Anders Breivik and "hidden" Freemasons

Originally posted by DRAZIW
They can't do anything to him. He is a "Master Mason" . Once a mason, always a mason.

False. Once expelled or suspended, a man is no longer a Mason until reinstatement (which, in this case, will never happen).

They still have to recognize him as a MM and protect him. Since the masons all swear an oath to protect each other, regardless.

False. Masons take no such oath, and in fact are directly told that any oath is null and void when it conflicts with the law. Also, as stated before, he is no longer recognized as a Mason.

He has broken no oath

Except for those to honor the laws and edicts of his Grand Lodge, which inculcate the utmost respect for the rule of law.

But, the important thing, is that he doesn't think that he himself is crazy. And he is trying to "communicate something" to people he thinks will understand.

Yes, it's definitely important to consider the self-diagnosis of a mass child murderer.

And those inside the order do not think he is crazy either, otherwise they would enable a public trial to let the people see for themselves that the guy was just insane. Instead they isolate him, and will keep him that way. They symbolically, cut out his tongue--i.e. will not let him speak to the public--etc.

"They" have no power to do anything of the sort. Said power rests with the Norwegian judicial system.

Yet, what Freemasons do behind the scenes is secret, and no Freemason can reveal it--"by speech."

False. No Freemason will be believed "by speech".

Was Breivik "trying to reveal" the truth about Freemasonry in some way, by his act, while keeping to the oath of silence?

Or was he insane and morally corrupt? Which seems more likely?

Why did he post a picture of himself in Freemason garb, to deliberately and "obviously" link the "evil deed" to the "Freemason institution"? He must have known it would "reflect badly" on the institution of Freemasonry. Why did he want to do that? He deliberately drew unwanted negative attention to an institution that prides itself on charity and other public good deeds.

If you'll recall, he considers it his magnum opus, and himself a hero. There is nothing negative about his perception of the event.

Something else is going on here. Forget the manifesto. I looked through it. It's pure junk. The real message is

Right, what he actually said about it isn't a good source when determining motives. How we can demonize people we don't like is what we need to be looking at.

some good guy wanted to expose some bad men who were so powerful that he could find no other way to do it himself but by this contrived act of evil.

So your position is that a mass murderer of children is a hero. Got it.

Now we are forced to think. If one bad apple was found in the bunch, maybe all the apples in there are rotten?

No, we're not "forced to think that". You want to think that, you want others to think that, and you want those two things so badly that you're willing to make a hero of, let me say it again, a mass murderer of children. I think I've found the rotten apple.

Whay did Breivik want to tell the world that? Was he a really good man, who stumbled on real evil, and decided a lesser evil was the only way to draw attention to the greater evil?"

Of all the "lesser evils" between nothing and whatever you think Freemasons do, he had to pick that? Why is that easier for you to believe than "he's a bad person"? Why do anti-Masons need to demonize Freemasons so badly that you'll jump into bed with (once more, with feeling) a mass murderer of children? That's the motive you should be trying to find.

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

Originally posted by DRAZIW
They can't do anything to him. He is a "Master Mason" . Once a mason, always a mason.

False. Once expelled or suspended, a man is no longer a Mason until reinstatement (which, in this case, will never happen).

They still have to recognize him as a MM and protect him. Since the masons all swear an oath to protect each other, regardless.

False. Masons take no such oath, and in fact are directly told that any oath is null and void when it conflicts with the law. Also, as stated before, he is no longer recognized as a Mason.

I admire the certainty with which you speak, sir.

Here's a quote on Freemason's oaths

"All Masons above the third, or Master's degree, are sworn to keep inviolate the secrets of a brother, murder and treason excepted, up to the seventh, or Royal Arch degree. In the oath of this degree the candidate, as we shall see, swears to keep all the secrets of companion of this degree, murder and treason not excepted. All Masons of and above this degree are solemnly bound to do this. The same is true of all the points sworn to in this obligation which we proceed to examine."

source: www.gospeltruth.net...

Some Masons swear to keep murder and treason secret, but not all masons. So, in that sense, you're right. I had said "all masons". Which is false. If the mason is high enough, as the levels go, he will keep the knowledge of the murders by a brother a secret, but the lower masons would not keep it secret, they would comply with the law of the land. However, they probably wouldn't be "privy" to the knowledge of what the higher brothers are about anyway. They don't know anything.

"They" have no power to do anything of the sort. Said power rests with the Norwegian judicial system.

Unfortunately, the power doesn't rest with "the Norwegian judicial system". The temporal power rests with "men".
The "oaths" those men swear to each other, determine what those men will do.

Now we are forced to think. If one bad apple was found in the bunch, maybe all the apples in there are rotten?

No, we're not "forced to think that". You want to think that, you want others to think that, and you want those two things so badly that you're willing to make a hero of, let me say it again, a mass murderer of children. I think I've found the rotten apple.

Brevik was "laughing" when he killed those folks. He was laughing because he knew he could now murder freely and no one could do anything about it. He is protected. Who is protecting him? The "oaths" protect him. He is "free". Murder and Treason are within his power now.

Whay did Breivik want to tell the world that? Was he a really good man, who stumbled on real evil, and decided a lesser evil was the only way to draw attention to the greater evil?"

Of all the "lesser evils" between nothing and whatever you think Freemasons do, he had to pick that? Why is that easier for you to believe than "he's a bad person"? Why do anti-Masons need to demonize Freemasons so badly that you'll jump into bed with (once more, with feeling) a mass murderer of children? That's the motive you should be trying to find.

edit on 29-8-2011 by OnTheLevel213 because: grammar fix

Maybe he's a bad person. Maybe he's a good person, who found it necessary to do a bad deed. I'll let god decide that one. Maybe, a good guy got possessed by a demon, the demon took over his mind, and that explains the crazy act. If he is exorcised, and the demon is cast out, we may find that the poor soul Anders was clueless about the whole thing. Who knows? When he entered Freemasonry he was accounted a "good man". What happened to him within the fraternity that changed him so much? What did he see? How did the "light" of freemasonry so affect his thinking, that he became "severely deluded".

Recall also, that Jacques de Molay, the Grand Master of the Knights Templar, was "laughing" too, when they burnt him at the stake.

What is it about the "Templar" degree in Masonry, that produces this "mind set" of the "joker". I guess only a Templar, or higher degree, would know.

reply to post by DRAZIW

There is so much wrong with your posts I do not know where to begin. OntheLevel had it right and you are pulling from incorrect sources. Have you taken these oaths? Have you administered these oaths?

Originally posted by KSigMason
...you are pulling from incorrect sources. Have you taken these oaths? Have you administered these oaths?

Hey, pal. Have you read gospeltruth.net?

It exposes the real agenda, just like biblebelievers.org.

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by DRAZIW

 

There is so much wrong with your posts I do not know where to begin. OntheLevel had it right and you are pulling from incorrect sources. Have you taken these oaths? Have you administered these oaths?

I am only one individual, and my testimony of myself could be anything.
However, the scriptures say two or more witnesses establish the matter
( # Matthew 18:16, # 2 Corinthians 13:1, # 1 Timothy 5:19 )


So, a more valid reference then would be the testimony of the more than 50 masons
who were examined by a legslative investigation of public record:

Source Text:
"LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION into MASONRY Being a Correct History of the Examination, Under Civil Oath, or more than FIFTY ADHERING AND SECEDING MASONS Before a Committee of the General Assembly of Rode-Island...etc..1832..."


"8th. I will assist a companion Royal Arch Mason, when I see him engaged in any difficulty---and will espouse his cause so far as to extricate him from the same, whether he be right or wrong ---Did you ever hear that? Witness. Not the latter part of it. There is a clause in the Royal Arch oath, embracing the first part of it. I never heard "espouse his cause so far as to extricate him from the same, whether he be right or wrong." This obligation confines the assistance to a WORTHY brother. [Note. The High Priest here admits that there is a clause in the Royal Arch oath embracing this point. vis--"I will assist a companion Royal Arch Mason, when I see him engaged in any difficulty." In this he accords precisely with the testimony of Mr. Tracher, and establishes the substance of the allegation that Royal Arch Masons are bound to assist each other in any difficulty, under all circumstances, and of course whether right or wrong. And yet it is a remarkable fact, that the written Royal Arch oath handed in by the Rhode Island Masons, does not contain a word about assisting a Royal Arch Companion, when engaged in any difficulty. But the High Priest admits that there is such an obligation in the oath, though he says it is confined to a WORTHY brother. What a WORTHY brother is, Past High Priest Wilkinson has informed us. Mr. Haile, in his minutes, omits a part of his witness' answer to the above question, but retains the substance of the admission that there is such an obligation, viz: to ASSIST a WORTHY brother companion, when engaged in ANY DIFFICULTY.] 9th. 'I will keep all the secrets of a Companion Royal Arch Mason, when communicated to me as such, without exception, or murder and treason not excepted.' Did you ever hear that clause? Witness. Not the LATTER PART of it. I never heard the expressions in the latter part of this extract administered....10th..In the obligation of the Royal Arch degree, as read to you...'That I will not give the grand Royal Arch word in any manner except that in which I may receive it.' Is the manner there referred to the same described in this obligation as given in Allyn's Ritual, viz. 'in the presence of three Companion Royal Arch Masons, myself making on of the number, and then by three times three under a living arch, and at low breath?' Witness. The obligation is, that I will not give the word, except in the manner I have received it. Mr. Hallett. To show that the oaths are alike, we want to know if the 'manner' is the same as described in the Royal Arch oath given in Allyn's Ritual. Witness. I think I have answered that question. Mr. Hallett. Where is it answered? Mr. Haile. The question is whether the manner alluded to in the written oath is the same described in the printed oath. Witness. After a pause. Well, sir, I should answer that the first part is correct, and decline to ansering the rest. [Note. This withess had taken a civil oath to make true answers to such questions as should be put to him, under the peril of the penalty of perjury! and yet he refused to answer a question put to him by Mr. Haile, one of the Committee, because he had sworn as a Mason to conceal and never to reveal. Which oath did he regard most binding in this case; his civil or his Masonic oath!]"

read the extract on google:
Leg islative Investigation 1832


The entire text can be dl free here:
www.archive.org...

If one considers the three Masonic Pillars "Beauty, Strength, Wisdom", the reason for the "oaths" become clear. Man, alone, is weak. There are two ways to get stronger. Either he binds himself to God, or he binds himself to other men. There is strength in numbers. That's the key.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
If one considers the three Masonic Pillars "Beauty, Strength, Wisdom", the reason for the "oaths" become clear. Man, alone, is weak. There are two ways to get stronger. Either he binds himself to God, or he binds himself to other men. There is strength in numbers. That's the key.

It's a shame you are this close to the big picture, yet your Bible blinders hinder your sight so much.

It's not that we "need" to bond with other men, we all understand that you can accomplish much greater things as a group, than as an individual. Yet we are all free to worship our creator in any way we see fit as individuals.
Once you understand why masonry is hated by organized religion, it puts all the hate and lies into perspective. Until then, don't forget to check out freemaosnrywatch.com. I hear they have some real great mason-bashing stuff there.

reply to post by DRAZIW


It would appear that the text that you quoted fully proves that the oaths Masons take do not permit or encourage them to help fellow Masons if or when they break the law.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
reply to post by DRAZIW

 

It would appear that the text that you quoted fully proves that the oaths Masons take do not permit or encourage them to help fellow Masons if or when they break the law.

Except if he is a "worthy" brother. A worthy brother would receive assistance in any difficulty he may face, it is the obligation of the higher degree brothers to help him. The only "fog" is what is meant by "worthy", and who decides which brother is "worthy" and which is not. That's the "Power"! It's the source of the strength of a man who is a member.

Remember, the French revolution could not proceed without the secrecy and assistance to those who broke the French King's Law. The Founding Fathers in the USA also needed that same secrecy and assistance to break the King of England's Law. The masons who established these things very proudly point to their important work and part played in these world changes. So, we know what the "oaths" are for.

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by DRAZIW
If one considers the three Masonic Pillars "Beauty, Strength, Wisdom", the reason for the "oaths" become clear. Man, alone, is weak. There are two ways to get stronger. Either he binds himself to God, or he binds himself to other men. There is strength in numbers. That's the key.

It's a shame you are this close to the big picture, yet your Bible blinders hinder your sight so much.

Yet, this Bible is "supposed" to be one of the great lights of masonry!

It's not that we "need" to bond with other men, we all understand that you can accomplish much greater things as a group, than as an individual.

I never said anyone had "need" to bond with other men. Clearly, it is a "choice." It is a choice "to gain some advantage" over other men who are not so bonded--strength in numbers.

Yet we are all free to worship our creator in any way we see fit as individuals.

But, no man can serve two masters. If a man of God, binds himself by oath to a man of the devil, to whom will his allegiance be directed? Jesus says,

"It is impossible for a man to mount two horses or to stretch two bows. And it is impossible for a servant to serve two masters; otherwise, he will honor the one and treat the other contemptuously."The Gospel of Thomas, 47

This is the problem the masons face when giving testimony under oath--do they obey the "civil oath" or their "masonic oath"? Which takes presidence.

Once you understand why masonry is hated by organized religion, it puts all the hate and lies into perspective. Until then, don't forget to check out freemaosnrywatch.com. I hear they have some real great mason-bashing stuff there.

I'm not trying to "bash" masonry. Only to understand how it can produce someone like Anders. By their "acts" they become known. Has some other secret order infiltrated masonry to give it a bad name? This was the claim of some about the illuminati some time ago. Clearly, Anders felt powerful, and acted out a drama that was well planned, and seemed to have had help. The police uniform, the ability to buy large quantities of explosive material without raising red flags, etc..all inconsistent, with the story of a single guy acting on his own. It looks like a conspiracy, where the other participants remain hidden by secret oaths, and Anders takes upon himself the blame, willingly, as if knowing that somewhere out there, he's being praised in secret places.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
This is the problem the masons face when giving testimony under oath--do they obey the "civil oath" or their "masonic oath"? Which takes presidence.

Well if that's all you're asking, then the answer is easy—Before taking the Masonic oath, you're told that it should in no way take precedence over your obligation to your country, your family, your neighbor, or yourself. So a true Mason, loyal to his teachings, will always put Masonry last if it is at odds with the law or might cause dissent in his house.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Except if he is a "worthy" brother. A worthy brother would receive assistance in any difficulty he may face...

Except if it is illegal. The testimony is quite clear.

Well to be fair there was a time, when masonic oathes did protect people from the law....when Masonry was s till a secret society i.e before 1717....once the Tyranny of Monarchs and the Churches burnings etc were put on hold etc....then yes there have been rules added that the oathes do not not cover people in face of certain criminal activity.

Masonry actively protected members from laws of state in more Modern times in Nazi Germany.

In any case the day of his crime as soon as he was identified his lodge met and had him expelled.....that as harsh a penalty as a masonic body can give. He is no longer a mason, he is not covered by any protection from masons, nor may they communicate to him as a mason in any form. He is simply no longer a member of the fraternity.

Masons are people...... occaisionally there are ones who break the law.....when they do there is a a hearing by the lodge and often they are removed. Likewise if you are a felon no masonic lodge will take you as a new member.

Now when the government is a tyrant....such as Nazi Germany, or most of medieval Europe....then yes masonry has protected members from unjust laws. However I can not imagine a time when any lodge would protect any member from laws of Democratic Republics...the view is that quite simply if it is the will of the people, it is a "just" law....whether we personally agree or not....

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Except if he is a "worthy" brother. A worthy brother would receive assistance in any difficulty he may face...

Except if it is illegal. The testimony is quite clear.

But, who decides whether an act is illegal or not? If an act is done in secret, can it ever be illegal? Someone has to make that judgment. Until some individual brings a charge that some action is illegal, that action remains unclassified. Men are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Until the end of a trial, the illegality or legality of an act is not determined. If, even before a trial, no one brings a charge against a person committing some act, can that act ever be illegal? If the chief prosecutor and chief judge are Freemasons of high degree, and they decide that assisting a worthy brother means that they will not bring a charge, nor try the brother for his deed, can the act of the brother ever be illegal? Even if the act is murder or treason?

Originally posted by DRAZIW
But, who decides whether an act is illegal or not?

Since the person in the testimony was obviously from the United States it would be the laws of this country.

If the chief prosecutor and chief judge are Freemasons of high degree...

Whatever that means...

...and they decide that assisting a worthy brother means that they will not bring a charge, nor try the brother for his deed, can the act of the brother ever be illegal? Even if the act is murder or treason?

Then they are as guilty as the perpetrator and are subject to Masonic expulsion as well. The oaths in Masonry are quite clear, there is to be no illegality committed or tolerated. Also, since you are not a Mason and may not be aware, all Masons are charged to help anyone in need, not just fellow Masons. From the lodge closing charge:

These generous principles should extend even further, every human being has a claim upon your kind offices, do good unto all men...

Originally posted by DRAZIW
But, who decides whether an act is illegal or not?

Um… lawmakers?

If an act is done in secret, can it ever be illegal?

Sure it can. In fact, I’d wager most illegal acts are initially done in secret. People who break the law in public are generally arrested pretty quickly…

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by DRAZIW
But, who decides whether an act is illegal or not?

Since the person in the testimony was obviously from the United States it would be the laws of this country.

But, there is no law without the interpreters of the law.

In the United States, for example, when George Bush Jr. ran against Al Gore, five supreme court justices intervened and decided to stop the count. They are the law. These same judges were appointed by George Bush Sr., and owed the favor in return. That's the reality. Should we expel them from the court? Who can do it?

If the chief prosecutor and chief judge are Freemasons of high degree...

Whatever that means...

...and they decide that assisting a worthy brother means that they will not bring a charge, nor try the brother for his deed, can the act of the brother ever be illegal? Even if the act is murder or treason?

Then they are as guilty as the perpetrator and are subject to Masonic expulsion as well. The oaths in Masonry are quite clear, there is to be no illegality committed or tolerated.

Yes, but that is exactly Anders' point. The liberal party in Norway is illegally changing the Norwegian society and he wants to "expel them". Now that he is a Master Mason, he feels he has the power to act. If he were to win support, then decades from now, the world may hear that he was a hero of the revolution, that brought Norway back from the brink of extinction to the way it used to be in the past century. Maybe he supports Kingdoms, and believes that democracy has been illegally imposed on the Norwegian Kingdom?

This point cannot be emphasized enough "Who is it that decides whether an act is illegal?"

Also, since you are not a Mason and may not be aware, all Masons are charged to help anyone in need, not just fellow Masons. From the lodge closing charge:

These generous principles should extend even further, every human being has a claim upon your kind offices, do good unto all men...

Masons may be charged to help anyone in need, except those in need to know about masonry from the outside. The cowans are to be treated with derision etc..and no hints to help the uninitiated to get to know about what really goes on inside the fraternity is allowed. So, for example, although the Grand Master of the Norwegian Freemasonry says that he will help the Police in their investigations, by his oaths he cannot reveal the secrets of the brothers. The brother that obtained the Police uniform for Anders, for example, is probably a Freemason Policeman, do you think the Grand Master will turn him in? Nay! He will deny knowledge.

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by DRAZIW
But, who decides whether an act is illegal or not?

Um… lawmakers?

The lawmakers only make the law.

Long ago, the King had the three power's vested in him

1) the power to make the law -- now the lawmakers do this
2) the power to interpret the law -- now the judiciary does this
3) the power to enforce the law -- now the police do this

The lawmakers do not interpret the law on application, nor do they enforce the law.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
The brother that obtained the Police uniform for Anders, for example, is probably a Freemason Policeman, do you think the Grand Master will turn him in? Nay! He will deny knowledge.

Considering in the manifesto, he says he bought the uniform in Prague, I'm not sure that argument holds up.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
But, there is no law without the interpreters of the law.

And what does that have to do with anything? If a person breaks the law they are doing something illegal. We are not debating the merits of the law, only ones adherence to the same.

In the United States, for example, when George Bush Jr. ran against Al Gore, five supreme court justices intervened and decided to stop the count. They are the law. These same judges were appointed by George Bush Sr., and owed the favor in return. That's the reality. Should we expel them from the court? Who can do it?

Sorry. Your knowledge of history is as bad as your knowledge of Masonry.

The Supreme Court in 2000:

William Rehnquist; voted for Bush, appointed by Nixon.
Anthony Kennedy; voted for Bush, appointed by Ford.
John Paul Stevens; voted against Bush, appointed by Ford.
Sandra Day O'connor; voted for Bush, appointed by Reagan.
Antonin Scalia; voted for Bush, appointed by Reagan.
David Souter; voted against Bush, appointed by Bush. (pay attention to that one)
Clarence Thomas; voted for Bush, appointed by Bush.
Ruth Ginsburg; voted against Bush, appointed by Clinton.
Stephen Breyer; voted against Bush, appointed by Clinton.

...and they decide that assisting a worthy brother means that they will not bring a charge...

Your knowledge of the legal system is also severaly flawed. Grand Juries, composed of one's peers, determine whether or not to indite, not judges.

Yes, but that is exactly Anders' point. The liberal party in Norway is illegally changing the Norwegian society and he wants to "expel them". Now that he is a Master Mason, he feels he has the power to act. If he were to win support, then decades from now, the world may hear that he was a hero of the revolution, that brought Norway back from the brink of extinction to the way it used to be in the past century. Maybe he supports Kingdoms, and believes that democracy has been illegally imposed on the Norwegian Kingdom?

This is all speculation on your part and is irrelevant. Most likely he will be remembered for what he was, a child-murdering scumbag.

This point cannot be emphasized enough "Who is it that decides whether an act is illegal?"

The society in question determines, through its governmental system, what is legal or illegal. How much harder can these be to understand?

Masons may be charged to help anyone in need, except those in need to know about masonry from the outside. The cowans are to be treated with derision etc..and no hints to help the uninitiated to get to know about what really goes on inside the fraternity is allowed.

What piece/pieces of knowledge do you feel you are being denied?

So, for example, although the Grand Master of the Norwegian Freemasonry says that he will help the Police in their investigations, by his oaths he cannot reveal the secrets of the brothers. The brother that obtained the Police uniform for Anders, for example, is probably a Freemason Policeman, do you think the Grand Master will turn him in? Nay! He will deny knowledge.

More speculation on your part. If he was indeed abetted by a fellow Mason than that person is just as complicit as Brevers and should be dealt with accordingly.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Yes, but that is exactly Anders' point. The liberal party in Norway is illegally changing the Norwegian society and he wants to "expel them". Now that he is a Master Mason, he feels he has the power to act. If he were to win support, then decades from now, the world may hear that he was a hero of the revolution, that brought Norway back from the brink of extinction to the way it used to be in the past century. Maybe he supports Kingdoms, and believes that democracy has been illegally imposed on the Norwegian Kingdom?

In the State you are to be a quiet and peaceable citizen, true to your government, and just to your country; you are not to countenance disloyalty or rebellion, but patiently submit to legal authority, and conform with cheerfulness to the government of the country in which you live.

From the charge to the Entered Apprentice, Duncan's Ritual, 1866

1. You agree to be a good man and true, and strictly to obey the moral law.
   
2. You agree to be a peaceable subject, and cheerfully to conform to the laws of the country in which you reside.
   
3. You promise not to be concerned in any plots or conspiracies against government; but patiently to submit to the decisions of the supreme legislature.
   
4. You agree to pay a proper respect to the civil magistrate, to work diligently, live creditably, and act honorably by all men.

From William Morgan's exposé on Masonry, ~1826