Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Ideological Capture: When Top Military Leaders Adopt Critical Race Theory Verbiage

Ideological Capture: When Top Military Leaders Adopt Critical Race Theory Verbiage

Wesley Yang: “‘White rage’ is a term of art derived from the lexicon of CRT derivatives; to use it at face value is to accept the doctrine rather than to read merely to be informed about its content.”

There has been a lot of controversy over the defense by two senior U.S. military officers of the teaching of Critical Race Theory to service members, including putting volumes like Ibram X. Kendi’s ‘How to Be An Antiracist’ on recommended reading lists.

The testimony was frightening not just because they defended Kendi’s hideous writings. Watch the testimony (below).

My big takeaway is that these are people who are afraid, not bold. Their bluster revealed weakness, not strength. They have adopted the lexicon of the movement, as Wesley Yang wrote with regard to General Milley’s use of the term White Rage:

“White rage” is a term of art derived from the lexicon of CRT derivatives; to use it at face value is to accept the doctrine rather than to read merely to be informed about its content

Pointing out this problem is not criticizing the military. It’s defending the rank-and-file service members who are or will be subjected to the same repressive ideological tactics we’ve seen in almost every other institution. The one institution that more than anything needs to stay out of the CRT culture war appears to have had its leadership captured.

Here are the videos, judge for yourselves:

Admiral Michael Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations

Gen. Mark Milley, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (video marked to key point)

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Discussing Black Rage in the US Military would mean court martial so why shouldn’t we try our best to get these guys out of the military with dishonorable discharge?

    UserP in reply to Danny. | June 27, 2021 at 11:39 pm

    Discussing black rage anywhere at anytime is a no no. You are not allowed to do that. Instead we must discuss white rage. Rather than focusing on what is actually happening we are to play a game of pretend.

    UserP in reply to Danny. | June 28, 2021 at 1:28 pm

    Black rage started with the George Floyd protests and has resulted in a nation wide crime surge.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to UserP. | June 28, 2021 at 4:29 pm

      Look at crime stats, it is clear that unusually high numbers of easily triggered rage is a huge factor in certain subsets of humans.

        Ben Kent in reply to JusticeDelivered. | June 29, 2021 at 8:44 am

        Media will not say it – but crime stats show that Black men 15 to 25 years old commit about 40% of all murders in the USA and account for more violent crime than any other demographic group.

        Facts Matter.

        Why does media have to hide the facts? Why doesn’t the Black community seek real solutions instead of weeping this under rug? Lives are lost because people want to be politically correct.

Goodbye, country that I loved.

    scooterjay in reply to broomhandle. | June 28, 2021 at 9:23 am

    “White Rage” is a false-flag. The pot is purposely stirred to try and enrage racial anger that can then be used against us.

These officers are looking out for their careers first.

    UserP in reply to Whitewall. | June 27, 2021 at 11:59 pm

    They didn’t just start doing that when they got to the top. It’s how they got to the top.

      JohnC in reply to UserP. | June 28, 2021 at 4:41 am

      Absolutely. Our most talented military leaders were tested with lesser types of unamerican BS and, having ‘failed’ those tests, were shuffled aside or retired. This testing and culling process took many years.

      What’s left are the finest nut-huggers the military had to offer; Arrogant, narcissistic ass-kissers of the highest caliber. The positions they’ve been awarded are the sort they spent their entire careers dreaming of and now, after decades of saying exactly the right things and holding exactly the right opinions, they finally have them!

      My fear is that before this decade is over these brown-nosing woke Generals and their underlings will issue orders to fire on US citizens — and their woke US forces will do so.

        Evil Otto in reply to JohnC. | June 29, 2021 at 6:59 am

        I believe that will happen too. That’s the reason these left-wing bootlickers have been given their positions of authority.

      buck61 in reply to UserP. | June 28, 2021 at 11:38 am

      these are the same types that create or don’t stand up against those who create rules of engagement that perpetual wars all over the world.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Whitewall. | June 28, 2021 at 4:31 pm

    They are politicians wearing a uniform. The mask has slipped off.

I logged in just to say I can’t even bring myself to watch the videos. It’s just too sad to me.

“My big takeaway that these are people who are afraid, not bold. Their bluster revealed weakness, not strength.”
I don’t see fear. I see arrogance, contempt, corruption. Watching him testify reminds me of Peter Strzok’s testimony before Congress — the same arrogance. What Obama did to the military in eight years is on display here. He successfully carried out his purge and now the top military leadership is political.

Marxists The Lightbringer put in place are now running our military and the entire federal government.

Communist China and the old Soviet Union may have now all but won the Cold War. Which we now know didn’t really end in 1989. The Soviet Union imploded along the way. But American Marxists carried on and at the moment it looks like the Commies may prevail.

At least when it comes to controlling and ruling most major American urban areas and the states dominated by them.

The red states are another matter. Which is why they are determined to purge the military of Trump supporters and voters whenever they can.

The Gender Generals

Next: The Buffalo Soldiers unit will be re-established.
And that is no slight on those brave cavalrymen who fought the Comanche for Texas in 1871-2, but the current ideological racists running our government who seek to create racial islands in our nations, schools, society etc.

    CommoChief in reply to puhiawa. | June 28, 2021 at 9:10 am

    Probably not. They were acting as the willing tool of the imperialist expansion to exterminate the indigenous peoples who stood in the way of the colonialist doctrine of manifest destiny. (sarcasm)

    They were hella good Soldiers.

    Ft Bliss renamed one of it’s gates from Robert E. Lee gate to Buffalo Soldier gate. Outrage ensued because the local brown shirts decided they were oppressors of indigenous people. Not sarcasm.

I will say it again: short of an attack by the Chinese the next war the US military fights in will be on American soil – against American citizens.

Fortunately the US military has lost every single war it fought in since 1945, so a military composed of drag queens, BLM thugs and whiny affirmative action types is unlikely to break that streak. Of course they will still manage to butcher a lot of innocent Americans. But the important thing is that the top brass at Pentagon will get to feel good about fighting for the Cause.

    HEARTS AND MINDS

    Our idiotic military leaders spend billions to build the best missiles and bombs.

    But they lost the battle that really matters – the fight for the hearts and minds of people around the world and for the soul of America.

    The Marxists are winning. And they will not hesitate to turn all our powerful guns and missiles against us.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Recovering Lutheran. | June 28, 2021 at 6:54 pm

    These “leaders” have just demonstrated they are willing to throw the majority of their charge away for political expediency. Would you follow them into combat?

    I predict in two years all services will not be making recruitment quotas. Most people do not want to serve under commanders who despise them, and spit on them. It’s a volunteer force, after all.

    Our side still needs the robust military experience, however, and we cannot cede this critical institution, especially since ceding it to people who hate their fellow countrymen and have the power to eradicate masses is exceedingly dangerous. It must be reclaimed.

We only lost because all the wars were fought to win politically

Not to win militarily

We lost the political fight

    MarkS in reply to gonzotx. | June 28, 2021 at 7:06 am

    Despite your excuse mongering, we still lost!

      JusticeDelivered in reply to MarkS. | June 28, 2021 at 4:47 pm

      We only lost because we allowed political hacks to run the show.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to JusticeDelivered. | June 28, 2021 at 6:58 pm

        We have had some lousy generals, too, I must say.

        When we used to win wars, generals who did not show quick results were sacked, and we rifled through them until we found combat leaders who got the job done.

        We have also lost our way as to the understanding for the purpose of war. It is not about building nations, but rather about destroying them. If you are not willing to utterly destroy your enemy, maybe you should employ or devise a new or different implement of national will.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to gonzotx. | June 28, 2021 at 2:40 pm

    We also let the government equivalent of slip-and-fall attorneys dictate the rules of engagement.

Subotai Bahadur | June 27, 2021 at 11:46 pm

Whether the leaders of our military are “afraid” or “bold”, they have chosen sides in what is to come.

Subotai Bahadur

    Dathurtz in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | June 28, 2021 at 7:49 am

    This is genuinely scary. Nobody at the upper echelon of power is stupid enough to believe that stuff. They didn’t believe we had to fight foreign communism for our nation to survive. They didn’t believe some middle-eastern terrorists could destroy our country. They don’t believe white supremacy is a threat to our country.

    What they believe is that pretending those things are true is a great way to continue our absurdly high military spending and increase power over our populace.

    They aren’t stupid. They are, however, evil.

It’s quite entertaining to see that the link to Wesley yang’s comment about white rage include a clear example of white rage 😂

    mailman in reply to mark311. | June 28, 2021 at 10:57 am

    Quite literally anyone any white person loses their shit is an example of white rage. Same as a black person losing their shit being an example of black rage. Its one of those terms that can never be falsified.

    Its an empty, meaningless and pointless term much akin to your contributions here.

      mark311 in reply to mailman. | June 28, 2021 at 12:30 pm

      Well that’s a misunderstanding of white rage. It’s contextualized as being a reaction to social progress of minority groups. In other words in this context it has a specific meaning.

      It can be falsified all you need to do is counter the premise on a case by case basis. So for example the general cited the capitol hill riots as an example. All you need to do is provide a better narrative than white rage for why those folks broke into the capitol building. Providing alternative causes to those kinds of situations would invalidate the premise.

        Dathurtz in reply to mark311. | June 28, 2021 at 2:09 pm

        The concept of white rage, as stated by you, assumes most white people are so racist they lose their mind over equal rights. Like most ridiculously racist ideas it totally lacks any foundation. That’s why rational people dismiss it the same way we would dismiss rainbow farts from unicorns making people trans.

        As far as the capitol goes, what evidence is there that animus against social progress of minorities was a motivator? It is a genuinely stupid explanation that belies the front and center idea that they believe an election was held in which fraud/shenanigans were large enough to change the outcome.

        Hell, racists would be thrilled with Biden. The dude spouts racist filth all the time. Remember how poor kids are just as smart as white kids?

          mark311 in reply to Dathurtz. | June 29, 2021 at 2:45 am

          @dathurtz

          That’s not what I stated at all. For clarity the white rage claim is that there is a causal link between social progress and reactionary elements within white groups. That’s not claiming whites as a whole react in the same way. Well no offence but historical examples are pretty abundant in the American context of the phenomenon.

          The trouble with the front and centre issue as you call it is that the election fraud evidence is a complete joke. I think it’s reasonable to look at deeper issues than the election. This is particularly the case given the nature of the people doing it. People like oath keepers, qanon types. Basically people who have quite distorted views of the world. What’s fed that, well white rage might be part of it.

          @BSR

          Loudon county was the perfect example of white rage. I don’t know what videos you saw but they were clearly triggered asshats disrupting the meeting because of there utterly incoherent views on CRT. They were behaving pretty irrationally which is why that guy got arrested when everyone had left he wildly claimed the meeting was still going. Sure no one died, anger is a bit broader than that though isn’t it.

          Dathurtz in reply to Dathurtz. | June 29, 2021 at 8:12 am

          Mark, you are choosing an interpretive lens and then forcing every event into a paradigm determined by that interpretive lens. It blinds you.

          Also, what I stated still necessarily applies to your reformed definition given the context of the discussion. You are blinded by an ideology that has foist on you to intentionally limit your ability to self analyze and think critically about the information you receive.

          mark311 in reply to Dathurtz. | June 29, 2021 at 9:31 am

          @Dathurtz

          Is agree that its an interpretive lens, that is a fair point. Id also say that it isn’t really that forced, its not particularly tentative to make a race related link. I would say that it is reductive however. Other causes do contribute. The main point I’m making is that the two generals are being criticised for trying to understand why Jan 6th happened and maybe CRT plays a role in that, they did not claim that CRT was a singular answer. I think a lot of the rights criticism is pretty poor when it comes to the two generals being discussed.

          I’m not blinded as I have never hung much of my hat on CRT, I’ve already explicitly stated I’m not a fan.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | June 28, 2021 at 7:14 pm

        “So for example the general cited the capitol hill riots as an example”

        There you go again with that lie. The capitol hill riot (not riots) were the result of people who thought national election had been stolen. It had nothing to do with “white rage.” That’s simply a smear and a bald-faced lie.

        Also, I looked at the link, and there are many posts in the thread, but in regard to the Louden county video, all I saw was a bunch of “white people” standing around peacefully watching the police arrest someone. No one was bleeding. Nothing was broken. Nothing was looted. Nothing was burning. No one was killed.

        Not a lot of rage there, buddy.

      mark311 in reply to mailman. | June 28, 2021 at 12:32 pm

      With all due respect mailman you are an idiot so your insults mean nothing.

        DSHornet in reply to mark311. | June 28, 2021 at 2:28 pm

        To the contrary, they’re quite valuable. You are too single mindedly stubborn to recognize them as opportunities for self improvement.

        Haven’t you noticed how much you are laughed at? Maybe there’s a reason for that.
        .

          mark311 in reply to DSHornet. | June 29, 2021 at 2:25 am

          @dshornet

          You haven’t noticed I don’t care much for the inane nonsensical bullshit that spews out of some. It means nothing to be laughed at by a moron(s).. The reality is when another person’s argument is pure ad hominem that tells you a lot about the merits of the argument they have.

          @mailman

          Something something, still don’t care still haven’t said anything of substance. Funny that.

        mailman in reply to mark311. | June 28, 2021 at 5:20 pm

        With all due respect go fuck yourself 🤣🤣

        goomicoo in reply to mark311. | June 29, 2021 at 10:51 am

        Careful, that’s sounds like an ad hominem attack.

They’re afraid of women.

I’ll have to be gunned down in the street.
Why is it we can’t talk about a 2A solution when actions are being taken by the left that further reinforces the need for the Second Amendment.

The late, great Colonel Dave Hackworth had a name for scumbags like these two – “perfumed princes of the Pentagon”.

They are licking the boots of their political masters, with an eye towards retirement and dipping their grubby fingers into the Defense honeypot as lobbyists or board members of contractors.

My concern is that these top, TOP men do actually see every day white Americans as their enemies.

    mark311 in reply to mailman. | June 28, 2021 at 12:26 pm

    That’s clearly not what they were saying. They were asking a very simple question why does a certain group of people over react to the world around them. Citing events like the capitol riots which most see as a good example of white rage.

      Danny in reply to mark311. | June 28, 2021 at 1:19 pm

      If you believe white rage is a thing you are a racist piece of shit end of story.

        mark311 in reply to Danny. | June 29, 2021 at 2:16 am

        It’s not a question of belief, it’s a theory and therefore open to be argued about in a rational thoughtful way. Maybe you should argue against the premises instead of resorting to ad hominem.

          kebennett9 in reply to mark311. | June 29, 2021 at 7:25 am

          A few theories that I need more clarification on:

          1. What’s your definition of social progress? What’s the foundation that it rests upon, the idea that supports this agenda? Further, what does a society that has accomplished this progress look like?

          2. What’s your definition of a reactionary? What’s the difference between one who reacts and one who doesn’t? Specifically, what would qualify one as being in a non-reactionary state? When do they take the step into reactionary and at what point do they cross into over-reaction? What are the boundaries?

          3. When you refer to QAnon, do you mean to identify all conservatives as believers? Also, you claim it to be a distorted view of reality. The merits of QAnon aside, do you mean to imply that your version of reality is the only clear view?

          4. There were many people of color involved in the ‘capitol riot’ – do they have white rage, too? If I’m white (I am) does this indicate that my rage is strictly due to the physical aspects of myself? Or a more narrow factor being the color of my skin? Perhaps this factor applies only in certain circumstances? See, I’m very confused on this matter.

          5. If ‘white rage’ was the leading factor in the ‘capitol riot’ then why did they go into a building inhabited by a majority of old white men/women? Pelosi, Schumer, Biden… Doesn’t a ‘white rage’ theory better apply when white people attack those who are non-white? I don’t see the logical connection. Can you make those connections?

          6. Lastly, why do you deem yourself the keeper of what’s in another’s heart? You profess to know things about people you’ve never met. You may argue that you don’t but what else is professing to ‘know the nature of people.’ I understand the impossibility knowing what, how, and who you are… your very ‘nature.’

          So, where do you get your power from?

          Ill wait for your answers, thank you.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | June 29, 2021 at 8:14 pm

          @kebennett9

          Some interesting questions. Quite deep ones too. I’ll try and answer as best I can

          1) a) social progress could be defined in a number if ways but in principle I’d say progress could be charachterised by an increase in fairness at a societal level, increases in wellbeing and a reduction in harm through out society.

          B) the foundation, hmm well that could be a number if things but a government that invests in society and a general population that are invested in society. How that’s achieved is an open question and not one I claim an answer too

          C) I can only envisage next steps, I’m not clear what a fully developed society would look like. In principle those next steps would include a significant reduction in the wealth gap, access to free health care, a much higher standard of education where resources aren’t concentrated in a few rich schools

          2) reactionary is where a person or person’s respond to events or situations in an illicit or overtly aggressive manner. I’d say the boundaries could be defined by a reasonable level of respect for open discourse, legal behaviour, non-violent and non criminal behaviour. Beyond that I’d say depending on the merits of the individual case the term reactionary could be used.

          3) no I don’t think all conservatives are qanon supporters. It’s clear that there are a range of views within conservatism.

          There are a range of valid views, qanon is not one them.

          4) the video evidence suggested strongly that the dominant group overwhelmingly were white

          5) I don’t know if you’ve behaved in a manner that would be an example of white rage so the answer is I don’t know with regard to yourself. As a term it’s applied to groups involved in situations as I’ve described so it’s used in known circumstances as opposed to being applied to an unknown situation.

          5) the primary objective was to restore Trump who can be viewed as a symbol representing a certain societal view which rails against things like CRT, social justice, social Democrats etc. These are progressive elements which can be viewed as threatening to the status quo. For clarity I see white rage as a possible factor, not an exclusive one. As I’ve mentioned previously I find CRT overly reductive.

          6) observation, study of history, study of psychology and philosophy. Ie I’m well read

      mailman in reply to mark311. | June 28, 2021 at 5:22 pm

      It’s an empty meaningless political statement that anyone capable of the critical skull of rubbish two or more brain cells together can see probably why you can’t see this.

      Given there were people of all races, creeds, beliefs present in DC that day protesting or their rights it makes your empty meaningless political statement all the more meaningless, empty and political.

        mark311 in reply to mailman. | June 29, 2021 at 6:08 am

        Your argument fails at the first hurdle the vast majority of those attending were white, Trump supporters reacting to a ‘stolen’ election with no evidence of such. Given Trump’s support of positions and person’s associated with the far right it’s not hard to make a connection between Trump’s values and those of his supporters being undermined hence the white rage.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | June 28, 2021 at 7:19 pm

      “Citing events like the capitol riots which most see as a good example of white rage.”

      “Citing events like the capitol riots which most see as a good example of white rage.”

      That disgusting and despicable lie, yet again.

      The capitol hill riot had nothing to do with “white rage.” It was the result of people who genuinely felt a national election had been stolen and wanted redress.

      Stop telling despicable and slanderous lies if you want to taken seriously.

        @BSR

        Trouble is the evidence for election fraud is a complete joke. So on that basis it’s reasonable to look a little deeper than just that as a motive. It’s pretty clear from the kind of people who broke into the capitol building that they are alienated white folk who are pushing back against the system in an angry way.

        @danny

        No that’s not what white rage means. It does not make the claim that white people are inferior or that they are evil. It makes the claim that there is a causal relationship between social progress and reactionary elements within white groups.

        Again you need to make a causal distinction between the BLM riots and the capitol building riots. In the former case blacks are the oppressed group and given the disproportionate number of police shootings and the circumstances around those shootings in a number of cases why wouldn’t they be pissed. For clarity I don’t condone the criminal elements of the BLM riots. This contracts against the capitol building riots which were much more serious given it was a direct constitutional threat (an attempt to be at least). It was violent and involved predominantly whites acting out against the removal of a figurehead who has stood against some of these social justice issues.

        White rage is a theory alongside CRT. Attack the substance of that theory not those whole have gone out of there way to read a set of books that informs society. The trouble is the more I read about CRT the more it’s abundantly clear that right wingers have no idea what it actual says. Your attempt to define it makes that crystal clear. No one talks about whites being inferior etc that’s absolutely not part of the argument. There are plenty of points to attack CRT on etc but it helps of you actually know what it is. Personally I think it’s a reductionist argument, I’m not overly keen on it.

      Danny in reply to mark311. | June 28, 2021 at 9:46 pm

      To clarify White Rage is a racist concept that white people are inferior and suffer from an inclination towards evil because they are white which is exactly what this POS claimed.

      He saw a lot of riots over the course of a year. He only cares about one of the riots and he has made it clear he thinks it is because they are whites because white people are genetically inferior.

      White Rage like other Scientific Racism terms….belief in it makes you a racist there is no room for debate on this.

      I would say the same if a racist was attacking black people and claiming their blackness cause (fill in insanely horrifying crime committed by black person).

      A senior officer used a racial slur in official testimony this is very big news,

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mailman. | June 28, 2021 at 7:29 pm

    “My concern is that these top, TOP men do actually see every day white Americans as their enemies”

    Leadership 101: Yell your people they are scum, and they will start acting like scum.

    The approach from leadership should be “Our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen are the best we have our our nation. Each are committed to equality and dedicated to the preservation of the freedoms of all Americans and our republican system of government as enshrined in our constitution. The US military does not tolerate racism or racial bigotry in any of its forms, and we, as servants of our country and our constitution, are committed to treating all our servicemembers with respect they each deserve for their service and commitment to our nation.”

    Instead we get this divisive clap trap.

    Take away two stars. Retire them.

Send both of these FOOLS packing.

Another thought occurs to me.

Where the hell was Trump in the last 4 years? As commander and chief it was his job to oversee the military, and instead all he did was provide a rubber stamp for spending increases on it while letting it go woke.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Danny. | June 28, 2021 at 2:43 pm

    I wonder the same thing.

    Dathurtz in reply to Danny. | June 28, 2021 at 2:50 pm

    Trump was surrounded by scum and didn’t seem to notice until he was betrayed by each one. One of his failings was being blind to how so many people put their personal greed ahead of their duty to their country.

      Danny in reply to Dathurtz. | June 28, 2021 at 9:44 pm

      Is the failing that he didn’t notice or he appointed them in the first place instead of appointing MAGA people?

        Dathurtz in reply to Danny. | June 28, 2021 at 10:34 pm

        I don’t know. Maybe he thought thought they were MAGA when they were swamp. Maybe he had swamp people foist upon him by the approval process. Maybe MAGA people got corrupted into swamp creatures. I don’t know. What I do know is his people almost universally failed him.

    mark311 in reply to Danny. | June 29, 2021 at 6:09 am

    @danny

    Mostly playing golf

Top Military Leader? What a joke. They are imposters filling top leadership positions.

The Marxists have won.

One step that could be taken is to FOIA the ‘command climate survey’ data from the Army. These and other surveys are conducted on an annual basis.

The survey contains a mix of question types. Some are agree/disagree, some allow more input with a paragraph of space for the respondents.

Another potential FOIA are IG complaint data and Equal Opportunity data. The trends in bothers absolute numbers and the types of complaints would be useful.

A public interest law firm could then examine historical trends pre adoption of the CRT/Equity v post implementation data. That would provide some clarification on the impact of this to unit cohesion.

Keeping in mind that the UCMJ is predicated upon the ‘maintenance of good order and military discipline’ then if the CRT/Equity programs are shown to undermine that then they are not allowed under the UCMJ.

That theory isn’t a stretch. If retention rates decline substantially and volunteer rates for unaccompanied duty tours increase under a particular Division CDR who is more zealous in the implementation while other Divisions remain constant then that DIV CDR is the problem.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend