Chapter Five: Infiltrating the West (Part II)
Table of Contents (continued)
6. The New Marxists Who Worship Satan
7. The Left’s Long March Through the Institutions
8. Political Correctness: The Devil’s Thought Police
9. The Spread of Socialism in Europe
10. Why Do We Fall for the Devil’s Tricks?
* * *
6. The New Marxists Who Worship Satan
When the street revolution of Western youths was in full swing in the 1960s, there was one who dismissed their naivety, sincerity, and idealism. “If the real radical finds that having long hair sets up psychological barriers to communication and organization, he cuts his hair,” he said. The man was Saul Alinsky, a radical activist who wrote books, taught students, and personally oversaw the implementation of his theories, eventually becoming the “para-communist” agitator with the most baneful influence for decades.
Aside from his worship of Lenin and Castro, Alinsky has also explicitly praised the devil himself. In his book Rules for Radicals, one of the epigraphs says: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
The reason Alinsky is best termed a “para-communist” is because unlike the Old Left (political leftists) of the 1930s and the New Left (cultural leftists) of the 1960s, Alinsky refused to affirmatively describe his political ideals. His overall view was that world has “the haves,” “the
have-a-little-want-mores,” and “the have-nots.” He called upon the “have-nots” to rebel against “the haves” by any means and to seize wealth and power in order to achieve a completely “equal” society. He sought to seize power through any means, while at the same time destroying the existing social system. He has been called the Lenin of the post-communist Left and its “Sun-Tzu.” 
In Rules for Radicals, published in 1971, Alinsky systematically set forth his theory and methods of community organizing. These rules include: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” “Keep the pressure on.” “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  The essence of his rules was about using unscrupulous means to achieve his goals and gain power.
The nature of Alinsky’s seemingly dry rules for community organization reveal their true nature when applied in the world. When the Vietnam War was still in progress in 1972, George H. W. Bush, the then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, gave a speech at Tulane University. Anti-war students sought advice from Alinsky, and he said that the standard protest format would likely result in them being simply expelled. He thus suggested that they don Ku Klux Klan garb, and whenever Bush defended the Vietnam War, they’d stand up with placards and say, “The KKK Supports Bush.” The students did so “with very successful, attention-getting results.” 
Alinsky and his followers were delighted with two other protests he planned. In 1964, in negotiations with Chicago city authorities, Alinsky concocted the plan of organizing 2,500 activists to occupy the toilets in Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, one of the busiest in the world, to force its operations to grind to a halt. Prior to actually carrying off the plan, he leaked the plan, thus forcing the authorities to negotiate. 
In order to force Kodak, the major employer in Rochester, New York, to increase the ratio of black employees to white, Alinsky came up with a similar tactic. Seizing on the upcoming Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra, an important cultural tradition in the city, Alinsky planned to purchase hundreds of tickets for his activists, feeding them only baked beans beforehand. They would fill the theater and ruin the performance with flatulence. This episode didn’t come to fruition, but the threat of it as well as other of Alinsky’s tactics, enhanced his position in negotiations.
Alinsky’s book leaves the impression of a sinister, cold, and calculating individual. His use of “community organizing” was really a form of gradual revolution. 
The differences between Alinsky and his forerunners were several. First, both Old and New Leftists were at least idealistic in their rhetoric, while Alinsky stripped “revolution” of its idealistic veneer and exposed it as a naked power struggle. When he conducted training for “community organisations,” he would routinely ask the trainees: Why organize? Some would say that it was to help others, but Alinsky would roar back: “You want to organize for power!” 
In the training manual Alinky’s followers went by, it said: “We are not virtuous by not wanting power. … We are really cowards for not wanting power”; “power is good”; “powerlessness is evil.” 
Second, Alinsky didn’t think much of the rebellious youth of the 60s who were publicly against the government and society. He stressed that whenever possible, one should enter the system, while biding time for opportunities to subvert it from within.
Third, Alinsky’s ultimate goal was to subvert and destroy, not to benefit any group — thus in implementing his plan, it was necessary to conceal the real purpose with localized or staged goals that were seemingly reasonable or harmless by themselves, to mobilize large crowds to action. When people were accustomed to being mobilized, it was relatively easy to mobilize them to act toward more radical goals.
In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky said: “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. … Remember: once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move. From there it’s a short and natural step to political pollution, to Pentagon pollution.”
A leader from Students for a Democratic Society who was deeply influenced by Alinsky nailed the essence of radicalizing protests: “The issue is never the issue; the issue is always the revolution.” The radical left after the 60s was deeply influenced by Alinsky, and always turned the response to any social issue into dissatisfaction with the status quo over all, as a stepping stone for advancing the revolutionary cause.
Fourth, Alinsky turned politics into a guerrilla war without restraint. In explaining his strategy for community organizing, Alinsky told his followers that they need to hit the enemy’s eyes, ears, and nose. As he writes in Rules for Radicals: “First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people’s organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then do what Gideon did: conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.”
Fifth, from his actions in politics, Alinsky emphasized using the most evil aspects of human nature, including indolence, greed, envy, and hatred. Sometimes, participants in his campaigns would win petty gains, but this only made them more cynical and shameless. In order, to subvert the political system and social order of free countries, Alinsky was happy to lead his followers to moral bankruptcy. From this, it can be inferred that if he were to truly gain power, he would neither take care of nor pity his former comrades.
Decades later, two prominent figures in American politics who were deeply influenced by Alinsky helped to usher in the silent revolution that has subverted American civilization, traditions, and values. At the same time, the no-holds-barred, unrestricted guerrilla warfare-type protests advocated by Alinsky became popular in America from the 1970s on. This is clear through the “vomit-in” protest in 1999 against the World Trade Organization in Seattle (where protesters ingested a drug that induced vomiting, then collectively vomited in the Plaza and conference center), the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Antifa movement, and so on.
It is salient to note that in one of the introductory pages of Rules for Radicals, Alinsky gave his “acknowledgment to the very first radical,” Lucifer. Further, in an interview with Playboy magazine shortly before his death, Alinsky said that when he died, he would “unreservedly choose to go to hell” and begin to organize the proletariat there because “they’re my kind of people.” 
7. The Left’s Long March Through the Institutions
It was Antonio Gramsci, a prominent Italian communist, who promoted the idea of carrying out a “the long march through the institutions.” He found that it’s difficult to incite people with faith to initiate a revolution to overthrow a legitimate government — and so in order to make revolution, communists rely on a large number of foot soldiers who share their dark vision of morality, faith, and traditions. The revolution of the proletariat, then, must begin with the subversion of religion, morality, and civilization.
After the failure of the street revolutions in the 1960s, the rebels began entering academia. They obtained degrees, became scholars, professors, government officials, and journalists, and entered the mainstream of society to carry off the “long march through the institutions.” Thus they infiltrated and corrupted the institutions of Western society, which are crucial for the maintenance of morality in the society. This includes the church, government, the education system, legislative and judicial bodies, the art world, the media, and NGOs.
The United States after the 1960s is like a patient with an infection, yet unable to identify the cause. Para-Marxist ideas have seeped deep into American society and have been metastasizing.
Among the many revolutionary theories and strategies that have been put forward, the “Cloward-Piven” strategy proposed by two sociologists of Columbia University became among the most well-known and has been tried out with some degree of success.
The core concept of the Cloward–Piven strategy is to use the public welfare system to force the government to collapse. According to U.S. government policy, the number of people eligible for welfare benefits is far greater than the number of people actually receiving benefits. As long as these people are encouraged or organized to take benefits, they will soon use up the government’s funds, so the government will be unable to make ends meet.
The specific implementation of this strategy is the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). According to statistics, from 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent families receiving benefits surged from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, a more than doubling. In 1970, 28 percent of the annual budget of New York City was spent on welfare expenses. On average, of every two people who worked, one person received benefits. From 1960 to 1970, the number of people receiving benefits in New York City rose from 200,000 to 1.1 million. In 1975, New York City was almost bankrupt.
The Cloward–Piven strategy is intended to lead to a crisis. It can thus also be regarded as an implementation of Alinsky’s theories, one of which is to “make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
Since the Bolshevik Revolution led by Lenin, the Communist Party has been good at intrigue and scheming. With a very small number of people, it created powerful “revolutions” and “crises” that it could then take advantage of. Similar things happen in American politics. For example, some of the Left’s ideas in the United States are so radical that they seem incomprehensible to most people. Why, for instance, do lawmakers and elected officials seem to represent only the voice of extreme minorities (such as transgender people), but ignore the important issues of livelihood of the majority? The answer is simple: They are not representing real public opinion.
Lenin once said that labor unions are “the transmission belts from the Communist Party to the masses.”  The communists found that as long as they control the labor unions, they control a large number of votes. As long as they control the votes, they can make elected officials and lawmakers do their bidding. Therefore, communists seek to gain control of labor unions, thereby controlling a large number of parliamentarians and elected officials to turn the communists’ subversive political program into the political program of left-wing politics.
1. Cleon Skousen wrote in his book The Naked Communist that one of the communists’ 45 goals is to “Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States,” and this is achieved through such an operation. In order to maintain their basic rights and interests, ordinary workers must join labor unions and thus become their pawns. An identical principle is at work when paying protection fees to organized crime gangs.
Trevor Loudon’s analysis of how communist parties hijack democratic countries speaks to this point. Loudon divides the process into three steps:
Step One — Policy Formation. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and its allies formulated policies aimed at democratic countries. The purpose was to infiltrate and disintegrate these countries and transform them peacefully from within.
Step Two — Indoctrination. During the Cold War, thousands of communists from around the world received training every year in the Soviet Union and Eastern socialist countries. The training focused on how to use labor movements, peace movements, churches, and non-governmental groups to influence leftist parties in their own countries.
Step Three — Implementation. After the Cold War, local socialist and communist groups in Western countries began playing a more dominant role.
After the 1970s and 1980s, a large number of Americans influenced by communist ideology entered the social mainstream. They either engaged in politics, education, or academic research, or entered the media or non-governmental organizations. They use the experiences accumulated over several generations to transform the United States from within, and the United States has almost fallen into their hands.
The systems of democratic countries were originally designed for individuals of a certain moral disposition and standard. For those who use all means to achieve evil ends, this system has many loopholes. There are numerous superficially legitimate ways to subvert a free society.
There is a saying in China: “We are not afraid of thieves stealing, we’re just afraid of them thinking of it.” Communists and those who ignorantly act on their behalf try to subvert the political and social system of free societies any way they can. After decades of planning and operation, the governments and the societies of the United States and Western countries have been severely eroded, as communist thinking and elements have entered the U.S. body politic.
8. Political Correctness: The Devil’s Thought Police
Communist countries practice strict control over speech and thought. However, since the 1980s, another form of speech and thought control has appeared in the West. These thought police use the banner of “political correctness” to run amok in the media, society, and education system, using slogans and mass criticism to restrain speech and thought. Even though many have already felt the evil power of its control, they have not grasped its ideological origins.
Phrases such as “political correctness,” together with “progress” and “solidarity” are all words that have long been used by communist parties. Their superficial meaning is to avoid using discriminatory language toward minorities, women, the disabled, and others. For example, “black people” are to be called “African Americans”; Indians are to be called “native Americans,” illegal immigrants are to be called “undocumented workers,” and so on.
However, the hidden implication behind political correctness is to classify individuals into groups according to their victim status. Those who are the most oppressed should therefore be accorded the most respect and courtesy. Regardless of individual conduct and talent, this judgment is rendered solely on one’s identity, and is thus called “identity politics.”
This style of thinking is extremely popular in the United States and other Western countries. According to such logic, black lesbians, who are oppressed along vectors of both race, sex, and sexual preference, are ranked at the forefront of victimhood. On the contrary, white, heterosexual males are considered the most privileged and, in the logic of victim politics, on the bottom of the totem pole.
This type of classification is identical to what goes on in communist countries, where individuals were classified as the “five classes of red” or “the five classes of black” according to their wealth and class status before the revolution. The Chinese Communist Party eliminated and oppressed landowners and capitalists because of their wrong class status, attacked intellectuals as the “Stinking Old Ninth,” and chanted that “the poor are the smartest, the nobles the dumbest.”
For complex historical reasons, including social and individual reasons, some groups have a lower political and socio-economic position, which cannot be simply explained as oppression. But political correctness draws an artificial boundary in people’s minds. It sets up a binary, positing that only those who agree with the claims of political correctness are to be considered moral, while those who dissent are accused of being racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Islam, and so on.
Universities, which should promote a culture of free expression, became prisons of the mind. The world is silenced and unable to openly and sincerely grapple with a number of issues in politics, economics, and culture. Under the name of political correctness, some organizations further push traditional religion out of the public sphere. Furthermore, some countries have expanded the definition of “hate speech,” implemented this expanded definition in law, and thus used the law to force schools, media, and internet companies to conform.  This is a step toward the same strictures on speech as found in communist states.
After the 2016 U.S. election, the United States became further divided. Protest marches erupted in major cities, and violations of freedom of speech began with frequency. In September 2017, the appearance of conservative author Ben Shapiro, invited to speak at the University of California–Berkeley, was derailed due to Antifa’s threats to provoke violent conflict. Berkeley police stood ready and dispatched three police helicopters, and security expenses were estimated at over $600,000 dollars . A reporter asked a young student protester, What about the First Amendment? The student said it was no longer a relevant document.  Ironically, one signature event that marked the start of the student movement in 1964 was a fight for freedom of speech at Berkeley. These days, the Left uses the right to speech in an attempt to deprive others from having a legitimate outlet for their own voice.
In March 2017, American social scientist Charles Murray was invited to speak at Middlebury College in Vermont. While there, he was physically assaulted and an accompanying professor at the college was injured. In March 2018, tenured professor Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law was taken off some teaching duties after publishing a “politically incorrect” article.  Other organizations, acting under the banner of opposing hate speech, have labeled regular conservative groups “hate groups.” In addition, there have been cases of conservative authors and scholars being threatened regarding speaking at or attending various events. 
The intrusion on freedom of speech by the Left is not part of normal debate between people with differing ideas. Instead, it’s about the specter of communism using people with ill intent, provoking them to obscure the truth and suppress righteous, or at least normal, voices. Political correctness, in essence, is about substituting deviant political and moral standards for righteous ones; it is the devil’s thought police.
9. The Spread of Socialism in Europe
The Socialist International grew from the Second International, founded by Engels in 1889. At the time of establishment of the Second International, there existed over 100 political parties around the world that were founded on Marxism. Of them, 66 were ruling parties that adhered to socialism in their respective countries. The name “Socialist International” originated in 1951 after World War II and consisted of social democratic parties from around the world.
There are socialist parties descended from the Second International everywhere in Europe, with many of them even becoming ruling parties. The early socialists included Lenin, who encouraged violent revolution, and people like Kautsky and Burns, who promoted progressive reform. Within the Socialist International, socialist democracy and democratic socialism were almost identical. They both promoted the idea that socialism is the new system that will replace capitalism. Currently, the Socialist International consists of over 160 organizations and members. It is the largest international political organization in the world.
The European Socialist Party, active in the European Parliament, is also an alliance organization of the Socialist International. Its members are the social democratic parties of the EU and surrounding countries. It is also a political party within the European Parliament, established in 1992, whose membership comprises the majority of European organizations, including the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the European Council.
As of now, the European Socialist Party has 32 party members from 25 countries of the EU and Norway, eight associate members, and five observers, for a total of 45 political parties. It engages in an immense range of activities. The main objectives claimed by the European Socialist Party itself are to strengthen the socialist and social democratic movement within the EU and throughout Europe and to develop close cooperation between member parties, parliamentary groups, and the like. Essentially, it works to vigorously promote the socialist cause.
The Swedish Social Democratic Party, the ruling party of Sweden, openly claims that it uses Marxism as its theoretical guide. During the several decades under its rule, it promoted the socialist ideologies of equality and welfare. Portraits of Marx and Engels still hang in the Party’s halls today.
The guiding principles of the UK’s Labor Party are based on Fabian Socialism. As discussed earlier, Fabian socialism is simply another version of Marxism, but stresses using gradual methods to effect the transition from socialism to communism. It also advocates high taxes, high welfare benefits, and other socialist ideas. The Labor Party became the ruling party of England many times in recent decades and has always advocated Fabian socialist ideas.
The British Communist Party has also been very active in trying to influence British politics, even running its own newspaper, The Morning Star. The British Communist Party was established in 1920, and during its peak, had Party members elected into the House of Commons. At the start of recent elections in England, the British Communist Party suddenly announced that it intends to support the leading left-wing politician of the Labor Party.
One important member of the Labor Party has spent 40 years promoting nationalization of assets and socialism. In September 2015, he became head of the Labor Party, with an overwhelming lead of 60 percent. This politician has for years been a prominent participant in LGBT events and activities. When a BBC reporter enquired about his views on Marx, he praised Marx as a great economist and a “fascinating figure who observed a great deal and from whom we can learn a great deal.”
The Socialist Party in France is France’s largest center-left political party and a member of the Socialist International (SI) and Party of European Socialists (PES). Its presidential nominee was elected President of France in 2012.
Italy’s veteran communist Antonio Gramsci not only founded the Communist Party of Italy in 1921, but also served as its general secretary. Up until the 1990s, the Communist Party of Italy was very active, for a long time maintaining its position as the second largest political party. In 1991, the party was renamed the Democratic Party of the Left.
Germany, the other large Western European country, is no exception. Germany is the birthplace of Marx and Engels, and the home to the influential Frankfurt School, another expression of Marxism.
Other European countries, like Spain, Portugal, and others all have very active communist political parties with significant influence. All of Europe, not only Eastern European countries, are dominated by communism. Non-communist countries in northern Europe, southern Europe, and Western Europe are all intentionally or unintentionally promoting and hosting communist ideologies and policies. To view Europe in “enemy hands” is not an exaggeration.
10. Why Do We Fall for the Devil’s Tricks?
American sociologist Paul Hollander in his book Political Pilgrims told the stories of many young intellectuals enamored with communism who traveled to the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and Communist Cuba. While horrifying abuses took place, these young political pilgrims saw none of it and upon their return, enthusiastically wrote books glorifying socialist policies. 
Communist ideology is an ideology of the devil, and as time has passed, people have seen increasingly clearly that everywhere communism goes, it is accompanied by violence, lies, war, famine, and dictatorship. The question is: “Why are there still so many people who wholeheartedly help the devil spread its lies, even becoming its obedient tools?”
In the United States, for example, people of different time periods were attracted to communism for different reasons. The very early Communist Party USA members were immigrants. Their economic status was low, and it was hard for them to blend into the community. They thus joined the Party mainly due to influences from their homeland (primarily Russia and Eastern European countries).
After the Great Depression, the influence of Marxism in the West dramatically increased, and almost the entire intellectual class in the West began a leftward turn. Numerous intellectuals went to visit the Soviet Union, and after returning, gave speeches and wrote books promoting communist ideology. Those involved included many influential thinkers, writers, artists, and reporters.
The Baby Boomer generation entered college during the 1960s, growing up in post-war affluence, yet they were misled by communist-inflected ideologies into other countercultural stances taking the form of anti-war, women’s rights, and the like. The next generation of students were taught left-leaning material right out their textbooks because their teachers were the “tenured radicals” — thus communism’s “long march through the institutions” had finally succeeded, beginning a cycle intended to reproduce and maintain itself forever.
In a book dedicated to exposing communism, Masters of Deceit, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, whose tenure ran 37 years, classified communist activists into five groups: open party members, underground party members, fellow travelers, opportunists (those who support the party for self-interest), and dupes.  In reality, there are very few extremely evil and die-hard communist activists; isn’t it much more the case that the majority of Communist Party members were simply taken in?
American reporter John Silas Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World, and Edgar Snow’s Red Star Over China played a major role in promoting communist ideology around the world. Reed is one of three Americans who was buried in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis, meaning that he himself was a communist activist. His description of the October Revolution was not an objective reporting of the actual events, but carefully crafted political propaganda.
Edgar Snow was a fellow traveler of communism. In 1936, the interview outline he provided to a CCP member included questions in a dozen areas, including diplomacy, defense against enemy invasion, views on unequal treaties, foreign investment, views on Nazis, and more. Later, Mao Zedong met Snow in a cave home in Shanbei (the northern portion of Shaanxi Province) to answer questions so that a favorable impression of the CCP could be created. The young and naive Snow was used as a tool by the treacherous CCP to broadcast its carefully crafted lies to the world.
Yuri Bezmenov, a former KGB spy, recalled his experience of receiving foreign “friends” when he worked as a spy. Their schedule was partially arranged by the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation. Their visits to churches, schools, hospitals, kindergartens, factories, and more were prearranged. Those involved were communists or politically trustworthy and had undergone training to make sure they would speak with one voice. He cited as an example the time when Look, a major American magazine in the 1960s, sent journalists to the Soviet Union and ended up printing materials prepared by Soviet security forces, including photos and print copy.
Thus, Soviet propaganda went out into the public under the name of a U.S. magazine, misleading Americans. Yuri Bezmenov said that many journalists, actors, and star athletes can be excused for being blinded to the realities while visiting the Soviet Union, but that the behavior of many Western politicians was unforgivable. They wove lies and sought cooperation with Soviet communists for their own reputation and profit, he said, calling them morally corrupt. 
In the book You Can Still Trust the Communists … to Be Communists, Dr. Fred Schwartz analyzed why some young men from wealthy families became fond of communism. He listed four reasons: First, disenchantment with capitalism; second, belief in a materialist philosophy of life; third, intellectual hubris; fourth, an unfulfilled religious need. Intellectual hubris refers to the experience of young people at the age of about 18–20 who easily fall prey to communist propaganda due to their partial understanding of history, their anti-authoritarian resentment, and their desire to rebel against tradition, authority, and the ethnic culture they grew up in.
Unfulfilled religious needs refers to the fact that everyone has a kind of religious impulse inside them, driving them to transcend themselves. However, atheism and the theory of evolution instilled by their education make them unable to derive satisfaction from traditional religion. The communist fantasy of liberating mankind takes advantage of this latent human need and serves as their ersatz religion. 
Intellectuals tended to be fooled by radical ideologies. Such a phenomenon has drawn the attention of scholars. In his book The Opium of the Intellectuals, Raymond Aron strongly pointed out that on one hand, 20th-century intellectuals severely criticized the traditional political system, but on the other hand, generously tolerated or even turned a blind eye to the dictatorship and slaughter in communist states. He saw the left-wing intellectuals who turned their ideology into a secular religion as hypocritical, arbitrary, and fanatical.
In his book Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky, Paul Johnson, a British historian, analyzed the lives and radical political views of Rousseau and a dozen intellectuals who followed him. He found that they shared the fatal weakness of arrogance and egocentrism. 
In his book Intellectuals and Society, the American scholar Thomas Sowell also gave extensive illustration of the extraordinary arrogance of these intellectuals.
These scholars have based their analysis of communist intellectuals on careful judgment and analysis, but we wish to bring attention to another reason, which they have not covered, that explains why intellectuals can be so easily fooled. Communism is a demonic ideology that does not belong to any traditional culture in human society. Since it militates against human nature, it can never be organically developed by man, but must be enforced and instilled from the outside. Under the influence of atheism and materialism, contemporary academia and education has abandoned belief in gods. Blind belief in science and the worship of so-called human reason make it possible for people to become slaves of this demonic ideology.
Since the 1960s, communism has engaged in a large-scale invasion of American education. Even worse, many young people — bombarded by left-wing media and given a simplified education — indulge in television, computer games, the internet, and social media. They get turned into “snowflakes,”
people who lack knowledge, a global perspective, a sense of responsibility, a sense of history, and the ability to cope with challenges. With communist or communist-derived ideologies instilled in them by their parents’ generation, they become indoctrinated and henceforth use a warped framework for evaluating the new facts they see and hear. That is, communist lies have formed a film around them, preventing them from a genuine vision of reality.
To deceive people, the demon has extensively exploited the human weaknesses of stupidity, ignorance, selfishness, greed, and credulity. Meanwhile, idealism and romantic fantasies of a beautiful life have also been taken advantage of. This is the saddest of all. In fact, a communist state is nothing like the romantic fantasies of communist true believers. If they actually lived under a communist regime, instead of simply visiting on a pleasant tour, they might realize this.
The communist specter infiltrated the West in disguise. Only when we transcend concrete phenomena and put ourselves on a higher plane can we truly see the face and goals of the specter.
The real reason the specter could attain its goal is because humans abandoned their belief in gods and relaxed their moral standards. Only by revivifying our belief in gods, purifying our minds, and elevating our morality can we rid ourselves of demonic influence and control. If all of human society returned to tradition, the specter would have no place to hide.
 David Horowitz, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model (Sherman Oaks, CA: David Horowitz Freedom Center, 2009), pp. 6, 16.
 Saul Alinsky, “Tactics,” Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals (New York: Vintage Books, 1971).
 David Horowitz, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model (Sherman Oaks, CA: David Horowitz Freedom Center, 2009), pp. 42–43.
 “Playboy Interview with Saul Alinsky,” New English Review, http://www.newenglishreview.org/DL_Adams/Playboy_Interview_with_Saul_Alinsky/.
 David Horowitz, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model (Sherman Oaks, CA: David Horowitz Freedom Center, 2009). https://newrepublic.com/article/61068/the-agitator-barack-obamas-unlikely-political-education
 “Playboy Interview with Saul Alinsky,” New English Review, http://www.newenglishreview.org/DL_Adams/Playboy_Interview_with_Saul_Alinsky/
 V. I. Lenin, “Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy,” https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/30b.htm.
 Pinkoski, Nathan. 2018. “Jordan Peterson Marks Right And Left’s Side-Switch On Free Expression.” The Federalist. February 2, 2018. http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/02/jordan-peterson-marks-fulcrum-right-lefts-side-switch-free-expression/
 “Antifa protests mean high security costs for Berkeley Free Speech Week, but who’s paying the bill?” Fox News, September 15, 2017. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/15/antifa-protests-mean-high-security-costs-for-berkeley-free-speech-week-but-whos-paying-bill.html.
 Chris Pandolfo, “TRUE COLORS: Student Leader Says 1A Doesn’t Apply to Ben Shapiro,” Conservative Review. October 20, 2017. https://www.conservativereview.com/news/true-colors-student-leader-says-1a-doesnt-apply-to-ben-shapiro/.
 “Penn Law professor loses teaching duties for saying black students ‘rarely’ earn top marks,” New York Daily News, March 15, 2018, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/law-professor-upenn-loses-teaching-duties-article-1.3876057.
 “Campus Chaos: Daily Shout-Downs for a Week,” National Review, October 12, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/campus-chaos-daily-shout-downs-week-free-speech-charles-murray/.
 Paul Hollander, Political Pilgrims (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981).
 J. Edgar Hoover, Masters of Deceit (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1958), 81-96.
 Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov), No “Novoste” Is Good News (Los Angeles: Almanac, 1985), 65–75.
 Fred Schwartz and David Noebel, You Can Still Trust the Communists…to Be Communists (Socialists and Progressives too) (Manitou Springs, Colo.: Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, 2010), pp. 44–52.
 Paul Johnson, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky, 2007 revised edition (Harper Perennial), p. 225.