Thread: US Army Recruitment Falters – Misses Goal By 25% As Woke Ideology Takes Over

. . . For decades, the military has been comprised of 70% conservative/independent troops with views ranging from middle-of-the-road and libertarian to religious Republican. The vast majority of soldiers are not progressive and do not vote Democrat. That said, from 2021 onward there has been a change in the way recruits relate politically to the armed forces, perhaps because there has been a change in the way the military advertises.
The US Army in particular is famous now for one of the worst recruitment campaigns in military history; going full woke last year with a series of cartoon ads that promoted woke politics and targeted the tiny LGBT segment of the population.
<strong>

This led to widespread distrust among conservatives of the military overall and of the Army in particular. Another issue which caused conservatives to walk away was open admissions by US generals about their goal of implementing Critical Race Theory and woke ideology in the armed forces. The Navy is training its leadership to use identity “pronouns.” West Point Military Academy is also now implementing woke concepts into its training curriculum.

Add to that the fact that Joe Biden made a man (Rachel Levine) that identifies as a woman and that supports gender affirmation surgery for minors into a four star admiral, and you begin to see why the military can't reach recruitment goals – They just lost the only segment of the population that has patriotic motivations for service; the most valuable segment of the population when it comes to war. And, there are nowhere near enough woke people to fill the void, thus, shortages rise.

It's interesting to note that the very first openly trans active duty Army officer was just caught betraying the US and sharing medical secrets of personnel with Russia.

Perhaps allowing mentally unstable people into the armed forces is not such a good idea?
https://www.zerohedge.com/military/us-army-recruitment-falters-misses-goal-25-woke-ideology-takes-over

Looking in from the outside (Canada) - it's fairly easy to see how this is being done intentionally (decimating/weakening the US Armed Forces in general).

We have the same problems up here as well.

When it finally dies and is utterly dead, it's just another grave of many graves that need pissing on.

Congratulations USA, you signed your own death warrant as so many civilizations throughout history have done.

It's only a matter of time, very little time.

Ammunition is the best investment a man can make in times like these, defense is no longer national, it's now becoming personal, individual, and a matter of raw survival.

Somebody's ordering these Generals and their staffs to play gay ads and spout the new party line. You can bet no General thought this up. They no doubt hate the whole thing and are only doing it to keep their stars. Don't play ball and its early retirement or getting posted to the ass of the earth.

The lifers had to know this was going to be a train wreck. While the Army has many minorities, most are from poor backgrounds and are not big on new-fangled ideas. They might tolerate gay people on a case-by-case basis but don't want their whole profession to be identified as such. Seeing the Army attempt to recruit gays is not going to make them flock to the recruiting office. You can bet the lifers know this, no way it's their idea.

The rejection of "wokeness" is part of a larger consciousness that the US military fights to keep the world profitable for the death merchants, and certainly not for freedom.

For example, Afghanistan. "We" lost, but it was a profitable run for Raytheon. Not just Raytheon of course, but I pick on Raytheon because our Secretary of Defense is a former director of Raytheon.

The Woke Mind Police has been causing a lot of damage to the country, but I can tell you it had nothing to do with my choice not to join the US military. When I was young enough to join the military, "woke" wasn't a thing, at least not with that idiotic terminology (that's not even grammatically correct). I didn't join any branch of the military because I didn't feel I could trust my government enough to not throw my life away on some misadventure that had nothing to do with defending the country. When I was a kid, the Vietnam war was in full swing. Young men my family knew kept coming home in body bags. I grew up in fear that the country would not end that war soon enough, and I would end up in uniform with an M-16 in some jungle afraid of getting shot, blown up, or falling into some spike-lined Viet Cong pitt.

I was lucky that the Vietnam War was over by the time I was old enough, but by then, I had exactly zero faith that my government would only use the military to defend the country. The Vietnam War was that country's civil war that we should have stayed out of. People claimed that if North Vietnam won, they would end up on our doorstep in Mexico, much more powerful, and we would have to fight them then. Clearly that has not happened. Nowadays, we have relations with the Marxist government of Vietnam, and they've never attacked us since the end of the war. Now they manufacture shirts that we sell at WalMart.

The idea that the Vietnamese commies would end up a serious threat if we didn't fight them in the 60s and 70s was nonsense. What's ended up happening is they sell us cheap shirts. I can live with that.

Any US serviceperson that isn't guarding your southern border is a waste of taxpayer money.

I served for six years on active duty and for 14 in the reserves. The service did me a lot of good and helped me on a career path I've enjoyed.

That being said, I would not enlist today nor would I recommend enlistment to any young man.

Offhand, I don't think the Roman Empire had to deal with professional guilt mongers (aka Civil rights activists) cashing in on CRT, Diversity, Inclusion and Equity (DIE) and Antiracism gigs. Can you imagine a Roman Army recruiting pitch: Romans, you are vile racist, imperialist, paternalistic shxt! Now join up with the Roman Army and get your free gender reassignment surgery and Trans meds! Become the kickazz woman you have always wanted to be! Pretty much what the Feds are pushing these days!

Originally Posted by ftdjc1

From a macro point of view:

I've always been interested in history. Especially that old saying, 'those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.'

In the 80's, when schools still did actual teaching, I remember reading about Rome and Greece, the two preeminent civilizations of their age. As I recall, Rome militarily defeated Greece around 140BC. What stuck out as a definitive factor was the latter's lack of command initiative at the small unit level. While Roman leaders were trained to react to battlefield conditions as they evolved, Grecian troops would remain in place until ordered to move. Thus out maneuvered, Greece fell, and Rome conquered the known world.

Hundreds of years later, Rome is rotting from the inside out. (Taxes, political upheaval, slave revolts, epidemics, inflation, the list goes on. Any of that sound familiar?) I've read articles comparing current day to the late Roman period. What really struck home for me, was Rome's use of mercenaries. Mercenaries have always been a staple of battle. However, increasing usage in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, by the 4th century, most of the Roman military was levied from the frontier. Historians generally agree that (Western) Rome fell to the barbarians in 476 AD.

I look at the issues confronting us today, and compare them to yesteryear. We've had inflation before. We've had election rigging before. We've had epidemics before. But what we haven't had before, is a mercenary military. Not to be confused with an all-volunteer force, I'm referring to government-contracted soldiers. (Blackrock anyone?) Right now the woke crap is being force-fed to the the all-volunteer force as we speak, and they are choking on it. Retention is down, recruitment is dropping like a rock. I find politics annoying, and exasperating. But I never truly worried about continuity until I realized our military is in danger of changing from a citizen force, to a bought force.

Citizens answer to their neighbors, mercenaries answer to their paymaster.

The two are not one in the same.

i wouldn't join the military now for a few reasons. i don't want to take orders from mentally ill officers and i don't trust trannies and women to have my back in combat. i will only fight to defend my home.

Bunch of weak women,men, and LBGTQ's running the country to the ground.

People will learn if not already why there has NEVER been a empire ran by those who fit in the category above.^

Rachel Levine was not commissioned in the military. Levine is a four-staradmiral in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, an honorary title Levine gets as the United States assistant secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services, Health.

The United States Public Health Service is a uniformed service, but not a military one. Their roots lie in the uniformed health inspectors assigned to ports to insure that diseased people did not get to disembark. They wore naval uniforms in those days, and the traditional and title stuck. You may recall the custom of wearing the uniform was revived back about 40 years ago, by the Surgeon General, C. Everett Coop

Nowadays, most of them work on Native reservations as part of the Indian Health Service, federal prisons, ports of entry, and the Center for Disease Control.

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

Rachel Levine was not commissioned in the military. Levine is a four-staradmiral in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, an honorary title Levine gets as the United States assistant secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services, Health.

The United States Public Health Service is a uniformed service, but not a military one. Their roots lie in the uniformed health inspectors assigned to ports to insure that diseased people did not get to disembark. They wore naval uniforms in those days, and the traditional and title stuck. You may recall the custom of wearing the uniform was revived back about 40 years ago, by the Surgeon General, C. Everett Coop

Nowadays, most of them work on Native reservations as part of the Indian Health Service, federal prisons, ports of entry, and the Center for Disease Control.

That may well be true, but 99.99% of people probably don't know that and optics are everything nowadays. During the covid scam we had people who weren't doctors sporting white lab coats during their announcements/interviews (propaganda) on tv. For all intents and purposes, most people assume he/she/it/zey/them/zir is an admiral.

Originally Posted by frog

Somebody's ordering these Generals and their staffs to play gay ads and spout the new party line. You can bet no General thought this up. They no doubt hate the whole thing and are only doing it to keep their stars. Don't play ball and its early retirement or getting posted to the ass of the earth.

Officers who aspire to the general officer ranks are 'company men.' After a decade or so, they make a mental transition. They have excelled at the assignments they were given or sought, and transition from being warriors to doing what they need to do to get promoted.

There is a saying.
"The first ten years, the service wants your body.
The next ten years, they want your mind.
If you stay for another 10 years, they will take your soul."

These kind of guys don't need to be told what 'current year' politics are at play. General Milley wears ten times the 'fruit salad' ribbons that General Eisenhower wore, but he has never won a war...unless it was in the board rooms of the Pentagon. He has constantly "looked up" to see what his boss, and more importantly his future bosses will want, and never "looked down" to see what his troops need.

This kind of officer is thinking two elections ahead, avoiding controversy or what could someday be controversial, and anticipates who will give him his next two promotions.

Generals don't get sidelined or sent to unpleasant assignments. Fail to anticipate what the politicians want, and you get cashiered. The system is "(move) up, or (get pushed out)."

There was a time when there were "career captains" and "career corporals." There were people who were perfectly happy to spend years at a relatively junior rank and not seek further promotion, because they got to do what they were good at and were respected for doing it.

The post-WWII military wanted younger, better educated officers, and the system was redesigned. Building long time expertise was frowned up, as the system was designed to identify future generals and promote them through a series of short term assignments. The rest would be weeded out. Go before a promotion board and not get selected two years in a row, and you are forced out.

I had a conversation with a new civilian boss. He tried to impress me by showing me his military resume, telling me he retired as a colonel, and had 30 years experience.

I told him he did not. He got a month of paid vacation every year, and could not accumulate more than 60 days. So, subtract 2.5 years from 30, and you get 27.5 years. Subtract a year for that Master's degree: 26.5 years. Subtract about 5 years for professional and specialty courses: 21.5 years. Subtract a month every time he moved from one post to another: 10-12 moves, another year: about 20 years.

"So, basically, sir, you haven't done any one thing for 30 years. You have had 10 different jobs, for about two years each, and every time you got competent at any one of them, you were moved, and had to learn a whole different job."

It is not surprising that those that reach flag rank have a reflex habit of looking ahead at their next job. Generals that have been politicking sometimes get ambitions of becoming a civilian politician.

The greedy ones take jobs with defense contractors, feeling that they had been underpaid compared to their civilian counterparts, and 'sell their stars.'

Some take jobs in academia or think tanks.

The laziest take jobs as talking heads for cable news networks. It is easy work, and one just needs to take on the political slant of their employers.

Remember General Wesley Clark? He was known as as weasel even in his 20s, and decided to carve out a niche as a Clintonite general, specializing in justifying long, protracted nation-building fiascos that got young troops killed.

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

Officers who aspire to the general officer ranks are 'company men.' After a decade or so, they make a mental transition. They have excelled at the assignments they were given or sought, and transition from being warriors to doing what they need to do to get promoted.

There is a saying.
"The first ten years, the service wants your body.
The next ten years, they want your mind.
If you stay past 20 years, they will take your soul."

These kind of guys don't need to be told what 'current year' politics are at play. General Milley has never won a war, wears ten times the 'fruit salad' ribbons that General Eisenhower wore, but never won a war...unless it was in the board rooms of the Pentagon. He has constantly "looked up" to see what his boss, and more importantly his future bosses will want, and never "looked down" to see what his troops needed.

This kind of officer is thinking two elections ahead, avoiding controversy or what could someday be controversial, and anticipates who will give him his next two promotions.

Generals don't get sidelined or sent to unpleasant assignments. Fail to anticipate what the politicians want, and you get cashiered. The system is "(move) up, or (get pushed out)."

There was a time when there were "career captains" and "career corporals." There were people who were perfectly happy to spend years at a relatively junior rank and not seek further promotion, because they got to do what they were good at and were respected for doing it.

The post-WWII military wanted younger, better educated officers, and the system was redesigned. Building long time expertise was frowned up, as the system was designed to identify future generals and promote them through a series of short term assignments. The rest would be weeded out. Go before a promotion board and not get selected two years in a row, and you are forced out.

I had a conversation with a new civilian boss. He tried to impress me by showing me his military resume, telling me he retired as a colonel, and had 30 years experience.

I told him he did not. He got a month of paid vacation every year, and could not accumulate more than 60 days. So, subtract 2.5 years from 30, and you get 27.5 years. Subtract a year for that Master's degree: 26.5 years. Subtract about 5 years for professional and specialty courses: 21.5 years. Subtract a month every time he moved from one post to another: 10-12 moves, another year: about 20 years.

"So, basically, sir, you haven't done any one thing for 30 years. You have had 10 different jobs, for about two years each, and every time you good at any one of them, you were moved, and had to learn a whole different job."

It is not surprising that those that reach flag rank have a reflex habit of looking ahead at their next job. Generals that have been politicking sometimes get ambitions of becoming a civilian politician.

The greedy ones take jobs with defense contractors, feeling that they had been underpaid compared to their civilian counterparts, and 'sell their stars.'

Some take jobs in academia or think tanks.

The laziest take jobs as talking heads for cable news networks. It is easy work, and one just needs to take on the political slant of their employers.

Remember General Wesley Clark? He was known as weasel even in his 20s, and decided to carve out a niche as a Clintonite general, specializing in justifying long, protracted nation-building fiascos that got young troops killed.

That was awesome insight. One of the many things I love about this board, such a broad range of experiences. Thanks for sharing man.

Good post! John T. Reed was a West Point Grad during Vietnam and has a similar critique on his website www dot johntreed dot com - military. He says that the difference between the Army and Air Force/Navy is that if an army officer lies about whether rifles or jeeps work, it doesn't matter so lying is encouraged as a way to blackmail officers. On the other hand, lying about whether the B-52 bomber or Navy destroyer is in working condition is found out rather rapidly in the Air Force / Navy and so is discouraged. Per John T Reed, a reason he got booted from Vietnam and the Army was his refusal to lie about Army equipment status by signing off on bogus reports that made superiors look good.

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

Officers who aspire to the general officer ranks are 'company men.' After a decade or so, they make a mental transition. They have excelled at the assignments they were given or sought, and transition from being warriors to doing what they need to do to get promoted.

There is a saying.
"The first ten years, the service wants your body.
The next ten years, they want your mind.
If you stay past 20 years, they will take your soul."

These kind of guys don't need to be told what 'current year' politics are at play. General Milley has never won a war, wears ten times the 'fruit salad' ribbons that General Eisenhower wore, but never won a war...unless it was in the board rooms of the Pentagon. He has constantly "looked up" to see what his boss, and more importantly his future bosses will want, and never "looked down" to see what his troops needed.

This kind of officer is thinking two elections ahead, avoiding controversy or what could someday be controversial, and anticipates who will give him his next two promotions.

Generals don't get sidelined or sent to unpleasant assignments. Fail to anticipate what the politicians want, and you get cashiered. The system is "(move) up, or (get pushed out)."

There was a time when there were "career captains" and "career corporals." There were people who were perfectly happy to spend years at a relatively junior rank and not seek further promotion, because they got to do what they were good at and were respected for doing it.

The post-WWII military wanted younger, better educated officers, and the system was redesigned. Building long time expertise was frowned up, as the system was designed to identify future generals and promote them through a series of short term assignments. The rest would be weeded out. Go before a promotion board and not get selected two years in a row, and you are forced out.

I had a conversation with a new civilian boss. He tried to impress me by showing me his military resume, telling me he retired as a colonel, and had 30 years experience.

I told him he did not. He got a month of paid vacation every year, and could not accumulate more than 60 days. So, subtract 2.5 years from 30, and you get 27.5 years. Subtract a year for that Master's degree: 26.5 years. Subtract about 5 years for professional and specialty courses: 21.5 years. Subtract a month every time he moved from one post to another: 10-12 moves, another year: about 20 years.

"So, basically, sir, you haven't done any one thing for 30 years. You have had 10 different jobs, for about two years each, and every time you good at any one of them, you were moved, and had to learn a whole different job."

It is not surprising that those that reach flag rank have a reflex habit of looking ahead at their next job. Generals that have been politicking sometimes get ambitions of becoming a civilian politician.

The greedy ones take jobs with defense contractors, feeling that they had been underpaid compared to their civilian counterparts, and 'sell their stars.'

Some take jobs in academia or think tanks.

The laziest take jobs as talking heads for cable news networks. It is easy work, and one just needs to take on the political slant of their employers.

Remember General Wesley Clark? He was known as weasel even in his 20s, and decided to carve out a niche as a Clintonite general, specializing in justifying long, protracted nation-building fiascos that got young troops killed.

Originally Posted by CPRA

. . . For decades, the military has been comprised of 70% conservative/independent troops with views ranging from middle-of-the-road and libertarian to religious Republican. The vast majority of soldiers are not progressive and do not vote Democrat. That said, from 2021 onward there has been a change in the way recruits relate politically to the armed forces, perhaps because there has been a change in the way the military advertises.
The US Army in particular is famous now for one of the worst recruitment campaigns in military history; going full woke last year with a series of cartoon ads that promoted woke politics and targeted the tiny LGBT segment of the population.
<strong>

This led to widespread distrust among conservatives of the military overall and of the Army in particular. Another issue which caused conservatives to walk away was open admissions by US generals about their goal of implementing Critical Race Theory and woke ideology in the armed forces. The Navy is training its leadership to use identity “pronouns.” West Point Military Academy is also now implementing woke concepts into its training curriculum.

Add to that the fact that Joe Biden made a man (Rachel Levine) that identifies as a woman and that supports gender affirmation surgery for minors into a four star admiral, and you begin to see why the military can't reach recruitment goals – They just lost the only segment of the population that has patriotic motivations for service; the most valuable segment of the population when it comes to war. And, there are nowhere near enough woke people to fill the void, thus, shortages rise.

It's interesting to note that the very first openly trans active duty Army officer was just caught betraying the US and sharing medical secrets of personnel with Russia.

Perhaps allowing mentally unstable people into the armed forces is not such a good idea?
https://www.zerohedge.com/military/us-army-recruitment-falters-misses-goal-25-woke-ideology-takes-over

This was a low point, but it needs to be explained.

These are not actual troops, but ROTC cadets: 4 year university students to spend one day a week, 3 weekends a year, and one or two summers training for a commission as an officer upon graduation.

The cadre at each university is a lieutenant colonel, possibly a full colonel at a university that has hundreds of enrolled cadets (such as a private military academy like Texas A&M or Norwich or VMI.)

The photograph shows cadets have been 'volun-told' to participate in a feminist "Walk a Mile in my Heels" event designed to show men how hard it is to be a woman in the West, and hopefully turn them into "allies" of the women's movement.

Of course, there is no "March 15 Miles in my boots while wearing 50lbs of body armor, a helmet, and carrying a 50lb rucksack and a 10lb rifle," designed to show women what it is like to be sent half way around the world to participate in a two way rifle range, but.....

Now, if one of us was the colonel in charge of the Reserve Officer Training Corps detachment at that school, I would tell the school that my cadets have better things to do, but...

The Army has selection boards for new lieutenant colonels that decide who gets assigned where. Some are in specialized fields that do not require command time for promotion or retention: attaches, strategic intel guys, human resources specialists, acquisition specialists, etc.
Those guys are teased out. The boards are trying to identify the future generals from the ones that will top out at colonel, the 25-30 year men from the 35-40 year men.

So, the boards decide who will get to command a battalion, and who will get to command the battalions that lead to commanding a brigade and a shot at a general's stars and command of a division.

Command of a Ranger battalion? Hold up there, cowboy. They are elite. You better command an an infantry or paratroop battalion, first.

Command of an infantry or tank battalion? You are on track to move up.

Command of a support or logistical battalion? Yes, you'll get promoted in that support branch.

Command of a recruiting battalion? Not so much.

Command of an ROTC battalion? OK, champ, the Army doesn't love you, but it doesn't hate you either. You'll get your battalion command, and you can have a career that goes to full colonel, but after 3 years at "Fort Living Room," you will learn what true pain is. We will send you to the Pentagon, where 12-14 hour days of staff work (in peacetime) and being some general's facto-totem (an old Roman Empire term for "staff officer bitch slave boy") for three years will make you question whether the 30 year thing is worth it. And if you do stick around, we will send you to Korea....maybe with your family, maybe without...for more staff work.

Or...you can take this cushy assignment as your "thank you for your service" reward, make it your last, and retire. It is a great opportunity for you to transition to civilian life, a civilian community, while you work mere 9 hour days, some weekends, and summer camps. If you are smart, you will take the opportunity to start sending out resumes and interviewing for your post-retirement job.

Some ROTC commanders realize that the best, high-pay, low-work post retirement job is in academia, especially at the university where they are stationed at. Once that becomes their goal, every action they take is designed to make them as non-threatening and acceptable to the campus community. They hope to retire and take off the uniform on one day, and then put on civilian clothes and start the new job without having to make yet another household move the next day. So, they act in a way to rebut every stereotype of "military men" and "the military mind" academic types might have.

"Oh, yes, Professor Blue Hair, some of those hardcore military guys are 'out there,' but I'm not 'one of those.' I have always supported (fill in the blank) rights. In fact, I have always believed that people should have the right to (fill in the blank). And Chancellor, if my cadets doing X, Y, or Z triggers any of your students, I'll be sure to move them over to where nobody can see them."

They decide that their future employment prospects are more important than teaching their cadets the skills they will need to survive on the battlefield. He cares more about his resume that training steely eyed killers.

That is probably why, about 5-7 years ago, this university's ROTC colonel decided that it was more important for his cadets to walk in high heeled shoes - like drag queens - than for them to learn how to lead a patrol or run a rifle range.

Maybe he was looking forward to his post-retirement career. Or, more sinister, he was seeing the writing on the wall and was trying to rack up 'woke' brownie points in the hope of extending his military career.

I just know that if I was in charge, I'd find something else for my cadets to do, and if I was one of those cadets, I'd call in sick that day.

Ah, John T Reed - thanks for that. He has some interesting insights on a lot of things, though I haven't checked his site for several years now.

Thanks for dropping that name! I'll have to check his site out again.

Here you go! Is military integrity a contradiction in terms? Part 1 by John T Reed

“Qui male agit odit lucem.” (“He who behaves badly hates the light.” John 3:20)

On June 5, 1968, I woke up as a member of the most honest organization I was ever associated with. By the time I went to bed that day, I was in the most dishonest organization I have ever been part of. What happened in between? Around midday, I and my 705 classmates graduated from West Point and 704 of us were commissioned as second lieutenants in the U.S. Army (plus a handful in the Air Force and Marines). (The two who were not commissioned were tennis players who had disqualifying medical problems.) . . . I limit my description of the respect the Corps of Cadets had for the Honor Code to the mid-1960s, when I was there, because I have heard since then in media reports, letters to the graduates from the Superintendent (commander) of West Point, and classmates who were stationed there as professors that the later cadets have had a lesser regard for the Code. Those more recent graduates will have to vouch for the compliance rate among more recent cadets.
‘Don’t try to take the Cadet Honor Code into the Army’

But while we were cadets, and officially getting frequent instruction on the Cadet Honor Code, our professors, themselves recent graduates of West Point, would unofficially warn us, Don’t try to take the Cadet Honor Code into the Army with you. They would elaborate that their advice had two prongs:
1. You cannot trust fellow soldiers, including officers, as much as you can trust fellow cadets. 2. You cannot comply with the Cadet Honor Code yourself as an officer.
One of our recent graduate professors back then illustrated this advice by telling us that the very first thing he had to do on his first day at his first assignment was to sign a false official document. When he balked, his sergeant threatened to beat the lieutenant up if he did not sign it. The lieutenant, impressed by the sergeant’s determination if not by his prowess as a thug, signed the false document, and many more thereafter. He told us this story to make sure we knew we were going to have to do the same as officers . . .
https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-r...n-terms-part-1

Originally Posted by Montauk

Ah, John T Reed - thanks for that. He has some interesting insights on a lot of things, though I haven't checked his site for several years now.

Thanks for dropping that name! I'll have to check his site out again.

Same here in Australia. A few years back the Chaplin Corps wanted to change their motto "In this sign Conquer" as it had Crusade connotations. This was to appease a Muslim Imam who had joined their ranks. I am sure there are many Muslims in the Australian Army (sarcasm). Luckily this was actually defeated but I am sure they will have another go at it.

Just this year the Shine of Remembrance in Victoria planned to shine rainbow lights as some kind of gesture to LGBTIQ. I don't doubt there would have been homosexual soldiers in the military during WW1 and WW2 and other wars. But why are they using what they themselves state is "Holy Ground" as a means of making political statements?

The trouble of course with all of these token gestures is that it does not make the ones they are appeasing want to join or support it. Meanwhile they are turning away the people (mostly men) who really do (or did) believe and want to be part of it all.

It's no different to movies and TV shows, comic books and even the church pandering to all of these Woke groups who will never get on board anyway.