North Wales paedophilia ring exposed: Masonic involvement.

Originally posted by Nakash
Plenty of Masons pedos scum. Cannot be hidden. Aleister Crowley was a pedo, and he's a hero of sorts in masonry.

Perhaps you should check your facts before making such sweeping statements or specific assertions.

www.masonicinfo.com...

So, are you trying to say that all masons are pedophiles or that some pedophiles are masons? Those are two completely different statements.

I was in Job's Daughters for several years, and I can assure you I was never molested or used in a satanic rite. If the masons in our town wanted to molest young girls, that would have been a good place to start. After all, we did look pretty good in those Grecian robes.

Originally posted by Edelweiss Pirate



"He recognised one of them as a fellow member of his Masonic Lodge, who walked up to him and asked 'Do you want to have a bit of fun?' He pointed out a girl who was with them."


This means that a Mason invited another mason to have sex with a child.

It gets no clearer than this.

This is what they do all the time. Drugs, sex, money.. anything to exercise control through blackmail (oooh a Mason word, quelle surprise!)

"He recognized one of them as a fellow member of his club basebal team, who walked to him and asked 'Do you want to have a bit of fun?' He pointed out a girl who was with them."

This means that a baseball player invited another baseball player to have sex with a child.

It gets no cleaer than this.

This is what they do all the time. Drugs, sex, money... anything to exercise controlt rhough blackmail (oooh a baseball word, quelle surprise!)

Originally posted by Edelweiss Pirate

This is what they do all the time. Drugs, sex, money.. anything to exercise control through blackmail (oooh a Mason word, quelle surprise!)

You have a point, but are pointing it in a vague direction.
For those kind of scandals, look at the white house (franklin gay porn scandal), not the masonic lodge...

Couple of things...
Most masons (like 99% of them) will have never seen nor partaken in these vile activities.
It isn't what masonic meetings are about. Not defending them, just playing devils advocate. Most masons are just enjoying a fraternal experience.

But there is a "type" that also likes secret organizations... that type is "elitist sociopath"

What appears here, is a symptom of the selfishness that seems to go with people who have too much power, and no conscience (aka-sociopath)

Secret organizations often have members who indulge in Unethical/immoral/illegal behavior but not from an organizational perspective/goal (except nambla of course). More as a coincidence of memberships in multiple groups.

These behaviors are habits/charachteristics of a group of elites, that has had power for so long, that it has corrupted whole family legacies (some rather famous ones- hint).

If you study pschology and history, You will find many sociopaths as achievers and leaders. Sociopaths also have NO moral structure other than "looking the part".
Sociopaths tend to get bored with obeying the law & social mores, and can often derive a thrill, just from getting away with something that others would not even morally attempt.

So, if you break this down to the "why", then you can quickly surmise that there is a proliferation of sociopaths in leadership positions, and therefore, a proliferation of illegal behaviors as well.

Not saying that pedophiles need to be rich, only that it goes hand in hand with one of the "types" of overachievers. Who often, as overachievers go, become political or business leaders (or god fobid- religious leaders - i.e. jim and tammy faye)

Dont go and bash every secret group out there, just the freakos that populate some of them...

Very lame case of generalization,another case of someone speaking out with little to no knowledge

Thing is the ones at the top of the pyramid do this and think they can get away with it. The Cugs and Masonic lights who are stuck here on ATS probably know as much about it as we do. Oh, and Aleister Crowley was a pedophile, as was the founder of the Golden Dawn, and also many members of the temple of Set.

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Nakash]

Edelweiss Pirate, I agree with you.

What's funny is these people who defend Masons. Can someone please explain to me why the world's most powerful fraternity needs to be defended?

Even when it is clearly shown that two Masons conspired to molest, this does not cause the Masonic defenders to pause. No, they just wail, "Shameful! This is not Masonry at all, but just a couple of rogues!"

What hogwash. Your whole Masonic society is based on secret handshakes and graft. It appeals to men who are lost in their own lives. People who do not have a direction unless they are provided one. People who need structure in their lives. Collectivists, in short. A brother Mason will not turn in his brother, if that person is ranked above him and found to be engaged in wrongdoing. Please provide me examples of such an event, if I am wrong.

The Mason fraternity is deisgned to attract those persons who need to belong. Sad really. I mean I do respect Masons simply because most of them are good men and they do try to improve themselves, but collectivism always produces an inferior sort of human. When I say this to Masons, I am called a fool for wanting to remain independent. I am happy to be called a fool by any collectivist or frat boy.

Most Masons, like Homer Simpson joining the Stonecutters, will not ever place the fraternity in a bad light, for why would they wish to lose their graft or place their position at risk. No, they will always try to minmize the shame/damage for their group. Their group, after all, is far more important than one child. No Mason would ever argue that.

The comment about two crackheads saying "let's go hurt a child!" and then comparing that to this situation is UTTERLY STUPID because crackheads do not profess to be higher than the common man. Crackheads (or cops for that matter) do not claim their fraternity to be a path to enlightenment. Also, crackheads have not come to ATS posting "there are no molestation events commited by us!" as some of the more delusional Masons have done. I am certain that even if there were ten such events, these Masons would still be reading from the "defend Masonry" textbook.

This story is just the tip of the iceberg. Or pyramid, if you prefer.

wow, am i on a conspiracy board or a free masons recruiting site? Hard to tell really. Freemasons - now there's some big elephant sitting in the living room. Any actual conspiracy researchers here?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Edelweiss Pirate, I agree with you.

You might want to check out Eidelweisse's post history. He's got some other "interesting" things to say based on bizarre logic, threadbare evidence and hyper-paranoia. All hail the reptilian overlords!

Originally posted by smallpeepsWhat's funny is these people who defend Masons. Can someone please explain to me why the world's most powerful fraternity needs to be defended?

It doesn't NEED to be defended, as it has stood the test of time and various campaigns of persecution over hundreds of years. Some posters simply prefer to discern the truth ahead of the kind of flawed conclusions being drawn here.

Originally posted by smallpeepsEven when it is clearly shown that two Masons conspired to molest, this does not cause the Masonic defenders to pause. No, they just wail, "Shameful! This is not Masonry at all, but just a couple of rogues!"

Two Masons conspired to molest. How exactly is this in line with Masonic principles? How exactly does this promote Freemasonry? Isn't it obvious how it would be of detriment to the fraternity for this kind of thing to happen? I would expect that, if convicted, these two men would be instantly ejected from the fraternity.

Originally posted by smallpeepsAlso, crackheads have not come to ATS posting "there are no molestation events commited by us!" as some of the more delusional Masons have done.

Got an example of this, or are you simply grinding a very large axe?

I suspect that a lot of your knowledge of Freemasonry is second-hand or based on semi-paranoid hearsay. Obviously, it's your prerogative to decide what you want to believe.

Your suggestion that Freemasonry primarily caters for the "lost" or those who need "shepherding" isn't really reflected in the great names who have historically formed the membership of the fraternity (Newton, Washington et al).

But hey! If it makes you feel better to believe as much, you're welcome to your bitterness. You won't find much mental or emotional nutrition in it though.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
What's funny is these people who defend Masons. Can someone please explain to me why the world's most powerful fraternity needs to be defended?

Uh.....'cuz EP's spouting crap? Because a lie's a lie's a lie?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Even when it is clearly shown that two Masons conspired to molest, this does not cause the Masonic defenders to pause. No, they just wail, "Shameful! This is not Masonry at all, but just a couple of rogues!"

And of course, with your encyclopaedic knowledge of all things masonic, you intuitively know that EP's assertions are correct. And using the same logic as EP, because Jamaica is considered the murder capital of the world, it necessarily follows that all Jamaicans are murderers, right?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
What hogwash. Your whole Masonic society is based on secret handshakes and graft.

There's that encyclopaedic knowledge at play again. Of course you know this because you're a Mason, right? No? Read it on the Internet? Thought so!

Originally posted by smallpeeps
A brother Mason will not turn in his brother, if that person is ranked above him and found to be engaged in wrongdoing. Please provide me examples of such an event, if I am wrong.

Wrong. But since you're making the assertion, please provide some examples proving your point.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
The Mason fraternity is deisgned to attract those persons who need to belong. Sad really. I mean I do respect Masons simply because most of them are good men and they do try to improve themselves,

Un huh! Sorta works at cross-purposes to your earlier assertion. So, are we world-dominating bastards or just losers in search of a clique to join?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
but collectivism always produces an inferior sort of human. When I say this to Masons, I am called a fool for wanting to remain independent. I am happy to be called a fool by any collectivist or frat boy.

Wow! You're some independent kinda kid! But you joined ATS. That certainly would fit your definition of a collective. So you'd have to also be another one of these weak-willed collectivist types, right?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Most Masons, like Homer Simpson joining the Stonecutters, will not ever place the fraternity in a bad light, for why would they wish to lose their graft or place their position at risk. No, they will always try to minmize the shame/damage for their group. Their group, after all, is far more important than one child. No Mason would ever argue that.

Yup. We're reptilian too. Hadn't heard that? Gotta stay outta the sunlight so we don't overheat in these human costumes.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
The comment about two crackheads saying "let's go hurt a child!" and then comparing that to this situation is UTTERLY STUPID because crackheads do not profess to be higher than the common man.

If they're guilty, they should be shot and pissed on. End of issue. But their being Masons has no relevance to what they did except in providing the manner of their acquaintance. If they were on the same baseball team, would you be making the same assertions?

yeah I don't understand all the defense of this, and what I find even worse is the story of Sarah Payne (rigorousintuition.blogspot.com...)

you know they were using it for an energy/satanic ritual because they know of the energy it creates, just because it's not taught on certain levels doesn't mean there aren't those higher up the ladder who know

do I think all masons are involved in such things? no, but it definitely seems like there's something up...either way I think the things like this will continue to be revealed so we'll just have to wait and see for the those who doubt

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Uh.....'cuz EP's spouting crap? Because a lie's a lie's a lie?

It's not a lie, braintrust, it's a story and it seems to be valid. Here's the quotes from the link since apparently you missed it:

link

He also advertised her services in a magazine and forced her to have sex with around 50 men over two years, including at least 18 in one day alone.

Three men who participated in sexual activities with the youngster were also jailed yesterday, for a total of almost 25 years.

Last night, it emerged one of the men - who recognised a fellow Masonic Lodge member as an abuser - has refused to name him to police officers.

[...]

Mr Thomas later confirmed Ket-land had refused to divulge the identity of his fellow Mason to investigating officers.

An ex-policeman Mason who with his brother Mason, took part in criminal acts and refused to name his brother. What is it you are trying to deny here?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
The Mason fraternity is deisgned to attract those persons who need to belong. Sad really. I mean I do respect Masons simply because most of them are good men and they do try to improve themselves,

Un huh! Sorta works at cross-purposes to your earlier assertion. So, are we world-dominating bastards or just losers in search of a clique to join?

Not really. You see, when a bunch of collectivists get together, the group becomes powerful. If enough people sell their souls to a group, it can become supremely powerful, or at least in relation to the non-initiate. I'm sure this explanation is beyond you.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
but collectivism always produces an inferior sort of human. When I say this to Masons, I am called a fool for wanting to remain independent. I am happy to be called a fool by any collectivist or frat boy.

Wow! You're some independent kinda kid! But you joined ATS. That certainly would fit your definition of a collective. So you'd have to also be another one of these weak-willed collectivist types, right?

No, ATS is different from a lodge. They require no vows, don't want my allegience, etc. Also, ATS is a forum where a person's ideas may be voiced and critiqued by others, unlike a lodge which is handled from on top. Making some stupid comments about my not "really knowing" what goes on is typical of your type. If your group wasn't so secret, things like this wouldn't happen. Do you actually believe this is an isolated event? If so, I pity you.



[edit on 8-5-2006 by smallpeeps]

Originally posted by Roark
You might want to check out Eidelweisse's post history. He's got some other "interesting" things to say based on bizarre logic, threadbare evidence and hyper-paranoia. All hail the reptilian overlords!

It's a valid story and a valid link. Your discrediting him based on other "crazy" things he posted, is typical of this forum.

Originally posted by smallpeepsWhat's funny is these people who defend Masons. Can someone please explain to me why the world's most powerful fraternity needs to be defended?

It doesn't NEED to be defended, as it has stood the test of time and various campaigns of persecution over hundreds of years. Some posters simply prefer to discern the truth ahead of the kind of flawed conclusions being drawn here.

What conclusion? I ask you DIRECTLY, Roark: Do you think this is an isolated event? Your answer will tell me all I need to know about you.

Originally posted by smallpeepsEven when it is clearly shown that two Masons conspired to molest, this does not cause the Masonic defenders to pause. No, they just wail, "Shameful! This is not Masonry at all, but just a couple of rogues!"

Two Masons conspired to molest. How exactly is this in line with Masonic principles? How exactly does this promote Freemasonry? Isn't it obvious how it would be of detriment to the fraternity for this kind of thing to happen? I would expect that, if convicted, these two men would be instantly ejected from the fraternity.

I am not saying it promotes freemasonry. The first part of your response is designed to distract. Nice try. What I am pointing to, is this fraternity's propensity to conspire in secret (duh, that's why it's a secret society) and that not all this conspiring is good for non-intitiates.

Why do you focus your energy into defending Masonry but not children? Not one word about this story? I find that behavior to be typical of this forum, which is why I avoid it.

Originally posted by smallpeepsAlso, crackheads have not come to ATS posting "there are no molestation events commited by us!" as some of the more delusional Masons have done.

Got an example of this, or are you simply grinding a very large axe?

Yes, I could post some threads where members have said the same things said here, i.e. "Masons do not do such things, and if such a brother be found doing so, let him be cast out immediately!" ..It's sheer BS. Masons know that some of their brethren are evil, and they do not pursue or cleanse their group. Dark rooms and thick curtains are meant to hide things, you see.

I suspect that a lot of your knowledge of Freemasonry is second-hand or based on semi-paranoid hearsay. Obviously, it's your prerogative to decide what you want to believe.

Your suggestion that Freemasonry primarily caters for the "lost" or those who need "shepherding" isn't really reflected in the great names who have historically formed the membership of the fraternity (Newton, Washington et al).

As I have said, Masonry (or any fraternity) is always able to reward its members. Would George Washington be such a great man if he were not a Mason? As I recall, the indians said Washington had guardian angels protecting him and he couldn't be shot on the battlefield. Seems to me that Masons benefited from having him as a member, not vice versa. I have asked Masons, for example, if Albert Pike would have been a less-great man if he'd not known Masonry. I wonder if people are able to find supreme enlightenment without Masonry? No answer yet from Masons.

No, it seems to me that Masonry exists for those whose own lives and their place in the world are not sufficient, and who want to believe in a larger structure that will surpass them when they die. They want so badly to believe that their mundane existance has a greater meaning. ...I am speaking of course of those Masons who DO NOT join just for graft and reward. The Masons I know, do not have some superior attitude. They tell me the lodges are filled with old men and they are simply part of it because their status in life afforded them an invitation to join (dad was a member, etc).

But hey! If it makes you feel better to believe as much, you're welcome to your bitterness. You won't find much mental or emotional nutrition in it though.

On the contrary, I find much pleasure in being apart from that fraternity, and all fraternities. I do not pledge myself to anyone or any group. And yes, I know Masons and yes, I have read the books by Masons and yes, I was in a religion founded by a Mason (Charles Taze Russell) and I am sure you know the blood/name Russell and how powerful it has been through history. Also you may know that this man was ALSO accused of sex with children. Also that his church has a massive molestation scandal which they are trying to hide.



[edit on 8-5-2006 by smallpeeps]

Everyone on both sides of this discussion needs to stop slamming the opposition. Calling other people stupid is childish, pathetic, weak, and will no be permited.

This thread is about a specific instance of two masons conspiring to commit a horrible crime. We can discuss related subjects, but there are more than enough threads that can serve as soapboxes for tirades against each other.

Originally posted by Nakash
Thing is the ones at the top of the pyramid do this and think they can get away with it.

The guys who did this particlar case were at the top of the pyramid?

The Cugs and Masonic lights who are stuck here on ATS

Cug's a Mason?

What do you mean 'stuck here'? They enjoy being here, as much as anyone else.

probably know as much about it as we do.

But if you don't know that anything is going on, why say that it is??

Oh, and Aleister Crowley was a pedophile, as was the founder of the Golden Dawn, and also many members of the temple of Set.

So?

Even when it is clearly shown that two Masons conspired to molest, this does not cause the Masonic defenders to pause.

Does that fact that they were two englishmen who conspired to molest mean that england needs to sit down and re-evaluate itself, or are these guys just disgusting sickos??

A brother Mason will not turn in his brother, if that person is ranked above him and found to be engaged in wrongdoing.

Why would it matter if he is possesing a higher degree? The organization requires that its members comply with the law. Why are you assuming that none of them follow the rules of the organization?

The Mason fraternity is deisgned to attract those persons who need to belong.

Possibly. But what of it? Lots of people like to belong. So what? That makes them evil? That means that they'll break the rules of the group to protect pigs????

The comment about two crackheads saying "let's go hurt a child!" and then comparing that to this situation is UTTERLY STUPID because crackheads do not profess to be higher than the common man.

That hardly makes the situation different. What does it matter if the child molester is also an egomaniac or think's he is superior to other people?

paranoid
wow, am i on a conspiracy board or a free masons recruiting site?

YOu are on a conspiracy board, one where people aren't censored merely for disagreeing with any particular conspiracy theory. You are on a conspiracy board where you will be able to see arguments from all sides, and actually be able to determine for yourself what's really going on.

Any actual conspiracy researchers here?

Why do you think that a person has to conform to certain group and social standards in order to be a conspiracy theorist? Since when are conspiracy theorists rank conformists who beleive what authorities tell them, merely because they like the sound of it?

invisibleplane
yeah I don't understand all the defense of this

You've REALLY gotta be trying hard to pretend that anyone is defending these child molestors.

it definitely seems like there's something up

Based on what?

took part in criminal acts and refused to name his brother.

And why do you suppose this guy, who participated in criminal acts, didn't report on the criminal acts of his partner in crime? Because they both wear white gloves and silly aprons?

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
For that matter, if they were both coppers, would you be proclaiming a copper conspiracy from the rooftops? I doubt it somehow.

You have your agenda

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Fitzgibbon]

I just was reviewing this, and I am utterly shocked.

As for your notation Fitzgibbon, I respectfully suggest, you are absolutely correct.

The Poster would have been saying that they still where Mason's. It does not matter that they where police, because police do not have an agenda, (unless in a military state of course). No, it would make little difference if they where Cops, Preists or Bakers. The problem is that they are Masons. It's the appearance that matters.

Have a good day

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
So, I'll spell it slowly so you can understand

If...they...were...coppers,...would...you...be...claiming...all...cops...are...paedophiles?

Because them being masons isn't germaine to them being paedophiles. Geddit?

The rest of your post is beyond the pale and you're just trolling

Not only that, but upon conviction, or with enough evidence even without conviction, they would be ejected from Freemasonry. One swears to uphold the laws of their nation and state when becoming a Freemason.

[edit on 8-5-2006 by No1tovote4]

Originally posted by Shane
It does not matter that they where police, because police do not have an agenda, (unless in a military state of course). No, it would make little difference if they where Cops, Preists or Bakers. The problem is that they are Masons. It's the appearance that matters.

I'd respectfully suggest that you're deluding yourself in suggesting that police don't have an agenda. As I said earlier, that they're Masons isn't germaine to the story. Had they been cricketeers, footballers, bakers or priests, a blanket assumption about all cricketeers, footballers, bakers or priests would have been just as incorrect.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Even when it is clearly shown that two Masons conspired to molest, this does not cause the Masonic defenders to pause.

Does that fact that they were two englishmen who conspired to molest mean that england needs to sit down and re-evaluate itself, or are these guys just disgusting sickos??

Again, placing "englishmen" or "crackheads" and Masons side by side is ridiculous. One is a fraternity which is elitist and which hides much from the outside world. I don't think being an Englishman or crackhead is comparable, in regard to hiding evil behavior, so please provide a comparable example. Any other secret society will do, and yes, when you place them side by side, my point becomes obvious.

A brother Mason will not turn in his brother, if that person is ranked above him and found to be engaged in wrongdoing.

Why would it matter if he is possesing a higher degree? The organization requires that its members comply with the law. Why are you assuming that none of them follow the rules of the organization?

I do not asume that NONE follow the rules. Are you using word tricks on purpose or by accident? What I am saying is that SOME obviously do not turn in their brothers, as in this example.

The Mason fraternity is deisgned to attract those persons who need to belong.

Possibly. But what of it? Lots of people like to belong. So what? That makes them evil? That means that they'll break the rules of the group to protect pigs????

Yes, some surely will break the rules to protect NOT PIGS but their brothers. This is the case in all groups where a person sacrifices a part of their individual self or critical mind, in order to join. It's not hard to grasp, really.

You are suggesting that all Masons will turn in their piglike brothers? I disagree entirely. If a Mason has a piglike brother, he will view the fraternity as being more worthy of defense than the child-victim.

The comment about two crackheads saying "let's go hurt a child!" and then comparing that to this situation is UTTERLY STUPID because crackheads do not profess to be higher than the common man.

That hardly makes the situation different. What does it matter if the child molester is also an egomaniac or think's he is superior to other people?

It does make it different because in this thread, Mason-defenders are drawing ridiculous parallels just like this, and just like you did above. Crackheads are different from Masons. Amazing that I must say this repeatedly. This is reduction to the absurd.

It is not unthinkable, to expect the secret society which produces 90% of the Presidents in America, to police themselves and to make that policing known to non-initiates. ...But then, when you pretty much own the executive branch, (not to menton other Masonic power structures) why would you need to do so?

took part in criminal acts and refused to name his brother.

And why do you suppose this guy, who participated in criminal acts, didn't report on the criminal acts of his partner in crime? Because they both wear white gloves and silly aprons?

I do not understand your question. He refused to turn in his brother Mason. This is proof of what Masons in this forum say would never happen. That Masons are above such protection of each other.

That very behavior is now evidenced here, for all Masons to see, and in DIRECT opposition to their claims that no Mason would ever do this, i.e. protect his brother. Get it? Masons have said here that connecting them to such activity is cruel and hurtful to their poor group. They have said that any Mason who observed or learnt of such acts would blow the whistle. We see here that such did not occur.

How typical that people defend Masonry in light of this story, as if MASONRY ITSELF is attacked by this small child. It only makes me more proud to not be a member. My soul is free from such entanglements and obligations. Hooray for freethinkers!


[edit on 8-5-2006 by smallpeeps]

Originally posted by smallpeeps
It is not unthinkable, to expect that the secret society which produces 90% of the Presidents in America

I'd love to see that list... 90%? Maybe you should just list the ones that weren't/aren't Freemasons.

Or you could do a little research and come up with a more accurate figure... Say like 30%?

Just a thought.

smallpeeps,

As No1tovote4 pointed out, if convicted, they're gone from Masonry. That's a simple fact. Their actions aren't in any way representative of Masonry despite what you claim. As for you 'independent thinker' motif, methinks you doth protest too much.

And last I checked, it wasn't the child making the accusations about Masonry on this board.

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Fitzgibbon]