The Relationship between Judaism and Freemasonry

Miguel Serrano collected works https://archive.org/details/miguel-serrano_202312

Julius Evola

The problem of the relationship between Judaism and Freemasonry is certainly of the greatest importance to all those who have mustered on the battlefield against what has been called accurately enough the ‘dictatorship of hidden powers’ in our times. This problem, we may add, is not new : in Germany especially, it has often aroused the interest of militant anti-Semitism. However, as is generally the case with the latter, hasty conclusions were always reached, which were certainly able to build a ‘myth’ (whose efficiency and practical justification there is no cause for questioning here), but not to lead to objective views on these matters.

For that matter, besides, it must be acknowledged that research of this kind is not easy, not only because they concern organisations more or less surrounded with secrecy and mystery, but also, and especially, because in this respect, what comes into play is not so much these organisations in themselves, as political semi-secret societies, as the even more subterranean influences upon which they directly or indirectly depend, whether they know it or not. This is why we are not to be blamed, in developing a few brief considerations on this subject, for sticking to an inductive plane and seeking to reach something positive in the order of ideas rather than in that of the actual facts.

The problem of the relations between Masonry and Judaism shows three main aspects : the first, doctrinal; the second, ethical; and the third, political.

To start with the first, it is widely believed that a Jewish influence was at work in Masonry, right from its origins, since a great part of Masonic ritual and symbolism contains elements coming from Jewish tradition, whether biblical or kabbalistic. The symbolism of the Temple of Solomon is central in Masonry, so much so that, in some Nordic lodges, the Great Master bears the title of Vicarius Salomonis. The six-pointed star, also called ‘Seal of Solomon’, is found among the main Masonic emblems. The legend of Hiram, to which we shall return, is of Jewish origin, just as, undeniably, are many of the ‘pass-words’ of the various Masonic degrees, such as, for example, Tubalcain, Shibboleth, Giblim, Jachin, and Boaz.

As for the character to whom a decisive role is attributed in the organisation of the inner aspect of Anglo-Saxon Masonry – namely Elias Ashmole – he was a Jew.

If all this is undeniable, and if many other elements of the same kind can be added, what follows is also to be noted. First, besides these elements, there are many others present in Masonic symbolism which refer to non-Jewish traditions – Pythagorean, Hermetic, and Rosicrucian – as well as secret elements of medieval guilds, especially that of the ‘builders’. In the second place, Jewish elements themselves refer to the plane of a sort of esotericism, which, as kabbalah, was always regarded with suspicion by Talmudic orthodoxy, which lies at the centre of actual Judaism.

Finally, it must be pointed out that, if the fact of having borrowed elements from the Jewish tradition was enough for an accusation, then the accusation against Masonry could easily be extended to Christianity itself; and such is in fact the path followed, quite consistently, by radical racist anti-Semitism, in connection with which it was rightly said that anti-Semitism follows the trajectory of a boomerang: levelled originally against Jews by the Church, anti-Semitism threatens to turn against the latter because of what Semitic elements it retains. But the most decisive argument in this connection is that, whenever we talk about genuine esotericism and symbolism, we are on a virtually metaphysical plane, on which, in their fundamental principles, all traditions converge and the contingent and human aspect of each of them is not very important. The Judaism which is rightly fought by national revolutions has nothing to do with this plane : its ‘occult’ aspect is of a very different nature. It is true that we can legitimately wonder why Masonry has favoured specifically Jewish symbols, and, then, it can also be wondered whether the use, even unconscious and purely formal, of certain rituals and certain formulae linked to a given tradition, does not amount to establishing, invisibly, relations with determinate ‘influences’ inseparable from the people to whom this tradition is particular. If this latter problem is more important than many people assume, it is nevertheless clear that its study would involve considerations of a ‘technical’ character which cannot find room here and would require notions which are certainly foreign to the majority of our audience. Besides, any possible conclusions in this connection would have to find, as proofs, their counterpart in the order of facts ; something which comes down, basically, to defining directly the relations between Judaism and Masonry on other more conditioned and more exterior planes.

Thus, as far as the first point is concerned, Freemasonry is hardly incriminated simply because it has a Jewish component. Besides, we have shown in our previous article that all which is ‘esotericism’ in Masonry, when it is not reduced to a dead ‘ceremonial’ superstructure, has undergone an inversion which has completely destroyed or perverted its original spirit. In modern Masonry, what matters is, above all, its politico-social ideology and the pathos related to it. Thus, we come to the second aspect of the problem, which is to see what there may be in common, in this respect, between Masonry and Judaism.

We have already mentioned the legend of Hiram. Hiram is a character who appears in the Bible (as Adoniram), but features more prominently in the Talmud. In Masonry, he is conceived of as the builder of the Temple of Solomon, treacherously assassinated by his three companions, who wanted to drag the secret of the art of the builders out of him and hide away his corpse. Any Mason admitted at the ceremony of the third grade is seen as Hiram found again, which is to say reborn, who through this rebirth, rises to the dignity of Master of the sect. According to some (Ragon, Reghini), there is here a correspondence with the symbolism of classical, Eleusian, Dionysian, initiations.

This is a tendentious comparison, which, in any case, can be valid only to the extent that those ancient initiations were subject to Asian, Jewish or Levantine influence. The pathos of the predestined victim and of the wait for his rightful rebirth are specifically Semitic elements : they have pervaded the ‘chosen people’ pandemically from its fall on. This figure of Hiram, central in Masonry, cannot but make us think of the mysterious character who, in the so-called Kahal, and in a certain Zionist international Judaism, is called ‘the Prince of Slavery’, and conceived of as the supreme Master in the period which still separates Israel from its new ‘kingdom’. But, even more generally, it can be recognised that legends like that of Hiram offer great scope for the development of humanitarian and at the same time rebellious views ; and, in this domain, the meeting between Judaism and Masonry is undeniable and almost becomes identitical. This is the basis according to which Masonry has often appeared to Jews as a complement of the Jewish Law, if not, in fact as the active instrument of their messianic hope – naturally, duly secularised, democratised and materialised.

The Mason Otto Hieber wrote verbatim in his ‘Leitfaden durch die Ordenslehre der grossen Landloge von Deutschland’ : “The Master taught us to love each man as a brother, and the Jew is, as we are, a son of God. The more our credo of the assertion of human rights advances, the more the Jewish problem will be ameliorated, whereas, with the oppression of the Jew, our higher principle will be infringed.” The exact counterpart is found in Jewish statements, as, for instance, this one : “Israel only wants social justice. The court, the army, the hereditary aristocracy are unbearable to it. The idea of fatherland is for it the idea of justice, and the idea of justice is social equality.” Israel tirelessly carries out “its historical mission of redeemer of the freedom of peoples, of collective Messiah of human rights” in favour of the “egalitarian and levelling (sic) regime of the republics – obviously of true republics, not of bourgeois republics.” (Elias Eberlin, ‘Les Juifs d’aujourd’hui’, p. 136, p. 143, p. 153) And if we know that all this applies most exactly to Masonic ideology and action, words like these should not come as a surprise : “The spirit of Masonry is the spirit of Israel in its most fundamental conceptions : it is its very ideas, its very language and practically its organisation (‘Vérité Israélite’, cf. de Poncins, p. 243).

Readers of the previous article in this series have already gotten to know documents which prove irrefutably the convergence between the League of Nations idea and Masonic action. Among the numerous related Jewish testimonies, here is one of the most significant : “The League of Nations is not so much a creature of Wilson as it is a great work of Judaism, of which we can be proud. The League of Nations idea is related to that of the great prophets of Israel. Isaiah once said that swords will have to give way to ploughshares and that never again will one people have to fight another. It is to this ancient order of Jewish ideas that the League of Nations brings us back. Its origin lies in the world-outlook of the prophets, pervading the whole world with love. Thus, the idea of the League of Nations, the fraternity of peoples, is of pure Jewish heritage.” (cf. Fritsch, p. 202) If the Masonic International Congress of Paris in 1907, with which the aforementioned article dealt (1), listed among the real objectives of world war, besides the constitution of the League of Nations, the necessary destruction of those imperial and monarchic forms still existing in Central Europe, the Jews saw in the collapse of those “unbearable” forms (as the Jew Ludwig called them) an obstacle-clearing essential to the fulfilment of their policy (cf., for instance, the paper Der Jude, the January 1919 issue).

It is thus hardly surprising that Jewish elements have flowed to the ranks of Masonry and have done everything they could to turn it into one of their most powerful instruments of work. The extremist hypothesis, according to which Jews created Masonry in all its parts with the occult domination of the world in mind, cannot, in our opinion, be taken seriously. However, it must be conceded that, in the Jewish international on one hand, and in the modern political form of Masonry on the other hand, extremely closely related influences manifest themselves and, on this basis, as Masonry became more and more directly aligned to subversive and anti-hierarchical humanitarianism, Judaism was to enjoy in the sect a part which was perhaps more important than profane or even high-ranking Masons could suspect. Already in 1848, Baron von Knigge, member of a German Masonic lodge which, until relatively recent times, like some English lodges, had a conservative character, decided to denounce the danger of Jewish infiltration into Masonry, warning that “the Jews saw in Masonry a means to strengthen their movement towards a secret kingdom.” (2) In 1928, in an enthusiastic speech on Masonry, rabbi M.J. Merrit said : “No place can be more fit for the Masonic cult than this one: since Masonry is inseparable from the history of the people to which this temple (a Jewish temple) belongs: Masonry is born, really, of Israel.” This statement from another Jewish source, quoted by Vulliaud, is just as significant : “The hope which supports and strengthens Masonry is that which enlightens and confirms Israel on its painful way, by showing the inevitability of its future triumph. What is the advent of messianic times if not the solemn notice and the definitive declaration of the eternal principles of fraternity and love, the association of all hearts and all efforts, the crowning of this wonderful house of prayer of all peoples whose centre and triumphant symbol Israel will be?” As always, this Jewish declaration of love is quickly echoed by Masons. Apparently on the basis that the Jewish church does not have dogmas, but symbols, just as does Masonry, the Masonic newspaper ‘Acacia’ (3) once stated, for instance : “This is why the Israelite church is our natural ally, this is why it supports us, this is why a great many Jews are active in our ranks.”

Here we reach the more decisive point for our problem, the interpretation of which will nevertheless vary according to one’s ideas regarding the real influence of Judaism and its goals, if indeed one can speak at all of goals in the sense of a unitary international plan. To establish statistically what percentage of Jews there are in the ranks of Masonry, in this respect, is not important, because it is well-known that Jewish tactics, like those of any concealed power, are not to assert their presence by force of numbers, but rather through an opportunistic infiltration which allows them to gain control imperceptibly, from above and from behind the scenes, of all the vital organs of a given organisation: and a study along these lines, by the nature of things, is doomed to get bogged down in the imponderable. The convergence of Masonry and Judaism exhausts itself more or less on the plane of ‘elective affinities’, since the Jew spontaneously supports any liberal, democratic and internationalist idea, simply because owing to its condition no people has more to gain than his from the triumph of ideologies of that kind, and from the elimination of any hierarchical, authoritarian, national and traditional order. Besides, the age-old resentment of the Jew against Catholicism goes perfectly with the Masonic hatred against Rome and with the symbol of a temple which bears a Jewish name which, in the final analysis, has the signification of a rallying point for the forces of an international front hostile to supranational Catholic authority.

However, things appear differently if one considers that the destructive influence exercised, either calculatedly or instinctively, in so many domains by many Jewish elements does not exhaust the true and secret goals, but, precisely according to the myth of the famous ‘Protocols’, is only preliminary to further enterprises perfectly known by the leaders of international Jewry – if those leaders exist – that is, immanent, so to speak, in the ‘spirit’ of Israel. In fact, it is unnecessary to refer to the most controversial ‘Protocols’ : many positive declarations can arouse similar suspicions, and, for example, it may be enough to recall the words which Baruch Levi wrote to Karl Marx, which are not well-known and are worth quoting : “The Jewish people, as a whole, will be its own Messiah. Its domination on the world will be achieved by the union of the other human races, through the elimination of frontiers and of monarchies, which are the ramparts of particularism, and through the formation of a worldwide republic, in which the Jews will enjoy their rights everywhere. In this new organisation of humanity, the sons of Israel, who are now scattered throughout the world, will be able, without obstacles, to become everywhere the leading element, especially if they manage to place the working masses under the control of certain of their own number. The governments of the peoples constituting the worldwide republic, with the help of the proletariat, without this requiring any effort, will all fall into the hands of the Jews. Private property can then be subject to rulers of Jewish origin, who will control the state goods everywhere. Thus, the promise of the Talmud will be fulfilled, according to which Jews, when the time comes, will possess the keys of the wealth of all the peoples of the world.” (cf. Revue de Paris, 35, 11, p. 574)

That the true Jew is as anti-traditional, with respect to the other peoples of the milieu in which he is, as he is tenaciously attached to what is peculiar to his people and to his tradition, is as singular a paradox as it is instructive. The question therefore is whether the humanitarian and democratic sermons of Judaism are only forms of well-thought-out hypocrisy, in the sense that the freedom dreamt of by the Jew within the levelled and fraternalistic world of the Masonic-liberal ideals, and such milieux, would not correspond to the intention of the Jews to melt and vanish into this sub-national pulp, but that this freedom would be instead the necessary condition for an unchecked action, aiming at the affirmation of Israel and at the reversal, in favour of this people, of the relations of subordination which it detested so much in the anti-liberal, traditional world. The fact is that everywhere the Jews were given a free hand, they managed to rapidly attain important positions of command in public life while never ceasing to keep in touch with each other with the tenacious, mutualistic solidarity of a sect. Is it possible – as a mathematician would put it – to “extrapolate” the significance of that fact, and to interpret on this basis the general action of liberal-democratic Judaism ? It is certainly a serious question. It amounts to asking whether, behind Judaism as an anti-tradition, more or less linked to any given subversive movement of our epoch, there is a Judaism as tradition, the two being in the same relation with each other as an army is to its clear-minded headquarters. If it was so, we could share the conviction expressed by an expert on Freemasonry, Schwartz-Bostunitsch, in saying : “The secret of Masonry is the Jew.” Here, once again, we do not want to fall into mythology, but only to refer to possible invisible connections which, in the dynamism of the deepest forces of history, may be decisive to the ultimate signification of determinate collective currents, especially when these are not devoid of ritual evocations and reproduce a facsimile of hierarchy, without the energies organised this way having a solid point of reference in visible leaders.

From the practical point of view, it is obvious, whatever the case may be, that one hypothesis leads to the same consequences as the other. Politically and socially, Masonry and Judaism combine into one and the same campaign, against which it is good to fight, whether by doing so one fights simply a humanitarian, levelling utopianism, having its principle and its end in itself, or whether, on the other hand, one may by doing so paralyse one of the main instruments in the service of the occult will-to-power of a race which is not ours, and whose triumph, visible or invisible, could only mean the decline of the highest heritage of the best Indo-European civilisation.

Julius EVOLA