The ADF, in an act of compliance with the great resetters of the West, are Woke-ifying the military and it is good news — for China.
Now, as readers are aware, we are the fully Wokest Nationalist site on the web. We believe that Nationalism can only be achieved through gender quotas, diversity hiring, and instruction in Critical Race Theory.
For instance, there aren’t enough black people represented in the White Pride Movement, something we believe needs to be corrected. But until the racists of the White Nationalist world can enter the 21st Century, and understand that excluding people of colour is a throwback to the days of Jim Crow, we are relegated to the spectator’s row.
Nevertheless, we can look to Australian institutions that are addressing these issues and follow their example
Changes to the Australian military
The Australian Defence Force is leading the way in breaking down systemic racism. It is also working hard to entrench a new order that recognises the diversity of identity and aims to be thoroughly inclusive.
For too long, merit has been designated on the back of garish masculine ‘heroics’; deeds requiring such outdated concepts as ‘bravery’, ‘valour’ and ‘strength.’ The very words are ugly to utter and it’s a well-known fact supported by the strong opinion that speaking them can, and usually does, invest the speaker with colonialist qualities.
As any clear-thinking person can see, these are exclusivist terms that denote behaviours that are typical of gender stereotypes. Moreover, they marginalise cowards and those who may not be able to rise to the level of ‘heroics’ for an array of personal choices.
Archaic perceptions of ‘achievement,’ such as those mentioned are barriers to inclusivity as they exclude not just cowards, but those whose inclination to a less Alpha identity is overlooked, such as women, and non-binary warriors (an outdated word rife with violent semiotics that needs replacing).
The first area in which this is being addressed is via the projection of new battlefield norms. Put simply, the battleground is an unsafe place, and as such new requirements for frontline infantry are that safe spaces be zoned for areas in which traditional ‘combat’ is occurring.
These safe spaces are places that soldiers can choose to engage the oppositional human resources in a manner that doesn’t require the barbaric colonial acts of life-stealing or the inflicting of psychological wounds. Even in the safe spaces a member of the ADF, of whichever chosen pronoun, may experience anxiety. This is why the ADF is now leading the world with the introduction of revised terminology that addresses a hitherto unacknowledged condition — pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Often, awaiting circumstances most likely to traumatise a military human resource is as traumatic as experiencing actual trauma therefore PTSD has to be reconfigured to cover the preliminary stages. This might occur before a human resource even chooses to enlist, and subsequently, provision for care as well as financial resources must be allocated for the care of such human resources undergoing service-related fatigue.
At this stage, the term ‘service’ is a worry to the committee overseeing the changes, for it is imbued with the concept of subordination which defines the old, patriarchal, colonial military form. From now on, a soldier (human military resources as previously used) is an equal to all so-called officers and free to choose which ‘orders’ to agree to (not obey) or ‘advice’ suggested by a person of unequal rank. Times gone by, orders from such ‘superiors’ have resulted in acts of genocide against peoples of colour. A ‘soldier’ had no choice but to follow orders.
In the new inclusive military, a soldier will be free to reject advice he, she, or they feel to be counter to an inclusive war, or an undesirable circumstance arising from a non-victory by the other side. An officer will no longer be allowed to court-martial a soldier based on ethical choices made in combat, but will have to engage in ‘disagreement resolution’ and must learn to understand the worldview of the soldier.
As we can see above, rank is problematic in achieving an equal, diverse Defence Force. This is why in the new military, a person will be free to choose whichever rank they happen to identify with. A recruit might feel he, she or they are being excluded from activities and procedures merely because they haven’t attained a high enough ‘rank.’
In the new military, that recruit can choose whether or not they identify as a four-star general. Just as much, they might ‘choose’ not to identify as an army recruit at all, but as a sailor.
Moreover, the restrictions replaced on a human resource by hierarchical regimentation, once removed, will mean nothing can stop a human resource if he, she, or they decide they’re a fighter pilot. In previous times, not being able to fly a plane proved to be an unfair impediment, but in the new military, it must be recognised that if a person identifies as a pilot they must be afforded all the rights, privileges and respect that go with being a pilot.
Individuality will be key to enabling desired social changes of an enlightened military, this is why uniforms will no longer be enforced on military members. Many recruits complain that khaki clashes with the colour of a particular pair of shoes they may choose to wear, because, let’s face it, those old patriarchal boots are much too uncomfortable. Soldiers will now be encouraged to dress in whatever outfit they feel most expresses them as an individual. After all, we are fighting for a system predicated on freedom and equality. If a soldier wishes to dress in cosplay, for instance, as Batman or Superman, nothing should prevent he, she, or they doing so.
Many choices made for individuals will involve non-violent resolutions: as such, we can no longer force a military member to fire a weapon if he, she or they feels it may cause unnecessary physical pain to a human resource from the other side. This is why, for those conscientious objectors, new equipment will be issued, such as peace flags, and banners that read, “VIOLENCE HURTS.” Things like that are designed to shame an opponent into choosing to reject violence. And let’s face it, violence is usually aimed against women, so it will be assumed that all women or those identifying as women or non-binary military human resources will be excused from battle. Hence, all ‘fighting’ (such an ugly term) will be conducted from safe spaces.
These are but some of the changes but we think you’ll agree that they are, at the very least, a step in the right direction. That will be achieved when we cancel the military entirely.