Military Veterans and Patriots

Tag: DEI

  • DEI – Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Unleashed

    DEI – Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Unleashed

    AI Outline: is a set of principles and practices that promote fairness and respect for all people.

    From @realchrisrufo on X

    EXCLUSIVE:

    @GrossmanHannah and I have obtained logs from the NSA’s secret transgender sex chatroom, in which NSA, CIA, and DIA employees discuss genital castration, artificial vaginas, piss fetishes, sex polycules, and gangbangs—all on government time. This is insane.

    One popular chat topic was male-to-female transgender surgery, which involves surgically removing the penis and turning it into an artificial vagina. These male intelligence agents love the feeling of penetration and of peeing with their pseudo-vaginas.

    These trans employees discuss hair removal, estrogen treatments, and breast implants. “Getting my butthole zapped by a laser was . . . shocking,” said one trans-identifying DIA official. “Medical science is gonna give me tits one way or another,” said a Navy intel employee.

    One NSA official claims to use “it/its” pronouns, meaning that this person does not identify as a human, but rather, feels like a sexless, genderless thing. Other intel employees defend the usage of “it/itself” pronouns, claiming that not using them amounts to trans “erasure.”

    Intel employees used the chatroom to discuss “ethical non-monogamy,” or “polyamory.” Many claimed to be part of sprawling sexual networks and have a rich slang vocabulary about their sex lives. “Some of our friends are practically poly-mers, with all the connected compounds.”

    Read the full story about the NSA’s secret sex chats exclusively at City Journal.

    The “intelligence community” is one of the most powerful parts of the American national security apparatus. In theory, it works tirelessly to keep the nation safe. But according to internal documents that we obtained, some intelligence agency employees have another on-the-job priority: sex chats.

    We have cultivated sources within the National Security Agency—one current employee and one former employee—who have provided chat logs from the NSA’s Intelink messaging program. According to an NSA press official, “All NSA employees sign agreements stating that publishing non-mission related material on Intelink is a usage violation and will result in disciplinary action.” Nonetheless, these logs, dating back two years, are lurid, featuring wide-ranging discussions of sex, kink, polyamory, and castration.

    One popular chat topic was male-to-female transgender surgery, which involves surgically removing the penis and turning it into an artificial vagina. “[M]ine is everything,” said one male who claimed to have had gender reconstruction surgery. “[I]’ve found that i like being penetrated (never liked it before GRS), but all the rest is just as important as well.” Another intelligence official boasted that genital surgery allowed him “to wear leggings or bikinis without having to wear a gaff under it.”

    These employees discussed hair removal, estrogen injections, and the experience of sexual pleasure post-castration. “[G]etting my butthole zapped by a laser was . . . shocking,” said one transgender-identifying intel employee who spent thousands on hair removal. “Look, I just enjoy helping other people experience boobs,” said another about estrogen treatments. “[O]ne of the weirdest things that gives me euphoria is when i pee, i don’t have to push anything down to make sure it aims right,” a Defense Intelligence Agency employee added.

    These revelations come at a moment of heightened scrutiny for the intelligence community. President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have each made the case that the intelligence agencies have gone “woke,” prioritizing left-wing activism over national security. These chat logs confirm their suspicions and raise fundamental questions about competence and professionalism.

    According to our sources, the sex chats were legitimized as part of the NSA’s commitment to “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Activists within the agency used LGBTQ+ “employee resource groups” to turn their kinks and pathologies into official work duties. According to the current NSA employee, these groups “spent all day” recruiting activists and holding meetings with titles such as “Privilege,” “Ally Awareness,” “Pride,” and “Transgender Community Inclusion.” And they did so with the full support of NSA leadership, which declared that DEI was “not only mission critical, but mission imperative.”

    In this case, “diversity” was not a byword for racialism, but rather a euphemism for sex talk. Last January, chatroom members discussed their practice of polyamory, or “ethical non-monogamy.” “[A] polycule is a polyamorous group,” one employee explained. “A is my [girlfriend], and B-G are her partners. . . . then B&C are dating but not C&D, nor E, F, or G with any of the others, though there are several MWB (metas-with-benefits) connections.” Another employee claimed to be part of a nine-member “polycule,” adding that “some of our friends are practically poly-mers, with all the connected compounds.”

    At other times, the conversations became explicit. The active source at the NSA claimed to have witnessed hundreds of sexually provocative discussions, which, he added, occurred mostly on taxpayer time. The former NSA source who was familiar with the chats recalled being “disgusted” by a particularly shocking thread discussing weekend “gangbangs.”

    The NSA sources also raised the question of some staffers’ mental fitness for the job. In one chat, an NSA employee insists on using “it” pronouns in lieu of the human “he” or “she” pronouns. “[I]t/its user here. While I understand we can make some people uncomfortable, keep in mind that the dehumanizing aspect either a) doesn’t apply or b) is a positive effect when we’re requesting it.” A commenter who disagreed was quickly dismissed by employees of the NSA and CIA, who claimed that refusing to use “it/its” pronouns amounted to “erasing” a transgender identity.

    “These are folks with top secret clearances believing they are an IT!” said the NSA source.

    With the Trump administration taking over, we may see changes. The NSA source said that staffers involved in employee resource groups fear the end of DEI. “[T]here are legal restrictions in place, but this admin has shown they don’t give a f**k about legality,” a staffer in space intelligence remarked about DEI staffers being placed on leave. Others have expressed opposition to Trump’s cabinet nominees.

    A conflict is coming. These NSA chat logs suggest the presence of at least hundreds of gender activists within the intelligence services who cannot distinguish between male and female, and who believe that discussing castration, polyamory, and “gangbangs” is an appropriate use of public resources. For psychological and ideological reasons, these kinds of people will not be easily sidelined. The Trump administration should not only dismantle the structure of DEI but also terminate the employees who use it to advance gender activism at the expense of national security.

    Link: https://www.city-journal.org/article/national-security-agency-internal-chatroom-transgender-surgeries-polyamory

  • The Intellectual Collapse of DEI

    The Intellectual Collapse of DEI

    The Intellectual Collapse of DEI

    Rich Lowry for National Review

    DEI is a bad idea whose time came with a vengeance several years ago, but now its continued ascendancy is in doubt.

    Perhaps the most important event this year outside of the presidential election is the intellectual collapse of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion, which is poisonous hokum that is finally being exposed as such.

    DEI has been one of the most morally perverse and damaging fads in recent American history.

    We’ve been spending an estimated $8 billion a year telling Americans in training sessions, workshops, and educational material that they are, depending on their race or gender, victims or oppressors, and that the country is shot through with white supremacy. The DEI mindset is dominant in human-resources departments and on college campuses.

    Common sense says that this racialist hectoring — often administered by people who brook no dissent — must be unhealthy, and, sure enough, evidence is beginning to pile up.

    Research has suggested that DEI can create negative feelings or make people afraid to speak their minds. Now comes a compelling new studyfrom an outfit called the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers University Social Perception Lab. It found that DEI amplified “perceptions of prejudicial hostility where none was present, and punitive responses to the imaginary prejudice.”

    In other words, if its goal is to create illiberal racial paranoiacs, DEI is succeeding brilliantly.

    In one experiment, the study’s architects gave one group of students an anodyne essay about U.S. corn production to read while another got an essay drawn from the work of DEI superstars Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. Then, the students were asked to evaluate a simple, racially neutral scenario involving a college applicant getting rejected by an East Coast university.

    The students who had read the DEI material were more likely to believe that the hypothetical admissions officer in the scenario was more discriminatory, more unfair, and more harmful, as well as guilty of more micro-aggressions — again, even though nothing in the scenario suggested as much.

    The Kendi-DiAngelo students were also more likely to want to require DEI training for the admissions officer, to suspend the officer for a semester, and to demand a public apology. Why let an absence of facts stand in the way of punitive measures?

    Meanwhile, a report in the New York Times Magazine found that the University of Michigan’s decade-long, roughly $250 million experiment in making DEI part of the warp and woof of the school’s life has been a failure.

    “In a survey released in late 2022,” the Times notes, “students and faculty members reported a less positive campus climate than at the program’s start and less of a sense of belonging. Students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics.”

    Ordinary campus disputes have become five-alarm DEI crises, administrators complain about all the new DEI-created paperwork, and students and faculty are afraid to say anything that might offend anyone.

    It’d be one thing if it were only the University of Michigan that had sunk itself in this mire, but this dynamic has been duplicated throughout corporate America and our education system. There are signs, though, that the wave has crested. Walmart just announced that it will stop using the term “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” and end various DEI-related initiatives. Other companies have been pulling back, as well. The trend will presumably only accelerate with a new Trump administration hostile to DEI.

    The end of DEI would be a net addition to our collective life. It would avoid, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, a gratuitous source of conflict and mutual suspicion. It would roll back the undue power given to fatuous martinets. It would stop the spread, under the guise of inclusion, of lies about American society.

    The old saw is that socialism hasn’t failed, it just hasn’t been tried. Well, DEI has been tried, and the dismal results are now becoming known.

    © 2024 by King Features Syndicate

    The following may be the most accurate definition.

  • 30-Year Naval Academy…

    30-Year Naval Academy…

    30-Year Naval Academy Teacher Details Depth Of DEI Rot In America’s Military Institutions
    By: Shawn Fleetwood 

    It’s no secret the Biden administration has “reimagined” the U.S. military into a left-wing social experiment. From employing enlisted drag queens to boost recruitment to using taxpayer funds to host LGBT “pride” events on military installations, America’s supreme fighting force has prioritized promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) racism over addressing the biggest challenges hampering U.S. military readiness.

    A recently released book unveils how this leftist ideology is also infecting the military’s service academies. In Saving Our Service Academies: My Battle with, and for, the US Naval Academy to Make Thinking Officers, author and professor Bruce Fleming documents the pervasiveness of DEI throughout the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA) and shows how the institution’s cookie-cutter bureaucracy is crippling individuality among the school’s midshipmen.

    During his over 30-year teaching career at the institution, Fleming served (for a time) on the USNA Admissions Board, which evaluates applicants and decides which are ultimately admitted into the school. While on the board, he allegedly discovered that — like many civilian colleges — the academy considers applicants’ race throughout the admissions process and accepts nonwhite applicants who don’t meet the school’s academic requirements. Fleming claims that “[a]pplicants who self-identified as a member of a race the Academy wished to privilege … were briefed separately to the committee not by a white member but by a minority Navy lieutenant.”

    “The choices are simple. If you want students who look a certain way but tend to score lower than others, you accept the lower scores and stop talking about your standards. Or you go with the class that can meet these standards and stop talking about the way they look,” Fleming writes. “The Naval Academy tries to square the circle by both bragging about its standards and letting in half the class to lower standards.”

    Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the use of race-based admissions, or “affirmative action,” by institutions of higher education is unconstitutional. That decision did not, however, address the use of such policies by U.S. military academies. Students for Fair Admissions — the plaintiff in the aforementioned SCOTUS decision — filed lawsuits against West Point and the Naval Academy over their race-based admissions policies in September and October, respectively.

    Throughout his book, Fleming further notes that the USNA’s obsession with race is creating “resentment within the ranks,” and that students who speak out against the school’s DEI-focused promotion system are punished.

    “What I saw at Annapolis was that nonracist white midshipmen became resentful at realizing that leadership positions were awarded to less competent midshipmen on the basis of skin color, and that they themselves, if they noted this out loud, were punished for not being with the program — which increased their resentment,” Fleming writes. “All promotions or preferences are individual ones, and ‘broadly reflective diversity’ is bought at the individual level by preferring a less competent individual with the desired skin color. If they are equally competent or more competent, the problem disappears.”

    “The military shows all the problems of any top-down totalitarian state, and its members can be court-martialed for resisting,” he adds.

    Throughout his career at the academy, Fleming regularly questioned the decision-making from the school’s leadership and penned several op-eds criticizing what he viewed to be its shortcomings. In 2017, for example, he wrote an article in The Federalist detailing how “upper-class students at service academies have lost faith in the system, because it’s based on lies.” Fleming said that “students realize they are cast members in a military Disneyland run for the benefit of the brass and the tourists, not the taxpayers who pay their way and want better-than-average officers.”

    Fleming’s public criticisms generated ire from the academy’s bureaucratic leadership. In 2018, the school fired him over allegations of classroom impropriety filed by five students. Fleming profusely denied the accusations and appealed the decision to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, which ordered his reinstatement to the academy in July 2019.

    According to the Navy Times, Judge Mark Syska said in his ruling that the midshipman who “filed the longest complaint” had “credibility issues” and that his complaint was “greatly exaggerated — to the point of being hard to credit on certain points.” Syska additionally highlighted that the students who filed the complaints “did not generally take offense or have any actual issue with the appellant.”

    “Moreover, much of the charged conduct, as noted by the investigating panel, did not appear to be actual misconduct in the context of free-wheeling classroom discussions,” Syska wrote.

    While ultimately reinstated by the academy, Fleming has not been permitted to return to the classroom. The school has placed him on a “forced sabbatical,” according to the “Eyes on Annapolis” podcast, which interviewed Fleming in February.

    In concluding his book, Fleming calls on military institutions such as the USNA and West Point to “dial back the hype” and “stop lying about what [they] are.” Specifically, he demands these academies quit pushing mistruths about their selectivity and “quality of the students” to uphold the façade that they’re legacy institutions worthy of praise and adoration.

    Our service academies are “beautiful places and, under these circumstances, duty, honor, and country could once again be primary. Sadly, in places like Annapolis as they currently exist, they no longer are,” Fleming writes. “I want them back.”

    First it was the Air Force Academy in the news over DEI. Next up was West Point over changing their customary creed. Now, the Naval Academy is being shown to care less about quality than checking certain boxes. Nary a one of our enemies need fear us. They only need to sit back as our military ceases being force ready to defend us. Few, if any, shots will be fired.

  • The Military Academies Have

    The Military Academies Have Turned Into Woke Wastelands

    Francis P. Sempa for Spectator.org

    Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are teaching cadets to oppose — even hate — our nation’s founding values.

    In 1962, General Douglas MacArthur said to the Corps of Cadets at the US Military Academy at West Point: “Your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable. It is to win our wars. Everything else in your professional career is but corollary to this vital dedication.” No longer is this the case. Sixty years later, the “very obsession” of America’s military service academies is not Duty, Honor, Country but Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion — DEI.

    The rot of educational priorities at US military academies begins at the top and extends far beyond those educational institutions. In February and March of 2021, the Biden administration resumed DEI training efforts throughout government institutions, including those on “critical race theory and white privilege” subjects begun during the Obama administration, that had been curtailed to some extent by the Trump administration, which labeled such training as “un-American propaganda training sessions.” On June 25, 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order “advancing” DEI throughout the federal workforce, including in our armed services, to end “the enduring legacies of employment discrimination, systemic racism, and gender inequality.” 

    Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in February 2022 praised the president for his “commit[ment]” to diversity and inclusion in our armed forces, and in September of that year Austin announced the formation of a Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity and Inclusion. General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, upheld West Point’s policy of teaching critical race theory during a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee. Admiral Michael Gilday, chief of naval operations, defended the recommendation of Ibram X. Kendi’s book How to Be an Antiracist — which equates capitalism with racism — to sailors. In May 2021, the acting Navy secretary directed the Navy’s chief diversity officer to “develop an action plan to promote DEI in Department-wide policies, programs and operations.” Barbara Barrett, then secretary of the Air Force, in June 2020 created a “Diversity and Inclusion Task Force.” This task force expanded to become the Office of Diversity and Inclusion in January 2021, which is dedicated to promoting a “diverse and highly inclusive environment” throughout the Air Force. The Coast Guard, too, has institutionalized DEI training led by so-called “change agents” to “develop an organizational culture that values respect, diversity, equity and inclusion.”

    The most lasting effect of the trend toward wokeness in our armed forces will be seen in the service academies, where future officers in all branches of the armed forces are being indoctrinated with DEI. Fox News reports that the Air Force Academy’s diversity and inclusion training materials include instructions “to use words that ‘include all genders’ and to refrain from saying things like ‘mom’ and ‘dad.’” Diversity and inclusion, cadets are told, is “a warfighting imperative.” Diversity and inclusion resources include a diversity and inclusion “reading room” and “affinity groups,” the latter of which the academy website claims aids cadets in “gather[ing] around a shared affinity or bond” and allows them to be “identity-based.” Training includes courses on “unconscious bias,” “cultural sensitivity,” and “inclusive leadership.” Lieutenant General Richard Clark, superintendent of the Air Force Academy, told Fox News that the instructions to avoid using mom, dad, and the like were “taken out of context and misrepresented.” He asserted that diversity and inclusion training centered on “the warfighting imperative of leveraging diverse perspectives to solve our nation’s most difficult national security problems.” I wonder what Billy Mitchell, father of the Air Force, or Curtis LeMay, the famous World War II general, would have said about that — but they are “dead white males”; nobody listens to them these days. The Air Force Academy’s website includes a video presentation on “Pride Month,” including LGBTQ+ and pronoun normalization. The academy’s “Diversity & Inclusion Resource List” includes books on topics such as “Unconscious Bias” and “Race-Specific Learning.” GOP senator Tom Cotton, a combat Army veteran himself, responded strongly to the news release; he wrote a letter to Clark in which he called the Air Force Academy’s diversity and inclusion training “divisive and un-American” and claimed that it teaches future airmen to have “contempt” for “our nation’s traditions and values.” Such training, Cotton wrote, has “no place in our military.”

    Meanwhile, at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland — which produced the likes of Alfred Thayer Mahan, John A. Lejeune, Charles C. Krulak, Ernest J. King, Chester W. Nimitz, William D. Leahy, Hyman G. Rickover, James Stockdale, and many other naval giants — the leadership has formulated a “Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan.” The plan’s introduction promotes a “path to inclusion” for an “inviting, safe, and supportive campus” where “everyone feels they belong and have equitable opportunity for success regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, gender, sexual orientation or socioeconomic background.” Training at Annapolis will include “develop[ing] and maintain[ing] a comprehensive cultural awareness and bias literacy … framework”; “creat[ing] a metric that can measure and track belongingness”; providing students “with information and pamphlets with diversity and inclusion resources, programs, and initiatives”; and “promot[ing] membership in affinity groups.” The curriculum will “prioritiz[e] the inclusion of marginalized scholarship and hidden histories within midshipmen education.” There will also be a “confidential process for reporting bias incidents … to proactively identify areas for potential additional training” and “admissions specific cultural awareness and bias literacy training modules for everyone” in the admissions and recruiting process. The Naval Academy, the plan states, should “intentionally promote diversity in service assignments,” develop and promote “proper reporting procedures for instances of discrimination,” and institute diversity and inclusion “summits” and “recognition awards.” This plan was signed by the senior leadership of the Naval Academy.

    Critics, including 2002 Naval Academy graduate and former naval officer J.A. Cauthen, have accused the Naval Academy’s leadership of being “[w]illing collaborators all too eager to appease their political masters.” Cauthen describes parts of the strategic plan as similar to “bygone Soviet and Maoist slogans,” policies both “pernicious and punitive” that will “fundamentally transform the education and training of midshipmen by supplanting rigor, merit, and superior performance with a focus on phantom grievances.” Revolutionary War hero John Paul Jones’s immortal “I have not yet begun to fight” is giving way to reality star (and featured speaker at the Naval Academy in 2019) Alexis Jones’s much softer “the importance of mutual respect.”

    This woke experiment with the academies that are supposed to produce our nation’s warriors … “will harm our military’s ability to perform its mission.”

    Over at the Coast Guard Academy, the Office of Inclusion and Diversity supports six “diversity councils” to “Cultivate a Supportive and Inclusive Environment.” Cadets called “Diversity Peer Educators” provide “information and support on … race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity” subjects. The academy previously had come under fire for its lack of “cultural competence” in a report by the National Academy of Public Administration, which recommended reforms, including formulating a “detailed DEI action plan with a long-term timeline”; “broadening [the] responsibilities of the chief diversity officer” by making that officer a “strategic advisor of the superintendent”; and “detailing and tracking metrics to measure progress and guide efforts to improve cultural competence.” The less visible and less well-known US Merchant Marine Academy has also pledged to “establish[] a welcoming and diverse campus” and employs a “diversity recruiter.”

    And then there is West Point, perhaps the most revered military academy in the nation — the institution that produced Generals Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, George H. Thomas, William T. Sherman, John J. Pershing, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, Henry “Hap” Arnold, George Patton, Matthew Ridgway, Creighton Abrams, H. Norman Schwarzkopf, and so many other great military leaders. West Point has fallen victim to Congress and the Pentagon’s “Naming Commission,” which resulted in the removal of all traces of Robert E. Lee from public view and will influence the renaming of roads, barracks, and other buildings named for Lee and other Confederate generals. Wokeness, it seems, includes an Orwellian erasing of history.

    West Point’s Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Equal Opportunity (ODIEO) was established during the Obama administration and is “the focal point for West Point Diversity and Inclusion outreach initiatives, projects, and plans.” ODIEO, according to West Point’s website, “identifies and advocates diversity and inclusion awareness opportunities and implements diversity training and education programs that develop socio-cultural competencies to meet the multicultural demands of the Army’s workforce.” Cadets can minor in “Diversity and Inclusion Studies,” which includes courses titled “Social Inequality,” “Power and Difference,” and “The Politics of Race, Gender, and Sexuality.” West Point hosts “Diversity & Inclusion Leadership Conferences,” has “Diversity Clubs,” and presents a “Department of the Army Diversity & Leadership Award.” Fox News reports that cadets are subjected to “pronoun play acting” sessions. In 2021, former female West Point cadets criticized the academy for promoting a “woke ideology,” which included lectures on “White rage” and “extremism.” Students were tutored on “writing essays about critical race theory.” The activist group Judicial Watch last year obtained more than six hundred documents from the Defense Department affirming that critical race theory is being taught at West Point.

    But the education in critical race theory is having its intended effect. In June 2020, nine recent West Point graduates, including two first captains, a Rhodes scholar, two Fulbright scholars, and two Marshall scholars, issued a forty-page policy proposal urging West Point’s leadership to institute policies to bring about an “anti-racist West Point.” Cadets at the academy, the authors wrote, must be “help[ed]” to “unlearn racism.” They called for Maoist-like struggle sessions and reeducation efforts to create “anti-racist” warriors. The proposal was “inspired,” the authors noted, by the so-called Black Manifesto of 1971, thus suggesting that nothing much has changed at West Point since then. The former cadets praise the Black Lives Matter movement and describe West Point’s “legacy” as one of “systemic racism, harmful exclusion, and overt white supremacy.”

    One former West Point graduate called this document “wholesale moral blackmail of the Academy, its graduates, and its present-day leadership.” And he issued this dire warning: “Do not take comfort in the security which has hitherto been afforded to our nation by our armed forces. We have not been tested against a real enemy in many generations. When we are, leaders like this will not be able to stand in the field of battle.”

    The far Left’s infiltration and capture of America’s educational institutions now includes the leadership of our armed services’ educational institutions. This woke experiment with the academies that are supposed to produce our nation’s warriors — the leaders whom MacArthur described as “the great captains who hold the Nation’s destiny in their hands the moment the war tocsin sounds” — are instead propagating an ideology that, in Cauthen’s opinion, produces leaders unprepared “to wage and win wars against our enemies,” and that GOP senator (and former Air Force officer) Roger Wicker maintains “will harm our military’s ability to perform its mission.”

    As the Heritage Foundation’s Thomas Spoehr noted last September, the very leaders we have elected are spreading an epidemic of woke ideology throughout our military, fundamentally changing the “purpose, character, traditions, and requirements” of the institution that protects our country. 

    Douglas MacArthur, speaking to the cadets at West Point half a century ago, observed that “the Long Gray Line has never failed us,” promising that, if ever it did, “a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses, thundering those magic words: Duty, Honor, Country.” MacArthur would be astonished to learn that, in the third decade of the twenty-first century, we have met the enemy — and it is us.

    I have said it before and will, obviously, be saying for a very long time. Our enemies do not have to lift a hand to destroy us. It is being accomplished through academia. The academies are so focused on the woke agenda there is little likelihood the graduates will be prepared to create a readiness military except ready for social justice issues.

  • The Army Needs a Few Good (Trans) Men of Color

    The Army Needs a Few Good (Trans) Men of Color

    A woke military struggles to meet racial quotas.

    June 19, 2023 by Daniel Greenfield for Frontpage Magazine 

    Front Page Magazine’s exclusive report that Biden’s nominee for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Chief of Staff Charles Brown, had signed off on a 43% quota for white male officers made waves. In interviews, I warned that quotas had become more fundamental to the military than winning. And it’s been that way for a while. That’s why we have a very diverse woke brass that is incapable of winning wars, yet argues for abortion and transgenderism.

    The Biden administration’s obsession with making diversity, equity and inclusion into the center of every military program has put more pressure on the woke brass to deliver results.

    The U.S. Army missed its recruiting goals in the previous fiscal year by 25% or 15,000 soldiers. Next year recruiters expect to miss by at least 10,000 which suggests that it will be even worse. But the Army is far more concerned with missing its far more crucial equity recruiting goals.

    The Army needs to recruit minorities: not the same old boring white men like Washington, Eisenhower or Audie Murphy. That’s why its recruiters are making videos in different languages through FLRI or the Foreign Language Recruiting Initiative. Beyond Spanish, the program focuses on Chinese, Russian, Tagalog, and numerous other languages.

    Army flyers begin with “No Habla Ingles?” No problem. You can still “reciba dinero” and get “education gratis”. So long as you have a green card and a pulse, you’re in.

    No Habla Ingles, an inability to speak English, or a nationality from two of the country’s major enemies, aren’t a problem. An AP story on the Air Force recruitment of foreign nationals notes that “in many cases the immigrants are not immediately put in jobs that require top secret clearance” implying that in some cases they are immediately put into such jobs.

    The Army however isn’t just looking for warm bodies, but bodies of the right color.

    That’s why active duty personnel are being barraged with requests to update their REDCAT information. REDCAT stands for Racial Ethnic Designation Category and was created to track conformity with identity politics quotas. Ever since racial and ethnic quotas were made a goal, recruiters and IPPS-A, the Army’s human resources system, have been pushed to bring REDCAT numbers into line with quota goals. And IPPS-A has been hectoring personnel to update their race and ethnicity data in the hopes of finding more hidden minorities in the ranks.

    Some messages insist that “updating/adding REDCAT data is voluntary” while others demand that soldiers “personally update race, ethnicity and religion”. In pursuit of REDCAT quotas, a message from the United States Army Special Operations Command urges soldiers to “select the ethnic group code that includes the most accurate description of ethnic background or combination of ethnicities in their ethnic background.”

    Anyone who can find any Cherokee or Latinos in their family tree is welcome to do so.

    This is part of the ‘Tracking and Managing Diversity in Army Recruiting Efforts’. Since not enough diversity has been found, there’s a frantic search for diversity that may have been overlooked. Forget winning wars against China, this is about winning the war on racism.

    And that’s the real woke war that the military is being tasked with fighting.

    The cynicism of military racial quotas can be spotted in a message that notes, “if Soldiers opt out of even reviewing their data, the data that was converted will still exist, whether accurate or not.” It will also make it possible for convenient errors to creep in. Any soldiers with a last name that sounds Hispanic will shortly be listed as such, even if their last name is Italian. A whole lot of white men and women whose last name is Greene, Davis or Jackson may accidentally end up black. Such mistakes happen and there will be too many of them for anyone to check.

    The REDCAT numbers will show that the U.S. Army looks more “like America” than ever.

    At the Virginia National Guard, past recruitment was aimed at making the Guard “match the demographics of the state within 1% of the REDCAT” and when that failed, developing a “target for underrepresented groups each FY by comparing census data” and then “if the demographics are not within the 1% target develop three (3) COAs to attain the objective by 28 February of each year.”

    Rather than getting the best people or even adequately qualified people, the goal is to match the force to the census data in a completely senseless exercise so that the people they do get are 20% black, 7.2% Asian, and 0.6% American Indian, or develop a plan to get those Asians.

    That’s what deciding that the military should “look like America” really means in the ranks. You can’t have too many white men, but too many black men could also become a problem. If the goal is to match the census, then you can’t have too few minorities or too many. Come on in Jiang, we haven’t met our Chinese quota yet, sorry Jose, we have too many Hispanics already.

    But the one thing you can never have too little of is identity politics virtue signaling.

    The woke military brass celebrated Pride Month with drag shows and rainbow flags across bases from Japan to Texas. Taking part in LGBTQ pride parades and drag shows is another duty.

    Commanders are not only required to examine “the unit’s demographic racial and ethnic designation categories” for “at least twice a year”, but they also have to review “member participation in ethnic and special observances”. We may not win any wars, but as long as everyone shows up to hold a rainbow flag and applaud Bob twirling in a tutu, it’s all good.

    Who needs a few good men when you can have a few good trans-men of color? And who cares if they speak English? No Habla Ingles? No problemo! Having HIV  is not a problem. Being from an enemy nation is not a problem. Being a man who believes he’s a woman is not a problem.

    Being white, especially a heterosexual male, is a very big problem. We need a military that looks like America and white heterosexual men look nothing like America.

    The enemies of our country do not have to lift a weapon to defeat us. Nikita Khrushchev‘s proclamation on how to defeat America is happening right in front of our eyes.

  • Biden’s Denigration of…

    Biden’s Denigration of…

    Biden’s Denigration of American Military Patriots

    By Mark Alexander for Patriot Post

    “Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives.” —John Adams (1808)

    In his 1983 message on Memorial Day, President Ronald Reagan, a veteran of the Army and then Captain in the Army Air Force during World War II at age 30, offered this simple tribute:

    Memorial Day is a time to take stock of the present, reflect on the past, and renew our commitment to the future of America. Today, as in the past, there are problems that must be solved and challenges that must be met. We can tackle them with our full strength and creativity only because we are free to work them out in our own way. We owe this freedom of choice and action to those men and women in uniform who have served this nation and its interests in time of need. In particular, we are forever indebted to those who have given their lives that we might be free.

    I don’t have to tell you how fragile this precious gift of freedom is. Every time we hear, watch, or read the news, we are reminded that liberty is a rare commodity in this world. This Memorial Day of 1983, we honor those brave Americans who died in the service of their country. I think an ancient scholar put it well when he wrote: “Let us now praise famous men … All these were honored in their generation, and were the glory of their times. Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore.” As a tribute to their sacrifice, let us renew our resolve to remain strong enough to deter aggression, wise enough to preserve and protect our freedom, and thoughtful enough to promote lasting peace throughout the world.

    Of the four Republican presidents over the last 40 years, three of them — Reagan, George H.W. Bush (USN), and George W. Bush (ANG) — have served our nation with honor and integrity. The fourth, Donald Trump, was a great advocate for our Armed Forces. 

    On the other hand, Joe Biden and his predecessors, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, had no military service and generally loathed those serving under them as commander-in-chief. In each case, these CINCs significantly eroded our national security, and the results have been disastrous and deadly. Among other threats, Clinton propagated the 9/11 Islamist attack on our nation; Obama and his protege, Hillary Clinton, oversaw the rise of the Islamic State and 2014 invasion of Ukraine; and that inept and vacuous appeaser, Joe Biden, has choreographed our disastrous surrender and retreat from Afghanistan and the second invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

    The latter invasion is an ongoing and perilous threat to NATO and, by extension, our national security posed by Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin.

    One of the many ways that Biden defames those who have died in the service of our nation is his oft-repeated lie that his son Beau was killed in Iraq. He repeated that lie again last week in Japan to Marines at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, telling them: “My son was a major in the U.S. Army. We lost him in Iraq.”

    That is just one of a long list of Biden’s pathological lies, which the Leftmedia talkingheads don’t question.

    With that as a backdrop, ahead of our nation’s annual Memorial Day observance honoring those who have actually died in the uniformed services of our nation, defending American Liberty in accordance with their sacred oaths “to support and defend” our Constitution, a large contingent of retired senior military officers is taking aim at Biden for his disgraceful assault on military readiness and morale.

    The membership of the organization, Flag Officers 4 America, is described as follows: “We are retired military leaders who pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Although retired from active service, each of us feels bound by that oath to do what we can, in our capacity today, to protect our nation from the threats to her freedom.”

    We last heard from them when they petitioned Congress to hold Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley responsible for the catastrophically failed exfil from Afghanistan. Of course, that did not happen.

    Now, more than 160 flag officers have launched their latest effort in a letter to House leaders, calling out Biden for systemic military mission erosion, the result of his “diversity, equity, and inclusion” mandates. Among them are former National Security Advisor VAdm John Poindexter(USN), Medal of Honor recipient Maj. Gen. James E. Livingston (USMC), and former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense LtGen William Gerald Boykin (USA).

    They are requesting that Congress ensure no diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and programs promoted by Biden’s woke cadres at the Pentagon are included in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. Despite the Biden administration’s claim in March that DOD disbanded its DEI initiatives, they are still embedded in the NDAA budget.

    And lest you think that retired officers challenge a sitting commander-in-chief at no risk, as our military analyst Gen. B.B. Bell notes, the reason more retired officers are reluctant to stand up for our military ranks is that retirees could still be subject to an Article 88 UCMJ violation. Thus, those like Bell who do stand up for their fellow warriors deserve our respect and gratitude.

    I am reprinting the letter to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries in full because it also serves as an exposition on the rot that DEI creates within any organization in which it’s implemented. But when it metastasizes in our military ranks, that rot becomes very dangerous.

    The flag officers note:

    We respectfully request that Congress, pursuant to its constitutional powers “…to raise and support Armies…” and “… to provide and maintain a Navy…,” take legislative action to remove all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs from the Department of Defense (DoD). Additionally, we ask that you ensure no DEI related policies, programs, and funding are included in the 2024 NDAA. As our Nation faces looming threats from “foreign” adversaries/enemies, our military is under assault from a culture war stemming from “domestic” ideologically inspired political policies and practices. If not stopped now, they will forever change the military’s warrior ethos essential to performing its mission of deterring aggression and failing that, to fight and win our Nation’s wars. Our military must be laser focused on one mission — readiness, undiminished by the culture war engulfing our country.

    For generations, our military was a meritocracy, which simply defined means selection and advancement based solely on merit and ability. Service Members (SMs) were judged not by the color of their skin but by their character, duty performance, and potential. Meritocracy, coupled with equal opportunity, created conditions for all to advance and excel, which stimulates healthy competition, thereby raising standards. Historically, our military has been one of, if not the most, diverse and inclusive institution in America.

    The domestic cultural threat has an innocuous name: “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI). But, in reality DEI is dividing, not uniting, our military and society. DEI’s principles derive from critical race theory, which is rooted in cultural Marxism, where people are grouped into identity classes (typically by race), labeled as “oppressed” or “oppressors,” and pitted against each other. Under the guise of DEI, some people are selected for career enhancing opportunities and advancement based on preferences given to identity groups based on race, gender, ethnic background, sexual orientation, etc. For example, the DoD twice admitted to using race in service academy admissions in its 2022 amicus brief in the pending Supreme Court college admissions cases.

    Our military has practiced “equality” by giving equal opportunities for all to achieve. The equality approach ignores skin color, gender, or ethnicity seeing all SMs as equal, with a common set of values and mission. This does not diminish their individuality, but rather celebrates their dedication to duty and a higher noble calling of selfless service to our Nation.

    DEI’s “Equity” sounds benign, but in practice it lowers standards. While equality provides equal opportunities, equity’s goal is equal outcomes. To achieve equal outcomes using identity group characteristics, standards must be lowered to accommodate the desired equity outcomes. Lower standards reduce performance where even slight differences in capability impact readiness and can determine war fighting mission success or failure.

    Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) practices use identity-based preferences in selections for career schools and promotions. As with equity, D&I lowers standards by not always selecting the best qualified to become pilots, academy cadets, leaders at all ranks, etc. Identity based preferences create friction and distrust in the ranks, damaging unit cohesion, teamwork and unity of effort, further degrading readiness.

    The “One Team, One Fight” battle motto describes a meritocracy-based military characterized by:
    • a common mission and purpose;
    • unqualified loyalty to the team and not to an individual’s identity group;
    • total trust and confidence in each other for their very lives from the foxhole to the highest level;
    • teamwork/camaraderie resulting in the unit cohesion essential for warfighting readiness.

    Meritocracy is essential for winning. In professional sports — where the mission is to win games — the best players are fielded to win, no matter their skin color. If meritocracy is used in sports where the consequence of losing a game is minor, why is it not essential in the military where the worst-case consequences of losing a major war are unimaginable losses of life, destruction, and perhaps our Nation? To win, the best qualified SMs must be selected to lead America’s sons and daughters into life-and-death situations. Meritocracy wins games and it wins wars!

    We have fought for our Nation and are sounding the alarm that DEI poses a grave danger to our military warfighting ethos and is degrading warfighting readiness. Social engineering, commonly called “wokeism,” has no place in our military. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are not distracted by DEI programs; no doubt they are watching us. Equal opportunity and merit-based performance have been battle tested for generations and proven essential for success. DEI policies and practices must be eliminated from the DoD to protect our critical warfighting readiness.


    With the focus on DEI and tracking down all those white supremacists, it is small wonder why they cannot meet their recruitment numbers. Potential military service people can hear DEI all day long in civilian life. They have no need to join to hear the same malarky.

  • Divisive and Diverse: You…

    Divisive and Diverse: You…

    Divisive and Diverse: You Can’t Have One Without the Other

    The price we pay for freedom.

    January 25, 2023 by Bruce Thornton for Frontpage Magazine

    “Diversity” and “Divisiveness” are perhaps our most important cant-words in both meanings of the word: “sanctimonious and hypocritical talk,” and “language peculiar to a specified group or profession and regarded with disparagement,” as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. That certainly fits the political and media industries, which trade in duplicitous language that distorts the meanings of words in order to construct narratives that serve their ideological preferences and gain leverage over their political rivals.

    For the “woke” Left, there are few goods greater than “diversity,” and not many worse crimes than being “divisive,” an offense limited to Republicans. But the abuse of these words reflects a misunderstanding of our political order, which is founded on the assumption that the young country’s complex diversity meant that diverse “passions and interests,” and a corruptible human nature would generate divisive factional struggles for power, the necessary corollary to genuine diversity.

    Moreover, the “diversity” that progressives trade in is not real diversity, which comprises much more than superficial appearance. The American colonies were very diverse in ethnicities, religions, dialects, languages, folkways, cultures, and mores, the pluribus from which the American unumwas comprised.

    But this genuine diversity, which still characterizes the United States, is not what our “woke” institutions and ideologies mean by diversity. As David E. Bernstein writes in Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America, 

    “Modern America’s racial and ethnic classifications do not reflect biology, genetics, or any other biological source. Classifications such as Hispanic, Asian American, and white combine extremely internally diverse groups in terms of appearance, culture, religion, and more under a single, arbitrary heading. The government developed its classification scheme via a combination  of amateur anthropology and sociology, interest group lobbying, incompetence, inertia, lack of public oversight, and happenstance.”

    The purpose of these classifications was to determine which political clients would be eligible for set-asides in government contracts and later, admissions to colleges, universities, and professional schools. This expansion came by dint of the 1978 Bakke decision, which papered over affirmative action programs’ blatant violations of the Civil Rights Act by creating “diversity” as a “compelling state interest” that justified ignoring the illegality of racial discrimination in the Civil Rights act. In the following decades, nobody, including subsequent Supreme Court decisions, has been able to provide a believable definition of “diversity,” or any empirical evidence of its contribution to improving desired educational outcomes or inter-ethnic relations. Yet this simplistic, vague, concept has become part of federal law and enjoys its enforcement powers.

    The result has been the monolithic “woke” orthodoxy now dominating our politics and public institutions––the opposite of the actual diversity of ethnicity, culture, region and, most important, minds and ideas, upon which our country was founded. No wonder we’ve been seeing for decades a growing tyranny of orthodoxy dominating our political and social life, as a powerful central government and ideologically uniform cognitive elite extends its intrusive reach across the country.

    The simplifying of diversity is also expressed in the homogenizing of the “people” and their interests that can be served only by a technocratic, centralized elite, which demands a unity of beliefs and interests in order to run the country more efficiently and productively for their own interests. So we hear the endless laments about the “political polarization” that Potemkin conservative David Brooks has called a “major problem.”

    In fact, the complex diversity of conflicting ideologies and “factions,” as Madison called them, explains our Constitutional order of divided, balanced, and limited government and powers. Human nature, as Madison wrote, is moved to action by “passions and interests” around which factions form,  and which always seeks more and more power to realize their interests, and gratify their irrational passions­­.

    Finally, these factional interests often collide and cannot be reconciled, for they are “sown in the nature of man,” as Madison wrote. These diverse beliefs and interests have “divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to cooperate for their common good.” The danger lies in one faction or group of factions growing powerful enough to aggrandize enough power to limit the rights of other factions and create a tyranny. For, as Alexander Hamilton pointed out, “momentary passions and immediate interests have a more active and imperious control over human conducts than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice.”

    Political division, then, is not a “major problem” in the system, but a necessary consequence of politically empowering diverse free peoples. It has characterized American history from the start. Colin Woodard, in his book American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America, has documented this connection between the genuine diversity of the first settlers in America and its chronic divisions: “Americans have been deeply divided since the days of Jamestown and Plymouth.” In the Colonial period, these distinct peoples “regarded one another as competitors––for land, settlers, and capital––and occasionally as enemies.”

    Subsequent history reveals similar conflicts, from the Constitutional convention and ratification debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists; to the Civil War and the conflicts over race and slavery; the challenge of communism, and disagreements over America’s role in the world as a global power. And it’s the diversity of these distinct cultures, mores, and world-views that lies behind all of these conflicts: “All of these centuries-old cultures,” Woodard writes, “are still with us today, and have spread their peoples, ideas, and influences across mutually exclusive bands of the continent. There isn’t and never has been one America, but rather several Americas.” That’s because, Woodard continues, “Each of these founding cultures has its own set of cherished principles, and they often contradicted one another.”

    Finally, true diversity and open debates about how we are ruled and for what aims, impedes a technocratic elite that requires a unified consensus in order to grow and keep its dominance. That’s why so much of our policy debates involve the big-state progressives invoking the authority of science as a trump card meant to silence dissent, and why they treat America’s diverse peoples as an abstract, homogenize “people” whose job is to listen to their betters and keep their mouths shut.

    That dynamic explains the extraordinary resistance and irrational hatred of Donald Trump, especially from Republican Trumpophobes. Once Trump won the nomination, and progressive Hillary Clinton would be his opponent, all the complaints about “decorum” and “norms” and “principles” and his “mean” Tweets were moot. Clinton’s long career of influence peddling, hinky business dealings, harassment of Bill’s paramours, failed tenure as Secretary of State, role in the Benghazi fiasco, and Leftist inclinations should have made the choice obvious for any conservative who could see how bad another four years of Obama’s policies would be. Just look at Biden’s first two years.

    But for many anti-Trump Republicans, his braggadocios, crude, and blunt manner of speaking was redolent of the ignorant, uneducated masses who, unlike themselves, were easy prey for a populist demagogue who made his money in vulgar businesses like casino development, WWE bouts, beauty pageants, and lowbrow reality television.

    Trump’s worst insult, though, was his open contempt for all the establishment political mavens  who year after year practiced the preemptive cringe and let the Dems walk all over them, all the while they mouthed platitudes about “reaching across the aisle” and “bipartisanship,” which usually meant helping the progressives pick “living Constitution” judges and dismantle the Constitution’s limited government, federalism, and balance of powers.

    In the end, all the NeverTrump Republicans achieved was to confirm half of American voters’ perception that Republicans were loyal to their fellow political guildsmen with whom they worked for Leviathan, Inc. The Trumpophobes never seemed to get that their missish attacks on Trump also insulted his 75 million supporters by implying that the cognitive elite’s way of being an American was the only legitimate one.

    Any political system that empowers truly diverse peoples and gives them scope to speak their minds, whether decorously and politely or not, about foundational beliefs and interests about which they are passionate–– such a political order will necessarily be divisive and polarizing. Accepting both diversity and divisiveness is the price we pay for freedom.

    It is way past time to ignore the pundits. Their belief that they should be in charge of anything, even an outhouse, is an insult to the thinking public.