Tuesday, October 18, 2011


By: Alan Stang
From GyG Feb 27, 2008

I would not be at all surprised were the totalitarian monsters who presently run our government to give Jessica Lynch the Medal of Honor. They tell us that the feisty teenager fired everything she had and killed as many as she could before she was captured. So far, they haven’t told us how she acquired her curious wounds, so many broken bones including spinal injury. They haven’t told us whether the Saddamites gave her the treatment they routinely gave females they didn’t like. Remember that rape was one of the lesser reasons, after Weapons of Mass Destruction, why we needed to effect “regime change” in Iraq.

The buildup already has begun. If the totalitarians decide to do as we expect, they would use Jessica as the symbol of the new, genderless, interchangeable military; she would be perfect for the job because she is so petite and appears to be so feminine. Substantial female enlistment would thereby be encouraged, which would make it easy to include women when the military draft is resumed. Soon, we could see Jessica, rather than Uncle Sap, pointing at us from the nation’s billboards, saying, “I want you.”

So the time is right for another look at women in combat. Of course, we have had women in the military since World War II. Each branch had its own separate women’s units: the WAC, Women’s Army Corps, the SPARS, the WAVES and so on. The work these women did was crucially important, because it was work that fighting men would otherwise have had to do.

That isn’t what we are talking about; it isn’t an issue. We’re talking about women in combat.

First, let’s mention and be done with the issue’s less important aspects. Are women in combat as effective as men? You can easily find the answer for yourself. All you need do is go to the movies. See, for just a few examples, Midway, Pork Chop Hill, Memphis Belle, Full Metal Jacket, and so on. You no doubt have your own favorites. Then go out and look again at the women in your neighborhood. Simply ask yourself: Could these women do that?
Yes, we are perfectly aware that some of the nation’s leading bull dykes could do it, if they took off the dildos and put on the uniforms. And maybe, if our enemies would agree to settle matters in this fashion, we could send those feminoids out to fight in single combat as in medieval jousts. But that isn’t what the neuterizers mean when they advocate putting women into combat. They aren’t just talking about Janet Reno; they are talking about the girl next door.

They are talking about your daughter. Civilization grows from the needs of the normal, not the perverse.
But haven’t women attended the military academies? Haven’t they passed the tests? Yes, they passed because the neuterizers lowered the passing marks. They have turned the hallowed process into a joke. The result is “equal opportunity” officers and 110-pound female combat troops who are a danger to the men who must serve in real combat beside them.

Certainly if enemy troops were coming down your street, shooting, the women would do everything they could, beside the men, in defense of their homes, but that is not what the neuterizers mean. They mean to assign women as regular combat troops, completely integrated into combat units. Believe me, that is coming, if you let it.

They point to Israel, where women are drafted. Israel is a tiny country with a small population, but even in Israel women are not assigned to combat. They do what the WACS used to do here. In World War II, the Soviets used female combat units. The experiment failed. Do the Soviets know something we don’t? Notice that no other nation is stupid enough and suicidal enough to put its women into combat. No nation we must fight will decide to be “fair” and assign its own women to fight ours.

Bush has done everything he can to avoid offending Islam. In the face of 1,500 years of history, he calls it a “religion of peace.” American military personnel in the Muslim countries are strictly enjoined to avoid any Christian display. It is illegal to send them Christian paraphernalia. Such mail if discovered will not be delivered. Our own post office warned us about this. The Islamic U.S. soldier who fragged and killed two of his officers in a war zone should have been shot where he stood. Instead, it looks as if we shall get to hear about his unhappy childhood in a trial.

Yet, Bush slaps Islam in the face by sending women to fight Muslim warriors. If one of the measures of a man is the enemies he earns, the Muslims no doubt consider this an insult, because of the very treatment of women in Islamic culture about which Bush complains. No doubt that is why the female military who fall into enemy hands are so savagely treated, like the female officer who was gang-raped in Gulf War I. Yet, the media routinely air interviews these days with vacuous female officers whose commissars have instructed them to say there is no difference.

Notice here again that in the main policies of the conspiracy for world government there is zero difference between Clinton and Bush. Yes, Clinton did everything he could get away with to put women into combat. Bush could have rescinded the scumbag’s policy, but he did not. Indeed, with the invasion of Iraq Bush has expanded that policy.

Again, all of this is important, but it is much less important than the supreme reason it means suicide to put women into combat. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, unknown, degenerate hack Karl Marx explained at length that to destroy Free Enterprise, to destroy private property, it would be necessary to destroy the family. The way to do that, said Marx, was to get women out of the home and make them the property of the state, by which he meant the government. Women must be nationalized, said Marx. And you are the property of the state in the military more than you are anywhere else.

The fact that what is happening is exactly what Marx wanted doesn’t prove by itself that he is the cause, but it is a fact that certainly deserves serious exploration. Indeed, remember that Marxists and Marxism have wormed their way into control of our government for almost a hundred years. Remember that Marxist Edward M. House arranged the election of Woodrow Wilson in 1914, and then as Wilson’s “alter ego” imposed some of the most important planks of the Communist Manifesto.

Joe McCarthy, the heroic U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, a statue of whom will be erected on the Capitol Mall when Americans retake Washington, D.C., exposed some of the Communist infiltration of our government, but Joe sadly didn’t get it all. Marxism has been metastasizing there ever since. So it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that scholars investigate the background of the present Bush push to put women into combat.

What would be the long-term effect of such a policy? What would it do that our enemies the Marxists want? The answer is that it would complete the destruction of our culture, the Western culture created by hated, long dead, white males, the culture that alone gives us political freedom. This is easy to understand; there are many ways to prove it. All you need do, and this is one of my favorites, would be to read Cyrano de Bergerac. Then see the movie version starring Gerard Depardieu.

What would happen were Roxanne to descend from the balcony and fight the enemy side by side with Cyrano? Indeed, what would happen were we sufficiently degenerate to acquiesce in making men and women interchangeable in combat? Aside from periodic episodes of vaginal infection, the result would be considerable pregnancy, either accidental or intended by combat soldiers who decide to go home. The result would be epidemic divorce, if these combat soldiers took the trouble to marry in the first place. The result would be the collapse of the family, which is what the feminoids want. The result would be that the military, the government, would own the children.

Needless to say, the status and condition of women would deteriorate. If men and women are made the same, except that the latter tend to stick out a tad more fore and aft – that is what the feminoids teach – then, paradoxically, physical strength will become the measure of many things. Rivalry between the sexes would be inevitable. In such a stupid contest, women would lose. If men and women are made interchangeable, a science fiction nightmare worse than Orwell will have arrived, worse than Winston Smith’s betrayal of Julia.

What is the right relationship between the sexes? Thank God we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. The basis of the Western culture the Bush occultists hate is scripture. Scripture is what they are really trying to destroy. That is why the name they hate most is Jesus Christ. Scripture is the origin of what we hold dear, especially our wives, family and children. And scripture would call putting women in combat anathema.

You need to draw another line in the sand. Yes, I know you have drawn one there already for the guns they will need to pry your cold, dead fingers from. You need to draw another for your daughters. When the neuterizers send for them you will know the time has come.
Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.” 

No comments:

Post a Comment

The 'Reader Responses; shown on many posts/articles are almost always worthwhile reading.

Often, the comments by readers enhance the posted article greatly, and are informative and interesting.

Hopefully, all will remember to read the reader comments, and post their own as well.