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.

    • 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.

  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

    • 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?

      • 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.

  3. 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.

  4. illuminatiofbavaria

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

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