The Penultimate: Proofs of a Conspiracy...pp. 199-217

 In this post, I'm left with a weird choice. I could power through to the end of the book and just say, "boom we're done." In fact, that's what I planned to do, but the conclusion isn't wrapping up the way I thought it was going to. Robison is writing a proper conclusion, not a call to arms like his conspiracy theorist progeny. He's plodding through the points that he thinks he's made throughout the work and then gives what he feels is the proper observation. The problem I have is that there isn't much new here to say, and this conclusion is over forty pages (by the pdf) long. I'm not willing to trudge back through the conclusion like I'm playing Halo 3; however, it's also a disservice to the readers who have been with me for this entire book. So, we'll break this down into two posts, with a third post being the wrap-up for the entire book. 

I'm also going to skip over his retread unless there's something I've noticed of importance; I'm only going to comment on the new observations of the things that he's written. 

"This rivalship (that between the rulers of kingdoms) may have begun in any rank of superiors, even between the first managers of the affairs of the smallest communities; and it must be remarked that they only are the immediate gainers or losers in the contest, while those below them live at ease, enjoying many advantages of the delegation of their own concerns."

This is the kind of bullshit that Weishaupt and the actual Illuminati, along with the enlightenment were trying to stop. For a few pages, Robison has been lamenting that the Illuminati want to tear down the monarchies of Europe and overthrow the established order. Robison argues against this by saying that the struggle of Prince versus Prince has been the driver of human civilization. There is some truth to this: the Medici family sought to dominate the Italian Renaissance caused them to bankroll the most famous artists of all time; inventions are sometimes the result of the need for better war machines. This is the case...sometimes. At other times it's simple human greed to build a better system for producing pins, and in others, it's the tinkerers and hobbyists. Those are the impetus for the production of things. It is not the impetus for the development of ideas. 

Ideas come from peace, they come from idleness; they cannot come from the struggle because those struggling have no time to come up with ideas. Sure, Marx formulated his theory during a time of struggle but he's an outlier in the phenomenon, the idea was present when he wrote it...he just wrote it best. Generally, it's the idea that creates struggle. Civilization is only driven forward when an idea comes around that presents a better way to do things. In the 18th century, it was the enlightenment that presented the people with the idea that perhaps those rule by birthright wasn't the best system. 

The other issue I have with this line is that he thinks that the commoners, the hoi polloi, us; are not the immediate losers in these struggles? Sure, we are never the immediate gainers, but we sure as hell lost the quickest. The medieval war was conducted against the serfs. Those noble knights would ride into villages and murder the farmers in order to starve out the region. In the age that Robison is writing, this is not the common practice, but at least then, the prince himself led the charge. For Robison, it is still the Prince v. Prince but the common soldier is a blacksmith, a printer, or a farmer; they lose immediately because they die first. The aristocrats could count on being ransomed. The rules of war in the 18th century forbade armies from directing attacks at officers. 

This is the real crux of the problem that Robison has with regard to this work: he doesn't see how the peasant class in his time can be unhappy. He simply doesn't get it. He chides Rousseau for writing his works for the rich classes while not rubbing elbows with the poor. Ok, maybe that's a legitimate criticism, but the aristocrats are the only ones that can change things without the violent revolution that Robison feels is the main problem. The British constitution is held by Robison, as a document that created the supreme and refined nation of Great Britain, but Robison seems to forget that the English civil war which created that government began with the beheading of King Charles because he wasn't listening to the claims of the Parliamentarians and trying to ignore the will of the people. The struggle of Prince v Prince does not create every step of human civilization but of the status quo against change: where change wins, eventually. 

This wrath against change and the blindness that to the current plight is no more obvious then when he talks about women. Robison seems to think that Illumination will lead to licentiousness; which is true, right? The more women are liberated the more they will assert their wills and that could lead to them engaging in more sex. Yet this is bad only because Robison ignores the human condition. The Christianity that offers women their virtue is an artificial chain. It's ironic because Robison seems to argue that if women are taught by the Illuminati then they will become, "the drudges of man's indolence, or the pampered playthings of his idle hours, subject to his caprices, and slaves to his mean passions."

In an era where a woman could not own property, vote, be educated, or sometimes even hold a job; women aren't free. They aren't as Robison claims "considered by lordly man has his equal, then, and only then, will she be allowed to have any rights, and those rights be respected." 

Does he hear when he says it? If something is a right, then you aren't allowed to have it; it's yours by virtue of birth. If a right can be disrespected--it is, again, not a right. While the Illuminati are not promising universal suffrage, they are at least going to educate, and that's more than any Christian group is promising in the 18th century. 

Ironically, Robison spends a good amount of time employing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Part of the status quo is religion. Weishaupt and his ilk, have all pointed out the problems of mixing religion and politics; but Robison doesn't have an answer to this. Instead, he draws a distinction between religion and True Religion. This is a nice gambit and I've had it thrown at me before. The trick to getting around it is to ask consistent and precise questions about this true religion. Does the true religion endorse slavery? No, ok, does this true religion think men and women are equal? Yes. Oh ok, Does this true religion think poof people should starve to death? Does this true religion think people should burn in an eternal fire because they were taught that a different religion was true: and on and on; until eventually, you arrive at the point where there's no difference between the atheist position and the religious one save the belief in whatever god the person believes in. 

Robison attempts to work the religious angle again. This time he wants to discuss how hypocritical Weishaupt and the Illuminated are because they have developed their ideas from a Christian royal world that gave them the ability to develop their ideas. They have taken the benefits of a Christian society and are now claiming that the very same society should be torn down. 

This is another common argument against atheism that I've experienced. It's an argument that looks good but only at first glance. Christian philosophy grew out of pagan philosophy which they happily threw into the fires. Pagan Rome gave rise to Christian Rome but I do not see Robison arguing a return to the Roman way of doing things...except when it comes to the alleged modesty of the Roman empire under Augustus. 

Finally, for this week, he argues against secret societies. We must remember that a secret society is a society that does not publish its membership. That's it. Robison thinks that there would be no harm in forcing all private clubs to make this public. I'm rather ambivalent about this: on the one hand he's got a point--if you are a happy member of the Diogenes club then why not tell people? On other hand, how many deaths and imprisonments were avoided by the actual Illuminati using pseudonyms and keeping their membership secret when they opposed the Bavarian government? 

Robison was a Mason, and during his membership in that group I doubt he raised the same concern. That was then, their rabble-rousing was legitimate. As Ambrose Bierce defined a radical as tomorrow's conservative today; so we can see that this entire work is neophobia.