ml-050724

Former Space Force commander speaks out again the CRT/DEI Agenda in the Military

by In the News

By Hannah Grossman, Alba Cuebas-Fantauzzi | Fox News

A former space commander is calling for a change of leadership after he was fired for allegedly criticizing the Marxist DEI complex, which he believes is now being accelerated under the Biden administration.

Former Lieutenant Colonel Matt Lohmeier was in the military for over a decade before he joined the U.S. Space Force in 2020, where he specialized in missile warning systems. But less than a year later, in May 2021, he was “betrayed,” he told Fox News Digital in an interview.

Lohmeier publicly spoke out against DEI training because he believed it was dividing the troops and decreasing morale, which affected military readiness. He believes “the DEI industry… is steeped in critical race theory, is rooted in anti-American, Marxist ideology.”

“The blow was severe,” he said about allegedly being fired for his dissenting views. “It makes you feel like you’ve been betrayed.”

He said it was a real “gut punch” when he lost his pension.

“You give your life and service to your country and the American people, and you’re not doing it for the pay. You’re doing it because you become [convinced] of the greatness of the American ideal. And… senior leaders [then] say, ‘We want you out of the way because your view is not welcome here,’ even as they pretend to care about inclusivity, even as they pretend to care about diversity, [but] not diversity of thought,” he said.

Lohmeier believed he didn’t violate existing policy because the issue he took aim at was anti-Americanism, not politics.

“There was a whole string of events that did lead up to to my being relieved of command,” he said. “The ultimate reason was because I was willing to be publicly critical of critical race theory, which I understood to be rooted in Marxist ideology… that I saw dividing the troops.”

“I wasn’t advocating for Republicans over Democrats, and I’m conservative myself. But it didn’t matter to me. And it’s never mattered to our troops what someone else’s politics were,” he said.

The former commander is now trying to expose what he calls the “Marxist” military complex from the outside.

A new study commissioned by the Arizona State University Center for American Institutions revealed that the Pentagon’s DEI programs encourage reporting private conversations on dissenting views of DEI and has been steadily increasing its resources. DEI engines in the military cost taxpayers $68 million in 2022, $86.5 million in 2023, with a proposed $114.7 million for 2024, according to the ASU report.

The report, compiled by military experts, recommends abolishing the left-wing DEI agenda and replacing it with merit-based selections and American values curricula at the academies.

“We need to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion trainings from the military, from the service academies, and strip all vestiges of critical race theory out of the military workplace,” Lohmeier said.

The Space Force did not respond to a request for comment.

Watch:

First published on Fox News

TRANSCRIPT

Matthew Lohmeier: “I’m willing to die on this hill and speak up about this and say, this is, an extremely dangerous territory that we’ve entered. And I weighed the cost in doing that, knowing that, well, I might get in trouble somehow. I’m Matt Lohmeier. I was formerly a Lt Colonel and commander in the newest branch of the military, the Space Force.

I was fired for publicly criticizing diversity, equity and inclusion trainings and critical race theory. I was in command of our nation’s space based missile warning architecture and mission. While I was in command at Buckley Space Force Base out in Colorado, I was relieved of my command in May 2021 on a Friday. And there was a whole string of events that did lead up to to my being relieved of command.

The ultimate reason was because I was willing to be publicly critical of critical race theory, which I understood to be rooted in Marxist ideology.

I was willing to speak up against, diversity, equity and inclusion policies that I saw dividing the troops.

I was not partisan. I wasn’t advocating for Republicans over Democrat, but it didn’t matter to me.

It’s never mattered to our troops what someone else’s politics were. It still doesn’t matter to most of our troops what someone else’s politics are.

But what does matter is that when ideology—that looks and feels awfully religious in nature—that is pressed upon all of our service members as if they ought to believe it, or else face some kind of retribution or punishment. When that begins to become the policy of the services, and it’s dividing the troops, people have to speak up about it at the risk of looking partisan, because it’s been framed as a partisan issue.

But in fact, this is not a partisan issue. It’s about the American ideas and ideals that shaped our country.

Republicans and Democrats or the apolitical, if they’re American, ought to embrace the values that made our country free, that made, us a just a nation and that made us have a merit-based military that made us the most lethal and ready military on the planet.

You start to see all of that stuff disintegrate when diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, so-called de-emphasize merit and strive by fiat to ensure, equality of outcomes and enforced equality of outcomes.

All of that destroys the morale of the military. It sets people at odds against one another and divides the troops. And it dis-incentivizes service. They hear evil things about their country or about one another.

In an all-volunteer force, you need people to be self-motivated for service, both to retain them and to recruit them.

So what we’re seeing at the moment in our recruiting and retention crisis is immediately the result of the things that we’re talking about, the diversity, equity and inclusion trainings, the social justice activism and the celebration of values that frankly, only resonate with a minority of our service members, regardless of their political views.

So I’m willing to die on this hill and speak up about this and say this is an extremely dangerous territory that we’ve entered. I weighed the cost in doing that, knowing that, well, I might get in trouble somehow. I might get paperwork, I might get a slap on the wrist. I might even be asked to step down from my command.

But the response of senior leaders was so swift, it surprised me, even having considered the potential consequences. They acted out of fear. They acted with haste before I’m sure they read anything I said in that book, which I stated was my own opinion and not the views of the Defense Department. And it wasn’t politically partisan. It’s about Marxist history and ideology.

The blow was severe and the way it makes you feel is like you’ve been betrayed.

I mean, you give your life and service to your country and the American people and and you’re not doing it for the pay. You’re doing it because by and by, you become convicted of the greatness of the American ideal.

And to have senior leaders say, we want you out of the way because your view is not welcome here, even as they pretend to care about inclusive inclusivity, even as they pretend to care about diversity. NOT diversity of thought, that that one thing is clear.

They don’t want a diversity of thought. What they’re interested in accomplishing you recognize at once that speaking up and trying to be courageous makes you incompatible with the current policy aims of the administration of the Defense Department.

I lost my retirement, or that I lost my pension. All of that happened so swiftly that it’s a gut punch for sure.

I’m really hoping—and I can say this now and I couldn’t then, and I’ll say it on behalf of plenty of our our troops: I’m really hoping that come this November, there is a resounding victory for some other candidate than who’s currently in the white House, because we need to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion trainings for the military from the service academies and strip all vestiges of critical race theory out of the military workplace.

We need to focus on our mission. We need to get back to the basics that make a military great and allow our people to be free of that burden culturally, politically, socially. They can then be united. They can then genuinely allow for the differences of viewpoint, the differences of background and so forth.

They really don’t care about someone else’s views about any number of things and don’t want to hear them in the workplace. They just want to focus on the same mission together.

When we can get back to that, that same sucker punch, gut check that I had at the time I was fired, that troops are still feeling day in and day out and reeling from, quite frankly, because of these things that can be eliminated from their work life.

I think we’ll retain a lot more of our service members and we’re going to begin to recruit the right talent into the services once again and meet our recruiting goals.

cai-dei-rpt

New Study Details ‘Vast DEI Bureaucracy’ in Pentagon, Service Academies

by MilitaryReports

Matthew Lohmeier served on the National Commission on Civic Education in the Military. He and his fellow commissioners conducted a year-long evaluation of the history, evolution, and implementation of diversity and equity programs across all branches of the military and military academies. Here are their findings:

(Press Release) A year-long examination of DEI training in the military identifies millions of wasted taxpayer dollars are being spent to create a culture of “race and sex-based scapegoating and stereotyping.”

The report calls for an immediate end to the Pentagon’s multimillion-dollar DEI bureaucracy.

“Our research reviewed DEI policy in the military starting in the nineteen seventies to the modern day and concluded there are far more effective ways to promote unity and respect among military ranks than by spending millions annually to divide servicemembers by their gender or race,” said Prof. Donald Critchlow, Director of the Center for American Institutions at Arizona State University.

“Just as private companies have abandoned the toxic advice of DEI consultants and programs, military leaders should end social engineering based on critical race theory and restore approaches that promote character and merit.”

“It’s no surprise that young people are turning away from military service in record numbers. As this comprehensive report illuminates, DEI indoctrination has become a core component of military training that begins for officers even at the service academies,” said Matt Lohmeier, the former Space Force commander who was fired for his criticism of DEI policies.

“How can we be prepared to confront our adversaries if our warfighters aren’t laser focused on the mission but instead are divided and distracted by ideology?”

Highlights:

• “Eyes and ears” programs that encourage those trained and appointed to report overheard private conversations that challenge DEI precepts are common.

• An Air Force email claiming that personal pronouns are key to retention: “One way to foster a culture of inclusion is to add personal pronouns to email signature blocks. While this may not seem like a big deal, it can influence whether someone will stay in their organization.”

• Spending on DEI programming is increasing. The DOD’s allocation for DEI projects jumped from$68 million in fiscal year 2022 to $86.5 million in fiscal year 2023. The Pentagon is requesting
$114.7 million for fiscal year 2024.

• A 2023 incident at the U.S. Air Force Academy where the former head of the history department implored the academy’s board to return to civic-minded education. His plea was ignored. As the report sums up the episode: “Knowledge of the nation that cadets defend is elective. DEI is the core.”

About the Report

The National Commission on Civic Education in the Military made up of Commissioners Matt Lohmeier, Karrin Taylor Robson, and John Cauthen, worked with a team of ASU researchers to conduct a year-long evaluation of the history, evolution, and implementation of diversity and equity programs across all branches of the military and military academies.

The report is titled Civic Education in the Military: Are Servicemembers More Prepared for Micro-Aggression or Macro-Aggression? It is available here: https://cai.asu.edu/civiceducation

The report makes a series of straightforward recommendations:

• Immediately end the DEI bureaucracy or pursue alternative avenues to affect positive change despite existing policies.

• Return to the military’s outstanding tradition of merit-based selections and promotions and non-discriminatory equal opportunity.

• Make the syllabi for all humanities and social sciences courses taught at our military service academies publicly available.

• Provide educational training materials to enhance personnel understanding of American philosophy, politics, government, and the Constitution.

About The Center for American Institutions
The ASU Center for American Institutions was founded in October 2022 with a single nonpartisan purpose: Preserving and renewing our fundamental American institutions to maintain well-ordered liberty in an exceptional nation through the fostering and renewal of foundational American institutions including civic, religious, legal, financial, political, military and family.

Read the report online: https://issuu.com/rbarwick/docs/civic_education_in_the_military

Download PDF: CAI Civic Education in the Military Report

EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Armed Forces Should Not Be a Laboratory for Social Experimentation.

The sole purpose of the U.S. Armed Forces is to defend the nation against its external enemies. The service academies train officers committed to fulfilling this mission.

This mission—defense of the nation—makes the U.S. Armed Forces arguably the most important institution in the United States. Without a nation, other institutions are meaningless because they would not exist.

Given its importance, the U.S. Armed Forces should not be a laboratory for social experimentation, especially one based on Critical Race Theory, a contentious and abstract social theory.

Yet, as this Commission Report on Civic Education in the Military shows in great detail, Critical Race Theory is promoted within Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training throughout the military from the Pentagon through the ranks and in our service academies.

Critical Race Theory is based on an assumption that no matter what progress is made on ensuring equal rights for minorities, “white privilege” and “sub-conscious” racism continues to prevail among whites, no matter their professed support for diversity and inclusion in their workplace, community, or immediate and extended families.

Critical Race Theory assumes that racism is systemic from the very founding of the United States and that the U.S. Constitution was drafted to ensure the white privilege of slaveholders.

Whatever the appearance of progress—constitutional amendments and legislation to protect equal rights for racial minorities—is a façade that still preserves white privilege.

Critical Race Theory is based on assumptions, not empirically derived evidence, and is by nature divisive. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, which rely on Critical Race Theory, should not be seen as workplace sensitivity training.

The Commission on Civic Education in the Military began as a project to review civic education in the military.

Our research team did not expect to find Critical Race Theory so embedded and pervasive. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs are found throughout the U.S. Armed Forces and our service academies.

This year long study documents just how pervasive these training programs are in our Armed Forces and Service Academies and that DEI extends well beyond just formal training programs in the military and service academies.

The Founders of our nation understood and feared a politicized military. History had shown them that a politicized army easily became the tool of tyranny.

The Armed Forces of the United States has proudly upheld this long tradition of separating mission from politics.

The commissioners for this project believe that military training for service men and women in all ranks needs to inculcate and reinforce pride in our nation, pride in service, and in our country’s motto, E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many One).

Donald T. Critchlow
Director, Center for American Institutions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Commission on Civic Education in the Military finds that cadets and midshipmen at our military service academies are receiving extensive training in so-called civic education about racism, sexism, unconscious bias, and intersectionality that subverts our ideals.

Furthermore, soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen across all branches of the military are occasionally subject to similar trainings across the military at all organizational levels.

These trainings rely heavily on the tenets of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and are provided with the express goals of fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace, and of rooting out alleged white supremacy in the military. Training is implemented by a vast DEI bureaucracy that extends from senior leaders at the Pentagon to the lowest ranks.

This year-long research project examining online and published materials available to the public, yet hidden from the unobservant bystander, is divided into three main parts.

The first section provides the background of DEI training beginning in the 1970s through mandated executive orders in the 2010s and 2020s. This background is important to understand the changing nature of DEI training in the military and the issues raised by today’s training.

The second and third sections—DEI training in the services and at the three major service academies, respectively—reveal how extensive, divisive, and damaging this training is for those serving in our military.

The research reveals serious problems within our military complex. The U.S. military now has a well-developed, taxpayer-funded DEI bureaucracy dedicated to rooting out “white privilege” and white supremacy, and that allows for (and sometimes teaches) the overt criticism of the United States, its founding, its founders, and its founding documents, alleging that they are all rooted in systemic racism.

This bureaucracy, with its accompanying trainings, is supported and implemented by Pentagon leadership. Trainings presented across all branches of the military and at our service academies not only include concepts but also encourage behavior that is prescribed by CRT without presenting alternative perspectives. Military leadership regularly asserts that DEI training is essential to building strong teams; how it does that is left unexplained, and no data are presented corroborating such claims.

Our vibrant religious, economic, and political history, with all its nuance, is simply glossed over or criticized, and little or no training is offered as a means of helping servicemembers, cadets, and midshipmen understand and appreciate America’s founding philosophy or the Constitution servicemembers swear an oath to uphold and defend.

The commission posits the following:

• An effective military and healthy citizenry need to share and understand a common story as to the unique creation of the American Republic. A common story is necessary for unit cohesion, morale, and an effective fighting force. DEI carries inherently negative messages about Western civilization generally, and about the United States and its people specifically.

• As demonstrated in numerous surveys and reports, public K-12 educations fail woefully in teaching even the basics of American politics, government, and the Constitution. We cannot assume that recruits, servicemembers, new cadets, and midshipmen know the basics about the country they will defend. As one leader put it, “We don’t do a good job of teaching civics in school anymore; the military has to make up for that deficiency in its own training.”

• A sole focus on identity-related themes produces divisiveness within our military rather than vital unity. This is not to argue that identity themes should be necessarily excluded in civic education, but those training and providing professional military education to our men and women in uniform should be required to teach American civic values to help them understand the unique nature of our constitutional republic.

• The massive DEI bureaucracy, its training and its pseudo-scientific assessments are at best distractions that absorb valuable time and resources. At worst they communicate the opposite of the military ethos: e.g. that individual demographic differences come before team and mission.

Central Findings:

• DEI themes dominate the training and education that members of the armed forces receive about their country. As “white supremacy” and racism have become a central focus of DEI trainings, white supremacist racism is assumed to be the core problem of the nation and of the military; positive messaging about the country and its values disappears with the shift in focus. Servicemembers are asked to defend a nation that is an alleged cesspit of racism and discrimination.

• The defense of dividing servicemembers into racial, gender, and sexual identities is Orwellian. Rather than emphasizing that the strength of our military is a product of its unity and steadfast dedication to the American ideals of individual liberty and freedom, it is instead asserted that diversity (our differences) is our strength. Emphasizing differences and grievances sows distrust and undermines unit cohesion and teamwork.

• Traditionally, young people enlisted for many reasons, with a major one being patriotism — to protect the family, country, and faith. That patriotism, if held by a white male, now raises suspicions of white supremacy.

• The DEI bureaucracy extending from the Department of Defense (DOD) through the services and in the service academies is extensive and entrenched. Dating from the 1970s, its reach continues to grow and even extends to those leaving the service.

• Efforts to root out white supremacy involve not only training but appointing service members to act as the “eyes and ears” of the bureaucracy to turn in suspects. Suspicion replaces trust, understanding, and teamwork.

• DEI training focuses on rooting out “white supremacy” even though there is little or no evidence that there is a problem of white supremacy in the military. The massive hunt during the stand-down in 2020 located roughly 100 out of a force of 2.1 million. The ongoing search, implemented by Secretary Lloyd Austin in December of 2021, has turned up equally small numbers of extremists of any variety. The most recent study released by the Department of Defense, the “Study on Extremist Activity within the Total Force” offered little new data and could only conclude that “extremism in the military is rare but dangerous.”

Recommendations

Historically, military veterans were held up as ideal democratic citizens. The internalized values of duty, honor, and country that military service imparted along with teamwork, leadership, working with diverse groups, and problem solving made veterans the glue of their communities.

Military veterans, more often than non-veterans, volunteered and engaged in solving community problems. They carried the positive aspects of an inclusive warrior ethos into their communities.

The surest way to eliminate the concerning trends we have identified, and the growth of race- and sex-based scapegoating and stereotyping in the U.S. military, is to altogether end the DEI bureaucracy there.

However, until such a time as the executive or legislative branches of the government choose to end the DEI bureaucracy in our federal agencies and military, we are left to advocate the pursuit of alternative avenues that may affect positive change despite existing policies.

Therefore, to address the shortfalls noted above, the Commission makes several recommendations that are aimed at restoring the warrior ethos in our military, fostering a climate of genuine unity and strength, and helping servicemembers understand and believe in American civic values and the uniqueness of our Constitutional Republic.

• We join the members of Congress, the Heritage Foundation, and other organizations in calling for a return to the military’s outstanding tradition of merit-based selections and promotions, and non-discriminatory equal opportunity.

• We recommend that all syllabi that are taught in the humanities and social sciences at our military service academies be made publicly available. The public has the right to know, and to challenge, the extent to which fashionable or ideologically based academic theories – Critical Race Theory, Gender Studies, Postcolonial Studies, etc. – shape the education of cadets and midshipmen at our military academies. These cadets and midshipmen will be commissioned as officers and are the future leaders of the United States military’s respective service branches.

• We support the inclusion of civic education – America’s commitment to freedom and opportunity – in military training. We recommend that the U.S. military provide educational training materials to its personnel that aim at enhancing servicemembers’ understanding of foundational American philosophy and values, the basics of American politics and government, the Constitution, and their oath to support and defend the Constitution. These formal training materials should be provided to personnel at our military service academies, in officer and noncommissioned officer (NCO) professional military education and training courses, and on a periodic and recurring basis on Department of Defense (DOD) installations, just as DEI trainings are offered at those places on a periodic and recurring basis

Read the report online: https://issuu.com/rbarwick/docs/civic_education_in_the_military

Download PDF: CAI Civic Education in the Military Report

ml-ph1

Lt Col Lohmeier: Speak the Truth, Exhibit Courage

by Media Interviews

Matthew Lohmeier, former USAF/USSF Lt. Colonel and 2006 USAFA grad, has powerful words about the actions of US leaders have made a statement to the world that we’re not a serious nation, what real freedom-loving leaders would do, and the need for current military service members to speak the truth, stand on principles and values and exhibit courage. Censorship and self-censorship are harbingers of societal failure.

He was interviewed on Fox News by Pete Hegseth. Watch:

updates

Announcement from Matt and Documentary Update

by DocumentaryUpdates

Matthew Lohmeier is pleased to announce that he has accepted the position of Executive Vice President of STARRS, an organization of veterans and patriotic citizens standing against the CRT/DEI/Woke agenda being pushed on service members in the military and academies. Their goal is to eliminate this radical ideology from the military and return to merit and warfighting readiness.

He will begin work with STARRS on 1 July 2024.

With this new position, Matt will continue to speak out and be a cultural thought leader against the proliferation of Marxist-rooted Critical Race Theory in the military and its divisive impact on the force and mission. Venues he will do this will be special events, conferences, meetings, gatherings, rallies, media/podcast appearances and interviews, Congressional hearings and meetings and more.

Matt is a powerful speaker on these issues, and as this is such a critical year, we need to make sure everyone understands what is at stake regarding our nation’s military. If you know of a venue that needs to hear from Matt, let us know.

Also, go to the STARRS.US website and sign up for their mailing list. The website tracks, monitors and exposes the CRT/DEI/Woke agenda in the military.

Matt’s own website will continue as normal.

.
Documentary Update

The production company Root/Cause has wrapped up filming for the new documentary (currently titled “Against All Enemies”) that chronicles both Matt’s personal journey and the fight he and STARRS are currently engaged in to counter the forces of a dangerous ideology attacking and undermining our most trusted and important public institution—our military.

It is based on his book, Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military. This much-anticipated documentary is now in the editing phase and will be released this Fall.

You can watch the documentary intro video here:

.

The Cultural War Campaign

STARRS has begun a fundraising campaign–which Matt is supporting–with a goal of raising an initial $300K to, among many things, promote the release of the documentary so as many people watch and learn from it; produce additional short-form videos (including powerful full interviews from the documentary) to expose the problems we face and educate Americans on what can be done to save our Republic; and bring STARRS to the next level in their effectiveness towards eliminating the CRT/DEI agenda from the military, returning to merit.

If you are inclined to want to be a part of this effort and help, please go to the Cultural War Campaign page or click on this donate button:

 Make a Donation

Donate button’s on Matt’s website will now go to the STARRS donation form.

You can also mail a check to: STARRS, P.O. Box 468, Monument, CO 80132. STARRS can also provide wire transfer details for bank-to-bank transactions.

STARRS is a 501c3 so your donations are tax-deductible.

If you have questions or would you like STARRS to contact you to talk more about your donation for this campaign, please send an email to mission@starrs.us.

issue

A revolutionary campaign that no longer hides its aims

by Marxist AgendaMilitary

By Lt Col Matthew Lohmeier, former USSF /USAF, USAFA ’06
via Twitter

THERE IS AN ONGOING WAR being waged by domestic enemies against the United States military that is far more destructive than any threat we are facing from our foreign adversaries!

Military senior leaders are ceaselessly waging a politically and culturally subversive campaign against our men and women in uniform.

There is no doubt that men and women of character will continue to lose their motivation to serve and will leave the service.

And there is no end in sight to our recruiting troubles. Senior leaders and decisionmakers who pretend to care about solving our recruiting and retention problems without first abandoning this activist agenda are only fooling themselves.

The memorandum below, which was just signed on 13 May 2024, admonishes servicemembers to celebrate and honor the lifestyle and contributions of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders and queers.

You may think this is nothing new, but the energy and directness of the agenda is only growing stronger each month, and the activists who wage the campaign are more brazen than ever.

False spirits who thrive on division and destruction seem to animate our every move.

The memorandum honors “the strength” and “progress” that “activists” have brought to the force.

The memorandum “empowers commanders” to “organize” activities for their bases.

It is a revolutionary campaign that no longer needs to hide its aims. It employs all of the right revolutionary language.

It is Marxist-rooted DEI at its best. It is evil.

If you are in uniform, now is the time for you to speak up against this agenda as if the life of your country depends on it, because it does.

If you are a military leader and you understand firsthand the deleterious influence of this leftist activism perpetrated by our Defense Department, then speak up now or accept that you are a damned coward and accomplice.

Feigned kindness in the face of evil is only foolishness.

Tolerance of this revolutionary spirit at this critical hour is little short of treasonous.

Cowardice is the opposite of faith and love.

“While at @7thForces, I had a transgender superior officer (a Green Beret) who was a biological male identifying as a female. To avoid violating my conscience, but to avoid adverse action, I referred to him by rank & last name.

Altho I survived this (tho I would later suffer for refusing the COVID VAX) it is becoming harder & harder for service members to avoid affirming woke ideology without facing punishment, all while these policies are destroying the lethality & readiness of the force.

I urge all service members to follow their consciences, to do the right thing no matter what, & to resist this woke nonsense. We took an oath to support & defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign & domestic, & were prepared to offer our lives to do so.

Make no mistake, this false doctrine is a domestic threat & greater than any external threat we currently face.”

secam-ml

DEI ideology creating havoc in universities and the military

by In the NewsInterviews

We are witnessing the divisive effects of the DEI agenda that is creating havoc at universities and colleges as well as in the military, says Matt Lohmeier.

“Securing America” show hosted by Frank Gaffney on Real America’s Voice network interviewed STARRS Chairman Lt. General Rod Bishop (USAF ret), who then introduced Lt Col Matt Lohmeier, formerly with the US Space Force, US Air Force and 2006 Air Force Academy graduate. He is a member of the STARRS Board of Advisors.

Watch:

Transcript

Frank Gaffney

Welcome to Securing America with me, Frank Gaffney. The program is a owners manual for protecting the country we love against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to the glory of God and His Kingdom. We have a very special show. I think if Ed Sullivan were still with us, he would call it a “Really Big Shew”, and it is going to be all of that because we have five extraordinarily impressive people who are going to be contributing to each of our segments.

We have a co-host who is a Lieutenant General, United States Air Force, retired. All of them have served in uniform. All of them are still in the fight, I’m very proud to say, in particular, trying to speak on behalf of men and women they served with and who are still in uniform, whose voices are generally not heard on matters of public policy, even those that are making a horrifically serious, indeed dangerous impact on the readiness the morale, the fighting trim, and the deterrent capability of our military. We actually have a still- serving member of the armed forces. We’ll be introducing her in a moment, but the rest are retired. We’re going to start with my co-host for this program, Lieutenant General Rod Bishop, United States Air Force, retired.

He is a man who, in his day, commanded the Third US Air Force, as well as was the Air Commander for Europe. Got a very formidable pedigree, and I want to thank him, especially for the work that he’s done post his time in uniform. Launching STARRS, which stands for Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services. It has helped spawn a new coalition, which he’s going to tell us about. I’m proud to be part of it and delighted to showcase it here on Securing America. General, we’re delighted to have you with us, sir. Over to you.

LTG Rod Bishop

Hey, Frank. Thanks so much for having us on and for hosting this and helping us organize it. I think one of the things I’m most proud of today, you mentioned this coalition. That coalition in less than a week is at 19 organizations from around our country who understand exactly what you just said, the harmful effects that this poisonous ideology that is infecting our military is happening.

I’m happy to have five In fact, all six of us, including you, are members of that coalition. All six, oh, by the way, are either members of our Board of Advisors at STARRS or a Board of Directors, except for Bibi, and I’m on her board. Our first guest, to cut to the chase….

Frank Gaffney

It’s close enough for government work, as they say. Before you do, sir, I do want you to mention the name of the new coalition.

LTG Rod Bishop

The new coalition is the Military Readiness and Merit Coalition. Again, 19 organizations, 10 of us had hoped to be at a meeting today at the DACODAI, the Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity and Inclusion. But the door was shut on us on Monday for attending in person. That meeting is going on right now. We filled up the room electronically. Nobody else can get in. So hopefully, the message is getting through.

So to our first guest, Frank, I’d like to introduce someone most of the audience probably already knows. That’s Matt Lohmeier. His biography–he’s too humble in it–he was the number one of 700 plus majors in US Space Force. That’s the talent that we are losing because Matt was fired from his command when he wrote a book called “Irresistible Revolution: A Marxist Goal of Conquest and the Unmaking of the American Military”. There’s nobody that knows more about this. He studied it for two years back to back at Air and War College and the School of Advanced Air and Space Sciences. Matt, yours is the only book I’ve ever read twice, I think, in my life. So over to you, sir.

LTC Matt Lohmeier

General Bishop, thanks for the introduction. Because it cut out just briefly when I was listening to you, I’m going to restate the title of book, “Irresistible Revolution”.

I want to change gears from my own past career to something I’ve experienced just this week that’s of interest and relevant to the things that we’re talking about today with the destruction, deliberate destruction I think, of merit, meritocracy and its impact on readiness.

Just this week, literally this week, for two different events, I’ve have been either uninvited or the event has been canceled as a consequence of viewpoint discrimination, in my view. One was the before mentioned DACODAI meeting that the Pentagon had invited folks out to attend, and the other was an event at a college campus.

I was invited as a guest speaker at University of San Diego this week. Incidentally, I was supposed to be speaking there right now, and funding was approved to bring me out. A group of College Republicans had invited me out. There’s a very small group of bullies on the campus who get to decide whether or not to trump decisions about what guest speakers come out. I was found in violation of their transgender and queer hate speech policies, which is totally bogus. And of course, they’re not obligated to provide any specific example as to why I’ve been uninvited.

But we’ve seen now as Americans, and the reason I bring it up, we’ve seen now as Americans the failure, collapse that comes as a consequence of ideology permeating the university campuses.

It’s been in the headlines for a week, and now we’re facing and have been, and some of us have been shouting about it for a couple of years now, the same indoctrination and ideology that for decades has infiltrated and subverted the university campuses.

It’s wreaking havoc in the military, whether or not people yet aware of the destructive influence that it is.

What I want to say up front is that this censorship, a deliberate silencing of a large majority of people in this country who love their country, is a harbinger of societal failure. It’s a harbinger of military failure and weakness.

I think that the problem with censorship as a whole in a free society is that it impoverishes the intellect of society and stifles a material substantive view of a large portion of the population so that decision makers, and I’ll speak specifically of the Defense Department now.

Decision-makers are left making foolish errors and foolish decisions based on foolish opinions of a relatively small group, foolish ideas of a relatively small group of people. We see it time and time again. This group is well aware of that, and that’s what we’re trying to wake up Americans to.

Frank Gaffney

Matt, could I just ask you, the question of ideology, you’ve literally written the book on Marxism inside our military. Is there any doubt in your mind that the diversity, equity, inclusion, the critical race theory, the identity, the pronouns, all of this stuff, is in fact part of a cultural Marxist attack on our armed forces?

You mentioned it’s wreaking havoc in the military. Is it diminishing its readiness? Is it endangering its deterrent capabilities as well as warfighting? Should it come to that?

LTC Matt Lohmeier

There is no doubt in my mind that, first off, critical race theory is rooted in Marxism, and therefore, the entirety of the diversity, equity, and inclusion industry and complex has an ideological bent that favors Marxism, that attacks America and its founding, and those with, at the moment, conservative values, regardless of the race, by the way.

I want to share a story with you just briefly. It’s that while I was in command, and this is several years ago, when I had begun to suspect the divisive impact and then began to witness it firsthand of the diversity and inclusion trainings that were being offered to our military service members, I had a married couple in my unit who were black, and the wife was believing the trainings, buying into them, and beginning to have resentment not only for her unit, her fellow unit members, and for the United States, and for the uniform that she wore, but for her own husband, who was skeptical of the trainings, who thought that they ran contrary to everything he had been trained to think and believe in the United States military.

So I saw division within a single home, to say nothing of the impacts on a unit or a broader society.

Frank Gaffney

General Bishop, we got to wrap with Matt Lohmier. Thank you for this incredibly important set of insights about both what you’re seeing in the larger society as well as, of course, inside the military and for identifying the toxic brew that is Marxism. We’ll be right back with more. Stay tuned, folks.

 

mrmc-ml

Testimony by Lt Col Matthew Lohmeier

by EventsSpeeches

Testimony from member of the Military Readiness and Merit Coalition, former Space Force Lt. Colonel Matthew Lohmeier (USAFA ’06). He had made flight and hotel reservations to travel from a Western state to attend the May 2024 DACODAI meeting in Arlington, VA until DACODAI canceled the public from attending in-person. Watch:

Transcript

General, thanks for the introduction and Frank for hosting this important forum. I thought I’d share just a couple of stories.

I spent over 15 years on active duty and loved my time in uniform. One of the reasons that our service members love serving in uniform is both the ideas and ideals that shaped our country, which they grow to love and believe in and are willing to put their neck on the line to support defend, which is our Constitution, but also because of the men and women they serve with in uniform.

There’s a unity that knits together the hearts of those that serve in uniform. It doesn’t matter their race or their economic background, or perhaps, whether their families had served in generations past or not, or whether they’re the first generation.

That unity, which has been the strength and enjoyment of the United States military, is being eroded rapidly because of diversity and inclusion initiatives.

I was glad to see, by the way, the number of participants currently joining the show which hasn’t been capped at 100 online. Participants like the Defense Department’s current morning meetings has been.

There was a group of us who were supposed to be attending in person, the Defense Advisory Committee on DEI meeting this morning in Washington, DC, that was turned off last minute.

They didn’t want in-person attendance, and I think, frankly, they are interested in censoring the views of those who don’t agree with them.

That’s the second time in one week where I’ve been uninvited to an event that I had previously been invited to because of what I consider to be viewpoint discrimination.

One was at the University of San Diego earlier this week where a group of bullies turned off an event. We’ve seen what’s happening at university campuses around the country, and the other was at the Defense Department.

I’m reflecting on and have often since January, something that was said to me in a congressional hearing earlier this year. In January, the House Oversight Committee had invited me to testify in one of its subcommittees about the influence of woke ideology on our military.

I showed up with a few others and testified on a panel. One of the things that I said in my opening statement in that hearing was that there’s a culture war underway, that it has Marxist roots and that it was destroying the fabric of the United States military.

There was disagreement with that view from certain members of the subcommittee, specifically, it was very partisan room. Of course, the Democrats in the room disagreed with that. But the minority member in the room who sat next to Chairman Grothman up there chairing the committee is Robert Garcia from California.

Robert Garcia told me that it was nonsense. He said it in the hearing, that there was not any such thing as a culture war underway.

The point I want to make about it was that at the very end of that 2 hours when the ranking member, Glenn Grothman, had an opportunity to make his closing remarks, and then the minority leader, Robert Garcia, made his closing remarks.

Rep. Garcia made it a point to inform me in front of the group assembled that I was fighting a vain cause and that we, meaning conservatives, had already lost the war.

So on the one hand, you’ve got members of Congress who assert that there is no culture war and that to assert there’s a Marxist culture war is just a talking point of the alt right, is what Rip Garcia said, which is totally false.

Then at the end to assert that the conservatives have already lost the war, as if he was proud to announce that they’re making great progress legislatively and otherwise in accordance with certain very specific ideological aims.

Censorship that we’re experiencing at the moment is, and I’m going to close with this point here and allow for perhaps a brief moment for a question before moving on to the other panelists.

But as I take years now to reflect on the danger of the censorship that is incident to, or I should say maybe coincident with the diversity and inclusion initiatives of the United States military,

I think it is a harbinger of the military’s failure, it’s a harbinger of societal failure when you’re censoring one point of view and unwilling to hear it and are trying to shut it down.

It’s particularly problematic because it impoverishes the intellect of a society by not allowing all of the material, substantive voices and knowledge to be brought to bear in the decision-making process.

We’ve seen for a couple of years now, several years, our Defense Department struggling and making foolish decisions because they’re only allowing for and entertaining a particular worldview and viewpoint which is rooted in Marxist ideology, whether they do so wittingly or not.

That’s, of course, open for debate for many of them. But for some of them, they’re true believers in a very particular political agenda.

I’m very concerned about it. I’m constantly trying to warn the American people and our service members who are, they’re now, of course, waking up to this, that this is the undoing of the United States military unless we reverse course rapidly.

That’s what people like this on this call and on this panel are trying to do in their various organizations, and of course, all in conjunction with STARRS as well.

We have to reverse course, which is a form of repentance.

We have to turn back to the ideas and ideals that shape this country.

And in the military, that specifically means valuing merit and merit based readiness.

Thanks, Frank. Over to you and General Bishop.

bitcon2

Matt Lohmeier on Bitcoin Veterans podcast

by Interviews

I was happy to spend time with @BitcoinVeterans for this interview. I don’t usually come away from an interview with a genuine interest in learning some new thing. But these guys planted the Bitcoin bug and I’ve not shaken it since.

Watch:

Also watch on X:

cotr

The Military’s Woke Agenda Is Terrifying

by Interviews

In this “Chicks on the Right” episode, The Chicks are joined by special guest Matt Lohmeier, a former lieutenant colonel commander in the Space Force.

Lohmeier shares his story of being released from command after speaking out against the politicization of the military.

He discusses the rise of Marxist critical race theory and the negative impact it has on military readiness.

Lohmeier explains how he was fired for writing a book that called for greater accountability and the elimination of partisanship in the military workplace.

Despite the challenges he faced, Lohmeier remains committed to speaking the truth and raising awareness about the dangers of wokeism in the military.

as-fed

FLAT EARTH DEBATE: Jeran Campanella vs Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier

by Interviews

In this episode of “Prime Time with Alex Stein,” we have a debate for the ages: Is the Earth flat?

Famous flat-earther Jeran Campanella, aka @jeranism, returns to the show to defend his beliefs against former Space Force Commander Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier.

Will Jeran finally be convinced that the Earth is a globe? Or will this space commander shock the world and admit that the earth is flat?

Don’t miss this episode of “Prime Time with Alex Stein”!

nap

Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier: Does US Have a Fighting Force?

by Media InterviewsMilitary

Matthew Lohmeier was on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Judging Freedom show:

Some comments on video:

“I am a retired Marine; This man knows what he is talking about and is illuminating exactly what is wrong with the American military.”

“I have 3 nephews, all were / are Active Duty. 2 Navy,1 Army. My eldest nephew was a Navy Aviator. Flew the Growler, F-35s & was an Instructor. He flew some of the stunts in Tom Cruz’s last movie. He & my Army nephew have both quit the Military even though they planned on making it their Careers. Both said,” Can’t take the Woke Cr*p anymore.”

“Well, my son is in right now and he has eleven months left and he will be done! i did 21 in the military. i talk to him and some of the things he says he has had briefings on just leaves me with a WTF look on my face! i told him you do your time and get outta there before something happens and you get sucked into it! they do no real training! he has a rifle that they gave him and he has never got to go zero yet and its been nine months! its all about the higher ups at the expense of the lower enlisted! it is darn sickening to see the e-4 and below get thrown under the bus to make the higher ups look good for promotion! they dont get much ammo when they do train, he is a mortar man and his last time at the range they got maybe 20 rounds to train with but, you can bet ukraine got mortar rounds to fire! it sickens me! “when you elect clowns and they promote jesters, dont be surprised when your govt and your military turns into a circus!” our defeat on the battlefield is going to be catastropic and that defeat is fast approaching!”

“I hope his discharge can be reversed in the next administration. As to the issue of race in the military, his testimony is truly depressing. I was a young Naval officer 50 years ago as our country came out from the Vietnam War and a decade of race riots in the 60s. The Navy took on the issue of racial discrimination/tension head on. I was enlisted to teach a basic course in “Navy rights and responsibilities” probably written by one of the big consulting firms. The training was somewhat amusing but had two takeaways: 1) all members of the military will be treated with respect, regardless of race, or else, and 2) we are here for mission accomplishment, no other reason. Remarkably, this worked for the next 20 years until I retired in 1993. This progress has been destroyed by Austin and Co. I observe this with great sadness and some trepidation about the future.”

“It only takes a couple of minutes into that interview to realise this young guy must of excelled in all aspects of his career. Very analytical and insightful thinking you could he was still in first gear brushing the surface of his knowledge and experience. Definitely need to invite him back.”

“This is an exceptional young man. What is confounding is that the US Military would see fit to turn him out, thereby diluting the effectiveness of their force capability. I say this because it is doubtful the majority of todays military has Lt Col Matthew Lohmeier’s intelligence, integrity, loyalty, commitment of purpose, and I don’t doubt, ability to be lethal when necessary. This fine fellow is a welcome addition to the analysis team. I know his input will be valuable.”

“Listening to this Lt Col. made my blood boil and I’m a Brit! The US needs this kind of individual in charge of its military, not getting fired. Woke extremism could potentially be the death of us all. V sadly, it’s happening here too.”

How DEI Is Weakening The Military with Matthew Lohmeier (TFTC Podcast)

Marty sits down with Lt. Col Matthew Lohmeier to discuss how politics and DEl are dividing and weakening the US military, and how the silent majority can speak up and resist.

0:00 – Intro
6:45 – Politics dividing the military
15:57 – Military of the best
22:28 – DEI harms those it “protects”
27:00 – US weakening is rapid and likely intentional
40:15 – What’s making us stronger?
47:12 – First steps to mending
54:18 – Call to the silent majority
50:03 – Money and incentives
1:02:15 – Define your values

spaceforce

Stunning Soviet-Level Indoctrination of the US Space Force

by 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

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

FROM: 11 SWS/CC

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.

MATTHEW L. LOHMEIER, Lt Col, USSF
Commander

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 samokritika, criticism 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

https://starrs.us/white-house-executive-order-installs-political-commissars-throughout-government/

 

ml-thoughts

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

by HearingsMilitary

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:

TRANSCRIPT

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.

https://starrs.us/matthew-lohmeier-congressional-testimony-statement/

https://starrs.us/west-point-grads-crt-screed-against-usma-influenced-by-former-wp-history-teacher/