The World's Most Dangerous Secret Societies: The Illuminati, Freemasons, Bilderberg Group, Knights Templar, The Jesuits, Skull And Bones And Others

by James Jackson

  Italy wasn’t the sole totalitarian regime to outlaw Freemasonry; secret societies of all sorts had been banned with the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1933. Yet the influence of Freemasonry in the German political spectrum had been felt for decades prior, most notably during the reign of Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck, a 33rd-degree Mason, helped annex and unify the outlying states of the German confederation, paving the way for the second Reich Wilhelm I of Prussia (himself allegedly a 33rd-degree Mason) during a series of bloody wars (including the Franco-Prussian War), eventually becoming the first elected Chancellor of Germany. Ironically, it was Wilhelm I’s grandson, Wilhelm II’s reign that helped usher in WWI—itself, frequently implicated as being evidence of an Illuminati plot. It is known now that von Bismarck was granted the establishment of a Supreme German Council of Freemasonry by none other than Albert Pike; a fact that, in light of Pike’s prophecies to Giuseppe Mazzini, makes the previous sentence all the more damning.

  Even the Ordo Templi Orientis, discussed in Chapter Two, was established in 1895 in Germany as a “Academica Masonica” by the Austrian chemist Karl Kellner and Dr. Theodor Reuss—a singer, journalist, police informant, spy and one time lover of Karl Marx’s daughter, Eleanor. It is known that Reuss made connections in Munich in 1880 with descendants of Weishaupt’s original Bavarian Illuminati, and received a charter to revive it. Indeed, one of the Order’s initial manifesto purports to teach “the key to all the secrets of Freemasonry” as well as those of “sexual magic”; and since numerous allegations of rape (the O.T.O is one of few Masonically-derived bodies to allow an equal female presence), assault and coercion—to speak nothing of mysterious deaths and known drug use—one wonders how to interpret those secrets.

  Chinese Freemasonry is officially banned by the People’s Republic of China, although a Grand Lodge was formed in Taiwan in 1949 that is officially recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England. However, there are parallel roots in the emergence of mutual aid societies developing along mainland China in the 16th and 17th centuries, and it is quite probable that Freemasonry could have been established via trade routes in the country as early as the late 1700s. Regardless, the intermingling of Freemasonry with the new Chinese immigrant culture in the U.S. began in the early 19th century with the rise of the East-West maritime trade and the construction of the transcontinental railroad, and by the 1870s there were Chinese Masonic lodges meeting in various major metropolitan cities throughout the U.S.

  However with the necessary emergence of the notorious Triads of Chinese-American legend (themselves initially mutual aid societies devoted to aid Asian families either threatened by xenophobic sentiments or to assist in helping them settle abroad) during approximately the same time, by the 1940s the migration of Chinese, Taiwanese and Hong Kong natives took on a decidedly more criminally-minded hue than merely the colorful customs of fraternal associations. Chinese Masonic lodges have known to harbor high-level drug dealers and provide a blanket covering for extortion, gambling, prostitution and counterfeiting activities, all safely camouflaged by the already secretive Masonic square and compass. There’s no way of knowing how deep the extent of criminal syndicate infiltration with Masonic lodges is just yet, but according to police and FBI reports it has been occurring widely since the 1970s—at the very least.

  Dangers of Freemasonry

  As stated in the introduction, there’s little reason to assume that all Freemasons are behind a single unified plan for global domination. In fact, few Masons even make it to the higher echelon—most are content on enjoying a night out without their wives, dressed in outlandish costumes, referring to one another by exalted names and secret handshakes. A grown up version of a tree-house club.

  Would these grown-up boys be so quick to knowingly address one another with a wink and a nod if they knew the true history and shadowy elements behind Freemasonry?

  I chose to omit some of the more outlandish accusations leveled against Freemasonry in this chapter and instead chose to rely on verifiable facts. Not because there may not be justifiable basis in those accusations, but because the dedicated researcher would have an easier time trying to discern what goes on behind those closed doors if presented with concrete reality instead of opinionated fancy. The real danger in Freemasonry is not necessarily that of unmitigated evil lurking behind the sanctum sanctorum of your local Masonic lodge. No, the true danger is how quickly seemingly noble virtues can be denigrated to the spheres of greed, crime, bigotry, murder and the corruption provided by unassailable power. And how quickly those virtues can be integrated into a schematic of control and domination on a global political and social scale. Unless, of course, those noble virtues were simply part of that schematic all along…

  Members

  In addition to the previously mentioned parties in this chapter, known current and historical Freemasons have included: Emperor of Mexico Agustin I; astronaut Edward “Buzz” Aldrin; French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte I; author Mark Twain; automotive pioneer Walter Chrysler; aviator Charles Lindbergh; poet Alexander Pope; actor Richard Pryor; Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren; silent film director Louis B. Mayer; FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover; Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk; escape artist Harry Houdini; Bolivian leader Simon Bolivar; silent film director Cecil B. DeMille; former Russian Czar Alexander I; former Presidents James Garfield, William McKinley and James Monroe; boxer Sugar Ray Robinson; King of Sweden and Norway Charles XIII; artist Marc Chagall; composer Felix Mendelssohn; British King William IV; author Arthur Conan Doyle; Bell Aircraft founder Lawrence Dale Bell; automobile pioneer Henry Ford; Former Presidents James K. Polk, Andrew Jackson and Calvin Coolidge; boxing promoter Don King; Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak; Chief Justice Earl Warren; Mt. Rushmore sculptors and designers Gutzon and Lincoln Borglum; explorer Richard Francis Burton; former presidents Harry S. Truman and Theodore Roosevelt; American frontiersman Davy Crockett; Belgian King Leopold I; politician Bob Dole; philosopher Friedrich Schiller; Church of Mormon co-founder Joseph Smith; Revolutionary War general Benedict Arnold; Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; British King Edward VIII; philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte; explorer Hiram Bingham; and former presidents Warren G. Harding and Lyndon B. Johnson.

  Chapter Five: THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION AND THE BILDERBERG GROUP

  In the altogether elusive lore of secret societies, no two entities seem more unlikely of inclusion than the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group. Both are well-documented, if private, institutions whose existence as advisors on topics of global political and economic affairs have been well documented. Neither claim any illustrious (if dubious) heritage or claims to hidden “wisdom” or any esoteric underpinnings that have marked so many of the groups that we have covered to date. In fact, both seem like standard geopolitical think-tanks, with all the trappings of banality, bureaucracy and docile harmlessness that one would expect from any supposedly “non-partisan” socioeconomic institution. Minutes and synopses from regular conferences are routinely updated on their website, and both foundations appear to operate with the relative transparency belying any supposed clandestine activity.

  First impressions aren’t always correct.

  The truth is, behind their veil of seeming mundanity and discourse of fostering “growing interdependence,” there is a definitive ethos of globalization that appears at times downright identical to historical Illuminati doctrine and methodology. So identical, that the mutually recurring names and cross-pollination between all three entities are hardly coincidental. And with key advisors on both entities including top financiers, government “advisors” and subsequent appointed economists, the end net worth between the two just could ostensibly foster leading breakthroughs in scientific research and development, end poverty or world hunger, or ensure an adequate global infrastructure of resources for developing communities worldwide. Or it could be one more step towards a centralized world government skeptics have been laughing at threats of all thes
e years.

  Synarchy and its Malcontents

  The purpose of this book is to provide a historical overview of secret societies and the threat they pose to the global population. It is not meant as to purport any political overview, serve as an economic primer or foster xenophobic sentiment. The educated reader can, and likely will, come across suitable works in which he can make an informed viewpoint in this regard; and in all likelihood, he or she has already done so. But in researching this book, one particular strand tends to serve as a unifying factor behind the seeming disparity of these groups. That factor is that of a singular philosophy that seeks to construct a homogenized culture and governmental structure, wielding an inordinate and unassailable power, aided by the twin guardians of finance and cronyism. One in which dissent is silenced—by acts of violence if need be—by force, and control exerted over every aspect of its citizens lives, often unknowingly.

  In order to understand how the theory of such a global totalitarian regime could possibly manifest, we need to go back to its roots—ones which date back to the 19th century and which lay in an obscure political doctrine entitled synarchy. And one which was first proposed by a French occultist and known Freemason named Joseph Alexandre Saint-Yves d’Alveydre.

  As mentioned in the previous chapter, the emergence of radical anarchist, socialist and nihilist philosophies had entered into vogue in Europe during the latter half of the 19th century, inspired by writers such as Bakunin, Marx, P.J. Proudhon, and Karl Heinzen (who wrote that “the principal agent of historical progress is murder.”) Simultaneously, there was a resurgence in Hermetic and Rosicrucian philosophies throughout the artistic beau-monde at the time, with even noted philosophers in support of rationalism and reason becoming entranced with the mystical doctrines. Central to this doctrine was the notion of an elite and unseen cabal of “secret chiefs” that guided the progress and evolution of man’s spiritual and even material progress (a trait that should now be evident as common to Freemasonry and the doctrine of the Illuminati.)

  Also in vogue was the notion of Hegelian dialectics, which held that the principles of thesis, antithesis and synthesis were the rational successive conclusions behind all phenomena but also that that this model could apply to large scale political constructs as opposed to the merely subjective queries of ontology. One of the early adopters of this strange graft of dialectical logic with esoteric philosophy was the aforementioned D’Alveydre, whose solution to the threat of nihilistic social breakdown was to counter it with what he termed synarchy, or synarchism, which translates to “joint rule.”

  In his work La France vraie (The Real France), D’Alveydre put forth that the concept of synarchy—his idealized form of government derived from bizarre beliefs about Ancient Egypt and Atlantis being harmonious societies existing as an organic “unity”—rested on two pillars. The first being that synarchy represented a ‘Government by an enlightened elite.’ Naturally, the “elite” themselves would decide on the definition of “enlightenment”; presumably it referred to those who were agreement with them. The second would be the polar opposite of anarchy, where if a minimal necessary state was needed it would have minimal control, in synarchy the state would have maximal control over each aspect of individual’s lives. To this end, D’Alveydre and his followers predicted the rise of a Federal European Union, creating a classless but hierarchal mega-state, run by an enlightened elite with neither conservative nor liberal policies but ones whose enlightenment entitled them to decide and control every single aspect of the lives of the populace.

  Despite the legitimate threats of both World Wars effectively ending the luxury provided to the leisure class to pursue this crackpot mystical political theory, its fundamental ideas began to seep throughout Europe. Both Fascism and the Communism of the USSR are essentially elaborations on fundamental synarchic principles, and during the second World War, French Synarchists collaborated with German occupying forces in Vichy France on grounds of preserving the model of state apparatus. Of course, the world has learned from the mistakes of totalitarian regimes, and would never seek absolute control over an absolute populace in the 70 or so years since?

  Unless, that is, you ask residents of the European Union. Who can count a predominantly high number of representatives among the most visible advisors of both the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group.

  The Trilateral Commission

  Formed in 1973 by David Rockefeller (whom you will no doubt remember from Chapter 3), The Trilateral Commission bills itself as a private commission formed of “citizens of Japan, Europe and North America to foster closer cooperation among these core industrialized areas of the world with shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system.” From its founding declaration:

  "Growing interdependence is a fact of life of the contemporary world. It transcends and influences national systems... To be effective in meeting common problems, Japan, Western Europe, and North America will have to consult and cooperate more closely, on the basis of equality, to develop and carry out coordinated policies on matters affecting their common interests... refrain from unilateral actions incompatible with their interdependence and from actions detrimental to other regions... [and] take advantage of existing international and regional organizations and further enhance their role. The Commission hopes to play a creative role as a channel of free exchange of opinions with other countries and regions. Further progress of the developing countries and greater improvement of East-West relations will be a major concern.”

  Yet critics have been quick to point out that this “fostering of interdependence” has done little to ameliorate fundamental disparities of exchange, but has exacerbated existing crises of common interest; in certain cases manipulating them to suit their own agendas. One early critic was former Senator Barry Goldwater, who suggested it was a “coordinated attempt to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical in the creation of an economic world power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved.” While from the opposite end of the political spectrum, leading Leftist semiotician Noam Chomsky implies that the Commission is “concerned with trying to induce what they call ‘more moderation in democracy’; turning people back to passivity and obedience so they don’t put so many constraints on state power.”

  Yet it was up to the aforementioned Rockefeller—along with Trilateral co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski—to effectively select and choose the several hundred leading minds of finance and industry to serve on the initial committee; essentially ensuring that the global financial interests of the Rockefeller empire would be best served by its committee members. And it was largely their joint ploy that helped elect then-Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter the presidential seat in 1976. And given the Rockefeller’s vested personal portfolio of real estate investments in Atlanta was estimated to be in the $5 Billion range during the 1970s alone, is it any wonder that Atlanta was known as the “Rockefeller Center of the South?”

  Yet money alone isn’t sufficient to sway the minds of a general populace. The collective human experience shows us that there must be a concrete series of organizing principles and guidelines—no matter how absurd or irrational—in order to develop (or perhaps more appropriately, suggest) the approval or disapproval of a mass population. So before you read the following words of Trilateral Commission co-founder and former National Security Advisor for President Carter Zbigniew Brzezinski (from his 1970 opus Between Two Ages,) you may want to keep an open mind about the previous section’s description of synarchy:

  “In the absence of social consensus society's emotional and rational needs may be fused -- mass media makes this easier to achieve -- in the person of an individual who is seen as...making the necessary innovations in the social order.

  “Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restra
ints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control.

  “Though Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy for both the Russian people and communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was, as we shall see, a blessing in disguise.”

  Which can be compared with the statements of Rockefeller himself after his 1973 visit to the People’s Republic of China:

  “The social experiment of China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history." (New York Times, "From a China Traveler," August 10, 1973) “... the family unit is broken up...The children are taken away from the parents and placed in government-run nurseries...The parents may see their children once a week and when they see them they cannot show affection toward the children. The idea is to have the children and the family sever their affection and direct it toward the state. Names are taken away from the children and they are given numbers. There is no individual identity... The commune system is destroying morality in Red China: There is no morality because the love of the family is taken away. There is no honesty and respect among men or between men. There is no human dignity: they are all like animals. There is no guilt associated with murder of individuals for the improvement of the state…”