Vyor
My influence grows!
As though telling people to read a book isn't itself an insult?
Military US Military Is Scared Americans Won't Fight For Globalism
- Thread starter Bassoe
- Start date
As though telling people to read a book isn't itself an insult?
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Take that back! I prefer the Black League of Omsk and the various far right factions, lol, I don't touch any of the TNO leftoids.
You know, you have gotten a pass this far because I like the demon hottie on your avatar, but you are seriously starting to waste my time.
Say hello to my Blocklist, and Saionara!
Last edited:
Vyor
My influence grows!
Admittedly funny.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
DarthOne
☦️
The Pentagon's woke schools for 70,000 kids EXPOSED: 'gender expression' for four-year-olds, parent-free sex chat rooms, and 'racial bias' lessons that leave students sobbing - and how Lloyd Austin covered it up: report
www.dailymail.co.uk
DEI and CRT rife at Pentagon's woke schools for 70,000 military kids
Researchers at OpenTheBooks.com say Department of Defense educators are 'forcing woke extremism' on the kids of serving military families at schools on bases around the world.
The 70,000 children taught at America's military schools learn about gender identity, racial bias and other contentious topics that alarm many parents — and the Pentagon is covering it up, a report says.
Researchers at OpenTheBooks.com, a conservative watchdog, say Department of Defense educators are 'forcing woke extremism' on the kids of serving military families at schools on bases around the world.
Lessons include 'gender expression' for four-year-olds, secret chat rooms where students discuss 'sexuality and gender' without their parents knowing, and 'racial bias' classes that leave youngsters sobbing, says the group.
CEO and founder Adam Andrzejewski says Pentagon education chiefs have 'buried' lessons on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) content 'into the core infrastructure of the public schools' in the US and on military bases overseas.
Worse still, he says, is that it goes all the way to the top.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and his education chief Tom Brady have overseen the redaction of documents to conceal their contentious curriculum, he says.
'We oftentimes face an agency that's doing more than stonewalling,' Andrzejewski said.
+6
View gallery
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin
'They're out-and-out rejecting basic Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.'
What's taught in classrooms has become a hot-button issue in America's culture wars.
Many parents — conservative and otherwise — say DEI hardliners are forcing their ideas into classrooms, which encourage children to question their own gender identity, or feel guilty and unnecessarily critical of being white.
The military's education wing operates 160 schools across seven states, two territories and 11 foreign countries. Its annual $3.2 billion budget educates more than 66,000 students and pays the salaries of 80,000 educators.
It has been rocked by scandals in the past. Its DEI unit was disbanded last year under pressure from Republican lawmakers amid allegations that its then-director, Kelisa Wing, made anti-white posts on social media.
But according to Andrzejewski, the department only went underground and the work continued.
'The radical curriculum was not dismantled,' says the group's report.
This widely-shared educational diagram presents the world as divided between the 'marginalized' and the 'powerful,' with slim, educated, English-speaking, straight white people at the top
'Instead, it was stealthily embedded into the lesson plans and classrooms throughout the entire school system.'
Through third-party vendors and DEI consultants, Pentagon education chiefs are 'spending millions of taxpayer dollars on objectionable content for school children,' says the report.
Tom Brady runs the Pentagon's education team
Pentagon-run schools are engaging four-year-olds in conversations about 'gender expression' and other 'LGBTQ+' ideas, it is claimed.
They run chat rooms where students talk to teachers about sexuality and gender without their parents' knowledge.
Classroom materials include the notorious 'Wheel of Power/Privilege.'
The widely-shared diagram presents the world as divided between the 'marginalized' and the 'powerful,' with slim, educated, English-speaking, straight white people at the top.
Students also learn about 'racial bias,' 'systemic racism,' 'privilege,' and other ideas aligned to the Black Lives Matter movement.
A handbook warns teachers that 'explicit conversations' about race can provoke 'strong emotions' and leave students in tears.
Many parents support efforts to tackle deep-rooted racism.
+6
View gallery
Kelisa Wing made anti-white posts on social media when she ran a Pentagon DEI unit
Others say America has worked hard to achieve equality and that zealots just want to make white people feel guilty as a type of 'reverse racism.'
Andrzejewski says he's requested information about the Pentagon's DEI staffers and salaries, including through FOIA requests, but has hit a brick wall.
Officials have redacted documents, deleted public access links, and pulled down online videos, he says.
He accuses Austin, his former deputy Gil Cisneros, Brady, and others of trying to conceal the ongoing rollout of controversial content and lessons at military schools.
'Heads must roll, and the agency must provide full transparency of teaching methods and its DEI-related policy operations,' says the report.
The Pentagon did not answer DailyMail.com's requests for comment.
Andrzejewski's report includes a comment from the Pentagon's education wing.
It says they follow all relevant laws, but did not directly address the concerns made by the researchers.
DarthOne
☦️
First off, most parents these days are either hilariously in the dark, believe this shit, or are too busy to get involved. Second, a not-insubstantial part of the USA is now stuck living paycheck to paycheck. In part because of the foreign policies you and people like you support. Simply put, they can't afford to homeschool their kids.
Parents are starting to get involved, remember when the FBI considered them terrorists for doing so?
Because there were congressional hearings about that shit.
Vyor
My influence grows!
Ah yes, his support for things that take... 3% of the budget causes us to be 200% over the budget.
I'm sorry that most of the money our government spends is on giving hand outs to illegals and single black mothers in major cities.
What does that have to do with what we.gove to foreign nations, that is not all monetary value.....
And goes to helping MAKE more for US as well.
Simonbob
Well-known member
I'm more interested in the ways the US (And Australian) Gov gave most of our manufacturing to China, in that category. I say gave, but really, they just made sure we couldn't keep it, not giving a shit where it went.
When it comes to supporting enemies, China's got the best deal.
And, hilariously, despite being given everything on a silver platter, China is still collapsing -- figuratively and literally -- in pretty much every area except the CCP spying on its citizens.
But yeah, if people weren't being hurt/killed, seeing Tofu Buildings fall down on camera would be hilarious.
That blame lands squarely on the Democrats, beginning with Carter and then accelerating with Clinton. While some Republicans share that blame, especially the Libertarian foreign policy wonks, it was those two administrations that explicitly set the stage for the mass exodus of US manufacture, though the entire issue is actually complex and there's not one single aspect to point to.
Carter explicitly called to retool the economy away from being manufacture centric into... whatever we have now. Fortunately he had limited time to implement this. Reagan and HW Bush while very hostile to China, were generally Free Traders (as had long been Republican policy... going back to the founding of the party in the 19th century...) so long as the Free Trade was within our alliance sphere. This did begin rounds of "offshoring" but generally to US allies or protectorates. IE, this is why in the 1980s you saw Japan boom and had the rise of fear of the Japanese taking over, as we allowed Free Trade with them since the Japanese were an American protectorate and Japanese corporations, especially car companies, systematically blew away American car companies in open market competition*. However, both Reagan and HW Bush were HIGHLY suspect of trade with China, explicitly tying Chinese access to US markets to their humans rights records.
This requirement was one of the first things Clinton removed when he came into office, along with loosening other trade restrictions with China. This IMMEDIATELY gave China a massive competitive advantage over the US when it came to manufacture. Where the US had higher energy costs, labor costs, and regulatory costs (the cost of conforming to government regulations), China had basically greatly reduced ALL of those. Labor costs were cheaper due both to lower Chinese standards of living as well as the ability for the Chinese to use... "prisoner" labor (read: slave), the cost of conforming to government regulations in China while more corrupt was also much much cheaper, as China lacked any of the environmental regulations.
Add onto this the rise of the standard shipping container which caused the price of international shipping to drop MASSIVELY and suddenly all sorts of basic manufacturing was simply cheaper to do in China and in third world countries where companies didn't have to deal with the higher costs of American labor and conforming to American regulation.
Oh, and even while they were doing this, the Clinton administration INCREASED the regulatory burden on American corporations by tightening environmental controls while also increasing labor costs by restructuring federal agencies and regulatory bodies to more favor labor Unions.
Now, much of this could have been undone and reworked by W. Bush, but he got distracted with the War on Terror, though he did try and push back some of the worst regulatory overreach by the Clinton Administration. The issue is that when it comes to regulatory power it is much easier to INCREASE such power than it is to decrease, because the institutions themselves do not wish to give up said power, so they will slow walk, stonewall, and resist such efforts, which they did under W as well (just much lower key than they did under Trump).
Further, remember under W. China was making every effort to NOT look like a geopolitical rival to the US, they were highly cooperative with the US' War on Terror and generally kept a low profile on much of their long term plans for displacing the US, being instead in a buildup phase, they also appeared to be slowly liberalizing their government and economy, which made the China hawks look like they were holding on to past grudges and gave the Libertarian international policy wonks what looked like a win.
It wasn't until Obama that China began pivoting, and by that point China had used their new wealth and power to be systematically buying out critical US politicians and academia, selling them on the ideals of the superiority of the Chinese "technocratic" system and making many of the US elites wish they had a China-like system rather than the system we did...
-----------------
* Note: American car companies in the late 70s and 80s were notoriously bad, they had led prior decades of dominance cause their quality and innovation to stagnate BADLY and had gone through multiple rounds of consolidation which reduced domestic competition so they didn't have to actually worry about customers leaving them. Add on Union shenanigans and Japanese car companies were well placed to enter the market in force and disrupt things, which in turn forced the American car companies to actually improve, those that could did, those that couldn't died out... honestly this was a good thing long term, and arguably a success of the Free Trade model... what is, however, ignored by so many free traders is that the US, Japan, Germany, England, and South Korea were all generally economic equals and could only do so much to undercut each other as all are First World economies and populations, which made the economic playing field more equal, whereas free trade with countries like China is an inherently heavily tilted playing field that doesn't enable healthy competition but rather pure destruction.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
China’s rise is a classic example of “liberals not understanding what kind of monster they were dealing with.” It’s symptomatic of a very deep naivety in the philosophy where you think everyone else thinks like you.
Simonbob
Well-known member
Note, in Australia, they jumped onto that train, and a running it so hard Hell itself is asking where the demons chasing them are.
I'm not sure there was any meaningful pushback in poiltics. That might be because the third major party in Australia, at 10% of the vote, are the Greens. They're also massive in govenment service, where they put their ideals into practice, no matter the rules.
And so we suffer.
I think the push back happens when the suffering becomes so great that people are willing to do anything to make it stop.
Simonbob
Well-known member
A lot of people are slowly hating the Greens, it's true.