I’ve been a bit behind in my installments of A. Nonymous’ excellent expose on the Canadian Armed Forces self-made “retention problem.” This is the next part, a continuation of his Intro, and the next parts will be scheduled one day after another until we get through this. I will also note that the quotation indent block will actually be me applying my comments to his work, which will be non-indented.
CFB Edmonton pride parade 2022
(Source: CFB Edmonton Pride Parade Op Order)
The gays just want to get married, bigot. What they do in the privacy of their own home is none of your business.
-Someone, somewhere, a long time ago, in a galaxy not that far away
Ah, 2004! What a good year it was. Windows XP was changing the face of the personal computer, and Half-Life 2 had just debuted. The SUV and the McMansion were still iconic, and the drunken feel-good of the 90s had not yet become a hangover. The gays were allowed to get married in several Canadian provinces, and were a year away from federal recognition. Finally, they would get what they wanted, then join society as equals, and everyone would live happily ever after…
But that was 18 years ago. Has such a future come to fruition?
Well, I wouldn’t continue writing if it had; Please refer to the above image.
It turns out that the legal recognition of gay marriage wasn’t enough for them. No, sir. They require businesses to bake gay cakes for them, against the faith of the owners. They need taxpayer subsidized gay parades in every major city, to showcase how proud they are of being gay. They need gay representation in businesses, and they need businesses to have gay flags and rainbow logos for gay month (June). Gay month? Not enough. They need gay season, which now exists all summer long in Canada. Apparently, they also need gay advisory boards for each CAF base, who subsequently advise the base to raise gay flags, and order soldiers to participate in gay events:
“3 CDSB Edmonton will conduct a Pride Week Road Move Parade on 24 JUN 22 in order to promote a culture of inclusivity and diversity, and offer support and representation to the LGBTQ2+ community within the CAF.”
Offer representation? Don’t these people represent themselves by virtue of existing? Are they not represented by the gay flags that have flown on CAF bases for nearly a decade already? What about the gay parades done by municipalities? Is there no end to this madness?
Think back to our imaginary corporal. He grew up in the mid 2000s, and learned that gays just want to be left alone. But now he has been ordered to participate in a gay event as a military member. Why can’t the gays just leave him alone? Why can’t the gays just work and march and obey orders like everyone else? Why do they need to force everyone else to bear witness to their gayness? Perhaps the good corporal is a member of a faith which does not support the gays; Orthodox Christianity for example. He can’t participate in such an event in accordance with his faith; What will happen to him if he brings this objection to his chain of command? Ostracism, likely. Maybe charges for hate speech or something? Maybe they’ll leave him alone, but keep a watchful eye on him forever more. The fact that he can’t trust the CAF to respect his faith is abominable. The gays can make him participate, but imagine if the Orthodox Church members in the CAF demanded that gays participate in worship? Maybe Islam is a better thought experiment, since it is higher on the chart of diversity. This is the main effort from the Op order, which is not the same as a mission statement:
“The main effort is the Road Move which will provide a visible representation of support for the CAF’s LGBTQ2+ community, and the values of inclusion, diversity, and acceptance”
OK, what about inclusion, diversity, and acceptance of faiths or individuals which object to homosexuality? This is a reoccurring theme, in case you haven’t noticed: diversity except for certain things, inclusion except for certain things, acceptance except for certain things, double standards for all things.
I should stress that the bold is mine. A. Nonymous makes a point that bears repeating. These people are just anti-White perverts, and it’s all “no borders, no nations, except Israel,” and “no racial discrimination, except against Whitey.” There’s always a double standard with these people.
Behold, a partial screen shot of the Op Order! Drag performances? I’m not an expert, but I don’t think that veterans of the last world war would be entirely supportive of this; That the same military they fought a bloody war in would, ~80 years later, conduct drag performances for all to see. In fact, I think they might have got back on the boats and returned home, but then again, at least we aren’t speaking German or whatever…
There is something that I want you to keep in mind here: the CAF is supposed to be a politically neutral organization. Their mandate is to serve the sitting government, while being completely detached from any specific political party, or any organization that can be perceived as politically charged. The good corporal, for example, is not allowed to publicly support a political candidate in any capacity, because it would violate the entire organization’s duty to remain politically neutral. Why, then, is the CAF itself participating in gay events, something which have become inherently political? Double standards, again.
(Try saying that all in one breath)
For the unaware, chaplains are military members who work in the role of a faith leader, while also performing other related duties in the field of welfare. Their uniforms are much the same as other CAF members, with the exception of an additional accoutrement indicating their faith, with the most commonly seen one being a crucifix representing a variety of Christian denominations. Not all militaries have chaplains embedded as uniformed members like the CAF, but it is and has been common for military focused faith leaders to attend the spiritual requirements of soldiers across the globe, with forced-secular places like the former USSR being noteworthy exceptions. Chaplaincy has a long history in Canada, and one can find them working even within places like a brigade headquarters, advising the commander on matters of troop welfare, performing services, and even discussing the religious
implications of a region for military purposes. Though the religiosity of the CAF has waned along with the rest of Canadian society (the cult of Covid notwithstanding) one still finds many members who seek their assistance in both religious matters and non-religious matters, and there is an expectation that soldiers can rely on them to provide denomination specific things such as sacraments, up to and including the Last Rites in Christianity, and parallel constructs in other faiths. The CAF itself states the following of chaplains:
“[They are] responsible for fostering the spiritual, religious, and pastoral care of Canadian Armed Forces members and their families, regardless of religious affiliation, practice, and/or belief. They have an open attitude and promote diversity within the Canadian Armed Forces by providing an environment that is caring and compassionate.”
Diversity has returned yet again. I suppose that if I were to search for the role of a diesel generator in the CAF, it would also be partially responsible for promoting diversity and inclusion. Here’s the problem, not all faiths are congruent with this definition. Islam, the favourite of the current regime, is very intolerant of the LGBTABCD crowd, as it is also with women. In fact, the Islamic debate on sodomy generally starts on the roof and ends on the ground. Orthodox Christianity is likewise sternly unsupportive of sodomy, though not with a violent twist. Roman Catholicism is supposed to be as well, but the pope is working diligently to sell his people down the river in that regard so we’ll need to wait and see.
Of course, the authors of the source document are fully aware of this, and are probably working tirelessly to delete from the chaplaincy any faith that doesn’t meet their diversity requirements:
“Another important point is that, at present, some chaplains represent or are affiliated with organized religions whose beliefs are not synonymous with those of a diverse and inclusive workplace. Some of the affiliated religions of these chaplains do not subscribe to an open attitude and the promotion of diversity.”
What are Catholics or Orthodox or Muslim members to do? Can they expect a chaplain to service their religious needs in the future? Not if the CAF gets their way. Presumably, they will be attended to by someone who means well enough, but whose religious affiliation is not in accordance with their requirements. The non-religious may not care, but this is an egregious violation of the principle of freedom of religion.
In case there were any doubt that this is specifically targeting non-reform Christianity, bear witness to this paragraph:
“It is necessary as well to recognize that, for some Canadians, religion can be a source of suffering and generational trauma. This is especially true for many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and twospirited members of Canadian society. And Indigenous Peoples have suffered unimaginable generational trauma and genocide at the hands of Christian religious leaders through initiatives such as Residential School and Indian Day School programs.”
Christianity bad! Christians are apparently expected to bear the shame of evil actions from other Christians, yet other faiths are obviously not. Imagine the uproar if Ukrainians claimed intergenerational trauma from Jewish Bolsheviks murdering and starving millions of their brethren in the 1930s. Every Jew from here to Tel Aviv would be kvetching about antisemitism until the planet were deaf, while furiously trying to blame it on Germans. What about the Balkan Slavs causing a ruckus over the centuries-long Ottoman (Islamic) occupation of their lands, complete with rape and slavery? The Turks would say they deserved it for being infidels, while simultaneously claiming it didn’t happen. But Christians can’t get away with that, at least not any Christian who even remotely follows the doctrine of the Bible.
“If the Defence Team rejects gender discrimination, anti-Indigenous discrimination, and racialized discrimination in every other area and is working hard to remove systemic barriers to the employment of marginalized people, it cannot justify hiring representatives of organizations who marginalize certain people or categorically refuse them a position of leadership.”
Aside from the fact that, actually, the Defence team openly endorses gender and racial discrimination, it is another double standard to pretend to avoid those things while discriminating by faith. Obviously their first goal is to purge the CAF of any Christian chaplains who don’t bend the knee to sodomy, but those who are looking ahead will find that this sets the stage for a purge of any members who declare themselves followers of said faiths. It is unlikely that they will be fired explicitly, as the CAF prefers to metaphorically kick its unliked members in the balls until they ‘voluntarily’ leave, then ask why everyone is leaving.
Redefining the CAF Dress Regulations
(Source: Canadian Federal Government)
A military uniform is supposed to be mostly consistent, with differences being for functional purposes like the indication of rank, recognition of medals, and denoting a person’s unit. The term uniform itself come from latin uni (one) and formis (form or style). The point of a uniform was to make everyone as similar as reasonably possible, outside of those functional differences, the idea being that when you wear it you now become equal to your comrades. The same principle of course applies to schools and workplaces that use them. Standards have always accompanied the porting of a uniform, such as an acceptable hair length, ironing of shirts, polishing of boots, and in many militaries, the shaving of facial hair. These standards, as well as the uniform, also serve as disciplinary thresholds outside of their primary purpose of uniformity. In the CAF, there have also traditionally been restrictions on things like tattoos, earrings, and personal sunglasses; How well would it reflect on the CAF if Cpl Smith had a tattoo on his face or lavish diamond earrings dangling from his ears? That would be ludicrous.
Fortunately, all of that archaic nonsense about uniformity and discipline will imminently be phased out, as the CAF has released their plan for an update to the dress regulations. Here is a snippet from the source on why they are changing it for the first time in 50 years:
“The appearance of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has not kept pace with the Canadian society which it serves.”
The society which the CAF serves has become slovenly, stupid, lazy, diseased, degenerate, brainwashed, unmotivated, and rotten to the core. Should the CAF therefore mimic these fine qualities?
Before diving in to the changes, we should first be familiar with some exceptions to the dress regulations which have already happened. Firstly, a notable exception was made some decades ago regarding male Sikh members of the CAF, who are obligated by religious doctrine to port a turban and
remain unshaven, thus deviating from the uniform standard. Secondly, beards had been authorized for certain members for either medical, occupational, or religious reasons (such as but not limited to above) for some time, and had actually been granted for all CAF members only a couple years ago if they so choose. Thirdly, long hair for men has been allowed for some time for religious or cultural reasons, such as but not limited to native members of the CAF. While these exceptions (not an exhaustive list!), especially the authorizations for Sikh members, were controversial, there was some reasonable justification provided for each one, even if one thinks the decision was ultimately wrong: At least the CAF tried to back up their decisions in these cases with reasonable effort. More importantly, these concessions were not egregious violations of the principal of uniform, and expectations for things like beards and long hair were that they are well kept and orderly. As far as turbans go, there is a matching colour scheme for a turban such that it matches the colours used by the corresponding normal headdress that other members wear. Again, many still disagree with these concessions, but you can’t say they didn’t try. The following alterations, on the other hand…
What wonderful changes have they made for the CAF this time? Let’s dig in:
“DEUs are no longer gender based. Both catalogues are open to all members and they may be intermixed. CAF members may choose their uniform design, which must fit them properly/professionally, as per the Dress Instructions. Some restrictions may be imposed in certain circumstances such as on parade.”
I’m not even certain if I should explain this one, as it should be self evident that this is hilariously wrong. However, it makes sense given that Canada is a country which believes men can be women, women can be men, and anyone who questions such mental illness is a thought criminal. In case you don’t understand the above paragraph, it means that men can wear skirts and pretend to be women, or that women can pretend to be men. Given that it is illegal to even look twice at these people, what sort of effect will it have on unit cohesion if Johnny decides to be Jane and wear skirts to work? Everyone will be terrified of getting locked up for wrongthink, and Johnny is now a walking threat. I’m sure that such a policy will really improve work ethic and retention!
The following text has been removed: “Behaviour such as chewing gum, slouching, placing hands in pockets, smoking or eating on the street and walking hand in hand, is forbidden.” Does that mean CAF members can now do all those things when in uniform?
Pursuant to QR&O 17.02, the deportment and appearance of all ranks, in uniform or when wearing civilian attire, shall on all occasions reflect credit on the CAF and the individual. It is the responsibility and duty of all CAF members to ensure that, while in uniform, they comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance. Leaders at all levels have a role to play in this regard.”
More weasel words, I see. If that line has been removed, then the behaviour is implicitly or explicitly allowed. It says that leaders at all levels have a role to play, but they don’t have the support of a document to back them up anymore. If Maj So-and-so sees two soldiers doing these obviously inappropriate behaviours in uniform, he can’t do anything about it. If he tried to punish them, it would be thrown back in his face since the documentation no longer prohibits it. What would others think of our military if they saw soldiers doing these activities in public?
“Is unnatural-coloured hair acceptable in ceremonial orders of dress? And must accessories match the colour of hair?
Yes, the colouring of hair is permitted in all orders of dress unless it inhibits an operational duty. For example, bright coloured hair may have a negative operational impact during field operations or training. Leaders are invited to discuss with their members to find a simple, suitable accommodation, such as a scarf to cover the hair. Accessories do not have to match the colour of the member’s hair. However, all accessories shall meet safety and operational requirements and not must not discredit the CAF.”
Great, now the CAF is allowing rainbow haired creatures. This paragraph implies that members can dye their hair any colour they want unless it interferes with field operations. Green and purple haired peacocks violate the principle of uniformity in the same manner as one who wears a pink jacket instead of their issued pieces of uniform. Furthermore, such an action reflects discredit on the CAF by showing a blatant disregard for operational readiness: Certainly, most of the CAF isn’t going to deploy tomorrow to fight, but the principle of operational readiness is that they should be as prepared as possible to do so if required. It is for the same reason that CAF members are expected to maintain their physical fitness. What if Cpl Freakshow were to deploy tomorrow to fight somewhere? As mentioned above, they can choose to cover their hair with a scarf or something, but is that not an additional and unnecessary burden on their ability to remain camouflaged? Should they smear their hair with mud so the enemies don’t immediately see them? Shave it off completely?
Having pink haired antifa mutants in slovenly uniform serves to get the message across that this is a Globo Homo force that fights for International Finance Capital. It’s not just that the Military has all these general losers, this is a deliberate point by them to mark their territory, in my opinion.
The Russians must be quaking in their boots, but from laughter rather than fear. As if these aren’t bad enough, they intend to review it periodically and will likely make more changes:
“Going forward, the intention is to continually review the updated Dress Instructions, in order to provide additional clarity where necessary and to include any elements previously overlooked.”
Why maintain cohesion and retention when you can shill for inclusion instead? Of course, the sort of people the CAF needs are precisely the ones who will be turned off by these concessions, and will likely refrain from signing up, or consider releasing if they are already in.
C. A note about White supremacy
Where is all this White supremacy that they are complaining about so much? If we look at their definition of White supremacy, as per the source for the chaplaincy section, we find the following:
“The term “white supremacy” is often misunderstood. For this report, the following definition is used: white supremacy “is the idea (ideology) that white people and the ideas, thoughts, beliefs and actions of white people are superior to People of Colour and their ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and actions. White supremacy expresses itself interpersonally as well as structurally (through our governments, education systems, food systems, etc.).” A white supremacist is “a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and white people should have control over people of different races.”
Interesting. I have not met a single military person who meets both categories, though there must be at least a few somewhere. There are some that I have met who might believe Whites are superior (it’s hard to tell without explicit comment), but I would be hard pressed to find someone who really thinks Whites should rule others. But what would we call someone who thinks that Whites are inferior to others, and that Whites should be ruled by others? Because there are magnitudes more of them than there are alleged White supremacists, including the regime itself since such an attitude is explicitly permitted. Obviously, the CAF couldn’t care less, as they wouldn’t have any standards if not for double standards.
Unfortunately, the CAF (and its parent regime) will get precisely what it wants in this witch hunt, as it is actively creating White supremacists and ardent White racists (and those of other races too!) through their continued efforts to divide everyone along racial lines, give preferential treatment to certain groups, and promote racial conflict. Whites who just wanted to live peacefully with others are becoming quickly aware that such a future was never going to happen, and situations like these may transform those individuals into the most adamant racists you could imagine. Hitler’s NSDAP and Mao’s communist party did not appear spontaneously. Romanians didn’t execute Ceaușescu because it was a fun thing to do on a Monday. The US civil rights movement didn’t happen because Blacks just happened to collectively feel like it. These situations were the products of years of perceived injustice, and the CAF would do well to take note. A better example might even be the Vietcong during the Vietnam war, who found otherwise disinterested farmers joining their ranks after getting picked on by American forces for no reason other than their race. While the CAF would like to [pretend to] solve the unsolvable retention problem, their propaganda may generate a far more insidious problem of a similar nature. All they had to do was leave people alone, but that was a bridge too far. Obviously, this nonsense comes directly from the feds, who likely have a variety of nefarious reasons for it, none of which will benefit the people or the CAF regardless of their skin colour.
For those interested, here is a good interview on the subject of the Vietnamese, which is quite relatable in a few ways to the topic of this paper. It is approximately 15 minutes in length.
As is often the case, I don’t have that much to add to this paper, since it is itself commentary from someone with fairly decent if imperfect politics. The next piece will be his section on “Faith in the Chain of Command,” and will be scheduled for tomorrow morning.