Photo evidence of George Herbert Walker Bush's Illuminati roots

Originally posted by MissMarple
@MasonicLight:

Welcome back

Thanks. I usually only post during the work week during slow time.

As I said before: The fact that Eisenhower is not on the OFFICIAL list of masonic presidents does not convince me that he's not a mason.

Did you happen to read my post on the procedures for gaining membership in the fraternity? All Masons are on the "official list", which is the membership roll. If they're not on it, they're not Masons.

it's quite interesting that Eisenhower was a Jehova witness (an organisation founded by a mason) and that he joined the Gettysburg Presbyterian Church which is said to be cozying up to freemasonry. For instance, a mason named Evans was once a head of that church.

Interesting, I didn't know that Eisenhower had once been a JW. However, Charles Taze Russell was not a Mason, and any Jehovah's Witness who becomes a Mason is disfellowshipped. Masons cannot join the JW congregation without renouncing their fraternity membership.

Claims have been made that "Paster" Russell (1852/02/16-1916/10/31), founder of the International Bible Students Association — forerunner of the Jehovah's Witnesses — was a freemason; that the banner on the front of early issues of the Watchtower contained masonic symbols; and that Russell's gravestone bears a masonic cross and crown symbol.
Russell was not a freemason. Neither the symbols found in the Watchtower nor the cross and crown symbol are exclusively masonic. And the cross and crown symbol does not appear on his gravestone in the Rosemont United Cemetery, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — it appears on a memorial erected some years later.
In an address delivered in a San Francisco masonic hall in 1913, Russell made positive use of masonic imagery by saying, "Now, I am a free and accepted mason. I trust we all are. But not just after the style of our masonic brethren." He further develops this idea: "true Bible believers may or may not belong to the masonic fraternity, but they are all masons of the highest order, since they are being fashioned, chiselled and polished by the Almighty to be used as living stones in the Temple Built Without Hands. They are free from sin, and therefore accepted by the God of Heaven as fit stones for the heavenly Temple." Later in this address, Russell stated quite clearly that "I have never been a mason." Those who claim Russell was a freemason quote this address out of context without noting the rhetorical imagery.
Although Russell wrote about the pyramids and the Knights Templar, the pyramids are not a part of Freemasonry and Russell's understanding of the relationship between the modern Knights Templar and Freemasonry displays an outsider's ignorance of both organizations.

Source

Here you are! A fraternity only admitting men. And what about co-freemasonry practised by the "Grand Orient of France"? By the way: queens prefer joining chivalric orders.

The Grand Orient of France is not Co-Masonic, and admits only men. Co-Masonic organizations generally have no lineage to regular Freemasonry, and most were founded by non-Masons who've read Masonic ritual exposures, and decided to create their own organizations by aping them. They are not recognized as Masonic by regular Freemasonry.

Of course, I was aiming at the conclusion that William Gates might be a mason because he has given so much money to that organisation headed by a 33rd mason (Scottish rite). Nobody could tell me that a billionaire like Gates donates without other than just noble & humane motives. He's done it either because of his masonic affiliation or because of the chance of wielding influence.
Or because of both.

Actually, the Gates Foundation has donated millions to all sorts of charities. In fact, last month Gates announced his retirement from Microsoft so that he could work full time for the Foundation. I see no reason to question his motives, as he has done a lot of good things with his money, and has helped a lot of people, and I don't think it's fair to distrust somebody just because they have money (after all, he earned it).

At present, Gates is not a Mason, and I seem to recall him once declaring himself an atheist, which would make him ineligible for Masonic initiation.

Oh, do you think masonic laws can't be broken? Um, yes, of course, there are those rigide oaths sworn and taken very seriously by the masons. Otherwise...they will regret it. But I can figure out that many 33rd masons ON THE TOP consider themselves standing ABOVE THE LAW.

To begin with, just because someone holds the 33° in the Scottish Rite, that doesn't mean they are "on the top". The highest ranking Masonic official in every state (in the USA) and province (in Canada) is the Grand Master. He is "on the top", but his authority is limited to that provided in the Constitution and Code of the Grand Lodge, and he is answerable to the rank and file membership, who can remove him from office, and even expel him from the fraternity altogether, in accordance with Masonic jurisprudence.

Even above masonic law. There's no equality in freemasonry: Those on the lower levels have to obey (one brethren watches over the other, in case of need he's under the obligation to denunciate his fellow brother), those on the upper levels have privileges.

I'm wondering why you believe all of that, because it's simply not true. To begin with, equality is one of the most important tenets of Freemasonry. One of Masonry's most important symbols is the Level, which denotes Equality, and that, along with Liberty and Fraternity, have always been the rallying cry for Masonry. Anyone who tries to say otherwise is simply lying.

Every Master Mason is on an equal basis with all his fellow brothers. Each one has a vote and a voice on all questions. Each one is eligible to serve in Masonic government if elected. No one has any extra "privileges", as every Master Mason enjoys the same rights and privileges, and each are under obligation to perform the same duties. I don't think it's possible to get any more equal than that, and indeed, the idea of political equality in the United States was itself borrowed from Freemasonry.

Our Founding Fathers who were Masons (Washington, Franklin, Hancock, etc.) simply noticed that equality worked in the Lodge, so it should be experimented with in the outside world.

Please, don't dupe me.

I resent the fact that you're accusing me of "duping" you when I simply tried to present the facts.

It's quite natural that you are obliged to record everybody who'd joined and control if he'd paid his dues. The new member is on your INTERNAL list. But he decides wether he wishes to appear on the OFFICIAL membership list frequently presented on the masonic organisation's public webside. That' s the salient point. And for several reasons not all members welcome their "outing".

Do you honestly think somebody famous could be initiated into the Fraternity without anyone knowing it? When former U.S. Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) received his Third Degree, we had to rent a concert auditorium to hold the ceremony due to the hundreds of Masons who would come out to support him and witness the ritual, and the event was listed in all the papers, for Pete's sake.

And secondly, why would anyone try to hide the fact that they were joining the fraternity in the first place? If they're embarassed by it, then they simply don't need to join, we don't need 'em.

Neither an unemployed nor welfare (if there is one) recipient can afford the dues. Let alone the costs for the "costumes" (regalia, equipment, books, jewels) and other conceivable expenditures. Of course, this exclusion is intented since the solvent members want to be among themselves. It's like an elitist coterie comparable to an expensive golf club . No "social losers" (disadvantaged, poor, old, disabled) are desired.

The fact is that Freemasonry is in general the least expensive of all civic organizations to hold membership in, and those members who can't afford to pay their dues have them remitted by the Lodge. We don't run credit checks on applicants for membership, but we expect them to be able to fulfill their financial obligations to the fraternity under normal circumstances. We're non-profit, and not making any money off the fraternity, but each Lodge has monthly bills to pay like every other organization, and Lodges can have their utilities shut off for non-payment too.

When I joined the fraternity, I paid an initial $40 petition fee, and a $30 initiation fee for each of the three degrees, giving a total $130 from non-Mason to Master Mason. After this, annual dues are $30 per year, less than most of us will spend on dinner tonight. Since that time, I've also joined another Lodge, whose dues are $45 per year (this is considered an expensive Lodge, and amounts to 12 cents per day).

When I joined the Scottish Rite, I paid about $220 in fees to go from the 4° to the 32°. Annual dues for 32° holders in my Temple are $65, which includes a $15 levy for the Rite Care Foundation.

When I joined the York Rite I paid $180 in initiation fees, which covered the Royal Arch Chapter degrees, the Cryptic Council degrees, and Chivalric Orders. My dues there are $35 per year.

@Trinityman:
Hello!

Originally posted by Trinityman
Charity is one of the three core tenets of the fraternity, but I can assure you there is no obligation to undertake it. The only obligation a freemason undertakes is to keep secret the modes of recognition.

Charity is a cloak or cover for the real freemasonry activities. Under group pressure you'll think twice before rejecting to engage in it. Through charity events they can achieve two important goals: Firstly to collect large sums of money. Secondly to cultivate an adequate public image.

That would be quite remarkable, given the clear outlining in all masonic literature of the nature and function of freemasonry. I don't doubt a minority join for that reason, but even for them I doubt it's the reason they stay (assuming they do). Networking happens, but that's not the purpose of the organization.

Yes, of course, every word published by the freemasons must be true and taken literally...There are no contradictions. Don't forget that the freemasons are morally so much better than the average person. They are beyond all base motives which are typically of human nature in general.
Especially at the highest levels. There's no selfishness, envy, jealousy, greed for money & power, vanity, arrogance, malice, blatancy, etc. Networking and the enhancement of power and influence in society is the real purpose of this organization.

Many do, it's true. I did. The familial aspect of freemasony is one of it's strengths; and in this day and age when families live further and further apart, many freemasons find that masonry can act as a surrogate family in some respects. It's not all about that though.

I think you're underestimating this. You seem to forget that they've sworn an oath that the intersts and concerns of the brotherhood have priority over family interests and concerns. Freemasonry comes first! And another aspect is the family networking: if your grand father and father already reached high positions in the masonic organization it would be easier for you. They would pave the way for you. So you could easily follow in their footsteps as in a relay race.

This I don't understand. Freemasons are prejudiced against by a wide section of society. Those who don't understand and don't care to understand what the society is really about fight tooth and nail to make life hard for freemasons. Certainly I would not declare my membership to a potential employer for fear of not getting the job, and I would be very circumspect about declaring my membership in certain social situations. Its very sad, but quite evident that prejudice is alive and well in the 21st Century. And all this going on at a time when freemasons are trying to be more open about the fraternity

No, the freemasons are not always confronted with prejudices. Especially when it comes to the distribution of key positions in politics, economics, military, media, church, etc. It's a simple law that freemasons in key positions hire freemasons. They recognise each other by the handshake and by the code words, you bet. If you had access to a complete membership list you would be amazed how many multinational corporations and national business enterprises are run by freemasons!!! I guess it's the overwhelming majority of all stock companies and normal firms in the world. That's another good reason for the freemasons to conceal their membership.

Hi MissMarple

I wondered when you'd get around to me

Originally posted by MissMarple
Charity is a cloak or cover for the real freemasonry activities. Under group pressure you'll think twice before rejecting to engage in it. Through charity events they can achieve two important goals: Firstly to collect large sums of money. Secondly to cultivate an adequate public image.

No. I don't know where you get your information from but it flys completely in the face of my experience with freemasonry. I give when I feel like it, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Depends how flush I am feeling at the time. Charity is a core tenet of freemasonry, but public giving is not the issue - in fact most freemasons operate within in the community not as freemasons but as individuals. Freemasons have been drawing more attention to charitable works recently in an attempt to counter the usual lies about 'Evil' freemasons etc etc.

Incidentally, I have never engaged in a masonic 'charity event'. All collection comes from the pockets of freemasons themselves, irrespective of whether it is destined for the general public or masonic charities.

Yes, of course, every word published by the freemasons must be true and taken literally...There are no contradictions.

Your use of the descriptor 'the' belies your misunderstanding. Freemasons always give/publish/whatever their own opinions on matters masonic and so you will find a million different versions, just as not all members of ATS hold exactly the same beliefs. It is precisely because there is no central control within freemasonry that this is possible

Don't forget that the freemasons are morally so much better than the average person. They are beyond all base motives which are typically of human nature in general.
Especially at the highest levels. There's no selfishness, envy, jealousy, greed for money & power, vanity, arrogance, malice, blatancy, etc.

Your sarcasm is duly noted

Networking and the enhancement of power and influence in society is the real purpose of this organization.

Yes, you've said this before, but not noted the reasons that led you to this conclusion. Freemasons are saying this is not true because there is no evidence among the vast amounts of membership information of it.

You seem to forget that they've sworn an oath that the intersts and concerns of the brotherhood have priority over family interests and concerns. Freemasonry comes first!

Actually I'm not forgetting that at all. It simply isn't true. Let me enlighten you with some quotes from masonic ritual (Emulation Ritual):

As a citizen of the world, I am to enjoin you to be exemplary in the discharge of your civil duties, by never proposing or at all countenancing any act that may have a tendency to subvert the peace and good order of society, by paying due obedience to the laws of any State which may for a time become the place of your residence or afford you its protection

that my breast shall be the sacred repository of his secrets when entrusted to my care - murder, treason, felony, and all other offences contrary to the laws of God and the ordinances of the realm being at all times most especially excepted.

Freemasons are specifically taught to put their God, their family and their work before their freemasonry.

And another aspect is the family networking: if your grand father and father already reached high positions in the masonic organization it would be easier for you. They would pave the way for you. So you could easily follow in their footsteps as in a relay race.

You quite clearly have no real understanding of how freemasonry works, I'm sorry to say. My father, and his father before him, have had entirely different masonic journeys and mine is different again. This is quite naturally reflective of the fact that we have all taken notably different Life journeys. Of the three of us, my father reached/will reach the highest 'rank', masonically speaking.

I am proud to follow in the footsteps of my father and grandfather, they are/were great men and an example to all who knew/know them. They also happen to be freemasons.

No, the freemasons are not always confronted with prejudices. Especially when it comes to the distribution of key positions in politics, economics, military, media, church, etc. It's a simple law that freemasons in key positions hire freemasons. They recognise each other by the handshake and by the code words, you bet. If you had access to a complete membership list you would be amazed how many multinational corporations and national business enterprises are run by freemasons!!! I guess it's the overwhelming majority of all stock companies and normal firms in the world. That's another good reason for the freemasons to conceal their membership.

No, freemasons are openly discriminated against, at the highest levels of organizations and government. Admit your membership of freemasonry in any UK police force and you might as well kiss your career goodbye - any progress you make will be immediately ascribed to masonic networking, even if no such network exists, and your own hard work will be ignored. I've seen it myself and it's happened to me.

Some freemasons try to use their membership to gain a pecuniary advantage, but there are many others who regard that at 'unmasonic' and will immediately reject such an advance.

I, and you, have access to a 'complete membership list'. The difference between us is that you don't believe it is fully complete. Perhaps you could list some of these captains of industry who are freemasons? I'm willing to bet most of them aren't.

Now my daughter has been nagging me to take her swimming for the past 15 minutes so I must bid you adieu. I'll be sure to try the handshake at the pool to see if I can get in for free

Originally posted by MissMarple


Charity is a cloak or cover for the real freemasonry activities. Under group pressure you'll think twice before rejecting to engage in it. Through charity events they can achieve two important goals: Firstly to collect large sums of money. Secondly to cultivate an adequate public image.

And just who exactly are you to judge me and my motives? Seriously, what gives you the right to judge the intentions and motives of people you don't know, and know nothing about? What makes you think you're right? What exactly have you done to help the less fortunate, or pay for medical care for children and the elderly, that the Masonic institution does in excess of a million dollars daily?

Ithink you're underestimating this. You seem to forget that they've sworn an oath that the intersts and concerns of the brotherhood have priority over family interests and concerns. Freemasonry comes first!

This is an outright lie, but I'm pretty sure you already knew that.



[edit on 17-8-2006 by Masonic Light]

@MasonicLight:

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Where did you get this information? I've personally never met a single Mason who joined for any business contacts, so this has peaked my curiousity.

Although you're claiming that every person passing over the threshold of a masonic lodge quickly forgets about his profession I have still many doubts. It's logical that, for example, a principal of a firm, still maintains his capitalistic mentality or business attitude. He enters masonry in order to make exploitable contacts. Of course, he would never admit it in the presence of the others. But he would reveal it to you if you were a close friend. Honestly, I don't believe that at the top of a masonic organisation the brethren trust each other. Power games are taking place all the time.

Interesting. I thought it was about Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

These three goals are too idealistic to be achievable. Furthermore, every mason has his own definition and concept of each notion, no matter what the masonic books have to say on that topic.

That, my dear, is true. Although I don't know anybody who would ever think of joining a Lodge for business deals in the profane world, I know many who joined because of family members they admire who were Masons.

Perhaps, it's admiration. In any case the membership offers many advantages. For example,
if your son wants to become a famous actor (an unattainable dream job for countless young men) you only have to pull a few strings. You contact a fellow mason working for a renowned acting school approaching him with the request of reserving an apprenticeship place for your son. These places are extremely RARE!! Probably this kind of brethren service is free of charge because next time you'll return the favour. And this way your son will get role offerings, too. Wether he's talented or not, wether he's looking good or bad, does'nt count at all. It all depends on networking!!! But I know that you're going to deny this obvous social phenomenom. Welcome in reality!

How exactly does one advance in their career if they're a member of Job's Daughters or Rainbow? Both of these are clubs for girls, like the Girl Scouts. Their only career is their math homework.

For any Masonic member who is a businessman, the business world ends at the door of the Lodge. The same thing goes for the Mason who is a cop, a carpenter, a janitor, or a king. The profane world may judge a man by his bank account, but such a thing is alien to Freemasonry which notes that All Seeing Eye is concerned not with what is in the wallet, but what is in the heart.

Um.. it would be funny if grown-up Rainbow girls, now female adults or mothers in their thirties or fourties, not assisted at the club. And who is on the top of these female clubs? Masons again?

As for the "before god/all-seeing eye all men are equal" theory: this is a myth!!! The Duke of Kent, for example, a grandmaster mason, would never get mixed up with the low-level janitor-mason. No way! There's a rigid hierarchy. And every mason knows his own place and the position of his fellow masons in it.

Originally posted by MissMarple
As for the "before god/all-seeing eye all men are equal" theory: this is a myth!!! The Duke of Kent, for example, a grandmaster mason, would never get mixed up with the low-level janitor-mason. No way! There's a rigid hierarchy. And every mason knows his own place and the position of his fellow masons in it.

Have you ever heard of patronage? Where a well known celeb becomes the president of a charity or organization to assist in boosting its profile? There is no effective difference here.

The Duke of Kent is the Grand Master (not grandmaster, that's a chess player) of the United Grand Lodge of England. However as he is a very busy man opening fetes and things there is a Pro-Grand Master to assist in undertaking the executive work.

Freemasonry in England is proud of its long association with Royalty. That people at the very pinnacle of social society are prepared to meet 'on the square' with the working classes, in equality, as brothers, is the epitomy of the egalitarianism of freemasonry. 'To exchange the sceptre for the trowel' as we say.

We are all equal in freemasonry, another key tenet of the Craft, and not uncoincidentally part of the fabric of this great nation of ours

Originally posted by MissMarple
@MasonicLight:


Although you're claiming that every person passing over the threshold of a masonic lodge quickly forgets about his profession I have still many doubts. It's logical that, for example, a principal of a firm, still maintains his capitalistic mentality or business attitude. He enters masonry in order to make exploitable contacts. Of course, he would never admit it in the presence of the others. But he would reveal it to you if you were a close friend. Honestly, I don't believe that at the top of a masonic organisation the brethren trust each other. Power games are taking place all the time.

Once again, who are you to make such judgement? Do you have personal experience in any of this, or are you just sitting behind a computer screen making stuff up?

Perhaps, it's admiration. In any case the membership offers many advantages. For example,
if your son wants to become a famous actor (an unattainable dream job for countless young men) you only have to pull a few strings. You contact a fellow mason working for a renowned acting school approaching him with the request of reserving an apprenticeship place for your son. These places are extremely RARE!! Probably this kind of brethren service is free of charge because next time you'll return the favour. And this way your son will get role offerings, too. Wether he's talented or not, wether he's looking good or bad, does'nt count at all. It all depends on networking!!! But I know that you're going to deny this obvous social phenomenom. Welcome in reality!

I think you need to welcome in a little reality yourself. If your son wants to be an actor, and you have a friend who works at an acting school, you can request that your friend get your son into the school regardless if either or both of you are Masons. What does being a Mason even have to do with any of that?

Um.. it would be funny if grown-up Rainbow girls, now female adults or mothers in their thirties or fourties, not assisted at the club. And who is on the top of these female clubs? Masons again?

It's whoever their members want to elect for the year. You seem to have a hard time understanding that.

As for the "before god/all-seeing eye all men are equal" theory: this is a myth!!! The Duke of Kent, for example, a grandmaster mason, would never get mixed up with the low-level janitor-mason. No way! There's a rigid hierarchy. And every mason knows his own place and the position of his fellow masons in it.

And again, this shows that you know nothing about Freemasonry. Your "rigid hierarchy" is imaginary. There's no such thing as a "low-level janitor Mason". You always like to talk about 33° Masons, but seem to ignore the fact that most 33° Masons are not wealthy at all, nor are Masonic leaders. There are janitors who are 33° Masons (my neighbor is a 33°: he's a retired plumber, and currently works part time as a greeter at Wal-Mart). Masons are required by their obligation to recognize equality. It seems that it's you, "MissMarple", and not the Masons, who has the problem with this.



[edit on 17-8-2006 by Masonic Light]

@MasonicLight:

Before we start offending one another we should better end our discussion here, right? I think our conversation can help people who have'nt yet made up their minds about the pro's and con's in favour or against freemasonry. It was clear from the beginning that you would'nt convince me and I would'nt convince you. Let's leave at that. You're right within your context, I'm right within mine. There might be readers supporting your view as well as readers sharing my opinion...

Originally posted by Masonic Light
And just who exactly are you to judge me and my motives? Seriously, what gives you the right to judge the intentions and motives of people you don't know, and know nothing about? What makes you think you're right? What exactly have you done to help the less fortunate, or pay for medical care for children and the elderly, that the Masonic institution does in excess of a million dollars daily?

Ooops, do you feel adressed to? I was talking about a majority which includes you or not. And I was describing what that majority does - in my opinion. My life experience and psychological know-how allow deducing tendencies from one frequently occuring human behaviour pattern and generalizing them if necessary.

As far as my private donation habits is concerned: I don't need to join masonry (allegedly) to practice charity. By the way, as a female being I would'nt have a chance to join anyway. A few times in the year I determine which organisations I'm going to donate to. Only those whose purposes and goals I can personally identify with come into consideration. I used to transfer the donation money to the account of the aid organizations in question.

This is an outright lie, but I'm pretty sure you already knew that.

No, I don't know that. Can you prove this to me? Or, like you used to ask,"where did you get this information from"?

According to my common sense reasoning this oath is the basis of all masonic networking.

Maybe it would be interesting to have a look at that controversial book. It might tell something about the masonic oaths:




[edit on 17-8-2006 by MissMarple]

lol, even the illuminati can't stand up to the ever powerful U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor.

must mean she's a mason right ?

Originally posted by MissMarple
As I said before: The fact that Eisenhower is not on the OFFICIAL list of masonic presidents does not convince me that he's not a mason.

I'm sorry, you can't just go around pointing fingers and accusations on the assumption that an "inofficial" list of Freemason memberships exists. What proof, or at least what glimmer of possible fact do you have to support this? Did you see a list somewhere of supposed "outside the circle" masons, something backed up by events, occurences, other oddities pointing to Freemason membership? Or is this just yet another wildly unfounded OPINION? I could say that my mailman is part of the NWO as well because he delivers my mail for the government. I know this because the Postal Service is secretly trying to infiltrate and control every suburban neighborhood in the country by their sly manipulation of our letters and personal documents. How is this, you ask? Well, through their "unofficial" masonic connections, of course.

Of course, I was aiming at the conclusion that William Gates might be a mason because he has given so much money to that organisation headed by a 33rd mason (Scottish rite). Nobody could tell me that a billionaire like Gates donates without other than just noble & humane motives. He's done it either because of his masonic affiliation or because of the chance of wielding influence.
Or because of both.

Ever hear of tax breaks? Rich people love them.

Oh, do you think masonic laws can't be broken? Um, yes, of course, there are those rigide oaths sworn and taken very seriously by the masons. Otherwise...they will regret it. But I can figure out that many 33rd masons ON THE TOP consider themselves standing ABOVE THE LAW. Even above masonic law. There's no equality in freemasonry: Those on the lower levels have to obey (one brethren watches over the other, in case of need he's under the obligation to denunciate his fellow brother), those on the upper levels have privileges.

Again, you are embarrasing yourself by making assumptions about things you do not understand. There is no "top". Leaders of various lodges are elected by a vote of concensus by the other dues paying members. And no one has to "obey" any other member, but rather the charter of the memberships itself, which applies to EVERYONE, even and most especially your precious 33rd degree masons.

Please, don't dupe me. It's quite natural that you are obliged to record everybody who'd joined and control if he'd paid his dues. The new member is on your INTERNAL list. But he decides wether he wishes to appear on the OFFICIAL membership list frequently presented on the masonic organisation's public webside. That' s the salient point. And for several reasons not all members welcome their "outing".

I replied to something similar to this above. What proof do you have of an "unofficial" list? And why, when every mason around the world is unaware of it(assuming they are, of course, the moronic masses) would you suddenly become a viable source of this groundbreaking information?

In this context I would like to make the point that, contrary to the advertising slogan that "everybody is welcomed to join", not every John Doe has the opportunity to enter freemasonry actually. Neither an unemployed nor welfare (if there is one) recipient can afford the dues. Let alone the costs for the "costumes" (regalia, equipment, books, jewels) and other conceivable expenditures. Of course, this exclusion is intented since the solvent members want to be among themselves. It's like an elitist coterie comparable to an expensive golf club . No "social losers" (disadvantaged, poor, old, disabled) are desired.

Do you know how much dues are? It's hardly crippling. And even if a member cannot pay his dues, he is never "excommunicated", so to speak, but rather he cannot enjoy certain privelages available to members that are in good standing. However, paid dues or not, a mason is never turned away by another mason.

I think it is important for you to realize that I am not a mason. I began as you did, researching out of interest the "mysteries" surrounding their order. I think you will find, after doing some real research yourself, that there is nothing to these wild accusations. Honestly, have you read some of the posts you've made here? It's like you're grasping at anything that might support your arguments, which have no substance whatsoever. These posts might fly for those who don't know or don't care, but believe it or not, there are a few of us outside of the biased opinion that think Freemasonry is actually a wonderful organization.

Originally posted by MissMarple
You're right within your context, I'm right within mine. There might be readers supporting your view as well as readers sharing my opinion...

I honestly don't think that could be the case. For example, Charles Taze Russell was either a Mason or he wasn't. It isn't a matter of opinion, but of whether or not he was initiated into our fraternity. Personally, it wouldn't bother me if he had been a Mason. Sure, the Jehovah's Witnesses may be a little wacky, but there's no crime in that. Just because Russell had some rather odd religious beliefs doesn't mean that he was a bad person. I would have no reason not to claim him as a Mason if he had really been one.

Ooops, do you feel adressed to? I was talking about a majority which includes you or not. And I was describing what that majority does - in my opinion.

Which is precisely my point. Where exactly are you deriving your "opinion"? What makes you think a majority of people would join a philosophical fraternal society for the sole purpose of undermining its most basic and primary teachings?

As far as my private donation habits is concerned: I don't need to join masonry (allegedly) to practice charity. By the way, as a female being I would'nt have a chance to join anyway. A few times in the year I determine which organisations I'm going to donate to. Only those whose purposes and goals I can personally identify with come into consideration. I used to transfer the donation money to the account of the aid organizations in question.

And such actions should be applauded. Without knowing anything about you, I certainly wouldn't accuse you of doing that for publicity for yourself. Yet you seem to have no qualms about accusing other people you don't know of doing just that.

According to my common sense reasoning this oath is the basis of all masonic networking.

Maybe it would be interesting to have a look at that controversial book. It might tell something about the masonic oaths:

OK...where exactly in any oath written in that book is there anything written about Freemasonry coming before family, networking, etc., that you earlier claimed were featured in them?

Originally posted by EdenKaia
I have never claimed that the eye was not a Masonic symbol, but rather that it was not a symbol when the Seal of the United States was created.

Edenkaia, do you know when the all-seing eye was adopted by Masonry? Are you saying it wasn't used by masons in 1782? (year great seal aproved)

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

Originally posted by EdenKaia
I have never claimed that the eye was not a Masonic symbol, but rather that it was not a symbol when the Seal of the United States was created.

Edenkaia, do you know when the all-seing eye was adopted by Masonry? Are you saying it wasn't used by masons in 1782? (year great seal aproved)

Hey folks, lets not get too carried away here. Nothing has ever been officially adopted by masonry because there has never been one person who speaks for masonry in toto. The whole process has evolved, and although codified by individuals such as Anderson must be viewed very much as an organic development. Individual lodges will have been influenced by different things. So at some point in the past someone somewhere decided to use the All Seeing Eye in a masonic context, but it would have taken time for that adoption to be taken up by other lodges, and then latterly grand lodges as the system developed.

My lodge owns one of its very early aprons, dated 1758, which has an all seeing eye inside a pentangle on the flap (among other symbols). I suspect, but cannot prove, that the all seing eye was used by the Antients more so than the Moderns, but the bottom line is it would have been known to American freemasons in 1782 as a symbol in use by masonry. But, just like the triangle, not exclusively used by freemasonry.

If someone would u2u me with how to post an image, i'll see if I can get a copy of the apron up.

Originally posted by EdenKaia

The eye within a triangle to represent God appears throughout the Renaissance, long before speculative Freemasonry arrived on the scene. The triangle being three-sided represents the Christian belief in the Trinity of God — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No records associate Freemasonry with the symbol before 1797, nor is the symbol in any way related to the Bavarian Illuminati.

Just to follow up on my previous post, given the obvious existence of the Eye on the 1758 apron, the article above must be specifically referring to the Eye in a Triangle not used before 1797 in masonry, although personally I wouldn't be surprised if one turns up (and I'm gonna go digging).

However in the context of the current discussion this proves nothing, except that I am of an inquisitive nature and GHWB likes to play with scale models of the Luxor Hotel in his bed. The Eye in a Pyramid is not, and never has been, a symbol of regular freemasonry.

Originally posted by mecheng
A Gift???
www.wealthwood.com...

blimey mecheng, I think you meant to prove that the bush pyramid is not an illuminati symbol, but you have shown something quite different to me. that microsoft paperweight represents the eye of horus, in exactly the same way as the bush pyramid! it's even got the gap between the dark part and the light built in...

(from the page) The solid gold-plated brass apex is a seemingly immortal beacon to the world.

hmmm... are they talking about a 7" high paperweight here? an immortal beacon to the world? I think I know exactly what they are referring to...

microsoft paperweights- just what you need to keep your documents in (new world) order...

Captain Kingmonster, they'll print any logo you want. Microsoft was just used for the demo. They could engrave SpongeBob Squarepants if you wanted.

(althought I'm not saynig there isn't anything up with MSFT.)

thanks for the info... that clears things up a little, I thought that was a bit mad...

so- I am still suspicious about the paperweight, and would like my comments to stand, apart from the last line about it being releated to microsoft... cheers

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Captain Kingmonster]

His main form of brainwashing is done through books its what he learnt in teh MK Ultra project.
George bush Sr. is the top brainwasher for teh illuminati.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by seridium]

Originally posted by Captain Kingmonster
apart from the last line about it being releated to microsoft... cheers

of course, sorry.

I think you meant to prove that the bush pyramid is not an illuminati symbol, but you have shown something quite different to me.

Mecheng just pointed out a possible source for the pyramid, he didn’t try to prove or disprove the links to the Illuminati. The pyramid could have been send by someone in what we call the Illuminati (of the non-Bavarian variety).

The content of the manila envelope could be his instructions (ie orders) to follow as future president...

Or it could just be ballet tickets….

Someone will eventually order the 20x24 inches print and scan it. Maybe we can read what’s on the pyramid then… (maybe he actually wanted to document is actual coronation... that is word from the Illuminati)

an immortal beacon to the world?

strange use of words indeed, good point

My theory is that since he sees himself as a descendent of the pharaohs, he has a thing for pyramids.

Trinityman, according to your common ancestor theory, how many of us would be descendent of one of the Pharaohs? (who ruled for 10000 yrs +
, I believe) Is it a rather common thing?

I noticed that all his books in his library are hard cover... bastard!



[edit on 18/8/06 by ConspiracyNut23]

[edit on 18/8/06 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
of course, sorry.

no apology needed- my mistake.