A historian (and ex-Marine) friend reacted to Scott Locklin’s essay about the importance of tough manliness: “One of the reasons I hate liberalism is that it is wimp liberalism.” He then adduced the therapeutic state’s handling of violent criminals as an example of limp liberalism. He said that had the hyper-macho POTUS Theodore Roosevelt been reelected in 1912, the Germans wouldn’t have dared to start World War I.
Scanning the news page the other day, it struck me that liberalism—even when not limp but incarnated in such priapic women as La Hillary, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, the Napolitano person, or Janet Reno—is still a road to war, mayhem, and self-destruction. Instigating idiotic wars in faraway places with billions spent—not a dime of which we have—and then “hoping” via a menopausal psychotic she-narcissist that the rebels “safeguard” 20,000 surface-to-air missiles, the black-market value of which rests in their ability to shoot Boeings out of the sky—why, that strikes me as utopian estrogen-cockiness deserving the most hateful opprobrium. Same goes for pleading that Egyptian mobs whose ascension the US has foolishly sponsored refrain from their destruction of the Israeli Embassy and the Middle East’s fragile peace with it.
It’s no coincidence that back in March, shortly after this whitey-sponsored Arab Spring insanity was initiated, the addled gelding Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was spouting on teeveee to Chris Wallace:
Thank God for strong women in the Obama Administration….I think the president has caveated this way too much. It’s almost like it’s a nuisance.
Europe has been destroyed partly because gelded men have streamed insane socialist women into positions of power in defense, internal security, law enforcement, foreign policy, etc., there to implement their lunatic passive-aggressive chimeras. This is how a deconstructed postmodern Minister of Defense (in this case, of Spain) does troop review, her maternity dress billowing, fittingly four years after her country capitulated before reconquista Muslim terrorists. And this woman—a socialist baroness, no less—had as much to do with immersing bankrupt Europe in the expensive and dangerous hellhole of the Arab Spring as BHO’s “three strong women” had to do with nudging the near-bankrupt America to jump into that terrible morass.
The liberal-progressive David Brown’s choice for Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, among her many stupefying displays of terminal stupidity renamed terrorism by fanatical Muslims “anti-Islamic activity” and described fanatical Muslim terrorists as “criminals whose victims come from all walks of life, communities and religions.” For a change, “conservative” David Cameron’s choice for Home Secretary, Theresa May, has been not only densely dim in responding to widespread rioting in Great Britain, but repeatedly so.
If Obama has his three strong women, the fatuous “conservative” poseur Bush used to send Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes to represent the United States before medieval Arabian potentates to better elicit their pity for the idiot giant. Clinton had his big ones (Reno) and small ones (Shalala), but his iconic yenta—other than the Mrs.—must have been Madeleine Albright. Immortalized in her hen-on-amphetamines approach to the job of Secretary of State in this David Zucker video, Madam Secretary is now, among her many other ventures for spreading strong estrogen doctrine, the doyenne of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Since the CFR is where US colonels on a fast track to their first generalship star are sent for a year’s apprenticeship, it’s no wonder that doctrines of feminized warfare such as “hearts and minds” and nation-building have spread even to such battle-hardened warriors as General Stanley McChrystal, a CFR alumnus. Diana West, following her earlier call to fire McChrystal, charged the esteemed general with criminally irresponsible rules of engagement “predicated on a politically correct, see-no-Islam, hothouse-academic, socially-engineering vision of the world as it isn’t that has cost all too many of our men’s lives, limbs, and well-being, not to mention countless billions of dollars, and lost power and prestige that once safeguarded us against our enemies.”
It seems like a contradiction to quote Diana West while bashing the female influence in disciplines resting on the correct reading of human reality. But one must reckon with the fallacies embedded in the confounded postmodern West’s Weltanschauung due to the left’s distortions and misuses of basic statistical concepts.
There are splendid, wise, and courageous women who could teach the male species a lesson. Margaret Thatcher was one of the 20th century’s best and most admirable statesmen. The antics of Dr. Susan Rice (see realist assessments here and here) at the United Nations are a laughingstock. Rice would not be fit to sharpen Jeane Kirkpatrick’s pencils in the same office.
The mean characteristics of a group neither represent nor are represented by the +3 or 4 sigma outlier in that group. Major Heather Penney made an exemplary fighter pilot, but that does not mean that opening military-combat careers to women is generally a good idea. Catherine Destivelle may be one of the greatest rock climbers of all time, but it does not follow that women, as a group, ought to be considered on an equal basis—and no other basis will do—for service as firemen, policemen, or elite-unit combat soldiers.
But all that does not jibe with the liberal-progressive doctrine that rests on non-discrimination, i.e., a conscious refusal to acknowledge and act on biological reality’s discriminations. The same doctrine also construes singular exceptions to reality’s rules as disprovals of reality’s rules.
With women’s ascent into male domains has come the degradation of the males deemed qualified to serve in positions previously reserved for tough men. With this man its Commander-in-Chief and this man its CIA Director and now US Secretary of Defense, the US could have placed Betty Friedan in either of those positions with equal success.
What is to be done? At this stage, after 40 years of major degradation, there are no simple answers left. If reversal could be attained from within, Western men would have to find enough testosterone in their depleted brains and gonads to combat women for control of society via peaceful but radical means such as a reverse Lysistrata. To condense that to a phrase, “Feminist Hex or Sex: Choose One.”
It’s either that, or the solutions will be extracted from us exogenously. There are several candidates who could act as Offended Reality’s scourge—all of them patriarchal, macho-controlled, and totally unconcerned with soft concepts such as social justice or hearts and minds. Choose One: People’s Republic of China, Putin’s (and his successors’) KGBstan, or the 7th-century savages whom we continue invading and bribing for democracy over there while needlessly importing them over here.
Copyright 2016 TakiMag.com and the author. This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order reprints for distribution by contacting us at firstname.lastname@example.org.