Talk:Adam Weishaupt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Untitled[edit]

Specific dectrines please. This article does not state the specific beliefs of Adam Weishaupt and his organization. What they believe? What were the doctrines of this man and his friends? The article just talks vaguely about wanting to "free mankind"? What SPECFICIALLY does this mean?

90.211.148.248 (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Was Weishaupt Jewish?[edit]

You guys ever heard of WP:BRD? Discuss it here and quit with the edit war. My take on this is that even if he was from a Jewish family (and I don't see any reliable sources backing that up yet) he was educated at a Jesuit school and was knowledgeable enough about Catholicism to be a professor of canon law, and his philosophies were not based on Judaism so characterizing him as "German Jewish philosopher" in the lead is incorrect. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just veiled anti-semitic vandalism. Revert it when it shows up again. Шизомби (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There were many cardinals whose ethnicity were Jewish, but their religion were Catholic. Weishaupt's ethnicity was Jewish and his religion was Catholic. --Celebration1981 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Again, a source would be nice for that. Plus what I aid above about characterizing him that way in the lead being inaccurate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Answer: No. I began researching Adam Weishaupt before there was an internet so I find humor in the claim: "90% of the pages about Weishaupt stated : Weishaupt had jewish origin". That does not prove anything. "I read it on the internet" is not a reliable source. What I have learned about Adam Weishaupt comes from hours in university libraries and archives in Germany and I never came across anything that would lead me to believe that Weishaupt was Jewish. If anyone has any proof to the contrary please show it. By "proof" I mean primary source material (like church records), or a reliable secondary source that references a primary source. Even the über-conspiracy theorist Nesta H. Webster wrote, "It has several times been stated that Weishaupt was himself a Jew. I cannot find the slightest evidence to this effect." Source Ouch! And this coming from the queen of conspiratorial cranks (and an anti-semite to boot). Her rejection of the "Weishaupt the Jew" thesis, in my mind, says it all.Jimaingram 02:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Weishaupt is exact translation of name Kagan (Kahan). His wife name Afra is not christian european name, but probably jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.189.241 (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Afra was a very typical bavarian catholic name (it's origin is biblic, but so are most christian names)178.210.114.106 (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Saint Afra (died 304) was a Christian martyr and a saint of Augsburg. Her feast day is August 5. 46.223.176.176 (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Afra Sausenhofer and her family were also Catholic through and through, as far as history can trace them. I refer once more to Bröker's and Hausfelder's articles in the "Jahrbuch" and "Sammelblatt."JevaSinghAnand (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I, too, have long sought for hard evidence that Weishaupt was Jewish - and could not find any. I would be very interested to learn from where this rumour that he was a Jew took its origins. It is true that the name has a vaguely Jewish ring to it (not least with Adam being the first man in Jewish mythology and Weishaupt meaning 'Wise Head' - reminiscent of the wisdom of Solomon, perhaps), but that is not enough to assert that Weishaupt was Jewish. Also, as far as I can ascertain, the Jewish name Kagan (mentioned by another editor above as being the equivalent of 'Weishaupt') does not mean 'Wise Head', but 'priest'. Furthermore, as other editors have said, Weishaupt's career and ideas do not suggest any marked Jewish leanings. I suspect that W's alleged Jewishness is an 'urban legend' which people have picked up and uncritically run with. As has also been mentioned, there may also be an element of anti-Jewishness involved here, seeing as Weishaupt is regarded in some circles as being the very devil in person! Best wishes. From Anoot7 (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is one source from a history of the Freemasons by Jasper Ridley. Dmcw127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
"A Jew by race"?. Fails WP:FRINGE.--Galassi (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
How is that WP:FRINGE? Are you saying the idea of a "Jewish race" is fringe or that Weishaupt being Jewish is a fringe position? I imagine he just meant ethnic Jew born to Jewish parents. Dmcw127 (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I took a second more thorough look around and, besides the book I cited, I don't see any reliable sources showing Weishaupt was born a Jew; so I think we ought to leave the article as it stands. Indeed, I found one source that explicitly claimed the Jewish characterization is erroneous. Dmcw127 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
According to Gerhard Brökel, Adam Weishaupt's family can be traced back to 1633, beginning with his great-grandfather Wessel, who was a choirmaster at the cathedral in Brilon, i.e. not Jewish. The article, titled "Adam Weishaupt: der Gründer des Geheimbundes der Illuminaten und seine Vorfahren in Brilon." (Adam Weishaupt: Founder of the Secret Society of the Illuminati and his Ancestors in Brilon) appears in the 2004 edition of the "Jahrbuch Hochsauerlandkreis." An article by historian Edmund Hausfelder in the 2011 edition of the "Sammelblatt des Historischen Vereins Ingolstadt" corroborates this. I think a more relevant question is who started this rumor to begin with. Barruel only stated that Weishaupt was in the company of Jews who were trying to fill his head with Jewish ideas -- whatever on earth that may mean. But who actually flat out said that Weishaupt was Jewish and connected it with that actually being a bad thing?JevaSinghAnand (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Where, precisely, did Barruel say that? I don't remember the word Jew even being uttered in the whole of the 2000 page tome except maybe when referring to the the Jew Mendelsohn (he was a Jew) and maybe once or twice more, and never in bigoted sense.XDev (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

What about Winston Churchill? He said that Adam (nicknamed Spartacus) Weishaupt was Jewish, nearly 100 years ago. "This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx," Geburah (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of this drivel goes back to Abbé Augustin Barruel, who as an antisemite and a liar couldn't resist adding Weishaupt's Jewish origin. Churchill could be sloppy, and this is a classic case of "if it's repeated often enough, it must be true". Weishaupt was a professor of Canon Law at a Catholic University, in an oppressively Catholic state. "Jewish" doesn't bear any sort of close examination. George Frederick Johnson, who managed a massive fraud in German masonry a generation earlier, is likewise claimed to be Jewish, in spite of nobody being sure of what his real name was. Probably a Continental Catholic thing. The Protestants had "He died impoverished and insane". Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, not an antisemite. The modern scholars of the history of antisemitism have imbibed this myth and they make fools out of themselves every time they repeat it in print (with no source). Barruel even suppressed a letter that had been sent to him about the Jews being behind everything because he worried about the harm it would do. Barruel has been maligned an antisemite simply because of the later sources (who were antisemites) utilized his work as a prime source. Robison wasn't an antisemite either as far as I remember ... and there were a lot of them during the Enlightenment (just not those two).XDev (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Can I refer you to Barruel's comments on Jews and Christians mixing in Masonic lodges? He was an official in an organisation that was institutionally antisemitic, it came with the job description. Just because he also hated and feared Muslims, Protestants, and anybody who didn't share his narrow view of religion, doesn't excuse him of antisemitism, or of using the antisemitism of his peers and readers to propagate the lie that blurring religious lines in blue lodge allowed masons to obliterate religion in the "higher" degrees. However, I apologise unreservedly for the careless attribution of the origin of the myth from a source I should have checked. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
"Can I refer you to Barruel's comments on Jews and Christians mixing in Masonic lodges?" Sure. Where can I read it? Jews and Christians generally didn't mix in lodges during the 18th century. Jacob Katz's Jews and Freemasons in Europe, for example, uncovered only a handful of Jews over the entire century. The Asiatic Brethren was the only exception, but it was an offshoot of the Golden and Rosy Cross and not a regular masonic rite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDev (talkcontribs) 12:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Here, in the English edition, volume 2. The proportion of Jews in Freemasonry evidently didn't matter to Barruel. It's on p.149 of Perrenet's 1911 edition. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Weishaupt not a Jesuit[edit]

I removed the category "Former Jesuits" from this page. From what the page says, there is every reason to doubt this: the page explicitly says that Weishaupt became a professor in 1773, after the Jesuits were suppressed, because prior to 1773 professorships in canon law were only given to Jesuits. Logically, then, it follows that he was not a Jesuit.

Moreover, he married at age 25, and was never ordained a priest. So the only way he could be a Jesuit is if he had entered the order as a seminarian, and then left before ordination. If anyone has evidence that this is the case, please add it to the article.

Yes, he attended a Jesuit school, but obviously that doesn't make him a Jesuit! — Lawrence King (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I also removed the claim that the Jesuits were "one of the traditional enemies" of the Illuminati. The Jesuits ceased to exist between 1773 and 1814 (except in Russia), and therefore they and the B.I. never existed at the same time. — Lawrence King (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with your edits. Good job!Jimaingram 02:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1773 dissolution of the Society of Jesus resulted in sweeping changes at the University of Ingolstadt. Weishaupt was given the chair of Canon Law precisely because he was not a Jesuit. See Siegfried Hofman's essay "Die Universität: Reformen - Umbrüche" (The University: Reforms - Upheavals) in "Sammelblatt des Historischen Vereins Ingolstadt" (Anthology of the Historical Society Ingolstadt), 2011 edition, pp. 32-34.JevaSinghAnand (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Atheism ?.[edit]

Jesuit polemicist Barruel says on page 51 of the Memoirs illustrating the history of Jacobism, Volume 4 ([1] ) and cites Discussion on Societies, Vol. I section XXII. Is Barruel a reliable enough source here - he does go on a bit about the great Enlightenment figures like Diderot but accurately labels then atheists ? Ttiotsw (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Barruel says of Weishaupt, "...he declares himself a downright Atheist..." Ttiotsw (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am very suspicious of pre-20th Century use of the word "atheist" (especially if used by an 18th Century "Jesuit polemicist"). As a general rule, I would avoid using POV words like "atheist", and in this article in particular I would be inclined to challenge any description of Weishaupt as an "atheist". “Weishaupt . . . declares himself a downright Atheist . . .” Where exactly? and what exactly does he say? If you can source it to Weishaupt, then you don't need Barruel. But even if you find a "I declare myself a downright atheist" statement, maybe that was Weishaupt's youthful impiety (cp. C. S. Lewis); at that point, you will need to explain why he remained in communion with the Church of Rome. If you can make the case that Weishaupt was indeed a life-long atheist, I would love to see it, but (to my satisfaction) you will need more than the rantings of the Abbé Barruel.
What this article needs is a ==The Adam Weishaupt of Myth== or ==The Mythological Weishaupt== section with, perhaps, a subsection like ===The Weishaupt of Abbé Barruel===. Here, an editor could in good conscience note that Barruel characterized Weishaupt as an atheist, because… Barruel characterized Weishaupt as an atheist. That would be a true statement. What I oppose is Barruel's (or John Robison's, or Nesta Webster's) POV in the main discussion of Weishaupt (i.e. the "historical" Weishaupt). NPOV—even if impossible with this article—should be strived for.Ingram 14:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingram (talkcontribs)
Barruel calls Weishaupt an atheist by inference. He claims that Weishaupt's "Docetist" degree is full of Spinoziist principles and depending on whether you sided with Mendelsohn or Jacob, Spinoza was an atheist or a pantheist. In his later writings (but prior to Barruel's "History"), Weishaupt denies being a Spinoziist. Interestingly, he says that his system best compares to Kant's, although he developed it in parallel to Kant. Three books later, Weishaupt does, of course, one of his famous double-takes, becoming one of Kant's most vocal critics.
The Docetist degree is also full of theistic references ("38. Absolute truth is for God alone"). There is no ritual, only notes (probably Knigge's), so Barruel is lying to sell his pathetic book, and ingratiate himself with his political and religious superiors. There is nothing "famous" about any of Weishaupt's deeds or writings, other than a failed conspiratorial group who probably needed help to get dressed. Being generally ignored by anybody that didn't want his head on a stick also disqualifies him from being "one of Kant's most vocal critics". It is also worth noting that the words atheist and atheism no longer occur in the article, ergo this thread is no longer relevant. Starting a new discussion, or better yet, adding referenced material to the article, would be far more helpful. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson quote[edit]

I doubt the authenticity of the Jefferson quote regarding Weishaupt. Please provide source material or remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.21.205 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you doubt the authenticity of the quotes provided, because this will be a learning experience for you. The quotes are authentic (minus the corrected spelling of Weishaupt's name). And the quotes are properly sourced (The Library of Congress—with link). If you question why an American political leader is commenting on an insignificant Bavarian university professor turned insignificant privy councillor, I suggest you read New England and the Bavarian Illuminati (1918) by Vernon Stauffer. Available Here and Here. I would also direct your attention to The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: 1795-1801, specifically page 419 and following. Of all the questionable information on Wikipedia, these quotes are basically reliable (ignoring the corrected spelling of Weishaupt's name). As always, if you know something I don't, please share it, but at this point we need more than one anonymous user's doubt to change the article.Ingram 06:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingram (talkcontribs)

Freemasonry[edit]

Quoting Weishaupt's journal:

"The Great strength of our order lies in its conceilment, let it never appear in any place in its own name, but by another name, and another activity. None is fitter than Freemasonry. The public is accustomed to it, expect little from it, and therefore takes little notice of it." Adam Weishaupt (John Robinson’s Proofs of a Conspiracy, 1798, p. 112)

And it is known in some circles the Templars after being suppressed reformed into numerous orders including the Order of the Garter, Rosicrucians, Freemasonry, the Illuminati and the Jesuits; all founded by Templar elitist bloodlines. One of their own gives record:

"It is curious to note too that most of the bodies which work these, such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, the Rite of Avignon, the Order of the Temple, Fessler's Rite, the "Grand Council of the Emperors of the East and West -- Sovereign Prince Masons," etc., etc., are nearly all the offspring of the sons of Ignatius Loyola. The Baron Hundt, Chevalier Ramsay, Tschoudy, Zinnendorf, and numerous others who founded the grades in these rites, worked under instructions from the General of the Jesuits. The nest where these high degrees were hatched, and no Masonic rite is free from their baalful influence more or less, was the Jesuit College of Clermont at Paris." (Isis Unveiled, H. P. Blavatsky, p.390)

Ruler's of Evil by Tupper Saussy

In 1139 Pope Innocent issued a bull placing the Templars under an exclusive vow of papal obedience - a measure by which Aimeric effectively put all Templar resources at the disposal of the papacy. As their list of properties lengthened with donations from Italy, Austria, Germany, Hungary and the Holy Land, the Templars built hundreds of stone castles. Convinced they were building a new world, the Templars called each other frère maçon (brother mason). Later this was anglicized into Freemason.

Finally, on Friday, October 13, 1307, King Philip of France arrested all but thirteen of the Templars in France, tried them and, upon evidence of their practice of the cabalah, found them guilty of blasphemy and magic. At least fifty knights were burned at the stake.

A subtle provision in the Vox clamantis transferred most of the Templar estates to the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, who took possesion after King Philip's death. In Germany and Austria, the Templars became "Rosicrucians" and "Teutonic Knights." The Teutonic Knights grew strong in Mainz, birthplace of Guetenberg's press. Six centuries later, as the "Teutonic Order," the Knights would provide the nucleus of Adolf Hitler's political support in Munich and Vienna.

The Edinburgh lodge would become the headquarters of Scottish Rite Freemasonry, which Masonic historians call "American Freemasonry" because all but five of the signers of the Declaration of Independence are said to have practiced its craft. In Spain and Portugal the Templars became the "Illuminati", and the "Knights of Christ." It was under the red pattée cross of the Knights of Christ that Columbus had taken possession of what he called "las Indias" for King Ferdinand V of Spain, the Holy Roman Emperor. (Rulers of Evil, p.39-40, Tupper Saussy)

207.119.109.32 (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Adam Weishaupt's Illuminati has nothing to do with any of this. Read the Jefferson quotes. Weishaupt used secrecy because he had to and ultimately it's what led to his downfall. Jefferson believed he would not have had to use secrecy in the US and dismissed any sort of connection to the French Revolution. Weishaupt is the victim of posthumous smear tactics. His influence was a threat to the ruling class and the church, powerful forces who would want to make sure he is forever painted in a bad light. There was a pre-existing group called Illuminati prior to the Bavarian Illuminati. Perhaps they are the 'bad' one? Either way it appears to be a blanket term applied to Scottish Rite Freemasonry. If there are unofficial lodges practicing the exact same thing Weishaupt preached, you have nothing to worry about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.61.43 (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Quotes[edit]

I think in recent days, too much and too many of the quotes from and about Weishaupt have been removed. The Jefferson quote, for one, should not have been removed. It is permissible to make such sweeping changes as have recently been made after discussion with other editors - but to remove whole swathes of material without discussing it first strikes me as rather impolite. I understand the view that quotes are best placed in Wikiquotes, but when I looked there, the quotes from the Adam Weishaupt article had not been fully included in Wikiquotes. So I personally think the recent removals of material from the Weishaupt article were too drastic and extreme. What do other editors think? Best wishes to you. From Anoot7 (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Although the changes may have been made in good faith, I agree that they are not readily accessible in wikiquotes and not many readers are likely to look for them there. I think representative quotes from Weishaupt, which show his philosophy, and which are accurate and complete enough to show his meaning, and without POV editorial comment (which is not to say that brief NPOV explanation would be inappropriate), would improve the article and could be properly reinstated or inserted in proper form. Donner60 (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, Donner60, for your fair and balanced comments. I very much agree with you. I do feel that it is important, at a time when Weishaupt is popularly portrayed as a demon in human form who wanted to enslave mankind and set up a tyrannical world state, that readers of the Wikipedia Weishaupt article should have the opportunity to read some of Weishaupt's own words and encounter his own ideas (very much at variance with the notions popularly associated with him by 'conspiracy theorists', although the latter may have some valid points in other areas!). I also agree with you that it is acceptable on Wiki to contextualise a quote, as long as one does not write something which is factually wrong, or unsupportable. Perhaps my own attempt at contextualising the Weishaupt quotes was not sufficiently NPOV; if that is so, improvements could be made at a later date. But to remove the quotes wholesale is, to my mind, an extreme action. Anyway, thank you again for your most welcome comments. Warm wishes. From Anoot7 (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Translation Please[edit]

I was wondering if someone would be so kind to put a translation in parentheses next to the names of the books, etc. under the Works section. Thanks.Mylittlezach (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and could that translation be in English, please? Mylittlezach (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

This article is not neutral, it is one sided. The references are from the RCC side of that debate from 1785. Geo Washington has been interjected in a way that suggests he had no connection with the subject, Weishaupt. JohnPritchard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Hello JohnPritchard - I agree with you. The article strikes me as decidedly one-sided (tending towards a more negative than neutral portrayal of Weishaupt). An example of the bias is that the article used to contain a quote from Thomas Jefferson in support of Weishaupt's basic ideals - but that was removed for no good reason. If I have time in the coming weeks or months, I shall add some referenced material which will offset the negative viewpoints that have accrued here. While Weishaupt the man does seem to have been extremely autocratic, his ideals (as expressed in his own writings) are far from shocking to a modern readership used to republican (rather than monarchical / ecclesiastical) viewpoints. There clearly was an egregious contradiction between Weishaupt's philosophical 'desiderata' for human freedom, rationality and dignity, and his actual control-obsessed character - but that is not cause enough to make this Wikipedia article as biased against him as it clearly is. All best wishes to you. From Anoot7 (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Was Adam Weishaupt a deist[edit]

I have read one of Adam Weishaupt's quotes who is famously known a as the founder of Illuminati.

Here's how the quotes

I did not bring Diesm into Bavaria from Rome I found it here.

You can find this on wiki quotes. Illuminavissem (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The exact quote (al least according to Wikiquote):
"I myself brought Deism no more to Bavaria than to Rome or Italy. I found it there already; and I shall give the reasons below, just why in the most fanatical countries, and more under Catholicism than Protestantism, this sort of person is found in such a measure and multitude." [2] Einleitung zu meiner Apologie (1787) p. 39
As to whether Weishaupt was a Deist, such matters are best left to secondary sources - the quote is a little ambiguous, and we must avoid interpreting isolated phrases out of context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Johann Adam Weishaupt was one of the greatest Conspirators of all time?[edit]

Moved from Help talk:Adam Weishaupt -- John of Reading (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

According John Robinson Johann Adam Weishaupt is one of the greatest conspirator of all time.

And also he died at the age of 82. Dos this make him one of the oldest person living in the age of enlightmeant Illuminavissem (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you proposing a specific edit? If so, please indicate the text you are proposing, together with the source you will cite. If not, please note that this is not a forum for general discussions relating to Weishaupt, and is only intended for discussions relating to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

He is the greatist Conspirator of all time. And he should be in the most interesting people on earths books or something like that. GreatTruth123 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


- Small input - Concerning this individual (Weishaupt) and his connections (and implication in global conspiracies) there is a book called "Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Free Masons, Illuminati and Reading Societies, Collected From Good Authorities" by John Robinson, A. M. PROFESSOR OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY, AND SECRETARY TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH. published in 1794 (4th Edition). Without being partaking I believe that this book should be consulted for aditional information (with capital letters). Also, I do agree with the users that have noticed the one-sided perspective and the apologetic tone of this article (not to mention that this superflous approach is nothing more than a pamflet in the context of "encyclopedia"). Thank you and have a very nice day!

And always, the truth: "In the All we live and move and have our being" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.116.22 (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not cite books published in 1794 as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that most of the hysterically negative views of Weishaupt stem chiefly from precisely Robison (not 'Robinson'!) and Barruel (a member of the Jesuits, an ecclesiastical grouping Weishaupt vehemently opposed), as their books were written in English/ translated from French into English respectively. Most high-profile 'conspiracy' writers in the English-speaking world cannot read fluent German and so are unable to access Weishaupt's own original philosophical writings; instead, they are dependent on the highly tendentious works by Robison/ Barruel and those who simply parrot their extreme views. Weishaupt the thinker (as revealed by his numerous scholarly works) is far from the devil incarnate or black magician as which conspiracy investigators tend to paint him. So there really is a huge chasm between what some people believe Weishaupt devilishly taught and stood for (a view largely held by people who have not read a single of Weishaupt's original German works) and the sober truth of an Enlightenment rationalist and moralist who had to resort to a secret society in an environment where to speak openly against the abuses of princely and ecclesiastical power and in favour of human dignity and equality could have proven extremely dangerous. Fortunately, the situation is likely to change in the near future as regards Weishaupt's accessibility to English readers, since by the end of this year a major work of English translation of key Weishaupt texts by Jeva Singh-Anand is scheduled for publication. There are also now English translations of two Weishaupt works by Dr. Tony Page, and a translation of 'The Lamp of Diogenes' by Amelia Gill. If people read these books and see what Weishaupt was actually teaching, they will be shocked by his fundamental benevolence! All best wishes. Anoot7 (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Adam Weishaupt in pop culture.[edit]

Has the founder of Illuminati Adam Weishaupt ever been in pop cultures? Illuminavissem (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see my response in the section above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


Adam Weishaupt is referred to repeatedly in The Illuminatus! Trilogy, written by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, as the founder of the Illuminati and as an imposter who killed George Washington and took his place as the first president of the United States. Washington's portrait on the U.S. one-dollar bill is said to actually be Weishaupt's.

Another version of Adam Weishaupt appears in the extensive comic book novel Cerebus the Aardvark by Dave Sim, as a combination of Weishaupt and George Washington. He appears primarily in the Cerebus and Church & State I volumes. His motives are republican confederalizing of city-states in Estarcion (a pseudo-Europe) and the accumulation of capital unencumbered by government or church. Weishaupt's name is one of many references made to the Illuminati and other conspiracies in the 2000 PC game Deus Ex. During JC Denton's escape from Versalife labs in Hong Kong, he recovers a virus engineered with the molecular structure in multiples of 17 and 23. Tracer Tong notes "1723... the birthdate of Adam Weishaupt" even though this reference is actually incorrect and the video game purposely spreads disinformation about Weishaupt's birth: Weishaupt was born in 1748. Adam Weishaupt is also mentioned ("Bush got a ouija to talk to Adam Weishaupt") by the New York rapper Cage in El-P's "Accidents Don't Happen", the ninth track on his album Fantastic Damage (2002). Adam Weishaupt is briefly mentioned in Umberto Eco's novel The Prague Cemetery.[19] Zakapedia

Weishaupt mythology[edit]

We need a Weishaupt mythology right away. Illuminavissem (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean a section on mythology about Weishaupt? Because that'd get folded into the "In Pop Culture" section. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

We'll I think a Weishaupt Mythology Would be a brilliant Idea Lest start It soon. Until we get ride of You!..... EsotericScience (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Or we get rid of you and your sockpuppet accounts. WP:SOCK forbids making multiple accounts to create the illusion of consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative history of Weishaupt[edit]

What if john Robinson was right, now I'm not saying he was right but what if he was right about Adam Weishaupt plans I mean the history of the enlightmeant era would of been very different right? Illuminavissem (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As you have already been told, [3] this talk page is intended solely for discussions directly relating to article content. This is not a forum for general discussions relating to Weishaupt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

So, anyone else find these edits interesting?[edit]

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting? No. Annoying? Yes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


So, yeah, Zakapedia is another one of GreatTruth123's socks, and EsotericScience is also Zakapedia.
That makes the list of socks so far:
If we see "them" start POV-pushing or do anything else beyond being annoying, time to file an SPI. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
And we have another, Hidden Hand Order (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Compare D and 4. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Percy Shelley ?[edit]

Adam Weishaupt the founder of Illuminati inspired Percy Shelly? Where's the proof? Illuminavissem (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

See [4]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

History books of the world?[edit]

Is Johann Adam Weishaupt in the history books? Illuminavissem (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Look for yourself. This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Conspiratorial Works[edit]

  • I see that an editor has removed the 'Conspiratorial Works' section which a previous editor had added. I think the inclusion of those works is of interest and should be retained: after all, it is not so much as a professional philosopher and thinker on matters relating to Immanuel Kant, for instance, that Weishaupt is today remembered, but as a propounder of views communicated in his secret society, the Order of the Illuminati. So I propose to restore that helpful list of Illuminati works which Weishaupt penned.

I see further that the 'Pop Culture' section has been deleted. I support that deletion - not because such a topic has no intrinsic value or interest (I believe it does have such), but because as far as I could see, none of the matters referred to in that section was referenced or properly sourced. Best wishes to everyone, from Anoot7 (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It is agreed by many that this piece of informtaion be reinstated, as it is not only of interest to many, but true. I beleive this to be what I've spoken of previously, that their is a war on our true history and there are many within positions unfortunatley who are able to record the lies as fact, based on more lies. Thus making people honour those who are not honourable, throughout our history and those of current, within positons of authority, fame, social, economical, political, judicial infrastructures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.83.2 (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Translations[edit]

Is their any translations to Adam Weishaupt (Founder of Illuminati) books. Zakapedia (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The only one I can find is still Diogenes' Lamp. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Change[edit]

It's time to add some changes to Adam Weishaupt (Founder of Illuminati) biography. Zakapedia (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What changes, and why? There's no schedule just to do changes just do to changes, and no reason to have one. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Incomprehensible[edit]

This is the most incongruous, confusing, and poorly written article I have seen in awhile. It is way below class C. It is such a long article to end up saying nothing about the man. It doesn't appear fixable without a rewrite. How did George Washington get intermingled with Weishaupt? Were they not on different continents?!? I'd be ashamed to have written this article. I would defy anyone who could make sense out of this "sentence":

"Contrary to Immanuel Kant's famous dictum that Enlightenment (and Weishaupt's Order was in some respects an expression of the Enlightenment Movement) was the passage by man out of his 'self-imposed immaturity' through daring to 'make use of his own reason, without the guidance of another,' Weishaupt's Order of Illuminati prescribed in great detail everything which the members had obediently to read and think, so that Dr. Wolfgang Riedel has commented that this approach to illumination or enlightenment constituted a degradation and twisting of the Kantian principle of Enlightenment."

I am not sure if there are spelling, grammar, semantic, or logic issues with this one sentence. The entire article rambles on without any facts or details and without concise descriptions of any biographical information. The article is written like a sophomore essay with a minimum word limit. And, let me state the obvious: who in the world is Kant, and how did he get involved with the subject of this article? I like to saw logs! (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks for pointing that out. C class says its better than Start, but still rubbish. Feel free to help, that's how Wikipedia works. Kant is linked earlier in the article. For the record, I don't get it either. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Kant is not explicitly wikilinked, no. His namesake is (Kantian). It's quite an obtuse reference, as this is purportedly a biography. Readers of a biography aren't normally going to be looking to delve deep into esoteric philosophical paradigms. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
That Weishaupt was a critic of Kant is part of his biography. That he was an effective critic is also part of his biography. Basically there's two parts to his life: his involvement with the Illuminati, his escape and eventual retiring to the court of Duke Ernst of Gotha. The details of the latter part of his life (some forty years) are slim at best. He kept quite and minded his business and there's nothing of significance to report, except for his philosophical writings. There's a reason a biography hasn't been written about him yet - lack of material, and not much really going on for 40 years.XDev (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"The" or "The Order of"[edit]

@1llum1nat1: @Fiddlersmouth:

This needs to be discussed. There are multiple and unrelated groups that have had the word "Illuminati" incorporated somewhere in their designation either by themselves or by opponents. As such, it seems incorrect to talk about "The Illuminati" as if they were/are a single monolithic organization. Rather, the specific names should be used. As such "The Order of Illuminati" (a specific group) is the correct nomenclature. The reason the Illuminati article uses just that phrase is that is the most common element in the various things the Bavarian Illuminati has been called. That only affects article titles, however, not how that specific group should be addressed in text. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


1llum1nat1As I said to Fiddlersmouth, we do not refer to York as "English York" simply because several cities with derivative names exist and New York is more famous than any of them - It would sound absurd. For the same reason, calling something "The Bavarian Illuminati" only makes sense in a very narrow set of circumstances. "Order of the Illuminati" is much better, although it is not actually much more specific, because many groups calling themselves "Order of the Illumninati" also exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1llum1nat1 (talkcontribs) 02:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The Alumbrados/Illuminés (Spanish and French for Illuminati) were not derived from the Bavarian Illuminati. Many of the later groups imitating the Bavarian Illuminati bear no real connection to that group and were not truly derived from the Bavarian Illuminati. Weishaupt's group only existed within a vary narrow set of circumstances -- didn't extend beyond Germany and it didn't last more than a few decades. It is no more directly responsible for later groups than King Solomon or Tubal-Cain are responsible for Freemasonry -- later mythical claims to older origins. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed. There are multiple and unrelated groups that have had the word "Illuminati" incorporated somewhere in their designation either by themselves or by opponents. As such, it seems incorrect to talk about "The Illuminati" as if they were/are a single monolithic organization. Rather, the specific names should be used. As such "The Order of Illuminati" (a specific group) is the correct nomenclature. The reason the Illuminati article uses just that phrase is that is the most common element in the various things the Bavarian Illuminati has been called. That only affects article titles, however, not how that specific group should be addressed in text. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the "Bavarian Illuminati" clearly distinguishes the original organisation, while pointing to the article. Capitalising the definite article mid-sentence is a non-starter, and the Bavarian thing is simply normal usage by historians. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not a capitalization of the article, actually. The article is called "Illuminati", while the edited link is "The Illuminati", which is because organizations starting in "The" are capitalized that way. It should also be noted that other standard historians disagree with your standard historians: When a group comes first chronologically, it stakes a claim to the title it uses. Anyways, it's not relevant any longer, because "The Order of The Illuminati" is much nicer looking. 1llum1nat1 (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC) 1llum1nat1

What's Latin for Alumbrados? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
"Illuminati", if I had to guess! Alumbrados didn't primarily speak Latin though, and as you may have noticed, called themselves "Alumbrados" - Which could be confusing if it was translated, but the names of groups are rarely translated. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Zetas1llum1nat1 (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC) 1llum1nat1
The only decent source is still René le Forestier's "Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande". Yes, better material is now being translated and compiled, but it isn't in print yet, apart from the "Secret school of Wisdom", which concentrates on ritual rather than history. Best reference is still the "Bavarian Illuminati", and capitalising "The" mid sentence just looks stupid. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it looks stupid to you, but formally speaking, when "The" is part of an organization's name, the convention is to capitalize it! You may find it interesting that, given what was uncovered in the arguments about whether or not to simply call it "the Illuminati", the correct spelling would have been un-capitalized as you prefer because the title was not specific enough. When the name is "The Order of the Illuminati" the "the" is supposed to be capitalized! Refer to: [1] [[2]] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1llum1nat1 (talkcontribs) 17:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@1llum1nat1: Interesting that only one of your references supports your case. Wikipedia doesn't generally use "a" or "the" at the start of article titles. I note from your edit comments on my talk page that you may have been worse for wear. Getting drunk and starting arguments about trivia works as well here as anywhere else. It's annoying, wastes other peoples time, and will get you blocked. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)