If “protesting” could raise wages, wouldn’t there arise entrepreneurs and firms devoted to the big business of protesting?

It would become a fast-growing industry to organize protests and through them, better people’s lives.

These enterprises would serve consumers and create jobs for the professional protesters. (There might be chaos on the streets, but general welfare would still be promoted.)

So why don’t they exist?

Oh wait, they do exist and are called lobbyists.

Here’s how political correctness works.

Let’s say I hold up my fingers and ask you how many of them you see.

The factually correct answer is 2; the politically correct answer is 3, or whatever I want it to be.

If you answer “2,” then I will torture you. If you persist in answering 2, I will torture you more.

Once you are broken and reply, “3,” I will have you do it publicly, on TV, and recant your previous answer.

Then I will execute you.

Coming soon to political theater near you.

I’m actually curious how a “single-sex institution” can possibly “perpetuate the historic dominance of one sex over the other.”

In an integrated organization, there are both men and women, and it is logically possible that the “men” might be able to dominate the “women.”

But in a single-sex community, there are only, let’s say, men. There is no one to dominate in the first place.

I guess women cannot help insisting on never letting men take a break from them.

Mises may be right in saying that “every progressive movement which began with the development of personality was prematurely frustrated by the women, who dragged men down again into the miasma of the harem.”

The Federalist advances a curious argument against the Democrats’ Equal Rights Amendment.

Women, Tabitha Walter says in essence, are right now privileged by law in numerous ways, and “Equal Rights” would take away those privileges.

The argument may actually be sensible, falling under unintended consequences of this atrocity. Women, too, will be sued by men or what passes for men not to “discriminate.”

Wouldn’t it be fun, for example, under the ERA to sexually integrate the prisons?

There is, however, in her article no mention of men at all, and of how their rights both are violated now and will be even more under the ERA.

Consider, for example, the ERA FAQ which says:

Thus, single-sex institutions whose aim is to perpetuate the historic dominance of one sex over the other are already unconstitutional, while single-sex institutions that work to overcome past discrimination are constitutional now and, if the courts choose, could remain so under an ERA.

Isn’t that just precious? Feminists want to have their cake and eat it, too. Equality, itself already nonsense, is in addition a sham; the whores in fact seek superiority and domination.

The folks who argue that speech is not violence, and that dissent ought to be tolerated, need to grasp that for the totalitarian left, truth is no defense.

On the contrary, by saying what is true one is merely condemning himself still further. Continuing to proclaim the truth is an act of defying one’s persecutor which carries increasingly greater punishments the longer it is going on.

That’s the very essence of “political” correctness to which factual correctness bears no relation.

The accuser is good, the accused is evil, off with his head, end of story.

Feminism can be understood as an elaborate attempt by women scorned to intellectually justify unleashing their fury.

Every feminist assumes that she will be the almighty queen, taking personal revenge upon the hated men. No feminist gives a thought to the possibility that it will be some other woman who will take revenge against, for example, the feminist’s own son.

Not that feminists tend to reproduce, of course, but the “revolution” may fizzle out once it has eaten enough of its own.

“‘You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs’; why explicitly mention the eggs broken?” Mises draws attention to the “left’s” callousness.

The assumption here is that the feminist ideology is perfectly great, but it needs to be accompanied by the woman being in power and, with that power, making others suffer.

When the tables turn, and she’s the one who suffers because of feminism, why, that’s just unfair, a sob story.

Feminism was never supposed to hurt her, you see, only those she hates.

How can our society be called “post-Christian”?

Christ came and did His thing, and the entire cosmic order of things changed as a result.

We may with equal unreasonableness call ourselves post-mathematical, pretending that we no longer care about “outmoded” truths of math.

There are only Christians who know important facts about the world, and non-Christians who are ignorant.

There are no “post-Christians.”

You know the little trick of how to get a person to agree to do something? If you want someone to visit you, you don’t say, “Want to come over tomorrow?” You say, “Would you like to stop by at 2 o’clock or 3:30?”

The Democrats have mastered this one. They don’t say, “Want to have more statism?” They say, “You can have either higher taxes, mass immigration, and gun control, or you can choose 100% socialism.”

And conservatives be all like, “Well, we wouldn’t want socialism, so guess we’ll go with the first thing you said.” Works like a charm.