Jack the Ripper and the Freemasons ?

theron dunn

what you posted is slander, since you have NOTHING on which to base the conjecture.

Take some meds- - -

Slander? Where?

That FROM the movie the Ripper was amason or protected by the masons? H- E- L lo

Watch the movie and pray tell enlighten us.

Or are you now saying I slandered the BEIC?
Biggest drug-cartel in world history, bane of civilization, murderer and debaser of culture - -

Is this it?

Here's another Freemason. What are we going to do about it?

ROFL. Let me just extend this one-liner so it'll show up in the thread.

------------------------
-----------------------
------------------------

There.

Originally posted by intrepid
Here's another Freemason. What are we going to do about it?

Actually Worshipful Brother Mummy was a revered Mason, though he always seemed wrapped up in one affair or another. His propensity to curse was another shortcoming of this august member of the Craft. His participation wavered when he became a groupie for the King Tut exhibit� he then just faded away.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
I am not saying that I buy the story as in the movie- but if it were mostly true then that is why the masons covered up. IF he were one of them or one of the royal family then the masons would cover up to protect themselves from shame or to ingratiate themselves to the royals.

Perfect conjecture, but plausible nonetheless.

Come on, Michael... read what YOU wrote, and then tell me you weren't trying to slander masons... sheesh.

Nasty innuendo at best, terrible slander at worst.

Originally posted by theron dunn
... read what YOU wrote, and then tell me you weren't trying to slander masons... sheesh.

Nasty innuendo at best, terrible slander at worst.

Whatever. Slander, slander slander

Feel better?

Take a few non- cola things, it seems you are growing a little metallic thingy that some would call A HANG UP

So, what do you think about the BEIC tie-in? Pretty good, huh?

[edit on 6/9/2004 by PublicGadfly]

PublicGadfly:

The BEIC tie in... pretty cool as a distraction... no, really, don't look at what my left hand is doing, look at my right...

Other than that, a waste of bandwidth...

Oh, and by the way, is your name Mike Gentry?

thought I would forget, didn't ya?

How could I forget-
(gets ANOTHER hanger for good ol theron)

BEIC I think would have been better (this is a Jack the Ripper thread, right?)

I've done a lot or research on the 'company.' Lots of folks chasing needles need to step back and look at the haystack, me thinks. 300+ years of operation gives some deep contacts-

Back to Jack-
The whole mason thing relating to him is a ruse.
Public sentiment in Britain at that time was anti-mason anyway so why not? The real culprit is none other than 'John Company.' The hero of the Empire could not stand to let the least bit of scandal attach itself. Someone very believable had to be sacrificed, so who?

Who ever gets sacrificed is innocent!

The masons got the knife (so to speak) and the company stayed dark (you know, like inactive lodges do- they never quit, they just operate in the deep shadows. The members are still around doing the things they used to do but now even the little publicity they were getting is hidden) A dark lodge or three or four- no biggie and the company image is secure.

Back to J.C.- the perfect hard-line boss. Could not be more heartless. No one is above �the company!� Didn't Lord Napier or one of those guys say that? Maybe this was Woolsey- I can't remember.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
Back to Jack-
The whole mason thing relating to him is a ruse.
Public sentiment in Britain at that time was anti-mason anyway so why not? The real culprit is none other than 'John Company.' The hero of the Empire could not stand to let the least bit of scandal attach itself. Someone very believable had to be sacrificed, so who?

Hmmm. You state that as is it were fact, but really, it's a pleasure to correct you.
The masonic conspiracy theory didn't take hold until well into the 20th century. Britain wasn't anti-masonic at that time - it was anti-semetic. Nearly all of the commentators of the time believed that Jack was a Jew.
As for your statement that there was a sacrifice? Really? As far as I am aware Jack's identity has never been publicly revealed - the need for a scapegoat is therefore negated.

So instead of waffling on about companies and Empires why don't you go check your textbooks next time?

I think we need to look more into this angle! He is multiplying!



Brother Jack is back in a BIG WAY! The problem is...... we still cannot verify who he is. He used to be our Steward here for a while.... I never thought of this angle till now!

[edit on 7-9-2004 by JCMinJapan]

Jack's story (metro police)
In the years 1888-1891 the name was regarded with terror by the residents of London's East End, and was known the world over.
Masonry was coming out of its second great schism which began in 1877, having lost some of its international appeal to John company.

(half way down the page Calif. Mason online)"When the journal in London which speaks of the Freemasonry of the Grand Lodge of England, deprecatingly protested that the English Freemasonry was innocent of the charges preferred by the Papal Bull (Encycl. 1884) against Freemasonry, when it declared that English Freemasonry had no opinions political or religious, and that it did not in the least degree sympathize with the loose opinions and extravagant utterances of part of the Continental Freemasonry, it was very justly and very conclusively checkmated by the Romish Organs with the reply, 'It is idle for you to protest. You are Freemasons and you recognize them as Freemasons. You give them countenance, encouragement and support and you are jointly responsible with them and cannot shirk that responsibility"

This is fairly telling that English masonry was having a 'bit' of trouble.. What better fall guy? J.c. Became enamored even more to the Crown. Masonic influence was stiffled while J.c. Infiltrated.
Sure this is ��speculation,�� but isn't that what form of masonry is practiced?

Anyway, I have had a �John company� idea for many years. After a rather decent study of the causes of the Opium Wars it is without a doubt that Anglo (re: J.c.) interests were the largest drug dealers in the history of the world. By some accounts, adjusted for modern dollars J.c. Had a yearly income in excess- yes, in excess of the GNP of the U.S. (2002).
Just an idea at the moment.

As you (Leveller) are most assuredly aware, and seem to not be able to set petty difference aside- much the loss, I have posted a fair number of positive statements regarding masonry. I have got to the lengths of posting masons that were heroic. Now is mayhaps not the time for the �John company� pursuit, but it is near.

As to the �masonic conspiracy� notion being never prior to the 20th century (to paraphrase your post) that is shear bunk. ATS is about denying ignorance, not spreading it.

IF Jack was covered up by the Masons, it's likely it wasn't for the Masons, but simply because those with the power to do so happened to be Masons.

That doesn't mean they did it (IF they did) for Masonry, but likely moreso to avoid embarrassment to the Royal Family, or fellow aristocrats...

I suppose it could be that Jack was actually lower class, but somehow I doubt it. Such crimes are usually committed by those thinking of whores as "lower" creatures, and they believe that killing them is no different than a hunting trip...and implies that he considered himself to be of higher station.

Originally posted by Gazrok
IF Jack was covered up by the Masons, it's likely it wasn't for the Masons, but simply because those with the power to do so happened to be Masons.

That doesn't mean they did it (IF they did) for Masonry, but likely moreso to avoid embarrassment to the Royal Family, or fellow aristocrats...

I suppose it could be that Jack was actually lower class, but somehow I doubt it. Such crimes are usually committed by those thinking of whores as "lower" creatures, and they believe that killing them is no different than a hunting trip...and implies that he considered himself to be of higher station.

EXACTLY- the masons may or may not have even been involved. Someone with enough power to lay "suspicion" did the cover. Mason or not, someone was getting the blame and it wasn't "John company."

The aristocrats- I think John company owned the ones that didn't own J.c.

I'm still plugging on this.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
As you (Leveller) are most assuredly aware, and seem to not be able to set petty difference aside- much the loss, I have posted a fair number of positive statements regarding masonry. I have got to the lengths of posting masons that were heroic.

And this is an excuse for posting the rest of your misguided hatred is it?

"I've posted something nice and now I can post some unfounded venom"?

As for your assertion that masonry was low in the public eye of the British general public at the time of the murders? Read your own link again. It refers to international opinion, not domestic.

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
As you (Leveller) are most assuredly aware, and seem to not be able to set petty difference aside- much the loss, I have posted a fair number of positive statements regarding masonry. I have got to the lengths of posting masons that were heroic.

And this is an excuse for posting the rest of your misguided hatred is it?

"I've posted something nice and now I can post some unfounded venom"?

As for your assertion that masonry was low in the public eye of the British general public at the time of the murders? Read your own link again. It refers to international opinion, not domestic.

"John company" - - -
"John company" was the internailist at that time. They had been for around almost three hundred years by Jack's day- since 1600!

(hatred- what hatred? never posted any!)

I wouldn't put that much store in the fact that Ms Cornwell says that Sickert was the Ripper. Her conclusions are speculation, nothing more. She presents no hard evidence what so ever. As for her saying that he portrays the killings in his paintings, well some people say they see the hidden images some people say they don't see them. After all what one person sees in a piece of Art another does not.
There is absolutely no evidence that would stand up in a court of law and for her to label someone a Serial killer with out that hard evidence is wrong. Sure, put forward a theory put new ideas into the mix but to say that Sickert is the Murder to the exclusion of all others is pure arrogance.
The idea that the Masons were responsible is just as laughable for the same reasons. The only fact that anyone can put any store by is that no one knew who he was then and no one knows who he is now.
The Ripper was prob a poor, deranged nut who blew in slaughtered 5 or 7 poor women and then was killed himself or was imprisoned for another unrelated crime and ended his days in Bedlam or some other Prison or Mental Hospital.
The Police at the time had absolutely no experience of a Serial Killer and had no real experience of how to deal with such random killings. If you look at the crimes of Violence in Victorian London most of them were solved by the perp killing someone they knew and then the Police getting a confession from them. There were no Forensics, no DNA profiling, no Fingerprinting and no Ressler style Mind Hunters. The Ripper got lucky and he was clever ............ clever like a Fox.

Apologies about the typos and spelling mistakes im tired.

[Edited on 21-11-2004 by Janus]

Originally posted by PublicGadfly

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
As you (Leveller) are most assuredly aware, and seem to not be able to set petty difference aside- much the loss, I have posted a fair number of positive statements regarding masonry. I have got to the lengths of posting masons that were heroic.

And this is an excuse for posting the rest of your misguided hatred is it?

"I've posted something nice and now I can post some unfounded venom"?

As for your assertion that masonry was low in the public eye of the British general public at the time of the murders? Read your own link again. It refers to international opinion, not domestic.

"John company" - - -
"John company" was the internailist at that time. They had been for around almost three hundred years by Jack's day- since 1600!

(hatred- what hatred? never posted any!)

Looking for hatred?

Your wish is my command . . . .

Gadfly wrote:

The founding fathers of America never claimed that 'masonism made this possible,' Only many years later when the lodge became filled with vipers upon the body politic did masnory resort to such low claims in an attempt to support it's runious acts against charges of becoming the new oligarchy.

Masonry lied then and it still hasn't dropped this set of fables.

In this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Masons are vipers and liars, according to you. Quite a way to spread kindness and love, gadfly.

Anything else I can find for you?

Originally posted by Janus
The Police at the time had absolutaly no experience of a Serial Killer and had no real experience of how to deal with such random killings. If you look at the crimes of Violence in Victorian London most of them were solved by the perp killing someone they knew and then the Police getting a conffesion from them. There were no Forensics, no DNA profiling, no Fingerprinting and no Ressler style Mind Hunters. The Ripper got lucky and he was clever ............ clever like a Fox.

Apologies about the typos and spelling mistakes im tired.

serial killers are not random they kill (or hunt if you wish) a person with certain physical chartics like hair color, sex,eye color,and some times even its as simple as being in their car car with a boy. a hitman on the other kills who he is told to and how he is told to for exe. the Iceman. he killed mostly with a 22cal. to right tempal but if he was told to cut he did with hesatation.

LTD602

Looking for hatred?

Your wish is my command . . . .

Gadfly wrote:

The founding fathers of America never claimed that 'masonism made this possible,' Only many years later when the lodge became filled with vipers upon the body politic did masnory resort to such low claims in an attempt to support it's runious acts against charges of becoming the new oligarchy.

Masonry lied then and it still hasn't dropped this set of fables.

In this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Masons are vipers and liars, according to you. Quite a way to spread kindness and love, gadfly.

Anything else I can find for you?

See, you are putting words where I did not and claiming they are mine-

The lodge �filled with vipers� not ALL masons are vipers. Kind of neat how you have left off the many times I also posted that �there are many good men in masonry�

Nothing like showing half-a-hand and claiming a full deck is there?
(�wish is my command�- somehow this doesn't ring real well)- maybe it's just me
----

DRAGON2y

serial killers are not random they kill (or hunt if you wish) a person with certain physical chartics like hair color, sex,eye color,and some times even its as simple as being in their car car with a boy.

This has always puzzled me as well. Certainly serial killers are nothing new to humanity. I imagine the London police had to come to a soul-wrenching conclusion ( I can't guess what this was) regarding �Jack the Ripper� screams of the public. How many other 'brushed off' deaths had occurred. After all, this was the scum section of town.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
Kind of neat how you have left off the many times I also posted that ?there are many good men in masonry?

Yet again, we have this weird statement.
As if that really lets you off the hook, dude.

"Gadfly is a nice guy. But he's a total and utter liar and a hate filled bigot who spews half truths and biased falsities."

Tell me. How does that read?