Hacker News Reader

Comment by greenavocado | Hacker News Reader

> Many people think the law some sort of elite club where mastery of a secret language can allow one to escape legal scrutiny.

Freemasons exist and your judges, lawyers, and cops are freemasons.

(1/3) https://www.travelingtemplar.com/2017/05/justices-of-supreme...

(2/3) https://www.travelingtemplar.com/2017/06/justices-of-supreme...

(3/3) https://www.travelingtemplar.com/2017/09/justices-of-supreme...

View on HN

>Freemasons exist and your judges, lawyers, and cops are freemasons.

Sure, but they don't have a secret language that allows them to escape legal scrutiny. Freemasonry isn't even an elite club, they'll take pretty much anyone willing to pay the dues and memorize some stuff.

Not talking about lower levels here because those are the commoners. High ranking freemasons such as those found in positions of power are obligated to get each other out of trouble to the greatest effort possible given the circumstances.

Freemasonry only has 3 “ranks”. The organizations that have other levels, like the Shriners, York Rite, Scottish Rite (created in France in the 19th century) aren’t organizationally or legally related to any actual Masonic grand lodge — they’re a completely separate organization that only accept 3rd degree masons— the highest Masonic rank — as members. The conspiracy theory information you cite can’t even keep basic facts straight about the way freemasonry operates. I’m not even a Mason— this information is really really easy to find online.

>I’m not even a Mason— this information is really really easy to find online.

Same, and I almost wrote a similar comment but figured it wasn't worth it.

Masons deliberately don't respond to these sorts of things but few things tick me off quite as much as proud, confidently administered ignorance.

Keep thinking Freemasons are irrelevant in the legal system. You are dead wrong.

Oh, is that what I said? Or is that what you wish I said because you had a specious response to it pre-cooked? Does your response directly address anything I said? Are you sure you're responding to me and not some conceptual 'other side' that has predictable views that perfectly yin-yang curve around 'your side' because falling back into groupthink is a lot easier than having to actually read and think about what other people say, and be accountable for saying things that are easily provably completely incorrect? Are you sure that's not what's happening here?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com