Re: Freemasonry is not evil
You are not paying attention when you deny that the majority of child-molestation cases of known children come from their fathers, grand-fathers and step-fathers. In other words: men.
I am quite aware that most crimes of any nature, whether it's sexual or murder are caused by people in the victim's close circle. This is not limited to men or Freemasons. Oh and women are just as able to commit crimes as anyone else, what's with the man hate?
Now, what about those children that disappear by the hundred of thousands every year in the world? Are you going to say that there is no possibility that they are used for sexual gratification of rich men? Men who are married with sexually-frustrated "ladies who do lunch"? Are you going to deny that there is a possibility that men who belong to secret-societies in the form of "men's club" do not perhaps use satanical sexual rituals with little children in order to "bond" - let alone to get off - in impunity?
No I do not deny the possibility of anything, and that's one reason why I'm on this board. But I try to temper my open mindedness with a little rational thought. Not all freemasons are pedaphiles. Not all rich men are pedaphiles. Not all rich men are freemasons. Not all pedaphiles are freemasons or rich. Not every child that goes missng has been a victim of rich freemason pedaphiles. What I DO deny however is this mentality of absolutes that FREEMASON = SATANIC PEDAPHILE or MISSING CHILD = SEX CRIME VICTIM. Even if it were the case and assuming you're not a REAL freemason until you reach 33, I would stick my neck out out to say that not all 33 degree masons are pedaphiles either. So, how many 33 degree masons are there in the world? Enough to account for the 'hundreds of thousands' of children missng?
When even middle-of-the-road head of families have perverted desires towards their own children?
I like your sly implication here that rich powerful freemasons (men) apparently have stronger leanings towards 'perverted desires' than anybody else. BUZZ! Wrong answer. I would consider pedaphilia to be a sexual fetish of sorts, like wearing leather or eating scat or whatever. It's a preference that I suspect they have little or no control over. Kind of like why I like women in certain clothing and don't understand why. And whether it's 'perverted' I guess is a matter of social conditioning. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians etc didn't really seem to take issue with pedaphilia. Pedaphiles come from all backgrounds and economic situations. They can even be female. Poor females who are not freemasons. Get my point?
However the facts show that a whole lot of males like to get off sexually with children. One needs only to look at media-symbolism to see young girls in sexually appealing positions.
How much is a 'whole lot' exactly? I can't find that button on my calculator anywhere. One in two could be seen as a 'whole lot' but so could one in one thousand. It's a pretty slippery concept. And if it really was the 'whole lot' you are implying surely our society's values would change to reflect that. And as far as media imagery, well unfortunately men are generally biologically wired to favour youthful appearances, it has to do with such perverted things as the biological clock, child bearing hips. etc. Hence why it is seen that men generally prefer blondes (Blonde hair is associated with youth/babies. Hair grows darker as you get older). Does that make every guy who likes blondes a pedaphile? Nope. Does using blonde women sell more product? Probably.