The Real Story of the Founding Fathers and the Illuminati, Part 3
Who was the one Founding Father who defended the Illuminati, its founder, and its propaganda? And why did he defend them?
We left off in our last installment discussing the general reaction of the Founding Fathers towards the Illuminati, and/or their philosophy and principles. We also took a look at how the Founders reacted to the French Revolution and the ideals which propelled it, and how it illustrates that their views were not synonymous with those of the Illuminati, and that they were not acting in concert with that organization.
As promised, we shall examine how one Founding Father differed from the rest in this very important aspect. While he was only one man, he held prominence in the nation at that time, and to this day, his name and words are considered to be authoritative. His aura has now overshadowed the names and words of other Founding Fathers, more worthy of the veneration and consideration of Americans. Therefore, his ideals and opinions, which led him, not surprisingly, to sympathize with the Illuminati, the French Jacobins, or at least view them as well-intentioned or harmless, was a major force behind the fierce political divisions in our early political history.
The name of this Founder, was Thomas Jefferson.
Instead of lamenting the influence that the Illuminati had on the nations of Europe and America, and viewing its doctrines as dangerous, Thomas Jefferson defended Weishaupt and the Illuminati as trying to advance the cause of human liberty and equality. Jefferson wrote in the year 1800:
Wishaupt [sic] seems to me to be an enthusiastic philanthropist. He is among those (as you know the excellent [Richard] Price and [Joseph] Priestly [deists who claimed to be Christians] also are) who believe in the indefinite perfectibility of man. He thinks he may in time be rendered so perfect that he will be able to govern himself in every circumstance so as to injure none, to do all the good he can, to leave government no occasion to exercise their powers over him, and of course to render political government useless. …
Wishaupt believes that this perfection of the human character was the object of Jesus Christ. That his intention was simply to reinstate natural religion, & by diffusing the light of his morality, to teach us to govern ourselves. … The means he [Weishaupt] proposes to effect this improvement of human nature are “to enlighten men, to correct their morals & inspire them with benevolence. …”As Wishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot of priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, & the principles of pure morality. He proposed therefore to lead the Free masons to adopt this object & to make objects of their institution the diffusion of science & virtue. This has given an air of mystery to his views, … & is the color for the ravings against him of Robinson [sic], [Abbe] Barruel, & [Rev. Jedediah] Morse, whose real fears are that the craft [of ecclesiastical tyranny] would be endangered by the spreading of information, reason, & natural morality among men. (17)
Instead of believing that Illuminist propaganda was threatening liberty and society, Jefferson accused those writers who were exposing the Illuminati in books and sermons of being the true conspirators against human liberty, insinuating that they were either paranoid, or trying to discredit those who were “truly” proclaiming human freedom. Jefferson further accused these anti-Illuminist writers of being “ecclesiastical and monarchical” — in other words, of being prejudiced in favor of an aristocratic hierarchy on the levels of church and state and biased against democracy and equality. He explained:
I have lately by accident got a sight of a single volume (the 3d.) of the Abbe Barruel’s Antisocial conspiracy, which gives me the first idea I ever had of what is meant by the Illuminatism against which ‘illuminate [sic] Morse’ as he is now called, & his ecclesiastical and monarchical associates have been making such hue and cry. Barruel’s own parts of the book are perfectly the ravings of a Bedlamite. But he quotes largely from Weishaupt whom he considers the founder of what he calls the order. As you may not have had an opportunity of forming a judgment of this cry of ‘mad dog’ which has been raised against his doctrines, I will give you the idea I have formed …
However, in spite of his warm accusations of those who exposed the Illuminati, Jefferson admitted the fact that he was rather new to the subject. He had made up his mind that the Illuminati was wrongly accused by those who wished to insure the triumph of monarchy and a church-state, after spending a mere hour reading quotations of Weishaupt from Barruel’s book, “which,” Jefferson said, “you may be sure are not the most favorable.” [So what?? If they are Weishaupt's writings, who cares if they are "favorable" or not? He wrote them! Isn't that proof enough? Sir, why are you so biased in favor of this man?] Several of these quotations of Weishaupt presented by Barruel will be examined later. But Jefferson was convinced of the rightness of his opinions in spite of the newness of the subject to him. Jefferson explained away Weishaupt’s use of secret societies and mystical rituals by arguing that freedom of speech and press were suppressed in Germany. Jefferson further explained:
I believe you will think with me that if Wishaupt had written here, where no secrecy is necessary in our endeavors to make men wise & virtuous, he would not have thought of any secret machinery for that purpose. As [William] Godwin, if he had written in Germany, might probably have thought secrecy & mysticism prudent.
William Godwin was another deist philosopher and writer from Europe. He was “an English writer and radical political philosopher, published An Enquiry [sic] concerning Political Justice and its influence on general virtue and happiness, 2 vols. (London, 1793), in which he expounded his philosophy of anarchism. He believed that society should be based on reason and urged that such institutions as government, marriage, and social classes be abolished.” (18)
Thomas Jefferson’s sympathy of the Illuminati comes as no surprise when one realizes that his writings maintain the same religious, philosophical, and political tenets he ascribed to the Illuminati. Jefferson, and, as we shall see, Weishaupt believed, or at least taught, that Jesus was a mere man, whose mission was not to save mankind from sin, but rather to teach men how to be moral and rational. As Jefferson was previously quoted to say: “[Jesus'] intention was simply to reinstate natural religion, & by diffusing the light of his morality, to teach us to govern ourselves.” Jefferson’s own writings prove that he himself whole-heartedly maintained this “natural religion”:
[I]t is not to be understood that I am with Him [Jesus] in all of His doctrines. I am a Materialist, he takes the side of spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin. I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it, &c. &c. …
Among the sayings & discourses imputed to Him by his biographers [the writers of the Gospels], I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I seperate [sic] the gold from the dross; restore to him the former & leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and the roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and imposters [sic], Paul was the great Coryphaeus. (19)
Jefferson also admitted his deism in a letter dated October 31, 1819 to William Short. Jefferson said:
As you say yourself, I too am an Epicurean. … But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre [sic] from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man …
Epictetus and Epicurus give laws for governing ourselves, Jesus a supplement of duties and charities we owe to others. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent moralist, and rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, … is a desirable object, and one to which [Joseph] Priestly has successfully devoted his labors & learning. (20)
Among the doctrines which Jefferson attributed to Epicurus, and 
to which Jefferson apparently subscribed, were listed by Jefferson at the end of his letter to Short:
Syllabus of the doctrines of Epicurus. Physical. — The Universe [is] eternal. …Matter and Void alone [exist]. … Gods, an order of beings next superior to man, enjoy their own sphere, their own felicities; but not meddling with the concerns of the scale of beings below them. … Utility [is] the test of virtue.
At the end of the letter, Jefferson affixed a short list of what he considered the “artificial systems” of Christianity — those which Jefferson claimed were not maintained by Jesus — to be:
e. g. The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, &c.
Of course, some of these tenets are indeed taught by the Scriptures; others are not, but are man-made institutions and tenets (such as the “corporeal presence” of Christ in the Eucharist, orders of Hierarchy, and the ultra-Calvinist interpretation of predestination).
However, Jefferson rejected what was clearly taught by the Scriptures, and by rejecting them accepted deism and unitarianism. Another letter to deist and unitarian theologian Joseph Priestly, written on April 9, 1803, demonstrates this clearly:
I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of the incorrectness of their [the Jews'] ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to a standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief in a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration [by God the Father]. (21)
The inevitable result of believing that true morality is ultimately discovered by reason and science, and that the quest for true morality must be completely unaided by revelation from God, leads men to believe that true morality can be possible apart from God. There is evidence in a letter that Jefferson penned to Thomas Law, on June 13, 1814, which suggests a growing trend toward this view in Jefferson’s thinking. In this letter, he maintained that the love of God is not the ultimate essential to morality, because atheists claimed to be moral too. (22) Now, let me clarify my position here: atheists may do moral things, but those who fall under that description do so because they have “plagiarized” the morals that Christianity has established for the world around us. Many of those who have not had this cultural restraint have been guilty of the most ghastly barbarities the world has seen, because there is no God or God-concept to restrain them.
In conclusion, Jefferson clearly manifested a prejudice in favor of the Illuminati and its founder, but such is not surprising when one realizes that his ideology was akin to that which the Illuminati publicly propogated. As a result, Jefferson was an avid supporter of the French Revolution, which was the first major move of the Illuminists in overthrowing society. Whether or not Jefferson realized that the Illuminati was responsible or not is uncertain; but he probably would not have thought much of it. Through political and philosophical propaganda, the ideals of the French Revolution were brought to America, and much of the early political tumult in those early days of our constititional republic can be traced to the struggle between the Christian ideals of the American Revolution (which produced our constitutional federal republican form of government) and the humanist idealogy of the French Revolution.
Jefferson’s support of the French Revolution, the connection between that Revolution and the Illuminati, the tumultuous conflict it produced in America, and the warnings of those who sounded the alarm will be explored in the next future posts.
Stay tuned!
4 Responses to “The Real Story of the Founding Fathers and the Illuminati, Part 3”
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:02 am
This is one of the finest series of posts I’ve ever read. You really, really NEED to get this in a book someday.
I have never liked Jefferson, and I do cringe when patriots and Christians exalt him. He went nutty after being in France, gosh. As president, however, I think he mellowed out a little, because reality hit. There was no way he could, in a practical way, manage the country while adhering to the stupidest of philosophies.
This also proves that there is truly “nothing new under the sun.” Men believe what they want to believe, facts notwithstanding. :-p
Keep up the great posts! I enjoy them very much.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:02 am
Thanks, Mrs. M. I’m honored and satisfied. Believe me though, this series is probably only half-done.
I promise I will try to write a book (of the several it seems I must write
) on this subject.
I too cringe when I see the tradition of placing Jefferson in emulation continued by patriots and Christians myself. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that this tradition is going to come to an end in the near future. The new and timely book “Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution” by Tom DiLorenzo seems to have pitted Jefferson&Liberty-Lovers against Hamilton&Big-Government Banks in the minds of many who rightfully resent the Fed.
Even most expose’ films of the Illuminist conspiracy behind it all usually conclude with the statement “This is not the America that our Founders established” and then they quote JEFFERSON!
Well, hopefully the truth will get out there.
Thanks for reading, and leaving your comment.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:02 am
Herky, I strongly concur with Mrs. M. I felt like I was reading a good book, albeit about a subject that turns my stomach. The Jefferson quotes are truly nauseating, although enlightening.
I’ve always wondered how people can view Jesus as just some nice guy in history that had some good ideas. To my mind, either you believe what He said (I and the Father are one) or you reject what He said.
But now, through Jefferson’s example, I see how this can be done. When you read the Bible, everything that you agree with is categorized as being of “fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence.” That which you don’t agree with is rejected as “so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture.” In essence, we don’t need to agree with God – God needs to agree with us! How incredibly arrogant!
Thank you for another thought-provoking post. I look forward to reading the rest of “the book” … and getting nauseated again!
And to answer your question, Herky:
“Sir, why are you so biased in favor of this man?”
Obviously, they served the same master.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:03 am
Ah, you got a chance to come around and read! I take it you are beginning to feel better?
Thanks for your comment.
I always wondered the same thing, and it was when I read Jefferson’s writings on this subject, that I began to be acquainted with the arrogant thought process behind it. Yowee.
I will have to make this into a book. Perhaps word would get out better that way. Until now, I was never able to fit so many pieces of the huge puzzle together: everything from the comparatively quick decline of our nation’s biblical moorings, to the tremendous distortion of our history, to … well, just about everything that has come out of that!
Interesting answer to my little question to Mr. Jefferson. How sadly true.
Thanks again for your thoughts, my friend.
P.S. I hope I haven’t given you too bad a case of nausia. I know how you feel. I am still trying to recover, even though I commenced this research project about two years ago.
Leave a Comment