In a world constructed upon a base of exploitation, one would be wise to expect that anniversaries, no matter how much their sacredness is championed, are consistently subjects to insidious manipulation. The synthesis of media and government during the quinquennial (never heard of that word before?, neither did I before few weeks past) remembrance of the September 11th attacks spawned enough self justification to cause the even the most ardent of news watchers to avoid all manifestations created to usurp the senses and influence opinion. Omnipresent forces by default are impossible to ignore, so no matter how resistant segments of the populous where to specials, news, movies, and fictional documentaries, succinctly carved themes where still ultimately embedded within the minds of millions.
One of the most often repeated notions was "Protecting The Homeland". "I will", "We Must" "They Are" and "They Can't" where frequently espoused prefix's, alluding to the importance of protecting where U.S citizens reside vigorously. Bearing witness to such talk can do nothing but arise cynical irony in some who believe those same orators care nothing for the homeland or at best vast swaths of it.
The homeland was well under attack before 9/11 and continues to be besieged by intensifying ills at blitzkrieg like rates. We are expected to understand we must fight "them" over "there" to maintain our tranquil civilized life. A consistent plethora of imagery is strewn throughout our path to define who "they" are and why such a people are deserving of virulent condemnation, and how there culture itself is affront to "our" being.
"Islamic Radicals" are not "Them", or "They" and don't reside "There"
The Author apologies for wrongly including himself in the term "Our".
Is the homeland safe when one out of every four of it's citizens lives in poverty?
Is the homeland safe when 1 out of 10 people can not attain employment?
If a number equaling 25% of its entire voting population permanently had its voting rights relinquished, would the home land be safe?
Is the home land safe when 13% of it's citizens in arguably it's most integral decade of life (20's) are restrained to prison facilities?
Would the future of the homeland be in Jeopardy if……….
More of the populace was incarcerated, than being educated through facilities of higher learning.
Those sworn to protect you, have the right to murder you and those cherish with immunity buttressed by society's manipulated will.
Does this sound like an idyllic homeland that must be protected by foreign incursion to you?
Is this your
Oh the joys of insulation and disdain
Over the course of the last 3 years with frantic urgency the
The breakdown is based on a total cost of $318.5 billion. That is $2,844 for every American household or $1,075 for every American. The money (already spent or allocated) is being spent at a rate $10 million per hour and $244 million per day.
$10 Million dollars per hour……….
What is the relevancy War Spending to the Homeland?
Given the infusion of the Iraq War within the 9/11 construct the enormity of funding placed as cost of endeavor is in essence protection money. Indeed many Americans would concur there is no price to great to insure their safety. But what if your relative safety had already vanished? What if the threat of your supposed placid existence, shown to be artificial, yet the vast amount of funds allotted to protect you where still being allocated to bestow "freedom" upon others? Would such actions be permissible when the domestic masses are asphyxiated by societal ills?
The queries posed are not hypothetical, yet the minds of those whom convert questions to reality mythical in honesty.
Insulation and Disdain
Given the Self Image we hold of ourselves, no matter how blunt the dictations and actions we undertake are, we fail to see ourselves as a warlike people. Beings of a belligerent society by their very nature, diminish the value of life, and practice insipid external actions upon its very own also, Hence "The War on Drugs" and "The War on Crime" amongst other conflicts. With any war there must be a "enemy", for at least superficially we believe the wanton destruction of humanity is a ghastly action to perform. When concocting the biography of said enemy, the most egregious of connotations are ascribed to his nature as to maximize the utility allotted to destroy him and while concurrently diminishes the inherit sympathy and compassion we believe by default resides in our beings. One of the tragic circumstance (or positive benefit to others) of formulating an enemy's standing is those whom share similarities of a physical or ideological nature, tend to get confused, intertwined with or out rightly perceived as the adversary. The consequence of such logical progressions is the wholesale punishment of innocents.
When defined evil cannot be deciphered from good, innocents are routinely condemned for conviction. Far from obvious to the oblivious, such residual action is routine in our land. While we are beaten over the head with pertinent duties derived from the social contract, the primary responsibly of protection, from domestic scourges no less is abandoned. The daily life threatening maladies alluded to previously in the fields of education, suffrage, employment, incarceration ,and state sanctioned murder are ignored at best or in a far to often saddening circumstance, justified. "The enemy gets what it deserves". "The enemy caused the plight it now resides in." The vacuum of thought is indeed airtight, suffocating the human life trapped within its confines.
The declared war against particular elements in our society has helped maintain and exacerbate disdain, and a utter lack of empathy towards certain "segments" of the
The Questioned was asked…..and still is awaiting a answer.
Is this your
It's the authors.
