Stripping off the hypocrisy

It seems that the soldiers at the 2nd Infantry Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment had a bit of a shindig recently. And the waitresses got their gear off. And now it’s in the media.

The only surprise about all of this is that it is such a surprise.

Any time you put a bunch of blokes together and train them to be hard-fightin’, you’ll inevitably end up with a bunch of blokes with a propensity to be hard-livin’, hard-drinkin’ and hard partyin’ too. That’s human nature for you.

I’m not suggesting for a second that it is right. It’s not.

It’s just what happens when discipline of self and system is lacking in the military.

This has always been the conundrum for commanders: training tough and self-disciplined soldiers. This is the process by which a soldier is transformed from a blunt instrument into a useful weapon; well-balanced, razor sharp and able to discern the difference between immoral violence and the legitimate use of lethal force.

Unfortunately, self-discipline does not come cheap. And its currency is morality. The former necessarily presupposes the existence of the latter.

History has shown that a morally-functional military does not grow on trees. Student of the past will know that any thug can raise a mob and send them off in any given direction to rampage, rape and pillage and send the ill-gotten spoils back to the national treasury. If you took these stories out of history, you wouldn’t have much left at all.

History, however, is sadly lacking stories of morally-functional militaries that acted in humanity’s interest by defending principles of natural law from a world of ‘might is right’. Those that did were inevitably defending themselves from attack. They were the underdogs and they did not always win. And, I might add, they operated in accordance with the doctrine of just war found only in Christian teaching.

The current situation is unlikely to improve any time soon. In fact, as our society’s only moral belief is that morality is intolerant, it’s just going to worsen. Good luck building a self-disciplined military in today’s society, I say.

That doesn’t mean we won’t have moral outrage though. We will, and it will be of the worst kind. That’s because the one core ingredient in all the moral outrage about the extra-curricular activities of Australia’s soldiers is hypocrisy. And not just any old hypocrisy, but oodles of the most extreme duplicity and double standards.

Let’s start by looking at the hierarchy of the military. Today, they will be in damage control. Statements will be made. Orders will be issued. And the message will go out: no more cavorting with topless women.

They are orders that I support.

But they are made by kings bereft of any clothing. Because already the Australian Defence Force is planning to march down Oxford Street next year, just like it did this year, with bus loads of topless lesbians. And almost entirely naked homosexuals groping their way past the children who will once again be encouraged to attend in order to promote a tolerance of sexual immorality.


Defence: topless women are forbidden, except if you march with them
(images are all from the same Mardi Gras gallery)

The message is loud and proud but completely unintelligible.

You can wear your uniform with topless women but you can’t wear your uniform with topless women. You can march with topless women but they can’t serve you beer. You can be publicly seen in an event where women are encouraged to bare their breasts because it is good for the military’s image but you can’t hold a private function where this happens because it is bad for the military’s image.

In other words, the generals aren’t even telling the soldiers to do as they say and not as they do. They’re telling the soldiers not to do what they tell them to do.

And that is about the quickest way to kill off any idea of any form of discipline in any army that has ever existed.

But it would be wrong to hold the idea that these generals and admirals and air marshals are somehow alone up on their cloud of moral hypocrisy.

Because they are not.

They are standing up there with the politicians who mouth platitudes about the importance of addressing moral scandals in the military while they pass laws legalising, protecting and even promoting all sorts of immorality in every area of society.

And standing there with them are the feminists: the hypocritical feminists with their mealy mouths and ever unhappy and forlorn expressions of eternal victimisation.

These women and the increasing number of men who think they’re women (hey, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em) are the same moral evangelists who told us this year that being a prostitute makes you a good mother. And that this activity actually helps marriages. And they tell us that it is liberating for women to strip themselves bare for men. And they tell us that it is wrong to oppose the local brothel popping up down the road. And they tell us that the Mardi Gras is a healthy sign of a tolerant and modern society.

And then they spit off that cloud of moral hypocrisy at the men who are the economy for ‘liberated’ prostitutes and strippers. These women don’t do this because they are defenders of virtue. They do it simply because they hate the one organisation that by its very nature is masculine and always will be. In fact, these women would destroy our nation’s ability to defend itself just so they can feel smug.

Yes, the feminists want to have their cake and they won’t share it with anyone. But they will blame everyone but themselves for indigestion when they scoff the lot.

This whole incident also reeks of amateurism in an organisation that prides itself on professionalism.

The Army has truckloads of lawyers. Trust me, I know. And by and large, they have shown themselves to be inept. Time and again, soldiers who misbehave get away scot-free, while the military bureaucracy plot and scheme charges and disciplinary action against those who have broken no laws at all.

The soldier who organised the strippers for the ‘booza’ has just spent two weeks in jail. And now his conviction has been overturned because of the perception of a conflict of interest. The commander who issued the orders for ‘women to remain clothed at all times’ was the same commander who heard the military charges and issued the sentence. Rule 101 of military law is that the ‘judge’ does not sit on cases where he is also, in effect, the prosecuting officer and the primary witness.

Yet despite the knowledge that this incident would probably became a media story, and despite the knowledge that this ‘procedural anomaly’ would probably lead to a challenge, the hierarchy and their legal teams still went ahead with a kangaroo court to deal with an incident that required tight procedures precisely because it was so serious.

If the military disciplinarians can’t even be trusted to get an open and shut case right, it seems like Senator Jacqui Lambie’s call for a Royal Commission into the Defence Force just became an urgent requirement.

And the other point that can be made about all of this is that the Defence Directorate of Do-Goodery, otherwise known as ‘People Policy and Culture Division’ couldn’t organise themselves a stripper at the local booza with a fistful of dollars. You could ‘economically rationalise’ this entire division of the Department off the books and save enough cash to buy the Navy a battleship. And it would actually improve Defence culture.

The whole reason this lot exist is to end the ‘culture’ where strippers rock up at the local soldier’s club. Just so you know, the entire time I served as an officer, from 2003 until 2011, I never once heard of strippers being employed at a soldier’s club. And during this timeframe this mob have grown from being the token ‘diversity nerds’ to a bureaucratic cabal with tentacles and fingerprints everywhere.

But now real diversity of thought is dead and strippers are coming and going like there’s no tomorrow. This is not the first time this has happened this year.

However, that probably won’t stop the People Policy and Culture Group from deploying its Rapid Response Team armed with yet another Powerpoint presentation about ‘cultural reform’ and the requirement to be non-judgemental about sexual activity. They’re probably flying to Townsville, even as I write this, in order to ‘sanitise’ the incident and provide counselling to all and sundry. And preparing submissions for more departmental funding due to their ever-increasing workload.

After all, it must be hard dealing with outbreaks of strippers when your primary role is to organise the military’s ‘float’ at the next Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine 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


  1. Enjoy your site Bernard and agree with you. But, old mate as you have found you will always be banging your head against a brick wall as it seems. I spent 12 years in the Army, including a year in Vietnam, then joined the Police. As long as women are prepared to get their gear off, men will always do what men do….Look! It seems that no one wants to give them credit for being able to control their so called “animal instincts”. Talk about a storm in a T cup.

    As for the Homosexual issue, I was an MP Investigator and recall when it was an offence to be a Homosexual, or at least grounds for Discharge. And with good reason I believe. As I was getting out it started to change only to incorporate matters of assault, Senior ranks imposing on junior ranks etc etc. I always wondered how long it would be before it became compulsory……..not long now I think.

    But here is a serious question. In a time of war, just how long does an thinking person believe these Homosexuals think they would last in a combat unit. My theory is not long, in fact not long in any front line unit. I know I would feel might uncomfortable with them around.

    Post a Reply
  2. Bernard, great article and well pointed out. The social acceptance of moral relativism is slowly but surely dripping through the cracks and filling up the ADF.

    Post a Reply
  3. And they tell us the mardi gras is a sign of a healthy and tolerant society LOL …I say it’s a sure sign of a society on it’s way to oblivion.

    Post a Reply
  4. Hi Bernard,
    Firstly I want to thank you for your courage and continuing stand for what is right. Keep up the fight!
    In regard to this issue of soldiers misbehaving. I believe that we have the worlds best soldiers and they should be led well by men of strong moral conviction. Although their behaviour is not a good image, I keep in mind that these same men are expected to fight valiantly on behalf of our country, which many have done! I agree that the rot from the top is insidious. You cannot expect men to behave well if the example of honour respect, moral fortitude and courage is not shown by the leaders. The current moral ineptitude of all our leaders, political, military and religious is shameful. It will be rewarded accordingly sad to say. However we must remember that a military force is made up of all types of men and women. This of course means not everyone will hold the same high standards you set for yourself. It is common for military personnel to find stress relief by the methods you see. We will never stop them doing it, except that this sort of behaviour should be done out of uniform off base if it is ever done. The problem is that the boundaries are not clear due to the values shown by senior military just as you have stated. I think that any action taken against these soldiers should also include the officers who have failed in their duty to lead in a suitable manner.

    Post a Reply
    • I agree wholeheartedly. It is impossible to hold people to account for poor behaviour when they have not been given an example to follow.

      Post a Reply
  5. ‘Just so you know, the entire time I served as an officer, from 2003 until 2011, I never once heard of strippers being employed at a soldier’s club’.Well Bernard all I can say is you must have had a very sheltered career. I served in the ARA (Infantry) from 1974 to 2007 and the practice of having topless barmaids at Soldiers Club functions was very common, in fact most Army boxing tournaments had topless females holding up the round count between breaks. How you can draw the conclusion that this impacts on the discipline of our Soldiers I find astounding and has no fact in evidence.
    It should be remembered that the primary role of the ADF, during peacetime, is to prepare for war. Not to meet the social or egalitarian needs of one section of society. The Senate committee report in 2001 on recruitment and retention in the ADF, in their conclusion of the broad reasons for enlistment and acceptance of the unique nature of military service led the committee to the concept of the ‘psychological contract’. The committee stated the psychological contract is a set of mutual, unwritten beliefs or expectations about the obligations between defence and its people…Under this ‘contract’, they accept the unique nature of military service in consideration for satisfying their patriotic, personal and security goals’.

    An Army Major psychologist in an article he wrote in the Defence Force Journal talks of breaching of this contract between Army and its people. He believes that the majority of Army personnel feel that this contract has been breached. This in his view has lead to disillusionment and low morale among Army personnel. To take this construct one step further it could be argued that Army has a ‘psychological contract’ with its combat warriors. This contract was based on satisfying the needs of the warrior. It can be argued that the majority of those who join the Army and in particular the arms corps (combat units) do so because they have some common traits which drive them to satisfy the warrior within them. These soldiers tend to be drawn from within a specific trait dominated sub-culture.

    In the eyes of its warriors, Army has blatantly dishonoured this contract. It has embraced political correctness in every facet of its operations. It has given in to social pressures. As discussed before the warrior soldiers are drawn mainly from within a specific trait dominated sub-culture. This group by its very nature of being and fabric of make-up believe society to be changing for the worst. Softness and non-aggression are now rewarded, homosexuality once considered an immoral act is now accepted and celebrated and the caring professionals (such as psychologist and social workers) are eroding societies resilience by attempting to immunise them against adversity and suffering by an artificial injection of empathy. This is the problem facing Defence and not some combat Soldiers enjoying time off with their mates

    Post a Reply
    • George, you won’t get any argument from me about the political correctness that has permeated the Army, particularly in the senior officer ranks. Nor will you get any argument from me about how this has negatively impacted operations, even to the point of allowing soldiers to die because of intelligence failures based on the fact that it is politically incorrect to identify Islam as the centre of gravity for our enemy’s actions. Anyone who reads this webpage will be well aware of my views on these issues. Nor will you find any support on this page for politically correct views that allow the Army’s association with topless women in one place (the Mardi Gras) while jailing soldiers for doing exactly the same in the another (the Soldier’s Club). This is blatant hypocrisy and, like all hypocrisy, is crippling for morale and discipline. I accept that part of the requirement for the development of military teamwork is built upon team bonding through social activities. In fact, this is critical for the development of camaraderie, morale and trust. For instance, I am highly critical of the ‘cultural change’ that removed alcohol from field at the conclusion of exercises. This reduced social interaction (especially in a controlled environment), shunted problems into the public and created social/family problems because the obvious result was the increased pressure of soldiers to head straight to the pub on return from exercise. This politically-correct professionalism to did not solve any problems, it just moved them somewhere else and at the same time increased stress on families. I accept your view regarding the implied ‘contract’. I dispute that this involves topless women at military events/functions. When militaries have high standards of conduct they will have soldiers with high standards, both as soldiers within the profession of arms and as individuals capable of making rational and rightly-minded decisions with regards to the exercise of the power they have been given to take life. Low standards of behaviour at military events detract from a soldier’s ability to exercise this power rightly and necessarily create a tolerance for degrading behaviour. Furthermore, in regards to this specific incident, there is a disciplinary failure. An order was given and it was disobeyed. The stupidity of the process undertaken to deal with situation does not change this fact. Finally, while I don’t wish to promote the standards of behaviour in this incident, it is clear that there is a strong case of sexual-discrimination at play here. The decisions taken by the most senior commanders to uniformed involvement in events with topless women are not based on any military reality. They are based entirely on the sexual preferences of those who wish to attend these events. This is known as sexual discrimination and it is illegal. The corporal at the centre of this saga is well within his rights to point this fact out.

      Post a Reply
  6. If the strippers had been male homosexuals the event would have been hailed a triumph for progressive tolerance.

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest