| G.A. Bondarev The Crisis of Civilization VIII. Freemasonry,
Britannicism and Jesuitism
Three Forms of Imperialism When the effect of the elemental beings of the kind mentioned above was added to the conservation of old cults in the Anglo-American secret societies, the new ‘priesthood’ of the Lodges was seized with the fanciful ambition to assume a leading role in the guidance of humanity with the help of the mummified ceremonies (cf. Sept. 24, 1922, GA 216). Rudolf Steiner describes the three forms of imperialism which arose in various historical epochs and appear simultaneously in a number of different ways today – but under social conditions that actually have no room for any of them. We meet imperialism for the first time in the ancient Orient. There it was characterized by the fact that the ruler of the kingdom was revered as a divine being. People did not yet think, as we do today, that the hosts of spirits exist beyond the clouds. In Egypt, for example, the Pharaoh was indeed a son of heaven come down to earth, or actually the Father of Heaven himself. In those days the right of conquest was justified by the necessity to extend the kingdom of God (cf. the Assyrian legends). The subjugated peoples on their part revered the conqueror as God. This, then, was the first form of imperialism. The second form showed the ruler as ambassador of God, he was inspired, pervaded by God. In the first form man had to do with a kind of reality, in the second the ruler appeared in a ‘garment’, indicating that such a garment is customary among the Gods. Dionysios the Areopagite describes the Church hierarchy – the deacons, archdeacons etc. – as mirroring the Divine Hierarchies. This form of imperialism later branched off into two directions. In one case the ruler remained king and priest, in the other he took on a rather more worldly character: the king became the Anointed of God. In historical development the two directions manifested as the unification of the Church on the one hand, and of the State on the other (cf. Feb. 20, 1920, GA 196). The shadow of the first form – the first stage – of imperialism remained intact in the Catholic Church, where it condensed into a kind of imperialism of the soul. Consider, Rudolf Steiner reminds us, the monks of Cluny (11th century) who attained great influence in Europe; Pope Gregory VII came from their circle – the mighty, imperialistic Pope (cf. Feb. 22, 1920, GA 196). Mohammedanism too has the first form of imperialism: Mohammed is not God but God’s prophet (i.e. the second form). Nevertheless, the spreading of Mohammedanism takes place under the sign of total religious intolerance. Something of the attitude implanted in the souls of the subjects of Russian monarchs, arising again in particular in the new ideology of the restoration of the monarchy in Russia today, derives from the second form of imperialism. The now increasingly propagated thesis, already expressed by Dostoyevsky, that to be a Russian means to be a faithful member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. A throwback to the first, combined with elements of the third form of imperialism yet to be described, is represented by Bolshevism, since a metaphysical ‘will of the people’ is proclaimed as the immediate, universal, world-encompassing will, a principle transcending all others. The third form of imperialism was formulated by Chamberlain and his associates in the 20th century. The concept of Imperial Federation has been part of official usage in England since the beginning of the 20th century. But its origins are already found in the 17th century, a time when the will of people began to speak and the right to vote was introduced. This form of imperialism arises out of parliamentarianism. What earlier had been a symbol or sign, now becomes a phrase. An abyss opens up between the spoken word and the reality. ‘King-anointed’ thus remains an empty phrase. The opinion of the majority does not become a reality but is transformed into a phrase. Parallel to this, economic colonization begins to play an important role. An adventurer or vagabond not able to establish himself in the kingdom sets sails, let us say, to Africa, becomes rich, acquires territory and incorporates this as a new possession into the metropolis (cf. the history of Rhodesia). At first he is condemned as an adventurer, but soon this changes and everything is respectable again. This is Western imperialism, but below the surface the second form is preserved. And this is the symbolic imperialism of the secret societies which one tries to keep hidden from the wider populace (ibid.). England – Rudolf Steiner says – was until the ‘Nineties the exemplary country of honest and upright parliamentarianism since it depended on the parliament to give impulses to outer politics ... the public (was) really co-active in outer politics. But then the initiative passed into the hands of the inspirers behind the scenes. The running of foreign affairs was taken out of parliament and out of the ministry of foreign affairs, and entrusted to an inner committee to which only the cabinet office belongs and a certain chancelry of the ministry of foreign affairs (Dec. 18, 1916, GA 173).[1] This was basically the final step in a long process which led to the absolute domination of secret societies over politics in the Anglo-Saxon world. Rudolf Steiner points out that Freemasonry within the British kingdom continued to represent very respectable interests. But everywhere in a different way, in many places outside the actual British realm, Freemasonry pursues exclusively or mainly political interests. Such political interests in the most palpable sense are pursued by the ‘Grand-Orient de France’, but also by other ‘Grand Orients’. One might now say: what has that to do with the English? ... But view this in conjunction with the fact that the first High-degree Lodge in Paris was founded from England, not France! Not French people but Britons founded it; they only wove the French into their Lodge ... Then followed, again from England, the founding of Lodges in Gibraltar 1729, Madrid 1728, Lisbon 1736, Florence 1735, Moscow 1731, Stockholm 1726, Geneva 1735, Lausanne 1739, Hamburg 1737. I could continue the catalogue for a long time ... like a web, though of a different character than in the British occult-political impulses. Next to the rapid changes exemplified historically in the fury of the Jacobins, the political activity of the Carbonari, the Cortes in Spain and other similar connections, they also play strongly into cultural-historic development and grow tendrils that one can trace into the works of the greatest spirits of the time. Think of the nature-philosophy of Rousseau, of the critical philosophy of Voltaire working at first as ‘enlightenment’ but then growing increasingly cynical, and of the attempts of the Illuminati and similar circles to overcome the cynicism of the time. These progressive circles were crushed by reactionary forces and continued their underground work in many different forms. This means that we must not reject them from the outset as being dedicated to evil. Much of their activity corresponded to the tasks of the initial period of the epoch of the consciousness-soul. But some significance must be seen in the fact – Rudolf Steiner continues – that the British Freemason can say today: look at our Lodges, they are very respectable – and we are not concerned with the others. But if one can see through the historical connection and the driving forces in an interplay of mutual opposition to one another, then it is indeed high British politics that is concealed behind it (Jan. 8, 1917, GA 174). The Anthroposophical Cause One or the other ‘anthroposophizing’ reader will rejoin that Rudolf Steiner could ‘err’, that he too was a product of his time (R. Lissau). But the explanation for such a statement can only be that the words of Rudolf Steiner are not to the reader’s liking, for reasons he knowingly keeps to himself. Such a reader will also do his utmost to ensure that this book does not fall into the hands of anthroposophists. Experience has shown that this is indeed what happens to an alarming degree (remark in 1997). Not because false conclusions are drawn, but just because everything said in it corresponds to the truth. It would be saddening if a reader who feels himself to be an anthroposophist were to behave in this way. If he is aware of the responsibility we carry towards Anthroposophy in the difficult conditions of our time he should try, at least to the degree possible in the anthroposophical community in which he is active, to bring about a consistency between these insights and his work. We are not concerned here with the fanatical stirring-up of hostilities but with a methodologically correct knowledge and mode of action, in the way that is usual everywhere – in all movements, streams and associations. Why should Anthroposophists be an exception and, because they have made spiritual science the basis of their view of the world and life, act in contradiction to it? Why, for example, should they accept standards of behaviour normal in a Lodge or a Catholic Order? If one of us were to try to be active in such an association in the sense of our principles, he would very soon be asked to give up his membership. I will give an example. In July 1990 in Basle the annual conference of the research Lodge Quatuor Coronati took place, in the course of which our president, Mr. M. Schmidt (Brabant) held a lecture. Despite the fact that the lecture corresponded to the theme and did not contain the slightest hint of what we are speaking of here, the following was said in the report on the conference: The organizers (of the conference) were ill-advised to invite the president of the General Anthroposophical Society to speak on the theme: ‘The future of Freemasonry in the light of Anthroposophy’ before the members of the Freemasonic Lodge ‘Quatuor Coronati’ (Germany) ... As Freemasons they should have been gifted with the instinct (author’s emphasis) to realize that a non-Freemason cannot speak about the present, past or, indeed, the future of Freemasonry. It needs to have become a certainty to every Freemason that the inner sanctuary of Freemasonry is veiled to the profane.[2][3] When I, an anthroposophist, read this I said to myself: well then, they have the right to see their cause in this light. We are, by contrast to them, an open society, but we should not allow incompetent or ill-intentioned people to judge us either, even when they come from our own circles. ‘Not allow’, not in the sense that we should ‘stop their mouths’ – as they do to us (isn’t it paradoxical?). But with competent, well-founded and, what is especially important, public exposure of their lies, their distortion of the facts and the methods by which they falsify the form and the content of Anthroposophy. One should not be shocked by the fact that here we are dealing with the same questions as those on the ‘knife-edge’ of the purely political struggle. For, firstly, we live in this world and therefore its destiny is the same as ours, and secondly – we do it in a different way: we always bear in mind the spiritual aspect of relationships in the world, and strive as Goetheanists to recognize the archetypal phenomena of current events. Our considerations cannot be reduced to ideological slogans or the simple communication of sensational facts. We announce publicly that we have obtained our method from Rudolf Steiner. To us it is neither limiting nor one-sided. On the contrary, all other methods reveal their one-sidedness by comparison. It is not the method that limits us, but at times we lack the spiritual strength to learn to master it fully. Our task always remains a spiritual-scientific one, oriented at the same time towards practical life. Democracy and Aristocracy But let us continue with our observations. If, says Rudolf Steiner, we search for the origins of English politics we must turn to recent history. Since the 17th century – preparation had already gone on since the 16th century – its aim has been to democratize, with more speed in one country, less in another, by taking power from the few and spreading it over large masses of people. I do not engage in politics, therefore I will not speak for or against democracy; I only want to place the facts before you. In recent times the democratizing process has gone forward at a rate that accelerates to a greater or a lesser degree, so that different streams are formed. But it is a mistake wherever several are to be considered, to follow only one ... Let us say: a green and a red stream are flowing alongside each other, the colours have no occult meaning ... (and) people are, let us say, usually hypnotized to look always at one stream only and not see the historical parallel stream ... As a parallel stream to the democratic one there arose the use of occult motifs in the various Orders ... They are not spiritual, because of their purposes and goals, but, let us say, there developed a spiritual aristocracy parallel to the democracy that was at work in the French Revolution, the aristocracy of the Lodge developed.[4] If one wants as a person of modern times to see clearly in order to meet the world openly and understand it, then one should not let oneself be blinded by democratic logic, which is justified only in its own sphere, or by phrases concerning democratic progress etc. One would have also to point to the interposing of something that reveals itself in the attempt to give rulership to the few through the means available within the Lodges – namely, ritual and its suggestive effect. (These words truly contain the key to an understanding of what is going on in the world and with us in Russia today. We can find them confirmed at every step. The question that needs to be asked today is: must we deliberately close our eyes to it?) ... It seems that one has forgotten this in the materialistic era, but people still pointed these things out before the ‘Fifties. Just look into the works of philosophical historians from before 1850 and you will see that they point to the connection of the French Revolution and all subsequent developments, with the Lodges ... Emancipation from these conditions and the placing oneself purely into unbiased humanity indeed occurred only under the influence of such great spirituality as was developed on into German philosophy, on the basis of the work of Lessing, Herder, Goethe (Jan. 8, 1917, GA 174). People in anthroposophical circles who speak or write about political activity behind the scenes have made it a habit to regard the secret societies as something other than Freemasonry. (Since they keep silent about it we can only assume that they tacitly count them amongst the irregular Lodges.) Rudolf Steiner says the following: If you look back to 1720, you have in England a few followers of these associations. As a rule, followers are merely instruments, the actual operators stand behind them; but even followers were very few at the time. If we look at statistics today we have 488 Lodges in London, 1354 Lodges throughout Great Britain, of Masonic societies, societies that are a useful instrument in the hands of the secret societies ... First, it is necessary to look at the substantial content of what exists within the Lodge as an instrument for the actual moving forces. And then one needs to investigate the reasons why these forces have to this day been of extraordinary importance (Feb. 21, 1920, GA 196). Let us add to this, what was already indicated about the ‘Grand-Orients’ founded all over the world from England. It is also useful to think about the American Lodge that represents the special ‘smithy’ of the ruling circles of the United States – ‘Skull and Bones’ (also known as ‘bone-men’) etc., etc. and the one question still remains: whom or what should we still regard as regular Freemasonry? Has not ‘regularity’ now become the most radical form of ‘irregularity’? Rudolf Steiner concedes that the habit of looking for the origins of Freemasonry in the distant past has a certain validity even though they are, as they are presented, often nebulous, maybe even fraudulent. During the first stage of imperialism Gods did indeed walk in human form among men on the earth. Later this became a symbol, a symbolism that was preserved in the Lodges. In outer exoteric life symbolism has sunk into cliché. (We paint symbols on tanks and aircraft). In the Lodges it is ‘elevated’ to ceremonial cliché. But it can happen that people who are especially gifted through their karma can, at some point, arrive at the actual meaning of these symbols. Sometimes even a blind hen finds a grain ... then they are removed from the secret societies concerned. But steps are taken to ensure that they cannot harm these secret societies. For power is of special importance for these secret societies, not insight (ibid.). Internal Battle of the Lodges and Orders, Spiritism It must be admitted that Freemasonry did not surrender its positions at once. A struggle took place in which the healthy forces were finally overcome. In those Lodges or Brotherhoods where people had knowledge of the impulses of human development, some individuals perceived the great event that ended in 1879 with the fall to earth of the forces of darkness conquered by the Archangel Michael. Such people were faced with the question: what must we do if we are to take account of this fact, this new presence of the ahrimanic spirits in the materialism of the epoch? And they resolved to help people to perceive something of the spiritual directly in the physical. Thus Spiritism arose out of a good intention in the ’Forties of the last century. At that time, when on the earth the spirit of criticism and of the intellect directed only to the outer world became the all-prevailing force, people had to be given at least a feeling for the existence of the spiritual. Other members of the Brotherhoods, who preferred to give no spiritual knowledge to humanity, expressed their agreement with this intention, despite the fact that they formed the majority. Thus the well-meaning spiritualists, all of them members of Lodges, decided – and this was a mistake – to convince people, with the help of mediums, of the existence of spiritual forces. They intended later to bring higher truths to humanity on this basis, since they hoped that the mediums would speak in general terms of the elementary world. But in the spiritist séances the mediums began to speak of the dead. Gradually the initiators of spiritism found themselves in the minority. But in the Lodges there were still other initiates, known as brothers of the Left, who – says Rudolf Steiner – [exploit] in the sense of a question of power whatever impulse is given for the development of humanity (Nov. 19, 1917, GA 178). They too had hoped for something from spiritism because in their circles they operated with the souls of the dead who, with the help of the materialistic world-view, had been bound to the Lodges after death. They gradually took control over the entire field. The well-meaning initiates gradually lost all interest in spiritism, even felt ashamed in a certain way. The brothers of the Left also began to discredit spiritism because they did not want to release people at all from the grip of materialism (ibid.).[5] It was they who brought about the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and who stand behind all socialistic experiments throughout the world. The greatest and at the same time most decisive damage done to Freemasonry came from the Jesuits. We can basically speak of three levels of initiation in Freemasonry. The ritual enacted on these levels, clothed in verbal formulae, represents a certain reciprocal relationship between the mysteries that existed before the Mystery of Golgatha and the tasks of humanity since that time. A whole series of further levels is ‘woven’ into them, up to 95 in total. And from a certain point in time what is described below takes place. When there are people in the Lodges who, as they pass through the three stages of initiation, really reflect, then what they have inwardly anticipated in the lower three degrees will be completely destroyed by what is implanted into them in the high degrees. A terrible fog is poured out over all that can in some way be feelingly anticipated in the three lower degrees. And while the people are usually lacking any kind of clarity about it in their consciousness, they are confused in these high degrees ... This is because in certain periods, at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, but also on into our times, certain people infiltrated themselves into Masonic Orders, worked within them and carried into them these high degrees, developed these high degrees within Freemasonry ... People are gullible, often even when they are initiated into those things. And those who smuggled themselves in, those are the members of the ‘Society of Jesus’, they are Jesuits ... So that you will find Jesuitism not only where Freemasonry is railed against or where one preaches against Freemasonry, but you will find in the high degrees very, very much of the purest Jesuitism. It does no harm from the Jesuits’ point of view that one attacks what one has set up oneself, because in this realm it belongs to politics, to the right steering of men. If one wants to guide people to a particular goal, a clear one, a goal clear to man ... then it is good if one takes hold of them from just one side and shows them one path to this goal. If, on the other hand one wants to keep them as dull and sleepy as possible, one shows them two paths or maybe several, but two are sufficient at first. One path goes this way, another that way (see drawing). One is a Jesuit by officially belonging to the Society of Jesus and goes this way (>), or one is a Jesuit and belongs to some high-degree Masonic Order and goes this way ( < ). Then a man takes a look at this (he will hardly be able to know what is going on). It is very easy to confuse him (July 3, 1920, GA 198). This, one may say, is the main methodological principle behind the activity of all secret societies in the world today. Without knowledge of it we keep coming up against contradictions in the, at times, relentless struggle waged by representatives of one Order against another. In this conflict the physical elimination of members of the opposing Lodge, of those on the profane level, is permitted, not to mention the masses living in the territory governed by the warring Lodges. But at the same time we can observe in the first place a certain unity of goals in the superiors of bitterly antagonistic Orders.[6] And secondly, against all those who are knowingly or unknowingly caught up in this battle one uses the tactic of ‘two daggers’. Whoever draws back in fear from the one must himself dash into the other. Anthroposophists
have the task to do neither of these. But first of
all it is necessary to stop hoodwinking us and
throwing dust into our eyes. Everyone is led by
the nose, who, even if only passively, swims in
the current of public opinions spread abroad just
as much by the anthroposophical press as by many
of our power-wielding educators. We need to
understand that we then serve at least one, if not
both adversaries, whatever we may proclaim in
flattering tones. If the Lord God has not robbed us of our senses as a punishment for our ego- ism, then let at least the tragic experience of others be a lesson so that it will not be repeated in our circle. Let us investigate the history of the destruction of Freemasonry and learn from it, for healthy spirituality in the world is always fought against with the same methods. Notes 1 Among anthroposophists, from England again, a rumour is passed around about a private statement made by Rudolf Steiner to Walter Stein in 1924, according to which the influence of the occult brotherhoods in politics ceased with the victory of the Labour Party in England. This is obviously a lie, representing the distortion of a statement made by Rudolf Steiner at a pedagogical conference on February 5, 1924 (GA 300/c, p. 113). Here are his words: It is amazing how thoughtless humanity is today, so that it lets the most important symptoms go by without giving them a thought. That through the system of MacDonald a century-old tradition was broken within England, is something momentous ... On the other hand it should be well observed on the part of Anthroposophists how outer events clearly show that the era whose history can only be written from the physical plane, is over. We have to understand that the ahrimanic forces gain ever greater access into historical development. James Ramsay MacDonald (1886-1937) was one of the founders and leaders of the Labour Party. He became Prime Minister in 1924 and established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. 2 It is remarkable that in the weekly Das Goetheanum, whose task it is after all to inform us of everything that is happening in the Anthroposophical Society, not a word was said about this interesting and significant event. 3 Report on the annual meeting of the research Lodge Quatuor Coronati (West Germany), July 5-8, 1990 in Basle. Hamburg, 1990 (Christian-Rosenkreutz-Verlag). 4 It is not by chance that ‘Elite, elite, elite’ continuously resounds in the present political agitation of all parties in Russia. 5 In a further lecture Rudolf Steiner gives the following explanations: Since the ‘I’ as well as the astral body of the medium is suppressed by the hypnotist or inspirator, it cannot gain access in a healthy way to the realm of the dead. This is why the purely luciferic teachings arose via the mediums, combined with exclusively ahrimanic observations; and therefore one had to give up the spiritists. The leading personalities of the Theosophical Society were also active in the sense of the above-mentioned compromise, i.e. they received their knowledge of the supersensible (Leadbeater i.a.) through mediums, and this was not legitimate. The greatest hopes of well-meaning initiates of the middle of the 19th Century found their realization in Anthroposophy transmitting spiritual knowledge only through an awake I-consciousness (cf. May 11 and 13, 1915, GA 254). 6 Actions of this kind proceed from both sides. It could be rumours suggesting that the present Pope may be a figure of Western Lodges are not without foundation. Today’s struggle behind the scenes has been driven to such a devilish absurdity that it assumes no longer an occult-political, but rather an occult-mafioso character.
|