White Supremacists in the Military

mooray said:

That guy is literally asking people to look the other way.

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

It is pretty telling that he is so defensive towards the people trying to make sure that our military members are prepared if they are attacked while they are online, and know how to spot someone trying to radicalize them.

Click to expand...

Speaking to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace, an Army veteran who infiltrated the Three Percenters militia described what he uncovered.

Kristofer Goldsmith, CEO of Sparverius, said that his goal has been to make militia groups "so paranoid that they can't function."

"So, after the election, I was doing things that some other veterans were doing and joining these extremist organizations," said Goldsmith. "Now I was joining them because I wanted to know what they were planning. And I joined the Three Percenters. During the screening, using basically my real profile as an Iraq veteran as background, they're asking me questions about my weapon system, my secondary, meaning my handgun, how I was prepared to use it. What I would do in different tactical scenarios. They specifically asked, and I made recordings because these people are idiots, they were explicitly asking would you kill someone from Antifa or Black Lives Matter. This wasn't an anomaly."

When Goldsmith joined the group, he sought out the Georgia chapter, which he explained was, at one time, the largest and most active militia in the United States.

He recalled another session that he recorded where they asked Goldsmith what his "threat intelligence reports look like in November and ahead of Jan. 6." He said that he's seen that people like Alex Jones have been called into Congress, but he hasn't seen people like Nick Fuentes and the America First PAC, "who were literally riding in an armored fake Humvee all around the country and practicing these insurrections at state capitals trying to intimidate members of those local legislators and governors to overturn the election."

Jan. 6 didn't come out of nowhere, he explained, it was planned in the open. Some actions were plotted on Facebook before they were kicked off.

"My goal and organizations like We the Veterans and Veterans for American Ideals of Human Rights are to knock these people off-center," Goldsmith continued. "They have gone unopposed for years. They've been talking about the violence out in the open, and nobody's done anything. Well, now it's time to engage these people, and you know, I'm not going to go out in the street with a weapon dressing like I did in Iraq, because I'm not an idiot. I can do all this from my home and other veterans who are interested, I would encourage them to do the same. What we want to do is make these groups so paranoid that they can't function."

Wallace was surprised that law enforcement isn't among those working to bring down these militia groups. Goldsmith explained that law enforcement officials are living in a fantasy land, pretending that militias that want to bring down the government have a First Amendment right to do so.

"They have been basically made afraid," Goldsmith said of the law enforcement. "And especially with the Trump administration and Bill Barr's Department of Justice. Law enforcement was afraid to watch these folks like I did. I'm not a law enforcement official. I can go and buddy up to these people online. Make a fake profile, a fake gab account. and just copy and paste their rhetoric. So, they think I'm one of them then you know, a few days go by of silence and the next thing you know, there are conversations that I recorded."

Click to expand...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Warning that extremism in the ranks is increasing, Pentagon officials are issuing detailed new rules prohibiting service members from actively engaging in extremist activities. The new guidelines come nearly a year after some current and former service members participated in the riot at the U.S. Capitol, triggering a broad department review.

Senior defense officials tell The Associated Press that fewer than 100 military members are known to have been involved in substantiated cases of extremist activity in the past year, but they warn that the number may grow given recent spikes in domestic violent extremism, particularly among veterans.

Officials said the new policy doesn’t largely change what is prohibited, but is more of an effort to make sure troops are clear on what they can and can’t do, while still protecting their First Amendment free speech rights. And for the first time, it is far more specific about social media.

The new policy lays out in detail the banned activities, which range from advocating terrorism or supporting the overthrow of the government to fundraising or rallying on behalf of an extremist group or “liking” or reposting extremist views on social media. The rules also specify that commanders must determine two things in order for someone to be held accountable: that the action was an extremist activity, as defined in the rules, and that the service member “actively participated” in that prohibited activity.

Previous policies banned extremist activities but didn’t go into such great detail, and also did not specify the two step process to determine someone accountable.

What was wrong yesterday is still wrong today, said one senior defense official. But several officials said that as a study group spoke with service members this year they found that many wanted clearer definitions of what was not allowed. The officials spoke about the new rules on condition of anonymity because they have not yet been made public.

The military has long been aware of small numbers of white supremacists and other extremists among the troops. But Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other leaders launched a broader campaign to root out extremism in the force after it became clear that military veterans and some current service members were present at the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The risk of extremism in the military can be more dangerous because many service members have access to classified information about sensitive military operations or other national security information that could help adversaries. And extremist groups routinely recruit former and current service members because of their familiarity with weapons and combat tactics.

Officials said that while the substantiated cases may be small, compared to the size of the military, which includes more than 2 million active duty and reserve troops. The number appears to be an increase over previous years where the totals were in the low two-digits. But they also noted that data has not been consistent so it is difficult to identify trends.

The new rules do not provide a list of extremist organizations. Instead, it is up to commanders to determine if a service member is actively conducting extremist activities based on the definitions, rather than on a list of groups that may be constantly changing, officials said.

The regulations lay out six broad groups of extremist activities, and then provide 14 different definitions that constitute active participation.

Soon after taking office, Austin ordered military leaders to schedule a so-called “stand-down” day and spend time talking to their troops about extremism in the ranks.

The new rules apply to all of the military services, including the Coast Guard, which in peacetime is part of the Department of Homeland Security. They were developed through recommendations from the Countering Extremist Activities Working Group. And they make the distinction, for example, that troops may possess extremist materials, but they can’t attempt to distribute them, and while they can observe an extremist rally, they can’t participate, fund or support one.

The rules, said the officials, focus on behavior not ideology. So service members have whatever political, religious or other beliefs that they want, but their actions and behavior are governed.

In addition to the new rules, the Pentagon is expanding its screening for recruits to include a deeper look at potential extremist activities. Some activities may not totally prevent someone from joining the military, but require a closer look at the applicant.

The department also is expanding education and training for current military members, and more specifically for those leaving the service who may be suddenly subject to recruitment by extremist organizations.

More than 650 people have been charged in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, including dozens of veterans and about a half dozen active duty service members. Among them — an Army reservist who wore a Hitler mustache to his job at a Navy base.

Some of the rioters facing the most serious charges, including members of far-right extremist groups, have military backgrounds. In several of the prosecution cases already, the Justice Department has cited a rioter’s military service as a factor weighing in favor of a jail sentence or house arrest. Prosecutors have repeatedly maintained that veterans’ service, while commendable, made their actions on Jan. 6 more egregious.

Click to expand...

One year after the Capitol insurrection, the highest-ranking active-duty military officer charged in the attack continues to serve as a major in the Marines.

Christopher John Warnagiris, who's accused of assaulting police and using his body to hold open doors that allowed other insurrectionists to enter the Capitol, is stationed at the Marine base in Quantico, Virginia, where is assigned to the training and education command.

A Marine Corps spokesperson told The Intercept this week that a hearing was held at Quantico in the fall of 2021 to determine whether Warnagiris should be allowed to remain in the Marines.

READ MORE: Merrick Garland's approach to prosecuting January 6th has underappreciated strengths -- if he stays true to his vision

“The members of the board, by majority vote and by a preponderance of evidence standard, made recommendations to the Commanding General, Training and Education Command,” the spokesperson said.
“The Commanding General, Training and Education Command, reviewed the recommendations of the board and matters submitted by Maj. Warnagiris before making a recommendation to the Secretary of the Navy. No further information can be released at this time.”

While Warnagiris awaits his fate in the Marines and in federal court, where his criminal case is also pending, the Intercept revealed a possible motivation for his role in the attack.

As a senior at St. John’s College, Warnagiris' yearlong capstone writing project was titled “Reason at all Cost: The Defining Human Quality in Epictetus’ Discourses," according to the school's 2002 commencement pamphlet.

"I don’t know what Warnagiris wrote about Epictetus, or whether the philosopher has continued to impact his thinking, but in the years since Warnagiris graduated from college, Epictetus, a relatively obscure Stoic philosopher who lived 2,000 years ago, has become a surprise rock star in the strange world of the alt-right," the Intercept's James Risenreports. "The alt-right has laid claim to Epictetus and a select group of Stoics and other ancient thinkers to underscore their view that they are the defenders of a traditional, white-male dominated Western civilization that is under siege today from the left."

The alt-right's embrace of Epictetus and Stoicism is odd given that the philosophers "advocated for a rational life in which each person accepted that they could only control themselves and their own emotions and behavior, not the external world," according to Risen. Nevertheless, Epictetus' “Enchiridion" is among the “recommended texts on the Red Pill subreddit," according to classics scholar Donna Zuckerberg.

Risen concludes that the alt-right has adopted Epictetus because they believe he reflects the "masculine ideal" of controlling one's emotions and directing energy into action.

"It is as if the alt-right sees Epictetus as an ancient version of Gary Cooper’s character in 'High Noon,' the quiet marshal who stands alone against the bad guys, or Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne, the stern amnesiac who finally remembers who he is and tries to fight against evil forces inside the CIA," Risen writes, adding that while "this fan-boy approach ... may seem laughable," it's also "a symptom of something deeper and more dangerous."

"A belief that they are the guardians of Western civilization against the advancing left-wing hordes seems to tie together both alt-right provocateurs and other conservative intellectuals, and they all now seem to be converging at the extreme edge of the political spectrum," Risen writes. "And this widely held fear of the looming loss of Western civilization seems to be leading many conservatives to believe that overthrowing American democracy may be necessary to save the country."

Read the full story.

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-riot-arrests-2656247455/?cx_testId=6&cx_testVariant=cx_undefined&cx_artPos=1#cxrecs_sView attachment 5061727

Click to expand...

I don’t follow what every Democrat says. No one can. There’s no way for me to know whether the tenor and tone of their collective rhetoric changed last week. But it felt like it got stronger, sharper and angrier.

Consider Brian Schatz.

The Hawaii Senator took to the Senate floor to scorch his colleague Josh Hawley of Missouri, who’s been holding up appointments to the Department of Defense that are necessary to America’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Before he signs off, he said, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin must resign for his “failures” in Afghanistan.

Schatz said that’s rich coming from a guy who raised his fist in solidarity with the J6 insurrectionists and who voted to acquit the former president for the high crime of extorting Ukraine’s president.

“This comes from a guy who before the Russian invasion suggested that maybe it would be wise for [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy to make a few concessions about Ukraine and their willingness to join NATO.”

He added:

“They withheld lethal aid until, unless Zelenskyy released false smears against Joe Biden's son. Then [Hawley] voted to exonerate President Trump for this. So spare me the new solidarity with the Ukrainians and with the free world, because this man's record is exactly the opposite.”

His tirade amazed those of us longing for the Democrats to take a strong stand against the Republican Party’s lies and bad faith. Perhaps we’ll see more now that Greg Sargent put a brighter light on it.

The Post columnist interviewed Brian Schatz on Friday. “Democrats need to make more noise,” the Senator conceded. “We have to scream from the rooftops because this is a battle for the free world now.”

Let’s not forget what Schatz said, however.

He said Hawley is “doing a very specific thing.”

“He is damaging the Department of Defense.”

So far, Schatz is the only Democrat seeing what needs seeing.

Though he says he’s outraged by the US pullout from Afghanistan, Josh Hawley is also attacking, directly, the military leadership itself. (He won’t move on appointments until the secretary of defense resigns.)

Demanding Austin’s resignation is not a “reasonable request,” Schatz said. It can’t be. The point is sabotaging civilian control of the military.

You read that right.

The point is cleaving the ranks. The point is to create conditions in which military personnel feel inspired to take action that’s favorable to the Republicans’ (perhaps the former president’s) return to power.

They are picking up where the J6 insurrection left off. But next time, it won’t be a mob of schlubs. It will be an army of highly-trained insurgents bent on restoring whiteness to the center of the republic.

At gunpoint.

Everyone should see what Schatz sees.

So I interviewed Fred Wellman, founder of Beer Hall Project and a 20-year Army veteran who served when Secretary Austin was General Austin. I called Fred after US Rep. Matt Gaetz failed to humiliate the secretary in testimony before the House Arms Services Committee.

Fred said: “A standing army can’t be a tool of a political party. Under the Trump years, it became more partisan. Now Matt Gaetz and his peers in the Republican Party are directly undermining the apolitical and nonpolitical nature of the military by dividing troops from leaders.”

Matt Gaetz and US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Thoughts?

My main frustration has always been with the “performance wing” of the Republican Party. They don’t want to govern. They want to act.

In this case, Matt Gaetz tried convincing people that “wokeism,” or trying to get a more diverse American military force, is hurting our ability to fight wars. It shows how monumentally stupid he is.

He's dragging culture wars into national defense. That he does so while sitting on the House Armed Service Committee is outrageous.

It’s a committee responsible for oversight of the men and women in uniform, but it’s oversight partially provided by someone as monumentally asinine as Matt Gaetz – that’s just disgusting to me.

Good point. When a country sends people overseas, the presumption should be that leaders will take that responsibility deadly seriously. Deadly serious responsibility is the opposite of Matt Gaetz.

I'm a 20-year Army veteran. I rose through the ranks to be a lieutenant colonel. I retired after Desert Storm and three Iraq tours. I’m the son of a World War II Marine veteran. My son is an Army veteran. My son-in-law continues to serve in the National Guard.

But not everybody can serve.

Less than 7 percent of our nation is veterans. Less than 1 percent serve at all. Less than one-third of the eligible population is capable of serving. I'm talking about fitness, criminal record, mental health, etc. This is the reality of maintaining and growing an all-volunteer force.

That's the point of trying to increase the diversity of the officer corps. That's the point of trying to increase the diversity of the pilot corps. That's the point of welcoming all races and creeds. As Secretary Austin said, anybody who's eligible, who has the capability to serve, should be welcomed even if they're non-binary, gay, straight, whatever.

If they're capable of serving, of meeting the physical and mental requirements we need in our military, we've got to open our arms.

There are just not enough white dudes left.

When you have someone like the Florida congressman directly attacking that, that turns away possible recruits. Gaetz is literally undermining those who serve and who may serve in the future.

Sounds like you’re angry?

I am angry.

The Matt Gaetzs and Marsha Blackburns of the world are openly undermining good order and military discipline with a culture war for political effect. A representative sitting on the Armed Services Committee should understand the challenges of an all-volunteer force.

Civilian oversight of the military matters even though those civilians may never have served, may not have been qualified to serve. People like me, people like Secretary Austin – we understand that. Someone who rose to the rank of four-star understands he’s going to answer to some 25-year-old kid on the Armed Services Committee.

That's the nature of it.

But what frustrates me is the lack of respect for the office and a lack of respect for the military as an apolitical and non-political entity.

One of the biggest fears of our founding fathers was a standing army. They didn't want one and that undermined efforts early on in the republic because of rebellions. We had no army to address them.

Even Washington was like, man, we need an army.

A standing army can’t be a tool of a political party. Under the Trump years, it became more partisan. Now Matt Gaetz and his peers in the Republican Party are directly undermining the apolitical and nonpolitical nature of the military by dividing troops from leaders.

The troops love Trump, they believe, but the troops are being failed by “woke” leaders. Where the fuck do you think the leaders are? You don't just magically make a general. Secretary Austin started as a fucking second lieutenant. He rose through the ranks. This is dangerous.

I do not say this lightly.

This is incredibly dangerous.

They attack the military leadership as “woke” because they're trying to cause a break in the ranks. They're literally undermining good order and military discipline deliberately to break the chain of command.

I've never seen that in my lifetime.

You’re describing national security risk. Is that overstating it?

No, I don't think so.

The very nature of our republic relies on an apolitical military every American knows serves them, no matter their race, creed, religion, color, region, political party, whatever. Our republic depends on everyone knowing a standing army is not a threat to the country.

Many in the Republican Party are super-fans of Putin, let's be honest. They're having CPAC in Hungary, for God's sake, a country led by a rightwing dictator, a Putin fan. Imagine a scenario in which they’re in power and we can't fight because they’ve undermined the military.

It's terrifying to think where this could go.

I've seen reports of white nationalism gaining traction in the ranks of the military. There's an effort from above to deal with that.

I learned in military science 101 at West Point that an all-volunteer force is a direct reflection of our society. You raised your children for 18 years before they get into the military. I give them 12 weeks of basic training. That won’t overcome 18 years of raising them as racists.

All I can do is ensure they don't act on those beliefs and undermine good order and military discipline. If they do behave inappropriately, we use the separate military system to discipline them appropriately and remove them from the military as they're no longer a threat.

But we do know white nationalist and patriot front-type groups have been actively sending “their troops,” if you will, into the military for military training. Right-wing nationalist groups are infiltrating the ranks and recruiting veterans after they get out of the military.

At one point, 10 percent of J6 cases were United States military and veterans. One of them is an active-duty Marine Corps major!

How horrifying that is.

Click to expand...

Hiphophippo said:

Neo nazi paramilitary groups have existed since the late forties nothing new and where created by ww2 vets. Let’s not forget we didn’t enter the war to defend Jews from nazi atrocities we entered to defend our homeland. Anti Semitic behavior and beliefs where just as rampant in America as they where in Europe at the time the only difference was our actions and views on how to approach our indifferences. And let’s also not forget that the nazi atrocities where not known worldwide until the fifties and where not even excepted by the general public as true until the late 60s. Neo nazi paramilitary groups either in their own militia or our own military or police forces is something you’ll never be able to weed out 100%. It’s a shame that our hate has spread the way it has and we haven’t learned from our past.

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

I agree it won't be removed completely. I just really hope that we are able to choke it out to the point that it is no longer in wide spread leadership roles. People like Flynn being able to make it to a general should show how much better we need to be.

Click to expand...

The U.S. military is under assault, as I noted recently, from MAGA extremists who seek to harness it to carry out their malign agenda — and who disparage anyone who stands in their way as a “woke loser.” This is arguably the most dangerous civil-military challenge since the heyday of McCarthyism in the 1950s. The military is rightly eager to stay out of politics, but this laudable instinct can lead it to run away from controversy even at the cost of ceding the information battlefield to the far-right forces trying to subvert American democracy.

The treatment of Maj. Gen. Patrick J. Donahoe is a case in point. Until recently, this combat veteran was commander of the Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning in Georgia, home of the Army’s infantry and armor schools. Now, his retirement is being held up while Army leadership considers how to respond to an inspector general’s investigation that concluded that he had “failed to display Army values and core leader competencies.” (I obtained a copy of the inspector general’s report, which has not been publicly released. Neither the Army public affairs office nor Donahoe responded to my repeated requests for comment.)

What did Donahoe do wrong? Ironically, his only offense was to champion on social media the very values the Army claims to stand for. Having a senior officer defend the Army’s policies should not be seen as improper involvement in politics — but that is how it is being portrayed, not just by the Army’s right-wing critics but also by the Army’s own inspector general.

It all began in March 2021 when Fox “News” host Tucker Carlson expressed outrage over Air Force plans to develop a maternity flight suit. “It’s a mockery of the U.S. military,” huffed Carlson at the time, arguing that while “China’s military becomes more masculine,” ours becomes “more feminine.” In reply, Donahoe posted on Twitter a video of himself conducting a reenlistment ceremony for a female soldier. “Just a reminder,” he wrote, “that @TuckerCarlson couldn’t be more wrong.”

Donahoe’s retort earned the ire of the MAGA right. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who had compared the “emasculated” U.S. military unfavorably with the supposedly more macho Russian army, sent a letter of complaint to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, falsely accusing Donahoe and other officers who defended the role of women in the military of expressing partisan political views.

A few months later, in July 2021, Donahoe clashed again with the MAGA right after he posted a message encouraging all soldiers, as per Defense Department policy, to get vaccinated against covid-19. Josiah Lippincott, a Marine veteran turned graduate student at conservative Hillsdale College, attacked Donahoe on Twitter. (Lippincott is now banned from the platform, apparently for writing that Kenosha, Wis., shooter Kyle Rittenhouse “did nothing wrong.”) Lippincott wrote that “the lockdowns, liberty restrictions, quarantines and general disruption of servicemember’s lives is a way bigger killer than the virus.” (In fact, vaccines allow soldiers to safely resume their normal lives.) Donahoe engaged in a brief online debate with Lippincott, culminating in a frustrated tweet: “Hey, @Hillsdale, come get your boy.”

Fox News host Laura Ingraham, a notorious anti-vaxxer, claimed that Donahoe’s tweet was an example of “high-level intimidation campaigns being used at the top of our military.” Far from being intimidated, however, Lippincott appeared on Ingraham’s show to accuse Donahoe of “spouting MSNBC talking points” and being one of the “woke losers who love cancel culture and can’t see reality.”

Rather than defend Donahoe, the Army might censure him. In the judgment of the Army inspector general, Donahoe’s criticism of Carlson “exhibited poor judgment,” “drew national attention for [Major General] Donahoe and did not reflect an Army culture of dignity and respect.”
Donahoe’s exchange with Lippincott, the inspector general decided, “was unwise and had the potential to bring discredit on the Army. His use of sarcasm and ‘snarky’ tweets to private citizens was in poor taste, clearly displayed poor judgment, and ran counter to Army values.”

Donahoe’s third offense, in the eyes of the inspector general, was to offer encouragement to a junior female officer under his command who had
been subject to vile, misogynistic attacks on Twitter. One user even wrote, after a picture of her was posted, that she needed to “get raped.”
Donahoe came to her defense on Twitter, writing that this officer “looks like a tanker.” He then had a brief, innocuous exchange with her on
Twitter for all to see. The inspector general claimed that his tweets, in reaching out directly to a junior subordinate, “violated the cadre-student relationship” and “reflected poor judgment.”

Some infractions. You can argue that Donahoe shouldn’t have engaged in a back and forth with a random MAGA troll about vaccines, and that he shouldn’t have been so snarky. (In fact, he told the inspector general he regretted it.) But he did not write anything remotely offensive or improper. He was simply defending Army policies on inclusivity and vaccines — policies that are anathema to the MAGA right.

Retired Army Col. Yegveny Vindman complained on Twitter that the Army and the Defense Department “are lost,” “fear the right” and “are losing their moral compass” because they want to punish “the ‘Woke’ general” for standing up to Fox News. It’s a harsh indictment, but one that deserves serious attention considering the source.

Both Yevgeny Vindman and his twin brother, retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, were fired in 2020 from the National Security Council and effectively driven out of the Army after Alexander courageously and honestly testified about President Donald Trump’s attempts to blackmail Ukraine into helping him politically. “Whenever you get ‘politicized,’ even if it’s in support of Army or Department of Defense values, it’s a death knell to your career,” Yevgeny told me.

I understand where the Army is coming from: It desperately wants to avoid being dragged into the political muck. But the military cannot afford to ignore dishonest and cynical attacks against its professionalism. If Donahoe is now disciplined for his tweets, it will send a chilling message to the entire Army not to call out MAGA lies. And that, in turn, will enable the real threat to “Army values” — the one posed by Trump and his followers — to metastasize.

Click to expand...

Hiphophippo said:

You should remain apolitical during times of service your loyalty is to the constitution and the American people not a political party or agenda. Calling out radical extremist should be praised not assaulted

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

That's a nice sentiment but how long would a Private or Corporal last if he said, "I'm sorry sir, I can't go to X to fight for oil etc. since Congress hasn't declared war on that country and I'm going to refuse your unlawful order". Most of them suffer from a lack of brains or balls or both to do that.

Given that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq and billions (trillions) of dollars can't be accounted for in the Pentagon budget it's not a stretch to say soldiers are pretty fucking obedient and do jack shit about "upholding the Constitution". Same goes for cops.

Calling out brainless cannon fodder should be praised. I may begin to say "thank you for your servitude" and offer a handshake when I see uniformed storm troopers and cops to see if any can even get that I'm calling them brain dead lackeys and not humping their leg like some kind of mindless flag waving dolt.

I'd bet there are white supremacists in the military, but that's a problem that's second to the blind obedience running rampant.

Click to expand...