The Great Social Experiment Takes the Field – In the War of 2020
President Hillary Clinton has been in office since January of 2017, after defeating Donald J. Trump in the closest and most litigated election in American history.
Disliked as a candidate by the right, as President she is despised by Congress and most Americans, who are now well aware that an incompetent criminal sits in the Oval Office.
The vast social engineering of the US military that rode roughshod over the armed services under Barack Obama is now legal policy. Open homosexuality is common in all branches. Transgenders who have undergone sex change operations, those planning to and those that are confused about their sexual orientation serve in the ranks as well.
It is not an integration that has gone smoothly. Females cannot handle the physical demands of the combat arms and special operations. Under pressure from the Pentagon, standards have dropped drastically to accommodate women, but many issues still remain.
Combat units must meet quotas that call for each unit comprising no less than 35% women. Combat units must function with constant pregnancies and females breastfeeding in the field. Lactation stations, diaper changing facilities and nurseries are commonplace in the field and even in combat zones.
Males in units must routinely conduct PT (physical training) wearing pregnancy simulators. The sight of hundreds of men running to cadence while strapped down with pregnancy simulators is a normal event on US military bases worldwide. Several times a year, male soldiers are also required to wear red high heels to show their support for female rape victims.
Sensitivity training and classes on why the US Constitution and Bible are racist and sexist are mandatory for promotion.
Diversity officers are always present to monitor any breach of formality or conduct. Instead of being hated like the old Soviet political officers, the Diversity Officers are embraced as special heroes of the state by the new breed of officers in the ranks.
Weapons have been altered to accommodate females in the combat arms. A .2 caliber pistol is now an issue weapon. The light kick is perfect for female troopers who were terrified of the tremendous kick from the old Colt .45; the weapon troops had called pocket artillery for decades.
Artillery shells now weigh less than five pounds each. The devastation caused by these rounds is minimal at best, but the light weight allows female gun bunnies to be able to handle them with ease.
Yet, the troops know. They always know. They know the darkest secret of all; the US military can’t fight and beat anyone. It is no longer the hollow force of the Obama days, but an invisible force, for it no longer exists as a coherent, capable entity that can wage war. It is nothing more than a group of people in uniforms who pose for pictures next to guideons and flags.
The troops know that if should they be called to ever serve in combat, they are going to die in droves.
The Army is in serious trouble. Besieged with a myriad of readiness and morale issues, it is under siege by radical feminists and leftists who are determined to reshape the Army, even if they have to destroy it.
The dissidents from the northern counties who want to secede from the Golden State are “a bunch of Bible-thumpin’, gun-totin’, wild-eyed pistol-wavers.” And that’s how one of their supporters describes them. Welcome to the…
Hmm. An "army" such as that described by anon @ 6:53 AM would hard pressed to defeat a troop of boy scouts much less armed patriotic insurgents. What with expected desertions and other likely occurrences, that scenario would not only guarantee a revolution, it would well nigh guarantee success. Almost wish it would work out that way.
Are the leftists so loony that they cannot see that tearing down the forces they would need to protect their asses in the event of an insurgency would result in said asses being more likely to be shot?
Is this the same National Review that has maligned Trump supporters, many of whom are white working class, as 'low info vulgarians?' Seems to me the content of character takes a back seat to NR when it comes to those backing a candidate not of their choosing.
My point?
NR needs to look in the mirror. Their know-it-all elites are as responsible as the race-baiters when it comes to poor white Appalachian student not getting special consideration and affirmative action entitlements.
My last observation is invoking the memory of MLK Jr in the title. While MLK was spouting lofty ideals about the content of character he was shaking down DC pols to implement some of the worst, black family killing legislation ever enacted.
See, if the roots are rotten so is the fruit. MLK was a redistribtuionist Marxist through and through. Go to youtube, put in MLK and 'redistribution' and a mess of speeches by MLK spouting Marx and Engels economic theories come up. Oh and his finance man was a card-carrying communist.
Lastly, if MLK Jr had not been trained by the communists at the Highlander School and had been actually interested in blacks succeeding economically like whites, he would never have a holiday named after him, he would have gone the way of all conservative blacks--thrown on the ash heap of history or at least relegated to the 'Uncle Tom' pile of dung.
No, MLK was one slick preacher, a man positioned by certain people to be the mouthpiece for a movement hellbent on destroying capitalism under the guise of 'civil rights' for black people.
While it has become a commonplace of historical criticism to "dig past the surface" of those figures who are well-known for how they altered the direction of their times to the mundane details of how they shared in the vulgar imperfections of their contemporaries, I do not find it to be a very useful form of scholarship nor of engagement.
First, we take it for granted as a matter of course that, in all things not notably distinguishing historical figures from contemporaries of the same time and culture, they would have been much the same as those around them. The focus on what is actually different about them is both more meaningful to how they changed history and more honest...picking out MLK as being heavily influenced by Marxism implies that this was not almost universal among marginalized groups in America after WWII. A proper understanding of history points out that Marxism was almost universal and notes who departed from it (and the specifics of how). To do otherwise is to commit the identical error of those who deride the leaders of the Revolution for owning slaves in a time when the idea that slavery was wrong was still being invented...largely by those same men.
Second, as a form of persuasive engagement sullying the character of admired figures in the past is among the most offensive to the ordinary sense of reason even the least educated possess. It only prospers to the extent that you destroy utterly the desire for rational engagement in favor of demagoguery appealing to the worst human emotions. It should never be used if you have any other alternative way to engage your audience, and if you have no other way to engage your audience you should seriously consider whether the point you are making is even valid.
To value Martin Luther King (or any other historic figure) for what he uniquely contributed to our own moral outlook while understanding that he was in most other ways a man of his own time and place is not a mistake, even if it does little to serve our agenda. But in fact King's most famous expressions speak clearly and cogently to and for our belief in individual freedom and personal moral accountability. We should not be ashamed to repeat the words, "I have a dream that my[...]children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Nor should we be shy about pointing out how our adversaries betray that dream.
6 comments:
The Great Social Experiment Takes the Field – In the War of 2020
President Hillary Clinton has been in office since January of 2017, after defeating Donald J. Trump in the closest and most litigated election in American history.
Disliked as a candidate by the right, as President she is despised by Congress and most Americans, who are now well aware that an incompetent criminal sits in the Oval Office.
The vast social engineering of the US military that rode roughshod over the armed services under Barack Obama is now legal policy. Open homosexuality is common in all branches. Transgenders who have undergone sex change operations, those planning to and those that are confused about their sexual orientation serve in the ranks as well.
It is not an integration that has gone smoothly. Females cannot handle the physical demands of the combat arms and special operations. Under pressure from the Pentagon, standards have dropped drastically to accommodate women, but many issues still remain.
Combat units must meet quotas that call for each unit comprising no less than 35% women. Combat units must function with constant pregnancies and females breastfeeding in the field. Lactation stations, diaper changing facilities and nurseries are commonplace in the field and even in combat zones.
Males in units must routinely conduct PT (physical training) wearing pregnancy simulators. The sight of hundreds of men running to cadence while strapped down with pregnancy simulators is a normal event on US military bases worldwide. Several times a year, male soldiers are also required to wear red high heels to show their support for female rape victims.
Sensitivity training and classes on why the US Constitution and Bible are racist and sexist are mandatory for promotion.
Diversity officers are always present to monitor any breach of formality or conduct. Instead of being hated like the old Soviet political officers, the Diversity Officers are embraced as special heroes of the state by the new breed of officers in the ranks.
Weapons have been altered to accommodate females in the combat arms. A .2 caliber pistol is now an issue weapon. The light kick is perfect for female troopers who were terrified of the tremendous kick from the old Colt .45; the weapon troops had called pocket artillery for decades.
Artillery shells now weigh less than five pounds each. The devastation caused by these rounds is minimal at best, but the light weight allows female gun bunnies to be able to handle them with ease.
Yet, the troops know. They always know. They know the darkest secret of all; the US military can’t fight and beat anyone. It is no longer the hollow force of the Obama days, but an invisible force, for it no longer exists as a coherent, capable entity that can wage war. It is nothing more than a group of people in uniforms who pose for pictures next to guideons and flags.
The troops know that if should they be called to ever serve in combat, they are going to die in droves.
http://usdefensewatch.com/2016/02/the-great-social-experiment-takes-the-field-in-the-war-of-2020/
What kind of US Army is this?
The Army is in serious trouble. Besieged with a myriad of readiness and morale issues, it is under siege by radical feminists and leftists who are determined to reshape the Army, even if they have to destroy it.
http://usdefensewatch.com/2015/10/what-kind-of-us-army-is-this/
Rebellion in California
The battle for Jefferson
The dissidents from the northern counties who want to secede from the Golden State are “a bunch of Bible-thumpin’, gun-totin’, wild-eyed pistol-wavers.” And that’s how one of their supporters describes them. Welcome to the…
http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/02/state-of-jefferson-secessionists-california-gun-totin-rebels/
Hmm. An "army" such as that described by anon @ 6:53 AM would hard pressed to defeat a troop of boy scouts much less armed patriotic insurgents. What with expected desertions and other likely occurrences, that scenario would not only guarantee a revolution, it would well nigh guarantee success. Almost wish it would work out that way.
Are the leftists so loony that they cannot see that tearing down the forces they would need to protect their asses in the event of an insurgency would result in said asses being more likely to be shot?
Is this the same National Review that has maligned Trump supporters, many of whom are white working class, as 'low info vulgarians?' Seems to me the content of character takes a back seat to NR when it comes to those backing a candidate not of their choosing.
My point?
NR needs to look in the mirror. Their know-it-all elites are as responsible as the race-baiters when it comes to poor white Appalachian student not getting special consideration and affirmative action entitlements.
My last observation is invoking the memory of MLK Jr in the title. While MLK was spouting lofty ideals about the content of character he was shaking down DC pols to implement some of the worst, black family killing legislation ever enacted.
See, if the roots are rotten so is the fruit. MLK was a redistribtuionist Marxist through and through. Go to youtube, put in MLK and 'redistribution' and a mess of speeches by MLK spouting Marx and Engels economic theories come up. Oh and his finance man was a card-carrying communist.
Lastly, if MLK Jr had not been trained by the communists at the Highlander School and had been actually interested in blacks succeeding economically like whites, he would never have a holiday named after him, he would have gone the way of all conservative blacks--thrown on the ash heap of history or at least relegated to the 'Uncle Tom' pile of dung.
No, MLK was one slick preacher, a man positioned by certain people to be the mouthpiece for a movement hellbent on destroying capitalism under the guise of 'civil rights' for black people.
While it has become a commonplace of historical criticism to "dig past the surface" of those figures who are well-known for how they altered the direction of their times to the mundane details of how they shared in the vulgar imperfections of their contemporaries, I do not find it to be a very useful form of scholarship nor of engagement.
First, we take it for granted as a matter of course that, in all things not notably distinguishing historical figures from contemporaries of the same time and culture, they would have been much the same as those around them. The focus on what is actually different about them is both more meaningful to how they changed history and more honest...picking out MLK as being heavily influenced by Marxism implies that this was not almost universal among marginalized groups in America after WWII. A proper understanding of history points out that Marxism was almost universal and notes who departed from it (and the specifics of how). To do otherwise is to commit the identical error of those who deride the leaders of the Revolution for owning slaves in a time when the idea that slavery was wrong was still being invented...largely by those same men.
Second, as a form of persuasive engagement sullying the character of admired figures in the past is among the most offensive to the ordinary sense of reason even the least educated possess. It only prospers to the extent that you destroy utterly the desire for rational engagement in favor of demagoguery appealing to the worst human emotions. It should never be used if you have any other alternative way to engage your audience, and if you have no other way to engage your audience you should seriously consider whether the point you are making is even valid.
To value Martin Luther King (or any other historic figure) for what he uniquely contributed to our own moral outlook while understanding that he was in most other ways a man of his own time and place is not a mistake, even if it does little to serve our agenda. But in fact King's most famous expressions speak clearly and cogently to and for our belief in individual freedom and personal moral accountability. We should not be ashamed to repeat the words, "I have a dream that my[...]children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Nor should we be shy about pointing out how our adversaries betray that dream.
Post a Comment