Friday, July 17, 2020

Indoctrinating America's Soldiers, Obama Style

Surely the information is compelling. Since Tyler O’Neil seems to be alone in reporting it, why not present some of it here. The issue goes back to the Obama administration. Then, and perhaps even now, the administration undertook to indoctrinate America’s troops in the ideology of diversity and wokeness. We do not know whether the program is still ongoing, but when it was the rule in the military, soldiers were taught that America is a bigoted and racist culture. 

One understands that soldiers are more apt to believe what they are told. When such materials become part of their training, they come away thinking that opposing such ideas will damage their career prospects. It isn’t quite brainwashing, but it is close enough.

O’Neil introduces the topic, exposed by Judicial Watch:

On Thursday, Judicial Watch obtained 1,483 pages of teaching materials from the Department of Defense (DOD) produced by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) during President Barack Obama’s tenure. The DOD’s “equal opportunity advisors” use the documents to train service members on diversity topics.

The gist of the program was simple: if you are against affirmative action programs or reparations for slavery, you are a racist. Any time you disagree with the precepts of wokeness you are showing your privilege, and are, by definition a bigot:

Among other things, the training materials attribute opposition to reparations or affirmative action to a form of racism, claim the idea that “human similarities are more important than differences” is a form of “ethnocentrism,” warn against “sexual orientation privilege” and “religious privilege,” and claim that those who raise religious objections to same-sex marriage are engaging in discrimination.

As for racism, the program finds a multitude of different kinds:

In a chart on “Racist Behavior” from an April 2015 training on racism, DEOMI laid out four models of racism. The chart includes a wide range of attitudes that are not racist at all. It defines “traditional” racism as the belief in “biological superiority,” that minorities are “innately inferior,” and that discrimination is “justifiable and desirable.” Yet other forms of “racism” are so subtle to … not be racism at all.

For instance, “symbolic” racism (circa 1965) includes the ideology that “individual effort is key to success,” preaches that minorities “could succeed if [they] worked harder,” and ignores “systematic barriers to advancement.” “Modern” racism (circa 1978) teaches that “people get what they deserve,” that minorities are “undeserving of special efforts to redress past inequities” (like reparations or affirmative action), and that discrimination is “a thing of the past.”

Finally, “aversive” racism (circa 1986-Today) teaches that “all people should have equal political, social, & economic rights,” views minorities as “victims of past injustices,” and supports “non-discriminatory practices,” but according to the chart, this is still racism and results in “avoidance, interracial anxiety, unintentional discrimination.”

You must come away thinking that, no matter what you believe, you are a racist. And thus, by definition, you must feel guilty for the condition of black Americans, because whatever they do or do not do, you, as a non-black American, are responsible.

And then there is multiculturalism:

In a chapter on “individual diversity,” the January 2015 guide claims that in the process of embracing people from other cultures, people often operate in one of six phases of two main stages (“ethnocentric” and “ethnorelative”). The “ethnocentric” stage includes a “minimization” phase: “Individuals in this level recognize cultural differences, but trivialize them. Individuals at this level believe that human similarities are more important than differences.”

In other words, the attitude that human beings have more that unites us than separates us is just an incomplete and “ethnocentric” approach to cultural and racial diversity.

It is fascinating to see that a military organization cares more about sowing division in the ranks than in producing unit cohesion. Surely, by condemning America as a hotbed of racism and bigotry, it is undermining patriotism and morale:

Official U.S. government training materials should not endorse a radical view of systemic racism that redefines American society to claim that it is fundamentally systemically racist. This kind of radical Marxist approach threatens to erode the patriotism of America’s armed forces and it misuses Americans’ taxpayer dollars, to boot.


Giordano Bruno said...

Feature, not a bug. The leftists in Spain did exactly the same thing to the military; they knew that they had to control the military (and police, and courts, and institutions) or their coup would be at risk. They were halfway complete before a portion of the officers revolted out of self-preservation. They would all have been arrested and murdered if they had not. Franco was not the leader of anything at this point in the game.

Leftists here know the military is a big problem to their long-term aims.

If anyone doubts these aims or why they have an interest in the military, go back to sleep, turn on sportsball, it will be over soon.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

The forces of “diversity” are quite monolithic in their thinking, passive aggressive in advocating for their beliefs, and one-size-fits-all in application. That’s not diversity, it’s a strict form of ideological warfare.

Such people cannot be reasoned with. They are fundamentalist in their worldview. Again, such thinking is the opposite of diversity.

They must be defeated.

I have no problem with true diversity, but it should be diversity of thought with openness to a range of choices. That’s not what we’re talking about with “reparations” — it’s positioned as the single correct approach.

Sam L. said...

First I've heard about this, but then I retired from the AF in '87.

Anonymous said...

There is no reason in the military for any of this stuff. It's crap that has nothing to do with defending the country---far from it. It's trying to make soldiers feel weak and helpless.

trigger warning said...

Progressives view the military as a subject pool from wihich they can compel individuals (as opposed to recruiting consenting volunteers) to participate in large-N social engineering experiments. Undertaking repair of the damage done would require a purge of the officer corps, which is not going to happen.