The New French Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 143-149

I’m trying to figure out who the villain is in our story. Of course it’s the Illuminati, but it’s also the Socialists. It’s anyone that that challenges the status quo. So what’s interesting about the Revolution of 1830 is that this was a revolution against the new status quo put in place by the Illuminati after the only free period of Europe: that which took place during the reign of Napolean.

So the Bourgeoise monarchy comes into power and like all monarchies it becomes one that ignores the plight of the people and serves only itself. Which, ok, that’s just how monarchies go—it’s how the one prior to 1789 went that Webster claimed was “for” the people. So then in 1848, the next revolution begins but Webster is claiming, again, that this was organized “by the Secret Societies, directed by the Socialists, executed by the working-men and aggravated by the intractable attitude of the King and his ministers, the second great outbreak of World Revolution took place.”

She admits that there were economic and political problems that people of France were having with the new regime. She even says that the people of 1848 had more complaints than the people of 1789, yet it is the evil secret societies that needed to create the revolution. Maybe put the responsibility on those in charge instead of having to postulate mystical societies to create the revolution.

We’re told that the revolution was going well and even those in charge began to see the folly of their ways and they began to make concessions to the revolution. Usually this happens because those in charge see which way the wind is blowing and try not to hold on to something or at least appear to be generous and sympathetic.

We’re discussing the revolutionary reforms and then we get this paragraph, “But the art of the revolutionaries has always been to check reforms by alienating the sympathies of the class in power, and they had no intention of allowing the people to be contented by pacific measures or to look to any one but themeselves for salvation.”

An abrupt non-sequitur as she provides no proof or even accusations for this. It’s just a thing she writes that is followed by a report on a Masonic congress which was held in 1847. I don’t see the point of this report other than to imply that the one caused the other. As a historian I would like to see her justification for mentioning the congress, which occurred before the revolution, after it. It would make more sense to put these things in chronological order, i.e. in 1847 there was a Masonic congress…and in 1848 another French Revolution broke out.

Our friend Piccolo Tigre makes a return. Webster tells us that he congratulated himself on the successful revolution two years before it broke out. The timeline is all over the place because she’s fishing for proof. Piccolo Tigre may never have existed as a single individual, he/they were also part of the Italian revolution in the mid 19th century, it’s very difficult to say what this character is doing in a discussion of the 1848 French revolution.

Conspiracy books need editors to cut this out. If she wants to make a link she can do so, but she has to make the link. Instead, we get feelings of linkages and the implications that all of the Revolutions of Europe in the mid 19th century were the result of a guiding force rather than the conditions inflicted upon the commoners during the emerging industrial revolution.

Even more mysterious than her chronology is that she lays out more reasonable causes for the French revolution. She points out that the French government was full of ministerial corruption, so much so, that she cites Alexander de Tocqueville condemnation of the corruption and the warning he gave that such behavior would create the conditions for a new revolution. Then because she gets so close to an actual explanation she has to throw out a masonic banquet as a factor in all of this.

She may not be wrong. Those individuals discontent with the French monarchy may have met in a Masonic lodge, they may have even discussed plans; but this isn’t a cause this is a coincidence even if those situations happened.

What this section has told us is that there were numerous factors that contributed to the revolution. These included high unemployment, electoral disenfranchisement, and severe political corruption. She’s laid this out pretty well and after all that she’s like, “it’s the Illuminati’s fault.” This is her book, she doesn’t have to give us the real stuff, but she does her best to undermine her own position.