justifying your bigotry and nationalism

Perhaps one of the most heinous aspects of the immigration debate is the gigabytes of text produced to defend ideology predicated on overt capitalistic enterprises. Suggesting that "we" need to fear immigrants because they threaten the foundational principles of our institutions, whether by disease, violence, or philosophical undermining, is really nothing more at all than being afraid that one's own precious economic worth will be dissipated or reduced. Immigrants are threats solely to the harboring of wealth by those who have vested their entire beings into systems and infrastructures of greed and the related destruction of the earth.

The worst of these are the objectivists and libertarians, obviously of course because they are utterly and completely dependent upon the fertility of their capital rather than any connection whatsoever with the planet itself. It is so absurd to read their musings on the "illegal" immigrants, struggling to justify and validate their enlightened principles as the standards underwhich they demand the nation adhere, all the while reasoning that hispanic immigration is a direct threat to them personally.

What all this really boils down to is that those who stole the land in the first place don't want to share it with those that they stole it from. For example, one of the arguments is that these immigrants don't know the language and thus are incapable of participating (redistributing their wealth to the rich white dudes). Gosh does it ever occur to them that in point of fact, the original common language of CA was in fact Spanish, long before any of the Germans and English invaded and conquered the eastern seaboard. When the Spanish missions and military invaded CA, they found a land populated by more than 300 distinct tribal groups, a thousand languages, diverse and robust trade, and "worst of all" peaceful relations between all peoples. Pre-colonial CA was indeed an ideal and fertile example of classic liberalism at its best--well except for their being no capitalistic monopolization and greed. The Spanish destroyed that, and then the ugliest of all capitalistic adventures (gold rush) killed off the Spanish leadership and claimed CA for the US. For two hundred years the language of CA was Spanish, for only the last 150 has it been English. And now the threat is Spanish?????

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim enlightenment principles from history as the standard to use to restrict others from sharing in those same principles now. "We are here and have created this nation, and you can't come here and be expected to understand how this nation works, since you descended from peoples who weren't us or our enlightened Euro fathers." See the problem. Spain was certainly Euro fatherhood, and subsequently all manner of enlightened principles spread throughout the hispanic cultures in the americas (can you say Simon Bolivar). Likewise, you can't suddenly claim ownership of a birthright on land you claim to own that was stolen from the same people who are immigrating back to take it, unless you first admit you stole it outright in violation of all those enlightened principles in the first place. "WE stole it, but now we believe that is bad, so we can't let you back in now, for fear you might want it back."

Either you accept that history has a relationship and is part and parcel of the process of human behavior and land use in CA, or you rid yourself of history, and start now with the edicts of possession and political will and power expressed through use of violent means. Naturally whatever these people do about the problem, they, none of them, will never ever acknowledge the original peoples whose land and resources and lives they stole in the first place. Thus it is required that all history of CA starts in the year 2000!

monthly TV "in-ass-faults"

Where oh where to begin?? Well let me start with Giuliana DePandi, the E news co-anchor now fated and saddle up on the pony boy Seacrest. Giu is perhaps one of the most purely ironic talking heads in the media. She demonstrates not one wit of conscious awareness of what she is told to say, what it means, how it is presented, nor if there is any contextual meaning to it at all. That she could fathom the miniscule depths of possible subtext is clearly impossible. Of course she knows she is getting paid a great deal of money, and is apparently willing to look bizarrely ridiculous to prove that (pleat puckers on her academy dress provided backup nipples to her own ones on her breasts--or when her obvious pubic hair[unwaxed like most of the celebs she celebrates] is pushing out on tight fitting skirts). But someone, somewhere in the system that provides this program with productorial and directorial guidance, must be aware of the complete breakdown of validity. It is as if Seinfeld were actually the anchor of the CBS evening news; one could never ever be sure that what he said was real in anyway whatsoever. Giu is incapable of any self-critique (except of course for her probable delusion regarding the way she must appear to herself in a mirror), and more than willing to shill the most abhorrent of lines promoting upcoming "shocking" video evidence of a celebrity being publicized, because some agency has paid for the publicity to happen at this point in time. This one half-hour program alone would make for a fascinating and informative seminar course in a cultural studies grad school. It is especially wonderful when Giu expresses her emotional revulsion for the paparazzi's efforts in providing her program with its material. "Just look how this paparazzi had to have violated X's privacy to get these pictures, it is just a shame."

King of the Hill is, in my mind, substantively responsible for the christo-fascist redneck stupid idiocy in the last two election cycles. The hero of the show is a bigoted, arrogant, stupidly conservative fascist, who is always shown to be ultimately right and good, while ridiculing all aspects of US life except those that represent all that is good in white, male, middle-class, earth-destroying, psychological-child-abusing, GOP voting amerikans. The show promotes toxification of the earth, celebrates verbal and emotional abuse of women and children, distrust of any education outside of the white male's home domain, and so forth. For ten years, Fox has brought this program to the homes of those that most strongly support Bushco, letting them know that Hank Hill is just the way they need to be to succeed. And there is no doubt in my mind that that is the intent and purpose of the show, which has run excessively longer than it ever should have.

Piggy-backing on 24 and Oceans 11/12/13, this season has brought us several new "dramas" that celebrate and honor the military and technological power of the elites to do as they please outside any laws or constitutional sanctions. The Unit may be the worst of these (though the short lived E Ring was an even more vile example), in that this specialized team doesn't seem to have any reason to comply with any rule of law whatsoever as long as the killing needs to be done for purely emotional revenge purposes. Although US law forbids political assassination of foreign leaders of any persuasion, these "good" guys just follow the orders that allow them to violate this law with not one consideration of consequence. Likewise we have no less than three programs that promote elitist theft by special squads of mastermind criminals who have inflitrated all levels of authority for the purpose of increasing their wealth and status. The resources expended by the programs to show the resources required by the "teams" is the uroboros manifesting just how the mass of the population not millionaires are to play the submissive subservient role of acceptance of these people in our lives should they actually exist. And they do exist, in the form of corporate executives and corrupt governmental leaderships, all free to continue to do as they please because, well, the good guys are the bad guys remember. And just how many FBI-based shows can we have on at one time???

If you can't get enough of one set of shows you are now free to watch them all over again, and again, and again, day after day, on multiple channels owned and operated by the big four. Couple that with these corporate giants movie production companies and nearly 70% of all the hundreds of channels are controlled by just four executive boards of media. It becomes especially bad at the local level, when, for example in my city, one board owns the broadcast affiliates of each of the four. The incapacity to present any possible counter programming is of paramount importance to these people, in that they are so entirely dependent upon the views and opinions of their corporate patrons, they cannot dare to raise a challenge. It is especially ludicrous when you get Fox News broadcast on the WB channel, then repeated on the CBS affiliate, while running simultaneous on the local Fox one. Same anchors, same news, same Fox based views. Is this a problem??? Damn straight.

me bloggin is slackin... damn it man, get to it

A decade ago, a dear and close friend returned from an environmental fact-finding mission (photo expedition and ecosystem documentation) of the Ural mountains in Russia. He spoke eloquently of the threats to the incredible diversity of species left in this region, mostly threats from a starving and hungry people who had been given no choice but to eat what they could kill, and at times even slide into cannibalism as a means of survival. There was also of course the incredible pollution of water outside the mountain range itself, requiring a distillation of water and grain into the ever more damaging vodka, that is consumed by most of the people, beginning at an early age. He suggested that he was looking at the future US, where the haves will isolate themselves with private security forces and black market economics, and the have nots will battle it out for what is left.

He isn't wrong. This form of Russiafication of the US is rapidly developing along many lines. Indeed, it would be the dream of libertarians everywhere should the US decay into the forms of society that persisted in Russia during most of the 1990's and beginning of 2000. What more could they ask of a nation: abandon the rule of law, abolish economic system and establish a complete market based barter/cold cash exchange of goods and resources, rule by private militarized security forces paid for by and protective of those who retained the great wealth and privatized infrastructures, etc. Russia was the test, where the blue light caravans of Mercedes carried the wealthy and privileged around through the streets from party to party, while those who had nothing used whatever means necessary to acquire the most essential needs. No government meant no environmental protections, thus destroying the already fragile ecosystems and polluting even further the water and air; no government meant no subsidation of resources, thus no growing of food to feed the masses, just importing the resources for the haves. It was a objectivist libertarian dream state, and it didn't last. Why?

Because those that had, and those that could have, began to prey on one another; since they could get nothing further from the masses. These battles over control of resources, and by that point resources included young women sold into porn slavery and vast segments of the population reduces to feudal serfdom growing food at the point of guns held by the forces of the neo-feudal lords of capital, began to disrupt even the chicest and most affluent neighborhoods of St Petersberg and Moscow. Putin had had enough. It was time to put the nation ahead of the objectivist dream. Declaring all sorts of new powers, Putin used the military to control the crime sprees, and used his international political power to subjegate and nationalize the infrastructure. The experiment failed, because it proved that all that liberty based on capitalism is not liberty and justice for all, but rather a feudal system of elites preying upon the masses' desperations until there is nothing else left to prey upon but one another.

And yet, voices throughout the US, seem to believe that what failed in Russia can be made better in the US. Much like the empire building of the bushco dictatorship strives to be better at the process than its fascist role models, the dream of unfettered rule of capital to take over the US gains momentum each and every day. Liberalism is a mask for turning the haves into lords and ladies of a neo-feudal world, where millions upon millions of US citizens will be economically reduced to abject poverty and forced by circumstance to perform the most menial labors as slaves of their masters, just to eat and drink. Do people realize that bottled water costs more than beer?? Do people realize that driving their cars is nothing so much more than a regressive system of moving capital from the many to the few, extracting complete obedience to the demands to destroy the environment to quench the thirst for the perception of free movement? Does the impending bankruptcy of cities and counties throughout the US, register in the minds of the people, that only the wealthy among them will be able to have emergency services and use of the commons?? I think not. And it might already be too late.

UPDATE: just when you think you can move on to the next issue, this little news story pops up today 3/30 in the Progress Report (can you say "private militarized security forces" for the elites again?):
SECURITY -- PRIVATIZING THE NATION'S MILITARY: Private military company Blackwater USA mostly trains military and police personnel and provides security for government and private clients, including the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. But this week at a conference in Jordan, Blackwater announced it was ready to shift from security to combat, becoming an army for hire. "We're low-cost and fast," said Cofer Black, Blackwater's vice chairman. "The issue is, who's going to let us play on their team?" Blackwater faced criticism after deploying hundreds of its mercenaries for general law enforcement in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, under a contract from the Department of Homeland Security. Additionally, Blackwater's President Gary Jackson wrote on March 7, 2005, that terrorists "need to get creamed, and it's fun, meaning satisfying, to do the shooting of such folk." Brookings Institution scholar Peter Singer suggests that the U.S. government hiring Blackwater mercenaries for combat could be problematic: "No matter how you slice it, it's a private entity making decisions of a political nature. ... It gets dicey."

Deconstructing Cheap Rum

<>Take the following story from today's Reuters UK reporting:

<>Asked if he agreed with comments by Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the military should disclose when it pays for a story, Rumsfeld said, "No, I said we would take it under advisement and take a look at it. I'm not going to make a judgement off the top of my head." <>Following a report in the Los Angeles Times in November, the U.S. military acknowledged that troops in an "information operations" task force were writing articles with positive messages about the mission in Iraq that were translated into Arabic and planted in Iraqi newspapers in return for money. The stories were planted with the help of Lincoln Group, a Washington-based defence contractor, officials said.<>Army Gen. George Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said on March 3 that an investigation he ordered by a Navy admiral into the practice "found that we were operating within our authorities and responsibilities." Casey said at the time that the military had not discontinued the practice. "General Casey did ask for a study of what took place, and that it's finished but he hasn't reviewed it and it's not been sent here, and that the rumour is that it does not find anything that was done outside of policy because the policy is silent on that issue (of paying to plant stories), as I understand it," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld said that any articles that were planted were "truthful," but he added, "I am not going to defend it, because I don't have sufficient knowledge about what actually was done at what level by whom and for what purpose. And I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth."

From this we can surmise: that Rummy is claiming he doesn't know about something that was properly using a policy he wrote of which he feels confident that the policy is being followed properly. He will not however discuss the policy because he needs to have others study it for him while he engages his brain attempting to acquire sufficient knowledge of something he created in the first place. And although the study that took place that found that the policy was being properly followed, Rummy doesn't know what the study actually said because Gen Casey hasn't reviewed it, as he understands it.

So, Rummy writes a policy that authorizes contractors with DoD to plant prejudicial and biased news stories in various publications, and now claims that he knows that the policy is being followed, and that all the stories are that are planted are true, and that there is a study that shows the policy was being properly followed, but he doesn't know anything about any of this.

now remember we do not torture, right??

From this morning's think progress update:

In a policy shift, the Bush administration will now “bar statements made under torture from its Guantanamo Bay military courts.” The reversal is an effort to prevent the special military commissions from being struck down by the Supreme Court, which is to review their legality next week.

Okay so we will not allow statements to be provided as evidence into military courts, which have been made by subjects who have been tortured, although we do not torture, and these statements could not exist because we do not torture, but just in case somehow someone might believe that we have committed the war crimes of torture of persons, who will never be categorized or classified, well we won't let what they say be seen by the public. This goes right along with the tiny wrist slap on the colonel who murdered an Iraqi general while torturing him; well because that couldn't have happened because we don't torture right??

you don't even have to read between the lies...

WASHINGTON An updated version of the Bush administration's national security strategy, the first since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, includes a vigorous defense of striking pre-emptively against countries seen to threaten the United States. The document declares for the first time that diplomacy to halt Iran's nuclear program "must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided."

Can we even make this simpler?? Only by a tiny bit i think. The US, once again four years later after the illegal and unwarranted attack on Iraq, publishes its official position that it intends to attack Iran. We, the US, sees Iran as a threat. We will see that diplomacy fails, as we saw to it that diplomacy failed with Iraq (we threw out the inspectors), and we will attack Iran.

But first a word from our sponsors. Dubai is upset because of how that dastardly Congress treated them. Dubai, and the UAE, had worked hard to help bushco create 9/11 to justify the military takeover of the US. They wanted some financial incentives to keep helping, as their lands and ports are essential to any effort bushco makes towards Iran. They also wanted some recompense for propping up the USdollar, when all their neighbors, friend and foe alike, decide to abandon USD and start using Euros. From UPI yesterday:
<>

WASHINGTON, March 14 (UPI) -- A number of Middle Eastern central banks said Tuesday they would seek to switch reserves from the U.S. greenback to euros. The United Arab Emirates said it was considering moving one-tenth of its dollar reserves to the euro, while the governor of the Saudi Arabian central bank condemned the decision by the United States to force Dubai Ports World to transfer its ownership to a "U.S. entity," the UK Independent reported.

Dubai, and the UAE, are getting all pissy. Well what better way to shape them up and get them back in line, than to threaten them, while simultaneously sending them new business. Or did you all miss that other story buried yesterday, regarding the uptick in troop deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, wherein hundreds of Marines and US Army regulars and another cruiser group have been deployed to the region? As if that weren't enough, bushco further upped the ante with increasing open discussion of withdrawing our Iraqi personnel onto our four, large, (permanent?) well-fortified bases from which attacks can be launched against Iran.

All this sends the best signals, doesn't it? Off into the nether regions of permanent war, requiring the suspension of the Constitution and the installation of the empire of bushco to protect the assets and material wealth of the few US citizens who still have some. Can we all hold hands now, pray, and say that when Spring comes next week, the year of the fire dog will explode in flames across the planet, not unlike the southern plains in the US??

fear, what is it good for? nothing, absolutely nothing

I get so tired of the same old arguments presented by a pool of conservative/libertarian/centrist materialists who go on and on about justifying all manner of security operations, from overt pre-emptive wars slaughtering endless people not like them, to the gestapo like spying and complete disregard for the rights and liberties of the citizens of this country. They do so for only one possible set of reasons based solely on their fear. Fear is indeed a huge motivator, but it is just an emotional response to a set of possibilities none of which has come true for the person espousing the elitist drivel.

What are they all afraid of? Well they of course will tell you that they are fearful of a terrorist attack that will threaten their lives and those of their families. They will tell you that they are afraid of the tyranny of both the majority and minority that will restrict their own personal tyrannies they wish to perpetrate on others and the earth. They will tell you that they are afraid of the threats of nuclear proliferation, but only that of people they do not or cannot control; they don't seem to mind at all using the threat of nuclear action to terrorize and intimidate others (those not like them) who they might perceive as threats. But these are all bullshit rationalizations of their core central angsts.

They really are afraid of losing their material assets. They are afraid of becoming impoverished. They are afraid of being part of the not-haves rather than the haves. They are afraid of their economic sense of worth and value. How can they be afraid of dying, since they are absolutely going to do so at some point? They really are not afraid of dying. They can't be afraid of tyranny, since they wish to impose their own on their children and the planet, so really it is about what they will lose to others if they let others take from them--again materialism in its worst manifestation. They cannot fear that which they create, because that would be crazy, and they will insist they are not crazy. They will demand that their assets be protected; that their wealth be insured. That all the havenots recognize and kowtow and accept that the wealth and assets are not available.

These people are seriously afraid of someone taking their car, but not once considering that their car kills people and the earth everyday all over the planet. These people are afraid someone, or even worse, some agency, will take their land or bank accounts or giant HDTV home theater system, even though these same assets have degraded and cheapened the lives and health of others, including the earth. These people are afraid of becoming less than they have; as they have linked just who they are with what they possess. They are afraid that others are move selfish than them, and thus a threat so vile and nasty that they must eliminate it. They honor and pay tribute to selfishness while fearing that others may have those same qualities, and the capacity and ability to use it against them. They want laws to protect only their selfishnesses and not those of others. In a very real sense, they fear being as crazy as they really are.

one way to coverup the Nakedness

If you never read the blogsphere or online discussions you probably wouldn't know that Vanity Fair has a lengthy interview with Jack Abramhoff. You would however know that Vanity Fair has a really important celebrity story about that millionaire who masquerades as desperate Terry Hatcher. Why? Because the first story has been suppressed while the second has shown up on every single celebrity news program and website and magazine cover. This is story management at its best. Take the Oscars, run with the celebrity tracking, hit on the sexual abuse angle, and make sure noone gets to really see that even Tom DeLay admits that what Jack said is true. What do we know about Hatcher? Well we only have her word that what she claims has happened 30 years ago is valid. Where is the corroborating materials? Not that it matters really; but to have so much money spent to tell her story, whilst the US citizens continue to suffer from the obscene indecency of Jack's corruptions is nothing less than treasonous to borrow a phrase.

another strand in the dangerous webs

This past fortnight in the news--
Congress passes the renewed Patriot Act which contains sections 800-899 describing, in painstakingly obtuse arcana, what Bushco means by "domestic terrorism."

SCOTUS says that anti-abortion activists can't be sued or charged under RICO, and that the pending civil case of anti-abortionists who used the internet to target and celebrate the murder of doctors and bombings of clinics needs to be revisited. (please note that none of these folks are in jail, there were civilly sued).

Court finds six animal rights activists guilty of criminal charges under the 800 sections of the Patriot Act for... get this... posting on the internet suggestions for others to harrass and intimidate employees and board members of a corporation that kills animals for research. They could get up to 23 years each of prison.

South Dakota bans abortion, other states propose similar bans.

Bushco pushes ports' deal that trades US port and harbor facilities and operations to the UAE government, (who was complicitous in Al Qaeda) even though all of the "believers" still feel threatened by muslim extremists, in exchange for support of the US dollar.

War promoters and all of those objectivist liberatian types who want to kill our enemies because they threaten the well being of property and money seem to be the big winners this time around. The US Bushco will criminally punish people for damaging property, will restrict civil actions against people who kill people, will reject restrictions on torturing people, will trade off any semblence of national security to prop up the idiotic dollar, and will encourage those deeply vested in property and money and elitist dominion to sustain their wealth and assets with force and threats of permanent detention without due process.

Get it yet? No wonder these people support the militarized security state. If you have wealth and property you are exempt from accountability, and free to do as you please. If you do not have wealth and property, you are an enemy of the state and subject the worst sorts of violence and abuse. If you are a christian crusader you can kill indiscriminately, if you are muslim without money you must die.

Welcome to the 21st century.

another synchronicitous news linkage.

today in Google News, this run of three in a row popped up:
Antarctica's Annual Melt Equals Water in Lake Tahoe, Study Says
Bloomberg - 21 hours ago
March 2 (Bloomberg) -- Antarctica is melting at an annual rate equal to dumping Lake Tahoe into the ocean, causing global seawater to rise as much as 0.6 millimeters (0.02 inches) a year, according to a study published by Science. ...
Schedule to Complete Space Station Is Advanced
New York Times - 12 hours ago
WASHINGTON, March 2 — Partners in the International Space Station agreed Thursday to launch European and Japanese components earlier than originally planned to ensure they were functioning by 2010, when the orbiting space laboratory is to be fully ...
Performing good deeds may be ingrained
Baltimore Sun - 8 hours ago
By Douglas Birch. We give up bus seats to the elderly, open the door for pregnant strangers and shovel snow off our neighbors' sidewalks. And the only payoff, it seems, is the warm glow from knowing we've done a good deed. ...

To suggest that there is any genetic predisposition to insuring that one's fellow astronauts hurry up and get off the planet and live in space as the planet's land masses begin to submerge, might seem a bit of a stretch, but still, when put into just the right perspective, we do, as a species, tend to only look out for our own kind, our own close "us" and care little for "them." Gee do you think Randian's would accept the notion that human beings just feel good sharing and helping and caring, you know doing collaborative, cooperative associating rather than generating selfish profits? Or would Randian's and Straussian's and other objectivist libertarian types insist that only the elites deserve the power they have to decide, especially with their wealth and property, who lives and dies, what species survives or doesn't?

if teachers don't lie they get punished.

So this Colorado teacher has been spewing "liberal propaganda." That would be something that is certainly not cool in this day and age. But the issue is about balance, supposedly, and supposedly about objective balance. And herein lies the problem.

Sophomore Sean Allen recorded about 20 minutes of Bennish's class during a Feb. 1 discussion about President Bush's State of the Union speech and gave the recording to his father, who complained to the principal, Amole said. "After listening to the tape, it's evident the comments in the class were inappropriate. There were not adequate opportunities for opposing points of view," she said. The student who made the tape agrees. "I've been his class four weeks," says Allen, "and I've never heard another side."

How exactly does young Sean know there is another side? Could it possibly be that the family watches and discusses only Fox News or most of the other MSM? Could it possibly be that the family lives with the belief in such misguided and seriously flawed notions as creationism and Bush the almighty? Is it most likely that the student, and other very conservative (also fundamentalist) students, find fault with the rhetoric because they do not, will not, can not, accept that most the "fair and balanced" reporting they hold so dear is grossly deceptive and full of out-right lies? Doesn't academic freedom require speaking truth to power and giving power to the truth, disregarding how much others want to believe in the lies??

Or is it really, that we live in a country precipitously on the brink of fascism that DaHo is now the voice of reason, and that school boards insist that teachers support the lies and bilious obfuscations of MSM rather than present factual evidence of what is true?? Does this school board ever read Media Matters?

who died for what????

I am so sick and tired of hearing that idiotic and stupid litany: "Jesus died for your sins, soldiers died for your liberty." And yes, those two phrases are inextricably linked and have been for a long time. I can only imagine the enduring quality of that recitation among those sitting on opposite sides of the river in Paducah in 1863. Of whose side it was most representative is of course the real question. But it gets back to that Jefferson quote i mentioned the other day, the one about warning citizens that banks, corporations, and financial institutions are a grave danger to taking your private property and wealth that you worked so hard to conquer in the first place. Soldiers died for your property by exterminating the first nations and securing the blessings of wealth through insuring the eradication of unions, protest, dissent, and all other forms of free expression that might have suggested that a path toward living the lifestyle of a citizen of the US today requires the death of the planet, of all its species, and ultimately of most of the humans who have not.

Not one single US soldier has ever died defending or fighting for my liberties, but thousands upon thousands have died so that corporations and the very rich can sustain and increase their wealth and holdings. And this represents the War of 1812 as well as today's incursions into every continent by troops of the US . We tend to forget that there wasn't a US military in the revolutionary war, just groups of state militias organized by a continental congress supported by the French imperial army and navy fighting the empire that at that time actually owned the US. And the majority of those fighting were quite reticent to "free" themselves from British rule, they just wanted more opportunity to enjoy their chances at increasing and sustaining their wealth. There were fighting for the liberty to not pay so much in taxes.

But we are told, all the time, that soldiers die for our liberties. Just how, i ask, is that possible? And of course people mention things like Pearl Harbor and Hitler. Hitler never coulda woulda invaded the US, nor been capable of undermining our liberties in any way. Japan was given Pearl Harbor so that FDR could rid himself of outdated battleships, expand US imperial landscape across the Pacific, and convince the majority of US citizens to go against their better natures and support a war in Europe. Did US troops killing Germans in France protect my liberty?? I think not. Did the taking of Guam and the Marshall Islands free me from some constraints? No, but it sure put thousands of islanders into wageslavery for perpetuity!

Do not let people tell you these things. Continue to believe that US citizens are dying for something that you believe in, because if you stop believing, and start thinking, you might realize that all of this is just more smoke and mirrors to sustain the redistribution of property and wealth from the remaining few to the even more endowed and enriched fewer. Soldiers are dying for your money, as it goes to the rich.