Illuminati
Article
Illuminati is a recurring concept in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 5 times across 5 issues between September 29, 2022 and July 03, 2025. The archive places it in contexts such as ""the Bardic Conspiracy fought the Illuminati in a Lemurian temple buried below Dealy Plaza""; “linked this to the Illuminati, an 18th century German society”; “A lot of Illuminati believers tend to be kind of chill hippies”. It most often appears alongside Trump, Biden, FBI.
Metadata
- Category: Concepts
- Mention count: 5
- Issue count: 5
- First seen: September 29, 2022
- Last seen: July 03, 2025
Appears In
- Universe-Hopping Through Substack
- Sorry, I Still Think I Am Right About The Media Very Rarely Lying
- Conspiracies of Cognition, Conspiracies Of Emotion
- Against Learning From Dramatic Events
- Highlights From The Comments On Missing Heritability
Related Pages
-
- Trump (3 shared issues)
-
- Biden (2 shared issues)
-
- FBI (2 shared issues)
-
- Iraq (2 shared issues)
-
- New York Times (2 shared issues)
-
- Russia (2 shared issues)
-
- Wikipedia (2 shared issues)
-
- [[entities/concept/metoo|#MeToo]] (1 shared issues)
-
- 1 Kings 10-11 (1 shared issues)
-
- 2008 Democratic National Convention (1 shared issues)
-
- 23andme (1 shared issues)
-
- 9-11 (1 shared issues)
External Links
Source Context
Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.
I have now read quite a bit of this book introduction, and I’m still not sure if he means it in a “this is a cool metaphor for how music is subversive and transformative” way, or a “the Bardic Conspiracy fought the Illuminati in a Lemurian temple buried below Dealy Plaza” sort of way. I actually admire the sort of criticality it takes to keep me precisely balanced between these two interpretations. I will be nodding along, listening to him talk about how music is good at evoking strong emotions, thinking he definitely means the metaphor thing, and then he will hit me with paragraphs like:
Here's some more: https://archives.infowars.com/scalias-death-linked-to-bohemian-grove-illuminati/
This story claims that former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died while in the lodge of a secret society with links to Bohemian Grove and (through them) the Bavarian Illuminati.
Infowars does err (as far as I know) in linking this to the Illuminati, an 18th century German society that wanted to rebuild the order of the world upon a foundation of Reason but dissolved before ever doing very much. The article includes a fake history of the Illuminati, so in that sense it is wrong. But Infowars didn’t invent this fake history. For example, the claim that the Illuminati caused the French Revolution didn’t originate with Jones - it was one of the most popular explanations of the Revolution in the late 1700s, before the Revolution was even over! Jones is just citing the authorities of the time! Likewise, here’s a 2011 movie linking Bohemian Grove to the Illuminati - Jones didn’t invent any of this.
But also, some conspiracy theorists don’t really seem to hate their subjects this much. A lot of Illuminati believers tend to be kind of chill hippies who believe without really worrying. Maybe these people are more akin to the Kennedy and Pyramid believers in Part 1?
Obviously a dramatic event can reveal a deeper flaw in your models. For example, suppose there is an enormous terrorist attack, you investigated, and you found that it was organized by the Illuminati, who as of last month switched from their usual MO of manipulating financial markets to a new MO of coordinating terrorist attacks. You should expect new terrorist attacks more often from now on, since your previous models didn’t factor in the new Illuminati policy.
I don't mean to sound hyperbolic but Illumina is kind of like the Illuminati. It's everywhere, monolithic and it's influenced genomics massively.
To me, this reveals how complicated this debate really is. Even for a phenotype with many highly desirable theoretical properties, estimation of heritability is not consistent between methods. IMO, the way to resolve this issue moving forward is to conduct more unified analyses. In other words, apply each of the methods to the same cohort w/the same phenotype definition and see what happens. The RDR study was illuminating in this regard IMO. When sampling & measurement artifacts can be ruled out, the only differences between methods should lie in their actual theoretical properties (e.g. the assumptions they make). The primary obstacle to this, however, is statistical power. This is why I’ll end this thread by re-iterating my desire to see more highly-powered RDR and SibReg analyses moving forward.