Debunking of TEMPLAR MASONIC ties.

Submitted by michael Mifsud (Spain), Dec 29, 2009 at 18:35

I have tried to read the rambles of this Australian writer without name and note what I have often found within the fighting factions of the enormous number of so called historical analysts. I note a venom which seems to come from jealousy rather than from an attempt to get to the truth. I also note as with all similar origins that there is a distinct lack of genuine academic or unbiased platform for such loose criticism. Like all of them, there is a grain of truth in some of the comments, but there is no real substantial base for the harsh critical and dismissive remarks made.

I worked for the Order under Fontes as second in command from a very young age and obtained the hatred of the power merchants out to defrock Fontes to be able to do whatever they wanted with this new power source that called them Templars. I only met a few genuine people among the thousands I visited througout the world. Of those I helped to establish Priories,, most bit my hand in the process and all because I was supposed to be aspiring to the leadership - a leadership that could only be got through an internationally established General Meeting called the Convent Generale based on votes. My strict discipline and corrective measures designed to give the Order a credible base, only earned me enemies and hardly the platform for cheap popularity so there was never a design to rule.

The Order under Fontes is the genuine one and it would take me a very long time to explain why, because the descent of the Order through the ages has to be understood in terms of various channels of oral tradition. I has however always had a Grandmaster or Regent. i have in my possession a complete analysis of name and personality of every single one of those leaders backed by the Cistercian Order whose historical records underline every single one of them. People like ther Australian writer are not real writers - just bitter non events who never managed to get anywhere and could not tell a mason from a templar or a rosicrucian. He dismisses things like the Larmenius C harter which original is different from that published in 1805 by the most trusted and highly regarded publishing house in France as they also did the 1704 Statutes compiled in Versaille under the Grandmastership of the Duke dÓrleans who resigned because he had other Royal family matters to contend with.

The so called debunking of the Charter by the British Library etc. and the omission of the 1704 public restoration of the Order under the name of The Knights of the Orient is the sort of rubbish this and other writers come up with. Any intelligent person without those ridiculous and puerile affiliations to other contradictory causes, can trace the line of descent throughout history withoiut any trouble. I have in my possession correspondence from high members of the French Aristocracy in 1820 applauding the entry into the Order of what he considers valuable recruits. People like these and reigning monarchs like that of Sweden whose correspondence lie within the French national archives attest to the fact that the Order at that point stemmed and was considered legitimate from 1705 at least - they would have never participated in anything false. So much for that.

That Fontes was a big mistake there was no doubt and I felt the brunt of his ingratitude throughout my whole period of dedication, but he was not interested in technicalities or serious study and heavily involved with the Church which he thought owned the Order. This is another contentioius issue. I have a whole lifetime of correspondence and can safely say that the writer from Australia is just another one of those hysterical, biased rebels without a cause who should spend the frivolous energy trying to get the more genuine sections of the Order into shape with diplomacy and encouragement. I wish I had a few of those scores of years again to try and help the process.

Lastly, if they think they know so much pehaps they can tell us what they know about the hidden symbols of transmission which attest to the genuine aspirations of the medieaval and prevfous Knights Templar. None of the rabble which passes itself off as claimants to the Order like the ridiculous Masonic versions and those stemming from Redgrave, Nato Priory etc. are capable of assuming Templar guise. They live for banquets and medals. Some of them deny the 1704 Satutes and History which is easily proven if they care to examine the records of Versaillesand why ? Because they are Masonssnd are too embarassed to accept anything beyond their birthday of 1727 under the Duke of Connaught. Have they ever examined Fontes signature or previous Grandmasters for that matter or determined what the letters on the Grand Collar mean ? Whoever does not know what they signify is not a genuine Templar with secrets. The holders have to be true descendants simply because the original knights utilized it and only their descendants inherited the knowledge.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".