In Defense of Scott Simon and America V: The Anti-War Movement and the Feminizing of America’s Men
In Defense of Scott Simon and America V: The Anti-War Movement and the Feminizing of America’s Men
By
Ken Eliasberg
Closely related to our effete Academy’s effort to turn our youth against their country are their anti-war efforts which result in emasculating our young men. At the outset, let’s make it clear that no one — at least no one in his or her right mind — likes war. The only question that war raises is is it necessary; have all peaceful paths to progress been followed without the prospect of a positive result? In other words it is not a matter of whether war is good or bad; certainly it is bad! However, our history is dotted with such unpleasantries — situations where dialogue had failed, and, in the process of failing, has provided abundant evidence as to the limitations of dialogue when you are dealing with lunatics and/or religious fanatics. Along these lines, it is worth noting how unsuccessful most efforts at dialogue have been, particularly when we have been dealing with “evil” screwballs like Hitler, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden, etc. In this vein, I commend to the reader’s attention an excellent article in the September, 2008 issue of Commentary magazine (at page 27) by Joshua Muravchik, entitled Obama’s “Talking” Cure. Mr. Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, discusses this very point, i.e. the rather unfortunate success rate with diplomacy (but then, again, what else can the left offer but conversation and nonsense).
Moreover, if you really want to secure peace, then the best approach — one endorsed by enlightened leaders — is to prepare for war. Indeed, 2 of our better presidents offered up just such advice: Washington observed that “There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy.” Reagan made this observation: “Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong.” And, really, doesn’t this conform to our own personal growing-up experience — you never tell your son to just roll over for a bully (of course, in those days our kids weren’t packing guns). Similarly, on a more global scale a geopolitical bully will look elsewhere for a victim if he believes that the consequence of pressing his will might be his own destruction, or, at the very least, that the cost would not justify the benefit.
What has this got to do with anti-Americanism. Again, everything? Why? Because the anti-war proponents tend to produce pacifists, and pacifists are not inclined to go to war, even when it is clear that war is the only answer. That is, their aversion to war is such that they will not physically assert themselves, and, in the final analysis, “pacifist” is a flattering way to describe a coward — one who lacks the courage to rise to his own defense, let alone that of his loved ones or country.
Coming full cycle to Mumbai, we have a first-rate example of the results produced by a pacification effort — many Indians stood by and watched the slaughter; policemen refused to shoot the “evil terrorists.” So deeply inculcated in their Hindu make up is this moral imperative of non violence (writ large in the efforts of Gandhi) that they have allowed themselves to be bullied into submission by any more aggressive faction, be it India’s Muslims (who they outnumber by about 6 to 1), and/or the even more greatly outnumbered British who colonized them for a prolonged period of time. How did they do this, you might ask? By turning their backs on the Hindu warrior, de-masculinizing themselves, if you will. In this regard, I refer the reader to an interesting and insightful column on this very point which appeared on the 12/17/09 website of the American Thinker by a Mr. Ed Kaitz, entitled When elites eschew defense:The case of India. In the article the author points out — persuasively, I might add — how India’s policy of nonviolence has only served to aggravate the violence which is ultimately visited on its people.
For example, in the recent Mumbai massacre (by those questionably “evil” “terrorists” — questionable only by imbeciles and academic airheads), as noted, a number of India’s policemen refused to shoot back at their attackers, even during periods when the attackers were preoccupied with reloading their weapons. This is a column well worth reading because it demonstrates the consequences of disregarding human nature to such an extent as to put your entire society in jeopardy.
A variation on this “pacification” program is the feminization of our society — the nanny state or more accurately the “sissy” state — in which it is vulgar, primitive, and in bad taste to assert yourself, even when such assertion takes the form of self defense. In essence, we are making our young men feel that there is something wrong with part of their primal nature (unfortunately, this news hasn’t filtered down to many of our urban neighborhoods which make Iraq look almost safe).This must be what Schwarzenegger had in mind when he referred to “girlie men,” a group in which he now seems to be seeking membership. The point here being that violence is abroad — indeed, it seems to inhere in our nature. To cast off recourse to it — no matter how life-threatening the circumstances — is an act of lunacy.
What has this got to do with our Academy (or, again, the social studies segment of it)? Everything!! It is the members (or at least the great majority of them) who sap our will to fight because, they argue, our attackers are really decent chaps who are merely responding to our wicked ways. This is such palpable B.S. as to leave one not knowing where to begin in shaping a response. And it is pure Anti-Americanism.
In short, what the social studies (or, more recently, the social justice fellows) do to our young men is first, screw up their minds, turning them against their own country; then, through their anti-war efforts, cut off their courage; and, finally, put a dress on them. Thus you are left with feminized enuchs who won’t fight, can’t fight, and feel it unfashionable to fight for their country (unless of course, they first check with their Mommy, the U.N. — a feckless, corrupt, useless, and anti-American organization that we see fit to house and fund) even when circumstances clearly indicate that every other avenue has been taken and failed.
In other words, first are liberal professoriate destroys their confidence in their country, thereby limiting their enthusiasm to come to here defense. Then they destroy their confidence in themselves, thereby limiting their capacity, let alone their inclination to do so.
2 things
BOTTOM LINE — YOUR KIDS DON’T GET AN EDUCATION — THEY GET A LEFT-WING INDOCTRINATION, i.e. SOCIAL JUSTICE INSTEAD OF READING
FIRST THEY SCRAPE OUT THEIR BRAINS, THEN THEY CUT OFF THEIR COURAGE. AFTER THIS MENTAL AND PHYSICAL NUETERING PROCESS, THEY GO ALL THE WAY AND TURN THEM INTO GIRLS — THESE ARE THE GIRLIE MEN THAT SCHWARZENEGGER SPOKE OF (AND WHOSE NUMBER HE HAS SINCE JOINED) — EMPTY SHELLS, POSING AS MEN, WHOSE CONVERSION HAS LEFT THEM TOO WEAK TO DEFEND EVEN THEMSELVES, LET ALONE THEIR COUNTRY. THIS IS WHAT THE FAR LEFT IN THIS COUNTRY WANTS, ON THEIR WAY TO OBLIVION — A WELFARE (SOCIALISTIC) STATE FOLLOWED BY AN EVENTUAL CALIPHATE
there are wonderful teachers and scholars, but a greatly diminished number in our social studies departments, and
2. I respect shools and scholars; indeed, education has been a fundamental part of my life and played a fundamental role in it.
Indoctrinatet them, then castratet them
In other words, take over the minds, and cut off their courage.AARON BROTHERS
Howard Zinn, who I have dealt with before ( see) is the Godfather of this leflt-wing academic Mafia. In a 2-column interview session with Dennis Prager (the purpose of which was not to engage in a debate, but rather to expose Zinn’s views to the public), Zinn, in responding to the question of whether the world is a better place because America is in it, was hard pressed to respond in a positive manner. His answer to the question was.
THE ABOVE MAY BE A BIT MUCH (??) BUT IT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE THE READER WITH SOME INSIGHT AS TO THE BIAS THAT INFUSES OUR LEFT-WING ACADEMIC’S VIEWS
DEFINITION OF ACADEMIC — SOMETHING BETWEEN OF LITTLE PRACTICAL OR UTILITARIAN VALUE, ON THE ONE HAND, OR COMPLETELY DIVORCED OF REALITY ON THE OTHER.
EFFETE ELITE — GIRLIE MEN (HE’S BECOME ONE — THE SISSEFACATION OF AMERICA
- GAP BETWEEN THE COMMON MAN AND THE ELITE — WHY WE GET CENTER-LEFT GOVT. WHEN WE HAVE A CENTER-RIGHT CTRY.
THE UNCOMMON DECENCY AND COMMON SENSE OF THE COMMON MAN
AYERS WILL BE ZINN’S SUCCESSOR