Undeniable Facts: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 306-308

We’re hitting the final stretch of this book, and I realize with foreboding that I am going to have to find another one to keep going. I can say, without hyperbole, that I have probably read more of these conspiracy books than any other person. Not that I’ve read more conspiracy books, but that I’ve read more of the books. I’m actually reading them page by page and I doubt that anyone else has really done that.

So, self-aggrandizement aside, even Webster knows that it’s time to wrap this thing up in a bow. She asks us to ponder the question that if the last 140 years of world history are not being directed by a single power then, “how are we to account for the following undeniable facts?”

Now, the last time she attempted to go line by line she absolutely flubbed it. To her advantage she hasn’t given us a specific number of undeniable facts so she’s learned from her earlier attempt.

Her first is that the “grievances of the people throughout this period have varied according to the changing social conditions of our civilization, the programme of the social revolution has never varied.” Webster’s point is that the Revolutions of France, Germany, Russia, England, etc. are basically all the same but that’s weird because the people lived in different times and thus would have different needs. This isn’t that weird though because the variance of the people isn’t really that different. You can say that needs of a Russian peasant in 1917 is different than a French peasant in 1789; but that’s only geography. They both wanted to increase their standing and ability to improve their lives withing the feudal societies that they lived in. She’s being a weasel here too—because the “programme of the social revolution” is whatever she needs it to be at a given time. When she claims that it’s never changed she means the claims in the book. And this just means that if the revolution has a complaint that is ideological it’s bad. The Russians wanting freedom of the press is fine, as long as they don’t subscribe to higher philosophical position of equality. The French wanting lower tax rates is fine, but wanting a social structure not based on aristocratic merit is then the problem.

The second undeniable fact is that the “leaders of the movement have never, in a single instance, been men of the people, but always members of the upper or middle classes who could not by any possibility be regarded as victims of oppression.” I’ll give her some credit for this. This is true because the extremely poor don’t have the luxury of knowing that they are owed rights as they are too busy trying to survive. Now depending on how one defines the “middle class” she’s trying to run game here. The middle class as she would know it is a new thing. In 18^th century France it was just coming into existence with the creation of merchant class, but in feudal societies like Russia there wasn’t a middle class.

Her third “fact” is that no leader, aside from Louis Blanc, has addressed the concerns of the people and now I think we know why she ignored the American Revolution. I can hardly be described as a patriot these days, but the American Revolution performed one of the actions that it set out to do—which was create a representative form of government. The French, inspired by the Americans, eventually got to it before Napolean took over. The Russian revolution begins this kind of thing as well until Stalin pushes everyone else out.

The fourth, I’m going to quote in full, “That each outbreak has occurred not when the cause of the people was hopeless but on the eve of great reforms.”

This is just stupid. The eve of great reforms is when the powers that be recognized that the revolution was going to win. This is Nicholas II instituting the Duma because he saw that the Bolsheviks were gaining strength. To conduct a revolution is a dangerous thing and why would anyone attempt one when the cause was hopeless? I think she thinks she’s being profound but it’s just inanity.

The fifth is that the revolutions are not followed by reform but by reaction. Ok, true, this is why the French had a civil war after 1789, the Russians had their war. The people that were just overthrown usually don’t like it, they usually try to reestablish their position. This isn’t the fault of the revolution.

The final one is that each revolution has actually thrown back the cause of the people but is represented as being a step forward. I have to call bullshit on this because her own words have contradicted it. She’s mentioned repeatedly, especially with regard to the Germans, that every step forward was never good enough for them. She just did this with the Russians. What we need from her is a statement that the average Russian was better off under the Tsar. Way back in the first chapter she attempted to do this with the French when she claimed that the average tailor in France was employed by the aristocracy and that was better than making pants for the miller. At this point I would accept it if she just said it, then we could work on proof. She’s not even giving us that much anymore.

My overall thesis with these books I explained at the beginning—she’s not expecting us to actually pay attention, it’s all vibes that she is wrapping in veneer of intellectual authorship. However, there is nothing here. She’s claimed that six facts, which are undeniable, prove a single hand moving these revolutions. Only 3 and 5 are fact-claims which concern claims which can be measured as true or false. The remaining 3 are opinions leaving us number 4 which is just meaningless.

She just wants this list because people like lists and it looks, if you don’t pay attention like she’s proven each point and this is the summary. This couldn’t be further from the truth and her editor should have called her out on this. She hasn’t made the case because she doesn’t understand the Russian Revolution in any capacity. She admitted that it was too new to get into but the she wants it as her match point. Sorry lady, you don’t get this one.