... almost none suggested that in a televised war of the postmodern age, it is difficult for a liberal Western society to defeat and humiliate an enemy — at least to the degree necessary for it to accept a radical change of heart.
Ok, so what he is saying is that there is something we could do which could effect a "radical change of heart" within our enemies. What it is we could do, he does not say. But, we all know he's referring to slaughtering them mercilessly.
The reason we won our wars against Germany and Japan was because we were willing to slaughter their people mercilessly. The Japanese, especially, were a people who were completely unlike us. They were of a different religion, culture, and history. Their culture was one of conformity enforced through religion. They did not believe in Democracy, but instead believed in the infallibility of their leadership. Because their leadership could not be questioned, there was no room for analytical thought. And, what's more, they were willing to kill themselves in order to kill as many of us as possible.
The Japanese were a lot like the Jihadis.
In the end, we decided the only way we could thoroughly defeat them, so that they would not continue to try to fight us, was to drop two Atomic Bombs on their country.
Victor Davis Hanson says, " in a televised war of the postmodern age, it is difficult for a liberal Western society to defeat and humiliate an enemy — at least to the degree necessary for it to accept a radical change of heart. "
Why is it that television makes the necessary defeat and humiliation of an enemy impossible?
Who is it watching TV who would object to defeating Islamofascism?
Please do not give me the easy answer; leftism. Don't tell me that. That's too simple. It too easy an answer. I am a fucking former leftie, as are several of the writers here at IBA, and yet I woke up 9/11 and said, "I want to kill these motherfuckers."
I want to know the demographics and psychographics of the people who would be thwarted by images broadcast on television. I want to know who these people are, their ages, their sex, and how they think. Why would they object to killing those who would kill them?
You want to know my answer? It's women, and the men who think like them. It's baby boomers who were brought up under the shadow of feminism, so that they have only learned to feel, and not to think. It's women. It's the tyrrany of matriarchy.
If men ran the world, it would be a far less dangerous place. If men ran the world there would be fewer and less horrible wars. If men ran the world, we wouldn't be afraid to see images of our soldiers winning a war on television.
22 comments:
"You want to know my answer? It's women, and the men who think like them. It's baby boomers who were brought up under the shadow of feminism, so that they have only learned to feel, and not to think. It's women. It's the tyrrany of matriarchy."
YESSS!!
You nailed it. Exactly.
And it's become impossible to mention this in "polite" company. I know--I've tried. It'll get you reviled and ignored and marginalised, believe me.
Indirectly, women and the feminisation of Western society have caused countless unnecessary deaths and look set to pave the way for a muslim world.
Yep.
Nathan Bedford Forrest - "War means fighting, and fighting means killing"
oh and btw from someone who had a clue
Epa,
Link didn't work?
What do you think, Epa? Is it possible to fight a reasonable war in a society where women have as much power as they do?
Link worked fine for me, Pastorius. (a pic of Sherman)
Imagine Sherman trying to burn Atlanta to the ground in a society where women vote.
Dudes, I'm not a baby boomer, I'm a war baby (1944), and I still want to know what the hell they did with that "Shock and Awe" I was promised and to which I looked forward with great anticipation.
You are right, however, that too damn many women cannot understand why men in wartime have to kill people and break things in order to keep them and their children safe. American women, in particular, have been sheltered from direct experience of this reality since about 1865. Perhaps he most vivid example of it in the 20th century was the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan rather than opt for invasion. We had already suffered casualties in the hundreds of thousands and were staring at the prospect of an equivalent toll should a land invasion be launched. Millions of women in this country faced the almost certain deaths of husbands, sons, fathers, brothers and lovers were HST to decide that nuking Hiroshima was "unthinkable".
Some of the aftermath of that strike could be viewed on newsreels in movie theaters, but there was virtually no television then and of course no embedded CNN reporters aboard the Enola Gay speculating about the "devastation" and "human toll" from the explosion they had just witnessed.
My question is, had the women of America been able to watch live coverage of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki strikes, in full knowledge that the alternative was to send their husbands, sons, fathers, brothers and lovers onto the beaches of Japan to be slaughtered by the Japanese military (and the battle of Okinawa fresh in their minds) and an armed and suicidal populace, would they have been able to say, in all honesty, that they wished we had not dropped those bombs? These women were not sheltered soccer moms cringing at death tolls of a few hundred a year. They had been through 3 1/2 years of casuality lists on that order every week.
Had Truman chosen wrong, my father probably would have been amongst the troops landing on those beaches. He had already lost a brother. If you want a hint of what many WWII homefront women thought about the morality of the decision that spared the lives of these men, try asking my mother. She's 88 and I probably couldn't repeat her response in a family-friendly venue such as this.
Possibly the most formidable adversary in the animal world is a female confronting a danger to her young. The problem is, American women are not grizzly bears and the protective response that followed 9/11 has been drained away and refocused on Chinese toys and flu shots. They sit on the beach reading "The Kite Runner" and weeping over the suffering of Muslim children and how dare we make things any worse for them. (This is why I think the worst mistake the Islamists could make would be to stage a series of Beslan-style attacks on American schools. Talk about awakening a sleeping giant.) And as they wallow in their noble feelings of empathy and compassion they draw us closer to the day when millions may die because they couldn't accept what was necessary to eliminate the threat.
A mother of 3 was butchered in the street in Pakistan yesterday partly because, however imperfectly, she defied and opposed the monsters who want to enslave the world to radical Islam. I wonder if any soccer mommies in America are reflecting on the fact that they are unlikely to be blown up by Bush supporters while tooling around town in the SUV with the PEACE NOW bumper stickers.
Hi RRA,
Glad to hear you don't outright disagree with me on this one. It is clear to me that many women are suited for leadership. Thatcher was a great leader. Bhutto was a brave leader. Hell, a woman heads eBay. Atlas Shrugs, Always on Watch, and you yourself all bring a lot to the blog world. We can not just eliminate women from decision making and leadership roles, but what the fuck? We can't fucking take out Fallujah without being forced to cry about it and pay penance for years?
Fuck that.
I've got a better idea. Let's kill those who declare themselves our enemy. Then, let's get back to living our lives.
I'm sick of this war and it hasn't even begun (in earnest) yet.
"And as they wallow in their noble feelings of empathy and compassion they draw us closer to the day when millions may die because they couldn't accept what was necessary to eliminate the threat"
AMEN.
Pastorius,
I've got a better idea. Let's kill those who declare themselves our enemy. Then, let's get back to living our lives.
Yes, yes, yes!
Now, I'm a woman. But maybe because I had a country upbringing, I know that survival means taking out "the other guy," any way you can. So what if it's a gut shot, and guts get strewn all over the snowy yard (like on that winter day when Daddy show the feral Doberman who had killed my favorite pet hen)? I was right there, standing next to my father and cheering him on. And I didn't give a damn that the Doberman bitch dropped the puppy fetuses out onto the snow, either. An enemy is an enemy.
The problems with our leaders today: they spend too much time trying to understand the enemy instead of defeating the enemy, they want to fight a "just war," they pander for votes, they wimp out in the name of humanitarianism, they surrender principles based on a misbegotten sense of compromise. I could go on and on.
All of what I can think of is the inevitable path to defeat.
I'm not sure that it's women or the feminization of males that are the sole roots of the disaster in the West's leadership.
I DO think that the West doesn't believe that our defeat (loss of our way of life) is possible.
I ALSO think that the West has lost its commitment to the merit of Western culture.
So I can't really agree with your last paragraph. These men in positions of power aren't thinking like men or women. They're thinking like MORONS and basing their decisions of fantasies instead of on facts.
AND...
The media should have showed over and over again every single video of every single beheading by AQ. Those videos show what these jihadomaniacs are capable of.
AOW,
The reason the men in leadership positions are thinking like morons is because they were inured in feminisim which places feelings before reason. Our culture has lost its ability to think. Instead, we just feel. We feel sorry for Bambi and we feel sorry for Muslims.
Feminism and Postmodernism are two sides of a coin.
This is all my opinion, of course. I could be wrong.
I really hate feminism.
Putting feelings before reason is not exclusively a female fault. And it was a woman who taught me that it is a fault: Ayn Rand.
RRA,
What you say is true, and that is why there is no simple fix to this problem. If it were simply true that women are the only problem in culture, then we could just deny women the right to vote and all would be solved.
But, that won't solve everything, and it will bring up a lot of other problems.
There is a beautiful (and yes, fearful) symmetry in the male/female relationship. It is a balance which is needed for true high culture. But, as we are out of balance (and much of that is due to feminism) we are not achieving much as a culture.
Pastorius,
The reason the men in leadership positions are thinking like morons is because they were inured in feminisim which places feelings before reason.
But not only feminism puts feelings before reason. I agree that the feminization of men is a huge problem, but I don't see it as the whole ball of wax.
Feminism is one of the corollaries of leftism. Other corollaries include political correctness and multiculturalism.
Though it's not pc to admit it, women are governed by the hormones which have the effect of nurturing maternalism. We females are geared biologically toward the preservation of our young. And when we perceive that our young are mortally threatened, we act.
Male hormones, on the other hand, are the hormones of aggression because, for males, preservation of the species means fighting for one's own or one's family's survival. For decades (Dr. Spock?), males in America have been brought up in a wussified manner, which subjugates males' natural desire to protect one's self and one's family.
I know from my own experience that I think more clearly since reaching menopause. No longer do hormones govern my reason and my emotions. In other words, I'm not as soft emotionally as I used to be. Not that I ever was very soft in the traditional sense, likely due to the realistic and logically-thinking parents I had and to my upbringing which saw the raising of animals for food and the slaughter of some of those animals. I find that I'm more logical now, more realistic, in my thought processes. And, as you know, a few bloggers have wondered if I'm a man--I guess that I have a masculine kind of writing style/logic, which I've had ever since I can remember, but even more so now.
BTW, for the record, I've never read Ayn Rand. I don't think that her philosophy has much effect on me.
We are, as a culture and a nation, "out of balance." In part due to feminism? Yes.
But if I had to place blame for this too-soft attitude, I'd lay that blame at the feet of both our education system and our media, both of which are controlled by leftist thinking. That kind of philosophy began in Europe in the 1800's and reached full bloom here in the States during the last half of the 20th Century.
Now, as a former lefty, you changed because you saw and understood the threat of Islamism--on 9/11 when jihad came to America. The threat was no longer "over there" nor theoretical. As I see it, too many people in Western society still see the threat as theoretical. Furthermore, too many do not understand what's at stake, were Western civilization to continue with the appeasement of an ideology sworn to our destruction.
You know, I didn't want to believe just how evil the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith are (I was pre-menopause on 9/11 and for a few years following). But once the details were laid out before me, I got it, despite my not wanting to believe what I was reading.
Islam is, if anything, anti-feminist. And, yes, that posture gives these jihadomaniacs strength and the upper hand. They don't really care about the preservation of their families' lives or their own lives. That makes these militants very difficult to overcome.
So what do they care about? Their status in eternity. I touched upon the jihadists' focus on attaining eternal life in a post I did way back in July 2005.
Rudyard Kipling's "Female of the Species":
When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail,
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
When Nag, the wayside cobra, hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can,
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail,
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws -
’Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale,
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
Man’s timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn’t his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husband, each confirms the other’s tale:
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.
Man, a bear in most relations, worm and savage otherwise,
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise;
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.
Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger; Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue - to the scandal of the Sex!
But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same,
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.
She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity - must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions - not in these her honor dwells -
She, the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else!
She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate;
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.
She is wedded to convictions - in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him, who denies!
He will meet no cool discussion, but the instant, white-hot wild
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.
Unprovoked and awful charges - even so the she-bear fights;
Speech that drips, corrodes and poisons - even so the cobra bites;
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw,
And the victim writhes with anguish - like the Jesuit with the squaw!
So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of abstract justice - which no woman understands.
And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern; shall enthrall but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him and Her instincts never fail,
That the female of Her species is more deadly than the male!
Too bad all those fierce woman out there don't strap on a helmet and a gun and go kill some Islamonazis.
I understand what you are saying, AOW. Your points are well-taken.
And, of course, the media is to blame.
You know what else is to blame?
Disney.
Feeling sorry for Bambi. "Your mother has died. Man killed her."
The environmentalist message of almost every Hollywood movie.
But, what message does environmentalism put forth?
It puts forth the feminism of Mother Earth.
You may think clearly, and you do, but then why do your female counterparts not think clearly? You are in the minority. Sad to say.
Just as Muslims need to be challenged on the hard realities of their faith, so do women.
Women need to take a step back in our culture at this juncture. That does not mean individual strong women like you, or RRA. It means women in general. They need to take a step back and ooh and ahh over what their big strong men can do.
That's the way life is.
I have no doubt that women will sanction, and CALL FOR an utter 'rain of ruin' upon those who will attack us.
All we need is NBC, CBS, and ABC standing over the bleeding corpses of slaughtered children. Diane Sawyer and Katie interviewing the 1st responders crying over the maimed, and a city center IRRADIATED with the by products of the nuclear fuel cycle of of foreign nation.
The women will then LEAD the call for water boarding every stupid bastard who thinks shariah is a good idea.
How stupid we are.
How would history have regarded WSC had he been SUCCESSFUL in rousing the west to crush Hitler at the moment of the Rhineland in 1936?
He would be the aggressive, imperialist, interventionist the Germans claimed him to be, and the unknown savior of 45 million souls.
But democracies need bodies to act.
Epa,
I agree. But, what you are saying is that women will lead the call to act when it is too late. But, they are the leaders against acting until that time.
Not too late.
"Just" MORE bodies.
Yeah, I only mean too late as in too late to avoid nuclear war.
Post a Comment