from National Review by Kevin D. Williamson May 24, 2015 1:45 PM @kevinNR
The soul of a bureaucrat
Robert Gates has long been surrounded by men in uniform, first as secretary of defense, now as president of the Boy Scouts of America. His time at DoD coincided with the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexual soldiers — a repeal effectively imposed by the courts — and as the leader of the Boy Scouts he is calling for a repeal of that organization’s policy banning homosexual adults from serving as troop leaders or in other leadership roles.
Gates, whose likeness appears in Webster’s with the entry for “bureaucrat,” says that the Boy Scouts’ policy on homosexuals is “unsustainable.” He warns that attempting to maintain it would mean “the end of us as a national movement.” This sentiment expresses a great deal of what is wrong with the leadership culture of the United States.
. . . is widespread and it’s been going on for a very long time.
Naturally, the Official Boy Scout response to violation of the Oath is to capitulate, to endorse the lawless rule-breaking of “rogue packs” and in the process, tell every boy brave enough to associate with Scouting he is somehow defective, part of the evil curse of America’s scourge of toxic masculinity.
1 US informal A weak or servile man (often used as a contemptuous term for a man with moderate or progressive political views).
2 A man whose wife is sexually unfaithful; a cuckold.
Origin: Early 18th century: abbreviation of cuckold; cuck (sense 1) dates from the early 21st century.
Surbaugh then reassures sexually repressed fathers and their insecure sons they will be tolerated, at least for the present.
If you’ve got a pack that has all boys in it and you want to keep doing this, we celebrate it and we love it. We think it’s fantastic.”
That’s really White of you, Michael. Really. It is.
A Scout is Trustworthy. A Scout’s honor is to be trusted. If he were to violate his honor by telling a lie or by cheating or by not doing exactly a given task, when trusted on his honor, he may be directed to hand over his Scout Badge.
— “Handbook for Boys” (1911 — 1959) Earnest Seton, editor, also
— “Boy Scout Handbook” (1960 — 1972) William Hillcourt, editor
was changed in 1972 to be more . . . umm . . . flexible, with a built-in “out” — no need to hand over his badge for deliberate moral failure:
TRUSTWORTHY. A Scout tells the truth. He keeps his promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on him.
— “Boy Scout Handbook” (1972 — 1979) simulacrum edition by Frederick L. Hines
Improved Scouting Redux — Because It Didn’t Work the First Time
“Improved Scouting” effeminized and de-masculinized Boy Scouting. It also marked the formal effort to “broker in” females to Boy Scouting just as the apostate Episcopal church did at approximately the same time.
Oh and in case you are wondering, the Episcopal church is all but dead. It seems embracing feminism, homosexuality, and the Other while expelling masculinity, Holy Matrimony and their Anglo-Saxon customer base is bad for business. Worse for the church business is rejecting the actual teaching of Jesus Christ.
The future of the BSA Inc is carved in stone.
As it happens, BSA Corp membership peaked in 1972, the year Improved Scouting was introduced, at 6,500,000 boys.
Today, BSA Corp counts a measly 2,400,000 kids despite kicking its core White suburban kids in the teeth. Have you read anything published by BSA in the past decade? It’s embarassing, how they chase after Hispanic, African-American, homosexual, and now feminist members that never show up for the date.
9/10 of red blooded, all-American boyhood wants nothing to do with Boy Scouting. It’s is no wonder, really. Scouting stopped being manly decades ago. The current BSA “Scout Handbook” mocks every Boy Scout ever to swear his oath to the Scout Law.
BSA membership perfectly tracks major American social trends. Notice the inverse correlation of feminism and LGBT acceptance, which is mirrored by really awful BSA Inc policy decisions and gender-neutral, emasculated language in Scout Books. Also, official patriotic recognition diminishes steady during periods of decay as confirmed in most recent Handbook. Of particular interest, both previous efforts to effeminize Scouting, 1972’s “Improved” Scouting Plan and 1998’s “Family Cub Scout Camping” backfired dramatically. Boy Scouting is for Boys. Period.
Cuck or Conspirator?
Is clueless Michael Surbaugh an idiotic cuck who actually believes the Left will love him by destroying the last remaining traditional American institution?
Or is he a willing conspirator, destroying an effective institution that still, despite fifty years of subversive sabotage, manages to transmit the traditional American culture to our sons?
Read his biography. Read his speeches. Watch his videos. If you can stomach it, read what passes for ‘handbooks” and other literature out of Surbaugh’s BSA.
When you’re done, you tell me. Is Surbaugh a cuck? Or is he a conspirator?
In the UK, girl scouts are called Girl Guides or GirlGuiding— a 107-year-old organization founded in 1910, with a total membership of 553,633 in 2013.
The Girl Guides recently updated its rules that are a boon for pedophiles.
According to the new rules, male-to-female (MtF) “transgenders” will be allowed to share toilets, changing rooms and beds with girls. Since Girl Guides members are aged 5 to 25, that means adult biological men will share toilets, changing rooms and beds with little girls.
The Telegraphreports, November 26, 2017, that the new guidelines, published on the Girl Guides’ website, say that because “the use of gendered facilities,” including showers, toilets and changing rooms, “can cause anxiety . . . members are allowed to use the facilities of the gender they self-identify as.” That is because “girl” is “based on gender identity. This means that any child who self-identifies as a girl should feel safe and welcome in our girl-only space regardless of the sex that they were assigned at birth.”
Girl Guides’ CEO Julie Bentley said the organization follows the requirements set out in the UK’s Equality Act 2010, which states that organizations providing single-sex services must treat people according to their acquired gender, and allow people to legally challenge their gender without facing “demeaning” rules that force them to undergo a formal medical diagnosis.
“In line with our values of inclusion, we welcome any young person who self-identifies as a girl or young woman. If a young person doesn’t feel comfortable sharing accommodation, for whatever reason, we encourage them to talk to their leader about alternative accommodation and facilities.”
There are concerns, however, that sharing accommodation and personal facilities will threaten the safety and privacy of girls, especially as.
The guidance states that it is not “best practice” to inform parents that a trans person will be attending a residential event, and so parents of younger Girl Guides members would not be automatically told if their daughter will be sharing facilities with people “who self-identify as girls” — that is, with biological males who claim to be females.
David Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouth in South Wales, told The Mail: “If transgender girls who are physically male are going to be sharing facilities, it’s going to make some girls threatened and uncomfortable and the Guides shouldn’t be doing that.”
It is not known how many “transgender” members are in the Girl Guides.
I stumbled on this today looking for material to train our Webelos scouts for their Arrow of Light award. The present handbooks are simply awful — the Soviets wrote more inspiring manufacturing reports, translated into English than the soul-killing, mind-numbing awful that is the Boy Scout Handbook series today.
The Art of Manliness blog — one of our favorites! — took a close look at the Centennial edition of the BSA Handbook and compared it to the classic original. This portion was largely inspired by a 2013 Clairmont Institute essay by Kathleen Arnn.
What has been dropped or reduced in the modern handbook is telling. Gone is the section on chivalry, which traced the Boy Scouts’ heritage back through the pioneers and Pilgrims, and to the knights of the Middle Ages. While the 1911 handbook has a lengthy chapter on Patriotism and Citizenship (including a letter from Theodore Roosevelt on “Practical Citizenship”), which outlines the history of the United States, the meaning of the flag, and the purpose of various governmental bodies, the modern handbook has greatly shrunk the discussion of such things in both length and detail. The original is also generously peppered with references to great men in history for young boys to emulate, while the mention of such “heroes” is almost entirely absent from the one published in 2009 (being inspired by history isn’t much in fashion these days).
Perhaps most striking is the different way in which the two guides address the idea of good character. The original didn’t shy away from strong admonitions like, “It is horrible to be a coward. It is weak to yield to fear and heroic to face danger without flinching,” and “The honor of a scout will not permit of anything but the highest and the best and the manliest. The honor of a scout is a sacred thing, and cannot be lightly set aside or trampled on.”
In contrast, the modern version frames its discussion of character in terms of its inoffensive modern equivalent: leadership and personal development. Instead of being couched in the absolute language of moral virtue, doing the right thing becomes a matter or “making the most of yourself” and “getting along with others.”
AOM’s contribution was to compare merit badges from 1910 to merit badges of 2010. As there are a number of badges that survived the century, this was a straight forward task. The results are a side by side set of graphics with the requirements of each.
what stands out for all the modern badges is how much longer and more involved the guidelines are today than they used to be. In the 1911 handbook, earning each badge involved the completion of a short list of one-sentence requirements. Modern badge requirements, on the other hand, run to as many as ten paragraph-long sections, the first of which is always a discussion of the need to discuss safety considerations with one’s leader. The gardening badge for example, requires the Scout to discuss with his counselor what hazards he might encounter if he happened to unfortunately plant his tomatoes near a beehive.
All old time Scouts see this. The result is that Scouting is perhaps more boring even than school, so the handbooks become expensive bricks, heeded mainly in the breech.
Camping is the activity for which the Boy Scouts are best known. In comparing the original camping merit badge to today’s, one can see how the hands-on requirements have been loosened; for example, Scouts formerly had to sleep out for 50 nights, know how to build a fire without matches, and construct a raft. On the flip side, the modern badge has decreased that requirement to 20 nights, and has greatly expanded the more mental requirements — making checklists, creating plans, and describing different camping guidelines and pieces of equipment.
Perhaps the most compelling contrast is found in the Inventions merit badge:
Yes, you read that correctly. Our boys were expected to invent something and patent it.
Arnn captured the cucking self-abnegation of BSA honchos since the Improved Scouting Program nearly destroyed it in the 1970s. Here is an extended quote:
Today, there is a different approach to leadership: “success begins with a vision—picturing yourself where you want to be.” And because anyone can have a vision, anyone can be a leader. “You are a collection of wonderful talents, ideas, and experiences,” the new handbook’s Leadership chapter begins. “What do you want your future to look like tomorrow?”
The old handbook spoke proudly of the chivalric tradition; the new apologizes for the antiquated example of the knights. It sandwiches a few cursory paragraphs on moral virtue between a lengthy discussion of drugs and alcohol and a section on sexual responsibility. Moral choices are reduced to healthy choices. Doing the courageous thing becomes equivalent to refusing a cigarette at a party.
Instead of an exciting chapter on Patriotism and Citizenship, the handbook now offers a perfunctory discussion, re-titled just “Citizenship.” In the new handbook Scouts are citizens of their country, but also of the world. There are the same detailed instructions for folding and flying the flag, but the accompanying history lesson has been shortened and stripped of its vividness. There are, by my count, four heroes in the book. They are the founders of Scouting: British founder Robert Baden Powell, the naturalist Ernest Thompson Seton, outdoorsman Daniel Carter Beard, and James E. West, who led the BSA through its first 30 years. Each gets a sentence and a picture. American heroes, so numerous and colorful in the original handbook, are almost absent. Washington and Lincoln are each mentioned one time. Here is their sentence: “We remember the sacrifices and achievements of Americans with federal holidays, including observances of the birthdays of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.”
BSA was and remains a hollow shell of its formerly unquestioned status as the premiere training ground for our sons. Pandering to POCs became its own priority, even to the neglect and insult their core audience. Membership is in free fall because BSA doesn’t want white boys. They don’t want patriots or Christian believers. They want your money and are willing to extract it from you by the extortion of your sons.
Enoch Heise’s post “How to Spot a Broken Chain of Command” should be required reading by all Scouters and fathers that give a damn about their sons’ upbringing. More than that, it shouild be required reading for all BSA employees and “leaders” — starting with district and council executives.
There are two ways that this chain can be broken. The first is by an absence of clearly defined leadership. Scouts become confused. They will get frustrated because they don’t know who is supposed to be calling the shots.
Do you know who runs Scouting in your area?
You should. Find out and retake command of your son’s scouting experience.
It seems long ago for those of us in the trenches of the American kulturkampf. But it really hasn’t been long at all since BSA actually believed the words they spoke, starting with the Scout Oath and Law.
Check it out. Then hold them to it. Every. Single. Letter.
The only segment clearly in favor of this move is “millennial democrats” who are the absolute least likely ever to consider joining the Boy Scouts. Clearly, market appeal had nothing to do with this decision because any half way competent survey would have revealed the exact same result.
How many of you remember “Scouting/USA”? It was the first go at unisex, un-boyed, un-Americanized scouting in 1972ish. It even featured a new red logo, red being the standard issue color of the international socialist revolutionary movement i.e., communism. The handbook was stripped of scoutcraft, community organizing, “child rearing”(!), drug use, and trendy conservation taking its place. Membership collapsed and BSA had to hire back the hated Green Bar Bill Hillcourt to pick up the pieces.
Majority Opposes Boy Scouts Decision Allowing Girls to Join
by Carrie Dann
A majority of Americans oppose the decision by the Boy Scouts of America to start admitting girls next year, a new poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal shows. But, as with many other issues in the current polarized era, political ideology has a lot to do with how the public views the new policy.
Nearly six-in-ten Americans — 57 percent — disagree with the move to allow girls to join the Boy Scouts, with 37 percent voicing strong opposition.