Royal Order of Jesters testify about Illegal Drugs, Child Prostitution

reply to post by jaamaan


And yet you think it is OK to assume that something "nefarious" is going on, when I gave an explanation that is QUITE benign, something that is very common in lodges that have internal political issues.

Originally posted by pacificwind
reply to post by jaamaan

 

And yet you think it is OK to assume that something "nefarious" is going on, when I gave an explanation that is QUITE benign, something that is very common in lodges that have internal political issues.

I never assumed any thing "nefarious" in that particular case.

Most amusing...

The guilty verdict has been rendered upon an entire fraternity sans indictment, but a sitting governor (ironically from the same state) has been forced to resign due to his dalliances. Where is the universal condemnation of Democrats? There more than a little evidence suggesting gubernatorial office holders are morally challenged and governed by their nether regions... Bill Clinton, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jim McGreevey ring a bell? Spitzer isn't the only one who couldn't keep it zipped up.



The agenda is deafening...

reply to post by Mirthful Me


I wish members could applaud moderators I agree completely. It seems as though these "universal standards" whereby all members of a group are held accountable due to the allegations (not even convictions, in this case) of a few only apply when that group doesn't share peoples agendas.


[edit on 13-3-2008 by pacificwind]

reply to post by pacificwind


**Moderator hat off and member hat on.**

And there is yet another side to this. Anyone that questions the workings of any group, and you can insert Masons here if desired, are all lumped together as ignorant "anti-whatever" out to smear the good name of said group. Where's the fairness in that as well? I agree that preset agendas are not conducive to a fair assessment of anything, but somewhere there ought to be a few from both camps in any discussion that could set aside personal inclinations for a fair and open discussion of ALL possibilities.

Can we not all admit that any group of humans, Democrats, Masons, Methodists, Police, Journalists, or whatever, have bad apples. And if that is true, as logic says it must be, then conspiracies and cabals must sometimes arise? Are our attachments to a group so strong that as intelligent people we can blindly accept "our group" as being without sin?

It would seem logical that ordinary Masons would be as interested in looking for these hidden groups, if they exist at all outside the minds of conspiracy buffs, just as much as anyone. Certainly as an American, I look at my government with some suspicion and don't blindly say that because I'm part of the voting citizens there must surely be nothing hidden from me or I would know about it. Does simple membership in a group somehow convey sanctity on the whole? Is this the reason many cops blindly defend their fellow officers and actively seek justification for any type of action?

Which brings me, in my verbose way, to the point. It would seem in the best interest of any group, secret organization or otherwise, to keep close scrutiny on those powerful and influential portions of it's membership, lest their actions reflect badly on the whole. This might require a shifting of position from one of antagonism towards investigators, to one of cooperation. I would love to see this "mind shift" happen in the ranks of our police forces, our military, our politicians, our clergy, and the list goes on. Inclusive of Secret Societies, of course.

Again, as always, not taking sides on issues I'm not involved in. Simply making an observation for the sake of better understanding among our varied participants.

NGC2736

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
The guilty verdict has been rendered upon an entire fraternity sans indictment, but a sitting governor (ironically from the same state) has been forced to resign due to his dalliances.

As far as i have seen there was no guilty verdict in the cases i presented.

Was it without reason than that this sitting governor had to resign ?

reply to post by NGC2736


I have not yet seen anyone here who has brought up legitimate questions about masonry be labeled as anti-anything. Maybe its happened in the past, but I am not doing it. There is a difference between legitimate questioning and theories and wild speculation.

Can we not all admit that any group of humans, Democrats, Masons, Methodists, Police, Journalists, or whatever, have bad apples. And if that is true, as logic says it must be, then conspiracies and cabals must sometimes arise? Are our attachments to a group so strong that as intelligent people we can blindly accept "our group" as being without sin?

You are not the first person in this thread who has made this line of reasoning. And yet, I have not seen one single person, mason or non-mason, claim that masonry doesn't have bad apples. Not one. Nor have I ever heard any mason say anything like that anywhere at any time. Quite to the contrary, masons and non-masons alike here have called for an investigation of such claims, and if they are true, such members should be kicked out. I agree completely.

By making such arguments it gives the illusion that someone would make the argument that there are no bad apples. But no one has ever said such.

Originally posted by jaamaan
As far as i have seen there was no guilty verdict in the cases i presented.

Was it without reason than that this sitting governor had to resign ?

The "guilty verdict" I referred to was in this particular court of public opinion.

I referenced ex-Governor (and current sleaze bag) Spitzer's legal woes as an example of "real" issues both legally and as a human being (not to mention fiscal responsibility, he paid about $80,000 too much for the "quality of goods services" received). He will not be questioned, he will be indicted.

reply to post by pacificwind


I beg to differ. You, yourself have stated clearly that you judge this line of debate as hostility towards masonry.

"And this, I think, is an example of the excitment that comes when people think they've played a successful game of "gotcha" on someone who is in anyway affiliated with the masons.

But of course, if we read the only somewhat valid source (freemasonrywatch I'm not even bothering with, its so invalid and even anti-masons on here admit it):"

I am not familiar with the site, but your description of it seems clear. Besides that "Of course the reality is that all of these people will be booted out of their lodge. But no one is going to report that, because...well, that just isn't as much fun as thinking all masons are having drunken orgies."

I don't recall any such statement being made either. I know Freemasons aren't about drunken orgies - because they say so. And I believe them. But some of these senior masons seem to disagree.

"As per the usual, anytime anyone who in anyway has a masonic affiliation does something, everyone jumps on the bandwagon and pulls out the torches."

We are not discussing ANY freemasons, we're discussing specific freemason splinter groups.

"Nice attempt at hate mongering, but I think this represents more absurd paranoia than anything else. "

Perhaps it is unreasoning fear, but hate mongering? I think it is you who are recasting the argument here, not the poster.


"there is absolutely no (0 - zip - nada) connection between masonry and Skull and Bones. "

I can only assume that you know this first hand. I suspect you were expecting an argument. Otherwise this statement is based on ignorance equal to or greater than the poster's.

Of course, this is not to say that you are alone in characterizing the exchange as anti-masonic. Scientist also said "aw, why the mason bashing? "

No one is bashing Masons. We're commenting on an apparent organization whose sole purpose appears to be to promote debauchery under the guise of merriment.

I should probably stop here. I really do not intend to offend, rather to suggest that the apparent hostility in this thread did not come from those questioning the details, it came from those who immediately looked upon the examination of the event as an attack on Masonry.

By the way, there are also Millions of non-freemasons who are good and outstanding people. Belonging to the group doesn't make you one or the other.

reply to post by Mirthful Me


I thought that most people in this topic did not convict any one.

But when people maybe have first hand knowledge of something like this it is not so strange that a lot of people at least want to look into it.

“their first hand knowledge of prostitution, minor prostitution, use of illegal drugs and/or entry into Indian reservations by Schair (plaintiff) and/or his customers.”

So far, i think, the debating in this topic has been quite civil.

Of course we see some usual discussion dynamics going on
but nothing to bad i think.

I think it is quite vallid to to use personal experiences like:
When the shriners came to town my mom wouldnt let me on the streets

But i think it can be just as vallid to state:
I've seen this all before, this is just some mason bashing.

For me these things can be part of the discussion, as long as it doesnt end in a mud trowing competition.

I learned something from both sides of the arguments.

reply to post by pacificwind


And I have not meant to hint that you are not correct. Masons have, on this board that I know of, always spoken for the removal of persons of low character. Perhaps I was not clear enough on that.

But I have also not seen anyone who claimed membership in the group that would actively SEEK to enlighten the world about misconduct/power groups/cabals that might POSSIBLY be within the framework of the organization. Instead, I have seen a steady stream of denial that the possibility even exists that there might be an "underworld" aspect to Masons that you are not aware of.

I see your reply as being defensive, as if I were questioning your ethics personally. Please, I am not. Nor am I questioning the organization itself. But part of the burden of belonging to an organization that is historically known as a Secret Society is that some people will see "evil goings on" in the very shadows you claim hold none. This is human nature.

Just as you admit to "bad apples", then you must admit the group COULD have a cabal of evil doers in it's midst. Unbeknown to you. In which case it would seem reasonable that you, as a member, would have a vested interest in finding out the truth of the matter. To this end, joining forces with those probing such claims would seem reasonable, at least to me, as the best way to reach some truth in the matter.

But that type of approach may not be possible for either side because of long standing loyalties to what I see as "positional ethics". Neither side, at this point, seems to want to take the chance that they could, just could, be wrong. It seems, to me, that the Masons would rather defend on the grounds of "there's nothing to see, move along" and the Anti-masons on the grounds that "where there's smoke, there's fire". Both sides choosing the safer course.

reply to post by NGC2736


Very well put

I can agree with most of what you are saying.

Thanks

reply to post by Maxmars


I beg to differ that you are not actually reading my posts. I was referring to the fact that, in light of these cases, certain posters were claiming that this must be some sort of institutional like problem.

Also, you clearly do not understand the nature of freemasonrywatch. Citing freemasonry watch as a source is like citing the Natzis as a source on Judaism. Look at the website, if that doesn't become apparent, Im not sure what does. And yes, there have been several threads on this board accusing masons of drunken orgies, ritual abuse, and all manner of things. Several people have said it.

What is difficult to understand that these are allegations, and may not be true? No, I will no convict people in the court of public opinion. If they are true, then they should be kicked out and banned from every masonic body they are a member of. It seems like you are not satisfied with my response - what more would you like me to say?

You seem to be taking everything I take out of context, as if I am not responding to people. Why are you doing this? For example, the post about freemasonry and skull and bones was to a specific member who had just claimed there was such a thing as a "skull and bones freemason." Yes, I do know first hand that there is no connection between the two.

Please stop taking me out of context and acting like I'm typing things without responding to specific posts. The hostility of the thread, if you really were interested in finding it, came from the baiting about all Jesters - made by a specific poster. You need look no further.

reply to post by NGC2736


It is this sort of relativist construct that confuses me. No, I don't know of masons going around claiming that "why, sure, there could be a evil cabal in masonry." Why? Because its just not something that comes up. It would be like me going around saying "why, sure, the sky could be made up of purple unicorns." Not because the possibility is not there, but because in the context of my day to day life it just isn't something that comes up. Do I need to publicly acknowledge the possibility of some evil cabal before something like this happens to demonstrate that I'm serious about it? It would be the same as me having to publicly go around and ensure people I believe there could be purple unicorns in the sky.

I am not being defensive, I am just stating what I have observed here. I'm not even a shriner, so I really have no reason to be. I would be equally posting if we had a thread claiming all jews controlled the world, or all white people are hicks. Generalizations are bad, no matter what they are.

reply to post by pacificwind


Point taken and accepted. I probably did misconstrue the origin of some of your posts. And, I have to confess that being new here means I really haven't the experience to know who is or isn't bashing things they don't agree with. So if I seemed to be assaulting you personally, I apologize.

You have to admit, your responses seem rather aggressive, I was just trying to illustrate that the hostility is tangible on both sides of the argument.

At any rate, the issue regarding the Jesters is open to any group.

Believe me, there are MUCH bigger fish to fry out there, relativistically speaking. I suppose there will always be those who fear, or hate groups like the various Masonic orders. But I have to ask, is this not expected? Whenever a groups exclusionary nature becomes manifest in society, someone always takes offense. It seems that if you are going to form a 'secret' club - people (especially those who are compulsively curious) will be offended at the occlusion (and no I'm not meaning occult in the conspiratorial sense.)

Or am being too simplistic here. I admit I am not versed in the craft. But that shouldn't automatically make me a threat, should it?

reply to post by Maxmars


I see your points, although I don't think I'm being hostile all the time in this thread. But I was hostile when I was responding to a very few posts that were "baiting" - probably not a good way to respond, as it falls into the trap.

I would certainly agree that people become mad and attack anything when they are excluded. And yet, masonry isn't really all that exclusive at all. It is not hard to join, and there are allied organizations for women as well. The only reason why I can think that someone would get rejected for membership is an astounding and overt lack of character, or a criminal background. I would hardly call this strict. The Boy Scouts won't let you join if you lack character, either.

Masonry's membership requirements are much less strict than even your average college fraternity or sorority. Unlike college fraternities and sororities, all of masonic ritual has been exposed countless times and is available for everyone to read. This is in comparison to college rituals - in which fraternities are so determined to hide their ritual that they apparently threaten to sue ATS. And yet there are countless posts with direct quotes from masonic ritual, and you don't see any masons threatening to sue or calling lawyers. And I've seen one people on this thread even swear that we control the legal system.

So while your theory would be understandable, if it was reflective of how masonry works, in my opinion masonry is neither secretive nor exclusionary. Sometimes I wish it were more so, but I cannot change freemasonry. For now, everyone can get in and everyone can read anything they want about any ritual.

Originally posted by NGC2736
reply to post by pacificwind

 

**Moderator hat off and member hat on.**

And there is yet another side to this. Anyone that questions the workings of any group, and you can insert Masons here if desired, are all lumped together as ignorant "anti-whatever" out to smear the good name of said group. Where's the fairness in that as well?

Care to cite the posts and quotes, NGC2736? Why is it fair game to assert all sorts of unsupportable allegations and insinuations in the name of the great god Conspiracy while calm and rational defense against the same is treated with such apparent utter contempt?

Let's take the actual example of Masons collectively being slanged for something allegedly done by a component group (which turns out not to be even remotely as indicated in the OP and thread title, I might add). Am I mistaken in pointing out that the response of acknowledged Masons here has been fairly muted and sticking to facts in the face of wild accusation and wooly inuendo? Why has yet another thread has been allowed to morph into a 'Masons-are-all-evil-because-I-say-so' attack which undermines SO's stated desire for debate?

This conspiracist's meal is an awfully thin gruel.

Originally posted by NGC2736
I agree that preset agendas are not conducive to a fair assessment of anything, but somewhere there ought to be a few from both camps in any discussion that could set aside personal inclinations for a fair and open discussion of ALL possibilities.

Where does "ALL possibilities" end? How about I say the 'Jesters' weren't really Jesters at all but David Icke-type reptilians clothed as Jesters? Honestly, where does it end?

Originally posted by NGC2736
Can we not all admit that any group of humans, Democrats, Masons, Methodists, Police, Journalists, or whatever, have bad apples. And if that is true, as logic says it must be, then conspiracies and cabals must sometimes arise? Are our attachments to a group so strong that as intelligent people we can blindly accept "our group" as being without sin?

Have the Masons here been suggesting otherwise? That said, the same logic that dictates that there must be some bad apples also dictates that the number of bad apples shouldn't appreciably exceed what you'd find in a control group.

Originally posted by NGC2736
It would seem logical that ordinary Masons would be as interested in looking for these hidden groups, if they exist at all outside the minds of conspiracy buffs, just as much as anyone.

Granted. However, the general characterisation Masons and Masonry here on ATS seems to follow the Napoleonic Code of guilty until proven innocent. Gets a tad annoying when things veer off into sheer wackiness as they oft-times do.

Originally posted by NGC2736
Certainly as an American, I look at my government with some suspicion and don't blindly say that because I'm part of the voting citizens there must surely be nothing hidden from me or I would know about it.

Fine. But you're also comparing apples to oranges. Would you say the same thing if you were a Senator or somesuch? As it stands, you aren't part of the group that one would expect should be in the know.

Originally posted by NGC2736
Does simple membership in a group somehow convey sanctity on the whole? Is this the reason many cops blindly defend their fellow officers and actively seek justification for any type of action?

Again, I think the general response has been that Masons expect better of their membership and think somewhat less of the membership who bring disgrace in whatever form. The case cited in the OP isn't even as claimed and it's reality that the Masons here have been working at pointing out. If there was something to it, the response would be different. But the facts speak otherwise. This isn't a case of reflexive chauvinism.

Originally posted by NGC2736
Which brings me, in my verbose way, to the point. It would seem in the best interest of any group, secret organization or otherwise, to keep close scrutiny on those powerful and influential portions of it's membership, lest their actions reflect badly on the whole.

Ideally, yes. Every adult should behave in a adult fashion and be expected to do so without supervision. Actually, Masonry as structured, is in a better position to excercise control over its governing individuals than many groups. However, in any group, there will be those who can't or feel they aren't bound by the same expectations. Shall we tar and feather all U.S. Democrats and assume all male Democrats are incapable of keeping their zippers zipped for the indescretions of Eliot Spitzer?

Originally posted by NGC2736
This might require a shifting of position from one of antagonism towards investigators, to one of cooperation.

Depends on the "investigators". If the investigators have an agenda that seeks power rather than veracity, then they aren't really truth-seekers, are they?

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Why is it fair game to assert all sorts of unsupportable allegations and insinuations in the name of the great god Conspiracy while calm and rational defense against the same is treated with such apparent utter contempt?

Let's take the actual example of Masons collectively being slanged for something allegedly done by a component group (which turns out not to be even remotely as indicated in the OP and thread title, I might add)

Could you please indicate where the masons where "collectively being slanged" "as indicated in the OP and thread title" ?!

You seem to suggest that my intention was to slang masons.
Maybe you should read the original post again (and please turn off your auto pilot)

I admit failure in the collective reasoning department. Such must not be the destiny of these threads. Everything always comes back to childish "He hit me first" attitudes.

I am seriously doubtful that anyone here wants to truly further understanding.

So be it. Some wars, like the Middle East, cannot have peace.

***************Puts back on Moderator hat and bows to both corners.******************