The Illuminati of Bavaria: Origins of Its Ideology

Rousseau Was Primary Origin of Its Ideology

·
Print Article
Citation
, XML
Authors

Abstract

The Illuminati were a group aiming to inaugurate a libertarian communist world structured on a cosmopolitan model where conflict among nations would be mediated so that the original family of man would be restored. The Illuminati of Bavaria were an important catalyst of social movements in Europe (in particular France) from 1780-1794. Their ideology predominantly came from Rousseau.

Rousseau’s Influence

The French Masonic dictionary article “Illuminés de Bavière” says that the “philosophical and religious principles of the [Illuminati] Order were based on… the influence of Rousseau….” [1]

a. Cosmopolitanism

In 1761, Jean-Jacques Rousseau re-published a book by Abbé St. Pierre (1658-1743) which advocated a cosmopolitan world federation. Rousseau’s work was entitled Extrait Du Projet de Paix Perpetuelle De M. L’Abbé de Saint-Pierre(1761). Rousseau incorporated St. Pierre’s work verbatim. Rousseau also added some important new points and ideas. Rousseau proposed that a federation of at least “all important powers” was needed. It must have a legislative body with powers to pass laws binding upon all member states. “It must have coercive force capable of compelling every state to obey its common resolves…,” Rousseau said. It also must be strong enough to prevent withdrawal of any state. He proposed the nineteen major powers of the world should form one government (only excluding China and Africa). Rousseau lamented, however, that “No [such] federation could ever be established except by a revolution.” To pass the censor, he then says: “That being so, which of us would dare to say whether the League of Europe is a thing to be desired or feared? It would perhaps do more harm in a moment than it would guard against for ages.”[2]

Abbé St. Pierre’s original book was entitledProjet de Paix Perpetuelle

(Utrecht: Schouten, 1717).St. Pierre wrote: “it is necessary at the beginning to impose silence on all the world… and behold (voilá) the authority and prudence of the Union will have been made infallible within all the states of Europe.” To impose such silence against any one who objected to the union, St. Pierre called for a centralized army to “put down rebellion within states” where “these terrible revolts, that sort of disease of the state, can be stopped only by an absolutely inevitable and very great punishment against the conspirators.” Of course, armies would also “punish nations which violate the peace,” and that included nations who refuse to join the union.[3]

This new union’s existence justified citizens of other states subverting their nation in service of this greater union. When a resisting government was subject to external attack, this justified subversion from within. St. Pierre said that international law now should recognize that the citizens of such a ruler “are no longer bound to him, but to the new collective republic,” as Perkins explains theProjet.[4]

No wonder Rousseau said such a union can only come about by a revolution.

This cosmopolitan idea, among many taught by Rousseau, became a cardinal principle of the Illuminati of Bavaria.

Incidentally, Voltaire revolted at this idea. Voltaire commented that St. Pierre “is continually harping upon perpetual peace, and a sort of universal parliament, which he called the Diet of Europe” and Voltaire called it a “chimerical project.” [5]

b. Marriage Was Unnatural; Libertarian World Was Natural

Rousseau in his Discourse on Inequality(1754) observed the negative impact that marriage had on society. Rousseau contended it was the root cause of violence between men, and the unfortunate rise of civilization.[6]

Rousseau idealized, rather, the Nomadic existence of man prior to domestication in marriage partnerships where man was free of constraint either by unequal property rights, or by the need to obey any political authority or by obligations to a spouse. In the “original state of nature,” Rousseau said individuals “lived isolated nomadic lives, totally devoid of contact or cooperation except for momentary and chance encounters that satisfied their sexual impulses.”[7] This world prior to civilization was best: “We could have avoided nearly all of them [e.g., problems caused by civilization] by keeping the simple, regular, and solitary way of life prescribed by nature.”[8] . Restoring man to the state of nature should be our goal, Rousseau insisted. It “is the one that best assures peace, and the most advantageous to mankind.”[9]

c. No Property; The Original Nomadic Life Was Preferable

In that preferred state of nature, no one owns anything. Rousseau proclaims: “You are lost if you forget that the fruit of the earth belongs to everyone, and the earth to no single person.” [10] Rousseau claimed that the state of nature was “mankind’s happiest and most stable epoch.” He continued: “The more we reflect on it, the more clearly we see that this state was the least subject to upheavals and the best for man, and that he must have left it as the result of some unfortunate accident which, for the common good, should never have happened.” Rousseau concluded that our discovery of island savages “seem to confirm the view that the human race was meant to remain in it forever….” 11]

d. Nomadic Life without Child-Rearing Responsibilities

Rousseau taught in the idealized state of nature, as soon as the suckling period was over for the child, and “it could fend for itself, the child would go off, and the two [i.e., mother and child] would no longer recognize each other.”[12]

With this theory in mind, Rousseau taught that in order to restore the state of nature today means that modern education must cease imparting the current ideas and mores of society to the young child. The child should learn only from experience, just as in the state of nature, and not from its parents who in the state of nature would have anyway quickly abandoned them. Rousseau thus taught, as Zeldin says, that children “should not be abandoned to their parents’ educational whims and fancies.”[13]

e. Praise for Machiavelli and Perhaps His Maxim: the ‘End Justifies the Means’

Finally, Rousseau in hisEssay on Inequalitysaid true “republicans” had to admire the teachings of Nicolas Machiavelli in the Prince which could help true republicans to success. These maxims included the ‘end justifies the means.’ Rousseau then comments: “The people’s maxims are inscribed at length in the archives of history and in Machiavelli’s satires.”[14]

The claim by Rousseau that Machiavelli was being satirical in telling a prince how to control his subjects was meant to read The Prince on a different level. Rousseau claimed that Machiavelli intended his works to tell the people what they needed to do to thwart princes and monarchs. Machiavelli, Rousseau contended, only wanted to appear to tell a prince how to thwart the will of the people. For example, Rousseau said Machiavelli was being satirical when he wrote, addressing an imaginary king, that the prime interest of the king is that the people should be weak, wretched, and unable to resist his will. To this proposition, Rousseau comments that “while appearing to instruct Kings he has done much to educate the people. Machiavelli’s book The Prince is for republicans.”[15] Thus, Keith Ansell-Pearson explains: “Rousseau was also a great admirer of Machiavelli, and regarded his masterpiece The Prince as a satirical work in which Machiavelli, for certain practical reasons (namely, seeking a job from the Medicis), concealed his real political morality, which for Rousseau was one of patriotism and republicanism.”

Hence, the Republican aiming at freedom and revolution could use Machiavelli as a blueprint for a republican revolution.

Conclusion

In sum, the Illuminati of Bavaria adopted social messages from Rousseau, and thus more explicitly taught: a. taking education of children away from their parents and giving them ideals compatible with republicanism; b. republicanism would be founded by Machiavellian principles of the end justifies the means; c. the end product would be a society without property and wholly libertarian, like a nomad would enjoy; and d. the world would form a world union of various states coordinating efforts to bring along the rest to fulfill a plan of reuniting the original family of man.

Hence, the Illuminati’s dream of a cosmopolitan communistic and libertarian world originated with Rousseau.

For more information, you can purchase my book Illuminati Manifesto of World Revolution (1792) by Nicolas Bonneville published in 2011 (with extensive material on the Illuminati) at this Amazon link .

9 Comments

Comments RSS

  1. mithrandirolorin

    I’ve been reading your Book and it’s very informative.

    While Robespierre was definitely the greater Evil in this struggle, and I can agree with many of Bonneville’s ideals. I find his desire to claim his “Federation of Republics” was distinct form a “World Government” to be simply semantically word games.

    I’m a Libertarian, but I’m not a Libertarian Communist because I don’t believe a Utopia is possible, not one created by men. So my Goal is not for government to cease to exist all together, I simply want it to be very limited.

    “It must have coercive force capable of compelling every state to obey its common resolves…,” is what makes this concept scary.

    Reply

    • illuminatiofbavaria

      I think the Illuminati of France themselves realized the danger of a world government, and carefully amended their words to not appear to promote such a dangerous scheme. Thus Bonneville’s Cercle Social released in 1793 Bancal’s book called Corrective to the Revolution (English translation of a French title). It was a correction to their own ideals to be more clear that they did not mean to put liberty at danger when they previously advocated a world government in Bonneville’s Esprit. Bonneville’s Cercle Social, as I explained in my book IMWR, realized that a world government could lead to tyranny. So in this book by Bancal, the Cercle Social criticized Cloots’ latest ideal of a “universal republic” (1792 book) as seeking a centralized world government, and said it was dangerous to liberty. I translate this work as part of Illuminati Manifesto of World Revolution. The Cercle Social made clear they favored a series of federated Republics, not world government run from a single city like Paris. Paine was a great advocate of this approach, and wrote about this again in 1801 in the Maritime Compact published by Bonneville. I don’t think it is any accident that as Napoleon conquered from 1801 to 1814, he used Paine’s 1801 approach, as he and Talleyrand admired Paine greatly. Napoleon told Paine at a party once that he kept Paine’s Rights of Man under his pillow, and was his daily reading each night. This temporizing-federated-republics idea was a correction therefore to Rousseau’s adoption of St. Pierre’s words that such a republic “must have coercive force capable of compelling every state to obey its common resolves.” Paine in 1801 said its “coercive force” should simply be coordinated economic pressure, e.g., boycotting of goods. It is a correction that later was forgotten, but those who love liberty must revive attention to Bancal’s work as speaking an important truth. Incidentally, Paine did not like Napoleon, and thought he exhibited signs of a dictator. Thus, Paine likely realized even a federative republic under a single person’s control was itself dangerous to liberty. There had to be balance of independent nations at every point to avoid a tyrannical outcome which ultimately is in no one’s interest but that of a single dictator.

      Reply

  2. illuminatiofbavaria

    Hi. Bonneville’s group wrote a book (authored by Bancal) condemning world government as tyrannical. They said a world federation with no central force works best. Later, Paine explained this indirectly in 1801 in the Maritime Compact which Bonneville published. Nations would ‘federate’ — create a mutual pact to stop war by agreeing not to import into belligerant states any goods. The aim was to end war. No central authority would exist to enforce the union’s actions. They simply each would coordinate the same actions of boycotting belligerants among themselves. This was a model of a world federation — no hierarchy, no supranational authority,but instead mutual pressure to obey peace, not war. I discuss this in an appendix of Illuminati Manifestor.

    As to “libertarian communism” aimed at by the group, it is different than some may suppose. Knigge’s books which match Bonneville’s writings speak of each family head having individual property to support their individual family, but they are committed to share enough of their excess with their neighbor, the poor, the elderly, the widow, etc.,to make sure no one is suffering poverty. Hence, libertarian communism is communistic by a “community of goods,” not common ownership of land. It does not do away with land property rights. It also does not even make impossible having the ability to have more wealth than another which Condorcet (of the Cercle Social) said is a fundamental right of man. Yet, libertarian communism of Bonneville, etc. creates an ethic of mutual support and aid that erases the injustice of narcisstic / greedy individual ownership. To that end, the French branch of the Illuminati invented the idea of moderate progressive taxation to create a mild compulsion in that direction of sharing to prevent poverty. Otherwise, all other taxes were to be abolished. The aim was to do away with the state when a mechanism of redistribution by storehouses run by ‘administrators’ would supplant all social ills, doing away with any necessity to have a state.

    This is not as chimerical as it seems, and the Illuminati alluded often to the one time in history this operated successfully for 350 years.

    As I point out in my book, the Illuminati spoke often of the patriarchal state — an allusion to the book of Judges in the Bible. This epoch shows a prior example of libertarian communism. In the state of Israel after the Mosaic law began and for 350 years (1250-950 BC), Israel had no central government / no king, and divided land by families tribally, and used the tithe system administered by priests to redistribute enough wealth so there was no poor even among non-Jews who lived in Israel. Other than that, there were no taxes. There were also no rulers but judges to enforce the Law. This is known as the Era of Anarchy by Bible scholars. If you study more deeply the theory behind that period, the people were taught all land belonged to Yahweh, but was divided by tribe and families as tenants to serve Yahweh. In return, Yahweh asked back enough to guarantee there would be no poor — which was a 10% charity payment. If you read Weishaupt, Knigge, and Bonneville carefully, these men were very historically knowledgeable, and referred often to returning men to the Patriarchal period, which Moses was the last example and who was their obvious example, especially when you read Knigge’s 2 utopian novels.

    So in fact, such a world once existed, and operated for a long time. It is thus not as chimerical as one might suppose.
    Marco

    Reply

    • mithrandirolorin

      I’ve often compared the Judges period to being like a Republic of some sort. Thing is from the Biblical viewpoint that era isn’t considered ideal, the people kept falling into idolatry and then being conquered. Real prosperity didn’t come until they had their King.

      Have you done any similar research into the different factions of the 1830 and 1848 Revolutions?

      Reply

      • illuminatiofbavaria

        Yes, I have studied the 1830 and 1848 revolutions. By 1830, here you have the influence of Filippo Buonarroti, the head of the Carbonari, who was a Robespierrist and former Illuminati, but anti-Illuminati in the Robespierre mold. He enjoyed the Illuminati-mystique, and unintentionaly Robison and Barruel helped attract the true left to serve what they assumed was freedom loving Carbonari. So even Lafayette helped the Carbonari. But by 1830, here was the real transformation of Illuminism into Robespierrism aka Carbonarism — and the aim became avowed totalitarian control and an unbearable “communism” that Buonarroti expressly advocated in his book on Babeuf. But it was not the real communism of Babeuf, or of the Cercle Social (the true Illuminati in France) to which Babeuf belonged and still held to those ideals. Babeuf was an anti-Robespierrist in his book of 1794 because of Robespierre’s totalitarian and socialistic controls (not using that terminology but criticizing such concepts). By the time of the 1848 Revolutions, you now have Mazzini’s Young Europe organization which was more akin to the original left of the French Revolution under the Cercle Social, mixed with Buonarroti’s push for socialism — yet moderated. It is this period that proves the Illuminati were thoroughly dead, as none of their ideals were purely being advanced anymore (except ironically by Engels in his ‘recession of the state’ point.) And you had imposter groups – Carbonari — taking their mantle, and falsely depicting men like Babeuf as in their camp to pull off the bait-and-switch.The desire for a more freedom-loving aim is what led Mazzini to diverge from pure Carbonarism. Young Europe was amazingly more important in history than most assume. I will leave that mysterious unless you ask fore more details.

  4. ice Age adventures Hack

    Great post. I used to be checking constantly this blog and I am inspired!
    Very helpful information specially the closing part :
    ) I handle such info a lot. I was looking for this certain info for
    a very long time. Thank you and good luck.

    Reply

  5. illuminatiofbavaria

    Now you are being mysterious. What do you mean by referring to the closing part? How was this very helpful?

    Reply

Leave a comment