Replies

While the implication is that communists have directed the cultural changes cited above, most of those in America who advocate for these leftist positions do not see themselves as communists and they would adamantly deny they support communism in any form. Nevertheless, they have managed the communist agenda rather sucessfully

I fully agree. Let's not forget that the spread of the communist agenda has depended heavily on the enthusiastic support of people they term 'useful idiots' - those who would support their short-term aims and those they proclaimed to the public (peace, workers' rights, racial equality, etc.), even if they were in the dark about their long-term goals.

There is now concrete evidence that foreign-supported members of the Communist Party USA did infiltrate Hollywood starting in the 1930's. All of the members of the 'celebrated' Hollywood 10 were in fact communists, though they were loath to admit it. Given the scorn heaped upon the HUAC investigations of the time by our contemporary 'artists' and 'entertainers', one is forced to wonder how successful this infiltration really was.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make the case that our current cultural situation is completely the result of some nefarious covert "communist" infiltration. However, it has always amazed me that the leaders of our cultural and educational institutions, entertainment icons and media outlets all seem to sing from the same song-sheet in terms of political issues.

>>>But don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make the case that our current cultural situation is completely the result of some nefarious covert "communist" infiltration. However, it has always amazed me that the leaders of our cultural and educational institutions, entertainment icons and media outlets all seem to sing from the same song-sheet in terms of political issues.

They largely play by different rules, going after one institution after another. AS soon as they get a foothold, that foothold is used to bring in more and more people like them. They may not see themselves as communist cells, but for practical purposes they act like them.

patent

Let's not forget that the spread of the communist agenda has depended heavily on the enthusiastic support of people they term 'useful idiots' - those who would support their short-term aims and those they proclaimed to the public (peace, workers' rights, racial equality, etc.), even if they were in the dark about their long-term goals.

When I was in college, I heard some Communist leader say something about not having to conquer America by force, the people would do it for them.

At the time I was naive enough to not believe this - why would anyone want to give up what we had, what made America great? I also believed that our elected officials wouldn't stand for this, that they would honor their oaths and protect this country.

I've grown up a lot since then. Unfortunately.

However, it has always amazed me that the leaders of our cultural and educational institutions, entertainment icons and media outlets all seem to sing from the same song-sheet in terms of political issues.

Interesting, isn't it? I've always suspected it was tied to some self-righteous feeling of superiority and elitism as in Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed." Yet the behavior is so uniform it's hard to believe there's not something more to it. In the McCarthy years it was as if the anti-anti Communists were a bunch of Stalinist sleepers, acting like ordinary apolitical Americans until they got a "Telefon"-like signal from the Kremlin. In fact I strongly believe a lot of that was going on, but I think many were still in the thrall of Lincoln Steffens-style utopianism.

I was a reporter on the staff of a Salt Lake City newspaper at the time Skousen's "Naked Communist" was published. He was then SLC police chief. While I'd been brainwashed by a "liberal" college humanities education, I was beginning to feel the comforting gravitational tug of conservatism. I was amazed at the reaction to Skousen's book, even though the culture of the day was full of scorn towards John Birchers, McCarthyites and others the intellectual elite (including the TV talking heads of the day) considered to be low-life cretins. The liberals on the paper's staff (that is, nearly everyone) went bonkers. It was my first real experience with liberal-style hatred and intolerance. I wondered even then where all that anger and intensity came from.

I'd gone to Skousen's office one afternoon with the police reporter to learn the ropes of that particular beat. The reporter immediately got into a shouting contest with Skousen over the book and what then was considered anti-Communist "paranoia." I remember thinking that Skousen presented his ideas in a way I thought was calm, intelligent and reasoned and wondered why our guy was practically frothing at the mouth in contempt. Later, the paper's Executive Editor launched a series of Page One editorials -- unheard-of in that place and time -- denouncing Skousen as a charlatan and scoundrel. From that point on the paper was dedicated to getting Skousen fired, and it did. The attack was personal, vicious and completely disregarded the factual content of his book -- a technique that has become all too familiar over my lifetime. Liberals survive by suppressing thought and discussion. Political Correctness is a sophisticated refinement of that technique.

I recall thinking: "So much for the First Amendment. It all depends on who is speaking." At that point, my faith in the formerly shining beacon of journalism started to erode. What I've seen and experienced since has left a hole the size of the Grand Canyon.