Scroll up and also read his “Memo to Rudy”.

Le Boutillier’s article, “New National Nightmare,” is also published at NewsMax, at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/9/93242.shtml.

Its title reminds me of two articles I wrote for NewsMax during the 2000 post-election crisis, “Our Long National Nightmare is Just Beginning,” and “Our Long National Nightmare, Part II.”

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/11/13/230928.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/11/20/84441.shtml

Back to the subject of Hillary, Matt Drudge re-printed Camille Paglia’s article about her. http://www.drudgereport.com/paglia.htm. Here’s something I wrote to Drudge about it:

Mr. Drudge,

I couldn’t find a way to send an e-mail to Paglia, so I’m sending this to you instead.

Her article on Hillary was out-of-character. All her vibrancy and flair and decisiveness as a writer were missing. It’s written in a dull, dutiful, impersonal, low-energy way.

She says devastatingly critical things about Hillary—about her dishonesty, messianic mindset, rigid socialist politics—and then concludes that she’s a “credible” candidate for president and that she should run! Not because she wants her to win or thinks she will win, but only to help advance the idea of a woman being president.

What a pathetic article.

But that’s the dangerously mesmerizing effect this evil woman has on people that come under her spell, even those, like Paglia, who don’t particularly like her.

Lawrence Auster

Just now I asked my wife (a totally apolitical, extreme feminine-type, traditional, Catholic French-speaking Walloon girl from Belgium) why so many women seemed to admire and even love Hillary. (My wife can’t stand her, but not in any political way whatsoever. Her intense dislike of her is purely a woman-to-woman thing.) She said, between chews on her late supper, “It’s not love. It’s sort of admiration over the fact that she can get anything she wants. Power attracts many women. It’s like Monica Lewinsky — what attracted her was the power. She sincerely hoped to become his wife. Women admire Hillary because she’s rich and powerful. They want to know how she did it.” I replied, “But they could just as well hate her for that — out of envy, or something.” My wife said, “But, she’s ugly. A lot of ugly women want to know how to rise, since they haven’t looks to help them. They think if they get power, that’ll satisfy them, since they lack beauty. They want to know how an ugly woman rose so high because they are curious how they might have done the same thing.” I didn’t quite understand it all, but what she said gave me a laugh.

No disrespect meant, but what Unadorned’s wife said tends to support an observation that has made here from time to time, that if women approach politics on such a personal, emotional basis, such as identifying with and supporting Hillary because she made herself powerful by attaching herself to an amoral politician, then we ought to consider whether women, as women, should automatically have the right to vote.

” … what Unadorned’s wife said tends to support an observation that has been made here from time to time, that if women approach politics on such a personal, emotional basis … then we ought to consider whether women, as women, should automatically have the right to vote.” — Lawrence Auster

Whether my wife’s “analysis” even remotely made sense, I have no idea. (And if it didn’t, then it too, of course — as well as the “motivations” of all the women who worship Hillary — counts as evidence supporting what Mr. Auster just said in his comment. Of course, I’d never say that to my wife’s face — anyone who knows the temper on some of these Walloon girls will know what I’m talking about …) I agree one hundred percent with Mr. Auster’s comment in its main thrust, but I wonder if the solution is to question the extension of the franchise to women, as much as it is to endorse women’s suffrage while taking certain things off the “electoral table” so that women can’t louse them up by voting cockeyed — little trifles like the existence of countries, and of Western Civilization itself — you know, little unimportant stuff like that.

The Bill of Rights, for example, takes certain things off the table of what can be changed by an ordinary election (as does the entire Constitution, of course). Had women had the vote back then, additional things would have been added to this list — things to be protected from being undone through ordinary voting. What they’d have added would have been what people knew would be endangered through the electoral process as a result of the particular strengths and weaknesses of females.