How important is physical strength?

How important is physical strength in violent confrontations? I’ve heard women say that a man’s superior brute strength is not such a big deal, that it’s useful mainly for opening jars. Among primitive humans, those who could not open jars would starve to death, leaving only those who could open jars to reproduce.

But on a more serious note, few would seriously argue that physical strength is not a major factor in determining the victor in a confrontation. Few would argue this, but some, such as Colonel Ellen Haring, do make this argument. The Washington Times reports:

An Army officer writing in a prestigious journal says the services should not overemphasize physical strength when deciding whether a woman qualifies for direct ground combat.

Col. Ellen Haring, on the staff of the U.S. Army War College, says commanders need to downplay obstacle courses and judge a service member’s ability to stay calm and think quickly.

Liberals, if they had the ability to think rationally, would find themselves in a bind when it comes to military service. On the one hand, they cannot demand academic/intellectual standards because this would disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics. On the other hand, they cannot emphasize physical strength standards because this would exclude a majority of women. For the bulk of liberals, the answer (as usual) is to stick their heads in the sand and make believe that women will be held to the same standards as men. If they were, there would be very few women in the military, police forces or fire departments – and this simply will not do. So Colonel Haring takes a different approach. She wants to emphasize other skills:
In focusing only on physical strength in violent situations, she said: “We diminish the importance of what are probably more important traits in soldiers: the ability to remain calm, focused, creative and quick-thinking in times of extreme duress. These are the traits that we should be measuring as we assess soldiers for combat specialties.

Yes, it’s true that these are important traits, but who’s to say that these traits, and physical strength, are mutually exclusive? We’ve got well over three hundred million people in this country. Surely we can find enough volunteers, who possess all of the above, to stock our military. Haring seems to be implying that men are less likely to remain calm, focused, creative and quick-thinking than women. I have no idea which reality she’s been living in, but in mine, men seem to have the advantage there too.
A little off topic, but I’ll point out that traditional societies sacrifice their men, and not their women, in war; they’re expendable. As long as there are enough women of child-bearing age left in the population, the nation can recover. But the United States is no longer a nation; it’s just a place on the map that is subject to a particular government, which claims a monopoly on the use of force within those borders. The official stance is that an “American” soldier can just as easily be replaced with a Bantu or a Mongol – as long as he has the proper papers. Once we’ve established that an “American” is interchangeable with anybody on Earth, women have also become expendable. If all W.A.S.P. women, of child-bearing age, disappear from the U.S. tomorrow, it wouldn’t be considered a problem; more can be imported from Congo or Afghanistan – and they’ll be just as “American.” This is why the acceptance of women into combat roles goes hand in hand with the destruction of the ethno-state.

But back to the point, since physical strength does matter, guns are all the more necessary for weaker people to protect themselves. By most accounts, most victims of spousal beatings are women. The reason for this should be obvious: Women are weaker than men, just as children are weaker than adults. Erica Ritz writes, in The Blaze:

The average woman is not as strong as the average man.  In a hand-to-hand struggle, even if she goes to the gym five times a week, the woman is probably going to lose.

Unless she has a gun, and knows how to use it.

“There’s a famous quote…[that] goes, ‘God made men, but Sam Colt made [them] equal,’” Jason Hanson, a former CIA Officer and the author of “The Covert Guide to Concealed Carry,” told TheBlaze.  “A great example of this is when a few months back, [an] 18-year girl in Oklahoma used a shotgun to stop a home intruder who had a knife.  The bottom line is, a gun is without a doubt the best way for a woman to defend herself in a worst-case scenario.”

I would like to add that the same principle applies to smaller/weaker men. Men such as George Zimmerman. If we google “unarmed black”, we get an astounding 21,400,000 results. In many of those search results, if not most of them, the implication is that the “unarmed blacks” were helpless. In the case of Trayvon Martin, he was an “unarmed black kid” because he had not yet reached his 18th birthday. In a few months, he would have been an “unarmed black man.” Whether he had reached his 18th birthday or not was irrelevant to Zimmerman. Martin was 6′ 2″ and much stronger than Zimmerman. Zimmerman’s gun was his equalizer.

Those who oppose the private ownership of guns are actually advocating for the rule of the jungle, where brute strength the main determining factor in a confrontation. The very term “unarmed” is misleading. After all, Martin did have arms, and he could have used them to kill Zimmerman.

It would be interesting to hear Colonel Haring’s take on the private ownership of guns.

About jewamongyou

I am a paleolibertarian Jew who is also a race-realist. My opinions are often out of the mainstream and often considered "odd" but are they incorrect? Feel free to set me right if you believe so!
This entry was posted in Africa and blacks, feminism and men's issues, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to How important is physical strength?

  1. Tad says:

    Women appear to be beaten up more often than men because men fail to report, as well as the because a man can hide the injuries caused by a woman whereas the injuries inflicted by the man will likely be more serious. There are studies out there (and I’m sorry I don’t have the links in front of me) showing that, in cases in which both people in a couple were beating up each other, the woman was the instigator about 50% of the time. In cases with a single aggressor, the woman was the instigator the majority of the time.

  2. baaltanit says:

    Thank you for your good work. We at wnthinktank are formally renouncing anti-Semitism. We still may not agree on many things, perhaps not even the definition of anti-Semitism, but we appreciate what you’re doing and would be interested in knowing your thoughts on how to bring the White Jewish and gentile communities more into accord. This is an olive branch for any Jews who wish to accept. If not, good luck in all of your endeavors. We wish you no harm, only the best.

    • jewamongyou says:

      As for bringing Jews and white nationalists into accord, as you say, I’ve written about this previously. Here and here for example.

      I have no interest in maintaining hostility toward others, if they don’t have hostility toward me. I do find it peculiar that you seem to identify with National Socialists. They were not as generous toward pro-white Jews as you are. They had plenty of time to show more sympathy toward those who could have been their friends, yet they didn’t. So clearly you are more enlightened than they were (at least than the ones who were in power). I’m not sure the video you link to, regarding Jews who fought for the Third Reich, can be used to support the idea that many Jews actually supported Hitler. Most of them weren’t even Jews, but half-Jews or quarter Jews. As for those who were “pure” Jews, somehow I suspect they were Jews who appeared Aryan. I doubt the Nazis would have accepted the likes of me, even if I were to fully support their cause. Anyway, I haven’t viewed the second part of the video yet.

      I do look forward to continued dialog, both here and on your blog.

      • baaltanit says:

        Well, modern National Socialism is not Hitler’s National Socialism. Modern National Socialism is no longer German but International for one.

        Modern National Socialists have rejected Hitler’s hatred for Slavs, Czechs, Poles, Russians, French and Americans.

        So rejecting Hitler’s stance on Jews would be entirely possible theoretically.

        While you are correct that the people in the video are half and quarter and Nordic looking Jews, that is still important. Most National Socialists consider those kinds of people to be fully Jewish. So while it may not make sense from a Jewish standpoint, it makes perfect sense from a White racist standpoint.

        National Socialism as well as the KKK are attractive to racist Whites because they are seen as uncompromising in a world where we see Whites betraying their people at every turn.

        However, I am not a National Socialist. I believe that it was a Nationalist movement and that such a paradygm is out dated.

        I am an International Racial Socialist.

        The fact that you look Jewish does not bother us. We would expect Jewish people to look Jewish.

        Race mixing is bad for Whites because it lowers our average IQ or eliminates our race.

        Jews would do neither. Jews have a high average IQ and are not numerically large enough to darken our race as a whole.

        This is why your phenotype is not a bilogical threat.

  3. sebastianprinsloo says:

    unmitigated twaddle, Colonel Haring! specifically in combat an infantryman must be able to carry a heavy load, have the strentgh and endurance to be mobile with the load and still be able to fight when the hat drops. In a prolonged violent confrontation such as a contact , testosterone rules!

  4. Nationalist says:

    Soldiers don’t generally use their strength to fight – they need strength and endurance to get to the fight with enough kit to win the fight. Man soldier will win the fight if woman soldier can only carry half as much ammo.

  5. Anonymous2 says:

    It isn’t the lack of strength, so much as the lack of honor, that disgraces women in the military. They repeatedly promise to equal the achievements of men, but constantly fail and then threaten lawsuits or altered standards or false accusations to ruin careers. They’re never accountable to their promises. Women who want power have a staggering lack of respect or appreciation for basic decency, the complete opposite of the confident and powerful male leader.

    Women won’t accept punishment for their wrongs. They don’t understand the concept of failure, or of punishment, or even obedience in the abstract sense, but only of status and pecking order. Men who naively offer them respect are seen correctly as low status males, and they are only opening themselves up for abuse and even lower status over time.

    Few people care anymore about bench press results or marching time. It is the destruction of trust in any institution that accepts women, that makes modern man so angry. And it is so tragic that this generation is becoming replaced by high fertility genital mutilating barbarians! Women won’t ever have even modest liberty again!

    To the Nazi a few comments up, don’t forget that the greatest country to have ever been, built itself on a merit based democracy. The top 10% (in literacy, wealth, and connections) or so of men getting the vote makes for the most just government. It’s tempting to be a reactionary now and counter an extreme with another extreme, but it won’t end well. Yes, I know that a merit based democracy is now seen as extreme as well…

  6. Jon says:

    The above poster gets it exactly correct, re: women. They don’t have the social flexibility nor non-self interested political consistency to be a significant portion of functional military combat related units. If you are ever a man in an all woman work environment, you would realize that their notions of equality and ultimately self-interested liberal ’empathy’ for minorities (most commonly themselves) do not extend to others when they are the majority. They don’t acknowledge responsibility for mistakes or failure, and hence they are poor at forming functional teams outside of those that can mold their behavior with pecking order pressure or social pressure from other women. Their behavior in these groups is wrongly dictated by these motivating forces and not logic. Simply, they are poor crisis situation team members because their core evolutionary psychology is socially not logically driven. They are unable to gain meta-cortrol of their social psychology. Because the behavior of men is not socially driven at it’s core, men can more readily adapt to challenging social roles, ie: as members of teams in combat situations. Furthermore, physical performance is a statistical phenomenon in a combat situation, all other things being equal. The strength and reaction time gender difference would lead to more female soldier deaths and, indirectly, more male soldier deaths over time even if a few super-women can be found to match male performance. The inevitable sacrifice in life isn’t worth the nod to “equality”.

    re: White Nationalism and Jewish Nationalism. It’s a bit ridiculous for any ethnocentric Jewish person to offer their approval of the, by all measures, weaker efforts of gentile whites to assemble some measure of political nationalism. That is, if we can accept that what is politically moral for one group is politically moral for all groups. It is my view that this is the moral and common sense view for all nationalists to have, only rescinded when other nationalists try to impinge on the rights of other groups (as internationalists). The approval should be implicit and assumed, lest a double standard is being applied as a form of political aggression. If that is the case, then we would truly be foes and it would be ridiculous for anyone to suggest that we should occupy space within the same country (nation).

    That being said, I personally subscribe to intra-cultural Jewish morality (which is the reverse of the morality being ‘offered’ to us by liberal Jewish forces – many of whom fervently subscribe to conservative morals for their own group). It’s just that conservative Jewish morality (ethnic nationalism reinforced by effective conservative family values and endogamy) is politically off-limits to white gentiles. Christianity, a sect of Judaism, is conveniently opposite to Judaism in the core values and practices that enable the heart of the tribe of Judea, the Orthodoxy, to remain perfectly resistant to liberalism. There is no culturally enforced de-facto racial endogamy in Christianity. There is proselytizing and missions to foreigners and foreign lands. Conversion is as easy as being dipped in water. Instead of “an-eye-for-an-eye” we have forgiveness and rather strict codes of non-violence. The core text of Christianity is stripped of everything that makes Judaism a politically effective system of ethnic identity. Convenient. I find myself wondering what politically expedient forms of tribal religion were in place before racially impotent Christianity brutally swept through Europe. These inconvenient truths non-withstanding, I agree that a mutually beneficial and peaceful partnership between endogenous Europeans and Jews is desirable. The future of that relationship will likely entail leaving liberal Christianity’s corpse to rot in Europe. No politically aware conservative desires its resurrection and the political vulnerabilities that it injects into the culture. The Christian run refugee import industry is enough to prove my claim in this regard.

    However, does this theoretical partnership mean that gentiles will be able to own and control industry and media in the Jewish land? Or will such ownership and political cross-‘influence’ continue to be a one way street? Jews are going to have to start being pro-Aryan, and respect a healthy European nationalism as a mater of course, if they wish Europe and Europeans to be truly pro-Semitic. It’s only a matter of time before the American right becomes widely impatient with the liberal Jewish juggernaut and right wing Israel’s lack of singular support for the American right while firmly requesting and culturally reinforcing unquestioning support for Israel. Again, Israeli-American cross politics are a one way street of support. It’s not right, pun intended, and it’s obvious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s