Exposing the Evils of False Defamation How to Detect & Counter the Historical Agenda of Deception
For all the good in the world, there seems to always be some balance with an undercurrent of evil. Organizations who successfully build serious humanitarian projects, with capabilities for meaningful global impact, learn quickly that there exists a sub-culture of people who work just as hard, only to make sure that something good will not be given to the world. For such people, the perceived “benefit” is simply to feed their ego with the corrupt satisfaction that their negative impact shows they have some form of “power” over others.
Many diverse charities and non-profit institutions share such experiences: The closer they get to having real positive impact of major benefit to people, the more groups seem to form only to sabotage those good works. Such attacks, for the sole purpose of blocking the good, are almost exclusively driven by the most immoral and despicable practice of defamation.
It is having the moral backbone, professional discipline, and determination, anchored in unshakeable faith, which determines the success of humanitarian projects. It is having the skills, strength and endurance to withstand attacks, oppose wrongdoers, and finish missions, which allows the good works to bear fruit. This is precisely what Knights and Dames are for.
To give mostly lip service to the idea of “charity”, only so long as one’s efforts are convenient and unchallenged by adversity, is contrary to the true life of Chivalry. Historically, genuine Knights and Dames took a stand to fight for what is right, and fight for their rights to bring their good works to the world. Indeed, the authentic Knights Templar experience has always involved rising to the challenge of overcoming slander and false defamation from evil-doers.
Jesus said: “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34). However, with the information presented here, any who engage in defamation related to the Order, its Grand Master, or the independent non-profit institutions which it supports by charitable volunteer work, now will know exactly “what they do”, and will have no excuse from the legal and moral consequences of their false defamation. More importantly, the general public who can see this writing will know what such defamers do, and will be empowered to see through their insidious deceptions, to focus on the blessings of God’s Truth.
Most defamation to sabotage humanitarian projects relies on a wider strategy of simply creating sufficient doubt solely by distraction and confusion, causing people to “give up” on a good cause, simply because they “don’t know who to believe”.
Solving that superficial problem, Prince Judge Matthew of Thebes is notably quoted as saying: “There are two sides to any story, but a good Judge has a third side, which is the cutting edge binding the two.” (2013) The present work provides precisely that “cutting edge” to penetrate deception, to empower all who read it to have the Wisdom of King Solomon, to be able to tell the lies of defamation from the Truth.
Good and Honest People are Inevitably Defamed
The timeless plague of defamation most commonly comes in the form of personal attacks, targeted especially against those individuals who give the most, volunteer the most, and work the hardest to implement humanitarian missions. Attacking a valuable person is the coward’s strategy for sabotaging the project, derailing the mission, or undermining the whole institution.
As the political satirist Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) best explained: “The worthiest people are the most injured by slander, as is the best fruit which the birds have been pecking at.”
It is an unfortunate fact of life that good people, of officially and legally documented good standing, who actively do many good works, are aggressively targeted with false defamation. The more good works one does, the more one seems to attract negativity from the sub-culture of people who rely on defamation as their default behaviour. Accordingly, the occurrence of defamation against a person is not a sign of any problem or fault, but more likely is rather a monument to the visibility and expected impact of their good works.
As William Shakespeare (ca. 1564-1616) explained: “That thou art blamed shall not be thy defect… So thou be good, slander doth but approve thy worth the greater, being wooed of time.” (Sonnet LXX).
Although defamers demand attention to their negative and destructive claims against others, such attention – if it is astute – reveals a habit of aggressive behaviour, exposing their willingness to violate the lawful rights of others. Therefore, such bad behaviour alone should cast suspicion on the accuser, despite their noisemaking to deflect any focus on their own faults through energetic defamation.
On this point, Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849) noted that “To vilify a great man is the readiest way in which a little man can himself attain greatness.” Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) also noted that “What is said of a man is nothing. The point is, who says it.”
Good people do not waste time attacking others with accusations just to cut them down, but instead focus on doing and giving their own good works, and thus always have positive news and inspiration to share with others. Defamers, however, demonstrate by their words and conduct that they have few or no good works of their own which they believe are more important than attacking others, and thus offer only negativity and destruction.
For precisely those compelling reasons, Jesus taught: “Beware of [those] which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7:15-20)
Mother Theresa (1910-1997) specifically addressed these issues with The Paradoxical Commandments: “If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Do good anyway. … Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable. Be honest and frank anyway. The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds. Think big anyway. … People really need help but may attack you if you do help them. Help people anyway. Give the world the best you have and you’ll get kicked in the teeth. Give the world the best you have anyway. It was never between you and them anyway. It is between you and God.”
Historical Templarism Forcefully Condemns Defamation
Saint Bernard de Clairvaux (1090-1153), the Patron and Saint of the Templar Order, condemned even the tolerance of defamation as one of the greatest sins: “Slander is a poison which kills charity, both in the slanderer and the one who listens.”
The Temple Rule of 1129 AD, by Saint Bernard de Clairvaux and Hughes de Payens, strictly prohibits “rumour”, “slander”, to “malign” or “disparage others” as being the “wickedness of the Devil” (Rule 48). It forbids “idle words” as being “not without sin”, as they often lead to rumour and defamation (Rule 32). It prohibits to “incite another… to wrath or anger”, which is the primary effect of defamation as a wrongfully aggressive provocation (Rule 38). It commands to “cease to speak evil to escape the penalty of sinfulness”, which by definition includes defamation (Rule 49).
It is thus a proven historical fact that authentic Templarism always condemned defamation in the strongest terms. The original Templar Order taught that speaking evil by disparaging others is the direct manifestation of the Devil itself, and that people who engaged in such offense are themselves the “enemies of Christ” whom the Templars were sworn to fight against (Rule 14). 
Indeed, history proves that the entire Templar Trials only occurred because the French King Philip IV ordered his authorities to manufacture false charges, to meet the narrow legal vulnerability of “heresy”, as the only way to penetrate the near-absolute immunity of the Templar Order .
When the Vatican continued to ignore the fabrications, the French resorted to extracting “confessions” under torture, strictly following a list of targeted charges developed by the King. The accusations were based upon recruited false “witnesses”, who were mostly disgruntled former Templars who the Order had expelled for their own wrongdoing.  Such “witnesses”, including those with known ulterior motives, were given immunity from any punishment even if their accusations were proven false .
The Chinon Parchment Papal Bull of 1308 AD, ending the infamous French Templar Trials by exonerating and vindicating the Order and reinstating it to full communion with the Church, concluded that the trials were based on nothing but false inflammatory defamation:
The Vatican pointedly complained that the trials were solely caused by “receiving word of mouth and also clamorous reports from the illustrious King of France… because of which [the Order] suffered public infamy”. 
In the Papal Bull Vox In Excelso of 1312 AD, which ordered the limited internal administrative “suppression” of the Templar Order, the Vatican bitterly protested that it was solely the result of groundless but persistent false defamation from France, all under duress of the threat of such defamation being turned against the Vatican itself:
“We were unwilling to lend our ears to insinuation and accusation against the Templars…” (Part 3) “Then came the intervention of… [the] King of France.” (Part 4). “Indeed although legal process… does not permit its canonical condemnation as heretical by definitive sentence, the good name of the Order has been largely taken away by the heresies attributed to it.” (Part 10) “In this way scandal will be removed, perils avoided and property saved… The above have given rise to grave scandal against the Order, scandal impossible to allay as long as the Order continues to exist” within the Vatican (Part 12). 
The related Papal Bull Considerantes of 1312 AD also protested that “the widespread disgrace, the strong suspicion, and the clamorous charges… of the Kingdom of France also gave grave scandal which could hardly be allayed without suppression of the Order.” (Part 1) 
Therefore, those who wage defamation against others, claiming to be “Real Templars”, or pretending to uphold “Templar” traditions or interests, expose and betray themselves to the world as violating everything which the historical Knights Templar actually stood for, and everything for which they fought and sacrificed. Even more, this reveals that they have in fact adopted and seek to perpetuate the evil ways of the most sinful “enemies of God” in all of Templar history. Indeed, such vile behavior in fact declares that one has chosen to be an aggressive enemy of all cultural Templars worldwide.
Authentic Christianity Strictly Prohibits Defamation
Christianity is deeply rooted in the Ten Commandments of the Bible, as the Word of God. Among these fundamental principles of the most basic requirements, are: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16; Deuteronomy 5:20), and “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor… nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s” (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21). The Old Testament further commands that “Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.” (Exodus 23:1)
The Apostles specifically applied those doctrines to false defamation and character assassination: “If any man [engage in] words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmising, perverse disputing of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth… from such withdraw thyself.” (I Timothy 6:3-5)
The theologian Tryon Edwards (1809-1894) unequivocally condemned the character assassination of defamation attacks: “To murder character is as truly a crime as to murder the body: the tongue of the slanderer is brother to the dagger of the assassin.”
The Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law strictly prohibits defamation, and the related abuses which rely upon that method, including: Aggressive interference with disregard for rights and justice (Canon 287, §1); Defamation to “unlawfully harm good reputation” by inflammatory accusations (Canon 220); Falsely or maliciously “denouncing” to “injure the good name of another” (Canon 1390, §2); Abusing one’s claimed ecclesiastical office to give false credibility or increase the damages of defamation (Canon 1389).
In fact, wholly rejecting and intentionally violating the most basic scriptural requirements of Christian morals by false defamation makes one “apostate” (Canon 1364). To “promote or moderate” an “association which plots against” an ecclesiastical institution (i.e. the Templar Order which represents a canonical Church), which is typically done by false defamation (Canon 1374), or to aid and abet defamation for those purposes (Canon 1329), is an extreme canonical offense.
These particular violations trigger mandatory automatic Excommunication (Latae Sententiae) by force of Canon Law (Canon 1334, §2), where the offenders have de facto excommunicated themselves, and no process nor hearing is even required (Canon 1335). In such cases, any Episcopal Clergy from any Church affected by the defamation can simply “declare” the automatic Excommunication (Canon 1314), as an “extrajudicial decree” (Canon 1342, §1). 
These indisputable facts of Christian theology and Canon Law further prove that those who engage in the aggression of defamation are in fact themselves the “enemies of Christ” of the Temple Rule of 1129 AD, whom the Knights Templar were commanded to “remove from the land” (Rule 14). 
Therefore, those who wage defamation against others, claiming to represent Christian principles or pretending to uphold the interests of any Church, expose themselves to the world as violating even the most basic tenets of Christianity. They thereby betray themselves as false Christians or false Clergy, and also risk automatic Excommunication among all Churches worldwide.
The Insidious Deception of “Ad Hominem” Personal Attacks
The practice of “Ad Hominem” attacks (Latin meaning “against the person”) is the oldest proverbial “dirty trick” in human history, and the last refuge of cowards and desperate evil-doers. It is universally defined as personal attacks against an individual, as an intentional and wrong-minded deception, to indirectly and falsely imply criticism of an idea, an organization or an institution. It is formally recognized as a “logical fallacy” (meaning “false logic”), in which facts and truth are ignored and dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant claim about the person, only because the critic has nothing truthful or relevant to say against the actual idea or institution.
This was best summarized by the UK Prime Minister, Baroness Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013), who famously said: “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
This proverbial “knee jerk reaction” of scoundrels, to use Ad Hominem attacks against good people and institutions who do good works, is most commonly perpetrated by the infamous methods of “Character Assassination”. This involves borderline criminal behaviour such as making knowingly or recklessly false accusations, manufacturing artificial situations to use as false accusations, and falsifying or manipulating information, all for aggressively vilifying the targeted person.
Both Ad Hominem attacks and Character Assassination are closely related to what is called the “Straw Man” argument (falsely discrediting an irrelevant invented distraction, or pretending to debunk claims that were never actually made). It is nothing but an insidious deception, knowingly used by wrong-minded people, as a cheap tactic to falsely “discredit” good people and projects of merit which the victims happen to support.
The political analyst and satirist Jon Stewart addressed Ad Hominem attacks against himself as follows: “Yes, I’m an idiot, and yet even I can see the gaping flaws in your argument. So the question is: why can’t you?”
Telltale Signs of Empty False Defamation Tactics
False defamation relies entirely upon deception, which in turn is wholly dependent upon artificially provoking emotional reactions. This serves as a distraction to dismiss all facts, and as manipulation to falsely portray even positive facts in a negative light. In the legal profession, this is called “false light” defamation.
Therefore, the central telltale signs of false defamation are baseless Ad Hominem attacks, with no real substance, and using “inflammatory language” as much as possible. This by itself should be highly suspicious, when the content is loaded with inflammatory words which can only be intended to “push buttons” for manipulation.
Dismissive Words – Classic tactics make frequent use of the following typical phrases: “Claimed”, although tangible and legal evidence of the statement has been abundantly provided; “So-called”, although the matter is an established legal fact; “Self-appointed”, although the person was in fact elected or appointed by others; “Unrecognized”, although the subject was licensed or accredited and registered with a national government; “Questionable”, although something has been proven by evidence as a fact; “Dubious”, although some practice is universally recognized as lawful and ethical; “Fake”, although public laws and official legal documents prove that whatever status is real and wholly legitimate.
False Light Phrases – Other “false light” phrases include saying: One “formulates elaborate plans”, although he simply does honest hard work to build something legitimate and beneficial; One “has an agenda”, although it is purely a lawful ethical desire to make something good happen; One “does everything only for himself”, although everyone sees him freely helping and giving to others; One “must have ulterior motives” even when seen to be asking nothing in return.
Inflammatory about Money – There is a whole separate inflammation topic all about anything related to money in any way: One “only cares about money”, although his projects are publicly visible to be exclusively humanitarian and beneficial; One “only wants to get paid”, although the person has the same basic God-given human right to earn a living and put food on the table as every other human being; One “takes money”, although of course nothing is ever “taken”, but strictly lawfully earned and voluntarily paid only what is rightfully due; One “embezzles funds”, although he was lawfully paid only under a valid legal contract which he fully performed on; One “worships money” or is “motivated only by greed”, although they are seen to publically give much valuable work product and volunteer substantial work for free.
Inflammatory about Education – Another tactic is highlighting a person’s “intelligence” and “creativity” as negative and suspicious, to falsely imply that the person might therefore use special skills to deceive others. This is supposed to be an attack on one’s credibility, only by instilling a blind fear that someone who is “smart” and “well educated” is thus “clever”, and could somehow go around fooling everybody. Never mind that truly intelligent people are smart enough to know that substance and truth backed by evidence always win over false claims, that lies never work and always backfire, and that aggressive and abusive behavior logically always must backfire. (Only the defamers never seem to understand those most basic realities of life.)
Scofflaw Phrases – A special strategy is used for falsely discrediting matters of legal substance: Defamers taunt and challenge their target to “prove it” and “show evidence”. However, contrary to the purported demand: When official legal documents are shown which do prove the fact, that evidence is arbitrarily dismissed as “just paper”; When numerous public laws are quoted and referenced by specific section numbers proving the matter, it is ridiculed as just “legal fodder”, “legalese”, “legalistic fine print” or “legal smoke and mirrors”; When an organization holds abundant official recognition and licenses, with solid legal documents proving its substance, it is dismissed as being “only on paper”. This tactic only betrays the defamer’s philosophy of lawlessness as a scofflaw, revealing their own criminal tendencies.
Nationalistic Bigotry – Ideas of bigoted discrimination are used as another excuse to reject all evidence of legitimacy: When solid official government documents are shown proving a status, the issuing country as a whole is off-handedly dismissed as “not as good as” some other country, or a “not serious” country which “doesn’t count”, or a “suspicious” country, regardless of its equal membership in the United Nations under international law. As the defamer goes around in circles, never accepting any evidence that even a Court of Law would be obligated to accept, literally no amount and quality of evidence can ever be “good enough” for the malicious accuser.
False Purported “Investigation” – As another tactic of empty inflammation, defamers often claim they are “investigating” their target, when they in fact have no qualifications, credibility, authority nor the right to “investigate” anybody. This can also take the form of falsely claiming that some “authorities” are supposedly “investigating” the target, without any basis. This can also involve threats or claims of appeal to some vague and unspecified “authorities”, as more empty inflammatory language only to sound “important” by false association. In the end, the loudly declared “investigation” is nothing more than admitting attempted illegal espionage in furtherance of criminal sabotage.
False Leading “Questions” – Another telltale deception strategy is peppering people with loaded and highly inflammatory supposed “questions”. While the questions are usually irrelevant, it is the peppering which serves to manufacture a false light portrayal of something being generally in doubt. Often they pretend to “call into question” verifiable facts which have already been proven, and are not “in question” at all. They may coercively demand that “questions must be answered”, often irrelevant information protected by privacy rights, when they have no right to receive any such private information. This tactic is used to feign supposed objectivity, reminiscent of investigative journalist stereotypes, as if the person would ever accept any truth as an “answer” to any “question”. In this ploy, the purported “questions” are nothing more than thinly veiled inflammatory accusations without basis.
Artificial Inflammatory “Concerns” – Another inflammatory deception tactic is that of “raising concerns”, which are always false and entirely alarmist to instill irrational fear. Such typical insistence upon highlighting supposed “concerns” is transparently a euphemism for aggressive baseless accusations, thinly masked as supposed opinions. The tone of this insidious word falsely implies having any credibility or authority for the touted “concerns” to be taken seriously.
False Claimed “Credibility” – The proverbial “flip side of the coin” is that the defamers will make superficial attempts to artificially bolster their own credibility (even when they are completely anonymous). For themselves, the deceiving defamers typically insist that they are: “Reputable”, without stating any basis, and “Credible” (even when they have nothing of any substance to actually say for themselves), although credibility must be earned by showing evidence of truth, not just plain saying it about oneself; “Objective” or “Impartial”, when clearly their accusations are entirely one-sided and bent on a pre-determined result. They may insist that their defamation is “Corroborated” by other anonymous or unnamed people, who if they even exist may have simply agreed with the same lies.
False Double Standards – About themselves, defamers will declare that they are “Connected” with supposedly “Important” and “Good” people, usually anonymous “Sources”, who are all implied to be superior to anybody who disagrees with the defamation they are promoting. Third parties are referred to as “good upstanding people”, portrayed as alleged likely victims of the accused, to pretend that the accuser has any respect for others at all. About the targeted subject, however, everything is wrapped in inflammatory language, relying exclusively on emotional string-pulling. All facts, evidence, law and truth which contradict their defamatory accusations are off-handedly dismissed, ridiculed, or covered up with other lies and distractions.
The inflammatory vocabulary for all of these “false light” tactics heavily relies on fluff, filler, puffing, exaggeration, distraction, and emotional button-pushing. This highlights that the defamers have nothing to say of any truth or substance, and no relevant facts or evidence to support their accusations, so they are forced to rely on psychological manipulations. Having excluded the truth, all that is left for them is to do “whatever it takes”, whatever they have to say, whatever they think their audience may need to hear, “throwing enough mud” to see if anything “sticks”, all calculated solely to cause as much damage as possible.
All such terminology, being the primary method of deception for defamation, serves to paint a false picture, even when the accuser does not have any canvas, nor any paint. The philosophy of using “false light” language is nothing more than to turn black into white, turn good into bad, and turn the truth on its head. Such vocabulary alone, in a void, without making any actual statement whatsoever, would create a negative impression sufficient to vilify and demonize even a Saint.
The core premise is always the “ex cathedra” assertion (Latin meaning “from the chair”, referring to infallibility of all doctrinal statements based upon presumed authority), that their accusations are true simply because they say so, only because of who they think they are or who they falsely pretend to be. Appealing solely to the basest and most vile aspects of fear, defamers only seek to cause imagination to overcome intellect, fear to overcome logic, and their lies to overcome verifiable provable truth.
However, all the deceptive “false light” negative language in the world cannot change the truth, and cannot make anything real just because they say so. As Shakespeare wrote: “Truth is truth, to the end of reckoning.”
Sadly, these timeless methods sometimes manage to obfuscate the fact that the defamer has little if any truth or reality to impart, and little if any value of their own to offer. Such methods prove, transparently and noticeably, that their only intent is purely destructive: to tear down what others have built, and discredit the truth which others have proven, as long as anybody is willing to believe the defamer’s lies.
Note that normal, ethical and honest people do not use such prejudicial and inflammatory tactics. They do not use mud-slinging by dismissive words and false light phrases. They do not go on the offensive, pretending to be “investigating” something, demanding that “questions must be answered” and emphasizing supposed “concerns”. Normal people simply do not use such vocabulary, which comes only from dedicated evil-doers who actively studied such methods with the wrong-minded intention to violate the rights of others, only to cause harm.
Honest people look to the positive, asking non-prejudicially for a desirable factor of legitimacy to be confirmed, showing genuine open-minded interest in the evidence, and fairly accepting the facts that proof is proof, law is law, and that official registrations are public legal facts. Good people communicate any verified adverse facts only privately, in a truthful and non-misleading manner, in context together with mitigating positive facts. If adverse information is unverified, the most that they can or would say is that they “haven’t yet seen evidence” of legitimacy.
Defamation as the Insane “Witch Hunts” of the Modern Era
The infamous Witch Hunts (ca. 1450-1750 AD) of Europe and America, which resulted in tens of thousands of executions of alleged “witches”, were driven entirely by artificially generated fear and “moral panic”  leading to “mass hysteria” . All of that was driven solely by groundless accusations of false defamation against innocent victims. As a result, the term “Which Hunt” became a pejorative metaphor for condemnation of a person by mere accusation alone. This is perhaps the most compelling example in human history, exposing the pure evil of the wrong-minded sin of defamation.
The judgment of history has universally condemned the Witch Hunts as an evil-spirited practice of willfully provoked insanity, driven by egotism and the corruption of selfish motives of the accusers. It was repeatedly proven, each time after mass deaths and pervasive damage to society were caused, that the accusations were almost always motivated either by jealously of someone else’s accomplishments or status, an intent to destroy something which the person had built or developed, retaliation for the person rebuking some wrongdoing by the accuser, or a desire to seize or misappropriate something of value owned by the accused. Those very same motives fully apply to the modern scourge of unlawful defamation.
In the modern era, the new version of accusing a person of being a “Witch” is the accusation of “Fraud”. Just as the term “Witch” was so vaguely defined as to apply to anything at all or even nothing at all, so too, the word “Fraud” is used to mean any false twisted misunderstanding that can possibly be taken out of context, even when the accused was entirely truthful, has not breached any obligation whatsoever, and owes absolutely nothing to anybody. Truly, “Fraud” is the new “Witch” of the modern era.
The mere word “Fraud” fits perfectly with the deceptive methodology of false unlawful defamation as Ad Hominem attacks by character assassination: It is highly inflammatory, highly prejudicial, and effectively instills irrational fear, as the ultimate provocation of distraction from all facts, law, evidence and truth. For this reason alone, the mere use of words such as “Fraud” or “Scam” should instantly expose the defamer as highly suspicious themselves, betraying their wrong-minded and unlawful intent to use manipulation only to cause as much damage as possible.
Historical Agendas of False Defamation Methods
For as long as there have been Knights and Dames living by the Code of Chivalry, fighting for Truth and Justice, there has also been a sub-culture of self-styled “secret societies” seeking to undermine all humanitarian missions. Those “enemies of humanity” consistently follow the same historical methods of sabotage, all through psychological manipulation by false defamation. While such people are usually not “members” of any actual “society”, they are typically adherents to the same philosophy which they discover in the historical record, allowing them to learn the same methods of evil from villains of the past.
The prominent French historian Emile Leon Gautier (1832-1897 AD), an Archivist of the Imperial Archives and Chief of the historical section of the National Archives in Paris, documented that in response to the Code of Chivalry of 1066 AD, a secret society “tried to oppose to it a Satanic Counter Code. … This Contra Code… It is to the race of the Mayençais, to that race of traitors, that the honor of this astounding legislation belongs:”
“Thou shalt never be loyal to anyone; Thou shalt never keep thy word; … Thou shalt betray and sell honest men; Thou shalt uphold evil and abase the good; … Dishonor the Church; Thou shalt lie without shame; and violate thine oaths.” 
“Mayençais” is the French word for people of “Mainz”. The Republic of Mainz was located on the northwest end of Bavaria (the southeast region of modern Germany), and officially existed only during the year 1793 AD.
Another primitive version of this agenda of deception was preserved in the historical record in a “15th century Rothschild journal”, later discovered and verified by British Museum scholars. It was a copy of a letter from a Bavarian secret society to a person in Provence, France, dated “21 November 1489 AD”, presenting 6 points of a protocol of destruction for control, specifically by infiltration and subversion, all by deception. 
The original full text of a detailed agenda, in the most complete version called the “Protocols of the Illuminati”, came from a transcript of a speech by Mayer Amschel Rothschild to a secret society of oligarchs in 1773 AD .
The “Protocols of the Illuminati” were first discovered in 1785 AD when a courier from the headquarters of the Bavarian Illuminati was struck by lightning    , causing the document to be seized by the police, who turned it over to the Bavarian government through a magistrate. This officially proved that it was a working document of the Bavarian Illuminati, and proved that it was already in active use as an agenda prior to that time .
Vatican scholars officially documented that the Bavarian government persecution of the Illuminati in 1785 AD had caused its accelerated expansion in France . This also caused its resurgence only 8 years later as the Mayençais (Mainz) on the outskirts of Bavaria in 1793 AD. The historical record thus proves that the original Satanic Counter-Code, maliciously opposing the Code of Chivalry against all of humanity, was directly continued by the Bavarian Illuminati, in the more highly developed form of the “Protocols”.
Another copy of the same Protocols, labeled “Permanent Instructions: Practical Code of Rules” was discovered in 1818 AD from a mishap with a courier from the “Alta Vendita” Lodge of the “Carbonari” branch of the Bavarian Illuminati, who offered a substantial reward for its recovery .
Two copies of the same “Protocols of the Illuminati” were translated from French by Professor Sergius Nilus, a Priest of the Orthodox Church, who authenticated the work as an edition printed in Paris in 1897 AD , and also as “documents stolen from… a secret meeting of the initiated in France” in 1901  .
The British Museum preserved the Nilus Edition, archived by the date of its acquisition (10 August 1906). The Protocols were authenticated and translated from Russian by the British investigative journalist Victor E. Marsden of the London Morning Post newspaper, who was appointed special correspondent of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, and who published the Protocols in English in 1921. 
Agenda of Discrediting by False Defamation – The authenticated “Protocols of the Illuminati” evidence that the proven historical agenda extensively relies upon the deception of discrediting good people and positive institutions, primarily by false defamation:
Protocol 1.7 – “Internal discord brings [the People] under the power of external foes”.
Protocol 1.10 – “The masses, being guided solely by petty passions… and sentimental theorems, fall a prey to [artificial] dissension, which hinders any kind of agreement even on the basis of a perfectly reasonable argument”.
Protocol 1.11 – “The political has nothing in common with the moral. The ruler… must have recourse both to cunning and to make-believe.”
Protocol 1.18 – “It is necessary to [use] the instability of the mob, its lack of capacity to understand and respect the conditions of its own life, or its own welfare. [The] mob is [a] blind, senseless and un-reasoning force ever at the mercy of a suggestion from any side.”
Protocol 1.23 – “Violence must be the principle, and cunning and make-believe the rule… This evil is the one and only means to attain the end… Therefore, we must not stop at bribery, deceit and treachery when they should serve towards the attainment of our end.”
Protocol 3.10 – “The People, blindly believing things in print… [follows] promptings intended to mislead [by] its own ignorance”.
Protocol 3.19 – “And thus the People condemn the upright and acquit the guilty, persuaded ever more and more… Thanks to this state of things, the People are destroying every kind of stability”.
Protocol 5.4 – “[Use] the art of directing masses and individuals by means of cleverly manipulated theory and verbiage… [Those who] might have compared with us… we have contrived to discredit them in the eyes of the unthinking mob”.
Protocol 5.10 – “In order to put public opinion in our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by… so many contradictory opinions… to make the People lose their heads in the labyrinth and come to… have no opinion of any kind”.
Protocol 5.11 – “Sow discord in all parties, to dislocate all collective forces which are still unwilling to submit to us, and to discourage any kind of personal initiative which might in any degree hinder our affair… if it has genius behind it, such initiative can do more than can be done by millions of people among whom we have sown discord.”
Protocol 13.4 – “There is not among the People one mind able to perceive… [the] departure from truth in all cases… [which serves] to obscure truth so that none may know it except us”.
Protocol 17.2 – “We have long past taken care to discredit the priesthood of the People, and thereby to ruin their mission on earth which… might still be a great hindrance to us.”
Protocol 19.3 – “In order to destroy the prestige of heroism, [as] political crime we shall [make accusations] in the category of thieving… and every kind of abominable and filthy crime.”
This proves a historical “evil agenda” to sabotage humanitarian institutions, primarily through false defamation, especially targeting folk heroes or individuals who can contribute the most to uplift and advance humanity. The fact that such anti-humanitarian agenda has continuously been implemented in the modern era has been confirmed by many truly authoritative and great people:
In 1864 AD, the French lawyer and 10 year veteran of the Ministry of State, Maurice Joly, described it as a “political system… that has not varied in its methods for one single day”, and is “intended to corrupt honesty itself; but public consciousness still lives, and the heavens will one day interfere in the games being played against it” .
In 1925, the scholar Herjulf Vikingson concluded that this agenda and its methods belong to the “Enemies of Humanity” . In 1956, Director of the US Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), J. Edgar Hoover, condemned it as “the evil, which has been introduced into our midst… a philosophy, which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.”
History thus proves that it is necessary for humanity to rise up, stand up for right over wrong, and demonstrate to all adherents of those perverse agendas that we refuse to be deceived, and refuse to allow evil-doers to “divide and conquer”. The best way to do this is to take away the only real weapon that they have, which is false defamation as sabotage. The most effective way to do that is simply to use the principles revealed in this writing, to detect deceptive defamation, and to completely boycott, resist and reject all those who attempt to use such methods.
The above exposé of known methods of deception proves that attempts at inflammatory defamation against the Templar Order or its Grand Master Prince Judge Matthew are knowingly and intentionally false. For detailed factual information on Prince Judge Matthew, see the following topic: “Verified Integrity of the Prince Grand Master”.
Suggested Topics Related to this Information
Click for learn about Secret Societies Rejected for details on the full Evil Agenda.
Click to learn how the Code of Chivalry requires strictly opposing all Agenda methods.
Academic Source References for this Topic
 Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librarie Renouard.
 Barbara Frale, “The Chinon Chart Papal Absolution to the Last Templar Master Jacques de Molay”, The Journal of Medieval History, Volume 30, Issue 2 (2004), p.119.
 Henry Charles Lea, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, Volume 3, Harper & Bros, New York (1901), pp.257, 262.
 Edward Peters, Inquisition, University of California Press, Los Angeles (1989), p.52.
 Pope Clement V, Chinon Parchment (1308), Vatican Secret Archives, “Archivum Arcis Armarium” D 217-218; Replica Parchments, Processus Contra Templarios, Scrinium, Venice, Italy (2008).
 Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso, “Voice From on High” (22 March 1312), Regestum 7952; translated in Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012), reprinted in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990).
 Pope Clement V, Considerantes, “For Consideration” (06 May 1312), Regestum 7952; translated in Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012), reprinted in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990).
 Vatican Holy See of Rome, The Code of Canon Law (1983), under Pope John Paul II.
 Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librarie Renouard.
 Erich Goode, Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance, Wiley (2010), p.195.
 Lois Martin, A Brief History of Witchcraft, Running Press (2010), p.5.
 Emile Leon Gautier, La Chevalerie (1883), translated in: Henry Frith, Chivalry, George Routledge & Sons, London (1891), Chapter IV, “Tenth Commandment”.
 Victor E. Marsden, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, The Britons Publishing Society, London (1922), “Introduction: A Fifteenth Century ‘Protocol’”, reprinted in Victor E. Marsden, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Liberty Bell Publications, Reedy, West Virginia (ca. 1930), p.7.
 William Guy Carr, Pawns in the Game, 4th Edition, St. George Press, Los Angeles (1962), p.193, footnote on unnumbered p.198, archived in Prince George B.C. Public Library; See Nesta Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, pp.255-257.
 Adam Weishaupt, Apologie der Illuminaten, Frankfurt und Leipzig (Nuremberg) (1786), p.229.
 Adam Weishaupt, Apologie der Illuminaten, Frankfurt und Leipzig (Nuremberg) (1786), p.62.
 Abbé Barruel, Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism: The Antichristian Conspiracy, 2nd Edition, Part I, “Weishaupt’s Discourse for the Mysteries”, T. Burton, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, p.244.
 Herausgegeben von Jan Rachold, Die Illuminaten Quellen und Text zur Aufklarungsideologie des Illuminatenordens (1776-1785), Akademie-Verlag, Berlin (1984), p.363, quoting Frankfurt & Leipzig, Kurze Rechtfertigung Meiner Absichten (1787).
 William Guy Carr, Pawns in the Game, 4th Edition, St. George Press, Los Angeles (1962), p.32.
 Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, Robert Appleton Company, New York (1910), Hermann Gruber, “Illuminati: History”.
 Fritz Springmeier, Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines, Tankobon (1995), pp.179-180 (Japanese); See: Fritz Springmeier, Bloodlines of the Illuminati, 3rd Edition, Pentracks Publications (2005) (English).
 Boris Fyodorov, Pyotr Stolypin’s Attempt to Resolve the Jewish Question (Russian).
 Victor E. Marsden, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Liberty Bell Publications, Reedy, West Virginia (ca.1930), inside cover text.
 Mikhail Menshikov, Plots Against Humanity, “Letters to Friends & Family” (“Pis’ma k Blizhnim”) series, The New Times (Novoye Vremya), Saint Petersburg (April 1902).
 Victor E. Marsden, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Liberty Bell Publications, Reedy, West Virginia (ca.1930), inside cover text, and “Introduction (1922)” reprinted from The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, The Britons Publishing Society, London (1922).
 Maurice Joly, Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, A. Mertens and Son, Brussels (1864), “Modest Forword”.
 Herjulf Vikingson, Introduction: The Secret World Government, Chicago (04 July 1925), in Maj.Gen. Cherep-Spiridovich, The Secret World Government or “The Hidden Hand”, The Anti-Bolshevist Publishing Association, New York (1926).