Women in Combat...
Just a further assault on women and the family from the "Progressive" Marxist death cult.
“But he who sins against me injures himself; All those who hate me love death” Proverbs 8:36 (NASB)
Trigger Warning:
This was written for those who are able to think for themselves and form an intelligent response. If you are unable to think beyond emotional, canned responses then this essay (or post or blog or whatever these are called) may induce a panic attack. If you feel yourself starting to have a panic attack and you need to escape and be comforted, then go here => Safe space or Safe space 2.
Preface:
I’m changing up how I do things and trying to improve my writing and thinking skills as I progress as a writer. I have no real formal training in writing or in researching so I am figuring this stuff out as I go along. One change that I want to start working towards is adding sources to my ideas in order to more solidify my thoughts. Clicking on the black words will link you to something that I find relevant to what I’m writing here.
As I move forward in writing, I will probably start using a proper format with a bibliography so that I can quote my sources, but for now I’m going to point to the books that I have read as sources. Everything that I have written comes from my own experiences and observations of the world and those experiences and observations have been filtered through a lens which has been shaped through self study. These are my own thoughts on this matter.
I’ve decided that I wanted to engaging culture in a more fundamental way rather than through what I had been doing in the past. Writing about metal working, military history, and industrial processes is fun for me and there seems to be interest in these topics but my motivations have changed. I’m still going to write about those things since they interest me and I feel the need to geek out on mechanical nerd stuff every now and again. However, as the world heads to a darker place, those topics seem to me to appeal more to a sense of sentimentality rather than being as needed as they once seemed.
With that being said, I have decided that I would start engaging culture as best as I can, through my own understanding of what’s going on in the world. We have scores of people writing, talking, making videos, sharing memes, commenting, and opining on the problems in the world and I figured one more couldn’t hurt… so here I am writing about things as I see them. In fact, I have considered changing the name of this page from “Trinity Forge” to “As I see it” or some such thing. I don’t know… just something that I’m thinking about doing…
Anyway… There is a lot going on in my head as I write this and I hope to keep this on track but we’ll see how it goes… Hopefully there isn’t a rewrite into a “part 2” version like I had to do with the “The Great Escapism Part 2” essay.
Before starting this potential train wreck of a discussion I want to make a few points:
The military exists for one reason and one reason only. It exists to kill the enemy and break their stuff. The military exists to win the most brutal contest that mankind has yet invented.
The military has become more of a job rather than what it should be; a profession. A job is something that a person goes to in order to earn a paycheck and usually has no deeper purpose other than that. A profession is something that requires complete dedication and constant personal development. A profession has a deeper purpose and is not something that you leave at the end of the day. A job is something you do, a profession is part of who you are.
The military does not exist as some kind of adventure club or social experiment. It’s purpose is real and is not meant to issue participation trophies. It is a place where only the best and most capable should be accepted into the ranks of warriors.
Women have served and fought honorably in combat units ever since militaries have been a thing and they have many qualities that make them an asset to military as a whole. However, serving in a combat unit is not the same thing as serving as a member of the military who is directly responsible for fighting with the enemy. Only about 10% of the military serves in direct combat related capacities. Everyone else serves in support roles.
Communism was not defeated at the end of the Cold War, it simply went underground and continued to spread.
Communism is not an economic system, it is a system of beliefs and philosophies which enslave those who believe. Marxism/Leninism/Maoism/Communism/Socialism/Nazism are all totalitarian ideologies from the pit of hell itself. These systems of belief tout themselves to be anti-capitalist and purports to free the oppressed but in actual practice is dependent on capitalism and enslaves everyone it becomes a part of. This results in the worst psychopathic people that man kind can produce having money and absolute power over a nihilist population of broken people who will never have access to capital, trust, or peace. The above mentioned ideologies are nothing more than a death cult that destroys everything and everyone who follow them.
The Democrat party is the Communist Party of America. If you want to see why I say this then go the Communist Party USA’s website at CPUSA.org and read their program page and compare that to the Democrat party’s platform.
As I started to write this post, it started to grow into something much more deep and complex than what I originally intended. The more that I thought through my views of the the topic and how I wanted to approach this essay, I realized that in order for me to fully mansplain my thoughts, the essay needed more depth and mansplaining so… the essay continued to grow more and more.
The more I have pulled on the string of thoughts that I have concerning this topic, the longer the string gets and more this topic becomes relevant to the roots of societal change that the west is going through.
What appears as a simple topic to think and write about suddenly gains an amount of depth that could easily fill a book, a book which would be targeted by the progressive left book burners who can not tolerate any challenge to their sacred cows.
When I started writing this, I realized the potential for a train wreck of discussion.
So without further ado… Let’s crash this train…
Some months back my wife and I went to the National Infantry Museum in Columbus Georgia. I enjoyed the museum until we got the to modern army era. Several of the exhibits showcased women in infantry units and in combat units. When we got to those exhibits, I started to get angry and then depressed, but I couldn’t quite place the emotions. I didn’t understand why I had that reaction to seeing those exhibits. It wasn’t because I was jealous or because of feeling insecure. I understand those emotions when I have them and this wasn’t it. This was a stronger, deeper feeling that something was wrong in a more fundamental and major way.
I read a post a while back on a fakebook veterans group where some guy was pissed off because another person had made a double plus ungood comment about the first female soldier graduating the US Army’s sniper school.
The pissed off fakebook guy was upset because of the negative comment that was made towards the female graduate and because the moderators had allowed someone to have an opinion than what was politically unacceptable. The doubleplus ungood comment simply asked if the female graduate had to maintain the same standards as the men in the class. It was a fair question.
After reading the article, linked above, and reading the comments section of the article, and the fakebook post, I’m starting to understand the emotions that I had when we visited the Infantry museum. I wasn’t feeling insecure or jealous, I was grieving the loss of a once great nation and military.
The comments at the end of the article are glowing and congratulatory and full of support for women graduating from these schools, but the question that I have is “why?”. Why is it good that women graduate from these schools?
If the purpose of a military is to close with an enemy and destroy them and to do so to a degree that breaks the enemies will to fight, then how do women in combat positions make the military more lethal and more destructive? Have we forgotten the military’s purpose? Have we confused the military with some sort of adventure club? Do we really believe that women are just as strong, fast, brutal, and determined as men when it comes to fighting.
Perhaps I should remove brutal from the above paragraph as women have killed over 60 million people since the implementation of the Roe V. Wade decision back in 1973 and that abortion is one of the leading causes of death world wide.
Let me start off with the most controversial part first.
I believe that women should be allowed to serve in the military. There are jobs where women do really well and can potentially out preform men, especially with regards to medical units and flying certain aircraft. I served on one ship in the Navy that had females in the crew and I enjoyed working with them. They couldn’t do all the physical stuff that the men could do, but they did what they could and they contributed to the work load in their own unique way. They helped to move everything forward whenever we were working and contributed to the mission in a positive way.
However, I do not believe that women should serve in direct combat roles: infantry, SOF, armor, combat aircraft crews, artillery, etc. Do I think that they should be prevented from serving in those roles? No not really, so long as standards are maintained, but I’ll talk about that in a minute.
You may be thinking that I am contradicting myself here by saying that women shouldn’t be allowed in combat related jobs but that they also shouldn’t be prevented from serving in those roles. I am not contradicting myself. As always, there is something far deeper going on here than what is on the surface and hopefully my mansplaination will articulate what is going on in my head…
Allow me to set the foundation…
The political maneuvers were started the minute the idea was put forward by politicians, celebrities, college professors (who for the most part have never accomplished anything outside or inside of academia) or people in power that women should be allowed to serve in combat roles. Once there became political motive to make these changes happen, the argument against women being in combat roles was lost.
Political change is accomplished through dividing people into groups and then manipulating and supporting the group which supports the changes those in power want to see made. This is done through emotional manipulation and not through trying to achieve the groups “buy-in” through logic, reasons, or rational thought.
Culture and society in the US has been purposely fractured through various political and ideological groups. We the people have been divided into groups of oppressors and oppressed. Which category we are placed in is defined by those who seek to divide us. The groups are then molded to form an identity, which helps hold the group together but also opens the unsuspecting group to manipulation and influence. Once you open yourself up to influence, you can be manipulated into believing all sorts of things, even things which are antithetical to your own culture or truth. A good example of this is how a group of people actually believe that a man can be a women just because the man believes he is a she, even though they can’t even define what it means to be a “she”.
How it works…
To force changes on a group of people, the “oppressed” group is empowered to cause trouble and just generally be a big pain in the butt to the group of “oppressors”. Once the “oppressed” crowd is triggered, there is no stopping it. Not because they are right, but because they cannot think logically for themselves and they act irrationally. This results in the drowning out of rational voices on all sides where debate and understanding can take place. These people are relentless in their arrogance and potentially violent in their temper tantrums.
These “woke” people are owned by whoever controls their emotions and they have been conditioned to react towards words that trigger their anger towards the perceived oppressors. They become further oppressed by those who are using them for their political agenda and aren’t even capable of seeing it, even when they have an intellectually driven notion that is in opposition to how their emotional response is compelling them to act.
The triggering words function the same as a dog whistle. The blower of the whistle can’t hear the sound but those who believe they’re oppressed have been conditioned to hear the sound and will react without the ability to stop themselves. The people who are blowing the dog whistle are the people who have a different opinion or think in a different way. The folks who think or believe differently have been deemed the oppressors by those who are in control. It’s all part of the Cultural Marxist ideological subversion that has been going on for generations.
Just like abortion, gay marriage, normalizing of pedophiles, and any kind of “…ism”, once the idea gains a foothold in people’s minds it becomes a part of a people’s identity and there is no easy way to defeat the ideas because people personally identify with the idea. Yes, this applies to religion as well: Catholicism, Protestantism, Anglicanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Islamism, Communism, Atheism, Scientism, Nationalism, Calvinism, feminism, etc. Religions aren’t necessarily spiritual, they are simply a set of beliefs and norms that people follow.
The idea becomes part of who they believe they are and it is rooted deeply in the emotional learning part of the mind. There is no objectivity here without effort on the part of the believer to confront the beliefs. Everything becomes subjective to feelings; to emotion.
This manipulation appears to change out morality, our ideas about what is right and wrong, but in reality it just changes the way that we feel about morality, not the way we think about morality. When we stop paying attention to our feelings and we challenge our emotions by looking for truth using logic and reason, our thoughts will change and we may well find that we may have been manipulated in to believing a lie.
Trying to confront the idea from the outside is viewed as a personal attack. In the battle of ideas, you defeat bad ideas with good ideas but only when that game is played logically and not emotionally.
The response by government is to makes laws and rules to guide our morality, but this has never worked. A group or culture’s morality is part of the identity of the group and is not generally changed by laws, it is changed by changing the culture. If you have to make rules against something that the culture has views as bad idea and/or immoral, then you’ve already lost because there are forces at work trying to change the culture. The only way to combat those forces is through truth and through logical arguments and appealing to the group identity in order to maintain the culture.
Here’s a good article to expand on this further, though I don’t believe in cultural Marxism being a separate thing. Marxism is established through culture but Marxism’s ultimate goal is domination of everything.
“As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore,” said Bezmenov. “A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures; even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him [a] concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it, until he [receives] a kick in his fat-bottom. When a military boot crashes his balls then he will understand. But not before that. That’s the [tragedy] of the situation of demoralization.”
The above is a quote from an interview with a Soviet KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov. In the interview he describes the process of brainwashing, called subversion, that is used to change people’s culture in order to spread Marxism/Communism. The interview is a little over an hour long. It is well worth watching and listening to what he has to say.
But… Why? What is the motivation to make these changes?
If we have to make a law or a rule against something then we have already lost part of what makes a culture or society unique. Rules, laws, and norms help to establish consequences for certain actions that the society deems wrong. The consequences of the actions deemed wrong separates people from the group because they didn’t maintain the standards of the group.
The rules are there to stop something from happening but the rules are most always reactive to culture and society. Someone wants to do, or has done, something new or different from what the group wants, then a rule gets made in order to prevent that person or group of persons from doing whatever it is they wanted to do.
We have to have rules in order to function as a society. Anarchy does not lead to freedom, it’s a path to totalitarianism, which is why progressives push a portion of society to believe in anarchy. My point here is not that we shouldn’t have rules, but rather once we have started to make rules and laws to guide morality we then open the door to having those rules changed to the benefit of others. Morality cannot be enforced by the government, it has to come about through a change in a person’s thinking.
Because of this, society and culture will always change as the society and culture evolves.
Here is a brief and crude example of how this works with something that is generally considered bad.
I have to be careful here because I don’t want to add another train to the train wreck by driving this discussion into the debate of the morality of laws but here is a basic, though extreme, example of what I mean by creating rules to guide the group and how changing the standard changes the group.
If we believe that it is morally wrong to murder someone, we then have to define what murder means. So… we define murder as the planning and taking of an innocent person’s life. Now we have to figure out what the consequences will be. If a person breaks the rule by committing murder; they are judged and then they are condemned, punished, and separated from society. If we don’t play by the rules of the game then we get kicked out of the game. Seems pretty simple…
But if we decided that morality is a fluid concept and open to how we feel about morals vs how we think about them, then we can decide that planning and taking an innocent person’s life is not considered murder or bad by adding nuances to the classification or by simply changing the name of the action from murder to eugenics.
If we want to target a group of people for the “betterment of society” then the taking of a life wouldn’t be considered murder if we were to kill folks who have certain points of view or if a person causes me inconvenience to the worship of myself or that a person’s worth to society is only based on their ability to contribute to the society in a way that we deem beneficial.
If we want to make rules, they must be definitive, based on truth and logical thought and not based on emotion or driven by agenda and politics. Once we allow our rules to be based on emotion and not on an agreed upon a standard, then the group can be taken over by whoever is the most controlling and manipulative.
A nation of laws means that the law applies to everyone equally and it will stop being a nation of laws when we believe that the only applies to those we oppose. It then becomes a race to the bottom and the group with the most power will now implement the rules how they see fit and how the rules can be used to further their agenda.
A group has it’s rules and norms that dictate how it is going to function and what the goal of the group will be. This is established by the culture of the people in the group and is maintained by the group’s identity. Culture in this context simply means a group of folks with a shared world view, a shared identity, and way of doing things. Diversity does not make culture strong, it actually destroys it by causing divisions to form where they didn’t previously exist.
Culture does not necessarily mean race. Skin color does not matter to people unless they chose to use that as part of their identity and if skin color is what you identify with, then you open yourself up to easy manipulation and influence. Critical Race Theory is an example in action of this and is the method through which Racist Marxists are winning influence and silencing people.
Every group has a leader, otherwise it’s just an emotionally driven mob or herd. The rules are agreed on by the group and then the group plays within the rules in order to accomplish the goal. The goal and direction in which the group moves are established by the leader. In an ideal world, there is no real enforcer of the rules because the group is “self-enforcing” once everyone has buy-in. When someone violates the rules, the whole group will automatically react and cause the offender to either conform to the norms or they will be kicked out of the group.
When I start making formal rules and ways of enforcing the rules, I have then switched from being a leader to being a manager. If I have to start making rules and procedures in order to coerce people into doing what I want them to do and in the way that I want them to do it, I will soon become more occupied with rules and procedures. Accomplishing the mission or objective will become secondary or tertiary or whatever comes after tertiary to maintaining the status quo of the organization.
The group has to have rules in order to stay together and there is a balance between too many rules and not enough rules. The leader has to be a manager, to a degree, of this balance as well as leading the group. The tendency of the manager is to maintain the status quo and not move forward. They manage, not lead. Eventually, every group grows to the point where the leader becomes more of a manager who’s time is spent managing the group instead of leading. Once the leader becomes a manager, the group can no longer mover forward because managers don’t necessarily want change.
Change is inevitable but challenges the group dynamic as well as putting the manager in a position to where they have no control.
Change can be dangerous to a group’ s identity because change challenges the established norms and rules that have helped to form the culture of the group. Managers are not generally well equipped to deal with change, unless compelled to do so. Hs/she is better suited to managing the procedures that keep everything humming along. It’s adherence and management of these procedures are what allow the manager to become a person of import within the culture and so they are reluctant to change anything except what they are absolutely must change.
Leadership is all about change and moving forward to accomplish a task or mission, management is all about resisting change and keeping things the same.
Challenging the culture, changing the group.
An overview of group dynamics.
If I want to change culture into some other thing, then I have to challenge and overcome the status quo of the group. It’s easier to do this than it is to create a whole new group as the new group won’t have the power to overcome the existing group unless there is something incredibly special and important about the new group. Changing the culture of the group is done by convincing people that there is another, more gooder way for the group to act and conduct themselves.
Since people have different ways of understanding things, even within a culture, the buy-in that was once required for the group identity starts to get dropped as the culture is changed and a new group identity forms over the old one. Old adherents to the group’s identity will leave as a result and new members will join. A new culture then forms from the new group identity. The new group is not necessarily better, it’s just new. This in itself will attract new and different members.
As this new identity forms, it will be in competition against the older group identity for control of the culture. The two separate identities will either grow together and share cultural elements of both or the groups will separate into two or more entities, but the original group will no longer exist as formed. Groups cannot have multiple cultures or identities.
But what if I intentionally want to tear a group completely apart and then rebuild it into something new? Can I do that by changing the culture? Yes. In fact, that is how it is done. Once the group has an identity, there will always be people on the outside who will want to be a part of the group, especially when the group is recognized as being strong or good in some way.
If the general purpose of the group remains the same, but the culture is changed then some people will leave after becoming disillusioned. Some will remain who have maintained the initial buy-in or identity and still others will remain out of convivence. Those who maintain the initial identity will always long for the group of the past. They will always be in tension with the new group identity and in time will either leave or conform. This sentimentality will keep them compliant to a degree but they will never be at peace with in the group.
Side note:
Sentimentality is a dangerous notion to the individual in a culture because it keeps them from assessing and acknowledging the truth to the situation. An example of this sentimentality is represented in the Conservative Republican voting block who believe that if the right Christian (as defined by the voter’s Christian/Religious beliefs) people are voted in to office then the country can go back to the Conservative utopia of the 1950’s United States.
This sentimentality keeps them from realizing the truth of the condition of this nation and the world and opens them up to influence by Russian disinformation operations, known as active measures by the KGB/FSB, and typical squishy republican political thought. Sentimentality keeps the typical conservative voter from seeing that there is relatively little left of traditional American culture, which results in them not being able to engage the culture to affect change in a direction that is beneficial to their world view.
Back on track
As the culture changes and members leave the group, empty spots form. Those empty spots formed by former members are then filled in with people who want to identify with what the group is now starting to become. When there is a hard time finding people to maintain the groups size, power, and influence then standards of entry get lowered. People are then admitted who normally wouldn’t have been allowed. These folks then feel as though they belong to the group that offers something special and unique, even though what made it special in the first place, it’s identify, has been weakened or no longer remains.
For example, there are people who strive to be the absolute best at whatever it is that they do and will constantly push the boundaries of performance within their groups. It’s not just the military, it’s everything. There are always people who want to be the best at whatever it is that they do and they will gravitate together when given the opportunity. When these folks get together with others who want to be the best; something magical happens and society benefits immensely from these people doing what they do. They will work together and form highly motivated, highly creative, and highly competitive groups of people who require very little management and leadership. Those folks do not have it within themselves to settle for mediocrity. When those people leave the group, the group will not be the same and will not be as affective as it once was, but the image of the group will be the same until it becomes apparent that the group is weaker than the image portrayed.
Keep doing this incrementally and not only does the group’s culture change, but it’s effectiveness at accomplishing the goals and mission does as well. Lowering the standards lowers the groups ability to accomplish the goals and mission effectively.
Why would we want to change the group?
Well let’s suppose that a nation of rejects from all the polite and proper countries of the world fought off the strongest military of its day and established a Constitutional Republic (not a democracy) form of government. In time, this country of rejects became the wealthiest, most liberty minded, and greatest country the world had known.
This Constitutional Republic is formed based on a written and agreed upon standard that limits the power of the government and is known as the Constitution of the United States. These rejects also became the envy of the world. There will always be people who seek power and greatness for themselves and those people are usually able to manipulate and control those who are willing to follow them. Envy is a strong emotion that can be manipulated.
Now… let’s suppose that this country has a military who’s purpose is to support and defend that Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It would then make sense that that nation would need the strongest and most dedicated force that we could muster in order to make sure that we can do just that in order to maintain the structure of the nation against all the haters within it’s borders and around the world.
Strongest and most dedicated are not anywhere near the realm of mediocrity and inclusivity. “Good enough” to meet a standard isn’t going to be good enough for very long when the balloon goes up1 and it’s time to do the thing that the group has been training and preparing to do. Strongest and most dedicated is very exclusive by it’s very nature and if we feel the need to defend ourselves against an enemy then it is vital that we have the best defensive force that we can get.
Now let’s suppose that a group of people wanted to take down that country of rejects and knew that a military confrontation would not work out very well for them. How could they take down the country of rejects? Well… they could slowly change the culture over time to where the original meaning and idea of what the nation stood for no longer mattered. They could do this slowly over generations so that people wouldn’t necessarily notice the changes being made and would also be more likely to adopt the changes since the changes are “progressive”. Eventually, bad ideas can be integrated into the norms and culture and a large portion of the population wouldn’t even notice it or even think deeply about it until one day they wake up and their entire world looks foreign to them.
Keep doing this over and over within every institution and the old ways will be abandoned and now the new government can be established and those who are opposed to the new government are simply ignored, persecuted into submission, jailed or just eventually slaughtered like cattle.
Society is now at a cross roads and no rule is going to prevent anything from moving forward for very long, especially if changing a rule, law, or norm can be exploited for political power and gain. At this point, the political machine will start working on softening up people’s minds in order to accept the change. Here in the west, the political machine is tied in to every single institution that we have, especially the church and education. You see, the political machine is used for slow moving, long term projects at first and then when the time is right, change is forced on the population.
Eventually, enough people in the population will be programmed to decide that it is ok for women to serve in combat roles and they will then demand that the rules will be changed. Which is were we are today. Women can serve in the military in combat related jobs. The feminists cheer in victory and call people like me “sexists” or “misogynists” without ever asking why we believe what we believe. They accuse us of double plus ungood oldthink and having outdated ideas.
Action/Reaction
Sir Isaac “fig” Newton said, “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. Every choice and decision has a price that must be paid once the decision is made. That price to be paid is rarely on the surface and is not often immediately apparent. Though it appears to be the case, the answer is not, “Women serving in combat roles will allow women to be more equal and more free to choose their path in life”. The answer is much deeper and requires thinking beyond the emotional responses offered by the neomarxist, feminists, leftists, and progressives.
While serving in the military, I came to certain realizations about the culture of the military that I hadn’t had before and that most people won’t be able to see unless they served or have been affiliated with the military in some way. I came to see the military as something different from how I had always viewed it, not as some revelation of the true nature of the military, but rather how the military has changed on a much deeper level and how the change that I see in the military is because of the changes that are going on in the larger society and not because the source of change is the military itself.
What is going on in the military is a reflection of society and culture. As people with different ideas about norms, culture, and society work their way throughout a military career, they implement their own changes that reflect the culture and beliefs that they have. In fact it is beneficial to a persons military career to do just that, to make changes to the way that things are done. A person doesn’t get promoted by leaving alone something that works well and as intended.
We tend to think that the military is a culture of it’s own, but it’s really a subculture of the greater society and the culture of the society is what shapes the culture of the military. This is fairly new. It used to be that the military culture was its own thing and fought to maintain that status quo but that changed over time as more “progressives” joined the military ranks and as the Commander in Chiefs became more progressive.
As I stated in the beginning, the military is now more of a job than a profession where advancement is the goal of the individual and not necessarily mission accomplishment. The competition for advancement gets much tighter the higher a person climbs through the rank structure. Because of this, the higher ranks become more political and with that, more political games get played. Generals and Admirals are every bit as political as the elected officials who are currently crashing the country in to a mountain lead the country. These ranks are awarded by congressional appointment and not through advancement boards or peer reviews.
So when there is a political movement taking place in the halls of congress, it is actually beneficial to those seeking to reach Admiral or General to play along with the politicians in power. Our society has stopped standing on principle and is instead focused on careerism and retirement… This is especially true of the military and the Generals and Admirals are no different. The “why” behind doing the job is no longer as important as playing the career game.
So the perspective General officer dances to the beat of the politician’s drum. Once the tap dancer gets his/her new rank and power, they themselves promote people who follow along with the same song and dance, EVEN IF THEY DISAGREE COMPLETELY with the song. They do this in order to play the career game and continue to get advanced. The winner of careerist game is rewarded with advancement instead of doing the right thing.
Advancements are supposed to be made when people do things that have improve processes or help the mission, but the mission is dictated to the lower ranking officers and “improvement” is a fluid concept. If the general or admiral got selected by congress because they support whatever is “in” at the time or because they follow a certain ideology, then they will do whatever they can to support the cause that got them appointed and promoted even when they are opposed to the cause. That cause is usually ideologically based and not performance based and is certainly not based on upholding their oath to the Constitution.
If the congress wants to see women in combat, then the generals and admirals will make the changes necessary to allow women in combat. One of those changes is a reduction in standards to training and giving women an unfair advantage in reaching goals that they may not be able to reach otherwise. This weakens the whole process and breaks group unity because people are not being treated equally when it comes to maintaining the original standard, which was decided on initially as what was needed in order to accomplish the mission of defending the nation.
Does that mean that there are no women that can meet or exceed the standards of infantry schools, sniper school, special operations, or other special schools? Not at all. The problem with this line of thinking is the idea that these schools prove someone’s total capability to perform what they graduated from the school to do and neglects the fact that these schools are the easiest that these graduates will have in fulfilling the role that have trained for.
When we celebrate these women graduating from these schools then we are celebrating mediocrity and not celebrating greatness. Greatness comes after sustained effort over time. The roles only get harder after graduating the school and just passing the standard isn’t good enough in the long term, it just gets you in the door to the community. Passing the schools is the bare minimum standard only and is not an indication of long term success in those specialties or professions. There are women who are capable of meeting the standards to be admitted into the communities but for how long will they be able to contribute and to what benefit will they be to the group as a whole has yet to be determined.
So here’s the point…
Women are being encouraged and allowed to do things that they have never been allowed to do, which in general is a good thing when they build and grow a woman’s femininity and womanliness, but they are doing so not on the basis of improving the military or because there is any justification for those decisions. Rather women are being used to further political agendas and whether the women succeed or fail is irrelevant, the agenda moves forward nonetheless. These are notions that make everyone involved feel good about themselves but are not based on an objective standard.
The people that are implementing these changes don’t actually care for women, they care about the agenda. They care about creating division and they care about exploiting that division for the furthering of their agenda. Just look at how women are treated when they protest men competing in women’s sports. The women are denigrated and cast aside in favor of supporting a mentally deluded man. It’s all about the agenda, the human damage is the cost of moving the agenda forward and there is nothing that worth more than moving the agenda forward.
And the goal of the agenda is the tearing down of American culture and ushering in a new culture. Politicians force this agenda by appealing to the opportunistic people who seek power for their own pride and self worship, which American culture has in abundance.
Changing America into a different nation can only be done through the collapse of American culture, it has to be changed from the inside. This is the goal and it is being modelled after the theories put forth by Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, who realized in the 1930s that a society wouldn’t accept communism until it’s culture was taken down and then rebuilt with communism at its core. These ideas were later added to by Herbert Marcuse, a Marxist thinker who helped to bring forth the feminist movement and the LQBT movement.
So what is the price tag associated with these changes?
Each time we try to make women the same as men, our society and culture suffers. Men and women are different, and deep down, we all know that to be the case. Men cannot be women and women cannot be men and both are needed equally in order to make society function.
If our women are trying to do what men do, then they won’t be able to do what women do. The ultimate affect is the destruction of the family. It takes men and women to make kids. It takes men and women committed to one another to properly raise kids. It takes men and women following standards and norms that go back through out history in order to raise a child into being a well adjusted and productive member of society.
Our women are far too important and valuable to be used up in war. Men are as well, but we are built and programmed to protect those that we love and cherish. Women are built and programmed to bring us life and to nurture that life with love and care. Women are built to be cherished by men. That does not mean that they are to be placed on pedestal to be worshipped or to be used for man’s self gratification but rather to be treated with dignity and respect. How does allowing women to fight in combat respect women?
Destroy the family and a nation’s culture and you can then make the nation into whatever you want it to be. Destroy the one thing that a man will fight for and you take the honorable fight out of him. That’s not to say that he won’t fight, it’s just that he won’t fight as hard if he has nothing to fight for unless he is nothing but a subdued and conquered person.
Destroy the nature of women and men with false ideologies and emotional arguments and you can own them. They will do whatever you want because they are driven emotionally and not logically, even when their conscience is telling them otherwise. Shape how they reflect on their lives and how they measure success and you can make them believe anything that you want. Do this in every aspect of society and you will eventually have a society who’s morals are fluid and based on emotion instead of truth.
The darkest part of all this is when you do these things to a military that has lost its moral foundation, it’s ability to think critically, and is driven by opportunistic careerist politicians, both in uniform and out of uniform, who only seek power for themselves. This is even more dark when this has been done to the most powerful military force the world has ever known. What is this military capable of when it isn’t able to decide what is important, what is right and wrong, and who the enemy is? If it can’t even decide that men and women are different then what kind of harm is it capable of when under the command of a psychopath who is only interested in power?
So what can we do about it?
Well that depends on your world view. If you are a Christian then you need to start getting yourself and your family ready for persecution. You need to drop the American prosperity gospel, watered down, feel good, think happy thoughts, Jesus is coming to save us at the rapture form of Christianity and start learning what living in faith means. I’m still working on this one personally…
We also need to be open to those who are hurting and who we can help. We will have to help those who are willing to understand and who are willing to seek out God. If we’ve hardened our hearts towards them, we may very well push away those who God sent for us to help.
They will come after us when they don’t get the results that they wanted, when their heaven on earth fails to happen. We will be blamed for the failing of their perfect utopia to materialize and then we will be attacked in one way or another. Which really has been the goal of the Marxists all along; to attack and defeat Christianity. Marxism and the ideologies that came before it have all been driven by the destruction of Christianity. Check out Mao’s cultural revolution to see what something like this looks like.
If you are a Christian and you support these counter cultural movements then you will have to make a choice as to which God you are going to serve; the God of creation or the god of government. The choice is yours to make and it will cost you severely either way you choose.
If you are lukewarm in your thinking and don’t care about the issues or don’t want to face them, well then all you have will be taken from you and you will have no chance to rebel and make things as they once were or as they could’ve been. Now is the time to start questioning things and to start looking for the truth. The world is changing very quickly and the time is now to start engaging and paying attention.
If you are an atheist, Marxist, progressive, liberal, leftist, or socialist then congratulations will soon be in order. I hope that you enjoy the hell that you have ushered into this world, but you need to know what your beliefs lead to.
There will be no peace on earth. Ever… without Jesus. There will be no utopia, and there will never be a such thing as equality. Ever… without Jesus. You’re ideas have been tried ever since people have walked the earth and the result has always been the same. Death. Lots of death. Your religion of Marxism is a death cult. Contrary to what you learned in college, you really don’t know how to make things better and you have failed to realize that those who taught you to believe as you do are either “useful idiots” or they don’t really believe in what they are teaching you and you’re being played. They know the truth of what these things mean and what the results will look like but they don’t want you to know. Wanna know why?
In order to believe these things that you believe, you have surrendered part of your humanity. When you see the horror that results from your choices and beliefs, you will at first cheer the pain, suffering, and death that your cause brings because it will be happening to those who “oppressed” you. You will cheer until you are no longer useful to them and then your real persecution and oppression will begin, of which will be more brutal than the previous group had to suffer. For most believers in communism, their persecution will begin when they are rounded up and thrown into gulags and into concentration camps or you may just simply be exterminated like bugs because life has no value under the rule of the people you support, especially after your usefulness to the cause is through. You have supported and helped establish the death cult known as Communism and there is nothing that you can do about it, short of calling out to God for mercy.
But, if you’re a believer in these movements then you won’t believe any of what I am telling you, in fact you are probably laughing with contempt as you read through this. And you will laugh until they come for you. It happens every time. All you need to do is read from the people who have been there, realized the truth of what they believed and supported and who have warned us. As King Solomon wrote in the book of Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun. We’ve seen this story play out all through history.
This dude is nuts…
If you think that I am crazy for writing this, well then that is ok. I really don’t want to be right in this. I don’t want any of these things to happen. However, history has shown what happens when nations start to loose what made them special and what happens when nations start down the road that we are following. Every great nation has fallen and they have all fallen in the same ways, more or less, and for the same reasons. Want to know what that looks like and where the root of the problem lies, then read from those who defected from the Soviet Union and from the Russian intelligence services. Check out this article and watch this video of Yuri Bezmenov, a Russian defector. Read Fate of Empires written by John Glubb. Read The Fourth Turning written by William Strauss and Neil Howe. Read After America, written by Mark Steyn. Read 1984, written by Orson Wells. Read Brave New World from Aldus Huxley.
Just look around and tell me how the world is getting better after 60 years of the counter cultural movements in the west. God has been pushed out of politics, culture, entertainment, religion, and society for 60 year and replaced with worship of the self, tell me how the trouble in the world is His fault and the fault of Christianity, especially since these ideas have infiltrated the church as well as the larger culture.
People in the west have been acting through there own pride and understanding for centuries now, (well actually since the beginning of mankind) wanting to create heaven on earth in some attempt to live in harmony apart from God. Tell me how well that is going as we push God out of our lives and as the world keeps getting closer to the next global war.
A few more questions to think about; those women who think they are going to fight like men, how are they going to act when the balloon finally goes up and they are faced with the truth of being called on to do what they signed up for and they have a choice to either leave the service or to square off with men who’ve been training to fight other men? You don’t want to see men and women fight each other in the MMA ring because we know what the results will be. Are you, dear reader, willing to see images on (anti)social media and the propaganda channels news outlets of our mothers, daughters, and sisters being raped, tortured, and slaughtered on the battlefield? Our dead strong men are put on display for us as a way to break our will to fight, what do you think the enemy will do with our women?
Don’t give me some such weak minded response like “well they knew what they signed up for”. If you encouraged, voted, and supported these ideas then you bear in the responsibility of sending our precious women, who bring our precious children in to the world, to their deaths and all because you’ve been fooled into believing the notion that women are just as capable on the battlefield.
“The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.”
―William Francis Butler, Charles George Gordon
How many more of these guys are there in government service?
Conclusion:
So way back at the beginning I made a statement that seemed to be a contradiction, I stated that I don’t believe that women should be allowed to be in combat but that I also don’t believe that women should be kept from those roles. It seems like a contradiction but it is not.
I don’t believe that women should be allowed in combat because there is no measurement of how they improve the lethality of the fighting force. Women have roles in the military to which they are well suited and improve the fighting force as a whole but there is no objective standard that can demonstrate that women are just as lethal as men when it comes to fighting. Women are not the same as men and they’re talents and characteristics are better served when they are measured against other women and not when measured against men. Women should be measured against women and men should be measured against men. We all know this logically but it is not culturally expedient or comfortable to say such things, it’s not culturally appropriate to speak truth.
But if I don’t think that women should be allowed in combat roles then why is it that I am against prohibiting them to be in these roles? Because once the idea became culturally acceptable for women to be used up in combat, the culture was lost and there was no argument that will prevent the eventuality. The group identity and the culture changed once the arguments were made in favor of allowing women to fight. To me, this argument has nothing to do with the military, but rather is indicative of the cultural problems that we have as a nation.
I don’t believe that women should be kept from those roles because once women decided that they were the same as men, the culture was lost and there is nothing that can change that other than new ideas and a new culture. The educational industrial complex has been infiltrated with people who have a different world view, one that is antithetical to a traditional world view and they have been indoctrination the youth for 60 years. I view it as an end of what used to be and the creation of something new and different.
This cultural change will cause us trouble and pain.
There is no getting away from the trouble that is coming and there will be no peace for the foreseeable future. Voting will not get us out of this. That time has come and gone. There is no putting the cat back in the bag or putting the toothpaste back in the tube. The US and western culture is heading for a hard and dark future. A time of persecution is coming and we have been warned for a long time but we refused to heed the warnings. Praying will help us as individuals and as a body of believers but not as a nation. I’m not convinced that God is going to stop what is coming. The people of this nation have been more interested in worshipping the god of self and has turned it’s back on the One who allowed it to exist in the first place. The bill for that transgression is about to come due.
The silver lining in the dark clouds of the approaching storm is that when people are persecuted and when people are suffering, they are more likely to reach out to God. The church grows under persecution because those are the times when our wills are more easily broken and when we are willing to reach out to the only One who can save us.
A time of real persecution is coming for the church where we will be jailed, isolated, have our families and possessions taken, will be assaulted, and some will be killed because of these beliefs. Real persecution is coming and not the fake crap we think of when we have our social media accounts get blocked for wrongthink or we get an angry face emoji in reply to something that we post on antisocial media.
It could be that persecution is what leads to real revival. You don’t have to wait to be persecuted in order to find God and accept the gift of grace and salvation. You can be willing to submit your will to Him right now if you so chose, which is all He really requires. Will that keep you from being persecuted? Nope. Nothing will regardless of what you believe. In fact, it guarantees persecution, but also means that you have started the process of getting right with God.
Even if I am completely wrong in what I have written here, you will die at some point. We all will so it doesn’t matter if you are persecuted to death or you live a long and comfortable life, it will end at some point. Might as well start seeking God now.
Well… this post has been one of the hardest to write so far. I’m not sure what the reaction will be though I am expecting it to be… interesting to say the least. As always, I appreciate your time in reading this and I am interested in comments, but I ask that they be intelligent and thought out and I encourage different points of view so long as they are respectful.
As always, thank you for your time. I hope that you have a blessed day.
Fair Winds and Following Seas,
Nate
“Balloon goes up” is allusion referring to the start of a war or an offensive operation during a war. During World War 1, the British would signal the beginning of an offensive’s preparatory artillery barrage by raising a balloon as a signal to the gunners to start firing their guns.
Everyone has an opinion on women in the Infantry in combat. Take it from an actual combat infantryman. Women don’t only not belong in infantry units, they shouldn’t be allowed within 500 meters of an infantry unit. I wish people could just accept that there’s no way you’ll ever understand some things unless you experience them. Fighting in a no shit war as an infantryman is nothing anyone should have to do. Why the fuck make it harder by introducing more problems. The majority of the infantry doing the fighting are 25 years old and have barely grown up. Now they should not only live through the horrors of close combat and depraved misery, but let’s introduce gays and women to the mix. Just fuck all the way the fuck off until you reach the end, then fuck off some more with that bullshit.
I have my own opinions regarding women’s roles in the military. I served myself in the 90’s during the gulf war. I do agree that if a woman can meet the same standards as men, then she should be allowed to serve in whatever capacity she wants. My thing I don’t understand is why she would even want to serve in combat. Regardless of how people feel about it women and men are very different. Even though I served, I never thought for a second about serving in combat. I heard the stories of Vietnam from my dad, and of WWII and Korea from my grandfather. No thanks. I was perfectly happy to serve in a support role. I’m a firm believer that women have no business being in combat.