Communist Goals (1963)

This little piece needs some serious context. Hopefully, ya'll can follow my explanation of the context for The Naked Communist because it's really important.

Number 13 is the doing away of loyalty oaths. What this is referring to would be Title X, Section 1001 (f) of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which was partly influenced by McCarthyism. www.princeton.edu...

Soon after the NDEA of 1958 passed, universities and students slowly began taking a stance against the affidavit with the claims being that the oath attempted to control beliefs, impinged on academic freedom, and the freedom of speech. At some point, an unnamed student and oath-taking recipient was brought before the House Un-American Activities Committee and was found in Contempt of Congress. Who this student was, I do not know, but it may have been the UC Berkeley student that was brought before the HUAC in 1960 as that would be around the right time frame. This event in 1960 was met with a lot of protest by fellow UC Berkeley students and culminated in a riot in which many of the students were severely injured. This event in combination with the NDEA loyalty oath (along with civil rights issues) are two of the events that basically launched the Free Speech Movement.
www.pbs.org...

Now the really important stuff: This specific movement was one of the movements targeted by the FBI's COINTELPRO activities. Other offshoots also targeted would be the Students for Democratic Society (New Left) and, of course, The Weathermen (who pretty much deserved it).

SDS: www.pbs.org...
FBI COINTELPRO: en.wikipedia.org...

Lastly, another context bringer would be the Hippie Movement, which of course had Timothy Leary (MK-ULTRA volunteer) involved with it. What were the attitudes of the Hippie Movement? Why sexual revolution (should be an ah ha moment in terms of the pornography listed).

So, what you have here is a book, The Naked Communist, being written in 1963 by a former FBI agent--the same FBI that was actively engaging in COINTELPRO against a variety of political dissent movements in the US. Hence, what this most likely is would be a grocery list of what those counter culture/dissent movements were representing written by a former employee of the very agency that was actively attempting to discredit them and utilizing the still prevalent Red Scare in the process.

Originally posted by InverseLookingGlass


It's disappointing that people still dredge this up at a time when Marxists are on their last leg and the Fascists own everything. Sounds like a conspiracy. Maybe some bright bulbs should check on that?

Anything to uproot what our founders had intended for our Republic. Fascism? Yes. Socialism? Yes. Communism? Yes. Just look closely.

Originally posted by InverseLookingGlass
This list comes from fascists and propagandists in the US government, not communists.

Same old line for the fascists to create the domestic enemy. The communist boogey man had a great run. After the Belin Wall fell, there was a lull, followed by Islamic Jihadists. Got the Fascists back on track didn't it?

It's disappointing that people still dredge this up at a time when Marxists are on their last leg and the Fascists own everything. Sounds like a conspiracy. Maybe some bright bulbs should check on that?

Oh?

Where does:

War on Women
War on Poverty
War on Rich
War to save the planet

Come from?

Sound like communist goals to me to create a totalitarian state under the false pretense of saving the people.

Actually though fascism draws from all political ideology we know of.

And Communism is no boogieman tell that to the 100 million who died under that stupidity.

reply to post by sonnny1


Well I just get frustrated when people bring up people like Cleon Skousen. For every valid point that man made he makes 5 more which are absurd.

He is a perfect example in my opinion of someone who I would not want to cite as a source. Give me Voltaire or Lysander Spooner not some whackjob who thinks that their should be "Christian Law" and sexual acts should be punishable by imprisonment.

Keep in mind to this day we have caught soviet spies, its what countries do.

We have the same strategies against Russia, If any of this is true its played into the hands of Capitalism and Corporate Oligarchs are reaping the benefit.

I was trying to find a book by an Soviet KGB defector Anatoliy Mikhaylovich Golitsyn that said some 100 goals the Soviet agenda, and that cia analyst say 90 of them have come true.

ETA: Including a "false" economic collapse in the USSR facilitating an easing of the eastern block including giving them their Independence, and to soften the hard line communism, even going to democracy. In order to "disarm" the western world.

Remember the Soviets are just people too, and its been shown that the US has always been instigators of much. Turkey missile placement before Cuban missile crisis comes to mind, to them we were a real threat to their continued existence.

Even a stepping back from the thinking of MAD.

reply to post by WhiteAlice




Very Nice Post.

Do you think even with "why" it was written and who wrote it, that many of these things still are not part of a bigger picture, and there are those that do adhere to these Goals? Personally, I believe that there are many in our Government that would love to see these dramatic changes and have their agendas and are pushing them.

Just a note here these are not goals from communista. They are what a paranoid, religious, conservative imagined were communist goals to advance his own politcal agenda so he made them up and put them in a anti communist book. This is like Glen Beck telling you what the goals of Islamic Terrorists are. It was propaganda at its finest and not even included in the first edition of the book.

reply to post by MrSpad


I am sure you are right on the propaganda aspect. It was 1963......

It doesn't change the fact that many in Congress, representatives for our Nation do in fact have ties to Communism, or socialism.

We need change in this Country. This is my opinion.

But we dont need this.



or this.



This isn't a "red scare". This is a fact.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Very Nice Post.

Do you think even with "why" it was written and who wrote it, that many of these things still are not part of a bigger picture, and there are those that do adhere to these Goals? Personally, I believe that there are many in our Government that would love to see these dramatic changes and have their agendas and are pushing them.

Hopefully you can follow what I'm about to explain. It's something that you can actually see get played out, over and over again especially in the periods of the last century. Society and its culture, for an era, tend to bounce back and forth between being repressive and expressive or a bouncing between extremes and almost always with a subtle shift towards more individualistic expression at the end of this bounce. It's kind of funny but you can actually see this bouncing back and forth through women's fashion. For instance, in the early 1900's to 1910's, you had several political movements emanating largely from giving women the right to vote and prohibition that were met with or dealt out by a very traditional and strong opposition. The reflexive response that occurred in society was basically the Roaring 20's. The Roaring 20's and the Flappers were basically a counterculture response to an extremely conservative (not necessarily politically but in dress, societal behavior, etc) culture. 1930's rolled around and the system (plus the Great Depression) basically found its "happy medium" or balance, which was maintained until what I would say was the next period of increased conservatism--the 1950's. Just like what occurred in the 1920's, you had the youth of the nation basically pushing the envelope in terms of sexuality, dress (super miniskirts to nudity), music, and other forms of expression. 1970's, more balance and then 1980's, up go the hemlines again, lol. The important thing to note is that every time extreme is responded to with extreme, in the process of society balancing out to that "happy medium", there has always been a subtle shift towards individual expression/freedom, or a higher hemline. I'm being very simplistic about this because each time period had a multitude of reasons or cause and effects for this kind of societal tug of war but just trying to give the gist of what occurs. It's kind of like saying that miniskirt is too short but the skirt that lands just above the knees is better so I'll live with it. I know it seems really retarded but you really can see this bounce between the extremes in women's hemlines:
honeycatvintage.com...
Hemlines are just a great indicator for basically the opinions of a society in any given period in the US. If it's higher, then it's looser. If it's lower, then it's tighter.

Anyways, that's part of the reason why some of the things on that list have come to pass. The Hippie Movement was a radical response to the more repressive culture of the 1950's (McCarthyism and Leave It to Beaver). It's almost always the youth within society that has that reflexive response and why it balances out could be as simple as them growing up. Really, these radicals of the 60's are the Baby Boomers today. They grew up, held onto some of their ideals in response to the conservatism of the 1950's, and that's why some of the things have stuck but not all. Considering that what has occurred politically in the United States since the Baby Boomer's protest decade has been a dismantling of labor unions, increases in economic equality, and more, they are clearly not a bunch of Commies. However, they are people who grew up in an era where a movie poster of Jane Russel was banned for being too provocative and revealing (The Outlaw) and they responded. Kids do that.

In other words, a good chunk of that list is not a political agenda but just how society changes. We are actually in another one of those tug of war periods presently and I'm certain that society will balance itself out yet again, just as it always has. I look at the list and personally find it pretty funny because it is so counter to what I witnessed when I went to the USSR courtesy of my high ranking officer grandfather who wanted me to really see what Communism looked like in action. The USSR that I witnessed was repressive to the extreme, both politically and culturally from dress, behavior, and even art (USSR had extremely traditional artist during periods where we had Cubism and other forms of modern art going on in the US). To me, it makes this list out to be laughable. Look at North Korea because that is nearly identical to what I saw (without the Asian touches, of course) in the USSR. We're talking about people that were so tightly controlled that they couldn't even applaud something independently. Creepy as hell.

reply to post by sonnny1


Some of those aren't so bad. Are they?

You're not really advocating McCarthy-ism, right?

reply to post by sonnny1


The raised fist isn't a symbol of communism or socialism, it's symbol for many things.

Revolution
Solidarity
Power to the people
Africa Unite
Victory
Fight

and my personal favorite:
"I really mean what I'm saying"

The raised fist is actually almost a primal gesture, people do it when watching an athlete they like accomplish a feat or if they are that athlete, people do it when praising God in several different religions. The list goes on and on.

Anything to uproot what our founders had intended for our Republic. Fascism? Yes. Socialism? Yes. Communism? Yes. Just look closely.

reply to post by sonnny1

Obama doesn't even hide what his goal for the US is. He is a full-fledged, committed Marxist Communist. What is amazing is how he brought the entire Democrat party along with him willingly. As far as I am concerned, Obama is an enemy within the government of the US. At a minimum he should be impeached, and then tried for war crimes against humanity, as well as for crimes against the Constitution of the United States. Here is what is interesting. Under communism, only one news organization was allowed, namely PRAVDA, laughingly "truth". Wait until the doting MSM organizations find out that there will only be one news organization left, once Obama is through. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, and NBC will have to fight it out, for the "privilege" of spreading the lies and propaganda for the communist messiah. I put my money on the airhead Mika Brzezinski, who willingly reads what she can say right off her cell phone, as it is dictated to her, by Obama's staff. The good thing about having only one news organization left, is that they will become, hypothetically, of course, a target of patriot groups. Centralized government is an easy target, hypothetically of course. I would never advocate violence. After all. target can mean many things, like retorts, etc. Right?

You're not really advocating McCarthy-ism, right?

reply to post by links234

Let me quote from that great source Wikipedia about Joe McCarthy:

He was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere. Ultimately, his tactics and inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate.

Do you really think he would have had a hard time TODAY proving his point? I don't. After all, if you believe even half of what my good friend Sonny posted, then it is a done deal.

The commie agenda has been clear from the start.

The original 10 planks deal was a generalized guideline.

It's been modified and accelerated in hundreds of ways since Grampaw Karl dreamed it all up and wrote the book.

Communism, Fascism, Corporatism, Liberalism, Socialism are all being used against us in many forms.

But its all the same and it's all about international full control.

The idealistic, utopian fantasies are not what's been happening.

The central banking system is evidence.

The international corporations' control of governments is evidence.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Why would it matter if there were communists in the government or not?

The shame of McCarthy wasn't that he was wrong (he was) but that he was jingoistic and dangerously nationalist.

Why would it matter if there were communists in the government or not?

reply to post by links234

Nonsensical question, since there ARE communists in the government, including POTUS, and just about all of his appointees. Communism and its tenets go directly against the bill of rights of the US.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Communism and its tenets go directly against the bill of rights of the US.

I could and would argue with that but I'd rather suggest that the bill of rights could use a bit of expansion, somewhere along the lines of the UN's listed rights. Maybe throw in FDR's bill of rights.

The world has moved above and beyond the ideals of the age of enlightenment. The goals listed in the OP aren't all bad. I'm sure even you can agree with that.

reply to post by links234

Ask Mikhail Gorbachev or anyone living in the old Soviet Union what is wrong with communism, and they'll write a book. Ask the people that lived behind the Iron Curtain, or the people of East Berlin prior to 1989, and they'll tell you the same thing. Ask anyone that has built their own business whether they would be ok with the government confiscating their business, or ask any home owner that just paid off their mortgage whether they would have a problem with the government confiscating their home, and putting them in a run-down government run tenement. Take away personal drive, and you get what the USSR got, a run down country, where alcohol was the only refuge, and where there was no incentive to work. As they used to say in the USSR, "We pretend to work, and the government pretends to pay us". Of course today, we already have a degree of communism, where half of the people do work, to pay for the lazy ba$$$rds that refuse to work and don't have to, because they voted for the Communist party chief Barack Hussein Obama.
This is what we now have:
www.youtube.com...
'

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


You didn't really answer me.

I'll give you some time to figure out what about the 1963 list is something you and I could agree on or you could just insist "Communism bad! Enlightenment good!"

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

 

Why would it matter if there were communists in the government or not?

The shame of McCarthy wasn't that he was wrong (he was) but that he was jingoistic and dangerously nationalist.

It made a difference back then for sure.

Commies had already infiltrated the U.S. Government as well as State and Local. It started in the pre-WW1 1900's.

You should watch some of the hearings and observe how nervous many of the "guests" were when they had to lie after being asked that famous question.

"Are YOU now or have YOU ever been a member of the Communist Party ?"

THAT question had them jump'n like jack rabbits. McCarthy caught them while they were out of their holes.

Of course many lied and many actually never 'officially' joined because anonymity was paramount.

McCarthy did expose a lot.

The VENONA Project files, declassified in 1995, provided indisputable evidence that nearly all of those McCarthy accused were traitors to America. Not surprisingly, the media ignored these documents completely, instead choosing to run yet another round of anti-McCarthy propaganda
source

Venona project


more ....


"Joseph McCarthy Congressional Hearings"