Category Archives: Gender

With Some Exceptions, ‘Women Are Fascists At Heart’

Education, Fascism, Feminism, Gender, Socialism

One only has to trace the statistically significant correlation between women’s suffrage and the change in the size and scope of the state, as did John R. Lott, Jr. (Yale University) and Lawrence W. Kenny (University of Florida), to know that Vox Day’s assertion (“women are fascists at heart”) is unassailable.

With few exceptions, “Women are, and have always been, intrinsically fascist,” writes my much-missed, WND colleague. When Vox is right he’s right. From academia to the IRS and the EPA—dig a little and you’ll find distaff America behind the illiberal, oppressive direction society is taking.

Viva Vox:

This open argument in favor of abandoning the Doctrine of Academic Freedom in favor of a Doctrine of Academic Justice is an excellent example of why women were not allowed into the universities in the first place. This is why they were not permitted to vote. We ignore the great minds of the past at our peril, and we have no right to complain about having to suffer the obvious consequences of entirely predictable actions

With a small minority of exceptions, they hate freedom and will always trade it for the promise of security, physical and emotional. The Fascists understood this. The medieval philosophers understood this. The Founding Fathers understood this. The West rejected the idea in favor of sexual equality and the myth of progress, and now the university has abandoned its centuries-old tradition of academic freedom.

Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, not all women are the same. Yes, there are brilliant and sensible women. But the salient point is that the price of female involvement is reliably too high across the board. How much more destruction can Western Civilization be expected to survive before women of sense are willing to admit that the price of female participation in matters of governance is too great? Do we really need to undergo the Great Collapse before the ancient truths can be accepted once more?

“The lesson, as always, is this: women ruin everything.”
– Bill Simmons

UPDATED: Conservatives and Lefties United Against The Beauty Ideal

Aesthetics, Conservatism, Feminism, Gender, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Propaganda

Radio mouth Laura Ingraham ventured into the “Shangri-La of Socratic disinterest,” i.e., “The O’Reilly Factor,” to promote leftist feminist thought: Laura whined that Sports Illustrated promotes a certain body image in women.

No, moron. The magazine is responding to a certain consensus about beauty, extant across most civilized societies. Like high intelligence, such perfection is uncommon. We can’t all possess the assets these thoroughbred beauties possess.

But like lefties, conservatives do not acknowledge that people are not created equal. (Come to think of it, lite libertarians are pursuing the same “thought,” but about that another time.)

The most Laura can do is take comfort in the fact that these gorgeous girls are, mostly, as dumb as bricks and will age, but there is nothing she can do to demote their coveted advantage and promote the “self-image” of her presumably uncomely kids. Nobody wants to see Gabourey Sidibe, “the mountain of human flesh that stars in the film ‘Precious,'” on the coveted cover of Sports Illustrated.

UPDATE (2/22): My comments from Facebook thread:

Someone said that beauty is like art. I agree. We are drawn to looking at lovely things. Less evolved sorts prefer what I call the porn aesthetic (see column for examples). However, I can tell you that I saw some of these beauties on Charlie Rose last night. They only have to open their mouths to spout stupid, banal, political platitudes, and wave their hands affectaciously—and I cringe. I looked on a bit, out of appreciation, then I “fled” the channel.

Btw, yammering about “diversity” is of a piece with being brain washed. We don’t have to “care” about diversity. Pursuing/practicing these political concepts is a hallmark of a propagandized people.

Vermont Teddy Bear

Aesthetics, Feminism, Gender

Chocolates are a magnificent food, used throughout the ages to delight the palate and seduce.

Flowers are nature’s art. What things of beauty they are. Men have cultivated magnificent flower gardens for centuries as hobbyists or professionals. Horticulture involves both science and art.

Besides, is there anything as lovely as the fragrance from a garden-picked rose? Or the sight of a bird on a lovely bloom?

But a tacky, synthetic, hideous, giant dust collector like the 4 feet tall Vermont Teddy Bear: What sort of woman wants this horrid house dust mite station in her home?

The 4 feet tall Vermont Teddy Bear is being vigorously marketed as a Valentine gift.

UPDATE II: Conned About Marriage, Constitution And ‘States’ Rights’ (Constitution’s About Process)

Conservatism, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Gender, Homosexuality, Law, The Courts

“Conned About Marriage, Constitution And ‘States’ Rights'” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

The ban on the ban is unconstitutional.

This was the gist of broadcaster Mark Levin’s angry tirade against the humdrum, and certainly predicable, decision of a federal judge to strike down “Oklahoma’s voter-approved ban” on gay marriage.

At the center of conservative contretemps are similar decisions in California, New Mexico and Utah, following on which U.S. District Judge Terence Kern had “determined that Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment” violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. It stipulates that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Broadly speaking, WND’s Alan Keyes concurred with Levin, alluding to the Constitution’s 10th and Ninth Amendments by which “the judges and justices of the federal judiciary are forbidden to … deny the antecedent rights retained by the people.”

Indeed, “the prevailing view in 1791,” observed The Honorable Robert T. Donnelly, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of the state of Missouri, “was that the national government had only delegated powers and that reserved to the people was an undefined sphere of non-government within which people may not be interfered with by government.”

But that was then.

In voiding “voter-approved law,” Justice Kern has resorted to perfectly proper 14th Amendment judicial activism. Deploying the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, Kern nullified the 10th. It specifies that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As expressed in the once-impregnable 10th Amendment, the Constitution’s federal scheme has long since been obliterated by the 14th Amendment and the attendant Incorporation Doctrine.

What does this mean?

If the Bill of Rights was intended to place strict limits on federal power and protect individual and locality from the national government—the 14th Amendment effectively defeated that purpose by placing the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be. …

… Either way, the freedoms afforded by federalism are no longer because American federalism is no longer. …

… Conservatives as astute as Mr. Levin, Esq., ought to quit misleading their readers and listeners about the restoration of a constitutional structure that has suffered death by a thousand cuts, long before the dreadful cur Obama appeared on the scene. …

Read the complete column. “Conned About Marriage, Constitution And ‘States’ Rights'” is now on WND.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

• At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

• On my Facebook page.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

UPDATED I (1/24): American constitutional federalism is about process, rather than what law you like or don’t. The process is clear. The Courts were never meant to tell people how to run their homes and communities. It’s a column I’ve been wanting to write for a while. It’s quite disturbing how little people understand about a structure/scheme that is no longer and that was intended to protect liberty. The 14th is a real problem, as it killed the 10th.

UPDATE II: Facebook thread:

Todd Frank: The post-civil war Republicans did not think several things through when they drafted the 14th amendment. That said, there still has to be some sort of remedy when states themselves trample on the rights of the individual short of giving the US government carte-blanche to do whatever they want to us.

Ilana Mercer : Todd Frank, you make a good point. But just about every state had itself a constitution with a bill of rights.