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.

According to the alleged San Diego synagogue shooter John T. Earnest’s “manifesto,” which you can with a bit of effort find online, he identified his enemy, the “tyrannical and genocidal” Jews, “the most ugly, sinful, deceitful, cursed, and corrupt” of all races, and decided to cleanse the world from these impure.

It looks like we have another “well-intentioned” humanitarian with the guillotine, or racitarian with the rifle, as the case may be.

I personally think the guy is a fucking idiot.

But Jews have their own housecleaning to do. A monster like Bernie Sanders — who, if elected, will likely kill millions — is doing nothing to improve the Jews’ image in public opinion.

For example, Alan Dershowitz has recently been spotted on Republican shows defending Trump, a smart move, given the recent allegations that he is a sex fiend. He has gained sympathy among the conservatives — he may be a disgusting perv, but at least his ideology is not all bad, they think.

Jews need to radically revamp their politics. Learn from Mises, not Marx, folks.

“In 1905, France passed a law that made all churches built before that year government property,” says the WSJ in an article titled “Decades of Neglect Threatened Notre Dame, Well Before It Burned.”

Ah, another government failure which will be ignored by everyone except libertarians, because the state, in popular ideology, can do no wrong. The most radical solution that will ever be considered will be to shift around some bureaucrats in the “culture ministry.”

If Notre Dame were in private hands, the fire would have unleashed a storm of calls for nationalization. “That’s capitalism for you,” people would shout.

But in reality, that’s socialism for you. Bring even more of it about, and such disasters will be a daily occurrence. Civilization will burn once more.

If it burns, privatize it. If it stops burning, privatize it still.

The French are always watching each other jealously and distrustfully, perpetually on alert that someone somewhere may be getting a tax deduction.

What a sick society.