The Biggest Victims Of Fat Supremacy Are Thin Women

Go ahead and supersize your Happy Meal

Why I let my kids wear whatever they want



Every morning my young children choose their own outfits. They pretty much get to wear whatever they want.

I might suggest something with short sleeves on a sunny day or something made of wool when it's 11 degrees outside in the middle of February, but other than that I never really tell them, “No, you can’t wear that.”

On the other hand, having so many options increases the likelihood of making a bad decision. We simply aren't meant to have an infinity of choices. We aren’t that wise.

It’s not because they run the show. It’s not because they have the finest taste in clothing either. It’s because they can’t really make any bad choices.

You see, there are only good choices in their closets.

Crocs-free zone

There are no graphic T-shirts with stupid logos, no Crocs, no lime green sweatpants, and no hoodies with dinosaur plates running along the back.

Make no mistake, if we had all those things in the closet, they would probably choose that kind of stuff. But we don’t. And so they don't.

Take our son's closet: It is full of button-ups and polo shirts. Oxford cloth, flannel, poplin, seersucker, cotton pique. His dresser is full of blue jeans, khakis, and chino shorts. There are also, of course, cotton and wool sweaters on the shelves as well. Cream, brown, and navy.

Our daughter's closet is full of dresses. Thin, flowery ones for summer. Thicker plaids for the winter. Plain, practical cotton maxi dresses for everyday life. Leggings for when it’s cold. Cardigans as well. Cable knit in navy and gray.

Because we've left them with only good options, we're free to let the kids choose their clothes, knowing they'll always look just fine.

Loving limitations

This has an obvious practical purpose. We want our kids to look decent and don’t want to get involved in an endless back-and-forth every single day, litigating why they can or can’t wear the cartoon sweatshirt. But it’s also about giving them agency within reason. They have freedom and choice within a narrow framework set by us.

We also have our selfish reasons. We want to like how our kids look, and to be honest, it’s more pleasant looking at nice clothes. I would rather look at a plaid shirt than a stupid cartoon. Wouldn’t you?

There's a bigger lesson here too. It’s about the need for limitations, guardrails, and choices within reasonable parameters. Any parent knows that kids need rules. Every parent is different. Some are more permissive than others, but no mother or father lets their kids do whatever they want whenever they want. Children need to be guided; setting them loose with a “good luck” and a shrug doesn't cut it.

The metaphor extends to society as a whole. What happens when we have ultimate choice? What do we do when we have no limits? When everything is on the table and there is nothing holding us back?

Option overwhelm

Decision paralysis is, of course, a thing. People stand in front of the options set before them, and they freeze. They don’t know what to do. They don’t know what school to choose, what job to take, what girl they should ask out, or what kind of man they should marry. When people are bombarded with the feeling that they have every possible option on earth, they often end up choosing nothing at all because it’s all just too overwhelming.

On the other hand, having so many options increases the likelihood of making a bad decision. We simply aren't meant to have an infinity of choices. We aren’t that wise. We have free will, but we don’t manage it so well. We can’t really control ourselves that much. We aren’t meant to be that free. We need limitations if we want to stay on the right track.

God and guardrails

Ever since having kids, I have been ruminating on the fact that though the distance between myself and my children is so great, we are all, in some way, still (God’s) children. Knowing this isn’t an excuse to be an idiot. It’s not an abdication of responsibility. It’s an acknowledgment that we are just not as smart as we think we are. We are not that great.

Let loose in a department store-size closet, we choose the lime green sweatpants. Without guardrails, we drive the car over a cliff. It’s why we have laws, it’s why we have religion, it’s why we have God.

We are not Him; we are foolish human beings. We need help doing the right thing. We can’t figure it out on our own. It’s true for 5-year olds getting dressed in the morning, and it’s true for us former 5-year-olds, adults trying to do what’s right in a messy world.

Fashion icon turned Nazi ally: Coco Chanel’s dark wartime secrets (plus the nation that revived her)



It was Coco Chanel who said, “In order to be irreplaceable, one must always be different.” She was talking about fashion and personal branding, of course.

However, during the dark years of World War II, the maxim took on a dark meaning when the visionary fashion icon’s drive to remain indispensable led to cultivated strategic ties with German elites in order to secure her personal safety, social status, and business interests in Nazi-occupied France.

Glenn Beck, who just returned from vacation in Europe, tells Stu Burguiere that many have no idea that “Coco Chanel was a despicable human being.”

 

During WWII, “most of the designers just close down and they're like, ‘We're not making anything for anybody right now.’ But not Coco Chanel. She decides she's going to move into the hotel where all the Nazis are,” says Glenn.

Once she was living in the Ritz, she started “making dresses for the Nazi wives” and “[sleeping] around a little bit with a few Nazis.” One Nazi she had a strategic romantic relationship with was Hans Günther von Dincklage, a German intelligence officer who gave her protection and influence.

At one point, she outed the French Jewish family who had partnered with her to fund the iconic perfume Chanel No. 5, but thankfully, they had already “transferred ownership to somebody else” by that point.

“Is it fair to call her a Nazi spy?” asks Stu.

“Yeah, she was known as a Nazi spy,” says Glenn.

But if her Nazi allegiance was well-known in France, how is her brand still thriving today?

It turns out that the answer lies right here in America.

When the war ended and she saw that Nazi collaborators were being executed, Chanel moved to Switzerland. From there, she put together a French couture show, which Vogue Paris rejected due to her Nazi ties.

However, Vogue America — “the same people that started the Met Gala in 1948” — decided to “whitewash her,” says Glenn.

“They brought her out on a new collection” that pitched “the little black dress,” which to this day is said to be something every woman should own. Her brand soared again.

“When did Vogue magazine come out and go, ‘You know what? That whole Nazi thing with Chanel was probably pretty bad’? Oh, I don't know — never!” says Glenn.

To hear more about Coco Chanel’s Nazi ties, as well as the story of another French designer who was a war hero, watch the episode above.

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

2025’s Low-Talent Met Gala Was Just Like The Modern Democrat Party

Democrats lost the working class, and their latest effort at gaining it back is to — hold on, let me check my notes — oh, turn the mega-rich Met gala into DEI “resistance” programming. It’s true. The highly exclusive annual fashion exhibition took place in New York on Monday, the theme this year being “Superfine: Tailoring […]

Julia Roberts, Melania Trump, And How To Wear A Necktie Without Looking Like A Man

Move over, pantsuits of the early aughts. Melania Trump is making menswear-as-womenswear great again.

Children's clothing should be cheap — but it doesn't have to look ugly



So you’ve decided that you’re sick of your kids wearing the dumbest clothes imaginable.

You now understand that it’s important for them to wear clothes that encourage some sense of normal aesthetic sensibility. You have disentangled yourself from the pajama-pant slop, neon-Croc ideology of 2025 and want to dress your kids well from this point on.

Do you know how many people sell entire 'lots' of kids' clothes on eBay? It will blow your mind. Five kids' Oxford shirts for 15 bucks.

But you are worried about the cost. You are afraid of them wrecking every shirt you buy. Their grubby fingers at dinner. The stains. The mud outside. The mess. Markers. Paint.

Balling on a budget

“How can I afford to buy them nice clothes if all they are going to do is wreck them?”

This is what stops lots of parents. They like the idea of their kids dressing well, but the practicality of it stands in their way. They give up before they even start because they think it is impossible to do without wasting tons of money replacing perpetually stained shirts that need to remain perfect if they are going to be worn at all.

So is it impossible? Are they right to give up? Do you need a fortune to dress your kids decently?

No, no, and no. But you’ve got to change your mindset first.

Redefining 'nice' clothes

If you are used to dressing your kids in pajama pants, you most likely think that chinos and any shirt with a collar are clothes to be worn only when "dressing up." In your mind, these are not clothes for daily wear. They are for holiday dinners, family reunions, weddings, religious services, and basically anything "formal."

These are the clothes that you tell your kids to be careful with so that they don’t wreck them. You don’t want them playing on the playground in them. You don’t want them playing in the grass in them. You don’t want them spilling something on them.

These are their “nice clothes.” And they have to remain nice. You and your kids are perpetually freaked out about keeping them nice.

You’ve got to change this mindset.

These are no longer their nice clothes. They are no longer the clothes that you freak out about. These are just their clothes. It’s what they wear on a daily basis. Their T-shirts are gone. Their pajama pants are gone. The floor has been raised, and now button-ups and polo shirts are what the kids wear every day.

You can’t police them in hopes that they keep these clothes perfectly clean. They need to live just as naturally in these nicer clothes as they did in their pajama pants before. This means they are going to get stained, ripped, messed up, screwed up, and beat up. Accept that. This is now normal. Make peace.

Bargains galore

Next: the money. I know that’s still bothering you. You might have changed your mindset, but you don’t know how you are going to afford this. “These clothes cost too much; I can’t afford to buy my kids a bunch of button-ups.”

This is where you are wrong. These clothes don’t have to be expensive. You just need to get a little creative.

Don’t buy the polo when it is $14.99. Buy five of them when they are on sale for $3.99. Yes, those deals happen.

Go to Goodwill and thrift stores. You can find so many plain polo shirts at Goodwill for just a few dollars. And because parents think of them as “nice shirts,” they will often be lightly used if not practically new.

Look on eBay. Do you know how many people sell entire “lots” of kids' clothes on eBay? It will blow your mind. Five kids' Oxford shirts for 15 bucks. Three wool sweaters from the '80s in practically perfect condition for $10 plus $4.99 in shipping.

These are nice clothes, but they are not expensive clothes. These are affordable. You just have to plan a little more. Yeah, you aren’t swinging by Target and throwing 10 stupid T-shirts in your cart on the way home, but who cares? That shouldn’t be the standard. All it takes is a little more effort, and you can easily dress your kids well on a budget.

Stains happen

There are tactical hacks that can help. Instead of light khaki chinos, go for navy chinos. You can’t see that big splat of chili on a pair of navy chinos. The grass stains don’t really show up, either. A 5-year-old can play outside in the dusty dirt all afternoon, and navy chinos won’t show any of it.

Buy slightly darker plaids instead of lighter-colored shirts. The white Oxford shirt in unforgiving. The green plaid button-up, on the other hand, is like a pair of navy chinos: a durable, stain-absorbing workhorse. These clothes allow kids to be kids in the best way possible while still dressing well.

Kids don’t need 25 stupid T-shirts. They need seven decent button-ups. They don’t need sweatpants with hideous hamburger designs plastered all over them.

They need simple, cotton, navy chinos. They don’t need bright-orange Crocs. They need washable canvas boat shoes that you bought in the offseason for 75% off. If you want to dress your kids decently, it’s not impossible. You just need a change of mindset and a little creativity.

To Create Good Aesthetics, The Right Must Believe In What They Represent

Aesthetically, what do you make of a crypto ball in a neoclassical building where glamorous outfits are topped off with red MAGA hats?

Against women wearing pants



Without a notion of absolute virtue, conservatism is an ideology of relativism. All it seeks to conserve is the latest acceptable standard.

It is the act of drawing a line in the sand. When liberals manage to “wash” that line away, conservatives will “redraw” that line wherever it feels the least painful for them.

Women fought to wear pants, and not because pants make them feel pretty.

We can see this with cross-dressing.

A century ago it was considered "cross-dressing" for a woman to wear pants. No longer.

In one more century, I suspect it will no longer be considered "cross-dressing" for a conservative Christian man to wear a dress. In fact, I doubt the concept of “cross-dressing” will even exist.

Pantsuit nation

Here is why I believe this.

In America, it wasn't legal for women to wear pants in public until 1923, because it was considered wrong for a woman to wear men’s clothing (and vice versa).

This idea was influenced by the Old Testament verse Deuteronomy 22:5: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

The belief that pants are masculine-coded has persisted into the 21st century.

The first woman to wear pants for a portrait in the White House was Hillary Clinton in 2004. The first woman to wear pants in the Senate was in 1989.

Still, women were not permitted to wear pants on the U.S. Senate floor until two female senators defiantly entered wearing pants in 1993 and forced the rule to be amended later that year.

It is still widely considered inappropriate for a woman to wear pants to church, funerals, weddings, and court, although this is slowly becoming less true. Many airlines didn’t drop their requirements for feminine uniforms until 2012-2016. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only began allowing its women missionaries to wear pants in 2017.

Skirting the issue

The “fight” to wear pants has mostly been pushed by feminist-type personalities. Nonetheless, many women who consider themselves neither liberals nor feminists avoid wearing dresses if they can at all help it.

These women are usually the ones most offended at the idea that wearing pants is inherently masculine. They might argue that such a notion is antiquated, especially now that pants are cut in feminine styles that complement a woman's body. (For them, perhaps; I’ve never found a pair of jeans to flatter my hips.)

They may further argue, in a strange sort of "gotcha," that there's no such thing as cross-dressing at all. "Dress codes" for men and women shift depending on the time and the place.

There are other (non-Western) cultures in which a woman wears pants. Men used to wear tunics. Not only that, men used to wear lace, high heels, and makeup, and now all those things are feminine.

However, women did not fight for the right to wear lace or high heels.

Trouser envy

Women fought to wear pants, and not because pants make them feel pretty. Women wanted to be like men and to wear what men wore, and liberal women have no issue admitting this. This only offends conservative women who want to judge men for wearing dresses.

Even to this day, if a woman wants to look extra feminine, she reaches for a dress. If she is feeling like a “tomboy,” or she just wants to be “practical,” “simple,” and not show off that she’s a woman, she wears pants.

Inherently, we all know that pants are not queenly or princess-like.

I believe what’s most interesting about the how fashion has changed is how default neutral-gendered clothing has morphed. Femininity was once the default neutral gender, while men wore over-the-top fashion statements. Babies wore gowns (feminine).

Now the default neutral-gender clothing is masculine, and babies wear sleepers (masculine) instead of gowns (feminine). Where the default was “robes” for everyone, it’s now “pants” for everyone. Where there might once have been more things that a woman shouldn’t wear, there are now more things that a man ought not to wear if he doesn’t want society accusing him of “cross-dressing.”

One could argue this is a result of progress. Fashion changes. The expectations for the different sexes have changed. Perhaps this is not a bad thing, but it does become a complicated matter when only a man is at risk of cross-dressing but anything a woman wears is beyond reproach.

The same conservative women who think nothing of wearing jeans become quite angry at the sight of a man in a dress. For now.

I speculate that unless we make a full return to femininity, it will be normal for men to wear whatever they want, just as women already do, and that there will be no such thing as cross-dressing.

Perhaps the first step will be rejecting the greatest lie feminism sold women: that femininity is oppressive or restrictive. We find true strength in embracing our womanhood, not rejecting it.

I, for one, will be putting our sons in pants and our daughters in dresses. The differences between men and women are God-given and timeless; I believe in choosing clothing that reflects this.