Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
February 20, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

What We Do Now

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Email this item Print this item

The Motto of Mad Men

Posted on May 6, 2010

By David Sirota

For most of us, conjuring concise and cogent catchphrases is nearly impossible. In fact, the skill can seem like the black magic of mystical mad men.

During the 1960s, the most influential of these Svengalis were the executives working in Madison Avenue advertising firms. By contrast, 2010’s most effective mad men come from Main Street and are literally angry men—specifically, the tea party crowd that is, according to new polls, more wealthy, more white, more male, more Republican and more motivated by racial resentment than the general population. And though their jeans and baseball caps are less stylish than Don Draper’s suits and fedoras, these anti-government activists deserve recognition: They have crafted a motto as succinctly expressive and manipulative as the best Sterling Cooper innovation.

“I Want My Country Back”—this ubiquitous tea party mantra belongs next to Nike’s “Just Do It” on Ad Age’s list of the most transcendent idioms. In just five words, it perfectly captures the era’s conservative backlash. Take a moment to ponder the slogan’s phrase-by-phrase etymology:

“I Want”—Humanity’s most atavistic exclamation of selfishness—and thus an appropriate introduction for a tea party motto—this caveman grunt may end up being the epitaph on the nation’s tombstone. America once flourished by valuing what “we”—as in We the People—need (food, shelter, infrastructure, etc.). Conversely, today’s America teeters thanks to a Reagan-infused zeitgeist that reoriented us to worship whatever I the Person wants. High-income tax breaks, smog-belching SUVs, cavernous McMansions carved into pristine wilderness—it doesn’t matter how frivolous the individual craving or how detached it is from necessity. What matters is that the “I” now assumes an entitled right to any desire irrespective of its affront to the allegedly Marxist “we.”

“My Country”—In his quintessentially American ditty, Woody Guthrie said, “This land was made for you and me.” It made sense. In a democracy, the country is We the People’s—i.e., everybody’s. If, over time, our diversifying complexion and changing attitude create political shifts, that’s OK—because it’s not “my country” or “your country”; it’s all of ours. Apparently, though, this principle is no longer sacred. Following two elections that saw conservative ideology rejected, tea party activists have resorted to declaring that there can only be one kind of country—theirs.

“Back”—To underscore feelings of grievance and nostalgia, the slogan ends with a word deliberately implying both theft and resurrection. In tea party mythology, “back” means taking back a political system that was supposedly pilfered (even though it was taken via legitimate elections) and then going back to a time that seems ideal. As one tea party leader told The New York Times: “Things we had in the ’50s were better.”

To the tea party demographic, this certainly rings true. Yes, in apartheid America circa 1950, rich white males were more socially and economically privileged relative to other groups than they are even now. Of course, for those least likely to support the tea party—read: minorities—the ’50s were, ahem, not so great, considering the decade’s brutal intensification of Jim Crow.

But then, that’s the marketing virtuosity of the “I Want My Country Back” slogan. A motto that would be called treasonous if uttered by throngs of blacks, Latinos or Native Americans has been deftly sculpted by conservatives into an accepted clarion call for white power. Cloaked in the proud patois of patriotism and protest, the refrain has become a dog whistle to a Caucasian population that feels threatened by impending demographic and public policy changes.

As a marketing masterpiece, the slogan would certainly impress the old Madison Avenue mavens. The trouble is that as a larger political ideology, its hateful and divisive message is encouraging ever more misguided madness.

David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books “Hostile Takeover” and “The Uprising.” He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at E-mail him at or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota.

© 2010


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Eugenio Costa, May 13, 2010 at 6:13 am Link to this comment

US greed is seen clearly in the Gulf, slippery with oil and black with death.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 13, 2010 at 6:08 am Link to this comment

The American Common Man, without culture and anti-intellectual in prejudice, is encouraged in doltishness by the very Capitalists who exploit, then laugh at, the fools behind their backs.

Ezra Pound, by the way, saw it as clearly as any Marxist or Leninist.

Enjoy your stupidity—the Capitalist elite is taking you right over a cliff, and you can exit even dumber than when you were born, for infants and children learn.

Boobus Americanus, as H. L. Mencken called his fellow citizens, only learns increasingly perverse ways to make himself even more imbecilic than he is and to reject any of his fellows who have bothered, with an enormous amount of exertion, to try to preserve the best of what America culture once promised to be, and which was mostly destroyed by Capitalism, mindless Technocracy, and Empire.

The convention is to compare the US to ancient Rome.

That is an insult to Rome—both the Republic and Empire.

The US is much closer to Rome’s enemy, Carthage, a cruel and exploitive mercantile empire bent on conquest that had its brief day and disappeared.

Without radical restructuring and quickly, that will also shortly be the fate of the US.

And if be the case, good riddance.

The intellectual, who has mind, will survive the shipwreck with Melville and Twain and Poe and a few others.

As for the US being “Christian”—that is an insult to the Four Gospels.

The US from the beginning has been a racist, hypocritical, violent, belligerent collection of barbarians who slashed and burned their way across a continent, murdering and wasting and thieving all the way, and then joined the British Imperialists in their Empire overseas, beginning with the US betrayal and slaughter in the Philippines.

That US is now coming to its well deserved, bloody finale, despised and hated and laughed at around the world.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 13, 2010 at 4:43 am Link to this comment

Solzhenitsyn is definitely to be included among the greatest novelists of Russian literature and of 20th Century world literature.

Among the Russians of the Twentieth Century he takes second place only to Bulgakov.

Whether one agrees with his critique of Stalin and the USSR or not, he was as severe and uncompromising with the West as he was with his fellow Russians.

Though the US tried to use him as a pawn in the Cold War, he refused to cooperate.

He is doubtless within the general tradition of the Russian Slavophiles, but much beyond that, and still a great and humane mind, and a witness to the depths and heights of the human spirit.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 12, 2010 at 10:03 pm Link to this comment

I did not know much about Solzhenitsyn but I remember when his
book The Gualg… came out there was quite a media stir.  I was a
very young adult and did not quite understand the horrors of the
gulags.  Not sure I do even now.

Daniel J. Mahoney says in his 2004 review “Solzhenitsyn, Russia, and
the Jews Revisited,” of Solzhenitsyn’s published study of Russian/Jewish
relations Volume II. Volume I of Two Hundred Years Together had
discussed the confluence “between Russians and Jews from 1772 (when
100,000 Jews were allowed to enter the Russian empire) right up until
the eve of the revolutionary conflagrations of 1917.”  This second
volume picks up the story and covers the period from the revolutions of
1917 until the exodus of hundreds of thousands of Jews for Israel and
the West that started in the early 1970’s.

Solzhenitsyn began Book I with an exceptional excursus on what it
means to be a Jew. The second volume describes events that
Solzhenitsyn either knew first hand or spent decades investigating and
writing about in works such as The Gulag Archipelago and The Red

Some critics had been so preoccupied with excavating evidence of
Solzhenitsyn’s alleged anti-semitism that they hardly noticed the
principled personal and national commitment to “repentance and self-
limitation” that endowed every page of his analysis. Solzhenitsyn, in
fact, explicitly refrained a partisan or nationalistic analysis of Russia’s
“Jewish question” yet many critics persisted on the false assumption
that Russian nationalism was his “only star and compass.” Throughout
Solzhenitsyn carefully chronicled the deeds and misdeeds of Russians
and Jews alike, and pleaded for mutual understanding and repentance
on the part of both parties. 

He had declared his intention or hope was that his study would
contribute to finding “mutually accessible and benevolent paths along
which Russian-Jewish relations could proceed.”

In the opening chapters of Volume II, Solzhenitsyn unequivocally
repudiates the Judeophobia common to extreme rightist and nationalist
circles in Russia. And he denies just as vigorously the absurd view that
the nineteenth century Russian revolutionary movement, the February
revolution of 1917 that overthrew the Tsarist order, or the October
Revolution that brought Lenin and the Bolsheviks to power, were the
product of a Jewish conspiracy to enslave or destroy Russia.  In any
event, one must see that his freedom from political correctness in no
way has its source in antipathy to the Jews.  He did not hesitate to
criticize individual Jews when warranted but never the Jewish people as

Solzhenitsyn never tired of repeating that Jews were not the principal
force behind the Soviet revolution and had no special responsibility for
the misfortunes that would come to afflict Russia in the terrible
twentieth century.

At the same time, he felt it was wrong to over-look the fact that a
remarkably dis-proportionate number of Jews held positions of
responsibility in the middle and upper echelons of the party and secret
police apparatus throughout the 1920s and 1930s.  Nothing is served
by ignoring this fact. To do so means abandoning this issue to the
anti-semites who will appropriate it for their own hateful purposes.

Such is some of what I found.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 12, 2010 at 8:38 pm Link to this comment

HAMLET: Hic et ubique? then we’ll shift our ground.

Come hither, gentlemen,

And lay your hands again upon my sword:

Never to speak of this that you have heard,

Swear by my sword.

Ghost:[Beneath] Swear.

HAMLET: Well said, old mole! canst work i’ the earth so fast?

A worthy pioner! Once more remove, good friends.

HORATIO: O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

HAMLET: And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy….


Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 12, 2010 at 8:25 pm Link to this comment

Stalin: Have you studied History?

Eisenstein: More or less.

Stalin. More or less? I am also a little familiar with history. You have shown the oprichnina incorrectly. The oprichnina was the army of the king. It was different from the feudal army which could remove its banner and leave the battleground at any moment - the regular army, the progressive army was formed. You have shown this oprichnina to be like the Ku-Klux-Klan.

[Eisenstein said that they wear white cowls but we have black ones]

Molotov. This does not make a major difference.

Stalin. Your tsar has come out as being indecisive, he resembles Hamlet. Everybody prompts him as to what is to be done, and he himself does not take any decision… Tsar Ivan was a great and a wise ruler, and if he is compared with Ludwig XI (you have read about Ludwig XI who prepared absolutism for Ludwig XIV), then Ivan the Terrible is in the tenth heaven. The wisdom of Ivan the Terrible is reflected by the following: he looked at things from the national point of view and did not allow foreigners into his country, he barricaded the country from the entry of foreign influence. By showing Ivan the Terrible in this manner you have committed a deviation and a mistake. Peter Ist was also a great ruler, but he was extremely liberal towards foreigners, he opened the gate wide to them and allowed foreign influence into the country and permitted the Germanisation of Russia. Catherine allowed it even more. And further. Was the court of Alexander I really a Russian court? Was the Court of Nicolaus I a Russian court? No, they were German courts.

The most outstanding contribution of Ivan the Terrible was that he was the first to introduce the government monopoly of external trade. Ivan the Terrible was the first and Lenin was the second.

Zhdanov: The Ivan the Terrible of Eisenstein came out as a neurotic.

Molotov: In general, emphasis was given to psychologism, excessive stress was laid on internal psychological contradictions and personal emotions.

Stalin: It is necessary to show the historical figure in correct style. For example it was not correct that in the first series Ivan the Terrible kissed his wife so long. At that period it was not permitted.

Zhdanov: The film is made in the Byzantine style but there also it was not done.

Molotov: The second series is very restricted in domes and vaults, there is no fresh air, no wider Moscow, it does not show the people. One may show conversations, repressions but not this.

Stalin: Ivan the Terrible was extremely cruel. It is possible to show why he had to be cruel.

One of the mistakes of Ivan the Terrible was that he did not completely finish off the five big feudal families. If he had destroyed these five families then there would not have been the Time of Troubles. If Ivan the Terrible executed someone then he repented and prayed for a long time. God disturbed him on these matters… It was necessary to be decisive.

Molotov: It is necessary to show historical incidents in a comprehensive way. For example the incident with the drama of Demyan Bedny Bogatyp. Demyan Bedny mocked the baptism of Russia, but in reality acceptance of Christianity was a progressive event for its historical development.

Stalin: Of course, we are not good Christians but to deny the progressive role of Christianity at that particular stage is impossible. This incident had a very great importance because this turned the Russian state to contacts with the West, and not to an orientation towards the East.


Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 12, 2010 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment

William Shirer.

With an “r”.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, May 12, 2010 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

Further more, anyone who cites Solzhenitsyn as a credible source, should be aware of the following.

“The late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the 20th century’s most acclaimed literary figure and historian, reported in his final book, Two Hundred Years Together, that the Jews were the revolutionary conspirators and mass murderers responsible for the Communist holocaust in which a mind-warping 66 million innocent victims were tortured, imprisoned in filthy, gruesome gulag camps and, finally, unmercifully executed.”

The 20th century’s most acclaimed literary figure and historian, was not executed, he was deported to the west.

Reagan referred to Solzhenitsyn contantly, and to great affect. The right knowingly, or out of paranoia, has put forth myths, that resulted in the deaths of millions, and the expenditure of trillions.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, May 12, 2010 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment

This is quite a quandary; I can relate the entire history of the rise and fall of the Third Reich, which would take hours, fill up this truthdig thread with seemingly endless posts, angering many, who would not read the posts anyway, or I can resort to insult.
Instead, I’ll ask interested people to read or reread the definitive commentary on the rise (and fall) of the Third Reich, by William Shire. Better yet, I’ll suggest that people study the fall of the Weimar Republic. Of course I realize that this is asking too much. Asking people to become informed about what they post is quite a big demand. Perhaps a simple Wikipedia search for “The Night of the Long Knives,” would be enlightening.

Stating it boldly and simply, I’ll say that the Nazis were opposed to the basic tenants of socialism, so people who have traces of fascism in their philosophies, and claim that the Nazis were socialists, do so out of ignorance, purposeful self delusion, or to propagate a disingenuous dialectic.

I’ll suggest that at the latter stages of the Second World War, the German people, looking back at their former Republic, and the Weimar Socialists, would say “I Want My Country Back.” That would be the motto of painfully enlightened men.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 12, 2010 at 11:37 am Link to this comment

There have been times, DaveZx3, when we have agreed and times
when we haven’t.  But always it has been respectful of the other’s
opinion.  No name-calling or demeaning far as I can recall.  That
is the way of good and progressive dialogue.  The last few posts
you have made parallel my own views and I simply wanted to say
that you have said it excellently well.  No need for me to be an echo. 
Of course, we all love our own opinions, as Socrates was known to say,
like to like… I know, and I do know our sentiments are opinions.  But I
believe they are ‘informed’ opinions which is better in my mind than
reactive ravings of truly mad men.

“In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni”
The sentence is a riddle in the form of a palindrome—literally a
puzzle inside a puzzle called “the devil’s verse that means “we wander
in the night, and are consumed by fire” or “we enter the circle after
dark and are consumed by fire” and is said to describe the movement
of months. Some others believe that it is about the ‘mayfly,’ that insect
that circles the fire only to be consumed by flame.

What Eugenio means by it is esoteric.  Metaphors, analogies,
allegories, and figures of speech, in other words, tropes, are prone to
many interpretations which is why they are often successful.

Report this

By DaveZx3, May 12, 2010 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

It is amazing how elitist, intellecutal discourse is capable of disguising otherwise highly questionable, even abhorrent ideas. 

Especially when some foreign language is thrown into the mix.  It all sounds so enlightened, so unquestionable. 

Regarding practice and theory, so many words, so little said.  Most could state it in one sentence, but the intellectual has to use up a page, and you still don’t know what was said. 

I have always thought that the intellectual was a close cousin to the bureaucrat.  They both say a lot, and in the end, nothing seems to happen.  My favorite philosopher said, “know them by their
fruits.”  An idea is only as good as the beneficial results it produces when purely put in to practice. 

The practical or common man is hardly in love with the theories of the intellectuals.  He wants to see something that gives him a decent job, pays the reasonable bills, educates his kids, provides decent medical care and provides for a bright future for him and his family.  How did he suddenly get mixed up with a group of intellectual elitists, and guerilla murderers who deliver anything but? 

Communism, and its little brother, Socialism, may seem, in theory, reasonable ideas.  But I only see, in their practice, a system which is more imperialist, more deadly, more abusive than those which they seek to replace.    They operate like a religion, seeking converts against their will, and attempting to take over the whole world by hiding the nasty sides to their nature. 

I have read much about the practice and consequences of communism, but I have not seriously studied or verified them, just kind of accepted the stuff based on the reputation of the source. 

I would be happy if the alleged world-wide threats to peace and stability, identified by various reasonably thinking men, to include at various levels:  Christianity, Islam, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Economic defaults, Climate change, and possibly even alien invasion, etc,  could be examined by some impartial body of honest men, (if that is not an oxymoron) and the absolute facts related to their practice or science documented.  An irrefutable document of throughly investigated fact, weighted and graded according to its reliability would be nice.

How about a citizen feedback forum, like on eBay.  but then I suppose the self interest would subvert it.

Is impartiality, honesty and fact absolutely dead in this day and age where every source is suspect?  Maybe it exists in little pockets, but I miss it. 

Not that anyone would accept the results of an impartial investigation, because people only believe what they want to believe, and I think everyone has given up the idea that anything can be impartial. 

But I must lastly opine that the much maligned concept of “faith” is alive and well in every political system, culture and religion today.  Faith absolutely rules, because facts have been completely drowned out by memetics, propaganda and self-interest, not to mention the excessive blogging of idiots.  What, if anything can be known for sure anymore? 

The basic Gramscian principle of memetics, that if you say something over and over, the people will eventually believe it, must be what is behind this excessive repetitive input we are seeing on some threads now.

Say it with me now, “communism is good, communism is good, communism is good, communism is good. 

Darn, I still have a hard time believing that one.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 12, 2010 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

Report this

By diman, May 12, 2010 at 8:58 am Link to this comment

By Eugenio Costa, May 11 at 10:06 pm #

The US is a predatory Capitalist warfare state.

The US is Communism for the rich, Capitalism for the poor.

The US is from each according to need, to each according to greed.


Bravo!!! You see Eugenio, this is what I’m talking about, everything is crystal clear and no need for latin! Thank you.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment

MICHEL FOUCAULT: A Maoist once said to me: “I can easily understand Sartre’s purpose in siding with us; I can understand his goals and his involvement in politics; I can partially understand your position, since you’ve always been concerned with the problem of confinement. But Deleuze is an enigma.” I was shocked by this statement because your position has always seemed particularly clear to me.

GILLES DELEUZE: Possibly we’re in the process of experiencing a new relationship between theory and practice. At one time, practice was considered an application of theory, a consequence; at other times, it had an opposite sense and it was thought to inspire theory, to be indispensable for the creation of future theoretical forms. In any event, their relationship was understood in terms of a process of totalization. For us, however, the question is seen in a different light. The relationships between theory and practice are far more partial and fragmentary. On one side, a theory is always local and related to a limited field, and it is applied in another sphere, more or less distant from it. The relationship which holds in the application of a theory is never one of resemblance. Moreover, from the moment a theory moves into its proper domain, it begins to encounter obstacles, walls, and blockages which require its relay by another type of discourse (it is through this other discourse that it eventually passes to a different domain). Practice is a set of relays from one theoretical point to another, and theory is a relay from one practice to another. No theory can develop without eventually encountering a wall, and practice is necessary for piercing this wall….A theorizing intellectual, for us, is no longer a subject, a representing or representative consciousness. Those who act and struggle are no longer represented, either by a group or a union that appropriates the right to stand as their conscience. Who speaks and acts? It is always a multiplicity, even within the person who speaks and acts. All of us are “groupuscules.” Representation no longer exists; there’s only action-theoretical action and practical action which serve as relays and form networks…..


Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment

The US is going to need fifty years of Leninist restructuring just to clean up the Neo-Con, Christian Fundamentalist, and Corporatist Capitalist trash.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 6:13 pm Link to this comment

US Finance and Corporate Capitalism is systematized terror and violence against the world, against the environment, and against its own people.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 5:50 pm Link to this comment

Why did the old Soviet Union fall then:

(1) constant military and political threats and economic warfare by the US, Britain, and its western lackeys.

(2) Brezhnev and his personality cult and his incompetent bureaucrats.

(3) Afghanistan—also initiated by Brezhnev.

What does the Russian Federation have now?

Not the old Communism, it is true, but not Capitalism either. The Russian experiment with Capitalism ended quickly, when the Russians realized the Capitalists were plundering and robbing the whole vast country and its people—in ways the Communists never did.

As Putin has said, the Russian Federation is on the way to something new in the world, humanistic and progressive, and Russians will do it on their own terms.

Without the old Communists and Stalin, who defeated the NAZI’s, quite simply there would be no Russia today.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

“First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”

Vladimir Putin

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment

correction: Cuba has “a lower infant mortality rate” than the US.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 5:29 pm Link to this comment

Mainland China, under the Communist Party, has come from the most backward feudalism to the largest and most successful economy in the world in less than sixty years.

Not only has it already recovered from the world wide Capitalist collapse it is already expanding again.

Meanwhile, by the old pre-Clinton measurement, the US has at least twenty percent unemployment, people are losing their homes and retirement, they have no social welfare to speak of, and their tax money goes to bailout the very banks and financials that caused the disaster in the first place.

Though seventy percent are against it, the US is still fighting two imperialist wars and wants to start two more.

The US total debt of record is perhaps close to seventy trillion now.

The US is bankrupt.

USD is no longer the world reserve currency.

And the genuine US economy is comatose.

To that the incompetent, infintively greedy Capitlaists add perhaps the worse man-made environmental disaster in history.

Or compare Cuba which, with all the odds against it and despite the US Embargo and constant US attacks, has a longer longevity rate, a higher literacy rate, and a lower mortality rate than the United States. Nor are they any Cubans starving or homeless as there are Americans in the United States.

Not only do they have universal health care, it is better than the US, where one out of five who die under treatment die of iatrogenic—physician or hospital-related—causes.

Indeed, in the US Americans pay an arm and a leg for the “best health care in the world”  they can;t afford.

Nor were there starving or illiterate or homeless or medicially untreated people in the old Soviet Union.

In fact under Khrushchev the Soviet Union had among the highest growth rates in the world.

The USSR did not fall for economic reasons or “because people wanted to own stuff.”

Among East Germans, who have lived under both Communism and Capitalism, more and more are returning to Communism, and the Linke, a party of old and new East German Communists, just made great gains in the last election.

This is a long war and the Capitalists, nicely enough, are bent on suicide.

The only question really is how many of the rest of you they will take with them if you let them.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

The US is a predatory Capitalist warfare state.

The US is Communism for the rich, Capitalism for the poor.

The US is from each according to need, to each according to greed.


Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 11, 2010 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

“For us in Russia communism is a dead dog. For many people
in the West, it is still a living lion.” 

  “I have spent all my life under a Communist regime, and I will
tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a
terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the
legal one is not quite worthy of man either.”

  “In our country, the lie has become not
just a moral category but a pillar of the State.”
~ Alexander Solzhenitsyn

“Communism is the corruption of a dream of justice.”

  “Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total
conformity – in short, of tyranny – and it is committed to making
tyranny universal.”
~ Adlai E. Stevenson

“Communists are of two kinds only. Gadarene Swine whose wits have
been taken from them so that they rush headlong down the slope to
their own destruction, and ordinary voracious swine who, if you were
standing in their sty, had a heart-attack and fell among them, would
instantly set upon and devour you.”
~ Dennis Wheatley

“Communism doesn’t work because people like to own stuff.”
–Frank Zappa

“The scientific approach uncovers, that Communism does not eliminate
the inequality between men, the social injustice, exploitation of man by
man and other evils of society – communism merely changes their form
and gives birth to new evils, which become eternal fellow-travelers of

  “All in all, Engels talked so much rot of every kind, that now all the
world’s academies of science should be directed to rectify his mistakes
and idiocies.”“
~ Aleksandr Zinovyev

“I think all the great religions of the world - Buddhism, Hinduism,
Christianity, Islam and Communism - both untrue and harmful.”
~ Bertrand Russell

“Don’t listen to what the Communists say, but look at what they do.”?
~ Nguyen Van Thieu, the President of South Vietnam.
And my favorite:
“There is not so much difference between the ideologies of capitalism
and communism, you know. The difference is simple. Capitalism is the
exploitation of man by man, and communism is the reverse.”
~ John Gardner, The man from Barbarossa

“Russian Communism is the illegitimate child of Karl Marx and
Catherine the Great.”
~ Clement Attlee, The Observer (1956)

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment

For the slow-witted, the “solidity” is, it almost goes without saying, the solid, uniform, homogeneous “Ichstoff” the “Sovereign Individual” requires as an a priori to the “awareness” of being old number one.

How does that old Randy Newman lyric go, “thick as a tree and dull as a butter knife.”

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

After Gianfranco Sanguinetti, only Communism can save US Capitalism now.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment

“Capitalism is not just a historical epoch among others — in a way, the once fashionable and today forgotten Francis Fukuyama WAS right, global capitalism IS “the end of history.” A certain excess which was as it were kept under check in previous history, perceived as a localizable perversion, as an excess, a deviation, is in capitalism elevated into the very principle of social life, in the speculative movement of money begetting more money, of a system which can survive only by constantly revolutionizing its own conditions, that is to say, in which the thing can only survive as its own excess, constantly exceeding its own “normal” constraints. Let us take the case of consumption: before modernity, we were dealing with the direct opposition between moderate consumption and its excess (gluttony, etc.); with capitalism, the excess (the consumption of “useless things”) becomes THE RULE, i.e. the elementary form of buying is the act of buying things we “do NOT really need.” And, perhaps, it is only today, in the global capitalism in its “postindustrial” digitalized form, that, to put it in Hegelian terms, the really-existing capitalism is reaching the level of its notion….Marx located the elementary capitalist antagonism in the opposition between use- and exchange-value: in capitalism, the potentials of this opposition are fully realized, the domain of exchange-values is acquires autonomy, is transformed into the spectre of self-propelling speculative capital which needs the productive capacities and needs of actual people only as its dispensable temporal embodiment. Marx derived the very notion of economic crisis from this gap: a crisis occurs when reality catches up with the illusory self-generating mirage of money begetting more money — this speculative madness cannot go on indefinitely, it has to explode in ever stronger crises. The ultimate root of the crisis is for him the gap between use and exchange value: the logic of exchange value follows its own path, its own mad dance, irrespective of the real needs of real people. It may appear that this analysis is more than actual today, when the tension between the virtual universe and the real is reaching almost palpably unbearable proportions: on the one hand, we have crazy solipsistic speculations about futures, mergers, etc., following their own inherent logic; on the other hand, reality is catching up in the guise of ecological catastrophes, poverty, the Third World collapse of social life, the Mad Cow Disease. This is why cyber-capitalists can appear as the paradigmatic capitalists today…What we have here is an ideological short-circuit between the two version of the gap between reality and virtuality: the gap between real production and virtual spectral domain of the Capital, and the gap between experiential reality and virtual reality of cyberspace. It effectively seems that the cyberspace gap between my fascinating screen persona and the miserable flesh which is “me” off the screen translates into the immediate experience the gap between the Real of the speculative circulation of the capital and the drab reality of impoverished masses… However, is this — this recourse to “reality” which will sooner or later catch up with the virtual game — really the only way to operationalize a critique of capitalism? What if the problem of capitalism is not this solipsistic mad dance, but precisely the opposite: that it continues to disavow its gap with “reality,” that it presents itself as serving real needs of real people? The originality of Marx is that he played on both cards simultaneously: the origin of capitalist crises is the gap between use- and exchange-value, AND capitalism constrains the free deployment of productivity.”

Slavoj Zizek

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 3:23 pm Link to this comment

“Quote” is the verb. “Quotation” is the noun. Might one add “solecism” and make it six?

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment

Given the collective nature of language, guaranteeing “freedom of speech” as an “individual” right is in effect guaranteeing “freedom of noise.”


Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment

The “National Socialists” were a lot like the Holy Roman Empire—among other things, they were neither “National” nor “Socialist.”

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment

Nor let one forget the Sovereign Individual’s five sol’s:

solipsism, solitaire, soliloquy, solidity, & o solo mio.

Have a nice day.

Report this

By DaveZx3, May 11, 2010 at 3:01 pm Link to this comment

Quotes are good.  I will give a few of my favorite communist and socialist quotes.  I got a lot more, but little time tonight.  Doesn’t take long to round them up yhourselves. 

“To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.”—Joseph Goebbels,

“...we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.”—Adolf Hitler, 10-7-33

“The unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual.”—Adolph Hitler

“Comrades!  We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.”—Nikita S. Khrushchev, 2-25-56

Nazi slogan:  “The public good before the private good” 

Chinese communist slogan:  “Serve the people”

Soviet Union (Marx) slogan:  “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

These are noble sounding quotes, but apparently they do not result in anyones right to life, as these governments collectively were responsible for about 130 millions deaths of their own countrymen. 

I think I will hold fast to the principles of American freedom and rights. 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

In my humble opinion, this famous quote from the Declaration of Independence, in addition to the Articles of the Bill of Rights, outline rights almost exclusively focused on individuals.  I do understand that some rights could be considered collective, as well, but the main focus is on individual rights.  It has been endlessly debated, I realize.

The right of life, the right of property, the right of free speech, and the right of the pursuit of happiness, four of the more important, cannot, in any stretch of the imagination, be be considered collective rights. 

Do I own my self, or does the state own me?  do I own my house of does the state own it?  Do I pursue my indivual happiness, or do I have to find out what the state sponsored happiness is?  Do I speak my mind, or do I speak the mind of the state?

How can these rights be considered collective when they are exercised primarily by individuals?   

Also “inalienable rights endowed by the creator” infers sovereignty of the individual, as these rights are not transferable, nor are they conferred by any legislation of man.  If not given by man, they cannot be repealed by man.

A constitutional amendment repealing any of these rights would be highly unlikely, unless the nation is “fundamentally transformed” into something different than what it has been for over 200 years.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment

“Society is not exchangist, the socius is inscriptive: not exchanging but marking bodies, which are part of the earth. We have seen that the regime of debt directly resulted from this savage inscription. For debt is the unit of alliance, and alliance is representation itself. It is alliance that codes the flow of debt, and that, by means of debt, creates for man a memory of words…The alliance-debt answers to what Nietzsche described as humanity’s prehistoric labor: the use of the cruelest mnemotechnics, in naked flesh, to impose a memory of words founded on the ancient biocosmic memory. That is why it is so important to see debt as a direct consequence of the primitive inscription process, instead of making it—and the inscriptions themselves—into an indirect means of universal exchange…”

Deleuze and Guattari ([tr. HSL]

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment

“I want my country back!”

One will not even bother to mention Schopenhauer.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 2:34 pm Link to this comment

Blasphemy is the only parrhesia.


Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 2:32 pm Link to this comment

Hobbes’ bellum omnium contra omnes is distinctively “Christian” and Protestant.

But then the “Christians”, particularly the British Protestant variety, have very little to do with the Greek of the Four Gospels, do they?

In the German context, it is more a form of Leibnizian Monadology which another Protestant—in this case Lutheran—bundle of absurdities.

At any rate, the French of the latter half of the Twentieth Century have, for the most part, left Aemrican naifs in the dust.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

The convergence is, among other nodes, the rejection of Descartes.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 2:23 pm Link to this comment

Nietzsche is neither “herd” nor “individual”.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 11, 2010 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment

And go Marx and Nietzsche skipping hand in hand down the
yellow brick road, tra la tra la.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 11, 2010 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

A perfectly good quote, classic Hobbes…But the question is,
does it fit the situation?  NO!  But still a good quote.

Status hominum naturalis antequam in societatem coiretur bellum
fuerit; neque hoc simpliciter, sed bellum omnium in omnes. “The
natural state of men, before they were joined in society, was a war,
and not simply, but a war of all against all.”
- Hobbes - Leviathan

Some of you might pretend to be literate instead of complete bores.
Of course Marx in his anti-semitic question, On the Jewish
as if there was a Jewish Question, as if it wasn’t the
superlative Jews who were the question, in his own words, “It has
become the spirit of civil society, of the sphere of egoism, of the
bellum omnium contra omnes.

Then Nietzsche, the neo-dahlink of the ersatz-intellectuals of 21st
century, the new-Fascistas, in his “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral
Sense,” and speaking of the hypothetical construction, ays of the
individual, “Insofar as the individual wants to preserve himself against
other individuals, in a natural state of affairs he employs the intellect
mostly for simulation alone. But because man, out of need and
boredom, wants to exist socially, herd-fashion, he requires a peace
pact and he endeavors to banish at least the very crudest bellum
omni contra omnes
from his world.”

Jeezus Christus  Get with the program!

Even if I don’t agree with your idiosyncratic political philosophy, I do
enjoy the quotes.

Report this

By diman, May 11, 2010 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

To Eugenio Costa

Where are you copy-pasting this bullshit latin from? Keep it simple and people will love you for it, we have enough of pseudo-intellectuals polluting the English language as it is.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, May 11, 2010 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

Eugenio Costa

You have revealed yourself to be a damnable Papist, I suspect a Free Mason, a Dominionist, or worse. In addition you are an advocate of geometric charlatanism, an illusionist of idiosyncrasy, a chronicler of epistemological errors, a philosophical nom pipette, an advocate of the occult practice of tarot idling, an academic who delves into comparative babblery, and a metaphysical baffler.
Your deceit and treachery will not go unnoticed.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 2:43 am Link to this comment

It might be added that the same Hobbes, in the great tradition of British “philosophy”, apparently also persuaded himself that he had successfully squared the circle.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 2:36 am Link to this comment

Status hominum naturalis antequam in societatem coiretur bellum fuerit; neque hoc simpliciter, sed bellum omnium in omnes.

Thomas Hobbes

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 11, 2010 at 2:10 am Link to this comment

The Constitution is irrelevant to the point.
“Individual” is an illusion of language, which is itself collective and an aspect of socius.

It is also a key convention of Christianity, particularly Protestantism.

You might try to count “bodies” but even there there are obvious problems.

As philosopher what survives under the name “Locke” is best known for egregious logical and epistemological errors.

Not the least comical is “self-ownership.”

Let all the supposed “Sovereign individuals” and their concept of property patterned on Guillaume play solitaire with that one for as long as they like.

Even Marx, who relied much too much on Hegel, did not question the illusion of “individuality”.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, May 11, 2010 at 1:44 am Link to this comment


If you want to claim sovereignty as among the inalienable rights given to you by your creator, I have no problem with that. However, neither the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, nor the Bill of Rights assigns sovereignty to you or any other individual. Sovereignty was given to the people, not the person. Popular Sovereignty comes from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and John-Jacques Rousseau. Popular Sovereignty is defined as sovereignty being with the people, not the individual.

When you say, 

“…In socialism, rights and sovereignty are not invested in the individual, but the group.  In socialism, there can be no inividual inalienable rights.  To me, this is dangerous, because the group can redefine the rights as part of their sovereign nature.”

You could not be more wrong, because in our democracy, under the constitution, “rights and sovereignty are not invested in the individual, but in the group.” I’m sure you are aware of the Bill of Rights, and where it came from. The people in a democracy, under the constitution, can “redefine the rights as part of their sovereign nature;” it’s called amending the constitution, Its been done before, and those redefined rights are honored by the Supreme Court of the United States, because they are a part of the Constitution of the United States.

A belief in government by “We the People” is a cherished belief, and a tradition; attacking that belief and tradition makes one an iconoclast. I suppose that Capitalism is a cherished belief and a tradition, so I am most definitely an iconoclast too. I don’t want someone else’s cherished belief and tradition, to destroy my cherished belief, and tradition, which I believe, is happening now. I don’t believe that predatory Capitalists have any concern for life, liberty, happiness, or any of the other rights that could be considered inalienable. Not in this country, or in others.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 10, 2010 at 6:06 pm Link to this comment

The “sovereign individual” in direct communication with “God”—why the hell does it need “other sovereign individuals”? To have someone else to cheat at pinochle?

Bellum omnium contra omnes indeed.

Report this

By Jackie, May 10, 2010 at 5:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Americans, even many of our poor, have much compared to the majority of humans alive on the planet today and yet gratitude escapes us; we feel entitled to still more. “I want” is the American mantra, not just the Tea Party’s.
Imagine not having water in your home, and then take it to the limit - the water you carried half a mile from the river kills your baby. Imagine that you not only had to prepare your dinner from scratch but you had to find it and pound it into a digestible form before cooking it; forget about nutrients, just worry about belly full. Forget about band-aids and Neosporin or aspirin, cough syrup, and any of our common non-prescription drugs we take for granted. And school? Ha, ha, ha; at least they don’t have a truancy problem or kids graduating who still can’t read, nudge nudge, wink wink. Imagine a roar you don’t understand and see planes flying high above and suddenly your world is on fire and most of your village is dead. Our concerns are so out of whack, our greed out of control, and our fear laughable.
Too many Americans are unimaginative, egoistic ignoramuses living in small worlds. Too many of our ‘leaders’, both political and religious, are hypocrites. This country we want back - guess where we got it from? Perspective just doesn’t seem possible in the US and neither are empathy and compassion. Our country is on its way down and so is life as we’ve known it. What will it take for Americans to target the actual problems we’re facing? For a start, we could take that Pentagon budget and spend it on domestic problems/solutions instead of on murdering this year’s ‘enemy’ and enriching corporations in the death business.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 10, 2010 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment

The “individual” is an illusion of a social collectivity that reflects and divides.

Insofar as the illusion is manifested in natural language, which is collective, peculiar concepts of “individuality” may develop, such as, in English, the hypertypical egoism of “I”, which is the identification of a grammatical device with “self.”

Protestantism, and especially its Calvinist mode, is the metaphysical motor of Capitalism, without which unadulterated carnality and greed and illusory “individuality” would amount to, at worst, no more than a limited appetite for carnal and material simples.

Instead, desire for marking the salvation of the illusory “individual” called “I” as evidenced by worldly domination is abstracted and becomes infinite, thus never satisfiable either by the exploiter or the exploited.

Capitalism itself then becomes system of endless greed in futile pursuit of infinite abstracted desire.

Report this

By diman, May 10, 2010 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment

“I want my country back!!!”

Americans had never had in the first place, from any perspective.

Report this

By DaveZx3, May 10, 2010 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment

By JDmysticDJ, May 10 at 4:07 pm #

You could not be more wrong JDmysticDJ.  It is the socialist who is guilty of iconoclasm, when he seeks to twist the constitution to agree with his perverted logic.

The “We” in “We the People”  does not infer a social group, but rather an alliance of sovereign individuals who come together for a certain cause.

Individuals may choose to ally with other individuals in this manner, but the “group” formed does not in any way involve a dissolution of the sovereign nature and inalienable rights of the individual under the constitution. 

This is a very important distinction.  In socialism, rights and sovereignty are not invested in the individual, but the group.  In socialism, there can be no inividual inalienable rights.  To me, this is dangerous, because the group can redefine the rights as part of their sovereign nature. 

My inalienable rights are endowed by my creator, not granted by the social group, whatever it may be.  And for this reason, I will uphold that constitutional language until my dying breath. 

This does not mean that individuals cannot ally for the common good and come up with plans that they honorably sign on to and uphold.  The difference is they do it maintaining their sovereignty. 

In a republic, we choose representatives to do some allying for us, here again, not giving up sovereignty, as we have the right of impeachment of those individuals.  The power is in the hands of the individuals, not the group.

Report this

By gart, May 10, 2010 at 11:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

so many comments,where to start…

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, May 10, 2010 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

Iconoclasm is an individual’s exercise in anti-socialism. A spurious selective interpretation of the U.S. Constitution may serve an iconoclast’s rationale, but it is still spurious. Viewing a copy of the Constitution of the United States, one is struck by the first three words of that document, found in the preamble, which are intentionally accented in huge letters, “We the People.”

Individuals chose to become part of a group when they participated in the “Boston Tea Party” joined the Minute Men, and when they chose to be participants in the Continental Congress. I’ll suppose that iconoclasts of the time, such as Patrick Henry, had criticized the British, and then criticized the Constitutional Convention, and that they had an institutional suspicion to virtually all forms of governance by men.

Democracy can be corrupted by powerful special interest groups, by freedom suppressing, non-democratic, populist ideologies, or by a democratic societies’ abandoning, or relinquishing its democratic principles. Nefarious non-democratic institutions and individuals can initiate the corruption of democracies, but “We the People” are ultimately responsible for the success or failure of such endeavors. “We the People” are responsible for preserving democracy at the polling place, and if the polling place has been corrupted “We the People” have the responsibility of restoring the legitimacy of the polling place. An individual can, in futility, rant against tyranny, or can endeavor to ignore tyranny, but defeating tyranny can only be accomplished by group action.

For me, egalitarian democracy is the ideal; egalitarianism in all aspects of life. Life has its demands; productive labor being one of those demands, caring for the abandoned, sick, infirm and needy would be another. I believe that promoting the general welfare is a legitimate responsibility of government, and that promoting the general welfare can only be accomplished by government.

I believe that the theory that only self interest leads to progress and economic security is a demonstrable myth. The contention that Laissez Faire Capitalism has been the engine driving progress can only be conjecture. I believe that the true geniuses of progress were not motivated significantly by economic self interest, but that their genius was exploited by Capitalist interests. Some have a genius for acquiring Capital. I believe that those who have a genius for acquiring Capital do so with the motive of economic self interest, and for the by-products of, power, and prestige, that come with Capital. Some argue that Laissez Faire Capitalism promotes the common welfare, but those familiar with historic events, both recent and long term, might argue against the theory of altruistic Capitalism. I’ll argue that the common welfare was improved and diminished in correlation with restraints placed on Capitalism, or removed from Capitalism, and that those restraints can only enacted and enforced by government.

There may be individuals within the Tea Party movement that are independent, but evidence suggests that Tea Partiers serve the interests of special interest groups that subvert egalitarian democracy. I believe that Tea Partiers who say, “I want my country back” fail to see that their actions, if successful, will deliver their country to those whose interests are contrary to their own.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 10, 2010 at 5:02 am Link to this comment

Socialism breeds corruption and when the corrupt gets enough
power they   bring critics to kangaroo court justice and
sentenced to prison.  See the latest Socialist fiasco in Venezuela
May 9, 2010.  Raúl Isaías Baduel became disillusioned when
Chávez decided to become permanent tyrant, where tyranny
breeds corruption worse than socialism.  Forget the sham of
democracy in Venezuela, even forget socialism.  It is tyranny and
nothing more.  Venezuela will never be more than a squeaky voice in
world affairs and their poor will remain even poorer and ignorant.
Opposition parties, emboldened by public dissatisfaction at frequent
blackouts and water shortages and a 2.9 percent economic contraction
in 2009, hope to strip Chavez of his legislative majority in
Reuters, January 9, 2010.  Ah yes, the bountiful of
socialism.  The effect of the recent devaluation of the bolivian dollar
“The inflationary impact of the measure diminishes the real income of
people. People can consume less.”
  Especially important for those
already consuming less and less and less.  Capitalism disguised as
socialism, oh yeah. ” Economist Pavel Gomez of the IESA economic
school said the new system will increase opportunities for graft in a
country that already is corruption-ridden.”
  Life is funny isn’t it?

“Multiple exchange schemes are incentives for corruption, more so if
they are applied in the Venezuela way,” he said. “Those who have good
contacts can buy at 2.6 and sell at 4.3.”

In 1982, Baduel took a secret oath with Chávez, who was an army
officer at the time, to rid Venezuela of capitalism. Baduel later
denounced Chávez’s socialist and anti-United States policies, saying
they were ruining the country, the Times reported.
Chávez branded him a traitor…Baduel’s daughter said the court
presented no proof.  Too bad, that is what happens under tyrants.  It is
very easy to cook the books so that 40 million bolivars goes missing. 
Baduel is punished because he dared to oppose the Tyrant Chávez.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 10, 2010 at 1:47 am Link to this comment

There may be a few Tea-Baggers intelligent enough to take Lenin on Finance Capitalism and Imperialism seriously but one doubts it.

The rest of them are rehearsing the Corporatists’ National Socialist scenario.

This is more than a Kulturkampf. This is getting closer and closer to civil war.

The Left better get its act together before it is too late, as it was in NAZI Germany.

The class war is now two classes—(1) the Finance Capitalists. Corporatists and the Military Industrial complex; (2) the rest.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 10, 2010 at 12:50 am Link to this comment

The Corporate Fascists are working both sides of the street. They buy Obama and declare their bought and sold Democrats “Socialists”. Meanwhile they sponsor the Tea Baggers to prepare the way for Romney Petraeus or something like that.

The US has two parties: (1) Right Wing (Democrat) and (2) Even More Right Wing (Republican).

And both of them are Corporoate Fascist Imperialists.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 10, 2010 at 12:11 am Link to this comment

The US is bankrupt.

USD is no longer the world reserve currency.

The real economy is comatose.

Real estate is still in collapse and foreclosures continue.

Unemployment is at least twenty percent (by the pre-Clinton mode of calculating it).

Meanwhile Obama continues Bush’s bailouts of the financials and the banks that caused the catastrophe, authorizes an offshore disaster almost beyond imagining, and continues two wars while trying to start two more, with Iran and Pakistan.

This is lunacy.

The US needs a genuine New Left Party—like the German Linke—and dedicated activist Greens, along with a million Greeks in the streets.

The Teabaggers are nothing but a Corporate-sponsored PR test balloon for a Fascist takeover.

Time to get a real left in the streets and stay there until the US sees real change once and for all.

Report this

By - bill, May 9, 2010 at 9:22 pm Link to this comment

Wow - apparently even just an ARTICLE about Tea Partiers can bring a great many people out of the woodwork who are sufficiently angry that they sound a lot like lunatics.

Being angry is a good (and entirely appropriate) start.  But frothing at the mouth and hurling indiscriminate insults probably isn’t a very productive strategy for achieving the change that they seem to want.

Even if there’s no general agreement about the exact nature of that change, doing SOMETHING to escape the increasingly destructive constraints of the status quo is a necessary first step.  Is there any chance of trying to work together at last to achieve that, or is everyone so wound up in their own little personal reality that working together is impossible?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 9, 2010 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

That they should whine I Want My Country Back, give
it back to whom I should ask?  To the 17% Democrats who
it is claimed to be Teabaggers?  Or to the 28% Independents?
Or ought we to presume to the 57% Republicans who want
the country for themselves? Surely the 17% Democrats and
28% Independents don’t think for a second that the Republicans
would take the country back and give it to them?
  Who should be
asked?  See the LA Times April 5, 2010. And what about the non-
registered American People?  Shall the country be wrested away from
them too?  The slogan is Orwellian, and the pigs want their sty back too.

Report this

By DaEggman, May 9, 2010 at 6:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All of you, who sat on your hands, happy with your money and your houses and your 2.5 kids, not paying attention to what your leaders were doing, now you want your country back. Screw you for voting your percieved parties without scrutinizing the laws being passed on your lever vote, screw you for thinking that you can get something back you didn’t even contribute to by actually listening to what was going on in congress. Screw you for thinking that you didn’t have to be involved when it was all being stolen from you. I have been fighting against this for so long and to hear the bloated Americans with signs, who were the children of those who saw the 60’s as a bunch of crazy people waving signs, right back at you. You are all numbnuts, too late and too stupid to realize it was all your fault for not paying attention in the first place.

Report this

By antiPropagandaDevice, May 9, 2010 at 4:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

David Sirota has always been a Democrat political operative.  As such, he worked hard to put this current government with its Republican policies ranging from Drill, Baby, Drill to Endless War.

Now, he’s following right on the Democratic talking point line.

Everyone left of Reagan is or should be upset with the Democrats.  Actually, upset is an understatement.  Mad as freaken heck is more appropriate.  Mad at the Democrats who they elected with the fake belief that they were progressives when in actuality the Dems govern like Ronald Reagan.

So, the Democrats know they can’t really talk about policies in this election year.  Instead, every Dem political operative wants to talk about ‘the Tea Party’.

Never before have a small handful of protestors who are overcovered by Fox been inflated into such a gargantuan threat as the Democrats seem to view the Tea Party.  But, note how every Democrat propaganda artist and political op suddenly wants to talk about the Tea Party.

I guess the planning meeting went something like this.

“Well talk about the war.  70% of Americans oppose the war, and that’s worked well for us in recent elections.”

“Nope, now we are the ones running and expanding the wars.  We are trying to get ground troops into Pakistan as we speak.  So nope, we can’t talk about the war.”

“Well, we’ll slam Wall Street.  That’s always popular.”

“Nope,  Now the Democrats are Wall Street’s party.  So there’s two problems with that.  One is that slamming Wall Street will make Wall Street mad and they’ll threaten to move their money back to the Republicans.  And, no one would believe it when they saw both the millions of dollars of Wall Street money in our accounts and the the trillions we just funneled to them.”

“Well, we’ll talk about the environment.”

“Oops, we forgot to do anything about the environment.  I knew we forgot something.  And now we’ve got that leaking oil well spoiling everyone’s summer vacation in half the country.  So, nope, we can’t talk about the environment.”

“We’ll talk about jobs.  That was always a good one when Bush was President.  How many jobs did we create?”

“Nope, we’ve lost millions.  And we gave all the stimulus money to Wall Street and told Americans that they’d have to be responsible for themselves when it came to bailing themselves out.  Jobs wouldn’t be a good thing.”

“So, what do we talk about in this elections?” 

“The TEA PARTY!  Or maybe Sarah Palin again if that gets old.  That’s about all us Democrats can talk about this time.

“Oh, that Tea Party is just so awful.  Lets have more stories on how awful the Tea Party is.”

Report this

By Farzan, May 9, 2010 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment

You are spot on about the true nature of this Tea Party nonsense.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 9, 2010 at 2:51 pm Link to this comment

The Chinese Communists preside over a polity that feeds, educates, employs, and provides medical care for more than 1.3 billion human beings.

In doing this, Communist China actually has a much lower imprisonment rate than the Capitalist US, not only per capita but absolutely.

Communist China also has a lower infant mortality rate and a longer longevity rate than the US.

The US is a collection of knee-jerk fictions spread by the elite to a credulous public, most of whom are in debt up to their eyeballs, and at least one third of which are in many ways worse off than Third World.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 9, 2010 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment

The US is a predatory Capitalist warfare state.

Grasp that, and all its mechanics, and it is astounding how much confusion and distraction disappear.

Moreover, it is run strictly for the benefit of the Financial Capitalists and the Corporatists and their military-industrial complex.

The rest don’t count, including those who serve in the military, except as a commoditized humanity to be used up to the last profitable drop and thrown away.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 9, 2010 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment

The butchers are the Capitalists, and always have been.

The British Capitalist Imperialists, for example, killed scores of millions around the world, including Irish, Indians, Chinese, Boers, Germans, and even their own people—as well as many others.

The glorious American “liberators” in Iraq just liberated more than a million Iraqis, mostly women and children, from their lives in a glorious Imperialist war gloriously about theft of oil and gloriously fabricated from lies and frauds.

Consider also the glorious Capitalist Terrorists in the Gulf.

The knee-jerk anti-Communists, propagandized and brainwashed by the mainstream media, are no longer credible in the fictions they promulgate.

The Financial Capitalists sold out the US population to the Communist Chinese long ago, and the Chinese Communists knew exactly how to exploit it.

As goes the proverb—the Capitalists will sell the Communists the rope by which they are hanged.

Report this

By Caro, May 9, 2010 at 12:07 pm Link to this comment

How about “Hope” and “Change”? Those were pretty
stupid, too, coming from someone who intended to
fulfill neither.

And you helped him fool people, David.

Carolyn Kay

Report this
Spooky-43's avatar

By Spooky-43, May 9, 2010 at 8:04 am Link to this comment

Chinese communists are butchers.  They kill babies, they kill protesters, and they kill just about anyone that gets in their way.  They are only marginally more civilized than that North Korean madman. 

I am not impressed with their success, because it is certainly no feather in their cap when they have to kill their enemies and roll tanks over those who protest to be successful.  But yeah, they are great economists!  Who gives a shit.  There is no freedom in China. 
Communism sucks, always has. Not because of economics, because of the blood of innocent people.
Count the dead.  In China alone, the numnber of slaughtered exceeds every other bloodthirsty regime that has ever existed on the face of the earth.

Report this

By Reverend Unruh, May 9, 2010 at 6:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In reply to gerard,

I took his criticism personally because I blog daily and this is MY issue.

That radio guy linked below was very likely reacting to me. Reporters could sort
it all out factually, if they wanted to, but apparently Mr Sirota would rather
make sh*t up.

I already said I most likely got the line from Dean. Making sh*t up is a habit I
have gotten really tired of from big media personalities. I have lots of damages
due to it too.

If he had googled the phrase he would not have written such an ignorant
personal attack against me and Adele. Did you not notice the author he was
attacking in the first place is from AlterNet, where I blog?

Yeah well Mr Sirota didn’t either, I call that a purposeful ignoring.

Not getting the name, facts or source right is considered THE BIGGEST error in
journalism. And since it is a rather consistent pattern, I think it is all a part of a
larger media effort to completely discredit ME and MY message.

Which BTW is all about religion and property rights, since I self identify as a
Native American. “But then, that’s the marketing virtuosity of the “I Want My
Country Back” slogan. A motto that would be called treasonous if uttered by
throngs of blacks, Latinos or Native Americans has been deftly sculpted by
conservatives into an accepted clarion call for white power.”

Don’t you think I already have been called dangerous names? Bill O’Reilly said it
was OK to murder me.

I have been arguing for legalizing pot. Liberman is just trying to legalize what
they already did to me, and my people. For example, latinos have not fared well
since I opened my big fat mouth. In fact, they are being made into sex slaves
and being slaughtered, Cortez, Cortez.

When a term like “enemy combatant” is defined so broadly that even girl scout
leaders fit the definition, we have a serious problem. I call it terrorism.

Why else would Lieberman be coming out with a new suggestion to threaten
random people with a loss of citizenship rights?

He is aiming that arrow straight at me, and it is not the first one he has shot at
me either. He and DiFi are in the same club, they send black, unmarked
helicopters to aim machine guns at people like me.

“As a marketing masterpiece, the slogan would certainly impress the old
Madison Avenue mavens. The trouble is that as a larger political ideology, its
hateful and divisive message is encouraging ever more misguided madness.”

So, I should feel pleased Mr Sirota said my sloganeering was “a marketing
masterpiece” (my dad would be proud) or reply to his assertion it was
“encouraging ever more misguided madness”?

I am NOT the one arguing for ‘clean’ coal. My background is in Food Science
and quality control. I thought of politics as a hobby, a spectator sport, until I
decided to end the drug war and stepped up as a player, or coach.

I am arguing for girl scout values, saving the ecology AND the economy. But I
have been roundly accused of being insane. That happened like clockwork right
after I announced I intended to run for office.

I also keep wondering what, if anything, my husband’s job as a subcontractor
for Halliberton has to do with it all, including sexual assault. I think Halliberton
pays people to do things like that to people like me. I just never thought it
would actually happen to me.

So, I was tortured. Sexual assault is a form of torture, so are death threats. And
then, when I complained to my congresswomen about it, congress voted to
legalize torture. Buy hey, the FACT that Mr Sirota has never given my story the
time of day only means to me that he is involved in the cover up.

Many media people are, I call it treason.

Also, I complained early and often about the “teabaggers” sexual slur.

I find it really offensive and sexually degrading, exactly what I have (sadly)
come to expect from both reporters and way too many citizens - like you.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 9, 2010 at 2:46 am Link to this comment

Only Communism can save US Capitalism.

If that sounds paradoxically phrased, it is less paradoxical than it seems for those who know Marxist economic analysis—which is a much different kettle of fish from what it has been made out to be by Capitalist propaganda.

Among other things, the Finance Capitalists have to be eliminated, and as quickly as possible.


Those who cannot face that fact, including the Finance Capitalists and Corporatists themselves, are living in a fantasy world as they take themselves and “Capitalism” over the final cliff, including as a real possibility the cliff of thermonuclear world war.

The real terrorists are easy to find—just look in the Gulf of Mexico, for example.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 9, 2010 at 2:34 am Link to this comment

The Chinese Communists have educated and trained two generations of some of the best economists and economic mathematicians in the world.

Their curriculum ranges from basic Ricardian-Marxian economics to macro- and micro-economics done with insight and sophistication, and as part of both analysis and central planning, long term and short.

Most important, the Party at the higher levels actually listens to these people—why else were they educated and trained?

In the West, on the other hand, the “economists”, in and out of academia, are the hired and propagandized factotums of the Capitalists, ready with any new sophistry to prop up the debt-credit exploitation of the Financiers and Corporatists.

The idea that Communist China is increasingly “Capitalist” is western Capitalist nonsense.

The Communist Party controls every aspect of foreign investment and overseas trade, though in many areas loosely and indirectly.

This central control and planning are essential aspects of the Chinese success.

You may not like it in all its manifestations—industrial pollution, for example. But the Chinese have industrialized to the point of being able to defend themselves from Western Imperialism and have taken their place in the world.

The cost was high, but not as high as was the cost of centuries of Western Capitalist Imperialism over China and the Far East.

The fact is that the Chinese Communists understand western Finance Capitalism and its flaws better than the western Finance Capitalists do.

As the US and Western Europe collapses into bankruptcy, note that the Communists, who have fared swimmingly through it, are already on the next step of their program, domestically and internationally.

The myths of Capitalism, Competition, and western style “democracy” are evanescing before the eyes of anyone who has them and can look closely.

Report this

By Alphysicist, May 9, 2010 at 2:12 am Link to this comment

Addendum to my previous posting regarding roads in the U.S.:

  Where one can really see the hands of the oil/auto industries lies in the fact that in urban/suburban areas most people have to spend maybe two three hours a day on average in traffic jams.  This state of events horrible from an environmental point of view, and also from an economic or social one, as this time could be spent better elsewhere at the home or the workplace.  And no one in the upper echelons of politics has yet suggested the obvious answer to alleviate this which would be public transportation.

Report this

By Alphysicist, May 9, 2010 at 2:05 am Link to this comment

Dear wordsonfire,

  Your argument regarding schools, roads, etc. would make sense under normal circumstances, i.e. in a system where there is accountability, or some sort of checks and balances.  Indeed there are services from which we all benefit, and for these the burden should be shared through taxes.

  The problem arises when one notices that taxes go to fund an irresponsible foreign policy plagued with wars, and one which does not serve American interests, bank bailouts for the super-rich, and corporate socialism.  At the same time highways are collapsing, dams are breaking and cities are getting flooded, to mention only the most egregious examples of where tax money does not go but should in the largest economy of the world, public education produces more and more iliteretes (just kidding: illiterates).  At the same time there is always public funding for liberal pet projects (see Fistgate), and likely their Republican equivalents, or bipartisan wars.

  Certainly the country that was was not perfect, but it was not disfunctional. 

  There are other factors as well: I can also see how much of America does not really understand how common projects, which you mention, can be positive and desirable.  The US never had a socialized and well-functioning healthcare system, like in Europe, nor public transportation (see the high speed railways in Japan, Europe, and now China), and its public education always lagged behind the rest of the developed world.  The roads you are speaking of were indeed government funded, and they are certainly needed.  But in how they were to be built, and how places are connected, one can see the hand of the auto and oil industries.  In the U.S., in most places it is impossible to one’s shopping on foot, and public transportation is often non-existent.  So even in this example one sees how industrial lobbies have their hand all over, which according to Chris Hedges is the same with the new healthcare bill.

  My first preference in U.S. politics would be Ralph Nader, but it is clear that he has no chance, mainly because of the bankrupt liberal class which still has too much influence in the media.  The original tea party movement (I mean the Ron Paul inspired one), would stop the senseless wars, which would liberate large amount of resources for other things, and they would be more fiscally responsible than the republicrats.  I am also open to the secession idea, since accountability and checks and balances are more easily implemented at a local level.  In fact the examples you mention (school, roads, etc.) are all ones which have to do with local infrastructure.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, May 8, 2010 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment

Please excuse the double post. It was a “Fat finger” error. Hopefully, it won’t cause the Stock Market to fall by 1,000 points.

Report this

By Tobysgirl, May 8, 2010 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment

People’s politics usually reflect their psychological state, and the state of people who are generally quite well-off and who feel “their” country is being taken away from them is sickness, pure and simple. A sense of entitlement and self-indulgence are signs of people out of touch with reality, often through substance abuse.

White males have lost the most?!?!?!? What world do these people live in? I am disabled and a bit of a hermit, but apparently I see more of the world than people who moan about the suffering of white, middle-class males. From what I’ve seen, racism is the absolute essence of teabaggers. Like the Christian Coalition, it is just the newest face of white supremacy. And I really don’t want to hear about how much I have in common with these people. Read some American history! These are the same people who thought Nazism was an excellent idea.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, May 8, 2010 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

I want it, I want it, I want it… (You can’t have it!)
Think how much you’ll save… (You can’t have it!)
I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it ... (YOU CAN’T HAVE IT!)

Tea Partiers might think their movement is a “Magic Bus.” Others think it is more like a wagon load of manure.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, May 8, 2010 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

I want it, I want it, I want it… (You can’t have it!)
Think how much you’ll save… (You can’t have it!)
I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it ... (YOU CAN’T HAVE IT!)

Tea Partiers might think their movement is a “Magic Bus.” Others think it is more like a wagon load of manure.

Report this

By Lesley Palmer, May 8, 2010 at 8:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

DaveZx3 is a follower of Ayn Rand.  His entire “analysis” is a verbatim synopsis of Randian talking points.  Alan Greespan was/is a follower of Ayn Rand and we know how well that worked in regulating the financial world. Super/Uber individualists are a dime a dozen.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 8, 2010 at 8:15 am Link to this comment

Suddenly the Corporatists and the Neo-Cons and their usual crew of imbecilic petty bourgeois hirelings, who are too stupid and uneducated to see their own interests, and how badly Bush and Cheney screwed them to the wall, are the penetrating English-Only “white males” who notice the “broken system.”

Quite droll.

Report this

By Sylvia Barksdale, May 8, 2010 at 7:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ted Murphy41 is on the money when he states, “I would suggest that the Native Americans have the most right to make this statement of wanting their country back!”

I’d be curious to know just how many “white eyes” know the condition of the majority of the remaining Native Americans.  If there is a soul in them they’d be compelled to bow their heads in shame and maybe even shed a few tears.  I have borne vulgar curses for bringing up this subject in recent cyber discussions concerning the state of the country.  My skin is thick enough to detect ignorance when I meet it, however, and I shall repeat as much as is needed, the present state of the American Indian.

I maintain that America was a near virgin land until white man stepped foot on it.  Not only did our ancestors murder and imprison the Indians but he set about immediately to destroy the land.  We all know what horrific state the new world is in today.  But, do we all know the horrific state the American Indian is in.

Permit me to fill you in.  A very dear Sioux friend of mine grew up in South Dakota.  He was endowed with great work ethic and worked for several years following high school so that he could afford to attend college in the Northeast.  I met him when both of us were studying philosophy and I asked for his help in interpreting sections of Nietzsche. [Parden me, I tend to run on.]  He went back to SD at every opportunity until his brother died.  He now says there is no need for him to return because he is depressed for weeks afterward, seeing the hopelessness and despair his people have fallen into; alcohol, drugs, prostitution.  My niece worked as a missionary there as well and she paints an even bleaker picture with the numerous suicides of young Sioux.  A friend from NM writes of similar conditions there.

Thus, I would suggest that the tea-baggers or any other group who wishes to declaim the sorry state of affairs that has befallen America, remember how it came about and remember what group brought it about but more than anything, remember the people we disenfranchised and how they worshiped and cared for the land.

Perhaps they may still teach us a few things!

Report this

By greenuprising, May 8, 2010 at 6:54 am Link to this comment

I find it odd that Sirota, who featured Minutemen among the members of the Uprising in his book by that name, should be wheeling out this sort of analysis of the tea party slogan.

Odd, too, because, if I’m not mistaken, others have used the same slogan, notably Michael Moore.

And suddenly the political system has to be defended as a product of “legitimate elections”—again, by the author of The Uprising—once its broken character gets noticed by white males.

Report this

By Kent, May 8, 2010 at 6:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Wait a minute—Ron Paul started the tea party movement in late 2007—way before the last Presidential election.  I really can’t help that the GOP hijacked the movement.  It also seems that I’m (and many others) are being stereotyped.  You asked what has changed.  Well, nothing has changed in the sense that we still have a puppet president (we’ve had a revolving door of puppet presidents) who is following the orders of the elite.  Speaking of the elite, isn’t the Bilderberg meeting this coming week in Spain?  Makes me sick. . .

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 8, 2010 at 5:56 am Link to this comment

How would one of these Calvinist Capitalist “individuals” ever reproduce? And why?

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 8, 2010 at 5:48 am Link to this comment

“Dispara, cobarde, sólo vas a matar a un hombre!”

Ernesto “Che” Guevara

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 8, 2010 at 5:29 am Link to this comment

“As Marx observes,in the beginning capitalists are necessarily conscious of the opposition between capital and labor, and of the use of capital as a means of extorting surplus labor. But a perverted, bewitched world quickly comes into being, as capital increasingly plays the role of a recording surface that falls back on all of production….Capital thus becomes a very mystic being since all of labor’s social productive forces appear to be due to capital, rather than labor as such, and seem to issue from the womb of capital itself.”

Deleuze and Guattari (tr.M)

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 8, 2010 at 5:16 am Link to this comment

Capitalism generates schizophrenia.

Report this

By DaveZx3, May 8, 2010 at 5:01 am Link to this comment

Go read some more pseudo-intellectual books.  Your rhetoric is tiresome.  You need to find new ways to express your prejudicial views.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 8, 2010 at 3:51 am Link to this comment

Calvinist Capitalist “Individuals”—and their bellum omnium contra omnes.

As far as evolution is concerned, this tribe must have arisen when the apes went slumming.

It is an exaggeration even to consider these types “mammalian” in mind set.

And that, by the way, is directly connected with their Old Testament and Fundamentalist Christian patriarchy.

Why their women have not become hardbit Leninists long ago is a great mystery.

Are they still held as psychological chattels, or is it the systematic hypocrisy and schizophrenia both sexes are raised in that saves the day?

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 8, 2010 at 3:14 am Link to this comment

Calvinist Capitalist—ultimate Leibnizian monad in private conversation with “God”.

Who collects the most numbers is singled out as saved.

Report this

By DaveZx3, May 7, 2010 at 8:58 pm Link to this comment

By RdV, May 7 at 4:34 pm #

“It is possible to be an individual within the group.”

Not within the group, no.  Think about it clearly.  A sovereign individual may certainly ally with other sovereign individuals for the purpose of some transient project. 

It is not these transient alliances that are the problem, and that I object to, but it is the idea of the group recruiting individuals to join them, and in the process, the individual gives up sovereignty, and takes on the identity of the group, lock, stock and barrel.  The group seeks to control the individual, and in the controlling of many individuals, power is magnified, and abuses of power also become magnified.

What I am saying is that an individual should never let affiliation or membership with any group control and define him/her.  Once the group identity becomes your identity, control and discrimination ensue, and also, war with some other group, at one level or another, becomes probable.

The group promises benefits to the member in exchange for the member’s loyalty.  The relationship sours when the group overextends its ability to deliver benefits and actually defaults on some of the promises.  At this point the members, who have become dependent on the groups benefits, take on the victim mentality, complaining that they are not “getting” what they deserve.  Also, at this point, the members of this group not only war against other groups, but also the administrators of their own group. 

Weak persons are suckers for the group/social agenda, because they love the idea of the benefits or entitlements they are promised, whatever they may be searching for. 

The weak have no confidence in their own ability to control their own destiny.  They are uncomfortable with their individual sovereignty, and want to groupie-up to others who are stronger than they are, in the hopes of eating some of the crumbs from his/her table.  A type of bondage.

An abusive relationship will almost always ensue, because if there are any truly “strong” people in the group, they will subconsciously have a lack of respect for the weakness of the members.  Also, the members will cling to and worship the strong, and eventually learn to resent their strength and have mixed feelings about this abusive relationship.

Individuals, honest, strong and confident in their existence and capabilities, avoid these groupie relationships.  You will rarely find them in politics, because politics is the epitome of these groupie/socialist concepts. Political leaders spend most of their time convincing people that they are victims, and that they need a strong leader and group which they can join, and then they can have power to overcome the other groups out there who are victimizing them. 

These group-think, socialist models are designed to filter the sovereignty/power of individuals up the ladder to a few elitists at the top.  These elitists will do all our thinking for us, because we are apparently too weak, too undeducated, and too incompetent to think for ourselves.  The group will determine your agenda, and the last group standing is the winner, if there are any standing.

Individual sovereignty, under God, is the answer that was provided in the constitution.  Too bad everyone is so busy trying to undo that concept, and putting their fates in the hands of their groupie/socialist agendas.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, May 7, 2010 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment

Ironic isn’t it then that those same 1%er’s are the ones that sold their country out, exporting it’s jobs, deregulating government controls, etc.

When they say, they want their country back they mean something different. They mean “theirs”, in the ownship sense, they want to own the country again, it’s congress, it’s laws it’s legal system, like they did under Bush and Reagan. Because they feel their losing their grip on it, and it costs so much more now to control things.

Meanwhile back, in the survival zone, the other Americans, have a different meaning, they’d like to keep their homes, and jobs, and life savings. They’d like to be able to afford to put food on the table, and send their kids to school.

Their sick and tired of the polticians playing politics with their futures, and the futures of their children.

And their also realizing that the political parties are just like the European Royal families, who for diversion went on picnics to watch their opposing Armies butcher each other with canon, and bayonet.

While the country sinks into oblivion, the plutocratic power structure remains still firmly in control. Though soon, they will realize that their control doesn’t matter because there is nothing and no one left to rule.

Report this

By wordsonfire, May 7, 2010 at 8:23 pm Link to this comment

Hey Kent . . . that would be great if 85% of tea party members didn’t vote and
support the policies of the right that are the very things you say you are
against.  You weren’t out in the street before . . . and things were a lot worse.

So . . . what exactly has changed?

There is absolutely no excuse or reason other than racism.  If there had been a
robust Tea Party movement under Bush, I would then say that the concerns you
cite in fact matter to you.  But since overwhelmingly the things the tea party
supports, such as supporting large insurance companies and deregulation in
face of such things as the mining disaster in Virginia and the Gulf spill . . .

Uh, no . . . bu thanks for playing this round of Plausible Reasons for Tea Party
Movement . . . you can fool yourself, but you can’t fool us.

Report this

By wordsonfire, May 7, 2010 at 8:17 pm Link to this comment

Uh, actually no.  There is verifiable data on who the Tea Party comprises and it
is richer, whiter, older, men who vote republican like by 85%, so that’s a pretty
large majority.

The country that these people are saying they “want back,” never existed
largely for anyone but richer, whiter men and those they chose to patron. 

And this country was created by collaboration, coerced labor and giving away
land.  And the preamble to the constitution does not say “I” it says “We the
people.”  I wish all these anti-social people who are freeloaders who don’t want
to contribute to the community would just step off.  I like my roads, schools,
parks, airports and other things I can’t do for myself.  It is clear we are social
beings who need one another.  That is factual and demonstrable.  People who
have one another are documented to live longer and have more health as do
those around them . . .

I, I, I . .  so selfish, so boring . . .  Fine, then don’t drive on the roads, don’t use
the parks, don’t be a part of the community.  Go away. if you don’t like we the
people . . .

Report this
Peter Knopfler's avatar

By Peter Knopfler, May 7, 2010 at 7:37 pm Link to this comment

Every country has it`s self inflicted problems. Look at Japan a suicide every 15 minutes, 120,million on a small island. America has also its problems, Mexico like the ancient tribes Mel Gibsons movie of Mayans with Aztec beliefs, blood runs like the passion of Christ, down pyramids into the street. Mexican riot recently Santa Cruz promotes the mexican as violent. Arizona right to bear arms in public, verses machette law of Mexico. Eventually the NRA will come out and solve the problem of the immigrant .
Check on the gun sales after every demonstration. Its comin-“Annie get my gun” americans are trained killers Mexicans 20,000 dead mostly women. Who is more violent, who will be proecting their home, who is being invaded by 12 million 6 grade educationed adults who know violence. We are in for a big show down yes the “Good, the bad, and everyone gets ugly, wouldn`t miss it for the WORLD, Mexican stand off in Arizona, I hope you can read between the lines of insanity! Thanks Gracias and Mahalo lucky mexicans are not the size of Hawaiians, we stole their property too, soon to steal puerto Rico!!!Whata wild life it is!!!

Report this

By Lesley Palmer, May 7, 2010 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No one can lecture me or re-interpret what teabaggers mean when they say: “I want my country back.” If I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn’t have believed it.  I went to a town hall meeting featuring my very conservative Congressional representative and the teabaggers and Lyndon LaRouche people were out in full force. I thought some of the teabaggers were going to have strokes or heart attacks while they screamed, their voices shaking in rage, how “Obama is a socialist communist nazi Muslim” and “how we’re letting Mexicans come to America and destroy our economy and overwhelm our social services” and “how Obama is trying to enslave honest hard-working white people with increased taxes, in order to give unfair advantage to lazy illegals and minorities.” I am old enough to remember the 1950s and the 1950s that they get weepy about is not the 1950s that I experienced.  What is this obsession with white power? It is bizarre.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 7, 2010 at 2:16 pm Link to this comment

The vast majority of the “Tea baggers”, who are strictly Corporate sponsored—as well as the Paulists and the “English only” crowd and such, and almost all Right Wingers and Republicans, as well as perhaps most Democrats, are racists.

In fact, playing on this racism was an important part of the Corporatist strategy in coopting and buying out Obama.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 7, 2010 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment

The “Christians” themselves say their “God” died on the cross.

Why then do they get so exercised when Nietzsche—the son of a Lutheran minister by the way—says the same?

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 7, 2010 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

Blasphemy is the only parrhesia.

Report this

By Eugenio Costa, May 7, 2010 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment

Come again—the “individual” gives birth to self as well as invents and speaks a private language?

It would be hilarious if it weren’t so cliched and boring.

The best response to incoherent nonsense is acquiescence—the rest are all just figments of YOUR imagination.

Have a nice day.

Report this

By I_AM_TIRED, May 7, 2010 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


I read your comment about this article and what you are advocating is anarchy.  It’s ok though.  Personally, I do not have a problem with those who support anarchy.  Just admit that you do and use the proper semantics next time.  Ok? 

Perhaps you will respond to what I said here by saying that a civilization can exist in a nation that grants each individual the right to claim that “the world is mine.” However, this idea is incompatible with the concept of civilization.

Raquer says:

“He does not realize that his life is a consequence of those who came before him and upheld the principles the West was found on—not perfect to be sure but far better than all the rest.”

Actually there are places in the world better than living in the USA and there are some places that are worse.  Ok?  Of course, this is all subjective.  However, to make a claim that the USA is the greatest nation to live in is subjective and false.  Objectively, depending on the person, said individual may prefer to live outside the USA if the given nation lines up with how his thinks politically, culturally, and what he holds most dear in ensuring his most positive attitude as often as possible in his finite life.  You know?  Again, there is nothing wrong with that.  You disagree?  My condolences.

Raquer also wrote:

“Civilization is a fragile creation and can implode faster than it can be built.”

A REAL civilization is not as fragile as Raquel makes it out to be.  One possible reason why a civilization could implode is because its government allows for that to happen via granting “freedom” to those who choose to weaken its grip.  Granted, there are dead empires in history that have lasted for centuries such as the Mongols, the Romans, the Mayans, the Persians, the Ottomans etc.  However, the USA seems to be having problems already in its infancy.  Obviously, the USA is a very young nation when compared to other nations. USA history began by the instigation of arguably the largest genocide in human history.  THEN, they brought people over from parts of the Africa continent to be slaves.  I do not mean to burst your bubble or rain on your parade Raquer, but I do not agree with the notion that the USA is the best country to live in.  I just…don’t!  Ok?  And ummm…I liked how you mentioned Europe in your argument supporting the hegemonic superiority of the USA in relation to other nations.  Tell me.  Why are the citizens of Denmark the most happy civilization on earth - even though its government taxes its citizens more than half of their total incomes?

Report this

By Kent, May 7, 2010 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I thought that we lived in a republic versus a democracy.  Would someone clear this up for me as they are to very different things?

And, I’m absolutely sick of reading and listening to commentary that suggests that racism is one of the major drivers of the Tea Party movement.  It’s not about racism at all. People are just fed up with our elected officials apparent disregard of Our Constitution as well as the wealthy elite running the economy into the ground via Wall Street and the privately owned and operated Federal Reserve.  Heck, I work with a black co-worker who would agree with everything I just wrote!

Report this

By Alphysicist, May 7, 2010 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment

I think David Sirota, and some others on this site, are part of the now bankrupt liberal class.  These people purposely dismiss the legitimate complaints of the tea party, and revert to silly name-calling like “racists” and the usual bla bla.

The fact that there are many white males among this grassroots protest movement does not make their cause in any way illegitemate.  Even if the statistics seems to indicate that white males are the wealthiest, it is not necessarily the rich who are protesting.  The wealthiest ethnic group type of data is based on an average number, it does not mean that there is not a large group of poor whites. 

While it is true that other groups have been treated unfairly, very unfairly indeed, and have been denied opportunities, the solution is not to take the opportunities from those who have been treated better (which is actually what has been happening), but the opposite.  And for the working class whites better really means marginally better.  As a result of the elite-orchestrated collapse of the American middle class, it is white males from whom the most has been stolen in the last decades.  Pointing this out is not a justification of the situation in which other groups had less that could have been stolen.

A genuine progressive outlook would recognize what is legitimate in the tea party movement.  The republicratic solution tends to be: republicans are trying to incorporate it and Sarah-Palinize it, while the democrats try to put the racist label based for the most part on the race of the participants.  Politics as usual…

Report this

By MThomasNC, May 7, 2010 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Sirota, many commentors on this site can not grasp the meaning of your article.  I suspect they are right leaning in their beliefs.  The point is that it’s “we, the people, in order to form a more perfect union…”, not “I, the individual, in order to….”.  That slogan ‘I want my country back’ offended so many people on so many levels.  It is a slogan used in the same manner as ‘states’ rights’, but the big proponents of states’ rights live in states that receive the biggest share of federal funds.  These folks are hypocrites. I lived thru the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and JimCrow society was cruel to minorities and all poor people.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right 3, Site wide - Exposure Dynamics
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook