Why is everyone so confused about the color "Red"??
It's really quite simple:
In 2000, Red became the New Blue which also was the New Green (and which is now the New Red no longer recognized as the pre-2000 Red) but the pre-2000 Blues (
i.e., the post-2000 Reds) are still clueless about how this occurred.
Before 2000, The Media used Red for Democrats and Blue for Republicans. But in Reporting Election 2000, to reverse the identification of Democrats as "Reds," The Media made Red the New Blue and Blue the New Red. Then The Media Identified Blue as the New Green to denote Democrats as the Protectors of Mother Earth.
Now, TEA PARTIES* have caught-on to our (and our loyal media's) color-scheme changes, and they now claim Green is the "New Red" by which they mean it is the "Old Red" (
i.e., the pre-2000 Reds or the post-2000 Blues a.k.a. the Greens), but the
true "New Reds" are the Reds in China, who have never been
true Greens but rather have always been "Reds" (
i.e., Old Reds) or the same as the Post-2000 Blues.
Although the New Reds in China are the least protective of our Mother Earth, they share the New Greens' political philosophy of being
(a) least protective of what the post-2000 Blues (
i.e. Old Reds) recognize as being the antiquated concepts of individual liberty and
(b) most protective of the Progressive exhaltation of collectivist wisdom.
I'm a
true Blue who's really a true Green, which really means I'm an Old Red simply trying to
appearGreen.
So, perhaps I should be a
true "Red" (
i.e., an "Old Red"), but then an Old Red is a New Blue. I'm getting a headache.
It's so confusing.
But's what's most frightening to us as Progressives are the RWABAs (pronounced "rrr-
wah'-buz"), which stands for "Red, White And Blue Americans," who are self-admitted admirers of those TEA PARTIES**.
*TEA PARTIES = Tapping Exceptional Americanism Promoting America's Republic Trouncing Isolationistic Egalitarian Submissiveness.
**See "*"
--GAIA Minister Neytiri Naked Truth Report.
