Shouldn't Secrets be hidden?

reply to post by Rockpuck


Well FINALLY! Your input was the one I had whole heartedly been waiting for.
Much thanks for denying my ignorance.
For the record, the local Freemason lodge here, offers a tour once a year to all those wishing to see the inside of the lodge. This year, i will go.

This thread has certainly transpired into somewhat of a pissing contest, which Iam sad to see.
It is fine to have a difference of opinion, and a wealth of knowledge, but to educate others there is no need to shove it down their throat with such aggression and malevolence.
If we weren't all open to discussion and debate, we would not be here at all.
But there is a tactful way to go about it.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Continuing the OT in the midst of the mutual dick-measuring contest between Flame & Light...

I too don't see secrecy itself as a bad thing. I suppose at some point I'm going to have to really sit down and contemplate if there's a difference between "secrecy" and "privacy". And while I'm weighing it all, things like Kennedy's quote, "The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" come to mind, and I have to disagree with him. Granted, what he was saying was more than 45 years ago and he might have had a different take today, but it's still something I ponder.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


You're not published.

And you erased the "CV" before I had a chance to check thoroughly ...I go make a sandwich ... Gezz.

U2U! me.

I'm real close to debating you; but my rules are my rules. All kinds of other chumps to pester, if you like.

reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


You see - when facts hit the fire, he fizzles out. I am published. You saw a short part of my CV. It was easily to google, I made sure of it by picking the ones that would be easily identifiable by anyone who is a true scholar and knows how to use search engines. The facts, are facts. I am published in peer reviewed academic journals and academic journals that are edited. But of course, I'm not here to promote myself so I am not going to link to my own stuff as you do constantly.

You are not published. You have vanity press publications and magazines - if these really exist, of which I am not convinced. In the event that they do, a vanity press deal is easy to get and the reputation and authenticity of them and these "magazines" are extraordinarily questionable, and the only proof you have is on your website. In fact you really could just be making it all up, and just using this as a way to funnel more hits to your website.

Your trying to drag me along by saying your "close" to debating me in the hopes that I will continue to play your game of smoke and mirrors. Your desperately looking for 1 thing I've said incorrectly so you can point it out and claim that, due to that point, you will not debate me. I provided you what you wanted, I've meet your conditions. Now debate me. I will no longer play this game of smoke and mirrors. Stop the pissing contest.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
2) nothing, ZILCH, comes up on Google (certainly not in Google Scholar; but especially not in Google proper).

edit-links removed by request of ALightinDarkness



[edit on 27-5-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


But..but...Augustus - how can this be? I thought I was lying!

BTW - once Fire sees those links, please edit the post and delete them. I am proud of my work but do not wish to use ATS as an avenue to promote myself - I find it very arrogant, and I would not be doing this except for the fact that fire refuses to engage in debate until we've had a "whose is bigger" contest.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Link 2 is a paper he gave to the university "in partial fulfillment of the requirements" for his Masters.

Link 1 is not a "published" item in any way, shape or form. It's a paper he co-authored and is going to present a an academic conference.

Published, was my condition.

Still waiting.

If he doesn't like it - tough. It'll have to be someone else then.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
Link 2 is a paper he gave to the university "in partial fulfillment of the requirements" for his Masters.

BZZT! If you had done your research and read, you would see that this paper is being edited for submission to an academic edited journal to appear this fall. You claim your a researcher, but don't know what "working papers" means?

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
Link 1 is not a "published" item in any way, shape or form. It's a paper he co-authored and is going to present a an academic conference.

BZZT! If you had again done your research, you would see that this is not only going to be published in the annals of the conference (actual publication), but that it is a forthcoming submission to a peer reviewed journal.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
Published, was my condition.

BZZT! Smoke and mirrors is your condition. Unless you are going to argue that there is a massive conspiracy among numerous universities to claim my research is about to be published by them, you are simply in denial. You have yet to provide us evidence of 1 single thing you've published, all you have done is linked to your own website which is not a publication.

I purposely provided you with only upcoming and one recent publication because you would not be able to get the older ones online without paying for it - and then you'd claim somehow I was faking that. You are just desperate to get out of debating me, any way you can.

Still waiting for you to end this pissing contest and debate me.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
BTW - once Fire sees those links, please edit the post and delete them. I am proud of my work but do not wish to use ATS as an avenue to promote myself - I find it very arrogant, and I would not be doing this except for the fact that fire refuses to engage in debate until we've had a "whose is bigger" contest.

Not a problem, I will remove them this evening. By the way, the second one was rather easy to find, just your name and the abbreveation UNC turned up the first response on google. You owe me an autographed edition of your Doctoral Thesis.

Enough is enough...

ALightinDarkness has thrown down the gauntlet.. Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men, you have the option of either picking up the gauntlet and accepting the challenge... Or walk away. If you choose to accept, then the topic will be selected and the debate arranged. If you do not accept the discussion is over. Period. In this thread and every other thread on ATS. You will not continue this charade of searching for a worthy opponent. You will not set conditions or criteria. You will not waste any more bandwidth with you vacillations. It is a yes or no question... It can only be a yes or no answer.

ALightinDarkness, you have issued the challenge, and are willing to debate... Everyone is aware that you would like to engage in a debate. There is no reason to reiterate this in any future posts.

I hope this is clear... There is to be no further discussion regarding an impending debate... Work it out by U2U and if an agreement is made, then the debate will be set up... Most likely by TheVagabond or Gools. They will be the arbiters of how the debate will be conducted.

If there is any questions regarding this issue, it will be addressed via U2U to staff, or by a formal Complaint submission. Any further posts will be deemed "Off Topic" and may garner additional sanctions.

Thank you.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

Continuing the OT in the midst of the mutual dick-measuring contest between Flame & Light...

I too don't see secrecy itself as a bad thing. I suppose at some point I'm going to have to really sit down and contemplate if there's a difference between "secrecy" and "privacy". And while I'm weighing it all, things like Kennedy's quote, "The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" come to mind, and I have to disagree with him. Granted, what he was saying was more than 45 years ago and he might have had a different take today, but it's still something I ponder.

When reading JFK's words, I am torn on what he meant. Here is a man who grew up surounded by a very secretive family, with a shadowy past and shady dealings. It would be hypocritical to assume anyone kept more secrets then he himself.

However, I believe his words where not directed at societies or fraterneties.. but rather at the government establishment it's self.

That is to say, a government "for the people, by the people" has no place keeping secrets. It's purpose is to represent the States amongst eachother and the international community. What place does it have carrying on secret agendas, projects, diplomacy and even secret budgets? None what so ever, a gross abuse of power and highly unconstitutional.

And I think he believed this, I don't think he was implying Freemasonry or any other civilian club.

After all, it was in the secret halls of Freemasonry that America was born.

reply to post by Rockpuck


I suppose I do Kennedy a disservice to quote him out of context, so here's the full, unadulterated speech...
www.jfklibrary.org...

I might give it a read this evening and see what comes to mind. What exactly he was talking about has been highly contested and co-opted by assorted conspiracy theorists. Even on ATS, Jim Marrs has his own take on it. Not that I give Marrs any credence. After Freight Tomsen's wave of bad sources, I've grown to distrust any source with unnecessary double-letters in their names... those Marrs boys, Edith Starr Miller, etc.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

I suppose I do Kennedy a disservice to quote him out of context, so here's the full, unadulterated speech...
www.jfklibrary.org...

Interesting. I wonder if he had wrote that speech himself?

I have known about that quote for a while, but now seeing it in the larger context I still think he was obliquely referring to Freemasonry - though, perhaps while taking a swipe at both the communist party and the former at the same time.

Being a Catholic, he surely would have been exposed to anti-Masonic sentiment.

I'm reading a book right now: The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism At the Heart of American Power, by Jeff Sharlet. Man what a read! These evangelicals that he infiltrates and lays bare; really scary stuff. Their doctrine is the most conspiratorial I've read (maybe more intense and serious than the old Bavarian Illuminati). The quotes he gives on their teachings (all for Jesus, no less) are insane: they organize into cells in the manner of Marxists or terrorists; they cite the "good" attributes of Genghis Khan (like chopping off the heads of prisoners at the dinner table; and suffocating them while gorging themselves!), Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Te Sung. Crazy, crazy stuff to be teaching the next "world leaders" in Jesus' name.

They're not only entrenched in the US, but all over the world. They arrange meetings outside of the state department and CIA, with senators and congress going to the countries of dictators to talk business and arms. There's this crazy guy at the head of it: Doug Coe.

This topic reminds me of a story about the Marines it goes something like this "A guy was driving one night when the weather got so bad he had to pull over for a place to stay, well he ended up at a Marine base. The guard posted gave him the go ahead to stay at a abandoned barracks but there was a golden door in the barracks the guard stated he could not enter. The man agreed to this condition and went to sleep in the barracks in the middle of the night the man awoke due to the most beautiful music emanating from the door. But the man remembered his promise and did not try to enter. The next day he asked the guard what was behind the door and the guard replied you can go through when you walk the sand run the hills climb the mountain swim the ocean and gone through fire. Well the man thought about this and decided the only way he would find out would be to join the Marines. Years later while driving the same road he see the base and stops walks up to the guard there and says Im a sergeant of Marines Ive walked the sand at PI ran the hills at Pendleton climbed a mountain at Bridgeport swam the ocean on a WESTPAC and been through the fire in Iraq Im going through that door. The guard says very well and the sergeant walks through, inside he see the most beautiful thing ever to match that glorious music and it was I cant tell you you got to join the Marines and be a devil dog to find out."
The point I was trying to make with this long winded story is maybe the secrecy for the masons is one of the reasons people do join it guarantees membership I believe a previous post stated something to the effect that the freemasons are hurting for membership and by the interest generated by this thread I could see people asking for and being granted entrance to that brotherhood.

P.S I apoligize for the length of this response but it was my first one and I wanted to make it count.

It depends on your point of view. If the world had no secrets everybody had equal knowledge because of that the world would probably be like a kind of Utopia.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


I have known about that quote for a while, but now seeing it in the larger context I still think he was obliquely referring to Freemasonry - though, perhaps while taking a swipe at both the communist party and the former at the same time.

I agree with you that he was talking about the Communist Party. At that time, Gus Hall's Communist Party of the United States operated in secrecy.

I disagree that he was talking about Freemasonry, since he was sort of a friend of Masonry (although not a Mason himself). When the delegates from the various international Scottish Rite Supreme Councils met for a convention at the House of the Temple in Washington, D.C., JFK invited everyone to the White House. He then addressed the Scottish Rite Leadership in the Rose Garden, and spoke of his admiration for Masonic charities.

This event was actually pretty big in American Scottish Rite history because from about 1915 all the way up to the early '60's, the Scottish Rite was perceived as anti-Catholic. The Supreme Council's magazine, "The New Age", had issues published during that period that today are almost comical in their anti-Catholicism and anti-communism.

JFK helped smooth the realtions between American Catholics and Masonry. After Henry Clausen, 33° (who was Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, S.J., USA at that time) met with JFK, the anti-Catholic articles in "The New Age" began to thin out.

reply to post by Masonic Light


Thanks for the info.

Do happen to know what issues of the New Age Magazine specifically mentions JFK's meeting(s) with Freemasons?

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


Thanks for the info.

Do happen to know what issues of the New Age Magazine specifically mentions JFK's meeting(s) with Freemasons?

I don't have any issue that mentions it, although there was probably an article on it at the time it occured.

The whole story though, which includes a couple of photos of JFK with Clausen and other Scottish Rite leaders, can be found in Fox's Valley of the Craftsmen

reply to post by Masonic Light


Thanks. I learned something new today, and got a good book recommendation to boot!