You probably knew that you were a Putin Puppet, but did you know that you were a Nazi too?
I didn't know that I was a Nazi until recently. It was a surprise to me because a large branch of my family was executed in the Holocaust by actual Nazis.
How did I become an anti-Semite? I used the term "globalist".

Peter Beinart, writing in The Atlantic, explained that “globalist” is “an epithet … a modern-day vessel for a slur” against the Jews, and he linked to a video of Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, who verified that “the term ‘globalist’ was developed and originated in extremist circles populated by white supremacists” (by which I can only assume he meant the Anti-globalization Movement, which apparently is just a big Nazi front). Eli Rosenberg, inThe Washington Post, although allowing that “globalist” can sometimes mean “globalist,” emphasized that, “to some observers of extremism,” it also “speaks to something darker.” Bret Stephens, in The New York Times,couldn’t quite decide whether using the word makes you an official goose-stepping Nazi or just a garden variety anti-Semite. CNN’s Don Lemon, delving into “the ugly history” of the word, explained that “it is shorthand for a worldview based on racism, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism” … the worldview of “far right conspiracy theorists obsessed with prominent Jews like George Soros.” And these are just a few of the many examples.

So if you oppose globalism you hate Jews.
I'm guessing that most Jews don't agree with this viewpoint.
The lesson here is that accusations of racism are being used to shut down debate about the political-economic order in order to defend the status quo.

The liberal mainstream is currently dominated by Identity Politics.
"All politics is identity politics," so say the defenders of Identity Politics.
They are so committed to fighting racism and sexism that they've invented a whole new vocabulary of words, redefined other words, and are attempting to eliminate other words.
But have you noticed that there is one Identity that they can't be bothered with?

Class Identity.

That's why if you say "working class" there is the automatic dishonest misdirection that you are only talking about white people.
Some Identities are more equal than others.

Let me be clear about something, Identity Politics has done some good things in the past.
Obviously the Civil Rights Movement of the 50's and 60's comes to mind, as does First Wave and Second Wave Feminism.
However, today's Identity Politics is different for a very specific reason - it's Reactionary.

Reactionary Politics has been, and always will be the domain of the right-wing.
Which is why those who preach contemporary Identity Politics today are not, and never will be, of the left.

To put this into context, consider the two ideas that came out of the Enlightenment that are not part of contemporary Identity Politics: Solidarity and the belief in universal human values.

The origins of identity politics in the late eighteenth century lie with the reactionary right. The original politics of identity was racism and nationalism, and it developed out of the counter-Enlightenment. These early critics of the Enlightenment opposed the idea of universal human values by stressing particularist values embodied in group identities. ‘There is no such thing as Man’, wrote the French arch-reactionary Joseph de Maistre in his polemic against the concept of the Rights of Man. ‘I have seen Frenchmen, Italians and Russians… As for Man, I have never come across him anywhere.’

Where reactionaries adopted a particularist outlook, radicals challenging inequality and oppression did so in the name of universal rights. They insisted that equal rights belonged to all and that there existed a set of values and institutions, under which all humans best flourished. It was a universalism that fuelled the great radical movements that have shaped the modern world – from the almost-forgotten but hugely important Haitian Revolution of 1791, to the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles of the twentieth century to the movement for women’s suffrage to the battles for gay rights.

Today's contemporary Identity Politics revolves around reacting to perceived outrages by those of different tribal identities. It's first and foremost a movement based on emotions.
The stronger your emotional reaction, the more political capital you have.
There is no overarching vision of the future, other than vague platitudes such as "a world without racism and sexism". There is no serious attempt to achieve that goal because there is no serious attempt to define that goal.

That's where true progressives and supporters of contemporary Identity Politics split.
Consider this reaction to something Bernie Sanders said.

"I have to know whether that Latina is going to stand up with the working class of this country and is going to take on big money interests," Sanders said. "It is not good enough for somebody to say, I'm a woman, vote for me. No, that’s not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry."

"In other words, one of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics," he continued. "I think it’s a step forward in America if you have an African-American CEO of some major corporation. But you know what, if that guy is going to be shipping jobs out of this country, and exploiting his workers, it doesn’t mean a whole hell of a lot whether he’s black or white or Latino."

Talking Points Memo published a report under the misleading headline, "Sanders Urges Supporters: Ditch Identity Politics and Embrace the Working Class."

You know what, fuck Bernie Sanders when Republicans are literally trying to outlaw my identity with their politics.

— Katelyn Burns (@transscribe) November 21, 2016

Sen. Bernie Sanders in latest speech: "... ... ...racism... ... ... ... ... is .. ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... good... ... ..."

— Current Affairs (@curaffairs) November 21, 2016

Bernie made the "mistake" of talking about solidarity, beyond skin color or gender, and universal human values, in opposition to the wealthy and powerful. IOW, traditional leftist positions.
He may as well been speaking another language to some people.

Once you realize that the supporters of contemporary Identity Politics are actually on the right, then their reaction here makes perfect sense. As does their opposition to Medicare-For-All, and any other progressive cause that the ruling elite opposes.

While watching clips from Bernie's town hall on inequality, a comment by Michael Moore caught my attention. He pointed out that the three wealthiest men in America, who's wealth equalled the wealth of the bottom 50% of the population, were all mainstream Democrats.

It got me thinking about the nature of the Democratic Party, which is supported by the people who owe the most to defending the status quo.
So how would the Dems defend the interests of the wealthy elite? By using accusations of racism to distract the public, of course.

Another way that the Dems are defending the status quo is with Russiagate, and how Google, Facebook are shutting down left-wing dissent.
Coincidently another billionaire Democrat is Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook.

The interesting part of Russiagate is how it's proponents have overlooked a basic fact.

“Russian operatives also sought to promote the left-wing identity politics that currently dominate the Democratic Party, previous reporting has shown. One Russian account promoted a militant, left-wing form of feminism, similar to the kind pushed by Women’s March organizers.”

Mainstream Democrats and supporters of today's Identity Politics have bent over backwards to ignore this.
One or two Facebook ads for Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein make them "Putin Puppets", but repeated references to the Women's March somehow doesn't make women into "Putin Puppets".
It's the same hypocrisy that has supporters of today's Identity Politics ignoring Class Identity, and the hypocrisy always leans to the same side - toward the side of billionaires and against traditional grassroots leftists.

The supporters of today's Identity Politics make the assumption that people identify on only the most simplistic and superficial of ways, such as your gender and skin color.(On the right-wing you are supposed to identify by nationality and religion.)
What about those that identify based on shared values instead? Are all of us dissenters just racist and sexist? Or are we just able to think outside of your tiny box?

Where the politics of identity divides, the politics of solidarity finds collective purpose across the fissures of race or gender, sexuality or religion, culture or nation. But it is the politics of solidarity that has crumbled over the past two decades as radical movements have declined. For many today, the only form of collective politics that seem possible is that rooted in identity.
‘Solidarity’, therefore, has become increasingly defined not in political terms – as collective action in pursuit of certain political ideals – but in terms of ethnicity or culture. The answer to the question ‘In what kind of society do I want to live?’ has become shaped less by the kinds of values or institutions we want to establish, than by the group or tribe to which we imagine we belong.

From the 1870's to the 1960's, all left-wing political movements arose out of the labor movement, which was a class movement, or found solidarity with labor. This was true even for the civil rights movement and second wave feminism.
Any movement that calls itself progressive that ignores labor and class is a trojan horse.