SUMMARY of interaction: For those who want to TLDR this wonderful comment thread....
Silver: Freemasons? The issue is not as simple as people think. Definition of enemy: "Everyone working against that (our remaining stuck in the Matrix), no matter their association or even what they have done is not our enemy"
Dear Leader: There can be no distinction. I only think in terms of groups, and associations, and there can be no variance on that point. Therefore, "The Freemasons" are by definition NOT working against our remaining in the Matrix. Not a single one. They are all rotten, and there can be no doubt that NONE of them are not working to undermine us.
Silver: I think we should take a more nuanced approach to how we evaluate who or what our enemies are.
Dear Leader: No. I refuse. And because you are even attempting a more nuanced examination of the issue, you are a SHILL, and evil. Begone!
Silver: dude... Open you're mind a bit here. Can't you see that you're so identified with what you think is evil that you have pigeon-holed your own thinking? That's not helpful.
Dear Leader: whaa...? how dare y... ! You are.....!!! Well, you're an idiot! So there.
Silver: Hey, comon. Can't we at least have a rational discussion?
Dear Leader: well, you're a poopy head! And I hate the Freemasons, and you are defending them, so you're a double poopy head!
Silver: Damn, man. I'm NOT defending them. I'm saying, there's more too it. Anyway, <facepalm>. Jerk.
Dear Leader: Yeah, well my argument is better than your argument, so there. Dad said so.
Silver: No it's not.
Dear Leader: yes it is.
END.
See? This is how to have a productive interaction. Siblings will be siblings....
Edit: Dear Leader could have easily avoided this entire back and forth argument by simply agreeing with Silver's definition and then stating, well, in my opinion NO freemasons are working against us staying in the Matrix.
Instead, Dear Leader decided to attack Silver's line of thinking (seeking greater nuance) and completely avoided the reasonable yet uncontentious difference of opinion on whether or not ALL freemasons (or the ENTIRE freemason community as a whole) are working against our being freed from the Matrix.
He chose to argue the line of thinking, in order to defend his position (opinion).
Conclusion: Silver wins the argument by virtue of the fact that Dear Leader's approach was not so much based in reason as it was in a defensive attitude, instead of simply owning the disagreement.
8 points to House Lone Ranger, 5 points to House North Korea.
I made a clear distinction between low level out the loop masons on the ground and master masons.
Secret societies work because they went from underground fraternities being hunted and disliked by society to opening their doors and appearing to the world as charity working "brothers" who follow a code that involves decency and honor while higher ups are input into key positions in all facets of society.
It's fascinating that people on this site can't see that lol. Prince Philip was a Mason and we all know what that family is into and if you think for one second a person at that level in society is in a club where others in his rank or status are "good", then you're not paying attention at all.
Sad you went out of your way to write all that bullshit. But again, understand that I do not think people are inherently evil, however, if you join such a society you are contributing to the rot because you are being used as an "image". No different than an idiot doctor who reads corrupt data from those above them and scares the population into believing covid bs.
I appreciate the reply. I guess I was a bit harsh on your because of the style and tone of your argument.
Perhaps what I was really attempting to highlight is that both of you have reasonable points, or at the least, something to offer on the topic, but that too rigid a viewpoint (which I think you have displayed, and which I think undermines or at least does not do justice to the good points you actually have to make) - too rigid a viewpoint creates an absolutist approach, where it is all or nothing.
In your response here, too, with all due respect, you seem to miss the point entirely. You focus only on YOUR argument, and how you think your argument is correct, and infallible, without taking a minute to see that perhaps someone else is referring to something OUTSIDE your own defined and absolutist view.
Such an attitude, and such behavior, generates conflict and friction where it is not required. You ended up abusing Silver, and virtually saying he was scum. On what grounds? Well, you put in 1000% effort in justifying it by ... again ... your arguments, without even taking a moment to reflect on the character flaws, not to mention the intellectual or reason flaws, your approach reflects.
Starting out from that absolutist position, you create instant conflict, exhibit defensiveness, become abusive, devolving into nyah, nyah, nyah level of school yard arguing.
Many of the points you make are worth considering. you do have SOME grasp of the issues. But your immature approach to discussion or presentation of that grasp, undermines the purpose of sharing them in the first place. Unless of course you purpose and real intent is to prove to others how absolutely correct and flawless your reasoning is.
But yeah, it undermines that too.
Hey, take what you want from this response. Maybe its just interesting feedback. Maybe you'll just ignore it, and mark it all up to "bullshit". No loss to me. Possibly loss to you.
Suggestion: try not to be so rigid, at least, not when discussing weighty issues with brethren who are, in fact, your natural allies.
Try to remember, none of us here is perfect, including you.
Oh, Dear Leader (and you are dear to my heart - I lived for 7 years in Korea!) Here's the exchange:
Silver
The idea that Freemasons are the enemy is not as clear as people want it to be.
The enemy are the people that want us to not recognize our sovereignty; that want us to believe that we are not free, that want us to remain within The Matrix.
Everyone working against that, no matter their association or even what they have done is not our enemy.
Dear Leader
The Freemasons are 100% one of our enemies. You're shilling for one of the most corrupt entities in the history of mankind.
Albert Pike described in detail how the Freemasons would be an integral part of the NWO.
Anyone who defends the freemasons or is one, is a traitor. And people who are part of secret societies involved in the deepest roots of the DS, are only pretending to be on our side.
So, Silver made a comment about who and who isn't our enemy. "he went off first". Really?
After his comment that targeted no one and made a generalized, reasoned assertion (whether it is correct or incorrect), you:
a) Accused him of being a shill ("you're shilling for")
b) Called him, by implication, a traitor ("Anyone who defends.... is a traitor")
"All I said was that Freemasonry is evil"? Really?
I think your subjective recollection of the interaction is severely tainted. I mean, we can all do that, sometimes. But all he did was make a reasoned comment, and YOU went off on HIM first.
I rest my case.
Suggestion: learn from the experience, reflect and grow. none of us are perfect, and we ALL need to improve. That involves a lot of self-reflection and internal growth. THAT is what makes the Great Awakening work, and THAT is what will ultimately defeat the Freemasons and all the other secret and non-secret organizations and groups that would make humanity slaves.
SUMMARY of interaction: For those who want to TLDR this wonderful comment thread....
Silver: Freemasons? The issue is not as simple as people think. Definition of enemy: "Everyone working against that (our remaining stuck in the Matrix), no matter their association or even what they have done is not our enemy"
Dear Leader: There can be no distinction. I only think in terms of groups, and associations, and there can be no variance on that point. Therefore, "The Freemasons" are by definition NOT working against our remaining in the Matrix. Not a single one. They are all rotten, and there can be no doubt that NONE of them are not working to undermine us.
Silver: I think we should take a more nuanced approach to how we evaluate who or what our enemies are.
Dear Leader: No. I refuse. And because you are even attempting a more nuanced examination of the issue, you are a SHILL, and evil. Begone!
Silver: dude... Open you're mind a bit here. Can't you see that you're so identified with what you think is evil that you have pigeon-holed your own thinking? That's not helpful.
Dear Leader: whaa...? how dare y... ! You are.....!!! Well, you're an idiot! So there.
Silver: Hey, comon. Can't we at least have a rational discussion?
Dear Leader: well, you're a poopy head! And I hate the Freemasons, and you are defending them, so you're a double poopy head!
Silver: Damn, man. I'm NOT defending them. I'm saying, there's more too it. Anyway, <facepalm>. Jerk.
Dear Leader: Yeah, well my argument is better than your argument, so there. Dad said so.
Silver: No it's not.
Dear Leader: yes it is.
END.
See? This is how to have a productive interaction. Siblings will be siblings....
Edit: Dear Leader could have easily avoided this entire back and forth argument by simply agreeing with Silver's definition and then stating, well, in my opinion NO freemasons are working against us staying in the Matrix.
Instead, Dear Leader decided to attack Silver's line of thinking (seeking greater nuance) and completely avoided the reasonable yet uncontentious difference of opinion on whether or not ALL freemasons (or the ENTIRE freemason community as a whole) are working against our being freed from the Matrix.
He chose to argue the line of thinking, in order to defend his position (opinion).
Conclusion: Silver wins the argument by virtue of the fact that Dear Leader's approach was not so much based in reason as it was in a defensive attitude, instead of simply owning the disagreement.
8 points to House Lone Ranger, 5 points to House North Korea.
I made a clear distinction between low level out the loop masons on the ground and master masons.
Secret societies work because they went from underground fraternities being hunted and disliked by society to opening their doors and appearing to the world as charity working "brothers" who follow a code that involves decency and honor while higher ups are input into key positions in all facets of society.
It's fascinating that people on this site can't see that lol. Prince Philip was a Mason and we all know what that family is into and if you think for one second a person at that level in society is in a club where others in his rank or status are "good", then you're not paying attention at all.
Sad you went out of your way to write all that bullshit. But again, understand that I do not think people are inherently evil, however, if you join such a society you are contributing to the rot because you are being used as an "image". No different than an idiot doctor who reads corrupt data from those above them and scares the population into believing covid bs.
I appreciate the reply. I guess I was a bit harsh on your because of the style and tone of your argument.
Perhaps what I was really attempting to highlight is that both of you have reasonable points, or at the least, something to offer on the topic, but that too rigid a viewpoint (which I think you have displayed, and which I think undermines or at least does not do justice to the good points you actually have to make) - too rigid a viewpoint creates an absolutist approach, where it is all or nothing.
In your response here, too, with all due respect, you seem to miss the point entirely. You focus only on YOUR argument, and how you think your argument is correct, and infallible, without taking a minute to see that perhaps someone else is referring to something OUTSIDE your own defined and absolutist view.
Such an attitude, and such behavior, generates conflict and friction where it is not required. You ended up abusing Silver, and virtually saying he was scum. On what grounds? Well, you put in 1000% effort in justifying it by ... again ... your arguments, without even taking a moment to reflect on the character flaws, not to mention the intellectual or reason flaws, your approach reflects.
Starting out from that absolutist position, you create instant conflict, exhibit defensiveness, become abusive, devolving into nyah, nyah, nyah level of school yard arguing.
Many of the points you make are worth considering. you do have SOME grasp of the issues. But your immature approach to discussion or presentation of that grasp, undermines the purpose of sharing them in the first place. Unless of course you purpose and real intent is to prove to others how absolutely correct and flawless your reasoning is.
But yeah, it undermines that too.
Hey, take what you want from this response. Maybe its just interesting feedback. Maybe you'll just ignore it, and mark it all up to "bullshit". No loss to me. Possibly loss to you.
Suggestion: try not to be so rigid, at least, not when discussing weighty issues with brethren who are, in fact, your natural allies.
Try to remember, none of us here is perfect, including you.
He went off first all I said was that Freemasonry is evil.
Hmmm. Not my recollection.
Oh, Dear Leader (and you are dear to my heart - I lived for 7 years in Korea!) Here's the exchange:
Silver
The idea that Freemasons are the enemy is not as clear as people want it to be.
The enemy are the people that want us to not recognize our sovereignty; that want us to believe that we are not free, that want us to remain within The Matrix.
Everyone working against that, no matter their association or even what they have done is not our enemy.
Dear Leader
The Freemasons are 100% one of our enemies. You're shilling for one of the most corrupt entities in the history of mankind.
Albert Pike described in detail how the Freemasons would be an integral part of the NWO.
Anyone who defends the freemasons or is one, is a traitor. And people who are part of secret societies involved in the deepest roots of the DS, are only pretending to be on our side.
So, Silver made a comment about who and who isn't our enemy. "he went off first". Really?
After his comment that targeted no one and made a generalized, reasoned assertion (whether it is correct or incorrect), you:
a) Accused him of being a shill ("you're shilling for")
b) Called him, by implication, a traitor ("Anyone who defends.... is a traitor")
"All I said was that Freemasonry is evil"? Really?
I think your subjective recollection of the interaction is severely tainted. I mean, we can all do that, sometimes. But all he did was make a reasoned comment, and YOU went off on HIM first.
I rest my case.
Suggestion: learn from the experience, reflect and grow. none of us are perfect, and we ALL need to improve. That involves a lot of self-reflection and internal growth. THAT is what makes the Great Awakening work, and THAT is what will ultimately defeat the Freemasons and all the other secret and non-secret organizations and groups that would make humanity slaves.