19th century freemasons aren't the same thing as 17th century...
R.Сам 🦋🐏@Logo_Daedalus
49 views
Mar 22, 2025
~1 min read
Advertisement
1
19th century freemasons aren't the same thing as 17th century freemasons aren't the same thing as 20th century freemasons-- you have to be more specific, but that's too much to ask of this sort of "Rooting for the Good Guys" hermeneutic of history.
x.com/EldianParticle…
x.com/EldianParticle…
2
These big generalizations that mean nothing "Fought against Monarchism" -- King James the Masonic King of Britain-- oh wait, you're talking about "the later freemasonry of the 19th century" etc.
3
The Freemason King of Hawaii Kamehameha IV -- lmao
4
The only thing that unifies the Freemasons in any time period is opposition to ROME -- except when the Freemasons starting incorporating Catholics in the 20th century & the whole thing just became about defending the international bourgeois which is my point
5
Ironically the power of the Rosicrucians & Freemasons in the earliest days came from them convincing the Nobility that they actually had secret knowledge so you had the nobles of Europe clamoring to become Freemasons because it seemed more exclusive than being nobility!
6
So which way was it-- the nobles becoming "bourgeois" or the bourgeois becoming "international nobility" -- perhaps both at the same time as we have now the Prince of Britain palling around with Bankers on crypto-colonial island-banks named after Queen Victoria.
7
My point was rather that "Anti-Communism" became the main impetus of Freemasonry in the 20th century which is why Marx says that Communism is "Freemasonry for the Proletariat" -- because there's a new dialectic at play lol
8
From Capital: "We are here to obtain a mathematically accurate evidence: why the capitalists in their competition show that each other is a false brother, but in the face of the entire working class can be formed a true freemasonry (brotherhood) group."