Edith Miller excerpt

"If the wielding of power and their national political
economic and financial strength over the peoples by a
few hidden hands can result in such calamitous upheavals
as the French Revolution, the World War of 1914
and the Russian Revolution of 1917, were it not wise
to apply the lesson of experience to ascertain whether
the supposed harmless Masonry of today does not
again serve as a screen or curtain behind which thrive
secret societies no less subversive, revolutionary and
demoralising than those which we have just so briefly
sketched ?
We know that most of them such as the Martinists,
the Illuminatis, the Scottish Rite and the Egyptian
Lodges of Memphis and Mizraim still exist today, so, on
what grounds can we base our assumption of a change
of their revolutionary and anti-christian principles? In
the face of late events, namely, the Peace Conference,
the creation of the League of Nations, the amalgamation
of international resources, the confiscatory inheritance
taxes, the development of international finance,
the proposed establishment of an international nonchristian
cult, have we the right to refrain from lifting
the veil of Masonry behind which subversive movements
are so conveniently hidden?"

From Occult Theocracy. Thoughts?

Dear Bro. Reuss ;
I have to acknowledge receipt of Illuminati papers and
safely received and they shall be translated and considered
and I will report upon what I can do — Best thanks.
As to the Swed. Riie the Lodge Holy Grail No. 15 is all
right and Bro. Yarker is entirely within his right to give
you, a known Master Mason of England, a Warrant for a
Lodge, but he hesitates to issue written authority for 6 Lodges
which your Latomia 5 says are not regular. I had got
his permission to make a Prov. Gd. Lodge of Germania for
you but now he hesitates, because he does not want to
have half the German Masonic World condemning him —

That letter is from the same book, from 1902

The very first word in the title of this post should give the reader reason to take it with a grain of salt.

One of the unchangeable landmarks of Freemasonry is that a woman cannot be a Freemason.

As a Christian I would challenge the notion that Freemasonry is anti-Christian. While it is true that "Freemasonry is not a religion, but is of a religious nature" it certainly is not incompatible with ANY monotheistic faith except probably Satanism.

I didn't even attend church before I became a mason. Now a few years later, not only do I attend church regularly, I will be delivering a sermon on this upcoming Sunday!

Don't take these remarks as conceit. I certainly am NOT saying I am better than anyone else or that my beliefs are more correct than anyone else.

What I AM saying is that you can take the word of someone who hasn't been a Freemason or you can take the word of a Freemason.

reply to post by protocolsoflove

Just so the rest of the readers know, Freemasonry is not anti-christian, the fanatical Christian movement is anti-masonry. There is a very big difference there. Regular Christians who follow Christ's teachings, follow the word of God, as do masons of any faith, though they may address him by a different name. It's the different name thing that get's the Fanatical Christians (sorry use a label as I don't like doing that, but have no other way to differentiate the two) in an uproar.

As in anything in life, anything take to the extreme will result in a negative. Everything in moderation.

reply to post by protocolsoflove

My thoughts? Who cares what Edith Miller wrote? From the looks of it she knows nothing of Freemasonry. Her word means nothing.

reply to post by KSigMason


Yea, Ted Roberston said she was an old windbag and full or crap.

I've read this book.
Unfortunately.

I actually did laugh out loud whilst reading it.

Originally posted by CodyOutlaw
I've read this book.
Unfortunately.

I actually did laugh out loud whilst reading it.

Me too. Her utter hatred of the Jews is apparent from page one. It's no wonder that she was such a strong influence on Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

She was an early member of the British Fascist Party, and the book is basically pro-Fascist propaganda.

reply to post by Masonic Light


I found that her hatred for Brahmins exceeded even her obvious blanket hatred for almost everything.

Originally posted by CodyOutlaw

I found that her hatred for Brahmins exceeded even her obvious blanket hatred for almost everything.

There's no doubt she hated herself some Hindus...along with Buddhists, Sikhs, Mexicans, and pretty much everybody else.

What astonishes me is not her kooky book, but the fact that someone would actually quote it as authoritative of something. Might as well quote Mein Kampf.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

What astonishes me is not her kooky book, but the fact that someone would actually quote it as authoritative of something.

Yes! It is definitely a idea