-
Pick Obama’s Brain
May 16, 2013 | 61 comments
-
Remembering Herb Romerstein
May 10, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Obama’s Planned Parenthood Love Fest
April 29, 2013 | 69 comments
-
Happy Earth Day… and Lenin Day
April 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Bill Casey’s Centennial
April 5, 2013 | 69 comments
Eminentoes
The Nation’s Top 50 Progressives… and Socialists and Communists
Did Katrina vanden Heuvel think no one would notice her magazine’s affinity with friends of Joseph Stalin?
(Page 2 of 2)
But we now know that Stone was not always so honest. At one time, he was a paid Soviet agent. In their latest work, published by Yale University Press, historians John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander Vassiliev conclude that Stone was a “Soviet spy.” In an article excerpted from the book and published in the April 2009 online version of Commentary magazine, they wrote: “To put it plainly, from 1936 to 1939 I. F. Stone was a Soviet spy.” Also closely studying Stone’s case is Herb Romerstein, the authority on the Venona papers. In The Venona Secrets, Romerstein and co-author Eric Breindel wrote: “it is clear from the evidence that Stone was indeed a Soviet agent.” One of the stronger confirmations from the Soviet side is retired KGB general Oleg Kalugin, who stated flatly: “He [Stone] was a KGB agent since 1938. His code name was ‘Blin.’ When I resumed relations with him in 1966, it was on Moscow’s instructions. Stone was a devoted Communist.” Kalugin added that Stone “changed in the course of time like many of us”; in other words, he did not remain a communist — but for a time he was a Soviet agent.
None of this appears at Stone’s “progressive” profile at The Nation.
And speaking of progressives with communist sympathies, also on The Nation’s list is Margaret Sanger. Like Paul Robeson and numerous other hope-filled leftists, the Planned Parenthood matron sojourned to Stalin’s Potemkin villages in 1934. “[W]e could well take example from Russia,” advised Sanger upon her return, “where birth control instruction is part of the regular welfare service of the government.” Sanger enthusiastically reported this in the June 1935 edition of her publication, Birth Control Review.
The Planned Parenthood founder was, however, taken aback by the explosion in the number of abortions once legalized by the Bolsheviks. No fear, though. Sanger offered this stunning prediction: “All the [Bolshevik] officials with whom I discussed the matter stated that as soon as the economic and social plans of Soviet Russia are realized, neither abortions nor contraception will be necessary or desired. A functioning Communistic society will assure the happiness of every child, and will assume the full responsibility for its welfare and education.”
This was pure progressive utopianism, an absolute faith in central planners.
Even guiltier of such misguided Soviet infatuation was John Dewey, founding father of American public education, who was so suckered by the Soviets that I would need a few thousand words here just to detail the outrage (click here and here for more). Oh, yes, Dewey is also on The Nation’s list of influential progressives — at number 5.
Overall, the number of socialists, communists, and Soviet sympathizers on The Nation’s list is dizzying: Upton Sinclair, Henry Wallace, W. E. B. DuBois, Norman Thomas, Lincoln Steffens, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Tom Hayden, Barbara Ehrenreich.
Thus, I’m compelled to ask: Is this “progressivism”? Is progressivism synonymous with liberalism, or is it to the left of liberalism? Is it socialism? Is it somewhere on the spectrum between socialism and communism? Does it include liberals, socialists, and communists?
I ask progressives, I plead with them: This is your ideology, could you better define it, if that’s even possible? Or is the definition of progressivism always progressing? Actually, it is always progressing — which is precisely the problem with this train-wreck of an ever-elusive ideology.
The Nation’s list of leading American “progressives” is an illuminating insight into the American left and the very essence of “progressive” thought — whatever that might be. Take a look at it, study it, think about it. This is truly a teachable moment.
About the Author
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of the new book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. His other books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (136) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Paul Kengor
More Articles From Eminentoes
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/30/the-nations-top-50-progressive
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
W| 3.30.12 @ 8:13AM
The older ones seem more accomplished, such as John L Lewis of the UMW and Walter Reuther of the UAW, and Brandeis, Supreme court. The later ones, Michael Moore, Muhamed Ali, Barbara Ehrenreich, Goria Steinem are media creations.
The American Hitman| 3.30.12 @ 2:48PM
Did Mitt Romneycare crack the top 100?
W| 3.30.12 @ 3:04PM
Ask you candidate Obama/Biden.
Dave | 3.31.12 @ 12:18PM
As most among you with a few functioning brain cells probably realize, nothing written in Mr. Kengor's column has left even the slightest scent in America's government school systems over the past umpteen decades. You doubt? OK, try engaging your forty-something neighbor down the street, or the thirty year old state worker; married with children, and even his teenage daughter on this subject matter. As non-official, yet random representatives of today's population, I suspect you'll find yourself on the receiving end of at least three potential responses:
a. That Wilson guy sang with The Beach Boys. Right?
b. Wasn't one of 'em in the 3 Stooges?
c. Whateverrrr!
No, kids, while the historical names noted here are kind of a post-refresher course to those with the earlier mentioned brain cells, this interesting piece of writing is like jumping-up in the Sunday pews and bursting: "CAN I GET ME A HALLELUJAH?!"
At the end of the services, I'm afraid Pastor Kengor was simply preaching to the choir. But as they say at the 3rd Street Synagogue: "Couldn't hurt!"
Then again, maybe he's on to something.
Steven J. Thompson| 3.31.12 @ 7:27PM
Name recognition is a poor proxy for influence on history. People can repeat slogans and dumbed-down versions of arguments long after they've forgotten (if they ever learned) the names of the people who first promulgated them. You speak of "America's government school systems;" their organization and curriculum owes a lot to Dewey whether or not the students -- or even the teachers -- recognizes the fact. Herbert Croly's notion of the proper role of government in American life influences attitudes and assumptions of people who've never heard of The New Republic, much less the man who edited it a few generations back.
Occam's Tool| 4.2.12 @ 10:12PM
I homeschool for a reason, and Goldberg's History of the American Left is waiting for the kids to become teenagers.
Westie| 3.30.12 @ 8:26AM
Thanks Mr. K for mentioning the great work done by the Venona program and the writers of the Venona Secrets! I understand the new Hoover opis has quite a bit about the Commie infestation in the FDR & Truman administrations.
darcy| 3.30.12 @ 6:08PM
Not to mention Whittaker Chambers' Witness.
JAWilson| 3.30.12 @ 8:32AM
Why weren't her parents on the list?
old white guy| 3.30.12 @ 8:45AM
interesting how the so called intellectual elite always seem to be so stupid that they don't see the problem that communism is.
JA| 3.30.12 @ 10:39AM
They are not stupid at all. The "intellectual" elites have total and complete contempt for average people; they look upon the "masses" as Hitler looked upon the jews, "untermensch."
The "elites" see themselves at the very pinnacle, the rulers, the bosses, the kings and queens, the royalty if you will, of a "communist" society in which the govt is for, by and of the ruling elites.
The "elites" truly believe thay are morally, socially and intellectually superior to everyone else and that they DESERVE to rule, command and to dictate to the great unwashed masses.
It is no coincidence at all that most communists are from academia, the "intellectual" class, the ruling classes and the upper middle classes and very wealthy (Soros, Moore, vandenHeuval, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, etc.).
Never, ever think that the "intellectuals" do not realize what they are doing in supporting murderous communist tyrants; they know full well what they are doing and their goal is total domination, control and authority.
albert constantine jr.| 3.30.12 @ 1:52PM
Please do not omit the Sorbonne educated Saloth Sar, known more infamously by his revolutionary name "Pol Pot".
As I've noted previously, any time you hear someone use the word "masses" to describe individuals, do all that you can to keep that person from exercising power over you.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.30.12 @ 8:52AM
Von Mises "Socialism" and "Theory and History" explains that there were and are many types of socialism such as guild socialism during serfdom, Historicism, Positivism and Utilitarianism that have fallen from favor, and Dialectical Materialism known as Marxism. More modern strains include syndicalism, military and state socialism, as well as Communism and Fascism. The flavors depended on the schools belief in the relevance of history or behaviour in society. Marxism remains as the most common label, but it was based on class struggle present in the days of serfdom. Most socialist don't even understand the tenents of Marxism since they are undefendable. Mises "Socialism" spends much time proving that "One World Government" cannot function without prices established in a free market. But socialism doesn't have free markets. "Material Productive Forces" allegedly takes capitalism and transforms it to communism and then to pure socialism where dictators and KGB/SS are no longer necessary since everyone learns to love socialism.
Since socialism failed miserably every time it was tried, they created a "Third Way" about a century ago. Fascism controls instead of owns the "means of production," so the socialist have a built in foil with business. This is Obama's "Fat Cat" mantra at work. They also call fascism "crony capitalism" to create the impression of free market business, but we know GM, GE and GS do as they are told by the regime. So it is socialism.
Today, the regime seems to have a palette of Marxist, Communist and Fascist. But the rank-and-file do not understand this at all. They are sheep that think they will have "Utopia" and just the "Fat Cats" will pay more. My moron relative owns a house, a boat, will retire soon with $50K pension and health care for life, as well as an inheritance when her father dies. She expects to keep it all, and just take the Koch Brothers money. They are fools. They are ignorant. And they are "Useful Idiots."
In terms of socialist v. liberal v. progressive; Hayek wrote in "The Fatal Conceit" about "Our Poisoned Language." He wrote an essay in "Constitution of Liberty" called "Why I am not a Conservative." He informs that socialist keep changing the definition of words. Since "Progressives" today are regressive, and "Conservatives" do not reject change; the meaning of these terms are murky and confused. He called himself an "Old Whig" since the name still means the same as it did to John Locke and Edmund Burke called themselves Whigs.
DRed| 3.30.12 @ 12:19PM
socialists
Occam's Tool| 4.2.12 @ 10:13PM
Socialists or Communists; all are scum.
Anthony| 3.30.12 @ 12:45PM
Thank you Von Mises for your excellent overview.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.30.12 @ 12:53PM
Thank you, my friend Anthony. I have the time to read economics and history, and just enough philosophy to understand socialist such as DRed. Well, sort of.
Week Four of Hillsdale College online Constitution explains the DRed error. He is a child of the enlightnement/age of reason. He thinks man can be perfected with conditioning. But socialist experiments always wind up with the wrong leader??? Surprise, surprise.
I think Madison had it correct. If men were angels, or if angels ruled men, we wouldn't need government. But imperfect men must rule men.
And the Federalist Papers also explain that combination of at least two of the executive, legislative or judicial branch powers is the definition of tyranny.
But DRed likes tyranny if he gets his benefit check and EBT card, I guess. We, brother, are men that stand on our own two feet.
DRed| 3.30.12 @ 2:03PM
socialists
Skippy| 3.30.12 @ 4:02PM
socialists
Must all die.
Al Adab| 3.30.12 @ 12:53PM
Jr:
What might the fifty most influential Conservatives list look like? Certainly WFB, Goldwater, Regnery, Reagan, Von Misses, Hayek, Kirk. Who else? A Justice perhaps or other Senators?
Von Mises Jr.| 3.30.12 @ 2:01PM
Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Dinesh D'Souza, Art Laffer, Ayn Rand, Ron and Rand Paul, Allen West, Michelle Bachmann, Paul Ryan and me (just kidding).
Von Mises Jr.| 3.30.12 @ 2:08PM
And of course, elRushbo, Mark Levin, Judge Napolitano, Glenn Beck and Hannity, as well as Charles Krauthammer and Victor Davis Hanson in the media. And there are great writers here and at American Thinker including Peter Ferrara and Jeffrey Lord.
Al Adab| 3.30.12 @ 2:19PM
Interesting. Some of those ( VDH, Krauthamer) would not consider themselves Conservative. A couple would be Libertarian and of course Rand (notwithstanding the value of her free market argument) is not. How do Sowell and Williams define themselves? Fun exercise and helpful in defining the Movement.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.30.12 @ 3:10PM
Sowell and Williams consider themselves conservatives, I am sure. But I think that many of the people you think of as libertarian (or conservatives) would agree with Hayek. He wrote "Why I am not a Conservative" since the definition of names change (on purpose). So he called himself an "Old Whig."
Of course you have great Whigs such as Edmund Burke. Locke was more libertarian, but they probably didn't disagree much from reading their writings.
And in looking for the top 50 by todays standard of conservative thinkers; many of the Founders and their peers in Europe would make the list. Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Montesquieu, Tocqueville?
Al Adab| 3.30.12 @ 3:31PM
True enough. In fact the American war of independance is often considered a Conservative revolution. It did not seek to overthrow an existing order, but to restore rights which were being abused. HMMMM, food for thought there.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.30.12 @ 4:09PM
As was the Glorious Revolution in Britain. I believe it was Charles I that was executed, a Cromwell Dictatorship and then the exile of James II that brought back the established order from the early 1600's and prior.
Western Countries know how to have a quiet revolution that turns out fairly well. Socialist, not so much. Even France restored to prior traditions after 1799 end of the revolution.
darcy| 3.30.12 @ 6:37PM
I do not consider Krauthammer a conservative; he fails to uphold traditional morality (he seems to believe, as does the editorial board of NR, that homosexual marriage is not to be opposed in any vigorous fashion). Krauthammer, not surprisingly, then, offered no serious argument against the repeal of DADT (nor did NR, as I remember). There is, in my opinion, no true -- or meaningful -- conservatism without the bedrock morality of Hebraic-Christianity.
My vote for inclusion into the traditionalist conservative hall of fame would be Lawrence Auster, at VFR. His website is a master's course in conservatism, equal, if not superior to what's available at Hillsdale. Hillsdale excels at placing a marker in the sand, so to speak, as to what our Founders intended in writing the Constitution, whereas VFR both exposes, on the one hand, the despotic underbelly of the left, and charts, on the other hand, -- with great precision -- what it means to be a traditionalist conservative, as in what attitudes and opinions about human nature and reality constitute a traditionalist worldview.
qrstuv| 3.31.12 @ 10:09AM
darcy,
I am not at all convinced that Christian morality is the bedrock.
The Puritans, for example, were strongly collectivist.
darcy| 3.31.12 @ 4:29PM
And gnostic, to boot; but errant believers are not the whole story, are they?
idalily| 3.31.12 @ 12:07AM
William F. Buckley. Margaret Thatcher. Mark Steyn. Michelle Malkin. Anne Coulter. Just to name a few.
Maxwell| 3.30.12 @ 9:01AM
Paul Robeson was a communist and gushing admirer of Stalin's Soviet Union, a proud recipient of the Kremlin's "Stalin Prize."
It should come as no surprise to anyone that Princeton built an art center and named it after Robeson.
Andrew| 3.30.12 @ 12:18PM
Yep. The Oakland. CA school administration buiding is named after Robeson, too.
Anthony| 3.30.12 @ 12:35PM
The Robeson Art Center will pale in comparison to the soon to be built Krugman Center for Economic Dislocation.
Moe Blotz| 3.30.12 @ 2:34PM
Also, the "Paul Robeson Information Resource Centre" inside the US Embassy in Jamaica. Thank you Hildebeast and BHO.
Nancy in NC| 3.30.12 @ 9:05AM
I saw some interesting names on the list...Howard Zinn for example...the rewriter of history to fit his agenda. And a number of teachers just love old Howard.
Alinsky was on the list, while the left deny he was one of their own.
I'm beginning to believe the left is so intellectually dishonest they refuse to admit to the correct time of day unless one of their own posted it.
Doctor Right| 3.30.12 @ 9:23AM
The Nation has done us a favor.
Let's use it.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 3.30.12 @ 9:34AM
Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Fascists, Nazis, Marxists, Communists, there's just a few degrees of separation between them all, or to put it another way, no difference at all!!
bemused,but not AMUSED| 3.30.12 @ 11:39AM
That's the reason the Right -Wing has the dubious .. but WELL-DESERVED reputation of being a bunch a brain-dead retarded FOOLS... the "ol "Nazis and Communists are the same" ridiculous crap
Marc Jeric| 3.30.12 @ 11:51AM
Another leftist cretin here pontificating. Of course Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini were the offshoots from the same tree. Hilter's party had the name "Deutsche Nazional-Sozialistische Arbeiter Partei" - i.e., German National-Socialist Workers Party". Mussolini's party had the name "Italian Socialist Party-Fascists". And Lenin & Stalin party - well, we all know that name. They ruled over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, where "soviets" were what we have now in Obama's community organizations.
qrstuv| 3.30.12 @ 12:46PM
And these things weren't just names. Today's progressives would readily embrace most of the Nazi platform. (look it up, "bemused.")
bemused,but not AMUSED| 3.30.12 @ 1:59PM
As a Jewish person , born of two survivors of The Shoah I KNOW that I would never embrace ANY of the Nazi "platform" ( whatever the fuck that means..)
The "socialist" in the Nazi name has actually NO CONNECTION with the actual ideals of the international Socialist Workers movements, whatsoever..PLEASE STOP TRYING TO CONNECT THE TWO TOGETHER..it just shows how ignorant---or delibrately misleading you are....
qrstuv| 3.30.12 @ 2:59PM
"11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."
All that sounds socialist to me.
qrstuv| 3.30.12 @ 3:04PM
See http://www.historyplace.com/wo.....oints.htm.
There are certainly additional items any lefty would be happy with.
I never claimed that today's lefties would embrace ALL of it. I would just like to remind folks of the history.
bemused,but not AMUSED| 3.30.12 @ 4:18PM
"All"..or "MOST"....
IT'S quite obvious that you don't have the simplest friggin notion of what crap you are spouting...and already feel the need to "back-down.
Whatever the mistakes..and i admit that they have been HUGE, in the Countries that misused/ misunderstood the tenents of Marxism for their own nefarious nationalistic purposes, to equate Fascism/Nazism with Marxist ideology is a dilibrate mis-reading of those diametrically opposed political philosophies--and regardless of how much the extreme right-wing kvetches about it, does not make it so.......
Tarr| 3.30.12 @ 4:44PM
100 million + plus slaughtered in the name of Marxist/socialist doctrine-mistakes were made?
You are the Crown Prince of useful idiots.
qrstuv| 3.30.12 @ 5:10PM
It's pretty clear that you didn't read my post.
Out of the Nazi party's platform, any good progressive would happily adopt 10 or 11 wide-reaching points.
Conservatives would adopt one item, item 6.
The Nazis do not share any substantial amount of political philosophy with American conservatives. The Nazis believed in the power of the State to make the world a better place.
Fortunately, their genocidal ideas are discredited. The rest of their ideas, not so much.
Nick| 3.30.12 @ 5:54PM
qrstuv,
Your link is broken.
qrstuv| 3.30.12 @ 6:24PM
try this: http://tinyurl.com/c8wel
Nick| 3.30.12 @ 7:05PM
qrstuv,
Thank you!
I appreciate it.
The Road Warrior| 3.30.12 @ 4:25PM
bemused,
The definitive work on this subject is Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism:"
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-.....0385511841
BTW, Jonah is a Jewish person too.
bemused,but not AMUSED| 3.30.12 @ 6:30PM
Jonah Goldberg is a close-minded ultra-right-wing neanderthal.... who unfortunately calls himself Jewish.... no group is without its losers.....
qrstuv| 3.30.12 @ 6:33PM
Open-minded people are willing to read the Nazi platform before pronouncing on it.
Nick| 3.30.12 @ 7:16PM
bemused, a.k.a. beclowned,
The only person exhibiting close-mindedness is.....you.
Name one fact that Mr. Goldberg gets wrong in his excellent book Liberal Fascism. It has several pages of end-notes, by the way.
To question Mr. Goldberg's Jewishness is the definition of a bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
bemused,but not AMUSED| 3.30.12 @ 9:24PM
I didn't QUESTION Goldberg's Jewishness... all I did was pronounce it a REAL "SHANDA" ( shame) that I have to share a faith with a cretin of his ilk..
To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, when she was questioned about Lilian Hellman.."EVERYTHING (S)HE SAYS AND WRITES IS A LIE...INCLUDING THE WORDS "IT/THE/HE/SHE....."...
GET IT???
qrstuv| 3.30.12 @ 10:27PM
Yet again, explain how points 11-17 of the Nazi platform are "right wing."
Conservatives could agree with precisely one item in this platform: that only citizens should vote.
Please stop slandering conservatives by calling Nazis "right wing." They were "right wing" only in the sense that they favored national SOCIALISM over international SOCIALISM.
Tarr| 3.31.12 @ 8:49PM
Hellmann was a beloved "progressive / Stalinist"with the identical "mistakes were made" mindset as yourself. I can see exactly where you're coming from.
Tarr| 3.31.12 @ 8:56PM
Mary McCarthy was a dedicated liberal anti-communist.She shared none of your "mistakes were made " justifications for Stalinism. Hellman is your mentor.
Nick| 4.1.12 @ 1:31AM
Bemused, a.k.a. Beclowned,
"I didn't QUESTION Goldberg's Jewishness [...]."
Umm, yes, you did. Reading comprehension is not your forte, huh?
But, nice try at distraction. Now, name one fact that Mr. Goldberg got wrong, bigot.
ebonystone| 3.31.12 @ 4:11PM
"The 'socialist' in the Nazi name has actually NO CONNECTION with the actual ideals of the international Socialist Workers movements,"
So, who decreed that only the "international Socialist Workers movements" had exclusive rights to the description "socialist"?
Sardonikus| 4.1.12 @ 3:28AM
George Soros, an admitted Nazi collaborator, is also Jewish.
Color me unimpressed...
Occam's Tool| 4.2.12 @ 10:16PM
As a Jewish person, whose grandmother escaped a Russian pogrom to come to the States: the name of the Soviet Union in Russian is The Soyuz (Union) of Soviet Socialist Republics. SOCIALIST republics.
Tell me Stalin wasn't a huge antisemite who was planning a massive pogrom when he died. You may be bemused, but I ain't confused---Socialism ultimately kills Jews, the ultimate non-conformers.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 3.30.12 @ 12:41PM
Bemused, but doesn't have a sense of humor: Just because you deny history, and facts, doesn't mean what I said is not true!! All of those ideologies I listed above, are from the left side of the political spectrum, not from the right!! And the only thing difference between them, is their stupid names!! Oh yeah, and about your assertion that the Right-Wingers having the well deserved reputation of being foolish brain-dead retards, prove it!! But you can't!! But I can guarantee you, 100 randomly picked "Rightwingers", will score better than 100 randomly picked "Leftwing-Commies" on "any" test, on "any" day of the week. I'll be a volunteer for that, if you want to set it up, and I'm just a simple Soldier, with only a New York State High School diploma!! But simple Soldier or not, I'll outscore your Commie ass!! Come down to FT Bragg, and I'll prove it to you!! And if you beat me on it, I'll choke you out, and take the results home with me!! So I win either way!!
Maxwell| 3.30.12 @ 3:00PM
L, L, & L since this is the net and anyone can post but you cannot tell by the tone of the voice (I'll be pulling your leg) I have to answer you. I'd be more than happy to take you up however at 62 the ankles are totally shot as are the knees, the eyes, not so good so sending rounds down range with the AR at 300 yards is out of the question with open irons. It sure would be fun to see first hand America's very best tho. I'd perfer the K9 units if I could.
Nolann Ryann| 3.30.12 @ 1:19PM
Just because you want to deny history doesn't mean anybody with a brain has to give any credence to your piffle. I guess the German National Socialist Workers Party of Germany; aka the Nazi Party doesn't ring a bell in the vacuum recess of your pathetic cranium. No different than the Soviets. The only difference is Hitler had a smaller body count than the two biggest mass murderers in history; Stalin and Mao. You wouldn't know that, but then again you don't know much of anything.
Dave Williams| 3.30.12 @ 2:01PM
Um, the Nazi party WAS, after all, the National --- wait for it --- SOCIALIST party.
Get your facts right, moronic lefty troll.
SeymourGlass| 3.31.12 @ 1:17PM
Yes, and Red China was in reality the... wait for it... PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC of China. Labels are always correct, yes, they are.
idalily| 3.31.12 @ 12:15AM
Bemused, perhaps instead of doing nothing but insult and demean the other side of the political fence, you might make an intellectual argument for HOW conservatives are fascist or HOW modern progressivism is different from socialism of Stalin or communism of Marx. You might even take a stab at explaining to us the fundamental differences between socialism, fascism and communism. You being one of those oh-so-intellectual liberals, delineating these differences shouldn't be hard for you.
Tarr| 3.30.12 @ 4:13PM
The most powerful electoral appeal of the Nazi party was it's socialist platform. There were several parties in the 20s and 30s who took an even harder rhetorical anti Semitic line than the Nazi party.
Mussolini was a premier socialist star from the early years of the 20th century to the mid 1920s.
Fascism was known as "Brown socialism " to distinguish it from "Red socialism ". Both are socialist in origin.
Nick| 3.30.12 @ 7:28PM
Lullabys, Legends and Lies,
You beat me to it!
I basically said the same thing, below.
As with Mr. McGrath, great minds think alike!
qrstuv| 3.30.12 @ 9:42AM
It seems to me that the *real* reason that liberals/progressives object to the terms "socialism" and "communism" is that they know those terms are turnoffs to American voters.
Harry the Horrible| 3.30.12 @ 9:50AM
So its not the horrible body counts and destroyed nations that those ideologies have racked up?
qrstuv| 3.30.12 @ 9:53AM
No. I really think liberals don't understand that part.
qrstuv| 3.30.12 @ 9:54AM
I mean that they just don't understand or believe that the deaths and wreckage are inevitable.
idalily| 3.31.12 @ 12:19AM
Exactly. It would work this time, they think, if only those evil, selfish conservatives would get out of the way and let us spend trillions to make it happen. It would work. It would, it would, it would! They have the critical thinking skills of your average 2-year old. It's all based on childish emotional reactions, not logic or reason. That's why there's no way to change their minds. None.
Progressivism is a cult. Its adherents are brainwashed.
Ted| 3.30.12 @ 10:27AM
Yes, there's a reason I refer to her as Katrina Vanden Drivel.
SteveP| 3.30.12 @ 10:32AM
RE: Top 50 Progressives article ... would have been nice to actually SEE the entire list from top to bottom, instead of vignettes about some of them!
Cpm| 3.30.12 @ 3:22PM
There is a link in the very first paragraph if you can break a sweat.
Michael| 3.30.12 @ 7:14PM
I've already tried. Thus far, no complete list. It would be helpful to have a top to bottom list. I'm sure I can recognize the Communist guilty....I mean the names.
Michael| 3.30.12 @ 7:27PM
Also, it keeps going back to the slide show. It will not print just the names. 10 cents a page? Gold Card Socialists!!
Anthony| 3.30.12 @ 10:35AM
A duplicitous, intellectually dishonest leftist magazine, whose Hall of Shame consists of equally duplicitous and intellectually dishonest people, who could not and would not be truthful about their real intentions.
Yep, "The Nation" is as rotten to the core as the rest of the left.
Surly Curmudgen| 3.30.12 @ 1:16PM
They go on to claim that founders of the NAACP include Jane Adams, Florence Kelley and John Dewey. No where in my reading about the NAACP are these people mentioned let alone as founders.
Todd S| 3.30.12 @ 10:39AM
The Nation is a communist publication, always has been and hides behind the "progressive" tagline. You can bet 1989-1991 was a very rough time for these traitorous scumbags
Howard| 3.30.12 @ 11:14AM
I looked at the list compiled by The Nation. By and large, a real rogues gallery. Hard core commies, quirky lefties, and some more mainstream types. None of these folks ever voted Republican.
Surly Curmudgen| 3.30.12 @ 11:29AM
I Want to See the Hard Core communist/socialist agenda Crushed. I want to see their political philosophy dead and discredited. I want to see those enamored of it eradicated from the media, from politics, from academic positions, from any position of power. I want to see the adherents of that dead and discredited idea in charge of nothing beyond a gandy stick and acknowledged for what they are.
As intellectually challenged residents of small communities
Marc Jeric| 3.30.12 @ 11:42AM
I am inventing a modern fable to be read by the posterity in all schools of the world. What would be an appropriate title for that historical fable? I’ll see to that problem after I have written it.
1) The fable began by the election of Barak Hussein Obama as the President of the United States of America in November 2008. In January 2009 Mullah Obama, a Marxist Muslim from Kenya, was inaugurated. Immediately after that he nominated some 35 komissars as his White House advisers and placed them in total control of all federal government departments.
2) Over the first 4 years of his rule he printed some 7 trillion paper dollars in order to finance his re-election in 2012. He then nationalized huge chunks of American private enterprise: automobile factories, many banks, mortgage companies, student loan industry, hospitals, health insurance companies, and set up further nationalizations by means of the global warming hoax, aiming at oil and gas companies, coal mines, transportation companies (airlines, trucking companies, railroads), electricity companies (especially those burning coal and gas, and of course nuclear power companies). Some 7,000 new regulations have been issued in order to squeeze private businesses into bankruptcy to be then taken over by his system of local soviets (as community organizations were known in the defunct Soviet Union).
3) After his re-election in November 2012 assured by massive vote fraud in all 50 states, he will assume the name of Abu Hussein al-Mombassa. He will aid and abbet the destruction of Israel by the Iran’s nuclear bombs and thus solve that intractable problem that has plagued the world ever since 1948. The entire Muslim world will agree to his new title. Not a single Jew will ever more be able to desecrate the Muslim world – all Jews will be exterminated in a few weeks of celebratory pogroms.
4) As a consequence of runaway inflation amd massive unemployment Abu Hussein will declare the state of national emergency thus giving him dictatorial powers. His system of local soviets (i.e., community organizations) will be given arms and authority to quell any local disagreements. All judges mentioning the Constitution will be simply fired by means of another executive order and replaced by more reasonable choices recruited from the ranks of ACLU, Sierra Club, Institute for Policy Studies, Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense Fund, various human and environmental rights organizations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. Various United Nations organizations will be given direct authority in approving the US budgets and allocations. The 65-year old problem between India and Pakistan will be solved by assigning Kashmir to the latter. China will be allowed finally to solve the festering Taiwan problem by the UN approval of an adequate military expedition. The danger of the continuing war between the North and South Koreas will be resolved peacefully by annexation of the southern portion of that state into a single jurisdiction.
5) At the end of his second term, due to the continuing economic crisis and sporadic armed resistance by various enemies of the people, Abu Hussein will proclaim himself dictator for life, under a new name of Ayatollah Barak. His direct rule will be replaced by temporary interventions via “dictates” that will enlarge the scope of the sharia laws into all facets of modern life. He will then live the rest of his long life while waiting to be proclaimed as the 12th Immam.
Finally – what about the title of this fable? I will gladly entertain the submissions of my readers, and will then bring my judgment as to the most appropriate one.
So - does our Mullah Obama belong to that list of famous communists?
Surly Curmudgen| 3.30.12 @ 12:00PM
The tittle: The Spark, Civil war two's Genesis.
The result will be an almost certain suicide trek on my part to shoot as many Obama myrmidons I can before I die.
Elias| 3.30.12 @ 1:08PM
Your last sentance reminds us of 1993: buying all the semi-auto guns and ammo we could afford before the Clinton/Schumer/Feinstein gun ban took effect. And then Janet Reno's ATF murdered 80 Branch Davidians, including women and children...
We came to realize that if and when our government comes after you, regardless of your AR-15 with pre-ban drum mag, they WILL kill you, and so it just becomes a matter of how many of them you can take out before they do kill you. Like G. Gordon Liddy said...
albert constantine jr.| 3.30.12 @ 2:38PM
A bit of history:
In 1993, ATF was a part of the treasury department under Lloyd Bentsen, investigating unlawful machine gun conversions (though the warrant affidavit used unsubstantiated allegations of child sexual abuse, which is not a federal crime that ATF has jurisdiction over). They did the initial investigation and raid at Waco's Branch Davidian compound, and got shot up pretty bad.
The scene then turned over to the FBI (it was now a murder of federal agents investigation), and the Hostage Rescue Unit (somewhat refreshed after Ruby Ridge in late 1992) led the tactical operation in which the majority of Davidians died. The FBI was under the newly appointed 3rd choice AG Janet Reno at the time of the 041993 conclusion.
Kingofthenet| 3.30.12 @ 11:54AM
Communism=Socialism to every Regressive
qrstuv| 3.30.12 @ 12:26PM
Maybe you can explain the clear principle that separates them, then.
Calvin| 3.30.12 @ 12:43PM
It is really quite simple. The communist knows what he is doing. The socialist stumbles in a drunk like fashion down the road occasionally adjusting his blinders.
idalily| 3.31.12 @ 12:22AM
He CAN'T explain the differences, qrstuv, because there ARE NO DIFFERENCES. No lefty ever explains the differences. They just ignore the question and insist anyone who doesn't see the difference is stupid. The funny part is that they are the ones who are truly stupid, their grades in the Ivy League (or wherever) notwithstanding.
Vern Crisler| 3.30.12 @ 11:58AM
Progressives are at the least semi-socialist in their views. William Jennings Bryan was the father of Progressivism in the US. He represented the "Christian" semi-socialists who wanted state control over the economy along with a "moral" crusade (e.g., Prohibition). Wilson represented the Darwinist strain of Progressivism -- the notion of change overriding everything (even though such a concept is self-referentially incoherent). Hence, moral laws and the Constitution were old fashioned, needed to keep up with change, etc.
Many of these Progressives were anti-communist in the same way their cousins the fascists were anti-communist: it was sibling rivalry.
Thus, modern leftists, like the Nation writers, are ignorant of history, which is why they could confuse Progressives with communists.
Surly Curmudgen| 3.30.12 @ 12:04PM
Those most enamored of communism/socialism are the least productive members of society who want those goodies that accrue to the most productive. Their agenda is detrimental to a productive society resulting in their attempt to hide that agenda by calling themselves progressives or liberals. These communist/socialists who call themselves progressives or liberals now control both parties and those two parties are rapidly bringing this nation to rule by man, when it is supposed to be rule by law.
Are we going to allow them continued control of the debate and blissfully accept their utopia?
Al Adab| 3.30.12 @ 2:57PM
The Progressive movemnt wished to turn government over to a professional, scientific class who would govern without regard to political expediency. It was thought that a well paid class governing, would make scientific decisions without regard to their political careers. Can we not all agree that it simply didn't work out that way and get back to responsive, representative government?
Todd S| 3.30.12 @ 1:48PM
The only difference between a progressive and a communist is a matter of degrees, the belief system is the same. A select few intellectuals know what is best for everyone and the individual is nothing compared to the "common good". I guess the difference is that communists think nothing of rounding up people who don't get in line and put a bullet in their head. As in states in the article, there is a number of people in The Nation's list that had no problem with that though that is the dirty secret that they will never acknowledge.
J.C.Eaton| 3.30.12 @ 3:11PM
So, where does Robert LaFollette fit in?
Vern Crisler| 3.30.12 @ 3:51PM
See his Wikipedia entry, a typical Progressive:
"Just prior to its 1924 convention in St. Paul, La Follette denounced the Communists and refused to be considered for the FF-LP endorsement. With La Follette's snub, the FF-LP disintegrated, leaving only the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party.
Instead, La Follette formed an independent Progressive Party and accepted its nomination in Cleveland with Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler of Montana as his running mate. The American Federation of Labor, the Socialist Party of America, the Conference for Progressive Political Action and most of the former supporters of the FF-LP along with various former "Bull Moose" Progressives and midwestern Progressive movement activists then joined La Follette and supported the Progressive Party.
La Follette's platform called for government ownership of the railroads and electric utilities, cheap credit for farmers, the outlawing of child labor, stronger laws to help labor unions, more protection of civil liberties, an end to American imperialism in Latin America, and a referendum before any president could again lead the nation into war."
Bob Grant| 3.30.12 @ 12:06PM
As an example of how radical the list truly is, Mr. Kengor didn't bother to mention Saul Alinsky, number 22.
Paul McGrath| 3.30.12 @ 12:13PM
"I ask progressives, I plead with them: This is your ideology, could you better define it, if that's even possible?"
It's a good question, but the answer is: they won't. They can not reveal themselves or their ideals as they truly are, because nobody agrees with them. They therefore must use subterfuge in every thing they do.
Obama is a Christian. Right. Obama is against gay marriage. Right. Obama wants to reduce spending. Right. Obama is an ally of Israel. Right. And so forth.
Fundamentally, to the left, the truth is an obstacle which must be overcome.
Bob Grant| 3.30.12 @ 12:19PM
They believe in the Living Truth like they believe in The Living Constitution.
It's subject to change, as determined by those mentioned on the list and the useful idiots who infest, er, occupy the walls of government.
Surly Curmudgen| 3.30.12 @ 1:19PM
The Liberal/progressive world is a world where to lie, cheat, steal even murder to advance their agenda, is laudable behavior.
Nick| 3.30.12 @ 6:59PM
Mr. McGrath,
We both quoted the same thing!
Great minds think alike!
And, I agree with your comment. Democrats can't say what they really believe. For the most part.
Every now and then Babs Lee and Maxi Waters will let their inner-marxist out for all to see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0BdKkEKTrs
This is why liberal democrats are always so angry!
The want to tell the truth about who they really are and what they truly believe, but they can't.
bobmontgomery| 3.30.12 @ 12:58PM
The queston is, did the Washington Post think no one would notice that they gave Katrina a regular gig at their newspaper? Well, probably, because they thought nobody would notice that they wee going to violate every code of journalistic ethics by hosting the 'salons' for the White House big shots. Lies, deceit and treachery, and if you notice it, you're mean!
Gr0w1er601| 3.30.12 @ 1:45PM
Useful idiots, one and all.
tadcf| 3.30.12 @ 2:17PM
The best way to understand progressivism (liberalism) is to compare it with conservatism: Conservatism looks to the past for it's ideas---hence it has very few new solutions for today's problems. Progressivism looks to the future in the solution of the problems of today. Hence progressivism may seem as elusive as the unknown and untried future. Whereas the results of conservatism are fairly will predicted---whether they have been good or bad doesn't matter.
Mike Hawk| 3.30.12 @ 2:37PM
You've got it Bass-ackwards pal. Everything the 'progressives' want to do has been tried before and has failed. Tyranny is oppressive, not progressive.
Bob Grant| 3.30.12 @ 2:52PM
Nancy Pelosi's infamous comments:
Lets Pass Bills to see what's in them
Sizes up progressivism beautifully. It demonstrates their faith is not in a supreme being, but in an all-knowing technocratic elite who authors 3,000 page bills, unconstrained by no one.
If you want Peloisi as the face of progressivism, have at my friend.
Bob Grant| 3.30.12 @ 3:07PM
Correction. That would be constrained by no one.
jayme sousa| 3.30.12 @ 3:20PM
This process of attempted "silent subversion" of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence by fellow travelers in and out of american politics has been slowly advancing since the 1930's.
We The People have been busy building America while this group has been busy tearing America apart.
2012 is a watershed year in which We The People turn to collecting remanants of torn Americana, organize these shards into 1) religion, 2) education, 3) financial and 4) government in order to shape it back into our Founding Fathers original intent.
We The People will have only this one election cycle's chance to do this. If this current set of fellow travelers (in the White House, Congress and Senate) aren't ferreted out and defeated...once and for all, saving America will become extremely remote, if not impossible. Paul Revere is riding very hard, sounding the alarm...heed what he's yelling! God Bless America. Amen.
Nick| 3.30.12 @ 6:49PM
Mr. Kengor,
"I ask progressives, I plead with them: This is your ideology, could you better define it, if that's even possible?"
This is precisely the point. They can't.
Whether they call themselves progressives, marxists, fascists, socialists, liberals, lefitsts, leninists, stalinists, maoists, national socialists, humanists, or democrats; it is a distinction without a difference.
They are all descendants of Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, et al.
Their common thread is their almost complete rejection of Christianity, Christian virtues, and Judeo-Christian ethics. (Didn't want to leave out my Jewish brothers!)
Whether one adherent is for complete central planning, and another is only for partial central planning; or, one is for total collectivization, and one is for democratic socialism; really matters not. All of these political philosophies are anti-liberty and anti-individual sovereignty.
The irony of the Star Trek franchise is that Gene Rodenberry was a big liberal, and, yet, by creating the Borg, he synthesized the inevitable conclusion of liberal, leftist thinking: The Collective.
Just as a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant, one cannot be a little bit socialist.
Nick| 3.30.12 @ 7:24PM
I forgot one thing.
It should be noted that Katrina vanden Heuvel is most likely a trust-fund baby.
She is the granddaughter of MCA founder Jules Stein. Her parents were also very rich.
So, like a long list of rich brats (Patty Hearst, Che, Jane Fonda, etc.) Katrina became a communist in order to get back at her parents.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 3.30.12 @ 8:13PM
Hey Nick: Thanks for the compliment from above, I've never been referred to as a "great mind", and the Soldiers I served with would definitely not agree with you (and would most likely bust out laughing at that), but I'll take it!! Now about those Star Trek Borg, I always called them Space-Commies myself, and I'm pretty sure they were all registered Democrats (even the dead ones)!! I never trusted those Borg, EVER, nor anyone associated with the Democratic Party, but I repeat myself!! Space-Commies, or American-Commies, what's the difference?
Nick| 4.1.12 @ 1:20AM
Lullabys, Legends and Lies,
No problemo! (A little Spanish lingo, there, for those of you in Rio Linda.)
I agree. The Borg must have originated when a bunch of democrats fell through a worm-hole and assimilated another civilization.
I'm also convinced that the mayor of Amity Island, in Jaws, was a democrat. Despite all the evidence that his policy is dangerous to the public, i.e., keeping the beaches open, he ignores the evidence and panders to his constituents.
Nick| 3.30.12 @ 7:54PM
Just went through the whole list of 50.
What a sad bunch of losers, for the most part.
At #27 they have Jackie Robinson. Wasn't he a conservative Republican?
aware| 3.30.12 @ 7:57PM
But the bastards are winning. Why should they admit what they are when they are getting what they want. They've been winning for almost a century.
What was scandalous in Sanger's time is now common place. Too many "rearguard actions" against their tide has about left us no rear to guard.
POST American| 3.31.12 @ 1:05AM
-----Sideshows '70's Show' style.
Meanwhile, back to the MAIN EVENT
----and the engineers thereof----
AND speaking of Nuremberg being NEW
again ---we NOW learn FDR was determined,
in 1945, to bring the 'benny violent'
EUGENICS capstone (I G Farben et al)
up before the Nuremberg tribunal along
with the Nazis.
Shortly afterwards,
Roosevelt died suddenly, from
'a stroke', and even Stalin himself was
openly assuming he'd been poisoned.
-----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012--------------
gofer| 3.31.12 @ 4:55AM
In the 40's, Progressive was associated with Communism. I ran across an old copy of a Pittsburg paper from 1947 and a Union power play was going on. The comment was made that the Communist Progressives failed to take over an electrical Union and they had fomented a lot of violence in their control attempts.
Mark David Blum, Esq. | 3.31.12 @ 5:54AM
i am very disappointed and saddened this day to learn that i was not included in your list.
owell, maybe next year. i already have my acceptance speech prepared
converse basket | 3.31.12 @ 6:19AM
intest
It's A Cunning Plan Actually!| 3.31.12 @ 11:51AM
They forgot to list the former owner of "The Nation" himself, Paul Newman. He & his wife were involved in just about every left wing cause you can mention. Among the lefties in Hollyweird Paul Newman & Joanne Woodward were as far left as you could get.
Michael| 4.1.12 @ 4:20PM
A great Hollywood story about that. In spite of opposite politics, Newman and John Wayne were great friends. At a studio lunch, Wayne said, "Have you won the revolution yet?" Newman replied, "How can we? You're still against us!"
k962| 3.31.12 @ 12:34PM
This country has been indoctrinated by the media, not to vilify Communism and just accept it as another form of government! They have been working that thread for years, by little subtle articles and draining the schools of any hint that Communists were evil and treacherous!
JmsA| 3.31.12 @ 2:47PM
That's what they do, k962--, and much worse. Another thing communists do, though some here would deny it, is that they advertise what they'll do. Just look back to all of their proclamations during the 2008 general election, as well as before and since. This country is in its greatest fight for survival. Communism/fascism, respectively controlling the masses and the industrial base, are both not just well entrenched, but almost at full control of the American paradigm. They will destroy American history, as they have reshaped the mind of possibly the greatest segment of the population, including its youth. Soon they will outlaw being, not being a leftist to the core , that is. And it will take Providence and a great effort to avert such fate.
POST American| 4.1.12 @ 12:43AM
-----------------------FINAL WORD-------------------------
Surely, in this the 11th hour
of the CFR Globalist-RED China
handover, takedown, TREASON
and FINAL EUGENICS OP,
pride of place MUST go to David
Rockefeller ---and his 'hidden masters'
across the Atlantic.
------------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012-------------
martin j smith| 4.1.12 @ 9:02AM
Forget the word "liberal" --it is misleading. The truth is that the majority of the progressives at this time and most likely after the Bolshevik Revolution were Communists or some other allied group. It is time to drop the phoney word usage and call things as really are. We are dealing the Communists. Period.
Michele San Pietro| 4.1.12 @ 2:38PM
There's no difference whatsoever between a progressive and a communist!
Nixonfan| 4.1.12 @ 3:58PM
The demise of the Soviet Union has removed some of the stigma associated with the marxist world-view. Whereas there was a whiff of treason in communism before the wall fell, today it is just an alternative philosophy. In other words, communism is bak, and just as dangerous as it was in the thirties and forties.
WalkingHorse | 4.2.12 @ 12:13AM
Progressives, socialists, comminists, liberals .. There is no difference, save stylistically. Each of its inheirents seeks arbitrary power over other people. The impulse is uniformly retrograde, no more sophisticated than the threat that "i can club you into submission, unless you voluntarily submit".
gafas de sol baratas | 5.4.12 @ 4:28AM
good!
Rhoetus| 5.10.12 @ 11:59AM
It's an ersatz religion, that's why in spite of genocide and misery its adherents are still so dogmatic and illogical.
casquette rockstar | 5.21.12 @ 6:08AM
good!
mbt prix | 5.21.12 @ 6:09AM
great!