Most secret societies are good

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: SatansPride3

My grandma siad there is one rule not ever to forget which is applicable on all things in life..

Everything hidden on purpose has a dark side..is not good.

can you share your banking information and passwords please?

Everyone here seems to misunderstand the important distinction between "privacy" and "secrecy"

Privacy is creation of knowing
In possession of privilege

Secrecy is corruption of knowing
In withholding of privilege. Or the self-determination of such, from one made upon another

They are not the same thing

If you withhold from another, because something is personal and yours to decide upon? This is privacy

If you without another, on something they have as much right to know as you do? This is secret

Whether or not their right is "arguable" is irrelevant, because this determination is subjective. But it becomes the distinction in what defines a secret, that confuses people

The problem is that such arguments are the decay within what defines a secret

People think that if there is an argument as to whether or not another should be allowed to know something, that argument allows them to define it as something private. Or more correctly, something secret, to be kept as private

This is not the case

Secrecy veils itself as privacy for its own purposes, to become the excuse of willing exclusion and corruption

Secrecy seeds corruption. Privacy does not

But regardless of all this,

I don't know why everyone is so concerned about the Freemasons

During my Initiate process, I asked about the Freemasons. Because I was curious as to why, in 30 years of my life, I had never even heard of these people, that so many others seemed so concerned about

I was told unequivocally, that there are no true initiates in the Freemasons. Nor have there ever been

They are a symptom of a process they do not understand. They know the nature of things related to the process, and they reflect these in a perception that the power is within this knowing

But it is not within the knowing. It is within the understanding

You can be taught how to think. It does not mean you can think that way. At least, until you have lived and learned it, to understand why

It is like studying how to drive a car for many years, but nobody amongst you owns a real car for you to drive

Just because you studied how, doesn't mean you can drive. It just means you have the potential to, if the chance were ever offered to you

The experience is the key

I've seen Freemasons say to those who ask things of them, "If I have to tell you, you'll never understand", because they think they understand this statement

But only because others have told them the same thing. They don't actually understand it. Because if they did, they would also offer the person asking, a key towards opening the door themselves

This is the difference between knowing the wisdom, and understanding it

It is also more than just being able to offer the person a key towards understanding and opening the door themselves. It is being able to see what the person needs be given, from what they have offered to you, to reflect it back to them

Any Freemason who does not offer keys to others on the path to their own understanding, from what they have been given "Freely" on the path to their own understanding, is not a true Freemason

The cost of the knowledge is within the giving

This is not limited to an organisation

The group can be restricted. The knowledge, and the understanding it brings, needs be universal. Or it, and the organisation, is pointless. And powerless

To restrict in such a way is corruption. Not creation. And masons by name, need be rooted in creation

You cannot be leaders of men, if you are simply part of the system and/or machine

They are supposed to make men into something more. Not make them more, of the men they already are

A true "Freemason" is supposed to be able to look at what subtle hints they can tell you, without giving you the answer, so you can find your own path to the knowledge and understanding. That they may or may not have, or know themselves

Because their knowing, may actually be to know not. Therefore it can't be given, lest it be in detriment to self

Understand?

To this end, most Freemasons I have encountered online do not understand much, if anything, about the things they are supposed to understand, and/or be able to offer others

On the contrary,

They act in opposition to understanding and knowledge

This is like having a technician at a computer store, blatantly and rudely telling people they don't know s#$t about computers, when the people are doing their best to try understand the technology

Which is why they are at the computer store in the first place asking about it

This is arrogance on a level incomparable

It is worse though ...

They do it when they talk to someone who understands more about computers than anyone else they have ever talk to

Imagine a computer store technician talking down to someone with a Doctorate in Information Technology, telling them they don't know s#$t about computers

Because the person with a Doctorate is talking about things they, themselves, don't understand

It turns the organisation on its head, from what it is supposed to represent, to becoming the very definition of ignorance

But you can't blame the entire organisation for the arrogant within its ranks who are yet to even understand ego (even though they are supposed to be 33 degree, and ego is one of the first steps of the initiate)

Just take it for what it is, and understand by the way they speak, that they do not actually understand anything that can help you, or have anything to offer others

Those amongst them who do understand, and do have something to offer, are also those who are likely to keep quite, until they have something constructive worth saying

There is good and bad in anything

Where there is one person alone in name? There you will find either good or bad

Where there is two or more together in name? There you will find balance between good and bad

Where there is three or more together in name? There you will find a relationship between good and bad

a reply to: Compendium
I'm not sure where you got those definitions, but privacy is the "quality or state of being apart from company and observation." Secrecy is the habit or practice of keeping secrets or maintaining privacy or concealment. Secret comes from the Latin 'secretus' which means to set apart or hide. They are literally synonymous with each other.

Secrecy is a universal sociological form and has nothing to do with moral valuations. Everyone has secrets and practices secrecy, even you.

I don't know why everyone is so concerned about the Freemasons

People need a scapegoat.

But you can't blame the entire organisation for the arrogant within its ranks who are yet to even understand ego (even though they are supposed to be 33 degree, and ego is one of the first steps of the initiate)

Why are people so obsessed with the 33rd?

a reply to: KSigMason

Those definitions are exactly the same, you aren't taking perspective into account. Which puts my point in context about people not understanding

Privacy is personal perspective. It is indivisible. Adhering to the self

Secret involves another. It is to set apart. Adhering to the self in relation to another

You can't keep a secret from yourself

You can't be anothers privacy. Or it is not theirs

Possessive tense of the perceiver

I do not practice secrets

I value my privacy. But I do not practice secrets

I actually live by abject honesty. Even to my own detriment

I used to practice secrecy. When I was young

Then I learned how much simpler life is in abject honesty

My sister was talking to her friend on speakerphone while I was in the car about how she accidentally gave away a expensive bottle of champagne from her fridge as a gift, that her friend had given her a week before as a gift. She did it by mistake thinking that she had grabbed the cheaper bottle from her fridge

She told my sister about how she already had a story made up to tell her friend to cover it up, that one of her friends had taken it from the fridge by mistake

On the premise that she was saving that persons feelings from being hurt

All I could think about while they were discussing it, was that I must be from a different species or race, to them

Or they somehow aren't real people

I don't understand how their minds would work in such a way, that they would devise secrets like this. Even for the purposes of saving anothers feelings

I asked the question "Why not just tell them the truth? And say sorry?"

They laughed, thinking that I was the strange person in the conversation for suggesting it

I sat there for the rest of the trip trying to rationalise how their brains work

It is like there is something wrong with their programming

It made me consider how I could possibly be genetically related to someone who would think so vastly primitive in comparison

When honesty is such a simple concept to grasp

That makes life so easy

I know that most other people practice secrecy

But it honestly makes me think that they aren't even true conscious intelligence

They are some type of demi-god, semi-intelligence

Or a process of the world for people with a more evolved understanding

I'm not meaning to be offensive here

I honestly don't understand it

As I said, I used to live practicing secrecy as well

But I don't even understand how or why I did, looking back on it

It's a ridiculous state of being. That degrades the relationships of the collective

Maybe I'm wrong in the way I think

But if I am, I don't want to be right

a reply to: KSigMason

People need a scapegoat.

No, no they don't. They NEED the criminals ARRESTED!!! That's exactly what WE need!!!!!

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: SatansPride3

Those that pick apart sources do claim factual evidence to support their position.

We have the benevolence of the secret societies to thank for this. (sarcasm)

In all seriousness, today's "information" is nothing more than propaganda and nothing more. It has infiltrated even the scientific community who is wholly owned and controlled by the ruling elite as a tool to support their ongoing agenda. "Trust the science" will become its very epitaph.

It's nearly impossible to have a logical debate because each side will tear apart the other side's "sources" claiming confirmation bias. Ironically, both sides would be right to do so.

I have strong beliefs on certain topics, however, I actually read claims and the evidence to back those claims on both sides of the topic. I genuinely want to hear and understand both sides of the argument. As long as I remain objective and follow my intuition I feel I end up with just enough information to make an informed decision.

a reply to: Type1338


Hi Type1338,

You are correct about information (currently) being opinion. But there is a greater curse right now, as you allude to with Science adjusting to social mores rather than stating facts.

I do not have a fix for that.

It's absolutely possible to have a debate about anything, if the individuals involved are willing to understand that they might be incorrect on their understanding of a subject. Sadly right now many individuals refuse to accept that they can ever be wrong.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: Type1338


Hi Type1338,

You are correct about information (currently) being opinion. But there is a greater curse right now, as you allude to with Science adjusting to social mores rather than stating facts.

I do not have a fix for that.

It's absolutely possible to have a debate about anything, if the individuals involved are willing to understand that they might be incorrect on their understanding of a subject. Sadly right now many individuals refuse to accept that they can ever be wrong.

You, are very correct. Curse is one way to describe it, diabolical methodology is another.

Yes, debate is a healthy way to communicate about any subject, depending on the persons ability to, mature. Though, it must also be taken into consideration that the subject matter is open to, debate. Not all subject matter is open, with all people. It would be a mistake to consider the opposite.

There is a group of people, at least here on this forum, that refuse to accept evidence of a certain nature dealing with certain subjects. They do not do this because they fear being wrong, but because they "Know" the evidence is valid. And that evidence exposes long lost hidden truths, of a esoteric nature. (Intended for or understood by only a small group, especially one with specialized knowledge or interests: synonym: mysterious.)

This group of people have taken a blood oath to keep those secrets and come to the aid of others in the group, regardless of the righteousness of the information or evidence, or, moral implications. Some of the members of this group become disillusioned and confused when they see these things transpire that goes against their own moral values. They see the horrors within the group and are powerless to do anything about it, because of the blood oath, and threat of death.

This Group has its origins at the pillar of laws and were instituted to keep mankind ignorant of certain histories and scientific knowledge. You will find them heavily invested in these areas. And, very invested in "Law Enforcement" and the "Judiciary" to insure the groups survival.

There are levels of knowledge within the ranks where some levels know some things, and encouraged to move to the next level to learn more, but the whole time the members are scrutinized to see if they are willing to, in the most direct terms, sell their souls, to learn the ultimate secrets. Its "Diabolical"!

The group is actually a rat trap of sorts where the brightest, most powerful, and best are now stuck in a place they believe they can not get out of. But, with Divine Grace, and a prayer, will show them the exit.

My advice to those members who are on the fence, get out now, because the monsters at the top, are going, Down!

Well who knows

POST REMOVED BY STAFF