Conspiracy Roundup (31-01-2016)

Terry Melanson

Webmaster/editor of Conspiracy Archive; author of Perfectibilists: the 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati.

You may also like...

31 Responses

  1. Informative as always.

    I’m still waiting for you to repost the your debunking of the Kolmer myth.

  2. I do have a quick question. Were Bonneville or Brissiot or Babeuf members of Amis Réunis?

  3. All the Hesse-Dramsdacts keep getting mixed up in my head because I pay clooser attention to Hesse-Kassel. Ludwig X is the same guy called on Wikipedia Lousie X right? And either he or a very close relative was also Illuminati if I recall.

    I’m curious about the Nine Sister Lodge, you didn’t list any mistake in the list of member shown here. Was Bonneville or Brissiot connected to it at all?

    • Ludwig X. Landgrave von Hessen-Darmstadt (1753-1830),_Grand_Duke_of_Hesse

      Mesmer and Cagliostro were the butt of the joke for the Neuf Soeurs, a sort of skeptical society who made it their business to try and debunk claims such as those of Mesmer in particular. Mesmer’s only affiliation with lodges besides the pseudo-masonic Société de l’Harmonie Universelle was the Philadelphes of Narbonne, in which he was listed by Thory in 1780. Thomas Jefferson has never been proven a mason, despite numerous attempts over the years and no matter how much Masons themselves wish it. Mirabeau did visit the Neuf Soeurs, and it is this fact, discovered by Charles Porset, that finally proved Mirabeau was a mason at all – he would have to have been one to partake in Lodge ceremonies. Franklin was the Lodge Master of Neuf Soeurs and he initiated Voltaire into masonry there the year before the old philosophe had died.

      Bonneville, Brissot – no affiliation.

      • Which Lodges was Bonneville a member of?

        • No one knows. Grand Orient records for that era are sparse – destroyed in the French Revolution and subsequent revolutions and wars. Supposedly he was initiated in 1786 on a trip to England. When he came he started writing books about masonry and was influenced by Bode’s paranoia about the Jesuits. Records about the Illuminati and indeed German Freemasonry during the Enlightenment are encyclopedic compared to what exists about French Freemasonry during that era.

          • He does seem to have been a fan of the Illuminati even though he isn’t know to have ever been a member.

            It remains my theory that English Freemasonry was a front of British Intelligence. So a key French Revolutionary leader being inducted into Freemasonry in England is very suspicious.

          • It’s always been a front. For every secret service in every country. Each country really is independent of the other. Just because masonry comes from England, and you may want to get a patent from the mother country, they really have no say in what goes on any more than a Grand Lodge can dictate how a local lodge runs things. Access can be had though depending on the rite, and that creates paranoia. That’s why it has and always will be monitored, compromised and utilized whenever possible.

            It’s a breeding and recruiting ground for spies as are the more esoteric occult orders. A perfect vehicle if there ever was one.

          • So it seems to me like certain people in British Intelligence helped make the French Revolution happen.

            Now the Wars the happened latter between Britain and the new French Government could be because creating a new Enemy was their intent. Or it could be because the Marat and Robespierre types wound up taking over wasn’t what they wanted.

          • First you have to definitely know who was or wasn’t in British intelligence during that era – a tall order. Then you have to correlate at least a few meetings with key French revolutionaries in and around the right time even to get started.

            That scenario was one of the pet theories of the Larouchites over the years. Never convinced me with any real evidence – and they have none – except for rhetoric that England is the spawn of satan and so she must have had a hand in it. The conspiratorial machinations that they attribute to Lord Palmerston are equally bereft of any evidence as well.

          • Webster Tarpley has an article about how British and Venetian intelligence were both involved.

            Then you add to that how Voltaire, Calgiostro and Bonneville were all initiated into Freemasonry in England before playing key roles in the History the brought about the Revolution. And it’s hard to see it as a coincidence.

            Also Benjamain Franklin was connected to both the Helfire club and the Nine Sisters.

          • Tarpley/British/Venetian shtick – not persuasive; not clear evidence; suppositions and beliefs at most.

            Voltaire was initiated, as I said already – for the fist time – at the Neuf Soeur’s practically on his death bed. Voltaire was long dead by 1789, and his writings did not spark revolution per say. Rousseau, d’Holbach and Helvetius were the more radical of the philosophes and indeed had a profound influence upon the thinking of the Jacobins. Cagliostro had nothing to do with the French Revolution, though supposedly he was initiated in London in 1776.

            > Benjamain Franklin was connected
            > to both the Helfire club
            > and the Nine Sisters

            Which really doesn’t amount to much. Franklin had nothing to do with the French Revolution anymore than the Hellfire club or the Neuf Soeurs – certainly not all three in cahoots. The latter, however were great supporters of the American Revolution and helped sway public opinion in favor of the new republic.

          • That was Voltaire’s first initiation into French Freemaosny, but Dilon revealed in his books that Voltaire wad been initiated in England back before his career began.

            Also Karl of Hesse-Kassel himself as a first cousin of the sitting king of England.

            The inventor of the Guillotine was also a member of the Nine Sister Lodge.

          • Are you familiar with this book that I haven’t been to buy because Amazon is always out of stock?’


  4. Dillon’s wrong. Karl was cousins with half of European royalty; also he was a conservative, detested revolutionaries and only joined the Illuminati to keep them in check in his territory.

  5. Speaking of Alex Jones. I made a post about him just now on my Blog, where I again linked back to this.

  6. Paul Collins says:

    In Aho’s defense, she doesn’t simply identify people with dual membership in the CNP and CFR. She identifies individuals who either have dual membership in the two elite machinations or some kind of association with the CFR. That is why some of the individuals she lists in her article concerning overlap do not appear on CFR rosters, because she considers any association (loose or strong) instantly suspect. Van der Jagt, for instance, does not appear on CFR rosters, if a recall correctly, but he had many business associates that fell within the CFR orbit.
    The overlap does exist as a consequence of the coalition that existed between the Atlanicists on the Eastern seaboard (CFR) and the Cowboys that inhabit the country’s Southern Rim (CNP). Rifts and tears have appeared in that coalition, but there appears to have been periodic easing of tensions. Kirkpatrick Sale and Carl Oglesby have written extensively about this factionalism.

    • I can’t agree with your assessment on Aho. For the one’s I checked for you that day

      (false) Gilder
      (true) Teller
      (false) Jagt
      (false) Stoddard
      (false) Helms
      (true) Grace
      (true) Borchgrave

      Ahmanson is not there either. He’s not on any elite list at all except for CNP.

      she explicitly says “member of the Council on Foreign Relations.” Nothing ambiguous about it, plus she doesn’t cite a source for her CFR assertions either. And on top of that, she’s one of those Merovingian conspiracy theorists mixing fact, fiction and hoax. Thus when I said a “note of caution” on Aho, I was being generous.

      • Paul Collins says:


        “Even so, these revelations should not be surprising since the CNP was an extension of the John Birch Society whose early leadership consisted of members either directly or indirectly associated with the CFR. ”
        A direct quote from the article in question. So a little more ambiguous than you think.

        • “member of the Council on Foreign Relations” means what you’d expect; that’s what she says, multiple times, on bio pages. That she also says elsewhere that the JBS “directly or indirectly [were] associated with the CFR” is irrelevant.

          She can be purposely ambiguous on one page and not on another.

          Either someone’s a member of a group or they are not. State it plainly, and specify what years exactly or don’t waste my time.

          • Paul Collins says:

            Well, I wouldn’t make this about wasting your time… that is a little conceited because you are not the only researcher out there doing important work. But I can understand your desire for accuracy and clarity. Yes, Ms. Aho does need to state things plainly. Her statement concerning direct and indirect involvement, however, makes my point valid. We all need to ask Ms. Aho to be forthcoming with whatever rosters she is citing (assuming she has any at all).
            While working on our current manuscript (which has become a Herculean task to say the very least), Phillip and I were able to find a CNP roster published by the Institute for First Amendment Studies. I keep in my that they are a far left of center group and need to be read with discernment. Still, I think the roster is useful and I do find some overlap between the personnel they identify and Aho’s list. I provide the link here for your perusal:
            Best regards to you and your family.

          • If a leftist publication happened to claim that so and so was “member of the Council on Foreign Relations,” I would check that they were correct as well. The political stance of a researcher shouldn’t matter when it comes to facts.

  7. Jason says:

    Hi Terry,

    What are your views on the new cold war ??

    • Cold War hasn’t ended. Everything is as it was. If Russia has an ally, then the West is their enemy. Vice versa. You do this, we do that. We can’t do this because you do that. Ad nauseum.

Leave a Reply to Paul Collins Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *