Sympathy: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 289-295

The woozle effect is a method of arguing where you just place the responsibility of a piece of information on some source, then just repeatedly claim that the source said the thing. It doesn’t matter if the source said it or not because most people are not going to check and just assume that it’s true. This is Webster’s favorite conspiracy theory trick. The reader, by this point 2/3 of the way through the book, is just taking it at face value. She claims that the punishment for being an idler or objector to the syndicalist/socialist system is death, but we’ve seen no evidence for that. We have a quote, “If a man will not work neither shall he eat!” and we are told that this is a rule that must be carried out by a Socialist state. We are given neither the source for this quote or a document which states that it is to be a rule. I’d even take one of her anti-Socialist writers saying it, but it’s just her attempt to imply that this is a thing.

The attempt here is to frame Socialism as this monstrous element quick to throw bodies into the grinder. If a man shall not work, he shall not eat is the claim here, but what about under capitalism? It’s the same thing. She has referred, repeatedly to the “from each according to their ability…” but then she neglects that other part “to each according to their need.” Yes, idlers would be parasites, but they are also parasites under capitalism. The difference is that a Socialist state is supposed to take care of citizens while we have seen that a capitalist state has no such obligation.

“The reign of Terror was simply Socialism carried out to its logical conclusion.” This is another example of what I was talking about, she’s just making up this claim. What about the Reign of Terror was socialist? The two threads are so separate that the reader is left to assume that there is some connection or source she’s pulling from. There is no source for this claim.

Her view is that Socialism inevitably leads to the “old system of depopulation.” Again, a woozle. The old system implies that this is just a standard thing that Socialists advocate, but she’s just made it up. Conspiracy theorists are obsessed with depopulation. They think that it’s a thing based on a misunderstanding of why populations grow. The center of the problem lies in poverty. People in poverty tend to have more children because those children provide earners. When Socialists, especially currently, discuss lowering birthrates it’s framed around this idea that people won’t have to produce more children because they won’t need to. Childbirth will be about desire (and accident) than about need. Quiverfull Christians balk at this idea because they are of the “be fruitful and multiply” version of Christianity. Depopulation is scary to these people because of the images that it conjures up. However, this is a literal paper tiger. It is created by her to scare us and then the legions of conspiracy theorists that come afterwards. Even to this day we have former InfoWars host Alex Jones always bragging that he’s pro-humanity and pro-family; but no one is anti-humanity or anti-family.

This chapter, on Syndicalism remember, ends with an author’s note that Socialist Georges Sorel is no longer a Socialist. Webster has it on good authority that he became a Royalist. Her authority is wrong. Sorel, toward the end of his life would become enamored with the American philosophy of William James—Pragmatism; which is a far cry from being a Royalist.

Chapter 10 is titled “The Revolution of 1917” so we are going to be treated to a tale of the Russian Revolution. I’m going to assume that she will place the blame on Jewish bankers and international Socialists—but I’m only saying that because I’ve been paying attention.

War breaks out in 1914, and it is International Socialism, “that Germany counted on to break the resistance of her enemies.” I don’t know what this means. Germany towards the end of the war is going to release Lenin in Russia as a destabilizing force, but we’re not on that front yet. For now, we stick with England.

Again, Webster claims, “Although the influence of Marx amongst the British working-men was practically nil during his lifetime…” which is not true. He wasn’t the force of nature that his philosophy would become but he had an influence. She keeps trying to gaslight us on this, but I don’t get why. This isn’t something that matters, she drops it just as quick. The entire point to bring up Socialism and Marx is because she is going to point out that Socialists were against the war.

Her contention here is that Germany used socialism to argue against the war. The conspiracy being that German Socialism wanted British Socialism to oppose the war so that Germany could easily win. The trouble with this is that German Socialists opposed the war that Germany started. 1914 was a bad year for pacifism and there were many people opposed to the war. Most people know the story of the beginning of WWI; some rich asshole gets shot in the street and then everyone goes to battle because of treaties and such.

From the point of view of the Socialist (no matter what nationality) the Great War was about imperialism. It didn’t matter who started it, the entire venture was only about benefitting the same people that always benefit while the same people who always suffer continue to suffer. Historians can debate the why and the how; from an ideological perspective the poor working man was going to die by the hand of another poor working man with whom he has much more commonality with than the President, Prime Minister, Kaiser, and such of their respective nations.

Webster points out that Marx remarked, “I am anti-French, but I am none the less anti-English.” She tries to characterize this as Pro-German, but this isn’t the case. It’s anti-War. Socialists opposed the war, and British Socialists opposed the war because they felt it was unnecessary. Webster frames British involvement as necessary for self-defense but how? Germany hadn’t stepped foot on British soil and was stuck in France and Russia. The idea that Britain needed to get into war for its survival wouldn’t be true until WWII. Webster claims that German propaganda didn’t work on the French socialists, but that’s because France was fighting for survival on its own land. There’s quite a difference between the two. A British or American socialist can be a bit more abstract than a French or Russian. Webster misses this point so drastically that it must be on purpose.