1963 Communist goals

Originally posted by whodey
My only point here is that it matters little who wrote it. Inevitably, if I were to prove that communists wrote it the cry would be that it was not represetative. The bottom line is that you either can respect the vision of who wrote or have no appreciation like the general.

It was written by a paranoid loon, read out by an idiot Congressman and parroted down the line by a contemporary moon-howler. Those who see some great truth in it belong firmly in that unbroken line of unhinged, or if they are even half smart simply provocative, rabble-rousers and charlatans. It did not and does not represent the goals of any organised political group, being a confection of paranoia and conservative gripes, and - of those 'ambitions' that are not utterly meaningless (what with the fall of Eastern European communism), few have come to pass in any meaningful sense.

Oh, and trying to cast aspersions by association is weak, even by your usually low standards.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Ah! In looking up the date of the book, apparently I was looking at the last print, which dates back to 1994. The original book dates back to 1958. So it turns out this conspiracy nut wrote it down in a book and then some Congressman read them out in Congress.

Exactly so, but it adds a patina of respectability to such swill to refer to its citation by some congressman, rather than the original source: the pen of a Birch Society whacko.

Originally posted by DrKF
Oh, and trying to cast aspersions by association is weak, even by your usually low standards [whodey].

Are you therefore finally prepared to admit that Barack Obama has not explicitly condemned what Cleon Skousen claimed about Communists wanted in 1958 which Albert Herlong read out aloud in 1963 which Glenn Beck put on his web site in 2010?

Originally posted by FMF
Are you therefore finally prepared to admit that Barack Obama has not explicitly condemned what Cleon Skousen claimed about Communists wanted in 1958 which Albert Herlong read out aloud in 1963 which Glenn Beck put on his web site in 2010?

Arise ye workers from your slumbers
Arise ye prisoners of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We'll change henceforth the old tradition
And spurn the dust to win the prize.

So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.

No more deluded by reaction
On tyrants only we'll make war
The soldiers too will take strike action
They'll break ranks and fight no more
And if those cannibals keep trying
To sacrifice us to their pride
They soon shall hear the bullets flying
We'll shoot the generals on our own side.

No saviour from on high delivers
No faith have we in prince or peer
Our own right hand the chains must shiver
Chains of hatred, greed and fear
E'er the thieves will out with their booty
And give to all a happier lot.
Each at the forge must do their duty
And we'll strike while the iron is hot.

🙂

Originally posted by DrKF
It may be that the whodster assumes all those who disagree with him to be part of some vast, communistic hive-mind or something. That would not be the most outlandish thing to have crossed his mind.

Forget about who wrote this list. What does it matter? It either shows vision, even if you call them a loon, or it does not.

So looking at the list, an argument could be made that over half have been acheived or are in the works. Of course, international politics are far more hard to predict and control such as the USSR breaking up.

Originally posted by whodey
So looking at the list, an argument could be made that over half have been acheived or are in the works.

Make it then, if it can be made.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

funny how you got the nerve to require well-developed and well-researched posts from me when you limit yourself to smilies...

Originally posted by whodey
Forget about who wrote this list. What does it matter? It either shows vision, even if you call them a loon, or it does not.

So looking at the list, an argument could be made that over half have been acheived or are in the works. Of course, international politics are far more hard to predict and control such as the USSR breaking up.

You really do have a reading problem, whodey. As I said, "of those 'ambitions' that are not utterly meaningless (what with the fall of Eastern European communism), few have come to pass in any meaningful sense." So I have stated my position on his vision: it was garbage, animated by baseless paranoia.

As FMF says, though, it would be most interesting to read the defence of the suggestion that "over half have been acheived or are in the works". I await your response with interest.

Edit: you're a lazy chap, with a possible reading problem, so if you'd just like to list the 23 numbers referring to your claim, we can come back to them one by one for clarification.

Originally posted by DrKF
You really do have a reading problem, whodey. As I said, "of those 'ambitions' that are not utterly meaningless (what with the fall of Eastern European communism), few have come to pass in any meaningful sense." So I have stated my position on his vision: it was garbage, animated by baseless paranoia.

As FMF says, though, it would be most interesting to read ...[text shortened]... numbers referring to your claim, we can come back to them one by one for clarification.

A case could be made for #'s 7,15,16,17,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,36,37,38,39,40,41,44.

Of course, as I said, not all have been realized but, if nothing else, they are closer to being realized.

Originally posted by whodey
A case could be made for #'s 7,15,16,17,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,36,37,38,39,40,41,44.

Of course, as I said, not all have been realized but, if nothing else, they are closer to being realized.

You can't be serious, so I assume I'm just rising to a petty provocation when I point out that communists have not taken control of either US political party; have not infiltrated the press to any meaningful degree; have not obtained key positions in radio, TV and motion pictures; do not control art critics and museum curators; have not infiltrated and taken control of big business (!); and, do not dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose communist goals. I honestly think it's precisely some of those particular choices the National Review branded "so irrational in its paranoia that it would have made Whittaker Chambers blush." Seriously, if they didn't mean those things, what did they mean?

Unless, oh dear, unless you're going to try to bend the word 'communist' so out of shape it will end up contorted like a balloon at a kid's party.

Originally posted by DrKF
You can't be serious, so I assume I'm just rising to a petty provocation when I point out that communists have not taken control of either US political party; have not infiltrated the press to any meaningful degree; have not obtained key positions in radio, TV and motion pictures; do not control art critics and museum curators; have not infiltrated and taken co 'communist' so out of shape it will end up contorted like a balloon at a kid's party.

So what does it mean to infiltrate? Does it mean to control every aspect of Big Business? Does it mean to control every aspect of a political party etc? No it does not. However, clearly they have infiltrated both.

Originally posted by whodey
So what does it mean to infiltrate? Does it mean to control every aspect of Big Business? Does it mean to control every aspect of a political party etc? No it does not. However, clearly they have infiltrated both.

You're completely nuts. "Clearly" Communists have "infiltrated" "both" "Big Business" and "both political parties"?

Even someone as incredibly partisan and gullible as you can't possibly believe such BS.

Originally posted by whodey
So what does it mean to infiltrate? Does it mean to control every aspect of Big Business? Does it mean to control every aspect of a political party etc? No it does not. However, clearly they have infiltrated both.

You think that communists have - to any meaningful degree worthy of serious discussion - infiltrated big business and at least one of the political parties in the US? That, for example, senior members of Obama's administration and/or a sizeable number (or any) of Congressmen and/or (any) Senators are actual communists? Or that the managing directors or CEOs of any sizeable firms are actual communists?

So people who believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat; who look forward to a coming workers' revolution; who believe that all the liberal democratic institutions of American society would be, ideally, wholly done away with; who would, ideally, completely dismantle the capitalist system - you know, actual communists - those people have, to some meaningful extent, infiltrated big business and at least one of the political parties in the US? Clearly?

Originally posted by DrKF
You think that communists have - to any meaningful degree worthy of serious discussion - infiltrated big business and at least one of the political parties in the US? That, for example, senior members of Obama's administration and/or a sizeable number (or any) of Congressmen and/or (any) Senators are actual communists? Or that the managing directors or C infiltrated big business and at least one of the political parties in the US? Clearly?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4934917-503544html

According to one Congressman, there are around 17 socialists in Congress. However, only one of them proclaims himself a socialist. There is no doubt that the governemnt is turning hard left, it is just hard to tell who all is in involved at times.

To explain this a poll was taken regarding capitalism and socialism. About 53% say they favor capitalism and only 20% proclaim socialism.

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4934917-503544html

According to one Congressman, there are around 17 socialists in Congress. However, only one of them proclaims himself a socialist. There is no doubt that the governemnt is turning hard left, it is just hard to tell who all is in involved at times.

To explain this a poll was taken regarding capitalism and socialism. About 53% say they favor capitalism and only 20% proclaim socialism.

It's highly dubious there are 17 Socialists in the Congress. Even if there were, your claim was not that there were Socialists, but actual Communists "infiltrating" "Big Business" and the "political parties".

Do you wish to retract that claim?

EDIT: this government is "hard left"? LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!