January 2018: The British Army release a series of politically correct adverts which show a gay man worrying about acceptance, and female soldier leading a helicopter patrol and a Muslim soldier taking off his helmet before kneeling down to pray.

January 2019: Ignoring all previous criticism, the British Army now target “snowflakes”, “selfie addicts” and “phone zombies” in a series of retro-looking, propaganda-style ‘your country needs you’ advertising posters.

The British Army’s new recruitment campaign (January, 2019)

The new campaign, which features a cast of 3 White and 3 non-White characters, certainly meets the institution’s diversity quota goal which was discussed by then-Defence Secretary Michael Fallon back in 2015. Fallon told service chiefs that at least 10% of all new joiners must be non-White by 2020. He also aimed to introduce schemes to allow non-White soldiers to move up the ranks, thus improving minority representation in senior positions.

In 2015, ethnic minorities made up 7% of armed forces personnel compared with 12% of the overall workforce and approximately 14% of the overall population. This discrepancy of 5% has no doubt played a part in the subsequent armed forces advertising campaigns which have targeted minority groups in Britain.

Why is this a problem, you might ask. According to Ministry of Defence statistics, the size of the regular Army has plummeted from 159,100 people in 1980 to around 83,600 people in 2017. The Commons Defence Committee was told in October 2018 that the Army currently has just 77,000 fully trained troops against a target of 82,500. A report commissioned by Downing Street, published in 2017, found the Army was running at more than 30% below its annual recruitment target.

Why, at a time when we’re in such dire need for recruits, and with the amount of unrest that we currently face on a global scale, would the British state choose now to focus on diversity and inclusion rather than quantity and talent? To increase recruitment numbers in the fastest way possible, it would make sense to instead target their advertising at the group of people who are the most likely to sign up, namely; straight, White men.

It should come as no surprise that armed forces recruitment figures are plummeting following the vile treatment by the state of past heroes such as Sergeant Alexander Blackman (or ‘Marine A’), the dangers posed to off-duty British soldiers, such as the brutal murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby back in 2013 and the subsequent lack of interest from the state in his memory – they only have enough attention for Stephen Lawrence and Jo Cox, it would seem – and the measly 1% pay rise which soldiers received in 2017 for putting their lives on the line for us (British MPs received a 10% pay rise in 2015).

It should also come as no surprise about the lack of enthusiasm to join our armed forces from foreign citizens who currently reside in Britain. They would be signing up to fight for a country which isn’t theirs, after all. Though I’m aware that some foreign citizens do feel an allegiance to our nation, this feeling clearly isn’t replicated across the board, and this is evident from their lack of commitment and under-representation in security-centred job roles.

Still bearing this in mind, however, I struggle to believe that the British state is so foolish that they’d ‘accidentally’ put lives at risk because they want to be kind and inclusive. As is usually the case with such strange (and apparently stupid) political decisions, I suspect something a little more sinister is going on.

Those of us who have friends and family members in the armed forces will know that the sector is hardly ripe with champagne socialists and open borders enthusiasts, but instead, is jam-packed with masculinity and those who value realism over idealism. We’ve also seen in recent months how security forces in France have turned their backs on the state when asked to respond to the anti-globalist gilets jaunes protestors. Considering the demographic changes that we know are coming over the next few decades, and the eventual resistance that is to be expected from native Brits, could such policies and focuses as mentioned above be damage limitation by the British state? As our traitorous government facilitate the demographic replacement of our people, the British armed forces, being full of patriots, would no doubt be a threat to them.

But an armed forces full of non-natives? Perhaps not so much.