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.

 

Secrecy - The Road To Distrust, Annihilation and Self-Destruction

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I have been pondering this for so many years now, I have always interested in black projects and secret agendas. But I know that the introduction of secrecy into a society can only possibly lead to a path of self-destruction. I am not a highly intelligent man, I have a reasonable IQ. But I do consider myself wise in some areas, albeit I am a little hot headed at times
I find it very difficult to understand the mentality of carrying out secret agendas and secret projects.

Secret societies are no different, people conspiring for thier own selfish needs. For in an open and free society there is no room for conspiracy and therefore no room for distrust among countries.

I truely believe, the long and secret agendas carried out by a selfish few who consider themselves rulers of the world whom are entitled to have slaves, are the scum of the earth. We have allowed this to carry on for so long now amd what we are seeing in todays society is a direct result of secrecy, nothing more. JFK knew this to be true and made a speech regarding creating a "free and open" society, and this meant no more secrets. This obviously lead to his assasination. The current criminal super rich and super secret societies coulld never allow this to take place, for it would undoubtedly lead to their immediate downfall from grace.

I personally believe it is our duty to speak up against secret societies, secret projects and secret agendas. Many people believe that it is not possible to remove secret societies from humanity, but this is untrue.

Indeed, until secrets are totally removed from humanity we will forever be on a path of self-destruction.




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I'm with u buddy I'm tired of everyone hiding secrets...vatican archives, pyramids, etc..

But what can be done?*



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I am in full agreement. Keeping long-term secrets is not a good thing. It breeds contempt and a false sense of imortance. Secrets only fulfill the selfish desires of the ego. Just as in a marriage, if secrets are kept away from the knowledge of the other partner, the house will crumble because there is no trust or security.

The only way to get rid of secret societies is the make them rot from the inside out. If Masons would leave their lodges and show their true enlightenment by revealing the secrets to the world, the healing can begin. As soon as just one Mason screams from the roof tops, "No, I will not be eviscerated for bringing light upon everyone!", we can know that goodness will prevail.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ElOmen
 


Anyone who is suspected of being involved in any secret society must be banned from leadership, that would be a good start.

Indeed, there is no reason why America cannot open up its secret programs to the Russians and visa versa. For no more secrets means no more war, period.

We are not naturally a suspicious race, we only become suspicious when we are lied to and secrets are kept.

It will be Secrecy that leads to the downfall of mankind, nothing else. If our species were telepaths there would be no secrecy and therefore no distrust, no distrust means no major conflict.

Secrecy IMO is abhorrent and only followed by those whom wish to rule by an iron fist.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar
JFK knew this to be true and made a speech regarding creating a "free and open" society, and this meant no more secrets. This obviously lead to his assasination.


President Kennedy was calling for more secrecy, particularly by the press, in wake of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. It should also be noted that he himself was a member of a 'secret society', the the Knights of Columbus.





edit on 31-12-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I'm with you on this.

I can't think of any secret worth keeping that isn't based in the need to serve one's own best interest -- at the expense of others.

There is little more despicable than secrecy within the realm of politics. To participate in a democratic system where the citizens are voting, transparency is necessary part of maintaining the integrity of this system. It would be the ultimate betrayal of the inherent fairness and honour of this system for the leader/party to misrepresent themselves to the electorate in order to protect a secret agenda.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by TheMindWar
JFK knew this to be true and made a speech regarding creating a "free and open" society, and this meant no more secrets. This obviously lead to his assasination.


President Kennedy was calling for more secrecy, particularly by the press, in wake of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. It should also be noted that he himself was a member of a 'secret society', the the Knights of Columbus.





edit on 31-12-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer.


Let alone his secret relationship with Marilyn Monroe.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
If evil can have conspiracy, so can Good. Like Afterthought said they will rot from the inside out. So really it's a matter of time. Then it will come down anyway. Nothing new really. All past civilizations turned to dust. Opinions change. But really, tyranny has always been the name of the game. Not that we should just crumble with fear and except it, we shouldn't. Educate ourselves of their tactics of oppression then we will truly be able to help when help is needed.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Secret Society isn't necessarily a bad thing. There can be a Secret Society whose members are fighting against tyranny. In cases when you can't fight openly Secret Society may become the only tool to overthrow tyrants.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 

Wow, I hope you're not married as your spouse may be a little concerned about you not wanting to keep long-term secrets of theirs.

Secrecy breeds trust and courage.

What many anti-Masons and non-Masons want is us to pander to them. Appeasement means to compromise my values and I will not do that.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 

Banishment from leadership? If he was a member of a secret society, how would anyone know??? Plus to ban anyone from public office on the basis of belonging to an organization would be a violation of the US Constitution.


Indeed, there is no reason why America cannot open up its secret programs to the Russians and visa versa. For no more secrets means no more war, period.

You must be extremely naive.


Secrecy IMO is abhorrent and only followed by those whom wish to rule by an iron fist.

Like I said before, don't let your spouse hear your unwilling to keep secrets.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

edit on 2011.12.31 by JoshNorton because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by TheMindWar
 

Banishment from leadership? If he was a member of a secret society, how would anyone know??? Plus to ban anyone from public office on the basis of belonging to an organization would be a violation of the US Constitution.


Indeed, there is no reason why America cannot open up its secret programs to the Russians and visa versa. For no more secrets means no more war, period.

You must be extremely naive.


Secrecy IMO is abhorrent and only followed by those whom wish to rule by an iron fist.

Like I said before, don't let your spouse hear your unwilling to keep secrets.


Is this the best you can do, lol. "naive" you say, rofl. Personally I believe it is you whom are naive to believe you cannot earn someones trust. Yes trust has to be earnt and with good and honest relations there is absolutely no reason why both the USA and Russia canmot have open systems of technological development without the need for secrecy. This in fact would lead to a revolution in technical development beyond what we have ever seen.

As for my mrs, we have no secrets. It seems to me that you may have a few skeletons in the closet however since you sem keen to keep secrecy paramount.

It you disagree, please give me an example of when secrecy has lead to trust between people?

As for kennedy being a member of a secret society, I have no dounbt he probably was, he probably wouldnt have become president otherwise. But lets not forget what he said about secret societies and how his did not agree with them.

Just because someone may have been a member of something does not mean that they have to remain so and agree with things they do.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar
As for kennedy being a member of a secret society, I have no dounbt he probably was, he probably wouldnt have become president otherwise. But lets not forget what he said about secret societies and how his did not agree with them.


The speech was not about secret socities, it was about more secrecy from the press. Read the entire speech and not the cherry-picked portions.


...

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

...


From the John F. Kennedy Library.




edit on 31-12-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I think we need to ask ourselves, how many people are in secret-societies?
do we see them in the aisle of the grocery store? in the car beside us stopped at the light?

I have wondered since a lot of the government/military is made up of the people we live with in our daily lives but perhaps we aren't even aware of it, then how many people make up the secret societies?

I could understand why I am not in a secret society. Going to church USED to feel like a secret society to me in a way.
perhaps that's the medium from which a lot of people are introduced to it?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Err, "the very word secrecy is repugnant" he also states in the very opening of the speech, and i quote "we are as a people opposed to secret societies". Maybe you should listen again and reflect upon your statement. His opening remarks had nothing to do with the press whatsoever but were absolutely directed straight at secret societies.

Google: Kennedy Speech Secret Societies - top link

edit on 31-12-2011 by TheMindWar because: Added info.

edit on 31-12-2011 by TheMindWar because: Typo



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Err, "the very word secrecy is repugnant" he also states in tge very opening of the speech, and i quote "we are as a people opposed to secret societies". Maybe you should listen again and reflect upon your statement. His opening remarks had nothing to do with the press whatsoever but were absolutely directed straight at secret societies.

Google: Kennedy Speech Secret Societies - top link


Wow, you read that entire speech I linked quickly.[/sarcasm]

He is refering to Communists, not members of secret societies. And once again, he was in one.

Read this part again slowly:


But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.


Does this sound like he is talking to members of secret socities to give up secrets or asking the press to use more secrecy?


Google: Kennedy Speech Secret Societies - top link


Why? I linked the entire speech for YOU to read, not the conspiratard version they chop up online to make it look like President Kennedy was refering to something that he was not.




edit on 31-12-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Banished from leadership?!?!

George Washington was the Master of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons.

Maybe HE should have been banned from leadership too. And those pesky declaration of independence signers - the Masons there should have been banned from leadership?

If they had been banned from leadership, we would still be bowing to kings.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Avatar777
 


If there were no secrets there would be no reason to require a secret sect against tyranny. For tyranny would never appear. The only reason IMO tyranny exists is because of secrecy and conspiracies born from secret meetings such as the builderberger.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


Tyranny exists because of tyrants, not because of secrets.

I find the worst things that happen, happen right out in the open... Famine, starvation, poverty, oppression, discrimination, genocide... The secret things never seem to be quite as nefarious.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join