Focusing in on race emphasizes differences in a profession where unity and cohesiveness are paramount

Parts of a recent email from STARRS Chairman Lt. Gen. Rod Bishop (USAF, ret) to another General:

. . . . The words behind DEI sound nice, the definitions may “ring” nicely, but we know that is not the “strategic intent” behind the words, nor is it the way DOD is implementing them.

We wouldn’t have:

overwhelming evidence of discrimination in Academy admissions
white cadets being asked to define their white privileges
white boy #2 stories
cadets decrying the indoctrination
multiple cadets describing the division DEI is causing etc., etc., etc

if what I said above was not true.

As former NYT editor, progressive Bari Weiss, describes it–those words of DEI are camouflage for an ideological rot which has invaded almost every aspect of American life.

I wish other retired senior officers would take the time to explain that to our Academy graduate community–not seemingly trying to paint the Marxist-based ideology and DEI in a positive light with definitions that are irrelevant in today’s world–that would have been the help we have been asking of retired flag officers.

Marxists are masters of word manipulation–learned that one from my CIA Sovietologist and the Naval War College (actually NCSC) and another Sovietologist, Dr Lani Kass at the National War College, and of course STARRS own CEO, Dr Ron Scott.

Just look at the last couple of years:

CRT became DEI because CRT was getting a bad rap
then DEI became D&I because “equity” was getting a bad rap
then D&I has become DEI&A so we would be even more inclusive of all (more likely trying to shield the D, E, I part from criticism)
now it is becoming “belonging” according to USCGA cadets

Other examples:

child mutilation is “gender affirming care”‘
the killing of innocent babies in the womb (even right up until birth) is called “woman’s rights”–we are condition to “celebrate” gay pride month or transgender weeks, etc, etc.
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” George Orwell, 1984
2+2= 5

Totally agree with your point about “looking like the rest of America”. Never saw or heard of that ever being an issue from my black first sergeant, my black Command Sergeant, my black Senior Enlisted Advisor or my black deputy commander through my 7 AF commands. Nor did I feel that way when John Hopper was my Commander.

As for color consciousness vs colorblind–we have already discussed that one–I agree that it is important to know “each airman’s story”. Think I shared with you a commander teaching me to know the names of the dogs who belonged to those who worked for you.

Problem comes when people become overly color conscious–which occurs all too often when being “color conscious”–when it becomes all about “color” first and foremost.

Like CMSAF 18, Wright saying “I am a black man, who just happens to be the CMSAF” instead of “I am CMSAF who just happens to be a black man”. It is “identity politics on steroids” as one cadet told me.

I am sure you have heard the story on how to put all your insignia and name tag on your class A’s?

You always put the “US” on first as we are all Americans first and foremost. Name tag goes on last–least important–you are part of a team.

Again–there are many plusses to being “colorblind” (race blind).

“We all bleed AF blue” is unifying. It puts the emphasis on job performance, not color of skin. It recognizes that we are “all in this together.”

That surface to air missile shot at you and makes your ADS go off, doesn’t care at all what the color of skin of those flying that jet are.

Can’t say I cared one iota what the skin color of my copilot, engineer, loadmaster or wing man was in my 6000 hours of flight time. I cared they could do their job--and yes– was interested in their background, where they grew up, etc.

Focusing in on race emphasizes differences in a profession where unity and cohesiveness are paramount.

Now for the area where I think we are in disagreement, but welcome your input further. Your words in your last two paragraphs seem to indicate you think it is the politicians, the political appointees etc, who are the root cause of the problem (“The fish stinks from the head down.”)

I believe the root cause here is the ideology itself that, as Mark Levin and Chris Rufo articulately point out, have been “marching through our institutions for decades.” The politicians are the tools, the means to make it happen.

They are either “useful idiots” as Lenin called them, or actual ideologues–they actually believe the officer corps needs to match the enlisted force in terms of percentages, for example–merit be damned.

So what has STARRS done to attack the “root cause” and not just the symptoms?

1. Education–education at all levels–from the American populace (strategic level), to Congress and DOD (operational level), to the tactical level–military leaders and USAFA, West Point, USNA, etc . Our website I am told is the “best one out there” standing up against the Marxist invasion of our military: STARRS.US

We have done well over 100 media events and our writing team is most probably closing in on 200 articles–most all of which are aimed educating the audience of what is happening across our military. This is where I think you misinterpret STARRS as attacking the symptoms.

One of the 96 or so organizations on our collaboration list (a professional company that helps organizations “convince”) gave us a couple of hours of “free advice” via zoom a while back. Their advice? We needed to emphasize even more– the stories we were telling–that will help change minds they told us. “It is easy” they said–as easy as “PHD”. Personalize, Humanize, and Dramatize. Worked well in lifting the vaccine mandate and their are signs it is working here in fighting the DEI battle.

2. Extensive work on the Hill and only getting better. Some tell us “the military is already a lost cause.” I am hoping we can save it–but a real cultural change is required. Congress has the responsibility for the military, as you know outlined in Article 1 of our Constitution (“make rules and regulations for the military,”).

But elections do have consequences. That said if you did any comparison with the 2023 NDAA and the 2024 NDAA, you would see an amazing uptick in words about CRT/DEI etc–that didn’t just happen.

We used the PHD method to help educate–becoming the voice of those who tell us they are afraid to speak out against the indocrination–just like a teacher I skied with yesterday told me they too are afraid of speaking out for fear of losing their job.

“The collective we” worked this hard–and if the House version of the NDAA had more of its provisions incorporated into the Final Bill, we could all go home and rejoice–but again we used the stories we have been told to capture the minds and attention of our elective representatives. “In my opinion” statements are not big sellers.

Again, sir–welcome any suggestions you may have to better help us “raise our sights from the symptoms to the cause” (I think we are already there) or with our educational mission or how we can be more convincing on the Hill to ensure we rid our military of this cancer, not just hit it with radiation and hope it goes away.

I do hope you can carve out say 10 minutes of so to watch this podcast starting at the 38 min mark. If pressed for time, just start at the 43:30 minute point and you will hear a very articulate explanation of why recruiting white males is in the tank. At around the 44:30 point he describes an issue you and I have discussed in depth–military leadership.

Note Victor says (speaking about military leadership) “they know what they have done and most of them know it wasn’t right.” Just before that, he also speaks articulately about the harmful effects of the vaccine mandate.

Interesting to watch how insidiously this cultural-Marxism works and how blind some so easily become. As you once told me–“they have taken a page out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and bamboozled half of America.” Great quote!!

PS. When I had an hour long conversation about STARRS with Dr Hanson over a year ago now–when I asked him for advice, he responded–“just ensure you have the word Marxist in every sentence. They don’t seem to like that, but that is what they are.”

If military leaders would only do a modicum of research, they would understand this. I find it sad to see how the military has responded to this cultural invasion.

We were willing to stand up to Marxism in Korea and Vietnam (with 95,000 losing their lives), but now there is no moral courage to stand up to political elites (who have no lethal instruments) forcing this indoctrination into our military Services.

Here is a visual Gen Arbuckle and our former CIA counterintelligence officer produced this week. (Click to enlarge)