Thursday, January 3, 2013

Communist Goals for the United States
Said to be Stated in The Congressional Record since 1963
(Thank you to AOW and Adrienne for the Reference)


I have to admit I did not check The Congressional Record from 1963 on to verify these statements, but whether or not they actually do appear there doesn't matter very much, because in reality these very "goals" have been accomplished pretty much as stated. Naturally "Progressives" would hail these developments and threats as "great leaps forward." We Conservative-Libertarians feel differently about it.

The unattributed background music is Aaron Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man." Copland was a Jewish Communist from Brooklyn, NY, who also happened to be one of America's most brilliant composers.

If you feel you ought to take offense at our reference to Copland's Jewishness, you ought to read Radical Son –– David Horowitz's stunning exposé of his own background as a "Red Diaper Baby." 

~ FreeThinke

35 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Aha! You posted this!

I've seen those goals in print form. Just look how many have been fulfilled!

Cultural Marxism rules the day now.

jez said...

The source of this list is Cleon Skousen's "The Naked Communist" who, since we're keeping track of people's religion, was a mormon. Draw your own conclusions, if any.

Ducky's here said...

A. S. S. Herlong quoting a rabid religiously insane individual like Cleon Skousen is hardly any definitive evidence, FT.

I wonder how free your thinking really is. However, Skousen was Glenn Beck's mentor so this silliness is alive and well with conspiracy theorists everywhere.
Now, where's that birth certificate?

Thersites said...

How free is "her" thinking asks the Marxist who places an assumed ideological intention beneath every comment?

BWAH!

Waylon said...

I hadn't seen that video before, but I had seen a long list of communist goals for advancing the communist agenda within the USA.

Frankly, I think it's reasonable to point out an individual's Jewishness when that individual is a communist. After all Communism as based on the ideology of it's number one advocate, Karl Marx, was the son of a Jewish rabbi. The founding fathers of Bolshevism are themselves a Jewish trifecta: Marx, Trotsky and Lenin.

I have not read any books by David Horowitz, but I've read enough of his prose to know he's not likely to understate a case and tends to run on long after the point has been made. I find it odd that Horowitz isn't shy about naming names when it comes to subversive communists, although I find he tends to overlook too many that are of the "chosen people" variety.

I asked him once why somebody like Armand Hammer wasn't included in his files of notorious communists, but no answer was forthcoming. Julius Hammer, the father of Armand Hammer, was the first member of the American communist party, I believe. If I'm wrong I'm sure Ducky will set the record straight.

Waylon said...

..."a rabid religiously insane individual like Cleon Skousen"?

Huh? Is that a clinical diagnosis, doctor, or just your biased opinion?

I can understand your feathers getting ruffled at any critique of your beloved Marxist doctrine, but you've got to stop reacting blindly, only with extreme emotion, and be mature enough to listen to valid criticisms of your cherished doctrine ... it comes from more mature reality oriented minds that are capable of understanding ideas rationally.

Waylon said...

YUP! Thought so ...

"ARMAND HAMMER: TINKER, TRAITOR, SATYR, SPY A SCATHING NEW BIOGRAPHY PAINTS THE GLOBETROTTING FOUNDER OF OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM AS A BLATANT OPPORTUNIST, A WOMANIZER--AND PERHAPS EVEN A SOVIET SPY."

"Gee, and he seemed like such a nice old man. When Dr. Armand Hammer, chairman of Occidental Petroleum, died nearly six years ago at the age of 92, obituary writers praised him as a tireless servant of East-West peace, a corporate statesman, an art collector, a humanitarian. When he wasn't kissing babies, it seemed, he was dedicating bridges. Sure, a few sorehead investors complained about his gallivanting around the world at their expense aboard Oxy's caviar-laden jet. But what chairman doesn't have his critics?

Now, however, Edward Jay Epstein, author of Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer (Random House, $30), shows Hammer to have been something else entirely: a traitor."

Gee, and he seemed like such a nice old man. When Dr. Armand Hammer, chairman of Occidental Petroleum, died nearly six years ago at the age of 92, obituary writers praised him as a tireless servant of East-West peace, a corporate statesman, an art collector, a humanitarian. When he wasn't kissing babies, it seemed, he was dedicating bridges. Sure, a few sorehead investors complained about his gallivanting around the world at their expense aboard Oxy's caviar-laden jet. But what chairman doesn't have his critics?

Now, however, Edward Jay Epstein, author of Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer (Random House, $30), shows Hammer to have been something else entirely: a traitor.

Gee, and he seemed like such a nice old man. When Dr. Armand Hammer, chairman of Occidental Petroleum, died nearly six years ago at the age of 92, obituary writers praised him as a tireless servant of East-West peace, a corporate statesman, an art collector, a humanitarian. When he wasn't kissing babies, it seemed, he was dedicating bridges. Sure, a few sorehead investors complained about his gallivanting around the world at their expense aboard Oxy's caviar-laden jet. But what chairman doesn't have his critics?

Now, however, Edward Jay Epstein, author of Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer (Random House, $30), shows Hammer to have been something else entirely: a traitor.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1996/11/11/218180/index.htm

Ducky will just have to digest THIS too ...



Silverfiddle said...

It doesn't really matter where they came, from, or if the list is really true. It is the Progressive blueprint that they have used to take sledgehammers, jackhammers and wrecking balls to our society for over 100 years now.

Lady Liberty said...

http://vimeo.com/52009124

AGENDA: Grinding America Down

Lady Liberty said...

Just the facts

Ducky's here said...

The list is really true?

I enjoy how this game is played. First define anything in the political center as Marxist and then when the country doesn't swing to fringe right insanity declare the grandeur of your prophets.

If you give an 85 I.Q. cracker like Waylon a chance to display his antisemitism it's a bonus.

Our society? Sorry Libertarian boy, "There’s no such thing as society". Yes a rare moment of honesty from dipstick Thatcher one of Saint Ronnie Raygun's crushes.

The fringe right is too dumb to be consistent.

Ducky's here said...

Freethinker, maybe you could substitute Ives as a soundtrack.
Maybe, he wasn't a Jew but he was a big supporter of representative democracy so that's a potential disqualification.

Bernstein? Just joking.

Or how about Walter Piston? Just because he taught Jews like Bernstein shouldn't necessarily discredit a brilliant composer and teacher.

Lady Liberty said...

BLESS YOU, FT!
{Some are expecting Martial Law by Memorial Day,...}
We MUST free ourselves from the OWNERS of the leash media- the ENEMEDIA, as you so aptly wrote.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Ducky: "The fringe right is too dumb to be consistent. "

No, you're too stupid to understand the concept of consistent. By your definition, it would be groupthink.

Unlike you doctrinaire lefties, we think for ourselves.

jez said...

Is FreeThinke presenting the fulfillment of some of these vague predictions as evidence of an organised left-wing attack on liberal democracy?

Shaw Kenawe said...

"{Some are expecting Martial Law by Memorial Day,...}"

Yeah. We know. And the fringies also predicted that President Obama would suspend the 2012 elections.

And that he would steal every American's first born and send it to re-education camps, and kill God.

We know all about your paranoia. There is help for that malady.


Ducky's here said...

@Waylon --- If I'm wrong I'm sure Ducky will set the record straight.

----
Nah, find out for yourself.

To the Finland Station: A Study in the Acting and Writing of History
Edmund Wilson

Available on Amazon.

FreeThinke said...

"To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”

~ George Orwell

Indeed it does, but we don't need to read tendentious tomes telling us what is and is not real.

The responses from the left are so doctrinaire -- and so tediously predictable - I could easily have written them, myself, before publishing the item.

"There are none so blind as those who cannot [or will not] see."

It's taken us more than a hundred years to get where we are today. It didn't happen by accident, Jez, but we have no one to blame but ourselves. Naiveté and the narrowness, smugness and shortsightedness of of Philistinism, as represented by the mythical Mrs. Grundy, made us an easy mark.

Truth is so much deeper than ideology and so much more than a collection of "facts."

One might as well try to establish a dialogue with a telephone pole as a liberal. Unfortunately, the former makes a more satisfying interlocutor than the latter.

WIth alice toward none I remain,

FreeThinke

PS: Jez, please go back a reread Cultural Marxism. I posted it several weeks ago. Any answer I might have for your question is best answered by that article. - FT

Waylon said...

Ducky, if you have the intellect to do a bit of independent thinking about your beloved Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 you would know that Bolshevism was not an ideology popularly accepted and adopted by the Russian people.

It was forces outside of Russia that released Lenin from imprisonment in Switzerland and gave him safe passage back to Russia to undermine the existing rule of the Czar. You might recall at the time there was a conflagration raging between nations, the results of which had not been determined at that particular moment in time. So it was thought by the so-called brain trust of the West that Lenin might be used to help them advance their cause and defeat Germany and Russia at the same time.

Also recall another great hero of yours, Leon Trotsky, was relieved of "his duties" in New York to be sent back to Russia in this great endeavor. So let's not pretend there was not support financially and immorally from some mysterious high-powered individuals in the West and the United States in particular to impose Marxism (i.e. Bolshevism) on the Russian people.

What are the odds that Trotsky was working for the establishment of the Communist Party in the United States?

So would I learn that from Edmund Wilson?

Buy a clue Ducky.

Waylon said...

Winston Churchill: " ''America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the spring of 1917. Had we made peace there would have been no collapse of Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany.

If America had stayed out of the war, all of these 'isms' wouldn't be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American and other lives. Germany's peace offer to Great Britain asked for neither indemnities nor reparations.

Germany offered to restore the territorial status and the political independence of every country with whom Great Britain was at war, as they existed in August 1914 when the war in Europe started. Germany demanded no benefits."

Ducky's here said...

Hmmm, didn't Germany undertake unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 hoping to knock out Britain quickly knowing the decision would cause America to enter the war?

jez said...

'Truth is so much deeper than ideology and so much more than a collection of "facts."'

Yes, but truth is only recognizable through the establishment of facts. When you present your ideas without the support of evidence, they are indistinguishable from errors.

The specific issue here is an instance of the general problem "correlation is not causation". Some of these predictions have been vaguely fulfilled, fine. You, it seems, consider this to be as a result of deliberate left wing machinations, but have not yet shared your reasoning. Your opinion is your own concern, but don't mistake your personal conviction, if that's all it is, for knowledge.

Also, you may have inadvertently been quite rude in your last remark. I'm not offended, but you seem like such a stickler for old-fashioned values and courtesies, and I'd hate for you to unknowingly contribute to the Marxist conspiracy by coursening our discourse.

FreeThinke said...

Jez,

Please review this material.

http://freethinkesblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/cultural-marxism-by-linda-kimball.html

I know you've seen it before. This business of being forever required to go back to Square One in these ongoing debates is tedious.

I certainly wasn't being rude to you -- intentionally or otherwise -- so there's no need for me to apologize, but I'm sorry you interpret those remarks that way.

Along these lines you might enjoy the "colloquy" posted today -- and then again you might not.

~ FreeThinke

FreeThinke said...

Thank you for quoting Winston. It's always a treat, but also a sad reminder of how horribly the West has degenerated since he was at the helm.

No one in power -- or any noticeable Public Presence today -- has strength of character, wit and "derring do" like that anymore.

The Denigrators -- aka "Historical Revisionists" -- have succeeded in bashing, denting and crumpling our self image so badly, we now tend to see our former selves as The Bad Guys.

TRAGIC!

jez said...

What's revisionist about recognising Churchill's shortcomings? Do you know eg. about his contribution to the Gallipoli campaign? It's a bit rich for him to blame the whole thing on the Americans when he personally had a lot to do with ballsing it up in the first place.

Ask an Australian for an interesting opinion about Churchill -- it likely won't be very positive, and there would be nothing revisionist about it, that's been the general opinion there since WWI.

He's not a bad day, he's not a good guy. He's a just a guy, at once flawed and brilliant, who played a vital role in recent history. Good for him, but I'm not going to base my whole national self-image on his bizarre, cracked personality.

Waylon said...

Those who were critical of Winston Churchill would include my English grandfather. He would only say that Churchill wasted a lot of good young lives and many more people died than should have in the wars because of Churchill. This was not part of the accepted wisdom of the day, at least not where I went to school.

Gallipoli is a good example of that. Here's something that should make people take a second look at the waste of life in wars that were created to advance globalism and Bolshevism...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VktJNNKm3B0&playnext=1&list=PLEA51CFF32F717360&feature=results_video

But I do think that above quotation attributing blame to America for WWI and it's aftermath WWII is accurate, insightful and plenty of evidence backs that observation up.

And, no, Ducky, America entered WWI, because it was decided by the handlers of the man who was elected in 1916 ... you know ... "The man who kept America out of the war", being his campaign slogan.

jez said...

I have seen that article before. I failed to pursue it to its conclusion the first time, and I've no reason to hope for a different result now. ;)

I think there's reason to doubt the alleged conspiracy as the cause of these vague prophesies coming to fruition, since many of them can be adequately explained without the involvement of shadowy puppet-masters. Many of them are plausibly ascribable to right-wing influences. (eg. porn flourishes in a culture of unfettered capitalism; and traditional art inevitably becomes more conceptual as a reaction to photography etc.). Not every plausible theory is true.

FreeThinke said...

You don't understand, Jez. I can't be sure whether it's because you can't, or simply don't want to.

That's all right. I find it all-but-impossible, myself, to read material written by those with whom I am profoundly at odds.

There's a great deal about which I know absolutely nothing, but at least I'm able to admit it.

Perhaps everything is up for grabs, and only a matter of "attitude?"

That's a relativist idea, I suppose.

Wouldn't it be funny if all of were only a matter of how we feel about a given issue?

Could "my" truth have just as much significance and right to exist as "your" truth, even though we may be opposed?

I believe whatever it is we earnestly seek may be something very like that.

What would life be without polarity?

All the DYNAMISM seems to stem from the tension existing between two extremes.

Once again I resort to a favorite adage:

Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved.

ALSO:

"Life is a tragedy to him who feels, but a comedy to him who thinks."

Best wishes for the [still] New Year!

~ FT

jez said...


"ou don't understand, Jez. I can't be sure whether it's because you can't, or simply don't want to"

if you'd like to find out, you could try stating simply the thing it is you'd like me to understand.

FreeThinke said...

Well. to quote Mr. Reagan, "There you go again."

An invitation to get right back on the same old merry-go-round.

If you understood me, you could not possibly ask such a question.

I look for underlying principles that motivate and attitudes and behavior patterns that determine the course of events. If I read you right, which I admit is dubious, you appear to desire little more than to expose us both to being engulfed and probably drowned in a sea of specifics.

Study Auguries of Innocence and Intimations of Immortality, then try to become familiar with The Saint Matthew Passion, Beethoven, Opus 58 and Opus 111, and The Wind in the Willows, if you want to understand me any better.

jez said...

I've no wish to drown anyone in specifics, but I may wish to test your theory (once I've confirmed what it is) and maybe select a few facts to expose the weaknesses and strengths of it and its alternatives. I think it's fun, more so than prickly defensiveness.

FreeThinke said...

Well, instead of arguing ad infinitum I prefer to write poetry, such as it is, and to study music. Right now I am learning -- or relearning, rather -- the Variations and Fugue on a Theme of Handel by Brahms. I first studied it at age fifteen, then never played it again.

Fifty-seven years of wear and tear have caused great changes. In many ways I am much stronger today, but in others I have deteriorated, so I've had to change nearly everything about the approach to this great work. What's true of me today was not true fifty-seven years ago. Today I am burdened with greater understanding, which causes higher demands that in turn demand greater effort.

It's a bit like regaining one's virginity. ;-)

At any rate, I get great satisfaction from pursuing perfection, even though I know it's unattainable.

I am privileged to be able to do this sort of thing, and fortunate enough to know it, and be grateful.

jez said...

Some arguments are so beautiful they qualify as poetry. :)

FreeThinke said...

Yes, but most of it is a waste of time, which grows more precious as one gets closer to The End.

Cheerio!

~ FT

jez said...

Finding out you are wrong is never a waste of time! A strong character is always open to that discovery. :)