By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite his claims to prioritize military readiness and meritocracy, Secretary Hegseth has instead implemented policies prioritizing a white, Christian nationalist agenda. This includes purging experienced military leaders, cutting budgets, and undermining intelligence gathering, all while actively suppressing recognition of diverse groups and historical figures. Hegseth’s actions, such as reversing a policy barring segregation in defense contractor facilities and banning references to the Enola Gay, demonstrate a concerted effort to erase inclusivity from the military. His administration’s hiring of individuals promoting neo-Nazi ideologies further underscores this extreme agenda, revealing a focus on creating a military reflective of his narrow worldview.
Read the original article here
Enola Gay, the name of the B-29 Superfortress that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, is a source of recent controversy, stemming from a suggestion – falsely attributed to Pete Hegseth – that it should be renamed “Enola Straight.” This seemingly absurd proposal highlights a deeper concern: Hegseth’s actions, or perceived actions, reveal an alarming level of paranoia surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
The initial reaction to the “Enola Straight” claim was disbelief. Many found it hard to believe the statement wasn’t satirical, and the suggestion itself seemed ludicrous, reminiscent of a headline from *The Onion*. The idea that a historical aircraft’s name should be altered because it contains the word “gay” – a word with an etymological root meaning “happy” long before its association with homosexuality – exemplifies the skewed priorities at play.
The supposed renaming isn’t just about the name itself; it’s a symptom of a larger pattern. The broader context points to a deliberate attempt to erase anything that doesn’t align with a specific, narrow worldview. The suggestion is particularly troubling given Hegseth’s position and the implications of his actions. The Defense Department’s reversal of a 1965 policy prohibiting segregation in defense contractor facilities, coupled with the cancellation of military observances of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Pride Month, and Holocaust Remembrance Day, reinforces the perception of a concerted effort to suppress any recognition of diversity.
This perceived suppression isn’t limited to historical events and observances. The focus on purging military leadership and implementing stricter dress code regulations, even extending to the restriction of tattoos, shows a broader pattern of intolerance towards anything deemed non-conformist. The alleged incidents feel like intentional attempts to create a homogenous military culture, suppressing individuality and diversity. The whole situation leaves a deeply unsettling feeling.
The fact that Hegseth himself didn’t explicitly utter the “Enola Straight” phrase is important, yet doesn’t diminish the severity of the underlying issue. The fact that the statement originated from a satirical post, and was then used as a headline, raises serious questions about journalistic responsibility and the propagation of misinformation. However, the very fact that such a statement, however facetious, can be easily created and believed speaks volumes about the climate of fear and intolerance surrounding DEI.
The incident also highlights the double standards at play. While the name “Enola Gay” is targeted for its perceived association with homosexuality, other aircraft names with potentially problematic associations – such as “Fat Man” and “Little Boy,” referencing the atomic bombs – remain untouched, suggesting a selective focus fueled by homophobic bias. The inconsistency demonstrates that the concern isn’t truly about historical accuracy or sensitivity, but rather about a targeted attack on the LGBTQ+ community.
In conclusion, whether or not Hegseth directly stated the desire to rename the Enola Gay to “Enola Straight” is almost a secondary point. The incident serves as a powerful illustration of the escalating culture wars and the far-reaching implications of a perceived campaign to eliminate diversity and inclusivity within the military and beyond. The broader context, encompassing the reversal of anti-segregation policies and the cancellation of important commemorative days, reveals a systematic approach that seeks to eliminate aspects of history and culture deemed undesirable, leaving many to worry about the future implications of this alarming trend. The underlying message, whether explicit or implied, speaks to a deep-seated intolerance that undermines the principles of fairness, equality, and respectful discourse.