Don’t Ask

If “truth” wasn’t now determined solely by “marketing” from interest group lobbies, more Americans might be aware of the true ugliness lurking just beneath the surface of their fake society.  And since so much is now excised from our social history, I’d like to get some things down on the record as an informed expert before I take my leave.

The critical aspect of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was to keep such things as one’s sexual orientation matters of personal privacy rather than something to be publicly flaunted.  The idea was to promote military professionalism following 235 years of tradition of subordinating “me” to “us”, something that used to be entirely appropriate for any reputable military.  Keeping private one’s sexual orientation in many foreign environments can also be important to avoiding wars and endangering all of “us”.  But this adult aspect of military professionalism has been totally lost in this age of narcissism, of childish self-involvement, by those who never learned how to think beyond “me”.

All members of the US military voluntarily give up certain civil rights as a condition of serving the American people.  This fact is conveniently overlooked by those who think various minority groups somehow are being unfairly denied their rights in a military that relies solely on volunteers.  There is no requirement for anyone to join or remain in the military if they don’t like the conditions, including the surrender of certain rights, which are fully explained to them prior to entry.  But there is a legal contract that both parties – the individual and the organization – are expected to fulfill honorably.  One of the conditions was the requirement to keep your sexual orientation to yourself in the interest of the greater good.  But this policy was a dead end for gays; with it, it is not possible to get to “same-sex” marriage, which is inherently an open and very public act.

I should point out that I am a life-long member of the Regular Army, and that the vast majority of my service has been outside the US; I have no experience with either the National Guard or the Reserves.  Also please understand that, when I speak of “victim”, I am speaking of normal social intercourse in the arena; I am NOT speaking of victims of physical violence or psychological abuse – both of which I regard as totally abhorrent when committed by anyone against anyone

There are aspects of the US military that are very inviting to social special interest groups.  The US military is the only entity in our society that can be dictated to.  The US military, as is proper for any entity serving the nation’s citizens on the people’s payroll, is precluded by law from having its members represented by unions or any form of collective bargaining or democratic decision-making.  Because of the unique nature of the US military, a civilian with absolutely no experience in, or understanding of, the US military can simply order it to do things affecting its own living environment, right into its bedroom or in its off-duty time, that they can’t even order convicts in prisons to do.  A LOT of twits sitting safely on the sidelines really “get off” on this notion, especially considering that the powerful US military is still associated with “white male heterosexual testosterone” – the only minority group in America that it’s perfectly ok to hate.  (That well-known aspect has been a really important teaching tool for their sons for the past four decades.)  It’s also helpful if the target of your hatred – “white male heterosexual” – not only lacks a union, but also lacks a lobby.  The most powerful bigot in America during the second half of the 20th century was a man-hating closet lesbian who ruled over millions of military men for 22 years during the “Cold” War from her powerful seat on the US House Armed Services Committee; she was actually proud of her ignorance of the military she hated as much as its men.  Hatred of the military, and especially of military men, arising out of the 1960s Baby Boomer temper tantrums and long shared, according to his own admission, even by President Clinton, has long been regarded as perfectly acceptable by a whole generation of Americans (which could be an important reason why a guy like me remained in uniform so long, despite the hatred of his own people).

The reason social lobbies love to use the military for social engineering is that all they have to do is get orders issued.  No planning, no actual leadership, no winning of hearts and minds, to consideration given to others, etc., is necessary.  Any twit can issue orders from the safe rear.  Then the military has to figure out how to implement the orders.  And, since the military is too “stupid” and “intransigent” and “resistant to change” to do such social engineering on its own, it has to allow a huge group of outside “experts” to come in and make all the necessary changes for them.  Of course, social lobbies are only interested in rights; they do not want to get involved in any discussion about responsibilities.  This point is very important.  The thing that makes being a victim so very enticing is that it automatically wins benefits while absolving the victim of responsibilities.  A victim cannot be blamed, cannot be held responsible, accountable.  It’s all win-win.

This country is now full of “me” jerks who delight in nothing more than forcing gigantic institutions to adjust to their petty demands, to force really huge majorities of others to adapt to the demands of a tiny few – who always have a right and an opportunity to pursue their chosen course of life elsewhere.  You never see this when the demand requires some sacrifice on the part of such jerks; this crap always comes at a significant benefit, almost always financial, to them, at a cost to everyone else.  Since no one is forcing anyone to place themselves in positions that put them at odds with others, and the net result is almost always just cheap tokenism with a hundred “special” caveats , their demands are the ultimate in narcissistic subordination of “us” to “me”.

After a decade or two of lessons learned from this social engineering experiment on a captive group, employing all sorts of outside self-interests inside the military, the theory goes, the whole thing can then be transferred safely to the larger society.  It’s also best if you can go about imposing your group’s interests on the military while that military is busy trying to fight and win wars overseas, while its members are being killed and maimed by the thousands in the process.

That’s the way it works.  Anyone who actually believes that it’s all about gays wanting to wave the flag and serve their country in time of war is just stupid.  For 200 years until Vietnam and the Draft ended and pay went WAY up, neither gays OR women wanted anything to do with the military.  It was a very dangerous place, and people were actually involuntarily drafted to die in wars, and paid all of $2.00 for each day they managed to stay alive, too.  It wasn’t until after that stuff ended that all the “victim” groups wanted their tiny piece of the action via tokenism that served nothing but inflating the self-esteem of many others who did nothing but remain on the sidelines.  In fact, cowardly straight “men” used to claim they were gay just to avoid military service.  But ALL “victim” groups recognize that the US military is the best entity in the western world for social engineering – forced experimentation that can lead with time directly to imposing the results on the larger society.  With lots of money, hundreds of thousands of society’s best people captive in a cage, all drawn from society’s top 20%, a tradition of complex high level flexible planning, a culture the doesn’t know the meaning of “failure”, etc., it’s the shortest way possible to major social change.  And repealing the “Don’t Ask” policy, and building a structure inside the military to facilitate it, is just a necessary step on the path to the ultimate objective – “same-sex” marriage.

Sometimes the social engineering game is just stupid politics.  For example, as many tens of thousands of men were dying on battlefields to end slavery during the Civil War, the US military logically integrated itself and remained so for a half century.  Then the “Great Progressive”, liberal President Woodrow Wilson, a rabid racist, issued an “executive order” mandating the segregation of the military and the federal civil service.  Both remained so for a quarter of a century through Roosevelt and WW II until Truman, a President who had actually served in the military (WW I artillery, France), reversed Wilson’s order.  That reversal order was implemented quite rapidly when Korea suddenly caught most post-WW II combat units at half-strength, forcing them to double-up on the fly in order to survive.  Most race lobbies prefer to start military history with WW II, which allows certain major inconvenient facts about prior history to be ignored.  ALL special interest group lobbies employ such self-serving tactics, distort fact, as a matter of routine.

So now the military has to undergo another decade of forced re-education and indoctrination programs similar to all those in the 1970s and 1980s – in successive stages on behalf of women, then blacks, then Hispanics, etc..  The procedures originate straight from Third World communist countries where the rulers decided the people weren’t “communist” enough and had to be rounded up into camps and “re-educated” (or executed).  Those programs in the military were ALL stupid, unnecessary and counter-productive, of course.  Their proponents could have done a more effective job if they had just come out with a list of things that white heterosexual males may not do or say in public, which censorships and double standards were to be applied, because that was the net result after a decade of forced nonsense inflicted on that group by each of those programs, most of whom didn’t care about a person’s race or gender to begin with.  (Most did, however, object to the tyrannical tactics.)  The guys just learned what was now forbidden to do or say – censored as it was, in the “free” society which they were willing to defend with their lives.  They also had to learn whole new separate books of regulations for each of the “special” groups around them.  And they had to learn to accept the creation of another whole new political parasite power structure inside the military contributing absolutely nothing to its mission.

The main result of all that censorship and double standard training was to instill various political commissar-type power structures in the military, top to bottom, by self-serving lobbies intended to “monitor” and “protect” their respective interest group.  The Pentagon has many of these lobbies, these social-political commissars, all making really fat salaries on the peoples’ dime and running whole networks of subordinates following their respective regulation manuals.  This is part of the reason why 30% of US armed forces personnel are federal civilian employees.  Originally intended to be “temporary”, over time these professional leeches became institutionalized, as they always do — just another impediment to be endured and worked around by guys who don’t have a lobby but who do have better things to do.  The most powerful of these lobby (or commissar) structures in the US military is that championing women and all their many “special” considerations and double standards and affirmative actions and “sensitivities” ad nauseam for the past forty years.  For example, the physical conditioning minimum standards for a 21-year-old Army women just entering service are still inexplicably the same as for a 46-year-old Army man nearing retirement.  This, of course, is just stupid, especially when the woman is a foot taller and forty pounds heavier than the man.  (Incredibly, American women have still not gotten back to where they were in 1940 – before all the lobbies taught them how to be perpetual victims.)

So now we’ll have the fifth or sixth political commissar structure created in the military to “monitor” treatment of gays and lesbians.  A never-ending forty-year old game of “victimhood”, censorship, double standards and legalized hatred of the only minority of nearly-extinct guys without a lobby.  Apparently no one understood the message of the superb 1999 film “American Beauty”.  That script, written by two gifted gay guys, was right on the money with the “revelation” that the American Man has been long dead.  Still walking around doing what he’s told to do, he just doesn’t know he’s dead, tries really hard not to notice that he’s dead.  And it doesn’t make any difference at all if his totally self-absorbed wife shot him to death with his own gun or not; it was his own fault for being so stupid and accommodating on the way to becoming superfluous, not even possessing enough spine to stand up for his own sons, for those who have to follow him into the arena.

The first thing that these new gay and lesbian political commissars have to figure out is how to avoid a test for homosexuality and still meet their objectives.  How do you determine who is homosexual and thus eligible for special “victim” considerations, and who is heterosexual and thus must be sentenced to forced indoctrination training for “homophobes”?  Etc.  (Just wait until we get to the “same sex” marriage part of the agenda, and all sorts of straight guys suddenly “go gay” in order to get out of the barracks and into enormously better “family” quarters made that way long ago by women’s lobbies.  That one alone is going to raise defense costs by at least $100 billion a year.)  Once this “sexual orientation test” problem has been solved, they’ll then dive into writing whole new books of military regulations, laws and double standards favoring their interest group.

The next problem they’ll have to address is the UCMJ, the military’s system of codified constitutional law.  Just like the larger society, it legally prohibits, criminalizes, all sorts of behavior and actions such as fornicating in public, engaging prostitutes, public exposure, fraternization, conduct unbecoming, etc., etc..  So the new commissars will have to spend years revising the military’s system of law to suit their purposes top to bottom.  And so it goes.  (I love to quote Kurt Vonnegut in these totally absurd situations, repeated over and over until nothing makes sense.)

The Regular US military is a very rigorous meritocracy in which all members are constantly rated on a wide variety of critical performance and results standards.  All branches of the US Regular military have quite elaborate career progression requirements for both enlisted and officers.  Those requirements are rather rigid and include everything from minimum standards on annual performance appraisals, various types of duty assignments with progressively increasing levels of accountable leadership responsibility, selection for and completion of periodic special internal and external schooling, and, especially for officers, rather strict time limits at each level of promotion.  For senior officers that extra schooling usually involves post-graduate study at a top university and/or a teaching fellowship.  Any officer who finds himself slipping below maximum standards in any such area knows that he is in very real danger of ending his career earlier than intended.  Promotion is one of the most critical points for officers; fail to be promoted twice at a particular time juncture, always a statistical probability, and the officer is offered an opportunity to resign and seek a different career.  There is no possibility that a union representative will be called in to save a person facing such an abyss.  There are for officers especially dangerous points, and probably the most dangerous is that for promotion to full colonel or Navy captain (O-6); since O-6 slots available are always considerably fewer than those seeking them and have such high visibility, failure or success on a promotion “murder board” can hinge on the most minute of details buried somewhere deep in a person’s service record.

No other organization in our society is nearly as demanding on its members, not only for promotion, but also for retention, as is the US military meritocracy.  This rather brutal and unforgiving system does a pretty good job of ensuring that only the very best rise to the top, in both the enlisted service and officer corps.  At least that’s the intention.  The truth is that a whole range of extra factors have entered this system ever since the late-1970s involving everything from political correctness to affirmative action requirements.  The political correctness aspect, especially regarding women and minorities, is such an ever-shifting minefield that most officers go as far as possible out of their way to avoid them.  Make a dumb mistake, and a separate commissar channel to the top is sure to be used.  The result can not only make such an officer’s life miserable, but, worse, result in an entry in his service record – an entry that could very well end his career at the O-5 level, if not earlier.  Anyone who thinks these things, these extortion possibilities, are not always present in the back of every Regular military officer’s mind is a delusional fool.  It’s just one more aspect that makes a US Regular military officer’s job among the toughest and most demanding on the planet.  There is simply nothing comparable to it in civilian society, where certain rights are always a matter of concern (and not just for select groups).  Nowhere else in our society is a white heterosexual male so vulnerable to easy destruction by his own society, and yet we still expect him to be willing to die for that same society.

The following article from a gay lobby news service shows rather well how this game is played, how the minority lobbies move in and take over.  (With women, of course, it was always about a majority lobby, but that’s an inconvenient truth best ignored.)  As always, it starts off with the presumption, necessary to justify all the bullshit, that the military is an “extremist homophobic institution” (or “sexist” or “racist”, etc., pick your preferred label) that has to be re-engineered top to bottom in order to best accommodate the latest “victim” minority.  The whole idea of ALL these programs for the last forty years is to accord to “victims” benefits that are not available to white heterosexual males – the only group in America against which it is perfectly legal to discriminate, to censor, to silence, to hate, by imposed force.

All of these interest group lobbies follow the strategy established and institutionalized by women’s groups during the 1970s (following on the propaganda techniques they honed during the 1960s).  As always, it’s a guarantee that 90% of any changes to accommodate gays in the military will impact most those service members who are single.  (No one wants to piss off all those women now married to military men, and the First Rule is to always dump most on the guys with no lobbies – such as boys, single soldiers, etc..)  That’s why none of this upsets me as much as it might have long ago.  I’ve got nothing against gays, or gays serving in the military.  Just as I did with women forty years ago, I object to their cheap and duplicitous methods of using the military as a captive group to achieve something they cannot achieve so easily in the larger society, something that only requires a self-serving dictate, and then institutionalizing and perpetuating all sorts of double standards, crutches and power structures inside a military they despise anyway.  THAT still really pisses me off.

One key trait that characterizes all of these lobbies is extreme intolerance of differing views, so it’s just counter-productive to even offer one.  This creates the delusion among the lobbies that they are achieving universally embraced perfection, when all they are actually doing is pushing the boiling disgust below the surface.  A favorite tactic of women’s lobbies is the passive-aggressive approach, which is essentially smiling sweetly while you treat others as if they were pathetic moron children in need of mommy’s pity. The objective has always been to subvert the institution to your victim group’s will, rather than to measure up to the institution’s standards, as everyone did before there were victim lobbies.  The result is an inexorable lowering of standards everywhere, which many young women coming into the military today actually find offensive.  But, if you look carefully, all that is written about women in the military, including all the statistical “studies”, is actually the work solely of women.  Those lobbies preclude any mere man from subjecting their work to independent analysis, from verbalizing any criticism of them, or even talking about them in any way that is not fully supportive.  It’s all self-serving propaganda based on junk science.  A one-sided “debate”, of course, is just tyranny.  These lobbies are still generating the same themes that they were generating forty years ago; anyone who’s listened to it that long would have to logically conclude that the lobbies have been totally ineffective at their jobs, despite all the laws, regulations, policies, hearings, studies and countless billions of taxpayer and charity dollars.  But that’s just the way it is.  It’s one of the ways we teach everyone, especially our young, what to think, but not how to think.

Besides, with regards to “same-sex marriage”, I’ve come to realize that contemporary heterosexual marriage anymore is mainly a tax break for masochists, but a marriage with another straight guy would have all the breaks and mutual assistance without all the insufferable “eternal victim” woman hassles.  So I’ve obviously got nothing against “same-sex” marriage, either.  (Unless they come up with some sort of test to qualify.)

I do, however, have the very highest possible regard for military professionalism.

Note:  In the following article, which cites only a few of the many gay lobbies, “open service” means serving openly as gays or lesbians rather than keeping such personal stuff private and professional.  “Open service” is a fundamental requirement that needs to be in place in order to move on to same-sex marriage, which is inherently “open”.  Keep in mind that gay and lesbian lobbies are following by the numbers the exact same invasion plan created and perfected by women’s lobbies in the mid-1970s and long copied by all other such “victim” groups.  Accordingly, most aspects of the following article will be formalized into a detailed invasion plan by a committee of the many lobbies involved.   (Note how many different gay and lesbian lobbies are cited in this one article.  Note that the discussion is solely concerned about rights and benefits; the one word you never hear from any of these “victim” lobbies is “responsibilities”, i.e., “the whole world WILL adjust to accommodate “me”.”  For a half century, no one ever once mentioned in any fora any rights that I, as a white heterosexual male, might have; any such rights were always totally irrelevant to the demands of others.  Also try to imagine how any of this nonsense could be implemented anywhere outside the US military Petri dish, on the taxpayer’s dime.  It’s the only group in America that can simply be dictated to, and by far lesser others.)


After ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal, what’s next?

Chris Johnson | Jan 26, 2011 | Washington Blade — “The lgbtg community news service”

Groups that worked to advance “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal last year aren’t resting on their laurels as they continue to see work ahead in ensuring that open service is implemented and gays in the military are treated fairly.  ((The presumption is that they are not treated fairly.))

In the near term, the main priority for those organizations now that President Obama has signed legislation allowing for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is to ensure that certification of open service happens swiftly.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network ((SLDN)), said his organization will pursue open service as required by the law signed by the president. “Dec. 22 was a great day, but the reality is, we don’t have repeal,” Sarvis said. “The reality is ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is still the law. So, our first priority is the first 90, the first 180, days is to get certification.”

Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a think tank on gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said his organization will be in “monitoring mode” for possibly the remainder of the year. “The finishing line is here, but we haven’t crossed it yet, unless and until we get certification and good regulations,” Belkin said. “Our job at this point is to just make sure that the process continues and that if there’s any foot-dragging at the Pentagon, that we call attention to it.”

Belkin said he anticipates the Palm Center will produce another study about three or six months after certification is issued to determine if implementation was successful. ((It’s a foregone conclusion that it will NOT be successful, and that a big group of lobbyists will have to come in to “make it work”.))

The measure Obama signed would only enact open service after the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the U.S. military is ready for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. Further, after certification takes place, a 60-day waiting period for congressional review must pass before gays can serve openly in the U.S. military without fear of discharge.

In the State of the Union address on Tuesday, Obama committed to certifying “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal before the year is out. The president said he expects certification to happen in a “matter of months” in an interview last month with The Advocate.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he won’t issue certification for open service until new regulations are drafted and training has been instituted in the armed forces.

Beyond certification, groups working on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” foresee a number of outstanding tasks that will remain, including providing legal services and ensuring that benefits are offered to gay troops.

Sarvis said SLDN will continue to provide legal services to gay service members who are facing discharges or who have questions about coming out while in service. “I think, as an organization, SLDN will still be here providing legal services, working with Congress on oversight and being a resource to the Pentagon to make open service a reality,” he said.

Sarvis said since the legislation was signed, SLDN has heard from more than 225 service members who’ve called with questions about continuing to serve safely or receiving benefits in the post-repeal military. Further, Sarvis said ensuring gay service members receive the same benefits afforded to straight service members would be another aim for SLDN.

“The post-repeal focus, in large part, will be parity for LGBT service members — particularly parity with respect to benefits: health benefits, GI benefits across the board,” Sarvis said. ((None of this stuff applies to service members; it applies to married service members and their spouses.))

The Pentagon report on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — published Nov. 30 — states that the Defense of Marriage Act ((DOMA)) prohibits the U.S. military from affording many benefits to same-sex partners of service members, but other benefits, such as death benefits and hospital visitation access, would still be available. Sarvis said a combination of DOMA and other regulations prohibit gay service members from receiving the same benefits as their straight counterparts, but there is some leeway.

“There are some instances where the [defense] secretary has some authority with respect to definitional changes for dependents … but for most benefits, particularly involving spouses … DOMA is a big barrier,” Sarvis said.

Belkin also acknowledged that a number of tasks will remain even after certification takes place and open service is implemented — although he said he doesn’t know if the Palm Center would be the best organization to address them.

Among the outstanding jobs that Belkin cited are

((1))  providing employee resources to liaison between gay troops and the Pentagon;

((2))  promoting public education on transgender people in the U.S. military; and

((3))  working with the Department of Veterans Affairs to create programming for gay service members.

((This is how the commissar power structures get created and institutionalized throughout these agencies – providing permanent Privileged Class employment to LOTS of lobby members – who then spend the rest of their lives making sure the “victim” label remains.  #1 provides a separate channel straight to the top which circumvents the chain of command; #2 sets up and runs the forced indoctrination programs and their monitoring and testing mechanisms; #3 establishes separate programs designed to address another “special” group apart from everyone else (that will inevitably cost megabucks in extra money).  All of these things are specifically designed to engender disgust from white heterosexual males – the only minority group in America that has never had “victim” status or lobbies – and thus firmly establish the whole requisite commissar structure in the Pentagon and in the Veterans Administration.  They also enable funding of these permanent victim lobbies by the taxpayer, rather than by charity or the “victims” themselves.  Women in federal government, for example, run most agencies today, have huge majorities of employees in the nation’s top pay scales, yet the taxpayer STILL gives them free time off and funds their “victim” gatherings every month, plus their lawyers and government monitors – at a cost in the many millions – while dumb men still fill in for them in their absence.  No group on Earth wallows more lasciviously in its own eternal victimhood than does American women.))

Beyond the upcoming year, Belkin said he isn’t sure what tasks the Palm Center will pursue, but added he suspects consultation with other organizations could be on the agenda.

“We’ll be offering advice or pro-bono consulting to any organization that wants to learn some of the lessons that we learned along the way about public education and how to use social science to inform public policy conversations,” Belkin said.  ((sic.   Since “social science” today is solely victim-group driven and funded, it is entirely self-serving, and thus is not concerned with objectivity, impartiality, fairness, external review, etc.. It’s junk science immune from challenge best useful for generating self-serving propaganda called “public education”.  Notice how, for the past four decades, only women and their lobbies are allowed to author “studies” and articles concerning women, how they all, including those in academia, are funded by the many government programs put in place over the past forty years to perpetually advance the “cause” of women on the taxpayer’s dime, how they are always promoted by other women and their lobbies, etc., – and no one is ever allowed to question or critique them without fear of being labeled a “sexist” and silenced, or ejected.  There’s no money, you see, in straight white males, including boys.  Just what effect on my own group does all this incessant crap for a half century have on my group?  Who knows?  No lobby, no money, no sound knowledge.  All I do know is that the hardest thing to find in my society these days is an actual American man.))  Pro-LGBT groups that took on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as part of a portfolio that included other issues plan to continue to use resources for other items on the agenda.

Fred Sainz, HRC’s vice president of communications, said his organization last year contributed about $3.5 million to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal effort. But he cautioned against asking where that money would go this year.

“It’s not necessarily a fair posit to say, ‘You have these resources, which you dedicated to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” what are you going to do with that pot of money now?’” Sainz said. “Because as you know, the [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] issue changed considerably over the course of the year and we don’t yet know either the opportunities or the vulnerabilities that we have going into this coming year.”

One lingering question: What will anti-gay groups dedicated to keeping “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on the books do now that legislative action on repealing the law is complete.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Michigan-based Center for Military Readiness, was among the leading advocates attempting to stop gays from serving openly in the military. The “forced intimacy” of having gay troops serve with straight service members was among her favorite phrases. The Center for Military Readiness didn’t respond to multiple requests on what the organization will pursue now that legislation has been passed to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” ((Usually when American women get involved in things that don’t appear to directly involve them, there’s a hidden self-serving agenda.  Men, especially straight white men, are precluded from involvement in such “anti-” groups because of their required role as “oppressor”.  Almost 70% of “same sex” marriages in states that allow such contracts have been between women, presumably lesbians, so apparently US women have a lot less problem with “forced intimacy” than do men.))

Belkin noted that Donnelly pursued keeping gays out of the military as part of a broader effort that includes preventing women from serving in combat. “Her broad concern is the feminization of the military,” Belkin said. “So, there are a lot of ways in which she has tried to roll the country back to the 20th or the 19th century, so she has plenty of culture wars left to fight.” ((For the record, I personally fully support women being required to register for the Draft, being allowed to serve as infantrymen in combat, and eliminating most double standards, including those for minimum physical conditioning standards.  I also want to ban the women’s commissars from the military.  Any women actually good enough to be in the US military, especially the US Army and US Marines, doesn’t need all that crap.  But, then, I don’t have a lobby, and my gender precludes consideration of my opinion.))

Whether groups that have focused on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will have reduced resources now that legislative action is complete also remains in question.  Sarvis said “time will tell” what kind of resources SLDN will have as he acknowledged the organization’s board approved in November — and reaffirmed in December — a slightly smaller budget from what it had last year. According to Sarvis, SLDN’s board approved a budget for 2011 that was around 12.5 percent smaller than it was in 2010. He said it decreased from $2.4 million to $2.2 million.

Belkin said he doesn’t think the Palm Center will have same budget as it had in previous years and said the organization plans to stop fundraising. “We have endowments that will keep sustaining us at a lower level capacity, but, I think, for the most part, once “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is gone, then the biggest part of our mission will be over, and we’ll be one of those organizations that’s fortunate enough to say, ‘Our goals have been met,’” Belkin said.  ((Bullshit.  The whole idea of ALL victim group lobbies is to perpetuate the victimhood, to teach victims how to remain victims, and keep that extortion money flowing in and the political power in hand – even as most of the funding shifts to the sucker taxpayer.))

Servicemembers United couldn’t be reached for comment on what the organization intends to pursue now that legislative action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is complete.

(End of article.)

For a guy who spent much of his life becoming intimately familiar with the way societies operated under European Soviet and Asian communist dictatorships, there has always been no small measure of irony with these special interest group lobby structures, mechanisms and procedures inside the US military since the 1970s.


(See also “Women In Combat”, “Gymnastics Of The Mind” and “Sexual Offenses In The US Military“, posted separately.)

About invincibleprobity

US Regular Army (ret)..... Career military and professional foreign human intelligence operations officer with half century experience in sociology, psychology, foreign affairs, political-military affairs and geo-politics, plus additional developed interests in culture and history, including civil rights, education and similar human societal forces and influences. .....(That’s enough. The rest would just be irrelevant details looking like the boring index of a history book. I know stuff; any questions, just ask. Or better yet, engage me.)
This entry was posted in Military, Politics, Special Interest Lobbies, US Army and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Don’t Ask

  1. The following is in response to a number of e-mails I’ve received in recent weeks with a common theme:

    The US military has long been a favorite target of “feminist” organizations and lobbies and their representatives among women in Congress and throughout the media. This is because these man-hating extremists have been able to take full advantage of the fact that military members surrender many of their civil rights as a price for qualifying to defend the nation, and because the military offers the perfect Petri dish for mandated social engineering that is not possible in the larger society. As throughout our history, the only action required by these women is simply to stand there like princesses and make royal demands of others, without the possibility of demands being made on them. The last thirty years of the 20th century were especially full of all sorts of attacks on the military by these so-called “feminazis” and their double-standard dictates. Several of these during the 1990s illustrate the total absence of logic or accountability in the self-serving fervor of their assaults on men.

    There was the case, for example, of the female officer relieved of her duties as a B-52 bomber pilot. This young Air Force commissioned officer had been discovered to be carrying on a relationship with a married junior enlisted man on her North Dakota base in violation of long-standing military policy against “fraternization”, a policy based on the real possibility of superiors exercising undue pressure, favoritism, etc., on such partners that could quickly undermine the morale, discipline, integrity and mission-capability of the military unit. Rather than bring formal fraternization charges against the officer, her male commanding officer (as is typical of military men seeking to avoid major hassles involving women) simply directed her to terminate her relationship with the junior enlisted man. The pilot had been handed a gift on a silver platter, which she accepted. Women’s groups took up her cause as a violation of the pilot’s rights of privacy and an undue intrusion of the military command structure into the private affairs of women. They quickly turned it into a national cause célèbre on behalf of all women everywhere. Their vicious attacks and demands on both the Air Force and the male commander were relentless. Irrelevant were the facts that the military is a organization with a lot of known rules based on decades and even centuries of experience, that it is made up of volunteer members, and that anyone who doesn’t wish to accept those rules can always leave.

    Unfortunately, the rest of the story got lost in the “feminist” hysteria. After a reasonable period, the commander had asked the pilot if she had terminated her relationship, a relationship that was in violation of the military legal system (UCMJ). The women officer replied that she had. This later turned out to be a lie, which immediately and irrevocably undermined any trust the commander still had in his junior officer. The commander now had no choice, simply could not avoid the mess. It was only after lying to her superior commander that she was relieved of her duties as a B-52 pilot (and still not charged with anything illegal). But even this fact made no difference to all those screaming women, and the “victim” pilot was even invited to appear on a number of national women’s TV programs to whine in public. The huge and very long-range B-52 has long been a nuclear weapons delivery system, a critical part of the nation’s nuclear deterrent triad along with the other two parts – buried intercontinental ballistic missile silos and submarines. The nuclear-armed B-52s were kept constantly airborne and on flight paths that ensured their capability of striking enemy targets in the event of a nuclear attack on the US mainland. The most critical trait of B-52 pilots was complete and unquestioned trust in their professionalism – a trust that this women’s actions had deliberately negated. A B-52 pilot could possibly drop the plane’s nuclear weapons anywhere. None of this made any difference to all the screaming “feminists” incensed that the military would intrude into the private life of a woman service member.

    Later, in retaliation for the Air Force refusing to countermand the pilot’s commander, these same women’s groups and politicians, in retaliation, demanded that a sterling and highly qualified Air Force general, unrelated to the pilot story and slated to become the nation’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), not be confirmed after it was discovered that he had been dating a civilian women before his divorce had became final. He was accordingly not confirmed for the nation’s highest military position, and his career was finished. It’s perfectly acceptable to intrude into the private life of a senior male officer, but not into that of a junior female officer.

    A little later a scandal surfaced at an Army post in Maryland when it was discovered that several male enlisted sergeants had been having sexual relations with a rather large number of junior enlisted women. Again, women’s lobbies, politicians and “journalists” went into full attack mode, demanding that the sergeants be charged with rape. Their argument was that the sergeants’ superior rank introduced elements of coercion and force into any such relationships which the “stupid and helpless” junior enlisted women were incapable of resisting given the command power structure of the military. It made no difference to these “feminists” that the adult women, all of whom had been formally instructed on proper sexual conduct and “sexual harassment” in the US military, were actually engaging in contests to see which of them could seduce the sergeants first. The sergeants were, in fact, charged with rape, and several of them were convicted and sent to prison. Apparently, the argument about coercive power of superior rank in the military only works if the superior is male, but not if the superior is a female. Although these “feminists” continually maintain that rape is all about power, no woman officer in the military has ever been charged with rape or even “sexual harassment” for engaging in sexual relations with a subordinate male service member.

    This point about power soon became even more nebulous and capricious when, at the same time, it was revealed that the Commander in Chief of these sergeants had engaged in sexual relations with a junior women intern in the Oval Office of The White House – and had lied about it. Just which superior could exercise more power over such “stupid and helpless” junior women “victims” than the President of the United States? In the Oval Office! How can a liar possibly engender trust? With logic that only these “feminists” will ever understand, President Clinton was given a complete pass on his transgressions (which had repeatedly surfaced throughout his life in high office for decades). Apparently, the thing that saved President Clinton from any criticism by women, much less charges of rape or “sexual harassment”, was the fact that he had always told women whatever nonsense they wanted to hear. “It depends on what your definition of “is” is.” It depends on what is in your own best interests at any given moment in time – with zero possibility of “blow-back”.

    I can add hundreds of such cases that these man-hating women have inflicted on the nation’s military services for the past half century. They have never been able to engender anything other than revulsion and contempt on the part of any objective male observer. They rule solely through fear, not by competence, or even by a sense of justice. The only way to deal with them is to tell them whatever nonsense they want to hear – which is precisely what men do. I, for one, absolutely despise these “feminists”, with all their double standards, self-serving demands, total disregard for anything other than themselves, and their failure to actually earn either respect or trust among any sane male member of the US military. All the women at Aberdeen (and other bases) knew full well that all they had to do was decline to participate in an activity that even a moron would know was at least “suspect”, but I also fault the really stupid men, taught their whole lives before their military service by women, who continually fall victim to this well-known and long-entrenched double-standard tyranny.

    When you listen to American feminists tell their story, you’d think that they’ve been waging a righteous crusade against their enslavement for a century that is littered with millions of their dead and mutilated predecessors sacrificed on the fields of battle similar to those of the American Civil War. It’s just nauseating nonsense. The simple truth is that women of the United States of America, as a group, have never been “denied” anything, have never had to do anything more than make lots of noise and demands to achieve whatever they wanted, usually after they had convinced enough of other women that they wanted it, too – even if what they wanted made absolutely no sense. And no one has ever been allowed to make any demands of them, comfortably basking as they do in their self-anointed “special” status, in a society supposedly, as they constantly maintain, based on “equality”. The biggest and most powerful bigot in America during the last half of the 20th century was a closet lesbian who ruthlessly exercised her fervent hatred of men from her enormously powerful position on the House Armed Services Committee for decades. Rep Schroeder was even proud of the fact that in 24 years in the US House she never bothered to learn even the most basic facts about the US military she oversaw so ruthlessly, including the meaning of such basic designations as the Combat Infantrymen’s Badge. For such American “feminists” it has always been solely about “me”, damned anyone else who gets in the way. It’s simply the tyranny of the majority with the biggest mouth capable of making the most noise through the most powerful lobbies.

    It is this crap that has succeeded in introducing so many double standards, absurdities, privileged “special” people, and relentlessly lowered standards throughout American society since the 1960s, that has turned American society into a perversion of unearned birthright entitlement. A reasonable person would conclude that, after a half century, American women would have finally grown up and become responsible adults, but sadly, in the eyes of these “feminists”, women remain perpetual “stupid and helpless” children victims, and men remain their inherently evil “oppressors”. It’s a disease of total self-involvement, nurtured in a society that has never attempted to challenge the tyranny, never sought to hold these “feminists” accountable for their misandry, their hatred of men, which they take out even on their own sons – and then vilify their own creations. Women thus end up with all the rights and none of the responsibility, entitled princesses all.

    I remember well a conversation I had with a senior officer during the late-1970s, when Baby Boomer “feminazis” were imposing their forced indoctrination and re-education programs on all male members of the US military as women suddenly began flooding into that military. I especially recall the following insights:

    “Did any of these women ever demand to serve while Vietnam was raging? Of course not. That was a very high risk venture with very low pay, something for 200 years women were more than happy to leave to men. But the end of the war and the Draft changed everything. Just like with almost every other endeavor where women are now forcibly imposing their will, the environment, thanks to the Greatest Generation, has dramatically changed in a very brief period. It’s now mostly a matter of opportunism guided by powerful lobbies. Most of them are pouring in now to a safe peacetime military with enormously increased pay with the intention of serving only as long as necessary to qualify for later benefits and college tuition. Most will pour out as soon as it looks like we’re headed to another war. We are facing terrific resistance on the Hill to avoid having our force cut well below credible strength. Morale among that post-Vietnam force is at its lowest point in history. Our junior officers are facing enormous challenges with insubordination, discipline and drug use. Recruitment of the qualified males we need is far below requirements. Our global strategy is in shambles. Women in Congress like Schroeder are taking full advantage of the situation to impose their will on a military they hate. Our internal overall problems seem far worse than the external opposition facing us, but they aren’t. This would be the perfect moment for the Soviets to seize the opportunity to challenge us, and we would be very hard pressed to meet that challenge.

    “None of this is of the least concern to these arrogant, self-involved, opportunistic, Boomer women. Before they’re finished, they’ll re-design the US military to suit their wants, and it will cost the taxpayer hundreds of billions. So, if you remain in service and simply can’t avoid them, then there’s only one option left: Parrot the mandated dogma and compromise your honor and that of the Army, and lie. Lie until your blood boils over. Tell them whatever nonsense they want to hear. Assume that any one of them could very well be the hand that tosses 25 or 30 years of your career right down the toilet like some reeking turd. Why fall on your sword for something like principle? For these young Boomers, it’s all about reaping rewards with absolutely minimal investment. They don’t give a damned about what went before them, about why things are the way they are, that the professional US military is a meritocracy, and they sure as hell don’t give a damned about men like us. It’s all about “me” and “my rights”, about their hyper-inflated “self-esteem”. If we believe that our purpose is to defend the nation, then our only function here is to keep our mouths shut while meeting their demands. No one is going to care about your principles, about things like truth, honor, about actually earning trust and respect, after you’ve been thrown on the trash heap of history. These obnoxious women are very busy introducing and instilling unearned birthright entitlement without responsibility throughout American society. They eventually will succeed in bringing ALL the standards down to their level anyway, so why fight it? Truth is irrelevant; perception is everything. Just keep churning out all the lies they want to hear. It’s another of their rights. In between, try to do your real job. Then quietly take your leave of the sinking ship. That’s my plan.”

    I remained in service and did my job. I avoided American women as much as was humanly possible. But I, like all men I knew, also gritted my teeth and lied, for the next twenty years. We even did it in writing, on formal documents, and, of course, on performance appraisals, and signed our names to the lies. We minimized the asinine hassles so we could concentrate on our real jobs. We got over the really hard part and outsmarted the Soviets, often with little more than slight-of-hand. And, incredibly, the lies were believed! Boomer women STILL believe them, even celebrate them while glorifying themselves and their “legacy”. The very last thing these offensive Boomer women wanted to know was the truth. They had their own version of “truth”, and that’s all that mattered to them. It still is.

    Since the 1970s, for well over three decades now, only women have been allowed to provide data about women in the military, so it’s always been a very safe bet that the information provided is highly selective and totally self-serving. That, too, is another of their “rights”. It’s mainly a matter of very well-paid civilian women running on auto-pilot with taxpayer funded programs inside the military that are no longer relevant. They still adhere to the same 1970s dogma. But thankfully the “entitled” Boomers are mostly gone from that military, and most military women today, especially those in the combat arms, stand well on their own without all the old shameful, insufferably arrogant, Boomer “entitled” nonsense. But the damage definitely has been done. That’s why we need all that whiz bang techno stuff – from a very safe distance that avoids danger and the sight of what we do when we destroy things and kill people. A mere half a trillion dollars later and even “special” little girls can play “war” safely in the rear simply by watching a computer screen and pushing buttons. Things like truth, trust, respect, honor, justice, equality… have all been “re-defined”. Everything is all now in the eye of the beholder, whatever “me” wants it to be.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s