Re: Francesca Hong’s de feat won’t stop the Democratic Sociali sts

On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 14:06:00 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 8/12/2026 11:35 AM, Julian wrote:
>> 
>> So, at time of writing, it looks as if voters don’t want to cancel 
>> Thanksgiving – on balance, at least. Come November, however, few 
>> Democrats will be expressing gratitude for their party’s vote-tabulation 
>> systems.
>> 
>> Francesca Hong, it seems, will not be America’s first avowedly socialist 
>> state governor. She appears to have just lost an extremely tight primary 
>> to David Crowley, a Milwaukee County executive, in the gubernatorial 
>> primary in Wisconsin.
>
>
>Woke 2
>
>The Democratic Party is, I think obviously, undergoing an historic 
>radicalization. Woke 2, a playful framing for what is clearly 
>unapologetic Marxism, is, if unchallenged, the future. But before we can 
>unpack this new, cooler woke, which promises to jail the rich and steal 
>their things before it targets the white middle class (the 
>“bourgeoisie,” they call this), we unfortunately do have to jump through 
>the first traditional media hoop: does this very real thing, which all 
>of us see, actually exist?
>
>You’ll be happy to hear that NY Mag is on the case, and there is 
>absolutely nothing to see here:
>
>“Cherry-picking controversial past statements or social-media posts from 
>a handful of candidates and then inflating their numbers astronomically 
>is required to sustain any sort of red-wave hypothesis. Are there DSA 
>members (not candidates, but rank-and-file members) who are Marxist, in 
>the sense of viewing political and economic life through the lens of 
>class struggle? Yes, there are, much as there are rank-and-file members 
>of the GOP who by any conventional definition are proto-fascist. That 
>Marxists define the Democratic Party as a whole is ludicrous. And by the 
>way, these allegedly terrifying progressives are winning primaries by 
>appealing to voters in free elections, which was not a tactic favored by 
>Bolsheviks.” 
><https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/the-gops-big-red-scare-is-really-stupid.html> 

Oh, my, a tiny bit of sanity.  How mystifying.

>
>While the movement gains strength, it’s unclear if the center left is in 
>denial or trying to obscure it all on purpose as we inch toward the 
>general election. But their argument, at this point common, stands on 
>two flimsy pillars. First, the position that socialism is not actually 
>ascendant in the Democratic Party. Then, the position that the DSA, 
>while radical, is merely the left’s own MAGA, on par with a mass of 
>unnamed "rank-and-file" members of the GOP, who are "proto-fascist." 
>While NY Mag feels no responsibility to actually name these apparently 
>abundant fascists in the GOP, or any of their beliefs, I’ll just assume 
>they’re talking about Trump, to whom we’ll return in a moment.
>
>Now, is the radicalization happening? NY Mag suggests "just three 
>members of the Democratic Socialists of America have won congressional 
>primaries," which is distorted to the point I have to say I think their 
>intention must be deception.
>
>At present, there are two sitting members of the DSA in Congress, 
>including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and living, breathing, walking 
>"build the wall" advertisement Rashida Tlaib. But there are hundreds of 
>DSA members in government, which Wikipedia has done a helpful job 
>tracking. In terms of primary victories, other than the aforementioned 
>two candidates who are both running and favored to win, Chris Rabb (PA), 
>Melat Kiros (CO), Brad Lander (NY), Claire Valdez (NY), Darializa Avila 
>Chevalier (NY), and Donavan McKinney (MI) are all headed to the general. 
>Mai Vang (CA), while she didn’t win outright, is headed to the general. 
>Oliver Larkin (FL) has a good chance of advancing to the general. Then 
>of course there’s media superstar Abdul El-Sayed (MI), who rejects the 
>term socialist but supports the nationalization of large swaths of the 
>technology industry, and secured a DSA endorsement reserved for 
>candidates who share the DSA platform. He just won his primary race for 
>Senate.
>
>The DSA’s national victories, all organized and coordinated under the 
>banner of socialism, would alone constitute a movement. But what few on 
>the "moderate" left are willing to face are the DSA victories in local 
>politics, which are already transforming our country.
>
>Janeese Lewis George took her primary in DC, and is now running in the 
>general for Mayor this November, while Nithya Raman took her primary in 
>LA. There is, of course, Zohran Mamdani, who now not only runs New York, 
>the largest and wealthiest city in our country, but does so with 
>tremendous support in City Council. There, as in New York’s State 
>Assembly, nearly the entire DSA slate won. The socialists have secured 
>further victories in cities spanning Los Angeles, where they are 
>especially dominant, Buffalo, Syracuse, Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis, 
>Jersey City, Louisville, and… Poughkeepsie.
>
>Lovely. Now what do they believe?
>
>In order to secure a DSA endorsement, candidates must adhere to the 
>DSA’s national policy program. This of course includes all the fan 
>favorites: total student debt forgiveness, reparations, closing all 
>overseas military bases, and phasing out the use of fossil fuels. But 
>positions that sound so totally insane I’m afraid most people assume I’m 
>exaggerating when I talk about them include: abolition of the police and 
>prisons, abolition of the Electoral College, abolition of the U.S. 
>Senate, Supreme Court, and presidency, and the nationalization of all 
>major industry in the country. The DSA of course demands a national 
>"wealth tax," which effectively abolishes our right to private property 
>(a case I made in detail for Pirate Wires). And finally, they promise to 
>draft a new Constitution. What do you think, guys, will Hasan Piker’s 
>Dumb Bitch Politburo let us keep our right to speech?
>
>Wait.
>
>Do you hear that?
>
>It’s the fevered clacking of 10,000 abundance libs furiously typing in 
>response.
>
>"BUT WHAT ABOUT TRUMP!"
>
>Okay, sure. Let’s address the giant blonde hairpiece in the room.
>
>Facing the twin horrors of the DSA, including both their stated beliefs 
>and their clear ascendance within the DNC, self-described "centrists" 
>and Democratic Party "moderates" face a difficult problem. On paper, 
>they should be completely opposed to what is by all accounts an 
>authoritarian takeover of their party with clearly the intention of 
>abolishing our current government and replacing it with something 
>altogether Marxist. But they’ve already gone and made opposition to 
>Trump, the spiritual head of the Republican Party, their entire 
>political identity. This is how we’ve arrived at the absolute dumbest 
>incarnation of this conversation, which reduces to something like "but 
>Trump is just as bad."
>
>You don’t like Trump or his policies. That’s fine. But Trump has 
>actually not made any gesture whatsoever in the direction of abolishing 
>every branch of power in the country but his own. This is not real. This 
>is a liberal rape fantasy.
>
>You’re perfectly entitled to not like Trump. To hate him. To truly 
>believe he is the worst president in history. To believe he is 
>legitimately dangerous, even. But what you can really not say is that 
>he’s radical, or at least not in the sense we speak of in consideration 
>of the DSA, which is seeking — explicitly — to abolish our government 
>and replace it with something fundamentally new.
>
>Trump denies the results of the election. Okay. I denied the results of 
>George W. Bush’s election, along with most Democrats in the country, 
>pretty much throughout his presidency. What else do you have? Tariffs? 
>That’s just a policy you don’t like. Understandably! It may be wrong, 
>but it’s not radical. Mass deportation? I get that you love immigration, 
>and think illegal immigration is actually, on net, good for the economy, 
>and the economy is all that really matters. I’m not here to debate that 
>position. But deporting illegal immigrants is actually the law. If you 
>don’t like the law, you can change it by winning elections. And 
>following the law is not a revolution.
>
>Then, I guess people are really dying to know what I think about the war 
>in Iran. A treat for you: I hate it! I think it’s bad! Though I 
>admittedly have no idea what information Trump is working from, I 
>generally believe war sucks and we should try our best to never do it. 
>But in terms of norms, I’m having a hard time understanding how this act 
>is "revolutionary" given America has been in some form of war for 
>literally my entire life.
>
>Rule by executive order is unhealthy, and I agree the culture of our 
>executive drafting magic spells and casting law into the country is out 
>of hand. You can thank FDR for that, and then Obama who brought that 
>culture back. But you’ll notice our courts have routinely intervened to 
>halt executive orders, and when Trump receives a negative ruling he 
>simply trashes it and moves on to the next Diet Coke. He has not 
>dissolved the courts. He did not run on a platform of dissolving the 
>courts. He has not written down his intention to dissolve the courts. He 
>is not leading a well-coordinated army of young congressional candidates 
>themselves committed to dissolving the courts.
>
>DSA candidates are, right now, running on a platform of dissolving the 
>Supreme Court. If they win, they will not succeed because they do not 
>yet have the power to succeed. But if the radicalization of the DNC 
>proceeds, this country will not survive.
>
>Trump has done many things I either don’t agree with, or can’t stand. I 
>hated when he, to my eye, mocked the death of Rob Reiner, which I 
>consider disgusting and coarsening of our culture in a way that has 
>helped normalize the kind of bloodlust we’re seeing most especially, and 
>to the greatest consequence, from the populist left — where actual calls 
>for murder, and full-throated defense and celebration of political 
>assassination is now routine. But surely you can believe this man is a 
>terrible human as well as a terrible president, while understanding the 
>distinction between those things and the ascendance of a movement in the 
>DNC to dissolve the government.
>
>My point here is not even that the DSA is bad (though, holy shit, 
>they’re really bad). My point is only that the DSA is radical, by which 
>I mean their goal is not to reform our institutions or to bend our 
>institutions to their will, but to replace them with a new form of 
>government. These are authoritarians, by which I do not mean "guy who 
>makes me mad." I am actually just looking at their policy proposals and 
>explaining to you who they are, in their own language.
>
>We are well beyond a simple disagreement on tax policy, or immigration. 
>This isn’t a conversation about gay marriage or abortion. We are 
>litigating the actual structure of our government. Face that. And if you 
>side with the people who are seeking to replace our government with 
>something altogether new and explicitly Marxist, you aren’t just a guy 
>we disagree with anymore.
>
>-SOLANA
-- 
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away