From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

A survey approved by Canada’s Department of National Defence and sent to Canadian soldiers about ‘right-wing extremism’ seems to define ‘extremism’ as including patriotism and questioning mainstream narratives.

A survey sent to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) questioned soldiers regarding so-called “extremism” activity, including wearing “Make Canada Great Again” hats.

On November 26, the Department of National Defence sent CAF members an “extremism” probe gauging “Hateful Conduct and Right-Wing Extremism in the Canadian Armed Forces,” written by the Ontario Tech University’s Network for Research on Hateful Conduct and Right-Wing Extremism in the CAF.

“The collected information will provide researchers with the means to understand and provide recommendations on how to detect and combat hateful conduct and radicalization among CAF members,” the news release read.

“Study results could also help develop recommendations on targeted interventions, systemic reform, and policy,” it continued.

According to screenshots obtained by independent media outlet True North News, the survey’s definition of “extremism” seems to include patriotism and questioning mainstream narratives.

One section asked if soldiers had purchased “extremism merchandise” such as a “Make Canada Great Again hat,” “‘liked’ an extremist group post on social media,” or “provided strategic advice or training to an extremist group” in the past two to five years.

The questionnaire questioned if soldiers had ever “searched for and watched extremist music and/or videos,” “sported a tattoo or clothing with extremist symbols,” or verbally or physically attacked a member of a racial or religious minority.

Later, the survey asked CAF members to what extent they agree with statements including, “Jews have too much control over certain institutions,” “Canada appears to be moving towards fascism,” and “non-white immigration trends are a threat to white people.”

While the survey was approved by both the Department of National Defence and CAF Social Science Research Review Board, the former has since distanced itself from the probe.

“The DND/CAF is not funding this research, nor has it contracted this research,” the department said. “This study is being conducted by independent researchers from Ontario Tech University’s Network for Research on Hateful Conduct and Right-Wing Extremism in the Canadian Armed Forces.”

However, as radical as the survey is, it is in keeping with the woke agenda embraced by the Canadian military under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Since Trudeau took office, the Canadian military has become increasingly woke and has been forcing LGBT ideology on its personnel. At the same time, military recruitment has plummeted.

In April, Canada’s first “transgender” military chaplain was suspended for alleged sexual harassment, after he reportedly sought to grope a male soldier at the Royal Military College while drunk.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, the military spent Canadians’ tax dollars on pro-DEI polls, guest speakers, presentations, and workshops, as well as LGBT flags. The workshops covered topics including “the gendered nature of security,” while one talk discussed “integrating gender and diversity perspectives.”

In 2021, the defence department revealed that it has two separate committees and eight programs that worked to appoint homosexual advisors to “innovate” religious instruction and gender-neutral uniforms.

In June of 2023, the Canadian military was criticized for “raising the pride flag” in honor of the “2SLGBTQI+ communities.”

That same month, Canadian troops in Latvia were forced to purchase their own helmets and food when the Trudeau government failed to provide proper supplies. Weeks later, Trudeau lectured the same troops on “climate change” and so-called disinformation.

Last November, officials admitted that the nation’s military is shrinking to dangerously low numbers as Trudeau continues to push the LGBT agenda on Canadian soldiers. In addition to low recruitment, the military is struggling to retain soldiers.

By S.L. Nelson

Success in today’s world favors smart, creative leaders who can quickly adapt and make decisions that benefit their organizations. President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Pete Hegseth to lead the Department of Defense marks a significant shift from his first administration.

Hegseth, with fewer ties to the traditional defense establishment, is expected to transform the department in two vital areas: First, he will expose generals and admirals who act out of self-interest; second, he will refocus the military on its core function of lethality — the use or threat of deadly force to win wars and deter enemies.

Hegseth’s appointment threatens senior military officers who are more concerned with their legacy than with mission accomplishment. These officers feel susceptible to changes that will threaten their carefully curated norms. Many current leaders have avidly promoted DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) and CRT (Critical Race Theory), and Hegseth’s threat to remove these programs stokes their fears. These leaders have promoted subordinates who share their views, creating a cycle of making leaders in their own image. To break this cycle, Hegseth will also need to ensure that general officers are held accountable for the officers they promote. These actions will ensure that his and President Trump’s ‘Warrior Boards’ achieve their desired effect and weed out the right leaders.

Civilian leaders and politicians should also scrutinize the retired officers who placed these generals in their positions in the first place. If multiple legacies are at risk, flag officers will develop and implement more objective metrics for recommending general officer positions.

Hegseth’s leadership will refocus the Department of Defense on its core purpose. By removing ineffective leaders who prioritize social theories over military effectiveness, he will eliminate a major obstacle. These changes will encourage accountability and forward-thinking approaches. A clear message will echo from the top down that adapting to change means manning, training, and equipping the military to win wars, rather than allowing military officers to succumb to the self-loathing which places individual egos above selfless service to the country.

Adapting to change is also the responsibility of military commanders. Officers command Army organizations. It is significant that in some branches of the United States Army, up to half the officers do not desire to compete for Battalion Command.  Many reasons include burnout and the threat of investigations that are launched ad nauseam in a zero-defect environment. The Army cannot be effective if officers do not want to command. Commanders hesitate to enforce standards in this environment because an unhappy subordinate can ruin their career with a retaliatory allegation. If an investigation is launched, commanders worry that general officers will dispose of these allegations negatively rather than appear lenient. Secretary Hegseth will support his commanders because his commander in chief supports him.

Not supporting your subordinate commanders has vital consequences for national security. A glaring example of a lack of support for the Department of Defense is demonstrated by the contempt of the Chinese in answering Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s phone calls and his apparent indifference to it. “I think we’ll continue … to stress how important it is, and hopefully Minister Wei will schedule that call,” Austin told CNN.

One can hardly imagine Hegseth having the same attitude as Secretary Austin. Trump proved during his first term, with sanctions and recently renewed threats of another trade war with China, that his government will support its Defense Department by imposing harsh sanctions and other measures. This whole-of-government approach will allow Hegseth to focus on the military and make its interactions with foreign militaries more effective.

In fact, the Trump transition team is already laying the groundwork for forward-leaning tariff plans through legislation. Because legislation will make it harder to have subsequent administrations revoke these actions, the Defense Department will benefit from a more permanent government position when it comes to the exercise of economic power. Hegseth will, thus, occupy an even stronger position to engage with military threats to the United States with supporting economic policies that are not just unilateral executive actions by the Trump administration.

President-elect Trump’s selection of Pete Hegseth frees the Department of Defense from being anchored in the change dynamics of the past. Current and future change undercurrents cannot be managed with legacy processes. Leaders must adapt and be free to act outside of institutional norms, especially those tied to a selfish cycle of self-promotion and government social experiments rather than the effectiveness of the Department of Defense.

This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

S.L. Nelson has served from the tactical to strategic level as a military officer. His views are his own and do not represent the position of the U.S. DoD.