At my dentist's office, both he and the assistant, a woman, as well as his wife, were all in the service doing dental work. The assistant brought up her strong feelings about women in combat who would get a man killed because they weren't strong enough to be of use and her disgust with the PC problem which kept people from recognizing the differences in front of their noses. She asked the dentist what his wife thought, and he said that she too disagreed.
While we were at it, I asked her what she thought of all the rape cases we've heard about in the service. There again, the combat issues contributed in her opinion with men and women working side by side under stressful conditions. She also said that men and women should have separate sleeping arrangements and never share the same berth. Back when she was in, they were separate.
She also said that once she was being followed by a drunk guy, so decked him and kept on going. That was one time during her entire service.
What do you think about all of this stupidity which has been growing to epic proportions?
-Your editor, DL
Dear DL, this is somewhat out of my depth [Aren't you glad I did not abuse three hyphens in that last phrase?] here so excuse me as I take a double shot of whiskey and channel The Khan!
First, let us examine the purpose of the U.S. military, in a descending order of priority:
1. To police the world for globalist, corporate interests.
2. To train and/or incite hard to define enemies of the U.S., so that the U.S. population will perceive itself as being beleaguered by foes and thereby complying with police state measures.
3. To facilitate narcotics distribution to the U.S. in order to keep the witless populace enthralled.
4. To suppress any political upheavals that might emerge in the U.S. once cohesive segments of the population wake up to their enslavement.
5. To maintain access to and/or possession of energy and rare metal resources necessary for this highly mechanized array of global police forces to maintain effectiveness.
In this case I find the following outcomes to count toward the good:
1. The U.S. military will become less effective in combat roles. Indeed, the U.S. has not won a major land action, and effectively retained control of the disputed territory, since Ridgeway stopped the Chinese at the 38th Parallel in 1952. Further degradation of this capacity to hold ground will benefit US. partisans once the military is brought home and set against the same rural white population from which it draws its most effective combatants.
2. While the wasting of precious slave girls would be a negative outcome, the butchery and dismemberment and psychological maiming that will occur to feminist military combatants removes nagging wenchhood from the body politic one shrill cuոt at a time.
3. The ultimate goal of putting women in combat—which all experts know will be ineffective on the ground but will be reported as heroically effective—is to permit women to rise to top command positions, for women are more loyal to their masters, worship government, and can and will be counted on to direct their soldiers to kill American citizens on American soil. This final outcome, a female general directing combat operations against rural Americans resisting urban collectivization, will be the straw that finally breaks the back of the great American delusion that the government is a servant by, of and for the people. The sooner the better.
There you go, DL, the future of America and women in combat, according to The Khan, is as glowing as Rose-Fingered Dawn was to bloody-handed Achilles as he thirsted for Trojan blood.
Peace, Flowers and Assorted Delusional Faggοts Smoking Dope in a Pink Minibus...
A Bright Shining Lie at Dusk
A Partial Exhumation of the American Dream
link › jameslafond.blogspot.com
On Bitches
"...Further degradation of this capacity to hold ground will benefit US. partisans once the military is brought home and set against the same rural white population from which it draws its most effective combatants..."
Good point. I used to be against having Women in combat roles but I think you convinced me of their usefulness.
"The ultimate goal of putting women in combat—which all experts know will be ineffective on the ground but will be reported as heroically effective—is to permit women to rise to top command positions, for women are more loyal to their masters, worship government, and can and will be counted on to direct their soldiers to kill American citizens on American soil."
I've read dozens of critiques of putting women in combat and this is the only time I've seen the above goal mentioned. It strikes me now as obvious(!) ... and maybe that's why its escaped others' radar ... the most obvious things ... those right in front of our eyes ... are often the most difficult to see.