Babeuf: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 67-87

 We begin the third chapter with a new villain: Francois Noel Babeuf. I have never heard this person’s name until this book. He gets a mention in the last chapter, but Webster is devoting the entire chapter 3 to this man. A quick jaunt over to Wikipedia reveals an interesting facet about Babeuf: he seems to be some kind idealist about the French Revolution. He believe in the principles of the revolution and when the revolutionary government’s ideals met reality—he still wanted them to hold to those ideals. He fomented revolution ideals during the revolution against the government, and in the end he was arrested and executed.

That’s the story Wikipedia tells us.

This chapter is going to be interesting because Webster is going to have to work to frame this person as our villain. So far she’s argued that the Revolution was not about helping the poor or even the common people, rather it was a plot by the Illuminati to take control of Europe and further oppress the people. This is the kind of thing that Babeuf seems to have been opposed to so much that he attacked the real people trying to do this and was tried and executed for it.

The first couple pages recount Babeuf’s activities. Babeuf was involved in something called the “conspiracy of equals,” and the course of it is interesting. The revolution wasn’t moving fast enough to help the common people. The conditions that Webster points out in the previous chapter were causing unrest. In addition to that was that a certain group of people appeared to be benefitting. Babeuf wanted the removal of any kind of class distinction, and his group were agitating for this radical equality. Here’s what’s interesting: the revolutionary government kept this group around because they were still actively fighting the royalists. It was an “enemy of my enemy” type of situation. Nothing however points to the Illuminati, but don’t worry Webster has some spurious evidence in support of it.

“M. Louis Blanc is no doubt right in pronouncing Babeuf to have been an Illuminatus, a disciple of Weishaupt, and it was thus in accordance with the custom of this sect that he had adopted a classical pseudonym, renouncing his Christian names of Francois Noel in favour of Gracchus…”

The quote continues by naming known Illuminati members and their “codenames.”

According to Webster anyone that adopts a nickname from the classical world is probably an Illuminatus. In reality, this is a coincidence. There’s no information that even links Babeuf to the Illuminati or even the Masons. He knew the Jacobins of course, but that’s only similar in the conspiracy mythology. Babeuf was also given the nickname Gracchi, he didn’t pick it; and it was given to him because what Babeuf was attempting was a distribution of land among the common people of France; like the Gracchi brothers in the Roman Republic.

Placing this tenuous piece of evidence aside, she writes, “No one knew precisely what he wanted and no decisions could be reached, it was therefore decided to supplement these huge assemblies by small secret committees, the first of which…”

The quote continues giving a location of the committee’s meeting.

It’s an odd thing for Webster to write because Babeuf published a magazine which argued for a progressive taxation system. He argued for, again, redistribution of land once held by the royals. He also wanted a removal of the class system. While it can be argued over the feasibility of these ideas put forth in his magazine; to claim that no one knew what he wanted is false. It’s false even by Webster’s own hand when she describes cites Babeuf’s own writings.

My favorite claim here is that Babeuf formed a secret directorate whose workings “bear a curious resemblance to those of the Illuminati.”

Really? Based on what information does Webster have that the secret operations of this group bear a resemblance to the secret operations of the Illuminati? None. What we have here is an argument from ignorance. Because the one group no longer exists and whose operations are solely based on the reportings of Robison—she can say just about anything she wants about them. It’s a black hole of information so just toss any kind of accusation into it. If Webster is claiming that the Illuminati operated in closed meetings and assigned tasks, well then, yeah, they operated the same. However, the only thing that she’s said is that Babeuf had 12 assistants that he delegated tasks to and that they didn’t know each other. This is very weak. The number 12 could be out of necessity, it could be because of the 12 apostles, or it could very well be because of the Illuminati; but we’ve seen no evidence that there were 12 adepts of Weishaupt. This is something that she’s established without evidence or citation.

Her real problem is more obvious. Babeuf wanted radical change and equality. Webster reposts the entirety of the “Manifesto of Equals,” a document which outlines the goals of his operation. Webster claims that this document was not for public display but was only for a secret few. Again, untrue. It was addressed to the “People of France” it closes with a plea for the People of France to rise up and seize their happiness. It was, by no means, a secret document.

Why the lies?

Webster is lying about Babeuf because much of Babeuf’s writings should be classified as “Proto-Socialism;” but nothing he is saying is that objectionable. Eventually, ignoring Babeuf (and a whole bunch of other people) is going to let Napolean become emperor of France. This is something that the average British reader in the 1920s will recognize as a bad thing so any alternative will look good. Also her contextual problem is that socialism was a legitimate political movement at this period of time, especially with veterans from the “Great War” and Babeuf appealed to French army troops at his time.

She has to demonize the ideas because she is incapable of creating a legitimate argument against Babeuf’s position. For example, she quotes heavily from the “Analysis of the Doctrine of Babeuf” by Phillip Buonoratti. She claims that the doctrine attempted to abolish the family and institute some weird Plato’s Republic style of rearing children (pg 74). This does not appear in the “Analysis.” She’s actually drawing this claim from a longer work, Buonoratti’s history of Babeuf’s Conspiracy. Yet, she misrepresents it. It’s used metaphorically, the state will secure the needs of the infant at birth, care, educate, and protect them. This will give the child a love of the state and a loyalty to it. It’s weird, but this comes from Plato not some French proto-Socialist. She also claims that education in science will be forbidden, just like Weishaupt said. However, this work is about false sciences and those which use them to shirk their responsibility to labor.

This chapter is about Babeuf, and it follows his ups and downs. This is interesting, but she sprinkles some Illuminati references in once in a while but there’s very little here for us. It’s not until page 87 that we get the conspiracy again. I’ve reported this a few times in this series, Webster is a fascist, and her real target is socialism, but she lacks the ability to argue against it. Her alternative is to create a story about a Socialist, then accuse him of being an Illuminati. This is despite every piece of evidence she’s offered that Babeuf was legitimately concerned about the poor people of France. Luckily, the chapter continues with her going full bore with the Illuminati accusations.