Illuminati of the Gaps: The Plot Against Civlization pp. 332-333

 We are beginning to wrap this book up with our final chapter “Conclusion.” I really want to be petty about the title, but I won’t be. Conclusions in books are supposed to be recap, but conclusions in conspiracy theory books are usually not. Usually, they do a slight bit of recapping and then infodump. We also have a problem of time. This book is a little over a century old and some conventions in historical writing may have changed. She begins by telling us that that many “things that are happening today which appear at first inexplicable become clear as daylight; for not only do the six points of Weishaupt form the exact programme of the revolutionary party in England, but it would hardly be an exaggeration to say that every device now employed by it can be traced back to the code of the Illuminati.”

What a modern book would do is just drop a quick footnote as to where the “six points of Weishaupt” were discussed. It should read “Six points of Weishaupt (ch. 2).” I mention this because I have no idea what the six points of Weishaupt. I don’t quite remember her listing them. She should also note some of the comparisons between those six points and the current Revolutionary Party of England…a party that I cannot find records for. There existed a party with that name, but it was formed in 1944, well after this book was written. Perhaps there was some group that was given that name as a polemic but like a lot of things that she references in this book I can’t find it.

She does give us one of the precepts of Weishaupt, that the Illuminati should be secret. She treats this like a big reveal which is absurd for two reasons: the first being that she’s told us this several times before. The second is that as a secret society in Bavaria, the actual Illuminati always kept their membership secret, and they used code names because ultimately, they were very silly.

The reason she repeats this now, as well as before, is because her entire conspiracy theory relies on this hidden hand of the Illuminati/Jews/Germans. If Marx fails to admit that he was a member of the Illuminati it’s not because he’s never heard of it, it’s because he’s been sworn to secrecy. Her conspiracy theory not only lacks evidence, it relies on there being no evidence. This is so beyond an argument from ignorance it’s almost impressive really. When she writes that Illuminati’s success depends on secrecy, she really means that her credibility relies on you believing that no evidence is actually evidence.

We get a return to women’s rights which is odd for her because she’s so anti-that; here she begins making what I call “the conspiracy theorist’s mistake”—by trying to fit facts into her theory. Easily traceable facts. So, she explains that in England, the Illuminati exists in the Grand Lodge of England. This is the governing body of Masonry in England, Wales, and some of the UK’s commonwealth nations. The specific lodge is one of the oldest in the world (established in 1717) which makes it strange that it would be taking orders from the Grand Orient in France (established in 1777) or in what she claims to be head lodge in Germany that she tells us was reorganized in 1880. These types of organizations are big on tradition and that usually means the oldest group is in charge. The English are not going to be taking orders from the French and certainly not the Germans post Great War.

She pushes though telling us that the Order has the ability to recruit women, but this is not so. English Masonry will not recognize any group of Freemasons which admits women. So…what? The Illuminati promises women they can join, but then English masonry won’t let them. This “deception” would last two editions of the daily newspaper. The morning edition where it says women can join, the evening edition when an article is written explaining that they cannot. I don’t understand Webster’s accusation. I know that women were permitted to join the Illuminati because I read Robison’s book. Robison was clear about how shocked he was about this but then described a series of pretty decent safeguards to prevent the potential for abuse by males with their female Illuminati initiates (only women instructors, who would then answer to male representative, they weren’t that progressive).

In the edition I have there is a note handwritten that was scanned into the PDF and it also refutes the claim that the Grand Orient was rebutted by English Masonry referencing a book titled “Occult Theocrasy” by Edith Miller written in 1933. Miller’s book is a conspiracy classic, but it reads like a dictionary and isn’t as fun for a blog like this. However, the important thing is that we have a Conspiracy Theory Cat fight like we did between Robison and Baurrel. I think that both women are wrong here.

Historically, Masonry has been a fraternal organization excluding women. I’m sure that in the older buildings you can find separate entrances for the women when they were permitted to be guests. In 1920 you weren’t going to find a Masonic lodge that admitted women in England. They could serve as a kind of auxiliary. The French led the charge to admit women, but not as full members and must have some direct relation to a male member (marriage or blood). It’s odd to think that the Grand Lodge of England would advertise for women members and then pull that at the behest of the Illuminati, who always admitted women.

I’m not entirely sure what we’re supposed to think. Was the admittance of women into Masonry the ploy by the Illuminati bad because Webster hates equality or was it the denial of admittance bad because it deceived would be members? Objectively the latter is bad but inside the conspiracy theory I can’t figure out what Webster is objecting to. In the beginning of the book she claimed, like Robison, that English Masonry was fine because it was pure and uncorrupted by the continent. This leads me to think that when she says that the Grand Lodge rebutted the idea that women could join, this was a good thing. This would then mean that preventing female membership is the ideal. In either case we, as the readers, shouldn’t have to work this hard to understand. I think she confused herself with this one.