Support Revolver By Going AD-FREE


On February 3, 2021, in the wake of the “deadly events” of 1/6, Biden’s new Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered a 60-day stand-down and total purge of the U.S. military’s rampant, undefined “extremism” problem. Though the details of this purge were always kept vague and framed in apolitical terms, it was immediately obvious the target would be MAGA — with the buzzword “extremism” tagged onto various proxies for Trump supporters, conservatives, and opponents of globalism of all stripes.

We now know the hatchet man the Pentagon has selected to carry out this MAGA purge of the American defense forces, and the entire operation is worse than you could have ever imagined.

The Biden administration has just put the equivalent of Ibram X. Kendi in charge of vetting the entire U.S. military.

This hatchet man’s name is Bishop Garrison, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Defense for Diversity and Inclusion:

Bishop Garrison says that being a Trump supporter makes you a racist, misogynist, extremist.

In a tweet thread from July 27, 2019, Bishop Garrison wrote:

This isn’t just some random case of Trump Derangement Syndrome on Twitter.

As the new head of the U.S. military’s “Countering Extremism” task force, this critical race theory loving, Trump Derangement Syndrome suffering, fake news spreading, 100% partisan hack is the man who will now separate permissible “opinion” from purgeable “extremism” at the Pentagon, which is the nation’s largest employer, overseeing 2.9 million personnel.

Just as the Defense Secretary’s 60 day stand down to take stock of “extremism” within the military’s ranks expired, the Pentagon issued a formal memo on April 9th describing its “Immediate Actions to Counter Extremism.” This memo establishes the Countering Extremism Working Group (“CEWG”) to develop and implement all “Counter Extremism” policies at the Pentagon.

Bishop Garrison is at the helm.

From the memo:

The [CEWG’s] immediate actions are as follows:

  • Review and Update of DODI 1325.06 Extremism Definition: Office of the Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness) and the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) will review and update DODI 1325.06 to more specifically define what constitutes extremist behavior.
  • Updating the Service Member Transition Checklist: The military departments will add provisions to their service member transition checklists that include training on potential targeting of service members by extremist groups and work with other federal departments agencies to create a mechanism by which veterans have the opportunity to report any potential contact with an extremist group should they choose to do so.
  • Review and Standardization of Screening Questionnaires: All military departments to update and standardize screening questionnaires to solicit specific information about current or previous extremist behavior.
  • Commission of Extremism Study: The Department will commission a study on extremist behavior within our Total Force, to include gaining greater fidelity on the scope of the problem.

Led by Bishop Garrison, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Defense on Human Capital and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, the CEWG will oversee the implementation of immediate actions as well as the development of mid-term and long-term recommendations for the continued engagement of this issue. The CEWG will report through the Workforce Management Group (WMG) to the Deputy’s Workforce Council (DWC).

[U.S. Department of Defense]

From the above, we learn that Bishop Garrison will lead the CEWG, which will function as a de facto “Opinion Police” for Pentagon personnel on a permanent, go-forward basis.

The CEWG’s first tasks will be: to change the Pentagon’s definition of “extremism”; to stop Pentagon personnel from being recruited by “extremist” groups; and to beef up personnel screening to better detect hidden “extremist beliefs.”

If you’re in the military, it appears that Bishop Garrison’s CEWG will scour your Internet history, making sure to target “gray areas, such as reading, following and liking extremist material and content in social media forums and platforms.”

But what exactly are “extremist beliefs” and “extremist materials”?

A leaked 17-page DARPA memo from March 27, 2021 entitled “Extremism and Insider Threat in the DoD” provides a clue as to what new categories of lawful thoughts, associations and reading materials are likely to be scanned and banned by Bishop Garrison’s CEWG. DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency colloquially known as “The Pentagon’s Brain,” recommended a brand new category called “Patriot Extremism,” which occurs when a citizen believes “the US government has become corrupt” or “has overstepped its constitutional boundaries”:

“Patriot Extremism” is completely distinct from “White supremacy,” which DARPA maintains as a wholly separate category. To DARPA’s credit, they did at least add a new category for “Anarchist Extremism,” which purports to target some degree of left-wing political organization. But DARPA’s “Symbols of Extremism” collage on page 6 clearly reveals their intended target: the collage includes 12 “far-right” symbols, versus just two Antifa symbols, and just one for ISIS. “Extremist” “far-right” symbols include Pepe the Frog, the OK hand gesture, “Come and Take It” guns-rights memes, and the “Q” in QAnon:

So now it’s up to Bishop Garrison’s CEWG to take DARPA’s “extremism” proposals and either implement them, throw them in the trash, or come up with something new.

We already have a good idea of Bishop Garrison’s views from the egregious anti-Trump tweets presented above.

But since Bishop Garrison will effectively be the vetter-in-chief responsible for culling the entire U.S. military of any potential “extremist” in its ranks, it’s only fair that Bishop Garrison’s own “extremist” Internet footprint be more thoroughly exposed — and with it the entire sham of his dangerous project to politicize and purge America’s defense forces.

The Critical Race Theory Zealot

Bishop Garrison is an ardent advocate of the so-called “1619 Project.” In August 2019, he instructed his followers to stop whatever they were doing and read 1619‘s 100-page spread in the Sunday Times immediately.

Recall that the “1619” in the 1619 Project refers to the year in which the first slaves arrived at the British Colonies. Spearheaded by the New York Times’s Nikole Hannah Jones, the idea of the 1619 Project is to replace 1776 with 1619 as the year of America’s founding, with a view toward casting the U.S. as fundamentally evil and unjust. The New York Post explains “How the 1619 Project Slandered America”:

In the absence of traditional public examinations this time of year, as a result of you know what, here’s a little history quiz for you. What year marked the creation of the United States?

Most of you will probably answer 1776, the year of the Declaration of Independence. Credit might also be given if you said 1788, the date of the ratification of the Constitution.

You’d all be wrong. The correct date, apparently, is 1619.

This was the year the first slaves arrived in the British colonies of North America, and if the people who control most of the cultural conversation in America these days get their way, we should all see this as the true moment of the founding of the nation. The point, of course, is that it defines America as a nation built not on the lofty ideals of freedom and self-government laid out in the document written by the Founding Fathers, but as one built on the degradation, dehumanization and persecution of black people.

[NY Post]

The 1619 Project is not simply critical of certain aspects of American history. Rather, it recasts and redefines America as fundamentally evil, and is therefore anti-American in this most direct and literal sense. The 1619 agenda is so controversial that Republicans in 5 states sought to ban schools from incorporating its anti-American poison in their curricula. Even Mitch McConnell, hardly the brave culture warrior, piped up to address the 1619 Project’s anti-American slander.

So vicious and subversive is the 1619 Project’s slander of America that one of Donald Trump’s last actions as President was to set up a 1776 Commission dedicated to correcting its damaging lies about what America fundamentally is. Of course, Biden made sure to do away with this just days after taking office.

As a final confirmation of the anti-white, anti-American agenda behind the 1619 Project, its founder Nikole Hannah-Jones was revealed to have referred to the “white race” as “bloodsuckers” and “barbaric devils,” and Christopher Columbus as “no different than Hitler.”

Such is the nature of the 1619 Project that Bishop Garrison, ideological vetter-in-chief for the United States military, promoted so enthusiastically as “stories we all need to hear.”

The most generous and willfully blind might write off Bishop Garrison’s promotion of the 1619 Project as an extraneous interest that wouldn’t have an effect on his current definition of “extremism” or on his present role in vetting extremism from the U.S. Armed Forces. Think again.

In an August 2019 screed entitled “Racism is an existential threat“, Bishop Garrison directly connects his support for the 1619 Project to his conception of “white nationalist extremism” as the pre-eminent security threat facing the United States:

The country’s horrific history on race and its continued refusal to engage these problems head-on has exacerbated the issue to the point of a violent crisis. This crisis continues to seep into our state and local domestic policies, our technologies, the algorithms of social media companies, and (potentially) our future like a corrosive poison contaminating a water table. We will continue to face the nation-ending threat of white supremacy and white nationalist extremism unless we invest in Combating Violent Extremism (CVE) programs, which this administration has cut, and find the courage to have honest-to-God difficult, uncomfortable conversations in our homes and communities about our history of race and privilege in America and how it has shaped our lives today.

An example of this in practice is the New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project, a series of opinion pieces, poetry, essays, and historical works designed to inform readers on the treatment and history of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws in America. The project’s title comes from the August anniversary of the arrival of the first African slaves, 20-30 individuals from what is now modern-day Angola, in the British American colonies. Each work highlights not only past atrocities and injustices experienced by black Americans, but ongoing systemic issues that have plagued the nation from its original sin of slavery into the present day. It’s an important effort that may very well shape the dialogue around race, inclusion, and the need for steadfast policies that may one day fill the discriminatory gaps in our society and help heal the country. And the effort is, somehow, in 2019, controversial.

While pundits clutch pearls and attempt to convince us that the 1619 Project is a lie, that it’s really white society under attack, and that we’re in a post-racial society because we once had a black man as president, more radicalized white supremacists will shoot up schools, markets, stores, and places of worship to assert their ideology. We are not required to blindly believe pundits. We must not be bullied by maniacs who seek power through semi-automatic rifles. We must not run from engagement with each other; the change we desire can be achieved through heartfelt, frequently difficult, and awkward conversations among family, friends, and neighbors about race and its continued impact on our lives. Reading the 1619 Project is a good place to start.


When Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made a speech denouncing 1619 for the ahistorical anti-American poison that it is, Bishop Garrison labeled Pompeo’s criticisms not merely a different opinion, but “dangerous.”

Let’s take a moment to take stock of what we’ve learned. The leader of the Pentagon’s Orwellian ideological vetting operation not only enthusiastically promotes the viciously anti-American 1619 Project, he characterizes anyone who would dare criticize it as “dangerous.”

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 who believe America is a fundamentally evil and racist nation will be permitted to take the oath to defend America — a bizarre dystopian twist if there ever was one!

Contextualizing contrary opinions as “dangerous” is especially troubling in light of Bishop Garrison’s grift in the national security sector. By designating lawful groups, people, associations or ideas as “dangerous,” a national security predicate is created to eliminate them. Since the national security apparatus controls the commanding heights of America’s intelligence agencies (which are functionally above the law under NSC 10-2), military branches, State Department diplomats, Treasury Department powers and Federal law enforcement organs, national security predicates are the ultimate “trump card” to bypass democratic processes.

Put another way, if every issue were a national security issue, we would have martial law, not a Constitutional republic.

This undemocratic override is why national security apparatchiks are supposed to stay in their lane, focus on defense, and stay out of civilian policy. Labeling a target a “threat to national security” not only moots civilian debate, it moots all FOIAs and public inquiries into what military-intelligence is even up to behind closed doors.

But Bishop Garrison, the ultimate vassal for an agenda he is likely wholly unaware of, seeks long-arm jurisdiction for the U.S. security state on all things “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Which leads us to Bishop Garrison’s main grift in the critical race theory racket: “White Supremacy is a national security threat.“

On December 10, 2019, Bishop Garrison testified at a House Armed Services Committee hearing titled “Diversity in Recruiting and Retention: Increasing Diversity in the Military – What the Military Services are Doing”.

The transcript reads, in relevant part:

[P]romoting inclusivity and respect within the ranks is not only the right thing to do morally but also a matter of national security: a more cohesive unit is a stronger fighting force. Moreover, in order to address a diverse set of threats across the globe, we must strive to include a diverse set of life experiences and perspectives…

It’s also important to note that some of the current discourse in American society and some of the current administration’s policies could be affecting interest in serving, especially among minorities. The militarization of our nation’s southern border; the deportation of veterans; the potential rescission of the Parole in Place program; tenuous status of Dreamer service members and veterans; the transgender service ban; the fact that many major military bases are still named after Confederate leaders; the ongoing worries about white nationalism in the military’s ranks; and the fact that an individual who holds extreme views on race, continues to serve at the highest level of immigration policy-making—these factors risk causing a detrimental impact on our military’s ability to recruit and retain new and diverse talent.


By “an individual who holds extreme views on race who continues to serve at the highest level of immigration policy-making,” Bishop Garrison meant then White House Senior Policy Advisor, Stephen Miller.

To Bishop Garrison, people like Stephen Miller are not legitimate officials with mere opinion or policy differences that should be resolved at the civilian level: they are national security threats that should be dealt with at the military level. So says the new head of the Pentagon Opinion Police.

But Bishop Garrison’s sleight of hand reasoning here is so clever, so understated, and yet so breathtakingly sweeping that it’s unlikely he had anything to do with inventing it.

Here’s how the scam works:

Once you accept that the Pentagon’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies are a matter of national security, then anything that undermines diversity, equity and inclusion is now deemed a national security threat. That’s all it takes for the empty vessel of Bishop Garrison to sweep all policies and personnel that supported Donald Trump’s border wall, illegal alien deportations, DACA criticism, transgender military ban, and military bases named after Confederate leaders into “threats to national security” jurisdiction.


In short, critical race theory is no longer just the poison academics use to train American schoolchildren to hate their country — it is the animating agenda of the United States Military, the most powerful fighting force in world history.

Bishop Garrison’s public remarks on George Floyd offer a shocking and terrifying glimpse into what this means in practice.

At the height of the George Floyd riots in June 2020, Garrison penned “An Appeal to the National Security Community to Fight Racial Injustice,” in which he argues “there is no security abroad without justice at home.” In the op-ed, Garrison crusaded against the very concept of objectivity in the U.S. national security state and called for the national security apparatus to “cut out” the “cancer” of racism.

It is a convention in national security analysis to strike as objective a tone as possible. Experts who focus on how inequality and injustice undermine security are often taken less seriously than those who focus on weapons development or military strategy. This, too, reflects the structural tunnel vision in our community that has to change. In this spirit, if we are not all actively aware of how racial injustice undermines our security and if we do not integrate efforts to combat it into our work and policy initiatives, then we will be part of the problem and guilty of undercutting our own security.

The United States faces a historic moment that provides an opportunity for the national security community to both discuss and act on the issues of race and extremism—and how they affect our security, diplomatic relationships, and credibility abroad. The racism that threatens lives and security will not magically vanish. It will not draw back or resolve itself. It must be cut out like the cancer it has been for so long. The national security community can strengthen the nation of which it is a part by being not just an ally of those who want change, but also an active participant in this dialogue and effort. The battles for the security and moral authority of the United States are intrinsically linked.

[Foreign Policy]

It will not come as a surprise to the reader that the epidemic of arson and death caused by Black Lives Matter fails to register as a matter of moral or national security concern for Bishop Garrison. Rioting in 140 cities, $2 billion in property damage, shooting policemen in the head, and single-handedly kicking off a 30% nationwide increase in homicide, and what does Bishop Garrison have to say about it? Nothing?


Actually, worse than nothing. Instead of similarly pursuing BLM as a national security threat, Bishop Garrison attacked “the deafening silence of veteran service organizations” who failed to support BLM.

According to Biship Garrison, anything that falls outside of the ideological boundaries of an MSNBC host is not only wrong, but a national security threat.

Consider Bishop Garrison’s tweet below calling Bill Maher a racist. Bill Maher can now be banned for life from all U.S. military organs. Not for being insensitive (which is First Amendment-protected speech), but because Bill Maher is now a national security threat because he made a joke (below) undermining racial minority recruitment, retention, leadership, and morale.

By the same logic, Revolver News could now be deemed a national security threat by publishing this article, justifying counterintelligence countermeasures such as surveillance and infiltration. Ironically, these are exactly the types of abuses that initially prompted the 1975-76 Church Committee hearings, after Christopher Pyle’s 1970 whistleblower series revealed Army Counterintelligence and the FBI had been spying on every major civilian political movement in the country, including ordinary women’s groups.

Bishop Garrison is thus the ultimate weapon for ending all First Amendment protections afforded to military personnel and civilians in the modern era. His Pentagon Opinion Police may now use critical race theory to implement a parallel and superseding Constitution. It is the military-intelligence equivalent of Christopher Caldwell’s “The Law That Ate The Constitution.”

In December 2019, Bishop Garrison condemned that Rep. Pete Aguilar’s “Preventing Radical Extremist’s Violent Endeavors Now and Tomorrow Act of 2019” bill even used the word “extremist” at all. The image in the below tweet juxtaposes Rep. Aguilar’s version and the version that made it to President Trump’s desk. Bishop Garrison is clearly dismayed “Whiteness” is no longer the sole, exclusive, head-on target of the Pentagon purge.

There is a second bit of sleight of hand at play. That is Bishop Garrison’s conflation of violent and non-violent “white supremacy” threats to create his national security predicate.

In an August 2020 audio interview titled “What does white supremacy mean for US national security?” with Public Radio International’s The World, Bishop Garrison elucidates to host Carol Hills:

Interviewer: Bishop, in your years first in the Army and then in national security roles, what experiences did you have that convinced you that systemic racism can undermine national security?

Bishop Garrison: Well the biggest things I’ve witnessed thus far is just the predominance of White supremacy, of the continued rise of it, particularly here in recent years, as we’ve had opportunities to engage it directly. But we’re also seeing internationally, kind of across the world in authoritarian regimes, a resurgence of these types of hate speech, of violent action and rhetoric directed at vulnerable communities, particularly minority communities, communities of color.

So and this is something that just didn’t happen within the last few months or few years. This has taken some time over the last decade plus to persist, and as much we’ve just seen a lack of proper engagement on it. So this is something that is going to take the totality of the national security apparatus to engage. I’m hoping we’re going to have an opportunity to do so soon.


There are three remarkable features about Garrison’s response. First, Bishop has no “experiences” to list in response to Hills’s question of what evidence he has of “system racism.” All he can do is point to “just the predominance of White supremacy.” No data, no definition, no explanation necessary.

Second, he pivots to a lackluster reference to “international” “authoritarian regimes” where “hate speech” targets “communities of color.” Given that White people make up less than 10% of the world’s population, and the vast majority of Whites live in Western democracies not deemed “authoritarian” by the State Department, this mush-mouthed garble appears to conflate two left-wing bugaboos: rising populism in Western democracies with so-called “hate speech,” and a deranged new left-wing pretext for hybrid war in Eurasia on the grounds of Russia’s new and emerging export of “transnational white supremacy.”

Third, note that according to Garrison  “the totality of the national security apparatus”  must be turned against American servicemen to purge this existential threat, while no actual threat has been identified. The interview continues:

Interviewer: Can you name some experiences or instances that you experienced directly that you feel were missed opportunities or that were simply ignored or not engaged upon.

Bishop Garrison: No, for me, my own personal experiences, the biggest things have been more about inherent bias, and underlying prejudice. I’ve never had anyone directly engage me and call me an outright racist name. I’ve never had anyone attack me based on any immutable traits. What I will say is I’ve walked into more than one room and been the only African-American to speak on a variety of issues in professional settings.


It’s truly amazing. This self-described “national security expert” whose 24/7 calling card is racism’s “nation-ending” threat has never actually experienced a single actual, overt act of racism. 

Of course, this is diametrically opposed to the the oppressed, put-upon act Bishop Garrison deploys on Twitter. In December 2019, Bishop Garrison wildly slandered a cadet simply playing “the circle game” as embodying the “white nationalism & supremacy” Bishop Garrison is tasked with eradicating:

When corrected by a Twitter user that the cadet was obviously just playing “the circle game” and Bishop Garrison’s hair-trigger racism cry was going to destroy the cadet’s career, Bishop Garrison shot back: “I know first-hand racism.”

But “first hand racism” is the opposite of what Bishop Garrison knows. By his own account, no one was ever actually racist to him.

Still, shoot-first, see-if-they’re-racist-later Bishop Garrison translated his fake oppression into a caution against “attempts to wash this away as a ‘game’” because “I can tell you, history may say otherwise.”

As seems to happen literally every single time (much more on that below), history sides against Bishop Garrison and with the accused racist. The military investigation confirmed the cadet was just playing “the circle game,” not doing a White Power racial insurrectionist dog-whistle. No apology was forthcoming from Bishop, of course.

Garrison’s August 20, 2020 Public Radio International interview concludes:

Interviewer: How does racism fit into the larger context of threats to national security? 

Bishop Garrison: So, the biggest thing we’re seeing right now is violent White extremism, White supremacists. They see their race, and they see themselves as the White race, they see themselves as naturally above other people, within the world. We’re starting to see them act out in violent ways. We’ve had more mass shootings with affiliations to that particular demographic than we’ve had to international terrorism. So having these types of thoughts, having them perpetuated, and even still, having high-level individuals who are pushing these kinds of thoughts through policy and through rhetoric, only enabling these folks that are going to go out and act in aggressive, violent manners to do so.


Now, finally, we come to an actual security issue. But his justification is mass shootings!

This is a totally garbage, indefensible piece of muck at every level. First, shootings that occur in the homeland are the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security, not the Pentagon.

The Pentagon is for fighting foreign bad guys, not U.S. citizens, dummy.

Even the Pentagon’s Counterintelligence branches are supposed to be limited to “Insider Threats” to the Defense Department, not random citizens in civilian settings.

But even if this issue were in Bishop Garrison’s jurisdiction, he wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. There’s good reason Bishop Garrison cites no data in his response: it blows him out of the water. Of the 16,425 murders in 2019, just 38 involved “right-wing extremists, including White supremacists.” 38. That is 0.02% of murders. Surely, Bishop Garrison is aware of this 38 number; it comes from the ADL, with whom Bishop Garrison appears to be buddies, and whose similarly shrill turn towards partisan hackery makes them deserving of joint panel appearances.

So “mass shooters” now serves as the pretext for the Pentagon Opinion Police. But without getting too deep into crime statistics, let’s just say the “Mass Shooter” profile does not resemble Bishop Garrison’s “top threat to national security,” if that threat is supposed to be White supremacy.

We have learned that according to the military’s new ideological vetter-in-chief, it is no longer acceptable to criticize the 1619 Project, BLM, or the riots that took place in the wake of George Floyd’s death. In fact, such criticism is now a new form of national security threat.

What we’ve seen so far is shocking enough, but we’ve compiled some more of Bishop Garrison’s greatest hits to allow the full story to sink in.

This is a man tasked with shaping the ideological makeup of the United States Armed forces, and we have a right to a much fuller sense of what and how he really thinks.

“Bishop-209”: The Best Of Bishop Garrison’s Racism and Fake News “Malfunctions”

When Republican swamp monster Max Boot penned “2017 Was The Year I Learned About My White Privilege,” Bishop Garrison tweeted he was glad Max Boot “got here” but that “more men” of Boot’s background (Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations) need “to do the same.” Garrison wanted arch neocon Eliot Cohen to know acknowledging “white privilege” is every white person’s moral obligation, not something “gutsy” to do:

Eliot Cohen, who was simply expressing support for Max Boot’s “white privilege” boot-licking, surely felt blind-sided by Bishop Garrison’s random drive-by in his replies. Seeking not to engage but standing by his statement, Cohen tweeted back: “QED.”

But the new head of the Pentagon Opinion Police called him out: saying “QED” to a “young African-American man” (he was ~35) is itself an act of White Privilege.

In the above exchange, Radicalism RoboCop decided poor Max Boot did have an obligation to confess “white privilege,” but failed to self-flagellate meekly enough. Max Boot should have been flogging himself while sitting alone in a corner, not in a newspaper editorial.

If you still want a career in the military, here’s how to pass Bishop Garrison’s “Extremism” review:

God save the troops who don’t know never to say “QED” to a Black man. Radicalism RoboCop might have an “Ed-209 moment” and malfunction over the difference between Latin initialism and Extremist White Supremacy.

Bishop-209 seems to “malfunction” over every new idiom he encounters. You may recall Governor Ron DeSantis used the phrase “monkey this up” — meaning “screw” things up — one time during his 2018 gubernatorial race against Florida candidate Andrew Gillum. Bishop-209 responded:

Bishop-209’s programming is once again even more aggressive than expected. Not only was the statement racist, anyone who says it’s not racist now becomes racist for defending it. This is the classic Kafkatrap argumentation at the heart of critical race theory.

When Axios said Trump’s tweets in July 2019 were a “nativist attack” because they jokingly suggested Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib return to the countries they immigrated from if they hate things so much in America, Bishop-209 corrected Axios: “Don’t be afraid to say racist.”

Completely race-neutral statements are deemed “overt racism.”

In Sept. 2019, Bishop-209 malfunctions over the mere sight of a white woman cutting a black teen’s hair:

The image Bishop Garrison is melting down about is below:

The above exchange, in which Bishop Garrison finds it “disgusting” “how happy” a white woman is to remove a black teen’s dreads, has all the hallmarks of a classic Bishop Garrison sequence. With no context, no information, and nothing facially wrong or racist about the event in question, Bishop Garrison is absolutely certain it is “racist,” and condemns those who don’t see the racism as being racist themselves (Kafkatrapping).

As it turns out, the black teen in the picture asked the white woman to give him that haircut, and publicly defended her against hair-trigger Bishop-209 types.

Snap judgments and belligerent disdain for nuance form the core of Bishop-209’s first instincts. When the Austin serial bombings of March 2018 happened, Bishop Garrison immediately framed the events as White Supremacist Terrorism because some of the package bombs blew up in a predominately Black and Latino neighborhood. When a Twitter user replied that the bombs’ random locations and White victims undercut his racism claim, Bishop-209 snapped back that the “race component” cannot be ignored:

You would think the words “too nuanced” would not be a staple in the vocabulary of someone whose job is to distinguish “opinion” from “extremism” for the U.S. military. Bishop-209 is programmed, however, to believe the definition of terror is too nuanced.

It’s the same reasoning Bishop Garrison uses to deem all Trump supporters racist, misogynist extremists. “There is no room for nuance.” No Trump supporters in the military can claim “but I’m not like that.”

For millions of Southerners,  the Confederate flag is not a symbol of racism but of Southern heritage and Southern pride. But “high-minded” and “academic discussions” about “nuance” aren’t Bishop Garrison’s thing.

Bishop-209 has very simply programming. You plug something into CNN or a Democrat’s mouth, and Bishop-209 spits it back unthinkingly.

For example, when mainstream media briefly created a fake narrative that President Trump had a “secret bank account in China,” Bishop-209 was all over it to amplify the fake news.

As it turned out, within 48 hours, it was reported that “Trump Closed Bank Account in China Before He Was Elected.”

When the Hunter Biden laptop story came out and Trump mentioned it during the Presidential Debate, Bishop Garrison immediately joined the chorus of NatSec flunkies describing the laptop story as “Russian conspiracy theories”:

The fact that Hunter Biden personally admitted the laptop “certainly could be” his did not penetrate Bishop-209’s partisan hackery programming.

In December 2016, Tulsi Gabbard pointed out the U.S. funded ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Bishop Garrison’s response? Join Team Orange Hitler, Tulsi!

It’s like Joe Biden and Bishop Garrison are in Trading Places. Biden tells black people who don’t support Democrats “You ain’t black!” and Bishop Garrison tells Democrats don’t support terrorists “You ain’t Democrat!”

But even the underlying substance to Garrison’s exchange with Tulsi Gabbard is amusing. Tulsi’s point about the U.S. funding ISIS, which the Bush-Obama-Biden political leadership has always chosen to censor rather than engage, is now being pointed out by emboldened Chinese diplomats who are replying to our Secretary of State’s tweets with inconvenient facts.

How would Bishop Garrison handle such a tweet by a Chinese dignitary?

The Bigger Picture

“Extremist” used to mean functionally, but not quite legally, terrorist. “Extremist” speech and opinions are definitionally lawful and protected by the First Amendment. The term’s introduction as a category of Army Counterintelligence concern has historically been justified by “extremism’s” adjacency to terrorism and Insider Threat subversion — not simply as a target for its own sake as opinions that higher-ups find wrong. That has slowly been changing, and now the levee has finally broken.

The utility of critical race theory for Democrats is that it takes racial proxies for political opinion (such as white Christians tending to support Republicans, and African-Americans, single women and LGBT folks tending to support Democrats), and then racially and sexually gerrymanders targeted institutions to make them more politically Democrat. Some helpful infographics tell the tale:

With Democrats having fully become the Party Of War, and Republicans presently divided between Pro-War neocons and Anti-War MAGA supporters, each of the Biden administration, neocon Republicans, and permanent “deep state” elements of the Pentagon share a vested interest in purging the U.S. military of MAGA holdovers.

Bishop Garrison’s chief role is to radically expand the military’s dominion over traditional civilian policy-making — where MAGA politicians still hold a kingmaker’s influence — by using critical race theory to eschew the limiting tenet of “the water’s edge.”

Bishop Garrison is part of the War Machine’s “human rights” grift that tries to justify cluster bombs and regime change operations — plus billions in new military spending and arms procurement contracts — on the basis of accused “human rights violations” happening in other countries. This is why Garrison is triggered by left-wingers like Tulsi Gabbard suggesting the U.S. should not be involved in a war with Syria.

See, after the Cold War ended without NATO firing a single shot in its entire 42-year history (1949-1991), the U.S. could no longer justify our world-dominating military deployments, spending and research — and therefore our military advantage — on the basis of actual threats faced at home or to NATO partners. So instead of just being honest and calling it Empire (as nation-states once did before the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights), we added “human rights abuses” of foreign citizens as vital to America’s long-term national security. After invoking this principle to carry out the successful bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1995, we never looked back.

But the whole scheme is funny if you take universal principles seriously. It would justify Syria 100-X’ing its military spend and bombing Flint, Michigan because American kids were poisoned there:

But Bishop Garrison’s grift is even more sinister: he is part of the U.S. military’s definitional expansion of “human rights abuses” beyond violent or physical repression of foreign populations (such as real or imagined chemical attacks) and into structural and social repression. Most members of the unsuspecting American public have only caught a passing glimpse of this long-in-the-works MICIMATT plan through flashpoints, like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley’s defying a civilian Command-in-Chief’s plan to withdraw from Afghanistan on the grounds that, without the U.S. War Machine, “Women’s rights will go back to the Stone Age.”

Mark Milley is the highest-ranking military officer in America. Installed by a Republican, everything he touches turns to intersectional dog-crap. This is not an accident.

Just this month, Max Boot’s WaPo editorial peppered in the same intersectional logic for maintaining the War Machine, blasting Biden’s planned Afghanistan withdrawal with “Think of all the girls going to school, all the women in the workforce.” David Ignatius’s WaPo editorial pleaded for war in the name of “women of Afghanistan, who fear new oppression.” Then the full WaPo editorial board denounced the withdrawal plan not primarily on the grounds of security, but of social progress:

After a brief and seemingly halfhearted effort at diplomacy, Mr. Biden has decided on unconditional withdrawal, a step that may spare the United States further costs and lives but will almost certainly be a disaster for the country’s 39 million people — and, in particular, its women. It could lead to the reversal of the political, economic and social progress for which the United States fought for two decades, at a cost of more than 2,000 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. And, according to the U.S. intelligence community and a study commissioned by Congress, it could allow al-Qaeda to restore its base in Afghanistan, from which it launched the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001…

Perhaps, too, some officials say hopefully, the Taliban will moderate its denial of women’s rights and other repressive policies to preserve international aid, without which Afghanistan’s economy would implode…

At a minimum, it will mean an abandonment of those Afghans who believed in building a democracy that guaranteed basic human rights — and the nullification of the sacrifices of the American servicemen who were killed or wounded in that mission. Mr. Biden has chosen the easy way out of Afghanistan, but the consequences are likely to be ugly.


Meanwhile, the growing number of episodes that reveal intersectionality as pretext for Empire have resulted in parts of the story becoming well-memed:

Bishop Garrison’s role is imperative in this transition.

By institutionally mandating support for intersectional theory and positing all opposition as “extremism,” human rights justifications for Pentagon deployments get driven permanently and irreversibly into the DNA of American military doctrine. Simultaneously, the Pentagon gets completely purged of all personnel and institutional support that represents populist-nationalist-traditionalist ideas or sympathies.

The result? Regime Loyalty is ensured internally, while the military-defense sector and its blob-itudinous sprawl are prevented from being leveraged as a base of support by political opposition more generally. Call it the Pentagon Patriot Purge.

Many Republicans, of the Max Boot-Bill Kristol-Rick Wilson-Evan McMullin strain, will not only go along, but will indeed be its most enthusiastic supporters. The neocon wing of the Republican Party will be all too happy to finally win the GOP civil war with a kill shot from critical race theory activists. The only surprise would be if the GOP establishment (GOPe) didn’t help the DNC come up with the scheme.

Case in point? Consider Max Boot’s “white privilege” op-ed mentioned above, which begins: “I used to be a smart-alecky conservative who scoffed at ‘political correctness.’ The Trump era opened my eyes. ”

The Pentagon Patriot Purge is a two-fer: the DNC-GOPe War Machine consolidates total support for militarism abroad, while wiping out the political opposition and institutional resistance at home.

This is why Bishop Garrison’s think tank The Rainey Center bills itself as “Post Partisan” despite being comprised exclusively of the most partisan, anti-MAGA hacks in Washington. It is a bipartisan alliance of neoliberal Democrats and War Machine Republicans in coalition to stamp out anti-security state sentiment on both right and left.

As Revolver News previously covered extensively, this fake “bipartisan” facade was also the favorite party trick of Norm Eisen’s so-called “Transatlantic Democracy Working Group.”

So it is no small wonder that Bishop Garrison crawled into his post by slathering through the sludge of Norm Eisen’ faux national security NGOs.

See, e.g., from 45:00-1:02:30 below:

A final note should help clarify how these corrupt forces all fit together:

Recall that before joining Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012, and before becoming a sock puppet for companies who make Weapons Of Death in the name of Human Rights, Bishop Garrison got his start in “Peace and Security Operations” at Deloitte.

For readers who don’t know what “Peace and Security” means, it’s not at all what you probably just imagined. It’s a giant scam field boiling over from a witches brew of war profiteers, money-mad energy lobbyists, voracious capital investment firm vultures, banksters from the World Bank and IMF, intelligence creepy-crawlies from every country on earth, and bulging-eyed bought-off politicians trying to hit every buzzword on the democracy bingo card they get handed by their advisers. And those advisers come from exactly the twisted self-licking ice cream cone of corporate boards, NGOs, philanthrophic foundations and astroturfed activist organizations you’d expect.

The racket works like this: These war-torn countries we just LoveBombed For Peace need reconstruction and development money to get their toilets working again; they need modernized infrastructure to attract emerging market capital, they need massive energy projects to become that modern country, and they need to take out an impossible mountain of debt to pay for it all.

To try to illustrate this point quickly, our team just went to a random World Bank page (this one, if you want to follow along) and did a Ctrl + F for “Peace and Security.”

See it? Well you click that “Peace and Security Topic Page” link, it takes you to a page that doesn’t have the word “peace” anymore.

But boy oh boy does it sure have the word “Development.”

Now ask yourself: how many dyed-in-the-wool MAGA supporters are stoked to go along with the World Bank’s “A Marshall Plan with Africa,” “Migration and Climate,” and “Climate Change and Development”?

You can see how MAGA, or proxies for MAGA — including demographic proxies like white Christians, or cultural proxies like gun enjoyers, or memetic proxies like sharers of Pepe memes or QAnon content — would sort of, you know, throw a wrench in this whole system, right?

So all proxies for MAGA must be purged.

During the Cold War, Empire was maintained in the name of fighting communism and fascism. Today, the Globalist American Empire increasingly justifies war on the grounds of fighting traditionalism and defending or promoting some aspect of woke ideology.

Or to put it terms of Bishop Garrison’s Twitter bio, Captain America used to punch Nazis:

Now, Captain America is just punching you, your family, and the nation you once loved.

Support Revolver By Going AD-FREE