Stupendous Change Leadership Series: Emasculated culture, Part 1
31/January/2007 10:40 Filed in: Weekly Column
Volume 9, Issue 5
PDF copy
I know I am not being just politically incorrect, but translating the Bible concept of mankind (the Hebrew Adam) into so called gender neutral “human beings” does prove the point that we now live in an emasculated culture that has overwhelmed our society including the church.
As a consequence, our previous articles in the Stupendous Change Leadership Series dealing with command and control may seem way too macho to merit serious consideration by those more socially cognizant of today’s trends within our rapidly evolving society. It would be much better if we would just clone one another, then not only would we secure our own immortality, but we could do away with all that emotional baggage that has to deal with love, emotions, and family. Then and only then can we live for the common good as totally rational highly evolved animals. Well, at least how I defined the common good, your ideas just are not as highly evolved as mine.
It became apparent in a separate email thread while writing last week’s installment that I would have to deal with this feminization of culture concept. Then listening last week to the President’s, “State of the Union Address,” the Democrat Party’s response by freshmen Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, and the narcissistic moronic resolutions being proposed by other Congressional members, I concluded that this would have to be at least a two part series.
In this first installment we shall tell a couple stories of some potential sources of leadership, with limited comments about the results of this emasculating process. In our next installment we will delve into why this country does not need a gender neutral debate when it comes to fighting the War on Terror, nor will emasculation succeed if you would like to come out of a stupendous change event with the least amount of collateral damage, to yourself, and the other non-evolved human beings that give real meaning to your life.
To set the stage for these stories we must briefly look at the context of our world today. Today a country’s boundaries are lines on maps drawn by essentially European colonial powers. This western colonialism began early in the 16th century and was fueled by the Reformation and other factors as countries established national identities outside the influence of the Roman church. Nationalism extended those influences throughout the world. These first colonial expansions generally took place under the rule of royal family monarchs.
The United States revolution was the first to set a course for a post colonial world with a republican form of government, not a democracy. Over the next century and a half, more and more colonies gained their independence from their colonial power. In the aftermath of World War II, for economic, political, and pragmatic reasons, the world was basically divided into somewhat independent states, with some sort of stable government put in place that could and would control any chaos. To a certain extent this independence maintained allegiance to the exiting colonial power specifically, but also to western economic culture as a whole.
Enter into this somewhat stable world, the Cold War and the rise of Communism. Since these new independent governments had little local support, they were ripe for communist type insurgency movements and wars.
These wars have had some success in replacing one regime with another, but for the most part they were the exchange of a foreign sponsored bureaucracy with a home grown bureaucracy. The one country where this communist insurgency was not successful was Burma. In Burma, British special forces along with some help from some similar type former British Empire forces were able to defeat this insurgency. This was successful over time by simply hunting down the bad guys where ever they were and killing them.
One of the principles of counter insurgency warfare is to train the local army to fight this ruthless type of battle. As such a powerful military force, without a history of democratic rule and more importantly democratic institutions, a military takeover is pretty much inevitable. Today a military government as vicious as the battle conditions that gave the country birth, now rule over the people of Myanmar, the former Burma, with a repressive regime.
George Bush gave his State of the Union Address last Tuesday evening. What we learned that has not been previously clearly stated in much of what the President as said, is that there is an insurgency war being fought in Iraq. That war is between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam. It was the President’s point, we need to make the now elected national government deal with this insurgency with an even hand if the country of Iraq will continue to exist as a nation. The President’s increase in American troops in Iraq is designed to provide forces to control and hold areas of Bagdad until the Iraqi government can manage to control these areas without adding to the violence, but reducing this insurgency power, either Shia or Sunni.
This will not come about through the reasonable civility of democratic debate, but by applying a fatal big stick. You win insurgency wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Burma by eliminating the bad guys. To be politically incorrect you have to kill them. In our emasculated western culture, both in the United States and in Europe, this concept is not only undefined, it is completely undefinable.
In that context, carnage, actually even a minute national sacrifice, is not something that the American Congress or either political party can, or is willing to deal with. Furthermore, since we were and are the prime instigators of this conflict, do we have any obligation to the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who just want to live their life and raise their families in peace? This concept again is completely foreign to the current narcism going on in Washington D.C.
Enter in the Democrat Party’s response by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. He did an excellent job about how in hindsight President Bush blundered in getting us into Iraq. He further gave and even finer explanation on why we should have not got involved in the first place. Then he walked off the cliff, when he stated that he would end Iraq just like President Eisenhower ended the Korean War.
Let’s see, Korea, a divided little peninsula, one part is one of the most prosperous democratic nations on the earth. The other is the most repressive dictatorship, perhaps in the history of civilization, even though the 20th century has some other prime nominees for this honor.
Some fifty years later, North Korea’s economic livelihood is maintained by selling terrorism resources to whomever can pay the price. Perhaps, just perhaps, if President General Eisenhower would have let General MacArthur finish the job, the world today would be a safer place. It is really too bad Senator Webb didn’t put his speech in the proper context, perhaps it was just an error in judgment born by America’s gender neutral desires.
Whoever ultimately wins in Iraq, whatever that is, it will take place by he who kills all the other bad guys. It is that simple. If we get out, even with some sort of emasculated western government in place, we still must be willing to deal with the reality that current western democratic emasculated ideals are not part of either Shia or Sunni Islamic culture. We can pay the price now, or we can pay the price later, on their terms rather than ours.
Western style democracies, especially emasculated ones, are not part of any teaching of Islam and we will have to reeducate the whole population with such western ideals as self determination, personal, political and economic freedom to name a few. That will be a long, bloody and painful process, that will not just go away by emasculated thinking on the part of so called leaders. Our failure in Korea, should be an example of what not to do, rather than an ideal to emulate.
The other story takes place much closer to home, actually within about 100 yards, and much more on a human scale of understanding. Last week began the only nice weather days in Seattle in two months. As best as I can recall this stretches back to before the windstorm that blew down the blue spruce tree that blocked my view of Lake Washington. Between my house and the lake shore are two homes and a small city park.
Having never been able to correctly find some reference from the house to the park or the other way around because of the tree, I decided to go down to the park and improve my lake reference points. The park is one of the city’s swimming beaches and has always had a bathhouse with changing rooms and restrooms, but a few years ago they remodeled the facility and built a small community meeting room on one end of the existing building.
When I got down to the park there was some sort of class going on in this conference room. They had all sorts of discussion point charts taped to the walls. It was obviously some Seattle type workshop. While I was still looking around the park, the participants broke from their class room setting and moved out onto a large concrete patio. On the patio the people were divided into two groups.
Each group was told to get inside and stretch out two ropes that the seminar leaders had placed on the patio. Once the ropes were taunt and everyone was part of two circles, the participants were told to close their eyes and without looking, either form an equilateral triangle or a square depending upon which group you were associated with.
Then once given sufficient time, at least according to the program’s leaders, the two groups were to merge locations becoming the outline of a house. The square being the main part of the house, the triangle becoming the roof.
It was amazing how quickly the triangle came together. The guy who was to be the point of the triangle took charge and moved the rest of the group to the hypotenuse. Since he was stationed just about where he needed to be to connect with the house, the rest of the team either moved to the right or the left until the made contact with the group coming in the opposite direction. Then all they had to do was try and get in a straight line.
The square was not that easy. Initially, with eight people in the group all wanted to be a corner. However, they eventually decided that four groups of 2 would make the required adjustment. They just had to come together in the middle and back out evenly to form the square. That not being difficult enough, the sides of the square had to line up properly with the now waiting roof section.
After what seemed like eternity the workshop leaders declared that the square and the triangle were completed. Then it was time to merge the square and the triangle together to form the house, since they were formed about 10 feet apart. To make the difficult even more challenging was the fact that the seminar leaders had laid out the ropes so that a large concrete planter interfered with this moving process. Therefore, one of the seminar leaders had to help the blind triangle move around the obstacle.
At that point I had seen enough of the exercise of futility, so I don’t know if that was all there was. I suspect knowing Seattle that was pretty much it. If we all work together and overcome our blindness we can build a wonderful house of community.
My take is more like the blind leading the blind, is an exercise in futility. You didn’t build a community house, you sort of meshed some ropes into somewhat, loosely somewhat, a triangle and square shape. You called it a house, similarly to a tree falling in the forest that makes no sound.
If you want to see the way the world should function, repeat the process giving one member of the program sight. If you really want to see results, next time appoint an overall leader and a leader of each of the square and triangle groups, all three with sight.
The blind leading the blind gets nothing done. In the world of all blind people, the one eyed man is king. We live in a culture where God didn’t create mankind in His image, the text is clearly masculine, he didn’t even create human beings, it just sort of happened, like calling a crude rope outline a home.
God made woman from man, God did not clone her female. God made them equal before him. That is the basis of not only the Bible, but also all of historic western culture. If that be so, for some reason God gave male mankind a leadership role, and to make things truly equal God must have give the female mankind the more important social graces. Only in our emasculated culture is it the desire not to have men and women, but some sort of emasculated rational robot.
Next week we shall venture were modern angels fear to tread. Thankfully, attempting this only in the context of dealing with stupendous change.
PDF copy
I know I am not being just politically incorrect, but translating the Bible concept of mankind (the Hebrew Adam) into so called gender neutral “human beings” does prove the point that we now live in an emasculated culture that has overwhelmed our society including the church.
As a consequence, our previous articles in the Stupendous Change Leadership Series dealing with command and control may seem way too macho to merit serious consideration by those more socially cognizant of today’s trends within our rapidly evolving society. It would be much better if we would just clone one another, then not only would we secure our own immortality, but we could do away with all that emotional baggage that has to deal with love, emotions, and family. Then and only then can we live for the common good as totally rational highly evolved animals. Well, at least how I defined the common good, your ideas just are not as highly evolved as mine.
It became apparent in a separate email thread while writing last week’s installment that I would have to deal with this feminization of culture concept. Then listening last week to the President’s, “State of the Union Address,” the Democrat Party’s response by freshmen Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, and the narcissistic moronic resolutions being proposed by other Congressional members, I concluded that this would have to be at least a two part series.
In this first installment we shall tell a couple stories of some potential sources of leadership, with limited comments about the results of this emasculating process. In our next installment we will delve into why this country does not need a gender neutral debate when it comes to fighting the War on Terror, nor will emasculation succeed if you would like to come out of a stupendous change event with the least amount of collateral damage, to yourself, and the other non-evolved human beings that give real meaning to your life.
To set the stage for these stories we must briefly look at the context of our world today. Today a country’s boundaries are lines on maps drawn by essentially European colonial powers. This western colonialism began early in the 16th century and was fueled by the Reformation and other factors as countries established national identities outside the influence of the Roman church. Nationalism extended those influences throughout the world. These first colonial expansions generally took place under the rule of royal family monarchs.
The United States revolution was the first to set a course for a post colonial world with a republican form of government, not a democracy. Over the next century and a half, more and more colonies gained their independence from their colonial power. In the aftermath of World War II, for economic, political, and pragmatic reasons, the world was basically divided into somewhat independent states, with some sort of stable government put in place that could and would control any chaos. To a certain extent this independence maintained allegiance to the exiting colonial power specifically, but also to western economic culture as a whole.
Enter into this somewhat stable world, the Cold War and the rise of Communism. Since these new independent governments had little local support, they were ripe for communist type insurgency movements and wars.
These wars have had some success in replacing one regime with another, but for the most part they were the exchange of a foreign sponsored bureaucracy with a home grown bureaucracy. The one country where this communist insurgency was not successful was Burma. In Burma, British special forces along with some help from some similar type former British Empire forces were able to defeat this insurgency. This was successful over time by simply hunting down the bad guys where ever they were and killing them.
One of the principles of counter insurgency warfare is to train the local army to fight this ruthless type of battle. As such a powerful military force, without a history of democratic rule and more importantly democratic institutions, a military takeover is pretty much inevitable. Today a military government as vicious as the battle conditions that gave the country birth, now rule over the people of Myanmar, the former Burma, with a repressive regime.
George Bush gave his State of the Union Address last Tuesday evening. What we learned that has not been previously clearly stated in much of what the President as said, is that there is an insurgency war being fought in Iraq. That war is between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam. It was the President’s point, we need to make the now elected national government deal with this insurgency with an even hand if the country of Iraq will continue to exist as a nation. The President’s increase in American troops in Iraq is designed to provide forces to control and hold areas of Bagdad until the Iraqi government can manage to control these areas without adding to the violence, but reducing this insurgency power, either Shia or Sunni.
This will not come about through the reasonable civility of democratic debate, but by applying a fatal big stick. You win insurgency wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Burma by eliminating the bad guys. To be politically incorrect you have to kill them. In our emasculated western culture, both in the United States and in Europe, this concept is not only undefined, it is completely undefinable.
In that context, carnage, actually even a minute national sacrifice, is not something that the American Congress or either political party can, or is willing to deal with. Furthermore, since we were and are the prime instigators of this conflict, do we have any obligation to the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who just want to live their life and raise their families in peace? This concept again is completely foreign to the current narcism going on in Washington D.C.
Enter in the Democrat Party’s response by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. He did an excellent job about how in hindsight President Bush blundered in getting us into Iraq. He further gave and even finer explanation on why we should have not got involved in the first place. Then he walked off the cliff, when he stated that he would end Iraq just like President Eisenhower ended the Korean War.
Let’s see, Korea, a divided little peninsula, one part is one of the most prosperous democratic nations on the earth. The other is the most repressive dictatorship, perhaps in the history of civilization, even though the 20th century has some other prime nominees for this honor.
Some fifty years later, North Korea’s economic livelihood is maintained by selling terrorism resources to whomever can pay the price. Perhaps, just perhaps, if President General Eisenhower would have let General MacArthur finish the job, the world today would be a safer place. It is really too bad Senator Webb didn’t put his speech in the proper context, perhaps it was just an error in judgment born by America’s gender neutral desires.
Whoever ultimately wins in Iraq, whatever that is, it will take place by he who kills all the other bad guys. It is that simple. If we get out, even with some sort of emasculated western government in place, we still must be willing to deal with the reality that current western democratic emasculated ideals are not part of either Shia or Sunni Islamic culture. We can pay the price now, or we can pay the price later, on their terms rather than ours.
Western style democracies, especially emasculated ones, are not part of any teaching of Islam and we will have to reeducate the whole population with such western ideals as self determination, personal, political and economic freedom to name a few. That will be a long, bloody and painful process, that will not just go away by emasculated thinking on the part of so called leaders. Our failure in Korea, should be an example of what not to do, rather than an ideal to emulate.
The other story takes place much closer to home, actually within about 100 yards, and much more on a human scale of understanding. Last week began the only nice weather days in Seattle in two months. As best as I can recall this stretches back to before the windstorm that blew down the blue spruce tree that blocked my view of Lake Washington. Between my house and the lake shore are two homes and a small city park.
Having never been able to correctly find some reference from the house to the park or the other way around because of the tree, I decided to go down to the park and improve my lake reference points. The park is one of the city’s swimming beaches and has always had a bathhouse with changing rooms and restrooms, but a few years ago they remodeled the facility and built a small community meeting room on one end of the existing building.
When I got down to the park there was some sort of class going on in this conference room. They had all sorts of discussion point charts taped to the walls. It was obviously some Seattle type workshop. While I was still looking around the park, the participants broke from their class room setting and moved out onto a large concrete patio. On the patio the people were divided into two groups.
Each group was told to get inside and stretch out two ropes that the seminar leaders had placed on the patio. Once the ropes were taunt and everyone was part of two circles, the participants were told to close their eyes and without looking, either form an equilateral triangle or a square depending upon which group you were associated with.
Then once given sufficient time, at least according to the program’s leaders, the two groups were to merge locations becoming the outline of a house. The square being the main part of the house, the triangle becoming the roof.
It was amazing how quickly the triangle came together. The guy who was to be the point of the triangle took charge and moved the rest of the group to the hypotenuse. Since he was stationed just about where he needed to be to connect with the house, the rest of the team either moved to the right or the left until the made contact with the group coming in the opposite direction. Then all they had to do was try and get in a straight line.
The square was not that easy. Initially, with eight people in the group all wanted to be a corner. However, they eventually decided that four groups of 2 would make the required adjustment. They just had to come together in the middle and back out evenly to form the square. That not being difficult enough, the sides of the square had to line up properly with the now waiting roof section.
After what seemed like eternity the workshop leaders declared that the square and the triangle were completed. Then it was time to merge the square and the triangle together to form the house, since they were formed about 10 feet apart. To make the difficult even more challenging was the fact that the seminar leaders had laid out the ropes so that a large concrete planter interfered with this moving process. Therefore, one of the seminar leaders had to help the blind triangle move around the obstacle.
At that point I had seen enough of the exercise of futility, so I don’t know if that was all there was. I suspect knowing Seattle that was pretty much it. If we all work together and overcome our blindness we can build a wonderful house of community.
My take is more like the blind leading the blind, is an exercise in futility. You didn’t build a community house, you sort of meshed some ropes into somewhat, loosely somewhat, a triangle and square shape. You called it a house, similarly to a tree falling in the forest that makes no sound.
If you want to see the way the world should function, repeat the process giving one member of the program sight. If you really want to see results, next time appoint an overall leader and a leader of each of the square and triangle groups, all three with sight.
The blind leading the blind gets nothing done. In the world of all blind people, the one eyed man is king. We live in a culture where God didn’t create mankind in His image, the text is clearly masculine, he didn’t even create human beings, it just sort of happened, like calling a crude rope outline a home.
God made woman from man, God did not clone her female. God made them equal before him. That is the basis of not only the Bible, but also all of historic western culture. If that be so, for some reason God gave male mankind a leadership role, and to make things truly equal God must have give the female mankind the more important social graces. Only in our emasculated culture is it the desire not to have men and women, but some sort of emasculated rational robot.
Next week we shall venture were modern angels fear to tread. Thankfully, attempting this only in the context of dealing with stupendous change.