An Army of Fabulous

Pam of Pandagon doesn’t quite grasp the point of a military:

It’s so awful that the good men and women in uniform have to serve alongside animals like these, and that superiors that allow the sh*t to continue.

Oh dear, soldiers are beating people up and raping them again. That’s not, like, supposed to happen, is it? I mean, that hardly ever happens….

The purpose of a military is to break things and kill people. In order to do this effectively, you have to train individuals to become killing machines. The best killing machines tend to be young men with moderate IQs and high testosterone levels, who, surprisingly enough, tend to be significantly more aggressive than the norm.

This is a wonderful trait when you are told to take a location away from a heavily armed enemy that outnumbers you. It is less wonderful when you are at a tea party. The reason those superiors allow the “sh*t” to continue, and always will, is that they would like to have an army that is capable of breaking things and killing people, especially since the civilian command seems to have a fairly long wish list of things to be broken and people to be killed.

The group of five soldiers that beat up the gay man were not only exhibiting poor manners but also martial honor; what Pam also doesn’t understand is that those five men are expected to fight as one regardless of whether they face one or thirty opponents. Expecting an American soldier to fight fair is not only wildly absurd, but reveals a complete ignorance of how the USA trains its men to fight… the USA fights in the most unfair manner of any military in history. It’s most amusing to read how soldiers of the Waffen SS, a truly fearsome fighting machine, complained about how the American infantry in WWII fought. The SS didn’t think it was quite fair play to simply make contact, hold your ground and call in air strikes and artillery to pound your opponent, only assaulting when the Germans were half-broken from the massive bombardment.

Joe Haldeman wrote a classic SF novel about how an advanced society finally puts its warriors into deep freeze since it doesn’t need them anymore and they simply can’t fit into an emasculinized, peaceful society. Considering the serious challenges looming on the near-term and medium-term horizons, Pam should probably be grateful that there are still a number of dangerous men able to do terrible things on behalf of her and her compatriots. Even if American society had such a deep freeze and people favored using it, I rather doubt we’d be able to.

There are fine, upstanding men in the military who would never dream of beating someone up for no reason. And there are hard men who like nothing better than fighting anyone, for any reason at all. Both sorts will continue to have a place in the US military as long as winning wars involves breaking things and killing people, if ever humanity evolves to the point that needlepoint and color coordination represent the primary means of settling human conflict, America will be able to afford an Army of Fabulous that would likely offend Pam less. As for the good women in uniform… the less said about that negligible collection of quasi-militarized welfare cases, the better.

The corrections department

Have you read Craig Westover’s column lately? Your column on this item was only tongue-in-cheek, right?

I was wondering about the extinction of the blondes piece in the Telegraph because it seemed vaguely familiar, but I have never worried much about my responsibility for accepting a widely reported, but erroneous fact at face value. It happens from time to time, especially when one writes on areas that are outside one’s area of direct experience or expertise.

Since the column was a lightweight one that stated little more than “I really like blondes and I am deeply suspicious of the motivation behind advertising that pushes multiculturalism”, I’m not exactly terrified that my credibility has been permanently compromised by taking the reporting of a major newspaper at face value. The Official Story as presented daily by the mainstream media is so packed full of lies, myths and inaccuracies that I’d assert that the majority of the so-called facts reported are incorrect if examined in detail by a person with direct knowledge of the matter, so its merely a question of which ones you catch and which ones you don’t. Some, of course, are easier to spot than others.

In the column a week later, I rearranged a sentence and introduced a silly error. Cybelline is the adjective for the Goddess Cybele. I’d originally write “the Cybelline rites” and then thoughtlessly changed it to “the rites of Cybelline”. One is practicing the Cybelline rites by celebrating the rites of Cybele. I was aware that historical consensis is that the mutilation performed was actually self-castration, but as I informed Steve, the professor of classics who wanted to make sure that we were all clear on who was cutting off what, I simply couldn’t resist the metaphorical imagery of a horde of angry Christian women storming the pulpit and emasculating the pastor.

Well, I laughed, anyhow….

Dogmatic contortions

Larry reveals the limits of dogma:

Wherever one person is said to be the “head” of another person (or persons),the person who is called the “head” is always the one in authority (such as the general of an army, the Roman emperor, Christ, the heads of the tribes of Israel, David as head of the nations, etc.) Specifically, we cannot find any text where person A is called the “head” of person or persons B, and is not in a position of authority over that person or persons. So we find no evidence for your claim that “head” can mean “source without authority.””

Simply wrong, the NT states that “God is the head of Christ”…Unless you subscribe so subordinationalism, one of Arius’ errors, this passage cannot be taken to mean that God is superior to Christ. It would make Christ a second class God.

Follow the line of thought here, which is inspired by the feminist desire to find Biblical support for an equalitarian doctrine of equal partnership in marriage.

1. Ignore the direct commands to obedience.
2. Interpret “head” to mean “source”, then deny that “source” conveys any authority.
3. When it is shown that “source” does convey authority, argue against this based on an inference that there is no hierarchical authority within the three aspects of the Father, Son and Counselor despite the obvious authority inherent in the Father-Son relationship.

This isn’t logical reasoning, this is stubborn and pernicious rationalization of the sort usually seen in Supreme Court justices prone to penumbra-spotting. And it is easily proven false by any number of Scriptural examples, here are four examples from the single chapter of John 15 alone which demonstrate the falsehood of Larry’s dogmatic assertion that the Son is not subordinate to the Father.

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.”

“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.”

“If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love.”

“They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.”

It is clear, again, that one cannot reasonably argue that Jesus Christ is equal to God and not subordinate to Him without simultaneously arguing that any individual Christian is equal to Jesus Christ and not subordinate to him either. It is not terribly surprising that those who argue that there is no Biblical command for women to obey men within marriage soon find themselves in the position of denying their own duty to obey Jesus Christ or the Father.

And continuing to engage in ever more specious illogic, Larry finds himself forced to rely on an obviously false equation:

No, it is exactly the issue, it is impossible to be always subordinate in role without being subordinate in nature. What someone can do is a function of what they are. It’s kind of sad that some would rather embrace Arianism rather than give up their supposed “headship” over women.

The naturally superior man is often subordinated in role to his inferior, indeed, this was the great complaint of Friedrich Nietzsche. Plato’s Republic is the first of many efforts by the subordinately superior to build a case to provide them with a role concomitant with their inherent natural superiority. Larry’s feminine, passive-aggressive conclusion, which he provides in lieu of directly answering the criticisms raised, provides a potential explanation for why the doctrine of equal partnership is so appealing to him, as it frees him from assuming the burden of responsibility that goes with authority.

It’s princes who have all the fun, after all.

I am still waiting for an explanation of how ANY translation of kephale frees women from the command “to submit to your husbands in everything”, or how a party subject to submission in everything is not under the authority of that to which it must submit. Furthermore, it is clear that submission is equivalent to obedience in this passage, as 1 Peter 3 makes clear:

For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

The fact that Christian women resist submission primarily due to fear of their husband’s inadequate leadership should suffice to prove my case. No contortions, appeals to ancient authority or cultural relativism are necessary to it, only a belief that the Bible is indeed the Word of God.