Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Freemasons: Evil secret society or misunderstood nice guys...

Options
1…1213141517

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Absolam wrote: »
    So, who would maintain such a register? Who would have access to it? Who would pay for it?

    the body to which they are elected or appointed. the same body. anyone who it might affect.
    No a large number of people were involved in those scandals, some of whom were Masons. A belief that some of a group are responsible for some problems in society is not a good enough reason for oppression; back to the Nazi philosophy again.
    Nope.
    http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/true_blue.html

    Since the Metropolitan Police was founded in 1829 there have been two complete reorganizations of its detective department. Both were provoked by massive corruption scandals leading to criminal trials exactly one hundred years apart, in 1877 and 1977. In each scandal Freemasonry played a dominant role.
    [endquote]
    You're the one who's demanding Freemasons be more 'open'.

    Only about their membership when it is involved in public money and not about their rituals.

    You're suggesting we filter homosexuals anarchists and communists, or all religious beliefs?


    Nope . just wondering whether you would have a particular view on any of the groups mentioned. and you did. anarchists - which suggests an authoritarian element.

    would you do me a favour? Ill give you a quiz of twenty questions and you answer them. After you do Ill reveal all the things being measured by it. You can even administer it to your mason friends. After that we can discuss whether you suspect I have nazi tendencies. How does that sound? There are no trick anti mason questions I guarantee you. It is just a quiz created by a psychologist (ill even show you the book it comes from). Individually it means nothing but you could give ot to say twenty mason friends and see what the average group score was. that would be a valid measure compared to the "normal" (in the statistical sense) population.
    Ah so you think people shouldn't organise themselves to protect their civil liberties? Or just Freemasons shouldn't?

    If you feel you should then fair enough . Just that people that don't like the poor and the sick and the handicapped don;t get such support. It bothers me that rich or organised people should have the ear of authority.
    Again, who would maintain such a register? Who would police it? Who would have access to it? Who would pay for it?

    answered above. It wouldn't cost much at all. But suppose i pay for it and get a closed order sf silent monks to maintain it? forget about implementation principle is the issue here!
    If it would not matter if you havent declared membership,how could you then find out that their membership affected a decision?

    One doesn't have to. If all of fianna Fail vote one way and all of Fine Gael another it is quite reasonable to expect that their membership of their respective parties had influence on how they voted!

    Since it didn't matter that they hadn't declared their membership, they probably wouldn't have done it.

    It doesn't matter to people if you are required to list your membership of a football club and you forget to do so. If you are on the local council or involved in a local construction firm and the club later has the land rezoned and sells it to the construction firm than the fact that you neglected to do what was required DOES matter.
    I'm talking about the guys in the IFA who are kind of easy going... obviously all the SIPTU guys would declare their membership... unless they didn't. Which as you said, wouldn't matter, unless SIPTU were caught all on the same committee. But if some of them hadn't declared it then they wouldn't be. Hmmm.

    Quite clearly nobody is usually going to check your membership untill they suspect collusion. there might always be random checks however. If someone was found to be a GAA member and didn't declare it Im sure noboday would care. Unless of course the GAA got a 400 million grant and he was on the awarding committee.

    Neglecting to declare you were in the masons would not matter until several masons are seen to all vote the same way and non masons another way. At that time they would be called to explain their omission. if they cant then they would be sacked or unseated.

    What if only half of them declared their membership because they were told it would not matter if you havent declared membership?

    Then you couldn't sack or unseat the half that declared.
    And every other organisation. And their family connections. Don't forget...


    not entirely every but any who get public money or influence public debate.
    In the public interest is a remarkably ambiguous concept.

    funny because from the outset I have stated "out of the public purse" or other measures directly affecting the public such as police control of public access or order or the regulation of public interest e.g. licencing of trades professions or sports and pasttimes.
    Tabloids have a different definition entirely,

    So what? I offered mine. I don't indulge in tabliod "public interest" they usually mean what they think the public should be interested in. The public are indeed interested in sordit tales which are not in the public interest at all. what a soccer player or golfer gets up to in his private life is not of any public interest unless it causes a public cost in money or in an car accident or drug overdose.
    does that mean that anyone who ever received the dole should provide a list of everyone who enters his house to the public, and tell everyone what they did whilst they were there?
    No nor that anyone getting a public salary every week should have to say what they spent it on. What they do with their weekly money is their own business If their job involves actually allocating public money then their membership of the masons should be declared.
    Why should we all know that?

    Transparency. We should know whether any money or authority of any public official is linked to any other activities he has outside work.
    They are registered as members of their parties; that registration information is simply not open to the general public.

    The actual details of their address etc. or phone number shouldn't have to be. their membership of organisations should.
    Maybe the names of higher members should also be? Ie the high ranks should be shown as that.
    So not interesting to the public, or not paid for out of the public purse? Should I be entitled to know what that chap who's collecting the dole is spending the money on?

    No. But how much he is getting yes. and if he is also getting grant money from the styate you should know what for.
    Or what he's watching on tv?

    No but if the state paid his licence and bought him a TV you should know that yes.
    Freemasonrys' members are not engaged in making decisions about 'them' (per your context) or public budgets. There are individuals who make decisions about 'them' and about public budgets, who may also be members of the Freemasons. Making the distinction is what makes the difference between democracy, and Nazism.

    Being transparent is what is the difference between democracy and "secret statism"
    No, but the OPW as a publicly accountable body is responsible for justifying its' spending decisions. Maybe you should ask for a list of all their members?

    Which under law I can get . it is called the state directory.
    So it doesn't matter who met up on Friday night unless they were Masons. Bias? Victimisation maybe? Transparency with public money and decisions are the responsibility of the public bodies, not private clubs.

    Exactly my point! thank you for making it.

    The bueaucratic management systems who wouldn't tell you about their toilets are distinctly different from the Freemasons at a very fundamental level; they are part of a public organisation. Freemasonry is a private organisation. And people don't need to know whether any members are involved in powerful cliques, just some people want to believe members are involved in powerful cliques.

    If all the members of a political party was in a lodge it would be a cause for concern. Some parties up north for example make a particular emphasis of showing how close they are to the Orange Order. iT isn't up to YOU to decide whether or not people "need to know" just provide the information and people can decide for themselves whether they need to know politicians police or civil servants are in Lodges. and if they need to know they can open to book and look at all the clubs of which you are a member.
    There's a big difference, and regardless, it's not what Freemasonry is about. Seriously, just take a look at PaintDoctors post!

    It isn't what cricket is about either. I was once on a recreational staff cricket team in an Irish university. that University had about 30 members on the governing authority and five elected and appointed officers. the were six members of the governing authority on he Team. there were in addition several members of the academic council and two faculty deans (out of eight). I quite happily informed people of this but if a particular decision was made and all of us at all the different levels supported it then people could make allegations of a "firm within a firm" type goings on just as happened tat Scotland Yard in Relation to the Masons. But the main point is that our membership wasnt secret . We played cricket in public and people knew that several of us were officers or deans.
    Saying that something 'is in the public good' doesn't make it so, which is why I asked how and why.
    And which is why I explained what i meant when I first used the term!
    Saying that something 'is in the public good' doesn't mean the public have a right to know it either, since the right must be conferred by the State.

    The state IS the people!

    http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Youth_Zone/About_the_Constitution,_Flag,_Anthem_Harp/Constitution_of_Ireland_Eng_Nov2004.htm

    Article 6

    1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.


    I really think you should do that quiz. I think the results would be interesting.
    any interest?
    You can even keep your score secret if you want to.
    The fact that you're interested in something does not mean it is in the public good, nor that you have a right to know it.

    correct! What the public may be interest in ( tabloid sleeze) and what is in the public interest ( collusion, subversion and misappropriation of funds) are DIFFIDENT things!
    So, how is it for the public good that you should know who assembled in a particular place at a particular time?

    Asked and answered.
    Actually Article 40.6 of the Constitution gives 'The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms'. It also gives 'The right of the citizens to form associations and unions'.

    Yes but not "secret" unions where state money is used or state apparatus makes decisions in their favour. And the only way people know that such organisations are not doing such a thing is to make the membership visible.
    Worth noting that these are rights provided under the constitution. Unlike the 'right' to know who's in a club because you think it's in the public interest, which doesn't seem to be there.
    Article 6 remember....
    the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.
    So, you can ask your TD to bring it before the Daíl for debate. You can go to the European Court of Human Rights and make your case. I'm still interested in knowing what compelling argument you would put forward for being given the privilege of knowing the identities of leaders (ringleaders? terrorists?) when a group of people exercises their right to assembly.

    I already told you. they don't even have to assemble. they might be in a internet ring but people would like to know if that are. If you work for the state and you send emails to ten people about something such a s a public contract or an upcoming decision that could be used as evidence in a case. why when you go home and send the same information to the same "club" of ten people should that be private? People don't want to know what everyone discussed. People want to know if there are "groups" of any sort which meet and the members of them then go off and make decisions without anyone ever knowing that the before met about that subject or even discussed it or even had any knowledge or contact with someone else deciding on the same issue.


  • Options
    #483
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    ISAW wrote: »
    the body to which they are elected or appointed. the same body. anyone who it might affect.
    So every publicly funded body would be required to maintain a separate register of members interests, to pay for it, and to make that register available to the general public? Do you have any concept of the cost of such an undertaking? How much extra tax would you personally be prepared to pay for it? And do you imagine for a moment there would be any support from the electorate for such profligacy in government?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Nope.
    http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/true_blue.html

    Since the Metropolitan Police was founded in 1829 there have been two complete reorganizations of its detective department. Both were provoked by massive corruption scandals leading to criminal trials exactly one hundred years apart, in 1877 and 1977. In each scandal Freemasonry played a dominant role.
    [endquote].
    You don't actually think an anti-Masonic website counts as an unbiased view of Freemasonry do you?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Only about their membership when it is involved in public money and not about their rituals.
    Sorry wasn't this you earlier in the thread?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Originally Posted by Absolam ISAW, what does it matter what level Mason PaintDoctor is?
    If it isn't a secret society that information should be available for me. I shouldn't have to give a reason for what it matters to me or why I want it
    And you are saying higher level masons take no additional oaths with no additional secrets?
    Are you a mason? What level? How many levels are there?
    Why are you so secretive about your level?
    way won't you answer if it isn't a secret?
    what matters is whether people answer and supply hnest answers and have a open and not a secret society as they claim
    None of the above relates to people in public positions who may be Freemasons, it all relates to your own desperate paranoia that people are keeping things from you that you think you should know.

    ISAW wrote: »
    Nope . just wondering whether you would have a particular view on any of the groups mentioned. and you did. anarchists - which suggests an authoritarian element.
    Actually I didn't offer a view on anarchists, other than that by definition they're not inclined to join organisations, by virtue of being anarchists you understand, rather than being prevented by 'authoritarian elements'.
    ISAW wrote: »
    would you do me a favour? Ill give you a quiz of twenty questions and you answer them. After you do Ill reveal all the things being measured by it. You can even administer it to your mason friends. After that we can discuss whether you suspect I have nazi tendencies. How does that sound? There are no trick anti mason questions I guarantee you. It is just a quiz created by a psychologist (ill even show you the book it comes from). Individually it means nothing but you could give ot to say twenty mason friends and see what the average group score was. that would be a valid measure compared to the "normal" (in the statistical sense) population.
    Should I do you a favour? You've attacked me, my friends, the organisation I enjoy. Should I then ask members of that organisation to humour you?
    ISAW wrote: »
    If you feel you should then fair enough . Just that people that don't like the poor and the sick and the handicapped don;t get such support. It bothers me that rich or organised people should have the ear of authority.
    How about we only get poor sick and handicapped Freemasons to protect our civil liberties? And if you're wondering where the poor, sick and handicapped can get support you might do well to look to the Freemasons, since one of our primary goals is to help the needy, and, whilst you won't find it on anti-Masonic websites, each Lodge takes great pride in the money it raises for charity each year.
    ISAW wrote: »
    answered above. It wouldn't cost much at all. But suppose i pay for it and get a closed order sf silent monks to maintain it? forget about implementation principle is the issue here!.
    That's simply naive; what you've proposed would cost billions. And if you're a billionaire, then off you go and spend your money. I'd suggest you charge every one who wants to see it, and see how long it takes to get your money back.
    ISAW wrote: »
    One doesn't have to. If all of fianna Fail vote one way and all of Fine Gael another it is quite reasonable to expect that their membership of their respective parties had influence on how they voted!
    But if they didn't all declare which party they were in (you said it would not matter if you havent declared membership unless it was found out that ther were a number of masons/IFA members/ SIPTU members on the same committee deciding on a particular issue) you'd never know if the parties influenced the vote or not. Short of asking the parties directly of course. Which would seem sensible.
    ISAW wrote: »
    It doesn't matter to people if you are required to list your membership of a football club and you forget to do so. If you are on the local council or involved in a local construction firm and the club later has the land rezoned and sells it to the construction firm than the fact that you neglected to do what was required DOES matter.
    So registration only becomes a requirement once someone becomes suspicious about something? Like a conspiracy theorist? Effectively nobody is required to register, but if investigated having failed to register makes you immediately guilty of not registering. Genius.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Quite clearly nobody is usually going to check your membership untill they suspect collusion. there might always be random checks however. If someone was found to be a GAA member and didn't declare it Im sure noboday would care. Unless of course the GAA got a 400 million grant and he was on the awarding committee. Neglecting to declare you were in the masons would not matter until several masons are seen to all vote the same way and non masons another way. At that time they would be called to explain their omission. if they cant then they would be sacked or unseated.
    So along with managing registration and dissemination, you'll be needing some statistical analysts. Those billions are going to run dry pretty quickly...
    ISAW wrote: »
    Then you couldn't sack or unseat the half that declared.
    So non declaration is a sacking office not collusion? You only have to be suspected, and by virtue of not declaring yourself a Jew Mason you can be sacked?
    ISAW wrote: »
    not entirely every but any who get public money or influence public debate.
    Actually you said
    ISAW wrote: »
    People who make decisions affecting the public should have to declare any clubs or societies of which they are a member. they should have to do so once a year. they should also list any business interests of direct family.
    ISAW wrote: »
    funny because from the outset I have stated "out of the public purse" or other measures directly affecting the public such as police control of public access or order or the regulation of public interest e.g. licencing of trades professions or sports and pasttimes. So what? I offered mine. I don't indulge in tabliod "public interest" they usually mean what they think the public should be interested in. The public are indeed interested in sordit tales which are not in the public interest at all. what a soccer player or golfer gets up to in his private life is not of any public interest unless it causes a public cost in money or in an car accident or drug overdose..
    I think you really mean that what interests you is what is in the public interest. And it annoys you that people don't feel obligated to tell you wahtever you demand simply because you demand it.
    ISAW wrote: »
    No nor that anyone getting a public salary every week should have to say what they spent it on. What they do with their weekly money is their own business If their job involves actually allocating public money then their membership of the masons should be declared.
    So if someone is a Mason and spends public money they must declare it, but anyone else is fine.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Transparency. We should know whether any money or authority of any public official is linked to any other activities he has outside work.
    But you're not holding the public bodies responsible for what you think they should give you; you're trying to make private bodies responsible.
    ISAW wrote: »
    No. But how much he is getting yes. and if he is also getting grant money from the styate you should know what for.
    No but if the state paid his licence and bought him a TV you should know that yes.
    But not from him; the State is responsible for justifying its' spending decisions to the public.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Being transparent is what is the difference between democracy and "secret statism"
    So your argument is with the democracy in which you reside, not the Masonic Order.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Which under law I can get . it is called the state directory.
    Because it's a public, and publicly accountable, body. Not a private one.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Exactly my point! thank you for making it.
    Indeed, you could have plainly said from the outset that your purpose is to victimise people.
    ISAW wrote: »
    If all the members of a political party was in a lodge it would be a cause for concern. Some parties up north for example make a particular emphasis of showing how close they are to the Orange Order. iT isn't up to YOU to decide whether or not people "need to know" just provide the information and people can decide for themselves whether they need to know politicians police or civil servants are in Lodges. and if they need to know they can open to book and look at all the clubs of which you are a member.
    Nor is it up to YOU to decide someone should be victimised. Luckily most modern democracies won't marginalise a group just because someone believes that members of the group might be involved in powerful cliques.
    ISAW wrote: »
    It isn't what cricket is about either. I was once on a recreational staff cricket team in an Irish university. that University had about 30 members on the governing authority and five elected and appointed officers. the were six members of the governing authority on he Team. there were in addition several members of the academic council and two faculty deans (out of eight). I quite happily informed people of this but if a particular decision was made and all of us at all the different levels supported it then people could make allegations of a "firm within a firm" type goings on just as happened tat Scotland Yard in Relation to the Masons. But the main point is that our membership wasnt secret . We played cricket in public and people knew that several of us were officers or deans.
    Cricket is a public sport; are you saying it would be different if cricket were played in private? And even though I'm repeating myself again, our membership isn't secret. Just private for those members who wish it to be.
    ISAW wrote: »
    The state IS the people! http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Youth_Zone/About_the_Constitution,_Flag,_Anthem_Harp/Constitution_of_Ireland_Eng_Nov2004.htm.
    Actually, the powers of the State derive from the people. That doesn't mean that if some, or even most, of the people desire a right, that the State will, or should, confer it.
    ISAW wrote: »
    correct! What the public may be interest in ( tabloid sleeze) and what is in the public interest ( collusion, subversion and misappropriation of funds) are DIFFIDENT things!
    They're different things; and whilst it's certainly in the public interest to be aware of collusion, subversion and misappropriation of funds in the State apparatus, there is no indication that such an awareness would be facilitated by stomping on peoples civil liberties as you suggest.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Asked and answered.
    Not by a long chalk...
    ISAW wrote: »
    Yes but not "secret" unions where state money is used or state apparatus makes decisions in their favour. And the only way people know that such organisations are not doing such a thing is to make the membership visible.
    So SIPTU must make its' membership list public, or it's a 'secret' union? The state apparatus makes decisions both in its' favour and against it, but again, it's up to the State to justify its' spending decisions to the public, not SIPTU.
    Anyway, the constitution does not prohibit 'secret' unions.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Article 6 remember....
    the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.
    Indeed the people in final appeal decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good. The means is a referendum or plebistice. Do you think you could carry a referendum to amend civil rights based on your arguments here? I'm quite certain you couldn't.

    ISAW wrote: »
    If you work for the state and you send emails to ten people about something such a s a public contract or an upcoming decision that could be used as evidence in a case. why when you go home and send the same information to the same "club" of ten people should that be private?.
    Because one is the action of a civil servant and the other is the action of a private citizen. Are you now proposing that the contents of all emails should be available to everyone? Or is it just the contents of all emails by Freemasons?
    ISAW wrote: »
    People don't want to know what everyone discussed. People want to know if there are "groups" of any sort which meet and the members of them then go off and make decisions without anyone ever knowing that the before met about that subject or even discussed it or even had any knowledge or contact with someone else deciding on the same issue.
    Yes. Those people are called conspiracy theorists.


  • Options
    #484
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    freemasons in britain,there are 350,000 freemasons in britain,if you get to a 33rd degree like gorden brown or tony blair, you are in the running to be a cabinate minister,or bilderberger. bilderbergers are higher international more exclusive level of freemasonry only 140 strong, every prime minister since edward heath has been a bilderberger, and have control of the conservative party since the late 1960s, freemasonary has four main levals, the illuminati,just 13 families, the 140 bilderbergers,350,000 ordinary freemasons,4000, common purpose graduate leaders,all four levals are instructed to vote together if they are members of a cabinate,local council, committee or any other body where there is a vote that affects their agenda,nearly all british judges and lawlords are freemasons, so are most barristers, many cases of law that are taken to the courts,have already been judged behind closed doors,


  • Options
    #485
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Yes indeed Getz, Gordon Brown & Tony Blair are 33rd degree Masons, the Bilderbergers are part of the Masons, the Illuminati exist, lizardmen rule the world, and your name is Jim Corr. All these things must be true. But then, people like me exist only to deny the truth don't we :D


  • Options
    #486
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Absolam wrote: »
    So every publicly funded body would be required to maintain a separate register of members interests, to pay for it, and to make that register available to the general public?

    No, the bodies getting the money dont have to the bodies givine the money should. Any body responsible for giving out funds or making decisions on them e.g a council, a government department. Should have a register of all bodies to which they gave money and any employees of thees bodies should also put their membership of any clubs on that register.
    Do you have any concept of the cost of such an undertaking?

    It would be minimal. any funding approvals and any new employees would add to the register as a matter of course and an annual poll of each employee would also add or remove any memberships. They could even update it themselves as they join or leave any clubs.
    How much extra tax would you personally be prepared to pay for it?

    It could be part of the "information and data officer" in each councils job. It would involve a design of a single web form and the whole thing could br centralised by and catalogued department and council and activity and easily searched through. with modern data collection techniques the administration would be minimal. and a public register could even conceal personal data such as name and address but people would be able to see how many people in what clubs are in any department or council or the gardai.
    And do you imagine for a moment there would be any support from the electorate for such profligacy in government?

    I do. I think if the names and addresses of people can be kept then no secrecy or invasion of privacy can be claimed. No more than people should know how many of each pay grade there are in each department and how much they get paid.
    You don't actually think an anti-Masonic website counts as an unbiased view of Freemasonry do you?

    You deny the restructuring of scotland Yard due to these Masons activities happened?
    You deny that they met in Lodges and their relationship was facilitated by their being masons?

    It isn't a question of bias it is a question of whether the historical data is valid and accurate. You can go through the names and see for yourself. If you find any of them were not masons feel free to tell me.
    Sorry wasn't this you earlier in the thread?

    Yes. But that was about knowing what level or degree a person was. Not about what rituals they conducted. I only want to know about who senoir masons are when they are involved in something but The other issue since then is that the public shuld be entitles to know about memberships and I duid say there is an argument even more about knowing particularly high ranking members.
    None of the above relates to people in public positions who may be Freemasons, it all relates to your own desperate paranoia that people are keeping things from you that you think you should know.

    Yes and i read up on the subject since then and i got no help from any masons on finding that information. But I never claimed that knowing such secrets should be law. In fact I pointed out that like my personal curiosity that "what the public are interested in " about peoples personal life should not be law wheras "public interest" i.e. out of the public purse should be.
    Actually I didn't offer a view on anarchists, other than that by definition they're not inclined to join organisations, by virtue of being anarchists you understand, rather than being prevented by 'authoritarian elements'.

    anarchists can be organised they just don't believe in leaders and authorities and telling people what to do. You know ? Like sending a letter to all lodges telling them it is okay by them not to mention you are a police man and they think it isn't against the law not to mention it and it is up to the individual?
    Should I do you a favour? You've attacked me, my friends, the organisation I enjoy. Should I then ask members of that organisation to humour you?

    I'm not ding it for fun. It is a sincere attempt to point out a psychological profile common to masons.
    And I haven't personally attacked you or anyone else here at all.
    Care to show where I did and I am happy to withdraw it if true?
    How about we only get poor sick and handicapped Freemasons to protect our civil liberties?

    Well this relates to my last point. This is basically drawing on the Idea that masons represent a broad swathe of society. I think if you did the 20 question quiz you would find most of you have a similar psychological profile.

    Tell you what how about the anarchist freemasons protect your civil liberties?
    And if you're wondering where the poor, sick and handicapped can get support you might do well to look to the Freemasons, since one of our primary goals is to help the needy,

    I respect that . But I did read that that isn't your primary goal.
    "You speak of charity – yes, this is something we do, and it has been seen publicly in countries like the U.S. after 9/11. But this is not the main goal of Freemasonry. The main goal is to ‘polish the rough ashler’, which means yourself, and we are trying to improve ourselves by these Masonic works, and by helping each other mutually in a brotherly way. But the essence of Masonry is, I would say, a peculiar system of morality illustrated by symbols thanks to which you try to become a slightly better human being"
    http://www.radio.cz/en/article/102012

    "The primary goal of Freemasonry is therefore the improvement of the individual...Even though it is not primarily a charitable organization,"
    http://www.glquebec.org/freemasonry.shtml
    and, whilst you won't find it on anti-Masonic websites, each Lodge takes great pride in the money it raises for charity each year.

    The primary goal is not charity but "trying to improve ourselves by Masonic works, and helping each other mutually in a brotherly way"
    That's simply naive; what you've proposed would cost billions.

    Nope the technology involved less than 5,000 and the admin done as a matter of course.
    I'd suggest you charge every one who wants to see it, and see how long it takes to get your money back.


    Oh I think the hits on such a website would be quite large. But so what it it wasn't.

    Actaully it would be interesting to crosstabulate masons political parties GAA IFA Gentlemens clubs etc.
    Oh what a tangled web we weave.
    But if they didn't all declare which party they were in (you said it would not matter if you havent declared membership unless it was found out that ther were a number of masons/IFA members/ SIPTU members on the same committee deciding on a particular issue) you'd never know if the parties influenced the vote or not. Short of asking the parties directly of course. Which would seem sensible.

    And if you asked the sic councillors voting on an issue "are you a mason" and they said "I dont have to tell you that" or they were a mason and lied what recourse has any person since ther is no law saying they have to tell?

    It does not matter if a law exists against robbery if nobody is robbing anyone else. It is only when people rob someone else that the victim can should "I think he is a robber" If no law exists at that time the robber can say "so what there is no law against robbery" likewise if it is found out all of the people behind state investment in NAMA were masons and all the people appointed to boards or on the old bank boards were masons or all TD voting on the issue were masons if there is no law about that then nothing can be done about them breaking such law.

    So registration only becomes a requirement once someone becomes suspicious about something?

    Nope it would always be required . It is just that nobody is going to prosecute you for being a trainspotter. Unless of course the local train meuseum gets a fat grant and ther are five councillors all members of the local trainspotting club voting for it. then their legal oversight in neglecting to put "trainspotter club" on the form becomes important.

    I suspect this is exactly what will happen with the PSNI if and when a group of Masons are identified as colluding.
    Like a conspiracy theorist? Effectively nobody is required to register, but if investigated having failed to register makes you immediately guilty of not registering. Genius.


    No more like hey are ALL REQUIRED to register all interests. But if they neglect one it will never be noticed and if it ever is noticed it will not cause much of a fuss unless a connection can be sen with others in the same organisation.
    So along with managing registration and dissemination, you'll be needing some statistical analysts. Those billions are going to run dry pretty quickly...

    It is done quite cheaply and very easily there are many powerfull stats packages available so i wont promote brandnames
    for a minor sample of the Trying looking up the cain site and the sutton database of deaths in northern ireland. You can croisstabulate they religion of those killed and see for example if the UDA killed a significant number of Catholics compared to the provisional IRA killing Protestants. thus accusations of how "sectarian" some group was is evident.

    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html
    So non declaration is a sacking office not collusion?

    the penalty would depend on the crime. If they didn't declare trainspotters club the penalty might be a reminder to declare it next time. If they didnt declare masons and five masons were involved in awarding a half million to a local charity then yes they could be sacked. But even if not sacked it might lead to something else like how many cases for example a group of five policemen dropped and it later be found out the accused was a mason as well.
    You only have to be suspected, and by virtue of not declaring yourself a Jew Mason you can be sacked?

    No I didn't say that. It would depend on what monies were given over or what decisions made by the person who didn't declare.

    I think you really mean that what interests you is what is in the public interest. And it annoys you that people don't feel obligated to tell you wahtever you demand simply because you demand it.


    No i was quite clear- out of the public purse! That would be the vast majority
    But a policeman not taking a case might not be out of the public purse or a the other cases I mentioned so I wouldn't exclude other measures which affect the public - whether or not the public are interested in them. for example a mason may actually SAVE the public money by awarding a safety contract for a football stadium to another mason.

    So if someone is a Mason and spends public money they must declare it, but anyone else is fine.

    NO! they all must declare any clubs but if the mason does not declare and never awards money or favour to another mason then nobody will ever ask him. If someone eventually does ask him then the worst he can expect is "well you should really have registered"
    unless of course it is found out that other masons did benefit from him.
    But you're not holding the public bodies responsible for what you think they should give you; you're trying to make private bodies responsible.

    No Transparency. We should know whether any money or authority of any public official is linked to any other activities he has outside work. If he doesn't say it then the private body can maybe have the money taken back off them. But it is the individuals workplace that he has to declare for a register. If someone is not involved in public life or public service or is retired from either and is a mason he would not have to register. If he is ever appointed to a public body he WOULD have to register that with them and it would go into the database.
    But not from him; the State is responsible for justifying its' spending decisions to the public.

    I think you seem not to understand what I am saying. I am not saying every lodge has to make public all their members. I am saying anyone who is a member of a lodge who works for the public should have to declare their membership to that public body.
    So your argument is with the democracy in which you reside, not the Masonic Order.

    If the masonic order do not have members involved in collusion then yes i have no problem with them. But people can only know that when the members who are involved in making decisions for the public are declared.
    Because it's a public, and publicly accountable, body. Not a private one.

    and the accountability of the members of a public ally accountability body should extend to them declaring and other memberships orf any body public or private. That is what I am saying.
    Indeed, you could have plainly said from the outset that your purpose is to victimise people.

    Asking people to declare their membership of a body isn't victimising them.
    Nor is it up to YOU to decide someone should be victimised.

    No it is up to the law to regulate public administration and I am saying such laws should be introduced. People in state institutions should not have to keep secret their membership.
    Luckily most modern democracies won't marginalise a group just because someone believes that members of the group might be involved in powerful cliques.

    Oh indeed they will. Membership of the IRA is proscribed, membership of Sinn Fein was gagged in the media under law, members of the Orange order are prevented from marching in certain places, etc.
    Cricket is a public sport; are you saying it would be different if cricket were played in private?

    all i can say to that is you have never been at one of our famous club dinners.
    what goes on tour stays on tour :)
    And even though I'm repeating myself again, our membership isn't secret. Just private for those members who wish it to be.

    If those members were in public service I have an argument against that . Otherwise I dont.
    Actually, the powers of the State derive from the people. That doesn't mean that if some, or even most, of the people desire a right, that the State will, or should, confer it.

    Yes. so what? I wan't argueing about a tyranny of the majority. If most people want a law that isn't repugnant to he constitution (and regulating public bodies to declare all membership isn't. In fact such happens in N Ireland and has happened elsewhere in the past -including regulating the freemasons. ) then the State WILL bring in that law!
    They're different things; and whilst it's certainly in the public interest to be aware of collusion, subversion and misappropriation of funds in the State apparatus, there is no indication that such an awareness would be facilitated by stomping on peoples civil liberties as you suggest.


    Asking all people in public life to declare what clubs they are in is not stomping on liberty!
    It is done in Norther n Ireland and it is done for TDs in the Republic.
    they also recently changed the reporting of expenses. It is for the good of democracy and transparency.
    So SIPTU must make its' membership list public, or it's a 'secret' union?

    NO NO NO! Siptu members on state boards or making decisions relating to unions should declare their membership!
    The state apparatus makes decisions both in its' favour and against it, but again, it's up to the State to justify its' spending decisions to the public, not SIPTU.
    Anyway, the constitution does not prohibit 'secret' unions.


    Wrong again! Article 40 iii Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the foregoing right.


    the foregoing right being that of forming unions.
    Indeed the people in final appeal decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good. The means is a referendum or plebistice. Do you think you could carry a referendum to amend civil rights based on your arguments here? I'm quite certain you couldn't.

    You would not need a referendum to bring in such law. It isn't repugnant tot he constitution! YOU are the one claiming it is! If such a law was brought in ti would be for you to prove it is unconstitutional. I don not believe you could based on the arguments given here.
    Because one is the action of a civil servant and the other is the action of a private citizen. Are you now proposing that the contents of all emails should be available to everyone? Or is it just the contents of all emails by Freemasons?

    I'm not proposing anything about emails. I'm showing how the principle of "working for the state" isn't restricted only to the place of work.

    Yes. Those people are called conspiracy theorists.

    Some are conspiracy theorists. and some conspiracies also happen. Thats why "conspiracy" is an actual crime.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    ISAW wrote: »
    No, the bodies getting the money dont have to the bodies givine the money should. Any body responsible for giving out funds or making decisions on them e.g a council, a government department. Should have a register of all bodies to which they gave money and any employees of thees bodies should also put their membership of any clubs on that register.
    It would be minimal. any funding approvals and any new employees would add to the register as a matter of course and an annual poll of each employee would also add or remove any memberships. They could even update it themselves as they join or leave any clubs.It could be part of the "information and data officer" in each councils job. It would involve a design of a single web form and the whole thing could br centralised by and catalogued department and council and activity and easily searched through. with modern data collection techniques the administration would be minimal. and a public register could even conceal personal data such as name and address but people would be able to see how many people in what clubs are in any department or council or the gardai.
    I'll just refer you to the speculation about how much it's going to cost to change the names of a few government depts today; a much uch smaller job than what you're proposing. But.. if you think you could get your local TD to support the proposal I'd be fascinated to see how it performed before the Dáil. And not only do I think invasion of privacy would be claimed, I'd say the European Court of Human Rights would quite rightly uphold the claims. But it's a democracy so why don't you try it? In fact... try an online petition first, and see how much support you get there. I'll actually sign up for it just to see how it goes.


    ISAW wrote: »
    You deny the restructuring of scotland Yard due to these Masons activities happened? You deny that they met in Lodges and their relationship was facilitated by their being masons? It isn't a question of bias it is a question of whether the historical data is valid and accurate. You can go through the names and see for yourself. If you find any of them were not masons feel free to tell me.
    I deny that it was a Masonic conspiracy, or that the events occured due to the actions of Masons alone, or that their actions could only have been facilitated by being Masons as opposed to school friends or fellow golf club members. The part of the historical data that is presented , is presented to create a biased perspective.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Yes. But that was about knowing what level or degree a person was. Not about what rituals they conducted. I only want to know about who senoir masons are when they are involved in something but The other issue since then is that the public shuld be entitles to know about memberships and I duid say there is an argument even more about knowing particularly high ranking members..
    You've also posted enquiring about rituals & oaths though haven't you? So you're really still just looking for some way of finding out things that you think people are keeping from you that you think you should know. You think senior masons may be involved in something, you don't know what it is, so you demand their compliance in satisfying your paranoia.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Yes and i read up on the subject since then and i got no help from any masons on finding that information. But I never claimed that knowing such secrets should be law. In fact I pointed out that like my personal curiosity that "what the public are interested in " about peoples personal life should not be law wheras "public interest" i.e. out of the public purse should be.
    Actually I gave you quite a bit of help, I just didn't go out there and get it for you. But to be clear on your newfound purpose, what money do you think the Masons are taking out of the public purse?
    ISAW wrote: »
    anarchists can be organised they just don't believe in leaders and authorities and telling people what to do. You know ? Like sending a letter to all lodges telling them it is okay by them not to mention you are a police man and they think it isn't against the law not to mention it and it is up to the individual?
    Yes, anarchists can be anything so long as they're anarchists. Do you think anarchists would send a letter to all lodges telling them it is okay by them not to mention you are a police man and they think it isn't against the law not to mention it and it is up to the individual? Should we be preparing to put them on a new register of people who are not in organisations and therefore not on the register of people in organisations?
    ISAW wrote: »
    I'm not ding it for fun. It is a sincere attempt to point out a psychological profile common to masons. And I haven't personally attacked you or anyone else here at all. Care to show where I did and I am happy to withdraw it if true?
    A sincere attempt to point out a psychological profile common to masons is predicated on the premise that there is a psychological profile common to masons. Trying to prove what you already believe is not a very scientific approach, and how can you begin to believe is a psychological profile common to masons when you know so little about them? As opposed to believe so much.
    Your tone throughout this thread has been confrontational and aggressive, and you have continually attacked Freemasonry as an organisation. That is a personal attack on me and others who have been posting here in an honest and open way about our experiences and knowledge of Freemasonry.
    ISAW wrote: »
    the Freemasons which a plethors of churches have Banned.
    Which admit known criminals.
    answer honestly please.
    Please be honest and upright in your answers and hopefully don't ask another Mason to screen them first.
    So the masons wont accept seekers after truth who are ctitical thinkers and will point out any corruption or manipulation in the masons.
    Does anyone find the secrecy and reluctance to answer questions is visible from Masons.
    Typeical "state secret mentalist"
    These are all typical of your aggresive posts.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Well this relates to my last point. This is basically drawing on the Idea that masons represent a broad swathe of society. I think if you did the 20 question quiz you would find most of you have a similar psychological profile.
    Freemasons don't represent anyone. Members may come from a broad range of backgrounds, but they don't represent them. You think members would have similar profiles because you want them to, not because you have any information on the subject.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Tell you what how about the anarchist freemasons protect your civil liberties?
    Cute. Childish much?
    ISAW wrote: »
    I respect that . But I did read that that isn't your primary goal. "You speak of charity – yes, this is something we do, and it has been seen publicly in countries like the U.S. after 9/11. But this is not the main goal of Freemasonry. The main goal is to ‘polish the rough ashler’, which means yourself, and we are trying to improve ourselves by these Masonic works, and by helping each other mutually in a brotherly way. But the essence of Masonry is, I would say, a peculiar system of morality illustrated by symbols thanks to which you try to become a slightly better human being" http://www.radio.cz/en/article/102012 "The primary goal of Freemasonry is therefore the improvement of the individual...Even though it is not primarily a charitable organization," http://www.glquebec.org/freemasonry.shtml The primary goal is not charity but "trying to improve ourselves by Masonic works, and helping each other mutually in a brotherly way"
    Yep I'm sure there are other Masons who see it that way too.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Nope the technology involved less than 5,000 and the admin done as a matter of course. Oh I think the hits on such a website would be quite large. But so what it it wasn't. Actaully it would be interesting to crosstabulate masons political parties GAA IFA Gentlemens clubs etc.
    Oh what a tangled web we weave.
    That being the case you should have no problem persuading your local TD to table it in the Dáil then?

    Rather than quote the little pile of arguments you're making I'll just say the sum of your posts show a leaning towards a totalitarian regime which most people just don't want. It's not the subject under discussion here, which is Freemasonry, because you're arguing for the State to create a public information system about the State, even if it is because of your fear of Freemasons. Rather than argue it out with Freemasons on the internet, you should take your views to your TD and see how they go.

    That said, I will try to address some items that fall outside your big brother proposal.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Asking people to declare their membership of a body isn't victimising them.
    It is when that organisation is being portrayed in a negative light. Registering the Jews in Germany wouldn't have victimised them but for the fact that the Jews were being publicly blamed for societys problems at the time.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Oh indeed they will. Membership of the IRA is proscribed, membership of Sinn Fein was gagged in the media under law, members of the Orange order are prevented from marching in certain places, etc.
    That's not true. Those three organisations have not been marginalised because someone believed that members of the group might be involved in powerful cliques.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Yes. so what? I wan't argueing about a tyranny of the majority. If most people want a law that isn't repugnant to he constitution (and regulating public bodies to declare all membership isn't. In fact such happens in N Ireland and has happened elsewhere in the past -including regulating the freemasons. ) then the State WILL bring in that law!
    So... the powers of the State derive from the people, the State is not the people, contrary to your assertion.
    Otherwise, I'm waiting with bated breath to see your TD bring it before the Dáil.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Wrong again! Article 40 iii Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the foregoing right.
    the foregoing right being that of forming unions.
    Yes, laws may be enacted, but the Constitution does not prohibit 'secret' unions.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You would not need a referendum to bring in such law. It isn't repugnant tot he constitution! YOU are the one claiming it is! If such a law was brought in ti would be for you to prove it is unconstitutional. I don not believe you could based on the arguments given here..
    No you wouldn't, but if (when?) you persuade your TD to get the backing of the Dáil for it, the final appeal in Ireland against your law would be a refendum on its' constitutionality.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I'm not proposing anything about emails. I'm showing how the principle of "working for the state" isn't restricted only to the place of work.
    This just goes back to your argument with the State of Ireland, and has nothing to do with Freemasons.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Some are conspiracy theorists. and some conspiracies also happen. Thats why "conspiracy" is an actual crime.
    Conspiracy isn't a crime, people conspire all the time. Certain acts of conspiracy are criminal, which is why we have police. Conspiracy theorists, I'm sure, are a great boon to them.


  • Options
    #488
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Absolam wrote: »
    I'll just refer you to the speculation about how much it's going to cost to change the names of a few government depts today;

    that requires a much greater expense but as you say it is speculation
    A database only requires the forms be designed and or distributed and storage set aside.
    A name change requires every single building sign or phone book entry be changed. all letterheads ahve to be reprinted. all changes in departments have to be deliniated requiring a change in the state directory. all phone book listings of said agencies whih change departments have to be changed etc.
    But.. if you think you could get your local TD to support the proposal I'd be fascinated to see how it performed before the Dáil.

    I want thinking of that but I might do it now since you have me interested. givin one of the local TDs is aligned with conspiracy buffs and the sort of people who opposeds "controling cabals" that TD might well go for it.
    And not only do I think invasion of privacy would be claimed, I'd say the European Court of Human Rights would quite rightly uphold the claims.

    It was brought to them after the UK singled out the masons. But the UK government decided to changed back in spite of any ruling binding on them to do so. It still stands for a narrower group in northern Ireland and Wales and if it was broader would probably hold in the UK.


  • Options
    #489
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    ISAW wrote: »
    It was brought to them after the UK singled out the masons. But the UK government decided to changed back in spite of any ruling binding on them to do so. It still stands for a narrower group in northern Ireland and Wales and if it was broader would probably hold in the UK.
    So just to clarify; the UK government rowed back on legislation singling out Freemasons for 'declaration' when they were presented with the prospect of being taken before the European Court of Human Rights. They didn't do anything in spite of a ruling, they knew if a case was brought they would lose it because the Italian government had already lost a similar case before the ECHR. The legislation in NI and Wales is broader in scope and doesn't single out Freemasons, but no one has yet sought to test it before the ECHR.

    Presumably you'll be hoping when you bring your bill before the Dail that it will be so incredibly broad in scope that no one will feel it infringes their freedom of association, but that would be better debated on the politics forum.

    In the meantime I still maintain: Freemasons: misunderstood nice guys :D


  • Options
    #490
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Absolam wrote: »

    Presumably you'll be hoping when you bring your bill before the Dail that it will be so incredibly broad in scope that no one will feel it infringes their freedom of association,

    Yeah that would be about the size of it. it would not just single out masons. People would list any organisations that they belong to if they are in receipt of any public money.


  • Options
    #491
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Absolam wrote: »
    You've also posted enquiring about rituals & oaths though haven't you? So you're really still just looking for some way of finding out things that you think people are keeping from you that you think you should know.

    Nope. I found out about the oaths and other stuff but I didn't claim I had a right to know it and you must tell me it. What I think is beside the point. I think that the public should know if masons are members of their local council or if any masons work at a level where they give out money or decide on budgets or other things affecting the public. What I wanted to know was about whether you would reveal whether a particular person was a Master mason in Hammersmith Lodge when he was involved in police corruption.
    I deny that it was a Masonic conspiracy, or that the events occured due to the actions of Masons alone, or that their actions could only have been facilitated by being Masons as opposed to school friends or fellow golf club members. The part of the historical data that is presented , is presented to create a biased perspective.

    I only included a sentence from the introduction. Scotland Yard WAS reformed twice because of corruption. In 1877 and 1977. The events occured due to actions of Masons. The actions were NOT because of golf club or other membership or an old school group.

    In 1872 at a lodge meeting in Islington William Kurr ( a scammer) made friends with Inspector John Meikeljohn. Not at a golf club or school meeting. In the subsequent investigation the Yard's chief of detectives, Supt. Frederick Williamson, was dismayed to discover that three of his four chief inspectors were corrupt, along with their uninformed seducer, Meiklejohn. In 1877 all four were tried at the Old Bailey. Senior chief inspector, George Clarke, who was also involved was acquittted, but Meiklejohn, and Chief Inspectors Palmer and Nathaniel Druscovitch were convicted. I give you it does not mention of they were all masons but one could contact Miklejohn's great great grandson today who can trace his family history back to the 1600.

    Between 1969 and the settingup
    of the famous Operation Countryman in 1978 there were three big
    investigations into corruption in the Metropolitan Police. These were:
    (1) An enquiry into allegations of corruption and extortion by Police,
    first published in The Times. This resulted in the arrest, trial
    and imprisonment of two London detectives in 1972.
    (2) An enquiry by Lancashire Police into members of the
    Metropolitan Police Drug Squad. This led to the trial of six
    detectives, and the imprisonment in 1973 of three of them.
    (3) An enquiry into allegations of corruption among CID officers
    responsible for coping with vice and pornography in London's
    West End. Over twenty detectives were sacked from the force
    during the three-year investigation in the early 1970's, which led
    eventually to the notorious Porn Squad trials.

    There were corrupt Masonic Policemen involved in all these cases.
    You think senior masons may be involved in something, you don't know what it is, so you demand their compliance in satisfying your paranoia.
    I came across this:
    When the British Library applied in the normal way to
    Freemasons Hall for two copies of the Masonic Yearbook for the Reading
    Room in 1981, it was informed that it would not be permitted to have
    copies of the directory then or in the future. No explanation was given.

    Which contradicts what you stated about the information being available. I asked where I might find it and under what title and you haven't told me. where can I find a book listing the Master of Hammersmith lodge in the 1970s and 1980s? Akll you said was "ask a librarian". don't you know where to get archive information about the masons only 30 years ago? You siad go to Trinity College Library which has several million books. You never said WHICH Library in trinity which collection or under what title author or subject I might find such books. THe Library in Trinity stores most of their books off campus in Santry which means you need to know the Title author etc.

    It was alleged that Hamilton the Dunblayne murderer was a mason and it wasn't until the scottish Masons made their membership available that people were shown he was not listed in their books. These books were NOT in any other library.

    Yes I think whether or not they are involved in something their membership of public appointments etc. should be visible. If they don't comply then it won't matter until such time that it is found they were colluding. There should be no "golden circles" in Irish society which are not visible.
    A sincere attempt to point out a psychological profile common to masons is predicated on the premise that there is a psychological profile common to masons. Trying to prove what you already believe is not a very scientific approach, and how can you begin to believe is a psychological profile common to masons when you know so little about them?

    I don't know in advance and I think if you took the quiz we could determine if a particular profile can be confirmed. i wont say in advance what i think the profile will be and I certainly don't know how you will score. I'm happy to put my prediction in storage somewhere to be opened by you after you do the quiz and I'm happy to say if I was wrong.
    But i don't believe you will do the quiz anyway.
    Your tone throughout this thread has been confrontational and aggressive, and you have continually attacked Freemasonry as an organisation.

    In a debate one may expect confrontation. I have pointed to illegalities involving masons in the past and the problems of secrecy . not of secrecy of rituals but of secrecy of membership which allows for conspiracy. If i aggressively pursue that line then is that something for which I should feel guilty? If I confront you with the fact that masons have been involved in conspiracy that is part of history. If i tel a catholic about the Borgia Popes that does not mean I am attacking Catholicism but it might mean I am pointing as to what structures the church might reform.
    That is a personal attack on me and others who have been posting here in an honest and open way about our experiences and knowledge of Freemasonry.

    By denying that masons in the past have been involved in corruption facilitated by their membership of Lodges? It isnt a personal attack on you to point out how your organisation assisted in facilitating crime.
    Freemasons don't represent anyone. Members may come from a broad range of backgrounds, but they don't represent them. You think members would have similar profiles because you want them to, not because you have any information on the subject.


    I believe they would and I think if you did the quiz you would confirm that.
    Cute. Childish much?

    Only replying to a similar reposte from you. Touché!
    Yep I'm sure there are other Masons who see it that way too.

    I wasn't arguing about what other masons think but the point you made about Charity being the primary goal.
    That being the case you should have no problem persuading your local TD to table it in the Dáil then?

    Maybe. Or introduce it in the seanad. They should be good for something. the anti hunt element might go for it too. But as you say that is for another forum.
    Rather than quote the little pile of arguments you're making I'll just say the sum of your posts show a leaning towards a totalitarian regime which most people just don't want.

    Quite the opposite . It is about exposing any secret "cliques" by making visible the membership of any organisation.
    It's not the subject under discussion here, which is Freemasonry,...

    Fair enough Ill leave the point about registering all members of groups who disburse public money.
    Rather than argue it out with Freemasons on the internet, you should take your views to your TD and see how they go.

    Good Idea. thanks.
    It is when that organisation is being portrayed in a negative light. Registering the Jews in Germany wouldn't have victimised them but for the fact that the Jews were being publicly blamed for societys problems at the time.

    Oh I have no interest in a witchhunt of Masons Jews Catholics or anything else. I would be forst to defend the right of someone to join the masons. I just want any masons who are in decision making positions to reveal that they are masons. Or orange order members or other clubs. They don't have to say what goes on at meetings.
    That's not true. Those three organisations have not been marginalised because someone believed that members of the group might be involved in powerful cliques.

    Hmmm lets see
    IRA - history of a powerful clique trying to take over the state. Inflitrated the British postal system and British intelligence.
    Sinn fein - similar to IRA . took out the nationalist majority in Parliament in the 1921 election. Irish Parliamentary Party had for 50 years held the balance of power in westminster.
    Orange Order- a controling influence in Unionism which controlled Stormont Parliament forn the 1920s to 1970s . Orange men way well have a balance of power situation in Westminster yet.

    Sinn Fein (provisional Ira related) in particular marganilised by section 31 of the broadcasting Act was not unrelated to the alternative Workers Party (Orfficial IRA related) Clique at the time in the Irish Media
    So... the powers of the State derive from the people, the State is not the people, contrary to your assertion.

    In the sence that the Monarch saif "Moi Je sui le droit" and the monarch is looked upon as being the State or the right the people are the state. I wont go into an issue about the difference between nation/territory/state. If you mean the people of Cavan are not the actual county cavan then I think people know that. The countly council is not the physically the people of the country but in another way it is the people. A country without its people is meaningless. When you couple that with the abandondment of elites and monarchs and awards that is what i mean by "the state is the people"
    Otherwise, I'm waiting with bated breath to see your TD bring it before the Dáil.

    Fine. Don't be surprised then if and when the arguments are rehearsed.
    Yes, laws may be enacted, but the Constitution does not prohibit 'secret' unions.

    Nor does it prohibit the IRA. Nor regulate political parties membership . The laws enacted do that.
    No you wouldn't, but if (when?) you persuade your TD to get the backing of the Dáil for it, the final appeal in Ireland against your law would be a refendum on its' constitutionality.

    Which would not happen with grounds for such a referendum which as i have stated don't exist. but that would be a matter for the President or the courts. I just can't see any grounds for either referring such a Bill but if you point them out the drafters would be careful to remove such grounds.
    This just goes back to your argument with the State of Ireland, and has nothing to do with Freemasons.

    Not to do ONLY with freemasons does not mean not to do with them at all. they would be one of a whole class of groups listed.
    Conspiracy isn't a crime, people conspire all the time. Certain acts of conspiracy are criminal, which is why we have police. Conspiracy theorists, I'm sure, are a great boon to them.
    In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Absolam wrote: »

    I deny that it was a Masonic conspiracy, or that the events occured due to the actions of Masons alone, or that their actions could only have been facilitated by being Masons as opposed to school friends or fellow golf club members. The part of the historical data that is presented , is presented to create a biased perspective.
    ...
    Your tone throughout this thread has been confrontational and aggressive, and you have continually attacked Freemasonry as an organisation. That is a personal attack on me and others who have been posting here in an honest and open way about our experiences and knowledge of Freemasonry.
    These are all typical of your aggresive posts.


    Let me just clarify something by drawing an analogy.

    Let usd suppose I like the Irish language football hurling and handball. I even like rounders. Probably the most prevalent civil society organisation throughout Ireland is the GAA. Their main aim is to promote the language sports and Irish culture. They hold table quizzes and other events to support local charities. I even know one club which gives over its pitch for astronomy events.

    Now the GAA recently received about 300 million euro for a stadium. That is in addition to any sports or other grants. THe GAA have local club members (similar to initiate masons) and I am not really interested in what they watch on TV or what they do with their money. But if a Minister in say Kerry is giving grants to a local GAA club the I think someone in Donegal should know that. If the Minister then moves to say Justice and appoints members of the GAA county board (similar level to a master mason) to a prison committee then I think someone in donegal should be able to know that the person on the committee is a member of the County board or a member of the GAA national executive ( similar to a 33rd degree mason) similar for appointments to FAS, to Bank Boards etc.

    No I don't think the GAA are planning to overthrow the state. I do know that in the past the IRA and/or IRB paraded as GAA teams and were heavily involved in planning to overthrow the state. I know certain parts of the GAA opposed RUC being members of the GAA and also opposed their stadia being used for soccer or rugby. What they said in meetings may not be considered nice but that was in their own private meeting. I nether dislike nor am out to get any of them for it.

    I think that for example any member of the GAA national executive being appointed to any state board should have their membership declared. I don't think that is an invasion of privacy. I would apply the same standards to masons.

    Asking for the above does not mean I am attacking the GAA does it? similarly I am not out to get you personally.


  • Options
    #493
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    ISAW wrote: »
    Nope. I found out about the oaths and other stuff but I didn't claim I had a right to know it and you must tell me it. What I think is beside the point. I think that the public should know if masons are members of their local council or if any masons work at a level where they give out money or decide on budgets or other things affecting the public. What I wanted to know was about whether you would reveal whether a particular person was a Master mason in Hammersmith Lodge when he was involved in police corruption.
    So to maintain your distinctions; what the public has a right to know and what you believe the public should know are different things.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I only included a sentence from the introduction. Scotland Yard WAS reformed twice because of corruption. In 1877 and 1977. The events occured due to actions of Masons. The actions were NOT because of golf club or other membership or an old school group.
    Yes, no one is debating that Scotland Yard had to reform various divisions due to corruption amongst its' staff. But the events occured to the actions of police officers, some of whom were Freemasons. The fact that they were Freemasons was no more relevant than if they had been in the same golf club or were old school chums, it is a fact that they were members of the same social group and in a better position to network, but what the group was is not the relevant factor.

    ISAW wrote: »
    I came across this: When the British Library applied in the normal way to
    Freemasons Hall for two copies of the Masonic Yearbook for the Reading
    Room in 1981, it was informed that it would not be permitted to have
    copies of the directory then or in the future. No explanation was given.
    Yes.. you came across it on a conspiracy website though didn't you? Where it doesn't cite an author, a source, or the fact that anyone can walk in to UGLE in Queens St London, and buy a copy of the yearbook regardless of who they are. The article doesn't contradict anything I said, it just makes an unsupported statement.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I asked where I might find it and under what title and you haven't told me. where can I find a book listing the Master of Hammersmith lodge in the 1970s and 1980s? Akll you said was "ask a librarian". don't you know where to get archive information about the masons only 30 years ago? You siad go to Trinity College Library which has several million books. You never said WHICH Library in trinity which collection or under what title author or subject I might find such books. THe Library in Trinity stores most of their books off campus in Santry which means you need to know the Title author etc. It was alleged that Hamilton the Dunblayne murderer was a mason and it wasn't until the scottish Masons made their membership available that people were shown he was not listed in their books. These books were NOT in any other library.
    What I said was
    Absolam wrote:
    The Laws & Constitutions, and Calendar, are available for purchase from any Masonic Hall in the country, by any member of the public. Or you could stop into Trinity College, where I'm sure you'll find every copy ever published. You could actually write to the lodge in Hammersmith and ask them for a list of their officers.'
    I'm still not going to go get them for you, you really will have to do it for yourself.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I don't know in advance and I think if you took the quiz we could determine if a particular profile can be confirmed. i wont say in advance what i think the profile will be and I certainly don't know how you will score. I'm happy to put my prediction in storage somewhere to be opened by you after you do the quiz and I'm happy to say if I was wrong. But i don't believe you will do the quiz anyway.
    Right, but we don't want to know if a particular profile can be confirmed. Just you. So we have no incentive.
    ISAW wrote: »
    By denying that masons in the past have been involved in corruption facilitated by their membership of Lodges? It isnt a personal attack on you to point out how your organisation assisted in facilitating crime.
    If you review the posts you'll see I never denied that Masons were involved. However, Freemasonry as an organisation does not facilitate crime. You insist on deliberately confusing Freemasonry with some Freemasons.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I wasn't arguing about what other masons think but the point you made about Charity being the primary goal.
    Again what I actually said was
    Absolam wrote:
    you might do well to look to the Freemasons, since one of our primary goals is to help the needy, and, whilst you won't find it on anti-Masonic websites, each Lodge takes great pride in the money it raises for charity each year.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Quite the opposite . It is about exposing any secret "cliques" by making visible the membership of any organisation.
    Which can only be done by impinging on individuals rights to privacy and freedom of association.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Hmmm lets see
    IRA - history of a powerful clique trying to take over the state. Inflitrated the British postal system and British intelligence.
    Sinn fein - similar to IRA . took out the nationalist majority in Parliament in the 1921 election. Irish Parliamentary Party had for 50 years held the balance of power in westminster.
    Orange Order- a controling influence in Unionism which controlled Stormont Parliament forn the 1920s to 1970s . Orange men way well have a balance of power situation in Westminster yet.
    And still none of them have been marginalised because someone believed that members of the group might be involved in powerful cliques. All have been subjected to various restraints in their various guises as a result of proven activities or stated goals of the organisations.
    ISAW wrote: »
    In the sence that the Monarch saif "Moi Je sui le droit" and the monarch is looked upon as being the State or the right the people are the state. I wont go into an issue about the difference between nation/territory/state. If you mean the people of Cavan are not the actual county cavan then I think people know that. The countly council is not the physically the people of the country but in another way it is the people. A country without its people is meaningless. When you couple that with the abandondment of elites and monarchs and awards that is what i mean by "the state is the people" .
    The context you presented inferred that by virtue of the 'fact' that the State is the people, when you believe something is 'in the public good' that confers a 'right' to that thing. I pointed out that the public can only gain that 'right' by conferral of the State.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Nor does it prohibit the IRA. Nor regulate political parties membership . The laws enacted do that.
    They do indeed. And the Constitution still does not prohibit 'secret' unions. Nor is there a law that prohibits 'secret' unions.
    ISAW wrote: »
    In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29
    Luckily, conspiracy theorists aren't the ones who determine what a criminal conspiracy is.


  • Options
    #494
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Absolam wrote: »
    So to maintain your distinctions; what the public has a right to know and what you believe the public should know are different things.

    Yes. i may in fact have no right to know if a criminal involved in a conspiracy with the "porn squad" in the London CID was a master mason and if they were masons. But you suggested the evidence was easily come by. I just asked WHERE i might get it, under what title etc. I don't think it is easy to find.

    Furthermore i am not saying what "I want" I am making an argument that the public should know some things about anyone who gets or gives out public money. If they don't get it or give it out then the public wouldn't have any interest.
    Yes, no one is debating that Scotland Yard had to reform various divisions due to corruption amongst its' staff.

    The staff members involved being Masons and meeting at masonic meetings and dinners etc. ?
    But the events occured to the actions of police officers, some of whom were Freemasons.

    Well we are back to the above then. How do you know who was and who wasn't? Well lets just take the list of people convicted shall we?

    from the source given:
    The full story of Metropolitan Police corruption at the time is told in The Fall of Scotland Yard, a book which I co-authored in 1977 with Barry Cox and John Shirley. Here I isolate the Masonic aspects of the scandal.

    In 1977 three Old Bailey trials revealed the tip of an iceberg of corruption in London's CID. Thirteen detectives were jailed, including two commanders, one chief superintendent and five inspectors. In the course of the investigation it emerged that most were Freemasons. The probablility is that they were all 'on the square'.

    how do I know since I cant check the ones i don't know about since there is no register for police masons? see my problem?
    ...
    Same source as above :
    The porn and Flying Squad investigations were part of a massive anti-corruption drive by Sir Robert Mark. Soon after he became Commissioner in 1972 he set up a squad known as A 10 to 'rubber-heel' the entire force. By the time he retired five years later, A 10 had forced the dismissal or resignation of nearly 500 officers: 100 a year. The old regime had ousted an average of just sixteen. Most of the concentration of Freemasons was far greater than among uniform men. There is no way of finding out exactly how many were Masons, partly because Scotland Yard has never divulged the names of all 500.
    The fact that they were Freemasons was no more relevant than if they had been in the same golf club or were old school chums, it is a fact that they were members of the same social group and in a better position to network, but what the group was is not the relevant factor.

    If a golf club or school group involved thirteen people who were serious criminals then that golf club would have problems. Let us say for example a golf club had thirteen members of a Dublin crime gang in it. you don't think that anyone else knowing that would be concerned about that club? Particularly if say some of the criminals are on the club committee?
    Yes.. you came across it on a conspiracy website though didn't you?

    Im not likely to find listings of convicted masons and conspiracies on a pro mason site am I?
    If an anti masonic site quoted facts about a court case I'm sure you can check the convictions. You don't really want me to list thirteen convictions and go through whether they were all masons do you?
    Where it doesn't cite an author, a source,

    I DID cite it: The Fall of Scotland Yard, a book which I co-authored in 1977 with Barry Cox and John Shirley

    http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/true_blue.html

    Do you want to go through the case convictions or do you accept the thirteen case convictions mentioned above?
    or the fact that anyone can walk in to UGLE in Queens St London, and buy a copy of the yearbook regardless of who they are.

    Where can I get a copy of the yearbook from 1964 to 1972 which lists senior members of Hammersmith lodge?

    I'm still not going to go get them for you, you really will have to do it for yourself.

    I would if i knew I could get a copy of thiose yearbooks from 1964-1972 in Trinity Library. I don't believe i can . If I go to trinity library and can't will you accept that I cant?

    Trinity Library has the following:
    Title Directory of lodges and chapters.
    London : United Grand Lodge of England, 2000-

    Berkeley, Reference & Bibliography REF 366 DIR 5581 Current edition IN
    Santry Stacks (use call slip) DIR 5581 Superseded editions IN

    Note only since 2000

    Masonic year book / Antient Free and Accepted Masons, Province of Yorkshire and East Ridings.
    Santry Stacks (use call slip) PR 7242 1979-2003/04
    Note only since 1979.

    It is listed as 73rd edition. where are the one BEFORE 1979?

    AHA!
    Masonic year book.
    Publisher Freemasons' Hall, Great Queen St., London W.C.2 : United Grand Lodge of England, 1961-

    Santry Stacks (use call slip) Request Stack Item DIR 721 Superseded issues

    Okay then I will look this up.

    If the book is there I apologise for any suggestion that it was not possible to get it.
    You will have to take my work as to what is in it and whether is lists Hammersmith Lodge.
    Right, but we don't want to know if a particular profile can be confirmed. Just you. So we have no incentive.

    i agree. As i above stated pro masonic sources are not likely to be critical of the masons or contain such material.
    If you review the posts you'll see I never denied that Masons were involved. However, Freemasonry as an organisation does not facilitate crime. You insist on deliberately confusing Freemasonry with some Freemasons.

    Senior Freemason. Like senior golf club or Senior GAA or Senior church people. If they are involved in covering up or keeping crimes secret than that is wrong. While people claim the church is wracked with corruption and conspiracy over sexual problems in the past there is not even a hint of senior church people meeting to plan sex crimes in advance. the is not just a hint but actual convictions of masons doing the same thing.

    I would be happy also for any chruchman on any national board to also declare if they are a member of the GAa for example.
    Which can only be done by impinging on individuals rights to privacy and freedom of association.

    I disagree. identifying golden circles isn't impinging on freedom no more then identifying a conspiracy is doing so.
    And still none of them have been marginalised because someone believed that members of the group might be involved in powerful cliques. All have been subjected to various restraints in their various guises as a result of proven activities or stated goals of the organisations.

    Not true some organisations HAVE been outlawed for being a "cover name" for an illagal organisation. The stated goals of and activities of such organisations were not illegal.
    The context you presented inferred that by virtue of the 'fact' that the State is the people, when you believe something is 'in the public good' that confers a 'right' to that thing.

    when information is in the public good yes.
    I pointed out that the public can only gain that 'right' by conferral of the State.

    so . The people award the right to themselves? Ever heard of "non proscribed rights"
    The right does not have to be written into law. It may be considered to have existed since time immemorial. You are assuming all right have to be positivve (i.e. that they have to be written down into law). They don't!
    They do indeed. And the Constitution still does not prohibit 'secret' unions. Nor is there a law that prohibits 'secret' unions.

    there is if the secret meeting is conspiring to commit a crime.
    If they don't intend to plan crimes then there isn't a law against it.

    well there may be. They may be not allowed to meet because someone else owns the room or they may have to many people breaking health regulations or they may have people smoking or drinking after hours without actually planning that. But such thinks are peripheral to the issue.

    and if the meeting to plan crimes isn't secret then it is a public offence.
    Luckily, conspiracy theorists aren't the ones who determine what a criminal conspiracy is.

    All "conspiracies" under law are criminal conspiracies!

    WE were not talking about A "civil" conspiracy or collusion in the above instance - an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective. although collusion does come into the idea of declaring interests.

    I be back in a few weeks when I have read through the books on it in Trinity


  • Options
    #495
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    ISAW wrote: »
    Yes. i may in fact have no right to know if a criminal involved in a conspiracy with the "porn squad" in the London CID was a master mason and if they were masons. But you suggested the evidence was easily come by. I just asked WHERE i might get it, under what title etc. I don't think it is easy to find. Furthermore i am not saying what "I want" I am making an argument that the public should know some things about anyone who gets or gives out public money. If they don't get it or give it out then the public wouldn't have any interest.
    Again, what I actually said was:
    Absolam wrote:
    The Laws & Constitutions, and Calendar, are available for purchase from any Masonic Hall in the country, by any member of the public. Or you could stop into Trinity College, where I'm sure you'll find every copy ever published. You could actually write to the lodge in Hammersmith and ask them for a list of their officers.'
    The balance of your argument, is as you agreed more suitable for the politics forum as it's your argument with the State.
    ISAW wrote: »
    The staff members involved being Masons and meeting at masonic meetings and dinners etc. ?
    We don't know (although you believe). What we do know is they were all police officers.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Well we are back to the above then. How do you know who was and who wasn't? Well lets just take the list of people convicted shall we?
    You don't know, which is why you're speculating and looking for lists.
    ISAW wrote: »
    If a golf club or school group involved thirteen people who were serious criminals then that golf club would have problems. Let us say for example a golf club had thirteen members of a Dublin crime gang in it. you don't think that anyone else knowing that would be concerned about that club? Particularly if say some of the criminals are on the club committee? ?
    My guess is such a golf club would want to expel those members from the club, in the same way as a Masonic Lodge would. And I doubt if the above circumstances transpired that there would be a drive to force all members of all gold clubs to declare their membership.

    ISAW wrote: »
    Im not likely to find listings of convicted masons and conspiracies on a pro mason site am I? If an anti masonic site quoted facts about a court case I'm sure you can check the convictions. You don't really want me to list thirteen convictions and go through whether they were all masons do you? I DID cite it: The Fall of Scotland Yard, a book which I co-authored in 1977 with Barry Cox and John Shirley http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/true_blue.html Do you want to go through the case convictions or do you accept the thirteen case convictions mentioned above?
    You're mixing your arguments. Your original post was
    ISAW wrote: »
    I came across this: When the British Library applied in the normal way to Freemasons Hall for two copies of the Masonic Yearbook for the Reading Room in 1981, it was informed that it would not be permitted to have copies of the directory then or in the future. No explanation was given.
    This passage is not from the source you've given above, it's from 'Masons The Truth - Secrets Of A Secret Society', which lists no author and cites no source for its' allegation.

    ISAW wrote: »
    Where can I get a copy of the yearbook from 1964 to 1972 which lists senior members of Hammersmith lodge?
    As I replied previously, you could actually write to the lodge in Hammersmith and ask them for a list of their officers.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I would if i knew I could get a copy of thiose yearbooks from 1964-1972 in Trinity Library. I don't believe i can . If I go to trinity library and can't will you accept that I cant?
    Again what I said was, the Laws & Constitutions, and Calendar, are available for purchase from any Masonic Hall in the country, by any member of the public. Or you could stop into Trinity College, where I'm sure you'll find every copy ever published. Whether or not they have copies of books from England, I have no idea.
    ISAW wrote: »
    If the book is there I apologise for any suggestion that it was not possible to get it. You will have to take my work as to what is in it and whether is lists Hammersmith Lodge.
    Well, it doesn't actually make any difference to me, it's you that seems to think there's a conspiracy...
    ISAW wrote: »
    i agree. As i above stated pro masonic sources are not likely to be critical of the masons or contain such material.
    So, the only valid psychological profiling of Masons in your head would have to be carried out by anti-Masons? Not terribly scientific.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Senior Freemason. Like senior golf club or Senior GAA or Senior church people. If they are involved in covering up or keeping crimes secret than that is wrong. While people claim the church is wracked with corruption and conspiracy over sexual problems in the past there is not even a hint of senior church people meeting to plan sex crimes in advance. the is not just a hint but actual convictions of masons doing the same thing. I would be happy also for any chruchman on any national board to also declare if they are a member of the GAa for example.
    You've admitted you don't even know what a senior Freemason is. But my point stands; Freemason or Senior Freemason, Freemasonry as an organisation does not facilitate crime. You insist on deliberately confusing Freemasonry with some Freemasons.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I disagree. identifying golden circles isn't impinging on freedom no more then identifying a conspiracy is doing so.
    Again, that's your argument with the State, not Freemasonry.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Not true some organisations HAVE been outlawed for being a "cover name" for an illagal organisation. The stated goals of and activities of such organisations were not illegal.
    So the point stands, none of them have been marginalised because someone believed that members of the group might be involved in powerful cliques.
    ISAW wrote: »
    when information is in the public good yes.
    And that's not true. A right is not conferred by your belief, which is why you have to get your TD to bring your bill to the Dáil and have it passed into law, rather than simply demanding everyone tells you what you want. Again, your argument with the State, not Freemasonry.
    ISAW wrote: »
    so . The people award the right to themselves? Ever heard of "non proscribed rights"
    The right does not have to be written into law. It may be considered to have existed since time immemorial. You are assuming all right have to be positivve (i.e. that they have to be written down into law). They don't!.
    I presume you mean non prescribed rights, which is entirely different from proscribed. And philosophical constructs aside the only rights you have are those you can enforce, which in a civilised society means in law. Again, your argument with the State, not Freemasonry.
    ISAW wrote: »
    there is if the secret meeting is conspiring to commit a crime. If they don't intend to plan crimes then there isn't a law against it. well there may be. They may be not allowed to meet because someone else owns the room or they may have to many people breaking health regulations or they may have people smoking or drinking after hours without actually planning that. But such thinks are peripheral to the issue. and if the meeting to plan crimes isn't secret then it is a public offence.
    So to summarise your point, the Constitution does not prohibit 'secret' unions. Nor is there a law that prohibits 'secret' unions. What may occur when a secret union meets might be illegal under a law which has nothing to do with secret unions.
    ISAW wrote: »
    All "conspiracies" under law are criminal conspiracies! WE were not talking about A "civil" conspiracy or collusion in the above instance - an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective. although collusion does come into the idea of declaring interests.
    No, we were talking about
    ISAW wrote: »
    People want to know if there are "groups" of any sort which meet and the members of them then go off and make decisions without anyone ever knowing that the before met about that subject or even discussed it or even had any knowledge or contact with someone else deciding on the same issue
    whom I defined as conspiracy theorists. Which seems to have ignited a burning desire in you to debate what a criminal conspiracy is. I've no idea why.


  • Options
    #496
    Bigdeadlydave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭Bigdeadlydave


    Just a quick question for the Masons on here:

    Do you have to deal with accusations/attacks etc the like of what we have seen on this thread on a regular basis or is it just confined to internet forums?


  • Options
    #497
    Owen
    Registered Users Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    Generally, people are only assholes on the Internet. It's easy to be aggressive online, and it's also easy to attack and be a keyboard warrior and the lack of emotion and facial expressions/body language in a text based interface makes even the most looney of loonies seem believable, giving credence to their nonsense.

    I've never had such poisonous accusations in real life, only curiosity, and perhaps a little fear due to the ridiculous stories going around by us. When they actually meet a normal person who's a Mason, ie : Not a politican, not a banker, not a property developer, etc, they usually get a shock, and become quite open and receptive to the whole idea.


  • Options
    #498
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Similarly, many of the people I discuss it with are surprised at first; it seems a very anachronistic hobby to people and I work in a very techy industry. The first reaction of many colleagues is 'oh the Stonecutters!'. Other people are often surprised because they think it's a Protestant organisation, and I'm not Protestant. I've been a Mason for 20 years, and in all that time the biggest criticism I've had levelled from 'real world' people is that regular Freemasonry doesn't accept female members, and it's a fair criticism from many points of view.

    The internet, however, is the haven of free expression so it's always going to be the haunt of extreme opinions. I wouldn't have it any other way :D


  • Options
    #499
    ?Cee?view
    Registered Users Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭?Cee?view


    Just saw the title of this thread coming up on the latest thread, and I've been drawn to read a few pages.

    Crazy stuff! I particularly love the guy who thinks that all conspiracies are criminal - I must have missed that lecture in law school:D. I'm amazed and somewhat horrified that some people seem to believe all the lizard people illuminati nonsense.

    A question for the Masons here. I've an Uncle who's a Mason and he's never given me an answer as to the motiviation to join, other than that he was asked by friends to do so. So, to you Mason's here - what is the motivation to join? Is it curiosity? Is it family tradition?

    I just don't get it, but I'm genuinely curious.


  • Options
    #500
    Owen
    Registered Users Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    Everyone's got different reasons, but for me, it was a few things. The charity side of it appealed, and so did the amount of lodges around various countries too. I used to spend a lot of time on the road before in jobs, and throughout Europe, in lonely old hotels watching TV, and going for a meal on my own in the restaurant, and that gets old. With Masonry, you instantly have a network of people with generally similar interests and a good personality you can catch up with, and even though you're meeting them for the first time, you feel like you've met them before.

    It's a fraternity - and that's the biggest benefit there is. Genuine friendships with people who have good personalities, and good morals.


  • Options
    #501
    ?Cee?view
    Registered Users Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭?Cee?view


    PaintDoctor wrote: »
    Everyone's got different reasons, but for me, it was a few things. The charity side of it appealed, and so did the amount of lodges around various countries too. I used to spend a lot of time on the road before in jobs, and throughout Europe, in lonely old hotels watching TV, and going for a meal on my own in the restaurant, and that gets old. With Masonry, you instantly have a network of people with generally similar interests and a good personality you can catch up with, and even though you're meeting them for the first time, you feel like you've met them before.

    It's a fraternity - and that's the biggest benefit there is. Genuine friendships with people who have good personalities, and good morals.

    Thanks PaintDoctor,

    That makes sense. I suppose one thing I don't understand is the need for secrecy, but then this tendency is shared with many other fraternities. I should add that I similarly don't understand some people's need to be privy to the secrets of an organisation that they're not part of. Can some people not accept that everything is not their business, and at times they should just "butt out"?

    Thanks again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    churchview wrote: »
    Crazy stuff! I particularly love the guy who thinks that all conspiracies are criminal - I must have missed that lecture in law school:D. I'm amazed and somewhat horrified that some people seem to believe all the lizard people illuminati nonsense.

    It is a typo the word "NOT" should be before criminal. If you read the following sentence you would have noticed i referred to "civil conspiracies" and "collusion". But you seem to have stopped before that sentence.

    I am not a conspiracy theorist in the illumaniti or "lizaerd people" sense. I am in the FAS Board or Bank Board sense. People should know if if anyone deciding on public money has a vested interest. I wont comment anymore until I locate the masonic literature in trinity (which DOES have UK copyright material as well) or find it isn't there.


  • Options
    #503
    Irlandese
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭Irlandese


    My question? A technical curiosity, about learning and communication through blogs, that interests me professionaly, if I may ask? :
    In your opinion, has it served any useful purpose to expend all the energy you obviously have, in responding to all those often bitter little sections that he painstakingly split and cut up from your own posts, trying to find some chinks perhaps? I mean, did it give you any previously unavailable opportunities to get across some useful information that you would not have been able to get across with your own interesting posts?


  • Options
    #504
    Irlandese
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭Irlandese


    Bigdeadlydave wrote: »
    Just a quick question for the Masons on here:

    Do you have to deal with accusations/attacks etc the like of what we have seen on this thread on a regular basis or is it just confined to internet forums?
    I would like to join with this question and ask for personal comments about the kind of re-actions that they have met here, from the positive to the downright churlish, as with very recent posts.


  • Options
    #505
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Irlandese wrote: »
    Hi Again, Absolam, I have a question,
    In your opinion, has it served any useful purpose to expend all the energy you obviously have, in responding to all those often bitter little sections that he painstakingly split and cut up from your own posts, trying to find some chinks perhaps? I mean, did it give you any previously unavailable opportunities to get across some useful information that you would not have been able to get across with your own interesting posts?

    I think the thread as a whole is a great idea; it has given people an opportunity to ask and answer questions that they wouldn't have had otherwise. Not many people actually know Masons so they don't get to discuss what has been discussed on the thread even though it might interest them. Personally I enjoy discussing my hobby with people, and the discussion has meant I have broadened my own research and understanding of the Craft. Previously I was interested in understanding the history and esotericism of Freemasonry, but was never bothered with the whole conspiracy theory nonsense, so I guess I've gained some insights there. I think all discussion adds something to our understanding, so posting remains worthwhile, even if it means working hard to counter some bizarre perspectives!


  • Options
    #506
    katox
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭katox


    Hi

    Great thread to read! I am after spending 2 hours almost reading this! its been very interesting..my reason for finding this, was that I found out yesterday that my dad is a member of the FM's ..1st reaction was like ...WTF..but he explained it to me & im fine about it really but quite entrigued to more know about it, coz obviously he could not tell me everything....:D
    He has been a member for 30 years, cant belive it never dawned on me..all these 'black tie' events..:P

    Cheers to all FM's for sharing..:P:):D


  • Options
    #507
    steelcityblues
    Registered Users Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭steelcityblues


    Many organisations or groups have their 'useful idiots' so to speak -generally decent folk but part of a system where the higher echelons in private look down on them and wield the real power, but need them to continue prospering.

    Same as it ever was....


  • Options
    #508
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    How do they prosper from the membership?

    DeV.


  • Options
    #509
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    DeVore wrote: »
    How do they prosper from the membership?

    DeV.

    Thayts coverid in the thread Dev. Im still waiting to get my hands on the membership book form the 1980s on Hammersmith lodge. But it is clear that ont one but TWICE the Police was reformed in Scotland Yard due to masonic influence. The dinners etc. of members and how they got kickbacks from pornographers is also well documented. I am not suggesting that the masons at a national level planned to get into the pornography business but the main man ivnolved was a senior mason master of Hammersmith lodge ( something which apparently takes at least seven years to achieve even after completing three degrees when many masons don't even get past first degree ) and used the Lodge for contacts. All the centaral police men were Masons.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/masons-linked-to-bullion-heist-1315134.html

    As regards accusations above of lying - I didn't lie. I didn't intend to come back and after 3 years I changed my mind. Where is the evidence of any other so called "lies as usual" by me and what has that to do with this discussion?


  • Options
    #510
    r3nu4l
    Registered Users Posts: 17,399 ✭✭✭✭r3nu4l


    Irlandese wrote: »
    Hi Again, Absolam, I have a question, but first, I want to compliment you on your obvious patience and unfailing good manners in the face of a constant onslaught of churlish, aggressive dogging, from that other poster i mentioned earlier. I really dislike uncouth behaviour. Arguament and debate can be great learning opportunities. I really think he should have had the decency to disappear, from the site, as he promised, back in may 2007, but people like that have strange needs and a deep well of disturbed aggression to feed. Lets hope he slinks back to christianity where he seems to have a comfortable berth, with fellow travelleres.
    Attack the post NOT the poster! Any more of this and you may find yourself taking a break from the site for a while.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    ISAW wrote: »
    Thayts coverid in the thread Dev. Im still waiting to get my hands on the membership book form the 1980s on Hammersmith lodge. But it is clear that ont one but TWICE the Police was reformed in Scotland Yard due to masonic influence. The dinners etc. of members and how they got kickbacks from pornographers is also well documented. I am not suggesting that the masons at a national level planned to get into the pornography business but the main man ivnolved was a senior mason master of Hammersmith lodge ( something which apparently takes at least seven years to achieve even after completing three degrees when many masons don't even get past first degree ) and used the Lodge for contacts. All the centaral police men were Masons.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/masons-linked-to-bullion-heist-1315134.html

    As regards accusations above of lying - I didn't lie. I didn't intend to come back and after 3 years I changed my mind. Where is the evidence of any other so called "lies as usual" by me and what has that to do with this discussion?

    Again with the same wild accusations. As previously discussed (ad nauseum) in the thread, the police depts in the UK weren't reformed due to masonic influence; they were reformed due to criminal influence. Some of the criminals had masonic connections, as did some of the police investigating them. As did a lot of people not involved in the cases. This was a matter of criminality, not Freemasonry. And how 'the higher echelons prosper from the membership' isn't covered in the thread, because it's a ridiculous statement.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement