Francesca Hong tries to cover up the past of Francesca Hong
Hong is the current frontrunner for the Democrat nomination for governor of Wisconsin, and she’s quite a piece of work:
Francesca Hong is a card-carrying, dues-paying member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). There are multiple social media posts from Hong calling for the abolition of the Senate, police, prisons, ICE, and our borders. That all aligns with the DSA platform that was spelled out by co-chair Megan Romer on Fox News the other day.
That won’t play well with the voters in red areas or swing states like Wisconsin, and Hong knows that. Her campaign denied that Hong ever said she supported abolishing the Senate (and fact-checkers dutifully circled the wagons on her), and Hong is trying to put some distance between herself and the party she’s supported for years. …
Run as a moderate, govern as a radical.
Examples at the link.
Will it work? It certainly seems to have put her on track to win the nomination, and although it’s hard to believe that the voters of Wisconsin will want her as their governor, stranger things have happened.
This whole idea of hiding who you are is a winning strategy for many leftists, although they are increasingly honest about their goals – and platforms like Twitter (X) make it harder for someone like Hong to run away from past statements. There is a history of this sort of dissemblance, and I believe it really came to flower with the candidacy of Barack Obama.
Yesterday I happened to come across an interview between Winston Marshall and Steven Barrett, discussing the leftist movement that began in Britain long ago known as the Fabians. Although as far as I know, Hong doesn’t call herself a Fabian, she does seem to conform to what Barrett is describing here. I think the whole video is of interest, but it’s very long and you can get the gist of the important part if you watch just the first few minutes, in which Barrett likens the DSA and its current ilk to the Fabians:
NOTE: I wrote a fairly lengthy post in 2012 that described Obama as a Fabian. Please see this.
I saw an article this afternoon that stated a good number of DSA members have signed a letter of support over the US in favor if ChiCom. Wouldn’t this be the very definition of treason?
I don’t know Glenn Beck very well, but some of his old shows on Fox were interesting. He spent some substantial time on the Fabian Society.
It’s not treason… yet.
They are having the same problems the GOP had 20yrs ago.
I think it’s a modern political tactic to say multiple, conflicting things in order to sow confusion. If you make enough conflicting statements, acknowledging that the ‘internet is forever’, you can get thousands of critics to pile up with ‘gotcha’ moments, keep them occupied, and in the end just deny anything that happens to be inconvenient at the moment. And tomorrow you can go right out and say 10 more mutually-conflicting things, and get away with it again.
Confusion is the objective. That way, nobody can be perceived as being right, so you may as well Vote for Me, because I will change things ! Just look at my record.
Related:
Whereby Francesca Hong demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt that she’s the PERFECT Democratic Party candidate…
https://instapundit.com/813993/
+ Bonus—she’s already sewn up the Turkey vote…
“TRAIN WRECK IN WISCONSIN”—
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/08/train-wreck-in-wisconsin.php
From Barry’s second link at 1:02 am:
I’ve thought for a long time that most Democrats have serious mental pathologies.
Party of the working man!
“Kamala Harris Moves To $8.5M Mansion In 94% White Neighborhood”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/kamala-harris-moves-85m-mansion-94-white-neighborhood
File under: Let them eat s***…
I am one Badger who is appalled at the idea of her being our governor.
On voting, until fraud is even remotely stopped expect it to weigh a heavy thumb on the scales.
But if Fabians state straight-up that they are for the gradual expansion of socialism and they even have a wolf in sheep skin as an emblem, how deceptive are they?
huxley:
In the interview, he says that they are deceptive about their ultimate goals and methods. The idea, I think, is that they present themselves as being willing to be voted into power and willing to be voted out of power, and that their ultimate goal isn’t basically Communism. But their goal is basically Communism, plus once in power they plan to subvert the Democratic process in order to make it impossible for them to ever lose power. They are nowhere near as moderate as they pretend to be.
neo:
I listened to the first ten-minutes of the video and was not impressed with Stephen Barrett. That may be his analysis of Fabianism but quite a lot of people — including a fair number of British PMs — have been Fabians or influenced by Fabians. I doubt they would all sign off on his characterization.
Today there are are only 8000 members of the Fabian Society. I’d bet even they cover a lot more political ground the Barrett would have listeners think.
Furthermore I would like to see his cites supporting his conspiratorial embellishment that Fabianism necessarily entails a secret, unified plan to abolish democracy once the Fabians have captured the state.
The Fabians were not Bolsheviks on a looser schedule.
huxley:
What I thought he was saying was not really about the official Fabians at this point or the official Fabian society. He was talking more about the vast group who are Fabianesque, such as the DSA in this country (I also include Obama) and similar groups across the pone, and who not only profess to want socialism but who want to make themselves permanently in charge. In the US I would include, for example, the fact that the Democrats today are determined to admit more “states” in order to allow them to have permanent control of the Senate, and to pack SCOTUS to give them control of that. These are mainstream Democrat goals now and the people who advocate them are not just limited to those who call themselves Fabians or DSA members.
neo:
Well, it’s complicated and I disagree on many points. So apparently neither you nor Barrett can back up such charges against Fabians without resorting to Fabianesque as the qualifier.
My point, as a leftist from 70s-90s, is that almost none of the leftists I knew were proto-Bolsheviks motivated by resentment and a desire to establish a communist dictatorship, as Barrett would have it.
I do weary of the argument: A->B->C->All leftists are communists.
We weren’t. My leftism was focused on opposing nuclear weapons, opposing war, supporting minority rights and the poor. My centers for activism were Christian churches. I worked in soup kitchens with Catholic Workers and leftist Franciscans.
huxley:
I certainly am not saying all leftists are Communists (I don’t think that’s what Barrett is saying either, if you look at the whole video).
We can argue about what percentage of leftists are Communists or socialists. I think it’s a very significant percentage in terms of where they’d like it to end up: state ownership, state control, tremendous restrictions on liberty, capitalism is bad, etc. etc.. That’s what I see and hear from an enormous number of leftists today, at the same time they mouth dedication to “democracy” and “liberty” and the “rule of law” and “equality.”
But also, I was in college during the late 1960s and I knew a lot of leftists. In fact, I have known a lot of leftists my entire life, even in childhood (and many relatives as well as friends). In my childhood they were in fact Communists and kept it quiet. Many are still Communists and Marxists to this day. I like some of them personally, by the way – although not all of them.
I also knew many many leftists in college (I was just a Democrat rather than a leftist back then). They were very extreme. I went to a couple of meetings of their groups and I was horrified at the amount of extremism I saw and heard. It’s one of the things that put me off leftism for life.
Nowadays I know many Democrat-voting women who wouldn’t call themselves leftists and certainly not Communists but who hate capitalism, hate the US, support and vote for candidates on the extreme left, think AOC is just peachy-keen, and that sort of thing. I really see very little to distinguish them from actual socialists and actual leftists except that they live ordinary American lives and benefit from our system, They are not leftists in that they’re really not into theory, but they are extreme leftists in their voting behavior. They are taken in by the feel-good rhetoric of the actual leftists.
I have also noticed that, with very few exceptions, when Democrats have been in power in Congress in recent years, nearly all of them vote the party line even when it is quite to the left. That’s true even if they ran as moderates.
neo:
Apparently we went to different leftist meetings together.
I had my run-ins with the New Left and rejected them. I still found plenty of other places to make common cause with the left.
Which is again my point. The right is very quick to overgeneralize about the left.
But when push comes to shove you’re just another broken egg.
For the greater good.
I listened to the full interview between Winston Marshall and Steven Barrett, while reading other posts from time to time, and it is fascinating in the range of topics covered which nonetheless all address the dangers of letting Fabians (aka communists aka socialists) run their country, or any country, or anything at all.