England Forever: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 341-End

 We’re finally at the end of this book. Let’s see how she wraps it up.

Last week we were treated to her rather late introduction to Christianity as being the savior of, uh, human civilization. She claims that only Christianity can save us, but throughout this whole book I haven’t been able to pin down what Christianity has power over. She wants us to believe that this (whatever “this” means) is a fight between good and evil, and to get there we have to jump through some special pleading hoops, “The words of Joseph de Maistre who, like Barruel, regarded the French Revolution merely as the first stage in the campaign, must be taken as the battle-cry of the White Army today: ‘the French Revolution is Satanic in its principle and can be only really killed, exterminated, and finished by the contrary principle.”

Right after quote she puts the French original in parenthesis, which is not something she’s consistently done throughout this book. Once in a great while, we got the original French. In academic writing there are two reasons that an author would do this. The first is that the translation is controversial. For example, in Aristotle’s Metaphysics we might get a sentence that has an academic debate over its translation and the author has to pick one. If it is a particularly controversial line, you pick the interpretation and then put something like (following Pryor’s translation of …). The other is when it is your translation of the line that no one has ever seen before. I’m not disputing Webster’s translation here—it is very likely correct given that Maistre was a monarchist, Catholic, and a Catholic monarchist who believed that all secular authority was given by Catholic God.

I will dispute the idea that is being cited here in that I would like to see these “Satanic Principles” written out by someone who is pro-Satan. Just show me one of those people and their beliefs. The “Satanic Principles” are always everything that people like Webster need them to be. Whether it’s overthrowing the Monarchy, increasing the power of the worker union, or using resources to feed the poor. Satanic principles are all of these things, more, and less. Because they mean everything, they actually end up meaning nothing.

Only the English can save us now. Seriously. We are going to end the book on a love letter to England. The juxtaposition between her quoting de Maistre and exhorting England to be the last bastion of Christian resistance to the revolution is fun. Maistre would not regard England as Christian. They would be a heretical Christianity and their adherence to Anglicanism in defiance of the Pope would be considered proof that England had already fallen.

She drops quotation after quotation about how great it is that England hasn’t fallen and its important to the world. For example, she quotes Marx, “Every religion that does not spread to England is a storm in a tea-cup.” Marx’s point was about the socialist revolution and England, having the most powerful economy in the world at the time would be a pivotal moment in the upcoming revolution. So yes, if there were no socialist revolution in England the movement would be dead. I will give that to her. Yet she frames the quote and orbits a few others around it as somehow meaning that it was impossible for England to succumb. While the English monarchy would endure as well as its government—the socialists did make gains. Webster would likely count these as failures of the revolution but that is because she has never been interested in what they actually wanted rather only what she thinks they wanted.

The entire paragraph ends with her making claim that people say Lenin is the biggest obstacle to the success of Bolshevism in England. She writes this with her characteristic refusal to cite or explain. I don’t know what the average English view of Lenin was in the 1920s, what I do know is that Socialism existed in England far before Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

If only we listened to her then we would be safe from the boogeyman that she created. This is the book that will keep the Illuminati conspiracy alive, but we have learned very little about it. All we know is that it is coming, what “it” is may be the revolution itself; but what it will do is not something she has explained; and she’s going to end the book without explaining it.

“Illuminism is mustering all its forces for a supreme onslaught in our own country at the present moment.” What forces? Do they have an army? This is just rhetoric designed to fool the rubes that she thinks are still reading. Ultimately, she has two problems: the rubes, the type of people that will be fooled by this book who stopped reading a long time ago. They probably got through the first two chapters but then checked out at history of French revolutions. The other problem is that the people that have read to the end have already tired of these facile claims.

Then she ends the entire book, “Is it possible that this little island of ours is finally to stem the tide of World Revolution and save not only herself but Christian Civilization?”

She ends her book with a question. I will literally fail a student’s paper if they end on a question. Ending on a question is the coward’s way of writing. You might hear writing instructors talk about the passive versus the active voice; I prefer passive to this kind of writing. She’s asking us? It’s her book, she should be telling us.

Ending on a question is weakness. It’s asking us, the reader, to decide for ourselves; but to decide for the book. Is the world revolution all powerful or not? If I answer ‘no’ then the entire book is meaningless. If I answer “yes” then the threat is real, but nothing can be done.

If we answer her question “no” then we’re in the same place, England cannot stop it so its inevitable. If we answer “yes” then there’s nothing to worry about because she spent the entire paragraph telling us how the revolution will fail if it cannot gain hold in England. What does she want us to think? I don’t know because it’s a bad question. She should just say something like, “unless we do something our tiny island will fall to the forces of German/Jewish/Illuminism. That would be a better ending.