The Navy's Greatest Failure Since Pearl Harbor
How the Navy's embrace of "anti-racism" is a big problem
When I enlisted in the Navy back in 1993, it wasn’t what I’d expected to do. Yeah, my father was a Navy man himself—a Seabee, to be specific—and I later found out that most of my paternal family was Navy as well, but I’d figured I’d join the Army or Air Force.
Yet when I talked to recruiters, the Navy guy was the only one who didn’t try to sell me a line of bull, so into the Navy I went.
That said, I’m damn proud to have been a part of the Navy. As a former Navy Corpsman, I’m exceptionally proud to part of that group. Read the Wikipedia entry on the Hospital Corps sometime to get an idea why.
Despite that, though, I now weep for the Navy. Why? Well, it seems they’re more interested in “anti-racism” than anything else.
See, the problem here isn’t that it’s asking sailors to not be racists or to stand for their fellow sailors in the face of racism. That’s actually reasonable, in my opinion.
No, the problem here is that it’s turning activism into an order, requiring members of the armed services to step up and act like Critical Race Theory pushers. Failing to do so would likely land a sailor in hot water.
Note the first pledge:
I pledge to be actively inclusive in the public and private sphers where I live an work, and proactively encourage others to do the same.
Now, the first part isn’t a huge issue. I disagree with the Navy trying to tell sailors who they should associate, by and large, but that’s not the big issue. No, it’s telling sailors they have to “proactively encourage others to do the same.”
That is going to cause some problems.
See, for one, the last thing anyone wants is to be lectured by some 18-year-old about how they should function. It’s bad enough when a kid comes home from college with that crap spewing out of their mouth—especially when they don’t understand what they’re seeing around them—but from a young sailor who doesn’t know a lick more?
No thank you.
Further, the phrase “proactively encourage others” means nothing less than sailors are expected to engage in outright activism. This is a problem because the military is supposed to be apolitical. If you can’t stand on a street corner in uniform and campaign for a candidate, then you shouldn’t be ordered to become an activist.
This is blatant intersectionalism, which is absolute nonsense in the first place. After all, the second “pledge” actually admits it’s about intersectionality.
What we’re seeing is the Biden administration using the military for political purposes, rather than making it effective to support and defend the United States Constitution.
Seriously, it’ll be a miracle if we’re not invaded in the next four years.
Our armed forces aren’t a social experiment. While yes, it’s been done before and will likely be done again, but that’s not what the military is really about. It’s about being prepared to kill our nation's enemies. It’s about hurting bad people and breaking things in the name of freedom.
Literally nothing in that says we should put our nation’s defense aside and start going off on social justice jihads. It won’t produce the results proponents think it will.
See, sailors are individuals, which means a lot of them are going to use this as justification to criticize minority-driven groups or organizations. Men may well call out groups for women.
And all will adhere to the pledge listed above.
You see, progressives don’t generally join the military in droves. The United States Armed Forces is made up of people from rural communities and cities alike, but remarkably few are progressives looking to enlist in an entity they can’t bully from within.
But the people who came up with this rot don’t actually care about that. Instead, they want to indoctrinate our sailors into the social justice jihadists they want more of in the world.
That’s what this is about, and this needs to end before this screwed up focus results in people’s attention not being where it needs to be and people get killed because of it.