Pointlessness: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 295—299

This chapter is titled “The Revolution of 1917;”  to which we assume our intrepid author means the Russian Revolution, the final toppling of the Romanov dynasty and the beginning of the USSR. This is the subject of the chapter, so it’s very odd that she writes the following, “This is no the place to recount the story of the Russian Revolution, which is still too fresh in the minds of the public to need repeating…”

If this is the case then why is the chapter titled this way? I have made the observation in my recounting of this book that no one really reads conspiracy books. They read the first chapter, which is also where the author has spent the most time crafting the book. The only reason to include a chapter titled “The Revolution of 1917” and then dismiss any need to actually write about that revolution is so it would seem that she did. If some hapless debunker asks, “well, what does she cover the Bolshevik Revolution?” the conspiracy believer can say, “Why yes, right here in chapter 10.” As long as no one asks to read the book and especially that they don’t read that line on page 295, they may think that this Webster person is at the very least, thorough.”

Webster’s “specialty” is the French Revolution, so she always has to refer to that in some way. This is annoying, but it’s not unusual. If you spend any time around experts in particular fields, academic or otherwise—you’ll find this behavior. What’s fun though is to call them out on it and watch them squirm a bit. You rip a small hole in a shirt and turn to someone who is an expert in medieval history and ask, “I suppose you want to explain how a loom works?” Me, I’m a jerk, so I’ll do that when I can.

Webster tries to force the French revolution into this chapter. She cites an overly long excerpt from a speech given by Lord Curzon in the House of Lords in February of 1920, referring to the Russian Revolution and how it has no analogy. Webster disagrees, and notes that the failing British foreign policy is the direct result of this kind of ignorance, “Not only is there an exact analogy between the revolutions of France and Russia, but as every one who has studied the latter movement knows, the Russian Revolution from November 1917 onwards was a direct continuation of the French.”

If you’re smart and studied the events in Russia you already know she’s right. This is a very simple rhetorical trick, it’s like a flattering reverse “No True Scotsman.” Only smart people know this thing and thus you being smart agree with it. The problem here is that Webster cannot just make this assumption, she has to prove it and I’m sure I won’t be spoiling anything when I say that she fails. It is much worse than just not making the case, she’s already argued against it.

The overall conspiracy theory she is pushing is that the Illuminati, in 1776, were formed as part of the plot to overthrow the world. She skips the American Revolution for reasons she never explains, concentrates on the French, and then attempts to tie in any movement that is anti-authoritarian into this one story. Except for that over and over again; she has only shown the failure of all of these movements. The international Worker’s Party, the communes, the strange attempts at creating Utopias, various worker revolts, etc. All of this, she has shown, failed. Syndicalism was opposed, according to her, by everyone including Marx. How is it that all of these failures since 1793 have created the 1917 Russian revolution which was a success? They couldn’t, because these movements kept dying. She needs to toss in an over-arching conspiracy which explains how the failures were actually successes instead of gloating over the failure of the worker’s march in 1865 France.

Obviously, the French and Russian revolutions were different…unless your name is Nesta Webster then you have to pick a fight with anyone who makes this claim. She claims that the popular consensus that the French and Russian revolutions were different are based on two distinctions. The Russian Revolution was international while the French was national. The revolutionaries directed their attacks against the aristocracy in France but it was the bourgeoisie in Russia which was the target. These are strawman objections—Webster is correct that both of the statements are inaccurate.

The French revolution was national in that it was contained within France. However, it was international in that citizens from other countries participated. American Thomas Paine was involved so much so that he was almost a victim of the reign of terror. It’s a silly objection. The Russian revolution was aided by Germany who aided in Lenin’s return to Russia during WWI. They devoted resources so the Lenin could completely destabilize the Russian army on their Eastern front. The difference between the aristocracy and bourgeoisie is just silly. The latter is just a different word for the former.

It’s fascinating that Webster is going to spend the next four pages attempting to fight the strawmen she’s created. Here’s the thing about a strawman argument: you use them because they are easy to knock down. You say, dummies think X, but X is wrong therefore I’m right. If you spend more than a few sentences on a strawman you give more credence to the counter argument. Webster tries way too hard here. She makes a claim that the French was an international revolution because the Jacobins declared world anarchy. She does not provide a citation, quote, or date for this declaration. Indeed, anarchy as we have been discussing it, does not become a political philosophy until 1840.

She sets up a strawman and then whiffs on knocking it down. Good job.

The only other aspect of note in this week’s section is that she goes out of her way to mention her crush Bakunin. She follows a self-negating sentence mentioning him. Her point is to say that the revolutionary forces, or subversives, in Russia were anarchic. Which isn’t a groundbreaking claim and in fact seems only to exist so that she can name drop Bakunin. Bakunin had no role in the 1917 revolution because he’d been dead for 50 years. She’ll begin focusing on Lenin which we will dive into next post.