Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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.
Seventy years after its foundation Freemasonry was, via the so-called Jacobins, the great dri-
ving 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:
-2-
«« …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 in-
deed? »»
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 happe-
ned 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 be-
longed 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 inculca-
tions 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 al-
ready was of the speculative form.
The Glorious Revolution enjoys greater seniority because it had brought to life the first con-
stitutional monarchy, following the principle of ‘contractual government’ (which means ‘de-
mocratic’), 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 docu-
ment of the United States in 1776, the Declaration of Independence, also followed the ideas of
Locke.
a development, due to a great extent of the ‘new’ Jewish involvement and preponderance con-
cerning 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.
Notes
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 Re-
volution. 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 not defended, or
hardly, 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 handing over of the keys of the Bastille: “NOTHING”.
As an identifying mark June 21st 1791 would have been more suitable for the beginning of
the French Revolution, as it was the day after the King got away from Paris because of the
escalating conflict regarding the plans of the Assemblée to tie down the freedom of religion.
On that day in June they arrested the King on his travel. On August 10 the following year the
monarchy was abolished. Eleven days later the guillotine was used for the first time. And then
on September 22nd follows the proclamation of the First Republic (since 1958 it is the Fifth
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 Inde-
pendence of the United States. These few observations help to illustrate the cosmopolitan and
Masonic conspiracy at work.
(2b) The growing power of France roused the invariable English hostility to the leading con-
tinental 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 al-
most 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 consti-
tutional 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 achie-
ved in a moment, without the necessity of firing a shot. The Act of Toleration [1689] and the
Bill of Rights [1690] 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 predeces-
sors, 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 Aris-
totle, 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.
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) »»
[published in the Dutch “De Brandende Lamp”, February-June 2004; No. 97]
[published in the Belgian “Positief”, January 2004; No. 338]