Two brothers in my neighborhood trekked to Vicksburg the other day to pick up three 50's era Chevy pickups in various states of repair and rebuild. There's a couple good trucks in all that stuff they figure.
Monday, November 10, 2008
The question is easily answered by considering who, exactly, Lenin was speaking of when he wrote of his "useful idiots".
A friend of mine, while fretting the possibility that a particular "some" of the people couldn't be fooled all of the time this time, postulated the above statement as the crux of the recent election. Referencing his central question, we now know who the "white moron" went for. In fact, it appears the Obama campaign made a special effort to recruit the "white moron" as evidenced by his sizable gap in the under-thirty demographic.
It is no secret our colleges and universities are harbouring infestation levels of leftists so it stands to reason that young folks, by and large, are gonna absorb in those institutions of over-priced indoctrination (administered during their biologically rebellious years - the better to have them reject the traditional values of their upbringing) collectivist thinking and outlook. The smart ones begin to wake up within a couple years of graduation after having run into enough reality that recurring dichotomy and contradiction to their adopted world view jiggles the synapses back into place function. The moron soldiers on without the reinforcement of reality to perpetuate his/her world view, relying only on the strength of his/her indoctrination and a death grip on self identification with what they perceive to be the intellectual elite or "intelligentsia" as leftists like to put it. Useful idiots is how Vladimir Ilyich Lenin described them.
It is disturbing to see how desperate the Old Media is to have an Obama presidency portrayed as successful even before he takes office. The historic parallels are troubling.
The most commonly revered presidents viewed as having successful terms of office are as follows; Lincoln and FDR. The former was a tyrant whose orders and campaigns caused the deaths of nearly 700,000 Americans on the battlefield and countless others as an intentional result of the starvation and disease his various sieges and scorched earth marches brought about, the latter was a bumbling fool who prolonged through error and economic interventionist policy the most economically devastating business cycle in history and so stupid as to involve the US in WWII when it became apparent his interventions would not restore prosperity. What do they have in common that puts them in the same category? The belief in the supremacy of the state over all and a willing press to help them forward their goal of the ascension of the state to primacy over the individual person, lower order political, and God.
President elect Obama has signaled his willingness to abuse the power of the oval office through the use of Executive Orders, bypassing the houses of congress as a dictator might. Where is the outcry from the self described "watchdogs" in the old media who would "speak truth to power" are in reality "lap dogs" for a leftist president elect and "give homage to leftists in power".
Until it is actually seen how the man governs I will not place President-elect Obama in the same category as Lincoln and FDR. He doesn't yet deserve that defamation, but it ain't lookin' good.