Really?
Yes, really. The usury charges are somewhat justified, but it wasn’t technically usury as in capital gain from capital. They charged handling fees for safeguarding assets of nobles and pilgrims. It was motivated by the dangers of traveling through distand lands with riches that quicky became the target of bandits and raiders.
Eventually they did become the biggest asset managers for a few reasons. One, they were considered Champions of Christ and the Church, thus they were seen as loyal and reliable by their own kind, ie. European Catholics. Secondly, they were an international military order, which means they had the skill and infrastructure to safeguard those assets effectively.
And as usual, when an organisation like that gets too big, it gets too powerful, and power corrupts. They found certain loopholes around the Church prohibition against usury. Which ones exactly I can’t recollect. Ultimately that power and the debts they were owned became a source of distrust and enmosity, as with Philip IV. It was he who made the allegations of improper sexual activity and idolatry, but these were never proven to be true. Like I said, they were most likely politically motivated because the debt he owed to the Templars became problematic. It’s a similar reason why Jews were kicked out of all those countries.
But if usury is really such an issue, why are we focusing on Templars who, at least officially, haven’t existed for 700 years, except covertly? They don’t run banks anymore. They’re not asset managers anymore. All they have left is some dodgy lodges where they get together and eat. Don’t you think there’s another group that comes to mind when it comes to a monopoly on banking and usury?
Yes, by all means - because this doesn’t strike me as being about some kind of principled opposition you have to the Mаsonic conspiracy.
This is about your own prejudices.
I’m sure you’ve figured it all out and that, despite all the traditional red herrings you’ve been sharing as truth, I think it’s fair to state that those red herrings are themselves a product of prejudice.
You’re talking of WW3 - which is against Iran in service of Greater Israel and its dominance in the region - and the destruction of the al-Aqsa mosque - to replace it with the JEWISH Third Temple - as if it’s a “masonic agenda”. If that isn’t deflecting, I don’t know what is.
Freemasonry supports the reconstruction of the Temple of Solomon for its symbolic meaning. It represents the Universe, and the Freemasons see themselves as the architects of the new world. That’s why their ritual for Master Mason (3rd degree) centers around Hiram Abiff, chief architect of Solomon’s Temple (who built the temple with the power of 36 demons, mind you).
But its reconstruction is not a priority. The priority is to build the new world according to their beliefs of “liberty, equality and fraternity”, charity and the pursuit of knowledge. They cherish a belief in a Supreme Being, but strive for a secular order where no religion is favoured over others (this comes from the Jewish fusionists I mentioned before, because Freemasonry was originally a Christian mystic society).
They don’t care about the Kingdom of David. They don’t care about ritual blood sacrifice and red heifers and the Kohanim. These things are pivotal in Jewish eschatology. The god of Israel fell in 70 AD along with his city and temple, and it’s his followers that want to restore it.
You cannot explain the events in the Middle East with Freemasonry, but you can perfectly explain them, including Zionism, with the objectives of the Jews’ religious and political elites.
If they had their way unopposed, according to the doctrines of Maimonides, they would, next to capital punishment for Christians for their idolatry, destroy all Masonic temples.
NOBODY who reveres the Knights TempIar is to be trusted.
I would say: trust no one who deflects away from Jews to Masons, Templars, Jesuits et al. I don’t care how politically incorrect it is.