Category Archives: History

Military Goes From Gender Neutrality To Gender Fluidity

Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Gender, History, Military

IN A NEW ESSAY, I argue that the entire debate about LGBTQ (“Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning”) in the military is a fig leaf, camouflaging that the Army was neutered in the 1990s. The military is now making the transition from gender neutrality to gender fluidity. It’s a Brave New World.

The backdrop to these ideas is in “An X-Rated Conversation About LGBTQ & XX (Women) In The Military.” It’s on The Unz Review, America’s smartest webzine. An excerpt:

PREDICTABLY, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have already pooh-poohed President Trump’s July 26th LGBTQ directives, banning the politicized transgender production from the theater of war. …

… LGBTQ is a political program why? Central to the concept of “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning” in the military is the idea of a group whose members have chosen to identify not as Private X or Private Y, but as a party to a political fraternity that promises and delivers an aggressive, noisy, sexual identity politics.

Evangelizing for the cause is implicit in the introduction of this political production into the military. Ditto payment for drastic elective medical procedures and the attendant hormonal maintenance. In other words, LGBTQ in the military isn’t about enhancing a fighting force, it’s about introducing another state-driven reformation program. Egalitarian access here aims, inadvertently (as always), to grow an arm of government and, at the same time, “re-educate” the country.

Moreover, LGBTQ in the military is but another “Draconian social policy [enforced] without showing any interest in—and in many cases actively suppressing—good-faith information about how those policies [are] playing out at ground level,” in the prescient words of Stephanie Gutmann, author of “The Kinder, Gentler Military: Can America’s Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars?”

Girls: It was about their presence in the military that Gutmann was warning, circa 2000, not “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning.” As trailblazing as Ms. Gutmann’s shoe-leather investigation was, back then, into the way women had transformed the military, its morale and readiness—never could this author have imagined that from gender neutrality, the military would move into the even Braver New World of gender fluidity.

Gutmann saddled “Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton, Secretaries of Defense Richard Cheney, Les Aspin, and William Cohen, the Congresses who wrote and passed the bills they signed, and the Pentagon leadership who just grinned nervously and sat on their hands while all of this was going on.”

What were the fatal conceits of these leaders and their legislation?

“One of the projects mesmerizing the brass throughout the nineties was the integration of women. … [T]he nineties were a decade in which the brass handed over their soldiers to social planners in love with an unworkable (and in many senses undesirable) vision of a politically correct utopia, one in which men and women toil side by side, equally good at the same tasks, interchangeable, and, of course, utterly undistracted by sexual interest.”

…  READ THE RESTAn X-Rated Conversation About LGBTQ & XX (Women) In The Military” is on The Unz Review.

This column can generally be read also on Townhall.com, Daily Caller, American Thinker, and others, where The Mercer Column usually appears. And it’s always posted, eventually, on IlanaMercer.com, under Articles.

Share it.

NEW COLUMN (UPDATE @7/23): Truman Would Have Agreed With Trump On The CIA In Syria

Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, History, Middle East, Russia, The State

“Truman Would Have Agreed With Trump On The CIA In Syria” is the current column, now on Townhall.com. An excerpt:

Said the president: “For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and, at times, a policy-making arm of the Government. … [T]his quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue.”

This dire warning about the propensity of the Central Intelligence Agency to go rogue came from Harry S. Truman.

Truman’s call to “limit the CIA role to intelligence” was published in December 22, 1963, by the Washington Post (WaPo). The same newspaper is now decrying Presidents Trump’s decision to “end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according to U.S. officials.”

The move is a good one. The WaPo threw Russia into the reportorial mix purely to sully President Trump (and due to the intellectual deficiencies of correspondents incapable of teasing apart policy from political intrigue).

The 33rd U.S. president, a Democrat before the great deformation of that party, was first to issue the warning against the agency he had established. Not only was the newly founded intelligence arm of President Truman mutating into “a policy-making arm of government,” but it was “a subverting influence in the affairs of other people,” he cautioned.

In 1963, Truman was meditating on restoring the monster he had created “to its original assignment” of intelligence gathering in the raw. The CIA’s sole purpose was to keep the president apprised of information unfiltered, un-politicized.

In 2017, Trump is dealing with a genie too powerful to beat back into the bottle: a mutated swamp creature.

So, is this a screeching U-turn in Trump’s foreign policy? Who know, but in Syria, at least, President Trump is inching closer to delivering on a campaign promise. …

… READ THE REST. “Truman Would Have Agreed With Trump On The CIA In Syria” is now on Townhall.com.

For those who missed the latest column, first on American Thinker; the Mercer Column can be read on Townhall.com, the Unz Review, a little later on Daily Caller, Liberty Conservative, and others. And it’s always posted eventually on IlanaMercer.com.

UPDATE I (Facebook):  “What a superb angle, Ilana! Invoking Truman’s warning about ‘The Company’ is brilliant,” writes author Bill Scott.

UPDATE II (7/23):
John McCain:

Mad Max Gets Totaled By Tucker

Classical Liberalism, Constitution, Government, History, Morality, Neoconservatism

For his foreign policy prescriptions, neoconservative Max Boot got totaled by Tucker Carlson of Fox News. Boot-type neoconservatives center their foreign policy around their ideas of what is moral and what is immoral.

A libertarian or classical conservative ought to base foreign policy on the ROLE OF GOVERNMENT. The Constitution doesn’t give government the right to force ideas on its own citizens, much less on the citizens of the world. Let the peoples of the world fight their own battles of ideas. Morality in foreign policy is a prescription for ever accrediting empire.

Constitutionalism in foreign policy is what Americans ought to seek, not morality.

Boot may sound like Tocqueville with a stretch, but given a chance to enact his policies he’d act like Robespierre. This neoconservative’s attachment is to a Jacobin heritage – expressed in a powerful, centralized, universalist state that aggrandizes abstractions and subordinates communities to a national general will.

The Declaration Of Independence Has Been Mocked Out Of Meaning

America, Britain, English, History, Liberty, Multiculturalism

The Declaration Of Independence Has Been Mocked Out Of Meaning” is the current column, now on Townhall.com. It toasts The Declaration, Thomas Jefferson and the Anglo-Saxon tradition, from which Jefferson drew.

An excerpt:

For most Americans, Independence Day means firecrackers and cookouts. The Declaration of Independence—whose proclamation, on July 4, 1776, we celebrate—doesn’t feature in the celebration. Contemporary Americans are less likely to read it now that it’s easily available on the Internet, than when it relied on horseback riders for its distribution.

It is fair to say that the Declaration of Independence has been mocked out of meaning.

Back in 1776, gallopers carried the Declaration through the country. Printer John Dunlap had worked “through the night” to set the full text on “a handsome folio sheet,” recounts historian David Hackett Fischer in Liberty And Freedom. And the president of the Continental Congress, John Hancock, urged that the “people be universally informed.” (They were!)

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, called it “an expression of the American Mind.” An examination of Jefferson’s constitutional thought makes plain that he would no longer consider the collective mentality of contemporary Americans and their leaders (Rep. Ron Paul excepted) “American” in any meaningful way. For the Jeffersonian mind was that of an avowed Whig—an American Whig whose roots were in the English, Whig political philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Come to think of it, Jefferson would not recognize England as the home of the Whigs in whose writings colonial Americans were steeped—John Locke, Algernon Sidney, Paul Rapin, Thomas Gordon and others.

The essence of this “pattern of ideas and attitudes,” almost completely lost today, explains David N. Mayer in The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson, was a view of government as an inherent threat to liberty and the necessity for eternal vigilance. …

… READ THE REST. The complete column is “The Declaration Of Independence Has Been Mocked Out Of Meaning,” now on Townhall.com.