Feminism and National Defense

National Defense is now defined in terms of National Security.

Long Quote:

"National security is a concept that a government, along with its parliaments, should protect the state and its citizens against all kind of "national" crises through a variety of power projections, such as  political power, diplomacy,  economic power, military might, and so on.

The concept developed mostly in the  United States after  World War II. Initially focusing on military might, it now encompasses a broad range of facets, all of which impinge on the non-military or economic security of the nation and the values espoused by the national society. Accordingly, in order to possess national security, a nation needs to possess  economic security,  energy security,  environmental security, etc. Security threats involve not only conventional foes such as other  nation-states but also non-state actors such as  violent non-state actors, narcotic cartels,  multinational corporations and  non-governmental organizations; some authorities include  natural disasters and events causing severe environmental damage in this category.

Measures taken to ensure national security include:

using  diplomacy to rally allies and isolate threats
marshalling economic power to facilitate or compel cooperation
maintaining effective armed forces
implementing  civil defense and  emergency preparedness measures (including  anti-terrorism legislation)
ensuring the resilience and redundancy of  critical infrastructure
using intelligence services to detect and defeat or avoid threats and  espionage, and to protect  classified information
using  counterintelligence services or secret police to protect the nation from internal threats" 1.

End of Long Quote

The general political and military strategy that Bolsheviks (communists) and feminists have used and are currently using are: 1. Terrorism (political correctness in the USA-Political, economic, social, cultural, and legal discrimination and oppression of individuals and/or groups that oppose their totalitarian means and ends; 2. Political indoctrination ( for example, the many women's study groups, clubs, and political organizations in universities, in government, and otherwise); and, 3. Sustained guerilla warfare (in many forms-political, economic, cultural, legal) against the Caucasian European male culture (affirmative action-for example). "General Giap had studied the military teachings of Mao Zedong, who wrote that political indoctrination, terrorism and sustained guerrilla warfare were prerequisites for a successful revolution." 2.
 "Cultural Marxism" and " Political Correctness" have become the norm in the USA and the West in general.
The internet article, "The Origins of Political Correctness" by Bill Lind which appeared in Accuracy in Academia, describes and defines both "Political Correctness" and "Cultural Marxism".  The URL for the web page for this article is: http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/ A partial quote from the same article states:
"Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism." 3.
The XIX (19th) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1920) which gave women the right to vote did not contemplate women being required, as a requisite of this right, to perform mandatory military service inclusive of combat duty.
However, in effect, this amendment has given women an electoral majority in the U.S.A. over men that has been increasing.
As per a quote from the Chapter of this book of Government and Feminism:  "Male voting rates have declined sharply since the mid-1960s i.e. the beginning of the Matriarchal social and political construct (feminism).  "Between the 1964 and 2000 Presidential elections, the male voting rate declined from 72 to 53 percent." 4..  Because the USA has a winner take all, bought, and gerrymandered form of electoral representation, the female absolute and electoral majority has a disproportionately adverse affect on male political representation, male rights, and male equality.
"Essentially and unfortunately our essential natures are personified within the political system and further reinforced by the dominate female 54-56% majority vote.
Through this model provision to females becomes dually compounded. The system essentially becomes matrifocal, gynocentric and Matriarchal." 5.
The aforementioned makes American men and the men of other democratic nations virtual slaves to the aforementioned feminist electoral majority's foreign policy,military, and defense related objectives and means.
" In 1971 in the United States, draft resisters initiated a class-action suit alleging that male only conscription violate men's rights to equal protection under the US Constitution. When the case reached the United States Supreme Court in 1981, they were supported by a men's rights group and multiple women's groups including the National Organization for Women. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Military Selective Service Act stating that "the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of it's Constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than equity." 6.
This, in itself, is EXTREMELY unjust, oppressive, and discriminatory towards men.
Should women and minorities have preference in employment, education, and other wise over returning war veterans, inclusive of combat veterans?
Our nation and our government determined, by law and custom that they should.
This is what returning Vietnam Veterans faced.
Should Vietnam Veterans, in fact, be actively discriminated against in employment, education, and otherwise?
Yes, this is what our nation and our government determined, by law, and custom that they should.
The image of the aggressive feminist associating with long haired effeminate base men for the purpose of denigrating returning Vietnam Veterans and all men of character remains a shameful part of our current and past history and culture. The very organized,aggressive, demeaning,unprincipled, discriminatory  and sexist attacks on returning Vietnam Veterans in the late 1960's and early 1970's by feminists set the pattern for the aggressive, unprincipled,organized, and discriminatory attacks by feminists on men subsequent to the same.
In other words, the most efficacious means for feminists to obtain their misandric goals is to DESTROY those that oppose them or that they perceive as having the character and/or motivation to do the same.
 In this author's opinion, the fact that women were not required to serve in the military nor the combat arms, although they had the same right to vote as these men who sacrificed so much, encouraged an arrogant, predatory, demeaning, exploitative, and discriminatory attitude towards Vietnam Veterans.
Further, the fact that women and others, although they do not have to serve in the military, are the electoral majority results in the fact that this same majority unjustly determines when this nation goes to war, how the war is to be fought, and how the returning veteran is to be treated.
 This results in the initiation of unwise and unnecessary wars, unwise military strategies, the oppressive exploitation of those in the military, and the initiation of wars motivated by the selfish and unjust motives of this feminist electoral majority.
The fact that the U.S. government and the U.S. Congress did not issue a formal declaration of war against North Vietnam indicates a lack of reasonable support for those American servicemen fighting that war and a lack of respect for these same men.
The failure to issue a formal declaration of war by the US Congress during the War in Vietnam, set the premises for the eventual defeat of the US and Allied military and other efforts in South Vietnam.
If a formal declaration of war had been made by the USA, indicating a firm and resolute commitment to victory in as efficient and efficacious manner as possible,   the USA and it's allies, in my opinion, could have been victorious over North Vietnam and in South Vietnam within about one year.
"For the United States,  Article One, Section Eight of the  Constitution says " Congress shall have power to ... declare War" . 7.
Should an electoral majority, which, by law, is determined to be too weak or base to serve in the military, inclusive of the combat arms and/or is unwilling and/or unable to serve in such a capacity, have the right to determine when and how a nation is to engage in military operations, inclusive of war, and how the returning veteran is to be treated?
Of course not.
Our present system gives the electoral majority that does not serve, women and others, the means and motive to exploit and denigrate men who serve in the military.
Again, this was exemplified in the War in Vietnam and the hostile, insulting, and discriminatory treatment that Vietnam Veterans received by these same individuals and groups, women and others, which were exempt from and/or avoided said service and who, at the same time, demanded and received preferential treatment in employment, education, and law over returning Vietnam veterans, even combat veterans.
In today's United State's military, women receive preferential treatment over men with lower standards and fewer service requirements than men by law.
Women demanded from their political representatives that they should receive this preferential treatment. Their unprincipled political representatives yielded to these unjust discriminatory demands despite the extremely deleterious affect the same had on the capabilities of the armed forces of the United States.
Further, feminists and others in the military have launched a virtual war on men in the military through wide spread hysterical  false accusations of sexual assaults, rapes, and other illegal acts against women.
 These lies and slanders are supported by the establishment media and unethical politicians.
The result has been and continues to be a virtual feminist political purge from the U.S. Military of some of our most loyal, courageous, and efficacious military leaders.
The intent of these feminist diatribes is to further discriminatory favoritism of women in the military while promulgating systematic discrimination against men in the military.
Feminists and their supporters have utilized the same strategy in other occupations virtually driving most men out of certain occupations. 
The remaining few men  in these same occupations tend to be male feminists, effeminate,emasculated and/or gay.
Defending and supporting laws and customs which make men second class citizens in their own nation is not patriotic.
It is not honorable but dishonorable to defend a nation that treats you in a dishonorable fashion.
There has been a repeated pattern, since the War in Vietnam, of exploiting the military, then denigrating the veteran, and then granting preferential treatment to those individuals and groups who are unable and/or unwilling to serve in the U.S. military, especially the combat arms.
This unjust and predatory pattern is likely to continue unless electoral representation, the right to vote, is reasonably associated with military duty, especially mandatory military duty, the military draft.
Men should refuse to serve in the military in the USA and other nations unless there is a reasonable correlation between military service, especially mandatory military service (the military draft) and electoral representation (the right to vote) and until those other republican principles (equal rights and equal responsibilities for all citizens-no more affirmative action)  are restored.
Again, this same electoral majority, unwilling and/or unable to serve in the U.S. Military, granted itself preference by law and custom in employment, education, the law, the receipt of social services and by other means, both overt and covert, EVEN OVER RETURNING COMBAT VETERANS.
The aforementioned results in an abusive, offensive, denigrating, oppressive, and discriminatory attitude by American women not only towards American military veterans but towards all men, especially men who demonstrate the traditional male virtues. This aggressive and unprincipled attack on returning Vietnam Veterans,  was merely the initial assault on those American men, by feminists, both male and female,  who demonstrated any of the traditional male virtues.
It continues in all spheres of American life.
American women have found it to be politically, economically, socially, and culturally advantageous for them to form alliances with base and weak men for the purpose of dominating and exploiting men who have the traditional male virtues. As per the experience of the returning Vietnam Veteran, the same alliance continues to this date with the result that the traditional male culture in the U.S.A. has been destroyed. No wonder that men from foreign countries routinely laugh at the effeminate nature of American men who have been degraded out of fear, obedience, and the shame of being men from our women who have made to feel guilty for just being men.
Metrosexual, base, and effeminate men have become de rigeur, welcomed, nourished, made safe, and have become "politically correct' in American Society and in the eyes of the law. Manly behavior is NOT. Every single foreign war the U.S.A. has entered into in the past 50 years has progressively been less and less effective.  The U.S.A. no longer seems able to win a difficult war with decisiveness and efficiency. The military justice system, in the name of "political correctness", has run amok, where even the most base, lying, evil, insecure, mercenary, violent, and selfish women, some of whom have been officially proven to be so, can easily destroy good soldiers of proven great courage, great character, great patriotism, honor, and respect.
With significantly fewer men graduating from college relatively and absolutely due to affirmative action and other programs giving preferential treatment to women and minorities, there will be significantly fewer educated men available to meet the leadership and other requisites for modern warfare and today's armed forces.
Refer to the chapter on "Feminism's Effect on the Education System" for a further detailed analysis of the same.
 Further, as the male virtues, men's rights, men's liberties, and men's individual and collective dignity are under aggressive attack by feminists and others, American men will  increasingly,relatively and absolutely, be unwilling and/or unable to serve in the U.S. Military.
The following is a partial quote in support of the aforementioned from an online Time.com article by Nolan Feeney dated June 29, 2014 entitled " Pentagon: 7 in 10 Youths Would Fail to Qualify for Military Service': " Only 1% of  young people are both 'eligible and inclined to have conversation with' the military about possible service, according to the Defense Department. 'The quality of people willing to serve has been declining rapidly,' Major General Allen Batschelet, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command's commanding general, told the WSJ." 8.
The American military, itself, will be increasingly composed of women and others who are unwilling and/or unable to serve in combat due to "politically correct" norms.
Our armed forces may be no match psychologically, emotionally,physically,intellectually and/or spiritually in war for most men of foreign nations because of the aforementioned.
The excellent books entitled "Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military" 9.  and "Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster" 10.  by Brian Mitchell further argue that women have had a profoundly disruptive and negative effect on the fighting capabilities of the American armed forces.
 An online National Review article by Mike Fredenburg, dated July 15, 2015, entitled: " Putting Women in Combat Is Even a Worse Idea than You'd Think", discusses the adverse effects on national defense of having women in the U.S. Military. The following is an partial quote from the same:

Long Quote

"The push to put women into combat is driven by an extreme, reality-challenged form of feminism. Unfortunately, its influence in the media, the entertainment industry, the universities, and politics has given it a tremendous base of political power that extends into the heart of the military. Jude Eden notes: "In my experience, feminism and political correctness are so prevalent in the military that men trip over themselves trying to ensure that they do not offend. Military leaders cannot afford to even think the truth: Women are not as strong,athletic men are: "Officers in the military understand that speaking honestly about the problems of women in combat can be a career-ender, while putting gender-diversity goals ahead of everything else can be a career-accelerator." 11.
 
End of Long Quote
There are other excellent books which further argue that women in the US Military have had an extremely adverse effect on the same.
A YouTube video entitled: "Starship Troopers- the Failure of Democracy" provides a very dramatic and meaningful argument for the proposition that the right to vote should be reasonably related to military service. 12.

 The following is a partial quote from Book 2 Chapter IX of Aristotle's Book,Politics, which reiterates much of the aforementioned:

Long Quote

 "As to the indulging of women in any particular liberties, it is hurtful to the end of government and the prosperity of the city; for as a man and his wife are the two parts of a family, if we suppose a city to be divided into two parts, we must allow that the number of men and women will be equal. 
In whatever city then the women are not under good regulations, we must look upon one half of it as not under the restraint of law, as it there happened; for the legislator, desiring to make his whole city a collection of warriors with respect to the men, he most evidently accomplished his design; but in the meantime the women were quite neglected, for they live without restraint in every improper indulgence and luxury. So that in such a state riches will necessarily be in general esteem, particularly if the men are governed by their wives, which has been the case with many a brave and warlike people except the Celts, and those other nations, if there are any such, who openly practise pederasty. And the first mythologists seem not improperly to have joined Mars and Venus together; for all nations of this character are greatly addicted either to the love of women or of boys, for which reason it was thus at Lacedaemon; and many things in their state were done by the authority of the women. For what is the difference, if the power is in the hands of the women, or in the hands of those whom they themselves govern? it must turn to the same account. As this boldness of the women can be of no use in any common occurrences, if it was ever so, it must be in war; but even here we find that the Lacedaemonian women were of the greatest disservice, as was proved at the time of the Theban invasion, when they were of no use at all, as they are in other cities, but made more disturbance than even the enemy.
The origin of this indulgence which the Lacedaemonian women enjoy is easily accounted for, from the long time the men were absent from home upon foreign expeditions  against the Argives, and afterwards the Arcadians and Messenians, so that, when these wars were at an end, their military life, in which there is no little virtue, prepared them to obey the precepts of their law-giver; but we are told, that when Lycurgus endeavoured also to reduce the women to an obedience to his laws, upon their refusal he declined it. It may indeed be said that the women were the causes of these things, and of course all the fault was theirs. But we are not now considering where the fault lies, or where it does not lie, but what is right and what is wrong; and when the manners of the women are not well regulated, as I have already said, it must not only occasion faults which are disgraceful to the state, but also increase the love of money. In the next place, fault may be found with his unequal division of property, for some will have far too much, others too little; by which means the land will come into few hands, which business is badly regulated by his laws. For he made it infamous for any one either to buy or sell their possessions, in which he did right; but he permitted any one that chose it to give them away, or bequeath them, although nearly the same consequences will arise from one practice as from the other. It is supposed that near two parts in five of the whole country is the property of women, owing to their being so often sole heirs, and having such large fortunes in marriage; though it would be better to allow them none, or a little, or a certain regulated proportion. Now every one is permitted to make a woman his heir if he pleases; and if he dies intestate, he who succeeds as heir at law gives it to whom he pleases. From whence it happens that although the country is able to support fifteen hundred horse and thirty thousand foot, the number does not amount to one thousand.
And from these facts it is evident, that this particular is badly regulated; for the city could not support one shock, but was ruined for want of men."  13.

End of Long Quote

"When a nation shows a civilized horror of war, it receives directly the punishment of it's mistake. God changes its sex, despoils it of its common mark of virility, changes it into a feminine nation and sends conquerors to ravish its honor." 14.

In honor of America's veterans the following is a quote from Homer's "Iliad":
" But when Aurora, daughter of the Dawn, Redden'd the east, then, thronging forth, all Troy Encompass'd noble Hector's pile around. The whole vast multitude convened, with wine. They quench'd the pile throughout, leaving no part Unvisited, on which the fire had seized. His brothers, next, collected, and his friends,His white bones, mourning, and with tears profuse Watering their cheeks; then in a golden urn They placed them, which with mantles soft they veil'd Mæonian-hued, and, delving, buried it,And overspread with stones the spot adust. Lastly, short time allowing to the task,They heap'd his tomb, while, posted on all sides,Suspicious of assault, spies watch'd the Greeks.The tomb once heap'd, assembling all again Within the palace, they a banquet shared Magnificent, by godlike Priam given." Such burial the illustrious Hector found." 15.

"There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."  President George Washington 16. “It is not indeed consistent with reason or justice that one set of men should make a sacrifice of property, domestic ease, and happiness; encounter the rigors of the field, the perils and vicissitude of war, without some adequate compensation, to obtain those blessings which every citizen will enjoy in common with them. It must be a comfortless reflection to any man, that, after he may have contributed to secure the rights of his country, at the risk of his life, and the ruin of his fortune, there will be no provision made to prevent himself and his family, from sinking into indigence and wretchedness.”“With these and other arguments, General Washington recommended, in addition to present compensation, a half pay and pensionary establishment for the army.” “Life of George Washington”, Vol.2, p. 394, John Marshall. “A long and continued sacrifice of individual interest for the general good ought not,” he said,” to be expected or required. The nature of man must be changed, before institutions built on the presumptive truth of such a principled can succeed.” “Life of George Washington”, Vol.2, p. 393, John Marshall. 17.