The Thinking Housewife, Conservative Catholic White Supremacist

Dunces all.

Dear Fred,

Thanks for forwarding Laura's post, "Tough-as-Nails; War-Hardened Veteran Joins Fox News." http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2014/01/tough-as-nails-war-hardened-veteran-joins-fox-news/

Like The Founding Fathers, I do not believe in "standing armies." 

Notably, The Founding Fathers' antagonism toward "standing armies" gave birth to The Second Amendment whose purpose was to provide "well regulated militias" that could be fused into proper armies as needed. 

According to The Founders, "standing armies" would lead to imperialism, unnecessary foreign wars and the possibility of autocratic rule at home. (As prophecies go, two and a half out of three ain't bad.)

This prioritization of "well-regulated militias" -- and, in turn, well-regulated militias' ability to replace standing armies --was "The Original Intent" of he Founders. 

Supposedly, "Original Intent" is a guiding principle of conservatism, unless conservatives dislike some particular component of "original intent" in which case they revert to their true nature as antinomian pragmatists.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_madison

If Laura thinks Yeshua would support a standing army, she should expand the scope of her Pontificate to develop an argument demoting The Nazarene for contradicting "authentic Catholicism."

American conservatives are intrinsically resistant to change.  Thus stuck in the past, they adhere to Old Testamental principles of vengeance, vindictiveness and retaliation, while treating Yeshua's insistence on mercy, compassion and forgiveness like a bad case of cooties. 

Yeshua's central enjoinder to "love one's enemies" is either ignored or mangled by casuistry. (Where are biblical literalists when needed?)

Laura's featured correspondent in "Tough as Nails" is "former Marine and Air Force Reserve fighter pilot" Henry McCulloch. 
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2014/01/tough-as-nails-war-hardened-veteran-joins-fox-news/

Mr. McCulloch speaks of "winning wars" as if victory can only be achieved with an all white, all male military. He goes on to say, however, that "if it were up to me the U.S. armed forces would be far smaller and not be squandered in expeditions to distant quagmires that retard, not advance, the American national interest." (McLuhan got it right: "To the spoils belongs the victor.")

In McCulloch's quest to derogate women fighter pilots, he spotlights four failed female soldiers, one of whom was improperly promoted and another of whom, in my view, had an admirable career. 

It is futile to play dueling anecdotes, but it is also antidotal to consider John McCain's disastrous career as a pilot. 
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/mccains-plane-crashes/

In related vein, consider the behavioral sludge at Abu Ghraib where photos of American malfeasance were so vile that a federal court sealed "the second batch." http://www.theguardian.com/gall/0,8542,1211872,00.html

At Abu Ghraib, all six officers (but one) who were eventually punished for participating in -- or enabling -- the monstrosity of "rape and murder" (to use Republican Senator Lindsay Graham's description) were males (five of them white).

Colonel Thomas Pappas was relieved of his command on May 13, 2005, after receiving non-judicial punishment on May 9, 2005, for two instances of dereliction, including that of allowing dogs to be present during interrogations. He was fined $8000 under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (non-judicial punishment). He also received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) which effectively ended his military career.

Lieutenant Colonel Steven L. Jordan became the highest ranking officer to have charges brought against him in connection with the Abu Ghraib abuse on April 29, 2006.^[55] Prior to his trial, eight of twelve charges against him were dismissed, two of the most serious after Major General George Fay admitted that he did not read Jordan his rights before interviewing him in reference to the abuses that had taken place. On August 28, 2007, Jordan was acquitted of all charges related to prisoner mistreatment and received a reprimand for disobeying an order not to discuss a 2004 investigation into the allegations.^[56]

Specialist Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, dishonorable discharge and reduction in rank to private.^[57][58]Graner was paroled from the US military's Fort Leavenworth prison on August 6, 2011 after serving six-and-a-half years.^[59]

Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included forcing three prisoners to masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.^[60]

Sergeant Javal Davis pled guilty February 4, 2005 to dereliction of duty, making false official statements and battery. He was sentenced to six months in prison, a reduction in rank to private, and a bad conduct discharge.

Vatican Comment:

"The torture? A more serious blow to the United States than September 11, 2001 attacks. Except that the blow was not inflicted by terrorists but by Americans against themselves."—Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, foreign minister of the Vatican.[51]" Fred, ask Laura if she can pronounce on the authenticity of Archbishop Lajolo's Catholicism. For all we know, he's a sedevacantist-in-waiting. Does The Thinking Housewife ever wonder how God considers her "cafeteria" Catholicism? Or, is she so certain that Pope Paul IV's criteria for "papal authenticity" authorizes her to declare Pope Francis "non-Catholic" that she feels no compunction about behaving like a Bolshevik seeking to overthrow The Czar.  Conservative?  Ask the snowball on the far side of Hell. Excerpt: "In 1555 Pope Paul IV issued a canon (papal law), Cum Nimis Absurdum, by which the Roman Ghetto was created. Jews were then forced to live in seclusion in a specified area of the rione Sant'Angelo, locked in at night, and he decreed that Jews should wear a distinctive sign, yellow hats for men, and veils or shawls for women.[6] Jewish ghettos existed in Europe for the next 315 years." http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2014/01/is-there-a-pope-in-rome/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_IV

Eighty years ago, Adolf Hitler picked up where Paul IV left off.

^{http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-thinking-housewife-jorge-bergoglio.html} 

Make no mistake. 

^{If ever a pontiff's papacy was invalid, it was Pope Paul IV, precursor of The Holocaust.} 

How fitting that this vile man should be revered by The Bolshevik.

^***

McCulloch goes on to say: "Whenever I see a puff piece about a GI-Jane who is supposed to have been some sort of ironman combat hero, my BS detector starts to ring.  When you see such almost certainly greatly embellished war stories, say “Jessica Lynch” to yourself 10 times: that will help return you to reality, as it will remind you that today’s military PR officers and senior commanders are serial liars about anything to do with women, minorities and homosexuals in the armed forces." 

Let us be clear: Jessica Lynch was a pawn in an all-male game. McCulloch picks on her because "blaming the victim" is the easiest way to avoid blaming oneself or one's institutional surrogates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch

Imagine. 

In McCulloch's view, "anything to do with women, minorities and homosexuals" requires "serial lying." 

Why? Because the relentless malfeasance and dishonorable conduct arising from the intrinsic degeneracy of these three despicable groups can only be "covered up" with ceaseless falsehood.

Look. 

All of us are stuck where we are stuck. 

We all have our blind sides.

But surely Laura is intelligent enough not to publicize categorical vilification of three large groups of human beings whose recent socio-economic ascent threatens angry white males -- the same white males who would have us believe (in their delusional alarmism) that "all is lost" unless we return to the "good old days." http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/07/conservatives-scare-more-easily-than.html

In those "good old days," blacks -- who comprised over 10% of the population -- were treated like human trash until, blessedly, the United States Armed Forces integrated people-of-color into a "single, non-segregated American society." 

McCulloch criticizes this sort of obligatory socio-political transformation by excoriating "the current U.S. government approach of using the armed forces as a petri dish for every social innovation and perversion to come down the pike." 

If McCulloch had been around in 1948 when Democratic president Harry Truman ordered full integration of the nation's military, I can hear the same words oozing -- pus-like -- from his foul mouth. http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=84

***

Ironically "Doug" follows up Laura's comment with a peculiar analysis that is predictably sexist but also asserts women's superior fitness for the physical requirements of fighter pilots.  "I wholeheartedly agree that women do not belong in the military especially deploying roles other than medical and limited even in that role. I served twenty years in the Air Force and can tell you many stories of poor relations and morale especially when deployed. (Alan: Ah! American conservatives and their statistically invalid anecdotes.) Things would often turn into one big frat party. I have to add, minorities also caused much consternation. It seems leadership went out of their way to promote and reward them.  All that said, it is only fair for me to point out that strength and big bodies are not needed for fighter pilots. As a matter of fact, smaller less massive people seem to handle G-loading much better. A fit body is needed."

Alan: Would Doug have us believe that the young bucks who dominate any military do not always-and-everywhere throw "one big frat party?" There is more whoring and drunken debauchery in the armed forces than in any other similarly-sized U.S. demographic.

***

I began this essay by noting four points, fully intending to elaborate each. But what I have written thus far seems adequate to the task in hand. Still, there is some value in the following four point profile which characterize the value systems of The Thinking Housewife and her correspondent, "former Marine and Air Force Reserve fighter pilot," Henry McCulloch. 

1.) White Supremacy 

Like their Republican allies, angry Christian "conservatives" will not "stay in business for the long term" unless they compromise their "impossibly pure principles." Conservatives always think God will save them - Deus ex machina. But what if God wants them to compromise; wants them to "render unto Caesar;" wants them to "give the devil his due?" 

Trappist monk, Father Thomas Merton believes compromise is exactly what God wants, if only because the alternative embodies undiluted evil. 

"The terrible thing about our time is precisely the ease with which theories can be put into practice.  The more perfect, the more idealistic the theories, the more dreadful is their realization.  We are at last beginning to rediscover what perhaps men knew better in very ancient times, in primitive times before utopias were thought of: that liberty is bound up with imperfection, and that limitations, imperfections, errors are not only unavoidable but also salutary. The best is not the ideal.  Where what is theoretically best is imposed on everyone as the norm, then there is no longer any room even to be good.  The best, imposed as a norm, becomes evil.”  

"Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander,” by Thomas Merton

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/04/merton-best-imposed-as-norm-becomes.html
 (Perhaps it is time for Pontifex Maximus -- our first female pope! -- to issue a fatwah on Merton.)

There is fundamental presumption, arrogance and uncharitableness in believing oneself absolutely right and all others not only wrong, but damned.  (See "Liberalism: Satanic Rebellion Against God" http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/11/liberalism-satanic-rebellion-against-god.html)

2.) Ever since Augustine of Hippo, some variation of Manichaeism has been conservative Christianity's default heresy. "Although the cosmic dualism of Manichaesism is not acceptable to believers in the existence of only one supreme God of goodness, it does provide a good explanation of why evil in the world is substantial and virulent. This was, in fact, one of the reasons why the young Augustine became a Manichaean as he was struggling about evil and sin within himself and in society. While Christianity rejects the Manichaean dualism, the classical Christian explanation of evil as non-being or privation of good, which was formulated largely under the influence of Augustine's anti-Manichaean writings after he became a Christian, cannot explain the virulent reality of evil. The Manichaean view of evil as a real and primordial demonic power reminds us of the weakness of this Christian position. Hence, exploring a cosmically non-dualistic position that can still accommodate a view of evil as substantial remains as an important task for theology." 
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Manichaeism#Manichaeism_and_Christianity 

3.) Immigration and the resurgence of Know Nothing politics... In their last incarnation, Know Nothing nativists despised Dagos, Micks and Polacks. Now they despise latinos. So long as the target population is Catholic, it's "open season." 
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/10/know-nothing-nativism-prototypal.html

4.) Conservatives are unable to embrace any dynamic system, insisting instead on static "Golden Ages" when "everything was ideal." Once a "Golden Age" has been properly apotheosized, all that needs doing is to return to "The Original Goodness."

***

"Pope John XXIII: Clenched Conservatism Is Motivated By Fear"

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/02/john-xxiii-and-christian-conservatives.html

***

Tough-as-Nails, War-Hardened Veteran Joins Fox News

Lea Gabrielle

HENRY McCULLOCH, a former Marine and Air Force Reserve fighter pilot, writes:

The Fools of Fox have no more sense about women in the armed forces than Barack Hussein Obama. Here’s Shep Smith last month introducing new Fox reporter Lea Gabrielle, a former Navy fighter pilot.

“Female fighter pilot” is an oxymoron on par with “Gay Marriage.”  ‘Nuff said. Except that if you want to know what sort of lethal chicanery the U.S. Navy engaged in to get its precious “female fighter pilots,” simply google the names Kara Hultgreen (R.I.P.) and Carey Lohrenz, and if you want to know how force-feeding an unqualified woman pilot into a fighter squadron effectively destroyed a U.S. Air Force fighter wing, google the name Jackie Parker.  As for what a success women in command at sea has been, please google the name Holly Graf.

The whole women-in-combat racket is dishonest, unseemly and utterly unnecessary.  Men create enough social and disciplinary problems in the armed forces all by themselves; why ask for trouble by inserting women into that world when there is no need whatever for them to be there and the readiness and social consequences are all too predictable?  The fact that they are far less likely than men to be fully qualified for their assignments because they are certain to have benefited from sexual affirmative action in selection, training and assignment only makes matters worse.  Whenever I see a puff piece about a GI-Jane who is supposed to have been some sort of ironman combat hero, my BS detector starts to ring.  When you see such almost certainly greatly embellished war stories, say “Jessica Lynch” to yourself 10 times: that will help return you to reality, as it will remind you that today’s military PR officers and senior commanders are serial liars about anything to do with women, minorities and homosexuals in the armed forces.  They have to be to keep their jobs.

And don’t tell me about how the Israelis do it.  In 1948, they put some women on the front lines in desperation; when that proved to be a complete failure, Israel still being a free country then, the Israelis withdrew them.  There are women in combat positions in the IDF today only because Leftist judges of Israel’s Supreme Court ordered them there.  Israelis are no more free of their black-robed, unelected masters than Americans are.

The other example people like to bandy about is the Red Army of World War II.  There, similarly, some women were dragooned into front-line service when the Soviet Communist Party perceived itself to be in extremis against the Wehrmacht.  Once the crisis eased, the women were withdrawn.  Presumably, if they had really been highly effective – Bolshevik propaganda notwithstanding – they would not have been.  The only other explanation is that even Soviet Communists under Stalin had a more rational view of the roles of men and women in society than do American liberals and neocons (but I repeat myself) today.  And that would be saying something…

If it were up to me the only women around the U.S. armed forces would be nurses, and they would probably be contracted civilians.  Extreme position in today’s world, I know.  But also, if it were up to me the U.S. armed forces would be far smaller and not be squandered in expeditions to distant quagmires that retard, not advance, the American national interest.  Not so long ago, most would have recognized those views as simple common sense.  And unlike the current U.S. government approach of using the armed forces as a petri dish for every social innovation and perversion to come down the pike, my position is at least internally consistent and actually does make sense — if you want armed forces that can fight and win wars, that is.

As Mrs. Wood has pointed out repeatedly here, a woman in the armed forces — especially in a combat or combat support unit — is, like it or not and whether she herself consciously wills it, an agent of social subversion.  Her presence there is unnatural, in the literal meaning of the term, and on some level most military women know it.  Officers especially.  Look at how so many behave, especially the ones who have been speed-promoted to flag and general grade by every president since GHW Bush – but on steroids (pun intended?) under Barack Hussein Obama.  They are not there to do a military job, advance the mission or – God forbid – actually win wars.  In almost every case, they are self-conscious Change Agents out to transform the armed forces into a woman-friendly, and now homosexual-friendly, social service agency.  Making the whole thing even more sick is that the most extreme of them are service academy graduates.  (Gerald Ford should have been impeached for letting them in!  But actually it was Nixon who made that social surrender; Ford just presided over it.  So Nixon should have been impeached!  Oh, that’s right, he was…  For the wrong thing.)  These feminists have plainly been indoctrinated into being subversive of the efficiency of the services into which they have been commissioned by those services’ very own academies.  We’re into Through the Looking Glass territory here, and almost everyone — including the cretinous “conservatives” of Fox — thinks it’s just dandy.  Making them into media celebrities simply underscores how transgressive even nominally conservative media organizations are.

But what has happened to the service academies shouldn’t surprise us.  They are part of the federal government: Barack Obama’s federal government — although it would be very naive to blame their fall into dogmatic liberalism entirely on him.  G.W. Bush (no conservative he) was almost as gung-ho for these follies as the overt liberals are.  What most Americans don’t realize yet is that West Point and the others are just as liberal as Harvard or Yale.  The only real difference is the funny outfits and more PT.  The worldviews of each school’s graduates are far more alike than is comfortable to think about.

The New Left long had its sights on the armed forces as an instinctively conservative social institution that must be destroyed, in typical Frankfurt School fashion through internal subversion.  When feminism became a military issue, the Left had its weapon.  With women in combat billets (now including even submarines, at vast and entirely superfluous expense) and the armed forces a happy haven for homosexuals and a magnet for foreign mercenaries, their work is almost entirely done.

What will be left is a strange parasitic organism incapable of winning wars (something Leftists don’t want it to be able to do in the first place) but with enough weaponry and personnel — especially the mercenaries — alienated enough from the ordinary American citizenry that it could be an ideal tool for suppressing domestic dissent, should our rulers deem it necessary.

– Comments –

Laura writes:

My initial thought when looking at Lea Gabrielle is to think of how difficult it must have been for the men who worked alongside her in the Navy. She is a beautiful woman. Though it’s certainly pleasant to have a beautiful and charming woman around, any acknowledgement of this on their part could ruin their careers. Leaving aside the indisputable physical inferiority of women in strength and endurance, their presence alone in the military is emasculating.

Doug writes:

I wholeheartedly agree women do not belong in the military especially deploying roles other than medical and limited even in that role. I served twenty years in the Air Force and can tell you many stories of poor relations and morale especially when deployed. Things would often turn into one big frat party. I have to add, minorities also caused much consternation. It seems leadership went out of their way to promote and reward them.

All that said, it is only fair for me to point out that strength and big bodies are not needed for fighter pilots. As a matter of fact, smaller less massive people seem to handle G-loading much better. A fit body is needed.

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Fred Owens <froghospital911@gmail.com> wrote:

thinking housewife  -- deserves a response

--

Fred Owens
cell: 360-739-0214

My gardening blog is  Fred Owens

My writing blog is Frog Hospital

send mail to:

Fred Owens
35 West Main St Suite B #391
Ventura CA 93001