US Military Needs Political Re-Education to Remain Apolitical

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Of interest on this topic, here is a DARPA document reported on by Politico about "extremism" in the military. Of note is that there definition of Patriot "Extremism" includes anyone who thinks "the US government has become corrupt, has overstepped its constitutional boundaries or is no longer capable of protecting the people against foreign threats," including Oathkeepers and Proud Boys. Their definition of Christian "Extremism" includes Christians who oppose abortion, gay marriage or transgenderism.
This is wrong or mischaracterized. I just read the document. First, it notes antifa and the occupy movement as extremist too, and the occupy movement is generally, supposed to be, non violent, so I don't see anything biased about the stupidity here. Second, the characteristics of Patriot terrorists isn't just that they believe America is corrupt, but also that they believe laws don't apply to them (they list sovereign citizens as an example as well).

As for the discussion about abortion and people who oppose abortion, that was only listed in targets of extremists, not whether having an opinion about it makes one a terrorist.

In conclusion, actually read the document, it's a 17 page power point, it's not hard.
 

ATP

Well-known member
That is true (as with all religions in general), but it tends to gravitate towards violence and chaos, like all things.

It's the same for all religions though.
Crusades by the Christians, European wars of religion, Spanish Inquisition, Rohingya genocide, etc.

No.Crusades was reclaiming christian land taken by muslims,protestants started war become they rellied on Old Testament where all enemies must be destroyed,and Spanish Inquisition killed less then 10.000 people in 300 years.
Soviets killed more in one week.

When Islam has prophet who waged wars and enslaved people.And later sold those slaves.Thta is why there is practically no anti-slavery movement among muslims - becouse their prophet did so.
In other worlds,for muslims both conqer and slavery are basically good.For christians or buddhists - not so.
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
No.Crusades was reclaiming christian land taken by muslims,protestants started war become they rellied on Old Testament where all enemies must be destroyed,and Spanish Inquisition killed less then 10.000 people in 300 years.
Soviets killed more in one week.
"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
-Stalin
Guess he was right about that one.

When Islam has prophet who waged wars and enslaved people.And later sold those slaves.Thta is why there is practically no anti-slavery movement among muslims - becouse their prophet did so.
In other worlds,for muslims both conqer and slavery are basically good.For christians or buddhists - not so.
True.
Libya (a Muslim majority country) is currently a hotbed of slavery and Mali (the last or one of the last countries to outlaw slavery) is also a Muslim majority country.
And in history, much of the slave trade actually went towards the middle east, the Americas one was peanuts compared to the middle eastern one.
And the middle eastern one lasted much long than the American one, up until the early 1900s AFAIK.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
No.Crusades was reclaiming christian land taken by muslims,protestants started war become they rellied on Old Testament where all enemies must be destroyed,and Spanish Inquisition killed less then 10.000 people in 300 years.
Soviets killed more in one week.

When Islam has prophet who waged wars and enslaved people.And later sold those slaves.Thta is why there is practically no anti-slavery movement among muslims - becouse their prophet did so.
In other worlds,for muslims both conqer and slavery are basically good.For christians or buddhists - not so.
I mean that’s not really a fair statement what about Jews? They also had prophets that did genocide and ordered rape and slavery in the Old Testament. They also don’t have a New Testament like Christians where they can say parts of it no longer apply.
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
This is wrong or mischaracterized. I just read the document. First, it notes antifa and the occupy movement as extremist too, and the occupy movement is generally, supposed to be, non violent, so I don't see anything biased about the stupidity here. Second, the characteristics of Patriot terrorists isn't just that they believe America is corrupt, but also that they believe laws don't apply to them (they list sovereign citizens as an example as well).

As for the discussion about abortion and people who oppose abortion, that was only listed in targets of extremists, not whether having an opinion about it makes one a terrorist.

In conclusion, actually read the document, it's a 17 page power point, it's not hard.

I did read the document. Nothing I said is wrong, either, although I am focusing on the parts that I find worrying and objectionable. As @Marduk points out, the definition of left wing political extremism is much more narrow that it is for Patriot extremism, and only includes those who are "opposed to government in all it's forms." The symbols they lists are also just like the anarchy A three different times, as opposed to the comparatively more detailed listing of Patriot "extremist" symbols. The inclusion of Occupy would only I think indicate unbiased stupidity if Occupy wasn't defunct or effectively defunct.

If the definition of Patriot "terrorists" was actually only people who thought laws didn't apply to them, sovereign citizens would be the only example here, since none of the other groups deny the actual ability of the DC government to subject them to its laws.

On abortion, nothing in the "Level Setting" or "Extremism: Observable Behaviors" indicates the necessity of violence in their definition of extremism, this combined with the overbroad definition of Patriot "extremism," makes whether they make this distinction highly questionable.
 

Airedale260

Well-known member
Of interest on this topic, here is a DARPA document reported on by Politico about "extremism" in the military. Of note is that there definition of Patriot "Extremism" includes anyone who thinks "the US government has become corrupt, has overstepped its constitutional boundaries or is no longer capable of protecting the people against foreign threats," including Oathkeepers and Proud Boys. Their definition of Christian "Extremism" includes Christians who oppose abortion, gay marriage or transgenderism.
This is wrong or mischaracterized. I just read the document. First, it notes antifa and the occupy movement as extremist too, and the occupy movement is generally, supposed to be, non violent, so I don't see anything biased about the stupidity here. Second, the characteristics of Patriot terrorists isn't just that they believe America is corrupt, but also that they believe laws don't apply to them (they list sovereign citizens as an example as well).

As for the discussion about abortion and people who oppose abortion, that was only listed in targets of extremists, not whether having an opinion about it makes one a terrorist.

In conclusion, actually read the document, it's a 17 page power point, it's not hard.

The only thing I find concerning is the inclusion of Christian extremism which characterizes opposition to abortion or LGBTQ issues as 'extremist' without specifying what is actually at issue. Now, given that this on its face would include the Knights of Columbus as a hate group, my guess is that whoever wrote this up either has a beef against orthodox Catholics since we actually tend to be less flexible on serious religious issues as opposed to your average mainline Protestant, *or* they simply didn't fully consider the implications of what they wrote.

The rest of it states that it isn't just "belief that the government is corrupt or incompetent" but it's that belief COUPLED WITH actively opposing them by either forming one of those wacky militia groups or participating in the equally insane Sovereign Citizen movement.

In other words it's not just "has issues with the government" it's "has issues with the government and is participating in activities that go outside the bounds of what is permitted by the Constitution." And yes, that is something the feds can do, since literally anyone who's ever applied for a clearance has had to answer the question of "Are you now or have you EVER been a member of an organization dedicated to depriving U.S. citizens of their lawful rights by unconstitutional means" (or something to that effect).

And yes, that does include groups like the Proud Boys, since they explicitly reject the whole notion of equality between the sexes, which runs directly counter to the whole idea of "All men (read: people) are created equal" which is a hallmark of what America is all about.

Short form, I completely agree with @Zachowon that the hand-wringing over this is overblown. Yeah, the left would love to restructure the military into yet another social justice organization, but considering that we have an all volunteer force that draws heavily from the Deplorable demographic (*especially* the combat arms), that's not really going to happen. At worst the brass try and pull stunts while the men and women further down the chain get creatively incompetent at carrying out the brass' wishes.

And I know quite a few service members myself, and their views are pretty much the same as what Zachowon describes. They don't like *any* group that violates or wants to violate the Constitution.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
The only thing I find concerning is the inclusion of Christian extremism which characterizes opposition to abortion or LGBTQ issues as 'extremist' without specifying what is actually at issue.
They don't, comrade. All they say is that religious extremists would probably target things their religion opposes, then it gives examples like lgbt stuff or abortion. That's it. That's the only time it mentions lgbt or abortion in the document.

Meanwhile, in the DPRK, all religion is extremist, as we know that it is against a proper juche philosophy.
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
The only thing I find concerning is the inclusion of Christian extremism which characterizes opposition to abortion or LGBTQ issues as 'extremist' without specifying what is actually at issue. Now, given that this on its face would include the Knights of Columbus as a hate group, my guess is that whoever wrote this up either has a beef against orthodox Catholics since we actually tend to be less flexible on serious religious issues as opposed to your average mainline Protestant, *or* they simply didn't fully consider the implications of what they wrote.

Not to say this as a mark against Catholics, by any means, but evangelical Christians, who are competitive with mainline Protestants in numbers and IIRC probably actually outnumber them when it comes to actual church attendees have similar and frequently more conservative stances on these issues than Catholics, as a whole.

I also think you have a habit of giving more benefit of the doubt to the system than it is due. The document doesn't use the term "hate group" for anything, IIRC, but on this front I think it's worth noting that the system seems pretty comfortable outsourcing the definition of a "hate group" to the SPLC and ADL, and the SPLC is more than comfortable explicitly labeling the ADF a "hate group."

The rest of it states that it isn't just "belief that the government is corrupt or incompetent" but it's that belief COUPLED WITH actively opposing them by either forming one of those wacky militia groups or participating in the equally insane Sovereign Citizen movement.

This isn't a accurate reading of the document, if anything the coupled requirement is "refusing to accept the government's authority to tax or govern them," although I think this is made a lie by the inclusion of some of the groups. Militia membership is something that they list as something "some" of them engage in, it's not phrased as a requirement.

They don't, comrade. All they say is that religious extremists would probably target things their religion opposes, then it gives examples like lgbt stuff or abortion. That's it. That's the only time it mentions lgbt or abortion in the document.

I think you're assuming "target" here means "target for physical attack and/or violence." I think this is more ambiguous, potentially intentionally so.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Not to say this as a mark against Catholics, by any means, but evangelical Christians, who are competitive with mainline Protestants in numbers and IIRC probably actually outnumber them when it comes to actual church attendees have similar and frequently more conservative stances on these issues than Catholics, as a whole.

I also think you have a habit of giving more benefit of the doubt to the system than it is due. The document doesn't use the term "hate group" for anything, IIRC, but on this front I think it's worth noting that the system seems pretty comfortable outsourcing the definition of a "hate group" to the SPLC and ADL, and the SPLC is more than comfortable explicitly labeling the ADF a "hate group."



This isn't a accurate reading of the document, if anything the coupled requirement is "refusing to accept the government's authority to tax or govern them," although I think this is made a lie by the inclusion of some of the groups. Militia membership is something that they list as something "some" of them engage in, it's not phrased as a requirement.



I think you're assuming "target" here means "target for physical attack and/or violence." I think this is more ambiguous, potentially intentionally so.
Look, you are way too focused on a completely innocent document. It doesn't even single out Christian extremism but lumps it in with all religious extremism, and just mentions that Christian extremists are also usually white supremacists. That's really the only sentence on them.

If you want to show problems with politicizing the American military, please show evidence, cause this ain't it.

Meanwhile, the political officers of the General Politiburo are always there to ensure morale remains loyal.
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
Look, you are way too focused on a completely innocent document. It doesn't even single out Christian extremism but lumps it in with all religious extremism, and just mentions that Christian extremists are also usually white supremacists. That's really the only sentence on them.

If you want to show problems with politicizing the American military, please show evidence, cause this ain't it.

I'm not particularly focused on it- I didn't consider it worth a thread and I don't really think it's aberrant, just another aspect of this general trend. I mentioned it in the context of the existing discussion of the politicization and politics of the military on this site, both in this thread and at least 2-3 times in the Biden Administration thread, amongst other places, and there's other evidence both in this thread and there. Just off the top of my head, SOCOM apparently has a chief of diversity and inclusion.
 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
More Commissars for the military, sounds like a great way to enforce ideological principle of conformity!...

I approve!(y)
 

ATP

Well-known member
I mean that’s not really a fair statement what about Jews? They also had prophets that did genocide and ordered rape and slavery in the Old Testament. They also don’t have a New Testament like Christians where they can say parts of it no longer apply.

Not apply,becouse jews have that commands for conqering Kaanan only.Once they conqered Kanaan and made it Judea,they were no longer allowed to genocide anybody.
So,modern jews would not genocide.

Puritans like protestants could - puritans genocided indian in North America,becouse they considered themselves "New Israel" and America "New Kanaan".That is why in USA native indians was almost wiped out,when in South america population is mixed.Becouse Catholics never tried genocide anybody becouse of his colour,like protestants.
Sure,they could murder or enslave,but not genocide.
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
Not apply,becouse jews have that commands for conqering Kaanan only.Once they conqered Kanaan and made it Judea,they were no longer allowed to genocide anybody.
So,modern jews would not genocide.

Puritans like protestants could - puritans genocided indian in North America,becouse they considered themselves "New Israel" and America "New Kanaan".That is why in USA native indians was almost wiped out,when in South america population is mixed.Becouse Catholics never tried genocide anybody becouse of his colour,like protestants.
Sure,they could murder or enslave,but not genocide.

I think this is an overestimate of the influence of religion over group behavior and also a massive failure to understand the inner workings of other religions.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
I think this is an overestimate of the influence of religion over group behavior and also a massive failure to understand the inner workings of other religions.

And that conflicts between ethnic groups either result in displacement or replacement, except when the stronger party are too few to do either and they themselves get absorbed by the conquered.
 

Airedale260

Well-known member
More Commissars for the military, sounds like a great way to enforce ideological principle of conformity!...

I approve!(y)

Don’t worry so much, the Army’s unable to even enforce physical fitness standards due to a clusterfuck over PT testing as per Congressional mandate, so this is one of those things that will probably be on paper but not actually do anything because it’s completely unworkable in a dimension commonly known as “reality.”
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Don’t worry so much, the Army’s unable to even enforce physical fitness standards due to a clusterfuck over PT testing as per Congressional mandate, so this is one of those things that will probably be on paper but not actually do anything because it’s completely unworkable in a dimension commonly known as “reality.”
COVID had hurt the full implementation of the ACFT
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Not apply,becouse jews have that commands for conqering Kaanan only.Once they conqered Kanaan and made it Judea,they were no longer allowed to genocide anybody.
So,modern jews would not genocide.

Puritans like protestants could - puritans genocided indian in North America,becouse they considered themselves "New Israel" and America "New Kanaan".That is why in USA native indians was almost wiped out,when in South america population is mixed.Becouse Catholics never tried genocide anybody becouse of his colour,like protestants.
Sure,they could murder or enslave,but not genocide.
There were more tubes than cannan that were ordered to be attacked. Also things like stoning for adultery haven’t been rescinded. A faithful Jew can’t say those laws don’t apply like Christians trying to weasel out of it. Do they not enforce it because they aren’t devout or because they don’t have a religious nation and are able to do that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
There were more tubes than cannan that were ordered to be attacked
There were specifically seven nations Israel was allowed to attack, all located in Canaan and each descended from Canaan himself according to the bible's detailed records of lineage. Even when attacked first, they weren't permitted to attack other nations outside their own borders, such as was the case with Edom and Assyria.


Interestingly even all descendants of Canaan could not be targeted, for instance Hamathites are his descendents as mentioned at Genesis 10:18, but Israel was not permitted to wage war on them.

Also things like stoning for adultery haven’t been rescinded. A faithful Jew can’t say those laws don’t apply like Christians trying to weasel out of it. Do they not enforce it because they aren’t devout or because they don’t have a religious nation and are able to do that?
Actually they don't enforce it because to sentence someone to death the Sanhedrin has to meet at the Hall of Hewn Stones on the temple mount to deliberate first and ensure that the proceedings are legal. You can't just start flinging stones at somebody because an idiot on the street pointed and yelled "Adulterer!"

Because the Hall was destroyed in 70AD along with the rest of the temple, there have been no death penalties handed down since. Much in the same way there have been no animal sacrifices, no high priest, nor any other functions that require the temple.

I'm not a fan of Judaism but I'll readily acknowledge they have reasons for the things they do and the ways they do it, it's not just arbitrary. The religion is extremely keen on exact words and legalities in general.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top