>>9483280 (lb)

In Red Dawn, the invaders were Soviet, not "Russian". The distinction is important.

From out of the sky, Soviet, Nicaraguan, and Cuban troops begin landing on the football field of a Colorado high school. In a few seconds, the paratroopers have attacked the school and sent a group of teenagers fleeing into the mountains. Armed only with hunting rifles, pistols, and bows and arrows, the teens struggle to survive the bitter winter and the Soviet K.G.B. patrols hunting for them. Eventually, trouble arises when they kill a group of Soviet soldiers on patrol in the highlands. Soon they will wage their own guerrilla warfare against the invading Soviet troops under the banner of "Wolverines!" Written by Derek O'Cain

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/

>>9483470

I think the important distinction is that the Invaders were a collective of Soviets, not Russians. It's an ideology, not a nationality. The dialectic calls them Russians, and to repeat it tingles the "Russian Collusion" trigger, which was is what (((they))) hope will happen. They want our minds thinking of the 1984 Cold War "bad guys", not Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, James Comey and John Brennan. If we transposed the current events into 1984, those bad guys would be "Soviets".

I think the typical American accepts Soviet = Russian. But Soviet = Cabal = Communist

We never had it explained to us like that, so "The Russians" including all the long-suffering Russian people, became our bogeyman to collectively focus blame for everything wrong in the world. This is how (((they))) use a group's identity to hide their true intentions, while making their chosen "group" take the blame from the victims of the Collective.

It's the niggers

It's the Jews

It's the Catholics

It's the sand-niggers

Etc…

>>9483659

>>9483616

Q. "What was Rudyard Kipling's attitude towards Indian people?"

A. "Kipling was a man of his age. Even in the 1930s, for example, he had very real doubts about the ability of Indians to govern themselves. But he was not afraid of what we now call diversity. (Yes, I know that such allegations have been made, but most of them are easily rebutted.) Late in life he recorded how, ‘In ‘85 I was made a Freemason by dispensation (Lodge Hope and Perseverance 782 E.C.), being under age, because the Lodge hoped for a good Secretary… Here I met Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, members of the Araya and Brahmo Samaj, and a Jewish Tyler, who was a priest and butcher to his little community in the city. So yet another world was opened to me which I needed.’

So far as his writings are concerned, they are possibly the first time that Indians had appeared as rounded human beings in Western fiction. Just as with the English, they are shown as heroes, sufferers and, most difficult of all to pull off without condescension, villains.

People sometimes refer to Orwell’s criticism of Kipling, yet he expressed more than one view on the great man. In 1936 he wrote, ‘For my own part I worshipped Kipling at thirteen, loathed him at seventeen, enjoyed him at twenty, despised him at twenty-five and now again rather admire him.’ And in 1942: ‘During five literary generations every enlightened person has despised him, and at the end of that time nine-tenths of those enlightened persons are forgotten and Kipling is in some sense still there.’"

Brian Harris, Author of two anthologies of Rudyard Kipling.

https://www.quora.com/What-was-Rudyard-Kiplings-attitude-towards-Indian-people

Sauc

>>9483702

Fighting for the memories of the dead, instead of fighting for the living.

>>9483741

The barriers aren't gonna move themselves.

>>9483814

Where do servicemembers' loyalties lie?

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html

>>9483865

The People invested the Privileges of the office of President and Commander in Chief. Once invested, the POTUS wields that power, within the limits defined by the Constitution and constitutionally derived laws passed by the Legislature.

The oath is to serve the will of the People, by following the orders of the President, down through every rank, to the bottom.

The President's oath is to the Constitution as well. The POTUS doesn't swear to the Establishment, or the Bureacracy, or to the House/Senate.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article II, Section 1 US Constitution

https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article/us-constitution-full-text.rl

>>9483978

Chief Wright is a rockstar with the airmen