How Freemasonry Demolishes Society And Undermines Their System

The freemasons are conspicuous by their absence in the news of the mainstream media yet fully 80% of business meetings that I attend begin with the offer of a masonic handshake.

One might think that, in a democracy, such things might be worthy of consideration.

Before going on to explore the inefficiencies and criminalities associated with the lodgemen (and women), I'll provide an example of how masonic structures undermine meritocracy.

Xaverian College is a 6th Form College in Manchester - it is the largest such college in the country. My late father was Deputy Chair of Governors of the establishment at the time when a new headmaster was to be appointed just prior to the Millennium.
Adverts were placed in the national press and a shortlist of two suitable candidates was drawn up.

At this point, my father was approached by Jim Colquhoun (no relation to the soccer agent who runs The Guardian football output), a fellow governor, and was persuaded to include a third candidate on the interview, a Mr Anthony Andrews.
My father protested that this individual wasn't qualified and had been passed over for a headship at his own school in the Midlands and if the people who work with him didn't think that he was worthy of such a post, they probably had a point.
Colquhoun replied that Andrews was a Catenian (a Catholic mason) and that he was duty bound to include the man on the interview.

Thinking that Andrews would be blown out of the water by the other candidates, my father acquiesced.

As stuff happens, by the time the interview arrived, the other two candidates had dropped out of the process having found employment elsewhere and Andrews was appointed headmaster of the college by default.
He was massively underqualified for the post possessing only an MA.

At this point the structure of the Board of Governors started to change with numerous new members all of whom were from the Knutsford Catenian branch.
Board meetings were controlled and any external Consultancy projects mysteriously ended up being lodged with one Catenian or another from this branch.

Now.
The inefficiencies of freemasonry are not just related to inappropriate individuals being promoted beyond their levels of ability and consequently reducing the performativity of the system (and, hence, of all of our lives).
Furthermore, projects are handed out regardless of price or quality in what is, in effect, an internalised market.

The most startling holistic extension of this template is that the higher you go, the more masonic handshakes become prevalent - at managerial level, there is a quantum leap, and once you get to chief executive level, freemasonry is ubiquitous.

And this rather cutely brings us on to the rub of this matter.

Mark Roe is a professor at Harvard Law School and he has looked very closely at masonic structures in the Land of the Free.
He finds that the system is so contorted that it cannot even be regarded as
Capitalist but Managerialist.

Roe states: "Managers, not owners [shareholders], get the final say in corporate decisions."
According to The Economist, one among many problems with this state of affairs is that "there is considerable evidence that when managers are at odds with shareholders, managerial discretion in American firms is excessive and weakens companies. Managers of established firms continue money-losing ventures for too long, pay themselves too much relative to their and the company’s performance, and too often fail to act aggressively enough to enter new but risky markets."

So the system isn't Capitalist but we all knew that boys and girls.
It is most obviously a state-based economic system and freemasonry oils the wheels in this power structure too.

Lets have a glance at the current News of the World atrocities.

Murdoch is a mason.
Freemasonry is rife in the police...
...Equally so in the Conservative and Unionist party
Numerous journalists of our acquaintance are also on the square too.

When the news broke yesterday about Murdoch and his cronies digging up bodies in graveyards for a dollar or two, the responses of the core individuals were revealing.
Everbody was "shocked"!
Everybody was "appalled"!!
Cameron, Coulson, Brooks, Greenberg, Tory ministers, all of them, "shocked", all of them "appalled".

How may one be shocked about something that one knows?
How can one be appalled by something one has implemented?

Of course, they were just lying.
They were actually "irritated" and "worried".

As that well known revolutionary Hugh Grant said: "We can't rely on police or government. We think we live in a democracy but our Prime Ministers are elected by Rupert Murdoch."

Aside from the abuse of power, the infringement of human rights, the breaking of the law and the sheer wickedness of targeting those who are suffering great loss, there is an economic upshot to this masonic state of affairs.

In the words of Joseph Stiglitz in his article "Of The 1%, For The 1%, By The 1%": "The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent."

Stiglitz concludes that: "The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late."

As ever though, my father summed up the situation best (even if I am biased in this assessment).
At a Governors' meeting, he was approached by a fellow governor who asked "have you met Tony Andrews' father, Ray?"

"I didn't know he had one" was the Bullivant take on that potential introduction.
Top man :)