tedious, and the _rendu compte_ ended with this phrase: “To-morrow
amnesty for the _bouilleurs de cru_ and wine frauders.” This heartless
Government, that flings aged and infirm _congréganists_ out of their
homes without mercy for age or sex, has, at least, one tender spot in
its make-up. It is for the liquor traffic in all its forms.
Falsification of wine is carried on to such an extent that it is
impossible for grape growers to make a living. I dilated recently in
these columns on the anti-clerical propaganda by means of an immoral,
irreligious Press, and the multiplication of these drink-stands to an
extent which is simply appalling.[8]
New York, with three millions, has 10,000 liquor saloons. Paris, with
two-and-a-half millions, has 30,000 _debits de boissons_.
The _Gaulois_ recently published some figures which I think are
accurate.
Fifty years ago 735 hectolitres of absinthe were consumed in France;
to-day 133,000 are consumed.
Fifty years ago 600,000 hectolitres of alcohol were consumed; to-day
2,000,000 hectolitres are consumed.
The intermediate figures show that the increase has been in almost
geometric progression in recent years.
In 1880 the consumption had increased from 735 hectolitres of absinthe
to 13,000. In 1885 it was still only 112,000.
In 1905 it was 133,000.
Sixty years ago there were only 10,000 demented in France. To-day there
are more than 80,000.
Belgium has just made a law prohibiting not only the manufacture, but
all traffic in absinthe, which cannot even be transported through the
country. In this admirably governed commonwealth there is, it is said,
but one saloon _brasserie_ to every two thousand inhabitants. Formerly
the number of drinking-places was limited and restricted in France;
to-day the highest of high licence prevails.
Recently I counted not less than fourteen places where alcoholic drinks
were sold in a charming little seaside village of four or five hundred
inhabitants.
THE LAW OF SEPARATION
_June 3rd, 1905._
There is still a persistent tendency in the Press to believe or
make-believe that the Bill of alleged Separation, still pending in the
French Chambers, means Separation as it is understood in England and the
United States, and that the whole question is only one of dollars and
cents, or of the suppression of the Budget of Cults. It is true that
there is to be a partial repudiation of the National Debt by the
suppression of the few paltry millions paid yearly to the French clergy
as a slight indemnity for the vast amount of property confiscated by the
Jacobins of 1792, but this is a mere detail, and would be considered but
a small ransom, if, thereby, the Church could enjoy the same liberty as
in the United States.
The Associations Bill was proclaimed to be a “law of liberty,” and we
know to-day that it was only a vulgar trap set by the Government to
betray the Congregations into furnishing exact inventories of all their
property so that it might be more easily confiscated.
The Separation Bill is also a law of perfidious tyranny aimed at the
very existence of the Church in France. M. Briand caused great hilarity
in the Chambers when, by a slip of the tongue, he declared that in every
part of it “could be seen the hand of our spirit of Liberalism.”[9] What
is evident throughout is the hand of the secret society which has
governed France since twenty-five years, and in whose lodges and
convents all the anti-religious laws have been elaborated.
The Chambers are merely its _bureaux d’enregistrement_, and not even
that. Under the _ancien régime_ the Parliament could and often did
refuse to enregister royal acts and decrees.
It was two years before the Parliament of Paris consented to enregister
the Concordat of 1516. But the Chambers to-day are merely the executive
of the Grand Orient. This is the plain unvarnished truth, which is
corroborated by all who have any knowledge of French politics.
I have repeated many times in the Press of the United States that
Republicanism in France is not a form of government, but the _modus
operandi_ of a secret society. Before me are _verbatim_ reports of their
assemblies and the speeches made at their political banquets in 1902. At
that time only unauthorized Congregations had been suppressed. This, it
was declared, “was not enough.... The Congregations must be operated on
with a vigorous scalpel, and all this suppuration must be thrown out of
the country; only thus will the social body, still very sick with acute
clericalism, be cured.” In July, 1904, all the authorized Congregations,
too, were suppressed, as we know. Even this was not enough.
At the general “convent” of the Grand Orient, January, 1904, it was
said: “We have yet a great effort to make.... The separation of Church
and State will be in the order of the day in the Chambers in January,
1905.... The Cabinet and the Republican Parliament will end the conflict
between the two contracting parties of the Concordat. The destruction of
the Church will open a new era of justice and goodness.”
M. Combes, then in power, was notified of the wishes of the Grand
Orient, and he telegraphed back that he would conform thereto.
The sensation caused by the publication of the spy documents, or
_fiches_, stolen from the Grand Orient by M. Syveton and de Villeneuve
nearly overthrew the Republic last November. The assassination of M.
Syveton saved the Government and struck terror into the Nationalist
camp. The publication of the spy documents ceased, and the lodges
continued their work with a new figure-head, M. Rouvier instead of M.
Combes.
On 4th November, 1904, the Grand Orient published a political manifesto
which is a most important document from an historical and sociological
standpoint.
It is simply amazing that the government of a once great nation should
have passed into the hands of a secret society which, though it has no
legal standing, treats France as if it were a great business concern of
which the Freemasons are the _commanditaires_, the ministers “the
managers,” and the deputies and functionaries the employees.
Already in 1902, at the closing banquet of the “convent,” Brother
Blatin, a “venerable,” had declared:
“The Government must not forget that Masonry is its most solid
support....
“But for our Order neither the Combes Cabinet nor the Republic itself
would exist. M. and Mme. Loubet would still be simple little bourgeois
in the little town of Montélimar.... But the Government must remember
that we are only at the opening of hostilities. Until we have destroyed
every congregation, denounced the Concordat, and broken with Rome,
nothing is done.” In conclusion, these remarkable words were pronounced,
of which the manifesto of 4th November, 1904, is only an echo: “In
drinking to French Freemasonry I really drink to the Republic, because
the Republic is Freemasonry operating outside its temples; and
Freemasonry is the Republic under cover of our traditions and symbols.”
Is this clear enough?
The Revolution of 1790 was undoubtedly due to Freemasonry, which about
that time began to appear openly for the first time, and almost
simultaneously, in France, Great Britain and America, etc. The Palladian
Rite, established in France in 1769, found a congenial field of
operation in the corrupt society of the _Régence_ and Louis XV.
Its aim then, as to-day, is the same--the destruction of Christianity.
The Jacobin Clubs of 1792 were simply Masonic lodges. M. Waite, an
eloquent apologist of the fraternity, makes the following statement in
_Devil Worship in France_, page 322: “There is no doubt that it
[Masonry] exercised an immense influence upon France during the century
of quakings which gave birth to the great Revolution. Without being a
political society, it was an instrument eminently adaptable to the
subsurface determination of political movements.... At a later period it
contributed to the formation of Germany, as it did to the creation of
Italy. But the point and centre of masonic history is France in the
eighteenth century.”
This explains the outbreak of _Kulturkampf_ in Germany and Switzerland
soon after 1870, and the wave of anti-religious furor which swept over
Italy at the same period. To-day Catholicism has repulsed Freemasonry in
Germany, and the victory is not far distant in Italy. The Liberal
Socialist party is waning, and it is always with these elements of
socialistic anarchy that Freemasonry operates under a guise of liberty.
The efforts being made to break up the Austro-Hungarian and the Russian
Empire are undoubtedly traceable to these Judeo-Masonic secret
societies. But France remains the great battlefield. Christianity and
Freemasonry are about to fight a decisive duel. One or the other must
perish. “Si nous ne tuons pas l’Eglise, elle nous tuera,” said a
prominent Mason recently. The suppression of the Congregations and their
27,000 schools was, as they said, “only the opening of hostilities.” The
battle must be fought to the finish. I have repeatedly affirmed that
France was held firmly in the coils of the Grand Orient, which has
packed both Houses with its creatures, thanks to the political apathy of
respectable Frenchmen.
The Separation Bill is merely a blind, a slip-knot which can be drawn at
any moment to strangle the victim around whose neck it is cast. When his
Socialist accomplices of the Left reproached M. Briand with being too
liberal, he replied, “If necessary we can always amend the law or make
another.” Only two short years ago M. Combes openly pronounced against
any project of separation. M. Rouvier was of the same opinion, but the
masters of France have spoken!
In vain it was pleaded that the country be consulted before taking so
important a step. The perfidious feature of the Bill is just this--that
nothing will be changed until two years (1907) hence, when the “bloc”
will probably have gained a new lease of life by this manœuvre; for
in May, 1906 they will be able to say to their electors, “You see the
law is voted, and nothing is changed.”
Article I sounds sweetly liberal: “The Republic assures liberty of
conscience and guarantees the free exercise of worship under the
following restrictions” (contained in some forty more articles). In my
opinion these numerous little “_restrictions_” will render the normal
existence of the Church in France impracticable. Of course she will
continue to exist, as she existed during the Terror, and under the
_Directoire_ and Diocletian.
Another article, not yet voted, provides for the final disposition of
church buildings twelve years hence. That, apparently, is the allotted
span of life meted out to us by Masonic Jacobins.
Article II with sweet inconsistency declares that “the Republic neither
recognizes nor subsidizes any cult,” and immediately after it inscribes
on the Public Budget the service of _aumôniers_ of state lyceums and
colleges.
Peasants and poor struggling tradesmen and artisans must pay for the
luxury of religious worship or go without, but the sons of the rich, who
frequent these state schools, are to be provided for, gratis, by this
liberal Republic, which neither “recognizes nor subsidizes any
worship,” except, of course, Islamism in Algeria, which is now, _ipso
facto_, the religion of the State.
It is very pitiful to see so momentous a question treated with such
flippancy and indecent haste.
All their utterances in the Chambers and in their Press show that the
Freemasons are convinced that they would be defeated if the next
elections were made on this issue. Therefore they must “do quickly.”
Alone of all the nations of Christendom, France totally disregarded Good
Friday this year. The Stock Exchange remained open and the Chambers met
as usual. The apostasy of the State will soon be complete.
In Spain, where I spent Holy Week, the young king has taken a decided
stand against the Revolution. He has caused vehement enthusiasm by
reviving Christian customs fallen into desuetude during a century of
revolutions. On Holy Thursday he washed and kissed the feet of twelve
poor men whom he afterwards served at table, aided by the grandees of
Spain. On Friday he returned from church alone and on foot, and was
wildly acclaimed. We are so accustomed to see the menus of the banquets
of the rich, that it was refreshing to read, for once in the daily
papers, the menu of a banquet of some poor old men served by a king.
This is the counter-revolution, and M. Salmeron and his Republican
Socialist Freemasons, French and Spanish, who recently caused riots in
many cities, might as well suspend operations. Only the assassination of
Alphonse XIII can prevent Spain from recuperating steadily. In Italy,
too, the counter-revolution is setting in. The Socialists, _alias_
Freemasons, are succumbing to the Conservative or clerical party. The
Quirinal is steering for Canossa. France must bear the brunt till she,
too, can have her counter-revolution.
CATHOLICISM IN GERMANY
GERMANY, _August, 1905_.
While Freemasonry in France seems on the point of triumphing over
Christianity by the destruction of all religious education and a law of
alleged Separation of Church and State, it is interesting to recall that
only thirty-five years ago Catholicism in Germany was as much menaced as
it is in France to-day. Churches were closed, prisons were full of
priests, bishops, and archbishops, and Bismarck, like M. Briand of
France, swore he would never, never go to Canossa.
In 1871 there were only fifty-eight Catholics in the Reichstag,
representing 720,000 electors; in 1903 there were more than a hundred,
representing 1,800,000 electors; and to-day this Catholic Centre forms
the ruling majority in the country. The Emperor understands this
perfectly, and hence his amenities towards the Church and the Holy See.
I have no doubt that the great Catholic Congress was held recently at
Strasburg with his knowledge and approval, not to say at his suggestion.
The event is significant coming so soon after his own investiture, at
Metz, with the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, conferred upon him by the
papal legate in the presence of the German cardinals and archbishops,
and the highest military dignitaries of the empire.
At this Catholic Congress of Strasburg, forty thousand delegates of the
federated societies of Germany paraded the streets with banners and
music. The whole city was decorated, papal colours being most
conspicuous. These popular federated societies count half a million
members, grouped in nine hundred associations, that have 350 press
organs of their own.
What makes the strength of these Catholic organizations in Germany is
that they represent all classes of society--princes, peasants, artisans,
nobles, and bourgeois--whereas Socialism finds its recruits almost
exclusively, amongst the proletariat, cultured and uncultured, chiefly
the latter.
At the Congress, Prince d’Arenberg renewed the usual protestations
against the Piedmontese occupation of Rome, and the Bishop of Strasburg
rejoiced that, “in spite of the devastations of the French Revolution,
the ancient faith was still flourishing in Alsace, whence he hoped it
_might soon extend its salutary influence_.”
These events are significant following the diplomatic humiliation
inflicted on France when M. Delcassé, Minister of Foreign Affairs, was
peremptorily dismissed at the behest of Germany.
Not long since the Socialist Bebel saucily told M. Jaurès the French
would never have a pension for old age until the Germans gave it to
them. Nothing, too, would please William more than to play the rôle of a
paladin of religious liberty to the oppressed French Catholics.
Nor is there anything to prevent the resuscitation of the Germanic
Confederation as it existed in the Middle Ages. The Habsburgs and the
Austrian Empire might never have arisen, and the Hohenstauffens might
still be reigning, if they had had sense enough to keep their hands off
the Papacy. Napoleon, too, might have founded a dynasty as long-lived as
that of the Bourbons, had he not also fallen into the same evil ways,
and sought to dominate the whole Church by enslaving the Sovereign
Pontiff. His nephew, the third Napoleon, in his youth, unfortunately
became the bondsman of secret societies, whom he aided and abetted in
the spoliations of 1870 which preluded his fall.
The Third Republic, too, will be shattered on the same rock, though not
before having caused irretrievable wrong to France, I fear.
PSEUDO-SEPARATION
_19th August, 1905._
In the past, marauding kings and robber barons bound to themselves their
fighting lieges by investing them with vast tracts of stolen lands which
they, in turn, distributed among their leal followers.
The Third Republic has found a better way. To say nothing of the
extensive network of electoral strongholds that they have established
all over the country by unlimited and most abusive high licence, the
masters of France have enlisted the enthusiastic support of myriads of
pettifogging lawyers and all the nondescript red-tapers of law by the
unlimited supply of lucrative jobs, pickings, and perquisites, furnished
by the notorious laws of 1901 and of 1904, and their bandit operations
called “liquidation.”
They do not all pocket a few hundred thousands, like the millionaire
Socialist, M. Millerand, appointed by M. Waldeck Rousseau, but all have
a share in the carving up of the quarry. Not content with devoting to
this novel kind of graft all the holdings of the hapless Congregations,
who fell into its trap and asked for authorization, the Government has
kindly put up more than four millions and a half of public money, thus
far, to cover the cost of innumerable lawsuits, expropriations, etc.,
going on all over the country since four years. The mobilizing of the
regular army for the expropriations was in itself an important item. All
this reckless, thriftless expenditure, joined to the continuous drain of
millions from the _Caisses d’Epargne_ and the exodus of capital, will
lead up to national bankruptcy as in 1795.
To throw dust in the eyes of the public, domestic and foreign, a most
elaborate document has been published regarding pensions and retreats
for aged _congréganists_ ruthlessly thrown into the streets.
This document is a huge farce, seeing that these pensions are only
conditional to there being funds enough, and there will be no assets
left. The Chartreux of Grenoble had some hundreds of their aged workmen
on their pension list. These were, in common justice, creditors of the
order, and should have received compensation from the _liquidateur_. But
the latter repudiated their claims absolutely.[10]
What a fall was there from the billions of the Congregations, held out
as a glittering lure by Waldeck Rousseau in 1900, to bait his Socialist
majority with promises of pensions for workmen, etc.
The Bill of alleged Separation, eminently calculated to bring Church and
State into constant contact and collision, holds out another golden
perspective. To use an expressive slang term, there is in it unlimited
_poil à gratter_, fur to scratch, for years to come--nay, as long as the
Republic lasts.
A few days after it was voted, 200 “venerables” of the Grand Orient
offered a banquet to M. Briand, the reporter of the Law of Separation,
while at a Socialist Congress presided over by M. Combes, the President
of the Commission of Separation, referring to this law, declared “that
the war against the Church must be carried on without intermission.”
Commenting thereon, the _Temps_ sarcastically wrote: “If the clerical
spectre is still to haunt us, was it worth while to be turning like
squirrels in a cage for the past five years?”
The gist of the law is in the articles that regard “_Associations
cultuelles_,” which are aimed at the destruction of Catholic hierarchy
and unity. M. Ribot sought, in vain, to obtain that religious edifices
and property should be attributed only to associations approved by the
bishop in each diocese. The words _bishop_ and _diocese_ are most
carefully eschewed throughout the law. The attribution of property is to
be made to “associations formed in conformity with the rules of general
organization of the cult whose exercise they are to assure” (Art. 4).
The formula is most perfidious, and intentionally so, whereas the
amendment of M. Ribot and the one little word bishop might have rendered
the law supportable.
What are “the rules of general organization”? The seventy-six Organic
Articles, perfidiously added by Napoleon to the Concordat, purported to
be “rules of general organization of Catholic worship.” Some of these
are rankly heretical, and have of course never been observed. These
Organic Articles are abrogated together with the Concordat by the new
law (Art. 37), but what is to prevent the Conseil d’Etat, composed
exclusively of Freemasons, from deciding that these articles are still a
criterion, being the _statu quo ante_?
By similar means all their church property was taken from the Catholics
of Geneva (1872-5) and turned over to apostate French priests, Loyson,
Carrère, etc.
A like contingency is foreseen by Art 8. It is anticipated that rival
associations may claim the same church property, and that scissions may
arise in associations, regularly formed and invested.
Now in these cases the decision does not lie with the bishop, nor even
with the ordinary civil courts. Decrees of Conseil d’Etat are suspended
everywhere like swords of Damocles, or rather like the blades of the
_guillotine sèche_, which has replaced the bloody guillotine of “the
grand ancestors of 1793,” whom these up-to-date Jacobins invoke so
complacently. We must not forget, too, that Conseil d’Etat means Conseil
du Grand Orient. It is said that the Masons are secretly organizing
_Associations cultuelles_, so-called Catholic. Human nature has not
changed since 1790, and it would be strange, if they could not pick up
another Abbé Gregoire or two, and a Talleyrand to boot. They can always
import some of that ilk from Geneva if necessary.
Moreover, these _Associations cultuelles_ can be dissolved for so many
reasons (five), at a moment’s notice, by a decree of Conseil d’Etat,
that it does not seem worth while to form them.
The paltry reserve fund the _Associations cultuelles_ are allowed to
have must, like the rest of their funds, be deposited in the
Government’s strong-box, and can only be used “for building, repairing,
embellishing church edifices.”
Evidently, it is not intended that there shall be any further
ecclesiastical recruitment. Seminaries are eliminated, _ipso facto_, as
they cannot exist on thin air.
I do not enter into the details regarding pensions of aged priests, as
it is all too contemptible, the sums accorded being just enough to
starve on. But we may note a few violations of liberty and justice.
1. All church property, movable or immovable, to which are attached
_fondations_ not directly regarding public worship, which are, in other
words, charitable or educational, are to be turned over to civic
institutions. Thus testators who left money for Christian parochial
schools and charities see it applied to the paganizing of the rising
generation and the poor.
2. All churches and chapels arbitrarily closed by M. Combes are to
remain disaffected, i.e. confiscated.
3. Ecclesiastical archives and libraries of episcopal sees and grand
seminaries that are claimed by the State are to be immediately
transferred to the State. This reveals the whole Jacobin mind. The
Church is to be deprived of all social action, by education and charity,
which she has exercised since two thousand years, and she must be
mummified like the Photian and Coptic and Nestorian Churches.