Why are Americans so bloody stupid?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I didn't watch very much at all. When someone starts a video, by title in this case, using some absurd notion, It doesn't matter if they recant, the problem is how they used the title to draw people in. And what kind of people were their target? Enough said!

If you're not honest from the very start, you deserve no attention!

[Walker]

Yep. The education system bamboozeled them.
Lenin identified them as “Useful Idiots.”

Charlie Kirk tried to straighten them out with open and honest discussions, and look what happened to him.

And for many Americans, that’s okay.
Those are the bloody stupid ones.

I heard that about 95% of NYC Muslims who could, voted in the NYC mayoral election.
About 97% of those Muslims who voted, voted for Mamdani.
It doesn’t take a majority of population to grab power, just a majority of voters.
(The second digit of each number may be off by a sequential integer or two. Something to keep the fact checkers busy.)

[Gary Childress]

Yep. The education system bamboozeled them.
Lenin identified them as “Useful Idiots.”

FYI:

In what writing, speech, or eyewitness testimony did Lenin say that people in capitalist societies were "useful idiots" if they advocated for socialism?

There is no reliable evidence that Vladimir Lenin ever used the phrase "useful idiots" in any known writing, speech, letter, or recorded conversation.

Historians who have investigated the quotation have been unable to find it in Lenin's published works, archives, or eyewitness accounts. The phrase is commonly attributed to Lenin, usually in forms such as:

"The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

or

"Useful idiots of the West."

However, the attribution is widely regarded as doubtful.

Some points worth noting:

The phrase "useful idiot" became common during the Cold War as a description of non-communists in Western countries who, intentionally or not, advanced Soviet interests.
Researchers have found no primary source showing Lenin using the term.
The expression may have originated among anti-communist writers, journalists, or intelligence circles and only later been retroactively attached to Lenin.
Even Soviet specialists and historians who have searched Russian-language sources have generally concluded that no authentic Lenin quotation has been found.

That said, the idea behind the phrase—that communists could exploit sympathetic intellectuals, activists, or fellow travelers in capitalist countries—was certainly discussed within communist movements. Lenin wrote extensively about propaganda, alliances, and using contradictions within capitalist societies, but not, as far as the evidence shows, using the specific phrase "useful idiots."

So if you're asking:

In what writing, speech, or eyewitness testimony did Lenin say it?

The best historical answer is:

None has been found. There is currently no verified source showing Lenin ever said or wrote "useful idiots." The quotation is generally considered apocryphal (falsely attributed to him).

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a2b3e35-1a90 ... 1398b56882

[Immanuel Can]

Yep. The education system bamboozeled them.
Lenin identified them as “Useful Idiots.”

Whether Lenin himself said it, or somebody else later, it's an apt expression for those the Socialist elites first use and then discard. They're "idiots" in the sense that Socialist ideologues can lead them into practically any foolishness, and "useful" in the sense that any 'affection' the Socialist elites feign to have from them is derived purely from their temporary utility.

It amazes me...not only is the record of disastrous failure in Socialism 100% historically and worldwide, but even in America, one cannot name even one Democrat polity that is happy, healthy and well-provided. Where would you point to, among the places in which Democrat politicians have remained in power for decades, and say, "Now, there's an example of a well-run place"?

Would it be Detroit? Seattle? Portland? Los Angeles? San Francisco? New York? Baltimore? Minneapolis? New Orleans? Philadelphia? Chicago? Boston? Where is there a single story of Democrat/Socialist politics yielding anything but the rottenest of fruit, even in America itself? Even when they stand unchallenged and unimpeded, they simply cannot run a decent city.

It never works. But there still appear to be no limit to the foolish followers who will buy the Socialist patter...and be drained and thrown away, the minute the Socialist elites are done with them.

[Walker]

Every new generation is fresh meat for Socialist Mind Warpers.

(continued)
That is why the charasmatic Mayor of NYC got no budgetary resistance from the NY governor over his Childcare plans for the city to start indoctrination at age two.

These are just facts.

[Walker]

Gary:

Yes, as IC noted, you missed the point yet again, Gary. Now, IC didn't use those exact words that you missed the point, but I'm expanding his, because you seem to miss a lot. I identified that meaning of IC's posting, even though he didn't exactly say or write the words, that you missed the point.

I know the ways of the fact checkers, which was why I used the word "identify," rather than the words "wrote," or "said."
"Lenin identified them as “Useful Idiots.”

You ended your inquiry as soon as you got the answer you wanted, which was a refutation of ... anything you could refute, even if it required using other words.

Sounds like you had a flareup of Nein Confirmation Bias (NCB) Syndrome.

FYI: Truth should be your objective, Gary. Not Nein.

Seek the meaning, not the Nein.


*

Question to AI:
How did Lenin Identify useful idiots?

Answer:
How Lenin “Identified” Useful Idiots

The idea that Lenin “identified” useful idiots comes from a 1934 letter from Maxim Gorky to Lenin, in which Gorky described Western socialist intellectuals as “useful idiots” — people who, despite their criticisms, unwittingly helped the Bolshevik cause deep.befagi.com. Gorky saw them as intelligent but ideologically naive, unable to grasp the complexities of the Russian Revolution and willing to be manipulated by the Bolsheviks. Lenin, recognizing the strategic value of this observation, adopted the phrase to describe certain Western allies who supported the Bolsheviks without fully understanding the implications deep.befagi.com.

How Lenin “identified” them
Lenin’s identification process was not based on a formal test or list, but on political assessment. He looked for individuals — often in the West — who:

Supported the Bolshevik cause or anti-fascist rhetoric.
Were ideologically sympathetic but lacked deep understanding of Soviet realities.
Could be exploited to lend legitimacy to the Bolsheviks without posing a significant threat.
These were people who might be critical in public but, in practice, advanced Bolshevik goals through collaboration, propaganda, or political alliances deep.befagi.com.

Examples
Historical examples include Western socialists, journalists, and politicians who:
Joined electoral coalitions with the Communist Party (e.g., the Popular Democratic Front in Italy in 1948).
Promoted Soviet narratives without fully grasping their repressive consequences.
Provided resources or moral support that benefited the Bolsheviks Wikipedia+1.

Important note on attribution
While the phrase is often attributed to Lenin, there is no direct evidence in his writings or speeches that he ever used it Wikipedia+1. The earliest documented English usage predates Lenin’s death, and the Gorky letter is the closest known link. The association with Lenin likely arose later, during Cold War-era anti-communist discourse, when the term was used to describe unwitting allies of Soviet expansion Wikipedia+1.

In summary
Lenin’s “identification” of useful idiots was a political judgment based on their willingness to be manipulated for Bolshevik ends, not on a formal classification. The concept reflects a cynical but effective strategy of using the naivety of allies to advance a cause, even if those allies were unaware of the full consequences.

[Gary Childress]

Gary:

Yes, as IC noted, you missed the point yet again, Gary. Now, IC didn't use those exact words that you missed the point, but I'm expanding his, because you seem to miss a lot. I identified that meaning of IC's posting, even though he didn't exactly say or write the words, that you missed the point.

I know the ways of the fact checkers, which was why I used the word "identify," rather than the words "wrote," or "said."
"Lenin identified them as “Useful Idiots.”

You ended your inquiry as soon as you got the answer you wanted, which was a refutation of ... anything you could refute, even if it required using other words.

Sounds like you had a flareup of Nein Confirmation Bias (NCB) Syndrome.

FYI: Truth should be your objective, Gary. Not Nein.

Seek the meaning, not the Nein.


*

Question to AI:
How did Lenin Identify useful idiots?

Answer:
How Lenin “Identified” Useful Idiots

The idea that Lenin “identified” useful idiots comes from a 1934 letter from Maxim Gorky to Lenin, in which Gorky described Western socialist intellectuals as “useful idiots” — people who, despite their criticisms, unwittingly helped the Bolshevik cause deep.befagi.com. Gorky saw them as intelligent but ideologically naive, unable to grasp the complexities of the Russian Revolution and willing to be manipulated by the Bolsheviks. Lenin, recognizing the strategic value of this observation, adopted the phrase to describe certain Western allies who supported the Bolsheviks without fully understanding the implications deep.befagi.com.

How Lenin “identified” them
Lenin’s identification process was not based on a formal test or list, but on political assessment. He looked for individuals — often in the West — who:

Supported the Bolshevik cause or anti-fascist rhetoric.
Were ideologically sympathetic but lacked deep understanding of Soviet realities.
Could be exploited to lend legitimacy to the Bolsheviks without posing a significant threat.
These were people who might be critical in public but, in practice, advanced Bolshevik goals through collaboration, propaganda, or political alliances deep.befagi.com.

Examples
Historical examples include Western socialists, journalists, and politicians who:
Joined electoral coalitions with the Communist Party (e.g., the Popular Democratic Front in Italy in 1948).
Promoted Soviet narratives without fully grasping their repressive consequences.
Provided resources or moral support that benefited the Bolsheviks Wikipedia+1.

Important note on attribution
While the phrase is often attributed to Lenin, there is no direct evidence in his writings or speeches that he ever used it Wikipedia+1. The earliest documented English usage predates Lenin’s death, and the Gorky letter is the closest known link. The association with Lenin likely arose later, during Cold War-era anti-communist discourse, when the term was used to describe unwitting allies of Soviet expansion Wikipedia+1.

In summary
Lenin’s “identification” of useful idiots was a political judgment based on their willingness to be manipulated for Bolshevik ends, not on a formal classification. The concept reflects a cynical but effective strategy of using the naivety of allies to advance a cause, even if those allies were unaware of the full consequences.

Suit yourself. Sounds like you tricked the AI and gamed it into giving you an incorrect answer. But if you want to stake your bet that your version is correct, then so be it. Good luck. No more from me.

[Immanuel Can]

Every new generation is fresh meat for Socialist Mind Warpers.

Do you notice that Socialists will NEVER discuss the Socialist record. They won't talk about Lenin or Stalin or Mao...they won't even talk about Detroit or California. For them, history can only be employed selectively and revisionistically, if it can be employed to bolster Socialism; to any extent that the facts do not flatter Socialism, or to any extent it is unrevised by Socialist rewriting, it is simply ignored.

Data does not matter to Socialists. Socialism is, for them, a perpetually verdant future prospect. It cannot fail, because it never knows its own history, nor does it ever have to account for its gross mistakes. Nothing it has ever caused is ever Socialism's fault.

It's always, "That's not real Socialism; real Socialism will be the next thing."

[Gary Childress]

Every new generation is fresh meat for Socialist Mind Warpers.

Do you notice that Socialists will NEVER discuss the Socialist record. They won't talk about Lenin or Stalin or Mao...they won't even talk about Detroit or California. For them, history can only be employed selectively and revisionistically, if it can be employed to bolster Socialism; to any extent that the facts do not flatter Socialism, or to any extent it is unrevised by Socialist rewriting, it is simply ignored.

Data does not matter to Socialists. Socialism is, for them, a perpetually verdant future prospect. It cannot fail, because it never knows its own history, nor does it ever have to account for its gross mistakes. Nothing it has ever caused is ever Socialism's fault.

It's always, "That's not real Socialism; real Socialism will be the next thing."

It all depends upon what is meant by "socialism". The word "socialism" has its political origins in contradistinction to the term "individualism." If you don't consider European countries to be "socialist," then yes, most of the experiments with socialism have been horrendous. However, if you think the answer to everything is to just get rid of government, then you are basically advocating for unchecked power on the part of those who have the money to own society. I assume you are not advocating for that; I don't know. But it would be a disaster. The only countries in history that have lacked governments are tribal societies, and most of the ones still in existence are on the verge of extinction at the hands of more organized societies.

Personally, I think a mixed society is best, one that gives reasonable freedom to individuals but also takes into consideration the potential social cost of radical individualism.

[Immanuel Can]

Every new generation is fresh meat for Socialist Mind Warpers.

Do you notice that Socialists will NEVER discuss the Socialist record. They won't talk about Lenin or Stalin or Mao...they won't even talk about Detroit or California. For them, history can only be employed selectively and revisionistically, if it can be employed to bolster Socialism; to any extent that the facts do not flatter Socialism, or to any extent it is unrevised by Socialist rewriting, it is simply ignored.

Data does not matter to Socialists. Socialism is, for them, a perpetually verdant future prospect. It cannot fail, because it never knows its own history, nor does it ever have to account for its gross mistakes. Nothing it has ever caused is ever Socialism's fault.

It's always, "That's not real Socialism; real Socialism will be the next thing."

It all depends upon what is meant by "socialism".

I've defined it several times already, in other conversations. I just mean Socialism. All of it.

[Gary Childress]

Do you notice that Socialists will NEVER discuss the Socialist record. They won't talk about Lenin or Stalin or Mao...they won't even talk about Detroit or California. For them, history can only be employed selectively and revisionistically, if it can be employed to bolster Socialism; to any extent that the facts do not flatter Socialism, or to any extent it is unrevised by Socialist rewriting, it is simply ignored.

Data does not matter to Socialists. Socialism is, for them, a perpetually verdant future prospect. It cannot fail, because it never knows its own history, nor does it ever have to account for its gross mistakes. Nothing it has ever caused is ever Socialism's fault.

It's always, "That's not real Socialism; real Socialism will be the next thing."

It all depends upon what is meant by "socialism".

I've defined it several times already, in other conversations. I just mean Socialism. All of it.

Some view European societies as, in part, "socialist." Your view that European societies aren't "socialist" at all is a relatively unique one. If it is true that societies with mixed economies are not socialist, then it seems true that there are currently few, if any, purely "capitalist" societies in the world either. No successful society today has a perfectly free and unregulated market. No society that has had a purely free and unregulated market has been ultimately successful in that it has survived social pressures, revolutions, and civil wars over economic issues that come with unregulated capitalism. All successful societies have sought to manipulate their market to prevent falling behind other societies because the capitalist cycle of "boom and bust" is a real thing that has temporarily crippled societies in the past. A crippled society can't defend itself against one that isn't crippled. The other Allies in WW2 took notice that the Soviet Union did not suffer an economic collapse during the Great Depression. Every other major country did, but the ones that adopted Keynesian economic policies were the ones that came out of the Great Depression.

As I say, if you define "socialist" as someone who wants only radical government control over society, then you are right, socialist economies have failed. However, pretty much every successful economy today has incorporated some "socialist" characteristics, because if they didn't, they would collapse. Most economists describe such economies as "mixed economies" rather than "capitalist" economies. Your terminology is not the standard one used today by most economists.

[Immanuel Can]

It all depends upon what is meant by "socialism".

I've defined it several times already, in other conversations. I just mean Socialism. All of it.

Some view European societies as, in part, "socialist.

Socialism requires the elimination of private property and the owning of the means of production by the state. Anything less is just a parasitic leech on the "capital" earned legitimately through the free markets Socialism itself is incapable of creating or sustaining.

It's definitionally NOT Socialism.

[Gary Childress]

I've defined it several times already, in other conversations. I just mean Socialism. All of it.

Some view European societies as, in part, "socialist.

Socialism requires the elimination of private property and the owning of the means of production by the state. Anything less is just a parasitic leech on the "capital" earned legitimately through the free markets Socialism itself is incapable of creating or sustaining.

It's definitionally NOT Socialism.

"Private" property is used in contradistinction to "personal" property in "socialism". Anyone who reads Marx can determine this. Under socialist doctrine, according to Marx, "private" property is to be eliminated, "personal" property is not. Therefore, it is false to claim that socialism is the abolition of ALL property.

[Immanuel Can]

Some view European societies as, in part, "socialist.

Socialism requires the elimination of private property and the owning of the means of production by the state. Anything less is just a parasitic leech on the "capital" earned legitimately through the free markets Socialism itself is incapable of creating or sustaining.

It's definitionally NOT Socialism.

Under socialist doctrine, according to Marx, "private" property is to be eliminated, "personal" property is not. Therefore, it is false to claim that socialism is the abolition of ALL property.

That's a distinction with no difference. It's not so clear that a "personal" piece of property, like, say, a toothbrush, isn't also "private property" in the sense that it requires "capitalist" energies to produce and involves workers. Who is to define these things? The Socialist elite, of course. So there's nothing you can shelter as "personal" that cannot also be seized from you on the basis of being "private" or "capitalistic" property, as well. You don't get to resist them, you know; they won't allow it.

The important point is that none of the places you can name have abolished property of either kind, and in none of them does the state control all the means of production.

So they are not "Socialist" by Marxian definition.

[Gary Childress]

Socialism requires the elimination of private property and the owning of the means of production by the state. Anything less is just a parasitic leech on the "capital" earned legitimately through the free markets Socialism itself is incapable of creating or sustaining.

It's definitionally NOT Socialism.

Under socialist doctrine, according to Marx, "private" property is to be eliminated, "personal" property is not. Therefore, it is false to claim that socialism is the abolition of ALL property.

That's a distinction with no difference. It's not so clear that a "personal" piece of property, like, say, a toothbrush, isn't also "private property" in the sense that it requires "capitalist" energies to produce and involves workers. Who is to define these things? The Socialist elite, of course. So there's nothing you can shelter as "personal" that cannot also be seized from you on the basis of being "private" or "capitalistic" property, as well. You don't get to resist them, you know; they won't allow it.

The important point is that none of the places you can name have abolished property of either kind, and in none of them does the state control all the means of production.

So they are not "Socialist" by Marxian definition.

Like I said, just from the name "socialism" itself, we know that "socialism" stands in contradistinction to its opposite, "individualism". The opposite of individual is the totality of all individuals, also known as society. There is nothing about "socialism" that implies an individual cannot own property of any kind. It means the concerns of the individual cannot override the concerns of society IF ITS GOING TO HARM SOCIETY. For example, a single individual or group of individuals cannot decide to sell all the factories in the US to China if he/they happened to own them. That would be a socially destructive sale to everyone else in society. Marx was wrong. "Socialism" in and of itself, in a general sense, is NOT defined simply as the abolition of any kind of property. Marx would probably say that himself because that's not the onus of "soclialism". It is NOT the elimination of private property for the sake of eliminating private property. It is ultimately the elimination of private property (as defined by Marx to be those things that are necessary for all members of society) in order to prevent undue harm to other members of society. You're confusing the goal with the means. For example: the goal of "democracy" is not that whoever wins as president gets to do anything HE or SHE wants in the name of the people s/he represents. The goal of "democracy" is to give everyone in society equal representation insofar as it will produce the best society for all to live in.