Freemasons?

Brown Bomber · 25-11-2010 10:43PM

Absolam wrote: »

So again, your theory is, there's a conspiracy of the "hidden hand" to change the world, who are so cunning as to have entirely different ideologies,

Different means to the same end - control. Wall Street funded both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis.

Absolam wrote: »

but the members are all afflicted with Dr Evil syndrome that compels them to display their secret recognition method whenever they are portrayed, so that they can't help but be found out

But it's not found out though is it?

You deny it. That's the end of it really. I'd love to hear a better explanation from you why these prominent (and not so prominent) freemasons are posing for photographs or paintings with their hand inside their jackets.

Why do neo-nazis get swastika tattoos or the Latin Kings or the bloods or whoever else wear their gang colours, have handhakes or gang signs and gestures. Identification between initiates and a sense of pride.

studiorat · 26-11-2010 11:29AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You deny it. That's the end of it really. I'd love to hear a better explanation from you why these prominent (and not so prominent) freemasons are posing for photographs or paintings with their hand inside their jackets.

The artists told the models to sit like that.

T'was the fashion in the day. The hand inside the jacket thing goes back to the time of the Roman senators, when the correct stance then when speaking.

Later painters did it for two reasons. firstly is was cheaper, hands are harder to paint than clothes so one less hand to paint was a bonus. Secondly, the great portrait painters of the time Reynolds, Gainsborough would use apprentices to paint most of the portrait and just do the hands and face themselves, once more having a hand hidden sped up the process.

Brown Bomber · 26-11-2010 11:32AM

studiorat wrote: »

The artists told the models to sit like that.

T'was the fashion in the day. The hand inside the jacket thing goes back to the time of the Roman senators, when the correct stance then when speaking.

Later painters did it for two reasons. firstly is was cheaper, hands are harder to paint than clothes so one less hand to paint was a bonus. Secondly, the great portrait painters of the time Reynolds, Gainsborough would use apprentices to paint most of the portrait and just do the hands and face themselves, once more having a hand hidden sped up the process.

:pac: - Thanks for clearing that up. Perhaps you could link to some feckin tons of handless portraits of non masons?

Absolam · 26-11-2010 11:51AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Different means to the same end - control. Wall Street funded both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis.

So bankers who fund a profit prospect are a control conspiracy too?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

But it's not found out though is it? You deny it. That's the end of it really. I'd love to hear a better explanation from you why these prominent (and not so prominent) freemasons are posing for photographs or paintings with their hand inside their jackets.

Well, you seem to think that you and the other CTers have found it out?
Let's see, why would people in general pose for portraits with their hands in their jackets? A very quick google search tells me it was a popular pose in the 18th century for 'gentlemen of breeding'. It fell out of favour in Britain due to the association with Napoleon, but continued elsewhere. I'm sure since then admirers have also tried to emulate Napoleon in their own pictures. The simple answer may very well be; people, including, but not limited to, Freemasons, thought it made them look better in pictures.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why do neo-nazis get swastika tattoos or the Latin Kings or the bloods or whoever else wear their gang colours, have handhakes or gang signs and gestures. Identification between initiates and a sense of pride.

I'll make this one easy for you; I'm not saying Freemasons don't have secret signs to provide recognition between Masons, we do. Not to declare to the world 'I am a Mason', we have lapel pins and suchlike for that, but to allow one Mason meeting another to know it, if he wishes to.

26-11-2010 11:59AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:pac: - Thanks for clearing that up. Perhaps you could link to some feckin tons of handless portraits of non masons?

Torakx · 26-11-2010 12:16PM

The masonic gesture probably did gain popularity since most of the people using it where probably masons back when those gestures first popped up.
Kind of like the pyramid or eye of Ra gesture.Its become popular.It doesnt mean lady gaga is a mason or worshiper of horus,just that she uses that gesture.
However if she started doing other things or gestures that also relate to masons i would then consider her to be somehow involved with them.And that would go for anyone else.
So for me a random person might be seen flashing a gesture but its only when they do it multiple times that we would normally conclude involvement.
That craig fitzgerald or whatever his name, looks to be posing with 3 different gestures that have been linked to masons or secret societies.
If he is not advertising to his friends (a bit too obviously imo) then what is his aim in gesturing?
Is he saying FU masons we are fighting back? or is he saying "there's one of us here"?

Brown Bomber · 26-11-2010 07:37PM

Torakx wrote: »

"there's one of us here"?

That is the impression I got tbh.

Brown Bomber · 26-11-2010 07:40PM

Skull & Bonesmen with the hidden hand(s). What are the chances???!!!

Saaron · 26-11-2010 07:43PM

My Grandpa is a member of the Freemasons.
He's very involved in it.

I've been inside the Masonic many times, I used to go there with him when I was little and had no one to mind me.

Can't see the big deal.

Brown Bomber · 26-11-2010 07:47PM

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Napoleon Bonaparte
http://lodgenapoleon.blogspot.com/2009/04/napoleon-bonaparte-freemason.html

This clinches it for me. The famous Napolean Bonaparte portrait

The Emperor Napolean in his study at the Tuileries wasn't in fact commissioned by Napolean but Alexander Douglas-Hamilton the 10th Duke of Hamilton.

He also supported Napoleon and commissioned the painting The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries
by Jacques-Louis David.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alehttp://k53.pbase.com/u39/danpolley/large/25438970.PICT1547.jpgxander_Douglas-Hamilton,_10th_Duke_of_Hamilton

Who just so happened to have -

held the office of Grand Master of the Freemasons [Scotland] between 1820 and 1822.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Douglas-Hamilton,_10th_Duke_of_Hamilton

What are the chances?

Brown Bomber · 26-11-2010 08:36PM

Saaron wrote: »

My Grandpa is a member of the Freemasons.
He's very involved in it.

I've been inside the Masonic many times, I used to go there with him when I was little and had no one to mind me.

Can't see the big deal.

Well what do you think the Hellfire Club, Illuminatti, The Klu Klux Klan and the CIA have in common?

WakeUp · 26-11-2010 08:56PM

Absolam wrote: »

Certainly it is the case that Freemasonry is a society with secrets. We've never denied that.

I am sorry but yes you have denied that and on many occasions too. The conversation I have had with you is a study in contradiction actually, on your part, I don’t think there is any need for me to highlight it as it is really obvious. You continue to tow the line “that there is nothing secret about freemasonry” when blatantly there is you keep admitting to it.

Well, to be honest it's probably pretty standard because it's true. Such secrets as we have, we keep secret. The clue is in the word.

But I thought there was nothing secret about freemasonry? You don’t have to answer that. Is it true your grand master sits on a throne dressed up in hoopla bling like lord muck himself, is the prevailing attitude in the upper reaches of your chaps club akin to a monarchy? What is your status within the hood can you man up and even answer that. What degree mason are you, do they call you Overlord or Father of Peace?? which I understand is the Hebrew translation of your user name.

Of course I have a reason for choosing the name. Hmmmm... break a promise because a stranger on the internet would like me to? Tempting, but, no not that tempting actually

Would you care to share that reason with the group? Let me guess right its a shsssssh secret and you cant???

If you think we take it seriously, what makes you think we'd suddenly stop taking seriously in order to satisfy your curiousity? Seriously though, what kind of person breaks a promise just because nobody will know they broke it?

It’s blatantly obvious you take it seriously, I thought you are here to “inform” people about the hood. If that’s the case so inform us then. Tell us something we don’t know for example talk to us about your oath or share some secret knowledge with the group enlighten us.

Nevertheless, we are what we are, regardless of what you would like to see. And no, Freemasons don't wear hoods, except in movies and comics.

That is the question though isn’t it what really are you behind the scenes going up through the degrees with all your secrets that only the chosen may know. Nobody likes sly secretive people and yet you seem to have a hard time understanding why some people view your crew with suspicion.

Absolam · 27-11-2010 01:49PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well what do you think the Hellfire Club, Illuminatti, The Klu Klux Klan and the CIA have in common?

They're all favourite subjects for conspiracy theorists? They all admitted Roman Catholic members? The all had english speaking members? None of them ever paid taxes? I'm agog.

WakeUp wrote: »

I am sorry but yes you have denied that and on many occasions too. The conversation I have had with you is a study in contradiction actually, on your part, I don’t think there is any need for me to highlight it as it is really obvious. You continue to tow the line “that there is nothing secret about freemasonry” when blatantly there is you keep admitting to it.

I've denied that Freemasonry is a secret society. Feel free to quote me where I've denied we have secrets. Feel free to quote where you think I've contradicted myself. Highlight away.

WakeUp wrote: »

But I thought there was nothing secret about freemasonry? You don’t have to answer that.

Actually you said "We want to know about your secrets". You never thought there was nothing secret about Freemasonry, nor did I ever say it. Having failed to make your previous points, you're now trying the tack "There is nothing secret about Freemasonry" as if it were the discussion point. It wasn't; review your posts.

WakeUp wrote: »

Is it true your grand master sits on a throne dressed up in hoopla bling like lord muck himself, is the prevailing attitude in the upper reaches of your chaps club akin to a monarchy?

Back to rhetorical aggression? Try making a point. Do you have an issue with people in big chairs, or jewelly, or those you consider to be of higher social status?

WakeUp wrote: »

What is your status within the hood can you man up and even answer that.

I refer you to post # 397

WakeUp wrote: »

What degree mason are you.

I am a Master Mason, and a member of a number of appendant bodies.

WakeUp wrote: »

do they call you Overlord or Father of Peace?? which I understand is the Hebrew translation of your user name.

No, they call me by my given name. And Father/Leader of/is peace is the meaning of Absalom.

WakeUp wrote: »

Would you care to share that reason with the group? Let me guess right its a shsssssh secret and you cant???.

I wouldn't, and it isn't, but I will say it's not Masonic or religious.

WakeUp wrote: »

It’s blatantly obvious you take it seriously, I thought you are here to “inform” people about the hood. If that’s the case so inform us then. Tell us something we don’t know for example talk to us about your oath or share some secret knowledge with the group enlighten us.

Which part of the point did you miss? I wouldn't break my promise to satisy your curiousity. If you want to know about the secrets, apply for membership. If you're worth having, you'll hear the oaths firsthand.

WakeUp wrote: »

That is the question though isn’t it what really are you behind the scenes going up through the degrees with all your secrets that only the chosen may know. Nobody likes sly secretive people and yet you seem to have a hard time understanding why some people view your crew with suspicion.

So the real issue here is you can't stand the idea of someone knowing something you don't? When you choose to use prejoritive terms like 'all your secrets', 'the chosen', 'sly secretive' without any knowledge whatsoever you're only showing your own insecurities.

Brown Bomber · 27-11-2010 06:14PM

Absolam wrote: »

They're all favourite subjects for conspiracy theorists? They all admitted Roman Catholic members? The all had english speaking members? None of them ever paid taxes? I'm agog.

Ah ffs...here we go again...

The KKK weren't anti-Catholic then?

Just like it was Catholics behind the Russian and French revolutions right?

Absolam · 27-11-2010 06:57PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ah ffs...here we go again...

The KKK weren't anti-Catholic then?

Just like it was Catholics behind the Russian and French revolutions right?

You asked what they all had in common; I was suggesting possibilities. You're saying the KKK had no Catholic members? Or are you saying you accept that all the other suggestions are commonalities?

Brown Bomber · 27-11-2010 08:39PM

Absolam wrote: »

You asked what they all had in common; I was suggesting possibilities. You're saying the KKK had no Catholic members? Or are you saying you accept that all the other suggestions are commonalities?

I looked it up. The KKK had forbidden Catholic membership up until 1975, at which point they had faded into non significance. In the masonic eras the KKK was unashamedly anti-Catholic. The original KKK and it's post WWI revivial form were founded and ran by freemasons.

Your comparison of Catholics and masons here and with regards to the French and Russian revolutions is pure folly.

Otherwise The Hellfire Club (and the Golden Dawn) both here and in Britain was started by Freemasons.

Brother Truman gave the world the gift of the CIA

31Od9jpNBDL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

And the Illuminati were wholly a masonic group.

Therefore the most pertinent response would be the connection of freemasons which brings me back to my original point of the potential of secret societies to be subversive which is why I think any public servants should be required by law to state if they are members. That is all. I am not anti-mason and certainly have no axe to grind with you personally. Having said that it is clear that you have not come to "set the record straight" as you resorted to at times deception, deflection and denial of the easily verifiable or obvious. It should be clear to anyone that any subversive group would have a public face (for example you-here, lodge open days etc) and hidden and secret actions. With the lower rungs in the dark.

That is not to say that this is the case however.

("In the dark" out of interest is that a masonic term?)

Absolam · 27-11-2010 09:46PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I looked it up. The KKK had forbidden Catholic membership up until 1975, at which point they had faded into non significance.

But prior to 1921 the KKK had no anti-catholic agenda. So from 1865 to now, over 155 years, the KKK was only anti Catholic for a portion of its existence. So it almost certainly had Catholic members.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In the masonic eras the KKK was unashamedly anti-Catholic.

What exactly are the masonic eras?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The original KKK and it's post WWI revivial form were founded and ran by freemasons.

Do you have a (reputable non anti-masonic) source for your assertion?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your comparison of Catholics and masons here and with regards to the French and Russian revolutions is pure folly.

My point stands; just because Catholics and Masons were involved doesn't mean either were responsible as a group.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Otherwise The Hellfire Club both here and in Britain was started by Freemasons.

Again, can you cite a (reputable non anti-masonic) source for your assertion? Certainly, the first Hellfire Club was founded by a man who later became a Freemason, and also had Catholic and Protestant Christian members. So by definition the Hellfire Club was started by a non Masonic Christian. I'll allow that the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was originally started by three Freemasons (who were also Christians by the way).

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Brother Truman gave the world the gift of the CIA.

President Truman certainly signed the Act, although it would be fair to say the idea for the CIA belonged to William Donovan. Both of them were Christians too.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And the Illuminati were wholly a masonic group.

That's just nonsense. Modelled on Masonic organisational lines, maybe, Masons as members, probably (just as probably as Christians), but the Illuminati were by no stretch a wholly Masonic group.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Therefore the most pertinent response would be the connection of freemasons.

Or Christians. Or English speakers. Or men.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

which brings me back to my original point of the potential of secret societies to be subversive which is why I think any public servants should be required by law to state if they are members. That is all.

Hang on, are you saying the CIA, the Hellfire Club, the Illuminati, and the Golden Dawn are/were subversive organisations? That's a whole argument in itself!

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not anti-mason and certainly have no axe to grind with you personally. Having said that it is clear that you have not come to "set the record straight" as you resorted to at times deception, deflection and denial of the easily verifiable or obvious.

I never said I had come to "set the record straight" and I'd be pleased to see any evidence of deception or deflection in my posts. As for denial; I've been happy to deny anything that was untrue.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It should be clear to anyone that any subversive group would have a public face (for example you-here, lodge open days etc) and hidden and secret actions. With the lower rungs in the dark.

It should also be clear that if you start with the assumption that a group is subversive then you can predicate any wild argument on the assumption.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

("In the dark" out of interest is that a masonic term?)

It could be, but it seems likely that it predates Freemasonry substantially.

squod · 27-11-2010 10:00PM

Long answers to defend the order, short answers to explain it. I see a pattern.

Absolam · 28-11-2010 03:21PM

Surely you mean short, unspecific, unresearched attacks, followed by detailed, specific and thoughtful answers?

squod · 28-11-2010 05:32PM

Absolam wrote: »

Surely you mean short, unspecific, unresearched attacks, followed by detailed, specific and thoughtful answers?

If anyone is guilty of being ''unresearched'' I suggest it's you. Perhaps you should stop criticising and start listening.

Absolam · 28-11-2010 05:46PM

Gosh, I'm so sorry, what did I not hear?

Brown Bomber · 29-11-2010 01:02AM

Absolam wrote: »

But prior to 1921 the KKK had no anti-catholic agenda. So from 1865 to now, over 155 years, the KKK was only anti Catholic for a portion of its existence. So it almost certainly had Catholic members.

1865-1975 NO CATHOLICS were allowed to join. This by definition makes it anti-Catholic.

Freemasons were at the forefront of the initial KKK and it's subsequent revival. Catholics were the victims of it's racially motivated attacks. To compare the two as having equal/similar blame is either ignorant or dishonest.

This clearly is not one of your

detailed, specific and thoughtful answers

Why don't you quit with the spin???

Speaking personally you'd be much more likely to change my mind if you could actually be honest, and accept the sins of freemasons.

From The Klu Klux Klan: A Study of the American Mind by John Moffat Mecklin. 1924 http://books.google.com/books?id=FQ8WkTit5J4C&dq=The+Ku+Klux+Klan:+A+Study+of+the+American+Mind&hl=en&ei=lPTyTKqaG4WaOri3xfwJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA

Through a questionairre, by personal interviews and otherwise, the writer has attempted to discover the reasons for joining the Klan...the motive which has gained most members for the Klan, taking precedence over all others in the strength and universality of it's appeal, in undoubtedly anti-Catholicism. Out of several hundred representatives from various parts of the country...all mentioned anti-Catholicism and a large percentage placed it first.

Moffat Mecklin then goes on to quote a prominent Catholic of Evansville, Indiana

"Catholics without exception condemn the Klan as Un-American and un-Christian violating in particular the laws of charity and dangerous to democratic government.

And just to show the KKK of either era weren't alone in their rabid anti-Catholicism I give you the example of the American Protective Association. Who just happened to be, and this will shock you founded by a freemason - Henry F. Bowers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Protective_Association

Absolam · 29-11-2010 12:15PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1865-1975 NO CATHOLICS were allowed to join. This by definition makes it anti-Catholic. Freemasons were at the forefront of the initial KKK and it's subsequent revival.

But the KKK has actively recruited Roman Catholic members since 1975, so my point stands; The KKK like the Hellfire Club, Illuminatti and the CIA have in common all had/have Roman Catholic members. And English speaking members. And male members. All commonalities, other than Masonic members.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Catholics were the victims of it's racially motivated attacks. To compare the two as having equal/similar blame is either ignorant or dishonest..

Since Catholics are not a race, that's untrue. And I'm not saying Catholics and Freemasons have equal / similar blame for the KKK, or the Illuminati, or the Hellfire Club, or the Cia, or the French Revolution, or the Russian Revolution. I'm saying that members of both organisations (and many other organisations) were present in all of these; to assign blame to an organisation for an event because its' members were present, you must then assign blame to all organisations with a presence. Otherwise you're just demonstrating your own prejudice.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Speaking personally you'd be much more likely to change my mind if you could actually be honest, and accept the sins of freemasons.

I'd have to accept the concept of sin first wouldn't I? I'm quite prepared to agree that there have been Freemasons throughout history who have been wrongdoers, murderers and outright evil people. However, this applies to any large organisation with a long history. The Roman Catholic Church is a church of love and compassion, with a history filled with genocide and hatred, and many people who are/were Roman Catholics have commited horrendous crimes. I don't blame the Church for the actions of those individuals; the fact that Hitler was a Roman Catholic doesn't mean I blame the Church for World War II.

Richard tea · 06-01-2011 12:17PM

I Just caught a small bit on rte radio this morning mentioning a link between whats going on in the Ivory Coast and the Freemasons. I didnt get any information because it was at the end of the show.

http://saoti.over-blog.com/article-west-african-leaders-on-the-square-against-gbagbo-french-masonic-lodges-and-fran-afrique-64344053.html

Has anybody got any idea what the connections are?

My thoughts at the moment is dodgy deals and corrupt politicians/business men

studiorat · 06-01-2011 12:49PM

.

Absolam wrote: »

What exactly are the masonic eras?

.

Emme · 06-01-2011 03:11PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

("In the dark" out of interest is that a masonic term?)

Dunno, from what I hear Masons generally look for light.

getz · 06-01-2011 03:16PM

Richard tea wrote: »

I Just caught a small bit on rte radio this morning mentioning a link between whats going on in the Ivory Coast and the Freemasons. I didnt get any information because it was at the end of the show.

http://saoti.over-blog.com/article-west-african-leaders-on-the-square-against-gbagbo-french-masonic-lodges-and-fran-afrique-64344053.html

Has anybody got any idea what the connections are?

My thoughts at the moment is dodgy deals and corrupt politicians/business men

its been going on since the masonic lodges first formed,every western country has masons at the very top of its goverment and buisness,goverments have fallen because of masonic interference,even the EU is under the control of masonic influence. you can fool some of the people some of the time,but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

nullzero · 06-01-2011 03:23PM

Absolam wrote: »

Since Catholics are not a race...

I might be way off topic here but regardless of whatever else you wrote it would be nice for people to take the point of those six words and realise that you can interchange the word Catholic with the word, Jew, Muslim or even Jedi if you like.

A lot of arguments could be avoided if it was aknowledged that religion and "race" (I use quotes as we're all humans) are two different things.

Phill Ewinn · 06-01-2011 06:22PM

Richard tea wrote: »

I Just caught a small bit on rte radio this morning mentioning a link between whats going on in the Ivory Coast and the Freemasons. I didnt get any information because it was at the end of the show.

http://saoti.over-blog.com/article-west-african-leaders-on-the-square-against-gbagbo-french-masonic-lodges-and-fran-afrique-64344053.html

Has anybody got any idea what the connections are?

My thoughts at the moment is dodgy deals and corrupt politicians/business men

Good article that. Thanks for posting. Doesn't mention any of the ''excellent charity work'' these homocidal African dictators do.

Richard tea · 06-01-2011 06:37PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Good article that. Thanks for posting. Doesn't mention any of the ''excellent charity work'' these homocidal African dictators do.

You actually read it, good man yourself. Im too lazy ( Dumb ) to find the connections between the freemasons and the ongoing Ivory coast issue.

Freemasons?

Comments