No, they just didn't purge all of the people who didn't understand the objective of the New York Times was to promote Communism.
Previous generations of Leftists were much more intelligent than the current average. You've got to understand that some of the smartest western Leftists of our time are Tony Blair and Barrack Obama, which is really saying just how dumb they've gotten.
They used to understand that through literally Fabian tactics, you subverted the current system and brought it under Socialist control without ever even calling it Socialism. Socialism was already a dirty word because revolutionary Leftists had failed so many times, and killed so many people in the US.
Wow - the Times was based once?!
No, they just didn't purge all of the people who didn't understand the objective of the New York Times was to promote Communism.
Previous generations of Leftists were much more intelligent than the current average. You've got to understand that some of the smartest western Leftists of our time are Tony Blair and Barrack Obama, which is really saying just how dumb they've gotten.
They used to understand that through literally Fabian tactics, you subverted the current system and brought it under Socialist control without ever even calling it Socialism. Socialism was already a dirty word because revolutionary Leftists had failed so many times, and killed so many people in the US.
Every once in a while, the revolutionaries would go on a tear, and the Fabians around them had to repeatedly explain the concept of subtlety. This is aptly shown in the Struggle Session of Albert Multz, a Socialist hollywood writer, who tried to explain to the Communists why propaganda needed to be subtle and not obtrusive.
See "The Gray Lady Winked"](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gray-Lady-Winked-Misreporting-Fabrications-ebook/dp/B0922WP4VQ) to see that they were always ideologically captured by one Socialist variant or another