Dump Salon And The Rest Of The Republican Enabling Media

It is good that Salon webazine tells us that "Peter Gaffney is a professor of philosophy, visual culture, and the public sphere at University of Pennsylvania and the Curtis Institute of Music, and also editor and co-author of “The Force of the Virtual: Deleuze, Science and Philosophy (2010, University of Minnesota Press)" because when I saw his piece up at Salon which encourages Democrats to defect to vote for Jill Stein and the Greens I thought he might be Reagan era Republicanratfucker Frank Gaffney's stupider brother who can't be entrusted to do more than write Republicanfascist ratfuck pieces for idiot webazines based by the San Franciscan la la land left to help get us the worst Republicanfascist presidency yet in between teaching bull shit crap about "visual cultue and the public sphere" so undergrads can get an an easier humanities credit than a real course in real philosophy or real art.    Maybe I should never write immediately after watching John Oliver. 

I recently made a remark about open primaries, that if that's the way the Bernie Sanders faction wanted to go - something that I've heard Greens echoing -  that Democrats should use open primaries to take over the Green Party which functions as a part of the Republican election strategy and dismantle it.

I am entirely serious about that now.  Democrats should have a four year goal of swamping the Greens and getting rid of that fraud which has played a role in several disastrous election cycles as they continually lend a hand to Republicans.   The Green Party has turned into just another, though more demonstrably dangerous, phony third party which has, mostly, attacked the effective political left of real government, the government that can win an American election and take office and make laws better than the ones Republicans give us and appoint judges and justices who won't overturn those laws.  

Jill Stein is an ego-maniacal fraud and the Green Party is something that should be relegated to the past.  It should have been after the role it played in the Republican putsch of 2000 which installed the worst president in our history and one of the most massively corrupt and criminal adminstrations.  We don't owe sweet, lovely, Dr. Stein any consideration in this.  What she proposes to do this year makes the Cheney-Bush II regime look like it has a real possibility of going to number 2 on the list of worst presidencies in history.  

A while back I read a piece that said Salon had devolved into a piece of crap which even some of its recent former writers disdained.   I think it's little more than a cynical, sleazy webloid that will put up this kind of crap to generate clicks so their revenue will go up.  I've come to see a number of the magazines of the alleged left that way, the kind of magazines who used to advise the left to do the same kind of stupid stuff in ink on paper.   I have subscribed to just about all of them in the past and when I look at the waste they and the groups they promoted have made of the American left, I think we'd probably be farther ahead if they'd never existed.  Look at their archives on the topic of Marxism in its many and never democratic various forms if you want a clue as to how they advised people into turning the left toxic when it never had to be that.  The real, electable left has got to cut those guys out because they a. will never win elections in more than scattered handfuls, b. will lose elections to Republicanfascists, c. were never a part of the real left to start with.  Salon was started after any rational person could have seen that Marxism was something even the Communists were giving up, that it was finished.  So Salon has had to promote other idiotic ideas and futile quests to fill the same role in political journalism.  A lot of blogs have functioned that way.   But they are never going to go anywhere, any real left with any hope of winning elections will have to fight against them, not work with them.  

The left will either leave this kind of stupidity in the past or it will be irrelevant to real politics at best, a prevention of progress, more likely.