Memoirs Illustrating The History Of Jacobinism (An important historical document containing research on secret societies & the NWO.)

Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire du Jacobinisme is a book written in French, by Abbe Augustin Barruel, published in 1797. The book was translated into English, Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism, by Robert Edward Clifford in 1798.

Abbé Augustin Barruel (October 2, 1741 – October 5, 1820) was a Jesuit priest, historian and theologian, he investigated the French Revolution (1789 - 1799) and who was behind it and, in so doing, discovered a secret society with long-term plans, who were conspiring to take over a lot more than France alone.

I’ll post this book in the PDF thread but wanted to give it a thread of its own, in the hope to draw due attention to it. This book, in my opinion, is an important historical document and may be of great interest to serious truth seekers. If you want to learn more (a lot more) about the shadow government, who they are and how they operate, this book is a treasure trove of information and offers incredible insights into the beliefs and mind of the Illuminati.

As a side note, the biblical Jacob changed his name to Israel.

Below is a few excerpts from the author’s introduction ("preliminary discourse") -

"Moreover I will show that, so far from seeking future prosperity, the French Revolution is but a sportive essay of its strength, while the whole universe is its aim. If elsewhere the same crimes are necessary, they will be committed; if equal ferocity be requisite they will be equally ferocious; and it will unavoidably extend wheresoever its errors shall be received."

"Though France were, like hell, a bottomless pit, impenetrable to every voice but that of the fiends of the Revolution, still it is not too late to acquaint other nations of their danger. They have heard of the crimes and horrors of that Revolution, let them contemplate the lot that awaits them should Jacobinism prevail; let them learn that they are not less within the grand revolutionary circle than France itself; that all those crimes, the anarchical and bloody scenes which have followed the dissolution of the French empire, equally await all other nations; let them learn that their altars and their thrones, their pontiffs and their kings, are doomed to the same fate with those of France: all are comprehended within the grand conspiracy."

"The result of our inquiries, corroborated by proofs drawn from the records of the Jacobins, and of their first masters, has been, that this Sect with all its conspiracies is in itself no other than the coalition of a triple Sect, of a triple conspiracy, in which, long before the Revolution, the overthrow of the altar, the ruin of the throne, and the dissolution of all civil society had been debated and resolved on.

1st. Many years before the French Revolution men who styled themselves Philosophers conspired against the God of the Gospel, against Christianity, without the distinction of worship, whether Protestant or Catholic, Anglican or Presbyterian. The grand object of this conspiracy was to overturn every altar where Christ was adored. It was the conspiracy of the Sophisters of Impiety, or the ANTICHRISTIAN CONSPIRACY.

2dly. This school of impiety soon formed the Sophisters of Rebellion: these latter, combining their conspiracy against kings with that of the Sophisters of Impiety, coalesce with that ancient Sect whose tenets constituted the whole secret of the Occult Lodges of Free-masonry, which long since, imposing on the credulity of its most distinguished adepts, only initiated the chosen of the elect into the secret of their unrelenting hatred for Christ and kings.

3dly. From the Sophisters of Impiety and Rebellion, arose the Sophisters of Impiety and Anarchy. These latter conspire not only against Christ and his altars, but against every religion natural or revealed: not only kings but against every government, against all civil society, even against all property whatsoever.

This third Sect, known by the name of Illuminees, coalesced with the Sophisters conspiring against Christ, and with the Sophisters who, with the Occult Masons, conspired against both Christ and kings. It was the coalition of the adepts of impiety, or the adepts of rebellion, and the adepts of anarchy, which formed the CLUB of the JACOBINS. Under this name, common to the triple Sect (originating from the name of the Order whose convent they had seized upon to hold their sittings), we shall see the adepts following up their triple conspiracy against God, the King, and Society. Such was the origin, such the progress of that Sect, since become so dreadfully famous under the name of JACOBIN.

In the present Memoirs each of these three conspiracies shall be treated separately; their authors unmasked, the object, means, coalition, and progress of the adepts shall be laid open."

Below is a link to a full PDF (english translation) of all four volumes of Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism. You will see it was published by "American Council on Economics and Society" in 1995, so here’s an online scanned copy of the first volume, published in 1799, to use as a reference for checking the text in the PDF, if required. Link to scanned copies of the second, third and fourth volumes here. You will see in the PDF a 37 page introduction which, in my opinion, isn’t worth reading, this book is generally considered as not relevant to our current social situation and the introduction reflects that. Also, in the PDF, they left out the translator’s introduction to the reader, see the link to the scanned copy of the first volume to read the translator’s introduction.

Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism PDF here.

Abbe Augustin Barruel biography here.
Robert Edward Clifford biography here.

On second thought, I'll read first
UT

Thanks for the info IW. I'm going to have to check out what this Jesuit had to say.

Here's another French edition from 1798 on archive.org here: https://archive.org/details/mmoirespourserv08barrgoog

It looks like the original edition must have been published before the "French Revolution" as it's often defined wasn't even over yet (ie, Bonaparte hadn't seized power yet). There was actually more than one "revolution" in that ten year period: first the gathering of the Estates General forced a constitution upon the king, so France was a constitutional monarchy like Britain for a bit (first revolution). But then later the king got uppity and the Parisian mob held him captive and eventually cut his head off (second revolution), which was when the Jacobins seized power (one "political party" out of three, if the term can be used, because this is really the first instance of political parties as we use the term today, and also where the words "right" and "left" come from in politics because the Jacobins sat on one side of the National Assembly while their opponents sat on the opposite side). This government was superseded by another after the Jacobin leader Robespierre was executed, and then a bit later Napoleon staged a coup.

So a lot of things happened in there and there was a big power struggle between various factions for about 10 years.

The author of this book is a Jesuit which means also of course that he worked for the Catholic Church. We should know that the Jesuits were fairly hated in France prior to the revolution. France was officially a Catholic country at the time of the revolution but there had been a lot of religious tension in France during the Protestant Reformation. There had been a popular semi-Protestant religious movement in France in the early 1700's called Jansenism, which the Catholics spent a lot of time trying to stomp out and they earned a lot of ill feelings from the common people in the process (not that there weren't already reasons to hate the church in feudal France). There obviously wasn't religious freedom in France and publishing heretical literature could result in some pretty draconian punishments, like being branded on the shoulder and sent to row the oars of a galley around the ocean for the rest of your life. So this is the kind of authority in power, which the Catholic Church is deeply embedded into and which this Jesuit represents by who he works for.

Obviously we have to keep all of this in mind when listening to what he has to say, because he is probably going to be biased about what role the church itself played in the French Revolution. The Catholic Church had become so hated in France by the time of the revolution that the French dismantled the altar at Notre Dame and rededicated the church to liberty and reason, and used pagan personifications of these ideals in place of Christian iconography. Not only the abuses of the church but Christianity and religion as a whole had come under severe attack by the French Enlightenment authors who valued reason and science over faith and theology. Even the common people had lost respect for the church, often grew to despise it, and had never completely lost their pagan roots anyway. In fact we still celebrate Christmas, Halloween and Easter to this day, and out of the three of them, "Easter" is the most arguably Christian because it falls near the passover, and it's even still named after the pagan god Eostre or Ishtar.

So based on that, it's going to be difficult for the author above to make the argument that some anti-Christian secret society was responsible for the revolution when much of France was rather openly anti-Christian at the time, and probably the biggest culprit for that was the repressive Catholic Church itself.

Having said that I do not doubt at all that some shadowy group was responsible for organizing a lot of what happened during the revolution behind the scenes. I actually think this is exactly what happened and if I'm not mistaken the Jacobins first came to France with a Scottish Freemason who I'm distantly related to, from the Fraser Clan. But then we have to consider also that Freemasonry at that time was not the same as the Freemasonry we think of today, and it was largely oppositional to monarchies in Europe and so Freemasonic gatherings were also illegal and suppressed in many places, just as Protestantism was. During the revolutionary years France actually was able to have a fairly stable and functioning republic before Napoleon seized power. Republics can be corrupted too but how do they stack up against a blatantly authoritarian monarchy? The idea of political freedom was barely even born back then. Government was virtually synonymous with a monarch. It would be hard to draw a black-and-white line between "good" and "bad" in this situation even if we were only dealing with two factions. In reality there were even more factions than that struggling for power.

Quote:

---

Posted by bsbray

Thanks for the info IW. I'm going to have to check out what this Jesuit had to say.

---

My pleasure, yes, "the enemy of your enemy (back then, regarding him at least) is your friend". Thanks for the link. Some food for thought -

More on Jacob:

The meaning of the name, Jacob -

Quote:

---

In the Old Testament, Jacob (later called Israel) is the son of Isaac and Rebecca and the father of the twelve founders of the twelve tribes of Israel. He was born holding his twin brother Esau's heel, and his name is explained as meaning "holder of the heel" or "supplanter”.

---

Meaning of supplanter -

Quote:

---

Supplanter often refers to governments and rulers of countries, and it comes from the verb supplant, which evolved from the Latin supplantare, meaning "to trip up or to overthrow.”

---

In the OP, I wrote that Jacob changed his name to Israel, to be more specific, in the Hebrew bible it says God changed his name to Israel.

Meaning of the name, Israel -

Quote:

---

The Hebrew Bible says at Genesis 32:28-29 and 35:10, that God changed Jacob's name to Israel. Etymologically, it has been suggested that the name "Israel" comes from the Hebrew words Hebrew: לִשְׂרות (lisrot, "wrestle") and Hebrew: אֵל (El, "God"). Popular English translations typically reference the face off with God, ranging from active "wrestles with God" to passive "God contends", but various other meanings have also been suggested. Some commentators say the name comes from the verb śārar ("to rule, be strong, have authority over"), thereby making the name mean "God rules" or "God judges"; or "the prince of God" (from the King James Version) or "El (God) fights/struggles".

---

So what became of Jacob?

Quote:

---

Israel (Jacob) was 147 years old when he called to his favorite son Joseph and pleaded that he not be buried in Egypt. Rather, he requested to be carried to the land of Canaan to be buried with his forefathers.

---

Where is Canaan?

Quote:

---

In the Bible it corresponds to the Levant, in particular the areas of the Southern Levant that are the main setting of the narrative of the Hebrew Bible, i.e. the area of Israel, Philistia, Phoenicia, and other nations.

---

When was the Hebrew bible published?

Quote:

---

Except for a few passages in Aramaic, appearing mainly in the apocalyptic Book of Daniel, these scriptures were written originally in Hebrew during the period from 1200 to 100 bce. The Hebrew Bible probably reached its current form about the 2nd century ce.

---

Jacobins emerged in the late 1700s and then later Israel was declared in 1948. Meanwhile, the Hebrew bible has been around since the second century and Genesis depicted Jacob (meaning to overthrow governments) stealing his older brother’s birthright and then, as Israel (let’s go with the meaning “God rules”), his final resting place is in Canaan, where the nation Israel now is. Need I go on with Israel and its Zionist political power and reach?

Genesis (at the very least, likely other Old Testament books and the book of Revelations) is not only a history book but may also be a blueprint for the future.

Reminds me of a saying, "you can't see what you're not looking for".

Source for quote about the bible here and all other quotes were sourced from Wikipedia.

Thanks Innocent Warrior, I’ll take a look at this material, but I have two initial comments, one general and one specific.

The major objection made to ‘conspiracy theory’ is that there is one massive plot or matrix that governs absolutely everything. And it is true that it is a very simplistic mindset that blames everything indiscriminately on Zionists/banksters/Jesuits/freemasons/Illuminati/Rothschild/Rockefellers etc. etc.. This material indicates straightaway that we are talking more about warring factions, since here we have a Jesuit reporting on Jacobinists. This is much more plausible and indeed highly probable, since on the one hand, society does operate in terms of societies, secret or otherwise, and on the other hand, the major bane of society is by definition crime, and specifically organized crime. Conspiracy therefore is simply crime organized by such societies when they, or sections thereof, degenerate into mafias. This is not a theory at all: this is plainly how humanity works, or rather dysfunctions. See for example this post.


My second point: in connection with the biblical Jacob; normally speaking, Jacobine refers to Jacobus=James, e.g. the English King James of the King James Bible, but most of all St James the apostle. The Dominicans gave the Jacobine order their name because their monastery was on the Rue St Jacques (St James’ Street) in Paris. But the two Jacobs are probably two layers of the same ‘myth’: this leads back to something I posted only recently, which references both Jacob’s ladder and twins on the one hand and St James as Santiago, as in Santiago di Compostela. So this story would appear to go way way back to our beginnings and earlier.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1044930

@Araucaria. Thanks for that, I didn't realise the Jacobins and Dominicans were one in the same but I just saw that it was only the French who knew them as Jacobins. And yes, so James makes sense, more sense than Jacob (have adjusted my post).

I do believe an old world oligarchy exists, which is in control of the secret societies/factions and plays them off each other, hence why I still think the bible contains blueprints for planned events. In saying that, I don't blame them or anyone for everything though.

Quote:

---

Posted by Innocent Warrior

The meaning of the name, Jacob -

Quote:

---

In the Old Testament, Jacob (later called Israel) is the son of Isaac and Rebecca and the father of the twelve founders of the twelve tribes of Israel. He was born holding his twin brother Esau's heel, and his name is explained as meaning "holder of the heel" or "supplanter”.

---

Meaning of supplanter -

Quote:

---

Supplanter often refers to governments and rulers of countries, and it comes from the verb supplant, which evolved from the Latin supplantare, meaning "to trip up or to overthrow.”

---

---

In this case the Jacobins were supplanting a monarchy with a republican form of government, at a time when almost all of Europe and much of the rest of the world were still ruled by kings, tzars, emperors, etc. Honestly I probably would have been taking their side in all that back then, as a lot of the French people were, because I am not much of a monarchist myself.

When the Jacobins came to power in France (as the dominant political party in the newly-established government), just about every nation in Europe declared war on France, over and over, trying to force a monarch back on the throne, which they finally did when Napoleon was finally defeated. England, Prussia, Austria, the other German states of the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Portugal, the Italian states and the Dutch all declared war on France beginning in 1792, and these wars would go on and off, everybody basically ganging up on France, until 1815. Then the rest of Europe reinstated a Bourbon monarch, who happened to be related to the Austrian royal family and probably some others on top of that. The French people still didn't like it and struggled against monarchy for the rest of the 1800's. It was only with a lot of hardship that the French people overthrew their monarchy and the Jacobins were a big part of how that all started.

A lot of the founding fathers of the US who led the revolution to overthrow British rule in the colonies were also freemasons, and they were in the same circles as a lot of the French philosophes and those who later became political figures in France. Yes, this was also a secret society and yes, they were in direct opposition to the governments in power at the time, and it was often against the law for them to meet anywhere at all. But they didn't try too hard to hide it because there are plenty of records of their trips back and forth from Europe and who they were meeting with and even what they were talking about, because they would often publish it or at least put it in private letters even though they knew that it upset the governments of the time and it was causing (or at least fueling) riots and rebellions. I believe these people genuinely believed what they wrote and they believed they were doing something good. At any rate to undo what they accomplished would be to go back to monarchy, which in our case would be under a queen who could be a baby-eater and it wouldn't surprise me any. Then there isn't even the pretense of any kind of representative government at all with a monarchy, but just blatant submission to what is claimed to be a God-given authority to rule. And speaking of God, and that God-given right to be a king or queen, that's where our Jesuit friend comes into play and criticizes those who overthrew the French monarchy.

This is amazing. Just so amazing. Better than any movie we could have ever imagined. Thank you. From the bottom of all of our hearts. Keep up the good work. :clapping:

Marie Antoinette was the one who put together a European alliance, Russia inclusive, that was against the British and in support of the American revolutionaries.

A great deal of the legwork for the French revolution was British.

The Jacobin Club was a mixed bag and part of it was British agitation to prevent that alliance from gaining power; this extremist bloc got rid of the monarchs and promoted violence. Robespierre referred to a plot to destroy the republic while he was in charge. Extremists, riding on the backs of other extremists.

The outcome was that the French revolutionaries who mostly just wanted a new form of government, were used to wreck France and further the ends of British hegemony. When looking at a potential alliance of France, Austria, Russia, and the United States, one can see them all harassed by British operations and winding up largely foes of each other.

This particular Abbe' was pretty much the "go-to" guy for a lot of historical research and so is the root of a lot of opinions. Specifically Anti-Masonic Conspiracy Theory, which consists of packing every non-Catholic belief under one label, understanding it as a sect.

Quote:

---

Posted by araucaria

The Dominicans gave the Jacobine order their name because their monastery was on the Rue St Jacques (St James’ Street) in Paris.

---

Thanks for the links, will check them out. I conceded a little and replied to your post (in case you haven't seen it) but I'm going back to my original position. You threw me when you said the Dominicans gave the Jacobins their name and I then saw that, according to the Dominicans, the Jacobins were members of their order (from what I can tell, correct me if I'm wrong). This confused me, until I remembered Barruel said the Jacobins seized the convent (included in the excerpts in the OP).

So, to the Dominicans, seeing the Jacobins as members of their order, James would be more significant - I agree, however, in the context of the Jacobins seizing their meeting place and eventually the people of France, it is fair to say Jacob would have more significance to the Jacobins, an occult significance, which lends more credence to what I wrote of the biblical Jacob/Israel.

As a side note, the seals/emblems of these players also reflects the Jacob portrayed in Genesis.

The Dominicans' (the older brother) -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ican_Order.png

The Jacobins' (the younger brother, Jacob) -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Vignette01.jpg

The Jacobins', after the creation of the French Republic (overthrown the government/stole his older brother's birthright)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Vignette03.jpg

Note the cap that's now on the Jacobins' emblem, that signifies "power of the people", and the meaning of that shifts with the occult perspective.

And now Israel's -

http://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsr...tate-semel.jpg

Quote:

---

Posted by bsbray

In this case the Jacobins were supplanting a monarchy with a republican form of government, at a time when almost all of Europe and much of the rest of the world were still ruled by kings, tzars, emperors, etc. Honestly I probably would have been taking their side in all that back then, as a lot of the French people were, because I am not much of a monarchist myself.

When the Jacobins came to power in France (as the dominant political party in the newly-established government), just about every nation in Europe declared war on France, over and over, trying to force a monarch back on the throne, which they finally did when Napoleon was finally defeated. England, Prussia, Austria, the other German states of the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Portugal, the Italian states and the Dutch all declared war on France beginning in 1792, and these wars would go on and off, everybody basically ganging up on France, until 1815. Then the rest of Europe reinstated a Bourbon monarch, who happened to be related to the Austrian royal family and probably some others on top of that. The French people still didn't like it and struggled against monarchy for the rest of the 1800's. It was only with a lot of hardship that the French people overthrew their monarchy and the Jacobins were a big part of how that all started.

A lot of the founding fathers of the US who led the revolution to overthrow British rule in the colonies were also freemasons, and they were in the same circles as a lot of the French philosophes and those who later became political figures in France. Yes, this was also a secret society and yes, they were in direct opposition to the governments in power at the time, and it was often against the law for them to meet anywhere at all. But they didn't try too hard to hide it because there are plenty of records of their trips back and forth from Europe and who they were meeting with and even what they were talking about, because they would often publish it or at least put it in private letters even though they knew that it upset the governments of the time and it was causing (or at least fueling) riots and rebellions. I believe these people genuinely believed what they wrote and they believed they were doing something good. At any rate to undo what they accomplished would be to go back to monarchy, which in our case would be under a queen who could be a baby-eater and it wouldn't surprise me any. Then there isn't even the pretense of any kind of representative government at all with a monarchy, but just blatant submission to what is claimed to be a God-given authority to rule. And speaking of God, and that God-given right to be a king or queen, that's where our Jesuit friend comes into play and criticizes those who overthrew the French monarchy.

---

Cheers, bsbray. I'll likely be back with questions. I only found the book a couple of days ago and haven't read it all yet (something like 880 pages), I actually jumped around, reading the parts that most interested me, so I don't yet have a clear, full picture of the narrative itself.

Quote:

---

Posted by shaberon

Marie Antoinette was the one who put together a European alliance, Russia inclusive, that was against the British and in support of the American revolutionaries.

A great deal of the legwork for the French revolution was British.
[...]
The outcome was that the French revolutionaries who mostly just wanted a new form of government, were used to wreck France and further the ends of British hegemony. When looking at a potential alliance of France, Austria, Russia, and the United States, one can see them all harassed by British operations and winding up largely foes of each other.

---

Thanks for bringing this up, shaberon. I've never much studied what was going on internationally during France's revolutionary years except with the US, and just as you suggest, the US and France were largely hostile towards each other during the French Revolution. Since France was overthrowing its monarchy to become a republic, which is exactly what the US did, with French help, you'd think that they would make obvious allies. But no, the US and British actually worked together (and only a few years after the American Revolutionary War, at that) to cripple the French navy during what was called the "Quasi War." I always thought that this was a strange turn of events.

It just goes to show how complicated the world is, with layers upon layers of things going on. Playing enemies against each other and trying to break up international alliances was the modus operandi of all of the major European powers for several hundred years, so there would be nothing out of the ordinary about that.

It's a layer of onion that is not obvious from Barruel's treatment, and hence not obvious in general.

I would tend to rail against the divine right of any monarch to rule over me, but when looking at the monarchs of these particular countries, they seemed to be aware of an international organization, which would use and trick people and install a terrible system. In this way, it went into the Jacobins and Encyclopedists, eventually gaining control. It was a big page turned by the British Empire, which, of course, has little to do with the interests of the ordinary national Englishman, as it was--an international organization that gained control of the empire from within. That is what Marie Antoinette almost single-handedly tried, and, as the last major obstacle--failed, to contain. I am not trying to say she was any saint in relation to the commoners, but someone in a position to try to spare those four kingdoms from an injected parasite.

I wouldn't dispute most of Barruel's findings. The difficulties with him come from--representing the very institution he stands for; the sweeping of everything he doesn't understand into the Anti-Masonic "one label fits all"; and no recognition of British statecraft.

If you look back in the centuries before the French Revolution, there had been Cathars, Knights Templar and other "heretical" groups preserving ancient knowledge and traditions who were violently suppressed by the Catholic Church, which was already an international body dictating politics from within each Catholic nation. These kinds of traditions seem to have elevated genuine spirituality as an exploration of consciousness, and were critical and reasoning. The earliest scientists were deeply involved with these esoteric traditions, like Newton's interest in alchemy, which was another one of these traditions preserving ancient knowledge. The secret societies like the Freemasons and the Rosicrucians were carrying forward this knowledge too, in their own ways. And the scientific revolution in turn fueled the anti-Catholic writings of the Enlightenment... to which much of the French Revolution is traditionally attributed.

The French monarchy had been in decline since Louis XIV, up against an increasingly aware populace, and if anything the British might have taken advantage of the situation with some underhanded activities but the whole series of events certainly can't all be attributed to them. The various roots of the situation in 1789 go back much further in history.

In the context: France Didn't Have A Revolution

Yes well, for the R. C. C. to go off denouncing others as Sophists seems to be a projection.

I am not sure about this Abbe' as being himself a Jesuit, seeing as how they were evicted from 80 countries and shut down by 1773--but maybe he was. Upon sifting his material, we find him dismissing "Jesuit Masonry" as a European invention to cover their own tracks. Out of a nearly 900 page book, this section is quite brief.

It's a bit confusing but in England, Jacobite Masonry (Jacob=James, King James) functioned as part of Catholic attempts to restore a Stuart to power. After the international power did away with the Catholics and devoured England, France was next on the chopping block, by the same executioner.

Further along he does reveal part of the Jacobin goals--attributed to Baboeuf--which is the elimination of private property. This would be the total opposite of a republican form of government to protect private property, but both principles of rebellion are classed in the same group.

Yes, Ms. Webster dismissed English involvement in the same manner Barruel denies Jesuit Masonry, and yet we are to take this as authentic, complete research. Which I suppose everyone did, when those books were published. Once those two holes are punched in their theses, they start bleeding to death.

Yes, thank you shaberon.

It is important to read this book in the context it was presented, just as now, those times were rife with propaganda (hence why I wrote containing research in the thread title) and of course it is hypocritical of the Catholic church to be calling others Sophisters.

Unless you are referring specifically to the time this book was published, I don't see how the suppression of the Jesuits alone gives cause to doubt that Abbe was a Jesuit; he was born in 1741, joined the Jesuits at the age of 15 and the suppression wasn't until 1773, after which he became a literary.

Ok, that's my fault--didn't really look at his bio.

This is my own guess here but, due to compartmentalisation--he probably had no clue that other Jesuits had tinkered with Masonry. When did they get their jobs back? Right after--Waterloo. It may not even be propaganda on the part of the authors, since the Jesuit and British movements are somewhat concealed, and most people find it preposterous to question the motives of their authorities. But it served to further conceal something that Marie Antoinette tried to stop in advance, and Robespierre realized when it was too late.