Multilateralism Under Fire II

Are the Freemasons Collapsing?

Summary

This essay argues that Freemasonry is not necessarily collapsing as an institution, but that the state-centred political paradigm historically associated with much of Continental Freemasonry is losing influence. As political multilateralism gives way to markets, capital, technology and strategic competitiveness, a new civilizational order is emerging—one that reshapes sovereignty, institutions and the balance of global power.

By Roberto F. Salazar-Córdova

Introduction: From Political Multilateralism to Civilizational Change

In Multilateralism Under Fire I, ADN@+ argued that multilateralism itself was not collapsing. The institutions created after the Second World War were not disappearing; they were evolving. Political multilateralism—the institutions that allocate authority, constrain sovereign action and adjudicate international disputes—was increasingly challenged, while technical multilateralism continued expanding through standards, finance, logistics, environmental certification, digital interoperability and global supply chains. Cooperation was not ending. It was changing its institutional foundation.

This second essay advances that argument. If the political architecture of the post-war world is losing influence, what happens to the intellectual traditions that helped construct it? This question leads to the deliberately provocative title of this essay: Are the Freemasons collapsing?

My argument is not that Freemasonry as an institution is disappearing. Rather, I suggest that the historical paradigm through which much of Continental Freemasonry exercised political influence is approaching the end of its dominant cycle. What appears to be weakening is not the fraternity itself but the state-centred model of political organization that became its principal vehicle of influence throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

The Rise of the Republican State

Modern Europe progressively transferred authority from religious institutions to the republican State. Public administration replaced many local structures. Education became increasingly secular. Bureaucracies expanded. Constitutional governments became the principal source of legitimacy. After 1945, this evolution accelerated through the United Nations, the European Communities, international courts and a dense network of multilateral organizations designed to govern an increasingly integrated world.

Within that historical process, an important current of Continental Freemasonry became intellectually associated with republican government, secular institutions, constitutional administration and the belief that political progress required increasingly sophisticated public institutions. Whether one agrees with that historical trajectory or not, it profoundly shaped Western political development.

For decades the model appeared remarkably successful. Europe experienced peace, reconstruction, economic integration and unprecedented institutional cooperation. The assumption seemed obvious: more political integration would produce greater prosperity and greater stability.

From Integration to Competitiveness

History, however, rarely moves in straight lines.

The very institutions that once generated stability gradually accumulated complexity. Political authority moved upward from municipalities to national governments, from national governments to Brussels, and from Brussels to an increasingly centralized supranational architecture. Every additional institutional layer promised greater coordination. Every additional regulation promised greater certainty. Yet every additional layer also reduced institutional agility.

Europe entered what many economists described as Eurosclerosis. Productivity slowed, demographic pressures intensified, regulatory burdens increased and competitiveness weakened relative to emerging industrial powers. Economic dynamism increasingly shifted toward regions capable of adapting more rapidly to technological and industrial change.

The fundamental problem was not simply the size of the State. It was the progressive substitution of economic flexibility with administrative complexity.

The Return of Markets

At precisely the same time, another transformation was taking place.

Markets began moving faster than governments. Capital crossed borders almost instantly. Artificial intelligence evolved faster than regulation. Investment decisions increasingly determined geopolitical influence. Supply chains became instruments of diplomacy. Technological leadership replaced bureaucratic expansion as the principal source of national power.

The centre of gravity of international politics shifted from ministries toward markets.

This does not mean that governments became irrelevant. It means that governments increasingly found themselves competing to attract capital rather than directing it. Financial markets rewarded institutional agility and punished regulatory rigidity. Investment became a geopolitical instrument. Competitiveness replaced integration as the principal strategic objective.

This transformation explains much of the political change visible across the Western world.

Brexit and Strategic Optionality

Brexit was never simply about leaving the European Union.

It represented an attempt to recover strategic flexibility. The objective was not isolation but the restoration of sovereign decision-making over trade, industrial policy, regulation and immigration. The same logic can be observed in the renewed emphasis placed by the United States on industrial policy, critical minerals, technological leadership and resilient supply chains.

In Multilateralism Under Fire I, I described this phenomenon as strategic optionality.

States no longer seek maximum integration. They seek maximum freedom to choose. They diversify suppliers, technologies, markets, financial systems and strategic alliances because dependence itself has become a geopolitical risk.

The world is therefore moving from a logic of permanent integration toward one of managed interdependence.

Two Historical Traditions

This transition also reveals an older distinction inside Freemasonry itself.

The Continental tradition developed alongside the republican State and increasingly secular public institutions. The English tradition followed a different historical path. It evolved within constitutional monarchy, common law, commercial society and continued recognition of a Supreme Being.

These different historical trajectories now matter.

As power shifts toward markets, finance, entrepreneurship, technological capability and strategic competition, the institutional environment increasingly resembles the Anglo-Saxon commercial tradition more than the highly centralized republican model that dominated much of Continental Europe during the twentieth century.

This helps explain why the United Kingdom chose Brexit, why the United States increasingly prioritizes industrial competitiveness over institutional expansion, and why many European institutions now struggle to reconcile regulatory ambition with global economic competition.

A Civilizational Transition

The present transformation extends beyond economics.

It raises questions about sovereignty, political legitimacy, cultural identity and even the place of religion in public life.

For much of the twentieth century, many believed that modernization required the progressive disappearance of religious influence. That assumption no longer appears self-evident. Questions of faith, moral authority and civilizational identity have returned to political debate across the Western world.

Pope Francis repeatedly referred to the contemporary international environment as a "Third World War fought piecemeal." Whether interpreted politically, culturally or spiritually, the expression captures the fragmentation of an international order no longer governed by a single institutional framework.

Power increasingly rests upon knowledge, technology, productive capacity, financial strength, military credibility and market coordination. Political institutions remain important, but they no longer monopolize the organization of international life.

Conclusion: What Is Really Collapsing?

This brings us back to the title of this essay.

• The question is not whether Freemasonry survives.

• The question is whether the state-centred political paradigm through which much of Continental Freemasonry exercised its greatest historical influence is reaching the end of its dominant era.

If that hypothesis is correct, history is not witnessing the collapse of a fraternity. It is witnessing the exhaustion of one model of civilization and the emergence of another.

The defining institutions of the twenty-first century may no longer be built primarily around centralized political authority. They may instead be built around competitiveness, technological leadership, strategic capital, resilient markets, productive capability and the freedom of nations to preserve strategic optionality in an increasingly fragmented world.

That is the deeper question behind the provocative title of this essay.

Perhaps the Freemasons are not collapsing.

Perhaps the civilization they helped shape is being transformed before our eyes.

Recommendations

The transformation described in this essay calls for a reassessment of how governments, businesses, investors and civil society understand sovereignty, competitiveness and international cooperation:

1. First, countries should strengthen their productive and technological capabilities rather than expanding administrative complexity. Competitiveness increasingly depends on innovation, knowledge, infrastructure and strategic industries.

2. Second, governments should distinguish between political and technical multilateralism. While political institutions may continue to evolve, technical cooperation in trade, logistics, finance, digital systems and environmental standards remains essential for global prosperity.

3. Third, strategic optionality should become a central principle of public policy. Nations should diversify suppliers, technologies, markets, financial partners and strategic alliances to reduce structural dependencies and improve resilience.

4. Fourth, responsible investment should incorporate geopolitical resilience alongside traditional ESG criteria. Projects should strengthen institutional quality, technological capability, social legitimacy and long-term competitiveness.

Finally, policymakers, business leaders and researchers should recognize that the current transition is not merely geopolitical or economic. It is civilizational. The institutions capable of adapting to this new environment will be those that combine economic freedom, technological leadership, moral legitimacy and strategic flexibility without abandoning the rule of law or peaceful international cooperation.