Saturday, May 23, 2015

High Heels for the Troops! Fred Reed on the latest feminist atrocity.

Fred is not making this up. Follow his link to Army Times. This is from

Note to a Generic Pentagon General
A Cause of Delayed-Nausea Syndrome
I have just read in Army Times that, to my delight, the Army is making soldiers wear the prettiest red high-heels in the pursuit of gender-equality. Yes. They look like little girls playing with Mommy’s shoes. It has something to do with understanding the psychological problems of women, a matter of importance in combat. It necessarily was done with the approval of the Army’s generals in the Pentagon, particularly Chief of Staff Odierno, since they are in charge of the whole Army shebang. I write them in astonished admiration, thusly:
Dear General,
I see that on your watch the Army is turning into a transvestite marching corps in high heels, a Ziegfeld cross-gendered or bisected gay-bath sexual zoo vacuuming up every sort of erotic loony, not to mention becoming a home for unwed mothers and prostitution rings. I commend you. I have always wanted to be defended by a freak show.
I do not question your qualifications for command. You doubtless have a firm handshake, a steely gaze, an imposing presence, and a perfect grasp of PowerPoint. But a general who is so afraid of feminists that he forces his troops to play dress-up, well, I mean, what if there is a real war?
I applaud your forthrightness in bringing the doughboys out of the closet in those cute red heels. They are so precious! (By the way, have you considered foot-binding?) As a former Marine in Vietnamese days, I have always suspected the Army of being cross-dressers. How candid of you to confirm my suspicions.
True, traditionalists, and warriors, and cranky old Marines will say that you are just another sorry two-bit, peace-time, careerist politician of a pseudo-soldier who doesn’t have the balls to stand up to feminists and protect the service from becoming a display ad for Victoria’s Secret. I am shocked. Howcould they think such a thing?
Yes, General, yes. I understand. Putting GIs in those darling heels is supposed to provide some kind of uplift (though I believe brassieres are better for that). But I know perfectly well, and you may suspect—check with your dominatrix—that feminists get a hoot out of watching those macho men (ugh!)tottering around before the whole world in heels, like teen-age girls preparing for their first prom.“Heeeeeeeeeeeee-ha-ha.” Likely every diesel-dyke in a Women’s Studies department is rolling on the floor. Tippy-toe. Tippy-tippy-toe. “Hey, Sheila, look what we made them do!”
What I figure, General, is you ought to set an example for the troops by wearing panties and a bra (if you don’t already wear panties: I give you credit for miltary foresight.) A good officer–we had some–doesn’t order his men to do anything he himself wouldn’t do. Walk a Mile in Her Skivvies, General. (Actually, when I was a hard-charging young Gyrene, we spent a lot of time trying to get into women’s skivvies. Now it’s going to be mandatory?)
But you can do more for equity. There should be clear expression of the Army’s commitment to transvest–justice, I meant to say. I can imagine a whole new gendered approach to insignia of rank: Artificial hooters, in easily-washed silicone and real flesh tone. Enlisted men would get small ones. Officers would have big mommas. You, being an exalted military figure, would have three. The Command-in-Chief could wear an udder.
Now, General, I speak only for myself as a Marine who carried a rifle in Viet Nam, but others may agree with me. (A “rifle” is one of those awful long thingies (no, not those long thingies) that make boomy noises and stinky smoke and put stains on your cocktail dress that just ruin it.) Outside of Da Nang we used to lie behind sandbags at night with mortars coming in (a “mortar” is one of those gun thingies with a tube—no, a different kind of tube, General—that shoots–never mind) hoping a hit wouldn’t spray a buddy’s guts around. To a man we were thinking, why couldn’t we have a leader like a Pentagon general to give us cute little heels instead of these uncomfy old boots?
But let us get back to serious military questions. The effect on our enemies of the boob-insignia will be profound. The Afghan resistance fighters will be stunned, just stunned, to see American soldiers in high-heels and varying numbers of breasts. As the Mujahedeen gape, paralyzed with amazement, our soldiers will be able to approach them and give them therapy on the value of non-violence and rape culture. Each mujahid would be encouraged to express his feelings and find the roots of his anger. They could all be given a breast to take home and fondle.
I can see by your feminization of the ranks that you are socially progressive. Good. I imagine that you are against the culture of violence that prevails in the military. But what can you expect in a society that has so many gun thingies, and glorifies them? We need to de-emphasize war, and substitute caring activities involving cooperation. You could lead from the front by taking part in social activities, perhaps being pivot man in a circle jerk. On YouTube (No, not that….)
I hear that also on your watch the Army has taken measures to make the service more LBTG-friendly, as well as more inclusive and welcoming to single mommies. I think you should go further. For example, the Army could use armored nail-salons to keep the troops looking great and feeling good about themselves, and those funny old tanks need changing tables inside the turret-thingy. And big guns look tho phallic. They must make women anxious. The only thing they are good for is drying lingerie. The guns, I mean, not the women.
Now, mean old military historians who say that in a real war soldiers die because of posturing peace-time political pogues (I was in an alliteration company)—what do they know? A few thousand lives are a small price to pay for gender-equity. Besides, those who do the fighting are not the girly-boys, the boy-girls, the katoys, the to-be-decideds, the climbing vines with their cucumbers chopped, or the single mommies who have to look after some random guy’s kid. These, the core of the Army, will not be troubled. As you have shown, we must stay with core values.
Don’t pay attention to those macho infantry men (ugh!) who say that women should try walking in men’s shoes—unloading a six-by of 81mm mortar rounds under fire, or changing a truck tire in sand in Indian territory with night coming on. Everyone knows that trucks unload themselves by pushing some kind of button or something, and anyway we have drones.
Them’s my thoughts, General. And I suspect that every guy who ever served in a combat zone shares my overwhelming respect and admiration for you. If anyone criticizes you and you feel all upset and flustered, take your Midol, breathe deeply and it will get all better soon.

Another Liberal Knee-Jerkism

Many years ago, when Ex-Army wasn't Ex yet, a fellow soldier in my outfit, sort of a proto-White liberal, found himself compelled willy-nilly to point out to one of our Black fellow soldiers that Dianhann Carroll sure was beautiful. Here's a LINK for you youngsters who have never heard of her. He probably couldn't have told you himself why he felt that he had to do that. There were plenty of TV beauties in those days, from Elizabeth Montgomery to Julie Newmar, but he never felt that he had to point out their beauty to his fellow White soldiers or anybody else. Subconsciously, I imagine, he was trying to establish himself as a Good Guy who could appreciate the beauty of a Black woman, the hidden assumption being that most of us White guys couldn't.  The Black soldier rolled his eyes, not annoyed so much as bored, I think, by this behavior of a patronizing White liberal.

These day, though, White liberals say such things more to establish their right-thinking credentials with other White liberals than to impress Blacks, who are surely sick of it all by now.

But me, I'm like most White guys, and I'm seldom impressed by anybody Black, and I'm certainly not going to pretend I am when I'm not.

John Craig comments on the essential dishonesty and ditziness of such White liberal behavior on his blog here:

Conversations with a liberal

Yesterday a liberal white woman said to me, "Oh, B.B. King died. He was one of my favorites!"

I asked her to name two of his songs besides "The Thrill is Gone." She was unable to name even one. I suggested that if he were really one of her favorites -- which would imply that she must have listened to him fairly frequently -- she ought to be able to name at least one song beside the one he was most famous for.

Why did she feel obliged to point out that King was one of her favorites if she almost never listened to his music? Did she think that this demonstrated how she was not racist? How sophisticated her musical tastes were?

There's something intrinsically dishonest going on here. This woman would never have seized upon the death of an old white musician to somehow prove her bona fides.

A couple of weeks ago, I heard this same woman -- who has no black friends -- volunteer that the black mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, was "beautiful."

Again, this woman would never have felt obliged to point out that Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann were beautiful.

I'm not suggesting that B. B. King was not great, or that Rawlings-Blake does not have even features. I'm merely pointing out that there's something about using black people to prove your own virtue that is quintessentially liberal, and completely dishonest.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015


Richard Blake has done it again,  This is his latest historical novel set in the seventh century, a period very much neglected by novelists in general.  You can get all his books at Amazon HERE.  I've read all of them so far, and if you haven't yet, you're in for a treat. 

Published by ENDEAVOUR PRESS, 15th May 2015,
Priced £2.99 in E-format

Constantinople, 617 AD
Chained up in a condemned cell, Rodi thinks it’s the last day of his life.
It becomes the first.
Though only fourteen, his brains and skill at forgery make him too valuable to the Roman Empire for wasting in a public execution.

The Lord Treasurer Alaric recruits him into a top secret security agency. His job is to turn the tables in the Empire’s war with the so far victorious Persians.
This is a story that takes you from the glittering palaces and sordid streets and brothels of the Imperial City, to the barbarian-ravaged provinces, to high mountain tops fringed with pine. Here, with no one to help but a naïve Christian missionary, Rodi must prove himself in a contest with the devotees of an obscene and bloody idol and a Persian spy.
Can young Rodi survive and come out on top in this ruthless and secret Game of Empires...?
Game of Empires is a thrilling historical novella, perfect for fans of Simon Scarrow, Bernard Cornwell and Conn Iggulden.
For further information or to request an interview with Richard, please contact Amy on 

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Bonus Graphic

I call it a graphic because it's not really a quibcag. Pass it around.
Great minds do think alike. I posted this, then took a look at Stever Sailer's latest, and just look what he posted:

Tom Sowell on Baltimore

Most of the readers of this blog probably are also Tom Sowell fans, but for the few who are not....  I started reading Sowell many years ago and I recomment everything he writes, from his newspaper columns to his thickest tomes. Below, Stuart Schneiderman elaborates on Sowell's evaluation of Baltimore. This is from HERE.

Thomas Sowell Explains

Amidst the din the voice of reason emerges.

While many politicians and pundits are trying to excuse the rioting that took place in Baltimore last week, Thomas Sowell points to the facts.

It is certainly not the first time he has done so. While politicians and pundits are pushing a guilt narrative that excuses all bad behavior by African-Americans, Sowell offers a dose of reality:

We are told that such riots are a result of black poverty and white racism. But in fact — for those who still have some respect for facts — black poverty was far worse, and white racism was far worse, prior to 1960. But violent crime within black ghettos was far less.

Murder rates among black males were going down — repeat, down — during the much-lamented 1950s, while it went up after the much celebrated 1960s, reaching levels more than double what they had been before. Most black children were raised in two-parent families prior to the 1960s. But today the great majority of black children are raised in one-parent families.

When you state that one group of people need not observe the same standards and follow the same rules as everyone else, they don’t. When you excuse their criminal behavior, they engage in more criminal behavior. When you believe that their rioting is a justifiable rebellion against the entrenched whit the power structure, they will continue to riot. If you are an ideologue, you believe that the continued bad behavior shows that you were right all along.

Sowell explains it well:

You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization — including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility, and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain — without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.

Non-judgmental subsidies of counterproductive lifestyles are treating people as if they were livestock, to be fed and tended by others in a welfare state — and yet expecting them to develop as human beings have developed when facing the challenges of life themselves.

Statistics show that black married couples do not, as a rule, live in poverty. Much of the problem comes from homes that are led by a single mothers. One suspects that the media cannot bring itself to identify the problem as the lack of fathers. Don’t its leaders believe that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, that they are all just social constructs?

In Sowell’s words:

One key fact that keeps getting ignored is that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits every year since 1994. Behavior matters and facts matter, more than the prevailing social visions or political empires built on those visions.
QuibcagL Illustrated by Marii Buratei of Joshiraku (じょしらく),,because she's very good at illustrating things.

Monday, May 4, 2015

Root Causes in Baltimore

Over at, John Craig knocks another one out of the park:

Occam's razor

There have been a lot of theories floated in the mainstream media as to the root cause of the Baltimore riots.

One is the desperate poverty of many of the residents there. Another is the hopelessness of life in the inner city. Some say the educational system is lacking. Some blame the lack of employment opportunities for minority youth. And others say that such a conflagration was inevitable given the hostile, disrespectful attitude many police officers display towards young black men.

Here's a simpler explanation for the recent chaos:

Fish swim, birds fly.

Saturday, May 2, 2015

Diversity as it ought to be.

In response to my last, rather goofy post HERE, Matt Bailey wrote:

Don't knock it, that pretty young woman can pretty much walk alone anywhere in Japan and have an almost 0 percent chance of being raped and/or murdered. Whereas all sensible American women perforce carry guns these days. (The right to carry a gun is a great thing, the *forced necessity* to do the same is a national disgrace).

Matt has a way of putting things pungently and well, and is also the only person I know of since C. S. Lewis who knows what "perforce" means and how and when to use it, and it got me to thinking about 'diversity.' We have a diverse planet, with different kinds of people in different places, and that produces many different wonderful things because of the infinite variety of human insights and abilities. To the left, though, that kind of diversity really stinks, and their kind of diversity would slop everybody around all over the world, encouraging all kinds of multicuturalism and interbreeding, the idea being to end up with a bland, beige human race where there's no significant difference between one person and another, one nation or another, one family or another. In short, the leftist 'diversity' ethic is actually a uniformity ethic. Got that? As is the case in so many other areas, the left is working towards the opposite of what it publicly advocates.

Another example is 'safety.' The left says it will make you safer by disarming you. That is, when criminals are assured that regular people have no weapons in their homes, home burglaries and invasions will of course increase like crazy, so the criminals will feel safer. So when the left says they want to make you safe, again it's the opposite — They want to make the criminals safe and therefore put you at much greater risk.

You can go on and on with this 'opposites' theme. They want to make you more prospersous by raising your taxes. Prevent war by threatening Russia. Improve education by forcing incompatible groups to go to school together. And that brings us back to diversity.

And, since all this started with a post about Japan, it's worth pointing out that Japan's strength is not diversity, but homogeneity. And I want to keep humanity diverse by keeping the Japanese homogenous. And my own race homogenous. And all the others.