Progressives and Communists: Out of the Closet -- Together

From the American Thinker:

"A close look at the Saturday "One Nation" rally in Washington reveals something quite telling. It was a major gathering of the "progressive" left, highly billed, vigorously promoted. And it happened to include -- in fact, it warmly accepted -- the endorsement of Communist Party USA.

Expectedly, a bunch of the rally's endorsers carried the word "progress" or "progressive" in their title, from People’s Organization for Progress to Progressive Democrats of America. More still unhesitatingly describe themselves as progressive, from racial eugenicist Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood to Norman Lear's heirs at People for the American Way, plus the usual suspects from the "social justice" Religious Left.

And then, too, there was CPUSA.

Why is this so remarkable? It's remarkable because historically, communist involvement at these rallies has been meticulously concealed, hidden from progressives, with the communists using the progressives as props -- as dupes. That the two sides here, on Saturday, happily accepted one another, proudly uniting, shows how far to the left progressives have moved, not to mention their unflagging confidence under the ascendancy of Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

My personal experience on this is very instructive. I've chronicled how communists, for a century now, cunningly manipulated progressives, surreptitiously drawing them into their rallies, protests, and petitions, not letting themselves (or their intentions) be known. I have fliers from marches sixty and seventy years ago, with many of the same endorsers that were there on Saturday, but with CPUSA's name smartly absent, even as CPUSA members canvassed the rally, if not spearheading it.

Back then, the communists' stunning successes suckering progressives shocked even Moscow. They fooled them right up to the front gates of the White House in the summer of 1940, where the hideous communist front the American Peace Mobilization duped even the New York Times into headlining it as a "clergy group." They pulled off an extraordinary stunt in Chicago in the summer of 1968, sabotaging the Democratic National Convention. Communists managed to enlist progressives into undermining their own Democratic presidents and parties and platforms.

As an indicator of the success and duration of this manipulation, consider this fact:
When Congress, in December 1961, published its seminal investigation of communist fronts, titled "Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications," a product of research dating to the founding of the American Communist Party in Chicago in 1919, the most popular index listing started with the word "Progressive." It was progressive groups that were misled, used, abused, and infiltrated more than any other.

How long has this continued? All the way to the 2008 election.

Consider the group Progressives for Obama, formed during Obama's presidential bid. It was loaded with and even founded by some hardcore communists from the 1960s. Consider merely two of them: Tom Hayden, one of the group's four founders, and Mark Rudd, one of the 94 original signers. Hayden and Rudd had been leaders of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which subverted the policies and plans of Democratic presidents ranging from Vietnam to the 1968 convention. In 2008, both Hayden and Rudd suddenly reemerged as "Progressives for Obama."

Rudd’s take on how Obama won the 2008 election is shrewd -- and dead on. Understanding that moderates and independents made the difference, Rudd noted the crucial importance of Obama not openly conceding his far-left views. Rudd wrote,

Obama is a very strategic thinker. He knew precisely what it would take to get elected and didn’t blow it. But he also knew that what he said had to basically play to the center to not ... scare centrist and cross-over voters away. He made it. ... And I agree with this strategy. ... Any other strategy invites sure defeat. It would be stupid to do otherwise in this environment.


Basically, what Rudd said is that Obama hoodwinked "centrist" and "cross-over" voters. As Rudd rightly put it, Obama couldn't be candid about his true intentions in "this environment." That's an environment where Americans, in poll after poll, have described themselves as "conservative" over "liberal" by a margin of 2:1, by approximately 40% to 20%, for decades now. Incredibly, those numbers were unchanged even on November 4, 2008, when Obama easily won the election.

Thus, a candidate like Obama can succeed only by pushing his agenda guardedly. He ran as a centrist, not as National Journal's certified "most liberal senator in 2007." It worked. As Rudd put it, Obama "didn't blow it."

America’s exalted moderates and independents were duped by a nebulous, catch-all-be-all banner of "change." Now, the progressives are in power, ready to implement the kind of change they had in mind all along.

And now, with Obama having secured victory, the likes of Rudd and Hayden -- shocked that the electorate finally voted for their kind of guy -- have been less circumspect about their intentions. Rudd urges, "Here's my mantra: 'Let's put this country on our shoulders and get to work.'"

Rudd has rolled up his sleeves, as have his erstwhile comrades.

And that was precisely what spilled into the streets on Saturday, October 2 in the "One Nation" rally, fittingly centralized in Washington. This time, however, the collective was unafraid, buttressed by a confidence that coaxed the communists out of the closet and into the welcoming arms of "progressives."

Gee, you'd think that after the collapse of the USSR and the Berlin Wall, and after 100 million corpses, progressives would be fleeing communists like the plague.

The election of Obama-Pelosi-Reid in November 2008 -- by America's "independents" and "moderates" -- has dawned a new day for the American Left -- or, at least perhaps, until November 2010. We shall see."

Remember elections HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and the newly released Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

 

Hows the guys in swastikas movement getting on at the tea party get to gethers these days boys?

 

Unfortunately Ican and will You dont get the same tv. Documentary this week.. You have a congress runner I believe..He and his pals are very illuminating..im not talking a few..im talking interviews and marches..athe sieg heils must have been imagenery..they are far from plants.

 

Blimey Slip. I do indeed have a scource. I take it you are a little irratable to not even wish to give me time to down load it? I fully understand the emotion this can generate. I certainly dont have to agree with everything published or documented anywhere. What I never do though is hide my head in the sand.

If your trying to imply I am making this up then you are out of order, moderator or not.

I'll load up a link to the documentary as soon as I physically can Old chap. Meanwhile I'd like the same courtesy you extend to others please.

 

Funny how swastikas at protests never got much attention before 2008.

 

This documentary recently aired on UK TV. Of course the messenger may be shot as folk sometimes see this as the important thing rather than the message. But I too treat that as BS. My own thoughts on the matter are neither here nor there. I dont think USA is Nazi, no more than I think the UK is. I do though object in my own way to being brow beaten by anyone.

The links are in no particular order as I was in rather a rush for obvious reasons.

I refuse to bury my head in any desert sands. On any subject. If its up here then it can be challenged. I'd rather not but then as its oft said. Protest is a right. The only way to protect that right is to use that right. Simples.

Watch the lot not just the bits that you may wish to laugh at. Then again, I really couldnt be bothered. I am bothered though by the way views on here are sometimes dismissed.

YouTube - White Power USA (2/3)
YouTube - White Power USA (3/3)
YouTube - Riz Khan - White Power USA - 6 Jan 2010 - Part 1

 

American Progressives / Leftists are socialists and communists. Many of them simply are too oblivious to their own views to admit it. These are the "useful fools" Lenin spoke of. The rest know it is political suicide to admit it. Here's one of their retards admitting it accidently....

YouTube - MAXINE WATERS OUTS THE DEMS SOCIALIST AGENDA

Academia is full of this sort of person. They are more open about their politics often proclaiming that they are variously communists, feminists, socialists, radicals, etc. All you have to do is a few minutes of reserach on the net to find them.
These days their buzz words are "social and economic justice." That means redistribution of wealth, socialization of industry, forced union membership in government controlled unions, and a lower (but equal for all but them) standard of living for everyone.

 

"One Nation" always sounds a little Adolphish to me...

Remember? Ein Volk, ein Reich?

 

I find it funny all these europeans and what have you.. who come on here who think their government knows what's best. Poor fools. But at the same time I have respect for those who know what a threat this is.

 

Which European on this thread has said their govt knows best Timmy lad? Slip thanks for your reply..old goat is fair..its the RAF equivilent of the Arrse uk army site..im hapoy to be an old goat im amongst distinguished and proven friends in that catagory. The tea party...and its such a calming drink...i am aware of your alliegfance it bothers me no way either way. Ido recognise as always two sides to every story. Some dont which is a great pity. Who is the congress runner guy mentioned in there...and back to the initial post of mine I still and willalways challenge when I something i think needs balancing. My shoulders are broad insults will always drop off and be discarded. Im all for the providing sources bit though. Long may this idea reign on the boatrd. My own as you know ARE ALWAYS provided.Love and kisses .

 

I don't respond to anyone who calls me "lad" or uses the word "bloke"

 

Well, thats Australia out of the picture then. "Bloke" is a term of endearment. "Lad" is Old Marine Corps jargon for anyone of a lesser rank. If you're worried about status symbols, you'll probably object to being called 'lad' by people older than you. It's just something you have to put up with until the 40 plus age has been passed.

As for this debate, there are no Communists, as I've tried to explain before.

Communism is the utopian ideal that socialists strive to achieve, (the doctrinaire ones, that is).

No state has ever achieved Communism, a classless state with no poverty, war, or social injustice.

I repeat, there are no such thing as Communists, only socialists attempting to live up to the ideal.

BTW, "Reich" is German for STATE....not nation. The slogan from the 30's can be translated thus..."One people, one state, one leader". It's a throwback to Germany as it was before Bismarkian unification, ratified in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. The many different principalities that made modern Germany were very fragmented and used to pull in different directions, politically speaking. Nazi propaganda emphasised that this particular weakness no longer existed, and that the people were unified under "one leader".

It's not a particularly evil concept, but the corruption of it IS.

Anyhow, the Cold War is done and dusted, and Socialism is strictly for those that have actually read and understood Karl Marx. And Marx is so verbose and un-necessarily wordy that most of what he wrote is unintelligable anyway. Try it for yourself. There is nothing worse on this planet that intellectualism for it's own sake. Marx's writings fall into this category.

Don't take my word for it. Pick up a copy of any one of his books and see for yourself. It's academic snobbery of the lowest kind.