57684-2009-12-02-121214 http://www.army.mil (Photo credit: VA Comm)
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will formally announce today that women will be participating in combat in future U.S. military operations. There is no doubt that some women could be effective in combat. However, there are problems with a general policy allowing women in combat that supporters of the policy change ignore due to their own egalitarian ideological presuppositions.
Just because some women would be effective in combat does not imply that most would be. Nor does it imply that allowing women in combat will not harm U.S. military prowess. Women are not the same as men–anyone not blind can see that–and those differences go beyond distinctions of sexual organs and breast size. Overall, women lack the level of physical strength of men. Exceptions do not trump averages. Carrying heavy packs for many miles, heavy lifting, and other areas of hard labor will still be done mainly by men. The possibility of pregnancy remains a problem. In the U.S. Navy, pregnancy is a problem to the extent that the Navy must assume that a given number of women will be sent home from ship duty over a certain time due to pregnancy. Human nature does not become optional when men and women are in close quarters. The emotional bonds created in combat are deep–soldiers die as much for their buddies as for an abstraction such as their country. Only someone naive would believe that in the stress of combat that only Platonic bonds would be formed between male and female soldiers. Anyone who has been in love understands how such a powerful emotion can interfere with reason and good judgment. The military can write all the policies it wants, but in the end human nature will triumph–and human beings are sexual beings. Pregnancy would become a problem in combat units, perhaps even more so than in noncombat units. Women desiring to remain in combat may be encouraged to have abortions, and beyond this murder of innocent human life other women, not knowing they are pregnant, could be killed in action, taking two lives. True, Israel has women in combat, but even Israel has backed away in part due to problems with military effectiveness.
For years, feminism has been claiming that women do not play a special role in the lives of their children. However, this is not the case. Even in the days of the household economy, in which the fathers provided discipline and moral education for their children, children would more often in the presence of their mothers. Such is the nature of biology, a nature that feminists want to deny or to transcend. Placing women in combat is the end stage of a radical egalitarianism that took away a living wage from a man, forcing a woman to work outside the home, and forcing children without extended family in an area to live their early lives in day care. It is no surprise that the order on women in combat came in the administration of a radical egalitarian from a Marxist background (via Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorn), President Barack Obama. Human nature will assert itself despite attempts to remold it, and the new policy will inevitably fail. If it does not, I will stand corrected–but I have a strong hunch that the ones corrected will be the radical egalitarian policymakers.
Related articles
- Women Sue for Right To Kill… (lewrockwell.com)
- White House says Obama supports women in combat (kvue.com)
- Female soldiers challenge US military over policy barring women from combat (guardian.co.uk)
- Pentagon to overturn ban on women in military combat roles (guardian.co.uk)
- Officials: Panetta opens combat roles to women (usatoday.com)
- Obama Ignores Deadly Risks to Women in Combat (frontpagemag.com)
Feb 08, 2013 @ 22:37:03
As I am sure you know, this is all part of the planned degradation of the human being. Toughen up the woman. Create partnership marriages of endless compromise, raise children in homes filled with confusion and discord. Push nominalism. Treat science like a religion. Undermine the academic life by excluding professors who do not toe the line. (E.g. the one who recently questioned Sand Hook shooting.) And so on. We all know the litany of no-no’s. Use the media and other means to prevent discourse and discussions about vital matters. Distract the public on to minor issues like gay marriage. And now gun control.
There is adequate testimony and scientific study to show that combat and other forms of hard physical labor harm the female anatomy. But like data regarding the consequences of abortion and promiscuity these studies are never given much press. By destroying the feminine there will be nothing left to anchor the man in anything deeper than sense pleasure. And so forth. A nation left then in trivia and confusion will readily go along with the latest dictator.
I believe that is what most mean by the New World Order. The coming time of catastrophe as we live through the reign of power and money. Since the old adage, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, was true, we must now shift that rocking hand to technology. Or some tired and frustrated man or the hired illegal alien!
The manipulators have succeeded–for now. Education in the USA means practically nothing. One is more apt to find ntelligence and an open mind in the work man from Mexico that fixes your sewer than in the academic or person with a graduate degree.
However, as one wise man wrote: do not resist the difficult; it will antagonize it; and it will hit back! So we have to proceed with our best intelligence and meditate deeply on our moves. We can out smart them and beat them at their own game.
Feb 11, 2013 @ 22:24:50
I don’t know about a general conspiracy, but since the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, the notion of egalitarianism has come into vogue in Western society. If you want to place blame, place it on the French Revolution–most of the participants were either deists or outright atheists. When one denies obvious differences between men and women, one goes against sense experience and reason. It is amazing that in our utilitarian society, women are being moved into combat roles that will lead to less utility.
I do not buy into the Rothchild conspiracy theorists. The height of that family’s influence was in nineteenth century England, and its influence has waned in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. If anything, it is Christians who have run the banking system in the West, and I know in Beirut there are a number of Arab bankers, both Christian and Muslim. I am not anti-Jewish–Jesus was a Jew, and in Christian theology the Jews were God’s first chosen people. Although I do not care for Zionism, I have Jewish friends (including Zionists), and while I find their defensiveness about Israel annoying, they are no different that other people who support a cause and are blind to alternatives.
I do think the present financial system is inherently unstable–the massive borrowing governments are doing will lead to economic disaster–the only issue is when. The floating currency market is absolutely insane–currency should be backed up by gold and/or silver. To make the value of a currency dependent solely on supply and demand is an intrinsically unstable system. It fuels the notion that one can charge for money and pay the interest by printing more money as well as selling lots and lots of treasury bonds. Japan and China are thrilled since they hold the United States over a rope. However, without interest, I doubt that banks could lend money unless they charged expensive up-front fees. That may be the best system, but it would mean a fundamental revamping of the post-Renaissance capitalist system that is dependent on usury. (Sorry about the font–I can’t find where to change it).
Feb 12, 2013 @ 00:36:44
Unfortunately the word “conspiracy” which is used probably daily in various court rooms in the USA has come to be a discrediting nomen. In any case it is clear that politicians and business men regularly plan things knowing that they are crossing the line legally and hope they can use their money and power to prevent legal retaliations. As regards the Rothchilds I would not know; however, it is certainly possible to conceal ownership and is frequently done to prevent detection–using shell companies.
I am not sure the current capitalist system is a very good idea. Consider that corporations now dominate world affairs–not nations. Monsanto is involved in the most outrageous experiments by horizontal genetic fiddling the outcome of which no one can even predict–e.g. genetically modified trees. Were one to personify these large corporations one would end up with avaricous and aggressive psychopaths. They are today’s monsters and perhaps unthinkable without usury. Haven’t we allowed the creation of a social world which no longer has much that is human about it?
It seems self evident to me that an agraian society is the one most favorable to human lives. Urban life is very harsh and alienating. And yet corporations need urban areas and are depopulating the rural areas for corporate farms–agrabusiness.
As for a villian of the peace I would suggest the our form of science and technology deserves a special place. For one thing much of it is corrupt. For another it is under the thumb of government and again the corporations. Science is expensive. It exists primarily for the technology it bears and not for the knowledge one might hope to receive.
Reading history I would say that things are generally in decline for quite some time perhaps since the High Middle Ages. My guess is that a major world catastropher will occur before an upturn happens.
P. S. Clearly social engineering is a reality. As is mind control. If you ever listen to NPR you get an idea of what is desired of upper middle class Americans. And of course people in power like all of us believe their ideas are best and would like to see them implimented.
Feb 14, 2013 @ 21:09:19
At the Council of Lateran the subject of usury arose: “A second decree, published in the session of May 14, 1515, includes a declaration on a point of morals. This decree is meant to end a long controversy about practices in the loan offices set up by pious associations as a charity whereby poor people may borrow money and yet escape the usury of the professional moneylenders. The question has been raised whether these charitable agencies (called in Latin montes pietatis) are guilty of the sin of usury if they ask from their clients not only the full sum lent to them but also a small charge to help to cover the running expenses of the office (not however a profit in any way for the office). The bull gives the decision that this practice is perfectly lawful, and that such loans are by no manner of means to be considered an act of usury. All who, after this decree, continue so to stigmatise such loans, whether laymen, priests, or religious, incur the penalty of excommunication.”
It would seem then that the Christian solution would be non-profit banks. Otherwise we enter upon the path of moral relativism. If the distinguished men over many centuries who condemned usury are ignored, then what is to stop the Church from giving gay sex an okay or even some abortions, say during the first two tri-semesters?
This seems especially pertinent given the Catholic Church’s financial activities during the last one hundred years–and the scandals. I believe John Paul I was intending to put this house in order, and next thing he was dead!!
Feb 11, 2013 @ 21:50:31
Since I can not find where our discussion about usury occurred I will stick this interesting but brief video here: “Usury is the Weapon For Getting Our Minds” – Morris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJclE-rr9Sg
There are more persons than you might expect who see an evil in usury which apparently you do not yourself perceive. And I do not mean by usury the modern notion of “reasonable” interest rates. Imagine how the central banks would respond to the prohibition of usury.