In Profile : Rome to Templars to Freemasonry, we face the same enemy


duke of brunswick@0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Duke of Brunswick

With much play on the idea Freemasonry and the Knights Templar are one and the same entity, holding the same beliefs and the same morality as did those wholesome societies of antiquity, does this suggestion of morality play out in real time historical fact, and, if so, what happened to such a strong upstanding morality? and why is it vacant in today’s world of finance given the entire order of Freemasonry together with the Jesuit Order stand charged as the protector of the corporate takeover?

In the formation of the Templars, saw the amalgamation of a military order with that of the religious. Formed by nine French knights each descended from the Essenes and holding European royal title, created in Jerusalem in 1118 they claim, to afford safe travel to the holy land during the time of the Crusades. Baldwin II, the king of Jerusalem, allowed the knights to lodge in his palace, built on the site of king Solomon’s Temple. It was from this event they would be known as the Knights Templar.

But are the Knights Templar to be taken at the current propaganda presents? Well, here is a more detailed chronology of the history of the families involved in the creation of the Knights of the Temple.

By 1128 the order was given special protection by the Pope. As the Crusades moved on the order set up base in many Christian countries to procure enlistment to the cause, as such they were a tax exempt foundation allowing huge wealth to be used to further their agenda. Not unlike the fact in the 19th and 20th centuries, as has been proven through investigations, that the banking elite set up tax exempt foundations to subvert the United States through control of the State Department, allowing the takeover of education. We can conclude that through the tax exempt foundations and NGOs, the same elite network that controlled the Templars have shifted through various guises in history, using the same methods to expand their hidden hand in the shadows of power.

The Rosicrucians were formed as the keepers of the knowledge, and mixed the mystery religions with the theology of Christianity, one might call them the priesthood for the Templars and ultimately for the Temple. When the Templars were purged for adopting Sodomy, the same power as that held by the Templars remained within the hands of the Rosicrucian philosophy. It is not known whether the Rosicrucians were formed outside the Templars, but it is clear they had merged previous to the purge. The Rosicrucians held the keys to Kabbalah. The way in which both the Templars and Rosicrucians operated, today we find the Jesuit Order carrying out the very same methodology for the empire. The Jesuits have used Freemasonry to implement the will of the elect directly into the Protestant nations. Here lies the problem, power resides from within the secret society networks and not through independent governments.

Freemasonry began when the Rosicrucians merged with the Mason Guilds, the builders of Gothic architecture.

Is it a different Freemasonry today? which through such epics as; The Da Vinci Code and all essays and books following from this script, have presented a connection from a spiritual standpoint and suggestive of the idea, still the holy grail sits within the inner circle of Templar Freemasonry in direct opposition to Church dogma, ergo, Freemasonry represents the Grail frequency and the Church does not.

The fact todays global population suffer from all things commercial statute and legislation, and given speculative freemasonry seems to be the enabler of this system out of the Scottish Rite Masonry, known as the ponzi scheme by our American brothers, as the pyramid scheme to the Brits, a system seemingly an exact replica of what we are witnessing happen to global economies today, as they all shift under absolute control of the IMF, facilitated by the likes of Goldman Sachs, under what is clearly a casino economy…. the question must be asked, who are you and what do you really represent?

Theosophical Masonry was formed by the secret society to cap all societies, the Illuminati, a long time ago. Their specialty was a structure of control in pyramidal form utilising the geometry they don’t give out when claiming to be the revealers of the mysteries. A physical structured system whereby each member of the cell know only their immediate superior, and each cell member knowing no other active within the cell. This forms a structure whereby only the mind sitting atop the pyramid knows all those within the cell and what they are doing. Absolute control and absolute secrecy, the perfect method for infiltration leading ultimately to absolute power while remaining in the shadows, it is only a matter of positioning your people in the key positions of whatever arena you are operating.

In this manner whatever institution finds itself the object of the attentions of this shadowy network becomes nothing but a front for their will, and to all in the outer scheme, nothing has changed. The reality of this infiltration into any organisation is best exposed in its ability to align organisations and institutions that operate against the shadow, to become entangled in its machinations for those who would study history. In this manner as we stand today we have no idea who the enemy is, and in such a state of distrust the baby can be thrown out with the bathwater, leaving us presently without the means to create a power that can indeed operate together against the corporate banking empire.

It is not therefore off the wall to suggest the pyramids in Egypt and around the world, are the language of the older variants of the black sun cults, in order the symbolism of the pyramid and what it represents, would not be lost to future generations. 

Within these parameters, I would have to take to task the Old Testament monolith; Moses, who according to Theosophical tradition took his commandments from the Great Pyramid at Giza, so named Mt Sinai in the Old Testament. In bringing fourth the written laws, there is one fact no scholar of serious worth can ignore, in so doing he shifted man from the spoken word, to be beholden to the written word, or perhaps enslaved by the written word would be more lucid understanding of the matter taking on board our current situation as the corporate realm forces its will over peoples and their governments under contract law.

Though I have no issue with what are termed the Ten Commandments, I see them not so much as a fire and brimstone command, their wisdom is to be found in the expression of sense, in order a peoples can aim to exist in harmony and follow a sane and cohesive existence, which leaves me surprised such innate morality was seemingly missing from the reach of man back in those times, this in itself appears to express deception in order a shift of allegiance was achieved, a move to outside stimulus as opposed to stimuli coming from within.

When listening to the intuitions from within it is not then demanded of me that I sign any contract with me, it is what the ancients called ‘Lore’ and was the way in which men agreed to work together and with their own spirit. So it can be said from the standpoint of the Norse version of Lucifer, the imitator, the mimic of creation, Lokie, we begin to understand the Legal system as a mimic of the real spiritual way of agreement, it is a shift from the spoken word to that of the written, and Moses to the Hebrew religions is the king of this charade.

With that in mind we must look to a time when great institutions faced all out attack and found themselves to be the hunted prey, hunted by a shadowy force seemingly holding all the tricks in the book and the power to match, for insight into such a nightmare we can do no better than consider the actions of the Duke of Brunswick, Grand Master of German Freemasonry, 1794, and a gentleman not happy about things in his club. but first a little word math :

Any order run by someone (or something) else is clearly a dis-order, can we agree? It is an un-order, a non-order, someone-else’s-order, and definitely not your orderly order.

In 1794 the Duke of Brunswick, the Grand Master of German Freemasonry wrote a letter to his brethren recommending the dissolution of the entire organisation, due to the fact that it had been infiltrated and was being manipulated by unseen hands. (Other such warnings would commence in the years after the Duke as governments took the revelations seriously. In the United States this was carried out by John Robison.)

In three letters, the Duke of Brunswick explained the situation faced by the German lodges .

Here is what he said.

I have been convinced that we, as an Order, have come under the power of some very evil occult Order, profoundly versed in science, both occult and otherwise, though not infallible, their methods being black magic, that is to say, electromagnetic power, hypnotism, and powerful suggestion. We are convinced that the Order is being controlled by some Sun Order, after the nature of the Illuminati, if not by that Order itself. We see our edifice crumbling and covering the ground with ruins, we see the destruction that our hands no longer arrest a great sect arose, which taking for its motto the good and the happiness of man, worked in the darkness of the conspiracy to make the happiness of humanity a prey for itself.

This sect is known to everyone, its brothers are known no less than its name. It is they who have undermined the foundations of the Order to the point of complete overthrow; it is by them that all humanity has been poisoned and led astray for several generations They began by casting odium on religion Their masters had nothing less in view than the thrones of the earth, and the governments of the nations was to be directed by their nocturnal clubs the misuse of our order has produced all the political and moral troubles with which the world is filled today we must from this moment dissolve the whole Order.

So the Duke, essentially confirms that Freemasonry was successfully infiltrated and has been taken over since at least the Council of Wilhelmsbad, Germany, in 1780. An understanding was finally reached between the Masons and the Illuminati, and on December 20, 1781, a combined Order was proposed which would add to the Illuminati organisation the first three degrees of Masonry. It wasn’t until the Congress of Wilhelmsbad from July 16th to August 29th, 1781 (which was attended by Masons, Martinistes, and representatives from other secret organisations from Europe, America and Asia) that the alliance was official. Those at the meeting were put under oath not to reveal anything. Comte de Virieu, a Mason from the Martiniste lodge at Lyons, upon his return home when questioned about the Congress said :

I will not confide [the details] to you. I can only tell you that all this is very much more serious than you think. The conspiracy which is being woven is so well thought out, that it will be, so to speak, impossible for the Monarchy and the Church to escape it.
He later denounced the Illuminati and became a devout Catholic.

These times as depicted above are the beginnings of the rise of the Black Nobility, the Black Guelphs, so named because of their genetic ancestry with the Counts of Seville.

Adam Weishaupt

adam_weishaupt@0
The founder of the Illuminati, or let’s call him the original frontman, Adam Weishaupt, a marrano, who wrote in his journal that Freemasonry was an excellent host for this parasite: The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always covered by another name, and another occupation. None is fitter than the three lower degrees of Free Masonry; the public is accustomed to it, expects little from it, and therefore takes little notice of it. Next to this, the form of a learned or literary society is best suited to our purpose, and had Free Masonry not existed, this cover would have been employed; and it may be much more than a cover, it may be a powerful engine in our hands.

By establishing reading societies, and subscription libraries, and taking these under our direction, and supplying them through our labors, we may turn the public mind which way we will. In like manner we must try to obtain an influence in the military academies (this may be of mighty consequence) the printing-houses, booksellers shops, chapters, and in short in all offices which have any effect, either in forming, or in managing, or even in directing the mind of man: painting and engraving are highly worth our care.

Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Bavarian Illuminati known as Frater Spartacus, 1748-1830, was born on February 7, 1748, in Ingolstadt, Bavaria. He was educated by the Jesuits. He was appointed as Professor of Natural and Canon Law at the University of Ingolstadt in 1775. He was accused by fellow Illuminist Adolph Freiherr Knigge of remaining a Jesuit throughout his control of the Illuminati. 

Weishaupt joined the Freemasons in 1774, but quickly became disillusioned and dropped-out. On the first of May, 1776, Weishaupt founded the Illuminati, created based on the organisation of a secret student society. The original group consisted of only 5 members who were devoted to promoting equality and rationality, originally through study but later through more active and revolutionary means. By 1779 there were cells of the Order in five Bavarian cities, the secret library contained much contraband literature and membership numbered about 54. Members were all considered Initiates, and they were brought slowly to higher grades of knowledge. Activities of the Order were conducted under assumed and symbolic names (Weishaupt called himself Spartacus) and only the highest Initiates could learn of the Secret Directors (the Areopagus) who knew the founders identity and the true history and aims of the Order.

In 1777 Weishaupt had rejoined the Freemasons in hopes of gaining useful lore for his own Order and in hopes of finding potential new members for the Illuminati. Whether by original design or evolved purpose, the idea was conceived for Illuminati members to infiltrate the highest Masonic grades to take control of the Lodges. In this way, Masons receptive to Illuminati ideas could be initiated into the highest Orders and less receptive members left to the lower Orders and subjected to more limited information..

In 1779 the Masonic Lodge in Munich supposedly succumbed to the plans of the Illuminati. At the same time, this branch of the Masons was given authority by the English-authorised Frankfurt Lodge to set-up daughter Lodges, which it did. By mid-1782 the Illuminati numbered about 300 men, and may have included Goethe & Mozart. In 1783 it spread to Bohemia & Milan, and then to Hungary.

In 1784 one of the highest Initiates defected from the conspiracy and made public some dramatic tales of his experiences and information about the Illuminati. As the story goes, the Bavarian Elector published an Edict forbidding secret societies, and Weishaupt went to him in an attempt to explain the Illuminati, not a good move. As a consequence the Elector issued a new Edict explicitly condemning Freemasons and Illuminati on religious, social and political grounds. Weishaupt fled and the Illuminati supposedly was disbanded.. But did the Illuminati really disappear from history’s stage? Many think not.

Due to the controversial nature of Weishaupt’s ideas and the actions of the Illuminati, all kinds of conspiracy theories surrounded the mysterious organisation. In 1797 a Jesuit, Augustin de Barruel, wrote a book asserting that the French Revolution was the product of a carefully planned plot and that behind the Jacobins were the Freemasons and (above all) the Illuminati. Later, the British authoress Nesta Webster in World Revolution, the Plot Against Civilization (London, 1921) attributed every revolutionary upheaval from 1789 to the Illuminati and she considered Bolshevism & Zionism to spring from the same source. Since that time, literally hundreds of books and publications have outlined the supposed conspiracies of the Illuminati.
 
Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872)

guiseppe mazini@0Weishaupt died in 1830, and Guiseppe Mazzini, an Italian patriot and revolutionary leader, was appointed head of the Illuminati in 1834. It was believed that Weishaupt rejoined the Catholic Church with a deathbed repentance. While attending Genoa University, Giuseppe Mazzini became a 33rd degree Mason and joined a secret organisation known as the Carbonari (their stated goal in 1818: Our final aim is that of Voltaire and of the French Revolution the complete annihilation of Catholicism, and ultimately all Christianity) replaced with the Evangelical construct, where he became committed to the cause of Italian unity. Mazzini, who became known as the Evil Genius of Italy, tried to carry on the activities of Illuminati through the Alta Vendita Lodge, the highest lodge of the Carbonari.

In 1860, Giuseppe Mazzini had formed an organisation called the Oblonica, a name derived from the Latin âobelus, which means: I beckon with a spit (dagger). Within this group, he established an inner circle called the Mafia. It was this band of criminals that Mazzini gave the name Mafia, which was an acronym for Mazzini, Autorizza, Furti, Incendi, and Avvelengmenti. Known as the Mafiosi, they were authorised by Mazzini to commit thefts, arson and murder. It was this organisation that came to America during the 1890s with the beginning of Italian immigration.

Mazzini, head of the Illuminati, the current head of Freemasonry, said :

We form an association of brothers in all points of the globe yet there is one unseen that can hardly be felt, yet it weighs on us. Whence comes it? Where is it? No one knows or at least no one tells. This association is secret even to us the veterans of the Secret Societies.

Mazzini was no slouch at doing subversive things, plotting and scheming. From above quote there is one association, or one brother, depending how you read it, that/who is of unknown origin, with an unknown location, and it is as secret to the secret societies as the secret societies try to be to the general public. Sounds like a double conspiracy. Do two conspiracies in one even each other out to zero?

British writer Nesta Webster (1876-1960), a researcher of secret societies :
The art of illuminism lay in enlisting dupes as well as adepts and by encouraging dreams of honest visionaries or the schemes of fanatics; By flattering the vanity of ambitious egotists; By working on unbalanced brains or by playing such passions as greed and power to make men of totally divergent aims serve the secret purpose of the sect. People with money were welcomed but kept oblivious of actual secrets.

The purpose is to win power and riches. To undermine secular or religious government and attain the masters of the world.

Nesta Helen Webster

Nesta H Webster@0Nesta Helen Webster (Mrs. Arthur Webster), (24 August 1876  16 May 1960) was a controversial historian, occultist, and author who revived conspiracy theories about the Illuminati.

She argued that the secret society’s members were occultists, plotting communist world domination, using the idea of a Jewish cabal, the Masons and Jesuits as a smokescreen.

According to her, their international subversion included the French Revolution, 1848 Revolution, the First World War, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesta_Helen_Webster

In those times the Protocols were seen to be Jewish and so the Illuminati are thus said to be Jewish. It is the Talmud which is the backdrop to the Iluminised power, self aggrandisement backed by god which is at the peak of power in Zionism, Evangelicalism, Wahhabi Sunni, Baal Hinduism, and Theosophical Buddhism.
http://lifeinthemix2.co.uk/ark_acadamy_s.html

Winston Churchill was convinced by this theory and in 1920 wrote : This conspiracy against civilisation dates from the days of Weishaupt

george-washington-prayer-valley-forge@0George Washington, Freemason and first President of the USA

I have heard much of the nefarious and dangerous plan of the Illuminati It was not my intention to doubt that the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism, had not spread in the United States.

On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.
From the image it is suggesting he was aware of the ways of the real Merovingians

Thomas Jefferson

thomas jefferson@0Thomas Jefferson on Adam Weishaupt and the Illuminati ( From a letter to Bishop James Madison Philadelphia, Jan. 31, 1800)
The tranquillity of our consciences is not troubled by the reproach of aiming at the ruin or overthrow of states or thrones. As Weishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot and priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, and the principles of pure morality. He proposed therefore to lead the Free Masons to adopt this object and to make the objects of their institution the diffusion of science and virtue.

He proposed to initiate new members into his body by gradations proportioned to his fears of the thunderbolts of tyranny.

This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment, the subversion of the Masonic order, and is the colour for the ravings against him of Robinson, Barruel & Morse, whose real fears are that the craft would be endangered by the spreading of information, reason, and natural morality among men.

If Weishaupt had written here, where no secrecy is necessary in our endeavours to render men wise and virtuous, he would not have thought of any secret machinery for that purpose.

We must go back yet further to grasp real insight as to what force it is that deals in commercial statutes and contract rules as supreme law outside of gods creation, because not only was this force the enemy of the Church, it was also the enemy of the Church’s military order, the Knights Templar. I have always looked upon it as strange that the journey, and into who’s hands, went the wealth of the Templar’s after the purge, perhaps there was no wealth save for the greatest wealth of all, spiritual wisdom which has been the charge of the Church enough to keep the moneylenders and merchants off the land. Whatever the truth, what seems to be clear, is the power of the spiritual church over the minds of those called the kingly class, changed beyond all recognition. No longer was the seat of morality with god, especially so after all the Templars and Church had formed in England would be thrown asunder as a king wanted a male child and was prepared to kill for it, not only kill those close to him, but to kill an idea built in some 1000 years before him, leading to a Civil War which would remove the laws on Usury enough for the European money kings to make centre in London launching a power which would further the destruction of the Christian ethos. The rights or wrongs of the older Christian system can be debated for ever, but one thing that is crystal clear, the older system was a better system than the one they are forcing down the necks of the worlds populations today.

Philip IV King of France

philip IV the fair@0The following information places the real player at the time of the demise of the Templars, and by brute force, becoming the controller of the Vatican, in order something other than the Templar Order and the Church could take control of Middle Age Europe. From the following we glimpse the fact the Vatican and her military order; the Templars, faced the same enemy and for exactly the same reasons as those we face today, total control not for god, but for commerce :
The spoken word demolished by the written contract
A clear demarcation of morality, spiritual or temporal, church or Babylon?

Philip IV  Le Bel (the Fair)
King of France, b. at Fontainebleau, 1268; d. there, 29 Nov., 1314; son of Philip III and Isabel of Aragon; became king, 5 Oct. 1285, on the death of his father, and was consecrated at Reims, 6 Jan., 1286, with his wife Jeanne, daughter of Henry I, King of Navarre, Count of Champagne and Brie; this marriage united these territories to the royal domain. Having taken Viviers and Lyons from the empire, Valenciennes, the inhabitants of which united themselves voluntarily with France, La Marche and Angoumois, which he seized from the lawful heirs of Hugues de Lusigan, Philip wished to expel Edward I of England from Guienne, all of which province, with the exception of Bordeaux and Bayonne, was occupied in 1294 and 1295.

By the Treaty of Montreuil, negotiated by Boniface VIII, he gave Guienne as a gift to his daughter Isabel, who married the son of Edward I, on condition that this young prince should hold the province as Philip’s vassal. Philip wished to punish Count Guy of Flanders, an ally of England, and caused Charles of Valois to invade his territory, but he was defeated at Coutrai by the Flemings, who were roused by the heavy taxes imposed on them by Philip; he took his revenge on the Flemings at the naval victory of Zierichzee and the land victory of Mons en Puelle; then in 1305 he recognised Robert, Guy’s son, as his vassal and retained possession of Lille, Douai, Orchies and Valenciennes. Having thus extended his kingdom, Philip endeavoured energetically to centralise the government and impose a very rigorous fiscal system. Legists like Enguerrand, Philippe de Marigny, Pierre de Latilly, Pierre Flotte, Raoul de Presle, and Guillaume de Plassan, helped him to establish firmly this royal absolutism and set up a tyrannical power.

These legists were called the chevaliers de l’h´tel, the chevaliers s lois, the millets regis; they were not nobles, neither did they bear arms, but they ranked as knights. The appearance of these legists in the Government of France is one of the leading events of the reign of Philip IV. Renan explains its significance in these words :

An entirely new class of politicians, owing their fortune entirely to their own merit and personal efforts, unreservedly devoted to the king who had made them, and rivals of the Church, whose place they hoped to fill in many matters, thus appeared in the history of France, and were destined to work a profound change in the conduct of public affairs.

It was these legists who incited and supported Philip IV in his conflict with the papacy and the trial of the Templars. In the articles Boniface VIII; Clement V; Molai; Templars, will be found an account of the relations of Philip IV with the Holy See; M. Lizerand, in 1910, has given us a study on Philip IV and Clement V, containing thirty-seven unpublished letters written by the two sovereigns. The principal adviser of Philip in his hostile relations with the Curia was the legist Guillaume de Nogaret. Renan, who made a close study of Nogaret’s dealings with Boniface VIII, Clement V, and the Templars, thinks that despite his ardent profession of Catholic fidelity he was somewhat hypocritical, at all events he was not an honest man, and that he could not have been deceived by the false testimony which he stirred up and the sophisms he provoked. Nogaret’s methods of combating Boniface VIII and the Templars are better understood when we examine, in Gaston Paris’s work, the curious trial of Guichard, Bishop of Troyes, for witchcraft.

Another important personage whose curious writings must be read to understand the policy of Philip correctly is Pierre Dubois. He had been a pupil of St. Thomas Aquinas at the University of Paris, and was a lawyer at Coutances. In 1300 Dubois wrote a work on the means of shortening the wars and conflicts of France; in 1302 he published several virulent pamphlets against Boniface VIII; between 1304 and 1308, he wrote a very important work De recuperatione Terrae Sanctae in 1309 alone, he wrote on the question of the Holy Roman Empire, on the Eastern question, and against the Templars. Dubois started from the idea that France ought to subdue the papacy, after which it would be easy for the King of France to use the papal influence for his own advantage.

He wished his king to become master of the Papal States, to administer them, to reduce the castles and cities of this state to his obedience, and to force Tuscany, Sicily, England, and Aragon, vassal countries of the Holy See, to do homage to the King of France; in return the king was to grant the pope the revenues of the Papal States. It depends on the pope, wrote he in his work of 1302, to rid himself of his worldly occupations and to preserve his revenues without having any trouble about them; if he does not wish to accept such an advantageous offer, he will incur universal reproach for his cupidity, pride, and rash presumption.Clement V, continued Dubois in his treatise De recuperation Terrae Sanctae, after having given up his temporal possessions to the King of France, would be protected against the miasma of Rome, and would live long in good health, in his native land of France, where he would create a sufficient number of French cardinals to preserve the papacy from the rapacious hands of the Romans. Dubois desired not only that the King of France should subjugate the papacy, but that the empire should be forced to cede to France the left bank of the Rhine, Provence, Savoy, and all its rights in Liguria, Venice and Lombardy.

In 1308, after the death of the Emperor Albert I, he even thought of having the pope confer the imperial crown on the French Capets. He also devised plans for subjugating Spain. Thus reorganised by France Christian Europe was (in the mind of Pierre Dubois) to undertake the Crusade; the Holy Land would be reconquered, and on the return, the Palaeologi, who reigned at Constantinople, would be replaced by the Capetian, Charles of Valois, representing the rights of Catherine de Courtenay to the Latin Empire of Constantinople. The personal influence of Pierre Dubois on Philip IV must not be exaggerated. Although all his writings were presented to the king, Dubois never had an official place in Philips’s council. However, there is an indisputable parallelism between his ideas and certain political maneuvers of Philip IV. For instance on 9 June, 1308, Philip wrote to Henry of Carinthia, King of Bohemia, to propose Charles of Valois as a candidate for the crown of Germany; and on 11 June he sent three knights into Germany to offer money to the electors. This was fruitless labour, however, for Henry of Luxemburg was elected and Clement V, less subservient to the King of France than certain enemies of the papacy have said, hastened to confirm the election.

Philip IV was not really a free-thinker; he was religious, and even made pilgrimages: his attitude toward the inquisition is not that of a free-thinker, as is especially apparent in the trial of the Franciscan Bernard Délicieux. The latter brought the deputies of Carcassonne and Albi to Philip IV at Senlis, to complain of the Dominican inquisitors of Languedoc; the result of his action was an ordinance of Philip putting the Dominican inquisitors under the control of the bishops. On the receipt of this news Languedoc became inflamed against the Dominicans; Bernard D’licieux in 1303 headed the movement in Carcassonne, and when in 1304 Philip and the queen visited Toulouse and Carcassonne, he organised tumultuous manifestations. The king was displeased, and discontinued his proceedings against the Dominicans. Then Bernard D’licieux and some of the people of Carcassonne conspired to deliver the town into the hands of Prince Fernand, Infant of Majorca; Philip caused sixteen of the inhabitants to be hanged, and imposed a heavy fine on the town; and this conspiracy of Bernard D’licieux against the king and the Inquisition was one of the reasons of his condemnation later in 1318 to perpetual In Pace, or monastic imprisonment.

Philip IV was not therefore in any way a systematic adversary of the inquisition. On the other hand, recently published documents show that he was sincerely attached to the idea of a Crusade. From the memoirs of Rabban Cauma, ambassador of Argoun, King of the Tatars, translated from the Syriac by Abb Chabot, we learn that Philip said to Rabban in Sept., 1287: If the Mongolians, who are not Christians, fight to capture Jerusalem, we have much more reason not to fight; if it be God’s will, we will go with an army. And the news of the fall of Saint-Jean dâ’Acre (1291), which induced so many provincial councils to express a desire for a new crusade was certainly calculated to strengthen this resolution of the king. We have referred to Dubois’s zeal for the conquest of the Holy Land; Nogaret was perhaps a still stronger advocate of the project; but in the plan which he outlined about 1310, the first step, according to him, was to place all the money of the Church of France in the king’s hands.

The French Church under Philip IV displayed very little independence; it was in reality enslaved to the royal will. Almost every year it contributed to the treasury with or without the pope’s approval, a tenth and sometimes a fifth of its revenues; these pecuniary sacrifices were consented to by the clergy in the provincial councils, which in return asked certain concessions or favours of the king; but Philip’s fiscal agents, if they met with resistance, laid down the principle that the king could by his own authority collect from all his subjects, especially in case of necessity, whatever taxes he wished. His officers frequently harassed the clergy in a monstrous manner; and the documents by which Philip confirmed the immunities of the Church always contained subtle restrictions which enabled the king’s agents to violate them.

A list of the gravamina of the Churches and the clerics, discussed at the Council of Vienne (1311), contains ample proof of the abuse of authority to which the Church was subjected, and the writer of the poem Avisemens pour le roy Loys, composed in 1315 for Louis X, exhorted this new king to live in peace with the Church, which Philip IV had not done. To concentrate in his hands all the wealth of the French Church for the Crusade, and then to endeavour to make an agreement with the papacy for the control and disposition of the income of the Universal Church, was the peculiar policy of Philip IV. Recently some verses have been discovered, written by a contemporary on a leaf of register of the deliberations of Notre-Dame de Chartres, which reveal the impression produced by this policy on the minds of certain contemporaries :

Jam Petri navais titubat, racio quia clavis. Errat; rex, papa, facti sunt unica capa, Declarant, do des Pilatus et alter Herodes.

Philip IV, by his formal condemnation of the memory of Boniface VIII, appointed himself judge of the orthodoxy of the popes. It was laid down as a principle, says Geoffrey of Paris, that the king is to submit to the spiritual power only if the pope is in the right faith. The adversaries of the theocracy of the Middle Ages hail Philip IV as its destroyer; and in their enthusiasm for him, by an extraordinary error, they proclaim him a precursor of modern liberty. On the contrary he was an absolutist in the fullest sense of the term. The Etats g’nraux of 1302, in which the Third Estate declared that the king had no superior on earth, were the precursors of the false Gallican theories of Divine right, so favourable to the absolutism of sovereigns.

The civilisation of the Middle Ages was based on a great principle, an essentially liberal principle, from which arose the political liberty of England; according to that principle, taxes before being raised by royal authority, ought to be approved by the tax-payers. Boniface VIII in the conflict of 1302 was only maintaining this principle, when he insisted on the consent of the clergy to the collection of the tithes. In the struggle between Philip and Boniface, Philip represents absolutism, Boniface the old medieval ideas of autonomy. The reign of Philip IV, writes Renan, is the reign which contributed most to form the France of the five succeeding centuries, with its good and bad qualities. The milites regis, those ennobled plebeians, became the agents of all important political business; the princes of the royal blood alone remained superior to or on an equality with them; the real nobility, which elsewhere established the parliamentary governments, was excluded from participating in the public policy. Renan is right in declaring that the first act of the French magistracy was to diminish the power of the Church per fas et nefas to establish the absolutism of the king; and that such conduct was for this magistracy an original sin.

Sources

Historiens de la France t. XX, XXIII; Langlois in Lavisse, Histoire de France, III (Paris 1903); Boutaric, La France sous Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1861);
Renan, Etudes sur l’histoire religieuse du règne de Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1899); Wenck, Philippe der Schone von Frankreich, seine Personlichkeit und das Urteil der Zeitgenossen (Marbourg, 1905); Finke, Zur Charakteristik Philipps des Schonen in Mitteilungen des Instituts fur osterreichische Geschichte, XXVI (1905); Melanges sur le Regne de Philippe le Bel: recueil d’articles extraits du Moyen Age (Chalon-sur-Saone, 1906); Holtzman, Wilhelm von Nogaret (Freiburg im Br., 1897); Paris, Un procès criminel sous Philippe le Bel in Revue du Palais (Aug., 1908); Langlois, Les papiers de G. de Nogaret et de G. de Plaisians Tresor des Chartes (Notices et extraits des manuscrits), XXXIV; Langlois, Doleances du clergé de France au temps de Philippe le Bel in Revue Bleue (9 Sept., and 14 Oct., 1905); Lizerand, Clement V et Philippe IV le Bel (Paris 1910); Arguillere, L’Appel au concile sous Philippe le Bel et la genèse des theories conciliares in Revue des Questions Historiques (1911).
Descendant of the Carolingians :

The House of Capet, or The Direct Capetian Dynasty, (French: Les Captines, la Maison cap’tienne), also called The House of France (la maison de France), or simply the Capets, which ruled the Kingdom of France from 987 to 1328, was the most senior line of the Capetian dynasty itself a derivative dynasty from the Robertians. As rulers of France, the dynasty succeeded the Carolingian dynasty. The name derives from the nickname of Hugh, the first Capetian King, who was known as Hugh Capet and was a cognatic descendant of the Carolingians.

The direct House of Capet came to an end in 1328, when the three sons of Philip IV all failed to produce surviving male heirs to the French throne. With the death of Charles IV, the throne passed to the House of Valois, the direct descendants of Charles of Valois, a younger son of Philip III. It would later pass again, to the House of Bourbon and the House of Orl’ans (both descended from Louis IX), while always remaining in the hands of agnatic descendants of Hugh Capet.

We can better see the reality in the times of William Wallace which sort of demolishes the fantasy flick with the old lethal weapon himself; Mel Gibson. It would seem Hollywood has been busy rewriting history :

Philip IV had married Jeanne (1271-1305), the heiress of Navarre and Champagne. By this marriage, he added these domains to the French crown. He engaged in conflicts with the Papacy, eventually kidnapping Pope Boniface VIII (c.1235-1303), and securing the appointment of the more sympathetic Frenchman, Bertrand de Goth (1264-1314), as Pope Clement V; and he boosted the power and wealth of the crown by abolishing the Order of the Temple, seizing its assets in 1307. More importantly to French history, he summoned the first Estates General in 1302 and in 1295 established the so-called Auld Alliance with the Scots, at the time resisting English domination.
Edward I (Longshanks), expelled 2000 moneylenders from England further supporting the fact those Philip IV acted for, wanted usury laws abolished and contracts in.

Guillaume de Nogaret

guillaume_de_nogaret@0Born about the middle of the thirteenth century at St. Felix-en-Lauragais; died 1314; he was one of the chief counsellors of Philip the Fair, of France (1285-1314), said to be descended from an Albigensian family and was a protege of the lawyer, Pierre Flotte. He studied law, winning a doctorate and a professorship, and was appointed, in 1294, royal judge of the seneschal’s court of Beaucaire. In 1299 the title of knight was conferred on him by Philip the Fair. Imbued, from his study of Roman law, with the doctrine of the absolute supremacy of the king, no scruple restrained Nogaret when the royal power was in question, and his influence was apparent in the struggle between Philip and Boniface VIII. in 1300 Philip sent him as ambassador to the Holy See to excuse his alliance with Albert of Austria, usurper of the Empire. Nogaret, according to his own account, remonstrated with the pope, who replied in vigorous language. After the death of Pierre Flotte at the battle of Courtrai (1302), Nogaret became chief adviser and evil genius of the king. On the publication of the Bull Unam Sanctam, he was charged with directing the conflict against the Holy See (February, 1303). At the Assembly of the Louvre (12 March, 1303), he bitterly attacked the pope, and later, allying himself with the pope’s Italian enemies (the Florentine banker, Musciatto de Franzesi, and Sciarra Colonna, the head of the Ghibelline party), he surprised Boniface in his palace at Anagni and arrested him after subjecting him to outrageous treatment (7 September). But the inhabitants rescued the pope, whose death (11 October), saved Nogaret from severe retribution. Early in 1304, at Languedoc, he explained his actions to the king, and received considerable property as recompense. Philip even sent him with an embassy to the new pope, Benedict XI, who refused to absolve him from the excommunication he had incurred. Clement V, however, absolved him in 1311.

Nogaret played a decisive part in the trial of the Templars. On 22 September, 1307, at Maubuisson, Philip made him keeper of the seal and the same day the Royal Council issued a warrant for the arrest of the Templars, which was executed on 12 October; Nogaret himself arrested the Knights of the Temple in Paris and drew up the proclamation justifying the crime. It was he who directed all the measures that ended in the execution of Jacques de Molai and the principal Templars (1314). The same year Nogaret, who displayed untiring energy in drawing up the documents by which he sought to ruin his adversaries, undertook to justify the condemnation of the Templars by announcing the plans for a new crusade, the expenses of which were to be defrayed by the confiscated goods of the Order. In this Latin document, addressed to Clement V, the author attributes the failure of the crusades to the Templars and declares that Philip the Fair alone could direct them successfully, provided that he obtained the help of all the Christian princes to secure the funds required for the expedition; all the property of the Templars should be given to the king, likewise all legacies left for the crusades and all benefices in Christendom should be taxed. The other military orders, the abbeys, the churches should retain only the property necessary for their support, the surplus should be given for the Crusade. No one took this document seriously, it was probably intended as a solemn hoax. Nogaret’s influence may be seen in the trial for sorcery against Guichard, bishop of Troyes (1308). A zealous but unscrupulous royal partisan, a fierce and bitter enemy, Nogaret died before Philip the Fair, at the time when the regime he had devoted himself to establishing was beginning to be attacked on all sides.

Albigenses
(From Albi, Latin Albiga, the present capital of the Department of Tarn).
A neo-Manichism sect that flourished in southern France in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The name Albigenses, given them by the Council of Tours (1163) prevailed towards the end of the twelfth century and was for a long time applied to all the heretics of the south of France. They were also called Catharists (katharos, pure), though in reality they were only a branch of the Catharistic movement. The rise and spread of the new doctrine in southern France was favoured by various circumstances, among which may be mentioned: the fascination exercised by the readily-grasped dualistic principle; the remnant of Jewish and Mohammedan doctrinal elements; the wealth, leisure, and imaginative mind of the inhabitants of Languedoc; their contempt for the Catholic clergy, caused by the ignorance and the worldly, too frequently scandalous, lives of the latter; the protection of an overwhelming majority of the nobility, and the intimate local blending of national aspirations and religious sentiment.
Manich’ism

Manichism is a religion founded by the Persian Mani in the latter half of the third century. It purported to be the true synthesis of all the religious systems then known, and actually consisted of Zoroastrian Dualism, Babylonian folklore, Buddhist ethics, and some small and superficial, additions of Christian elements. As the theory of two eternal principles, good and evil, is predominant in this fusion of ideas and gives colour to the whole, Manichism is classified as a form of religious Dualism. It spread with extraordinary rapidity in both East and West and maintained a sporadic and intermittent existence in the West (Africa, Spain, France, North Italy, the Balkans) for a thousand years, but it flourished mainly in the land of its birth, (Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Turkestan) and even further East in Northern India, Western China, and Tibet, where, c. A.D. 1000, the bulk of the population professed its tenets and where it died out at an uncertain date.
Ahhhh…..Theosophy
 
Pierre Dubois (Peter Dubois)
Pierre Dubois(Normandy, c. 1255 after. 1321), French publicist in the reign of Philip the Fair, was the author of a series of political pamphlets embodying original and daring views.
He was known to Jean du Tillet in the 16th, and to Pierre Dupuy in the 17th century, but remained practically forgotten until the middle of the 19th century, when his history was reconstructed from his works. He was a Norman by birth, probably a native of Coutances, where he exercised the functions of royal advocate of the bailliage and procurator of the university.

He was educated at the University of Paris, where he heard St. Thomas Aquinas and Siger of Brabant. He was, nevertheless, no adherent of the scholastic philosophy, and appears to have been conversant with the works of Roger Bacon. Although he never held any important political office, he must have been in the confidence of the court when, in 1300, he wrote his anonymous Summaria, brevis et compendious doctrina felicis expeditionis et abbreviationis guerrarum et litium regni Francorum, which is extant in a unique manuscript, and is analysed by Natalis de Wailly in the Biblioth¨que de i cole des Chartes (2nd series, vol. iii).

In the contest between Philip the Fair and Pope Boniface VIII Dubois identified himself completely with the secularizing policy of Philip, and poured forth a series of anti-clerical pamphlets, which did not cease even with the death of Boniface. His Supplication du peuple de France au roy contre le pape Boniface le Ville, printed in 1614 in Acta inter Bonifacium VIII. et Philippum Pulchrum, dates from 1304, and is a heated indictment of the temporal power.

He represented Coutances in the states-general of 1302, but in 1306 he was serving Edward I as an advocate in Guienne, without apparently abandoning his Norman practice by which he had become a rich man. The most important of his works, his treatise De recuperatione terrae sanctae, was written in 1306, and dedicated in its extant form to Edward I, though it is certainly addressed to Philip.

Dubois outlines the conditions necessary to a successful crusade the establishment and enforcement of a state of peace among the Christian nations of the West by a council of the church; the reform of the monastic, and especially of the military, orders; the reduction of their revenues; the instruction of a number of young men and women in oriental languages and the natural sciences with a view to the government of Eastern peoples; and the establishment of Charles of Valois as emperor of the East. The king of France was in fact, when once the pope was deprived of the temporal power, to become the suzerain of the Western nations, and in a later and separate memoir Dubois proposed that he should cause himself to be made emperor by Pope Clement V.

His zeal for the crusade was probably subordinate to the desire to secure the wealth of the monastic orders for the royal treasury, and to transfer the ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the crown. (same strategy pushed on Henry VIII) His ideas on education, on the celibacy of the clergy, and his schemes for the codification of French law, were far in advance of his time. He was an early and violent Gallican, and the first of the great French lawyers who occupied themselves with high politics.

In 1308 he attended the states-general at Tours. He is generally credited with Quaedam proposita papae a rege super facto Templariorum, a draft epistle supposed to be addressed to Clement by Philip. This was followed by other pamphlets in the same tone, in one of which he proposed that a kingdom founded on the property of the Templars in the East should be established on behalf of Philip the Tall.

Further Study
The Committee of 300’s Round Table Network, Chatham House
Committee of 300’s Star Group
In Profile : The John Adam Street Gang
The Corporate Beast
The Zionist-Non-Zionist Issue
The Esoteric Agenda
Removing the strongman, the spiritual battle

The works of Adolph Freiherr Knigge :
Allgemeines System für das Volk zur Grundlage aller Erkenntnisse für Menschen aus allen Nationen, Ständen und Religionen (General System for the Public, Towards a Foundation of all Knowledge of People of all Nations, Conditions, and Religions), 1778

Der Roman meines Lebens (The Story of my Life), 1781
On the Jesuits, Freemasons, and Rosicrucians, 1781
Sechs Predigten gegen Despotismus, Dummheit, Aberglauben, Ungerechtigkeit, Untreue und Müßiggang (Six Sermons against Despotism, Stupidity, Superstition, Injustice, Mistruth, and Idleness), 1783
Geschichte Peter Clausens (The History of Peter Clausen), 1783–85

Gesammelte politische und prosaische kleinere Schriften (Collected Political and Prosaic Lesser Writings), 1784
“Essay on Freemasonry”, 1784
Contribution towards the latest history of the Order of Freemasons, 1786
Bekenntnisse (Übersetzung des Rousseauschen Werks aus dem Französischen) (Confessions”–Translation of the Works of Rousseau from the French), 1786–90
Die Verirrungen des Philosophen oder Geschichte Ludwigs von Seelbergs (The Errors of the Philosopher, or Story of Ludwig von Seelberg), 1787
Philo’s endliche Antwort auf verschiedene Anforderungen und Fragen, meine Verbindung mit dem Orden der Illuminaten betreffend (Philo’s Reply To Questions Concerning His Association With the Illuminati), 1788, 2012 ISBN 978-1-105-60407-2

Über den Umgang mit Menschen (On Human Relations), 1788
Geschichte des armen Herrn von Mildenberg (The Story of the Poor Herr von Mildenberg), 1789
Benjamin Noldmanns Geschichte der Aufklärung in Abyssinien (Benjamin Noldmann’s History of the Enlightenment in Abyssinia), novel, 1790
Über den Zustand des geselligen Lebens in den vereinigten Niederlanden (On the Conditions of Social Life in the United Netherlands), 1790
Das Zauberschloß oder Geschichte des Grafen Tunger (The Enchanted Castle, or the History of Count Tunger), novel, 1791
“Politisches Glaubensbekenntnis von Joseph Wurmbrand” (“The Political Credo of Joseph Wurmbrand”), Essay, 1792
Die Reise nach Braunschweig, (The Journey to Brunswick), novel, 1792
Erläuterungen über die Rechte des Menschen. Für die Deutschen (Elucidations on the Rights of Men. For the Germans), 1792
“Über Schriftsteller und Schriftstellerey” (“Of Writers and Writing”), essay, 1793
Geschichte des Amtsraths Guthmann (The Story of Amtsrath Guthmann), 1794
Reise nach Fritzlar im Sommer 1794 (Journey to Fritzlar in Summer 1794), satire, 1795
The Secret School of Wisdom: The Authentic Rituals and Doctrines of the Illuminati, edited by Josef Wäges and Reinhard Markner, London: Lewis Masonic, 2015 (contains contributions by Knigge)

Tags : Adam Weishaupt, Babylon, Charles of Valois, code of Hamurabi, Comte de Virieu, Council of Wilhelmsbad, Duke of Brunswick, Edward I, evil occult Order, Freemasonry, George Washington, Germany, Giuseppe Mazzini, Guillaume de Nogaret, IMF, Knights Templar, Nesta Helen Webster, Philip IV Le Bel (the Fair), Pierre Dubois (Peter Dubois), The Da Vinci Code, the Jesuits, Theosophical Masonry, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson, Winston Churchill