1- A Fist Raised against God – Hubert_Luns

8/2/2019 1- A Fist Raised against God – Hubert_Luns

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-a-fist-raised-against-god-hubertluns 1/6

- 1 -

The Morals and Dogma of Freemasonry (1)

– A Fist Raised against G od 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 mo-

ral or intellectual point of view, it caused the Masonic movement to embark on a very struc-

tured and expansive worldwide activity of unmatched intensity. Thus in 1717, delegates froma 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 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 firstendeavours 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.

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 foun-

dation 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 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.

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



- 3 -

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.

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 fermen-

tation vessel for a whole range of religious sects and Christian separatist movements that re-

ceived 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 DivineWill, 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 re-

markable 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



- 4 -

[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

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 areused to say, was placed at the centenary of the Glorious Revolution and that is why a certainevent 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 prisonfor 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 wasalso 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 Constitutionof the United States. In a friendly and symbolic gesture, La Fayette, who was Washington’sgood friend and Masonic brother, sent him the key of the Bastille. La Fayette presented theDeclaration 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 theUnited States. These few observations help to illustrate the cosmopolitan and Masonic prin-

ciple at work.

Eyewitness account of the assault of the Bastille

(1b) The Chancellor Pasquier (1767-1862) relates in his well-known memoirs the following be- wildering 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 wasnot even necessary to look for it. The regiment of the French guards commissioned withthe attack arrived from the Saint-Antoine street and positioned itself in front of the maingate which was closed off by a draw-pontoon. A few shots from guns were fired to whichno 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 kindand 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 buttsof their rifles in the air, and expressing by every means used under such circumstancesthe wish to surrender. The consequences of this pretended victory, that bestowed somany favours on the heads of the pretended victors, are known; the truth is that thisgreat combat did not frighten for a moment the crowd of spectators that flocked togetherto see the result. Among them were a great number of elegant women; they left theircarriages 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 thehome of “de Beaumarchais”, where a few days later he had an inscription made with thefollowing text: “This little garden was planted on the first year of liberty” . (ThisBeaumarchais 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 adependable source, although he also refers to the “Souvenirs” of Pasquier.



- 5 -

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 toRoy 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 con-

tinental State, and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 caused English Protestantfeelings 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 alienatinghis 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 Warand 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 securedonce 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 thusupon 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 theBill of Rights [1690] secured the legal base for it and provided the English equivalent of aconstitutional monarchy.

Compromise and moderation had succeeded, after every form of intransigence had beentried and had failed miserably. After allowing James to flee the country, Parliament offeredthe crown jointly to the Dutch Protestant William III and his Protestant wife Mary, daughterof James. The new king of the House of Orange brought with him the commercial practicesand theological manners for which his country was noted. Roy Strong says: “William wasnever 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 revertthe national debt into a trustworthy investment, no longer liable to repudiation at the capriceof 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 freedomof expression, to be engrained later on and in more general terms in Common Law. Foreignpolicy was to become resolutely anti-French, and remained so, with brief intermissions, untilthe 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 tenpages 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) onthe driving forces behind of the French revolution entitled “Mémoires pour servir à l’histoiredu Jacobinisme” (Memoranda to serve a better understanding of the history of the Jacobi-nism) 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 thetrue 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 whatsense they mean it. They state it as all their sophists have stated that every king is atyrant. 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 startingto sacrifice to his subjects the tribute of his receiving the Crown. In favour of the peoplehe abolished the practice of corvées (statute labour for the nobility); he abolished all useof torture in favour of the guilty themselves or of any accused; those are not a tyrant’sedicts. In order to gain certain rights in the favour of his people by means of the examplehe 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



- 6 -

the indigent, and to take his aid himself to their cottages. They saw right up to themonument, which the poor had rolled and pressed from snow into a pyramid, raised toLouis XVI for having softened the rigours of winter for them; and they know well that itis not to honour tyrants that the recognition of the poor man is both so touching and soindustrious. They call him both despot and tyrant; they cannot but know that there wasnever 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, hesaid 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 havingknowingly 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 donethem”; let them continue to read, these regicide judges! It is of them themselves that hespeaks when he says: “ I pardon with all my heart those who have made themselves myenemies 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, notso do tyrants live – and most especially – not so do they die.

They all know before judging him, these conspirator legislators; even at the momentthey vote for the death of Louis XVI, ask them what is his crime, and what is theirmotive? 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 themall to the same penalty”. Is that not the sense of the statement made by the JacobinCarra: “ For the instruction of the peoples, at all times and in all places, and to terrifytyrants, I vote for the death penalty”. And when the Jacobin Bileau adds: “ Peoplesaccustomed 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 approachesthem and the vengeful arm of justice is able to strike them: thus you can push them intothe corridors of freedom – I vote for death”. (See the official paper Le Moniteur aboutthe sitting of 2nd January and the days following, 1793.) If the ulterior motive for thedeath of Louis XVI is not sufficiently demonstrated by this language, go back to theSophists’ club, where Condorcet conceived to tell us that a time was to come when “thesun 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) »»

-

1- A Fist Raised against God – Hubert_Luns

Documents

Transcript of 1- A Fist Raised against God – Hubert_Luns