>>1936

For the most part that is good advice. If this can surmount the current "its just a boys club" excuse then maybe it can be a self sustaining thing through being open about the scandalous nature of the fraternity.

Thats good advice but I really want to know if there is a way to identify these people like a sub group or something. Is it unfair to presume people in media at all who are freemasons are any less complicit than the "satanic" ones. Its the good people who are being prostituted for their goodness to cover up for vying evil.

The who stuff about obedience makes it very hard to discern the good from the bad. For example if jim is making 9/11 jokes then where does that place him? That literally makes him a cohort of 9/11.