Print this post Print this post

Women in Combat: “Why Not?”

combat1,402 words

Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced in January that he would formally lift the ban on women serving in combat positions. Across the nation, many frustrated men are asking “why?” 

Placing females into all-male groups couldn’t possibly improve morale. It couldn’t possibly improve male bonding or the sense of brotherhood that drives men to risk their lives for each other. While many of women’s special physiological needs can be addressed, putting them in harsh combat scenarios couldn’t possibly be more efficient than restricting them to support roles. When General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was asked if women will be able to meet the physical standards set for certain roles, he replied that the burden will be on the service to explain why the standards have to be so high, or lower the standards so that women can meet them. So, he’s clearly not concerned with improving the physical readiness of combat soldiers. Like most advocates for women in combat, he is merely arguing that accommodating female soldiers may not screw things up too much.

Few are arguing—or arguing in good faith—that allowing women to serve in combat roles will actually improve morale, efficiency, or effectiveness. Few would argue that doing so will save the lives of American soldiers, or help those soldiers defeat their enemies. Putting women in combat just doesn’t seem to make any sense.

Fellas, you’ve got it all wrong. It doesn’t have to make sense. You’re arguing against women in combat based on the assumption—the naïve, childlike assumption—that the Secretary of Defense, or the Joint Chiefs, or members of Congress, or the President of the United States, actually give a damn about whether American soldiers live or die.

If they cared about that, they’d at least try to dream up a legitimate reason for having those guys in Afghanistan at all. Obama was elected—the first time—by an electorate who overwhelmingly wanted American soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan. How many American soldiers have died in the four years he’s spent dragging his feet and making vague excuses for why they are still there? All for an undeclared war with a poorly defined mission and a general sense that nothing of lasting value has been or ever will be accomplished.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that “our leaders” care about the lives of fighting men, or about increasing the effectiveness of fighting units. The United States of America isn’t run by men of honor. It’s run by politicians and bureaucrats.

There is absolutely every reason to assume that the United States of America is run by grotesque, Kissenger-esque sociopaths who believe that “Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy.” Do you actually believe that an Obama or a Hillary Clinton would care about throwing another few guys under the tank for a little good press?

If not, why even bother arguing about abstract intangibles like “unit cohesion” or “morale?” It’s pointless to argue about whether a combat unit will be equally “effective” if you don’t believe the people calling the shots are calling them in good faith. Our handlers in Washington have plenty of bombs and guns and “stupid pawns” to throw at any unpleasantness they encounter. How effective does a unit really have to be?

Allowing women in combat is a big public relations “feel-good” exercise and it guarantees the Pentagon top brass and Barack Obama an attentive, doe-eyed blowjob from every feminist hack in the New York media.

That’s “why.”The “why” is easy.

I’m more interested in the “why not.”

I’ve read a lot of arguments from men—some with a military background and many without—who think putting women into combat is wrong. Too many of their arguments focus on physical standards. They argue that most women can’t carry a wounded soldier or carry the required gear or do the right number or pushups and pull-ups.
Is that what a man is? A “PT” score?

If a minority of women could meet the same physical standards as men—without changing them at all—would you still object to women in combat?

Be honest with yourself, because there are plenty of female athletes out there right now at this very moment who can do enough pushups and pull-ups and who could carry a wounded soldier just as well as any average guy. There are fewer women than men who could do this, but those women do exist.  Acknowledging this fact, would you still have issues with that woman doing that job, and, if so, why?

Brothers, know yourselves.

Yukio Mishima admired the samurai as a “total human being.” The samurai was not merely a technician. He was not merely a “person” who wielded a sword. The samurai was a man with a spiritual role. He was part of a warrior caste. He had a place in society and a sense of identity that transcended his skill set.

Soldier women are an inevitable end of the technocratic view of the world, a view that reduces men and women to a set of skills and stats and PT scores. According to this view of things, there are no castes or sacred roles. There are no tribes or peoples. There are no men or women. There are only jobs and qualifications for those jobs. If you ascribe to this view of the world, you deserve women in combat, and are partially responsible for it.

If the idea of women in combat angers you—as it angers me—I believe it is because you sense a transgression. It’s about more than a few numbers on a page. I have never served in the military, and I will never have to suffer because some affirmative action G.I. Jane can’t haul some heavy gear. In truth, the number of men who are directly affected by this will be extremely low. Only a tiny percentage of American men serve in the armed forces, and an even smaller percentage of those men have ever or will ever experience combat. And yet, the very idea of women serving in those groups offends and disturbs me. I still sleep at night, but it elicits a visceral response of disgust and disbelief.

Placing women in combat profanes something sacred.

This is difficult for most men to articulate, but it’s psychologically profound. Warriors are and always have been the avatars of our masculinity. In our safe, civilized society, soldiers play the sacred role of men for us. They protect the perimeter. They fight for “us” against “them.” They risk death.

This is part of the reason why I think so many men feel moved to thank soldiers “for their service.” I’ve seen it happen—specifically to a military pal of mine—and the gesture is always so solemn, so religious. Today’s soldiers aren’t protecting us from anything. Most of us have never truly felt endangered by an external threat. American men my age don’t know what it means to be invaded or threatened with invasion. And yet, for many, there remains a palpable and emotional sense of gratitude to these men who go to faraway lands and face death on our behalf. They haven’t saved us from anything, but they are still our heroes—perhaps more in the way that football players and action movie stars are our heroes, but we know that they face a threat that is real for them, if not necessarily for us.

Soldiers “over there” are being men for all of the men “over here.” These heroes may or may not be so noble or impressive in real life, but it doesn’t really matter, because their role is symbolic. They are the torchbearers of our primal male identity. Females can’t play that role for us. Women can’t be men for us, because they are women. And, placing women in that role, not out of necessity—as occasional helpers—but as a matter of policy means that American soldiers can no longer be the sacred avatars of pure masculinity. They’re another bunch of guys forced to do a job with female co-workers, whether they want to or not, just like the rest of us.

If men can no longer picture themselves in the sacred role of men fighting for American civilization, many may begin to picture themselves in the sacred role of men fighting against American civilization.

If bands of brothers are outlawed, then only outlaws will have bands of brothers.

 

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)

31 Comments

  1. Podsnap
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    According to this view of things, there are no castes or sacred roles. There are no tribes or peoples. There are no men or women. There are only jobs and qualifications for those jobs. If you ascribe to this view of the world, you deserve women in combat, and are partially responsible for it.

    I had pride in my country until they let anyone become a citizen. I had pride in my work until the level of efficiency of corporate work was reduced to such a depth that anyone could do it.

    But of course pride isn’t important these days – just getting along and getting ahead.

    Great article.

    • Posted February 4, 2013 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

      Thanks, and yeah, pride should be more important. The real kind, not the fake therapy parade kind.

  2. Jack Laurent
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    This is a bit like the “gays in the military” reasoning:

    feminists will applaud it, without realizing that if there’s ever a draft in the future they aren’t going to enjoy an exempt status and many quite unwilling women will get shot to bits on the battlegrounds of wherever.

    The comments on the CNS link are pretty amusing too.. it’s not loyalist arab or iranian persians who rape enemy soldiers, it’s the arab and persian allies of the west who do that. There’s no class amongst people who’re ready to betray their own brothers and sisters for a handful of sheckles.

  3. Robert Pinkerton
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    It has been my belief since the late 1970s, that the Body Politic of the United States of America, wherein each citizen — not non-citizen resident — is a cell (Call that Body colloquially, “Uncle Sam,” pictured as a goat-bearded New England bachelor in a ridiculous striped suit.), is terminally morbid. As that is so, many Acts of State can be compared to demented behavior of a terminally-demented natural person of advanced age. Although that is not the sole issue: There are complications arising from all sorts of errors of statecraft, come back to infect the Body Politic with their different toxicities.

    Of course putting women into combat is flat-out ridiculous, if not tragic. The idea is the deformed bastard brainchild of Cultural (mutated virus para-, proto-, quasi-, pseudo-) Marxism by yuppie careerism.

    (Apologies to some people who dislike favorable reference to Jews. Who fails to respect an adversary decreases his chance of winning even a skirmish, let alone the contest.) The man who was my best Jewish friend when I was in college in the late 1960s, told me that while Israel does conscript women, it conscripts women for only two years rather than a man’s basic three years. Further, when a zone turns even warm, let alone hot, female personnel are evacuated. Female personnel are assigned to such duties as clerical, instructional, and nursing, in order to free up male personnel for combat duty. Female personnel are trained in Arms, but with an emphasis on personal self-defense, so that if the men around them fail or fall, the women are not bereft of protection. Now this may have been overtaken by events, by too deep a draught of egalitarianism; but what was not overtaken by events, is what Tom said to me by way of an epilogue: “Women continue the race. That’s why they’re too precious to risk.”

    Of course the decision to admit women to combat is bizarre. (In my private opinion, any male superior who knowingly sends a female into harm’s way, should shoot himself — and it is crucially important that only he should shoot himself, because if he were shot by another, that would make him eligible for canonization as a martyr.) But if the Body Politic is as badly demented as I believe it is, why are you surprised?

  4. Riki
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Mr. Donovan, for this great article that is truthful, powerful and moving. While reading through it, I felt about some deeply transcending and edifying value, and the feeling is reinforced by an emotional surge that puffed me up with pugnacious patriotic pride in the valorous and honorable soldiers together with an intense and torrid hatred toward the wretched and vile politicians and military bosses with their vicious and noxious agenda of debasing, cheapening, vitiating and sissifying the US military.

    The last part that “If men can no longer picture themselves in the sacred role of men fighting for American civilization, many may begin to picture themselves in the sacred role of men fighting against American civilization. If bands of brothers are outlawed, then only outlaws will have bands of brothers.” is both rhetorically virile and vigorous and profoundly inspirational in the substance. Priceless!

  5. Charles S. J. White
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    Why have you blacked out all of your articles? I do not know how to access to read them.

    The short video on the French camp was interesting but needed more interpretation.

  6. Jaego
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    Yes, and many of the same arguments could be made for the all male priesthood. Some religions had both priest and priestesses. But female priests? Crazy.

    But Priesthoods can become very arrogant. Likewise, military men typically wont accept the least criticism of America’s insane wars. They take it personally. So I don’t care to thank them since it just strengthens a corrupt brotherhood. I wish I could though because I do feel as you describe.

  7. mekachu
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    I think that this is one of the most ignorant and nostalgic articles I have ever read on the counter-currents site. The writer ignores the role of women in combat in various societies and traditions throughout the ages, simply to attempt to engender a false myth that heroes of war can only be male.

    • Posted February 4, 2013 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

      Actually, your self-serving (and thoroughly feminist, and anti-traditional) need to make sure we remember and pay homage to the tiny minority of female warriors far in excess of their historical importance shows why you don’t belong in a male group. Any group you enter will always be about you, about accommodating your needs and feelings as a woman, and not stepping on your toes. That’s a good enough argument against pushing women into groups of men.

      The point of the article was not that women can’t and have never fought, but that something important is being lost for a lot of men so that a tiny minority of women can have their day in the sun. This has more or less been the case with every aspect of feminism in the 20th Century.

    • Chinese John
      Posted February 5, 2013 at 12:57 am | Permalink

      In traditional societies, women tend to become warriors only when the military situation is absolutely desperate (Boudica, Hua Mulan, etc).

  8. MrDislaw
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    “If bands of brothers are outlawed…” etc. I bet there will be more than a few infantry guys getting that inked on their bicep tomorrow. The irony is that the “outlaws”, that is the gangs of Hispanics, Blacks, Skin-heads, or whatever the hue, have more common sense than the bureaucrats in the Pentagon. They would never compromise their machismo or their culture by putting their women in harms way. When they are out on the street gang-banging, the women are back in the crib serving re-fried beans to the kiddies and making sure that their man has a cold brew waiting for him in the ‘fridge.

    • Posted February 4, 2013 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

      “I bet there will be more than a few infantry guys getting that inked on their bicep tomorrow.”

      That would be cool.

    • Bobby
      Posted February 7, 2013 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

      BINGO!! You nailed the essence of the issue, sir. Thank you.

  9. IgnorantNostalgicGuy
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    @mekachu

    If that’s how you feel lady then why don’t all of you smart people get away for “ignorants” like us here? Why do you want to be in the same country as us? Just to tell us we’re “ignorant?”

    Look maybe it’s time for you and your fellow heroines to go do something heroic, now today, in Iraq(n), Afghanistan, Mali, etc. Get a move on, quickly now heroines!

  10. Jungleboots
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

    It was Napoleon that once said, “Never interupt your enemy while he is making a mistake” and make no mistake about it, the U.S is the enemy, they have waged war on us, the people of European descent for a very long time. Good for women in the military, I hope the whole U.S military is made up of sodomites,negroes and women, it will make it that much easier for future Independence and of control of our destiny.

    Vive La Chaz Bono!

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted February 4, 2013 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

      Yes, the less effective the US military, the better for the world and the race.

      • Justin Huber
        Posted February 4, 2013 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

        I agree with this this. I can no longer stomach the U.S. military. Their recruiting ads are positivitely nauseating. Full of blacks and browns, and stupid slogans like “a global force for good” (U.S. Navy). Years ago I probably would have cared. Not anymore.

    • Deviance
      Posted February 4, 2013 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

      I wholly concur with this vision.

      It is hard enough waiting for the natural death of Uncle Sam, which seems to postpone its arrival every year. Why get riled up about the actions of people who seem hell bent on driving him to an early grave? More free cigars and booze in the mail, please!

      PS: Napoleon Bonaparte is not very well-known outside of France and is underestimated as a thinker, partly because of the failure of his mission to conquer Europe. This is regrettable. He offers extremely sharp and pragmatic insights on many subjects. He was quite uneducated, but his fierce mind more than made up for that. The fact a man ultimately failed does not mean all his observations suddenly become invalid.

  11. WG
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    Well said. Especially the last sentence, which ties in to the Männerbund concept.

    It’s time for White men to form “Outlaw” gangs of our own.

    I’m beginning to think the biker gang culture in the US has had the right idea.

    • Vacant Serif
      Posted February 5, 2013 at 8:16 am | Permalink

      Yes it would be a grand strategy to emulate criminal barbarians. I can understand the attraction to the masculine and the outlaw but lets not delude ourselves, most bikers are filth. 1%’rs. If you revere them solely for their race than that is unfortunate.

  12. David
    Posted February 4, 2013 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    This is a little bit of a tangent – and I liked most of the article (and the prose was great, as always in JD’s articles) – but I do take issue with the approval of modern American military idolatry.

    Setting aside the issue of the savage, one-sided, inhuman slaughter that consists of modern American “wars” (something that should NOT be set aside, but I’ll do so for argument), the truth is that modern American men aren’t worshiping the military because of appreciation for manly virtues. Nor are they worshiping the military because they actually believe they’re “fighting them over here so we don’t fight them over here”.

    Instead, modern Americans are secretly worshiping the military for the exact same reason they also worship the police, firemen, and ALL armed government agents. They’re doing so because modern TV and movies display armed government agents as the paragon of virtue and aspirational traits. By worshiping the police, military, etc., Americans feel as though they’re syncing up the world around them with the TV shows and movies that they spend 4.5 hours per day staring at.

    Don’t believe me? Put my theory to the test!

    Show men the ACTUAL video of the Normandy Beach invasion, and note how tame it is compared to ‘Saving Private Ryan’ (there were probably more men killed in five minutes in the movie than the actual invasion, and most of the real fatalities came later from infections and the like). Show Americans this, and they’ll….RECOIL! Terrified! ‘Saving Private Ryan’ is what they’re told is the real world. They’ll DENY the real war footage, “That’s fake! That was filmed later!” They’ll do anything except say, “I was a fool for believing a movie.” They’ll eagerly sacrifice their own honor to maintain their illusions about military virtue.

    Here’s another test: Show the average “Support the Troops!” American man that being a cop isn’t even CLOSE to one of the most dangerous jobs in the U.S. (All top 10 are in the private sector, incidentally.) Show them that most of the small number of cops who die don’t die in shootouts, but in car accidents or by shooting EACH OTHER. Watch their reaction. Will they celebrate, “Thank God these men aren’t dying!” “Whew, all the TV shows are fake!” No….again, they’ll lie. “It’s not true! Cops are brave men who put their lives on the line!” (http://www.lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut71.1.html)

    This is the core of the matter: Americans love their TV and movie worldviews – whether it’s ‘Saving Private Ryan’, ’300′, ‘The Dark Knight’, CSI, Law & Order, whatever – more than the world around them. They’ll lie to validate their dependance on being amused by cop shows and war movies.

    Plus….it’s a lot easier to bend over to government men with guns than to fight them. (As it’s easier to BECOME a government man with a gun than it is to become a doctor or engineer.)

    See, I warned at the start that this was a tangent!

    • Sandy
      Posted February 5, 2013 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

      David, You will be interested in an article from the Vancouver, BC Province newspaper, 10th September, 2010 regarding the kidnapping of Natascha Kamush in Vienna.
      It read, in part, that at ten years old she was a great fan of TV police series so that from her underground prison, a tiny cell measuring just five square meters in the house of her captor Wolfgang Priklopil in Strasshof, a quiet leafy suburb of Vienna, she would fantasize about how the police were doing everything to find and save her………but the police were doing nothing of the sort. They apologised to Prikopil and went away without yaking a closer look at his car or his house…..even when he couldnot provise an alibi they apparently did not become suspicious…..She eventually escaped on her own……she eveb “got” the impression that they were peeved that I had managed to free myself….In this case they weren’t my rescuers, but the people who failed to find me all these years. Natascha wrote a book on her expereince aptly titled “3,096 Days.”

      • David
        Posted February 6, 2013 at 1:26 am | Permalink

        Yes, the sentiment expressed by that lady is a good representation of the mindset people have: a delusional impression of cops and military as tireless heroes. When this is proven false, many people admit they were foolish to believe movies and TV, while many others double-down on their fake worldview.

        (It’s interesting to note, however, that as I researched the Kamush incident, that she was not nearly the helpless victim she and the media like to advertise, and that her and her “kidnapper” took vacations and he left her alone all the time. This suggests that she liked the man controlling her, just as so many women are so attracted to prison inmates that they drive for days to have a single conjugal visit with a stranger. Women are attracted to male dominance, in all forms, and Ms. Kamush was apparently drawn to her kidnapper’s dominance.)

  13. Lew
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 2:49 am | Permalink

    Blacks, gays and women. Yeah, I’m sure sure the world is ready to go into hiding. But seriously, I think the comments at Sailer’s blog nailed it. The nature of warfare has changed. It’s not like the US is fighting the Axis powers, that is, a real military.

    These degraded units will be used for scut work in various hell holes like Mali, securing oil platforms for oligarchs or handing out food to the locals while Maxine Waters and Kofi Annan do interviews on CNN.

    When the empire needs something important done, they’ll use drones, assassinations, cyber war, stealth aircraft, bunker busters, maybe nukes, or, for groundwork, SEAL teams or other elite units consisting of heterosexual white men.

    The murder of Chris Kyl, a deadly SEAL sniper, is in the news. I read a bit about his background and was sickened but not surprised to learn the American propaganda machine did a number on him. It turns out that in Iraq he viewed himself as a Christian crusader killing infidels. Apparently, he had a cross tattooed on his arm to strike fear into the Muslim opposition. The sad truth is that he was using his skills at war as a mercenary for people who hate him, his family, Christianity, white folks and everything he probably thought he was fighting for.

  14. Mark Robinson
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    I love this! The Obama election and re-election, the immigration reform (mass amnesty), EBT welfare totally out of control, Wall Street more criminal than ever, and now gays, lebians and women in the military combat positions…. The ZOG jumped the shark!!!

  15. Jack Laurent
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    but I do take issue with the approval of modern American military idolatry.

    David,
    I sort of agree with your tangent but I think that Americans “idolize” their own fantasy of what the military is- if you show the average sober minded patriot footage of a 17yr old kid in uniform emptying hundreds of rounds from a chaingun into an Iraqi village while some cliché satanic death metal music blares from his tank then I think those same patriots are going to be turned off by it. Some elements of the fantasy are true though: the soldiers out there are putting their lives on the line for “America” and so they get credit.. but you could say the exact same thing for the Taliban or the Khmer Rogue about their own defacto national ambitions and defense.

    But for the most part it’s just fantasy. I’ve never been in the military, I toyed with the idea years ago but you know what held me back? I didn’t want to be shooting or bombing innocent people in wars for the benefit of israel against nations that aren’t quite the monsters they’re made out to be. Essentially all troops serving today on some level are dimly aware of this point (at least they’re aware they’re killing innocents, never mind the philosophical point attached to it), so no, they don’t deserve to be idolized as a “rule”.

    That being said, when true instances of heroism and exemplary conduct occur amongst troops, then they most certainly deserve the praise. Like the 4 soldiers were killed in Libya for example, that’s worthy of respect.. but some little shit-for-brains guffawing as he mows down fleeing civilians from a gunship is most definitely not worthy of respect and neither is he deserving of a uniform- but importantly, the shit-for-brains is the general rule among the armies today. Not the historic exemplars that some patriots may imagine when they “idolize the military”.

    My opinion on it though? It’s just sport to them.

    People don’t really think about it when they’re applauding their team do they?

    Good for women in the military, I hope the whole U.S military is made up of sodomites,negroes and women, it will make it that much easier for future Independence and of control of our destiny.

    When the empire needs something important done, they’ll use drones, assassinations, cyber war, stealth aircraft, bunker busters, maybe nukes, or, for groundwork, SEAL teams or other elite units consisting of heterosexual white men.

    This.

  16. Jack Laurent
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    I think that this is one of the most ignorant and nostalgic articles I have ever read on the counter-currents site. The writer ignores the role of women in combat in various societies and traditions throughout the ages, simply to attempt to engender a false myth that heroes of war can only be male.

    Mekachu,
    The point isn’t that women aren’t capable of shooting a small child in the head or ripping the baby out of the womb of a palestinian woman, women are certainly capable of these things and all you have to do is look at the IDF in Israel.

    One of the points that’s being made is that this is another instance of a policy under the banner of political correctness which will exist to the detriment of a service being implemented by people who clearly don’t have the best interests of the nation in mind when they made them up and promoted them. Look here at the quote from the CNS article:

    When General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was asked if women will be able to meet the physical standards set for certain roles, he replied that the burden will be on the service to explain why the standards have to be so high, or lower the standards so that women can meet them.

    Does it sound like General Martin Dempsey thinks that putting women into combat zones is going to benefit the US military? No? Then the question should be raised as to why it’s happening, because it would appear that the implementation of this in reality is only going to undermine the army in the long term, and that’s not something that the US government should logically be on board with… and yet it is. So that needs addressing.

    That’s really the most objective way to look at it by judging the outcome of the action.

  17. pb
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    “If a minority of women could meet the same physical standards as men—without changing them at all—would you still object to women in combat?”

    Plenty of military and civilian men who are ok with women being warriors, so long as they meet the standards. They’ll chirp in on Facebook or in comboxes for articles dealing with the subject. It’s rather pathetic, even though they would probably claim that their sense of “manhood” is not threatened by having a woman do the same work.

  18. Desiree
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    What depresses me the most is that women being thrown into combat is now “progression”.
    Being a traditional female, I am looked at as a disappointment – someone who is regressing and making their sex look weak. We are denying our natural being as women, working, buying tons of useless items, clubbing, etc other careless things my generation loves. We throw our children into the care of a nanny so that we can get a manicure and a new hair cut. To me, this is just another step back for us – another way to spit on who we should be and everything our people have accomplished.

    • Bobby
      Posted February 9, 2013 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

      Desiree, it depresses me also. Imagine, women being so denigrated as to have to risk being killed by being purposely put into danger. Women, who are the agent that continue the human race. It sickens me to no end, that millions of males didn’t put a stop to this devilish abomination, which is what it is, in my opinion.

4 Trackbacks

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    The Wagnerian Drama

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance