No Politics, No Religion: Proofs of a Conspiracy pp. 9-12

I suppose I'm a writer. I write this, obviously, but I also have a bunch of other projects that I've written as well...for the outside world. I've been published in books, other websites, and a magazine; so I get the temptation for literary indulgence when trying to communicate an idea. The temptation, in non-fiction, is to put something that is obviously the author into the writing. It's egotistical, sure, but it's there. I like to confine it to a paragraph. Such as this one, Robison likes 9 pages before introducing the topic. 

An introduction is supposed to do a thing. Usually, it's a short sales pitch on why the person would want to read the book in the first place. My dissertation had an introduction on why conspiracy theories were worthy of academic discussion--a hurdle made much easier by the existence of Covid. Robison has opted for telling his life's story concerning Freemasonry. I have to be fair though, at this point in his life, he's already got enough scientific credentials that people are going to buy his book just because he wrote it. Fine, all of us writer-types strive to be that person that can one-day phone it in. I also understand that Robison is going to have to justify his attack on Masonry but also not sound like an asshole who is just mad that they wouldn't let him play at their clubhouse. Still, nine pages before he introduces his topic is a bit much. 

To recap from the last two posts: Robison's problem with Masonry seems to be that younger people were joining and had little patience for the orthodox members of the group. Instead, they began to mix the other fads of the day into Masonry such as occultism and the quasi-Rosicrucianism that came along with the occult. This offended him, but let's also remember, that he was never really into it in the first place. This last fact is probably going to stick with us for the entirety of the book because it robs him of having a claim that something has changed when this could be a normal social change that eventually got into the Masonic lodges. 

Originally, and in some cases still, the lodges forbid the topic of religion and politics. For the same reason that a local bar would do so: to stop people from fighting. While this policy is great as an idea, it is impossible to enforce in practice. It's just natural that people are going to discuss the things that affect their lives the most. Robison points out that no one in France was keeping this policy...yes in France, in the late 18th century Robison is complaining about the fact that people are talking about politics and religion? Why would someone in France want to talk about those topics...the American Revolution that France basically funded, the fomenting French Revolution, the famines, or maybe that Italian guy who keeps winning battles and will eventually be Emperor of France? No, the men of the lodges should stick to inventing an easier to remove clasp for women's bodices...or whatever he thinks that they should be discussing. 

Robison's claim is that he has discovered that these conversations, those concerning innovations in religion and politics; can be traced to an association with the sole purpose of "ROOTING OUT ALL THE RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS, AND OVERTURNING ALL THE EXISTING GOVERNMENTS OF EUROPE." Robison all-capped that, not me. It's nice to see that shouting in text has been with conspiracy theorists from the beginning. 

Robison blames the association for the French Revolution, and that the Association (I suppose I should be capitalizing it now) still exists in England while reporting to the mother lodge in Munich. Their goal seems to be preaching to the public certain ideas, while at the same time ignoring those ideas for themselves. While at the same time trying to undermine the governments and religion of Europe. 

Let's take this in reverse order: undermining the governments of Europe meant to topple monarchies in the 18th century. Those are the governments of Europe. Germany isn't even Germany at this time, it's a collection of small principalities, similar in Italy. France and Spain, are the only two continental countries that bear any resemblance to what they are today. In 1780, we have the last remnants of the Roman Empire. Yet all of these political entities have one thing in common: they are principalities with some exceptions for places like the Republic of Venice. What Robison fears is the coming of democracy, and he's not going to get it until after Napolean conquers Europe. 

The overthrow of religion is a bit of a misnomer because it's tied in with this fear. The kingdoms that Robison fears for were all legitimized through religion. Overturning one means the other has to go with it. As possible Freemason (I can't find a legitimate source to claim he was, but other sketchy ones do) and French Enlightenment writer Denis Diderot said, mankind will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. They both come with each other. 

Now, the question remains: was there an association that was seeking an end to the monarchical rule over Europe? Yes, we call it the Enlightenment, but it wasn't really an association so much as it was just an intellectual/political movement. 

Robison's fear is letting the rabble decide who is in charge because secretly another master is at work. This is his suspicion because he can't imagine a world that wasn't controlled autocratically. Yet, he claims he's got more than just his prejudice and supposition: he's got proof, "it will be short, but I hope sufficient for establishing the fact, that this detestable Association exists, and its emissaries are busy among ourselves."

Short? This book has 300 pages inside the PDF, the PDF itself has 239 pages. People wrote more back then I guess. What is this Association: It's the fucking Illuminati baby. One of the reasons I picked this book is because it is the first book that gained popularity as an Illuminati conspiracy theory book. In one sentence Robison correctly summarizes that the Illuminati was founded by Dr. Adam Weishaupt in 1775 (1776 actually), a professor of Canon law. He also summarizes that it was abolished by edict of law in 1786 (1787 actually). 

That's where the accuracy ends. Robison claimed that the group reformed all over Germany in a different name, and again the officials tried to break it up. Yet by now, the group was so entrenched that it exists invisible all throughout Europe. This is a claim that is hard to swallow without concrete proof. By his own admission, the Illuminati was disbanded in 1786 (1787). Ok, it than reformed "immediately after." 

How? It is possible that Weishaupt pulled up his tent and then moved somewhere else and set up shop...he didn't. He went to Gotha, in modern Germany, where he died in 1830. The membership of the Illuminati just went in their own ways. Some joined, as Robison accuses, the Masons; but that's because the Illuminati was wannabee Masonry only it has a political aim of teaching reason to the population. Some joined the Masons because it was a natural move rather than just abandoning the idea of being in a club. That's a side issue, I'm sure that we have to revisit, the problem that I have is that the Illuminati simply don't have the time to entrench themselves in all of Europe. They end in 1787 and this book is published in 1798. This means that Robison if he wrote this book that year, had twelve years to infiltrate all of the Masonic lodges in Europe and begin recruiting people of all rank and profession.

Hell of a thing to happen so quickly. Is it even possible? Well, Robison is going to discuss this in the first chapter, Schisms in Free Masonry and we will begin that next week.