Saville & satanic ritual abuse

porsche959

Absolam wrote: »

Are you saying the organisations are obsessive, or the people in the organisations are obsessive? How exactly do you arrive at the conclusion it's an obsession?

What I am saying is the obsession with ritual displayed by certain lay Catholic orders - apart from being, frankly, rather weird - is similar to the Freemasons.

Absolam wrote: »

Would you say the Catholic Church is more or less obsessed than Freemasonry with ritual and costumes? Does that make the Catholic Church quasi-masonic?

Well, strict hierarchy? Secrecy to protect members? Obsession with rules, regulations, ceremony, insiglia, robes and similar flummery?

Notice anything similar with the Masons? You tell me - you are one, presumably.

I have no horse in the race in some rather silly RCC vs Masonry bitchfight - I have no time for either organisation.

Brown Bomber

From a quick google it appears the Knights of Columba are basically a Vatican-friendly masonic(y) organisation but without the occult stuff.

According to a Knight of Columba. http://catholicknight.blogspot.se/2009/07/catholic-men-should-be-knights-not.html

Unfortunately, Freemasonry had a strong religious/occult element that challenged the Catholic Church's claim of absolute truth revealed through the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Because of this, Freemasonry was soundly condemned by the Catholic Church. In addition to that, the Church also had significant political problems with Freemasonry in Europe.

These things prohibited Catholic men from joining the Freemasons under penalty of excommunication. In the late 1800s, this put many Catholic men in the terrible situation of having to choose between the Church and the welfare of their families. The Venerable Father McGivney sought to create a Catholic men's organization that would allow men to pool their resources, talents and energies for the common good and for the sake of their families, but he sought to do so without the religious/occult element that earned Freemasonry the scorn of the Catholic Church.
So the Knights of Columbus was formed under the ancient precepts of medieval chivalry, paralleling in some ways the degree programs used by the Freemasons, but without the unchristian oaths and occult rituals. The Vatican prohibition against Freemasonry remains today, and the reasons for this are fully explained by Catholic apologist John Salza (learn more here). According to the New Code of Canon Law (1983), this prohibition remains in effect under penalty of interdict.

The Venerable Father McGivney initially authored three degrees though which the Knights of Columbus would receive their initiation into the order.

Absolam

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Just to confirm the satanic ritual abuse.

To be clear though, this is a report of a pedophile who reputedly organised 'satanic' sex sessions, but has no evidence of a link between him and Jimmy Saville? Actually, I'm finding it difficult to find a government or reputable news site with any information on the conviction of this guy as well....

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And absolam,
I am still waiting on your explanation of how Saville could die a free man of old age despite raping the young and the old, the living and the dead over decades upon decades and not only that be given access to Royalty, high security institutions such as Downing St., Broadmoor and Buckingham Palace if he wasn't being protected.

Well, to be honest I'm still waiting for any evidence that he was 'protected', as distinct from just using his influence to evade investigation? Like anybody as rich, famous and philanthropically active as he was, he had access to Royalty, high security institutions such as Downing St., Broadmoor and Buckingham Palace. What makes you think that access was a feature of 'protection' rather than fame and fortune?

Absolam

porsche959 wrote: »

What I am saying is the obsession with ritual displayed by certain lay Catholic orders - apart from being, frankly, rather weird - is similar to the Freemasons.

And what I was asking was how do you characterise it as 'obsessive'? Rather than say, utilitarian, or perfunctory?
Further, would the rituals in Catholic lay orders be more or less obsessive than in Catholic religious orders? Would the least of these be more or less obsessive than the rituals in a driving school?

porsche959 wrote: »

Well, strict hierarchy? Secrecy to protect members? Obsession with rules, regulations, ceremony, insiglia, robes and similar flummery?

Strict hierarchy, as in a structured set of roles, pretty much describes every organisation in existence. That said, the hierarchy in Freemasonry isn't that strict. Everybody pretty much gets to take a turn. So the RCC may be a little more strict on their heirarchy.
Secrecy to protect members, as in a data protection obligation not to disclose personal information, also applies to pretty much every organisation. In Freemasonry, any 'secrecy to protect members' beyond that is fairly optional; you can find lists of members on most Masonic websites and in the various Masonic calendars. Not sure about the RCC beyond it's legal obligations...
So from the points you've put forward almost every organisation might be considered quasi Masonic... and I really don't think the RCC (for one of many!) would agree.
Obsession with <...> flummery, probably best to table that one 'til you can explain your characterisation of obsession.

porsche959 wrote: »

Notice anything similar with the Masons? You tell me - you are one, presumably.

I notice the similarities you've specified can be applied to practically any structured organisation; an army, a school, a tennis club....

porsche959 wrote: »

I have no horse in the race in some rather silly RCC vs Masonry bitchfight - I have no time for either organisation.

That might be it then; if you took the time to observe either organisation, you might not be so struck with the similarities having observed the differences?

Absolam

Brown Bomber wrote: »

From a quick google it appears the Knights of Columba are basically a Vatican-friendly masonic(y) organisation but without the occult stuff.

I hardly think that one members opinion (who specifically states that he doesn't speak for the organisation) that the Knights of Columbus (who are not the same organisation by the way as the Knights of St Columba) are 'paralleling in some ways the degree programs used by the Freemasons' makes the Knights of Columbus (or the Knights of St Columba) even slightly Masonic, or Masonic(y).
Both organisations were founded (by non Masons) to be fraternal structures that were deliberately unMasonic (or antiMasonic if you're feeling a bit hyperbolic).
Whether or not they leave out the Vatican's 'occult stuff' I can't say, since I'm not a member.

porsche959

Absolam wrote: »

And what I was asking was how do you characterise it as 'obsessive'? Rather than say, utilitarian, or perfunctory?

Strict hierarchy, as in a structured set of roles, pretty much describes every organisation in existence.
Secrecy to protect members, as in a data protection obligation not to disclose personal information, also applies to pretty much every organisation.
Is every organisation quasi Masonic then?
Obsession with <...> flummery, probably best table that one 'til you can explain your characterisation of obsession.
I notice the similarities you've specified can be applied to practically any structured organisation; an army, a school, a tennis club....

That might be it then; if you took the time to observe the differences you might not be so struck with the similarities?

Lol.

A trifle defensive, no?

porsche959

Absolam wrote: »

I hardly think that one members opinion (who specifically states that he doesn't speak for the organisation) that the Knights of Columbus (who are not the same organisation by the way as the Knights of St Columba) are 'paralleling in some ways the degree programs used by the Freemasons' makes the Knights of Columbus (or the Knights of St Columba) even slightly Masonic, or Masonic(y).
Both organisations were founded (by non Masons) to be fraternal structures that were deliberately unMasonic (or antiMasonic if you're feeling a bit hyperbolic).
Whether or not they leave out the Vatican's 'occult stuff' I can't say, since I'm not a member.

Dearie me.

It might be in your own best interests, if you have information, to disclose it.

Not necessarily on here, but avenues are available, shall we say.

Absolam

porsche959 wrote: »

Lol. A trifle defensive, no?

I'm not sure, which part did you think was defending what exactly?

porsche959 wrote: »

It might be in your own best interests, if you have information, to disclose it.

How so, do you think?

porsche959

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not sure, which part did you think was defending what exactly?

I would have thought that it's reasonably clear.

I came into the thread with a more or less neutral voice as regards the Freemasons, but I'm sorry to say that every single thing you've said has made me more and more suspicious.

Absolam wrote: »

How so, do you think?

Again, I would have thought that it's reasonably clear.

If you wish to disclose things, there may very well be people I can put you in contact with if you wish to blow a whistle.

And if you don't - well, then - that, also is your free choice.

I am not going to be engaging with you again on the forum. If you wish to chat, send me a PM.

Absolam

porsche959 wrote: »

I would have thought that it's reasonably clear.

That's great, it should be easy to point out then?

porsche959 wrote: »

I came into the thread with a more or less neutral voice as regards the Freemasons, but I'm sorry to say that every single thing you've said has made me more and more suspicious.

That's quite interesting. Is there a particular thing I've said that made you suspicious?

porsche959 wrote: »

Again, I would have thought that it's reasonably clear. If you wish to disclose things, there may very well be people I can put you in contact with if you wish to blow a whistle. And if you don't - well, then - that, also is your free choice. I am not going to be engaging with you again on the forum. If you wish to chat, send me a PM.

It seems reasonably clear that you think (for an undisclosed reason) that there is 'something' I might want to blow a whistle on, and that if I don't do so it must be because I choose not to rather than I have no reason to. I'll admit, I'm fascinated as to what you imagine that murky little 'something' to be! Not fascinated enough to PM you though, sorry

Harold Weiss

Absolam wrote: »

I think that's another fib! I don't think you can quote a Mason on this forum defending pedophilia among Masons. Shocking that someone would resort to lies in order to smear an organisation they claim they want to join.

Why would I want to join a group that covers up pedophilia and its members strenuously defend pedophiles?

Oh, that sounds like another porkie pie! Can you show us where a Mason has trivialised the abuse of children? I'm getting the impression that you'll bend the truth about anything at all, even the serious subject of child abuse, just so you can make a dig at Freemasons.

There's conclusive evidence Jimmy Savile was protected by powerful people in society yet you want to deny this, why?

Over a 50 year career, where almost everyone in the land knew he was abusing children, yet you don't think that's the least bit strange, do you?

Explain to me how he got away for so long? (won't hold my breath, just expecting more flippant responses)

You seem quite conflicted on this subject Harold?

You're adamant no pedophiles exist within the Freemasons despite the overwhelming evidence available. Borderline delusional.

Harold Weiss

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And absolam,

I am still waiting on your explanation of how Saville could die a free man of old age despite raping the young and the old, the living and the dead over decades upon decades and not only that be given access to Royalty, high security institutions such as Downing St., Broadmoor and Buckingham Palace if he wasn't being protected.

He's never going to answer this question honestly so he just avoids answering altogether.

Absolam

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Why would I want to join a group that covers up pedophilia and its members strenuously defend pedophiles?

Was that not you who said:

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Absolam, I want to join the Freemasons, how can I join? Where do I apply for membership?

While you're thinking about your answer why don't you:
1) Quote a Mason on this forum defending pedophilia among Masons as you claimed.
2) Provide evidence for your allegation that Freemasonry is a group that covers up pedophilia.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

There's conclusive evidence Jimmy Savile was protected by powerful people in society yet you want to deny this, why?

I'm going to do what I've done all along; ask you to show this 'conclusive evidence' so that I can agree with it. So far all you've provided is conjecture and outright lies, which I really have to deny are 'conclusive evidence'.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Over a 50 year career, where almost everyone in the land knew he was abusing children, yet you don't think that's the least bit strange, do you?

So you're saying almost everybody in the land knew he was abusing children. Really? What did you do about it? Or were you one of minority who didn't know?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Explain to me how he got away for so long? (won't hold my breath, just expecting more flippant responses)

Well let's start with almost everybody probably didn't know, shall we? Then let's move on to the first reply I gave you:
Perhaps there was an unwillingless amongst those who suspected to cast allegations without proof?
Then the next point:
Perhaps there was never sufficient evidence presented to convince the DPP that they could successfully prosecute such a famous philanthropist without risking their careers.
Then I think I said:
I've no doubt (and certainly no proof) that Saville had tremendous influence in British society and used that influence to deflect enquiries from his foul activities.
The sum of these points, in my opinion, is a more likely explanation than it's 'Cognitive Dissonance', 'Freemasons covered up child abuse' and of course 'Freemasons always involved in some kind of criminality'.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

You're adamant no pedophiles exist within the Freemasons despite the overwhelming evidence available. Borderline delusional.

I never said no pedophiles exist within the Freemasons, never mind adamantly. I note you've mentioned overwhelming evidence; you'll be providing that evidence for us then? It's delusional to think I'm not going to call you out when you claim I said something I haven't and continually refer to 'evidence' that you won't present.

Absolam

Harold Weiss wrote: »

He's never going to answer this question honestly so he just avoids answering altogether.

Dear me.
Post 172
Post 174
Post 186
Post 206
Post 214
Wherein I set forth my opinion on how Saville did not necessarily require (or avail of) 'protection' to avoid prosecution until he died.

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

I was already being nice and ignoring the fact that you made a statement as if it were your own then attributed it by means of of a hyperlink at the end;

As it was in another thread I cant see why you need to bring it up here.
An honest mistake you will notice I corrected without being prompted.
And until I corrected it you were none the wiser or you would have said .
So patting yourself on the back for being nice is a bit facetious.

if you're intent on ignoring things like quotation marks, and full stops between sentences, you can hardly chastise me for thinking you don't distinguish between plural and singular, particularly when you used the word 'him' between 'men' and 'freemasons' instead of 'them' (which you've so kindly corrected since).[/QUOTE


Sadly you are correct my writing skills are piss poor and why a lot of my posts would be copy and paste
again something you would have ascertained from our previous exchanges
If it makes you feel better to resort to ridicule me for it carry on
( you notice my word power and spelling have improved greatly)gotta love spell check

To your apparent point then; in 'this instance' there has been no evidence presented that there were any Freemasons in his social circles, I merely said it was unlikely that there were none.

So if you think its unlikely they were none
So the ones that were likely in his social circle done nothing to stop him or covered for him

If you consider their (theoretical) failure to act against Saville an epic failure then you're admitting that Freemasonry does endeavor to make good men better, which is good enough for me.

Im admitting nothing Its only a failure if that was the true intent
you notice I followed with maybe they take good men and make them good freemasons

Absolam

enno99 wrote: »

As it was in another thread I cant see why you need to bring it up here.

Actually, it was this thread; Post # 188

enno99 wrote: »

An honest mistake you will notice I corrected without being prompted. And until I corrected it you were none the wiser or you would have said . So patting yourself on the back for being nice is a bit facetious.

I had no intention of pointing it out all until you decided to attack my comprehension of your post, to which it was only fair to point out the incomprehensibility of your post in the first place.

enno99 wrote: »

Sadly you are correct my writing skills are piss poor and why a lot of my posts would be copy and paste
again something you would have ascertained from our previous exchanges
If it makes you feel better to resort to ridicule me for it carry on
( you notice my word power and spelling have improved greatly)gotta love spell check

As above; you can hardly take umbrage at being misunderstood if you haven't made the effort to be understood.

enno99 wrote: »

So if you think its unlikely they were none
So the ones that were likely in his social circle done nothing to stop him or covered for him

Given that these are entirely fictional individuals, I'm much more inclined to say they almost certainly acted as proper Masons should and reported what they observed to the authorities, who chose not to take action as they had insufficient evidence.

enno99 wrote: »

Im admitting nothing Its only a failure if that was the true intent you notice I followed with maybe they take good men and make them good freemasons

Since a good Freemason is a good man, it works either way.

Brown Bomber

Absolam wrote: »

To be clear though, this is a report of a pedophile who reputedly organised 'satanic' sex sessions, but has no evidence of a link between him and Jimmy Saville? ?

Other than Smith and Saville being close friends right?

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, I'm finding it difficult to find a government or reputable news site with any information on the conviction of this guy as well.... ?

And what? This man is making up being raped repeatedly by his own step father?

Absolam wrote: »

Well, to be honest I'm still waiting for any evidence that he was 'protected', as distinct from just using his influence to evade investigation? Like anybody as rich, famous and philanthropically active as he was, he had access to Royalty, high security institutions such as Downing St., Broadmoor and Buckingham Palace. What makes you think that access was a feature of 'protection' rather than fame and fortune?

Really?

Name another who was able to smuggle young girls into Buckingham Palace. Could swan around Broadmoor fraternising with serial killers and and had his own keys and private bedroom to a hospital.

Brown Bomber

Absolam wrote: »

Since a good Freemason is a good man, it works either way.

A matter of opinion, surely?

Brown Bomber

Absolam wrote: »

Dear me.
Post 172
Post 174
Post 186
Post 206
Post 214
Wherein I set forth my opinion on how Saville did not necessarily require (or avail of) 'protection' to avoid prosecution until he died.

You are shifting the goalposts, it wasn't so long ago that you wouldn't accept as fact that Saville was guilty of anything.

I don't have time to read all that. Could you please just explain briefly why it is more likely that Saville wasn't protected.

Absolam

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Other than Smith and Saville being close friends right?

So a friend of a friend? Since we don't know how 'close' Saville was to Smith, and we don't know what connection Smith had to Horgan; we only have one persons account in all of this. You've been down this friend of a friend route before and it holds no more water than it did before...

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And what? This man is making up being raped repeatedly by his own step father?

And I'm finding it difficult to find a government or reputable news site with any information on the conviction of his step father. Simply that; I'd be less dubious of the story if I could find references to it outside of hysterical anti-pedo sites and articles.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really? Name another who was able to smuggle young girls into Buckingham Palace. Could swan around Broadmoor fraternising with serial killers and and had his own keys and private bedroom to a hospital.

How do any of those things demonstrate that he was 'protected' rather than using his own influence?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A matter of opinion, surely?

Absolutely. But since the only people generally in a position to judge if a Freemason is a good Freemason are Freemasons, I'm afraid you're stuck with our opinion :-)

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are shifting the goalposts, it wasn't so long ago that you wouldn't accept as fact that Saville was guilty of anything.

I'm not; the contention you made quite specifically was I am still waiting on your explanation of how Saville could die a free man of old age despite raping the young and the old, the living and the dead over decades upon decades and not only that be given access to Royalty, high security institutions such as Downing St., Broadmoor and Buckingham Palace if he wasn't being protected.
If you're now looking to shift to whether or not Saville was guilty of anything, then you are the one shifting the goalposts.
As an aside, I have never said I wouldn't accept as fact that Saville was guilty of anything, nor have I said I didn't believe he was guilty of anything. I quite specifically said that he was never convicted of any sex crime.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't have time to read all that. Could you please just explain briefly why it is more likely that Saville wasn't protected.

I'm afraid the amount of time you have isn't really anything to do with me. However, I'm sure you read the posts as the thread progressed anyway.

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, it was this thread; Post # 188

WTF

So you thought I was making myself out to be someone who had a 3 hour tete a tete with a masonic sponsor
words fail me at the best of times ( as you are aware)but that has me totally flummoxed





Now if the post below was the reason for your generosity it would make perfect sense. ( although its copied and pasted it looks a bit
harum-scarum like mine)
As I did edit the post to insert the link and its clearly stated there.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91017513&postcount=1991

Anyway this is how good men are treated by their fellow masons when they wont tow the line

A few months ago, I was instructed by my Lodge to prefer charges against a Brother who had been charged by the State in a court of law with "Sexual Exploitation of a Child" for having had sex with a girl 16 years of age. A second charge of "Sexual Exploitation of a Child" for the act of possessing a videotape of the act was dropped

http://burningtaper.blogspot.ie/2006/03/small-town-freemasonry-part-three-day.html

A fellow mason in the comments section

Alabama-Free-MasonFriday, March 31, 2006 5:01:00 PM

Glad to hear you stood your ground. What this incident tells the world is this; Masonry today ain't the Masonry it was or is suppose to be. The "unworthy" have filled the TEmples and the system is rank with dishonorable "men" claiming to be Masons.

May real Masonry take hold and shut the doors in the streets!


Small Town Freemasonry — Part 4: Masonic Coverups, Collusion and Cronyism

Absolam

enno99 wrote: »

WTF So you thought I was making myself out to be someone who had a 3 hour tete a tete with a masonic sponsor
words fail me at the best of times ( as you are aware)but that has me totally flummoxed

Are you still disputing the fact that your post was in this thread, or are you now saying that when you started your post with 'I recall sitting with' that it should have been obvious that you were relating someone else's experience?

enno99 wrote: »

Now if the post below was the reason for your generosity it would make perfect sense. ( although its copied and pasted it looks a bit harum-scarum like mine) As I did edit the post to insert the link and its clearly stated there.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're trying to say?

enno99 wrote: »

Anyway this is how good men are treated by their fellow masons when they wont tow the line

Are you saying they shouldn't have expelled the Mason who was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child? I know it doesn't fit the narrative of 'evil Freemasons', but objectively surely you can admit it was the right thing to do?

enno99 wrote: »

A fellow mason in the comments section
Alabama-Free-MasonFriday, March 31, 2006 5:01:00 PM
Glad to hear you stood your ground. What this incident tells the world is this; Masonry today ain't the Masonry it was or is suppose to be. The "unworthy" have filled the TEmples and the system is rank with dishonorable "men" claiming to be Masons. May real Masonry take hold and shut the doors in the streets!

I quite liked the 2nd comment myself;
"Obviously these men, the accused and his father, have no understanding of what Freemasonry is to be about. "
Thanks for the blog link, it's really interesting. American Freemasonry can be quite different from Irish Freemasonry, and it's always entertaining to read more about it.

enno99

Send me on my anti _masonic badge you just made my mind up

Absolam

enno99 wrote: »

Send me on my anti _masonic badge you just made my mind up

Really? And there's me thinking you made your mind up four years ago...

weisses

Could be interesting in the discussion here

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/06/child-abuse-coverup-1980s-lord-tebbit

Norman Tebbit, who served in a series of ministerial posts under Margaret Thatcher, said the instinct of people at the time was to protect "the system" and not to delve too deeply into uncomfortable allegations.

enno99

WARNING
discussion of snuff film

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeAc6UwfOuM

enno99

Police did nothing to identify victim of child abuse ‘snuff film’

http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/uk-child-abusers-named-and-shamed/britains-abuse-shame-world-child-sex-trafficking-second-only-to-vietnam/police-did-nothing-to-track-down-victim-of-child-abuse-snuff-film/

BumbleB

Its really horrible when these so called theories come true.

BumbleB

Daithi 1

Up to 1,400 children 'raped by large numbers of men' and 'doused in petrol' in UK town

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/up-to-1400-children-raped-by-large-numbers-of-men-and-doused-in-petrol-in-uk-town-640234.html