Severe Conservative Delusions: Van Jones Maoist Edition

Dirty energy backers blocked cap-and-trade, which would have spurred green innovation and enterprise. Now they complain that we have not had more progress regarding green jobs? That would be like someone tripping a racehorse and then saying, "See, I told you that horse was no good"! ~ Van Jones (dob 9/20/1968) explains his frustration at the Republican efforts to stymie the creation of green jobs during the brief period he served as green jobs "czar" (March to September of 2009).

The blogger dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) is one mentally strange Conservative, the most severely deluded one I have ever encountered, in fact. And it is Dennis Marks who is the subject of the "Severe Conservative Delusions" series of commentaries on this blog, of which this post is the 5th entry. In this commentary I examine the unnatural obsession of Dennis with former Green Jobs Adviser Van Jones. Van Jones is a progressive advocate and political activist Dennis hates with a passion.

For those of you unfamiliar with Mr. Jones, here is a short excerpt from his bio at Wikipedia...

In March 2009 Jones was appointed by President Barack Obama to the newly created position of Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, where he worked... to advance the administration's climate and energy initiatives... In July 2009 he became "embroiled in a controversy" over his past political activities, including a public comment disparaging congressional Republicans, his name appearing on a petition for 911Truth.org, and allegations of association with a Marxist group during the 1990s. For these issues, Van Jones was heavily criticized by conservatives. Jones resigned from the position in early September 2009...

Mr. Marks doesn't just hate Van Jones, he LOATHES him. The reason being Mr. Jones' "past political activities" that include an "association with a Marxist group during the 1990s". That last bit in particular rankles Mr. Marks' sensibilities, which is why he brings it up frequently, as in this 5/5/2013 comment on the blog Contra O'Reilly...

Dennis Marks: ...by the way, appropriate to energy discussions, I found this photo when looking up unrepentant Maoist extremist Van Jones... That windmill behind him sure does inspire confidence, doesn't it? This is while I looked up the figures from various sources to find out that Van Jones was likely paid $60,000 for six months work as a jobs czar. During this period, unemployment increased 14%, with more than a million losing their jobs. What a public servant! Perhaps Jones saw the goal of a jobs czar to eliminate jobs, just as a poverty czar tries to eliminate poverty. He sure acted like it. (5/5/2013 AT 2:43pm).

There are, of course, numerous problems with this statement by Dennis about Van Jones. Namely that Dennis is lying through his teeth about Mr. Jones being an "unrepentant Maoist extremist". Wikipedia notes that "in October 2005 Jones said he was a rowdy nationalist... but that by August of...1992... he was a Communist. Later he became a member of a socialist collective called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) that protested... police brutality".

It is because of Van Jones' affiliation with STORM that Dennis calls him a Maoist, but I say, so the hell what? Is Dennis in favor of police brutality? In any case, all this is in Mr. Jones past, as he explains on his website...

Van Jones: I experimented with world-views and philosophies and I was an angry young guy, I was on the left side of Pluto. The great thing about America is, you can think whatever wacky thing you want to think, and you are free to change your mind once you get older.

In other words, Van Jones was a champion of the poor and minority communities (in opposing police brutality). Previously he believed that far-left tactics were the way to accomplish his worthy goals, but he has since come to the realization that his goals can best be accomplished within the framework of our free market system. Van Jones now says he is "probably the biggest champion of free market solutions for America's problems, period". I don't know about you, but he doesn't sound like a Commie to me.

As for Van Jones "repenting", what Dennis means is that he believes Mr. Jones is still a Maoist/Communist and wants America to adopt that ideology. I guess Mr. Jones referring to his past views a "wacky" and stating that he CHANGED HIS MIND isn't good enough for Mr. Marks. Dennis KNOWS Van is lying. I know this (that Dennis does not believe Van Jones has rejected Communism/Maoism/Marxism/Leninism/other-far-leftism) because on 12/8/2012 Dennis posted the following comment on the Contra O'Reilly blog...

Dennis Marks: Van Jones' views are the worst of the worst, at least as bad as Nazism. He's a Maoist. You know, the political ideology that demands execution of a large percentage of the population in order to achieve political reform. He's the equivalent of David Duke. Based on his professed political ideology, he's the kind of guy who could look around a crowded room and think of who he'd send to the death camps if he were leader. (8/29/2011 AT 4:12pm).

So, what Van Jones desires (in his heart of hearts) is mass murder? What utter bullshit. These are slanderous and completely unsupported-by-the-facts accusations that Dennis pulled straight from his ass. But Dennis has a history of slandering and lying about Left-leaning individuals, frequently stating that they wish to murder large numbers of people, instead of helping them (which is their true agenda).

Van Jones is not "one of the most truly evil men in politics", he is one of the truly good ones. Mr. Jones' most recent project is "Rebuild the Dream", a movement dedicated to making the changes necessary so that more citizens can attain the American Dream. The problem, according to Mr. Jones, is related to the "Wall Street bailouts, tax handouts, and corporate loopholes are draining our nation's wealth". How can this goal possibly be characterized as "evil"?

Fact is, Dennis himself opposed and opposes the "Wall Street bailouts, tax handouts, and corporate loopholes" (or he SAYS he does). As for the other lies of Dennis... he says Van Jones worked "as a jobs czar". Close, but not quite. He was specifically in charge of Green Jobs... and Dennis thinks that after a mere 6 months his efforts should have been bearing fruit? Van Jones was just getting started when he was forced to resign. That unemployment increased while he was on the job (due to the bush recession) is not something that can be attributed to Mr. Jones.

As for his salary, I'm not going to bother looking into it. Whatever it was I'm sure it was appropriate and in line with what other advisers earn (and earned, under Obama and under past presidents). How Van Jones is at all like David Duke, I have no idea what-so-ever, except to note that Republicans quite often accuse Black progressives of racism (David Duke is a racist, so Dennis must be accusing Van Jones of racism). "Race hustler" is another slur Conservatives love to apply to Black progressives that advocate on behalf of, and stand up for poor Blacks (and often poor Whites as well). It's a thinly veiled attempt to paper over their own racism.

Dennis Marks is guilty of this sort of behavior, as I documented in a prior blog post. Although I believe the primary objection of Dennis to Van Jones centers on his PAST identification with far-left ideologies, and not the fact that he's black. But would Dennis be comparing Van Jones to David Duke if he (Van Jones) were White? I doubt it. But, to be "fair" I am positive that Dennis is more of a socialist hater than a racist.

Communism and Socialism are ideologies that say we are "our brother's keepers"; that we need to look out for each other and make sure everyone has, at the very least, the bare essentials of life. It is an ideology that says nobody should live in poverty, or we should (at least) do our best to reduce poverty as much as we can. Dennis rejects these ideas. In the Dickensian world of Dennis individuals should be able to accumulate much more wealth than they need, even if it means a large number of people have to live in abject poverty.

It is true that Communism and Socialism, when implemented on a national scale, have failed. Mainly due to the greed of the leaders who used their positions to grab as much wealth and power for themselves as they could. This is why Van Jones wised up and realized his goal of HELPING PEOPLE (not murdering them) could be be attained by using the system already in place. A democratic free market system where we can implement as much socialism as we want (via our elected officials).

Democratic Socialism can never lead to genocide as the liar Dennis claims. It is only when the people hand off absolute power to a small group (no matter the ideology) that bad things tend to happen. It is wealth and power concentrated in a limited number of hands we need to be concerned about, not the desire to HELP PEOPLE. But Dennis does not want to help people, at least not at the expense of the wealthy.

If people cannot accumulate vast fortunes beyond what they could possibly spend in one lifetime, Dennis Marks says "NO". You have to draw the line somewhere, after all. If not, then you'll probably go from helping people to wanting to murder them, as Van Jones (in the demented imagination of Dennis) obviously wants to.

As we all know serial killers often start out helping animals, right? That's before they move on to helping people. Then comes the mass murdering. Or desire to kill on a large scale. At least that's how Dennis thinks it works, apparently.

You know, If I were to compare Dennis and Van Jones I would have to conclude that Mr. Marks is far, FAR more evil.

SWTD #144, dDel #7.

Severe Conservative Delusions: Democratic Socialism Dissembling Edition

Some... intentionally blur the differences between socialism and communism, between democracy and totalitarianism. ... If we could get beyond such nonsense, I think this country could use a good debate about what goes on here compared to places with a long social-democratic tradition like Sweden, Norway and Finland, where, by and large, the middle class has a far higher standard of living than we do ~ Bernie Sanders (dob 9/8/1941) Democratic Socialist and junior United States Senator from Vermont, as quoted from his 4/22/2009 HuffPo article, Socialist Successes.

Welcome to the third post in a planned series chronicling the insane in the membrane rantings emanating from the pie hole of the most severely deluded conservative I have ever encountered; a wacko with the blogger ID of dmarks (real name: Dennis Marks). Previously I refuted these statements where they were made - on the blog of a self-described "Moderate", but no longer can due to the proprietor banning me for being too Liberal for him to tolerate.

In this numero tres commentary I'm going to refute a lying diatribe from dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) in which he misrepresented the political ideology of the Independent senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. I would also like to push back against Dennis' misrepresentation of Democratic Socialism. The inane dissembling by Mr. Marks was in response to a disturbing post by Willis Hart in which he relates a violent fantasy in which he beats North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un to death with a baseball bat...

Dennis Marks: [Kim Jong Un] is the face of socialism in its purist form. Now that Pol Pot is dead, anyway. But isn't North Korea more advanced according to the standards of the American hard left anyway? After all, it has single-payer healthcare, no corporate (private-sector) mass media, and no profiteering capitalists. Bernie Sanders paradise. (4/22/2013 AT 8:27pm).

North Korea leader Kim Jong Un is a totalitarian dictator, and not "the face of Socialism in its purist form". In regards to North Korea Wikipedia says, "the government follows the Juche ideology of self-reliance, initiated by the country's first President, Kim Il-sung. After his death, Kim Il-sung was declared the country's Eternal President. Juche became the official state ideology, replacing Marxism–Leninism, when the country adopted a new constitution in 1972. In 2009, references to Communism were removed from the country's constitution".

Dennis has a long history of twisting definitions to slander the Left. Socialism is an ideology whose objective is the empowerment of the average citizen, and, it's purest form, is not supposed to primarily benefit a ruling class. Yes, many revolutionaries have promised Socialism, and then not followed thorough on their promises; instead setting themselves and their cronies up as the primary beneficiaries of their new economic system.

The reason this happens, IMO, is because people like the idea of Socialism and they will fight for it. They do not like the idea of being ruled by a small group of wealthy elites, but unfortunately history has shown us that GREED usually always causes the revolutionary leaders to set themselves up as dictators or the heads of a ruling class.

The reason this almost never happens on the right is because the common man wouldn't fight if their leaders, instead of offering them a fair share of the pie (Socialism), said they should fight for a greater share of the pie going to a wealthy elite (plutocracy). Who would fight on behalf of that? Dictators who came to power by LYING to their citizens aren't socialists; they are kleptocrats (thieves)! Lying about giving the people Socialism and then delivering a totalitarian dictatorship is not "Socialism in it's purest form"!

Not that it matters, since North Korea originally identified as Communist, not socialist, and (surprise) the revolutionary leaders reneged and set up the country as a dictatorship. Wikipedia also notes "education in North Korea is universal and state funded, with a CLAIMED national literacy rate of 99%. The country has a national medical service and CLAIMS to offer free healthcare"... notice the two words I capitalized. They CLAIM these things, but do we really believe the literacy rate is 99%? Do we really believe they offer universal healthcare? No! They are LYING. Socialism involves actually delivering on these promises, not false promises and theft of a nation's resources by a ruling class.

Kleptocracy, as defined by Wikipedia, "is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population", and THIS is what North Korea actually is - a totalitarian dictatorship and a kleptocracy masquerading as a socialistic state.

Not that any of that has anything to do with Bernie Sanders, as he is a Democratic Socialist, which I would define as follows (note that I have rejected sections of the Wikipedia definition)...

Democratic Socialism is a variant of Socialism that rejects centralized, elitist, or authoritarian methods of transitioning from capitalism to socialism [a mixed economy that includes increased socialist elements] in favor of grassroots-level movements aiming for the immediate creation [a gradual transition to a more] decentralized economic democracy. The term is often used by socialists who favor either electoral transition to Socialism or a spontaneous mass revolution from below to distinguish themselves from authoritarian socialists that call for a single-party state, most notably to contrast with Marxist-Leninists and Maoists. Democratic socialists endorse a post-capitalist, socialist [mixed] economic system as an alternative to capitalism. Some Democratic socialists advocate market Socialism based on workplace self-management [cooperatives and worker-owned businesses]...

So, am I guilty of the same sort of terminology redefinition I just accused Dennis of? I say no. My rejection and slight modification of the definition reflects how (I believe) Bernie Sanders views himself as a Democratic Socialist. He would not have run for the House (where he originally served for 16 years) and then the Senate if he did not believe in bringing more Socialism to the United States DEMOCRATICALLY. Also, as Wikipedia points out...

Democratic Socialism is difficult to define, and groups of scholars have radically different definitions for the term. Some definitions simply refer to all forms of Socialism that follow an electoral, reformist or evolutionary path to Socialism, rather than a revolutionary one...

The revolutionary route is rejected because history has shown that it leads to the establishment of a dictatorship or a ruling class of elites (leaders who promised Socialism but delivered kleptocracy). This is the route North Korea followed, and therefore could, in no way be described as a "Bernie Sanders paradise".

And the "hard left" does NOT view North Korea as "more advanced" either. A dictatorship that murders it's own people, imprisons it's citizens in forced labor camps, and allows it's ruling class to live lavishly while the majority of the populace endures extreme poverty and starvation is the exact opposite of what those who advocate for Democratic Socialism desire, Dennis - you stupid lying sack of shit. Greater EQUALITY is their goal.

In fact, countries like North Korea could be described as being "Socialist", but "socialist" in its most perverted form. Democratic Socialists and progressives (the so-called "hard left") stand in opposition to this "form" of "Socialism" (which is actually totalitarianism), as well as the plutocracy deluded stooges like Dennis Marks yearn for.

Supporting Document
Bernie Sanders: Hero Of The Ruling Class, A Greedy Thief Who Is Good At Plundering, DSD #13. (A catalog of Dennis comments re Bernie Sanders. Many of them comparing the VT Senator to dictators like Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and Kim Jong-un).

SWTD #136, dDel #6.

Supporters of Socialism Agree That Democrats are Horrible Compromisers

Ours is a government of checks and balances. The Mafia and crooked businessmen make out checks, and the politicians and other compromised officials improve their bank balances ~ Steve Allen (12/26/1921 to 10/30/2000) was an American television personality, musician, actor, comedian, and writer.

I turned the TV on a little early today and caught part of the end of Hardball, even though I usually I don't flip on the boob tube until 7pm when Keith Olbermann starts. Chris Matthews was discussing the Congressional Democrat's betrayal of their constituents, a large majority of whom support a government run insurance option. A Democratic Congresswoman (I forget who) defended the ditching of the public option by mentioning, several times, how this was the best they could do, because the Democrats are a large tent party, with progressive, moderate, and conservative corporate Democrats - and that meant that compromise was necessary.

Allowing people 55 years of age to buy into Medicare is a good idea, but I disagree that adding this provision and dropping the public option is an acceptable trade. Not that the public option was anything to get excited about, after they continually watered it down to the point where it would cover less than 2% of the population. Even with all the caveats that were attached, the insurance companies were still threatened. Corporate Democrats and Independent turncoat Democrats (Joe Lieberman), eager for more bribe money, sold out their constituents and helped kill the public option.

Republicans, on the other hand, stood by their constituents (the insurance cartels) and delivered to them the prospect of even more profits by mandating the public purchase their overpriced product and support multi-million dollar salaries for their CEOs. The anti-trust protection, first out, is now back in. Denial of coverage for preexisting conditions will apparently be disallowed, although the cartels will be allowed to charge these people more.

Unfortunately I'm one of those people. Eventually I assume I'll become one of the 45,000 people who die each year due to lack of insurance. That's a hell of a lot of people, so I am hardly in a unique position. As such, this post is not a plea for sympathy or well wishes. I doubt I have to worry about that in any case, as lately my blog, which I thought had a couple of readers, has gone several posts with scant attention paid. In any case, I probably have at least a couple of years before things really start to go downhill. At least the socialists who live with me hope that is the case.

On a positive note, if people 55 to 64 can buy into Medicare there are other members of my family that will benefit from that provision. And, even if there were a public option I'm sure that Tennessee (the state where I live), would opt out. So I guess there is no reason to be depressed about these developments after all!

SWTD #35