[I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked:
Yes, of course: this result cannot possibly be because white potential recruits see that the military has adopted policies that actively or passively discriminate against them, because they are white, and decide that they have no interest in putting their lives on the line for a military that considers them to be second-class, owing to the color of their skin. No, the real problem, according to "some Army planners," are "partisans" who point this out...
Wherever you see "diversity, equity, and inclusion," you can know that you, as a white heterosexual, especially as a white heterosexual male, are going to be disfavored. And now the US Army has totally institutionalized this ideology.
Remember Kelisa Wing? She was the Army's chief DEI officer for education, until tweets she sent out just before she was hired in 2020 surfaced. Among the tweets, Wing wrote:
Wing was reassigned after Republicans in Congress made an issue of it. But this is the mentality that the Pentagon now institutionalizes.
Back in the summer of 2020 that is, the Summer Of Floyd I wrote this on my old TAC blog, featuring a letter from a reader who graduated from West Point. From the letter, the officer's characterization of efforts then underway, and proposed in this document, to radicalize West Point:
Congratulations, US military leadership, you've gotten what you wanted: a force with fewer white people in it to stink up the ranks with their whiteness.
I'm very pleased to see this result, actually. Let these diversocrats own this problem. They have taken the one institution in American public life that most everybody supported and saw as a vehicle for advancement and excellence for everyone, no matter their race, and turned it into a racial spoils system, like everywhere else. Why would any young white person seek to serve when he stands to face discrimination within the ranks? When he might be denied a promotion because he is not the correct race? When his commanding officer might have been promoted not because of his ability to lead, but because he fit a quota? In war, life and death depend on being able to trust one's leadership. And the woke Pentagon has torpedoed that.
From a 2021 report:
Honestly, if the Chinese government wanted to destabilize and demoralize the United States, they could hardly have done better than to have converted the Pentagon brass into apostles of DEI. And as you see from the initial report I cited, the Armed Forces, like every woke institution, cannot face the possibility that potential recruits are reacting negatively to DEI as a rational decision; no, these people have to be blinded by Satan, or the equivalent. You cannot falsify DEI's claims in the eyes of its proponents. It really is a cult!
But it's worse than that: I would like to know more about the details of why whites who considered entering the military but decided against it, made that choice. What specifically turned them away? This is incredibly important. The decision not to serve in the defense of one's country says a lot about how one regards the country. Mind you, I would entirely understand potential recruits of all races hesitating to sign up for active duty, given the misuse of the US military over the past two decades by governments led by both Republicans and Democrats. Who can blame young Americans of any race wondering if it's worth it to put oneself in the way of lethal harm to follow a civilian leadership dedicated to risking world war to queer the Donbass?
(Yes, it's a provocative, hyperbolic phrase I coined, but the point I make in it is that US foreign and defense policy has been directed not towards defending America and her legitimate interests, but in large part towards "spreading democracy and human rights," meaning, trying to compel foreigners to become proper American liberals, whether they want to or not. It started with George W. Bush's crusading for liberal democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan; it continued with Barack Obama elevating LGBT advocacy to a foreign policy priority.)
The US military is facing its worst manpower crisis since the end of World War II. It cannot afford to alienate any potential recruits. Yet it has endorsed an anti-white ideology and now wonders why white young people stay away.
I cannot recommend strongly enough that you readers with an interest in this kind of thing pre-order Jeremy Carl's blockbuster upcoming book (April), The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart. In this excerpt from his chapter on anti-white racism in the US military, Carl indicates that this kind of bigotry advanced even under Donald Trump:
Quote:
The Army's recruiting of white soldiers has dropped significantly in the last half decade, according to internal data reviewed by Military.com, a decline that accounts for much of the service's historic recruitment slump that has become the subject of increasing concern for Army leadership and Capitol Hill.
… The rate at which white recruitment has fallen far outpaces nationwide demographic shifts, data experts and Army officials interviewed by Military.com noted. They don't see a single cause to the recruiting problem, but pointed to a confluence of issues for Army recruiting, including partisan scrutiny of the service, a growing obesity epidemic and an underfunded public education system.
Internally, some Army planners are alarmed over the data trends, but see it as a minefield to navigate given increasing partisan attacks against the military for its efforts to recruit and support a diverse force, according to interviews with several service officials.
Yes, of course: this result cannot possibly be because white potential recruits see that the military has adopted policies that actively or passively discriminate against them, because they are white, and decide that they have no interest in putting their lives on the line for a military that considers them to be second-class, owing to the color of their skin. No, the real problem, according to "some Army planners," are "partisans" who point this out...
Wherever you see "diversity, equity, and inclusion," you can know that you, as a white heterosexual, especially as a white heterosexual male, are going to be disfavored. And now the US Army has totally institutionalized this ideology.
Remember Kelisa Wing? She was the Army's chief DEI officer for education, until tweets she sent out just before she was hired in 2020 surfaced. Among the tweets, Wing wrote:
Quote:
I'm so exhausted at these white folx in these [professional development] sessions this lady actually had the CAUdacity to say black people can be racist too.
Wing was reassigned after Republicans in Congress made an issue of it. But this is the mentality that the Pentagon now institutionalizes.
Back in the summer of 2020 that is, the Summer Of Floyd I wrote this on my old TAC blog, featuring a letter from a reader who graduated from West Point. From the letter, the officer's characterization of efforts then underway, and proposed in this document, to radicalize West Point:
Quote:
Their actions are akin to those of the Red Guards in Maoist China. They are agitating to tear the Academy apart from the ground up and reorient its mission around Anti-Racism. The fact that our country's future leaders believe in this nonsense is a sign that our military is in trouble, and cannot be relied upon either to defend our country or to safeguard the interests of all Americans in the performance of their duties.
Congratulations, US military leadership, you've gotten what you wanted: a force with fewer white people in it to stink up the ranks with their whiteness.
I'm very pleased to see this result, actually. Let these diversocrats own this problem. They have taken the one institution in American public life that most everybody supported and saw as a vehicle for advancement and excellence for everyone, no matter their race, and turned it into a racial spoils system, like everywhere else. Why would any young white person seek to serve when he stands to face discrimination within the ranks? When he might be denied a promotion because he is not the correct race? When his commanding officer might have been promoted not because of his ability to lead, but because he fit a quota? In war, life and death depend on being able to trust one's leadership. And the woke Pentagon has torpedoed that.
From a 2021 report:
Could it be that white potential recruits have looked at the evidence and concluded that the Pentagon hates people like them and their families, and that they don't want to serve a racist institution? I have told you readers about the many anecdotes I've received over the past few years from both active-duty and recently retired service personnel, including officers, who say they actively discourage their family members from joining the service. Why? Because of this kind of thing. They correctly see the DEI ideology embraced by military leadership as bigotry, and they don't want to see their kids subjected to it.Quote:
During a drill weekend, unit leaders held a stand down on race -a pause in their usual training-where they taught troops about white supremacy and the importance of staying apolitical on social media. But one service member balked at the training's focus on far-right extremist groups, not other organizations like Black Lives Matter or Antifa.
"Anyone who has been face to face with them during the riots will tell you they are in fact well organized militant hate groups," the service member wrote. "However, we are encouraged to stand with them, but not groups that stand for the Constitution."
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., says this is one of more than two dozen stories that show the military has gone too far with what another service member called "fake wokeness." In a memo from Cotton to the Senate Armed Services Committee obtained by Defense One, the senator includes 28 written complaints from troops, which could not be independently verified, about training sessions and regulations that service members argue paint the military as fundamentally racist and support left-leaning groups while labeling conservative movements as extremist. Cotton and Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, two weeks ago set up a public whistleblower site inviting service members to complain about "woke ideology" in the military.
"Many struggle to connect on why we heavily condemned Jan 6 but refused to talk about the violent riots during the summer of 2020. Many had questions about groups like Antifa not being discussed during out [sic] extremism presentation," another service member wrote.
Honestly, if the Chinese government wanted to destabilize and demoralize the United States, they could hardly have done better than to have converted the Pentagon brass into apostles of DEI. And as you see from the initial report I cited, the Armed Forces, like every woke institution, cannot face the possibility that potential recruits are reacting negatively to DEI as a rational decision; no, these people have to be blinded by Satan, or the equivalent. You cannot falsify DEI's claims in the eyes of its proponents. It really is a cult!
But it's worse than that: I would like to know more about the details of why whites who considered entering the military but decided against it, made that choice. What specifically turned them away? This is incredibly important. The decision not to serve in the defense of one's country says a lot about how one regards the country. Mind you, I would entirely understand potential recruits of all races hesitating to sign up for active duty, given the misuse of the US military over the past two decades by governments led by both Republicans and Democrats. Who can blame young Americans of any race wondering if it's worth it to put oneself in the way of lethal harm to follow a civilian leadership dedicated to risking world war to queer the Donbass?
(Yes, it's a provocative, hyperbolic phrase I coined, but the point I make in it is that US foreign and defense policy has been directed not towards defending America and her legitimate interests, but in large part towards "spreading democracy and human rights," meaning, trying to compel foreigners to become proper American liberals, whether they want to or not. It started with George W. Bush's crusading for liberal democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan; it continued with Barack Obama elevating LGBT advocacy to a foreign policy priority.)
The US military is facing its worst manpower crisis since the end of World War II. It cannot afford to alienate any potential recruits. Yet it has endorsed an anti-white ideology and now wonders why white young people stay away.
I cannot recommend strongly enough that you readers with an interest in this kind of thing pre-order Jeremy Carl's blockbuster upcoming book (April), The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart. In this excerpt from his chapter on anti-white racism in the US military, Carl indicates that this kind of bigotry advanced even under Donald Trump:
The new military recruiting stats showing a dramatic falloff of white recruits, disproportionate to their number in the overall decline, is a powerful vote of no confidence in the Pentagon by the kind of people that same institution would expect to go into battle. This is a four-alarm national security crisis but don't expect Washington to respond in any way except to blame "partisans" for noticing. DEI cannot fail; it can only be failed.] -Rod DreherQuote:
Even under Trump, the military bureaucracy was out hunting the white supremacist extremist boogeyman. "Among DVEs [domestic violent extremists], racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists specifically white supremacist extremists (WSEs)will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland," declared the official Homeland Security Threat Assessment in October 2020.
Virtually every one of the relatively few white supremacist attacks in America in recent years has been a disturbed "lone wolf" and none, to this author's knowledge, were organized efforts involving multiple members of the military.
Meanwhile, there have been multiple notable Islamist domestic attacks from within the military, most notably the Fort Hood massacre, in which Nidal Hassan killed thirteen of his fellow soldiers and wounded thirty. Despite writing to the then-head of the Islamic State requesting citizenship in 2014 (five years after the massacre), he was not charged with terrorism, proof that such charges can ultimately be political.
The Fort Hood massacre showed how much the army was already worshipping diversity at the cost of cohesion and common sense. In the wake of the killings, Army Chief of Staff George Casey, channeling Dan Quayle after the L.A. riots, said that "our diversity not only in our army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse." To sacrifice diversity was now literally worse than the mass fratricidal murder of American soldiers.
Meanwhile, highly organized Antifa and BLM groups carry out racist riots that kill people and cause property damage, often targeting whites and white-owned businesses, yet are never listed as a national security threat. Does the military think that the billions of dollars in riot damage and numerous fatalities caused by BLM are a threat to the homeland? It clearly doesn't seem so, judging by their actions.
After the death of George Floyd, every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke out about racism. Rather than showing concern over the rioters who were at that moment wreaking havoc in the streets, today's military validated their grievances. First to speak was Air Force Chief of Staff David Goldfein who said Floyd's death was a "national tragedy" and that "every American should be outraged" by the police's conduct. Meanwhile, the chief master sergeant of the Air Force posted to Twitter a list of black men killed by police, including criminals like Michael Brown, while declaring "I am George Floyd."
"I don't have all of the answers," the chief master sergeant claimed, "but I'm committed to seeing a better future for this nation. A future where Black men no longer suffer needlessly at the hands of White police officers, & Black airmen have the same chance to succeed as their White counterparts." As we have shown elsewhere in the book, that future is already here and in fact it is white soldiers who are being denied equal opportunities as our readiness weakens in response to affirmative action. It is hard to imagine something worse for unit cohesion than asking white soldiers, those most likely to be at the "tip of the spear," to accept racial guilt for a problem that doesn't actually exist and to see racial favoritism for a case that is actually being punished.
