Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier was, until Friday, commander of the 11th Space Warning Squadron at Buckley Air Force Base in Colorado. Before that, he was a fighter pilot, instructor, and a 2006 graduate of the Air Force Academy.
Then, the military fired him from his post.
What was Lohmeier’s offense? His offense was being a serviceman concerned about the calamity unfolding in the force to which he has dedicated his life. Lohmeier recently published a book, “Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military”, that criticized the entrenchment of liberal ideology in the U.S. military.
The book deals with many of the same themes that have been covered actively at Revolver. Liberal ideology is taking over our military, and an obsessive hunt for bogus “systemic racism” and “white nationalism” is putting America in grave danger by sowing division and rotting our military from the inside out.
According to Lohmeier, these new passions from senior Pentagon personnel are just the latest manifestation of a long-running plan to topple American democracy and replace it with a Marxist dictatorship.
Lohmeier appeared on several podcasts to promote his book, and in response the Pentagon fired him. According to the DoD, his statements caused a “loss of trust and confidence in his ability to lead.”
As far as Revolver and tens of millions of American patriots are concerned, Lohmeier’s actions represent the very pinnacle of courage and leadership.
Lohmeier generously agreed to an interview with Revolver to elaborate on the dangerous trends within the Pentagon that led to his ouster.
Revolver: Thank you so much for agreeing to this interview, and for your heroism in leading the charge against the ideological poisoning of the United States Military. If you could, tell us about your career in the military, and how radical Marxist ideas grew and evolved during the course of your career. Were there major inflection points? Was there a particular year or event that things deteriorated, or was it slow and steady? In particular, how has the military’s messaging on race and gender changed over that span?
Colonel Lohmeier: Growing up, I always wanted to play college basketball. When the Air Force Academy came to watch me play during my sophomore year of high school, I had one of the best games of my life. From then on, the Air Force basketball coaches never lost their interest in having me play at the Academy. It’s how I first became interested in the possibility of a military career. While I only played for one year at the JV level at the Academy, my appreciation for and interest in a military career only grew with time.
In addition to flying jets, I’ve been blessed to participate in the start-up of our newest branch of the military, the US Space Force — something not done since the Air Force was created in 1947.
Until the past couple years, I had never paid any attention to the evolution or emergence of Marxism within American society and institutions, let alone in our military services.
However, for many years, I, like so many others, observed the deleterious impact of political correctness and radical relativism, which has ultimately ushered in the outright rejection of objective truth and reason. I never quite understood the origins of these various impulses until I started to understand the philosophical roots of postmodernism and the history of Marxist thought. All these things then came into clear focus, and it was revealed precisely why these ideas are all so divisive. It is because they were created to be divisive.
I am often asked, “how did this happen?” or, “when did this happen?” How is it, for example, that American people and institutions — predominantly our education system, and now, all federal agencies including even our military services — increasingly resonate and align with Marxist thought? How is it that Americans can now so easily question or forget the greatness of the American ideal and become victims to the tactics of subversion? Why haven’t we been able to recognize our slide into Marxism? There are two ways this has happened: gradually, then suddenly.
I describe both at length in my book.
Revolver: Tell us a little bit about your book. Did any moment in particular inspire you to write it? On the Information Operation podcast, you said you’ve received support from other active servicemen for your book. What impact is critical race theory having on the morale of the service, in your opinion?
How much of this push for woke ideology in the military is politically astroturfed as opposed to reflecting genuine demand from inside the military command?
Colonel Lohmeier: The material for the book was acquired over many years of careful study. The idea of a book, however, came with a bang as I sat at home discussing with my wife my concerns over how damaging the impact of critical race theory was on our servicemembers. Some have insisted I was motivated by money and therefore sensationalized the seriousness of the problem in order to sell books. That’s untrue. If anything, I have understated the problem, and I am not motivated by money.
All along, my motive has been to teach and to warn. Despite the fact that we can still see the horrors of the twentieth century in the rear-view mirror, many people seem to lack appreciation for just how connected Marxist-communist aims are with what we are seeing take place in the country. Marxist-communist aims are irrefutably connected to the contemporary impulse. Service members, regardless of their political views or race, are beginning to lose their desire to serve in the military because of our constant focus on group identities and our insistence that the country is irredeemably racist. When a society focuses on group identities, and certain groups get labeled as oppressors and others oppressed, then civil society fractures and kinship is lost. The visceral emotion of it all historically leads people to violence.
In addition to servicemembers losing a desire to serve, what we see is that radical leftist political activism often goes unchecked, while servicemembers with right-of-center political views are subjected to a climate of fear. To be clear, many conservative servicemembers are subjected to a climate of fear not because they desire to be politically partisan and no longer can be, but rather because there is a growing perception that to be associated with conservative or traditional values is to be labeled by the government a threat of some kind — for example, a racist, an extremist, a white nationalist, a white supremacist, a fascist, and the list goes on. There is a growing perception that the preponderance of political partisanship occurring in our armed forces is radical leftist partisanship. It is alleged that I am politically partisan for pointing out what many others already see but are afraid to talk about.
Another way in which CRT is having an effect on the morale of the services is that people are being trained to be skeptical of one another, rather than trusting in one another. Servicemembers who all wear the same uniform, take the same oath, and should share the same purpose, are being trained to believe that certain racial identities oppress and others are oppressed. We are focusing more on division than unity.
Revolver: Revolver News has gained quite a bit of attention lately for uncovering the man recently appointed to spearhead the ideological purge within the Military. His name is Bishop Garrison.
Garrison has said that white supremacy “predominated” in the military throughout his time in the Army, even though by his own admission nobody was ever racist to him. He’s also said it is “disgusting” for white women to give black men a haircut, and said that if anybody supports President Trump they also support racism, misogyny, and violent extremism. You’ve been relieved of command for your remarks, while Garrison is currently Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Defense on Human Capital and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Do you have a reaction to that?
Colonel Lohmeier: Both in what I’ve written and in what I’ve said, I’ve been careful not to attack or insult my chain of command or elected officials. I have an obligation not to. With regard to Bishop Garrison, I’ve seen his social media posts from the past several years. It is deeply troubling to me that someone with his views is in charge of a group, or commission, that is responsible for rooting out extremism within the ranks of our military.
Revolver: The events of 1/6 are being used as a pretext to ram through this partisan overhaul of the US military. We all know this is an empty, overblown excuse to do what they were planning to do anyway. What was the afternoon of 1/6 like from the perspective of the US military? Were personnel really freaked out that these MAGA moms and YouTube streamers were perpetrating a 9/11-level attack? Was there chatter before 1/6 about what might go down as Congress tried to certify the 2020 election?
How much of our current narrative about 1/6 came about after the events at the Capitol?
From the outside, we heard endless overblown talk months before 1/6 of right-wing “domestic extremism” growing in the military. Were there similar themes being inflated on the inside, or did that all come after 1/6?
Colonel Lohmeier: I’m going to punt on this one.
Revolver: Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the radical race theory push in the military is its support for the 1619 project. As Revolver reported weeks ago, Bishop Garrison himself has been an enthusiastic advocate of this movement (including BLM and others). The brave patriots who serve in the U.S. military are required to take an oath to the Constitution. But if Bishop Garrison has his way — and given his current position, it looks like he will — only those 1619 adherents who believe America is a fundamentally evil and racist nation will be permitted to take the oath to defend America. What does the military become under such dark circumstances?
Colonel Lohmeier: For those who may not be familiar with the NYT 1619 Project, I refer them to Chapter 1 of my book, “Transforming American History.” In Chapter 1, I point out, among other things, that the project’s lead essayist, Nikole Hannah-Jones, describes the project as an attempt to “decenter whiteness.”
She and other essayists do so by referring to the US Constitution as a “decidedly undemocratic document,” and by asserting that “anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country.” Hannah-Jones further asserts that America’s “founding ideals were false when they were written.” Besides being untrue, these views put Hannah-Jones at odds with former slave Frederick Douglass — the most prominent abolitionist in US history — who referred to the Constitution as a “glorious liberty document,” and also with Martin Luther King, Jr., who referred to the Declaration and Constitution as “those great wells of democracy,” which the founding fathers “dug deep.” To accept her views is to reject theirs.
You also asked about the BLM movement. In 2015, Black Lives Matter movement co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors said that she and her fellow organizers were “trained Marxists.” Cullors explained: “We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia [Garza] in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.” Cullors became a trained organizer under the mentorship of Eric Mann at the Labor/Community Strategy Center, which she called her first “political home.” At the Center, organizers are trained to focus on “anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, pro-communist resistance to the US empire.” All of this is covered in Chapter 5 of my book. Mann urges his proteges to “read Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto,” and other communist writings from Lenin, Haywood, and Mao, as if “your life depended on it.” Cullors’ admission that she and others are “trained Marxists” is a revelation that their movement’s ultimate aims are the destruction of “the existing social and political order,” and that “their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions,” words right out of The Communist Manifesto.
In addition to being an overtly Marxist movement, the founders themselves have said repeatedly in interviews that the movement is a “political project” that is trying to “infuse” the broader movement with “more radical politics.” It is Marxist and it is radically political. Notwithstanding its overt political agenda and the legal obligation our military servicemembers have to remain apolitical, the BLM movement has gained acceptance within the Defense Department, both among individuals as well as at the institutional level. It is commonly perceived that servicemembers are allowed to show public support for the BLM movement, but not allowed to criticize it.
Revolver: What’s the solution? From the outside, it looks completely poisoned beyond all salvation. The immediate move would seem to involve Republicans halting all military funding and essentially throwing a wrench in the cog of the machine until nonpartisanship is restored.
Can anything be done from the inside? Or is the Marxist grip too strong to break, and now the civilian sector has to save the day?
Many are wondering what is to be done about all of this. What is our obligation in the face of an ideology that suppresses thought, demands conformity, propounds distortions, and threatens to burn down society?
Colonel Lohmeier: The proper solution is a form of collective repentance, by which we abandon our current trajectory and return to a belief in the ideals that made our country the most successful multi-racial country in world history. For starters, we must reject CRT, especially as a basis for our Diversity and Inclusion trainings, and return to the greatness of the American ideal. We must act courageously while living in a climate of fear. Fear is the opposite of faith, and it stifles proper being. We must learn and speak the truth; or, at least, not lie. Military servicemembers should use their chain of command and the Inspector General system, and consider writing their members of Congress.
Support our war chest with a monthly subscription and enjoy a faster, minimal Revolver.News reading experience.