It's official. The Catholic Knight is retired.  I'm hanging up the helmet and passing the torch. There will be no more articles, no more commentaries, no more calls to action. THIS BLOG IS CLOSED. I've spent a very long time thinking about this, I believe the time has come, and is a bit overdue.  I want to thank my readers for everything, but most especially for your encouragement and your willingness to go out there and fight the good fight. So, that being the case, I've spend the last several weeks looking for bloggers who are fairly active, and best represent something akin to the way I think and what I believe.  I recommend the following blogs for my readers to bookmark and check on regularly. Pick one as your favourite, or pick them all. They are all great..... In His Majesty's Service, THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT

Saturday, July 23, 2011

BREAKING: Oslo Terrorist is a Freemason

Anders Behring Breivik
DEVELOPING UPDATE (7-25-2011): Analysis of Breivik's manifesto reveals that Breivik denies a personal Christian faith, doubts the existence of God, and no longer prays. He does however consider himself a Darwinist, and asserts the primacy of Nordic Paganism alongside Europe's historic Judeo-Christian culture.read full story here
DEVELOPING UPDATE (7-26-2011): Breivik wrote on page 1307 of his online manifesto: “If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.” What Breivik is describing here is something called "National Christianity" or "Christian Nationalism," meaning a belief in Christian identity in the same way one would adhere to a national, cultural or ethnic identity. It has nothing to do with practicing the religion of Christianity. By his own testimony here, Breivik is a "National Christian" or "Christian Nationalist" which by all definitions is the exact opposite of a "Christian Fundamentalist."

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The confessed Oslo Terrorist - Anders Behring Breivik - is currently depicted by the mainstream news as a "Christian Fundamentalist." While this may, or may not, be true (more probably not) some new information is currently surfacing about the man. This picture to the right depicts Breivik wearing the traditional Masonic apron of the Norwegian Order of Freemasons. You can read more about this Masonic order HERE.

Norwegian Masonic Apron
3rd Degree
It should be pointed out here that about 80% of the people in Norway are officially registered by the state run church as "Christian," and one cannot be removed from that listing unless one submits a formal request to the government in writing. So nobody here is contesting that Breivik was listed as a "Christian," as about 80% of the Norwegian population is officially listed as such. (This in no way reflects the number of Norwegians who actually practice their registered faith, which is considerably lower.) Furthermore, it should be noted that many branches of Freemasonry have a historical connection to mainstream liberal Protestantism. So from the perspective of a liberal Protestant Christian, Freemasonry is perfectly compatible with the Christian religion. The issue explored in this blog has nothing to do with how Mr. Breivik identifies himself religiously. The issue concerning this blogger is how the ignorant mainstream news media has maliciously applied the term "Christian Fundamentalist" to describe him, when in fact all the evidence points to the contrary. Breivik may have had some beliefs that could be loosely described as socially conservative, but his Christianity (particularly his dogmatic theology) would have to be quite liberal to be compatible with his membership in the Masonic Lodge.

Whatever comes out about this monster, one thing is certain. He is far more complex than a common "Christian Fundamentalist." As the average Christian Fundamentalist is usually anti-Masonic. Christian Fundamentalists are generally Protestants, and this is one issue Roman Catholics and Protestant Fundamentalists tend to agree on. Protestant Fundamentalists generally regard Freemasonry as occult and Pagan in nature, in essence very anti-Christian. The Catholic Church cites different reasons, but likewise forbids all it's members from becoming Freemasons under pain of excommunication. While the Catholic Church's position on this is firm, the Protestant Fundamentalist position is absolute and militant. They generally insist that "Christians cannot be Masons." Given the general position of Christian Fundamentalists on this issue, and given the fact that Breivik listed Freemasonry as an "interest" on his Facebook page up to the day of the massacre, it is virtually impossible for him to truly be a "Christian Fundamentalist." He is more likely a deranged lunatic who doesn't know enough about conservative Protestant Christianity to understand that his membership and interest in the Masonic Lodge contradicts everything "conservative Christianity" is supposed to stand for.

In fact, Breivik was baptized into the state-run liberal Protestant Church (Lutheran Church of Norway) which he says he did "by his own free will," but later became disillusioned with the way in which Liberal Protestantism has sacrificed much of it's historic Christian character. He once blogged... "Today's Protestant church is a joke. Priests in jeans who march for Palestine and churches that look like minimalist shopping centres. I am a supporter of an indirect collective conversion of the Protestant church back to the Catholic." Breivik (a political Zionist) obviously had little knowledge of Catholicism, for if he did, he would have known that one of the biggest Christian supporters of a Palestinian State is none other than the Catholic Church. In light of his membership in the Masonic Lodge however, Breivik could not be a Catholic, for that would require breaking membership with the Lodge prior to reception into the Catholic Church. More likely, Breivik was lamenting the loss of historic Christian culture in this above quote, which according to his manifesto he saw on par with historic Nordic Pagan culture. The parallels between Anders Breivik and Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City Terrorist) are starting to surface in the most startling way. According to Breivik's manifesto he was originally a Liberal Protestant, but later lost his Christian faith, doubted the existence of God, and praised the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin. McVeigh in comparison, was raised a Roman Catholic, but later lost his Christian faith, believed in an impersonal and naturalistic deity, declaring that his "only god is science."

A YouTube video posted by Breivik depicts himself as a Knight Templar and lone crusader against the failed multicultural experiment in Europe. (Note: "Knights Templar" are associated with Freemasons.) Muslims and Marxists are cited as the object of his contempt, but native Europeans are held responsible for their takeover of European society. (This may explain his rationale for the attack on youths of the liberal Norwegian Labor Party.) While some European and American conservatives might sympathize with his strong stand against multiculturalism, none would sympathize with the extreme he took it to. Having watched the video it reminded me of old Nazi propaganda. Though Breivik was apparently not a formal member of any Neo-Nazi groups, he was known to post messages on some of their Internet forum space.

In truth, two crimes have been committed here. The first is the unspeakable terrorism of Anders Breivik, and the second is the eager (and nearly gleeful) way in which the mainstream news media depicts him as a "Christian Fundamentalist." A similar event happened in the United States back in 1995 when Timothy McVeigh used a similar fertilizer bomb to destroy the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. It was up to that time, the worst terrorist event in U.S. history. In the days leading up to the capture of McVeigh the mainstream news media characterized him as a "right-wing Christian Fundamentalist." In the end, we discovered that McVeigh was an agnostic and had abandoned his belief in the Christian God long ago. In his own words, McVeigh's "only god is science."

What we see in these two events is very revealing. The mainstream news media obviously has an ax to grind against conservative Protestantism and traditional Catholicism. They have demonstrated a repeating pattern of seizing upon any opportunity to label a known terrorist as a "Christian Fundamentalist," when in fact the evidence consistently points in the opposite direction. If there was ever any doubt before, it should be dispelled now, the mainstream news media is ANTI-CHRISTIAN and CHRISTOPHOBIC in the most vial and bigoted way imaginable. They are desperately seeking to connect conservative Christians to acts of terrorism whenever possible. It amazes me that such seemingly professional people could be so ignorant and prejudiced.

The underlying message of the mainstream news media is that Fundamentalism (of any type) causes terrorism. This is a farce! What causes terrorism is the carcinogenic belief that the ends justify the means. From this mindset comes everything from war to genocide. It also spawns terrorism. Those who believe in it have subscribed to the notion that human beings are expendable to various "causes." After all is said and done, regardless of the ramblings of the lunatic behind it, that was the cause of the Oslo Massacre. That is what motivated Anders Breivik to commit his terrorist acts and kill so many innocent people. In his mind, and in his moral code, the ends justified the means, and the lives of his victims were simply a means to accomplish his end. Whatever "end" he desired is irrelevant. What brought about the bloodshed was his Machiavellian morality. Yes, it really is that simple.

Despite all the mystery surrounding this story right now, there is something we do know. Our Lord Jesus Christ instructed Pontius Pilate with the following words...
Jesus answered, "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world." - John 18:36
There is no justification for this man's hideous act of terrorism. The fact that he did take matters to unprovoked physical violence demonstrates that he is NOT a servant of Christ. Our prayers go out to the victims in Norway, most especially to the parents and families of the murdered teens on Utoya island. May God comfort them in this horrible time of crisis.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

It all sounds just a bit fishy to me. I heard he is also supposed to be a Neo-Nazi, or at least used to have some connection to Neo-Nazis. Are there such things as Neo-Nazi Christian Fundamentalists?
I just hope this isn't some ploy to try to make faithful Christians out to be terrorists. I suppose we'll have to wait and see what else comes out of this story.

Anonymous said...

re: "I just hope this isn't some ploy to try to make faithful Christians out to be terrorists."

That would be just as dumb as condemming all Muslims for the actions of a few.
Most of the worst people in the world will use religion as an excuse to commit evil acts, they can pretty much use any religion they want. It doesn't mean they religion as a whole is evil, just that some people commit some evil deeds.

The Catholic Knight said...

Dear both anonymous,

The Left-wing press in Europe and North America is very eager to depict this man as a "Christian Fundamentalist" though by doing so they put their collective ignorance of religion on display. Obviously, the press knows nothing about it, otherwise they would realize that "Christian Fundamentalists" cannot be Freemasons. Duh! But there is a reason why they do this.

The Left-wing Secular press is eager to depict all religions (most especially Christianity and Islam) as radical and dangerous when taken seriously. The message between the lines is that "religion is okay, so long as you don't take it too seriously." This is consistent with the Secular Humanist mindset. By working this angle into all their stories on the Oslo Terrorist, they can leave their readers with the impression that all religion (including Christianity) has an inherently dangerous side, and that to be a truly "level headed person" you need to either be a Secularist, or somebody who practices religion superficially -- not too seriously.

It's an insidious message, but a consistent one, the Left-wing media on both continents has been putting out for a very long time.

scotju said...

Sir Knight, this psychopath's "Christian Fundamentalism" may have been something like the so-called "Christian Identity" sects that we have here in the states. These sects are very racist and prone to violence. I suppose the next few days will tell us if my guess is on the money or not. The MSM lumps all conservative Protestant groups together as "fundamentalist" if they don't toe the liberal line.

Anonymous said...

Clearly no one here knows anything about Freemasonry. First of all Breivik was a member of the 'Lodge St. Olaus to the white Leopard' which was the 1st lodge that was established in Norway. It follows a Swedish Rite, this means that all its members must adhere to Christianity. This proves he's Christian, as there are many checks done on you and you family's background before you are initiated into Freemasonry.

Mary said...

Ya know, I'm really tired of seeing the words, Neo-Nazi applied to conservatives. Now that Christian and conservative were added to his blog, the attacks against Christians are going to be stepped up.
God help us all. :(
-Mary

The Catholic Knight said...

Anonymous, over 80% of the people in Norway are registered as "Christian" by the state run church. One cannot be registered as anything else, unless one submits a request to the government in writing. Furthermore, most Masonic Lodges are associated with Protestant Christianity in some way or form, particularly those connected to the state in their history. Nobody here doubts this.

The issue I have is with the media lable of "Christian Findamentalist," which implies a certain type of Christian, particularly a conservative Protestant Fundamentalist. The point I make here is that this type of Christianity is incompatible with Freemasonry, because it regards Freemasonry as occult and Pagan. It is a well known FACT that most Protestant Fundamentalists believe this. So the purpose of this blog entry is to point out that the news media is ignorant and biased against Protestant Fundamentalism.

Anonymous said...

Freemasonry is controlled by Jews. The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion is the Jewish plan.This inncident is probably related to that.

The Catholic Knight said...

I have only allowed the above anonymous post to make a few points. First and foremost, the Protocals of Elder Zion is a proved forgery. So they cannot be taken seriously. Second, Jews do not control Freemasonry. If anybody controls anybody, it's the other way around. In particular, Freemasonry plays a huge behind-the-scenes role in Zionism and the State of Israel. In this sense the Jews are the pawns of the Freemasons, but this can only be said figuratively, as nobody is being "forced" to do anything as if mind-control were involved. The Masonic control of Jewry is more ideological in nature, involving a Secular interpretation of the Talmud that opposes the traditional rabbinical teachings. Lastly, I highly doubt this terrorist incident has anything to do with any of this. It is far more likely that Breivik is a lunatic and he acted alone.

Anonymous said...

Sir Knight,
What is the source for the photo with the Masonic garb? Is it out of Masonic publication?

Hank from TX

Anonymous said...

Why can't a fundamentalist Christian be a Mason? There's nothing in masonry that prohibits the ultra religious. There can be fundamentalist Jews, Christians, Wiccans, Hindus, etc., in freemasonry.

The Catholic Knight said...

Anonymous, I'm afraid you're missing the point. Just because Freemasonry is hospitable to Fundamentalists, doesn't mean Fundamentalism is accepting of Freemasonry. Nowhere have I tried to make the argument that the Lodge will not accept Fundamentalists. Rather, the point here is that Christian Fundamentalists will not allow themselves to become members of the Lodge -- because they are Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists have all sorts of negative beliefs about Freemasonry. If a Christian Fundamentalist were to actually become a Freemason, he would immediately be shunned by (and probably kicked out of) his Fundamentalist church.

Anonymous said...

Sir Knight,

Another comment after some thought and passing of time...As this unfolds in australia, though i am loathe to pay any complement to our govt. Media (abc.net.au) I will give them credit where credit is due. thus far, i have not heard the use of 'Christian Fundamentalist' in regards to this individual. 'Far right Wing', yes, his links to the Knight's Templer were discussed, but 'Christian Fundamentalist' no. . I have not followed the commercial media's coverage of this story.

One interesting perspective that was discussed was the effects of a depressed global ecconomy (especially in europe) as a possible influence that cannot be ignored out of hand. The commentator suggests that the current organization of the EU is a 'fair weather' arrangement only; it works well when all is well, but when things sour, it does not have the necessary staying power and fraternal good will. Not that said commentator condoned or even attempted to justify Breivik's actions; on the contrary. The point he did raise, however, was that when ecconomies are depressed, unemployment on the rise etc., guest workers or migrant populations may be seen as a threat by the host nation's population as they are competing for dwindling resources (this is a very simple explaination - the situation on the ground in any given nation in these straits is far more complex and nuanced). Feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness tend to, according to said commentator, radicalise individuals and groups within wider populations. A similar example can be seen in the UK where some members of said nation's citizenry are hostile towards the Polish and other Eastern european workers who are migrating for jobs, cutting into the market that would otherwise be open to 'the host populace. In the UK example, both populations are of similar racial makeup and faith (the Polls being Christian - Catholic Christian_. perhaps latant and not so latant Catholic prejudice is at work here as well; This demonstrates the influence exerted by ecconomic factors as the usual forms of racism and anti faith views (e.g. racism toward a grouping of differing colour, core values and religion) has been taken out of play in the British Polish example.

but i digress... Max Weber had some interesting things to say about societies and ecconomies, proposing that an ecconomy is centered around competition for scarce resources.

Here is the 'World Today' link; several related stories are available; I am disappointed that the 'hitler' analagy has beeen drawn, but apparently this comment was attributed to somebody who knew Breivik prior to all this, who allegedly described meeting him as what it must have been like when meeting said German leader pre WWII.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/

One thing is certain; Breivik is no Christian; regardless of any definition attributed to him.

Let us pray that Christ can convert his heart to one of Gospel repentance, and for the berrieved families who have lost loved ones in this ghastly disgrace.

Blessings,

Sarah,
Australia.

Jonathan Prester said...

Thank God: Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik is not, as reported earlier, a fundamentalist Christian, describing himself as an atheistic "Darwinian." This in no way lessens the tragedy of his mass murders, but at least his blasphemous horror was not perpetrated in the Name of Christ.

Timothy McVeigh is another oft-cited example of a "Christian terrorist," despite the fact that McVeigh repeatedly declared that his "only god is science."

Anonymous said...

I wonder how you define "Christian Fundamentalist" when you say they won't allow themselves to be Masons? There's nothing in freemasonry that doesn't gibe with Christianity. What sect of Christianity are you referring to? Christian Fundamentalism isn't a sect like Catholic. Sure, Catholics can't be freemasons but there's nothing to stop a Baptist or a Methodist.

Anonymous said...

The Fundamentalist anti-freemasonry thing might be just American. Americans differ from their European counterparts quite markedly.

Anonymous said...

from liveleaks:
NORWAY SHOOTER-What's A Christian Fundamentalist ? Part of channel(s): 2011 Norway attacks (current event)


"The word fundamental means, one who holds to the original faith and practice of a movement. A Masonic Lodge can have fundamentalists. If you go back to the fundamentals of the Masonic Lodge, you are a fundamental Mason. The word fundamentalist does not apply Just to a group of Baptists. It can apply to any group. There are many kinds of religious fundamentalists, and there are even many kinds of Christian fundamentalists."

The Catholic Knight said...

Anonymous, it's quite obvious you don't understand what a "Christian Fundamentalist" is, nor do you have any clue what goes into the psychology of a Christian Fundamentalist. I do know, because for a short time I was a Christian Fundamentalist, prior to my conversion to Catholicism, and I maintain close relations with many Christian Fundamentalists, since I have family who are such, and I live in an area of the United States where there is a heavy concentration of Christian Fundamentalists.

First and foremost, I do not know any Methodists who are Fundamentalists. Methodism tends to lean more toward the Liberal side in recent decades. Baptists on the other hand, can swing either way, some more Liberal, and others more Fundamentalist.

Christian Fundamentalism is very dogmatic and isolationist. They tend to separate themselves from mainstream denominations, and enclave into their own mini-denominations and sects. Some Fundamentalist churches are completely autonomous, and have no formal affiliation with any outside denomination. There are literally thousands of such organizations, and attempting to name them here would be impossible. One rather large example of an international Fundamentalist denomination is "Calvary Chapel," but this is just one example.

Organizations such as this are highly anti-Masonic. Even more so than the Catholic Church. It doesn't matter how hospitable the Masonic Lodge is to these people. What matters is how these people view Masonic Lodges. They oppose them. They are against them. They despise them. Sorry, that's just the facts. If a Christian Fundamentalist decides to independently go out and join a Lodge (which is possible) he would have effectively sacrificed his Fundamentalist beliefs about Freemasonry, and simultaneously he would have fallen into disfavor with his Fundamentalist church. The penalty for such an act would be "disfellowship" the common Fundamentalist term for excommunication.

I am sorry if you're having a hard time understanding this, but this is just how it is. It really doesn't matter what the Masonic Lodge says about Christian Fundamentalists one way or another. What matters to Fundamentalists is what they believe about the Masonic Lodge (true or untrue), because it is their beliefs. To become a Freemason, they must give up their Fundamentalism, not because Masons require it, but because Fundamentalism requires it. If you can't understand this, than there is nothing more I can say to help you.

Anonymous said...

Maybe I don't understand because I'm not American. What does an American think a Christian Fundamentalist is? I assure you, elsewhere in the world it has a different connotation.

Anonymous said...

I've been told to describe it to you thusly:
In America, Fundamentalist is a noun. In Europe, it's an adjective.

The Catholic Knight said...

I find it difficult to imagine how European Christian Fundamentalism could differ from American Christian Fundamentalism on this issue of Freemasonry.

The reason why Christian Fundamentalist are anti-Masonic is the same reason why they are anti-Catholic. (Which by the way is one more indication that Breivik could not be a Christian Fundamentalist, because he advocated that Protestants return to Catholicism. No Christian Fundamentalist would ever do that.) It is their dogmatic beliefs in traditional Protestant doctrines that militates against any compromise with, or association with, non-Protestant Christian beliefs and affiliations. The main problem with Freemasonry, as far as Christian Fundamentalists are concerned, is that they are open to membership from non-Christians. The Fundamentalist position is that Christians must not be "unequally yoked" with nonbelievers.

Furthermore, Christian Fundamentalists believe many Masonic rites and symbols are Pagan in origin. Whether or not this is true does not matter. What matters is that Fundamentalists BELIEVE it's true, and that is yet one more reason why they abhor Freemasonry. Based on the psychology of Christian Fundamentalism, I do not see how there could be any difference between Americans and Europeans on this issue.

The problem I have in this blog entry has little to do with Freemasonry. Personally, I could care less about Breivik's Masonic connection, and I don't believe that Masonic connection had anything to do with his terrorist attack in Norway. The problem I have in this blog entry is with the mainstream news media, not the Freemasons. That problem is the mainstream news media's insistent labeling of non-Muslim terrorists as "Christian Fundamentalists." There is no evidence of this whatsoever. In each case the connection to Christian Fundamentalism is proved false. The mainstream news media would have been just as accurate labeling him a "Buddhist Fundamentalist" or a "Hindu Fundamentalist." In fact, they would have been more accurate calling him an "Agnostic Fundamentalist." Or how about not calling him a Fundamentalist at all. That would probably be the most accurate, since what we know about his beliefs so far indicate an eclectic blend of European nationalism, and Darwinian survival of the fittest. His manifesto statements placing Nordic Paganism on par with European Christian heritage seems to demonstrate a support of neo-folk religions as a means of European identity. It is similar, but not identical, to the position of the Nazis on European religion some 70+ years ago.

The Catholic Knight said...

Again, this issue is not so much with the term "Fundamentalist" as it is with the term "Christian Fundamentalist." Breivik, by his own admission in his own manifesto, IS NO LONGER a Christian. You can't be a "Christian Fundamentalist" when you no longer believe in the Christian faith!

I don't know how to make it anymore clear than this.

As for whoever is telling you to say things on this blog, I would request that you please think for yourself, rather than taking talking points from others.

Anonymous said...

And I would suggest you quit being so combative in order to adequately discuss and understand the issue. It is this unwillingness to explore the viewpoints of others that lead to this madman's spree, after all. Peace.

The Catholic Knight said...

Please do not mistake my American assertiveness for being combative. I do apologize if this offends you though. I assure you there is no hostility intended toward you in particular. Our problem in America is with the corporate mainstream news media, not with the Freemasons.

To clarify on something you just said though. It was the instability of a deranged lunatic that led to the Oslo Massacre. What led to the violence was the musings of a man who believed the ends justified the means. It had little do to with his willingness, or unwillingness, to converse with others and explore differing viewpoints.

I happen to live in one of the most stubborn and hardheaded areas of the United States. I know many Christian Fundamentalist here who are far more stubborn than I on so many things, and few of them would ever explore differing viewpoints. Yet none of them are terrorists, and all of them find what Breivik did to be shocking and repulsive.

Fundamentalism does not cause terrorism, anymore than stubborn hardheadedness causes terrorism. What causes terrorism is the carcinogenic belief that the ends justify the means. From this mindset comes everything from war to genocide. It also spawns terrorism. Those who believe in it have subscribed to the notion that human being are expendable to various "causes." That was the cause of the Oslo Massacre, and that is what motivated Anders Breivik to commit his terrorist acts.

Anonymous said...

Sir Knight,
Though the two authors i am about to cite are perched at the very end of the left/liberal branch, as it were, to the point of falling off of it and right out of the Christian tree altogether, both Molly worthen and Karen Armstrong have written excellent articles that attempt to disentangle a term that has collected such an accretion of unhelpful baggege over the decades, it is doubtful whether or not said term is actually useful to accurately describe any one group at all. I'll send these along presently...

Let's go back a step and look at a term that is becoming increasingly interchangeable; that of 'Evangelicalismm'.

In North America, it has inched ever more closely to 'fundamentalist' in meaning when bandied around by the mainstreem media over the past 30 years or so, whereas 'Evangelical in European terms refers specifically to Christians who believe in the Gospels and place great store in these four NT books and the message they contain. Take one step forward to 'fundamentalism' and this similar communication phenomenon between NA and Europe may be duplicated re attempts to come to grips with the principle definition within this present dialogue.

Hope this helps,

Sarah,
Australia.

RH said...

This nut is not a Christian! We stand with you! We support your speaking out against terrorism.

Dan said...

I think that at this stage it would be prudent to stay silent about this until more facts are revealed - and I mean facts, not the ramblings of a subservient news media, let alone ill-informed bloggers. If we plow on ahead without verifying we're going to be left with egg on our faces...like the New York Times, which was ranting and raving about this being a Muslim terrorist event immediately, only to learn later that this guy is ardently pro-Israel and very much anti-Moslem. So, let us be prudent, and watch.

One other comment, if I may: one blogger was taken to task for some remarks concerning Jewish machinations in this event, and was answered by the editor. I would only caution the editor here, again, by saying this: I don't know if the famous "Protocols" are forgeries or not (and don't care, either) but it would be a major mistake to claim that Freemasonry is somehow manipulating Jewish opinion. The truth is a bit more complex than that but, in general, the editor has that a bit backwards. The Jewish origins of freemasonry are beyond any doubt whatsoever. It is what it is and one should be aware of that. That doesn't mean we should not treat our fellow man justly because of something like that, but it also means we have to be careful in our human dealings.

The Catholic Knight said...

Dan, thanks for your comment and words of wisdom.

On the subject of Freemasonry, I do not know the exact origin of the institution. I don't think anyone does for sure. I do know what it is not however. For starters, it is not really connected to the Knights Templar. That is a myth. Nor is it connected to the ancient Egyptian arts, nor the stone masons of King Solomon's Temple. This is another myth. Freemasonry began sometime in the late 16th century. It is a religion in the sense that it espouses Syncretism, which explains the dominant elements of Judaism and Protestant Christianity in the Lodge -- the two dominant religions in Northern Europe at the time of it's creation. Furthermore, it is anti-Catholic, particularly in the ceremonial sense, in that it's rites and rituals are designed to replace the ceremonial nature of Catholicism. There is no doubt that Jews played a role in the formation of Freemasonry, but I am not convinced they were the authors of it. I tend to believe the architects of Freemasonry were a conglomeration of various men from various religions, disaffected with their own faiths and the sectarianism of post-Reformation Europe. So they created their own syncretist organization which blended elements from all of their religions.

I assert that Freemasonry "controls" Jews only in the same way it "controls" Christians. By that I don't mean mind-control or coercion. What I mean is philosophically and ideologically. Freemasons put their emphasis more on building man's destiny in this world, with rewards in the next. The Masonic connection to Zionism is undeniable. In this respect, Masonry has given Jews a dream and a goal that contradicts the teachings of their own rabbis a century ago. Traditional Rabbinical Judaism has always taught that Jews cannot (and should not) return to their ancestral homeland until the Messiah comes. Through Masonry, the political movement of Zionism was able to permeate into the synagogues during the early 20th century, thus changing the beliefs and hopes of nearly every Jew in the Western world. This is not what their rabbis taught initially, but it is what many rabbis teach today. Continued below....

The Catholic Knight said...

....Continued from above. Freemasonry also has a similar effect on Christians, not just in promoting support for their Zionist brothers in the lodge, but also in reducing Christianity to a cultural or national identity. The dogmatic exclusivity of Christianity is set aside, in favor of a Syncretist mindset, wherein men are equally justified before God by their works, and not by their membership in the Church established by Jesus Christ. So to the Freemason, whether he realizes it or not, his Christian identity is reduced to a national or cultural distinction rather than a comprehensive way of life. The primary occupation of his mind becomes concerned with how Freemasonry jives with his Christian identity, not how his Christian faith should dominate every single aspect of his life.

As for Breivik - the Oslo Terrorist - the only issue this blogger has is with the media identifying him as a "Christian Fundamentalist." As more information comes out, it becomes obvious that Breivik was more of a Secular "Christian Nationalist" who admitted he had no personal religious adherence to Christianity, but simply saw it as a cultural and national identity. This is about as non-Fundamentalist as you can get, as Christian Fundamentalists are deeply concerned with the interior life, specifically their personal relationship with Jesus Christ -- something Breivik admitted he did not have.

Furthermore, I assert that it did not matter what he believed in the way of religion or politics, as this is not what makes people terrorists. What makes people terrorists is the Machiavellian notion that the "ends justify the means." When you apply this evil principle to ANY religious or political philosophy, it turns "beliefs" into "terrorism." As we saw with the American Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, this can even apply to Left-wing environmentalism. It's not about what one believes that makes one a terrorist. It's about what one attaches to those beliefs. Whenever Machiavelli is attached, we have the recipe for disaster.

Anonymous said...

The problem with pure secularism is that it's already been tried. It murdered millions of people in the Eastern Bloc and it continues to kill people even now as the former USSR struggles to recover from its loss of morality and intelligentsia, or totalitarian states such as the PRC and NK continue. Secularism tried its best shot and lost out. The ideas behind Communism were the same as those behind the joke that is secular humanism. But people deprived of God and ensuing morality behaved without compassion. Ask anyone from the Eastern Bloc (who wasn't connected to the Party) and they'll agree. Sadly Western European and American secularists have never learned this lesson or believe naively that they will be different, or perhaps they want the gangsterism of Lenin or Pol Pot.

Inspector Clouseau said...

Nice blog work. I came across your blog while “blog surfing” using the Next Blog button on the blue Nav Bar located at the top of my blogger.com site. I frequently just travel around looking for other blogs which exist on the Internet, and the various, creative ways in which people express themselves. Thanks for sharing.

Anonymous said...

Hi Knight,

I hope you're not new to this concept but honestly, the majority of American and Western News Media is dominated by Zionists. Even Murdoch was considered more Zionist than actual corporate news media owners that are jewish. Since Jesus' time some Jews, the pharisees and sadduccees and those who sided with them, have been very intolerant of Christianity and some people apply that idea to today. Even Jesus called them the Synagoge of Satan and he's completely right. Read a little on Jews and you'll come to see that there exist two races: The real ethnic Jews whom are descendents of Abraham are known as Sephardic Jews while the Asiatic converts are known as Ashenazi Jews. There is a MAJOR disparity between the two in which the ruling Ashkenazi Jews of Israel oppress the real Sephardic Jews, yet gentiles are not permitted to know this fact. What I'm trying to say is that our media depicting Muslims and Christians as terrorist is no accident. Our media is privatized which means it can be bought and owned which in turn means it can be manipulated to serve political agendas. Zionists own our news media and thats why the media is trying to cover up how Breivik was a Zionist and instead a Christian Fundamentalist. Zionists have been playing this game since before even World War I, trust me this is late in the game to be starting to realize that Israel isn't as what our media makes it out to be. Just for example, look up White Vans 9/11 Urban Moving Systems, you'll be surprised by how many people don't know how Israel and Mossad played a role in 9/11, but thats corporate news media for ya.

Anonymous said...

Hey Knight, have you done a blog of Freemasonry and why Christians oppose it for various reasons? I see you know quite a lot about it and many of us commentators don't see the big deal/why Christians oppose it for being pagan. My mom wanted me to join the Mason Lodge in our city thinking that it is a Christian organization, I declined but I am curious as to what the mjor discrepancies are.

The Catholic Knight said...

Anonymous, I'm not big on Jewish conspiracy theories. I have some Jewish family and I can personally attest that they are pretty much clueless when it cones to international matters and politics.

I do however believe the upper degrees of Freemasonry play a conspiratorial role in things, particularly the secretive 32nd and 33rd degrees. I think the lower degrees are just as clueless as the average Jews.

In all probability it's just a handful of men who are pulling all the strings. Best to not paint with a broad brush and lump entire ethnic groups together into some broad spectrum cabal.

Chrysostom said...

Please don't ever quote Karen Armstrong at me. She's a shameless Islamofacist apologist (I think she converted to the evil, cancerous creed) to the point of writing a hagiography of Muhammad (yes, that Muhammad, the war criminal, rapist, and paedophile) called "Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time", about the superiority of Muhammad's "revelation", etc. - about a paedophile!

She's not on the far left of Christianity: she's dead-center on the payroll of Saudi Wahhabi oil-money.

If you want to quote liberals at me, quote Phyllis Chesler (Jewish feminist), or John Shelby Spong (liberal theologian).

Not Karen Armstrong - a traitor to humankind and human dignity through the support of Muhammad's archaic, bellicose, mediaeval faith of systematic persecution, torture, and conversion by the sword.

One should never be able to quote Karen Armstrong, who's either brainwashed or imbalanced (or paid off!) or say the word "Islamophobic" with a straight face. Even atheists agree.

For some real information on Islam, read Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Muslim apostates) or Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, and Bat Ye'or (secular academics): even John Esposito, who is in general considered very Islam-friendly, is considered an "Islamophobe" by Karen Armstrong.

Remember, there's no such thing as the "historical-critical method" in Islam. Any questioning or debate, no matter how polite and scholarly, is considered a form of kafir, or apostasy, punishable by death: even the slightest imagined impugning of Muhammad's name or Allah's honour or the absolute veracity of the Koran is a capital offense - Muslim dissenters must move to the West, and still publish pseudonymously.

--An ex-Muslim/recovering Muslim, proud to be a kafir/apostate and a Catholic of the Tridentine Latin Rite.

Chrysostom said...

I have two thirty-third degree Masons, a Shriners, and a Mason of the super-secretive upper degrees (initiated above the 33rd) in my family, and I can attest, if you would believe me, that none of them conspire over anything more than how to best raise funds for hospitals, etc.

There's not to say there aren't Freemasons that are very powerful, but Freemasonic conspiracy theories strike me as ludicrous as the Protocols of Zion, or as saying that Scientology controls America because Hollywood actors are more-than-average Scientologists and Hollywood controls America - a very tangential argument at best, almost a perfect definition of "conspiracy theory" (viz. a theory of a conspiracy that's been repeatedly debunked or is too outlandish to actually exist, like believing the American government is actually organised and cohesive enough to do all of the things CTs attribute to it, from JFK to the Apollo missions to 9/11).

And Scientology is a far more sinister organisation than Masonry, from what I know of the two. Scientology actively defrauds people, and is even more anti-social and repressive than Jehovah's Witnessism or Mormonism (which isn't quite as bad as JWism) when it comes to internal or even external dissent. I've never heard of Masons listing people as "suppressive persons" or a Masonic Operation Snow White or Sea Organisation with the paramilitary structure, etc.

I've been in a Masonic lodge several times and it strikes me as a place devoid of God, especially that the Masonic altar holds the books of all of the world's religions on equal footing: the Tanakh, the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita, etc. are all held and displayed at the same level.

Steve said...

Keep in mind, that Masonry proper was Catholic until some envy took place in France. Even in the last 20 years, sufficient evidence has come to light in Rome no less, showing that the Templars were framed. Such a bad situation is what drove Masonry to Protestantism, but maybe if Pope Benedict XVI will take up the mantle of Truth and investigate this horrible historic situation, then maybe The Templars proper and Masonry will once again be a true part of the Traditional Roman Catholic Church. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Vatican data yourself, DeMolay was falsely accused, as were the others. The French king wanted to money...remember, it was he that made his own anti-pope back then as history dutifully records. Don't take my word for it, look at our own records, look at secular recorded history as well...they agree for once! I personally believe that people like this fellow that committed such heinous acts of murder was an attempt to defame Masonry...was it because there might have been some talk of a reunification between the Holy See and the true Templars and Masonry? Both Jews and Muslims alike would benifit from such a continued misalignment...and they both would see the changes for good should it happen. Remember the Crusades my Brothers and Sisters in Christ? Remember them well then.

May our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ watch over you, May Mary His Mother watch over you, May God the Father watch over you, May the Holy Spirit watch over you, May Ste. Jean D'arc watch over you...open your eyes, minds and hearts...and pray for a return to our Golden Age...which is misnamed the "Dark Ages"...such was NOT the case....

Your humble servant in Christ,

Steve

Anonymous said...

Steve, I'd like you to provide some links or references to back your statements. I've heard several things concerning Knights Templar and the like. One story goes: the Knights adopt Cabalism or something heretical and are "purged" by the Church on Friday the 13th. Then I've also heard as you stated that the Church or King of wherever didn't want to pay them for their service in the Crusades and executed them to save money.

I've talked to a friend over IRC about freemasonry for a little. He said that he is a freemason and that its a fraternity which has its true origins date back to very early times. Possibly before Christianity or Juduism (making it pagan by default -if I understand what the idea of pagan is correctly-), but the gist of the conversation was that Freemasonry is secretive, a fraternity (no women allowed), and altruistically motatived. I believe that it's pagan because of the mixing of religions and archaic rites and rituals, sort of like unitarian universalism, so I can see why it's not viewed kindly by Christians in general. I should probably look into it more myself but honestly, just because it's secretive does not mean it's malicious. From the things I've read though, I would not give them benefit of the doubt in this case.

Knight, what evidence shows the Freemasons have anything to do with anything on the conspiratorial level? I have my sources and I'm just wondering what are yours. What makes you know/believe they have some involement in global politics? or anything at all? What if Breviek was just apart of the Freemason club as he was Nordic and tangently, as you put it, went lone wolf postal?

We sort of digressed in this blog... I completely agree that our media is biased and painting Breviek as a Christian when all the evidence wholly contradicts that. I don't know why they are doing this. Shock value perhaps? but I feel is unlikely. Get higher ratings? Not when the news they give is this misinformed/misleading as in overtly contradicting (I HOPE),
any other ideas? I hate to do this, but I have no other ideas other than some sort of conspiracy going on... Unless the game is to make us so distracted that we aren't even paying attention to whats happening at home? Who knows?