“Bavarian Illuminati primer”

Thursday, January 2nd, 2014 | Illuminati myths

Trevor W. McKeown, the freemason webmaster at the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, has maintained a page on the Bavarian Illuminati for a least a decade. Only infrequently has it been updated, and inaccuracies remain. Wikipedia has used it as a reliable source for many years on their own Illuminati page, likely because the most active editor for that subject is himself a Freemason. I’ve written about one egregious error before, however an assessment of the page as a whole is overdue.

The beginning pullquote from Thomas Jefferson is meant to set the reader up for what follows – that the Illuminati had good intentions and were misunderstood; nothing nefarious went on.

Much has been made about the Jefferson letter, but the pullquote that McKeown uses is in fact a misrepresentation and out of context. Below, how it was quoted (on the left), and the way it actually is (on the right).

“As Weishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot and priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, and the principles of pure morality. This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment…. If Weishaupt had written here, where no secrecy is necessary in our endeavors to render men wise and virtuous, he would not have thought of any secret machinery for that purpose.”

As Wishaupt [sic.] lived under the tyranny of a despot & priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, & the principles of pure morality. He proposed therefore to lead the Free masons to adopt this object & to make the objects of their institution the diffusion of science & virtue. He proposed to initiate new members into his body by gradations proportioned to his fears of the thunderbolts of tyranny.

This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment, the subversion of the masonic order, & is the colour for the ravings against him of Robinson, Barruel & Morse, whose real fears are that the craft would be endangered by the spreading of information, reason, & natural morality among men

Obviously he intended to leave out the part after “pure morality” but neglected to include an ellipsis before “This has given an air of mystery to his views.” That’s a serious lapse. And seems intentional, to omit Jefferson’s accurate assessment that the Illuminati wanted to “lead the Free masons” and were engaged in the “subversion of the masonic order.”

Funny how Wikipedia’s article fails to mention the Illuminati’s overt machinations toward Freemasonry as well; what one recent Enlightenment historian correctly describes, thus:

While fiercely critical of the wider masonic movement and disdainful of masonic ritual, the order nevertheless remained inextricably entwined with freemasonry, developing rather like a parasitic plant, using the parent body as a source of sustenance and recruits and instrument for propagating its ideology.
- Jonathan I. Israel, Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750-1790, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 836

This is no inconsequential oversight. It’s one of the main strategies of the Illuminati, in combination with subverting other secret societies, government, religious and public institutions. To leave out the modus operandi of the Illuminati - in a so-called “primer” or a supposed encyclopaedic article - is unacceptable. According to the late professor Richard van Dülmen, a modern Illuminaten expert in the strictest sense, Weishaupt’s “objective was to raise the intellectual niveau among a selected elite, those who were in a position to subvert existing institutions and promote the spirit of Enlightenment at all levels [...] a democratic model was out of the question, but the elite was still faced with the choice between a monarchy and an aristocracy” (The Society of the Enlightenment, Polity Press, 1992, p.112). The next page: “it was the deliberate intention of the league that existing societies should be systematically undermined and all important religious, governmental and, not least, didactic institutions should be infiltrated in order that they might operate in the best interests of reason.” Similarly, in his study of the Weimar Illuminati, utilizing for the first time the archives from the Swedish Box, historian Daniel Wilson dubbed it “the perfection of enlightened absolutism through conspiratorial means.”

But back to the “primer.”

The first paragraph discusses Robison and Barruel as “principal critics” (which is true) and that only recently have primary documents been translated into English, allowing for “an objective perspective on the order.” He appears to be talking about this site, as this update occurred between Dec 9, 2010 and Jan. 1, 2011, according to WayBack captures. I was the only one posting English translations of primary material back then, fleeting as it was - unless he thinks Weishaupt’s ‘Die Lampe von Diogenese’ is primary material on the Illuminati, which it isn’t.

In the next paragraph McKeown actually “appropriates” my listing of Illuminaten experts, without citation. Again, side by side comparison (left: him; right: me):

Serious students should consult Amelia Gill’s 2008 translation of Weishaupt’s Die Lampe von Diogenese, Peggy Pawlowski’s 2004 doctoral thesis, ‘Der Beitrag Johann Adam Weishaupts zur Pädagogik des Illuminatismus’, and the works of such German historians as Reinhart Koselleck, Richard van Dülmen, Hermann Schüttler, Reinhard Markner, Monika Neugebauer-Wölk, Manfred Agethen, and Christine Schaubs. Bavarian Illuminati can be studied in an objective manner, and indeed has for quite sometime. Starting with René Le Forestier who received his PhD in history in 1914 for his masterpiece ‘Les Illuminés de Bavière et la Franc-Maçonnerie Allemande’; and more recently, Peggy Pawlowski’s 2004 doctoral thesis, ‘Der Beitrag Johann Adam Weishaupts zur Pädagogik des Illuminatismus’. And in Germany, historians such as Reinhart Koselleck, Richard van Dülmen, Hermann Schüttler, Reinhard Markner, Monika Neugebauer-Wölk, Manfred Agethen, and Christine Schaubs have contributed a wide body of literature on the Bavarian Illuminati.

It’s identical to what I wrote in that Jan. 2010 comment on this site. In Perfectibilists, p. xii, I listed Pawlowski, Koselleck et. al. in the same order.

In the html code, he actually does cite me (but it was commented out afterwards). I can’t figure out how to post code blocks in this version of wordpress, so the image of the html code is below.

McKeown Mishap

McKeown Mishap

Bad form, to say the least. According to the unseen html comments, he was going to write that my site had “detailed, accurate information” and intended to link to the page. If I was cited properly, I wouldn’t have a problem. Keeping his initial attribution there but unviewable doesn’t make sense.

We’re not done with the second paragraph. The first sentence makes an unusual assertion: “This webpage summarizes what was known about the Bavarian Illuminati to the English-speaking world, up until the mid-twentieth century.” We’re in the 21st century now, and since McKeown mentioned my list of Illuminaten experts, he surely was informed where legitimate information is to be found. If you’re not going to take advantage of this, then a proper title would be: “Primer on earlier, obsolete, writings sympathetic about a perceived history of the Illuminati before the advent of modern, academic, specialized, archival Illuminaten research.”

The third paragraph scoffs at Robison for being not particularly well-versed in the German language – true – and that he and Barruel didn’t provide context or proper citation. Barruel’s translations were much more faithful to the originals, however, and in fact he did cite his source, name of the book/magazine and titled section, but in the typical style of the time that didn’t identify from what page exactly. In wasn’t until the 19th century that professional historians cultivated more stringent methodology. Moreover, Rene Le Forestier, the great French historian of 18th century occult/templar masonry and the Illuminati, had even reluctantly given Barruel his due, writing that the latter read everything there was to be read on the Illuminati, understood the German language completely, that his translations were genuine and “more serious and more precise” than Robison, and had conducted a “complete expose” through a “meticulous analysis of the Original Writings” (Le Forestier, p. 687).

Paragraph four begins with the fact that Weishaupt drew ex-Jesuit antagonism from the University after he was appointed professor of Canon law, before becoming a Freemason. The next sentence informs us, correctly, that Weishaupt decided to join the masons in 1777. But the lodge in Munich he was initiated into wasn’t the “Lodge Theodore of Good Council (Theodor zum guten Rath)” as claimed, but the Strict Observance Lodge ‘Zur Behutsamkeit.’ They were two separate lodges: Theodore worked degrees from Royale York de l’Amitié in Berlin, while Zur Behutsamkeit (Weishaupt’s lodge) was of the Strict Observance, chartered in 1773/75 and ceasing operations in 1783 after the Wilhelmsbad conference and the official end of Strict Observance. The lodge Theodore of Good Council, after Wilhelmsbad, opted for the Illuminati-promoted Eclectic Rite.

Paragraph five is accurate, especially when he writes “Until recently, the best English exposition on the Order was found in Chapter III of Vernon L. Stauffer’s New England and the Bavarian Illuminati.” No hint as to what has appeared recently that qualifies as a good English “exposition on the Order,” although it seems he’s got wind of the Illuminatus major ritual being posted online.

Next there’s a sidebar that is hardly different from what he wrote before on Johann Jakob Lanz. He still writes, incorrectly, that Lanz was a “non-Illuminati secular priest.” Once again, take a look at my article on this for the real story: “Lang” or “Lanz”: Myths about the “Myths”. Paragraph two, in the sidebar, then goes on a tangent that the (Illuminati) papers found on Lanz’s body has been overstressed. In some circles, yes. Truly bad conspiracies have been perpetuated to the effect that Lanz was on his way to Paris to deliver the orders for the commencement of the French Revolution. It’s made up whole-cloth. In the above article, however, I recounted exactly where Lanz was going, what his mission was, and the contents of the documents found on him when he died. Furthermore, the importance of the Lanz Illuminati documents was this: after the evidence uncovered from Lanz it was clear that the Illuminati were still recruiting and plotting, even after the second edict. Karl Theodor was furious and issued his third edict (August 16, 1785) with the threat of severe punishments. The fourth edict was exactly two years later in 1787, and contrary to McKeown, it wasn’t the last. The fifth and last edict was on November 15, 1790, and repeated the threat of capital punishment from 1787 for continued activity in the Order. (See my book for details on the Edicts, and partial translations of four of them, the last included.)

Back to the main text, in paragraph six McKeown goes on about Barruel and Robison again, that they were conservatives allied to the old regime and refused to take at face value the professed good intentions of the Illuminati’s Enlightenment goals against “the dominion of superstition and prejudice.” This is true: they did indeed not take it at face value. The Illuminati were a secret society, not authorized by law, intent on infiltrating into the very core of the socio-political system. Lofty talk about reason and morality was trumped by overt subterfuge: a parasitical organism preying upon every lodge and every official institution within reach. That’s a fact that cannot be brushed aside, even if you agree with the “ends justifies the means.” The paragraph ends with this little tidbit:

Where Weishaupt and Knigge promoted a freedom from church domination over philosophy and science, Robison and Barruel saw a call for the destruction of the church. Where Weishaupt and Knigge wanted a release from the excesses of state oppression, Robison and Barruel saw the destruction of the state. Where Weishaupt and Knigge wanted to educate women and treat them as intellectual equals, Robison and Barruel saw the destruction of the natural and proper order of society.

That they “wanted to educate women and treat them as intellectual equals” was pulled straight one of thin air by McKeown. The Illuminati were not feminists! Far from it. In fact, there are only a few mentions of women in the original writings and degree work. One explicit reference was to form an Order for Women and use them as spies while providing “voluptuous pleasure for the Freemasons” - akin to an in-lodge masonic whore house. So much for being treated as equals. It’s true this Order of Women would also be educated in the same manner as their Masters, but that was only one class; the second class of women would be devoted to “debauchery.” The other significant mention is when Illuminati regents are admonished to flatter them; women display weakness for vanity and sensuality and in their hands lies influence upon a good part of the world (directive “VI” in Instruction B for the Regent degree).

Paragraph seven is misinformed as well. McKeown writes: “Status as a freemason was not required for initiation into the Order of Illuminati.” In the lower degrees one didn’t have to be a mason, but to be received into a class higher than Illuminatus minor it was required.

Paragraph eight is a quote from mason Albert Mackey’s old 19th century masonic Encyclopedia. McKeown, again using a set of ellipses, erases any mention of the Illuminati’s machinations toward masonry. Mackey (left), McKeown (right):

Adopting Masonry only as a means of its own more successful propagation, and using it only as incidental to its own organization, it exercised while in prosperity no favorable influence on the Masonic institution, nor any unfavorable effect on it by its dissolution. …. it exercised while in prosperity no favorable influence on the masonic institution, nor any unfavorable effect on it by its dissolution

Paragraph nine: “Weishaupt was later appointed a professor at the University of Gottingen, remaining there until his death on 18 November 1830.” False. He never had a teaching job after leaving Ingolstadt, and he didn’t remain in Göttingen until his death in 1830; it was Gotha where he lived and died in exile.

Paragraph ten amounts to mason Henry Wilson Coil describing the Illuminati in one manner, mason George Kenning in another, and a quote from Weishaupt in his own defence.

Paragraph eleven tells us that Karl August Böttiger wrote against some of the accusations in John Robison’s Proofs of a Conspiracy. True enough, but Böttiger was himself a member of the Illuminati, and neglected to say so. Of course he would defend his brothers in arms. And while Böttiger was eager to state that after 1790 “every concern [sic] of the Illuminati has ceased,” he actually cooperated with J. J. C. Bode on extending the Order under various guises. Böttiger’s mention of 1790 is significant, for:

In 1787 the Order is officially abolished generally, but then Bode starts a reform of the Order, from 1790 under the name “Deutsche Freimaurerbund.” In 1793 Bode dies and Reinhold takes over the general leadership. The name of the Order is transformed now into “Bund des Einverständnisses” or “Moralischen Bund der Einverstandenen.” One of his closest associates in this project, which aims at the reform of the masonic ritual system, is [Illuminatus] Schröder. This reform, next organised within the [years] 1793/4 founded “Engbund,” whereby all higher degrees are abolished, is now known as Schröders, but the team working of it also included [Illuminati] Reinhold (and Herder). In 1809, Reinhold becomes a member of the Lodge “Luise zur gekrönten Freundschaft” in Kiel, of which he remains the Master until his death in 1823.

- Jan A.M. Snoek, “What Does The Word ‘Religious’ Mean in Reinhold’s ‘Religious Freemasonry,’” in Jan Assmann, Sibylle Meyer (eds.), Egypt: Temple of the Whole World : Studies in Honour of Jan Assmann, BRILL, 2003, p. 413

According to Illuminaten expert Hermann Schüttler, Böttiger was a member of Bode’s re-imagined Illuminaten (Deutsche Freimaurerbund) and was also afterwards involved with Schröder’s ‘Engbund’; see Die Mitglieder des Illuminatenordens 1776-1787/93 (Munich: Ars Una 1991), p. 27.

I quoted the same passage from Snoek, in my book, to highlight the fact that a real effort was attempted to extend the life of the Illuminati - one which, however, is markedly different from conspiracy theory on the subject.

After the Snoek quote and corroboration from other sources, I concluded with:

So, from the Illuminati to the German Masonic Union, we have another step in the transformation of the remnants of the Order. When Bode died, however, Carl Reinhold took the reigns. This time the new name for the remaining vestiges of the Illuminati was the Bund der Einverstandenen (Federation of Truth and Friendship). Prominent members were Illuminati Johann G.H. Feder (whom Weishaupt had practically idolized), Karl A. Böttiger, Ludwig T. Spittler, and Johann J. Bellermann. But a parallel development was Illuminatus Friedrich L. Schröder’s ritual reform called Engbund. This was in keeping with Bode’s original plan — as you’ll recall it’s the reason he went to Paris in 1787 to dispense with the mystical rites in Freemasonry, and replace them with a more rationalist creed. And, just like Illuminatus Roettiers de Montaleau’s re-institution of Masonry and the Grand Orient of France after the revolution, another Illuminatus — Schröder — was also responsible for the restructuring of Freemasonry in Germany. …

If there was indeed any real continuity of Bode‘s version of the Illuminati, then the above mentioned people and rites need to be investigated more thoroughly using archival material of the Lodges belonging to the late eighteenth century Eclectic Union, the Bode Masonic Union, and Schröder’s Engbund; and the personal correspondences and/or family archives of those individuals associated with the Illuminati trio of Bode, Reinhold and Schröder — even Böttiger, Spittler, and Bellermann (Perfectibilists, p. 133).

Next in McKeown’s article is a short list of members which he says are “unconfirmed”: Weishaupt, Knigge, Nicolai, Westenrieder, Hertel, Thomas Maria de Bassus, Johann Simon Mayr, Dietrich, Bode, [Christian Wilhelm] von [dem] Bus[s]che, Saint Germain, de Constanzo, Ferdinand of Brunswick, Ernst II of Gotha, Johann W. Goethe. It’s slightly different from his previous lists on older versions of the page, but we have confirmation that all were members of the Illuminati, except for Mayr and Saint Germain. Someone asked once about Saint-Germain being a member and I responded with an extensive post, Re: “Concerning the Count of Saint-Germain,” which may be of interest.

I don’t take issue with the remainder of the article. In fact, his concluding sections titled “After the Illuminati,” “Illuminati predecessors,” and “Illuminati claimants” are largely accurate and more thorough than his grasp of Bavarian Illuminati history proper.

Illuminati History (in English)

McKeown mentions that, for further info, one should consult a bibliography found in Vernon Stauffer’s New England and the Bavarian Illuminati. Stauffer’s list is good for directing one to primary material, however most of it still remains in German - which will be rectified in the near future through the joint effort of translator Jeva Singh-Anand, and editors Josef Waeges and Reinhard Markner.

In the meantime, however, there are some good English sources on Bavarian Illuminati history; scholars who use the primary documents for their knowledge base. It amounts to a chapter here and there, but taken together, one can get a complete and accurate picture.

In no particular order:

Friedrich Christoph Schlosser, History of the eighteenth century and of the nineteenth till
the overthrow of the French empire: With particular reference to mental cultivation and progress
, Vol. IV (London: 1845), pp. 472-502 [Archive.org link]
Translated from German, this is still one of the most complete and detailed English accounts that can be read.
Monika Neugebauer-Wölk, “Illuminaten” entry in Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism, ed. Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Brill Academic Publishers, 2005, pp. 590-597
She’s one of the modern experts on the Illuminaten, so this entry is packed full of the most recent research. Despite the ostensible short length, the pages in this monumental Dictionary contain two columns with small type. All the essential (up-to-date) details are included.
Christopher McIntosh, The Rose Cross and the Age of Reason: Eighteenth-Century Rosicrucianism in Central Europe and its Relationship to the Enlightenment, State University of New York Press, 1992 [2012], pp. 100-13
The history of the Golden and Rosy Cross of the 18th Century is inextricably tied to the history of the Bavarian Illuminati. Both secret societies spied on each other and spared no opportunity when it came to conspiring against one another - bitter enemies in every sense of the word. McIntosh’s book - a reworking of his PhD thesis on the subject - has a really good chapter which lays out the “polemical stance” of both parties: “The Polemical Stance of the Gold- und Rosencreuz,” pp. 91-113.
Richard van Dülmen, The Society of the Enlightenment, Polity Press, 1992, pp. 104-118
Another Illuminaten expert. Since Dülmen’s seminal Der Geheimbund der Illuminaten hasn’t yet been translated into English, this book will have to do. A nuanced discussion of the Illuminati occurs within the chapter called “Clubs and Political Associations,” pp. 82-127.
Klaus Epstein, The Genesis of German Conservatism, Princeton University Press, 1966
This really should be read all the way through, because it deals with Germany during the days of the Illuminati, through the French Revolution and up until Napoleon. It’s indispensable for a proper understanding of the politics, the Enlightenment and Enlightened Absolutism, the German Aufklärung and the reaction against it, and the birth of the modern conspiracy theory. In particular, see Chapter 2: “Masons, Illuminati, & Rosicrucians,” pp. 84-111 and Chapter 10: “The Conspiracy Theory of the Revolution,” pp. 503-546.
Reinhart Koselleck, Critique and Crises: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society, MIT Press, 1988.
An English translation of Koselleck’s 1959 classic Enlightenment study, Kritik und Krise. It’s a hard book to put your finger on, but it opened wide the field of finally taking secret societies and Freemasonry seriously while discussing the objectives of the Enlightenment and the 18th-century public sphere. This review of a review of his work goes into more details. Critique and Crises discusses the Illuminati numerous times, all drawn from primary material. In particular, see Chapter 6: “The Proliferation of Indirect Power and the Schisms of Morals and Politics,” pp. 76-85; Chapter 7: “The Political Function of the Lodges and the Plans of the Illuminati,” pp. 86-97; and Chapter 10: “The Philosophy of Progress and its Prognosis of Revolution,” pp. 127-137.
Jonathan I. Israel, Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750-1790, Oxford University Press, 2011
Professor Israel has been accused of being obsessed with Spinoza and of trying to find Spinozism under every rock, which isn’t really that unfair of an assessment. But he does it in an incredibly intelligent and well-read manner as well as being a skilled linguist in all the major European languages. He discusses the Illuminati in the context of the “radical enlightenment” in Chapter 31: “Aufklärung and the Secret Societies (1776-1792),” pp. 822-858.
Steven Luckert, Jesuits, Freemasons, Illuminati, and Jacobins: Conspiracy theories, secret societies, and politics in late eighteenth-century Germany, Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1993
A mammoth thesis of 700+ pages. Luckert is situated squarely in the latest trend of scholars analysing conspiracy theories as a topic unto itself, but if you’re interested in the Illuminati, and can get your hands on it, you’ll find yourself devouring it completely.
Maria Kajtar, “German Illuminati in Hungary,” Studies in Eighteenth Century Literature, eds. Szenczi and Ferenczi, Budapest 1974, pp. 325-346.
A rare and obscure article. She’s very good when it comes to an analysis of the ideology and utopianism of the Illuminati, however some of the Hungarian members she discusses haven’t been proved to have been members - even with the benefit of the membership studies of Dülmen (1970s) and Schüttler (1990s).

Tags: , ,

23 Comments to “Bavarian Illuminati primer”

Jeva Singh-Anand
January 2, 2014

Thanks for the link to Schlosser’s book. It’s downloaded and added to the 70+ books om my “to read” list. Markner, Waeges and I are barely scratching the surface with “Ritual & Doctrine,” though. If we live to be 80, we won’t live long enough to translate everything that’s out there. Our project is a good start, but there’s still plenty left to do.

Here’s a “free google ebooks” search for “Illuminaten:” https://www.google.com/#q=illuminaten&tbm=bks&tbs=bkv:r

I should point out that there never has been consensus among Freemasons about the Illuminati. Robison himself was a Mason, and Freemason George Washington seems to have had a rather dim view of what he knew about Illuminati and Jacobin doctrines, as is evident from his correspondence with George Snyder. Most Masons know very little about them, many are interested in what they were about, and I personally know more than one who are deathly afraid of them, but can only cite the Zeitgeist/David Icke stuff as their proof.

I would disagree that the Illuminati were merely a “curious footnote,” and not just because conspiracy theories have become such a powerful cultural undercurrent. They were not simply a Masonic Rite that almost replaced the the Strict Observance’s leadership role, and while many of the accusations leveled against them are false (i.e. occult conspiracy, global depopulation), they certainly were more than a small group of “philosophy geeks,” as they have been called elsewhere. The last two to three decades have produced a lot of academic research, primarily in Germany, and it is time for English speaking scholars to pick up the ball.

The “Primer” does contain inaccuracies that need to be corrected.

The list of “unconfirmed” members is incorrect. Quite a few of these unconfirmeds published lengthy apologiae, admitting they had been Illuminati, and these works can now be downloaded in their original German via the above link. I haven’t found anything in the ritual that suggests the Illuminati had a particularly feminist bent; on the other hand, I haven’t found any confirmation that Zwack’s proposal for the two women’s orders ever materialized, was green-lighted, or even well received. At the time of that site’s most recent update, 9/16/13, the statement “Today, English translations of the rituals are available online” is a bit misleading. There is ONE ritual that has been translated (in its full length) into English and is available online: the Illuminatus Major degree on my blog.

To be fair, McKeown also writes “Status as a freemason was not required for initiation into the Order of Illuminati since the fourth, fifth and sixth degrees of Weishaupt and Baron Adolphe-François-Frederic Knigge’s system practically duplicated the three degrees of symbolic Freemasonry.” He doesn’t end the sentence after “Illuminati.” This is not an entirely incorrect statement, but the claim that Knigge’s system “practically duplicated” the symbolic degrees requires closer examination, since the Illuminati actually rewrote the symbolic degrees to integrate them into their overall structure, and Illuminati-Masons were required to join lodges either established or controlled by the order.

Terry Melanson
January 2, 2014

I watched him on tv repeating the same claims about the Illuminati and women - one of those Freemason specials that were produced like wildfire when Dan Brown’s books were making news. The assertion is on the wikipedia page as well, taken from McKeown of course.

As regards to the Illuminati’s subversion of Masonry and civil society, it’s important not to over-emphasize this aspect, as I frequently find myself doing. However, it’s also incumbent upon those who try and relate their history to not overlook it so much - intentionally or not - to the point of omission. Further, it’s this modus operandi of co-opting masonry (and/or individual lodges) for your own means which later secret societies took to heart: the Carbonari and the Sublimes Maîtres Parfaits in particular. A precedent was set, that one could argue was passed down all the way to Licio Gelli and his Propaganda Due.

John Robert Priesmeyer
February 3, 2014

Hello mr melanson. I have another question regarding robinsons proofs of a conspiracy. On pg 93 he claims weishaupt says the illuminati a grand master is jesus of Nazareth and that the end goal was the same as jesus message. This is fascinating to me because not all Gnostics sects worship the serpent according to the earliest Jewish gnostic texts. Such as the book of Baruch, the secret apocalypse of John, actually claim you shouldn’t worship ether The Lord or the serpent. Anyways is that quote real? Or did Robinson make it up?

Terry Melanson
February 3, 2014

Robison’s quotes from the Illuminati are real, as well as the one you cited. It’s his next chapter on the French Revolution and his speculations that the Illuminati were behind it that is near useless in light of what we now know and what can be proved and discounted.

The Illuminati cited Jesus as a Grand Master just as Freemasonry and the Carbonari had later. The Illuminati did so for a few reasons: 1) to highlight the fact that Jesus had a secret teaching only known among adepts (and that the Illuminati were part of this tradition); 2) that it was found among the gnostics and the mystery schools and that the Illuminati were a part of this as well; 3) to set up the necessary groundwork to later teachings in the Order that were outright socialist; and 4) by even mentioning Jesus, they could con Christians who hadn’t been fully indoctrinated yet into believing that the Illuminati were good, and there was nothing to worry about.

John Robert Priesmeyer
February 3, 2014

Question? If the quote is real and you put together my observation about the earliest Gnostic Jews the last piece of the puzzle falls into place. Wasent weishaupt born Jewish only to be converted to catholism? Is it not true that the jesuits were infiltrators of the Vatican seeking to destory the church as highlighted by the roshaniyya? Also if Fabianism was the origin of socialist and communist thought why the close connection with theosophy and the British royality? Many tho not all, pike has been taken out of context with the lucifer quotes. But many other sects clearly worship the serpent as the true good god. The books leading up to the New Testament imply that ether YWHW regrets everything he did to mankind or the god of the New Testament is a completely different god. That’s who Blavatsky cites when she claims the Gnostics worship the serpent, she cites the valentinans, Orphic, sethians, the later versions of Gnosticism. Do you see what I’m getting at?

Terry Melanson
February 3, 2014

Weishaupt wasn’t jewish and neither was his father. They were Catholics. Roshaniya had nothing to do with either Weishaupt or the Jesuits. Fabianism isn’t the origin of socialist thought.

Weishaupt and the Illuminati didn’t worship anything except the concept that man can become his own ruler through reason and enlightenment. He didn’t even understand what gnosticism was, only that it (along with docetism) was the first heresy in christiandom. Weishaupt’s concept of the mystery schools was specific to the theories of one of the members of the Illuminati - Christoph Meiners. The latter wrote that the final secret in these mysteries was that the gods were only men who had become deified through subsequent embellishments of the stories.

John Robert Priesmeyer
February 3, 2014

I see. What’s the origin of socialist thought?

Terry Melanson
February 3, 2014

Socialism is as old as mankind. It’s found in primitive cultures and has been discussed in literature almost from its inception.

John Robert Priesmeyer
February 3, 2014

I saw a film that claims sir John dee says the illuminati was dangours and evil. Where does that come from?

John Robert Priesmeyer
February 4, 2014

Oh wait my bad its Comte de viriue who it’s quoting. Then it moves to sir John dee on something else. Bad memory.

February 6, 2014

Quote Terry Melanson

” by even mentioning Jesus, they could con Christians who hadn’t been fully indoctrinated yet into believing that the Illuminati were good, and there was nothing to worry about”.

In what way did the Illuminati’s actions prove that they were not good,and what was there to worry about?

Terry Melanson
February 6, 2014

It was a con-job from start to finish. As you ascended the ladder of degrees you were gradually let in on what the real purpose was. Step by step you were watched intensely, psychologically tested and manipulated. You were required to infiltrate other societies as well as the apparatus of power. All was geared toward the Order having hegemony over the minds of its initiates and the public at large, under the guise of educating the masses for their own good.

It wasn’t like going down to your local lodge and joining the Freemasons, who everyone knew about and roughly understood. This was a secret society in every sense of the word. Their very existence depended upon secrecy, for their motives were not on the square.

Cedric Klein
February 13, 2014

Nor were they on the level. *G*

How on Earth is it that PERFECTIBILISTS is not required reading for anyone involved in Conspiracy Theory? While I am no longer a member of the John Birch Society, I occasionally keep up on what they are up to, & there is no mention anywhere of your work!

Terry Melanson
February 13, 2014

I’m dumbfounded as well. Dr. Monteith even interviewed me on his show, and I’ve spoken to Dennis Cuddy on the phone where he praised my research repeatedly and asks me numerous questions which he knew I would have answers. Both these individuals are well known in Bircher circles. Libertarians too have praised my work, and one blogger at Lew Rockwell put me in a row - “for its scholastic integrity and dedication to truth-telling without tabloid sensation or hyperbole” - with James H. Billington and Carroll Quigley, whom Birchers are enamoured with and cite repeatedly.

February 22, 2014

Great article. I’ve had reservations about McKeown’s Primer since reading your Lang/Lanz article, but there’s a lot here I hadn’t considered at all.

As far as the gender equality thing is concerned, I think McKeown is referring to the argument Robison constructs in Proofs of a Conspiracy (pages 113-125*) about the Illuminati trying to destabilize society and abolish Christianity by going against traditional gender roles, which builds on the Regent Degree instructions and a letter from Minos to Sebastian in 1782 (page 78).

So there is some ground for McKeown’s statement, but if my assessment is correct it’s very clear that he is misinterpreting the original Illuminati documents. Assuming Robison’s translation is accurate, it’s obvious Minos (who I assume is Ditfurth) is not being particularly progressive. And it’s not just that he calls women “fickle and impatient” or that he doesn’t trust Ptolemy’s wife to run the operation herself; there are a few hints in the text (the reference to awe-inspiring female seers and women creating “rare mysteries”) that Minos is working from the idea of women as the more mystical, emotional gender. I’d hesitate to call that “treating women as intellectual equals”, in fact, it’s the exact opposite. It’s also very telling that women are more or less treated as tools in both Minos’ letter and the Regent Degree instructions. And there’s also Neugebauer-Wölk’s statement that the utopian state the order was aspiring for would be patriarchal in nature (page 591, Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism).

Yet it’s become more or less accepted on places like reddit that the Illuminati were feminists, it’s probably one of the more perplexing misconceptions I’ve come across.

Minos also mentions a proposal from Hercules, I wonder if it could be the same proposal found in Zwackh’s house?

* Using this edition: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/PROOFS_OF_A_CONSPIRACY_John_Robison.pdf

Terry Melanson
February 23, 2014

There were two initiates with the Orden-name Hercules. The one Minos refers to was Johann Balthasar Ockel (1756-1834). Hermann Schuttler gives Ockel the title of “National-Konsultor” in the Order at Wetzlar. Robison got a bit mixed up with the translation. He said it was a letter from Minos to Sebastien, when it was in fact a Provincial report from Minos about the goings-ons in the town of Wetzlar, whose Order name was “Sebaste”. That’s why “Hercules” was mentioned because he was stationed in “Sebaste”/Wetzlar and had proposed a Minerval assembly for young woman (just as they had for young men). In the course of describing Ockel’s plan Minos mentions the Order of Mopses as a precedent - though he neglects to mention Zwack’s plan as if he was unaware of it. The editors of the Original Writings, however, included a footnote telling the readers to look at volume one to see Zwack’s plan for themselves. They pretty much describe it the way I have as well: perverse. There’s no other way to interpret it, and that coupled with the Regent directive on manipulating women, corroborates that more than just Zwack had this in mind when it came to women and the Order.

Terry Melanson
February 23, 2014

> become more or less accepted on places like reddit that
> Illuminati were feminists, it’s probably
> one of the more perplexing misconceptions I’ve come across.

I too have noticed this. That’s what pushed me look more closely at McKeown’s article. The claim ultimately comes from him, his article, the wiki article (citing him) and some statements he made on tv to this effect while trying his hardest to put a good spin on the Illuminati - the m.o. of the “primer” as well.

June 7, 2014

So apparently Barruel’s scholarship was better then Robinson. May be true in terms of that book, but on Wikipedia there is a claim that in 1806 he circulated a pamphlet the began the progress of blaming the conspiracy on The Jews, in response to Napoleon’s policy towards the Jews.

Have you read Dilon’s book from the later 1800s? He’s an individual very similar to Barruel in attitudes. His book seems to be the main source for alleging a direct connection between the Illuminati and the Carbonari. I want to know if it’s even possible to independently verify that Nubius even existed.

Terry Melanson
June 7, 2014

This is a reference to the Simonini letter that Barruel had received. The former had ruminated that the Jews were in fact the string pullers behind Freemasonry, the Illuminati and the French Revolution. Barruel, however, kept it to himself and didn’t publish it during his lifetime as he felt it would cause bloodshed upon the Jews. The letter only came to light in the late 1800s when it was discovered by a Jesuit writing a bio of Barruel, and published it in a Catholic magazine. In anti-conspiracist literature these essential facts I’ve outlined have received embellishments or omissions in order to tare Barruel’s reputation by insinuating his complicity in the Jewish peril consiracy just as he’s castigated as the originator of conspiracy theory proper.

The famous Alta Vendita. I’m afraid we will never know the truth of it unless the Vatican opens its files on subject. All we know is that it is claimed by the original publisher that it was given to him by the Vatican and that it was a real document from the Carbonari. Without corroboration from the original source there’s no way to prove anything.

June 7, 2014

So the documents are in the Vatican Library, if their real, interesting.

Terry Melanson
June 7, 2014

Just recently I had an idea to bring it up in an email to the Archdiocese in my area. I think it might be worth it to try. A while ago I sent an email to the biographer of Pope Pius IX, Roberto De Mattei. In his book he stated that he was going to reveal who Nubius was in a later work. I asked if he had done so yet or who it was, but received no response.

June 8, 2014

Hopefully something will come of that.

What about the claim that Lord Palmerston was the Grand Master of English Freemasonry?

Terry Melanson
June 8, 2014

No one can verify Larouchite material because unfortunately they don’t cite anyone except for themselves (if they even cite at all).

Leave a comment