STARRS
Here’s another example of those on Left who deeply politicized the military during the Biden administration by pushing a radical woke race/gender agenda on the forces, but then turn around and accuse as being “political” anyone of wanting to remove those Marxist-based ideologies:
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand issued a press release introducing the “Military Officer Promotion Integrity Act.”
She says this bill would “protect qualified military officers from being arbitrarily removed from promotion consideration for ideological or political reasons by establishing clear standards, basic due process, and meaningful independent review.”
She goes on to say,
“Officers who have earned a promotion deserve to be judged on their qualifications and nothing else.”
STARRS NOTE: SecWar Hegseth would agree and has repeatedly said servicemembers will be judged on merit, not on the color of their skin or gender.
“Secretary Hegseth has pushed out our best and brightest, cutting some of the most highly trained, most qualified people in our armed services and leaving our military rudderless.”
STARRS NOTE: Who was actually “pushed out”? Those who pushed for Marxist-based Critical Race Theory’s praxis of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and gender ideology on servicemembers, of which examples abound on this website, like the race quota for pilots. Plus, if many of these people she is defending were promoting mainly because of the color of their skin or their gender or sexual preference over pure merit, then their positions are in question whether they should lead forces. How many times did we hear highly experienced servicemembers say someone less qualified was chosen because of immutable characteristics over skill?
“I will keep fighting to curb Secretary Hegseth’s ability to jeopardize our national security and military preparedness and ensure our military is led by qualified officers capable of keeping Americans safe.”
STARRS NOTE: Choosing people because of identities over merit DID jeopardize our national security and military preparedness. We really live in two different realties although hers is a pseudo-reality.
The Senator then astoundingly confirms her politicization of the military in the press release:
“Defense Secretary Hegseth has repeatedly blocked women and minority officers from promotions and criticized diversity initiatives in the military.” . . . “reports that Hegseth blocked or delayed promotions for more than a dozen Black and female senior officers.”
STARRS NOTE: She continues to focus on political gender and race/color of skin ideology, and the promotion of the highly political and very damaging DEI agenda in the military (and she uses as “proof” articles from fake news New York Times, NBC and CNN). But yet she accuses Hegseth (and us) of being “Political” for being against that. Talk about PROJECTION! (Psychological projection is a defense mechanism where a person unconsciously shifts their own unwanted feelings, traits, fears, or impulses onto another person, group, or object)
Her bill is backed by the usual suspects who backed the nightmare of a woke military that plunged recruitment and retention.
STARRS attended the meetings of the DEI advisory committee to the Secretary of Defense. It was nothing BUT focusing on pushing the race and gender ideology/agenda deep into the armed forces–and they were militant about it.
During the Soviet Union, the military had Zampolit officers (aka POLITICAL officers) who pushed Marxist ideology and beliefs on their troops. We had the same thing with the legion of DEI officers and cadets wearing DEI purple ropes to “advise” other cadets on right-think/wrong-think.
Let’s also consider how many highly qualified senior officers were purged during the Obama years because they were thought to be conservative.
Or the illegal Covid vax mandate which conveniently pushed out qualified and principled conservatives and Christians who were against this tyranny.
If this Senator gets back into power, the DEI nightmare of the Biden years will be ten-fold.
This! STARRS gets accused by the other side of being “political” for wanting to eliminate leftwing Marxist political ideology from the military.
— STARRS (@STARRSmission) October 5, 2026
“I love how the people complaining about military culture wars somehow forget about the multi-front total war that was waged on said culture over the last decade.
DEI mandates, identity sorting, political litmus tests, pronoun bureaucracy, race and sex consciousness, and the broader progressive social project were allowed to enter the force under the banner of “professionalism.”
Then the moment someone starts ripping them back out, suddenly that becomes a “culture war” and “political”.
@billybinion Yeah, wouldn’t want culture wars in the services… https://t.co/hQaOJ8q0sW
— Version|6 (@my_compound) October 5, 2026
RIDICULOUS exaggeration.
The only things Hegseth is doing is REMOVING culture war battles from our nation’s military.
The invasion of America’s military by the racist, sexist, xenophobic, bigoted principles of DEI was the very worst instance of the politicization of America’s military in our nation’s history.
It nearly destroyed us.
Pete Hegseth is simply healing that wound and removing these sickening culture war battles from our military and instead focusing us solely on closing with and destroying our battlefield enemies.
You have it exactly backwards, Cupcake.
— Cynical Publius (@CynicalPublius) October 1, 2026
“RIDICULOUS exaggeration.
The only things Hegseth is doing is REMOVING culture war battles from our nation’s military.
The invasion of America’s military by the racist, sexist, xenophobic, bigoted principles of DEI was the very worst instance of the politicization of America’s military in our nation’s history.
It nearly destroyed us.
Pete Hegseth is simply healing that wound and removing these sickening culture war battles from our military and instead focusing us solely on closing with and destroying our battlefield enemies.
You have it exactly backwards, Cupcake.”
“Then the moment someone starts ripping them back out, suddenly that becomes a “culture war” and “political”.
That is your signal to go harder….
~ A DARVO attack is the clearest indicator that a predator or wrongdoer feels exposed and cornered.When a manipulative person or institution realizes their actions are coming to light, they rarely apologize or self-reflect. Instead, they pivot immediately to DARVO as a desperate, defensive survival mechanism to protect their power and reputation.
Here is why an exposed wrongdoer resorts to DARVO:
Panic Response: DARVO is triggered by exposure. The sudden shift to aggressive denial and counter-attacks happens because the perpetrator’s traditional defenses (like secrecy or charm) have failed.
Distraction from Evidence: By launching an attack on the accuser, they successfully shift the focus away from the actual evidence of their misconduct.
The conversation becomes a debate about the accuser’s character rather than the perpetrator’s actions.
DARVO as a Confirmation: In psychological and advocacy circles, a heavy-handed DARVO response is often viewed as a “tell.”
It frequently confirms that the original accusation struck a nerve and has merit, as an innocent person typically relies on objective facts rather than systematic character assassination to defend themselves. ”
— Josephine A (Josephine) (@JosephineA47049) October 5, 2026
“Then the moment someone starts ripping them back out, suddenly that becomes a “culture war” and “political”.
That is your signal to go harder….
~ A DARVO attack is the clearest indicator that a predator or wrongdoer feels exposed and cornered.
When a manipulative person or institution realizes their actions are coming to light, they rarely apologize or self-reflect. Instead, they pivot immediately to DARVO as a desperate, defensive survival mechanism to protect their power and reputation.
Here is why an exposed wrongdoer resorts to DARVO:
Panic Response: DARVO is triggered by exposure. The sudden shift to aggressive denial and counter-attacks happens because the perpetrator’s traditional defenses (like secrecy or charm) have failed.
Distraction from Evidence: By launching an attack on the accuser, they successfully shift the focus away from the actual evidence of their misconduct.
The conversation becomes a debate about the accuser’s character rather than the perpetrator’s actions.
DARVO as a Confirmation: In psychological and advocacy circles, a heavy-handed DARVO response is often viewed as a “tell.”
It frequently confirms that the original accusation struck a nerve and has merit, as an innocent person typically relies on objective facts rather than systematic character assassination to defend themselves.”
Leave a Comment