The International: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 192-201

 After having spent an inordinate amount of time on the Anarchist Bakunin, we move back to Karl Marx—the Socialist, and also Jew because Webster needs to point that out to us.

We have to keep one important thing in mind: that is Webster has offered no refutation of Marx’s “Socialism.” She’s not addressed Bakunin’s “Anarchism.” She’s using these terms as villains, but we haven’t been told why they are worse than the status quo. Normally, I would have to offer some defenses of 19th century Socialism or at least put it into context; but I don’t need to do that because Webster isn’t giving me anything to work with. The only context we need to know is that Webster is writing at a time when Socialists are making strides in England, the Industrial revolution has highlighted the class division, and the entire world economy is going to flounder because of WWI and its aftermath. Webster needs someone to blame and she’s going to blame Marx.

Webster’s villains are fairly obvious. We would get the same kind of screeds today if she were alive. What’s interesting is some of her heroes, “The path of peaceful progress was paved the more smoothly by the action of Napolean III., who in May of this same year repealed the laws against Trade Unions and replaced them by a fresh edict threatening with punishment any concerted attempt, either on the part of employers or employed, to paralyse industry by malicious strikes or lock-outs.”

Napolean III, friend of the working man who has outlawed strikes. I will eventually have to read a biography of Napolean III because it is him that inspires the book that eventually gets plagiarised into the infamous “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” which we read during Bill Cooper’s “Behold a Pale Horse.” Napolean III is not a hero in history. It’s not easy to find someone to defend him either. His defeat in Mexico gave the world the “Cinco de Mayo” holiday. He was very strict on censorship and apparently on trade unions.

The action of Napolean III is cited as a measure of equality which levels the playing field between masters and the worker; but how? I want to see this argument, because the master can no longer lock the doors; but they will open them up as soon as they can find cheaper labor. There is no balance being struck here. The strike is no longer possible but that doesn’t mean equality; it just means that the workers can no longer do the one thing that they have as a bargaining tool. Webster claims that when two Bronziers from Paris met Marx in London, “From that moment the cause of the workers was lost.”

For her labor unions, socialism, and any kind of organized movement against those in charge has never resulted in anything—she’s absolutely wrong about this; but for a fascist like her the people should just be grateful that they’re not getting shot in the street.

What happens is that the Parisian workers meet Marx in London and then take his ideas back to France. Even though, by her own admission, Marx doesn’t insert himself into the cause directly. Instead, he becomes a kind of advisor to the First International. This is supposed to be evidence of a plot, but it’s because Marx is super famous for being the socialist. This was the intent of the Communist Manifesto; and as someone with a doctorate in philosophy he adds a legitimacy to the cause. It would have made sense to include his ideas or for these French workers to just ask him, “hey could you take a look at this draft before we publish it?”

Webster wants to use this as a discredit to Marx, that again, he was taking credit for creating something that wasn’t his—but she neglects to tell us when Marx took credit for it. That’s as important as when she failed to properly explain how Marx stole the ideas of Socialism.

The First International, was a large collection of various European worker groups, trade unions, and socialist societies. It was thought that one large group would be more effective than the disparate smaller groups that existed throughout Europe—especially when the cause was the same. This was in 1864 and the group would split in 1872 over ideological differences. It was fairly effective at spreading the socialist message throughout Europe and the United States.

It’s supposed to the be the end or the grand plan of the Illuminati, but like all of the concrete examples it falls short of being evidence of anything since the organization itself fell apart. Every time these conspiracy theorists point at a piece of evidence that proves the all-powerful conspiracy they point at ruins. It would be laughable if these people’s ideas weren’t so terribly impactful.

Webster follows with a series of quotes from Marx’s letters where he points out that he didn’t like one group or that he thought another group was doing things wrong. It;s very boring and she doesn’t quote Marx directly, she quotes books that have these lines and that has not been reliable in previous attempts.

She wants us to look at these divisions and think to ourselves: oh, that Marx guy was bad, “If then it was the prosperity of the French peasant that roused Marx’s ire, we might at least expect him to extend some sympathy towards the poor and destitute amongst the working -classes…”

Note the “if” at the beginning of that sentence because it’s doing a lot of work. Marx didn’t hate the French peasant for their prosperity; he hated them for not caring about anything else. The context here is that farmers in the French countryside were still benefitting from the old regime and were thus ambivalent about the struggles of anyone else. They were like the indifferent whites that King says were the biggest obstacle to equality in the civil rights movement: they gave mouth service to equality, but when it came to actually doing something they shied away unwilling to risk the peace that they were enjoying.

The rest of the paragraph Webster tries to argue that Marx also hated the poor amongst the working classes but then she uses Bakunin’s words to describe Marx’s attitude. If it were so obvious that Marx hated poor workers, then surely, he would have written it himself.

From Marx we return to Bakunin…I think Webster has a little crush on him given that she’s already apologized for spending so much time on him but then keeps going back. It’s an odd thing because of the Marx/Bakunin split. If it’s all part of the same plan, then why have the competing organizations and characters? This is almost as overcomplicated as a 9/11 truther’s explanation for what happened. Ultimately though, this plot is lacking a goal. We’re supposed to be fearing the Socialist/Anarchist/Illuminati/Jewish plot but we’ve never been told why. Luckily, we return to the Illuminati in the next section.