The Chews: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 308-320

 After learning some Webster’s absolutely deniable opinions, with two basic facts thrown in, she wants us to begin focusing on who the real Illuminati is, “who are the modern Illuminati, the authors of the plot?”

Can you guess? I’ll give you two attempts only because the first one is going to be “isn’t the modern Illuminati the modern Illuminati? No. To find who the modern Illuminati are, we need only look at the Russian revolution. The revolution that three posts ago she said wasn’t worth covering. She characterizes the Russian revolution as having no motive other than a campaign of ceaseless destruction. This motiveless violent revolution has “led many people to believe in the theory of a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christianity,” and that, “to the unprejudiced observer Bolshevism in Russia may well appear to be a wholly Jewish movement.”

Anti-Semitism was a rife in England during the interwar period. There may have very well been people who blamed the Russian Revolution on the Jews. Given what we’ve been reading in this book, I doubt that within Webster’s circle there were many people who weren’t saying that. However, the motive of the Russian revolutionaries and especially of the Bolsheviks isn’t hard to fathom because they were very vocal about it. Lenin, for example, wrote an entire book about why there was a need for revolution. We can go back to 1901 with Lenin’s “What is to be Done?” There we get some motives for the Revolution from one of the Revolutionaries who also happens to have some Jewish ancestry in him. The fact that she wants us to believe that unprejudiced observers would default to claiming it as a Jewish plot just shows where she went with it. Not where anyone else would naturally go.

A Jewish revolt would be obviously Jewish. It would be the motive for the revolution. If they’re really capable of toppling a nation like Russia there exists no reason to hide it. Webster is going to cherry pick one example of factory workers in Odessa who defied the Cossacks. Then she explains to us how many people were Jewish that took place in the rioting. She’s not giving us a context for this riot so we have to delve into Wikipedia to find that she’s talking about the 1905 anti-Jewish pogrom of Odessa. The causes of this are many and its more victim blaming by Webster. Yes Jews took part in the riots but that’s because the Tsar was cracking down after the revolution of 1905 and the mutiny on the Battleship Potemkin. The crackdowns were not isolated to Odessa and just a passing familiarity with the end of Tsarist Russia will let us know that focusing on this one riot because Jews were involved is the most obvious cherry picking possible. 400 Jews died in the riot and so did 500 Christians, Webster thinks that this is proof of the Jewish plot; but given the population of Russia and the demographics that’s an awfully high number of Jewish people dead unless they were specifically targeted (they were).

What Webster is doing is parroting the official Russian line. Towards the end of the Tsarist Russia and concerted effort was undertaken to blame the Jewish minority for all the troubles in Russia. They played on the innate anti-Semitic sentiment throughout Christian Europe.

Then things get a bit odd. I despise racism, especially racism that leads to the deaths of innocent people; but if you’re going to be racist get your facts straight. She quotes from the American edition of the “The Protocols” which is in turn quoting from a newspaper called “The Communist” from April 1919 which points out that all across the Revolution one could see that the Revolution has adopted the red five pointed star, “which in former times, as it is well-known, was the symbol of Zionism and Jewry.”

No, just no. The symbol of Jewish people has been the SIX pointed Star of David since the 18^th century. This is so basic a fact, that the PDF of this book that I’m using has a handwritten correction underneath the line reading “The Jews ‘Star of David’ has six points.” To make this kind of mistake is either the height of ignorance or apathy. Webster either doesn’t know that the symbol of the Jewish people has six points or she doesn’t care. The former is just as unbelievable as the latter.

While she’s on one of her anti-Semitic kicks why not jump in to the Protocols? I’m actually going to jump forward and skip this part because I’ve already covered the entirety of the Protocols when it was included in Bill Cooper’s Behold a Pale Horse. What she wants us to know is that the Protocols are just Weishaupt all over again.

Weishaupt wasn’t Jewish. This raises an important question that I’ve asked a few times now: who is in charge of the conspiracy? She claims that “there are certain analogies not only between the code of Weishaupt and the Protocols, but between the Protocols and later Secret Societies, continuations of the Illuminati, that a continuity of idea throughout the movement becomes apparent.”

As someone who has read every single line of the Protocols I can say definitively that, no there is not. The best you can get is a vague conception of what it would be to dominate various aspects of a society. When the Protocols recommends to control the press, control the banks, and education; that’s just obvious stuff. It never gives detailed plans on how to do it. You might get something out of the use of gold and interest to financially bind a citizenry yet that’s not an ideology nor a single idea. There isn’t a philosophy in the plagiarism known as the Protocols.

Her goal is to compare passages in the Protocols with passages that prove the Illuminati is behind everything. The problem with this, is the same problem that she has every time she attempts to give us hard evidence, is that there is no evidence for her position.

She wants to compare the doctrine of Illuminism with the Protocols; but she can’t do that because she doesn’t have the doctrine of Illuminism. Instead of quoting Weishaupt she quotes Barruel who found a convenient scapegoat for the French Revolution in the Illuminati. Just to be clear, by the time of the French revolution the Illuminati was dead. Weishaupt was never in France, he died in Gotha Germany having fled Bavaria during their crackdown against Secret Societies.

She spends ten pages on comparing apples to railroad cars. The random selections of writings that she places next to passages of the Protocols are without context or, ironically, motive. The point isn’t to read them, the point is that they seem similar if you squint hard enough. When Lenin writes that the revolution needs a single leader, Webster sees this as Protocol 5 that there should be a single leader. Without context this seems similar, but we must remember that she argued for the despotic rule of Napolean; so this is confirmation that she is pushing the doctrine of Weishaupt. The entire decade of pages is like this. I must also mention that by the time Webster would have gotten the Protocols, they would have already been revealed to be fake. This is just her racism justifying her conspiracy, or maybe it’s the other way around.