At least 90% of those quotes are forgeries, wrongly paraphrased or outright lies.

Part 2

Mackey's Quote

The posted Mackey quote in Hibiki's meme is part paraphrase, part forgery and totally misrepresenting the entirety of the paraphrase by withholding the proceeding section where Mackey debunks these statements. For the quote is actually a paraphrase by Mackey in which he is listing, what he calls, the “preposterous” arguments of the contention. Therefore, this scholarly Freemason, which /u/hibikiblack misrepresents his posted paraphrase as proof that the alleged Jesuit control of Freemasonry is proven by a Freemason like Mackey himself, proves the opposite, that Mackey debunks the entirety of these claims in the proceeding section that the meme curiously forgot to paraphrase. How despicable that a Jesuit theorist would manipulate the meaning of a masonic scholars authorship to denigrate Jesuitism.

In the middle of the 18th century, during the [Jesuit] suppression, the Jesuits incorporated themselves into Freemasonry through the order of the Illuminati created by Adam Weishaupt in 1776.

Apparently, this was written in Mackey’s ‘History of Freemasonry vol. II’ according to /u/hibikiblack.

Here are the closest statements I’ve found written by Mackey:

The theory that the Jesuits in the 17th century had invented Freemasonry for the purpose of effecting one of their ambitious projects, or that they had taken as then existed, changed it, and added to it for the same purpose, is absolutely untenable.

[…] ...has been maintained [by others; not Mackey, as your stupid meme wrongly maintains] that this notion of the intrusion, as may well be called, of the Jesuits into the Masonic Order has been attributed to the Illuminati, that secret society which was established by Adam Weishaupt in Bavaria about the year I776.

Mackey, however, debunks this nonsense and concludes that no legitimate evidence exists proving these claims. Therefore, /u/hibikiblack ‘s meme is a noutright lie intended to misrepresent Mackey’s views for the anti-Jesuitical agenda often pushed by theorists such as

On a side note, charter documents and letters written by British statesmen illustrate, firstly, that the Bavarian Illuminati existed well before 1776, spanning back to 1738!

Freemasonry was always opposed to Catholic Jesuitsm. In fact, book nu-Freemasonry worked with communists of the orient to infiltrate, subvert and destroy Catholic Jesuits and the Church. But can this even be considered Masonry, no, not exactly, not the blue lodge masonry that your Grandpa was a member of. Fitzpatrick Informer's The Jesuit theory as a Judeo-Fallacy, Maurice Pinay's 'Plot Against the Church' or the several wonderful books written by Dennis Fahey on the Judeo-masonic conspiracy detail this subversive campaign of neo-Freemasonry, such as P2 and the Grand Orient rites that existed before these alleged to be fringe groups.

Anyone with an ounce of knowledge on this subject would know that masonry is opposed to Catholicism and Jesuitism, which was an order of the Church that spread the gospel to the 4 corners of the earth. Why then are rabbinates, masons, Marranos, Chabad-Lubavitchers and a Pope that hangs a painting in his office with the words: "to blot out His name forever," as Talmudic rabbis often proclaim; the modern heretics but certain proprietors of the Church? It is because they presently control the church, not Catholics, let alone Catholic Jesuits. For Pope Bergoglio is, indeed, a marrano.

This you have in common with the rabbis hibiki. A fervent hatred for Catholicism and a denial of Christ having ever walked on this earth. You'd rather believe in the kosher slaughter of the gospel—fairytales espoused by Joseph Atwell. This fellow Joseph, that you often quote, would have you believe that Jesus Christ never existed [even though Talmudic tests exist denigrating Christ] but that the Khazar Jewish woman that interviewed Atwell is a relative of Abraham ... As the rabbis say, and Pope Francis with his anti-Christ painting hanging at his office: "Yimach sh'mo v'zikhrono (May [Jesus'] name and memory be blotted out)”

Atwill wrote a book "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus" but wait: the gospels confirm that Jews (not Christians) cried out "We have no King but Caesar"! The rabbis fail for 2000 years and on they fail! JESUS is not a "Jew" HE did not descend from the Pharisees nor was HE a member of the Serpent Cult called Judaism that derived from the Pharisees.

Mr. Atwill is self-described as being "Brilliant". Lucifer also was described thusly.

An erudite would also know that Jesuits (Catholics) wrote dozens of encyclicals against Judeo-inspired communism, which is evidenced by father Fahey's scholarly works and Solzhenitsyn's '200 Years Together' — both of whom also detail the Jewish commissars, neo-masons, and self-proclaimed libertarians who persecuted the Church, whether Catholic or Orthodox, lining up thousands of clergyman and executing them. One of the first decrees in Bolshevik Russia was the execution of a person deemed anti-Semitic on even a hearsay accusation of 'anti-Semitism,' which, as we know, most of these Bolsheviks were of Yiddish origin and so were non-Semitic—a term hibiki likes to wrongly use, commonly utilized by the judeo-supremacist ADL and other such supremacist organizations.

Political Zionism has always been a corporate ism. It idolizes race distinctness like National Socialism as opposed to universalism... so is that why you cover for Jewish supremacists and use the username HibikiSS on reddit? For both parties are inevitably naturalist equivalents diametrically opposed to each other but also to the Church's universalism.

Mackey writes, "This view [Jesuit and Freemason amalgamation] has been denied by other writers of equal eminence, though it is admitted that Roman Catholic, if not Jesuitical, features are to be found in some of the high degrees."

Part 4

The charges made against it, that it was a political organization, and that one of its designs was to undermine the Christian religion, although strenuously maintained by Barruel, Robison, and a host of other adversaries, have no foundation in truth. The principles of the order were liberal and philosophical, but neither revolutionary nor anti-Christian.

As the defender of free thought, it came of course into conflict with the Roman Catholic Church and the Company of Jesus, whose tendencies were altogether the other way. The priests, therefore, became its most active enemies, and their opposition was so successful that it was suppressed in 1 784.

There was also between Illuminism and the many Masonic Rites, which about the period of its popularity were constantly arising in Germany and in France, a species of rivalry. With the natural egotism of reformers, the Illuminati sought to prove the superiority of their own system to that of their rivals.

With this view they proclaimed that all the Lodges of Freemasons were secretly controlled by the Jesuits ; that their laws and their mysteries were the inventions of the same Order, of whom every Freemason was unconsciously the slave and the instrument. Hence they concluded that he who desired to possess the genuine 19 mysteries of Masonry must seek them not among the degrees of Rose Croix or the Scottish Knights, or still less among the English Masons and the disciples of the Rite of Strict Observance in Germany, but only in the Eclectic Lodges that had been instituted by the Illuminati.

Such, says Barruel, was the doctrine of the Illuminati, advanced for the purpose of elevating the character and aims of their own institution. The French abbd is not generally trustworthy on any subject connected with Freemasonry, of which he was the avowed and implacable foe, but we must acknowledge that he was not far from wrong in calling this story of Jesuitic Masonry “a ridiculous and contemptible fable.”

For once we are disposed to agree with him, when he says in his fervent declamation, “ If prejudice did not sometimes destroy the faculty of reasoning, we should be astonished that the Freemasons could permit themselves to be ensnared in so clumsy a trap. What is it, in fact, but to say to the Mother Lodge of Edinburgh, to the Grand Lodges of London and York, to their rulers, and to all their Grand Masters: ‘You thought that you held the reins of the Masonic world, and you looked upon yourselves as the great depository of its secrets, the distributers of its diplomas ; but you are not so, and, without even knowing it, are merely puppets of which the Jesuits hold the leading-strings, and which they move at their pleasure .’” 1

I think that with a little trouble we may be able to solve this apparently difficult problem of the Jesuitical interference with Freemasonry.

The Jesuits appear to have taken the priests of Egypt for their model. Like them, they sought to be the conservators and the interpreters of religion. The vows which they took attached them to their Order with bonds as indissoluble as those that .united the Egyptian priests in the sacred college of Memphis. Those who sought admission into their company were compelled to pass through trials of their fortitude and fidelity. Their ambition was as indomitable as their cunning was astute. They strove to be the confessors and the counselors of kings, and to control the education of youth, that by these means they might become of importance in the state, and direct the policy of every government where they

were admitted. And this policy was on all occasions to be made subservient to the interests of the church.

At one time they had not less than an hundred schools or colleges in France, the most important being that of Clermont, which, though at one time suppressed, had received renewed letters patent from Louis XIV.

It was this College of Clermont, where James II. was a frequent guest, led there by his religious feelings, that is said to have been the seat of that conspiracy of the Stuart faction which was to terminate either in the invention or the adoption of Freemasonry as a means of restoring the monarch to his throne, and of resuscitating the Roman Catholic religion in heretical England.

Now we may readily admit that the Jesuits were exceedingly anxious to accomplish both these objects, and that for that purpose they would enter into any intrigue which would probably lead to success.

With this design there can be but little doubt that they united with the adherents of the Stuarts. But this conspiracy could not have had any reference to a Masonic organization, because Free- masonry was during the life of James II. wholly unknown in France, and known in England only as a guild of Operative Masons, into which a few non-Masons had been admitted through courtesy. It certainly had not yet assumed the form in which we are called upon to recognize it as the political engine used by the Jesuits. The Grand Lodge of England, the mother of all modern Speculative Masonry, had no existence until 1717, or sixteen years after the death of the king.

During the life of his son and putative successor, the titular James III., Speculative Masonry was established in England and passed over into France.

The Lodge established in Paris in 1725 was, I have no doubt, an organization of the adherents of the Stuart family, as has already been shown. It is probable that most of the members were Catholics and under the influence of the Jesuits. But it is not likely that those priests took an active part in the internal organization of the Lodge.

In the Rose Croix and some other of the High Degrees we find the influences of a Roman Catholic spirit in the original rituals, but this might naturally arise from the religious tendencies of their founders, and did not require the special aid of Jesuitism.

After the year 1738 the bull of excommunication of Pope Clem- ent XII. must have precluded the Jesuits from all connection with Freemasonry except as its denouncers and persecutors, parts which up to the present day they have uninterruptedly played.

In conclusion we must, I think, refuse to accept the theory which makes a friendly connection between Freemasonry and Jesuitism as one of those mythical stories which, born in the imagination of its inventors, has been fostered only by the credulity of its believers.

At this day I doubt if there is a Masonic scholar who would accept it as more than a fable not even “ cunningly devised,” though there was a time when it was received as a part of the authentic history of Freemasonry.

Fables have been invented to establish a connection between Freemasonry and the dynasty of the Stuarts — one which made it the purpose of the adherents of James II. to use the Institution as a means of restoring that monarch to the throne ; a second in which the Jesuits were to employ it for the same purpose, as well as for the re-establishment of the Roman Catholic religion in England ; the third and most preposterous of these fables is that which attributes the invention of Freemasonry as a secret society to Oliver Cromwell, who is supposed to have employed it as a political engine to aid him in the dethronement of Charles I., in the abolition of the monarchy, and in the foundation of a republic on its ruins, with himself for its head.

The first and second of these fables have already been discussed. The consideration of the third will be the subject of the present chapter.