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

FREEMASONRY GOT A FOOTHOLD ON TRADE UNIONISM

Heaven Cries Out For Justice

When Freemasonry got a foothold on trade unionism, the unions could hardly be expected to function as initially intended.  As far as politics in general is concerned, it is the Labour Party and the Trade Union Congress (TUC), not the Tory Party, that are responsible for the demise of trade unionism.  The Tory Party always was the party with the slave-trade mentality, so should not be expected to change willingly.

Trade unions first, then the Labour Party, came into being as defenders of workers' rights and conditions.  If Labour-minded people and trade unionists are to challenge the Tories for what they have been doing with great expertise for centuries they must hold their own leadership accountable for their failings.  They have allowed Masonic "all-seeing-spies" to infiltrate and largely control the rank and file workers, moderate their aspirations and invite them to "look up with cheerfulness" to the bleak supremacy of those who use and abuse even their own members.

Let us consider for a moment the person who was supposedly leading the battle against anti-working class policies in the 1980s, Labour's Neil Kinnock.  Using the ruse of double-edged politics during the miners' strike, he consistently condemned the Tory Government while equally, but more treacherously, turning his back on the miners.  Had he shown his true colours at the outset, what ever they were, he would have been less dangerous to the trade union movement.

When the Labour leaders were called on for support, they did not even attempt a practical application of their own doctrines.  Giants of audacity in their speeches, they retreated when confronted by the reality of what action was required.  They gave only bad or inadequate instruction, representing no one but themselves, while observing no guiding principle.  The attack on trade unionism was oppressive so history ought to have told them that those who oppress rely always for their justification on a fact created by themselves.  The Labour and TUC leadership relied on facts created by themselves for justification for not intervening.  They called their members brothers by name, but irritations by fact.

By leading no material offensive against Maggie Thatcher's poll tax in the following years, Kinnock reinforced the implementation of the tax.  In other words, Neil Kinnock and his collaborators sold out the working class for the entire eight years of his leadership, leading to four successive election defeats.

Linlithgow Labour MP, Tam Dalyell, revealed that Neil Kinnock gagged him over the Matrix Churchill "arms-to-Iraq" trial.  The Labour leader stopped him from asking questions in the Commons that would have prevented the trial.  Speaking during a debate in April 1990 (as reported by the Edinburgh Evening News on 2 March 1996), Tam Dalyell had started to complain that the answers he received from the department of Trade and Industry were misleading.  He was taken aside by Neil Kinnock who asked him to desist for fear that he could be thrown out of the Commons for accusing ministers of lying - as he had already been thrown out five times.  Mr Dalyell told fellow MPs: "He [Neil Kinnock] said that if I was thrown out of the Commons for a sixth or seventh time it would simply not do the Labour Party's reputation any good."

What?  Do politicians not want their reputations tarnished by telling the truth?

How can a trusting society be built on lies or by concealing the truth?  How can a trusting society be built on the egoism and materialism  of individuals?  To what depths have politics and politicians sunk when reputations are built on concealing the truth, or when exposing lies are discouraged or condemned?  Who was coercing Kinnock when he pressurised Tam Dalyell into taking a different route from that which his conscience was guiding him, a route that would have decisively embarrassed the opposition Tory Government.

Since the beginning of time there has been no progress in humanity without truth.  Truth and human progress walk hand in hand, but have been hindered down the ages by egoism and materialism, which in turn fosters inequality.  These virtueless characteristics breed on the lack of truth and the lack of progress, like the virtual knowledge pretendedly contained in the Masonic Ancient Landmarks, their Principal Tenets, their Greater and Lesser Lights, the Mystic Tie, the Hoodwink, the Cable Tow, the Old Charges, and all that palaver.  The myth of this implied wisdom can be sustained through the State by the manipulation and caprice of minorities who corrupt the uneducated through their secret societies' false conception of life.

What happens to the Masonic "Ancient Landmark" that decides "one must be obedient to the civil magistrates and keep oneself from embroilment in defiance of public order?"  How ridiculous is that benchmark?  Think about it.  You obey the civil magistrates unconditionally, but you can change the civil magistrates by changing the local authority, that can in turn change the law.  What kind of bizarre stricture is that?  Govern yourself by the compass, try yourself by the square, and test yourself by the plumb, and obey the civil magistrates, but when you vote out the administration and change that unalterable law, you just kick that Landmark behind the goals into another landmark.

When the time is right for breaking with the past and advancing towards the future, all hesitation is fatal.  Tam Dalyell hesitated.  He ought to have rejected every dubious course of action, all cowardly dealings, and the hypocrisy of leaders who seek to compromise between what is right and what is wrong, between what is the truth and what is a lie, and what is good and what is evil.

Although the Labour MP for Linlithgow was not as culpable as Kinnock, he should not have allowed himself to be pressurised by the Labour leader.  Mr Dalyell eventually decided to release pain from his conscience by perhaps finally telling the story because, to be fair, in the past he was always quick to embarrass the Government when required.  However, he did allow Kinnock to do violence to his conscience on that occasion, for which he must share some of the guilt.  It is his duty, and the duty of every other MP, to free the truth from people who resist it and encourage them to envelop it with honesty, equality, liberty and progress.

Ecclesiastics have a far more advanced sense of equality than any government.  They will tell them there is no privileged class between God and Man.

Neil Kinnock's leadership of the Labour Party wasted the energy of its supporters by asking them to reject any form of civil disorder, how ever justified, while expounding every meaningless phrase about what was wrong with Maggie Thatcher's policies without offering a solution to solve them.  "Obey the civil law and wait for the next Labour Government to change it," was the best advice he had to offer. LINK

For his abysmal failure to formulate a manifesto acceptable to the country in a so-called recession, Neil Kinnock was removed from the Labour leadership and rewarded for his loyalty to the Tories with the job as Britain's Euro Commissioner with twice the salary of the British Prime Minister.  This was the pay-off for the part he played in the downfall of the miners, for being a traitor to principle and class, and for allowing Maggie Thatcher to think she was invincible, leading her to think her flagship, as she would have it, the poll tax, would have plain sailing, even though it was illegal in Scotland.LINK  Glenys Kinnock, Neil's wife, was timely employed with a lucrative job by the European Parliament to coincide with Neil's appointment.

With the odd insincere compliment from Masonic Tories, the sycophantic "Welsh Wogan", as Kinnock became known, was able to salve not his conscience but his egoism and materialism.  Unfortunately for the miners and trade unionism Kinnock was not elsewhere in Europe on 12 March 1984 when the miners' strike, that was to become unique in many ways, began.

It took only a few years after the enactment in 1980 of Norman Tebbit's union-bashing Industrial Relations Bill, or "Tebbit's Law", as it became known, for every trade union affiliated to the TUC to pledge that the Bill would be opposed in its entirety.  This was the message on union notice boards in workplaces the length and breadth of Britain.

Among most of Britain's workforce there was a feeling of self-assurance at being a trade union member at that time, although long-time sceptics like myself held their breath.

By pushing Tebbit's Bill through parliament, the Tory Government had once again introduced a law that would convince no one it was nondiscriminatory.  It was a social-engineering experiment by the establishment that had little chance of failure once the TUC accepted dishonour and descended into ignominy.  The National Executive of the TUC shrank from the contest as every industrial dispute arose, beginning with Eddie Shah's Warrington Messenger affair.  Eddie Shah's workforce did not have the political clout to hold out against him alone without wider trade union protection and support.  It was a testing case that developed into a pattern of orchestrated defeats of one union after another as the TUC looked the other way.

Occasionally the TUC paid feeble lip service to the dismantling of trade unionism but the Brotherhood and the peerage seekers within the trade union movement never generated any enthusiasm to support their affiliated membership.  The pretence of support by the double agents was singularly pathetic, disheartening the nation's workers and surrendering them to the "tender" mercies of the establishment.

So ultimately it was left to the miners to carry the waning banner of every other trades' union.  Their later failure would sound the death knell for the way we once perceived the Trade Union Congress.

To some, it was a timely reminder that only two-and-a-half years earlier (Tuesday, 15 September 1981) Pope John Paul II expressed in Rome: "Trade Unions are 'indispensable' in the struggle for social justice."  Social justice was obviously the furthest thing from the minds of Britain's elite.  Of course, if social justice was remotely on the agenda Britain would have later ratified the EC's Social charter, but then the general public would be able to compare their standard of living with their European neighbours of the time.

Be that as it may, members of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), acting on behalf of themselves, on behalf of the entire trade union movement, and against the ruination of the coal industry, attempted to restore some of the pride that was surrendered on the sacrificial altar of the butchers in the Tory Party by the TUC and its two General Secretaries during that time of the strike, Len Murray and Norman Willis.  What people of that ilk fail to realise is that they not only let down themselves, the trade union movement, and the working class as a whole, but they are responsible for obstructing generations of mankind.  Nevertheless, at that time, no one, not even Arthur Scargill, could have possibly foreseen the extent of the establishment's determination, physically, financially, bureaucratically and unlawfully, to prevent the colliers restoring the deflated self-worth of the nation's workforce.

Even though, in their documented "Plan for Coal" the miners had submitted a rational solution to prevent industrial unrest, they were first goaded into strike action then were overwhelmed by an assault from every powerful but supposedly unconnected source that could be made available.  Scargill was in possession of an accurate hit list of coalmines to be run down, which was denied by the Government, making strike action unavoidable if coal faces and miners' jobs were to be saved.

Unpleasant memories loomed large in the vengeful minds of Tory Ministers as a result of the miners' strike of February 1974, which emptied Premier Edward Heath from 10 Downing Street and the Tories from government.  As a result, trade unionism in general and the NUM in particular were to be ruthlessly castigated, regardless of the cost to the taxpayer.  The amount would run into billions of pounds.  The cost would not end there because numerous viable pits would be run down, ravaging the country's fuel reserves while simultaneously condemning tens of thousands of miners to the dole queue.  This alone wrested vast unnecessary sums from the economy.  Make no mistake about it, this enforced strike was not about economics, it was about a vindictive Tory Government's passion for revenge.  When the high priests of monetarism went into gear, nothing, not even the law of the land, would stand in their way.

When the strike began on 6 March 1984, the media, vetted by establishment figures through Mrs Thatcher, tried to impress that the miners' strike was not about an important case put forward by the colliers of Britain to preserve the country's fuel reserves, but was simply about violence.  Violence and violence alone was the image with which the Government-controlled media indoctrinated the minds of the public.  It was an influential distortion.  Yet the highest estimate of violence on the picket lines involved less then one per cent of the strikers up until the strike ended almost a year later on 3 March 1985..

There was also the worrying aspect over the confusion surrounding the Government's Act of Parliament that was crucially relevant to picketing.  Under the Employment Act of 1980 an affected employer can apply for a court order against people he believes have been unlawfully picketing.  the code of practice in relation to this Act specifically rules out the police interpreting what picketing is, or distinguishing between forms of picketing.

It is not an offence for people to gather in large numbers outside the gates of a coal min, coking plant, factory, or wherever it happens to be.  The police have no responsibility for enforcing the civil law, yet the miners' strike was a civil dispute.  But it did not prevent the British police force adopting a warlike attitude throughout the strike and interpreting the law within guidelines specially drawn up for the purpose.

It was also a matter of great concern that the police stopped people moving about the countryside when they were a hundred miles from their destination, thereby interfering with their free movement around the country.  The police are not allowed to set up roadblocks or to limit the number of people outside factory gates unless there is an imminent breach of the peace.  applying the criminal law was aimed at one thing: removing large numbers of people from what they were doing lawfully: assembling.  Assembling is not an offence, therefore the police acted not to uphold the law but to render trade union activity ineffective.  Perhaps it is worth remembering at this point that there is estimated to be about 22,000 British police officers in the Freemasons: a ratio of one in six.  It is an alarming figure.

Another alarming aspect was the preprepared conditions attached to bail forms.  These conditions were concocted explicitly for miners arrested for reasons largely involving the civil law but purported for one reason or another to be in connection with breaches of the criminal law.  Miners who were victims of absolutist policies and accused of fabricated criminal charges would consistently vindicate their innocence in courts of law and industrial tribunals the length and breadth of the country once the strike ended.

These bail conditions were a ploy to prevent so-called offenders from returning to picket the lines.  If they refused to sign the bail forms they would simply be held until trial.  This was a coordinated undertaking by the Government and the courts to dispirit the miners.  The discreditable use of the police was exacerbated by the utilisation of the National Reporting Centre (NRC), soon to be dressed up in the more friendly and unthreatening name of Mutual Aid Coordination Force (MACF).  This is a departure that involved policing the miners' strike not on a localised basis but on a centralised basis.

The NRC had been set up twelve years before the colliers' dispute, but it had never been used in the way it was at the time of the dispute.  In short, it was used to coordinate a "national police force", the type of regime that this country is against and which parliament has never sanctioned.  On top of that, the NRC was accountable to no one except the man who ran it, and he himself was accountable to no one yet he was in the position to use a coordinating centre for forty-three police forces to move 120,000 police officers around the country.  The officer who ran the NRC was also head of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

If this "unaccountable" man was accountable to an invisible jurisdiction with clashing interests or objectives, or, to be more precise, could be coerced by clandestine figures belonging to an invisible jurisdiction, to use the criminal law to enforce obedience to the prejudices of the civil magistrates, there could be no justification for it in any society, secret or civil.

On Thursday, 13 December 1984, the Chairwoman of Manchester Police Authority, Gabrielle Cox, said on BBC television's Newsnight programme: "I've got a duty to provide an adequate and efficient police force for the community.  I don't believe it's being done in Greater Manchester but I have no role in saying we should not have so many officers dealing with the miners' dispute.  The civil rights of the old ladies Salford who get mugged and burgled are equally important.  If their civil rights are being forgotten, where is the debate about priorities?  There are no debates about priorities because 'Mutual Aid'  appears to take precedence over everything else."

Not only was the civil right s of the old ladies in Salford being ignored but the customary policing of every area in Britain took a back seat so the NRC could engage in what went well beyond what could be called law enforcement.  It went into the realms of unmitigated fascism.  Fascism is a charge often levelled at the British constabulary,  sometimes with and sometimes without justification.  During the miners' strike the charge was remarkably accurate.

The civil rights of the old ladies in Salford and, for that matter, every other person in the country, may not have been a subject for debate in Britain but it was certainly a subject for debate in the European Parliament.  On Wednesday, 16 January 1985, Enoch Powell, the former Conservative and at that time, Ulster Unionist MP, led a furious outcry over the European Parliament's decision to set up a special inquiry into police action during the miners' strike.  We must ask of ourselves, why, if nothing untoward was happening, were certain people so terrified of inquiries?  Indeed, what sinister forces were being defended?  And why was public scrutiny occulted?

We should not be surprised to learn that on Sunday, 10 July 1988, three-and-a-half years later, the same Enoch Powell let the cat out the bag on an Independent Television programme called "The English Revolution", by revealing: "In England there exists institutions that pull together to overcome political difficulties."  He was referring ostensibly to the English Civil War of 1642, but was referring de facto to the "cultic invisible empire".  A majority of politically conscious Masons at that time was united to preserve the gains made from the Civil War and limit the power of the monarch.

This author had been conscious of institutions and their organisers pulling together for many years and was not surprised by this "revelation".  For example, aristocratic and other financial elitists, politicians, the Churches of Scotland and England, the legal profession, the civil service, the armed forces, the media, and, most importantly, the labyrinthine institution of Freemasonry.  The last named incorporates vital sections of them all, greatly influencing imperceptive people of the power classes who make up the vast majority of the unwitting "Craft" degrees, pulling them together for predesignated purposes.

The miners' strike was a perfect example of all these institutions pulling together.  Church ministers occasionally condemned miners for their impetuosity on picket lines while cautiously avoiding addressing police "impetuosity".  Yet police impetuosity should have raised more concern because of the more far-reaching implications.  Ordinary police officers should never be exonerated for their violence against miners, regardless of the fact they were thrown into the front line of a political struggle and used improperly to stuff unsavoury policies down the throats of members of the NUM.

The crimes were witnessed by millions of viewers on television so the evidence of police brutality must still be held in the TV archives.  Since the offending police officers were never brought to book, they will be remembered as a neo-fascist force for their browbeating tactics during a political dispute that was outside their legal compass.

This was a perfect example of key Masonic police officers using their superiority to coordinate with politicians and others wishes for a specific purpose, but what had nothing to do with legality or their duty to the public.  They were certainly not conducting themselves as "good and true men, men of honour and honesty", as their bogus Ancient Landmarks would have it.

The media, for its part, would have us believe that many persons, hitherto of good character, had turned into barbarians overnight.  At the same time it spoke of the "poor police officers" who were called upon to deal with the "barbarians".  Yet many of the falsely reported "poor" police officers were seen intimidating the strikers by derisively waving their overpaid wage slips at them.  One policeman being interviewed on national television boasted that the men policing the mining areas were earning up to £100 per day (1984-85) and he personally couldn't get enough of it.  It has to be asked if it was intended for these wages to be paid in good faith by the public to upright citizens to maintain law and order, only to be collected by hireling betrayers of principle, class and justice?

So where does the armed forces fit into the equation?  It was obvious to miners and nonminers alike that, even though law enforcement suffered badly during the yearlong miners' strike due to the ridiculously high-level police concentration on the picket lines, police forces throughout Britain were reinforced by squaddies wearing blue uniforms.  From where else could the massive level of manpower possibly have come?  That said, even with army reinforcements the old ladies in Salford were still being mugged and burgled without due protection.  Nonetheless, the juxtaposition was much in evidence when sections of the "dragnet" were seen marching military style to their places of deployment.  So not only were the police being used out of context of their duties, but the squaddies were operating as aliens to their own people.

The courts played a very important role in the orchestrated events, not least by their refusal to grant legal aid for no apparent reason other than that miners were charged with crimes containing a political content.  Biased verdicts and extreme sentences revealed not only how politically corrupt the courts could be, but that an unknown quantity was in complete control.  It more than smacked of adjudicators interpreting the law with preparatory measures in line with political subservience.  The law itself was subverted with more than a deposit of Masonic folklore.

Critics were worried that hundreds of magistrates in England were Freemasons - at least eighteen Circuit Judges, four Queen's Bench Judges, three family Division Judges, two Judges in Chancery, three Lord Justices of Appeal  and one Lord of Appeal.

In Scotland the concentration of Masonic judges is even greater.  This was the type of characters in only the exclusive and highly suspect Speculative Society of Edinburgh (Spec):

Lord Cameron Lord Hamilton
Lord Menzies Lord Milligan Lord Prosser Lord McGhie
Lord Murray Lord Clarke Lord Fraser
Lord Hope Lord Ross Lord Weir
Lord Cowie Lord Cullen Lord Mackay Lord Jauncey
Lord Morison Lord Osborne Lord MacLean Lord Johnston
Lord Davidson Lord Coulsfield Lord Nimmo Smith Lord Drummond Young

NB. This lists only the exclusive Spec members and does not include the commonplace Masonic members of the judiciary or the overabundant Masonic legal mechanics in the extended law warehouses.

Masonic politicians played the most significant role.  Only Freemasonry could knit all the diverse groups together.  From across the party divide they urged their brothers to adhere to the constraints of the civil magistrates.  It was guilelessly adhered to regardless of the fact that the honour and indeed the survival of trade unionism in the tradition we knew it was at stake.  Even in the face of police malefactors engaging in criminal activity on a daily basis at the picket lines, the Great and Grand Douchebags of Dingleberry were able to intimidate fellow Masons sufficiently to "defy natural law and be controlled by forces that restrain their natural instincts".

On Monday, 14 January 1985, a couple of months before the miners strike wound up, the Attorney General, Sir Michael Havers rejected in the House of Commons complaints from spokesmen for the Labour and Alliance parties over the "resurrection" of of Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875.  Since the strike began, 275 people had been charged under this Act.  One month earlier, Alex Carlisle QC MP and Home Affairs spokesman for the Alliance Party, had summed up the issue on BBC television to the purpose when he said: "We get senior police officers abusing the criminal justice system.  For example, there is an offence called 'Watching and Besetting' under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875.  I don't know any lawyer who until recently has ever had to appear in a case of Watching and Besetting, but suddenly there are 270 cases of Watching and Besetting; 270 more than in the previous year."

Despite these facts senior police officers continued to reject any suggestion that a coordinated national force was in operation.  However, not only was it coordinated it was coordinated in conjunction with all the other institutions that pulled together.

The invisible masters behind the operations that bring together by and large diverse people are the type of high-level Masons who have been referred to throughout this publication.  They are elite figures with sufficient spooklike mastery to unnerve subordinate members into embracing morbid cultic fantasies to such a degree that their paranoia is used to divert their instinctive allegiance from their fellow trade union members (or whatever else) to something they accept only because of intrusive, nonbinding, silly oaths. LINK

The media are also largely influenced and controlled by Masons, especially Masonic legal advisors.  And it is hard to argue that the media do not largely control public opinion.  Unconsciously, people base their arguments on what is just the rhetoric of the media, not on an objective analysis of that rhetoric.  This control by the media of public opinion has an enormous effect on any society.  When wheels within wheels within more wheels start turning, and "institutions pull together to overcome political difficulties", it is  not the political difficulties of the many that are faced; but the political wishes of the few, which have to be accepted with cheerfulness ... and so on and so forth.

Were we surprised to learn, therefore, that the figurehead of the miners' enemies during the strike, one Margaret Thatcher, was a member of the Eastern star, the women's equivalent (if "equivalent" is an appropriate term) of the Freemasons.  Her husband, Denis, was a Freemason of high standing.

As a member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (AUEW), I wrote a letter of complaint in March 1985 to Terry Duffy, the General Secretary, accusing Mr Duffy and his ilk of peerage-seeking opportunism.  I added: "Until such times as all prospective General Secretaries and Presidents of trades unions sign an affidavit to the effect that they will never at any time in the future accept a peerage, their memberships will feel they are being erroneously represented."  Perhaps I should have included that neither should they be Freemasons either at the time of taking office or while holding office because during the miners' strike the Tory Party may have been the most open agency engaged in political hostilities against the miners, but it was certainly not the only one.

I was not afforded a reply from anyone in the AUEW so it was neither conceded nor disputed by the General Secretary nor by anyone acting on his behalf, or in his defence, whether or not he was in the business of peerage seeking.

Nevertheless, the inference that Freemasonry and trade union officiation is incompatible can be ignored with only complicity, ignorance or sedation.  Freemasonry is incompatible with all forms of democracy, or even with any of the great faith of the modern world: Christianity, Islam, Vishnu, Hinduism, Buddhism and the like.

The Scottish Miner, a publication of the Scottish NUM, was publishing many poems from contributors at the time of the 1984-85 miners' strike.  The following, which I sent on 14 January 1985, was not among them.  With a probably more than disproportionate number of Masons in their ranks, perhaps the editor decided not to chance offending them.  In their state of "Craft" or "Blue Masonry" they might have felt offended, unjustifiably.  Had the poem been published, it might just have instilled a social conscience in some them.  The poem read thus:

There's a uniform band in this unfree land, to protect rights of the artisan,
But if you pertain to right reason you indicate treason, you wretched honest man.
And the devils of blue, tend only a few, 'cos their brains have been leased to knaves,
And they don't improvise, they're so well-versed in lies, and deny they're Thatcher's slaves.

We've heard Maggie solicit, from the Government pulpit, appealing to the ambitious and greedy,
"I'll buy your pride, accept the bribe, conform to the profit of perfidy."
But there's naught to review, from the restive old shrew, 'cept a peerage and your place booked in Hades.
'twould not be for coal you sold your soul, 'twould just be your scabby ways.

We picket each day, with pride but no pay, the hours tick by like years,
Whilst to and fro, scabs come and go, the scheming mutineers.
And some wear masks, for their grim tasks, to hide their black disgrace,
But what black mask, I dare to ask, could hide the devil's face?

There's a new perception, of a conniving collusion, 'tween statesmen and forces of law,
'tween Coal Board official, and procurator fiscal, let by puppet masters, what a tableau!
The shadowy controllers, with their umbrellas and bowlers, have promised to answer the call.
With their oaths of allegiance, at their clandestine meetings, still won't win 'cos we see thru' them all.

They did win because certain characters in the Houses of Parliament, executive members of the Trades Union Congress, and others, accepted that trades unions are not indispensable in the struggle for social justice, as John Paul II would have it, and that social justice is secondary to looking up cheerfully to the jackboot.  These toadies will look back at the miners' strike and possibly see it as a favourable watershed in their personal struggle for aggrandisement.  A perceptive section of society will recognise a pang of conscience in their uneasy demeanour.

If trade unionism is to have a much needed rebirth, the whole structure would have to be dismantled and an entirely new system built from scratch with the follies of the past written into the constitution to ensure Freemasons could never gain control or even influence the leadership.  There would be rules and regulations drafted in to protect workers rights and jobs, even in defiance of parliamentary regulation if that authorisation appears to be strangely out of place with the public weal and common sense, and is oppressive to Britain's workforce.

In any society social justice is a priority.  Despite being compromised by Freemasonry, the trade union framework is more democratic than Parliament's so it should not allow its legislation to be undermined by parliamentary statute until we have a better system of government.  Especially where parliamentary statute is seen to be enacted solely to prevent trade union members and the British workforce from attaining social justice.

Certain provisions would ensure that people appointed to the leadership would have the interests of only the workers at heart, carrying out the wishes of the membership, irrespective of whether or not the workforce ultimately disagreed with their direction.  Every rational person agrees that a good principled leadership is crucial, but we must never forget that great things are never achieved  except by the rejection of individualism and a constant sacrifice of self to the common progress.

When operating efficiently, the interests of a company, if there is no outside political interference, are consistent with the interests of the workers.  Unfortunately, the historical reality of every era gnawingly haunts us with the memory that loyalty , one to the other, is overwhelmingly unbalanced.  An employer demands unswerving loyalty from the workforce, but does not offer it in return.  In a free and just society, business interests should not be a hindrance to the workers' interests, but mutually complimentary.  There ought to be a parallel concern for everyone, employer and white and blue-collar employees alike.

Employees who exercise a social conscience are discriminated against.  They are given labels such as militants, communists, anarchists, or some other impressionable label that might turn the public against them without presenting a constructive, valid or even relevant argument.  The media fall in behind these labels, buzz words, slogans, and political sound bites, and toy with them and fashion them repeatedly until they become the rhetoric of an unthinking public.  We ought to be constantly on our guards against that type of indoctrination.

Why then should an employee give 100 per cent loyalty to an employer without reciprocation?  It works two ways.  If loyalty is not reciprocated the relationship between employer and employee will be mutually antagonistic.  Either way, the workforce should be protected against vindictive employers with the enactment of suitable legislation.  Multinational companies, or even the Government itself should not be immune from retribution.

Needless to say, if any trade union could not deliver protection for its members has no right to call itself a union.  Moreover, trade unions should be supported by their memberships simply because no other form of protectorship is available  The longer a bad trade union is supported, the longer it will take to improve the custodianship of workers' rights.  no union is better than a bad union because it is easier to create a principled union from scratch than reform an intrinsically bad one.

If trade unions do not found a proper constitution and introduce some sort of guiding maxim, people will continue to waste years of their lives in blind hope that a change of government will alter things for the better.  When that day arrives, and minor pieces of furniture are switched around in Downing Street, they will settle for something less than an ideal society when they ought to settle for nothing less than the society they want to see formulated.

Irrespective of the party in power, when money is required for social necessities, such as wage rises, education and the health service, as sure as night follows day it will always hide behind the trashy overused expression: "Where is all the money supposed to come from?"  So we must continually remind the Government of the day that Britain is one of the very richest countries in the world.  Do not let us ever again accept their lies that there is not enough money in the coffers.  Just look at the four months almost total close down in Britain during the Coronavirus pandemic.  If they could withstand the financial burden of that crisis, they can withstand any mini-financial crisis that presents itself.

The priority of the British Government is to keep wages well below that of comparable First World countries, and its art is making the workforce accept it.  Which is one of the reasons that some long-cherished illusions of mine about the great trade union ascendancy in our country underwent a painful reappraisal at the earlier part of the 1980s.  We should never again allow the strength of Britain's workforce to be compromised by weak people in secret societies who blindly accept beyond question what others tell them, instead of freeing themselves from what is quintessentially external control.

It seems as though not enough people in the Masons have a highly developed enough sense of social independence.  For far too long they have respected power and position more than usefulness and humanity.  We must all get into our consciences that this is our country and that the conditions in it are our responsibility, and that the government officials are our servants and not our masters, and that the sooner they are told this in unmistakable terms, the better it will be for us and the better it will be for them.  Either you are the state and you can change what you do not like, or else the state is your enemy.

Anyone who thought he was making a solemn obligation to God when he joined the Masons as an Entered Apprentice was brainwashed and should unfetter himself from what was a blind obligation from the very start. LINK  An Entering Apprentice is told "he has to respond quickly to the instructions of the officers without question and in a spirit of humbleness.  It's not for him to question what he finds."   It is maintained that, as yet, he can't possibly know enough to criticise or find fault.

The mind boggles at the implications of this.  Nothing it seems is open for debate.  You simply must do what you are told.   If you reach the Sanctum Sanctorum, or Middle Chamber, of the second degree, you can't possibly know enough to criticise or find fault in a Master Mason who has reached the dizzy heights of the third degree, the pinnacle, or so he thinks.  It is a tad demoralising if he discovers that, just when he thinks he knows most of what there is to know, there is a small minority in a higher thirty degrees, the Scottish Rite, who maintain that you can't possibly know enough to criticise or find fault in them.   This crafty use of vaporous, delusory nonknowledge permeates throughout Masonry and is the biggest con unknown to most mankind.

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

Maggie and Denis Thatcher
Mouse over image
google
WWW Freemasonry
https://dunblane.site/freemasonry/tradeunion.htm