Complete misreading of what he said. Here is the quote:
>It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.
>The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation)
Let us break it down. He calls the Illuminati "diabolical" and the Jacobins "pernicious."
What a lot of dumb dumbs don't realize is that "diabolical" simply means clever. If he meant evil, or demonic, or something like that, a man of letters of Washington's stature would've used those words.
On the other hand, he describes the Jacobins as "pernicious," which is unquestionably bad - the word means harmful.
So we might ask ourselves, did Washington consider himself clever (diabolical) or harmful (pernicious)?
Then we look closer at the last bit:
>That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.
Who is the founder of the first modern democratic society? Why, that is George Washington. And he just told you that it was too evident to question that he meant to separate the people from the government: to FREE them of it!
So why did he say that freemasons AS A SOCIETY or as a WHOLE were not behind the revolution? Because they were not. The revolution was an effort to spread illumination to the common man as opposed to a secretive masonic society, guarding knowledge so that they might eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (exploitable only as long as the knowledge is secret).
