Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, they're not Communist because they were written by a Conservative.
No, they were collated by a conservative.
Also, what is Communist?
"Communist" is a catch-all term used to designate adherents of any Marxist-based philosophy, and has been since the 1950s.
No, they weren't collated by a conservative. He wrote them.
The Naked Communist - Wikipedia
"The author posits a geopolitical strategy by which the Marxist–Leninist Soviet Union was attempting to overcome and control all the governments of the world that were not members of the Communist bloc.["
"Max Blumenthal heavily criticized the book in his 2009 book Republican Gomorrah, where he dismissed it as a "right-peddling conspiracy tract"."
Communism has been used many times even when it shouldn't have been. The right in the US have used it as a simple derogatory word designed for them to "win" arguments simply by flinging this word at people.
China, for example, has nothing to do with Marx.
That's nice. Now run along. Cartoons are on.
Are you here to talk about things, to debate, or are you here to just dick around and pretend you're right without having to ever use you're brain? I'm being serious here. You're not.
Here's the thing -
1) A list of political goals appears in a book in 1958, and were entered into the Congressional Record some years later. Whether they are ascribed to Communists, Shinto or Worshipers of Tsathoggua makes not one bit of difference.
2) At that time in history, these goals as listed were widely ascribed to the Communists, and accepted as such. Don't say they weren't, because I was there.
3) Many of the goals so described have been successfully reached, to the detriment of the Republic. It doesn't matter if you call it Communist influence, glue-sniffling or acute anal retention. They are events in history.
4) The fact that these goals were presented in 1963 and that many have over the decades come to fruition would seem to indicate that the initial assignment was accurate, as the record of Communist expansion throughout the planet is quite clear, and our modern-day Democrats, whose American masks were removed following Gore's loss in 2000, seem happy with the changes and have been working to set up their very own proletariat right here in the US.
Predictions based upon history and the politics of Communism were made, and many fulfilled over decades. That some snot-faced supplicant for ALTERNET takes issue with such obvious connections has no effect upon the facts of the matter.
No, they were collated by a conservative.
"Communist" is a catch-all term used to designate adherents of any Marxist-based philosophy, and has been since the 1950s.
No, they weren't collated by a conservative. He wrote them.
The Naked Communist - Wikipedia
"The author posits a geopolitical strategy by which the Marxist–Leninist Soviet Union was attempting to overcome and control all the governments of the world that were not members of the Communist bloc.["
"Max Blumenthal heavily criticized the book in his 2009 book Republican Gomorrah, where he dismissed it as a "right-peddling conspiracy tract"."
Communism has been used many times even when it shouldn't have been. The right in the US have used it as a simple derogatory word designed for them to "win" arguments simply by flinging this word at people.
China, for example, has nothing to do with Marx.
That's nice. Now run along. Cartoons are on.
Are you here to talk about things, to debate, or are you here to just dick around and pretend you're right without having to ever use you're brain? I'm being serious here. You're not.
Here's the thing -
1) A list of political goals appears in a book in 1958, and were entered into the Congressional Record some years later. Whether they are ascribed to Communists, Shinto or Worshipers of Tsathoggua makes not one bit of difference.
2) At that time in history, these goals as listed were widely ascribed to the Communists, and accepted as such. Don't say they weren't, because I was there.
3) Many of the goals so described have been successfully reached, to the detriment of the Republic. It doesn't matter if you call it Communist influence, glue-sniffling or acute anal retention. They are events in history.
4) The fact that these goals were presented in 1963 and that many have over the decades come to fruition would seem to indicate that the initial assignment was accurate, as the record of Communist expansion throughout the planet is quite clear, and our modern-day Democrats, whose American masks were removed following Gore's loss in 2000, seem happy with the changes and have been working to set up their very own proletariat right here in the US.
Predictions based upon history and the politics of Communism were made, and many fulfilled over decades. That some snot-faced supplicant for ALTERNET takes issue with such obvious connections has no effect upon the facts of the matter.
So, essentially your point is that you couldn't care whether this was written by a Communist or a Conservative, it looks good for you, so therefore it's what Communism is all about.
So why bother coming on here and debating about it when you've made up your mind already and decided you won't change your mind no matter what?
This is a book about conservatives' view of Communism, it's not about what Communists think.
Well, they're not Communist because they were written by a Conservative.
No, they were collated by a conservative.
Also, what is Communist?
"Communist" is a catch-all term used to designate adherents of any Marxist-based philosophy, and has been since the 1950s.
No, they weren't collated by a conservative. He wrote them.
The Naked Communist - Wikipedia
"The author posits a geopolitical strategy by which the Marxist–Leninist Soviet Union was attempting to overcome and control all the governments of the world that were not members of the Communist bloc.["
"Max Blumenthal heavily criticized the book in his 2009 book Republican Gomorrah, where he dismissed it as a "right-peddling conspiracy tract"."
Communism has been used many times even when it shouldn't have been. The right in the US have used it as a simple derogatory word designed for them to "win" arguments simply by flinging this word at people.
China, for example, has nothing to do with Marx.
That's nice. Now run along. Cartoons are on.
Are you here to talk about things, to debate, or are you here to just dick around and pretend you're right without having to ever use you're brain? I'm being serious here. You're not.
Here's the thing -
1) A list of political goals appears in a book in 1958, and were entered into the Congressional Record some years later. Whether they are ascribed to Communists, Shinto or Worshipers of Tsathoggua makes not one bit of difference.
2) At that time in history, these goals as listed were widely ascribed to the Communists, and accepted as such. Don't say they weren't, because I was there.
3) Many of the goals so described have been successfully reached, to the detriment of the Republic. It doesn't matter if you call it Communist influence, glue-sniffling or acute anal retention. They are events in history.
4) The fact that these goals were presented in 1963 and that many have over the decades come to fruition would seem to indicate that the initial assignment was accurate, as the record of Communist expansion throughout the planet is quite clear, and our modern-day Democrats, whose American masks were removed following Gore's loss in 2000, seem happy with the changes and have been working to set up their very own proletariat right here in the US.
Predictions based upon history and the politics of Communism were made, and many fulfilled over decades. That some snot-faced supplicant for ALTERNET takes issue with such obvious connections has no effect upon the facts of the matter.
