NEW MILLENIUM MASONIC ETIQUETTE

FROM GENTLEMAN TO HIPSTER

How should the Freemason of these times be compared to those who formed the first Lodges, those who held the title of “gentleman”? This was a title that meant a noble character that we will talk about later because it defines the initial type of member of a Lodge.
It seems to us essential to correctly understand the nature of the change in the operative Masonic Lodge functional at the beginning of the eighteenth century.
When the rules of the first Constitutions, such as Roberts, 1722, or the most well-known, Anderson, in 1723, were formulated, we are talking about a certain era of evolution of humanity, with everything that derives from it. If this fact begins to be clear to us, then we can understand why there is a need for a Masonic Etiquette code and why the rules of the various Grand Lodges of the world are not enough.
Thus, the meaning of the word “gentleman” in those times is that of a man with a good social situation, especially of wealth and pleasure, of noble origin. Over time, the focus has shifted from the noble origin to a good family, especially one entitled to have a crest.
This is the moment when declining operative Lodges are starting to receive new members, due to the lack of some new grandiose things to be done, such as new cathedrals. These new members are “accepted”, and hence the name of the Rite. They are not really masons according to the rules that were in force until then.

Nazis hated Theosophy, and that’s it!

For somebody who knows what Theosophy really means, the simple idea of connecting HP Blavatsky’s works with  Nazism could look like a bad joke.

First of all, a minimal common sense should tell us that HP Blavatsky had no way to even hear about Nazis’ ideas since she lived in the 19th century. Or, Nazism is a creation of the 20th century.

However, even if you insist on going ahead with these accusations, because HP Blavatsky uses this word, ‘Race’, well, you should also know that they were different concepts.

Of course, one might say that Rudolf Steiner was different. Yes, he was, and we’ll talk about this later on, but he was also just a falling star of T.S., if we may say so, transforming the German T.S. into the Anthroposophical Society. And this one is indeed connected to Nazism.   

Theosophy and T.S. fight relentlessly for a true brotherhood, for a world where to gather together people of every religion.

Nazism, in contrast with Theosophy, fought fiercely for the physical extermination of any people who did not correspond to a particular religion, if we can call it like this: the Arian religion, Nazism.

The Nazis hated Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and Communists, to give just a few examples. And they did not only hate them, but went on to the end and applied what they called the final solution: extermination!

On the other hand, everybody knows the swastika symbol present on the insignia of the Third Reich. Furthermore, Hitler definitely hated Theosophy and the theosophists. In countries conquered by the German army in its enslavement march through Europe, the new German military headquarters closed T.S. national sections, sometime immediately after the occupation.

In the Netherlands, for example, the national Section of T.S. was immediately closed after the invasion in 1940. The general secretaries had succeeded in burning the documents that the Gestapo were then seeking in vain, thus saving members from Nazi reprisals.

In France, the T.S. Section headquarters were closed a few days after the Paris invasion. Then, a few months later, the Vichy government, controlled by the Nazis, prohibited T.S.

The T.S. Italian Section was dissolved by the Fascist government in 1939, a government officially supported by the mighty Vatican!

In Hitler’s Germany, the theosophical movement was dissolved in 1939. This has to be the best proof of the Great Führer[i]’s hostile attitude against Theosophy.

---

[i] Word with multiple meanings in German, one of them being leader, but also guide. �B

‘To which family should one connect the inhabitants of ancient Dacia with those of the Vlach tribes of European Turkey?

Do they belong to the ancient nationality of the Pelasgians?

Do they descend from Roman settlers? An agglomeration of people pulled in from the four corners of Europe, would it have a nationality?’[1]

---

[1] A quelle famille faut-il rattacher les habitants de l’ancienne Dacie et ceux des tribus valaques de la Turquie d’Europe? Appartiennent-ils à l’antique nationalité des Pélasges ? Descendent-ils des colons Romains ? Une agglomération d’hommes tirés des quatre coins de l’Europe, aurait-elle une nationalité?
Colson F., Nationalité et régénération des paysans moldo-valaques, E. Dentu, Paris, 1862, p.13