Shocking Video: Grinding America Down

[John317]

Do you care about the truth?

Yes, of course.

Quote:

For me, the willingness to embrace the fake quote says it all: here are people who don't care what is true.

First of all, we don't know that the quote is a fake. And secondly, it is probable that the film-makers believed the quote to be genuine.

But even if it turns out to be a fake quote, it wouldn't change the fact that the communists had those goals in 1958 and that those goals have largely been realized in the United States.

Are you in favor of these goals?

I'm not.

1) Eliminate prayer in public schools.

2) Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

3) Get control of schools and soften the cirriculum.

4) Eliminate all laws governing obscentity.

5) Breakdown cultural standards of morality.

6)Present homosexuality as normal & healthy.

7) Infiltrate the press, gain control of key positions in the media and entertainment industry.

8) Infiltrate the church-- discredit the Bible. Replace revealed religion with social religion.

Compare these goals with what life was like in the USA before 1958. Each one of those goals is clearly affecting our lives today. That is not merely a coincidence.

[phkrause]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2...e=1&theater

I do agree that teachers, pbs, etc had nothing to do with what there claiming, but all those things did happen. And as far as I can remember no one ever said that teachers, pbs., etc. did them. I would like to see what that post was responding to. So not only is the post half right and half wrong, but I see it as the poster spinning some falsehoods. Trying to make a statement that certain people were blamed but yet they never were blamed in the first place. To me Johns video has more credibility.

[John317]

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

- Norman Thomas (1884-1968), six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

Interesting man. I remember him running very unsuccessfully for public office-- I believe it was for California governor-- in the early 1960s. By that time, he too old to do much campaigning. He did it mostly just out of habit, I think.:-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Thomas

[Tom Wetmore]

But none of that has anything to do with the video. It is not about Beck, nor is it about Skousen.

Oh but they do. Mr. Bowers was parroting Skousen's ideas. Beck parrots Skousen's ideas. Both are robotic clones of the same source, so yes it is about him. You were the one that tipped us off to Skousen's book as if it was some sort of validation of what Bowers was saying. What Skousen wrote has been described as "a joke that no self-respecting scholar would think is worth a warm pitcher of spit." SO I would say that anyone parroting his ideas might have a steep uphill climb to credibility.

Originally Posted By: John317

It's a video made by a US Congressman, Curtis Bowers of Idaho...

He was not a US Congressman. He was an appointed (not elected) representative to the Idaho State House of Representatives. He was appointed by the Governor to replace a representative that resigned for health reasons.

Originally Posted By: John317

When we quote a statement(s) in a book, it shouldn't be necessary to defend everything that the writer did or said throughout his life.

Since when?!?! That seems to be a typical strategy around here. I certainly have not seen anyone draw that up as a rule governing discussion before.

Originally Posted By: John317

It seems to me we ought to judge the contents of the book on its own merits and not define it by things that we don't agree with outside the book.

May I refer you to the lengthy thread about the book The Sacredness of Questioning Everything ? How much of that was about the book on its own merits? How much of the reaction to it by everyone who had never read a word of the book was attempting to define it by points of disagreement from outside of the book?

This seems to be a "do as I say, not as I do" moment...

[John317]

The book by Cleon Skousen lists some of the goals of the communists of the 1950s for the United States, and many of those goals have been largely realized. I think it's important for the American people to know this. That is really the purpose of the video.

We need to remember what that system was all about and why so many millions of our countrymen fought against it. Americans don't want socialism, yet it is coming to our country without the people being told straightforwardsly that this is what is happening.

Quote:

Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin

By BILL KELLER, Special to the New York Times

Feb 4, 1989

MOSCOW, Feb. 3— A Soviet weekly newspaper today published the most detailed accounting of Stalin's victims yet presented to a mass audience here, indicating that about 20 million died in labor camps, forced collectivization, famine and executions.

The estimates, by the historian Roy Medvedev, were printed in the weekly tabloid Argumenti i Fakti, which has a circulation of more than 20 million.

The estimated number of deaths is about equal to the number of Soviet soldiers and civilians believed killed in World War II.

Mr. Medvedev's grim arithmetic was reported in a less detailed version last November in Moscow News, a limited-circulation weekly, which sells about 200,000 copies in Russian, but today's article marked the first time the numbers have been disclosed to a nationwide audience.

In all, Mr. Medvedev calculated about 40 million victims of Stalin's repressions, including those arrested, driven from their land or blacklisted.

Although the bookkeeping of Stalin's terror is an inexact and contentious science, Mr. Medvedev's estimates are generally in line with Western calculations that have long been disparaged by more official Soviet historians.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/04/world/...-of-stalin.html

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

It's a video made by a US Congressman, Curtis Bowers of Idaho...

He was not a US Congressman. He was an appointed (not elected) representative to the Idaho State House of Representatives. He was appointed by the Governor to replace a representative that resigned for health reasons.

Thanks for pointing out that error. He was a State Representative from District 10.

He wrote:

Quote:

Communist agenda makes its way to our mainstream

Wednesday, January 9th, 2008

By Curtis Bowers

The start of a new year is always a time of reflection as we learn from

the past and prepare for the future. An unusual opportunity I had years

ago is especially significant today, in light of the many issues facing

Americans.

In 1992 I read that the Communist Party USA was gathering at the

University of California, Berkeley. I was curious to see what they had

to say about the Berlin Wall coming down and the collapse of the Soviet

Union. Would they give up, or did they have a different approach? I

decided to go and find out.

I assumed it would be a bunch of radical college students, so to fit the

part, I grew a goatee, got a revolutionary T-shirt and put on some ratty

jeans. After getting checked into my dorm room on campus, I went over to

the conference hall for the first meeting. I was amazed to see a room

filled with 50-, 60- and 70-year-old men and women, professionally

dressed with their briefcases.

For the next several days I listened, took notes and talked to the

leadership. The plan they unfolded had nothing to do with guns, bombs or

violence. They acknowledged their disappointment with what had happened

in the Soviet Union but felt they could still “take America down.” This

time, instead of using force from the outside, they would use public

policy from the inside.

They had a three part agenda. They would use their manpower, influence

and funds to back anything that would destroy our families, businesses

and culture.

Firstly, to destroy the family, they would promote co-habitation instead

of marriage. They would also try to get children away from their mothers

into government programs at the earliest age possible. They felt the

best way to do this was to promote the feminist movement, which had been

very effective at making women discontent with marriage and motherhood.

Secondly, to destroy businesses, they aimed to wipe out the profit

potential that motivated people to start them. If people couldn’t make

good money off their ideas and hard work, they would eventually be

content working for someone else. They were sure the environmental

movement (modest at the time) was the only vehicle capable of creating

enough regulation and expense to discourage business growth.

Finally, to destroy our culture, they needed us to abandon our heritage

of religion and morality. They believed the homosexual movement, if

accepted, would begin to effectively extinguish these values.

At the time they laid out this strategy, I wasn’t overly impressed. It

seemed very unrealistic and certainly not something to worry about in my

lifetime. Yet as I sit in my office, recall their plan and consider

where America is today, I am shocked.

Our first woman presidential candidate talks about how degrading it is

to be a stay-at-home mom. Businesses are closing down or moving daily to

other countries because environmental regulations are too excessive to

make a profit. And legislation is being considered in Washington, D.C.

that makes it a crime to discuss in public any opposition to the

homosexual lifestyle. As the old advertisement said, “You’ve come a long

way, baby!”

When we see many mainstream politicians and activist judges with the

same agenda that just 16 years ago was that of Communist strategists, it

is time for patriotic Americans to wake up and get involved.

Curtis Bowers is an Idaho representative from District 10.

[teresaq]

,,, To me Johns video has more credibility.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

But none of that has anything to do with the video. It is not about Beck, nor is it about Skousen.

Oh but they do. Mr. Bowers was parroting Skousen's ideas. Beck parrots Skousen's ideas. Both are robotic clones of the same source, so yes it is about him. You were the one that tipped us off to Skousen's book as if it was some sort of validation of what Bowers was saying. What Skousen wrote has been described as "a joke that no self-respecting scholar would think is worth a warm pitcher of spit." SO I would say that anyone parroting his ideas might have a steep uphill climb to credibility.

Tom, I believe you are mixing apples and oranges. Neither the video nor this discussion are about Skousen's ideas or Beck's.

All I'm talking about-- and the sole reason I posted the video-- is the goals of the communists in 1958 and the fact that many of those goals have been realized in the United States.

I couldn't care less about all the other things he wrote or said. Nor do I care about what someone said about him. People say terrible things about virtually everyone on the planet. They said terrible things about Christ, and they will make up awful things about SDAs one day. We can't go by those kinds of personal attacks. The man was an FBI agent and a respected teacher at a university. We may not agree with him, but we aren't right to condemn him simply because he didn't do or think everything the way we think he should have. I am only concerned here with what he wrote in The Naked Communist about the agenda of the communists for the United States.

[John317]

The book that he wrote which is quoted in the video has nothing whatsoever to do with church/state union. The video is not about that, either. It's about the goals of the communists for the US in 1958. It's about the nation accepting the changes that were outlined in Skousen's book in which he warned what the communists had planned for the United States. No one who is aware of the changes that have occurred since then can reasonably deny that those goals have largely been realized.

Do you remember what Kruschev said when he visited the US back in the 1950s?

Ezra Benson was condemning communism to Kruschev, and Kruschev responded, “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

An American also said pretty much the same thing Kruschev said.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

- Norman Thomas (1884-1968), six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

[John317]

When we quote a statement(s) in a book, it shouldn't be necessary to defend everything that the writer did or said throughout his life.

Originally Posted By: Wetmore

Since when?!?! That seems to be a typical strategy around here. I certainly have not seen anyone draw that up as a rule governing discussion before.

When someone has quoted a book on the Forum, I have never suggested that the person quoting the book needed to defend everything that the writer did or said throughout his or her life.

[jasd]

>>Skousen disregarded all federal regulatory agencies, and argued for the abolition of everything from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to the Environmental Protection Agency.[25]

He also wanted to repeal the minimum wage,

eliminate unions,

nullify anti-discrimination laws,

sell off public lands and national parks,

end the direct election of senators,

eliminate the income tax and the estate tax,

remove the walls separating church and state,

and end the Federal Reserve System.[25]<<

Yes! Get rid of them all. Too much law by regulation in this country.

Cleon?-or Mark Skousen?

Don't care. Now here's a man of principles. Love 'im.

My next write-in candidate.

"Separation.."? Pish-tosh. Weren't our Ivy League schools founded as Christian schools.

Seems that there's been too much legislating from the bench of the Highest Court - 'cause I can't find a 'Separation clause' anywhere in the Constitution. Help me out.

[fccool]

You are barking at waaaaaay wrong tree here .

America today is essentially a fascist state. I'm not saying this to be insulting or negative. I've studied both history and economics enough to understand it as a fact. So, I hope that you will set aside certain labels and associations and consider a couple things here before looking at "Communists are destroying America" claims and understand where these are coming from.

Today Fascism is generally mixed up with black and white images of Natzism. Nazism is political ideology implemented through the use of a fascist government system. It is this system that needs to be understood and not the policy employed through it. It is not exclusive to a dictatorship as we define dictatorship today. The "neo" brand of fascism begins with the co-op of corporate and government interests becoming one in the same. This is the primary transition in the nature and operation of the government apparatus. Corporate power is not so much as protected; it is one in the same as government power.

It begins with the control of government by corporate and business interests which leads to the detriment of the well-being of the many for the benefit of the few. So, fascism begins to manifest itself at the point when corporate interests highjack the operations of the government on all fronts, be it judicial, monetary, foreign policy, and legal fronts.

In order for a society and its people to continue to be free and prosper the government must let economies thrive. However, in order for a society and its people to be treated equally and with justice, the government is needed to legislate and regulate the capitalist system so that it does not ultimately devour itself through its own desire for continual wealth. This is the act of mutual balance that is needed in a strong and healthy capitalist system.

A fascist government is one which is terminally ill with an incurable cancer. In a fascist society this system of mutual balance has completely and utterly collapsed to the point where government is not functioning as the representative of the people, but the security guard for the corporate interests.

1) It is a system where business interests and motives are held supreme over the interests of the public – usually leading to detrimental impacts on the public good.

2) It is a system where government has compromised every ounce of its duty, in order to serve the interests of the power brokers and money men through the legislation of laws and policies which benefit the rich and the corporations over those of the society.

3) It is a system where members of the government and the business community are indistinguishable from each other. Thus leading to patronage and cronyism beyond the normal expectations of a government official.

4) It is a system dominated by think-tanks and lobbying groups that influence politicians to act in the benefit of the industries and businesses they represent.

5) It is a system where politicians are corrupted and compromised through significant political contributions by big business (both under and over the table).

6) It is a system where the military, government and business are indistinguishable from each other.

7) It is a system where no distinction can be made between the overall policies and stances taken by opposing political parties within the fascist system.

8) It is a system with a domineering drive to reduce the scope of public services and the continued drive to privatize essential societal needs – health, education, welfare, etc.

9) It is a system where the public is inundated with propagandized rhetoric in order to distract them from the important issues. This maintains resistance to a minimum and enables the corporate interests to be served continuously.

Once this has occurred the government is used by the business and corporate interests not to further the advancement or well-being of the people, but instead to further the profit making abilities of the corporation. Laws and regulations are passed which benefit business by the same people that only months or a few years ago were commanding figures in industry and business. Their allegiance does not lie with the commoner, but with the industrial elites to whom they once belonged or to whom they owe their election financing. These same individuals maintain close business relationships and once their terms in office are complete frequently return to serve with the same corporations that they did before office or that they generously assisted while in office. The entire system is structured as a self-perpetuating revolving door that continues to perpetuate the corporate benefactor.

You can certainly point to America's current electoral system, and people's voting rights, and all of the freedoms that they enjoy. But it's a very common trait in virtually any fascist system for individual rights to erode, and corporate benefits to grow. This control is usually achieved through the stories of incomprehensible evil enemies that seek to destroy the society by any means possible, which in turn gives justification to torture, closed-door "trials", surveillance society, all in the name of protecting the country from threat of exaggerated threats.

Political discourse and debate is drawn down to severe partisan lines, whereby perceived differences are introduced within the political parties, despite the fact that the overall goal – the advancement of the corporate interest – is still paramount. Issues of debate between the political parties in the respective house of government focus on "non-issues". No mention is made or attention paid to the domineering influence of the corporation within all aspects of the society. Corporate interests at all levels are hidden, minimized or protected by the fascist state even though vital areas of the citizenry are impacted – food, water, health, education, civil rights, human rights, domestic policy, foreign policy, energy security, and on and on.

Now, when you compare the goals of "The communists to destroy American society" , and the Characteristics of Fascism that tends to undermine family structure, isolate and dumb down its citizenry, and empower the state power by means of corporate handouts... which story is closer to resemble reality?

a) The claim that there's a handful of Communists who run around and infiltrate America to destroy it

OR

The claim that America is in fact far away from ideals that it was founded upon, and the Communist scare is still being used on those who would not know the difference between the real thing and a deliberate and obvious boogie man conjured up for people to fear something enough to give up whatever rights they have left for the sake of the corporate lords that today earn more an hour than an average American would make in a month.

[fccool]

PS. Some reading material for you

[teresaq]

[John317]

The link you gave me is to a book that essentially says that Ezra Benson "heard what he wanted to hear," i.e., made it all up; but of course the writers of the book weren't there to know what Kruschev said.

Norman Thomas, the American socialist, said basically the same thing as Benson reported Kruschev having said.

Your link would apparently have us believe that the communists loved the American system and wanted capitalism to continue.

[John317]

America today is essentially a fascist state.

No, the United States is not a fascist state.

[John317]

So, I hope that you will set aside certain labels and associations and consider a couple things here before looking at "Communists are destroying America" claims and understand where these are coming from.

You're oversimplifying what is happening in the United States. I'm not saying that today it is the communists who are destroying America. Today America is being destroyed from within, not due to communists on the outside. The goals of the communists that were set forth back in the 1930s to the 1950s have already greatly damaged us as nation. To a large degree it has been our own fault because as a country we allowed it to happen and we are allowing it to continue to happen today. We are self-destructing as a nation and a people, and many even in the US are glad to see it happen. This by no means describes most Americans but it does show that attitudes and values have changed drastically from what they were only a couple of decades ago.

[John317]

a) The claim that there's a handful of Communists who run around and infiltrate America to destroy it

That is not what is being said in the video, and it is certainly not what I'm suggesting.

[John317]

You can certainly point to America's current electoral system, and people's voting rights, and all of the freedoms that they enjoy.

Yes, we Americans still enjoy many wonderful freedoms, but they are gradually disappearing.

Originally Posted By: fccool

But it's a very common trait in virtually any fascist system for individual rights to erode, and corporate benefits to grow.

As it also is in socialistic states.

Originally Posted By: fccool

This control is usually achieved through the stories of incomprehensible evil enemies that seek to destroy the society by any means possible, which in turn gives justification to torture, closed-door "trials", surveillance society, all in the name of protecting the country from threat of exaggerated threats.

Do you deny that there are evil enemies-- both inside and outside our borders-- that seek to destroy the United States?

The control I'm talking about is not being acheived through made-up stories about terrorists or communists. Since the end of the Cold War, Americans are generally no longer aware that socialism or communism even pose a threat. As a people our moral and spiritual defenses are almost completely down. We are no longer aware of who we are and what our country is all about. However, I thought Gov. Christie did a good job the other day reminding us of who and what we are.

[John317]

The "neo" brand of fascism begins with the co-op of corporate and government interests becoming one in the same. This is the primary transition in the nature and operation of the government apparatus. Corporate power is not so much as protected; it is one in the same as government power.

It begins with the control of government by corporate and business interests which leads to the detriment of the well-being of the many for the benefit of the few. So, fascism begins to manifest itself at the point when corporate interests highjack the operations of the government on all fronts, be it judicial, monetary, foreign policy, and legal fronts.

And yet today it is more the case of government taking control of corporations and dominating businesses. Wouldn't you agree?

I don't see corporations and businesses gaining power over government but rather the federal government gaining power over corporations and the economy.

[John317]

... In order for a society and its people to continue to be free and prosper the government must let economies thrive. However, in order for a society and its people to be treated equally and with justice, the government is needed to legislate and regulate the capitalist system so that it does not ultimately devour itself through its own desire for continual wealth. This is the act of mutual balance that is needed in a strong and healthy capitalist system.

We're in complete agreement here. But this is not what's being done under the current administration. The government today is more likely to get in the way of private businesses so that they cannot thrive. It needs to get out of the way and allow business to do what they are intended to do, which is to profit and create jobs. I believe we would have a strong and healthy capitalist system if the government didn't interfere so much. But unfortunately there are many who want to see the capitalist system fail and be replaced by a different system. These do not want fascism but socialism.

[fccool]

I don't believe you truly understand the motives of socialists like Hrushyov. That's why you would not recognize such quote as a fabrication, because you believe these people to be sinister. They were presented to you as sinister because you needed to see them in such light.

Here's a genuine quote:

"I worked at a factory owned by Germans, at coal pits owned by Frenchmen, and at a chemical plant owned by Belgians. There I discovered something about capitalists. They are all alike, whatever the nationality. All they wanted from me was the most work for the least money that kept me alive. So I became a communist."

Communism was a remedy for unchecked Corporatism. These people were not trying to conquer and control the world. They just wanted to live a normal and peaceful life, without worrying to get sick, or to be left homeless. They genuinely believed in and were trying to spread ideology. Stalin died with nothing but a shirt on his back, metaphorically speaking. That should tell you something about the guy and his ideals. I certainly don't approve of much of his tactics, but I don't believe that the guy was about murder for the sake of murder. He truly believed in these ideals, and he was willing to cross that line to bring these ideals to life.

The only reason these people viewed US as "enemy" is because they opposed the political structure that caused them to turn their views to Marxism in the first place. It was really the best alternative at that time that they can get enough people behind.

Communism is not a terrible system in it's prime, neither was Capitalism in its small-business form. I've lived through last decade of Communism, and I myself today am a small business owner. I really don't have much to complain about with both. In case of Communism, the basic needs of people such as financial security, health, housing, and education were free. Crime was at minimum. And people actually believed and gave back to the society that gave them so much. They supported each other. They trusted each other. The morality was actually recognized as paramount, although it was contextualized outside of religious understanding, but nevertheless... you would never see pornography in films, or on the shelves. The family unit was valued. Education was important and considered to be a right, just like housing and healthcare.

Believe it, or not, the USSR was largely a matriarchal society. The women would wear the pants in the family, because they were associated with better overall family planning and reason. We've hardly had any male teachers outside of the subjects like gym or workshop. Virtually every teacher that I remember were female. You would not see women exploited to push a product. You would not see people loosing all they have because the father in the family got sick. The vocations were sponsored by the state, and I remember going to sea-side prophylactic resorts quite often in the summer. People were not split apart, but brought together under certain ideals. Healthy living was encouraged. Prophylactics was emphasized, hence people would be sent to "sanatoriums" for preventive treatment.

It was by no means a perfect system, but you would not hear about these positives from any American perspective or a textbook. The communism is painted in rather dark colors. Living through both socio-economic systems .... 80s USSR was much more humane and society-oriented than USA, which idealized corporatism and free enterprise and personal gain. In fact, even after the collapse of USSR, the system gave people means to survive and adopt, because their basic needs were still met. They had free and clean public transportation. The cities were built in a very functional way, where everything was walk-length away. No need for cars. The economy and money turned over, but the society did not fall apart as it would if something of a sort would happen in US.

Therefore, before you quote those "evil communists", perhaps you should consider what they stood for, and why they were driven to these ideologies? Then consider the alternative, which you are experiencing right here, and right now. I've never knew a single homeless person in my whole life in USSR. Actually, not having a residency was considered a crime, and such people were never left on the streets to beg for food. They were rehabilitated and returned to the society.

I find it ironic that you would discuss the "evil commies that destroying your country", when your society is so broken apart and demoralized , that they can careless about the guy begging for food on the corner of a building, a block away from a restaurant that serves $2,000/bottle wine.

[John317]

I don't believe you truly understand the motives of socialists like Hrushyov. That's why you would not recognize such quote as a fabrication, because you believe these people to be sinister. They were presented to you as sinister because you needed to see them in such light.

This is absolute hog-wash. I was favorable to Russian communism for years as I was toward Cuba. My heroes were Trotsky, Lenin, Marx, Fidel Castro, and Che Guavara. I was in an organization founded by Leon Trotsky. We heard lectures every week on the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism.

[fccool]

Quote:

We're in complete agreement here. But this is not what's being done under the current administration. The government today is more likely to get in the way of private businesses so that they cannot thrive.

I think that you are so blinded by this idea that capitalism will eventually lead to universal prosperity, that you forget that it's a pipe dream that only few get to live out.

Government is there to stop large businesses from taking over the small ones. Corporations should not exist. There's no such concept in the real world. It's a government construct, and it's protected by government because it gives liability shields for people with enormous power. It likewise give opportunity for rather shady financial operations that in reality does not really benefit society in a way that's promised.

Quote:

It needs to get out of the way and allow business to do what they are intended to do, which is to profit and create jobs.

Government is there to protect people from big businesses. It should be there to make sure that these businesses operate for the benefit of society, and not at its expense. Without benefits and investment of society, these businesses would be nothing. Thus, businesses should operate for benefit of society. Especially if these are allowed to incorporate.

Quote:

I believe we would have a strong and healthy capitalist system if the government didn't interfere so much.

This is both true, and false. In big business environment, the only priority are shareholders profit. Not well-being of environment or society. Sure, we can argue that corporations will behave well to save maintain reputation and gain profit, but we know that's not the case. If corporations were people, they would be highly psychopathic. Thus, there needs to be a watchdog that keeps them in check. Likewise, since they benefit the most from the overall societal construct, they should be required to return some of that earning for further betterment of such society. It should never be a vehicle to make a few insanely rich.

Quote:

But unfortunately there are many who want to see the capitalist system fail and be replaced by a different system. These do not want fascism but socialism.

John, socialism is the bedrock of any functional society. I think it should be obvious because the core of "socio" denotes society-oriented politico-economic system.

I don't quite get it why you consider it evil or wrong, when in fact it is promoted as a Biblical ideal of society?

[fccool]

Originally Posted By: fccool

I don't believe you truly understand the motives of socialists like Hrushyov. That's why you would not recognize such quote as a fabrication, because you believe these people to be sinister. They were presented to you as sinister because you needed to see them in such light.

This is absolute hog-wash. I was favorable to Russian communism for years as I was toward Cuba. My heroes were Trotsky, Lenin, Marx, Fidel Castro, and Che Guavara. I was in an organization founded by Leon Trotsky. We heard lectures every week on the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism.

So, why is it that you find these ideas sinister? Obviously, I'm not talking about the execution, but rather the concepts that really worked well in USSR in 80s , and actually save millions of older generation from life on the streets to this day.