Patriots Were Never Scottish Rite

In the Boston Tea Party, the Rebels were disguised as Indians when they threw the tea overboard. Here, the Patriots are depicted as Indians, hanging British sympathizers, or Tories.

jefferson-campaign-1804-granger
Thomas Jefferson’s campaign poster from 1804 makes it clear that the Tories were not fraternal heroes, but very naughty men.

 

T-Jefferson1
Thomas Jefferson. Not a Tory, and not Scottish Rite. He fought the former, the forebears of the latter.

Though American lodges were initially the meetings places for patriots leading the Revolution, a treaty with England allowed Tory masons amnesty after the war, and these same masons- who fought for the British in the Revolutionary War- formed the Scottish Rite and sided with Britain in the War of 1812 and later, with the Confederacy. That amnesty would soon be regretted…

“…At least eleven members of Congress were involved in the plot, no less than twelve Army officers, three Naval officers, and at least twenty-three civilians, one of which was governor of a loyal state. Five were bankers of great repute, three were nationally known newspapermen and eleven were industrialists of great repute and wealth…”

Former Union General Lafayette Baker, one of the twelve army officers in the Lincoln assassination, 1868

On November 8, 1861, some seven months into the Civil War, Union Captain Charles Wilkes stopped the British ship Trent and arrested two Confederate ambassadors who had just slipped the Union blockade of Cuba. The prisoners, James Murray Mason (Britain) and John Slidell (France), were commissioned by the Confederacy to secure British and French aid. Officially none came. But in truth aid did come, from Britain, not just through arms and money; nor in their mockery of US naval blockade of the South, but through London and the Scottish Rite. This aid included the planning and concealment of the Lincoln assassination by an Anglo-American coalition of Masonic leaders.

The Unspoken Lincoln-Kennedy Parallels: Sometimes They’re Copycats

Gen. Baker: Conspirator

Former Union General Lafayette Baker, one of the twelve army officers in the Lincoln assassination, 1868. More his strange confession here…

masonsl

The Two Confederates for Whom England Threatened War with the Union

Scottish Rite Ambassadors for the Confederacy

LEFT to RIGHT: James M. Mason, John Slidell

The Threatened Three Front War: Union vs. Confederacy, Canada

mountiesUp to that time, the North had faced a series of crushing defeats and no significant victories– e.g. The Battle of Bull Run in July of 1861, and the first great battle, Shiloh, in April of 1862. Pictured here are volunteer regiment of Elora, Ontario, May 1862. By 1870, the active militia numbered over 30,000 to defend against “threats” from the United States. The photo of Canadian volunteers above was taken the following month, when victory seemed all but certain for the South.

Union Account of the Boarding of the Trent

Harpers Weekly illustration; Captain Charles Wilkes

Captain Charles Wilkes’ account of the arrest of two Confederate traitors and Scottish Rite freemasons, James Murray Mason and John Slidell. Still at the height of power, pro-slavery factions in England and America hoped to use this incident as a pretext to side with the Confederacy for a three front war. John Slidell, freed through British intervention, would later be implicated as a key conspirator in the Lincoln assassination before fleeing to Europe. (Click image for full gif image inventory.)

“Neutral” England, the Arsenal of the South
halifaxA British warship armed to challenge Northern sovereignty. The Edgar Cecil, loading cannon at Halifax. During the American Civil War the city’s military reached 18,000, the Canadian militia was put on alert; England announced that it would defend its colonies with all its power and sent 14,000 officers and men as reinforcements. Not counting a Royal Navy then strong enough to ignore the Union blockade of the South, this alone put 32,000 men at Confederate disposal. (The Union was having enough trouble with blockade runners.)
The Blockade Runners
blocrnnr2A British blockade runner. They were the fastest vessels of their day, and arrived “with the regularity of express trains.” They timed their departures to arrive at night, their most common route from English colonies in Nassau (the Bahamas) and Bermuda; traveling directly to their destination, Confederate ports. “At the beginning of the war the Union blockade of Southern ports was not effective, because the North lacked ships to make it so. Blockade-runners, mainly British, made fortunes by landing cargoes of munitions and scarce goods at Southern ports… “Although the Confederacy had no navy, it still found ways to cripple Northern commerce. In spite of its lack of shipyards, it managed to equip a number of ships for service at sea. It also ordered the construction or purchase of other ships in England. Over the protests of the Union government, three English-built ships, the Florida, the Alabama, and the Shenandoah, were delivered to Confederate naval officers and given the task of destroying the U.S. merchant fleet. These three raiders alone inflicted damage estimated at $16.6 million on Union shipping. The loss, while serious, was trivial in comparison to the effect of the Union blockade on the Southern economy…” Since the beginning of the war, the Confederacy had had a naval officer, James D. Bulloch, in Britain to buy or contract for cruisers to raid Northern commerce. In 1861 and 1862, Bulloch had managed to acquire and equip several Confederate ships. If the United States were to supply warships and arms to the I.R.A. today, in equal proportion to that supplied by the British to the South in the Civil War, one could only imagine the fate of England and Ireland today. And would historians dare care us neutral?

A By-product of “Neutrality”

gettysburgGettysburg– a battle so massive the fighting encompassed over 25 square miles. Pictured below are Union dead. This battle, a failed invasion of the North, was Gen. Lee’s most earnest attempt to secure sovereign status for the Confederacy. By proving the North could be defeated on its own ground, Lee hoped he could woo full-scale, pro-Confederate intervention by foreign states, particularly Britain.

In the Trent Affair, the reaction of the French and British differed considerably. It was the height of the British empire, and she was eager to capitalize on the event as an act of war at a time she knew the United States was critically divided. Seizing the opportunity, the British demanded an apology and the release of the two ambassadors. They did in fact threaten and mobilize for outright war over the incident. Likewise, because Captain Wilkes had become a hero in the Union partisans called for war against England.

President Lincoln, however, “cheerfully liberated” them after careful deliberation, and Britain agreed to accept Lincoln’s assurance that Captain Wilkes acted without authority in lieu of an apology. In this way, Lincoln is said to have averted a fatal conflict with Britain. But did he really?

The War of 1812 grew from the practice of impressment, or the seizure of American seamen for service in the British navy. The British government claimed that it only seized subjects of the Crown who sailed under the American flag to avoid wartime service in their own navy. But in fact, the British seized not only their own deserters, but also impressed a sizeable number of United States citizens—estimates suggest 6000 or more.

In the War of 1812, the Scottish Rite’s political apparatus in the north, the Federalists, would make the first bid for the dissolution of the Union. Often called “the second battle of independence”, this time Britain actually burned the White House in a march on Washington.

When President James Madison declared war on Britain, it was vehemently opposed by the Scottish Rite’s political apparatus in the North, the Federalists. The reason cited was a fear that such a war would severely harm American trade. The Federalists, who were pro-British, actually led an opposition to the war that was so strong in New England that the governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut refused to call up their militia in response to President Madison’s request for troops.

By late 1814, delegates from the New England states, dissatisfied with the handling of the war, had met at the Hartford Convention in Connecticut (December 14, 1814-January 5, 1815). This group, which was dominated by disgruntled members of the Federalist political party, was reported to have formulated demands that amounted to a dissolution of the Union. Ironically, this dissolution of the Union was decided upon after the War of 1812 ended with a peace treaty negotiated in Ghent, Belgium, and signed on December 24, 1814.

Unaware that a treaty has already ended the war, and just three days after the Hartford Convention adjourned, an outnumbered Andrew Jackson dealt a crushing blow to British forces in New Orleans on January 8, 1814.

Because the meetings of the convention took place behind closed doors, and because the members were pledged to absolute secrecy that is the hallmark of Scottish Rite freemasonry, word spread to the effect that the New England states were contemplating secession from the Union. This irreparably damaged the reputation of the Federalist Party, already in disfavor because of its pro-British, aristocratic ideologies. The party did not survive the presidential election of 1816.

However, by the time of the Civil War, the South had a powerful fifth column in the North.

George Washington Fought the Pro-British Tories Who Became the Scottish Rite

According to Thomas Paine (the same whose writings helped inspire the American Revolution) the true Druidic origins of freemasonry are hidden from lower level mason. For more on this, read his treatise The Origin of Freemasonry.) Though American lodges were initially the meetings places for patriots leading the Revolution, a treaty with England allowed Tory masons amnesty after the war, and these same masons- who fought for the British in the Revolutionary War- formed the Scottish Rite and sided with Britain in the War of 1812 and later, with the Confederacy. Americans were allied with French masons, not British, when they fought for independence.

After the Civil War, when Andrew Johnson assumed power, the Scottish Rite had its first American president. But he was also suspect in Lincoln’s murder, and it was a major cause of the impeachment of Johnson. Shamelessly, however, many in the Scottish Rite count patriots like George Washington among their own, when their forebears fought against Washington in the Revolutionary War! Not only then, but also in the War of 1812.

In 1861, the Trent Affair, the British would disingenuously cite the practice of impressment against its own citizens and likewise threaten war over the capture of two Scottish Rite ambassadors, John Slidell and James Murry Mason, who hoped to enlist European aid for the Confederacy. These two prisoners, however, were not British citizens. They were Southerners. The Union captain who boarded the Trent did not subject any British citizen to impressment, let alone naval service for the Union. Yet it was acted upon as such.

Two Out of Two World Wars Directly Linked to Freemasons

In 1914, Gavrillo Princip, a Serb nationalist and member of the secret society of the Black Hand, assassinated the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in the streets of Sarajevo. It is a murder that launches World War I. Ferdinand was a Roman Catholic. During his trial, Princip testified that his colleague, Ciganovitch, “told me he was a freemason”, and on another occasion, “told me that the Heir Apparent [Franz Ferdinand] had been condemned to death by a freemason’s lodge.” (See The Serajevo Crime, by Mary Edith Durham, London, George Allyn and Unwin, Ltd., 1925, pg. 85)

World War II was launched by the Nazi Party, which was itself created by a group of Munich-based freemasons called the Thule Society. The Thule Society was created in Munich in 1918 by Grand Master Rudolf VonSebottendorf, and still exists. Its branches actually extend to the neo-Nazi movement in America.

In Revelations 13:16-17 we read that no one could buy or sell without the mark of the beast.”

He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is a man’s number. His number is 666.”

According to higher degrees of Freemasonry, particularly Thule Freemasonry, that man was Adolf Hitler. (Hitler was a Thule mason) What was the German currency in occupied countries? The German mark; i.e., the deutschemark. If you apply a cabalistic numerology table to calculate the letters in his surname, Adolf HITLER, you come up with 666.(A=100, and Z=125.) If you add together the letters of the surname Hitler, you come up with 666.

This mark, which represents both a man and an institution, was already on American currency since 1933. Either way, the “mark” was on American and German currency, and both nations were dominated by freemasons: in Germany, The Thule Masons. In America, the Scottish Rite.

If we associate the freemason with the number of the beast, does he bear his mark on our currency, so that we may not buy or sell without it? Consider:

In 1 Kings 10:14, we read that the weight of the gold Solomon received yearly was 666 talents,

1 Kings 10:14 “Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six [666] talents of gold…”

Solomon is a key figure in masonic ritual and myth. The biblical reference to Solomon’s wages of 666 talents, to currency, is the strongest allusion to the mark of the beast’s relation to freemasons. And the wages of sin.

The most familiar form of Freemasonry is awash with symbolism alluding to King Solomon– from the pillars of Jakim and Boaz (1 Kings 7:21) to the 3,300 foremen who supervised the slave labor in the building of the temple. (1 Kings 5:16) E.g, the 33rd degre is the highest level one can attain in Scottish Rite. To the masons below their rank, they are the foremen of the New World Order. Non-masons are considered “profane”, the slaves in this secret hierarchy.

Among the more nefarious secret societies are the Nazi freemasons, its magical rites therein based more on Druidism than Cabalism.

In 1934, in an effort to curtail the economic and political power of those Jews yet remaining in Europe, Adolf Hitler shut down all the masonic lodges in Germany, with Benito Mussolini introducing a bill to the same effect in Italy. Soon they’d replace one evil with a greater one, killing the innocent and guilty alike; and creating a new form of Aryan freemasonry, rather than eliminating it altogether.


British torching of Washington DC in War of 1812.

Anton Chaitkin notes “The Scottish Rite was formally organized in the U.S.A. in 1801, as a group of Tory partisans on the losing side of the American Revolution… American colonial leaders had used the British Empire’s Freemasonic lodges as political clubs, and had turned them against the British Crown in the American Revolution. But in the 1820s and 1830s, Masonry had been widely condemned and virtually run out of the U.S.A. as a would-be dictatorial grouping, an unwanted ‘British underground’ intrusion into America. With British assistance, the Masonic lodges were reintroduced, under the control of the Scottish Rite based in Charleston, South Carolina, as a force for Southern secession. Since the 1840s, the U.S. Freemasonic structure has been strictly dominated by the Scottish Rite. The Scottish Rite dispenses the 4th and higher Masonic ‘degrees’ of initiation, up to the 33rd. The Scottish Rite was divided into a Southern Jurisdiction, and aNorthern Jurisdiction based in Boston, that is politically subordinate.”

Illustrated London News, 1861

The Illustrated London News

London,

Saturday, December 21, 1861

Last week it seemed difficult to obtain attention for any subject save thatof the American crisis. “Who can tell what a day may bring forth?” Today, in the presence of the heavy affliction with which it has pleased the Almighty and Inscrutable to visit our beloved Sovereign and the nation, even the solemn situation in which we have been placed by the piratical act of the Americans is momentarily disregarded while we seek to realize the sudden sorrow. But the record of the week must be duly completed.

President Lincoln’s Message, as a composition, is conceived in the same low moral tone and executed with the same maladroitness which have characterized the preceding State Papers of his Government. But such considerations are of small importance compared with the indications of policy afforded by the document. There is no mention of the Trent outrage.

From this circumstance, and from a meaningless declaration that the President does not desire hostilities with England, some sanguine writers have hastened to assume that the act of Captain Wilks will be disavowed, and the Southern Commissioners handed over to us. It is urged that Mr. Lincoln did not deem the act of the American Captain as worthy of notice in the Message, or that it is one upon which England has but to express her feeling to obtain immediate atonement.

And this view is supported by reference to the fact that an actual wrong to British subjects is mentioned, and Congress is recommended to make compensation. We should be too happy to believe that so wise a course was that designed for adoption by the American Government, but we are afraid to resign ourselves to so agreeable a hope.

It contradicts the general expression of that part of the American public which makes itself heard, and which exercises a fatal control over the so-called government of the American press (with one or two honourable exceptions), and of the American Secretary of State. The House of Representatives has deliberately offered a vote of thanks to the pirate Wilks; and though it is technically true that this is not precisely the same thing as a vote of our House of Commons, it is equally true, and more to the purpose, that the House of Representatives expresses the sentiments of those who, to the disgrace of the higher classes in the States, are permitted to engross political power. In the face of all these demonstrations, to say nothing of an official utterance by the head of the Federal Navy, we dare scarcely believe that the despatch of Earl Russell will receive the only answer which we can accept. Still we have only to wait and hear. Our next Impression will, in all probability, contain the expected intelligence. The news regarding the struggle between the North and South merely states that General McClellan has not moved, “nor will he move until he is certain to win” — a somewhat indefinite date. We learn with something akin to disgust that the barbarous reprisal system is likely to come into effect, that prisoners are being cruelly treated, and may be actually executed in cold blood — facts which reduce a war to an abominable brigandage. The North, in its excess of zeal for civilization, is also elaborately destroying harbours in the South, thus by savage acts giving the lie to the profession of belief that the territory to which the harbours belong will ever again be a portion of the Federal dominions

 

Related Post

CC BY 4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.