Message from 1944

[mleskovar]

Very telling......

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[jturkel]

wow this is good

[indy85_starion]

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963


Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

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

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

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

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and 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.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. 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. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

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

17. 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.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

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

22. 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."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

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

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

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. 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."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. 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.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. 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." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

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

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. 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].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

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

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note by Webmaster: The Congressional Record back this far has not be digitized and posted on the Internet.

It will probably be available at your nearest library that is a federal repository. Call them and ask them.

Your college library is probably a repository. This is an excellent source of government records.

[Glasgow Gold]

Originally Posted by mleskovar

Very telling......

He was right. I sometimes think that the "marketing" in politics is a recent phenom, but this suggests that principle went out the window more than half a century ago.

Hope and change my friends, hope and change.

[rockjock]

Originally Posted by Glasgow Gold

He was right. I sometimes think that the "marketing" in politics is a recent phenom, but this suggests that principle went out the window more than half a century ago.

Hope and change my friends, hope and change.

I hope its not raining still when I go out to my car-and the change in my pocket from the soda this morning annoys me when I walk to the bathroom.
Can we start an MB World Party to run for an office?

[Phin]

REPOST...search...

[S55inPA]

Originally Posted by Phin

REPOST...search...

but an excellent repost.

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by Phin

REPOST...search...

I realise that this was an exact, word-for-word repost.

But if you broadened the definition a bit, pretty much every right-wing political post on here is a re-hashed repost. "Oooh!" they say. "Them socialists are taking over!" We're all being forced to become commies! Poor us!".

[Wish4_e55Wagon]

Originally Posted by hkmb

I realise that this was an exact, word-for-word repost.

But if you broadened the definition a bit, pretty much every right-wing political post on here is a re-hashed repost. "Oooh!" they say. "Them socialists are taking over!" We're all being forced to become commies! Poor us!".

Not in Virginia and New Jersey, but then again the way things are going it doesn't matter weather we are talking left or right

[mleskovar]

Originally Posted by hkmb

.... "Them socialists are taking over!" We're all being forced to become commies! Poor us!".

I'm curious about your evaluation of what "we/conservatives/constitutionalists/right wingers etc." are worried about. Wasn't it Marx who said "socialism is only the stepping stone to communism"? After over 200 years of the US constitution show me a modern political power and nation that has been as successful. Personally I view any attempt to dilute constitutional and capitalistic values as a threat. All men may be created equal but that doesn't mean they're entitled to equal living standards. Does that mean throw the poor and disabled under the bus? No, they are still cared for....at a lower standard? Yes. But well cared for. Only basic entitlement is a birth right. Even the poorest and uneducated people in America are given a chance to grab the golden ring. And we also give that same chance to many people around the word with aid. To me Socialism just gives people the chance to grab only the lead ring. Many of the successful 'capitalists' in America started with nothing and earned their living standard. So what's the problem with conserving our way of life?

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by mleskovar

I'm curious about your evaluation of what "we/conservatives/constitutionalists/right wingers etc." are worried about. Wasn't it Marx who said "socialism is only the stepping stone to communism"? After over 200 years of the US constitution show me a modern political power and nation that has been as successful. Personally I view any attempt to dilute constitutional and capitalistic values as a threat. All men may be created equal but that doesn't mean they're entitled to equal living standards. Does that mean throw the poor and disabled under the bus? No, they are still cared for....at a lower standard? Yes. But well cared for. Only basic entitlement is a birth right. Even the poorest and uneducated people in America are given a chance to grab the golden ring. And we also give that same chance to many people around the word with aid. To me Socialism just gives people the chance to grab only the lead ring. Many of the successful 'capitalists' in America started with nothing and earned their living standard. So what's the problem with conserving our way of life?

HKMB is the epitome of hypocrisy. He is a socialist businessman.

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by mleskovar

I'm curious about your evaluation of what "we/conservatives/constitutionalists/right wingers etc." are worried about. Wasn't it Marx who said "socialism is only the stepping stone to communism"? After over 200 years of the US constitution show me a modern political power and nation that has been as successful.

Umm..... in one way or another, much of Western Europe and several countries in Asia? And I shouldn't forget Australia, since I live here.

Originally Posted by mleskovar

Personally I view any attempt to dilute constitutional and capitalistic values as a threat.

No, I think you and the others are seeing any perceived attempt to dilute constitutional and capitalistic values as a threat. What's going on in America at the moment is not and attempt to dilute constitutional or capitalistic values. It's just that you've decided to say that it is.

Originally Posted by mleskovar

All men may be created equal but that doesn't mean they're entitled to equal living standards. Does that mean throw the poor and disabled under the bus? No, they are still cared for...

Only because LRM1 and MG and Revstriker aren't the ruling military junta.

Originally Posted by mleskovar

....at a lower standard? Yes. But well cared for. Only basic entitlement is a birth right. Even the poorest and uneducated people in America are given a chance to grab the golden ring. And we also give that same chance to many people around the word with aid. To me Socialism just gives people the chance to grab only the lead ring. Many of the successful 'capitalists' in America started with nothing and earned their living standard. So what's the problem with conserving our way of life?

How is any of this different to Europe or Australia or developed Asia?

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by LRM1

HKMB is the epitome of hypocrisy. He is a socialist businessman.

It's possible to be a businessman and not be a b-----d.

It's possible to want to make money and not to want to condemn others to poverty.

There's no contradiction there.

[mleskovar]

Originally Posted by hkmb

;; What's going on in America at the moment is not and attempt to dilute constitutional or capitalistic values. It's just that you've decided to say that it is..

Where in the constitution does it say the government will step in and run a business that is no longer solvent? When the government becomes competitive with private business is that within the framework of capitalism? I know, I cherry picked these two phrases.

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by mleskovar

Where in the constitution does it say the government will step in and run a business that is no longer solvent? When the government becomes competitive with private business is that within the framework of capitalism? I know, I cherry picked these two phrases.

Where in the constitution does it say that your government will have nuclear weapons? Or provide roads for common use? Or regulate porn on the Internet? Or regulate the use of commercial airspace?

Times change. This determination to set yourselves in stone is self-defeating. As I've said before, the Ming Dynasty did it, and that policy held China back for about 600 years.

[mleskovar]

Originally Posted by hkmb

Where in the constitution does it say that your government will have nuclear weapons? Or provide roads for common use? Or regulate porn on the Internet? Or regulate the use of commercial airspace?

Times change. This determination to set yourselves in stone is self-defeating. As I've said before, the Ming Dynasty did it, and that policy held China back for about 600 years.

Sorry, lost me. I was using the fact that the current government, without authority, is now running private business ( obviously with public funds.) And, is it OK within a capitalistic system for the government to compete with private business in matters other than public service?

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by mleskovar

Sorry, lost me. I was using the fact that the current government, without authority, is now running private business ( obviously with public funds.) And, is it OK within a capitalistic system for the government to compete with private business in matters other than public service?

Of course it is. Pure socialism doesn't work, and nor does pure capitalism. I think that some of the recent nationalisations in America (and Britain) were mistakes. Some, however, were necessary.

I'm no expert on your constitution, but I don't recall there being an explicit prohibition on State ownership of businesses. Is there one?

[mleskovar]

Originally Posted by hkmb

...Of course it is. Pure socialism doesn't work, and nor does pure capitalism. ...

Depends of whether or not you're complacent with mediocrity for all or levels of service for those that earn it.

Originally Posted by hkmb

...I'm no expert on your constitution, but I don't recall there being an explicit prohibition on State ownership of businesses. Is there one?

None specifically that I know of.

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by hkmb

It's possible to be a businessman and not be a b-----d.

Yes, this is true - it's called good corporate governance and on a personal level ethics and charity - none of which NEED come from the government.

Originally Posted by hkmb

It's possible to want to make money and not to want to condemn others to poverty.

Another typical example of your, self absorbed nature - not one person on your enemies list here has ever said that -on the contrary - we all WANT people to succeed, to work, make money and be just as, if not more successful than us. It's called capitalism and unlike Socialism is the ONLY system which offers the poor a real chance to leave that level. You are stuck in the middle ages and have serious issues with the modern age.

Originally Posted by hkmb

There's no contradiction there.

Actually yes, there is. Socialism forces those who produce to provide for those who don't - it is the opposite of capitalism, which is what drives business. There is not one example of a socialist business that is successful and profitable - on the contrary, the burden placed on businesses by socialist systems causes stagnancy bureaucracy and failure. How many pre capitalist Soviet businesses were there? How many pre "opening" Chinese companies were there?

How well are the "poor" factory workers in China making out under the socialist system? Can Xi Yang, who works in long dong's textile mill for $4.00 a week become the owner of the company if she is smart?

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by mleskovar

Depends of whether or not you're complacent with mediocrity for all or levels of service for those that earn it.

What on earth do you mean?

Originally Posted by mleskovar

None specifically that I know of.

OK. So when you said constitution was being diluted because "the current government, without authority, is now running private business", what you meant is that the constitution isn't being diluted?

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by LRM1

Yes, this is true - it's called good corporate governance and on a personal level ethics and charity - none of which NEED come from the government.

Yeah, 'cause individual companies and their managers can all be relied upon to do that, can't they?

Originally Posted by LRM1

Another typical example of your, self absorbed nature - not one person on your enemies list here has ever said that -on the contrary - we all WANT people to succeed, to work, make money and be just as, if not more successful than us.

That's bollocks, LRM1, and you know it. MG in particular made it clear on the healthcare thread, and everyone else backed it up: you'd rather pay more for an inferior service as long as you know that other people have it worse than you. Your measure of success isn't how rich you are; it's how much richer you are than other people.

Originally Posted by LRM1

Actually yes, there is. Socialism forces those who produce to provide for those who don't - it is the opposite of capitalism, which is what drives business. There is not one example of a socialist business that is successful and profitable - on the contrary, the burden placed on businesses by socialist systems causes stagnancy bureaucracy and failure. How many pre capitalist Soviet businesses were there? How many pre "opening" Chinese companies were there?

You seem to be agreeing with me here, which is nice.

I'd said that neither pure capitalism nor pure communism works. You've pointed out that under the pre-reform pure communist system, there were very few successful companies. So, yes, you're right.

Originally Posted by LRM1

How well are the "poor" factory workers in China making out under the socialist system? Can Xi Yang, who works in long dong's textile mill for $4.00 a week become the owner of the company if she is smart?

They're doing very well indeed, thank you.

And, interestingly, they're doing far better since stricter regulation was brought in last year. What? More regulation leads to better conditions? Noooo!

But let's look at what you're not looking at. Which country is creating millionaires faster than any other in the world? And where did these people come from? You'd be astonished at how many of them started out as poor factory workers.

[Jon2007E63P30]

Originally Posted by LRM1

How well are the "poor" factory workers in China making out under the socialist system? Can Xi Yang, who works in long dong's textile mill for $4.00 a week become the owner of the company if she is smart?

"Two Systems, One Country" That is a publicly stated position of the Chinese gov't. In economic competition against the rest of the world it can be very strong. But, it relies on a sub class that only earns $4 per week. That means there needs to be areas controlled where people earning that much can live. It is certainly not Shanghai, which is considered an economic zone, where the standard of living goal is to match those in the US.

hkmb - why don't you speak your mind about the Chinese gov't on a chinese web site and see how long your visa holds out. The US allows everyone the same opportunity, some win, some loose. I don't have to ensure that the loosers have a 42" TV, xbox, a car, and health insurance (typically the loosers have the first 3 as a choice to buying the 4th). China is making sure the loosers don't get the first 3 as well.

[ultraseven]

Originally Posted by Jon2007E63P30

"Two Systems, One Country" That is a publicly stated position of the Chinese gov't. In economic competition against the rest of the world it can be very strong. But, it relies on a sub class that only earns $4 per week. That means there needs to be areas controlled where people earning that much can live. It is certainly not Shanghai, which is considered an economic zone, where the standard of living goal is to match those in the US.

hkmb - why don't you speak your mind about the Chinese gov't on a chinese web site and see how long your visa holds out. The US allows everyone the same opportunity, some win, some loose. I don't have to ensure that the loosers have a 42" TV, xbox, a car, and health insurance (typically the loosers have the first 3 as a choice to buying the 4th). China is making sure the loosers don't get the first 3 as well.

There's no such thing as 2 systems 1 country. It's merely a veil and it's only a matter of time before the PRC is done with the pro-democratic parties in HK.

Step 1 - recruit local liberation forces (they've started this discussion)
Step 2 - use local liberation army to quell dissidents (will take place after they can get the bodies out there)

There are success stories in the PRC, but more often than not most are actually abetted by the govt in some way. There's way too much $ under the table that it's unimaginable to have a 20 something CEO of a major manufacturing corporation.

[rockjock]

Step 3: Join the MB World OT section for guidance and leadership training.

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by Jon2007E63P30

"Two Systems, One Country" That is a publicly stated position of the Chinese gov't.

One Country, Two Systems, is the principle under which Mainland China's relationship with Hong Kong is governed. It's also proposed as the basis for any future unified relationship with Taiwan. It has nothing to do with domestic politics or economics. So I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Originally Posted by Jon2007E63P30

In economic competition against the rest of the world it can be very strong. But, it relies on a sub class that only earns $4 per week.

I assume the "$4 per week" was deliberate hyperbole. A typical factory worker earns around US$ 70 per week (this is their take-home pay, after tax and health insurance. And in the southern cities where the factories are concentrated, they get free accommodation and often free food.). Which is still pretty crap, but it's a vast improvement on what it used to be. And it's continuing to rise

Originally Posted by Jon2007E63P30

That means there needs to be areas controlled where people earning that much can live.

There is a permit system which means that you have to apply to live in any city you weren't born in. Given the massive population and huge migratory pressures, this is absolutely necessary.

Originally Posted by Jon2007E63P30

It is certainly not Shanghai, which is considered an economic zone, where the standard of living goal is to match those in the US.

The special economic zones are Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Shantou and Xiamen. Not Shanghai.

Shanghai has a series of development zones, not SEZs. Some of these development zones, such as Baoshan, are precisely where the sort of migrant workers you're talking about live.

China's goal is to reduce - not increase - the income disparity between the rich coastal cities and the rest of the country. Furthering economic development in Shanghai is therefore not as much of a priority as furthering growth inland.

Originally Posted by Jon2007E63P30

hkmb - why don't you speak your mind about the Chinese gov't on a chinese web site and see how long your visa holds out.

I do. It's never been a problem. In fact it's positively encouraged on sites like Sina, Sohu and anti-cnn. And on TV and on the radio and in the newspapers. Can I assume that you haven't had much to do with the mainstream Chinese media over the past few years.

Oddly enough, I was listening to someone whinge about this on the plane on the way home yesterday: this Australian guy who was moaning about having spent three months in prison in Beijing. He said he thought it was because he'd put some stuff on his Facebook page about freedom in Tibet, and about Tiananmen. He said that the official reason they'd arrested him - that he'd stolen a car and was racing it around Beijing - was "just a pretext, man, because they saw me as, like, a threat", although he did admit that, yes, he had stolen and raced the car. You stole a car. You got arrested for it. Politics had nothing to do with it, and your arrest was not oppression, you f---wit.

Originally Posted by Jon2007E63P30

The US allows everyone the same opportunity, some win, some loose. I don't have to ensure that the loosers have a 42" TV, xbox, a car, and health insurance (typically the loosers have the first 3 as a choice to buying the 4th). China is making sure the loosers don't get the first 3 as well.

Hmmm.... I didn't understand any of this paragraph.