Dan Brown has said he hopes people take more of an interest in freemansonry after reading his new book, and it's been agreed by masons that it could be a very useful recruiting tool for their luciferian kabbalist organisation.

Given that I would rather burn out my own eyeballs with redhot pokers than read a Dan Brown book, I should be fairly safe from getting brainwashed into becoming a mason then.

lol I've read 2 of his books, deception point and angels and demons, and I thought they were well told stories though the factual information on the esoteric stuff is typically skewed.

Also don't worry about being brainwashed cos to become a mason you have to join by your own free will according to their induction ritual Of course free will might seem like free will but be coersion but that's another kettle of fish. And I hate fish.

[swervedriver]

Dan Brown has said he hopes people take more of an interest in freemansonry after reading his new book, and it's been agreed by masons that it could be a very useful recruiting tool for their luciferian kabbalist organisation.

Given that I would rather burn out my own eyeballs with redhot pokers than read a Dan Brown book, I should be fairly safe from getting brainwashed into becoming a mason then.

lol I've read 2 of his books, deception point and angels and demons, and I thought they were well told stories though the factual information on the esoteric stuff is typically skewed.

Well, there's that and there's also parachuting popes from exploding helicopters.

Dan Brown has said he hopes people take more of an interest in freemansonry after reading his new book, and it's been agreed by masons that it could be a very useful recruiting tool for their luciferian kabbalist organisation.

Given that I would rather burn out my own eyeballs with redhot pokers than read a Dan Brown book, I should be fairly safe from getting brainwashed into becoming a mason then.

lol I've read 2 of his books, deception point and angels and demons, and I thought they were well told stories though the factual information on the esoteric stuff is typically skewed.

Well, there's that and there's also parachuting popes from exploding helicopters.

TO THE POPEMOBILE!!! XD

When I was young I did quite a bit of reading on the masons. I have friends who are masons but most stop, or at least stop progressing, after they've achieved 3rd degree status. At this level, they appear to be nothing more than a charitable organization full of well-intentioned elderly gentlemen. They get lenience on tickets and traffic offences, maybe permits and administrative bullshit moves faster for them and there seems to be a small bubble of good fortune that surrounds them. However, according to my research, there are 33 degrees to the masonic heirarchy. I have never spoken to any mason that has ever even met anyone close to that status.
I used to really believe there was something to the mysterious organization. If in fact that is the case, I suspect only a small percentage of a percent actually know anything sinister or truly secret. Over the years, as I grew older, and studied politics and history a little more thoroughly, I started viewing the masons as a sort of smokescreen. In fact, this was around the same time as Dan Brown's first book. I may even subscribe to some of his theories. However, I think he has done the world a disservice by creating a fictional narrative that is loosely based in truths. If there ever was any great mystery to the masons and their links to people in powerful positions, it is easily refutable by simply saying it's more of that "Dan Brown fiction".
Since there is concrete proof that the masonic organization dates back to ancient Egyptian times, I have little doubt that there is something terrible at it's core. However, I feel that 99.999% of it's members are clueless as to what that could be and will never be anything more that a 3rd degree pleasant old man. It kind of has some parallels to my opinions of organized religion.
Remember folks, history, as we know it, is the written account of the winner. There are many facts and stories that will be buried forever with the defeated. There are many current "evil" organizations that the world should spend time investigating and exposing. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the controlling interests of the American Isreal Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) are far more dangerous to us today than the masons.

I agree with you about Dan Brown's inaccuracies delegitimising the debate on freemasonry to an extent, and I can imagine the MSM conversations on tv as we speak using that exact same vernacular ("that dan brown fiction.")

Nice bit of doublethink mental gymnastics if you take into account the stuff I posted about it being a positive recruiting tool for people to consider joining them if you consider this:

I have to disagree that they're a benevolent organisation considering the high-up membership list of elites who're also CFR/Trilat. Commission/Royal Institute For International Affairs/Bilderberg Group, and the luciferian/kabbalistic rituals that take place in lodges within the upper degrees (from my research there are several more degrees than the 33rd but no one knows for sure how many more, taking numerology into account of course...) such as those described by Manly P. Hall and Albert Pike (founder of the original KKK which I'm sure you knew as well as the geomantic architecture that can be found in cities throughout the world. The influence of the babylon mystery schools and by application, freemasonry, imo shouldn't be sniffed at. Though I agree again that there needs to be a focus on exposing global government and the fraudulent banking system as well as those previously mentioned institutions that're geared towards such things.

Everyone has their own belief system (even nothing is still something lol) and I think it's important to understand the religion of the "eugenic elite" personally.

Dan Brown sucks as an author. He builds stories off of one sided arguments, and his antagonists are always way too see through and blatantly flawed. Making the conflict shallow. Making the plot unstable.

Dan Brown sucks as an author. He builds stories off of one sided arguments, and his antagonists are always way too see through and blatantly flawed. Making the conflict shallow. Making the plot unstable.

With the books of his i've read i haven't found that e.g. Deception Point, but it's nice to see it's sparked a bit more dialogue between people about these things in general, even if the debates are easily hijacked like on tv/radio...

Personally i prefer to deal with the underlying message as I see it rather than the crap around it/ad hominem attacks like the MSM may try to do.

Personally i prefer to deal with the underlying message rather than the crap around it/ad hominem attacks

"Dan Brown sucks as an author" is not an ad hominem attack. Author is his job, so sucking at it is a legitimate criticism.
had someone said 'Freemasonry is clearly rubbish because Dan Brown sucks as an author', that would have been an ad hominem attack.

Personally i prefer to deal with the underlying message rather than the crap around it/ad hominem attacks

"Dan Brown sucks as an author" is not an ad hominem attack. Author is his job, so sucking at it is a legitimate criticism.
had someone said 'Freemasonry is clearly rubbish because Dan Brown sucks as an author', that would have been an ad hominem attack.

That was a generalisation, I didn't mean that in a hostile way directed at you

ATTACK TER N00B!!

Personally i prefer to deal with the underlying message rather than the crap around it/ad hominem attacks

"Dan Brown sucks as an author" is not an ad hominem attack. Author is his job, so sucking at it is a legitimate criticism.
had someone said 'Freemasonry is clearly rubbish because Dan Brown sucks as an author', that would have been an ad hominem attack.

That was a generalisation, I didn't mean that in a hostile way directed at you

I didn't think it was hostile, just incorrect. But don't feel bad. Most people who use 'ad hominem' do so incorrectly.

Personally i prefer to deal with the underlying message rather than the crap around it/ad hominem attacks

"Dan Brown sucks as an author" is not an ad hominem attack. Author is his job, so sucking at it is a legitimate criticism.
had someone said 'Freemasonry is clearly rubbish because Dan Brown sucks as an author', that would have been an ad hominem attack.

That was a generalisation, I didn't mean that in a hostile way directed at you

I didn't think it was hostile, just incorrect. But don't feel bad. Most people who use 'ad hominem' do so incorrectly.

Well... seeing as an ad hominem attack is basically an attack on someone's personality you could oversimplify it and say it is simply an insult of any sort, and in that case calling one of the world's top-selling (not that it means much obv.) authors a crap writer is technically an ad hominem attack Anyway what i meant was that instead of debating the facts and underlying message you could say "dan brown is a nutjob" or what have you to shut down debates on facts and obfuscate the original point.

Don't take that as me suggesting you're doing though hahahaha

What underlying message? He hates how humans manipulate people through Christianity and other large body organizations. (different from hating Christianity itself). It's not that underlying.

And that's fine to do. But if you want to portray an argument in a story, and you give the protagonist your side of the argument, a good author would do his best to make the antagonists side of the argument as strong as possible so as to make proper conflict and a strong point, where as Dan Brown makes his antagonists flawed so blatantly it's like he hangs a huge sign over them that says "WRONG!".

^I'd say that's a fairly legitimate criticism, not really obfuscation. I'd also say it makes him suck.

Also ad hominem is not just an attack on someones personality, it's an attack on them as a person to distract from an argument and is completely unrelated to the subject. It literally translates to "To the man", as in take the argument to the man, away from the subject. Plus I wasn't attacking his personality, just his literary work. So I'm hardly arguing ad hominem.

Mentioned his name here before when swervedriver mentioned Dan Brown.

If you want info on Masons with out becoming one, (via, some youtube'n) Jordan Maxwell. He actually teaches them their own symbol reference's.
Once again, be aware for yourself, no doubt there's some inaccuracy in his words.

Well... seeing as an ad hominem attack is basically an attack on someone's personality you could oversimplify it and say it is simply an insult of any sort, and in that case calling one of the world's top-selling (not that it means much obv.) authors a crap writer is technically an ad hominem attack Anyway what i meant was that instead of debating the facts and underlying message you could say "dan brown is a nutjob" or what have you to shut down debates on facts and obfuscate the original point.

Don't take that as me suggesting you're doing though hahahaha

ah, therein lies the point. An insult does not make a an ad hominem attack. It would only be ad hominem if the insult were being used as the basis to disprove the argument.

Quite apart from which, stating that Dan Brown sucks as an author is not an attack on his personality - it is an appraisal (and an accurate one) of his abilities. "Dan Brown is an asshole. His books suck" would be a personal attack and an insult in the first bit and an accurate appraisal of his work in the second. "Dan Brown is an asshole so his books suck" would be an ad hominem attack. "Dan Brown is an asshole so his books suck - therefore Freemasonry is rubbish" would have been an ad hominem attack in the discussion.

If you want further clarification, have a read of this:
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

there's a women's chapter

There are no women in the Masons, unless they've gone all "equal rights" in the past five years, which seems unlike them. Also, as for 33 degrees, they're into sacred architecture, and how many degrees in a circle? Meh, maybe I've said too much, but I've said enough. Something about pie...