Imagine what details I would uncover if I condescended to read the books that have been written about Nichola Goddard. She became a captain at some point; but she was an agenda-driven virago both before and after that. Imagine if she had identified as ‘transgender’? How the mad radicals must be salivating for their first transsexual kill! O the medals that they yearn to give away for that! They don’t care who has to die on the altar of their monstrous ideology. Willing casualties are numerous; they will not disappoint. The invincible mindset is the norm among youngsters, no matter what gender they ‘identify’ or ‘present’ as. Is the story of Goddard’s girlie-bag-bravery made-up to make her look like a warrior for feminism? That may be, for mainstream media and feminist sources commonly crawl with lies. But I believe the story more than I doubt it because feminists will, indeed, bust the brass when the government has their impudent backs.
There is this expression in the King James Bible that sensitive readers cringe to come across and that oversensitive readers would like to skip over entirely: ‘him that pisseth against the wall’ (1 Kings 14.10.) First-time readers of the Bible will be shocked that the word of God includes a term like that or that translators would put a term like that in as the word of God. (Young’s Literal Translation has, ‘sitting on the wall.’) Some words even more vulgar-sounding than the word ‘piss’ were acceptable in the age of King James. But the translators of the KJV were chaste men; therefore they would not have translated the way they did here without good reason for doing so. Either way, on the authority of God’s word or based on the judgment of judicious translators, what the Bible says is the measure of what we may speak on, though with some words, as in the case here with ‘pisseth,’ we essay, but cannot but fail, to quote abashedly. We should be thankful, nonetheless, that a wimpy word like ‘pee’ is not in the Bible. (I once heard a male cop excuse himself to go ‘pee’; how unbiblical is that?) So this phrase, whether ‘pisseth against the wall’ or ‘sitting on the wall’ occurs a smattering of times in the Old Testament. In the instance cited above, a character is calling out enemies who are wont to occupy walls of defense; and the warriors that sat on these walls or relieved themselves on the sides of them, were men. That men did the watching and fighting was so much the norm that the expression, ‘pisseth against the wall,’ was no doubt customary; it was idiomatic. That men do the fighting is so much the rule in the Bible that no argument is made in there as to what gender a warrior should be. The gender is assumed, presumed, and taken for granted. So anyone who can’t piss against a wall with the boys has no business being a combat soldier. The soldiers have better things to do than to wait for their officer to find her tissue—better things to do than to look at their watches or look the other way while she rushes to the bushes to take care of her bathroom necessities or (perish the thought!) even her monthlies. What if a soldier has to interrupt her while she is taking care of one of the many intimate (and we should hope, secret) acts of her ‘toilette’? A soldier would be as much ashamed, I suppose, as the servants of King Eglon were when they had to break in on him, thinking that he was taking too much time to ‘cover his feet’ (Judges 3.24, 25.) Yes, soldiers in war, and even on exercise, have enough cares on their mind without having to be ashamed every time the officer has to excuse herself in order to take care of what the Bible calls her ‘issue.’ It is a shame to put soldiers through this. It is a shame for them to have to put up with it. What a shame that a woman would be brazen enough, not only to cause trouble and shame by her intrusion, but to take command over the soldiers who are troubled and shamed by her presence! The male soldiers, of course, would not complain except in private in twos or threes. They are not allowed to openly protest. They are conditioned and pressured to conform. If told to dress up like women in order to walk a mile in high heels, they just do it, not even realizing, maybe, that they are being feminized, degraded, and made fun of by the mental conditioners who came up with the idea. The soldiers, no doubt, have a lot of fun with the event: picking out their heels, maybe passing the lipstick around, adjusting each others’ bra straps, winking at each other, and remarking on who cuts the sexiest figure; but, for any or all of this, they are mocked and disrespected by mainstream media and the masterminds of their unmaking. What must the Muslims think when they see Canadian soldiers belittled by the feminist cause? No wonder our soldiers have targets on their backs! In the Bible, women are told to exemplify shamefacedness (1 Timothy 2.9.) In Canada, it is the men—even soldiers who are supposed to be the bravest men—who are made to exemplify it.
No comments:
Post a Comment