jump to navigation

Mexican Revolution directed by a cabal of radical freemasons/American exploiters July 23, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, General Catholic, history, Holy suffering, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.

I have, good readers, been blessed to read several good histories on the persecution of Catholics in Mexico.  Blood Drenched Altars, Mexican Martyrdom, The Power and the Glory by Graham Greene, and the writings of Gary Potter all helped shape at least a basic knowledge of the course of the terrible persecution that afflicted the Catholic Church in Mexico over the period 1815 – 1940.

However, I must say, none of these books have established so clearly the near total involvement of highly anti-Catholic radical Masons at the top of the Mexican revolutionary leadership throughout this time period, and the deliberate 51tVnzCvRzL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_
intervention of the United States government in favor of these Masons, as Father Michael Kenny SJ’s book No God Next Door.  From Joel R. Poinsett’s initial formation of a joint Mexican-American Supreme Masonic Council in New Orleans in 1827 – which set the course for the Mexican revolution for the next century, and thoroughly inculcated its anti-Catholic character – to Woodrow Wilson’s constant intervention in favor of the most radical, Church-hating elements in the disastrous “Tampico Affair” and other acts, this American-influenced (and at times dominated) Masonic cabal was the vital instigator of the vicious persecution of the Church and the subsequent secularization of Mexican life, which largely persists to this day.

There is far too much vital history contained in this book to cover in one post.  You really need to read the book.  But I can give some excerpts that will help establish the reality of American Masonic (and racist, anti-Catholic US Southerner) involvement in the savage, century-long persecution of the Church.  First, I’ll establish the personage of Joel R. Poinsett: Southerner, dedicated to establishing a great southern expansion of the United States (realized after the unjust war of 1846) mexiko_erschiessung-jpgfor the purposes of preserving the relative power of the slave states against the increasingly abolitionist North, Poinsett was appointed the first representative of the federal government to recently independent Mexico in 1825.  He immediately began gathering around himself all the radical, disaffected elements he could find, men dedicated both to turning Mexico into an American-type representative democracy, and, even more, dedicated to breaking the influence of the Catholic Church over Mexican life.  Thus, an early example of “nation-building” American hubris, almost two centuries before our adventures in the Middle East, attempting to impose on an unwilling and, even more, indisposed population the same kind of government that required centuries of development (and protestant/endarkenment) errors to bring to fruition in the United States.

When Poinsett was informed that Mexico was not then (nor is not now?) a suitable land for American-type democracy by Mexican leaders, he began organizing plots to overthrow that leadership and instigate an American-backed progressive revolution. His plan was to install a liberal democracy so friendly and beholden to the US for its power that it would willingly trade away most of Mexico’s land so that they might rule the rump state that remained. His actions caused great scandals, and he was subsequently recalled to the US under a dark cloud of shame, and his co-conspirators were exiled with him.

But Poinsett was a determined man.  He gathered around himself in New Orleans the revolutionary friends he had made in Mexico, and introduced them to the Lodge.  The Lodge would become the meeting place, nexus of communications, and Miguel_Pro_volleysource of diabolical inspiration for the Revolution for the next 120 years.  We take up this seminal secret meeting at the Grand Lodge La Luz in New Orleans held in 1827 under Poinsett’s direction:

Poinsett and the pro-American liberal party he had organized adopted in secret session of the Grand Lodge La Luz in New Orleans, 1827, the following preamble and platform:

“Convinced that the clergy, inasmuch as it opposes colonization (of Mexico, by Americans), is a permanent obstacle to reform; that it impedes the diffusion of light, [i.e., endarkenment ideals promoted by Masonry] provokes antagonism towards foreigners (i.e., Joel R. Poinsett)….the Mexican National Rite adopts in all its parts the political plan and program of reform proposed by progressive men (i.e., Joel R. Poinsett), which should be initiated in Congress as soon as possible by the Masons who hold seats there…….because being based on the principles taught by Masonry, the Rite should redouble its efforts to make it effective in accordance with the terms in which it is conceived, namely:

1. Absolute freedom of opinion and abrogation of all laws censoring the press
2. Abolition of special privilege for the clergy…..
3. Suppression of monastic institutions and all laws recognizing the intervention of the clergy in civil business, such as the marriage contract, etc.
4. Improvement of the moral condition of the people by depriving the clergy of its monopoly on public education by increasing educational facilities and inculcating social duties by means of the foundation of…….secular educational institutions for classic literature, science, and morals” [Education was in the hands of the Church because, to that time, no other entity could be bothered to provide it.  Education was free or incredibly cheap, and had been a substantial expense for the Church which operated schools, seminaries, and colleges at her own expense for the good of the people.  But since those schools naturally conveyed a Catholic viewpoint and the Doctrine of the Faith, along with all the other subjects, it had to be destroyed as an obstacle to “progress.”]

victoriano_ramirez-jpgSo what did this lead to?  With the practically communist 1917 Constitution – never voted on or approved by the people, but rammed through an unelected Congress under threat of violence – all of these anti-Church provisions and more were put in place.  And it was the United States government that assured the victory of the most radical elements in the long Mexican revolution:

“Article 3 of the 1917 Mexican Constitution is the main avenue that Calles [bastard child, never baptized, likely not even qualified to hold office as the son of a foreigner, he was also a brigand, murderer, insatiable thief, and manifest failure at all he tried before he became, for his enormous hatred of the Church, a powerful figure in the Revolution] has seized for the permanent uprooting of religion from the minds and hearts of Mexico.  This article abrogates the parents right to provide for the education of their offspring; and on this quite justifying basis, Calles proclaimed, and by organic law has since executed, his purpose, “to enter into and take possession of the consciences of children, of the consciences of youth,” and compel all Mexico “to belong to the revolution.”

Thus, also was finally realized in its fullness the plan of action set by Joel R. Poinsett and adopted in 1827 by the joint Mexican and American Supreme Masonic Councils in New Orleans, namely, to abolish the privileges of the clergy and all laws recognizing intervention of the clergy, and “to deprive the clergy of its monopoly on public education.”

This meant, as the context obviously shows, that the Church must be kept out of the schools, and religion out of all education, so that the State shall mould the pupils to its will.  This was precisely the purpose of the Farias decrees of 1833, of the Juarez code of 1857, of the Queretaro Constitution of 1817, as of the Calles amendments of 1934 and of the high Masonic Councils before and after 1827.  And all were based on the same ground, that the child belongs to the state, and that the state alone has the right to educate him, the parent not at all.  [Turning parents, in effect, into slaves of the state, slaves enjoined to provide offspring that the state will then take and mold according to its will.  How similar to the rhetoric of leftists of our own time (it takes a village).  There is nothing new under the sun, or Son.]Fr._Francisco_Vera_1927

……..That the child belongs to the state, and that the state has the sole right to educate him, and that all religion must be excluded from his teaching, is a primary Masonic doctrine, not only in Mexico and Latin countries, but here in the US, as well.  In Spain and France and other Latin lands the first sign of Masonic dominance is the exclusion of the crucifix from the school and its replacement with anti-Christian teachings.  United States Scottish Rite Masonry has always been in union with the Grant Orient and in sympathy with this policy, and all American masonry is in formal union with it now.…….

…….The Supreme Council of the Thirty Third Degree in Washington and the Imperial Council of Oregon, having resolved in 1920 that education in religionless public schools must be made compulsory, on all, both started an agitation for a law in Oregon compelling public school attendance for all children from 8 to 16. They assumed credit for its adoption in 1922 and had similar bills ready for other states……..

No sooner had the Supreme Court [in 1934] ruled out the Masonic doctrine as the direct antithesis of our “fundamental theory of liberty,” that the Supreme Council of the Thirty Third Degree issued in Washington a counter pronouncement in download (15)defiance of the Supreme Court of the nation…………issuing a profession of principles which Calles and his Mexican Masons could not better:

“We are, therefore, justified in continuing to assert and maintain our belief in the value of the compulsory requirement of attendance of all children upon the public schools.  We cannot at this time but insist upon the existence of the principle that the right of the child to avail himself of the educational opportunities of the public school is superior to the right of the parent or of any corporation, secular or religious, to shape islam-overview-universe-next-door-chapter-10-13-638in advance his intellectual allegiance and we should be alert to unite with every movement which tends to the maintenance of this right.” [It certainly seems that in this year of our Lord 2015 the Masons have essentially achieved their goal of “de-mythologizing” virtually all young people in this country and so many others – thus paving the way for our conquest by islam]

———–End Quote———–

Sorry, this post is becoming longer than I planned, so I’ll cut it off there.  Still later in the book, no less a personage than Theodore Roosevelt denounced the favoritism and direct aid given to the worst, most anti-Catholic revolutionaries by several American administrations, especially democrat ones. It is no accident that the Revolution in Mexico made its greatest gains, and consolidated its cruel anti-Church policies to the utmost, under the administrations of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.  Father Kenny shows that it was Wilson’s repeated intervention on the side of the revolutionaries Carranza, et. al., that allowed them to triumph over the much more moderate government of Huerta, among others.  Even the fruitless “punitive expedition” of Pershing against Pancho Villa could be seen as an effort to aid the by-then established Miguel_Pro_prayingradical government consolidate its power.  It certainly could not be due to Villa’s attack on the US in Columbus, NM, since Wilson (and others) had looked the other way on numerous previous occasions when such depredations occurred (as in, when Calles ordered the murder of three men in Laredo, TX), and even more, allowed free passage to armed revolutionary columns through US soil, all the while seeing to it that they were well supplied in arms, ammunition, food, and money, while blockading all such vital materials to the more conservative elements.

US influence was so decisive that even the arrival of US warships in Mexican ports could instigate the fall of a government, Miguel_Prodepending on the vagaries of the political situation.  Throughout Calles reign, US diplomats like the racist southerner Josephus Daniels (long-time friend of FDR since Wilson administration days and an ardent supporter of Jim Crow laws in the South) provided him with most vociferous, unequivocal support, while dismissing concerns that he was repressive or dictatorial in any way.  They did this due to both a similarity of political outlook – progressives always reward and never criticize their “friends” – and because US industry with billion dollar concessions in Mexico demanded it.

Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States!

Final thought – could the current enormous influx of immigrants from Mexico, to the point where they will likely constitute a majority in most of the Southwest of the US within a few decades, be poetic justice for US treatment of Mexico for so many years?  God works in mysterious ways, but never fails to punish those who attack His own.

Something to consider, anyway.


1. tg - July 23, 2015

Thanks for educating us. So much of this must have been kept from the ordinary, poor people. I don’t recall my dad ever saying anything about the Masons. (Also, I’m keeping your wife and you in my prayers regarding your unborn child.)

2. Baseballmom - July 23, 2015

Very informative…. Thank you. I do wonder why Mexicans seem to have a very shallow, yet widespread, devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe? I guess it is mostly cultural? Not really religious?

Cristero - July 23, 2015

Yes, Ma’am. Mexicans are very proud (and rightly so) that Our Lady chose Tepeyac as the place for appearing in this hemisphere. Today, with few exceptions, that pride is in the Mexican factor as opposed to the Mexican Catholic factor.

One interesting exception is among the evangelicals and other protestants who are gaining lots and lots of ground with the help of the Catholic hierarchy. I have met many of these people who scoff at Our Lady of Guadalupe, say that is was really a demonic apparition, or are otherwise embarrassed by it.

A visit to La Villita (the shrine and environs) is today not an edifying experience for someone who loves authentic Catholicism. It is one of those Catholic “theme parks” that many shrines have been transformed into. On a recent visit we noted a banner at the entrance enthusiastically promoting the blasphemous production “Godspell” which was being sponsored by the shrine and the Archdiocese.

I do not meet many young Mexicans who have ever heard of the Cristeros.

LaGallina - July 23, 2015

My 40-something year old Mexican cradle-Catholic husband had never heard of the Cristeros, none of the martyrs from that period, nor much about the persecution at all. That was all conveniently left out from their public school curriculum.

I’ve never thought to ask his mother about that time period. She was schooled by those good old REAL CATHOLIC nuns as a girl. I’ll have to ask her. I’m curious if the older generation knows much about that time in their history.

camper - July 24, 2015

The Christeros were disapproved by the Mexican hierarchy, and rightly so. St. Thomas condemns rebellion in On Kingship, saying it has “no basis in the Christian tradition”. It is only with the “endarkenment” that rebellion came to be accepted. God orders those suffering under an immoral government to pray for change. You can read On Kingship if you want more of the opinion of the Angelic Doctor on the matter.

Cristero - July 24, 2015

Does he condemn self-defense?

Any idea on how far Masonic infiltration had affected the Mexican episcopate by 1920?

n.b. (the spelling is “Cristero”)

Dismas - July 25, 2015

Dear Camper:

I respect your position regarding “rebellion” and I think you can gather a lot of support for it from legitimate, trustworthy sources.

i’m not convinced, though, that you can throw it out there as the last word and then “close the case” based upon St. Thomas Aquinas or any single, or even multiple opinions, regardless of how revered the authors may be.

Once you take a position similar to that do you not find yourself, in some form or fashion, calling into question not only the Cristiada, but the Vendee, much of the Irish experience, elements of the Eastern European experience over the last century and likely some that are not occurring to me off the top of my head?

It is true that the Cristiada found little support among the Mexican hierarchy, with the notable exception of a number of priests who have been canonized for their martyrdom in that event. It is also true that the Mexican episcopate has been a fairly welcome home for Freemasons over the centuries.

At any rate, a blanket condemnation of armed resistance to attack by a government on Catholics is not something mentioned in the only text of Catholic Dogma I have before me, which is that of Ott.

From the perspective of many, the Cristiada was a glorious thing. It was also tragic and an example of the real fallibility of even good popes in matters not pertaining to Faith and Morals. The Cristeros suffered their greatest casualties after they had lain down their arms under the direction of Pius XI and were subsequently rounded up and massacred. This detail may also speak to the assertion that armed resistance is not a “Catholic” thing. Many attribute the subsequent interest in sedevacantism in Mexico, which pre-dates Vatican II, to this episode. Many simple Mexicans arrived at the reasonable conclusion that no true Catholic pope would order his own soldiers to lay down their arms and be massacred.

3. RVBlake - July 23, 2015

I believe the massive influx of Mexican immigration is more due to the wish of our current regime for new leftist voters than to any action of God.

c matt - July 23, 2015

The two are not mutually exclusive. The leftist regime may see it as a boon to their voting base, and it may turn out to be an economically devastating punishment. We probably deserve worse.

Tantumblogo - July 23, 2015

Well of course but there is a certain ironic element.

4. How the Mexican bishops betrayed the Cristeros and Mexican faithful……. | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics - July 27, 2015

[…] this point, I will take up from No God Next Door, pp. 137 – (my emphasis and […]

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: