On the "King of all the World (Hiram Abiff);" the Masonic Messiah & other Masonic Conspiracies.

While the lessons taught in British lodges would have never encouraged indigenous men to defy the Raj, they did present Indians with the possibility that they were not just the younger brethren of European Masons but in fact their equals. It was but a short step from there to demand equality outside the lodge. The extent to which colonial nationalists and British Masons both found in Freemasonry resources for dealing with the era of decolonization remains a matter in need of further investigation. What is clear, however, is that the same ideology which had long been used to build and maintain the empire could also be used to destroy the very foundations on which it stood.

The primary mechanism responsible for building of this expansive network of lodges was the regimental lodge. By the early nineteenth century every regiment in the British army boasted at least one lodge, that accompanied it on its imperial sojourns.

In the colonies, masonry's long established association with the men of prominence (such as millitary officers and colonial governors) made it attractive to rising men who sought status and power to accompany their wealth.

Freemasonry was thus a prominent feature of the public landscape of the British empire during the second half of the eighteenth century. It performed a range of functions, that buttressed the imperial state: providing buildings for public and official meetings, offering recreational outlets, and contributing to the ceremonial dimensions of british imperialism.

As it turns out, the author completely disagrees with your conclusion, finding Indian Masons of two minds about the subject. See what happens when you try to learn from a book instead of doing one-word searches for what you're looking for?

3 million died because of famine creation policies of British colonists in India.

Deliberately inducing a major famine more or less every two years, was, for over half a century, the backbone of British colonial policy in India.

The history of the British in India is a history of the deliberate creation of famines. Such famines resulted from the policies of the East India Company. Those policies included looting through "tax farming," usury, and outright slavery of the indigenous population.

As we shall see, a limit to this rapine was reached in the middle of the 19th Century, leading to the first struggle for Indian independence, which began with the Sepoy Mutiny. Following that revolt, a new policy was developed by the British Colonial Office, which took over all the operations of the East India Company. The new policy revolved around creating famines in selected regions on a continuous basis, with the goal of creating a mass of starving people who could be used as slave labor, needed by the British to build the infrastructure of British rule.

With the advent of the Western colonizers, the peoples of the Third World were actually set back in their development sometimes for centuries. British imperialism in India provides an instructive example. In 1810, India was exporting more textiles to England than England was exporting to India. By 1830, the trade flow was reversed. The British had put up prohibitive tariff barriers to shut out Indian finished goods and were dumping their commodities in India, a practice backed by British gunboats and military force. Within a matter of years, the great textile centers of Dacca and Madras were turned into ghost towns. The Indians were sent back to the land to raise the cotton used in British textile factories. In effect, India was reduced to being a cow milked by British financiers.

By 1850, India's debt had grown to 53 million pounds. From 1850 to 1900, its per capita income dropped by almost two-thirds. The value of the raw materials and commodities the Indians were obliged to send to Britain during most of the nineteenth century amounted yearly to more than the total income of the sixty million Indian agricultural and industrial workers. The massive poverty we associate with India was not that country's original historical condition. British imperialism did two things: first, it ended India's development, then it forcibly underdeveloped that country.

The evidence - researched by scholars such as Amartya Sen, Nicholas Dirks, Mike Davis and Mahmood Mamdani, Caroline Elkins and Walter Rodney - shows that European colonialism brought with it not good governance and freedom, but impoverishment, bloodshed, repression and misery. Joseph Conrad, no radical, described it as "a flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly". Good governance? More famines were recorded in the first century of the British Raj than in the previous 2,000 years, including 17-20 million deaths from 1896 to 1900 alone. While a million Indians a year died from avoidable famines, taxation subsidising colonial wars, and relief often deliberately denied as surplus grain was shipped to England.

Tolerance? The British empire reinforced strict ethnic/religious identities and governed through these divisions. As with the partition of India when 10 million were displaced, arbitrarily drawn boundaries between "tribes" in Africa resulted in massive displacement and bloodshed. Freedom and fair play? In Kenya, a handful of white settlers appropriated 12,000 square miles and pushed 1.25 million native Kikuyus to 2,000 restricted square miles. Resistance was brutally crushed through internment in detention camps, torture and massacres.

The Indian textile industry was the most advanced in the world when the British arrived; within half a century it had been destroyed. The enslaved and indentured (at least 20 million Africans and 1.5 million Indians) were shipped across the globe to work on plantations, mines and railroads. The stupendous profits deriving from this enabled today's developed world to prosper.

Originally posted by illuminazislayer
reply to post by OnTheLevel213

 

Sir, why freemasonry collaborated with the tyrannical British empire and helped it in achieving its objectives of global enslavement

And, why freemasonry was involved in the political agendas of the British monarchies, contrary to the claims of masonic cultists that freemasonry has no relation with politics.?

The primary mechanism responsible for building of this expansive network of lodges was the regimental lodge. By the early nineteenth century every regiment in the British army boasted at least one lodge, that accompanied it on its imperial sojourns.

In the colonies, masonry's long established association with the men of prominence (such as millitary officers and colonial governors) made it attractive to rising men who sought status and power to accompany their wealth.

why freemasonry was associated with military men and colonial governors; is this why people join freemasonry to quickly climb up the ladder of social status and power with the help of men of prominence.?

...membership offered a passport to convivial society, moral and spiritual refinement, material assistance, and social advancement in all parts of the empire.

Freemasonry supported the rape, pillage and plunder of British imperialist regime

The author has fully agreed with my conclusions of Freemasons being indoctrinated slaves.

No need to become an imperial apologist sir

Sir, masonic cultists are serving the interests of slave traders, drug lords and genocidal terrorists and they have no idea about it.

Because masonic cultists have been indoctrinated with such vile beliefs that wars, slavery, genocides are absolutely necessary for the well being of humanity.

But thanks for agreeing that freemasonry fully supported tyrannical British empire.