Profits of Domestic Occupation
📰 THE STORY: The Intercept details that former President Trump funneled over $500 million into deploying federal troops and militarized assets to US cities, ostensibly to quell protests and 'restore order.' 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: This domestic militarization is not a new phenomenon but an escalation of policies tracing back to the 'War on Drugs' and post-9/11
'homeland security.' For instance, the 1996 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) gave the Pentagon expanded powers to transfer military equipment to law enforcement agencies, leading to local police departments acquiring surplus MRAP vehicles and assault rifles, blurring the lines between military and police. Double Standard: When governments like Venezuela or Iran deploy security forces to
manage protests, the Western media decries it as 'authoritarian repression' and 'human rights abuses,' often calling for sanctions or intervention. Yet, when US federal troops, equipped with military-grade gear, are deployed against its own citizens – particularly those protesting systemic racism – it's framed as a 'national security' measure, with the concern primarily focused on the financial
cost, not the implications for civil liberties or democratic norms. Follow the Money: The procurement of militarized equipment for domestic policing creates a lucrative market for defense contractors. Companies like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman not only profit from foreign wars but also from the burgeoning internal security state. This intertwining of military and police budgets