Copyright © 2020 Billy Burns. All rights reserved.
Masonic Invisible Empire

NEW WELCOME LODGE

Injustice

Not surprisingly, one of Masonry's main beneficiaries in Britain is the Conservative Party, and not surprisingly it is in the city of London where the greatest concentration of Masons is found.  In Britain's richest square mile there are hundreds of Masonic lodges in which "brothers" from the great banks and insurance companies, the stock exchange and all the other money markets meet in secret.  The elite among them, along with their financially elite brothers from America and Europe, are those responsible for holding Third World countries in permanent bondage by lending them vast amounts of money at usurious rates of interest through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.  They aspire to become the sole fiscal agents of every region in the world, and they mean to do it (on-the-square) from that square-mile hub in London.  And the British aristocracy is the centre of evil in the world's financial and economic policies.  By accepting loans at usurious rates of interest through the foreign debt mechanism, Third World countries compromise their very sovereignty.

The so-called democracies of the First World that do not destroy the IMF are only "rearranging slavery".  Most people in the world are aware that their relevance is not seriously considered by their respective governments, but they do not seem to grasp that disengagement of labour can be a more effective weapon to gain human rights than even paramilitary engagement, as the former action can attack the very root of the problem directly without affecting the occasional innocent party.  In most insurgency bids few people know who exactly is manipulating who, and for what reason.

The excessive amounts of money paid in interest into the IMF could be used to develop those countries, but instead the IMF imposes certain conditionalities on loans that call for inhuman population controls; a percentage of the money borrowed to be paid back recurringly on orders from the arms industry; and for other business contracts that give the lenders a gateway to mine raw materials in the Third World countries.  The interest rates are so high that the amount owed to the money-lending gangsters grows in perpetuity.  For instance, in 1980 the foreign debt of Ibero-America as a whole was 243 billion dollars.  During the decade 1980-1990 Ibero-America paid back 313 billion dollars in interest payments alone, yet its debt rose from 243 billion to 439 billion dollars.

This looting through the foreign debt mechanism ensured that Ibero-America could not invest all the necessary resources for maintaining its vital infrastructure for the well-being and survival of its populations.  A similar pattern emerges throughout the Third World.  International finance has long been lawless.

Occasionally a developing nation is "thrown a bone" if it agrees to sell off much of its control over its raw materials, sell off certain fiscal rights, and accept the evil policies of zero-growth populations (Malthusian principles), a maximum of two children per two parent family.  China is a great example of how a nation can support population growth on a grand scale, despite Britain's crude interference in the 18th and 19th century.

If Third World countries were able to invest in, for example, desalination plants and the construction of man-made rivers to irrigate the land and green the deserts, enabling them to develop conditions in which human beings require to live and to work productively, the developing sector could prosper without being plagued by the usurious monetary policies of outside agencies.  Banks control the world by making everyone slaves to debt.  Unfortunately, the leaders of Third World countries almost invariably accept the bribes in order to prosper personally, leaving their taxpayers with the foreign debt burden.  On the other hand, if they refuse the bribe their countries become political outcasts and coercive measures are adopted with trade sanctions taken against them.  In more ironhanded cases they are deemed terrorist states and their infrastructures godlessly blitzed.  The Judaeo-Masonic financial elitists will simply not allow them to become self-sufficient.  High-level Freemasons, like the Jews and the British oligarchy, have no territorial allegiance.

The power and influence of Masonry know few bounds.  The Palace of Westminster houses one of English Masonry's best kept secrets; the existence of two lodges reserved for men who work in Parliament.  Pressmen and lobby correspondents founded one of these, the Gallery Lodge, just over 100 years ago. Masonic newspaper proprietors everywhere are adept at secretly interfering with nations destinies in line with the aims of the same elite. Whatever the newspapers want, the politicians usually grant. It is less demanding than having ideas of your own.

The other lodge in the Palace of Westminster was created at the suggestion of the Prince of Wales, who later became King Edward VIII - the remittance man - an ardent Mason. LINK  As the Prince of Wales Edward became affiliated to the Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel) No 1 in 1933.  In 1935, as mentioned hereinbefore, Edward accepted honorary membership of the Supreme Council for Scotland of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite (as opposed to the "Antient Free and Accepted" Masons. which dispenses only the first three degrees).

The following January 20 he became king and reigned for only 325 days.  Also that year 1936, his brother George, Queen Elizabeth II's father, the Duke of York, later George VI, became affiliated to the Lodge of Glammis No 99 in Forfarshire.  That same year he was installed as the Grand Master Mason of the Grand Lodge of Antient Free and Accepted Masons of Scotland in the "council owned" Usher Hall in Edinburgh, a position he held from 1936-37.

It is extremely important to Freemasonry to have a close royal connection to lend the Craft some form of credibility.  With the monarchy's shameful history, it is a puzzling question admitting no satisfactory conclusion why anyone would want to associate themselves or their organisations with it.  To steal a phrase from the great Edinburgh trade unionist and republican of the 19th and 20th century, James Connolly: "Monarchy is a survival of the tyranny imposed by the hand of greed and treachery in the darkest, most ignorant days of our history."

Although females are not permitted to join the Freemasons, Queen Elizabeth II is styled the Grand Patroness of Freemasonry.  In 1959, she approved the use of the prefix "Royal" by the Scottish Masonic Home Foundation Stone of Plinth, which supports the statue of King the Bruce at Bannockburn.  It was laid by Lord Bruce, the 11th Earl of Elgin and 15th of Kincardine, who became Grand Master Mason of the Grand Lodge of Scotland two years later.

To honour Robert the Bruce this way might seem, on the face of it, a strange gesture from Freemasonry and the Queen, given that Robert the Bruce was long dead before the earliest known use of the word "Freemason", but according to the Royal (Masonic) Order of Scotland, the Hereditary Grand Master of that faction is claimed by the lodge to be the "King of Scots".  And Lord Bruce, the Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, is the Deputy Grand Master and governor of the same faction.

The present Queen's late father, George VI, and her uncle, Edward VIII, were of course very staunch Masons.  Her cousin, the Duke Kent is the Worshipful Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England and currently England's top Mason.  The Duke's brother, Prince Michael of Kent, is the Grand Master of the Grand lodge of Mark Master Masons of England and Wales.

The Duke of Kent was initiated in 1964.  On 20 June 1967 he was installed Grand Master by the Earl of Scarborough at the Royal Albert Hall in what was called the greatest Masonic spectacular of all time.  It was the 250th celebrations at which Masons from all over the world attended.  This included Arab and Israeli Masons walking side by side only ten days after the Six Day War ended - a war in which the US and Britain greatly assisted Israel.  The display of comradeship of age-old enemies so soon after a bloody war that produced casualties estimated at over 100,000, exposes quite clearly the hypocritical and treacherous nature of the Masonic elite.  The thought of so much human life being wasted is proof of the essential idiocy of mankind and especially that portion in authority that works behind the scenes on a separate agenda.

The Queen's hubby, Philip, joined the Masons on 5 December 1952.  He was coerced to join by his future father-in-law, George VI whom he had to promise he would as a condition for Elizabeth's hand in marriage.  He joined as an Entered Apprentice and left it at that.  Philip was more influenced by his uncle, Louie Mountbatten, who was in essence anti-Freemasonry.  Mountbatten was a staunch royalist who held that the Monarch's authority should not be compromised by anything, not by Freemasonry or Parliament.  Apparently, due to his profound reverence for Mountbatten, Prince Charles is of a similar mind as his father and declined to join the Masons.  Whether this will affect his call of duty, only time will tell.

In any event, in the 1920s the Prince of Wales, the future King Edward VIII, was upset to learn that Labour politicians were being blackballed when proposed as members of the Gallery Lodge.  The Labour Party had grown in popularity so the Craft stood to be condemned as the Tory Party in aprons.  Then when Labour looked set to become the party of government, Masonry was in danger of losing a considerable amount of influence over Britain's future.  Hence, the Prince suggested a new lodge to draw Labour MPs into both Masonry and the middle ground of British politics.  The aptly named New Welcome Lodge was consecrated in 1929, the selfsame year Labour was voted into power for the first time.  The Labour Leader, Ramsay MacDonald, formed a government in January 1924, but it was dependent on the support of the Liberal Party.  When Liberal withdrew its support in October that year, Ramsay MacDonald had to resign.

The father of Princes Edward and George was the first royal to show concern over the emergence of the Labour Party.  When a General Election took place in Britain in January 1906, the Prince and Princess of Wales, George and May of Teck, were on a six-month tour of India - allowing themselves to be seen as the embodiment of the imperial order.  Labour won 53 seats in that election.  After deliberation, George felt compelled to comment: "I see that a great number of Labour members have been returned, which is rather a dangerous sign, but I hope they are not all socialists."  The Prince of Wales, who was destined to be George V, could have rested assured that even if there were another 300 Labour MPs to bolster that number in today's political climate, there would still be less socialists in Parliament today than there were in 1906.

The reign of any British monarch is largely unaffected by whatever elective dictatorship governs the country at any given time on behalf of the oligarchy, so it was a mite naive of the non-Masonic future king to assume a large number of Labour MPs returned would be a dangerous sign.  George, the Prince of Wales should not have been unduly concerned about whatever labels were attached to political parties because by the latter decades of the 19th century, under British sponsorship, Albert Pike's Scottish Rite had come to rule over much of the world's Freemasonry, and British-centred finance had regained supremacy over American industry and US policy-making.  (George did not follow his father's footsteps, Edward VII, into the citadels of silence, perhaps as a result of his elder brother Eddy's macabre encounter with the Masonic cult. LINK

If you look at the first five years of the 20th century, the power of Freemasonry was immense.  On 22 January 1901, Edward the Prince of Wales, the Grand Master of the United Grand lodge of England, became King Edward VII and head of world Freemasonry.  Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, a racialist Anglophile and passionate Freemason, became US President on 14 September 1901 after the shooting to death of President William McKinley.  Teddy Roosevelt's reign was the Lost Cause triumphant: His revered exiled uncle, James Bulloch, Judah Benjamin's secret service chief in England LINK, had ghostwritten young Teddy's book on naval history; and Teddy's clique had finally conquered Cuba in the 1898 U.S. War with Spain.

In the 1890s, the big shot of the Kuhn Loeb bank was Jacob Schiff.  Schiff's power was entirely trans-Atlantic.  As the American partner and representative of Sir Ernst Cassel, Schiff travelled back and forth between New York and London.  Sir Ernst Cassel was the most intimate friend and personal banker of the prospective King Edward VII.  On behalf of the royal Family, Ernst Cassel also managed the finances of the leaders of the British Fabian Society and the finances of the British Round Table in its racialist endeavours in South Africa and elsewhere.

At Kuhn Loeb in the 1890s, partner Otto Kahn (a British subject) directly supervised Jacob Schiff and Ernst Cassel's project to build up a certain Mr E H Harriman, a snarling little rail magnate who was a favourite of the old August Belmont Confederate machine. LINK  At that same time, the Warburg family joined Kuhn Loeb.  The Warburgs' preoccupations were anchored in their gnostic Warburg Institute in Hamburg and London.  The president of Kuhn Loeb's American Jewish Committee was Louis Marshall, who was also the official legal adviser to the Harriman eugenics laboratory - one of the mothers of the 20th century's nightmare race theories.

The eugenic policy was developed in Britain and the United States and exported to Germany.  It was Kuhn Loeb and the Warburgs who would broker New York's banking ties to Hitler's Nazis.  They would also broker Harriman's entree to the Soviet dictatorship.  It is likely that the Judaeo-Masonic High Command could tolerate Hitler, and Mussolini for that matter, loathing Jews, but not the hatred of Freemasons.  Both these leaders persecuted Freemasons just as ruthlessly as they did Jews, which could ultimately have been their big mistake, from the oligarchs' point of view.

Like the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha monarch, Edward VII, and the Hanoverian monarchs, the Windsors also had close connections with the German monarchy.  Kaiser William II, who took over as emperor of Germany in 1888 after the death of his father, Frederick III, was, like George V, a grandson of Queen Victoria.  Frederick had married Queen Victoria's daughter, also Victoria, the Princess Royal, and became Kaiser on the death of his father, Kaiser William I.  William I, who enacted the Falk Laws in 1873 and repeated then in 1886 LINK, died in March 1888, followed by Frederick only four months later.

Frederick's son and successor, Kaiser William II, like most monarchs, was a great believer in the divine right of kings.  He pursued aggressive policies, supporting the Afrikaners in South Africa as well as Austria's demands on Serbia.  His expansionist policies and public utterances led Britain to concentrate her energies on South Africa and elsewhere, much to the dismay of the German Government.  Of Course, Britain's elite would not allow the diamond-empire of the homosexual Cecil Rhodes to be jeopardised in South Africa. LINK

Rhodes was backed by London's Rothschild's bank, the same outfit that was one of the backers of the Royal Family's interests and of the earlier Confederate slave trade in America.  However, Kaiser William II's loyalties seemed to lie with his royal family and friends in London rather than with his own government and his own people.  With William stifling his government's plans, it is likely he was secretly complying with the British agenda.  Or it might have just been another example of monarchies directing a programme of self-interest, contrary to the interests of their own nationals.  Certainly William's geopolitical aims seemed to coincide more with the British monarchy than with his own government because in 1914 when it became clear that Britain were committed to war, William strove for peace among his own nationals.  After defeat in the Great War he was forced to abdicate.  It would seem as though the Germans cottoned on to the contradictory, multi-allegiant fidelity of European monarchies and Freemasonry.

So what we had just prior to and during the First World War were anti-Socialist monarchs in both Germany and Britain, Kaiser William II and his cousin, George V.  And shortly afterwards we had George V's son, the Prince of Wales prompting the consecration of a new Masonic lodge in Parliament to include Labour members so that the Masonic power base would remain intact.

In 1935, Freemasons played a crucial role in the election of a new leader of the Labour Party in Britain.  Clement Attlee and one of his rivals for the leadership, Arthur Greenwood, were Masons, but a third candidate, Herbert Morrison, was not.  The third choice in the third ballot was Greenwood and so was eliminated.  Masonic allegiance was then sine qua non to support Attlee against Morrison.  Worshipful Brother Attlee won the second ballot and in 1945 went on to become Prime Minister.  He remained leader of the Labour Party for another ten years, that is, until 1955.

So, despite Labour supposedly being a party of Socialists, Attlee was, among other things, a middle-class Fabian with a pretended cautious strategy of gradual social progress.  In other words, he firmly believed, as a Fabian, in "avoidance of direct confrontation with the state".  This trait is also strikingly characteristic of Freemasons. LINK  But in better words, in fact in the words of the great German poet of freedom, Friedrich Schiller, (1759-1805): "Those who profess to favour freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without ploughing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning."  On second thoughts, this might not apply directly to people like Attlee because Freemasons do not know what they want; they have sacrificed their divine spark of reason to become manipulative little souls - or beasts of the field.  If things have changed at all over the centuries, it is only for the worse.

Despite Freemasonry's claim that it never interferes with politics, the intrusion in world politics by the sovereign, great and grand pathological liars are there for everybody to behold.  Although Clement Attlee might have been a small fish in a large pond by comparison, the Brotherhood had a direct influence on a very important political decision when it was primarily responsible for electing a leader of the Labour Party and keeping him there for twenty years.

On 17 August 1993, this author sent a much-abridged copy of some of information in this text to the Labour MP and renowned Socialist, Tony Benn.  He kindly replied on 1st September 1993, thanking me for the paper and he advised me he was sending it to Chris Mullin MP as Mr Mullin had introduced a Bill in Parliament on the subject.  It was not to be heard until 14 February 1994 when Chris Mullin urged that all Freemasonic MPs should disclose their memberships to the public.  One of the most important issues ever to be heard in the House of Commons was predictably given summary and unsympathetic treatment and was dismissed.  What was equally predictable was the lack of reference to the Bill by the television and newspaper media.  If a conspiracy of silence, fear and corrupting were nonexistent, would the Bill have been fended off so ignominiously?

It also illustrates that the limit of power of the electorate is to choose among a short list of candidates and policies that have been allowed by the establishment.  At most, popular opinion is able to exert only a very limited degree of veto power over decisions made among the ranks of those ruling combinations, which are the nation's elite.  Who actually plays the Administration and who plays the Opposition at any given time is of minor importance.  What has to be made secure by the establishment is the now sacred Tory/Labour merry-go-round.  The monarchy is the foundation of that establishment and is more important in Masonic priorities than any number of individuals, or any philosophy or ethics.  So without a written constitution or a Bill of Rights, the Government is essentially an elective dictatorship.

Apart from the lodges in Parliament, there are also many town hall lodges where elected councillors, council officials and outside contractors meet in Masonic secrecy to strike deals and decide on suitable emolument (a posh name used by Masons for "payment") for services rendered.  It was not by accident that Freemasons exercised a corrupt influence over many English local councils in the 1960s.  That was at a time when the Pontefract architect, John Poulson, scooped up contract after contract by bribing local and national politicians.

When he was jailed in 1974, little was known of his Masonic connections.  His claim that he did not use Freemasonry to further his business interests is a blatant lie, like almost every other claim made on behalf of Freemasonry.  Poulson's right-hand man and public relations officer during the sixties was the flamboyant T Dan Smith, one-time boss of Newcastle City Council, and dubbed by the press, "Mr Newcastle".  Smith contradicts his former paymaster by claiming that Poulson became a Mason precisely to come in contact with influential Labour politicians.  On television, T Dan Smith disclosed: "He [John Poulson] said to me, 'I'm not a Mason but I'm going to become a Mason because ...Joe Blackburn, who is the Mayor of Pontefract ... and also the leader of the Pontefract Council, has convinced me that there are so many Labour Party local authority people [who are] Masons that I must have some means of contact because I'm known to be a Tory, and I'm not going to compromise on politics'."

Poulson obviously recognised that Freemasonry crossed the party divide, making a laughing stock of the two-party system.  Anyone who embraces this perception can see how unwittingly non-Masonic MPs become bemused after listening to downright mysteriously farcical political exchanges in the House of Commons and cannot understand why their leaderships do not take advantage at some of their would-be rivals' cock-ups.  But in those circumstances, non-Masonic MPs are just as bad as their Masonic counterparts for not questioning the discretion they witness at first hand.  If they have difficulty applying the divine spark of reason to the issues before them they should not be representing constituents at any time because they are just as guilty as Freemasons for upholding the façade of democracy.  This façade fronts a form of controlled rivalry in which an elite can map out the agenda, regulate the format of the debate, and plot the outcome, irrespective of how conflicting the ideals of the rivals in the two-party system appear.

Reginald Maudling, the Masonic Home Secretary in Edward Heath's Tory Government, resigned his Cabinet position on 18 July 1972 because of his involvement with John Poulson.  Maudling was chairman of a company belonging to the Yorkshire architect.  This is proof, if proof is needed, that even Government Ministers cannot command confidence or credibility.  On 15 March 1974, Poulson was "let off" with a five-year jail sentence for fraud - his betrayal of the British public.

To try to grasp the magnitude of John Poulson's corruption, one only has to consider how he spent more than £500,000 on just holidays, suits and flowers to win contracts.  Well, that is as much as the Crown proved in court to be involved.  With a Home Secretary on his payroll he was not exactly dealing in peanuts.

Although much of the public may no longer be shocked by shadowy deals struck in our local town halls, most people still like to think, albeit naively, that our national civil servants have elevated scruples.  Yet Freemasonry is a breeding ground in the civil service for corruption on a grand scale, despite its claim that it demands high moral standards from its membership.  The Property Service Agency (PSA), for instance, has an annual budget of £1 billion and employs 26,000 civil servants.  It manages and maintains 8,000 plus public buildings, including the Tower of London and Hampton Court Palace - where "King Billy" died after falling from his trusty white steed over 300 years ago.  Hampton Court has not been used as a royal residence since the day of George II.

In more recent times, corrupt deals involving PSA were hatched and executed under the cover of Queenswood Lodge, which meets at headquarters in Great Queen Street in London's Freemason Hall.  By the early 1980s, the Queenswood Lodge was a honey pot for building contractors and corrupt civil servants.

A key figure in the scandal was a contractor called Terry King.  In 1981, King and PSA officer, Eric Wenborn, were guests at a Queenswood Lodge ladies night.  Within a few months both the builder and the civil servant were initiated as Entered Apprentices.  While in a "state of darkness", Wenborn had worked incorruptibly as a civil servant for thirty-five years but within a year of becoming a Mason he was flying off to Las Vegas, all expenses paid, courtesy of his crooked brothers in the Queenswood Lodge.  In June1988, at the Old Bailey, Wenborn pleaded guilty to five charges of corruption and conspiracy to obtain bribes.  The jury heard how, throughout 1983, his Masonic brothers had paid £1,000 a month into a Jersey bank account in his wife's name; about another free holiday in Miami; about how he bought his mistress a £33,000 flat with his bribes; and about how money was spent on his own home and in buying a new car.  Brother Wenborn was eventually jailed for two years.  It was a sad end to a civil service career that spanned four decades.

Michael Higham, Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England, after supposedly conducting inquiries into the fraud, said there was nothing in the lodge that encouraged these people or allowed them to break the law.  "It was just and accident of life that these two people happened to be in the same lodge," he lied.  Underneath all the scandal is the basic principle of mob rule, in that civic affairs can be strangled with secret societies operating within a framework of what the general public consent to as being democracy.  It is a paradox and an evil.  These self-effacing liars should be called what they are.

On 16 April 1995, The Sunday Times carried an article headed, "Freemasons ban on top Yard team," which read:

"Sir Paul Condon, the Metropolitan police commissioner, has ordered the removal of Freemasons from Scotland Yard's elite anti-corruption squad.  His decision follows an inquiry into Freemasonry.
"The move is the strongest action yet taken against Masons in the police.  It was triggered by an investigation into officers suspected of being involved in an alleged blackmail plot.  The investigation was abandoned because of a possible link between detectives and Freemasons.
"The existence of the operation leaked out after a Freemasons' dinner attended by Scotland Yard officers.  Once it became knowledge in the force the inquiry had to be abandoned.
"Details of the botched operation, codenamed Zorba, are contained in police documents seen by The Sunday Times.  They show detectives from the complaints investigation bureau (CIB) trying to trap officers who, they had been told, were attempting to blackmail a Surrey businessman into giving them bribes.
"The Yard devised a 'sting' in an attempt to trap the officers under suspicion.  A restaurant owner in Bournemouth, owned by the businessman, was put under surveillance and the telephone was tapped.  The CIB detective gave him £5,000 and told him to hand it to the suspect officers if they asked for a bribe.  During one tapped telephone call the CIB team overheard one of the allegedly corrupt officers contact the owner  and arrange a meeting.  The team waited in shifts in a flat above the restaurant.
"During the operation, however, the CIB officers were lodging in a nearby hotel.  Their stay coincided with a dinner weekend organised by a Masonic Lodge in Camberwell, south London, which was being attended by several police officers.
"In the event, the expected meeting between the restaurant owner and the suspect officers never materialised.
"Condon's decision to remove Freemasons from the CIB increases pressure on officers who are Masons.  Three years ago, John Major warned police that, to counter allegations of corruption, any officers who were also Masons should openly declare it.  But the Police Federation, which represents 120,000 junior officers, rejected the call."

One of the surveillance team, a Freemason, must have tipped off his corrupt brothers, resulting in the Camberwell Lodge organising a dinner weekend to stymie the undercover operation.  And the inquiry was abandoned probably because the Freemasons involved in the surveillance operation leaked controlled rumours about "Zorba", knowing that it would have to be abandoned.  That should have been reason enough for the officers who organised the operation not to abandon it.

In 1991, the Edinburgh District Council employed an American, Paul Lowenberg, as chief executive  because of his academic background, his successful track record with Hackney and Manchester councils, and his plaudits with other schemes.  In December 1993, with these successful ventures behind him, Mr Lowenberg was given a payoff and was to leave without fulfilling  his contract.  This came in the midst of a reorganisation programme  he has embarked upon.

First, there was a no-confidence vote carried against him in the council chambers, with SNP, Liberal Democrat and nine "rebel" Labour councillors, including one abstainer, joining the Tories to defeat the ruling Labour group.  The main body of the Labour group had every confidence in Mr Lowenberg.  Then came the sinister payoff.  After the nine Labour rebels had defied their party whip and voted with the Tories, they spieled the customary makeshift excuse: "It is not a political party issue."

Surely the public, and all their representatives - not just the fraternal few - are entitled to know exactly what the underlying issues under debate actually are.  The public are also entitled to know exactly what type of person is representing them.  Being a politician is a vast subsidised ego trip.  It is a job that needs no qualifications, that has no compulsory hours of work, no performance standards and provides a warm room and subsidised meals to a bunch of self-opinionated windbags and busybodies.  We, the taxpayer, are entitled to know the type of people these characters employ in our name.

It came to light that in a shake-up in Hackney Council, Paul Lowenberg played a key role in getting rid of the inefficient Freemasonic network that ran the council's building department.  I have no doubt that his reorganisation programme for Edinburgh was achieving similar success, frightening the wits out of incompetent Masonic councillors and council staff, horrified at the thought of getting through a day's work without the refuge of the Masonic trench.

I also have no doubt that Masonic apron strings were being pulled from a higher authority to have him replaced.  In fact, just as the nine rebel Labour councillors were due to face disciplinary procedures for defying the Whip, an application to the Court of Session to intervene in this democratic debate saw an interim interdict being granted to have it halted.  Many people were left with the queasy feeling that, yet again, they were watching the rules being used to sustain a preoccupation with concealment on a matter of Masonic embarrassment rather than in the public interest.

Everyone is aware, or should be, that Freemasonry largely controls the legal system.  The number of High Court Judges who are members of just the Speculative Society of Edinburgh (Spec), an exclusive and highly-suspect Masonic group is obscene. LINK  And it was that same legal system that silenced democratic debate in public chambers, illustrating to many that people in high places were terrified that a Masonic conspiracy was about to be discussed at the proposed meeting.

Most people are also aware that many members of Parliament are invited for all the wrong reasons as "sleepers" onto boards on companies.  They all benefit financially simply because the MPs belong to the majority party.

There are, and always have been, elements in our Government who operate their own agenda outside the law.  In November 1992, William Waldegrave, Alan Clark, Lord Trevgarne, et al, tried to pervert the course of justice by withholding papers from the Central Criminal Court that would have exonerated three men from charges accusing them of illegally supplying munitions parts to Iraq when these characters were releasing licences themselves for the machine tools right up until the day before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Nevertheless, to preserve whatever type of reputation they thought they had, weasels in the British Government and the Foreign Office were prepared to let three innocent men, including Paul Henderson, the Managing Director of Matrix Churchill, go to jail for up to seven years.  The judge knew the Government Ministers' diplomatic skulduggery was untenable and ruled that the national interest would not be imperilled by ordering the release of the papers.

Remarkably, for their treasonous exploits against members of the British public, these mealy-mouthed miscreants were allowed to remain in the Cabinet.  For far too long the same contemptible people have used the "national interest" safeguard without foundation.  Not only are they and their like exempt from prosecution, but they are rewarded with opportunities to buy into war-torn countries' equity at distress prices.

The destructive free-trade policies of the West caused, for example, the break-up of the Soviet Union with the Soviet leaders succumbing to greed and bribery.  These leaders were quite content to receive their spoils for treacherous deals with the IMF.  This, in turn, stimulates the enormously lucrative manufacturing arms industry because its morally bankrupt owners profit from the many predictable and devised regional wars.  In an atmosphere of absolute nuclear neutrality the financial elitists of the West create a semblance of peace while surreptitiously opening up the globe to a much larger munitions market.  For centuries the British elite have used similar tactics all over the world.  The far-reaching tentacles of Freemasonry create all the possibilities.

We must have a system in which those who operate in the murky world of frequently illegally matters can actually be brought under a proper system of control.  That could happen it the operative Masons returned to their trade union days and left the controlling, unscrupulous, speculative Masons tend for themselves.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

google
WWW Freemasonry
https://dunblane.site/freemasonry/finpowstructs.htm