Sotilaista, poliiseista, rikollisista ja tavallisesta kansasta

James Peacock:

A few years back I picked up a book titled "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Lt. Col. Grossman has, in my opinion, done some controversial things, but I found his book "On Killing" to be insightful.

"On Killing" contained one passage that was both illuminating and inspiring and it didn't come from Lt. Col. Grossman, but from a grizzled old veteran he was interviewing. The passage can be found in Section IV "An Anatomy of Killing, All Factors Considered", Chapter 5 "Aggressive Predisposition of the Killer, Avvengers, Conditioning, and the 2 Percent Who Like It", page 183:

"One Veteran I interviewed told me that he thought of most of the world as sheep: gentle, decent, kindly creatures who are essentially incapable of true aggression. In this veteran's mind there is another human subspecies (of which he is a member) that is a kind of dog: faithful, vigilant creatures who are very much capable of aggression when circumstances require. But, according to his model, there are wolves (sociopaths) and packs of wild dogs (gangs and aggressive armies) abroad in the land, and the sheepdogs (the soldiers and policemen of the world) are environmentally and biologically pre-disposed to be the ones who confrnot these predators."

I've read elsewhere that the sheep are often afraid of the sheepdogs and resent them because they surely look and act an awful lot like the wolves and packs of wild dogs.

Rautalankaa: poliisit ja sotilaat usein muistuttavat rikollisia tavallisten kansalaisten silmissä. Tähän on syynsä. Monet poliisit ja sotilaat ovat psyykkisesti lähes samalla tavalla häiriintyneitä kuin rikolliset. Joskus poliisit ja sotilaat myös tekevät rikoksia. Valitettavasti Suomessa vallitsee sellainen naiivi käsitys, että kukaan poliisi tai sotilas ei voi koskaan ruveta rikolliseksi. Tästä johtuu kritiikitön suhtautuminen mm. poliisin valtuuksien jatkuvaan lisäämiseen.

Lt. Col. Grossman goes on though: "These men are quite often armed and always vigilant. They would not misuse or misdirect their aggression any more than a sheepdog would turn on his flock, but in their hearts many of them yearn for a righteous battle, a wolf upon whom to legitimately and lawfully turn their skills."

Miksi useimmat miehet hyväksyvät feministien miesvihan

Why most men tolerate feminist misandry
by Jeffrey Asher
7th July 2009

Over twelve years of teaching "Men’s Lives," I also wondered why majority-male legislatures, judiciaries and mainstream media editors, capitulated to and enforced feminist politics and jurisprudence.


Above all, men are powerfully driven by sexual attraction to women. Men easily rationalize their sexual need for women as based in intellectual and moral equality. Male protection of women and children - at the risk of men’s safety and lives - over millennia of social evolution, allowed our species to survive. I suspect that imperative is as integral to male brains and hormones, as the need for and care of children is integral to women.


Men in power did not accede to feminists because of sexual opportunism alone – women remain second to one in that category. When feminists – confused as representing women – called out to men for ‘equality,’ men entrenched quotas and feminist jurisprudence. A man shamed by a woman promptly takes corrective action, to ‘act like a Man’.


Most men did not expect feminists to lie. Nor did men account for female emotional volatility. Men did not expect feminists to sabotage the family. Men did not realize that the driving force behind feminism was activist female self-loathing and lesbian misandry, deliberately alienating girls and women from heterosexuality and the family.


Donna Laframboise in "The Princess at the Window," observed that in the feminist movement, the lunatic fringe had taken over the mainstream. Feminists terrorized women against men with abuse, assault and rape agitprop. And yes, too many men remain self-loathing feminists.


I suspect the above partially explains the reluctance of most men in power to oppose feminist opportunism, even after their own marriages are destroyed and their children torn asunder.


Sanford Braver, "Divorced Dads" (Putnam 1998 ISBN 0-87477-862- X): "A 1998 Gottman study (J. Marriage & Family, 1998) instructed: " ... men should forget all that psychobabble about active listening and validation. If you want your marriage to last for a long time, just do what your wife says." This discovery coincides with "... the loss of power in marriage that men have experienced over the last 40 years." (Page 140).


At the end of the day, most men hope to return home, to their wife and children, whom they love. That is a powerful restraint against male denunciation of feminist family destruction.

Submitted by redwoodwriter on Sat, 2009-07-11 20:52.

In America today, gender relations have gotten so far out of whack, so strangely contorted, so seriously anti-male, so unquestionably inequitable, that it has now become relatively easy to make a fact-based case for the evils of feminism. It is now necessary for men to overcome their training, to stand up for both themselves and for other men, to stop acting with chivalry, to stop being manipulated by women. Men need to reconnect with their sense of honor and justice, and this can then allow them to fight the fight that needs to be fought. Gender relations are getting more and more contorted, and out of whack, as time goes on, and all that new evidence will only further support our cause. Onward with the men's rights movement. Go with the flow, use the flow, know that the truth and the evidence is behind both us and the movement.

Submitted by trotter on Sun, 2009-07-12 14:01.

The article is well meant. However, to ascribe everything to men's powerful sexual drive is not the whole story. I am not even sure that our drive is just sexual. Rather I see it as a powerful need for women. This need transcend the sexual. I read that this need is just a craving we have for women's approval which has been inculcated into us. May be this is so but I don't know. Whatever the forces at work here there is more than just the need for sex. That need in itself is complicated. We don't discuss it much but I would argue that most of it is a need for acceptance and a desire to give rather than to receive pleasure.

Those who say it is a cliché and a feminist stereotyping to characterize men as beasts driven an almost uncontrollable desire for sex are I think correct. We don't say this much but sex for a man is in fact not all that satisfying. Women want to think that it is like going to heaven many times over. Well that's just their arrogance. Sex is OK but not life changing or in the end that much of a high. Truth to say women get more out of sex than men do.