The increasing tyranny of the United Nations

     

Following on from the First World War, the Allied powers implemented a non-
government organisation designed to thwart future aggressive nations from instigating actions that could lead to another world war. In this regard, the League of Nations came into being and while it initially had some success in restricting arms build up, by the mid 1930's it was obvious to most military observers and any politicians of note, that the League was an abject failure, in that it could not enforce its own recommendations against nations involved in re-armament. Nations such as Japan, Italy and Germany simply snubbed their noses at the League while continuing to pursue aggressive military policies.

After World War Two the Allies acknowledged that the League of Nations had to be bolstered with more 'teeth' and a wider capability through enforceable laws to 'oversee' the pacification of those nations that persisted in aggressive policies. The Soviet Union had at this time become a recognized world power and it was also hoped that by keeping nations such as Russia 'inside the tent' dialogue could prevail first with military action considered as a last resort.

 In October 1945, the United Nations came into being with the League of Nations dissolving itself in early 1946.

 While the concept of a world governing body is a sound principle, in reality it is an unworkable arrangement, and one which has proven impossible to operate as it was intended due to a number of factors - while it is not the intention of this author to provide examples of botched U.N. operations, those interested in looking into the many examples available could probably start with the genocide that was allowed to occur in Rwanda – and anyone familiar with human behaviour can appreciate that there are many personality types, cultures and religions that make up the human family. The U.N. concept that all cultures aspire to the same ideals so therefore will obey the same laws is flawed, in that this concept does not recognize the many variables that are so very apparent which even 'Blind Freddy' could identify. This disregard for the obvious to pursue the idealistic should sound a warning to the observer as to the mindset that now inhabits the U.N. To disregard the variables such as religion and the method of government which has a profound effect on a culture, and for a western nation to be equated with that of an Arab nation for instance, is simply ludicrous and a blatantly dishonest concept. This is the crux of the dysfunctional system that is now the United Nations, an organisation that is causing its own increasing irrelevancy and march to tyranny, because it now disregards its founding principles and continues to exercise political and racial distinctions, which in today's politically correct atmosphere, western nations should be considering the U.N. as a racist and bigoted organization, but alas, it is never taken to task by any nation.

Indeed, over the past few years we have been able to witness at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, two very appalling rants from Iran's Ahmadinejad and Libya's Gaddafi, two murderous leaders from Islamic nations recognized as supporting terrorist organizations, but given the status of presenting speeches at the United Nations!

What has happened at the United Nations that would cause an organization which was formed to curtail any form of aggression amongst nations to permit two terrorist leaders to present their twisted logic and derision of the west in general, that if held in a public park would have seen them arrested as promoting 'incitement to hatred and racial violence?'

The United Nations is an organisation run by unelected officials who, unlike our own politicians, are not held accountable for their actions, and in this arrangement may be seen the main contributing problem for why the U.N. is now the dysfunctional organisation that it is today. Ex-politicians are normally given posts at the U.N. and as a result of this higher 'goal of office' as Australia's previous prime minister is now working toward, the organization has become highly politicized. Anyone recognizing the dysfunction that occurs within government and major political parties can also appreciate the same process which has occurred at the U.N. The politicization process has also facilitated the U.N. into being hijacked by those Islamic countries that provide 'black gold' to many European and other oil-reliant nations. This 'oil hegemony' has permitted those Islamic nations who posses it to dominate parts of the U.N. structure allowing them to extract concessions through extortion that has turned the U.N. into a toothless tiger that is now more concerned with keeping the oil flowing into those oil-reliant nations, than in maintaining the rights and privileges of sovereign and democratic nations, such as Israel.

During the 1970's the UN, in a perverted political move, welcomed into its chamber the terrorist leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Yasser Arafat, and recognized the cause of the 'Palestinian People' in seeking a state in the Holy Land. The PLO had become a leading terrorist organization during the mid 1960's by hijacking passenger aircraft and slaughtering Jews in order to force their issues onto the world stage. In this regard they were highly successful which also showed up the complacency and sheer cowardice of those nations willing to give up their moral obligations for the black gold that the Arabs provided. And to their everlasting shame, France and Germany were the leading players in this regard. 

While many westerners still believe the U.N. to be an organization which protects the rights of individual nations around the globe, the reality is the complete opposite. Western nations are all signatories to the U.N. Charter of Human Rights and have through bypassing their individual Bills of Rights, or Constitutions, implemented Human Rights Commissions, which if studied minutely by anyone with a modicum of economic knowledge, would guarantee concerns about such a commissions fiscal viability, let alone the fact that all these commissions are illegal in every sense of the word.

Those who still see the U.N. as a protective body do not realize that the U.N. Human Rights policies have only been adopted and adhered to by mostly western nations. The rest of the world only pays lip service to these policies. One only needs to look at the Human Trafficking currently occurring in Indonesia, and other places, to realize this fact.

The U.N. promotes mass immigration from third world nations into mainly western nations under 'refugee' status and 'suggests' numbers to be taken in. Those who choose to join the queue of immigration as a 'refugee' are encouraged by the pot of gold at the end of their destination (western nations) to pass through several other countries which have similar cultures en-route. They are in effect 'economic refugees' and no longer fit the standard U.N. description of a refugee.

Those who cannot see the ongoing colonization of their nations by people from cultures who despise the western lifestyle and have no intention of assimilating are, in my opinion, also part of this problem, and unwittingly, or more disturbingly, are willingly encouraging the destruction of our western cultures through some misplaced western 'white guilt', that has been encouraged to be thrown around our educational systems for the past fifty odd years.

It is time that this nation and all western nations that value their sovereignty and freedom to withdraw their financial and legal support to the United Nations which has become a farcical and dysfunctional organization more intent in pursuing political favors and a global agenda of governance, than in providing a safe and productive world in which we may all dwell with a concrete guarantee of peace. The U.N. now caters to despots and dictators who strut the world stage espousing their brand of socialism mixed with their perverted logic. Time to call a spade a spade and go back to protecting our own borders and manufacturing industries, which have been devastated by government actions designed to alleviate third world suffering. (Please read the LIMA Declaration) Instead we now find our middle classes becoming the new poor of the world through increased taxation by governments more concerned with supplying money to the U.N. and supporting U.N. policies than in being fiscally and nationally responsible to their own citizens. It's time to say goodbye to the United Nations!


    

    

Economic Retribution

The Western world is currently living beyond its means. The welfare and entitlement mentality that has become the hallmark of recent Western style Socialist Democratic government will soon implode. There is already evidence of this in the economic catastrophe that is Greece. Ireland, Spain and Portugal will soon replicate and then follow the Greek tragedy that is currently being played out in Greece where its people are ill prepared for what lies ahead. Europe will then follow. It's 1929 all over again as those nations which will fail first rush to shore up their dwindling economies by introducing severe economic measures which penalize those who have had no say in what has come about while refusing to enact severe austerity programs and measures to contain those who have helped bring us to this place; the Banking houses and their wastrel CEOs who have governed their lending and invested your money while lining their own pockets with salaries so huge they can only be described as obscene, knowing full well the inevitable economic outcome of their self-serving ways.

The Ten Commandments tell us not to Covet Thy Neighbors House and the Bible informs us that Greed is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Yet, during the 1980's the catch cry in the financial and business circles was that, Greed was Good! The deliberate inversion of two of our basic civilizational cornerstones by those who could see money to be made from such a moral travesty should have sounded warnings from within our own financial sectors. Those who did rise up were drowned out in a cacophony of Bankers and Entrepreneurs who could sniff out the instant wealth to be made from their fellow man who were completely ignorant of economic matters concerning the giant Ponzi scheme then being hatched. Since abandoning the Gold Standard, finance houses have been lending money as if there was no end to its supply. By abandoning the Gold Standard we also abandoned any pretence in balancing our money supply, that is, we no longer held in reserve the capital via Gold Bullion with which to guarantee the money that was lent for housing, business and any other venture which could generate income for the Big Banks. As a result of no longer abiding by the Gold Standard we now find our government's borrowing huge sums of money from the World Bank with which to finance their welfare and other slave inducing programs which has taken our national debt levels to dangerously high amounts, amounts that may not be able to be repaid! While we must have the Big Banks in order to function as an economy, the accountability of the Big Banks has not been as it should have been and the Big Banks have taken advantage in every area of finance to capitalize on this lack of accountability. Bank profits are now at record highs and although this author has no problem with Banks making money on what they lend out, the Banks have been less than honorable in how they have lent that money and provide incentives to ordinary folk who would wish to save their hard earned money for a rainy day.

We are now witnessing the result of that lack of accountability in lending and business practices with Greek Banks now running out of money because those Banks failed to keep lending money to within their own means. The Greeks who have money in Greek Banks now realize that their money will soon disappear from their accounts if they don't act and remove it first.

It is only a matter of time before we see this happening here and in every other Western style nation that has embraced the lunatic policies associated with Socialist Democracy.

Be warned! Australia which was once a land of opportunity to those who chose to work hard and were prepared to take risks with business ventures, has now become a stagnant place where government now dictates the order of the day and has so much red tape in place that it now deters those risk takers and hard workers from even thinking about creating the wealth that this nation was once so proud to proclaim and which offered work to all those who wanted it.

It is now just a matter of time before the whole House of Cards that has become Western Democracy collapses in on itself. We are now seeing this in Greece with other nations to soon follow which will then engulf the European Union, including Britain. America is teetering on the abyss and only needs another 'stimulus package' or 'Quantitative Easing' part three, to push it over where it will never recover economically from. The next few years promise to be a wild ride, are you prepared?

On Breivik

We all know of the incident where the Norwegian, Anders Behring Breivik, slaughtered 69 young people on the pleasure island of Utoya, a short boat ride from the capital Oslo. Indeed, much has been written on blogs and in newspapers about this most heinous of events which can leave the casual reader in no doubt that Breivik is insane or at the very least, suffering some kind of mental illness.

But is Breivik mad? Does he really suffer from some kind of mental instability that could be attributed to his extreme actions in taking the lives of so many young people? And if he is not insane, as some Norwegian Psychiatrists are now arguing, what was his real purpose for carrying out this massacre?

We now know how meticulous Breivik was in his planning for the massacre when he had a diversionary explosion go off killing 8 people at a government office in Oslo around the same time as he started to hunt down and slaughter his 69 victims on Utoya. It was quite plain from this diversionary tactic that he did not want to be interrupted from what he was doing on Utoya. We now know of Breivik's manifesto of 1400 pages in which he lays the blame for his extremist actions on the Norwegian State and Socialism, which is - and to any thinking person who has not been tainted with Marxist ideals, causing the rapid disintegration of the Norwegian culture into a totalitarian state where thinking of any kind outside of socialist ideals is no longer tolerated. And here is an example of how this kind of thinking is now affecting Norway and its people: In any society or culture that still values its origins and future prospects as a viable community or nation, a montrous act like the one that Breivik committed would be deemed intolerable and the perpetrator dealt with quickly, legally, and then executed. No society calling itself tolerant and fair should be forced to tolerate the intolerable actions of a person who murders young people, especially in a cruel and unusual way just to bring attention to himself and to his cause, especially by arranging a show trial that is now in progress. A trial that is politically motivated to 'unearth' those perceived 'mentors' of Breivik, as mentioned in passing in his manifesto, and to cast them in the public eye as Aiders and Abettors in Breiviks crime. And a trial that may only award this monster 21 years maximum jail time for his particular affront to humanity.

There was only one killer on the day and that was Breivik. Whether he was physically aided and abetted by others who have yet to be caught remains pure speculation because at this time, there have been no other arrests. Breivik has admitted to his crimes, but does not admit to his guilt. And therein lies the rub, the sticking point in this farcical trial. Breivik planned this atrocity and then systematically went about personally executing 69 of his victims before being surrounded by police and then surrendering to them with the explicit wish of telling the 'world' why he did what he did.

There can be no doubt that Breivik is guilty of the crimes. He should be executed. In any culture that values its existence, Breivik would be done away with. He would not have been put on display in a show trial that is more concerned with attacking those the court deems as from the 'far right' politically and therefore partly responsible for what Breivik did. There is no common sense here, no logic of thought, no following for the rule of law as laid down, only ideological pandering to those who drive Norway's decline into a third world socialist Hellhole.

Is that why Breivik did what he did? There is a saying that for every action there is a reaction. One could also say; that for every act of left wing extremism expect an opposite act of right wing extremism. Breivik has stated that he is a Nationalist which has been quickly attacked by those who proudly proclaim Marx their hero as an admission of his right wing leaning. But those who have been quick to take up this mantra forget that nationalism can straddle both sides of politics. Nationalists have been noted Fascists such as Mussolini's Blackshirts and Franco's Spanish Fascists. Socialism has been involved in Germany's National Socialism and Russia's Soviet Socialism, all have failed and those who still think this way have now morphed into the softer sounding Social Democrats, or the more beguiling, 'Progressives'. Patriotism as nationalism, has now been denigrated by those Progressives as the new extremism which must be checked at all costs. Norway is now far down the path of communism, or socialism, whatever leftwing term of thinking you may wish to tag the country with. When young people congregate in large numbers outside a mass murderers jail, as they did in Norway a few weeks ago, and sing songs with which to admonish him, which is really just turning the other cheek because they wish to not be like the monster they were singing to, what future that nation?

The Legend of ANZAC

April 25 each year is commemorated in Australia as ANZAC Day. It is on this day each year since 1916, that millions of Australians rise from out of their beds before dawn and assemble at their local Cenotaph in their town or city, and pay homage to Australia's war dead by participating in a short ceremony, usually attended and performed by military personnel currently members of the Australian Defence Force. And upon the Sun rising in the east, the Ode is recited;

                                       They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old,
                                       age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
                                       At the going down of the Sun and in the morning,
                                       we will remember them.

The sombre sound of a buglar playing the Last Post then signals the end of the ceremony and the crowd will disperse before attending whatever venue is arranged for breakfast and a later march along the town's main street, or arranged route in the larger towns and cities. The Veterans lead the marches, there are still survivors from the Second World War and the Korean War. The survivors of the later wars of Malaya, Vietnam, the First Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan are now beginning to outnumber the previous wars survivors. There are no Veterans left from the First World War, and the medals worn by those who once marched are now worn by members of their family. I feel proud to see young kids and adolescents, young men and women marching with those surviving Veterans and wearing their relative's medals. It is plain to see they do so with pride which is emotionally uplifting for those of us who value the sacrifices made by those who can no longer take part in this national day of rememberance.

But what is ANZAC Day and how did it come about? To understand this perculiarly Australian national day one must need to understand this nation's beginning;

Up until Federation Day, January 1st, 1901, Australia was an island continent of six British colonies, all with their own colonial parliaments, proud of their British outlook on life, but with their 'Australianess' readily on display. The push for national unity was becoming quite evident to the British Colonial Office that administered each and every colony individually. In aquiescence to the 'colonial independance' that was then driving the main political agenda of the day, the Constitution of Australia came into force whereby Australia became a Federation, the colonies became states of that Federation and the Commonwealth of Australia became a reality. National unity at last! Well not quite! A simple act of parliament cannot unite a people who had developed from individual colonies, even though they all shared their 'Australianess'. Something more was needed to unite the country into one people. And that 'something' would be an event that convulsed an entire world a little over 14 years later, the First World War.

Much has been written about the 'patriotic enthusiasm' of Australia's young men who enlisted to fight in the European War which broke out in 1914. Yet, many of those young enlistees came from the ranks of the unemployed, the down and out, or those out for some 'adventure' and a life not available at their dreary office jobs. Many were bushmen, skilled horse riders familiar with a 'hard life' in the 'bush' and self disciplined to a point where self reliance was very evident. Some joined up to fight for 'Mother England' while many just wanted the steady income of 60 cents a day. What they all had in common though, was that they were all volunteers to a man and they would fight together as Australian troops from Australian states, and not as colonial troops from individual colonies as they did during the Boer War.

So it was, that at dawn, on April 25, 1915, the First Australian Imperial Force and the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (ANZAC) landed at Gallipoli, a small cove in Turkey, which was to become known as ANZAC Cove. A name that is still carried to this day and enshrined as a memorial by modern day Turkey. Over the duration of the Gallipoli campaign, Anzacs in their thousands died defending what soon became apparent to the General Staff as indefensible. The impact of so many deaths (10,000 killed, 20,000 wounded) from two young nations of low population density (Australia 5 million, NZ 1 million) was shattering, not only to the public who became quickly aware of the military disaster as it unfolded, but to the politicians who had sent them off to fight under the guidance of the British General Staff who still fought wars based on 1880 tactics and thinking.

Worse was to come for those Anzacs who survived Gallipoli only to find themselves at the Western Front a few months later at the mercy of the criminally negligent British approach to fighting a modern war with outdated tactics, while being put up against a thoroughly modernized German killing machine.

To those who were not familiar with why Australians, and to a lesser extent New Zealanders, commemorate the disaster that was Gallipoli, I trust you will now have a better understanding of why a military defeat, and that is what Gallipoli was, is now a national day of commemoration and rememberance for all of Australia's war dead. ANZAC Day has never been about glorifying war as some will assert. It is all about remembering those Australians who have sacrificed their lives for our freedoms and cultural values, and that is why ANZAC Day has become embedded in the national psyche, and in those who consider themselves to be Australian.

The Idiots in charge of the Military Part 3

The Australian Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, is getting a rough time from some former Generals who have come out in defence of the military against Smith's handling of an incident that occurred last year at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) and has come to be known as the 'Skype affair'.

Ex-Generals, Cosgrove, Leahy, Molan and Cantwell, have been most damning in articles written to newspapers and interviews on TV about Smith's handling of the Defence Ministry Portfolio he inherited after being displaced as Foreign Minister by ex-Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, when Rudd was diposed by Julia Gillard, now our current Prime Minister - and that is a story in itself which would require a far too long deviation from this topic.

Smith's role as Defence Minister has been to expedite affirmative action for female combat roles and ethnic enlistee's into the Australian Defence Force (ADF) as he believes there is not enough representation within the ADF of females or those from ethnic cultures from within our multicultural society. A question here, and one which I truly believe to be most relevant; On what military facts does Smith base his belief that females are needed as combat troops? And does Smith truly believe that a nation which practises multiculturalism, a practise which divides the population into cultural tribes that basically live as they did in their old countries, can produce Australian patriots from those cultures that have learned no Australian values nor can relate to what it is to be a patriotic Australian? I believe Smith's ideals of affirmative action and cultural equality are being promoted above the interests and welfare of the ADF which has been surprisingly resistant to political change that has been nipping at the edges of the 'warrior mentality' that inhabits the ADF, which radical leftwing idealists like Smith, have so much trouble in understanding.

Maybe if Smith spent some time with military personnel out on exercise or better still, in a combat zone, and learned to understand why it is so very important to maintain a strong military/warrior class that is prepared to defend the nation that gave them birth, he could gain a better understanding that what he is proposing with affirmative action and cultural equality will destroy the warrior mentality that is so vital in maintaining a strong defence force. Then again, maybe that is Smith's intention?

Smith's championing of the female officer cadet at the centre of the 'Skype Affair' speaks volumes to this author of where his sentimentalities lay. Without a proper briefing or evidence to support what he was saying, Smith launched into a tirade at the time, against the commandant of ADFA and cast personal slurs and accusations against his good name. A subsequent report, which Smith is refusing to release publicly, has cleared the commandant of any wrongdoing, but Smith has refused to apologize to the commandant for words uttered by him in his 'heat of the moment' address to the media. I believe this also shows Smith up as a person who cannot admit to his mistakes while his lack of apology for the wrong words uttered against a man who deserved far better, is a further indication of the estrangement now being felt between the ADF and Smith's position as Defence Minister. I also believe that this is partly due to Smith's ideological push into the Defence Forces of affirmative action and cultural equality which the military has been resisting, and Smith's own personal disconnect with the reality that is the Australian military and how it is meant to operate, not how Smith wishes it to.

If Smith had any shame at all he would immediately resign his ministry.

The Idiots in charge of the Military Part 2

There is current controversy within the Australian Defence Force (ADF) regarding sexist and racist attitudes, according to some, of ADF Army personnel (enlistees) and some inappropriate texting between soldiers of their personal opinions of the homosexual soldier, the enemy they fight, and female soldiers coming onto the front line in combat roles. I have stated my reasoning for why women should not be assigned to front line fighting roles in a previous post and stand by that reasoning. Last night I made the conscious decision to tune into the 730 Report (current affairs program ABC) to listen to the Chief of the Army, Lt.Gen. David Morrison, give his version of events and the steps he will take to lessen the controversy.

My first impression of the General was of a nervous man and one who would rather be somewhere else than on national television being grilled by the host of the program, Chris Ullmann. As the interview progressed and after listening to the General's responses to the questions asked, I formed the opinion this supposed leader of men was towing the PC line and appeared to be more interested in his next promotion than in the soldiers he may have to one day take into battle. In other words, as an ex-soldier myself, I was not impressed with the General's overall demeanor or his displayed pandering to the current socialist Labor Federal government, which has since gaining power, expedited the integration of the homosexual into military life and the female soldier into combat roles. I do believe that I am not alone in forming that opinion.

One of the General's answers regarding the integration process that has been ongoing for some time now was this ; ".... the army has a great history of inclusiveness..." Really? I was somewhat surprised by this assertion as the word inclusiveness is a PC word dreamed up to combat negative opinion on anything the PC lobby would like altered to suit their view of how things should be, and not how things are and should remain. The General's 'inclusiveness' must now extend to including divisive issues, such as the openly homosexual soldier within a system that requires high morale and esprit de corp to function properly, and a system where common sense also dictates there must be a commonality between ranks for an army to remain effective as a combat unit. Reading some of the text messages between serving soldiers regarding the homosexual soldier, I can certainly understand their frustration at being forced to accommodate the new political paradigm which has been issued from politicians who have no military experience and do not realize how divisive this issue will in future become. Those messages, some of which have gone viral, are really personal opinions between soldiers, and are simple and natural reactions to what has been imposed on them, and which their own common sense tells them won't work. Because they are personal opinions the army has no jurisdiction over what the soldier may wish to message to other soldiers while off duty outside of a non-strategic and national security context. That is unless of course the army wishes to become a fascist entity and takes to censoring what it may consider to be inappropriate comments.

I also caught the General referring to "Australian Muslims" as being under-represented within the ADF. Anyone who knows the pious Muslim will also know that they firstly identify as Muslim, not as Australian Muslim. The fact that any group of people are prepared to identify themselves by their religious beliefs, rather than as Australians, should set warning bells off in our recruitment centres that these are people whose religion is considered to come first over all other requirements, including that of a soldier within the ADF. These are not people who can be relied upon in a battle against other Muslims and as several incidents have shown, particularly within the American military, the Muslim soldier may become a concientious objector when ordered to deploy to a Muslim country where he may have to kill other Muslims.There has also been several incidents where the Muslim soldier has taken up arms against and killed his own infidel comrades. The General is not serving this nation's best interest in promoting Muslims into the ADF. He would be better respected by his troops if he stood up against those who are trying to have the Muslim soldier accepted under affirmative action guidelines, as an integral part of the ADF. This kind of inclusiveness will in future, become very divisive within the ADF, and extremely dangerous to our national security.

"I'm proud of my gay and lesbian soldiers, and what they do"; stated the General, when asked about any issues regarding homosexuality and its effect within the ADF. As an ex-cop, that answer would not have passed the lie test in a police interview. It was quite plain to me that the General did not believe what he was saying. In my opinion, it is plain that the General does not have the welfare of his troops at heart and is simply parrotting lines to placate his political masters. I do not like this General as he is not a good leader of men. A good leader would protest at the absudity of affirmative action, and its effect on the military!

Homosexuality has always been part of the military. Mostly it was well hidden as it was punishable under military law, and there is good reasoning for this as homosexuality was considered not only an aberration, which it is, but also un-hygienic, particularly in field conditions, which I believe is self explanatory. Then there is the inter-personal relationships that homosexuals can develop within a confined group which can have devastating consequences on morale and fighting ability within that group. Females will of course present the same problems in a gender mixed combat unit, but the progressives will never look past their own ideals to see this very plain fact of life. To have the homosexual paraded as a 'normal' part of ADF life is indeed to invite the very criticisms from soldiers that the politicians and ADF hierarchy are now at great pains to counter. The progressive and PC compliant will never admit that it is the policy that is causing the problems, rather, it is the 'small mindedness' of those who cannot accept the fly in your face stupidity of such a policy. Such is the idealism of the progressive, who, when one comes to think about it, is really a degenerative who is wittingly or unwittingly, eroding the very fabric of an entity that is designed to fight and kill, not rollover and thrill!

But the piece de resistance was the complaint that calling your enemy 'ragheads' was being racist! What? After I got over my fit of laughing about that one it was plain to see that those who do no fighting, and are prepared to send our young men off to war, are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to dictating what is right and what is wrong on the battlefield. While it is OK to kill people, according to the progressive and their PC compliant politicans, it is not OK to call them names! Only the truly stupid cannot see the gross contradiction and hypocrisy in that!

The Role Of The Female Within A Miltary/Police Context

This post does not deliberately set out to denigrate or to champion the part that the modern female is expected to play within a military or policing role, that seems to some, to be the last bastion of male dominance. Rather, this article serves to introduce those who have never taken part in an occupational role within those two physically and mentally demanding professions that require constant training of the individual to maintain a physical and mental preparedness that most of the population have never been exposed to. This article also serves to explain the role that esprit de corps and morale play in any organization that is in existence to serve and to protect, or defend what is collectively recognized as that which is worth protecting, such as an innocent persons life that may be threatened by the criminal, or the securing and repelling of enemies from a nations border.

It may come as no surprise to some that in order to get the best physical and mental preparedness from an individual which requires that individual to stand and defend when circumstances present, rather than join in with the untrained civilian who will tremble and run, a certain level of aggression needs to be present within that individual so that the stand and fight mentality, that is so necessary to win against the violent criminal, or a nation's enemies, may be honed to the point that thinking about fight or flight, which affects those who are not adequately trained or lack the necessary aggression, is non-existent. In other words, the training and aggression must be such that thinking about anything other than the fight ahead does not enter the individual soldier or police officer's mind.

As an ex-soldier and police officer I am firmly of the opinion that not all males are capable of this kind of thinking, and that this kind of thinking cannot be instilled in the majority of females.

Are males and females really equal? Or are there physical differences between the genders, such as male physical/psychological strength as opposed to female physical/psychological strength? In my opinion, and generally speaking, I believe the differences are obvious, but having stated that, I have also worked with some very strong, both physically and psychologically, females, particularly when I was employed as a police officer. However, I have also worked with many females and to a lesser extent, males, who would have been better employed in other occupations as they could not be relied upon as backup in a crisis situation where lives may have depended on their lack of action. In the old days, these people would have been referred to as cowards. In my politically incorrect opinion, that is exactly what they are and they are filling in positions that would be better filled by more capable, and braver persons.

Those who have served in the military, or as police officers will understand that an Army, or a police force, is only as strong as its weakest members. In an infantry battalion in the Australian Army, sections of 10 soldiers are the backbone of the platoon, the company and the battalion. Sections can only move in combat, as fast as the slowest or weakest member of that section, because a fighting force must remain together if it is going to remain effective as a fighting force. Once any fighting force is split up through either circumstances of the battle, lack of leadership, or useless and inept soldiers who don't have the necessary physical strength or the aggressiveness to carry on the fight, that fighting force will be annihilated. Do you the reader believe that the average woman can carry a pack of around 60 kilo's, two or more waterbottles, ammunition and rifle, or light machine gun, over long distances on foot in all kinds of terrain and weather, and then step up to the plate and be shot at by those who are trying to kill her? Do you the reader believe that the average woman, and for that matter the average man, can spend up to six weeks or more in tropical jungle without even having a wash, and constantly changing two pair of socks so as to limit foot rot? The smell of the individual after six weeks in the 'bush' would put most people off their evening meal, only the Grunt grins and bears this imposition on the 'modern' human with stoicism and good humor that takes a special kind of person to endure. In my opinion, there is a limited number of the special kinds of people who can handle this role, and not many of them would be women!

Those readers who have a military or police background would also understand the importance of morale and esprit de corps in maintaining a cohesive and effective organization which is paramount in taking up the tasks given it to carry out. But what is morale?

Morale can be best described as the state of the spirit of a person or group, as exhibited by confidence, cheerfulness, discipline and willingness to perform assigned tasks. So what is esprit de corps?

Esprit de corps may be best described as a common spirit of comradeship, enthusiasm and devotion to a cause among the members of a group.

As the reader will note, both morale and esprit de corp are vital for any organization that values its existence as an entity to carry out allotted tasks. In other words, without good morale and esprit de corps an entity ceases to be as effective as it could be. But, what has morale and esprit de corps got to do with women in military combat roles and front line policing?

In my opinion, the very presence of a female or two, as part of an infantry section, or working with their male counterparts within a police force, places unnecessary obligations on the males they work with who are generally stronger, fitter and more physically capable of better performance, than their female counterparts, and are forced to limit their own abilities in order to cater for the slower and less able females who at times of crisis, the male also feels compelled to protect. Do you the reader now see how this situation can affect morale and esprit de corps?

It is wrong, wrong, wrong, to expect our fighting forces, and our police forces to accommodate the extra burdens to be placed on them by governments more interested in garnering the female vote than in providing sound and effective fighting and police forces. No government should be able to legislate to include women in front line combat roles within the military or have them working in large numbers on the streets of an increasingly violent Western society. The Israeli's are often cited as having women on the front line in combat roles. This is false, as no woman has been committed to front line fighting ever since the failed invasion of lebanon in 2005 which saw Hezbollah units deliberately target female Israeli soldiers that caused other male Israeli units to come to their aid which nearly resulted in a catastrophic defeat for the Israeli's.

Women do have their role to play within our military and police forces, but not on the front line!