Guest Post- Killing With Kindness

Submitted by usarmyretiredguy.

Killing With Kindness:  Affirmative Action and the Destruction of Military Effectiveness

The femanization of the US Army is central to the collectivist agenda in their endeavor to take control of our country.  The Army Equal Opportunity Program (EO) began in the 1970’s is a vital mechanism of this deconstruction.  It may be one of the boldest and least recognized social engineering agendas in recent memory.   Information concerning the EO program is readily available via the internet and from my personal experience as an Army Command EO Advisor.  The object of this essay is not to diminish the contributions of black or other minority Americans but to show they, too, have been done a disservice by abandoning the notion of merit and color-blindness.

The EO program had its beginnings in the early 1970s with the dictate to address racial and ethnic tensions within the ranks. The initial directive for Army leadership was to identify the cause of racial strife permeating the conscript army.  Many studies, reports, and surveys later concluded the underlying reason for the strife was the actual or perceived issue of discrimination.  Amazingly enough, no one thought to consider the conflict in Viet Nam and the majority of soldiers dying were not minorities.  They were poor conscripts, without the influence necessary to avoid enforced servitude in the Army.  The statistics of casualties do not support the conclusion of a racial incongruity as the root cause of the purported discontent in the army.

American Casualties by Race:

Race

Recorded Casualties

Native American

226

Caucasian

50,120

Malayan

252

Mongolian

116

Negro

7,264

Unknown

215

Totals

58,193

The actual casualties indicate minorities were only a small percentage of the overall numbers.  This leads one to conclude another agenda spurred the establishment of the EO program.  Simply, it was a crucial first step in feminizing the army in the pursuit of the collectivist agenda.  The basis for establishing the program is not significant; the implementation is the critical elements we must understand.

I had tours in two unique assignments; they provide me a distinctive background on how the collectivist agenda is breaking down the army’s masculinity.  These two assignments were as an army recruiter, and an Equal Opportunity Advisor at the General Officer level.

It is essential to remember the published purpose of the EO program.  The purported goal is achieving racial equality for all members of the army.  This dovetails with the mission of the US Army Recruiting Command.  Recruiting Command teaches its recruiters the ultimate goal is to make the army look like the civilian population, and the EO program directly supports this mission.  If the stated goal is the genuine mission then the EO program is an abject failure. The racial overtones were soon supplemented by a desire to ensure the Army sought gender equality creating a lethal cocktail that would severely damage combat effectiveness.

How can the vaunted EO program be a failure with its vast oversight and social engineering directives?  Remember when the program started?   What was the makeup of the army in the 1970s and where are we now after nearly four decades in the pursuit of racial/gender harmony and equality.  The earliest substantive data available is from FY 83.  The draft ended in 1973 providing the army 10 years with oversight to attain the EO goals.  I said the EO program failed to achieve its goal of equality and mirroring our society.

Statistically, very little has changed concerning the racial makeup of the army.  We are still within 5 percentage points of Whites and 4% of Blacks after all these years.  The total number of black officers has marginally increased during this time period.  Oddly though, the greatest increase is in the Warrant Officer field, not the commissioned officer field.

According to the US Census Bureau, the Army does not reflect the two largest racial populations in the country.  Whites represent 75.1% and Black or African America represents 12.3% of the population.  These numbers indicate a wide disparity from the population and the active duty army. So then, what is the true purpose of the EO program in the Army if not racial/gender harmony and equality?  I told you in the beginning; the ultimate goal of the program is the feminization of our military making them ineffective to fight the collectivist’s agenda as they attempt to take over our country without firing a single shot.

The collectivists are winning the war of control by making the army ineffective to stop domestic enemies.  I am not saying our army is an ineffective combat force outside of our borders.  They are still the best soldiers in the world when not restrained by the civilians appointed/anointed over them.  The problem is the civilians appointed/anointed are the same political pedigree that initiated the EO program with the singular goal of neutering them.  They must eliminate them as a force capable of protecting the citizenry from an internal enemy.  What tools are the collectivists/social engineers using to take the masculinity from our combat forces and making them no more capable than the sheeple they are sworn to protect against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC?

The Army EO program permeates every layer of the army, from the top to bottom.  Remember the political officers of the old Soviet Union, the zampolits?  Their assignment was to spread the communist dogma, train troops, and report on commanders who were not faithful to party doctrine in the USSR.  Welcome to the Army EO program.  The Army has these social engineering commissars at every level of command.  They go under the name of Equal Opportunity Advisors, Equal Opportunity Representatives, and Program Managers.  The majority of these people do not even realize they are tools of the collectivist agenda.  These individuals provide the oversight, training (indoctrination), and reporting on all aspects of the program.  Their underlying function is the intimidation of all members of the army, ensuring strict adherence to guidance from the collectivist masters.  The bullying of soldiers is possible by making each soldier answerable to the same level of punishment as an alleged perpetrator.  If they fail to report ANY known or suspected violation of policy this is the threat held over them.  How would this play out in the civilian world?  You know or suspect a neighbor is guilty of a crime and fail to report it for whatever reason: fear of reprisal, complacency, or simply unsure of the facts, you would face stiff penalties along with the perpetrator of the crime.  A soldier can be convicted and sent to prison along with the actual perpetrator of the alleged crime.  This is what a soldier faces from the vaunted EO program.  Might this instill a fear of the system and the commissars appointed over them?

How do they inculcate soldiers to continue to support the program and report violators?  One strategic tool available to EO personnel for this noxious social engineering is the Consideration of Others Program.  The Consideration of Others Program is mandatory for all commanders. It should be tailored to the specific needs of local commands. Commanders will implement “Consideration of Others” training down to detachment, platoon, or squad level. The EO program’s execution effectively seeks to indoctrinate soldiers from the highest to the lowest level of the army.  What is the stated goal of the program?  Consideration of Others program is a tool which focuses on the vital linkage between the individual soldier and his or her role as a member of a military team. The capability of each of your soldiers to recognize that their attitudes, actions, and words affect others in the unit; and their willingness to take responsibility for those actions, and words- to the point of changing them when necessary -is what Consideration of Others is all about. A primary result of the EO program is a soldier can no longer simply state something they believe, they must consider the consequences of the statement, right or wrong, on their career.  What if someone does not like what is said?  Will they file a complaint?  Will an investigator judge the soldier fairly?  This makes for combat ineffectiveness instead of the stated goal of unit cohesion and combat effectiveness.  Leaders now have to weigh everything said to ensure it does not violate someone’s sensibilities, extremely dangerous for a force tasked to protect the populace from its enemies.  The program SOUNDS good, which is an underlying trait of a good subversion tactic in pursuit of the goal of minimizing the force’s ability to react to the enemy.  Let’s look at some of the topics of this great program the social engineers deem appropriate in maintaining a combat ready force.

I am going to address the top level of the Consideration of Other’s topics and provide the reader with the link to peruse the manual in detail.  First, let’s look at how the Army describes the program.

“Consideration of Others is those actions that indicate a sensitivity to and regard for the feelings and needs of others and an awareness of the impact of one’s own behavior on them…”

The key here is social engineers desire all soldiers to be sensitive to others.  How can we believe this sensitivity does not affect combat effectiveness or have long-lasting effects on the force?  During past wars, soldier training taught them to hate the enemy to prevent hesitation in combat and possible debilitating grief when faced with taking another human life.  This can be a factor in the difference between the levels of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) of past conflicts compared to the statistics of current combat veterans.  Today’s soldier must feel first and react second.  The enemy is not truly a bad guy, simply misguided.  What teaching tool do EO personnel use to achieve sensitivity to others, enemies included?  A primary tool is the Consideration of Others Program.  The tasks trained include: alcohol and drug abuse, Equal Opportunity complaint procedures and identification of extremism and extremist organizations, among others

On the surface some of these classes may seem acceptable.  This is how the collectivists’ sell a package to the populace in general, and the Army in particular.  If parts of a program seem innocent enough, acceptance is much easier for the whole enterprise, including the aspects to adjust a culture.  Remember the story of the frog.  One can place a frog in a pot of cold water and slowly bring it to a boil.  The frog will happily stay in the pot until it boils to death because the change was gradual.  The collectivist engineers are accomplishing the same task with our army.  They are slowly castrating its collective manhood in their pursuit of a feminized force, no longer able to identify the domestic enemy or protect the populace from the creeping transformations of America to a socialist state.

The main problem the EO agenda faces is the simmering resentment of the ranks who are constantly battered with the agenda.  What do they do with these individuals?  The last four decades are replete with soldiers who failed to swallow the collectivist scheme, hook, line, and sinker.

In response to these individuals, the EO program and commanders who have attached themselves to the program actively seek to punish the non-conformists.  One may not agree with the current fight but generally cannot discount their capabilities as a fighting force.  The greatest amongst them are the ones who are not susceptible to collectivist agenda.  These warriors are minimized at best, court-martialed at worst.  Our illustrious government/media complex attacks these warriors relentlessly with a vengeance and the complete backing of spineless members of congress.  Some of these same congresspersons publicly condemn them without a shred of evidence and show no remorse when proved liars.  These warriors are left to defend themselves against an army of lawyers, press, and public opinion with their one court appointed public defender.  If they desire better representation, it is up to their families and friends to bear the cost.  It is a simple collectivist tactic: identify an enemy, marginalize them and then destroy them.  They actually make them the enemy.  So what happens next?

The survival of our country may depend on the Army’s leadership recognizing it has been duped and reversing course.  If they do not realize our country is facing its greatest threat from a collectivist agenda then I fear doom for our future generations.  Our children’s children will fight the next battle for freedom on our soil because we gave it away without a whimper.

“Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks.  Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools.  And their grandchildren are once more slaves.”

~D.H. Lawrence 1922

© usarmyguyretired 2009

Bill Buppert
thirdgun@hotmail.com
No Comments

Post A Comment