America As It Fades: The Shift and the Plea
Amid the torturous cacophony of fatuous dreck about optimism, it is hard to hear anything with a tiny little tune to it. But it is possible to identify the shrieks and slurpy gurgles that are most painful and nauseous: Those calling for “moving forward“and “uniting” behind the new chairman. Those wishing him well because "his success will be America’s success". In short, those who insist on pretending that this was just like any other election that has passed in recent times. Just like 2004, or 1992, or even 2000 when, in the end, the choice was between two children and the one with the more grown-up friends and parents did gain the White House.
Well, sorry, this is not just another election outcome. This is not simply a quadrennial or octennial changing of the guard. This is not normal. The elections this most resembles are 1860 and 1932 . In the latter case, the country in the midst of economic devastation unparalleled, abandoned many of its founding principles to its long-term detriment. We live tpday with the fungal consequences of that expediency. In the former case the outcome was internecine war. That is not a likely result of the current calamity, though the deep and wide divisions within the country over the basic values of civilized life is very much comparable. At the least, the question of slavery and human worth is really quite similar— whether talking about slavery of one man to another, or of all men to a totalist master-elite who decides what is best for its charges, be it higher gasoline prices, smaller cars, less smoking, more seatbelts, less junk food, less thermostatic discretion, less private property, fewer guns, more multiculturalism, etc. The difference is perhaps only that blacks in 1860 knew they were being treated like children, and the elites of the nation understood what freedom was, even if they didn’t agree about who should and should not have it.
You simply cannot install the most ideologically radical leftist, and practically untested and mysterious candidate in modern times, then expect unity and reconciliation. Let alone anything like confidence from skulls that are actually filled with brain matter. This whole notion that Barry O was somehow a force for healing, unity, and bipartisanship despite being the most extreme liberal member of the Senate, was always the most preposterous of the many nonsensical and delusional propositions that American voters purchased in this election. His voting record—measured in picometers though it is—is to the left of Bernie Sanders, who is a proud and avowed socialist (yet calling BO a socialist was, through some Orwellian black-is-white funnel, unfair fearmongering).
Now Mr Hussein Obama, as the British would probably call him, is casting a supposedly centrist administration and leaving in place Bushian policies conservative enough to make his own ideological kindred—not to mention financers—choke on their Brie and ganja sticks. Or so the ObaMedia would like one to think. And it’s working. So many Me Too Republicans haven’t been seen since 1933. Sorry again, not buying it. Obama’s words— and words are his only deeds or accomplishments in this lifetime — and his associations tell the time-tested tale of who he truly is. That is not changed by his politically necessitated New Economic Plan (V.I.
Lenin, 10th Party Congresss, 1921 —give credit where it is due) that allows the evil, rich Bushists to keep the tax cuts, and allows energy companies to keep their profits-- policies that were killing the economy a couple weeks ago and suddenly are essential to its recovery. Never forget that Obi’s greenest initiative is the recycling of old ideas and the tricks that sold them. Besides, what is going on now only looks centrist from the far sinister vantage point of The NY Times building and Rockefeller Center. From straight on, the whole gang is perched well to the left of the teeter-totter’s fulcrum, and the right side is sticking up into the air, free of any leveling force at all, just as they like it.
No, we won’t come together; no we won’t join hands for the good of Mr Hussein Obama’s ego; no we will not, in any way, support this administrations or its goals. What is good for America is entirely divorced from what would be good for the Obama regime. Any benefit it receives from a strong USA will be in spite of this presidents’ (sic) agenda and frankly, I am suspicious of the patriotism, let alone the “centrism” of anyone who agrees to be a part of it.
Amid the torturous cacophony of fatuous dreck about optimism, it is hard to hear anything with a tiny little tune to it. But it is possible to identify the shrieks and slurpy gurgles that are most painful and nauseous: Those calling for “moving forward“and “uniting” behind the new chairman. Those wishing him well because "his success will be America’s success". In short, those who insist on pretending that this was just like any other election that has passed in recent times. Just like 2004, or 1992, or even 2000 when, in the end, the choice was between two children and the one with the more grown-up friends and parents did gain the White House.
Well, sorry, this is not just another election outcome. This is not simply a quadrennial or octennial changing of the guard. This is not normal. The elections this most resembles are 1860 and 1932 . In the latter case, the country in the midst of economic devastation unparalleled, abandoned many of its founding principles to its long-term detriment. We live tpday with the fungal consequences of that expediency. In the former case the outcome was internecine war. That is not a likely result of the current calamity, though the deep and wide divisions within the country over the basic values of civilized life is very much comparable. At the least, the question of slavery and human worth is really quite similar— whether talking about slavery of one man to another, or of all men to a totalist master-elite who decides what is best for its charges, be it higher gasoline prices, smaller cars, less smoking, more seatbelts, less junk food, less thermostatic discretion, less private property, fewer guns, more multiculturalism, etc. The difference is perhaps only that blacks in 1860 knew they were being treated like children, and the elites of the nation understood what freedom was, even if they didn’t agree about who should and should not have it.
You simply cannot install the most ideologically radical leftist, and practically untested and mysterious candidate in modern times, then expect unity and reconciliation. Let alone anything like confidence from skulls that are actually filled with brain matter. This whole notion that Barry O was somehow a force for healing, unity, and bipartisanship despite being the most extreme liberal member of the Senate, was always the most preposterous of the many nonsensical and delusional propositions that American voters purchased in this election. His voting record—measured in picometers though it is—is to the left of Bernie Sanders, who is a proud and avowed socialist (yet calling BO a socialist was, through some Orwellian black-is-white funnel, unfair fearmongering).
Now Mr Hussein Obama, as the British would probably call him, is casting a supposedly centrist administration and leaving in place Bushian policies conservative enough to make his own ideological kindred—not to mention financers—choke on their Brie and ganja sticks. Or so the ObaMedia would like one to think. And it’s working. So many Me Too Republicans haven’t been seen since 1933. Sorry again, not buying it. Obama’s words— and words are his only deeds or accomplishments in this lifetime — and his associations tell the time-tested tale of who he truly is. That is not changed by his politically necessitated New Economic Plan (V.I.
Lenin, 10th Party Congresss, 1921 —give credit where it is due) that allows the evil, rich Bushists to keep the tax cuts, and allows energy companies to keep their profits-- policies that were killing the economy a couple weeks ago and suddenly are essential to its recovery. Never forget that Obi’s greenest initiative is the recycling of old ideas and the tricks that sold them. Besides, what is going on now only looks centrist from the far sinister vantage point of The NY Times building and Rockefeller Center. From straight on, the whole gang is perched well to the left of the teeter-totter’s fulcrum, and the right side is sticking up into the air, free of any leveling force at all, just as they like it.
No, we won’t come together; no we won’t join hands for the good of Mr Hussein Obama’s ego; no we will not, in any way, support this administrations or its goals. What is good for America is entirely divorced from what would be good for the Obama regime. Any benefit it receives from a strong USA will be in spite of this presidents’ (sic) agenda and frankly, I am suspicious of the patriotism, let alone the “centrism” of anyone who agrees to be a part of it.
posted by the wrightist at 11:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home