,
25 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
Can we talk about white supremacists that are trained by our military? I think we should talk about that.
I served in the Army. I was trained as an infantryman. A grunt. That’s about as nuts-and-bolts as it gets in the military. (THREAD)
I served in the Army. I was trained as an infantryman. A grunt. That’s about as nuts-and-bolts as it gets in the military. (THREAD)
Infantry training is ongoing. Infantry units train constantly. All the time. It’s always something. To the point of being monotonous. If we weren’t at the firing range, we were doing hands-on tactical training. If not tactical, then classroom prep. Always. Something.
Thousands of hours of training and learning how to kill other people. I am a trained killer. That’s what an infantryman does. They kill. Other soldiers will laugh this off. “Okay, killer.” But they know I’m right. Deep down, that’s your purpose as an infantryman: to kill.
It starts early. Basic training is psychological. You’re supposed to get comfortable with killing. You’re prepared to face this reality. In my barracks at basic training, there was a giant mural of a skull-and-crossbones on the floor. Our official nickname: “Death Dealers”.
We were taught call-and-response chants. Ex: “What makes the grass grow?” “Blood, blood, blood makes the grass grow!”
So many drills have the cry “Kill!” in them. I’m surprised we weren’t required to shout it after eating a meal. Hell, we probably were.
So many drills have the cry “Kill!” in them. I’m surprised we weren’t required to shout it after eating a meal. Hell, we probably were.
I’m not here to tell you military training is bad. I am not a pacifist. Evil threats exist, and violence--as a last resort--is sometimes required. Someone has to kill. But that power has been frequently been abused by our government and held unaccountable in day-to-day life.
Because someone has to kill and the killing falls to the military, psychological training like that makes killing easier. But regardless of where you happen to fall on this method of training, we need to take better accountability of it in the civilian world.
Thousands of hours of learning how to kill other human beings. Day after day, month after month, year after year. Rewiring of the brain. It becomes second nature. Your body becomes fluent in the language of killing.
I’m a flaming liberal. I’m a gun owner but don’t collect them. My idea of “fun” is singing karaoke in a tiara, not a day shooting guns. But there is no doubt in my mind that, if needed, I could kill other human beings efficiently. Tactically. Without hesitation. That's training.
I haven’t worn a uniform in almost seven years, but it would be like riding a bike. It’s ingrained. I doubt it’ll ever go away. That’s the point of military training: muscle memory, acting without hesitation, resorting to a part of your brain on autopilot.
In April 2009, Homeland Security released a report warning of the recruitment of veterans by radical groups: fas.org/irp/eprint/rig… 
White supremacy tied to military training was noted as a catalyst for a heightened national security risk, which is basically what we’ve seen come to fruition a decade later:
Predictably, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano was derided as disrespecting the troops. She was forced to issue several apologies. Never mind that Napolitano had only ever demonstrated the utmost respect for our folks in uniform.
Never mind that a 2008 FBI report identified 203 military veterans in white supremacist terrorist groups: cryptome.org/spy-whites.pdf
Never mind Charlottesville and the mix of military vets among the little boys playing soldier:
Never mind that a Marine killed JFK or that an Army infantryman was behind the Oklahoma City Bombing or the numerous instances of war veterans committing violent crimes using their training. Example: U.S. Army Rangers robbing a bank. historylink.org/File/9189
Or the higher rate of violence against women (in this case: IPV) among Active Duty military and veterans versus civilians:
Or that the higher rate of IPV in the military is linked to PTSD and traumatic brain injuries: hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/e…
Or—and this is important—the well-established relationship between mass shootings and violence against women. A great piece on that subject by Rebeca Traister can be found here: thecut.com/2016/07/mass-k…
Surely, that link between violence against women and subsequent mass shootings must count as evidence of terrorism. This is how the FBI defines domestic terrorism: fbi.gov/investigate/te…
Not sure why a mass shooting inspired by hatred of women doesn’t qualify as terrorism… unless, maybe, we don’t respect women as people? Not exactly the most comfortable truth in the national discourse.
White men are seeing a loss of power, feel victimized, have that irrational entitlement radicalized through white supremacist propaganda, and commit acts of terrorism.
But because they’re white and not shouting “Allahu Akbar”, they’re dismissed as "nuts", or more charitably: “nice guys gone wrong.” To admit to “terrorism” by ordinary white men would require asking deeper questions of ourselves, especially those of us in power, i.e. White House.
To admit to “terrorism” by military veterans would require a vast reworking of our systems of recruitment, training, and mental health. Instead, we grant an access of powerful weaponry to those most trained to use it and most likely to do so in brutal acts of terrorism.
An irony of all this is that though we fall back solely on the excuse of “mental health” to wave away acts of terrorism by white men, we neither 1) attempt to comprehensively address mental health in our country nor 2) effectively restrict access to weapons due to it. /thread
