Questioning Diversity Worse Than Death
I didn’t comment on the Fort Hood shooting because I’m becoming more and more uncaring about the fate of this society. But I just saw this quote from a story that HalfSigma linked to, demonstrating how far gone we are.
[The army's top army officer George Casey] expressed concern that speculation about the shooting could result in a “backlash” against Muslim soldiers. “What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even-greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here,” he said. “We have a very diverse army. We have a very diverse society. And that gives us all strength.”
The army questioning diversity would be an even greater tragedy than the loss of thirteen men.* This is how military “men” talk in the West.
Then again, what do you expect from an institution that asks moms and daughters to fight wars?
*I realized a while after posting this that it wasn’t thirteen men, but men and women. Funny I forgot, considering part of the point of the post was that there’s no telling how low an army with females in it will go.
Update: Commentator EileenOCnnr writes:
I wouldn’t be opposed to women in the military — but, they ought to be required to meet the EXACT SAME physical requirements as the men. If you can’t pass the physical standards, then it should be a no-go. No “dumbing down” of the physical tests.
That would severely restrict the number of women in the military. And they’d probably be the very few women (some outliers) that would be capable of performing in a war zone.
There are other problems inherent in having woman in the army besides simply their lack of strength. See Jared Taylor’s article Raping the Military.
Let us stop for a moment and remind ourselves what soldiers are for. Their job is to find and kill the enemy. Ever since the Stone Age, it has been clear that the best people for that job are tough, aggressive young men. Soldiers have to kick down doors, stay cool under fire, and if need be, kill people with their bare hands. They may have to spend hours humping artillery shells, marching in the heat in combat gear, or live for days in the same clothes. What’s more, in today’s all-volunteer army, they have to want to do these things.
Soldiers must also be able to trust each other with their lives. Ever since the Greeks, commanders have understood what we now call “unit cohesion”. Soldiers have always cherished loyalties forged in battle.
It just so happens that men of this sort have at least an average interest in sex—at an age when“average” means just short of obsessed. An army in the field is a giant locker room, where young men give vent to their adolescent nature, and strike vulgar poses precisely because there are no women around.
What happens when women show up? A reported 10 percent of the soldiers who have been to Iraqand Afghanistan have been women. [Women in Combat : NPR, October 1-5, 2007] With only a few exceptions, those assignments are essentially combat, with all the danger, stress, and close quarters that go with it.
What happens when a unit gets a woman assigned to it? If she is even slightly good-looking every one of the men—and I mean every one of them—will want her. That means advances, rejections, jealousies, resentments, and men who were once comrades become competitors of the most elemental sort. One or more of the men will get her and everyone will know it. Some of the men who don’t get her may have to listen to her grunting and squealing, just eight feet away through two layers of tent cloth.
Anyone who does not understand the poisonous effect this has on morale and unit effectiveness has either never gone through adolescence or simply refuses to see the obvious.
If you only let in women who could meet the same standards as men, the male to female ratio would be even higher and the problems would be exacerbated.
16 Comments
Nov 9, 2009 12:34 am |
Here is an article from American Renaissance about diversity in the army. From the article, a quote which may portend the future: “America now fights its wars in the Third World, and our policy of putting Third World people in the military is dangerous. It is only a matter of time before a Somali, Kurdish, Laotian, or Hmong “refugee” has the authority to call in air-strikes or command riflemen. Like the Romans who were destroyed by their Germanic mercenaries, Americans could find that their army is a foreign viper.”
It is fitting that this year is the 2,000th anniversary of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, since in the not too distant future the United States will likely suffer the same fate Rome did. Arminius was a Germanic prince who served in a Roman legion and became a Roman citizen. In 8 AD he returned to Germania, and he began preparing his own troops and plotting with other Germanic tribes against the Romans. A Roman army led by Varus sought to bring Germania under Roman control; Arminius was one of Varus’s trusted advisers. In 9 AD, reports of a rebellion arrived. They were a diversion fabricated by Arminius; Varus, encouraged by Arminius, took a detour into unfamiliar territory in order to go quell the rebellion. Arminius then gathered the his troops, and when the Romans entered the forest, they were ambushed by the German forces. The Romans suffered a total defeat at the hands of the Germans, who were aided by Arminius’s knowledge of Roman tactics.
Nov 9, 2009 8:53 am |
One of the Fort Hood shooting victims was a pregnant Hispanic woman who was on her way home from Iraq.
Last month the Navy announced they were going to begin placing women on submarines. I can’t imagine anything going wrong with that.
Nov 9, 2009 9:48 am |
The ‘it’ refers to the tragedy itself, already great, which would be ‘even greater’ for every additional undesirable consequence. “It would be an even greater tragedy”, for instance, if one of the funerals were rained on. You should not expect the top army officer to fret – in the shadow of murder – about some weather, but it should not surprise you that the worthless media would elicit and then report on this fretting.
And I must now expect that a Society of Storm-Lovers member will scan through this unremarkable junk so as to elevate an uncharitable interpretation.
Nov 9, 2009 11:36 am |
I got a call the other day asking me to contribute to phone minutes for GI’s in Iraq/Afghanistan so they could call home. I said something that aggravated the beggar. We had some words; I told him where to go, and I hung up the phone.
I thought back to my voluntary military service. After 6yrs, I was making $50/wk, got 3 squares, a place to sleep, and endless bulls**t. Phoning home was a luxury and letters were weeks in between.
Today, our soldiers are mercenaries. The military is a job like parking cars or usury collection. All in all, with bonuses, education, salary, and other perquisites, it pays very well for the type of employee the business attracts. The whole mission is about money and no longer references morality except as a feel-good ploy for all the players, both civilian and mercenary. Like all of government, it’s all about creating and sustaining delusions. This country dabbles at war but hasn’t won one since 1945!
Vote out the incumbent demagogs on 2010 and 2012!
Nov 9, 2009 4:13 pm |
I wouldn’t be opposed to women in the military — but, they ought to be required to meet the EXACT SAME physical requirements as the men. If you can’t pass the physical standards, then it should be a no-go. No “dumbing down” of the physical tests.
That would severely restrict the number of women in the military. And they’d probably be the very few women (some outliers) that would be capable of performing in a war zone.
Nov 9, 2009 6:03 pm |
If this guy said the truth his career would be as good as dead.
Nov 9, 2009 7:26 pm |
I wouldn’t be opposed to women in the military — but, they ought to be required to meet the EXACT SAME physical requirements as the men. If you can’t pass the physical standards, then it should be a no-go. No “dumbing down” of the physical tests.
That-and many other things-would require RADICAL regime change. IOW, not the kind of change you can get via the ballot box.
Nov 9, 2009 10:09 pm |
‘If you only let in women who could meet the same standards as men, the male to female ratio would be even higher and the problems would be exacerbated.’
Unless there were so few of them that a lot less units would end up with any women. Plus, you have to bear in mind that most women who couled pass a male strength test are going to be so freakishly butch that the men probaably wouldn’t have too much trouble keeping theur minds on the battlefield, and probably wouldn’t be overly jealous if they fail to have her in a sexual manner.
Nov 9, 2009 10:14 pm |
‘I didn’t comment on the Fort Hood shooting because I’m becoming more and more uncaring about the fate of this society.’
At least make sure you donate to a sperm bank. If you donate often enough you’ll be assured that your bloodline will live on for hundreds of years in the future, without even having to go through the emotional pain of having to watch the occasional child or grandchild be killed by diversity.
Nov 9, 2009 11:32 pm |
“If you only let in women who could meet the same standards as men, the male to female ratio would be even higher and the problems would be exacerbated.”
I don’t think the sexual problems you describe would be exacerbated ’cause I think with my plan — that really, honestly, the only women who should be in the military are the ones who can really meet the toughest physical standards — they’re just not going to be very attractive. Frankly, they’re going to be very, very butch.
And, I think they’d be able to do the job — knock down doors and kill people. These are your a-typical women — the outliers as I mentioned in my original comment. Not your average maternal-type girl.
Another problem, though, is how most of the male soldiers feel about having a woman/women in their units. That is definitely an issue, and if most men feel uncomfortable with that — if it damages morale and the bonding of fighting units — then I don’t think it should be jammed down their throats like our modern, “progressive” military has done.
In my ideal army, there would be separate units for the Amazons I envision being allowed into the military.
P.S. I do NOT want to serve in the armed forces and have to kill people, thankyouverymuch! (But, in the coming secessionist wars I’ll be happy to pick up my shot-gun and defend my familiy’s homestead.)
Nov 10, 2009 6:07 am |
The ancient Greeks had entire units consisting of gay lovers. Bet you didn’t know that.
Nov 10, 2009 10:53 am |
Ah, yes! Amazons and pink tutu brigades. (I first encountered that phrase on some gun board or other.) Certainly this is all very amusing, but I’m afraid that I’ve never gotten past the question, “Why, in the name of suffering Christ, do we have Muslims in our army?” Apparently, diversity and common sense are mutually exclusive.
Nov 10, 2009 7:56 pm |
Plus, you have to bear in mind that most women who couled pass a male strength test are going to be so freakishly butch that the men probaably wouldn’t have too much trouble keeping theur minds on the battlefield, and probably wouldn’t be overly jealous if they fail to have her in a sexual manner.
What Reginald said. If the standards were kept up to a level where lots of men couldn’t qualify, few would be jealous of the men scoring with the women who did.
That’d be sorta like being jealous of the cell mates who score in prison.
Nov 10, 2009 7:58 pm |
I was astounded at that comment as well. Seems like a great many people have disabled their internal censors when it comes to pro-PC statements. I mean really, didn’t the victims or their families come to mind before putting breath to that inane statement?
Nov 10, 2009 7:59 pm |
Whoops, wrong thread.
Nov 14, 2009 1:05 pm |
The Army are there for killing the nations enemies not providing career fulfilment for butch-lesbians. Aside from a few clerical and medical roles set far away from the warzone no woman should be in the armed forces period.
Leave a Reply