Women's Lib: The Plot Against Civilization pp. 337-338

 

I wonder if you could have a conservative conspiracy theorist that is actually pro-women’s rights. I’ve never run across one. All conspiracy theorists that I have read, have viewed any progress on women’s rights as being part of the conspiracy. Webster, a woman, is no different.

The Illuminati, we must remember, was about as progressive on women’s issues as one could get in 1776. They attempted to educate women and include them in their organization. They would not be on par with the male members but for a club of this kind to include women at all is a positive step, of course Webster is going to have a problem with this.

Our selection this week begins with her attack on “Feminism.” This book is going to be published in 1921, which means that Webster was working on it for at least a year. Keep this in mind because it was not until 1918 that women were given the right to vote in the UK—provided that they were over the age of 30 and owned property through marriage. This, as a step forward would have to be viewed as a bad thing by Webster. Her whole position is to maintain the status quo and perhaps edge it back a bit. What people like Webster always misunderstand is that if it were not for “the radicals” the various rights they enjoy would not exist.

She points out that during the French Revolution, women’s rights movements got involved proposing various reforms to increase their status in French Society. She claims that these movements only existed for the purpose of “general demoralization” and not for any real purpose. So, we should ask Webster who this demoralizes since the only people who really get upset at women’s rights are those used to having power over them. Yes, those people are going to be demoralized but they should be.

We are then told that female missionaries have been visiting England preaching the “Right to Motherhood.” I’m unclear about what this movement was about and searching through the internet isn’t giving me a clear answer. It seems, and I could be wrong about this, that it was about establishing a legal case for child support. Though that makes Webster’s claim that there were missionaries about a little odd—but she could be lying. Normally if I cannot find something like this I gloss over it but we have a little footnote here that says the campaign for the “Right to Motherhood” was being carried out “by the occult powers.” Sometimes we have to remind ourselves that Webster believes in magic as her enemy.

“Women have obviously far more to lose than men by the destruction or even by a decrease of civilization, while the Suffragist has everything to lose by the abolition of the Parliamentary system which accords her the vote she has so long demanded…”

Webster wants it both ways. She wants to demonize the feminist/Suffragist/Equality movements but then wants to pretend that the rights they currently have were always the case. People exactly like her opposed the measures for equality in 1917 so let’s not pretend that she’s concerned about the rights of women. She’s attempting to appeal to her male readers by making these claims. Read the quoted text again and notice that the abolition of the Parliamentary system (which no one was arguing for) only affects the Suffragists’ right to vote. The men, she assumes, will always have that right.

Webster then crosses the sea for the second time in this book to mention the United States in a long block quote from someone writing 123 years in her past that she never mentions. It’s a call to action to women against the reformers and those attempting to grant them equality or else they will lose their position that Christianity has granted them.

I said this when I covered the Robison book: Christianity in the 18^th century and in the 20^th century was the vehicle used to keep women down. Webster asks, “If not only Christianity but all religion is to be destroyed, then indeed women will sink to a condition which Robison describes as lower than a ‘Mahomedan’ paradise.”

“Mahomedan” is 18^th century speak for “Muslim,” and I will repeat what I said about the Robison claim from when I did his book: “No.” This is just incorrect and it’s more incorrect 130 years later when Webster is writing. First off, the destruction of religion would only benefit women. Just across the board this would help. Sure, you can look at Wahabist/fundamentalist Muslim countries today and say those are worse than Anglican England; but that’s not a fair comparison because fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam treat women about the same. Webster’s experience with Mahomedan states and their treatment of women is nothing. The Ottoman empire was finally broken at the end of World War I. The allied powers are still carving up the Middle East at the point of her writing so there is no Saudi Arabian state to violently oppress women yet. You may want to say that Robison’s reference makes more sense but the only difference in the rights of women in 18^th century Europe and 18^th century Türkiye is polygamy, but in a century (from Robison), Mormons are going to attempt to resurrect that for Christians in America.

Her problem is the same thing it always is—change. People like her see even progress for her as bad. She’s got a very new right to vote, but what about those women who are unmarried and/or under 30? Any attempt to give them the right to vote is an evil straight from the lips of Weishaupt himself. She doesn’t care about women’s rights, this is merely a big swing to get wishy washy readers on her side.

It’s an ineffective gambit because no reader who got this far is suddenly going to say, “oh women are going to have a different role in society, I’d better support the fascists.” Anyone not committed has not gotten to the conclusion. This is the wrap up, she should not be adding new information.