How long before it’s about white, Anglo, male privilege?

For those wondering where the ban on military art comes from, I remind you of this cracker: Battling with words.

Defence lavishly funded this research project in 2014 (I wrote about it here) and it deals with all the mean and nasty ways words like ‘courage’ are used to exclude others, both inside and outside of the Army.

Really. It does. I kid you not.

See:

Courage

I didn’t realise that courage was to be frowned upon. But, then again, the new age military decided that I was unfit for it, so I am not the best judge of its progressive ways. However, I do tend to agree that the Army’s focus on courage in battle was always a little difficult for the RAAF to handle (TRIGGER WARNING: That was a joke (but it was also kind of true)).

Also, since when was the Australian Public Service a ‘service’ within the Australian Defence Force?

Anyway, now you can understand why modern infantry bureaucrats are no longer focused on battlefield courage and are more preoccupied with female recruitment. This makes it a more respectful organisation including, presumably, of the enemy.

That’s why the new corps role is likely to be amended from its well-known creed to this:

The role of the infantry is to seek out and be close with potential friendlies, to kiss and cuddle them, to seize and hold hands and to show respect both to wrong and to right, regardless of gender, ethnicity or other progressive refrains.

Battling with words also went to war with another set of words: male and Anglo-Australian.

Specifically, it stated categorically that these words were no longer desirable and by that it really meant that the people these words described were less than wanted in the modern military.

In other words, because white males sign up in far greater numbers to serve this nation than others they are racist and the only way this can be combated is by entrenching institutionalised racism against white males (which, technically, is also a form of sexism).

And that idea, of course, is absolutely rolled-gold modern logic and also lunacy of the highest order.

Which brings us to the Chief of Army’s letter banning certain forms of military art, such as helmets.

This letter used words such as ‘values’ and ‘ethical’ and, more humbly, ‘implicitly encourages the inculcation of an arrogant hubris’ but, luckily, did not exclude others by mentioning the word ‘courage’. It’s like it has been drafted right from Battling with words.

So I’m guessing that before this whole military symbol ban broo-hah-ha is over, someone, somewhere will tell the Diggers that the unhappiness they’re feeling is nothing more than a symptom of white, Anglo-Australian male privilege…

Punisher Care Bear

…and that care bears are banned too because it’s not funny.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of eight children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares

Share This

Share this post with your friends!