This is so ridiculous. It’s a shame to have to be put on the defensive about something so obvious, but since the Jewish Mind has been dominating our society for awhile now, this point must be stressed. Not that there are likely any people in White Nationalist circles who need to be alerted to this reality. We arleady know.
I served in the military for about five years, between 2005 and 2010. I was a truck driver by MOS, but I also spent a year as a gunner during my first tour of Iraq. Having been a truck driver, I was always in co-ed units. I had the experience of having a female squad leader, a female platoon sergeant, a female platoon leader, and a female XO during my first deployment. During my second deployment, while I was spared of having females in those positions, we did have a female company commander.
When I was in Iraq the first time, we had a female as our “second string” rear gunner. I can’t remember any instances of her holding us back as a unit, besides needing help having her 50 cal mounted to the turret. So there you go, an example of one individual woman not necessarily being a setback or degrading unit cohesion. However, this is a collective issue, not an individual one. Also, while she was busy behind the turret, her children went one full year without her love and affection. A woman’s place is in the household, raising the children, and supporting the husband. This is extremely moral and virtuous, and all women should hold this as their ideal. That’s called nature. Not that I expect everyone to be perfect, and we need to make as much money as we can in this ruined economy, but running the house hold is what ever family should strive for.
Not only that, but women are way too emotional to be in combat. I experienced angering my female squad leader so much that she started crying in front of me. My female platoon sergeant would chimp out on us for the slightest infraction. Not that male leaders don’t also do this, but it’s extremely demoralizing when it’s a woman doing this. I don’t remember my male sergeants flying off the deep end the way I remember my female sergeants doing the same, and of course the males didn’t do it nearly as often.
Not only that, having women in combat leads to excessive political correctness, and that’s on major factor that degrades unit cohesion. Men need to be allowed to be men without walking on egg shells. Not that I think vulgar humor is great by any means, but men should be able to vent any way they need to, without worrying about offending any women in the room, especially in a combat zone. Instead, the military empowers women and half of these girls go out of their way to be offended most of the time.
Then you have the whole rape epidemic, which is another fantastic and obvious reason not to let women in combat. I don’t think women should do anything outside of medicine. Stateside medicine. Women should not be separated from their children for extended periods of time to fight wars for the Jews. Far from liberating, it’s degrading and tragic.
So here are some interesting excerpts from an interesting mainstream article that came out a few weeks ago:
As the military completes testing to open combat positions to women, critics say that lawmakers and defense officials are ignoring reports that suggest integrating women into ground warfare would reduce effectiveness in battle and harm unit cohesion.
Others doubt the ability of women to pass the rigorous training required to be an elite Army Ranger, Marine commando or Navy SEAL, as already this year a high percentage of female service members have dropped out of such training.
“We are on track to meet the deadlines. And I personally have received … interim update[s] about how it’s all going. And I feel pretty good about it,” Air Force Secretary Deborah James said at a House Armed Services Committee hearing.
Of course she feels good about it, being the best example for why women should not be in combat or hold high positions in the military or civilian politics. She is loyal to women first, and has no concern for military merit or capability. She needs to be put in an insane asylum.
But critics of women serving in combat say members of Congress are not asking enough questions and instead are going along with a political goal of the Obama administration that will ultimately harm the military.
“Congress hasn’t had any hearings,” said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness. “There is no way women can be accommodated in the combat arms without a number of negative consequences that really can’t be justified. There’s no trade-off.”
This is clearly the point of the agenda. There is no justification. The people heading the pussification of the military all need to be arrested and charged with treason. They are clearly on a mission to make our military as weak as possible, and stretching it thin overseas for Israel when really it should be a man-only combat force guarding our southern border and leading deportation missions. That is what we should be doing. By fighting wars for Israel in the Middle East, we are also fighting wars for the Jewish Collective by not defending that border.
“Thousands of women have served alongside men in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their record of performance has been nothing less than outstanding,” Cmdr. Christensen said. “Our goal is to ensure that the mission is carried out by the best qualified and the most capable service members, regardless of gender.”
Well, that is retarded and deadly reasoning. Gender matters, especially in the military. Individual merit is important, but as far as military operations go, it is not the most important measure of capability. Unit cohesion is the most important: Shoot, move, and communicate. Having women around screws up communication, because of the excessive political correctness having women around leads to. Jeez this stuff is so ridiculously obvious, you know the people in high positions at least deserve to be fired from their jobs, if not arrested. Instead, they will be treated as heroes and saints by the Jew media.
Ms. Williams said she expects service members to quickly accept women serving in combat positions based on troops’ reactions to other changes, such as the repeal of the ban on open homosexuals and the admission of women at military academies.
This is a media lie. I seriously doubt that anyone over the age of 25 who has more than two brain cells accepts open homosexual men in the military (lesbians were open and no one cared when I served). And of course, the same applies to women being officers. It’s just that the media doesn’t give much exposure to dissenting voices. So when they just outright lie like in the above quote, the lemmings buy it.
“If history repeats itself, there will be grumbling and hesitation and resistance as changes are rolled out. Then, within a very short time, people will adjust to the normal,” she said.
Adjusting and accepting are not the same thing.
Some reports, however, indicate the opposite.
A British study released late last year found that physiological differences put women at a disadvantage in strength-based and aerobic fitness tests. Even women who are able to overcome the physiological disadvantages will likely be injured more easily or become tired more quickly, making them easier targets and poorer marksmen in combat.
Army Maj. Angela Scott was one of 26 women who tried this year to pass the second Ranger Training Assessment Course. The 16-day program is run by the Army National Guard at Fort Benning, Georgia, and serves as a trial to select who goes to Ranger School. The training resembles Ranger School, including tests for physical fitness, swimming ability and land navigation, and it includes a six-mile march.
After having trained two months specifically for the course, Maj. Scott dropped out after eight days. Only 58 out of 122 soldiers who started the program graduated; only five of the 58 who passed were female.
Despite dropping out, Maj. Scott said the military should be a place where anyone who is willing to work hard can serve in any position.
“There should be one standard, and whoever wants to attempt to meet this standard should be allowed,” Maj. Scott, who served in Iraq twice, said in a Defense Department release. “If they don’t meet the standard, then that’s on them.”
Once again, even women who do qualify should still not be allowed. They will disrupt the natural flow between a brotherhood of men in arms simply by being a woman. Half the men will fantasize about her and put her on a pedastal, the other half will hate her presence and be demoralized, and the dynamics caused by these sentiments will degrade that ever-so-important unit cohesion. Besides, “attempting” and being “willing” to meet the standard is not the same as meeting the standard. Even the female presence in these training schools will have a negative effect on men who otherwise would have performed better. Once again, the minority will be neutral on the female presence, while the rest will either love or hate the female presence, leading to decreased performance.
Several female Marines are training at Twentynine Palms in California over the next month to see if they can meet standards to serve in combat. About half of the two dozen women who were training with an infantry unit have dropped out, mostly due to injuries, NPR reported. But almost all of the nearly 20 women who are training with a unit of tanks and armored vehicles are still participating, the article said.
On top of all the points I have made earlier, the bottom line is this: The mission is to make the US military as intrinsically anti-white as possible. More specifically, against the white males who will lead the revolution for white separation. If the military was mostly white men, then they would probably join us in the rebellion. White Men, we must realize that all this lovey dovey pro-female, pro-homo and pro-minority mumbo jumbo is all just part of the plan to keep us and our children from living in the world we deserve to live in.