Anders Breivik and "hidden" Freemasons

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

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.

Aye! How difficult is this to understand? To adhere to a law you must interpret the law.

The citizen must interpret the law to know whether he's adhering or not.
The police must interpret the law to decide whether to arrest or not.
The judge must interpret the law to know whether to convict or not.

Everyone has to interpret the law to follow it.

If no one interprets the law, the law cannot be broken.

Many times the case reaches the judiciary, who decide that the law is invalid when they come to interpret the law, and therefore no law is broken. In the end, the judiciary decides on the proper interpretation of the law.

The citizen cannot know whether he broke the law or not, until the judiciary says so. Until then, we only have "accusers" and "deniers".

The strange thing is that Anders was "excluded" from masonry without a masonic trial. He never got to present his case to the masons. How just is Freemasonry? Even the civil society will give him a trial. But, the masons give no trial. They must know more than the civil authorities do, in order to make that judgment so quickly. And yet, it is the masons who fought against the King's power to make, judge, and execute law by one individual's whim--that they claim was the source of tyranny.

Strange world we live in. I don't claim to understand it all. But, I point out what I see.

reply to post by DRAZIW


this thread is about Anders Breivik. He was arrested. Everyone involved interpreted the law correctly and if all goes like it should, he will never walk as a free man again. What is your point?

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Aye! How difficult is this to understand? To adhere to a law you must interpret the law.

The citizen must interpret the law to know whether he's adhering or not.
The police must interpret the law to decide whether to arrest or not.
The judge must interpret the law to know whether to convict or not.

Since we are talking about the mass murder of children what is to interpret?

Everyone has to interpret the law to follow it.

What parts of the criminal code are ambigious in your opinion or can be taken in a different light than intended?

If no one interprets the law, the law cannot be broken.

This is purely semantics, like asking about the tree in the woods.

Many times the case reaches the judiciary, who decide that the law is invalid when they come to interpret the law, and therefore no law is broken. In the end, the judiciary decides on the proper interpretation of the law.

You are refering to civil law or to jurisprudence. Criminal law is codified on several levels.

The citizen cannot know whether he broke the law or not, until the judiciary says so. Until then, we only have "accusers" and "deniers".

Really? So if you stabbed someone in the face you would be at a loss as to whether you committed a crime or not? Where have you been living lately?

The strange thing is that Anders was "excluded" from masonry without a masonic trial. He never got to present his case to the masons. How just is Freemasonry?

The Grand Master has the authority to expell a Mason for un-Masonic conduct, which by Brever's addmissions he committed. What more do you need?

Even the civil society will give him a trial. But, the masons give no trial.

There are Masonic trials when the Mason in question wrongs a Brother or the Fraternity. In instances where he breaks the civil or criminal code and is found guilty he is automatically expelled.

They must know more than the civil authorities do, in order to make that judgment so quickly.

Yeah, he addmitted to the killings.

Strange world we live in. I don't claim to understand it all.

No, you do not, but you seem to have no problem inventing things to support your case, i.e. criminal law, the Supreme Court members, Masonic trials, etc. Before you state something try to find out the facts first.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by DRAZIW

 

this thread is about Anders Breivik. He was arrested. Everyone involved interpreted the law correctly and if all goes like it should, he will never walk as a free man again. What is your point?

My point is that Anders Breivik was a "Master Mason" whose current degree work was "Hardworking St. John's apprentices", one of 38 such candidates in his Masonic Lodge of 813 brothers. He was an APPRENTICE to someone in that lodge. Taking orders from one or more masons higher up the food chain than he. He underwent secret paramilitary training in foreign countries to prepare him for the event.

read:
The Breivik Portfolio: The Chechen Connection

He obviously got lots of help. An ordinary person doesn't get to meet the underworld figures in the dark and shady world of spies without high contacts. He suddenly came into lots of money, which allowed him to buy equipment for the job. He was groomed and prepared for the event by his handlers. Those handlers are above the law. If they want to free Anders, they'll free him. If they want to sacrifice him, to make him a "SAINT" of Freemasonry, then they'll crucify him. Poor Anders, little did he know the "betrayal" that was destined for him. Or maybe he did, and took on the task willingly to become a "SAINT".

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

No, you do not, but you seem to have no problem inventing things to support your case, i.e. criminal law, the Supreme Court members, Masonic trials, etc. Before you state something try to find out the facts first.

What are facts?

Where do we find them?

All I see are stories and reports!

I comment on the stories I read, with stories of my own. I add my contribution to the land of stories with my own thinking content.

I don't pretend to have any facts.

Everything we read can be made up for the purpose of swaying opinion of the public reader here and there.

All is propaganda.

Facts are the first casualty of war. And Anders Breivik says he is at war. So, truth in this case is unknown. Everything Anders printed in his Manifesto could simply be misdirection. Yes, he says he bought the Police Uniform in Prague. So what? That absolves the Freemason Police in his lodge that he really got the uniform from. See? All misdirection. What is truth? Is Anders really in lockup? Or is he on vacation somewhere enjoying a break after his hard work in Utoya? Who has seen him? We are told he is in "isolation". Not allowed to see anyone. How convenient. Seems to me he's got a year vacation on an island in the sun somewhere on the planet, all paid for by those to whome he was apprenticed. And the public gets cover stories and misdirection to chew their cud on. There's a reason why outsiders are called "COWAN"s.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
My point is that Anders Breivik was a "Master Mason" whose current degree work was "Hardworking St. John's apprentices", one of 38 such candidates in his Masonic Lodge of 813 brothers.

I call BS. Show me a Norwegian Masonic source that shows that there's even such a thing as a "Hardworking St. John's Apprentice".

Furthermore, according to their rosters, Beirvik only attended 4 meetings in his lodge*, three of which were to receive the Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft, and Master Mason degrees, respectively. So basically, he joined, got his degrees, went to one further meeting, and never went back. There's no evidence he was one of "38 candidates". That's just crap that's gotten copied and pasted verbatim from conspiracy websites, without anyone actually doing due diligence to verify that it's true.

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by DRAZIW
My point is that Anders Breivik was a "Master Mason" whose current degree work was "Hardworking St. John's apprentices", one of 38 such candidates in his Masonic Lodge of 813 brothers.

I call BS. Show me a Norwegian Masonic source that shows that there's even such a thing as a "Hardworking St. John's Apprentice".

Furthermore, according to their rosters, Beirvik only attended 4 meetings in his lodge*, three of which were to receive the Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft, and Master Mason degrees, respectively. So basically, he joined, got his degrees, went to one further meeting, and never went back. There's no evidence he was one of "38 candidates". That's just crap that's gotten copied and pasted verbatim from conspiracy websites, without anyone actually doing due diligence to verify that it's true.

Doesn't it strike you as strange, that a man could enter Freemasonry, attend just 4 meetings, and get to MM level without regular attendance at lodge meetings? Basically, he just went in for exams, never went to the school. How could he learn anything about Freemasonry? Isn't it very odd that a lodge would permit this?

Is it not clear to you, that we are not being told the whole story here?

The "official" masonic tale cannot be complete. For if he attended other meetings, and it was so revealed, then the Police could ask to see the record of who else attended those preparatory meetings. And then the Police would have "names" of other individuals, who could be accomplices to go after and question. But, if Anders only went in for exams, then the Police have no data to "make any accusations" on other individuals. Isn't it clear, that the record has been prepared "to protect" the other brothers that may be involved in this CRIME?

Originally posted by DRAZIW
I don't pretend to have any facts.

I agree, this is exactly what I said concerning your inventiveness regarding easily found information, i.e. the Supreme Court.

Facts are the first casualty of war. And Anders Breivik says he is at war. So, truth in this case is unknown. Everything Anders printed in his Manifesto could simply be misdirection. Yes, he says he bought the Police Uniform in Prague. So what? That absolves the Freemason Police in his lodge that he really got the uniform from. See? All misdirection. What is truth? Is Anders really in lockup? Or is he on vacation somewhere enjoying a break after his hard work in Utoya? Who has seen him?

Back to the tree in the woods again.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Doesn't it strike you as strange, that a man could enter Freemasonry, attend just 4 meetings, and get to MM level without regular attendance at lodge meetings?

You obviously have no idea of how Masonic degrees work. The first three times a candidate attends a Masonic meeting is to get his three degrees. Anything after that is optional. There is no forced or compulsed attendance at any point. People get their first degree and never return for more.

Basically, he just went in for exams, never went to the school. How could he learn anything about Freemasonry? Isn't it very odd that a lodge would permit this?

What 'school'?

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Back to the tree in the woods again.

Even the president has a double.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Doesn't it strike you as strange, that a man could enter Freemasonry, attend just 4 meetings, and get to MM level without regular attendance at lodge meetings?

You obviously have no idea of how Masonic degrees work. The first three times a candidate attends a Masonic meeting is to get his three degrees. Anything after that is optional. There is no forced or compulsed attendance at any point. People get their first degree and never return for more.

Maybe that's how things are in Norway. However, in other parts of the world masons are obligated to attend lodge meetings.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Maybe that's how things are in Norway. However, in other parts of the world masons are obligated to attend lodge meetings.

Where do you get your information up? Do you just continually invent things to support what you think must be the case?

You did notice my location, did you not? West Orange, New Jersey, which happens to be located in the United States, so I think I can speak from a legitimate point of reference. Masons are not obligated to attend any meetings at any time. There are far more pressing issues in life than Masonry.

From the Entered Apprentice Charge:

Although your frequent appearance at our regular meetings is earnestly solicited, yet it is not mean that Masonry should interfere with your necessary vocations...

Translation; 'Come when you can'.

reply to post by DRAZIW

Attendance is not mandatory. If I had one critique about many Masonic Lodges is their lack of Masonic Education. I know many are trying to change that and I am taking steps in all Masonic organizations I belong to.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Maybe that's how things are in Norway. However, in other parts of the world masons are obligated to attend lodge meetings.

My lodge has around 400 dues-paying members. Any given week, only around 20 show up. If we're having a business meeting, it may be up to 35, but that's about as many as we ever get. (Perhaps officer election night should have a higher turnout, but it usually doesn't.)

In fact, there are members of my lodge, still paying annual dues and in good standing, who haven't shown up in years. Not a big deal. (We'll drop you if you stop paying, but that's a different matter...)

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Maybe that's how things are in Norway. However, in other parts of the world masons are obligated to attend lodge meetings.

Where do you get your information up? Do you just continually invent things to support what you think must be the case?

.... Masons are not obligated to attend any meetings at any time. There are far more pressing issues in life than Masonry.

From the Entered Apprentice Charge:

Although your frequent appearance at our regular meetings is earnestly solicited, yet it is not mean that Masonry should interfere with your necessary vocations...

Translation; 'Come when you can'.

edit on 1-9-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer.

I rarely make things up. I simply transfer info from one place to another. I edit, select, and report.

example:

A Freemason - The Family Man

"Being a Freemason makes you feel that you are doing something positive for other people. Many Freemasons are married men with daily work and family committments. Whilst a mason has an obligation to attend his Lodge meetings, he is always expected and encourgaed to put his family and work before Freemasonry."

Source: Lodge of Free Burgesses, 4504

Frivolous excuses for not attending lodge meetings are frowned upon. But, genuine family emergencies and work are permitted excuses.

But, like I said, there are different types of Freemason Lodges in existence. Some deal with the real freemasonry, others have a more ceremonial function.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
I rarely make things up.

It should be more like never.

I simply transfer info from one place to another. I edit, select, and report.

It would be more accurate to say embellish and misrepresent.

example:

A Freemason - The Family Man

"Being a Freemason makes you feel that you are doing something positive for other people. Many Freemasons are married men with daily work and family committments. Whilst a mason has an obligation to attend his Lodge meetings, he is always expected and encourgaed to put his family and work before Freemasonry."

You notice that the text you highlighted is nearly identical to what I quoted? Obligated does not mean compulsory. Breivik could have easily attended only four meetings without this being unusual. There are members of my lodge that I have not seen since they were raised to the Master Mason degree several years ago.

But, like I said, there are different types of Freemason Lodges in existence. Some deal with the real freemasonry, others have a more ceremonial function.

Please explain the difference.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Yes, he says he bought the Police Uniform in Prague. So what? That absolves the Freemason Police in his lodge that he really got the uniform from. See? All misdirection.

It's interesting that anything you can shoehorn into your theory is rock-solid evidence, and everything that directly contradicts it is "misdirection".

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Yes, he says he bought the Police Uniform in Prague. So what? That absolves the Freemason Police in his lodge that he really got the uniform from. See? All misdirection.

It's interesting that anything you can shoehorn into your theory is rock-solid evidence, and everything that directly contradicts it is "misdirection".

Rock solid? No. It gets you to think. Some people are content to be spoon fed their stories and accept all that is reported. One lone guy working miracles by himself, paying himself large sums of cash, inviting himself into underworld paramilitary training camps, teaching himself to shoot, build explosives, learning how to impersonate a police officer convincingly, all by himself, the lone lunatic. Believe what you will. We all pick our square of preference on the checkerboard to stand on.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Yes, he says he bought the Police Uniform in Prague. So what? That absolves the Freemason Police in his lodge that he really got the uniform from. See? All misdirection.

It's interesting that anything you can shoehorn into your theory is rock-solid evidence, and everything that directly contradicts it is "misdirection".

Rock solid? No. It gets you to think. Some people are content to be spoon fed their stories and accept all that is reported. One lone guy working miracles by himself, paying himself large sums of cash, inviting himself into underworld paramilitary training camps, teaching himself to shoot, build explosives, learning how to impersonate a police officer convincingly, all by himself, the lone lunatic. Believe what you will. We all pick our square of preference on the checkerboard to stand on.

OK, Cowboy, you have convinced me. I believe you that it's a giant masonic conspiracy. What is our next course of action? What do we do now? Who do we tell?

You figure that stuff out, and let me know. I am with you.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by DRAZIW

 

this thread is about Anders Breivik. He was arrested. Everyone involved interpreted the law correctly and if all goes like it should, he will never walk as a free man again. What is your point?

I agree with you.

They will lock him behind the green door,

I hear its a party down there. . . . .

If you catch my drift.