Society
Tim Kirby
June 6, 2021
© Photo: REUTERS/Mike Segar

This is the real reason why Disney Lesbian army ads are the new normal, Tim Kirby writes.

Ted Cruz has come under fire for recently stating his disapproval of a woke/LGBT military recruitment video when compared side-by-side to a contemporary Russian equivalent. The American video was animated in a sort of Disney style, telling the tale of a young woman, the “daughter” of two mothers going off to fight for America as a continuation of her fight for what’s right as a Left Wing street activist. The Russian video was more of a gritty low-saturation short about men needing to prove themselves as soldiers. The ad with shaved-headed Russians has a much more tried and true message aimed at the gender that historically has done almost all the fighting throughout human history – men. It is obvious that anthropomorphic-suit Ted Cruz was not praising Russia or exalting the superiority of the Russian military as his beta-male detractors have tweeted. The quintessential pre-Trump Republican simply and honestly wants what he thinks is best for the U.S. military – having effective recruitment ads that will actually get results by enticing (mostly) young men to sign up for various combat roles that we could essentially classify into the umbrella term “infantrymen”. But perhaps Cruz is actually wrong, not for saying the Russians are doing recruitment right, but for believing in the antiquated notion that infantrymen are actually needed.

One of the main criticisms from those with traditional/masculine views is that “wokeness” either does not work or is highly inefficient. But these detractors from the dogma of the 21st century forget that you can be as woke as you want as long as you are functionally useless or there are zero blatantly perceivable consequences. This is the real reason why Disney Lesbian army ads are the new normal. And even if a woke army leads to more casualties the politicians do not care, this new ideology comes first.

As I have stated many times over the years, thanks to the media, our perception of war looks something like World War II or at the very most modern Vietnam. One could make an argument that besides disease, the big killers or 20th century warfare were artillery and bombardment, not so much “guy with gun” as Hollywood would like us to believe. Having a main character lost in the first five minutes of a film to an artillery strike that he couldn’t even see coming is nor particularly dramatic. Although we may not like it, and it is bad for developing good action scenes, the infantryman as a major player in war is already a romantic concept of the past. The “victories” of the U.S. Armed Forces in the 21st century in the Middle-East have all come from the skies and NOT M-16s, bayonets or John Wayne Bushido.

The real last remaining role of grunt infantry is occupation. Essentially, when an enemy is defeated it is the infantry that make the presence of the victory known and secure. Much like the police their function is to keep the locals pacified and respond to minor threats, not win huge glorious battles. This is much in the same way that no matter how heroic a cavalry charge may be (successful or not) there is really no role left for cavalry other than to allow certain military units to traverse particularly brutal terrain when helicopters are non-viable such as on a routine daily border patrol of a mountainous region. Perhaps certain special forces units look far from as pathetic as 21st century “cavalry” but the average grunt in Iraq/Afghanistan is pretty close – doing home raids, policing, frying under the sun while contemplating the futility of his life.

For those who find this concept unacceptable, think of it this way: what actually keeps America safe from its enemies? ICBMs with nuclear warheads or guys with guns?

Although I myself and Ted Cruz would prefer to play it safe and keep the military as the bastion of hyper-masculinity just in case, it would seem that technology has allowed American Armed Forces to become woke since the individual soldier and especially the infantryman may no longer matter. The soldier is not there to win wars or defend the homeland to the death but stand around as an occupation unit for a bit above minimum wage. They just need someone to stand there and get shot at a shilling a day to keep an occupation going.

So far there is no wokeness in Alaskan oil work as it would collapse this vital system. Brutal outdoor work in the cold requires a certain kind of character, but perhaps with the nature of 21st century warfare certain people in Washington have sent the signal that the military can be as woke as it wants because it doesn’t matter anymore in large scale operations. Again special forces and more delicate work is still an exception for now. The elite will continue to party like it’s 1950 in their heterosexuality while the potato peelers will be gender fluid.

The Russians are always scared when their media reports that 5,000 or so U.S. Troops are training at their border in Estonia or somewhere. But, what are they actually afraid of? Again due to media manipulation the average Russian expects some sort of ground based attack which is utter madness. Russia should only be so lucky as to have their enemy charge them, rainbow flags unfurled crying a rebel yell of diversity. No modern eighteen-year-olds are going to die en masse to take a few meters of Russian soil. Even if these were the same type of men who went over the top in 1914 it wouldn’t matter as infantry are just not as useful as they used to be.

On the surface, we do not seem to need a temple of masculinity in our high-tech world so it is no surprise the military is under attack by the Extreme Left’s crusade to castrate the planet starting with the West. We should expect more and more standards shifting and LGBT influence being pushed down the pipeline onto the Armed Services of the United States. They know they are never going to have to charge the Russians with bayonets so who cares? Anyone can move boxes and mop the floor, testosterone is not mandatory.

In my own personal opinion, now would be the time to do the exact opposite, and retain the hyper-masculinity of the military but in a new way. Since the “automata” of Friedrich II are no longer the core of the army, perhaps now would be a great opportunity to recreate the scholarly cultured warriors of the past. Testosterone-fueled warriors and learned men like knights, the samurai or the great Roman generals would be a good goal post to set. Like the rainbow-haired crowd I also think the army can have a cultural and social function, I just believe it has a radically different one. We are at an amazing time when the idea of what a soldier could be is changing, and could very well change for the betterment of society, but his gender and sexual orientation should remain a timeless classic.

You Can Be as Woke as You Want as Long as You Are Functionally Useless

This is the real reason why Disney Lesbian army ads are the new normal, Tim Kirby writes.

Ted Cruz has come under fire for recently stating his disapproval of a woke/LGBT military recruitment video when compared side-by-side to a contemporary Russian equivalent. The American video was animated in a sort of Disney style, telling the tale of a young woman, the “daughter” of two mothers going off to fight for America as a continuation of her fight for what’s right as a Left Wing street activist. The Russian video was more of a gritty low-saturation short about men needing to prove themselves as soldiers. The ad with shaved-headed Russians has a much more tried and true message aimed at the gender that historically has done almost all the fighting throughout human history – men. It is obvious that anthropomorphic-suit Ted Cruz was not praising Russia or exalting the superiority of the Russian military as his beta-male detractors have tweeted. The quintessential pre-Trump Republican simply and honestly wants what he thinks is best for the U.S. military – having effective recruitment ads that will actually get results by enticing (mostly) young men to sign up for various combat roles that we could essentially classify into the umbrella term “infantrymen”. But perhaps Cruz is actually wrong, not for saying the Russians are doing recruitment right, but for believing in the antiquated notion that infantrymen are actually needed.

One of the main criticisms from those with traditional/masculine views is that “wokeness” either does not work or is highly inefficient. But these detractors from the dogma of the 21st century forget that you can be as woke as you want as long as you are functionally useless or there are zero blatantly perceivable consequences. This is the real reason why Disney Lesbian army ads are the new normal. And even if a woke army leads to more casualties the politicians do not care, this new ideology comes first.

As I have stated many times over the years, thanks to the media, our perception of war looks something like World War II or at the very most modern Vietnam. One could make an argument that besides disease, the big killers or 20th century warfare were artillery and bombardment, not so much “guy with gun” as Hollywood would like us to believe. Having a main character lost in the first five minutes of a film to an artillery strike that he couldn’t even see coming is nor particularly dramatic. Although we may not like it, and it is bad for developing good action scenes, the infantryman as a major player in war is already a romantic concept of the past. The “victories” of the U.S. Armed Forces in the 21st century in the Middle-East have all come from the skies and NOT M-16s, bayonets or John Wayne Bushido.

The real last remaining role of grunt infantry is occupation. Essentially, when an enemy is defeated it is the infantry that make the presence of the victory known and secure. Much like the police their function is to keep the locals pacified and respond to minor threats, not win huge glorious battles. This is much in the same way that no matter how heroic a cavalry charge may be (successful or not) there is really no role left for cavalry other than to allow certain military units to traverse particularly brutal terrain when helicopters are non-viable such as on a routine daily border patrol of a mountainous region. Perhaps certain special forces units look far from as pathetic as 21st century “cavalry” but the average grunt in Iraq/Afghanistan is pretty close – doing home raids, policing, frying under the sun while contemplating the futility of his life.

For those who find this concept unacceptable, think of it this way: what actually keeps America safe from its enemies? ICBMs with nuclear warheads or guys with guns?

Although I myself and Ted Cruz would prefer to play it safe and keep the military as the bastion of hyper-masculinity just in case, it would seem that technology has allowed American Armed Forces to become woke since the individual soldier and especially the infantryman may no longer matter. The soldier is not there to win wars or defend the homeland to the death but stand around as an occupation unit for a bit above minimum wage. They just need someone to stand there and get shot at a shilling a day to keep an occupation going.

So far there is no wokeness in Alaskan oil work as it would collapse this vital system. Brutal outdoor work in the cold requires a certain kind of character, but perhaps with the nature of 21st century warfare certain people in Washington have sent the signal that the military can be as woke as it wants because it doesn’t matter anymore in large scale operations. Again special forces and more delicate work is still an exception for now. The elite will continue to party like it’s 1950 in their heterosexuality while the potato peelers will be gender fluid.

The Russians are always scared when their media reports that 5,000 or so U.S. Troops are training at their border in Estonia or somewhere. But, what are they actually afraid of? Again due to media manipulation the average Russian expects some sort of ground based attack which is utter madness. Russia should only be so lucky as to have their enemy charge them, rainbow flags unfurled crying a rebel yell of diversity. No modern eighteen-year-olds are going to die en masse to take a few meters of Russian soil. Even if these were the same type of men who went over the top in 1914 it wouldn’t matter as infantry are just not as useful as they used to be.

On the surface, we do not seem to need a temple of masculinity in our high-tech world so it is no surprise the military is under attack by the Extreme Left’s crusade to castrate the planet starting with the West. We should expect more and more standards shifting and LGBT influence being pushed down the pipeline onto the Armed Services of the United States. They know they are never going to have to charge the Russians with bayonets so who cares? Anyone can move boxes and mop the floor, testosterone is not mandatory.

In my own personal opinion, now would be the time to do the exact opposite, and retain the hyper-masculinity of the military but in a new way. Since the “automata” of Friedrich II are no longer the core of the army, perhaps now would be a great opportunity to recreate the scholarly cultured warriors of the past. Testosterone-fueled warriors and learned men like knights, the samurai or the great Roman generals would be a good goal post to set. Like the rainbow-haired crowd I also think the army can have a cultural and social function, I just believe it has a radically different one. We are at an amazing time when the idea of what a soldier could be is changing, and could very well change for the betterment of society, but his gender and sexual orientation should remain a timeless classic.

This is the real reason why Disney Lesbian army ads are the new normal, Tim Kirby writes.

Ted Cruz has come under fire for recently stating his disapproval of a woke/LGBT military recruitment video when compared side-by-side to a contemporary Russian equivalent. The American video was animated in a sort of Disney style, telling the tale of a young woman, the “daughter” of two mothers going off to fight for America as a continuation of her fight for what’s right as a Left Wing street activist. The Russian video was more of a gritty low-saturation short about men needing to prove themselves as soldiers. The ad with shaved-headed Russians has a much more tried and true message aimed at the gender that historically has done almost all the fighting throughout human history – men. It is obvious that anthropomorphic-suit Ted Cruz was not praising Russia or exalting the superiority of the Russian military as his beta-male detractors have tweeted. The quintessential pre-Trump Republican simply and honestly wants what he thinks is best for the U.S. military – having effective recruitment ads that will actually get results by enticing (mostly) young men to sign up for various combat roles that we could essentially classify into the umbrella term “infantrymen”. But perhaps Cruz is actually wrong, not for saying the Russians are doing recruitment right, but for believing in the antiquated notion that infantrymen are actually needed.

One of the main criticisms from those with traditional/masculine views is that “wokeness” either does not work or is highly inefficient. But these detractors from the dogma of the 21st century forget that you can be as woke as you want as long as you are functionally useless or there are zero blatantly perceivable consequences. This is the real reason why Disney Lesbian army ads are the new normal. And even if a woke army leads to more casualties the politicians do not care, this new ideology comes first.

As I have stated many times over the years, thanks to the media, our perception of war looks something like World War II or at the very most modern Vietnam. One could make an argument that besides disease, the big killers or 20th century warfare were artillery and bombardment, not so much “guy with gun” as Hollywood would like us to believe. Having a main character lost in the first five minutes of a film to an artillery strike that he couldn’t even see coming is nor particularly dramatic. Although we may not like it, and it is bad for developing good action scenes, the infantryman as a major player in war is already a romantic concept of the past. The “victories” of the U.S. Armed Forces in the 21st century in the Middle-East have all come from the skies and NOT M-16s, bayonets or John Wayne Bushido.

The real last remaining role of grunt infantry is occupation. Essentially, when an enemy is defeated it is the infantry that make the presence of the victory known and secure. Much like the police their function is to keep the locals pacified and respond to minor threats, not win huge glorious battles. This is much in the same way that no matter how heroic a cavalry charge may be (successful or not) there is really no role left for cavalry other than to allow certain military units to traverse particularly brutal terrain when helicopters are non-viable such as on a routine daily border patrol of a mountainous region. Perhaps certain special forces units look far from as pathetic as 21st century “cavalry” but the average grunt in Iraq/Afghanistan is pretty close – doing home raids, policing, frying under the sun while contemplating the futility of his life.

For those who find this concept unacceptable, think of it this way: what actually keeps America safe from its enemies? ICBMs with nuclear warheads or guys with guns?

Although I myself and Ted Cruz would prefer to play it safe and keep the military as the bastion of hyper-masculinity just in case, it would seem that technology has allowed American Armed Forces to become woke since the individual soldier and especially the infantryman may no longer matter. The soldier is not there to win wars or defend the homeland to the death but stand around as an occupation unit for a bit above minimum wage. They just need someone to stand there and get shot at a shilling a day to keep an occupation going.

So far there is no wokeness in Alaskan oil work as it would collapse this vital system. Brutal outdoor work in the cold requires a certain kind of character, but perhaps with the nature of 21st century warfare certain people in Washington have sent the signal that the military can be as woke as it wants because it doesn’t matter anymore in large scale operations. Again special forces and more delicate work is still an exception for now. The elite will continue to party like it’s 1950 in their heterosexuality while the potato peelers will be gender fluid.

The Russians are always scared when their media reports that 5,000 or so U.S. Troops are training at their border in Estonia or somewhere. But, what are they actually afraid of? Again due to media manipulation the average Russian expects some sort of ground based attack which is utter madness. Russia should only be so lucky as to have their enemy charge them, rainbow flags unfurled crying a rebel yell of diversity. No modern eighteen-year-olds are going to die en masse to take a few meters of Russian soil. Even if these were the same type of men who went over the top in 1914 it wouldn’t matter as infantry are just not as useful as they used to be.

On the surface, we do not seem to need a temple of masculinity in our high-tech world so it is no surprise the military is under attack by the Extreme Left’s crusade to castrate the planet starting with the West. We should expect more and more standards shifting and LGBT influence being pushed down the pipeline onto the Armed Services of the United States. They know they are never going to have to charge the Russians with bayonets so who cares? Anyone can move boxes and mop the floor, testosterone is not mandatory.

In my own personal opinion, now would be the time to do the exact opposite, and retain the hyper-masculinity of the military but in a new way. Since the “automata” of Friedrich II are no longer the core of the army, perhaps now would be a great opportunity to recreate the scholarly cultured warriors of the past. Testosterone-fueled warriors and learned men like knights, the samurai or the great Roman generals would be a good goal post to set. Like the rainbow-haired crowd I also think the army can have a cultural and social function, I just believe it has a radically different one. We are at an amazing time when the idea of what a soldier could be is changing, and could very well change for the betterment of society, but his gender and sexual orientation should remain a timeless classic.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

See also

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.