Happy Unicorn Day!

Carrie Lukas illustrates why conservatives should be slow to embrace the leadership of women who call themselves conservatives:

August 26 has been dubbed “Women’s Equality Day,” in celebration of the anniversary of the 19th Amendment. Passage of that amendment was the culmination of years of hard work and dedication on the part of America’s noble suffragettes, and it is indeed amazing to think of all of the progress women have made in our society in the ninety years following that breakthrough.

It is amazing… amazingly horrific. Let’s contemplate exactly what that progress has meant in material terms:

1. Millions of murdered babies, disproportionately female.
2. A significant reduction in marriage rates and a large increase in divorce rates thanks to pro-female divorce laws and the heavily female-biased family court system.
3. The doubling of the female work force suppressing wages and creating a vicious cycle where married women who don’t want to work are forced to do so because their husband’s real wages are lower than in 1973. To forestall the expected ignorance-based protests, I invite you to first consider what happens to the price of a commodity when the supply increases faster than the demand.
4. National insolvency.
5. A massive increase in sexually-transmitted disease.
6. A significant reduction of personal freedom for men and women alike.

It will be interesting to see if a nation that institutes female suffrage can remain sovereign and at least nominally free for even 100 years. The UK gave up its national sovereignty to the EU only 81 years after it instituted women’s suffrage. The US might make it, but it’s by no means a sure thing.

It’s important to remember that because the vast majority of the women identify themselves by the herd and by sex rather than as individuals, they will usually see themselves as women first and [fill in the ideological identification] second. Thus we have the absurdity of a self-styled “conservative” woman celebrating profoundly anti-conservative and avowedly progressive progress.

As I have stated several times before, there is no such thing as equality! It does not exist in material terms, legal terms, moral terms, scientific terms, or spiritual terms. There is no evidence for it because it simply does not exist. Women who traded societal wealth and material freedom for nonexistent “equality” have made a terrible bargain since they literally traded something for nothing. The foundation of the suffrage argument is the false assertion that voting is freedom. My counterargument rests on the verifiable assertion that voting does not equal freedom. That is the crux of the matter.

Doing the jobs Americans won’t do

Including, it would appear, border patrol:

Gunmen from a drug cartel appear to have massacred 72 migrants from Central and South America who were on their way to the U.S., a grisly event that marks the single biggest killing in Mexico’s war on organized crime.

For thousands of years, invaders have been repelled with lethal force. Now the US government expects the American people to believe that there is nothing that can be done to prevent literal millions from invading the southern border. This isn’t “immigration”, it is a plain and simple migration and if history has taught us anything, it is that a nation that refuses to defend itself from migration will cease to exist. Migrations almost always end in a great deal of violence and territorial partition, so there will almost certainly be more of this sort of thing in the future. Note that if the US had controlled immigration along the southern border and limited it to a small and digestible number, the murdered migrants would probably never have left their home countries and would be alive today. Their blood is metaphorically on the hands of the open borders crowd.

Yet mainstream media will shed copious tears over the dead migrants that they didn’t cry over all the Germans slain in the process of pursuing their dreams of a new life and new opportunities in France and Russia. The most interesting aspect of the story, however, is only tangentially related to migration. It is assumed that the massacre was committed by the Zetas, an unusually violent organization which was “initially formed by Mexican army forces who defected to the other side.”

Atheism does kill

So much for the No True Atheist arguments blaming all that 20th century atheist slaughter on communism. It is even peer-reviewed science:

Atheist doctors are almost twice as likely to take decisions that speed up death for very ill patients as those who are deeply religious, research has found…. The findings, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, showed that doctors who described themselves as non-religious were more likely than any other group to have given continuous deep sedation until death, having made a decision that they knew could or would end life.

The more important question, of course, is how much more likely atheist doctors were to strangle their patients with their bare hands or to perform horrific scientific experiments upon them. I expect that percentage would be rather more than double. Unfortunately, it would appear the study didn’t cover that one.

What I find amusing is that the same atheists who deny there is any historically demonstrated atheist predilection for killing will read that piece and find themselves thinking “yeah, what’s wrong with that?” Although considering the bureaucratic nationalized morass that is the NHS, I suppose it’s possible that most of the doctors in Britain are communists these days.