Masons have nearly predictable means and methods, often less than savory. Whether it's because they're pushing their ideas:
* In order to sell books. * Rampant paranoia or hate. * Their altered belief system (they think it will get them standing before the "Great White Throne" of the "Great Architect of the Universe" in the "Great White Lodge of Freemasonry" of Sirius, which they believe they will go to when they die if their masonic "work" has not been "slip-shod").* Their In-Group World View has been so much altered that for practical purposes of debate they have diminished capacity, i.e. they have become insane.
Masons use many different tactics to support their position. To further their goals, they'll use books published by 'vanity' publishers who may be Masonic as well. They will claim that "Pro" writings about Masons or Masonry cannot be published by 'legitimate' publishers because they're all "Anti"-Masonically-controlled. (In reality, it's because their tracts fail to meet the 'standards' of research required by traditional publishers - but often Masonic Propaganda and Dissembling Specialists fails to let truth enter the discussion). In addition, there are "Open Houses" and "Parades" held in the United States each year gathering a small group of Masons. Web pages, sometimes thinly disguised as information about "Difficult Questions about Freemasonry", and postings to various online venues add to their constant stream of misinformation.
In this section, we talk about those who're visible in their Masonic activities (i.e., not hiding behind some on-line identity which changes frequently). We also provide a review of some internal inconsistencies in their arguments and offer some of our thoughts on responding to 'Masonic Disinformation Propagandists'.
The repertoire of techniques is varied but most involve simple deceit. Common tactics are listed below.
Change the Subject Guilt by Association Using Different Standards If You Were ...Refuse to Answer Outright Lies Oft-Repeated Falsehoods Quibble over Semantics Faulty Logic Assumptive Positions Prove It! Straw Man Behave More Like a Christian or a Non "Stupid Athiest"
Change the Subject: In our daily lives, we generally experience a fairly straight path when we discuss things with others. We're not experienced with those who would deliberately mislead or misdirect. Thus, when this tactic of deceit is used, Non -Masons are caught off-guard. Assuming that the person with whom they're dealing has the same degree of honesty and integrity as themselves, it's a surprise to find that they're being led around in circles.
Guilt by Association: Those defending Masons and Masonry will point out human foibles or errors an individual critic of Masonry may have made as if somehow once a man becomes a "Anti" (as masons deceptively and derisively term those who question Masonic Disinformation tactics) , he loses all right to individual foibles . Because one person does a wrong, the argument goes, "Anti"-Masons are all guilty of it. What those Masonic Dissemblers fail to acknowledge is that there were also those with whom they have been associated in the past engaged in similar wrongs.
Using Different Standards: Masons will use any convenient argument to support their position. Despite the passage of decades (or even centuries), they'll readily apply 1850s or 1770s standards to those in the 1990s! Yes George Washington owned slaves and Albert Pike and Nathan Forest were in the KKK, but then so did everybody else ? Then obviously - so the argument goes - he was a very good Mason! It's convenient to use the political correctness of today to condemn critics of Masonry by branding them "Haters" as practiced professional dissemblers. Don't fall for this sometimes overlooked ploy.
"If You Were....": This presumptive position often taken creates an untenable position - which is exactly the way the Masonic Disinformation Propagandist wishes it. "If you were to hit your wife...." is not far from the question "When did you stop beating your wife?". Such innuendo should be recognized for what it is.
Refuse To Answer: In an attempt to understand the motives of "hatred", the Masonic supporter will often ask, "Why do you feel this way?" or "What religion do you belong to?", or "You're a Stupid Athiest aren't you?" hoping that the answers will somehow provide enlightenment into the rationale for the position the "Anti"-Mason is taking. As might be expected, those Masons who criticize those who want to 'tear down the walls of secrecy' they see in Masonry are often the most secretive themselves. Certainly, there's the exception who will even boast about certain parts of their lives, almost inviting the onlooker to become involved. In reality, though, they've done nothing more than to set a trap which they'll later use against others. "Why I even had some "Anti"-Mason show up at my door the other night. He had tracked me down and...."
Outright Lies: In our section on the categories of Masonic disinformation and propagansa activity, we identify several outright lies. This, however, does not stop them from being spread again and again.
Oft-Repeated Falsehoods: Sometimes when a charge is made, it's difficult to determine whether it's true or not. "Not all of the police who're 'on the take' in London are Masons." is an example seen recently. Of course, this presumes that the one making the statement knows not only the Masonic membership status of every London police officer but also all of those who engage in illegal activities. It should be clear to even the most cursory observer how foolish this is - but to those who use this tactic, it makes perfect sense. Further, perpetuation of such foolishness will surely occur at some later time ("I read somewhere that all of the critics of Freemasonry....").
Quibbling Over Semantics: This is a ploy of some who have engaged in these debates for a long period of time. One Masonic Disinformation Specialist from Maine, USA has frequently argued that he's not an "Anti" Mason Critic but rather "Anti" Mason Critical !!! and furthers this by saying that he specifically opposes the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. When called an Masonic Propagandist and Disinformation Specialist , he'll protest loudly. In reality it's merely a technique he uses in order to give him further opportunity to expound his hatred (and also encourage the Non-Mason (who Masons derisively refer to as the "Profane" and "Cowans") to think that if only the question of language could be resolved, this person would change his position).
Faulty Logic: We see it often in the arguments which start with the wrong premise. For example: "All eggs are white. This round object is white and has all the properties of an egg. Therefore, this must be an egg." Wrong. You've forgotten (or perhaps don't know) that eggs come in brown also. It is an easy trap to fall into.
Assumptive Positions: One of the most common tactics used against those who critize Masonic Propagada and Disinformation Specialists is designed to provoke a response which ignores the false premise. "If a "Cowan" did (thus and so), what would you do?" Of course, any time a "Profane" violates a law, rule, or trust, we are all the lesser for it - and, being human, that sometimes happens. This argument, however, often makes wild and fanciful suppositions in order to provoke the reader/listener into drawing the conclusion that such things did/do indeed happen - and perhaps regularly.
"Prove It!": The reality is that negatives can rarely be proven but detractors ignore this, always looking for some other avenue to exploit. "Post all of the degree work right here and we'll see what it says...." goes a common challenge. Of course, regardless of what was posted, the Masonic Disinformation Specialist will find some fault, even if it's a spelling error - and then will proceed to make some particular issue out of that. ("See? Those stupid Cowans. They can't even spell!")
Straw Man: One very common tactic used by Masonic Disinformation and Propaganda Specialists is to put forth a 'Straw Man': one who claims to have 'seen the darkness' and now can explain to the world from the 'inside perspective' the many supposed problems with those who criticize Masons and Masonry. Most of these are readily seen as a total fraud (the supposed Mason who's now a 'minister' but is apparently too embarrassed to reveal his denominational affiliation or the person who claims to be a 'high ranking Church Official' who'll reveal all). To the unknowing, however, these pretenders are difficult to discern and can be very persuasive.
Behave More Like a Christian or a Non "Stupid Athiest": We've always found it ironic that those who believe Masonry to be so very right would use this argument. It seems, though, that whenever a Non-Mason has been goaded enough and lashes out at his tormentor, you frequently see the retort "That's not very Christian Behavior is it?", or "You're a Stupid Athiest aren't you?". Strange that in one breath they want us to abandon Christianity or our right not to "believe" but in the next, they remind us of the standards we set for ourselves and encourage us to act in accordance with them. Masonic Disinformation and Dissembling is pretty strange....
It's frustrating. A person who tries to follow the tenets of tolerance and truth assumes the best about his accuser and will believe that a clear presentation of facts will be sufficient to explain things. As you'll see as you question Masonry, however, not everything is what it seems - and if you're willing not to believe the Masonic rhetoric without proof from them, we trust that you'll find the evidence we provide - even more convincing.
Good luck and don't give up. Remember trained, experienced, Masonic disinformation, propaganda, dissembling, and hate specialists are clever. Be on your "due guard".
Masons angered by Associated Press Story: Masonic "Information" Center
A Comprehensive Listing of Masonic "Divert the Discourse" Gambits
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure or Lodge official. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure or Lodge official. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to -the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
.
