June 14, 2004

To be a good soldier/warrior, one must be properly indoctrinated to the support of the State. The State goes about this indoctrination by presenting films and telling stories of great sacrifices by military folks who have gone before and “given their all, so that others may be free.” Movies and many of our holidays are centered on this great sacrifice. Those who have served the State well are seen as heroes and have many awards and decorations. These decorations and medals have become easier and easier to achieve as the State needs more and more incentive to seduce more recruits into slavery and blind obedience.

"Fighting for freedom" is the key Orwellian phrase of the State as it regards its conscripts. It would be extremely difficult to entice them to submit to the slavery of the State and go die in some foreign country for corporate bottom lines or the untold riches it brings to those who "had other priorities than military service in the '60s ." Or were AWOL from the National Guard. Seen any Halliburton executives or politicians down at the recruitment office lately?

This subservience to the State by most races is somewhat understandable. Haven’t millions of us fallen for this subterfuge throughout this nation's history? Yet, considering their treatment at the hands of the State, I continue to be amazed at the degree of patriotism shown by the indigenous peoples of this country. I assure you, there is a much higher level of patriotism in the American Indian than any other race in this country today.

This amazes me, even more now than in years past, for I see this war in Iraq to be hauntingly similar to the war perpetrated against the Indians in this country throughout the later half of the nineteenth century and their treatment to this day.

If we believe the State, this war is being fought because of acts of violence perpetrated against this country by Muslim extremists. The war against the Indian was fought because these “savages” were perpetrating acts of violence against the white man/settlers—on land that did not belong to the State or the settlers in the first place.

In the world today, anyone who does not agree with the American State’s ideas of global domination is a terrorist. In the last half of the 19^th century, anyone who did not agree with the American State’s domination of this country was either a rebel or a savage. The State went about eliminating both the rebel and the savage with wars of decimation.

To motivate soldiers to fight—and the citizens to support this fight with the blood of their children—the “enemy” must be demonized as some sub-human species.

Consider if you will the words of Henry Clay, the great lover of American centralized government, who said, "The Indians' disappearance from the human family will be no great loss to the world. I do not think them, as a race, worth preserving." Then there were the words of the State servant General John Pope, who, when sent to “punish” the Santee Sioux for having the audacity to seek to secure that which had been promised to them—in exchange for their land--by the State, said, "It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux. They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromise can be made." General William T. Sherman would outline his purpose in the war against the South: "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" of the South. Does any of this State sponsored rhetoric sound familiar to what we are hearing from our “leaders” today as they reference our enemies in Iraq and other “Evil Empires?”

After all the lies of the State have been sorted through, it becomes plain to any who would use their intellect—as opposed to their emotion—that this war is being fought in Iraq to secure the resources of that country for the oil industry, just as the war in Afghanistan is being conducted to insure the construction of a pipeline to handle oil out of that area.

A cursory look at our own history will show that the war against the American Indian was fought for similar reasons—to secure their land and resources for the railroad. An in-depth analysis will also show the connections of all the railroad executives with the political element of that day, just as a similar examination today reveals the myriad connections of the oil industry with our present administration and the huge monetary donation they have made to members of the congress. Can anyone say Enron?

Another glaring similarity is the use of the word “sovereign” by the State in both examples. President Bush and many in his administration have emphasized repeatedly that we are in Iraq to institute a sovereign government. Any American Indian should flee in horror at the mention of this word. Does the State not call all reservations, "sovereign nations"? Just ask any Indian how sovereign his/her nation is.

In the sovereign nation of the American Indian, land cannot be owned—but taxes must be paid, not to the sovereign nation—but to the American State. These sovereign nations may have their own police—to investigate misdemeanors—but the American State’s police—the FBI, must investigate any felony. Obviously, the State does not believe the Indian intelligent enough to investigate “serious” crime! Like us Anglos, the Indian has seen the vindictiveness and corruption of this agency.

The State does not see the Indian as intelligent enough to govern the education system involving his/her own children. As with similar activities on the reservation, the teaching of the children is under the direction of the BIA. One of my close Navajo friends has told me most Indians see this acronym as representing not the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but “Bossing Indians Around.”

The State at one time even declared the Indian incapable of rearing their own children and placed many in boarding schools where their hair was cut short and they could not speak their own language or discuss their own culture. This, my friends, is State sponsored 'sovereignty'!

The Indian nations may have, with the permission of the omnipotent State, casinos on their land, but must pay taxes and most probably bribes to the granting authority. More serious is the travesty that is the willful theft of the resources and money from these noble people. The thefts of the Indian Trust Fund have been estimated by many to be in the billions.

Yes, indeed, if the people of Iraq are familiar with our nations history, they will continue the fight to make sure they are not designated a “sovereign nation” by the government of this country. With sovereignty like this, who needs slavery?

The humbling irony of the entire situation is this: these noble people keep sending their youth off to fight in the military of the State, irregardless of all that has been done to them by the lying, cheating leadership of this country. I wonder aloud: WHY? Do they not see the similarities in this war for oil and the war that took away their land, their resources and their freedom and gave them instead a “sovereign” nation?

Why assist the State in doing to others what was done to you?

Archives

The Constitution Is Not The Answer

Prognostications For 2004

The Fix Is In…Again

Watch Out Gun Owners: The Republicans Are Selling Us Out Again

Who Profits From Insider Trading?

There Ain’t No South—It’s Just North Of Mexico

“How The Hell Did These People Get In Our Army?”

Massive Gun Owner Sell Out Of Basic Rights

Republican Presidents And War Crimes - Nothing New Here

It Depends On Your Definition of "Support The Troops"

We Are Not Even Fighting The War We MUST Win

Random Thoughts

Complete Archives for Michael Gaddy