Conspiracy Theories, Skepticism, and Critical Thinking

Weishaupt has lost his position, and the Illuminati were exposed for trying to push the idea that church and state ought to be two separate things. So...what do we do now? Obviously, I move forward with the book, but what does Robison do now? The Illuminati are done, and from what he's reported they weren't even that bad. Odd, sure, but there's a gaming store near me and I'm pretty sure that I can find some odd people in there. Hell, I host a skeptic's night at a bar, we are a bunch of weirdoes. No one is issuing a law to ban us.  Weishaupt has an extended statement here (page 50) but I'm not quite sure where this comes from. Robison frames the quote as being Weishaupt's declaration of the principles of Illumination. However, there was a false doctrine that went around a bit too and because Robison is being unclear I'm not quite certain which is which, and which is endorsed explicitly by Weishaupt. Is the long excerpt from the doctrine that was given to

We are backtracking a bit in this post because of artistic decisions. Last post I had to conclude with the dissolution of the Illuminati by the Bavarian government (not the Vatican as Dan Brown would have it). The post skipped over why that happened. As we stated the Illuminati and all other secret societies had been banned by the monarch because of pamphlets that had been passed around questioning the need for a monarchy. The edict was never really enforced and the Lodge Theodore, the Masonic lodge passing out the documents, continued to operate. Then, in 1783 four professors of the Marianen Academy confessed to being members of the Illuminati and exposed some of the secrets of the group. A couple of things right now. The first is that the group of professors making the confession worked for the widow of the previous Elector of Bavaria. The Elector had been trying to snuff out the secret societies for a bit but was unable to find legal justification to do so. Then four professors work

We've introduced our villain--Adam Weishaupt--well kind of. He's going to take the conspiracy from all of the new people that thought Masonry could do more than just host rib night on Thursdays. Last post we dug a bit into who Weishaupt was as a person, and now we're going to move forward with the actual conspiracy plot. Finally, we're going to get to this. I was promised proof of a conspiracy against the globe and so far I got an 18th-century stand-up routine, "French masons are like this, but German masons are like this..." One thing I have to say upfront, and I definitely should have said this before: I don't know where Robison is getting his information. In the first chapter, I could divine that it was mostly his experience and then what people told him. At best, his information is coming second-hand. There was a book he mentioned that described the various Masonic lodges but that was it for sources. As he delves into Weishaupt the person and the happe

 " I AM (sic)  now arrived at what I should call the great epoch of Cosmo-politism, the scheme communicated to Baron Knigge by the Marchese di Constanza. " We've had an entire chapter that has failed to illuminate a global conspiracy that seeks to upend the rule of religion and monarchy in Europe. This is depressing for two reasons: A) it's the title of the book and why we are reading the damn thing to begin with. B) this book plays the role of the original foundation for these types of conspiracy theories. Our last book, Allen's "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" cites it, Nesta Webster cites it (Nazi sympathizer and conspiracist), in fact: without this book, this type of conspiracy has no English language foundation (there is a French book by Augustin Baurrel that would also serve). So where is my damn conspiracy theory?  It might just live here. This week's selection begins chapter 2, titled "The Illuminati." Ok, this means we are in right?

 There's a certain disconnect between the language of today and that of two centuries ago--even though we are both writing in English Robison and I have been educated in different styles. These styles of writing are products of the culture we were brought up in. That's the only salient difference, we are both men, both literate, educated, and both have the same job--we're both Philosophers. While he would be considered a "Natural Philosopher" and I would be an "Epistemic (?) Philosopher" it's the same tradition. Robison writes more like Aristotle though, and that means when possible he's going to write about the long-dead history of a thing in order to get us to the present. The first two pages of this section are a detailed commentary on the religion of the German people...and I just can't care about this. It's religious infighting between the Lutherans, the Catholics, and the Calvinists. I should be clear that this is interesting stuff,