THAT KISS

Feminism, Gender, Political Correctness, Pop-Culture, Sex

NEW COLUMN with video is up. Yes, it’s still me, but the polemicist takes a hiatus. What with American society fast descending into “the horror, the horror” of Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness,” we can all do with the respite of a … KISS. No Supreme Court ruling can erase that man-woman magic. Here it is, free of the MeToo moral panic and the COVID19 contagion:

“That Kiss” on The Unz review.

“That Kiss” at WND.COM.

YouTube.

American Greatness fans can read the column there on Saturday.

How Dramatically Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?

Democracy, Elections, Feminism, Gender, Political Economy, The State

In 2007, I ventured that, “I’d give up my vote if that would guarantee that all women were denied the vote.”—ILANA Mercer?(August 8, 2007)

Coming from the anti-statist stance, the sentiment is a solid one. It’s anchored in data.

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 realize that the female suffrage has undermined the small-government project.

“How Dramatically Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?” is in the Journal of Political Economy (Vol. 107, Number 6, Part 1, pp. 1163-1198, December 1999).

Of course, the tipping point has long been reached, so my altruistic gesture would be in vain.

Abstract

This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.

And look at these excerpts with their bold deductions. The following writers would have been “canceled” by the bumper crops of cretins who control the American intelligentsia (that is not very intelligent).

It? is? not? really? surprising? that? this?? welfare? state? should?? breed?? a politics? not? of? “justice”? or? “fairness”? but? of? “compassion,”? which contemporary? liberalism? has? elevated? into?? the? most?? important? civic virtue.? Women? tend? to? be? more? sentimental,?? more? risk-averse?? and less? competitive? than? men—yes,?? it’s?? Mars?? vs.?? Venus—and?? therefore are? less? inclined?? to?? be? appreciative?? of? free-market? economics,?? in which?? there?? are?? losers?? as?? well?? as?? winners.?? College-educated women—the? kind? who? attend? Democratic? conventions—are?? also more?? “permissive”??? and?? less??? “judgmental”??? on??? such??? issues??? as homosexuality,? capital? punishment,? even? pornography.

—Irving? Kristol,? “The? Feminization? of? the? Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal (September 9, 1996): p. A16

Citing?? marriage?? as?? “a?? very?? important?? financial?? divider,”?? the American?? Enterprise?? Institute’s?? Doug?? Besharov??? suggests??? more married women did not? vote? for? Dole because of a widespread sense of societal insecurity: “It is not that? they? distrust? their? husband,? but they? have? seen? divorce? all? around? them? and? know? they? could? be next.”? The? Polling? Company’s? Kellyanne? Fitzpatrick? is? categorical: “Women? see? government? as? their? insurance.”? (Perhaps? significantly,? of the? 24 million? individuals? working? in? government? and? in? semi-governmental? non-profit? jobs,? 14? million—58? percent—are? women.)

—The Richmond Times Dispatch, December 5, 1996

THE REST.

 

RIP, GOP: Tucker Has Officially Canceled The Republican Party

Conservatism, Crime, Elections, Law, Republicans

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson has just gone and canceled the Republican Party in a monologue, in front of one very large TV audience indeed. He’s made it safe for all those who’ve gotten impaled for doing so over the years. CANCEL the GOP can now go mainstream. It may just become a reality.

“RIP, GOP.”

In last week’s June 11 column, “The Barbarians Are In Charge: Scenes From The Sacking of America,“ I concluded:

Across the United States, the message to law-abiding Americans, from city, town, county council members and other legislators came loud and clear: You’re on your own. Neither police nor politicians are coming to protect what’s left of your businesses or your banal, bourgeoisie little life.

In his June 20 monologue, Tucker inveighed:

You vote for Republicans to protect you from this. But when the moment of crisis came, Republicans ran away.

Property was looted, people were beaten and killed and Republicans joined the side doing the looting, beating and killing. President of the Heritage Foundation and think tanks on the right climbed into … law enforcement and ordinary Americans, calling them racists, ignoring the damage done to their property and person.

TREASON?

“Republicans refused even to defend the principle of equality under the law, the foundation of this country, the most important thing we have. Not defend it. Really, in the end, the only people who gave anything in the revolution were the ones waging it. Our leaders, very much including a Republican leaders, shamefully, were focused on meeting their demands. So what should we conclude from what we just saw? The message unfortunately could not be clearer. Voting is for fools. You vote, you put these people into office with their votes, and in return they patronize you and when it matters, they abandon you. They have contempt for you, you know they do, you can smell it, it’s obvious. Voting doesn’t work. But when you riot and you burn things and you hurt people, you get a very different response.”

“Republicans have let millions of Americans down.”

MORE: “Tucker Carlson Goes Off on Republicans for ‘Abandoning’ People in ‘Moment of Crisis’: Now ‘We Know Who They Are.’”

NEW COLUMN: Guess Which Surrender Monkey Won the Battle Of The Monuments?

Britain, Conservatism, Founding Fathers, Republicans, Secession, States' Rights

NEW COLUMN is “Guess Which Surrender Monkey Won the Battle Of The Monuments?” It’s currently on WND.COM and The Unz Review.

An excerpt:

Steve Hilton is a Briton who anchors a current-affairs show on Fox News.

Mr. Hilton made the following feeble, snowflake’s case for the removal of the nation’s historically offensive statues:

It’s offensive to our Africa-American neighbors to maintain statues in public places that cause not only offense, but real distress. And it is disrespectful to our native-American neighbors to glorify a man who they see as having committed genocide against their ancestors. None of this is to erase history. Put it all in a museum. Let’s remember it and learn from it.

“What’s wrong with Camp Ulysses Grant,” Hilton further intoned sanctimoniously. He was, presumably, plumping for the renaming of army installations like Fort Bragg, called after a Confederate major general, Braxton Bragg.

Sons of the South—men and women, young and old—see their forebear as having died “in defense of the soil,” and not for slavery. Most Southerners were not slaveholders. All Southerners were sovereigntists, fighting a War for Southern Independence.

Hilton, it goes without saying, is a follower of the State-run Church of Lincoln. To the average TV dingbat, this means that Southern history comes courtesy of the likes of Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Lincoln idolater and the consummate court historian.

“Doris Kearns Goodwin,” explains professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo, the country’s chief Lincoln slayer, “is a museum quality specimen of a court historian, a pseudo-intellectual who is devoted to pulling the wool over the public’s eyes by portraying even the most immoral, corrupt and sleazy politicians as great, wise, and altruistic men.”

When Doris does the TV circuit, evangelizing for power, she never mentions, say, the close connection between her great Ulysses Grant and Hilton’s “native-American neighbors.”

Yes, Doris, Steve: who exactly exterminated the Plains Indians? …

… NEW COLUMN, “Guess Which Surrender Monkey Won the Battle Of The Monuments?“, is currently on WND.COM and The Unz Review.