Skip to content

On the exposure of Farwerck as Freemason

It bugs me that I can’t find the source for the detailed information about Farwerck as Freemason in De Opmarsch. I really need to find a copy of the issue that is used to write some newspaper articles about the subject. I hoped that some other newspaper copied the information that De Opmarsch claimed to have. Far far, not much luck, but I did find something.

But how did all this actually go? Farwerck became active in the Nationalist Socialist Movement (N.S.B.) in 1932. His star rose and soon he was head of Propaganda and on very good terms with N.S.B. main man Mussert. Within national socialism there were more radical factions than the N.S.B. and they soon started picking on Farwerck. This mostly seems to have been due to the parliamentary elections of 16 April 1935 which would be the first national elections for the N.S.B. From early 1935 people who thought that the N.S.B. wasn’t radical enough started to look for weak links in Mussert’s organisation showing that the organisation couldn’t be trusted. Farwerck was a beloved subject, so these faction started to expose him as a Freemason.

That shouldn’t have been too hard. In 1931 a newspaper announced a public lecture of Farwerck for the Dutch federation of Le Droit Humain. His later opponents dug deeper to find the pitch and feathers for him.

In 1934 Mussert travelled to Italy to met Mussolini and on his way back, stopped in Germany to speak with National Socialist leaders. They wanted him to investigate the relation between the (perceived) State and the Church and Freemasonry. I think Mussert must have sensed what was coming, but didn’t take enough action according to some.

Earliest and most active was a group that called itself “Zwart Front” (‘black front’). In February 1934 they published a text in which they says Farwerck was Dutch representative for the “Ordre Massonique Mixte”, which was at the time no longer true. So Zwart Front started to ask questions to Mussert about thing which they did through newspaper articles. Mussert’s response was that Farwerck no longer wore an apron. Needless to say that Zwart Front didn’t settle for that answer.

More articles followed. Some counter arguments were raised, such as that Le Droit Humain is not the same as the Grand Orient of the Netherlands. Farwerck’s opponents started looking for more information. In april 1934 the name of the lodge La Prafond Silence was named as Farwerck’s lodge, There doesn’t appear to have been a lodge with that name under Le Droit Humain. There still is a Grand Orient of the Netherlands called La Profond Silence, but Farwerck can never have been a member there. It is clear that his opponents will use any information to make the “pitch and feathers”.

Things went up a gear in 1935. Somebody managed to lay his hands on the publication La Franc-Maçonnerie féminine L’Ordre Maç mixte international Le Droit Humain by N. Switkow, conveniently without a year of publication. In that booklet Farwerck is mentioned as “one of four vice-presindents” and Dutch delegate (together with his brother). Apparently the booklet was made for a meeting of the Supreme Council in Paris where it is logical that Farwerck was present, being the representative for the Netherlands. As mentioned, a year is not given.

The quote is frequently recycled, but for a while there is no new proof. Nonsense is added. Habits from the Grand Orient are used to paint a picture (a Masonic ceremony at a funeral, woohoo), Le Droit Humain and the Grand Orient are said to be on good terms (which is unlikely in that period). Later the year of Farwerck’s visit to Paris is retrieved: 1933.

In April 1935 the very low Secretive Lodge article was published and a month later De Opmarsch found its very detailed information.

I have not yet found the “photographic” evidence that De Opmarsch claimed to have, but I did run into a very bad photocopy of a French Bulletin from 1933 that was republished in the Geman publication Entartete Freimaurerei from 1939. This indeed concens a simple list of representatives at a Supreme Council meeting.

In 1935 a small publication saw the light called Het Nederlands Volksfascisme tegen de N.S.B. (Dutch folk-fascism against the N.S.B.).

It does not contain any new information, but it does contain a caricature that I didn’t know yet. The man on the left is Mussert, the tall man Mussolini. On the triangle the name of Farwerck as “Fahrwerck”.

With the above images I think I have found the most-used source for the proof that Farwerck’s opponents needed. It certainly is not the detailed information with his year of initiation, etc. that De Opmarsch came up with, but I hope to locate that too some time.

There is an irony in this by the way. Even though -as far as I know- Farwerck was appointed Dutch representative in the Supreme Council of Le Droit Humain in Paris, for some reason, he was not to represent the Netherlands during the 1927 international convent. The person who was couldn’t go and Be Kerkdijk travelled to Paris like she did seven years before. By the next international convent in 1934 Farwerck had already left Le Droit Humain. It appears that even though he might have been one of four vice-presidents of the Supreme Council, he never actually attended an international convent while this is exactly the argument with which he was gotten rid off.

To wrap things up. When the Germans came to power and Rost van Tonningen got more influence within the N.S.B. Farwerck’s Masonic past was enough to make him inactive in 1940 and to terminate his membership in 1943.

Hopefully this short text will be updated with new information.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *