Often, I have some idea to blog about, but I feel like the set-up – that is, providing supporting for the handful of tenets that must be acknowledged before presenting my thesis of interest — is so demanding that I just give up, and figure I will write it all out later.
One of the things that makes it very challenging, at this historical point, to blog about the bastardization of the American democratic party (lower-case) by socialism, is that the socialists have somehow developed a custom by which everyone EXCEPT marxists are identified by their political affiliation.
Wow, that was wordy. What I really want to say is:
Why is it that EVERY political figure EXCEPT a marxist gets identified by their political affiliation?
Some time soon, here in the U.S., the marxists are going to feel the britches, and begin believing that they deserve credit for all of their noble humanitarianism, and are upset by being ignored; they will begin to promote the socialist identity and affiliation of Barney Frank, Barack Obama, and Maxine Waters because they (marxists) believe (mistakenly) that public discourse has “advanced” so much that time has come to drop the charade.
In the meantime, there is an awesome TABOO against noting that a politically active person is a socialist.
Why do I care?
Because I try to explain to my comrades that “we” are celebrating and following marxists, rather than constitutionalists, but the discussion goes nowhere since self-avowed marxists have their political identity supressed.
If only it were common knowledge, or at least acknowledged in Wikipedia, that Gloria Steinen, Herbert Marcuse, Frank Marshall, “Mary” (PPM), and Bob Dylan were self-admittedly socialists, then we could discuss the surrupticious take-over of our party.
But we don’t. We patently refuse to accept this label, even when self-admitted in the year 2009, as in the case of Van Jones.
What do we do, instead?
Recall: Number One Tactic: name-calling.
What is it called when you accurately identifiy someone as Republican? No big deal.
What is it called when you describe someone as democrat? No big deal.
what is it called if you accurately describe someone, per their own admission, as socialist?
Red-baiting McCarthyism. As one decades-long dedicated dDem told me: I lived through theMcCarthy Era; there are no communists in the democratic party.
Wow. Posibly the most successful political marketing campaign evar.
Van Jones is not a marxist? Frank Marshall is not a marxist?
Wow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marshall_Davis
Well, now you know. And you can be aware. You have to dig deep to hit accuracy. Look at Wikipedia’s entry on Herbert Marcuse, a MAJOR architect of marxism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse
Does it say, anywhere, he was a marxist? No. How would the budding investigator know? Frankly, I think Wikipedia is awesome. So, I give it lots of Cred. So do others, I am pretty sure. If it identifies all prominent american political figures, including their political affiliation, but systematically fails to note those who have a ‘socialist’ affiliation, what chance do I have to inform you that the democratic party has been co-opted by marxists?
Wikipedia fails to identify Herbert Marcuse as a marxist?
Seriously? In media, each and every political figure is routinely tagged by political affiliation, unless socialist. Why. Splain this.
The Last Democrat 