Is Rand Paul a Freemason?

[allofus]

I recently posted this article on 4ALLofUS.com & dailypaul.com and it has created quite a stir so I figured, in for a penny, in for a pound. By the way the 2 links are identical copies of this article, but the websites are interesting anyway.



Is Rand Paul a Freemason?

What do you mean by those cries of "burn him"?

Relax a little please!

I have a legitimate question to ask;

Is Rand Paul a member of a masonic lodge? is he a Freemason?

There are many rumours flying around on the internet, speculation as to whether or not Rand Paul's name is present on a Freemason's membership list in Texas, or elsewhere for that matter.

There is also a growing amount of criticism surrounding Rand's handlers as there was with his fathers campaigns. Critics are suggesting that Rand and his Father are mere distractions and will do just enough to draw in the opposition and loose.

To have such potentially damaging remarks being thrown around so vigorously so early on I find myself wandering what the truth is.

If we all accept for a moment that there will always be a controlled opposition then I find myself trying to figure out in what form does this controlled opposition come in?

Is Freemasonry in opposition to liberty?

That is absurd, the founding fathers of America for example were nearly all Freemasons and they knew what liberty was all about. They knew that liberty was the allowance of certain privilages under certain conditions and because many of them were slave owners they also knew the difference between freedom and liberty. Here we are coming to the close of 2009 and Dr Rand is waving a liberty banner. Following in his fathers footsteps, he criticises a FEDERAL RESERVE that is all but obsolete with the instigation of SDR's on April 1 09 and a World Bank that the FED have bought into.

He waves this flag of liberty and it seems as if his audience can only see a flag of freedom. Is this deceptive? Is it the fault of his audience for not knowing the fundamental differences between being granted liberties v'S having freedom? Is it his duty to teach is audience that liberty is not freedom, that liberties are granted by the very powers that freedom loving people oppose or is it his duty to 'ride the wave'?

Is Rand a Freemason?
Does it matter if he is? Is there such a thing as a good or indeed a bad Freemason? Is there any chance of a straight answer?

I find myself asking the most impertinent of questions on a more and more regular basis. Why is this? It seems that the world is being consumed by a new form of ignorance. Ignorance that pretends to be informed. The dream about waking up.


I have observed patterns of behaviour in the past year or so. Seemingly unrelated groups are joining together, they are closing ranks. Zeitgeist and Venus being the clearest example. Those who know where I am going with this know what is wrong with that picture.

300,000+ members are comfortable with the idea that they are the opposition. Not a lot more to say on that one.

My questions are impurtinent ot by my design, I just want answers, I just want to know who is really doing what and why, no the questions I ask are not really the underlying problem that I am seeking to unearth. The questions I ask are innocent and the real problem is the answers.

The answers are not for those who are dreaming about being awake, We all know what is meant by sheeple?

Well there is a far more troublesome issue that is barely getting a mention that I have dubbed as the sleeple.

Sleeple go around telling everyone to wake up, they talk about sheeple all day long, assume to be so far ahead in the game to be confident enough to use derogative terms like sheeple to describe their fellow mankind. Assuming that they are more knowledgeable, switched on or awake than their counterparts.

This is the first time I have used the term sleeple, I do not make a habit of insulting people for the fun or for my own egotistical reasons, that is not my intention here. I do however want to encourage people to consider who and in what form the controlled opposition is guised as.

Sleeple are the growing number of people who have been converted from asleep to not really awake. Curiosity was stirred and they went looking for answers... Did they find the very well considered and delivered controlled opposition?

If you are a free thinker you should also be mature enough to allow for a nobody like me to ask questions about Rand Paul being a Mason. If your knowledge and ideas are built on stable foundations a few silly questions should not be a threat to you. If you have validated you supposed allies as much as they claim to have exposed your oppressors then you should have no fear from the odd question being raised.

If however you have been lured into a false sense of security that does not really operate on the basis of self awareness and validation, but consumption and acceptance then the odd question may just be the odd question too many.

Look at it this way...
It is not impertinent within the sleeple community to question the validity of the 9-11 commission report

but
it is impertinent to question the validity of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, G.Edward Griffin, Alex Jones, Shultz???? AND OTHERS???

WHY?

Who the hell decided what a credible line of research might be? does group think help anyone? the sheeple do not know, the sleeple pretend they know better?

So without meaning to offend anyone;

Is Rand Paul a Freemason?

 

[fractalfeline]

lol

Whether or not Rand Paul is a Freemason is not necessarily the issue so much as whether the Freemasons are people to be feared or not, and whether a politician who is a Freemason is a threat.

Hell, I don't even know who Rand Paul is. Who is he anyway? Let's google it. *insert a space of time for Googling Rand Paul* OH, that Rand Paul. Right.

I think most of the fear-mongering about the Free Masons and the Masonic Lodge has to do with Jack Chick cartoons and what I call Fundie-Think. It also has to do with people who are paranoid and need a mysterious group of people to point a finger at as being "suspicious."

About Point A: Fundie-Think. Religion is not the debate here. Religion is good for some people, and if they want to embrace a religion, that's all well and good. But letting religion blind you to the point where you believe absolutely everything your church (synagogue, temple, etc.) tells you, every piece of religious literature published, every pamphlet and magazine, without questioning it, without wondering if their interpretation is the only interpretation, and allowing the Church (temple, etc.) think for you entirely... that's Fundie-Think. I can think of countless examples, but let's not get into that. The point is that a lot of misinformation is perpetuated by Fundie-Think, and accepted unquestioningly, and allowed to transform large amounts of people into bigots. Jack Chick is one big example of a religious cartoon that is prevalent in certain parts of Christiandom right now, that is taken by that community as a Shining Example of Truth, but is in fact little more than fear-mongering. Among others (RPG roleplaying games, the Catholic Church, Jesuits), these cartoons have been known to target Free Masons, labeling them as some sort of demonic cult that's bent on taking control of the world's leadership positions and ushering in an era of rulership by Satan. Really?

About Point B. The world is the way it is because Group X of people is stirring the pot, and we, Group Y, need to stop them, in whatever way possible. Therefore, we need to warn everyone about the threat that Group X consistutes, and do everything we can to limit and persecute Group X, to keep them from achieving their goal, whatever it might be. Insert any group into Group X, such as Catholics, Jews (remember Nazi Germany folks), Muslims, Free Masons, Republicans, Democrats, the Russians, Communists, etc.

No one in the world really wants to take responsibility: the world is the way it is because WE ALL MADE IT SO, by the little and big decisions that we make, as a whole, EVERY DAY. Every time you go to the grocery store and choose a product because it costs less, you encourage whatever process made that product cheaper than the rest. Every time you go the grocery store and choose a product that's more pricey because the ads on TV were so darn clever, you support that system. Every time you walk into the office, and don't feel like doing the work today, and find a way to shuffle the work or the responsibility onto somebody else, you support that way of thinking. Every time you go to the bathroom and do not wash your hands, thinking it can't possibly be as important as everyone tells you it is, and you can't be bothered to spend a moment of time doing it, you perpetuate the disease. It's that simple.

And yes, every time you spread a piece of hate and fear, be it paranoid suspicions about the Free Masons or gossip about one of your coworkers/friends/neighbors/schoolmates, you contribute to the worldwide Fear and Hate Disease. If it's justified, great, but if it's just a Fear-Hate Meme, then you're a viral contagion.

Granted, I'm not a Free Mason, and I'm not familiar with anyone currently in the Masonic Lodge. Are you? Hearing rumors about your roommate's best friends aunt's ex-boyfriend's cousin is hardly valid.

My step-grandfather was a Mason, he died before I had a chance to make any memory of him. My grandmother was a good Christian woman, very devout, who married him after a failed relationship with a drunken bastard. My grandmother and father both described him as a good man, who attended church every Sunday, who was a pillar in the community, a quiet man, not particularly exciting, with a good heart. When he died, my grandmother inherited his Masonic Bible. It's... like a regular Bible, actually, with a Masonic Lodge symbol on it. It has a few extra sections that describe "If you encounter this situation in life, refer to these passages for advice and comfort." For all those weirdos out there who claim that the Free Masons are evil devil worshippers, I find no evidence of it in the book I have. My father once told me that his step-father told him that one of the purposes of the Masonic Lodge is to retain the knowledge and skills necessary to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem if and when it becomes necessary. I'm inclined to believe there may be some truth in that, but what do I know? All I know is, when my grandmother died, she wanted to be buried with her husband, and when we visited the grave site, he had the Masonic Symbol right on his tombstone.

As far as that goes though, are the Free Masons even remotely as active as they used to be? Every so often, I see the Masonic Symbol here and there. When I was over at San Jacinto, visiting the Battleship Texas and the monument, I noticed a statue there, don't know who it was, didn't read the plaque, but I noticed the Masonic Symbol on the statue. How curious. Yet, I know of two Masonic Lodges, and neither of them seem occupied. When I was on campus in Baylor in Waco, I saw a building there, with the symbol on the window, but it hadn't seem occupied for many years, I never saw anyone enter or leave, nor anyone inside. And yeah, being the stoopid college kid I was, I did roam the campus during the day, and often times at night too with my stoopid nerdy friends. Similarly, in Houston, I saw a Masonic Lodge, with the symbol outside near the street (like a street sign), but the building itself was empty, no cars, the grass looks as if it hadn't been mowed for many years, the building desperately needs a paint job. Where have the Masons gone I wonder?

Though, it should be noted, for the curious: The Shriners are Masons!
http://www.shrinershq.org/Shrine/

And yeah, I was a Shriner's kid. I had scoliosis that needed fixing, and my parents didn't have money. And they did the surgeries I needed, twice, for free. And all the follow-up appointments, braces, etc. I don't know where I'd be, what kind of terrible health and growth problems, I'd have RIGHT NOW if it weren't for them.

Tell me folks, if the Masons do charity surgeries, burn treatments, and other types of healthcare for children, by donation, without asking anything at all from their patients in return, how is it that they are such terrible people?

The really funny thing is that my sister is one of those Fundie-Think types, who had the balls to try to tell me about how the Free Masons are conspiring to take over the world, institute martial law in the US, install their own leaders into the UN and other top world government roles, etc. It's kinda like Sit Down Girl, let me tell you how your mindless hate-mongering insults the memory of your dead grandfather and the people who helped me LIVE. Perhaps she'd prefer I was some gross monstrosity that's barely able to move, and has all sorts of pulmonary problems, barely able to breathe? But then again, she's the kind of person who isn't really aware of anything besides herself, so expecting her to know these things is kinda absurd.

 

[allofus]

I think it remarkable that you assume so much from a question of whether Rand Paul is or is not Freemason.

Knee-Jerk reactions to the questioning was the purpose of the article and you so kindly demonstrated it for me.

Banding around the word paranoid does not change the validity of questions and neither does calling the person asking the question names.

You seem to have created a fictitious series of scenarios just to allow yourself to wander away from topic.
About Point A, About Point B have no ties to the original article. It is also abundantly clear that your dysfunctional family have nothing to do with the topic either.

Your own sister being the focus of a chastisement and ridicule attack and this has no relevance to the article.

I think there is more at play here than whether or not Rand Paul is a Mason and I thank you for putting so much time and effort into reproducing a typical knee-jerk reaction. It is an established, confirmed by rand himself FACT that he is indeed a Freemason.

The question is not the problem. Depending on your opinion neither is the answer. Again to reiterate the point of the article, the problem is the 'knee-jerk' responses.

There are lots of other questions that are taboo to lots of other indoctrinated groups. This one was relevant to Rand Paul Supporters who you made a point of not knowing! Knowing he is a Freemason somehow is not relevant, the question is the problem....

This from libertarian groupies...

Vi hav vayz of making yU 'not ask questions' lol

Am I paranoid, maybe I am, but the fact is that the responses from people to this article have been exactly as anticipated, so lets be clear here that paranoid and stupid are not the same thing.


Maybe your knee-jerk reaction is proof that I am not paranoid.

If you think rich men are not colluding to enslave humanity, that is fine, was never intended as the focus of the article, if you think that it is ok to chastise or poke fun at someone who may have a differing opinion to you then maybe that is a problem, but I understand. If most people do it then it is acceptable, right?

Assuming to know the opinion of someone based on a question is not really a method I have found to be effective, but I do not think you were trying to deal with my opinion as such, but imply it.

Typical straw man argument! Typical!

Thanks for your response!



DailyPaul went further, they have banned me.

Dailypaul has blocked my account


The username britishnproud has not been activated or is blocked.
hum blocked
it was not blocked an hour ago when I asked if Rand Paul was a mason
lol
my article

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/108964
Access denied
You are not authorized to access this page.


talk about irony
daily paul is maybe run by sleeple herders

Hello there;

Seems that you are taking the extraordinary step of blocking my account without warning and clearly with prejudice.

Thank you. I placed a bet of £5 with a good friend of mine that you would block me.

Seems my estimation was correct and I am now very much richer.

Not only am I £5 better off, I also know that dailypaul.com is tainted from the top down.

Thanks for this amazing insight into your shady operation,

Sincerely,
Matthew Green
aka MattG - britishnproud

yes I did just send that to him...
Edit:

lol

Whether or not Rand Paul is a Freemason is not necessarily the issue so much as whether the Freemasons are people to be feared or not, and whether a politician who is a Freemason is a threat.

Hell, I don't even know who Rand Paul is.

If you do not know who he is, why do you conclude that the real issue is whether or not politicians who are freemasons are threats?

All that from a question about a guy you do not even know????

He could have been my next door neighbour for all you knew right?

Dishonest in my opinion.

Paranoia is kicking in again because I smell motives!!!

 

[fractalfeline]

Uh, I guess I fell for that one eh? Silly fool that is I.

But, I'd argue that whether or not Rand was a Mason wasn't really your question, and you confirmed that the real purpose of the question was to draw out knee jerk reactions. So in essence, you got what you wanted. The real question isn't always the one that is asked, is it?

So you did read my response right? And summarily dismissed it? How is that not being a "sleeple" as you accuse others of being? I suppose I'm a sleeple too?

If someone takes time to make a thorough, well-thought out argument, then how is it that you dismiss it so easily by calling it a straw man argument?

I guess if your real point is to assert whether or not Rand was a Mason, anyone could have Googled it and found the answer. The point with my sentence "Let's google it" was exactly that. Questions regarding facts that are easily verified are not usually worth asking. It's a dumb question, anyone can find out whether he is or isn't. If nothing else, asking a forum of people on the internet whether they think he is or not is kinda silly, because it's an opinion. Anyone can speculate. You can probably find the number to his campaign office, and call up his representatives, or perhaps you'll even be able to talk to him himself, and ask him straight out "Are you a mason?" And how would you verify the truth, except by asking the Masons themselves "Is he registered here as a Mason?" If he readily admits it, and the Masons confirm it, then why should we think otherwise? Is it really a question that needs contesting?

So, that wasn't really the question was it?

And, for the record, there was no name calling. I generalized that some people are paranoid, and that those people who are paranoid will sometimes point to a group of people, or an institution, and accuse them of all sorts of bad things, and try to persecute them. I never called the asker of the question paranoid. If that is how you read it, that is simply your interpretation, and I'm here to verify that the intent of the argument was not to insult the questioner. I'm not one to go around making Ad Hominem arguments just for the sake of doing so.

The intent was not to answer the apparent question, but the series of questions underlying the question. Why was the question asked? Why would you inquire whether or not he is a Free Mason or not? If it is a question so easily answered, with a simple yes and no, why ask it?

All I did was point out that there is a lot of question out there regarding the Masons, and whether they are an evil secret organization or not, and proceed to present what scanty evidence I had from my life that leads me to believe that they are not the evil secret organization that many people believe them to be. That is all. It is relevant to the question, because you and I both know the background questions regarding the Masons, and I personally believed that you were not, in fact, actually asking for a simple verification of fact. And, you confirmed that was not your purpose.

Granted, I drew examples from my life as evidence. It's not verifiiable in the way that, say, scientific evidence if verifiable, but it's just a matter of relating my experiences. I suppose my experience is not relevant either? How do you know that I'm not making it all up right? I could be lying to garner sympathy or something. Or lying to prove a point that I can't prove otherwise. Or I might just be a pathological liar too. But assume for the moment that I'm actually relating my experiences as I remember them. If the question is truly about the fact of whether Rand is a Mason or not, my experiences are irrelevant, as I do not know him. If the real questionis about the general atmosphere in which the question is asked, about the Masons themselves, then how is it NOT relevant?

Also, what DailyPost has done is not really fair, because the question was simple. However, they may have construed the question as Trolling, which is grounds for banning in many forums. They may have made the same mistake I did, thinking that you were implying some question about the Masons themselves, and calling Rand's character into question, and since they are a Pro-Rand forum, interpreted that as deliberate Trolling. I mean, you did not only ask that one question, about whether Rand is a Mason or not. You did also ask:

Is Freemasonry in opposition to liberty? .... Does it matter if he is {a Mason}? Is there such a thing as a good or indeed a bad Freemason? Is there any chance of a straight answer?

And furthermore, such verbage as this might be considered intentionally derogatory:

He waves this flag of liberty and it seems as if his audience can only see a flag of freedom. Is this deceptive? Is it the fault of his audience for not knowing the fundamental differences between being granted liberties v'S having freedom? Is it his duty to teach is audience that liberty is not freedom, that liberties are granted by the very powers that freedom loving people oppose or is it his duty to 'ride the wave'?

Bolding and {antecedents} added for clarity. The implication is that the question of whether or not he is a Freemason is tied to whether or not Freemasons support liberty and freedom, whether Freemasons are good or bad, whether Rand supports liberty, if liberty is the same thing as freedom, if Rand opposes Freedom by supporting Liberties, and whether Rand is a deceptive person. Surely, you do not believe after all this verbage from your very own argument that the question you asked was so simple and innocent as you claim?

 

[descalzo]

I think your original piece is a bit unfocused.
After going over it a couple of times and seeing your later response, this is what I think the thrust of the piece was:

There is a group of people who think they are intellectually liberated. They are willing to "question everything". Everything except their anointed leader.
No questions about their standard bearer are allowed.
No investigations. Those are for "the bad guys".
They are not liberated. They have just exchanged one 'religion' for another.
If they were liberated, they would not fear questions. Any questions.

My only question is, are you surprised?

 

[allofus]

I think your original piece is a bit unfocused.
After going over it a couple of times and seeing your later response, this is what I think the thrust of the piece was:

There is a group of people who think they are intellectually liberated. They are willing to "question everything". Everything except their anointed leader.
No questions about their standard bearer are allowed.
No investigations. Those are for "the bad guys".
They are not liberated. They have just exchanged one 'religion' for another.
If they were liberated, they would not fear questions. Any questions.

My only question is, are you surprised?

I am not surprised one bit, but the problem is that some people are unhappy with the state of the world and are trying to do something about it, only to be held back by the wolf in sheeps clothing, that or the 'I know everything 'fool'' who subscribed to a big fancy corporate led group who is no different from the problem in the first place.


What does surprise me is that people are willing to put up with so much agro just in-case it gets worse.


Humanity needs to find another use for it's spine.
Edit:
A strawman argument is to create an opposing argument and then conveniently mock or attack this defenceless thing you just created yourself to defeat it.

If I did not think you had used strawman arguments I would not have said it.

 

[fractalfeline]

I think some wires got crossed. How about let's start over?

The Question was:
Is Rand a Freemason?

The Answer is:
Yes, he is a Freemason. (duh)

The Implied Question was:
Can you judge Rand's character and leadership abilities based on his membership in the Free Masons?

My answer to the Implied Question was:
You cannot automatically assume that his character is bad due to his membership in the Free Masons. I know some examples of good people in the Masonic Lodge. I know examples of people who lump all Free Masons into a bad category, without basis in fact. People such as this exhibit prejudice.

The Flip Side is:
You also cannot assume that his character is good due to his membership in the Free Masons. This would also be an example of prejudice.

So the Real Answer to the Implied Question is:
You cannot judge his leadership abilities and character based on his membership in the Free Masons.

The other Implied Question is:
Should we question Rand's character, leadership abilities, and values?

My answer is:
Of course! He is running for an office that would rely on these qualities, so it is appropriate to question his qualifications. If he is a threat to the public, it should be known.

The Assertion you made was:
Some people do not want Rand's character questioned, therefore the question of whether Rand is a Free Mason or not would be met with opposition.

Descalzo's Response was:
Are you surprised?

My Assertion was:
Although the question is simple, a verification of fact or not, there are prejudices that exist regarding the Free Masons. The prejudices themselves are false, therefore it should not be a relevant question into Rand's character. The "sleeple" who believe in Rand assume that the prejudices are implied with the question, and cannot tolerate any question into his character.

All cleared up? Good.