The Occult and the Irish: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 253-259

 Many of us took hobbies during the year of the pandemic, then decided that these hobbies were too much work, and went back to the conspiracy spiral on social media. Last week we met a person who did much of the same thing, Leopold Engel. Engel was going to restart the actual Illuminati, and like a person who doesn’t understand how difficult being a Dungeon Master actually is, abandoned the project pretty early. Webster is trying to weave her story, but at this point I don’t think she remembers what it is supposed to be.

Engel’s group is out but Webster needs to carry it forward. So she changes gears giving us the “Philadelphes” group which was, possibly, the name of a Masonic lodge that used to be count Gracchus Babeuf as a member but not has a branch in London. Of course, the word “Philadelphes” just means brotherly love and is such an obvious name for a fraternal organization that it is almost a cliché.

She quotes at length from an article in the New York World. This article isn’t cited with a date, instead she’s quoting it from a book by Sir Lepel Griffin. Nevertheless, the quote is a call to arms for those downtrodden by the social hierarchies at the time. It’s pretty standard Socialist stuff, nothing too extraordinary.

Webster then asks, “if we do not believe in a connection between occult forces and world revolution how are we to explain these periodic outbursts of revolutionary fury proceeding not from the people but from the enemies of the country against which they are directed?”

A conspiracy theory begins grasping at straws when it posits either aliens or magic to explain itself. At that point the conspiracy theory is not even pretending to do anything other than justify a feeling the author has.

I was holding out hope that Webster wouldn’t get there, but she’s pitching magic to explain what she thinks is unexplainable. The problem for her question is that it is based on false premise (well a couple of them actually); the most important being that these periodic outbursts are not periodic. The revolutionary fury ebbs and flows but across the 19^th century, as she has pointed out, it’s always been there. In Russia, she’s only shown that there are periods of time when there are no attacks on the Czar, but that can be easily explained by the need to regroup after the Czar cracks down on any opposition.

Occult powers explains what she thinks is a mystery, but also it could be explained by—THE JEWS!!!

She quotes Harry Hyndman, “According to Mr. Hyndman, in the aforesaid article, the movement was largely developing under the auspices of the Jews.” Hyndman begins writing about Jewish bankers controlling Europe and starting all of the wars.

The difficulty of this position is that Hyndman is very anti-Semitic. All social problems and cultural changes can be laid at the feet of the Jewish people. Hyndman is also a Socialist meaning that Webster wants us to trust the word of a Socialist which is a strange turn for her. Webster claims that, “these two Jews both desired the downfall of the country which so foolishly offered them hospitality is further evident.”

The first Jew is Karl Marx, who is a non-practicing but is from a Jewish family. The second Jew is an Anarchist named Hartmann which she has failed to introduce us to, that’s just lazy writing. The main problem is that Hyndman was a Socialist but he wouldn’t have plotted with Jews because he hated them. What Webster is missing is that this isn’t a Jewish plot, it’s a Socialist plot. If you’re going to demonize a group of people, at least get the right people in your sights.

We are then told that Marx had a plan to overthrow England, but not like Marx. It was the Internationale, remember them? The organization that disbanded. So now they are responsible for everything except it’s actually the Jews or maybe just Marx. She can’t keep it straight when keeping it straight is very easy: just pick one group and claim that they are in charge. Every other group is just a franchise or subsidiary. There can be no group operating against the top—if David Icke can keep this straight Webster should be able to do so as well.

An odd thing about her claims is how much she focuses on Socialists’ concentration on Ireland. Three times she mentions that those willing to strike a revolutionary movement in England will strike at Ireland because it is weakpoint for the UK. Webster, of course, takes this to mean that there is some organizing force if three different groups (Socialist, Anarchist, Jewish) all point to Ireland. Again there is a much more obvious explanation for why anyone wanting to start a movement that will upset Britain would focus on Ireland: and that’s the history of Ireland, especially in the mid-19^th century when the country is facing starvation, is being evicted by landlords in England who never set foot in Ireland, and who are about to face a blight which is going to wipe out the only food crop the average Irish can afford to eat.

The receptive nature of the Irish to these groups does not require occult powers. It simply requires a little organizing, a little money, and a little firepower. It sometimes feels that Webster’s ignorance of the context is purposeful. Why would an Irish person want to overthrow their oppressor? She asks. I’m not quite sure if she just thinks that the Jewish/Anarchist/Socialist groups were so evil that no one would join them no matter their own situation or if she truly doesn’t understand the world she claims to be an expert in.