The Secret of the “Basic Principles”

By Michael Harscheidt, Germany[1]

Translated into English by Fred Pieters, Belgium.

HTML Version by Zenit, Italy.

Abstract The article »Rhodes, Rule, Regularity. From Cosmopolitism to Imperialism. The Secrets of the Basic Principles« is a study of the early discreet marriage between the late Victorian society and the Pre-Edwardian UGLoE starting into the imperial conception of the expanding British Empire. The analysis gives an approachto the hidden motives behind the »Basic Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition« edicted by HRH Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, Grand Master of the UGLoE (1901-1939). Based on the constructive assistance of various British institutes, a lot of non-masonic reasons could be revealed now showing the former political establishment of London in a focus of imperial (Jan. 1929), social (May 1929), political (June 1929), and economical (Aug. 1929) problems. Seeing the British Empire fading away, the UGLoE established a supplementary system of a worldwide Masonic Empire controlled by its management in London. Since the ordinance of the dogma of »Basic Principles« and »Regularity« dating from 4th September 1929, the old“Britannia-rule-the-waves“ maxim began to turn from one of political power to one of masonic anachronism.

Based on the clerical imperialism of the Vatican, namely the “Syllabus errorum” (1864) and the “Infallibility dogma” for all Popes (1870), which were felt as surprising in all Europe, the Convent of the GOdF decided in September 1877 with a two-third majority to internally change the Masonic custom, after which the UGLoE severed up its relationship with the GOdF. Nothing more, nothing less.

On September 4, 1929, the UGLoE proclaimed the so-called “Basic Principles” by the Board of General Purposes and thereby delivered a normative nomenclature of the “regular” freemasons.

This counter-decision came about half a century after this syllabus errorum. And because - after this fifty years - the Masonic world had not really changed, the question arises whether this London verdict of 1929 wasn’t the result of other, not Masonic, but political aims.

Wasn’t this so suddenly formulated regularity dogma nothing else than the imperial death-cry of the British Empire in the face of political, economical and social crisis, against which the London establishment saw itself powerless since the summer of 1929 ? This presumption shall be substantiated and proven in five considerations.

2.RHODES – Prototype of imperial awakening

In his famous speech “ To all English-speaking people” (1891), Cecil John Rhodes (1853-1902), Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, freemason since 1877 in the Apollo University Lodge No. 357 in Oxford, later also member of the AASR in Oxford and of the Bulawayo Lodge No. 2566 in Rhodesia, declared:[2]“We believe in God, in England and in Humanity. The English speaking race is an instrument, chosen by God to fulfil the coming improvement of Humanity.” And in another part of his statement, Rhodes teaches: The “English-speaking person” starts to “rule the world”. The “Empire” is the vanguard of civilisation, and if any great improvements in the conditions of living would be made, they will necessarily be the leading instrument of this work [….]. To use Milton’s famous word: the belief of “God’s England will be our leading principle.”[3] And two years later, Lord Rosebury, a liberal representative of Britishimperialism, in a speech to the Royal Colonial Institute (1893) declared: The English race “should take care that the world, as far as this can be done, should have an Anglo-Saxon character and none else.”[4] The quintessence of the statements of these power-people is quickly formulated:

·“God” is an “Englishman”,

·the island of the “Anglo-Saxon race”is religiously idealised,

·the outer world will be civilised in a British way by force.

This imperial awakening has deep roots in the English society: K. Pearson and B. Kidd already glorified the “English race”; Charles Dilke published his “Greater Britain” in 1868, in the same year the “Royal Colonial Institute” was founded; in 1876 Disraeli created the title “Empress of the Indies” for Queen Victoria; and in 1882 John Robert Seelay published “The expansion of England”- a further document for national pathos and militant imperialism.[5]

Our special interest goes to Cecil Rhodes, who is “a great representative of an expansionist policy” with “great imperial ideas” to the renowned historian Theodor Schieder:[6]

In 1889, the freemason Rhodes founded the expansive “British South Africa Company”, became Prime Minister of the British Cape Colony (1890-97) and proclaimed the imperial utopia of a British Cape-Cairo-line. With the discrete agreement of the English Colonial Minister Joseph Chamberlain, in 1895, he organised the so-called “Jameson Raid” - the spectacular surprise attack of some 500 troops under the command of his lieutenant, Dr. L. S. Jameson, on the non-British, mostly Boer Transvaal by the acquisition of the goldmines. In this raid - which, for that matter, failed - a lot of freemasons were involved.[7]

The “Board of General Purposes” of the UGLoE then criticised the discussion of political goals and the disdain of foreign laws in the English lodges because of Cecil Rhodes.[8] But the more the British culture lost the cosmopolitan ethics and the “Fieberwahn des Imperialismus” – the feverish dreams of imperialism, the more the imperial awareness became an essential ingredient in thinking of British freemasonry:

Representatives of the “English Transvaal Lodge” of Pretoria travelled to London in 1887 in order to obtain a course correction from the English Grand Master of the UGLoE, the Prince of Wales and later King Edward – and with success. Soon, afterwards the British freemason paper “South Africa Freemason” started imperial proposals: “Transvaal is not a foreign country. The population is mainly English-speaking and 9 out of 10 masons are from England.”

Two years later (May 1889) the UGLoE accepted three more English lodges in the Boer republic, in order to build up the British influence : the “Johannesburg Lodge”, the “Royal Albert Lodge” in Klerksdorp and the “El Dorado Lodge” in Malmani, another gold mine area. Soon followed the call for the establishment of a British “District Grand Lodge” (1892) - in order to establish a controlling influence, as this was called explicitly.[9]

Still more relevant is the research of the British historian Paul John Rich. In his study “Elixir of Empire. The British Public Schools, Ritualism, Freemasonry and Imperialism”[10] he recalls the great “Empire Lodge London Dinner” of the year 1897, at which several Earls, Lords, Dukes and the Prime Minister of Natal, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and New Zealand participated. Since that time the symbiosis is complete: British imperial policy, the high society of the nobility, the political establishment of the traditional parties and the discrete world of the Lodges and the Grand Lodge cannot be separated any more.

Rich found out “that Lodge administration began to emulate Imperial administration. British Masonic bodies insisted on their right to govern Masonic affairs in overseas territories [….]. The Masonic order became imperial at the same time as the British government did.”

Then follows a significant conclusion, which is important for the later year 1929 and for our days:

“There were those who thought that a secret society such as freemasonry could help to reinforce Imperial hegemony. One of these was Cecil Rhodes, who was a freemason …”[11]

Result: hereby the first leading concept has become transparent: in the genesis of the British Empire, freemasonry also developed an imperial structure, in which each member - from the Grand Master to the newest apprentice - saw the outer world as a territory, given to them by God, who was also called the “Grand Architect of the Universe”. Cecil Rhodes was the first prototype of this Masonic-imperial invasion of our planet.

3.RULE-Construction of imperial attitude 

In 1879, the great British politician William Ewart Gladstone designed British cosmopolitan foreign policy for the last time. The liberal Gladstone was in favour of the “strength of the realm” but also of “the love for freedom” and emphasised values, which we claim nowadays from the UGLoE: “But in matter of rights, all [nations, groups] are equal, and one is not authorised to establish a system, whereby one would be oppressed, spied upon or made an object of humiliation [sic!].”[12]

But this came too late. Already in 1872, the leader of the conservative opposition Benjamin Disraeli, in his famous “Crystal Palace speech” had dismissed liberalism, the spirit of reform, even the whole continental philosophy. The idea of cosmopolitanism was immediately and repeatedly called a heresy. His pleading for imperialism proposed a choice for the British: to either “live in a comfortable England, based on continental ideas”, or in “a country which would lead their sons to higher positions and not only would want the esteem of their countrymen, but the respect of the whole world.”[13]

Disraeli, who was no freemason himself, but who made English freemasons so enthusiast that they – with his consent – founded a Lodge named after his noble title (“Beaconsfield Lodge No 1662” London, 24.2.1877), votes here for the British Rule-philosophy, which logic chains the factors “island-people”, plus “sea-power” and anticipates “world domination”.

The basis for this is an ancient national myth, which is until now called upon by the “secret national anthem” of the British “Rule, Britannia ! Britannia, rule the waves […][14]. This imperial key text was written by James Thomson in 1740, who was already in 1737 – only two years after the foundation of the English Grand Lodge – accepted as a mason and who, only two years later, got a pension from the Prince of Wales.[15]

This Rule-philosophy can be retraced in English thinking, also in economic policy and also later in the mental structure of the Grand Lodge: the British fleet expedition to the Falkland islands in the eighties was sent there under this “Rule the waves”-motto,[16] and, in the early nineties, the British celebrated this hymn with a 250 year tradition as “the country’s most patriotic song”.[17]

Essentially, this Rule-philosophy is composed of two parts: ethics for everyone - namely to reign (= the verb: to rule) – and a policy dependent on this, to dominate (=the noun : the Rule).

Actually, this attitude can be demonstrated by political science and by Masonic history. In 1888, the English governor Frederick D. Lugard established a “Rule of law” by which the English influence would be unavoidable, because it would also be established as an “Indirect Rule”.[18] And at the occasion of the inauguration of the “Grand Lodge of Southern Africa” in Cape Town in 1861, the representative of the English Grand Master spoke before an audience of 750 freemasons about the “Dutch Rule” which was established by the GodN in 1772, and of the “British Rule” which was followed by the establishment of the “Grand Lodge of England” in 1801.[19]

The analysis of the Rule-philosophy would remain incomplete without exposing the “Majority Rule” of the Westminster-system, which has recently been criticised by European political scientists.[20]

The “Westminster-model” is an expression of authoritarian power, exercised by the English Prime Minister and the British Parliament by means of the “Majority Rule”: without a written constitutional law, until now, people in Britain have neither written basic rights nor a constitutional court they can call upon when claiming their basic rights.

In Great-Britain, all rights - including of constitutional human and basic rights - are made by the House of Commons in the London Westminster district, with a single majority. In this Rule-system, constitutional obstacles or obstaclesby the opposition do not exist.

The political scientist Herbert Döring wrote in 1997: “Indeed already in 1951, Great-Britain signed the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights. But, as the only country of the 21 nations which signed the Convention, it did not lay down a written law which would make it a immediate right for it’s citizens”.[21]

And the political scientist Roland Sturm establishes in 1994: “This is why most of the complaints against Human Rights infringements come from Great-Britain, approx. 800 per year and no other country has lost so many court verdicts (approx. one third)[in Strassbourg]. Approximately 80 British laws were altered as a reaction to Strassbourg court orders [which could be claimed in London].[22]

Result: hereby the second leading concept has become transparent: in the political self-evidence of the island-nation of the British, over the centuries a “Rule-philosophy“ was developed, which became the national myth of everyone and which created imperial attitudes in political and Masonic events. The authoritarian Westminster-system corresponds with these attitudes, which gives excessive strength to the executive power, but injures the rights ofthe individual citizen.

To expect other ethics from the UGLoE - something like the Strassbourg ethics or a continental European philosophy - would mean the same as wanting to change statica in architecture:

The “respect”-claiming “sons” of which the British freemason idol Disraeli spoke, are always the same - as a citizen, as a Brother, as citizens as well as masons - as long as the British society is led by its imperial attitude.

4.REGULARITY-“NavigationLaws”

Why, after the summer holidays of 1929, happened what the so-far cosmopolitan oriented UGLoE hadn’t tried to do in 1877 ?!

Therefore, in the summer of 1929, imperial, economical, social and political events occurred in the quickly changing Empire leading to the publication of the “Basic Principles” and a regularity-dogma as an act of imperial desperation:

4.1.The imperial change (December 1928) 

Already at the Empire-Conference of 1911, several colonies had contradicted the London guideline and the British Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith had great difficulties to keep upright the “competence of the Westminster Parliament” for the Empire.[23]

The “Balfour-Declaration” published by London in 1926, would put much more taxes on most of the colonies with a “Dominion-status” and this for an extended period, but in December 1928, the English Crown was once again frustrated when the British Crown-colony of India in its All-Party-Conference rejected the English independence proposals.[24]

In the unquiet election year 1929 and after the Parliamentary failure of the Conservative Party in the summer of 1929 (!), the imperial influence slipped from the hands of political London, so that it had for ever to abandon the supremacy of the English Parliament over the Dominions, which was to be made official by the so-called “Statute of Westminster” in 1931.

In terms of power-policy, political London had already lost the realm in the political changes and confusion of the year 1929.

The paralysing economical crisis of the end of 1929 – which broke out after the crash of Wall street on October 24, 1929 only confirms the lack of power of the former Empire.

4.2.The economical change (August 1929)

More dramatical still, was the economic catastrophe, which was already showing in the summer of 1929.

When Sir Winston Spencer Churchill, freemason since 1901 at several London Lodges (“Studholme Lodge” No. 1591 and “Rosemary Lodge” No. 2851),[25] became Finance Minister in the Conservative government under Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin (November 4, 1924), he decided the partial return of the pound sterling to the gold standard, indeed hoping for a return to the dream of the Empire, as the historian Paul Kluke showed convincingly.[26]

Soon after this, the return to the Gold Standard Act (28.4.1925) was disturbed by commercial and monetary resistance: while in 1929, France saw its exports of the industry grow by 69 %compared to the pre-war years, in the unlucky year 1929, Britain’s export fell dramatically to 19 % behind the figures of 1913 ! [27]

Worse still: due to discrepancies between the Young-plan and British policy, France threatened to withdraw the French credit in gold (240 Million £) from London to Paris, so that in August 1929 – the last month before the “Basic Principles” ! – because “doubtful British gold losses” were registered (namely 45 Million US $) and therefore “the Bank of England had [already] to increase its rate of exchange”, which, of course, lowered the chances for exportation.[28]

This internal monetary crisis and the spectre of an economically giant France on the continent shocked the economical metropolis of London in August 1929 tremendously ! Since then – in September followed the “Basic Principles” ! it went downhill: in 1931 London had to abandon the gold standard and in 1932 even South Africa with its goldmines had to follow, as the British freemason Cooper had to state explicitly.[29]

4.3.The social change (May 31, 1929)

A society with a “Rule-philosophy” has a disturbed relationship toward women, and so it is not surprising that suffrage reforms on the continent after the First World War, were not applied to British women, as far as the right to vote was only granted to them in their 30th year.

This unequal pattern of men and women in British society had to lead to deformations, which led to this lapidary observation in the English Sheffield-report of 1981: “Both - Men and Women – are deformed, although in a different way and with different consequences”.[30]

In the case of freemasonry, the feminine deformation for example, is so obvious that Mrs. Marion Halsey, Grand Master of the British female freemasons, in the early twenties, actually proposed to be submitted to a Masonic “examination” by the UGLoE, in order to obtain a so-called recognition for her “Order of Women Freemasons”.[31]

As for the masculine deformation in freemasonry, it is, for example, exposed by the fact that the two male authors observe – more nastily than upset – their lack of power: “Our Board of General Purposes very properly found itself unable to make any such recommendation !”[32]

Now the unlucky year 1929: at this moment of all moments in the election year 1929, the UGLoE, caught up into the male scenery of James Anderson, had to suffer other reactions: in the House of Commons election of 1929, for the first time, female voters over 21 years old, could vote, “whereby 8 Millions of new voters came in”.[33]

According to another calculation there were only “six millions more women” but this source emphasises only the re-election of 13 women “including Lloyd George’s daughter Megan”[34] – indeed, women came into a hundred years old British men’s world.

Did women take away something essential in the masculine world of the British? Did the UGLoE feel the existence of female freemasons - in 1980, the “Order of Women Freemasons” had already more than 330 Lodges[35] - to constitute an essential threat ? Three months after the female-friendly vote on May 31, 1929, the female freemason-unfriendly “Basic Principles” were published !

4.4.The political change (June 5, 1929)

Worse had still to come: as a result of the election on May 31, 1929, for the first time, the Labour Party had the most Members of Parliament elected and the Conservative Party, always close to the UGLoE was pushed into the opposition (287 Labour, 261 Conservatives, 59 Liberals) ! [36]

A further shock was the personality of the appointed Prime Minister (June 5, 1929) James Ramsay MacDonald: since the First World War he was suspected to be a pacifist which caused him, with an electorate grown up in the Rule-philosophy, to lose an election in his district in 1918; he had a short period of government responsibility in 1924, but lost again due to accusations of communist sympathy.[37]

Especially “bad” was the election program, signed by MacDonald, which headed for a change of the system; eight of the twenty reformation proposals are enumerated here:[38]

-contrary to the old imperialism, he wanted co-operation with the Dominions (“agreements with the Dominions for those who wish to try their fortunes in new lands”);

-contrary to the Rule-the-waves-glitter of the British fleet, he wanted reduction of the fleet and world-wide disarmament (“a drastic reduction of armaments”; “a General Disarmament Conference”);

-contrary to the London dogma against the League of Nations he wanted a cosmopolitan agreement of the Nations (instead of obstruction of the “Tory government” towards the League of Nations: “political and economic co-operation amongst the nations”);

-contrary to the “industrial rule” of the trusts, he wanted nationalisation of the heavy industries (“A Labour majority would Nationalise the Mines and Minerals”);

-contrary to the “rule of the landlords, he wanted the establishment of government control (vs. “Landlordism”: “The land must therefore pass under Public Control”);

-contrary to the “majority rule” of Westminster he wanted a separate parliament for Scotland and Wales (“separate legislative assemblies in Scotland, Wales and England”);

-contrary to the conservative educational limitations, he wanted free access to education, from kindergarten to the university (“Labour will open the road, to whoever is able to take it, from Nursery school to the University”);

-contrary to the conservative reserve against the female sex, he wanted full equality for women (“the fight for women’s emancipation is not yet finished”: we want equal citizenship”).

Still “worse”: MacDonald was not a member of the London establishment. Then, “after a close observation of Richard Rose, two thirds of the British registered in “Who’s Who”, live within a circle of 75 miles around London.”[39] MacDonald was born in Lossiemouth, a very small fishermen’s village in the northern part of Scotland. Among the 95 insular counties, London has the number 1, but Lossiemouth, in the county of Moray, is way in the hinterland with the number 89. Also his often changed election districts were mostly ports at the outermost periphery of the island.[40]

In other words: the new Prime Minister and leader of the Westminster system was no ordinary gentlemen and candidate of the “Honourable Society of the Freemasons” but a Scottish backbencher, an incalculable newcomer, a pacifist-socialist system-changer, in short: - “a blatant upstart”.

4.5.“Cross Sea Course” – UGLoE head-on to the Seven Seas (September 4, 1929)

All this profane events, the unwanted change and uncontrollable risks - downfall of the Empire, votes from women, problems with gold, French export-boom, socialists in government, women in the Temple - all these “worldly”, annoying matters, which culminated in the summer of 1929, couldn’t have hindered profane policy more.

That which couldn’t be prevented at Downing Street No 10 (Residence of the Prime Minister), could at least be prevented at Great Queen Street No 60 (seat of the UGLoE):

Being faced with the labyrinth of various modern facts and events, which one would not like to be approved as a British citizen, a sovereign organisation of private law indeed could define which facts and events at least could berecognised by a gentleman-freemason.

And thus, the 19 elderly gentlemen of the Board of General Purposes defined on the 4th of September 1929, their “norm-model” for the freemasons. As an alternative to the social and political attacks of the “ugly world”, they defined the virtues of the “old times” which the imperial feelings of the English Grand Lodge could cultivate undisturbedly. So, these gentlemen defined: