All Bad Things…The Plot Against Civilization Recap

We have reached the end of the Webster book and like most of the conspiracy books that we cover, we can say that we’ve read it.

Like all conspiracy theory books, the main issue with the theory that Webster is trying to build is that of coherence. The book is a good example of an argument that is all emotion wrapped in a veneer of facts. We’ve spent over a year reading this book so let me ask one question: what is the conspiracy’s goal?

I simply cannot answer this question because Webster has never provided it. Are they trying to destroy England? Sure, but that’s only in coincidence with other revolutions that they are planning. I’ll say this for Cooper’s book—in the few chapters that he was coherent about the conspiracy, it was clear that he was talking about a UFO assisted world conspiracy. He had about the same soundness with his theory that Webster had, but his conspiracy theory had a clear goal. Webster seems to vacillate between revolution for revolution’s sake and a revolution to put in place an anarchic society ruled by a tyrant (as contradictory as that is).

We are supposed to assume that every new idea, every new march toward a new right, or every attempt to strive for better social equality is part of this world revolution. Yet, for the life of me, I cannot understand why this revolution even exists. Its goal, if we must be generous, is change. Not changing in any particular direction or in favor of any group; rather it’s just change. Webster fears change because she’s in relative comfort at the status quo.

Even less coherent is who is responsible for the world revolution. Those responsible for the revolution are the Illuminati, the Bolsheviks, the Socialists, the French Proto-Socialists, the Jews, and the Germans. Not a specific German group, just the Germans entirely. Coming into the book I was aware of a few things: the first was that this book was responsible for taking the obscure Illuminati conspiracy theory and carrying it forward to the 20^th century. The second thing I knew was that she trafficked in the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Linking the two is a hack job now, but in the 1910s it was only new because the Illuminati was such an obscure group. Linking Socialism to the Illuminati/Jewish plot is a short jump as well. You just do the low effort job of pointing out that Marx has a Jewish ancestry. This triad is simple and trite.

I was unprepared to get into how much the Germans were going to play in this conspiracy. Obviously, they were always going to play some part because Weishaupt was from the German speaking state of Bavaria (remember that back in the 18^th century there is no “Germany”). Obviously, an English person is going to have some animosity towards the Germans post WWI, but to claim that it was the Germans that were responsible for the French Revolution and then onward is certainly a unique take.

At first, it was a strange set of yarn that placed all of these groups in relationship to one another. It was unclear and consistently unclear at that. The Illuminati is responsible for everything, ok fine. Then Webster points out the Jewish ancestry of Baron Knigge communicating that the “Jewishness” of the person meant that they were up to no good. While anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are never a good thing the simplicity of the theories makes them comprehensible. Here we don’t have that, because this centuries long conspiracy with the Jews at the head is being controlled by the Germans—who didn’t exist as a unified body in the 18^th century when the French Revolution happened. I sincerely don’t get how this conspiracy is supposed to fit together. Webster has failed, grotesquely failed, at organizing her conspiracy theory.

Another issue with her work is that her conspiracy theory is contradictory in its successes. Let’s go to her favored France. She opposed the tyrannical rule of the Revolutionary government, but then that government gets Napolean as ruler. So this was bad? It would seem so because Napolean was a dictator—but she celebrates Napolean as being a champion against the conspiracy. How does that work? It cannot, she just like dictators. This is similar to conspiracy theorists that think somehow US president Donald Trump or Elon Musk are wins against the globalists—no. If your conspiracy is all powerful. If it controls the corporate world, the banks, the law, then it would not allow either of those two eventualities. If Napolean was some upstart General who had to flee to England or Italy (but not Germany) to raise an army and conquer Revolutionary France, the conspiracy would make sense. Instead, Napolean comes home from Egypt to hero’s welcome and instead of being arrested for desertion he takes over the consulate.

Which then leads us to the second problem—she loves the French monarchy. When Napolean is defeated and the royalists are placed back in charge of France, who is this a victory for? King Louis the XVIII was unpopular so the Illuminati undermined him in order to return Napolean to France? None of this works if you have even a passing familiarity with French history (e.g. you’ve read the Wikipedia page for Napolean). She then celebrates Napolean III, the farcical Napolean; which again, is supposed to be impossible if anything she is saying is true. Although, the German conspiracy masters might allow someone as weak as Napolean III to take the throne…Webster is incapable of creating such nuance in her conspiracy theory.

I think that this conspiracy theory is too big for someone like her to handle and she’s limited by her confinement to France, Germany, and Russia. Yes, she spent a few pages on Italy, but the most glaring omission is the American Revolution. Did the German Illuminati win in the colonies, or did it lose? She starts in 1793, but this book should start in 1776 because that’s the year the actual Illuminati was founded. The Robison book doesn’t mention it either, but that’s because it’s still being sorted out when he begins writing.

Writing style, she’s a bit annoying. Cooper was too unfocused in his book, and he didn’t write most of it anyway; while Robison himself was a bit dry. Webster’s writing tries too hard, and she doesn’t quite understand what an actual history book is supposed to look like. Ironic because she’s written one. The random French phrases, the inconsistent citations, and the frequent switching of places.

There should be an entire chapter on Ireland. The Easter revolt would have taken place in 1917, just about when she would begin writing this book and it’s ripe for her conspiracy theory. The Irish were supplied weapons, funding, and had contact with Socialist groups. The revolt happens at an important time during WWI causing England to have to redirect its forces to crush the revolt. She does mention Ireland three times in the book, but like the American Revolution the absence tells us a great deal: she’s not a serious writer here.

My final judgment is that this book, like some of the current “white genocide” conspiracy books—is a way to justify her hatred of Jews and Germans. She’s not pushing a conspiracy theory so much as she’s telling us that if we don’t do something about those two groups then the world will slide into anarchy.

No post next week as I must spend it attempting to figure out what our next conspiracy book is going to be. Any suggestions can be placed in the comments.