Posted on 09/01/2014 7:03:12 AM PDT by kindred
A preferred ploy of left-wing change agents is to ridicule critics when they point out the undeniable parallels between the goals of today’s “progressive” movement, to include the Democratic Party in general, and the goals of the early, and very much still alive, communist movement.
If, for instance, one mentions the historical fact that nearly every adult who, at any time, was in any position of influence over a young, soon-to-be-radicalized Barry Soetoro was an avowed communist, to include his own parents, then one is immediately mocked and dismissed as a neo-McCarthyite hack pining for the bygone days of the Red Scare. This is an evasive, ad hominem strategy employed by those who are caught, for lack of a better word, red-handed.
To all this I say, if the jackboot fits, wear it. If it quacks like a commie and goose-steps like a commie, then a commie it is.
There are multiple layers within “progressivism’s” pseudo-utopian, truly dystopian Marxist philosophy. The left’s lust for redistributionist statism is well-known. Less understood, however, is the “progressive” rush toward cultural Marxism.
Cultural Marxism entails, among other things, that secularist aspect of left-wing statist ideology that seeks, within society, to supplant traditional values, norms and mores with postmodern moral relativism. Cultural Marxists endeavor to scrub America of her Judeo-Christian, constitutional-republican founding principles, and take, instead, a secular-statist Sharpie to our beloved U.S. Constitution.
Historian and U.S. military affairs expert William S. Lind describes cultural Marxism as “a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as ‘multiculturalism’ or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as ‘multiculturalism.’”
Pastor, attorney and Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Scott Lively is globally admired by liberty-loving traditionalists. Conversely, he’s universally reviled by cultural Marxists. He drills down a bit deeper: “Cultural Marxism is a variation of the Marxist strategy to build a utopian socialist order on the ashes of Christian civilization, but through subversion of the moral culture, especially the elimination of the natural family, rather than solely through destruction of capitalism.”
True though this may be, the ideological seeds of contemporary cultural Marxism nonetheless sprout from deep within the dead soil of historical communism. It is not economic redistributionism alone through which “progressives” seek to both “fundamentally transform America” and otherwise conquer the world, but, rather, and perhaps primarily, it is also through victory over the pejoratively tagged “social issues” (i.e., the sanctity of marriage, natural human sexuality and morality, ending the abortion holocaust, religious liberty, the Second Amendment and the like).
This is neither speculative nor hyperbolic. Both the historical record and the U.S. Congressional Record bear out this sinister reality. Regrettably, today’s “low-information voters” as Rush Limbaugh calls them – to include the useful idiots within the GOP’s “moderate” and libertarian wings – are simply too lazy, shortsighted or both to learn the facts.
“Surrender on the ‘social issues’!” demands the GOP’s cultural Marxist-enabling kamikazes.
In 1963, U.S. Rep. A.S. Herlong Jr., D-Fla., read into the Congressional Record a list of “Current Communist Goals” as enumerated by Dr. Cleon Skousen in “The Naked Communist,” penned in 1958. I encourage you to read the whole list, but for now let’s focus on those goals that most closely align with the seditious agenda of America’s “progressive” movement. It’s actually most of them. Though Herlong was a Democrat, the list reads like today’s Democratic Party Platform.
How far has fallen the party of the jackass: •Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength. •Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist [or, today, Islamic] affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. •Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist [or Islamic] domination. •Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N. •Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. •Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party. •Do away with all loyalty oaths. •Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. •Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights. •Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks. •Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions. •Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. •Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. (An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”) •Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. •Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. •Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” •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.” •Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principal of “separation of church and state.” •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. •Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.” •Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” •Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. •Infiltrate and gain control of more unions. •Infiltrate and gain control of big business. •Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat]. •Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals. •Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. •Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems. •Internationalize the Panama Canal. •Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
If achieving these specific communist goals was the final “progressive” step toward the larger goal of securing communist governance in America, then, tragically, “progressives” have realized that larger goal.
Look around. We are no longer the United States of America. We have become The Communist States of America.
Which means, for those who love liberty, revolution is once again at hand.
Yes, where are the lists that the GOP will promise to destroy?
I hear crickets again but there is no action from the so called conservative GOP. Why? They are going along for the ride and look forward to enslaving Americans as much as the communist democrats do.
OK. Do you have evidence she “supported or believed in the principles of Communism (Marxism-Leninism),” which is of course the most extreme variant of Socialism, leftism and Marxism?
The problem here is that I think we need to use words precisely. Not all leftists are Communists. Leftism, like conservatism, exists on a spectrum. Only the most extreme leftists are actually Communists. As can be seen by the extermination campaigns waged by Communists whenever they gained power against any leftists even slightly less extreme.
You know, if we’re going to accuse people of things like that, we ought to provide evidence.
I’ve never seen any, but I won’t claim it can’t exist.
Let’s be exact when using the term “avowed communist”.
To be “precise” a person can be a communist and not be an official member of the Communist Party.
I think it’s a good idea. If you call anyone with beliefs to the left of your own “a Communist,” then the term quickly loses all real meaning, and you have no way to refer to those who actually are Communists.
It’s similar to the overuse of the terms racist and fascist in recent decades. When all these terms really mean is “someone who disagrees with me,” then you have no way to talk about genuine racists and fascists.
Yes, of course. The dictionary definitions are along the lines of “one who supports or believes in Communism.”
With Communism, in this context, usually referring to Marxism-Leninism, dictatorship of the proletariat and all that.
All I’ve asked in this thread is some evidence that Mom, or stepdad, or the grandparents held such beliefs, as opposed possibly to general leftist POVs.
BTW, “avowed communist” would refer to someone making a public declaration of belief, not just a privately held opinion.
Thanks for reposting this information.
That list of 40 items is the marijuana gateway drug for many Democrats. But they do not know they don't know they bought into may of those bullet points, Sheeple in it's truest sense. And because of their epistemological fog of the unknown we are a lesser nation "Fundamentally Transforming" into what? So does that make our neighbors pulling the "D" lever almost unaware useful idiots? Do they realize what they are doing to their kids and grand-kid's future? Are we the only ones awake as we focus on what Mark Levin calls "Core Principals"?
I don't want to live in a country that is a fuzzy headed version of France or England, if my neighbors really want that, than why don't they move their and leave us who understand what the Founders Gifts were let us live without this "Transformation"?
Sheesh!
I had more but that was on another laptop and I did the research for myself not for you.
FYI
No, I was not able to find “Gramp’s” wallet in search of his CPUSA card. Sorry. (rolling eyes)
To be precise, I hope the “you” in post is not referring to **me**!
The best available evidence I can find of the claim that his grandfather Dunham was a communist was his association with Frank Marshall Davis. It is Obama himself who says it was his grandfather who introduced him to Davis and that he, Davis, became a mentor for young Barack. Davis is a well documented communist, including some sources who show his party registration number.
Guilt by association?
This does not necessarily prove Dunham was himself a communist but there are certainly strong indications he was a sympathizer.
The president’s mother was publicly described by a college classmate as a “fellow traveller”. Circumstantial evidence surely, but concerning language at the least.
The resident’s admitted affinity for the Marxist professors during his early collegiate years also leads one to surmise a prior affinity. Conclusive, no, he could have been in rebellion as many 19 year old kids at college will do, but there seems to be no evidence of a family history of being the bourgeoisie that would point to what he would have been rebelling against.
The available evidence seems to.point towards him being raised at the very least with a strong progressive bent. So the question becomes:
Is he following a Marxist line along which he was raised, or
Has he taken the strong liberals progressive teachings under which he was raised to their logical next step, which is still Marxism.
Either way the evidence seems to indicate he was raised with, and believes, the things he espouses. Was he radicalized as a child under the Dunhams and Davis’s, or was he a sympathizer radicalized as an adult under Alinsky and Ayers - that seems to be the only real remaining question on this particular matter.
I would be helpful if Free Republic had an edit option. My last post should read as follows:
To be precise, I hope the “you” your in post is not referring to **me**!
An interesting article.
Remarkably little in the way of avowed public statements of support for Communism on the part of Mom or the grandparents, though.
One, to my mind really odd, item is that it points out that Mom went to a high school where the chairman of the school board had previously been a member of the Party. That is a really peculiar thing to bring up, to my mind. For one thing, quite a few stout fighters against Communism had at one point been members of the Party, before their eyes were opened. According to this reference, he fell into this group.
Yes, the Dunhams had friends who were probably “avowed Communists,” but that’s very different from being such themselves.
Here’s one actual comment in the article that might show Mom’s political POV:
“She spent most of her latter years establishing micro credit banking in Indonesia and other countries so the poorest third world women could become independent small businesspersons, not socialist slaves.”
This is not the activity of an “avowed Communist.” True commies believe that any such efforts to make the system work better for the poor are by definition counter-productive to the cause. They believe in doing what they can to make things worse for the poor, not better, in order to better incentivize them for the Revolution.
I’m perfectly willing to be persuaded that Mom or the grandparents were “avowed Communists.” I just haven’t seen any real evidence to that effect yet.
In particular, I haven’t seen any evidence that the grandparents were politically active at all. May exist, of course.
Nah. Should probably use “one” rather than “you,” but to my ear it always sounds a bit pretentious and over-precise.
Ridicule. A primary weapon of the Alinskites.
How powerful is it?
Powerful enough to prevent all the major “conservative” talk show hosts from talking about what they all know to be true: That “Obama” is an illegal alien Communist Muslim terrorist.
Powerful enough to prevent EVERY Republican member of Congress from talking about what they ALL know, that “Obama” is an illegal alien Communist Muslim terrorist.
The People’s Republic of Obamastan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.