Correspondence

Dear Mr. Marco di Luchetti:

First of all I hope your work. on further publications is advancing well. Can you already tell when your treatise on Caliogstro will be available?

This time I would like to ask you why, in your opinion, the role of secret societies in the French Revolution has been so thoroughly omitted by the overwhelming majority of works on the French Revolution.

The first possible explanation would suggest that historians have acted on purpose and that they did so on behalf of the very secret societies.

But unless I am mistaken, doesn´t the French Grand Orient, for instance, openly and proudly claim to have been the prime mover and shaker of the French Revolution?

On the other hand, if historians were and are free to write on the subject whatever they wish, why did almost all of them chose not to shed light on this crucial aspect?

Certainly you have thought about this and I would be grateful if you shared your opinion.

Thanks a lot A

Yes, I am pretty sure what the reason is.

The French Revolution was perceived in the US negatively, while positively in France-- meaning the ones of 1789 and 1792, and not the one of Robespierre in temporary alliance with the dechristianizers of 1793.

The issue of secret societies raised their heads in national issues in the USA that made the French role of secret societies something necessary to represss information about to protect political issues.

First, Genet in the 1792 era was in the USA influencing politics, and the papers / writers aligned with those groups attacked the thesis of secret societies playing a role in the Whiskey Rebellion, etc.

This arose a second time when the first true political party in the USA was the Anti-Masonic Party of 1828. This party arose from a controversy where Freemasons were accused of having killed William Morgan. This was an overreaction, blaming all masons for a killing which may indeed have been performed by masons, but it was never proven to be a direction from within masonry. So here the institution of masonry was caught up in a national scandal. It became more and more imperative in the USA to ridicule mention of the secret societies in the French revolution -- wherein the enemies of masonry in the USA always focused mostly on the 1793 hybrid Revolution -- of Robespierre on one side and the dechristianizers on the other (who partnered with Robespierre to only find he would execute them soon as 'ultra-revolutionaries.) .

So a series of American writers ridiculed as late as 20 years ago the entire notion, while in Europe author after author endorses it... a true disconnect of history-writing if ever there was one. But again, the reason is in Europe, the French Revolutions of 1789 and 1792 were viewed positively, with little focus on the one of 1793 where Robespierre was toppled, while in the USA, all the focus was on the revolution of 1793, and especially the dechristianizers within the movement. This different focus is the ultimate cause of the historical disconnect between American versus European writers.

If you read my book, you will see that the lines of revolution need careful separation so people can finally see what side the secret societies were promoting, and where the renegades branched away from them into what we know today as the negative aspects of the 1793 revolution -- the terror and the dechristianizing movement. Once Americans do so, I am confident that they will have no problem in finally realizing the dechristianizers were a radical defection within the Illuminati ranks who broke away from Brissot, Bonneville, Fauchet, Lafayette, Paine, etc. -- the true Bavarian Illuminati in the Revolution. Both the true Illuminati and the defectors like Cloots were destroyed simultaneously by Robespierre. Hence, the Masons and leaders of the Illuminati are not to blame for the 1793 revolution, in particular the terror or the dechristianizers.

And consequently, once my book is given a serious read, I think all the hand-ringing of who is to blame will disappear. Then the perceived need to ridicule the secret society thesis will disappear. My hope is that then we will sanely interpret the events objectively, and the big worry about repercussions will cease influencing on how this period of history is described.

And then we will realize that secret societies can have an important impact on world history. And subsequent events will need equal objectivity to find the lines of their activity. But until the solution is finally recognized for the French Revolutions, I doubt anyone will listen to later events explained by reference to the roles of the secret societies.

Let me know any other questions you have.

Marco