Red Ice Creations Radio: Translating the Illuminati Documents

On Monday, December 9, Josef Wäges and I were interviewed by Henrick Palmgren of Red Ice Creations Radio. We were invited to speak about our current collaborative project, the first English translation of Ritual & Doctrine of the Illuminati. The program is an Internet talk radio show whose guests talk about things like alternative currencies, alien civilizations on the moon, and the New World Order. I must admit that I was a bit hesitant at first, because I have always met these topics with skepticism and I had never listened to his program previously. After listening to a few of his shows, I was satisfied that Josef and I were not likely to experience a Bill O’Reilly style shout-down, so we both agreed. Truth be told, Palmgren proved to be a wonderful host, a very courteous man who asked intelligent, topic-oriented questions and who meticulously avoided any deceptive post interview editing. This is something many mainstream media journalists seem to no longer do.

It was encouraging to calmly and rationally discuss a controversial topic with someone who may have a very different viewpoint.

During our two-hour talk, we discussed, among other things, the development of the Illuminati rituals, their relationship to the history of Freemasonry, Adam Weishaupt’s philosophical influences, and the Illuminati’s political  stance.

To listen to the interview, simply click the “antenna” graphic below.

Red Ice Creations Radio: Translating the Illuminati Documents


15 thoughts on “Red Ice Creations Radio: Translating the Illuminati Documents

  1. Hi Jeva

    Henrick is one of a kind. I’m glad to see him learning some truth about the real Bavarian Illuminati, and sharing it with his audience.
    He did touch in a key subject, which is the famous Washington and Jefferson quotes supporting Illuminati ideals, that IMO, are proof that they share the same principals.

    Christian movements since Barruel, will keep demonizing them for what they are: A dangerous threat to orthodoxy. From the little I have been able to read from Weishaupt and Knigge (also thanks to Joe, Terry and you) Self government through education seems to me, their utopic dream.

    Looking forward to more translations.

  2. Hi Franco,

    Jefferson indeed called Weishaupt an “enthusiastic philanthrope.” To be honest, my brain was fried that evening from a day of massive translating, so I didn’t get to clarify Washington’s statement in his October 24, 1798 letter,

    “It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.”

    Here, the word “satisfied” actually means “certain” or “sure.” Its an archaic, flowery expression.

    I have posted the full letter here:

    From what little Washington had heard about the Illuminati, he was not a fan of them. About a month earlier, he wrote to Snyder,

    “I have heard much of the nefarious, and dangerous plan, and doctrines of the Illuminati, but never saw the Book until you were pleased to send it to me.”
    Full text of the letter here:

    While Jefferson actually had read Barruel’s “Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism,” Washington was telling him, first politely then brusquely, that he had not read Robison’s “Proofs of a Conspiracy” and didn’t intend to. In fact, he closes his October 24 letter,

    “My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time.”

    Many of the Illuminati’s ideas were actually not uncommon among progressive Late-Enlightenment Era thinkers, and Josef pointed out that the Illuminati actually drew inspiration from the American revolutionaries, and not the other way around.

  3. I very much enjoyed the 1 hour interview. The host conducted a very professional interview, and deserves praise. I am glad to see you conveyed the Illuminati were libertarian, and against an excess of wealth in the few. You do mention at 35 minutes that the consensus currently is the Illuminati had no influence in the first French Revolution. Yet, I hope those ideas will change as we understand the influence of Cagliostro, Mesmer, and their pupils / allies — Brissot, Lafayette, Mirabeau, Bonneville, Thomas Paine, Fauchet, Savalette, etc. I concur the Illuminati did not intend a violent revolution. And this is consistent with the first two phases of the French Revolution. If one is scrupulous, one realizes the July 1789 revolution involved a small degree of mob violence to expel Austrian troops guarding the Bastille to liberate those held prisoners without review. Other than that, the plan was to restrain the king, and not kill him. The August 1792 Revolution led by Brissot’s party was to pressure the king to expel the non-juring priests and restore the Brissotin state-ministers who were recently dismissed for pressing to expel them. Again, only a small mob was involved in killing a few Austrian guards of the king. Otherwise, the Brissotins rejected any effort to kill the king thereafter. These first two actions – July 1789 and August 1792 – reflect clearly the Illuminati approach to not employ violence for revolution but to gradually bring a nation to enlightenment in policy by surrounding the king with its enlightened members. The renegades who ended the Brissotins / Illuminists’ power in the 3d phase of revolution — June 2, 1793 — were the Robespierrists who called for the king to be executed as well as Robespierre’s temporary allies — Cloots and Hebert — who were seeking their own dechristianizing campaign apart from the Brissotin policy of slow and gradual reform. The terror as a result is primarily the responsibility of Robespierre. The true political orientation of Robespierre is generally obscured by historians. Robespierre at this juncture gave a famous speech denouncing the Enlightenment (while killing /arresting most of the French branch of the Illuminati). At the same time, Robespierre executed Cloots and Hebert as “ultra radicals” (for their dechristianizing), and Robespierre re-established religion in the Festival of the Supreme Being. The reactionary movement of Robespierre then imploded in July 1794 in the 4th phase where all sections of the people ended the terror to restore sanity, handing executive power to a committee of leading citizens known as the Directory. So in time, history should write the true period of influence of the Illuminati extended longer in France than Bavaria while carefully distinguishing the French branch from others. This branch was persecuted / decimated by both Robespierre and Cloots, and then Robespierre destroyed Cloots as too extreme, leaving all the French Illuminati of that era in the dust — killed, persecuted or destroyed financially. This marked the end of the historical importance of the Illuminati from Bavaria with the exception of Babeuf’s failed “Conspiracy of Equals” and Montgelas’s policies as Prime Minister of Bavaria from approximately 1799 to 1814. So job well-done but there is more work to be done on all aspects of the history of this fascinating group.

  4. Level headed interview. A little too soft on them for my taste … but you knew that already 🙂

    Henrik’s a real gentleman and always asks great questions from all his guests.

    Marco: I’m really curious what you think Illuminaten scholars such as Markner or Schuttler would say about your theories? And how you would react or explain why they would – most certainly – react the way they would react.

    • Terry
      I am not sure how they would react, but if they were negative I have a theory why.

      Liberal French historians long have accepted the Bavarian Illuminati thesis for the 1789 / August 1792 French Revolutions, not censuring them as anti-religionists or terrorists. For example Louis Blanc in 1848, Nerval in 1850, Henri Martin in 1854, Couteulx de Canteleu in 1863 and Mathiez in 1926– the last being the most learned scholar of the French Revolution of all time. Mathiez severely criticized LeForestier’s work on the Illuminati as wrongly downplaying the Illuminati, and wholly ignoring their Paris outpost of the Cercle Social. See Louis Blanc’s History of the French Revolution of 1789 (Lea & Blanchard, 1848) at 370 et seq, esp. 381 (Mesmer as Illuminatus); see Nerval, Les Illuminés, ou Les Precurseurs du Socialisme (Paris: Novelle Libraire de France, 1852); Henri Martin’s History of France: The Decline of the French Monarchy Vol. 2 (trans. Mary Louise Booth) (Walker, Fuller: 1866) at 484; Canteleu entitled Sociétés Secrèts, Politiques et Religieuses (Paris: Didier et Cie. 1863). (I will email you a PDF of this evidence. On Mathiez, see my work IMWR.)

      The case was different among liberal American historians from a very early point. This dismissal of the Illuminati coincided with the Anti-Masonic party movement of 1828 in the USA. That party almost made it a national crusade to wipe out Freemasonary. This attack made it imperative among honest Freemasons to find means of lessening paranoia by actually ignoring historical truths even though at the core facts did not truly implicate Freemasonry.

      The proof that the American treatment of the Illuminati reflects regional and fleeting concerns is that even later European historians had no problem to keep up the French historical tradition that happily recognized the Illuminati influence on the French Revolution, e.g., Una Birch in the early 1900s. At the same time, American historians continued to be recalcitrant. This was apparently because of politics again. Nesta Webster in the early 1900s distorted the evidence into a justification for Nazi concerns that Europe must suppress Freemasonry. American historians evidently perceived again that the Illuminati thesis would help national enemies of the USA although the truth would not have done so had it been allowed serious consideration.

      So at every turn in the past, the truth about the Illuminati has risen to acceptance until historians due to important national concerns have postponed making an accurate assessment of what truly happened in the French Revolution. I would suspect Germans might follow the American example, and be concerned today about a possible misinterpretation of the evidence to justify blaming Germans, not Robespierre, for the terror. The French Revolution is a hot-potato on so many levels. It takes a bit of courage to face the facts, and find the truth undaunted by everyone’s prejudices.

      Regardless, I do hope these German historians are more objective than the Americans have been. Historical truth cannot be suppressed forever. It is important to get ahead of the issue before those prone to hysteria and paranoia exploit the case in the wrong direction.


  5. If everything goes according to plan in Erfurt, the contents of the “Schwedenkiste” will be available to a much wider field of scholars. Schuettler and his research group plan to publish a total of 114 previously unpublished essays by 2015.

    I don’t remember, if I had a chance to say it on the show, but there is nothing in the rituals that translates into “New World Order.” The closest thing that comes to that is the word “Weltform” in the Rex degree, but this translates to “world-form” or “form/shape/appearance of the world.” The problem is that in the context of the degree, it does not refer to a political system, but to the way the world is perceived through different sensory modes. For example a person with only 3 senses would experience a difference world-form than someone with all 5, and after death, human beings lose all five of their senses but since the soul continues after death, it receives an entirely different set of perceptual modes and therefore experiences a completely different world-form.

    So at which point in history does the term “New World Order” get linked to the Illuminati?

    • The term “new world order” was first linked to the Illuminati agenda by Marx and Engels. In the Holy Family which they wrote in 1845, they said the “Cercle Social” of Paris (which was the Illuminati outpost during the French Revolution of 1789) “gave birth to the communist idea” and “the idea of a new world order.” See my work Illuminati Manifesto of World Revolution at page 13. Other than that earliest association of the phrase applied to an Illuminist organization, I never found anything to support the “new world order” was a slogan of the Illuminati.

  6. I’m familiar with most of those sources. Many of them relied upon the guesses of Barruel, Robison and contemporaries, who called many people Illuminati for various reasons but today, due the advancement of real historical research on membership and newly discovered correspondences, we know where they are wrong. I would find it criminal to disregard this incredible body of current Illuminaten historiography and instead look back upon the haphazardness of – in many cases polemical, and frequently conspiracy theorist – writers in the 19th century who happened to say this and that with no real proof. We went over some of this in emails before. I pointed out things that were incorrect, one by one. I can do it again, but would rather not. It’s quite tiring when it’s for naught.

    “Proof” in today’s world of specialization to the nth degree, carries much more weight than what “proof” meant back then. Peer review didn’t even exist for most (or all) of those authors you cited. And there sure wasn’t an entire academia dedicated to hard core research of what is known about the facts concerning Freemasonry, the Illuminati and the emerging public sphere. You don’t think they know about those authors? They snacked on it before breakfast and are already ahead of you at dinner.

    If I’m writing a book on the Illuminati my goto sources are not going to be the likes of Louis Blanc, Henri Martin, Canteleu, Nerval or Una Birch. Not on the Bavarian Illuminati. Their information is obsolete, and in many cases amounts to guesswork to begin with. Martin said this and Blanc said that, don’t cut it any more.

    Further, Le Forestier is still considered a standard reference work in any language. But in many respects, much it is obsolete as well. If Le Forestier had known for certain the membership of 1500 members, it would have been a different story. He didn’t know half of them. We do now. And from inference and deduction, we’re more certain on who wasn’t or is most likely not to have been.

    • Terry, I respectfully disagree that any of these scholars relied upon Robison or Barruel at all. Henri Martin relied upon two pieces of evidence unknown to Barruel and Robison to prove the influence of the Illuminati over Mirabeau — the first leader of the Revolution of 1789. Although Mirabeau’s name does not appear in the redacted version of the Illuminati papers, Martin proved he was a member because of MIrabeau’s section on the “Illuminati of Bavaria” in Mirabeau’s On the Prussian Monarchy, 1788 and Mirabeau’s memoir known as Plan of Archesilaus (–this is Mauvillon’s alias who is mentioned in Bavaria’s membership list). The latter was a blueprint for Illuminati control over a lodge system. Martin is considered one of the leading historians of France. (Le Forestier later brought out many more proofs, e.g., the correspondence of Mauvillon aka Archesilaus with Mirabeau referring to “our Order will do great things.”)

      Also, Mathiez — the greatest historian of the French Revolution — proved the Illuminati influence by relying upon Bonneville who went unnoticed by Barruel and Robison. Robison did mention Bonneville briefly — that he introduced Bode to the Amis Reunis in 1787, but other than that, Robison makes no mention of the Cercle Social under Bonneville, or that the Cercle Social members took over France from March 1792 forward, and effectuated the August 10, 1792 revolution. Mathiez cited as one proof that Bonneville admitted publicly he was a Bavarian Illuminatus in the Bouche De Fer of 1791 (available on my website). We also now know Bonneville in 1788 wrote a book with J.C. Bode — the Bavarian Illuminati leader — entitled Jesuits Chased from Freemasonry, etc. I have many more proofs in my book Illuminati Manifesto

      This is why I sent you the article in PDF so you could see these historians’ works are wholly independent of Barruel or Robison. Their proofs are valid, and stand the test of time.

      Hence, I think these German historians who are trying to open up studies of the Illuminati should be open to these valid proofs of the Illuminati influence on the French Revolution. This evidence comes from the premier French historians of liberal persuasion. Only if these German historians respond like the Americans, and see a possible backlash against their national interest, might they seek to keep up the position that ignores all this evidence that neutral and unbiased historians have long relied upon.

      As to LeForestier, I did not mean to imply LeForestier is not a valid reference work on the Illuminati. Rather, what I referred to was that Mathiez — the best historian on the French Revolution (who died in the 1930s) attributed a strong role of the Illuminati in the French Revolution. Mathiez clearly demonstrated LeForestier previously overlooked the Cercle Social as an Illuminati front. History has proven Mathiez was correct, and LeForestier clearly suffered an oversight. Otherwise, yes, LeForestier is a great reference work. In fact, he proves more than anyone the link between Lodge Theodore at Munich and the Amis Reunis of Paris, further cementing the proofs of the Illuminati influence on the French Revolution. Thus, one can list LeForestier as one supporting an influence of the Illuminati, but simply grossly underestimated its influence because he entirely missed the Cercle Social — as did Robison and Barruel.

      I am hopeful these German historians are open to my thesis because it was their recent work to publish Bode’s diary of 1787 at Paris. Thanks to their exposure of that diary, now we know the Illuminati were hiding under the cover of the Philadelphes at Paris. Once the German historians realize that the most important member of the “Philadelpes” was Mesmer (see my book Illuminati Manifesto), then I trust they will realize that because Mesmer had 20 lodges of Harmony housing all the leading French Revolutionaries, this is further proof of the Illuminati influence over the French Revolution. The most important member of both the Cercle Social and the Mesmer system was Brissot. Brissot wrote several works in favor of Mesmer in the mid 1780s. After Mirabeau’s death, Brissot became the Revolution’s principal leader from March 1792 up through the Revolution of August 10, 1792. Brissot was also found in the 1860s to be on the Graf Lehrbach list from 1791 — Bavaria’s extract from the Illuminati papers of foreign names appearing therein which was suppressed in the redacted public versions — some were Illuminati members and some were just Freemasons in association with the Illuminati. Hence, we can say that Brissot clearly was a member of several Illuminati controlled organizations, even though his name does not appear upon the redacted papers published by Bavaria.Yet, we do know Brissot’s name appears in the unredacted version of those papers per the Graf Lehrbach list.

      Hence, I trust these German scholars who brought the diary to light, and thereby the link between the Philadelphes and the Illuminati, will one day see the importance that the Philadelphes front traces Mesmer back to the Illuminati, and through him to the primary leader of the Revolution of August 10, 1792 — Brissot. Time will tell how objective they are.


      • Martin: He didn’t “prove” anything and neither has anyone else since, except for Charles Porset finally proving he was indeed a Mason. Probably an Illuminatus, or more likely than not, is about as honest as you can describe it.

        Bavaria’s membership list: I stand by what I wrote about it, namely: “There is an official diplomatic communiqué, dated 1791, that names Mirabeau among ‘Illuminati and Freemasons.’ It was sent by Bavarian Foreign Minister Count Karl Matthäus von Vieregg (1719-1802), to Imperial Ambassador Ludwig Konrad von Lehrbach (1750-1805) at Munich, who then forwarded it to Vienna. There are a few individuals mentioned in the list that have since been confirmed as indeed being Illuminati, so Vieregg was better informed than his contemporaries.14 In addition to Mirabeau he lists such French revolutionaries as Duke d’Orléans, Lafayette, Antoine Barnave, Jacques Pierre Brissot, Claude Fauchet, even Thomas Paine. But in the end, since no distinction whatsoever is made between Freemasons and bona fide Illuminati, it’s effectively useless.”

        “Martin is considered one of the leading historians of France.” He wasn’t a specialist in Bavarian Illuminati studies because there was no such field. He wasn’t privy to what we know now because it wasn’t discovered yet.

        “Mathiez — the greatest historian of the French Revolution.” Perhaps. I agree he’s one of the best. Again, not a specialist in the field of Bavarian Illuminati. Did not have the evidence that was uncovered until later. “proved the Illuminati influence.” “Influence”? Sure. No one’s denying that. Bonafide member? “Perhaps” “Maybe” is an honest way of describing it.

        “that he introduced Bode to the Amis Reunis” Interesting. I would very much like to see how he came to that conclusion, and what his source was. The history that I know is that Bode didn’t need an “introduction” from a Bonneville any more than anyone else. Bode was well-known all over Europe as a Masons-Mason and was one of the 30 or so actual official participants at Wilhelmsbad. They all knew who he was, and that goes for Savalette and Chefdebien (who was there at Wilhelmsbad with him).

        “Bonneville admitted publicly he was a Bavarian Illuminatus” Not true. According to your own translation: “Bonneville considered himself the heir who carried on the thought and work of Weishaupt.” Which part of that do you think actually means “admitted publicly he was a Bavarian Illuminatus”? Even in your translation of the key passage in the Bouche Fer what Bonneville actually says is that Mirabeau agreed with the noble intentions of Illuminati and that Bouche de Fer did so as well. We’ve known about this for a long time. This is why it is acceptable to admit that they were inspired by the Illuminati (even that they had friends within the Order and collaborated with them on certain things). It’s another to say that you have in fact now proved that Bonneville and Mirabeau are bonafide members. You have nothing new. You’re only claiming to have. Your “proof” is not the same as professional historians accept.

        “now know Bonneville in 1788 wrote a book with J.C. Bode” We know Bonneville wrote a book and Bode translated it. We know they were friends, and we know Bode was raving mad about hidden Jesuits. I suspect Bode indoctrinated him into this enthusiasm. Nearly all rationalists at the time were Jesuit hunters? So what? Is this one more of your “proofs”? Of what?

        “This is why I sent you the article in PDF” Read it. Nothing new. People who were not Illuminati experts said this and said that once upon a time. Bonneville and Mirabeau really liked the Illuminati and shared the same principles and had friends in the Order. Gotcha. They played a role in the beginning of French Revolution as everyone knows. If you did prove that they were indeed bonfide members of the Illuminati in a manner that all honest people can agree, then kudos! But you haven’t.

        “link between Lodge Theodore at Munich and the Amis Reunis of Paris” Nope. I pointed out to you that Le Forestier in that passage was merely quoting Robison on his theories. After ripping into him for 3 pages or so he merely rapped up with what Robison claimed and didn’t even comment further, in disgust. It was a quote; not Le Forestier writing that it was true. That’s not the way you have characterized it in your book though, now have you? No link has been found to the Lodge Theodore in Munich. As a matter of fact, Jeva, why don’t you ask Markner about this. He would know for a fact more than anyone.

        “am hopeful these German historians are open to my thesis” I would wager that you’re wishing too much.

        “Once the German historians realize that the most important member of the ‘Philadelpes’ was Mesmer” Oh boy. You do know that the “Philadelphes” he was involved in was the Philadelphes de Narbonne of Chefdebien, not the later one secretly created by Bode in the Amis Reunis. And based upon that you jump to the conclusion that Mesmer was an Illuminatus, even while all the real Illuminati in Bavaria were anti-mesmerists, anti-martinists, anti-occult and anti-mystics with every fiber of their being and had pamphlet wars over it for years. Ohh, I forgot, you think we have all gotten it confused and that when Luchet conflated the occult “Illumines” with the rationalist “Illuminaten” he was right all along. All these full time professors who actually get paid to study these things are wrong too. We should all go back to ignorantly conflating mesmerism, rosicrucianism, martinism, and french occult “illuminism” with the real Illuminati. Just like the good ole days. Gotcha.

        “Graf Lehrbach list.” Already addressed.

        By all means please send your book to Markner, Schuttler and Neugebauer-Wölk and solicit reaction. Write a paper and ask for it to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. It you have what you think you have they’ll certainly allow it and welcome it – PhD or no PhD. Teach them how it really is. They should be thankful.

  7. Comment was to Marco. Posted it before I looked you had one, Jeva.

    “New World Order” is most often a euphemism for a world government. It was put into use by the internationalists at the turn of the 20th century and repeated ad infinitum by the elite class in think tank publications and occasionally in the public sphere. If you want to call these people “Illuminati,” then that’s where it got associated.

    I heard about the essays. What exactly does accessible mean? It would be nice for it to be free for all who have a internet browser.

    Weishaupt used “Reformation of the World,” according to many scholars I’ve read.

    • Terry, as you know most of the work that has already been published by the various German scholars is in book format, and these books are quite spendy. The press releases I’ve seen didn’t say anything about the publishing format, so my guess (and that’s only a guess) is that it will be in book format, as well. But that’s just a guess on my part.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s