---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Or better yet, buy one of Jeff’s books offered below. 

Jason’s résumé is impressive. He is a writer, media critic, and veteran of the digital communications industry. As a digital media strategist, he is familiar with the techniques and tactics commonly used by mainstream news media to shape narratives that disguise imperialism. He is interested in the false historical narratives that underpin the foreign policies of the United States and which ensure those policies are only feebly resisted.

Jeff can be reached at China Rising, jeff@brownlanglois.com, Facebook, Twitter and Wechat/Whatsapp: +86-13823544196.

 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

---

social media outlets

=By= Lorraine Berry

Thanks to Ms. Berry for stepping up and countering the “opiate addiction epidemic” (OAE). As one of the tens of millions of people who suffer from severe chronic pain, I can’t tell you how angry the most recent national campaign to clamp down on “opiate addiction” makes me. I am not arguing that there are not people who once needed opiate therapy and no longer do, but focusing on this population damages more people than you can imagine,while fulfilling a number of hidden issues and programs.

It distracts from huge problems within our healthcare system. The constant drum beat of “opiate addiction epidemic” totally ignores the very real chronic pain and lack of decent medical care epidemic. It gives a bye to a medical model that gets a ‘D’ at best for its ability to identify the SOURCE of problems, and often diagnoses by whether a given medication “works” or not. The OAE agenda totally ignores the folks with alcohol and “illegal” drug addictions who are SELF TREATING for an array of life disabling conditions.  Instead, they criminalize and stigmatize that population, and I guarantee you that the OAE agenda will drive more people into illicit drug use and suicide.

One of the devastating consequences of these “crackdowns” of prescription pain medication users is that it causes untold damage to the people needing those medications. It can take people from a state of being able to function to making them dysfunctional. It can (and does) drive people into the use of “illegal” drugs whose purity and safety are not even testable. While destroying lives, it also broadens the population for “The War On Drugs,” and sends a new stream of people into the ever hungry (increasingly privatized) US prison system where they can be put to work for pennies on the dollar all on the tax payers dime.

This “consequence” of shifting people into the illegal opiate market is that it nicely increases the money flowing into the coffers of the covert “intelligence” community. One major source of funds for the CIA’s operations around the world is the illegal drug trade – particularly heroin and cocaine. The use of the money from illegal drugs is and has been a major component of our military-industrial-corporate complex for a very long time (going back to at least WWII). It was a major component of our invasion of Vietnam (The Golden Triangle); it is a major component of our actions and continued presence in  Afghanistan, and it is the foundation of much of our foreign policy with governments across Central and South America.

Lastly, I find the use of Prince – who was a shining example of an activist artist – to push this OAE agenda particularly disgusting. It is a clear attempt to tarnish the reputation and demean his efforts to create a better world. It is an attack on a positive role model as does a disservice to us all. -rw

---

Prince did not die from pain pills — he died from chronic pain

The media can’t seem to get its stories about Prince right. As the news feed overflows with stories with the word “Prince” and “addiction” in them, very few of them feature the word “chronic pain.” Multiple reports mention that Prince had suffered from years with pain in his hips due to injuries racked up during his performances. His body wracked with pain, Prince relied on opiate pain medications to provide him some relief. And yet, even today, the stately New York Times features a long article about Prince seeking “help” with an “addiction.”

Prince was not addicted to pain medication. Prince had a medical condition — chronic pain — which is criminally under-treated. It is also a medical problem that is more likely to be reacted to with stigma and condescension, even challenges about the patient’s moral character, or, if male, masculinity. Pain is still the condition that we treat by telling its sufferers to just “suck it up,” or “maintain a stiff upper lip,” or to stop acting like a “wuss.” And yet, when someone dies from complications of the disease — for that is what chronic pain is — we react with shock and pity and anger that the person died from a drug overdose. Some outlets make money off our confusion about overdose and medications and our fascination with drugs.

As early as 2009, reports surfaced that Prince was in chronic, debilitating pain. His friends reported that he was taking pain medication to try to control the constant, excruciating pain from damaged hips. The supposed conflict between Prince’ conversion to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and his ability to accept a blood transfusion — should the need arise during hip replacement surgery — was bandied about by the vultures who pose as gossip reporters. The idea that Prince would forego surgery in order to serve his faith contributed to the undercurrent that Prince was “weird.” Nevertheless, at least some news outlets report that Prince did have the double hip replacement surgery in 2010.

But it’s not just about how the media doesn’t understand how chronic pain works. They are also ignoring the realities of the impact of race upon the practice of medicine.

Into the mix must surely be added the element of race. Prince was a black man. Strong racial disparities in how doctors and other medical staff respond to pain in the emergency room has been documented. For example, a recent study published in one of the most prestigious pediatrics journals studied the treatment of appendicitis, a condition that is often initially suspected after a “chandelier test.” In medical slang, if a doctor places her hand on the pain point in the lower abdomen affected by the pain of an inflamed appendix, the patient will try to jump up into the metaphoric chandelier on the ceiling above their head.

And yet, even here, black kids cannot get a break.

“Our findings suggest that there are racial disparities in opioid administration to children with appendicitis,” wrote one of the lead researchers, Dr. Monika Goyal.

“Our findings suggest that although clinicians may recognize pain equally across racial groups, they may be reacting to the pain differently by treating black patients with nonopioid analgesia, such as ibuprofen and acetaminophen, while treating white patients with opioid analgesia for similar pain.”

Similar studies have documented that African Americans’ chest pain is less likely to be diagnosed correctly as a heart attack. Other studies have attempted to measure whether African Americans have a “lower pain threshold.” Similar studies about why women’s pain is not taken seriously in emergency rooms have also been produced.

Surgeries can fail to repair the issues that trigger intense pain. And they fail often. In medical conditions in which pain has been long-standing, scientific evidence suggests that the brain’s pain receptors “short out.” After a while, regardless of even whether the painful part of the body has been removed — as in amputations — the brain’s pain receptors continue to process signals that the body is under attack. Phantom limbs can cause severe pain. It does not make the pain fake. It is the brain that feels pain. And the brain can continue to experience pain even after surgery has been performed.

And yet, despite the evidence that Prince was being given Percocet for documented pain, the media narrative has shifted to a story in which Prince died of an overdose. An overdose is a self-inflicted wound. It’s a moral judgment. That’s how we react to it. “He was such a talented actor. Why overdose?” Or, “She had such a powerful voice. But she was a demon for drugs.” That story allows us to distance ourselves, to see it as the fault of a weak personality, an “addictive” personality. It’s part of the mythos we create around talented folks. The idea that the truly gifted are also the ones in the worse psychological pain, and their psychological “weaknesses” make them ripe for drug addiction.

Prince is being pushed toward that precipice over which we have pushed Amy Winehouse, Whitney Houston, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Michael Jackson and every other artist who has died from drugs in the past century — especially those who succumbed to heroin. But heroin and pain medication are not the same thing. Undoubtedly, some will gain fame for their discussions of the “abuse” of pain medication.

Chronic pain management requires, in most cases, the taking of strong, often-opiate based medications. ANY patient who takes these drugs on a daily basis will become “physically dependent” in a short time. Physical dependence is not addiction. Diabetics are physically dependent on insulin, and yet we do not call insulin an addictive drug. Without it, diabetics would die. Stopping pain medication that has been used for chronic pain can kill you if it’s done abruptly. Under a doctor’s care, a change in pain medication is handled on a strict schedule in which the body is weaned off one drug in order to either start a new medication, or to determine whether the body is reacting in a different way to the condition causing the pain.

I am not Prince. And yet, I know chronic pain from the inside. And I know how it is treated by cynical doctors who suspect that everyone is just trying to score.

My own experiences in hospital emergency rooms have involved being willing to go through several treatment options before being given the IV opiate medication that I need when I have a cluster headache. Cluster headaches are nicknamed “suicide headaches” by doctors, for good reason. The pain of cluster headaches has caused me to hallucinate, to have trouble breathing, and, of course, to wish for death. And yet, in the midst of a cluster headache, or its cousin, migraine, I have been interrogated by emergency room physicians who want to get me to admit that I am faking my symptoms while on a “drug-seeking” mission.

Prior to moving to the state of Florida in January, I had spent 23 years living in New York state. For the past nine years, I have suffered with migraines and clusters. During that time, I have been hospitalized for more than 24-hours seven separate times. I have had every diagnostic test available that might reveal why my head hurts so much. I have tried nearly every prophylactic treatment available. I have changed my diet. I avoid “triggers” that may cause a headache. I exercise, try to eat right, and wear prescription eyeglasses to make certain that it’s not eyestrain that make my migraines feel as if someone has inserted a bottle opener under my orbital bone and is trying to pry it out.

In New York, after all other treatments had failed, I was prescribed opiates. Yet, when I moved to Florida—which in a moral panic about its reputation as a state where it was easy to score drugs—has passed laws that make it near impossible for a family doctor to prescribe strong pain medications. Instead, I had to wait nearly two months to get in to see a specialist—in my case, a neurologist, who prescribes what I need. Triptans, the most common and effective way to treat migraine pain, are also expensive. My insurance company limits my triptans so that I can only use one of my pills for every three headaches I experience. Opiates are cheap. Guess which one my insurance company prefers to pay for?

Before the media narrative of the tortured genius who abused drugs takes over the story, there needs to be a pushback. Chronic pain patients should step forward and speak of their own experiences of living with the condition, and the constant barriers that are being thrown up to treatment. The latest obsession with white kids using heroin is stigmatizing those with chronic pain.

Chronic pain kills. It killed Prince. It’s time to talk about it.

 

---

---

 

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.

Ramzy Baroud, PhD
Politics for the People

[dropcap]M[/dropcap]erely being in the company of hundreds of Palestinian journalists and other media professionals from all over the world has been an uplifting experience. For many years, Palestinian media has been on the defensive, unable to articulate a coherent message, torn between factions and desperately trying to fend off the Israeli media campaign, along with its falsifications and unending propaganda or ‘hasbara’.  

It is still too early to claim any kind of paradigm shift, but the second Tawasol Conference in Istanbul, which took place May 18 to 19, served as an opportunity to consider the vastly changing media landscape, and to highlight the challenges and the opportunities facing Palestinians in their uphill battle.  

Not only are Palestinians expected to demolish many years of Israeli disinformation, predicated on a make-believe historical discourse that has been sold to the world as fact, but also to construct their own lucid narrative that is free from the whims of factions and personal gains.  

It will not be easy, of course.  

My message in the “Palestine in the Media” Conference, organized by the Palestine International Forum for Media and Communication is that, if the Palestinian leadership is failing to achieve political unity, at least Palestinian intellectuals must insist on the unity of their narrative. Even the most compromising of Palestinians can acknowledge the centrality of the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the destruction of their towns and villages in 1947-48.  

They can – and should –  also agree about the hideousness and violence of the Occupation; the dehumanization at the military checkpoints; the increasingly shrinking spaces in the West Bank as a result of the illegal settlements and the colonization of whatever remains of Palestine; the suffocating hold on Occupied Jerusalem (al-Quds); the injustice of the siege on Gaza, and the one-sided wars on the Strip that have killed over 4,000 people, mostly civilians, in the course of seven years, and much more.  

Professor Nashaat Al-Aqtash from Birzeit University, perhaps more realistically, downgraded the expectations even further. “If we could only agree on how we present the narrative regarding Al-Quds and the illegal settlements, at least that would be a start,” he said. 

The obvious fact is that Palestinians have more in common than they would like to admit. They are all victimized by the same circumstances, fighting the same Occupation, suffering the same violations of human rights, and facing the same future outcome resulting from the same conflict.  

However, many are strangely incapable of disconnecting from their tribal-like, factional affiliations. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having ideological leanings and supporting one political party over another. It becomes a moral crisis, though, when the party affiliation becomes stronger than one’s affiliation to the collective, national struggle for freedom. Sadly, many are still trapped in this thinking.  

But things are also changing; they always do. After over two decades of the failure of the so-called ‘peace process’, and the rapid increase in the colonization of the Occupied Territories in addition to the extreme violence used to achieve these ends, many Palestinians are waking up to the painful facts. There can be no freedom for the Palestinian people without unity and without resistance.  

Resistance does not always have to mean a gun and a knife, but rather the utilization of the energies of a nation at home and in ‘shatat’ (Diaspora), along with the galvanization of the pro-justice and peace communities all over the world. There must soon be a movement in which Palestinians declare a global struggle against apartheid, involving all Palestinians, their leadership, factions, civil society and communities everywhere. They must speak in one voice, declare one objective, and state the same demands, over and over again.  

It is bewildering to realize that a nation that has been so wronged for so long being so greatly misunderstood, while those who have done the harm are largely absolved and seen as if the victim.  

Sometime in the late 1950’s, Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, became aware of the need to unify the Israeli Zionist narrative regarding the conquering and ethnic cleansing of Palestine. According to a revelation by Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, Ben-Gurion worried that the Palestinian refugee crisis was not going to go away without a consistent Israeli message that the Palestinians left their land of their own devices, following instructions to do so by various Arab governments.  

Of course, that, too, was a fabrication, but many supposed truths often start with a sheer lie. He delegated several academics to present the most falsified, yet coherent, story on the exodus of the Palestinians. The outcome was Doc GL-18/17028 of 1961. That document has, ever since, served as the cornerstone of the Israeli ‘hasbara’ concerning the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The Palestinians ran away and were not driven out, was the crux of the message. Israel has been repeating this falsehood for over 55 years and, of course, many have believed it.  

Not until recently, thanks to the effort of a burgeoning group of Palestinian historians – and courageous Israelis – who counter the propaganda, a Palestinian narrative is taking shape, although much is yet to be done to offset the damage that has already taken place.  

In fact, a real victory for the truth would only happen when the Palestinian narrative is no longer seen as a ‘counter narrative’ but as a sovereign story of its own, free from the confines of defensiveness and the burden of a history laden with lies and half-truths.  

The only way I see that happening is when Palestinian intellectuals invest more time and effort in studying and narrating a ‘people’s history’ of Palestine, which could finally humanize the Palestinian people, and challenge the polarized perception of them as terrorists or perpetual victims. When the ordinary individual becomes the center of history, the outcomes are more relatable, more effective and poignant.  

The same logic can be applied to journalism, as well. Aside from finding their common story, Palestinian journalists need to reach out to the wider world, not only to their traditional circle of dedicated friends and supporters, but to mainstream society. If people truly appreciate the truth, especially from a humanist perspective, they cannot possibly support genocide and ethnic cleansing.  

And by ‘wider world’ I am hardly referring to London, Paris and New York, but to Africa, South America, Asia and the entire South. Nations from this hemisphere can fully understand the pain and injustice of military occupation, colonization, imperialism and apartheid. I fear that the emphasis on the need to counter Israeli ‘hasbara’ in the West has meant the allocation of a disproportionate amount of resources and energy in a few places, while ignoring the rest of the world, whose support has for long been the backbone of international solidarity. They must not be taken for granted.  

The good news, however, is that Palestinians have been making great strides in the right direction, although with no thanks to the Palestinian leadership. The key, now, is to be able to unify, streamline and build on those existing efforts so that such growing solidarity translates into greater success in raising global awareness and holding Israel accountable for its Occupation and violations of human rights.  

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]

---

The woods are full of soldiers who served in the US military and later bitterly realized they had been used. Kyle was certainly not one of them. He never got it. He never realized whose interests he was really serving.

---

With Hollywood and TV still serving the same chauvinist trash, another look at this celebrated piece of imperial propaganda is in order

by Mike Kuhlenbeck
[Original iteration: March 6, 2015]

The filmmakers’ defense of “American Sniper” as “apolitical” is belied by the lack of any depth or humanity in its Muslim characters.

The film version of American Sniper has grossed well over $300 million at the US box office, making it the most profitable piece of pro-war propaganda in the history of American cinema.

Since the release of American Sniper, it has either been praised for its patriotic (nationalist) overtones or has been ridiculed for distorting the reality of so-called “War on Terror.” The film is based on the bestselling autobiography of Chris Kyle, a man who had a talent for telling tall tales and bragging about his 160 confirmed kills (though he claimed the death toll was closer to 255). The widespread public support for Kyle’s actions and attitudes reveal how racial prejudices are manipulated in times of war.

Kyle’s autobiography, co-written by Scott McEwen and Jim DeFelice, was published in 2013. Although the book has been placed under scrutiny by various journalists for its factual accuracy (or lack thereof), it provides a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a soldier that is quite similar to many others who served in the American military in the Middle East.  He gleefully boasted about his kills, deluding himself to the point where he forgot he was killing human beings. “Just because war is hell,” he writes, “doesn’t mean you can’t have a little fun.”

The dehumanization of entire populations is used in boosting public support to carry out imperialist objectives. With the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, pundits and news networks made stereotypes out of Muslims by portraying them as violent fanatics and suicide-bombers. In the toxic atmosphere created in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans were conditioned on a daily basis to fear darker-skinned people, especially if they had Arabic names.

Pro-war conservatives in the corridors of power, who often morally justify wars that are not morally justifiable, like to point to such Kyle gems as his self-righteousness take on Islam, “Isn’t religion supposed to teach tolerance?” Passages like this are countered by statements like, “I don’t shoot people with Korans—I’d like to, but I don’t.”

American Sniper filmmakers, particularly lead actor Bradley Cooper and director Clinton Eastwood, have defended the film as “apolitical.” The lack of Muslim characters with depth or humanity in the film demonstrates the contrary. As described by Abed Ayoub and Khaled A Beydoun, writing for Al-Jazeera, “Redeploying age-old Orientalist images, the film’s Iraqis are thinly constructed foes of the democratic and divine – who must be methodically gunned down for both God and country. A belief, in the US today, that is far more fact than fiction.”

Such perceptions were evident with Kyle, in both interviews and in his own writings. “I hate the damn savages,” he writes. “I couldn’t give a flying f**k about the Iraqis.” Although he has been criticized posthumously for his choice of words and general attitude against Iraqis (among other things), it is far from being scarce among US soldiers.

Take the following passage from another American soldier: “The scene reminded me of the shooting of jack-rabbits in Utah, only the rabbits sometimes got away, but the insurgents did not.” This would appear to be written by a current American soldier, maybe one who enjoys hunting, watching action films and going to rodeo shows like Kyle did. But this letter excerpt was written by Fred D. Sweet over 116 years ago.

The letter was published by the Anti-Imperialist League in their 1899 pamphlet entitled Soldiers Letters: Being Materials for a History of a War of Criminal Aggression. This pamphlet contained numerous excerpts from letters written by US soldiers who were stationed in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War, which started in 1898.

During US President William McKinley and Vice President Theodore Roosevelt’s reelection bid in 1900, the campaign against Spain was justified with the following phrase: “The American Flag has not been planted in foreign soil to acquire more territory but for humanity’s sake.”

US leaders are still declaring wars that are allegedly “for humanity’s sake” but are really for the sake of war profiteers and their allies.

History books, for the most part, have often failed to explore the racist attitudes of McKinley and Roosevelt. Their views were partially based on the theories of early eugenics and Social Darwinism that suited elitists like themselves. They believed that the Anglo-Saxon race was superior to all others and its strongest disciples had every right to inherit the world through conquest. This was evident in their ambitions to fly the America Eagle over foreign territories, directing it to dig its talons into these lands and fly away with stolen treasures.

Art is an effective conduit for portraying war as a noble cause to unite the masses in a common struggle. British author Rudyard Kipling is perhaps best-known as “the poet of the British Empire.” He penned “The White Man’s Burden,” a racist poem published in McClure’s magazine in 1899. The poem caused a stir for glorifying America’s involvement in the Philippines. References of “sullen peoples” as “half devil and half-child” fall in line with the stereotypes depicting people in undeveloped parts of the world as “savages.” Kipling writes that it is the duty, nay the “burden,” of white men from “civilized nations” to bring the Filipinos up from their “lowly” status.

Racial hatred combined with military force has been common with every war since the close of the 19th Century. The terms “savages” and “heathens” are used in many of the letters published by the Anti-Imperialist League, reflecting the hostility of troops sent over to the Philippines between 1898 and 1905. The Filipinos were often called “Pacific Negroes” or simply “n***ers.” Journalist H.L. Wells writes, “There is no question that our men do ‘shoot n***ers’ somewhat in the sporting spirit.”

“Most national myths, at their core, are racist,” writes Chris Hedges in his 2002 book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. Even though the racist attitudes of the early 20th Century are not as prevalent as they once were in American society, they still exist and US leaders know how to play on fear and ignorance in order to get what they want.

Soldiers are trained to accept these perceptions as true, making their duties easier when confronted with violent situations. This mentality is still alive in the 21st Century. Today such terms would be applied to Muslims and Arabs, including modern terms like “raghead” and “sand n***er.” Once American Sniper hit theaters, some people once again fell under a dark spell, one that never truly lost its power. People flocked to social media outlets and posted statements like “Nice to see a movie where the Arabs are portrayed for who they really are—vermin scum intent on destroying us.” In more extreme cases, some said the film “makes me wanna go shoot some f**kin Arabs.”

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he epidemic of “yellow journalism” under the control of moguls like William Randolph Hearst was the equivalent of today’s 24-hour cable news networks in whipping up fear and hatred against the people of “enemy nations.” For Hearst, a war against Spain meant selling more newspapers and increasing his personal fortunes. Also, it would give him positive publicity and the image of patriotism that would help fuel his failed political career.

As reported by PBS.org: “Today, historians point to the Spanish-American War as the first press-driven war. Although it may be an exaggeration to claim that Hearst and the other yellow journalists started the war, it is fair to say that the press fueled the public’s passion for war.”

In the early 2000s, Australian-born billionaire Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Fox News Channel, followed the Hearst tradition by supporting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The network’s slew of cookie-cutter commentators espoused views that democracy would be delivered to these countries along with Christian bibles, ammunition and American flags. Conservative author and frequent Fox News contributor Ann Coulter is the same woman who quipped, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

Though not as eloquent as the slogans produced by the administrations of McKinley and Roosevelt, such calls to action are what such declarations of war amount to.

In the Philippines, concentration camps were built to detain Filipino combatants and civilians and the use of torture were implemented by US troops. Even the practice of waterboarding was used by US troops, using canteens and metal cups filled with salt water to simulate drowning. As observed by historian James Bradley in his study The Imperial Cruise, “When the Japanese later waterboarded U.S. personnel in World War II, America tried them for war crimes.” These institutions are no different from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the US government-sanctioned torture chamber in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Such atrocities are the natural byproducts of imperialist expansion.

The most intriguing justification for the film is its sympathetic portrayal of soldiers suffering the trauma of war, a problem that has been ignored for too long. The horrific conditions of war have massive physical and psychological effects on soldiers. Instead of blaming their leaders for betraying their trust and sending them to other countries based on false pretenses, they are often desperate enough to blame civilians of occupied nations for why they are there. This seems evident in Kyle’s writings and those belonging to other soldiers. These sentiments were common among soldiers during the Philippine portion of the Spanish-American War.

“The boys are getting sick of fighting these heathens,” writes Tom Crandall of the Nebraska Regiment (1899), “and all say we volunteered to fight Spain, not heathens. Their patriotism is wearing off. We all want to come home very bad. If I ever get out of this army I will never get into another. They will be fighting four hundred years, and then never whip these people, for there are not enough of us to follow them up…The people of the United States ought to raise a howl and have us sent home.”

There are, however, those who are forced into such circumstances and refuse to fall for the propaganda of their governments. Whatever illusions they had before entering these conflicts disappeared when confronting the grim realities of war.

The mainstream media has been ignoring another American sniper named Garett Reppenhagen, who has since left the military and has dedicated himself to the antiwar movement. When he saw the film, he criticized it for what it was: racist agitprop glorifying a man who has been called a borderline psychopath and habitual liar.

In The Acronym Journal, Reppenhagen said:

“You feel like there is this debt that you build for every life that you take. You feel like you owe the world something because you left it without this other person that could have done something amazing. I think about all of these soldiers coming out of the U.S. military and helping them get jobs and education and hearing about what they aspire to do and be in the world. And I wonder about all of the Iraqis, Syrians, Albanians and others that we killed in that country and what they aspired to be.”

There are countless other soldiers like him, who had the intention of protecting their country and liberating an oppressed people but did not see the reality through the dense black fog of war.

In another letter from the Spanish-American War pamphlet, signed by General Reeve: “I deprecate this war, this slaughter of our own boys and of the Filipinos, because it seems to me that we are doing something that is contrary to our principles in the past. Certainly we are doing something that we should have shrunk from not so very long ago.”

Though the locations and populations have changed, the motives behind war hysteria have not.

---

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.