The Revolution Begins: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 43-48

 Webster is better than the others at chapter breaks. I have to give her that. The second chapter begins with just enough lead up to the French Revolution, and just enough recap, that the pacing of the book only seems strange because of the dreck that we’ve been reading before.

“In the following month the Revolution broke out.”

It’s time to get into it. Conspiracy theorists have an odd focus on the French Revolution and it’s because of this book. American conspiracy theorists have an odd focus on the French Revolution and it’s because of this book. For all of Alex Jones’s pretend raving about 1776 he really wants 1789. I’ll mention this to my courses: the French Revolution is such a focus because for Europe, it seemed impossible. The American Revolution was happening “over there” and not in Europe; so it was a bit more abstract. When the French Revolution happens, it’s much more serious, because it is the Ancien Regime that is overthrown.

Webster, to her credit, admits this, “Still an examination of facts shows that there was very real cause for discontent, more on the part of the peasants than of the industrial workers. The Game Laws or capitaineries—by which the crops of the peasants could be trampled down by the hunt or destroyed by the game—the salt tax or gabelle, the enforced labour known as the corvee, the dues paid to the landlords, and a host of other agricultural grievances, but above all, the iniquitous inequality of taxation, were burdens that the people very naturally resented.”

She then goes on to explain that although the King urged reform and the aristocracy could be moved; the philosophy of Rousseau had opened the eyes of the people. Alright, I like it. This is pretty much where historians land as well. There were all kinds of problems, the poor people were being exploited, and a bunch of writing demanding reforms was spreading through the populace. Webster ignores a few things, such as a regressive tax placed on the commoners to make up for the debts of one of France’s wars. The church’s role in all of this, and the rise of a merchant class which was the only group keeping France’s economy afloat but had no power. I assume that all of this is in her larger book which is just on the French Revolution and is regarded as a normal historical book.

Webster shifts gears by declaring the Revolutionaries to have helped make the problems worse in order to stir discontent. I don’t find this argument compelling because how could the revolutionaries affect the tax law of France in order to make things worse? How could they affect agricultural policy so that famines occurred in greater strength? They couldn’t, unless they were the aristocrats in which case—there’s no difference between what the conspiracy theory is claiming and what actually occurred aside from motive.

We then get a short aside on Prussia. It seems that Prussia had a geopolitical interest in a destabilized France, which, yes. So Webster then begins laying some of the cause of the Revolution on Prussia and Frederick the Great. The funny thing about her accusation is that Prussia under Frederick was able to dodge a revolution by initiating the very kinds of reforms that the people were clamoring for. He even used French taxation experts to institute a form of indirect taxation. All of this was likely possibly in Prussia because of Frederick’s role as a leader, while the French monarchy seemed to lack any kind of will.

The rivalry between Prussia and France would continue. Webster isn’t blowing our minds that Prussia would seek to undermine France. I don’t think any of her readers are being wowed here. Fredericks successor, the one who will live to see the Revolution sends agents into France, “chief amongst them a Jew named Ephraim…”

We’ve established that Webster is grossly anti-Semitic. This little sentence fragment is the best proof thus far because it’s so unnecessary and abrupt. Who is this Ephraim? What did he do? Does he have a last name? Webster might have well named him Moses Abraham Jewstein if she wanted to hit us harder with it. There’s no citation, there’s nothing.

Here is the game that Webster is playing, and it’s a game that a lot of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists play. They don’t come out and say “Jews did it.” They just make sure that the audience is made aware when someone is Jewish. Or, in this case, throw in a Jewish name once in a while so that “their role” in whatever plot is always simmering beneath the surface. Don’t make it too obvious and you can kind of get away with it, you just need to keep people “noticing.” The whole thing unravels if you ask the person why it’s important that I know Ephraim is a Jew, or even any more details about the character. To repeat from the previous paragraph, we don’t even know what he did.

Webster admits two things: the first is that she definitely underplayed the role of the Illuminati in her book about the French Revolution. Which means that my suspicion that her first book is more serious, is now legitimized. The second is her second address to critics of her first book. Critics pointed out that her focus on the Orleaniste as being a conspiracy fueling the revolution was misplaced because the Duke of Orleans was too weak and feeble a person to have conducted it; but she defends herself by saying that if the critics had paid attention they would have noticed what she really meant was that his supporters were the ones responsible and then she says that it was really Chodelos de Laclos who was responsible…except not really, it was Illuminated Freemasonry that was at the center of the Orleanistes conspiracy.

So a little history. Laclos is famous for writing “Dangerous Liaisons,” but he also served the revolution after being enamored of Republican ideals while in the service of the Duke of Orleans. Orleans himself supported the Revolution, but this is hardly a conspiracy itself. The man openly supported reforms and voted to dissolve the feudal system. Orleans was a Mason though, so there’s that.

Webster then explains that the Revolution was different than others because the revolutionaries created grievances in order to exploit them. This is, our first conspiracy theory “false flag.” The claim is that while the French revolution was occurring the revolutionaries themselves abandoned all democratic and socialist rules because of the fear of a made-up plan by the monarchy to burn down everyone’s house. This fear, known as the “Great Fear” was a social panic in the earliest days of the Revolution when the revolutionaries thought they were going to lose and then be punished for having tried. They passed laws in revolutionary territory restricting freedoms, they ended suffrage for the poor, and they committed other contradictions. This would be bad, if true, but Webster is also ignoring that the Revolution wasn’t over. All of this takes place before the new government has established a constitution and the king surrenders. In reality, the laws passed were laws against supporting the monarchy. The Fear united the common classes against the monarchy. I suppose this is what Webster is saying was faked, but she’s not provided any information other than innuendo.

We end with more of her fascism. She asks if there is not truth in the statement of Pere Deschamps (fr. Nicolas Deschamp) who asks if “the cry of ‘Constitution’ has been in all countries the word of command of the Secret Societies.”

In other words, asking for a constitution or legal rights is really the secret society ordering revolution. People like Webster don’t want equality they want domination. The poors need to learn their place and any attack on the state, no matter the motive, is a crime.