Is this a masonic handshake on rothschild website? [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Is this a masonic handshake on rothschild website?

sam bless

15-05-2009, 03:28 PM

http://www.rothschild.com/businesses/

scroll down to private banking and trust

eastbeast

15-05-2009, 05:11 PM

Not one that I recognise.

grandsecretary

15-05-2009, 06:10 PM

I have asked this many times. Why would anyone wish to publish a photograph of a "masonic handshake"? It isn't by the way. Intelligent suggestions please?

sam bless

15-05-2009, 07:21 PM

thank you

lightgiver

15-05-2009, 07:52 PM

http://www.rothschild.com/businesses/

scroll down to private banking and trust

Thumb in bewtween the knuckle denotes a mason handshake,the 1st three degrees anyhow.:)

grandsecretary

15-05-2009, 08:19 PM

Thumb in bewtween the knuckle denotes a mason handshake,the 1st three degrees anyhow.:)

Well it doesn't actually it's just a handshake. Now how about answering a perfectly simple question, just this once?

Why would anyone want to publish a photograph of a "masonic handshake"? It simply doesn't make sense.

By the way there is no such thing as a "masonic handshake". It is called a token, and it is always accompanied by a masonic sign and a masonic word, neither of which can be published in a photograph.

The photograph of a handshake is totally meaningless.

lightgiver

15-05-2009, 08:31 PM

Well it doesn't actually it's just a handshake. Now how about answering a perfectly simple question, just this once?

Why would anyone want to publish a photograph of a "masonic handshake"? It simply doesn't make sense.

By the way there is no such thing as a "masonic handshake". It is called a token, and it is always accompanied by a masonic sign and a masonic word, neither of which can be published in a photograph.

The photograph of a handshake is totally meaningless.

I always answer questions,Ha ha:D a shake is a shake,thumb in bewtween knuckle shake.

So what is the masonic sign and masonic word?

free thinker

16-05-2009, 08:40 AM

http://www.rothschild.com/businesses/

scroll down to private banking and trust

http://freemasonsproject.com/ww9/?page_id=103

gtycoon

16-05-2009, 08:53 AM

I have asked this many times. Why would anyone wish to publish a photograph of a "masonic handshake"? It isn't by the way. Intelligent suggestions please?

I don't think thats one. To answer your question, they would do it to show that a business is masonic to get mason customers. Same reason Home Depot would say "Were on the Level" and same reason Sams Club would use a big blue square in their logo.

How much do they give you as budget to be a shill on David Icke?

burnttoast

16-05-2009, 02:42 PM

Grand lodge motherfu** who are u, piece of sh^ im going to everyone off your lodges spray your doors with peace and love, and my god i follow assaisin ways or the traditional puff whislts doing it, sick buggers the blood of the good will be absorbed spirit of every innocent souls will drive me for 1 thing you freemason be afraid because we are coming< and our gods and spirits crying because they are lost its in us we can set them free and use there energy for our freedom!! Ladies and gents. GET OFF U FREEMANSON OF THIS FORUM YOU LUCIFARIAN CO* and BOLL8k SUCKER. SPIT!!

Sounds like something Ghandi would've said.

sam bless

16-05-2009, 02:50 PM

Sounds like something Ghandi would've said.

AHAHAHAHAAAAA

I understand what the freemasons in this thread are saying. I know relatively very little about freemasonary and was just hoping for some insight (which you gave). The handshake just looked akward to me...

citroen999

16-05-2009, 03:00 PM

this is a masonic handshake...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQw6MfWLSCs

i might start doing it that'll confuse em ;)

flyermay

16-05-2009, 03:25 PM

I understand what the freemasons in this thread are saying. I know relatively very little about freemasonary and was just hoping for some insight (which you gave). The handshake just looked akward to me...

Just for the purpose of enlightment: this is what a Rothschild's masonic handshake should look like (sorry GS, I couldn't resist).

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=333&pictureid=3361

sheepy

16-05-2009, 03:35 PM

luciferhorus

16-05-2009, 03:51 PM

With regards to Grand Secretary , when he declined my offer of 144 virgins in the afterlife (the Muslims only get 72) for renouncing Masonry and converting to militant Communism and anti-Masonry, I offered him 144 'males' to pleasure him in the Gardens of Paradise where the female Muslim martyrs go, and he refused this also.

Possibly some viagra might help; he is getting on a biit in age.

http://www.weirdasianews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/orgy-girls.jpg

Grand Secretary, you might want to reconsider my offer, since all that you can expect from the Christians and their tyrant god is 'spray painted lodge doors' genocide, holocaust, infanticide, and hatred in general etc., in contrast my offer of 144 virgins (or males if you prefer) is really a lot of 'love' in comparison.

Lux

This offer is for a limited time only and can be increased if undercut by any other religious cultist.

http://godismanmade.com/holybible-warning.jpg

Tithe to God or She will curse you.

"Should people cheat God? Yet you have cheated me! "But you ask, 'What do you mean? When did we ever cheat you?' "You have cheated me of the tithes and offerings due to me. You are under a curse, for your whole nation has been cheating me. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse so there will be enough food in my Temple. If you do," says the LORD Almighty, "I will open the windows of heaven for you. I will pour out a blessing so great you won't have enough room to take it in! Try it! Let me prove it to you! Your crops will be abundant, for I will guard them from insects and disease. Your grapes will not shrivel before they are ripe," says the LORD Almighty. (Malachi 3:8-11 NLT)

The all-powerful God claims She can bring food and grapes to the masses but She can't even feed herself?

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

Kill False Prophets; thrust through your children

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

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

Natural Disasters are the jealous God's Wrath

The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies! The LORD is slow to get angry, but his power is great, and he never lets the guilty go unpunished. He displays his power in the whirlwind and the storm. The billowing clouds are the dust beneath his feet. At his command the oceans and rivers dry up, the lush pastures of Bashan and Carmel fade, and the green forests of Lebanon wilt. In his presence the mountains quake, and the hills melt away; the earth trembles, and its people are destroyed. Who can stand before his fierce anger? Who can survive his burning fury? His rage blazes forth like fire, and the mountains crumble to dust in his presence. The LORD is good. When trouble comes, he is a strong refuge. And he knows everyone who trusts in him. But he sweeps away his enemies in an overwhelming flood. He pursues his foes into the darkness of night. (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT)

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

Pillage and Plunder Loot the silver! Plunder the gold!

For the land of Israel lies empty and broken after your attacks, but the LORD will restore its honor and power again. Shields flash red in the sunlight! The attack begins! See their scarlet uniforms! Watch as their glittering chariots move into position, with a forest of spears waving above them. The chariots race recklessly along the streets and through the squares, swift as lightning, flickering like torches. The king shouts to his officers; they stumble in their haste, rushing to the walls to set up their defenses. But too late! The river gates are open! The enemy has entered! The palace is about to collapse! Nineveh's exile has been decreed, and all the servant girls mourn its capture. Listen to them moan like doves; watch them beat their breasts in sorrow. Nineveh is like a leaking water reservoir! The people are slipping away. "Stop, stop!" someone shouts, but the people just keep on running. Loot the silver! Plunder the gold! There seems no end to Nineveh's many treasures – its vast, uncounted wealth. Soon the city is an empty shambles, stripped of its wealth. Hearts melt in horror, and knees shake. The people stand aghast, their faces pale and trembling. (Nahum 2:2-10 NLT)

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

An Angry Jealous genocidal God

"I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their cities are now deserted; their streets are in silent ruin. There are no survivors to even tell what happened. I thought, 'Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings, so I won't need to strike again.' But no; however much I punish them, they continue their evil practices from dawn till dusk and dusk till dawn." So now the LORD says: "Be patient; the time is coming soon when I will stand up and accuse these evil nations. For it is my decision to gather together the kingdoms of the earth and pour out my fiercest anger and fury on them. All the earth will be devoured by the fire of my jealousy. "On that day I will purify the lips of all people, so that everyone will be able to worship the LORD together. My scattered people who live beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will come to present their offerings. (Zephaniah 3:6-10 NLT)

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

God Will Kill Ethiopia ; slaughter them by the sword

"You Ethiopians will also be slaughtered by my sword," says the LORD. And the LORD will strike the lands of the north with his fist. He will destroy Assyria and make its great capital, Nineveh, a desolate wasteland, parched like a desert. The city that once was so proud will become a pasture for sheep and cattle. All sorts of wild animals will settle there. Owls of many kinds will live among the ruins of its palaces, hooting from the gaping windows. Rubble will block all the doorways, and the cedar paneling will lie open to the wind and weather. This is the fate of that boisterous city, once so secure. "In all the world there is no city as great as I," it boasted. But now, look how it has become an utter ruin, a place where animals live! Everyone passing that way will laugh in derision or shake a defiant fist. (Zephaniah 2:12-15 NLT)

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

God's Human Slaughter Fest

Stand in silence in the presence of the Sovereign LORD, for the awesome day of the LORD's judgment has come. The LORD has prepared his people for a great slaughter and has chosen their executioners. "On that day of judgment," says the LORD, "I will punish the leaders and princes of Judah and all those following pagan customs. Yes, I will punish those who participate in pagan worship ceremonies, and those who steal and kill to fill their masters' homes with loot. "On that day," says the LORD, "a cry of alarm will come from the Fish Gate and echo throughout the newer Mishneh section of the city. And a great crashing sound will come from the surrounding hills. Wail in sorrow, all you who live in the market area, for all who buy and sell there will die. "I will search with lanterns in Jerusalem's darkest corners to find and punish those who sit contented in their sins, indifferent to the LORD, thinking he will do nothing at all to them. They are the very ones whose property will be plundered by the enemy, whose homes will be ransacked. They will never have a chance to live in the new homes they have built. They will never drink wine from the vineyards they have planted. "That terrible day of the LORD is near. Swiftly it comes – a day when strong men will cry bitterly. It is a day when the LORD's anger will be poured out. It is a day of terrible distress and anguish, a day of ruin and desolation, a day of darkness and gloom, of clouds, blackness, trumpet calls, and battle cries. Down go the walled cities and strongest battlements! "Because you have sinned against the LORD, I will make you as helpless as a blind man searching for a path. Your blood will be poured out into the dust, and your bodies will lie there rotting on the ground." Your silver and gold will be of no use to you on that day of the LORD's anger. For the whole land will be devoured by the fire of his jealousy. He will make a terrifying end of all the people on earth. (Zephaniah 1:7:18 NLT)

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

God Will Kill Everyone

"I will sweep away everything in all your land," says the LORD. "I will sweep away both people and animals alike. Even the birds of the air and the fish in the sea will die. I will reduce the wicked to heaps of rubble, along with the rest of humanity," says the LORD. "I will crush Judah and Jerusalem with my fist and destroy every last trace of their Baal worship. I will put an end to all the idolatrous priests, so that even the memory of them will disappear. For they go up to their roofs and bow to the sun, moon, and stars. They claim to follow the LORD, but then they worship Molech, too. So now I will destroy them! And I will destroy those who used to worship me but now no longer do. They no longer ask for the LORD's guidance or seek my blessings." (Zephaniah 1:2-6 NLT)

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

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

Fire Breathing Dragons

"Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook? Or press down his tongue with a cord? "Can you put a rope in his nose Or pierce his jaw with a hook? "Will he make many supplications to you, Or will he speak to you soft words? "Will he make a covenant with you? Will you take him for a servant forever? "Will you play with him as with a bird, Or will you bind him for your maidens? "Will the traders bargain over him? Will they divide him among the merchants? "Can you fill his skin with harpoons, Or his head with fishing spears? "Lay your hand on him; Remember the battle; you will not do it again! "Behold, your expectation is false; Will you be laid low even at the sight of him? "No one is so fierce that he dares to arouse him; Who then is he that can stand before Me? "Who has given to Me that I should repay {him?} {Whatever} is under the whole heaven is Mine.

"I will not keep silence concerning his limbs, Or his mighty strength, or his orderly frame. "Who can strip off his outer armor? Who can come within his double mail? "Who can open the doors of his face? Around his teeth there is terror. "{His} strong scales are {his} pride, Shut up {as with} a tight seal. "One is so near to another That no air can come between them. "They are joined one to another; They clasp each other and cannot be separated. "His sneezes flash forth light, And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. "Out of his mouth go burning torches; Sparks of fire leap forth. "Out of his nostrils smoke goes forth As {from} a boiling pot and {burning} rushes. "His breath kindles coals, And a flame goes forth from his mouth. "In his neck lodges strength, And dismay leaps before him. "The folds of his flesh are joined together, Firm on him and immovable. "His heart is as hard as a stone, Even as hard as a lower millstone.

"When he raises himself up, the mighty fear; Because of the crashing they are bewildered. "The sword that reaches him cannot avail, Nor the spear, the dart or the javelin. "He regards iron as straw, Bronze as rotten wood. "The arrow cannot make him flee; Slingstones are turned into stubble for him. "Clubs are regarded as stubble; He laughs at the rattling of the javelin. "His underparts are {like} sharp potsherds; He spreads out {like} a threshing sledge on the mire. "He makes the depths boil like a pot; He makes the sea like a jar of ointment. "Behind him he makes a wake to shine; One would think the deep to be gray-haired. "Nothing on earth is like him, One made without fear. "He looks on everything that is high; He is king over all the sons of pride." (Job 41:1-34 NAS)

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

Hammer Tent Peg Into Head

Meanwhile, Sisera ran to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, because Heber's family was on friendly terms with King Jabin of Hazor. Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, "Come into my tent, sir. Come in. Don't be afraid." So he went into her tent, and she covered him with a blanket. "Please give me some water," he said. "I'm thirsty." So she gave him some milk to drink and covered him again. "Stand at the door of the tent," he told her. "If anybody comes and asks you if there is anyone here, say no." But when Sisera fell asleep from exhaustion, Jael quietly crept up to him with a hammer and tent peg. Then she drove the tent peg through his temple and into the ground, and so he died. When Barak came looking for Sisera, Jael went out to meet him. She said, "Come, and I will show you the man you are looking for." So he followed her into the tent and found Sisera lying there dead, with the tent peg through his temple. So on that day Israel saw God subdue Jabin, the Canaanite king. And from that time on Israel became stronger and stronger against King Jabin, until they finally destroyed him. (Judges 4:17-24 NLT)

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

Murder and Slavery

The tribe of Benjamin, however, failed to drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem. So to this day the Jebusites live in Jerusalem among the people of Benjamin. The descendants of Joseph attacked the town of Bethel, and the LORD was with them. They sent spies to Bethel (formerly known as Luz), who confronted a man coming out of the city. They said to him, "Show us a way into the city, and we will have mercy on you." So he showed them a way in, and they killed everyone in the city except for this man and his family. Later the man moved to the land of the Hittites, where he built a city. He named the city Luz, and it is known by that name to this day. The tribe of Manasseh failed to drive out the people living in Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, Megiddo, and their surrounding villages, because the Canaanites were determined to stay in that region.

When the Israelites grew stronger, they forced the Canaanites to work as slaves, but they never did drive them out of the land. The tribe of Ephraim also failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Gezer, and so the Canaanites continued to live there among them. The tribe of Zebulun also failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Kitron and Nahalol, who continued to live among them. But they forced them to work as slaves. The tribe of Asher also failed to drive out the residents of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Aczib, Helbah, Aphik, and Rehob. In fact, because they did not drive them out, the Canaanites dominated the land where the people of Asher lived. The tribe of Naphtali also failed to drive out the residents of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath. Instead, the Canaanites dominated the land where they lived. Nevertheless, the people of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath were sometimes forced to work as slaves for the people of Naphtali. As for the tribe of Dan, the Amorites forced them into the hill country and would not let them come down into the plains. The Amorites were determined to stay in Mount Heres, Aijalon, and Shaalbim, but when the descendants of Joseph became stronger, they forced the Amorites to work as slaves. (Judges 1:21-35 NLT)

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

Micah Kills a Whole Town

Then, with Micah's idols and his priest, the men of Dan came to the town of Laish, whose people were peaceful and secure. They attacked and killed all the people and burned the town to the ground. There was no one to rescue the residents of the town, for they lived a great distance from Sidon and had no allies nearby. This happened in the valley near Beth-rehob.Then the people of the tribe of Dan rebuilt the town and lived there. They renamed the town Dan after their ancestor, Israel's son, but it had originally been called Laish. (Judges 18:27-29 NLT)

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

Ten Thousand Murdered at God's Command

After Joshua died, the Israelites asked the LORD, "Which tribe should attack the Canaanites first?" The LORD answered, "Judah, for I have given them victory over the land." The leaders of Judah said to their relatives from the tribe of Simeon, "Join with us to fight against the Canaanites living in the territory allotted to us. Then we will help you conquer your territory." So the men of Simeon went with Judah. When the men of Judah attacked, the LORD gave them victory over the Canaanites and Perizzites, and they killed ten thousand enemy warriors at the town of Bezek. While at Bezek they encountered King Adoni-bezek and fought against him, and the Canaanites and Perizzites were defeated. Adoni-bezek escaped, but the Israelites soon captured him and cut off his thumbs and big toes. Adoni-bezek said, "I once had seventy kings with thumbs and big toes cut off, eating scraps from under my table. Now God has paid me back for what I did to them." They took him to Jerusalem, and he died there. The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem and captured it, killing all its people and setting the city on fire. (Judges 1:1-8 NLT)

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

Kill All of Babylon

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

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

Canaan Enslaved for Absurd Reason

Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. May God make space for Japheth, and let him live in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave." (Genesis 9:20-27 NRSV)

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

Family Killed leaving not a single male child, as the LORD had promised through the prophet Jehu

Then Zimri, who commanded half of the royal chariots, made plans to kill him. One day in Tirzah, Elah was getting drunk at the home of Arza, the supervisor of the palace. Zimri walked in and struck him down and killed him. This happened in the twenty-seventh year of King Asa's reign in Judah. Then Zimri became the next king. Zimri immediately killed the entire royal family of Baasha, and he did not leave a single male child. He even destroyed distant relatives and friends. So Zimri destroyed the dynasty of Baasha as the LORD had promised through the prophet Jehu. This happened because of the sins of Baasha and his son Elah and because of all the sins they led Israel to commit, arousing the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel, with their idols. (1 Kings 16:9-13 NLT)

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

Killed by a Lion for disobedience to the Lord's voice.

Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT)

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

Exterminate 7 Nations

You must destroy all the nations the LORD your God hands over to you. Show them no mercy and do not worship their gods. If you do, they will trap you. Perhaps you will think to yourselves, 'How can we ever conquer these nations that are so much more powerful than we are?' But don't be afraid of them! Just remember what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all the land of Egypt. Remember the great terrors the LORD your God sent against them. You saw it all with your own eyes! And remember the miraculous signs and wonders, and the amazing power he used when he brought you out of Egypt. The LORD your God will use this same power against the people you fear. And then the LORD your God will send hornets to drive out the few survivors still hiding from you! "No, do not be afraid of those nations, for the LORD your God is among you, and he is a great and awesome God. The LORD your God will drive those nations out ahead of you little by little. You will not clear them away all at once, for if you did, the wild animals would multiply too quickly for you. But the LORD your God will hand them over to you. He will throw them into complete confusion until they are destroyed. He will put their kings in your power, and you will erase their names from the face of the earth. No one will be able to stand against you, and you will destroy them all. (Deuteronomy 7:16-24 NLT)

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

Bible Quote for August 1

Kill Everyone in 7 Nations

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT)

_________________________

http://www.grudge-match.com/Images/DrEvil.gif

And so forth and so forth.

More Biblical fun on: http://www.evilbible.com/

http://schooloffish.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/free_thinker.jpg

thaumaturge

16-05-2009, 04:34 PM

Sounds like something Ghandi would've said.

Brilliant. Truly coffee-sprayingly hilarious.:D:D:D.

free thinker

16-05-2009, 09:48 PM

_________________________

http://schooloffish.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/free_thinker.jpg

:eek::eek::o

grandsecretary

17-05-2009, 11:10 PM

I always answer questions,Ha ha:D a shake is a shake,thumb in bewtween knuckle shake.

So what is the masonic sign and masonic word?

That is not an answer and you know it.

grandsecretary

17-05-2009, 11:12 PM

I don't think thats one. To answer your question, they would do it to show that a business is masonic to get mason customers. Same reason Home Depot would say "Were on the Level" and same reason Sams Club would use a big blue square in their logo.

How much do they give you as budget to be a shill on David Icke?

Not an answer, and there are no free rides.

grandsecretary

17-05-2009, 11:15 PM

Just for the purpose of enlightment: this is what a Rothschild's masonic handshake should look like (sorry GS, I couldn't resist).

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=333&pictureid=3361

The Queen giving Masonic handshakes to a tennis player - for what prupose?

You know that you lot are irretrievably bonkers? Sorry flyermay.

grandsecretary

17-05-2009, 11:22 PM

this is a masonic handshake...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQw6MfWLSCs

i might start doing it that'll confuse em ;)

Except that George Bush Junior is NOT a freemason.

lightgiver

17-05-2009, 11:40 PM

That is not an answer and you know it.

Of course its an answer,the thumb is placed in bewtween the knuckles in relation to the masonic handshake,there is more to it one assumes relating to whatever degree one is,but its secret.:D

and bush is in the skull and bones club,which in turn is related to freemasonry,to further their own agendas,a lot like the politicians with their noses in the trough,even though they get fed really well compared to the rest of us mugs.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2433/ronpaulmason01qz1.png (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ronpaulmason01qz1.png)

Secret Masonic Handshakes
"BOAZ"
GRIP OF AN ENTERED APPRENTICE
(HANDSHAKE)
The Grip of the Entered Apprentice is made by pressing the thumb against the top of the
first knuckle-joint of the fellow Mason, the fellow Mason also presses his thumb against
the first Mason's knuckle.
The name of this grip is "Boaz". When a candidate is imparted with this grip and its
usage it is done in this manner."
First the Worshipful Master says to the candidate:
"I now present my right hand in token of friendship and brotherly love, and will invest
you with the grip and word. As you are uninstructed, he who has hitherto answered for
you, will do so at this time."

"SHIBBOLETH"
PASS GRIP OF A FELLOW CRAFT
(HANDSHAKE)
The hand is taken as in an ordinary hand shake, and the Mason presses the top of his
thumb against the space between the first and second knuckle joints of the first two
fingers of his fellow Mason; the fellow Mason also presses his thumb on the
corresponding part of the first Mason's hand.

"TUBALCAIN"
PASS GRIP OF A MASTER MASON
(HANDSHAKE)
The Mason places his thumb on the space between the second and third knuckles of the
fellow Mason's right hand, while the fellow Mason moves his thumb to the corresponding
space on the first Masons hand. The thumb is pressed hard between the second and third
knuckles of the hands.

"MA-HA-BONE"
REAL GRIP OF A MASTER MASON
(HANDSHAKE)
The Mason firmly grasps the right hand of a fellow Mason. The thumbs of both hands are
interlaced. The first Mason presses the tops of his fingers against the wrist of the
fellow Mason where it unites with the hand. The fellow Mason at the same time presses
his fingers against the corresponding part of the the first Mason's hand and the fingers
of each are somewhat apart. This grip is also called the Strong Grip of the Master Mason
or the Lion's Paw. Instruction for this grip is given at the "graveside", after the
candidate has been "raised".

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22970

thelonious

18-05-2009, 12:33 AM

Except that George Bush Junior is NOT a freemason.

Even though people around here like to refer to them as "Jr" and "Sr". The elder is George Herbert Walker Bush, and the younger is George Walker Bush.

Neither one of them, by the way, are Freemasons.

The last President of the United States who was a Freemason was Brother Gerald R. Ford. The last President with Masonic ties was Bill Clinton, who had been a member of the Masonic youth organization called the DeMolay Society.

Lightgiver is correct that both Bush presidents were members of the Skull and Bones Club. However, the Skull and Bones is a college frat at Yale University, and of course is completely unrelated to Freemasonry.

flyermay

18-05-2009, 12:59 AM

The Queen giving Masonic handshakes to a tennis player - for what prupose?

My mistake, I should have pointed out that the other side of that masonic handshake is Evelin Rothschild.

You know that you lot are irretrievably bonkers? Sorry flyermay.

No harm done. As I said, it was just to show the OP what a Rothschild masonic handshake would look like (regardless of its purpose).

boots

18-05-2009, 10:13 AM

The Queen giving Masonic handshakes to a tennis player - for what prupose?

You know that you lot are irretrievably bonkers? Sorry flyermay.

Because the old Lizard just cant help herself.

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/548/queenliz.gif (http://img190.imageshack.us/my.php?image=queenliz.gif)
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/queenliz.gif/1/w245.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img190/queenliz.gif/1/)

pinkfreud

18-05-2009, 10:56 AM

now now let's all be good shall we?

grandsecretary

18-05-2009, 12:02 PM

Of course its an answer,the thumb is placed in bewtween the knuckles in relation to the masonic handshake,there is more to it one assumes relating to whatever degree one is,but its secret.:D

and bush is in the skull and bones club,which in turn is related to freemasonry,to further their own agendas,a lot like the politicians with their noses in the trough,even though they get fed really well compared to the rest of us mugs.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2433/ronpaulmason01qz1.png (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ronpaulmason01qz1.png)

Secret Masonic Handshakes
"BOAZ"
GRIP OF AN ENTERED APPRENTICE
(HANDSHAKE)
The Grip of the Entered Apprentice is made by pressing the thumb against the top of the
first knuckle-joint of the fellow Mason, the fellow Mason also presses his thumb against
the first Mason's knuckle.
The name of this grip is "Boaz". When a candidate is imparted with this grip and its
usage it is done in this manner."
First the Worshipful Master says to the candidate:
"I now present my right hand in token of friendship and brotherly love, and will invest
you with the grip and word. As you are uninstructed, he who has hitherto answered for
you, will do so at this time."

"SHIBBOLETH"
PASS GRIP OF A FELLOW CRAFT
(HANDSHAKE)
The hand is taken as in an ordinary hand shake, and the Mason presses the top of his
thumb against the space between the first and second knuckle joints of the first two
fingers of his fellow Mason; the fellow Mason also presses his thumb on the
corresponding part of the first Mason's hand.

"TUBALCAIN"
PASS GRIP OF A MASTER MASON
(HANDSHAKE)
The Mason places his thumb on the space between the second and third knuckles of the
fellow Mason's right hand, while the fellow Mason moves his thumb to the corresponding
space on the first Masons hand. The thumb is pressed hard between the second and third
knuckles of the hands.

"MA-HA-BONE"
REAL GRIP OF A MASTER MASON
(HANDSHAKE)
The Mason firmly grasps the right hand of a fellow Mason. The thumbs of both hands are
interlaced. The first Mason presses the tops of his fingers against the wrist of the
fellow Mason where it unites with the hand. The fellow Mason at the same time presses
his fingers against the corresponding part of the the first Mason's hand and the fingers
of each are somewhat apart. This grip is also called the Strong Grip of the Master Mason
or the Lion's Paw. Instruction for this grip is given at the "graveside", after the
candidate has been "raised".

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22970

NO IT ISN'T. I asked you to give me a reason why anyone would want to be photographed giving a masonic handshake. Unfortunately you look for things that are not there. It is call paranoia. Paranoia is a mental illness.

grandsecretary

18-05-2009, 12:06 PM

My mistake, I should have pointed out that the other side of that masonic handshake is Evelin Rothschild.

No harm done. As I said, it was just to show the OP what a Rothschild masonic handshake would look like (regardless of its purpose).

But who cares who is shaking the Queen's hand? Bully for him. Nice photograph. That's it.

lordzoma

18-05-2009, 12:39 PM

It doesn't matter if either of them are masons or not. They're both Orions, and have probably incarnated in physical forms of people completely initiated into all masonic rights.

flyermay

18-05-2009, 12:46 PM

But who cares who is shaking the Queen's hand?

Are you serious?

Did you read the title of this thread, or noticed the 625 views in just 2 days?

grandsecretary

18-05-2009, 04:08 PM

flyermay

18-05-2009, 05:18 PM

I am ABSOLUTELY serious. I couldn't care less who shakes her hand so long as it is to the distinct advantage (social, political and economic) of The United Kingdom. That is what I, together with approximately 60 millions of our other UK citizens, employ her to do.

Oh no, you misunderstood me; I never had any doubt that you (in particular) didn't care.

I was refering to some of those 60 million British citizens (in this forum) that are wondering who benefits the most from that distinct advantage: the Queen, the Rothschilds or the UK's population.

I can't help your paranoia.

I perfectly understand what you mean: I also thought for many years that the Queen was the employee and we were the employers.

lightgiver

18-05-2009, 08:41 PM

NO IT ISN'T. I asked you to give me a reason why anyone would want to be photographed giving a masonic handshake. Unfortunately you look for things that are not there. It is call paranoia. Paranoia is a mental illness.

Well you must be mentally ill then,or as usual living in denial land<these scavengers have done these handshakes in the past because they thought no one knew about their silly handshakes,like there are no politicians and councillors that are masons,and we wonder why everything is so corrupted in the western world.

grandsecretary

18-05-2009, 10:36 PM

Oh no, you misunderstood me; I never had any doubt that you (in particular) didn't care.

I was refering to some of those 60 million British citizens (in this forum) that are wondering who benefits the most from that distinct advantage: the Queen, the Rothschilds or the UK's population.

I perfectly understand what you mean: I also thought for many years that the Queen was the employee and we were the employers.

Well that simply demonstrates your ignorance of the British Constitution.

grandsecretary

18-05-2009, 10:38 PM

Well you must be mentally ill then,or as usual living in denial land<these scavengers have done these handshakes in the past because they thought no one knew about their silly handshakes,like there are no politicians and councillors that are masons,and we wonder why everything is so corrupted in the western world.

And you still have not answered the question. Read it SLOWLY. Why would anyone want to be photographed giving a masonic handshake?

Please try to keep up.

boots

18-05-2009, 10:45 PM

Well that simply demonstrates your ignorance of the British Constitution.

The British Con-stitution!!! What a joke chattle. You really have no clue. Do you.

If you understood Admiralty law and Common law then it might be worth "debating" with you but alas you are too minded controlled to even get passed first base.

.

sam bless

18-05-2009, 10:47 PM

And you still have not answered the question. Read it SLOWLY. Why would anyone want to be photographed giving a masonic handshake?

Please try to keep up.

Please don't try to patronise us grandsecretary, it makes discussing things with you even more fustrating.

My answer is that a extremely large majority of the general public would not know it was a masonic handshake.

free thinker

18-05-2009, 10:51 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI428hhVG4Y

flyermay

18-05-2009, 10:52 PM

Well that simply demonstrates your ignorance of the British Constitution.

Poor me :(. Where the hell could I get the idea of: "employing her".

mike martin

19-05-2009, 12:34 AM

As Peter has said shaking hands alone is not a "Masonic" handshake. As anyone who has bothered to actually read any of the Ritual exposes would also know, the grip or token is only part of the sequence and alone proves nothing.

It's also a bit pointless posting tiny excerpts from Duncan's Ritual, if you want to show profiency you need to post the whole bit regarding the "secret" of each degree.

Mike

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 12:39 AM

Poor me :(. Where the hell could I get the idea of: "employing her".

The Queen of England is a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH!!! The ignorance here is breathtaking.

flyermay

19-05-2009, 12:50 AM

The Queen of England is a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH!!! The ignorance here is breathtaking.

Let me rephrase:

Poor me :(; from whom could I get the idea of: "employing her"?

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 12:59 AM

Let me rephrase:

Poor me :(; from whom could I get the idea of: "employing her"?

We in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland employ her. The Queen only holds her throne by virtue of the Act of Settlement 1701. She hold it as the senior Protestant descendant of Electress Sophia of Hanover not married to a Roman Catholic.

The fact is that the succession to the throne of the United Kingdom is in the hands of the elected Parliament of the United Kingdom which has the right to determine who may inherit the throne. This has been the case since 1688.

Now no more nonsense. The Parliament of the United Kingdom is the British peoples here in the British Isles, excluding the Republic of Ireland. We employ Her Majesty the Queen, Elizabeth II and SHE realises, more than anyone that she cannot survive in her position as our Constitutional Monarch without the support of both Parliament and public opinion.

lightgiver

19-05-2009, 02:21 AM

Please don't try to patronise us grandsecretary, it makes discussing things with you even more fustrating.

My answer is that a extremely large majority of the general public would not know it was a masonic handshake.

I do keep trying to tell him this:D

boots

19-05-2009, 09:52 AM

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 10:10 AM

LOL Man are you deluded or what.

Who do all the judges in the commonwealth swear allegiance too? This is the law of the land no parliament has the right over coomon laws. They only introduce acts and statues to govern people.

The people employ the Queen. What a joke.

.

I have told you what the constitutional position of our Queen is. If you want to ignore facts because you have opinions of your own then that is up to you.

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 10:12 AM

I do keep trying to tell him this:D

Even when it is not a masonic "handshake" the majority of the public would know that it was. Well the majority of the public would be wrong.

boots

19-05-2009, 10:19 AM

I have told you what the constitutional position of our Queen is. If you want to ignore facts because you have opinions of your own then that is up to you.

Hiding behind the curtains. I see. lol.

As if. The reality of the situation is that the PM takes advice from the Monarchy.

.

cheeney1

19-05-2009, 10:21 AM

cheeney1

19-05-2009, 10:43 AM

The Queen of England is a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH!!! The ignorance here is breathtaking.

http://www.republic-news.org/archive/31-repub/31-images/31-2-queen.gif

here grangoose , :rolleyes:

thaumaturge

19-05-2009, 12:01 PM

gilly

19-05-2009, 01:22 PM

Stick to the issues of the debate, without the goading, and character assassinations of each other.

brainfreeze

19-05-2009, 01:32 PM

And you still have not answered the question. Read it SLOWLY. Why would anyone want to be photographed giving a masonic handshake?

Please try to keep up.

You're right, a picture is useless because it doesn't show you the part of the handshake that asks "are you on the square" which results in the positioning of the thumb on the others hand as indication of "rank", or no response at all, so I hear.

eyeballkid88

19-05-2009, 02:10 PM

But who cares who is shaking the Queen's hand? Bully for him. Nice photograph. That's it.

Why are you here mate??

thelonious

19-05-2009, 02:37 PM

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 03:43 PM

Why are you here mate??

To stop people like you from spreading disinformation, misinformation, rumour and innuendo unopposed, just like this masonic handshake nonsense.

No free rides. Get used to it - mate.

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 03:47 PM

Hiding behind the curtains. I see. lol.

As if. The reality of the situation is that the PM takes advice from the Monarchy.

.

You are completely wrong here as well. She is invited to OFFER her advice, in her regular weekly meetings with the Prime Minister, bearing in mind the continuity that she provides, and her unparalleled and extensive experience of world affairs. There is NO obligation to accept it - NONE whatsoever.

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 03:53 PM

Look. This is a conspiracy theory website, your facts are not welcome here. I suggest you refrain from quoting primary sources and resort instead to wild prejudiced speculation as is expected.

Also, your post is 3 paragraphs long and nowhere have you mentioned Rothschilds or, indeed, any other Joos. I think you'll find this is in breach of your members agreement.

I doubt it VERY much. Fortunately that is not your decision. Thank you for advising us that you afre here for the purposes of wild prejudiced speculation.

Unfortunately that level of irresponsibility is damaging and hurtful to innocent people.

I asked a reasonable question, which has still not been answered. Why would anybody, especially the Queen or a Rothschild allow themselves to be photographed giving or receiving a "masonic handshake"?

You just get annoyed when you are asked, politely, to explain yourselves. Get used to it, and incitement to racial hatred is illegal. I hope that your posting was an attempt at irony?

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 03:57 PM

You're right, a picture is useless because it doesn't show you the part of the handshake that asks "are you on the square" which results in the positioning of the thumb on the others hand as indication of "rank", or no response at all, so I hear.

Well it is simply not a "masonic handshake". End of. Not worth debating. The question is a simple one. Why would the Queen give a tennis player a "masonic handshake"?

You just don't have a sensible answer.

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 04:10 PM

Ha Ha Ha FFS thats the Dumbest thing I've ever read God Save The Queen'

http://jameswaites.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/queen-at-macdonalds.jpg

Would You Employ her ,:rolleyes: GrandGoose :rolleyes:

As a Queen, yes. IMHO she is quite good at it. In McDonalds, no. I prefer my waitresses in McDonalds to have a first class honours degree in social sciences, as they do.

Oh - PS - I prefer people not to shake hands with anything before serving my food.

flyermay

19-05-2009, 04:20 PM

We in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland employ her. The Queen only holds her throne by virtue of the Act of Settlement 1701. She hold it as the senior Protestant descendant of Electress Sophia of Hanover not married to a Roman Catholic.

The fact is that the succession to the throne of the United Kingdom is in the hands of the elected Parliament of the United Kingdom which has the right to determine who may inherit the throne. This has been the case since 1688.

Now no more nonsense. The Parliament of the United Kingdom is the British peoples here in the British Isles, excluding the Republic of Ireland. We employ Her Majesty the Queen, Elizabeth II and SHE realises, more than anyone that she cannot survive in her position as our Constitutional Monarch without the support of both Parliament and public opinion.

It’s sad, but I’m going to have to disagree with David Icke: people don’t need to be awakened and educated; they need a complete deprogramming treatment.

Perhaps your “Act of Settlement 1701” doesn’t tell you that, unlike other monarchs around Europe, the British monarchy does not only hold significant powers in Britain and Ireland, but also in all sixteen commonwealth countries. Powers that not only includes dismissing any prime minister but also holding the right to impose the death penalty on any British subject.

Either way, it’s a waste of time discussing this matter with someone who surely also thinks that we live in a “democracy” and that the UK citizens do not only employ the ruling monarch, but also the whole government; presumably to look after the British public’s best interests.

But I don’t blame you; as I said I also thought that was the case for many years. Fortunately, all those fairy tells banished along with childhood.

Oh, sorry; do you need some quotes to make my delusion worthy of your intellect?
"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."

Benjamin Disraeli, (first Prime Minister of England)

flyermay

19-05-2009, 04:45 PM

Look. This is a conspiracy theory website, your facts are not welcome here. I suggest you refrain from quoting primary sources and resort instead to wild prejudiced speculation as is expected.

Also, your post is 3 paragraphs long and nowhere have you mentioned Rothschilds or, indeed, any other Joos. I think you'll find this is in breach of your members agreement.

I sometimes doubt: are this people really as ignorant as they seem, or do they simply chose to ignore the facts.

Full list of British monarchy’s powers

Domestic Affairs

The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament;
Royal assent to bills;
The appointment and regulation of the civil service;
The commissioning of officers in the armed forces;
Directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK;
Appointment of Queen's Counsel;
Issue and withdrawal of passports;
Prerogative of mercy. (Used to apply in capital punishment cases. Still used, eg to remedy errors in sentence calculation)
Granting honours;
Creation of corporations by Charter;

Foreign Affairs

The making of treaties;
Declaration of war;
Deployment of armed forces overseas;
Recognition of foreign states;
Accreditation and reception of diplomats.

eastbeast

19-05-2009, 04:53 PM

also holding the right to impose the death penalty on any British subject.

Someone will need to correct me here if I am incorrect, but I'm more hoping that someone will come up with the dates.

Treason was last offence for which the death penalty could be imposed, this was repealed a few years ago.

The death sentence for Piracy was discontinued a while before that.

thaumaturge

19-05-2009, 04:56 PM

Oh, sorry; do you need some quotes to make my delusion worthy of your intellect?

"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."

Benjamin Disraeli, (first Prime Minister of England)

This quote is from a novel, Coningsby. A novel, as in work of fiction. Disraeli was not the first Prime Minister of England. That was Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1905. (Yeah, yeah, they always say it's Walpole but no-one used the term Prime Minister as an OFFICIAL title until 1905.) Regardless, however you count them, Disraeli wasn't the first.
Anyway, here's a bit more of that quote:

'And is Soult a Hebrew?'

'Yes, and others of the French marshals, and the most famous; Massena, for
example; his real name was Manasseh: but to my anecdote. The consequence
of our consultations was, that some Northern power should be applied to in
a friendly and mediative capacity. We fixed on Prussia; and the President
of the Council made an application to the Prussian Minister, who attended
a few days after our conference. Count Arnim entered the cabinet, and I
beheld a Prussian Jew. So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is
governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who
are not behind the scenes.'

Seems like parody to me, unless you believe that Nicolas Jean-de-Dieu Soult was Jewish? :D :D :D

flyermay

19-05-2009, 05:47 PM

:) I'm quite glad that you could only pick on the origin of Disraeli's quote and a dubious update on the death penalty.

But please, don't s**k each other's d**ks yet, those were only an minimal part of my two posts; and you are nowhere near of discrediting my point. Unless you chose to ignore again!!!

And even though Disraeli was obviously not the first Prime Minister of England, you are yet to prove that he didn't meant what he wrote in his novel (as many other authors did due to fear of repression). Maybe you could also explain to us what he meant with this other quote:

"The governments of the present day have to deal not merely with other governments, with emperors, kings and ministers, but also with the secret societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments' plans."

thaumaturge

19-05-2009, 05:57 PM

flyermay

19-05-2009, 06:09 PM

For god's sake, source these quotes! That one is from a debate in the House of Commons on Italy. I couldn't give a rat's arse what you do or do not believe, but as a service to those who are reading this thread could you at least provide sources to back up your statements, otherwise it just looks like your copy-and-pasting them from the usual 'green ink' websites.

I am copying and pasting. Maybe you should do the same to at least keep up with the discussion (rather than picking up on insignificant details and steering the conversation). I mean, at least you wouldn't look like you have no arguments.

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 06:10 PM

I sometimes doubt: are this people really as ignorant as they seem, or do they simply chose to ignore the facts.

Full list of British monarchy’s powers

Domestic Affairs

The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament;
Royal assent to bills;
The appointment and regulation of the civil service;
The commissioning of officers in the armed forces;
Directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK;
Appointment of Queen's Counsel;
Issue and withdrawal of passports;
Prerogative of mercy. (Used to apply in capital punishment cases. Still used, eg to remedy errors in sentence calculation)
Granting honours;
Creation of corporations by Charter;

Foreign Affairs

The making of treaties;
Declaration of war;
Deployment of armed forces overseas;
Recognition of foreign states;
Accreditation and reception of diplomats.

Bonkers nonsense.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/HowtheMonarchyworks/TheroleoftheSovereign.aspx

Every single duty subordinate to Parliament.

eternal_spirit

19-05-2009, 06:39 PM

The Rothschilds operate out of an area in the heart of London, England, the financial district, which is known as 'The City', or the 'Square Mile.' All major British banks have their main offices here, along with branch offices for 385 foreign banks, including 70 from the United States. It is here that you will find the Bank of England, the Stock Exchange, Lloyd's of London, the Baltic Exchange (shipping contracts), Fleet Street (home of publishing and newspaper interests), the London Commodity Exchange (to trade coffee, rubber, sugar and wool), and the London Metal Exchange. It is virtually the financial hub of the world.

Positioned on the north bank of the Thames River, covering an area of 677 acres or one square mile (known as the "wealthiest square mile on earth"), it has enjoyed special rights and privileges that enabled them to achieve a certain level of independence since 1191. In 1215, its citizens received a Charter from King John, granting them the right to annually elect a mayor (known as the Lord Mayor), a tradition that continues today.

Both E. C. Knuth, in his book Empire of the City, and Des Griffin, in his book Descent into Slavery, stated their belief that 'The City' is actually a sovereign state (much like the Vatican), and that since the establishment of the privately owned Bank of England in 1694, 'The City' has actually become the last word in the country's national affairs, with Prime Minister, Cabinet, and Parliament becoming only a front for the real power. According to Knuth, when the queen enters 'The City,' she is subservient to the Lord Mayor (under him, is a committee of 12-14 men, known as 'The Crown'), because this privately-owned corporation is not subject to the Queen, or the Parliament.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=840

flyermay

19-05-2009, 06:42 PM

Bonkers nonsense.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/HowtheMonarchyworks/TheroleoftheSovereign.aspx

Every single duty subordinate to Parliament.

I really don't understand what's the point on denying the facts?

It's true that the British government rules on behalf of the monarch (and not on behalf of the people; as many think), but that doesn't mean that he/she cannot use any of the power on the list (if he/she wishes to, or judges it necessary).

The British government has no power to overthrown a ruling monarch, but the monarch does have the power to discharge any prime minister.

It is of no relevance if the monarch (apparently) has not used those powers in recent times; what is important is that every one of those powers on the list exists and can be used by the Queen.

And those are only the visible and provable powers (which I personally think is enough), but I don't believe that anyone doubts about their power through "unofficial" organisations and interests.

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 07:28 PM

I really don't understand what's the point on denying the facts?

It's true that the British government rules on behalf of the monarch (and not on behalf of the people; as many think), but that doesn't mean that he/she cannot use any of the power on the list (if he/she wishes to, or judges it necessary).

The British government has no power to overthrown a ruling monarch, but the monarch does have the power to discharge any prime mister.

It is of no relevance if the monarch (apparently) has not used those powers in recent times; what is important is that every one of those powers on the list exists and can be used by the Queen.

And those are only the visible and provable powers (which I personally think is enough), but I don't believe that anyone doubts about their power through "unofficial" organisations and interests.

Don't misquote me. I said subordinate and the meaning is quite clear. The UK Government has EVERY right to dissolve the Monarchy by Act of Parliament except that it would be extremely foolish to try without a referendum of the people.

AND the Queen can NOT dismiss a Prime Minister. More nonsense. Why do you continually give out duff information?

watson_k

19-05-2009, 08:18 PM

I really don't understand what's the point on denying the facts?

It's true that the British government rules on behalf of the monarch (and not on behalf of the people; as many think), but that doesn't mean that he/she cannot use any of the power on the list (if he/she wishes to, or judges it necessary).

The British government has no power to overthrown a ruling monarch, but the monarch does have the power to discharge any prime mister.

It is of no relevance if the monarch (apparently) has not used those powers in recent times; what is important is that every one of those powers on the list exists and can be used by the Queen.

And those are only the visible and provable powers (which I personally think is enough), but I don't believe that anyone doubts about their power through "unofficial" organisations and interests.

Look at what Oliver Cromwell did. Dissolved the Monarchy and made England a Republic.

AND the Queen can NOT dismiss a Prime Minister. More nonsense. Why do you continually give out duff information?

As you said GS, Since the Prime Minister was voted for (being the leader of their particular party), they cannot be 'fired'/Dismissed. But as in the case of Margaret Thatcher they can be held accountable for such misguided happenings. We must remember we vote for a representative of a particular Political philosophy, i.e the Party and not the Representative him/herself in England.

flyermay

19-05-2009, 08:44 PM

Don't misquote me. I said subordinate and the meaning is quite clear. The UK Government has EVERY right to dissolve the Monarchy by Act of Parliament except that it would be extremely foolish to try without a referendum of the people.

AND the Queen can NOT dismiss a Prime Minister. More nonsense. Why do you continually give out duff information?

So what are you proving with this message; that you don't agree with me?... No one doubted it.

I can do the same: I can say that the monarch CAN dismiss the ANY minister, dissolve parliament, or even call on new elections (and no more non-sense, please).

Come on GS, I've been watching you: I'm sure that you can do a lot better than that.

Either way, and just to end this discussion as quickly as possible, allow me to explain how the Crown's prerogative powers go (apart from the royal prerogatives previously listed; which can also be used by the monarch in one way or another).

The ruling monarch is the only one who can appoint new prime ministers; and no one can be a prime minister without his/her approval.
The ruling monarch can dismiss the whole parliament and call on new elections.
The ruling monarch must assent to all new legislation (though the last one to use this power in person was Queen Anne).

Now, does anyone here still honestly believe that the Queen of England is an employee of the people of Britain (or of the British government)?

Look at what Oliver Cromwell did. Dissolved the Monarchy and made England a Republic.

Well, I was under the impression that Cromwell was a commander in the English civil war (in which King Charles I was executed).

As you said GS, Since the Prime Minister was voted for (being the leader of their particular party), they cannot be 'fired'/Dismissed. But as in the case of Margaret Thatcher they can be held accountable for such misguided happenings.

Please read above (Crown’s prerogative power #1 and #2).

lightgiver

19-05-2009, 08:51 PM

You're right, a picture is useless because it doesn't show you the part of the handshake that asks "are you on the square" which results in the positioning of the thumb on the others hand as indication of "rank", or no response at all, so I hear.

I do not know what you are hearing,if one knows about masonic handshakes,why the denials.

Do you know about handshakes and the like BF?and if so do you know of the pass words seeing you appear to understand GS.

and how is a picture useless?I have always thought a picture speaks a thousand words.

and BTW, BFand GS,I am not on about HRH the royal sponger,I am on about masonic handshakes in general,and BF seeing you are so clued up,what is you are on the square got to do with handshakes.

watson_k

19-05-2009, 08:55 PM

Please read above (Crown’s prerogative power #1).

Individual Sovereignty takes prerogative over that in a Court of Law.

In the Case of Proclamations (1611) during the reign of King James I/VI, English common law courts judges emphatically asserted that they possessed the right to determine the limits of the Royal Prerogative. Since the Glorious Revolution (1688), which brought co-monarchs Queen Mary II and King William III to power, this judicial interpretation has not been challenged by the Crown.

Well, I was under the impression that Cromwell was a commander in the English civil war (in which King Charles I was executed).

Charles II's father King Charles I was executed at Whitehall on 30 January 1649, at the climax of the English Civil War. The English Parliament did not proclaim Charles II king at this time. Instead they passed a statute making such a proclamation unlawful. England entered the period known to history as the English Interregnum or the English Commonwealth and the country was a de facto republic, led by Oliver Cromwell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_England

flyermay

19-05-2009, 09:03 PM

Individual Sovereignty takes prerogative over that in a Court of Law.

In the Case of Proclamations (1611) during the reign of King James I/VI, English common law courts judges emphatically asserted that they possessed the right to determine the limits of the Royal Prerogative. Since the Glorious Revolution (1688), which brought co-monarchs Queen Mary II and King William III to power, this judicial interpretation has not been challenged by the Crown.

I don't see where the confusion is. The article from the Wikipedia is talking about the "Royal Prerogatives", those previously listed by me this morning. But no one can limit the "Crown's prerogative powers"; listed just a moment ago.

lightgiver

19-05-2009, 09:07 PM

watson_k

19-05-2009, 09:12 PM

I don't see where the confusion is. The article from the Wikipedia is talking about the "Royal Prerogatives", those previously listed by me this morning. But no one can limit the "Crown's prerogative powers"; listed just a moment ago.

FM, the Royal Family is the Crown.

I Should have used this Quote:
The monarchy was then abolished and a republic called the Commonwealth of England, also referred to as the Cromwellian Interregnum, was declared.
From his Fathers Wiki Page.

flyermay

19-05-2009, 09:20 PM

FM, the Royal Family is the Crown.

Thanks for the information, but that has nothing to do with the fact that there are 2 different types of prerogative powers: the "Royal prerogative", and the "Crown's prerogative powers".

Let me explain, the first (the "Royal Prerogatives"), need to be consulted with parliament or cabinet.

Second, you have the “Crown’s prerogative powers”, these powers are recognised under common law and just reside in the jurisdiction of the Crown (the ruling monarch).

Charles II's father King Charles I was executed at Whitehall on 30 January 1649, at the climax of the English Civil War. The English Parliament did not proclaim Charles II king at this time. Instead they passed a statute making such a proclamation unlawful. England entered the period known to history as the English Interregnum or the English Commonwealth and the country was a de facto republic, led by Oliver Cromwell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_England

But, don't you think that your statement of parliament overthrowing a monarch has a lot more to do with the English civil war than with an executive power?

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 09:43 PM

So what are you proving with this message; that you don't agree with me?... No one doubted it.

I can do the same: I can say that the monarch CAN dismiss the ANY minister, dissolve parliament, or even call on new elections (and no more non-sense, please).

Come on GS, I've been watching you: I'm sure that you can do a lot better than that.

Either way, and just to end this discussion as quickly as possible, allow me to explain how the Crown's prerogative powers go (apart from the royal prerogatives previously listed; which can also be used by the monarch in one way or another).

The ruling monarch is the only one who can appoint new prime ministers; and no one can be a prime minister without his/her approval.
The ruling monarch can dismiss the whole parliament and call on new elections.
The ruling monarch must assent to all new legislation (though the last one to use this power in person was Queen Anne).

Now, does anyone here still honestly believe that the Queen of England is an employee of the people of Britain (or of the British government)?

Well, I was under the impression that Cromwell was a commander in the English civil war (in which King Charles I was executed).

Please read above (Crown’s prerogative power #1 and #2).

I have said this before. Why do some people absolutely insist upon a public display of their abject, ill-educated, ill-informed ignorance?

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 09:44 PM

flyermay

19-05-2009, 10:03 PM

I have said this before. Why do some people absolutely insist upon a public display of their abject, ill-educated, ill-informed ignorance?

Sure you did :D

Please tell your employee to ask Mr. Rothschild for a bit more of cash so you can solve the British crisis.

Oh - Wikipedia - not your fault then.

Ehrrr, are you really following the discussion, or your huge ego is overwhelming you again? :rolleyes:

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 10:09 PM

Sure you did :D

Please tell your employee to ask Mr. Rothschild for a bit more of cash so we you can solve the British crisis.

Ehrrr, are you really following the discussion, or your huge ego is overwhelming you again? :rolleyes:

No, but nobody who is serious about anything relies upon Wikipedia for accurate information about anything. My son's grammar school, quite rightly bans its use. Because of this very sensible policy it has some of the highest examination results in the country.

Still no answer. Why would the Queen allow herself to be photographed giving or receiving a "masonic handshake"? This is the subject of the thread.- "masonic handshakes".

flyermay

19-05-2009, 10:14 PM

No, but nobody who is serious about anything relies upon Wikipedia for accurate information about anything. My son's grammar school, quite rightly bans its use. Because of this very sensible policy it has some of the highest examination results in the country.
:D:D:D

lol, thank you so much, that's exactly what I was trying to explain to watson_k when he quoted the Wikipedia.

As I said: please GS, go back to sleep, today is not your day (or did I misjudge you all along?).

flyermay

19-05-2009, 10:17 PM

Still no answer. Why would the Queen allow herself to be photographed giving or receiving a "masonic handshake"? This is the subject of the thread.- "masonic handshakes".

It is quite easy to answer that question; just that I thought it was directed to those that think the handshake between the Rothschild and the Queen has anything to do freemasonry.

But first: do you honestly don't know the answer to that question, or are you simply trying to find out if we do?

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 10:23 PM

It is quite easy to answer that question; just that I thought it was directed to those that think the handshake between the Rothschild and the Queen has anything to do freemasonry.

But first: do you honestly don't know the answer to that question, or are you simply trying to find out if we do?

I honestly know the answer. It is NOT a masonic handshake in that photograph. If it was, I would tell you, as I have in the past. It does not bother me in the slightest I am NOT a Moderns Mason. I couldn't care less.

flyermay

19-05-2009, 10:26 PM

I honestly know the answer. It is NOT a masonic handshake in that photograph. If it was, I would tell you, as I have in the past.

Regardless of what you can think of me: I assure you that I'm an honest person. And I just said, without any mockery, that I agree with you 100% on this one (just read my previous message!)

But that was not my question: do you honestly think that there is no reason for a genuine Masonic handshake being photographed, or do you simply want to find out if any of us knows it?

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 10:38 PM

Regardless of what you can think of me: I assure you that I'm an honest person. And I just said, without any mockery, that I agree with you 100% on this one (just read my previous message!)

But that was not my question: do you honestly think that there is no reason for a genuine Masonic handshake being photographed, or do you simply want to find out if any of us knows it?

There is absolutely NO reason that I can think of for a photograph of any masonic token (the proper word), except if the Moderns wanted to include one in a ritual book for the purposes of training.

There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that members of our Grand Lodge would use a masonic token other than directly outside the door of a lodge, and in absolute secrecy, otherwise there is no point.

The Queen does not need to impress anyone with a handshake - does she now - or a Rothschild?

lightgiver

19-05-2009, 10:44 PM

There is absolutely NO reason that I can think of for a photograph of any masonic token (the proper word), except if the Moderns wanted to include one in a ritual book for the purposes of training.

There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that members of our Grand Lodge would use a masonic token other than directly outside the door of a lodge, and in absolute secrecy, otherwise there is no point.

The Queen does not need to impress anyone with a handshake - does she now - or a Rothschild?

"I don't care what fool sits on the Throne of England. Whoever controls the currency of England controls England -- and I control the currency of England."

Quote from Rothschild.

http://www.rense.com/general80/flf.htm

Amsel (Amschel) Bauer Mayer Rothschild, 1838: "Give me
control of the economics of a country; and I care not who
makes her laws. The few who understand the system, will
either be so interested from its profits or so dependant on
its favors, that there will be no opposition from that
class". "Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I
care not who makes its laws".

I bet they shook on that deal.

flyermay

19-05-2009, 10:49 PM

There is absolutely NO reason that I can think of for a photograph of any masonic token (the proper word), except if the Moderns wanted to include one in a ritual book for the purposes of training.

Please, forget about the picture for a moment.

Are you saying that no freemason ever uses Masonic handshakes outside the proximity of their Lodges?

grandsecretary

19-05-2009, 11:05 PM

Please, forget about the picture for a moment.

Are you saying that no freemason ever uses Masonic handshakes outside the proximity of their Lodges?

Oh no, please do not misunderstand me. I know for a fact that Moderns Masons widely and indiscriminately use their masonic tokens purely for personal advantage. It is a widespread practice, world-wide, it is wrong, it is corrupt, but it is too late, the horse has bolted.

When I tell you that a particular photograph is NOT a Masonic "handshake" it is NOT because I am defending this misuse. It is because the photograph is NOT one of a "Masonic handshake".

The Queen does not need to be involved in freemasonry. The Duke of Kent is the Grand Master of the Moderns, a Hanoverian Prince of the Royal Blood and Grand Master for life.

PS - and it is NOT to the advantage of those who do to this to allow it to be photographed - is it?

flyermay

19-05-2009, 11:25 PM

Oh no, please do not misunderstand me. I know for a fact that Moderns Masons widely and indiscriminately use their masonic tokens purely for personal advantage. It is a widespread practice, world-wide, it is wrong, it is corrupt, but it is too late, the horse has bolted.

When I tell you that a particular photograph is NOT a Masonic "handshake" it is NOT because I am defending this misuse. It is because the photograph is NOT one of a "Masonic handshake".

Thank you for your honesty: I think I don't need to explain any further how masonic handshakes can be photographed?

Though I have already agreed with you that the picture I posted from the Queen is not a masonic handshake. And if you look back, I never stated the contrary.

chris_com283

19-05-2009, 11:54 PM

Oh no, please do not misunderstand me. I know for a fact that Moderns Masons widely and indiscriminately use their masonic tokens purely for personal advantage. It is a widespread practice, world-wide, it is wrong, it is corrupt, but it is too late, the horse has bolted.

When I tell you that a particular photograph is NOT a Masonic "handshake" it is NOT because I am defending this misuse. It is because the photograph is NOT one of a "Masonic handshake".

The Queen does not need to be involved in freemasonry. The Duke of Kent is the Grand Master of the Moderns, a Hanoverian Prince of the Royal Blood and Grand Master for life.

PS - and it is NOT to the advantage of those who do to this to allow it to be photographed - is it?

So the photo could be the misuse of a Masonic "handshake"?

grandsecretary

20-05-2009, 12:00 AM

So the photo could be the misuse of a Masonic "handshake"?

Absolutely no chance whatsoever. I would tell you and I would know, believe me Chris.

flyermay

20-05-2009, 12:05 AM

Absolutely no chance whatsoever. I would tell you and I would know, believe me Chris.

Can I abuse of your honesty?

What about these two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ6k2_pa6Nc

grandsecretary

20-05-2009, 12:14 AM

Can I abuse of your honesty?

What about these two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ6k2_pa6Nc

No sorry. Why would they want to exchange masonic handshakes in front of a video camera? If they were freemasons they would already know. Gorbachev wasn't, isn't. I don't know about Nixon. What would be the point? You really must think about this.

There is NO advantage for people who are already rich, powerful and who would meet secretly in their masonic lodges to use masonic handshakes in the full glare of publicity. It simply does NOT make sense.

Sorry to disappoint but that is how it is.

paolo

20-05-2009, 12:16 AM

Can I abuse of your honesty?

What about these two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ6k2_pa6Nc

Yes thats a masonic handshake
The original photo doesn't look masonic
If the thumb had been up a bit and pressed into the first or middle knuckle it might perhaps have been the grip of an entered apprentice or of a fellow craft, respectively

flyermay

20-05-2009, 12:21 AM

No sorry. Why would they want to exchange masonic handshakes in front of a video camera? If they were freemasons they would already know. Gorbachev wasn't, isn't. I don't know about Nixon. What would be the point? You really must think about this.

There is NO advantage for people who are already rich, powerful and who would meet secretly in their masonic lodges to use masonic handshakes in the full glare of publicity. It simply does NOT make sense.

Sorry to disappoint but that is how it is.

I was just curious; since Regan is not considered to be one the 15 "official" US freemason presidents.

Yes thats a masonic handshake
The original photo doesn't look masonic
If the thumb had been up a bit and pressed into the first or middle knuckle it might perhaps have been the grip of an entered apprentice or of a fellow craft, respectively

Sorry, you say on your first line that "Yes thats a masonc handshake"
But on the second line you say that "the original photo doesn't look masonic" (did you saw the whole video)?

grandsecretary

20-05-2009, 12:27 AM

Yes thats a masonic handshake
The original photo doesn't look masonic
If the thumb had been up a bit and pressed into the first or middle knuckle it might perhaps have been the grip of an entered apprentice or of a fellow craft, respectively

Sorry Paolo you are wrong on this one. I will tell you if it is masonic. I know. You are guessing.

flyermay

20-05-2009, 12:43 AM

Sorry Paolo you are wrong on this one. I will tell you if it is masonic. I know. You are guessing.

Wait a second: just a thought without second intentions…

Aren't you guessing too?

I mean, you are supposing that neither Gorbachev nor Reagan are freemasons. And you are also supposing that they wouldn’t be using a masonic handshake in public.

And, since, most of us know what a masonic hand shake looks like for every degree (as Paolo surely does); what makes you think that you would know better than Paolo whether it is a masonic handshake or not?

paolo

20-05-2009, 01:04 AM

grandsecretary

20-05-2009, 11:35 AM

Actually what I meant was that the Reagan/Gorbochev handshake was certainly Masonic, but the shake at the top of the thread was definitely not. I'd missed a lot of the fast-moving stuff in between.
Still, what really interests me is why someone holding such a senior position in the York Rite as Peter J Clatworthy doing here. You must be up in the 30 degrees or rather is it 7th,Peter? getting the Rites confused for a moment perhaps,- still what is a senior postholder in the freemasons spending a lot of time battling it out with David Icke freaks?
I wouldn't deny anyone the opportunity, and did once spend a lot of time arguing with supposed 32 degree masons on abovetopsecret, who apparently had inordinate amounts of time to argue the toss
You know, it doesn't compute. Are we a threat to be argued with on home turf or are you hoping to engage? DI types are likely to be profoundly suspicious and/or dismissive
Further than debating handshakes, there are far more serious allegations against the freemasons, that Mr Clatworthy might wish to discuss, for some reason that I fail to fathom
http://www.grandlodgeofallengland.org/index.php?option=com_contact&task=view&contact_id=1

I am NOT in the Moderns York Rite. The York Rite, as such, does not exist in England. I am Grand Secretary of The Grand Lodge of All England at York. A visit to our website would explain. I am NOT here to defend any malpractices of the Moderns form of freemasonry but merely to inform from a position of considerable experience and knowledge of freemasonry per se, so feel free to debate anything you wish and expect honest answers from me. I do not see this forum, or anybody on it, as a threat but it is read by members of the general public who should not be misinformed.

It is a part of my job description to take part in public forums on the subject of Free Masonry and to represent the policies and views of the Grand Lodge at York.

For background, some years ago I was Assistant Grand Secretary General of the Ancient and Accepted Rite for England and Wales under the Moderns system, but I resigned from the Moderns system in order to assist the revival of the original form of Anglo-Saxon Free Masonry.

I hope that this explains. The handshake between Gorbachev and Reagan is NOT masonic. There would be no point in such an exchange under the glare of television lights.

runciter

20-05-2009, 11:42 AM

I hope that this explains. The handshake between Gorbachev and Reagan is NOT masonic. There would be no point in such an exchange under the glare of television lights.

excuse me but what i see is a masonic handshake, just like the one between ratzinger and blair.

i can believe that not all masonry is illuminati-controlled, but those guys are using masonic signs imo.

grandsecretary

20-05-2009, 11:51 AM

excuse me but what i see is a masonic handshake, just like the one between ratzinger and blair.

i can believe that not all masonry is illuminati-controlled, but those guys are using masonic signs imo.

I am telling you what they are from a position of knowledge, I am not asking you.

The handshake between Ratzinger and Blair is NOT a masonic handshake. As somebody who has been excommunicated by this Pope recently because I am a high profile English Mason, I should know, shouldn't I?

Excuse me but what you see is a handshake between high profile Catholics who are both rabidly anti-Mason. The record is clear on this issue.

Now perhaps you would answer my earlier question. Why would the Pope and Tony Blair, or the Queen and a tennis player exchange masonic "handshakes" in the full glare of publicity. What would they be trying to achieve, when probably minutes later they were eating a very expensive free lunch in complete privacy? It does not make sense.

runciter

20-05-2009, 12:50 PM

I am telling you what they are from a position of knowledge, I am not asking you.

The handshake between Ratzinger and Blair is NOT a masonic handshake. As somebody who has been excommunicated by this Pope recently because I am a high profile English Mason, I should know, shouldn't I?

Excuse me but what you see is a handshake between high profile Catholics who are both rabidly anti-Mason. The record is clear on this issue.

Now perhaps you would answer my earlier question. Why would the Pope and Tony Blair, or the Queen and a tennis player exchange masonic "handshakes" in the full glare of publicity. What would they be trying to achieve, when probably minutes later they were eating a very expensive free lunch in complete privacy? It does not make sense.

because the inuman force that drives them can't avoid manifesting itself, so that we can stop it.

grandsecretary

20-05-2009, 02:57 PM

because the inuman force that drives them can't avoid manifesting itself, so that we can stop it.

I am afraid that we are simply not on the same wave length. Let's move on shall we?

thelonious

20-05-2009, 03:27 PM

Excuse me but what you see is a handshake between high profile Catholics who are both rabidly anti-Mason. The record is clear on this issue.

I know, of course, that neither Ratzinger or Blair are Freemasons, and that the pope is indeed a staunch anti-Mason.

But why would you say that Blair is "rabidly anti-Mason"? Has he made some statement to that effect?

runciter

20-05-2009, 04:24 PM

I know, of course, that neither Ratzinger or Blair are Freemasons, and that the pope is indeed a staunch anti-Mason.

But why would you say that Blair is "rabidly anti-Mason"? Has he made some statement to that effect?

i'm convinced that both ratzinger and blair are "illuminati" that use masonic signs of recognition.

they are actors.

grandsecretary

20-05-2009, 04:27 PM

I know, of course, that neither Ratzinger or Blair are Freemasons, and that the pope is indeed a staunch anti-Mason.

But why would you say that Blair is "rabidly anti-Mason"? Has he made some statement to that effect?

Mr Blair is both a staunch Roman Catholic convert, and also a close confidant of Cardinal Ratzinger. He cannot therefore be a Free Mason, and by remaining a staunch practicing Catholic, he has to accept the rulings of the Magisterium in respect of freemasory per se.

It is no coincidence that it was during his premiership that the public enquiry into freemasonry was established, and the rules regarding membership and declaration of membership in respect of the police, judiciary and local government were established.

He certainly would not use "masonic handshakes", the subject of this thread.

runciter

20-05-2009, 04:31 PM

Mr Blair is both a staunch Roman Catholic convert, and also a close confidant of Cardinal Ratzinger. He cannot therefore be a Free Mason, and by remaining a staunch practicing Catholic, he has to accept the rulings of the Magisterium in respect of freemasory per se.

It is no coincidence that it was during his premiership that the public enquiry into freemasonry was established, and the rules regarding membership and declaration of membership in respect of the police, judiciary and local government were established.

He certainly would not use "masonic handshakes", the subject of this thread.

there's an outer reality and an inner reality, those who play antagonistic roles in public may secretly "love" each other.

free thinker

20-05-2009, 06:04 PM

Here is an 'interesting' masonic website, plenty of information, if you can sort it from the chaff! ;)

Click Here (http://freemasonrywatch.org/freemasons_introduction.html)

free thinker

20-05-2009, 06:13 PM

Masons will hate this video, it gives up all the secrets!! :D:p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1bHBthJN9w So insightful...

grandsecretary

20-05-2009, 06:53 PM

Here is an 'interesting' masonic website, plenty of information, if you can sort it from the chaff! ;)

Click Here (http://freemasonrywatch.org/freemasons_introduction.html)

It is, as a matter of fact, an anti-Masonic website.

grandsecretary

20-05-2009, 06:55 PM

Masons will hate this video, it gives up all the secrets!! :D:p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1bHBthJN9w So insightful...

No. We too think that it is very funny because it is a parody on freemasonry.

You make the basic of mistakes by suggesting that the signs, tokens, and words which are used by some freemasons merely to gain admission to a Mason's lodge are the secrets of freemasonry. Far from it.

The secrets of Free Masonry remain as described, secrets.

free thinker

20-05-2009, 07:12 PM

No. We too think that it is very funny because it is a parody on freemasonry.

You make the basic of mistakes by suggesting that the signs, tokens, and words which are used by some freemasons merely to gain admission to a Mason's lodge are the secrets of freemasonry. Far from it.

The secrets of Free Masonry remain as described, secrets.

Your secrets are not as secret as you may have liked unfortunatly, the problem is knowing info from dis-info.

No matter what material is sourced by non masons
how do they quantify it.;)

watson_k

20-05-2009, 08:51 PM

Your secrets are not as secret as you may have liked unfortunatly, the problem is knowing info from dis-info.

No matter what material is sourced by non masons
how do they quantify it.;)

What makes you qualified to know exactly what the 'real info' is? By your post I can see that you're not a Mason, how can you be so sure you know the 'secrets' of the Masonic society? I'm not complaining or anything don't get me wrong, what makes you so sure?

free thinker

20-05-2009, 09:11 PM

what makes you so sure?

Good question, but the answer is rather too long to post, and even if i did, how would you know if i was giving a correct answer - Unless........:)

grandsecretary

20-05-2009, 10:29 PM

Good question, but the answer is rather too long to post, and even if i did, how would you know if i was giving a correct answer - Unless........:)

Try, "Sorry I haven't a clue." Doesn't take too long, just honesty.

flyermay

20-05-2009, 10:31 PM

I wonder how many masons overall really know the secrets of freemasonry (and whether they would agree on it). :rolleyes:

grandsecretary

20-05-2009, 10:32 PM

grandsecretary

20-05-2009, 10:35 PM

I wonder how many masons overall really know the secrets of freemasonry (and whether they would agree on it). :rolleyes:

Very few. Moderns believe that the secrets of Free Masonry are the signs, tokens, words, and their Rosicrucian rituals, just like the non-Masons here. As you know these are ALL freely available at good bookshops.

lightgiver

20-05-2009, 10:46 PM

Sharing The Real Secrets Of Freemasonry
By Paul E. Heilman, Past DEO
The apprehension and uncertainty we felt when we first approached the door of
Freemasonry is a very vivid memory for most of us. What mysteries lie beyond the
closed door? What would we be told? What were these secrets that we were unable to
behold by sight? What if we made a mistake?
The answer to the last questions became indelibly apparent when the penalty of the
obligation was laid out before us in precise detail. What secrets could be so important
that such strong language would be required to insure a strict obedience?
The strong language is only symbolic in nature. The sincerity of a person is often
judged by the language he uses and the manner in which he presents his thoughts and
ideas. If strong and harsh phrases are used as a self-imposed penalty, a person is more
likely to appear believable and sincere.
As children we may have once said, 'Cross my heart and hope to die" or "Stick a
finger in my eye" to prove to our friends the sincerity with which we spoke. Perhaps
as an adult we might respond to the questions, "Are you telling the truth"? by saying,
"May lightning strike me dead on the spot; if I am not".
Our sincerity might then be linked to just how harsh a self-imposed penalty we would
be willing to place upon our own words and actions. By the language of the
obligations we bind ourselves in thought, word, and deed to the duties we assume as a
Mason even though the only penalties the Masonic fraternity can impose are
reprimand, suspension or expulsion.
What then are these secrets which we bind ourselves to before the lodge and our
brethren?
Rather than be specific, a few general guidelines might be kept in mind:
We should refrain from talking about or using any of the signs, words, grips and other
means of recognition when in strange and mixed company.
We should keep silent about the methods used to confer the degrees and the
obligations of those degrees in whole or in part.
We should refrain from irresponsible talk that might compromise the name or
reputation of our lodge, any other lodge, or any man and his family. Maintaining the
privacy of any lodge or man is one of the greatest duties we assume as Freemasons.
If we accept that these guidelines outline what we should not share with others, what
then can we share about this great experience we have undergone?

We should be expected to share what Masonry means to us, what it has taught us;
what we have learned about ourselves. To not do so is of no benefit to our family our
friends our community and most especially ourselves.
To keep secret how we are taught the lessons of Freemasonry satisfies our obligation.
To share what we have learned about the mysteries of Freemasonry safely lodged
within our breast gets at the heart of understanding what it means to be a Mason.
Each man brings his own moral structure with him when he enters our door, therefore,
each mans experience in Masonry will be unique. One Mason cannot know what that
is to another, so it is a secret. The real secret of Freemasonry will then be different for
each of us. We were first prepared to be made Masons in our hearts. The true secrets
of Masonry were in our hearts before we first knocked on the door of the lodge. If
they had not been, we would never have been invited to enter by petition or ballot.
Freemasonry offers us the opportunity to explore new paths by the aide of the light
we find within its doors. The object lessons we learn teach us not only how to
regulate our own personal lives, but how we may also benefit society and those about
us. It is difficult to realize these benefits without sharing something about those
mysteries and secrets safely lodged within our breasts.
For generations Masons have safely lodged the mysteries of Freemasonry so tightly
within their breasts that its true purpose and identity have been lost or misrepresented
by those kept ignorant of its true meaning. As we discover the true secrets of
Freemasonry within our own hearts, should we not share that light so that all may be
touched and grow because of it?

Now come on GS what are some of the secrets you talk of,give us a clue,if you cannot reveal to much,which you rarely do anyhow:)

So how do we know you are telling the truth when you say everyone else's (non masons)in general,their info is bogus?

boots

20-05-2009, 10:56 PM

Good info LG

It is indeed a Secret Society.

grandsecretary

20-05-2009, 11:03 PM

Good info LG

It is indeed a Secret Society.

What info? All that has been quoted on this forum can be read in books available at any good bookshop.

I keep telling you. The Moderns form of freemasonry is NOT the genuine form of Anglo-Saxon Free Masonry. It was invented in the back room of a London pub in 1717 by members of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood who were not in possession of its secrets.

paolo

20-05-2009, 11:21 PM

Now come on GS what are some of the secrets you talk of,give us a clue,if you cannot reveal to much,which you rarely do anyhow:)

So how do we know you are telling the truth when you say everyone else's (non masons)in general,their info is bogus?
The purpose of freemasons contributing to a forum like this is bogus
Many of the core beliefs of Masons beyond the Blue degrees are out
But offer them up and they'll deny it. They'll say that the Pope and Blair cant be Masons (P2, Studholme,10 Duke Street), that Skull and Bones is nothing to do with Freemasonry ( "Who was the fool, who was the wise man, beggar or king? Whether poor or rich, all's the same in death.")
Everything you say they will deny if it even hints at the truth.
You can't know, you're not an initiate, it's a secret.
You're cattle, you can't know, you're wrong
General Secretary will never utter a word of truth regarding the core beliefs and practice because he can't. His purpose is to defend and obfuscate.
Engagement is futile

grandsecretary

20-05-2009, 11:32 PM

The purpose of freemasons contributing to a forum like this is bogus
Many of the core beliefs of Masons beyond the Blue degrees are out
But offer them up and they'll deny it. They'll say that the Pope and Blair cant be Masons (P2, Studholme,10 Duke Street), that Skull and Bones is nothing to do with Freemasonry ( "Who was the fool, who was the wise man, beggar or king? Whether poor or rich, all's the same in death.")
Everything you say they will deny if it even hints at the truth.
You can't know, you're not an initiate, it's a secret.
You're cattle, you can't know, you're wrong
General Secretary will never utter a word of truth regarding the core beliefs and practice because he can't. His purpose is to defend and obfuscate.
Engagement is futile

Of course it isn't.

Blair and the Pope cannot be Masons AND Catholics. What do you expect us to say? It is NOT possible, and that is the truth. That is NOT obfuscation. It is a direct answer, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

We, The Grand Lodge of All England, do not have higher degrees "beyond the blue degrees". What do you want me to tell you other than that?

The rituals of the Moderns "higher degrees" "beyond the blue lodge" are all freely available in any decent bookshop and you have Morals and Dogma to read. They are meaningless, pointless, useless mumbo jumbo. What more can I say to you?

Ask questions, and they will be answered and I don't need to defend anything.

flyermay

21-05-2009, 12:04 AM

Very few. Moderns believe that the secrets of Free Masonry are the signs, tokens, words, and their Rosicrucian rituals, just like the non-Masons here. As you know these are ALL freely available at good bookshops.

I have no choice but to agree.

Now come on GS what are some of the secrets you talk of,give us a clue,if you cannot reveal to much,which you rarely do anyhow:)

So how do we know you are telling the truth when you say everyone else's (non masons)in general,their info is bogus?

Don't count on it LG; I tried before. GS is not here to enlighten us or to share information, but mainly to make sure we don't damage the image of his craft.

Everything you say they will deny if it even hints at the truth.
You can't know, you're not an initiate, it's a secret.
You're cattle, you can't know, you're wrong
General Secretary will never utter a word of truth regarding the core beliefs and practice because he can't. His purpose is to defend and obfuscate.

Sorry GS, but Paolo has more or less resumed it quite well (though there are ways of getting bits of information -you just need to be watchful and patient-).

paolo

21-05-2009, 01:04 AM

? It is NOT possible, and that is the truth. That is NOT obfuscation. It is a direct answer, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

.....So help me God? Cross my heart and hope to die....
Amen

grandsecretary

21-05-2009, 01:19 AM

I have no choice but to agree.

Don't count on it LG; I tried before. GS is not here to enlighten us or to share information, but mainly to make sure we don't damage the image of his craft.

Sorry GS, but Paolo has more or less resumed it quite well (though there are ways of getting bits of information -you just need to be watchful and patient-).

Well I am sorry too because I am doing my best for you. Just carry on asking me questions and I will answer them to the very best of my ability. I am prepared to be judged by that, but I cannot agree to things that are simply not true.

runciter

21-05-2009, 07:37 AM

Blair and the Pope cannot be Masons AND Catholics.

they can act as catholics and be illuminati, like their sabbatean frankist masters.

sabbetai zevi converted to islam, jacob frank opted for catholicism, and their followers do the same.

boots

21-05-2009, 07:43 AM

What info? All that has been quoted on this forum can be read in books available at any good bookshop.

I keep telling you. The Moderns form of freemasonry is NOT the genuine form of Anglo-Saxon Free Masonry. It was invented in the back room of a London pub in 1717 by members of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood who were not in possession of its secrets.

All you tell are half truths, which is as good, as a lie.

You waffle on about divisions within Masonry but this is NOT what the article was about.

Each day you show yourself to be a deceiver. Your starting to become a joke on David Ickes forum.

.

cheeney1

21-05-2009, 07:54 AM

free thinker

21-05-2009, 07:54 AM

Oh really? You haven't got a clue. The secrets of Free Masonry are not available to non-Masons. That is it.

Oh, i see, so you think that it is impossible for a non mason to know about any of your secrets....rather naive i think, and a very big assumption on your part.:rolleyes:

Like i said previously, quantifying is the key.

So mr 'high and mighty' stop acting as though you have given the secrets of the universe, while everybody else is as dumb as F**k.

Sorry if that goes against the grain for you GS

boots

21-05-2009, 08:30 AM

http://www.destroyfreemasonry.com/masonic-handshake-benedict-xvi.jpg[/IMG]

How About These GranGoose :rolleyes: Freemason Handshake

Yep and the Vatican is infiltrated with P2 Masons. They did away with Pope John Paul 1 by poisoning in.....Wait for it......33 days. Just a coincidence, nothing to worry about:rolleyes:

runciter

21-05-2009, 09:07 AM

Yep and the Vatican is infiltrated with P2 Masons. They did away with Pope John Paul 1 by poisoning in.....Wait for it......33 days. Just a coincidence, nothing to worry about:rolleyes:

john xxiii

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/JXXIII/schismfriends.jpg

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/JXXIII/jxxiiihandshake.jpg

paul vi

http://www.destroyfreemasonry.com/antipope-paul-6-masonic-handshake.jpg

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Paul_VI_pictures/Masonichandshake.jpg

flyermay

21-05-2009, 11:46 AM

Well I am sorry too because I am doing my best for you. Just carry on asking me questions and I will answer them to the very best of my ability. I am prepared to be judged by that, but I cannot agree to things that are simply not true.

It would be foolish of me to deny that you are answering some of our question; but when you do, it’s always on a “need to know basis”. I also have to add that so far I don’t think you are "lying" on any of your answers (unlike other freemasons posting here); but you are also not giving too much away either.

However, your contribution to this forum is still far away from that of other members, who come here to share information and to help others who want to understand.

That’s what I meant with my post; that you are here for a definite purpose: which is to defend your craft to the best of your ability, but only giving as little information as possible (which is fine with me, due to the circumstances).

grandsecretary

21-05-2009, 11:49 AM

All you tell are half truths, which is as good, as a lie.

You waffle on about divisions within Masonry but this is NOT what the article was about.

Each day you show yourself to be a deceiver. Your starting to become a joke on David Ickes forum.

.

This is a clear signal that boots has lost the argument again and has decided to become personally offensive in order to consign it to the rant room.

grandsecretary

21-05-2009, 11:51 AM

Oh, i see, so you think that it is impossible for a non mason to know about any of your secrets....rather naive i think, and a very big assumption on your part.:rolleyes:

Like i said previously, quantifying is the key.

So mr 'high and mighty' stop acting as though you have given the secrets of the universe, while everybody else is as dumb as F**k.

Sorry if that goes against the grain for you GS

The straight answer to your question is that it is impossible for a non-Mason to either know or understand the secrets of Free Masonry.

grandsecretary

21-05-2009, 11:57 AM

It would be foolish of me to deny that you are answering some of our question; but when you do, it’s always on a “need to know basis”. I also have to add that so far I don’t think you are "lying" on any of your answers (unlike other freemasons posting here); but you are also not giving too much away.

However, your contribution to this forum is still far away from that of other members, who come here to share information and to help others who want to understand.

That’s what I meant with my post; that you are here for a definite purpose: which is to defend your craft to the best of your ability, but giving as little information as you can (which is fine with me, due to the circumstances).

As a matter of fact, I am trying to give you as much information as I can, and I will continue to do so. I have always stated that my reason for being here is to inform, to answer all reasonable questions, and to counter misinformation or disinformation, and from whatever source.

I do not lie. However, I state openly whenever I refuse to give out private information, for reasons of Masonic secrecy.

flyermay

21-05-2009, 11:59 AM

I do not lie. However, I state openly whenever I refuse to give out private information, for reasons of Masonic secrecy.

Well, that's the information I'm interested in; the rest is public already. :)

grandsecretary

21-05-2009, 11:59 AM

Yep and the Vatican is infiltrated with P2 Masons.

Sources?

grandsecretary

21-05-2009, 12:03 PM

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/handshake150.jpg

http://www.destroyfreemasonry.com/masonic-handshake-benedict-xvi.jpg

http://bp2.blogger.com/_mwIrvjgUWmc/R6gaRRwbFuI/AAAAAAAAAps/_yd72jTS8TA/s320/ron_paul_mason01.png

How About These GranGoose :rolleyes: Freemason Handshake

How about you answering one question rather than asking hundreds of stupid ones?

Why would these people exchange alleged Masonic "handshakes" in front of a camera? It does NOT make sense. There is no reason or advantage to themselves or anyone else. They are NOT Masonic "handshakes". I won't be bullied into telling you that they are when they aren't.

I can confirm that John Wayne was an enthusiastic Moderns freemason.

cheeney1

21-05-2009, 12:15 PM

How about you answering one question rather than asking hundreds of stupid ones?

Why would these people exchange alleged Masonic "handshakes" in front of a camera? It does NOT make sense. There is no reason or advantage to themselves or anyone else. They are NOT Masonic "handshakes". I won't be bullied into telling you that they are when they aren't.

I can confirm that John Wayne was an enthusiastic Moderns freemason.

And You Wouldn't Have Any Indication of being a Mason Whats So Ever :rolleyes:
You are a Fraud, A Liar a Bad Actor, And Cricket is a Queers Sport
You can't Even debate with adding insults ,or even answer simple Questions , Which Means (see above)

I Suppose You Go Fox Hunting too, Yawn And as For John Wayne I coundn't Give a Fuck what he Did in his Spare time :rolleyes:

Let me Guess You'll Report This Post :cool:

boots

21-05-2009, 12:17 PM

Sources?

Sources!!! How much evidence do you want?

Let's start with "In Gods Name" by David Yallop shall we.

,

grandsecretary

21-05-2009, 12:33 PM

Sources!!! How much evidence do you want?

Let's start with "In Gods Name" by David Yallop shall we.

,

Yep and the Vatican is infiltrated with P2 Masons.

David Yallop's book alleged past P2 involvement in the affairs of the Vatican. You used the word "is". There is NO evidence that this the case.

Now let's deal with the Masonic Lodge P2. P2 was a Masonic Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Orient of Italy. There is no doubt that it was engaged in corrupt activities.

I doubt, very much, that they were involved in a Pope poisoning, and this event remains conjecture anyway.

Your complaint is with The Grand Orient of Italy and the members of Lodge P2, and nobody else.

ALL freemasons are dismayed at the events that took place at that time and have condemned it.

Now these are the facts. You, of course, will continue to use this for your own nefarious ends.

grandsecretary

21-05-2009, 12:35 PM

And You Wouldn't Have Any Indication of being a Mason Whats So Ever :rolleyes:
You are a Fraud, A Liar a Bad Actor, And Cricket is a Queers Sport
You can't Even debate with adding insults ,or even answer simple Questions , Which Means (see above)

I Suppose You Go Fox Hunting too, Yawn And as For John Wayne I coundn't Give a Fuck what he Did in his Spare time :rolleyes:

Let me Guess You'll Report This Post :cool:

No, not at all, your motives are clear to all, and I will not assist you and your friends on this forum.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=loneliness+song&n=21&ei=utf-8&js=1&fr=ytff-grpj&fr2=tab-web&tnr=20&vid=0001389481471

I forgive you, lonely, and we all love you because you make us laugh - lots! :p

And your answer to my question is?

cheeney1

21-05-2009, 12:40 PM

No, your motives are clear to all, and I will not assist you and your friends on this forum. I forgive you, and we all love you because you make us laugh - lots! :p

You still don't get it do you :confused: as for making Me Laugh lookin at your mug and reading your silly responses to questions you can't even answer. cause you are a FRAUD :cool:

boots

21-05-2009, 12:46 PM

David Yallop's book alleged past P2 involvement in the affairs of the Vatican. You used the word "is". There is NO evidence that this the case.

Now let's deal with the Masonic Lodge P2. P2 was a Masonic Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Orient of Italy. There is no doubt that it was engaged in corrupt activities.

I doubt, very much, that they were involved in a Pope poisoning, and this event remains conjecture anyway.

Your complaint is with The Grand Orient of Italy and the members of Lodge P2, and nobody else.

ALL freemasons are dismayed at the events that took place at that time and have condemned it.

Now these are the facts. You, of course, will continue to use this for your own nefarious ends.

What you state as facts is a attempt at deception. Caught out Mr GS

So really your defending them as they were caught out. Dont try and hide behind curtains.

To even say that it is conjecture is utter bullshit and speaks volumes as to your true motives.

runciter

21-05-2009, 12:48 PM

boots

21-05-2009, 12:51 PM

As an introduction to the political intrigue involved with the P2 "lodge" in Italy, readers are reminded that - at one time or another - virtually all organizations suffer from internal power struggles which lead to embarrassing consequences. An example during the mid-1990s which many U.S. readers may recall was that of the United Fund, America's largest charity, which was found to be riddled with mismanagement and corrupt practices forcing its head to resign under threat of severe legal action. ;How could it be?', everyone seemed to be asking, that an organization devoted to such high moral principles and knowing of their critical importance to so many needy could have such greedy and unscrupulous leadership? Regrettably, avarice and greed know no boundaries....
Within this context, we find a Masonic problem of similar stature having arisen in Italy, a country where political intrigue and instability seems to be a way of life. A country where Socialists battle Communists set amidst a background of the Borgia family and Papal secrecy. How could something like this have happened to Masonry in Italy? How could something like this have happened at all???

Gelli was Master of a Masonic Lodge by the name of Propaganda Due or P. 2. under the Grand Orient of Italy - a Grand Lodge in recognition with the UGLE and most other 'mainstream' Masonic grand lodges.

grandsecretary

21-05-2009, 12:51 PM

What you state as facts is a attempt at deception. Caught out Mr GS

So really your defending them as they were caught out. Dont try and hide behind curtains.

To even say that it is conjecture is utter bullshit and speaks volumes as to your true motives.

I keep telling you not to interpret what I say. My statement is clear and I do not need you to explain matters on my behalf - God forbid!.

I have NOT defended P2, or the Vatican as it happens. I have condemned P2, as have freemasons from all of the lodges and jurisdictions that I know, and I have directed your complaint to those who are responsible.

Now complain to them, or about them, but do not involve innocent people in activities that they are NOT responsible for. That is simply the use of black propoganda. Typical of you.

I repeat what I said, I doubt, very much, that Lodge P2 was involved in a Pope poisoning, and this event remains conjecture anyway. Now that is a fact.

boots

21-05-2009, 12:56 PM

so that those in the know can enjoy the show, and they're also having a big laugh at the "gentiles".

So very true.

They know that the majority of the population wouldn't have a clue.

.

boots

21-05-2009, 01:04 PM

they are NOT responsible for. That is simply the use of black propoganda. Typical of you.

I repeat what I said, I doubt, very much, that Lodge P2 was involved in a Pope poisoning, and this event remains conjecture anyway. Now that is a fact.

Total bollocks.

A healthy man who was check by his doctors and given a clean bill of health. Who was going to expose the masonic, mafias corruption in the Vatican, dies in 33 days!! Those he were going to expose were the masonic cabal within the Vatican.

The man was poisoned FACT irrefutable FACTS.

NO doctor could make an assumption that it was a heart attack with out doing an autopsy. Autopsies are allowable within Vatican rules FACT.

Now stop lying GS.

grandsecretary

21-05-2009, 01:09 PM

Total bollocks.

A healthy man who was check by his doctors and given a clean bill of health. Who was going to expose the masonic, mafias corruption in the Vatican, dies in 33 days!! Those he were going to expose were the masonic cabal within the Vatican.

The man was poisoned FACT irrefutable FACTS.

NO doctor could make an assumption that it was a heart attack with out doing an autopsy. Autopsies are allowable within Vatican rules FACT.

Now stop lying GS.

Calm down, you will blow a gasket. Complain to the Vatican, and to the Italian police, not to me. Provide them with sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution if what you allege is true. David Yallop's book is also based upon circumstantial evidence and conjecture IMHO.

Now, your statement at the beginning of this posting is plainly pure conjecture and goes much further than even David Yallop in his very entertaining book. That does not mean that I am defending anything. I deal in realities.

boots

21-05-2009, 01:26 PM

Calm down, you will blow a gasket. Complain to the Vatican, and to the Italian police, not to me. Provide them with sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution if what you allege is true. David Yallop's book is also based upon circumstantial evidence and conjecture IMHO.

Now, your statement at the beginning of this posting is plainly pure conjecture and goes much further than even David Yallop in his very entertaining book. That does not mean that I am defending anything. I deal in realities.

LOL what sort of statement is that. "I have to complain to the authorities and bring a legal case to court". I think you are a fool with a very high opinion of yourself.

You might think you are clever stating MSM propaganda. Only a old indoctrinated fool would do that.

You dont deal in realities, only propaganda.

A healthy man who was check by his doctors and given a clean bill of health. Who was going to expose the masonic, mafias corruption in the Vatican, dies in 33 days!! Those he were going to expose were the masonic cabal within the Vatican.

Convenient you couldn't refute this statement. Your person attacks are worthless.

grandsecretary

21-05-2009, 01:38 PM

LOL what sort of statement is that. "I have to complain to the authorities and bring a legal case to court". I think you are a fool with a very high opinion of yourself.

You might think you are clever stating MSM propaganda. Only a old indoctrinated fool would do that.

You dont deal in realities, only propaganda.

Convenient you couldn't refute this statement. Your person attacks are worthless.

What personal attack? I tried to calm you down.

You speculate, and the "poisoning" is conjecture until and unless it is proven, which it has not been. You cannot bully people into agreeing with you.

Is it possible? - yes.

Is it likely? - no.

That is my position. My position on this issue is NOT a defence of anyone or anything and I will not allow you to claim that it is.

Your complaint is not with freemasonry per se, it is properly directed towards the Vatican, Lodge P2, The Grand Orient of Italy at a push, and the Italian Authorities, and I have no interest in defending any one of them other than fairness and justice.

eastbeast

21-05-2009, 03:10 PM

so that those in the know can enjoy the show, and they're also having a big laugh at the "gentiles".

So very true.

They know that the majority of the population wouldn't have a clue.

Some possibilities I have thought of;

The handshakes are from a totally different organisation that has nothing to do with Freemasonry.

They are doing it deliberately, knowing it will be broadcasted all over the World, so that other leaders know the characters are the genuine article and not doubles.

The handshakes are totally random.

I can't imagine the point of 'having a big laugh' at anyone if they don't know they are being laughed at, and why display something that means nothing to the majority of the population?

grandsecretary

21-05-2009, 03:50 PM

Some possibilities I have thought of;

The handshakes are from a totally different organisation that has nothing to do with Freemasonry.

They are doing it deliberately, knowing it will be broadcasted all over the World, so that other leaders know the characters are the genuine article and not doubles.

The handshakes are totally random.

I can't imagine the point of 'having a big laugh' at anyone if they don't know they are being laughed at, and why display something that means nothing to the majority of the population?

Nor can I. It's just silly and a it's good thing that we don't shake anything else otherwise that would be another story!

free thinker

21-05-2009, 05:34 PM

Is There No Help For The Poor Widow's Son

runciter

21-05-2009, 06:22 PM

Some possibilities I have thought of;

The handshakes are from a totally different organisation that has nothing to do with Freemasonry.

They are doing it deliberately, knowing it will be broadcasted all over the World, so that other leaders know the characters are the genuine article and not doubles.

The handshakes are totally random.

I can't imagine the point of 'having a big laugh' at anyone if they don't know they are being laughed at, and why display something that means nothing to the majority of the population?

they're having a laugh among themselves, by displaying funny signs of recognition.

would they be able to play their ordo ab chao game if most people were aware? mmmh.

chris_com283

21-05-2009, 06:53 PM

Absolutely no chance whatsoever. I would tell you and I would know, believe me Chris.

I don't see why I should just believe you.

grandsecretary

21-05-2009, 06:58 PM

they're having a laugh among themselves, by displaying funny signs of recognition.

would they be able to play their ordo ab chao game if most people were aware? mmmh.

"Ordo ab Chao" is latin for "Order out of Chaos". It is used as a motto by the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in America and the Ancient and Accepted Rite in England. It appears on their certificates under their symbol of the double headed eagle.

However, this was an adopted motto, it being first used by Ancient Free Masons, in 1395.

runciter

21-05-2009, 07:19 PM

"Ordo ab Chao" is latin for "Order out of Chaos". It is used as a motto by the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in America and the Ancient and Accepted Rite in England. It appears on their certificates under their symbol of the double headed eagle.

However, this was an adopted motto, it being first used by Ancient Free Masons, in 1395.

i don't know how the motto was interpreted in the middle ages, but in the present the "illuminati" are deliberately causing chaos in order (pun) to advance their globalist and totalitarian agenda, and they have been doing this for a couple of centuries at least.

grandsecretary

21-05-2009, 07:30 PM

i don't know how the motto was interpreted in the middle ages, but in the present the "illuminati" are deliberately causing chaos in order (pun) to advance their globalist and totalitarian agenda, and they have been doing this for a couple of centuries at least.

The motto "Ordo ab Chao" was not used by the Illuminati. In your opinion that would be "Chao ab Ordo" you see.

eastbeast

21-05-2009, 07:34 PM

they're having a laugh among themselves, by displaying funny signs of recognition.

Of course that's possible too, in my opinion something like that is like taking the piss out of foregners when they can't understand what you're saying - Twatish.

would they be able to play their ordo ab chao game if most people were aware? mmmh.

Anyone that twatish still would sadly....

I still consider it pointless.

watson_k

21-05-2009, 08:32 PM

"Ordo ab Chao" is latin for "Order out of Chaos". It is used as a motto by the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in America and the Ancient and Accepted Rite in England. It appears on their certificates under their symbol of the double headed eagle.

However, this was an adopted motto, it being first used by Ancient Free Masons, in 1395.

It was first used by the Ancient Greeks, in their ancient form of Cosmology. They thought the universe was created out of 'Khaos' the original state of existence. (Similar to the Buddhist thought of nothingness).

http://www.animalloverworld.com/birds/images/120px-Morals_and_Dogma_eagle.jpg

mike martin

21-05-2009, 08:56 PM

they're having a laugh among themselves, by displaying funny signs of recognition.
Nope your just seeing Masonic stuff where there is none!

would they be able to play their ordo ab chao game if most people were aware? mmmh.
Well actually, if you took any notice of what the Masons here are saying, you would actually become "aware" and realise that the words above are really true and spend a lot less time seeing it where it ain't.

Mike

grandsecretary

21-05-2009, 09:59 PM

It was first used by the Ancient Greeks, in their ancient form of Cosmology. They thought the universe was created out of 'Khaos' the original state of existence. (Similar to the Buddhist thought of nothingness).

http://www.animalloverworld.com/birds/images/120px-Morals_and_Dogma_eagle.jpg

Thank you for this very useful information.

paolo

22-05-2009, 02:49 AM

Ordo ab Chao
Anyone with a least little grip will know what it means in its cosmological sense, and what it means in its Hegellian sense
It's pretty much a straight line and bound to be covered up by all masons here
Unfortunately for the illuminated masons here, the scheme is bound to fail, whatever the devices employed against such a denouement
we dont care about your secrets. Your secrets are being exposed one by one
Noone here can promise to tell the truth and still hold secrets
Truth is open, secret is closed
Despite the best efforts of those with secrets and their technology trying to close off the truth, out there as well as with their words here, they are being and will be exposed

runciter

22-05-2009, 07:32 AM

The motto "Ordo ab Chao" was not used by the Illuminati. In your opinion that would be "Chao ab Ordo" you see.

the illuminati stole ideas from about every esoteric tradition, always turning them into cruel and destructive deeds.

grandsecretary

26-05-2009, 07:30 PM

the illuminati stole ideas from about every esoteric tradition, always turning them into cruel and destructive deeds.

I agree.

chris_com283

28-05-2009, 07:49 PM

Probably the first time you've agreed with any of the anti-Masons here.

luciferhorus

28-05-2009, 08:35 PM

Probably the first time you've agreed with any of the anti-Masons here.

The UGLE (United Grand Lodge of England) and The Grand Lodge of All England (GLAE).

http://www.amren.com/ar/1990/12/heretic.GIF

Actually the Grand Secretary allegedly belongs to a formerly 'underground' sect of allegedly 'Drudic' British Masonry who are considered heretics by the Duke of Kent's United Grand Lodge of England and who are subjected to a great deal of vitriol by on the Internet by regular Masons associated with UGLE.

http://www.jessicaswell.com/images/heretic_burning.jpg

So heretical, revolutionary and dangerous is the Grand Secretary's druidic Lodge that any 'regular' Masons who associate themselves with the Grand Secretary's Lodge are subject to disciplinary proceedings.

With regards to the Grand Secretary's signature:

The Grand Lodge of All England has no connection with any other body, Masonic or non-Masonic unless supported by a written Treaty or Agreement ratified by The Grand Assembly of Masons at York, or a Convocation of The Grand Lodge at York. Any suggestion otherwise should be treated with extreme caution

In other words, the Grand Lodge of All England allegedly has no connection with the Duke of Kent's UGLE and the majority of the world's 5-6 million Masons, and if I understand the Grand Secretary correctly, he considers them to be the heretics; his lodge only has international associations with other lodges who are similarly considered heretics by the UGLE.

Thus, if I understand the Grand Secretary correctly (I rarely seem to) members of the Grand Secretary's Lodge are anti-Masons with regards to UGLE and at the same time they are pro-Masonic only in the sense that they allegedly represent true Masonry.

The Grand Secretary appears here to be the defensor fides (defender of the faith) of druidic masonry.

Since I discovered that the Grand Secretary is a dangerous heretic and a blasphemer by the judgement of regular masonry, I have become rather sympathetic with him, which is not to say that I suspend criticism; for to do so is of course among the highest of blasphemies to the philosopher and free thinker.

The issue of Masonic handshakes on a Rothschild site is a rather trivial one; they are usuryists / loan sharks and financiers of World Capitalist Revolution and Anglo-American-Zionism state terrorism / narco-terrorism; their guilt does not need to be further established; the penalty of death and hell has been given and the execution of this judgement must and shall be forthcoming in the age of apocalyptic war.

LL

Lux

http://th05.deviantart.com/fs25/150/f/2008/148/2/8/Sigil_of_Lucifer_by_Monation.jpg
Enemy of god.
'Nomine Dei Nostri Satanas Luciferi Excelsi'

Give me blasphemy, heresy, revolution...anything good but strong.

I, myself, was never content to believe in a Satanic deity who was the enemy of the god of the Christians, Masons and the assortment of Capitalist chaff, and to serve Her, in the ordinary sense of the word. I wanted to get hold of Her personally and make Her my personal chief of staff.

http://www.occultofpersonality.com/wp-content/uploads/Hierophant_Thoth.jpg

Lucis Rex

High Priest of all heresy and blasphemy.

Prince of the Angels, Lord of Lords, Master and Commander of the 72 Goetic demons, bearer of the Key of Solomon, etc., etc.

Ex offico (in the office of) Christos, Pontifex Maximus, Servus Servorum Dei, Judge of Judgement Day, Grand Commander on earth of the armies of Heaven and numerous other pompous, blasphemous and heretical titles.

http://www.piusxiipope.info/popeseal.gif

grandsecretary

28-05-2009, 11:51 PM

Probably the first time you've agreed with any of the anti-Masons here.

Then you have not read ANY of my postings. Or if you have you have made pre-conceived assumptions based upon your prejudices.

Read what is written rather than what you THINK has been written. It helps.

grandsecretary

28-05-2009, 11:56 PM

The Grand Secretary appears here to be the defensor fides (defender of the faith) of druidic masonry.

Since I discovered that the Grand Secretary is a dangerous heretic and a blasphemer by the judgement of regular masonry, I have become rather sympathetic with him, which is not to say that I suspend criticism; for to do so is of course among the highest of blasphemies to the philosopher and free thinker.

I am happy with this, except that I am pro-Mason and therefore by definition anti United Grand Lodge of England which is, in fact, the Rosicrucian Brotherhood, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

AND I am not alone. This explains the vehement opposition of virtually all of the established churches, especially the Roman Catholic Church, and the entire world of Islam.

luciferhorus

29-05-2009, 01:21 AM

AND I am not alone. This explains the vehement opposition of virtually all of the established churches, especially the Roman Catholic Church, and the entire world of Islam.

Allegedly according to the UGLE Masons, you are the tiny minority; two guys in a pub or whatever.

This does not fully explain the vehement opposition to these UGLE Masons by of virtually all of educated humanity including most of the New Aeon movement and the hundreds of millions of Communists, Muslims, and the impoverished victims of the god of these UGLE Capitalist vermin, the City of London, and their aristocratic Grand Master, the Queen's cousin, the Fieldmarshal, the Duke of Kent.

http://www.keepmilitarymuseum.org/images/gallery/primary/rwg07144.jpg

No you are most certainly not alone, but I do wonder about your counterproposal to the current dictatorship of Capital; to criticise evil is common, to have the correct counterproposal is rare...Narrow is the path to economic slavation..the alternative is just endless palace revoltuions; the replacement of one Capitalist Master with another.

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/11/12/argentine-che-deltoro.jpg

Or alternatively we could transform the entire world into a Cuban agricultural collective.

No child would be left behind. No person would starve. All would be economic equals. There would be an abundance of food. The women might complain that they cannot have 22 pairs of shoes and grow fat on McDonald's hamburgers; that type of woman is not to be trusted anyway.

LL

Lux

http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictures/FatWomenTryingtogetpantson.jpg

http://www.i-italy.org/files/image/movimento.jpg

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images/mcdonalds-fat-women.jpg

http://images.tdaxp.com/tdaxp_upload/north_korean_army_babes_md.jpg

http://www.nkeconwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/kpa%20women.jpg

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w71/hoodedJen/random/Fat_women.jpg

http://www.gmu.edu/library/specialcollections/acsnic6_13_8f.jpg

http://www.uni-miskolc.hu/~wwwdrint/nokweb.jpg

grandsecretary

29-05-2009, 12:22 PM

I haven't seen that stupid statement One look at our website proves otherwise. You are just stirring it up.

runciter

29-05-2009, 12:58 PM

Probably the first time you've agreed with any of the anti-Masons here.

i don't know if all masonry is controlled by the zionist illuminati, and i'm sure there are decent people among masons :)

grandsecretary

29-05-2009, 01:23 PM

i don't know if all masonry is controlled by the zionist illuminati, and i'm sure there are decent people among masons :)

Well, from what I know and have experienced, there are tens of thousands of decent innocent people who have joined the various forms of freemasonry for perfectly good altruistic reasons.

The problem is that very few of them are interested in finding out the true nature of what they have joined and financially support.

Those that do find out, or have it pointed out to them and will not listen, are the ones who are open to criticism. I suspect that human nature does not allow us to admit our mistakes very easily.

chris_com283

30-05-2009, 01:39 AM

Then you have not read ANY of my postings. Or if you have you have made pre-conceived assumptions based upon your prejudices.

Read what is written rather than what you THINK has been written. It helps.

ACTUALLY I have READ quite a few of your posts, but I try to LIMIT myself in here because of the ENDLESS BICKERING. Try not to make ASSUMPTIONS about others making ASSUMPTIONS. It may help.

Cheers

paolo

30-05-2009, 03:18 AM

Have luciferhorus and general secretary made themselves a kind of secret pact against the mainstream Duke of Kent strand?

luciferhorus

30-05-2009, 04:24 AM

Have luciferhorus and general secretary made themselves a kind of secret pact against the mainstream Duke of Kent strand?

No there is no secret pact at all; he is entirely hostile to me and smilarly with other anti-Masons here; he has yet to convert to the one true Anarchist political faith and not accepted by offer of 144 Virgins in the Gardens of eternal Paradise; however if I appear rather more sympathetic to him than previously, it is merely that I originally misunderstood the nature of his lodge; it is clear that his lodge is considered entirely heretical by the Duke of Kent's United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), but he is yet to establish whether his lodge is sufficiently heretical, blasphemous, anti-Christian, anti-Capitalist and Anarchist enough to accord with my rather high standards, and frankly I very much doubt it, and thus far it seems that his Lodge is just another competing cult of Capitalists.

http://www.faithandgeekery.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/rings-gandalf.jpg

Since I am an evangelical anti-Christian, I can hardly slag off other pagan groups just because they are pagans, since I would define myself also as Neo-pagan; further the Grand Secretary claims that his Lodge is of Druidic origin and I am on good terms with the Glastonbury Druids and attend many of their rituals; I consider them to be white magickans and rather 'Gandalf' archetypes who seek a very different type of future to the Capitalist agenda, whereas the UGLE Masons very much represent the Sauron types who wish to rule the earth and turn it into the kingdom of Mordor and enslave most of humanity; whether the same can be said for GS's cult, it is entirely unclear; they may in fact be doing Druidry a great disservice by using such a term in self description.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2188/2176084814_1c365a3b57.jpg?v=0
Above: the legendary Arthur Uther Pendragon, Honoured Pendragon of the Glastonbury Order of Druids, Official Swordbearer of the Secular Order of Druids, Member of the Council of British Druid Orders, and Swordbearer to the Cotswold Order of Druids.

Having got stoned a few years back with the political activist and anti-capitalist druid, the notorious King Arthur, I was rather impressed with him, certainly much more so than with the allegedly druidic Grand Secretary.

http://www.ugle.org.uk/ugle/images/CEA_0078_GM.jpg
Above: Grand Master Mason, fieldmarshall the Duke of Kent.

The Duke of Kent's cult for example is in my judgement entirely an evil cult and rather the anti-thesis of Druidry, and I share Icke's perspective on it; their membership includes many who are among the Capitalist and military establishment and they literally 'run' the City of London (where there are several hundred lodges within the square mile) and many of the major banks and Capitalist corporations.

My objections to Masonry are thus to do with their financial and miltiary power; they are evangelical militant Capitalists committed to Capitalist imperialist revolution and the total enslavement of humanity; I am entirely unsure is GS's members have the same commitment.

http://www.defence.pk/gallery/data/697/medium/613.jpg

I should point out that the Grand Secretary's lodge claims allegiance to the British Monarch and demands that it's members be 'law abiding citizens;' thus as an Anarchist I am in no position to defend him entirely, since such statements are anti-thetical to anti-Monarchism (anti-tyranny), Anarchism and anti-Capitalism in general; however I think it appropriate not to show him the same contempt as the UGLE cultists; any group considered so blasphemous and heretical by UGLE must at least deserve some consderation; however based upon statements made on his Internet site I doubt if they are sufficiently blasphemous and heretical enough to meet entirely with my approval; unless of course they are keeping such matters to yourself.

I am quite concerned that the list of 'famous Masons' on GS's site is rather similar to that found on the sites of 'regular' Masonry and includes a number of tyrants (Monarchs) which seems to suggest that they may not be as heretical as alleged.

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/pics/Witch2.jpg

Generally I tend to recognise the spirit of absolute heresy, blasphemy, anti-Christianity and anti-Masonry (as in UGLE Masonry); and my impression of GS's cult does not quite come up to my very high standards.

Lucis Rex.
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif
High Priest of all manner of Blasphemy and Heresy.

flyermay

30-05-2009, 11:21 AM

Have luciferhorus and general secretary made themselves a kind of secret pact against the mainstream Duke of Kent strand?

Are you joking, GS is monarchic to the core. You will never see him posting against anyone related to the royal family (whether they are members of the UGLE or no).

grandsecretary

01-06-2009, 11:11 AM

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2188/2176084814_1c365a3b57.jpg?v=0
Above: the legendary Arthur Uther Pendragon, Honoured Pendragon of the Glastonbury Order of Druids, Official Swordbearer of the Secular Order of Druids, Member of the Council of British Druid Orders, and Swordbearer to the Cotswold Order of Druids.

Pendragon or Pen Draig: head dragon or chief dragon, the name of the traditional Kings of the Britons.

e.g. Aurelius Ambrosius, son of Constantine II.

Pen pan las, ni bu gas gymraw,
Pen pan las, oedd lesach peidiaw.
Pen milwr, pen moliant rhag llaw,
Pen dragon, pen draig oedd arnaw.

boots

01-06-2009, 11:38 AM

http://www.defence.pk/gallery/data/697/medium/613.jpg

Wouldn't you just love to sink that right into the heart of that reptilian capitalist bitch.

:D

.

lase

01-06-2009, 02:13 PM

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2433/ronpaulmason01qz1.png (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ronpaulmason01qz1.png)

Is that Ron Paul?

flyermay

01-06-2009, 02:18 PM

Is that Ron Paul?

No way.:)

luciferhorus

01-06-2009, 06:04 PM

Pendragon or Pen Draig: head dragon or chief dragon, the name of the traditional Kings of the Britons.

e.g. Aurelius Ambrosius, son of Constantine II.

Pen pan las, ni bu gas gymraw,
Pen pan las, oedd lesach peidiaw.
Pen milwr, pen moliant rhag llaw,
Pen dragon, pen draig oedd arnaw.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/07ep7yi8Z51f3/610x.jpg

Yes Arthur Uther Pendragon is also commonly known among the Druids as 'King' Arthur. Since your own Masonic lodge recognises the German Christian monarch Elizabeth (Windsor; formerly Saxe-Coburg-Gotha), I would think that obviously any British Druidic contenders to the throne would be a problem and a challenge to your expressed loyalty to the Germans and their Christian religion.

http://z.hubpages.com/u/401300_f260.jpg

The State
vs
Arthur Pendragon

Salisbury Magistrates Court, September 13th 1995

The Prologue...

King Arthur's peaceful requests to enter Stonehenge at every Summer Solstice since 1985 had long been a thorn in the side of the British government, and he had already been arrested several times over the years, only to be released without charge or aquitted in court. This year for the first time they were able to arrest him under the section 14.b.2. of the brand new Criminal Justice Bill of 1994. This act had been passed by parliament specifically to deal with peaceful protesters who could not be arrested under the old 1986 public order act. His case came up nearly three months later at Salisbury Magistrates Court on Wednesday 13th September. Several druid orders including IOD were there in full druid robes to lend moral support from the public gallery, and to make sure that the press turned up to photograph the silly druids.

http://www.lugodoc.demon.co.uk/Druids/1995%20Salisbury%20CJB.htm

It would appear that not only is King Arthur a contender for the British Crown, but that the Crown have considered him to be a tresspasser with regards to sacred sites such as Stonehenge, which are considered the property of the German monarch.

Does your allegedly 'druidic' Lodge recognise these other non-law-abiding druidic orders who do not offer allegiance to your German Christian monarch?

Also since the Durids await the return of a King Arthur to restore the Druidic Kingdom and replace the current Christian kingdom of your monarch, I cannot see how offering loyalty to the current monarch is compatible with druidry, which you claim to represent.

http://www.lugodoc.demon.co.uk/Druids/2004%20Wilkinson%201.jpg

http://www.lugodoc.demon.co.uk/Druids/1996%20IOD%20ritual.jpg

LL

Lux

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/UK_Royal_Coat_of_Arms.svg/200px-UK_Royal_Coat_of_Arms.svg.png

The House of Windsor is the current Royal House of the United Kingdom and each of the other Commonwealth realms. The royal house was created from the British branch of the German House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha by George V by a royal proclamation in 1917. ...........Queen Victoria was married to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha – son of Duke Ernst I of the small German duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. ....................High anti-German sentiment amongst the people of the British Empire during World War I reached a peak in March 1917, when the Gotha G.IV, a heavy aircraft capable of crossing the English Channel began bombing London directly. The aircraft became a household name, and it unfortunately was part of the name of the royal family...............King and his family were finally convinced to abandon all titles held under the German Crown, and to change Germanic titles and house names to Anglican versions. .............Upon hearing that his cousin had changed the name of the British royal house to Windsor, German Emperor Wilhelm II remarked jokingly that he planned to see Shakespeare's play The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor

http://www.britishblogs.co.uk/images/490653.jpg

grandsecretary

02-06-2009, 01:32 AM

Since your own Masonic lodge recognises the German Christian monarch Elizabeth (Windsor; formerly Saxe-Coburg-Gotha),

Oh - really?

luciferhorus

02-06-2009, 01:42 AM

Oh - really?

Well I quote from your Internet site:

"Good citizenship, law abiding and exemplary behaviour are minimum requirements....We are patriotic by nature, and remain loyal to the Sovereign Power of our native land."

http://www.grandlodgeofallengland.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=25

grandsecretary

02-06-2009, 02:02 AM

You are quite right we "recognise" reality. We "recognise" that we have a Labour Government and we "recognise" that we must pay our taxes. We "recognise" that you are a communist. Get the picture? That is democracy. Democracy demands that we accept the views and the will of the majority. That does not exclude our right to argue, or plan for a different situation (in private).

luciferhorus

02-06-2009, 02:35 AM

You are quite right we "recognise" reality. We "recognise" that we have a Labour Government and we "recognise" that we must pay our taxes. We "recognise" that you are a communist. Get the picture?

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii186/DutchPhil/queen_elizabeth_malta_robe.gif

I 'recognise' that the sky is blue and that I live in a Monarchy, but with regards to the statement on your Internet site:

"Good citizenship, law abiding and exemplary behaviour are minimum requirements....We are patriotic by nature, and remain loyal to the Sovereign Power of our native land."

Remaining 'loyal to the Sovereign Power' is somewhat different to 'recognising' that we live in a monarchy or recognising the blueness of the sky.

That is democracy. Democracy demands that we accept the views and the will of the majority. That does not exclude our right to argue, or plan for a different situation (in private).

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44312000/jpg/_44312883_5coronation_pa_416.jpg

Democracy was a system used in ancient Athens; rather than electing representatives who would vote on issues on their behalf (as in a Rebublic with elected representatives), the Athenian citizens themselves would vote on the issues of the Day; for example if a general wished to wage war, he would have to convince the citizens to vote in favour of war.

http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/A/7/queen_and_soldiers.jpg

In our nation, the Queen is the head of state, head of the Church (she is Jesus' representative on earth to all Anglicans) and head of the Arm.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/12/3/1228307653959/Queen-Elizabeth-enters-Pa-002.jpg
Above: The Queen enters 'her' parliament.

Elizabeth rules by divine right as indicated on her Crest, and in the name of her god (Jesus); the parliament is the Queen's Parliament and the statue of Cromwell outside the parliament is just for show.

http://www.bongonews.com/StoryImages/Queen_dig.jpg

In our nation if the Prime Minister (First Servant) wishes to go to war, he need not have the approval of either the electorate (as he would have to in a democracy), or the Parliament (as he would in a republic), he only needs to have the Queen's consent (it is her army after all); this as I understand it is the justification that the war is 'legal;' further the Queen is 'above the law' and cannot be prosecuted for any reason whatsover, including the genocide of the Iraqi and Afghan people and the littering of their lands with depleted Uranium; none of this has anything to do with 'democracy' but with the tyranny that is monarchy; democracy is rather the tyranny of the majority.

http://www.vt911.org/Queen%20Elizabeth%20and%20Rudy%20Giuliani.bmp

LL

Lux

grandsecretary

02-06-2009, 10:53 AM

But in a democracy, a monarchy cannot continue to exist without the will of the people. This also applies to the type of monarchy that we support (tolerate). We are evolutionaries and not revolutionaries. This is why you are bound to be impatient with us.

The debate that is going on today between the United Grand Lodge of England, and the Grand Lodge of All England is the same debate that took place at the beginning of the 19th century when the Hanoverian Royal family recognised its loss of direct political power, and sought to replace it by indirect political influence which included the takeover of Free Masonry.

These quotes also appear on our website:

With the Duke of Sussex now at its head as Grand Master, the United Grand Lodge of England represents the Hanoverian approach to all English constitutional structures including the Church and Parliament: hegemony; rationalisation; rigid control and the ruthless elimination of any opposition to its edicts.

The Articles of Union of 1813 enable the bogus doctrine of Grand Lodge "recognition" together with the novel claim for exclusive territorial jurisdiction over English Freemasonry.

Whilst we remain a vital part of our democracy, The Grand Lodge of All England rejects this bogus claim and all that goes with it.

linkon2me

03-06-2009, 02:00 AM

luciferhorus

03-06-2009, 03:48 AM

But in a democracy, a monarchy cannot continue to exist without the will of the people.
.

http://z.hubpages.com/u/25200_f260.jpg

Language is a Lie. Words are Weapons.

http://www.davidszondy.com/ephemeral/Newspeak.jpg

Lingustics 101: Oldspeak and Newspeak.

“the destruction of words is a beautiful thing”

The above phrase from Orwell's ‘1984’ is a reference to the vocabulary of ‘Newspeak.’

I really have to take you up your use of Orwellian Newspeak. Bear in mind that Newspeak is not a new language, but merely the English language, it is merely that the definitions of language are redefined to suit the Archons, thus language becomes of form of propaganda.

In order that we may exchange anything meaningful by using words, I must point out that I only use Oldspeak and I tend to become rather irate when faced with a person speaking Newspeak.

Domocracy in Oldspeak and Newspeak

There is a general tendency to consider that the 'Queen's English' is the proper form of English, but Anarchists and linguists today do not refer to the language of the aristocracy, or the political Archons, or 'BBC English' as 'proper' English; we tend to refer to linguistic Archons such the American Jewish Anarchist Neon Chomsky, who is a professor of lingustics at MIT, and it is entirely irrelevant to his American accent; this very important matter does not concern itself with regional or aristocratic accents but with definitions of language and frankly 'democracy' is a Newspeak keyword and it is important to defend in Oldspeak; it is also a key to understanding the difference between Oldspeak and Newspeak.

Democratic Monarchy

Let us consider your statement:

But in a democracy, a monarchy cannot continue to exist without the will of the people.

http://www.clarionledger.com/misc/blogs/rchapman/uploaded_images/oxymoron-799173.jpg

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/10/23/128692824750353240.jpg

http://vrombc.com/v-web/gallery/albums/JamieJames/oxymoron.sized.jpg

OXYMORON

You cannot have a democratic monarchy any more than your can have an Anarchist government, a pregnant virgin, a peaceful war, a free slave, a sober drunk or a free mason (since they refer to others as 'Master). The terms 'democracy,' 'republic' and 'monarchy' are all fixed terms in Oldspeak and have traditional 'meanings' in the field of political science.

Republic

http://www.freewebs.com/rsfeasttyrone/rsf.gif

For example the Sinn Fein Party are the political arm of the Irish Republican Army; they wish to live in a Republic of elected representatives without a Monarch; despite having elected a long list of M.P.'s these republicans are forbidden to enter the Queen's parliament since they refuse to swear an oath to the Monarch.

Such a thing would not happen in a republic or a democracy; an expected response from a person clinging deparately to Newspeak would be to say 'Oh our Democracy is not perfect,' however this only shows that the victim has been totally hypnotised by Newspeak. We do not live in a republic or a democracy, but in a Monarchy.

Our M.P's are there to change the price of a dog license or a pint of beer or a liter of petrol, but they were not consulted over the current wars against Islam since such important matters are entirely beyond their domain; it is after all the Queen's army.

If I change the meaning of the words light to dark and dark to light, I can then only speak to other people who understand my own redefinitions of words; thus when on a bright sunny day I say 'It is pitch dark' that only has a meaning to those who accept my redefinitions.

Similarly with the word democracy (Gr 'demos:' people), when you refer to our current monarchy as a democracy, this is simply the use of language as propaganda, since the term 'democracy' appeals to our political idealism.

Newspeak as a hypnotic Tool

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Tyranny is Democracy...etc., etc., say that to a person 10,000 times and the product of all this is often a hypnotised slave, fighting in Iraq for the dictatorship of Capital listening to Gordon Brown on TV and clapping his hands as he speaks about the fight for 'freedom and democracy;' which is entirely the opposite of what the economic and aristocratic establishment represents.

a monarchy cannot continue to exist without the will of the people.

A Monarchy exists through the power of their police state. If the people do not want a Monarch that is entirely irrelevant; should the conditions for revolution appear however, that is another matter, however a mass uprising would be 'resisted' by the police state whose police and military in our nation have all sworn oaths of allegiance to the Monarch; even our police walk around with the initial and title of their tyrant (E.R.) stamped upon their foreheads; they represent Elizabeth Regina not the people, and our government is that of the 'Crown' not the 'demos;' one could just as well argue that dictatorships in North Korea, Burma oir Zimbabwe only exist by the will of the people, but we could only test this out of there were no police state to protect the tyrants; similarly in Britain.

You might try quoting the mantra of "a monarchy cannot continue to exist without the will of the people" in any pub full of the 'common people' in Scotland, Wales or in the non-loyalist areas of Belfast and see what kind of response you get; I would be interested in the results of your experiment, should you survive unharmed. I don't recommend this however, so do so entirely at your own risk.

This also applies to the type of monarchy that we support (tolerate). We are evolutionaries and not revolutionaries. This is why you are bound to be impatient with us.

Tolerating a monarchy is not quite the same as offering your loyalty.

"Good citizenship, law abiding and exemplary behaviour are minimum requirements....We are patriotic by nature, and remain loyal to the Sovereign Power of our native land."

http://www.popsiclesandgrenades.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/we-come-in-peace-democracy-posters.jpg

Whilst we remain a vital part of our democracy, The Grand Lodge of All England rejects this bogus claim and all that goes with it

Democracy, democracy, democracy. Say it a 1000 times and it will make not a difference. Do you mind speaking 'proper' Oldspeak English with me? If as you claim, you a part of our Druidic heritage, the constant use of Newspeak is unbecoming of your ancient tradition.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/45/114081154_0d8e8d4113.jpg

Democracy

Democracy (a system ruled by its people) is simply Newspeak for the dictatorship of Capital; in a democracy there would be, no monarch, no House of Parliament, no US Senate, no Congress, no elected representatives who would vote on half of anyone, and each citizen would have the right to vote on 'all' issues; this is the last thing that the Capitalist elites and the current political Archons want.

Love and Regards

Lux

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff214/TheInterface/1984_themovie.png

http://www.bendib.com/newones/2006/april/small/4-18-Democracy-in-Palestine.jpg

grandsecretary

03-06-2009, 04:07 PM

The Anglo-Saxon kings of Britain were elected by the Witan. There is absolutely no reason why the monarch either could, or should not be elected.

Tomorrow, June 4th, is the 20th anniversary of the massacre of Tienanmen Square, when luciferhorus's communist friends murdered thousands of their own citizens for wishing to exercise something which we take for granted, freedom of speech. Who elected Hu Jintao?

flyermay

03-06-2009, 04:46 PM

Tomorrow, June 4th, is the 20th anniversary of the massacre of Tienanmen Square, when luciferhorus's communist friends murdered thousands of their own citizens for wishing to exercise something which we take for granted, freedom of speech.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=309&pictureid=3964

luciferhorus

03-06-2009, 05:34 PM

The Anglo-Saxon kings of Britain were elected by the Witan..

From the time of Ine the Witan was composed of the aristocratic élite created by monarchy. The king, generally indeed advised by the existing nobility, conferred prelatures and ealdormanries, with both of which a seat in the national assembly [i.e. the witenagemot] was legally or practically connected. Members of the royal family, ladies not excepted, were present at many gemots. The king alone raised a man to the position of a gesith, a thane, a provincial or local reeve, a court officer or a royal chaplain, one of which titles seems to have been the indespensable qualification for a vote. ... as no periodicity of the assembly was fixed, the king determined when and where it was to meet, for the most part choosing places under his immediate control; he presided, spoke first, put his questions, proposed his bills, and finally dismissed the witan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witenagemot

The Witan were the equivalent of the House of Lords; they were the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy, entirely appointed by the King and were expected to offer their allegiance to the king. The situation seems to be much like the Roman Republic during periods of almost total dictatorship.

Monarchy

To restate, you cannot have a monarchy-democracy; you can either have a democracy or a monarchy; if the aristocracy get together and decide on a 'king', it is still a monarchy; an election of a tyrant does not constitute a democracy.

Democracy

A democracy is a Greek system where 'all' citizens have the right to vote on all issues; it is the tyranny of the majority. When a vote was called for the buliding of ships to defend Greece against the Persians, each citizen had to place a single shard of pottery in a pottery urn marked 'Yes' or 'No;' the shards were then counted and the desicion became law; there was no question of voting for someone who had the right to collectively vote on their behalf, as in our current corrupt and impotent Queen's Parliament.

If instead of democracy, citizens vote to elect other persons to represent them, then you have a Republic of elected officials and it is a Republic not a democracy; similarly if there were ever an elected monarch, you would have a monarchy, not a democracy.

In America there was once a constitional presidential Republic, not a democracy; today however in light of the Patriot Act, it is no longer a constitutional Presidential Republic, but a non-constitional Presidential Republic, where the dictator, if need be, need not refer to either the constitution or the elected Republic (Congress and Senate), but may do entirely as he wills.

No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their necks Ibid

This is simply mediaeval propaganda; if the aristocracy choose a king to serve their interests, he is hardy elected by 'the people,' i.e., the proletariat.

Victorian notions of a national 'witan' are crazy dreams without foundation, myths of a 'democratic parliament' that never wasIbid

Tomorrow, June 4th, is the 20th anniversary of the massacre of Tienanmen Square, when luciferhorus's communist friends murdered thousands of their own citizens for wishing to exercise something which we take for granted, freedom of speech.

Straw Man argument.

You won't find any Anarchists who support the Chinese government, other than for ad hoc reasons, similar to the reasons why the CIA supported Pol Pot and the Afghan Taliban.

The Myth of Tienamen Square in Capitalist Media Propaganda

You are just propagating the Tienamen myth which is simply Capitalist media propaganda.

Chairman Deng Xiaoping was hardly a Maoist or a Communist and initiated a great many Gorbachev style Capitalist reforms, which have brought China today to a land of prostitutes and slaves who work in foreign export factories to fill the shelves of Wall Mart.

http://www.cnd.org/June4th/photos/demo006.gif

Many of the students at Tienanmen were in fact Communists who were protesting government corruption and Deng Xiaoping's Capitalist reforms; the protest in the sqaure on that particular date was due the death of General Secretary of the Communist Party who was widely known for his criticism of government corruption, a fact conveniently ignored in Capitalist media propaganda.

Meanwhile the deaths of more than a million Iraqis and the littering of their nation with depleted uranium is rather is rather considered an insignificant detail of the world revolution of the dictatorship of Capital.

http://tuberose.com/Graphics/depleted-uranium.2005.jpeg

Lux
http://homepage.mac.com/juanwilson/islandbreath/%20Year%202007/17-peace&war/0717-07DUcartoon.jpg
________________

Tiananmen Square, 1989: China’s uprising (Extract)

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18040
....

Those at the top managed to put down the revolt using the utmost brutality. But they have failed to suppress its inspirational story or to deal with the issues that lay behind the protests, and that continue to spark resistance in China today.

Many commentators claim that the 1989 uprising was a movement against Communism and in favour of free market reforms.

In fact millions of people took to the streets of China to challenge the corrupt state bureaucracy and its turn to the world market.

The Chinese Communists, led by Mao Zedong, took power in 1949. They wanted to build an independent national economy that could compete on the world stage.

While the leaders used the language of socialism, they pushed through policies that subordinated the needs of China’s hundreds of millions of exploited peasants and workers.

Socialist Worker describes the regime as “state capitalist”. Its economy was based on class division and exploitation, but the state, rather than competing private companies, owned and controlled production.

The regime emulated the way society was organised in the Soviet Union, which had itself become state capitalist under the rule of Joseph Stalin.

After Mao’s death in 1976, Deng Xiaoping took control of the state. He opened China up to the global capitalist market in an attempt to solve the country’s economic problems.

Over the following years this intensified pressure on ordinary people, hitting students, workers and peasants. It inspired various protests, but none had become widespread.

The situation changed with the democracy movement sparked by the death of Hu Yaobong on 15 April 1989.

Hu had been the general secretary of the Communist Party for much of the 1980s and had been responsible for political reforms in China and Tibet.

The state bureaucracy forced him from office in 1987, after a series of student protests which it felt he was too sympathetic towards.

The day after his death students began to gather in the gigantic Tiananmen Square in the centre of China’s capital Beijing to remember Hu.
......

The defiant spirit shown 20 years ago in Tiananmen Square lives on.

The events of 1989, despite their bloody ending, revealed that China’s workers, peasants and students have the power to challenge the country’s rulers, and the potential, ultimately, to overthrow them.

This is the nightmare that still causes the butchers of Beijing to lose sleep.

______________

The Tiananmen Square massacre myth (extract)
Former diplomat, Gregory Clark, says most media outlets rehash same wrong story of the infamous event

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=14621

The Japan Times
Wednesday, September 15, 2004

By Gregory Clark

......Most media commentators, the BBC especially, have rehashed the standard condemnation of Deng as a hardliner who instigated a massacre of harmless demonstrating students in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989.

Why someone who had suffered cruelly at the hands of Cultural Revolution hardliners and who did so much to push China on the path of liberalization should himself become a hardliner is not explained. Even less does anyone seem to have felt any need to check out just what actually happened in Tiananmen in 1989.

http://www.thetruechina.com/photo/54881.jpg

...Blatantly anti-Beijing propaganda accounts have been unquestioningly accepted. Fortunately we now have a source whose sober impartiality cannot possibly be doubted, namely the de-classified reports from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing at the time (see Google under Tiananmen, Document 30 especially).

They confirm that there was no massacre in the square, that almost all the students who had been demonstrating there for two weeks had left the square quietly in the early hours of June 4, and that the real incident was panicky fighting triggered by crowds attacking troops, initially unarmed, as they headed for the square on June 3.

In the process a still indefinite number of troops, students and civilians were killed and many military vehicles were torched. Call it a mini civil war if you like, with troops eventually getting the upper hand over unarmed insurgents. But that is not a deliberate massacre of innocent students.

Curiously, the photo that most media use to illustrate the alleged student massacre shows a row of blazing army vehicles, some with crews trapped inside, in a long avenue that clearly is not part of Tiananmen Square. Indeed, the U.S. Embassy material speaks of troops only finally entering the square after some students attacked and killed a soldier in a vehicle at the entrance.

True, the Communist Party leadership under Deng later rounded up and imposed severe jail terms on student leaders involved in the Tiananmen demonstrations. But the same leadership had tried in vain to offer concessions to the students when they were camped in the square, and some of the student leaders have since admitted they were foolish to reject those concessions. Troops were only sent to remove the students when things were getting out of hand and the square needed to be cleaned up in advance of a Beijing visit by Soviet leader, Mikail Gorbachev.

Leader Li Peng later admitted that the real problem had been Beijing's inexperience in crowd control. Lacking the devices and trained police squads commonly used in the West for such control, it had had to rely on inexperienced troops.

If Beijing is to be faulted, it is for creating the conditions that encouraged the June 3 fighting outside the square. Years of insane Cultural Revolution economic policies and political oppression had created a sullen and impoverished proletariat only too willing to seize any excuse for antiregime violence. The attempt to remove the students from Tiananmen gave them that excuse.

Surprisingly, the media moralists so upset over the nonexistent Tiananmen massacre have little to say about the very brutal massacres of student demonstrators in Mexico (1968) and Thailand (1973). There, no effort was made to negotiate with or tolerate the students. They were rounded up immediately and killed in the hundreds. Yet both governments continued to enjoy Western approval. Meanwhile Beijing has had to suffer more than a decade of Western odium and sanctions for a non-massacre.

The New York Times, which should know better, recently ran an article by David Brooks opposing a EU move to lift some of these sanctions. He writes blandly of Beijing killing 3,000 students in the square. No sources are quoted. It is taken for granted that a massacre occurred.

This is not the first time Beijing has been condemned for something that did not happen. Perhaps the worst example was the Sino-Indian 1962 frontier war. As China desk officer in Canberra's foreign affairs bureaucracy at the time, I had to watch on impotently as the world, including Canberra, accused China of making an unprovoked attack on India when the evidence in front of me proved clearly that it was India that had first attacked China, across even the furthermost line of control demanded by India. It would be more than a decade before that evidence finally found the light of day. In the meantime, the myth of Chinese aggressiveness would be used to justify a raft of Western atrocities in Asia, the Vietnam intervention especially.
......

The latest sledgehammer aimed against Beijing, and a major reason for perpetuating the Tiananmen myth, is a claimed lack of Western-style political freedom. Whether Sinitic-culture nations with collective leaderships able to claim moral or revolutionary legitimacy -- Singapore is a good example -- should have to abide by Western-imposed standards of political conduct is debatable, particularly given the political circus we are seeing now in the U.S. But that aside, has anyone thought seriously of what would happen if China had our system of rival political parties competing for votes? First victim would be Beijing's one-child policy. The next victim would be the rest of the world as it tried to cope with the resource shortages and pollution created by a booming Chinese population. China is already destined to become a leading economic and political force in the world. The Western media should try harder to take it seriously.

Gregory Clark is a former Australian diplomat and vice president of Akita International University. A translation of this article will appear on www.gregoryclark.net

grandsecretary

03-06-2009, 11:15 PM

[I]The Myth of Tienamen Square in Capitalist Media Propaganda

You are just propagating the Tienamen myth which is simply Capitalist media propaganda.

Stock answer number 2? Read Kate Adie's book. She was there.

luciferhorus

04-06-2009, 01:03 AM

Stock answer number 2? Read Kate Adie's book. She was there.

On the BBC: a propaganda front for the Anglo-American state terrorists.

Capitalist propaganda; if Adie was not a propagandist, she would never be employed at the BBC, which still takes the view that Muslims were responsible for 7/7 and 911 and never rarely if ever refers to to Anglo-American narco-terrorism / state terrorism, and which supports those brave militants who drive around in their armoured cars with their bullet proof shooting civillians.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/february2007/260207wtcseven1.jpg

BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell

An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head

http://prisonplanet.com/Pictures/feb07/260207WTC_BBC3.jpg

http://prisonplanet.com/Pictures/feb07/260207WTC_BBC4.jpg

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm

More fun with the state terrorists over on the 911 forum on this (David Icke) website.

http://septemberthe11th.org/images/scripted.3.jpg

The BBC is simply a disseminator of government propaganda.

LL

Lux

http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/5503/building7nc7.gif

grandsecretary

04-06-2009, 11:07 AM

flyermay

04-06-2009, 12:18 PM

This is another stock response. Kate Adie was there, she is one of the world's leading journalists, and she tells it as it is.

luciferhorus you are criminally dishonest, willing to assassinate anybody's good character whenever they show you up for what you are - not worth listening to.

This summarises the honesty and credibility of the press:

30 years after the Vietnam War Norman Solomon asked Murrey Marder, chief diplomatic correspondent for the Washington Post during the war: “has there ever been a retraction by the Washington Post of its fallacious reporting on the gulf of Tonkin events”

To which Mr. Marder answered: “I can assure you it never happened”

Solomon then asked: “why didn’t you issue a retraction?”

To which Mr. Marder answered: “Well, if the news media was to retract its reporting on the Gulf of Tonkin, we would have to retract our reporting on the entire Vietnam War”.

(Source: RETRACTIONS OF REPORTING ARE QUITE SELECTIVE (http://www.change-links.org/RETRACTIONS.html))

grandsecretary

04-06-2009, 01:41 PM

[QUOTE=flyermay;1028809]This summarises the honesty and credibility of the press:[QUOTE]

Oh no it doesn't. The Washington Post is a long way from being representative of the press. It is not The British Broadcasting Corporation which is trusted throughout the world, and it never will be.

And our KATE ADIE is not Mr Marder whoever he is.

Back to the issue. Chinese Communism murdered thousands of its own citizens because they wanted to exercise their freedoms. Now that IS representative of the results of communist oppression.

flyermay

04-06-2009, 02:24 PM

Oh no it doesn't. The Washington Post is a long way from being representative of the press. It is not The British Broadcasting Corporation which is trusted throughout the world, and it never will be.

And our KATE ADIE is not Mr Marder whoever he is.

Back to the issue. Chinese Communism murdered thousands of its own citizens because they wanted to exercise their freedoms. Now that IS representative of the results of communist oppression.

Your Kate Adie, in any case, can be perfectly tagged as a "conspiracy theorist" by your own standards, as the OFFICIAL REPORTS stated that there were 241 deaths (soldiers included).

If you to distrust the Chinese government, then you shouldn't also believe the US and UK's governments, and much less the mainstream media covering them (BBC included); all three of them -including their propaganda channels- have been proved once and again to have lied, perverted the course of justice and mislead the public for their own political agendas.

Are you one of those with double-standards and double-morals?

grandsecretary

04-06-2009, 02:59 PM

Your Kate Adie, in any case, can be perfectly tagged as a "conspiracy theorist" by your own standards, as the OFFICIAL REPORTS stated that there were 241 deaths (soldiers included).

If you to distrust the Chinese government, then you shouldn't also believe the US and UK's governments, and much less the mainstream media covering them (BBC included); all three of them -including their propaganda channels- have been proved once and again to have lied, perverted the course of justice and mislead the public for their own political agendas.

Are you one of those with double-standards and double-morals?

IF I distrust the Chinese Government? The OFFICIAL reports? Do me a favour. "Mao Tse Tung was a pretty little rabbit who lived in the fairy woods".

flyermay

04-06-2009, 03:10 PM

IF I distrust the Chinese Government? The OFFICIAL reports? Do me a favour. "Mao Tse Tung was a pretty little rabbit who lived in the fairy woods".

Now that you have confirmed your double-standards, let’s continue with the mighty BBC and their foreign and domestic image:

Saving the BBC’s credibility

…Back when the Daily Pantagraph was carefully pigeon-holing stories into categories, the BBC had been wholeheartedly recruited to the Allied war effort and was broadcasting a nicely judged mixture of truth and propaganda directed at the armed forces, the civilian home front, occupied territories, neutral nations and the enemy. In total war, the ethics of broadcasting bend to the demands of political and military direction…
Source: Bill Hagerty (British Journalism Review) (http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/2003/no4_hagerty)

BBC credibility slipping fast

…The BBC is finally begin to admit that some of its programming is full of untruths. But it has yet to fully acknowledge the extent of the problem in its foreign news coverage. This cartoon from the Daily Telegraph, Britain’s highest circulation quality daily paper, sums up the problem:

Source: Tom Gross (National Review) (http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZThiNTdmZjY5ZmRmODZjNDQ2NDA0OWZjNDI1ZGNlZDE=)

http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2007/07/28/bbc.jpg

Broadcasting a lie

…Like all myths, the inflated reputation of the 'Beeb,' as the BBC is sometimes called in Britain, is based on some truth. In Britain, the government-owned station was once considered an impartial source that contrasted with the highly partisan English press. And the respect and affection with which the network is regarded around the world is also based on its historic role during World War II as the free world's outlet to occupied Europe.

But that was a long time ago. The BBC is no longer the only source for news around the world. And the once impartial tone of its radio and TV news is as dead as Winston Churchill…

Source: Jonathan Tobin (Jewish World Review) (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0204/tobin_2004_02_12.php3)

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0204/bbc_distortions.jpg

Note: All the quotes listed are a simple example from the FIRST PAGE of a Google search under "BBC Credibility", the total search results were 1.2 million webpages.

grandsecretary

04-06-2009, 03:24 PM

And who are you to run down the BBC? The MOST respected news organisation in the world, bar none? You are just against anything of value. Kate Adie is an award winning journalist. Just because you don't like what she says you attack her character. Typical of Communism.

It may not be the only source for world news but it is without equal for balanced, professional journalism.

flyermay

04-06-2009, 03:25 PM

And who are you to run down the BBC? The MOST respected news organisation in the world, bar none? You are just against anything of value.

I'm simply not as innocent and naive as you thought (or as you would like to)...

grandsecretary

04-06-2009, 03:29 PM

I'm simply not as innocent and naive as you thought (or as you would like to)...

Oh I never thought that you were either innocent or naive. I really do believe that you are as dangerous as the rest of the loonies here.

flyermay

04-06-2009, 03:38 PM

Oh I never thought that you were either innocent or naive. I really do believe that you are as dangerous as the rest of the loonies here.

lol

Aren't you freemasons fond on being seeking TRUTH?

Then you are definitely in the right place…

grandsecretary

04-06-2009, 04:18 PM

lol

Aren't you freemasons fond on being seeking TRUTH?

Then you are definitely in the right place…

I very much doubt it.

flyermay

04-06-2009, 06:25 PM

I very much doubt it.

It is entirely up to you which pill you choose...

http://bloggingadventure.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/red-pill-or-blue-pill.jpg

But remember: all I'm offering is the truth; nothing else.

linkon2me

04-06-2009, 10:55 PM

It is entirely up to you which pill you choose...

But remember: all I'm offering is the truth; nothing else.

He already took the blue pill(and still does I assume)

grandsecretary

04-06-2009, 11:21 PM

No, I am a pill free zone.

flyermay

04-06-2009, 11:25 PM

No, I am a pill free zone.

This is definitely the right time to make up your mind then:

http://bloggingadventure.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/red-pill-or-blue-pill.jpg

grandsecretary

05-06-2009, 05:41 PM

I don't take pills, and I make my own choices..

linkon2me

05-06-2009, 11:11 PM

I don't take pills, and I make my own choices..

are you a mason sir?

grandsecretary

06-06-2009, 07:00 PM

are you a mason sir?

Yes I am, a Free Mason. Why do you ask?

luciferhorus

06-06-2009, 08:13 PM

Yes I am, a Free Mason.

On Freemasonry

Lucifer
Light of the World
Aeon of Light 2009

http://www.marvel.com/universe3zx/images/thumb/a/a5/Phoenix_force.jpg/442px-Phoenix_force.jpg

Mason: etymology: probably derived from the roots of 'mahhon:' to make; 'machina:' machine, and 'maceria:' a wall.

Operative Masons

In ancient times, if you learned the Craft of stone Masonry, you may have been bound to a 'Master' and his 'Guild' who taught you the Craft of 'Making;' but the 'Free Operative Mason' was not bound to a location or to a local guild of Craftsmen; he could freely travel throughout the land and his 'grade' and his skill would be recognised anywhere and no other local Mason could claim a monopoly in his region.

I have spent much of my life in education and seem to be a perpetual student; as soon as I learn one skill or gain one qualification I move on to another; in addition to more pretentious acadmic qualifications, I also come fully equipped with many practical skills in construction, bio-chemistry and agriculture, including a building trade qualification. Thus I have a 'mastery' of a particular skill which is recognised throughout the land by other craftspersons in the construction of beautiful buildings and churches; however this term 'master' is merely the mastery of a certain skill, just as one may 'master' a language.'

An Operative Craftsman (a skilled maker of things) these days would have to reveal himself to me not by secret signs or silly handshakes, but by beautiful works cut into stone, and since we do not just use much 'stone' in 'making' these days, perhaps even by works of art in glass or wood or canvas or by works of iron or engineering. Such a person need 'bow' to none and need call no person 'Master,' nor be referred to as 'slave' for he (or she) would be a master of their Craft.

Speculative Masonry

For every slave a master and for every master a slave.

The operative mason cannot be recognised by their appearance; they may not wear silly aprons which confer rank, and their artistic skill cannot be imparted for a price or a certificate on a piece of paper or a silly handshake or knowledge of all matters esoteric or spiritual; they may dress in sackcloth (jeans) and be barefoot, but they may be a master of their Craft just the same.

The 'speculative (thinking; to speculate / ponder) Mason' may be a money lender or a person of absolutely no artistic or creative talent; he may be a military man who prefers to destroy all that is beautiful and to drop depleted uranium from the sky on children; but he may be recognised by his silly aprons, his pompous titles and his precious 'secrets;' he may be no more than a 'Master of War' or a 'Master of Capital (loan sharking),' and a destroyer and polluter of our world, and thus the anti-thesis of the Craftsperson or artist who is a 'maker' of all that is beautiful in the world which is a product of human creativity.

The Operative Master Craftworker is an entirely different use of the same word 'Master,' as used in the term 'Master Mason' in speculative Masonry, since only a slave prostrates themselves and refers to another person as 'Master.'

The speculative Mason who bows before another man and calls him Master is thus by default not a 'Free Mason' for by defintion the slave is not free; only the Master is free, unless he himself must turn and bow to another Master, who himself refers to another man as master.

In a cult of slaves, none are free.

For every slave a master and for every master a slave. Neither slaves nor Master be

There shall always be operative Masons and Craftspersons, musicians, artists and writers; thus in this sense only a primitivist who wishes to return to the stoneage would be an anti-Mason; but it is the religious cultists of speculative Masonry who are a curse on humanity, and which must in time pass away, for they contain many of the useless eaters and economic parasites of our world, who are very much the priesthood of the god of Capital.

The Phoenix will rise again from the ashes or Armageddon, but it must not and shall not be two faced (double headed), or war will begin all over again; for the speculative and operative masons are not two sides of the same coin, they are entirely the anti-thesis of each other, for one is creator and the other destroyer, one is free and the other is bound to his master and to the god of Captial; the latter are artists in stone in nature, in sound and in vision of much that is beautiful and good in our world, and the former are the priesthood of Capital; the forthcoming apocalyptic war will be very much a consequence of they and their god of Capital.

LL

Lux
Lux e tenebris
Ordo ab chaos

http://knightlydesigns.com/images/Pheonix%20Rising.jpg

Keywords. Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony Masonry Freemasony

grandsecretary

06-06-2009, 08:34 PM

luciferhorus

06-06-2009, 11:59 PM

Wrong again ...

You cannot mistake me for one who believes that the soul is not eternal and that there is not a Creator, so we try to convince others that there is a Creator; many parents will agree.

The soul is eternal, and there is only One Creator; this may be a truthism, but this is not sufficent; we must define our language.

I consider you to believe that the Creator is a paternalistic male; I do think that about you. Please correct me if I understand you.

You must be aware that I consider the Creator to be a Militant, Apocalyptic, Evangelical, African, Lesbian, Jewish, Anarchist, Communist / anti-Capitalist / anti-propertyist.

Please discuss

Lucis

grandsecretary

07-06-2009, 12:20 AM

You cannot mistake me for one who believes that the soul is not eternal and that there is not a Creator, so we try to convince others that there is a Creator; many parents will agree.

The soul is eternal, and there is only One Creator; this may be a truthism, but this is not sufficent; we must define our language.

I consider you to believe that the Creator is a paternalistic male; I do think that about you. Please correct me if I understand you.

You must be aware that I consider the Creator to be a Militant, Apocalyptic, Evangelical, African, Lesbian, Jewish, Anarchist, Communist / anti-Capitalist / anti-propertyist.

Please discuss

Lucis

It must be nice to be so certain.

boots

07-06-2009, 01:36 AM

On Freemasonry

Speculative Masonry

For every slave a master and for every master a slave.

The operative mason cannot be recognised by their appearance; they may not wear silly aprons which confer rank, and their artistic skill cannot be imparted for a price or a certificate on a piece of paper or a silly handshake or knowledge of all matters esoteric or spiritual; they may dress in sackcloth (jeans) and be barefoot, but they may be a master of their Craft just the same.

The 'speculative (thinking; to speculate / ponder) Mason' may be a money lender or a person of absolutely no artistic or creative talent; he may be a military man who prefers to destroy all that is beautiful and to drop depleted uranium from the sky on children; but he may be recognised by his silly aprons, his pompous titles and his precious 'secrets;' he may be no more than a 'Master of War' or a 'Master of Capital (loan sharking),' and a destroyer and polluter of our world, and thus the anti-thesis of the Craftsperson or artist who is a 'maker' of all that is beautiful in the world which is a product of human creativity.

The Operative Master Craftworker is an entirely different use of the same word 'Master,' as used in the term 'Master Mason' in speculative Masonry, since only a slave prostrates themselves and refers to another person as 'Master.'

The speculative Mason who bows before another man and calls him Master is thus by default not a 'Free Mason' for by defintion the slave is not free; only the Master is free, unless he himself must turn and bow to another Master, who himself refers to another man as master.

In a cult of slaves, none are free.

For every slave a master and for every master a slave. Neither slaves nor Master be

Very true. They are salves and don't even know it. They will never be free.

.

luciferhorus

07-06-2009, 04:11 PM

Wrong again ...

Freemasonry was never exclusively operative. Religious and initiatory aspects always went alongside the concrete, professional transmission of technical skills and the defence of the interest of members ... (SOURCE: An Outsiders View of Freemasonry, Annex 2 by Gilles C H Nullens)

The entirety of Nullens' text is on his website:http://www.nullens.org/content/category/1/15/51/;

It is certainly a great work which I shall give some attention to, and it merits more than a brief skim reading on my part; I find his other works on the Historical Jesus, Religion and Afghanistan to be of merit also.

Just to comment briefly.

I think it would be an obvious general truth to say that 'our ancestors were religious.' The study of mediaeval Craft and Merchant guilds is very much entwined with the history of Europe, and Europeans have in the past been entirely 'religious;' the development of humanist and atheistic philosophies are rather recent post-enlightenment trends.

I do not find the operative (Craft) guilds to be quite the same as modern Masonry; while the Craft guilds often had religious associations, I find them to be more Christian than druidic, much as I would wish it were otherwise.

http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonicmuseum/images/CabinetCardWomaninMasonicRegalia1.jpg

Certainly the 'Templars' appear to have been an entirely religious cult, but with regards to the mediaeval Craft guilds, what evidence would you present that they were 'Masonic' in the same way that we understand modern Masons as a cult with esoteric rituals, aprons, temples etc? It seems to me that much of the Masonic tradition, though claming an ancient legacy, is entirely a modern development.

It must be nice to be so certain.

I had a little too much to drink yesterday:-) My reference to the Lesbian Anarchist god is merely to suggest that the Paternalistic god of Masonry and Christianity is an anrthromorphic (i.e., a projection of human consciousness) creation; this is not to suggest atheism or anti-spiritualism however, since I am entirely a Deist and quite aware of the existence of the gods and goddesses (ancestral spirits).; however it is entirely to be expected from a cult of paternalistic Capitalists, that their deity would be a Capitalist male.

LL

Lux

linkon2me

08-06-2009, 05:57 PM

Yes I am, a Free Mason. Why do you ask?

Then how do you mean; I make my own choises??
If by that you mean going to the bathroom by yourself?? I mean GRANDsecretary, may sound very grand, but we both know that there are still many degrees/ranks above you so that makes you a tool, a dog to be used. The same way they use soldiers. (well connected to the freemasons, zionist Jew and CFR member H. Kissinger said military men are “dumb(that is you), stupid animals to be used” as pawns(that is you)...)

That is why you, completly fucked up by your own failures (cus you gave in to the system and listened not to your hearts), and dissillusioned by life in its true essence join an organization to team up(against what,..who?) and make life misrable for the new generation.

grandsecretary

08-06-2009, 07:17 PM

The entirety of Nullens' text is on his website:http://www.nullens.org/content/category/1/15/51/;

It is certainly a great work which I shall give some attention to, and it merits more than a brief skim reading on my part; I find his other works on the Historical Jesus, Religion and Afghanistan to be of merit also.

Well Gilles is quite right on this issue. The attempt to separate the operative from the religious and speculative nature of freemasory is just a device used by those who wish to suggest that organised freemasonry started in the tiny back room of a London pub in 1717.

When this idiocy is pointed out to them, they fall back upon the use of propoganda which suggests that the Moderns form of freemasonry is "speculative" but that which preceded it was purely "operative".

Don't fall for it luciferhorus. This is classic disinformation.

linkon2me

08-06-2009, 09:10 PM

Well Gilles is quite right on this issue. The attempt to separate the operative from the religious and speculative nature of freemasory is just a device used by those who wish to suggest that organised freemasonry started in the tiny back room of a London pub in 1717.

When this idiocy is pointed out to them, they fall back upon the use of propoganda which suggests that the Moderns form of freemasonry is "speculative" but that which preceded it was purely "operative".

Don't fall for it luciferhorus. This is classic disinformation.

and BTW, English isnt my 1st language, Dutch is, if mr Plonker would like, we can continue this in Dutch, or how about French? no? In German maybe? or is Turkish a better option?

luciferhorus

08-06-2009, 11:33 PM

Plonker is your family name bitch. I fuck your fucking face up you lil germ. You know I am right that you are nothing more than a joke. I see these suckers who look alot like you, in my hometown. They drive expensive cars, and wear all black suits, all feeling important, cus their scouts buddys give them all the attention that they need(get it ;) ). I could break either one of em with one blow. You manipulating twisted fucks, ooooo man, wish I had you in front of me now, and hear you call me a plonker, you would hear only that PLONK hahah.

Heresy

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/0/9/0/3/TortureWomanClergy-e.jpg

I should point out that our Grand Secretary here is from an underground sect of Masonry which is considered entirely heretical by the vast majority of Freemasons in the world, and that it is not the same group which David Icke and Stephen Knight refer to in their writings; they do not control the City of London and the head of their cult is not Field Marshal Grand Master the Duke of Kent whose troops are currently bombing Iraq and Afghanistan for blood, oil and opium.

So heretical, dangerous and revolutionary is the Grand Secretary's allegedly blasphemous organisation that Masons who associate with them are threatened with disciplinary action and possible excommunication by the officers of the Grand Lodge.

I think that any group of underground Masons who are so despised by Masonry in general are worth studying.

Also, I know why yall never have a mixed session(or wtf you call them), .... why? You are all homosexuals who are in the closet. I mean I have nothing against homosexuals, but at least tell us you're one. I bet that you have a wife and children dontcha ya raggedyass motherfucker, acting all natural going to work and all. You all dont scare me, never did, never will. fuck youc

http://history.research.glam.ac.uk/media/files/photos/godhatesfags.jpg

I suspect that our Grand Secretary is rather straight; if you want to direct a homophobic rant at someone, you would be entirely justified in directing it at me instead; though I also like females, but hate the Christian god with as much venom as he obviously hates me (and if he doesn't hate me, he certainly should).

“In fact, if Christ himself stood in my way, I, like Nietzsche, would not hesitate to squish him like a worm”...Che Guevara

Psychology of Religion 101.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j248/jaynecounty/Tim2-11_half.jpg

It does however strike me as rather strange that a man would join an exclusively male and paternalistic cult (which forbids women), prostrate themselves before other males and refer to them as 'Master.' At least in Crowley's cults females were admitted and the cults were more overtly and 'actually' sexual; Crowley being a sex-magick fiend; whereas on the other hand I find that a reading of the various Masonic rituals to be rather 'boring.'

http://www.miodestino.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/lingerie_dr_evil_surgery.jpg

Personally I find the Wiccans (witches, or 'wicked' by defintion of paternalistic religions such as Christianity and Islam) to have much more of a feminist and indeed 'balanced (as in the balance of male /female)' approach;' indeed it has been argued by Wiccanists that in order to do the rituals (which although modern in invention, admittedly have some similarities with Masonic rituals and are probably rooted in more ancient mystery traditions), that one 'must' have males and females. This has been disputed by some Gay Pagans who argue that one can merely substitute a passive male in the role of the feminine, but I don't find such arguments among the Masons who have an entirely male hierarchy and the lack of a Diana / Venus archetype in their rituals.

http://img3387.imagevenue.com/loc379/09372_MS_Index_image_123_379lo_123_379lo.jpg

And then there is the issue of swearing oaths on the Bible.

http://www.gdargaud.net/Humor/Pics/Bible.jpg

Love and Light

Lucifer

lightgiver

12-08-2009, 09:11 PM

Is that Ron Paul?

Yes it is ;)

edelweiss pirate

13-08-2009, 01:03 AM

http://www.rothschild.com/businesses/

scroll down to private banking and trust

It isn't but there is a manipulators 'business trick' where as you're shaking hands you put your finger on the point of the arm where the pulse is usually felt, this catches the person off guard making them receptive to suggestion and you can influence them at that point. At a stretch this could be what is happening in the photo.