It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Progressive" is just a friendly name for COMMUNIST!

page: 1
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+16 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
"Progressives" are nothing but filthy, lying Communists that picked a nice marketing name for their hidden goal to turn the world into one big Communist state.

Just think you probably wouldn't vote for someone who told you upfront they were a Communist, but if they lie to you and tell you they are for "Progress" then it doesn't seem so bad to vote for them.

As we all know Liberals like to make up super positive names for their most insane agendas. For example, they made murdering your baby all about the mothers choice instead of about the fact that her choice ends in the babies death.

They created welfare and entititlements and said they were to help the poor, but really there were intended to teach people learned helplessness and government dependence.

They created a scheme to redistribute your hard earned money to third world countries and told you they were saving you from killing yourself by warming up the planet.

However, when you look at their agenda they are nothing more than Communists with a friendly name about Progress. If you research their history you find that they are based in the Marxist/Communist ideologies that have failed throughout the world.

So when you see that the "Progressive" Obama Administration is full of Marxists you should realise that this is not an accident or negligence. This was intentional, because this is what the current administration believes is best for the USA. They think you would be better off in the collective. They think you would be happier if you were Communist. They seem to forget that Communism has failed over and over.

Here are just a few quotes and articles to help you on your search for the truth behind their idea of Progress. Just google "are progressives communists" and you will find many more.



All of these thinkers contributed to what would become the ethical foundation of the Progressive Movement: a contempt and loathing of "individualism" -- and its political expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution:


* Croly: "The Promise of American Life is to be fulfilled ... by a large measure of individual subordination and self-denial."

* Sociologist Lester Ward: "The individual has reigned long enough."

* Antitrust leader Henry Demarest Lloyd: Individualism is "one of the historic mistakes of humanity."

* The Outlook editor Lyman Abbott: "[I]ndividualism is the characteristic of simple barbarism, not of republican civilization."

* Baptist minister Walter Rauschenbusch: "[I]ndividualism means tyranny."


Source




Communist Front was originally the term used by the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)[citation needed], and then later by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS) to label Comintern (Communist Interational) organizations found to be under the effective control of the CPUSA, with special emphasis on those groups most active during the Great Depression of the 1930s. The term also refers to organizations not originally Communist-controlled which after a time became so, such as the American Student Union.

In 1955, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee published a list of what it described as the 82 most active and typical sponsors of Communist fronts in the United States; some of those named had literally dozens of affiliations with groups that had either been cited as Communist fronts or had been labelled "subversive" by either the subcommittee or the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

Perhaps the best-known - and, in the short run most successful - 'Communist Front' in the United States was the Progressive Party which nominated former Vice-President Henry A. Wallace for President in the 1948 election. The party was on the ballot in 45 states, though under various names. For instance, in California it was known as the Independent Progressive Party. In New York State, it was the American Labor Party, founded a number of years earlier, which repeatedly elected Vito Marcantonio and, in a by-election in the Bronx in February, 1948, Leo Isacson, to Congress. Isacson was defeated by a coalition candidate in November, 1948. Marcantonio was re-elected then, the only Progressive candidate to win office, but was defeated in 1950.


Source


[edit on 2-12-2009 by HotSauce]




posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Of course we are Communist !!!..

I reckon Liberals have a little bit of every Left-Wing ideology...

.. But be careful .. don't confuse Communism with Stalinism



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Polynomial C
 


Thanks for posting. Why don't you explain what you see as the differences between Communism and Stalinism. I would be interested to hear your view. From my point of view Stalinism is what becomes of Communism when you factor in human nature and the fact that some group of people will always want to exploit another group of people for their own gain.

Putting everyone under a Communist collective framework where the masses all become equally powerless and disabled just makes the formation of a Dictatorship all the more easy for those who want power and will break all the rules to get it.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
You know The John Birch Society is still around. Just a suggestion.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizan
 


Thanks for the info. Never heard of them before but they sound like the kind of group I would be interested in joining or supporting.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Wow, I never considered this, but when I went to the Communist Party USA site, this came up.


In short, President Obama’s election has made a difference, and the progressive movement has space to dream again. There are limits and obstacles to be sure, but what should frame our outlook are hope and possibility.

[url= www.cpusa.org...[/url]
Seems they claim TO BE THE Progressive movement!




[edit on 2-12-2009 by Clearskies]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 


Well, yeah Stalinism uses Communism as a disguise .. the Stalinist leaders are just crazy greedy people that want control .. they are authoritarians disguise as communists..

I think they have hurt the Communist cause .. now people like you when they think of Communism they think of Stalin , but you shouldn't because Stalin was NOT a communist, he was a right-wing authoritarian..



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Excellent points you raise. What we're experiencing is absolutely no accident as you so rightly say. Take a look at these videos of KGB defector Uri Bezmenov speaking in 1983 about the subversive tactics the communists use to destroy a nation. They have a systematic approach that follows predictable, established stages.

What he has to say is positively chilling. Remember, this is from 1983.

This is proof-positive of the points you are making here. There are several parts to this. WATCH THEM ALL. YOU MUST HEAR WHAT THIS MAN HAS TO SAY.

For some inexplicable reason, I can seem to embed this. Here's the link to the first part. If someone can find a way to embed this, I'd sure appreciate it.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Wow thanks for the info. I read the home page of that site and it was very enlightening. The Communist Party USA love Obama, the Progressive Agenda, and Healthcare reform.

Here is a link to their site for anyone who is interested.

Communist Party USA



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I don't agree.

I think there are a lot of good communists that would be offended at being called a progressive.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Polynomial C
reply to post by HotSauceI think they have hurt the Communist cause .. now people like you when they think of Communism they think of Stalin , but you shouldn't because Stalin was NOT a communist, he was a right-wing authoritarian..


Then what were Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, Mugabe, and all the rest?



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Yep! I'm a commie hiding under the bed "say hello to your misses for me will ya"



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by IamLael
 


Great video. I am viewing it now. It is amazing when you start to dig into it. I was starting to think I was just being paranoid by starting to think that the Progressive agenda is basically to turn our nation communist, but as I researched and with the things many of you have added it becomes clear that the truth is we are being led by a Communist Administration that was elected by the American Public.

Do you really think the majority of Americans really want to become or are already Communists?

Here is an embed of that video you posted about the Soviet plan to subvert Western countries and lead them to become communist nations.




posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Polynomial C
reply to post by HotSauce
 


Well, yeah Stalinism uses Communism as a disguise .. the Stalinist leaders are just crazy greedy people that want control .. they are authoritarians disguise as communists..

I think they have hurt the Communist cause .. now people like you when they think of Communism they think of Stalin , but you shouldn't because Stalin was NOT a communist, he was a right-wing authoritarian..


I understand what you are saying about the differences but what I am saying is that in every Communist state their will eventually be a Stalin that arises from the group and controls the weakened masses.

Marxism is a great idea on paper, but it doesn't account for human nature where some people will be driven to grab power by force and others will be lazy and unproductive if their efforts just keep them equal with their peers.

This is why the founders of our nation were all about individualism and the right to bear arms. A strong, empowered populace will be able to keep that Dictator from arising or if he does arise the people will have the means to remove him from power by force if necessary.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by HotSauce]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 



Let's talk about it after you've viewed what he has to say. There is one video in particular that proves conclusively that what's happening is a controlled demolition and purposeful destruction of our nation. That vid is toward the end buy see them all and then let's talk. Thanks for embedding. For some reason I couldn't get it.

Glad you started this thread. People need to wake up!



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by IamLael
 


Thanks for the props and thanks for the vid. I am listening to it as I answer replies. In the future to imbed a vid just paste just the id into the box.. for example JN0By0xbst8, instead of the whole address.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
I understand what you are saying about the differences but what I am saying is that in every Communist state their will eventually be a Stalin that arises…Marxism is a great idea on paper, but it doesn't account for human nature …


Second this motion.

HotSauce has it exactly right. The implementation of Communism has proven the need for a totalitarian system to be established for its continued existence. Once that system is in place, it is only a matter of time before the wrong person obtains the throne. When that happens, death reigns.

Those arguing against this truth are screaming rhetoric into the face of historical reality. Time has shown that Communism eventually results in repression, fear and death.


[edit on 2-12-2009 by passenger]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Call it Progressivism or Communism or Socialism or whatever pretty title you want, it's all Collectivism: the antithesis of Individualism.




"Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group -- whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called 'the common good'." -- Ayn Rand,





"Collectivism is a form of anthropomorphism. It attempts to see a group of individuals as having a single identity similar to a person. ... Collectivism demands that the group be more important than the individual. It requires the individual to sacrifice himself for the alleged good of the group." -- Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands





"collectivist ethical principle: man is not an end to himself, but is only a tool to serve the ends of others. Whether those 'others' are a dictator's gang, the nation, society, the race, (the) god(s), the majority, the community, the tribe, etc., is irrelevant -- the point is that man in principle must be sacrificed to others." -- Mark Da Cunha



Here is a good comparison of the two. Personally, I'm an Individualist.

S&F



TA



[edit on 2-12-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 



Just tried to post this next vid below using just the vid # (did try that before too) and it didn't work for me (maybe because I'm on a mac? Who knows?)

Here's the icing on the cake. This is the one that you should see last. It shows you exactly---and I mean exactly--where the U.S. is right now. And what's coming is not good.

Please embed this one too if you don't mind. Thanks!

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Didn't Marx say something about the need for a "strong leader" that has the power to divide up the, for lack of a better term, stuff equally among people?

Either way you look at it though, it's all the same thing no matter what title you want to label it. It all means the state owns you and there is no recourse, because the oligarch knows what is best for you and you really don't have a say.

It's also a common pattern that when a revolutionary comes to power they kill off the people not closely aligned with them that helped them achieve their goals, because they were suckered and from the dream that was sold to them wasn't anything like reality, so they needed to dispose of the people that could overthrow the newly installed government.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join