You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
TakenusernameA on scored.co
1 year ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
There are actually two Knights Templar, the modern Knights Templar is essentially a Freemasonic LARP to slander the OG Knight's Templar, who the Freemasons claim were the original Masons; which is a complete Fan-Fic, the actual Templar were dissolved because a greedy King wanted to destroy the only non-usury based banking system in medieval Europe, which was run by the Templars. The king falsely accused the Templar leadership of worshipping the devil, then tortured them into giving false confessions, many of which they later recanted when the Catholic Inquisition decided to investigate the matter properly. The Masons, who *actually* worship the devil, took the king's story at completely face value for some reason and created a whole fan-fic around how both the Monarchial system and the Church are evil for not letting Masons be degenerate jewish faggots.
1 year ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)2 children
I'm not sure if I fully believe either side of it. I don't believe that the Templar were spitting on the cross and denying Jesus like king Phillip IV claimed, but I also don't believe they were exactly as pious as they themselves claimed, least not in their later years.
There were rumors circulating for years about what the templars were doing, king Phillip just trumped them up to the logical extreme to justify their execution. And, back then, rumors didn't come from nowhere. Who knows what this would have evolved into over time if true? The freemasons also started with noble intentions, essentially evolving from a guild to a fraternity to a secret society. Read George Washington's letters on the issue of freemasonry and the illuminati, theyre rather eye opening. The fact that freemasonry became so massive in Scotland, that the scottish rite is littered with Templar imagery, and that many within the Templar order who survived were exiled in Scotland is possibly damning, but at the same time I don't believe that freemasonry was actually an evil thing at this point in time.
The fact is that we will *never know* if they were actually Baphomet worshipping Satanists gathering round pentagrams in the forest, or if they were the most pious men in history, who could give the desert fathers a run for their money. It's just entirely unprovable either way, and I believe that there's truth somewhere in the middle.
On one hand, they did an amazing job protecting Christian pilgrims in the middle east. Their sacrifices there were not in vain at all. They were brave and valiant on the field, and they set a precedent for all further military orders (they were the first, after all).
On the other hand, they had a strange and exorbitant level of power and influence in Europe despite not being anywhere near the most *actually* powerful order (this honor would go to the teutonic order). They were crawling all over the royal courts of Europe and had their hands in the cookie jars of many nobles, popes, and kings. Which is something they arguably had no business in. They also wielded power without any oversight until pope clement and king Philip killed all of them, which is why we have no actual idea of what they did beyond that which is provable and seen. No oversight, everything was in-house, Jacques de Molay gave 2 different testimonies, every one of its leaders was killed. The survivors went into grim secrecy. Leaves little room for a factual case study on them. You can basically extrapolate whatever the hell you want out of what little there is to know.
There probably were some infiltrators doing nefarious things, but when most of the leadership is tortured into confessions and then later recants when examined more thoroughly, I am highly suspect of the accusations.
It's impossible to prove, but I personally believe that the Templar order itself was very much divided into nefarious elements and the original intended purpose. If you get involved with banking and massive levels of political power, you attract evil. That's just how that is.
The nefarious sort found refuge in Scotland, the good ones found refuge in Iberia.
The nefarious ones ended up getting involved with the scottish freemasons during their exile there, and would eventually form the scottish rite. There's definitely a *reason* why scottish rite freemasonry is rife with Templar imagery. And, potentially having a group of people descended from the biggest masterminds of medieval Europe, it's easy to see why the scottish rite became the largest branch of freemasonry there is.
As for jacques de molay himself. Well, he could have been a weird sort himself, or maybe he wasn't. Who knows? I don't know the dude. His original confession was obtained under torture, it's true, but he also had a legitimate alibi to outright lie in his recanted statement to pope clement, especially given that, with the templars historic good ties with the papacy, he could have easily assumed itd be an easy trial. Both narratives are completely unreliable. At this point I say that I don't know the man and thus I don't know if he was a bad apple or a good man. Either way though, it's fucking *hilarious* that there were legitimate Historians who believed that Jacques de Molay was the general of a Mongolian army that invaded syria.
There were rumors circulating for years about what the templars were doing, king Phillip just trumped them up to the logical extreme to justify their execution. And, back then, rumors didn't come from nowhere. Who knows what this would have evolved into over time if true? The freemasons also started with noble intentions, essentially evolving from a guild to a fraternity to a secret society. Read George Washington's letters on the issue of freemasonry and the illuminati, theyre rather eye opening. The fact that freemasonry became so massive in Scotland, that the scottish rite is littered with Templar imagery, and that many within the Templar order who survived were exiled in Scotland is possibly damning, but at the same time I don't believe that freemasonry was actually an evil thing at this point in time.
The fact is that we will *never know* if they were actually Baphomet worshipping Satanists gathering round pentagrams in the forest, or if they were the most pious men in history, who could give the desert fathers a run for their money. It's just entirely unprovable either way, and I believe that there's truth somewhere in the middle.
On one hand, they did an amazing job protecting Christian pilgrims in the middle east. Their sacrifices there were not in vain at all. They were brave and valiant on the field, and they set a precedent for all further military orders (they were the first, after all).
On the other hand, they had a strange and exorbitant level of power and influence in Europe despite not being anywhere near the most *actually* powerful order (this honor would go to the teutonic order). They were crawling all over the royal courts of Europe and had their hands in the cookie jars of many nobles, popes, and kings. Which is something they arguably had no business in. They also wielded power without any oversight until pope clement and king Philip killed all of them, which is why we have no actual idea of what they did beyond that which is provable and seen. No oversight, everything was in-house, Jacques de Molay gave 2 different testimonies, every one of its leaders was killed. The survivors went into grim secrecy. Leaves little room for a factual case study on them. You can basically extrapolate whatever the hell you want out of what little there is to know.
The nefarious sort found refuge in Scotland, the good ones found refuge in Iberia.
The nefarious ones ended up getting involved with the scottish freemasons during their exile there, and would eventually form the scottish rite. There's definitely a *reason* why scottish rite freemasonry is rife with Templar imagery. And, potentially having a group of people descended from the biggest masterminds of medieval Europe, it's easy to see why the scottish rite became the largest branch of freemasonry there is.
As for jacques de molay himself. Well, he could have been a weird sort himself, or maybe he wasn't. Who knows? I don't know the dude. His original confession was obtained under torture, it's true, but he also had a legitimate alibi to outright lie in his recanted statement to pope clement, especially given that, with the templars historic good ties with the papacy, he could have easily assumed itd be an easy trial. Both narratives are completely unreliable. At this point I say that I don't know the man and thus I don't know if he was a bad apple or a good man. Either way though, it's fucking *hilarious* that there were legitimate Historians who believed that Jacques de Molay was the general of a Mongolian army that invaded syria.