New Age History and Economics

The Day We See The Truth And Cease To Speak it, Is The Day We Begin To Die. MLK Jr.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Freemasonry is anti-Christian


“THE FREEMEN ”
Sr. No 2/11     Originally published ; 1st November, 2007


Lies being Taught;

Knight Templar’s predecessors of Freemasons called themselves “Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon”. It was most wealthy and powerful of the Christian military orders and were among the most prominent actors of the Christian finance.

Now the Truth;
Knight Templar’s used the name Christ to gain access to 1st Temple of Jews in Jerusalem for whose complete control they are again still fighting. They are anything but Christian. see here
 
This month’s topic is : IS MASONRY ANTI CATHOLICISM. 
So it would seem if we were to go by number of papal bulls issued against Masonry since 1300. I had already mentioned in my newsletter of October 2006, the papal Bull issued against Knight Templars in 1307.

Between 1307 to 1717 there was a lull as Freemasons kept a low profile. However after 1717 when some lodges became unionized under GLE, they again came into lime light. On 28th April 1738, Pope Clement XII issued 2nd Papal Bull ‘In Eminenti’ against the Freemasons. It stated that Freemasons had formed lodges ‘in which men of no matter what religion and sect, content with a certain affectation of natural virtue, are mutually bound together in a close and exclusive league’. They took oaths to preserve their secrets under threat of horrible penalties if they broke those oaths’. Pope clement asked ‘Why the need for secrecy if the Freemasons were doing good and not evil? They were libertines and miscreants, ‘for assuredly if such people were not doing evil they would never have so much hatred for light’. The Pope therefore forbade Catholics to become Freemasons on pain of excommunication.

The Pope’s Bull was enforced in many catholic countries like Spain, Italy, Portugal etc. The Lodges there were banned / disbanded. The Freemasons were arrested and tortured in many countries. The Freemasons in these countries either disbanded, went underground or shifted to safer countries like England, France and Ireland, Scotland etc. After some time the persecution also died on its own.

On 18th May 1751, Pope Benedict XIV issued yet another Papal Bull against the freemasons; it reiterated the 1738 Bull of his predecessor Clement XII.

In 1884 Pope Leo XIII issued a proclamation stating that Masonry was one of the secret societies attempting to "revive the manners and customs of the pagans" and "establish Satan's kingdom on Earth."

“There was nothing nefarious or subversive on the pope's part, Leo XIII was a troubled man. He felt deeply the great losses in church power, privilege, and wealth brought on by the democratic revolutions and developed such profound mistrust that he kept all of the gold of the Vatican in a box under his own bed. He truly believed democracy was evil, part of the 'kingdom of Satan', and that the Catholic church had a right and duty to oversee every secular government."

The reasons given for this edicts were that Freemasonry systematically promotes religious indifferentism and undermines true, i.e., orthodox Christian and Catholic Faith and life. Freemasonry is essentially Naturalism and hence opposed to all supernaturalism.

"The principles of social science follow. Here naturalists teach that men have all the same rights, and are perfectly equal in condition; that every man is naturally independent; that no one has a right to command other; that it is tyranny to keep men subject to any other authority than that which emanates from themselves." - Pope Leo XIII, "Humanum Genus"

A number of Papal bulls were issued against freemasons threatening those Christians who became freemasons with excommunication. The complete list of papal Bulls (Pope’s Decree or Order) issued against Freemasons is as follows:-

Clement XII        April 28 1738               In Eminenti
c.
Benedict XIV       May 18 1751               Providas

Pius VII             September 13 1821       Ecclesiam  
Leo XII              March 13 1825              Quo Graviora     
Pius VIII            May 21 1829                 Traditi Humilitati
e.
Pius VIII            March 25 1830       †      Litteris altero     
Gregory XVI        August 15 1832            Mirari Vos
e.
Pius IX              November 9, 1846 ‡      Qui Pluribus
e.
Pius IX              April 20, 1849       ?      Quibus Quantisque Malis      
Pius IX              December 8, 1864 ‡      Quanta Cura
e.
Pius IX              September 25, 1865      Inter Multiplices
a.
Pius IX             October 12, 1869        ‡ Apostolicae Sedis c.
Pius IX             November 21, 1873       Etsi Multa
e.
Leo XIII           June 29, 1881        †‡    Diuturnum

Leo XIII           February  15, 1882       ‡Etsi Nos
e.
Leo XIII           March 20, 1884             Humanum Genus
e.
Leo XIII           December 22, 1887 †     Officio sanctissimo

Leo XIII           October 15, 1890          Dall'alto Dell'apostolico Seggio
e.
Leo XIII           December 8, 1892 †      Custodi di quella fede

Leo XIII           December 8, 1892 †      Inimica vis

Leo XIII           June 20, 1894              Praeclara

Leo XIII          March 18, 1902             Annum Ingressi
  
Paul VI           November 21, 1964‡      Unitatis redintegratio

Paul VI           October 28, 1965        ‡ Nostra Aetate

The church’s code of canon Law had declared Masonic Membership punishable by automatic excommunication, However this major doctrinal document was revised On November 27,1983, by the then Pope, John Paul XXII who retracted all of the Papal Bulls against Freemasonry and allowed Catholics, after several hundred years, to again become members of secret societies without fear of excommunication.

However later in the same year, the Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (current Pope Benedict XVI), who was then a senior Church functionary, made it known that Freemasons remain ‘in state of grave Sin’ and are barred from taking communion. The statement reads as follows:-
VATICAN CITY (1984) "The Vatican, clarifying its position on membership in Masonic lodges, said yesterday that Catholics who join such organizations commit 'grave sin'. The new reminder, in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, appeared to be aimed mainly at Catholics in the United States, where some have interpreted recent church statements as relaxing the 247-year-old ban on Masonic membership imposed by Pope Clement XII. A new code of Canon Law outlined on Nov. 25, 1983, had omitted membership in the Masons in the list of offenses that incur automatic excommunication." Hence the above statement was issued to clarify the position of Vatican on Membership of Masonic Lodges.  - (UPI)

Regarding Religion, the old charges of Masonry as per Andersons Constitution (1723) states as under:-

“I. Concerning God and Religion. A Mason is obliged by his Tenure, to obey the moral law: and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist [Gothic letters] nor an irreligious Libertine [Gothic letters]. But though in ancient times Masons were charged in every country to be of the religion of that country or nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that religion in which all men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves: that is, to be good men and true or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguished; whereby Masonry becomes the Centre of Union and the Means of consolidating true Friendship among Persons that must have remained at a perpetual Distance.”

THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF PAPAL BULLS:-

Date October 12th 2007. Reuters:
(Published in Times of India, October 14th, 2007)
The current pope Benedict VI has rehabilitated “The Knights Templar,” when the Vatican published trial documents it had closely guarded for 700 years. A reproduction of the minutes of trials against the Templars, Processus Contra Templarios - Papal Inquiry into the Trial of the Templars a massive work and much more than a book - with a 5,900 euros ($A9,332) price tag. "This is a milestone because it is the first time that these documents are being released by the Vatican, which gives a stamp of authority to the entire project," - said Professor Barbara Frale, a medievalist at the Vatican's Secret Archives.

The most interesting part of the documents is the so-called Chinon Parchment, which contains phrases in which Pope Clement V absolves the Templars of charges of heresy, which had been the backbone of King Philip's attempts to eliminate them. Templars were burned at the stake for heresy by King Philip's agents after they made ‘confessions’ that were given under duress. The official presentation was done on October the 25th 2007.

The parchment, also known as the Chinon Chart, was "misplaced" in the Vatican archives until 2001, when Professor Frale stumbled across it. "The parchment was catalogued incorrectly at some point in history. At first I couldn't believe my eyes. I was incredulous," she said."This was the document that a lot of historians were looking for."
The announcement came one day before the anniversary of October the 13th, 1307 when the secret decree issued by the then Pope Clement V under pressure of King Philippe IV was opened. Its contents made known and under orders of Pope Clement V and king Philippe hundred of Knights Templars also known as ‘Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon’ were rounded off and killed/burned on stakes.

“The pontiff chose Benedict as his papal title, a name with special significance for the Knights Templar. The Rule of the Templars, which is like a code of conduct for the Order, was originally known as the Rule of Benedict.”


Who are currently the Bankers of Vatican? 

Are they the same Freemasons ? Any Connections with supreme leader of Freemasons - The Rothschilds - Israelis ?

Many have made a trade of delusions and false miracles, deceiving the stupid multitude.

Blinding Ignorance does mislead us. O wretched mortals, open your eyes!

With Fraternal Greetings,

KAPS.


Monday, November 11, 2013

Grasshopper and Ant (new version)


GRASSHOPPER AND THE ANT.

Same story but Two Different Versions ..... Two Different Morals

OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE OLD STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

NEW VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving. CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food…America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green..'

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, We shall overcome. Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake.

President condemns the ant and blames previous opposition government for the grasshopper's plight. Politicians exclaim in interview that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize and ramshackle the once prosperous and peaceful neighborhood.

The world has collapsed.

MORAL OF THE STORY: This is democracy

Friday, November 1, 2013

Hitler's views on democracy. "Mein Kampf"-Excerpts-Chapter-III-Part-C

Lies being taught;
Mein Kampf is unintelligible ravings of a maniac.
Now the Truth; 
CHAPTER III
POLITICAL REFLECTIONS ARISING OUT OF MY SOJOURN IN VIENNA. 
VIEWS ON DEMOCRACY


“As one who cherished ideals of political freedom I could not even imagine any other form of government. In the light of my attitude towards the House of Habsburg I should then have considered it a crime against liberty and reason to think of any kind of dictatorship as a possible form of government.

A certain admiration which I had for the British Parliament contributed towards the formation of this opinion. I became imbued with that feeling of admiration almost without my being conscious of the effect of it through so much reading of newspapers while I was yet quite young. I could not discard that admiration all in a moment. The dignified way in which the British House of Commons fulfilled its function impressed me greatly, thanks largely to the glowing terms in which the Austrian Press reported these events. I used to ask myself whether there could be any nobler form of government than self-government by the people.

Such was my general attitude at the time when I first entered those sacred and contentious halls. For me they were sacred only because of the radiant beauty of that majestic edifice. A Greek wonder on German soil.

But I soon became enraged by the hideous spectacle that met my eyes. Several hundred representatives were there to discuss a problem of great economical importance and each representative had the right to have his say.

That experience of a day was enough to supply me with food for thought during several weeks afterwards.

The intellectual level of the debate was quite low. Some times the debaters did not make themselves intelligible at all. Several of those present did not speak German but only their Slav vernaculars or dialects. Thus I had the opportunity of hearing with my own ears what I had been hitherto acquainted with only through reading the newspapers. A turbulent mass of people, all gesticulating and bawling against one another, with a pathetic old man shaking his bell and making frantic efforts to call the House to a sense of its dignity by friendly appeals, exhortations, and grave warnings.

I could not refrain from laughing.

Several weeks later I paid a second visit. This time the House presented an entirely different picture, so much so that one could hardly recognize it as the same place. The hall was practically empty. They were sleeping in the other rooms below. Only a few deputies were in their places, yawning in each other's faces. One was speechifying. A deputy speaker was in the chair. When he looked round it was quite plain that he felt bored.

Then I began to reflect seriously on the whole thing. I went to the Parliament whenever I had any time to spare and watched the spectacle silently but attentively. I listened to the debates, as far as they could be understood, and I studied the more or less intelligent features of those 'elect' representatives of the various nationalities which composed that motley State. Gradually I formed my own ideas about what I saw.

A year of such quiet observation was sufficient to transform or completely destroy my former convictions as to the character of this parliamentary institution. I no longer opposed merely the perverted form which the principle of parliamentary representation had assumed in Austria. No. It had become impossible for me to accept the system in itself. Up to that time I had believed that the disastrous deficiencies of the Austrian Parliament were due to the lack of a German majority, but now I recognized that the institution itself was wrong in its very essence and form.

A number of problems presented them selves before my mind. I studied more closely the democratic principle of 'decision by the majority vote', and I scrutinized no less carefully the intellectual and moral worth of the gentlemen who, as the chosen representatives of the nation, were entrusted with the task of making this institution function.

Thus it happened that at one and the same time I came to know the institution itself and those of whom it was composed. And it was thus that, within the course of a few years, I came to form a clear and vivid picture of the average type of that most lightly worshipped phenomenon of our time --the parliamentary deputy. The picture of him which I then formed became deeply engraved on my mind and I have never altered it since, at least as far as essentials go.

Once again these object-lessons taken from real life saved me from getting firmly entangled by a theory which at first sight seems so alluring to many people, though that theory itself is a symptom of human decadence.

Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is the fore-runner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding-ground in which the bacilli of the Marxist world pest can grow and spread. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced an abortion of filth and fire (Note 6), the creative fire of which, however, seems to have died out.

[Note 6. SPOTTGEBURT VON DRECK UND FEUER. This is the epithet that Faust hurls at Mephistopheles as the latter intrudes on the conversation between Faust and Martha in the garden:
Mephistopheles: Thou, full of sensual, super-sensual desire,
                A girl by the nose is leading thee.
Faust: Abortion, thou of filth and fire.]

The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it. Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannot say that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires after having brought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that the responsibility is fully discharged when a new coalition is formed or parliament dissolved? Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the responsibility of a definite person?

Is it at all possible actually to call to account the leaders of a parliamentary government for any kind of action which originated in the wishes of the whole multitude of deputies and was carried out under their orders or sanction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesman consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it his business to entreat and coach them so that they will grant him their generous consent?

Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with the statesman's ability to conceive great political measures and carry them through into practice?

Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly which has been called together as the chance result of an electoral system that is not always honestly administered.

Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised a great political concept before that concept was put into practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through its success?

In this world is not the creative act of the genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass?

What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the parliamentary multitude to give its consent to his policy? Shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration?

Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he then refrain from pushing forward the measures which he deems to be of vital necessity to the life of the nation? Should he retire or remain in power?

In such circumstances does not a man of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight on the one hand and, on the other, his moral integrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty?

Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honour?

Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political jobber?

And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to 'play politics', seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to account for their deeds?

Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle of leadership?

Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?

Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilization will be able to dispense with this as a condition of its existence?

But may it not be that, to-day, more than ever before, the creative brain of the individual is indispensable?

The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it contradicts the aristrocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature; but, of course, we must remember that in this decadent era of ours the aristrocratic principle need not be thought of as incorporated in the upper ten thousand.

The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them
accordingly. ..

One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude.

The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity, will feel the call to place their immortal energies at the disposal of the nation. They are so much on the tip-toe of expectation that they find it hard to wait their turn. They stand in a long queue, painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of them and calculating the hours until they may eventually come forward. They watch every change that takes place in the personnel of the office towards which their hopes are directed, and they are grateful for every scandal which removes one of the aspirants waiting ahead of them in the queue. If somebody sticks too long to his office stool they consider this as almost a breach of a sacred understanding based on their mutual solidarity. They grow furious and give no peace until that inconsiderate person is finally driven out and forced to hand over his cosy berth for public disposal. After that he will have little chance of getting another opportunity. Usually those placemen who have been forced to give up their posts push themselves again into the waiting queue unless they are hounded away by the protestations of the other aspirants.

Let the superior quality of such a leader be once recognized and the result will be that a joint front will be organized against him, particularly if that leader, though not coming from their ranks, should fall into the habit of intermingling with these illustrious nincompoops on their own level. They want to have only their own company and will quickly take a hostile attitude towards any man who might show himself obviously above and beyond them when he mingles in their ranks. Their instinct, which is so blind in other directions, is very sharp in this particular.

The inevitable result is that the intellectual level of the ruling class sinks steadily. One can easily forecast how much the nation and State are bound to suffer from such a condition of affairs, provided one does not belong to that same class of 'leaders'.

The parliamentary rĂ©gime in the old Austria was the very archetype of the institution as I have described it.”

Adolf Hitler