They hate US LIBERALS for our freedoms.

They hate US LIBERALS for our freedom
by arendt

Most liberals found G.W. Bush's soundbite "They hate us for our freedom."
to be laughably counter-factual. They cynically pointed out that Bush was
preventing future attacks by canceling our freedoms. As informed citizens,
instead of docile corporate news consumers, liberals knew that America had
been shooting up the Middle East for decades - at first by proxy, more recently
with our own military. This increasingly dwindling number of informed citizens
knew that to the Arab Street, 911 looked more like payback than envy.

But, to merely add this sentence to the ever-growing list of Bush's manipulative
generalizations and lies misses something important. By accident, Bush's
speechwriter may have said something for liberals to think about.
Consider the meaning if "us" are liberals and "they" are fundamentalists.
Then it reads:

"American fundamentalists hate American liberals for their freedom."

Now this makes sense! They hate our urbanity, our education, our rationality,
our religious tolerance, our respect for women, gays, and people of color as
equals. A moment's consideration should make this obvious. If you said to an
average New Yorker "American hicks hate the Big Apple's freedoms", you
would get little disagreement. I'm saying the same thing.

If you think about it this way, Bush's sound-bite is a two-fer: the fundies get
to project their open hatred of liberal America onto Fundamentalist Arabs; and
then they get to put their righteously angry words into the mouths of liberals,
many of whom were sad, not angry, about 911. We know now that the Bush
administration's solicitude for NYC was phony because NYCs public health and
rebuilding were blown off as soon as the media spotlight turned away. (Lying
about post-911 air quality; welching on the promised funds to rebuild.)

But the administration's projected anger at Arabs was genuine. They used
this anger to solidify their position with Americans beyond their hard core
Fundamentalists supporters. Now it is true that the Fundamentalists do hate
Arabs. If you wonder where this came from, consider their epithet "sand
nigger". But, the leaders of the Fundamentalist movement in America have
always defined the main "enemy" to be godless, decadent liberalism.

So, the fundies already had an external enemy to motivate them. But, non-
Fundamentalists needed to have their own external enemy if the country
was to be united in hatred. So Arab Fundamentalists were a perfect choice.
They allow non-Fundamentalist Americans to vent against an external
fundamentalism, while keeping the spotlight away from the religious fruitcakes
in the Bush Administration who have a hard on for Armageddon Soon in the
Middle East.

Unwittingly, non-Fundamentalist Americans have bought into one of the
oldest traditions of the Middle East: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Many Americans have looked upon the bellicosity and outright murderousness
of Fundamentalist rage against Arabs as a good, patriotic thing. Lack of
sufficient hatred has been called "unpatriotic". This mainstreaming of hatred is
a huge victory for Fundamentalism.

Americans who have bought this line ought to be thinking about what happens
when, not if, that mayhem gets unleashed at home. Liberals know better.
They have been experiencing Right Wing violence for over a decade: abortion
clinic bombers, doctor assassins, Olympic bombers, WACO cultists, crazed
neo-Nazi random shooters. And with the installation of Inquisitor General
Ashcroft, things have gotten worse. Instead of chasing terrorists, he is attacking
Medical Marijuana, assisted suicide, and other matters of a very personal
nature.

----

So, I suggest that liberals take ownership of this soundbite, and make a
list of the freedom's which the Bush Administration hated enough to destroy.
The list is already long. Check any website keeping track of such things.

The freedoms which Fundamentalists hate and destroy are the basis of our
form of government. Their hatred for the Enlightenment and, by extension,
for the Constitution as a quintessentially enlightened document, is out
in the open. For example, there is a certain Mr.Arahamson(spelling) who
owns one of the major voting machine companies. He is also an avowed
"Christian Reconstructionist" who wants to replace the Constitution with Biblical Law.
Where I come from, that is treason. But no one in the media seems to care.
Why doesn't someone say Mr.Arahamson hates us for our freedoms?

I think that exposing these codewords is vital to preventing Americans
from becoming further bamboozled by the torrent of anti-democracy
propaganda and actions emanating from the Religious Right and from
its agents inside the Bush Administration. George Bush is breaking the
law with his "faith-based" breaching of the wall of Church and State;
although I expect Antonin Scalia to rise to Dred Scott levels of hypocrisy
when such a case comes before him. He will do so because he is another
avowed theocrat, another traitor to his oath of office and a Constitutional
felon in the 2000 Selection.

Liberals need to say it out loud. The Religious Right has crossed the line.
They are traitors to the U.S. Constitution; they are hate-mongers and
hypocrites. They are merciless, and they have almost the entire government
in their hands. And most of all:

"They hate us liberals for our freedoms."

on edit: capitalized US

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

US LIBERALS ?

They Hate Us for Our Freedoms !!! It puts everything into proper perspective, and if we capitalize "us liberals" it evoke U(nited) S(tates).

They don't want to be free, they want to be told what to do, they want to follow (some of them even refer to themselves as "dittoheads".

Let's get this out and around.

n/t

Yes, they hate us, are dangerous, and twist religion to a message that is appalling. But, I believe the Bushies give them lip service in pursuit of their ultimate goal. The Bushies (neo-cons, if you will) want raw power, to place it permanently in the hands of a wealthy elite, and to wage aggressive war on behalf of that elite. They keep their Fundie base quiescent by giving them the social issues, which ultimately is not something they are really concerned about. They will give them the Supreme Court appointments (when they come), throw them a bone on abortion and gay marriage, keep them motivated and well-fed, and continue to pursue their goals of power, which include ending free elections and dissent (doubt it? watch 2004. 2002 gave us a taste of what's coming). The average Fundie is a useful dupe to them. And admittedly, a danger to the goal of a free society. Many of them would have made good Brownshirts.

For twenty years, Dubya has been as thick as thieves with the
Fundies. His personal guru was the founder of Promise Keepers.
The only thing that really turns him on is talking about Christian
values (like executions and military punishments).

Dubya is a puppet, and the necons and the fundies are fighting
to pull his strings. Do you think that John Ashcroft is a neocon?
No. He is a fruitcake fundamentalist, and the most dangerous man
to American citizens in the administration. He can have you taken
away in the middle of the night for no reason.

I beg to differ with you. The fundies are already carrying out their
program on this country. Their agents are in key positions of power,
placed their by George Bush.

Now, the neocons may agree with you that they have given the
fundies some "sop" appointments and some "throwaway" laws.
But I say, like the German industrialists, the neocons have given
away the store. They are actively funding extremist religious groups
with government money. They are interfering in the objective
administration of the nation's vast scientific establishment by
placing ideologues in the bureaucracy and having Congressman
blacklist religiously-incorrect scientists.

America is slipping into a Dark Age intellectually, and this is not
the neocons top priority. The neocons want loot, and like I said
in my other thread "Gnostics, Cathars, and Liberals", the deal
is that the neocons get to loot the country and leave. Then the
fundies can manage the U.S. like any other third world dictatorship,
taking orders from corporations now headquartered in the Bahamas
or Switzerland, or wherever.

arendt

I guess I just think that at least some of the Fundies (those without actual power - families and stuff) actually believe their corruption of religion is the "right way," while the neo-cons coldly know exactly what they are doing. When you get to the top of the food chain, there really isn't much difference. Still a very small percentage who seek to control power and quash dissent. Whatever means works is what they seek to impose on us. If religious fundamentalism gets them there, fine; if they can do it through Diebold and an acquiescent media, fine; if force proves necessary, they will do that, too. America is indeed slipping into a Dark Age intellectually, and it is not the neocons' top priority - but if it achieves their objectives, well, that's fine too. I do think you're wrong that they will take their loot and leave. They won't walk away from power that easily, to pull the strings from overseas. They want this country, and are determined to have it.

The corporations have already shown zero loyalty to America.
They have sent our factories, our technology, our jobs to someone
the fundies constantly attack - the Godless Chinese Commies.

They have gutted America, they are now looting the gold fillings
from the teeth.

After that, when the place is just another third world hell-hole,
what incentive is there for them to personally be on the spot?
We'll just be another latifundia full of ignorant slaves.

If they stick around, they will have to work out a modus vivendi
with the fundies they put in charge of squeezing the juice out
of the slaves. They would have to do the US fundie equivalent
of the Moslem burkha routine. No alcohol, no work on Sunday,
no DANCING, etc.

I don't see these self-annointed "masters of the world" putting up
with any of that. So I maintain they WILL go abroad to tropical
islands and mountain villas where they can be at a distance from
the slaves that labor to keep them in caviar.

Just my opinion,

arendt

on edit: typos, exand on point

Really good post but I don't really think the fundies are the ones who are in control. They are the means to a neocon end. I think * is, in fact, the one being neo-conned.

I was really blown away by this Leo Strauss reference posted in another thread: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15935 .

Strauss wants the populace run by fundies for reasons of social control. Religious people tend to dissent less and are less "liberal." They are playing fundies for suckers. The number one sucker is *.

Cheney was initially put in charge of the search for *'s vice president nominee. Somehow he wound up as the VP. Cheney was then put in charge of the transition team. Voila! Neocons are placed in strategic positions of importance.

*'s main weakness is foreign policy so he puts in the 'A' team of experts. Who are these experts? Not internationalists and multi-lateralists like his father surrounded himself with. His FP advisors are all neocons. (Powell is a token).

So they play the sucker in the oval office the same way they play the suckers in the electorate. * falls for it 100%. The electorate falls for it somewhere between 30% and 70%. The fundies fall for it about 100% of the time.

All this extends itself to domestic policy. Fundies are thrown bones and positions of privilege to increase their power (part of the master plan). But the fruits of the vine all go to the elitists (and neocons).

So in summary, I think you are right on track in your analysis, except for the role of the fundies (the real American Taliban). Can you post the link to the thread you mentioned? I must have missed it. Thanks again for your enlightening posts arendt.

:kick:

It would make sense that a cynical power-hungry SOB like
him would want to be the puppet-master of the fundies.

I'm sure that what you say is how the neocons expect it
to go down. And, perhaps, this crowd has learned from
how it lost control of Adolph. I mean Adolph was smart
and charismatic. Bush is the opposite. Hard to be hijacked
by such a dumbshit.

And, indeed, the collective brainpower of the fundies is
negative. DeLay - crazy as the bugs he used to kill;
Falwell - pathetic fat slob, has to be bailed out by Moon;
Santorum, and all the other Congress GOPs - stupid,
stupid, stupid.

I will consider your take.

arendt

P.S. "Gnostics, Cathars, and Liberals" was on page 2 of GDF
when I posted this.

They live in a land of Fear and are willing to give up
Everything that makes America STRONG.

I a Patriot defend the Constitution thus must oppose bush's
agenda for America .

Patriots Support Troops Not Bush

I love America Too Much to Vote Republican .

BUSH KILLS AMERICANS

I a Patriot Defend America with my Dissent

The Rule Of Law is our only hope to protect
My beloved Nation from the destruction that
Republicans want .

I know they hate me for my Freedom

I think Neo Cons would be happier in a Country
Where dissent means you get killed , They don't
want freedom they want conformity and a docile
not questioning public .

I'll stay Conservative on the issue of The Constitution .

None of the neo cons Revisionist History will Deter me .

If anyone calls me a traitor to my face , I will
invite that person to take it outside. I will then
teach him the true meaning of Patriotism .

I am a small woman who will stand up to any man
and pick a fight to defend my patriotism .

A liberal Icon. They don't hate the freepers because they are one and the same.

n/t

.

:thumbsup:

I enjoyed this essay. Well written and thought out. Hope to read more from you!

:toast:

n/t