Finishing Wars in a World of Weenies [Photo Replaced]

/ Jack Marshall

[Apparently the previous graphic I sued to represent a nuclear bomb explosion either intentionally or by happenstance resembled Bozo the Clown. Amusing, but in this case, a distraction. That’s Hiroshima above. Not funny…]

I don’t know when the United States began its disastrous slide toward weenie-ism, but it’s just got to stop. Unfortunately there are so many cultural pathogens running amuck that the Trump Presidency has to try to solve—multiculturalism, transmania, gun-phobia, censorship, the death of journalism, the corruption of the professions, “the good illegal immigrant,” DEI, and on, and on—getting around to the weenie epidemic will be a long shot at best. But I can dream…

The latest example of the Weenies making trouble is the Israel-Gaza war. Israel’s situation could not be clearer: it has to eliminate Hamas once and for all, or else resign itself to more attacks on citizens in perpetuity. To eliminate Hamas, Israel will have to kill some citizens, destroy some buildings, harm children. Hamas wants to make them do that. But the responsibility for the war lies with Hamas, as does the responsibility for ending it. Hamas can surrender.

Ah, but the Weenies are out in force, condemning Israel for doing what nations that are attacked have to do: strike back decisively, and make certain that the aggressors are never in a position to attack again. The United States understood this in World War II, but a confluence of factors that I have neither the time nor patience to expound on now—though a major one is the ascendancy of women in politics, punditry and the professions—has blurred the clarity of that principle, resulting in such fiascos as the Vietnam War, the first Iraq war, the second Iraq War, and Biden’s Afghanistan debacle.

Arguably, the situation facing Israel is even clearer than any of those, but even in Israel itself, weenie-ism is rotting the moral and ethical core of society. That is another nation, like the U.S., which one would think would have the guts, determination, and courage to do the right thing even when, as the poet said, all about them are losing their heads and blaming it on Israel, and can trust itself when everyone doubts them.

I hope Israel does, but the Weenies are powerful in their weakness, and people will die if they gain the upper hand.

   

42 thoughts on “Finishing Wars in a World of Weenies [Photo Replaced]”

  1. Jack, while I, a woman, am inclined to agree with you that the ascendancy of women in many fields is a cause of the increase in weenie-ism, I would love it if you could go into more detail. I have been reading several different opinions on the topic and have liked to see how they approach the issue.

    Frankly, I feel that the main issue is the women are women and not men and men are men and not women. I believe that we really do solve problems differently. I know some of it is training, some is biological, and some is undetermined. That being said, can you further elucidate your position?

    Reply

    • Not to substitute for Jack, but I have long been concerned about women in politics and top US leadership positions in general.

      Now, there is no doubt whatever that women are superficially competent for many of these positions. Women mature faster than men, they are generally more disciplined and organized, are every bit as intelligent, and have much more empathy than men in general.

      Unfortunately, it is that last characteristic that is the problem. Empathy is a double-edged sword when a man wields it, but it is very often poison for women. In my non-woman opinion, that happens because women are far more emotionally engaged than men, and that in combination with empathy creates the “weenie dynamic” that Jack alludes to. That is not something women can really control — it is mostly born in their bones and part of their raising. Mothers could hardly exist if they thought like men, and our species would be extinct by now.

      Most (by no means all) women are not capable of executing truly rational thinking, because their emotional and empathetic tendencies are just too strong and interferes with the process. Often, decision making in, for example, a C-suite leader, requires strong critical thinking skills that deliberately reduces the influence of emotionalism and empathy. Examples are hiring and firing, which often force leaders to harm employees’ well-being in the interest of company profitability and success. I myself am subject to far to much emotional an empathetic influence to be a good leader at that level, and I don’t mean to say that men aren’t subject to the same influences — it’s just less prevalent in men than women.

      On a national leadership level, emotional and empathetic decision-making are a negative, and, in my view, almost always disqualifying. Hard decisions require hard minds — I hate saying that, but the evidence supporting that statement are literally everywhere.

      For example, in wars, people must be killed. Not just combatants, but civilians. Few leaders really want to kill civilians, but it is literally inevitable, including women and children. Killing children, even accidentally, is almost always a no-go for women. Winning a war requires a hardness of soul that few women (Thankfully!) possess. Abraham Lincoln, as he so often did, had it exactly right; “There’s no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.“

      Women are mostly too gentle for war, both in leadership and in execution. As war and associated activities are at the top of the list of characteristics of top leadership of the country, this places women, collectively, at a huge disadvantage. All one has to do is look at the voting patterns of women in this country to see that.

      Immigration enforcement is another area tough for women; “You can’t separate families like that!!” Yes, you can, and you must. Illegal immigration is a cancer on this country, and with the emphasis on it now, we can see the results even with the relatively small percentage improvement.

      This is already more than I meant to write, and it doesn’t come close to explaining my thinking on this issue. It’s sure to come off sexist and mean, but alas, I can only type so much, and I am limited in eloquence.

      Reply

    • I would like to offer for consideration, estrogen. I have a friend who went on testosterone replacement. His physician failed to prescribe an estrogen blocker to accompany the synthetic testosterone which he was given. The result was that his estrogen spiked and he became a psychological crumbled mess. He mentioned to his wife that he couldn’t function, couldn’t make decisions, couldn’t understand why he was so emotionally overwhelmed. His wife responded, “Welcome to my life once a month.”

      When we problem solve we are looking for solutions which “match” something, seeming acceptable or reasonable.

      Perhaps, estrogen place a key foundational role in the very way that neurons operate influencing how we perceive potential outcomes which leads to… boys tend to compete and jockey for status, girls tend to cooperate and share. Ending a war seems to favor boys. Protracting a war seems to favor girls, each side keeps taking turns while we continue to dialog.

      Maybe the stereotypes above were too much.

      Reply

    • This is a perplexing issue for me, because so many women in my life have shown strength, character, talent and intellect, and I believe that prejudice against women, and any individual woman, is unconscionable and despicable. However, women, as you note tend toward an avoidance of direct confrontation, an abhorrence of violence as a matter of principle, and a preference for collaborative conflict resolution—none of which has much value once a way starts. The successful leadership model is still a male one, which is why the prominent female heads of state like Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir…and even Hillary Clinton, though she never made it to the top, have been just as bellicose as their male counterparts.As a group, however. women just want the killing and carnage to stop—which is admirable, but not wise or practical.

      Reply

  2. If I could offer an opinion on why women tend to avoid conflict I would say that they believe themselves to be inherently weaker when in combat which would say the rational response would be to seek a peaceful outcome. That is not to say that momma bears will not fight to protect their young but when the maternal protective instinct kicks they will fight only as a last resort to protect the young.
    Males, in the animal kingdom biologically only protect the young they know are their offspring and will not concern themselves with the death of an adversaries child. This translates to human woman exhibiting a desire to spare children from being killed even if it means that child may potentially kill others

    Obviously, this does not mean all human women behave in this manner but females are inculcated with the idea that they should sublimate their needs for the sake of group harmony at a very early age.

    Human males are taught to be competitive early on. They are also taught to be protectors of the weaker members of society. Our military draft is predicated on the notion that males must protect the females to preserve reproductive capacity in the society. Any threats to that will engender a willingness to engage in physical conflict.

    Just some random thoughts on that question.

    Reply

      • Holly A wrote, “So people will die. So what? As those who are truly uninfected might reply, “I really don’t care, do you?” “

        I’ve read your comment multiple times in context with what I wrote and what I quoted from Jack, and I honestly can’t determine what the heck your point is supposed to be.

        Did you read something between the lines that I quoted and wrote that’s not there?

        Can you please elaborate?

        Reply

        • Ah sorry for the confusion, my comment was based on reading the general discussion up to that point which was… oh dear… I guess entertaining in a completely inadvertent way?

          What I extracted from that was basically…testosterone = good, protects against “weenism”; estrogen = poison, causes empathy and squeamishness about killing, especially killing children (wait, what about all those abortions?)… which is, apparently, BAD, because… Israel good?

          I HAD keyed into the same comment you quoted, which to me highlighted the oddness of the conversation to that point, which was bemoaning sqeamishness about killing (i.e., weenism) but then ALSO denouncing weenishness because… people will die.

          Surely to demonstrate our non-weenish soul hardiness we must brush this trivial issue of “people will die” aside?

          (BTW credit to Melania fashion speak–her preferred form of communication–for the “I really don’t care, do you?” quote.)

          Reply

          • Forgive me for being my brutally honest self; but, after I read your comment an old adage immediately popped into my mind,

            “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”

            Reply

            • You are welcome!!

              BTW, for a fairly sweeping treatment of the general trend of the species toward what is being called in this thread by the special term “weenism,” I recommend Steven Pinker’s 2010 The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. WWII, as a recent and impressively profligate killing spree, is a bit of a problem for his overall thesis but in general for the broader sweep of history and prehistory I think he makes a fairly good case for a general “weenism” trend.

              Also, you can take heart that in denouncing “weenism” you have a long heritage to build on.

              Here’s Homer’s version of Agamemnon upbraiding the weak (sad!) King Menelaus for his apparent squeamishness re what should rightly be the bracing prospect of genocidal violence (from the Iliad):

              “Menelaus, my soft-hearted brother, why are you so concerned for these men? Did the Trojans treat you as handsomely when they stayed in your palace? No: we are not going to leave a single one of them alive, down to the babies in their mothers’ wombs–not even they must live. The whole people must be wiped out of existence, and none be left to think of them and shed a tear.” (quoted by Pinker on p. 4)

              Reply

          • Holly A,
            I’m going to have to eat some crow and retract my earlier negative comment about your earlier reply to me. After reading that comment through a couple of more times tonight from a different perspective I think I over reacted to the writing style you presented and it simply blew over my head earlier today and I owe you an apology.

            I apologize.
            Steve

            Reply

            • You are a true gentleman!

              I generally don’t take offense whatever people say (also, I wasn’t actually sure WHO you were judging to be foolish, actually, not that we aren’t ALL foolish in some ways in the eyes of others, and sometimes ourselves!), so …

              no harm no foul

              Have a lovely weekend!

              Reply

  5. Ah, good speculations here, including biological and social reasons. But is “women” just a stand-in for “liberals?” Women lean more liberal in U.S. politics—but is that chromosomes or liberal rhetoric pushing unequal paychecks, employment opportunities, “reproductive rights,” etc.? Maybe they listen harder to the party pretends to address that, but in the long run women liberals lose too. Women may be “nesters,” and men “fighters,” but Mags Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Jeane Kirkpatrick lined their nests with barbed wire, and otherwise kicked butt. In fact, I’ll bet Condi Rice would kick Putin’s butt. Hard evidence for some of the biological speculations here as it relates to war capabilities are lacking. But yeah, perhaps the blogger should mention why Vietnam or Iraq failed, or Afghanistan, given the Presidents and generals were men.

    Reply

    • “Hard evidence for some of the biological speculations here as it relates to war capabilities are lacking. But yeah, perhaps the blogger should mention why Vietnam or Iraq failed, or Afghanistan, given the Presidents and generals were men.”

      Actually there is significant hard scientific evidence for the assertions I made. I just did not include all of the sociological studies to back it up.

      From Evolved but Not Fixed: A Life History Account of Gender Roles and Gender Inequality – PMC

      One relevant excerpt: “For example, male-male competition for acquiring mates might lead to males’ propensity for aggression and risk-taking, while females’ selection of protective and high-investment males might allow them to be more dependent and risk-avoidant (Archer, 2009; Puts, 2010).”

      There is substantial research into this subject and the link above can serve as a roadmap to various studies.

      Whether empathy is genetically ingrained or sociologically reinforced more often in one sex over another is simply a matter of which side of the research coin you choose. It does seem as if there is a hybrid model that both heredity and society are determinants of behaviors or social roles.

      As to why we failed in Viet Nam or Iraq that has nothing to do with gender when it comes to military strategy. The outcomes of those conflicts were determined by pure political strategy to win elections.

      Reply

      • The article suggests that high risk environments encourage immediate reproduction and more traditional gender roles, whereas low risk environments encourage future-oriented strategies that lean towards gender equality — not strictly biological. The leap, however, from male-male mate-seeking violence to modern U.S. military fiascos is not addressed. It’s a leap I haven’t seen before in the literature. Could you point me to any? I’m not saying it’s not true, just that it’s neither true nor false at this point without more support.

        Reply

  6. I shared this article on several usenet newsgroups and Dr. Chung made this comment.

    https://uk.legal.narkive.com/AdGkpN3j/finishing-wars-in-a-world-of-weenies

    The absolutely only godly way to make peace happen especially in
    Israel is by lifting up their (link removed) (Luke
    24:42-3) Messiah, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, instead of satan’s
    (link removed) Donald Antichrist of New York.

    Suggested further reading about Israel’s wars which are the work of
    the Red Horseman as recognized by the Black Horseman, with the White
    Horseman and Pale Horseman also pointing out the AntiChrist of the
    imminent Great Tribulation:

    (link removed)

    Indeed, I am (linked removed) (Philippians 4:12) for food
    right now (Luke 6:21a) and hope you, Michael, and others reading this,
    also have a healthy appetite for food right now too.

    So how are you ?

    Reply

  7. Again, for pure clarity’s sake, we won the first time in Iraq and we decisively won the second time and we decisively won in Afghanistan. But people have a very cloudy understanding that both decisive efforts had multiple parts. The first parts, were each over in less than a year. The next parts which were “wars” in some sense, “civil wars” in another sense, a type of counter organized crime effort in another sense and a policing action in yet another sense.

    What we didn’t “win” whatever winning means here, are the “rebuilding” of those countries in a western mold. And again, I don’t think the national will wouldn’t have been there except for a particularly anti-American tribal sentiment on the left undermining our efforts merely for the sake of undermining them.

    I mean. Ok…? Maybe that is national “weenie-ism” or maybe it isn’t. I tend to think that’s not weenie-ism. That it’s something else.

    We stayed in the Philippines for 50 years before it became somewhat self governing.

    We’re still in South Korea, even for the 30 years they were a democracy in name only until they became functional in the 80s.

    The Afghan withdrawal was 100% a weenie move. But need I remind anyone the weenies in charge at the time? We were taking an average of like 1-2 casualties a month for the last two or so years in Afghanistan as we were providing a minimal “top cover” for their military and police forces to pursue efforts against the insurgents. We had no reason to pull out. And certainly no reason to execute the pull out the way we did.

    Now, I can’t claim how we’ll be going forward having had 20 years of conditioning at the hands of anti-American culture influencers.

    Reply

    • Regarding Korea, my contention is that we decisively won the first war (to defend South Korea), lost the second war (to conquer North Korea), and ultimately settled for something like the status quo ante.

      But our presence as a trip wire (the greater sanction theory) shielded South Korea for the time necessary for them to develop a democratic society and an economy second to very few countries. I regard South Korea as one of our most outstanding success stories of the post WWII era.

      I hadn’t thought of the Philippines in the same way, but it’s not inapt. We did fight a guerrilla war there shortly after we captured the country from Spain — successfully as I recall. And we were clear about our intent — interrupted by the Japanese — to set free the Philippines as an independent country. Along the way they assimilated a good share of our political and cultural values. A success? Compare them with, say, Indonesia or the former Ceylon (sorry, the name escapes me). The Philippines come off rather favorably, I would say.

      Reply

  8. Great points Michael. I really don’t know when we started trying to win the hearts and minds of people we were at war with when to goal is to make them surrender because the cost to them is too high.

    Reply

  9. Weenie-ism is a good way to obtain power. If you run as a weenie, you get the vote of all the weenies. For example, if you run on the idea that illegal immigrants are simply wonderful people deserving a better life, you get the weenie vote. If you believe criminals are simply oppressed and trying to make a living, you get the weenie vote. If you believe mentally ill people living rough are simply not able to afford a house or apartment, you get the weenie vote.

    I should mention, there are a few bloggers who are of the opinion women should never have been given the vote.

    Reply

    • Well, that’s crazy—but my late wife Grace, who secretly commented here (I have discovered), often opined thus, only partly tongue in cheek. The slobbering of the feminists over Bill Clinton disgusted her even more than it revolted me.

      Reply

      • Grace commented without telling you? That’s hilarious. And pretty cute.

        I think the justification goes, “Sure, he’s a predator, but he’s our predator.”

        I’ve always considered Hill and Bill embarrassments to the Baby Boom generation. To me, they represent what the SATs have wrought over the ‘sixties and ‘seventies. Getting into the elite training grounds was all about test taking. And too often, test taking seems to correlate with sociopathy or lack of character. There’s a history book to be written on that.

        And then again, there was always the legacy problem. Al Gore, Bush Two (and even One?), the Kennedys.

        Reply

Leave a reply to Joel Mundt Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.