The dust settles on a new century and the world nurses its collective, post-Y2K hangover. But amid all the rhetoric of ‘new beginnings’ and ‘spiritual significance’, it will come as no surprise to many, that the ancient human traditions of suspicion, misinformation, prejudice and bigotry will be as every bit alive in this millennium as they were in the last.
    For this reason, members of the Craft and its supporters must brace themselves against the ongoing hostility they are likely to meet in the year 2000 and beyond.
    The policy of openness, through no fault of its own, has not been particularly effective in stemming the negative public perception of Freemasonry.
    Altering the received notion of masonry from ‘secret society’ to ‘respectable fraternity’ will come only through education coupled with thick-skinned perseverance. The principal obstacle to this is what could be termed a ‘persistence myth’.
    That is, a concept, though untrue, that still maintains common currency within popular cultures – even in the face of cold fact. In our modern society, although we deride superstitions and old wives’ tales, every era is nevertheless cluttered with worthless anecdotes and information that refuses to be quiet.
    Given the notion of a ‘society with secrets’ and an ambiguous, hotly debated history, it is perhaps unsurprising that Freemasonry has fallen foul of the persistence myth makers.
    Currently, the public perception of Freemasonry tends to appear in two main guises. On one side we have trivialisation, in which all Masonic history, tradition, symbolism and significance is cast aside as ‘mumbo jumbo’.
    On the other is the belief in Masonic conspiracies, particularly those that involve destroying the church and state for a new world order. So from where and when did the modern antipathy towards Freemasonry derive?
    A significant, if not definitive event in the history of anti-Masonic sentiment occurred on 28 April 1738, when Pope Clement IX issued the Papal Bull, In Eminenti. In it, the Church condemned masonry because men of various religions and sects assembled and swore upon the Volume of Sacred Law. The Papacy also took exception to oaths of secrecy. Those entering lodges were threatened with excommunication and Church authorities were encouraged to seek out and punish transgressors.
    Thus, the suspicion surrounding Freemasons moved from the realm of theology and into the public arena. Further Bulls, Allocutions and Encyclicals were issued, many of which reiterate the contents of In Eminenti with some embellishments. The ultimate findings of the Church could be summarised as follows: masonry is anti-Christian, anti-religious, revolutionary in politics, and a conspiracy to establish the “reign of naturalism on the ruins of the Church.”1
    In Eminenti was published during a time of expansion in European Freemasonry and it is very likely that the Church believed that this was a direct threat to its authority and status.
    It was a predictable response on the part of the Inquisition, as the same accusations were levelled upon the Knights Templar and the Cathars before them.
    Sensationalised accounts of heresy and obscenities were well in place by the 1400s and thus, associating the 18th century masons with medieval Templars and demonic practises was part of a long-standing tradition. Details not extracted under torture were fabricated and published to steer the faithful away from the lodges.
    In 1797, Abbé Augustin Barruel’s work Les Memoires Pour Servir A L’Histoire De Jacobinisme was simultaneously published in French and English.
    Les Memoires is now regarded as a definitive case against masonry from a Catholic viewpoint just as Professor John Robison’s Proofs Of A Conspiracy represents the Protestant perspective.
    Barruel’s book was well received and ran into at least nine editions. The book was so popular in fact, that in 1799, the British government passed an act banning all secret societies, with Freemasonry being the solitary exception.
    Even today, those seeking to discredit the Masonic institution cite Barruel’s tract. However, the effects of the word/culture virus are particularly evident regarding this text.
    Barruel’s main subject was Jacobinism and German Illuminism and not Masonry. The reader must wade through some 27 chapters before Freemasonry is discussed in only six chapters.
    From there, Barruel devotes two entire volumes to the Illuminati. However, what he does say regarding the Craft is still negative. He complains that nearly everyone he met in Paris were members, but became one himself after a highly irregular initiation at a dinner party.
    Barruel was made a Fellow Craft, but refused to accept any oath or obligation, yet attended several lodge meetings. He discovered the ‘secret’ that all men are equal, free and are brethren.
    It could hardly be said that his experience reflects the genuine Craft at all. He was an infiltrator with a hostile agenda and, according to A.E Waite, “that which he discovered in the Order was that which he read into it.”2
    In the wake of the French Revolution, it is perhaps understandable that there would be public concern over the possibilities of clandestine groups and their perceived political ambitions (imagined or otherwise). Barruel certainly benefited from this sense of paranoia.
    But it is strange that over 200 years later, Les Memoires is still offered as evidence of a great Masonic conspiracy. Stranger still is the largely unmentioned point that Barruel’s invective was confined to Grand Orient masonry and not that of U.G.L.E.
    He was actually supportive of English masons and warned that they should not become like their continental counterparts. He says: “England above all is full of those upright men, excellent citizens, men of every kind and in every condition of life, who count it an honor to be masons, and who are distinguished from other men only by ties which seem to strengthen those of benevolence and fraternal charity.”3
    But like the psychoanalytic theories of Sigmund Freud, the transactions of myth within popular culture make the original texts irrelevant. All that is necessary is for enough people to have ‘heard something about it somewhere’ and thus information is diluted and spread widely, with all subtleties removed.
    Most people may know certain Freudian terms such as Oedipus complex, transference, penis envy etc., yet very few have studied these ideas or their history. Identically, the contents of Barruel’s albeit prejudiced book, becomes reduced to a message that simply reads ‘the masons are bad’.
    By the 18th century, the distorted notion of Freemasonry had become public property. Aside from the famous works such as Barruel’s, the market for exposés was also filled by books largely forgotten by history.
    Anonymous publications like Mahabone Or The Grand Lodge Door Open’d (c.1777) and Shibboleth Or Every Man A Free-Mason (1765) fed the fascination for secret handshakes and ways of recognising masons in public. It could be said that, at this time, a new industry was born, one that continues to this day: the conspiracy industry.
    The 20th century was similarly obsessed with the innermost workings of the Craft. By now, it would seem that much of the speculation, poor research and outright fabrication had been substituted for fact.
    In the 1920s, a woman named Nesta H Webster had quickly become a celebrity in Britain due to the popularity of her books, which were in essence Barruel and Robison’s words with an added twist: communism. Like Barruel, Webster advocated in favour of English masons, but had become a self-appointed expert on continental masonry and its alleged connections to Bolshevism (which she believed was interchangeable with an international Jewish conspiracy.)
    Webster took great pains to explain why she was not anti-semitic, then proceeded to write chapters entitled “The Real Jewish Peril” and join Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in the 1930s.
    Again, like her predecessor Barruel, the books were given serious consideration by Parliament, with Webster being invited to lecture on subversive movements to British intelligence agencies.
    A curious footnote to this story was that Webster’s hatred of secret societies stemmed from her belief that she was the reincarnation of an executed French aristocrat, and it was therefore her cosmic duty to root out revolutionaries and bring them to justice.
    Perhaps in keeping with modern ecological thinking, even (mis)information is recycled for consumption by new generations. Authors like Stephen Knight (The Brotherhood) and Martin Short (Inside The Brotherhood) and numerous others have continued to perpetuate the same prejudice and stereotypes that could owe their origin to events of the 1700s.
    The great ‘revelations’ on offer today rarely differ from those peddled 200 years ago. The end result of this centuries-old campaign, is a widespread ignorance of, and animosity towards Freemasonry.
    Whether it is politicians, religious figures or commentators, all three manipulate the suspicions of the general public for their own ends. In effect, Freemasonry has been typecast as the ultimate in multi-purpose, invisible enemies.
    Of the numerous accusations made against the Craft, there are two in particular that never fail to resonate in a climate of mistrust. The first is the issue of secrecy, the second being conspiracy. A substantial number of people object to masonry for no other reason than not being party to its ‘secrets’.
    The Papal Bull of Pope Benedict XIV reflects a common view that “things honourable delight in publicity, but crimes are secret.”4 This idea, however, operates only from a deeply naive premise that all secrecy is harmful.
    That being the case, there would be no national security, doctor/patient or lawyer/client confidentiality. We would have no right of private ballot or even something as simple as an ex-directory telephone number.
    If one ruthlessly pursues the logic of “if you have nothing to hide, then everyone must know”, then they are advocating totalitarianism.
    The obligations of Freemasonry quite clearly uphold the civil, moral and familial commitments of its members.
    Secrecy need not always be synonymous with plots and subversion when it can, in fact, be essential in building a bond of trust between people. If I tell someone something in confidence, then their ability to keep that secret or not, is an indication of their trustworthiness and reliability. As for the Masonic ‘secrets’ themselves, they are no longer as confidential as we are led to believe and have not been for some time.

Secrets taken seriously

If a person was so inclined to learn the various signs, grips and tokens without becoming a mason, they need only to apply themselves to a little research. The fact that Freemasons take the secrets seriously themselves further illustrates the importance of keeping a promise as opposed to hiding anything untoward.
    It is still widely believed today that the Masonic Lodge is a veil from behind which political, religious and even occult plans are formulated and controlled. While it may make entertaining reading, it is a belief propagated by those with no experience of, or contact with bona fide masonry.
    The truth is far more mundane than most people are willing to accept. Much has been said concerning the gathering of masons to hatch ‘dastardly deeds’ and yet simple logistics are never addressed.

Monthly meetings

If we examine the average Craft lodge, then the members meet once a month. Allowing for seasonal holidays, it means they gather not even 12 times a year. If one wished to control the world, than this can hardly be effective.
    Secondly, is that 100% attendance each month is most unlikely, nor do all members see each other outside the meetings. Then there is the problem with the ‘plots’ themselves. Unless everyone in the Lodge was corrupt, then there is the added burden of keeping dishonourable business secret from others.
    ‘Bad’ Freemasons are unavoidable, but they form an extremely small minority and as such, any criminal, immoral or other anti-social behaviour makes them aberrations to Masonic principles. In other words, they are the infrequent exception to the rule.
    More obviously though, corruption of any kind does not need Masonry to exist. To effectively plan, control and maintain for instance, “a reign of naturalism on the ruins of the Church”, it would require something far more private, organised and complex.
    We do not fear all doctors because we hear of malpractice in the news, but the merest hint of Masonic abuse will trigger the same emotional knee-jerk reflex that has hindered all honest, upright masons for nearly three centuries.

Historic treadmill

In assessing the current climate, we can see that the anti-Masonic attitudes of the present are not only very similar to those of the 18th century, but could possibly be a direct consequence of that period. Public opinion appears to be running on a historical treadmill.
    Unfortunately, too many people are content to accept persistence myths and so called, ‘folk wisdom’ as fact. Worse still are those that resist solid evidence and cogent explanations.
    Because coherent knowledge of Freemasonry has yet to be widely disseminated, its place in society is that of an ideological framework onto which anyone can superimpose their own agenda. The recurrence of this hostility appears related to periods of social and political change.

Hostile atmosphere

The French Revolution, Soviet socialism, fascism and even a simple change in our domestic government, have all promoted a reaction against the Craft.5 This hostile atmosphere invariably produces public interest that becomes demand for ‘product’.
    When one has the best-selling product, they are only moments away from celebrity. Barruel, Webster and others all arrived as ‘experts’ merely because they tapped into (or perhaps even caused) widespread fears.
    It is this type of insubstantial and inflammatory material that drives legislation. Governments have been quick to capitalise on short-term, populist obsessions, providing they enhance profile and cost little. Exploiting the common ignorance surrounding Freemasonry provides a misdirection away from more pressing concerns.
    This age of mass communication is undoubtedly the perfect environment for the word virus to thrive. We are suffocated by political correctness, spin doctors, buzzwords, soundbites and tabloidism; all of which appeal to our weakness for convenience and over-simplification.
    The Internet is, perhaps, the most symptomatic of all, with low-grade information shifted faster, further and in greater quantities than ever before.
    In modern parlance, the malaise of Freemasonry is an ‘image problem’, an organisation with problematic ‘brand identity’. Freemasonry as an institution is not only fraternal but intellectual, spiritual and benevolent.
    These are qualities missed entirely by a culture that could invent the term ‘friendly fire’ to describe the accidental slaughter of one’s own troops. Breaking down the prejudice will require weaning the public from its dependence upon Freemasonry as the universal, invisible ‘bad guys’. This can only be achieved if all members and friends of the Craft, actively participate in the spreading of the persistence truth.

1. A E Waite A New Encyclopaedia Of Freemasonry Vol II pp 264-66
2. A E Waite Vol I p 65
3. NestaWebster Secret Societies & Subversive Movements ix
4. A E Waite Vol II p265
5. Contrary to claims that New Labour has abandoned its roots and become more conservative, at the 1923 party conference it was proposed that “any person who is a Freemason should be excluded from any kind of office.”