Tagged: Nesta Webster

Illuminati Conspiracy Part Two: Sniffing out Jesuits

Featured-Weishaupt-Owl-PMCV

By Terry Melanson, Sept. 12th, 2008

Jesuiten-Freymauer-RosenkreuzerNB: My apologies to those who’ve been waiting three years for this “Part Two.” As many of you know, since the posting of my “Illuminati Conspiracy Part One: Exegesis on the Available Evidence” in August 2005, I have been hard at work on a book about the Bavarian Illuminati. So, necessarily, I had to put on hold the planned three part series. As the book is finished and scheduled for a November 2008 release, I am free to proceed. (Part two is not what I had originally planned on writing, but nonetheless, it is original and distinct from the book.) – TM

Orientation: The Bavarian Illuminati were the antagonists of the Jesuits, and vice versa

I have chosen to critique parts of | this webpage | as a means to inform the reader on certain facts essential to a proper understanding of the 18th Century Bavarian Order of Illuminati. The other reason is this: a particularly rabid and extremely annoying “Jesuits-rule-the-world” theorist who spams many YahooGroups (always in the customary all-caps shouting mode), had deigned this “Religious Counterfeits” webpage as the proper authority – I am not sure why – on the following theories: 1) that Adam Weishaupt was a Jesuit – not just Jesuit-trained, but a Jesuit priest; and 2) that the Illuminati, therefore, are synonymous with the Jesuits and, in fact, the two are the same (that is, the former was merely the organ of the latter, and the proof of said assertion is the fact that Weishaupt was supposedly a Jesuit himself). To someone who has even a modicum of familiarity with the 18th-Century European Enlightenment, this is indeed a preposterous claim; it’s based upon a falsehood – Weishaupt being a Jesuit – and displays ignorance of the history of the period to which we speak.

What follows is a quote/rebuttal format which will hopefully put to rest certain erroneous assertions being claimed by the Jesuits=Illuminati theorists.

Quote: There have always been Occultists who practiced the process of Illumination, but the term “Illuminati” was used first in the 15th Century by enthusiasts in the Occult Arts, signifying those who claimed to possess “light” directly communicated from some higher source, through mysticism.

The first occurrence of “Illuminati” was not in the 15th century. “Illuminati” has been used by followers of Mani, or Manes (Manichaeism; the apostles of light) – they called him the supreme illuminator. The Virgin Mary, too, was given the appellation “Maria Illuminatrix” and the “illuminated/illuminator.” Jewish Kabbalists were called Illuminati. And lest the reader get the impression it is only used in the occult or by the Roman Catholic Church, be reminded that in Calvin’s Institutes, the theologian mentions twenty times the word Illuminati and Illuminatus, four times (see Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority (Vol. IV), Good News Publishers, 1999, p. 290; the statistical calculation of the words was compiled by the first editor of the magazine Christianity Today, Carl. F. H. Henry, and presented at the above-cited page, along with other keywords in Calvin’s Latin texts such as “Illuminated” and “Illuminate.”)

(more…)

More

An Evaluation of Carroll Quigley’s Thoughts on the Illuminati, Buonarroti and the Carbonari

Featured-Quigley-Illuminati

Kevin Cole recently wrote an informative article about Carroll Quigley: “Professor Carroll Quigley and the Article that Said Too Little: Reclaiming History from Omission and Partisan Straw Men.” It concerns a Washington Post article in 1975 about how Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University professor of history, had unwittingly become a hero of sorts for the conspiracy theories promulgated by the John Birch Society. The interview, conducted by Rudy Maxa, was recorded and is available on the internet with an accompanying transcript (part one, two, three, four and five).

It’s pretty clear that the recording formed the material used by Maxa for the writing of the Post article, however as Kevin Cole has highlighted there are glaring omissions that hadn’t made it into the article.

I’ll let you read Cole’s assessment for yourself. He brings up good points.

What follows are my own observations about particulars in the interview for which I have some insight.

The discussion on the Illuminati and the Carbonari, in parts four and five, are interesting – for what is said, what’s left out, and certain erroneous statements and/or logic.

(more…)

More