Ron Paul and Freemasonry?

I ran across this story on www.rense.com. Rense.com is PRO Ron Paul btw. I was very upset about this and I am sure the rest of you will be also....

http://aftermathnews....

Barabara, thanks for posting this. I read it just before I saw it here, and was contemplating if I should post it and in what context.

Here's my take on it:

"Aftermath News" is a blog on the wordpress.com site. It is entirely someone's opinion.

I've read many "stories" which follow the formula this one does:

1 - Use a scathing headline based on guilt by association

2 - have little of substance to the actual question posed by the headline

3 - provide some verifiable facts which are very remotely related to the subject, but which even if verified shed absolutely no light on the question posed by the headline

4 - take words spoken by the 'accused' out of context or extrapolate the context with your own ideas and suppositions as to what the person 'really' meant when they said them

5 - spend plenty of time claiming the organization the accused is supposedly allied with as being evil, adding cross associations of the organization itself, the accused, or other 'known evil people' connecting them all together in some implied satanic web behind the scenes.

6 - leave no question that the implication is that the accused is practically an agent of satan himself, has direct communication with the lord of darkness, and that the accused is of course intentionally hiding all associations which give this away to his supporters. (despite the fact that item #4 - direct statements and admissions of the accused taken out of context, or with context added, directly contradicts the 'they are obviously hiding it all' claim)

What you have here folks is a classic case of BS posing as news. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph of the 'story' to get the author's opinion and agenda. He already 'knows' what the result of further investigation will show, and he calls on you to go look it up for yourself. You will of course spend countless hours hitting dead end leads, or gaining little if any new information over what was present in the hit piece. I can't think of a more unfair or unbalanced approach, nor a more sorry excuse for journalism. Of course if pressed, the author will be quick to remind you that what you were reading was a blog entry. "Blog" is short for the combined term "WebLog" or a log of things and events on the web. It has morphed in practical use to an online diary, or the equivalent of an "editorial page" for every individual to comment on the news or events of the day as they see them. Even editorialists will note that their columns are not ever intended to be taken as actual news, but merely their opinion of it. The "opp ed" page exists to provide an opposite view of the lower editors in a paper, or even that of its readers, from that of the editor in chief of the paper.

I read Rense too. He links to a large amount of blogs though. Infowars also has a problem with their 'news.' Many of their articles are originating from other sources, but Infowars does not always post the link to go to the original source. Many of their 'articles' have dubious at best names for their supposed sources. (these are usually the ones without links to the original)

If the article on Infowars or Rense doesn't take me to the original or provide a link, or if it is a blog, I generally don't give it much attention. Though there are some blogs which follow the standards of good journalism and have multiple sources for pertinent facts for their claims. (these are basically news writers who use a blog medium rather than paying for their own news website)

I find World Net Daily to be a bit more along the lines of what is traditionally accepted as trustworthy news. (there is a standard of having two independent and verifiable sources for every claim made in an article or the claim does not get published. Think about that when reading stuff on the 'alternative' news sites)

**NOTE** I didn't make mention of any of this because I think I know better than anyone else. (for those of you who seem to think that is my M.O.) Some may not know where many parts of the internet came from, or why they exist or may not have thought about electronic communications and what their non electronic counterparts are. I only post this here, because in over 15 years of researching every far out topic you could possibly imagine, I've had to learn how to "separate the wheat form the chaff" so to speak and I don't see any need for everyone else to have to spend countless hours in lala land when they could focus on things with some facts behind them. (but if they want to waste away in lala land, that is their business)

As to the actual question of "is Ron Paul a Mason?" my answer is personally, I care not. I have not seen a single action by him, or any statement by him to in anyway indicate that he is anything other than what we see him as: a man of truth, integrity, and courage who fervently believes in the power of the individual over the state and the righteousness in his drive to wake the people up to take back their power they have surrendered to government. If this blogger was so on to something, and we should believe that Paul really is a Trojan horse, then why is he getting so much resistance from his alleged "friends" who are also allegedly members of these nefarious organizations?

Most of our founding fathers were masons. Look at what they stood for and wrote. Look at what they did. I think Paul is in pretty good company if he is in fact a member. There are good people and bad people in EVERY organization. Just because there are some bad people in a group, does not automatically make every member evil by association. If that is the case, and this blogger is correct, then everyone of us is evil for our support of Dr. Paul by association as well.

Adrien,

Thanks for your (always) astute and comprehensive response. From my perspective--in a word--YES.

Good point about the Founding Fathers and Masonry. We try to apprehend who the NWO actually IS, and though we know it exists, we always fall short on specifics, and must revert to generalizations, as IT is not exactly a monolith. We also can be fairly certain that everyone in a given organization--such as the CFR--is not at an equal level of knowledge, power and influence. So it is with other organizations--and especially the ones with a long history, like the Masons or the Jesuits.

To the keen observer, Aaron Russo's comments in the Alex Jones interview should give one a perspective on the various motivations people have for joining exclusive and secretive organizations--and they are diverse.


http://video.google.c...

I might also point out the very un-monolithic dissensions in the ranks of the "NWO", most obviously demonstrated by Zbigniew Brezenski's(sp?) frequent excoriations of Bush and the neo-cons. Look 'em up, everybody--these guys are all globalists, mind you...Let us not be too simplistic. The miracle of internet research is relatively new--and possibly temporary. Let's not ignore the larger frames of history.

Mind you, I attended the funeral of a friend who was a Mason, and their little ceremony gave me the creeps. But I'll wager that these rituals were a lot less creepy to my grandfather, who was an insurance man, a decent guy, likely with no ambitions for overthrowing the Constitution--and likely with a much better grasp of same than the average American today! He was not living in these times...

Bottom line: In the imperfect world of politics, if Dr. Paul--with all his consistency in the long period that most of us didn't know he existed--is some conceivable shill for those who would rob us, I think that, relatively speaking, I would stick with him anyway.

I seem to have lost the link--think it was on the dailypaul website--but if you see his May 14th comments on Faux News (I can't believe Fox has been 'forced' by the political winds to air them...), then you might want to stick with Ron...

Just my take. Thanks all. Let's keep talking. And get better, smarter, and more effective.

Thanks Larry. Here's a little something I forgot to mention in my last post.


Anyone interested might also want to look into the history of the masonic guilds and why they were formed. In those days, ideas such as Liberty and individual sovereignty were considered treason against the various crowns of Europe. These people met in secret to discuss their thoughts and ideas because they had to in order to avoid death sentences. Not because they were evil, but because they were a threat to power. Surely some in that organization may have taken another less enlightened path (still believing themselves to be enlightened) but that shouldn't taint the history of the rest of the group.

The Roman Catholic church was responsible for the Inquisition. Does that negate the teachings of Jesus?

Yes, there are power brokers in this world. Not all of them agree with one another. They are fighting for control. We are witnessing the results in our daily lives.

THIS is why global governance will not work. THIS is why if it ever will come about, it must slowly evolve from the bottom up, very decentralized, with maximum individual liberty and limited governmental power the higher you go up the chain.

Have no fear, if "they" get what they want, they will kill themselves off in competition for the top spot. Heck, they are doing that right now. Personally, I'm just going to keep an eye on them, and make sure I can survive being "collateral damage."