tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.comments2024-03-02T12:39:23.745+11:00Oz ConservativeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger27037125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-53320463333963673672024-02-28T01:46:18.081+11:002024-02-28T01:46:18.081+11:00The basic premise of feminism is that men are the ...The basic premise of feminism is that men are the oppressor class. They have the power, women do not have the power. If a woman is denied something (be it money, career advancement, or personal happiness) it is because some man used his power to prevent her from having it. Men, the oppressors, are hoarding the happiness just like they are hoarding power, privilege, money, and all the other good things of life.Lugonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-1692847198352116762024-02-27T19:06:14.211+11:002024-02-27T19:06:14.211+11:00Have you seen the msnbc thing where “heidi przybyl...Have you seen the msnbc thing where “heidi przybyla” declares the “danger” of Christian nationalists is: “that they believe rights come from God and not congress?” That should be your next article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-17217827096523327032024-02-25T07:46:14.877+11:002024-02-25T07:46:14.877+11:00Thanks for the link. It's more evidence, thoug...Thanks for the link. It's more evidence, though the article is not strictly correct in stating that it's the first time that differences have been identified - there is also some research from 2019. The one I remember best is in Sweden where a magazine lost funding because it interviewed a female scientist who had identified differences in the male and female brain:<br /><br />"There have also been cases of liberals denying the validity of the science simply because it does not accord with liberal values.<br />For instance, in Sweden a county government withdrew funding for a book because it contained an interview with a leading Swedish neurobiologist, Annica Dahlstrom, who had researched differences in the male and female brain. The editor of Sweden’s largest selling newspaper supported this move:<br /><br />Our Swedish gender equality policy is based on us being equal and socialised into different gender roles. Annica Dahlstrom is an essentialist feminist and believes that boys and girls are totally different. The county government cannot publish material with that opinion."Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-64819399717579961282024-02-20T16:10:14.401+11:002024-02-20T16:10:14.401+11:00I couldn't help but think of some of your rece...<br />I couldn't help but think of some of your recent blogs on biology, reality and self-determination when I saw this article... <br /><br />If you read the article its clear some of the researchers weren't doing these studies hoping to show biological differences, but in fact the converse. Some of the researchers sounded annoyed with the findings!!. As any common person would know after a few weeks at best, and anyone married would know undeniably, the sexes think and process experience differently.<br /><br />Now science has the insolence to violate standard equalitarian dogmas.<br /><br />Men and women's brains do work differently, scientists discover for first time<br /><br />https://news.yahoo.com/men-womens-brains-differently-scientists-204332939.htmlcecil1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-75405244842925307342024-02-13T10:58:04.382+11:002024-02-13T10:58:04.382+11:00liberalism was always meant to be the “church” of ...liberalism was always meant to be the “church” of the antichrist, but some prefer when it was less obvious. As Mark said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-26167319321971071322024-02-13T06:16:30.572+11:002024-02-13T06:16:30.572+11:00Yes, a complication enters when you consider the &...Yes, a complication enters when you consider the "new" liberalism, which is not as focused on negative liberty as classical liberalism is. I suspect this is one reason why classical liberalism is still appealing to a few people, like Laurence Fox. If these are the only two alternatives, and you don't like the more intrusive politics of the "new" liberalism, then perhaps you find classical liberalism appealing in comparison. Of course, I think we have to be bolder and think outside of both options, as both are radically dissolving of human society.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-36357831424921248462024-02-13T05:27:47.436+11:002024-02-13T05:27:47.436+11:00Very good post. Don't you think, though, that...Very good post. Don't you think, though, that the new and rapidly growing "church" of equitarian universalism is going to go somewhat in the opposite direction? It seems to be taking over the public sphere and not allowing the do anything attitude of liberalism to have free reign. It is protruding into the public sphere.RobertBrandywinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11661602554300651862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-714136963549798772024-01-27T13:58:05.597+11:002024-01-27T13:58:05.597+11:00Scripture Is The Word Of God.
Also the singular r...Scripture Is The Word Of God.<br /><br />Also the singular reason The Old Testament exists is to reference and ask a question that Christ would Fulfill.<br /><br />Are you capable of doing anything but unforgivably blaspheme, robert?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-14553745143194775322024-01-24T17:15:26.646+11:002024-01-24T17:15:26.646+11:00Robert, sorry to drag this on, but I think a key s...Robert, sorry to drag this on, but I think a key source of information for this is from the Catechism as listed on the website of the Holy See: <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_three/section_two/chapter_two/article_4.html" rel="nofollow">The Fourth Commandment</a>Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-7182893910442501912024-01-24T15:10:09.260+11:002024-01-24T15:10:09.260+11:00I would note too that the writers at Catholicism.o...I would note too that the writers at Catholicism.org have understood things the same way: "Patriotism is a great virtue. To be a patriot is to love one’s fatherland. This means that it is to love the land of the people that sired you. Patriotism is a natural overflow of the virtue of piety — that is, the virtue of the home. As piety would have us rendering what is due in justice to parents and other family members, patriotism would have us render the same to our nation, its government, and our fellow citizens. Both of these are a matter of justice, for the virtues of piety and patriotism are parts of that cardinal virtue. Over and above justice is the theological virtue of charity, which also enters into a consideration of Catholic piety and patriotism. After God, we love our neighbors, that is, those who are “nigh” to us, meaning near us. Those most near to us are our parents and our siblings."Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-53486482717940851822024-01-24T14:58:48.924+11:002024-01-24T14:58:48.924+11:00I'm not so sure Robert. Jesus upheld the comma...I'm not so sure Robert. Jesus upheld the commandments. The fifth commandment says "Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you". This is very close to the virtue of pietas, in which we are to reverence those responsible for our being. It usually included God, parents and "patria". <br /><br />Others, better versed in these matters than I am, have made the same connection. For instance, in the Expositor's Bible we find: "The Latin pietas impressed a religious character upon filial duty. This word signified at once dutifulness towards the gods, and towards parents and kindred. In the strength of its family ties and its deep filial reverence lay the secret of the moral vigour and the unmatched discipline of the Roman commonwealth. The history of ancient Rome affords a splendid illustration of the fifth commandment."Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-70546732252371392512024-01-24T12:50:52.752+11:002024-01-24T12:50:52.752+11:00You are quoting from Paul. He really can't sp...You are quoting from Paul. He really can't speak for Jesus. And nothing in the old Testament is relevant to Jesus. I think all the evidence is clear that Jesus believed in universality.RobertBrandywinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11661602554300651862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-3530510854836589202024-01-22T15:19:52.671+11:002024-01-22T15:19:52.671+11:00If we turn to the question of destroying nations (...If we turn to the question of destroying nations (as even mixing by necessity involves destruction of the nations mixed to form one new, different nation) or the effort to replace all nations with one mixed nation of humanity, it seems even more dubious that this has any proper moral sanction. At the very least we can say that if there are meant to be nations plural the effort to mix all and have only one is contrary to the Divine Order, and on that basis the impulse to mixing (which has as its logical conclusion this oneness of humanity, as its advocates even openly promote) must be said to be at least disordered (if we can’t go further and agree it to be thoroughly contrary to proper moral direction).<br /><br />Very interesting post, Mark. I wasn’t aware of this exegetical subtlety.Guest Ghastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-86090136505943870922024-01-16T14:35:17.132+11:002024-01-16T14:35:17.132+11:00Alex, one aspect of your post I found interesting ...Alex, one aspect of your post I found interesting was the link between voluntary association & merit: "one ought not to (publicly) discriminate in favour of people who simply happen to be related to you (taboos against nepotism and other forms of clannish behaviour), but should treat all socio-economic actors fairly, impartially, as individuals, on the basis of their merits, and without respect of persons."<br /><br />When you look back in history, this was an ongoing process that was perhaps not complete until the 1900s. Before then patronage and softer forms of nepotism were not uncommon in the English speaking countries. For instance, there was an influential American magazine in the late 1800s called The Century:<br /><br />"The magazine championed several Progressive causes popular in its time. Among these were several civil service reforms including competitive examinations for public offices, which its writers saw as a way to promote good governance and reduce class privilege. Similarly, in 1894 Henry Cabot Lodge attacked the "un-American" practice of patronage."<br /><br />Obviously, there are some good aspects of the shift toward merit. Its peak influence is already over, with all sorts of DEI requirements in hiring now - and with the immigration of groups who are already practising some degree of nepotism. I have to say, as well, that there are some on our side who passionately wish to return to an in-group preference.<br /><br />I'm not sure to what extent a strict meritocracy depends on a "west of the Hajnal" line mindset. Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-21875540063495137532024-01-16T07:52:52.371+11:002024-01-16T07:52:52.371+11:00The people whom the devil fears becoming Catholic ...The people whom the devil fears becoming Catholic are where he seeks to make friends.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-32006533040148540782024-01-14T14:35:26.993+11:002024-01-14T14:35:26.993+11:00That is fair enough. I was thinking of the removal...That is fair enough. I was thinking of the removal of the WAP in the ‘70s in Australia’s case, but that was a mistake on my part and you are quite correct. The earlier policies had slipped my mind.<br /><br />That said, while I think we can both agree that there was a “US Empire” after WW2 owing to the collapse of the British Empire, I would tentatively suggest that there was something of an American-British synthesis prior, a merging that was only fully achieved after WW2 but which was still strong in the first half of the 20th century, most obviously represented in the highly-aligned foreign policy of the two during those times. (I recall that Stalin in private is alleged to have seen himself and the Soviet Union in general as being at war with the “Anglo-Saxons”, encompassing both the British Empire and the US). I would suggest this is the primary reason why the British Empire was more or less peacefully absorbed into the American Empire. It is unfortunately somewhat conspiratorial, but the shared financial and political influences is at least for the most part a matter of public record. Importantly I would suggest that this is the reason for similar replacement policy emerging at roughly the same time in both the British Empire and the US, seemingly especially the period 1870–1945.<br /><br />I did not mean to suggest that there was no “native” component of support, only that this support would be present almost purely within elite sections intellectually and morally dominated by liberalism rather than being in any way “democratically organic” and arising from the common man. It has been discussed elsewhere (on this blog?) that these “native” liberal elites have more or less totally deracinated themselves and have very little compunction allying with alien elites to sell out “their own.” In the case of the US I put forward the example of Philip Hart as an alien Irishman sponsoring replacement policy, as in the US the founding stock had a very distinct sense of themselves as being Anglo-Saxon and the Irish have, to my view, always had a very strong sense of themselves as being distinct (especially in the case of late-arriving immigrants, as in Hart’s case). In Australia I would venture to guess that this was somewhat different, the Irish making up a strong component of the founding stock and therefore perhaps seeing themselves as less alien and more “natively Australian.” But that’s really neither here nor there given the native-alien elite synthesis.<br /><br />The essential point of my argument is that rather than some sort of coinciding by chance of similar policy emerging in this or that location that these policies, where they have been implemented, can be traced back to the same concrete political influences, and that the extent of this “empire of influence” (if it is not a real empire) can be traced over time. In brief encompassing the US and British Empire originally, capturing much of Europe (and Japan) tentatively in WWI and firmly by WW2, and becoming much larger after 1989/91. Certainly in the 1870s both the US and Britain were liberal empires (perhaps even the same liberal empire, but I admit this is a nebulous concept in meaning and highly debatable) and for much the same reason, stemming as it were from the same root. I think the best place to look for falsification of my theory would be to find a replacement policy from outside the Anglophone world that has its origins as being purely, or at least primarily, native, but I’m not aware of any such example.Guest Ghastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-52022001257676778722024-01-14T10:20:52.717+11:002024-01-14T10:20:52.717+11:00Guest Ghast, I might have mentioned also that the ...Guest Ghast, I might have mentioned also that the characteristically modern multiculturalist view was pioneered by an American WASP by the name of Randolph Bourne as early as 1916. See <a href="https://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-bourne-identity-1916.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="https://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2014/03/why-did-we-get-bourne.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Bourne was clearly an intellectual type and not representative of his own social class, but it was his viewpoint that eventually triumphed and his intellectual influences were men like Wells, Dewey, Shaw and Nietzsche. Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-61035758524269472022024-01-14T09:56:20.091+11:002024-01-14T09:56:20.091+11:00Guest Ghast, thank you for this comment. There is ...Guest Ghast, thank you for this comment. There is certainly something, at least, in it. If you look at what happened in Australia, then the decision to ethnically replace Anglos was taken in cabinet meetings during WWII just when Australia was pivoting away from the UK and toward the US (after the fall of Singapore). The Govt understood that the decision would be unpopular - you only have to read the Australian soldiers' diaries of the time to understand that they were still ethnically self-conscious. The politician who did most to push the diversity plan (Arthur Calwell) had an Irish background, and did not see himself as part of the WASP elite. The plan was delayed by the shortage of shipping after the war, and it was the US Govt and the Catholic Church which pushed hard to implement things. <br /><br />So looking at it in terms of a "US Liberal Empire" and Australia being an "aligned state" there is certainly some evidence for this view, at least when it comes to the idea of something like a "final shove".<br /><br />However, as you yourself point out, replacement migration began in the US in the second half of the nineteenth century, at a time when the US elite was still overwhelmingly WASP. Jewish intellectuals only became influential from the very late 1800s/early 1900s - and they did so in alignment with some of the liberal Protestant churches. <br /><br />In Australia, Calwell had been pushing his diversity view since the 1930s, i.e. at a time before Australia was aligned to the US. He did so using liberal arguments that had dominated Australian politics since at least the 1870s and that had been pushed by a Scottish born newspaper owner, David Syme. <br /><br />The decision to embrace diversity was made behind the scenes in the early 1940s by an inter-parliamentary committee which was made up of Anglo academics - economists and the like. They were technocrats, who saw things in terms of GDP & who did not believe that native birth rates were sufficient to meet targets. <br /><br />I have to say, as well, that although the majority of ordinary Australians have opposed replacement, there is a large, educated, liberal, influential, inner urban class (both left and right liberal) who are fanatically attached to it. It has not been externally imposed on these Anglo-Australians at all. <br /><br />How we mesh together these things, I have to mull over a little. Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-55804428758160856412024-01-13T18:32:22.841+11:002024-01-13T18:32:22.841+11:00I suggest this as an amended explanation because i...I suggest this as an amended explanation because it is more concrete and less abstract but also because its historical situation is traceable. The Hajnal line roughly aligns with the “first wave” of replacement migration (although I would argue there were two, first in the US and then in the periphery states like in Europe or Australia), but it doesn’t account for the situation today. The bounds of this “liberal empire” have expanded since Soviet collapse right up to the Russian border, and is it any accident that post-Soviet states like Poland or Ukraine are now experiencing “liberalization” policies? More relevantly, places like Poland, despite their very distinct and separate history from Western Europe, are now also experiencing pushes for replacement migration policies to be implemented, while states still outside the bounds of this empire (e.g. Belarus, Serbia) are not. Most tellingly, there are states wholly outside of and alien to Western Europe that are also having replacement policies pushed on them despite lack of native support, like Japan. Japan I don’t think in any way can be said to be part of the “Western European” mold, but it is most definitely part of the Empire. I would expect every place where the Empire rules to have such policies implemented, and be implemented in proportion to how strong the Empire’s rule is there and how able it is to endure such policies (which is, IMO, mostly a matter of wealth).<br /><br />As a final note I only ask this: just as we wouldn’t be surprised at a nominally independent but in truth Soviet-aligned state pushing a policy of atheism (part and parcel of the ruling communist ideology), should we really be surprised at a nominally independent but in truth American- (liberal-)aligned state pushing a policy of replacement? I don’t believe so.<br /><br />(3/3)Guest Ghastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-56149324311855165952024-01-13T18:32:08.414+11:002024-01-13T18:32:08.414+11:00Tentatively, therefore, I’d like to put forward my...Tentatively, therefore, I’d like to put forward my own explanation for the phenomenon, not necessarily in opposition to the one given but as an extension of it. Replacement migration has been the intentional policy of a liberal empire whose bounds roughly align with that of the Hajnal line. Its history and origins are debateable but largely irrelevant for the purposes of the explanation because we can say for certain that this empire was extent at least by the 1870s in the US, where I think we can safely say the first inklings of “modern” replacement policy were implemented after the Civil War, with things like the 14th Amendment that justify so much unvoted-for policy up to today. By that time I think it’s fair to say that the US was already heavily in the grip of having whatever ethnic character it possessed destroyed, though there were blips of sentiment for a long time afterwards (I think of the Irish draft riots during the Civil War or the longstanding maintenance of a WASP elite in elite institutions up to WW2).<br /><br />The replacement migration policy we’re concerned about is undoubtedly a 20th century phenomenon, and I don’t think we can ignore that every place it occurred during that time was within the bounds of what was and is an American Empire in all but name, making it foreign rule basically for everyone in its bounds. One of the new alien elites were, of course, Jews who have been and continue to be major supporters and movers of liberal policy, but I think it’s also noteworthy that the non-Jewish co-sponsor of perhaps the most maligned replacement policy in history (the 1965 INA) was an Irishman. How many US major politicians of the 20th century were or considered themselves to be “heritage Americans”, descendants of the “ourselves and our posterity” the US Constitution so boldly declares? Very few, by my observation, especially by the time of the heights of these sorts of policies. My point in saying this is only to establish that everywhere under the rule of this empire, even in its purported “home” of the United States, was effectively under the rule of people alien to the native populace, and it used to be considered common sense that alien rulers would always have little regard for a native population. That fact alone might explain the replacement policies (as well as various material incentives, like undermining labor) but they were, in the end, elites of a liberal empire and committed liberals themselves, as the guest article notes. Liberal politicians and servants of a liberal empire; a surprise that they abolished anti-liberal policy where they ruled? The other major empire of the 20th century, the Soviet Empire, didn’t impose replacement policies on its subject peoples despite being similarly alien.<br /><br />(2/3)Guest Ghastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-67776311719563259752024-01-13T18:31:13.561+11:002024-01-13T18:31:13.561+11:00I’d like to provide, if I may, a friendly critique...I’d like to provide, if I may, a friendly critique. While the Hajnal line certainly provides a demarcation of where the phenomenon primarily occurs, I disagree that it provides an explanation in itself. There is the implication of an explanation — really two, the first being liberalism (which I agree with) and the second being that the cause of liberalism is Western Europeans (which I suppose I must agree with historically but cannot necessarily agree this was inherent).<br /><br />Is it any accident that the Hajnal line ends where the Iron Curtain used to begin (with only the major exceptions of Greece and Finland)? I do not think so. It also may not be an accident that it aligns quite well with the division between Eastern and Western Christianity (which I would argue has more than a bit to do with the division between the Eastern and Western Roman Empire). As a minor point, the Hajnal line excludes Ireland, which is most definitely undergoing replacement.<br /><br />I would also like to critique the implication that any replacement immigration policy arose as a result of some sort of “grassroots” process because of the common man’s belief in voluntarism. In all the major examples I am aware of (US, UK, Australia, Germany, etc.) these policies were imposed “top-down” by politicians who certainly never ran on the platform of implimenting replacement migration, and I’m not aware of any place where such a policy had widespread support before its implementation. Even nowadays where all places that have it are propagandized heavily to support it I would wager most people would support its abolition, or at least not oppose it with anything but lip service. The politicians themselves may have implemented it out of their own ideological belief, of course.<br /><br />(1/2)Guest Ghastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-71445602479278398132024-01-11T07:21:34.390+11:002024-01-11T07:21:34.390+11:00Cecil, thanks. But I think the lesson here is that...Cecil, thanks. But I think the lesson here is that it is not really Jewish or any other kind of lobby or power group that is ultimately responsible for Western decline. It was the mainstream political ideology or narrative current in the US (and elsewhere) that was careering the West toward its own suicide. Woodhull and Claflin are very useful in this regard, because they gave lectures in which they tried to set out their understanding of this politics in a systematic way. I will write a follow up piece on this soon, but the understanding of religious freedom that developed in the 1600s, was extrapolated to a political freedom and then to a social freedom. It led to a radically individualistic mindset that individuals were to be controlled by the government into their own limited individual spheres. The role of government itself was limited to the function of this control. There did not exist anymore a notion of the "double nature of the good" in which it was important to the individual that the good of the community they belonged to and were literally "members" of was upheld. It could not be upheld because of the way the role of the state was framed & because of the way individuals in pursuit of the good were limited strictly to their individual spheres. Furthermore there could be no common good because of the metaphysical underpinnings of all this. There was a modernist, Hobbesian understanding (a vehement rejection of the longstanding Western understanding) in which creatures did not have an essence, which might then provide a deeper connectedness between them, but instead were determined by external forces acting upon their senses, and so were unique in their being and their desires and so had to pursue the good in their own individual way. Why was this whole framework adopted? It was not the intention of those who framed much of early modern thought (e.g. Descartes/Bacon) to destroy the double nature of the good - in fact, they defended it - but nonetheless the logic of the emerging world picture pushed in this direction. Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-54258251805149119342024-01-11T04:41:10.065+11:002024-01-11T04:41:10.065+11:00My previous comment calling them devil worshipers ...My previous comment calling them devil worshipers was rejected by the site.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-54221145855119969612024-01-11T04:40:54.035+11:002024-01-11T04:40:54.035+11:00Read Igor Shaferavich’s “socialism in our past and...Read Igor Shaferavich’s “socialism in our past and in our future.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-89184039289543567602024-01-10T17:17:34.914+11:002024-01-10T17:17:34.914+11:00Its not clear whether Victoria Woodhull was jewish...Its not clear whether Victoria Woodhull was jewish, but her ideology of one world government and the destruction of all racial groups by miscegenation or otherwise (she wanted 400 million Chinese in America in the 1870's) is straight up Jewish utopian thinking since forever. Its really remarkable to hear it.<br /><br />She had backers for many of her public campaigns in NY and elsewhere, and some of them look to be jewish. So the pattern of this ideological mindset repeats again and again. <br /><br />It appears from her history that she repudiated a lot of her early <br /><br />Interesting, she repudiated a lot of the feminist ideology in later life<br /><br />"in 1875, Woodhull began to publicly espouse Christianity and she changed her political stances.[36] She exposed Spiritualist frauds in her periodical, alienating her Spiritualist followers.[37] She wrote articles against promiscuity, calling it a "curse of society".[38] Woodhull repudiated her earlier views on free love, and began idealizing purity, motherhood, marriage, and the Bible in her writings.[39][40][41] She even claimed that some works had been written in her name without her consent."<br /><br />That some of her works were written without her consent (and hence by people pushing her behind the scenes) would not surprise me. Such patterns repeates itself in the women's liberation'/sexual liberation movements of the 1920's and 1960's, as documented well in the E Michael Jones book 'The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit'.<br /><br />There's very much a political and non-spontaneous pattern to this culture war. <br /><br />Interesting article!<br /><br />cecil1noreply@blogger.com