Copyright © 1996 By Ray Thomas
Updated Copyright © 2009 by Ray Thomas

One of the things everyone seems to be convinced of these days, since the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the supposed collapse of communism in Russia and her satellites is that communism is dead.

But is it?

Has no one noticed that almost all of the positions of power in the "former" Soviet Union and its satellites are filled by communists who profess to be "former communists?" The same people who ruled these countries when they were known as communist states?


That communism is just one form of socialism cannot be denied. It has been shown, and proven, many times, that the communist state that became the Soviet Union was financed by the same international banking cartel that created, and still runs our Federal Reserve System, and it was to be the "showcase" socialist state for the world. Unfortunately, the performance of this showcase clearly proved that socialism cannot work and they found it necessary to "change the form of the revolution" to again fool the masses. (This is a common socialist ploy) Hence, the "fall" of communism.


Today, we're doing things, and giving concessions that never could have happened during the "cold war." All because we've bought the idea that communism has failed, and has collapsed.

But has it?


Adam Wisehophf, professor at Germany's Ingolstadt University, who founded the Order of the Illuminati on May 1, 1776, smugly reflects on his ability to con the gullible people of his day, saying: "The most wonderful thing of all is that the distinguished Lutheran and Calvinist theologians who belong to our order really believe that they see in it the true and genuine sense of Christian religion." Then he went on to exult: "Oh mortal man, is there anything you cannot be made to believe?"

It is this plan (the one he created for world government) that is still being promoted by socialists all over the world. Communism dead? Not likely. It lives on as socialism.


In November, 1987, when Reagan's influence was at its strongest and the USSR was reeling from his sanctions and his scorn, Mikhail Gorbachev went before the Politburo and told them this: "Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep." The communists have never denied that their system was just one form of socialism. The very name of their country was: "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." Their system is still a socialist system with the same people running things. Their current boss (as this is written) is Yeltsin, (Then Vladmir Putin and God knows who next) who is a former KVD (or whatever initials they are using now) mean. So is communism dead?


I don't think communism is dead. It's alive and well and flourishing everywhere else but Russia and I don't know about Russia. Communism is socialism run by communists. And socialism, in the United States, is called "liberalism." Perennial Socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas once 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." How much plainer do they have to get before we pay attention to what they're telling us?

Nikita Kruschev said something similar with his "…we won't need to attack the U. S. It will fall into our hands like a ripe plum" crack.

Is all this true? Is it actually happening before our eyes? Check this out: Cleon Skoussen, the former FBI agent, wrote in his book, "The Naked Communist" (published in 1958), the long-term goals of the communist agenda (beginning on page 259). This information also was printed in the August, 1963 edition of the Congressional Record and in the Communist Manifesto. There were many goals listed, but for the purpose of this report I will list only a few:

U. S. acceptance of co-existence as the only alternative to atomic war. No one should have to tell anyone whose head has not been in the sand for years that "peaceful co-existence" is the rule this country lived by for years, and is the rule that allowed many dangerous concessions to be agreed to by gullible politicians and by socialists within our government who knew exactly what they were doing.

U. S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war. Done. See above.

Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the U. S. would be a demonstration of moral strength. They didn't quite attain that one. But the promotion of this idea caused us to make many disastrous concessions in arms talks over the years, even if we didn't "bite the big one."

Permit free trade between all nations regardless of communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. This has been a difficult one for them. So long as the cold war was going on, free trade between us and communist countries was severely limited. Now, since communism has "died," these restrictions have largely been lifted, and we have NAFTA and GATT. You decide whether or not they've attained this goal.

Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites. Done. A long time ago. And now since the collapse of communism, more money, and a lot faster.

Provide American aid to all nations regardless of communist domination. Under the "rule" of the liberals, we have provided foreign aid for many countries, for years, many of them communist dominated even before the "fall of communism." Foreign Aid has been one of the largest items in our budget. Has this goal been won? In addition, we're sending billions of dollars to Muslim countries who have openly condemned us to death.

Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U. N. Done. Richard Nixon took care of that one.

Allow all Soviet satellite countries individual representation in the United Nations. This is another one they didn't quite make under "cold war" conditions. Their goal in this instance is obvious. If every formerly sovereign state in their circle could wield a vote in the U. N., they would then have complete and total control instead of the "behind-the-scenes" and "voting control" they now have. With the "collapse" of communism, and all the former Soviet satellites becoming "independent," (even though still ruled by the same wolves who have put on their sheep's outfits) they will all be eligible for independent membership in the United Nations. Have they attained this one?

Promote the United Nations as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. This has been being done for years. Today, top American politicians are "believers" in this concept. Former President George H. W. Bush is just one of the gullible politicians who have bought this lie. He proved it when he said in New York, in 1991, "My vision of a New World Order foresees a United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function." And in February, 1992, at the UN Building: "It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter to which we will henceforth pledge our allegiance." This is a former President of the United States talking. And his son was president (until 2008, anyway). [Update in 2009: Now a confirmed, dedicated socialist (Barack Obama) is president. At least until 2012, unless we can get him removed. –RT]

The United Nations' World Constitution says: "The age of nations must end… The governments of the nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties. into one government to which they surrender their arms." This is in place. It is ready to go, just as soon as they can con all the governments of the world into signing it. How about this one?

Do away with all loyalty oaths. This is another "head-in-the-sand issue." Unless you've had your head in the sand, you will know that there has been a concerted effort in this country to eliminate all loyalty oaths as unnecessary and an insult to those whose oath is required. They haven't yet managed to do away with all of them, but they're far down that road.

Capture one or both of the political parties of the U. S. You might not agree with this, but I think this one has been won. Just look at what the Democrat Party has been fostering and working like beavers to accomplish during the last 30 to 50 years. The people running things in this party are, for the most part, avowed socialists, and don't even attempt to hide it. Many are well-known Marxists. The basic aims of the Democrats are simple: the implementation of the altruist's creed:

"FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, AND TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED" as the "rule of law" in the United States. This creed is also at the bottom of communism, as you can plainly see by their determined efforts to "redistribute other people's wealth" to those who didn't earn it and who don't deserve it. And from many of the actions of members of the Republican Party of late I'm coming to believe they've got a foothold there too. If they ever gain real control of both parties, you can forget freedom.

Current (2009) President Obama has criticized the Constitution because it neither mentioned, not dealt with, “redistribution of wealth.” The reason for that is that was something they wanted no part of.

Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights. Does anybody out there have to be told about Affirmative Action? The plan that says because our grandparents may have discriminated against the black race and other races until some years ago, that a new discrimination against currently-living whites (who had nothing to do with discrimination fifty or more years ago) without an end in sight is right, in order to "right the wrongs?" Does anyone have to tell you about the "rights of the disabled" and the way-out things that have been done in the name of "protecting them" and making the world more accessible? There are many more examples. But these two will do to show you that this one has been nailed.

Get control of the schools. “Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Get control of the teacher's associations. Soften the curriculum. Put the party line in textbooks.” Have you heard about the National Education Association? This is a nationally organized teacher's union, put together to give teachers a stronger voice in education. Yeah, riiiight. What it has become is a lobbying organization that has allowed the federal government to in effect take over our schools. Also, there is the School Lunch Program, which pays schools a fee for each student who receives money for all or part of his lunch. It is a handy lever to force schools to “toe the line” under threat of a cut off of funds.

From yet another direction, the feds have used an "unmerciful stretching" of a law saying that "recipient institutions" must submit to "federal guidelines" in planning their curriculum if one student receives federal money for any part of his tuition or school expenses. What this can be made to mean is that if a federal program pays nothing more than the student's bus fare to school the feds can dictate what the school teaches and how they are allowed to teach it.

How about "Outcome-Based Education?" There's no better way to soften the curriculum than to adopt this system, which very simply dumbs down the educational process by refusing to grade students on their individual performance, but on the performance of the entire class. Someone recently wrote: "You couldn't have come up with a better idea to destroy a country's intelligence if you were trying." Well, they are trying.

Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under communist (or socialist) attack. Does anybody remember the sixties and the student riots that took place all over the country? (Check out the Hegelian Principle further on in this report.) Look around you today. Even though student riots aren't nearly as prevalent as then, they're still around, and college administrations quaver at the very thought, and give in.

Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV and motion pictures. This has created vociferous debate for years, even while proof is readily available that the Socialist philosophy has not only infiltrated the press, but has taken it over. Today's press people will deny their bias in the face of certain proof that they are lying, and will criticize those who present it, just for presenting it.


Believers in a "Grand Conspiracy" think the "liberal leaning" of the press in this country is evidence of a total, all-encompassing, grand conspiracy to take over the world. I don't think it is. But that argument is not important, since the answer, in either case, is "investigation and exposure" of their plans. The very promotion of the debate about the existence or non-existence of a "grand conspiracy" is a scam to keep us occupied debating it while they steal everything we've got (money and freedom).


The nearest thing to a "grand conspiracy" we have, in my opinion, is that "forced altruist" philosophy is being taught in our schools as an ideal by teachers and professors who have themselves, been taught the same. It's a little like "planting seeds" and letting them grow. You don't necessarily have to control every facet of their growth, but you can guide them by giving them parameters. I'm reminded of a story I used to tell in my motivation seminars about the farmer who put a small pumpkin sprout inside of a bottle and went away. When he returned during the harvest, he found that the little pumpkin sprout had grown, taking on the shape of the bottle, and had then stopped growing. At the time, the story (which I got from Earl Nightingale, by the way) was told to illustrate that the pumpkin had stopped growing. But here, it can best illustrate that by putting it into the bottle, the farmer controlled "the shape of its growing." Journalism schools do that by teaching forced altruism (Socialism) as an ideal. Is it really surprising then, that a large number of journalists lean toward Socialism? It could be no other way.


But let's let them condemn themselves with their own words:

Richard Salant, former President of CBS said: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what WE decide they ought to have."

Richard M. Cohan, Senior Producer of CBS political news said: "We are going to impose OUR AGENDA on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that WE choose to deal with."

Walter Cronkite, a "respected" national news anchor, said: "News reporters are certainly liberal (Socialists) and left of center."

Barbara Walters, the $5 Million Dollar Newswoman, contends: "The news media in general are liberals (Socialists)."

John Swinton, former Chief of Staff for the New York Times, said it best in a toast made before the New York Press Club in 1953: "There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it will never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

What bitterness this statement reveals. I don't know what happened to this man for this statement, but I'd bet he never made such a statement outside of a closed group of journalists. And I know the mainstream media never even noticed his remarks, even though they were made to a gathering of news people. So don't ever expect to hear the truth about how you're being ripped off daily by your own government in the news. It just isn't going to happen.

Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them censorship and a violation of free press. This is another "head-in-the-sand issue." Only those who just do not know what is going on around them are unaware of the largely successful drive to do just that, mostly through promoting the impossibility of defining obscenity. Calling these laws censorship and a violation of freedom of the press is also a common ploy.

Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures and TV. I have no right to tell individuals what they may do, and what they may read, in private. I have no problem with pornography itself, in private, but only with what is made of it, where it has been recently presented, and the efforts that have been made to promote it so that all may see, rather than simply keep it behind closed doors, the same as sex itself. Sex and elimination of bodily waste are both something best kept behind closed doors, even though both are natural human functions. Quite frankly, I don't subscribe to the theory that pornographic materials cause people to commit sex crimes. I see pornography as a means for people who do not have access to real sex to "release their tensions." Tensions that, if not periodically released, will be much more likely to lead more people to commit a sex crime.

But the liberals want everybody, even your children, to have ready access to it (whatever they may say). Not only to blatant pornography, but to the soft-porn that can be seen on the nightly television, on the covers of (mainstream) magazines (usually displayed at children's eye level) sold in stores. They want to have it out where everybody can see it, with no controls. This I believe is wrong, but it is one goal they are near to having attained.

Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as normal, natural and healthy. Have you seen the latest gay parades in places like San Francisco, where lightly-clad and sometimes naked men and women show their genitals in public while the cops look the other way to avoid being branded as gay-bashers? Have you noticed the current efforts to gain legal recognition for same-sex marriages? Did you really think such things would end with the collapse of communism? Get real. Again, it's not my right to tell people they are wrong when they choose to have sex with someone of the same sex. But to promote it as normal and healthy is, in my opinion, bad. In fact, to do so, is to attempt to push their own values on me, which I won't allow. Being "gay" cannot be "normal and natural" because sex is designed for procreation. Sex with one of your own sex can never create pregnancy without the participation, one way or another, of a member of the opposite sex. Did they attain this one? It's a work in progress.

Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with social religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for "intellectual maturity," which does not really need a "religious crutch." Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of separation of church and state. Do I really need to demonstrate for you just how far they've gone down this road? Prayer in school is a thing of the past, and the lack of it is itself an institution. You can't even mention religion in school for fear of censure. In many places, just to be known as a "God-fearing Christian" is to be suspect, and the many attacks on the Bible and Christianity are a well-known fact. Meanwhile, we are told that we should respect other religions, particularly the Muslims.

Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. What is it they call the Constitution now? "A fluid document?" What is a fluid document? Obviously, it is a document that can be changed at will, and at whim. It's no longer, according to the liberals (socialists) running things in this country "a rock upon which our laws are based." It's "old-fashioned, written by people who had no idea of the wonders of the modern world and thus has no relevance." Isn't this what is now being said as they dismantle the Constitution, article by article? The first step in socializing this country is the complete destruction of our Constitution. Before they can do that, they must discredit it.

Of course, they've never actually gone by the Constitution, anyway. This government has routinely ignored the Constitution ever since it was written and they continue to this day. Don't believe it? Check out Article I, Section IX, paragraph 3 where it says: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." Simple, to the point, and easy to understand if you know that an ex post facto law is a retroactive law that takes effect before it was signed into law. That means they can't make what you're doing legally today illegal tomorrow and prosecute you for it. Now go out and find out how many retroactive laws have been passed by our Congress and signed into law by many presidents, one of the most recent being Clinton's retroactive tax increase. The original income tax law was such a law, and was unconstitutional in addition because the Constitution did not allow the taxing of income by the federal government. That's why it was repealed and replaced by the 16th Amendment.

Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the common man. I suppose you've heard the story about George Washington and others of the founding fathers being slave owners? How about the phony story that Thomas Jefferson fathered a child on one of his slaves, backed up by false DNA "evidence" using DNA taken from his uncle, for Heaven's sake! (Maybe the uncle did it.) Did you hear the one about them being that day's version of big businessmen? No one bothered to tell you that after this country was established, they systematically eliminated slavery in what was then America. And that a lot of this "slavery" was simply people who had signed an agreement to work for their masters for a specific length of time in return for their passage (a trade for value). In addition, the founding fathers were no more aristocrats than are today's politicians. (Define aristocrat.) Today's politicians look upon themselves as "aristocrats."

Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part in the big picture. What could belittle American culture (and religion) more than a Christian cross in a jar of urine that is seriously considered art by the liberal elite? Have you heard about "diversity training" where school children are taught more about black history than about American history? And in some cases are taught fanciful versions of black history where blacks are the dominant race? You know, the kind of black history preached by (Calypso Louie) Louis Farrakhan and his accomplices? How about Black History courses that are being pushed for all students, no matter what their background?

Have you heard about the new Federal Standards for education that are being touted in which George Washington and many other pivotal characters are being ignored in favor of minorities because "minorities have been ignored in history books?" Check out Goals 2000, in which the liberals detail their plan to teach our children not what they need to survive in this world (reading, writing, arithmetic), but what they will need (if the liberals have their way) to survive politically. It's a total conditioning program. Then there's the dumbing down of the curriculum in the schools so as to keep from hurting their delicate feelings by actually "grading" them. They're turning out college graduates who can't even read their diplomas hoping that people who are largely illiterate can't understand what is being done to them. They don't even want to keep score in sports competition any more for the same reasons.

Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture. Education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. This is a very revealing goal in that it provides proof, from out of their own mouths, that "..there can be no such thing as communism without Socialism, and communism itself is just one small part of socialism." In supporting any socialist movement, they create a centralized control mechanism that is more easily taken over.

Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat. Has anyone heard about the arrests made by federal agencies for such things as killing a protected kangaroo rat while plowing the ground on a farm? I could give a long list of such arrests made by other than police for things that should not be crimes. What about all the atrocities even now being committed by so-called "child protectors" in the name of "protecting children?" Ace this one.

Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose communist (Socialist) controls. Harvard University Professor Dr. Chester Pierce said: "Every child in America who enters school at the age of five is mentally ill, because he comes to school with an allegiance to our institutions, toward the preservation of this form of government that we have. Patriotism, nationalism, and sovereignty, all that proves that children are sick because a truly well individual is one who has rejected all of those things, and is truly the international child of the future."

Dr. Paul Brandwein, leading U. S. child psychologist who (pretends to) instruct teachers on how to recognize mental disability in our school children says: "Every child who believes in God is mentally ill." And just what is it that makes this true? Can one person make another person mentally ill just by saying so? For disagreeing with what that doctor believes? I don't think so. But they can certainly convince lots of people, just by making the claim. Especially since they are doctors, and should know. But this effectively shows that the attempt to use mental health laws as a means of controlling people is another work in progress.

Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. Here we go again. It is common knowledge that liberals scorn the family. That under liberal socialism the family has declined significantly as social programs encourage divorce and "shacking up" instead of the family unit. Where tax laws discourage marriage and where the wife of the President of the United States (Hillary Clinton)writes (plagiarizes) a book that is a thinly-disguised lobbying effort to take responsibility away from parents and place it in the hands of the government. Could anything be more effective in breaking up the family? How about easy divorce? I don't think I even need to go into that. Everybody knows the laws are now slanted to make it as easy as possible to discard your mate. (When I originally wrote the above paragraph I had not yet realized that what the "child protectors" were doing was an even better way of destroying the family and taking control over what is taught them.) Further on that below:

Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. Does anybody not know that the emphasis today is on reducing the authority of the parent in the child's life? One of the things entitlement programs are designed to accomplish is this. As recipients of government largess (with your money), they give up their right to protest when the government takes over more and more control over their children. That's a given. Government money equals government control.

Does any intelligent person need any more evidence that communism still lives? Communism is collectivism. Socialism is just another version of collectivism. Nazism is yet another. I don’t care what they call it. If it involves stealing from the producer of wealth and giving to the non-producer, it's collectivism. Communism lives on, and is in control in many countries. That it failed in Russia is simply evidence that it does not work, all excuses to the contrary notwithstanding.