The Rights of Man: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 87-90

 Last post we covered a very long section where Webster mostly stuck to her historical guns with a spattering of conspiracy thrown into it. This week’s post will be full on Illuminati conspiracy. The layout of this chapter is strange; I would think that the organization of it would be the reverse but then I began wondering how clever Webster really is. If I want to give her a bunch of credit, and I don’t, but I have to float the possibility that she’s laying this out to confound the skeptics. You start reading the story of Babeuf and it just reads like her personal gripe with a proto-Socialist and nothing more. Someone like me would set it down at this point, but if you keep reading it becomes the Illuminati conspiracy that we all know and love.

The trouble for my theory is that this would also be how her intended audience would read the book too. Sure, Babeuf is described as someone that worked for the Illuminati or was in charge of them…Webster muddles that up; but the real conspiracy is past where her people would stop reading.

This portion of the conspiracy begins by name dropping Illuminati member Zwack/Cato (Franz Xavier Zwack) who visited Oxford for a little bit. This isn’t that strange, Zwack was German nobility and visited around a bit. We get a few other names who “met with some degree of success,” but she never explains what that success was or where. Then she name drops Thomas Paine, “Amongst these was the celebrated Thomas Paine, who was later on to be betray his connection with the Illuminati by his work, The Age of Reason, written in France whilst the ‘Feasts of Reason’ were taking place in the churches of Paris.” She claims that because of Paine several Masonic lodges in France were becoming “illuminized.” Paine’s goal was to bring about a social revolution in England once they were done with France. The process would be to form revolutionary societies such as the London Corresponding Society. Webster claims that there is little connection between the social upheaval that is the goal of people like Paine and these Corresponding societies which proves the Illuminati’s hand.

Of course, this is an argument of ignorance—the proof is that there is no proof or else it would be obvious.

Let’s scroll back for a moment to Thomas Paine. Of all the American Founders, I’ve read the most of Paine. Specifically, Webster mentions Paine’s book “The Age of Reason” as betraying the Illuminati doctrine which was written while the feasts of reason were happening in Paris. What she isn’t saying is that “The Age of Reason” was written by Paine in a French prison where he was awaiting execution at the hands of the revolutionary government. What she isn’t saying is that “The Age of Reason” is Paine’s refutation of the Bible by using the words of the Bible against itself. This is a book that advocates against the idea of revealed religion and instead advocates for Deism (the Epicurean idea where the divine being is disinterested in the lives of the mortals). There isn’t a lick of Illuminism in this work unless you want to argue that not being enthralled to a theocracy is Illuminism. What I don’t know is whether Webster is ignorant or lying, it has to be one of those.

The case for the latter is strong in that I’m so used to the method of these books and their writers that I know she knows no one is going to follow up. The case for ignorance is strong too because she could just be an idiot who meant to reference Paine’s book “The Rights of Man” which does advocate for a continued revolution defending the French revolution from attacks by English writers like Edmund Burke. I’m leaning towards her lying because it’s a much better line to write that he wrote “the Age of Reason” while “Feasts of Reason” were taking place; secure in the knowledge that no one is going to call her out for it.

Webster writes like the London Corresponding Society was the first organization in England to argue against the English style of government and a dissolution to the aristocracy there. It’s obvious that after the American and French revolution that the average English person would be inspired, but Webster should pay attention to her own history because she forgets The Levellers. This was a group in the 17th century that argued against the aristocracy, for popular sovereignty, and extended suffrage. Since the group predates both Paine and Weishaupt; Webster has to pretend that everyone was totally cool with the organization of British society before they came along.

The claim is that groups like the London Corresponding society were being directed by some grand council, but like always this is wishful thinking. For a fascist like Webster, the idea that regular people would stop knowing their place and rise up is a concept so foreign that there must be a foreign influence, “It is certainly not British bootmakers or mechanics who devise such phrases as ‘Citizens of the World,’ the ‘Imprescriptible Rights of Man,’ or who would have bethought themselves of beginning a letter to the Convention of Paris with the words: ‘Illustrious senators, enlightened legislators, and dear friends!””

Like I hoped to impart in you when we delved into the Protocols, you have to read this and get upset at these phrases. Upset at the idea of being a “citizen of the world” or calling other people “dear friends,” this is what she wants.

What people like her cannot understand is that regular people don’t like being oppressed. While the average English person in the 18th century isn’t being constantly flogged or whipped into building a Pyramid, they are oppressed by a system that renders them lesser by virtue of birth.

This week’s section ends with her trying to explain that if it weren’t for the Illuminati, the people of Ireland would be happy British subjects. The Irish have never been happy British subjects; they’ve never “known their place” in the aristocracy. The Irish have never needed help learning this fact either, the only thing they’ve ever really needed was material. It’s amazing how aloof Webster is about here. However, we’ll come back next week with some more specific claims about the Illuminati’s role in convincing the Irish to no longer want to be British subjects.