Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, July 11, 2022

The Social Engineering Of Our Military

The systematic destruction of our armed forces!



Note the juvenile presentation and the juvenile tone of the video below...

This social engineering is also taking place in the US Army:


Madness afoot!

92 comments:

  1. When real life becomes indistinguishable from a parody, we are in trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There wasn't anything broken with addressing someone by their rank and/or last name.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I question whether this content was directed at Sailors, or more likely, the Dept. of Navy civilian workforce. Speaking for the Army, DA civilians certainly have an entirely different framework in all aspects, than the uniformed component.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A Very Proud ProgressiveJuly 11, 2022 at 6:24:00 AM CDT

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That was the most idiotic "training" video I have ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But hey, I'm sure they're helping US companies to earn a "high ESG" rating which makes it all just "par for the course".

      Delete
    2. Whatever happened to "Don't ask, don't tell"? You can't just "tolerate" gays in the military... now you have to "celebrate" and "respect" it above and beyond you own beliefs and yourself.

      Delete
    3. "Hi, I'm Thersites, and my pronouns are 'bigot' and 'asshole'."

      Delete
    4. @SF - As seen somewhere else:

      "I identify as a threat. My pronouns are F*ck Around / Find Out"

      Delete
    5. (((Thought Criminal)))July 11, 2022 at 1:17:00 PM CDT

      My pronouns are metonym, euphemism, and analogy.

      Delete
    6. (((Thought Criminal)))July 12, 2022 at 1:03:00 AM CDT

      In the forest by the grove next to a tree.

      Delete
  6. I play music with a few active duty soldiers, and anecdotally, from what they tell me, the army is now probably at around the state it was right after the Vietnam war, which is very depressing.

    I also know first hand that the Air Force has really gone crazy over all of this stuff, and the mission comes second, at best.

    I read that the Navy is having severe morale issues, manpower issues, etc.

    I was in the military for many years, and I understand that when they tell you to take a shot, a vaccination, you take it. That includes flu shots. I always got one when I was in, I never get one now, but having said that, senior leadership at the Pentagon never should have made the covid vaccine a make or break thing.

    I will repeat, Austin and Millie should be fired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Pentagon needs an enema. Fire everybody above the one star level, and do some house cleaning on some senior civilian leadership as well. If you're not willing to put your stars on the line when you see crap like this that is deleterious to the mission, you don't deserve them. Get the hell out and go play golf

      Delete
    2. "When they tell you to take a shot, you take it."

      I would agree, and when I was in the Navy that was certainly my position. I was also taught that orders which were against nature, i.e. immoral or illegal, were supposed not to be followed. When today's sailors who have the ability for critical thinking are faced with orders which are in direct contravention with the real world which they can observe, or which present a clear and present danger to themselves, what are they to do?

      Delete
    3. Jayhawk. I really can see both sides of this. I was in in the '90s and took the anthrax shot, which I guess was kind of experimental, and they said we needed it because of the Gulf war and all that. So I never really thought twice.

      Senior leadership should have drawn a distinction with the experimental covid vaccine, especially given the age cohort of active duty military. Covid is no more dangerous to that cohort than a severe flu

      Delete
    4. You might find that depressing, I find it slightly optimistic, thinking our military CAN come back to where it was before the WOKENESS started taking over...

      Delete
    5. Z: I pray you are right. The rot runs deep.

      Delete
    6. And I don't know which would be worse: Austin, Milley, senior flag officers and pentagon senior leaders really believing all this bulls**t, or knowing its bs and being too cowardly to take a stand.

      Delete
  7. This will lead to the US armed forces becoming useless. When we end up in CW2 this will make it easier for the Deep State and the imbedded politicians to lose.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why should we be surprised? The military has allowed the Wiccan religion to be practiced, don’t as don’t tell so I am not surprised by any of this filth. A nation without morals and God cannot stand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those who serve to defend and secure our Rights, shouldn't have freedom of religion?

      Delete
    2. Wiccan is worshiping the devil, the devil is evil so not they should not have the right to worship demons.

      Delete
    3. Um...no. Wicca is not 'devil/demon worship'. Interesting position on Constitutional Rights and the religious liberty of servicemembers though.

      Delete
    4. What's your position on secular religions, CI? Should we all be required to worship and "celebrate" the Pronoun gods of the LGBTQ+?

      Delete
    5. We certainly have to worship the secular gods of the "chain of command".

      Delete
    6. Much like "law enforcement", no?

      Delete
    7. btw - My pronouns are now 'capitalized' "He/Him"...

      Delete
    8. I think that the instructors of the new pronoun training sect should be required to be consigned to the Chaplain Corps and wear rainbows on their collars.

      Delete
    9. ...it should also be strictly voluntary. That way all the LGBTQ+ allies can attend services together, and not bother the rest of us with their secular religious practices.

      Delete
    10. ...and the Duke Report... the new "Drudge Report" for the rest of us non-Neocons.

      Delete
    11. I agree with "going rogue" observations of what is happening, but she's way to sanguine.

      1. Machines and their algorithms don't give a hoot whether you like their rules or not. You WILL live under them.

      2. Oh crap! That was a load bearing wall!!!

      Delete
  9. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese show this stuff to their own military to give them something to laugh at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Especially since the Right (as exemplified by the military) is now proving itself just a Baizuo as the Left. Time to take back Taiwan?

      Delete
    2. I don't know. After the 2006 elections, when I realized that the GOP was spinally challenged, I began registering Independent so as to avoid a lot of emails and other contacts that provided nothing but political BS without any actual results.

      Today, there are a lot more Republicans in the House and Senate who actually possess spines, which leads me to believe that once we have achieved a majority after the coming midterms, they will actually perform.

      Once there, they will function as a barrier against much of the Biden Administration's selling out of American interests.

      Delete
  10. Elizabeth said;
    "I do believe we have the right to practice what we believe our founding fathers envisioned. You cannot take God out of a nation and expect it to remain moral."

    No Elizabeth, Your last sentence just isn't true.

    Sweden, for one example, is one of the most secular nations in the world. The majority of Swedish citizens are members of the Church of Sweden, but very few are practicing members. Sweden has legally been a secular state since 2000 when the Church of Sweden was separated from the state.

    Sweden has a low crime rate, drug use rate, etc. The U.S. has a violent crime rate 3x more than Sweden.

    Religion does NOT necessarily make a country moral. Afghanistan is run by religious mullahs and is one of the most dangerous countries in the world!

    I understand you sincerely believe what you wrote, but facts just don't bear it out.

    Every American is free to practice his/her religion in any church, synagogue, mosque he/she chooses. We Americans just prefer that those who do practice religion practice it in the privacy of their own home/family and churche and not impose their personal beliefs on people who do not share them

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your logic solid.

      The purpose of Christianity is to worship God and to receive the saving grace of Jesus Christ so you can go to heaven.

      Morality that flows from that is a corollary. There are and always have existed systems of morality independent of religion.

      Delete
    2. Were all the systems of morality "moral"? If so, what does "moral" mean? Is there a one-ality? A less-ality? A no-ality?

      Delete
    3. Is the "moral" the same as the "virtuous"? Why or why not? Does it have anything to do with "oral"?

      Delete
    4. Is there one/universal morality or supreme/ universal good for each god (Christian G_ds will? Allah's? Buddahs? Confuscious'?) Or are there many uncommensurable goods and moralities to choose from? And Can we rank/value these goods and/ or moralities and apply them to suit conditions for religiously diverse nations?

      Delete
    5. Sweden now regrets its Islamic immigrants. I wonder why? Japan severly limits and avoids immigration of non-racially Japanese peoples.

      Delete
    6. If you take God out of a nations morality, what "good" does it them seek to achieve? Is luxury/ prosperity an unmitigated good?

      Delete
    7. Morality: A shared code of conduct.

      Delete
    8. between two people? family members? humanity? all people? US citizens? Corporations?, UN bodies? An individual? To what end?

      Delete
    9. this one? We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      Delete
    10. All of the above. A man of your erudition must be familiar with moral philosophy.

      I subscribe to Christian morality. That does not negate the comment at the head of this thread. Nations like Sweden practice what could loosely be described as Christian morality, or at least the vestiges of it, stripped of Christianity's Christology, soteriology and theology.

      Delete
    11. (((Thought Criminal)))July 12, 2022 at 1:25:00 AM CDT

      Morality is at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the end point of self-actualization. Sadly, he may be right. Morality is a luxury and end product for those who already have their physiological, safety, emotional, and self-esteem needs met.

      Until then, give me your stuff before I beat you with a tire tool.

      Delete
    12. So you don't believe there's a Kantian "Categorical Imperative"?

      The categorical imperative (German: kategorischer Imperativ) is the central philosophical concept in the deontological moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Introduced in Kant's 1785 Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, it is a way of evaluating motivations for action. It is best known in its original formulation: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."[1]

      According to Kant, sentient beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in an imperative, or ultimate commandment of reason, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defines an imperative as any proposition declaring a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary. Hypothetical imperatives apply to someone who wishes to attain certain ends. For example, "I must drink something to quench my thirst" or "I must study to pass this exam." A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself.

      Kant expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the popular moral philosophy of his day, believing that it could never surpass the level of hypothetical imperatives: a utilitarian says that murder is wrong because it does not maximize good for those involved, but this is irrelevant to people who are concerned only with maximizing the positive outcome for themselves. Consequently, Kant argued, hypothetical moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as bases for moral judgments against others, because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on subjective considerations. He presented a deontological moral system, based on the demands of the categorical imperative, as an alternative.

      Delete
    13. In other words, are you a fox, or a hedgehog?

      Delete
    14. Isaiah Berlin "Letter to George Kennan" (1951)

      When armies were slaughtered by other armies in the course of history, we might be appalled by the carnage and turn pacifist; but our horror acquires a new dimension when we read about children, or for that matter grown-up men and women, whom the Nazis loaded into trains bound for gas chambers, telling them that they were going to emigrate to some happier place. Why does this deception, which may in fact have diminished the anguish of the victims, arouse a really unutterable kind of horror in us? The spectacle, I mean, of the victims marching off in happy ignorance of their doom amid the smiling faces of their tormentors? Surely because we cannot bear the thought of human beings denied their last rights--of knowing the truth, of acting with at least the freedom of the condemned, of being able to face their destruction with fear or courage, according to their temperaments, but at least as human beings, armed with the power of choice. It is the denial to human beings of the possibility of choice, the getting them into one's power, the twisting them this way and that in accordance with one's whim, the destruction of their personality by creating unequal moral terms between the gaoler and the victim, whereby the gaoler knows what he is doing, and why, and plays upon the victim, i.e. treats him as a mere object and not as a subject whose motives, views, intentions have any intrinsic weight whatever--by destroying the very possibility of his having views, notions of a relevant kind--that is what cannot be borne at all.

      What else horrifies us about unscrupulousness if not this? Why is the thought of someone twisting someone else round his little finger, even in innocent contexts, so beastly (for instance in Dostoevsky's Dyadyushkin son [Uncle's Dream, a novella published in 1859], which the Moscow Arts Theatre used to act so well and so cruelly)? After all, the victim may prefer to have no responsibility; the slave be happier in his slavery. Certainly we do not detest this kind of destruction of liberty merely because it denies liberty of action; there is a far greater horror in depriving men of the very capacity for freedom--that is the real sin against the Holy Ghost. Everything else is bearable so long as the possibility of goodness--of a state of affairs in which men freely choose, disinterestedly seek ends for their own sake--is still open, however much suffering they may have gone through. Their souls are destroyed only when this is no longer possible. It is when the desire for choice is broken that what men do thereby loses all moral value, and actions lose all significance (in terms of good and evil) in their own eyes; that is what is meant by destroying people's self-respect, by turning them, in your words, into rags. This is the ultimate horror because in such a situation there are no worthwhile motives left: nothing is worth doing or avoiding, the reasons for existing are gone. We admire Don Quixote, if we do, because he has a pure-hearted desire to do what is good, and he is pathetic because he is mad and his attempts are ludicrous.

      Delete
    15. (((Thought Criminal)))July 12, 2022 at 6:35:00 AM CDT

      Nah. Beat Kant with a tire tool until he coughs up money for my bacon croissant habit and writes, Robert Fisk style, an article on why he deserved to be beaten ;)

      Delete
    16. Immanuel Kant, "Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals"
      1st formulation:

      Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.


      2nd formulation:

      Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.


      3rd formulation:

      Thus the third practical principle follows [from the first two] as the ultimate condition of their harmony with practical reason: the idea of the will of every rational being as a universally legislating will.


      The kingdom of ends formulation:

      Thus the third practical principle follows [from the first two] as the ultimate condition of their harmony with practical reason: the idea of the will of every rational being as a universally legislating will.

      Delete
    17. The above is an "objective" moral philosophy. Metaphysics.

      Delete
    18. Beating Kant with a tire iron violates the categorical imperative, beamish.

      Delete
    19. ..and since few people could suffer such injuries and merely "turn the other cheek"... few people follow the categorical imperative. The Amish may be an exception.

      Delete
    20. Now as Berlin hinted, governments can "legislate actions" which are immoral according to the categorical imperative (ala abortion or slavery). Such actions trick citizens into trading the universal categorical moral imperatives/ responsibilities for the legality of the government's subjective "ends". This is what is meant by the need for "moral citizens" with responsibilities for their own actions... a "morality".

      Delete
    21. (((Thought Criminal)))July 12, 2022 at 7:15:00 AM CDT

      There may well be a categorical imperative. But it's no match for the splattergorical imperative that says Kant will give up his wallet before he gives up his life and his wallet gets taken anyway. ;)

      (Yes, I do subscribe to Kantian metaphysics to some degree. I'm just playing Devil's advocate here)

      Delete
    22. This is similar to the argument with RJW last week over the "legality" or "legitimacy". Legality comes from the State. Legitimacy from a moral code (metaphysical).

      Delete
    23. State granted rights vs unalienable rights.

      Delete
    24. A "higher authority". A "Big Other."

      Delete
    25. Something to rule the "linguistic" symbolic.

      Delete
    26. A right brain hemisphere that calculates and reasons the All vs a left brain hemisphere that reasons the One. For as Plato said in Parmenides, "If One is not, the nothing is." ;)

      Delete
    27. (((Thought Criminal)))July 12, 2022 at 7:30:00 AM CDT

      "To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's." - Fyodor Dostoevsky, from Crime and Punishment

      Delete
    28. What are the "ends" we can expect our government to fulfill? Those of the Preamble to the Constitution. For all "other" ends, we need "moral citizens"... immoral only in those actions for which responsibility has been granted the State by the Constitution (our "social contract"). Like to "punish" and "use force"..

      Delete
    29. ...and even in those "exceptions", we can hold ourselves to a "higher standard".

      Delete
    30. ...and pray for jury nullification. :)

      Delete
    31. (((Thought Criminal)))July 12, 2022 at 7:52:00 AM CDT

      Dr. Pepper time is 10, 2, and 4.

      Reserve your 10th Amendment rights to use your 2nd Amendment rights to defend your 4th Amendment rights ;)

      Delete
    32. Farmer, good points all. And believe it or not, I actually suffered through listening to Kent's prolagomina to further metaphysics.

      I agree with his categorical imperative.

      None of this negates the fact that there are and can be and have been throughout history many different systems of morality. My comment made no judgment on what our good ones and what our crappy ones. As I've already said, I subscribe to Christian morality

      Also, the person who made the comment at the head of this thread made an excellent observation. He or she pointed out an example of a secular humanist society that does pretty doggone good from a moral standpoint in many aspects.

      Delete
    33. The USSR was one. I wouldn't tout its' record to ardently. George Kennan was, on its basis, able to anticipate it's imminent collapse.

      Delete
    34. PS - We should revisit this example in a few years... As of 2020, the percentage inhabitants with a foreign background in Sweden had risen to 25.9%. In 2020, population growth in Sweden was primarily driven by people with a foreign background, 98.8% (51,073 people) and persons with a Swedish background accounted for 1.2% (633 persons) of the population increase.

      It's becoming a new country, with a vastly different "morality" entirely.

      Delete
    35. Who ever you are Anonymous my logic is sound though I do differ with yours immensly. Full stop ...

      Delete
    36. @Elizabeth - I'm not sure what 'full stop' means...not open to discussion maybe?

      I'm still interested why you don't support religious freedom [not selective], especially for those serving in our Armed Forces.

      Delete
    37. Farmer,

      I think it's pretty obvious, all moralities are not equal.

      Delete
    38. Again, Kant's Categorical Imperatives is the Gold Standard by which they can be measured (at least in Western nations).

      Delete
    39. ...given "liberty" as the moral imperative sine qua non.

      Delete
  11. BAYSIDER

    BA-RUTH'-ER!

    How to remember which pronoun to use next time? Does "it" look like a man or a woman. Done!

    So, she's "taken aback" by the comment that making ME call YOU something other than what I perceive you to be infringes on my rights. Really? Taken aback? Do these people lack ALL 2nd stage thinking skills? Or maybe 1st stage ones too. Her response "it's not about you at all. It's about respect." Agree. So why can't you "respect" my choices or - ultimately - God's or "nature's" design? The dufuss's answer comparing it to mispronouncing his name is risible. It hardly rises to the level of an answer beyond "and so your point is ...?".

    Just another way to sow dissension among the ranks. We're way beyond dropping propaganda leaflets from airplanes now. Far more destructive. Seems elections have consequences.

    BTW, if you present as a girl, look like one, talk (and walk - often a giveaway) like one there is no issue IMHO. If you don't, and insist on creating cognitive dissonance in others - well, eff off.

    Since we're in the navy, here's a Marine's war story: "Our company Gunny secured a Winchester trench gun somewhere, somehow and carried it throughout the 26-day battle. ... [He - I'm sure, HE] used it to good effect within the urban environment where encounters with NVA stragglers and infiltrators were frequent, close and, briefly, violent. Gunny Thomas also raised an American flag in front of the Thu'a Thien province headquarters in Hue. When diplomats sent word that we must take the flag down, lest it offend someone, the reply was, "This is what we do (Iwo Jima). Come take it down yourselves." The flag remained."

    Test:
    What effect do you think this 'training' video would have on the Marines who carried out this mission?
    How would it make them more combat worthy?

    Hint: Does the phrase "come take it down yourselves" help inform your answer?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Heh. I have enormous admiration for the history and tradition of the Marine Corps. I served six years in diesel submarines, 1950s and 60s, and many times took Marines on training cruises. To add to my respect, I developed a deep affection for these fine men.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

!--BLOCKING--