SOCIALISM: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 53-58

 We’ve learned that Robespierre was in the Illuminati but then so was everyone else that ran the French Revolution, this includes the people that executed the other people that were also in the Illuminati. Just remember for Webster, everyone is in the Illuminati unless there’s a direct connection to someone that can tell her she’s wrong. Then it’s not.

If you think that’s confusing then try this, “Thus Robespierre clearly recognized the necessity for the vast social revolution indicated by Weishaupt; but whilst Weishaupt fixes his eyes on the explosion and ‘smiled at the thought of universal conflagration,’ Robespierre regarded anarchy simply as a means to an end — the reconstruction of society according to the plan he had evolved with the cooperation of Saint-Just, which was an embryonic form of the system known later as State Socialism.”

Webster has two footnotes at the bottom of this page and neither have to do with the quotation she’s making. At this point in the book I feel that we have to consider this purposeful. I am not sure who the target of this book is, but they’re going to walk away from it thinking that she’s got all of the sources. She includes enough references to make us assume that this is all coming from somewhere, but it’s not. There are three possibilities: the first is that she’s making them up. The second is that she’s forgotten to source it. The third is that she knows the reference will be to something unreliable. I think the third is the most likely. The second is possible, but it’s happening too frequently, and the first, well, I’m trying to give her the benefit of the doubt that she’s not just writing fiction.

We’ve spent the majority of this book so far claiming that the Illuminati were in charge, now it’s Robespierre and this Saint-Just. Who are working for socialist ideals, maybe within the Illuminati, I’m not entirely sure. Either way, we know that Webster thinks that Weishaupt only wanted to explode the system, but Robespierre wanted to build Socialism in its place. Neither of these things are accurate tellings of the two men’s ideals. Both wanted to reform the system and perhaps with a little hyperbole one could say that they wanted to tear them down; but both were claiming that the inequality of their times was the problem.

What we’re getting now is the real target of Webster, Socialism or SOCIALISM. The latter being whatever she needs it to be, while the former may have some relationship to the actual ideology. This will harken us back to “None Dare Call it Conspiracy” where Allen openly used the term in two different ways because of the danger that people might actually want some aspects of real socialism.

Was Robespierre the first socialist? No. Not by a long shot. The Anabaptists would be a good example of large socialist movement in Europe in the 16th century. There is no origin for the doctrine of Socialism. The word itself comes from France, and I suppose we could say that modern Socialism has its ideological origin in France. As a philosopher I would dispute the 18th century origin of the idea, but I suppose that would be a matter of legitimate academic debate.

Very quickly socialism the actual thing takes a back seat. Webster is going to perform a song and dance that should be very familiar to us today. She’s going to talk about the evils of “socialism” and “socialists” without ever explaining what they are for.

Take this line for instance, “Robespierre’s cherished maxim, ‘The rich man is the enemy of the sans-culotte.”

She frames this in her long paragraph introducing us to the Socialists of the revolution, and here she includes a citation to a collection of Robespierre’s writings. Robespierre, we will assume, did say this. So, what is the “sans-culotte” in French this is literally “without breeches.” It refers to the working class during the French Revolution who wore pants and not silk breeches below their knees. Robespierre is saying that the rich are the enemy of the working class, and if you understand the context of the French Revolution this isn’t a false statement. The rich ate while the workers starved. Webster is dressing it up and keeping the French because it sounds a little worse than the reality if she refuses to translate or interpret that phrase (the label “Sans-Culotte” would be adopted as a title by some groups of revolutionaries). The aristocracy of France who regressively taxed the people were keeping them poor, she wants us to think that Robespierre is wrong.

Further she laments his other writing, “The people,’ he wrote, ‘must be the object of all political institutions.’ All other classes of the community were to be entirely unrepresented or, preferably, not to be allowed to exist.”

That’s a very careless reading. Who in France would not be considered, “the people?” All that is being claimed here is that if a political institution does not exist to serve the people, then it should not exist. That’s all. The sentiment is against the often strange positions that existed to support the aristocracy in France. The king had an attendant whose job was to wipe his ass. That job doesn’t exist to serve the people, it exists only for the king.

Was there class warfare in France? There was, and the rich were winning. That’s the problem of the French (and eventually the Russian revolution). It’s all a matter of framing. For Webster class warfare is fine as long as it’s the rich oppressing the poor, when the poor (or even just the working class) tries to raise themselves up suddenly class warfare is bad.

Webster is doing her best to hide it, but when she uses phrases like “L’Etat c’est nous” as evidence of the immorality of the revolution she’s purposefully not translating it. All that phrase means is, “we are the state.” I would challenge her to explain why this is bad, and she’ll stumble around because the trick to arguing with people like her is to not let them veer off to other topics.

I will also point out that whenever she can she attempts to liken the French Revolutionaries to the Bolsheviks. I’ll say this, she’s pretty adept at it, unlike when she has tossed in an individual’s possible Jewish heritage. Here, she waited until she got some of the ideals of these alleged French Socialists before she compared those ideals to the Russians. It will likely escape her notice that the reason the two are so easily compared is because they were both suffering under the weight of an over-inflated aristocracy that brutally oppressed them.

We end this week on Webster wanting us to be concerned for the poor aristocracy. She points out that when the aristocracy was destroyed, a bunch of people were unemployed, “thousands of hairdressers, gilders, bookbinders, tailors, embroiderers, and domestic servants wandered about Paris and collected in crowds ‘to debate on the misery of their situation.’”

She then claims that while socialists describe the aristocrats as parasites but they also employed people. Which sure, but, those people will eventually get their jobs back. They have skills that get used. People in the 18th century are still going to need tailors. There is still going to be a need for paper and hair dressers.

What’s happening here is that Webster is attempting to say that the working class needs the aristocracy and not the other way around. Any confusion or delay in the operation of the state is taken as a condemnation of the revolution by Webster, but when the state operates inefficiently or hires six people to do one job because the king needs an entourage; that requires patience by the classes. Webster the fascist wants us to think of the state as existing for itself. This is why she not only abhors the revolution but also any attempt to claim that the people of a state should have a say.