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.
Originally posted by Loungerist
If you want to say the society isn't secret,just the members that the society is composed of are,then you're free to do so. It's semantic at this point. But the end result remains the same:a society of people acting vehemently in secret from those who are not members. Which according to my view,the encyclopedia,and wikipedia,is the very definition of a secret society.
"Political parties and other organizations whose programmes are based upon totalitarian methods and the modes of activity of nazism, fascism and communism, as well as those whose programmes or activities sanction racial or national hatred, the application of violence for the purpose of obtaining power or to influence the State policy, or provide for the secrecy of their own structure or membership..."
Originally posted by Trinityman
Freemasonry doesn't even qualify as a secret society by Wikipedias standards.
Originally posted by Dave Ravin
I am trying to get across the point that, though there are masons, and lodges including all members that are engaged in completely respectable and legal doings, there is a certain sect of the masons that is connected with the Illuminati and the New World Order.
It is unlikely that the [Grand Poobah] of your fraternity is unaware of these masons and lodges that undertake unscrupulous tasks.
I suppose it is possible for a lodge to be able to choose, through its leadership, what sorts of functions a given lodge would endorse. The one thing that I keep hearing from the masonic point of view is that there simply is no masonic connection to the New World Order. But how can someone continually see arguments stating that there is a connection, and not entertain the possibility?
Adam Weishaupt wanted a New World Order. HE is the culprit that took Feemasonry's framework and shored-up the foundation of his Illuminati.
Again, it isn't that the Illuminati is a masonic organization... rather, the Illuminati is an organization that uses masonic-inspired practices to extract a convoluted, aggressive method of attempting to dominate the world.
These masons are adept at many techniques that can both expediate untidy tasks, and help to influence others, including fellow-masons, to break away and to influence new recruits to perform without questioning orders from above.
But those masons, or former-masons, who have sided with criminal conspirators to wreak havoc upon the citizenry, to effect a one-government control of wealth and power, and to engage in subterfuge that makes secret handshakes seem very harmless, are not doing anyone any good, least of all the freemasons.
So, the claim is made that I know nothing about freemasonry. I know as much as a person can know, and not be a member of the masononic order.
Careful study reveals that there is also a breed of mason whose function is to perpetuate the idea that freemasonry is a wholly benevolent organization.
Originally posted by Nygdan
I think its kind of silly to say too strongly that masonry is not a secret society.
... but its clearly a secret society.
Originally posted by Loungerist
"A secret society is a social organization that requires its members to conceal certain activities—such as rites of initiation or club ceremonies—from outsiders. Members may be required to conceal or deny their membership, and are often sworn to hold the society's secrets by an oath. The term "secret society" is often used to describe fraternal organizations (e.g. Freemasonry) that may have secret ceremonies"
en.wikipedia.org...
It is not enough for you to ask people to disprove your allegations. Hypotheses must be tested before they can become theories. I could just as easily claim that you have two heads, but it would surely be up to me to substantiate that claim rather than just ask you to prove that you haven't, as I would suggest it would hard for you to disprove that assertion on this forum?
But can you present numerous other people who all say from their studies that he has two heads? Can you cite people who have seen and associated with him that cooberate that he indeed has two heads? Is their literature around charting out and explaining in detail where the idea of Dave's second head came from and it's orgins? These all can and have been done with Masonry unlike Dave's dual skull theory. One must substanciate claims,sure. But when evidence is presented(and despite popular Masonic claims,it has been) then I'd have to agree that it falls to those denying the veracity of the evidence to disprove it.
Originally posted by Dave Ravin
There's a vicious rumor currently on these pages that I, Dave, have two heads.
Originally posted by Nygdan
They're different people. Unless he's crossing continents to post.
Originally posted by df1
IMHO I believe you do have 2 heads. One head goes by the name of "Dave Ravin" and the other goes by the name of " Loungerist". While you do have 2 heads, it is obvious that these heads share a single brain, because both say the same things and have the same writing style.
Originally posted by missingperson
This may have more to do with bloodline...
Originally posted by df1
Originally posted by missingperson
This may have more to do with bloodline...
I suppose I do not buy this bloodline idea. I bet that if you were to pick any random individual and trace his/her bloodline, with same rigor used to trace a world leader, that you would find that said individual would be traced back to a royal bloodline. This type of investigation isn't done for the average "john doe", because most people don't care if the manager of the local Walmart is related to the queen.
.
Originally posted by Loungerist
But when evidence is presented(and despite popular Masonic claims,it has been) then I'd have to agree that it falls to those denying the veracity of the evidence to disprove it.
Originally posted by df1
If you subscribe to the premise of innocent till proven guilty the burden of proof is on the accusers. Placing the burden of proof on those being accused is called a "witch hunt". During the Salem Witch Trials once a person was labeled a "witch", accusations were called evidence by religous zealots and it was demanded that the accused prove otherwise. The questioning of the so called "witch" went something like below:
Originally posted by Trinityman
Originally posted by Loungerist
If you want to say the society isn't secret,just the members that the society is composed of are,then you're free to do so. It's semantic at this point. But the end result remains the same:a society of people acting vehemently in secret from those who are not members. Which according to my view,the encyclopedia,and wikipedia,is the very definition of a secret society.
Freemasonry doesn't even qualify as a secret society by Wikipedias standards. It gives a definition of a secret society as:
"Political parties and other organizations whose programmes are based upon totalitarian methods and the modes of activity of nazism, fascism and communism, as well as those whose programmes or activities sanction racial or national hatred, the application of violence for the purpose of obtaining power or to influence the State policy, or provide for the secrecy of their own structure or membership..."
I think you'll agree that the only part of this that might apply is "provide for the secrecy of their own structure or membership".
Well, the structure is well known...
www.mastermason.com...
... and how we are organised is not hidden...
en.wikipedia.org...
... and our leaders publish their bios...
www.grandlodge-england.org...
www.glmasons-mass.org...
... and our members are listed in yearbooks...
i20.ebayimg.com...
... so tell me again - which part of freemasonry is secret?
The fact that there are freemasons out there who don't wish to talk to non-masons about freemasonry is entirely up to them - all of us have a perfect right to discuss as much or as little about anything as we wish.
I don't know in which country you live, Loungerist, but I can tell you that in mine people have a Right to Privacy and can do whatever they like in private as long as its legal. That Right protects everyone against interfering busybodies like the government and people who think they know how to run my life better than I do.
I'm hope you're not one of those people but I know there are a lot of them out there.
Originally posted by LISTENTOME
Note that this chart shows the 33rd degree as the highest degree. However, there are higher degrees that are even secret to most masons.
a pic from a major masonic temple in london