It didn't exactly work though...

Frankly I think the American Communist Party was one of the most ridiculously inept and pathetic organisations ever to claim to represent the populace. You can see in its very aims the tools of its own destruction.

For example let's consider the following -

34. Eliminate the House Committe on Un-American Activities.

Now what development gave Communist Americans more sympathy than any other in the history of the US communist movement? The House Committee of course. They were fools to ever campaign against it, because it was starkly obvious that its leader was a raving nut. Compared with McCarthy, even the most incensed Communist seems rational. And that could have been useful.

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

For a party allegedly consisting of intellectuals they had no understanding of the psyche of the adolescent. Most people forced to endure daily prayers in school end up either lapsed or atheists (if you believe the statistics that is); the perfect and most fertile ground for recruitment. It's when you deny something to a kid that they really want it. That's why there are actually popular student prayer groups! You never would have had them back in the old, enforced prayer days.

6. Promote homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, and healthy."

I bet Stalin would have loved this one. But surely this is more likely to lead to a religious-based revolution than a secular one? Secularism (as in Communist principles) is more likely to embrace these things than to be a result of a rejection, isn't it?

Anyway that's all I've got to say. Still interesting. I always knew Communists were idiots; you've just reinforced that for me.

Yeah, I have to say that as a liberal himself, cacto pretty much missed the point of the article. Thanks for the bump, and for giving him directions, LW.

I want to stress here that this list was compiled as an agenda of goals whose long-term, aggregate purpose was the dismantling and destruction of the United States of America as a political, cultural and military force. It’s still working, too, and that’s what scares me. But, at least we see where at least some of the liberal agenda comes from, right?

LW: I would agree with your sentiment that things are the same (the "quote" button doesn't seem to be working), but for one thing: at least the Communist or Soviet agents engaged back then in carrying out and achieving these goals knew perfectly well that what they were doing was detrimental and ultimately dangerous to our nation and its way of life. They knew they were doing these things against us, in order to advance the cause of Soviet Communism and its ideals.
Modern liberalism doesn’t have that advantage; it no longer has the Soviet agenda behind it, at least officially, but they do seem to have nonetheless adopted the goals of this list as a set of what they consider to be high ideals, and a part of their own agenda. They’ve even come to see some of these things, which were specifically designated to destroy the US, as positive goals for the intellectual, social, and/or emotional enlightenment of the masses.
In a strange way, it seems that they’ve adopted this list, which always remember, was conceived by the Soviets as a kind of weapon, as a system of beliefs unto itself.
On top of that, they lack, by accident or design, the knowledge and any concept of the threat it originally posed, and still poses, to our nation and its people…..and there are few things in the world more dangerous than someone who’s holding a weapon and doesn’t realize it.

I guess that would put it more succinctly....brevity has never been my strong suit.

Yes, they do cheer for America's failure, and why? Because their very system of beliefs was founded, and is still grounded in, an ideal that was poisonous to our country and way of life. They're just too stupid and blind to realize that what they're doing is harmful.
They don't see it as the ruination of our way of life, they've been led to see it as the improvement of our way of life. That's what's so wrong.

This is quite possibly the biggest chunk of rightie drivel this week.

This is quite possibly the biggest chunk of rightie drivel this week.

If a myth, no harm no foul. If true, what have you been doing comrade?

thatoneguyinsic:

And, of course, you refuse to acknowledge that many of the things on the agenda are, indeed, a large part of the Left's agenda, too. "There are none so blind....." What a shame.

I've noticed that uhh...not too many lefties have commie-ented on this post. Why is that? Nothing to say? C'mon, folks....let's hear it.

Their silence is deafening.....but not unusual.

A sign of the intelligence of the JU ones that they do not try to defend the indefensible.

Interesting you would say that, because almost all of the ideals behind the goals listed above are currently embraced by the liberal Democrats. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, cacto, 'cus I'm sick today and on some heavy meds that make me fuzzy, but don't you consider yourself a liberal?

By American standards I suppose you would call me a liberal. But really I'm a conservative nationalist with vague market-based socialist leanings (socialism is one of the founding principles of Australia, so it doesn't conflict with conservatism here), with the added rider that I simply don't believe that democracy is the best form of government for everyone (some people are too stupid to deserve a vote - your crack-addled neighbour you complain about may be a contender, LW). So I don't think what I said is particularly controversial or out of character.

Yeah, I have to say that as a liberal himself, cacto pretty much missed the point of the article. Thanks for the bump, and for giving him directions, LW.

I don't understand this one. I thought you were trying to say that because the communists supported various ideals (in a counter-productive way in my opinion) then the furthering of those goals by Americans is a bad thing. Unfortunately LW didn't give me any directions, because I still think that most of those goals are either harmless, inimical to the goals of communism (which weren't purely disruption; that's anarchism) or plainly beyond the reach of such a small organisation. To me such a list is much akin to a beauty pageant contestant's cry of 'world peace'.

The contestant has no effect on world peace; if it happens, it'll be because the majority of people want it to happen. And in a democracy if the majority of people want to do soemthing unthinkably stupid, as a supporter of democracy you can do no more than support that stupid decision. Perhaps Americans want to destroy themselves, and if they do than as a committed patriot a right-winger has no other duty than to support them one hundred percent.

No, cacto...I'm sorry you misunderstood. I was inferring that the liberal Left here in America has adopted, as their system of beliefs, almost everything on this list of goals set down by the Soviets as a means to destroy us from the inside out.
My contention is that they, at least the "modern" and perhaps the "limousine" liberals of Hollywood and the arts, did so without knowledge of the threat these goals were originially designed to pose to America and its way of life.
LW, that rabidly racist and jingtoistic nutjob, disagrees.
Democracy is the best form of government for anyone, I think, even the crackheads. Which is better for them----a totalitarian system wherein they would most likely be shunted off to a camp somewhere and killed or worked to death as parasites, or an open and democratic society, one that actually wants to help them get clean?

I was inferring that the liberal Left here in America has adopted, as their system of beliefs, almost everything on this list of goals set down by the Soviets as a means to destroy us from the inside out.

Oh okay. Well that's no big deal then. Personally I don't consider the above to be significant threats, but even if they are the right dominates in the army, so it'll never get very far - if their plot starts to bring about anarchy, I doubt the military will stand by for long. It's in their best interests to have reasonable leaders, so they'd have to restore the republic.

Oh, and I don't believe in totalitarianism. I like the kind of pseudo-democracy Australia and the US have at the moment - people think it's democratic, but when you simply have a choice of two different hairstyles (usually balding vs severe part) spouting very similar policy at every election it rings a little hollow. And that's probably a good thing. Better to leave government to people who actually take an interest - the lobby groups, the surprisingly genuine and those who lust after power.

can you provide the name of the committee (the communist party never did anything except by committee) responsible for proposing these goals? can you provide any details that establish they were officially adopted by the party?

try to imagine yourselves wild-eyed bolshevik revolutionaries for just long enuff to reread the entire list...gotta wonder why your comrades have deliberately phrased each of these 'goals' to make them as ominous and offputting as possible?

i'm particularly intrigued by lw's reaction. either you somehow managed to avoid reading much supremacist propaganda during your association with the klan (which seems unlikely) or your comment about things remaining the same has several levels of meaning, at least one of which is to provide you with plausible deniability.

turns out the actual author of these goals is none other than w. cleon skousen.

who's w. cleon skousen? i thought you'd never ask.

NCCS, formerly known as the Freemen Institute, was founded by the controversial conservative figure, W. Cleon Skousen. Skousen, former chief of police in Salt Lake City and a one-time FBI agent, has written numerous books advancing conspiracy theories about an international communist/socialist takeover. At one time, Skousen believed Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower were plotting to carry out the plan. A 1980 Associated Press story predicted that Skousen "is building a political organization that may be eclipsing the John Birch Society on that end of the ideological spectrum." Skousen called for a Constitutional Convention to draft a new, biblically-based Bill of Rights.
Skousen appeared with hard-core anti-Semite Eustace Mullins at a constitutional forum in 1996. With Militia of Montana founder John Trochmann listening from the audience, Skousen called for the restoration of "Biblical Christianity" and the rule of "virtuous people" in America. He predicted that will happen only after "a cleansing." The blame for America's fall was laid at the feet of Andrew Carnagie, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller who set forth an eight-point agenda during a secret meeting to get the country to reject the gold standard, pass the income tax, enter World War I, and accept industry collectives. At the event, Skousen apparently agreed with Mullins that the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments (freeing the slaves and providing equal protection under the law) needed to be overturned.
Skousen has been heavily criticized for his view of slavery as a beneficial institution for blacks. A chapter on slavery in his book, The Making of America, consists primarily of a long quote from an article that refers to slaves as "pickaninnies," and argues that slavery was a "blessing to both races." The article speaks of slaves as mere commodities in an economic system and states that "slave owners were the worst victims of the system." According to the article, slave owners were essentially benevolent and well-meaning toward slaves who were unable to care for themselves. NCCS was one of the signers of the "Wise Use Agenda," an industry-backed proposal to cut all old growth forests, transfer ownership of public lands to ranchers who hold grazing rights, immediately develop oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and open national parks to mining, among other things.
Skousen and NCCS have both been funded extensively by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church (the Moonies). CAUSA, a Moon-based group, has paid for hundreds of lawmakers to attend Skousen's constitutional seminars.
Skousen has close ties to the Mormon Church, having once taught religion at Brigham Young University. Former Mormon leader Ezra Taft Bensen supported Skousen's constitutional theories and was a frequent speaker at events sponsored by the Freemen Institute.

if i were you (and i'm very happily not) i'd be more concerned bout guys like skousen and his stooges infiltrating your party.

ooops...forgot the attribution. these 'goals' first appeared in skousen's opus 'the naked communist' which can still be purchased thru amazon should you find yourself someday in need of shedding some braincells but without drugs.