1963 Communist Agenda

[Derek]

In 1958, Cleon Skoussen, former FBI agent, revealed in his book, THE NAKED COMMUNIST, the long term goals of the communist agenda. This information is also contained not only in the Congressional Record (August 1963), but also in the Communist Manifesto itself. For the sake of brevity, only a few of those goals are listed here:

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the U.S. would be a demonstration of moral strength.

3. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

4. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of communist domination.

5. Set up East West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.S.

6. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the United Nations.

7. Promote the United Nations as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

8. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

9. Do away with loyalty oaths.

10. Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S.

11. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

12. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Get control of the teachers associations.

13. Gain control of all student newspapers.

14. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

15. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV and motion pictures.

16. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them censorship and a violation of free speech and free press.

17. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures and TV.

18. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as normal, natural and healthy.

19. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with social religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a religious crutch.

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

21. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

22. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the grounds that it was only a minor part in the big picture.

23. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the communist apparatus.

24. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

25. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

26. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents.

27. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American traditions; that students and special interest groups should rise up and use united force to solve economic, political and social problems.

Im not saying communism is on the rise. But it makes you wonder.....

[dbowie]

Just scanned this article, and I have just one question: Does any of the "goals" sound familiar to anyone????

[Jack Weber]

Yeah,but.....

There is no geopolitical epicentre for Marxism or Communism any more...

The Soviet Union is gone...It's empire is essentially gone...

The Chinese have become crypto-Fascists,not Maoist Communists...

It's a failed ideology...

A more modern version of Fascism,based on global corporatism,is a far more likely problem than a 5th column Communist assault on our democracies...

[bloodyminded]

People are still concerned with the Communist threat?

That's hilarious.

Anyway, a couple of points; if apparently incidental to the main (paranoid) thrust of the argument, still fair enough, since they were brought up:

18. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as normal, natural and healthy.

"Degeneracy" is frequently in the eye of the beholder; homosexuality is "normal, natural and healthy"; and promiscuity is at least "normal and natural."

Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American traditions

Every American conservative I've ever debated or had a discussion with makes exactly this claim.

Edited June 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

22. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the grounds that it was only a minor part in the big picture.

Yeah, that worked !

[Remiel]

I must say I am impressed. A seven year old thread with no replies is subjected to the mighty forces of thread necromancy and given its first gasp of air?

I am not sure what to debate, however: a book written by an American government agent in 1958 was probably an exercise in propaganda, even if not entirely intentionally.

[Jack Weber]

I must say I am impressed. A seven year old thread with no replies is subjected to the mighty forces of thread necromancy and given its first gasp of air?

I am not sure what to debate, however: a book written by an American government agent in 1958 was probably an exercise in propaganda, even if not entirely intentionally.

The author was Joe McCarthy's ghost writer...

[August1991]

People are still concerned with the Communist threat?

That's hilarious.

In 2026 or so (to pick a random future year), the Internet (and this forum) will be mines of absurd nonsense. (Heck, they are that now already... )

Talk about social history.

[bloodyminded]

In 2026 or so (to pick a random future year), the Internet (and this forum) will be mines of absurd nonsense. (Heck, they are that now already... )

Talk about social history.

Very right.

However, this thread would have been equally hilarious at its inception, in 2003. It's not a matter of chuckling at the distant past.

These trembling little commie-haters are still with us today.

Edited June 26, 2010 by bloodyminded

[kimmy]

If I may...

I suspect that the original poster's intent was to claim that the goals that "communist agents" thought would lead to the destruction of America once upon a time are in large measure causes that are still championed today by liberals.

(I personally suspect that these objectives were what arch-conservatives thought communists were doing to try to destroy America, not what the communists themselves were trying to do.)

-k

[bloodyminded]

If I may...

I suspect that the original poster's intent was to claim that the goals that "communist agents" thought would lead to the destruction of America once upon a time are in large measure causes that are still championed today by liberals.

Oh, that was certainly his claim.

[eyeball]

If I may...

I suspect that the original poster's intent was to claim that the goals that "communist agents" thought would lead to the destruction of America once upon a time are in large measure causes that are still championed today by liberals.

(I personally suspect that these objectives were what arch-conservatives thought communists were doing to try to destroy America, not what the communists themselves were trying to do.)

-k

I don't know, the OP's last line Im not saying communism is on the rise. But it makes you wonder.....suggests something else to me, that despite its own rhetoric the U.S. still wound up embracing at least some of what the commies were prescribing.

Item # 3 in the list is probably the most telling and ironic, especially given the relationship the U.S. now has with China.

3. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

I imagine old Joe McCarthy is spinning in his grave at the spectacle of America's massive indebtedness to China.

No doubt the usual suspects would agree strenuously that the left, commies in other words, have also accomplished these...

14. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

15. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV and motion pictures.

[bush_cheney2004]

I imagine old Joe McCarthy is spinning in his grave at the spectacle of America's massive indebtedness to China.

Probably not, as most of the items on the list have been eclipsed by far greater social and economic changes in the USA. In many ways, the politics has failed to keep pace.

[Pliny]

Yeah,but.....

There is no geopolitical epicentre for Marxism or Communism any more...

The Soviet Union is gone...It's empire is essentially gone...

The Chinese have become crypto-Fascists,not Maoist Communists...

It's a failed ideology...

A more modern version of Fascism,based on global corporatism,is a far more likely problem than a 5th column Communist assault on our democracies...

Communism is indeed dead but there are some die hard Communists still alive. Socialism is not dead.

Is Fascism based on global corporatism different than Fascism based upon the People's United Front?

Edited June 26, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

People are still concerned with the Communist threat?

That's hilarious.

Communism is dead; not socialism. They have the same objective of achieving the totalitarian state.

Anyway, a couple of points; if apparently incidental to the main (paranoid) thrust of the argument, still fair enough, since they were brought up:

18. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as normal, natural and healthy.

"Degeneracy" is frequently in the eye of the beholder; homosexuality is "normal, natural and healthy"; and promiscuity is at least "normal and natural."

Mission accomplished!

Edited June 26, 2010 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

Communism is dead; not socialism. They have the same objective of achieving the totalitarian state.

"Objective" denotes full will and intent, and total self-knowledge. Most critics of socialism tend rather to think of adherents as naive.

Once you think everyone who disagrees with you politically or economically is sinister...well, that explains the tenor of so many debates.

Mission accomplished!

Please. Even if the argument agaisnt homosexualty has validity (I don't think it does, but leave that aside), you also quote me as stating that promiscuity is "normal and natural," and so are using that example as well.

Now, I challenge you to explain how I'm wrong; how promiscuity is somehow an unnatural aberration.

I can't wait! I suggest you're going to have to shelter your argument in Biblical pronouncements, because no one with any understanding of biology would suggest that promiscuity is not normal and natural.

Edited June 26, 2010 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

Communism is dead; not socialism. They have the same objective of achieving the totalitarian state.

Mission accomplished!

There is no they, there is only it, and that is power which has more of a result than an objective. I think we're in full agreement the result is not good however.

Edited June 26, 2010 by eyeball

[Pliny]

"Objective" denotes full will and intent, and total self-knowledge. Most critics of socialism tend rather to think of adherents as naive.

Yes. The leaders of the movement have full will and intent. Adherents mostly view the masses as too stupid to look after themselves. The rest are naive and think leaders and adherents are socially responsible and have good intentions.

Once you think everyone who disagrees with you politically or economically is sinister...well, that explains the tenor of so many debates.

Is that your best at sinister?

Please. Even if the argument agaisnt homosexualty has validity (I don't think it does, but leave that aside), you also quote me as stating that promiscuity is "normal and natural," and so are using that example as well.

Now, I challenge you to explain how I'm wrong; how promiscuity is somehow an unnatural aberration.

I can't wait! I suggest you're going to have to shelter your argument in Biblical pronouncements, because no one with any understanding of biology would suggest that promiscuity is not normal and natural.

Men are normally and naturally promiscuous, I believe. But women, when they are considered persons and not chattel, tend to be more the vanguards of virtue regarding sex. Women today, in full charge of their bodies and desiring equality with men, believe they are taking and not giving and so tend to act and be irresponsibly careless, just like men, who have always had no power, other than physical domination. So I believe, in the interests of equality, or perhaps "sameness" women have abandoned their role of power and become as powerless as men. They have won the right to be in charge of their bodies, and lost their power over men and children. The State willingly accepting the role of ensuring equality even if it means guardianship of the future generation.

Sorry no biblical pronouncements nor peer reviewed biological studies, just my own thoughts on the subject. Agree or disagree!

I call 'em as I see 'em. Don't worry! The State is busy making sure my POV will not prevail and yours will be held sacred - Mission accomplished!

[bloodyminded]

Yes. The leaders of the movement have full will and intent. Adherents mostly view the masses as too stupid to look after themselves. The rest are naive and think leaders and adherents are socially responsible and have good intentions.

First of all, then, when you say "socialists," you aren't referring to them, but to the "leaders of the movement." You don't think that an important qualification to your assessment?

Second, what "leaders of the movement"? It can't be a man like Layton, because he's a capitalist, like yourself, and while you both belief in a mixed economy--with certain socialist components running within the capitalist order--your difference is a matter of degree, not of type itself.

Hugo Chavez is a stated socialist, and he might be a better example; he has instituted some relatively authoritarian bits to the regime. However, the matter is not simple: first of all, he replaced a more authoritarian regime from the political right, who were certainly more capitalist by inclination than he is; second, he has moved towards greater state control in some aspects...but less state control in others.

Who else? The other leftist Latin American rulers, say in Bolivia? Even the U.S., who are no fans of Bolivia's president, list him on their State Department website as heading an un-authoritarian government. Unlike Western/Northern ally Colombia, in which the capitalist Uribe oversees the worst human rights violations in the entire region. (Worse than Venezuela, for example.)

So, "socialism" doesn't appear to be the problem, especially since it doesn't really exist as a ruling force; the "socialist" countries are actually mixed economies, like Canada's or America's economies.

The problem, as always, is one of power itself. And capitalists, I think it's fair to say, have little problem attaining power, and then abusing it.

Men are normally and naturally promiscuous, I believe. But women, when they are considered persons and not chattel, tend to be more the vanguards of virtue regarding sex.

Women are not naturally "vanguards of virtue." This has been the idea, illusory mostly, but it has been imposed over women by men. Although what is "natural" is difficult to ascertain in a complex social animal with such differences according to region and era, there's no doubt at all that women, like men, are naturally promiscuous, that they are biologically determined to desire sex with more than one partner.

The argument that men are more inclined towards promiscuity (I mean as some "natural" instinct, not thanks to somewhat arbitrary imposed rules of social behaviour) may well be true. Personally, I believe it is true. But that we are more promiscuous than women doesn't mean that women are not promiscuous. Redwoods grow taller than oaks; that doesn't mean oaks aren't tall.

Women today, in full charge of their bodies and desiring equality with men, believe they are taking and not giving and so tend to act and be irresponsibly careless, just like men, who have always had no power, other than physical domination.

Male power has been about a lot more than physical domination. No doubt physical domination is a, if not the, primary genesis for the power in the first place. But Bill Gates is a powerful man, and I feel confident I could beat him in an armwrestle, even as he laughed at my weak business acumen and lack of economic ambitions.

And if women are becoming, like men, irresponsible and careless in matters of sexuality...well, look at at it this way: they can't suddenly choose to fly, or to breathe underwater; so the promiscuous urge is already there, it's a part of them...once latent, now in use.

You're confusing cultural/social aspects of behaviour with biology. While I don't wish to overdramatize the distinctions, since as social animals it'sa legion of complexities more than a series of stark delineations between "natural" and "unnatural," I frankly find it astonishing to hear the claim that female promiscuity is somehow "unnatural."

So I believe, in the interests of equality, or perhaps "sameness" women have abandoned their role of power and become as powerless as men. They have won the right to be in charge of their bodies, and lost their power over men and children.

In societies that impose stricter rules of behaviour over women, they have less power over men and children, not more.

Perhaps here women have lost, in some complicated ways, a measure of the power of refusing sex in concert with cultural rules governing it. But that's not equal to the power they've gained, not by a long shot.

Sorry no biblical pronouncements nor peer reviewed biological studies, just my own thoughts on the subject. Agree or disagree!

I understand; there is a lot more to understanding complex oddities like human behaviour than by merely summoning peer-reviewed science. I get that. Hence, things like art, which help explain to us what we are. But neither can we discount scientific knowledge. That would be folly.

I call 'em as I see 'em. Don't worry! The State is busy making sure my POV will not prevail and yours will be held sacred - Mission accomplished!

How? By declaring that, under law, women are not to be considered inferior beings, with men more powerful legal entities? That's the way it used to be, and that was not "freedom." This sort of change is the proper use of state power.

Edited June 27, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

First of all, then, when you say "socialists," you aren't referring to them, but to the "leaders of the movement." You don't think that an important qualification to your assessment?

leaders are mainly the ideologues, supporters range in their convictions from strong adherents and activists to the, "well, I can't see anything wrong with trying to help the poor and disadvantaged but I don't think that's being a 'socialist'."

No, it is not a qualification. Supporting it is supporting it.

Second, what "leaders of the movement"? It can't be a man like Layton, because he's a capitalist, like yourself, and while you both belief in a mixed economy--with certain socialist components running within the capitalist order--your difference is a matter of degree, not of type itself.

Layton espouses the ideology. Layton in order to get a number of votes has to embrace capitalism in some respect. The leaders are people like George Soros, Ted Turner and that ilk that fund the activists and some of the politicians.

Hugo Chavez is a stated socialist, and he might be a better example; he has instituted some relatively authoritarian bits to the regime. However, the matter is not simple: first of all, he replaced a more authoritarian regime from the political right, who were certainly more capitalist by inclination than he is; second, he has moved towards greater state control in some aspects...but less state control in others.

Chavez, being authoritarian, would be more of a Fascist then, wouldn't he? What aspects has he moved to less State control?

Who else? The other leftist Latin American rulers, say in Bolivia? Even the U.S., who are no fans of Bolivia's president, list him on their State Department website as heading an un-authoritarian government. Unlike Western/Northern ally Colombia, in which the capitalist Uribe oversees the worst human rights violations in the entire region. (Worse than Venezuela, for example.)

I want to separate out what you mean by human rights violations.

Firstly, political dissent in South America is usually expressed with a show of force, not with a picket sign on the grassy grounds of Parliament. It seems political opposition to Chavez that is easily oppressed and dispersed by police because it is usually not done with a gun but protests on the street is not in your estimation a violation of human rights, but incarcerating or confronting factions of armed resistance becomes a violation of human rights.

Give me a break!

So, "socialism" doesn't appear to be the problem, especially since it doesn't really exist as a ruling force; the "socialist" countries are actually mixed economies, like Canada's or America's economies.

Remember socialism is a process and the end is the totalitarian state. The "socialist" countries with mixed economies are in a process. The State is becoming more and more dominant and prominent in all those mixed economies. Perhaps the reason Canada has a conservative government is an attempt to slow the process because "socialism" is the problem.

The problem, as always, is one of power itself. And capitalists, I think it's fair to say, have little problem attaining power, and then abusing it.

You mean capitalists become the government or influence government more and more or they buy the governmemnt or what do you mean by they attain power? Properly government should not be influenced by capitalists. Because they do in our "mixed economies" it is called a mixed economy.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

leaders are mainly the ideologues, supporters range in their convictions from strong adherents and activists to the, "well, I can't see anything wrong with trying to help the poor and disadvantaged but I don't think that's being a 'socialist'."

No, it is not a qualification. Supporting it is supporting it.

A simple, black and white world, in which there is no nuance or complexity, might be easier for us to debate, but it's probably better that it doesn't exist.

Layton espouses the ideology. Layton in order to get a number of votes has to embrace capitalism in some respect. The leaders are people like George Soros, Ted Turner and that ilk that fund the activists and some of the politicians.

Soros and Turner are capitalists.

Chavez, being authoritarian, would be more of a Fascist then, wouldn't he? What aspects has he moved to less State control?

He has introduced referendums into the political system. He has given the poor majority a greater voice, whereas they used to have approximately zero.

Mind you, as I said, he also has troubling authoritarian tendencies. I"m not supporting the man; I'm saying the country was less free under his predecessors.

Firstly, political dissent in South America is usually expressed with a show of force, not with a picket sign on the grassy grounds of Parliament.

Latin Americans have more peaceful protests in a month than we do in a year. We don't see them because they're overshadowed by the violence.

It seems political opposition to Chavez that is easily oppressed and dispersed by police because it is usually not done with a gun but protests on the street is not in your estimation a violation of human rights, but incarcerating or confronting factions of armed resistance becomes a violation of human rights.

First of all, I never said Chavez does not violate human rights. In fact, I said the direct opposite, so perhaps you're arguing with someone else. Ionly said that Uribe is worse...and the U.S. State Department agrees with me, so it's not as if I'm getting my information from the ancestors of Che.

Second of all, if you're suggesting that Colombia's polcie and military violence is all about "confronting factions of armed resistance"...well, let's just say there are a lot of union leaders, non-violent intellectuals, and dead and disappeared peasants who might take issue with your faith in the Great Man.

You mean capitalists become the government or influence government more and more or they buy the governmemnt or what do you mean by they attain power? Properly government should not be influenced by capitalists.

Properly, of course. But of course they are; that's not even a controversial assessment.

Edited June 28, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

A simple, black and white world, in which there is no nuance or complexity, might be easier for us to debate, but it's probably better that it doesn't exist.

Why are you promoting it then?

I delineated the spectrum of socialist support and all you see is I have made supporting socialism a black and white issue.

Soros and Turner are capitalists.

You are not looking at their political views then, are you.Capitalism isn't a political ideology. It is an economic process.

Fidel Castro was a capitalist, too if you only want to look at his personal wealth.

He (Chavez)has introduced referendums into the political system. He has given the poor majority a greater voice, whereas they used to have approximately zero.

Mind you, as I said, he also has troubling authoritarian tendencies. I"m not supporting the man; I'm saying the country was less free under his predecessors.

Well, the poor majority seem to be getting a little disgruntled with him lately.

Making opportunity difficult in Venezuela for the disadvantaged or political favour granted to the rich were undoubtedly one of the mistakes of the former governments, basic injustices. Swinging to socialism will impoverish the whole country except for Chavez and his cohorts.

Are you sure he isn't a capitalist?

Latin Americans have more peaceful protests in a month than we do in a year. We don't see them because they're overshadowed by the violence.

I guess I missed them, then.

First of all, I never said Chavez does not violate human rights. In fact, I said the direct opposite, so perhaps you're arguing with someone else. Ionly said that Uribe is worse...and the U.S. State Department agrees with me, so it's not as if I'm getting my information from the ancestors of Che.

Well, I'm glad we got that straight then. Chavez does violate human rights. Uribe probably does moreso. It seems extreme leftists have a tendency to be revolutionaries and perhaps a little more forceful action is necessary to Uribe than Chavez.

Chavez hasn't gotten to the point where there is open warfare in the jungles - Although I haven't checked lately.

Second of all, if you're suggesting that Colombia's polcie and military violence is all about "confronting factions of armed resistance"...well, let's just say there are a lot of union leaders, non-violent intellectuals, and dead and disappeared peasants who might take issue with your faith in the Great Man.

Could they be subversives supporting armed guerillas, maybe?

Properly government should not be influenced by capitalists.

Properly, of course. But of course they are; that's not even a controversial assessment.

Yes, of course capitalists have influence today. It's called a mixed economy.

Maybe we should have a separation of capitalism and state similar to separation of church and state.

Sounds good. Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of Capitalism.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Pliny

[sharkman]

It is surprising how many of those Communist goals have been achieved. Some have said that Russia is no longer the threat it was and no longer communist, but they have certainly turned away from capitalism and into dictatorship like rule. How many Russian spies were sent packing this week?

[Michael Hardner]

It is surprising how many of those Communist goals have been achieved. Some have said that Russia is no longer the threat it was and no longer communist, but they have certainly turned away from capitalism and into dictatorship like rule. How many Russian spies were sent packing this week?

The free world, with a free market of ideas, adopted the best approaches to collective programs - or at least did better than the Communist world did at adopting free market programs.

If they had done a better job at adopting market functions, and thereby been successful at feeding and providing goods to their people then they might have won. But closed systems historically don't adopt good solutions.

[Shwa]

The free world, with a free market of ideas, adopted the best approaches to collective programs - or at least did better than the Communist world did at adopting free market programs.

If they had done a better job at adopting market functions, and thereby been successful at feeding and providing goods to their people then they might have won. But closed systems historically don't adopt good solutions.

Examples please.