The point is how the apolitical (profit-driven) MIC uses paid lobbyists (via the revolving door syndrome) to create or enforce latent or evident preconceptions. And then using said preconceptions to boost profitability via targeted peer pressure. That is something btw that the vast majority of Breitbart readers doesn't understand, and really wouldn't care if it did anyway.
The important part here though is that most of them also don't care much about US Imperialism, are against the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria etc, and they want the troops back dealing with immigrants, not waging foreign wars. And the hawks are leading the rabbits to the open field right now.
The fact that this happens, or that this happening is pretty easy to perceive does not mean you don't have to talk about out, or criticize it for what it evidently is though. I attacked your false equivalence examples in the first post, because I was simply not saying what you were insinuating.
The thing is, if what you say is true, that is no generalisation is involved, then whatever MIC buy in a political view-piece is not going to be susceptible to the this type of apolitical view, because, as you said, you are not saying this is a generalisation of the whole government. So, for every paid view, there will be a paid or unpaid view to balance it out, which make your point a non-starter.
The problem what you said will only happen if the general public fall into the paid Apolitical agenda category, set aside how many people actually read Breitbart is one thing, another thing is you assume what the normal American is.
The question is, weren't this
"The majority of American people wanted to use their troop to deal with immigration" in itself, a generalisation? Otherwise how do you know what Majority of American want when there are no national poll on the issue. You either heard of it from some new source (mostly left wing), which mean they generalise this for you, or you generalise the situation yourself.
And bear in mind, People that are against the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria does not mean they are against "Militarism", that only mean they are against that particular war.
As I said, everyone is entitle to their own view, every organisation, be it far right, extreme right, right wing, left wing, extreme left, far left, center right, center left have their own idea, not a single idea I mentioned above are greater or worse than the other. And there are people that belong to aforementioned group. And saying stuff like
"That is something btw that the vast majority of Breitbart readers doesn't understand, and really wouldn't care if it did anyway."
By saying this, you generalise the entire readership of Breitbart.
And hence, all of your view, in this post, is base on generalisation of Breitbart. And if you are talking about you weren't being generalise before, that mean you have no point at all.
You need to make a point and stick to it.
