Stunning Soviet-Level Indoctrination of the US Space Force

In Lt Col Matthew Lohmeier’s recent testimony on Capitol Hill, he included in his statement his complaint (below) to the DOD IG.

It’s a shocking look at the off-the-charts level of anti-American, divisive Marxist ideology/propaganda being pushed on serving members of the US Space Force. Soviet Political Commissars would fall off their chairs knowing this activity was going on at an American base. PRC military political commissars would smile at the American “Struggle Sessions”.

How very far we’ve come from fighting Marxism during the Cold War to welcoming and indoctrinating our military forces with the very ideology we opposed for 70 years. How do Guardians want to fight and defend our country that they are taught to  hate?

18 November 2020



SUBJECT: Fair and Equal Treatment of Individuals at Buckley Air Force Base Colorado

1. Colonel Devin Pepper, Garrison Commander at Buckley Air Force Base Colorado, has unethically used his position to promote anti-American propaganda to the military personnel at his base.

The ideologically-driven narrative he espouses, which is rooted in critical race theory (CRT), is engendering division and resentment within the ranks, undermining good order and discipline, and eroding the confidence military professionals place in their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

2. Under the banner of “Diversity & Inclusion,” this divisive agenda has continued at Buckley Garrison despite the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Memorandums (dated 4 September 2020 and 28 September 2020; Attachment 1), the President’s Executive Order (EO) (dated 22 September 2020; Attachment 2, e.g. Sections 2 & 3), and the Defense Department’s Memorandum on implementation of the EO (dated 16 October 2020; Attachment 3) otherwise banning such trainings.

Some of the trainings at Buckley Garrison are racist and hostile, and undermine our obligation to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all individuals before the law.

The present memorandum summarizes only some of what I have witnessed since arriving at Buckley in June 2020, and is not an effort to be exhaustive.

Further, it details occurrences both preceding and succeeding the aforementioned EO and memorandums.

I point out that my experience is not unique, and that other leaders and military personnel have discussed with me their concerns over the climate at the base but that they are unsure how to address the problem.

3. On 24 June 2020, shortly after I moved to Buckley, the base commander sent an email containing anti-American, progressive political propaganda to the members of his base (Attachment 4).

He requested that members comprised of both Air and Space Force personnel view two propaganda videos prior to the upcoming “Buckley Connects Virtual Wingman Day.”

The two videos were “The Uncomfortable Truth (Amazon Prime, 2017), by Loki Mulholland, and “13th” (Netflix, 2016). They contain at least the following inappropriate and concerning elements:

a. “The Uncomfortable Truth” portrays American history as fraught with racism from 1619 till the present. It teaches that a racist social order was codified by the US Constitution to allow whites to remain in power and subjugate and oppress blacks, and that we have never escaped from that foundation of racism; that upon ratification of the constitution “white supremacy was now the official policy of the United States of America.”

b. “13th” portrays Republican politicians as racist (claiming, for example, that George Bush won his election by causing Americans to fear black people, and also showing clips of Donald Trump before the 2016 election that cast him in a negative light, insinuating that he has fueled systemic racism in America), portrays Democrats as aiding the black community (for example, favorable clips of Barack Obama, and Bill and Hillary Clinton), and interviews a famous Marxist activist (Melina Abdullah, Black Live’s Matter LA chapter organizer and activist) in order to build a suitably unfavorable narrative about American history in order to justify and demonstrate sympathy for violent riots specifically.

The United States is referred to as a “system of oppression” throughout the film. The President of the United States is cast in a terrible light (and out of context) at 1:20:15 to imply he enjoys oppressing blacks and keeping minorities in an inferior status.

As a commander of young military professionals, all of whom have taken the oath to support and defend the constitution, I am very concerned that group identity politics and anti-American propaganda is eroding the trust and confidence these young people have in their country and in the constitution.

This same ideology has, in various forums, continued to be promulgated throughout my time at the base.

4. On Friday, 26 June 2020, the base hosted the “Buckley Connects Virtual Wingman Day,” during which conversations on “Race, Respect, and Healing” took place.

The stated goal of the event was to “create safe spaces” to discuss race and seek “racial healing” (Attachment 5).

Statements were read at the beginning of small group discussions to generate conversation. It was suggested to facilitators of these group discussions to read the following statements:

“Police in America are more suspicious of certain people based on their race,” and “I believe racism is prevalent in our country (…in the Air Force).”

Participants were asked to write whether they agreed with the statements and share their responses with the group.

Once participants were “more comfortable,” they were directed to “get serious, and deepen the conversation” using at least three of the following:

“How often do you think about your racial or ethnic identity?”

“What aspect of your racial or ethnic identity makes you the proudest?”

“In what ways does being your specific race or ethnicity impact your personal and/or professional life?”

“Does racial or ethnic identity enter in your process of making important or daily decisions?”

“Have you ever felt ‘different’ in a group setting because of your race/ethnicity? How did this affect you? How often/deeply do you interact with people of a different racial/ethnic identity other than your own?”

“Have you ever witnessed someone being treated unfairly because of their racial or ethnic identity? In the Air Force? If so, how did you respond? How did it make you feel?”

“What do you think needs to happen before our country can achieve healing and forgiveness? What can we do locally? In the Air Force?”

It was hoped that these discussions would “provide opportunities to acknowledge the tremendous damage inflicted by individual and systemic racism,” and lead participants to become “oriented toward equity.”

These statements and questions imply that certain ideas are a foregone conclusion, thereby subtly coercing participants into acquiescence or simply shaming them into silence.

The climate created by these discussions leads participants to feel that if they disagree they are likely to be viewed as “racist,” or “part of the problem,” or as “getting political.”

5. Around the same time, other guidance (in the form of emails, town halls, Facebook Live events, discussion guidelines, and talking points) was disseminated to help leaders on the base facilitate ongoing conversation about racial injustice and inequity in the country and in the service.

Once such tool that was sent to leaders, titled “Difficult Conversations: Racial & Ethnic Diversity” (Attachment 6), discussed the importance in “establishing a safe and courageous environment within your workplace” in order to minimize discomfort in discussions about race.

Leaders were also cautioned, however, that “for some Airmen and Space Professionals-particularly members of marginalized, non-majority or targeted identity groups-you may not be able to provide complete safety.”

The implication, of course, was that the military workplace is not already a safe environment for minorities and that “identity groups” play a fundamental role in military organizational culture and identity.

6. Emails about race and racism from various base agencies, including from the base commander, continued to go to base personnel during the months of June and July 2020.

In one such email from Col Pepper, he asked leaders to read an article written by Daisy Auger-Dominguez (the Chief People Officer at VICE Media Group, and Vice-Chair of the board of directors of Planned Parenthood Federation) titled, “Getting Over Your Fear of Talking About Diversity,” which he attached to his email (Attachment 7).

The article suggests leaders read certain books to educate themselves about “issues of women, people of color, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+, religious minorities, and other marginalized groups.”

The books recommended included ljeoma Oluo’s So You Want to Talk About Race (see Paragraph 11 ), Minda Harts’ The Memo: What Women of Color Need to Know to Secure a Seat at the Table, Jodi Patterson’s The Bold World, and Dolly Chugh’s The Person You Mean to Be: How Good People Fight Bias.

The article further instructs leaders to “apologize and admit your mistakes,” and to take up the work “as an ally in a position of power” to launch “team conversations about white fragility, holding all-hands meetings calling out racially charged incidents when they happen, or introducing yourself with your pronouns.”

7. In July 2020, Col Pepper suggested that the base Community Support Coordinator compile a list of Diversity & Inclusion initiatives (i.e. book clubs, small group discussions, etc.) that had been implemented by the various units on base so that such initiatives might be “shared with everyone” (Attachment 8).

In a 10 July email solicitation of those initiatives, it was advertised that the Buckley Chapel team was developing its own discussion groups.

The first topic to be discussed was “valuing people.” The chapel explained that “we will do so by watching a video on racism that documents generational and political racism followed by a facilitated discussion on racism.”

I later came to learn from young enlisted space professionals in my own unit as well as from Chaplain Travis Barrino, that the chapel had also established minority small group discussions, and classes titled “Race in America” that were available to everyone.

Twelve days later, a follow-up email was sent by the Community Support Coordinator to base leaders containing a consolidated list of Diversity & Inclusion initiatives.

Among them, the base Force Support Squadron shared that they were giving their enlisted members “homework” to research issues related to race in America, and that they would be discussing their homework bi-weekly at enlisted calls to “keep the discussion on Race and Respect a constant topic in the squadron.”

These are merely a couple of examples of initiatives among others being organized at Buckley Garrison.

8. In July 2020, shortly after I took command. Chaplain Barrino and SSgt Jerome Cobb stopped by my office to introduce themselves. Then squadron superintendent, SMSgt Kevin Ryan, was in my office at the time of the brief introduction.

Chaplain Barrino explained that it was no longer the Chapel’s practice to give office space to their chaplains over in the chapel, that that was how the chapel used to do things, but that the chaplains were now expected to live amongst and be imbedded in the units they served.

He explained that Lt Col Ray Brushier had already provided him an office space within the cyber squadron, and that he (the chaplain) was also interested in finding office space within my unit, the 11th Space Warning Squadron (11 SWS) (the chaplain clarified during the conversation that he was not looking for his own office, per se).

He also explained his intent to share the “Race in America” classes or lectures with the members of my unit.

I explained to him that I was on my way out the door, kindly expressed hesitation at his proposal, and said that I would like to sit down with him at some point soon to meet him and learn more about the classes.

The chaplain seemed surprised at my hesitation and pursued the issue further.

Surprised by his insistence, I respectfully explained that this was an operations squadron, that we have a mission to accomplish, that there was no greater advocate of the important role of the chaplaincy than me, but that there was also a proper balance between operations and chaplain support that I was interested in finding.

At that, he said, “I have heard about commanders like you, but I’ve never met one.”

While I cannot know for sure what was meant by the chaplain’s statement, I considered it a jab.

The comment seemed intended to convey the chaplain’s dismay at my reluctance to readily welcome his classes (about which I knew very little at the time) into my squadron.

The chaplain has a friendly demeanor, and though his statement was not said with an angry tone, I could not help but perceive he viewed me as an opponent to what he was pursuing, and it left me concerned about our interaction.

I do not know if our initial conversation was shared with others. SMSgt Ryan was present for the entirety of our brief visit.

9. On Wednesday, 12 August 2020, at 1400, Chaplain Barrino sat down with me and my superintendent, SMSgt Ryan, in my office to discuss the contents of the “Race in America” classes.

The conversation lasted for about an hour and fifteen minutes. The chaplain explained that the classes were intended to facilitate dialogue on how we can heal as a nation and as a service, and overcome systemic racism.

I asked him what he meant by systemic racism. He replied with an unclear vignette, skirting the issue somewhat, and then replied, after brief hesitation, “basically, whites are racist.”

I told him I did not believe such a problem existed in our country or within our service, and explained to him why I thought such a message not only had no healing power, but that I was concerned it would create division and unhealthy tension between members of my unit.

We had much dialogue over these issues, which for the most part was professional and respectful despite our opposite views.

The chaplain shared many views which gave me cause for concern.

Among the most alarming to me were his views that the United States was founded by racists, that American history was written by a white oppressor class that was racist, and that “history must be re-written.”

I again expressed concern over his views. I explained to him that to impugn guilt to members of my unit solely based on the color of their skin was the very definition of racism.

I also expressed my concern that the narrative he had chosen to adopt about American history was fueled by a divisive political ideology that was dangerous. He of course disagreed.

I also explained to him that his narrative on race and American history undermined the trust our service members place in their oath to support and defend the constitution. He disagreed.

10. In September 2020, an active duty, black female enlisted member of my unit came to my office to discuss a concern she had with regards to another male member of the unit. My First Sergeant, MSgt Ryan Kane, was present for the conversation.

We had a long conversation with the member, and took very seriously and investigated her concerns about a statement she overheard another member of the unit make to his friends, to which she took offense and considered racist.

That particular complaint was adjudicated appropriately and to the satisfaction of myself, my First Sergeant, and the complainant, and is not the issue I would like to address.

During the course of conversation with this female member, she explained “I never knew before that I was an outsider; not just in my country, but in my own service. I never knew about that until I attended the classes at the Chapel with the chaplain.”

We asked her about the classes, and she explained that she had been attending a minority group discussion hosted by the chaplain at which they were discussing issues of race in America.

It was clear to the First Sergeant and me that this member was being trained to view the motives, statements, and behaviors of others as racist.

The fact that the member said she “never knew before” that she was an outsider, gave us greater cause for concern over the classes that were being hosted by the chaplain.

The First Sergeant and I are aware of at least one other member of our unit (also a black enlisted member) attending the classes.

The classes in question, which plant this divisive, fear-filled and hate-fueled ideology into the hearts of our active duty members, is not only known about by the Garrison Commander (the “base commander” became the “garrison commander” on 24 July 2020), but has his ongoing support and advocacy, as is evidenced in his emails to the base, his base resiliency days, his town halls in which he makes occasional mention of these initiatives, and his Team Buckley bi-weekly tag-up during which he and the Chaplain invite others to attend these discussions.

11. The Garrison Commander and the base chapel are sponsoring a “Discussions on Race Book Club” at which critical race theory (CRT) is taught.

The first such discussion took place on Thursday, 29 October 2020, which I attended via live-stream.

It is noted that these discussions are being facilitated long after the Executive Order was issued (reference Paragraph 2 and Attachment 2, e.g. Sections 2&3) directing government officials to cease “training” government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda, specifically critical race theory.

The book discussed at the first event was So You Want to Talk About Race, by Ijeoma Oluo (see Paragraph 6), and the discussion was facilitated by an active duty, black female officer member of the 2d Space Warning Squadron.

The book teaches that the United States is “a white supremacist society” that must be “dismantled piece by piece.”

It teaches that speech that makes “people of color feel unsafe” is “an act of violence,” but that if whites are uncomfortable, “do not allow [them] to be treated as if harm has been done to them.”

The book suggests ways a reader might want to consider facilitating discussions about the contents of the book, saying

“the comfort of white attendees should be very, very far down on the priority list.”

In its suggestions regarding creating safe spaces, the book advocates reintroducing a form of segregation into American society:

If whites “feel strongly that they need to center their feelings and experiences in the discussion, set up a space away from the group where they can talk with other white people. Do not let it take over the group discussion or become a burden that people of color in the group have to bear.”

Further, it emphatically touches upon the many other aspects comprising critical race theory, topics such as: privilege, intersectionality, police brutality, cultural appropriation, and microaggressions.

The book proposes organizations to which concerned readers should be donating their money, such as the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and the NAACP.

It instructs readers that they should vote for politicians who support raising the minimum wage, and who favor police reform.

One participant in the group, who mentioned he was currently also reading Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility, expressed how glad he was that “Colonel Pepper was able to use his bully pulpit” to push these discussions on race.

12. Since arriving at Buckley, I have heard rumors from at least several unrelated sources that Colonel Pepper is hosting minority only, small group mentorship gatherings at his on-base residence.

I have not sought to verify the truthfulness of those rumors, but mention it here because it is related to the other items discussed in the present memorandum, and because the rumors alone have fueled a perception of unfairness for some active duty members at the base.

13. As the President’s Executive Order states,

“These types of trainings not only run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our Nation has stood since its inception, but they also engender division and resentment within the Federal workforce.”

They do not engender inclusion, but prevent it.

As a commander, I am seeing this play out in real-time in the military at a break-neck pace.

Military members who take an oath to support and defend the constitution are being “trained” to hate America’s founding, history, and current standing of privilege in the world.

Books such as Oluo’s, and other videos and training materials that have been disseminated and discussed on the base, which are rooted in CRT, should have no place in the United States military, yet these trainings and materials were sponsored by the Garrison Commander and the chaplaincy.

The ideology I have described dismisses individuality outright and demonizes entire groups of people (e.g. whites).

Further, it pits groups and classes of people against one another creating a polarized political and social environment, cancels fraternal ties, imagined or real, and undermines our obligation to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all individuals before the law.


8 Attachments:

1. OMB Memorandum M-20-34, “Training in the Federal Government,” 4 September 2020; OMB Memorandum M-20-37, “Ending Employee Trainings that Use Divisive Propaganda to Undermine the Principle of Fair and Equal Treatment for All,” 28 September 2020
2. Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping, 22 September 2020
3. Secretary of Defense Memorandum, “Implementation of Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” 16 October 2020
4. Email dated 24 June 2020
5. Attachment to email dated 19 June 2020
6. Handout titled “Difficult Conversations: Racial & Ethnic Diversity”
7. Attachment to email dated 22 July 2020
8. Emails dated 10 July 2020 and 22 July 2020

(STARRS NOTE: The DOD memo regarding implementing EO 14950 has been wiped from the internet. If you find it, let us know)

From a CIA report regarding increases in the number of political officers in the Soviet Armed Forces:

“These political officers are the direct superiors of the entire personnel of the company (Battery) and the eyes of the Communist Party. . . . . Political instruction in the armed forces is the main guarantee of the power of the USSR, that every future war will be turned into a class war and that, therefore, the Soviet army must be specially well trained politically.”

And another report said,

“The political officers who are directly responsible for the training of all troops…aimed at the following objectives:

    • Generation of hatred for Anglo-American imperialists
    • Preparing the soldier psychologically for war by eliminating from his mind all remaining positive feelings toward the former allies, USA and England
    • Educating the soldiers to vigilance, constant battle preparedness and willingness to help the commanding officers in maintaining control over the unit
    • Denunciation and elimination of all dissatisfaction among soldiers”

These “commissars,” as they were first called, exercised specific official and unofficial control functions over their military command counterparts. The political officers also served to further Party interests with the masses of drafted soldiery of the USSR by indoctrination in Marxist-Leninism. . . . . .

. . . .This political control system was not benign; the indoctrination, kritika/samokritika, and artificial tension used as part of the Party activities caused friction at best, and outright paranoia at worst, among the military professionals. Indoctrination dulled the critical thinking processes. Repetition of the Party jargon, and in the absence of other information, the Marxist-Leninist formulas became the only framework for evaluating reality.

Kritika and samokritikacriticism and self-criticism respectively, were a core function of the mandatory Party meetings. At these meetings, the political staff was required to not only note who spoke, but exactly what was said. Party members of the enlisted ranks or junior officers were encouraged to freely criticize the military decisions or personal habits of the higher officers if these actions did not fit Party doctrine or norms. The effects of this practice on the commander’s authority must have been devastating. . . .

More on Soviet Political Officers/Political Commissars



LtCol Lohmeier’s Thoughts on Capitol Hill Hearing: This is War

Former Space Force LtCol Matthew Lohmeier recently spoke at a talk on X about his thoughts regarding the Capitol Hill hearing he testified at, “The Risks of Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military”.

Listen to it here or read the transcript below:


LtCol Matthew Lohmeier
“I was asked several weeks ago to testify at the National Defense Subcommittee hearing that is part of the House Oversight Committee. That committee is chaired by Representative Glenn Grothman from Wisconsin, and, of course, you might be aware that Representative Jim Comer chairs the House Oversight Committee, and Mike Waltz is also a part of the Oversight Committee.

Neither Jim Comer nor Mike Waltz are necessarily required or obligated, as far as I understand it, to be in that subcommittee hearing, but both of them came.

I just wanted to share briefly with the group some dynamics that I didn’t expect and share a few observations. And then I’m happy to answer questions.

I noticed that when the hearing started, I’m sure it’s kind of standard, you had the chairman of the committee, Glenn Grothman, and the ranking member, Robert Garcia, Democrat from California, was in his seat. The committee chairman was in his seat, and literally no more than a handful of other congressmen in the chairs already, a few from the Republican side, one or two from the Democrat side.

I’m not throwing spears just yet, but just to say I was unprepared for that, I figured that some would choose to bow out altogether, like Congresswoman Cori Bush from Missouri, and that, in fact, turned out to be true. She never showed.

But what kind of surprised me is that for a hearing that lasted quite a long time–it was expected to be 90 minutes but it was well over 2 hours.

We had both Republicans and Democrats, predominantly Democrats, show up just a few minutes before they were expecting to give their monologue and maybe ask a few questions, and then they got right back up and left the hearing.

The takeaway for me was that there’s a genuine lack of interest, especially from Democrats, to even confront this issue and hear feedback from those who have been called as witnesses for these hearings.

That was evident also when the ranking member, Robert Garcia, closed his testimony at the very end of this hearing by saying, hey, you’ve already lost this battle. He said, I can’t believe we’re even taking time, wasting time to discuss what you allege is wokism in the military, what you allege is a culture war.

There’s this animus from the Left that shouldn’t surprise anyone.

But here’s an important point that I wanted to make that is, I hope, useful in that it gives us an understanding into their strategy.

I watched what happened both before the hearing, outside of that hearing room where I met General Seidule and his son that he brought to the hearing. I saw him go back into a separate private room with Democrats who would be a part of the hearing, and their staffers, I presume, to discuss a game plan.

Based on how the Democrats approached this entire hearing, if you listened to the entire hearing, one thing that you would have noticed was that they seemed to be deliberately focused on the decades past and not on the present moment.

That was evident in some of the lines of questioning. It was evident in their talking points, and it was evident in what General Seidule was prepared to talk about. He talked about his lengthy 30 plus year military career, and he talked about policies like equal opportunity. They talked about integration of races in the military during the Truman administration.

And it’s like, no one is here to argue these things! No one is here to talk about those progressive policies from early in the Cold War. But that’s what they focused on.

Because, and this is the important point, I get the sense that they recognized ahead of time that if they had remotely competent witnesses show up to attack wokism, to attack Critical Race Theory, to attack DEI initiatives and their consequences, they wouldn’t have much of an argument to make.

So what they wanted to do is shame the witnesses into looking like we were there to fight against women in the military or fight against gays being in the military at all. And of course, that isn’t the case. That was one observation I’ve had as I’ve reflected on what I felt and what I saw in the room.

The other point I want to make, I guess I’ve already hinted at, is I was rather dismayed. I mean, I already don’t like Leftist, Leftism, Progressivism, Neomarxism–pick your label.

But to have the tangible feeling to sit in the room and to feel their disgust for conservatism, Republicans in the room, and to hear them thank General Seidule for his service, but deliberately ignore Will Thibeau and I in their gratitude, I mean, it shows that they’ve got a really vitriolic animosity for our values, our worldview.

Again, I know that’s not surprising to anyone, but I saw firsthand that they are determined to wage a battle and they defend it like it’s a religious worldview.

It shouldn’t surprise you also that the same animus is felt and apparent in some of the Republican members–and in my view, rightly so.

That’s some overall highlights for me, takeaways. I’ll tell you, some of the clips that Jordan has posted on her Twitter feed have received a lot of attention. So thank you for that, both on a personal note as well as just overall for getting the messaging of that hearing out.

The House Oversight Committee has been doing a good job putting out clips from the hearing as well. They’ve gotten a lot of views. I mean, Donald Trump Jr. was saying, hey, everyone needs to watch this stuff.

So we’ve had million plus or millions of views in the last 24 hours on specific issues in that hearing. And I’m under no illusion of thinking that’s going to stay at the forefront of anyone’s minds. I know that there’s all sorts of other news going on that’s equally as important.

So I think that’s probably all I should say.  I’m happy to entertain any questions.

Question 1
Matt, I have a question for you. You mentioned the animosity from the representatives. Did you have any feedback from General Seidule afterward? I mean, did he seem to understand what you were saying?

One of the favorite clips of mine that I posted was where you just completely wrecked whatever he said about how he had never seen CRT at West Point or in his 30 year career. You were able to reference the fact that even in your book, you researched that policy proposal from West Point graduates that quoted him throughout their proposal.

So I’m just curious. I saw his face when you said that. I think a lot of other people saw his face in his reaction to that. What was the feedback or if he even had any after the hearing? Did he say anything to you? Because I think most of us understand that the representatives are not going to meet us halfway. But it is very disconcerting when service members like a general who served 30 years, when they are also projecting that animosity towards our values.

LtCol Matthew Lohmeier
Good question. So I’ll share a couple of thoughts. I went out of the hearing room into the hallway and happened to run into General Seidule before the hearing began and met him and his Army veteran son and we had a cordial exchange. I knew the kind of preparation and research I had done on him and what I was hoping to get to say.

So because he seemed like a kindly fellow and I really don’t have—I mean, I have animosity, I have a really strong disliking and frankly, a hatred for evil, but I just have a tender spot for humans. I couldn’t help but feel bad for the guy even before the hearing started because I was going to attempt to land some blows. I let him know that in advance.

I said, it’s apparent to me, having read your written submission of your testimony, that you and I have a different view on things, and I’m going to make that plain today, but I don’t mean any hard feelings by it, but this needs to be argued. He shook my hand and said, thanks, good to meet you. He didn’t appear nervous whatsoever until–and the reason I point that out is he didn’t appear nervous initially.

But I was sitting in the middle of that table, as you’re aware, and when I got about 30 to 45 seconds into my written oral statement that I wanted to make up front, I noticed he was visibly shaky.

He was picking up his papers and his hands were shaking because I think for the first time it dawned on him that the issues that Will and I were there to directly confront and attack, he didn’t have a good response for.

I think he knew, hey, me and my fellow colleagues up there on the stand have a game plan, but boy, if we go down this road, we don’t really have a good leg to stand on.

And he surely wouldn’t have anticipated that that 40-page policy proposal from West Point graduates was going to come up.

This is kind of a fun anecdote that this group will appreciate. I had spent a little bit of time every day this week preparing for that testimony, trying to turn over new rocks and learn a little bit here and there about things I hadn’t considered for a very long time.

And like a lightning bolt out of a clear sky, I had the thought to go look in my book at that 40-page policy proposal.

Because I saw in my book–it’s only like three pages in my book–that I had quoted a few of these activists. What they were advocating for sounded an awful lot like what General Seidule had been asked to do by Lloyd Austin as recently as a year and a half ago.

So I decided I’d pull up that 40-page proposal and go spend a little bit of time studying it. And I was so glad I did. So I consider that a direct gift from heaven.

I had no thought to look at that, and it just literally was a thought that was planted as clear as day in my mind. So I think we had some help to communicate, some ideas.

My wife was prayerful, others were prayerful. She laughed and teased me after the testimony was over because we have a very conservative family that doesn’t like vulgarity. And I use the word bullshit and something else in the hearing, and my wife said, I was praying for you, that you’d be led by God in what you said, and as soon as I heard you say bullshit, I wondered, God, did you plant that in his mouth as well?

But all of that to say we were prayerful. We took this very seriously.

The feedback I’ve received by private email and through my website and through direct messaging, I’ve been pleased that people who genuinely care about their country and who are patriots in every positive sense of that term and who love God and who desire to see an apolitical military and save their country, they’ve been reaching out, saying, hey, we love you. Thank you. God bless. That means the world to me.

And I’ve got some hate messaging as well, which I don’t really care about very much. So thanks for that question, Jordan.

Question 2
Thank you Colonel Lohmeier, God bless you for what you did. I thought you owned that General to your left. I know that’s not a good operative word, but field grade officer versus general officer, definitely you took the W on that one. But my question is,  the documents. I can’t remember the congresswoman’s name that was questioning you during the clips that I think were shared, probably more than others, but she wanted to take a lot of the documents that you provided, enter them into the records. But she also said she would follow up. Do you know if there’s any plan, tangible, objective plan, for not only the West Point report that you talked about, but also some of the other documents that you had?

LtCol Matthew Lohmeier
My understanding was, and I think they said it at the beginning of the hearing, but I don’t remember the time frame, whether it was 48 hours or 72 hours or two weeks, whatever it was, that members and their staff had a certain time to reach back out to witnesses to bug them for things. I figure probably at the beginning of the next week is when I’m going to look for some follow up.

I did have a follow up call with the chairman of the committee, Glenn Grossman. He wanted to talk for a while after the hearing and share some personal anecdotes and also ask for more clarification on some points that I shared. So that follow up has happened.

I believe it’s possible that it was Congresswoman Virginia Fox  that said perhaps she was going to want to enter some poll data that was compiled by the Heritage Foundation with Congressman Mike Waltz. These folks already have all of this stuff, and I’ll happily submit it again so it can be entered as a part of the record for that hearing. But I’m going to give them the opportunity to reach out so that if there’s multiple items that they’ve requested, I’ll just send everything at once.

I do want to make one more point, though, just for this group. We’ve got warfighters on this call. We’ve got people who are champions. How do I put it? Because I knew that the hearing went fairly well for us, I was asked a number of times how you feel you “owned” the general, is what you just shared.

I’ll tell you, I had really mixed feelings about it. That’s just like the real human element of me.

This is war. This is really a war. It’s not turned violent, but there’s a war that’s ongoing. There’s a lot of rhetoric that’s employed. There’s animosity, there’s hatred.

I feel like I dealt a few blows to a few people who I don’t hate. But it’s easy in civil wars to hate people. In fact, that’s exactly what it turns into.

I left the room feeling like I had done what I was supposed to do and also that I didn’t regret anything.

And that men and women had to go home to their families and live with some wounds for a little while, and that bothered me.

I even reached out to a veteran, in fact, who I respect greatly, and said, yeah, I feel a little bit bad about this. He tried to console me and said, hey, this is necessary, whether any of us like doing some of this or not. Sometimes it’s fun and sometimes we really like it.

That was a reflection of just the nature of conflict, and it gets a lot worse than this. So it’s kind of good to get used to the feeling.

But I do have to run now, and I’m going to jump off and go take a Newsmax call. Will and I are going to join a panel and talk about this very hearing. Thanks for letting me join.


Hearing Wrap Up: DoD’s Progressive Agenda Hinders U.S. Military Readiness

(Press Release) The Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs held a hearing titled, “The Risks of Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military.”

Members discussed with subject matter experts how politically driven Department of Defense (DoD) priorities infiltrating curriculum and training are affecting military readiness.

Members also discussed the military’s prioritization of progressive Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and other social priorities versus other military needs which are driving down morale and recruiting numbers.

Key Takeaways:

The DoD has infused progressive ideology into the curriculum and training of the U.S. military, which has no relevant purpose to warfighting. Despite recently failing its sixth consecutive audit, the DoD is requesting more funding to expand its unhelpful and non-essential DEI based program.

  • Matthew Lohmeier— Former Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Space Force—broke down the DEI initiatives being pushed on service members and the desire for these initiatives to be removed: “Servicemembers who wear the uniform of their country do not want to see these things in the military workplace or at their bases. In most cases, this is true regardless of their race or political worldview. Despite that reality, Pentagon officials requested $140 million to expand woke Diversity initiatives in FY2024, up from $68 million and $86.5 million in 2022 and 2023, respectively, and all but three members of this subcommittee voted in favor of it. There are few things taxpayers such as myself feel is less essential to the mission of our military than expanding Diversity mandates and indoctrination.”

The DEI agenda being forced into military procedure has opened the door for race and sex-based quotas superseding the merit-based system. This is a direct factor in the growing issue of the U.S. military missing recruiting targets.

  • Will Thibaeu— American Military Project — warned of the threats of continued politicization of the military: “History is littered with examples of militaries whose consideration of political ideology precipitated a collapse in military professionalism, all of which served as a precursor to the collapse of their respective nations. America should not wait to find out if we can outrun the drumbeat of such history.”

Member Highlights:

Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs Chairman Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) examined the harmful ideologies being promulgated by military bureaucracy.

Rep. Grothman: “Is this bureaucracy necessary? Could you comment on it? What do they do?”

Mr. Thibaeu: “It’s a good question what they do Mr. Chairman. The problem that I have is the policies that result from such a bureaucracy. And there is, like you alluded to in your opening remarks, a lot of well-intentioned training, perhaps some of which is necessary. But what is not necessary is race and sex-based quotas that are prevalent in at least two branches of the military. And if it’s a bureaucracy that serves to fulfill those policies that I think do more than simply educate people about bias or promote equal opportunity but in fact promote a system of race and sex-based discrimination, that is problematic and they shouldn’t be receiving any money.”

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) zeroed in on the non-mission critical, progressive ideology that does nothing to enhance military warfighting capabilities.

Rep. Foxx: “Would learning about whiteness and white rage help promote unit cohesion or a team centered culture?”

Mr. Lohmeier: “The answer is: anyone who is focused on warfighting doesn’t naturally think to talk about these things in the military workplace. We are focused on a particular mission in defense of the country and to deter conflict and to win our nation’s wars.”

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) discussed what has happened in recent years to decrease lethality and morale in the military due to DEI initiatives such as decreased in standards sheerly for diversity’s sake.

Rep. Biggs: “Mr. Lohmeier, what has happened over the last three years that has caused lethality to deteriorate in the military?”

Mr. Lohmeier: “There’s been an overt politicization of the military workplace and the forcing of trainings that are anti-American, that criticize our founding fathers, that allege that white supremacy is a problem within the military ranks which has never been proven and all of that rhetoric that occurred when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin took office, led to a bunch of moaning and complaining behind closed doors of our service members and I heard it as a commander.”

Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.), who waived onto the subcommittee hearing, discussed how authors of DEI and CRT initiatives describe methods that are inherently racist because they use race to take or give positions within the military away, leading to a zero-sum game.

Rep. Waltz: “What these authors say is that ‘if you are white you are incapable of not being racist’ that in and of itself, is racist sir. And by the way, these [authors] were lecturers at the Air Force academy. That is divisive, destructive, and wrong. Finally, we have data that shows as Mr. Lohmeier has testified to, 62% of active-duty military members are seeing a politicized military. 65% would recommend their child not join, and now we are in a recruiting crisis. This is why these hearings are so necessary.”

Watch the hearing. (Starts at 21:00 mark)


West Point grads CRT ‘screed’ against USMA influenced by former WP History teacher

At the Capitol Hill hearing on progressive ideologies in the military originally had two witnesses, Matt Lohmeier and Will Thibeau.

At the last minute, the Democrat side of the committee brought in as their witness retired Army Brig. General Ty Seidule, former head of the history department at West Point (where he taught for 20 years), author of the book, “Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner’s Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause”, and proud member of the DOD Renaming Commission.

The General was rather shockingly naive and unaware in his statements about the radical leftist agenda push in the military and service academies and seemed to be living in a bubble. It appeared he was hearing for the first time the facts that Matt, Will and other Republican politicians were presenting.

For example, he didn’t know the different between equal opportunity and equity (the “E” in DEI). See here.

He said that West Point was not teaching Marxist-rooted Critical Race Theory (CRT), even though so much has been written on this in the past three years, including over 600 pages from FOIAs. See all articles:

But the biggest shocker was something Matt brought up about the General’s influence on a 40-page “anti-American, race-baiting, communist screed” that a group of West Pointers wrote right after they graduated, accusing West Point of being institutionally racist. The paper references throughout– as justification for their CRT beliefs–articles and lectures by their history professor, Gen. Seidule.

As background, during 2020 graduation week, several Black Cadets in the 2020 graduating class raised concerns on the state of racism within the Corps of Cadets to the Superintendent.

Shortly following graduation, a group of nine left-wing 2018 and 2018 USMA graduates wrote the paper titled “An Anti-Racist West Point,” and sent this paper to The Secretary of the Army, Chief of Staff of the Army and USMA leadership. Within days of its distribution, it went viral and the paper circulated on social media outlets.

“This is a call to action. The United States Military Academy has not taken the necessary strides towards uprooting the racism that saturates its history. We are calling upon West Point and its leadership to redress three major failures:
1. Systemic racism continues to exist at West Point.
2. Anti-racism is not part of the curriculum at West Point.
3. The conditions for an anti-racist space are not present at West Point. . . . .

Note that according to CRT, it’s not enough to not be racist, you must actively be an “anti-racist” and go along with their CRT agenda–or you are a racist. (See our Resources for many sources to help explain CRT)

In July 2020, USMA Superintendent LTG Darryl Williams directed the Inspector General Office to conduct a special inspection following this complaints of racial misconduct at West Point.

The Report of Special Inspection Assessment of Race or Ethnicity Based Treatment of Cadets at the United States Military Academy (pdf)

The inspector found:

  • There are no structural barriers to reporting EO complaints
  • There are inaccurate perceptions about handling of misconduct, discipline and honor cases for minority Cadets
  • Black Cadets tend to earn lower Military Development grades than their White counterparts
  • There was no evidence found of institutional racism

Watch Matt refute the General’s statement about CRT not being taught at West Point:

Congressman Waltz presses former West Point History instructor to define Equity

(Press Release) On Thursday, U.S. Congressman Mike Waltz (FL-6) questioned Brigadier General Ty Seidule (Ret.), former head of the history department at West Point and House Democrat witness, on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives at U.S. service academies and the definition of equity during the House Oversight & Accountability Committee hearing on the Risks of Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military.

Watch the full exchange:

“You testified earlier that you have not seen Marxism, Critical Race Theory, you do not know where it is in the military or where it is at West Point. Is that accurate?” Waltz asked Seidule.

“I had not heard of it until it became a national issue,” responded Seidule.

When asked if he was aware of it being taught at West Point, Seidule said he did not.

Explaining what Critical Race Theory is, Waltz said, “The theme is that white people are enraged, not a hundred years ago, not fourty years ago, which you are talking about with the sixties and seventies. It’s today. White cadets, white people are enraged by Black advancement.”

“I think, Congressman, the great thing about education is you can get a variety of different perspectives. It is not training, which is what some of my colleagues have talked about. I am talking about education. You want to hear the broadest representation of every viewpoint,” said Seidule.

“This is the very clever approach of the Left to conflate history with current day training.” Waltz asked, “would you agree that Critical Race Theory is a foundation for DEI?”

“No, I would not,” Seidule said. “DEI goes back to equal opportunity in the early part of the 1970s.”

Waltz went on to ask what the difference between equity and equality is. Seidule did not directly answer the question, so Waltz asked again, “What is equity?”

Seidule responded, “I don’t know what it is, Congressman.”

“Diversity, equity, inclusion is part of everything. There’s a DEI office in the Pentagon… you don’t know what equity is? You can’t testify to what equity means?” Waltz continued,

“Well, I will tell you since you don’t know, it is equal outcomes for all, which is a hallmark of Marxism. DEI is Marxist based, as is Critical Race Theory.”

“Let’s progress since, I mean, apparently, the expert doesn’t know what equity is in DEI,” said Waltz. “I would like to enter in for the record class composition with racial goals for West Point. You just testified under oath you were in the admissions office.”

Seidule responded, “I wasn’t in the admissions office, I was on the admissions committee for one year and I know there were no quotas, is what I said, Congressman.”

“So, we are going to parse over quotas and goals?” asked Waltz.

Waltz then pointed to the document and said, “This is from the superintendent and here are the goals. It has African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Women with percentages. We have ‘red’ here for when they missed those goals.”

Seidule countered that “some athletes are there… and the largest number of people that are recruited at West Point are athletes at 25%.”

Waltz continued, “When you say your directive is to advance one group based on the skin color, you have to take those slots from another group based on their skin color. It’s a zero sum… The athletes get broken down by their skin color in this chart that you just said doesn’t exist.”

“Here’s a memorandum from the Secretary of the Air Force with White, Black, Asian, American Indian. I mean, I think my wife, who is an Army veteran and who is Arab, didn’t have a place, I guess, in this chart,” said Waltz. “Here you have current percentages and a mandate to increase those percentages, you have to take those slots from someone else based on ethnicity.”

Waltz pointed to a poster of the “key proponents of CRT” and summarized the quotes, “What these authors say is that if you are white, you are incapable of not being racist. That in and of itself is racist, sir. By the way, these were lecturers at the Air Force Academy. That is divisive and it’s wrong and it’s destructive.”

Waltz continued, “We have data that shows, as Mr. Lohmeier has testified to, 62% of active-duty military members are seeing a politicized military. 65% would recommend their child not join. Now, we’re in a recruiting crisis. This is why these hearings are so necessary.”

“You are right, Mr. Seidule, in that Congress drives change. This Congress has banned Critical Race Theory in the military in this defense bill, we have eliminated the hiring of divisive DEI bureaucrats.”

“WE are going to drive this change to get our military back to a meritocracy with equal opportunity for all.”

“You cannot fight racism with more racism and you have to have data.”

“Do you have any data that shows that a more or less diverse submarine, bomber, brigade, is more or less lethal?” asked Waltz. “I’m talking about the crew.”

Seidule was unable to answer the question.

“Do you have any data that shows by percentage a more or less, let’s say bomber crew, let’s say brigade, whether it’s fifty percent Black, ten percent Black, thirty percent Jewish, any of these societal factors, data that drives readiness?” asked Waltz.

Seidule was unable to provide the data in question.




Video Excerpts from Capitol Hill Hearings

Videoclips from the Capitol Hill hearing where Matthew Lohmeier presented testimony and answered questions: The Risks of Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military

SHOCK MOMENT: Anti-DEI Witness Sounds Off After Fiery Clash With Jamie Raskin

‘Does The Color Of Your Skin Matter When You’re In The Trenches?’: Mace Questions DEI In Military

Comments on video:
“As a Veteran, I’ll say color didn’t mean shit in the Army in the early 2000s while I was in. My Drill Sergeant told us we are all one color, green, and I can tell you that when you’re in a foxhole with someone, that man is your brother and vice versa.”

“Same here bro. I joined the Army in ’81 and 2x a warrior. During my service we look at each other as an American warriors and nothing else. I wouldn’t serve under a WOKE DRAG QUEEN MILITARY TODAY.”

“Being it’s the weekend before we celebrate Dr. King’s birthday, we went from him saying “it’s not the color of your skin, it’s the content of your character” to “the only thing that matters is the color of your skin”. He must be rolling over his grave.”

‘Is That Not A Quota?’: Anti-DEI Witness Slams Air Force Diversity Goals
At last Thursday’s House Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) questioned witnesses about DEI in the military, and Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier (Ret.) slammed the diversity goals of the Air Force.

Pat Fallon Questions Witness About Pervasiveness Of White Supremacism In The Military
At Thursday’s House Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX) questioned witnesses about DEI in the military.

Katie Porter Asks GOP Witness If He Agreed With President Truman’s Action To Integrate The Military
At a House Oversight Committee hearing on Thursday, Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) spoke about DEI in the military.
(Mixing “Trump” for “Truman” twice, the Congresswoman has Trump living rent-free in her brain)

Scott Perry Takes Shot At Goldman At Hearing On ‘Risks Of Progressive Ideologies’ In The Military
At a House Oversight Committee hearing on Thursday, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) spoke about DEI in the military.

Painful, the cluelessness. From a comment on the video: “Never have such loaded softball questions been answered with such obviously scripted political drivel.”

Lawmaker Asks Retired Military General Point Blank If Antifa Is ‘Infiltrating’ The Military
At a House Oversight Committee hearing on Thursday, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) spoke about DEI in the military.

Powerful statement by Congressman Higgins during the hearing on progressive ideologies in the military on Capitol Hill, 11 January 2024: