Yukio Hatoyama: Freemason?

“Being an extreme conspiracy basher is just as annoying as being an extreme conspiracy nut.”

not at all :/

To claim that secret societies and conspiracies don’t exist (or don’t deserve to be exposed) is just as foolish as claiming that some small group controls the world, or that conspiracies are everywhere. Both claims display a staggering ignorance of history and politics. “Extreme conspiracy nuts” and “extreme conspiracy deniers” alike speak with an amount of certainty that only a fool would have. The former group claims to be more “enlightened” than everyone else and the latter wants to shine in comparison and seem intelligent in the process.

Is it so hard to just respect each other’s opinion while remaining humble about your own? Give merit to any new finding, whether it proves or disproves a conspiracy, think deeply and live a happy life.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to ridicule a claim that reptilians are ruling the world, which is why it’s so easy to go to the opposite pole and start denying all conspiracies. I’ve heard so many ridiculous things from conspiracy deniers like “the masons and Illuminati don’t exist, they were invented by the Internet” or “it’s a ridiculous conspiracy theory that the US trained the Mujahideen and staged coups in the Middle East and South America”, or “it’s a lie that secret societies have any sort of agendas, they’re just like country clubs”. If you take a good look at history, you’ll notice it’s full of conspiracies and secret machinations, which is why it’s so important to uncover any secrecy. As one historical figure famously said, “The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.” You probably know who said this. Getting back to the Hatoyama question, If any political figure is found out to be a member of any sort of secret society, they must be barred from any sort of political involvement. Secrecy betrays public trust.

Sure, JFK said that – and if you read the entire quote it is clear he was talking about the government concealing or withholding information or stifling dissent. JFK was surely aware that a great many of the Founding Fathers were Masons, and a lot of the ideas expounded by Masons became the cornerstones of the philosophy behind the US. America or any free society is not “inherently and historically opposed to secret societies”, nor should they be. What fraternal organization a politician belongs to should no more be a matter for discussion than his/her religious affiliation. What matters is his public position on issues and policy, nothing more. His/her private concerns are just that, private.

“That there is a spin.”

*sigh*…

Read for yourself, then:
Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association (27 April 1961)

“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.” (emphasis mine)

JFK’s meaning is clear. Crystal-freaking-clear. And it is not what you say it is.

“It seems that you have a very strange way of interpreting text.”
No, it’s called “reading comprehension” – reading what is written, not what you might like or desire to be written. It is something that was taught in school where I grew up. Obviously, you did not have that advantage, and for some reason were taught that words could mean whatever you want them to mean. I am sorry your teachers failed you so miserably. Since there is obviously nothing more I can do to convince you that you are wrong to the point of being delusional, I won’t waste any more of my time here.