Disclaimer: Not saying I agree with all of this article, but post it to give a whole other viewpoint that I've heard expressed before. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm not even the piano player.
And yes, this is some right wing blog and just another guys opinion. TIFWIW.
Tim Dunkin
December 17, 2010
Why they want to homosexualize the military
We all know that people on the Left are the great destroyers. There is not a single institution in this great land that they do not want to tear down, demolish, devastate, obliterate, and annihilate. There is not a single just and righteous law that they do not seek to subvert and overturn. There is not a single needful tradition that they don't desire to delegitimize and replace with abject nonsense. The object of all this effort on their part is power — pure, unadulterated power. They want to be able to run our lives, they want to be able to dictate to us what we can and can't believe, read, see, think, say, and do. While they may mask their agenda behind warm and fuzzy phrases like "civil rights," the fact of the matter is that those on the Left — or at least those who are the drivers behind the ideology (i.e. not the "useful idiots" who make up the rank-and-file that most folks tend to interact with on a day by day basis) — couldn't care less about anybody's rights, real or imagined. They only care about their own privilege and power.
That's why the American people are currently being subjected to groping and pornographing at the airports when they want to travel by air. I think it can be safely said that nobody who knows anything about it actually thinks that the new TSA rules and requirements (or the old ones, for that matter) do anything to "make us safer." If you actually believe that, then I've got some prime beachfront property near Tucson that I'd like to interest you in purchasing. The TSA is not going to "stop terrorists" by sexually assaulting 90-year old great-grandmothers. We all know that. What's more, the TSA knows that too. You, me, them, we all know that this isn't about safety. It's about power and control. The TSA does it because they can do it — because you can be fined, arrested, and permanently banned from flying if you don't let them do it. This administration has given them that power because it wants to inure the American people to government control. Further, I believe, these new rules are designed to punish the American people for voting the Democrats out last month. The timing seems more than just a little coincidental.
This, however, is just one part of the overarching effort by the Left — by people like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and those like George Soros who back them behind the scenes — to enserf the American people. What we need to understand is that those on the Left, ranging from politicians to "activists" to academics, are personally offended by widespread freedom. The idea that you and I might be able to just live our own lives without the "guidance" of those who know better than we do is something that your average Leftist detests. What? You don't want to use those new, expensive, environmentally-friendly fluorescent bulbs instead of the old-fashioned, cheap, utilitarian incandescent kind? Well too bad, we'll just impose a law that prohibits the manufacture of the old bulbs, requires you to use the new ones, and punishes you if you don't. Don't think it's possible? It's already reality in some places in Europe, and the groundwork has already been laid here.
Or how about this guy, a 72-year old man who is being evicted from his property because he doesn't have power, water, or sewer service to his trailer. But he lives in the middle of 38 acres, is not bothering anybody, and is presenting no sort of "public health" hazard to anybody. But he's "breaking too many rules, laws, and ordinances" — which probably shouldn't even be rules, laws, and ordinances in the first place. He committed the crime of not needing somebody else, of being able to operate independently without having to fork over money to some state-regulated utility and without needing the assistance of the all-powerful state. We can't have that, now can we? It sets a bad example for the rest, don't you know.
Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, property rights, firearms ownership, and all the rest — those are the worst excesses of impudent and insolent serfs who need to be brought to heel.
But the problem for the Left in imposing this agenda on Americans was alluded to in my previous sentence — "firearms ownership." There's an old saying I used to have on a bumper sticker, several vehicles ago. It said, "A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject." If there is anybody who knows the truth of this statement, it is the Left. Deep down inside, they know that an armed, independent populace is the main thing that prevents them from being able to openly step in and establish their control.
How to deal with this problem?
They tried imposing gun control laws on to the people, but this has proven to be only marginally successful. Under the guise of "public safety," most people can't get their hands onto the really powerful sort of personal weapons like fully automatic assault rifles, military-grade machine guns, grenades, and so forth. However, there are still millions of rifles, shotguns, carbines, and pistols that are in private hands. And the courts — to their rare credit — have been most unhelpful in approving the justification for disarming the people of these weapons. Just like with the TSA above, anybody who knows anything knows that gun control is not about "stopping crime." It's about disarming the citizenry so they can be controlled more easily. That hasn't worked, however.
This creates a dilemma for the radical Left. They want — they need — to be able to control us. This is a categorical imperative for them. They simply cannot tolerate impudent wretches who won't get with the program of being eco-friendly, gay-positive, and entirely submissive. But, they can't necessarily use the police powers of the state as they are presently constituted to force us to go along with their program.
Sure, they could begin to try to systematically disarm us through the use of federal, state, and local police agencies engaging in warrantless, no-knock surprise raids on gun owners. But let's face it — there are almost 100 million gun owners in this country, most of whom are gun owners at least in part because they are ideologically committed to the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There simply are not enough police to grab everybody's guns at once, and once this targeted class of people get tipped off that they're next on the list, we can expect (understandably) that this will generate quite a lot of "civil strife." The police apparatus in this country simply doesn't have the manpower or the firepower to pull it off — and would likely find its manpower diminishing rapidly once the "civil strife" began.
What to do, what to do.
That's where the military comes in. The Army has a lot bigger guns than the police do. While disgruntled gun owners may be able to use hunting rifles and shotguns to fend off the police (who, as experience throughout modern history has shown, are remarkably poor at carrying on sustained military-type activity before their morale breaks), tanks and helicopter gunships are quite another matter.
The problem, however, is that the military generally tends to attract and employ conservative, flag-waving, patriotic good ol' boy types who won't be too keen on allowing themselves to be used to round up their fellow Americans so as to take their guns, and possibly put them in "re-education" camps. Sure, there may be some military personnel who would willingly go along with that, but it's doubtful they'd get too far with it before the military itself fell into internal discord as most of the soldiers refuse to follow illegal, blatantly unconstitutional orders, and perhaps even tried to forcefully stop those who did act upon them.
The obvious answer, then, is to alter the composition of the military.
And how better to do that than by making it a place where all those flag-waving patriotic regressives who just can't get with the program won't want to be?
This, perhaps, is what lies behind the insane drive to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and to homosexualize the U.S. military. The Left has been driving at this for years, under the guise of "civil rights" (note: nobody has the "right" to serve in the military). Their moles in the Pentagon recently released a bogus report that supposedly suggested that military personnel would be just dandy with openly serving gays. Of course, once you start to parse the report and look at some of the internal data (i.e. move beyond the headlines, which is as far as most people seem capable of getting), you find out that actually, the combat arms of the military would be most UNhappy with serving alongside openly gay comrades. It would lower morale. It would reduce unit cohesiveness. In fact, the military personnel who generally said they'd be fine with openly gay soldiers were the people who serve in administrative, logistical, and other "office" type jobs — i.e. the folks who get to go home to their individual base housing after their 9-5 shift is up, and who wouldn't actually have to live, work, sleep, and shower with open homosexuals flaunting their behavior at all hours of the day.
Buried within the report was a most interesting little fact — a little over 12% of personnel currently serving said they would resign or decide not to re-up should gays be allowed to serve openly. Think about that. That means that, if DADT is repealed, fully 1/8 of the U.S. military will leave. That translates into several hundred thousand persons.
Persons who can then be replaced by out-and-out homosexuals. Homosexuals who, typically, have an antipathy towards flag-waving, God-and-country style conservatism. Homosexuals like Bradley Manning, the Wikileaker, who was so emotionally unstable that he let his personal disagreement with official policy become a "reason" for leaking highly classified information that has now put the lives of many at risk. Homosexuals who would have no problem at all with helping to put down "regressive" elements within our society who impede the march to the Leftist utopia of, among other things, the normalization of homosexuality.
And as more gays join, more normal people will leave or will simply not join in the first place, until you have a military that is made up of two types of people — homosexuals and the morally weak who just "go with the flow" and won't stand on any sort of conservative, traditional principles. Exactly the type of military force who will go along with disarming and subjugating the American people.
Don't assume that a homosexualized military would be too wimpy to do it, either. Despite the common stereotypes of homosexuals as limp-wristed pansies, we need to understand that the "gay culture" of interior designers and lisping art museum curators is a modern phenomenon. For most of the history of mankind, those who engaged in homosexual behavior have actually been rather violent and uncontrolled — not unexpected from a lifestyle choice that epitomizes the lack of self-control. Think about it — when we see the Sodomites in the Bible, what were they doing? Trying to violently force themselves onto some men. Among the Greeks, those who engaged in homosexuality were often the most violent. Take the Spartans, for instance. They were the warrior caste par excellence in classical Greece — and they were open practitioners of both adult homosexuality as well as pederasty. Another example would be the Theban "Sacred Band," a group of 150 pairs of homosexual lovers who formed the cream of the crop of the military of Thebes, another Greek polis, known for their fierceness and invincibility in battle. And of course, one need only look at the American prison system to understand the fact that violence and male homosexuality (especially) go hand in hand. So don't think for a minute that a homosexualized U.S. military would be too afraid of breaking a nail to go roughing up the American people.
Call it a conspiracy theory, but I have a strong feeling that this is what lies behind a lot of the agenda of repealing DADT and allowing gays to openly serve in the military. It's a way of getting out of the way the folks who won't participate in the enserfment of the American people, and replacing them with some folks who will, and in fact, who might just be chomping at the bit for a chance to stick it to those conservative Christian patriots who stand for God's laws and for traditional American values. Repealing DADT isn't about "civil rights," nor is it even just about the further mainstreaming of homosexuality in the American social conscience. It might very well be about bending the military to the will of the Leftists, so it can become a tool for breaking the rest of us. I hope I'm wrong about that.
No offense to you Bobby, but it IS going to cause conflicts, and cost American lives.
