Things to Come

HG Wells

I had an interesting conversation with a gentleman in Asheville, NC a few weeks ago. He suggested that   lluminatist principles principles were American rather than European. This idea is interesting, but I find no evidence to support it. My main argument is that the reading list for the Illuminati seed schools does not include any American pre-revolutionary texts, but only European sources. Further, the Colonial revolutionaries were much more conservative when it came to matters such as religion and property rights.

On a side note, H.G. Wells’ 1933 novel “The Shape of Things to Come” provides an example of what an Illuminatist world would look like. Edward Bellamy’s 1887 novel “Looking Backward: 2000-1887″ provides a more moderate example of an Illuminatist society. There is no evidence that either writer was associated with the Bavarian Illuminati or that the Illuminati continued their activities past 1820.
While conspiracy theorists have claimed Wells was a Freemason and an Illuminatus, he was, in fact, neither. Wells did belong to the Fabian Society, a moderate Socialist student association. While Bellamy’s father was a Freemason, there is no evidence that he himself was.
About these ads

5 thoughts on “Things to Come

  1. Rousseau was clearly the #1 influence on Illuminati doctrine. Hence, the origin of their ideas were French, not American. See my wordpress page: http://illuminatiofbavaria.wordpress.com/article/the-illuminati-of-bavaria-origins-of-1vn6fdl0grm02-7/

    The American revolutionaries #1 influence was John Locke. Hence, a British political theorist was the greatest influence upon them. Jefferson and Madison were the great articulators on this side of the Atlantic prior to the revolution itself.

    The Illuminati likely died when Montgelas fell from power in 1817 in Bavaria. Their members may have been absorbed in Mazzini’s Young Europe movement much later.

  2. The best example of what an Illuminati society looks like is Knigge’s popular travel fantasy books from 1783-1785 of an island paradise. Half the island land was divided early on among those alive. Then each year, the new adults are given a piece of land to till for their family. All the excess food production is shared among the old, infirm and widows. There is no study of science, for this agrarian world is happy enough. Woman have equal education with men. One could believe in God, but no one was compelled to do so. The laws were entirely neutral on the subject. Any transgressor of the fundamental laws is blindfolded, put on a ship, and sent to the outside world with no means to find a way back. There is no death penalty for any crime. The only administrators were the judges who made these decisions. Otherwise, there were no rulers. “No state ever existed in that happy isle.”

    The original edition is Knigge’s work entitled Peter Clausens Geschichte in drei Teilen [The History of Peter Clausens] (Riga, Latvia: 1783-1785). An English translation — available through books.google.com is Knigge, The German Gil Blas: or, the adventures of Peter Claus. (London: C. and G. Kearsley, 1793) Vols. 1 and 2. Volume one of Peter Clausen is available online from books.google.com at http://books.google.com/books?pg=RA1-PA153&id=jLEBAAAAQAAJ and volume two at http://books.google.com/books?id=HmAqAAAAMAAJ.

    The same type of world is espoused during the French Revolution in 1791 by Nicolas Bonneville in The Spirit of Religion (L’Esprit des Religions). Nicolas was the Bavarian Illuminatus at Paris who led the Cercle Social. I translated his work which I retitled as Illuminati Manifesto of World Revolution.

    In 1793, Maréchal – a member of Cercle Social — in Corrective of the Revolution (Correctif á la Révolution) likewise defended the same kind of idealized world. He added that the father of the family was the center of society, and thus filial love binded society together. As a result, there was no need for a state — no governed and no governors. Just wise distributors of the excess production. (I translate this pamphlet at page 313 et seq of Illuminati Manifesto of World Revolution.)

    In 1793, Maréchal teamed up with Babeuf — another member of the Cercle Social, and outlined a world communist system which slightly differed from Knigge’s and Bonneville’s dreams. Maréchal and Babeuf anticipated the voluntary enrollment in their non-governmental system by peoples once they saw the social advantage of the great distributive store house of goods. The new society did not incorporate an agrarian law anymore (as Knigge & Bonneville had envisioned), but maintained the communal right of property – something familiar to French farmers where pasture land was used / held in common to graze cattle. And the key was in this system “there was no more governed and no more governors.”

    (During the French Revolution in 1792, Bonneville’s agrarian law was tried with communal lands, and the peasants rebelled, for it cut off their use of communal lands for grazing. So Marechal and Babeuf turned to ‘communism’ because the peasants in 1792 preferred the status quo. How ironic most people do not understand the impetus of communism in radical theory was first adopted as a conservative amendment to adapt to peasant communal traditions.)

    Hence, the true Illuminati dream is best reflected in their own member’s writings starting with Knigge. It also includes the writers from the Cercle Social at Paris — the Illuminati of Bavaria hidden under another name. And its outspoken dreamers were Bonneville, Maréchal and Babeuf.

    The Illuminati plan was always libertarian aiming at no government, where friendly-family-like cooperation reigned to share an agrarian style of living. And that dream, of course,started with Rousseau who declaimed against the evils of modern city-living, urging all to return to an agrarian lifestyle.

    • Is there any evidence to independently verify the claims that Babeuf himself was inducted into the Illuminati, and that he origin of his nickname Gracchus was as his Illuminati code name?

      • It is unlikely that Babeuf was “inducted into the Illuminati” per se as you phrase the question. Babeuf would not have known his entry into the Social Circle (Cercle Social, fr.) was entry into the Illuminati by another name unless he was at the highest level of initiation. Weishaupt’s writings made it imperative that most members not know they belonged to the Illuminati’s superior control unless and until they reached the highest level.

        Was it likely Babeuf knew the Cercle Social were the Illuminati by another name?

        No.

        Babeuf by 1792 parted company socially with Bonneville, as Babeuf in writing criticized Bonneville’s reliance upon Mirabeau to make gradual revolution. Hence, it is likely Babeuf did not go high up in the Cercle Social. As a result, Babeuf never consciously was inducted into the Illuminati under that organizational name.

        Then where did Gracchus come from as Babeuf’s assumed name which Babeuf then used in public writings? While in the Cercle Social, Babeuf had to take a pseudonym, usually a classical name. Babeuf did not likely know that this practice derived from the Illuminati control over the Cercle Social. Consequently, one can say Babeuf took a classical name only because he was inducted into the Cercle Social, but not because Babeuf was “inducted into the Illuminati” per se. Babeuf almost certainly did not know of the Illuminati’s control over the Cercle Social.

        Marco.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s