According to a number of reports, President-elect Donald Trump will be creating a commission to review leaders in the military with the assumption that many of the top brass will be fired.

Trump will be using a “warrior board” of retired officers, The Hill reported, to review our current crop of three- and four-star officers and will weed out the ones the commission disapproves of.

That’s not all.

Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth—an Army veteran who has been awarded two Bronze Stars, and who served in Iraq and Afghanistan—said in past interviews that it’s necessary to remove “woke” senior military officials who have left the U.S. armed forces in a sorry state.

“First of all, you’ve got to fire [the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and obviously you’ve got to bring in a new secretary of defense, but any general that was involved—general, admiral, whatever—that was involved in any of the DEI woke s—, has got to go,” Hegseth said in an early November interview on “The Shawn Ryan Show” podcast. DEI is shorthand for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Pete Hegseth is ready for day one as Defense Secretary.

'All the woke Generals must be fired immediately.'pic.twitter.com/ai9cqoImj4

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) November 13, 2024

Trump and Hegseth—the author of “The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free” and “Modern Warriors: Real Stories from Real Heroes”—clearly intend to shake up the military at the top.

The Left, however, isn’t taking it well.

Legacy media is reporting on that development as if it’s some kind of ominous sign that Trump will “politicize” the military. They are even calling it a “purge.”

One left-wing podcaster, Fred Wellman, who includes “democracy advocate” in his X bio, even posted that removing generals is “truly fascist.”

This is truly fascist. The idea is they'll review and fire generals is chilling beyond measure and will damage our military for a generation. You don't make generals overnight. It takes decades. The good ones will leave early instead of waiting to be destroyed. (gift)…

— Fred Wellman (@FPWellman) November 12, 2024

Ah, yes, civilian control of the military, so fascist.

For a quick history lesson, a president’s removal of generals and other high-ranking military leaders—especially after years of relative “peace”—has often been a significant boon, not a hindrance, to the military.

Peacetime militaries—and I only use that phrase loosely to refer to our own era of near-constant, low-level asymmetrical conflicts—frequently calcify. Leaders who successfully navigate the bureaucratic treadmill to make it to the top ranks in those times are frequently not the best wartime leaders.

Militaries need to be shaken up from time to time.

In the War of 1812, many American military officers were holdovers from the American Revolution. Many had grown old and ineffective. The crucible of war allowed junior commanders like Winfield Scott to emerge as a brilliant young general who would prove instrumental in that war and future conflicts.

In the Civil War, there was a tremendous shake-up of the senior ranks on both sides.

Marginal officers like Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, who was almost entirely overlooked at the Virginia Military Institute, proved himself to be one of the most astoundingly gifted military commanders once he had a chance to prove himself in battle.

Abraham Lincoln suffered through far too many mediocrities at the top before finding war winners like Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. Almost none of the top commanders at the beginning of the war ended up in the same place by the war’s end.

Right now, the United States clearly needs a shake-up at the Pentagon in the worst way.

The world is in turmoil, thanks in no small part to the Biden administration, and we are closer to seeing an actual peer-to-peer conflict than perhaps at any point since World War II.

Yet, many on the Left are hyperventilating about the move. Why? It’s a pretty good sign that they know they’ve made serious inroads into military institutions that are historically traditional and conservative. They don’t want to lose their grip on the military, just as they fear losing control of any other institution they dominate.

The primary issue, beyond typical military calcification, is that our current military leadership appears to be filled with those who have floated to the top amid the general woke-ification of American society and government.

It’s not Trump who will be “politicizing” the military; it’s the military itself that has been politicized. DEI, critical race theory, and other radical ideologies have been force-fed into military institutions, and the Biden administration was only too happy to accelerate that transformation.

They justified DEI by saying that it would create a better, more cohesive military and deepen the pool of recruits. That was the same unproven, bogus argument corporate America made when it went whole hog on “diversity” to the point of climbing aboard the discrimination bandwagon.

But much like the corporate DEI push—which proved a financial liability, rather than a boon—the military DEI advocacy has failed to “succeed” by even the most basic measures.

Nearly every branch of the military now faces a historic recruitment crisis, not to mention a surge in worrisome incidents that suggest a decline in competence and warfighting capability.

To make matters worse—and this is why Trump’s shake-up is almost certainly necessary—the military has failed to hold anyone at the top accountable for notable failures on the international stage.

Those failures have significantly weakened this country’s prestige and credibility abroad.

Most notably was the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan. After that failure, nobody at the top got fired. The Biden administration and the military moved on, as if nothing had happened.

If we can’t handle our business against the Taliban, isn’t it worth questioning our ability to counter far greater potential adversaries, such as China?

To underscore the notion that the military has lost all accountability at the top, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin disappeared for nearly a week early this year to take care of a health issue before notifying the president.

If these are the sorts of “invaluable” leaders we may lose if Trump gets his way, it’s hard not to see the president-to-be’s “warrior board” as a net positive. This country should expect a lot better of its military.

This seems like an important moment for a “democratic” correction to a military that has seen a sharp decline in public trust.

Under Biden, the buck stopped nowhere. With Trump, maybe more capable leaders will have a chance to rise to the top and get our military back to focusing on preparedness and defending the American people.

Trump’s election victory was fueled partly by increased support from Hispanic and black men. Cuomo, on “The Chris Cuomo Project,” suggested voters cast their ballots for Trump over Harris based on “a gross violation of norms” that they find “unacceptable.”

WATCH:

“You are forcing new social norms on people in this country. ‘No, I’m not, we’re just doing what’s fair. Trans people have rights too.’ Yes, but if it’s communicated as if you must be forced to accept and be indoctrinated with ideas that you do not share — is that fair? ‘That’s not what we were doing.’ That’s how they felt you were treating them about it,” Cuomo said. “That’s the women in sports thing. It’s not that it happens a lot, like immigrant crime. It’s not that it happens a lot. It’s that the fact that it happens at all, to them, is a gross violation of norms and unacceptable. And you find it okay, and they believe that is wokeism run amok.”

“What is woke? They don’t even know what it is. Here’s what they believe it is, and it just won the presidential election,” he continued. “The economy won the presidential election, and concerns that all go under the umbrella of wokeism — which, to people who voted for Trump, is a set of ideas that messes with traditional values, but more importantly, new ideas that are being forced on them to make their own, even if they don’t agree.”

Cuomo asserted lenient immigration policies are an example of “wokeism” that voters rejected.

“We don’t have an open border, but it does meet that suggestion. And politics is about hyperbole. Politics is about persuasion. Politics is about using perception as a hedge against reality, and perception generally wins,” he said. “So when you undo what was working and allow people to flood through, you feed into the idea that you want it that way. And then you get the Great Replacement Theory and all this other bullshit. But it is an extension of what they see as wokeism.”

“Yes, it’s also national security. It’s also immigration on its own. But it is this exaggerated liberalism, this exaggerated laxity, this exaggerated relaxing of law and order for some other value system,” he added. “Trans is that. Censorship is that.”

Former MSNBC host Chris Matthews on Wednesday also criticized Democrats for their “open border” policy, arguing it made numerous voters “very angry” and contributed significantly to Harris’ defeat.

Moreover, Democratic strategist James Carville on Wednesday noted “the woke era” was a factor that hurt Democrats in this election.

“We got beyond it, but … the image stuck in people’s minds that the Democrats wanted to defund the police, that they wanted to empty prisons,” he said. “You know, the immigration stuff, obviously again a big mistake, but more importantly, it created to the perception of disorder.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

Entitled “True or False? The Science of Perception, Misinformation, and Disinformation,” the APA children’s book exists to “pre-bunk” the next generation from believing “conspiracy theories” about things like vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and government oppression as a response to a “pandemic.”

“This book explores how we think and perceive and why false beliefs, superstitions, opinions, misinformation, or wild guesses can just stick around and mess things up,” the book states.

“You’ll see how misunderstandings and misuse of scientific findings can lead people to the wrong conclusions. Readers learn how to outsmart their brain to gain critical thinking skills and find ways to identify and correct false beliefs and disinformation.”

(Related: Did you know that many state-employed psychological experts are distancing themselves from the APA and other corrupt medical associations due to the behavioral manipulation they pushed during Covid?)

Believing “disinformation” means your brain is “glitchy”

It is an undeniable fact that the human brain is the most advanced “supercomputer” in the universe. Science can barely explain how it works despite thousands of years’ worth of inquiry into determining how it works.

The APA recognizes that the human brain is an advanced wonder, however it argues that the human brain has problems that could cause some people to believe things that the establishment does not want them to believe.

“Our big brains are super-efficient but glitchy,” the book’s text states.

“Scientists estimate that 90% of what we see, hear, smell, or sense never really sinks in. Instead, we pick up on the big things, general impressions, or important stuff and end up leaving our brains to fill in the missing info. And on top of that, people sometimes twist information on purpose. False beliefs can be shared from person to person or go viral in a flash, often by people who think the info is true.”

According to the APA, two-time failed presidential wannabe Hilary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election not because she is a creep that nobody likes, but because of “disinformation.” Trump, in other words, did not legitimately win the election, the APA insists.

Children can still generally trust books, newspapers and certain “trusted news shows” because those are easily controlled by the powers that be (TPTB). Children should avoid the internet, however, because the APA says there is no “gatekeeping mechanism” in place to ensure that all information found there is “true.”

“It doesn’t have a way to fact-check information for accuracy before it is made available to the public,” the APA further insists about the internet. “This means a lot of what you read or see online or on social media might not be reliable. Or exactly true. And some people can take advantage of that to spread disinformation.”

One of the top dogs behind this APA brainwashing campaign aimed at children is Jacqueline B. Toner, a retired clinical psychologist based out of Maryland.

“This is the sub-species of human (loosely defined) that aspires to be the Gods of the Brave New World,” argues Ben Bartee of Armageddon Prose about Toner and her ilk.

“Since the American Psychological Association resorted to the use of drugging millions of kids for the purpose of controlling them, their credibility is zilch,” added one of Bartee’s readers to the conversation.

“Their tactics continue to resemble what the Soviets did to homosexuals, outcasts, dissidents, political prisoners etc. It’s unlikely that all of those drugged kids who are now adults will forget any time soon.”

Everything the deep state does not like is now regarded as “disinformation.” Find out more a Deception.news.

Sources for this article include:

• ArmageddonProse.substack.com
• NaturalNews.com
• Amazon.com

The woke position rests on a fundamental fallacy. This is that there is a fixed amount resources, so that if the rich have more, the poor have less. But this is wrong. Resources in the free market are not a fixed sum. So long as the economy is growing, everybody can benefit. The ‘protected’ can do better without taking away what the rich have earned. The economist Paul Rubin, who died last month, gives a good account of the fallacy: “Karl Marx called his system ‘scientific socialism’ Modern leftists advocate a similar ideology and call themselves ‘woke’ to indicate that they understand the world better than the rest of us. Yet the worldview of Marxists and woke leftists alike is fundamentally primitive.

Folk economics is the economics of people untrained in economics. It is the economic view of the world that evolved in our brains before the development of the modern economy. During this period of evolution, the economy was simple, with little specialization except by age and sex, no economic growth, no technological change, limited trade, little capital, and warfare between neighboring tribes.

Zero-sum thinking was well-adapted to this world. Since there was no economic growth, incomes and wealth didn’t grow. If one person had access to more food or other goods, or greater access to females, it was likely because of expropriation from others. Since there was little capital, a ‘labor theory of value’—the idea that all value is created by labor alone—would have been appropriate, and there was little need to protect capital through property rights. Frequent warfare encouraged xenophobia.

Adam Smith and other economists challenged this worldview in the 18th century. They taught that specialization of labor was valuable, that capital was productive, and that labor and capital could work together to increase income. They also showed that property rights needed protection, that members of other tribes or groups could cooperate through trade, that wealth could be created with the proper incentives, and that the creation of wealth would benefit everyone in a society, not only the wealthy. Most important, they showed that a complex economy could work with little or no central direction.

Marx’s economic system was based on the primitive worldview of our ancestors. For him, conflict rather than cooperation between labor and capital defined the economy. He thought that the wealthy became rich only by exploiting the poor, that all income came from labor, and that the economy needed central direction because he didn’t believe markets were good at self-correction. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the largest and most expensive social-science experiment ever conducted, proved Smith right and Marx wrong.

Members of the woke left want to return to policies based on this primitive economic thinking. One of their major errors is thinking that the world is zero-sum. That assumption drives identity politics, which sees, among other things, an intrinsic conflict between blacks and whites. The Black Lives Matter movement and Critical Race Theory foment racial antagonism and resurrect xenophobia. Leftists vilify ‘millionaires and billionaires’ like Bill Gates and Elon Musk as evil and exploitative. They should recognize them as productive entrepreneurs whose innovations benefit us all.

Dislike of the rich makes sense in a world where one can become rich only by exploiting others, but not in a society full of creativity and useful inventions. Changing tax laws to soak the rich makes sense with a labor theory of value, but not with a sophisticated understanding of continual investment and technological change.

Adopting counterproductive woke policies such as racial job quotas, high taxes, excessive regulation of business, and price controls on some goods may not send us all the way back to the subsistence economy of our ancestors. But if policies that penalize saving and investing and that involve excessive government control are adopted, social capital, wealth, and real income will decline. If we bow to this primitive ideology, there will be increased racial animosity and conflict, slow economic growth, and fewer inventions.”

You might raise an objection to this. Even if the economy is growing, and the minorities can gain without taking resources from the rich, why should they be satisfied with what they get? Can’t they demand more of the growing economic pie? The answer is that doing this will hurt them, not help them. The way in which the economy grows is by capital accumulation, and the great bulk of this takes place through the investments of the well off. Confiscation of the income and wealth of the wealthy will slow down or stop the rate of economic growth. This will make the “protected” worse off. The great Ludwig von Mises proposes a thought experiment that brings out this point vividly: “A law that prohibits any individual from accumulating more than ten million or from making more than one million a year restricts the activities of precisely those entrepreneurs who are most successful in filling the wants of consumers. If such a law had been enacted in the United States fifty years ago, many who are multimillionaires today would live in more modest circumstances. But all those new branches of industry which supply the masses with articles unheard of before would operate, if at all, on a much smaller scale, and their products would be beyond the reach of the common man. It is manifestly contrary to the interest of the consumers to prevent the most efficient entrepreneurs from expanding the sphere of their activities up to the limit to which the public approves of their conduct of business by buying their products.”

There is another way in which the woke movement undermines our economy, and this may be the most serious one of all. The conjuring up of grievances encourages blacks to hate whites. Being white is regarded by many left-wing revolutionaries as evil, and murderous violence will result from this.  As the great black economist Thomas Sowell points out: “Although much of the media have their antennae out to pick up anything that might be construed as racism against blacks, they resolutely ignore even the most blatant racism by blacks against others.

That includes a pattern of violent attacks on whites in public places in Chicago, Denver, New York, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Kansas City, as well as blacks in schools beating up Asian classmates – for years – in New York and Philadelphia.

These attacks have been accompanied by explicitly racist statements by the attackers, so it is not a question of having to figure out what the motivation is. There has also been rioting and looting by these young hoodlums.”

Let’s do everything we can to counter the woke plot to destroy our economy and to encourage the free market economic policies of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. That is the way to a prosperous economy in which all groups can live in harmony.

About the Author

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Against the State and Against the Left. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

On the cultural side, DEI — Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion — has taken center stage as an important secondary issue with Democrats and Republicans squarely opposed. The fight to pull Independents and moderates to one side or the other has been ongoing for years and nobody has fought harder than Libs of TikTok to expose the leftist lunacy.

From men in women’s sports to discriminatory hiring practices to the insane promotion of “gender affirming care” in public schools, Libs of TikTok has continuously addressed the most visible issues. But one aspect of DEI has not received nearly enough attention from conservative media even as it continues to escalate.

On a recent 𝕏 post, she noted that “DEI and gender ideology are destroying our military.”

Kathleen H. Hicks, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, wants to make the military more "diverse and inclusive" so that Gen Z feels comfortable serving.

Kathleen expanded "access to care" for service members who identify as transgender.

Yesterday, Trump promised to end taxpayer… pic.twitter.com/unoEmvD57p

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 22, 2024

This cannot be understated. With the high potential for military conflict with at least four enemies on five distinct fronts, our nation has not been this threatened militarily since the Cold War. Moreover, not since the fall of the Soviet Union have our enemies’ military been so comparable to ours.

Instead of strengthening our military might, the leaders in DC are intentionally trying to destroy it. I discussed this on yesterday’s episode of The JD Rucker Show.

Among the alleged transgressions, Judge Rose has been accused of accusing the District Attorney’s office of targeting young black men and using a racial slur during a sidebar conversation. In response to these allegations, Rose’s attorneys have described her as “exceptionally remorseful” and claimed that her actions were an “extreme aberration” from her character.

The Louisiana Judiciary Commission has expressed deep concern over Judge Rose’s alleged succession of legal errors in criminal cases and her use of a racial slur, stating that these actions may pose a threat to the public and the administration of justice.

Judge Rose has acknowledged that she performed poorly in some of the cases in question, but has maintained that her actions were the result of unintentional mistakes and oversights rather than deliberate indifference or bad faith.

The investigation into Judge Rose’s conduct is ongoing, and her attorney, James Clary Jr., has stated that she will continue to cooperate fully with the investigation.

“We have nothing but respect for the Supreme Court’s processes and rules,” Clary said. “At the end of this, we want to be better.”

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision to suspend Judge Rose is a rare move, with the Court acknowledging that there is no direct precedent for such an action under similar circumstances. However, the Court has determined that the allegations against Judge Rose are serious enough to warrant her removal from the bench on an interim basis.

Judge Rose’s suspension will remain in effect until the investigation by the Louisiana Judiciary Commission is complete and a final decision is made regarding her conduct.

Article generated from corporate media reports.

Let us examine what occurred at the opening ceremonies.

Many observers were shocked to see the famous painting by Leonardo Da Vinci of the Last Supper of Jesus with his 12 apostles grossly mocked, depicted in a scene involving sexualized drag queens. Some advertisers were so repulsed by it – such as Mississippi’s largest telecommunications company C-Spire – that their advertisements were immediately pulled.

While the Olympic Committee issued an apology the next day about the depiction and removed their video of the event from the internet, its statement was somewhat shocking in itself. It claimed the depiction was not intended to “be subversive or shock people or mock people.” As much time as the committee had to prepare for the opening ceremonies and with Catholicism being the world’s largest religion, it is absurd to believe committee members gave no thought as to whether any offense would be taken by the depiction.

One can only imagine the violent fallout that would have resulted had Olympic organizers decided instead to portray the world’s second largest religion – Islam – in such a light by having Prophet Muhammad depicted by a drag queen. Obviously more thought was given as to why that should not be done, remembering the 12 staff members of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo who were killed in 2015 by Muslims upset about Muhammad’s depiction on its cover.

What progressives seem to lose sight of, however, is any call for societal balance. It is obvious that in a free society like the U.S. with a population of 330 million, it is impossible to achieve unanimity concerning an issue. But two reasonable rules exist that should be logically acceptable to all.

The first has been stated a bit differently for thousands of years and in many different cultures.

Whether it was written by the ancient Greek rhetorician Isocrates, or the influential Chinese philosopher Confucius, or Epicteus from the ancient School of Stoicism, it is also found in a multitude of holy books including the Talmud, the Koran and the Mahabharata. Its words of virtue are known as the Golden Rule. Its simple message tells us to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

In 2016, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, II (D-Missouri) took on the task of providing an historical perspective of the Golden Rule and encouraging compliance with it as a new Congress was seated.

Cleaver recognized, “The most significant building block necessary to develop a federal government that actually inspires peace and tolerance across our bifurcated country is the practice of the Golden Rule.” It is also a societal building block that calls for common sense ethics – i.e., the ethics of reciprocity.

For example, applying such ethics of reciprocity would encourage one who finds transgenderism unacceptable but who is asked to refer to another person by a preferred pronoun, different from such other’s biological gender, would do so out of a common sense of respect for that individual. (It is not unlike others honoring the First Lady’s request to be addressed as “Dr. Jill Biden.”)

However, this is where progressives lose sight of balance in failing to apply a second behavioral rule known as the rule of the Common Good.

It is contrary to the Common Good to mandate transgenders be accommodated to the point of discomforting an opposing biological sex member majority, allowing the former to share segregated facilities based on biological sex just because one has mentally shedded one’s own biological sex. In some cases, such as housing transgender females in women’s prisons, a serious and unnecessary risk to the biologically female majority population has been created.

Thus, application of the Golden Rule would have a transgender’s request – to use a preferred pronoun – being honored while application of the rule of the Common Good would have the transgender honoring the request of a member of a different biological gender for gender privacy.

What is so divisive in our society today is the wokeist effort to disrupt everything that makes common sense by imposing a progressive mindset that ignores the interests of the Common Good, assisted in this endeavor by a government content to allow the ensuing disruption to occur.

Implementing the Golden Rule and the rule of the Common Good jointly would work wonders towards establishing tolerance and mutual acceptance in society – a society that today is chaotic because wokeness ignores both rules.

Foregoing any attempt at eloquence, former President Donald Trump perhaps bluntly said it best with his observation about a basic reality of wokeism. He noted, “Everything woke turns to sh*t!”

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Elizabeth Jones, an employee for the California Department of State Hospitals (DSH), wrote an article for LifeSiteNews that explains what the forced indoctrination classes entail.

DSH employs about 13,000 people whose job it is to provide mental health services to around 6,500 patients at five state-run hospitals: Atascadero, Coalinga, Metropolitan (in Los Angeles County), Napa and Patton.

Jones spent about two hours clicking through a mandatory course within DSH called “DSH LGBTQ+ Training 2024” that instructs employees about what so-called “LGBTQ affirming care is, how to deliver it and why it matters.”

The beginning of the course features a psychologist and social worker at Napa State Hospital breaking down the difference between “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

“I was informed that ‘sexual orientations’ include ‘heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual and pansexual,'” Jones writes. “Pansexual, according to my notes, ‘means that the person’s sexual behavior and attraction is rooted in connection with the other person, rather than the gender the other person chooses to adopt’ – denying our bodily reality.”

“‘Gender identities,’ on the other hand, describe ‘the labels we put on ourselves regardless of our sexual orientation’ and include woman, man, ‘trans-man, trans-woman, cisgender, transgender, gender non-binary, gender fluid and gender queer,'” added Jones.

(Related: Far leftists in the state of California want parents who try to protect their children from LGBTQ+ perversion to be separated by force from their own families as punishment.)

LGBTQ+ is evil through and through

From there, the course delves into the so-called “gender unicorn” as presented by a social worker named David. The purpose of the unicorn is to illustrate even more made-up differences between concepts like “gender identity,” “gender expression,” “sex assigned at birth,” and “sexual and romantic orientation.”

For far leftists, everything is seen through the lens of sexual activity. All forms of love from familial to brotherly to the charity spoken of in the Bible that applies generally have been reduced by the Cult of LGBTQ+ into perverse sexual deviancy. As such, DSH created an entire course that effectively destroys all innocence and true love by brainwashing California mental health employees and the patients they see into perverting it all into some form of sexual deviancy and abuse.

The course features an additional layer of forced brainwashing in the form of quizzes that force employees to answer hypothetical questions and scenarios in the “correct” way as defined by the Cult of LGBTQ+.

“The patient’s legal name is Genisse Plant and records indicate that the patient was once in a sexual relationship with someone by the name of Patrick Gonzalez,” one quiz question begins. “What do we truly know about this person?”

The “correct answer” according to the Cult of LGBTQ+ is as follows: “We do not have enough information about Genisse’s gender identity or sexual orientation.”

The rest of the course includes an array of additional brainwashing concepts such as “social and systemic oppression of the LGBTQ+ community” and the “unrelenting stress” that LGBTQ+s feel whenever someone does not fully embrace and promote their mental illness.

In the comments, someone quoted the following from the great Russian writer and dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who warned long in advance of all this that: “The greatest mistake that Western societies make is in thinking that communism will never come to their shores.”

If We the People let them, far leftists will continue brainwashing the nation’s children into LGBTQ+ perversion, destroying their innocence and creating a dysfunctional society full of broken people. Learn more at Evil.news.

Sources for this article include:

• LifeSiteNews.com
• NaturalNews.com

Former Space Force Lieutenant Colonel Matt Lohmeier, who was relieved of command after he spoke out against DEI initiatives in the military in 2021 and says he lost his pension, told guest host Joey Jones on “Fox and Friends Saturday” that the academy “has diversity and inclusion cadet officers” who “report to a separate chain of command.” Jones had referred to an Arizona State University study that found service academies encourage reporting “private conversations that challenge DEI precepts,” asking Lohmeier if he had similar experiences.

“In fact, come to think of it, I did experience that. A fellow commander informed me that they’re aware of my kind of politics and that they’d be happy to turn me into the base commander if I continued to privately criticize our diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives,” he said. “But this problem has grown far beyond what I experienced, personally and professionally in the military workplace.”

“My own alma mater, the U.S. Air Force Academy, has diversity and inclusion cadet officers who wear a special insignia within their cadet squadrons, they wear purple braided rope over the shoulders and they report to a separate chain of command other than their military chain of command, relating to diversity and inclusion issues,” he continued. “It reminds one of Soviet political commissars that have been established both in the Soviet Union and in other Marxist revolutionary efforts throughout the last century.”

Lohmeier called DEI a “very dangerous, very divisive ideology” that is treated “like it is a protected religious worldview” that “others ought to step in line with and support in their words and actions, otherwise face consequences.”

The former commander spoke earlier in the segment about allegedly being fired over his concerns.

“Unfortunately for the American people and for all of the men and women in uniform, it’s been considered for a number of years now to be politically partisan to speak up against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives,” Lohmeier told Jones. “And of course, anyone who looks into this matter knows it shouldn’t necessarily be considered a partisan issue. I wasn’t interested in being politically partisan while I wore the uniform of the country and was in command of a space force unit, but of course, senior military leaders, especially under the current administration, decided that because of the climate of fear that we had created for ourselves they ought to treat my criticism of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives as partisan and, quote unquote, hold me accountable for speaking out against it.”

The Air Force Academy did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Featured Image Credit: Screenshot/Rumble/Fox News 

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

They posited numerous social and economic theories trying to explain why so many big budget bonanzas were losing money. They of course suggested that the covid event might have pushed people to adjust to streaming services as the better option. They noted that theaters can be more frustrating because of loud customers. They tried to apply some economic theories to the situation (these theories were overly simplistic and painful, but these guys aren’t economists so I gave them a pass).

However, when the concept of the culture war was briefly broached, they dismissed it immediately.

They acted as if it wasn’t a part of the equation at all; a mere fringe element of “click baiters” trying to make something out of nothing. The idea that people are boycotting Hollywood on principle was too much for these film critics to handle. And, I have to say, the level of delusion required to ignore the effects of the culture war is mind boggling to me. If you don’t understand the culture war, then you don’t understand a thing that’s happening in America (and many parts of Europe) today.

People Oblivious To The Importance Of The Culture War

I realize that there are people out there that refuse to engage in anything political. Some of them don’t like to involve themselves in conflict of any kind. Others see themselves as “above it all” and superior to anyone that spends time on politics, social issues or “conspiracy theories.” This seems more like a coping mechanism for those that don’t grasp the complicated nature of civil division.

Yes, it’s easier to turn a blind eye to what’s happening and pretend like the chaos is random, but the fact is that our civilization is changing and breaking apart rapidly and this is by design. EVERYONE will be affected by these conditions and consequences whether they believe in the culture war or not.

The world of film might be seen as frivolous to a lot of conservatives out there, but it has always fascinated me because it’s a perfect window into cultural conflicts. Film is supposed to be an expression of modern day mythology, but it can also be a look into ideological influences behind the curtain. It’s often used as a vehicle for establishment propaganda.

The utter failure of Disney’s efforts to force woke cultism into Star Wars is a good example. Their latest series, The Acolyte, is perhaps the worst performing Star Wars production of all time. The show has been described as “morally relative lesbian witches in space” and a DEI propaganda disaster.

The response from Disney and the media? Blame the audience, the consumers, instead of admitting they created a bad product that no one wants. They say you should want to watch it. If you don’t, then there’s something wrong with YOU.

The Communistic Erasure Of Consumer Choice

It’s not only about movies. Nearly every major corporation has engaged in woke warfare since around 2016 and they have been relentless in their mission to make far-left extremism the dominant ideology in the western world. Even to the point that they are willing to lose a massive portion of their customer base in the process (Bud Light is a great example of this).

The corporate insurgency against consumers is never more obvious than it is in June, unilaterally declared “Pride Month” by an army of international companies and non-profit organizations. Make no mistake, “Pride” is not a grassroots endeavor or a redress of grievances. The LGBT community has no legitimate grievances and they have the same exact rights under the law as everyone else. Pride month is not about equality, it’s about power and cultural control.

DEI is the same; a corporate effort to inject woke politics into daily life for workers as well as consumers until the rhetoric is so ingrained into everyone’s existence that they no longer question its legitimacy.

Almost no one asked for pride month. Almost no one asked for DEI. Most people just don’t care. Yet, every year for the past several years corporations and elements of government have foisted these ideas on the population and told us this is something we will have to embrace if we want to be considered “good people.”

It is this argument which I want to focus on – The idea that corporations are now dictating morality to the public as if they are the arbiters of our social norms.

Corporations Treating Consumers As Indentured Servants

At some point along the way (it’s hard to determine exactly when) corporations took on a new mantra, a new way of looking at business. These companies have always sought to influence people to buy products, often through dishonest and manipulative marketing. That’s not what I’m talking about.

In our new era corporations have decided that products no longer have to appeal to the buyers. They’re no longer beholden to the customer, the customer is beholden to them. In other words, if they put out a product with woke intent then the customer must buy that product and love it unconditionally or that customer is labeled an enemy.

This is a grotesque juxtaposition of the traditional business/consumer relationship. I have long argued that corporations are not free market entities but socialist constructs chartered and protected by governments. However, they used to at least care about making consumers happy so that they could make a profit and continue to function. This is no longer the case.

Today, corporations treat consumers as slaves on a plantation. They are to be told what to eat, what to drink, what to love, what to hate and what to think. Just look at what happens when consumers have push back against woke ideology or DEI in corporate marketing; in almost every case that company along with the establishment media ATTACK their customers as racists, bigots, misogynists or fascists.

They’ll argue that if a group of customers doesn’t like a product because of the political messaging, then they don’t want those people as customers. They proudly point those people to the door. Then, when their products fail and their sales implode, they once again blame the “bigots and racists.”

The Real Reason Why Corporations Don’t Care Anymore?

Of course, everyone’s first instinct would be to point out that these companies are self destructing. You can’t treat the majority of your buyers like contagious lepers and expect to continue bringing in profits. Eventually, these corporations will die. That said, I would like to suggest three alternative theories…

Theory #1: I have talked a lot in the past about ESG and how it failed as a tool for consolidating power. Globalists, through groups like the Council For Inclusive Capitalism, thought they could unify corporations under the ESG lending umbrella and then use them as an influence-monopoly to pressure the public to submit to woke ideals. This public resisted this program and exposed the agenda.

But, what if ESG was just a beta test? What if the real goal is to go full communist – Making governments and central banks the primary source of ESG funding.

In other words, what if these corporations know something we don’t and they expect governments to eventually step in and save them with a perpetual woke bailout? Any company that toes the line when it comes to progressive politics gets saved. Any company that doesn’t is allowed to collapse.

Theory #2: What if major corporations are acting like they don’t need to satisfy consumers because corporate leaders have been told that the system is going to break down in the near term? What if they’ve abandoned their mandate to pursue profits and have become propaganda peddlers because they know profits don’t matter anymore?

If the economy is about to suffer a Great Depression-like destabilization (or something worse), then this might explain why corporate CEOs have allowed their products and public relationships to derail.

Theory #3: Then there is the possibility that the concept of the customer as an indentured servant to the corporation is a median step towards an Orwellian future – The idea of the “Sharing Economy” promoted by the World Economic Forum. What if the habit of trying to shame consumers into accepting whatever product they get is meant to acclimate the populace to a culture in which free market choice completely disappears?

In the Sharing Economy (built around a cashless society) government provides everything while you own nothing. The principle of private property evaporates. In this kind of environment the public would have to settle for whatever food they are given, whatever housing they are given, whatever tools they are given, whatever job they are given, whatever entertainment they are given, etc.

The End Game

When people are “given” something the expectation is that they are supposed to be grateful for it no matter what it is. That is to say, the Sharing Economy would breed a slave mentality in which everyone must be happy with what little they have. If they complain, well, they’re ungrateful little monsters that need to be dealt with, right?

This is how the corporate world is treating the public RIGHT NOW. Imagine what things will be like in the next decade if we allow this trend to continue? Corporations can’t force us to buy their DEI garbage today, but what if tomorrow governments give them that power? What if they become the only suppliers?

This is what the culture war is really all about. There are people who want to embrace the dystopian system (mostly leftists) and people who see this system for the evil it truly is. There are people who want to perpetuate the woke cult, and people who are boycotting it. The skeptics who remain ignorant of this war don’t matter; they are flotsam bobbing aimlessly on the tides of history. They don’t care about it now, but they will care in the near future when their freedom of choice disappears completely.

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.