C’est du Terrorisme que les menaces sur tous de la pauvreté, de se faire tuer si on pense et dérange trop…
DÉMAFIOSER c’est décompétitionner, déconcurrencer, dé-méritocratiser, désélitisme, déprivatiser, démilitariser…..
Les Neufs Soeurs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Lodge was opened in 1776, by Jerome de Lalande, with the support of Helvétius' widow. A "Société des Neuf Soeurs" had been active at the Paris Academy of Sciences since 1769, as a charitable society "inspired by the Muses"— the nine sisters, daughters of Mnemosyne/Memory— to survey academic curricula. The traditional role of the Muses as patrons of the arts and sciences dates back to antiquity, and always had been significant in French cultural circles (see:Muse, Ronsard).
During the French Revolution the Académie Royale des Sciences at Paris was reorganised and "cleansed" of the influence of "nobility" (see:Reign of Terror, Antoine Lavoisier). Two members of the lodge, Antoine Laurent de Jussieu and Gilbert Romme, in collaboration with Henri Grégoire, helped to organise a "Société Libre des Sciences, Belles Lettres et Arts", to subsidize what had become the "Institut de France" and to keep the original influence of the "Neuf Soeurs" intact (Hahn, 1971).
At the start of the French Revolution "Les Neuf Soeurs" became a "Société Nationale" till 1792. The lodge was reconstituted in 1805 and continued till 1848, with a interruption from 1829 till 1836, but never again with the same brilliance as in the first decade of its existence.
The successive "Venerable Masters" of the first decade were: Benjamin Franklin (1779-1781), Marquis de
Napoleon Bonaparte was not so happy with the intellectual independence of the "idéologues". In 18O3 he closed the Class of Moral and Political Sciences. "This is open war declared on our beloved science..." Cabanis wrote to Maine de Biran. Napoleon would later recognize the hand of the "Cercle d'Auteuil" in Maine de Biran's opposition to his policy in 1813 (
including Masonic Charities, books about Masonry, Famous Masons, joining Masonry, and much more...
This week marked a personal milestone of sorts: eight years ago masonicinfo.com first saw the light of day online. Since then, it has become something FAR more than I had envisioned. Through the site I’ve met many who would have otherwise remained at a perpetual distance. That’s both a good and a bad thing….
As but one example, this week an interesting e-mail arrived, thanking me for my efforts but asking: “Since nowhere on his site does it indicate that that you’re a Christian, how can someone rely on your statements that Freemasonry does not conflict with Christianity?”
It’s a straw-man argument.
The person rasing the objection was clearly not a Mason. However, he felt himself quite capable of determining the ‘truth’. He fell short of the ‘you must be both’ criteria he had established: it was only applied to discredit me! Further, he assumed that HIS definition of Christianity would be identical to all other Christians.
Had he been pressed further, I suspect the questioner would have added more criteria. “It doesn’t say anywhere that you received immersion baptism!”, for example. Then would have come even more precise demands: diversions used by people to dismiss what they don’t want to hear. A half-dozen years from now you’re just as likely to find this individual ‘exposing’ some grevious fault in the positions he holds today and he’ll have set off on yet another course, never acknowledging the philosophical inconsistencies in his earlier behavior. People change. Sure. Sometimes these folks demanding your adherence to their worldview seem to twirl like a whirling dervish.
I also wondered about his basis for judgement. Chronological age isn’t all that important but life experience surely is. When I was a guitar-playing, Indian motorcycle-riding hot shot (that was a while ago!), I thought I knew everything about everything. Fortunately I had the temperance of a war and the subsequent ‘getting spit on’ experience to make me a lot older than my years. Did my correspondent share any of these traits or did he just ‘find’ his religion last year and now was out telling millions of others what was right and what was wrong? Had he taken any courses in the area of his professed expertise? Did he have a broad background in the literature behind his position or had he simply cherry picked a book or two and on that basis decided I and others who agree with me are wrong? Frankly, I doubt that he bothered to check whether or not I had any credentials for being able to discuss Freemasonry. All he was interested in was whether I was a self-designated Christian like himself.
This is a common phenomena - and when the fallacy of the argument is evident, the bluster begins with the venom quite visible. Heck, people have even whined about things like the name of my website! (If you can’t win with facts, take a few whacks at the person. It’s bound to impress someone - even if it’s yourself.) What’s most pathetic, though, is when folks resort to using profanity (or ‘not quite’profanity: leaving out a single letter in an otherwise obscene remark) to embellish their arguments.
When you’re looking at websites or reading blogs - particularly when they involved the subject of Freemasonry - ask yourself if the writer’s identity is clear and credible. That’s SO important yet it’s the part we most often overlook. Is there a grudge of some kind involved? Motivation can and does cloud one’s perception. Finally, and perhaps most important: does the writer have ANY ‘credentials’ as a Masonic educator or Masonic scholar? In short, how do you know THEY know what the heck they’re talking about. I have those credentials, plus a bunch of years as a Mason living in several different jurisdictions and being actively involved in each while there. Ah, but you’re only interested in whether I agree with you or not, right? I sometimes imagine some correspondents - particularly those who can’t accept the reality of what Freemasonry is - having their eyes squinched up, covering their ears saying “I can’t hear you!” with their faces turning red. Clearly, some folks find reality objectionable.
Il n’y a pas encore de Gouvernement Mondial et ça paraît : c’est l’anarchie mondiale et il n’y a que les Pays les plus forts militairement qui s’imposent au Monde Entier. Mas même ces Pays Conquérants n’en profitent pas