Monarchy, Tradition, and the Ugly Legacy of Revolution in America


“I pray that the United States does not suffer unduly from its want of a monarchy.”
-His Majesty King George III of Great Britain to Parliament, 1782

In the minds of nearly every American, the Revolution is regarded as the dawning of America and the birth of the American identity. There can be no question that this historic event forever changed the course of history for Americans as well as for the English-speaking peoples in general. And yet, so much of what Americans are told about this particular time and the subsequent war are based on lies and the legacy of rebel propaganda of the period. Our cousins in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and, most importantly, Great Britain, well understand the truth. But for most Americans, that truth seems to elude them generation after generation.

This is, to a large extent, understandable. After all, the rebel faction of the war proved victorious and its legacy is apparent in nearly ever facet of American social and political life. Every endeavour the US has ever pursued, be it good or bad, has been done in the name of freedom. When the question is posed, ‘what was the American Revolution?’, almost everyone in the United States will probably give the same answer, irrespective of their political convictions.

In nearly every case, they will first tell you that it was a war between “the Americans” and “the British”. For those who are a bit more well-versed in history, they may compound their answers with the romantic aphorisms like that of Patrick Henry’s immortal “Give me liberty or give me death”, or Nathan Hale’s “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country”. Or, perhaps they might invoke the words and deeds of “The Founding Fathers”, rife with all the usual programmed buzzwords such as “liberty” and “rights” that we grew up hearing but were never taught the cultural and political context in which those words were used.

But the American Revolution was not a war between America and Great Britain, and the concept of liberty was not at all the reason behind the war, which the rebel population among colonials, not the British Empire, actively instigated. The truth is that it was a civil war, our first one, as a matter of fact. It was a war not between American and Britain, but one between rebel and Loyalist, Whig and Tory, and, more specifically, revolutionary and Traditionalist. American Loyalists, or, “Tories” as they were often called (as if this was supposed to even be a pejorative that would cause offence) fought to preserve their heritage and traditions in more than 150 fighting units. In the South, where loyalism was even stronger, there were 26 units that fought with distinction.

All of the rhetoric we were raised on was nothing more than the legacy of rabble, fueled by an assortment of violent upstarts, landowning opportunists, Freemasons, Deists, and radicalised egalitarian agitators who organised and directed illiterate crowds of thugs and tavern drunkards like the infamous Sons of Liberty to terrorise the ever larger population of their neighbours who wished to remain loyal to their King. Current history tells us very little of the burning of Loyalist homes, as in the case of royal governor Thomas Hutchinson, who, along with his family, narrowly escaped with his life after a mob of unruly miscreants surrounded his home and demanded that he denounce the Stamp Act, a fair and legitimate act to collect debt for military intervention during a time when our militias were at the mercy of French and Indian terror.

The Sons of Liberty succeeded in brainwashing large numbers of uneducated and mostly illiterate crowds from the scraps of society. Rarely, if ever, do American schoolchildren learn of Thomas Brown and the Loyalist cause in Georgia, and of the King’s Rangers, the Loyalist company that he commanded in the Siege of Savannah and the First and Second Battles of Augusta. Perhaps most importantly, we forget all of the horrors of the ghastly and barbarous practice of tarring and feathering, which the Sons of Liberty and their supporters employed frequently on innocent people for no other reason than that they would not denounce their King and rightful Sovereign.

How many of us are familiar with those who sadly fell victim to this brutal form of disgusting torture, those like Captain William Smith of Norfolk, Virginia, who was stripped naked, tarred, feathered, and mercilessly thrown into the harbour by an angry mob of drunken, radical social misfits. Smith survived, although barely. He was quoted as saying, “they dawbed my body and face all over with tar and afterwards threw feathers on me.” Current revolutionary history will tell us that these acts were carried out as a reaction to “British oppression”.

What they don’t tell you is that many of its poor victims were simply good-natured royal subjects that had notified the proper authorities of illegal activity happening among dissidents, usually in the form of smuggling, which many “Founders’ like John Hancock were notorious for taking part in. Other victims, like John Malcolm, were tarred and feathered more than once, and then threatened to be hanged and have their ears cut off. Malcolm, like so many other Loyalists, was eventually forced out of the colonies, making a new home in England.

Indeed, the very idea of separating from the Crown would have never crossed the minds of even the most dissenting colonists prior to the Seven Years War, or, as Americans know it, the French and Indian War. In fact, unbeknownst to today’s average American, separation wasn’t even on the agenda when the war broke out. That idea, as in all revolutions, grew out of a general wave of revolutionary fervour that began to snowball once the first shots were fired. In these cases, history has shown us, as in all revolutions that have occurred, mild pushes for change become simply not enough, and swiftly turn into rabid demands for social upheaval.

Freedom is not enough. Liberty is not enough. Ideas followed by radical action in the name of equality only grow more radical as time goes by, and, as history as also shown us, it doesn’t take very long for that to happen. That is, unless, a more moderate force obstructs its path and cuts it down to size, making it more sensible and easily digestible for the average working person, who simply wants to live and work with as minimal strife as possible.

And, despite all of the horrors, looting, and theft inflicted upon Loyalists in the colonies (something else Americans learn virtually nothing about), we were certainly blessed to have been spared the ugliest conditions of revolutionary terror, as was the case in Paris just a few years after our revolution had ended, a revolution, which, has been cited by many historians as being a sort of proto-communist one, and, rightfully so.

Make no mistake, the tragedies of the French Revolution were a direct result of the wave of radical hysteria that had taken hold of the Western world as a result of the American Revolution. It should be noted that Thomas Jefferson was in Paris during the Storming of the Bastille, and he played a significant role in drafting the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

Jefferson witnessed many of the atrocities of the gruesome Reign of Terror, and, although he is said to have not supported the violence, he certainly never spoke out against it as many of his colleagues did. And when the French ambassador, the notorious Jacobin, Edmond Charles-Genet arrived in the newly-formed republic and immediately began recruiting Americans to capture British ships and rearm them as privateers against the British, thereby endangering the neutrality between the U.S and Britain, Jefferson wrote to him requesting that he cease all endeavours, but only after President Washington demanded that he do so.

This is of no surprise, of course. Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican, the radical leftists of their day, and he viewed the concept of revolution in much the same way that later figures like Lenin and Trotsky did, in that it should be worldwide, permanent, and rabidly anti-aristocratic. This is precisely why he neither objected nor petitioned to intervene when Genet was forming Democratic-Republican societies all over the US and perverting its citizens with the vile, ultra-egalitarian, proto-Marxist ideals of Jacobinism.

This is not to suggest that Thomas Jefferson is in any significant way on the same level as Lenin or Trotsky. Jefferson, himself cut from aristocratic cloth, and a slave owner, could by no means be compared to the far more sinister Robespierre or Saint-Just. But the idea of separation from the Crown, and thereby separation from all ties to the Mother Country, laid the groundwork that would eventually separate Americans on an even deeper level from the parent state, one that would strip them of their old collective identity for generations to come.

It must also be remembered that, as a staunch Democratic-Republican and Jacobin sympathiser, he was fully aware of this, and thought it necessary. Jefferson, of course was not alone. Indeed, most of the Founders, save for a few, saw the revolution as a continuation of events, and this idea goes back at least a century before during the Glorious Revolution of 1688. When one begins to understand this and sees the Revolution the way it was seen during its time through the eyes of those who actually instigated it, and not merely through the lens of life in the current century, it is easy to see certain facts, ugly as they may be, that we can never shy away from. It begins to make sense why the Connecticut Navy had a ship named the Oliver Cromwell, or why the rebels had such ardent support from prominent Whigs in Parliament like Charles Fox, who was known for frequently wearing blue to parliamentary sessions to irk the Tories.

We should never disregard our pre-revolutionary history, for we were still Americans prior to the Revolution. We simply had a monarch, and, as every American colonial at one time understood it, monarchy represented authority, stability, and, above all, tradition. Republics were and still are breeding grounds for democratic mob rule. They rally the people but for a brief and all-too-often miserable duration under an official but seedy cabinet, lacking in the transcendence and lifelong tenure that monarchical societies offer.

And really, they are much more than mere “societies”. They are organically designed models of civilisation whereby the cultural symbol of the nation is a strong figurehead, the parent, and the people are its subjects who, on a cultural and national level, are bound by kindred blood, folkways, and tradition. This idea transcends all others because it is something that is naturally ingrained in us as human beings. For the monarch is a reflection of its people, the soul of the people, and they are not cycled through dirty elections where the only things delivered to its people are lies, national disservice, and economic turmoil.

Americans since the Revolution have bought into the lie that our previous political structure was one of total subjugation, as if the constitutional monarchy of the British Empire were akin to the Saudi Dynasty. It is beyond absurd, almost to the point of laughter when one really thinks about it. Still, we fail to even question it, it is almost prescribed to us, force-fed to us as fact, as true as the sky is blue or water is wet. We forget all to easily that we have an entire history that preceded the Revolution in which we were once loyal subjects and fought for our Sovereign, our race, and our ways of life, forgetting that we still had a constitution and all the rights attached to it. And therein lies another ill of revolution, the whitewashing of history that always follows without fail.

It is drilled into the head of every American from the time they can form thoughts that we had no representation in Parliament. Yet again, this suggests that every single American colonial were out in the streets clamouring for “no taxation without representation!” Lies. All lies. They tell us that we had no rights before independence, as if we had been slaves to a maniacal order. That, too is a lie.

So-called patriots, educators, and national leaders paint for us a picture of economic strife, another lie. By the mid-seventeenth century, the American colonies enjoyed outstanding economic growth, so much, in fact, that the GNP multiplied several times in a period of less than one hundred years. Historians have even suggested estimate that American colonists may have enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world by the time of the war broke out. Contrary to what contemporary history teaches us, Americans had a far better standard of living than those in the Mother Country. And, if revolution and war were so necessary, why then did the other nations within the Anglosphere not follow the same violent course?

To suggest all of these things (which are all historical truths, whether one likes it or not) instantly brands one a traitor in the eyes of most Americans, be they liberal or conservative, left or right. The Crown was the bad guy, and we, the good guys. That is the story we’re forced to believe. They could not possibly conceive of an accurate analysis of our history, which revealed the American Revolution as a being an anti-traditionalist Masonic plot to sever our ties to our monarch and bind us to a real kind of slavery, one where the banks and enemies of morality were at the helm. There were fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence, and ten of them were noted Freemasons. Thirty-nine signed the Constitution and out of those, twelve were Freemasons. And let us not forget that there were around thirty rebel generals in the Continental Army who were also Freemasons. This, of course, opens up a whole other can of worms, and this piece is not dedicated to Freemasonry or its direct link to the revolution, despite its significance.

There are, naturally, certain cultural attributes which can never be broken, no matter how much revolution attempts to whitewash a people’s story. Our national anthem as well as countless other patriotic songs are British, with only the lyrical content altered. “The Star-Spangled Banner” is “To Anacreon in Heaven”, “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” is “God Save the Queen (King)”, the British national anthem, and there are numerous other lesser-known tunes, too many to even list. Our national colours are still red, white, and blue, the soul of our historic architecture is Georgian and Victorian, and, let us not forget the most obvious thing, our language, perhaps the most fundamental element, aside from race, that culturally binds a people. Language is more than just mere words that aid us in our communication. There is indeed a divine and very sacred component of language that all peoples share. We not only speak in English, we think in English, we see in English, we hear in English, we dream in English.

If we, as Traditionalists, can agree that our country is a ticking time-bomb waiting to go off, and that we are on the cusp of turning a major page in the story of our people, then we must begin to view our history in the context of a tribe and not solely a nation separate from the one we were birthed from. Bear in mind, when compared to other countries and their histories, ours is not very long; we are a very young country. Therefore, when we consider the bigger picture, we really don’t have much to be nostalgiac about, especially if we accept that our country is on the verge of balkanisation, and that we will doubtless enter a time when thinking tribally under the umbrella of folk, faith, and Tradition will be crucial to our survival.

We are members of the Anglosphere. We were born of it. In fact, we were, at one time, the Mother Country’s most favoured and adored child. Of course, none of this is to suggest that we should all rally to petition the Queen to reinstate us a series of Crown colonies, as one progressive malcontent recently did when he wrote a letter to Her Majesty asking just that, after having become disillusioned with the Republican presidential candidates. What I will urge our people in this country to do, however, is to begin to see ourselves, Americans, as we actually are, an Anglocentric people, a people bound by tribe, language, customs, and certain inescapable and undeniable traditions, people whose story, though unique, still exists as one within the Anglosphere, and a highly significant one at that.

If anything, we can agree that the British monarch is still a cultural symbol for us, and one that we should most definitely rally under, if only in symbolic terms. For the monarch is our true symbol, and representative of our natural state. The monarch is one who thinks in the long term, not the short term, which is what politicians do, and this is what real leadership focus is. One thing can be certain, should we begin to think in these terms, in reality, we will be that much closer to binding once more ourselves to Tradition, and therefore, to our true nature.


  • Anne

    I tend to think that the Masonic Elite struck a deal with The [Judaic] Crown. Instead of the American Colony being a mere asset of an asset The British East India Co, they used the Revolution as a cover story to upgrade their status to shareholders in the Corporation of the City of London.
    The last of the Magna Carta and its ancient monarchy went into the Thames with the Great Seal when James II fled for his life. James II and his successors lost the War of the Succession with Parliamentarian/Jew pointman Dutch Stadtholder William of Orange.
    The War of the Succession 1688 was the final settlement ofthe debt of Cromwell’s Revolutionaries to the Great Synagogue of Mullheim. The debt was settled when the collateral on Cromwell’s loans: all original land title of three nations was seized by the Bank of England. From this time, the monarchy has been a mere agent of The [Judaic] Crown.

  • InspectorGeneral

    No mention of debt-based money, bank of England, Ben Franklin’s efforts to get the English to allow us to continue issuing our own money here in the colonies. A very partial, and therefore disappointing, view.

  • Armoric

    The worst damage caused by the independence war was the loss of lives in the war itself. The war didn’t start a slow process of civilizational degeneration.

    Today’s race replacement crisis and the destruction of Western civilization are simply the work of the Jews. It is not the legacy of the independence war. The Jewish colonization of American institutions began a century after the war, as a consequence of mass Jewish immigration. And the resulting destruction of Western civilization only began in the 20th century.

    The English monarchy would not necessarily have been better than the US constitution at preserving civilization and keeping Jews out of the country.

    The adventurers who launched the war of independence may have been masons who hold anti-traditionalist views. But if you say their aim was to destroy morality and enslave people to the banks, you need to provide evidence. It’s unlikely they had any plan to destroy the White race. They were not Jews. The neocohens who claim to be the heirs of the “founding fathers” are simple liars.

  • I confess I find this post somewhat troubling from a wide variety of angles. I will only mention a few, but I will say that this text is VERY bad history, all around. Anne, in her comment earlier today, brought up some very important points at the margin, but these points should be elaborated. (1) First, as Anne notes, the American Revolution was an ELITE movement, whether largely or entirely Masonic is hard to say—but the Masons were very strong in the colonies, especially Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and South Carolina, and there’s just no doubt about that at all. All of Paddy’s suggestions above that the American Revolution was in any sense a rabble or illiterate mob movement are just so much nonsense, although I find particularly disturbing Paddy’s slanderous misrepresentation of a certain club of noted New England leaders—“illiterate crowds of thugs and tavern drunkards like the infamous Sons of Liberty…”

    (2) Paddy radically overstates the degree to which the Hanoverian monarchy in any sense represented the English people “organically”. While King George III was a native English speaker, his father and grandfather were not, and their difficulties speaking English reshaped the English language quite profoundly into a more “Germanic” dialect than the language of Shakespeare, the King James Bible, Milton, or the Restoration. In fact, under King George II, the evils of what Anne calls, with only slightly more grandeur than it deserves “The War of Succession of 1688” were quite nearly reversed. The deposition of King James II Stuart was not so much a war as a simple walk in the park for William of Orange, whose major accomplishment does indeed seem to have been the creation of an all powerful central Bank of England.

    This was indeed the root of all our modern troubles MUCH more than the events of 1776 and all that followed. But before we go around celebrating how ORGANIC three hundred years of German rulers really have been to England, let’s remember that a mere 30 years before 1776, England almost had a Stuart Restoration when Bonnie Prince Charlie marched unopposed from Edinburgh to Derby. in “the ’45”. Why was he unopposed? Why did the English people cheer a man who had been born in France, grandson of the last Stuart Monarch who was deposed? Could it be because the Georges were themselves outsiders and aliens to England? And let us not forget that “God Save the King/Queen” was originally a propaganda song first advocating and then celebrating the destruction of those who supported the restoration of Charles Edward III Stuart Rex:

    “Lord, grant that Marshal Wade
    May, by thy mighty aid,
    Victory bring.
    May he sedition hush
    And, like a torrent, rush
    Rebellious Scots to crush.
    God save the King.”

    For all their faults, the Stuarts were the last truly indigenous royal house of England. But Charles Edward II Stuart Rex really can be credited with the foundation of the Constitutional Monarchy and the Parliamentary system. Which is to say that Modern England really began with the Stuarts.

    And the Suppression of the Scots in 1746-48 and afterwards was MUCH more brutal than anything that Paddy can possibly attribute to the American Revolutionaries—-PERSPECTIVE, man, History requires PERSPECTIVE. The suppression of the “Royal Confederate Irish” by Cromwell (precisely because they supported their Celtic Cousins the Scottish Stuarts) was repeated and finished under George III in 1798.

    So I would have to say Anne raises some MAJOR points which require softening the whole “Hanoverian Monarchy was such a blessing to the English people” theme. It is undeniably true that the Monarchy depended, especially towards the end of King George III’s reign and afterwards, on financing obtained through those not exactly “Organically British” German Jews the Rothschilds….. and their successors who became more and more prominent during the 19th Century and a lot of the cousins of THOSE German Jews came to establish the banking institutions of North America in the middle-to-late 19th century…..their names are to legion and famous (infamous) to list them all….

    But these German Jews and their banking monopoly were always protected by the German monarchy of the United Kingdom…. And I say this as a man who has always been proud of his relations in the British Peerage…..even though some of them belonged to highly suspect groups. Hereditary Monarchies and aristocracies are extremely problematic to say the least, and Paddy’s article suggests otherwise without really addressing the details of history at all.

    (3) Additionally, there was discussion of the establishment of a Monarchy in America—Alexander Hamilton (the founder of the Bank of New York and first secretary of the Treasury of the United States, and arguably the progenitor of Wall Street itself) favored either a monarchy or a very monarchical Presidency, as did George Washington, whose family crest, not so coincidentally, became the shield of the United States….

    Does America’s First Banker Alexander Hamilton’s favor towards a Monarchy argue in favor or against Monarchy? Following Anne’s suggestions, I think the affiliation between the British Monarchy and its American allies probably argues again Monarchy.

    And as for the separation of Church and State, that is a separate issue, but even among the anti-Monarchist, radically anti-Federalist Democratic-Republicans such as Patrick Henry, there was strong sentiment in favor of an established Church. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson carried that day….and yes, I kind of think it’s much more of a pity that we abandoned the Mother Church than that we rejected the crown of the Mother Country. But these were arguments and debates among landed aristocrats….nobody was richer than George Washington and James Madison in Virginia….

    (4) Monarchy is a tradition among Indo-European (“Aryan”) peoples, without any doubt. Even Divine Kingship and the rituals associated with it are wholly ancient “traditions” from Ireland’s West Coast to the Mouth of the Ganges. But EVEN MORE UNIQUELY INDO-EUROPEAN IS THE CONCEPT OF THE NON-MONARCHICAL REPUBLIC. In fact, while Monarchies with hereditary aristocracies are found among every race of earth, even in blackest Africa, ONLY the Indo-Europeans (and only the Western Indo-Europeans, which is to say, “the Europeans”, our own people) ever invented REPUBLICS: first in Athens and Rome and other Greek Cities, in Hellas and Italy, later in Venice and Switzerland. And let us not forget one of the Golden Eras in all of Indo-European, especially Nordic Germanic History—the Viking Era in Iceland—there were no kings, and no aristocracy at all, and something very close to a universal participatory democracy—the Allthing…. The Athenian and Roman Republics were, like the early American Republic, landholding, slave-owning “Oligarchical” Republics of the top 1%. So were Venice and San Marino. But the Germanic Republics, of the Vikings and Switzerland, were much less stratified and had no traces of monarchy.

    For my part, if I could travel in time, I think that Viking Iceland offered perhaps one of the richest lives recorded in history than men ever lived. After that, I think that Classical Athens in the time of Demosthenes and Plato (author of one book called, coincidentally, “The Republic” and another called “the Laws”) would be second.

    And after those two idyllic “Golden Ages”, I would like to explore the Early Roman Republic of Cincinnatus and the Switzerland of William Tell. Who among you “traditionalists” want to tell me that Republican Rome or Classical Athens or Viking Iceland or Early Switzerland were “Degenerate” nations? They were surely among the finest moments of our collective racial history.

    Yes, I’m proud of my British Heritage, and even that I have living relatives who sad as hereditary Lords until such people were banished from the House of Lords, even some of my relations were guilty of fairly atrocious crimes of oppression in the Colonies….and during some modern wars even.

    But is the monarchy of Great Britain, the second oldest European “Corporation” after the Vatican and its Papacy, really such an ideal that we should gather around to seek moral inspiration from the love story of Prince Charles of Wales and Princess Diana? Or from the abdication of Edward VIII to pursue Wallis Warfield Simpson? Or should we not recognize that the British monarchy has in fact led the way in degeneracy and the fall of the modern Empire, just as they were somewhat extremely passive (at least after Charles Edward II Stuart Rex, mentioned above) in creating it?

  • EStriker

    The British monarchy for the last centuries has drawn an extremely clear line: the enemy of Western civilization and just as corrupt as any suit and tie politician. While it’s true that our Jew diktat prefers liberal democracy over monarchy (hence why they supported the revolutionaries in the US independence war), the monarchs you have in mind would’ve been hung like the Germans at Nuremberg and their thrones abolished if they genuinely had their own people’s well-being in mind.

    Is the rest of the Anglosphere any better off than America? All of the countries you cite are in a demographic and social free fall as well. Is the British monarchy relevant to the Irish or German (historical enemies of the crown) whites who vastly outnumber British Isles descendants in the US? Questions that bring this “what if” to a halt.

    If monarchy in general was viable in the age of the printing press, military conscription and rapid communication, it would’ve succeeded in protecting Europe to begin with. Instead, most of the 1/16-of-everything mutts ruling over people they didn’t understand or care to try either took a bribe or were obliterated by the armed merchants moving in for a coup. The monarchs are gone because their exact position was simply made obsolete, even if the established principle of rulership is still the same in some ways.

    All nostalgia aside, at the end of the day, the Monarchs of Europe by and large showed they were more loyal to their own multicultural empires and race-transcending class than their folk or nation. Hirohito was an exception, but as the post-war maintenance of his throne shows, his success was largely the product of his largely non-aristocratic, and in some fields even technocratic (word monarchists hate), underlings.

  • A list of sources is always helpful for evaluating claims.

    Traditionalist-based arguments are not convincing to me. There have been good and bad monarchs in history. What matters most is who runs things not the form of administration or government.

  • ps mike

    I’ve known this for a years. It’s always about grabbing a larger piece of the pie in the end. Thaddeus Stephens tried to get a bill through to confiscate the plantations of the largest Southern land owners after the civil war. Taking something by force or opportunity yields a much larger take than working for wealth gradually.

    My personal hope is to do the same thing when we get the chance, to be honest. I want the property of the banksters and elites who have sold us down the river.

  • Lacking acknowledgement of this symbolic connection (between the U.S and England or whatever you call it) perversely strengthens it in the subconscious. However, I for one don’t shrink from the notion of Balkanization. Let each state have its own “tyrant” or “king” with perhaps occasional round-tables between them.The notion that a far-away place, separated by ocean, latitude, longitude, climate, and culture can truly reach even with the internet is a fallacy. Values evolve and change in response to proximate environment pressures. There is no reasonable way that a tightly concentrated group of islands could possibly know what is best for the fruited plains. That said, I think we would be a better nation if Washington had accepted coronation. King Jefferson can rule the Louisiana Purchase, and so on. Seriously, make me Queen of the U.S., and I’ll sort it all out.

  • ps mike

    I’ve noticed many references to “freemasons” on this site. I am fascinated with financial history, but I’ve never quite grasped what a “freemason” really is. I am inferring from this site that they are basically point men for larger international banking interests. Am I correct??

    • Ezra Pound

      Freemasonry is Judaism for gentiles. The Masons are the “Chosen ones” and the non-masons are considered “cowans”, “profanes” and basically goyim. It operates differently depending on whether it is in a Catholic or Protestant country. In Catholic countries, Freemasonry is subversive, revolutionary, leftist, “liberal/progressive” and frequently violent whereas in Protestant countries it is conservative, “right-wing” (even though its not really), “reactionary” (ditto) and masquerades as a charitable social club. Freemasonry was basically a Jewish conspiracy to use gentiles to destroy all “Thrones” and “Altars” and replace them with “liberal democracy” (i.e., rule by money and Jews.) They were largely successful and Freemasonry today is in most cases simply an “old boy’s network” for nepotism because the main goal was accomplished long ago. Good sources on Freemasonry are Denis Fahey, Leon de Poncins, Nesta Webster (some of her work is dubious however).

    • ps mike

      Thanks, it makes much better sense now.

  • Ezra Pound

    Man, I absolutely cannot stand reading white text on a black background. Terrible idea, in my opinion.

  • Ezra Pound

    There’s not a whole lot I can find to disagree with in this piece, however it could have benefited from a more moderate tone I think. Also, at this point, the British Crown is a pure instrumentality of Judeo-Masonry.

george-iii

By: Paddy Tarleton



%d bloggers like this: