Letters  

Dear Republic:

I have been to the United States several times over the past couple of decades, and have met some of the most interesting and rebellious people "over there." But it's ex-pats like Jon Scop that I don't get (Letters, issue 147). I mean, why should it be so surprising to find "Go Away" signs on vehicles with US plates when that country supports a radical government that wreaks havoc around the Globe? Even if you don't agree with the Bush/Republican agenda, as a US citizen, you bear responsibility for allowing such an administration to persist! Where are the street protests and calls for impeachment? Rather than running away to Canada because you don't feel comfortable anymore in the States, conscientious Americans should stay and fight for change! Otherwise, you really don't have any ground to stand on as far as criticizing Canadians for painting you all with the same tainted brush. Who was it that said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"? If memory serves, I think he was an American.

—Mr C Leduc, Vancouver

Dear Republic:

There are millions of Mexicans who went into the streets to protest their most recent fraudulent election.

Most Americans are not aware of the details of our last two fraudulent elections. Many are suspicious however and individual States are trying to get rid of black box voting machines that have no paper trail and machines that can be hacked into. The majority of eligible voters have not voted in recent elections. One third of the registered voters are independent of the two major parties. A majority of citizens now believe that "special interests" now control Congress. 45% of citizens no longer trust major media sources like the Press and network TV news.

The protest groups are largely ignored by mainstream media and their influence minimized. Over the last ten years my countrymen receive less foreign news and more than fifty independent news sources have been reduced to around six major outlets. Citizens are uneasy about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe Americans are easily influenced by entertainment and distractions, and are susceptible to repeated pronouncements by the current neo-conservative government.

—Don Kropp, California

Dear Republic:

I found Michael Nenonen’s article in which he relates Barbara Ehrenreich’s theory very interesting (issue 147).

However it left out an important aspect of the psychology of aggressive war. Anthropologists and psychologists theorize that healthy-minded people have an unconscious resistance to killing fellow members of our species except in self-defence. In order for a leader to bring a populace to the point of attacking another group, it is necessary to portray them as less than human. That these enemies are depraved drinkers of blood, bayonetters of babies, haters of democracy, or what have you, the enemy is never addressed by their preferred name, but by derogatory epithets such a Injuns, darkies, krauts, gooks, camel jockies, etc. Once this is reinforced enough to convince the populace that it is a fact, it's safe to launch a campaign of aggression. This method exists as far back as archeologists have unearthed written records, though we only gave it a name in the early twentieth century: Propaganda. Interestingly, this level of aggression in a society always goes hand in hand with sexual prudery and the domination of women in the society (and rape of the enemy). A look at the states of ancient Assyria, the Aztecs, and late twentieth century Republicans will bear this out.

—Mike Dowson