am misinterpreting it. However, surely slogans like "abolition of wages-system", "no war against international working class", would be better? Obviously these could be worded in different ways and I am sure many more could be thought up.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Desired1
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


"Real Democracy" to me says we want capitalism run better, more in the mass interest and more participation at a local level.


To be absolutely clear I am arguing against this (I am for the overthrow of capital and all existing states). As it is a completely idealistic conception. Not just because capitalism isn't democratic by nature, the ruling class and capital won't allow it! Even if you hold a position where you regard capitalism to be in a situation to allow for more democratic structures and participation etc the examples and more importantly the outcomes of Allende, Gadaffi, Sandinistas and soon enough Venezuela cannot be ignored so easily.

On a more related note to this thread which I apologise for partly derailling I have ordered Alfred McCoy's The Politics of Heroin which is strongly recommended regarding CIA drug running and everything associated with that. I am already aware of course of some of the US states actions regarding coups and backed dictators, massacres and so forth through excellent documentaries by the likes of John Pilger for example. However, I hope the aforementioned book deals with the CIA, drugs and imperial strategy not in the overly simplistic or idealistic manner that Michael Ruppert - CIA and Drug Running does. He very nearly comes to the conclusion the problems are connected with the state and class as a whole but not quite...the problem being with right wing or Republican politics in general is the falling back on good and evil, 'character', and God. In essence everything is reduced to individuals and good and bad deeds. The problem with this of course is that it leads him to believe that perfect (within reason) individual states can exist full of upright men with the right character or whatever doing only good deeds. This arises because he has no understanding or ignores class relations and an understanding of capitalism.

However, I have absolutely no clue what any of this has to do with Freemasonry. There is a certain quality in propagandising in relation to the actions of the US state but what is more important is that it leads to action and and understanding. Not that individuals know 'truths' or 'who is really controlling the world' or whatever. I'd like to know what action or understanding Lucifer thinks can be taken from the kind of posts he has been making.
edit on 23-5-2011 by Desired1 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join