Varying Alinsky: Sexualize Everything
UPDATED: Response To Daily Pundit

Posted on | September 24, 2011 | 20 Comments

by Smitty

Alinsky decreed: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. This is being carried out against our military. In a rare moment of disagreement, I think Daily Pundit may have become confused:

There is no ban on heterosexual sex in the military, and never has been. I just want to kill this meme before it gets a grip. The notion that gays get “special privileges” their straight counterparts don’t have is simply a lie. It isn’t true, and never has been. In fact, the opposite has been the case – heterosexuals have always had the privilege of their sexual relations, while the same privileges were denied to gays.

Read any Joint Pub, OPORD, or mission statement. I’ll produce the Navy’s here, out of pure parochial bias:

The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.

At this level of abstraction, There. Is. No. Consideration. Of. Sexual. Privilege. Whatsoever.
A combat-ready Naval force has a mission, and a crew, and the behavior of the crew has to be subordinate to the mission.
What that crew does on liberty, i.e., non-mission time, is the business of the members of the crew.
Andrew Sullivan, equally to Daily Pundit, takes a bottom-up approach to the question:

And Santorum’s despicable lie in response – that repealing DADT somehow means license of gay sexual misconduct in the armed services – was intended to reduce that soldier, his life and work, to Santorum’s obsession: the intrinsic evil of gay sex. Again, this is usual. Gays are used to being reduced to sexual acts rather than being seen as full human beings, like straight people, with sexuality sure, but a whole lot of other things as well.

Now, I’m from the ‘form follows function’ school of thought on the matter. While perfectly capable of creativity in many aspects of life (I once wrote a set of VBA classes that made MS Access code pretend it was Internet Information Server) doing anything non-obvious with manhood has never been of interest to me.
And I can maintain a libertarian indifference to those who do. Judge the tree by the fruit, say I. Could you define gay sex as evil? Not my task. Could you define Santorum as obsessed with gay sex? Clearly, Sullivan has.
The point of this post is that, if we want to wreck our military, we can continue to drench the military mission in estrogen and testosterone. Taking the individual, private behavior of service members and making it the main focus of service members will be an excellent path to ruin.
This post expands on the ideas of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Don’t Care.” The military continues to be politicized, perhaps at the expense of mission effectiveness. As an aside, I’m glad to be headed out the door. I really don’t want to be on the FOB which is overrun because the chain of command is too worried about tangential, irrelevant, but politically and hormonally appealing issues at the expense of readiness.

Update: DailyPundit decries the above argument:

Overrun by what? Who? Can you cite even one instance of that occurring due to the sexual orientation of those in the FOB?

Didn’t think so.

Change is hard. But this sort of straw man flambe only makes it harder.

Well, no, I have no historical examples of a policy which is just now being implemented.

Furthermore, when I said I “really don’t want to be on the FOB which is overrun. . .” I am not wishing that such an event occur, merely to bolster my argument. As I was saying in the “Don’t Care” post, I predict this policy will not have much individual impact, because military individuals, for the most part, are not that interested in each others’ junk.

DailyPundit is overjoyed that gay servicemembers can get together over bre’fas’, have some coffee, and wax nostalgic over the previous night’s activities. Sure, especially before co-ed ships, that sort of Monday-morning quarterbacking, of a hetero flavor, was not uncommon.

However, since Tailhook, that sort of discussion has diminished to the point that you can be relieved for such risqué talk. In other words, the puritanical strain of political correctness is having a screw-me-no-screw-you discussion with the hedonistic strain of political correctness.

Coming full circle, Daily Pundit, (a) we’re likely talking past each other to a large degree here, and (b) the tension I’m alluding to in the previous paragraph is a jolly pile of crap I’m quite pleased to be leaving behind Real Soon Now.

Category: Military

Comments

20 Responses to “Varying Alinsky: Sexualize Everything
UPDATED: Response To Daily Pundit”

Daily Pundit » No, the Military Is Not Going to Hell Over the End of DADT
September 24th, 2011 @ 11:02 am

[…] Varying Alinsky: Sexualize Everything : The Other McCain Alinsky decreed: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. This is being carried out against our military. In a rare moment of disagreement, I think Daily Pundit may have become confused: […]
Joe
September 24th, 2011 @ 3:18 pm

Having seen troops on leave, all I can say is boys will be boys.

That said, the miltary will do just fine. This whole thing is about domestic politics not the military. The military is just a toy that these politicians are playing with. Sad and pathetic that part, especially given the current challenges. But in the end they will grow bored and the military will deal with it just fine.
DaMav
September 24th, 2011 @ 3:31 pm

I’m disappointed that Rick knuckled under to the homos and apologized. He isn’t my first choice but I think a lot of him.

The homos have won a legal round enabling them to coerce and propagandize and legally force the rest of us to officially tolerate this unhealthy, disease spreading lifestyle. The fight is not over, nor should we allow ourselves to be bullied into further displays of public ass kissing.

Nothing they do will ever make homosexuality “acceptable”. Even those in the youngest generation, fully brainwashed to the maximum extent by public schools, hollyweird, and the media, still use their favorite marketing term, “gay”, as a pejorative.

I am prepared to tolerate, not to glorify. Nobody booed anyone for being a soldier. They were booed for being a homosexual and waving their ass in our faces about it.
Mortimer Snerd
September 24th, 2011 @ 3:37 pm

“Could you define gay sex as evil? Not my task.”

Wht not?
Mortimer Snerd
September 24th, 2011 @ 3:38 pm

I meant, of course, “why not?”
DaveO
September 24th, 2011 @ 4:38 pm

Most folks are not aware of General Order 1-A. No sex between American service members. As a homosexual is only homosexual by having sex with a person of the same gender, General Order 1-A undermines homosexuality.

By extension, the report of homosexual rapes will skyrocket, much the same as hetersexual rapes went through the roof, as one of the partners wriggles out of potential UCMJ action. Or, the military will have to drop prosecution and therefore cancel justice for the victims of legitimate rape.

Fortunately this is a no-win situation for America.
ThePaganTemple
September 24th, 2011 @ 5:27 pm

I can see one silver lining. Homos should be great at interrogating Muslim radicals.

“Now sweetie, just relax and it won’t hurt. You know you want to give it up, don’t you? Just tell us everything we want to know and we’ll make it go so fast it will make your cute little head swim. But now if you don’t talk to us, well, we might be here for a while. I mean, a really, really long time.”
CalMark
September 24th, 2011 @ 5:49 pm

“Gay is good” sensitivity training–i.e., brainwashing.

Bad discharges for all who don’t actively embrace the “gay lifestyle.” Think draconian consequences for ‘sexual harassment” complaints, and multiply them by a BIG number.

“Gay marriage” in military chapels.

Gay couples in married housing. Kids of “gay couples” in DOD schools.

No real consequences? In your dreams.
Richard Mcenroe
September 24th, 2011 @ 5:51 pm

Be nice if you could run a ship at that level of abstraction. At deck level however, or in the platoon bay, there HAVE ALWAYS been restrictions on sexual activity, because such can too easily become prejudicial to good order and discipline in the unit. That was why there have ALWAYS been formal regulations, such as those against sodomy and now heterosexual relations within a chain of command, and informal ones such as “keep your affairs fifty miles from the flagpole.”
Anonymous
September 24th, 2011 @ 7:08 pm

Andrew Sullivan, equally to Daily Pundit, takes a bottom-up approach to the question:

I saw what you did there.
Joe
September 24th, 2011 @ 7:59 pm

If you had spent any time around Muslims, you would realize that would be an incentive to most Muslim radicals, not a threat. Watch Midnight Express or Lawrence of Arabia sometime.

Although this guy is a little too shrill about it. http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/209511.php
Thomas Knapp
September 24th, 2011 @ 8:26 pm

“Well, no, I have no historical examples of a policy which is just now being implemented.”

How about the US armed forces from 1776 to 1947?

The military “ban on homosexuals” was a social engineering experiment of the post-WWII era.

It’s probably just coincidence that the US started losing wars right after it was implemented.
CalMark
September 24th, 2011 @ 10:11 pm

Talk about an intellectually dishonest, logically questionable argument!

We haven’t truly won a war since we renamed the Department of War the Department of the Army and created the (bureaucratic and marginally effective) Department of Defense.

Truly, you gay-rights types are single-minded, tunnel-vision blinkered.
Thomas Knapp
September 24th, 2011 @ 11:47 pm

CalMark,

You write:

“We haven’t truly won a war since we renamed the Department of War the Department of the Army and created the (bureaucratic and marginally effective) Department of Defense.”

I agree 100%. That’s why I said that it was probably just coincidence that the ban on homosexuals in the military dates from that same period.
William T Quick
September 24th, 2011 @ 11:48 pm

In other words, the puritanical strain of political correctness is
having a screw-me-no-screw-you discussion with the hedonistic strain of
political correctness.

I’m with you there, Smitty. PC corrodes everything it touches.
William T Quick
September 24th, 2011 @ 11:59 pm

Most folks are not aware of General Order 1-A. No sex between American service members.

Debates would work better if folks would at least try to be accurate.

General Order 1 (Afghanistan) used to ban sexual relations between all unmarried soldiers and civilians working for the military. It only applied to Afghanistan, and was a supposed sop to local Muslim sensibilities. It has since been lifted: such activities are no longer banned, only “highly discouraged.”

And as I say, this applies only to military and civilians working for the military in Afghanistan. Hardly service wide. And I question the reason for the prohibition in the first place. Banning normal human activities to accommodate Muslim religious prejudices has never been one of my favorite policies.
DaveO
September 25th, 2011 @ 12:48 am

Thank you for the update. I’ll check to see if the neighbors’ kids over there are enjoying 1A’s absence.
David
September 25th, 2011 @ 12:48 am

‘Judge the tree by the fruit…’

Hee hee hee.
ThePaganTemple
September 25th, 2011 @ 1:57 am

Joe, you’re seeing it from the perspective of a westerner, not a Muslim. It’s not that simple with them. They’re all for feminizing young boys and sodomizing them, and even performing anal sex with other men, as long as they are the ones doing the penetrating, or were otherwise in the dominant position. It’s a matter of power and control as much as it is sex on a sensual level. But the idea of being on the receiving end of any of that is deeply shameful to them. If they thought for one second they might be anally raped by a western homosexual soldier, or forced to perform oral sex on one, they’d tell everything they knew in under ten minutes flat, especially if our soldiers made it clear they would make sure everybody they knew would know about it.
Anonymous
September 25th, 2011 @ 2:20 am

Bill has been riding this hobby horse for a while. Personally, I think he’s been in SF / California too long. I’ll also say that the 20-30 Marine enlisted (Private through CWO4) I’ve been associating with at Pendleton for the last 3 months had no problems saying in front of the LTC in charge that this was making it less likely they would re-enlist, unless they would be within a couple years of 20.

BTW, those so-called surveys showing that the services have no problems with the idea? Not quite as accurate as the “scientific consensus” of AGW. Most of the people I talked to never saw them.

Now, what I see happening is the Cloward-Pivening of the sexual harassment portions of UCMJ, on both sides, by the marginally competent. I pity the officers and NCOs having to maintain discipline….