Presented with the kind permission of Curtis Bowers

Review from

… powerful exposé of the communist, socialist, progressive attempt to take over America …

This is not a conspiracy documentary about a secret collusion between two or more conspirators to affect some nefarious change, but rather a clear look at the publicized agenda of the hard left and shows how they have effectively implemented that public agenda.

The documentary starts with a quote from Joseph Stalin, “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”

Then, the documentary shows the steps the Communist Party said were necessary to destroy America’s patriotism, morality and faith. Incredibly, they were able to achieve their agenda.

This clear exposé alone makes this documentary worth watching.

More than that, the documentary presents the connections between the different communist, socialist, progressive organizations with great clarity and shows how they implemented their agenda in each area of life.

AGENDA is absolutely brilliant for its well-researched understanding of the issues.

AGENDA features interviews with Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, Dr. Jim Bowers, the late Dr. Robert Chandler, Beverley Eakman, M. Stanton Evans, Bryan Fischer, Dr. David Gibbs, Jr., Brannon Howse, Cliff Kincaid, Congressman Steve King, Gen. Ed Meese lll, Dr. David Noebel, Hon. Howard Phillips, Janet (Folger) Porter, Sen. H.L. Richardson, Phyllis Schafly, Jim Simpson, Mike Smith Esq., John Stormer, Tim Wildmon, Wendy Wright and New Zeal’s Trevor Loudon.

Excerpts from NewsRealBlog‘s interview with filmmaker, Curtis Bowers

Curtis Bowers: I wanted to make a clear distinction between this particular film, this particular subject, and a lot of the conspiracies that are out there. I think there might be a lot of weight to a lot of the conspiracy theories out there. But, when you deal in that, you lose credibility… I wanted to make sure people know this is simply the facts. It’s all in (the leftist radicals’) own words, in their own books and articles and speeches.

That’s what impacted me so much … When I started studying their own writings, their own speeches, I couldn’t believe it – that they would say so clearly what their goals were, what they were trying to do. That’s what shocked me into making the film. As I studied, I’d go “People need to know about this.”

This isn’t opinions or feelings or hopes or wishes or whatever. This is a reality that is destroying our country, and we don’t even seem to acknowledge that it exists …

NRB: … You were asked by a friend and writer to go attend a Communist party meeting, and this was back in 1992. Can you tell us a little bit about what you encountered there?

Bowers: I was in graduate school, and I thought it would be fun to go and hear what they had to say. I was not into it for the content of it. I was simply doing someone a favor. In my own eyes I thought this would be a really neat experience. Not really paying that much attention (at first), I assumed it would be a bunch of college radicals.

I grew a goatee and had ratty jeans on and had a revolutionary t-shirt on (i.e. trying to fit in). And I stuck out like a sore thumb … I looked like an idiot. It wasn’t that element. It wasn’t college radicals. It was all adults for the most part, and older adults – 50, 60, 70 year olds.

That’s when the light went on, I was shocked … I did not expect the seriousness, the backroom meetings – they had all these different breakout sessions. Some of these I would go into. And the passion of these older men up there that were so discouraged by what had happened to the Soviet Union, and they’d say, “But we can still do this. We can still –” They would talk about this like a preacher would talk about the principles of the Bible or something. They believed this.

Just like Whittaker Chambers – who wrote the book Witness which is one of my favorite books … it made me realize there are some that have bought into the cause, maybe naively, not understanding the end result. They believe that this is going to bring about a one-world utopia where it’s going to benefit everybody. I was there and I was convinced that some people really do believe that. They’re not the evil people that know that the end result is just greedy lust for power and don’t care what happens to all the masses.

I can still picture this one old man. I don’t even know who he was, but he was talking (to the group). He said he had been a member since the 1930’s. He’d been a member of the Communist Party since he was a young man. He was probably in his late 70’s, and his whole life had been focused on the communist movement. It kind of shook me up when I saw how serious and how committed he was and passionate about those principles.

NRB: You talk about a connection – obviously, Karl Marx first germinated the philosophy which we’ve come to know as communism. But you talk about the connection between him and Darwin and Nietzsche – the theory of evolution and the idea that there is no God, that God is dead – these two ideas, as you state in the film, are kind of a necessary precursor to embracing Marxism. You spoke of that older man who spoke with such passion and reminded you of a preacher. There’s definitely a spiritual component to this thing isn’t there?

Bowers: Oh, absolutely. It is their religion. What you believe is your religion. That’s why even humanism is considered a religion in America – they get a tax exemption for being a religious organization, the humanist groups throughout America … That’s what their faith is in. Their faith is in man. They think man will naturally rise to the highest level possible within a perfect – what they claim to be perfect – communist society, where everything is equally shared and everyone equally does their work.

I don’t think the top people naively believe that. I think they know – anyone who studies history knows that does not happen. Anyone who reads the daily newspaper knows that is not what man is like. Man always goes to the lowest common denominator unless he is in a society that is demanding more of him, and he’s being raised with character –

NRB: That’s just it though, isn’t it? The two fundamental ideas that are really butting heads here, if you trace it back far enough

It’s about the nature of man. On the one hand, man is an emergent evolving being on the path toward some sort of perfection. And then on the other hand, the perspective that Christianity espouses, and Judaism as well, (is) that man is fallen, that man is sinful, that man suffers from a kind of moral retardation and, as a result, is never going to be particularly good. Those fundamental beliefs really do inform our political paradigm, don’t they?

Bowers: Yes, and that’s why – back to what you were talking about with Darwin and Nietzsche – that’s why they’re so important. America’s whole foundation was completely different.

It was all, for the first time in world history, “No, no. Our rights come from God.” That’s why no man, no government can take them away. That whole principle, it began with America – the first time it was tried at that level where government was under the people. People were over the government. And the reason they were was because they said, “The rights you have are from God.” Therefore they cannot be tampered with by anyone for any reason.

Of course, Marx and all them – that’s a disaster, because they want to be on top. They want a society where man is god.

So, if God’s in the picture, it destroys their entire ideology, their entire philosophy of what they’re trying to do. And that’s why they have been in such a battle to remove God, and specifically the God of the Bible. They don’t seem to have a huge problem with the other world religions. It’s just the God of the Bible, I think, because of His very clear laws and rules and the way He set up things orderly. The family is supposed to be ordered this way, and society is supposed to be ordered this way, and morality is this … That’s the scary thing. If there was no God, if He was taken out of the equation, who is to say what you can do or not? …