Monday, 26 August 2013 09:25

Criminalizing the Right? Military Labels Founding Fathers "Extremist"

Written by 

Defense Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request purporting to train U.S. soldiers and sailors label the Founding Fathers of the United States as “extremists” and claim that “participation in extremism is inconsistent with the duties of military service.”

The documents, compiled from a January 2013 lecture on “Extremism” by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, claim that:  

In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.

The DEOMI describes itself on its website this way: “The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) is a joint Service field activity of the Department of Defense” which “graduates approximately 1,250 resident students per year” from every branch of the armed forces. The purpose of the organization, created in 1972, was to ensure equal opportunity within the armed forces of the United States. 

The lecture also claims that “Individuals who hold extremist views are in conflict with the standards expected of all military members, and participation in extremism is inconsistent with the duties of military service.” So it may be that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton would be unwelcome in the armed forces of the United States, if DEOMI had its way. 

But what is “extremism,” according to DEOMI? “Extremism” is clearly a vague word that can have any meaning whatsoever, depending upon the intent of the person employing the term. DEOMI defines it this way:

All nations have an ideology, something in which they believe. When a political ideology falls outside the norms of a society, it is known as extremism. When extremists take their ideology to the next level and believe that it is the only right ideology to follow, it becomes supremism.

This explanation only begs the question, Who determines what is “outside the norms of a society” or what “the next level” means? DEOMI provides the answer, and it is pretty much a smear of anyone seeking any limits to federal government power: 

Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.

This language is not new, as similar language was employed in an April 2009 document by the Department of Homeland Security that claimed many critics of big government were just one provocation away from rolling bombs into government buildings. In Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, the DHS said that “Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into two groups, those groups ... that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”

That 2009 document was prepared by U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division and they highlighted the fact that it had been “coordinated with the FBI."

The new DEOMI document goes much farther than the DHS Rightwing Extremism publication, which was widely criticized at the time. DEOMI is charged with educating Equal Opportunity Advisors (EOA) throughout the armed services, and counsels its students: 

As an EOA, it is important to understand and recognize extremism. While extremist groups may seek to join the military and to recruit military members to their causes, military members must reject participation in organizations that promote supremacist causes.

Much like political officers in the old Soviet Army, the “Equal Opportunity Advisors” are charged with policing the political views of their unit: “Furthering the objectives of extremist organizations is viewed as detrimental to the good order, discipline, or mission accomplishment of the unit and is, therefore, subject to appropriate disciplinary action. As an EOA, you should assist the unit commanders in being vigilant about the existence of such activities.”

But the EOA officers are not counseled to stop at doing the policing of their own unit's political opinions; they are charged with getting soldiers, sailors, and airmen to police their own views, and even hold communist-like self-criticism sessions: 

It is the responsibility of each and every military member to help combat extremism in the military. Each member should examine how his or her action or inaction can affect mission accomplishment. Just the presence of a member with extremist views can have an adverse impact on the performance of a unit.

The lecture drones on:

Extremism is prohibited in the military in accordance with DoDD 1325.6. Combating extremism in the military begins with the individual. Each person should: 

• Examine personal viewpoints in light of military values and loyalty. 

• Reject affiliation with any extremist organizations. 

• Decline the distribution or circulation of extremist literature. 

• Encourage others to avoid extremist affiliations and views. 

• Report indicators of extremism to the appropriate command.

The anonymous author's citation of Department of Defense Directive 1325.6 is instructive, as the vague word “extremism” was added to DoDD 1325.6 by Obama officials only recently, on February 22, 2012. It didn't appear in the original 1996 directive

Interestingly enough, among the resources cited for use by DEOMI is the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has a long history of attacking groups seeking smaller government as “extremist” and, therefore, linked to “hate groups.” For example, on August 20 of this year Don Terry of the SPLC posted a smear of Ron Paul, conservative Catholics, and The John Birch Society in a single article titled “Ron Paul, Birch President to Speak at Anti-Semitic Conference.”  The article noted that former Rep. Ron Paul and John Birch Society President John F. McManus were slated to speak “at a conference in Canada sponsored by the Fatima Center, part of the 'radical traditionalist Catholic' movement, perhaps the single largest group of hard-core anti-Semites in North America.”

Hard-core anti-Semites? All three of the groups/persons mentioned deny they are anti-Semitic, so how “hard core” can they really be? The article claims of The John Birch Society that the “JBS has been dogged for decades by charges of anti-Semitism,” though even the liberal Anti-Defamation League has for decades claimed it was not anti-Semitic. Ron Paul is apparently a “hard core” anti-Semite to the SPLC because he believes that the United States should cut off foreign aid to Israel.

But the federal government is increasingly relying upon the SPLC as a resource in its attempts to smear — and increasingly, criminalize — anyone who criticizes the extent of government power. And traditional constitutionalism, even that represented by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton, is “outside the norms” of modern American society and incompatible for service in the U.S. military.

Image: John Trumbull's painting, "The Declaration of Independence"

10 comments

  • Comment Link russell boswell Saturday, 31 August 2013 12:09 posted by russell boswell

    our government has to brain wash these people they because when we do start a revolution they are the one's who will have to choose between shoooting us or standing with us to defend the constitution and our country from the tyrants trying to destroy it

  • Comment Link Heidi Preston Wednesday, 28 August 2013 17:44 posted by Heidi Preston

    COMMUNIST PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE (BRAINWASHING)

    Consultation with

    EDWARD HUNTER

    AUTHOR AND FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT



    COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES

    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS

    SECOND SESSION

    MARCH 13, 1958

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities

    United States Government Printing Office

    Washington 1958 -This is from Edward Hunter "“I see, primarily, as part of this softening up process in America, the liquidation of our attitudes on what we used to recognize as right and wrong, what we used to accept as absolute moral standards. We now confuse moral standards with the sophistication of dialectical materialism, with a Communist crackpot Communist crackpot theology which teaches that everything changes, and that what is right or wrong, good or bad, changes as well. So nothing they say is really good or bad. There is no such thing as truth or a lie; and any belief we actually held was simply your being unsophisticated. They don’t say this in so many words, except to those who are already indoctrinated in communism."
    This came out after the new thought in Depth Psychology and a new ethic by Erich Neumann first published in German in 1949. Apparently this "new thought" is quite old.

  • Comment Link Heidi Preston Wednesday, 28 August 2013 14:45 posted by Heidi Preston

    LOL...OMG it's straight out of Depth Psychology and a new ethic by Erich Neumann first published in German in 1949 (yes right after WW11).
    The basic concept is that the "collective" values and morals are to be questioned and found within the self, the individual who answers only to him/herself because ultimately the good and bad are interchangeable because of circumstances and therefore not reliable standards of morals or ethics. So it's basically Nietzsche nihilistic view of God is dead and we are God therefor we answer to no one but ourselves. This of course will bring chaos since as Jung states in his forward in the book. "the chief causes of a neurosis are conflicts of conscience and difficult moral problems that require an answer." Of course those without conscience or morals exist within society too and we refer to them as psychopaths. These psychopaths think that their way of thinking is the correct and moral way so without a standard collective base line the laws go out the window and chaos ensues. It's a really "bad" idea to go down this path as "history" reveals a leader will always find the masses weakness and exploit it because most people don't do any self reflection which would be a priority in this mindset of individual accountability. Moral decay the goal, re-framing it's tool.

  • Comment Link Gary Hardee Wednesday, 28 August 2013 00:35 posted by Gary Hardee

    One more thing that need pointing out is that "Foreign Aid" is not authorized by the Constitution. Is following the Constitution an extremist view?
    Also, Ron Paul is totally consistent with the Constitution in his voting against ALL foreign aid, not just that for Israel. Why is he not also pegged as anti-Iran, anti-Syria, etc. since he didn't vote to give money to them? All Congressmen should vote as he did to NOT be extreme in violating their oaths.

  • Comment Link Gary Hardee Wednesday, 28 August 2013 00:23 posted by Gary Hardee

    Our military personnel are sworn to an oath to defend the Constitution and that logically extends to those brave men who were this nation's first veterans. It is their ideology that is supposed to unite, unify and undergird our fighting forces. Anything less turns our trained forces into mercenaries and blind killers!
    Are we to pay dearly for such a force that may be so blind that they would be willing to shoot upon our own citizens at the direction of a U.N. commander? Is this not extremism personified?
    Are our soldiers to swear an oath to only moments later act upon orders by the President that are completely contrary to it, just like the vast majority of members of Congress? Is that not the extremism that should be stamped out?
    Knowing the extreme brainwashing that much of our military undergoes, one has to wonder just how effective it will be when America is on its knees precisely due to the infiltration of real extremists into our own body politic.

  • Comment Link Gene Johnson Tuesday, 27 August 2013 08:43 posted by Gene Johnson

    Citing the piece, and comments above by Pete Bennett, I offer my explicit condemnation of any positive reference to, or support of, the number one hate group in the USA at this moment in time; namely, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). They speak for the Polit bureau.
    The SPLC is a globalist insider sponsored smear organ of the first order. Their only function is to paint those who believe in American values and traditions as evil.
    They have no credentials. The SPLC is not Southron, and relates in no way to either poverty, or law, beyond their opposition to the Constitution, peace, liberty, and prosperity.
    It is conceptually collectivist, an anti-liberty hate organization, a tool of the regime.
    Who does the SPLC actually represent? Investigate for yourself. One needs to dig deeply to discern the truth.
    If there is one voice that can be relied upon to tell it as it is, trust the New American. The N.A. and the JBS have carried the torch of liberty for over fifty years, and have described that which was to come, and has now arrived, with uncanny accuracy.
    Regarding the adoption of modern military postures for the common good of the service: we have been at war without a declaration of war almost continually since Korea. Those who were once our friends become our enemies; our enemies our friends. Our soldiers die and yet it serves no discernible needs of our culture. Massive debt and international hatred are our reward.
    It is all unfolding just as described, by not only the JBS, but by George Orwell as well, right down to a leader with a Muslim name: in Orwell's 1984, it was Mustapha Mond.

  • Comment Link Pete Bennett Tuesday, 27 August 2013 05:10 posted by Pete Bennett

    I was equally upset with the premise posed by the article...until i read and scanned most of the PDF copy of the USAF edition offered by the posted link. First section provides insight into the reasoning and implementation of the directive. Basically, the dissention and divisiveness of the described behaviors and attitudes can interrupt the efficiency and success of the, in this case, Air Forces mission, if allowed to become commonplace in the service. I suggest we each read at least some of this policy before being too critical of it.
    I am persuaded to agree with it, in principle. The Instruction given used the founders enthusiasm and dedication to their belief as an example of extremeism. The article didn't attempt to classify each type of behavior or attitude in any manner other than it being disruptive to performance through the effect it may have on surrounding, or otherwise affected personnel.
    While quite some time ago, I recall effects such attitudes had on my perceptions. Times have changed significantly since the Service experiences of the mid '50s, and I would prefer people bringing the fight to the enemy from over my head to have a solid direction of purpose about themselves, in their performance.
    It seemed more a shame for this to become necessary, than an affront to the service men and women. Our armed forces are composed of people dedicated enough to the task to have volunteered for it, from all walks of life and corners of this nation. They are about becoming their generations finest, and there is enough division in every one of those corners from which they come to be a distraction...let us try to keep it contained, if we can't control it.

  • Comment Link Harold A Priest Monday, 26 August 2013 23:25 posted by Harold A Priest

    What I'd like to know is how did leftovers from Hitler's mentality ever get in to leadership positions in the United States Military Forces to have the gall to call our Founding Fathers extremists? Our military forces definitely need to be screened for this type of ENEMY, Hitler's leftovers, and removed from this country. We, The People, have more enemies in the United States, than outside the United States. Why are situations, such as this allowed to maintain??

  • Comment Link Bill McNally Monday, 26 August 2013 20:17 posted by Bill McNally

    Thanks for comment Frank. I live in the "Live Free or Die" state where you probably read about the Concord Chief of Police wanting a 'Bearcat' to protect citizens from the
    "Free Staters", Tea Party, and other extremists!

  • Comment Link Frank M. Pelteson Monday, 26 August 2013 18:36 posted by Frank M. Pelteson

    I have to laugh, because I am a Life Member of The John Birch Society and I immigrated from Nazi Germany to America in 1938 as a Jewish refugee. I recommend reading the webpage titled "Lessons from the Holocaust," at http://www.mega.nu/ampp/grigg_holocaust.html .

Please Log In To Comment
Log in