Context: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 17-20

 We’re in the chapter titled “Illuminism” and we’ve only talked about the philosophy of Rousseau. I’m going to hazard a guess that the reason we’re concentrating on Rousseau and French philosophy is because Webster’s big book, the one she became famous for was about the French revolution. I’m not going to criticize; you go with what you know. Unfortunately, Webster, doesn’t really know French Philosophy, “Even eighteenth-century France, with all its avidity for novelty and its dreams of “a return to nature,” never regarded the primitive Utopia of Rousseau in the light of an attainable ideal.”

Even Rousseau didn’t think a return to a state of nature was a good idea. He was merely offering, as a thought experiment, where inequality came from. Webster is correct that Rousseau’s ideas never really trickled down to the common folk, but that’s only because of literacy rates. The ideas that the poor were only poor because the rich made them and are keeping them so; those ideas spread. Rousseau isn’t responsible for the French Revolution, there were lots of causes for that, but his ideas are part of the avalanche.

Then we get into it: “It is not then to the philosophers, but to the source when they drew many of their inspirations, that the great dynamic force of the Revolution must be attributed. Rousseau and Voltaire were Freemasons…”

Our first three pages of text were fine. I thought we would slowly wade into conspiracism, but we’re just going to jump in with both feet. Webster’s argument is confusing. Her position is that Rousseau’s ideas just circulated within the salons and cafes of the learned and aristocratic types. The revolution was only slightly affected by them, in truth, it was the Masons from whom the theories of Voltaire and Rousseau were derived that caused the revolution. Maybe I can swallow that from a conspiracy theory standpoint, but then she ends here paragraph with this: “the organization of the Secret Societies was needed to transform the theorizing of the philosophers into a concrete and formidable system for the destruction of civilization.”

What that means is the Secret Societies took the ideas of the philosophers, ideas that were inspired by the secret societies, and then made them real—even though those ideas didn’t cause the revolution. This is like a Celtic knot of reasoning.

She lays the idea of public property at the hands of something called the “Confrererie de la Paix,” an agreement in 1185 that sought to maintain peace by unifying property under a common cause. There’s little on the internet about this. The best I can find is a Wikipedia entry for the organization that made the 1185 agreement. It seemed that by uniting against the nobility, they made enemies and quickly faded into obscurity. Even the Catholic encyclopedia’s entry (from which the Wikipedia entry is largely taken from) warns that evidence about this group is untrustworthy. Webster is getting her information from an 1817 book “Recherches politiques et historiques) which there is no easy accessible English translation for. I can read very little French, but definitely not academic French from the early 19th century.

Webster begins listing some historical examples of individuals seeking revolution against the masters of the world. Albigeois (from which I think we get the Albigensian Crusade) and a Hungarian priest named Jacobi; both of which sought to topple the church and aristocracy…maybe. The Albigensian Crusade was to root out the Cathars, it was a war of Christians against those they deemed heretics. The Cathars were proto-Socialist but also believed in equal rights for women (relative to the time, but women could serve as Priests), non-violence, and vegetarianism. The Priest Jacobi needs more context; it was a common name back then.

But then we get the Templars. The literal Jedi knights of the conspiracy world. Webster’s take is a bit odd. The normal conspiracy theory take is to follow the old Vatican/French monarchy story and claim that they were heretics and devil worshipers, who, once suppressed, escaped with their treasure and formed the Illuminati, the Freemasons, and whatever other boogeymen the theory needs. Webster isn’t painting them as innocent victims, instead she’s claiming that they instead challenged the authority of the French King, Phillip the Fair (the heretical stuff is also included). Historically, what happened is that Phillip and his puppet the Pope ordered the arrest of the Templars because Phillip needed money, and the Templars had lots of it.

Those Templars which escaped then formed the necessary boogeymen for Webster’s conspiracy theory—which in this case is the Freemasons in Europe. English Masonry developed differently, and Webster lets us know that this book isn’t going to deal with any of that. However, she has to explain how there can be two groups of people with the same name—and one of them is the all-powerful secret ruler of the world while the other is just fine. Both groups derive their existence from the Rosicrucian society a very obscure group who printed leaflets in the early 1600s and might have been a hoax from day one. Also, European and British Masonry derive their charters, according to Webster from the grand lodge of London, but nevertheless, the two are different.

Webster claims that the British version is actually a practicing trade guild, which is not the case. I’m sure that there were still masons and stoneworkers in the group, but to be a Mason did not require actual Masonry by the 1700s. Either way, we get an interesting cross reference as Webster cites Robison’s “Proofs of a Conspiracy Against…” as proof that the English lodges weren’t bad.

If we remember from our coverage of Robison’s book, Robison was never a member. He claimed that he had visited a few times, invited by friends of his for gatherings. The quote that Webster uses, “nothing touching religion or government shall ever be spoken of in the Lodge,” is not a trustworthy quote. First off, it’s quite impossible to ban such things, especially when you have revolution in Europe, from being discussed. Secondly, Robison is only there for parties, he’s not privy to the day-to-day discussions between British Masons—some of which would have been political and social figures of some importance.

Webster is going to lean on this book because it confirms her conclusion, but this short of a quote without context is unbecoming of an actual historian. Citing Robison’s book is unbecoming of a historian.

I think we are only going downhill from here.