This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The Morals and Dogma of Freemasonry (1)
– A Fist Raised against God and his Ranking Order –
De Freemasonry is, in our present world, at the forefront of things. Its members hold key positions in the political and social spheres and seem to be able to determine the course of things. Yet it remains difficult to know exactly what they are trying to accomplish. It is in many ways secretive. This article attempts to unveil the underlying and hidden motives. At the same time a piece of the falsification of history is brought to light.
1 – 1717: Foundation of the Grand Lodge in London
An important event in the history of Freemasonry was the foundation in 1717 of the Grand Lodge of London, also called the Mother Grand Lodge of the World. That year is commonly seen as the birth of modern Freemasonry, of its so-called ‘speculative’ form in contrast to the older kind, known as ‘operational’. Though this distinction hardly makes sense from the moral or intellectual point of view, it caused the Masonic movement to embark on a very structured and expansive worldwide activity of unmatched intensity. Thus in 1717, delegates from a colourful band of esoteric sects gathered in London: cabalists, alchemists, Rosicrucians, remnants of the Templars etc. Their zealous agents begun to set up Lodges all over Europe in an effort spanning many years, with a view to creating, with the help of the nobility and even some of the higher clergy, the subversive climate that would rot the institutions right down to the marrow, clearing the way for the state of affairs intended by the Sect. Indeed, it is not by chance that the first Encyclical against Freemasonry was promulgated in 1738! Seventy years after its foundation Freemasonry was, via the so-called Jacobins, the great driving force behind the French Revolution. Listen to the sermon of Pope Pius VI on June 2nd, 1793, on the occasion of the murder of the very pious king Louis XVI, who was executed on the scaffold:
«« …Who would ever doubt that this monarch was sacrificed first of all because of religious hatred, because of a ferocious spirit against the Catholic doctrines? For a long time the Calvinists had been conspiring in France for the ruin of the Catholic faith. (…) They had ordered that each and every one was free to practice the religion of his own choice, as if all religions led to eternal salvation – and yet only the Catholic religion was forbidden. (…) Should we not ascribe to religious hatred those first endeavours of the conspiracies that are now troubling and shaking Europe everywhere? (…) The main reproach levelled against this Prince pertained to his unflinching firmness in his refusal to approve and sanction the decree for the deportation of priests and his letter written to the Bishop of Clermont to whom he announced his decision to re-establish the Catholic religious practice in France as soon as circumstances would permit. Is not this sufficient proof to conclude and defend that Louis was a martyr indeed? »»
2 – John Désaguliers
The remark about the Calvinists may be seen in connection with the French-Calvinist minister of religion John Désaguliers (1683-1744). In 1717, the year of the birth of Pius VI, he happened to be one of the three prime movers in the foundation of the Mother Grand Lodge of the World. He came from La Rochelle but, in his younger days, had escaped to England where he joined the great circle of Huguenot refugees. There he found work as assistant to the great physicist Isaac Newton († 1727), and they became good friends. It seems that Newton belonged to the Order of the Rosicrucians, whose members believe that “all secret and sacred writings have truth in them, irrespective of their source, and must be judged by their inculcations rather than the source”. We may thus safely assume that he had a counselling role for the foundation in London of the Freemasonic Mother Grand Lodge, which we have noted already was of the speculative form.
3 – A new cosmopolitan strategy
Instead of comparing speculative Freemasonry with the older type (‘operational), it would be better to speak of a new cosmopolitan strategy under the guidance of the Mother Lodge of London, which in its practical application and in the course of two centuries amounted to the means and methods of the British Empire. The first motive - from the human point of view is therefore to be found in the aspiration for power and riches, which is not surprising because among all the important esoteric movements Freemasonry is the most materialistic. The foundation of the Mother Lodge in 1717 was within the politico-economic evolution of the time, right after the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89, which is to be considered as the bloodless predecessor of the French Revolution. Because the latter was bloody, it is generally regarded as the model for all other revolutions. (1) The Glorious Revolution enjoys greater seniority because it had brought to life the first constitutional monarchy, following the principle of ‘contractual government’ (which means ‘democratic’), so defined by John Locke (1632-1704), who was a Freemason even before the term existed; he called himself an under-labourer to master-builders. In the years 1689 and 1690, soon after the Revolution, Locke wrote his two “Treatises on Government”, of which the second is particularly important in the history of political thought. The foundation document of the United States in 1776, the Declaration of Independence, also followed the ideas of Locke.
4 – The British Empire
Generally, the years 1688-89 are considered the starting point of the British Empire, which by definition was cosmopolitan. At a later stage, in the second half of the 19th century, there was
a development, due to a great extent of the ‘new’ Jewish involvement and preponderance concerning the higher and hidden objectives of Freemasonry, which found its expression in the financial centres of New York, London, Frankfurt and Paris, that from their beginnings have always been closely linked to Freemasonry and its affiliated organisations. Since then the movement started to become truly cosmopolitan and a motivator, by all manner of means, of a global international strategy that was meant to lead to a kind of World Government – the supreme synthesis between right and left and the political systems of capitalism and socialism (or communism). From this point of view capitalism and communism are the two adopted and beloved sons of the Masonic movement. In the course towards that goal of unification of the world, according to principles that are raised against God and his ranking order like a fist, it promoted its adepts amongst the decision-makers, or their advisers, in key positions above and within both conflicting parties, not only in the democratic societies but also within the totalitarian regimes (as opposed to democratic). This development was in the course of events once the organizational framework of the British Empire had come into being and once the first and crucial objective had been met: that of the eradication of the divinely ordained French Royal House, albeit in the 19th century the Masonic movement failed in its objective of the eradication of the Roman Catholic faith and the papacy, which, by the way, is still one of their prime motives.
5 – The Divine Will …or yet their own will?
The great ideas that enter the world scene never come in isolation and then start conquering the imagination of the masses. To understand this properly, one should look back in history. England served as an important European hiding place during the troubles of the Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries. During that period the country had acted as a kind of fermentation vessel for a whole range of religious sects and Christian separatist movements that received their common start capital in the pursuit of the human will, which eventually comes down to the will for absolute self-determination. The first separatist reformers pursued the Divine Will in prayers and tears, but in truth they were pursuing their own will. Oh, how deceptive are the depths of the human spirit! By doing their own will they opposed the Divine Will, which they painfully chased from its cherished residence in the delights of their souls. The freshness of grace has decayed since the day when Adam gave free rein to his personal will. Since the day that the human will turned away from the Divine Will, it has thrown the human race into a labyrinth of disasters, of which the Freemasonry sect is not the least!
6 – The Glorious Revolution
To understand the positions with regard to the ideology and popular conceptions during the Glorious Revolution, one should also examine the political troubles that ravaged England in the middle of the 17th century and their consequences, and the events and currents of thought that had caused them, which have been thoroughly discussed in a number of good books. (2) Clearly, the Glorious Revolution offers the best vantage point for the study of our subject, which concerns the great Conspiracy plotted against the ranking order of kings, against the throne and the altar (3), by these proud and headstrong people who do not want the Kingdom of God but wish to create their own institutions and define their own laws. Psalm 2 says: “Why do the nations (goj) rage and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying: ‘Let us break their bonds in pieces and cast away their cords from us!’” How remarkable that the very year 1689 served as starting point for God’s counter-strategy: He who in His Sacred Heart offers the remedy for all the perils that in increasing measure endanger our present world gives His message to Marguerite-Marie, already mentioned. God promises: “I will reign despite My enemies”, a promise still valid today. Hubert Luns
To be continued
[published in the Dutch “De Brandende Lamp”, February-June 2004; No. 97] [published in the Belgian “Positief”, January 2004; No. 338] Part 1: A Fist raised against God and his Ranking Order Part 2: A Perverse Fusion, Called Peace Part 3: The Counterchurch of Freemasonry
The French Revolution on the centennial of the Glorious Revolution (1a) The beginning of the French Revolution in year zero of the world, as the conspirators are used to say, was placed at the centenary of the Glorious Revolution and that is why a certain event in 1789, the taking possession of the Bastille, was announced as the outburst of the Revolution. The story was invented that in the early 14th century the Bastille served as a prison for the last Grand Master of the Templar Knights, Jacques de Molay, who - as tradition tells had sworn the destruction of the French monarchy and the papacy while being burned at the stake. To be honest, the ‘assault’ in 1789 was a non-event. The building was poorly defended by a force of 82 handicapped and 32 Swiss guards, and contained but seven prisoners of whom four were swindlers and three lunatics. Louis XVI correctly notes in his personal diary on July the 14th, date of the assault on the Bastille: “NOTHING”. As an identifying mark September 2nd 1792 would have been more suitable, the day of the beginning of the Reign of Terror. And why not September 22nd, date of the proclamation of the First Republic? 1789 was also the year of the inauguration, in March, of the first President of the United States: George Washington, himself Grand Master of a Masonic order and the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. In a friendly and symbolic gesture, La Fayette, who was Washington’s good friend and Masonic brother, sent him the key of the Bastille. La Fayette presented the Declaration of the rights of men and citizens (No God, no… obligations!) to the Assemblée in August 1789, which proposal happened to be based on the Declaration of Independence of the United States. These few observations help to illustrate the cosmopolitan and Masonic principle at work. Eyewitness account of the assault of the Bastille (1b) The Chancellor Pasquier (1767-1862) relates in his well-known memoirs the following bewildering incident: «« I was present at the siege of the Bastille; what is called a combat was not serious, there was no resistance whatsoever. There were neither food supplies nor ammunition; it was not even necessary to look for it. The regiment of the French guards commissioned with the attack arrived from the Saint-Antoine street and positioned itself in front of the main gate which was closed off by a draw-pontoon. A few shots from guns were fired to which no reply was made, then four or five cannon shots. It has been suggested that one of these cannon shots cut the chains of the draw-pontoon; I did not see anything of the kind and yet was very close to the point of attack. What I did see perfectly was the action of the soldiers, invalids and others, ranged on the platform of the high tower, raising the butts of their rifles in the air, and expressing by every means used under such circumstances the wish to surrender. The consequences of this pretended victory, that bestowed so many favours on the heads of the pretended victors, are known; the truth is that this great combat did not frighten for a moment the crowd of spectators that flocked together to see the result. Among them were a great number of elegant women; they left their carriages at some distance to be able to come nearer by. I leaned against the far end of the fence that, from the side of the Place de la Bastille, closed off the garden alongside the home of “de Beaumarchais”, where a few days later he had an inscription made with the following text: “This little garden was planted on the first year of liberty”. (This Beaumarchais is no doubt Caron de Beaumarchais, author of “The Barber of Seville” and “The Marriage of Figaro”.) »»
Taken from the “Souvenirs du Chancelier Pasquier 1767-1815” - Librairie Hachette # 1964. One should, as I did, quote the passage unabridged. Be careful: “La Bastille dévoilée” by Galart de Montjoie is not a dependable source, although he also refers to the “Souvenirs” of Pasquier.
The ideology behind the Glorious Revolution (2a) To get in a simple way an idea of the England of the 17th century, I like to refer readers to Roy Strong’s book: “The Story of Britain - A People’s History” # 1996. (2b) The growing power of France roused the invariable English hostility to the leading continental State, and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 caused English Protestant feelings to become bitterly opposed to Louis XIV. In the same year king James II succeeded his brother in England. His extreme commitment to the Catholic cause finished by alienating his loyal subjects. In the end almost everybody in England wished to be rid of James. But almost everybody was equally determined to avoid a return to the horrible days of the Civil War and Cromwell’s republican dictatorship (Only God! No king!). Since there was no constitutional way of getting rid of James, there had to be a revolution, but it must be quickly ended, so as to give no opportunity to disruptive forces. The rights of Parliament must be secured once and for all. The king must go, but monarchy must be preserved; it should, however, not be a monarchy based on Divine Right, but one dependent upon legislative sanction, and thus upon Parliament. Thanks to a combination of aristocracy and big business, all this was achieved in a moment, without the necessity of firing a shot. The Act of Toleration  and the Bill of Rights  secured the legal base for it and provided the English equivalent of a constitutional monarchy. Compromise and moderation had succeeded, after every form of intransigence had been tried and had failed miserably. After allowing James to flee the country, Parliament offered the crown jointly to the Dutch Protestant William III and his Protestant wife Mary, daughter of James. The new king of the House of Orange brought with him the commercial practices and theological manners for which his country was noted. Roy Strong says: “William was never to acknowledge that his position was in any way different from that of his predecessors, but in truth it was.” The occasion served to establish the Bank of England and to revert the national debt into a trustworthy investment, no longer liable to repudiation at the caprice of Parliament. The Act of Toleration, while leaving Catholics and Nonconformists subject to various penalties, put an end to actual religious persecution. It was actually a form of freedom of expression, to be engrained later on and in more general terms in Common Law. Foreign policy was to become resolutely anti-French, and remained so, with brief intermissions, until the defeat of Napoleon.
Partly taken from Bertrand Russell’s discussion of John Locke in “A History of Western Philosophy” 1945. Russell discusses Locke in over forty pages, a coverage nearly equal to that of both Plato and Aristotle, while the other important thinkers in history are discussed in this book of 836 pages in about ten pages each. In 1957, Nobel laureate Russell published “Why I Am Not a Christian”, and it is from this viewpoint that one should consider his writings.
The conspiracy against the throne! (3) Let us take a look at the famous book by the Jesuit l’Abbé Augustin Barruel (1741-1820) on the driving forces behind of the French revolution entitled “Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du Jacobinisme” (Memoranda to serve a better understanding of the history of the Jacobinism) published for the first time in 1797. Part 3 is in particular of interest. In chapter xii (pp. 475-477) of the new edition, revised in 2005, there is an important summary concerning the true motives behind the death penalty imposed on the august King Louis XVI: «« This war of Vandals was not conducted against Louis but against Royalty. They accused Louis XVI of being a tyrant! They are still saying it, but they know well in what sense they mean it. They state it as all their sophists have stated that every king is a tyrant. They know well: during the nineteen years of his reign Louis XVI wrote many letters of pardon but signed the death warrant of not a single person; and that is not how a tyrant reigns. They know well: Louis XVI did not proclaim himself king before starting to sacrifice to his subjects the tribute of his receiving the Crown. In favour of the people he abolished the practice of corvées (statute labour for the nobility); he abolished all use of torture in favour of the guilty themselves or of any accused; those are not a tyrant’s edicts. In order to gain certain rights in the favour of his people by means of the example he had set, they saw him abandon on this point all feudal rights in his (royal) domains, which justice and property rights did not permit him to reclaim on the basis of his (supreme) authority. They know: Louis XVI has none of those odious and onerous vices weighing upon nations; he is religious, enemy of every ostentation; he is compassionate, generous to the poor: they saw his open up his treasures to warm, to clothe, to nourish
the indigent, and to take his aid himself to their cottages. They saw right up to the monument, which the poor had rolled and pressed from snow into a pyramid, raised to Louis XVI for having softened the rigours of winter for them; and they know well that it is not to honour tyrants that the recognition of the poor man is both so touching and so industrious. They call him both despot and tyrant; they cannot but know that there was never a monarch so zealous in his duties nor who clung so little to his rights as Louis XVI. He knew only one right: that of confidence and love. If ever he was capable of speaking as a master who must be obeyed, it was when, surrounded by murderers, he said so often to his Guards: “If, in order to save me, it is necessary for one drop of blood to be spilt, I forbid the spilling”. And those are not the type of orders given by a tyrant. And if the calumny persists, Louis wrote down his last will; let them be read: “I beg all those whom I may have offended inadvertently [since I cannot remember ever having knowingly offended anyone] or those for whom I could have been a source of bad example or umbrage, to forgive me for the wrong that they believe I may have done them”; let them continue to read, these regicide judges! It is of them themselves that he speaks when he says: “I pardon with all my heart those who have made themselves my enemies without my having given them any cause; and I pray God to pardon them”. Finally, let them follow him as he mounts the scaffold; let them contemplate – if they dare – this forehead whose serenity proclaims that to be found in his soul in the midst of his executioners; and, if they still dare, let them listen in these last moments; but they dare not; they let the sound of their drums roll over him; they know only too well; no, not so do tyrants live – and most especially – not so do they die. They all know before judging him, these conspirator legislators; even at the moment they vote for the death of Louis XVI, ask them what is his crime, and what is their motive? They said it in a loud voice: Louis XVI became king and our wish is the death of every king. Is not that the sense of the statement made by the Jacobin Robert: “I condemn the tyrant to death; and in pronouncing this sentence I have only one regret, which is that my competence does not extend to all tyrants, in order to condemn them all to the same penalty”. Is that not the sense of the statement made by the Jacobin Carra: “For the instruction of the peoples, at all times and in all places, and to terrify tyrants, I vote for the death penalty”. And when the Jacobin Bileau adds: “Peoples accustomed to seeing their kings as sacred objects will of necessity say to themselves: but it must not be that these heads of kings are so sacred – because the axe approaches them and the vengeful arm of justice is able to strike them: thus you can push them into the corridors of freedom – I vote for death”. (See the official paper Le Moniteur about the sitting of 2nd January and the days following, 1793.) If the ulterior motive for the death of Louis XVI is not sufficiently demonstrated by this language, go back to the Sophists’ club, where Condorcet conceived to tell us that a time was to come when “the sun will no longer shine except on free men, when kings and priests will no longer exist except in history and on the stage.” (Esquisse des progrès de l’esprit humain, ép. 10) »»
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.