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

JAHBULON HAS NO RITE IN SCOTLAND

Masonic Flag

For the people of Scotland who yearn for political freedom from England, they will never leave the starting blocks until they recognise exactly who and what they are up against.  The underlying presence of Masonic unionists and Masonic nonunionists, in rival ranks and seemingly friendly ranks, adapt their natural convictions and set aside their differences to accommodate the biddings they are told "never to question" from their would-be Masonic superiors, for they are told they "do not yet have their wisdom".  So they willingly surrender their roaming commission to their improbable overseers and conspire at the drop of a hat in line with an asphyxiating allegiance, stifling their own independent power of reason and self-worth.  Until these lackeys are first recognised and the Masonic influence they succumb to is tackled head-on, all the sound political, economic and social ideals that we try to implement will amount to nothing.

Scotland, with her national energy and enterprise, has proved to be a more than worthy co-partner of her political yokefellow south of the border. The union with England was accomplished with the coalescence of the English and Scottish Parliaments into one representative body, purported to be a marriage of good will between the nations, but the marriage was intensely unpopular with the vast majority of Scots people.  The quintessence of the nuptial was not so much that it could subsequently be terminated if the partnership broke down, but that it was an illegal ceremony in the first place.  It was an arranged and forced marriage against the wishes of at least one of the participants, Scotland, hence it should be able to be annulled at any time without a divorce.

To claim independence, Scotland has legality on her side.  All the years before devolution she still had her own parliament, just as she did prior to the Treaty of Union.  The Scots Parliament acted illegally in enacting legislation on behalf of the Scottish people who were overwhelmingly against it.  In Scots law the sovereign authority for Scotland was, and still is, the whole of the Scottish people whose official approval was required to give legality to the Act.  The Treaty was also illegal under Scots law because Members of the Scottish Parliament, the main players being Masons, were bribed into passing the legislation.  This is an indisputable historical fact. LINK

The Treaty of Union also breaches both the Declaration of Arbroath 1320 and the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton 1328.  Both stipulate that Scots be not held in subjection to any other monarch.  Accordingly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is an illegal administration and Queen Elizabeth II is an illegal monarch of an illegally assembled kingdom.  Scotland's foremost authority on heraldic affairs, the Lord Lyon King of Arms, the Reverend Canon Joseph John Morrow CBE KStJ QC DL could not, were he to be honest, dispute that fact.

Robert I, known as Robert the Bruce (1274-1329), King of Scotland (1306-29), seized the crown in 1306 and gradually extended his control over Scotland. In 1314, he won effective independence from England by his victory at Bannockburn, but independence was not formally acknowledged by England until the Treaty of Northampton in 1328, the year before he died.

So not only is the Scottish Parliament still legally in existence and still legally the ultimate Scottish authority, but it is still in its quondam parliamentary session because that session was simply adjourned. It actually adjourned a little later in 1707, after the Treaty was signed, sealed and delivered by morally bankrupt Scots such as the Lord Advocate the 1st Earl of Stair along with the 2nd Duke of Argyll. The Stairs and Argylls have an historical Masonic connection.  Those who signed the Treaty had the honour of being referred to by Rabbie Burns as "such a parcel of rogues in a nation" later that century.

It was the 2nd Duke of Argyll's father, Archibald Campbell - of the "the-Campbells-are-coming-ye-ken-by-the-smell" ilk - who claimed the infamy with the 1st Earl of Stair as the massacrers of the MacDonalds at Glencoe on 13 February 1692, operating as toadies for England's noble families.  William III and Mary were joint sovereigns at the time but their power was largely circumscribed by the oligarchy.

But the crux of the matter was, and is, that the Scottish Parliament did not have the legal authority to abolish itself without the approbation of the whole of the Scottish people.  Thus, it is still in the session it was when that session prorogued, and can resume now without consent from any alien or illegal authority.

Those by virtue of office or position who are legally entitled to exercise the right to appoint members to join them in the Scottish Parliament to govern Scotland are, for example, the Lord Lyon, the Lord High Constable of Scotland, the Lord Justice General, the Lord Justice Clerk, the Lord Advocate, and the Lord Solicitor General for Scotland.  These people would only govern Scotland until a Scottish general election was expeditiously organised to elect a democratic Scots Parliament and Government.  If they refused to participate in the initial governance of Scotland, the Scottish people would be entirely within their rights to refuse to accept their office or position under the present illegal United Kingdom administration, and would bear it in mind when a democratic Scottish Government was duly elected.

Today, more people are beginning to realise that the term "democracy" is a weary joke.  It is all too often bastardised and evidence reveals it was also much bastardised in 1707.  The coalescence of the governments was all about equal trading rights with underwritten trading privileges for the elite.  This is commonly known as "free trade".

But what was the sinister and rallying force that gradually made the union acceptable to the masses in the years preceding the Treaty of Union?  What ignoble characters surreptitiously conveyed treacherous propaganda to their fellows while their fellows were already deflated and on their knees?  What low-life tried to convince the Scottish people that the Union was formulated for their express well-being?   Every period of history tells us that a debilitated nation is easily regulated.  That is exactly the way it was in 1707.   The failure to point the finger at landowning traitors for the downfall of Scotland was instrumental in moulding the apathy of subsequent generations.

Exhausting all one's energies trying to install a tyrant on another tyrant's throne seems futile.  Yet it was the arch-Tory James II's two daughters who succeeded him on the throne.  First Mary, along with husband William, followed by sister Anne, who was on the throne in 1707 when the Treaty of Union was signed.

Sadly Scots today seem to prefer to sit on the fence and watch their country's assets being stripped naked just so long as they have someone to whom to point the finger of accountability.  They would prefer to soak up all low blows rained in on them then complain later to deaf ears rather than take responsibility for their own destiny.  If Scots preserved and built on their abundance of natural talent and ability they would be considerably better off.  Creating wealth is not a problem because vast wealth already exists in Scotland.  Complaining to Westminster is a "cop out" and a waste of time.  It will be no consolation to Scotland's children of tomorrow to learn their forefathers were extremely liberal with their murmurs of complaint while accepting their second-class-citizen status.  They will be disgusted at our complacency for accepting rule by the English oligarchy.

Since man has an inherent loyalty to reactionary customs and procedures irrespective of their deficiencies, and rejects radical change, irrespective of its obvious advantages, it has to be presumed that mere policies will not awaken a nation from its slumber.  That would have to be achieved by bringing to the attention of the people of Scotland the fact they have been conned and misrepresented for over 300 years.   Their complacency needs replaced with hard facts, and humiliation and embarrassment if that is what it takes to kick start them.

Nobody likes to be conned, particularly Scots, so the ought to make themselves aware that their lives and the lives of their forefathers have been profoundly affected by an illegal administration running the affairs of their country, mad possible largely as a result of a device known as Freemasonry. The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry has been used for centuries by financial elitists to coordinate an invisible empire to systematically control the destinies of this and other countries, hindering the progress of their social, economic and general welfare systems.

Throughout history, struggles for freedom the world over have unbroken similarities that can be compared to Scotland's struggle for independence.  We only have to consider contemporary history.  One example is when Yassar Arafat, Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, spoke of freedom on the first weekend of July 1994 to thousands of cheering Palestinians in the streets of the Gaza Strip: "I completely refuse any controls by anybody on Palestinian autonomy except by the Palestinians themselves.  We didn't finish military occupation to get economic occupation."  Even though the manner of occupation is different in a Scottish context, it is certainly not melodramatic to compare the economic-occupation of Scotland.  The comparison of our situation on certain issues with that of, for instance, Northern Ireland is also legitimate.

What is even more appropriate, however, are the similarities with much of Scotland's present standing with our colonised brothers in America nearly 250 years ago.  It is in the interests of all Scots to read the unanimous Declaration of Independence of the 13 United States during the second year of the eight-year War of American Independence to understand and compare those similarities.  The proclamation was formally adopted in Congress on 4 July 1776, resulting in possibly the purist form of democratic republicanism the world has ever known. LINK

The tyrant king referred to in the Declaration is George III LINK, nephew of the Butcher of Cumberland and grandson of George II.  Even though the British Prime Minister, Lord North, probably hastened the war with the United States though the continuance of his obnoxious tea duty, and by other measures it was George III who forced him into the war.  North wanted a negotiated settlement but the king's love of oppression was insatiable, which catered for more than just downtrodden Catholics and the Scottish people, for this was the century when Britain's main concern was colonial empire.  George III's bigotry and colonial aspirations were the legacy he passed on to his three Masonic sons, Frederick, George (who became George IV), and William (who became William IV). LINK

The people of Scotland must never forget they are still the sovereign body in Scotland.  Much of the Declaration of American Independence could be the essence or a foundation of a declaration for Scottish independence.  That said, if one examines both the Declaration of Arbroath LINK and the Declaration of American Independence LINK side by side, one sees striking similarities in both wording and content.

It is entirely feasible to argue that the Declaration of Arbroath is one of the most important documents in the history of socio-political discourse.  In the year 1320, almost 500 years before the American Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution, the Scots effectively declared that a ruler was only as good as their service to the people.

It is surely significant that at least 21 of the 50 men behind America’s founding legal document were of Scottish descent.  (This is a highly disproportionate representation.  It makes up around 38 percent, versus the 6.7 percent of Scots in the general colonial population in 1790.)  Two - John Witherspoon and James Wilson - were native Scots.

As George W Bush said: "The Scottish Declaration of Independence signed in 1320, embodied the Scots’ strong dedication to liberty, and the Scots brought that tradition of freedom with them to the New World.  Sons and daughters of many Scottish clans were among the first immigrants to settle in America, and their determination and optimism helped build our Nation’s character."

Academics have previously linked America's founding fathers to the Scottish enlightenment that was ongoing during the drafting of the US charter.  Gordon Brown's favourite historian, US academic Gertrude Himmelfarb, had written that Thomas Jefferson and other key figures studied the enlightenment's leaders, such as Francis Hutcheson and David Hume, who were making a worldwide impact at a time when, as Voltaire, the French defender of civil liberties, said: "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation."

As defined in the Declaration of American Independence, "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object that has evinced a design to reduce us to absolute Despotism, it is our duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for our future security." LINK

The de-Anglicisation of the military, the civil service and the whole spectrum of bureaucracy, including banking, would have to be a priority in any declaration of claiming back independence, otherwise, as Yassar Arafat told the Palestinian people, autonomy is not autonomous while economic occupation endures.

To begin to tackle that problem, the Scottish institutions would have to be stripped of Masonic influences because it would be pointless wasting great energy in the pursuit of false dreams if the same hierarchy controlled our sovereignty from their temples of doom, depriving us of self-evident truths, in that we are all endowed by our Creator (not JahBulOn, the Masonic unholy trinity of pagan deities LINK) with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; these right deriving from the consent of us alone, the governed, or the people of Scotland.  And we do not hang our heads when we acknowledge our rights; we hang our heads if we do not acknowledge them.

Every non-Masonic institution in the world has a duty to prevent Freemasonry from depriving individuals of their God-given rights.

The American Catholic Church in particular, but along with every other Christian and non-Christian Church in the world, and every other right-minded organisation and individual, ought to support Pope Leo XIII's far-reaching war plan against Freemasonry, campaign in the first instance for the removal from US Government property in Washington DC of the Lucifer-worshipping Albert Pike LINK, and launch a long overdue war with Freemasonry, holding it accountable for the lack of progress civilisation has made, especially in the Third World, since the time of the Italian Renaissance during the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries: the last period of revival.

In previous chapters I have referred to the locations of numerous lodges in Scotland and elsewhere.  In 1994 there were 666 lodges in Scotland alone.  But on a lighter note, there are also lodges bearing names that seem out of place in their unlikely locations.  Lodges such as, Bonnie Doon Lodge No 611 in Sri Lanka; Caledonia Lodge No 661 in India; Lodge Peace No 908 in Lebanon; Lodge Blantyre No 956 in Malawi, Central Africa; Lodge Thistle No 1013 in Panama; also Lodge Thistle No 1014 in Barbados; Lodge Battlefield No 1258 in Cathcart, Glasgow; Lodge Heart's Content No 1275 in Newfoundland, Canada; Lodge Plantation No 581 in Govan Town Hall, Glasgow; Lodge Whiteadder No 1245 and Lodge Blackadder No 1350, both Berwickshire; Lodge Wankie No 1409 in Zimbabwe; Lodge Ulster No 1486 in Glasgow; Lodge Eenheid No 1488 in Transvaal; Lodge Angus No 1529 in Malaysia; Lodge Shalom No 1600 in the Dixon Halls, Cathcart Road, Glasgow; Lodge Sound Memory No 1655 in Johannesburg; Lodge Kyk-over-al No 1672 in Guyana and Lodge-on-the-Plains No 1680 in Ghana.

Where do they dig them up?  Okay, I can understand where Edinburgh Castle Lodge No 1763 in Brodies Close, Lawnmarket, got its moniker from since it is just an stone's (or ashlar's) throw from the castle, but the others - they are a kyk-over-al.  Sometimes it appears justifiable to protect their secret bunkum.

Regardless, we Scots must protect ourselves from the Masonic bunkum and keep in mind that our declaration was made 48 years before the word Freemason even came into existence and long before it changed to become not a tacit trade union but an antichrist organisation.  We must also endeavour to prevent the Scottish Rite from having any right in Scotland.

"As long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule.  It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
Declaration of Arbroath, 6 April 1320 LINK

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Declaration of American Independence 4 July 1776. LINK

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

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