The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Fred Reed ArchiveBlogview
A Petticoat Military
Comedy in Uniform
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

The military, once again, puts women into jobs the cannot do–this time, the Army’s Rangers–to advance the careers of political generals–among others, Maj Gen. Scott Miller, who oversees Ranger School. Or what used to be Ranger School.

Writes Susan Keating in People magazine: “A woman will graduate Ranger School,” a general told shocked subordinates this year while preparing for the first females to attend a “gender integrated assessment” of the grueling combat leadership course starting April 20, sources tell People. “At least one will get through.”

And two did, by being given special treatment. Again, a general’s career takes precedence over the good of his troops. An old story.

The Army cheated, says Keating: lowered standards to be politically correct and keep feminists happy. This, as the Army knows, and everyone who has been in combat knows, as well as most people who have been in the field military, is a terrible idea. But the Army exists to keep feminists happy. The services are in the hands of what Dave Hackworth, whom I knew before his death, called the Perfumed Princes. These are peace-time officers more interested in their own advancement than in their troops. Being politicians, not soldiers, they are afraid of women. They allow the feminists to make fools of their men:

The Army forces soldiers to wear pregnancy-simulators to teach them empathy–or so say feminists, but clearly the dykes enjoy humiliating the poor suckers. What must the Taliban think?
The Army forces soldiers to wear pregnancy-simulators to teach them empathy–or so say feminists, but clearly the dykes enjoy humiliating the poor suckers. What must the Taliban think?

The public perhaps assumes that officers are honorable, which they are not, that they tell the truth, which they do only when convenient, and that they are interested in military effectiveness. Sure.

I have seen a great deal of the military and know whereof I speak. Having gone to Vietnam in 1967 with the Marines as an Amtrac crewman, I proved a mediocre warrior but apparently a talented target. I spent a year at Bethesda Naval Hospital and later returned to Southeast Asia as a stringer for Army Times for the last year of that war. This launched me on decades of covering the military for various publications. It was a fairly common career track in those days. Been there, done that.

Aren’t they just adorable? The Army exists to  promote empathy. Attrition is grave as men get out. Officers don’t care. They get paid anyway.
Aren’t they just adorable? The Army exists to promote empathy. Attrition is grave as men get out. Officers don’t care. They get paid anyway.

I was pretty much the grunt’s reporter. I had little use for political officers, which is to say all officers beyond their first tour. (e.g., if interested, A Broken-Down Dumpster.) For years I was military correspondent for theWashington Times, wrote for Army Times and Harper’s, wrote a syndicated military column, Soldiering, for Universal Press Syndicate, and so on. So I will say to General Miller, “You can bullshit the fans, but you can’t bullshit the players. You are an embarrassment to the Army and a danger to your men.”

Brig. Gen. Malcom Frost, chief of the Army’s public affairs office, responded that the story is false—that is, that Keating is lying. She is not. For one thing, while some reporters will grossly bias stories, they do not make up complex stories from whole cloth. Second, friends of mine in military journalism know Keating and vouch for her. Third, what she has written is perfectly consistent with what I have seen, over and over and over, as the brass try to keep feminists happy. Keating is not a liar. General Frost is.

A soldier puts on darling high heels at the orders of a dominatrix–female general, I meant to say. It’s to make them sympathize with women. The Army exists to sympathize with women.
A soldier puts on darling high heels at the orders of a dominatrix–female general, I meant to say. It’s to make them sympathize with women. The Army exists to sympathize with women.

Why do officers put up with this? Because they are—you can’t lapse into the Anglo-Saxon in a polite column, so maybe–female-dominated catamites, moral milquetoasts, or (certainly accurate) politicians. Would they risk their benefits so as not to make a laughing stock of their men? You have got to be kidding.

“Neither Gen. Miller nor Fort Benning responded to questions asking about allegations of altered standards,” says People.

You bet he didn’t respond. I’d love to question him under oath. I dealt with generals and military flacks for years. They embody the attitude of the entire officer corps, which is that the press is the enemy, that right and wrong, truth and falsehood, do not matter, only positive and negative spin.

The PR types have to lie. If a flack confirmed Keating’s story, he would be calling General Miller a liar, not a career-enhancing move. Anything a flack says should be taken only as an indication of what the command wants you to believe.

OK, to the female Rangers. I don’t remember exactly when the campaign to put women in the combat forces began, but as years went by the push grew. From the beginning, it was fraudulent. At first the services made small, whimpering noises of dissent, and ran tests. (If interested in the subject, read here.) Every experiment failed. The main problem, though not the only one, is that women are weaker, far weaker, than men. This had to be hidden, and was. Standards were lowered and lied about.

Instead of real pushups, women could keep their knees on the ground. Instead of pull-ups, they could hang from the bar with their elbows bent. My friend Kate Aspy, a Harvard grad who enlisted in the Army, called the idea a disaster after going through Army boot. The Navy found women to be useless at damage control, and then hid the results. Military Medicine, then available only in the Pentagon’s library, noted that women had four times as many training injuries as men, usually sprains and stress fractures. They peed in their pants in jump school. Female medics couldn’t lift stretchers. The officer corps went along with this. Why? Their careers.

ORDER IT NOW

Things got positively silly. Female “soldiers” avoided drinking water on field exercises because they were afraid that the men would watch them peeing through TOW sights–which in fact they would have, armies not being genteel; consequently they suffered dehydration. Female helicopter mechanics couldn’t carry their tool boxes. Female troops in Afghanistan suffered skeletal damage because their joints are lightly built and they can’t handle the weight of a combat load. Always–always–when there was heavy physical work to do, the men did it and the women watched. They couldn’t lift crates of 81 mm mortar rounds, much less unload a six-by under fire. On and on and on.

The sexual problems were endless. I encountered scandal after scandal. Enlisted male instructors used their rank to take advantage of females under them, so to speak. A squad of thirteen men worked together as a team, but add a female and they all began trying to get into her pants–which women frequently used. A general in the Pentagon told me that he wouldn’t allow a woman in his office unless the door was open and a witness was present: If she claimed he harassed her, he was in trouble. (The editor of a major newspaper once told me the same thing.

Why do alleged warriors cave to any feminist they meet? Here is an essential rule for understanding the military: Officers often have physical courage, but they never have moral courage.

If they do, they are quickly kicked out by a Darwinian selection with fangs. They come up through a system requiring absolute obedience and loyalty to the group. They think what they are told to think. More accurately, they don’t–they can see what is happening–but know better than to say it.

Girls enjoy a good laugh while feminizing what looks like a soldier. Roll over. Bark. Beg. They don’t even need riding crops. Hey, it’s not a job. It’s an adventure.
Girls enjoy a good laugh while feminizing what looks like a soldier. Roll over. Bark. Beg. They don’t even need riding crops. Hey, it’s not a job. It’s an adventure.
(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Military, Feminism 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
43 Comments to "A Petticoat Military"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Ron Unz, you should really automatically reupload and host all the images that get posted by your bloggers. Sure it’s nice to free ride on the bandwidth of others, but it can leave users more vulnerable and the images prone to linkrot.

    Read More
    • Agree: Vendetta
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    //www.unz.com/freed/a-petticoat-military/#comment-1167077
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Then there’s the cost of women registering and being tracked by Selective Service.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    We can solve that by getting rid of conscription.
  3. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Fred Fred Cabbage Head, there is one advantage to messing up the US military.
    The less effective it becomes, the less it is likely to be employed for for foreign wars.

    Of course, despite these shenanigans, US military is still more powerful than all the militaries combined. Not because of man power but cuz it has the best ships, bombs, jets, naval force, radar, and computer stuff.

    I mean even a bunch of trannies and feminists with guns and bombs can wipe out hordes of tough Maori warriors. The British were sort of ‘faggy’ but they conquered much of the world cuz they had guns, ships, and discipline.
    Discipline is still something the US military has in spades. In fact, you can see it in how the soldiers have accepted all these new rules without rebellion. If US were filled with unruly and tough men, there would have been massive uprising by tough hombres complaining that they aint gonna fight alongside a bunch of pansy fruitkins and girlers. But look how docile the male soldiers are. Though this seems like a weakness — and in some ways it is — , it also means that US soldiers today are very obedient and do as told and follow orders real well. Discipline is high. They are not like Bill Murray in STRIPES but more like ultra-obedient soldiers in Nazi Germany and militarist Japan. If Hitler had ordered his soldiers to put on silk stockings, they would have done so cuz Nazi Germany was about obedience. If the Emperor had ordered his men to put on makeup before flying planes into American ships, they would have done so.

    And besides, the pansy style has a long tradition in European warrior caste culture. Look at the pics of all those old aristocratic military caste. They wore tooty-clothing and grew their hair like women. As aristocrats got rich and fancy, they had homos make fancy stuff for them. The more privileged they became, the fancier their gears and attire got. It’s like the Tim Roth character in Rob Roy looks like a fruiter, but he’s pretty deadly.
    The fruity Polish nobles:

    https://youtu.be/4RA9z3SfnSo?t=2m36s

    Another thing. The reason why US can indulge in all this fairy stuff is because US is so very powerful. If US military was just holding on, it wouldn’t be taking chances with all these fruitsy-tootsy stuff. It’s because US military is so powerful that it can rest on its laurels and sometimes play around with its soldiers wearing high heels and stuff.

    Viet Cong didn’t do this stuff cuz they were fighting for their very survival. Russians during WWII had no time for such stuff cuz they too were fighting a zero sum game. But US faces no ‘existential threat’, and it can demolish any nation.

    Some say US failed in the Middle East, but then, US had no long-term goal of winning. US just wanted to topple some regimes and mess things up. And it succeeded at that in spades.

    As for women serving in the military, maybe it’s not a bad idear. For most of history, men did all the dying and getting maimed. Maybe it’s time to make women do it for a change. UN should require all nations to have an all-women force for the next 200 yrs. Let womenfolk kill other womenfolk for a change. (It will also undermine feminism as women will have to fight and kill other women.)

    At any rate, I don’t think the US wanted any of the Middle East nations to succeed under its occupation.

    US talked a good game about how it wanted to modernize the Middle East, but let’s compare action with words. The most effective modernizers of the Middle East were secular rulers like Hussein, Gaddafi(aka Gadfly), and Assad. Sure, they were not good men, but they did modernize their nations to some extent and could have done more. In contrast, Saudi Arabia is run by arch-reactionary monarchs who still don’t let women drive.

    So, if US is for modernization in the Middle East, it should have developed closer ties to secularites like Hussein and Assad. Instead, US forged the closest ties with the arch-reactionary Saudis. What does that tell you?
    It means US really doesn’t want Arabs/Muslims to modernize and grow stronger — as long as Israel and Jews control US foreign policy. (The secret wish of Jews upon the fall of Hussein was not a strong modern democratic Iraq but a corrupt Iraq beset with sectarian crisis that would make it impossible to come together again.)
    Look how US aided religious lunatics in Libya and Syria to topple or mess up secular modernizing regimes.
    It’s just like how the US aided the Afghan Mujahadeen to topple the secular modern regime in Kabul in the 1980s.

    So, why is US policy like this? It’s because US policy is dominated by Jews, and Jews want Israel to be the only modern nation in the Middle East. Jews fear secular modernizers in the Arab world much more than they fear religious lunatics. Sure, religious nuts may be crazy, but they are so backward and idiotic that they weaken their own nations with stupidity and dumb internecine violence. Though Jews later came to butt heads with Hamas, Hamas was actually created with the help of Jews to undermine secular Palestinian power.

    In some ways, what really makes Jews and US so angry about Iran is that, despite its religious fundamentalism, it didn’t give up its modernization program. Iran is guided by Islam but relatively liberal compared to nations like Saudi Arabia. Much of Iran operated via secular principles. The religious zealots never gained total power in Iran, and even they were keen on developing science and technology independent of religious values.

    Read More
    • Agree: Escher
    • Replies: @Justpassingby
    Hey Priss,

    Loved Reed's post and loved your rejoinder both equally.

    [When you spoke of the Mid-East modernizers, thought you left out the Shah of Iran, but then you sort of snuck him in at the end.]
    , @unpc downunder
    This feminisation of the military wouldn't be so bad if we had lesbians and feminists going around with T-shirts saying "dead white males rock," and "proud to have a masculine side" but it's about bringing men down rather than any genuine toleration of overlapping gender behaviour.

    Also if women must serve in combat roles, why not organise them into their own units (with male officers to get them started). It's easier for women to physically carry wounded women than men, and there are less issues with personal privacy and sexual harassment.

    Sexual segregation of working class schools wouldn't be a bad idea either. For some reason western countries are more likely segregate the upper middle class kids who are best able to handle co-ed education (and probably need some practice talking to the opposite sex) rather than the impulsive working class kids who need more structure and discipline.

    , @Haxo Angmark
    horseshit. The Empire of the Debtbuck is no longer "winning". From Afghanistan to Syria, it's going down. And if our Army of Onan (civilian Secretary of the Army is now a flaming public faggot; sodomites and lezzies have now queer-networked themselves up to 2-star rank, soon to be 3) ever again has to fight a Real Enemy up close and personal, it will be routed, high tech or no. About two years back, a US Navy destroyer was waltzing about in the Black Sea. A Russian anti-shipping aircraft came over, zapped the destroyer's electronics, and then did a close mock-firing pass. All of the two-dozen or so female "sailors" immediately became hysterical - that is, running-around-in-circles-and-screaming-hysterical - and the destroyer had to retreat to the Romanian port at Constanza, then offload and hospitalize the catatonic sailorettes. In short: the Empire and its evil values are doomed, and a good thing too
    , @Dave Pinsen

    Viet Cong didn’t do this stuff cuz they were fighting for their very survival. Russians during WWII had no time for such stuff cuz they too were fighting a zero sum game.
     
    Both the Viet Cong and the Russians in WWII employed women in combat successfully (granted, they did so out of desperation, not social experimentation).

    So, if US is for modernization in the Middle East, it should have developed closer ties to secularites like Hussein and Assad.
     
    There's some truth to this in the case of Assad (Jr.), at least. We would have been better off had Saddam stayed in power, but he had so much blood on his hands that closer ties with him would have been politically awkward.

    Jews fear secular modernizers in the Arab world much more than they fear religious lunatics.
     
    Aside from Saddam's brief salvo of Scud missiles in 1991, secular Arab leaders haven't been a military threat to Israel in 42 years. The ones who launch rockets at Israel are the religious lunatics, as are the ones who threaten to wipe Israel off the map. If Assad goes the way of Saddam, that means Syria becomes another launch pad for rockets aimed at Israel.

    Iran is guided by Islam but relatively liberal compared to nations like Saudi Arabia.
     
    Iran stones women to death for adultery - not terribly liberal. If anything, the Iranians are less liberal than the Saudis, because more of the Iranian leaders observe their religion, whereas a lot of the Saudis are closet hedonists. The Iranians have more advanced native technological ability than the Saudis because Persians have long had better tech chops than Arabs, not because their current government is any great shakes.
  4. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    So, why is US policy like this?

    Because continental warfare is a bitch and US doesn’t have much clout in it, period. US power elites ARE NOT conditioned by this warfare. But then again, most of them have no clue about 20th Century’s history.

    Read More
  5. Mr Reed,
    Women don’t belong on ships either or subs. See our paths may have crossed. I sat on top of Alpha 6 and Crows nest with 106′s and spent time up the road from you at 3rd LVT in Nui Kim Son doing sick call for the kids and occasionally getting Kools and Salems for a certain mama san. I worked the psych wards of Bethesda until I got orders to 1st Mar Div may of 68.
    There was a very beautiful young woman who we would see from time to time in Nui Kim Son and it was said she spent her time with some guy LVT’s. You’d never get me inside one of those things but riding on top with a couple of layers of sandbags reading Sea Tiger was ok. Looked alot like Jones beach on Long Island on patrol in the Riveria area. To think America has come to all this makes me want to weep. I live in Europe. Cant live in that place anymore.
    Peace
    DOC 2/1

    Read More
  6. When the enemy is rolling on the floor with laughter because of the U.S. cross-dressers and you can shoot’ m with pink rifles or stab them to death with high heels, I think it’s a devilishly fine plan.

    Gay S.A.! Gay S.A.!

    Read More
  7. The military is a slice out of society. When society has rotten morals, then the military will have rotten morals.

    When society commits itself to the suppression of manhood, the military will follow.

    One good thing: It’s an all-volunteer force. If you don’t want in it, then don’t join. An enlisted guy can do better financially by just flipping burgers.

    If you want to be ordered to behave like a uniformed faggot, painting your toenails and wearing high heels to please some furious dyke in the Pentagon, then by all means, jump right in.

    EX-military, and glad to be gone.

    Peace, love, truth,

    The Grate Deign

    Read More
  8. If every institution must “reflect society’s Diversity,” why has the NFL no women players?

    The NBA?

    The NHL?

    The PGA & USGA?

    MLB?

    Let me suggest that Title IX apply to the armed forces as it applies to scholastic sports: let there no mixed-sex units; instead let there be all-male units whose funding is equal to the funding of all-female units. When deployment into war comes along, let the Pentagon deploy those units without prejudice to their all-male or all-female composition, then gather data on which of those units give the most bang for the taxpayer buck, which of those units suffer the most casualties, which of those units are more prone to crack under pressure, &c.

    Therein lies the true test of female suitability for all military occupations: if women are the performance equals of men, then all-female units would prove themselves to perform as efficiently and effectively as all-male units tasked to the same occupation.

    Of course females are not interchangeable with males in all occupations. This is why the present method of parceling out a small percentage of women into units whose roles are best performed by men is a shuck, an evasion; because the males in those units will do what the women in those units cannot do, and from the overall performance of such units the Powers That Be will draw – and, worse, will publicize to a chorus of huzzahs – the incorrect conclusion that females in units whose occupations are best performed by males are a “success.”

    Read More
  9. @Priss Factor
    Fred Fred Cabbage Head, there is one advantage to messing up the US military.
    The less effective it becomes, the less it is likely to be employed for for foreign wars.

    Of course, despite these shenanigans, US military is still more powerful than all the militaries combined. Not because of man power but cuz it has the best ships, bombs, jets, naval force, radar, and computer stuff.

    I mean even a bunch of trannies and feminists with guns and bombs can wipe out hordes of tough Maori warriors. The British were sort of 'faggy' but they conquered much of the world cuz they had guns, ships, and discipline.
    Discipline is still something the US military has in spades. In fact, you can see it in how the soldiers have accepted all these new rules without rebellion. If US were filled with unruly and tough men, there would have been massive uprising by tough hombres complaining that they aint gonna fight alongside a bunch of pansy fruitkins and girlers. But look how docile the male soldiers are. Though this seems like a weakness --- and in some ways it is --- , it also means that US soldiers today are very obedient and do as told and follow orders real well. Discipline is high. They are not like Bill Murray in STRIPES but more like ultra-obedient soldiers in Nazi Germany and militarist Japan. If Hitler had ordered his soldiers to put on silk stockings, they would have done so cuz Nazi Germany was about obedience. If the Emperor had ordered his men to put on makeup before flying planes into American ships, they would have done so.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wZ39aAhokQ

    And besides, the pansy style has a long tradition in European warrior caste culture. Look at the pics of all those old aristocratic military caste. They wore tooty-clothing and grew their hair like women. As aristocrats got rich and fancy, they had homos make fancy stuff for them. The more privileged they became, the fancier their gears and attire got. It's like the Tim Roth character in Rob Roy looks like a fruiter, but he's pretty deadly.
    The fruity Polish nobles:
    https://youtu.be/4RA9z3SfnSo?t=2m36s

    Another thing. The reason why US can indulge in all this fairy stuff is because US is so very powerful. If US military was just holding on, it wouldn't be taking chances with all these fruitsy-tootsy stuff. It's because US military is so powerful that it can rest on its laurels and sometimes play around with its soldiers wearing high heels and stuff.

    Viet Cong didn't do this stuff cuz they were fighting for their very survival. Russians during WWII had no time for such stuff cuz they too were fighting a zero sum game. But US faces no 'existential threat', and it can demolish any nation.

    Some say US failed in the Middle East, but then, US had no long-term goal of winning. US just wanted to topple some regimes and mess things up. And it succeeded at that in spades.

    As for women serving in the military, maybe it's not a bad idear. For most of history, men did all the dying and getting maimed. Maybe it's time to make women do it for a change. UN should require all nations to have an all-women force for the next 200 yrs. Let womenfolk kill other womenfolk for a change. (It will also undermine feminism as women will have to fight and kill other women.)

    At any rate, I don't think the US wanted any of the Middle East nations to succeed under its occupation.

    US talked a good game about how it wanted to modernize the Middle East, but let's compare action with words. The most effective modernizers of the Middle East were secular rulers like Hussein, Gaddafi(aka Gadfly), and Assad. Sure, they were not good men, but they did modernize their nations to some extent and could have done more. In contrast, Saudi Arabia is run by arch-reactionary monarchs who still don't let women drive.

    So, if US is for modernization in the Middle East, it should have developed closer ties to secularites like Hussein and Assad. Instead, US forged the closest ties with the arch-reactionary Saudis. What does that tell you?
    It means US really doesn't want Arabs/Muslims to modernize and grow stronger --- as long as Israel and Jews control US foreign policy. (The secret wish of Jews upon the fall of Hussein was not a strong modern democratic Iraq but a corrupt Iraq beset with sectarian crisis that would make it impossible to come together again.)
    Look how US aided religious lunatics in Libya and Syria to topple or mess up secular modernizing regimes.
    It's just like how the US aided the Afghan Mujahadeen to topple the secular modern regime in Kabul in the 1980s.

    So, why is US policy like this? It's because US policy is dominated by Jews, and Jews want Israel to be the only modern nation in the Middle East. Jews fear secular modernizers in the Arab world much more than they fear religious lunatics. Sure, religious nuts may be crazy, but they are so backward and idiotic that they weaken their own nations with stupidity and dumb internecine violence. Though Jews later came to butt heads with Hamas, Hamas was actually created with the help of Jews to undermine secular Palestinian power.

    In some ways, what really makes Jews and US so angry about Iran is that, despite its religious fundamentalism, it didn't give up its modernization program. Iran is guided by Islam but relatively liberal compared to nations like Saudi Arabia. Much of Iran operated via secular principles. The religious zealots never gained total power in Iran, and even they were keen on developing science and technology independent of religious values.

    Hey Priss,

    Loved Reed’s post and loved your rejoinder both equally.

    [When you spoke of the Mid-East modernizers, thought you left out the Shah of Iran, but then you sort of snuck him in at the end.]

    Read More
  10. “A general in the Pentagon told me that he wouldn’t allow a woman in his office unless the door was open and a witness was present: If she claimed he harassed her, he was in trouble. (The editor of a major newspaper once told me the same thing.)”

    This became accepted wisdom in the 1980′s. I was a manager at that time, and didn’t pay much attention, until a supervisor friend of mine was falsely accused by a woman whom he interviewed. Higher management promptly threw him under the bus and preemptively fired him to head off the lawsuit that the woman threatened.

    Needless to say, I conducted every one of my interviews with my office door open, with me sitting in full view of the door, with a witness seated directly across the hall.

    Anyway, I just hope we never need to fight a real backs-to-the-wall war with all of these women who identify as soldiers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Our office had an unstated rule for all men: we didn't ever touch women, regardless of proffered handshake, hug, pat on back, anything. Our glass wall offices were also always open to avoid any appearance of problems.

    The "chair" didn't mind serial hugging and essentially forced herself on underlings, but nobody dared object for fear of being vilified and written up by the gay HR guy and the lesbian enforcer. People kept their heads down and avoided contact. The unit cohesiveness was unintended, and not what they expected. That is what diversity and inclusiveness did for us, and they wondered why turnover was high.
  11. The ultra heavy black lesbian infantry marches on its stomach. if only the Serbs had them as an emeny when Clinton fought for the illegal alien moslems.

    Read More
  12. The creeping rot of leftism consumes all before it as the military succumbs to what the civilian corporate world has been sickened with for decades now.

    There is no place left for men to be men. A man needs a place where he can freely act according the dictates of his God-given sex–to form hierarchies, to take and give orders, to win honor for himself amongst his fellows, and to carry out a mission with brilliance and daring. It used to be that a man could get this sort of thing just by going to work in the morning. Each little workshop, factory, or office was an island of manhood which, while perhaps not particularly grand, still managed to press the right male buttons and gave him a needed release from the pressures of domestic life. Women in the workplace ruined all of that.

    If a certain man wanted to live totally in the male world, eschewing the comforts of home and family, he could sign up with a whaling ship or a lumber camp. He could go into the military (or, if soldiering wasn’t his thing, the clergy). Even the university used to be a male world, for true scholarship (the penetration of recondite secrets, the scaling of great intellectual heights, the winning of eternal renown for some discovery) is inherently a male pursuit. Now most of that is gone, laid waste by tyrannical feminism.

    I find it rather telling that among primitive peoples, a certain pattern of living continuously reemerges and is found everywhere from New Guinea to Africa to America: The grown men live in one camp, while the woman and children live in a separate camp. When the natives are asked why they live this way, they always say it is to preserve peace. Women are essentially for taking care of children, while men are essentially for working, fighting, and thinking. Due to these essential differences, even though the two are complementary and are meant for each other, they can never come to agreement in practical details. It is better for each to maintain their proper sphere.

    A more advanced civilization doesn’t quite allow for this arrangement, but still the male and female spheres were kept separate and peace was maintained by assigning different roles to each. The home belonged to the woman and the working world, the world of public actions and deeds, to the man. The man was unquestionably the senior partner in the contract and the final decisions were up to him, as is only fitting.

    In an overripe and decadent civilization such as we live in, the female sphere has swollen to encompass the entirety. We have reverted to a kind of primitivism, but not the fresh, virile, and natural kind. It is the garbage-picking primitivism of feral dogs. The whole world has become “the woman camp,” and the men who inhabit it are simply overgrown children, having never graduated to the complete man-dom of the man camp.

    Whenever this happens, the society is doomed. You can see the paradigm at work all around you once you’ve been clued into it. Any man with a trace of testicular fortitude left is disgusted with this society and wants to withdraw from it, inwardly or outwardly.

    Here in 2015, for the first time ever, we have female coaches and referees in the NFL, female soldiers in Ranger school. Need I say more? The last bastions of manhood are being torn down.

    Read More
  13. @Anon7
    "A general in the Pentagon told me that he wouldn’t allow a woman in his office unless the door was open and a witness was present: If she claimed he harassed her, he was in trouble. (The editor of a major newspaper once told me the same thing.)"

    This became accepted wisdom in the 1980's. I was a manager at that time, and didn't pay much attention, until a supervisor friend of mine was falsely accused by a woman whom he interviewed. Higher management promptly threw him under the bus and preemptively fired him to head off the lawsuit that the woman threatened.

    Needless to say, I conducted every one of my interviews with my office door open, with me sitting in full view of the door, with a witness seated directly across the hall.

    Anyway, I just hope we never need to fight a real backs-to-the-wall war with all of these women who identify as soldiers.

    Our office had an unstated rule for all men: we didn’t ever touch women, regardless of proffered handshake, hug, pat on back, anything. Our glass wall offices were also always open to avoid any appearance of problems.

    The “chair” didn’t mind serial hugging and essentially forced herself on underlings, but nobody dared object for fear of being vilified and written up by the gay HR guy and the lesbian enforcer. People kept their heads down and avoided contact. The unit cohesiveness was unintended, and not what they expected. That is what diversity and inclusiveness did for us, and they wondered why turnover was high.

    Read More
  14. “…but nobody dared object for fear of being vilified and written up by the gay HR guy and the lesbian enforcer.”

    When the Great Revolution comes, a large portion of everyone working in HR, is going to be hastily thrown up against a wall, and shot. This will be in order to protect them from being torn, limb-from-limb, from righteously wrathful mobs.

    Read More
  15. @Priss Factor
    Fred Fred Cabbage Head, there is one advantage to messing up the US military.
    The less effective it becomes, the less it is likely to be employed for for foreign wars.

    Of course, despite these shenanigans, US military is still more powerful than all the militaries combined. Not because of man power but cuz it has the best ships, bombs, jets, naval force, radar, and computer stuff.

    I mean even a bunch of trannies and feminists with guns and bombs can wipe out hordes of tough Maori warriors. The British were sort of 'faggy' but they conquered much of the world cuz they had guns, ships, and discipline.
    Discipline is still something the US military has in spades. In fact, you can see it in how the soldiers have accepted all these new rules without rebellion. If US were filled with unruly and tough men, there would have been massive uprising by tough hombres complaining that they aint gonna fight alongside a bunch of pansy fruitkins and girlers. But look how docile the male soldiers are. Though this seems like a weakness --- and in some ways it is --- , it also means that US soldiers today are very obedient and do as told and follow orders real well. Discipline is high. They are not like Bill Murray in STRIPES but more like ultra-obedient soldiers in Nazi Germany and militarist Japan. If Hitler had ordered his soldiers to put on silk stockings, they would have done so cuz Nazi Germany was about obedience. If the Emperor had ordered his men to put on makeup before flying planes into American ships, they would have done so.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wZ39aAhokQ

    And besides, the pansy style has a long tradition in European warrior caste culture. Look at the pics of all those old aristocratic military caste. They wore tooty-clothing and grew their hair like women. As aristocrats got rich and fancy, they had homos make fancy stuff for them. The more privileged they became, the fancier their gears and attire got. It's like the Tim Roth character in Rob Roy looks like a fruiter, but he's pretty deadly.
    The fruity Polish nobles:
    https://youtu.be/4RA9z3SfnSo?t=2m36s

    Another thing. The reason why US can indulge in all this fairy stuff is because US is so very powerful. If US military was just holding on, it wouldn't be taking chances with all these fruitsy-tootsy stuff. It's because US military is so powerful that it can rest on its laurels and sometimes play around with its soldiers wearing high heels and stuff.

    Viet Cong didn't do this stuff cuz they were fighting for their very survival. Russians during WWII had no time for such stuff cuz they too were fighting a zero sum game. But US faces no 'existential threat', and it can demolish any nation.

    Some say US failed in the Middle East, but then, US had no long-term goal of winning. US just wanted to topple some regimes and mess things up. And it succeeded at that in spades.

    As for women serving in the military, maybe it's not a bad idear. For most of history, men did all the dying and getting maimed. Maybe it's time to make women do it for a change. UN should require all nations to have an all-women force for the next 200 yrs. Let womenfolk kill other womenfolk for a change. (It will also undermine feminism as women will have to fight and kill other women.)

    At any rate, I don't think the US wanted any of the Middle East nations to succeed under its occupation.

    US talked a good game about how it wanted to modernize the Middle East, but let's compare action with words. The most effective modernizers of the Middle East were secular rulers like Hussein, Gaddafi(aka Gadfly), and Assad. Sure, they were not good men, but they did modernize their nations to some extent and could have done more. In contrast, Saudi Arabia is run by arch-reactionary monarchs who still don't let women drive.

    So, if US is for modernization in the Middle East, it should have developed closer ties to secularites like Hussein and Assad. Instead, US forged the closest ties with the arch-reactionary Saudis. What does that tell you?
    It means US really doesn't want Arabs/Muslims to modernize and grow stronger --- as long as Israel and Jews control US foreign policy. (The secret wish of Jews upon the fall of Hussein was not a strong modern democratic Iraq but a corrupt Iraq beset with sectarian crisis that would make it impossible to come together again.)
    Look how US aided religious lunatics in Libya and Syria to topple or mess up secular modernizing regimes.
    It's just like how the US aided the Afghan Mujahadeen to topple the secular modern regime in Kabul in the 1980s.

    So, why is US policy like this? It's because US policy is dominated by Jews, and Jews want Israel to be the only modern nation in the Middle East. Jews fear secular modernizers in the Arab world much more than they fear religious lunatics. Sure, religious nuts may be crazy, but they are so backward and idiotic that they weaken their own nations with stupidity and dumb internecine violence. Though Jews later came to butt heads with Hamas, Hamas was actually created with the help of Jews to undermine secular Palestinian power.

    In some ways, what really makes Jews and US so angry about Iran is that, despite its religious fundamentalism, it didn't give up its modernization program. Iran is guided by Islam but relatively liberal compared to nations like Saudi Arabia. Much of Iran operated via secular principles. The religious zealots never gained total power in Iran, and even they were keen on developing science and technology independent of religious values.

    This feminisation of the military wouldn’t be so bad if we had lesbians and feminists going around with T-shirts saying “dead white males rock,” and “proud to have a masculine side” but it’s about bringing men down rather than any genuine toleration of overlapping gender behaviour.

    Also if women must serve in combat roles, why not organise them into their own units (with male officers to get them started). It’s easier for women to physically carry wounded women than men, and there are less issues with personal privacy and sexual harassment.

    Sexual segregation of working class schools wouldn’t be a bad idea either. For some reason western countries are more likely segregate the upper middle class kids who are best able to handle co-ed education (and probably need some practice talking to the opposite sex) rather than the impulsive working class kids who need more structure and discipline.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "why not organize them into their own units"

    Because we don't want them all to die, or be captured and, you know.
  16. Great piece.

    In my time in the Army (1987-90), I saw exactly one decent female soldier–and she ended up as the facility engineer of the Pentagon, about as far away from combat as possible.

    Read More
  17. Apart from the curse of political correctness, one reason why an experimental and feminized military gets the go ahead, is that none of the top brass expects to fight a “conventional” all out war against an enemy capable of utterly destroying us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    One shudders to think how female infantry would do against, say, Russian infantry or the French Foreign Legion. . . .
  18. @Priss Factor
    Fred Fred Cabbage Head, there is one advantage to messing up the US military.
    The less effective it becomes, the less it is likely to be employed for for foreign wars.

    Of course, despite these shenanigans, US military is still more powerful than all the militaries combined. Not because of man power but cuz it has the best ships, bombs, jets, naval force, radar, and computer stuff.

    I mean even a bunch of trannies and feminists with guns and bombs can wipe out hordes of tough Maori warriors. The British were sort of 'faggy' but they conquered much of the world cuz they had guns, ships, and discipline.
    Discipline is still something the US military has in spades. In fact, you can see it in how the soldiers have accepted all these new rules without rebellion. If US were filled with unruly and tough men, there would have been massive uprising by tough hombres complaining that they aint gonna fight alongside a bunch of pansy fruitkins and girlers. But look how docile the male soldiers are. Though this seems like a weakness --- and in some ways it is --- , it also means that US soldiers today are very obedient and do as told and follow orders real well. Discipline is high. They are not like Bill Murray in STRIPES but more like ultra-obedient soldiers in Nazi Germany and militarist Japan. If Hitler had ordered his soldiers to put on silk stockings, they would have done so cuz Nazi Germany was about obedience. If the Emperor had ordered his men to put on makeup before flying planes into American ships, they would have done so.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wZ39aAhokQ

    And besides, the pansy style has a long tradition in European warrior caste culture. Look at the pics of all those old aristocratic military caste. They wore tooty-clothing and grew their hair like women. As aristocrats got rich and fancy, they had homos make fancy stuff for them. The more privileged they became, the fancier their gears and attire got. It's like the Tim Roth character in Rob Roy looks like a fruiter, but he's pretty deadly.
    The fruity Polish nobles:
    https://youtu.be/4RA9z3SfnSo?t=2m36s

    Another thing. The reason why US can indulge in all this fairy stuff is because US is so very powerful. If US military was just holding on, it wouldn't be taking chances with all these fruitsy-tootsy stuff. It's because US military is so powerful that it can rest on its laurels and sometimes play around with its soldiers wearing high heels and stuff.

    Viet Cong didn't do this stuff cuz they were fighting for their very survival. Russians during WWII had no time for such stuff cuz they too were fighting a zero sum game. But US faces no 'existential threat', and it can demolish any nation.

    Some say US failed in the Middle East, but then, US had no long-term goal of winning. US just wanted to topple some regimes and mess things up. And it succeeded at that in spades.

    As for women serving in the military, maybe it's not a bad idear. For most of history, men did all the dying and getting maimed. Maybe it's time to make women do it for a change. UN should require all nations to have an all-women force for the next 200 yrs. Let womenfolk kill other womenfolk for a change. (It will also undermine feminism as women will have to fight and kill other women.)

    At any rate, I don't think the US wanted any of the Middle East nations to succeed under its occupation.

    US talked a good game about how it wanted to modernize the Middle East, but let's compare action with words. The most effective modernizers of the Middle East were secular rulers like Hussein, Gaddafi(aka Gadfly), and Assad. Sure, they were not good men, but they did modernize their nations to some extent and could have done more. In contrast, Saudi Arabia is run by arch-reactionary monarchs who still don't let women drive.

    So, if US is for modernization in the Middle East, it should have developed closer ties to secularites like Hussein and Assad. Instead, US forged the closest ties with the arch-reactionary Saudis. What does that tell you?
    It means US really doesn't want Arabs/Muslims to modernize and grow stronger --- as long as Israel and Jews control US foreign policy. (The secret wish of Jews upon the fall of Hussein was not a strong modern democratic Iraq but a corrupt Iraq beset with sectarian crisis that would make it impossible to come together again.)
    Look how US aided religious lunatics in Libya and Syria to topple or mess up secular modernizing regimes.
    It's just like how the US aided the Afghan Mujahadeen to topple the secular modern regime in Kabul in the 1980s.

    So, why is US policy like this? It's because US policy is dominated by Jews, and Jews want Israel to be the only modern nation in the Middle East. Jews fear secular modernizers in the Arab world much more than they fear religious lunatics. Sure, religious nuts may be crazy, but they are so backward and idiotic that they weaken their own nations with stupidity and dumb internecine violence. Though Jews later came to butt heads with Hamas, Hamas was actually created with the help of Jews to undermine secular Palestinian power.

    In some ways, what really makes Jews and US so angry about Iran is that, despite its religious fundamentalism, it didn't give up its modernization program. Iran is guided by Islam but relatively liberal compared to nations like Saudi Arabia. Much of Iran operated via secular principles. The religious zealots never gained total power in Iran, and even they were keen on developing science and technology independent of religious values.

    horseshit. The Empire of the Debtbuck is no longer “winning”. From Afghanistan to Syria, it’s going down. And if our Army of Onan (civilian Secretary of the Army is now a flaming public faggot; sodomites and lezzies have now queer-networked themselves up to 2-star rank, soon to be 3) ever again has to fight a Real Enemy up close and personal, it will be routed, high tech or no. About two years back, a US Navy destroyer was waltzing about in the Black Sea. A Russian anti-shipping aircraft came over, zapped the destroyer’s electronics, and then did a close mock-firing pass. All of the two-dozen or so female “sailors” immediately became hysterical – that is, running-around-in-circles-and-screaming-hysterical – and the destroyer had to retreat to the Romanian port at Constanza, then offload and hospitalize the catatonic sailorettes. In short: the Empire and its evil values are doomed, and a good thing too

    Read More
  19. I think essential to the psychology of feminism is the notion that to be a woman is a great humiliation – it is to be a small, weak man of sorts. The prime iteration of this humiliation is being subject to a man and left in charge of children (opposed to being subject to a strange man in the workplace and alienated from children). Other elements of the leftist project have come to adopt similar psychology – the self-identifying homosexual, for example, views his condition as a humiliation heaped upon him by nature and culture. In years past, the homosexual explicitly mocked traditional masculine expressions and the greater culture (i.e., The Village People), whereas he has recently changed tack and come to implicitly mock the cultural institution of marriage and thereby all that flows from it. Clearly, this perceived humiliation is the source of his motivation. The hipster phenomenon is, I think, a further extension and expression of this.

    Putting women in elite units and promoting them to commanding officers as well forcing gays into close combat units (which,it should be noted are comprised largely of red blooded boys from the South and West) needs to be seen as a retributive and ritualized humiliation. Thinking people object, citing the performance deficiencies, harm to morale and esprit de corps, expecting the career officers to similarly object on the grounds of the detrimental effect to combat readiness and the prospect that these changes will get men killed and compromise missions. But when your opponents’ goal is to humiliate without regard for the overall effectiveness of the military, those objections are summarily dismissed. Those red-blooded boys simply must be made to take orders from a nasty, frustrated woman and shower with a catty homosexual.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Funny how no one ever seems to combine in their minds the closeness of opposite sexes and different "lifestyles" with the supposed culture of rape that the news and tv shows tell me is some sort of crisis. At least gay sex can't get anyone pregnant, which I imagine could be a hindrance in wartime.
  20. Warfare is becoming ever more psychological: imagine the effect upon enemy morale when their night patrol is told “There’s a platoon of pooftas waiting in ambush two miles up the trail, lads”

    Read More
  21. Reed knows Keating. The two of them were on the staff of Washington Times and Soldier of Fortune together. Reed knows Keating is telling the truth because he also knows what sort of person she is.

    Read More
  22. @JEC
    Apart from the curse of political correctness, one reason why an experimental and feminized military gets the go ahead, is that none of the top brass expects to fight a "conventional" all out war against an enemy capable of utterly destroying us.

    One shudders to think how female infantry would do against, say, Russian infantry or the French Foreign Legion. . . .

    Read More
  23. More women just need to do martial arts.

    I’ve been doing TKD and BJJ my entire teenage and adult life and EVERY woman I’ve trained with has talked about “man-strength”. There is such a distinct difference between men and women when it comes to physical output that the women know it from the actual training we do together. Strikes, ground fighting, whatever, men dominate these when it comes to stamina and power. There is no shame in it. Understanding those limits allows you to focus on other areas like technique and speed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Men are faster than women, too. As for technique, yes, that'd be their chance. Anyway, I don't know who needs martial arts training to get it. Anyone who doesn't know men are stronger isn't paying attention.
  24. @OutWest
    Then there’s the cost of women registering and being tracked by Selective Service.

    We can solve that by getting rid of conscription.

    Read More
  25. The soldier putting on high heels is making a terrible fashion blunder. Doesn’t he know that high heels don’t go with his M-16?

    Read More
  26. History needs its laughing stock. (Too bad it happens to be my country).
    Treason.

    Read More
  27. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Haxo Angmark
    horseshit. The Empire of the Debtbuck is no longer "winning". From Afghanistan to Syria, it's going down. And if our Army of Onan (civilian Secretary of the Army is now a flaming public faggot; sodomites and lezzies have now queer-networked themselves up to 2-star rank, soon to be 3) ever again has to fight a Real Enemy up close and personal, it will be routed, high tech or no. About two years back, a US Navy destroyer was waltzing about in the Black Sea. A Russian anti-shipping aircraft came over, zapped the destroyer's electronics, and then did a close mock-firing pass. All of the two-dozen or so female "sailors" immediately became hysterical - that is, running-around-in-circles-and-screaming-hysterical - and the destroyer had to retreat to the Romanian port at Constanza, then offload and hospitalize the catatonic sailorettes. In short: the Empire and its evil values are doomed, and a good thing too

    Can you footnote this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
    start w http://voltairenet.org/article185860.html

    US cover-up versions, as usual, fail to mention the gender issue and retreat to Constanza; that oozed out later, from various "connected" service and ex-servicemens' blogs

  28. A recent blog post:

    Football and Infantry

    There has been lots of news about the Obama administration’s effort to open all military jobs to women. Everyone familiar with infantry operations knows this is a bad idea, and not just because women are smaller and weaker. Half of American men can’t do infantry jobs either.
    The best example is a similar question: Can women play pro football? The answer is yes. What if an NFL owner demanded that women consist of at least 25% of his team, with at least three women on the field at all times. That is feasible, but the team would lose all its games, and all its male players would be furious. It is worse in combat because limbs and lives are lost. Luckily, our military has only played Pop Warner level opponents since this “women in combat” effort began. 

    Not only infantry are affected, but many other military jobs. When the USS Cole was hit with a bomb in 2000, the women crew cried and did nothing while several men abandoned their post to check on their loved one. Sailors will tell you that women cannot lug heavy things up ladders and cannot perform many other needed tasks. Moreover, even crew with “desk” jobs have other jobs aboard ship: battle stations, firefighting teams, or “all hands on deck” for whatever task is needed.

    To make matters worse, the Obama folks doubled the extra time off for pregnancy to 18 weeks! Keep in mind that women are also allowed at least three months of “light duty” when they are pregnant, so are not expected to do anything difficult. Who does their work during this time? If the Obama folks meet their goal of at least 25% of ship crews with women, at least 10% of the crew will not be available to deploy due to pregnancy issues.

    Women who want a large family should join the Navy and get assigned to a ship. Once they get pregnant, they can’t deploy, so are left behind with some odd make work job ashore, like handing out towels at the gym. When the ship returns they have a medical excuse for “light duty” so they only have to show up for work but are expected to do nothing. The baby arrives so they get 18 weeks off for maternity leave and another four weeks for annual leave. When that ends, many military women show up for just four hours of loitering around on “light duty” since they just had a child and then “must” go home for the day because its time to breastfeed. After a year of their not available status, its time to resume full-time duties, but they get pregnant again and start the cycle again. 

    Officers cannot openly discuss these problems because they will be attacked as anti-women and anti-family. They must give these absent sailors good performance reviews because they’ve done nothing wrong, because they’ve done nothing. Meanwhile, hard-working crewmen tire of the 12-hour days needed to cover for the absence of others, and many great ones leave when their enlistment ends, or have their reenlistment denied because of the women quota that includes members of a ship crew who rarely did any work and missed the last two deployments. Women are suitable for about half of military jobs, but certainly not infantry or even ship crews.

    Read More
  29. @Priss Factor
    Fred Fred Cabbage Head, there is one advantage to messing up the US military.
    The less effective it becomes, the less it is likely to be employed for for foreign wars.

    Of course, despite these shenanigans, US military is still more powerful than all the militaries combined. Not because of man power but cuz it has the best ships, bombs, jets, naval force, radar, and computer stuff.

    I mean even a bunch of trannies and feminists with guns and bombs can wipe out hordes of tough Maori warriors. The British were sort of 'faggy' but they conquered much of the world cuz they had guns, ships, and discipline.
    Discipline is still something the US military has in spades. In fact, you can see it in how the soldiers have accepted all these new rules without rebellion. If US were filled with unruly and tough men, there would have been massive uprising by tough hombres complaining that they aint gonna fight alongside a bunch of pansy fruitkins and girlers. But look how docile the male soldiers are. Though this seems like a weakness --- and in some ways it is --- , it also means that US soldiers today are very obedient and do as told and follow orders real well. Discipline is high. They are not like Bill Murray in STRIPES but more like ultra-obedient soldiers in Nazi Germany and militarist Japan. If Hitler had ordered his soldiers to put on silk stockings, they would have done so cuz Nazi Germany was about obedience. If the Emperor had ordered his men to put on makeup before flying planes into American ships, they would have done so.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wZ39aAhokQ

    And besides, the pansy style has a long tradition in European warrior caste culture. Look at the pics of all those old aristocratic military caste. They wore tooty-clothing and grew their hair like women. As aristocrats got rich and fancy, they had homos make fancy stuff for them. The more privileged they became, the fancier their gears and attire got. It's like the Tim Roth character in Rob Roy looks like a fruiter, but he's pretty deadly.
    The fruity Polish nobles:
    https://youtu.be/4RA9z3SfnSo?t=2m36s

    Another thing. The reason why US can indulge in all this fairy stuff is because US is so very powerful. If US military was just holding on, it wouldn't be taking chances with all these fruitsy-tootsy stuff. It's because US military is so powerful that it can rest on its laurels and sometimes play around with its soldiers wearing high heels and stuff.

    Viet Cong didn't do this stuff cuz they were fighting for their very survival. Russians during WWII had no time for such stuff cuz they too were fighting a zero sum game. But US faces no 'existential threat', and it can demolish any nation.

    Some say US failed in the Middle East, but then, US had no long-term goal of winning. US just wanted to topple some regimes and mess things up. And it succeeded at that in spades.

    As for women serving in the military, maybe it's not a bad idear. For most of history, men did all the dying and getting maimed. Maybe it's time to make women do it for a change. UN should require all nations to have an all-women force for the next 200 yrs. Let womenfolk kill other womenfolk for a change. (It will also undermine feminism as women will have to fight and kill other women.)

    At any rate, I don't think the US wanted any of the Middle East nations to succeed under its occupation.

    US talked a good game about how it wanted to modernize the Middle East, but let's compare action with words. The most effective modernizers of the Middle East were secular rulers like Hussein, Gaddafi(aka Gadfly), and Assad. Sure, they were not good men, but they did modernize their nations to some extent and could have done more. In contrast, Saudi Arabia is run by arch-reactionary monarchs who still don't let women drive.

    So, if US is for modernization in the Middle East, it should have developed closer ties to secularites like Hussein and Assad. Instead, US forged the closest ties with the arch-reactionary Saudis. What does that tell you?
    It means US really doesn't want Arabs/Muslims to modernize and grow stronger --- as long as Israel and Jews control US foreign policy. (The secret wish of Jews upon the fall of Hussein was not a strong modern democratic Iraq but a corrupt Iraq beset with sectarian crisis that would make it impossible to come together again.)
    Look how US aided religious lunatics in Libya and Syria to topple or mess up secular modernizing regimes.
    It's just like how the US aided the Afghan Mujahadeen to topple the secular modern regime in Kabul in the 1980s.

    So, why is US policy like this? It's because US policy is dominated by Jews, and Jews want Israel to be the only modern nation in the Middle East. Jews fear secular modernizers in the Arab world much more than they fear religious lunatics. Sure, religious nuts may be crazy, but they are so backward and idiotic that they weaken their own nations with stupidity and dumb internecine violence. Though Jews later came to butt heads with Hamas, Hamas was actually created with the help of Jews to undermine secular Palestinian power.

    In some ways, what really makes Jews and US so angry about Iran is that, despite its religious fundamentalism, it didn't give up its modernization program. Iran is guided by Islam but relatively liberal compared to nations like Saudi Arabia. Much of Iran operated via secular principles. The religious zealots never gained total power in Iran, and even they were keen on developing science and technology independent of religious values.

    Viet Cong didn’t do this stuff cuz they were fighting for their very survival. Russians during WWII had no time for such stuff cuz they too were fighting a zero sum game.

    Both the Viet Cong and the Russians in WWII employed women in combat successfully (granted, they did so out of desperation, not social experimentation).

    So, if US is for modernization in the Middle East, it should have developed closer ties to secularites like Hussein and Assad.

    There’s some truth to this in the case of Assad (Jr.), at least. We would have been better off had Saddam stayed in power, but he had so much blood on his hands that closer ties with him would have been politically awkward.

    Jews fear secular modernizers in the Arab world much more than they fear religious lunatics.

    Aside from Saddam’s brief salvo of Scud missiles in 1991, secular Arab leaders haven’t been a military threat to Israel in 42 years. The ones who launch rockets at Israel are the religious lunatics, as are the ones who threaten to wipe Israel off the map. If Assad goes the way of Saddam, that means Syria becomes another launch pad for rockets aimed at Israel.

    Iran is guided by Islam but relatively liberal compared to nations like Saudi Arabia.

    Iran stones women to death for adultery – not terribly liberal. If anything, the Iranians are less liberal than the Saudis, because more of the Iranian leaders observe their religion, whereas a lot of the Saudis are closet hedonists. The Iranians have more advanced native technological ability than the Saudis because Persians have long had better tech chops than Arabs, not because their current government is any great shakes.

    Read More
  30. @unpc downunder
    This feminisation of the military wouldn't be so bad if we had lesbians and feminists going around with T-shirts saying "dead white males rock," and "proud to have a masculine side" but it's about bringing men down rather than any genuine toleration of overlapping gender behaviour.

    Also if women must serve in combat roles, why not organise them into their own units (with male officers to get them started). It's easier for women to physically carry wounded women than men, and there are less issues with personal privacy and sexual harassment.

    Sexual segregation of working class schools wouldn't be a bad idea either. For some reason western countries are more likely segregate the upper middle class kids who are best able to handle co-ed education (and probably need some practice talking to the opposite sex) rather than the impulsive working class kids who need more structure and discipline.

    “why not organize them into their own units”

    Because we don’t want them all to die, or be captured and, you know.

    Read More
  31. @Alec Leamas
    I think essential to the psychology of feminism is the notion that to be a woman is a great humiliation - it is to be a small, weak man of sorts. The prime iteration of this humiliation is being subject to a man and left in charge of children (opposed to being subject to a strange man in the workplace and alienated from children). Other elements of the leftist project have come to adopt similar psychology - the self-identifying homosexual, for example, views his condition as a humiliation heaped upon him by nature and culture. In years past, the homosexual explicitly mocked traditional masculine expressions and the greater culture (i.e., The Village People), whereas he has recently changed tack and come to implicitly mock the cultural institution of marriage and thereby all that flows from it. Clearly, this perceived humiliation is the source of his motivation. The hipster phenomenon is, I think, a further extension and expression of this.

    Putting women in elite units and promoting them to commanding officers as well forcing gays into close combat units (which,it should be noted are comprised largely of red blooded boys from the South and West) needs to be seen as a retributive and ritualized humiliation. Thinking people object, citing the performance deficiencies, harm to morale and esprit de corps, expecting the career officers to similarly object on the grounds of the detrimental effect to combat readiness and the prospect that these changes will get men killed and compromise missions. But when your opponents' goal is to humiliate without regard for the overall effectiveness of the military, those objections are summarily dismissed. Those red-blooded boys simply must be made to take orders from a nasty, frustrated woman and shower with a catty homosexual.

    Funny how no one ever seems to combine in their minds the closeness of opposite sexes and different “lifestyles” with the supposed culture of rape that the news and tv shows tell me is some sort of crisis. At least gay sex can’t get anyone pregnant, which I imagine could be a hindrance in wartime.

    Read More
  32. @Max Payne
    More women just need to do martial arts.

    I've been doing TKD and BJJ my entire teenage and adult life and EVERY woman I've trained with has talked about "man-strength". There is such a distinct difference between men and women when it comes to physical output that the women know it from the actual training we do together. Strikes, ground fighting, whatever, men dominate these when it comes to stamina and power. There is no shame in it. Understanding those limits allows you to focus on other areas like technique and speed.

    Men are faster than women, too. As for technique, yes, that’d be their chance. Anyway, I don’t know who needs martial arts training to get it. Anyone who doesn’t know men are stronger isn’t paying attention.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Max Payne
    Yeah but I think doing martial arts would allow women to understand that (real martial arts, not some BS cardio-kick-boxing crap or....yoga....). It even humbles those big muscle guys who think they're hot-stuff.

    From time to time you'll get that woman who signs up, she's in good shape, has probably done some sort of sport like badminton or women's basketball all her life, and comes into the gym/dojang/whatever with an attitude. The attitude of "equality".

    "I'm as good as any man in this place... better even."

    Needless to say if she's serious about the sport that "equality" mentality will slowly fade and she'll realize the gender differences. The lesson for these women usually comes after aggravating a guy with some BS move and he unleashes his full power and she realizes how helpless she is.

    Same thing with those muscle guys, they think because they have stacks of biceps that they'll dominate only to be put in their place.

    Just saying, women who do martial arts seem to fully grasp the gender difference when it comes to physical output.

    Generally the women I hear yell that BS "women are as capable as men" tend to not have done any form of physical training with men ever in their lives (and I can only imagine the sex they've ever had has been with effeminate guys who probably ask permission to change positions).

    I can't begin to tell you how many times I've heard men say "I'm tired I'm going to train with the women today" or from women "It's been a long day at work, I'm going to just stick with the girls".

    Hell the only sport I know that women equal to men is those hippy snow sports like skiing (not the cocaine kind) and snowboarding. Skating and what not. What I call those weird white-man winter "sports" (hockey excluded).
  33. @Anonymous
    Can you footnote this?

    start w http://voltairenet.org/article185860.html

    US cover-up versions, as usual, fail to mention the gender issue and retreat to Constanza; that oozed out later, from various “connected” service and ex-servicemens’ blogs

    Read More
    • Replies: @map
    What is this "voltairenet" article about the USS Cook?
  34. @Haxo Angmark
    start w http://voltairenet.org/article185860.html

    US cover-up versions, as usual, fail to mention the gender issue and retreat to Constanza; that oozed out later, from various "connected" service and ex-servicemens' blogs

    What is this “voltairenet” article about the USS Cook?

    Read More
  35. Training women for combat roles in the military is an ideological game played by the top brass and politicians. It’s played on the assumption that no “real” situation will ever transpire which puts their fatuous scheme to the test of front line requirements in an all out war.

    Read More
  36. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The past is past, dwelling on the glories that once were won’t pay one’s phone bill. When a person dies there’s a grieving period then a person has to move on with the new reality; the dead aren’t coming back. The military is just an employment program for most and provides adrenaline rushes for excitement seekers in the elite categories such as special forces, pilots, etc. None of our wars are anything to be proud of so participating in them is nothing to brag about. It’s Barry’s military now so if someone wants to sign up they should realize they’ll be wearing pink underwear for the duration. Winning or losing these wars isn’t the issue anymore; spending money and having a big budget is what’s important. Rome didn’t last forever and neither will the US which is apparently declining right before our eyes.

    Read More
  37. @guest
    Men are faster than women, too. As for technique, yes, that'd be their chance. Anyway, I don't know who needs martial arts training to get it. Anyone who doesn't know men are stronger isn't paying attention.

    Yeah but I think doing martial arts would allow women to understand that (real martial arts, not some BS cardio-kick-boxing crap or….yoga….). It even humbles those big muscle guys who think they’re hot-stuff.

    From time to time you’ll get that woman who signs up, she’s in good shape, has probably done some sort of sport like badminton or women’s basketball all her life, and comes into the gym/dojang/whatever with an attitude. The attitude of “equality”.

    “I’m as good as any man in this place… better even.”

    Needless to say if she’s serious about the sport that “equality” mentality will slowly fade and she’ll realize the gender differences. The lesson for these women usually comes after aggravating a guy with some BS move and he unleashes his full power and she realizes how helpless she is.

    Same thing with those muscle guys, they think because they have stacks of biceps that they’ll dominate only to be put in their place.

    Just saying, women who do martial arts seem to fully grasp the gender difference when it comes to physical output.

    Generally the women I hear yell that BS “women are as capable as men” tend to not have done any form of physical training with men ever in their lives (and I can only imagine the sex they’ve ever had has been with effeminate guys who probably ask permission to change positions).

    I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve heard men say “I’m tired I’m going to train with the women today” or from women “It’s been a long day at work, I’m going to just stick with the girls”.

    Hell the only sport I know that women equal to men is those hippy snow sports like skiing (not the cocaine kind) and snowboarding. Skating and what not. What I call those weird white-man winter “sports” (hockey excluded).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    This is probably a function of the extreme deference that institutions (academic, corporate, legal) have enforced on men within their gravitational pull such that your modern empowered woman has mistaken this institutionally-enforced deference for her own strength. No, sugarplums, you have merely recruited some men to keep the others in a temporarily supine state.
  38. Spare a thought for this poor ‘woman.’

    To ‘her’ shock and distress, an airport x-ray discovered an ‘anomaly’ in ‘her’ ladyparts.

    Something ‘she’ had no idea ‘she’ possessed
    until the revelation.

    Something all men are born with – to a greater or lesser ;) – degree.

    Guess what it is?

    http://www.thejournal.ie/transgender-woman-penis-body-miss-flight-2346540-Sep2015/

    And you think the feminists are a problem?

    Just wait till this lot head for West Point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    The GayBLT folks are nearly totally coterminous with the feminists save for a few "Second Wave" holdouts who think castrated men on hormones are stealing their thunder.
  39. @sure thing
    Spare a thought for this poor 'woman.'

    To 'her' shock and distress, an airport x-ray discovered an 'anomaly' in 'her' ladyparts.

    Something 'she' had no idea 'she' possessed
    until the revelation.

    Something all men are born with - to a greater or lesser ;) - degree.

    Guess what it is?

    http://www.thejournal.ie/transgender-woman-penis-body-miss-flight-2346540-Sep2015/

    And you think the feminists are a problem?

    Just wait till this lot head for West Point.

    The GayBLT folks are nearly totally coterminous with the feminists save for a few “Second Wave” holdouts who think castrated men on hormones are stealing their thunder.

    Read More
  40. @Max Payne
    Yeah but I think doing martial arts would allow women to understand that (real martial arts, not some BS cardio-kick-boxing crap or....yoga....). It even humbles those big muscle guys who think they're hot-stuff.

    From time to time you'll get that woman who signs up, she's in good shape, has probably done some sort of sport like badminton or women's basketball all her life, and comes into the gym/dojang/whatever with an attitude. The attitude of "equality".

    "I'm as good as any man in this place... better even."

    Needless to say if she's serious about the sport that "equality" mentality will slowly fade and she'll realize the gender differences. The lesson for these women usually comes after aggravating a guy with some BS move and he unleashes his full power and she realizes how helpless she is.

    Same thing with those muscle guys, they think because they have stacks of biceps that they'll dominate only to be put in their place.

    Just saying, women who do martial arts seem to fully grasp the gender difference when it comes to physical output.

    Generally the women I hear yell that BS "women are as capable as men" tend to not have done any form of physical training with men ever in their lives (and I can only imagine the sex they've ever had has been with effeminate guys who probably ask permission to change positions).

    I can't begin to tell you how many times I've heard men say "I'm tired I'm going to train with the women today" or from women "It's been a long day at work, I'm going to just stick with the girls".

    Hell the only sport I know that women equal to men is those hippy snow sports like skiing (not the cocaine kind) and snowboarding. Skating and what not. What I call those weird white-man winter "sports" (hockey excluded).

    This is probably a function of the extreme deference that institutions (academic, corporate, legal) have enforced on men within their gravitational pull such that your modern empowered woman has mistaken this institutionally-enforced deference for her own strength. No, sugarplums, you have merely recruited some men to keep the others in a temporarily supine state.

    Read More
  41. […] into just a big economic zone that is literally being sold off to the highest bidder, all the while militarily enforcing progressivism throughout the world. Now the dream can flourish like never […]

    Read More
  42. […] into just a big economic zone that is literally being sold off to the highest bidder, all the while militarily enforcing progressivism throughout the world. Now the dream can flourish like never […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave