To Masonic Light and All Freemasons

Originally posted by Wind
I think that ordinary freemasons are not bad and evil, but those who control the governments, NASA, and other important organizations, they definitely are involved in conspiracies and evil-doing.

I haven't seen any evidence that freemasons in high-ranking positions in Governments/Companies etc are doing anything at all as a direct result of their masonic membership, or because freemasonry 'told them to'.

But i'm open-minded if you want to present something...

Originally posted by Wind
I didn't read it all yet, but how do you respond to it?

thanks

I'm not quite sure how you would like me to respond. I could say it's all complete nonsense, which would be accurate, but I don't know if you'd consider that a satisfying answer.

Originally posted by Wind
I think that ordinary freemasons are not bad and evil, but those who control the governments, NASA, and other important organizations, they definitely are involved in conspiracies and evil-doing.

First let me state that I resent being called ordinary.

Specifically which Freemasons control governments, NASA and the other important organizations you talk about? Some names please, I am very interest in contacting them about applying for a well paid conspiratorial executive position. I don't have a lot of experience with evil doing, but I learn fast and the goats at our Lodge like me.

Originally posted by df1

First let me state that I resent being called ordinary.

Specifically which Freemasons control governments, NASA and the other important organizations you talk about? Some names please, I am very interest in contacting them about applying for a well paid conspiratorial executive position. I don't have a lot of experience with evil doing, but I learn fast and the goats at our Lodge like me.

ROFL!

Heheh I've seen that artile several times before... It was hooey then, it's hooey now.

The Lodge #72 thing was interesting, but I too fail to see the connection to modern agencies.

Just thought I'd drop in and say hello to the usual gang...since the thread doesn't seem to have any assertions, claims, evidence or supported conclusions of its own. While we're here having an opinion session, I'd like to say - God rocks! Love y'all.

And now for something completely different.



Pray, train, study,
God bless.


[edit on 30-9-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Trinityman
Given that these members of the BEIC were in no way trying to hide their membership, and this all happened over 250 years ago, I'm not sure of the relevance to modern intelligence organisations.

I'm not sure what them hiding their membership or not has to do with anything,but the relevance is that the BEIC's holdings(and pertinent members I'm sure) didn't go anywhere. They were appropriated into the empire. Thusly the former company's drug trafficking did not end with it's dissolution. And drug trafficking stemming from this is still reported to continue today by intelligence agencies because,as the article points out,government bodies can operate with impunity from the law.

Whilst it is possible, but unproven, that freemasons could have been involved iin the illegal opium trade in the first half of the 18th Century; they would not have been doing this in any official masonic capacity,

Of course,since an organization can't have such an official capacity without being outlawed. It would have to be done unofficially on an organization's behalf so there would be plausible deniability.

[edit on 30-9-2005 by Loungerist]

Originally posted by Loungerist
I'm not sure what them hiding their membership or not has to do with anything,but the relevance is that the BEIC's holdings(and pertinent members I'm sure) didn't go anywhere. They were appropriated into the empire. Thusly the former company's drug trafficking did not end with it's dissolution. And drug trafficking stemming from this is still reported to continue today by intelligence agencies because,as the article points out,government bodies can operate with impunity from the law.

Well, that may or may not be true. Pays your money and takes your choice. Powerful empires have always done bad things. I still don't see how this can be laid squarely (as it were) at the feet of the members of lodge 72.

Whilst it is possible, but unproven, that freemasons could have been involved iin the illegal opium trade in the first half of the 18th Century; they would not have been doing this in any official masonic capacity,

Of course,since an organization can't have such an official capacity without being outlawed. It would have to be done unofficially on an organization's behalf so there would be plausible deniability.

I'm keen to know where you think the motive is. Freemasonry, an organisation dedicated to brotherly love, relief and truth has no reason to furtively engage in illegal drug trafficking. For one thing it's outside of it's terms of reference. What would be the purpose?

Why do you think that Buzz Aldrin, a 33rd degree free mason and other masons at NASA , and other political figures, would enter freemasonry? Is it bcz they have love and whatever. No. They know that it is powerful and can lead them to highest positions and have the upper hand in everything. But this remains my personal opinion.

www.freemasonry.bcy.ca...
for freemasonic NASA

Originally posted by Wind
Why do you think that Buzz Aldrin, a 33rd degree free mason and other masons at NASA , and other political figures, would enter freemasonry? Is it bcz they have love and whatever. No. They know that it is powerful and can lead them to highest positions and have the upper hand in everything. But this remains my personal opinion.

www.freemasonry.bcy.ca...
for freemasonic NASA

Yeah Wind,

I'd sure hate to think that ol' Brother Buzz is an upstanding citizen, concerned about his fellow creatures and perhaps even an all-around "nice guy" huh? Not sure about him having a "highest position" or an "upper hand" in anything. He is a Master Mason, member of the Scottish Rite, where's he's an Honorary 33rd Degree Member, which is just that, an HONOR. He's NOT an officer of the Supreme Council and weilds NO power over the Supreme Council or ANY of Masonry.

Did you ever stop to think that many of these "upper hand" power-wielding LEADERS might just be so because they tend to EXCELL....and not because they've been given super-powers by a FRATERNITY????? Sheesh.

Originally posted by senrak
Did you ever stop to think that many of these "upper hand" power-wielding LEADERS might just be so because they tend to EXCELL....and not because they've been given super-powers by a FRATERNITY????? Sheesh.

WHAT?!

No super-powers?! That's it. I'm going to withdraw my petition right now.

*kicks a rock and walks away, muttering to self*

I think moon photos have serious anomalies, but I am not going to discuss NASA here. What I will discuss is politics. Have YOU stopped to think why would politicians join freemasonry? Is it that they care so much for its "good" principles? are politicians those angels seeking the road of truth, or is everything they care about is power? Do you see what I mean?

Originally posted by Wind
I think moon photos have serious anomalies, but I am not going to discuss NASA here. What I will discuss is politics. Have YOU stopped to think why would politicians join freemasonry? Is it that they care so much for its "good" principles? are politicians those angels seeking the road of truth, or is everything they care about is power? Do you see what I mean?

I do, indeed, see what you mean. You appear to be suspicious of people in leadership positions....perhaps a bit (or even more) paranoid.

Yes, I've stopped to think why PEOPLE (not just POLITICIANS) join Freemasonry. I've thought about it often. Do some join because they think it will help them with their business or political gain? Possibly.

IF, however, they DID join just for personal or political gain, they're grossly misusing Freemasonry, which is too bad.

However, MOST of the Freemasons I know (and I know LOTS of 'em across the U.S. and in many foreign countries) join because they're actually interested in Freemasonry and the many personal things it has to offer to those who honestly seek it.

Originally posted by Wind
Why do you think that Buzz Aldrin, a 33rd degree free mason and other masons at NASA , and other political figures, would enter freemasonry? Is it bcz they have love and whatever. No. They know that it is powerful and can lead them to highest positions and have the upper hand in everything. But this remains my personal opinion.

www.freemasonry.bcy.ca...
for freemasonic NASA

Well, at least we have an assertion now. Perhaps there's hope for this thread yet. If not, I was ready for my next fun animal pic:


o/~ It's fun to stay at the Y-M-C-A! o/~

Back on topic now:

What I think is most interesting is a group bent on 'world domination' (like the first link on the thread suggested) is launching their boys off the planet . Not a well-grounded way of doing it I think. Now, if only someone were to start a "Masons and the New Space Order!" thread, then that'd be pretty fun.

I think one of the more informative Mason threads was this one - My Masonic Journey begins...

[edit on 30-9-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Trinityman

Of course,since an organization can't have such an official capacity without being outlawed. It would have to be done unofficially on an organization's behalf so there would be plausible deniability.

I'm keen to know where you think the motive is.

The piles and piles of money would be a good place to start looking.

Freemasonry, an organisation dedicated to brotherly love, relief and truth has no reason to furtively engage in illegal drug trafficking. For one thing it's outside of it's terms of reference. What would be the purpose?

And the government,as an organization,is designed to serve the people for the people. Theory and practice are often at odds with each other. And the highest levels of organization are often operating on starkly different ideals from the lowest. An organization having a benevolent official doctrine doesn't automatically mean it's practices are benevolent in reality.

Originally posted by Loungerist

Originally posted by Trinityman
I'm keen to know where you think the motive is.

The piles and piles of money would be a good place to start looking.

But again this is just a motive for individuals whereas you seem to be claiming that freemasonry is institutionally corrupt. What are we going to do... give it all away to charity

Freemasonry, an organisation dedicated to brotherly love, relief and truth has no reason to furtively engage in illegal drug trafficking. For one thing it's outside of it's terms of reference. What would be the purpose?

And the government,as an organization,is designed to serve the people for the people. Theory and practice are often at odds with each other. And the highest levels of organization are often operating on starkly different ideals from the lowest. An organization having a benevolent official doctrine doesn't automatically mean it's practices are benevolent in reality.

It doesn't automatically mean it isn't either. What evidence do you have that any money garnished from an illegal opium trade in Asia went to the freemasons rather than the BEIC? Or the British Government?

Since all officers of Grand Lodges are unpaid (except perhaps the Grand Secretary, which is a job) and fully audited in accordance with corporate procedures it is unlikely that widescasle money laundering is going on. Now these practices probably weren't in place in 1730, but I'm still a little unsure how these ancient events directly affect today.

1730 - Russian czar dies of smallpox; first American circulating library invented by Ben Franklin; Canelletto paints 'symbolic marriage of Venice to the Adriatic'; the Serpentine is created in London; scientific farming methods introduced into England by Townsend. George II was on the throne of Great Britain and the USA were still colonies. ATS had not yet come into existance.
A long long time ago, before you and I were born, my friend.

The real question is... if a bad person joins an organisation does that mean that the organisation itself becomes bad?

Hey!!, Where Are My Super-Powers Anyway? I'm all paid up and everything!

You Guys are Killing Me!! LOL!!!

Originally posted by Trinityman
But again this is just a motive for individuals whereas you seem to be claiming that freemasonry is institutionally corrupt. What are we going to do... give it all away to charity

Not quite. For one,I'm not claiming anything about Masonry personally and was only explaining the perspective of the article since it's basis didn't seem to be understood. And was being blankly written off as unfounded when in fact it wasn't. However I don't know if I personally agree with Masonry being the pertinent link for what the article was talking about even though the case can obviously be made.

For another,an organization is made up of individuals. It is a dubious semantic in my opinion to separate to such an extreme the concept of an organization on paper from the individuals that actually compose it. It's not only semantic,but also selectively applied. If a Mason does good Masons cite it as an example of how Masonry is a shining star of fellowship and love. But when a Mason does bad then the logic instantly switches and Masons say it's just individuals who just happen to be Masons. For that matter if a Mason does bad they're often said to not even be Masons period.

It doesn't automatically mean it isn't either. What evidence do you have that any money garnished from an illegal opium trade in Asia went to the freemasons rather than the BEIC?

The freemasons were the BEIC.

The real question is... if a bad person joins an organisation does that mean that the organisation itself becomes bad?

It depends on the ratio of how much bad is done to how much good is. It also depends on the nature of the organization. If it breeds the mentality that it's members are to blindly deny any malevolent side it has then yes,I think the organization becomes bad because refusing to acknowledge a problem is the same as actively helping a problem repeat or continue. Particularly if it has members powerful enough to have devasting effects on society.

For me personally,I don't know if Masonry as an institution is bad or good. To continue with the theme of separation I could make a judgement on Masons themselves pretty easy from what I've seen,but I haven't researched the doctines of Masonry itself. But it's the common denominator in enough events for me to believe there's more to it than is let on. And I've seen enough to think it can be manipulated with ease for sinister purposes because it's members seem virtually incapable of seeing any wrong amongst their own. So whether it's good in theory in not,in practice it has some rather serious issues.




[edit on 1-10-2005 by Loungerist]

Originally posted by Loungerist
The freemasons were the BEIC.

This where you and I part company (figuratively speaking). There is no evidence anywhere that this was at any time the case. Imagining that individuals with dual memberships of organisations somehow corporately links those organisations together tarnishes so many groups that I don't know where to begin.

Just because someone thinks something might have happened doesn't mean it did. After 250 years there is unlikely be suppporting evidence on way or the other.

...but I haven't researched the doctines of Masonry itself.

I strongly,strongly suggest that you do. You will find that there is no 'doctrine' of freemasonry, but a series af Aims which the organisation seeks to achieve. You will learn much by going back to the only sources that count - primary ones.

One of the biggest problems that the outside world has in understanding freemasonry is that its Aims do not gel with an increasingly cynical and suspicious world. I too am cynical and suspicious, but I do my homework enough to realise that not everything is.

Good luck.

Originally posted by Loungerist

For another,an organization is made up of individuals. It is a dubious semantic in my opinion to separate to such an extreme the concept of an organization on paper from the individuals that actually compose it. It's not only semantic,but also selectively applied. If a Mason does good Masons cite it as an example of how Masonry is a shining star of fellowship and love. But when a Mason does bad then the logic instantly switches and Masons say it's just individuals who just happen to be Masons. For that matter if a Mason does bad they're often said to not even be Masons period.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by Loungerist]

I don't think it's semantics at all. It's all has to do with understanding what the organization is about.

If a person lives up to and even surpasses what the organization is about, yes they will be (and should be) considered a shining example of what the organization is about. I don't care if it's Masonry or Baseball.

If a member goes against the beliefs and teachings of the organization, then they are just that...a member. Such a member would surely run the risk of being expelled, as they should be.

There are bad apples in every organization.

I am reading a book by freemasons that says that many things are done under freemasonry's name are wrong, and that this name has been taken advantage of for political gains and other gains. i would like to ask , if the greatest architecture the freemasons believe in is not God, as claimed by the book, then who is he?