Jump to content

Talk:Illuminati/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Fake

Closing this discussion before it gets out of hand. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is wrong and fake Abdurrahmanchamp1 (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What exactly do you think is "wrong and fake"? Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is screaming out for reliable, modern references. We've done our best with what we can find, perhaps you can help? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

None of this is True. Maxwell J. Walred (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Billsmith56 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this the primary scope?

"In subsequent use, "Illuminati" refers to various organisations which claim or are purported to have links to the original Bavarian Illuminati or similar secret societies, though these links are unsubstantiated."

Almost certainly the most notable and recognizable use of "Illuminati" in modern times is either as part of a conspiracy theory or as generic secretive world order used in fiction (e.g. Deus Ex). I fail to see how these supposed organisations claiming to be descended from the actual Illuminati have a higher notability (or ANY, for that matter) than the ones alleged to exist in conspiracy theories and fiction. I know I've never heard of them, and I doubt anyone - perhaps not even the groups themselves - would take it seriously. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You may not have heard of these groups.... but they do exist. And while their claims to be continuations or recreations of the Bavarian Illuminati may well be bogus, that is the claim that they make. Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Blueboar, don't revert something when clear reason has been given for its removal. Two of the links I deleted were literally expired meaning whoever registered them could no longer be bothered with it, while the third denounced their claim of being an "Illuminati". You may want them to be, but using outdated sources to support a claim is extremely misleading. Also please read WP:NOTABILITY. Not everything that is written down should be on Wikipedia. Some unknown fraternity claiming to be related to the Illuminati is certainly one of these cases. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) Don't revert when you have been reverted. Use the talk page first. The reason is not clear. Even if it was, you are still edit warring. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I was of the opinion that Blueboar missed the point of my deletion of the expired/redacted sources, which was quite uncontroversial as there is no point in using sources that have lost their only value. My stance of their relevance wasn't related to that. But you're right, it does count as edit warring. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Prinsgezind, your concern about the expired links is somewhat valid (It is possible that some of these groups may have shit down since the article was written, and so I will see if the groups have updated websites before I restore).
As for your concern about WP:Notability, I don't need to read it, as I helped write it. That guideline only applies to the question of whether something merits having an entire article devoted to it... not whether it should be mentioned (in passing) in a related article. I would agree that these modern fraternal groups do not merit there own stand alone articles... but they certainly merit a passing (one sentence) mention in this article...if only so readers understand the difference between a) the historical order, b) these real modern groups (which either pretend to have a direct link to the historical group, or pretend to be a recreation of it) and c) the paranoid imaginings of conspiracy theorists. Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Blueboar: You're also right there, I actually linked the wrong policy. I was thinking of Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. This, though, was to justify my edit to the lead. I don't think expired sources (not broken or archived ones, mind you) are of any value when discussiong the present-day situation. But my other point was that while it's related to the subject and can be found online, the relevance of the existence of such fringe groups is very low. If we are to include information on groups that personally identify with the Illuminati, do we also include information on groups that say they're fighting the Illuminati? Because that's a rabbit hole I don't think would lead to very appropriate encyclopedic material. And that's just assuming they can be properly verified, as it would likely require resorting to the use of more self-published sources (such as the ones formerly provided) that are in no way reliable. Even as proof of existence it looks like a red flag to me:
  • "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest"
  • "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."
Ding ding on both. I'm of the same opinion that the distinction between the actual historical group and the modern cultural/conspirational/fictional forms should be clearly distinguished, but what place do these fringe claims have in it? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
re: "do we also include information on groups that say they're fighting the Illuminati?"... nope. The topic of this article is a historical fraternal order... it is "on topic" to mention (in passing) that there are modern groups that claim to be a continuation (or recreation) of that historical order... but to mention modern opposition groups takes us "off topic". Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Minor grammar edit to page

In the very last sentence under the 'in popular culture' section it says "Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco and ." Can someone either get rid of the "and" or add in the other author (if there is any). Phishcat (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :) Phishcat (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Bill Cipher from Gravity Falls is based on the Illuminati.

He should be added on the Popular Culture page. Galefuun (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I have requested a citation for that. (also... I think it too trivial to mention, but that is another issue). Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Origins in 1960s - new source

This in-depth BBC piece chronicles the deliberate fabrication of the Illuminati myth in the 1960s counter-culture, with reference to published works. Among other important aspects, it says that the 18th-century events are more or less unrelated to the modern tale. I have not yet incorportated any of this: The accidental invention of the Illuminati conspiracy. Onanoff (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Robert Anton Wilson and Discordian literature has indeed contributed toward the myth, but they in turn had embellished upon real sources. The John Birch society, for instance, as well as the writings of Nesta Webster and Lady Queensborough. This tradition was concerned with the Master Conspiracy thesis that an overarching secret society was behind all major incidents since the French Revolution. And they had sources as well: John Robison and Abbe Barruel. It's really an unbroken tradition that goes back to the last two authors who were contemporaries of the Illuminati in the 18th century. In different eras there were varying levels of popularity, but it was always there lurking and publishing material for centuries - material that Wilson et al. made great use of.XDev (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

18th Century Pagans?

"Christians of good character were actively sought, with Jews and pagans specifically excluded, along with women, monks, and members of other secret societies."

Is there a source for their being pagans in 18th Century Bavaria? I find it rather hard to believe, as fascinating as it would be if true.

My guess is that the word comes from one of the cited sources... note that back in the 18th and 19th century the word "pagan" had a fairly broad meaning, and was commonly used in reference to anyone who was not a Christian (or a Jew?). Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
It comes directly from the confiscated Bavarian Illuminati documents; INSTRUCTIO PRO RECIPIENTIBUS, specifically: "Jews, pagans, women, monks, and members of other secret orders" were prohibited from joining. In 18th century enlightenment nomenclature the term pagan could equally apply to a muslim a confucianist or what today we'd term an occultist. Basically if you weren't jewish, christian or an atheist, 'pagan' covers everything else. XDev (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Gradal

I have no idea 'gradal' is -- if it is, indeed, a word -- nor what it's supposed to mean. Not removing it because I don't know what to replace it with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.207.104.228 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A system of conferred degrees/grades: gradal system. Put it into quotes and search for its historical context if you are not aware; it's the foundation of Freemasonry and other initiatic societies.XDev (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm... While I understand what a "gradal system" is supposed to mean, this query caused me to look further... and I can not find it in any dictionary. I also did as XDev suggests (I put it into quotes and searched for it in a historical context) and did not find it. So... I have tweaked the sentence, so those who are not already familiar with the topic will better understand. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

To add to "see also"

--188.171.58.80 (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The majority of those are completely unrelated to those paying attention to reality instead of brainwashing themselves with conspiracy theorist delusions. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Illuminati translates to 'light'

Illuminati does not mean "enlightened", in the strictest sense as translated. This definition was assigned to the group who called themselves Illuminati.

Is there a reliable source which explains the origins of the word "Illuminati", and its meaning in context to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.216 (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Illuminati/Illuminaten means "enlightened ones" - plural; illuminatus: "one of the enlightened". They explain in their rituals that the name descends from the first Christians who were called illuminati when they were illuminated with the holy spirit, i.e. baptized/born again. Church tradition mentions illuminati in this context in Catholicism and Protestantism. XDev (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Adding to the confusion is the Age of Enlightenment which wasn't called that until decades after the Bavarian Illuminati had been disbanded, and while similarly named in Italian, the German name for the Age is Aufklärung. EllenCT (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

In fiction

I'd like to see a mention of fictional descriptions of Illuminati plots. Illuminati (game) and The Illuminatus! Trilogy are obvious candidates. Ungulates (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Modern Illuminati

The rumours and speculations that the Illuminati still exists is incorporated with the conspiracy theory. Such claims have been suggested by conspiracy theorists. Today, there are many books, archives, even also documentary films surrounding these "secret elites" and the Illuminati. Such information are found elsewhere to the internet. You can find them in reliable sources. In this article, much of description specifies towards the original Bavarian Illuminati. There is some bias in portion of the old, without regarding the contemporary secret Illuminati. I think the old and the current should be written in this article for balance. The Supermind (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no continuance of the Bavarian Illuminati beyond the mid 1790s (at the latest). Those who claim there is have not produced evidence of it. Scholars have looked into it for centuries and found no evidence. Elites have always been here, but calling them Illuminati is just muddying the waters and contrary to historical evidence. Might as well just call them boogeymen. It's an empty, immature appellation. XDev (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If you wanted to know, there are several Illuminati groups, but as far as the Bavarian Illuminati™, yes, we exists and right now we are in the process of re-structuring due to the artificial pandemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.231.41 (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And YOU TOO can join... just send 1,000 euros for your certificate of membership (suitable for framing) and a decoder ring.
Ok seriously, as the article states, there are several modern groups that CLAIM to be a continuation of the original, or an attempt to RE-CREATE it. These modern groups are NOT the secretive world dominating “Illuminati” talked about by conspiracy theorists. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This article doesn't reflect the current subject. What are the elites?. The current society tend to remain secret rather than their freedom of expression. They deemed to orchestrate illegal activity and influence the world to allure its members and ultimately rule the world. The context should contain their ideology, the modern government system and evil tactics. Yes, they believe in Devil and they want to fulfill the demand of the Devil. They want to subvert people faiths belonged to Abrahamic religion to Satanism and idolatry. They are fueled with evil. The Supermind (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

Hi to all! My name is Luis. I'm a spanish professional musician, writer and speaker. I would like to add as an external link (If it's possible) The link goes to a video that lets the users of this page see the actual site and probably the original place where Illuminati from Bavaria make their meetings and where was located the synagogue in Ingolstadt City. Even it's in Spanish, I think it could be useful as a physical way of documentation of the environment and where the place is located in Bavaria, near Munich. Thank you who ever you read it!

This is the code:

​We rarely link to self-published sources, additionally the contents of the video may be a bit too specific for this large topic. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Illuminati in Africa

Well so. those who have Africa experience, the most probable translation of Illuminati is "Cindle, ignite", "set fire to" meaning hammer and pick. I am experienced and from my point of view there is nothing else to say about it. Wikistallion (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your own experience is not enough... wikipedia’s policies require us to base what we write in our articles on reliable (Published) sources. So unless there are reliable sources that talk about the Illuminati in relation to Africa, we can not say anything about it. Thanks for sharing, however. Blueboar (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

one can BTW find an evidence by name. not Africa. ignateamus bubus actually, i ignite the ppl. thats very similar to the name of some generally known celebrity. Wikistallion (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

An editor has objected to the inclusion of the term "conspiracy theorists" in this section, on the grounds that the term is "biased". Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I think that this is an accurate and appropriate term to use in this context. The overwhelming majority of those who say that the Illuminati still exist, do so in the context of discussing various conspiracies. It is not biased to describe those who believe in a conspiracy as being "conspiracy theorists"... it is the literal definition of that term. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely support. Conspiracy theorist is more encyclopedic than nutter, but most of the survival myth was, I believe, constructed to make money out of gullible people. I have my own words, all of which would result in an editorial ban. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"The Illuminati did not survive their suppression in Bavaria..." - the officially titled group may not have, and everyone may have even gone their separate ways. But if you're meaning that all of their ideas, concepts, and beliefs died the minute it happened and didn't carry forward with any of them, then I have to say THAT is a WILD theory full of naivete at best, intellectual dishonesty at worst. - Anon, 15:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the ideas, concepts, and beliefs espoused by the Illuminati existed after the organization was suppressed is not really important, since they did not invent them. Those same ideas, concepts and beliefs also pre-date the organization. The article has lots of links if people want to read more about those ideas, concepts and beliefs. THIS article is about the organization. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

In the main section, add a comma (to properly close the grammatically required pair of appositional commas) after "Bavaria" in this text:

"The Illuminati—along with Freemasonry and other secret societies—were outlawed through edict by Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria with the encouragement of the Catholic Church..."

In other words, change "outlawed through edict by Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria with the encouragement of the Catholic Church" to "outlawed through edict by Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, with the encouragement of the Catholic Church"

Thank you. Bearcharts (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Modern Existence

Main article: Illuminati in popular culture

While it has been thought that the Illuminati did not survive their suppression in Bavaria, it now appears that this may have been incorrect. Instead of being destroyed in Bavaria, it is claimed on their own websites that they went underground as a result of the aforementioned persecution. From that moment on they only operated in the hidden background with a great emphasis on secrecy and anonymity. Now, after hundreds of years of obscurity, the true Illuminati has emerged once again on the world stage and they are openly recruiting, claiming to have millions of members, and having no need for any funding or profit. According to the information contained on their three websites, they wield a vast power across the planet, and have indeed been guiding and causing the major historical events traditionally ascribed to them, such as the formation of a New World Order. This New World Order is explained in great detail on their Globalism page.

The Illuminati has three websites that we know of, and very likely others which only the initiated can access. These sites contain a lot of explanation, both historical and contemporary, including an available book called "The First Testament".

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2020

Change membership mentions of Count Metternich and Count Stadion to: Klemens von Metternich Johann Philipp Stadion, Count von Warthausen

They should both be specifically identified given their historical significance, as they are in the sourced material. Strangestlove (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone verify this source? It's in French, so I can't read it even if I have access. There is a reference that Metternich's father was a member ([1]), but I couldn't verify anything else. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Here are the Metternichs that were members of the illuminati, per the Gotha Illuminaten Research Projekt: https://database.factgrid.de/wiki/Item:Q767 https://database.factgrid.de/wiki/Item:Q766 https://database.factgrid.de/wiki/Item:Q765 The first link is indeed Klemens' father. His son was a bit too young to be initiated but he swung in the same circles as his father and Illuminati members, papa included, were around him in his youth. He imbibed their enlightenment beliefs. https://database.factgrid.de/wiki/FactGrid:The_Gotha_Illuminati_Research_Base XDev (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
XDev, that is an SPS, in particular user-generated like Wikipedia. That is not reliable as a source. JavaHurricane 16:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
It's actually *the* authority in all the world on everything Illuminati related. They have access to all the Illuminaten papers, all the archives - everything. It is a collective of the world's experts on the subject. They are the keepers of all the gold. University of Erfurt. https://database.factgrid.de/wiki/FactGrid:Gotha_Illuminati_Research_Base_Team#Projects_and_Participants XDev (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Want to know exactly who are actually identified members of the Illuminati? The best source since the 1990s was professor Hermann Schuttler's Die Mitglieder des Illuminatenordens, 1776-1787/93 (Munich, 1991). He's part of the collective. It was his research which is the foundation. In his book he went through every archive that had info about the Illuminati and compiled the book with over a thousand members (definitively identified). His database, it turns out, wasn't a database. Just an excel file. Him, his colleagues and his students, entered all his data along with more recent discoveries in the Schwedenkiste Illuminaten archive (which they possess and are processing). On the Swedish Crate's significance see here <https://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2015/07/28/the-so-called-schwedenkiste-swedish-box-the-most-significant-illuminati-archive/>. Here are all the known members of the Illuminati (utilizing the combined data from Schuttler and the Swedish Crate): <https://database.factgrid.de/query/embed.html#SELECT%20%3Fmember%20%3FmemberLabel%20%3FnameLabel%20%3FmemberDescription%20%3Fdate_of_birth%20%3FIO_nameLabel%20WHERE%20%7B%0A%20%20SERVICE%20wikibase%3Alabel%20%7B%20bd%3AserviceParam%20wikibase%3Alanguage%20%22%5BAUTO_LANGUAGE%5D%2Cen%22.%20%7D%0A%20%20%3Fmember%20wdt%3AP91%20wd%3AQ10677.%0A%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%20%3Fmember%20wdt%3AP247%20%3Fname.%20%7D%0A%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%20%3Fmember%20wdt%3AP140%20%3FIO_name.%20%7D%0A%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%20%3Fmember%20wdt%3AP77%20%3Fdate_of_birth.%20%7D%0A%7D%0AORDER%20BY%20(%3FnameLabel)> XDev (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Cannot stress enough: that site and its valuable info is *the* first and last word on everything Illuminati related. Period. You start here <https://database.factgrid.de/wiki/FactGrid:The_Gotha_Illuminati_Research_Base> or you don't start at all. Everything real discovered about the Illuminati comes from them and their sources. They are primary because they have all the primary sources and have been working with it for decades. Clear? XDev (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC) XDev (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Darren-M talk 12:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Whether FactGrid is the gold standard of Illuminati research or Hermann Schüttler is a peculiar question. Hermann was among those whose data created the database. He has an account on FactGrid, just like Reinhard Markner, Josef Wäges, Martin Mulsow and Markus Meumann... All the leading researchers are on FactGrid. --Olaf Simons (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

From German Wikipedia

In their book Secret Societies: Freemasons and Illuminati, Opus Dei and Black Hand, which was published in 2013 as a companion book to a ZDF documentary series on secret societies, the authors Gisela Graichen and Alexander Hesse deal not only with the Freemasons but also with the U.S. student fraternity Skull & Bones. They address conjectures according to which Skull & Bones founder William Huntington Russell is said to have borrowed numerous ritual and symbolic elements of the fraternity he founded in 1832 from student or Masonic organizations in Germany, since he had spent several months in Germany immediately before founding Skull & Bones. The authors hypothesize here that Russell may also have been in Königsberg during his stay in Germany and may then have borrowed his Skull & Bones symbolism from the emblem of the Masonic lodge there, Zum Todtenkopf und Phoenix.

This hypothesis is processed by the Austrian author David G. L. Weiss in his 2013 novel "Macht", a conspiracy thriller in which Skull & Bones plays a major role. In their research into Skull & Bones' possible (fictional) connections to Prussia, the novel's main character also speculates about a possible connection of Skull & Bones to the Lodge Zum Todtenkopf and Phoenix.

An even more far-reaching conspiracy theory is drafted by the author and ufologist Andreas von Rétyi in his 2004 book Power and Mystery of the Illuminati: According to this, Skull & Bones is the continuation of the Illuminati Order. The number 322 refers in the time calculation of Skull & Bones to the year 1832. In this year Skull & Bones was created, and at the same time the fusion of the lodges to the death head and to the Phoenix took place to the united Johannisloge to the death head and Phoenix. This merger, coinciding with the founding of Skull & Bones, symbolized the demise of the old Illuminati Order in Germany (Todtenkopf) and its resurrection in the USA in the form of Skull & Bones (Phoenix).

https://de.zxc.wiki/wiki/Zum_Todtenkopf_und_Phoenix#Trivia 2A02:8109:25C0:6C8:C8:F17F:6360:C6AB (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The article you link isn't from the German-language Wikipedia, it's from 'de.zxc.wiki', though even if it were, it wouldn't have any bearing on content here, since the English and German-language Wikipedias are independent of each other, and have differing policies regarding content. I very much doubt that we'd consider 'Secret Societies: Freemasons and Illuminati, Opus Dei and Black Hand' as even a remotely reliable source for anything, and ridiculous conspiracy theories about any link between the Illuminati and 'Skull & Bones' are out of scope for our article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
What you "object" to here is of no interest to anyone. Of course, de.zxc.wiki is an English language mirror of the German language Wikipedia, even if your mind has lost that so far, because you have no idea. The only question is what you want here, if you are against every ridiculous conspiracy theory. https://second.wiki/wiki/zum_todtenkopf_und_phoenix 2A02:8109:25C0:6C8:C8:F17F:6360:C6AB (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make a specific proposal for content to be added to this article, you are free to do so. You won't get very far though unless you can convince people that it is (a) on topic for this article (which is about an organisation that ceased to exist around 250 years ago), and (b) based on material compliant with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Hard to unravel contemporary: What exactly is your personal "mission"? To "save" the world from my contribution at all costs, or to "prove" to me that the English Wikipedia is incomparably more informed than the German one? After all, I seem to have just upset your little world mightily. Even if this is only one of your "Low-importance Germany articles", as a German I might be allowed to comment on it. Btw., high time for an apology, you ... "grump" (or whatever)! One does not simply annoy people for no reason, without paying a tribute for it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Skull_and_Bones#From_German_Wikipedia 2A02:8109:25C0:6C8:C8:F17F:6360:C6AB (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Banking

In many modern conspiracy theories the Illuminati is associated with banks and banking. This is such a prominent component of this conspiracy theory that I feel this should be expanded upon in this article. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you point to a reliable source that discusses this? Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing and POV in Conflict with Rosicrucians Section

The Conflict with Rosicrucians section seems to cite only Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande by René le Forestier, from 1914. I haven't read it and I don't particularly doubt its reliability, however the section has a clear anti-Rosicrucian slant and doesn't explain how it ties into the rest of the article. Rosicrucianism doesn't appear outside of this section, and I'm not sure where it fits in the larger history of the Illuminati. Is anyone aware of other sources that analyze the relationship (if any) between Rosicrucianism and the Illuminati? Thanks! AnandaBliss (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Le Forestier's sources are the Original Writings of the Illuminati and archival material which cites both Illuminati and Rosicrucian members. It was well know during the 1780s, in masonic circles, that the Illuminati and the Golden and Rosy Cross were mortal enemies. They spied on one another, they plotted against one another, they published screeds against each other in pamphlets and magazines. The Golden and Rosy Cross were anti-enlightenment activists during this period. They attacked the Enlightenment itself and colluded with the catholic church. Fr. Ignatius Franck, one of those in charge of gathering and disseminating the Original Writings (eg. the Illuminati's correspondences), was himself the head of a Rosicrucian circle. For English sources see The Rose Cross and the Age of Reason: Eighteenth-Century Rosicrucianism in Central Europe and Its Relationship to the Enlightenment by Christopher McIntosh and my own book, Perfectibilists. Also, here and here. XDev (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Those links both go to a website called "Conspiracy Archive," so I don't think they're the most reliable sources around. I still cannot find good sources that agree with that section at all. The Rosicrucian and Gold & Rosy Cross articles mention no rivalry with the Illuminati in Bavaria. I'm starting to think this section should just be deleted. AnandaBliss (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
You are obviously ignorant of these sources. Have you read Le Forestier? No you didn't. If you did, you'd see that all his sources are primary archival material: letters, documents, correspondences. To this day, his work is the standard reference on the Bavarian Illuminati, in any language; all scholars agree. Some of the archives he consulted are no longer there after being bombed in WWII. I told you about another book, in English, to consult: Rose Cross and the Age of Reason. Also consult Klaus Epstein's The Genesis of German Conservatism (1966) which has a plethora of info about Rosicrucian and Illuminati rivalry, using the same material as Le Forestier.
Go further if you like. Le Forestier's masterpiece has recently been translated into English:https://www.amazon.ca/Bavarian-Illuminati-Worlds-Secret-Society/dp/1644113775/
"Rosicrucian and Gold & Rosy Cross articles mention no rivalry with the Illuminati in Bavaria." Yes they do. "Sniffing out Jesuits":
----
At the behest of Weishaupt and the Illuminati, Knigge wrote two more pamphlets which were published in 1781:  [A Warning to the German Princes to guard against the spirit and dagger of the Jesuits] and  [The Jesuits, Freemasons and the German Rosicrucians]. In order to give the writings more weight, in the latter publication Knigge had used a pseudonym: Joseph Aloys Maier, a supposed ex-member of the Jesuits.  was composed of three chapters. The first contained “remarks on the perverse and dangerous principles of the former Society of Jesus,” including a sketch of its history and an outline of its members. The second chapter contained a letter on the profane teachings of the Freemasons, and attributed to a former member. The last contained research on the veracity and supposed authenticity of the German Golden and Rosy Cross. The chapter on the Jesuits was culled from documents provided to Knigge by the Illuminati; eleven pamphlets in all, one of which was Louis-René de Caradeuc de La Chalotais’ 1762 report to the Parlement de Rennes which was the catalyst for the 1764 expulsion of the Jesuits in France.
Knigge was being used by the hierarchy of the Illuminati. He had significant skills as a writer already, and was thus the perfect choice to pen and publish the anti-Jesuitical screeds: for if he wanted to gain the trust of his new “brotherhood,” he’d better do as he was told.
Not only had Knigge written against the enemies of the Illuminati, but he blossomed into the greatest recruiter for the Order (some 500 members, by his own account), while personally reorganizing the system of degrees. For all his efforts – a veritable superstar compared to everyone else – Weishaupt’s only reward was to constantly talk about him behind his back. Weishaupt was obviously threatened by Knigge’s popularity within the Order, and by 1783 their mutual disdain had finally come to a head.
Two months before Knigge resigned in disgust, he wrote a letter to Illuminatus Franz Xaver von Zwack (Cato) on February 25, 1783. His frustration is palpable; his threats serious:

At the behest of Spartacus, I wrote against the ex-Jesuits and the Rosicrucians; I hounded men who had done me no harm; I caused disarray in the Strict Observance and drew the best of them to us; I gave them a great idea of the dignity of the Order, its power, its age, the excellence of its leaders, of the perfect fit for [Strict Observance’s] senior members, the importance of the knowledge they possessed and its righteous intentions; these people, who now show so much activity in our favour, but remain very committed to religiosity, feared that we intended to spread deism: I have therefore tried to convince them that the Grand Chiefs [of the Illuminati] had no such intention. However, little by little, I do what I please. Let us suppose, then:

  1. That I let the Jesuits and the Rosicrucians know who is persecuting them;
  2. That I reveal, if only to a few people, the small, insignificant origin of the Order;
  3. That I prove to them, by my designs, that I have established part of the degrees myself;
  4. That I tell them how, after what I have done for the cause, I must endure mistreatment;
  5. That I make known to them the Jesuitical character of the man who perhaps leads us all by the nose, makes use of us for his ambitious schemes, while we sacrifice all the time as often as his obstinacy requires; perhaps what is to fear from such a man, and such a machine that may or may not be hiding Jesuits;
  6. That I give assurance to those searching for secrets to expect nothing;
  7. That I reveal the secret principles of the General [Weishaupt] to whom religion is overrated;
  8. That I discovered how much this work is new and the weak bases upon which it relies;
  9. That I draw the attention of the Lodges to a hidden Association behind which lies the Illuminati;
  10. That I align myself anew with Princes and Freemasons;
  11. Furthermore, that I find a more solid plan, less selfish, more enlightened, based entirely upon honesty and liberty; that I initiate the best minds with whom I am still acquainted; that in every area I’ll secretly initiate recruits [already] insinuated by the Illuminati, so that thereafter I would be well-informed;
  12. That even in Greece [Bavaria] I would give information to certain people, in addition to disclosing the founder and all the rest;
  13. That I sound the alarm in Rome [Vienna] through the intermediaries of Princes, to Numenius and the Rosicrucians! - Nachtrag von weitern Originalschriften, welche die Illuminatensekte, I, pp. 112-14
Threat #5 is probably tantalizing to the Jesuits=Illuminati crowd. So be it; at least I didn’t suppress it. I offer but one observation: paranoia is the one common denominator of any secret society worth its salt! Admittedly, in terms of despotism and totalitarian proclivities, Weishaupt had out-Jesuited the Jesuits.
Number thirteen is the most significant. The Rosicrucians – who had already openly declared war on the Illuminati – were perhaps even more detested than the Jesuits. Vienna was one of their strongholds. Numenius (Count Franz Joseph von Kolowrat-Liebensteinsky) was a recent recruit in the Illuminati; was well-connected with the Imperial court; and had been entangled with the entire milieu of Viennese Rosicrucianism. And Weishaupt, with trademark subterfuge, made it his pet project to try and cure the noble of his mystical inclinations. To threaten to reveal the secrets of the Illuminati to the Rosicrucians was more serious than spilling the beans to Jesuits.
----
Another thing you are not aware of is the fact that Weishaupt, in his own words, wrote that he founded the Illuminati as a direct response to the Rosicrucians recruiting at the Ingolstadt University. The thought of his students being influenced by the sect's occultism and superstitious folly was intolerable to him. XDev (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Once again, these sources are either centuries outdated or downright conspiracy theories. I cannot find any reliable sourcing corroborating what you’re saying and bringing Jesuits into this is not doing much to help. Please do not try to inform me what I am aware of and what I am not, Weishaupt‘s own writings would be primary sources and cannot be reproduced in Wikipedia’s own voice. I’m getting very close to deleting this section outright, and no one has come forward to help bolster it instead. AnandaBliss (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Faulty punctuation?

'In subsequent use, "Illuminati" has referred to various organisations which have claimed, or have been claimed to be, connected to the original Bavarian Illuminati […]'

It looks as if the sentence should be:

In subsequent use, "Illuminati" has referred to various organisations which have claimed to be, or have been claimed to be connected to, the original Bavarian Illuminati

[…]. Paul Magnussen (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I think it should be:
In subsequent use, “Illuminati” has referred to various organisations which have claimed (or have been claimed) to be a continuation of the original Illuminati or directly connected to them.
Does this clarify the intent? Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Paul Magnussen Your right G 86.14.246.181 (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illuminati/Archive_8&oldid=1258006659"