Left-Wing Brainwashing in the Military and Academia with Dr. Stanley Ridgley and Dr. Ron Scott

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Al Palmer (00:11):
Well, hello America.
This is Al Palmer, unitedStates Navy retired, and I'm
here for another episode ofSTARRS.
We're happy to have you with usas we explore some of the
operations and things that arehappening around our military
today to make sure that we cankeep it safe and able to carry

(00:33):
out its important function ofdefending you and me, the
American public.
To do that today, we're goingto have a discussion about a
very critical item right now,and that has to do with the
issues of diversity, equity,inclusion and critical race
theory and how that came to bethrough the efforts of some

(00:57):
various ideologies that we'lltalk about.
But to do that, I've enlistedthe help of our president of
STARS, my friend and president,el Presidente I like to call him
Ron Scott and he's here to tellus a little bit about how this

(01:18):
all works with our institution,the STARRS organization, which
stands for Stand TogetherAgainst Racism and
Radicalization in the Services.
And, ron, it's great to haveyou again with us, sir, today.
A little bit about you.
You're an Air Force Academygraduate and you are also a

(01:40):
pilot.
You flew a pilot.
You flew F-4s in the Air Force,as I had some time in that as
well, but you also had time inOV-10s and commanded
organizations throughout the AirForce that went into the Middle
East and have served us greatlyfor over 30 years.

(02:00):
And, Ron, sir, it's great tohave you with us again.
As part of our discussion today,we also have Dr Stanley Ridgely
, who's a PhD and holds an MBA.
He's a clinical full professorof management at Drexel
University's LeBeau College ofBusiness.
He holds a doctorate and amaster's in intelligent

(02:23):
international relations fromDuke University and an
international MBA from TempleUniversity.
He's also studied at MoscowState University and the
Institut de Gestion Sociale inParis, a former military

(02:46):
intelligence officer and servedfive years in West Berlin and
near the Czech German border,where I received the George S
Patton Award for leadership fromthe Seventh Army Academy in Bad
Tölz, west Germany.
So, stan, sir, it's a greatpleasure to have you with us and
I can't wait to hear some ofyour discussions about time both
in Europe as well as workingwith the Soviets.

(03:08):
So welcome aboard to both ofyou today.
And with that, what I'd like todo is start the discussion, I
think Ron, with you.
Sir, can you tell us a littlebit about how we got into DEI in
the military and why that'ssuch an important issue today?

Ron Scott (03:26):
Yeah, you bet, al.
It should have been somethingthat's considered pretty
innocuous by any standard.
I was alerted on the 7th ofJuly 2020, by a classmate from
the academy about a three-minutevideo that was produced and
published by Air Force Academyfootball coaches.
They chanted Black Lives Matterand gave five examples of

(03:49):
racial injustice, all five ofthem false.
I could appreciate thesentiment.
It was about two months afterthe George Floyd incident, so
emotions were running prettyhigh and these coaches who
depend upon recruiting wererunning pretty high, and these
coaches who depend uponrecruiting athletes, especially

(04:10):
from our underrepresentedcommunities, and so I think they
were sympathetic to the effortand wanted to show some
compassion about the issue.
Well, my concern is that theirsupport of this movement Black
Lives Matter movement wastantamount to supporting Marxism
, because the founders wereMarxist trained.

(04:30):
They admit it in the publicforum, and so I wrote a blog
article two days later andposted it, and a good friend of
mine, retired Air ForceLieutenant General Rod Bishop,
saw the article and askedpermission to forward it to the
superintendent at the academyLieutenant General Jay Severia
at the time and I told him I washonored for him to do that.

(04:55):
Well, that's what got us started.
We worked for several months toconvince the superintendent
that the video was dangerous andthat it really was a poor
representation of an institutionthat's supposed to be
apolitical, and so they finallydid take it down about nine
months later, with a morepositive theme, emphasizing

(05:16):
dignity and respect.
While that was more positive, Ireminded General Bishop that it
was an example of aesopianlanguage, which is a Marxist
tactic that uses language that'sdeceptive, and so the reason
they were emphasizing dignityand respect is because of the
unwritten justification for it,ie systemic racism, and that's

(05:40):
something that General Saveriowas claiming to exist at the
academy, and then it goes onbeyond that.
But that's really how we gotstarted, al.

Al Palmer (05:50):
So how did that go over with the cadets and the
staff at the Academy at the time?
Did they embrace that or didthey say, gee, I don't know, you
know, we don't know what'sgoing on?
And did that get through thehierarchy and the academy?
On the military side?

Ron Scott (06:09):
Well, the cadets were pretty much go along to get
along.
Occasionally a cadet wouldshare with us that they were
concerned about it.
They didn't like it, but theyfeared saying anything about it
in public because it wouldhighlight them that they were
non-compliant with theprevailing narrative, and so

(06:30):
there was a lot of fear thatbasically stifled any kind of
public dissent from the cadets.
But we did get cadets thatshared with us their concern and
their disappointment about it.

Al Palmer (06:43):
So did the superintendent buy off on this
ahead of time, or did they reactto it when it happened?

Ron Scott (06:50):
He did.
We said that somethingpolitical like that shouldn't be
allowed and he admitted that hesupported it and that the
public affairs and JAG alsosupported it.
We had filed an IG complaintabout it and the IG came back
and said that it was notpolitical but yet, ironically,

(07:13):
by us expressing opposition toit, we were considered political
because we were dissenting fromthat narrative and so it was
just a double standard.
And it's just sad, and I'm sureDr Ridgely is going to talk
about this when he shares whathe's discovered.
You know, people want tobelieve what they want to

(07:36):
believe, even if there are factsthat are contrary to that.
They get emotionally anchoredwith a thought or an idea, and
that's what happened here withthis Black Lives Matter and the
diversity, equity and inclusionpraxis that represented that.

Al Palmer (07:55):
So that was what 2019 , 2020?
.

Ron Scott (07:59):
July of 2020.
Okay, just to quickly expand onthat the day after the football
coaches published that video 8July 2020, general Severia
issued a letter to the Academyfamily, cadets, faculty staff,
parents, friends talking aboutsystemic racism in America to

(08:22):
include the Air Force Academysystemic racism in America to
include the Air Force Academy.
Thus, he had directed his staffto complete an assessment due
to him September 18 of 2020.
We filed a Freedom ofInformation Act request early
October of 2020 asking for acopy of that report.
Almost three years later, ittook a Judicial Watch lawsuit on
our behalf to get a federaljudge to compel the academy to

(08:45):
release that report.
When they did, we had in ourhands a 167 page document.
Every page had been labeled forofficial use only to shield it
from the public inappropriately,so they had to line through fo
uo on every page.
52 entire pages were completelyredacted.

(09:07):
Of the remaining pages, therewere other redactions, but what
we discovered in the unredactedpart of that report is that
there was no evidence of racism,let alone systemic racism the
criminal part of this, in myopinion at least, the immoral
part.
During the time they shieldedthis report from the public,

(09:29):
they trained 90 cadets to bediversity and inclusion officers
and NCOs throughout all theunits 40 squadrons, four groups
in the wing, 90 cadets, and tothis day they wear a purple rope
over their left shoulder,signifying to fellow cadets that
they are the equivalent of thepolitical officer in their

(09:49):
respective units.
that exists to this day.

Al Palmer (09:56):
But thinking back to that time in 2020, I don't
remember a widespread governmentDEI CRT program or an issue.
How did that get into themilitary so quickly?

Ron Scott (10:12):
It operated under the radar.
A couple more very importantfacts for the record.
In the fall of 2008, the BlackCongressional Caucus chartered
the Military LeadershipDiversity Commission in the 2009
National Defense AuthorizationAct.
They did this without anydebate.
So what they did?

(10:32):
They stood up this commissionto promote discrimination.
On page 18 of their final report, which came out in March of
2011, they stated explicitlythat we could not treat people
equally and those that grew upin the equal opportunity era.
It was outdated, that it wasimportant to discriminate to

(10:53):
achieve the equity that wasneeded so that underrepresented
minorities were now beingpromoted to the general officer
ranks.
That was one of the primarygoals.
They were overrepresented inthe enlisted ranks, but
underrepresented at the flagofficer ranks.
The other concept that theywere explicit about was the
danger of assimilation, becauseassimilation subordinated

(11:18):
different subcultural values,and they didn't want to do that.
They wanted to amplifysubcultural values, which was
contrary to assimilation.
That was in 2011.
Five months later, thepresident issued an executive
order that established diversityand inclusion personnel and

(11:38):
programs across the entirefederal government.
Once they had demonstrated theycould do this in the Department
of Defense, they used that asjustification then to permeate
that throughout the rest of thefederal government?

Al Palmer (11:51):
Yeah, and I guess that was my recollection of that
that we actually set the tonein the military for what would
follow in a broader DEI.

Ron Scott (12:01):
Exactly Now.
The last thing I'll say on thatis that once the Military
Leadership Diversity Commissionstood down a couple years later,
when the Defense Department DEIcottage industry had realized
that not all the recommendationshad been implemented, they
stood up the Defense AdvisoryCommittee on Diversity and

(12:23):
Inclusion.
Now it's still in existence andthey just recently applied to
have their charter renewed.
It's headed up by retired Blackfour-star, lester Lyles, who
also chaired the MilitaryLeadership Diversity Commission,
and so there's a history hereof STARS getting involved in the

(12:43):
Daco-Dye effort, whichperpetuates the deliberate
discrimination that wasinstantiated from that Military
Leadership Diversity Commissioneffort.
And so we're still working thatand we're hoping to get
congressional interest to bringin leadership in the Daco-Dye
enterprise and to have themexplain to the general public

(13:04):
how they can honestly justifydeliberate discrimination in
violation of the Civil RightsAct of 1964 and other statutes.

Al Palmer (13:15):
So, Dr Ridgely, you teach this subject matter too.
I know.
What are your thoughts on howthis came about and how it's
manifested itself today?
I mean, was it just an ideasomebody dropped in, or did they
enlist people to actually pushit in the senior levels of the
services?

Stanley Ridgley (13:35):
Well, I think that the left has always been
fascinated by the hierarchicalnature of the military and they
know, and they have always known, that if they can manage to
insert some sort of directive atthe very apex of the military
hierarchy, that will veryquickly disseminate throughout

(13:56):
the ranks and the ranks willobey what the upper echelons are
saying to do, because that'sthe nature of the military.
You look at policy, you receiveyour policy directives, you
receive your orders and youcarry them out.
And this is something thatcannot be done, it can't be
replicated in the civilian world.

(14:16):
And the left has recognized theadvantages of having this type
of hierarchical structure.
And if they can seize thecommanding heights of the
military, the Department ofDefense, and insert this type of
ideological balderdash at thehighest echelons, get a DEI

(14:38):
commissar appointed in thePentagon, which I think you have
a number of them then have thisperson sit at the table and
insist upon this type ofideological indoctrination of
the type that Ron describedgoing on at the Air Force
Academy, then this will veryquickly propagate throughout the

(14:58):
military, far more quickly thanit will propagate in any other
organization in the country,quickly than it will propagate
in any other organization in thecountry.
So I think that in essenceanswers the question as to how
it happened so quickly.
The upper echelons were targeted.
The unfortunate death of GeorgeFloyd gave them the opportunity

(15:19):
that they needed.
That was seized upon, both inthe military and, of course, in
my bailiwick, which is highereducation.
It gave them a raison d'etre tomake this move and implement a
lot of the policies that theyhad been champing at the bit to
implement for quite some time.
I have to say, neither themilitary nor any university in

(15:42):
the country had anything to dowith the death of George Floyd
and I, quite frankly, I'mgetting tired of hearing these
constant genuflections to thedeath of this, the unjust death
of this convicted felon.
Justice was administered inthat incident and I think we can

(16:03):
move on, but no, we've tried to.
We, being the royal, we haveattempted to elevate this
unfortunate incident to a kindof touch point in this so-called
racial reckoning that we sawevolve over the subsequent years
and the rise of this ideologyof DEI, which is the

(16:25):
implementation arm, the activistarm of CRT or critical race
theory, certainly in theuniversity.
It's unfortunate that one of thegreat institutions of the
United States, the military, andcertainly the military
academies has now succumbed to acertain extent to this ideology

(16:47):
.
I think it can be rectifiedequally as quickly if the danger
is recognized and the rightpeople begin to take actions to
rectify that situation andrestore the United States
military to its former glory, Ishould say, in terms of its

(17:08):
uniform treatment of soldiersand officers.
The military has always beenthe great democratizer, taking
people from all backgrounds,races, creeds and colors and
putting them through the sametreatment.
And I think you'll find noother institution in America
where so many Black people ofcolor are in positions of

(17:31):
authority, certainly in the NCOranks, than in the United States
military.
And I think that there is animbued or an inherent respect
for ability, for merit, forbrotherhood, sisterhood.
Now, that is incomparable, itcannot be compared to any other
institution.

(17:51):
Well, the left wants to destroythat and replace it with
something else, and as wefurther continue along our
discussion what that somethingelse is, as we can begin to get
very specific about that.

Al Palmer (18:08):
So it's interesting too, as you say, where this was
injected into the military.
I would note that, you know,just a couple of years ago,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs,general Mark Milley, got into
this with Congress and some ofhis testimony where he said you
know, I've got to find out aboutthis.

(18:29):
I got to read about it and I'mthinking where the heck did that
come from?
What was the impetus all of asudden for him to get interested
in a subject of CRT, dei, allof a sudden, overnight and at
the same time?
Another coincidence is now thecurrent chairman of the Joint

(18:50):
Chiefs, general CQ Brown, who atthe time was the PACAF
commander, pacific Air Forces,which covers all of the Air
Force in the western part of thehemisphere.
He was creating his own DEIprogram in PACAF without, I
guess, consulting anybody else.
He just did it and developed it.

(19:11):
So now here you've got two ofthe top generals in the services
, all the services, who havebeen doing this pretty much at
the same time.
What a coincidence.
Your thoughts on that?

Well, I think that it's a matter of
ideological indoctrination andbelief, and what the left has
always propounded is that theirbusiness is to change the world,
not simply describe it.
This is Marx's 11th thesis onFeuerbach.
The purpose of philosophy isnot to simply describe the world

(19:46):
, but we have to change it, andchange it for the better.
And once you sign on to thistype of social activist agenda,
it arms you with not only thetools of change how to go about
undermining institutions but itarms you with this incredible
certitude that you are doingjustice, that you are in

(20:08):
possession of the truth and thatthis justifies most anything
that you want to do with regardto implementing your social
justice aims.
It's social engineering.
It has really nothing to dowith empiricism or the world as
we know it, the world that werecognize.
Instead, it has to do withacting on the basis of a theory,

(20:30):
not acting on the basis oflooking at a problem, looking at
our system, and saying this isright, this is wrong.
No, they don't do this.
This theory is very contrivedand it's applicable to any
situation, and they look toguidance in the theory for what
they do, not guidance of what ishappening on the ground.

(20:52):
This is why so much of what'shappening seems so bizarre and
disconnected from reality.
Because it is disconnected fromreality, they are comparing and
measuring our behavioraccording to an ideal situation
in their own minds that has beencrafted and given to them, and

(21:14):
this is the art stick by whichthey measure reality.
And they're trying to establishinstitutions and they're trying
to mold human beings to think acertain way and behave a
certain way according to thisdoctrine that they have embraced
.
That to me, I think, is kind ofa universal explanation of what

(21:36):
is going on.
It's happening on theuniversity campuses as well.

Al Palmer (21:40):
I can tell you that, yeah, so, ron, we talked about
this before.
I think this is not the firsttime somebody has used the
military as a testbed for thingslike social justice or other
social engineering programs, asStan alluded to too.
You know, can you remember acase where this was done before,

(22:05):
back when you were younger?

Ron Scott (22:15):
Well, I'm thinking 1973, fresh out of.
My first assignment was as apersonnel officer at the 861st
radar squadron in Aiken, southCarolina.
One of those duties was to bethe social actions officer.
So I was trained to be a socialactions officer, how to start

(22:36):
educating people on the dangersof racism and radicalism and how
we should treat people withequal opportunity.
It was my next assignment as abrand new first lieutenant at
Goodfellow Air Force Base that Iwas appointed to be an
investigating officer for aracial incident that took place

(22:58):
at one of our security gates.
Goodfellow only had two gates,north and South Gate, and so a
carload of Black young peopleapproached the South Gate or
North Gate and wanted to go tothe NCO club, and none of them
had a military ID card.
So the security guard turnedthem away but alerted the other

(23:22):
gate that these folks weretrying to get access to the base
, and so, sure enough, theyshowed up at the gate.
But by then the radiotransmission had been monitored
at the central security desk.
So they dispatched additionalsecurity policemen to the other

(23:42):
gate.
And so the car arrives and theyasked for ID cards.
Of course nobody had ID cards,but one of the other security
policemen starts sticking hisfinger in through the window,
poking people in the chest Doyou have an ID card?
Do you have an ID card?
Poking people in the chest, doyou have an ID card?
Do you have an ID card?
And one of the occupants said aword of profanity in response.

(24:04):
So they had all the individualsget out of the car, had them on
the ground spread-eagled.
One of the passengers was sixmonths pregnant, and so they
told them they couldn't enter.
They got them back in the carand they left.
So my job then was toinvestigate that incident, to
find out what actually happenedand should there be disciplinary

(24:24):
action.
Well, there was obviousdiscrimination.
They went after theseindividuals because of their
skin color, and so part of myrecommendations was to give
everyone involved a letter ofreprimand and to establish an
unfavorable information file.
For the squadron commander, whowas a major, I recommended that

(24:45):
he receive an Article 15 forallowing that kind of culture to
exist in his squadron and to berelieved of command.
The wing commander, whohappened to be the first woman
wing commander in Air Forcehistory, norma E Brown, agreed
with all the recommendations,issued the letters of reprimand
and the Article 15, and relievedthe commander of his duty.

(25:08):
I told the wing commander thatI didn't put this in writing,
but I highly encouraged her tocall every single individual in
that car and offer an apology onbehalf of the United States Air
Force.
And she said you know, we runthe risk of them suing the Air
Force by admitting that kind ofguilt.
I said, well, number one, wewere guilty and, number two,

(25:30):
they have every right to bring alawsuit against the United
States Air Force.
And so she agreed, shecontacted each individual,
offered an apology on behalf ofthe Air Force and to the person
they thanked her for admittingthat what happened that night
was inappropriate no lawsuits.
So that was an early experiencein my life that, yeah,

(25:53):
discriminatory behavior canhappen, it still does, and when
it does, you address it when ithappens and you set the record
straight.
So that was one of my firstexperiences, al.
But to piggyback on what Stanwas talking about earlier, and
with our flag officers and whythey do what they do at the

(26:16):
three and four star level, it'sextremely political.
Those nominations to get athird and a four star is
political.
And so when they interviewindividuals to see if they're
going to advance the next rank,that general officer, that

(26:36):
admiral, needs to be congruentwith the political values of the
administration that isadvancing them to more senior
ranks, which justifies why Ihear too often when somebody is
approached to say this is notright and something needs to be

(26:57):
done about it, and to get aresponse like my hands are tied
or this is above my pay grade iscowardly.
They lack the integrity and thecourage to recognize that this
is wrong.
Something needs to be doneabout it and I'm gonna stand for
what's right, and we don't seethat today going to stand for

(27:23):
what's right and we don't seethat today.

Al Palmer (27:28):
So here's a kind of a collateral question in that.
If, in fact, as you weredealing with the equal
opportunity aspects of anearlier time, does that mean
that the equal opportunityprogram was hijacked by DEI and
the Marxist influences?
I'm beginning to think maybethat was the case.
They used a valid concern atthe military at the time because

(27:48):
after 1947, when we got rid ofthe segregated forces and then
we started then increasing ourattention to treating people a
little differently, you knowthat treating people a little
differently, you know that wasprobably a good program.
Equal opportunity at the time.
I mean it guaranteed peoplesome access to remedying
problems that developed fromthat.

(28:09):
And then all of a sudden nowhere comes DEI, which is a
wholly different approach, butit seems that they actually took
over for what they used to bedoing under equal opportunity.

Ron Scott (28:26):
Yeah, it's been co-opted, it's been turned
upside down.
In that final report, march of2011, they were critical of this
whole equal opportunityframework, that it was important
to discriminate, to level theplaying field, to to achieve the
type of equity that they thinkwas necessary and, as I
mentioned, they even criticizedassimilation.

(28:46):
That assimilation is bad.
I mean so much for report wasunum and trying to bring
together disparate populationsbased on merit and skills and
aptitude and that sort of thing.

Al Palmer (29:03):
They they basically said that was outdated, but here
again, the military isdifferent than the outside world
in this regard that if you aregoing to demand people have a
very high level of performanceand merit and ability to do the
job almost flawlessly, otherwisesomebody dies or gets hurt.

(29:26):
You know you can't do that withjust anybody, can you?
And doesn't that impose someability to restrict the work
that's being done to the people?
Can actually show that they cando it Unlike.
You know if you're a unlike, ifyou're an accountant and you
know Morgan Stanley in New YorkCity working behind a desk.

(29:48):
It's a wholly different idea ofhow we work.

Ron Scott (29:53):
It is different, and I'll tell you I'm optimistic
because the current SergeantMajor of the Army I'll tell you
I'm optimistic because thecurrent Sergeant Major of the
Army, robert Weimer, haseliminated diversity as a
criteria for advancing forpromotion, and we were shocked,

(30:22):
as the senior leadership herestars, that a person in his
position, the highest rankingenlisted member of the US Army,
was pretty explicit at takingdiversity out of play, and so we
can only presume that the Chiefof Staff of the Army was behind
the scenes supportive of thateffort, and we're still waiting
to see how that plays out.
We sent a letter ofcongratulations to Sergeant
Major of the Army Weimer,congratulating him for having

(30:43):
the courage to do that.
We're still waiting to hearback from him, and we'll
probably renew that letter andmake it even more public type of
thing, the type of actions that, even though it was subtle, a
lot of the people in the publicdon't know about it or would
understand the significance orthe implications.

(31:06):
It's a step in the rightdirection.

Al Palmer (31:09):
Well, hopefully there'll be a little bit more of
that coming along here.
So now that we've kind ofdelved into a little bit of how
we got it into the military andkind of where it is today.
What do we do now to fix it?
How do we get rid of it?

Ron Scott (31:31):
Well, I'll jump in there, Making it public number
one, educating the generalpublic and then also working
with Congress to let them knowthat they have tremendous
authority in Article 1 aboutorganizing and equipping and
providing rules and regulationsfor our armed forces.

(31:52):
So, even though a lot of thisdiversity, equity and inclusion
is, in my opinion, in starkviolation of the law, the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and otherstatutes, Congress needs to get
more involved and moreaggressive in eradicating this

(32:13):
from the Department of Defenseand the entire federal
government and following throughwith teeth making sure that it
is being eliminated.
Budgets zeroed out, Individualsthat were filling posts like
that terminated or transferredto other needed positions.

(32:36):
So there's a lot that can bedone right now, but it's going
to require courage to do it.

Al Palmer (32:44):
So, stan, you know, looking at the results of what's
happened in the military, youknow it's not just a program
somebody put in there and we alldon't like it.
We don't buy Starbucks coffeefor people and talk about it too
much, but there is a net effect, isn't there?
That's happened in this.

(33:05):
We've lost people.
We've lost them throughattrition, through people who
don't want to stick and stay outin the military for their
enlistments or their contractswith the military, with their
officers.
But we've lost also a greatdeal of talent in that too.
And having to replace that,particularly in the mid grades

(33:28):
and the middle ranks in theofficer corps.
After you've had people in forfive or 10 years, it's hard to
get that kind of talent backquickly and it's expensive as
hell to replace it.
So that's something that's.
That's something that'shappening because people don't
want to stay.
They used to want to stay inmuch greater numbers, used to be
60, 70 percent, uh.

(33:51):
Now it's down like 40 or so, uh.
And I noticed that the more thatthey were paying, particularly
my service, the were payingpeople as mid-grade officers
just to stick around and they'resaying no, I don't want to do
that.
I've had too much of this kindof indoctrination stuff that's
going on, whichever type ithappens to be, and there's too

(34:12):
much paperwork that goes with it.
There's too much lost time fortraining and gaining expertise
in your particular specialty, sothey're not sticking around.
And, even worse than that,we're having greater trouble
trying to find people who wantto come in to the services from
families who used to be theplace to go.

(34:33):
And this may be part again ofthe deconstruction, if you will,
of the military from the inside, if you're a conspiracy
theorist.
But we know that these figuresare real.
We know that the recruiting andthe retention is dropping, and
it's dropping precipitously, andI guess my question to you,

(34:56):
stan, is so do we see some waythat we can correct that,
knowing how the bad guys, otherideologies, work?

Well, first of all it's a lot to unpack there,
but I'm going to start bypointing out that the military
ethos is one of cohesiveness andunity and achieving the
objective creating a sense ofunity and a bond in military
units, because one's life quiteoften depends upon it.

(35:25):
And the effect of DEI in themilitary is to work against that
cohesiveness.
It's not designed to create abond among people.
It is designed to create abelief in oppressors and
oppressed.
It's designed to create theidea of enemies to your left and

(35:45):
right.
It's designed to increasesuspiciousness.
It's designed to increaseparanoia that is endemic, that
is unique to them, that is, Ishould say, endemic to them, as,
say, a white person or a blackperson or a person of color,
that their personality dependsupon that, that they cannot

(36:09):
overcome their innate racism, etcetera, et cetera.
When the idea is to break downthese individual differences, to
increase an emphasis oncommonalities and the idea of a
shared burden, a shared mission,and to create that unit
cohesiveness.
That's very tough to do, tocreate a cohesiveness where none

(36:30):
existed before and to breakdown barriers between people who
might be not natural.
You know, bedfellows in in atlarge, very difficult to do.
The military has always beengood at doing that Well.
Dei brings in this notion oftribalism, this notion of you
are a member of a distinct groupand you are, rather than being

(36:53):
judged on your how you measureup against a yardstick of
achievement, you're now going tobe judged by the fact that you
are a member of a particulargroup and that you're expected
to behave a certain way, andthen if you're a member of an
out group, that's a villain.
We have to be suspicious of you.
And so this is what is meant byteaching divisive concepts.

(37:16):
It's not just divisive concepts, it's very harmful,
debilitating concepts thatsimply aren't true.
It's not just divisive concepts, it's very harmful,
debilitating concepts thatsimply aren't true.
It's pseudoscience.
It always has been, and I'mvery surprised that this type of
primitive alchemy or kind ofastrology, this type of magic
thinking, has made its way backinto the university and has

(37:37):
somehow found its way into theone of the most merit-based,
merit grounded institutions inall of uh, our society, and that
is the us military.
It's always been based on whatyou can do.
How far, how far can you marchwith a 60 pound pack carrying an
m16?
How far can you carry yourbuddy in a carry?

(38:01):
For a certain distance, how farcan you do that?
How fast can you run?
How strong are you?
How much endurance do you have?
All of these objectivemeasurements that are necessary
to gauge a person's ability toachieve the mission have been
slowly eroded, in the sense thatthey take second place to well.

(38:24):
We don't really care about thisperson's aggregate, of how well
they perform in the field.
We're going to look at thisperson's skin color and we're
going to promote that person andbring this person in so that we
can achieve something that hasabsolutely nothing to do with
the accomplishment of themission and that kind of goes

(38:44):
against everything the militaryhas stood for, which is to
accomplish the mission and to doso with the idea of duty, honor
, country, and the idea that youwill not lie, cheat or steal,
the idea of honor.
These are all being eroded inthe service to these marginal
values of diversity and Marx'sdictum of equity from each
according to his ability, toeach according to his need.

(39:06):
That's the first majorexpression of equity that we
know of.
And the idea of inclusion.
Well, the military has alwaysbeen inclusive.
I don't understand why this, Iwould say, foe, this notional of
inclusion that is attached tothis fake ideology of DEI.

(39:26):
Whenever, the military hasalways been a place of inclusion
, the idea of your brothers andyour sisters in arms.
You know, when you go intocombat I've never been in combat
, so I'm not going to say well,whenever you go into combat, as
many of my comrades have told me, you're not fighting for these
lofty ideals, you're fightingfor the person to your left, the

(39:48):
person to your right, andyou're fighting for your unit
and you're fighting for survival.
And what the military hasalways done is to inculcate
these types of martial values isto inculcate these types of
martial values, and I think DEIhas been doing its best to break
down those values and to createthis divisiveness.
And there's a larger agenda atplay here to remove the military

(40:09):
as a bastion, the last bigbastion that protects American
values, the ideas oftraditionalism, traditional
family, the idea of cohesiveness, the idea of patriotism, and
that's the ultimate goal is tobreak that down and to destroy
it.
And I think that we need to beon the Kaviv, we need to be

(40:29):
ready and to recognize that thisis what their goal is.
And again, ron mentioned thebest way to stop this is
sunlight.
Transparency is the best way togo about doing this and to make
it known to the public againand again and again that this is
what is happening and that thisis wrong If you want a strong

(40:50):
America and you want patriotism,to inform our officer corps and
to inform our enlisted ranks.
And we have to recognize thatwe, that these values are under
assault by a bunch of folks whodo not have the best intentions
with regard to the future of ourcountry.

Al Palmer (41:13):
And another way of doing that, too, seems to be not
just those identifiablecharacteristics that we have
that are different, but it'salso things like getting rid of
standards when all of a suddensome part of a group can't
perform well.
The latest thing has been well,we'll just eliminate or reduce

(41:36):
the standards until they can getthrough the program and they
will be all happy andeverybody's going to be equal
and they pretend that theprogram is just the same as it
always was.
Exactly.

Well, we had that problem.

Al Palmer (41:50):
Well, we had that problem.
I saw it directly when I was inthe Navy flying Tomcats.
They were pushing some womenthrough their training and
getting them certified andchecked out in F-14s to go to
sea and they sent them out there, you know, partially equipped.
They got them through veryquickly.

(42:10):
Why?
Because there was a bit of acompetition with the Air Force
to get the first women intocombat.
So they sent a couple of thewomen out into a fleet squadron.
They weren't ready and sureenough, one of them ended up
binding on the end of thecarrier deck, you know, and
killed both of them, just lostit.

(42:31):
And they went back and lookedat it and realized they reduced
the standard so much just to getthem through the first three
women and they lost people indoing it and that was a painful
lesson for the navy.
But there's other ways thatthat's done.
I think today too, it's notjust for any kind of a person.

(42:51):
We have a general problemsometimes today with physical
fitness and standards andthey're starting to reduce them
again.
Like you say, how far can youmarch with a 60 pound pack?
Well, we'll take it down from10 miles to maybe half a mile.
How about that?
And everybody be happy, andthen we can maybe tailor that a

(43:12):
little bit more for women whowant to be rangers or SEALs.
Well, where do you stop that?

Ron Scott (43:24):
Well, part of that is publishing something like Stan
did with his book Brutal Minds.
It's about cold water in yourface and why his book resonated
so well with me.
I'm at the United States AirForce Academy from 1969 to 1973.
We had all these love fests andhippies and the radicals, the
Weather Underground, the BlackPanthers.

(43:45):
You really did in that class,didn't you?
And what was going on duringthat time?
Mao's Cultural Revolutionduring the same time frame.
And so when I read Stan's bookBrutal Minds, it's like, oh my
God, it's happening here inAmerica.
And he chronicles it andheavily documents it in his book

(44:07):
Brutal Minds.
Stan, what was your biggesttakeaway in that, when you put
that book together?

My biggest takeaway.
I think I want to thank you forthe praise of the book.
My biggest takeaway in doingthe research for the book was
the fact that there is thisgroup of people on campuses
nationwide and they are allvirtually all of them are
employed in something calledstudent affairs and they are all
trained in this same way thattheir job is to.

(44:39):
They believe themselves to becollege educators and their job
is to transform higher educationinto an indoctrination facility
for these types of socialjustice enterprises.
Now, I mean this quiteliterally, that they believe
it's their job to transformhigher education.
Even though they are notfaculty, they are engaged in

(45:01):
brainwashing our students andutilizing brainwashing
techniques thought reformtechniques is the official term
for it that were used incommunist China, used in North
Korea and developed here in theUnited States by Kurt Lewin in
the 1940s.
Kurt Lewin was a socialpsychologist at MIT and he
developed this three-stageprocess whereby you could change

(45:23):
a person's belief system.
He is the father of what becameknown as group therapy.
This guy's name is again DrKurt Lewin.
He developed a three-stageprocess and this is what I found
fascinating that thepropagators of this brainwashing
on campuses are quite up frontabout what they do.
The three-stage process is toattack and unfreeze a person's

(45:47):
belief system, to change thatbelief system and then to
refreeze the new belief systemand then engage the student in
activist activities so that thestudent will not backslide and
have a recidivism to theirprevious belief system.
This is clear-cut.
This is what they do.
They say they do this in theirmanuals.

(46:09):
There's one of the very popularmanuals.
There's one called Teaching forDiversity and Social Justice by
Marianne Adams and Leanne Bell,and in this manual, which was
first published in 96, marianneAdams and Leanne Bell and in
this manual, which was firstpublished in 96, republished
again in the second edition in2006, another one in 2016, and
again in 2023, they utilize KurtLewin's three-stage process.

(46:34):
They give it different names,but it's all the same
three-stage process.
And the key to this and this isa key to protecting yourself
from this type of activity onefactor they need the student to
do to engage in this voluntarilyis to gain the student's trust,
and they do this verysurreptitiously by engaging
students in games such as theprivilege walk, interrogation

(46:57):
games, serving up free pizza,having karaoke night, and by
saying in these small groupsessions you know, trust the
person to your left and to yourright.
Make yourself vulnerable.
Let me give an example ofself-disclosure.
And then they disclosesomething to the class and then
they ask for disclosure.
You can disclose somethingabout you or yourself, your

(47:18):
family, and they get studentstrusting them.
Well, this sets up the studentfor having their belief system
undermined.
I'll give you an example SherryK Watt.
Dr Sherry K Watt, at theUniversity of Iowa, published a
book called TransformingMulticultural Initiatives, or
Designing TransformativeMulticultural Initiatives.
She believes, and it states inthis book, that she attacks a

(47:41):
student's belief system todestabilize it, to create a
sense of vertigo which makes thestudent ready to accept new
truths, which is this new beliefsystem.
The book that I previouslydescribed to you, teaching for
Diversity and Social Justice isquite upfront about what they do
and why they do it.
They want to destabilize aperson's belief system, the

(48:03):
student, so that then they canready the student and fill the
student with this new beliefsystem, which is based on
crypto-Maoist doctrine calledcritical consciousness,
developed by a Brazilian Maoistby the name of Paulo Freire.
Most listeners probably havenever heard of Paulo Freire this
is by design.

(48:23):
He was a crypto-MaoistBrazilian educator in the 60s
and 70s, wrote an incrediblyinfluential book called Pedagogy
of the Oppressed, in which is alove fest for Mao and Marx and
even Lenin and Stalin to acertain extent.
And this guy is considered partof the pantheon of theorists in

(48:44):
education schools across thenation.
Well, when you say Frere, pauloFrere, no one knows what you're
talking about.
Well, what you're talking aboutis crypto-Maoism.
It is that extreme.
Paulo Frere absolutely was afan of Mao Zedong's cultural
revolution that you mentioned,ron.

(49:05):
From 1966 to 1976, thisabomination of the cultural
revolution took China, tookabout a million people alone as
a result of that and basicallytortured and crippled a lot of
people for life, hundreds ofthousands of people, for no
other reason than that they wereperceived as being disloyal to

(49:28):
the communist regime.
And Paulo Freire believed that.
And he stated as much verbatimthat Mao came up with the most
congenial solution to theproblem of the people of the
century.
He says well, stalin shot downthe peasants and Vladimir Lenin
shot down the peasants, andFidel hadn't had yet the
opportunity to shoot down enoughpeasants.

(49:50):
Mao Zedong came up with quotethe most congenial solution of
the century, and this was theCultural Revolution, the idea
that you could re-educatehundreds of thousands, if not
millions of your people into anew way of thinking.
That new way of thinking, ofcourse, was critical
consciousness, putting asidebourgeois traditional values and

(50:12):
embracing a neo-Marxist view ofthe individual as part of this
collective subservient to thecollective good, and embracing a
materialist view of history andbasically putting aside you
better put aside those bourgeoisthoughts and ape and mimic the
Marxist ideology.

(50:33):
Well, that's what's going on onAmerica's college campuses.
When people say Frere and a lotof people do they're meaning
crypto-Maoism.
Where is Frere revered?
He's revered in schools ofeducation, and these books that
I've mentioned to you are usedin schools of education right
now.
This is not something a longtime ago.
This is not something I'mspeculating about.

(50:55):
This is not me connecting dotsthat are hard to find.
This is what they say.
They do up front, they chestthump about it, they brag about
it, they offer after actionreports to show how well they're
doing it.
And this is what's so brazenabout it that they're so upfront

(51:15):
about what they're doing.
And yet they've managed to keepit on the down low, as they say
, because they substitute foryour hearing and your listening.
They substitute a lot of lingofor what they actually mean
they're doing.
They talk about student success, they talk about student
learning, they talk aboutstudent development and they

(51:38):
talk about this as kind of aproxy for what they're actually
doing.
When they mean student learning, student development, student
success, they're inculcating andindoctrinating students in this
Freirean, neo-marxist view ofsociety.
And I will add this, the codato this, the kicker, I should
say the chaser to all of this isthat they include this view

(52:02):
that they have given you, thestudent, access to hidden
knowledge.
You become part of the anointed.
You understand thecontradictions of society.
You now can peer into thecontradictions of society and
see the relationships of powerand privilege, the relationship
between oppressors and oppressed, victimizers and victims,

(52:27):
exploiters and exploited.
Moreover, you should take thisinformation back home with you
and lecture your parents,because they don't know what
they're talking about, which iswhy you have this incredibly bad
time on that first Thanksgivingvisit.
When your students come backfrom college and they seem so
angry about something is becausethey have been basically told

(52:50):
that you parents have lied tothem all these years and not
recognizing the fact that theirparents are probably a lot
smarter than the professors whohave been propounding this and
the bureaucrats who run theseworkshops on campuses are really
what I call midwits.
This is a whole parcel of whatI call midwittery.

(53:11):
So this is really kind ofwhat's going on in the college
campuses and this is kind of along way of answering your
questions of what I found mostsurprising that this is going on
in broad daylight right therein front of you, and yet it goes
unremarked upon, certainly bythe Chronicle of Higher
Education, which absolutelyrefuses to acknowledge this

(53:35):
hierarchy that you've got inplace here that is doing this to
our students.

Al Palmer (53:42):
So do you think that the collateral part of that in
the military is this notion thatwhen they do DEI, that that
becomes a force multiplier?
Somehow, by doing this we'reenhancing people, we're getting
them to be a more productive,better part of the military,

(54:04):
when in fact it's reallycorrosive?
Is that where that came from,do you think in?

academia.
I don't think they're thinkingthey're making it a better
military, except in the sensethat they're making the military
more in line with their ownideological proclivities.
Now, ron mentioned somethingthat I found fascinating, which
was the purple rope that thecadets at the Air Force Academy
wear, the 90 chosen to becomethe diversity political officers

(54:29):
.
You know, part of my new bookthat I'm writing right now
investigates the DEI hierarchythat has been established on
college campuses and apparentwell and the Air Force Academy,
of course.
Course is one of those that theyhave their own hierarchy, that
you've got a political officerlike the old soviet nkvd.
Uh had the political commissar,or the zompolit which was

(54:51):
another name for it, which wouldbe the political officer who
was assigned as kind of theco-commander in a unit and the
zomp's function, the Commissar'sfunction, was to keep an eye on
the political reliability ofthe officer who was the actual
military, and it was not a goodrelationship.
If you want an example of whata Zompolite is, you can go to

(55:13):
the movie the Hunt for RedOctober and you'll find that
Sean.
Connery yeah, sean Connery findsthat the guy that Sean Connery
has to get rid of.
He wants to defect with hissubmarine to the west.
There's one guy that he knowsof on the sub who's.
You know that he has populatedthe sub with the handpicked crew

(55:35):
, except for one guy, and that'sthe NKVD political officer who
is there to watch Sean Conneryto ensure his political
reliability.
Sean knows he has to dosomething about this guy and he
takes care of him.
You can watch the movie tofigure that.
He did it because this was theguy who had his eye on him.
Well, he's wearing a purplerope, just like these guys at
the Air Force Academy.

(55:56):
He's wearing a purple rope,just like these guys at the Air
Force Academy their job.
And I would say that the sameexists on civilian campuses as
well.
The diversity officers say, inthe engineering school or in the
school of design or in theschool of business, is there not
only reporting to the hierarchywithin the school?
He or she is reporting to thehierarchy of the DEI office on

(56:19):
the campus.
You see, we have problems inour school.
He or she is reporting to thehierarchy of the DEI office on
the campus.
You see, we have problems inour school.
We have faculty like Dr Ridgely, who is not playing ball with.
He doesn't like the idea of adiversity oath, taking an oath
to tell what he wants to do withdiversity, how he's supporting
diversity initiatives and equityand that kind of thing, how

(56:41):
he's not integrating these typesof values into his classes.
Now, I made that example up, ofcourse, because I don't put up
with that kind of thing, butmany professors have found and
the examples are legion aroundthe country of diversity
officers coming in and trying totrain faculty to act a certain

(57:04):
way and to integrate certainthings into their classroom.
Now, these are midwifes, thesepeople coming in to talk to
faculty and try to tell them howto do their job, to incorporate
these values.
They call them values, dei.
These are values now, they'renot simply preferences of a
certain unit on the collegecampus.
So you have to be you know,watch out what you say, what you

(57:28):
do, who you're talking.
Toukach, you got a stukach.
We would call that person astool pigeon.
Well, dei offices have set upanonymous snitch lines where
someone can accuse, say, someonelike me of being insensitive in

(57:53):
certain ways that are kind ofleft out there hanging and they
begin an investigation and basedon this anonymous complaint,
without the knowledge of theperson that they've complained
against.
Now think of what that soundslike.
That sounds like the SovietUnion.
It certainly sounds likecommunist China.
A snitch line where you can.

(58:14):
You, being the snitcher, canget, even with someone you've
chosen, who you know.
So I'm going to report on dr,dr scott.
I'm going to report on al,because I don't like him, I
don't like the way I was treated.
Well, I'm going to, I'm goingto use this snitch line, keep my
name anonymous and started havean investigation of this guy.

(58:37):
Now, now I know nothing's goingto be, nothing's going to come
of it because he didn't do itbut you know, and so he'll be
exonerated.
But man, I'm going to give him ahard time with this.
And this is this is far moretypical across the campus.
You know, I can look at acampus website for half an hour.
I can go through it, scrapethrough it, recognize the

(58:58):
vernacular that they use to hidewhat they're doing.
I can take out, pick out thestructure, pick out the
hierarchy and tell you howdeeply ingrained your the DEI
program is at a particularcampus.
One of the worst you can go tothe campus website yourself is
Smith College, the women'scollege in Massachusetts.
It is completely overrun andpermeated with the diversity,

(59:24):
equity, inclusion cult.
I call it a cult because it isdemanding from you that you
treat people around you in theway that the theory tells you to
treat them.
I see it as inculcatingparanoid personality disorder
and training people to beparanoiacs according to this

(59:47):
doctrine.
It's as if a crew of paranoiacshas assembled and have taken
over an institution and trainingpeople how to become people
afflicted with paranoidpersonality disorder, to behave
in ways that paranoiacs behave,to treat your fellow students
with suspicion, with anarcissistic, grandiose view of

(01:00:10):
yourself as being in thepossession of truth.
And this is what they do andit's a terrible, terrible thing.
And I think the more peopleread Brutal Minds, which is on
the shelf behind me, read BrutalMinds and I think that you'll
find that the questions thathave been plaguing you for a

(01:00:33):
long time are answered righthere.
And there's no mystery to it.
It's simply a matter of showingan interest in what's actually
going on and then recognizingthat what I described is in fact
what is going on.
It is thoroughly cited.
I've always said I'll give 100bucks to anyone who can find
three errors of fact in my book.

(01:00:54):
Now, no typos, typos don'tcount.
I'm I have a lot of typos, Iadmit that.
But as far as errors of fact,I'll give you a hundred bucks if
you can find three.
A lot of people say my book isriven with lies.
Well, show me some lies and I'mhappy to give you a hundred
bucks.
But no one's going to take thatbecause the book is truth down

(01:01:14):
the line.
I like to say it's beyondcriticism.
But you can criticize my bookon aesthetic grounds it's too
long, it's too short, it's toodull, that kind of thing.
But as far as fact, no, I letthe louts on campus, the
villains on campus speak forthemselves, and their testimony
is oh so damning.

Ron Scott (01:01:36):
Stan, let me add said on three May, the second day of
the Daku Dai meeting defenseadvisory committee on diversity
and inclusion, chaired bygeneral Lester Lyles, they had
the chief diversity officer forthe central intelligence agency
give her presentation.
Now he reports directly to thedirector of central intelligence

(01:01:58):
in that presentation.
Now he reports directly to thedirector of central intelligence
.
In that presentation he saidthat when individuals are pushed
for promotion, he gets anopportunity to look at every
single one of them and if theyhave not sufficiently
demonstrated that they arepromoting diversity and
inclusion, he vetoes them, hedrops them off.

(01:02:18):
He has the authority to dropthem from the promotion list and
then he can reach into theorganization and identify those
that he feels are worthy forpromotion because they have
sufficiently demonstrated theirembrace of diversity and
inclusion.
That's on our website.
Cindy recorded that presentationand you can hear it for

(01:02:39):
yourself.
So the presenter was audio onlyuntil the very end.
And General Lyle said DrLaurentis, we've heard you, but
we didn't get a chance to seeyou.
Can you turn your video on?
And so he turns his video onand you see a white male.
And here's the drama.
General Lyle says oh so you'rea white male.

Stanley Ridgley (01:03:00):
And he goes yes , and you can see I buy into
this stuff I mean you know when,when you do, when you demean
your, your ideology and yourbelief system as something you
buy into, that tells you all youreally need to know about it
right I mean, I mean, I I haveno doubt that these DEI people

(01:03:22):
buy into it because it's verylucrative.
You have a lot of, you know,like 2020, when you were talking
about Iran, when the wholeGeorge Floyd thing came about
and really acted as a wedgeissue to crowbar and shoehorn a
DEI onto the college campuses alot of so-called DEI experts

(01:03:44):
came onto the campuses asconsultants.
A lot of people started writingbooks about DEI and they hung
out their shingle and they beganrunning seminars and webinars
and caucuses and reading groupsadvertising themselves as DEI
experts.
Well, what's a DEI expert?

(01:04:05):
Someone who basically can moutha bunch of cliches, bromides
about oppressor, oppressed, andtell you that you are an
oppressor and that you need tobehave yourself, you need to
recant, you need to confess, andthat's basically the entire
litany of it, the whole notionof white supremacy behavior.
It's based on a fraud.

(01:04:27):
I should tell you, one of themost prevalent pieces of
information that shows up inthese DEI seminars is what's
called the white supremacybehavior list.
It was produced in 1999 bysomeone called tema okun and she

(01:04:47):
, she, she simply made the listup.
It's 15 white supremacybehaviors such as oh,
punctuality, you know, being ontime, attention to, to detail,
perfectionism, things like that,you know, things that you
accept to do a good job.
Basically, success behaviors.
Individualism is on the list,the great motivator of our
entrepreneurial society.

(01:05:08):
Well, that's a white supremacybehavior.
No, they're success behaviors.
Well, this debunked list thatshe completely made up.
She didn't come up with itdoing research.
She simply, seriously, she madeit up.
She says I made the list up.
She didn't come up with itdoing research.
She simply, seriously, she madeit up.
She says I made the list up andshe says this in her
dissertation that she wrote in2004.
I've read her dissertation.
I've seen her confession.

(01:05:28):
It's.
And yet this list appears againand again and again in DEI
trainings.
It's a fraud.
It's an out and out fraud.
There's no other word for it.
It's a fraud, it's anout-and-out fraud, there's no
other word for it.
You know, you've seen too manyinstances of plagiarism in
academic papers from these DEItypes, most of whom are midwits
who are, you know, getting richoff the gravy that's being

(01:05:51):
ladled out, and I think thegravy train's coming to an end.
They do a lot of navel gazingand talking about their feelings
.
You'll find this in withTa-Nehisi Coates and Ibram Kendi
, who write an awful lot abouthow they feel about things and
they're providing the idea of aninner truth.
They really can't besubstantiated by fact, but they

(01:06:20):
kind of know it's true, thatkind of thing, and they can just
make things up, like the formerHarvard, the late Harvard law
professor, derrick Bell, who wasthe father of CRT or critical
race theory, who created theidea that you can do methodology
, methodological work in lawschool, by using Aesopian
language, by making fables,weaving fables, and he created
this whole genre of the ideathat I'm going to just make up a
story, I'm going to start witha point I want to make and then

(01:06:42):
I'm going to kind of weave astory fiction around it and
publish that.
And he did so with the HarvardLaw Review numerous times and he
created characters like GenevaCrenshaw and he would have
discussions with Geneva Crenshaw, this fake person, about racism
, and then he would have thispublished in Crenshaw, this fake
person about racism, and thenhe would have this published in
the Harvard Law Review.

(01:07:03):
There's fables.
He's had whole books of fablespublished.
One's called Faces at theBottom of the Well, another one
is and we Are Not Saved.
These are books that I buy, Iread them.
I quote them and cite them inmy own books, in my own research
.
The important point to rememberis he made it all up, he made
it up, and so these are thethree methodologies.

(01:07:24):
You know navel-gazing, whereyou just simply talk about your
feelings this is Ta-NehisiCoates and Ibram Kendi and a
host of others and then you cando some yarn spinning, like
Derrick Bell, where you justcreate fables.
Or you can simply plagiarizeyour work.
You don't have to just copywhat someone else did, and we've

(01:07:59):
seen this in the case ofClaudine Gay, the erstwhile
president of Harvard University,who retired because she, number
one, couldn't defend well,actually would not condemn the
anti-Semitism on her own campus.
And, of course, liz McGill, whoresigned from Penn.
Now, liz McGill did notplagiarize anyone that we know
of, but certainly Claudine Gay,who had a very thin resume in
terms of published work, wefound that she had copied a lot
of it, including herdissertation, and so those are
the three main methods thatreally undergird the whole

(01:08:20):
fraudulent enterprise of DEI.
Those are the top thinkers ofDEI.
Imagine how bad the people downthe line are who are actually
running these workshops, andthat you're actually a faculty
member.
You're going to learn somethingfrom this mid-wit consultant
they brought in, who just hungout their shingle, and they have
30 years worth of diversitywork.

(01:08:42):
It's a fraud and I don'thesitate to call it a fraud, and
I wish more people would.
I think that once this becomesmore well-known, if you read
Brutal Minds, you'll seeevidence of this fraudulent work
and then my current work thatI'm doing now on my next book.
It lays it all out there foranyone who wants to know the

(01:09:03):
truth.

Al Palmer (01:09:05):
Do these fraudsters have any kind of standards or
objectives?
That they're staying there?
That's what their mission is.
Do they have anything concrete?

that they're actually working towards?
Well, the concrete.
They're very clear about whattheir goals are.
Their goals are to educate youin your if you happen to be a
white male like myself.
They're going to educate you inyour complicity in racism,
because you have to look at theundergirding tenets of DEI.
They don't like to say this.
They don't ever say thispublicly.

(01:09:38):
They won't because it's allderived from CRT, which
basically says that racism ispermanent.
It's not going to change.
If you're a white person, youare racist to the core.
That's not going to change.
All you can do is try to be abetter person, and you can do
this through the help of thesetypes of seminars and these
types of expensive caucuses thatwe're going to run you through,

(01:09:58):
by playing games, learning moreabout the real history of
America, which is a contrived,bowed-arised, cramped
ideological history that dividespeople by race into two camps a
good and evil, oppressed andoppressor.
It's all.
Paulo Freire and I mentionedFreire and the neo-Marx a few

(01:10:19):
minutes ago it all derives fromhis work.
He's a Brazilian, so I assumethat he rates as a person of
color.
He's a third world.
He has third world credentials.
He has a nice gray beard likeKarl Marx, but he has a kindly
visage and they can get awaywith citing him.
They believe that they aretransforming the university, one

(01:10:40):
of their professional groups.
Their motto is boldlytransforming higher education.
They want to transform theuniversity into a Paulo Freire,
neo-marxist institution thattrains people for the struggles
of the future in social justice.
Now, most every university inAmerica, if you go to the

(01:11:01):
website, somewhere on theirwebsite they will use the term,
more or less use the term,social justice.
They're very upfront about thatsocial justice.
Well, vladimir Lenin used theterm social justice.
Joseph Stalin used the termsocial justice.
Mao Zedong used the term socialjustice.
This is no accident.

(01:11:21):
But they can't get away withsaying socialism.
They can't use the M wordexcept in an academic sense
Marxist.
They certainly can't use the Cword unless you're an academic
pursuing that type of enterpriseon the campus.
They can't use communism, butthey can use social justice.
Well, I attack social justiceevery chance I get.
A book that I would recommend toour listeners today is Thomas

(01:11:43):
Sowell, the brilliant blackeconomist.
His book most recent book isSocial Justice Fallacies.
It came out just last year, Ithink late last year.
Amazing book.
The Nobel Prize winningeconomist Friedrich Hayek wrote
on the mirage of social justice.
In a famous trilogy he wrotecalled Law, legislation and

(01:12:05):
Liberty, but his famous essayswere on the mirage of social
justice.
He completely demolishes thiswhole notion of social justice.
Well, you ask yourself well, whydoes it continue?
Why do people keep using this?
Because it's so anodyne.
It has positive valence, itsounds so good.
And if you're a young collegestudent, freshman coming out of

(01:12:26):
high school, where you've got ataste of this type of
indoctrination, and you hearsome professor and some lout
who's doing a seminar say, oh,social justice, that's what
we're all about.
Working for a better world,working for the collective good.
Oh, that really resonates witha young, idealistic person.
They say, wait a minute, thisis what I've always thought I

(01:12:48):
wanted to do.
I want to work for socialjustice.
And it's intentionally vague,you know, I want to work for the
collective good.
Well, you know, it's one ofthose things where you start
asking people what thecollective good is that we used
in the Soviet Union and incommunist China.
And the Soviet Union said well,you know, I want to grow, I
want to graduate from highschool, go to college, become a

(01:13:09):
doctor.
Said no, no, no, no, you can'tbe a doctor in Moscow, you've
got to go to Novosibirsk andyou've got to work on a dam.
Because we're buildingsocialism.
That's for the collective good,and that's why you're going to
Novosibirsk.
Your individual desire toexpress yourself and realize
your dream, no, no, that doesn'tmatter.
And in communist China it wasduring the cultural revolution

(01:13:32):
they had a movement called aMaoist movement, called up to
the mountains and down to thevillages.
That was their unimaginativeslogan, but it did mean exactly
what it sounds like.
Youth, communist youth weretaken from the cities and either
said, up to the mountains ordown to the villages, where they
would work for a year or twoalongside peasants working the

(01:13:55):
fields, so they could learnabout justice and learn about
what it meant to be a peasant.
You know their version of theproletariat, and so this was why
were they forced to do this?
Well, it was perceived andexalted as the collective good.
That's what the collective goodmeans.
It doesn't mean working at asoup kitchen.

(01:14:16):
You know, serving the homelessin a soup kitchen.
You can do that and anyone cando that.
But would you want to beordered to do that, as opposed
to pursuing your dream to becomean engineer?
I don't think the averagestudent would want that, and yet
that is the bottom line meaningof what social justice is all
about and the collective good isall about.

(01:14:39):
There is no such thing as thecollective good.
There is you working as anindividual, supported by your
family, and you supporting yourfamily and living your best life
in a moral way, creating wealthfor yourself and for your
fellow human beings.
That is the individual good,and the collective good is the

(01:15:00):
sum total of all thoseindividual goods, not just some
collectivist social engineer'sidea of sending you off to
Novosibirsk to work on a dam.

Al Palmer (01:15:15):
So Ron Stan mentioned the term values as being
substituted for the realities ofwhat we're doing.
This has come up again latelywith the West Point graduates
and the West Point cadets, wheretheir motto that Douglas
MacArthur gave them back in the60s was duty, honor and country.

(01:15:38):
And they've now taken that outand they've substituted values
instead of duty, honor andcountry.
And so people say well, wait aminute, what's this values thing
?
As you say, it's just a bigbucket.
You can put whatever you wantin there and it's changeable.
It's not durable, it's notsomething that you can even

(01:16:01):
relate to.
You know personally, if you,you know, I mean it's values.
Well, what are what's thisthing about values here?
So you know.

Ron Scott (01:16:08):
Thoughts on that, ron well, it's kind of a
post-modernist uh effect whereyou have to eliminate tradition,
you, you have to discounttradition and basically
deconstruct everything up untilnow and reconstruct it.
And it plays very, very wellinto the Marxist mentality where

(01:16:33):
you want to promote classwarfare, and so you're really
promoting revolution.
You know what's in the past isbad.
You know let's rebel againstthat and in the end we'll have
utopia.
But that's guided and shaped bythe political elite, the people
who want to tell us how to liveour lives, about the collective

(01:16:53):
good.
And you know you're betterworking aside the peasants than
being an engineer or becoming arocket scientist like Elon Musk.
So it's very dangerous.
I've advanced my own thought interms of bounded rationality

(01:17:15):
and how you can shaperationality.
And you start with assumptionsand beliefs.
They shape your values, yourvalues shape your attitudes,
your attitudes shape yourbehaviors, and so if you have
external influence in terms ofshaping your values or your

(01:17:36):
attitudes, it can shape what youwant to believe or your
assumptions, and so it's verydangerous what we're
experiencing right now, and wehave groups that are getting
away with it.
I think what's so importantabout Stan's book Brutal Minds?
You know he focuses on theuniversities, but you've got K

(01:17:58):
through 12 now that uh arealready prepping and shaping
these young minds so that whenthey get to the university and
now you know they're going to beeducated and get ready for, you
know, a great adventure and andthey're what they're

doing at the universities, as Stan describes
in his book Brutal Minds borderson criminality in my view,
because it's deceptive, it'sdisingenuous and Psychologists
are concerned.
And I'll make an accusationright here.
Lisa Spannerman at Arizona StateUniversity is a psychologist.
She's a dean of some sort atASU and she is guilty, and she's

(01:18:47):
laid it all out.
She's guilty of saying we can,using psychological techniques,
we can make people feel guiltyabout anything if we utilize the
right stimuli in a classroom,and so why don't we take white
males and make them feel guilty,get them feeling guilty about

(01:19:08):
something that they had nothingto do with, and at that point we
can more easily recruit them toengage in, in her words, social
justice activism.
Now, what she's just describedis brainwashing.
Basically is utilizing atechnique that can make someone
feel falsely guilty aboutsomething they had nothing to do
with so as to prepare theirmind to accept their task of

(01:19:30):
doing a social justice, workingfor social justice cause.
Now, that, to my notion, ismalfeasance.
If someone wanted to file acomplaint, I'm sure they would
have good grounds for doing so,and so, yeah, it's a terrible
thing.

Ron Scott (01:19:46):
Stan, I think you're hitting on something that we're
on the verge of doing, that youknow.
We're right now in thediscovery mode what is happening
and then what are theimplications, and at some point,
something needs to be doneabout it.
And you really write about thatin your concluding chapter in
your book.
You've got three steps you wantto remind us on what needs to

(01:20:09):
be done.

Well, what needs to be done in terms of
what it is you're thinking aboutdoing?
If you're thinking aboutreforming the university, there
are long-term steps you can takeand then there are short-term.
If you're thinking aboutreforming the university, there
are long-term steps you can takeand then there are short-term,
if you want to.
A parent with a kid in collegeis not going to want to be that
interested in the long-termbecause they want to get their
return on investment forbasically the money they're

(01:20:35):
spending on a college education.
They can take certain steps toensure that the son or daughter
is not subjected to thebrainwash.
And I mentioned at the verybeginning.
I said these folks want trust.
They want they have to gain thetrust of students before their
brainwash can work, before athought reform program will work

(01:20:56):
.
And the key for a student is torecognize that these people who
desperately want you to trustthem don't deserve your trust.
They have something up theirsleeve.
They do.
They have an agenda.
Anyone in life who is trying togain your trust really, really
fast use car salesman, that kindof thing.
Well, they've got somethingthat they want to sell you and

(01:21:16):
what they're selling on thecollege campuses is neo-Marxism
and they want to get your trustso that you can reveal to them
information that's none of theirbusiness so that they can then
use that against you.
Now the longer term solution isto basically now there's Lisa
Spanierman, yeah, I tippedRachel Alexander for that news

(01:21:40):
story.
I tipped her off to this womanand her activities in the
classroom.
But the longer term solution,of course, is to if your state
universities are particularlyvulnerable to the money that's
going to them, they want nostrings attached funding from
the states that fund theiruniversities, whether it's
Arizona State University,university of North Carolina or

(01:22:05):
Cal State Berkeley, I thinkstate legislatures who are made
aware of the activities that areongoing can communicate.
No, you're not getting largesse, this kind of largesse.
Until you begin revoking andending these types of
brainwashed thought reformprograms and restore your

(01:22:27):
integrity as an institution andprove that you are worthy of
self-governance, we will have ahand in seeing what you're doing
on the campus with regard tospending the taxpayers'
hard-earned money.
And so I think that parents,donors, alumni and students all

(01:22:48):
acting in concert and I willtell you, if parents and
students were to you know aroundthe country were to
simultaneously somehow magicallyread brutal minds and
understand what's going on inthe college campus and simply
act in a way that protectsthemselves, they would render
these types of programs on thecampuses completely ineffective

(01:23:12):
completely ineffective.
And for those more adventurousand activist types, they could
really get some of these folkson the campuses in trouble for
the types of activities thatthey're engaging in, which are
borderline illegal and, in somecases, outright illegal.
So there are options availableand, of course, legal help is

(01:23:33):
also available.
The Alliance Defending Freedomis one.
America First is anotherorganization.
The Alliance Defending Freedomis one.
America First is anotherorganization.
The American Council onTrustees and Alumni is another

(01:23:56):
organization.
That-chairman of Philadelphia'schapter of Moms for Liberty.
She's doing good work in ourcity of brotherly love.
Turning Point USA is anothergreat organization that
mobilizes students on thecampuses to not take this kind
of nonsense.
I am the faculty advisor forDrexel University's Turning

(01:24:17):
Point USA and they are doing.
These students are doing greatwork.
They're young patriots, they'recritical thinkers and all we
want is for students to put ontheir critical thinking caps,
and you know cock an eyebrow youknow like that and say, hey,
you know, this stuff doesn'tsound right, it doesn't smell
right, it doesn't pass the smelltest.

(01:24:39):
And are you telling me the wholetruth?
And they become inquisitive andbegin to tug at the strings of
this tapestry that has beenwoven for them, only to find out
there's really nothing thereand that there's a vast world of
knowledge, philosophy, history,political science that's
awaiting for them, that hasdebunked this nonsense a number

(01:24:59):
of times in the past, and allthat they are facing right now
is just old wine and new bottlesoffered up by bartenders like
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,serving up really low-grade
liquor, and I hope that we canexpunge these people off the
campuses and get back to thebusiness of higher education.

Al Palmer (01:25:20):
Amen to that yes indeed so where does that reside
in the university, for instance?
Is that with a board oftrustees or the president
leadership?
How does that flow, do youthink to solve the problem?

Well, it depends on whether it's a
private university or a publicuniversity.
Individual faculty members cando what they can do, but I
should tell you, most of thebrainwashing happens not in the
classroom.
There are some louts you knowfaculty louts who utilize their
bully pulpit as a propagandainstrument.
But faculty, by and largephysics professors, math

(01:26:02):
professors, business professorswe don't have time for that
nonsense.
Even we wanted to do that.
But history professors,sociology professors, folks in
the education schools live andbreathe this nonsense.
And most of the problems you'llfind are in the bureaucracy
called student affairs.
And they run this parallelcurriculum on the campus called

(01:26:23):
the co-curriculum.
I know, ryan, you're veryfamiliar with this, having read
Brutal Minds.
It's a co-curriculum.
They offer fake courses, fakeclasses, fake instructors who
are not professors.
They even offer a faketranscript not professors.
They even offer a faketranscript.
And this is where a lot of thisstuff is propounded.
And so I think that and thesefolks who run these programs are
not even hired like the faculty, it's like a circle of friends

(01:26:47):
hired we have a lot ofsubstandard people come into the
campuses that aren't reallyqualified.
They like to think they'refaculty but they're not and they
want to pretend that they'refaculty now that they're on the
campuses.
They're not and they want topretend that they're faculty now
that they're on the campuses.
This has to be rooted out.

(01:27:07):
It has to be exposed for whatit is and a stop put to it.
And this can be done by thefaculty, senate and pressure on
the boards of trustees.
I call them sleepy boards oftrustees in my book.
I know Ron's probably familiarwith that term Sleepy boards of
trustees who simply rubber stampwhat the president wants to do.
Things are going well.
Here's a raise, here's a bonus.
You're putting up a newbuilding.
That's great.

(01:27:27):
Student success is on the rise.
Whenever the board of trusteesis completely clueless about
what is actually happening, well, I think that the anti-Semitism
we've seen on the collegecampuses in the last year really
has opened the boards oftrustees' eyes at many
universities, both private andpublic, and this is just again
just a thread that they'retugging on.

(01:27:49):
And I think if you starttugging on that thread really
forcefully, you're going to findthat a whole lot of stuff is
going to unravel.
Several of the administratorswere fired at Columbia
universities when they werecaught texting to each other,
mocking Jewish presenters at apresentation, mocking their call

(01:28:10):
for anti-Semitism to be bannedat the campus, to quell these
expressions.
Well, these administrators atsenior, most senior level were
caught and they were eventuallyfired.
Well, we can't fool ourselvesthat these are the only louts
that were doing this sort ofthing or that believe this sort
of thing.
There are examples of a diseasethat is on our college campuses

(01:28:34):
that is only going to be routedor ousted with hard work.
Hard work and diligent work bythe good guys and I like to
think there's a lot of good guysout there.
All we can do if only we canmobilize them, give them the
information they need to get thejob done, and say here are the
critical nodes where thebrainwashing or thought reform

(01:28:56):
is happening and here's what youcan do to put a stop to it.

Ron Scott (01:29:03):
Well, stan, we're getting involved in some
emerging developments and, givenyour expertise in this area,
I'd like to kind of put you onnotice that I'm going to
recommend you be part of some ofthese efforts, if you don't
mind.
So we're going to stay in touchwith you because you've got a

(01:29:27):
wealth of knowledge and analysishere that helps us to
understand what we're up against.

Al Palmer (01:29:32):
Well, you know the Vice one of the biggest things,
stan, is getting that messagedirectly back out to our viewers
and to the public, so theyunderstand the intricacies of
this too, because you knowyou're absolutely spot on when
you're talking about, forinstance, the hunt for Red
October and the politicalofficer being in charge instead

(01:29:56):
of the commander of thesubmarine.
I mean that's absolutelygrotesque, but this is the kind
of way we can do it, I think.

Yeah, I think that if you look at the
parallels of this DEI hierarchythe old NKVD it's fascinating
the idea we're going to keep aneye on you to ensure your
political reliability,irrespective of whether you're
doing a good job or not.
Part of your good job is goingto be, you know, genuflecting to
these values of DEI.

(01:30:26):
And I think that Ron just gavethis horrendous example of some
believer who is not even goingto consider for promotion
someone who is not again, again,kneeling or bowing before and
genuflecting for these, beforethese so-called values, when
they're nothing but ideologicalpreferences.
And I think we need to bringthat out and make that crystal

(01:30:47):
clear, and I do that.
It doesn't make people like me,but that's not what I'm in this
business for.
It certainly makes people feeluncomfortable, people who have,
who have you, have forgottentheir critical faculties and
don't like discomfort and prefercollegiality toward the pursuit
of truth.

Al Palmer (01:31:08):
Well, it's important work, stan, and thanks for being
a part of it today to help usthrough this, and I would just
leave maybe all of us with onethought here that the issues of
people staying and joining theservice won't be solved until we
come full circle and realizethat we've got to keep this

(01:31:29):
healthy and we've got toreinstitute integrity, honesty
and this other thing we talkedabout before accountability, and
this other thing we talkedabout before accountability,
because without that, the troopscan't trust us to lead them and
we can't depend on them to bethere when we need them and to
have the kind of merit that'sgoing to take them through

(01:31:50):
battle and keep them healthy sothey can survive too.
So that's kind of what I'mthrilled about in doing this on
the Stars and Stripes podcastand Ron is kind enough to let me
do this for a while, but Ithink this is a great way for
the visitors who come to ourpodcast to see the kind of

(01:32:11):
important work that we're doing,and thanks to both of you today
for making that clear, I think.

Ron Scott (01:32:19):
Great Thanks Al.
It's been a real pleasure Al.

I do appreciate it.
It's always good to be with Ronand good to be with you too, al
, and I hope that your listenershave hopefully learned
something, and I've learnedsomething too.

Al Palmer (01:32:31):
Well, that's the idea here.
Education and knowledge isinvaluable, so with that for our
visitors, you can always findout about us on starsus that's
stars with two R's, dot US andyou can see our podcast there.
They're archived and some greatarticles and books that very

(01:32:53):
much like Stan's are there.
You can see what they're about,too, so we look forward to
seeing you back another week.
Thanks very much for being withus tonight, and God bless you.

Ron Scott (01:33:05):
My pleasure, thank you, thank you.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Left-Wing Brainwashing in the Military and Academia with Dr. Stanley Ridgley and Dr. Ron Scott

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

Left-Wing Brainwashing in the Military and Academia with Dr. Stanley Ridgley and Dr. Ron Scott

Stuff You Should Know