Feminists, Leftists "You're Next"

In the mass of war stories this week, two items popped out. The first quotes a senior US military officer who blames a recent failure to kill Taliban leader Mullah Omar on "a slow degeneration of the system due to political correctness." The second item, largely overlooked in the press, was the murder last week in Seattle of Tom Wales, 49, a federal prosecutor and a leading gun control activist. The first item is an excellent example of the subversion of the military due to feminist influence. The second is an extremist response to this kind of subversion, but it is a despicable criminal response that itself subverts freedom. The Right needs to uphold the rule of law. A better target would be the stranglehold that feminism holds on the education system and on parts of the federal bureaucracy. We need to use the electoral system to purge feminists from government. If feminists want to corrupt society, let them do it on their own dime.

"Political correctness" means adherence to feminist doctrine. The term is alien to America because it originates in the Communist Party. I have demonstrated in previous columns that feminism is a successful "rebranding" of Communism. In this form, it has subverted our minds and our social fabric. Second-wave feminism originated in the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) and almost all its leading activists were/are Marxists. Essentially it is dedicated to achieving power by advocating and imposing gender, racial and economic "equality" (i.e. outcomes) on individuals who are neither equal nor the same. It goes under various names such as "anti racism", "equity", "diversity" and "multiculturalism" but the aim is to transfer wealth and power from people who have earned them to feminists and their allies. In gender terms, it is lesbian because, while despising men, the standard of sameness is male. Here, feminism has undermined heterosexual identity and the nuclear family and torpedoed the birth rate, posing a dire threat to western civilization.

I had read that Donald Rumsfeld was "seething" over the failure to nail the Taliban leader Mullah Omar when he was in our crosshairs. Seymour Hersh has the story of this breakdown in the current New Yorker entitled Annals of National Security. Apparently a $40 million unmanned CIA drone called "The Predator" equipped with cameras and missiles had located the Mullah fleeing Kabul in a convoy. The Predator tracked the Mullah to a building where he and a hundred or so soldiers took cover. The CIA had to get permission from Central Command in Florida to terminate. The response from General Tommy R. Franks was that his legal officer "doesn't like this, so we're not going to fire." The Mullah escaped unscathed. Let Seymour Hersh continue:

Days afterward, top Administration officials were still seething about the incident. "If it was a f--kup, I could live with it," one senior official said. "But it's not a f--kup it's an outrage. This isn't like you're six years old and your mother calls you to come in for lunch and you say, 'Time out.' If anyone thinks otherwise, go look at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon." A senior military officer viewed the failure to strike immediately as a symptom of "a cultural issue""a slow degradation of the system due to political correctness: 'We want you to kill the guy, but not the guy next to him.' No collateral damage." Others saw the cultural problem as one of bureaucratic, rather than political, correctness. Either way, the failure to attack has left Defense Secretary Rumsfeld "kicking a lot of glass and breaking doors," the officer said. "But in the end I don't know if it'll mean any changes."

To understand why the U.S. military seems to need mommy's permission to get its hands dirty, I recommend Stephanie Gutmann's book The Kinder Gentler Military (2000). For most of the 1990's the military has devoted more energy to appeasing feminists than to preparing for battle. The result has been that soldiers, from generals on down, are afraid of women, specifically of sexual harassment accusations. Sexual harassment is a Red Guard-like denunciatory tactic used by feminists to dis- empower men — the victim is most often the accused. Costly investigations of thousands of charges show that, despite what feminists think, most women are very sexual creatures enthralled by powerful men. Nonetheless a Marine will cross a street "to ensure [a woman] isn't offended because he invaded her space," as one female Marine sergeant said. "The atmosphere in today corps is one of fem fear." (226) Men who are afraid of their mommies cannot act decisively, and that's what happened in the Mullah Omar incident.

This war will expose the damage feminism has inflicted on the US military. According to Guttmann, morale is low. Men resent that women soldiers, pregnant or breast-feeding, have turned army bases into day cares. They resent that standards are lowered because 85% of army women fail to meet the minimum physical requirements, are three times more injury prone and when the going gets tough, "get pregnant." Men fight to protect women. As Amelia Earhart said, "men would rather vacate the arena of combat altogether than share it with women." And they have been doing that in droves.

As in the Cold War, this war will force the United States to define what it represents and to purge subversive elements. It will force liberals to decide where they stand. The rot is deep and the process will be painful. Gun control, which prevents good people from defending themselves, is a hallmark of the feminist "mommy" state. Communist dictatorships in Russia and China would not have survived if the citizenry had been armed. So, in the current context, there are strong feelings when the state tries to disarm people. Last week, a leading gun control advocate, Tom Wales, 49, was shot and killed while working in his basement home office in Seattle. The assailant shot him through the window. In terms of our cultural civil war, this murder is comparable to the assassination of Hamas and Israeli political leaders. Wales made many enemies in his 19 years as an U.S. attorney prosecuting business crimes and fraud. But probably his role as president of "Washington Ceasefire" motivated the attack. In 1997, Wales campaigned for a statewide initiative to require all gun owners to register and complete a safety course. Gun-rights advocates and the NRA bitterly fought the measure that was rejected at the polls. Undeterred, Wales stepped up his activism.

Wales was an idealist. Activists on both left and right share a certainty that their vision is true and some are willing to resort to violence. Until I had a taste of feminist fascism, I too was a leftist. If only we could get rid of the "Right," the world would be a beautiful place, I thought. Now I am on the Right myself. However misguided our opponent is, often his intentions are good.

Left-lib feminists believe in using the government to "improve the world." Unfortunately, their prescription is deeply flawed. And behind this "idealism" is self interest, a "doing well by doing good" as one social worker said to me. They represent a large class of unproductive people, paper pushers who depend on government programs for their livelihood. The vast majority are cowards who will do anything for job security. When they see the wind is changing, they will trim their sails accordingly. Feminism has become a job requirement, like membership in the Communist Party was in Russia.

Conservatives should aim at breaking the feminist stranglehold on the public education system, which they use to indoctrinate the young. We need to break their control of government bureaucracy. We need a genuine "diversity" program that will make our public institutions truly representative of the nation's values. The way to proceed is to organize politically. The greatness of America is the rule of law. It works. America remained steady and calm, while the Presidential election hung in limbo for weeks.

Let us defend freedom by upholding it. Let's fight the cultural civil war at the ballot box.

We don't know why Wales was killed. I seriously doubt it was for his anti-Second Amendment activism.

He was a dogged prosecutor who imprisoned many people - he had a 100% conviction rate according to one news account. He made dozens of desperate criminals his enemies. Criminals who had ample motive and a historical disposition for violence and illegality. His murder was probably an act of personal revenge taken by a criminal who wasn't even legally allowed to own a gun.

I appreciate what is being said in the article, but I work for a large firm where there are clear cases on gender bias against women. Like it or not, women have a point. I don't like the way their new found power is abused by some women, particularly with regard to the military. As usual, our government has gone overboard in creating laws and process to calm people (other messing things up such as the legalistic military "get Mommy's permission."

Let us do a simple cost - benefit analysis of the WTC. I don't agree with this approach, but it might help you understand the extreme liberal position. The loss of 5,000 lives at the WTC (and loss of property) is measured against 1) the potential further loss of life in the U.S. (e.g., if we don't retaliate, maybe it will stop). So, the costs of retaliation in these people's minds are so large that the benefits from retaliation are dwarfed. I don't believe for a second that the Berkeley radicals care about the lives of Afghan people - they are worried about themselves.

Of course, burrowing one's head in the sand works in certain circumstances, but not here. The extreme liberals don't really care if NYC is blown to bits, as long as it isn't Wisconsin or Berkeley. I think that this is the essence of the new liberalism - its all about "me" and not about "us." Think about it - when you hear a liberal group trying to intimidate the larger group, it is always about "their rights" and not about the rights of the larger group. This is what I think is going on with the liberal left.

So, I agree with the article, but in a larger context. We need to ammend to laws of the land and stop discrimination against the larger group in favor of smaller groups or even larger groups that want the rights for themselves, but not the others.

"The response from General Tommy R. Franks was that his legal officer "doesn't like this, so we're not going to fire." The Mullah escaped unscathed."

In communist countries they call that JAG bastid their "political officer." They can't make a decision without his OK, and there's hell to pay if they do.

"Feminism has become a job requirement, like membership in the Communist Party was in Russia."

We're in it up to our necks folks, and they said "It could never happen here".... now how do we turn it around before the Spartans get here?

This article needs to be read by every FReeper and forwarded profusely.

Bump 'til it hurts!

I think Tony is exactly right. Modern day "peaceniks" don't care about the general question of whether war is inherently bad or not, as much as they care about their own selfish hides. If they did - they would've skewered Clinton for his travesty of a war in Yugoslavia, which featured intentional targeting of civilians. Like the equivalent of their "CNN". Not a peep from these contriving hypocrites back then.

And paranthetically, when Nixon ended the draft and got the "Me" generation completely out of the war, the anti-war crowds quickly ditched their placards nowhere near the closest dumpster, even though there were 2 MILLION civilian murders in Cambodia to come, after the US left the conflict. Like they really gave a crap about US bombing of VC supply lines in Cambodia.

I also agree with Tony that the "ap-peace-rs" currently favor non-retaliation not out of the highest Ghandi-ish principles, but out of the lowest of Neville-Chamberlainian instincts. Now that their cowardly hides are on the front lines with us - it's time to closely watch these "foxhole buddies" we would never choose in another type of war.

"...I work for a large firm where there are clear cases on gender bias against women. Like it or not, women have a point."

Unless you are referring to the whining crybaby women listen around corners perchance to be offended by some off-color joke and cash in on a huge discrimination settlement... you lie like a rug. The supercharged PC atmosphere, especially in large companies, is fueled by committees and legal offices and posters on every bulletin board warning men to tow the line and watch their step around women. A man's career, hell... his life, can be shredded if he looks at a woman in a way that makes her "uncomfortable?" - the definition of uncomfortable being any damned thing she doesn't like. And wage discrimination has been illegal since WWII... the only women suing for that anymore are the secrfetaries who think they should be making the same salaries as their bosses. And YOU blame the government? Who do you think it is suing it from outside and corrupting it from the inside? It's the feminists of both "gender types" otherwise known as "sexes."

"Of course, burrowing one's head in the sand works in certain circumstances, but not here."

OK, you've enlightened us with your liberal feminist drivel... now tell us all, so we can benefit from your wisdom: Under what circumstances is it a good thing to bury one's head in the sand??? Forget it... the question was rhetorical! You're liberal enough where you actually think you're making sense.

They resent that standards are lowered because 85% of army women fail to meet the minimum physical requirements,

There's the #1 problem. Standards should NOT be lowered because some group or the other fails to meet them. The answer is for that group to work harder to make it up to the point where they WILL qualify with the existing standards. After all they are not in place as a barrier; they are there because the job requires those skills!!

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”— Thomas Jefferson ... We need a genuine "diversity" program that will make our public institutions truly representative of the nation's values."

How can we do the second without violating the first? Defining and codifying 'national values' is bound to violate some individuals' beliefs.

This is an irresponsible article. No one knows who killed Wales, or why. To assume he was killed by pro-2nd Amendment individuals is speculation at best. Also, this article almost seems to suggest that Wales had it coming, that his murder was part of the "culture war," and that members of anti-gun groups better watch out or they'll be next. To talk about Wales' murder right after mentioning the need to "purge subversive elements" seems to me to be reckless at best, a thinly-veiled threat at worst.

OK, you've enlightened us with your liberal feminist drivel...

I don't want to speak for the original poster, but it seems to me that identifying legitimate inequality is a fundamental conservative principle. Too often we try to ignore legitimate gripes because there are those who take advantage. That's a bad idea, and it's one of the reasons we do so poorly with women voters.

Re Tony's great concern for the rights of the so called abuse: "TonyS4412w member since October 17th, 2001"

Harrison, maybe that might explain the comment!

Re the phoney bs stirred up about by the NOW hags and their ACLU lawyer buddies. My wife, sister, several nieces, sister in laws and friends are pro rights for all. They have handled the bad guys in the work place very well without NOW, the FEDS and the ACLU. A few male clymers had to get a phone call from the husbands before they modified their behavior at the work place or the bad guys decided to leave that work place!

In all of these liberal claims of abuse/harassment just follow the money trail!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.