zerohedge

Authored by Bernard Hudson via The American Mind,

The radical racial ideology has infiltrated the Agency…

Under the best of circumstances, it is difficult for any intelligence service to collect, analyze, and produce actionable, predictive data for a nation’s leadership. This task is made considerably harder when lockstep adherence to a fringe political ideology is imposed upon the workforce tasked with carrying out this challenging mission.

Unfortunately, this is the situation the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies of the U.S. Intelligence Community are in: to America’s detriment, their leadership enthusiastically imposed Diversity, Equity and Inclusion ideology upon their employees.

To underscore how deeply DEI has metastasized inside the host, in a recent enlightening and publicly available statement, the CIA’s Chief DEI officer said there are three criteria by which an intelligence officer can be promoted at America’s most important foreign intelligence service. Only one of them is related to mission impact.

The others are a rather vague “corporate mindset”—and DEI.

Of the three, adherence to the cant of DEI is the most important; those who do not vocally and unreservedly support it are denied promotions and meaningful assignments. Like rallies held by authoritarian regimes, you do not want to be the first to stop clapping at the approved, serial pronouncements.

It’s ironic that a CIA created to oppose the Soviet Union would embrace the ideological straitjacket that is DEI, an enterprise that uncomfortably mirrors the USSR’s political commissars. Guardians of the party’s orthodoxy, the commissars were coequal with the leadership inside the government agencies where they were assigned, holding considerable sway over who was promoted and who got what assignments. While they were successful for some time in keeping the ruling clique in power, their endless purity tests and unreviewable power helped breed endemic cynicism among the government workers who had to play along to keep their jobs. It accelerated the systemic, institutional incompetence that plagued the Soviet Union to the end of its unlamented run.

Since DEI, the uniquely American take on the USSR’s commissar system, has been imposed on the Intelligence Community, there has been sufficient time to evaluate its impact on its mission, which is the only metric by which any intelligence service’s value should be measured. Using that standard, there are three conclusions we can draw about the effect DEI has had—and none of them are positive.

First, DEI does not fill a gap in the law; it is a quota system masquerading as equal opportunity. It is important to recall that the DEI enterprise has been imposed upon a federal workforce that already operated under long-existing regulations which mandate fair treatment of all employees. The modern U.S. Intelligence Community had successfully built an environment where anyone could succeed, provided they were willing to work hard and make sacrifices, two concepts one almost never hears uttered by DEI’s most vocal proponents.

As it has come to be practiced, one of DEI’s major outputs has been to combine the outside consultant’s mania for numbers with the fervor of heresy-seeking.

At every administrative level, the modern IC seeks to know and document the race, sexual orientation, county of national origin, disability, and age of anyone seeking promotion or a new assignment. This information is apparently formally incorporated into every Human Resources panel, which has determinative power over the vast majority of assignments and promotions. Findings which do not match the vague and ever-changing standards are almost certainly identified as requiring remedy. (Of course, vague and unreviewable standards are the hallmark of how DEI is practiced within the federal government.) The remedy frequently imposed involves adjusting the recommendations of promotion and assignments panels to make them compliant with the current orthodoxy. This means that assignments, promotions, and opportunities will go to individuals less qualified than other candidates in order to serve the alleged greater good.

Second, as it is driven by a core belief that much within institutions is oppressive and unfair, DEI fuels an institutionally distracting grievance culture. Because it seeks to measure personnel outcomes based more on fringe identity politics than on mission impact, it provides a ready-made tool for anyone to challenge a strictly merit-based promotion and assignments system. Anyone who has served at a senior level in the federal government understands (even if they will not publicly speak of it) that there is a wide disparity between the top performers in their workforce and the bottom quintile.

Because DEI prioritizes identity, including self-identity, over mission impact, it has tended to encourage a culture where the least capable workers demand the most of the senior management’s time and attention. Rather than focus on supporting the top performing employees who drive outsized gains in every human institution (including federal agencies), senior managers must constantly navigate an ever-growing number of grievance claims—many of dubious validity and any of which, if mishandled, could harm or derail that senior official’s career.

This creates a peculiar work environment, where the senior-most managers are increasingly evaluated more through the lens of how their less capable and more aggrieved employees view them, rather than by the mission value those senior managers bring to the challenging task of understanding and clandestinely confronting America’s adversaries.

Finally, DEI is a thought-and-sentiment-monitoring mechanism, allowing a fraction of the IC’s non-operational and non-analytical workforce to reach into any level of an organization and assess the personnel and operations of that office against DEI’s blurry and ever-changing goals. Combined with the grievance-seeking culture which is always DEI’s fellow traveler, it creates an informant culture which seeks out alleged non-compliance at every level of an organization with a zeal that would impress the early Soviet Union’s counter-intelligence apparatus.

It is almost certainly less career threatening in the modern CIA to dispute findings related to the plans and intentions of America’s key foreign adversaries than it is to show anything less than full support for the DEI apparatus. No doubt or heresy will go unnoticed or unaddressed. It is not unreasonable to assume that, for senior managers, many types of mission failure would probably be more survivable than being assessed as unsupportive of DEI.

The tragedy is that the CIA, and the broader IC, have incredible capabilities, but none of those are enhanced by the dangerous, fringe orthodoxy that is the modern DEI machine. Abolishing that apparatus will improve the only metric that should matter when evaluating an intelligence service: how well it collects and produces foreign intelligence and how effectively it gives America’s enemies pause.

If you want another reason to avoid the crime-ridden Democratic stronghold of Baltimore City, well, look no further than mobs of kids running around and committing senseless armed carjackings.

Local news Fox Baltimore reports three juveniles, including a 9-year-old, and two adults were arrested last Sunday in connection to an armed carjacking near the 3900 block of East Lombard Street. 

“Once there, officers spoke with a 32-year-old woman who stated while stopped at a stop sign at Grundy at Bank Street, four male suspects approached her vehicle. One suspect, described as a white male, produced a metal tool, smashing her window. The suspect then proceeded to drag the woman from the vehicle and fled the location in the victim’s car,” the local outlet said. 

Officers arrested a 21-year-old man, a 15-year-old boy, a 19-year-old man, a 16-year-old boy, and a 9-year-old boy after a short foot pursuit. The 21 and 16-year-olds were taken to the Central Booking Intake Facility, while the 15-year-old was taken to the Department of Juvenile Services. The 9-year-old was released to his parents.

In a separate report, Fox Baltimore warned listeners in the area about an epidemic of juvenile carjackings plaguing the metro area. 

Violent crime, chaos, homicides, drug overdoses, robberies, de-industrialization, and high taxes under decades of radical leftists in City Hall have transformed the once-beautiful city into a lawless metro that, quite honestly, ‘The Wire 2.0’ should be filmed again… 

Lawless chaos… 

The neighborhood where this happened is considered a “nicer” neighborhood for Baltimore which means it’s now equivalent to a bad neighborhood there from 10 years ago. Of course, it’s *virtually* impossible for law abiding citizens to legally carry firearms in Baltimore which… pic.twitter.com/CFIojcMNBY

— Mrgunsngear (@Mrgunsngear) September 28, 2024

Three suspects arrested for random murder of woman driving her car in Baltimore

Police say three street thugs were trying to shoot a man in a purple car w/ complete disregard for other motorists on 10/27

Cameran Holt, 19, was fatally wounded and pulled off life support on 11/7 pic.twitter.com/oqlswPNNo3

— National Conservative (@NatCon2022) November 28, 2024

Stolen car crashes into Baltimore building that collapsed over wreckage pic.twitter.com/mFOdbWxMuB

— Crime Net (@TRIGGERHAPPYV1) February 13, 2024

🚨#BREAKING: Baltimore County Police in Pursuit of Stolen Police Vehicle ⁰⁰📌#Baltimore l #Maryland

Residents in Baltimore County are being told to shelter in place after a murder suspect, who shot two officers, stole a police cruiser following an hours-long standoff. He is… pic.twitter.com/FXwpar2rbV

— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) February 10, 2023

Baltimore is now facing apocalyptic levels of policing shortages.

Last week, THREE police officers patrolled a whole district of 61,000 residents.

Police are now UNABLE to respond to calls, including for child assault.

The department is now postponing police training in an… pic.twitter.com/4XhEURoR4d

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 25, 2024

All this chaos has sparked a massive citywide exodus of residents, moving to surrounding counties or elsewhere, plunging the latest Census population data for the metro area to a 100-year low. Smart money has been leaving for decades. 

Fiscally irresponsible policies rammed through Annapolis by far-left Democrats are set to tip the state known for crabcakes, football, and murders into a “deep recession.” 

Authored by Lily Zhou via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Biden administration announced an 11th-hour probe on Monday into China’s trade practice regarding “legacy” chips that power everything from smart appliances and phones to the electric grid and weapons systems.

The administration has already imposed 50 percent tariffs on semiconductors from China, which are set to take effect on Jan. 1. The new Section 301 probe could pave the way for the incoming Trump administration to add more tariffs on legacy chips or take other measures.

The probe was launched because evidence indicates that the Chinese regime’s attempts to dominate domestic and global chip markets “appear to have and to threaten detrimental impacts on the United States and other economies, undermining the competitiveness of American industry and workers, critical U.S. supply chains, and U.S. economic security,” the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) said in a statement.

A spokesperson for the Chinese regime’s Ministry of Commerce accused the United States of “disrupting and distorting the global chip production and supply chains” and “harming the interests of American companies and consumers,” and vowed to “take all necessary measures to firmly defend its interests.”

The Biden administration will begin accepting public comments on Jan. 6. The probe will then be handed over to the incoming Trump administration for completion, officials said.

According to the Federal Register notice, the deadline for submitting comments will be set on Feb. 5, and a public hearing will be held on March 11 and March 12. It is unclear whether President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to lead USTR, Jamieson Greer, a trade lawyer and former USTR chief during Trump’s first administration, will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate by then.

The investigation will initially focus on China’s legacy chip production, downstream products that contain legacy chips, and wafers that are used to make the chips, including silicon carbide substrates.

According to USTR, China is projected to reach around half of the world’s capacity to build foundational logic chips by 2029, and to lead in production capacity for other types of legacy chips. Evidence indicates Beijing has been using unfair trade practices to achieve the goals, such as subsidies, state-backed hacking, forced technology transfer, wage suppression, market gate-keeping, and opaque regulatory preferences and discrimination.

“This is enabling its companies to rapidly expand capacity and to offer artificially lower priced chips that threaten to significantly harm and potentially eliminate their market-oriented competition,” U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai told reporters on a conference call.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said her department’s research shows two-thirds of U.S. products using chips had Chinese legacy chips in them, and half of U.S. companies did not know the origin of their chips including some in the defense industry, findings that were “fairly alarming.”

After the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the supply of semiconductors and temporarily halted production of autos and medical equipment, the United States has sought to build its own semiconductor supply chain with $52.7 billion in new subsidies for chip production, research, and workforce development.

Raimondo said China’s plans to build more than 60 percent of the world’s new legacy chip capacity over the next decade were discouraging investment elsewhere and constituted unfair competition.

It “undercuts our companies and makes the U.S. dependent on China for the chips that we use every day in so many things,” she told reporters.

The probe is being conducted under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the same unfair trade practices statute that Trump invoked during his first term to impose tariffs of up to 25 percent on some $370 billion worth of Chinese imports in 2018 and 2019, triggering a nearly three-year trade war with Beijing.

Earlier this year, the Biden administration kept all the Trump-era tariffs and added more after a four-year review of the 301 tariffs found that Beijing had continued to use unfair trade practices.

Since September, tariffs on electric vehicles from China quadrupled to 100 percent. Also, 25 percent tariffs on natural graphite, permanent magnets, and non-EV batteries will take effect on Jan. 1, 2026.

Trump’s transition team did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment by the time of publishing.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Authored by Anders Corr via The Epoch Times,

Given the coming technological revolutions in warfare, it is important that the United States and our allies get out in front early, keep the lead, and degrade the adversary’s capabilities.

China’s “loyal wingman” fighter drones get a lot of attention these days. The wingman is a force multiplier, meant to fly in numbers alongside its crewed jet fighters or to lead a fleet of smaller drones. If deployed in a swarm, the wingmen and smaller drones could quickly overwhelm a fleet of manned fighter jets and air defenses. They are jet-powered but far less expensive than a regular fighter jet to fly, in part because they do not require a trained pilot. Some simulated dogfights between human pilots and artificial intelligence (AI) pilots who learn on the fly have resulted in AI wins as far back as 2020.

The latest iteration of the Chinese wingman drone—called the Feihong FH-97A—appears to be a vast improvement over the earlier versions unveiled in 2022 and 2023. The FH-97A is reportedly faster than its U.S. counterpart, the XQ-58A Valkyrie. The range of the FH-97A is about 620 miles. The current range is more than enough to reach anywhere in Taiwan, plus sea lanes on the eastern side of the island that would be critical for provisioning Taiwan in case of a war or naval blockade. From Chinese possessions, the FH-97A can range all of South Korea, the East China Sea, parts of Japan and the Philippines, and all of the South China Sea through island hopping on China’s airfields and artificial islands.

Moreover, the FH-97A could, in the future, be used to attack any part of the United States or Europe, given that it can catapult launch from aircraft carriers and because the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has plans to give it aerial refueling capabilities. The drones will add to the power of the PLA Air Force’s other recent innovations (and thefts from the United States), including stealth fighter jets and stealth bombers. The drones can be used for air- and land-attack missions, electronic warfare, reconnaissance, and bomber escort.

While the United States has long had better-trained fighter pilots and more advanced planes, giving it air superiority over China, those tables could be turning. Without the need for pilots but rather the utilization of AI programs that have demonstrated superiority, China’s age of high technology and mass industrial production could far outproduce the United States and shift air superiority decisively to the PLA.

This would have immediate and dire consequences for countries already under military pressure from Beijing, namely Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan, and India.

One promising defense against Chinese drones is laser-based weapons; for example, the HELIOS system deployed on a U.S. naval destroyer in 2022 and the DragonFire system tested by the United Kingdom in January.

The DragonFire laser can destroy targets with pinpoint accuracy in its line of sight with shots that would cut through the drone’s mechanics or explode its warheads. Each shot costs less than £10 ($12.61) to fire for 10 seconds, suggesting they could be used to cheaply slice into an enemy system with repeated passes. Compare that to the cost of a missile interceptor at a million dollars or more, which can be a waste of money against some of the cheapest Iranian military drones, for example, that cost at most $2,000 each. The British system is planned for deployment on the country’s naval ships by 2027, with the British army also considering a deployment. Scientists in China are also developing laser weapons, including for use from space.

Laser weapons could eventually negate the power of intercontinental ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles and force surface and air combatants underwater, where lasers are ineffective.

Subsurface combatants could become relatively useless against land targets except perhaps those closest to the coast. In the case of Ukraine, for example, the widespread adoption of laser weapons could create a stalemate for years to come.

The United States is now the world’s strongest superpower, considered economically and militarily. Many have come before, and none lasted forever. One mistake that results in the loss of the technological lead to China or Russia, for example, could be the end of the United States as we know it. Now is our chance to avoid that disaster.

*  *  *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President-elect Donald Trump said Sunday he would aim to designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations and will launch an anti-drug advertising campaign inside the United States.

“I will immediately designate the cartels as foreign terrorist organizations,” Trump said in Arizona at a Turning Point conference, reiterating a campaign promise to make the declaration.

While in office in 2019, Trump had planned to make the designation and ultimately did not make the move after a request from then-Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who said he wanted cooperation with the U.S. government on dealing with drug cartels.

Trump’s election platform has stated when he returns to the White House, he will direct the Department of Defense to use “special forces, cyber warfare, and other covert and overt actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations.”

Trump on Sunday also previewed a new advertising initiative designed to provide information about the effects of drug use.

“We’re going to advertise how bad drugs are for you,” Trump said in Arizona at a Turning Point conference, referring to the ad campaign. “They ruin your look, they ruin your face, they ruin your skin, they ruin your teeth.”

While he did not provide more details about the campaign, it appears to be the first time Trump has made reference to the plan.

In the 1970s and 1980s, anti-drug ad blitzes were launched across the United States, culminating in former first lady Nancy Reagan’s “just say no” campaign that was designed to prevent younger Americans from doing drugs. Public schools also featured the Drug Abuse Resistance Education, also known as D.A.R.E, that sought to provide information on illegal drugs and controlled substances, as well as prevent gang membership and violent behavior.

Over the past several years, hundreds of thousands of Americans have died of overdoses of the powerful synthetic opioid fentanyl, which is easy to do due to its potency—just 2 milligrams can be fatal. The drug, which is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine, is often trafficked across the U.S.–Mexico border by drug cartels based in Mexico.

Trump’s 2024 campaign has heavily leaned into messaging around stopping the fentanyl epidemic as well as illegal immigration into the United States. Since winning the election last month, the president-elect has said he will also start operations for mass deportations and would declare a nationwide emergency over the matter.

The incoming Trump administration’s border czar, Tom Homan, a former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and other Trump officials have said that they will prioritize targeting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes or are deemed a threat to U.S. national security for deportation.

They have also pledged to deport anyone residing in the country illegally, although Trump has indicated he would consider allowing illegal immigrants who have been in the United States since childhood to remain under certain conditions.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimates that 11 million illegal immigrants were living in the United States as of 2022, the latest statistics that are available. While campaigning in the 2024 contest, Trump talked about creating the “largest deportation effort in the history of our country” and called for using the National Guard and domestic police forces in the effort.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“When the song of the angels is stilled, when the star in the sky is gone, when the kings and princes are home, when the shepherds are back with their flocks, the work of Christmas begins: to find the lost, to heal the broken, to feed the hungry, to release the prisoner, to rebuild the nations, to bring peace among the people, to make music in the heart.”

– Howard Thurman, theologian and civil rights activist

The Christmas story of a baby born in a manger is a familiar one.

The Roman Empire, a police state in its own right, had ordered that a census be conducted. Joseph and his pregnant wife Mary traveled to the little town of Bethlehem so that they could be counted. There being no room for the couple at any of the inns, they stayed in a stable (a barn), where Mary gave birth to a baby boy, Jesus. Warned that the government planned to kill the baby, Jesus’ family fled with him to Egypt until it was safe to return to their native land.

Yet what if Jesus had been born 2,000 years later?

What if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, Jesus had been born at this moment in time? What kind of reception would Jesus and his family be given? Would we recognize the Christ child’s humanity, let alone his divinity? Would we treat him any differently than he was treated by the Roman Empire? If his family were forced to flee violence in their native country and sought refuge and asylum within our borders, what sanctuary would we offer them?

A singular number of churches across the country have asked those very questions in recent years, and their conclusions were depicted with unnerving accuracy by nativity scenes in which Jesus and his family are separated, segregated and caged in individual chain-link pens, topped by barbed wire fencing.

Those nativity scenes were a pointed attempt to remind the modern world that the narrative about the birth of Jesus is one that speaks on multiple fronts to a world that has allowed the life, teachings and crucifixion of Jesus to be drowned out by partisan politics, secularism, materialism and war, all driven by a manipulative shadow government called the Deep State.

The modern-day church has largely shied away from applying Jesus’ teachings to modern problems such as war, poverty, immigration, etc., but thankfully there have been individuals throughout history who ask themselves and the world: what would Jesus do?

What would Jesus – the baby born in Bethlehem who grew into an itinerant preacher and revolutionary activist, who not only died challenging the police state of his day (namely, the Roman Empire) but spent his adult life speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo of his day, and pushing back against the abuses of the Roman Empire – do about the injustices of our  modern age?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer asked himself what Jesus would have done about the horrors perpetrated by Hitler and his assassins. The answer: Bonhoeffer was executed by Hitler for attempting to undermine the tyranny at the heart of Nazi Germany.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn asked himself what Jesus would have done about the soul-destroying gulags and labor camps of the Soviet Union. The answer: Solzhenitsyn found his voice and used it to speak out about government oppression and brutality.

Martin Luther King Jr. asked himself what Jesus would have done about America’s warmongering. The answer: declaring “my conscience leaves me no other choice,” King risked widespread condemnation as well as his life when he publicly opposed the Vietnam War on moral and economic grounds.

Even now, despite the popularity of the phrase “What Would Jesus Do?” (WWJD) in Christian circles, there remains a disconnect in the modern church between the teachings of Christ and the suffering of what Jesus in Matthew 25 refers to as the “least of these.”

Yet this is not a theological gray area: Jesus was unequivocal about his views on many things, not the least of which was charity, compassion, war, tyranny and love.

After all, Jesus—the revered preacher, teacher, radical and prophet—was born into a police state not unlike the growing menace of the American police state. When he grew up, he had powerful, profound things to say, things that would change how we view people, alter government policies and change the world. “Blessed are the merciful,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and “Love your enemies” are just a few examples of his most profound and revolutionary teachings.

When confronted by those in authority, Jesus did not shy away from speaking truth to power. Indeed, his teachings undermined the political and religious establishment of his day. It cost him his life. He was eventually crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be.

Can you imagine what Jesus’ life would have been like if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, he had been born and raised in the American police state?

Consider the following if you will.

Had Jesus been born in the era of the America police state, rather than traveling to Bethlehem for a census, Jesus’ parents would have been mailed a 28-page American Community Survey, a mandatory government questionnaire documenting their habits, household inhabitants, work schedule, how many toilets are in your home, etc. The penalty for not responding to this invasive survey can go as high as $5,000.

Instead of being born in a manger, Jesus might have been born at home. Rather than wise men and shepherds bringing gifts, however, the baby’s parents might have been forced to ward off visits from state social workers intent on prosecuting them for the home birth. One couple in Washington had all three of their children removed after social services objected to the two youngest being birthed in an unassisted home delivery.

Had Jesus been born in a hospital, his blood and DNA would have been taken without his parents’ knowledge or consent and entered into a government biobank. While most states require newborn screening, a growing number are holding onto that genetic material long-term for research, analysis and purposes yet to be disclosed.

Then again, had Jesus’ parents been undocumented immigrants, they and the newborn baby might have been shuffled to a profit-driven, private prison for illegals where they first would have been separated from each other, the children detained in make-shift cages, and the parents eventually turned into cheap, forced laborers for corporations such as Starbucks, Microsoft, Walmart, and Victoria’s Secret. There’s quite a lot of money to be made from imprisoning immigrants, especially when taxpayers are footing the bill.

From the time he was old enough to attend school, Jesus would have been drilled in lessons of compliance and obedience to government authorities, while learning little about his own rights. Had he been daring enough to speak out against injustice while still in school, he might have found himself tasered or beaten by a school resource officer, or at the very least suspended under a school zero tolerance policy that punishes minor infractions as harshly as more serious offenses.

Had Jesus disappeared for a few hours let alone days as a 12-year-old, his parents would have been handcuffed, arrested and jailed for parental negligence. Parents across the country have been arrested for far less “offenses” such as allowing their children to walk to the park unaccompanied and play in their front yard alone.

Rather than disappearing from the history books from his early teenaged years to adulthood, Jesus’ movements and personal data—including his biometrics—would have been documented, tracked, monitored and filed by governmental agencies and corporations such as Google and Microsoft. Incredibly, 95 percent of school districts share their student records with outside companies that are contracted to manage data, which they then use to market products to us.

From the moment Jesus made contact with an “extremist” such as John the Baptist, he would have been flagged for surveillance because of his association with a prominent activist, peaceful or otherwise. Since 9/11, the FBI has actively carried out surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations on a broad range of activist groups, from animal rights groups to poverty relief, anti-war groups and other such “extremist” organizations.

Jesus’ anti-government views would certainly have resulted in him being labeled a domestic extremist. Law enforcement agencies are being trained to recognize signs of anti-government extremism during interactions with potential extremists who share a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”

While traveling from community to community, Jesus might have been reported to government officials as “suspicious” under the Department of Homeland Security’s “See Something, Say Something” programs. Many states, including New York, are providing individuals with phone apps that allow them to take photos of suspicious activity and report them to their state Intelligence Center, where they are reviewed and forwarded to law-enforcement agencies.

Rather than being permitted to live as an itinerant preacher, Jesus might have found himself threatened with arrest for daring to live off the grid or sleeping outside. In fact, the number of cities that have resorted to criminalizing homelessness by enacting bans on camping, sleeping in vehicles, loitering and begging in public has doubled.

Viewed by the government as a dissident and a potential threat to its power, Jesus might have had government spies planted among his followers to monitor his activities, report on his movements, and entrap him into breaking the law. Such Judases today—called informants—often receive hefty paychecks from the government for their treachery.

Had Jesus used the internet to spread his radical message of peace and love, he might have found his blog posts infiltrated by government spies attempting to undermine his integrity, discredit him or plant incriminating information online about him. At the very least, he would have had his website hacked and his email monitored.

Had Jesus attempted to feed large crowds of people, he would have been threatened with arrest for violating various ordinances prohibiting the distribution of food without a permit. Florida officials arrested a 90-year-old man for feeding the homeless on a public beach.

Had Jesus spoken publicly about his 40 days in the desert and his conversations with the devil, he might have been labeled mentally ill and detained in a psych ward against his will for a mandatory involuntary psychiatric hold with no access to family or friends. One Virginia man was arrested, strip searched, handcuffed to a table, diagnosed as having “mental health issues,” and locked up for five days in a mental health facility against his will apparently because of his slurred speech and unsteady gait.

Without a doubt, had Jesus attempted to overturn tables in a Jewish temple and rage against the materialism of religious institutions, he would have been charged with a hate crime. More than 45 states and the federal government have hate crime laws on the books.

Had anyone reported Jesus to the police as being potentially dangerous, he might have found himself confronted—and killed—by police officers for whom any perceived act of non-compliance (a twitch, a question, a frown) can result in them shooting first and asking questions later.

Rather than having armed guards capture Jesus in a public place, government officials would have ordered that a SWAT team carry out a raid on Jesus and his followers, complete with flash-bang grenades and military equipment. There are upwards of 80,000 such SWAT team raids carried out every year, many on unsuspecting Americans who have no defense against such government invaders, even when such raids are done in error.

Instead of being detained by Roman guards, Jesus might have been made to “disappear” into a secret government detention center where he would have been interrogated, tortured and subjected to all manner of abuses. Chicago police have “disappeared” more than 7,000 people into a secret, off-the-books interrogation warehouse at Homan Square.

Charged with treason and labeled a domestic terrorist, Jesus might have been sentenced to a life-term in a private prison where he would have been forced to provide slave labor for corporations or put to death by way of the electric chair or a lethal mixture of drugs.

Indeed, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, given the nature of government then and now, it is painfully evident that whether Jesus had been born in our modern age or his own, he still would have died at the hands of a police state.

Thus, as we draw near to Christmas with its celebration of miracles and promise of salvation, we would do well to remember that what happened in that manger on that starry night in Bethlehem is only the beginning of the story. That baby born in a police state grew up to be a man who did not turn away from the evils of his age but rather spoke out against it.

We must do no less.

Via The Mind Unleashed,

As Christmas Eve approaches, the sky above promises more than twinkling stars and festive cheer. A massive celestial visitor, known as the “Christmas Eve asteroid,” is hurtling toward Earth at astonishing speeds.

While its approach is being closely monitored by NASA, the sheer size and velocity of this space rock have sparked fascination and a hint of unease. What makes this event so remarkable?

Could this asteroid pose a threat, or is it simply a fleeting guest in the cosmic dance of our solar system?

Asteroid 2024 XN1: Key Facts

Asteroid 2024 XN1, discovered on December 12, 2024, is set to make a close approach to Earth on Christmas Eve. Measuring between 95 and 230 feet in diameter—comparable to a 10-story building—this celestial object will pass at a distance of approximately 4.48 million miles from our planet, about 18 times the distance between Earth and the Moon.

Traveling at a velocity of 14,743 miles per hour, 2024 XN1 has been classified by NASA as a near-Earth object (NEO). Despite this classification, experts confirm there is no risk of collision. Astronomer Jess Lee from the Royal Greenwich Observatory notes, “It will be very far away, around 18 times further away from the Earth than the Moon is, and so with this predicted path won’t come close enough to hit the Earth.”

The significance of monitoring such asteroids is underscored by historical events like the Tunguska explosion in 1908, where a similarly sized object caused extensive damage over Siberia. This event flattened approximately 2,000 square kilometers of forest, highlighting the potential impact of near-Earth objects.

Potential Impact and Historical Comparisons

While asteroid 2024 XN1 is on a safe trajectory, understanding the potential impact of such celestial bodies is crucial. An asteroid of this size, measuring between 95 and 230 feet in diameter, could release energy equivalent to 12 million tons of TNT if it were to collide with Earth. This immense force could devastate an area of approximately 700 square miles, underscoring the importance of monitoring near-Earth objects.

Historical events provide sobering insights into the potential consequences of asteroid impacts. The Tunguska event of 1908, for instance, involved an object estimated to be about 120 feet in diameter—comparable to 2024 XN1. This explosion occurred above the ground and knocked down 80 million trees over a vast area in Siberia.

More recently, the Chelyabinsk meteor in 2013 demonstrated the destructive potential of smaller asteroids. A 66-foot-wide asteroid exploded in the atmosphere over Chelyabinsk, Russia, releasing energy equivalent to an estimated 150 kilotons of TNT. This event caused significant damage and resulted in numerous injuries, highlighting the need for vigilant monitoring of near-Earth objects.

How NASA Monitors These Asteroids

NASA employs a comprehensive approach to detect, track, and assess near-Earth objects (NEOs) like asteroid 2024 XN1, ensuring planetary safety through advanced monitoring systems and collaborative efforts.

One of NASA’s key tools is the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System (ATLAS), a state-of-the-art detection system capable of scanning the entire dark sky every 24 hours for NEOs that could pose a future impact hazard to Earth. Operated by the University of Hawaiʻi’s Institute for Astronomy for NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO), ATLAS enhances the ability to detect potential threats well in advance.

In addition to ATLAS, NASA has developed Sentry, a highly automated collision monitoring system that continually scans the most current asteroid catalog for possibilities of future impact with Earth over the next 100 years. Sentry’s next-generation algorithm, Sentry-II, improves the evaluation of NEA impact probabilities, enabling more accurate risk assessments.

NASA is advancing its monitoring capabilities with the development of the Near-Earth Object Surveyor (NEO Surveyor), a space-based infrared telescope designed to discover and characterize most of the potentially hazardous asteroids larger than 140 meters in diameter. Scheduled for launch in 2027, NEO Surveyor will enhance the detection of asteroids that are difficult to observe with ground-based telescopes, filling a critical gap in humanity’s ability to detect potentially hazardous NEOs.

Beyond detection, NASA has tested methods to alter the trajectory of potentially hazardous asteroids. The Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission, conducted in 2022, successfully demonstrated the ability to change an asteroid’s motion in space through kinetic impact. This mission marked a significant milestone in planetary defense, showcasing a viable method to protect Earth from future asteroid threats.

Through these sophisticated systems and missions, NASA continues to enhance its ability to monitor and mitigate potential asteroid threats, ensuring that objects like 2024 XN1 are detected and tracked well before they pose any risk to Earth.

Why This Matters: A Wake-Up Call

The close approach of asteroid 2024 XN1 serves as a compelling reminder of Earth’s vulnerability to near-Earth objects (NEOs). While this particular asteroid poses no immediate threat, its flyby underscores the critical importance of vigilant monitoring and preparedness.

Asteroids of significant size have the potential to cause catastrophic damage upon impact. Historical events, such as the Tunguska event in 1908, demonstrate the devastating effects of asteroid collisions. In that instance, an asteroid explosion flattened approximately 2,000 square kilometers of forest in Siberia. Similarly, the Chelyabinsk meteor in 2013 resulted in widespread damage and injuries. These incidents highlight the necessity of proactive measures to detect and mitigate potential threats.

NASA has been at the forefront of developing technologies to address the risks posed by NEOs. The Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission, conducted in 2022, successfully demonstrated the ability to alter an asteroid’s trajectory through kinetic impact. This mission marked a significant milestone in planetary defense, showcasing a viable method to protect Earth from future asteroid threats.

As of December 2024, NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office reports the detection of nearly 28,000 near-Earth asteroids, with new discoveries occurring at a rate of about 3,000 per year. This ongoing surveillance is crucial for early detection and risk assessment, enabling timely implementation of mitigation strategies.

The flyby of asteroid 2024 XN1 should not be dismissed as a mere astronomical event. Instead, it should galvanize global efforts to enhance our planetary defense capabilities. Investing in advanced detection systems, conducting impact risk assessments, and developing deflection technologies are essential steps to safeguard our planet from potential future threats.

A Celestial Reminder for Earth’s Safety

The Christmas Eve asteroid, 2024 XN1, reminds us of the delicate balance Earth maintains within the vast and unpredictable cosmos. While its approach is a harmless spectacle this time, the potential devastation such objects can cause is a stark reminder of our planet’s vulnerabilities. Events like the Tunguska explosion and the Chelyabinsk meteor highlight why vigilant monitoring and investment in planetary defense strategies are non-negotiable for our future.

As we marvel at the wonders of the universe, it’s crucial to recognize the significance of efforts by NASA and other space agencies in safeguarding humanity. The success of missions like DART demonstrates that we have the tools to prepare for potential threats. However, this requires global cooperation, continued research, and enhanced detection systems.

Asteroid 2024 XN1 will pass without incident this Christmas Eve, but it leaves us with a valuable lesson: the cosmos is a dynamic, ever-changing arena, and staying prepared is essential. In the words of renowned astronomer Jess Lee, “The universe constantly reminds us of its vastness and unpredictability. It’s up to us to respect and adapt to it.”

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

Communities throughout the United States are debating the pros and cons of fluoridated water.

It’s a bit of a shock because the issue has been present in the underground of American political life for many decades. Community water fluoridation was an early example of using public services for the purpose of mass medicalization. The science was never there, however, and there is a growing awareness that the critics were always correct.

If you want fluoride, you can get your own, without mass dosing of the population without consent.

It’s the strangest thing. This issue has suddenly become a hot topic, even though it has been debated since the 1950s. One could say it is an issue whose time has come.

And not only this one.

There is new skepticism in the public mind about a huge range of things, the critics of which were only recently considered crazy cranks. The frenzy over the capacity of government to control the climate is meeting with new resistance. Governments and companies that imposed vaccine mandates are facing serious fines at the hands of court judgments. Legions of regime scientists are under fire for blessing pandemic-era lockdowns despite how much they harmed the population.

Only two years ago, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., founder of Children’s Health Defense, was written off as a conspiracy theorist. There’s only one problem: His theories not only came true, but his explanations (contained in two books) are enormously compelling, so much so that his following has grown to a real turning point. People ask if he can be confirmed as the new secretary of health and human services. My own sense is that there is no doubt.

The new head of the National Institutes of Health is Jay Bhattacharya, who dissented from lockdowns since their earliest days, tirelessly writing and speaking against the misuse of science in the name of controlling infectious disease. Once, during the darkest times, he and I spoke on the phone. He said to me with genuine conviction that we had the moral obligation to speak out because so many people were suffering. He had the genuine sense that this craziness had to end, or else society itself would be irreparably damaged.

Nearly five years later, his outlook has become an emergent orthodoxy. It’s but another symbol of dramatically changed times. We find daily articles in the mainstream press sounding alarms that there is a new populist movement that distrusts all the claims of science. It’s a wild exaggeration, consistent with censorship and the dogma of supposed experts. Good science is characterized by doubts and demands for evidence.

Conventional historiography divides the past millennium and a half into two great epochs: the age of faith and the age of science. This division was always overwrought. It imagines the culture from 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D. as mostly enraptured with mystical religious dogma and lorded over by popes and priests. Then the Enlightenment dawned, with its focus on evidence and the scientific method, and thus did we experience the dawn of technology and better lives.

There are some obvious correctives to make to this simple outlook. The “age of faith” was the very one that gave birth to scientific concerns, driven as they were in the Middle Ages by a confidence that the universe as created by God could be discovered and understood with fearless investigation. This was the essence of the scholasticism that emerged in the 12th century, which combined Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and classical wisdom with a drive to find the final truth in God himself.

Meanwhile, the birth of widespread secularism led to excesses in the name of science, such as terrifying eugenics (the belief that the human population should be bred with attention to quality, as in animal husbandry) and totalitarianism (the belief that the whole of society should be treated as a laboratory for experiments). The No. 1 mystical belief of the age of science was that the methods of the natural sciences can and should pertain to social sciences.

This key error wrecked so many different fields, from politics and economics to psychology and sociology. The attempt to take methods for studying stable things and use them to study rational and volatile things never worked. To make it plausible required building fallacies into the model. We see this everywhere now. Look up common fallacies to see the very core of the junk science that overwhelms us today.

I’ve written about many fallacies—not only post hoc ergo propter hoc but also the subject bias. Then you have the absolute junk science of modeling: Assume pigs can fly and that you can prove it.

Looking back, the most powerful and prescient critique of this outlook was F.A. Hayek’s amazing “Counterrevolution of Science,” a book I revisited in the depths of lockdown to find insight into what had gone wrong.

This is the 50th anniversary of Hayek’s Nobel Prize speech of 1974. He had received the prize for his work on business cycles. He could have delivered a technical and relatively noncontroversial talk. Instead, he used the occasion to send out a grave warning not only to all economists but also to everyone in academia and the intellectual world. Provocatively, he called his paper “The Pretense of Knowledge.” Consider the following passage:

“What I mainly wanted to bring out by the topical illustration is that certainly in my field, but I believe also generally in the sciences of man, what looks superficially like the most scientific procedure is often the most unscientific, and, beyond this, that in these fields there are definite limits to what we can expect science to achieve. This means that to entrust to science—or to deliberate control according to scientific principles—more than scientific method can achieve may have deplorable effects.

“The progress of the natural sciences in modern times has of course so much exceeded all expectations that any suggestion that there may be some limits to it is bound to arouse suspicion. Especially all those will resist such an insight who have hoped that our increasing power of prediction and control, generally regarded as the characteristic result of scientific advance, applied to the processes of society, would soon enable us to mould society entirely to our liking.

“It is indeed true that, in contrast to the exhilaration which the discoveries of the physical sciences tend to produce, the insights which we gain from the study of society more often have a dampening effect on our aspirations; and it is perhaps not surprising that the more impetuous younger members of our profession are not always prepared to accept this.

“Yet the confidence in the unlimited power of science is only too often based on a false belief that the scientific method consists in the application of a ready-made technique, or in imitating the form rather than the substance of scientific procedure, as if one needed only to follow some cooking recipes to solve all social problems [my emphasis]. It sometimes almost seems as if the techniques of science were more easily learnt than the thinking that shows us what the problems are and how to approach them.

“The conflict between what in its present mood the public expects science to achieve in satisfaction of popular hopes and what is really in its power is a serious matter because, even if the true scientists should all recognize the limitations of what they can do in the field of human affairs, so long as the public expects more there will always be some who will pretend, and perhaps honestly believe, that they can do more to meet popular demands than is really in their power.

“It is often difficult enough for the expert, and certainly in many instances impossible for the layman, to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate claims advanced in the name of science.”

He concluded his talk as follows:

“If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible [my emphasis]. He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants.

“There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, ‘dizzy with success,’ to use a characteristic phrase of early communism, to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will.

“The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society—a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.”

There we go, words spoken half a century ago never more applicable than in our time. We seem to be learning. We seem to be applying the lesson. The only way to save science from itself is to apply it in proper ways while recognizing the limits of the ability to construct the world according to the imaginings of a handful of intellectuals. It’s tragic that we had to come to the point of nearly destroying the globe to discover this, but here we are. Let the rebuilding begin.

Keep the real science, but throw out the scientism.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is recommending taxpayers prepare for the 2025 tax filing season by taking certain key steps to make filing easier and help safeguard their tax information.

“There are a number of things taxpayers can do to get ready as the end of 2024 nears and the start of the 2025 tax season approaches,” said a Dec. 19 statement from the agency. The latest reminder is part of the “Get Ready” series in which the IRS publishes key updates as the start of the 2025 tax season approaches.

The IRS encouraged taxpayers to sign up for an IRS Online Account. The account helps individuals view key information from their recent returns, make and cancel payments, get electronic notices from the agency, set up payment plans, and sign forms like powers of attorney, among other things.

Besides the account, the IRS recommended getting an Identity Protection Personal Identification Number, or IP PIN. “An IP PIN is a six-digit number that prevents someone else from filing a federal tax return using an individual’s Social Security number or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.”

“It’s a vital tool for ensuring the safety of taxpayers’ personal and financial information,” the agency said.

For the 2025 filing season, the IRS has made an update regarding dependents on tax forms.

Taxpayers claim dependents during filing returns to receive certain deductions and credits like the Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, medical expense deduction, and education credits.

Sometimes, multiple people claim the same individuals as dependents on tax forms, like for instance, former spouses.

The IRS processes tax returns in the order they receive. As such, if the agency had already processed a return with certain dependents, another return seeking to claim the same individuals gets rejected.

However, starting from the 2025 filing season, returns claiming same dependents shall be accepted by the agency, provided the taxpayer includes a valid IP PIN.

The IRS says the new update “will reduce the time for the agency to receive the tax return and accelerate the issuance of tax refunds for those with duplicate dependent returns.”

“The best way to sign up for an IP PIN is through the IRS Online Account,” the agency said. However, “if an individual is unable to create an Online Account, alternative methods are available, such as in-person authentication at a Taxpayer Assistance Center.”

The IRS also highlighted the upcoming estimated tax payment due date.

“Taxpayers with non-wage income—such as unemployment benefits, self-employment income, annuity payments or earnings from digital assets—may need to make estimated or additional tax payments,” said the agency.

The deadline to make these payments for the September–December quarter of 2024 is Jan. 15.

1099-K Reporting, Digital Assets

Taxpayers who sold goods or services and collected over $5,000 in receipts via payment apps or online marketplaces in 2024 “should expect to receive a Form 1099-K,” the IRS said.

The form details payments received by taxpayers engaged in such transactions. Taxpayers must now account for these incomes when filing returns.

When previously the form was issued if the total transaction value in a year exceeded $20,000, currently the threshold is set at $5,000. This reduction is part of a plan to eventually reduce the limit to $600.

The IRS clarified that “taxpayers must report all income on their tax return unless it’s excluded by law, whether they receive a Form 1099-K or not.”

“The law doesn’t allow taxpayers to avoid taxes on income earned just because they didn’t get a form reporting the payments received.”

Form 1099-K income threshold reduction has come under criticism from lawmakers.

Rep. Carol Miller (R-W.Va.) introduced the “Saving Gig Economy Taxpayers Act” which seeks to revert it back to $20,000. She called the reduction “a tax hike on Americans and gig workers who use online payment platforms.”

Meanwhile, the IRS also reminded taxpayers to report all income related to digital assets like cryptocurrencies when filing the 2024 returns.

“If a taxpayer had digital asset transactions last year, they should be sure to keep records that prove their purchase, receipt, sale, exchange or any other disposition of the digital assets,” the IRS said. This includes the fair market value of such assets measured in U.S. dollars.

The IRS received around $5.1 trillion in tax revenues in the latest fiscal year 2024, roughly $400 billion more than in the previous year.

Authored by Cynical Publius via American Greatness,

The U.S. military’s growing DEI policies are creating a climate where fear of unfounded accusations erodes leadership and threatens combat readiness – leaving the nation’s future at risk…

As Pete Hegseth’s nomination for Secretary of Defense moves forward, the matter of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) doctrines and practices in America’s military is a hot-button issue of significant importance. Our media is awash with stories of “woke” generals and admirals, critiques of women in combat, awful tales of command selection board manipulations based on race or gender, and a generalized sense of uneasiness in the senior ranks of the Pentagon over perceived massive changes to take place once Trump and Hegseth are in charge. However, this current DEI attention focuses almost exclusively on what is happening inside the five walls of the Pentagon and tends to ignore DEI’s most pernicious effect: the way it is obliterating command authority in tactical units in the field and warships at sea.

First, let me tell you how I figured out what is going on. On X (formerly known as Twitter), I have an active account of about 130,000 followers. I know that number is much smaller than that of many other X influencers, but it’s enough to give me some reach. My account focuses primarily on politics and culture, with a heavy emphasis on matters related to the U.S. military. That’s because I’m a retired Army colonel, and my views on military matters seem to resonate with veterans and active duty alike. It is that community of military followers that has fully revealed to me the DEI cancer that is eating away at U.S. military leadership at all levels.

A few days ago, I read an article from Military.com that truly shocked me. That article stated that in today’s Army, roughly half of the officers who are eligible for battalion command are refusing to even be considered for such command. The article’s author, quoting official Army sources, stated that this was a function of officers being unwilling to take on the extraordinary time demands of being a battalion commander and out of a desire for a more sedate form of service for themselves and their families. The article suggests that a career as a staff officer with retirement at 20 years is more palatable than the constant and powerful peacetime and wartime demands of commanding a battalion of many hundreds or thousands of soldiers, even if that decision prohibits ever reaching high rank.

I was shocked. As I posted on X:

“What is going on here? In the Army I grew up in, it was the almost uniform goal of the entire officer corps to become a battalion commander one day. It was the brass ring. It was the validation of all of your training and efforts, and it was the most rewarding job in your career. The only reason to hold tedious staff positions was so you could aspire to one day command a battalion. So now in 2024, officers are happy to wile away the years making PowerPoint slides and making sure the coffee is fresh, and they lack the desire to lead troops? Dear God. The rot in the culture is far worse than I imagined.”

(As background, in all of the military services, not just the Army, command at the O-5 level is the ultimate leadership experience. In the Army and Marine Corps, it means commanding a battalion as a lieutenant colonel. In the Air Force, it means commanding a squadron as a lieutenant colonel. In the Navy, it means commanding a combat warship at the similar O-5 rank of commander. It truly is the greatest reward for those who wish to lead and command, and it is usually the last time in a successful military career that you are down in the dirt (or the bilge) with the troops that you lead. It’s a special time, once coveted by the best leaders.)

I retired from active duty in 2007, so I was looking at this issue from my old-timer perspective. But that’s when X, as the “new news media,” did its job—suddenly my X comments and private messages were flooded with active duty and recently retired officers explaining to me that this phenomenon was not due to a desire to not be overworked (as suggested by the Army itself and the Pentagon-friendly author at Military.com) but was instead due to fear of DEI. DEI has made O-5-level command a risky proposition where a male or a white officer lives in fear of an unfounded DEI complaint that would destroy not only his or her military career but the officer’s reputation as well. The risk of such destruction is outweighing the desire to lead. This is a tragic result.

So let’s say you are a straight, white male Army battalion commander who has a subordinate who happens to be a racial or ethnic minority, or a female, or LGBTQ+. Let’s also say that the subordinate is a poor performer to whom you give a poor efficiency report or is someone engaged in illegal activity that you prosecute under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Let’s say that such a poor performer or criminal then goes to the Inspector General (IG) and claims what you have done is motivated solely by racial, ethnic, or gender animus, or homophobia. (Or worse, a female soldier falsely claims you sexually assaulted her.) Back in the day, all such a commander needed to do was show the facts surrounding the issue to the IG, and the IG would go away, satisfied. But not today. Today, such claims tend to result in a presumption of guilt against the commander, which must be conclusively disproven.

As if that is not bad enough, there is a related concept here: so-called “counterproductive leadership.” Basically, counterproductive leadership is the idea that a leader’s actions are so toxic that he or she is not qualified to command. Crazily, “counterproductive leadership” (or “toxic leadership”) can be evidenced merely by such abstract concepts as subordinates refusing to look a leader in the eye or leaders holding poor performers to account for their poor performance. I’m fairly certain that iconic military leaders like George S. Patton and William “Bull” Halsey, Jr. would be considered purveyors of “counterproductive leadership” in today’s military environment, and mythical characters like Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Highway would likely be in the stockade.

“Counterproductive leadership” then gets linked to something else: “loss of confidence” by a commander’s chain of command. This is the idea that a commander’s superiors relieved him or her from command for unspecified reasons—including “counterproductive leadership.” In the past ten years, an unprecedented number of senior leaders (O-5 and above) have been relieved from command for this very “loss of confidence” reason. (Do a simple Google search and you’ll see what I mean.)

So let me please break down for you how this is all connected. Despite the fact that many commanders are, in fact, relieved for legitimately horrific reasons, many others are relieved according to the following, specious chain of events:

1. A unit commander disciplines a minority, female, or LGBTQ+ subordinate who legitimately committed some form of wrongdoing or was a poor performer.

2. The subordinate then files a race/ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality discrimination complaint against the unit commander with the IG, claiming the discipline was unwarranted and was actually motivated by racial/ethnic/gender/religious/LGBTQ+ animus.

3. The unit commander is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

4. The IG then determines the unit commander is innocent.

5. Despite the IG’s determination, the unit commander’s higher chain of command determines that “counterproductive leadership” was the cause of the unfounded and disproven IG complaint—a complaint that presumably would never have occurred had the unit commander displayed “productive leadership.”

6. “Counterproductive leadership” causes the unit commander’s chain of command to determine it has “lost confidence” in the unit commander.

7. The unit commander is then relieved from command duties by his or her higher chain of command due to such loss of confidence.

8. Stars and Stripes and Military.com then publicly report the ex-commander’s relief for cause.

9. The ex-commander then becomes depressed and starts drinking heavily; the ex-commander cannot find a civilian job because his reputation has been publicly destroyed; the ex-commander’s wife and kids leave him; the now-broke ex-commander moves into a seedy one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco’s Tenderloin district, where he is later arrested for fentanyl distribution.

(OK, I made #9 up—but I’m sure you can see how that fear of reputational destruction is valid and real.)

But that sequence of #1 through #8 that I just told you about? It’s real, without any exaggeration. There are senior folks I know personally who have suffered from this exact phenomenon. However, I’m not just speaking on this subject from personal knowledge (and back to X as the real news purveyor of the modern era), as my X feed has been overwhelmed with expressions of just what I wrote above. I have written some controversial X takes before that have garnered millions of views, but none of those resulted in so many detailed recountings of the exact same tale of woe as my discussion on this command issue did.

I’ll offer two examples out of many presented by my X followers.

My first comes from a current DoD member who is uniquely qualified in their duty position to understand the issue of O-5 command selection and the current related problems (and therefore said person requests anonymity):

“I work in a position where I encounter many of the O-5s and E-9s in that group [for prospective command]. An alarming amount of them seem low-key dreading facing the “weaponized investigation” culture that is currently pervasive. Combine that with the paltry manning (but perception from higher that everything must still get done as if they were 100%), and it is absolutely not surprising to me that the command opt-in is down.”

Then this from a recently retired Army colonel:

“100% accurate about jeopardy for commanders. I spent 75% of my last deployment conducting investigations. Did 78 AR 15-6 investigations in 9 months. The biggest problem are the sharp complaints and the “counterproductive leadership complaints.” Those are used for revenge and get out of jail. The “counterproductive leadership” complaints are virtually impossible to counter and even if you do no one escapes unscathed. Finally the religious exemptions for grooming and uniform standards are an EO trap—no matter how ridiculous the claim you have to be crazy to recommend denial because who are you to say it’s not a “sincerely held religious belief?” Deny it and you are prejudiced. Many of the active component majors and lieutenant colonels I worked with said they had zero interest in battalion command or brigade command because they were terrified of the endless investigations. It’s much less of a problem in the National Guard and USAR… until you mobilize. Then it’s the same problem.”

These are merely two of many such communications I have received. Are you sensing a pattern here?

Let me break it down one more time, as it was news to me when I finally figured it out, and it is probably news to anybody else who has not been in the U.S. military fairly recently. Here it is. Our senior civilian and military leadership in the Department of Defense have created a DEI climate across all military services where leadership at the key level of O-5 command is impossible. As a result, the best-qualified O-5s are running from command out of a legitimate fear of life-destroying lies that will stain their reputations like a scarlet letter.

The most disturbing part of all of this, however, is what the DEI cancer does at the tactical unit level to combat readiness. A military unit or warship cannot function as a combat-effective force when its commander lives in the shadow of the fear of unfounded subordinate retribution. It cannot. It is as if there is constant fear of mutiny or a gnawing sense of uneasiness that the unit you command is populated by an unknown number of zampolit. Leadership and discipline fail, unit cohesion crumbles, and the entire system disintegrates as combat effectiveness evaporates. Worst of all, the service members in such a combat-ineffective unit or ship will suffer—and some will die—as a result.

One more thing: if the best and brightest are running in fear from command, who is taking command? Answer: the “woke,” DEI-compliant officers; and because they are the ones taking command, they will necessarily one day become the officers at the top of the pyramid who make all the key military decisions. Or perhaps they are already there.

All of this leads to a very simple and devastating conclusion: if U.S. military commanders cannot command effectively, how can the U.S. military ever again win a war?

Pete Hegseth, please unwind the tyranny and combat ineffectiveness of this DEI cancer at all levels, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff all the way down to the infantry private walking point. Please. Our nation’s future depends upon it.

***

Cynical Publius is the nom de plume of a retired U.S. Army colonel, veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, and reformed denizen of the Pentagon who is now a practicing corporate law attorney. You can follow Cynical Publius on X at @CynicalPublius.