November 6, 1942: The relationship between NS and Freemasonry

By Vidkun Quisling.

After the Freemasons' lodges in Norway were dissolved on 19 September 1940, the relationship between NS and the former Freemasons was regulated by a party regulation of 28 November 1940.

As I refer to this party regulation, I reiterate that with these provisions the party's relationship with the individual former Freemason is once and for all determined in principle. No member of the Nasjonal Samling has the right to deviate from these provisions, either in one direction or another. Exceptions to the principle provisions set out in the party regulation can only be decided by the Nasjonal Samling Leader personally. Cf. Act of 12 March 1942 on Party and State.

It is beyond doubt that Freemasonry represents a spirit and a world order that is not compatible with the new order that the Nasjonal Samling is fighting for. It is a tool for international and hostile forces that must be fought with the utmost consequence. Every member of the Nasjonal Samling must be aware of these facts.

In conjunction with this, the Nasjonal Samling has also put an end to Freemasonry's activities in Norway. The lodges are dissolved and all Masonic activity is prohibited. We demand from all party members a clear and determined attitude towards Freemasonry's alien and Jewishly determined nature.

However, any treatment of the Masonic question must stick to the case and not be given an inappropriately personal character. The fight against Freemasonry must not be lost in foolish fancies which not only expose a lack of judgment, but are also directly harmful to the cause. Nor is it necessary to make the fight against Freemasonry a main issue in the Nasjonal Samling's continued fight. Freemasonry in Norway has been liquidated and no longer plays any practical political role apart from the harmful after-effects.

I myself, more than most, have had occasion to form a reasoned opinion about Freemasonry's harmful effect on our movement. It is my firm opinion that this inhibiting effect now manifests itself significantly in two ways. Firstly, by the fact that Freemasonry succeeded in capturing a large part of the positive forces in our people. When one considers that Freemasonry in Norway included close to 15 thousand men, while the reference book "Who's Who" on more or less commonly known Norwegians (men and women) contains a total of approx. 3,500 names, then we get an idea of what kind of mess freemasonry represents when occupying positions in party and state..

On the one hand, one cannot ignore the fact that among the former Freemasons there are a number of valuable people whom the new system must make use of, and who, despite their former Freemasonry, are as good Norwegians as anyone else. I can, for example, mention Supreme Court Judge Selmer, who died as a war volunteer on the Eastern Front.

On the other hand, the new arrangement must necessarily observe a strong reservation with regard to using former Freemasons in public positions.

The other harmful effect of Freemasonry is the fixed ideas which the reaction against Freemasonry has created in some overheated minds, and which sometimes produce such results that a customer is tempted to believe that the alleged Masonic enemy was in reality a provocateur and Masonic agent, if not his lack of ability to judge the facts was all too obvious.

In particular, however, I would like to emphasize the following:

The other harmful effect of Freemasonry is the fixed ideas which the reaction against Freemasonry has created in some overheated minds, and which sometimes produce such results that a customer is tempted to believe that the alleged Masonic enemy was in reality a provocateur and Masonic agent, if not his lack of ability to judge the facts was all too obvious.

In particular, however, I would like to emphasize the following:

When a former Freemason is accepted as a member of the Nasjonal Samling according to the current provisions, he has thus received official approval from me as the party's responsible leader that he has proven by his efforts and his whole attitude that he is finished with Freemasonry. Making attacks against the person concerned in writing or speech, public or private, based solely on the fact that he is a former Freemason, is in these circumstances inappropriate. It has nothing to do with the fight against Freemasonry itself. It can only be considered a personal attack, which involves a gross breach of party discipline and an attempt to provoke discord in the movement. If a member has something serious to complain about the person in question's relationship and believes they can trace this back to their previous relationship with Freemasonry, such an appeal must be submitted in the regular official way, stating concrete things and not unsubstantiated insinuations.

The matter becomes particularly serious if the party's rejection of Freemasonry is misused by the individual to promote a personal policy or personal goals, in which case it may even happen that, as appropriate, one makes a number of the Freemasonry question or lets it sleep.

I do not intend to let such incidents, which are harmful and unworthy of the movement, go unchallenged. Breaches of the given provisions, like any other indiscipline, I will pursue if necessary with the means at my disposal as the party's Leader and as an executive state authority. I make every political leader and every hird leader personally responsible for enforcement, each within their area. The requirement for party discipline must be maintained unabated.