The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Changing the 'Macho' Male Culture of the US Military"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Small Wars Journal:

Changing the “Macho” Male Culture of the US Military

October 2015, by Anonymous

I remember hearing in 2010 from a buddy at the Pentagon that the combat exclusion policy for women in combat arms would be overturned no matter what “about a year from the President’s last year.” At the time I thought he was crazy, but the next year I heard the same from another friend. His take was even more troubling: “There is a loosely connected group of advocates that have found huge traction with the current civilian leadership here and they have a pretty well-thought out campaign plan to get women into combat arms,” he told me. “Some of the groups simply want equality, others talk about more women generals, and there’s one group that is linking this to changing American male culture.” Looking back, many of the things I am seeing now make sense when remembering my friends’ comments.

Today I am privy to most of the plans that are currently in place to put women into combat arms. I have been told, again by acquaintances working at the Pentagon and at various headquarters around the US military, that all of the “experiments” that the services have been undergoing for some time now have been a sideshow. The decision had been made from the get-go. As one Female Engagement Team Program manager told many in Afghanistan in 2011, “the decision has already been made; we just need to talk about “the how” instead of “if”.”

This means that the Ranger School “experiment” was an experiment in name only. It was guaranteed from the beginning to graduate a woman and that graduation would be used as proof that the combat exclusion rule needed to go. This, of course, matches what every Army Command Sergeant Major (9) in 2011-2013 told me was said to them by high-level CSMs and General Officers while attending their pre-command courses: “women will be in combat arms and women will graduate Ranger School, if any of you has a problem with that, you need to get out of the military.” They reported that the Ranger Instructors at Ranger School were told the same thing. …

… In essence, the idea of many of these advocates is that the American male is a, mostly unconscious, misogynist, and that it comes from our culture: movies that hype physicality, combat, aggressiveness, and the treatment of women as objects. It also comes from our military: males dominate the services, are the only ones allowed in combat arms, and thus make up most of the higher ranks. The cure for all of this is simple: change the culture.

The “change the culture” movement has manifested itself in many ways and has taken on different efforts as well as groups that are loosely aligned towards fundamental change. … As one professor from a prominent campus told me recently, “It isn’t really about ending sexual assault; it’s about controlling people and changing behavior. Men have the advantage in almost every way, so we have to find ways to cut into that advantage. Making traditional male behavior something that is socially unacceptable will cut their advantage. We have to make it unacceptable for men to talk the way they talk now, act the way they act now, and interact the way they do with women now, and have traditionally.” Hyping sexual assault statistics, making women fearful of men, and building a system that finds men guilty until proven innocent are simply means to the greater end of “cutting male advantage.” …

For the military this means something similar. The military has also been accused of having a “rape culture” in the same manner as universities. Thus, combat arms positions are being cut while sexual harassment and assault counselors and advisers are being hired. Some see it as a cottage industry that requires a never-ending problem that has to be over-sold.

Homosexuals serving openly in the military was another effort to change the traditional male culture of the military- that traditional culture being one of heterosexuality (some call it “hyper heterosexuality”). It appears that since many homosexuals are either not serving in combat arms or not serving openly, this cultural change has not been as successful as the advocates were expecting …

The effort to change military culture also includes the effort to overturn the combat exclusion rule. This rule, as many advocates for overturning it have argued, is the strongest reason that men view women as less than men. According to some, it is the reason military men rape women, sexually harass them, and devalue them. It is the reason women get out of the service at higher rates, are injured more than men, have more PTSD issues, and score less on their PT tests.

… The Department of Defense is micromanaging the transition. …

The guidance from the Pentagon is very clear to commanders, if not always explicit in the orders (even though much of it IS explicit). … Women will be successful at combat arms schools. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable. Women will be successful at combat arms units. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable.

… The advocates do not believe, or do not care, that this could potentially negatively affect combat effectiveness. They assert that cohesion will not be an issue or they insist that “men will change.” The possibility that greater combat effectiveness actually might come from a “hyper macho” male culture is something the advocates refuse to acknowledge.

 
Hide 225 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Well, let’s just hope the war we get humiliated in isn’t too important.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    When I see crap like this, I have to begin to seriously consider whether hidden foreign undermining of our country is a real thing.

    Replace Sgt York and Gen Douglas MacArthur with Richard Simmons and the Olsen twins. What could possibly go wrong?

  2. This is a superb reason to cut the military budget by 80%.

    When women are interested in joining a military, that is sterling proof that the military is too big, provides too much in the way of benefits, and that troops there no longer face any real risk of injury or death (putting aside the fact that in real combat, women will manage to avoid the front lines in any event).

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    The Feminists who came up with this stuff are not interested in joining the military though.
    , @AnotherDad

    This is a superb reason to cut the military budget by 80%.
    When women are interested in joining a military, that is sterling proof that the military is too big, provides too much in the way of benefits, and that troops there no longer face any real risk of injury or death (putting aside the fact that in real combat, women will manage to avoid the front lines in any event).
     
    This is a good point. There is a thin slice that want to do their patriotic duty. But the point-of-the-spear thing is not something that naturally appeals. So when you're drawing a decent percentage of women, they are there for the benefits and/or sex with miltiary men. Neither is really the point of the enterprise.

    If you got back to defending the nation--and guys could go to the border and do search and destroy missions against smugglers in the Coronado or pitch Honduran invaders back over a wall--you'd have plenty of young men eager to sign up.

    , @anon
    thats true but its not why the (((leftists))) are really doing it, they do it because no matter what they have deconstructed they know that the bedrock of a civilization is its violence ability and violence ability has always been owned by the right so no matter how far left they have destroyed us its still possible a military coup could undo it in a week. So they try to dindu the army but dindus are dummies women and fags they hope will have enough brains and be loyal leftists and can stop any coups
  3. The only sound response to this insanity is the one that General Anthony McAuliffe gave to the Germans’ surrender demand at Bastogne: “Nuts.”

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    That's our response and counter-argument in one word.

    Good one, AA!
    , @tyrone
    Of course it's "nuts" but Gen. McAuliffe was in a much better strategic position than we are.
    , @The Alarmist
    Well, that was the official response for the history books.

    Hey, look at a very busy military chock-full of overactive feminists as a great way to deal with America's feminist problem. Let's hope the gorls and boys in Congress are on board with releasing the Cracken.
    , @Pat Boyle
    When I went to Basic Training at Fort Knox we got up each morning and went across the monkey bars and yelled "Kill, kill, kill".

    Do they still do that? Can girls traverse the monkey bars?
  4. The guidance from the Pentagon is very clear to commanders, if not always explicit in the orders (even though much of it IS explicit). … Women will be successful at combat arms schools. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable. Women will be successful at combat arms units. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable.

    This could be an all-purpose paragraph to describe any scenario in which anybody who is not a white male is not succeeding.

    For example:

    … NAMs will be successful in schools. If they are not, teachers will be held accountable. NAMs will be successful at colleges. If they are not, professors will be held accountable.

    Or:

    … Blacks will not be overrepresented in prisons. If they are, the justice system will be held accountable. Blacks will not be arrested more than whites. If they are, police will be held accountable.

    Or, to describe the whole picture, here is the general rule:

    The guidance from government, academia and media is very clear to white males, if not always explicit in the laws (even though much of it IS explicit). … Everyone will be as successful as you. If they are not, you will be held accountable.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute, Abe
    • Replies: @Bubba
    Affirmative Action should be correctly renamed to “Too Black to Fail’ or “Too Female to Fail.”
    , @Pericles

    The guidance from the Pentagon is very clear to commanders, if not always explicit in the orders (even though much of it IS explicit). … Women will be successful at combat arms schools. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable. Women will be successful at combat arms units. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable.

     

    Equality of outcome is, of course, the only just outcome, particularly so if it's equality in the area where you used to be successful and only there.

    It is furthermore amazing how much clout can be had in politics without being at all visible to the cattle. All these edicts that just appear out of nowhere.

    , @L Woods
    Of course, should they become more successful than white males, it’s all “ha ha loser” all the time.
    , @Desiderius
    The beatings will continue until the white males muster the courage to stop hiding behind passive voice.
    , @TWS
    Too true.
  5. OK, lets go all in! An all female combat unit. Trial run, Afghanistan. The Taliban would be no match for our ladies. Prove all of us patriarchal oppressors wrong.

    • Agree: Svigor
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    You're not keeping up with current year, bro. Trial Run is Shanghai, just ask Bill Kristol.
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe

    OK, lets go all in! An all female combat unit. Trial run, Afghanistan. The Taliban would be no match for our ladies. Prove all of us patriarchal oppressors wrong.
     
    The fact we all know this will NEVER be allowed to occur, is all the proof we need that we're correct (although it's not clear that proof is actually required, in a case so self-evidently obvious).

    As is so often the case where Feminism is concerned, it seems like a lot of this is driven by true believers, not merely cynics. I'm not sure how they are able to handle such a colossal case of cognitive dissonance.
    , @Forbes
    I've offered the same suggestion. An infantry company of 120 female soldiers headed by a female captain, plus female NCOs and female platoon LTs would make a nice test subject for comparison to an all-male company.

    The result would be another "achievement gap" where, instead of abandoning the experiment (because real diversity in performance exists as between males and females), progressives would double-down, insisting on more training, re-norming evaluations (test scores), more time (experiments) to prove their "theories." Ad infinitum...

    And that's exactly why it won't happen because it opens the debate rather than keeping it closed. To entertain females in combat roles, they need to hide them under cover of male soldiers, i.e. their ineffectiveness needs to be diluted amongst competent male soldiers.

    As is the case with toxicology, the dose is the poison. Much that is toxic in quantity is harmless in low dosages. I don't think this is the correct argument, not do I think "harmless" is the argument offered. Purposeful social engineering of "changing the culture" is the agenda.
  6. The answer, as always, is give them exactly what they say they want – good and hard. Order every female enlistee, pregnant broads assigned to the motor pool clerk included, to Afghanistan. Recall a similar number of elite male troops. Let the fun commence.

    What’s funny (to me anyway) is that my wife feels more adamantly about this than I do. And my mom would have started the campaign to force all whiny broads onto the transport planes. Neither woman is/was what you’d call ‘weak’ but both are what you’d call bright, attractive, and feminine. They have/had zero patience nor tolerance for their putative sisters trying to strip them of all the myriad benefits of womanhood.

    This is the same as the tranny nonsense. Listening to the idiot freaks clamoring to go get killed or worse and ascribing their lunacy to women generally is like listening to the cock-choppers and thinking men generally support other men using ladies’ restrooms. But just as it’s up to us to beat the snot out of some freak we see advocating for or walking into a ladies’ room, it’s up to real women to beat the snot out of the freaks on their side. Sending all the current military women on a nice adventure would provide the necessary motivation for normal women to make their position loudly and explicitly known.

  7. I liked the paragraph about the homos in the military. It’s complete illusionary bullshit on their part. Men who are obviously gay have been in the military for eons. A (very) older friend of mine was in WWII and his ship’s CO was a three dollar bill. My high school drama teacher was in the army, and on, and on. Several older ex-military co-workers were also obviously gay. The big difference was the end of the draft, but also many sorts of men also like to keep it on the down low.

    The bulk of the article about disruption by implementing both sexes into combat MOS’s is spot on. There are a certain group of people who know that fellow citizens, who either don’t know or know, any better are willing to say “give them a chance.” The thing is, giving them a chance means changing a rule for eternity.

    And the rule change won’t cost them their lives, but it will eventually cost the lives of others. It’ll serve temporary political objectives, though.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    A famous retired General went to visit an acquaintance's infantry unit. His Adjutant picked out the young Lieutenant as the best looking and therefore ideal to show around the "confirmed batchelor" (Who's Who.)

    It was seen as amusing but not weird and certainly not sleazy. The unit had a tightly knit "hyper" "macho" "heterosexual" culture and was incredibly tolerant from its position of strength.

    What will replace that unspoken acceptance will be administrative quotas, sterile "celebrations" and anomie instead of ethos.

    In all of this, there's a huge dose of the fear that somebody, somewhere might be having fun. If you see young children playing this is one of the ways especially young girls show aggression. They find something that isn't all about them and try to get it shut down by appealing to authority. Male adults are particularly vulnerable to these appeals. The girls may advocate for "fairness" or against "bullying" or whatever is most useful at the time. It doesn't matter. Most old blokes confuse the display of passion for good faith.
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe

    And the rule change won’t cost them their lives...
     
    Let's not be too hasty!
  8. @Buzz Mohawk

    The guidance from the Pentagon is very clear to commanders, if not always explicit in the orders (even though much of it IS explicit). … Women will be successful at combat arms schools. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable. Women will be successful at combat arms units. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable.
     
    This could be an all-purpose paragraph to describe any scenario in which anybody who is not a white male is not succeeding.

    For example:

    ... NAMs will be successful in schools. If they are not, teachers will be held accountable. NAMs will be successful at colleges. If they are not, professors will be held accountable.

    Or:

    ... Blacks will not be overrepresented in prisons. If they are, the justice system will be held accountable. Blacks will not be arrested more than whites. If they are, police will be held accountable.

    Or, to describe the whole picture, here is the general rule:

    The guidance from government, academia and media is very clear to white males, if not always explicit in the laws (even though much of it IS explicit). … Everyone will be as successful as you. If they are not, you will be held accountable.

    Affirmative Action should be correctly renamed to “Too Black to Fail’ or “Too Female to Fail.”

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    And a 100% casualty/capture rate inflicted on an all female combat unit might be seen as a success, depending how you look at it:

    "Well sir, only 62% of the captured female combatants we recovered so far were impregnated by enemy forces. All of those will be transferred to admin, where they can ride out their 20 at a desk and the bastard kid will be raised on the tax payer dime. With any luck, he won't hate the United States too much once he's an adult. "

    Victory!
  9. Matthew 19:12

    For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    As with the Late Ming Empire, so with the Late American. When the legitimate authority abdicates the eunuchs take over.
  10. Something every corporate executive, university chancellor and aspiring military officer understands is that you must appease the Left. For the most part, the Right can be ignored, since they advocate a “principled” hands-off approach to dealing with institutions.

    Conservatives have to figure out a way for handling this asymmetry of incentives. In blithely advocating free markets and limited government, they simply hand the reigns over to the Left, whenever they may take control again, to write the laws and regulations.

    If the Left advocates an interventionist approach and the Right takes a strictly laissez faire approach to institutions, then the Right is, in effect, condoning the Left’s eventual intervention and social engineering. I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.
     
    Here's one, ZooZoo: You don't let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you.

    Let's say you voted in my man AuH20 in 1964 and a bunch of proto-Ron Pauls to support him. No civil rites law, no welfare state, no big money to the U's to support all this crap ... it'd have been a whole different ballgame, at least for a few more years till the women's vote brought in more of the "compassionate" ones.

    In other words, the reins may be passed over, but if there is nothing but Constitutionally-approved government in place, there is not enough to reign over to change everything for the worse.
    , @Anonymous
    Yep, in the game of political tug of war -- where the position of the flag ultimately determines the compromise -- conservatives think it is principled not to pick up the rope. See education, corporate hr, military, etc.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I live in the Northern Virginia area so I've known quite a few current or ex-military officers. People forget that these guys have families and responsibilities just like the rest of us. They have mortgage payments, college savings, car payments, etc. They choose the military as a career, so they have to play along with what their bosses want whether they like it or not.

    It's not any different than a corporate executive. Well, unless they are in combat, but my understanding is that the military did at least up to a five or ten years ago tried to keep the silliness out of units where it could get people killed. Maybe that's changing. Or maybe they'll have women in combat units but keep them out of harm's way and in capacities that don't put men's lives in dangers. I don't know.

    But don't bet on career military officers rocking the boat. They have a lot invested in their careers - pensions, connections after they get out, medical, etc.; they're not going to throw that away.
    , @TWS
    The cucks and muh principled conservatives have killed the Republic. Our institutions are rotten to the core.
    , @Dube

    If the Left advocates an interventionist approach and the Right takes a strictly laissez faire approach to institutions, then the Right is, in effect, condoning the Left’s eventual intervention and social engineering. I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.
     
    Billy Graham, preaching from the right, published a tract titled, "The Sin of Tolerance" making the point. At about the same time, from the left, Herbert Marcuse published his "Repressive Tolerance."

    I doubt that either was aware of the other's opposed argument.
    , @Jason Liu
    Right, this is what I've been saying all along. If you don't suppress the left, they'll suppress you.

    "Freedom" + "Neutral ground" is a western delusion that never lasts long. It only existed for a few past decades because the left didn't have enough power yet.
    , @Svigor
    Or the right could just put Conservatives and Conservatism out to pasture, and answer left-radicalism with right-radicalism. Which is kinda what's in progress now.
    , @Bill
    Yeah, the Washington Generals aren't there to actually win. American conservatives are not on the right and never have been. The US is a leftist country through and through and from its birth. Hankerin' for the leftism of your granddaddy doesn't make you a rightist. Etc.
    , @Marty T
    Here's an example - Walmart and major league baseball have asked Mississippi senator Cindy Hyde-Smith for donations back due to leftist social media pressure. The corporations all cave to this pressure. Similarly, Land O'Lakes caved to pressure to abandon Congressman Steve King.

    It doesn't really matter who sits in the white house or Congress. Real power is being able to bend corporations to your will, to get people fired, to ruin people's lives for acting out of line. The left has all of that power and we have none.
  11. Told you. They want to create an army of Fish Speakers, all-female and very religious (in the SJW faith).

  12. Its ok. When everything goes to shit just use nukes.

  13. “Making traditional male behavior something that is socially unacceptable will cut their advantage. ”

    Do progressives seriously think male infantrymen are socially advantaged? How on earth is a working class guy who is lugging a heavy pack around and getting shot at socially advantaged? How many guys from wealthy families choose to go into the infantry? Are grunts surrounded by glamorous groupies and given generous expense accounts?

    Okay, have a go at male CEOs, or other guys who actually have power and status, but leave the guys at the bottom of the ladder out of this. Progs are definitely reaching new lows in the histrionic 2010s

    • Agree: RVBlake, Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    Silly commenter! CEOs are of the educated class, they may be annoyed, but not too much; they are a potential hus- I mean partner of that really smart, nice woman in HR with a degree in Women's Studies. Combat troops are obviously uneducated sub-animals (worth less than a shelter cat) who need to be better domesticated.
    , @Tyrion 2

    Do progressives seriously think male infantrymen are socially advantaged?
     
    But normal people respect an infanteer's sacrifice much more than they do the typical gender studies wastrellette, and that is unfair.

    Also, the movies are better.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Do progressives seriously think male infantrymen are socially advantaged? How on earth is a working class guy who is lugging a heavy pack around and getting shot at socially advantaged? How many guys from wealthy families choose to go into the infantry? Are grunts surrounded by glamorous groupies and given generous expense accounts?"

    Some of them get to be on TV at halftime.
  14. Things will come to an interesting pass when we get into a war in which there are lots of POW’s taken by our adversaries. The female POW’s are going to have a much worse time of it than the males. In addition to starvation and torture, there will be the frequent rapes with resultant pregnancies and VD.

    What a mess.

    • Replies: @Anon

    Things will come to an interesting pass when we get into a war in which there are lots of POW’s taken by our adversaries.
     
    Those kind of wars are over. Everything is guerrilla warfare now with adversaries who are not nation-states. The only options are instant death, beheading on YouTube, or held for ransom. You think these guys are going to build and operate a Geneva IV grade POW camp?
    , @Forbes
    Too obvious, too short-term.

    Women in combat arms is for the purpose of ending any war fighting. Women in combat arms is a jobs program. It's a contest of "firsts" that government and media get to pronounce--it's got absolutely nothing to do with readiness and effectiveness. Quite the opposite.

    Women generals and admirals, women as defense secretaries, a woman president, et al., will prevent rape of female POWs because there won't be any female soldiers sent as fodder.

    How many more Jessica Lynch stories will politicians countenance?
  15. @Thomm
    This is a superb reason to cut the military budget by 80%.

    When women are interested in joining a military, that is sterling proof that the military is too big, provides too much in the way of benefits, and that troops there no longer face any real risk of injury or death (putting aside the fact that in real combat, women will manage to avoid the front lines in any event).

    The Feminists who came up with this stuff are not interested in joining the military though.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The Feminists who came up with this stuff are not interested in joining the military though.
     
    Too bad. They wouldn't be much of a loss.
  16. It doesn’t take balls to bomb a bunch of Arab goat farmers from a drone while sitting in a trailer in the middle of nowhere Nevada, so who cares.

    • Replies: @Cortes
    This seems like the most likely scenario to me. Have the drone jockeys classed as combat special forces and watch the gender balance.

    Please cancel this one.

    , @Cortes
    This seems like the most likely scenario to me. Have the drone jockeys classed as combat special forces and watch the gender balance.
    “See! Pregnant and STILL kicking towelhead ass!”
    , @tyrone
    Note to arab goat farmers : write "kitten farm" on the top of your house NOW!
    , @Reg Cæsar
    Just wondering-- what is the NFL rule covering forward passes, or punts, that happen to collide with a drone? One appeared on screen on T-day.
    , @Lowe
    But it takes balls to be good at it. I mean, it literally takes testosterone to be good at playing video games, or piloting a UAV remotely to bomb Arab goat farmers, as you say.
  17. @unpc downunder
    "Making traditional male behavior something that is socially unacceptable will cut their advantage. "

    Do progressives seriously think male infantrymen are socially advantaged? How on earth is a working class guy who is lugging a heavy pack around and getting shot at socially advantaged? How many guys from wealthy families choose to go into the infantry? Are grunts surrounded by glamorous groupies and given generous expense accounts?

    Okay, have a go at male CEOs, or other guys who actually have power and status, but leave the guys at the bottom of the ladder out of this. Progs are definitely reaching new lows in the histrionic 2010s

    Silly commenter! CEOs are of the educated class, they may be annoyed, but not too much; they are a potential hus- I mean partner of that really smart, nice woman in HR with a degree in Women’s Studies. Combat troops are obviously uneducated sub-animals (worth less than a shelter cat) who need to be better domesticated.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    AGREED!
    , @Blodgie
    Combat troops are dipshits who willingly signed up for exactly this kind of PC nonsense. They deserve their eventual fate. In this day and age why would anyone literally sign their life away to the government?
  18. @Auntie Analogue
    The only sound response to this insanity is the one that General Anthony McAuliffe gave to the Germans' surrender demand at Bastogne: "Nuts."

    That’s our response and counter-argument in one word.

    Good one, AA!

  19. @zoozoo
    Something every corporate executive, university chancellor and aspiring military officer understands is that you must appease the Left. For the most part, the Right can be ignored, since they advocate a "principled" hands-off approach to dealing with institutions.

    Conservatives have to figure out a way for handling this asymmetry of incentives. In blithely advocating free markets and limited government, they simply hand the reigns over to the Left, whenever they may take control again, to write the laws and regulations.

    If the Left advocates an interventionist approach and the Right takes a strictly laissez faire approach to institutions, then the Right is, in effect, condoning the Left's eventual intervention and social engineering. I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950's.

    I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.

    Here’s one, ZooZoo: You don’t let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you.

    Let’s say you voted in my man AuH20 in 1964 and a bunch of proto-Ron Pauls to support him. No civil rites law, no welfare state, no big money to the U’s to support all this crap … it’d have been a whole different ballgame, at least for a few more years till the women’s vote brought in more of the “compassionate” ones.

    In other words, the reins may be passed over, but if there is nothing but Constitutionally-approved government in place, there is not enough to reign over to change everything for the worse.

    • Replies: @Andrew M
    There’s an asymmetry of motivation. Concentrated benefits but diffuse costs. The Democrats’ coalition of the fringes campaigns for this stuff, but the Republicans are too frightened of being called -ist or -phobe to push back. They’ve been playing defensive ever since the civil rights era.
    , @Samuel Skinner
    There was an attempt to do that- it was called the Articles of Confederation. It got subverted almost immediately.
    , @Desiderius
    That’s clever theorycraft. Meanwhile the Marxians have been praxising all over your sorry asses for half a century now.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "don’t let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you."
     
    That is a very viable strategy

    for 1928.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    No civil rites law...
     
    Considering that you're familiar with the difference between rein and reign, we have to assume that this particular eggcorn was deliberate.
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    Someday soon, as Bob Dylan put it, "a hard rain's a-gonna fall", on the nation that allows itself to be run by corrupt morons like these.
    , @Tyrion 2
    Here's a game of two sides. You want to win so pick your side carefully.

    Side A: always supports expanding an institution and fashioning it in their image.

    Side B: always supports contracting that institution.

    The winner is the side whose image the institution is fashioned in representation of.

    It's a tragedy, but it is still the story of the last few decades
    , @International Jew
    I read Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative recently. He was a great man. Too bad Nixon didn't put him on the Supreme Court. Instead of, say, Harry Blackmun.
    , @zoozoo
    So you have some ideas for 1964. This is good. Do you have any ideas that are maybe more applicable to the last 50 years of US history?

    For perspective, the sitting Chief Justice and DC Federalist Society member was cowed by the Obama Administration into supporting the individual mandate. It is fairly safe to say anyone with lower job security and independence will likely be cowed by government pressure as well -- i.e., basically everyone.

    Do we have any answers, other than harkening back to the pre-Jurassic period and discussing the mythical Goldwatersaurus?
    , @Jason Liu
    In order to prevent the left from growing big government you would have to apply right wing bias across institutions anyway, so you're back at square one.
  20. @vinny
    It doesn't take balls to bomb a bunch of Arab goat farmers from a drone while sitting in a trailer in the middle of nowhere Nevada, so who cares.

    This seems like the most likely scenario to me. Have the drone jockeys classed as combat special forces and watch the gender balance.

    Please cancel this one.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    I believe that the Air Force classifies drone operators as pilots, and mandates that they be officers.

    The Army does not.
  21. @Buzz Mohawk

    The guidance from the Pentagon is very clear to commanders, if not always explicit in the orders (even though much of it IS explicit). … Women will be successful at combat arms schools. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable. Women will be successful at combat arms units. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable.
     
    This could be an all-purpose paragraph to describe any scenario in which anybody who is not a white male is not succeeding.

    For example:

    ... NAMs will be successful in schools. If they are not, teachers will be held accountable. NAMs will be successful at colleges. If they are not, professors will be held accountable.

    Or:

    ... Blacks will not be overrepresented in prisons. If they are, the justice system will be held accountable. Blacks will not be arrested more than whites. If they are, police will be held accountable.

    Or, to describe the whole picture, here is the general rule:

    The guidance from government, academia and media is very clear to white males, if not always explicit in the laws (even though much of it IS explicit). … Everyone will be as successful as you. If they are not, you will be held accountable.

    The guidance from the Pentagon is very clear to commanders, if not always explicit in the orders (even though much of it IS explicit). … Women will be successful at combat arms schools. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable. Women will be successful at combat arms units. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable.

    Equality of outcome is, of course, the only just outcome, particularly so if it’s equality in the area where you used to be successful and only there.

    It is furthermore amazing how much clout can be had in politics without being at all visible to the cattle. All these edicts that just appear out of nowhere.

  22. @vinny
    It doesn't take balls to bomb a bunch of Arab goat farmers from a drone while sitting in a trailer in the middle of nowhere Nevada, so who cares.

    This seems like the most likely scenario to me. Have the drone jockeys classed as combat special forces and watch the gender balance.
    “See! Pregnant and STILL kicking towelhead ass!”

  23. @Cortes
    This seems like the most likely scenario to me. Have the drone jockeys classed as combat special forces and watch the gender balance.

    Please cancel this one.

    I believe that the Air Force classifies drone operators as pilots, and mandates that they be officers.

    The Army does not.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    They are reluctantly, slowly changing that policy. Hopefully, they will keep changing the policy.
    Of course, we've never run UCAVs in conflicts where the enemy could jam our communication and GPS signals.
  24. @Redneck farmer
    Silly commenter! CEOs are of the educated class, they may be annoyed, but not too much; they are a potential hus- I mean partner of that really smart, nice woman in HR with a degree in Women's Studies. Combat troops are obviously uneducated sub-animals (worth less than a shelter cat) who need to be better domesticated.

    AGREED!

  25. @South Texas Guy
    I liked the paragraph about the homos in the military. It's complete illusionary bullshit on their part. Men who are obviously gay have been in the military for eons. A (very) older friend of mine was in WWII and his ship's CO was a three dollar bill. My high school drama teacher was in the army, and on, and on. Several older ex-military co-workers were also obviously gay. The big difference was the end of the draft, but also many sorts of men also like to keep it on the down low.

    The bulk of the article about disruption by implementing both sexes into combat MOS's is spot on. There are a certain group of people who know that fellow citizens, who either don't know or know, any better are willing to say "give them a chance." The thing is, giving them a chance means changing a rule for eternity.

    And the rule change won't cost them their lives, but it will eventually cost the lives of others. It'll serve temporary political objectives, though.

    A famous retired General went to visit an acquaintance’s infantry unit. His Adjutant picked out the young Lieutenant as the best looking and therefore ideal to show around the “confirmed batchelor” (Who’s Who.)

    It was seen as amusing but not weird and certainly not sleazy. The unit had a tightly knit “hyper” “macho” “heterosexual” culture and was incredibly tolerant from its position of strength.

    What will replace that unspoken acceptance will be administrative quotas, sterile “celebrations” and anomie instead of ethos.

    In all of this, there’s a huge dose of the fear that somebody, somewhere might be having fun. If you see young children playing this is one of the ways especially young girls show aggression. They find something that isn’t all about them and try to get it shut down by appealing to authority. Male adults are particularly vulnerable to these appeals. The girls may advocate for “fairness” or against “bullying” or whatever is most useful at the time. It doesn’t matter. Most old blokes confuse the display of passion for good faith.

    • Replies: @South Texas Guy
    "Most old blokes confuse the display of passion for good faith."

    Definitely agree. They see the boys playing with the cool toys and want in on the action. A few months ago I caught a snippet of retired female marine Ltc. on CSpan 2 who among other things was in charge of a training unit. Long story short, she was talking about how it was her job to train the females marines for combat, and thought it was going to happen, but then was told no.

    I don't remember much about it but a snippet of a quote that the women were "running and shooting" just like the men were. On the surface, it seems OK, but the phrase just seems off. Thankfully, she was forced to retire as an Ltc.
  26. How long before the !st Infantry Division becomes the Big Pink One?

    Or if the sodomites turn patriotic, The Big Lavender One?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    How long before the !st Infantry Division becomes the Big Pink One?

    Or if the sodomites turn patriotic, The Big Lavender One?
     
    I always thought they belonged in the bomb-defusion squad. They were going to die "without issue" anyway.
  27. The Phrase “Dress Uniform” will have a whole new meaning,
    The new combat boot is a bit spendy though and I prefer the ones with the red soles.

    https://www.topexpensive.com/top-10-most-expensive-shoes-available-for-women-in-2017/

  28. @Achmed E. Newman

    I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.
     
    Here's one, ZooZoo: You don't let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you.

    Let's say you voted in my man AuH20 in 1964 and a bunch of proto-Ron Pauls to support him. No civil rites law, no welfare state, no big money to the U's to support all this crap ... it'd have been a whole different ballgame, at least for a few more years till the women's vote brought in more of the "compassionate" ones.

    In other words, the reins may be passed over, but if there is nothing but Constitutionally-approved government in place, there is not enough to reign over to change everything for the worse.

    There’s an asymmetry of motivation. Concentrated benefits but diffuse costs. The Democrats’ coalition of the fringes campaigns for this stuff, but the Republicans are too frightened of being called -ist or -phobe to push back. They’ve been playing defensive ever since the civil rights era.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    You are very right, Andrew, in that lots of the losses on the right are simply due to cowardice, of being called names*. That's why I brought up R Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in the first place. The man had principles. He didn't agree with the civil "rites" bullshit on principle, especially anti-discrimination laws, as they violated the right of association, that people still understood back then. He was willing to be called names, though, granted, it was quite a more civil environment back then (for a coupla more years, about), in which people could discuss this stuff reasonably.

    Now here's something back in common with the commenters (and blogger) herein: You bring large masses of people into the country who DON'T understand any of this, and are not used to civil politics based on reason, and you've got a whole lot less of the vote now for your principles.


    * not that damage to career and good name aren't also a part of what people are scared of too.
  29. Your side is massively overthinking this, and it’s a large part of why you’ll probably lose if you stay on this trajectory.

    The killer argument against women in combat is mind numbingly simple: women are physically weaker. There. That’s it. Case closed. If that means the armed forces can’t go to war, then maybe the US should stay out of other peoples’ business.

    But you seem to see this as something bigger, of men’s apparent right to behave like jerks. While extreme feminists are loathed by all right thinking people, so are the extreme men’s rights types. The push for people (women AND men) to behave in more thoughtful, controlled, sober, polite and generally middle class ways has a LOT more public support than people here seem to think.

    So while people wish that women would behave like ladies, they also wish that men would behave more like gentlemen. Don’t tie something obvious – that women do not have the physical strength for combat – into men’s apparent god given right to behave like obnoxious, drunken harassers and rapists. Civilisation is a wonderful thing, and civilising processes – when applied to everyone – make life a lot more pleasant.

    • LOL: YetAnotherAnon
    • Troll: L Woods
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Civilising processes---when applied to war----make war a lot more unpleasant.
    , @Anon
    The lack of responses to this comment and countless other like it show how weak-willed all the men here are. This is why conservatives have lost the culture wars. You are all a bunch of pussies and you can't even control your own women. She is pretending to be civil but notice the embedded anti-male barbs. I'd respect her more if she just came out and said what she really thinks instead of this passive aggressive sock puppet bullshit. But she knows how that would go over.

    Jack D? AnotherDad? Crickets as usual. You guys are useless going forward.

    , @Bill Jones
    Civilization is, of course a creation of the men you seem to detest.
    , @BB753
    Gentlemen don't win wars. Warriors win wars and eventually become gentlemen.
    As for women, they don't belong anywhere near a battlefield or for that matter in the military in any capacity. Women of child-bearing age should be having children and caring for them themselves.
    Anything else is civilizational suicide.
  30. @Auntie Analogue
    The only sound response to this insanity is the one that General Anthony McAuliffe gave to the Germans' surrender demand at Bastogne: "Nuts."

    Of course it’s “nuts” but Gen. McAuliffe was in a much better strategic position than we are.

  31. Putin and his SJW agents must be behind this plot to weaken the American military.

  32. @vinny
    It doesn't take balls to bomb a bunch of Arab goat farmers from a drone while sitting in a trailer in the middle of nowhere Nevada, so who cares.

    Note to arab goat farmers : write “kitten farm” on the top of your house NOW!

    • LOL: Forbes, jim jones
  33. @unpc downunder
    "Making traditional male behavior something that is socially unacceptable will cut their advantage. "

    Do progressives seriously think male infantrymen are socially advantaged? How on earth is a working class guy who is lugging a heavy pack around and getting shot at socially advantaged? How many guys from wealthy families choose to go into the infantry? Are grunts surrounded by glamorous groupies and given generous expense accounts?

    Okay, have a go at male CEOs, or other guys who actually have power and status, but leave the guys at the bottom of the ladder out of this. Progs are definitely reaching new lows in the histrionic 2010s

    Do progressives seriously think male infantrymen are socially advantaged?

    But normal people respect an infanteer’s sacrifice much more than they do the typical gender studies wastrellette, and that is unfair.

    Also, the movies are better.

  34. @Matrix
    OK, lets go all in! An all female combat unit. Trial run, Afghanistan. The Taliban would be no match for our ladies. Prove all of us patriarchal oppressors wrong.

    You’re not keeping up with current year, bro. Trial Run is Shanghai, just ask Bill Kristol.

  35. @Bubba
    Affirmative Action should be correctly renamed to “Too Black to Fail’ or “Too Female to Fail.”

    And a 100% casualty/capture rate inflicted on an all female combat unit might be seen as a success, depending how you look at it:

    “Well sir, only 62% of the captured female combatants we recovered so far were impregnated by enemy forces. All of those will be transferred to admin, where they can ride out their 20 at a desk and the bastard kid will be raised on the tax payer dime. With any luck, he won’t hate the United States too much once he’s an adult. ”

    Victory!

    • Replies: @Forbes
    Or government paid abortions as part of their Army "women's health" benefits scheme, given that their medically-indicated diagnosis resulted from battlefield conditions...
  36. @unpc downunder
    "Making traditional male behavior something that is socially unacceptable will cut their advantage. "

    Do progressives seriously think male infantrymen are socially advantaged? How on earth is a working class guy who is lugging a heavy pack around and getting shot at socially advantaged? How many guys from wealthy families choose to go into the infantry? Are grunts surrounded by glamorous groupies and given generous expense accounts?

    Okay, have a go at male CEOs, or other guys who actually have power and status, but leave the guys at the bottom of the ladder out of this. Progs are definitely reaching new lows in the histrionic 2010s

    “Do progressives seriously think male infantrymen are socially advantaged? How on earth is a working class guy who is lugging a heavy pack around and getting shot at socially advantaged? How many guys from wealthy families choose to go into the infantry? Are grunts surrounded by glamorous groupies and given generous expense accounts?”

    Some of them get to be on TV at halftime.

  37. Russian Navy … all white males

    I recently watched about an hour and half Youtube video of the Russian “Navy Day” celebration. There were what seemed to be hundreds of ships parading in front of Putin et al. The decks were lined with sailors. From what I could see every ship was filled with white men.

    The clash between Russian and The West is not simply economic and military. It is a clash of cultures.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    Here are the defense ministers of 4 European countries.
    https://girltalkhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2-4-2014-7-08-46-AM-e1457638060447.png

    From left to right, Ine Eriksen Soreide from Norway, Karin Enstrom from Sweden, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert from The Netherlands, and Ursula von der Leyen from Germany.

    Here is the Russian Defense Minister.

    https://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.474621.1498055803!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_900/image.jpg

    I know who I'd want watching my back.
  38. Given that this was published in Small Wars Journal, I thought a bit of Robert Lowell’s “Waking Early Sunday Morning” might not be out of place.

    Pity the planet, all joy gone
    from this sweet volcanic cone;
    peace to our children when they fall
    in small war on the heels of small
    war – until the end of time
    to police the earth, a ghost
    orbiting forever lost
    in our monotonous sublime.

    He might’ve been on to something.

  39. Having women in combat units will increase the chances the US uses nukes first. Why?

    - Conventional forces will be dramatically less effective.
    - If civilian life is any guide, hysteria, blind rage and despondency will spread far more quickly in a military filled with women. First the overconfidence and then the hysteria.
    - The desire to scold and punish the enemy will know no limits.

    • LOL: RVBlake
    • Replies: @Hark hark the snark
    The Bolshevik assault on the Provisional Government ensconced in the Winter palace began, on Oct 25, 1917, with the firing of a BLANK round fired from the battleship Aurora. The huge sound of the blast, much louder than a live shot, caused the frightened ministers in the palace to drop to the floor at once. Some of the troops guarding the palace were women of the so-called Battalion of Death who BECAME HYSTERICAL and had to be taken away to a room in the back of the palace.

    The Women’s Battaion of Death was an all-female “shock battalion”.

    “The Cossacks, in particular, refused to fight alongside women.”

    (Source: Orlando Figes’ “A People’s Tragedy—The Russian Revolution 1891-1924”)
  40. @Tyrion 2
    A famous retired General went to visit an acquaintance's infantry unit. His Adjutant picked out the young Lieutenant as the best looking and therefore ideal to show around the "confirmed batchelor" (Who's Who.)

    It was seen as amusing but not weird and certainly not sleazy. The unit had a tightly knit "hyper" "macho" "heterosexual" culture and was incredibly tolerant from its position of strength.

    What will replace that unspoken acceptance will be administrative quotas, sterile "celebrations" and anomie instead of ethos.

    In all of this, there's a huge dose of the fear that somebody, somewhere might be having fun. If you see young children playing this is one of the ways especially young girls show aggression. They find something that isn't all about them and try to get it shut down by appealing to authority. Male adults are particularly vulnerable to these appeals. The girls may advocate for "fairness" or against "bullying" or whatever is most useful at the time. It doesn't matter. Most old blokes confuse the display of passion for good faith.

    “Most old blokes confuse the display of passion for good faith.”

    Definitely agree. They see the boys playing with the cool toys and want in on the action. A few months ago I caught a snippet of retired female marine Ltc. on CSpan 2 who among other things was in charge of a training unit. Long story short, she was talking about how it was her job to train the females marines for combat, and thought it was going to happen, but then was told no.

    I don’t remember much about it but a snippet of a quote that the women were “running and shooting” just like the men were. On the surface, it seems OK, but the phrase just seems off. Thankfully, she was forced to retire as an Ltc.

    • Replies: @Mike Perry
    She was doing her job, trying to train her Marines to be the best they could be, setting strict standards for the recruits and cracking down on her (female) DIs sleeping with men on the base. They complained she was too strict on them and got her fired. Apparently, in today's Marine Corps, it's a career-ending mistake to hold female Marines to the (admittedly lower) standards set for them.'
  41. Anon[223] • Disclaimer says:
    @Charles_Martel
    Things will come to an interesting pass when we get into a war in which there are lots of POW's taken by our adversaries. The female POW's are going to have a much worse time of it than the males. In addition to starvation and torture, there will be the frequent rapes with resultant pregnancies and VD.

    What a mess.

    Things will come to an interesting pass when we get into a war in which there are lots of POW’s taken by our adversaries.

    Those kind of wars are over. Everything is guerrilla warfare now with adversaries who are not nation-states. The only options are instant death, beheading on YouTube, or held for ransom. You think these guys are going to build and operate a Geneva IV grade POW camp?

    • Replies: @Lowe
    So the women "soldiers" taken captive will be raped by enemy guerillas, not proper enemy soldiers. That's probably worse.
    , @fredyetagain aka superhonky
    Nope, but as our captured soldier grrrrrls will no doubt find out the (ahem) hard way, the enemy will no doubt operate a really nifty 24/7 rape camp.
  42. I think LGBT has found a new poster child:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm

    “A intimidation contributed to the rise of the Nazis and the violent suppression of right-wing parties during electoral campaigns, but its reputation for street violence and heavy drinking was a hindrance, as was the open homosexuality of Röhm and other SA leaders ”

    Wikipedia fails to mention the SA was founded in a gay bar in Munich

    • Replies: @Forbes

    A intimidation contributed to the rise of the Nazis and the violent suppression of right-wing parties during electoral campaigns...
     
    You have to wonder how "the violent suppression of right-wing parties" logically fits within the narrative of Nazis as right-wing. Wouldn't Nazis want allies and corroborators and the like-minded, rather than suppressing them?

    Apparently the National Socialists were left-wing...
  43. So when things really go sideways in our country, a gutted out military is going to be expected to confront the rise of the militias?

    Ok.

  44. Sometimes, a lot of people have to die unnecessarily first, before anything that smacks of common sense can be given a fair hearing.

    These policies are proof that Conservatism, Inc. is politically worthless, they can’t even preserve traditions when ending those traditions endanger American interests and her troops, because their too timid to piss off some feminists. Pathetic!

  45. @Buzz Mohawk

    The guidance from the Pentagon is very clear to commanders, if not always explicit in the orders (even though much of it IS explicit). … Women will be successful at combat arms schools. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable. Women will be successful at combat arms units. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable.
     
    This could be an all-purpose paragraph to describe any scenario in which anybody who is not a white male is not succeeding.

    For example:

    ... NAMs will be successful in schools. If they are not, teachers will be held accountable. NAMs will be successful at colleges. If they are not, professors will be held accountable.

    Or:

    ... Blacks will not be overrepresented in prisons. If they are, the justice system will be held accountable. Blacks will not be arrested more than whites. If they are, police will be held accountable.

    Or, to describe the whole picture, here is the general rule:

    The guidance from government, academia and media is very clear to white males, if not always explicit in the laws (even though much of it IS explicit). … Everyone will be as successful as you. If they are not, you will be held accountable.

    Of course, should they become more successful than white males, it’s all “ha ha loser” all the time.

  46. @Buzz Mohawk

    The guidance from the Pentagon is very clear to commanders, if not always explicit in the orders (even though much of it IS explicit). … Women will be successful at combat arms schools. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable. Women will be successful at combat arms units. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable.
     
    This could be an all-purpose paragraph to describe any scenario in which anybody who is not a white male is not succeeding.

    For example:

    ... NAMs will be successful in schools. If they are not, teachers will be held accountable. NAMs will be successful at colleges. If they are not, professors will be held accountable.

    Or:

    ... Blacks will not be overrepresented in prisons. If they are, the justice system will be held accountable. Blacks will not be arrested more than whites. If they are, police will be held accountable.

    Or, to describe the whole picture, here is the general rule:

    The guidance from government, academia and media is very clear to white males, if not always explicit in the laws (even though much of it IS explicit). … Everyone will be as successful as you. If they are not, you will be held accountable.

    The beatings will continue until the white males muster the courage to stop hiding behind passive voice.

    • Agree: Bill
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    The beatings will continue until the white males muster the courage to stop hiding behind passive voice.
     
    Indeed. Let's bring beatings back to the classroom and save ourselves.
    https://danceclasschallenge.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/mean-teacher.jpg
  47. Hey man, in the Alien sequel Aliens, women Marines were just as badass as the dudes.

    • Replies: @Buster Keaton’s Stunt Double
    Well, Vasquez was kind of badass. As for the others, Dietrich was the nearest to panicking immediately prior to the initial alien attack and Ferro was just oblivious. All three of them ended up being responsible for some pretty horrific friendly fire incidents.
  48. @Achmed E. Newman

    I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.
     
    Here's one, ZooZoo: You don't let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you.

    Let's say you voted in my man AuH20 in 1964 and a bunch of proto-Ron Pauls to support him. No civil rites law, no welfare state, no big money to the U's to support all this crap ... it'd have been a whole different ballgame, at least for a few more years till the women's vote brought in more of the "compassionate" ones.

    In other words, the reins may be passed over, but if there is nothing but Constitutionally-approved government in place, there is not enough to reign over to change everything for the worse.

    There was an attempt to do that- it was called the Articles of Confederation. It got subverted almost immediately.

  49. @Achmed E. Newman

    I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.
     
    Here's one, ZooZoo: You don't let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you.

    Let's say you voted in my man AuH20 in 1964 and a bunch of proto-Ron Pauls to support him. No civil rites law, no welfare state, no big money to the U's to support all this crap ... it'd have been a whole different ballgame, at least for a few more years till the women's vote brought in more of the "compassionate" ones.

    In other words, the reins may be passed over, but if there is nothing but Constitutionally-approved government in place, there is not enough to reign over to change everything for the worse.

    That’s clever theorycraft. Meanwhile the Marxians have been praxising all over your sorry asses for half a century now.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Meanwhile the Marxians have been praxising all over your sorry asses for half a century now.
     
    Exactly! ('cept I don' know what "praxising" means, but I'll figure it's like "kicking ass" from context.) Without a lot of people backing up the Libertarians and Constitutionalists for the last 1/2 century, what the hell would you expect? Oh, "muh Constitution!" and all the insults, how'd that work out? How do you like living without it in PRACTICE? We're about there.
    , @Old Palo Altan
    Precisely.

    Paradoxically, our only change of civilisational survival is a crushing defeat.

    I just hope that our conquerors are the Russians rather than the Chinese.
  50. @Desiderius
    The beatings will continue until the white males muster the courage to stop hiding behind passive voice.

    The beatings will continue until the white males muster the courage to stop hiding behind passive voice.

    Indeed. Let’s bring beatings back to the classroom and save ourselves.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    It’s a start.

    https://youtu.be/ujxDA9VsQG4
  51. @Auntie Analogue
    The only sound response to this insanity is the one that General Anthony McAuliffe gave to the Germans' surrender demand at Bastogne: "Nuts."

    Well, that was the official response for the history books.

    Hey, look at a very busy military chock-full of overactive feminists as a great way to deal with America’s feminist problem. Let’s hope the gorls and boys in Congress are on board with releasing the Cracken.

  52. Women will be successful at combat arms schools. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable. Women will be successful at combat arms units. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable.

    Has anyone informed our nation’s enemies that they really need to let the girls win – or else?

    Otherwise there seems to be a mighty big flaw in this plan.

    • LOL: BB753
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Has anyone informed our nation’s enemies that they really need to let the girls win – or else?
     
    It's actually a brilliant strategy.

    After any war, there will be a Nuremberg-like trial. Enemy leaders will be found guilty of ordering violence against women. (They will be tortured into confessing this, and then they will be hanged.) Their countries will be divided and placed under Bolshevik control.

    Our zookeepers win again.
  53. @Alec Leamas

    Women will be successful at combat arms schools. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable. Women will be successful at combat arms units. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable.
     
    Has anyone informed our nation's enemies that they really need to let the girls win - or else?

    Otherwise there seems to be a mighty big flaw in this plan.

    Has anyone informed our nation’s enemies that they really need to let the girls win – or else?

    It’s actually a brilliant strategy.

    After any war, there will be a Nuremberg-like trial. Enemy leaders will be found guilty of ordering violence against women. (They will be tortured into confessing this, and then they will be hanged.) Their countries will be divided and placed under Bolshevik control.

    Our zookeepers win again.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Nuremberg-like trials are for closers.
    , @Ted
    Implicit in your comment is that we will win. Winners hold the trials, and America will not win another world war with a progressive military.
  54. @Desiderius
    That’s clever theorycraft. Meanwhile the Marxians have been praxising all over your sorry asses for half a century now.

    Meanwhile the Marxians have been praxising all over your sorry asses for half a century now.

    Exactly! (‘cept I don’ know what “praxising” means, but I’ll figure it’s like “kicking ass” from context.) Without a lot of people backing up the Libertarians and Constitutionalists for the last 1/2 century, what the hell would you expect? Oh, “muh Constitution!” and all the insults, how’d that work out? How do you like living without it in PRACTICE? We’re about there.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Praxis is Marxian for practice.
    , @Anon

    Exactly! (‘cept I don’ know what “praxising” means, but I’ll figure it’s like “kicking ass” from context.)
     
    Exactly. By using a "praxis kit" one can unlock more powerups and kick more ass.

    http://deusex.wikia.com/wiki/Praxis_Kit
  55. @PiltdownMan

    Matthew 19:12

    For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

     

    As with the Late Ming Empire, so with the Late American. When the legitimate authority abdicates the eunuchs take over.

  56. @Buzz Mohawk

    Has anyone informed our nation’s enemies that they really need to let the girls win – or else?
     
    It's actually a brilliant strategy.

    After any war, there will be a Nuremberg-like trial. Enemy leaders will be found guilty of ordering violence against women. (They will be tortured into confessing this, and then they will be hanged.) Their countries will be divided and placed under Bolshevik control.

    Our zookeepers win again.

    Nuremberg-like trials are for closers.

    • LOL: Abe, Kylie
  57. @Achmed E. Newman

    I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.
     
    Here's one, ZooZoo: You don't let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you.

    Let's say you voted in my man AuH20 in 1964 and a bunch of proto-Ron Pauls to support him. No civil rites law, no welfare state, no big money to the U's to support all this crap ... it'd have been a whole different ballgame, at least for a few more years till the women's vote brought in more of the "compassionate" ones.

    In other words, the reins may be passed over, but if there is nothing but Constitutionally-approved government in place, there is not enough to reign over to change everything for the worse.

    “don’t let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you.”

    That is a very viable strategy

    for 1928.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    I really doesn’t work past 1912, but that’s close enough for government work.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Here's the paragraph that I was replying to from the Zoo man:

    If the Left advocates an interventionist approach and the Right takes a strictly laissez faire approach to institutions, then the Right is, in effect, condoning the Left’s eventual intervention and social engineering. I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s"
     
    See the bold. I was really just replying to the accusations of this "failing of conservationism since the 1950's. Go back to the original comment, people.

    Yes, no doubt it is too late for that - Barry Goldwater has died. Nixon didn't appoint him to S.Court (not like that a-hole would have even thought about it). There were not enough proto-Ron Pauls. Etc, Etc. It's way too late for all that. I! GET! THAT! [/Carlson]

    However, that's not to say that eating back away at the powers of "our" Feral Gov't is not still a good thing. There are lots of other problems to solve in the meantime, if at all possible, but perhaps people should look back on how they came to be in this so powerless position, where the central government does whatever the elites and Big-Biz interests want regardless of what the average American patriot wants, just in case we have another chance.

  58. @Almost Missouri

    "don’t let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you."
     
    That is a very viable strategy

    for 1928.

    I really doesn’t work past 1912, but that’s close enough for government work.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    You wouldn't agree that the FedGov reverted to something like Constitutionality during the Coolidge years?
  59. @zoozoo
    Something every corporate executive, university chancellor and aspiring military officer understands is that you must appease the Left. For the most part, the Right can be ignored, since they advocate a "principled" hands-off approach to dealing with institutions.

    Conservatives have to figure out a way for handling this asymmetry of incentives. In blithely advocating free markets and limited government, they simply hand the reigns over to the Left, whenever they may take control again, to write the laws and regulations.

    If the Left advocates an interventionist approach and the Right takes a strictly laissez faire approach to institutions, then the Right is, in effect, condoning the Left's eventual intervention and social engineering. I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950's.

    Yep, in the game of political tug of war — where the position of the flag ultimately determines the compromise — conservatives think it is principled not to pick up the rope. See education, corporate hr, military, etc.

  60. @Buzz Mohawk

    The beatings will continue until the white males muster the courage to stop hiding behind passive voice.
     
    Indeed. Let's bring beatings back to the classroom and save ourselves.
    https://danceclasschallenge.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/mean-teacher.jpg

    It’s a start.

  61. I can’t tell if this is satire or for real.

  62. @Simon in London
    The Feminists who came up with this stuff are not interested in joining the military though.

    The Feminists who came up with this stuff are not interested in joining the military though.

    Too bad. They wouldn’t be much of a loss.

  63. @Achmed E. Newman

    I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.
     
    Here's one, ZooZoo: You don't let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you.

    Let's say you voted in my man AuH20 in 1964 and a bunch of proto-Ron Pauls to support him. No civil rites law, no welfare state, no big money to the U's to support all this crap ... it'd have been a whole different ballgame, at least for a few more years till the women's vote brought in more of the "compassionate" ones.

    In other words, the reins may be passed over, but if there is nothing but Constitutionally-approved government in place, there is not enough to reign over to change everything for the worse.

    No civil rites law…

    Considering that you’re familiar with the difference between rein and reign, we have to assume that this particular eggcorn was deliberate.

    • Replies: @BenKenobi
    He was probably trying to get two birds stoned at once.
    , @International Jew
    I'm certain he knows the difference, but I'm left scratching my head over what exactly he meant by it.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Yes, it was deliberate. My point in that is the "civil rights" business is NOT about Constitutional rights for people. It is about giving out certain favors to certain groups, like some kind of "rites" to atone for our sins, I dunno?

    What the heck is an "eggcorn", BTW? I've read it a couple of times now - another gaming term?
  64. @Bill Jones
    How long before the !st Infantry Division becomes the Big Pink One?

    Or if the sodomites turn patriotic, The Big Lavender One?

    How long before the !st Infantry Division becomes the Big Pink One?

    Or if the sodomites turn patriotic, The Big Lavender One?

    I always thought they belonged in the bomb-defusion squad. They were going to die “without issue” anyway.

  65. Resume conscription into an all girl army. It’s only fair. Draft females regardless of age, size or immigration status. Diversity is the Army’s strength. Men are NOT diverse. If you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all.

  66. SAS: Women allowed to join for first time

    Women will be able to apply for any British military role for the first time, the defence secretary has said.

    Gavin Williamson announced that all combat roles were now open to women, including serving in special forces units such as the SAS.

    He said for the first time the “armed forces will be determined by ability alone and not gender”.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45983882

  67. Again, as with all else–separation.

    I have no objection to people living in a matriarchy–if that’s what they want.

    But I don’t want to live in this matriarchy. I want to live in a traditional Western “patriarchy” where responsible men are essentially in charge of making decisions.

    But lets go ahead and have both. People can choose where to live. People who are unhappy in the system they grew up in, can petition to immigrate to the other system.

    Let’s see which system produces more freedom, prosperity and happiness.

    • Replies: @anon

    But lets go ahead and have both. People can choose where to live. People who are unhappy in the system they grew up in, can petition to immigrate to the other system.
    Let’s see which system produces more freedom, prosperity and happiness.
     
    We already did that, and the western patricarchy system created the United States, which produced more freedon, prosperity, and happiness. So everyone else moved here to both gain its benefits and to destroy it with their resentments.
    If you separate, they will come.
    On another note- it's not necessarily bad for the US military to become feminized. Come the civil war, the remaining federal army will be female, and the next Ghettysburg may turn out differently.
    , @Ghost of Bull Moose
    You are negotiating.

    The other side doesn't want to negotiate. They want to destroy us.
  68. I think there is a role for females in combat arms, but it’s an extremely limited, niche role. My daughter served in a female unit in Afghanistan. They were partnered with male Special Forces units making raids on Taliban commanders. The job of the females was to handle the women and children during the raids. The females in the unit, including my daughter, were motivated, intelligent, and physically fit.

    But as I said, that is a specific niche role, analogous to sending female cops on SWAT team drug raids to handle the women and children of drug dealers.

    With all exceptions duly noted, as a general principle, putting women in combat arms in Big Army units is absurd. Big Army units have to be designed around the capabilities of average soldiers, not the one percent of extraordinary females who are capable of performing on par with men. There’s simply no way you could ever have entire female battalions performing the way men did at Omaha Beach or at Chosin.

    The fact that we are willing to entertain the very idea of putting females in combat arms is a tacit admission that we will never fight battles like D-Day ever again. Modern war has become imperial policing — so soldiering has become a bureaucratic government job to which females think they’re entitled. It’s the Post Office with rifles.

    Females in combat arms is merely going to lead to far more deployments like this:

    https://nypost.com/2018/11/10/love-is-a-battlefield-for-husband-wife-who-fought-side-by-side-in-iraq/

    • Replies: @Ted
    Again, people like you assume that America will decide what kind of wars we fight. The time is coming when the U. S. will be fighting just to survive, The enemy has a vote, and China, Russia and their pals do not care how "fit" your little girl and her friends are. To quote Lazarus Long: "Any fruit will fall when it's ripe, and the United States is rotten ripe. "
    , @Forbes
    I'd just as soon we drop the imperial policing part--by dropping the imperial aspect of US foreign policy. The Post Office with rifles characterization is proof US policy has gone off the rails.

    The need for females in forward combat positions for the reason outlined (handling women/children) suggests the use-of-military-force policy is dead wrong. Defeat of the enemy, with cultural sensitivity included, is the definition of quagmire and the absence of a military objective.

    The "lessons learned" experience should be a warning not to entertain these kinds of reckless policies--not a doubling down as to how to be more sensitive and culturally appropriate in combat and war fighting.

    My nephew (infantry sergeant) and niece (Army MD) both served in Iraq, so I understand sacrifice and am grateful for and respectful of your daughter's service.
    , @Bill

    But as I said, that is a specific niche role, analogous to sending female cops on SWAT team drug raids to handle the women and children of drug dealers.
     
    There is no reason for those female cops to be cops. They can be social workers/nurses/etc. There is no reason for those female soldiers to be soldiers. They can be social workers/nurses/etc.
    , @SteveRogers42
    http://www.intellectualconservative.com/female-green-berets-significant-corruption-ethical-and-leadership-failures-and-potentially-serious-future-problems/
  69. “Changing the ‘Macho’ Male Culture of the US Military”

    the silly “macho” (false pride) culture originates south of the border and probably all the way back to Spain. if (((someone))) wants to change it, probably they should start there

  70. Before Obama, I thought we’d have to lose a battalion for anything to change, ala Kasserine Pass.

    Now I think nothing less than the destruction of a division or two will get people TALKING that maybe possibly kinda things aren’t well.

    Part of the problem, even back when I was in almost 20 (!!) years ago is that “can do” was replaced by “must do”.

  71. Good thing we have nukes or we’d be f-ed.

  72. anon[398] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    Again, as with all else--separation.

    I have no objection to people living in a matriarchy--if that's what they want.

    But I don't want to live in this matriarchy. I want to live in a traditional Western "patriarchy" where responsible men are essentially in charge of making decisions.

    But lets go ahead and have both. People can choose where to live. People who are unhappy in the system they grew up in, can petition to immigrate to the other system.

    Let's see which system produces more freedom, prosperity and happiness.

    But lets go ahead and have both. People can choose where to live. People who are unhappy in the system they grew up in, can petition to immigrate to the other system.
    Let’s see which system produces more freedom, prosperity and happiness.

    We already did that, and the western patricarchy system created the United States, which produced more freedon, prosperity, and happiness. So everyone else moved here to both gain its benefits and to destroy it with their resentments.
    If you separate, they will come.
    On another note- it’s not necessarily bad for the US military to become feminized. Come the civil war, the remaining federal army will be female, and the next Ghettysburg may turn out differently.

  73. White guys who join the military deserve every bit of humiliation and hurt they get. Fighting for a system that is openly genocidal against you, how stupid can you be? White boycott of the military. Be smart like the Jews, don’t join. If you want to deal The System a death blow this is it. For all you cucks who get the vapors over the thought of a white boycott, understand that it’s going to happen anyway, when you have a third-world population you’ll have a third-world country and military. Uncle Sam’s days of adventuring are coming to an end, a boycott will just pull the inevitable forward by a few decades. I suspect that this is a ploy to get more white women into the military to counter the lowering of the capability of the military due to multiculti. They’re running out of white men, and LaKeesha and Pedro aren’t going to operate those sophisticated weapons systems. If Becky gets killed or maimed (or has a brown baby) while doing so, well it’s a two-fer, ain’t it? This is what you’re fighting for.

  74. @zoozoo
    Something every corporate executive, university chancellor and aspiring military officer understands is that you must appease the Left. For the most part, the Right can be ignored, since they advocate a "principled" hands-off approach to dealing with institutions.

    Conservatives have to figure out a way for handling this asymmetry of incentives. In blithely advocating free markets and limited government, they simply hand the reigns over to the Left, whenever they may take control again, to write the laws and regulations.

    If the Left advocates an interventionist approach and the Right takes a strictly laissez faire approach to institutions, then the Right is, in effect, condoning the Left's eventual intervention and social engineering. I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950's.

    I live in the Northern Virginia area so I’ve known quite a few current or ex-military officers. People forget that these guys have families and responsibilities just like the rest of us. They have mortgage payments, college savings, car payments, etc. They choose the military as a career, so they have to play along with what their bosses want whether they like it or not.

    It’s not any different than a corporate executive. Well, unless they are in combat, but my understanding is that the military did at least up to a five or ten years ago tried to keep the silliness out of units where it could get people killed. Maybe that’s changing. Or maybe they’ll have women in combat units but keep them out of harm’s way and in capacities that don’t put men’s lives in dangers. I don’t know.

    But don’t bet on career military officers rocking the boat. They have a lot invested in their careers – pensions, connections after they get out, medical, etc.; they’re not going to throw that away.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    And yet, they’ve done so in other countries where they had as much or more to lose.
    , @Almost Missouri
    When the President is Commander in Chief, and the officer class are "just like the rest of us", where do "their bosses" who are not the President but are somehow immune to the President come from and who are they?

    IOW, where does this powerful and implacable freak class of military overlords come from who are somehow outside of the chain of command for taking orders from above but definitively inside the chain of command for giving orders below?
    , @Kyle
    That’s the problem right there. The service shouldn’t be a career, nobody should ever have the opportunity to build a life or a family around employment in the service. It’s called the service for a reason. In the past people intrinsically understood this. It was an institution where poor boys could volunteer to serve, and possibly die for, their country. They could do it for a few years while developing skills and figuring out what they actually ea Ted to do with their lives. If the service is a lifetime career with pensions and health insurance, that’s what is attracting women to it in the first place. Not the opportunity to serve their country, how icky.
  75. @Achmed E. Newman

    I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.
     
    Here's one, ZooZoo: You don't let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you.

    Let's say you voted in my man AuH20 in 1964 and a bunch of proto-Ron Pauls to support him. No civil rites law, no welfare state, no big money to the U's to support all this crap ... it'd have been a whole different ballgame, at least for a few more years till the women's vote brought in more of the "compassionate" ones.

    In other words, the reins may be passed over, but if there is nothing but Constitutionally-approved government in place, there is not enough to reign over to change everything for the worse.

    Someday soon, as Bob Dylan put it, “a hard rain’s a-gonna fall”, on the nation that allows itself to be run by corrupt morons like these.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Hey, I just now got that. Sad on my part!

    Now, I always liked Edie Brickell's version:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgpF5VjWO34
  76. Then again, maybe women in combat won’t lower the military’s capabilities:

    Marines Were Attacked, Robbed Near “We the People” Rally in Philly

    https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/11/20/marines-attacked-we-the-people-rally/

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    If the Marines put the scum in the hospital, or better yet the morgue, they'd be in jail. "Just poor boys who didn't do nothin'".
    , @Reg Cæsar
    Is that guy wearing Eagles merchandise?

    Had Fusilier Rigby fought off his attackers, would that in itself have been a crime?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby
  77. There is a loosely connected group of advocates that have found huge traction with the current civilian leadership here and they have a pretty well-thought out campaign plan to get women into combat arms,” he told me.

    Who are these people, I wonder.

    The effort to change military culture also includes the effort to overturn the combat exclusion rule. This rule, as many advocates for overturning it have argued, is the strongest reason that men view women as less than men. According to some, it is the reason military men rape women, sexually harass them, and devalue them. It is the reason women get out of the service at higher rates, are injured more than men, have more PTSD issues, and score less on their PT tests.

    This makes exactly no sense. Moreover, I’m certain that whoever is pushing for this change doesn’t really have women’s best interests at heart.

    • Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Not to mention the best interests of, you know, America.
    , @foolisholdman

    Who are these people, I wonder.
     

    Moreover, I’m certain that whoever is pushing for this change doesn’t really have women’s best interests at heart.
     
    I think one can be fairly certain that whoever they are, they have the best interests of only themselves and, probably, their classmates at heart. It suggests to me that they are not interested in winning wars but only in keepng them going, so as to keep up the torrent of funding for the S&MIC. Perhaps also they hope that the population will be more upset by female DIA?

    Other possibilities: a bigger army means a bigger payroll and more can be syphoned off before it becomes too obvious? Extra kickbacks from suppliers of tampons etc?

    , @anon
    Don't overthink it. Combat experience is a requirement for advancement. Winning?? Not so much.

    Combat isn't all that. popular among men, and likely less so for women.

    The people pushing this are careerists. Wedge issue alert.
  78. TFW when you realize the authoritarian genocidal regime’s military is going to be all women, homos, trannies, lowlifes, idiots and cucks…

    • Replies: @L Woods
    They’re more likely to press the red button than white cishet males.
    , @Svigor
    The enemy cannot press a button if you disable his hand!
  79. Why go half-ass – get on with it and form all-girl combat brigades. Sounds like a winning strategy to me, at least for the Perfumed Princes.

    • Agree: Coemgen
    • Replies: @dr kill
    Who cares if you win or lose, as long as you look fabulous.
  80. Travis Corcoran extrapolates forward from this in his Heinleinesque novel Powers of The Earth: commando units include handicapped troops, who object when they’re put in too much danger or not enough.

  81. Did anyone ask the gays how they feel about the military’s ‘macho male culture?’ Or the dearth of females?

    • Replies: @Lurker
    Feature not a bug. The gays won't like it and it'll create more tension, conflict and unhappiness - which is all part of the project.
  82. @Rosie

    There is a loosely connected group of advocates that have found huge traction with the current civilian leadership here and they have a pretty well-thought out campaign plan to get women into combat arms,” he told me.
     
    Who are these people, I wonder.

    The effort to change military culture also includes the effort to overturn the combat exclusion rule. This rule, as many advocates for overturning it have argued, is the strongest reason that men view women as less than men. According to some, it is the reason military men rape women, sexually harass them, and devalue them. It is the reason women get out of the service at higher rates, are injured more than men, have more PTSD issues, and score less on their PT tests.
     
    This makes exactly no sense. Moreover, I'm certain that whoever is pushing for this change doesn't really have women's best interests at heart.

    Not to mention the best interests of, you know, America.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Not to mention the best interests of, you know, America.
     
    Speaking of which, how 'bout my POTUS!

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/hundreds-migrants-push-us-mexico-border-bridge-221000657.html
  83. @AnotherDad
    Again, as with all else--separation.

    I have no objection to people living in a matriarchy--if that's what they want.

    But I don't want to live in this matriarchy. I want to live in a traditional Western "patriarchy" where responsible men are essentially in charge of making decisions.

    But lets go ahead and have both. People can choose where to live. People who are unhappy in the system they grew up in, can petition to immigrate to the other system.

    Let's see which system produces more freedom, prosperity and happiness.

    You are negotiating.

    The other side doesn’t want to negotiate. They want to destroy us.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    You are negotiating.
    The other side doesn’t want to negotiate. They want to destroy us.
     
    No argument on the "destroy us".

    But saying "separate nations" isn't negoitiating it is propagandizing.

    The entire left program--minoritarianism, feminism, state power--is parasitic. Glomming onto the high-quality--high trust, rule-of-law, prosperity, freedom--nations that white men produce and say "you must let us in", "you must give your stuff to us".

    Basically left/Jewish intellectuals have crafted this oppression narrative--white gentile men, bad! minorities, good!

    Saying "separation" is a way of point out that the arrow of oppression--who is coerercing whom--actually runs the other way. We are quite happy living amongst ourselves--not demanding squat from anyone else. It's "the coalition of fringes" that is demanding that white men be turned into serfs to provide stuff for them.
  84. @Achmed E. Newman

    I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.
     
    Here's one, ZooZoo: You don't let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you.

    Let's say you voted in my man AuH20 in 1964 and a bunch of proto-Ron Pauls to support him. No civil rites law, no welfare state, no big money to the U's to support all this crap ... it'd have been a whole different ballgame, at least for a few more years till the women's vote brought in more of the "compassionate" ones.

    In other words, the reins may be passed over, but if there is nothing but Constitutionally-approved government in place, there is not enough to reign over to change everything for the worse.

    Here’s a game of two sides. You want to win so pick your side carefully.

    Side A: always supports expanding an institution and fashioning it in their image.

    Side B: always supports contracting that institution.

    The winner is the side whose image the institution is fashioned in representation of.

    It’s a tragedy, but it is still the story of the last few decades

  85. @Reg Cæsar

    No civil rites law...
     
    Considering that you're familiar with the difference between rein and reign, we have to assume that this particular eggcorn was deliberate.

    He was probably trying to get two birds stoned at once.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Heh!
  86. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    You are negotiating.

    The other side doesn't want to negotiate. They want to destroy us.

    You are negotiating.
    The other side doesn’t want to negotiate. They want to destroy us.

    No argument on the “destroy us”.

    But saying “separate nations” isn’t negoitiating it is propagandizing.

    The entire left program–minoritarianism, feminism, state power–is parasitic. Glomming onto the high-quality–high trust, rule-of-law, prosperity, freedom–nations that white men produce and say “you must let us in”, “you must give your stuff to us”.

    Basically left/Jewish intellectuals have crafted this oppression narrative–white gentile men, bad! minorities, good!

    Saying “separation” is a way of point out that the arrow of oppression–who is coerercing whom–actually runs the other way. We are quite happy living amongst ourselves–not demanding squat from anyone else. It’s “the coalition of fringes” that is demanding that white men be turned into serfs to provide stuff for them.

    • Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Okay, but what I mean is that they will not allow any traditional Western society to mind its own business. Look at what they say about the Poles and Hungarians, who simply want to be left alone.

    There is no settlement they will accept. Sweden could offer their entire country, intact with its infrastructure, all its wealth, everything, to the Somalis, while moving the Swedes to Somalia, in its present condition.

    Within a generation, or maybe less, 'Somalia' would be more prosperous than Sweden, simply due to the disparity in human capital.

    But then the 'Swedes' would demand to live in 'Somalia.'

    No matter where Westerners go, whatever tiny sliver of territory they want for themselves, the yoms want in. The days of 'improving' sh**hole countries so they won't all want to live in better-run ( better everything) Western countries are over.

    'The Developing World' as they call it is a quaint idea that's become a sick joke. What we have now is a worldwide bum-rush. They don't need a Trojan horse, because our most dangerous adversaries are already inside.

  87. @Matrix
    OK, lets go all in! An all female combat unit. Trial run, Afghanistan. The Taliban would be no match for our ladies. Prove all of us patriarchal oppressors wrong.

    OK, lets go all in! An all female combat unit. Trial run, Afghanistan. The Taliban would be no match for our ladies. Prove all of us patriarchal oppressors wrong.

    The fact we all know this will NEVER be allowed to occur, is all the proof we need that we’re correct (although it’s not clear that proof is actually required, in a case so self-evidently obvious).

    As is so often the case where Feminism is concerned, it seems like a lot of this is driven by true believers, not merely cynics. I’m not sure how they are able to handle such a colossal case of cognitive dissonance.

  88. @Rosie

    There is a loosely connected group of advocates that have found huge traction with the current civilian leadership here and they have a pretty well-thought out campaign plan to get women into combat arms,” he told me.
     
    Who are these people, I wonder.

    The effort to change military culture also includes the effort to overturn the combat exclusion rule. This rule, as many advocates for overturning it have argued, is the strongest reason that men view women as less than men. According to some, it is the reason military men rape women, sexually harass them, and devalue them. It is the reason women get out of the service at higher rates, are injured more than men, have more PTSD issues, and score less on their PT tests.
     
    This makes exactly no sense. Moreover, I'm certain that whoever is pushing for this change doesn't really have women's best interests at heart.

    Who are these people, I wonder.

    Moreover, I’m certain that whoever is pushing for this change doesn’t really have women’s best interests at heart.

    I think one can be fairly certain that whoever they are, they have the best interests of only themselves and, probably, their classmates at heart. It suggests to me that they are not interested in winning wars but only in keepng them going, so as to keep up the torrent of funding for the S&MIC. Perhaps also they hope that the population will be more upset by female DIA?

    Other possibilities: a bigger army means a bigger payroll and more can be syphoned off before it becomes too obvious? Extra kickbacks from suppliers of tampons etc?

  89. @AnotherDad

    You are negotiating.
    The other side doesn’t want to negotiate. They want to destroy us.
     
    No argument on the "destroy us".

    But saying "separate nations" isn't negoitiating it is propagandizing.

    The entire left program--minoritarianism, feminism, state power--is parasitic. Glomming onto the high-quality--high trust, rule-of-law, prosperity, freedom--nations that white men produce and say "you must let us in", "you must give your stuff to us".

    Basically left/Jewish intellectuals have crafted this oppression narrative--white gentile men, bad! minorities, good!

    Saying "separation" is a way of point out that the arrow of oppression--who is coerercing whom--actually runs the other way. We are quite happy living amongst ourselves--not demanding squat from anyone else. It's "the coalition of fringes" that is demanding that white men be turned into serfs to provide stuff for them.

    Okay, but what I mean is that they will not allow any traditional Western society to mind its own business. Look at what they say about the Poles and Hungarians, who simply want to be left alone.

    There is no settlement they will accept. Sweden could offer their entire country, intact with its infrastructure, all its wealth, everything, to the Somalis, while moving the Swedes to Somalia, in its present condition.

    Within a generation, or maybe less, ‘Somalia’ would be more prosperous than Sweden, simply due to the disparity in human capital.

    But then the ‘Swedes’ would demand to live in ‘Somalia.’

    No matter where Westerners go, whatever tiny sliver of territory they want for themselves, the yoms want in. The days of ‘improving’ sh**hole countries so they won’t all want to live in better-run ( better everything) Western countries are over.

    ‘The Developing World’ as they call it is a quaint idea that’s become a sick joke. What we have now is a worldwide bum-rush. They don’t need a Trojan horse, because our most dangerous adversaries are already inside.

    • Agree: Kylie
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    You could retreat to Point Nemo and eventually you're gonna have diversity flotillas coming at you.
    , @Miro23

    There is no settlement they will accept.
     
    They would probably accept a SJW Bolshevik style dictatorship run by Right Thinkers (themselves).
  90. @SteveRogers42
    I believe that the Air Force classifies drone operators as pilots, and mandates that they be officers.

    The Army does not.

    They are reluctantly, slowly changing that policy. Hopefully, they will keep changing the policy.
    Of course, we’ve never run UCAVs in conflicts where the enemy could jam our communication and GPS signals.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    Exactly. All this Buck Rogers $#!t will look pretty foolish if we ever pick on anyone our own size.
  91. Quilette hosts a good podcast on the identitarian left, whose days may mercifully be numbered—at which point Steve Sailer may be out of a job. How would he feel about this? Let me guess. He’s not worried.

    https://quillette.com/2018/11/23/quillette-podcast-3-eric-kaufmann-and-ben-cobley-on-the-forward-march-of-social-justice-ideology/

  92. @Buzz Mohawk

    The guidance from the Pentagon is very clear to commanders, if not always explicit in the orders (even though much of it IS explicit). … Women will be successful at combat arms schools. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable. Women will be successful at combat arms units. If they are not, leadership will be held accountable.
     
    This could be an all-purpose paragraph to describe any scenario in which anybody who is not a white male is not succeeding.

    For example:

    ... NAMs will be successful in schools. If they are not, teachers will be held accountable. NAMs will be successful at colleges. If they are not, professors will be held accountable.

    Or:

    ... Blacks will not be overrepresented in prisons. If they are, the justice system will be held accountable. Blacks will not be arrested more than whites. If they are, police will be held accountable.

    Or, to describe the whole picture, here is the general rule:

    The guidance from government, academia and media is very clear to white males, if not always explicit in the laws (even though much of it IS explicit). … Everyone will be as successful as you. If they are not, you will be held accountable.

    Too true.

  93. @zoozoo
    Something every corporate executive, university chancellor and aspiring military officer understands is that you must appease the Left. For the most part, the Right can be ignored, since they advocate a "principled" hands-off approach to dealing with institutions.

    Conservatives have to figure out a way for handling this asymmetry of incentives. In blithely advocating free markets and limited government, they simply hand the reigns over to the Left, whenever they may take control again, to write the laws and regulations.

    If the Left advocates an interventionist approach and the Right takes a strictly laissez faire approach to institutions, then the Right is, in effect, condoning the Left's eventual intervention and social engineering. I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950's.

    The cucks and muh principled conservatives have killed the Republic. Our institutions are rotten to the core.

  94. What in the living hell is wrong with the commenting system? My ignored list disappeared and the system acts like I haven’t been using the same account across four systems since the created it.

  95. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Okay, but what I mean is that they will not allow any traditional Western society to mind its own business. Look at what they say about the Poles and Hungarians, who simply want to be left alone.

    There is no settlement they will accept. Sweden could offer their entire country, intact with its infrastructure, all its wealth, everything, to the Somalis, while moving the Swedes to Somalia, in its present condition.

    Within a generation, or maybe less, 'Somalia' would be more prosperous than Sweden, simply due to the disparity in human capital.

    But then the 'Swedes' would demand to live in 'Somalia.'

    No matter where Westerners go, whatever tiny sliver of territory they want for themselves, the yoms want in. The days of 'improving' sh**hole countries so they won't all want to live in better-run ( better everything) Western countries are over.

    'The Developing World' as they call it is a quaint idea that's become a sick joke. What we have now is a worldwide bum-rush. They don't need a Trojan horse, because our most dangerous adversaries are already inside.

    You could retreat to Point Nemo and eventually you’re gonna have diversity flotillas coming at you.

  96. @Redneck farmer
    Silly commenter! CEOs are of the educated class, they may be annoyed, but not too much; they are a potential hus- I mean partner of that really smart, nice woman in HR with a degree in Women's Studies. Combat troops are obviously uneducated sub-animals (worth less than a shelter cat) who need to be better domesticated.

    Combat troops are dipshits who willingly signed up for exactly this kind of PC nonsense. They deserve their eventual fate. In this day and age why would anyone literally sign their life away to the government?

    • Replies: @Lowe
    Ignorance? Lack of better options? Misplaced feelings of patriotism?

    Admittedly I haven't liked many of the military men I have known. Perhaps calling them dipshits is apt, but I suppose I'm too much of a dipshit myself not to have sympathy for them. Regardless, the quality of the American men who sign up for combat duty is much higher than what we are getting in spades from the third world right now.
    , @Bill
    . . . said every libertarian ever when presented with the consequences of his ideology.
  97. The combat exclusion rule…

    … is the reason women get out of the service at higher rates, are injured more than men, have more PTSD issues, and score less on their PT tests.

    I don’t doubt the article writer is reporting what others have said or implied. But it is idiotic.

    Ending the exclusion will ramp up the frequency of each of those indices–except for the likelihood that due to the inclusion of women in combat roles, men will depart and suffer injuries/PTSD at higher rates, and score worse on PT tests as the quality/capability of male recruits decline due to “changing the culture.”

    These reformers see the military as a jobs program–just like much of the Western European forces who attend 9-to-5 jobs, Monday to Friday.

  98. @South Texas Guy
    I liked the paragraph about the homos in the military. It's complete illusionary bullshit on their part. Men who are obviously gay have been in the military for eons. A (very) older friend of mine was in WWII and his ship's CO was a three dollar bill. My high school drama teacher was in the army, and on, and on. Several older ex-military co-workers were also obviously gay. The big difference was the end of the draft, but also many sorts of men also like to keep it on the down low.

    The bulk of the article about disruption by implementing both sexes into combat MOS's is spot on. There are a certain group of people who know that fellow citizens, who either don't know or know, any better are willing to say "give them a chance." The thing is, giving them a chance means changing a rule for eternity.

    And the rule change won't cost them their lives, but it will eventually cost the lives of others. It'll serve temporary political objectives, though.

    And the rule change won’t cost them their lives…

    Let’s not be too hasty!

  99. @Matrix
    OK, lets go all in! An all female combat unit. Trial run, Afghanistan. The Taliban would be no match for our ladies. Prove all of us patriarchal oppressors wrong.

    I’ve offered the same suggestion. An infantry company of 120 female soldiers headed by a female captain, plus female NCOs and female platoon LTs would make a nice test subject for comparison to an all-male company.

    The result would be another “achievement gap” where, instead of abandoning the experiment (because real diversity in performance exists as between males and females), progressives would double-down, insisting on more training, re-norming evaluations (test scores), more time (experiments) to prove their “theories.” Ad infinitum

    And that’s exactly why it won’t happen because it opens the debate rather than keeping it closed. To entertain females in combat roles, they need to hide them under cover of male soldiers, i.e. their ineffectiveness needs to be diluted amongst competent male soldiers.

    As is the case with toxicology, the dose is the poison. Much that is toxic in quantity is harmless in low dosages. I don’t think this is the correct argument, not do I think “harmless” is the argument offered. Purposeful social engineering of “changing the culture” is the agenda.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    Why do that? Why not just compare units that are all men vs. units that are mixed? We have that right now, don't we?

    My guess is that there's a million studies looking at what makes a specified military group function the best from all possible angles. Let's see the data. Is the presence of women helpful, harmful, or neutral? Oh, and while we're at it, tell us about the presence of open homos. How does that affect the group?
  100. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Not to mention the best interests of, you know, America.

    Not to mention the best interests of, you know, America.

    Speaking of which, how ’bout my POTUS!

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/hundreds-migrants-push-us-mexico-border-bridge-221000657.html

  101. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Okay, but what I mean is that they will not allow any traditional Western society to mind its own business. Look at what they say about the Poles and Hungarians, who simply want to be left alone.

    There is no settlement they will accept. Sweden could offer their entire country, intact with its infrastructure, all its wealth, everything, to the Somalis, while moving the Swedes to Somalia, in its present condition.

    Within a generation, or maybe less, 'Somalia' would be more prosperous than Sweden, simply due to the disparity in human capital.

    But then the 'Swedes' would demand to live in 'Somalia.'

    No matter where Westerners go, whatever tiny sliver of territory they want for themselves, the yoms want in. The days of 'improving' sh**hole countries so they won't all want to live in better-run ( better everything) Western countries are over.

    'The Developing World' as they call it is a quaint idea that's become a sick joke. What we have now is a worldwide bum-rush. They don't need a Trojan horse, because our most dangerous adversaries are already inside.

    There is no settlement they will accept.

    They would probably accept a SJW Bolshevik style dictatorship run by Right Thinkers (themselves).

  102. @Reg Cæsar

    No civil rites law...
     
    Considering that you're familiar with the difference between rein and reign, we have to assume that this particular eggcorn was deliberate.

    I’m certain he knows the difference, but I’m left scratching my head over what exactly he meant by it.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    In retrospect it was more religious ritual than anything about actual rights.
    , @Bill
    Wow.
  103. @Achmed E. Newman

    I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.
     
    Here's one, ZooZoo: You don't let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you.

    Let's say you voted in my man AuH20 in 1964 and a bunch of proto-Ron Pauls to support him. No civil rites law, no welfare state, no big money to the U's to support all this crap ... it'd have been a whole different ballgame, at least for a few more years till the women's vote brought in more of the "compassionate" ones.

    In other words, the reins may be passed over, but if there is nothing but Constitutionally-approved government in place, there is not enough to reign over to change everything for the worse.

    I read Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative recently. He was a great man. Too bad Nixon didn’t put him on the Supreme Court. Instead of, say, Harry Blackmun.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    AGREED

    I wouldn't have expected the SC pick. Nixon was a tool. I don't mean as in "a tool of the elite" or what-have-you. He was just a tool in the sense of an big insult.
  104. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Did anyone ask the gays how they feel about the military's 'macho male culture?' Or the dearth of females?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmGuy0jievs

    Feature not a bug. The gays won’t like it and it’ll create more tension, conflict and unhappiness – which is all part of the project.

  105. @Charles_Martel
    Things will come to an interesting pass when we get into a war in which there are lots of POW's taken by our adversaries. The female POW's are going to have a much worse time of it than the males. In addition to starvation and torture, there will be the frequent rapes with resultant pregnancies and VD.

    What a mess.

    Too obvious, too short-term.

    Women in combat arms is for the purpose of ending any war fighting. Women in combat arms is a jobs program. It’s a contest of “firsts” that government and media get to pronounce–it’s got absolutely nothing to do with readiness and effectiveness. Quite the opposite.

    Women generals and admirals, women as defense secretaries, a woman president, et al., will prevent rape of female POWs because there won’t be any female soldiers sent as fodder.

    How many more Jessica Lynch stories will politicians countenance?

    • Replies: @Bill
    We can hope.
  106. @International Jew
    I'm certain he knows the difference, but I'm left scratching my head over what exactly he meant by it.

    In retrospect it was more religious ritual than anything about actual rights.

  107. Great! Since antifa and Kamela Harris will be running the WH after 2020 maybe its a good thing USA military will get its affirmative actiion ass kicked all around the globe.

  108. @Desiderius
    That’s clever theorycraft. Meanwhile the Marxians have been praxising all over your sorry asses for half a century now.

    Precisely.

    Paradoxically, our only change of civilisational survival is a crushing defeat.

    I just hope that our conquerors are the Russians rather than the Chinese.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The Chinese are well on their way already. They may in fact be already there.

    At least we’ll be rid of the Baizou.
  109. @Thomm
    This is a superb reason to cut the military budget by 80%.

    When women are interested in joining a military, that is sterling proof that the military is too big, provides too much in the way of benefits, and that troops there no longer face any real risk of injury or death (putting aside the fact that in real combat, women will manage to avoid the front lines in any event).

    This is a superb reason to cut the military budget by 80%.
    When women are interested in joining a military, that is sterling proof that the military is too big, provides too much in the way of benefits, and that troops there no longer face any real risk of injury or death (putting aside the fact that in real combat, women will manage to avoid the front lines in any event).

    This is a good point. There is a thin slice that want to do their patriotic duty. But the point-of-the-spear thing is not something that naturally appeals. So when you’re drawing a decent percentage of women, they are there for the benefits and/or sex with miltiary men. Neither is really the point of the enterprise.

    If you got back to defending the nation–and guys could go to the border and do search and destroy missions against smugglers in the Coronado or pitch Honduran invaders back over a wall–you’d have plenty of young men eager to sign up.

  110. Awesome. A half gay and female military will resemble a Monty Python skit when attempting the Clampdown on White men by President Harris.

    Meanwhile a nascent Freikorps of White men. Beautiful. I love it when a plan comes together.

  111. @zoozoo
    Something every corporate executive, university chancellor and aspiring military officer understands is that you must appease the Left. For the most part, the Right can be ignored, since they advocate a "principled" hands-off approach to dealing with institutions.

    Conservatives have to figure out a way for handling this asymmetry of incentives. In blithely advocating free markets and limited government, they simply hand the reigns over to the Left, whenever they may take control again, to write the laws and regulations.

    If the Left advocates an interventionist approach and the Right takes a strictly laissez faire approach to institutions, then the Right is, in effect, condoning the Left's eventual intervention and social engineering. I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950's.

    If the Left advocates an interventionist approach and the Right takes a strictly laissez faire approach to institutions, then the Right is, in effect, condoning the Left’s eventual intervention and social engineering. I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.

    Billy Graham, preaching from the right, published a tract titled, “The Sin of Tolerance” making the point. At about the same time, from the left, Herbert Marcuse published his “Repressive Tolerance.”

    I doubt that either was aware of the other’s opposed argument.

  112. @Almost Missouri

    "don’t let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you."
     
    That is a very viable strategy

    for 1928.

    Here’s the paragraph that I was replying to from the Zoo man:

    If the Left advocates an interventionist approach and the Right takes a strictly laissez faire approach to institutions, then the Right is, in effect, condoning the Left’s eventual intervention and social engineering. I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s”

    See the bold. I was really just replying to the accusations of this “failing of conservationism since the 1950′s. Go back to the original comment, people.

    Yes, no doubt it is too late for that – Barry Goldwater has died. Nixon didn’t appoint him to S.Court (not like that a-hole would have even thought about it). There were not enough proto-Ron Pauls. Etc, Etc. It’s way too late for all that. I! GET! THAT! [/Carlson]

    However, that’s not to say that eating back away at the powers of “our” Feral Gov’t is not still a good thing. There are lots of other problems to solve in the meantime, if at all possible, but perhaps people should look back on how they came to be in this so powerless position, where the central government does whatever the elites and Big-Biz interests want regardless of what the average American patriot wants, just in case we have another chance.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  113. @Reg Cæsar

    No civil rites law...
     
    Considering that you're familiar with the difference between rein and reign, we have to assume that this particular eggcorn was deliberate.

    Yes, it was deliberate. My point in that is the “civil rights” business is NOT about Constitutional rights for people. It is about giving out certain favors to certain groups, like some kind of “rites” to atone for our sins, I dunno?

    What the heck is an “eggcorn”, BTW? I’ve read it a couple of times now – another gaming term?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    What the heck is an “eggcorn”, BTW? I’ve read it a couple of times now – another gaming term?
     
    It's a kind of malappropriatism. But the one to ask is Lady Mondegreen. Ask for her at the Port of Authority.

    Eggcorns and mondegreens

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eggcorn


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoFT3L4KdAM

  114. @International Jew
    I read Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative recently. He was a great man. Too bad Nixon didn't put him on the Supreme Court. Instead of, say, Harry Blackmun.

    AGREED

    I wouldn’t have expected the SC pick. Nixon was a tool. I don’t mean as in “a tool of the elite” or what-have-you. He was just a tool in the sense of an big insult.

  115. @Achmed E. Newman

    I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.
     
    Here's one, ZooZoo: You don't let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you.

    Let's say you voted in my man AuH20 in 1964 and a bunch of proto-Ron Pauls to support him. No civil rites law, no welfare state, no big money to the U's to support all this crap ... it'd have been a whole different ballgame, at least for a few more years till the women's vote brought in more of the "compassionate" ones.

    In other words, the reins may be passed over, but if there is nothing but Constitutionally-approved government in place, there is not enough to reign over to change everything for the worse.

    So you have some ideas for 1964. This is good. Do you have any ideas that are maybe more applicable to the last 50 years of US history?

    For perspective, the sitting Chief Justice and DC Federalist Society member was cowed by the Obama Administration into supporting the individual mandate. It is fairly safe to say anyone with lower job security and independence will likely be cowed by government pressure as well — i.e., basically everyone.

    Do we have any answers, other than harkening back to the pre-Jurassic period and discussing the mythical Goldwatersaurus?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    That was an explanation, Zooman, so perhaps I worded it wrong. Here's what you wrote:

    I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.
     
    I explained why. Got it?

    Justice Roberts was most likely threatened, but possibly bought off for that vote. You are absolutely right that you can't trust those 9 worthless deadbeats to tell us what the US Constitution means. That's why it was written in PLAIN ENGLISH.

    It is fairly safe to say anyone with lower job security and independence will likely be cowed by government pressure as well — i.e., basically everyone.
     
    That' riiggghttt! That's what happens when the government runs everything. OK, we're going around in circles here. Is it a chicken and egg thing? I don't think so.
  116. @zoozoo
    Something every corporate executive, university chancellor and aspiring military officer understands is that you must appease the Left. For the most part, the Right can be ignored, since they advocate a "principled" hands-off approach to dealing with institutions.

    Conservatives have to figure out a way for handling this asymmetry of incentives. In blithely advocating free markets and limited government, they simply hand the reigns over to the Left, whenever they may take control again, to write the laws and regulations.

    If the Left advocates an interventionist approach and the Right takes a strictly laissez faire approach to institutions, then the Right is, in effect, condoning the Left's eventual intervention and social engineering. I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950's.

    Right, this is what I’ve been saying all along. If you don’t suppress the left, they’ll suppress you.

    “Freedom” + “Neutral ground” is a western delusion that never lasts long. It only existed for a few past decades because the left didn’t have enough power yet.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  117. @Achmed E. Newman

    I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.
     
    Here's one, ZooZoo: You don't let the Feral Government get big enough to make all of these decisions for you.

    Let's say you voted in my man AuH20 in 1964 and a bunch of proto-Ron Pauls to support him. No civil rites law, no welfare state, no big money to the U's to support all this crap ... it'd have been a whole different ballgame, at least for a few more years till the women's vote brought in more of the "compassionate" ones.

    In other words, the reins may be passed over, but if there is nothing but Constitutionally-approved government in place, there is not enough to reign over to change everything for the worse.

    In order to prevent the left from growing big government you would have to apply right wing bias across institutions anyway, so you’re back at square one.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    It's not right-wing bias, Jason. Were all the founders and settlers of this country right-wing? Nope, they were just all the most anti-statist people the world had ever seen (at least intelligent ones). The only way the whole thing was gonna work was if you kept the vote to people who had some responsibility. Woman's suffrage was a big fuck-up, of course. Then, as people have written recently, maybe not on this very post, lots of people were let to immigrate who never did GET all this small-government business.

    Things could have been turned around with lots of education for assimilating newcomers, but assimilation doesn't work with large numbers of people. Once the welfare-state got going in the 1960's , that was all she wrote. Even without the 1965 immigration act, welfare has increased breeding of the irresponsible at the cost of the breeding of the responsible, black (mostly), hispanic, or white.

    I don't say the small-government of the American founders could have ever lasted forever, but I can see when it got destroyed. A guy asked what could have been done in the 1950's by conservatives. I answered that they would have had to control the Feral Gov't. They failed at that.
  118. I don’t think that anybody really joins the army for reasons of patriotism; it is a career choice where people can learn a wide variety of skills in an apprenticeship system and late developers can get access to college courses and degrees.

    Even leaving aside the question of veterans’ preferences, there are many careers that it is easy for former military people to move into, such as law enforcement, prisons, all kinds of security, all kinds of transportation, large scale food preparation, all kinds of logistics involving freight and deliveries, warehousing, dog-handling, seamanship, and so on.

    So it is not surprising that in an era when most women have to work there are a number of women who see soldiering as a good opportunity, even though they are generally not particularly keen on actually killing people in hand-to-hand combat. But then again, military recruitment campaigns do not, for some reason, put a lot of emphasis on killing enemy soldiers and civilians.

    In the 60′s or 70′s the British Army had a recruitment slogan along the lines of “See the World, Travel to Exotic Places, Meet Interesting People…” to which someone appended the words “And Kill Them”, which is pretty much to the point.

    This fellow has some interesting ideas about the recent recruitment film shown here:

    • Troll: Desiderius
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    Much like this classic from Russia:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1idTSSc_7Ts

    The contrast is laughable.
  119. @Buzz Mohawk

    Has anyone informed our nation’s enemies that they really need to let the girls win – or else?
     
    It's actually a brilliant strategy.

    After any war, there will be a Nuremberg-like trial. Enemy leaders will be found guilty of ordering violence against women. (They will be tortured into confessing this, and then they will be hanged.) Their countries will be divided and placed under Bolshevik control.

    Our zookeepers win again.

    Implicit in your comment is that we will win. Winners hold the trials, and America will not win another world war with a progressive military.

    • Replies: @BB753
    The American military has no strategies to win wars. It's designed to spend a trillion dollars to lose a war against goat-herders.
  120. So it is not surprising that in an era when most women have to work there are a number of women who see soldiering as a good opportunity, even though they are generally not particularly keen on actually killing people in hand-to-hand combat. But then again, military recruitment campaigns do not, for some reason, put a lot of emphasis on killing enemy soldiers and civilians.

    Yep. I would assume that enlistment of women is more sensitive to economic conditions, but I’ve never seen any data on the point.

  121. @Dr. X
    I think there is a role for females in combat arms, but it's an extremely limited, niche role. My daughter served in a female unit in Afghanistan. They were partnered with male Special Forces units making raids on Taliban commanders. The job of the females was to handle the women and children during the raids. The females in the unit, including my daughter, were motivated, intelligent, and physically fit.

    But as I said, that is a specific niche role, analogous to sending female cops on SWAT team drug raids to handle the women and children of drug dealers.

    With all exceptions duly noted, as a general principle, putting women in combat arms in Big Army units is absurd. Big Army units have to be designed around the capabilities of average soldiers, not the one percent of extraordinary females who are capable of performing on par with men. There's simply no way you could ever have entire female battalions performing the way men did at Omaha Beach or at Chosin.

    The fact that we are willing to entertain the very idea of putting females in combat arms is a tacit admission that we will never fight battles like D-Day ever again. Modern war has become imperial policing -- so soldiering has become a bureaucratic government job to which females think they're entitled. It's the Post Office with rifles.

    Females in combat arms is merely going to lead to far more deployments like this:

    https://nypost.com/2018/11/10/love-is-a-battlefield-for-husband-wife-who-fought-side-by-side-in-iraq/

    Again, people like you assume that America will decide what kind of wars we fight. The time is coming when the U. S. will be fighting just to survive, The enemy has a vote, and China, Russia and their pals do not care how “fit” your little girl and her friends are. To quote Lazarus Long: “Any fruit will fall when it’s ripe, and the United States is rotten ripe. “

    • Replies: @Dr. X

    The time is coming when the U. S. will be fighting just to survive, The enemy has a vote, and China, Russia and their pals do not care how “fit” your little girl and her friends are.
     
    We're never going to fight Russia or China in set-piece battles with Big Army infantry and armored units. Simply isn't going to happen.

    Nor will the U.S. ever fight another nation-state for its own survival. We'll have another civil war in the U.S. first... or we'll get overrun by hordes of illegal aliens, with the full complicity of the Democratic Party.
  122. @Redneck farmer
    They are reluctantly, slowly changing that policy. Hopefully, they will keep changing the policy.
    Of course, we've never run UCAVs in conflicts where the enemy could jam our communication and GPS signals.

    Exactly. All this Buck Rogers $#!t will look pretty foolish if we ever pick on anyone our own size.

  123. @Jonathan Mason
    I don't think that anybody really joins the army for reasons of patriotism; it is a career choice where people can learn a wide variety of skills in an apprenticeship system and late developers can get access to college courses and degrees.

    Even leaving aside the question of veterans' preferences, there are many careers that it is easy for former military people to move into, such as law enforcement, prisons, all kinds of security, all kinds of transportation, large scale food preparation, all kinds of logistics involving freight and deliveries, warehousing, dog-handling, seamanship, and so on.

    So it is not surprising that in an era when most women have to work there are a number of women who see soldiering as a good opportunity, even though they are generally not particularly keen on actually killing people in hand-to-hand combat. But then again, military recruitment campaigns do not, for some reason, put a lot of emphasis on killing enemy soldiers and civilians.

    In the 60's or 70's the British Army had a recruitment slogan along the lines of "See the World, Travel to Exotic Places, Meet Interesting People..." to which someone appended the words "And Kill Them", which is pretty much to the point.

    This fellow has some interesting ideas about the recent recruitment film shown here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcoDJB2kP7w

    Much like this classic from Russia:

    The contrast is laughable.

  124. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I live in the Northern Virginia area so I've known quite a few current or ex-military officers. People forget that these guys have families and responsibilities just like the rest of us. They have mortgage payments, college savings, car payments, etc. They choose the military as a career, so they have to play along with what their bosses want whether they like it or not.

    It's not any different than a corporate executive. Well, unless they are in combat, but my understanding is that the military did at least up to a five or ten years ago tried to keep the silliness out of units where it could get people killed. Maybe that's changing. Or maybe they'll have women in combat units but keep them out of harm's way and in capacities that don't put men's lives in dangers. I don't know.

    But don't bet on career military officers rocking the boat. They have a lot invested in their careers - pensions, connections after they get out, medical, etc.; they're not going to throw that away.

    And yet, they’ve done so in other countries where they had as much or more to lose.

  125. @Svigor
    TFW when you realize the authoritarian genocidal regime's military is going to be all women, homos, trannies, lowlifes, idiots and cucks...

    They’re more likely to press the red button than white cishet males.

  126. @Jesse
    Your side is massively overthinking this, and it's a large part of why you'll probably lose if you stay on this trajectory.

    The killer argument against women in combat is mind numbingly simple: women are physically weaker. There. That's it. Case closed. If that means the armed forces can't go to war, then maybe the US should stay out of other peoples' business.

    But you seem to see this as something bigger, of men's apparent right to behave like jerks. While extreme feminists are loathed by all right thinking people, so are the extreme men's rights types. The push for people (women AND men) to behave in more thoughtful, controlled, sober, polite and generally middle class ways has a LOT more public support than people here seem to think.

    So while people wish that women would behave like ladies, they also wish that men would behave more like gentlemen. Don't tie something obvious - that women do not have the physical strength for combat - into men's apparent god given right to behave like obnoxious, drunken harassers and rapists. Civilisation is a wonderful thing, and civilising processes - when applied to everyone - make life a lot more pleasant.

    Civilising processes—when applied to war—-make war a lot more unpleasant.

    • Agree: BB753
  127. @Achmed E. Newman

    Meanwhile the Marxians have been praxising all over your sorry asses for half a century now.
     
    Exactly! ('cept I don' know what "praxising" means, but I'll figure it's like "kicking ass" from context.) Without a lot of people backing up the Libertarians and Constitutionalists for the last 1/2 century, what the hell would you expect? Oh, "muh Constitution!" and all the insults, how'd that work out? How do you like living without it in PRACTICE? We're about there.

    Praxis is Marxian for practice.

  128. @Old Palo Altan
    Precisely.

    Paradoxically, our only change of civilisational survival is a crushing defeat.

    I just hope that our conquerors are the Russians rather than the Chinese.

    The Chinese are well on their way already. They may in fact be already there.

    At least we’ll be rid of the Baizou.

  129. The Coast Guard Academy has recently been criticized and probed for not being sufficiently diverse. I have a simple answer: Eliminate the swimming requirements. All similar water- related abilities while you’re at it. Problem solved.

  130. Anon[279] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jesse
    Your side is massively overthinking this, and it's a large part of why you'll probably lose if you stay on this trajectory.

    The killer argument against women in combat is mind numbingly simple: women are physically weaker. There. That's it. Case closed. If that means the armed forces can't go to war, then maybe the US should stay out of other peoples' business.

    But you seem to see this as something bigger, of men's apparent right to behave like jerks. While extreme feminists are loathed by all right thinking people, so are the extreme men's rights types. The push for people (women AND men) to behave in more thoughtful, controlled, sober, polite and generally middle class ways has a LOT more public support than people here seem to think.

    So while people wish that women would behave like ladies, they also wish that men would behave more like gentlemen. Don't tie something obvious - that women do not have the physical strength for combat - into men's apparent god given right to behave like obnoxious, drunken harassers and rapists. Civilisation is a wonderful thing, and civilising processes - when applied to everyone - make life a lot more pleasant.

    The lack of responses to this comment and countless other like it show how weak-willed all the men here are. This is why conservatives have lost the culture wars. You are all a bunch of pussies and you can’t even control your own women. She is pretending to be civil but notice the embedded anti-male barbs. I’d respect her more if she just came out and said what she really thinks instead of this passive aggressive sock puppet bullshit. But she knows how that would go over.

    Jack D? AnotherDad? Crickets as usual. You guys are useless going forward.

    • Agree: Jack Hanson
    • Replies: @Forbes
    If commenter Jesse had an argument, it might be worth responding to, but like yourself, a troll. At least Tiny Duck is entertaining.

    E.g. "you can't even control your own women." Really?

    And Jesse: "men’s apparent god given right to behave like obnoxious, drunken harassers and rapists."

    Right.

    Another lefty lacking the self-awareness gene...
    , @L Woods
    The best response to irritating women is to starve them of the attention they crave. Admittedly, I recently violated my own rule, but the general point stands.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    "The lack of responses to this comment and countless other like it show how weak-willed all the men here are. "

    Or alternatively that some of the comments simply aren't worth bothering with. Don't forget that possibility.
  131. I remember hearing in 2010 from a buddy at the Pentagon that the combat exclusion policy for women in combat arms would …

    Whether this guy’s recollection is 100 percent accurate, we do know the military now has women in the infantry and other items none of us would have imagined. So his point is well taken. Couple this trend in the transformation of our military with the long term demographic trends of the USA, and you have to ask the question: Should the USA begin to denuclearize its military arsenal?

    In addition to the US, the same should be asked about the UK and France. Potentially one or both could become islamic nations. Do we want such nations to have thermonuclear weapons?

    I don’t the think the USA is headed for being an islamic nation. But do we want an irrational, dysfunctional Latin American nation to be in possession of the most dangerous weapons?

    I know this will shock some, but think about South Africa dismantling her nuclear program before ending Apartheid. I would hate to think of the ANC with nukes. Maybe it’s time for the US, UK and France to plan on ridding themselves of their nuclear weapons before it is too late.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
  132. @Cagey Beast
    Having women in combat units will increase the chances the US uses nukes first. Why?

    - Conventional forces will be dramatically less effective.
    - If civilian life is any guide, hysteria, blind rage and despondency will spread far more quickly in a military filled with women. First the overconfidence and then the hysteria.
    - The desire to scold and punish the enemy will know no limits.

    The Bolshevik assault on the Provisional Government ensconced in the Winter palace began, on Oct 25, 1917, with the firing of a BLANK round fired from the battleship Aurora. The huge sound of the blast, much louder than a live shot, caused the frightened ministers in the palace to drop to the floor at once. Some of the troops guarding the palace were women of the so-called Battalion of Death who BECAME HYSTERICAL and had to be taken away to a room in the back of the palace.

    The Women’s Battaion of Death was an all-female “shock battalion”.

    “The Cossacks, in particular, refused to fight alongside women.”

    (Source: Orlando Figes’ “A People’s Tragedy—The Russian Revolution 1891-1924”)

  133. @Achmed E. Newman

    Meanwhile the Marxians have been praxising all over your sorry asses for half a century now.
     
    Exactly! ('cept I don' know what "praxising" means, but I'll figure it's like "kicking ass" from context.) Without a lot of people backing up the Libertarians and Constitutionalists for the last 1/2 century, what the hell would you expect? Oh, "muh Constitution!" and all the insults, how'd that work out? How do you like living without it in PRACTICE? We're about there.

    Exactly! (‘cept I don’ know what “praxising” means, but I’ll figure it’s like “kicking ass” from context.)

    Exactly. By using a “praxis kit” one can unlock more powerups and kick more ass.

    http://deusex.wikia.com/wiki/Praxis_Kit

  134. @Auntie Analogue
    The only sound response to this insanity is the one that General Anthony McAuliffe gave to the Germans' surrender demand at Bastogne: "Nuts."

    When I went to Basic Training at Fort Knox we got up each morning and went across the monkey bars and yelled “Kill, kill, kill”.

    Do they still do that? Can girls traverse the monkey bars?

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Gymnasts could, but they're usually 4'11" and 90 lbs soaking wet.
    , @Coemgen

    Can girls traverse the monkey bars?
     
    You mean the ”horizontal ladder" and I've never seen a girl over the age of twelve attempt to to navigate one. A girl on an HZ is like a guy on a catwalk...

    OT: another Thanksgiving has come and gone and, again, no-one thanked me for paying the taxes that fund their EBT card--much like after five decades of listening to how women are the same as men, no woman has ever asked me out on a date. Sigh. I must have unrealistic expectations.

  135. @Jesse
    Your side is massively overthinking this, and it's a large part of why you'll probably lose if you stay on this trajectory.

    The killer argument against women in combat is mind numbingly simple: women are physically weaker. There. That's it. Case closed. If that means the armed forces can't go to war, then maybe the US should stay out of other peoples' business.

    But you seem to see this as something bigger, of men's apparent right to behave like jerks. While extreme feminists are loathed by all right thinking people, so are the extreme men's rights types. The push for people (women AND men) to behave in more thoughtful, controlled, sober, polite and generally middle class ways has a LOT more public support than people here seem to think.

    So while people wish that women would behave like ladies, they also wish that men would behave more like gentlemen. Don't tie something obvious - that women do not have the physical strength for combat - into men's apparent god given right to behave like obnoxious, drunken harassers and rapists. Civilisation is a wonderful thing, and civilising processes - when applied to everyone - make life a lot more pleasant.

    Civilization is, of course a creation of the men you seem to detest.

  136. @Jesse
    Your side is massively overthinking this, and it's a large part of why you'll probably lose if you stay on this trajectory.

    The killer argument against women in combat is mind numbingly simple: women are physically weaker. There. That's it. Case closed. If that means the armed forces can't go to war, then maybe the US should stay out of other peoples' business.

    But you seem to see this as something bigger, of men's apparent right to behave like jerks. While extreme feminists are loathed by all right thinking people, so are the extreme men's rights types. The push for people (women AND men) to behave in more thoughtful, controlled, sober, polite and generally middle class ways has a LOT more public support than people here seem to think.

    So while people wish that women would behave like ladies, they also wish that men would behave more like gentlemen. Don't tie something obvious - that women do not have the physical strength for combat - into men's apparent god given right to behave like obnoxious, drunken harassers and rapists. Civilisation is a wonderful thing, and civilising processes - when applied to everyone - make life a lot more pleasant.

    Gentlemen don’t win wars. Warriors win wars and eventually become gentlemen.
    As for women, they don’t belong anywhere near a battlefield or for that matter in the military in any capacity. Women of child-bearing age should be having children and caring for them themselves.
    Anything else is civilizational suicide.

  137. Why on Earth would anyone want a kinder, gentler military? Their job is to kill people, at the risk of being killed themselves.

    There’ve been more than a few historical Eowyns: Catalina de Erauso, Deborah Sampson, and “Albert Cashier” have been verified; Mulan may or may not be more than a legend. They did not soften the army to allow themselves to fit: rather, they toughened themselves.

    However, there is a difference between what is sometimes necessary and what is advisable. As Lewis’ Aslan says, “Battles are ugly when women fight.”

  138. @Chris from Gresham
    Hey man, in the Alien sequel Aliens, women Marines were just as badass as the dudes.

    Well, Vasquez was kind of badass. As for the others, Dietrich was the nearest to panicking immediately prior to the initial alien attack and Ferro was just oblivious. All three of them ended up being responsible for some pretty horrific friendly fire incidents.

  139. @Tom Verso
    Russian Navy ... all white males

    I recently watched about an hour and half Youtube video of the Russian "Navy Day" celebration. There were what seemed to be hundreds of ships parading in front of Putin et al. The decks were lined with sailors. From what I could see every ship was filled with white men.

    The clash between Russian and The West is not simply economic and military. It is a clash of cultures.

    Here are the defense ministers of 4 European countries.

    From left to right, Ine Eriksen Soreide from Norway, Karin Enstrom from Sweden, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert from The Netherlands, and Ursula von der Leyen from Germany.

    Here is the Russian Defense Minister.

    I know who I’d want watching my back.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    Yeah, but who would you rather watch twerking?

    Just imagine the Lardassian clan twerking at the enemy. Chemical & biological warfare is illegal, but with fat asses twerking at them, the enemy will claw out his own eyeballs to make the horrors stop..
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I like the Dutch chick. They say there are no virgins in foxholes.
  140. @Pat Boyle
    When I went to Basic Training at Fort Knox we got up each morning and went across the monkey bars and yelled "Kill, kill, kill".

    Do they still do that? Can girls traverse the monkey bars?

    Gymnasts could, but they’re usually 4’11″ and 90 lbs soaking wet.

  141. @Desiderius
    I really doesn’t work past 1912, but that’s close enough for government work.

    You wouldn’t agree that the FedGov reverted to something like Constitutionality during the Coolidge years?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    As well as they could with open floodgates.

    Once the first check was cut by FedGov to an American citizen not for goods or services rendered, the die was cast. I believe that bright line was crossed either in 1913 or in the aftermath of the war, so both pre-Coolidge.

    The other nail in the coffin was of course the Income Tax in 1913.
  142. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I live in the Northern Virginia area so I've known quite a few current or ex-military officers. People forget that these guys have families and responsibilities just like the rest of us. They have mortgage payments, college savings, car payments, etc. They choose the military as a career, so they have to play along with what their bosses want whether they like it or not.

    It's not any different than a corporate executive. Well, unless they are in combat, but my understanding is that the military did at least up to a five or ten years ago tried to keep the silliness out of units where it could get people killed. Maybe that's changing. Or maybe they'll have women in combat units but keep them out of harm's way and in capacities that don't put men's lives in dangers. I don't know.

    But don't bet on career military officers rocking the boat. They have a lot invested in their careers - pensions, connections after they get out, medical, etc.; they're not going to throw that away.

    When the President is Commander in Chief, and the officer class are “just like the rest of us”, where do “their bosses” who are not the President but are somehow immune to the President come from and who are they?

    IOW, where does this powerful and implacable freak class of military overlords come from who are somehow outside of the chain of command for taking orders from above but definitively inside the chain of command for giving orders below?

  143. @Anon
    The lack of responses to this comment and countless other like it show how weak-willed all the men here are. This is why conservatives have lost the culture wars. You are all a bunch of pussies and you can't even control your own women. She is pretending to be civil but notice the embedded anti-male barbs. I'd respect her more if she just came out and said what she really thinks instead of this passive aggressive sock puppet bullshit. But she knows how that would go over.

    Jack D? AnotherDad? Crickets as usual. You guys are useless going forward.

    If commenter Jesse had an argument, it might be worth responding to, but like yourself, a troll. At least Tiny Duck is entertaining.

    E.g. “you can’t even control your own women.” Really?

    And Jesse: “men’s apparent god given right to behave like obnoxious, drunken harassers and rapists.”

    Right.

    Another lefty lacking the self-awareness gene…

  144. @Bill Jones
    Here are the defense ministers of 4 European countries.
    https://girltalkhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2-4-2014-7-08-46-AM-e1457638060447.png

    From left to right, Ine Eriksen Soreide from Norway, Karin Enstrom from Sweden, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert from The Netherlands, and Ursula von der Leyen from Germany.

    Here is the Russian Defense Minister.

    https://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.474621.1498055803!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_900/image.jpg

    I know who I'd want watching my back.

    Yeah, but who would you rather watch twerking?

    Just imagine the Lardassian clan twerking at the enemy. Chemical & biological warfare is illegal, but with fat asses twerking at them, the enemy will claw out his own eyeballs to make the horrors stop..

  145. @Anon
    The lack of responses to this comment and countless other like it show how weak-willed all the men here are. This is why conservatives have lost the culture wars. You are all a bunch of pussies and you can't even control your own women. She is pretending to be civil but notice the embedded anti-male barbs. I'd respect her more if she just came out and said what she really thinks instead of this passive aggressive sock puppet bullshit. But she knows how that would go over.

    Jack D? AnotherDad? Crickets as usual. You guys are useless going forward.

    The best response to irritating women is to starve them of the attention they crave. Admittedly, I recently violated my own rule, but the general point stands.

  146. @Achmed E. Newman
    Yes, it was deliberate. My point in that is the "civil rights" business is NOT about Constitutional rights for people. It is about giving out certain favors to certain groups, like some kind of "rites" to atone for our sins, I dunno?

    What the heck is an "eggcorn", BTW? I've read it a couple of times now - another gaming term?

    What the heck is an “eggcorn”, BTW? I’ve read it a couple of times now – another gaming term?

    It’s a kind of malappropriatism. But the one to ask is Lady Mondegreen. Ask for her at the Port of Authority.

    Eggcorns and mondegreens

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eggcorn

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Thanks, I guess it was too simple for me to get.
  147. @zoozoo
    So you have some ideas for 1964. This is good. Do you have any ideas that are maybe more applicable to the last 50 years of US history?

    For perspective, the sitting Chief Justice and DC Federalist Society member was cowed by the Obama Administration into supporting the individual mandate. It is fairly safe to say anyone with lower job security and independence will likely be cowed by government pressure as well -- i.e., basically everyone.

    Do we have any answers, other than harkening back to the pre-Jurassic period and discussing the mythical Goldwatersaurus?

    That was an explanation, Zooman, so perhaps I worded it wrong. Here’s what you wrote:

    I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950′s.

    I explained why. Got it?

    Justice Roberts was most likely threatened, but possibly bought off for that vote. You are absolutely right that you can’t trust those 9 worthless deadbeats to tell us what the US Constitution means. That’s why it was written in PLAIN ENGLISH.

    It is fairly safe to say anyone with lower job security and independence will likely be cowed by government pressure as well — i.e., basically everyone.

    That’ riiggghttt! That’s what happens when the government runs everything. OK, we’re going around in circles here. Is it a chicken and egg thing? I don’t think so.

  148. @Reg Cæsar

    What the heck is an “eggcorn”, BTW? I’ve read it a couple of times now – another gaming term?
     
    It's a kind of malappropriatism. But the one to ask is Lady Mondegreen. Ask for her at the Port of Authority.

    Eggcorns and mondegreens

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eggcorn


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoFT3L4KdAM

    Thanks, I guess it was too simple for me to get.

  149. @MikeatMikedotMike
    And a 100% casualty/capture rate inflicted on an all female combat unit might be seen as a success, depending how you look at it:

    "Well sir, only 62% of the captured female combatants we recovered so far were impregnated by enemy forces. All of those will be transferred to admin, where they can ride out their 20 at a desk and the bastard kid will be raised on the tax payer dime. With any luck, he won't hate the United States too much once he's an adult. "

    Victory!

    Or government paid abortions as part of their Army “women’s health” benefits scheme, given that their medically-indicated diagnosis resulted from battlefield conditions…

  150. @Jason Liu
    In order to prevent the left from growing big government you would have to apply right wing bias across institutions anyway, so you're back at square one.

    It’s not right-wing bias, Jason. Were all the founders and settlers of this country right-wing? Nope, they were just all the most anti-statist people the world had ever seen (at least intelligent ones). The only way the whole thing was gonna work was if you kept the vote to people who had some responsibility. Woman’s suffrage was a big fuck-up, of course. Then, as people have written recently, maybe not on this very post, lots of people were let to immigrate who never did GET all this small-government business.

    Things could have been turned around with lots of education for assimilating newcomers, but assimilation doesn’t work with large numbers of people. Once the welfare-state got going in the 1960′s , that was all she wrote. Even without the 1965 immigration act, welfare has increased breeding of the irresponsible at the cost of the breeding of the responsible, black (mostly), hispanic, or white.

    I don’t say the small-government of the American founders could have ever lasted forever, but I can see when it got destroyed. A guy asked what could have been done in the 1950′s by conservatives. I answered that they would have had to control the Feral Gov’t. They failed at that.

  151. @BenKenobi
    He was probably trying to get two birds stoned at once.

    Heh!

  152. @Ted
    Again, people like you assume that America will decide what kind of wars we fight. The time is coming when the U. S. will be fighting just to survive, The enemy has a vote, and China, Russia and their pals do not care how "fit" your little girl and her friends are. To quote Lazarus Long: "Any fruit will fall when it's ripe, and the United States is rotten ripe. "

    The time is coming when the U. S. will be fighting just to survive, The enemy has a vote, and China, Russia and their pals do not care how “fit” your little girl and her friends are.

    We’re never going to fight Russia or China in set-piece battles with Big Army infantry and armored units. Simply isn’t going to happen.

    Nor will the U.S. ever fight another nation-state for its own survival. We’ll have another civil war in the U.S. first… or we’ll get overrun by hordes of illegal aliens, with the full complicity of the Democratic Party.

  153. @ACommenter
    I think LGBT has found a new poster child:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-15282A%2C_Ernst_R%C3%B6hm.jpg/167px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-15282A%2C_Ernst_R%C3%B6hm.jpg

    "A intimidation contributed to the rise of the Nazis and the violent suppression of right-wing parties during electoral campaigns, but its reputation for street violence and heavy drinking was a hindrance, as was the open homosexuality of Röhm and other SA leaders "

    Wikipedia fails to mention the SA was founded in a gay bar in Munich

    A intimidation contributed to the rise of the Nazis and the violent suppression of right-wing parties during electoral campaigns…

    You have to wonder how “the violent suppression of right-wing parties” logically fits within the narrative of Nazis as right-wing. Wouldn’t Nazis want allies and corroborators and the like-minded, rather than suppressing them?

    Apparently the National Socialists were left-wing…

    • Replies: @meh

    You have to wonder how “the violent suppression of right-wing parties” logically fits within the narrative of Nazis as right-wing. Wouldn’t Nazis want allies and corroborators and the like-minded, rather than suppressing them?

    Apparently the National Socialists were left-wing…
     

    It is wikipedia, and it is probably just a goof-up on the writer's part.

    The NSDAP did indeed ally with, cooperate with, other right-wing parties, when expedient.

    In the classical sense of left-right division of the legislative body the NSDAP was indeed right-wing, i.e. "on the right" in coalition against the left; but the NSDAP was not very conservative or reactionary, or rather only selectively so, so that's why you get spergs today going on and on about it being "left-wing" because "socialist", which misunderstands what left and right actually are.

    The street fighting was mostly against the communists, and was a reaction to communist attempts to shut down NSDAP meetings. There was a low level civil war going on during the Weimar Republic but leftists and wiki (but I repeat myself) want you to think that the violence and intimidation was coming from the NSDAP alone.

  154. @Pat Boyle
    When I went to Basic Training at Fort Knox we got up each morning and went across the monkey bars and yelled "Kill, kill, kill".

    Do they still do that? Can girls traverse the monkey bars?

    Can girls traverse the monkey bars?

    You mean the ”horizontal ladder” and I’ve never seen a girl over the age of twelve attempt to to navigate one. A girl on an HZ is like a guy on a catwalk…

    OT: another Thanksgiving has come and gone and, again, no-one thanked me for paying the taxes that fund their EBT card–much like after five decades of listening to how women are the same as men, no woman has ever asked me out on a date. Sigh. I must have unrealistic expectations.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    OK, thanks Coemgen. That free turkey and stuffing really hit the spot.
    , @stillCARealist
    I don't have an EBT card, or I'd thank you. Want to go out for coffee some time? Better yet, let's have a date right now. I'm having herbal tea and a dessert. What are you having? Don't be shy now.
  155. @Andrew M
    There’s an asymmetry of motivation. Concentrated benefits but diffuse costs. The Democrats’ coalition of the fringes campaigns for this stuff, but the Republicans are too frightened of being called -ist or -phobe to push back. They’ve been playing defensive ever since the civil rights era.

    You are very right, Andrew, in that lots of the losses on the right are simply due to cowardice, of being called names*. That’s why I brought up R Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in the first place. The man had principles. He didn’t agree with the civil “rites” bullshit on principle, especially anti-discrimination laws, as they violated the right of association, that people still understood back then. He was willing to be called names, though, granted, it was quite a more civil environment back then (for a coupla more years, about), in which people could discuss this stuff reasonably.

    Now here’s something back in common with the commenters (and blogger) herein: You bring large masses of people into the country who DON’T understand any of this, and are not used to civil politics based on reason, and you’ve got a whole lot less of the vote now for your principles.

    * not that damage to career and good name aren’t also a part of what people are scared of too.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Tit-for-tat says good faith must be earned by the demonstrated willingness to repay bad for bad. That was a lesson the entire WWII generation should have learned the hard way and anyone who didn’t was rightfully suspect.

    Johnson’s overtly bad faith was never adequately recompensed - certainly not by Goldwater who refused to do so out of misguided principle - and we’ve all been paying the price since.

    In this very real sense Johnson was the American Hitler/Stalin.
  156. @Bill Jones
    Here are the defense ministers of 4 European countries.
    https://girltalkhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2-4-2014-7-08-46-AM-e1457638060447.png

    From left to right, Ine Eriksen Soreide from Norway, Karin Enstrom from Sweden, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert from The Netherlands, and Ursula von der Leyen from Germany.

    Here is the Russian Defense Minister.

    https://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.474621.1498055803!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_900/image.jpg

    I know who I'd want watching my back.

    I like the Dutch chick. They say there are no virgins in foxholes.

  157. @Jus' Sayin'...
    Someday soon, as Bob Dylan put it, "a hard rain's a-gonna fall", on the nation that allows itself to be run by corrupt morons like these.

    Hey, I just now got that. Sad on my part!

    Now, I always liked Edie Brickell’s version:

  158. @bro3886
    Then again, maybe women in combat won't lower the military's capabilities:

    Marines Were Attacked, Robbed Near “We the People” Rally in Philly

    https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/11/20/marines-attacked-we-the-people-rally/

    If the Marines put the scum in the hospital, or better yet the morgue, they’d be in jail. “Just poor boys who didn’t do nothin’”.

    • Replies: @Corn
    It’s my understanding the DA in Philly is a hard left liberal who’s damn near pro-criminal
  159. @Coemgen

    Can girls traverse the monkey bars?
     
    You mean the ”horizontal ladder" and I've never seen a girl over the age of twelve attempt to to navigate one. A girl on an HZ is like a guy on a catwalk...

    OT: another Thanksgiving has come and gone and, again, no-one thanked me for paying the taxes that fund their EBT card--much like after five decades of listening to how women are the same as men, no woman has ever asked me out on a date. Sigh. I must have unrealistic expectations.

    OK, thanks Coemgen. That free turkey and stuffing really hit the spot.

    • LOL: Coemgen
  160. @Dr. X
    I think there is a role for females in combat arms, but it's an extremely limited, niche role. My daughter served in a female unit in Afghanistan. They were partnered with male Special Forces units making raids on Taliban commanders. The job of the females was to handle the women and children during the raids. The females in the unit, including my daughter, were motivated, intelligent, and physically fit.

    But as I said, that is a specific niche role, analogous to sending female cops on SWAT team drug raids to handle the women and children of drug dealers.

    With all exceptions duly noted, as a general principle, putting women in combat arms in Big Army units is absurd. Big Army units have to be designed around the capabilities of average soldiers, not the one percent of extraordinary females who are capable of performing on par with men. There's simply no way you could ever have entire female battalions performing the way men did at Omaha Beach or at Chosin.

    The fact that we are willing to entertain the very idea of putting females in combat arms is a tacit admission that we will never fight battles like D-Day ever again. Modern war has become imperial policing -- so soldiering has become a bureaucratic government job to which females think they're entitled. It's the Post Office with rifles.

    Females in combat arms is merely going to lead to far more deployments like this:

    https://nypost.com/2018/11/10/love-is-a-battlefield-for-husband-wife-who-fought-side-by-side-in-iraq/

    I’d just as soon we drop the imperial policing part–by dropping the imperial aspect of US foreign policy. The Post Office with rifles characterization is proof US policy has gone off the rails.

    The need for females in forward combat positions for the reason outlined (handling women/children) suggests the use-of-military-force policy is dead wrong. Defeat of the enemy, with cultural sensitivity included, is the definition of quagmire and the absence of a military objective.

    The “lessons learned” experience should be a warning not to entertain these kinds of reckless policies–not a doubling down as to how to be more sensitive and culturally appropriate in combat and war fighting.

    My nephew (infantry sergeant) and niece (Army MD) both served in Iraq, so I understand sacrifice and am grateful for and respectful of your daughter’s service.

  161. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I live in the Northern Virginia area so I've known quite a few current or ex-military officers. People forget that these guys have families and responsibilities just like the rest of us. They have mortgage payments, college savings, car payments, etc. They choose the military as a career, so they have to play along with what their bosses want whether they like it or not.

    It's not any different than a corporate executive. Well, unless they are in combat, but my understanding is that the military did at least up to a five or ten years ago tried to keep the silliness out of units where it could get people killed. Maybe that's changing. Or maybe they'll have women in combat units but keep them out of harm's way and in capacities that don't put men's lives in dangers. I don't know.

    But don't bet on career military officers rocking the boat. They have a lot invested in their careers - pensions, connections after they get out, medical, etc.; they're not going to throw that away.

    That’s the problem right there. The service shouldn’t be a career, nobody should ever have the opportunity to build a life or a family around employment in the service. It’s called the service for a reason. In the past people intrinsically understood this. It was an institution where poor boys could volunteer to serve, and possibly die for, their country. They could do it for a few years while developing skills and figuring out what they actually ea Ted to do with their lives. If the service is a lifetime career with pensions and health insurance, that’s what is attracting women to it in the first place. Not the opportunity to serve their country, how icky.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    In the past people were intrinsically drafted.
  162. @vinny
    It doesn't take balls to bomb a bunch of Arab goat farmers from a drone while sitting in a trailer in the middle of nowhere Nevada, so who cares.

    Just wondering– what is the NFL rule covering forward passes, or punts, that happen to collide with a drone? One appeared on screen on T-day.

  163. @bro3886
    Then again, maybe women in combat won't lower the military's capabilities:

    Marines Were Attacked, Robbed Near “We the People” Rally in Philly

    https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/11/20/marines-attacked-we-the-people-rally/

    Is that guy wearing Eagles merchandise?

    Had Fusilier Rigby fought off his attackers, would that in itself have been a crime?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby

    • Replies: @NZLex
    Probably not then (ie, when Rigby was killed) but it absolutely would be now in this mad age of PC one-upmanship.
  164. @Svigor
    TFW when you realize the authoritarian genocidal regime's military is going to be all women, homos, trannies, lowlifes, idiots and cucks...

    The enemy cannot press a button if you disable his hand!

  165. @zoozoo
    Something every corporate executive, university chancellor and aspiring military officer understands is that you must appease the Left. For the most part, the Right can be ignored, since they advocate a "principled" hands-off approach to dealing with institutions.

    Conservatives have to figure out a way for handling this asymmetry of incentives. In blithely advocating free markets and limited government, they simply hand the reigns over to the Left, whenever they may take control again, to write the laws and regulations.

    If the Left advocates an interventionist approach and the Right takes a strictly laissez faire approach to institutions, then the Right is, in effect, condoning the Left's eventual intervention and social engineering. I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950's.

    Or the right could just put Conservatives and Conservatism out to pasture, and answer left-radicalism with right-radicalism. Which is kinda what’s in progress now.

    • Agree: meh
  166. @Anon

    Things will come to an interesting pass when we get into a war in which there are lots of POW’s taken by our adversaries.
     
    Those kind of wars are over. Everything is guerrilla warfare now with adversaries who are not nation-states. The only options are instant death, beheading on YouTube, or held for ransom. You think these guys are going to build and operate a Geneva IV grade POW camp?

    So the women “soldiers” taken captive will be raped by enemy guerillas, not proper enemy soldiers. That’s probably worse.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
    Agree. A male POW might be chained to a radiator for 4 years while being held to ransom. A female POW will suffer the same fate plus multiple rapes each day.
  167. @vinny
    It doesn't take balls to bomb a bunch of Arab goat farmers from a drone while sitting in a trailer in the middle of nowhere Nevada, so who cares.

    But it takes balls to be good at it. I mean, it literally takes testosterone to be good at playing video games, or piloting a UAV remotely to bomb Arab goat farmers, as you say.

  168. @Blodgie
    Combat troops are dipshits who willingly signed up for exactly this kind of PC nonsense. They deserve their eventual fate. In this day and age why would anyone literally sign their life away to the government?

    Ignorance? Lack of better options? Misplaced feelings of patriotism?

    Admittedly I haven’t liked many of the military men I have known. Perhaps calling them dipshits is apt, but I suppose I’m too much of a dipshit myself not to have sympathy for them. Regardless, the quality of the American men who sign up for combat duty is much higher than what we are getting in spades from the third world right now.

  169. Everything that comes from the Left these days is about undermining this country and its traditions. This comes as no surprise. The LGBT and feminist agendas are a main pillar in their strategy.

  170. anonymous[101] • Disclaimer says:

    Ho-hum. Anyone here onboard with all these wars of ours? If some women are stupid enough to want to join up and volunteer for combat roles then let them. Nobody cares about some dead dykes anyway. If some future prospective war somewhere in wazooland grinds to failure because of their ineptness it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference since the point usually is just to burn up some money. But hey, thanks for your service.

  171. @Almost Missouri
    You wouldn't agree that the FedGov reverted to something like Constitutionality during the Coolidge years?

    As well as they could with open floodgates.

    Once the first check was cut by FedGov to an American citizen not for goods or services rendered, the die was cast. I believe that bright line was crossed either in 1913 or in the aftermath of the war, so both pre-Coolidge.

    The other nail in the coffin was of course the Income Tax in 1913.

  172. OT:

    Steve, do you have any thoughts on the pedophile culture in Hollywood?

    https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/11/blind-items-revealed-17-anniversary.html

    • Replies: @anonymous

    Steve, do you have any thoughts on the pedophile culture in Hollywood?
     
    Please. He defended James Gunn and his disturbing tweets.
  173. @Ted
    Implicit in your comment is that we will win. Winners hold the trials, and America will not win another world war with a progressive military.

    The American military has no strategies to win wars. It’s designed to spend a trillion dollars to lose a war against goat-herders.

  174. @Kyle
    That’s the problem right there. The service shouldn’t be a career, nobody should ever have the opportunity to build a life or a family around employment in the service. It’s called the service for a reason. In the past people intrinsically understood this. It was an institution where poor boys could volunteer to serve, and possibly die for, their country. They could do it for a few years while developing skills and figuring out what they actually ea Ted to do with their lives. If the service is a lifetime career with pensions and health insurance, that’s what is attracting women to it in the first place. Not the opportunity to serve their country, how icky.

    In the past people were intrinsically drafted.

  175. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm
    This is a superb reason to cut the military budget by 80%.

    When women are interested in joining a military, that is sterling proof that the military is too big, provides too much in the way of benefits, and that troops there no longer face any real risk of injury or death (putting aside the fact that in real combat, women will manage to avoid the front lines in any event).

    thats true but its not why the (((leftists))) are really doing it, they do it because no matter what they have deconstructed they know that the bedrock of a civilization is its violence ability and violence ability has always been owned by the right so no matter how far left they have destroyed us its still possible a military coup could undo it in a week. So they try to dindu the army but dindus are dummies women and fags they hope will have enough brains and be loyal leftists and can stop any coups

  176. @Anon
    The lack of responses to this comment and countless other like it show how weak-willed all the men here are. This is why conservatives have lost the culture wars. You are all a bunch of pussies and you can't even control your own women. She is pretending to be civil but notice the embedded anti-male barbs. I'd respect her more if she just came out and said what she really thinks instead of this passive aggressive sock puppet bullshit. But she knows how that would go over.

    Jack D? AnotherDad? Crickets as usual. You guys are useless going forward.

    “The lack of responses to this comment and countless other like it show how weak-willed all the men here are. “

    Or alternatively that some of the comments simply aren’t worth bothering with. Don’t forget that possibility.

  177. @Achmed E. Newman
    You are very right, Andrew, in that lots of the losses on the right are simply due to cowardice, of being called names*. That's why I brought up R Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in the first place. The man had principles. He didn't agree with the civil "rites" bullshit on principle, especially anti-discrimination laws, as they violated the right of association, that people still understood back then. He was willing to be called names, though, granted, it was quite a more civil environment back then (for a coupla more years, about), in which people could discuss this stuff reasonably.

    Now here's something back in common with the commenters (and blogger) herein: You bring large masses of people into the country who DON'T understand any of this, and are not used to civil politics based on reason, and you've got a whole lot less of the vote now for your principles.


    * not that damage to career and good name aren't also a part of what people are scared of too.

    Tit-for-tat says good faith must be earned by the demonstrated willingness to repay bad for bad. That was a lesson the entire WWII generation should have learned the hard way and anyone who didn’t was rightfully suspect.

    Johnson’s overtly bad faith was never adequately recompensed – certainly not by Goldwater who refused to do so out of misguided principle – and we’ve all been paying the price since.

    In this very real sense Johnson was the American Hitler/Stalin.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_Tat
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    Johnson's campaign had "Daisies." Goldwater's had Reagan's "A Time for Choosing."

    The people got what they voted for, and perhaps deserved, but the punishment has extended to their children and their children's children.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't get what Mr. Goldwater should have done at that point, after the election. Or, are you saying that he didn't go full out against the Socialist bastard LBJ during the election campaign? (I wasn't here, or there.) I know that the press, as was pretty much standard during the entire Cold War, made Goldwater out to be a big warmonger. Boy were the young people surprised by the way that worked out!
  178. @Desiderius
    Tit-for-tat says good faith must be earned by the demonstrated willingness to repay bad for bad. That was a lesson the entire WWII generation should have learned the hard way and anyone who didn’t was rightfully suspect.

    Johnson’s overtly bad faith was never adequately recompensed - certainly not by Goldwater who refused to do so out of misguided principle - and we’ve all been paying the price since.

    In this very real sense Johnson was the American Hitler/Stalin.
  179. @Desiderius
    Tit-for-tat says good faith must be earned by the demonstrated willingness to repay bad for bad. That was a lesson the entire WWII generation should have learned the hard way and anyone who didn’t was rightfully suspect.

    Johnson’s overtly bad faith was never adequately recompensed - certainly not by Goldwater who refused to do so out of misguided principle - and we’ve all been paying the price since.

    In this very real sense Johnson was the American Hitler/Stalin.

    Johnson’s campaign had “Daisies.” Goldwater’s had Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing.”

    The people got what they voted for, and perhaps deserved, but the punishment has extended to their children and their children’s children.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    You can’t put your country in the hands of a man who doesn’t know how to deal with bad faith. Those who do, foreign or domestic will walk all over him. That’s why Goldwater (and Romney/Ryan) lost.

    Johnson was a bastard, but he was our bastard. Better than a pussy or a naïf.
  180. @Lowe
    So the women "soldiers" taken captive will be raped by enemy guerillas, not proper enemy soldiers. That's probably worse.

    Agree. A male POW might be chained to a radiator for 4 years while being held to ransom. A female POW will suffer the same fate plus multiple rapes each day.

    • Replies: @BB753
    In the Middle-East, a male POW will be as likely to be raped as a woman.
  181. @Forbes
    I've offered the same suggestion. An infantry company of 120 female soldiers headed by a female captain, plus female NCOs and female platoon LTs would make a nice test subject for comparison to an all-male company.

    The result would be another "achievement gap" where, instead of abandoning the experiment (because real diversity in performance exists as between males and females), progressives would double-down, insisting on more training, re-norming evaluations (test scores), more time (experiments) to prove their "theories." Ad infinitum...

    And that's exactly why it won't happen because it opens the debate rather than keeping it closed. To entertain females in combat roles, they need to hide them under cover of male soldiers, i.e. their ineffectiveness needs to be diluted amongst competent male soldiers.

    As is the case with toxicology, the dose is the poison. Much that is toxic in quantity is harmless in low dosages. I don't think this is the correct argument, not do I think "harmless" is the argument offered. Purposeful social engineering of "changing the culture" is the agenda.

    Why do that? Why not just compare units that are all men vs. units that are mixed? We have that right now, don’t we?

    My guess is that there’s a million studies looking at what makes a specified military group function the best from all possible angles. Let’s see the data. Is the presence of women helpful, harmful, or neutral? Oh, and while we’re at it, tell us about the presence of open homos. How does that affect the group?

    • Replies: @Forbes
    Naive much? If there were data--from 1 or a million studies--don't you think it would've been offered up already as proof positive of the policy rationale?

    It's a political decision, pure and simple.

    And no, the US does not currently have mixed-sex infantry units.
  182. @Coemgen

    Can girls traverse the monkey bars?
     
    You mean the ”horizontal ladder" and I've never seen a girl over the age of twelve attempt to to navigate one. A girl on an HZ is like a guy on a catwalk...

    OT: another Thanksgiving has come and gone and, again, no-one thanked me for paying the taxes that fund their EBT card--much like after five decades of listening to how women are the same as men, no woman has ever asked me out on a date. Sigh. I must have unrealistic expectations.

    I don’t have an EBT card, or I’d thank you. Want to go out for coffee some time? Better yet, let’s have a date right now. I’m having herbal tea and a dessert. What are you having? Don’t be shy now.

    • LOL: Coemgen
  183. @Colin Wright
    Well, let's just hope the war we get humiliated in isn't too important.

    When I see crap like this, I have to begin to seriously consider whether hidden foreign undermining of our country is a real thing.

    Replace Sgt York and Gen Douglas MacArthur with Richard Simmons and the Olsen twins. What could possibly go wrong?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I guess if there is a war we’ll finally get to put to the test the idea of whether these things are all just patriarchal supremacy or whether tangible differences exist between the sexes.
  184. @Anonymous
    When I see crap like this, I have to begin to seriously consider whether hidden foreign undermining of our country is a real thing.

    Replace Sgt York and Gen Douglas MacArthur with Richard Simmons and the Olsen twins. What could possibly go wrong?

    I guess if there is a war we’ll finally get to put to the test the idea of whether these things are all just patriarchal supremacy or whether tangible differences exist between the sexes.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Please.

    They’re put to the test every day. Pretending those who are imposing this utter nonsense will accept the results of any hypothetical test is the kind of cowardly naïveté that encourages them to keep imposing more and more.

    It doesn’t stop until we grow some balls and tell them no.
  185. @Redneck farmer
    If the Marines put the scum in the hospital, or better yet the morgue, they'd be in jail. "Just poor boys who didn't do nothin'".

    It’s my understanding the DA in Philly is a hard left liberal who’s damn near pro-criminal

  186. @Desiderius
    Tit-for-tat says good faith must be earned by the demonstrated willingness to repay bad for bad. That was a lesson the entire WWII generation should have learned the hard way and anyone who didn’t was rightfully suspect.

    Johnson’s overtly bad faith was never adequately recompensed - certainly not by Goldwater who refused to do so out of misguided principle - and we’ve all been paying the price since.

    In this very real sense Johnson was the American Hitler/Stalin.

    I don’t get what Mr. Goldwater should have done at that point, after the election. Or, are you saying that he didn’t go full out against the Socialist bastard LBJ during the election campaign? (I wasn’t here, or there.) I know that the press, as was pretty much standard during the entire Cold War, made Goldwater out to be a big warmonger. Boy were the young people surprised by the way that worked out!

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    If Caro found out the truth about Johnson and told the world with a mere academic career at stake, why couldn’t Goldwater with the Presidency? As so many here have pointed out, that election was the most important of the 21st Century.

    That question is not rhetorical and should answer all your other ones. There is no virtue in abetting evil or abandoning one’s country to its depredations.

  187. @Rosie

    There is a loosely connected group of advocates that have found huge traction with the current civilian leadership here and they have a pretty well-thought out campaign plan to get women into combat arms,” he told me.
     
    Who are these people, I wonder.

    The effort to change military culture also includes the effort to overturn the combat exclusion rule. This rule, as many advocates for overturning it have argued, is the strongest reason that men view women as less than men. According to some, it is the reason military men rape women, sexually harass them, and devalue them. It is the reason women get out of the service at higher rates, are injured more than men, have more PTSD issues, and score less on their PT tests.
     
    This makes exactly no sense. Moreover, I'm certain that whoever is pushing for this change doesn't really have women's best interests at heart.

    Don’t overthink it. Combat experience is a requirement for advancement. Winning?? Not so much.

    Combat isn’t all that. popular among men, and likely less so for women.

    The people pushing this are careerists. Wedge issue alert.

  188. @stillCARealist
    Why do that? Why not just compare units that are all men vs. units that are mixed? We have that right now, don't we?

    My guess is that there's a million studies looking at what makes a specified military group function the best from all possible angles. Let's see the data. Is the presence of women helpful, harmful, or neutral? Oh, and while we're at it, tell us about the presence of open homos. How does that affect the group?

    Naive much? If there were data–from 1 or a million studies–don’t you think it would’ve been offered up already as proof positive of the policy rationale?

    It’s a political decision, pure and simple.

    And no, the US does not currently have mixed-sex infantry units.

  189. @zoozoo
    Something every corporate executive, university chancellor and aspiring military officer understands is that you must appease the Left. For the most part, the Right can be ignored, since they advocate a "principled" hands-off approach to dealing with institutions.

    Conservatives have to figure out a way for handling this asymmetry of incentives. In blithely advocating free markets and limited government, they simply hand the reigns over to the Left, whenever they may take control again, to write the laws and regulations.

    If the Left advocates an interventionist approach and the Right takes a strictly laissez faire approach to institutions, then the Right is, in effect, condoning the Left's eventual intervention and social engineering. I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950's.

    Yeah, the Washington Generals aren’t there to actually win. American conservatives are not on the right and never have been. The US is a leftist country through and through and from its birth. Hankerin’ for the leftism of your granddaddy doesn’t make you a rightist. Etc.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    American conservatives are not on the right and never have been.
     
    Being right-wing doesn't make you a conservative. The right-wing in the U.S. is solidly liberal and always has been. And leftist and liberal are not the same thing, not even close.
  190. @Forbes
    Too obvious, too short-term.

    Women in combat arms is for the purpose of ending any war fighting. Women in combat arms is a jobs program. It's a contest of "firsts" that government and media get to pronounce--it's got absolutely nothing to do with readiness and effectiveness. Quite the opposite.

    Women generals and admirals, women as defense secretaries, a woman president, et al., will prevent rape of female POWs because there won't be any female soldiers sent as fodder.

    How many more Jessica Lynch stories will politicians countenance?

    We can hope.

  191. @Blodgie
    Combat troops are dipshits who willingly signed up for exactly this kind of PC nonsense. They deserve their eventual fate. In this day and age why would anyone literally sign their life away to the government?

    . . . said every libertarian ever when presented with the consequences of his ideology.

  192. @International Jew
    I'm certain he knows the difference, but I'm left scratching my head over what exactly he meant by it.

    Wow.

  193. @Dr. X
    I think there is a role for females in combat arms, but it's an extremely limited, niche role. My daughter served in a female unit in Afghanistan. They were partnered with male Special Forces units making raids on Taliban commanders. The job of the females was to handle the women and children during the raids. The females in the unit, including my daughter, were motivated, intelligent, and physically fit.

    But as I said, that is a specific niche role, analogous to sending female cops on SWAT team drug raids to handle the women and children of drug dealers.

    With all exceptions duly noted, as a general principle, putting women in combat arms in Big Army units is absurd. Big Army units have to be designed around the capabilities of average soldiers, not the one percent of extraordinary females who are capable of performing on par with men. There's simply no way you could ever have entire female battalions performing the way men did at Omaha Beach or at Chosin.

    The fact that we are willing to entertain the very idea of putting females in combat arms is a tacit admission that we will never fight battles like D-Day ever again. Modern war has become imperial policing -- so soldiering has become a bureaucratic government job to which females think they're entitled. It's the Post Office with rifles.

    Females in combat arms is merely going to lead to far more deployments like this:

    https://nypost.com/2018/11/10/love-is-a-battlefield-for-husband-wife-who-fought-side-by-side-in-iraq/

    But as I said, that is a specific niche role, analogous to sending female cops on SWAT team drug raids to handle the women and children of drug dealers.

    There is no reason for those female cops to be cops. They can be social workers/nurses/etc. There is no reason for those female soldiers to be soldiers. They can be social workers/nurses/etc.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    They should be wives and mothers.
    , @BB753
    Why can't a male officer frisk or arrest a female perp? It's ridiculous. Aren't we all equal? Female cops have no reason to exist outside of desk jobs.
  194. @Stan Adams
    OT:

    Steve, do you have any thoughts on the pedophile culture in Hollywood?

    https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/11/blind-items-revealed-17-anniversary.html

    Steve, do you have any thoughts on the pedophile culture in Hollywood?

    Please. He defended James Gunn and his disturbing tweets.

  195. @Rosamond Vincy
    Johnson's campaign had "Daisies." Goldwater's had Reagan's "A Time for Choosing."

    The people got what they voted for, and perhaps deserved, but the punishment has extended to their children and their children's children.

    You can’t put your country in the hands of a man who doesn’t know how to deal with bad faith. Those who do, foreign or domestic will walk all over him. That’s why Goldwater (and Romney/Ryan) lost.

    Johnson was a bastard, but he was our bastard. Better than a pussy or a naïf.

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Then Nixon should be considered a great president.
    , @BB753
    What! Johnson did more to destroy the United States than any other president, excluding Lincoln! Vietnam, the Great Society, desegregation, capturing the Negro vote, etc. He was a right bastard, agreed!
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Johnson was a bastard, but he was our bastard.
     
    Those of us closely related to Vietnam casualties will have a difference of opinion on that one.
  196. @Bill

    But as I said, that is a specific niche role, analogous to sending female cops on SWAT team drug raids to handle the women and children of drug dealers.
     
    There is no reason for those female cops to be cops. They can be social workers/nurses/etc. There is no reason for those female soldiers to be soldiers. They can be social workers/nurses/etc.

    They should be wives and mothers.

  197. @Anonymous
    I guess if there is a war we’ll finally get to put to the test the idea of whether these things are all just patriarchal supremacy or whether tangible differences exist between the sexes.

    Please.

    They’re put to the test every day. Pretending those who are imposing this utter nonsense will accept the results of any hypothetical test is the kind of cowardly naïveté that encourages them to keep imposing more and more.

    It doesn’t stop until we grow some balls and tell them no.

  198. @Desiderius
    You can’t put your country in the hands of a man who doesn’t know how to deal with bad faith. Those who do, foreign or domestic will walk all over him. That’s why Goldwater (and Romney/Ryan) lost.

    Johnson was a bastard, but he was our bastard. Better than a pussy or a naïf.

    Then Nixon should be considered a great president.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    That’s why he’s Trump’s model.

    But no, not great. Greatness is about what one accomplishes after passing the test of election, which requires a modicum of savvy.

    Which is also why McGovern lost.
  199. @zoozoo
    Something every corporate executive, university chancellor and aspiring military officer understands is that you must appease the Left. For the most part, the Right can be ignored, since they advocate a "principled" hands-off approach to dealing with institutions.

    Conservatives have to figure out a way for handling this asymmetry of incentives. In blithely advocating free markets and limited government, they simply hand the reigns over to the Left, whenever they may take control again, to write the laws and regulations.

    If the Left advocates an interventionist approach and the Right takes a strictly laissez faire approach to institutions, then the Right is, in effect, condoning the Left's eventual intervention and social engineering. I have not heard a single conservative or libertarian thinker address this point, which has also been a large failing of conservatism since the 1950's.

    Here’s an example – Walmart and major league baseball have asked Mississippi senator Cindy Hyde-Smith for donations back due to leftist social media pressure. The corporations all cave to this pressure. Similarly, Land O’Lakes caved to pressure to abandon Congressman Steve King.

    It doesn’t really matter who sits in the white house or Congress. Real power is being able to bend corporations to your will, to get people fired, to ruin people’s lives for acting out of line. The left has all of that power and we have none.

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Hyde-Smith committed the unpardonable sins of attending a segregated private high school, and showing her enthusiasm by joining the cheerleading squad.

    Never mind that she was a minor whose parents decided which school she was to attend.

    Never mind that most girls would be glad to make the cheer squad, even if the school they were cheering for was named "Academy for Drip-Nosed Wonks."

    She must be fiercely punished. As must anyone who was ever nice to her.
  200. @South Texas Guy
    "Most old blokes confuse the display of passion for good faith."

    Definitely agree. They see the boys playing with the cool toys and want in on the action. A few months ago I caught a snippet of retired female marine Ltc. on CSpan 2 who among other things was in charge of a training unit. Long story short, she was talking about how it was her job to train the females marines for combat, and thought it was going to happen, but then was told no.

    I don't remember much about it but a snippet of a quote that the women were "running and shooting" just like the men were. On the surface, it seems OK, but the phrase just seems off. Thankfully, she was forced to retire as an Ltc.

    She was doing her job, trying to train her Marines to be the best they could be, setting strict standards for the recruits and cracking down on her (female) DIs sleeping with men on the base. They complained she was too strict on them and got her fired. Apparently, in today’s Marine Corps, it’s a career-ending mistake to hold female Marines to the (admittedly lower) standards set for them.’

    • Replies: @South Texas Guy
    Well, I may have been caught with my pants down, metaphorically speaking. I didn't see the entire interview, read her book, or for that matter any reviews. I was going by how she sounded off of a brief clip (one or two minutes), which I admit is a mistake.

    But while I hate to use Dan Rather's defense of getting the facts wrong, but ultimately saying the truth, she did strike me as someone who embodies the Peter Principle. Although the times are changing, the marines were, and still are, the service least likely to put up with PC crap.

    My drill instructor (army) at AIT was a black woman, an E-7, who couldn't count cadence. At the time, the services were still letting incompetents with a high-enough pay grade to complete their 20. But even the marines, who I trained with, would not have allowed that to happen.

    One final 'also', while the problem of female higher ups sleeping with suburdinates has been a problem for a couple of decades, I doubt they'd rain hell on her for calling out women for doing. Her gender would shield her from judgement, and so her bosses would welcome it.

  201. @Rosamond Vincy
    Then Nixon should be considered a great president.

    That’s why he’s Trump’s model.

    But no, not great. Greatness is about what one accomplishes after passing the test of election, which requires a modicum of savvy.

    Which is also why McGovern lost.

  202. @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't get what Mr. Goldwater should have done at that point, after the election. Or, are you saying that he didn't go full out against the Socialist bastard LBJ during the election campaign? (I wasn't here, or there.) I know that the press, as was pretty much standard during the entire Cold War, made Goldwater out to be a big warmonger. Boy were the young people surprised by the way that worked out!

    If Caro found out the truth about Johnson and told the world with a mere academic career at stake, why couldn’t Goldwater with the Presidency? As so many here have pointed out, that election was the most important of the 21st Century.

    That question is not rhetorical and should answer all your other ones. There is no virtue in abetting evil or abandoning one’s country to its depredations.

  203. @Bill
    Yeah, the Washington Generals aren't there to actually win. American conservatives are not on the right and never have been. The US is a leftist country through and through and from its birth. Hankerin' for the leftism of your granddaddy doesn't make you a rightist. Etc.

    American conservatives are not on the right and never have been.

    Being right-wing doesn’t make you a conservative. The right-wing in the U.S. is solidly liberal and always has been. And leftist and liberal are not the same thing, not even close.

  204. I don’t understand why so many people are content with half measures. If you want to root out the toxic masculinity in the military then you first need to tackle the gun culture in the military. That’s what attracts the toxic males. Take the guns away from the military and you won’t have to worry about toxic masculinity any more.

    Personally I think that taking the guns away from the U.S. military would be a truly excellent idea in every way.

  205. @James N. Kennett
    Agree. A male POW might be chained to a radiator for 4 years while being held to ransom. A female POW will suffer the same fate plus multiple rapes each day.

    In the Middle-East, a male POW will be as likely to be raped as a woman.

  206. @Desiderius
    You can’t put your country in the hands of a man who doesn’t know how to deal with bad faith. Those who do, foreign or domestic will walk all over him. That’s why Goldwater (and Romney/Ryan) lost.

    Johnson was a bastard, but he was our bastard. Better than a pussy or a naïf.

    What! Johnson did more to destroy the United States than any other president, excluding Lincoln! Vietnam, the Great Society, desegregation, capturing the Negro vote, etc. He was a right bastard, agreed!

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    I'm talking about why he got (re-)elected, not saying he was any good after he was.

    People (rightfully) won't vote for choirboys for President. Triggers the disgust reflex in most normal humans.
  207. @Bill

    But as I said, that is a specific niche role, analogous to sending female cops on SWAT team drug raids to handle the women and children of drug dealers.
     
    There is no reason for those female cops to be cops. They can be social workers/nurses/etc. There is no reason for those female soldiers to be soldiers. They can be social workers/nurses/etc.

    Why can’t a male officer frisk or arrest a female perp? It’s ridiculous. Aren’t we all equal? Female cops have no reason to exist outside of desk jobs.

  208. @Marty T
    Here's an example - Walmart and major league baseball have asked Mississippi senator Cindy Hyde-Smith for donations back due to leftist social media pressure. The corporations all cave to this pressure. Similarly, Land O'Lakes caved to pressure to abandon Congressman Steve King.

    It doesn't really matter who sits in the white house or Congress. Real power is being able to bend corporations to your will, to get people fired, to ruin people's lives for acting out of line. The left has all of that power and we have none.

    Hyde-Smith committed the unpardonable sins of attending a segregated private high school, and showing her enthusiasm by joining the cheerleading squad.

    Never mind that she was a minor whose parents decided which school she was to attend.

    Never mind that most girls would be glad to make the cheer squad, even if the school they were cheering for was named “Academy for Drip-Nosed Wonks.”

    She must be fiercely punished. As must anyone who was ever nice to her.

  209. @Desiderius
    You can’t put your country in the hands of a man who doesn’t know how to deal with bad faith. Those who do, foreign or domestic will walk all over him. That’s why Goldwater (and Romney/Ryan) lost.

    Johnson was a bastard, but he was our bastard. Better than a pussy or a naïf.

    Johnson was a bastard, but he was our bastard.

    Those of us closely related to Vietnam casualties will have a difference of opinion on that one.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    I'm talking about why he was elected in 1964.

    My dad was over there for the first two years of my life, and then stupidly diverced my mom when he got back. I'm well aware of how shitty Johnson turned out to be. If only Goldwater had felt it more viscerally, he'd have done more to take the bastard down in '64.
  210. @Mike Perry
    She was doing her job, trying to train her Marines to be the best they could be, setting strict standards for the recruits and cracking down on her (female) DIs sleeping with men on the base. They complained she was too strict on them and got her fired. Apparently, in today's Marine Corps, it's a career-ending mistake to hold female Marines to the (admittedly lower) standards set for them.'

    Well, I may have been caught with my pants down, metaphorically speaking. I didn’t see the entire interview, read her book, or for that matter any reviews. I was going by how she sounded off of a brief clip (one or two minutes), which I admit is a mistake.

    But while I hate to use Dan Rather’s defense of getting the facts wrong, but ultimately saying the truth, she did strike me as someone who embodies the Peter Principle. Although the times are changing, the marines were, and still are, the service least likely to put up with PC crap.

    My drill instructor (army) at AIT was a black woman, an E-7, who couldn’t count cadence. At the time, the services were still letting incompetents with a high-enough pay grade to complete their 20. But even the marines, who I trained with, would not have allowed that to happen.

    One final ‘also’, while the problem of female higher ups sleeping with suburdinates has been a problem for a couple of decades, I doubt they’d rain hell on her for calling out women for doing. Her gender would shield her from judgement, and so her bosses would welcome it.

  211. @BB753
    What! Johnson did more to destroy the United States than any other president, excluding Lincoln! Vietnam, the Great Society, desegregation, capturing the Negro vote, etc. He was a right bastard, agreed!

    I’m talking about why he got (re-)elected, not saying he was any good after he was.

    People (rightfully) won’t vote for choirboys for President. Triggers the disgust reflex in most normal humans.

  212. @Reg Cæsar

    Johnson was a bastard, but he was our bastard.
     
    Those of us closely related to Vietnam casualties will have a difference of opinion on that one.

    I’m talking about why he was elected in 1964.

    My dad was over there for the first two years of my life, and then stupidly diverced my mom when he got back. I’m well aware of how shitty Johnson turned out to be. If only Goldwater had felt it more viscerally, he’d have done more to take the bastard down in ’64.

  213. All civilizations have a rise, a peak and a fall.
    I put up w/ females in jump school in ’74.
    They were told to pass them.
    I observed 3 pregnant army persons inside the gate of the 3d Infantry Div in Germany as an LNO to a German Panzer division. A that time the Germans had 60 females in their military, all doctors at military hospitals.
    This is a step in the death of an empire. Unfortunately it has affected the entire Western world.
    What admiral could not figure out what would happen when they put ladies aboard ships?

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    What admiral could not figure out what would happen when they put ladies aboard ships?
     
    What happens?
  214. @Forbes

    A intimidation contributed to the rise of the Nazis and the violent suppression of right-wing parties during electoral campaigns...
     
    You have to wonder how "the violent suppression of right-wing parties" logically fits within the narrative of Nazis as right-wing. Wouldn't Nazis want allies and corroborators and the like-minded, rather than suppressing them?

    Apparently the National Socialists were left-wing...

    You have to wonder how “the violent suppression of right-wing parties” logically fits within the narrative of Nazis as right-wing. Wouldn’t Nazis want allies and corroborators and the like-minded, rather than suppressing them?

    Apparently the National Socialists were left-wing…

    It is wikipedia, and it is probably just a goof-up on the writer’s part.

    The NSDAP did indeed ally with, cooperate with, other right-wing parties, when expedient.

    In the classical sense of left-right division of the legislative body the NSDAP was indeed right-wing, i.e. “on the right” in coalition against the left; but the NSDAP was not very conservative or reactionary, or rather only selectively so, so that’s why you get spergs today going on and on about it being “left-wing” because “socialist”, which misunderstands what left and right actually are.

    The street fighting was mostly against the communists, and was a reaction to communist attempts to shut down NSDAP meetings. There was a low level civil war going on during the Weimar Republic but leftists and wiki (but I repeat myself) want you to think that the violence and intimidation was coming from the NSDAP alone.

  215. @captain frank
    All civilizations have a rise, a peak and a fall.
    I put up w/ females in jump school in '74.
    They were told to pass them.
    I observed 3 pregnant army persons inside the gate of the 3d Infantry Div in Germany as an LNO to a German Panzer division. A that time the Germans had 60 females in their military, all doctors at military hospitals.
    This is a step in the death of an empire. Unfortunately it has affected the entire Western world.
    What admiral could not figure out what would happen when they put ladies aboard ships?

    What admiral could not figure out what would happen when they put ladies aboard ships?

    What happens?

    • Replies: @NZLex
    Was it Norwegians? Recently an all-woman Norway Navy ship crashed or something and they said it was because of their periods... true story, though the details may vary slightly due to my poor memory.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    You get Sons of Guns. Because they neither behave nor are treated as Ladies.
  216. @Reg Cæsar
    Is that guy wearing Eagles merchandise?

    Had Fusilier Rigby fought off his attackers, would that in itself have been a crime?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby

    Probably not then (ie, when Rigby was killed) but it absolutely would be now in this mad age of PC one-upmanship.

  217. @Anonymous

    What admiral could not figure out what would happen when they put ladies aboard ships?
     
    What happens?

    Was it Norwegians? Recently an all-woman Norway Navy ship crashed or something and they said it was because of their periods… true story, though the details may vary slightly due to my poor memory.

  218. @RT Rider
    Why go half-ass - get on with it and form all-girl combat brigades. Sounds like a winning strategy to me, at least for the Perfumed Princes.

    Who cares if you win or lose, as long as you look fabulous.

  219. @Anon

    Things will come to an interesting pass when we get into a war in which there are lots of POW’s taken by our adversaries.
     
    Those kind of wars are over. Everything is guerrilla warfare now with adversaries who are not nation-states. The only options are instant death, beheading on YouTube, or held for ransom. You think these guys are going to build and operate a Geneva IV grade POW camp?

    Nope, but as our captured soldier grrrrrls will no doubt find out the (ahem) hard way, the enemy will no doubt operate a really nifty 24/7 rape camp.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Will their offspring be declared enemy combatants or American citizens, or both?
  220. @Anonymous

    What admiral could not figure out what would happen when they put ladies aboard ships?
     
    What happens?

    You get Sons of Guns. Because they neither behave nor are treated as Ladies.

  221. A bit of personal experience.

    I’m an adopted uncle to a young man who joined the front line Infantry and who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why? Because he likes adventure and physical activity. Yes, he’s very patriotic but that’s definitely a secondary aspect. His Army buddies are just the same.

    When I was studying pure (abstract) math, the profs and advanced students were all male. Not army types, but nevertheless manifestations of testosterone. And colleges are also now making moves to distort standards and get equalized outcomes in math …

  222. @fredyetagain aka superhonky
    Nope, but as our captured soldier grrrrrls will no doubt find out the (ahem) hard way, the enemy will no doubt operate a really nifty 24/7 rape camp.

    Will their offspring be declared enemy combatants or American citizens, or both?

  223. @Dr. X
    I think there is a role for females in combat arms, but it's an extremely limited, niche role. My daughter served in a female unit in Afghanistan. They were partnered with male Special Forces units making raids on Taliban commanders. The job of the females was to handle the women and children during the raids. The females in the unit, including my daughter, were motivated, intelligent, and physically fit.

    But as I said, that is a specific niche role, analogous to sending female cops on SWAT team drug raids to handle the women and children of drug dealers.

    With all exceptions duly noted, as a general principle, putting women in combat arms in Big Army units is absurd. Big Army units have to be designed around the capabilities of average soldiers, not the one percent of extraordinary females who are capable of performing on par with men. There's simply no way you could ever have entire female battalions performing the way men did at Omaha Beach or at Chosin.

    The fact that we are willing to entertain the very idea of putting females in combat arms is a tacit admission that we will never fight battles like D-Day ever again. Modern war has become imperial policing -- so soldiering has become a bureaucratic government job to which females think they're entitled. It's the Post Office with rifles.

    Females in combat arms is merely going to lead to far more deployments like this:

    https://nypost.com/2018/11/10/love-is-a-battlefield-for-husband-wife-who-fought-side-by-side-in-iraq/

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.