Chapter Five Part II: Infiltrating the West

Table of Contents (continued)

6. The American Marxist

7. The Long March Through the Institutions

8. Political Correctness

9. Socialism Across Europe

10. Falling for the Devil’s Tricks

References (continued)


6. The American Marxist

When the youth protest movement of the West was in full swing in the 1960s, one radical activist 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, an activist, organizer, and author who became the “para-communist” agitator with the most baneful influence for decades.

Alinsky is best termed a para-communist 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 the 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 create a completely “equal” society, destroying the existing social system. He has been called the Lenin and the Sun-Tzu of the post-communist Left. [33]

Alinsky not only lavished praise on communist dictators such as Lenin and Fidel Castro, but also declared his allegiance to the devil. In his book Rules for Radicals, published in 1971, 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.”

In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky systematically set forth his theory and methods of community organizing, which use unscrupulous means to achieve goals and gain power. 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”; and “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” [34]

The true nature of Alinsky’s seemingly dry rules becomes clear when they are applied in the real world. In 1972, during the Vietnam War period, then-US Ambassador to the United Nations George H. W. Bush gave a speech at Tulane University. Anti-war students at the university sought advice from Alinsky, who said that protesting with the usual methods would likely result in their simply being expelled. He thus suggested that they don Ku Klux Klan garb and, whenever Bush defended the war, cheer and stand up with placards that say, “The KKK Supports Bush.” The students did so, and it became a masterful example of deceptive propaganda. [35]

In 1964, Alinsky concocted a plan to get 2,500 activists to occupy the toilets in Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, one of the busiest in the world, to bring the airport’s service operations to a grinding halt. The plan was leaked to Chicago authorities, who were thus forced to negotiate, and the protest never took place. [36]

In order to force Kodak, the major employer in Rochester, New York, to recognize community organization FIGHT as the official representative of the Rochester black community, Alinsky had a similar idea. Seizing on an important cultural tradition in the city — an upcoming performance of the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra — Alinsky planned to purchase one hundred tickets for his activists and provide them with a pre-show banquet of baked beans so they could ruin the performance with flatulence. This plan also didn’t come to fruition, but Alinsky’s tactics eventually forced Kodak to comply with his demands.

Alinsky’s books and interviews leave the impression of a charismatic but ruthless and calculating individual. His “community organizing” was really a form of gradual revolution. However, he differed from his forerunners in several ways. First, both the Old and the New Left 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 organizations,” 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!” The training manual that Alinsky’s followers went by said: “We are not virtuous by not wanting power. … We are really cowards for not wanting power,” because “power is good … [and] powerlessness is evil.” [37]

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 and bide one’s 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 his true purpose with localized or staged goals that were seemingly reasonable or harmless by themselves. 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.”

An Alinsky-influenced leader from Students for a Democratic Society nailed the essence of radicalizing protests when he said, “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 spun its responses to social issues into dissatisfaction with the status quo overall, using it to advance 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 senses: “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, Alinsky emphasized using the negative 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, as seen in the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Antifa movement, and so on.

It is salient to note that it wasn’t just in the opening pages of Rules for Radicals that Alinsky gave his “acknowledgment to the very first radical,” Lucifer. In an interview with Playboy magazine shortly before his death, Alinsky also said that when he died, he would “unreservedly choose to go to hell” and begin to organize the “have-nots” there, saying, “They’re my kind of people.” [38]

7. The Long March Through the Institutions

In the 1930s, prominent Italian communist Antonio Gramsci wrote that in order to subvert Western society from within, socialists needed to fight a “war of position,” a concept that later came to be called “the long march through the institutions.” He found that it was difficult to incite a revolution to overthrow a legitimate government when the people still had faith in the divine, and so communists needed to rely on a large number of foot soldiers who shared 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 unrest of the 1960s, the rebels who had pushed for revolution began entering academia. They obtained degrees; became scholars, professors, government officials, and journalists; and entered the mainstream of society to carry out the long march through the institutions. They infiltrated and corrupted the institutions that are crucial for the maintenance of the morality of Western society, including the church, the government, the education system, the legislative and judicial bodies, the art world, the media, and NGOs.

There are numerous ostensibly legitimate means by which unscrupulous people or groups can ruin a free society from within. For democracy to be effective, the people must be disposed toward civic virtue and possess a certain moral standard. Since the 1960s, the United States has been like a patient who cannot identify the cause of his affliction. Para-Marxist ideas have been deeply planted into American society and are spreading virtually unchecked.

Among the many revolutionary strategies that have been put forward, one of the most well-known is the Cloward-Piven strategy, proposed in 1966 by a Columbia University sociologist couple (who were also members of the Democratic Socialists of America). The core concept of the strategy was to bloat the public welfare system and push states into bankruptcy. The authors claimed that since the number of people eligible for welfare benefits far exceeded the number of people actually receiving them, it was possible to exhaust state coffers by encouraging people to apply for benefits en masse. The state government thus would be forced to step in to “rescue” and reform the system by giving the government even more control and moving toward a socialized system.

The National Welfare Rights Organization, active from 1966 to 1975, sought to implement this strategy after President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty was underway. From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent families receiving benefits surged from 4.3 million to 10.8 million — more than doubling. In 1970, 28 percent of the annual budget of New York City was spent on welfare expenses. From 1960 to 1970, the number of people receiving benefits in New York City rose from 200,000 to 1.1 million. “By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city’s private economy,” journalist Sol Stern wrote in the City Journal. In 1975, the city effectively went bankrupt. [39]

The Cloward-Piven example in New York can be regarded as another implementation of Alinsky’s theories, specifically that radicals should “make the enemy live up to its own book of rules,” i.e., if the rules say anyone eligible can receive welfare, then forcing the “enemy” to live up to its own rules would lead to its bankruptcy without any overtly hostile action on the part of the radicals.

W. Cleon Skousen wrote in his book The Naked Communist that one of the forty-five communist goals is to “capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.” The Communist Party saw that this could be achieved using a small number of people and organizing them to create “crises” and “revolutions” that could be used to the Party’s advantage. Lenin once said that labor unions are “the transmission belts from the Communist Party to the masses.” [40] The communists found that as long as they controlled labor unions, they controlled a large number of votes. As long as they controlled the votes, they could make elected officials and lawmakers do their bidding. Ordinary workers are forced to join the labor unions in order to maintain their basic rights and interests, and thus they become the unions’ pawns. An identical principle is at work when paying protection fees to organized crime syndicates.

Filmmaker and researcher Loudon explains how communist entities use unions and other groups as conduits to implement their policies and hijack democratic countries.

First, the foreign or local communist entity sets its agenda, e.g., strengthening labor legislation, implementing a more socialist school curriculum, or relaxing trade sanctions on Cuba. Second, the communists and their socialist allies adopt these policies as union policies. The unions then put pressure on the local Labor Party, Socialist Party, or Democratic Party to adopt these union policies as their own. “As labor [unions] effectively control these major parties, the process is often not that difficult,” Loudon wrote in 2014. Thus, as communist policies become union policies, they in turn become “mainstream” political party policies. “This process has been carried out countless times all over the world,” Loudon wrote. [41]

Communists and those who ignorantly act on their behalf have worked to subvert the political and social systems of free societies in any way they can. After decades of communist planning and operations, the governments and the societies of the United States and other Western countries have been severely eroded.

8. Political Correctness

Communist countries have always exercised strict control over speech and thought. Since the 1980s, another form of such control has appeared in the West, as “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. Although many have recognized the inherent wrongness of this control, they have not grasped its ideological origins.

Terms such as “political correctness,” together with “progress” and “solidarity,” have long been used by communist parties. Their superficial meaning is to avoid using language that is discriminatory toward minorities, women, the disabled, and others. However, the hidden implication behind political correctness is the classification of individuals into groups according to their victim status. Those who are deemed to be the most oppressed should, therefore, be accorded the most respect and courtesy. This judgment, rendered solely on one’s identity and disregarding individual conduct and talent, is the basis of what’s called “identity politics.” This style of thinking is extremely popular in the United States and other Western countries today.

This type of classification is identical to what occurred in China, where individuals were classified within 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 are the dumbest.”

The differences in political and socioeconomic status between various groups stem from complex historical reasons and cannot be simply explained as oppression. But political correctness sets up a flat binary: only those who show sympathy for the designated “victims” and disdain for “oppressors” are to be considered moral, while those who deviate from the narrative are accused of being racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and so on.

Political correctness has been pushed by many Western governments and NGOs to further a left-wing agenda. In some countries, the legal definition of “hate speech” has been expanded significantly and punishments for such speech are now enforced throughout schools, the media, and internet. [42] These blanket restrictions on free speech move democratic societies closer toward the thought control exercised by communist states.

These days, the Left abuses political correctness to deprive others of having a legitimate outlet for their voices. This became more pronounced after the 2016 US presidential election, with left-leaning media, organizations, and academics mobilizing to deplatform and silence supporters of President Donald Trump. Protest marches erupted in major cities, and violations of freedom of speech occurred with greater frequency. Universities, which are supposed to be bastions of free thought and expression, have become centers of radical indoctrination. Organizations acting under the banner of opposing hate speech have labeled regular conservative groups as “hate groups,” and conservative authors and scholars have been threatened after being invited to speak at or attend various events. [43]

In March 2017, American social scientist Charles Murray was invited to speak at Middlebury College in Vermont. As he attempted to speak, the more than four hundred protesters crowding the room jeered and shouted, preventing him from being heard. Later, as he was leaving the campus, protesters swarmed him and an accompanying professor, pushing and shoving them. The professor was taken to the hospital for a neck injury.

In September 2017, a scheduled appearance by conservative author Ben Shapiro at the University of California–Berkeley’s Free Speech Week met with threats of violence by the far-left extremist group Antifa. Dozens of Berkeley police officers stood ready in riot gear as police helicopters hovered overhead; the security measures were estimated to have cost more than $600,000. [44] Ironically, one signature event that marked the start of the student movement in 1964 was a fight for freedom of speech at Berkeley. The next month, when Shapiro was scheduled to speak at the University of Utah, a student group vowed to shut down the event. A reporter pointed out to the young leader of the group that preventing Shapiro from speaking wouldn’t agree with the First Amendment. The student replied, “I don’t care. I don’t think that’s a, like, relevant document right now.” [45]

In March 2018, tenured professor Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law was relieved of some teaching duties after she voiced a politically incorrect observation during an interview with a professor from Brown University. Wax said black students “rarely” graduate at the top of the class. [46]

The political correctness and restrictions on free speech championed by the left are not intended to foster healthy debate between differing viewpoints; they are ideological weapons used by those acting in bad faith. Political correctness is the communist specter’s “thought police” for suppressing dissent and obscuring the truth.

9. Socialism Across Europe

All of Europe — not just the countries of Eastern Europe — is dominated by communism. Non-communist countries in northern, southern, and Western Europe are all intentionally or unintentionally promoting and hosting communist ideologies and policies. To say Europe is “in enemy hands” is not an exaggeration.

Socialist International is the largest international political organization in the world, consisting of more than 135 political parties and organizations. The organization grew out of Second International, founded by Engels in 1889. The early socialists included people like Karl Johann Kautsky and Eduard Bernstein, who promoted progressive reform. When the Second International was established, there existed more than one hundred political parties around the world that were founded on Marxism. Of them, sixty-six were ruling parties that adhered to socialism in their respective countries. The name “Socialist International” originated in 1951.

Today, many socialist parties that descended from Second International exist all over Europe, with many of them ruling their respective countries.

The Party of European Socialists, established in 1992, is active in the European Parliament and is associated with Socialist International. Its members are the social democratic parties of the EU and surrounding countries, including the United Kingdom. Its members can be found in most leading European organizations, including the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the European Council. The Party of European Socialists currently has thirty-three member parties, as well as twelve associate members and twelve observers, for a total of fifty-seven political parties from across the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Norway. Its main objectives are to “shape progressive European policies” and to develop close cooperation between member parties, parliamentary groups, and the like. Essentially, it works to vigorously promote the socialist cause.

The guiding principles of the United Kingdom’s Labour Party are based on Fabian socialism. As previously discussed, Fabian socialism is simply another version of Marxism, one that 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 Labour Party has been the ruling party of the United Kingdom many times in recent decades and has always advocated Fabian socialist ideas.

Britain’s communist party and its various iterations also have been very active in trying to influence British politics, even sponsoring its own newspaper, Daily Worker (renamed Morning Star in 1966). The Party grew from the Communist Party of Great Britain, established in 1920, and during its peak, its members were elected to the House of Commons. At the start of the 2017 general election in the United Kingdom, the Communist Party of Britain suddenly announced that it intended to support the leader of the left-wing Labour Party. This politician, who has headed the Labour Party since September 2015, has spent forty years promoting socialist policies including the nationalization of assets and anti-war efforts. When a BBC reporter enquired about his views on Marx, he praised him as a great economist and a “fascinating figure who observed a great deal and from whom we can learn a great deal.”

The Swedish Social Democratic Party, the ruling party of Sweden, is a member of the Socialist International. During the several decades under its rule, it has promoted the socialist ideologies of equality and welfare. One of France’s Socialist Party leaders was elected president in 2012. The Party also is a member of Socialist International and the Party of European Socialists. In Italy, veteran communist Gramsci not only founded the Italian Communist Party in 1921, but also served as its general secretary. Up until the 1990s, the Italian Communist Party was very active, for years maintaining its position as the country’s second-largest political party. In 1991, the party was renamed the Democratic Party and is now part of the ruling coalition. Other European countries, like Spain and Portugal, have active communist political parties with significant influence. Germany is no exception; it is the birthplace of Marx and Engels, and home to the influential Frankfurt School, another bastion of Marxism.

10. Falling for the Devil’s Tricks

Everywhere communism goes, it is accompanied by violence, lies, war, famine, and dictatorship. The question is, why do so many people still wholeheartedly help this devil spread its lies, even becoming its obedient and fanatical tools?

American sociologist Paul Hollander, in his 1981 book Political Pilgrims: Travels of Western Intellectuals to the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, tells the stories of many young intellectuals enamored with communism. These young “pilgrims” were naturally shown none of the horrifying abuses taking place at the same time as their visits. Upon returning to their countries, they enthusiastically sang the praises of the communist system. [47]

In the United States, people have been attracted to, or coerced into, communism for a variety of reasons. Many of the early leaders and members of the Communist Party USA were immigrants from Russia and Eastern European countries. Their economic status was low, and it was difficult for them to assimilate. Mainly due to influences from their homelands, they joined the Party.

After the Great Depression, the influence of Marxism in the West dramatically increased, and almost the entire intellectual class in the West began to take a leftward turn. Numerous intellectuals went to visit the Soviet Union and, after returning home, 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, after growing up in post-war affluence, yet they were misled by communist-inflected ideologies into taking up other countercultural stances, in the form of anti-war protests, feminism, and the like. The next generation of students was taught left-leaning material right out of 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 the book Masters of Deceit, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, whose tenure ran thirty-seven years, classified communist supporters into five levels of thought control: open Party members (card-carrying tools of the Party), underground Party members (those who act as covert influencers of the communist agenda), fellow travelers (not Party members, but often choose to supplement Party work), opportunists (those who support the Party out of self-interest), and dupes (innocent victims who don’t know they’re under communist thought control). [48] In reality, there are very few extremely evil and die-hard communist activists. It’s much more the case that the majority of people controlled by communist thought were simply taken in.

American journalists John Silas Reed and Edgar Snow played major roles in promoting communist ideology around the world. Reed, author of the book Ten Days That Shook the World, is one of three Americans 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 rather carefully crafted political propaganda.

Snow, author of the book Red Star Over China, was a communist fellow traveler whose glowing portrayal of the CCP leadership left a deep impression on many Americans. In 1936, he traveled to the CCP stronghold of Bao’an, in the northern province of Shaanxi, and conducted interviews with Mao Zedong about the revolutionary cause. Snow was used as a propaganda tool by the CCP to broadcast its narrative to an international audience.

Bezmenov, the former KGB spy, recalled his job of receiving foreign “friends” when he worked as a spy. The visitors’ schedule was partially arranged by the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service; visits to churches, schools, hospitals, kindergartens, and factories were all prearranged. Everyone the visitors met was a communist or a politically trustworthy person who had undergone training to ensure he or she would speak with the voice of the Party. In 1967, the major American magazine Look sent journalists to the Soviet Union to cover a story. Talking about the journalists’ articles, Bezmenov said, “From the first page to the last page, it was a package of lies: propaganda cliché[s] which were presented to American readers as opinions and deductions of American journalists. Nothing could be [further] from [the] truth.” Thus, Soviet propaganda was distributed to the American public by a US magazine.

Bezmenov said that many journalists, actors, and star athletes could be excused for being blind to reality while visiting the Soviet Union, but that the behavior of many Western politicians was unforgivable. These morally corrupt individuals wove lies and sought cooperation with Soviet communists for their own reputation and profit, he said. [49]

In the book You Can Still Trust the Communists … to Be Communists, Schwarz analyzed why young intellectuals became fond of communism. He listed four reasons: disenchantment with capitalism; belief in a materialist philosophy of life; intellectual pride; and an unfulfilled religious need. Intellectual pride refers to the experience of young people, from the ages of about eighteen to twenty, who easily fall prey to communist propaganda due to their partial understanding of history, their arrogance and anti-authoritarian resentment, and their disenchantment with family and national heritage. “An unfulfilled religious need” refers to the fact that everyone has a kind of spiritual impulse inside them, driving them to transcend themselves. However, atheism and the theory of evolution instilled by their education make these young people unable to derive satisfaction from traditional religions. The communist fantasy of liberating mankind takes advantage of this latent human need and serves as their ersatz religion. [50]

Intellectuals tend to be fooled by radical ideologies. Such a phenomenon has drawn the attention of scholars. In the 1955 book The Opium of the Intellectuals, French philosopher and sociologist Raymond Aron pointed out that while on one hand, twentieth-century intellectuals severely criticized the traditional political system, on the other, they 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. British historian Paul Johnson analyzed the lives and radical political views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and a dozen intellectuals who followed him, in his book Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky. He found that they all shared the fatal weaknesses of arrogance and egocentrism. [51]

Since the 1960s, communism has engaged in a large-scale invasion of American education. On top of that, many young people indulge in television, computer games, the internet, and social media. They get turned into “snowflakes,” people who lack knowledge, a broad 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 having a clear view of reality.

The communist specter exploits both negative and positive human emotions to lure people into its snares. Most tragic of all is that communist ideology, in addition to human ignorance, selfishness, and greed, appeals to its true believers’ heartfelt desire for idealism, altruism, and self-sacrifice.

That so many people can be seduced by the lies of socialism and communism is due to mankind abandoning spiritual belief and throwing its moral standards into disorder. Only through righteous faith and moral elevation can humanity safeguard itself against the specter’s demonic manipulation.

Chapter Five (Part I)Chapter Six


33. David Horowitz, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model (Sherman Oaks, CA: David Horowitz Freedom Center, 2009), 6, 16.

34. Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (New York: Vintage Books, 1971), 125–164.

35. Sanford D. Horwitt, Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky, His Life and Legacy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1989), xv–xvi.

36. Eric Norden, “Playboy Interview with Saul Alinsky: A Candid Conversation with the Feisty Radical Organizer,” New English Review, accessed April 17, 2020,

37. Ryan Lizza, “The Agitator,” The New Republic, March 19, 2007,

38. Norden, “Playboy Interview.”

39. David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party (Nashville, Tennessee: Nelson Current, 2006), 110–114.

40. Vladimir Lenin, “Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy,” in Lenin Collected Works, vol. 42 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1971), 374–386, Marxists Internet Archive, accessed April 17, 2020,

41. Trevor Loudon, “Communism/Socialism: The Enemies Within,” The Schwarz Report, vol. 54, no. 7, July 2014,

42. Nathan Pinkoski, “Jordan Peterson Is a Fulcrum for Right and Left’s Switch on Free Expression,” The Federalist, February 2, 2018,

43. Stanley Kurtz, “Campus Chaos: Daily Shout-Downs for a Week,” National Review, October 12, 2017,

44. Andrew O’Reilly, “Antifa Protests Mean High Security Costs for Berkeley Free Speech Week, but Who’s Paying the Bill?”, Fox News, September 15, 2017,

45. ABC News, “Outspoken Conservative Ben Shapiro Says Political Correctness Breeds Insanity,” October 20, 2017,

46. Jessica Schladebeck, “Penn Law Professor Loses Teaching Duties for Saying Black Students ‘Rarely’ Earn Top Marks,” New York Daily News, March 15, 2018,

47. Paul Hollander, Political Pilgrims: Travels of Western Intellectuals to the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981).

48. J. Edgar Hoover, Masters of Deceit: The Story of Communism in America and How to Fight It (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1958), 81–96.

49. Thomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov), No ‘Novosti’ Is Good News (Los Angeles: Almanac, 1985), 65–75.

50. Fred C. Schwarz and David A. Noebel, You Can Still Trust the Communists … to Be Communists, Socialists, Statists, and Progressives Too (Manitou Springs, CO: Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, 2010), 44–52.

51. Paul Johnson, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky (New York: Harper Perennial, 2007), 225.