Leaning On Robison: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 48-53

 One feature of conspiracy theory writing is that they do not assume you’ve read the other books. This feature exists because conspiracy theorists always think that they are the smartest people in the room. You couldn’t know the things they know or else they would not need to tell you about it. So conspiracy theorists have an easy task of collecting a bunch of information and then twisting it to suit their needs knowing that their audience is very unlikely to check up on this information and that real authorities are not going to bother. When Gary Allen cites Carroll Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope” to prove his point about the secret cabal running everything, the assumption is that Allen has read it. However, Allen is making the opposite assumption—that you haven’t. Indeed, as I pointed out in my coverage of “None Dare Call it Conspiracy,” Carroll Quigley chimed in to claim that Allen was full of shit.

In turn, Webster is going to rely on the fact that most of her audience has not and is not going to read Robison’s work. The best she can say is that they might own it, but I doubt any of her readers have gotten to page 20. Remember, that was a rough book to read.

She claims, for example, that Robison said that the Jacobin clubs in France were organized by the revolutionary committees under the direct inspiration of the Bavarian Illuminati. Except no, he did not say that. The Illuminati was confined to Germany and specifically Bavaria. When Robison’s chapter on the group concludes Weishaupt leaves the group to talk about the German reading societies—when he does get to the French revolution he’s mostly correct about the king and the poverty in France. What Robison then does is concentrate on the real villain which is Enlightenment philosophy.

When he does return to the Illuminati and the French Revolution this is what he says, “That the Illuminati and other hidden Cosmo-political societies had some influence in bringing about the French Revolution , or at least accelerating it, can hardly be doubted.–in reading the secret correspondences, I was always surprised at not finding any reports from France, and something like a hesitation about establishing a mission there; nor am I yet able thoroughly to account for it.”

He assumes that they are responsible but then is mystified by the fact that no one in the group mentions it. All of Robison’s positions regarding the Illuminati and the French Revolution are him assuming they are involved, because they were also tied to the ideals of the Enlightenment. It’s not as far as a stretch as people like David Icke will make, but it’s still a really far stretch. Webster either doesn’t realize this or knows that her audience isn’t going to realize this.

There’s a slight aside about women in the revolution, that ends as abruptly as it begins; and I’m just taking a pass on those three paragraphs.

As Webster tells it, the Illuminati’s plan was now in motion. They closed the Masonic lodges because they could be centers of counter-revolution. Which, is a good plan and makes sense as long as we ignore that she’s told us that the Illuminati had infiltrated and taken over all of the lodges.

Then the Terror begins. Webster has this idea that the Illuminati controlled everything during the Revolution including the parts that conflict with the other parts. If the Terror was part of Robison’s plan, it would seem best to open with that, and not have a period of relative calm followed by the Terror. Her claim is that even celebrated scientists like Antoine Lavosier were executed because “the Republic has no need of chemists;” and that the Illuminati were attempting to destroy civilization in France.

The loss of Lavosier is tragic, but it is owed more to his ties with the aristocracy and his work in the Ferme Generale, which was running the tax program directly for the King. Lavosier was accused of financial impropriety, but the Republic later exonerated him after his execution.

“But this does not imply that all the Terrorists were Illuminati, that is to say, conscious adepts of Weishaupt. It is true that, as we have seen, all were Freemasons at the beginning of the Revolution, but it is probable that few were initiated into the inner mysteries of the Order.”

We’re back to this game. Every revolutionary/terrorist is assumed to be in the Illuminati until we dig for proof. When we cannot find it, then they’re probably not one of them; but some must certainly have been, it’s just that they were sworn to secrecy. This is her dodging any accusation that she’s wrong by appealing to ignorance. You can’t know that no one was in the Illuminati, so therefore some of them must be. It’s a very poor strategy.

As far as globalizing the French Revolution Webster has the character of Anacharsis Clootz. Cloots (she misspells his name) was a person who advocated for a world government. Which is an interesting idea and probably not feasible in the 18th century because of communication delays, but his ideas would be adopted by later influential people when such an organization was feasible.

Was Cloots an Illuminatus? Webster answers, “The fact that he never revealed himself to be an Illuminatus and never referred to Weishaupt was in strict accordance with the rule of the Order, which we shall find adhered to by every adept in turn.”

The proof is that he never said it, and that’s how you know. Cloots will die at the guillotine, which is an odd fate for someone so powerful in the organization that was running the Terror. In truth, the revolutionary government had him executed because he was a foreigner and was not concentrating the revolution on France but felt it could be exported to the rest of Europe. Cloots is the victim of power grabbing by Robespierre who didn’t want foreign influence in the Revolution.

The question you might have is how could the Illuminati allow Cloots to be executed? Or perhaps, couldn’t they have stopped Robespierre? Was Robespierre an Illuminatus? Well, here is where Webster loses the thread. She asks this question and then answers that Robespierre was certainly a Mason of one of the lodges that Weishaupt controlled. Then she spins out of control by talking about the proto socialists inspired by Rousseau.

Our biggest problem with this is that the reason even she asks if Robespierre was a member is because we want to know how/why he was able to execute Cloots if all Cloots was doing was carrying out the will of the Illuminati. It’s the most honest question she asks, but she cannot answer it so instead she dodges.

Next week, we’ll find out if she means “socialism” as the actual definition or “SOCIALISM” as Gary Allen defined it (meaning it is whatever he didn’t like).