The Great Depression was the unchaining of the unwashed masses from wage slavery and dominance by wealth. Because FDR was of that class himself, he was deemed a traitor by his former peers. Regaining that lost power and glory became the goal of wealth in this nation, and their efforts didn't take long to make that fact known. If it weren't for Marine General Smedley Butler, a two-time Medal of Honor winner who exposed a coup attempt organized by some of the beneficiaries of the lucrative aniline dye patent awards, it is likely that the United States would have followed a path similar to that of Germany at that same time. And just as George W. Bush attempted to establish during his felonious reign, the rights and liberties of the American people would have been curtailed in the pursuit of reclaiming power and prestige for the wealthy through the destruction of world communism and opening up Russia for economic exploitation by force.
Had this actually been achieved (look up Operation Bagration if you want to know the likely outcome of that effort), there is no reason to believe that this would have been the end of it. As there is no honor among thieves, the victors would have fallen out amongst themselves and created a new struggle for domination (as they did in historic Cold War reality). Our rights would have remained as unrealized as those granted by the early Soviet Constitution (which was itself modeled after our own) as we marched off for yet another war in the service of Gen. Butler's "Wall Street capitalist racketeers".
Since the Republican Party engineered the South's Rising Again using MIWASP economic and racial hatred as the prime mover, nothing good for most of the American people has come from the effort. The Executive Intelligence Review article hints at the truth of why this is so: "Many people are enraged at what the government has done, but being mad is not enough, as the oligarchs are quite skilled at channeling popular rage into dead ends."
Hence the "tea parties". Stirring up political, economic, racial, and gender animosities for private gain and power enhancement is a recipe for tyranny, and not the sort that the tea baggers believe they are preventing with their juvenile expressions of displeasure. It isn't without reason that some of us see the parallels with the German street gangs who later led their nation into disaster with their deadly foolishness. In both cases, wealthy interests are using those who shower after they work to perform their evil deeds, taking by force that which they cannot win by persuasion. The rules are for fools, feel They Who Deserve To Rule. The end — giving them control of everything — would justify the means, and the rest of us can just like it!
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Doug Hunter
Another childish name calling hate filled racist rant by a leftist. It's sad that this is all you got.
2 - roger nowosielski
I don't know what's going on, Doug. It's the second article within a couple of days when a white male is under attack. A trend of some kind or just a sign of the times.
Political correctness is having a field day.
3 - Doug Hunter
Ah well, better to spend my time on other things. This line of propaganda won't go away because it works. This nation is far and away a majority of minorities and if you can bind them all together with hatred against a common enemy that is power.
In the last election these guys got 90+% of the black vote and made good inroads in other poor oppressed victim groups. That's not a sign of diversity or freedom, that's a sign of fear and groupthink which this tool is trying (successfully) to engender.
It'll run it's course in due time. Then we'll be, much like Ruvy and Jonathan, arguing wich victim group has the most cred.
My poor victim minority group got beat up by your poor victim minority group?.... is this really what we've sunk to.
4 - roger nowosielski
What happened to the good old American spirit, we're all in this together? You're right in that this whole idea of "victimization" has gone too far. We're no longer a nation but much like spoiled brats fighting for the toy.
5 - roger nowosielski
I think you're making some good points, there, Realist. I'm not certain to what extent you want to go with this "MI" acronym. Kind of broad, I'd say. Perhaps an oversimplification. Certainly not a sufficient cause of our present condition.
But I'll have to give it a closer read. We'll talk later.
6 - Joanne Huspek
Makes me wonder about all the other races and genders who showed up at the tea parties. These are interesting theories, but grassroots unrest transcends the so called "white" male.
Coming into work today, I heard two local black news commentators on WDTK dressing down Obama like you wouldn't believe. If those words had come out of a "white" male's mouth, liberals would be all over it calling them racists.
7 - roger nowosielski
grassroots unrest transcends the so called "white" male.
This is stereotyping, Joanne, just like any other.
8 - Clavos
grassroots unrest transcends the so called "white" male.
This is stereotyping, Joanne, just like any other.
WTF???
9 - roger nowosielski
WTF. Is that a code for what I think it is? Well, let me explain then. It cuts a certain picture of "white male," doesn't it? Joe Six-Pack, Football Joe, Joe the Plumber, whatever. I take all those as stereotypes, don't you?
10 - Clavos
"White male" also includes Bill Clinton, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Bill Ayers, Ward Churchill, the Pope, Nicolas Sarkozy, Vladimir Putin, Clavos, Dave, etc., so what's your point?
It wasn't Joanne who first used the term in this thread; in fact, among others, you used it before she did (#2).
11 - roger nowosielski
Right, and I was being facetious - trying to see, perhaps, how far some people are willing to take it. But Joanne does seem to use it with a straight face when she suggests that so-called "grass movement" (or political involvement) are above the comprehension or the interest of "white males." And this I view as stereotyping.
12 - roger nowosielski
Well, perhaps there's another meaning there as well, as I look it at it now - to transcend, meaning "to be bigger than," "to include and go beyond," etc.
It's still a rather unclear statement TO ME, as it stands, so perhaps she'll be kind enough to clarify it later.
13 - M a rk
But Joanne does seem to use it with a straight face when she suggests that so-called "grass movement" (or political involvement) are above the comprehension or the interest of "white males." And this I view as stereotyping.
That's not how I read her comment, Rog. What I got out of it was that more than just white males participate in grassroots movements.
14 - M a rk
(note to self: update comments before posting.)
15 - roger nowosielski
Read my #12 where I make that concession, unless you just have a vested interest in being contrary. Still, I have questions, if that's OK with you.
16 - roger nowosielski
Besides, if you're a good Marxist as you present yourself to be, you should be familiar with Heidegger and Sartre as well: I have a right to question what may possibly be "inauthentic speech."
17 - Irene Wagner
Why don't someone just ask Joanne Huspek to clarify #6?
Sorry, I'd do it myself, but I'm too busy right now--taking care of a MIWASP's :
Masculine Intelligent White and Sensitive Protestant.
18 - Irene Wagner
A MIWASP's what, you may ask.
It was a typo.
19 - Baronius
transcends the white male: "transcend" in the sense of extending beyond the white male, into other race/sex combinations. Not "transcend" in the sense of existing beyond the capacity of the white male to understand.
20 - M ark
(I fear that bourgeois ideology has rendered me a hopeless individualist - hardly a good Marxist.)
Joanne's comment seemed pretty clear to me given its context.
21 - Arch Conservative
"Another childish name calling hate filled racist rant by a leftist. It's sad that this is all you got."
Did you catch Jeneanne Garofalo's little rant on Keith Olbermann Doug? She claimed the tea parties were attended by racist rednecks who can't stand to see a black man in the white house.
I guess the 67 people watching Olbermann's show must have loved hearing that but every else would be appalled if they even took [her] seriously [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]!
22 - Clavos
A MIWASP's what, you may ask.
It was a typo.
Hmm.
Not a Freudian slip?
:>)
23 - roger nowosielski
Well, there are those two meanings, Baronius; and I do thank you for having been the only one thus far (except for you, thank goodness) to have pointed this out. Hence, my the intent of my original comment to hold Joanne's comment "in suspense."
I am kind of surprised, however, why so many commenters here seem this intent on shoving their preferred meanings down my throat. I didn't know that we were all aiming to establish on this here BC side any kind of dictatorship as regards to thinking. Tell me it ain't so.
PS: Joanne's comment may well be perfectly harmless and innocuous. I still have a right to dig deeper if I so choose. So I think it would be more prudent not to evaluate my remarks in the most simplistic way possible and then fault them for my lack of understanding (especially when the commenter is not exactly aware of my intention(s). I should say, and this is on the record, that one-on-one, person-to-person dialogue is more important to me than the absolute truth or untruth of any given statement. The latter issue may eventually be resolved, but not before a certain level of communication between the participants is established. But of course, if one doesn't subscribe to this policy and is intent instead on the truth value itself, irrespective of the value of the dialogue itself, that I'm afraid I can't help. To each his own, I guess.
24 - Clavos
Joanne's comment seemed pretty clear to me given its context.
Moi aussi.
Which was the reason for my #8.
25 - roger nowosielski
Then you're a simpleton for thinking I must subscribe to your preferred meanings and sense of clarity.
Right, now you're going to shove the argument(everybody except you, Roger) down my arse.