Why can no one prove a Masonic conspiracy?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


I met a guy with a Masonic license plate the other day.

If there is a conspiracy, it's in sad shape if the Masons are relying on goobers like this guy to carry it out.

reply to post by jamie83


Derisive comment duely noted. However, I did not predicate my Original Post on the premiss that there is no conspiracy owing to the physical or mental capabilities of the Bretheren, only that there was no tangible proof of a Masonic conspiracy.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
What I would most like to know though is if there were twenty volumes in the chest, and book X (ten I presume) was found in the archives, how many of the other 19 have since been found? Have the registers compiled by Lepp been recovered so that it is known what is missing?

The article really is the most thorough account; it could and should be greatly expanded upon though if one were so inclined. Some other information is scattered about in various places though. Let me try to summarize.

Box X has to do with the Bavarian Illuminati: such things as the Order's bureaucracy, and its day-to-day activities during the years of Bode's rule; the reports from Provincials; a membership list with about 70+ members that were heretofore unknown to researchers before; and the Quibus Licet letters from said listed members - ie, their little journals and exercises that they were required to keep and complete. The hierarchy was privy to these most intimate thoughts; privacy was nonexistent and blackmail was always possible since the initiates were encouraged to elaborate on the most intimate details on their daily lives (they were even encouraged and required to give up the goods of family members). What the initiates wrote in response to their superiors' questions, these are the Quibus Licet reports - and they are in the collection, with an Illuminati name attached (of course) with each one.

The rest of the collection has to do with Freemasonry proper. What was added or suppressed during all these years - and by whom - I do not know the answer.

As far as the Nazis, they had their own researcher of Freemasonry. It was his job to collect and collate all materials having to do with masonry and other occult groups which the Reich deemed as worthy to pillage for esoteric knowledge. His name was Adolf Rossberg. He wrote a bit about the Illuminati collection in his 1942 work, Freimaurerei und Politik im Zeitalter der französischen Revolution. But in general, the Nazis weren't overly obsessed with the Illuminati or trying to find some secret of the Order in these archives. It was there; they knew about it; so they stole it. The info in there on Freemasonry was probably more valuable to them.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
The hierarchy was privy to these most intimate thoughts; privacy was nonexistent and blackmail was always possible since the initiates were encouraged to elaborate on the most intimate details on their daily lives (they were even encouraged and required to give up the goods of family members). What the initiates wrote in response to their superiors' questions, these are the Quibus Licet reports - and they are in the collection, with an Illuminati name attached (of course) with each one.

Thank you for answering my questions and I hope that the OP will not mind if I detract from his purpose a little further by asking a few more...

I have read the illuminati article on your website (ConspiracyNut23 links to it on another thread) and found it highly informative. I was wondering though if you could clarify something for me. From other sources I gained the impression that the Bavarian Illuminati was comprised of secularists or even atheists, but if their membership was made up of disbanded Jesuits rather than those that had left the order (which is what I previously and wrongly presumed) - can I assume that the leadership were not themselves atheists?

If that is the case, was the Illuminati used as a tool by the Jesuits to 'infiltrate' and subvert the secular, and also their much despised 'rivals' the freemasons? What confuses me (among other things) is the proposition that they sought to use 'that that the Jesuits used for good rather than evil' (I paraphrase)...weren't they really just Jesuits in another guise????

[edit on 30-5-2008 by KilgoreTrout]

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


The Jesuits were the mortal enemies of the Illuminati. When I mentioned them in a few posts previously this is the context it was in. The Rosicrucians and the ex-Jesuits were THE cause of the downfall of the Bavarian Illuminati. For their entire existence from 1776-87/93, the initiates of the Illuminati were admonished in no uncertain terms - stay away from recruiting Jesuits, as if they had the plague!

Weishaupt's quarrels with the ex-Jesuits at the Ingolstadt University was legendary. When the Jesuits were banned in 1773 the positions that they had previously held in the religious department couldn't be filled by anyone else and the University made a big mistake in allowing the Jesuits to remain there and there. The most prized position, however, was the professor of Canon Law. And when Weishaupt was given this job, the Jesuits were enraged to no end. They immediately began scheming against the young Weishaupt and at one point nearly succeeded in getting Weishaupt and his godfather, Ickstatt (the curator) dismissed. His pay was successfully withheld for awhile too - imagine how much he hated them!

When he instituted his secret society in 1776, it was very much an internal thing within the Ingolstadt University. The main reason, at first, was to fight fire with fire against the Jesuits there - even to the point of stealing their tactics of conspiratorial intrigue.

Much more details in my forthcoming book about the combined efforts of the Rosicrucians and the ex-Jesuits to take down the Illuminati.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Thank you for answering my questions and I hope that the OP will not mind if I detract from his purpose a little further by asking a few more...

I most certainly do not as your exhange with Fire as been quite informative as well as civil. Feel free to continue as I am very interested in these topics as well.

I don't think this is a fair question. How can any of us prove a conspiracy when you masons hold all the cards. You are the only ones that really know what happens in your meetings and the only ones that really know if there's a conspiracy. Whos to say that something other then the regular nepotism that occurs is happening besides that? How can we tell you that it isn't ? Why should we believe you? How do I know what you are doing doesn't affect other people?

reply to post by Capozzelli


It's kind of easy. Join it for a bit, see what goes on. Read as much as you can about it and get some questions about things you need answers.

Originally posted by Capozzelli


I don't think this is a fair question. How can any of us prove a conspiracy when you masons hold all the cards. You are the only ones that really know what happens in your meetings and the only ones that really know if there's a conspiracy.

Nope, sorry. You're taking the lazy way out. If someone wanted to prove a Masonic conspiracy they'd have to actually join a lodge and ferret out those secrets. It would be work. The answers wouldn't be handed to them (in spite of the YouTube videos that might seem to suggest otherwise...)

reply to post by JoshNorton


So are you saying that there are secrets? What happens after I join and I take the oath that says I can't reveal the secrets? It seems to be a catch 22, I don't know until I join but when I join I can't tell.

Originally posted by Capozzelli
reply to post by JoshNorton

 

So are you saying that there are secrets? What happens after I join and I take the oath that says I can't reveal the secrets? It seems to be a catch 22, I don't know until I join but when I join I can't tell.

If you want to take an oath and then violate it, that's entirely up to you. There are probably other ways, short of joining, that a good investigator could find out information, confirm sources, and generally come up with a solid picture of what's going on while himself remaining entirely on the outside. But again, it would require effort and dedication to do so. Probably not a tact an armchair enthusiast would pursue.

reply to post by JoshNorton


You are also assuming that I am not 'an old man in dotage, a youngman underage, an atheist, an irreligious libertine, a madman, a woman' and so on. What if I can't or won't be able to join? What are my options to find out if you masons are not actually conspiring in meetings that I can't get into? You say there are methods, what are they?

In answer to the OP here...

Because the Mason's collectively are amongst the most caring and humanist groups in society that I have personal experience with...

Maybe its due to the plethora of people with slightly different religious beliefs that makes the whole that bit more tolerant of everyone...

I don't know...

I can only speak from my experience having being directly helped by the Freemasons, and I cannot speak highly enough of this experience...

IMHO, the Freemasons as a whole are a fine group of men who do good deeds to benefit their communities world wide...

Peace

Originally posted by Capozzelli
reply to post by JoshNorton

 

You are also assuming that I am not 'an old man in dotage, a youngman underage, an atheist, an irreligious libertine, a madman, a woman' and so on. What if I can't or won't be able to join? What are my options to find out if you masons are not actually conspiring in meetings that I can't get into? You say there are methods, what are they?

Why, finding someone who WILL spill the beans, of course! As I mentioned in my last reply to you, two or more independent authoritative sources willing to go on record, who don't have an agenda or an ax to grind are like manna to a good researcher or reporter. Perhaps not as good as first-hand experience, but often the next best thing.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

The Jesuits were the mortal enemies of the Illuminati. When I mentioned them in a few posts previously this is the context it was in. The Rosicrucians and the ex-Jesuits were THE cause of the downfall of the Bavarian Illuminati. For their entire existence from 1776-87/93, the initiates of the Illuminati were admonished in no uncertain terms - stay away from recruiting Jesuits, as if they had the plague!

I think that the Jesuits get a lot of bad press and that this has been the case since their inception. I don't think that they 'earn' all of that criticism.

It seems to me that the aims of the Illuminati were no different to those of the Jesuits. They can both be described as fifth columnists, as indeed can the Freemasons in this context. They all sought influence over the societies in which they resided. The Jesuits sought to be the confessor to the monarch or head of state in order to provide 'moral guidance', and as a secular alternative the Illuminati did the same. Both have subsequently been accused of using those 'confessions' for nefarious means, by the Illuminati to blackmail and by the Jesuits by betraying the confidence of the confessor to the Roman Pope. I am not sure if either are guilty as charged, certainly in terms of the jesuits there is some conspiring, but it is apparent that they were penalised as much for the good they did as for the bad they are supposed to have done.

For the main part, the Jesuits were suppressed due to unfounded allegations that they engaged in tyrannicide, which was not strictly true but it was enough to create paranoia in most members of the ruling class at that time - especially with the first whispers of revolution in the air, and this resulted in pressure on the Pope to suppress the Society. Of course, had these rulers abandoned tyranny they would perhaps have had less to fear. Free education became, after a while, a bug bear against them too.

The Illuminati, seemingly with the same aim in mind, to influence the rulers of Europe, would naturally have conflicted with the Jesuits. Especially given that they were using an adaptation of the 'Exercises' to do so. What intrigues me though, is what exactly the motives of the Illuminati were? The Jesuits wished for influence on more of a 'socialist' platform, concerning themselves with improving the welfare of the 'lower classes', can the same be said of the Illuminati? Given their elitism, they appear to be more inclined towards self-elevations that the elevation of society as a whole. That they may have been opposed to Freemasonry seems to reinforce this view somewhat, the Freemasons were able to an extent to fill the void in education and welfare that was left by the Jesuits. The Illuminati it seems were only interested in filling the role of the Jesuit himself. Please correct me if I am wrong or misinterpreting the available information. Did they provide funds for schools and hospitals? Or any other involvement of a benevolent nature?

Perhaps it is the fact that they had so little interest in the masses that sealed their 'doom', the Freemasons and the Jesuits who both served wider society have survived while the Illuminati, that seemingly only served itself, failed!!?? The jesuits and the Freemasons were able to count on the protection of those that admired their work, as well as those that benefitted from it, the Illuminati seems to have left themselves out on a limb. I don't really know enough about the Illuminati and what they considered their aims to really comment though. They seem fairly short lived in the scheme of things though.

Though meagre funds and other priorities prevent it at the moment, i will eventually get your book, I find the subject fascinating. (Incidently I know absolutely nothing about the Rosicrucians so I can't concieve of how they may fit into the general landscape).

Originally posted by JoshNorton
If you want to take an oath and then violate it, that's entirely up to you. There are probably other ways, short of joining, that a good investigator could find out information, confirm sources, and generally come up with a solid picture of what's going on while himself remaining entirely on the outside. But again, it would require effort and dedication to do so. Probably not a tact an armchair enthusiast would pursue.

Excellent post. I find typically that the difference between people who come here and peck around and rile people up from those who come here read, read more, talk to people, and make up their own minds about it is effort.

The former tend to blab and rant and rail for a while and then get brored and go away. The latter tend to usually come back to report joining at some point, and some have even stuck around to report their experiences... but no one believes them because... then they're Masons.

I've seen it happen here on ATS plenty. I AM one of the latter.

Spooky. Paranoia, I mean. It's spooky.

By the time you're taking the obligation (I don't like the word "oath") there is no question that you are OK with it. There is a process to make sure; while it is not perfect it usually works.

[edit on 6/2/08 by The Axeman]

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


At least you know the overall gist of the dialectics of the Enlightenment; it's refreshing.

The Illuminati can be thought of, in their own words, as: "the executive arm of the enlightenment." They're the pinnacle of everything that was taking place during the century - the very incarnation of the age of reason - the culmination of the entire movement of the French philosophes and the German popularphilosophen; the extension of the secular pedagogy started by Basedow (Weishaupt was extremely influenced by him), implemented at his Philanthropinum; and the calculated effort to establish a viable public sphere.

Think about Emperor Joseph II, and his project of Enlightened Absolutism. This is basically the plan of the Illuminati. In fact, when Joseph II needed to replace the Jesuits it was a coterie of court Masons and Illuminati who drew up the plan and executed it. There were more Bavarian Illuminati at the Josephinian court in Vienna than perhaps anywhere except Munich.

Freemasonry wasn't doing enough to take the reigns of power, according to Weishaupt. They were not actively engaging in "fifth columnist" (good analogy) conspiratorial subversion. The Illuminati successfully recruited so many Freemasons because the former promised an "ends justify the means" attitude toward education and enlightenment. The same sell was also successful with the major philosophers and pedagogues of the era. If you happen to get my book when it comes out, check out the biographies of Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich (1746 Zurich, Switzerland – 1827 Brugg, Switzerland) and Salzmann, Christian Gotthilf (1744 Sömmerda, Germany – 1811 Schnepfenthal, Germany). A lot is explained in terms of the pedagogical aspirations of the Illuminati in just the details of those two men's lives.

Weishaupt thought that to implement the utopian schemes of the philosophers of the enlightenment (Rousseau, d'Holbach and Basedow in particular), secret societies were the only means to achieve it effectively. It was something of a precursor to the concept of Synarchy (rule by secret societies). Weishaupt looked back upon the schools of wisdom of antiquity, the mystery schools, with reverence. If Weishaupt had any spiritual proclivities at all, he was a gnostic at heart. His last degree, never fully implemented, and only read by a few trusted initiates, is a testament to his deep philosophical esotericism: Rex or Man-King (Docetist; Docetengrad).

Also, the first name he gave to his Order, Perfectibilists, says volumes about what its ultimate aim and ideology was. For a thorough look at what perfectibilism has meant in western thought throughout the ages, see: John Passmore's masterpiece, The Perfectibility of Man, available for free online by Liberty Fund, Inc.

Some of Weishaupt's goals ostensibly seem lofty and worthy of pursuit. But once you penetrate to the inner core of Illuminism, you find that it was only a ruse. Technocracy was the reality instead of equality; socialism and nihilism instead of freedom and liberty; despotism and tyranny instead of fraternity and brotherhood; mind control and psychological manipulation instead of betterment of the self.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]

reply to post by JoshNorton


Well, if the people you recruit maintain their oaths then there will be no bean spilling. I have also seen people who were supposed to be informers discounted because masons on this board felt that they had a vendetta or were not legitimate. It seems that there is no way for me to verify what really occurs in your meetings. This is frustrating for me because if there are events occuring that may affect me or others I wish to know about as many as possible.

reply to post by Capozzelli


A lot of them whent off on tangents and refused to give any evidence to back up their claims, some were members of none regular lodges from what I understand. They come in and make a bunch of claims and then don't back them up, this generally ends with them being picked apart by the Masons and other board members. It happens anytime someone posts a hoax or a really out there post, unless they can give back ground info or evidence, they are usually ignored except for hardcore believers, it's why we have those HOAX tags on several threads.

reply to post by RuneSpider


I understand. But it is difficult for me to really believe either side since I don't know what really happens in a mason lodge. Masons will say they do nothing that invloves conspiracy and others will say all they do is a plot conspiracy. I have read some of the ritual and I have to admit parts of it concern me. There is one that says 'you will renounce your own will and in all things become obidient to the laws of our ancient institution'. Does this not concern you? I wonder if there was a conspiracy how that effects it?