We need to know why the Freemasons assasinated Kennedy. How does that fit into their secret plans? And if their plans are secret, how is it that you and a few others know so much about them?

if you are serious, you really are a nutcase.

Why don't you argue the facts instead of shooting the messenger???? Obviously you have no other recourse but to cut me down-give me a good argument and I'll answer it anyday...only cowards attack indivduals and not the ideas they represent.

The freemasons had nothing to do with the assasination of Kennedy, which also has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. LHO has a fairly well known background in relation with the KGB, and his wife's father was a high ranking officer in the KGB. Why the hell the yanks ever let the guy into the USA is the real question to be asked...

Thanks for this very instructive piece of evidence. I am still waiting for a decent reply from Anonymous...but Christmas will surely arrive sooner than that.

Your appeal for a reasonable exchange of views is commendable but unconvincing because you don't know the rules of the game. To be useful, a discussion must employ conventional grammatical English without ambiguous allusions, non sequitors, and references to unverifiable facts. Similarly, there must be at least a little bit of common agreement on what counts as evidence and how it lead to a reasonable conclusion.

Before waving a red flag to invite charges from any and all detractors, you should ponder the futility of debates that occasionally occur between astrologists and astronomers, holocaust-deniers and historians, communists and democrats, phrenologists and palm-readers, conspiracy theorists and logicians, the Flat Earth Society and the purveyors of the Globulist Hypothesis and the like. The debates don't go anywhere because there is no common agreement, not on factual matters, reasoning or language.
Your English, to your credit, has much improved over the past year and, now, you can be understood on first-reading. With continued improvement, your thoughts will clarify and, as you understand them, they'll open up to your own assessment. Keep up the good work.

So what are you really trying to say to me? It sounds as if I'm not welcome here if my line of argument is not in tandem with yours...is that what you are really implying? And incidentally, I think your logic is so full of hogwash, that perhaps at the very least you can be criticized to the same degree I am, since I really don't get what the hell your on about. What exactly do you find so offensive in what I have said? I'm really afraid that if anything, YOU are the victim of your own society's push for political correctness which to all intents and purposes wants to rip the teeth out of any argument that has the slightest whiff of difference to it. Sorry...but I'm sticking to my opinions, and I'm glad to say that as much as may not like that, I've noticed that there are at least as many people as you that do.

As sad as it is, when arguments get tangled like this one, what happens instead is that it really turns into a moment of light relief. Take it easy guys, pleeez. Look-let's take another analogy to the one Maxim is working along. I have always thought that when we face a sudden financial downturn in the marketplace, there is someone ( or maybe even more) who is out there making a killing of it all. You only hear of that after the event. Soros has been a case in point. So it is with these sorts of arguments. The sources are as wide apart as the people that represent them, but there's really nothing wrong with that. However, we all know it takes hard work to piece together historical facts, and as it stands, too many crucial issues go to the grave along with the people who were closest to these circumstances. Be that as it may, let's take a step backwards, and cool it a little- please. Thanks.

..what do you mean maxim can be understood on first-reading??? ...don't speak for everybody

I agree! I understand him perfectly!
If Maxim is a native Estonian, then he should be commended for his excellent command of the English language!

"Sorry...but I'm sticking to my opinions, and I'm glad to say that as much as may not like that, I've noticed that there are at least as many people as you that do."

If that's your idea of excellent English then, like Maxim, you probably graduated from one of our high schools when literacy had already plummeted. I'm sorry for you because it's a handicap to be semi-literate and an additional handicap to be unaware of it.

I'm very sorry for leaving out the word "you"-I understand that it is important, when writing to this paper, that every word is in its correct place. However, I am surprised that for such a small error, I am subject to such strong criticism. Is this normal in your country? I also find it strange that apart from one other person here (called anti-mason), no-one has actually contributed any actually interesting ideas, but instead tried to turn this discussion into an English lesson. Why is it so important to be able to write so perfectly, when you've got nothing to say with all that articulated English? I don't mean to offend anyone in particular; just curious as to why ideas count so little here..

Maxim asks, "Is this normal in your country?" as if he wasn't born and miseducated in Canada.
He moved to Estonia as an adult and his English, such as it is, remains better than his Estonian.

...and it's by grammatical, logical syntax that they are communicated. In other words, in the absence of language, there's an absence of ideas.
You're unaware of this because you equate an idea with an emotion, something "proved" by the feeling in your heart and strident repetition.
With specific reference to your heartfelt conviction that Freemasons shape important events, you should know that this can't be disproved. Before rejoicing, however, contemplate its implication: if it can't be disproved, nor can it be proved and impassioned assertions are irrelevant to the matter.
Anticipating that you can't understand this notion, I'll ask you to imagine the evidence that would change your mind on this question. I suspect you can't -- even if every Freemason were to die, I can envisage you on a stump ranting incoherently that they can hide as they wield their perfidious, ubiquitous and mephitic power.

If Freemasons don't rule the world (because I'm supposed to imagine a world without them) why are they still here holding important positions of power in every society? And can you prove to me that the logic and research it has taken to come to the conclusions people have in supporting the evidence which points to the Masons' wily ways in history's annals, why should I suddenly discount that evidence as being false just because you want me to take part in some ridiculous excercise? Wake up and realize the world operates - often - on the basis on absolutely no logic at all!!!

I don't rant on a stump, thank you! And I wouldn't expect you to change your opinion if you don't feel strongly enough about changing it in the first place. But for some reason you seem so convinced that I am wrong, and you would see hell freeze over just to prove the point. However, I have done a lot of reading of history, and I'm more convinced with what I have found in various textbooks ( particularly in incisive implications many historians allude to in their work) than the comments that appear here-most of which have very little connection with any kind of history at all. I appreciate your description of how I think, but the truth is that life is too short not to believe in what you are convinced of, and to keep changing one's mind on any subject...simply shows either shallowness or instability of personality.