I recall my history teacher ins chool mentioning secret societys influencing revelutions in Russia and France,and had forgot about it until watching a conspiracy show where its mention the Illuminati influenced the french revlution. any theorys/documents?

Originally posted by Kings Knight mare
I recall my history teacher ins chool mentioning secret societys influencing revelutions in Russia and France,and had forgot about it until watching a conspiracy show where its mention the Illuminati influenced the french revlution. any theorys/documents?

The Illuminati probably inspired a part of the French Revolution indirectly, but not directly. In a similar manner, the American secret society called Sons of Liberty (whose membership included Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Revere), indirectly influenced the Illuminati.

The Illuminati were inspired by the American Revolution, and sought to achieve the same goal in Bavaria. The French Revolution was, however, quite different; it was instigated not by a secret society of revolutionary liberals as was the case in America, but by peasant women who were watching their children starve. When thousands of poor women marched on Versaille and arrested Louis XVI, they cared nothing about secret societies or political ideologies; they simply demanded food.

The situation was similar months later during the meeting of the Third Estate which culminated in the infamous Oath of the Tennis Court, and secured the downfall of the House of Bourbon. During the chaos following the revolutionary days, especially during the Reign of Terror, secret societies were outlawed and remained so until the revolution was finally stabilized by Napoleon Bonaparte, who was very likely a Freemason.

Fiat Lvx.

that was perfect,thank you very much

Actually, the Bavarian Illuminati was founded on May 1st, 1776, two months before the Declaration of Independence was signed, so it wasn't inspired by the American Revolution.

Many claim the opposite, that Thomas Jefferson was himself an Illuminatus that was used to carry over their ideologies into the New World. However, the far more likely truth is that Jefferson, as well as the Jacobins in France and the instigators of the Russian Revolution, were not so much Illuminati as they were unrelated groups that had very similar political beliefs.

Personally, I think the Jacobins were under Illuminati control, which seems to be corroborated by historical evidence. As for Jefferson...let's just say it's all too coincidental that he helped to forge a nation that closely followed the Illuminati model, so soon after the group was founded.

Originally posted by Don Armageddon
Actually, the Bavarian Illuminati was founded on May 1st, 1776, two months before the Declaration of Independence was signed, so it wasn't inspired by the American Revolution.

That is technically correct, but the "real" Illuminati came later. Weishaupt founded the Order of Perfectibilis in 1776, which eventually evolved into the Illuminati (in its initial stages it was merely a loose-knit group of anti-Jesuit freethinkers). It was only after the American Revolution began that Weishaupt's order adopted similar revolutionary principles, at least according to his memoires.

Many claim the opposite, that Thomas Jefferson was himself an Illuminatus that was used to carry over their ideologies into the New World. However, the far more likely truth is that Jefferson, as well as the Jacobins in France and the instigators of the Russian Revolution, were not so much Illuminati as they were unrelated groups that had very similar political beliefs.

I would certainly agree that Jefferson held Illuminist doctrines; in fact, he publicly defended Weishaupt and the Illuminati in his writings. I would partially agree that the Jacobins had similar doctrines to the Illuminati, but not the Bolsheviks. The Illuminati were bourgeois liberals, and were precisely the "enemies" of Bolshevism. Where the Illuminati wished to abolish feudalism and church control in Bavaria in order to establish a free secular democracy, the Russian Marxists wished to abolish the bourgeoisie as a class, and institute a worker's republic. The Illuminati's belief in laissez-faire capitalism contrasted greatly with Marxian socialism. However, Marxism was a reaction against the mass poverty of the Industrial Revolution, which had not yet occured during the Illuminati's heyday, which in turn makes a comparison between the Illuminati and the Bolsheviks similar to that of apples and oranges, as the very existence of these two degrees were dependent upon the social circumstances of their respective countries at different points in history.

Personally, I think the Jacobins were under Illuminati control, which seems to be corroborated by historical evidence. As for Jefferson...let's just say it's all too coincidental that he helped to forge a nation that closely followed the Illuminati model, so soon after the group was founded.

I think your analogy between the Illuminati and the American Revolution is basically correct; I only disagree with your theory of influence. We know that Jefferson was greatly influenced by John Locke, the father of modern liberal philosophy...indeed, several parts of the Declaration of Independence are direct quotes from Locke.
Since basically all Enlightenment philosophy was directly derived from Locke, it is not surprising that liberals all over the world held similar beliefs, from Jefferson to Voltaire to Weishaupt. We know that Weishaupt was inspired by Jefferson, but it seems that Locke and Newton were the primary inspiration for all of these revolutionaries.

Fiat Lvx.

I always find the whole idea the the French Revelution "just happened" because everyone was starving a bit silly.
The whole country rose up in unison, the rebeleous factions were already armed and many units from the army turned about on the spot to support the cause.
Even today with mass comunications and suchlike this sort of thing would be difficult - back in the 18th centuary it would have been impossible.
Its also hilarious how Freemasons like to think that Napoleon saved the day - if anything he made it worse by spreading its nihilistic madness all over Europe through a prolific series of wars that raged for over a decade.
Many more people died during his reign than during the revolution.
Peace only came to Europe with his final defeat at the Battle of Waterloo and the re-installation of the Catholic Church in France.

He was a ruthless dictator, his deeds unmatched until the second world war.

As always I must recommend Abbe Augustine Burell's "Memiores Illustrating the History of Jacobinism" for a good place to start research into the involvement of the Illuminati in the French Revolution.
Available from the American Opinion Books website.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
I always find the whole idea the the French Revelution "just happened" because everyone was starving a bit silly.

Uh-huh.

Before anyone falls for Necros' (once again) historical rewrites, it may be helpful to review a few facts.

Necros says:

The whole country rose up in unison, the rebeleous factions were already armed and many units from the army turned about on the spot to support the cause.

To say the "whole country rose up in unison" is nothing short of an absurdity, and demonstates either a complete lack of understanding of French Revolutionary history, or is a blatant attempt to mislead people (perhaps Necros gest his history lessons from Freemasonry Watch?).

In reality, only the Third Estate was revolutionary, and only a small faction of the armed forces joined causes with the revolution.
Neither is Necros' assertion correct that the rebels were already armed. When warned that the king's army was approaching Paris to quell the Rebellion, the peasants stormed the Bastille on July 14, 1789 (armed with clubs and slingshots) in order to procure firearms to defend themselves (and this Bastille Day is still celebrated in France as we celebrate Independence Day in the US).

What originally instigated the Rebellion is easily shown. In 1788, the harvest was poor and the price of bread soared. The price of one loaf had doubled to 4 sous, meaning that the average laborer had to spend half of his wages on bread alone in order to feed a family of four, not including other expenses or the king's continuing tax hikes (which effected only the Third Estate; the first two Estates, clergy and nobility, paid little or no taxes).

On October 5, an estimated 7000 Parisian peasant women marched to Louis' palace at Versaille and invaded it, massacring the royal guards. Much of this was in retaliation to a comment made by Louis' queen, Marie Antoinette, who, when asked by the peasants how to feed their children without bread, famously replied mockingly "Let them eat cake."

The women's revolution launched the Great Rebellion, which finally concluded with the execution of the royal family and a radical dictatorship of revolutionary peasants lead by Robespierre and the Jacobins after the revolution had succeeded. The Jacobins' role in the revolution itself was miniscule.

Its also hilarious how Freemasons like to think that Napoleon saved the day - if anything he made it worse by spreading its nihilistic madness all over Europe through a prolific series of wars that raged for over a decade.
Many more people died during his reign than during the revolution.

Being a Freemason has nothing to do with it; it is the universal consensus of all serious historians that Napoleon stabilized the revolution. He took a society in chaos and transformed it into the first world superpower.

How one views Napoleon outside this is only personal opinion. However, I am inclined to agree with Nietzsche, who praised Napoleon as the ultimate embodiment of the Ubermensch, one whose determination and Will To Power is fit for the history books.

Fiat Lvx.





[edit on 11-11-2004 by Masonic Light]

"Let them eat cake..." How could your average peasant have heard her say these words?
Like she was out walking around with the common riff-raff?
Maybe she had regular audiences with them no doubt?
The comment is purely fiction, it is demonstrative of the way the Illuminati worked by manipulating the press and spreading rumour and falsehood to incite unrest.

Only if you believe that starting a bunch of wars is the best way to create peace in your own country then Napoleon was a great peace maker by Masonic beliefs (Unity through Opposition)...fortunatally we kicked his tubby little arse a second time at Waterloo.
My favourite fact of the battle was that he threw his elite Imperial Gaurd to the slaughter at the end of the battle so he could make a run for it.
A Mason right to the end!

Originally posted by MrNECROS
"Let them eat cake..." How could your average peasant have heard her say these words?
Like she was out walking around with the common riff-raff?
Maybe she had regular audiences with them no doubt?
The comment is purely fiction, it is demonstrative of the way the Illuminati worked by manipulating the press and spreading rumour and falsehood to incite unrest.

Only if you believe that starting a bunch of wars is the best way to create peace in your own country then Napoleon was a great peace maker by Masonic beliefs (Unity through Opposition)...fortunatally we kicked his tubby little arse a second time at Waterloo.
My favourite fact of the battle was that he threw his elite Imperial Gaurd to the slaughter at the end of the battle so he could make a run for it.
A Mason right to the end!

"We" kicked his "tubby arse"? "We" was Wellington, Arthur Wellesley (frmrly Wesley), your sometime Duke and Saviour, who was a Mason, though not a Master Mason.

Enjoy your cake.

And while you're enjoying your cake, reflect on the painful fact that you know NOTHING of the the Battle of Waterloo. It was by no means a . . . . cake-walk. Napoleon did not get his "tubby arse" kicked. In fact, he shattered a Prussian force, and was able to carry the day against the British for a long time. At one point, the British faced disaster. Losses on both sides were extremely heavy. Near the end, the battered British formed square, but the French were able to hold them. Napoleon all but destroyed their allies. The British suffered massive casualties, and on top of that, this near-final formation of British forces was being battered by artillery fire. Wellington was forced to call in reserves, and Bonaparte thoght he could deliver the knockout blow by throwing his veterans at the thin British line . . . . and it too, buckled under the force of his attack. Yet, Wellington still had 1500 guardsmen , who threw temsleves right in front of the French and managed to stop their attacks with point-blank volleys (THAT is how close the British were to defeat.) The Chasseurs of the Guard were caught unawares and broke ranks, and general defeat followed. The French were never able to consolidate.

Waterloo was costly for both sides: Wellington lost 17,000 men, Blucher 7000, and Bonaparte 32,000.

Since you don't seem to know, when an infantry "forms square" *(as Wellington was forced to do the same), it is a purely defensive maneuver when it is about to get its a$$ handed to it. A square formation, if the infantry is even able to get into one, becomes much stronger, and can receive a cavalry charge quite well, although it is incredibly vulnerable to artillery fire and can easily take heavy casualties. Infantry would often form square when it had suffered a devastating attack, or when it was threatened by a cavalry charge (or both consecutively.)

"tubby arse" . . . . lol.



[edit on 14-11-2004 by LTD602]

Originally posted by MrNECROS
"Let them eat cake..." How could your average peasant have heard her say these words?

This quote was first published by Rousseau, which spread among the Parisian proletariat like wildfire. And thus goes Necros' history lesson for the day.

My favourite fact of the battle was that he threw his elite Imperial Gaurd to the slaughter at the end of the battle so he could make a run for it.

hahaha, and you talk to me about historical fiction?