Brotherhood and aristocracy

I’d like to provoke readers with a small lexical analysis.

In my opinion, if the super lodges mentioned by Magaldi in his beautiful book “Massoni” (Masons) are not progressive, then they cannot be defined aristocratic; they can only be defined reactionary and their affiliates cannot be called brothers (including also women in such a definition). 

According to Plato, the government of philosophers is the most suitable to citizens’ needs. A philosopher is one who loves knowledge and consequently can better implement it (Greek verb “fileo” also means “doing something gladly”, “doing it regularly”).

Two characteristics are essential to those who have the responsibility to govern: knowledge of how to act and consciousness of the result, feeling the joy or sorrow of others as they were their own. They must be “àristos”, “the best” in this field and therefore “the most suitable” to govern.

The government of the best is that of aristocracy. They have a better knowledge and can use it better as they are keen to wellbeing of others and willing to correct themselves when necessary.

The real aristocracy is the inner aristocracy, that of spiritual Values and not that of finance, economy, esotericism or hermeticism when disconnected from Right, Good and Progress for human beings. Aristocrats are illuminated rulers who operate to illuminate their own people and free them from poverty.

The Italian word “fratello” (and the equivalent word “brother” in English, or its translations in German and Dutch) comes from a sanskritic verb meaning “to support”. Brothers are those who help and feed each other. The words husband and wife come from the same sanskritic term, as those who support each other.

Those who use someone’s weakness to subjugate them or perpetuate human ignorance to take advantage of it have lost the original title of “brother”.

I gratefully remember one thought of the writer Marina Valcarenghi: “In my tales, princes and princesses are not gallows supporting monarchs but symbols of interior aristocracy, i.e. of search for consciousness, and marriage is not the foundation but the fusion between male and female, the beginning of psychophysical maturity; likewise conquest of the throne represents the conquest of autonomy and we consequently become masters of ourselves, thus of our interior world”.

In my opinion, considering as aristocrats and brothers those who over the last decades caused the ruin of whole countries and led million of people to suffering does not honour the initiatory tradition of humanity.

I also believe that anti-progressive lodges do not deserve being called conservative. After all, conservation has an essential role to transmit roots and tradition in the form of ancient knowledge.  In this sense, the opposite of conservative is spoiling and not progressive. Such distinction is not mine but of the journalist Camillo Langone (actually one of the few considerations I agree on).  We cannot consider as an initiate the one who spoils the authentic meaning of the esoteric tradition originally embraced by free masonry, i.e. bringing knowledge at the service of people in order to free them from the power of gallows supporting rulers and make them improve both socially and Spiritually.

Carlo Rosselli wrote “socialism is firstly moral revolution and only secondly material transformation. As such, it is shown immediately in the consciousness of the best men with no need to wait for future days”.

Therefore, let’s restart TODAY from the MORAL REVOLUTION arising in the CONSCIOUSNESS of the BEST MEN and, through some linguistic distinctions, let’s regain pleasure and joy in using the words according to their original meaning.

Zvetan Lilov
Blogger Rebis Group

Translation by Graziella Cella