On January 19th, Joe Biden became a Freemason. I just found out today. Here’s the hilarious image:
I thought it would be good to commemorate this occasion by explaining the history of Freemasonry, starting with its current state of decay, working back to its origins, and finally, predicting its future.
Every Freemason I’ve had the pleasure of interacting with has been:
old
raised by their grandparents
the type to call Churchill “the greatest American to ever live,” or some other milquetoast, moldering nonsense.
Freemasons today are anachronistic, hokey, moderate, bland, and stale. But in their inception, they were bold, violent, and prophetic.
In my article, “Who Killed the WASP?”, I don’t mention Freemasonry at all. This is a blind spot in my analysis, since Freemasonry was an extremely important institution in early American history. It first served as a brotherhood for poor Scots-Irish self-made men; then it became an aristocratic gentleman’s club for rich industrialists; and finally it served as an ideological cauldron for Fabian Socialists to support globalism, socialism, and interventionism.
Freemasonry had three stages in America:
Democratic Southern;
Republican;
Democratic Northern.
Democratic Southern:
1789: Washington.
George Washington, initiated in 1752 (age 20), was Master of his lodge. Unlike the rest of the early Masonic presidents, he was a wealthy WASP. The rest were Scottish or Scots-Irish, and came from humble backgrounds. What Washington shares in common with other Democrat Southerners was his Virginia background and his slave-owning.
1817: James Monroe.
Initiated in 1775 (age 17), president from 1817 to 1825. Supported the American Colonization Society, a plan to deport all blacks back to Africa.
Background: Although his mother came from a wealthy family, his father was a craftsman. Both of his parents died at age 16, leaving him an orphan in charge of his three younger brothers. In 1775, at the age of 18, he and 24 militiamen stormed the Governor’s Palace in Virginia to steal hundreds of muskets and swords for the revolution.
1829: Andrew Jackson.
Andrew Jackson (D) served as Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Tennessee. Wished to ban anti-slavery propaganda in 1835 because he believed it would lead to Civil War.
Background: His mother Elizabeth’s Presbyterian ancestors instilled her with a hatred of the British, and she encouraged her son to serve as a courier in the army of the Patriots at the age of 13. Andrew was captured by the British at age 14. For insubordination to his British captors, he was slashed with a sword and scarred. He and his brother starved and contracted smallpox, leading to his brother’s death. The next year, Jackson became an orphan at the age of 14. After 1788, at the age of 21, he began trading slaves.
1845: James K. Polk
James K. Polk (D), initiated in 1820 (age 25), and was President from 1845 to 1849. Only President to be buried under a foreign flag (the Confederacy). Polk and Jackson had a close fatherly relationship, such that Polk was known as “Young Hickory,” based on the nickname for Jackson, “Old Hickory.”
Background: His grandfather, Ezekiel Polk, wrote this radical poem in protest against religion, published in 1824 at his death:
From superstition liv'd quite free / And practiced strict morality. / To holy cheats was never willing / To give one solitary shilling, / He can foresee, and in foreseeing / He equals most of men in being / That church and state will join their pow'r / And mis'ry on this country show'r. / And Methodists with their camp bawling, / Will be the cause of this down falling. / An era not destined to see, / It waits for poor posterity / First fruits and tithes are odious things / And so are Bishops, Priests and Kings
1857: James Buchanan
James Buchanan (D) was initiated in 1816 (age 29), became Deputy Grand Master, and President from 1857 to 1861. While he did not support Southern secession directly, his appeasement of Southern rebellion indirectly caused the Civil War. He also opposed the emancipation of slaves.
Background: Grew up in a log cabin, Scots-Irish.
Andrew Johnson (1865)
Andrew Johnson (D) was initiated in 1851 (age 43). He softened the approach to reconstruction in an act of sympathy with Southern veterans. James Ashley began the movement to impeach Johnson on the conspiratorial grounds that Johnson was responsible for assassinating Lincoln.
Background: He was born in a two-room shack, and his father died when he was 3. His mother was rumored to be a prostitute, as a washerwomen, she went into men’s houses unattended. As a result, he was rumored to have been fathered out of wedlock. He and his brother were given to an apprenticeship (a form of temporary slavery), and he ran away at age 15. He fled to Tennessee and started a new life as a successful tailor at the age of 18, marrying the 16 year old daughter of a shoemaker. He purchased his first slave at age 35, but later freed his slaves during the Civil War.
Summary:
With the exception of George Washington, the first phase of Freemasonic presidents was dominated by slave owners, white supremacists, Southern-sympathizers, and Scots-Irish. Almost all of these men were born dirt-poor and hated established aristocracies and religions.
All of them were in good physical health, and many of them worked manual labor, trades, or in military service from their young teenage years. They were autodidactic, self-taught, loved learning, racist, and violent. The character of these men was revolutionary, rebellious, law-breaking, criminal, adventurous, and populist.
Republican Freemasonry
Andrew Johnson was unpopular among the national political-industrial establishment (which favored the North above the South). The post-war Democratic Party was associated with tariffs, taxes, and working-class populism. When Andrew Johnson was impeached, Freemasonic presidents abandoned the cause of “Southern sympathy” and switched over to the Republican Party, intertwining with established industrial interests.
James Garfield (R): initiated in 1861, President in 1881.
Although he was born into poverty in a log cabin, he declared, “I believe in English liberty and English law,” signaling his WASP identity.1
William McKinley (R) was initiated in 1865, and served as president from 1897 until his assassination in 1901.
McKinley was Scots-Irish, a Methodist, and an abolitionist.
Theodore Roosevelt (R) was initiated at age 43, nine months prior to becoming president.
He was the first of the Freemasonic presidents to have Dutch ancestry. He was the first Freemasonic president, after George Washington, to have been born into an extremely wealthy and prominent family.
William Howard Taft (R) was initiated in 1909, 18 days before becoming president.
Warren G. Harding (R) was initiated at age 36, and was President from 1921 to 1923.
Northern Democratic Freemasonry
After 1929, Freemasons turned away from the Republicans, who were associated with the failures of the 1929 Crash, and swayed back toward Democrats. The leader of this effort was FDR, who established the “Grand Coalition,” of WASPs, communists, Jews, Catholics, and blacks against the Republican conservatives.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was initiated in 1911 at the age of 29, and served four terms as President.
Harry S. Truman, initiated at age 25, served as the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Missouri. He was President from 1945 to 1953.
Lyndon B. Johnson was partially initiated as a Masonic apprentice in 1937 at age 29. Unlike previous presidents, he was never fully initiated.
Gerald Ford was initiated in 1949 at the age of 36.
Post-Freemasonry
After the Second World War, Freemasonry evaporated and ceased to have any significant meaning. No true initiations of presidents have taken place:
Ronald Reagan was made an honorary Freemason, but he didn’t complete any rites.
Bill Clinton was in the Masonic youth group “Order of DeMolay,” but never became a full Mason.
And last week, Joe Biden became a “Freemason” of Prince Hall Grand Lodge in South Carolina.
The term “Prince Hall Lodge” refers to Freemasonic Lodges for black people.
Anyone who assesses the history of American Freemasonry honestly and without “political correctness” can see that the early Freemasons were unrepentant racists. Prince Hall Lodges were run by blacks and had black members, but black lodges and white lodges did not intermix. Historically, no white man would ever join a black lodge, and white lodges discreetly denied black members and turned them toward Prince Hall Lodges. The original Masons believed in segregation, and it wasn’t until FDR that a Freemasonic President contradicted this ethos.
One argument for why Freemasonry died, and now exists only as an anachronistic hollow shell, is that it changed so dramatically that it lost its original spirit and purpose. Freemasonry, like every original American institution, was racist. The abandonment of racism by Freemasonry may not have been the cause of its death, but it represents a dramatic change. Freemasonry as of 1945 has little to do, spiritually or ethically, with the original brotherhood which founded and built America.
Another argument is that Freemasonry achieved such a thorough victory in 1945 that it rendered itself irrelevant. The ideals for which Freemasonry struggled became so dominant that the institution was no longer needed:
emancipation of the Jews;
religious equality and toleration;
protection of minorities and Civil Rights for all creeds;
establishment of a global governing body (the United Nations);
the consolidation of all European governments under the leadership of America;
a global economic system;
shipping lanes protected by an invincible navy (NATO).2
The goals of Freemasons, as originally laid out over the centuries, were all initially fantastical and impossible. But as of 1945, they have all been achieved. The success of the Freemasons demonstrates one of three things, that either:
The ideas of Freemasonry are powerful in themselves; so powerful that they were able to overcome all obstacles and overpower the entire world order, or;
Freemasonry was so attractive that it was able to collect into its ranked the highest level of human capital, or;
The structure of Freemasonry was optimized for nepotistic capture of institutions through minoritarian strategies.
The truth is a mixture of the three.
Those who are attracted to Freemasonry today are a bit like constitutionalists; it is a Pharisaical obsession with the “dead letter” over the living spirit. Freemasonry was great. Freemasonry did conquer the world. But it has been exhausted by its own success. Anyone who is a Freemason now is LARPing.
I am speaking spiritually and psychologically, referring to the original Freemasons as extreme types, men of violence and the occult, veritable warlocks and witch-kings. Today, if you join the Freemasons, they will help you get promoted to become manager of Costco. It’s a jobs program for white dudes who were raised by their grandparents. Extremely lame and bourgeois, to a disgusting degree.
Black Freemasonry, or Prince Hall Freemasonry, has its own history. Booker T. Washington, Duke Ellington, Jesse Jackson, John Lewis, Richard Pryor, and Thurgood Marshall were all Prince Hall Freemasons.
Freemasonry had many offshoots, including the American Fraternity System. Originally, a Freemasonic Lodge and a Fraternity House served the same purpose. Freemasonic Lodges linger on as social clubs for Boomers, while Frats linger on as vomitoria for alcoholic nerds.
Naziism was founded by members of the Reichshammerbund and Thulegesellschaft, which were antisemitic offshoots of Freemasonry. Freemasons were involved with the founding of Theosophism, which helped popularize the concept of an “Aryan race.” Freemasons also helped organize early meetings of communist revolutionaries in the 19th century. Freemasons were all over the place ideologically, because Freemasonry served as a radical free-marketplace of ideas. Originally, Freemasonic Lodges were meant to host Platonic dialogues, and were directly inspired by the Platonic Schools.
The last thing I will mention about Modern Freemasonry is that it helped to establish the Klu Klux Klan and the Mormons. If we consider all the members of the Klan, and the Mormons, and the Nazis, and the Theosophists, and Skull and Bones and all other Greek-Life Fraternal systems (and I’m probably missing some others), then at least 30% of all important people in the last 200 years have belonged to or been influenced by some sort of offshoot of the Freemasons. If we add this together with the Freemasonic Lodges proper, I think it’s fair to say that, between 1770 and 1945, 50% of all important people were part of some kind of quasi-Masonic organization.
This doesn’t just include British and American society, but also German society:
Lessing, Goethe, and other members of the German Enlightenment were Freemasons;
Hitler’s spiritual advisors, Dietrich Eckart and Alfred Rosenberg, were funded by the Thulegesellschaft. The Thulegesellschaft itself was a front for the Germanenorden, which was directly founded by Masons, who called their brand of Masonry “Ariosophy” or “Armanism.”
Pre-Modern Masonry
Having completed what I hope is an adequate survey of “modern Masonry,” I would now like to engage in a more speculative discussion of “pre-modern Masonry.” I will be slipping away from polite and established history, and into the realm of “conspiracy theory.”
Generally, when you hear someone claiming to have uncovered the Freemasonic roots of modernity, they are a Catholic who claims that Freemasons are Satanists who engage in child sacrifice. Some of this was directly provoked: the Hellfire Clubs of England were named so in order to troll Catholic and Anglican sensibilities.
When I say that “Freemasonry orchestrated the French Revolution,” I don’t mean to condemn it, but to praise it. The monarchy was a corrupt and decrepit institution.
Masonry is, first and foremost, a Platonic Political Philosophy. The greatest exponent of Masonic Political Philosophy is Machiavelli, who was a “proto-Mason.” No official record exists of Machiavelli being the master of any particular lodge. However, his ideas became the exact blueprint for the French and American Revolution:
Republicanism;
Voting, suffrage, and elected representatives;
A strong civic religion;
A volunteer army;
Patriotism and public education;
Nationalism;
Meritocracy rather than inherited titles.
All of this was laid out by Machiavelli’s Discourses in 1531. The Prince, his more famous work, has been obscured by charges of satire. This is because, seemingly, the prescriptions in The Prince contradict Machiavelli’s other writings on liberty and republicanism. But this is a superficial contradiction, and projects onto Machiavelli a petty moralism which he himself did not hold.
Machiavelli was a political philosopher, meaning that he loved the science of politics. He laid out the science of tyranny, and how to best achieve or maintain a tyranny, but this was neither an endorsement nor a moral condemnation.
Machiavelli states that when public morality is wholesome and healthy, the rule of a tyrant is injurious, because it is more likely to bring deviance to an existing state of moral health. On the other hand, when public morality is ruinous, he recommends that a cult leader seize the state, like Lycurgus, Romulus, and Moses. He believed that such a leader was authorized to do anything in the name of instituting a new religion. In Platonism, such a figure is called demiurgos, as named in the Cratylus.
The Greek word is δημιουργῶν, which is hidden from sight in most translations. Neo-Platonists re-appropriated this term, “demiourgos,” to mean some kind of Gnostic-Satanic world-builder. But this is a distraction from the original, simpler meaning in the Cratylus: the demiurge is the man who, by virtue of his natural skill, is able to upend human society in order to create new myths and religions. The purpose of the Platonic schools was to breed the demiurge, which Nietzsche later called the Superman, who was capable of the “transvaluation of values.”
Washington was the type of man which Plato and Machiavelli described.
conclusion.
Freemasonry, like Platonism, was a factory for revolutionary men. What happens when the revolution wins? This is the “problem of revolutionary victory.” When the revolution is won, what is to be done?
Looking at the example of Trotsky, one can denounce Freemasonry as bourgeois, as I have also done. Or, one can betray the revolution and settle for American conservatism, as it is, as “good enough.”
The original goal of Freemasonry was to liberate Europe and America from the stultifying confines of aristocratic and religious privileges, so that a new class of men could reform society according to merit. For the most part, they succeeded. The richest men in America today are not the sons of the richest men of 1960. With the exception of wokism, with its negative theology, there is no God to which man is compelled to honor. What barriers remain left to break?
The genetic barrier lies before man’s right to master his own destiny at the level of biology. In part, this is a technological barrier. But mRNA broke through that barrier in 2021, and all that remains to hold back the flood is ethical concerns.3
The logic of Platonism and Original Freemasonry demand an all out war against genetic restrictionism, which is led by conservatives. These conservatives sometimes cloak themselves in the language of equality, taking on the affect of wokist church ladies, mouthing slogans about equality and “disparate impact.” But more often, they use the conspiratorial language of Alex Jones, ranting about “globalists,” like George Soros, Bill Gates, and Anthony Fauci.
If Freemasonry is dead, then its spirit should be reborn in a new progressive Platonic movement to defeat the conservative tendency, wherever it is found.
This is an expansion of the East India Company, which was founded by Freemasons, and gave the United States its 13 stripes:
I recommend this article by Performative Bafflement, in which he addresses these concerns and lists ways in which genetic engineering can begin.
There is not a substantial or well organized resistance from conservatives to prevent human genetic engineering. There was a backlash to the first mRNA 'vaccines', but that was because said vaccines were obviously rushed out the door, provided very questionable benefits, and potentially had bad side effects for treating a disease that was not very dangerous at all for healthy people. Conversely, liberals went psychotic over the opportunity to try and enforce mandatory compliance of said vaccine.
If genetic engineering of humans becomes feasible, what will likely happen is that liberals will discover a treatment that makes embyros dumber, less capable, perhaps even browner, and they will insist that everyone who can must use this treatment to have more horrible babies. While there are staunch Catholic conservatives who dislike any tampering with embryos, they are not a majority of conservative voters or elite capital, and struggle to even keep the more popular issue of abortion going. So conservatives will more likely take the stance of making it free for someone to choose which treatments they want, or none at all.
It is always incredibly funny seeing online Catholics go on massive tirades about "Judeo-Masonry", or whatever. They've been waking up in a cold sweat since, at least, 1789.