WOMEN AND WAR
by Alan Stang
April 10, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
Women have been torn from their place. (What? Did he really say that? Yes, he did.) They have been torn from their place by the conspiracy for world government, which has recruited as many as can be duped into serving as lethal weapons to destroy our Constitution and civilization. In a later piece in this series, we shall look at their place – yes, they have one – but for now let’s look at a few examples of that destruction.
It is destruction as total as WW II carpet bombing and ranges across our culture from things as disparate as pronouns and the military. Pronouns? “A man is what he eats.” Yes, a cliché, but a grammatically correct cliché. Nothing remarkable. Except that the sentence I quoted is politically incorrect. It should read, “A person is what they eat.” Now it is politically correct, but grammatically wrong. Now you have a plural pronoun (“they”) and a singular antecedent (person”).
So fanatic is the nation’s Gendapo (remember, you read it first here) that it is messing up our language. You see such pronoun problems everywhere these days, even in publications that lay claim to profundity. Sometimes, in mind’s eye, you can almost see the authors of such grammatical atrocities twisting themselves into pretzels trying to make them “correct.” The Gendapo will do anything to suppress the difference between male and female.
Well, why is it so important? If you are as ancient a geezer as I am, remember the lady who taught you English grammar in school. At the time, you may have thought she had been sent by Hitler or the Devil. What did she say? She said that precision in language (grammar) reflects precision in thought.
Conversely, imprecision in language reflects confusion. And, sure enough, today pronoun problems often make it hard to determine what a politically correct writer or speaker is talking about. Yes, it is a small point. But remember that lack of a nail meant the loss of a kingdom.
Remember also that in Kaleeforneeya the words “mother” and “father” now are apparently verboten in the communist government schools, which may mean that grammatical combat has expanded to include certain nouns. This should be a warning to other states whose governors started their careers posing nude for sodomite magazines. See my book, Not Holier Than Thou: How Queer is Bush?
From war on our pronouns to war on our military, the destruction proceeds, and women are a big reason our military is gone. What? Our military gone? Aren’t you exaggerating? Yes, I am, but only by a little. There are still some warriors in the uniforms of our military. But I contend there are not enough of them to keep the military alive. It’s gone – even my beloved Marine Corps is gone – and women are one of the biggest reasons.
Yes, I know about Israel. I know Israel drafts women, but she does so only because Israel is such a tiny country, and her women – unlike ours – still don’t do combat, despite the enormous pressure exerted by that nation’s womanoids and our own. Yes, during the War for Independence in 1948, women did serve on the front lines – for a couple of weeks. Why for only a couple of weeks?
Because after a couple of weeks, some Israeli female fighters were ambushed. It is difficult to get all the details, but we do know that when the men saw what had been done to their bodies, they went berserk, totally insane. Why? Men do not go berserk when other men are killed.
Could the discrepancy be related to the difference between men and women? (What? There’s a difference?) We have already answered that question in these chapters. Remember, this was 1948, long before Israel was ruled by pansy American puppets; to prevent general military collapse, the women were yanked out. You will find Martin van Creveld at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the Israeli expert on the subject. Van Creveld says in part as follows:
“. . . The expansion of women's role in the military, which took place during the late 1970s, was the result of the Israel Defense Force's (IDF) desperate quest for manpower. This expansion of women's roles coincided with the incipient decline of the Israeli Army as a fighting force. . . . [T]he more women entered the IDF, the more its prestige declined. Thus, in the IDF as in the armed forces of all other developed countries, the entry of women into the military, far from representing a feminist triumph, is both cause and symptom of the decline of the military.”
There is also Mark Helprin, now an American novelist, who served in the Israeli Army. He is against women in combat: “Mainly I'm against it because it's a question of what kind of country we want to be. Any country that sends its mothers and daughters to war is a sick country. But politicians are afraid to say this because women vote, and the politicians cater to their narcissism, which now includes the idea that they should be able to lead a ranger recon squad. They'll be of that opinion until there's a really rough war where they get sent home in body bags. Then they'll change their minds, as they should."
But what about women fighting for their homes and families? Yes, when the enemy rolls down the street, breaking in, looting and killing, confiscating firearms on behalf of Der Heimat Security (DHS), American women of course will do their valiant part. Remember the little, old lady in New Orleans whose little piece the trooper from California took away. Next time, she may not be so easy. But that is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about bull dykes playing power games. We are talking about crazy women who want “careers”; who want to “command” aircraft carriers and feel the sea breeze rustling the hair on their legs. We are talking about pussified male officers who, to preserve their own careers must publicly pretend females in combat and command is such a charming idea. Which brings me to the second of my challenging assertions: that the military is gone.
First, go to the movies. See “Midway.” See “We Were Soldiers,” or “Saving Private Ryan.” There are many others. Pick one. And consider that those movies are just a pale reflection of what it’s like. Then look at the women you know. Could you imagine the women you know doing that? For that matter, could you imagine the women you know running up the stairs with all that equipment in the World Trade Center while the rest of us are running down? How many firewomen were killed there, by the way?
Yes, I know a young Hillary could do it. I know many bull dykes could do it. If this thing could be settled in single combat, I would be perfectly happy to let Hillary cross lances with any enemy you could name. But we are not talking about individual womanoids. We are talking about real women. We are talking about a military, about an army, a navy, the Marine Corps.
A military myth has been created, according to which warfare has changed to accommodate the female military. According to the myth, war is no longer like those movies. Now, in large part, says the myth, it is conducted by beautifully coiffed, highly educated females in uniform, who sit at consoles and give orders like men while they do their nails. Thousands of feet above them, other such females, wearing US Air Force and Navy pilot costumes with the appropriate costume insignia, do the same.
But that is not how our enemies see it. They see it as old-fashioned man to man; they would happily go man to woman as the U.S. military goes house-to-house. Remember house-to-house? It started after Boosh declared “mission accomplished.” And consider that, however deadly, it is only a small part of what General Blood and Guts would have called war.
Advertisement
Maybe this is what General William Westmoreland, who commanded in Vietnam, was talking about in 1976 when he said: “Maybe you could find one woman in 10,000 who could lead in combat, but she would be a freak and we're not running the military academy for freaks. . . . The pendulum has gone too far. . . . They're asking women to do impossible things. I don't believe women can carry a pack, live in a foxhole or go a week without taking a bath.” (Martin Binkin, Who Will Fight the Next War?: The Changing Face of the American Military, Wash., D.C., Brookings Institution, 1993, p. 33)
Here is a description of how bad it is: “The U.S. Naval Academy has added female ‘role models’ to the faculty. In August 1994, the Academy placed a new emphasis on conflict resolution and consciousness-raising. As ‘Lean On Me’ started playing, Master Chief Liz Johns gave the plebes her final orders: stand in a circle, sway to the music, sing along, and hug. From the circle came the sharp sniffle of sobs. The future admirals of America were crying.” Washington Times (“The Crying of the Admirals,” 11/03/95) Guess what? The Red Chinese are glad we do that. They don’t.
Of course, the insertion of women is only one clue that proves our military is gone. Another is the fact that Boosh spends considerable time trying to throw our military men into jail, to such an extent that the wise combat troop goes into action these days with his lawyer. There is a long list of Marines Boosh has tried to nail. He gives the combat edge to the enemy. Talk about sending a message!
Finally, there is the obvious fact – so obvious that it could hit you in the face before you see it – that in World War II we beat Germany, Japan and Italy at the same time in three-and-a-half years; and we are now starting Year Six of the war in Iraq. Hey, Sycophant Petraeus! Why not get your nose out of your surge and do what they allegedly pay you for?
Most Americans still naively assume the unspoken common sense that when our country enters a war we fight to win. General Douglas Macarthur said that, in war, “there is no substitute for victory.” You don’t need to be a military genius to know that. But what few Americans even now understand is that we don’t fight to win, we fight to fight. Victory is irrelevant. The policy at the very top is to fight and to fight, even for a century.
But all of that is not the worst. Here is the worst: “. . . War itself had become professionalized by technical complications, and required the full time of specially trained men; citizen soldiers had to be replaced with mercenaries . . . .” Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Part II, The Life of Greece, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1966, p. 468).
What is historian Will Durant talking about? He is talking about ancient Greece: “Sexual morality was relaxed even beyond the loose standards of the Periclean age. Homosexualism remained popular . . . . Dances of naked women were accepted as part of the mores ... Athenian life was ... a round of triviality, seduction, and adultery. . . .” There was a “revolt against wholesale maternity, and the limitation of the family became the outstanding social phenomenon of the age.” (P. 567)
In salon.com in March, 2007, Helen Benedict wrote about female soldiers in Iraq afraid to use the latrines – and who carry knives when they must – because the danger is great that male (American) soldiers will rape them. General Janis Karpinski says that at least a couple of female soldiers died of dehydration because they did not drink enough water late in the day, so they would not have to potty.
Here is an internet comment on the salon piece: “Well I am over in Iraq now. For the twenty that Helen Benedict talked to there are five times that amount having the time of their lives. . . . Many women are lesbians or bisexuals in the military forces and can be pointed out readily. . . . There was a married Air Force woman who was here until a couple of months ago screwing guys who fit her criteria and desires. Even the contractor women will let you know if you are competing with them for other women or other guys. The homos are having sex so let's not count them out too. . . .”
Because it is somewhat tricky to figure out, you may not realize at first why these unmilitary things happen. Here’s a clue. They happen for the same reason Tailhook happened. Ready? They happen because the women are there. If the women were not there, these things wouldn’t happen. The best way to prevent such outrages is not to put the women there in the first place. Again, I realize this is somewhat tricky.
Most Americans look with favor on the idea of “giving women a chance.” What those Americans don’t realize is that our military has been almost completely feminized. The warrior spirit is on the way out. Remember when the warrior spirit still ruled; when General Anthony McAuliffe said, “Nuts”; when Admiral Yamamoto said, “They fight like Samurai.” With the warrior spirit we beat the most advanced nations on earth in World War II. Without it, we are starting year six in Iraq. Without it, we make nice.
Worse than anything else is the fact that what is happening in the military will leak all over the American landscape. It will pollute our reputation. Men around the world would treat Americans with contempt. If you want to know why, visit any schoolyard and observe. Ask any mom, who will tell you that there is a time in the life of boys when they put the following sign on their bedroom doors: “No Girls Allowed.” That is why.
The fact that we are willing to let females do our fighting is a badge of corruption, a metastasizing fungus that will finish off our Constitution and our liberties. Since that is the inevitable effect of such feminization, could it be the reason the conspiracy for world government has imposed it?
|
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
By the way, for those of you who are wondering – there may be a few – the answer is, yes, the Love Priestess has read and endorsed every word of this screed, except that she did complain about my “namby, pamby” treatment of the subject: “When are you going to tell it like it is?”
Share This Article
