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.

The Cult of the Omnipotent State

ATHENA
Greek Goddess of Government & Democracy

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The state is their God. Not so much in their words, but in their actions, they demonstrate their belief that there is no power higher than the state, and all morality is based entirely on state law, which of course can be changed to suit their fancy. Outside of state law there is no morality, and outside of the state there is no god greater than the state. All gods, most especially the Christian God, must be subject to the state. Of course these people are a little timid about enforcing their state-god upon the Muslims, but make no mistake about it, they believe Allah is subject to the state as well, and the same goes for any follower of Mohamed.

So who are these people? Are they the ancient Greeks or Romans? No. The ancient Greeks and Romans were more direct and honest about their intentions. They made no attempt to hide their state sponsored Paganism. Are they the modern Chinese Communists? Not exactly, though they have a lot in common with the Chi-coms, they are not the same people. So who are they?

These are the modern Left-wing Liberals driving the state and cultural entertainment industry in Europe, Canada, the American Left-Coast and New England. Their goddess is the state, and they put all their cares and dreams at her feet. Anyone who puts the government in the place of God is part of this cult. No temples have been built to honor the "cult of the omnipotent state" but there need not be any. Every temple imaginable already exists -- in Washington DC -- the Mecca of Democratic Imperialism. We could say that various idols have been erected in cities across America, to the cult of omnipotent government, but that would be a stretch, for art means different things to different people. No, modern worship of Athen's goddess is embodied more in actions and attitude, than in wood and stone.

We began to see the cult of the omnipotent state arise in New England and the Left Coast during the late 1960s through 1990s. These became the strongholds of modern Athenian worship. This of course was immediately adopted by Washington DC, which seized every opportunity to consolidate power and centralize bureaucracy. Washington DC however, was not the only place where the cult seized power. As I said, all of the West Coast states, along with New England became firmly entrenched in the cult, and now it is spreading into the Rust Belt states and even the Northern Midwestern states. The State of Florida has not escaped it's influence either. We have seen it's national imposition upon all the people of America through the United States Supreme Court with the issues of abortion, religion in public schools, and eminent domain. However, the states are now jumping on the cult's bandwagon concerning the issue of gay-marriage.

THE LIE...

State advocates of gay-marriage assure churches and synagogues that the creation of gay-marriage will have no effect whatsoever on the free exercise of religion. They promise that churches will continue to be allowed to not recognize gay-marriages and not be forced to perform them. They are also assured this will in no way have any effect on their private charitable institutions. THIS IS A LIE!!!! And SHAME ON YOU if you believe it! The evidence is plain for all the world to see. Catholic Charities have already been shut down in Massachusetts, California and Illinois over the gay-marriage issue. This is because these states were attempting to legally require Catholic adoption agencies to adopt children to gay couples, on the grounds that failure to comply amounted to discrimination and therefore a violation of state law. So you see, the cult of the omnipotent state requires that all bow the knee to Athena, including churches, synagogues and Catholic Charities. The next step is hate-crimes laws, wherein pastors will likely be prosecuted for preaching against the sin of homosexuality. Already, a bill has been passed in California, making it officially ILLEGAL to have a Bible on public school campuses. The cult of the omnipotent state marches on.

ISLAMOPHOBIA

Nowhere is the fear of Muslims more evident than among modern worshipers of Athena. Well, at least in America anyway. They're starting to get a little more courageous in Europe these days. American Athena worshipers do believe that Allah and Mohamed are subject to Athena, and they must submit to the state no matter how much state laws violate their religious beliefs. Muslims reading this should take note here. The cult of the omnipotent state makes no distinction between Allah and Jehovah, Mohamed and Jesus, Muslims and Christians. All are subject to Athena -- the omnipotent state -- who through democracy and kritocracy impose all forms of immorality upon the churches, mosques and synagogues. The only reason why the cult of the omnipotent state has not cracked down on mosques in America is because the established worshipers of Athena are still afraid of Muslims. As demonstrated in Europe however, their fear of Muslims will subside eventually, and when it does, Muslim institutions will be forced to recognize gay-marriage too.

American Muslims should fight back (non-violently of course), and there is only one way to do it. Start organizing ritual worship for Muslims schoolchildren in public schools. Tell the school boards and superintendents that if they don't allow prayer rugs and hijabs on campus, than they are violating your religion and your rights. Fight them in the courts, and demonstrate, demonstrate, DEMONSTRATE! We Christians will probably join you since we've been fighting them on this for decades. If you know any Muslim Americans, please make sure they read this article.

CHRISTOPHOBIA

The cult of the omnipotent state has always feared Christianity, perhaps more so than any other religion. But in their fear of Christianity, the worshipers of Athena have lost all fear of Christians. They've been persecuting us for decades you see. They have banned us from praying in public schools, and if the Muslims begin to demonstrate against the state to defend their religious rights, than I'm afraid we have no choice but to join them now, for what the Athenian worshipers are now doing to them, they've been doing to us for decades.

MODERN PAGANISM

The cult of the omnipotent state is nothing new. Variations of it were put forward in ancient Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome. The ancient Greek cult of Athena probably best represents modern Pagan Imperialism. This is because Athena was the Greek goddess of war, craftsmen and government. Democracy was born in ancient Athens -- named after the goddess Athena -- and America's founding fathers made sure to model our physical institutions of national government after the architecture of the ancient Greeks and Romans. In times past, America still had a strong Christian society, and so appeals to Greek Paganism in government were simply viewed as a harmless novelty. Indeed at one time they may have been, but today, the secular culture is such that the attitudes and actions of those running the government (both state and federal) are far more "Pagan" than America's Founding Fathers could have ever imagined. Ancient Paganism was far more obvious and honest about it's intentions, and worship of their deities often took on religious ceremonies as well as state laws. Modern Paganism is a different story. As the modern world is infested with notions of atheism and secular deism, the cult of the omnipotent state (Athena) is played out more in actions and laws exclusively, while physical representations of the deity are limited to subjective art.

Western Powers Are Behind Arab Revolutions

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Hindsight being 20/20, it would appear that as we've had time to reflect on the events to 2011 thus far, patterns are emerging, and the truth is beginning to come out. Our suspicions are being confirmed.

Western Liberals, particularly in the United States, have for the past three years (at least) been working behind the scenes to create these riotous revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East. Now when I say "Liberals" I'm including Neoconservatives in the United States as well. I'm talking about everyone from the far Left (George Soros and company) to the libertarian centrist (George Bush and friends). I am not talking about the truly right wing (paleoconservative) groups, which have been disenfranchised in the United States and Europe for decades.

Information emerging from Wikileaks is starting to confirm many of the suspicions we had, but were hesitant to voice, while the riots were beginning to unfold weeks ago. What we have here is an elaborate strategy that has been executed with precision to elicit a certain response in the Arab world. The manipulation began under the George W. Bush administration and is now continuing under the administration of Barack Obama. While the United States seems to be the principle agent, European powers are likewise in collaboration. This helps to explain the United States' seeming "standoffish" posture while the riot-revolutions unfold. The United States has been intimately involved, but this has been behind the scenes and under the table. Moving in too fast in a public way would tip the world off as to what is really going on.

In dealing with the Arab world the United States us using a threefold strategy to get what it wants. Here's how it works...

1. First, major corporations within the United States (and Europe) pitch business deals to Arab powers, promising money and prestige to any Arab leader that will cooperate.
2. Next, if the first step should fail, the CIA steps in and attempts to orchestrate a revolution from inside the nation, to change the regime and place people in power who will be more willing to make business deals with American (and European) companies. 
3. Lastly, if the second step should fail, a pretense for war is manufactured resulting in military action from American and NATO powers, again attempting to produce a regime change.

We saw this entire scenario unfold in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We've been watching it unfold in Iran for about a decade now, and the plan has met considerable resistance from there with multiple failures in Step Two, and preparation being made for Step Three.  In the last two months we have watched Step Two unfold all across the Arab world as more and more evidence continues to surface of deep American involvement.  Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Syria; are all experiencing unrest.  So far the Saudis, Jordanians, Kuwaitis and Syrians have been able to pacify their people with financial aid to citizens and the promise of reform.  Saudi Arabia has been having increasing trouble in the south and is now moving troops into Bahrain for a direct confrontation with protesters.  Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak was not so lucky, and became the first leader to be ousted in this recent clandestine Euro-American venture.   The fate of Libya's dictator Muammar Gaddafi remains uncertain, though it would appear he is winning at the moment. (You will notice the emerging Euro-American pretense for war starting to develop as the West mulls over a transition to Step Three above.)  If Gaddafi prevails we can probably expect the accusation of "war crimes" and "ethnic cleansing" against him to come out of Europe and the United States as they attempt to coax their people to support a military "solution." 

Of coarse the logical question for anyone to ask is "WHY?"  Why would the Western world do this?  What is the purpose?  What's the benefit?  You might be surprised to learn is not about oil.  There is plenty of oil all over the world, especially in North America.  No, its about something a little more nuanced called "peak oil."  What is "peak oil?"  Here's is the definition from Wikipedia...

(Wikipedia) - Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. This concept is based on the observed production rates of individual oil wells, and the combined production rate of a field of related oil wells. The aggregate production rate from an oil field over time usually grows exponentially until the rate peaks and then declines—sometimes rapidly—until the field is depleted. This concept is derived from the Hubbert curve, and has been shown to be applicable to the sum of a nation’s domestic production rate, and is similarly applied to the global rate of petroleum production. Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply.

source

Now to translate this into common English here is what it means.  There is plenty of oil all over the earth.  In fact, there is considerable evidence mounting that oil isn't even a "fossil fuel" and that it's actually produced as a byproduct of geological forces deep inside the earth.  NASA believes that there is evidence of oil on other worlds with high volcanic activity, and so if that is the case, it can't be the result of decaying dinosaurs and plant life as previously thought.  All that aside nobody is talking about oil depletion here, as it would appear that oil may very well be a renewable source of perpetual energy provided by geological-volcanic activity deep beneath the earth's surface.  So if the modern science is right, the earth will never run out of oil.  It just takes time for the oil to bubble up high enough in the earth's crust for us to drill down and get it.  That being said we run into another problem.  It's not about how much oil exists, or will exist in the future.  It's about how much oil can be extracted at a time even if every country is using all of its resources to get at it.  When you reach the maximum extraction rate possible, and the amount of oil consumption surpasses that, you have reached "peak oil."  In other words, it's not about how much refined oil hits the market, but rather it's about how fast it's being consumed by the industrial world.  Once you hit "peak oil" fuel prices go up, way up, and that slows down economies and threatens economic growth.  Without economic growth a nation's political power and corporate hegemony begins to decline, and that spells bad news for the people in charge.

Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 a new bipolar conflict has emerged between the United States and Russia.  That conflict is over peak oil, and both the United States and Russia are trying to gain control of as much oil producing countries as possible to gain the upper hand when peak oil occurs.  It's expected to occur sometime within the next few decades, so each superpower it vying for as much control as possible.  The nation that has the most control over the most oil production suffers the least in a peak oil world economy.  The Soviet Union lists as it's oil "producers" most of the "stan" states (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) along with Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Iran. Within these states exist vital pipelines and oil fields supplying the new Russian Federation. Recently, the United States attempted to cut a deal with the nation of Georgia, promising oil revenue from the West and military protection under NATO. This was considered a political "invasion" into the Russian sphere of influence and resulted in a Russian military counter-invasion of Georgia in 2008. Russia seized a northern province in Georgia that contained the coveted oil pipeline, and accused Georgia of "ethnic cleansing" to justify it. (This was a direct "thumb in the nose" to NATO allies which accused Serbia of the same thing in Kosovo to justify the NATO bombing of this Russian ally in the late 1990s.) It was a little case of what comes around goes around. 

Among America's allied oil producers are most South American nations and many nations within the Arab world. However, the United States has run into a problem lately.  The Arab world has been getting "uppity" in recent decades, namely since the creation of OPEC and the tight control of oil production which dictates fuel prices.  The United States took it's currency off the gold standard in 1971 and indirectly placed it on the "oil standard" in that oil is now traded in U.S. dollars.  Thus as a result, when the price of oil goes up the dollar is weaker, and when the price of oil goes down the dollar is stronger.

After the economic collapse of the United States and Europe in late 2008, the western economies were propped up artificially with various bailout "stimulus packages" created by Western governments.  The United States of course led the way with the largest stimulus package and the printing of U.S. dollars to pay for it.  With this massive injection of liquidity (money printing) of U.S. dollars into foreign markets, the price of food rapidly increased creating inflation.  These increased food prices destabilized various economies that trade in U.S. dollars, particularly the Arab nations.  Euro-American involvement in clandestine populace movements sponsored riots and revolutions in these nations.  The idea here was to force Arab leaders to start pumping more oil to stabilize the U.S. dollar and give the Western world an upper hand in the emerging peak oil economy.  Those leaders that don't comply face more protests, riots and revolutions to come.  It's a nasty little game we're playing to maintain our political influence, economic prowess and corporate hegemony.  We're doing it to keep the Russians from getting the upper hand and maintain our superpower status both domestically and internationally.

The problem here is this is how we're treating our supposed "allies" in the Arab world. Granted, they haven't been treating us too nicely in recent decades, but nevertheless, we need their support to prevent Russia from gaining a peak oil advantage.  Supporting and sponsoring riots and revolutions within the nations of your supposed "allies" is not very conducive to good relations.  We're effectively acting more like a bully than a friend.  The only way this pays off for the United States and Europe is if it's successful, and regime changes occur all throughout the Arab world, but even then it's risky business, because if those new regimes are taken over by radicals, we could be in a lot of trouble.  Furthermore, if these riot-revolutions are not successful, we have just effectively pissed off our "allies" who give us the upper hand in a peak oil economy. On thing is for sure, if Gaddafi survives the attempted coupe in his nation of Libya, he'll never sell another drop of oil to Europe again.  His oil will go to Russia instead.

The problem with Western Liberals (both Leftist Socialists and Centrist Libertarians) is that they both believe their economic models will work just fine in the Arab world since they have proved to work so swimmingly well in the Western world.  (Well, sort of.)  So the Centrist Libertarians (otherwise known as the Neoconservatives of George W. Bush and company) have pushed to recreate the Arab world in the Western world's image, assuming that this will result in greater oil trading partners over time.  While the Leftist Socialists (George Soros and company) also believe their models will work well in the Arab world and so they likewise work with the Centrist Libertarians to accomplish the same goal of regime change.  In the end however, their final objectives are considerably different.  The Centrist Libertarians (Neoconservatives) would like to create a world where the United States and Europe have the upper hand in a peak oil economy, while the Leftist Socialists envision a new order in which there is an "open society" whereby socialist nations trade oil on equal footing.  Both groups are terribly mistaken.

The Arab world isn't going to fall for the Neoconservative or Socialist vision.  The Arab world has it's own vision and that is Shariah law.  Now there are various degrees of this vision, and a lot of it depends on what part of the Arab world we're talking about, but the basic premise of the vision is shared throughout.  They envision Islamic Sharia, under Arab political prowess, with their own economic hegemony.  The United States and Russia can just be dammed as far as their concerned.  So long as their leaders continue to cooperate with both superpowers they will be vulnerable to uprisings.  Right now the Islamic religious leaders in the Arab world are using the subversion of the CIA to their advantage.  They know that once their leaders are overthrown there will be a period of vulnerability which they can use to seize power.  It's happened before (Iran in 1979), and it will likely happen again.  Both the United States and Russia are playing with fire here, but the United States is more deeply entangled, at least as far as we can tell for now.  It is likely the whole thing will blow up in our faces in the not-too-distant future.

Those of us familiar with Catholic prophecy concerning the Chastisement of God (which we are now in and will likely soon conclude) will result in the fall of Europe to Muslim and Marxist powers in an upheaval of anarchy.  This may very well be payback for Euro-American subversion in the Arab world.  We also know that Russia is involved in this somehow, and it would appear the United States is strangely silent, as if we are unable to do anything.  We know this results in the fall of the Vatican in Rome, the assassination of our pope, and the rise of a new pope in exile who will crown a new French king that will eventually reestablish the Holy Roman Empire.  We also know that nothing short of a direct intervention from God, a disaster of epic proportions and unrivaled in all of recorded history, will be the decisive blow to the powers of evil in this age.  Before that happens however, the Church in Europe will be decimated, and European Christians will face the threshold of extinction.  Exactly when and how this will all unfold is not known to us at this time, but with each passing month the emerging picture becomes a little more clear. 

America Is A Masonic Nation

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I always get a chuckle when I hear Evangelicals tell me that the United States of America was founded as a "Christian nation." No, I tell them, that's what it was BEFORE the American Revolution, when the colonies were ruled by a Protestant Christian king. After the Revolution, the colonies ceased to be Christian, and became the world's first Masonic nation! Granted, America's founding fathers were cooperative with Christians, mainly because they had to be, but don't think for one second that those same founding fathers had any intention of America keeping any trace of a Christian form of government. The founding fathers agreed that the moral foundations of religion were useful in building the country, but they kept it strictly to a moral understanding of the Christian religion, as all good Masons do. The idea of American government actually recognizing the real authority of any particular Church was repugnant to them. Of course, most repugnant to them was the Catholic Church, which the founding fathers were determined to keep in it's place. Need I remind my readers that following the American Revolution, Catholics suffered some of their greatest indignities at the hands of those who claimed the highest loyalty to the U.S. Constitution and the American Revolution.

Freemasons don't rule America in the literal sense, like a king might rule his subjects, but they do rule America in principle. In fact, the United States was founded on Freemasonry, and thus it is the world's first Masonic Nation. The idea being that Freemasons rule America through it's system of government, designed and ordered through Masonic principles. The idea of democratic republicanism (popularly and incorrectly referred to simply as "democracy") is Masonic in origin, a product of the Enlightenment era, which opposes Christian monarchy, the foundation of western civilization.

I want to make this very clear. Western civilization was founded on Christian monarchy. Kings and queens were subject to the ecclesiastical authority of the Catholic Church, which had both the power to coronate them and excommunicate them. By coronating them, the Church gave them power. By excommunicating them, the Church diminished their power, and sometimes dethroned them entirely. Thus western civilization was ruled by a Christian system of government during the middle ages. It was only after the Protestant Reformation that we start to see significant problems with these monarchies, which of course gave birth to the Enlightenment era and the rise of the Freemasons. The Freemasons in turn toppled the monarchies, or at the very least diminished their authority, thus giving us democratic republicanism.

The problem with democratic republicanism, besides it being an unChristian form of government derived from ancient Pagan principles, is that it always leads to socialism. We can see this in various degrees in democracies throughout the world, and even here in the United States, which continually slides deeper into socialist rule.

Many Catholic Americans don't understand the intrinsically anti-Catholic nature of Freemasonry. You have to understand that in America, Freemasonry has already accomplished most of it's goals. The government is totally Freemason. The democratic road to socialism is well underway, and nothing less than a total collapse of Washington DC can change this. Therefore, there is no need for Freemasons to work so hard in the United States. Most of their work is already finished. The primary function of most American Freemasons is now mainly fundraising, to help spread Masonic ideas around the world. In Europe Freemasonry takes on a much more openly anti-Catholic role, as it continually tries to undermine the influence of the Catholic Church there.

Catholic Men Should Be Knights Not Masons

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The Knights of Columbus, of which I am a 4th degree member, is a fraternal Catholic order with a membership of some 1.7 million men. It is designed primarily to serve the Catholic Church, and secondarily the men who are members, by providing a means and conduit through which they may help each other, their families, the Church and third-party charities. The Knights of Columbus also provides life insurance policies to it's members and uses the proceeds to benefit the Catholic Church in various ways.

The Knights of Columbus was founded by The Venerable Father Michael J. McGivney in New Haven, Connecticut on August 2, 1881. His primary motivation was to organize a mutual benefit society to assist widows and orphans of families who had lost their primary bread winner. Life in the late 1800s was extremely harsh for Catholic immigrant families in the United States. During that time discrimination made it difficult for a Catholic man to get a good job. Catholics were regularly excluded from labor unions. Local charities and benefit organizations also frequently excluded Catholics. Catholics were also disenfranchised politically, as it was nearly impossible to get a Catholic elected to government office. Most Catholic men were forced to work in coal mines, sweat shops and ship yards, where they were subjected to harsh labor, poor working conditions, and less then minimum wage. As a result, many Catholic husbands and fathers lived short lives. The one organization well established in America, which could potentially help them, was Freemasonry. Unfortunately, Freemasonry had a strong religious/occult element that challenged the Catholic Church's claim of absolute truth revealed through the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Because of this, Freemasonry was soundly condemned by the Catholic Church. In addition to that, the Church also had significant political problems with Freemasonry in Europe.

These things prohibited Catholic men from joining the Freemasons under penalty of excommunication. In the late 1800s, this put many Catholic men in the terrible situation of having to choose between the Church and the welfare of their families. The Venerable Father McGivney sought to create a Catholic men's organization that would allow men to pool their resources, talents and energies for the common good and for the sake of their families, but he sought to do so without the religious/occult element that earned Freemasonry the scorn of the Catholic Church.

So the Knights of Columbus was formed under the ancient precepts of medieval chivalry, paralleling in some ways the degree programs used by the Freemasons, but without the unchristian oaths and occult rituals. The Vatican prohibition against Freemasonry remains today, and the reasons for this are fully explained by Catholic apologist John Salza (learn more here). According to the New Code of Canon Law (1983), this prohibition remains in effect under penalty of interdict.

The Venerable Father McGivney initially authored three degrees though which the Knights of Columbus would receive their initiation into the order.

Now if you looking to know the secrets of the degree rites, you won't find them here. 'The Catholic Knight' has taken a pledge not to reveal them on my honor. However, I should point out here that what I have taken is a pledge, not an oath, and there is a significant difference. A pledge is a promise. That is all. It is based on one's honor. Nothing is sworn, and there are no penalties if the pledge is broken. All that is lost is the honor of the man who broke the pledge, simple because he did not keep his promise. When I took my degree rites, I pledged not to tell what goes on there based entirely on my honor as a practicing Catholic man. No threats were made, and no penalties were warned. If I tell the secrets, nobody is going to slit my throat or cut my heart out. Nobody is going to kill me or harm me. Nobody is going to seek retribution against my family or business. I'll still be able to get a good job. I'll still be able to do business. I might even still be allowed to keep my membership in the Knights of Columbus. However, I will have lost my honor. I made a promise, and I would not have keep it. That prospect alone, is enough to keep me quiet. For I wish to be an honorable man. That's why you won't find the degree rite secrets here.

In addition to that, these pledges are made with the explicit exception to religious or civil duty. So for example, if my priest or bishop needed to know something about my knowledge of the degree rites, I could reveal that to them even if they were not members of the Knights of Columbus, without breaking my pledge. Furthermore, if an officer of the law, judge or courtroom attorney needed to know my knowledge of the degree rites, again, I could reveal that information without breaking my pledge. That's because these exceptions of civil and religious duty are explicitly written into the pledges. I could take it a step further, and some of my brother knights may take issue with this, but so be it. If my wife, whom I am sacramentally bound to in matrimony, for some reason needed to know my knowledge of the degree rites, again citing religious duty to honor this holy sacrament of matrimony, I could reveal that information without breaking my pledge.

When I took my pledges, I did not swear on anything. I did not call curses upon myself. I did not use the Lord's name in vain. I simply made a promise. That is a pledge. Unlike an oath, which frequently involves swearing, calling down curses upon one's self if the oath is broken, and often invokes the name of someone holy (like God for example) to bind one to the oath. Freemason's do take oaths, and that is very much a part of their degree rites. In contrast, Knights of Columbus do not take oaths. It is not part of our degree rites. And this is because the Scriptures are very clear...

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." - Exodus 20:7

"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." - Matthew 5:33-37

"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." - James 5:12

Now as for the degree rites themselves, this is what I can tell you without breaking my pledge...

1. They are based on (1st degree) Charity, (2nd degree) Unity and (3rd degree) Fraternity. There is of course the optional 4th degree of Patriotism which was developed later. But these first three degree rites were crafted by The Venerable Father McGivney himself.
2. Everything taught in these rites is 100% Biblical. There is no occult or "secret knowledge" conveyed in the Knights of Columbus. You could just as easily find the lessons of these degree rites in a Sunday homily or Scripture reading.
3. Lessons are best remembered when emotion is attached to them. For example, when you get a good scare, you are far more likely to remember the lesson associated with it. A similar thing could be said for positive emotions as well, such as relief and joy.
4. The degree rites are specifically designed to evoke emotion on the part of the candidate who is taking the rite.
5. Because the degree rites are designed with the intent of evoking emotion, they MUST be kept secret, so as not to spoil the surprise for the candidate. The candidate must be unaware of what will happen, lest it spoil the intended emotional response, and the lesson of the degree rite be lost to mundane procedure, failing to leave an indelible mark on the candidates heart and mind.
6. There is no ritual hazing in the Knights of Columbus, and nothing is ever done that would undermine the dignity of a Catholic man.
7. Degree candidates are not ever asked to divulge deep dark secrets about themselves, nor say anything that would compromise their integrity, nor put themselves into a compromised position.
8. Alcohol is never used, and is not permitted, during degree rites.
9. Knights and candidates are exhorted to be good Catholic Christians, and to show no partiality between members and non-members. As Catholic Christians, knights do not look down upon non-members, nor are they permitted to consider themselves "better Catholics" simply because they are knights.
10. Priests are permitted to audit and observe degree rites, nothing within the order is kept secret from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This is one reason why the Church has historically supported the Knights of Columbus and is currently considering the order's founder, The Venerable Father Michael McGivney, for canonization as a Saint.
11. While the Knights of Columbus offers quality life insurance to it's members, at a reasonable price, no member is required to buy it. Nor is any member "pressured" to buy it. The insurance plans are simply offered as a benefit.
12. Membership in the Knights of Columbus has many other benefits besides life insurance.

I'm afraid that's all you'll learn from me. Some might say I've already said too much. If so, I apologize, but I do not believe I have revealed any of the secrets of the order, nor do I believe I have violated my pledge to keep the elements of the degree rites secret. Personally, I have found my experience with the Knights of Columbus to be a rewarding one. Simultaneously, I have taken time away from the Knights of Columbus as well, so as to attend to family matters, in which my brother knights have always been very understanding and assured me that family comes first. They have also been quick to offer assistance whenever I was faced with personal and business difficulties.

If your a Catholic man who would like to learn more about the Knights of Columbus contact your local chapter. Personally, I would encourage getting involved in a knights council that is directly attached to a particular parish. This helps coordinate parish and knight activities in such a way that they become mutually beneficial.

* 'The Catholic Knight' blog does not speak for the Knights of Columbus organization, nor do the 'Knights of Columbus' necessarily approve the contents of this blog. 'The Catholic Knight' makes this blog entry merely as a testimony of my own personal experience.

Freemasonry Exposed - Secrets Of The Lodge Revealed

Visit John Salza's Website

See why Catholic men should be Knights not Freemasons.

OFFICIAL: Catholics Cannot Be Masons

ROME, FEB. 6, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: A member of the RCIA program was told by another member of the parish that if they were going to become Catholic they needed to terminate their involvement with the Masonic lodge before they could join. Is this still the case in the United States? -- T.N., Howard City, Michigan

A: This question is more canonical than liturgical. The Church's position with respect to membership of Masonic lodges, even though canon law no longer explicitly mentions the Masons, has not substantially changed.

The new code states in Canon 1374: "A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict." An interdict is an ecclesiastical penalty that deprives the person of the right to celebrate or receive the sacraments but is less harsh than excommunication.

This text greatly simplified the former code which had specifically mentioned the Masons. This change led some Masons to think that the Church no longer banned Catholics from being Masons, since, among other things, in many countries membership at a lodge was merely social and had nothing to do with plotting against the Church.

In order to clarify the issue the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a declaration on Nov. 26, 1983, shortly before the present Code of Canon Law came into effect. This declaration, signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, states:

"It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church's decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous Code.

"This Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance in due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.

"Therefore the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

"It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in line with the Declaration of this Sacred Congregation issued on 17 February 1981 (cf. AAS 73 1981 pp. 240-241; English language edition of L'Osservatore Romano, 9 March 1981)...

read full story here