Excerpts from something I’d written way back in April, 2020.
My ideas have undergone no fundamental change: and I’d only word myself a little more ... delicately.
I’m rather strident in these lines.
The language is a little childish, a little too bombastic & melodramatic: it was a mail written in private to a few friends & acquaintances.
Covid was creeping like an unstoppable poisonous fog all over India, and the world.
The universal mood was somewhat Apocalyptic, full of gloom & foreboding.
So the statements tend to be somewhat simplistic & doomsdayish.
But in essence, they are true, and I still stand by them.
And whatever I may think of Nesta Webster – she’s hardly my personal hero – her book did play a vital role in my decisive break from Liberalism, which I subscribed to, enthusiastically, once upon a time.
Yet, I’m no conservative.
I am, indeed, a “Conspiracy Theorist” – but with no very definitive Conspiracy Theory in my head.
There is a conspiracy, though :)
Many of them, perhaps!!
Politics & Power are conspiratorial, by nature, it’s not such a big deal.
I don’t think, though, that Jews are behind all the problems of the world.
I don’t think that “Freemasonry” and the “Illuminati” were the creations of Jews, or “Zionists”, or Kabbalists, or whatever you call them.
This is a very important misunderstanding.
Many Jews are certainly involved in all this, but it is not their brainchild: on the contrary, in my humble opinion, Jews are pawns as much as anybody else.
For my own amusement, I cooked up a conspiracy theory of my own, which I’ll expound sometime in the near future.
But, reverting back to reality, this is something I’d written, again, in April 2020:
“I have never talked about “World dictatorship” in earlier mails, but have been, since late February this year, I think.
Yes, I’m aware most educated, “serious”, “sober” people will roll their eyes & dismiss it as “Conspiracy Theory”, but it’s not a figment of my imagination, or that of many others.
There are ample indications.
Hundreds of them.
If you ask me, someone like Dante Alighieri was also a part of something like that, or at least that is the definite subtext of his ideas.
How else, is one supposed to construe his idea of a universal monarch, a supreme world monarch, a one world empire?
He was very clear & outspoken in his ideas.
Dante himself draws on the ideas of Virgil.
He quotes The Aeneid:
“Verily, that others shall beat out the breathing bronze more finely, I grant you;
they shall carve the living feature in the marble, plead causes with more eloquence, and trace the movements of the heavens with a rod, and name the rising stars:
thine, O Roman, be the care to rule the peoples with authority;
be thy arts these, to teach men the way of peace, to show mercy to the subject, and to overcome the proud.”
Or, a more accurate translation, which gives the real meaning:
“...you, Roman, be sure to rule the world (be these your arts), to crown peace with justice, to spare the vanquished and to crush the proud.”
This Dante accepts as the role of the Roman race {a total hoax? perchance a subterfuge?} to rule the whole world, and says:
“... nature set apart in the world a place and a people for universal sovereignty; otherwise she would be deficient in herself, which is impossible.”
And long before that, you had Alexander of Macedonia.”
What, was Dante Alighieri also Jewish??
I don’t think so!
Nevertheless, we must not forget what Albert Pike wrote in his book “Morals & Dogma”:
“When Science had been overcome in Alexandria by the fanaticism of the murderers of Hypatia, it became Christian, or, rather, it concealed itself under Christian disguises, with Ammonius, Synosius & the author of the books of Dionysius the Areopagite.
Then it was necessary to win the pardon of miracles by the appearances of superstition, & of science by a language unintelligible. Hieroglyphic writing was revived, and pantacles & characters were invented, that summed up a whole doctrine in a sign, a whole series of tendencies and revelations in a word.
What was the object of the aspirants to knowledge?
They sought for the secret of the great work, or the Philosophal Stone (he means, the Philosopher’s Stone), or the perpetual motion, or the squaring of the circle, or the universal medicine; formulas which often saved them from persecution and general ill-will, by exposing them to the charge of folly; and each of which expressed one of the forces of the grand magical secret.
This lasted until the time of the Roman de la Rose, which also expresses the mysterious & magical meaning of the poem of Dante (i.e. “The Divine Comedy”), borrowed from the High Kabalah, that immense & concealed source of the universal philosophy.”
And also:
“The Rose-Croix Adepts respected the dominant, hierarchical, and revealed religion.
Consequently they could no more be the enemies of the Papacy than of legitimate Monarchy; and if they conspired against the Popes and Kings, it was because they considered them personally as apostates from duty and supreme favorers of anarchy.
What, in fact, is a despot, spiritual or temporal, but a crowned anarchist? One of the magnificent pantacles that express the esoteric and unutterable part of Science, is a Rose of Light, in the centre of which a human form extends its arms in the form of a cross.
(Like Neo in The Matrix Revolutions (2003), in the machine world, while he is fighting Smith inside the Matrix, to save Zion?
Or maybe this looks like a Heart?
Or, maybe this figure of a Rose/Lotus which is shown when his body is being carried away by that weird Praying-Mantis shaped machine?
It is to be understood that his Cross-shaped figure lies n the center of that Rose of Light.
To continue with Pike...)
Commentaries and studies have been multiplied upon the Divine Comedy, the work of DANTE, and yet no one, so far as we know, has pointed out its especial character.
The work of the great Ghibellin is a declaration of war against the Papacy, by bold revelations of the Mysteries.
The Epic of Dante is Johannite & Gnostic, an audacious application, like that of the Apocalypse, of the figures & numbers of the Kabalah to the Christian dogmas, and a secret negation of every thing absolute in these dogmas.
His journey through the supernatural worlds is accomplished like the initiation into the Mysteries of Eleusis and Thebes.
He escapes from that gulf of Hell over the gate of which the sentence of despair was written, by reversing the positions of his head and feet, that is to say, by accepting the direct opposite of the Catholic dogma; and then he reascends to the light, by using the Devil himself as a monstrous ladder.
Faust ascends to Heaven, by stepping on the head of the vanquished Mephistopheles.
Hell is impassable for those only who know not how to turn back from it.
We free ourselves from its bondage by audacity.
His Hell is but a negative Purgatory.
His Heaven is composed of a series of Kabalistic circles, divided by a cross, like the Pantacle of Ezekiel.
In the centre of this cross blooms a rose, and we see the symbol of the Adepts of the Rose-Croix for the first time publicly expounded and almost categorically explained.
For the first time, because Guillaume de Lorris, who died in 1260, five years before the birth of Alighieri, had not completed his Roman de la Rose, which was continued by Chopinel, a half century afterward.
One is astonished to discover that the Roman de la Rose and the Divina Commedia are two opposite forms of one and the same work, initiation into independence of spirit, a satire on all contemporary institutions, and the allegorical formula of the great Secrets of the Society of the Roses-Croix.”
So then, does this mean that Dante was a Kabbalist? It seems so, at least according to Pike, who himself subscribes avidly to the Kabbalah. These passages raise a hundred questions, to which official, written (read fake) history offers no answers. A lot depends on how seriously we can take the claims made by Pike. Add 2 & 2, that Dante was a High Initiate of the Rosy-Cross & the Kabbalah, and glorified the idea of uniting the world under one supreme monarch, & you have a very disturbing idea forming in your mind! And yet, there is something more to all this. Something far more complex & mysterious & dangerous.
I have my own theory... or rather, a cluster of half-baked, half-digested thoughts 😄😁 These can be refined over a period of time with constant investigation & study. For the sake of pure amusement, I intend to write a particularly outlandish piece, exposing the alleged Conspiracy of Conspiracies. As for what had been written 4 years back, let me not divert attention any further, except saying that mankind seems to have forgotten one crucial mystery of human existence: THE MYSTERY OF FOOD. Yes, I did say: THE MYSTERY OF FOOD, Sanskrit anna – of cooking, feeding, eating, and nourishing. It is one of the fundamental pillars of human existence, and has been profoundly abused & wrecked, in our age. Throwing down this pillar will play a very crucial role in throwing down the so-called “patriarchy”.
I must have read Nesta Webster’s book The
French Revolution – I think, in about 2012.
I cannot remember precisely.
Nesta Webster is one of those Western intellectuals who never
give more than 5% of the facts of a case.
Indeed, there are no western {or modern}
intellectuals, who ever give more than 5% of
the facts of any case: one has to read
about 20 of them to get even 10% of the picture of a situation.
For all that, Webster is informative,
witty, & talented, and her book makes for an interesting & easy read –
a book which can be read by the layman as well, without being overly simplistic
& propagandistic.
Of course, you do need to know some things, some basics,
about the French Revolution, it cannot be a total blank.
I will definitely say that Webster presents only
those facts which suit her views, or her agenda: but I don’t think the facts
she presents are wrong in themselves.
She isn’t making them up as she goes along, in my assessment.
Indeed, this was probably the first importance
instance when I broke with the Liberalist philosophy I’d valued for so many years.
It was after reading this book that I moved away from my own liberal
ideas: it was the beginning of a long-drawn process which continues up to now.
In the excerpt below, you will come across many ideas which are either
touted flagrantly, or embedded implicitly, in all modern liberal propaganda.
The whole concept of family, for instance.
It is very obvious that Capitalism – or
rather, modern consumerism {which is the same as
capitalism}, fueled & propagated by liberalism – is
tending towards a total destruction of the institution of the family.
{As I said, Liberalism is Consumerism: every
Liberalist cliche has a commercial, business-related, financial root &
significance & aim.}
Not only divorce rates have reached unprecedented levels in all liberal
societies, but men & women are, increasingly, not willing to get married, let
alone have children together, anymore.
Everything the unsanitary trinity of Capitalism, Consumerism &
Liberalism is achieving, is leading inexorably to achievement of the goals of –
Communism.
These French Revolutionaries – well, at least many of them – and those
indicated by Webster below – were proto-Communists.
Many of their ideas were apparently inspired by Plato.
Already rules regarding parenting are strictly controlled by the State,
as in the US.
But more importantly, the fact that relationships are disintegrating so
rapidly means that soon reproduction & parenting will be taken over by the
State.
A time is coming – if things continue as they
have been going on, for the past 2 decades – when women will not want to look after their
children {they already do not want to cook: in the name of social utility!},
when men will want neither wife nor child, and people will voluntarily opt for reproducing children impersonally &
dumping their responsibility on the State.
Everything – every aspect of life around us – whether it is premarital
sex, or pornography, or orgiastic revelries & partying, or increasing
nudity, or promiscuity, or random dating, or women’s lib, or the constant
hatred being fomented between men & women – everything is calculated to create this mutual
indifference, this self-absorption, this narcissism, this egotism, this total
inability to compromise or sacrifice even a minute’s self-aggrandizement &
convenience for – not an outsider – but your own family member.
This is the social, psychological, media-portrayed dimension of ...
increasing sales: cosmetics, glamor products, recreational junk, drugs (of all
sorts), alcohol (sales shot up for sure when women started
drinking too), fashion, the so-called healthcare products (gymning etc.) etc.
If a woman does not want to cook for her husband & children,
obviously, someone has to cook: which
means either ordering food, or eating out, or more readymade, prepacked food
– in other words, more business.
Not to mention the fact that women don’t realize that if they refuse to
cook for their families & children, they are eliminating the primary &
most important root of family bonding & affection.
You can have an “intellectual discussion” with just about anyone: you
can have a financial consultant for financial advice, your school for
cultivating your talents – but only your mother, or wife, or some other female
member of the family, cooks for you {whether you
are male or female}, or gets your meals made & served {it’s not as if all women
cook all the time: in India, most of upper & middle-class women infact
don’t spend their whole life cooking, they have cooks & servants either to
do most of the work, or part of it}.
These women don’t realize that there couldn’t be
anything more deeply personal, more life-giving & nurturing, than feeding someone,
which is one of the most loving, intimate, & bond-forging, of all human
acts.
It is a deed of giving life, of regenerating & building up the
flesh, of satiating & calming the very breath of life.
Liberalism, the tool of capitalism-consumerism, has turned it into “slavery”: has turned it
into “oppression”: and thus broken the deepest, most essential, most vital bond
between woman & man, between woman & family: it has struck at the very
root of family life.
Forget about husband or father or son – no person can feel love for a woman who
says she doesn’t want to cook for him/her, and that cooking for him/her is
“slavery”.
It is one thing not being able to cook – it is totally
another, to refuse to cook.
A highly intelligent, educated, professional woman, like a doctor, or
lawyer, or scientist, or corporate manager, or a businesswoman, may not be in a position to cook – but
to say that cooking is slavery, that feeding her family is degradation, is to
destroy the very root of all relationships, all emotion, all love.
When there is no feeling, no sentiment of love, no affection, no
bonding, how will the family last?
This is just one part, albeit a very important & crucial part, of
the fundamental roots which go into the building of a family, and its role in
the development of an individual.
Everything else is in disarray.
With the rise of the modern economic system, men were in any case taken
away, distanced, and often detached from their families, but with women joining
the workforce, both parents are basically absconding – quite permanently – from
a child’s life.
People will soon dump the whole responsibility of parenting &
upbringing on external institutions, to begin with; and finally, on the State,
i.e. governmental institutions: they will not even want to have children in a
personal relationship of mutual duties & responsibilities: it would be too
big a drag & a burden on their so-called “professional” lives, on their overinflated egos, on their narcissistic
self-absorption, on their orgiastic-Dionysian addictions, on their unending
quest for thrills & titillations.
This is exactly what Communism wanted: total State-control over each
& every aspect of the life of the individual: for this it was necessary to
break up the family & isolate the individual altogether.
Sex, rather Fornication, masquerading as “Love”, was one of the most
important instruments in breaking up the family.
{The “Individualism” of the Ayn Rand variety
is part of the same agenda.}
It could not done by force, especially since the world was not, and
still is, largely orthodox: but through liberalism & consumerism,
capitalism leads to the exact same destination.
It is only to the extent we are natural, Conservative & Orthodox,
that people still lead normal family lives.
To the extent they are Liberal, their relationships are unnatural – strained,
forced, phony, empty, shallow, very superficial, all drifting away from each
other – relationships only in name, contracts, investments – at best social
& financial compromises.
Capitalism is achieving what Communism has always wanted – but after 2
centuries of liberalist brainwashing & such utter degradation of the human
soul, people no longer want to
be parents, no longer want to
be married, no longer care about “love” & relationships, no
longer want any personal responsibility
or accountability – and all this, through liberal mass-brainwashing.
Capitalism has made people want,
what Communism had been trying to achieve through coercion.
Well, the point of the mail was something else, though ;)
It was about depopulation.
But these are fundamentally related issues: they are part & parcel
of the same mindset, the same agenda, the same politics.
The very people instigating women not to cook, & to get drunk, &
have promiscuous sex, are the very same people most willing to eliminate those
women in a mass extermination of human life.
Make no mistake about it.
Depopulation has been a raging topic for a very long time now, actually.
And the excerpt below demonstrates that all the
so-called “altruists”, revolutionaries, freethinkers, socialists-communists,
liberals, and egalitarians, would not flinch for a moment, to depopulate either
a nation, or the world.
By western standards, someone like Barbara
Marx Hubbard was definitely a Liberal.
She did not flinch one bit in saying openly that one-fourth of mankind
should be wiped out.
What follows below goes on to show that Socialists-Communists have no love for the “masses”, for any
“proletariat”, for any “people”: if one can read between
the lines {and as often, the lines themselves}: their
whole agenda is the elimination of the old order of the world – in the
name of the “poor”, the “oppressed”, the “suppressed” – in the
name of “justice”, “equality” & “peace” – in order to take over
control of all the land, resources, wealth, knowledge, and all the power in the
world.
Rabble-rousing was only a medium of instigating the lower classes of
society against the upper: because the Socialist elite, in itself, never had
the brute power, the sheer numbers, to take on the aristocracy, the royalty
& the priesthood.
A 1,000 overintelligent nerds spread out in a network laid across the
world, could not eliminate the kings, priests & the nobility: you need the
battering-ram of the fury of the masses, for that: the “people”,
the “oppressed”, are merely means to an end – instruments & agents to get
those in power out of the way.
It was necessary to instigate the “poor”, and to foment hatred &
vengeance in them {even in this, the Revolutionaries were
actually not very successful, so they had to resort to hiring criminals &
mercenary groups to do their dirty jobs}, so that they can be used
as weapons to attack & destroy the creators & keepers of the old order.
Once the job is done, the “poor” could easily be eliminated.
This is not only true of the France of the 1790s, but also the coming
future of the world.
The power-hungry super-elite are fully capable of repeating exactly what
they wanted to do then: except that this time they will have the science, the
technology & the resources, not to fail.
This time, they are totally invisible, totally unapproachable, totally
untouchable.
This time, they have too much power, they have too much control: nobody
can stand against them.
The “oppressed”, the “suppressed”, and their braindead leaders,
will be eliminated with the same irreverence, the same utter nonchalance,
because these people – the ringleaders fomenting discord & hatred in
society by pitting everyone against everyone else – are truly a curse on
society & its happiness –– and the elite know it.
“Now in the opinion of St. Just nothing
tended so much both to happiness and morality as the profession of agriculture
— “a cottage, a field, and a plough”—these were to represent
the summit of every man’s ambitions.
Accordingly France was to be turned into a vast agrarian settlement, in
which there were to be no rich and no poor, no large properties and no cramped
dwellings; nothing but endless model cottages and small allotments tended by
hard-working and virtuous cultivators.
An admirable arrangement, no doubt, only unfortunately, in order to
ensure its success, there was to be no personal liberty either.
It is doubtful, indeed, whether liberty and equality can exist together,
for whilst liberty consists in allowing every man to live as he likes best, and
to do as he will with his own, equality necessitates a perpetual system of
repression in order to maintain things at the same dead level.
...
For this purpose, according to St.
Just, every department of life must be placed under State control—perhaps
the most inexorable form of tyranny it is possible to conceive.
For to an individual autocrat some appeal may be made, but against the
doors of a system one may batter in vain.
Thus in St.
Just’s Republic every human relationship was to be
regulated by the State.
True, free love was to take the place of
marriage, but the union thus contracted was to be dissolved at the end of seven
years if no children were forthcoming, whether the contracting parties desired
to separate or not.
{Isn’t this exactly where we’re heading?
“Free Love” is another joke; the worst joke, infact.
“Love” was used as a gimmick, a tool, to break down class, caste,
religious & racial (& national) barriers; to make them look bad.
The masses were incessantly bombarded with revoltingly, sickeningly
sentimental “love stories”, to make every law, every custom, every limit
of tradition, every family bond, every duty & responsibility, look evil,
look like “oppression”.
{One would think history was nothing but a succession of botched
inter-class, inter-caste & inter-religious love affairs, the way they went
on & on about it.
Apparently, nothing is more important than a man & a woman having
sex: everything on the planet is to be sacrificed to the exploding hormones of
horny youngsters.
Nobody noticed that only the most beautiful, gorgeous, handsome sex
symbols were taken, to portray these contrived, unrealistic, non-existent
love-affairs, to promote the cause of “freedom”, “love”, and
“equality”.
Nobody noticed that feeding these unrealistic visions to the masses,
these sex bombs & sex pots made billions & billions for themselves: and
while people struggle & suffer & die as they always did, this exclusive
elite, promoting egalitarianism, social justice, & “love” had amassed
fortunes which made them so powerful that they cannot be touched, today.
Imperceptibly, fashion, glamor, drunkenness, prostitution, crime {a
justification for crime, many heroes being criminals}, the disco-pub-casino
culture, were introduced along the way.
Nobody seemed to notice that “love” had become synonymous with
fashion & glamor, gambling & drunkenness, public exposure & nudity,
discos & orgies, in short, total promiscuity &
consumerism.}
The moment people accepted that these traditions, laws
& “rules” were “artificial” “barriers” meant to “divide”
& separate society to empower kings & priests & “exploit” the “poor” – & rejected them – the very concept of Love
was thrown out of the window, to be replaced by the
vilest bestiality & obscenity.
“Free Love” was nothing but sentimental manipulation – a means to
remove the limits upon human bestiality laid down by orthodoxy & religion –
to instigate indiscriminate fornication, unlimited sexual license, &
promiscuity.
Sex sells.
Sex also overrides rationality & makes people blind to the simplest
common sense.
There is no “Love” anymore: Liberals themselves laugh at the concept,
and keep saying, “After all, we’re just animals”.
Now, 7-year old boys have access to gangrape pornography videos &
films, & worse – something which never existed in the history of mankind.
No important liberal objection to this can be found anywhere.
Remember, nudity, pornography, alcohol, drugs, & too much freedom of
movement, are all part of the process, contributing to it.
Each element leads to an aggravation of the other.}
“Parents were to be forbidden either to strike or to
caress their children,
{From what I know, this is exactly the case in America
today.
Not sure about other societies.
Indian parenting is going down the drain too: it is a
cardinal sin to hit a child & correct it; parents just leave their kids
free to do whatever they want to do, deny them nothing, do not discipline their
minds & behaviour.
The runt has to simply yell & scream, and parents
give it whatever it wants.
Every tantrum is sacrosanct & has to be
fulfilled.}
“and the children were to be dressed all alike in
cotton, to live on “roots, vegetables, fruit, with bread and water,” and to
sleep on mats upon the floor.
Boys were to belong to their parents only till
the age of five; after that they were to become the property of the State until
their death.
{I don’t remember much of Plato’s Republic, but this is pretty
close to his vision.
If I remember correctly, Amish Tripathi gives a
somewhat modified version of the same horrifying, appalling vision, and
attempts to dish it out as a historical fact (!!!!!) in
his Shiva Trilogy, i.e. he claims that Harappan Hindu society (!!) was based
upon similar principles.}
“Every one was to be forced by law to form friendships, and “to declare
publicly once a year in the Temple who were his friends.”
Any infraction of these laws was to be punished by banishment.
...
It was an attempt to realize the ideal of Rousseau— “If
there were a people of gods it would govern itself democratically.”
The French, so far, were not gods, but they were to be made so.
But could a nation of 25,000,000 be thus transformed?
To the regenerators of France it seemed extremely doubtful; already the
country was rent with dissensions, and any scheme for universal contentment
seemed impossible of attainment.
Moreover, the plan of dividing things up into equal shares presented an
insuperable difficulty, for it became evident that amongst a population of this
size there was not enough money, not enough property, not enough employment,
not even at this moment enough bread to go round ; no one would be satisfied
with his share, and instead of universal contentment, universal dissatisfaction
would result.
What was to be done?
The population was too large for the scheme of the leaders to be carried
out successfully, therefore either the scheme must be abandoned or the population must be diminished.
To this conclusion the surgeons operating on the State had at last been
brought.
In vain they had amputated the gangrened limb of the nobility and the
clergy, had paralysed the brain by attacking the intellectual classes, had
turned (as in Aesop’s fable)
upon the stomach, that is to say, the industrial system, by which the whole
body of the State was fed, and denied it sustenance—all these means to restore
health to the State had failed, and they were now reduced to a last and
desperate expedient: the size of the whole body must be reduced.
In other words, a plan of
systematic depopulation must be carried out all over France.
That this idea, worthy of a mad Procrustes, really existed it is
impossible to doubt, since it has been revealed to us by innumerable
revolutionaries who were behind the scenes during the Terror.
Thus Courtois,
in his report on the papers seized at Robespierre’s
house after Thermidor, wrote:
“These men, in order to bring us to
the happiness of Sparta, wished to annihilate 12 or 15 millions of the French
people, and hoped after this revolutionary
transfiguration to distribute to each one a plough and some land to clear, so
as to save us from the dangers of the happiness of Persepolis.”
{It is interesting to see this comparison with Sparta & Persepolis: it reminds me of
the Hollywood director, Zack Snyder, and his
reprehensible film based on the Battle of Thermopylae, 300.
The film 300 pits Sparta against Persia {Persepolis was
the capital of the Persians} – with the typical
charlatanism of pseudo-quasi-Conservative Hollywood directors, Snyder portrays
Persians in the worst form possible light, bringing together every single
rotten, sordid prejudice & cliche the western world has ever concocted
about & against the Orient.
The Persians are utterly cruel, bestial & insidious at the one
end {trying to gain their ends through intrigue, corruption & bribery;
militarily, they have less courage & military skill, more brute force,
more numbers} – and are horribly decadent, opulent & depraved in their seemingly
immeasurable wealth, on the other.
Strangely enough, this is almost identical to the passage given by Webster, except that here it
is the Sparta-lovers who wanted to carry out the genocide.}
“Another intime of Robespierre,
the Marquis d’Antonelle, a member of the
Revolutionary Tribunal, actually explained the whole scheme in print whilst the
Terror was at its height.
Beaulieu, who met him in prison, where he was incarcerated by Robespierre for
giving away the secret of the leaders, thus describes the system as
revealed to him by D’Antonelle:
“He thought, like the greater number of the revolutionary clubs, that,
in order to institute the Republic on the ruins of the monarchy, it was
necessary to exterminate all those who preferred the latter form of government,
and that the former could only become democratic by the destruction of luxury
and riches, which form the support of royalty; that equality would never be anything but a chimera as long as men did
not all enjoy approximately equal properties; and finally, that such an order of things could never be established
until a third of the population had been suppressed; this was the
general idea of the fanatics of the Revolution.”
About two years later, that is to say in 1795, the Socialist, Gracchus
Babeuf, employed at the Commune, gave a more detailed account of the scheme in
his brochure, “Sur le Systeme de la
Depopulation, ou La Vie et les Crimes de Carrier”.
Of this system Babeuf declares
that Robespierre was the principal
author:
“Maximilien and his council had calculated that a real regeneration of France
could only be operated by means of a new distribution of territory and of the
men who occupied it”; and he goes on to show the
remorseless logic by which Robespierre reached
his final conclusion:
“He thought that,
firstly, in the present state of things property had fallen into a few
hands, and that the great majority of the French possessed nothing;
secondly, that in allowing this state of things to continue, equality of
rights would only be a vain word in spite of which the aristocracy of owners of
property would always be real, the smaller number would always tyrannize over
the great mass, the majority would always be the slave of the minority...;
thirdly, that in order to destroy this power of
the owners of property, and to take the mass of citizens out of their
dependence, there was no way but to place all property in the hands of the
government;
fourthly, that one could succeed without doubt only by immolating the
great proprietors...;
fifthly, that, besides this, depopulation was
indispensable, because the calculation had been made that the French population
was in excess of the resources of the soil and of the requirements of useful
industry, that is to say, that, with us, men jostled each other too much for
each to be able to live at ease; that hands were too numerous for the execution
of all works of essential utility...;
sixthly, finally—and this is the horrible conclusion—that since the
superabundant population could only amount to so much ... a
portion of sans-culottes must be sacrificed, that this rubbish could be cleared
away up to a certain quantity, and that means must be found for doing it.”
To this necessity Babeuf attributes
not only the guillotinades, fusillades, and noyades in the provinces, but also
the engineered famine to which he had drawn attention earlier, whilst the war,
far from providing a reason for the Terror, was in reality part of the scheme of
extermination.
“What,” he asks, “is
this plan of eternal crusades, of repulsing peace, of universal conquest, of
the conversion or subjugation of all kings and all peoples, if it is not the
hidden intention to prevent any one coming back from amongst that important
portion of the nation that armed itself so generously in order to chase the
enemy from French territory?”
The evidence of Babeuf is
the more valuable since he declares himself to be heartily in agreement with
the Socialistic schemes of Robespierre;
it is only the means employed to realize them that he disapproves.
“On the subject of extermination,” he naively concludes, “I am a man of prejudices; it is not given to every one
to rise to the heights of Maximilien
Robespierre.”
But later on he came to see that Robespierre’s plan
alone could ensure success, and that if absolute equality was to be achieved
the Terror must be revived.
It was for the attempt to reinstate the regime of Robespierre that Babeuf finally
met his end.
However preposterous the expose of Babeuf may
seem, we must admit that it is the only one that explains the Terror.
Moreover, that this was indeed the system on which it was founded does
not rest on the authority of Courtois, Babeuf,
and D’Antonelle alone, the very words “plan of depopulation” occur repeatedly in the writings and speeches of
other contemporaries.
Thus Prudhomme, in describing the massacres of September, explains the
enormous proportion of “the people” amongst the victims as the first evidence
of this scheme:
“The plan of butchery did not end with
the destruction of priests and nobles... but from that date there existed a
plan of depopulation conceived by Marat, Robespierre .
. ., etc., and this is what the method of the Terror has proved.”
Later on, at the trials of Fouquier Tinville and Carrier,
several witnesses referred to the same scheme:
· Grandpre of
the police declared that the most
powerful means employed by Robespierre was “a vast system of depopulation”;
· Ardenne,
Deputy Public Accuser, said the plan was “to
clear out the prisons in order to depopulate France,” and
in his summing up to the president and judges of the Revolutionary Tribunal
stated that “Robespierre, St.
Just, Couthon,
and others, had expected to depopulate France, and above all to make genius,
talents, honour, and industry to disappear”; *
· Trinchard,
member of the Revolutionary Tribunal, ended his evidence with the words: “Such was the system of depopulation organized by the
last tyrants, and in order to make sure of its execution they employed the most
immoral men”; indeed.
· Carrier himself
admitted that “this plan of destruction
existed”.
Carrier, Fouquier, Freron, Lebon, and the other monsters were therefore only acting on orders from
headquarters when they set out to decimate Paris and the provinces, and the
terrible phrase of Carrier, “Let us make a cemetery of France rather than not
regenerate her after our manner,” simply
epitomized the philosophy of Robespierre on
which the system of the Comité de Salut Public was
founded.
“It was at these times,” says Prudhomme, “that
they gave their secret orders to the chief scoundrels in their confidence.
It was there that General Rossignol went
to receive the plan for setting La Vendee in
a blaze.
It was there that Carrier organized
the noyades of Nantes.
It is there that Couthon said,
laughing, before he started for Lyon, ‘I
have only a head and a body; well, nevertheless, it is I who will give the
first blow of the hammer to the second town in the empire of France, in order
to destroy it.’
It is there that they organized the conspiracies
in the prisons, and that they drew up that plan of depopulation carried out
during fifteen months.
A map of France was spread out continually before the eyes of the Decemvirs
as well as a table of the population of each Commune; there they decimated towns and villages— ‘we
must have so many heads in such and such a department.’ ...
All the calamities of France, all the crimes of the Revolution,
originated in the salon of the Comité de Salut Public.”
The precise proportion of the population it would be necessary to
suppress formed the subject of calm mathematical calculation amongst the
leaders.
According to Larevelliere Lepeaux,
it was Jean Bon St. Andre who first openly
admitted the existence of the scheme, and at the time that the Revolutionary
Tribunal was instituted—that is to say, in the spring of 1793—declared in the
tribune of the Convention that “in order to establish the Republic securely in France, the population
must be reduced by more than half.”
Beside this estimate D’Antonelle’s proposal to reduce by 1/3rd only
seems comparatively moderate.
Other leading revolutionaries considered, however, that far more drastic
measures were necessary; thus
· Collot d’Herbois held that 12 to 15 millions of the French must
be destroyed,
· Carrier declared that
the nation must be reduced to 6 millions,
· Guffroy in his journal
expressed the opinion that only 5 million people should be allowed to survive,
whilst
· Robespierre was reported to
have said that a population of 2 millions would be more than enough.
· Pagés and Fantin Desodoards assert, however, that 8 millions was the figure
generally agreed on by the leaders.”
I have no reason to doubt these words.
As you can see, the elite simply need reasons to eliminate the masses,
to reduce the population, to exterminate & control numbers: and there
have always been reasons.
It is always easier to control a limited number of people.
A World-Dictatorship would be most secure with 1-2 billion people – a
very limited rate of growth of population {controlled by the World State} – and
very limited economic growth, which will not allow the population to grow
beyond a certain point.
There is nothing called a “carrying capacity” of the Earth: but there is
certainly a point beyond which it becomes very difficult, even if
not impossible – even with modern technology – to control the lives of more
than 7 billion people, and establish a World Dictatorship.
The first, necessary prerequisite for this is depopulation.
― Enigma
