How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World (Chapter Twelve: Sabotaging Education)
By the editorial team of “Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party”
[Editor's Note] This series is a reprint of The Epoch Times' English translation of the book How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World by the editorial team of Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party.
Table of Contents of the Book
How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World: PrefaceHow the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World: IntroductionChapter One: The Specter’s Strategies for Destroying HumanityChapter Two: Communism’s European BeginningsChapter Three: Tyranny in the EastChapter Four: Exporting RevolutionChapter Five: Infiltrating the WestChapter Six: The Revolt Against GodChapter Seven: The Destruction of the FamilyChapter Eight: How Communism Sows Chaos in PoliticsChapter Nine: The Communist Economic TrapChapter Ten: Using the Law for EvilChapter Eleven: Desecrating the ArtsChapter Twelve: Sabotaging EducationChapter Thirteen: Hijacking the MediaChapter Fourteen: Popular Culture – A Decadent IndulgenceChapter Fifteen: The Communist Roots of TerrorismChapter Sixteen: The Communism Behind EnvironmentalismChapter Seventeen: Globalization – Communism at Its CoreChapter Eighteen: The Chinese Communist Party’s Global AmbitionsHow the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World: Conclusion
What is Included in This Part?
Chapter Twelve: Sabotaging Education
1. The Specter of Communism in Western Universitiesa. The Severe Leftist Slant of University Facultiesb. Reshaping Traditional Academics With Communist Ideologyc. Using New Academic Fields for Ideological Infiltrationd. Promoting Leftist Radicalisme. Denying America’s Great Traditionsf. Struggling Against the Classics of Western Civilizationg. Monopolizing Textbooks and Liberal Artsh. University ‘Re-education’: Brainwashing and Moral Corruption
2. Communist Elements in Primary and Secondary Educationa. Dumbing Down Studentsb. The Destructive Nature of Progressive Educationc. Education: A Means of Spoiling Studentsd. Psychological Manipulatione. The Infiltration of Education
3. The Goal: Destroying Education in the East and West
Conclusion: Returning to Traditional Education
CHAPTER TWELVE: SABOTAGING EDUCATION
Education plays an important role in fostering individual well-being and self-fulfilment, maintaining social stability, and securing the future of a nation. No great civilization in the history of humanity has taken education lightly.
The object of education is to maintain humanity’s moral standards and preserve its divinely bestowed culture. It is the means by which knowledge and craftsmanship are imparted and people socialized.
Traditionally, the well-educated respect Heaven, believe in gods, and seek to follow the virtue of benevolence. They possess extensive knowledge of traditional culture as well as mastery over one or more trades. Dedicated to their vocations, they believe in treating others with kindness. They serve as the pillars of society, national elites, and the guardians of civilization. Their extraordinary character and behavior earn divine favor and blessings.
To destroy humanity, the communist specter aims to sever the connections between man and gods. Ruining traditional education is an indispensable step. Thus, communism adopted different strategies to attack and undermine education in both the East and the West.
In Eastern countries that are home to deeply seated cultural traditions, deception alone is insufficient to dupe an entire people. Communism systematically slaughtered traditional elites so as to stop the bearers of culture from imparting their heritage to the next generation.
Simultaneously, it bombarded the rest of the population with incessant propaganda.
The history and roots of Western culture are comparatively simple, giving communism fertile ground for covertly contaminating society by subverting and sabotaging Western education. In fact, the corruption of youth in the West is much more severe when compared with that in China. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the mainstream media’s longstanding vilification of conservative candidates, coupled with misleading polls conducted prior to the vote, left many in shock—particularly young college students—once the actual result of the election was announced.
Following Donald Trump’s victory, a ridiculous phenomenon appeared in universities around the United States. Some students felt such fear, exhaustion, or emotional trauma from the election that they demanded classes be canceled and exams be rescheduled. In order to relieve students of their stress and anxiety, some prominent schools organized various therapeutic activities. These included playing with Play-Doh or building blocks, coloring, and blowing bubbles. Some even provided pet cats and dogs for students to console themselves with. Many universities provided students with psychological counseling, organized help groups, and established services such as “post-election recovery” or “post-election resources and support.” 
The absurdity of how a normal democratic process became more terrifying than a natural disaster or terrorist attack demonstrates the utter failure of the American education system. College students, who should be mature and rational, became intolerant and infantile when confronted with change and adversity.
The complete breakdown of American education is one of the most distressing things to have happened to the country in the last few decades. It signals the success of communism’s mission to infiltrate and corrupt Western society.
This chapter focuses mainly on the United States as an example of how education in free societies is sabotaged by communism. Readers may apply the same logic to infer how education is being undermined in other countries along similar lines.
The communist infiltration of American education manifests in at least five areas.
Directly Promoting Communist Ideology Among the Young. Communist ideology gradually took over Western academia by infiltrating important traditional fields of study, as well as fabricating new sciences beholden to its ideological influence. Literature, history, philosophy, social science, anthropology, law study, multimedia, and other concentrations were inundated with various derivatives of Marxist theory. “Political correctness” became the guideline for censoring free thought on campuses.
Reducing the Young Generation’s Exposure to Traditional Culture. Traditional culture, orthodox thought, genuine history, and classical literature are slandered and marginalized in many different ways.
Lowering Academic Standards Starting in Kindergarten and Elementary School. Because instruction has been progressively dumbed down, students of the new generation are becoming less literate and mathematically capable. They possess less knowledge, and their ability to think critically is stunted. It is hard for these students to handle key questions concerning life and society in a logical and forthright manner, and even harder for them to see through communism’s deceptions.
Indoctrinating Young Students With Deviated Notions. As these children grow older, the concepts instilled in them become so strong that it is nearly impossible to identify and correct them.
Feeding Students’ Selfishness, Greed, and Indulgence. This includes conditioning them to oppose authority and tradition, inflating their egos and sense of entitlement, reducing their ability to understand and tolerate different opinions, and neglecting their psychological growth.
Communism has achieved its objectives in nearly all of the five areas. Leftist ideology is the leading trend in American universities. Scholars with different ideas have been either marginalized in their teaching positions or barred from voicing their traditional views.
Four years of intensive indoctrination leave college graduates with a predisposition for liberalism and progressivism. They are likely to accept atheism, the theory of evolution, and materialism without a second thought. They become narrow-minded “snowflakes” who lack common sense and pursue hedonistic lifestyles without taking responsibility for their actions. They lack knowledge, have a narrow worldview, know very little or nothing about the history of America or the world, and have become the main target for communist deception.
In the eyes of the world, the United States is still a leader in education. For over a century, the United States has been a political, economic, and military superpower. Its education spending far exceeds that of most countries. After World War II, American democracy and affluence attracted talented people from around the world. Its STEM graduate programs and professional schools are second to none.
However, a crisis is unfolding within. The proportion of foreign students in graduate STEM programs far exceeds that of American students, and the gap is increasing with each year.  This reflects the erosion of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education across the United States. Students are purposefully being dumbed down and ruined. The consequences are unfolding before our eyes, and there is more yet to come.
KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov, introduced in Chapter Five, described in the early 1980s how communist ideological infiltration in America was nearing completion: “Even if you start right now, here this minute, you start educating [a] new generation of Americans, it will still take you 15 to 20 years to turn the tide of ideological perception of reality back to normalcy.” 
A third of a century has passed since Bezmenov gave his interview. During this period, even as we witnessed the downfall of the Soviet Union and other socialist regimes in Eastern Europe, communism’s infiltration and subversion in the West didn’t stop at all. Communist elements in the West set their sights on education as a primary target. They took over the institution at all tiers, promoting their own twisted theories on education, pedagogy, and parenting.
It should be emphasized that nearly all people in the world, especially those who attended college after the 1960s, have been exposed to communist influences. The humanities and social sciences are the most affected. Only a few individuals set out to intentionally promote communist ideology, but the majority of people in these fields have been unknowingly indoctrinated. Here we expose communism’s aims so that people can identify and distance themselves from them.
1. The Specter of Communism in Western Universities
a. The Severe Leftist Slant of University Faculties
One of the most important causes of students’ embrace of socialist or communist ideology, or being influenced by radical ideologies such as feminism and environmentalism (to be discussed later in this book), is the fact that a large proportion of staff in American universities leans to the left.
In a 2007 study titled “The Social and Political Views of American Professors,” among the 1,417 full-time college faculty members surveyed, 44.1 percent considered themselves liberal, 46.1 percent moderate, and only 9.2 percent conservative. Among them, the proportion of conservatives in community colleges was slightly higher (19 percent), and that of liberals was slightly lower (37.1 percent). In art colleges, 61 percent of faculty were liberal, while conservatives made up just 3.9 percent. The study also noted that faculty members near retirement were more staunchly leftist than new faculty members. In the 50–64 age group, 17.2 percent proclaimed themselves to be leftist activists. The study also stated that most university faculty supported homosexuality and abortion rights. 
Studies after 2007 also confirm the leftist trend among professors in four-year universities in the United States. A study published in Econ Journal Watch in 2016 surveyed the voter registration status of professors in the departments of history and social sciences in forty leading U.S. universities. Among 7,243 professors surveyed, there were 3,623 Democrats and 314 Republicans, or a ratio of 11.5-to-1. Among the five departments surveyed, the department of history was the most uneven, with a 35-to-1 ratio. Contrast this with a similar survey from 1968, which found that among history professors at the time, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was 2.7-to-1. 
Another survey for four-year university faculty in 2016 found that the political inclination of the faculty was uneven, especially in New England. Based on 2014 data, the survey found that the ratio of liberal and conservative professors in colleges and universities nationwide was 6-to-1. In New England, this ratio was 28-to-1.  A 2016 study by the Pew Research Center found that 31 percent of the people who had studied in graduate schools held liberal views, 23 percent tended to be liberal, only 10 percent held conservative views, and 17 percent tended to be conservative. The study found that since 1994, the people who had received graduate-level education had increased significantly in holding liberal views. 
Scholars who attended a seminar at the American Enterprise Institute in 2016 said that about 18 percent of social scientists in the United States considered themselves Marxists, and only 5 percent considered themselves conservative. 
Senator Ted Cruz once commented on the law school of a prestigious school he had attended. “There were more self-declared Communists [in the faculty] than there were Republicans,” he said. “If you asked [them] to vote on whether this nation should become a socialist nation, 80 percent of the faculty would vote yes, and 10 percent would think that was too conservative.” 
Communism began its penetration of American education from the time it took root in the United States. Since the beginning of the 20th century, many American intellectuals have accepted communist ideas or the Fabian socialist variant. 
The 1960s counterculture movement produced a large number of young anti-traditional students. In these people’s formative years, they were influenced greatly by cultural Marxism and Frankfurt School theory. In 1973, after President Nixon withdrew American troops from the Vietnam War, student groups associated with the anti-war movement began to fade into obscurity, as the main reason for protest was gone. But the radicalism brewed by these large-scale student movements did not disappear.
Radical students went on to pursue graduate studies in the social and cultural fields—in journalism, literature, philosophy, sociology, education, cultural studies, and the like. Having received their degrees, they began careers in the institutions with the most influence over society and culture, such as universities, news media, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations. What guided them at that time was mainly the theory of “the long march through the institutions” proposed by Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. This “long march” aimed to alter the most important traditions of Western civilization.
The Frankfurt School philosopher Herbert Marcuse was regarded as a “spiritual godfather” by rebellious Western students. In 1974, he asserted that the New Left did not die, “and it will resurrect in the universities.”  In fact, the New Left had not only managed to survive: Its long march through the institutions was massively successful. As one radical professor wrote:
“After the Vietnam War, a lot of us didn’t just crawl back into our literary cubicles; we stepped into academic positions. With the war over, our visibility was lost, and it seemed for a while—to the unobservant—that we had disappeared. Now we have tenure, and the work of reshaping the universities has begun in earnest.” 
The term “tenured radicals” was coined by Roger Kimball in his book of the same name, published in 1989. The term referred to the radical students who had been active in the anti-war, civil rights, or feminist movements of the 1960s and later entered universities to teach and obtained tenure in the 1980s. From there, they inculcated students with their system of political values and created a new generation of radicals. Some of these new radicals became department heads and deans. The purpose of their scholarly work is not to explore the truth, but to use academia as a tool for undermining Western civilization and traditions. They aim to subvert mainstream society and the political system by producing more revolutionaries like themselves.
Once tenured, professors can participate in various committees and have considerable say in recruiting new faculty members, setting academic standards, selecting topics for graduate theses, and determining the direction of research. They have ample opportunity to use their power to exclude candidates who do not conform to their ideology. For this reason, more traditionally minded individuals who teach and do research according to traditional concepts are being steadily marginalized. As professors of the older generation retire, those who replace them are mostly leftist scholars who have been indoctrinated with communist ideas.
Gramsci, who coined “the long march through the institutions,” divided intellectuals into two camps: traditional intellectuals and organic intellectuals. The former are the backbone of maintaining traditional culture and social order, while the organic intellectuals, belonging to the newly emerging classes or groups, play a creative role in the process of fighting for hegemony in their classes or groups.  The “proletariat” uses organic intellectuals on its path to seizing cultural and eventually political hegemony.
Many tenured radicals defined themselves as “organic intellectuals” who oppose the current system. Like Gramsci, they follow the Marxian axiom that “philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” 
In this way, education for the Left is not about imparting the essence of knowledge and human civilization, but for priming students for radical politics, social activism, and “social justice.” After graduation and upon joining society, they vent their dissatisfaction with the current system by rebelling against traditional culture and calling for destructive revolution.
b. Reshaping Traditional Academics With Communist Ideology
Marxism-Leninism is the guiding ideology for every subject in communist countries, while in the West, academic freedom is a core focus. Aside from ubiquitous moral standards and academic norms, there shouldn’t be any bias in favor of particular intellectual trends. But since the 1930s, socialism, communism, Marxism, and the Frankfurt School have entered American colleges in force, severely altering the humanities and social sciences.
Revolutionary Discourse Occupies the Humanities in America
In his book “The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind,” Bruce Bawer asked Alan Charles Kors, a historian at the University of Pennsylvania, about the three people he thought to have the deepest influence on the humanities in the United States. With hardly a pause, Kors named three books: Antonio Gramsci’s “Prison Notebooks,” Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” and Frantz Fanon’s “The Wretched of the Earth.” 
Gramsci, the Italian Marxist, needs no further introduction as his work has been described in preceding chapters. Freire, a Brazilian educational theorist, adored Lenin, Mao, Castro, and Che Guevara. His “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” published in 1968 and reprinted in English two years later, has become part of the mandatory reading for academic institutes in the United States.
Bawer quoted the educator Sol Stern, who said that “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” doesn’t concern itself with any specific educational problems, but is rather “a utopian political tract calling for the overthrow of capitalist hegemony and the creation of classless societies.”  Freire’s work does no more than repeat a certain point of view, which is that there are only two kinds of people in the world: the oppressor and the oppressed. The oppressed should, then, reject their education, be awakened to their miserable circumstances, and aroused to rebellion.
Fanon was born on Martinique Island in the Caribbean Sea and joined the Algerian war against French colonial rule. His work, “The Wretched of the Earth,” was published in 1961, with a preface by French existentialist and communist Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre summarized his theory as such: Western colonizers are the embodiment of evil; whereas non-Westerners are inherently noble by virtue of their being colonized and exploited.
Fanon called on people in the colonies to revolt against the colonial ruling class, using violence as their rallying point. He said that at the level of individuals, violence is a cleansing force. “It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.” 
Embracing Fanon’s ideas, Sartre wrote in the preface: “For in the first days of the revolt you must kill: to shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time: there remain a dead man, and a free man; the survivor, for the first time, feels a national soil under his foot.” 
The ideas of Gramsci, Freire, and Fanon are deceptive narratives that entice people to regard history and society through the lens of class struggle. Once the spark of class hatred enters their hearts, students learn to resent and oppose the normal structure and workings of society, for which the inevitable solution is rebellion and revolution.
Which particular theorist or school of thought has had the greatest influence on humanities and social sciences in American colleges is a matter of debate. What’s clear, however, is that Marxism, the Frankfurt School, Freudian theory, and postmodernism (which worked alongside communism in destroying culture and morality) have come to dominate the field.
Communist Theory Permeates Academia
Since the 1960s, the discipline of literary research in the United States has experienced a fundamental paradigm shift across its various subfields, such as English, French, and comparative literature. Traditionally, literary critics appreciated the moral and aesthetic values of classic works, considering literature an important resource for broadening the readers’ horizons, developing their moral character, and cultivating their intellectual taste. As a matter of principle, academic literary theory is secondary to the literature itself, serving as an aid to its comprehension and interpretation.
Infused with the popular trends in philosophy, psychology, and culture, various types of new literary theories emerged in the academic community during the height of the counterculture movement in the 1960s. The relationship between theory and literature was thrown in reverse as the actual works were reduced to material for validating modern interpretative approaches. 
What is the substance of these theories? Taken together, they make a mess of the traditional academic disciplines, such as philosophy, psychology, sociology, and psychoanalysis, in their slanted depiction of society and culture. As literary theorist Jonathan Culler put it: “Theory is often a pugnacious critique of common-sense notions, and further, an attempt to show that what we take for granted as ‘common sense’ is, in fact, a historical construction, a particular theory that has come to seem so natural to us that we don’t even see it as a theory.” 
In other words, modern academic theories belittle, reverse, and destroy the understandings of right and wrong, good and evil, beauty and ugliness that come from the traditional family, religious faith, and ethics, while replacing them with a sinister system devoid of positive values.
Peeling off their labyrinthine academic packaging, these so-called theories are no more than a jumbling together of classical and neo-Marxism, the Frankfurt School, psychoanalysis, deconstructionism, post-structuralism, and postmodernism. Together they form an axis that aims to destroy the foundations of human civilization and serves as a camouflage for communism to steal into Western academia. Since the 1960s, communism has made rapid breakthroughs in areas such as literature, history, and philosophy, establishing its dominance in the humanities and social sciences.
“Theory” as has been discussed is more or less the same thing as “critical theory.” Its permutations include the newly emerged critical studies of law, race, gender, society, science, medicine, and the like. Its pervasiveness is a manifestation of communism’s successful expansion to the academic and educational fields, corrupting youth with deviated thought and laying a path for the eventual destruction of humankind.
The Politicization of Literary Research
From the perspective of a Marxist literary critic, the significance of a literary text lies not in its intrinsic value, but rather in how it reflects that the ideology of the ruling class—for example in terms of gender or race—became the dominant class. From this perspective, the classics are said to have no intrinsic value at all. A prominent American Marxist literary theorist outright declared that the “political perspective” constitutes “the absolute horizon of all reading and all interpretation.”  That is to say, all literary works should be treated as political allegories, and only when the deeper meanings of class, race, gender, or sexual oppression are uncovered can one’s understanding be considered profound or qualified.
People from communist countries are familiar with this kind of dogmatic literary criticism. Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong evaluated “A Dream of Red Mansions,” one of the four great Chinese classics, as the following: “Four families, fierce class struggle, and a few dozens of human lives.”
In communist countries, literary discourse is not always confined to civilized and sophisticated debates of the ivory tower. It can sometimes morph into the impetus for bloody struggle.
In response to Mao Zedong’s call to learn from the honest and upright Ming Dynasty official Hai Rui, historian Wu Han penned the stage drama “Hai Rui Dismissed From Office.” On November 10, 1965, Shanghai’s Wenhui News published a critical review of the play. The review was authored by Yao Wenyuan and jointly planned by Mao’s fourth wife, Jiang Qing, and radical theorist Zhang Chunqiao. It claimed that “Hai Rui Dismissed From Office” was an allusion to Peng Dehuai, a People’s Liberation Army general who was purged for his opposition to the “Three Red Flags”—the Communist Party’s three policies of the General Line for Socialist Construction, the Great Leap Forward, and the People’s Communes. (These three policies led to the Great Chinese Famine.) The criticism of “Hai Rui Dismissed From Office” became the fuse that set off the decade-long brutality of the Cultural Revolution.
The Chinese communists’ crude approach to interpreting all literary works in terms of class struggle can be contrasted with the much subtler literary criticism found in Western colleges over the last few decades.
Western neo-Marxist literary criticism is like a virus that becomes stronger and more deadly through endless mutation. It adapts other theories to become its weapons, dragging the great works of human culture—from the classics of Greece and Rome to Dante, Shakespeare, and Victorian novels—onto the literary operating table to be dismembered and reconfigured. Though this type of commentary makes use of arcane jargon to create the veneer of sophistication, the main arguments typically boil down to accusations of prejudice against disenfranchised classes, women, or ethnic minorities.
Modern critiques label these works as belonging to the superstructure of the ruling class, and describe them as having the effect of numbing the masses to their oppressive conditions and preventing them from achieving revolutionary class consciousness. As English scholar Roger Scruton said, “The methods of the new literary theorist are really weapons of subversion: an attempt to destroy humane education from within, to rupture the chain of sympathy that binds us to our culture.” 
The Marxist Theory of Ideology
“Ideology” is a core concept in the Marxist-influenced humanities. Marx viewed morality, religion, and metaphysics collectively as ideology. He believed that the dominant ideology in a class-based society was the ideology of the ruling class, and that its values did not reflect reality as it existed, but rather its inverse. 
Twentieth-century neo-Marxism has made the destruction of culture a necessary stage of revolution and makes extensive reference to ideology in its literature. The Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukács defined ideology as the “false consciousness” as opposed to the real “class consciousness.” French Marxist Louis Althusser proposed the concept of the “ideological state apparatuses,” which include religion, education, family, law, politics, trade unions, communication, culture, and so forth, that would work in conjunction with a brutal state apparatus.
Cunning sophistry can be found within the concept of ideology. Every society or system has its shortcomings that should be articulated and corrected. However, Althusser and other Marxists do not concern themselves with specific problems. Instead, they reject the system in its entirety on the grounds that the system is a structure set up and maintained by the ruling class to safeguard its interests.
Poisoning the well is an important aspect of the Marxist fixation on ideology, and can be seen in Althusser’s complicated ideological critique. Instead of examining the factual merits of an argument, the ideological approach relies on accusing opponents of harboring ulterior motives or being of the wrong background. Just as no one can drink water from a poisoned well, subjecting a person to rumors or other forms of character assassination makes his opinion unacceptable to the public—no matter how reasonable or logical.
Althusser’s all-inclusive concept of “ideological state apparatuses” reflects communism’s extreme contempt for human society—nothing is acceptable, short of complete rejection and destruction. This is a manifestation of communism’s aim to eradicate human culture.
The Marxist concept of ideology rests on abstract, generalized, and superfluous false propositions that aim at purging traditional moral values. While masking their real intentions by expressing ostensible moral indignation, Marxists have deceived and influenced vast numbers of people.
In the wake of the 1960s, a group of French philosophers created what soon became the most powerful ideological weapon for Marxism and communism in the American academic community. Representative among them are Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, and recent data provides some picture of their influence today. In 2007, Foucault was the most-cited author in the humanities, with 2,521 citations. Derrida ranked third, having been cited 1,874 times.  There have been eye-opening observations made about the relationship between postmodernism and Marxism.  We find it apt to refer to them collectively as postmodern Marxism.
The fact that language possesses ambiguous and multifaceted layers of meaning, and that a text may have different interpretations, has been common knowledge since at least the time of the ancient Greeks and pre-imperial China.
Derrida’s theory of deconstruction is an elaborate deception that combines atheism and relativism and works by exaggerating the ambiguity of language to break down texts even in which the meaning is clear and well-defined.
Unlike conventional atheism, Derrida expressed his views in the language of philosophers. As a result, his viewpoints are not only destructive to the idea of God, but also to the concepts of rationality, authority, and meaning as associated with traditional beliefs, as theorists aligned with Derrida carry out their deconstruction of these terms. Having deceived many people with its veneer of intellectual depth, deconstructionist theory went rampant throughout the humanities and took its place as one of communism’s most potent tools for destroying faith, tradition, and culture.
Michel Foucault once joined the French Communist Party. The essence of his theory revolves around the notion that there is no truth, only power. Since power monopolizes the right to interpret truth, anything that purports truth is hypocritical and untrustworthy. In his book “Discipline and Punish,” Foucault asked the following question: “Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?”  In equating the indispensable institutions of society with prisons and calling on people to overthrow these “prisons,” Foucault lays bare the antisocial nature of his theory.
Armed with the weapons of deconstruction, Foucault’s theory, and other critical theories, scholars have stigmatized tradition and morality by relativizing everything. They thrive on axioms like “all interpretation is misinterpretation,” “there is no truth, only interpretations,” or “there are no facts, only interpretations.” They have relativized the understanding of basic concepts such as truth, kindness, beauty, justice, and so on, and then discarded them as trash.
Young students entering the faculties of liberal arts dare not question the authority of their instructors. Staying clear-minded under the sustained ideological bombardment that follows is harder still. Once geared to the study of postmodern Marxist theory, it is difficult to get them to think in any other way. This is a major means by which communist ideology has been able to run amuck in the humanities and social sciences.
c. Using New Academic Fields for Ideological Infiltration
In a healthy society, women’s studies or research on different races reflects the prosperity of the academic community, but following the 1960s counterculture movement, some radicals made use of these new disciplines to spread their left-leaning ideas in universities and research institutes. For example, some scholars believe that the establishment of departments dedicated to African-American studies is not so much because of an inherent demand for such an academic division, but rather the result of political blackmail. 
In 1968, a student strike forced San Francisco State College to shut down. Under pressure from the Black Student Union, the college established the Africana Studies Department, the first of its kind in the United States. The department was envisioned primarily as a means of encouraging black students, and with it arose a unique African-American science. The achievements of black scientists were brought to the forefront, and class materials were changed to include more mentions of African-Americans. Mathematics, literature, history, philosophy, and other subjects underwent similar modifications.
In October 1968, 20 members of the Black Student Union caused another campus shut down at the University of California–Santa Barbara when they occupied the school’s computer center. A year later, the school established the Department of Black Studies and the Black Research Center.
In April 1969, more than one hundred black students at Cornell University occupied the school’s administrative building, waving shotguns and ammo packs, to demand the establishment of a black research department staffed solely by blacks. When a teacher came forward to stop them, a student leader threatened that Cornell University “had three hours to live.” Cornell University eventually conceded to the black students and established the third black research department in the United States. 
Shelby Steele, who later became a senior researcher at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, was once a proponent for the establishment of black research departments at universities. He said that university leaders had such a strong sense of “white guilt” that they would agree to any request from the representatives of black student unions.  At the same time, women’s studies, Latin American studies, gay studies, and so forth were introduced to American universities and are now ubiquitous.
The basic premise of women’s studies is that sex differences are not the result of biological differences, but rather are social constructs. Alleging that women have long been suppressed by men and patriarchy, the area of women’s studies has a mission to trigger female social consciousness, bringing overall social change and revolution, according to this perspective.
A feminist professor at the University of California–Santa Cruz grew up in a famous communist family. She proudly displayed her credentials as a communist and a lesbian activist. Since the 1980s, she had been teaching feminism and regarded her sexual orientation as a kind of lifestyle to arouse political consciousness. Her inspiration for becoming a professor was a fellow communist, who had told her it was her mission to do so. In a public statement, she said that “teaching became a form of political activism for me.” She founded the Department of Feminist Studies at the University of California–Santa Cruz.  In one of her syllabi, she wrote that female homosexuality is “the highest form of feminism.” 
The University of Missouri has designed its courses to prime students to see the issues of feminism, literature, gender, and peace from the position of the Left. For example, a course called Outlaw Gender sees the sexes as “artificial categories produced by a particular culture,” rather than being naturally produced. Only one viewpoint was instilled in students—the narrative of gender-based oppression and discrimination against multiple-gender identities. 
As discussed in Chapter Five, the anti-war movement in the Western world following World War II was heavily influenced by communist infiltrators. In recent decades, a new subject, Peace Studies, has emerged in American universities. Scholars David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin studied more than 250 organizations that had some connection to the new academic field. They concluded that these organizations were political, not academic, in nature, and their aim was to recruit students to the anti-war Left. 
Citing the popular textbook “Peace and Conflict Studies,” Horowitz and Laksin laid out the ideological motivations of the field. The textbook used Marxist arguments to explain the problems of poverty and starvation. The author condemned landowners and agricultural merchants, claiming that their greed led to the starvation of hundreds of millions of people. Though the point is ostensibly against violence, there is one form of violence that the author does not oppose, and in fact praises—violence committed in the course of proletarian revolution.
A passage from “Peace and Conflict Studies” says the following: “While Cuba is far from an earthly paradise, and certain individual rights and civil liberties are not yet widely practiced, the case of Cuba indicates that violent revolutions can sometimes result in generally improved living conditions for many people.” The book makes no mention of Fidel Castro’s dictatorship or the catastrophic results of the Cuban Revolution.
Since it was written after 9/11, “Peace and Conflict Studies” also touched on problems of terrorism. Surprisingly, its authors seemed to have so much sympathy for the terrorists that the term “terrorist” was put in quotation marks. They defended their stance by saying: “Placing ‘terrorist’ in quotation marks may be jarring for some readers, who consider the designation self-evident. We do so, however, not to minimize the horror of such acts but to emphasize the value of qualifying righteous indignation by the recognition that often one person’s ‘terrorist’ is another’s ‘freedom fighter.’” 
Academia should be objective and avoid harboring political agendas. These new academic fields have adopted an ideological stand: Professors of women’s studies must embrace feminism, while professors involved in studies of blacks must believe that the political, economic, and cultural hardships of African-Americans result from discrimination by whites. Their existence is not to explore the truth, but to promote an ideological narrative.
These new subjects are byproducts of the American cultural revolution. Having been established in universities, they have expanded by demanding more budgets and recruiting more students, who further strengthen these subjects. These new fields are already deeply ingrained in academia.
These new academic fields were created by people of ill intent acting under the influence of communist ideology. Their aim is to foment and expand conflict among different groups and to incite hatred in preparation for violent revolution. They have little relation to the people (African-Americans, women, or others) they claim to stand for.
d. Promoting Leftist Radicalism
In their book “One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America’s Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin listed about 150 leftist courses offered at 12 universities. These courses mask their political intent with scholarly language, but some of them neglect even basic academic principles, making them resemble closely the political courses that are mandatory in communist countries.
The University of California–Santa Cruz offers a seminar course called The Theory and Practice of Resistance and Social Movements. The course description is as follows: “The goal of this seminar is to learn how to organize a revolution. We will learn what communities past and present have done and are doing to resist, challenge, and overcome systems of power including (but not limited to) global capitalism, state oppression, and racism.” 
Bill Ayers, previously a distinguished professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is a 1960s-era radical and the leader of the Weather Underground, originally called Weatherman, which was a faction of the Students for a Democratic Society. In 1969, the Weatherman went underground and became the first domestic terrorist organization in the United States. It dedicated its efforts to organizing radical students, who took part in terrorist activities designed to inflame racial conflict.
The Weatherman group perpetrated bombings against the Capitol, the New York City Police Headquarters, the Pentagon, and offices of the National Guard. As a well-known quote from Ayers goes: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents.”  Ayers’s academic publications are consistent with his resumé. In his writings, he argues that we must overcome our “prejudices” concerning violent juvenile offenders. 
A web of left-wing progressives successfully prevented the FBI from arresting Ayers. He reemerged in 1980 and circumvented the law to avoid criminal justice. He became a faculty member at the University of Illinois–Chicago, where he researched early childhood education. His political views were unchanged, and he has shown no remorse for his terrorist attacks. Ayers successively became associate professor, professor, and eventually reached the standing of distinguished professor. He also received the title of senior university scholar, the institution’s highest honor.
Each title Ayers received was the result of a joint decision on the part of his colleagues in the department. This itself reflects the university’s tacit acknowledgment and support for his terrorist past.
e. Denying America’s Great Traditions
A group of politically engaged students on the campus of Texas Tech University conducted a survey on campus in 2014 asking three questions: “Who won the Civil War?” “Who is our vice president?” and “Who did we gain our independence from?” Many students had no idea what the answers were, though they should be common knowledge. While ignorant of these basic facts about their country’s politics and history, students were well-acquainted with the details of movie stars and their love affairs. 
In 2008, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute conducted a random survey of 2,508 Americans and found that only half could name all three branches of government.  Answering 33 straightforward civics questions, 71 percent of the respondents received an average score of 49 percent, a failing mark. 
Learning American history is not just the process of understanding how the nation was established, but it is also a process of understanding what kind of values the nation was built on and what it takes to preserve these traditions. Only then will its people cherish what they have today, protect the national legacy, and pass it to the next generation.
Forgetting history is the same as destroying tradition. People not knowing their civic duties makes it possible for a totalitarian government to form. One can’t help but wonder, what happened to American history and civics education? The answers lie in the textbooks the students use and in their teachers.
The Marxist Howard Zinn is the author of a popular history book titled “A People’s History of the United States.” This book revolves around the premise that all the heroic deeds and inspiring episodes from American history are shameless lies, and that the true history of the United States is a dark journey of suppression, deprivation, and genocide. 
An economics professor at a university in Boston believes that the terrorists who are enemies of the United States are the real freedom fighters, and that the United States is the genuine evil. In an article published in 2004, he equated the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks with the American rebels who, in 1775, fired the first shots in Lexington and started the War for Independence. 
f. Struggling Against the Classics of Western Civilization
In 1988, radical students and teachers at Stanford University protested against a course called Western Civilization. They chanted, “Hey, hey, ho, ho! Western Civilization has got to go!” Stanford conceded to the protesters’ demands and replaced Western Civilization with a course called Cultures, Ideas, Values (CIV), with obvious multicultural characteristics. While the new class did not remove some of the Western cultural classics such as Homer, Plato, St. Augustine, Dante Alighieri, and Shakespeare, it did require that the course must include works from several women, minority groups, and other groups of people deemed to have been subject to oppression.
Then-U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett condemned the change as curriculum by intimidation. Despite this, many prominent universities did the same, and lesser colleges followed suit so as not to be left behind. In a few years, liberal arts education in American universities had experienced a great transformation.
In his book “Illiberal Education,” conservative thinker Dinesh D’Souza used the book “I, Rigoberta Menchu: An Indian Woman in Guatemala” to explain the ideological direction of Stanford University’s new CIV course. This book delves into the life experiences of a young American Indian woman, Menchu Rigoberta, from Guatemala. After the senseless murder of her parents in a massacre, she was set on the path of revolt, in the course of which she became increasingly radicalized.
Rigoberta came to identify with the American Indian movement in South America to fight for their right of self-determination while opposing the Europeanized Latino culture. She first became a feminist, then a socialist, and, in the end, a Marxist. Near the end of her book, she recounts how she began to participate in the assembly of the Popular Front in Paris, discussing topics such as bourgeois teenagers and Molotov cocktails. One chapter of the book is titled “Rigoberta Renounces Marriage and Motherhood.” 
The politically correct drive to expel the classics from American universities has led to various deleterious results, including the following:
1. Writing of low quality with shallow content that contains revolutionary narratives or can pass as victim’s literature displaces classic works and their everlasting profundity.
2. Making comparisons between these types of literature and the classics seemingly gives them a place among the classics and greatly increases their influence on students’ minds. Placing the classics on the same level as these average works trivializes and relativizes the classics.
3. The guiding themes behind the classics are now interpreted using critical theory, cultural studies, identity politics, and political correctness. Scholars enthusiastically research the hidden racism and sexism in Shakespeare’s plays, the homosexual trends among the characters, and so on, distorting and insulting classic works.
4. Students inculcated with this kind of mental attitude find the noble characters, great accomplishments, and moral lessons depicted in the classics hard to believe, and instead develop the instinct of seeing them in a negative and cynical light.
In traditional literary education, the main themes conveyed in the classics are mostly about universal love, justice, loyalty, courage, the spirit of self-sacrifice, and other moral values. Historical education revolves around major events concerning the establishment and development of the nation and its fundamental values.
Because the classics of Western literature are nearly all written by white European men, leftists take up the banners of multiculturalism and feminism to insist that people read literature by women, people of color, and so on. As for the teaching of history, modern education favors describing a country’s historical path as entirely dark, filled with slavery and exploitation of women and other minority groups. The object is no longer to recall the traditional legacy, but to instill a feeling of guilt toward women and minorities.
People have only a limited amount of time that they can reasonably use for reading. When education is purposely designed to emphasize politically correct works, the time people can spend on reading the classics is reduced. The result is that generations of students are detached from the origins of their culture, especially the value system that is passed down through culture and originates from religious faith. The culture of each and every race originates from the divine. It can be diverse, but must not be mixed. The mixing of a culture means the destruction of the links between the race to which the culture belongs and the divinities that created it.
g. Monopolizing Textbooks and Liberal Arts
Economist Paul Samuelson described the power of textbooks: “I don’t care who writes a nation’s laws—or crafts its advanced treaties—if I can write its economics textbooks.”  Textbooks, which have a large circulation and carry an authoritative voice, can exert a tremendous influence on students. Whoever writes the textbooks has the keys to shaping the impressionable minds of the young.
After radical scholars and professors received tenure and reputation, they gained control over the university publication offices and committees. They used their powers to load teaching materials with their ideologies and force-feed them to their students. In some academic fields, the textbooks and required reading chosen by the professors contain more works of Marxism than any other school of thought. The aforementioned “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn is required reading for many history, economics, literature, and women’s studies majors.
Once leftists enjoy strength in numbers, they can use the peer-review mechanism in the U.S. academic community to suppress people with different opinions. A paper that challenges left-wing ideologies is bound to be rejected by leftists and their colleagues.
Many journals in the humanities are guided by critical theory and filled with obscure technical jargon, while the main theme is to reject the divine, reject traditional culture, and incite revolutions to overturn the current social, political, and economic order. There is one category of scholarship that aims to prove that all traditional morals and standards, including even the scientific process, are social constructs whose purpose is to safeguard the power of the ruling class by forcing their norms on the whole society.
In 1996, New York University physics professor Alan Sokal published a paper in Social Text, Duke University’s cultural studies journal, titled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” Citing 109 footnotes and referencing 219 sources, the paper argued that “quantum gravity” was made up by society and language. 
On the same day that the paper was published, Sokal published a declaration in another magazine, Lingua Franca, stating that his paper was a prank. He said that he had sent the paper to Social Text as a physicist’s experiment regarding cultural studies. 
During an interview with the radio program “All Things Considered,” Sokal said he found inspiration in the 1994 book “Higher Superstition.” The book’s author said that some publications in the humanities will publish anything so long as it contains “the proper leftist thought” and quotes well-known leftist thinkers. Sokal tested this by filling his paper with leftist ideologies, pointless citations, and complete nonsense. 
Sokal later wrote: “The results of my little experiment demonstrate, at the very least, that some fashionable sectors of the American academic Left have been getting intellectually lazy. The editors of Social Text liked my article because they liked its conclusion: that ‘the content and methodology of postmodern science provide powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project.’ They apparently felt no need to analyze the quality of the evidence, the cogency of the arguments, or even the relevance of the arguments to the purported conclusion.”  Sokal’s satirical approach highlighted the dearth of academic principle or credibility in the fields of critical theory and cultural studies.
By looking at the journal titles at the annual meetings of large-scale U.S. academic associations, the last few decades of communist penetration into the social sciences is clear to see. The Modern Language Association is the largest of such societies, with twenty-five thousand members who consist mainly of professors and scholars in the fields of modern language research and education. More than 10 thousand join the association’s annual conference.
A large portion of the papers listed on the association’s website utilize the ideological framework of Marxism, the Frankfurt school, deconstruction, post-structuralism, and other deviant theories. Others use feminism, gay research, identity politics, and other radical trends. Similar organizations, including the American Sociological Association, reflect much the same, though to varying extents.
American universities have a tradition of liberal arts education, and some humanities courses are required regardless of the students’ majors. Today, required courses are mostly taught by professors in the areas of literature, history, philosophy, and social sciences. American scholar Thomas Sowell has noted that, as the term implies, required courses leave students with no alternative to the professors who more often than not use their classrooms as opportunities to spread their leftist ideologies, even using grades as an incentive to have students accept their views. Students who dare challenge a professor’s views are punished with lower grades.  The Marxist views of these humanities and social science professors not only corrupt students in their academic fields, but affect almost the entire student body.
College students wish to be respected as adults, but both their knowledge and practical experience is limited. In the relatively closed environment of the university, few of them suspect that their respected professors would take advantage of their innocence and trust to instill in them a set of completely wrong and damaging ideologies and values. Parents pay high tuition for their children to master the knowledge and skills they will use as a basis for finding their place in society. How could they imagine that their children are actually being robbed of their invaluable years, and instead being transformed into followers of radical ideologies that will affect them the rest of their lives?
Generation after generation of youth has entered this education system that has been heavily infiltrated by the specter of communism. They study textbooks penned by leftists and internalize their deviated theories, hastening the decline of culture, morals, and humanity.
h. University ‘Re-education’: Brainwashing and Moral Corruption
With the growth of Marxist ideology throughout universities, campus policy since the 1980s has increasingly focused on preventing “offensive” remarks, especially when it comes to offending women or ethnic minorities. According to American scholar Donald Alexander Downs, from 1987 to 1992, about three hundred U.S. universities implemented policies for the regulation of speech, creating a paralegal system of prohibition forbidding language deemed offensive in regards to sensitive groups and topics. 
Those who support these prohibitions may mean well, but their actions lead to a ridiculous outcome, as ever greater numbers of people claim the right not to be offended for any reason. In fact, no such right exists according to law, but the prominence of cultural Marxism has allowed anyone to claim an association with oppressed groups, citing reasons such as culture, ancestry, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. Administrative staff at universities have consistently afforded privileged treatment to those who claim victimhood.
According to Marxist logic, the oppressed are morally correct in all circumstances, and many people do not dare to question the authenticity of their claims. This absurd logic is based on twisting the criteria for judging what is moral. As group identities and sentiments intensify (in Leninism and Stalinism, this is called a high level of class consciousness), people unconsciously abandon the traditional standards of good and evil, replacing them with groupthink. This was most markedly manifested in totalitarian communist states, where the “oppressed” proletariat was given a justification for killing the landowning and capitalist “oppressors.”
The trend of making arbitrary claims of offensive or discriminatory language was started by cultural Marxist scholars who fabricated a series of new concepts for expanding the definition of discrimination. Among these are ideas like “microaggressions,” “trigger warnings,” “safe spaces,” and so on. University administrators introduced corresponding policies and mandatory education, such as sensitivity training and diversity training.
Microaggression refers to an implicit nonverbal offense that one encounters in daily life, with the supposed offenders perhaps being completely unaware of its implications. This kind of unintentional offense or ignorance is labeled “insensitive” (Leninism or Stalinism would deem this to be low social consciousness). Sensitivity training has become a major aspect of acclimating incoming college freshmen. Students are told what can’t be said and which clothes can’t be worn, lest they commit a microaggression in violation of university regulation.
On some campuses, the phrase “welcome to America” cannot be said because it may constitute discrimination and is considered a microaggression: It could offend ethnic groups that have historically suffered unfair treatment in the United States, such as Native Americans, Africans, Japanese, and Chinese, reminding them of the humiliating history suffered by their ancestors.
The following are among a long list of statements deemed to be microaggressions by the University of California: “The United States is a melting pot” (racial discrimination), “the United States is a land full of opportunities,” and “men and women have the same chance of success” (denying gender or ethnic inequality).  Microaggressions are cause for administrative discipline, as they prevent the establishment of “safe spaces.”
A typical microaggression occurred on the Indianapolis campus of Indiana University–Purdue University (IUPUI). A white student, who also worked as a janitor, was told by the campus Affirmative Action Office that he had violated the Racial Harassment Ordinance because he had read a book titled “Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan” in a campus break room. Two of the student-employee’s colleagues felt offended that the cover of the book featured a photo of a KKK gathering, and filed complaints that his choice to read the book in the break room constituted racial harassment. Later, after pressure from groups such as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, IUPUI conceded that the student was innocent. 
Sensitivity training and diversity training are comparable in nature to the re-education programs that took place in the former Soviet Union and in China. The purpose of re-education is to strengthen class concepts: The “bourgeoisie” and “landlord class” (akin to white males) must recognize their original sin as members of the oppressive class, and the supposedly oppressed groups must have the “correct” understanding about “bourgeois” culture. Pressure is put on them to clear away their “internalized oppression” so that they can come to recognize their oppressive conditions. This is similar to how feminist education teaches women to see traditional femininity as a construct of the patriarchy.
According to the Marxist analysis of class, the personal is political: It is considered wrong to understand a problem from the standpoint of the designated oppressor. Therefore, to reform people’s worldview and ensure they completely follow the Marxist program, any words and actions that deny the class oppression or class struggle are punished severely. Sensitivity training is held to fully reveal “social injustice,” to reorient the standpoint of “oppressed” groups (women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and so on).
For example, in 2013, Northwestern University required all students to complete a course on diversity before graduating. According to the school’s instructions, after the completion of the course, students would be able to “expand their ability to think critically” (learning to classify the class), “recognize their own position in an unfair system” (recognize their class component), and rethink their “own powers and privileges” (to put themselves in the shoes of the “oppressed” class). 
Another typical example is the ideological re-education program that began in 2007 at the University of Delaware. Referred to as “treatment” for incorrect attitudes and beliefs, this program was made mandatory for 7,000 students. Its stated aim was to make students accept set perspectives concerning issues such as politics, race, gender, and environmentalism.
Resident assistants at the university were required to go over one-on-one questionnaires with the students, and give students questionnaires on what races and genders they would date, with the goal of getting students to be more open to dating outside their groups. When a resident assistant asked a female student when she had discovered her gender identity (as opposed to biological sex), the student said that it was none of the assistant’s business. The assistant reported her to the university administration. 
This mass political indoctrination not only mixed up the standards for discerning moral values, but also greatly strengthened egoism and individualism. What the young students learn is that they can use the highly politicized feelings of a group (identity politics) to pursue their own individual desires. Simply by claiming oneself as belonging to a group supposedly suffering from oppression, one can accuse and threaten others or use this identity for personal benefit. When other people’s opinions are not in line with one’s own, they can constitute an offense and be reported to the university, which will restrict those people’s rights to speech. If one doesn’t like the ideas being run in conservative student newspapers, for example, some may even find it appropriate to burn the papers.
Whether one is offended or not is a matter of subjective feeling, but today, even feelings pass for objective evidence. It has gotten to the point where university professors must constantly beat around the bush. Recently, students across many universities began to demand that before teaching certain content, professors must first issue “trigger warnings,” as some discussion topics or reading material might cause negative emotional reactions. In the last few years, even works such as Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” and ancient Roman poet Ovid’s “Metamorphoses” ended up on the list of literature for which trigger warnings are required. Some universities even recommend that works deemed to trigger some students’ emotions be avoided as much as possible. 
Many students growing up under this kind of atmosphere have easily hurt egos and try their utmost to avoid feeling offended. The group identity (that is, another version of the “class consciousness” preached by communism) that is promoted on campuses leaves students ignorant of independent thought and personal responsibility. Like the radical students of the 1960s who are now their professors, these students are against tradition. They indulge in confused sexual promiscuity, alcohol addiction, and drug abuse. Their speech is full of expletives. Yet beneath their contempt for worldly conventions are fragile hearts and souls, unable to bear the slightest blow or setback, let alone take on real responsibility.
Traditional education fosters self-restraint, independent thinking, a sense of responsibility, and understanding of others. The specter of communism wants nothing less than to have the next generation completely abandon its moral bearings and become its minions for its rule over the world.
2. Communist Elements in Primary and Secondary Education
Although communism is most influential at the university level, it has also influenced primary and secondary school education. Its influence has undermined children’s intellectual development and maturity, making them more susceptible to leftist influences in college. It has caused generations of students to have less and less knowledge and less ability to reason and engage in critical thinking. This has gone on for over a hundred years. The progressive education movement led by John Dewey initiated the trend. Subsequent educational reforms have generally followed in the same direction.
In addition to instilling atheism, the theory of evolution, and communist ideology in students, primary and secondary education in the United States engages in psychological manipulation that destroys students’ traditional beliefs and morals. It instills moral relativism and modern concepts that convey a corrupt attitude toward life. This occurs across all sectors of education. The sophisticated measures used make it almost impossible for students and the public to guard against the trend.
a. Dumbing Down Students
The United States is a democratic republic. From presidents to lawmakers, town mayors, and school-district committee members, all are elected by voters. Whether democratic politics can be pursued in a manner that is truly beneficial to all depends not only on the moral level of the people, but also on the level of their knowledge and understanding. If voters are not well-versed in history, political and economic systems, and social issues, they will have difficulty electing officials who will base their platforms on the long-term and fundamental interests of the country and society. This puts the country in a dangerous situation.
In 1983, a group of experts, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, wrote the report A Nation at Risk after eighteen months of research. The authors of the report said:
“For our country to function, citizens must be able to reach some common understandings on complex issues, often on short notice and on the basis of conflicting or incomplete evidence. Education helps form these common understandings, a point Thomas Jefferson made long ago in his justly famous dictum: ‘I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.’”
Individuals with little knowledge and poor critical thinking abilities are unable to recognize lies and deceptions. Education plays an enormous role. Thus, communist elements penetrate all levels of the education system, making students foolish and ignorant and thus vulnerable to manipulation.
The report makes these additional points: “The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.
“If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
“We have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.” 
The report quoted analyst Paul Copperman as saying, “For the first time in the history of our country, the educational skills of one generation will not surpass, will not equal, will not even approach, those of their parents.”
The report cites some shocking findings: In addition to U.S. students’ grades often being at the bottom compared to other nations, 23 million American adults are functionally illiterate—that is, only possessing the most basic literacy skills and lacking the ability to meet the needs of complex modern life and work. The ratio of functional illiteracy is 13 percent among 17-year-olds and may reach 40 percent among minorities. From 1963 to 1980, scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) slid down, with the average language score dropping by more than 50 points, and the average math score dropping by nearly 40 points. “Many 17-year-olds do not possess the ‘higher order’ intellectual skills we should expect of them. Nearly 40 percent cannot draw inferences from written material; only one-fifth can write a persuasive essay; and only one-third can solve a mathematics problem requiring several steps.” 
After the 1980s, people of insight in the field of education launched the Back to Basics campaign, but did it help stop the decline of American education? In 2008, Mark Bauerlein, a professor of English at Emory University, wrote the book The Dumbest Generation. The first chapter of the book combines the results of examinations and surveys by the Department of Education and non-governmental organizations, summarizing the knowledge gaps of American students in the subjects of history, civics, math, science, technology, fine arts, and more. On the history exam in the 2001 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 57 percent of students scored “below basic” and only 1 percent achieved “advanced.” Surprisingly, in response to the question “Which country was a U.S. ally in World War II?”, 52 percent chose Germany, Japan, or Italy, instead of the Soviet Union. Results in other areas were equally disappointing. 
The decline in the quality of education in the United States is obvious to all. Since the 1990s, the term “dumbing down” has appeared in many books on American education and has become a concept American educators cannot avoid. John Taylor Gatto, a senior teacher and educational researcher in New York City, wrote, “Pick up a fifth-grade math or rhetoric textbook from 1850 and you’ll see that the texts were pitched then on what would today be considered college level.” 
In order to avoid making the American education system look bad, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) had to redefine the scores of the university entrance examination, the SAT, in 1994. When the SAT began to adopt the modern form in 1941, the average score of the language exam was 500 points (top marks are 800 points). By the 1990s, the average score had dropped to 424 points; ETS then redefined 424 as 500 points. 
The decline in the quality of education is not just reflected in the decline in students’ literacy. Due to a lack of basic knowledge, the critical thinking faculties of American students have fallen sharply. The scholar Thomas Sowell pointed out in the 1990s: “It is not merely that Johnny can’t read, or even that Johnny can’t think. Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is, because thinking is so often confused with feeling in many public schools.” 
Unlike the rebellious student leaders in the 1960s who could speak eloquently, today’s young people who participated in street protests and were interviewed by television news reporters could rarely express their demands clearly. They lacked basic common sense and reason.
The reason for the decline of grades is not that students today are not as intelligent as before, but because communism is quietly carrying out a war against the next generation, using the education system as its weapon. Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, the author of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America: A Chronological Paper Trail and a former senior policy adviser to the U.S. Department of Education in the 1980s, said, “The reason Americans do not understand this war is because it has been fought in secret—in the schools of our nation, targeting our children who are captive in classrooms.” 
b. The Destructive Nature of Progressive Education
The backlash against tradition in American primary and secondary schools began with the progressive education movement of the early 20th century. The following generations of progressive educators concocted a series of sham theories and discourses that served to alter curricula, water down teaching materials, and lower academic standards. This brought enormous damage to traditional education.
From Rousseau to Dewey
John Dewey, the father of American progressive education, was greatly influenced by the ideas of the 18th-century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Rousseau believed that people were good by nature and that social ills were responsible for moral decline. He said that man was free and equal at birth and that given a natural environment, everyone would enjoy their innate rights. Inequality, privilege, exploitation, and the loss of man’s innate kindness were all products of civilization, he claimed. For children, Rousseau advocated a model of “natural education” that would leave them to their own devices. This education was to be absent of religious, moral, or cultural teaching.
In fact, humanity is endowed with both benevolence and wickedness. Without nurturing benevolence, the wicked aspects of human nature will predominate to the point where people consider no method too base and no sin too evil. With his elegant rhetoric, Rousseau attracted many misguided followers. The deleterious influence his pedagogical theory has had on Western education is hard to overestimate.
About a century later, Dewey picked up where Rousseau had left off and furthered his destructive work. According to Dewey, who was influenced by Darwin’s theory of evolution, children should be weaned from the traditional tutelage of parents, religion, and culture and allowed the freedom to adapt to their environments. Dewey was a pragmatist and moral relativist. He believed that there was no unchanging morality and that people were free to act and behave as they saw fit. The concept of moral relativism is a critical first step in leading humanity away from the moral rules set by God.
Dewey was one of 33 people who signed their names onto The Humanist Manifesto, penned in 1933. Unlike the humanists of the Renaissance, 20th-century humanism is, at its core, a kind of secular religion rooted in atheism. Based on modern concepts such as materialism and the theory of evolution, it regards a human being as a machine, or the sum of a biochemical process.
In this calculus, the object of education is to mold and guide subjects according to the educator’s wishes—something not fundamentally different from Marx’s “new socialist man.” Dewey himself was a democratic socialist.
American philosopher Sidney Hook said, “Dewey had supplied Marxism with the epistemology and social philosophy that Marx had half seen for himself and had half sketched out in his early works but had never adequately spelled out.” 
In 1921, as civil war raged across Russia, the Soviets found the time to produce a 62-page pamphlet featuring extracts from Dewey’s Democracy and Education. In 1929, the rector of the Second State University of Moscow, Albert P. Pinkevich, wrote, “Dewey comes infinitely closer to Marx and the Russian Communists.”  Biographer Alan Ryan wrote that Dewey “supplied the intellectual weapons for a decently social democratic, non-totalitarian Marxism.” 
Progressive educators make no pretenses about their goal to transform students’ attitudes toward life. To achieve this aim, they have overturned all aspects of learning, including class structure, teaching materials and methods, and the relationship between teachers and students. The focus of education has shifted from the teacher to the students (or children). Personal experience is considered superior to knowledge learned from books. Lectures have taken a backseat to projects and activities.
The conservative American magazine Human Events listed Dewey’s Democracy and Education as number five in its list of the ten most harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries. It pointedly observed that Dewey “disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged the teaching of thinking ‘skills’ instead.” 
Astute critics have taken the progressive bent in education to task from the very beginning. The 1949 book And Madly Teach: A Layman Looks at Public School Education provided a concise and comprehensive rebuttal to the principal tenets of progressive education.  Progressive educators have dismissed their critics as “reactionaries” and used various means to suppress or ignore them.
Dewey spent more than 50 years as a tenured professor at Columbia University. During the period when he headed the Teacher’s College, at least one-fifth of all primary and secondary school teachers received instruction or advanced degrees at Columbia.  Progressive education has since spread beyond the borders of the United States.
In contrast to figures like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, or Mao, Dewey had no aspiration to become a revolutionary guru or take over the world. He was a lifelong academic and professor, but the system of education he created became one of communism’s most potent tools.
According to Rousseau’s theory of education, humans are born good and free, but are made bad by society. Therefore, the best method of education is to give children free rein and yield to the child’s own whimsical development.
Under the influence of Rousseauean thought, progressive educationists since Dewey often have echoed these kinds of ideas: One should not force the values of parents or teachers on students; upon growing up, children should be allowed to make their own judgments and decisions. English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge once elegantly gave the following retort to this sort of view:
“Thelwall thought it very unfair to influence a child’s mind by inculcating any opinions before it should have come to years of discretion, and be able to choose for itself. I showed him my garden, and told him it was my botanical garden. ‘How so?’ said he, ‘it is covered with weeds.’—’Oh,’ I replied, ‘that is only because it has not yet come to its age of discretion and choice. The weeds, you see, have taken the liberty to grow, and I thought it unfair in me to prejudice the soil towards roses and strawberries.’” 
The quick-witted poet used the analogy to convey to his friend a principle: Ethics and wisdom are painstakingly cultivated, just as with gardening. Not overseeing a garden will cause an outgrowth of weeds. Abandoning children is akin to giving them over to ever-present forces for ill. It amounts to extreme negligence and irresponsibility.
Good and evil are simultaneously present in human nature. Though children are by comparison more simple and pure, they also are susceptible to laziness, jealousy, combativeness, selfishness, and other negative traits. Society is a big dye vat. If children, with their natural bad inclinations (along with the good), are not properly raised, then by the time they have come to their “age of discretion and choice,” they will have long been contaminated by bad thoughts and bad habits. Attempts to educate them at that point will be too late.
This indulgence of students reached its peak in the pedagogical literary work Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Education, published in 1960. The book’s author, A.S. Neill, established in 1921 an English boarding school, Summerhill School, which admitted children ages 6 to 16. The school gave children complete autonomy. Children were allowed to decide whether they wanted to go to class at all, and whether they wanted to go to one class but not another. Neil’s thought on education was heavily influenced by Frankfurt School philosopher Wilhelm Reich, a vigorous proponent of sexual freedom, and the two often corresponded.
Besides academics, the school was extremely lax on ethics, discipline, and male-and-female relations, following all anti-traditional values. Boys and girls were able to casually date or live together, which the school would ignore or even facilitate. Neil allowed staff and students to swim naked together at an outdoor swimming pool. His 35-year-old stepson taught ceramic art and would often bring older-grade girls home with him. 
In his book, Neil says, “Every older pupil at Summerhill knows from my conversation and my books that I approve of a full sex life for all who wish one, whatever their age.”  He has even hinted that, if not prohibited by law, he would have allowed boys and girls to sleep together.  When Summerhill was published, it quickly became a bestseller. In the 1960s alone, it sold more than three million copies, becoming a “classic” that teachers at teachers’ colleges would require all of their students to read.
An ancient Chinese saying goes, “A strict teacher produces outstanding students.” People with knowledge and experience in the West have found that strict teachers get better results in the classroom. They also have a more positive influence on their students’ conduct. 
Sadly, in the United States and other Western countries, under the influence of progressivism and educational autonomy, laws have been enacted that limit the scope of parents or teachers in managing students. This has caused teachers to be afraid to discipline students. Students’ bad habits are not corrected in a timely manner, thus leading to a precipitous decline in their sense of morality as well as their academic performance.
The most important function of education is to maintain and pass on the traditional culture of human history. Teachers are the hub connecting the past for the benefit of the future. “A teacher is to pass on the Dao, teach the learnings, and clear up confusion,” according to a Chinese saying. Dewey’s progressive educational thought removed the authority of teachers and downgraded their importance. His stance was anti-intellectual and against common sense—against education itself, in essence.
Advocates of progressive education claim that students must be placed at the center and allowed to explore on their own, to reach their own answers. Yet the content of traditional course books was an accumulation of thousands of years of human civilization. How can that be explored by young and ignorant students so quickly? The real intention of progressive education is to cut students off from their bond with traditional culture. A negation of teachers’ authority in the process of education is a negation of their role in carrying forward the knowledge of civilization. This is the ulterior motive of communism.
Daisy Christodoulou’s Seven Myths About Education analyzed and refuted seven widely spread misconceptions, including claims that facts prevent understanding; teacher-led instruction is passive; projects and activities are the best way to learn; teaching knowledge is indoctrination, and others.  Most of these myths are left over from progressive education, but after being passed down for several generations, they have become a plague on educational culture. Christodoulou is English, and most of her work uses examples from the United Kingdom, from which it can be seen that progressive educational concepts have impaired the whole world.
For instance, take the first misconception. Modern American education has degraded the traditional methods of attention to memorization, reading aloud, and practice as “mechanical memorization,” “rote learning,” and “drill to kill.” Many are familiar with these criticisms. Rousseau attacked memorization and verbal lessons in his novel Emile, or an Education, and Dewey’s progressive educators furthered such theories.
In 1955, American educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom proposed the famous Bloom Taxonomy, which divided human cognition into six levels, from low to high: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create. The latter three are regarded as higher-order thinking because these abilities involve comprehensive analysis. We are not analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the Bloom classification itself, but merely pointing out that since the system of classification was proposed, progressive educators have used the pretext of cultivating “higher-order thinking” to weaken the teaching of knowledge in schools.
Anyone with common sense knows that having certain basic knowledge is the foundation of any intellectual task. Without a considerable reserve of knowledge as a basis, the so-called higher-order thinking, critical thinking, and creative thinking can only serve to deceive oneself and others. Bloom’s classification system provides a seemingly scientific excuse for the unfathomable approach of progressive educators.
One of the planks of the theory of student-centered instruction is that students should choose what they learn, according to their own interests. The theory also states that teachers should educate students only in what they’re interested in. This idea appears plausible, but may not be so. To have students learn in an enjoyable way is what every teacher would wish for, but children have shallow knowledge and limited vision, and are unable to judge what is important to learn and what isn’t. Teachers must take responsibility for guiding students so that they can transcend their superficial interests and broaden their visions and understanding. Simply catering to the superficial interests of students will only lead to their permanent infantilization. By espousing student-centered instruction, educators are deceiving students and parents, which is irresponsible to society.
Studies have found that there is a tendency in American society for adults to remain in a kind of adolescence longer than in other populations. The National Academy of Sciences in 2002 defined adolescence as a period from 12 to 30 years of age. The MacArthur Foundation went even further and tried to argue that a person is considered an adult at age 34.  The education system and media bear the responsibility for this extended period of adolescence that many adults have found themselves in.
One of the excuses of progressive education in lowering teaching requirements is that along with the popularization of education, more people get enrolled in secondary and post-secondary schools, and thus the average level of attainment cannot be as high as in the past. This is a wrong understanding. Adapting education to a democratic society is supposed to enable those who did not have the opportunity to receive an education before to be able to receive one—not to lower the standards, or to have everyone receive an inferior education by lowering the quality.
Progressivism claims to replace useless classical courses such as Greek and Latin with more contemporary courses, but in the end, most schools do not, in fact, introduce high-quality courses useful for modern life, like in-depth courses in mathematics, economics, and modern history. Instead, progressive educators promote classes like driving, cooking, beauty, and accident-prevention, which have nothing to do with academics. The curriculum and teaching-method reforms advocated by progressive educators deceive students who are not yet well-informed, as well as parents who defer to schools, teachers, and so-called experts.
If we look at only some teaching methods proposed by progressive education, they are not useless when applied to some subjects and areas of learning. However, when we look at the progressive educational movement and its specific background and outcomes, it becomes clear that progressive education sets itself up in opposition to traditional education, thereby mutating education and, ultimately, ruining it.
Unlike Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, Dewey had neither the ambition to be a revolutionary, nor the arrogance to attempt to launch a world revolution. If we put his life into perspective, he was clearly a scholar and a professor—but the educational movement he launched became one of the most useful tools for communism to undermine human society.
c. Education: A Means of Spoiling Students
On April 20, 1999, two students at Columbine High School in Colorado murdered ten students and one teacher and injured more than twenty people in a carefully plotted massacre. The tragedy shocked the United States. People wondered why the two students would carry out such a cold-blooded attack, murdering their classmates and a teacher they’d known for years.
By comparing social phenomena in different historical periods, educators noticed that up to the 1960s, problems with U.S. student behavior were minor, like tardiness, talking in class without permission, or chewing gum. After the 1980s, there were worse problems, like excessive drinking, drug abuse, premarital sex, pregnancy, suicide, gang activity, or even indiscriminate shooting. The downward trend worried those who saw how things were developing, but few knew the real roots of the change, and none could prescribe the appropriate treatment for the disorder.
The distortion and downward spiral of the moral standards of American youth were no accident.
Atheism and Evolution
Dr. Frederick Charles Schwarz, author of the book You Can Trust The Communists . . . to Be Communists, and a pioneer of U.S. anti-communist campaigns, observed: “The three basic tenets of Communism are atheism, evolution, and economic determinism. The three basic tenets of the American Public School system are atheism, evolution, and economic determinism.”  His point was that key elements of communist ideology have been adopted in American public schools.
The divine created humankind and laid down the moral standards that should regulate human life. Belief in gods lays the foundation of morality for society and underpins the existence of the human world. Communism forcibly spread atheism and the theory of evolution in schools as a means of destroying morality. This is to be expected in communist states like China and the former Soviet Union, but in the United States, it was carried out coercively.
Under the pretext of separation of church and state, leftists opposed the teaching of creationism in American public schools, though they promoted the theory of evolution. Public schools dare not transgress such boundaries. This education inevitably leads the number of religious believers to decline, as children are indoctrinated with the idea that the theory of evolution is scientific truth and not to be questioned.
Since the 1960s, courts around the United States shut down Bible study in public schools, again under the pretext of separation of church and state. One court ruled that students enjoyed freedom of speech and the press, unless the topic was religious, at which point such speech became unconstitutional. 
In 1987, students in Alaskan public schools were told not to use the word “Christmas” since it contained the word “Christ.” In 1987, a federal court in Virginia ruled that homosexual newspapers could be distributed on a high school campus, but religious newspapers were banned. In 1993, one elementary school music teacher in Colorado Springs was prevented from teaching Christmas carols because of alleged violations of the separation of church and state. 
Teaching and test materials in the United States have undergone ridiculously strict scrutiny due to the anti-theist orientation of the education system, in combination with decades of political correctness. In 1997, Diane Ravitch, a historian of education, once participated in the scrutiny of test content at an office under the U.S. Department of Education. Much to her surprise, the maxim that “God helps those who help themselves” was changed to “People should try to work things out for themselves whenever possible” because of the word “God” in the original. 
On the one hand, the American public education system ejected belief in God from schools under the pretext of separation of church and state. On the other hand, evolution, with its unresolved gaps, was held to be a self-evident truth to be instilled in children who had no mental preparation or defense. Children tend to believe in the authority of their teachers.
Parents with religious beliefs teach their kids to respect others, but children who are instilled with the theory of evolution are likely to challenge the religious education given by their parents. At least, they will no longer take their parents’ religious instruction seriously. The result is that education pulls children away from parents with religious beliefs. This is the most challenging problem that families with religious beliefs face when it comes to their children’s education, and it’s the evilest aspect of the anti-theistic education system.
Chapter Five of this book illustrates the nature of political correctness: It works like the thought police of communism, using a set of distorted political standards to replace authentic moral standards. Since the 1930s, communism has gradually entered American schools. Since then, political correctness has played a dominant role in the American education system. When put into practice, it comes in different forms, some of which are extremely deceptive.
E. Merrill Root, author of Brainwashing in the High Schools, released in the 1950s, conducted research into 11 sets of history teaching materials used in Illinois between 1950 and 1952 and found that they characterized American history as the history of a power struggle between rich and poor, between the privileged few and the underprivileged. This is the essence of Marxian economic determinism. Such teaching material promotes the development of a global government that emphasizes global concerns above those of any individual people, and in the end leads to global socialism. 
In 2013, a school district in Minnesota adopted a project named All for All, which put the focus of teaching on racial equality—equality here referring to identity politics. This ideology blames the poor performance of students from some ethnic minority groups on systemic racial discrimination, which leads to efforts devoted to dismantling “white privilege.” The project demanded that all teaching activities be based on racial equality, and that only teachers and administrators who were deeply aware of the issues associated with racial equality be employed.
The project started with kindergartens. Tenth-grade English classes focused on the themes of colonization and migration, as well as social constructions of race, class, and gender. The 11th-grade framework claimed, “By the end of the year, you will have … learned how to apply marxist [sic], feminist, post-colonial [and] psychoanalytical … lenses to literature.” 
In July 2016, California adopted a new social science framework for elementary and high schools. The original left-leaning framework was made to look even more like left-wing ideological propaganda. Content that should be emphasized in history and social science courses—like the founding spirit of America, and military, political, and diplomatic history—was watered down or ignored. In contrast, the counterculture of the 1960s was passionately highlighted and made to seem like the founding principles of the nation.
The curriculum also articulated a clearly anti-traditional framework of sex and family. Take the 11th-grade courses, for example. The framework claimed its focus was on the rights movements of minority races, tribes, and religions, as well as women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans. In fact, religions were seldom mentioned, but much was written about sexual minorities. In particular, LGBT groups were included first, having a significant share of 11th-grade history courses. The LGBT portions were written in a tone clearly supportive of “sexual liberation.” For example, in the part on AIDS, it was suggested that people’s fear of AIDS caused sexual liberation to wane. 
The sexual content occupied many chapters, squeezing out other content far more worthy of attention for young people. For example, in the course on World War I, students hardly learn about the critical role played by the U.S. Army, but are taught that American soldiers found European sexual customs satisfying.  This left-leaning framework is full of distortion and bias, guiding students to hate their own country. Though the framework was adopted by California, the impact of this approach has been national. 
d. Psychological Manipulation
Another major way that students have been morally corrupted is through the introduction of significant psychological conditioning in education—injecting students with moral relativism.
In March 1984, hundreds of parents and teachers attended hearings for the amendment of pupil rights protections hosted in seven cities, including Washington, Seattle, and Pittsburgh. The testimonies in the hearings totaled more than 1,300 pages. Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly incorporated some of the testimonies in her book Child Abuse in the Classroom, published in August 1984.
Schlafly summed up the issues described in the testimonies, including using “education as therapy.” Unlike traditional education, which aims to impart knowledge, education as therapy focuses on changing students’ emotions and attitudes. This kind of education uses teaching to play psychological games on students. It has them fill out surveys on personal issues and forces children to make decisions like adults, weighing in on issues like suicide and murder, marriage and divorce, abortion and adoption. 
In fact, such courses weren’t set up for the students’ psychological health. They were intended to change the values of students through psychological conditioning.
Psychology and Education
Modern education is heavily based on philosophy and psychology. Besides John Dewey’s progressive education, which has had a huge impact on the U.S. education system, there is also Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis and Carl Rogers’s humanistic psychology. The Frankfurt School’s critical theory combines theories from Marx and Freud. Herbert Marcuse, a theorist of the Frankfurt School, called for the removal of all inhibitions so that young people could let loose their natural instincts and indulge their personal whims.  It was this thinking that helped accelerate the birth of the counterculture of the 1960s.
Deeply influenced by the above-mentioned schools of thought on psychology, the first director general of the World Health Organization, Canadian psychologist Brock Chisholm, said in one of his speeches in 1946:
“What basic psychological distortion can be found in every civilization …? It must be a force which discourages the ability to see and acknowledge patent facts … which produces inferiority, guilt, and fear. … The only psychological force capable of producing these perversions is morality, the concept of right and wrong. … [This] artificially imposed inferiority, guilt, and fear, commonly known as ‘sin,’ … produces so much of the social maladjustment and unhappiness in the world. … Freedom from morality means freedom to observe, to think and behave sensibly. … If the race is to be freed of its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility.” 
Based on false ideas, Chisholm proposed a shocking theory: In order to release the individual from psychological pain, morality and the concept of right and wrong must be neutralized. This psychologist hence waged war on morality. Seemingly influenced by Chisholm, humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers came up with “values clarification” classes, which served the purposes of eradicating traditional values and concepts of right and wrong.
Eventually, Dewey’s moral relativism, the Frankfurt School’s rejection of inhibitions, and Chisholm’s psychological theories worked together to attack and undermine traditional values. They destroyed the moral fortifications of public schools in the United States.
Americans who attended schools in the late 1970s may remember an imagined scenario many teachers brought up in class, which went like this: After a ship sinks, the captain, several children, a pregnant woman, and a gay man get in a lifeboat. The lifeboat is overloaded and one person must be let go. The teachers would ask the students to discuss and decide who must get off the lifeboat, giving up his or her life. The teacher would not comment on or judge the students’ comments.
This story was often used in the values-clarification classes that emerged in the 1970s. Besides being used for values-clarification, the classes were used for decision-making, affective education, the Quest drug-prevention program, and sex education.
William Kilpatrick, author of Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong, described such classes as having “turned classroom discussions into ‘bull sessions’ where opinions go back and forth but conclusions are never reached.”
Kilpatrick wrote: “It has resulted in classrooms where teachers act like talk show hosts, and where the merits of wife swapping, cannibalism, and teaching children to masturbate are recommended topics for debate. For students, it has meant wholesale confusion about moral values: learning to question values they have scarcely acquired, unlearning values taught at home, and concluding that questions of right and wrong are always merely subjective. It has created a generation of moral illiterates: students who know their own feelings but don’t know their culture.” 
The scholar Thomas Sowell understood that these sessions utilized the same measures employed in totalitarian countries to brainwash people. They include the following: “Emotional stress, shock, or desensitization, to break down both intellectual and emotional resistance; isolation, whether physical or emotional, from familiar sources of emotional support in resistance; cross-examining pre-existing values, often by manipulating peer pressure; stripping the individual of normal defenses, such as reserve, dignity, a sense of privacy, or the ability to decline to participate; rewarding acceptance of the new attitudes, values, and beliefs.” 
Sowell notes that the sessions are similar in that they encourage students to rebel from the traditional moral values taught by their parents and society. Classes were conducted in a neutral or a “nonjudgmental” way. In other words, the teacher does not distinguish between right and wrong, but searches for what feels good for an individual. They focus on “the feelings of the individual, rather than on the requirements of a functioning society or the requirements of intellectual analysis.” 
‘Death Education’ and Drug-Prevention Education
In September 1990, the U.S. television channel ABC aired a program that made viewers very concerned. In it, a school took students to a morgue as a part of its new program of “death education.” The students viewed and touched corpses. 
Common activities of death-education classes include asking the students to write their own epitaphs, select their own coffins, arrange their own funerals, and write their own obituaries. A death-education questionnaire asked the following: 
“How will you die?”“When will you die?”“Have you ever known anyone who died violently?”“When was the last time you mourned? Was it expressed in tears or silent pain? Did you mourn alone or with someone else?”“Do you believe in an after-life?”
Obviously, these questions have nothing to do with studying. They are designed to probe the students’ outlook on life, their religious beliefs, and their personalities. Some of the questions are aimed to elicit particular reactions and can have a negative impact on teens.
It is said that death education can help students establish the right attitude in the face of death. However, suicides of teens who were in these classes occurred throughout the country. Although a causal relationship has not been established scientifically, it is certainly reasonable for parents to suspect and fear that by exposing psychologically immature students to information on death and suicide, some students may be more likely to develop depression and hopelessness, which may contribute to reasons for committing suicide.
Drug-prevention education also became very popular in schools. However, in 1976, Dr. Richard Blum of Stanford University conducted a four-year study on a drug-prevention education course called Decide. The group that took the course had a weaker ability to resist drugs than the control group that did not take the course.
Between 1978 and 1985, professor Stephen Jurs conducted a research project comparing the rate of smoking and substance abuse among students who had taken a course called Quest and those who had not. The result showed that those who did not take the course maintained a steady or lowered rate of smoking and substance abuse. 
Neither death education nor drug-prevention education generated the expected outcome—so what was the real purpose? The purpose was to pollute children. Children are very curious, but have an immature moral foundation. New and strange content stimulates their curiosity and can lead them down a dark path. In the meantime, such education tends to desensitize students, making them view violence, pornography, terror, and moral decadence as simply normal parts of life. Their tolerance of evil increases in turn. The entire exercise is part of an evil use of art, violence, and pornography to bring about moral decline.
Pornographic Sex Education
Traditionally in both the East and the West, sex has been a taboo topic in public. According to both traditions, the divine established that sexual conduct must take place only within marriage. All other forms of sexual conduct are considered promiscuous and sinful, violating the divine standards of morality. This makes sex and marriage inseparable, and sex can’t be a matter of public discussion in a properly functioning society. In traditional society, the youth received only education in physiology, and there was no need for today’s sex education.
The modern concept of sex education was first introduced by Georg Lukács, founder of the Frankfurt School of social theory and philosophy. His purpose was to completely overturn traditional Western values. In 1919, Lukács was the people’s commissar for education and culture in the short-lived Hungarian Bolshevik regime. He developed a radical sex-education program that taught students about free love and how “outdated” marriage was. 
The sexual revolution of the 1960s annihilated these traditional Western values. Rates of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy began to rise rapidly. Under these circumstances, people who wanted to solve such social problems promoted sex education. But in the education system that had already deviated from traditional moral teachings, sex education treated intercourse as disconnected from marriage and instead emphasized safety (preventing disease and pregnancy)—thus following the Lukács model of sex education by ignoring all moral aspects of sex.
This form of education then became a tool for destroying youth. They were also exposed to the extramarital, promiscuous conduct of homosexuality, thus normalizing such behavior. The result of all this has been that the younger generation indulges in what they think is freedom, but what is, in reality, a path that turns away from divinely ordained standards. This sort of sex education from elementary school onward has already destroyed the traditional values of family, individual responsibility, love, chastity, a sense of shame, self-control, loyalty, and more.
Dewey’s “learning by doing” form of progressive education is a convenient tool for Marxists. The sex-education program Focus on Kids, widely promoted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommends that teachers organize students to compete in a “condom race.” Each student must put a condom on an adult sex toy and then take it off. Whoever finishes fastest wins. 
Be Proud! Be Responsible! is another program endorsed by the CDC and promoted by Planned Parenthood and other educational organizations. The program requires students to role play—for instance, as two female students discussing safer sex. Student-centered instruction is another idea from progressivism. In this program, the teacher is instructed to ask students to brainstorm questions of intimacy with sexual partners.  To the majority of people who still have traditional values in their hearts, it is difficult to distinguish this supposed education from child pornography.
The main proponent of the program, Planned Parenthood, is the biggest provider of sex education and books in the United States, and has branches in 12 countries. It also promotes abortion rights. The group was formerly known as the American Birth Control League. Its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a progressive socialist who worshiped Stalin’s Russia and traveled there to pay her respects. She also was a strong proponent of the sexual liberation movement. She is on record as saying that extramarital affairs “really set me free.”  She holds the idea that females have the right to become single mothers, and even wrote to her 16-year-old granddaughter about sexual intercourse saying, “Three times a day was about right.”  She established the league because her promiscuous lifestyle required it. In the modern sex-education courses created by this organization, it is not difficult to see that sexual liberation finds its origins in communism.
Perfectly Normal is a sex-education textbook that has been translated into 30 different languages and has sold more than one million copies worldwide. The book used close to one hundred cartoons of nudes to describe various normal and abnormal movements, feelings, and physical sensations of masturbation between opposite sexes and homosexuals, as well as birth control methods and abortion. The author claimed that children have the right to know all such information.  The main theme of the book is that a variety of sexual behaviors are all “normal” and that none should be subject to moral judgment.
In a widely used high school sex-education textbook, the author teaches children that some religions believe that sex outside of marriage is sinful, then writes, “You will have to decide for yourself how important these messages are for you.”  To summarize, this worldview basically holds that all values are relative, and that what is right and what is wrong are for children to decide for themselves.
Today, U.S. public schools have two basic types of sex-education classes. One type that’s strongly promoted by educational organizations was described earlier: the complete sex-education curriculum, which includes instruction on sexual behavior, birth control, prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, and the like. The other type teaches young people to control their sexual desire, does not discuss birth control, and encourages the delay of sexual behavior until after marriage.
It is undeniable that social morality, especially general attitudes toward sex, have in general deviated far from traditional, faith-based morality. The media and the internet are flooded with pornographic content, all of which drags children toward the edge of the abyss.
In today’s educational field controlled by atheism, most public schools that follow “value neutrality” don’t want, or don’t dare, to teach children that sex outside of marriage is disgraceful and immoral, nor do they teach children right from wrong based on traditional moral principles.
Sexual education is still a hot topic in society today. There are numerous arguments in different sectors of society around the issue of safety in sexual activity, focusing on the rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. However, the fact that schools are publicly teaching teenagers about sexual behavior will obviously increase sex outside of marriage, which violates traditional sexual morality. Even if there were no teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases, would promiscuity among teenagers be totally fine?
In Europe, where the sexual culture is even laxer than in the United States, the teenage pregnancy rate is half that of the United States, due to “effective” sex education. Some people are delighted about this, while others are very worried. Regardless of these figures, with a decadent attitude toward sexual conduct in ascendance, communism is working to achieve its goal of destroying human morality.
Self-Esteem and Egocentrism
Since the 1960s, a new dogma has been heavily promoted in the field of U.S. education, and it is responsible for a major downward slide in educational quality: the cult of “self-esteem.”
On its surface, self-esteem should refer to a feeling of confidence and self-respect that arises from one’s own abilities and accomplishments. However, the self-esteem promoted in U.S. schools is something completely different. In her book The Feel-Good Curriculum: The Dumbing Down of America’s Kids in the Name of Self-Esteem, education researcher Maureen Stout, Ph.D., writes about a very common phenomenon in current American schools: Students care about their grades, but don’t care about what they learned or how much effort they put in. To satisfy the students’ demands for better grades, teachers are forced to reduce the difficulty of exams and demands on students. But this only results in underperforming students putting in even less effort. The author’s colleagues seem accustomed to the phenomenon and are even of the belief that school should be like the womb—isolated from the outside world so students can gain emotional comfort but not intellectual development or resilience. The focus seems to be on students’ feelings, not on their overall growth. 
As many commentators have pointed out, the dogma of self-esteem confuses cause and effect. Self-esteem is the outcome of effort, not a precondition for success. In other words, feeling good does not lead to success, but one feels good after becoming successful.
This misconception of self-esteem is the by-product of the psychotherapeutic style of education ascendant since the 1960s. Psychotherapeutic education ended up indoctrinating a large number of young people with a sense of entitlement and victimhood. Stout delineates the common mindset as “I want to do what I want, how I want and when I want, and nothing and no one is going to stop me.” 
American education exaggerates the ideas of freedom and self-centeredness in the name of sentimental self-esteem. This style of education produces generations of young people who don’t value morality and don’t assume responsibility. They care only about their own feelings rather than other people’s feelings. They pursue enjoyment but try to avoid effort, sacrifice, and suffering. This has wrought havoc on the morality of American society.
e. The Infiltration of Education
Control Over American Secondary and Elementary School Education
For a long while after the founding of the United States, the federal government was not involved in education; those decisions were left to the church and to each state government. In 1979, the federal government established the Department of Education (ED). The ED’s jurisdiction has been enlarged ever since. Currently, its power over educational strategies and the allocation of education budgets far surpasses what it used to have. Parents, school districts, and state governments, which used to have a greater say in education, are increasingly compelled to take orders from federal government officials. Parents and school districts have gradually lost their power to decide what gets to be taught and how to teach it at schools.
Power itself is neutral—those who wield it can do either good or bad. Centralization of power in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s a matter of how the person or institution uses its power and what its goals are. The centralization of power in American education is a major issue because Marxism has infiltrated all levels of government agencies, especially the central bureaucracy. Under such circumstances, once a wrong decision is made, the impact is extensive and the few clear-headed individuals that remain cannot simply reverse it themselves.
As explained by writer and former teacher B. K. Eakman, one of the results from the centralization of power in American education is that the officials in charge of education can’t, over a short time span, see how their educational strategies develop historically and how great an impact they create over a longer period. Many people deal with a limited scope of affairs. Although some events may raise doubts, most people do not have the time, energy, resources, or courage to investigate for themselves. Even if their suspicions are aroused in some cases, without other pieces of the puzzle, they can do little more than obey what they’re told by their supervisors. Everyone thus becomes part of a gigantic machine. It is difficult for them to see the consequences of their decisions on students and society, and as a result, their moral accountability is attenuated.  Communism can take advantage of the weaknesses in this system and break down society’s defenses one by one.
Moreover, teacher’s colleges, publishing houses, educational accreditation organizations, and teacher-accreditation institutions have decisive impacts on education, and therefore they all become targets of infiltration.
The Role of Teachers’ Unions
Chapter Nine of this book discusses how communism manipulates and utilizes unions. Teachers’ unions have become one of the key reasons for the failure of American education. These unions do not care about raising the quality of education, instead becoming professional organizations that award failure, protect incompetence, and sacrifice conscientious teachers who aspire to make a contribution in their career and who truly dedicate themselves to teaching students.
Tracey Bailey was a high school science teacher who won the National Teacher of the Year Award in 1993.  At that time, the chief of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) said he was pleased that a union member had won this prestigious honor. However, the truth is that Bailey was no longer an AFT member. Bailey believes that big teachers’ unions are exactly the reason for the failure of American public education—they were part of the problem, rather than the solution. He holds that unions are simply a special interest group protecting the status quo, and a pillar of a system that awards mediocrity and incompetence. 
Major American teachers’ unions have adequate funds and immense influence, and are ranked as one of the most important political lobby groups in the country. Teachers’ unions have become the primary obstacle that hinders benign reform within the education system. For example, the California Teachers Association (CTA) under the AFT has a huge amount of funds collected from its members, which it uses to push for legislation and make political donations. In 1991, California sought to insert Proposition 174 in its state constitution, allowing families to use school vouchers provided by the state government so that they would be able to choose the best schools for their own children. However, the CTA blocked the proposition and even forced a school to revoke its commercial contract with a hamburger franchise that had donated $25,000 toward the proposition. 
The Exclusion of Family Influence in Children’s Education
Another key goal of communism is the removal of the child from his parents as soon as he is born, having the community or nation raise him instead. This is not an easy feat, but things have been quietly moving in this direction.
In communist countries, students from the “bourgeoisie” class are encouraged to sever their relationship with their parents. In addition, exam-centric education extends the time that students must spend in school, thus reducing the impact parents can have on their children. In Western countries, different approaches are used to exclude the influence of the family in the education of children. This includes maximizing students’ school time, reducing the age requirement for children to attend school, preventing students from taking textbooks and study materials home, and discouraging students from sharing controversial topics they learned in class with their parents.
Courses such as Value Clarification attempt to separate students from their parents. A parent of a student taking the Quest class commented: “It seemed as if the parents were always put in a bad light. The story would be about a father and his son, say; and the father was always overbearing, always too strict, always unfair.” Oftentimes, the subtext of these courses is “your parents don’t understand you, but we do.” 
Sometimes, due to legal requirements, students must first obtain parental consent before they can participate in certain activities. On such occasions, teachers or the school administrative staff often use misleading and ambiguous words to make it very difficult for parents to know the details of what they’re agreeing to. If parents complain, school authorities or the school district have methods to deal with the complaint: procrastinating, shirking responsibility, or going through the motions. For example, they might say that parents do not have the professional knowledge of educators, that other school districts are doing the same thing, that only your family is complaining, and so on.
Most parents don’t have the time or resources to engage in a prolonged argument with the school or school district. Moreover, when the student grows up in a few years, he will leave the school. Parents will generally choose to keep quiet. Yet, in the meantime, the child is almost held hostage by the school, and parents don’t dare to offend the school authorities. They have no choice but to refrain from protesting. When parents do protest against school practices, school authorities may label them as extremists, troublemakers, religious bigots, fanatics, fascists, and the like. By doing so, school authorities deter other parents from voicing an objection. 
Misleading and Obscure Education Jargon
In the preface to her book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, Iserbyt points out the problem:
“The reason Americans do not understand this war is because it has been fought in secret—in the schools of our nation, targeting our children who are captive in classrooms. The wagers of this war are using very sophisticated and effective tools:• Hegelian dialectic (common ground, consensus, and compromise)• Gradualism (two steps forward, one step backward)• Semantic deception (redefining terms to get agreement without understanding).”
Phillis Schlafly also wrote about this phenomenon. In the foreword to her book Child Abuse in the Classroom, she said that psychotherapy classes use a set of special terms to prevent parents from understanding the true purpose and method of such courses. These terms include behavior modification, higher-order critical thinking, moral reasoning, and so on. 
For decades, American educators have created a dazzling array of terms such as constructivism, cooperative learning, experiential learning, deep understanding, problem-solving, inquiry-based and outcome-based education, personalized learning, conceptual understanding, procedural skills, lifelong learning, student-teacher interactive instruction, and so on. There are too many to list. On the one hand, some concepts appear reasonable, but investigation into the context of the terms and what they lead to reveals that their purpose is to discredit traditional education and promote dumbing down in education. They are examples of Aesopian or Orwellian language, whereby the key to interpretation is to turn the meanings inside out. 
Large-Scale Changes to Subjects and Textbooks
None Dare Call It Treason, published in the 1960s, analyzes the textbook reform program of the 1930s. This reform combined content from different disciplines, such as history, geography, sociology, economics, and political science, into a set of textbooks. This set of books abandoned the content, value system, and way of codifying traditional textbooks. “So pronounced was the anti-religious bias; so open was the propaganda for socialistic control of men’s lives,”  that the textbooks downgraded American heroes and the U. S. Constitution.
This set of textbooks was very large and did not fall within the scope of any traditional discipline; therefore, experts in various disciplines did not pay much attention to it. Many years later, when the public realized the problem and began to oppose it, five million students had already been brought up on such materials. Nowadays, in the primary and secondary schools in the United States, history, geography, civics, and so on fall into the category of “social studies,” and the idea behind them is the same.
If the changes to textbooks had been transparent, they would have been questioned and resisted by experts and parents. The newly edited textbooks, which mix several subjects together, don’t belong to any clear subject taxonomy, so experts have difficulty judging the content beyond their own profession, making it relatively easy for textbooks to pass a review and be accepted by a school district and society.
After ten or twenty years, some people may see the conspiracy behind this set of textbooks. However, when they are ready to speak up, students have grown up, and teachers have become accustomed to the new textbooks and teaching methods. Then it is impossible to change the textbooks back to their traditional form. Even if a small number of people realize the serious flaws of the textbooks, their voices aren’t heard by the public, and they are less likely to affect the decision-making processes. If opposing voices are louder, it is an opportunity to launch the next round of reforms, further diluting traditional content and inserting leftist ideas. After several rounds of reforms, the new generation of students is then separated from tradition, making it almost impossible to go back.
The updates made to American textbooks were done very quickly. Some say it’s because knowledge has grown at an accelerating rate. However, in fact, the basic knowledge to be gained in primary and secondary school does not change much. So why have there been so many different textbooks published and continuously reprinted? The surface reason is that publishers compete with each other. Superficially, in order to pursue profits, they don’t want students to repeatedly use the same set of textbooks for many years, but at a deeper level, just like the reorganization of textbook content, the process has been used to distort the teaching materials for the next generation.
Education Reform: A Dialectic Struggle
Since the 1950s and 1960s, American education has seen a series of reforms, but none brought the expected improvements. In 1981, American students’ SAT scores reached a record low, triggering the publication of the report A Nation at Risk and the “back to basics” movement in education. In order to change the embarrassing condition of education in the United States, several administrations since the 1990s have successively launched large-scale reforms, to little effect. Not only did they not help, but they also brought problems that were more difficult to solve. 
We believe that most people involved in education reform sincerely want to do good things for students and society, but because of the influence of various wrong thoughts, their intentions often backfire. The results of many of these reforms end up promoting communist ideas. Just like in other fields, the infiltration through educational reform doesn’t need to win everything in one battle. The success of a reform is not its goal. In fact, every reform is doomed to fail at the beginning of its design in order to provide an excuse for the next reform. Every reform is a deeper deviation, each making people more alienated from tradition. This is the dialectic of struggle—one step back, then two steps forward. In this manner, people won’t regret the collapse of tradition, but will instead wonder, “Tradition—what does that mean?”
3. The Goal: Destroying Education in the East and West
With the aim of corrupting education in the West, communism can wait hundreds of years if necessary and achieve its goal over generations of changes through progressive education. China has 5,000 years’ worth of profound cultural traditions. However, owing to specific historical conditions at the time when the communists came to power, they were able to use the Chinese people’s mentality of seeking quick success and instant benefits. This induced the Chinese people to adopt radical means that rapidly separated them from tradition in only a matter of decades. In this manner, communism achieved its goal of corrupting education and humanity in China.
At the beginning of the 20th century, when Dewey’s progressive education began to corrode the United States, his ethnic Chinese followers returned to China and became pioneers of modern Chinese education. British cannons had destroyed the self-esteem of the Chinese people, and the intellectuals were eager to find a way to strengthen the nation. The communists exploited these conditions to set off a so-called New Culture Movement that repudiated China’s traditions.
The movement, which attacked culture, was a rehearsal for the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. The New Culture Movement has three main representatives: Hu Shi, a disciple of Dewey; Chen Duxiu, one of the founders of the Chinese Communist Party; and Lu Xun, who was later praised by Mao Zedong as “the chief commander of China’s Cultural Revolution.” Li Dazhao, another founder of the Chinese Communist Party, also adopted an important role in the cultural movement of the later period.
Criticizing China for the faults of its traditional path of development, the New Culture Movement attributed China’s accumulated weakness over the past hundred years to traditional Confucian culture and advocated abolishing Confucianism. Traditional culture was viewed as “old culture,” while all Western culture was treated as new. Traditional beliefs were criticized for not adhering to the ideas of science and democracy. This movement was the forerunner to the heated May Fourth movement, and started the first wave of thorough subversion of traditional ethics and values. At the same time, it laid the foundation for Marxism to invade China from the West, allowing it to take root, sprout, and grow.
In education, among the greatest harm wrought by the New Culture Movement was the campaign to promote the vernacularization of written Chinese. As advocated by Hu Shi, primary schools changed their teaching of the Chinese language to instead use vernacular written Chinese. As a result, after one generation, the majority of Chinese people were hardly able to read and understand classical Chinese. This meant that The Book of Changes, the Spring and Autumn Annals, Dao De Jing, Yellow Emperor’s Inner Classic (Huangdi Neijing), and other traditional books were now inaccessible to the ordinary student. Instead, they were treated as esoteric content for the specialized research of scholars. China’s 5,000 years’ worth of glorious civilization was turned into mere decoration.
In the development of Chinese culture, it was divinely arranged that the written classical Chinese language be separated from the spoken language. In China, over the course of history, there had been many large-scale assimilations of different ethnic groups and multiple relocations of China’s cultural center of gravity; thus, the spoken language was constantly changing. But, due to the separation between the spoken language and classical Chinese used in writing, classical Chinese remained largely unchanged. Qing Dynasty students could still read and understand Song Dynasty, Tang Dynasty, and even pre-Qin Dynasty classics. This allowed traditional Chinese culture and literature to be transmitted, unbroken, over thousands of years.
However, communism caused the Chinese people to sever their cultural roots through the language. At the same time, by combining the written language with the spoken language, it became easier to mix in deviant words and phrases, thus pushing the Chinese people yet further away from tradition.
The literacy campaigns and popularization of culture in elementary education that were undertaken by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) before and after its establishment subjected their captive audience to direct and explicit brainwashing. For instance, the first few phrases learned by students in literacy classes and the first year of primary school were propaganda like “long live Chairman Mao,” “the evil old society,” and “evil American imperialism”—phrases that fully exemplify the hate-based class struggle ethos the Party demanded.
Compared with deviant ideas that progressive education mixes into children’s books (like Heather Has Two Mommies), although they differ starkly in method, the two movements are both essentially a form of ideological indoctrination imposed on the young. Chinese children who are educated in this way grow up to defend the CCP’s tyrannical regime of their own initiative, vilifying and lambasting people who talk about universal values. Children educated in the Western environment grow up to be part of the angry student mobs that prevent speakers from talking about traditional values and accuse them of discrimination.
Not long after the CCP established its regime, it began its thought-reform campaign against intellectuals, focusing on university campuses and high schools. Its main objectives were to reform intellectuals’ perspectives on life, force them to forsake traditional moral principles, and give up the philosophy of first improving oneself before extending that to one’s family, state, and the world. It used a Marxist class-based view of the world and life, from the perspective of the “proletariat” class.
Professors of the old generation, in particular, had to repeatedly criticize themselves, confess to wrongdoings, and accept being informed on, monitored, and criticized by their colleagues and students. They were even made to acknowledge and eliminate “counter-revolutionary thoughts” in their own subconscious minds, which were called aggressions against the proletariat class. Of course, this was much more intense than the sensitivity training of today. Some were unable to take the humiliation and stress, and committed suicide. 
Subsequently, the CCP began adjusting faculties and departments in universities. It greatly diminished, merged, or eliminated departments like philosophy, sociology, and those related to the humanities, leaving many comprehensive universities with only Soviet-style science and engineering faculties. This was because the CCP was unable to tolerate the threat to its tyrannical rule from any independent ideological perspectives on politics and social issues. These were associated with the humanities-related faculties, which had academic freedom in the days of the Republic of China. At the same time, the study of Marxist politics and philosophy was made mandatory for all students. The entire process was completed within two to three years. In the West, communism took an entire generation to establish new disciplines with the aim of ideological indoctrination and the injection of Marxist thought into universities. Although the speed differed greatly between the two, they achieved similar results.
In 1958, the CCP started its education revolution, which had the following notable features:
Firstly, education was emphasized as a tool that should be used in service of the proletariat. Students, under the leadership of the Party Committee, were organized to prepare the curricula and teaching materials. At Peking University, 60 students in the Chinese language department wrote a 700,000-character treatise called the History of Chinese Literature in only 30 days. 
This fully exemplified the core belief of progressive education that teaching methods should be “student-centric,” focused on “exploratory learning” and “cooperative learning”—that is, what to learn and how to learn it were all to be discussed and decided by the students themselves. The objective was clear: eliminating “superstitious beliefs” in authority figures (which was meant to instill an attitude opposed to tradition), magnifying students’ self-centeredness, and laying the foundation for rebellion during the Cultural Revolution to come.
Secondly, education and productive labor were to be joined together. Every school had its own factory, and during the height of the Great Leap Forward, teachers and students smelted steel and tilled the land. Even a university that had previously focused on social disciplines, like Renmin University of China, operated 108 factories. In name, this was to let students “learn by doing,” but, in fact, students learned nothing.
In the subsequent Cultural Revolution, students were mobilized to destroy all forms of cultural heritage associated with traditional culture, be they tangible or intangible (see Chapter Six for details). This again echoes the counterculture movement that took place in the West. After the Cultural Revolution started, Mao felt that the situation of “bourgeois intellectuals” ruling the schools should not continue. On June 13, 1966, the CCP issued a notice to reform university admissions and started the “corrective action campaign”: University entrance exams were abolished, and large numbers of “worker-peasant-soldier” students were enrolled.
The film Breaking With Old Ideas, produced during the Cultural Revolution, reflected the reason for this reform: “A youth who grew up on a poor farm is not sufficiently literate, but the calluses on his hands from hard farm work qualify him for enrollment.” A school principal said: “Can you blame us for their low level of literacy? No! This debt should be settled with the Nationalists, the landowners, and the capitalist class [the oppressors]!”
In the West, there was a professor who published a paper claiming that mathematics exams led to racial discrimination (because students of certain ethnic minority groups have lower math scores compared to white students).  Another professor published a paper that said math standards based on the higher scores achieved by male students leads to gender discrimination against females when they are held to the same standard.  Qualifying students for university based on the calluses they have and attributing lower math scores to racial and gender discrimination are methods that communism uses to dumb down students and stunt their intellectual growth.
After the Cultural Revolution, China resumed holding its university entrance examination. From then on, preparing for this exam was the ultimate objective of primary and high school education. Under this utilitarian education system, many students became machines that learned only how to pass exams, without the ability to think independently for themselves or to distinguish right from wrong. At the same time, Marxist philosophy, politics, and economics have stubbornly remained mandatory exam subjects.
In the minds of students who are cut off from tradition, the standards of right and wrong, and good and evil, are all evaluated according to communist standards. Thus after the 9/11 terrorist attack occurred, many students cheered. Primary school students declare that they want to become corrupt officials when they grow up. University students prostitute themselves and become surrogate mothers for cash.
Communism has hijacked the younger generation.
Conclusion: Returning to Traditional Education
The education system shoulders the future of a country, a nation, and human civilization itself. It is a long-term endeavor whose impact extends through centuries or even millennia. Looking back at the past one hundred years, the American education system has all but been broken by the infiltration and influence of communist ideology. Parents and teachers have had their hands tied and cannot give students a good education. Schools, which should have cultivated students’ talent, have instead indulged them and led them astray. The whole society is deeply worried about students’ lack of morality, low skill level, fragile psychologies, and bad habits, as well as the chaotic, anti-traditional, and anti-social trends they’re caught up in. This is to witness the forces of evil devouring the descendants and the future of mankind.
Among the 45 goals listed in the 1958 classic The Naked Communist, the goals for education are the following: “Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.” 
Looking at American education, these goals have not only been achieved, but the situation has become worse. Due to the political and economic strength of the United States, American culture is the object of admiration and emulation by countries around the world. Most countries use the United States as a model for educational reform. American teaching concepts, teaching materials, teaching methods, and school-management practices have affected many countries. So, to a certain extent, changing American education is tantamount to changing education around the world.
Both at the beginning of Creation and when human civilization is corrupted, there are enlightened beings or saints born. These enlightened beings or saints are precisely a group of people known as “teachers.” For example, Socrates, the founder of the ancient Greek civilization, was an educator. In the Gospels, Jesus also called himself a teacher. Sakyamuni Buddha has ten names, one of which is “the teacher of heaven and man.” Confucius was an educator, and Lao Zi was the teacher of Confucius. They told people how to be human, how to respect God, how to get along with others, and how to improve morality.
These enlightened beings and saints are the greatest educators of mankind. Their words have shaped the major civilizations and become fundamental classics of all civilizations. The values they teach, and the ways they go about improving morality, allow each individual to achieve spiritual transcendence and health. Individuals with healthy minds are essential to social health. It is no wonder that these greatest educators have come to a similar conclusion: The purpose of education is the cultivation of good character.
Eastern and Western classical education, which has been practiced for thousands of years, inherits the culture that God has given to people and retains such precious experiences and resources. According to the spirit of classical education, both talent and integrity are important criteria for judging the success of education. In the process of reviving the tradition of human education, the treasure of classical education is worthy of preservation, exploration, and learning.
People with high moral values are capable of self-governing. This is the social norm that the American Founding Fathers hoped for. Those who are morally noble will receive God’s blessings, and through diligence and wisdom, will obtain material abundance and spiritual satisfaction. More importantly, people with high morality allow society to proliferate and last for generations. These are the teachings of enlightened beings and saints, the greatest educators of mankind, on how today’s people may return to tradition.
 Robby Soave, “Elite Campuses Offer Students Coloring Books, Puppies to Get Over Trump,” Daily Beast,
 Elizabeth Redden, “Foreign Students and Graduate STEM Enrollment,” Inside Higher Ed, October 11, 2017, https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/10/11/foreign-students-and-graduate-stem-enrollment.
 G. Edward Griffin, Deception Was My Job: A Conversation with Yuri Bezmenov, Former Propagandist for the KGB, (American Media, 1984).
 Scott Jaschik, “Professors and Politics: What the Research Says,” Inside Higher Ed, February 27, 2017, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/27/research-confirms-professors-lean-left-questions-assumptions-about-what-means.
 “The Close-Minded Campus? The Stifling of Ideas in American Universities,” American Enterprise Institute website, June 8, 2016, https://www.aei.org/events/the-close-minded-campus-the-stifling-of-ideas-in-american-universities/.
 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), 2–3.
 Zygmund Dobbs, “American Fabianism,” Keynes at Harvard: Economic Deception as a Political Credo. (Veritas Foundation, 1960), Chapter III.
 Robin S. Eubanks, Credentialed to Destroy: How and Why Education Became a Weapon (2013), 26.
 Walter Williams, More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1999), 126.
 David Macey, “Organic Intellectual,” The Penguin Dictionary of Critical Theory (London: Penguin Books, 2000), 282.
 Karl Marx, “Theses On Feuerbach” (Marx/Engels Selected Works, Volume One), 13–15.
 Bruce Bawer, The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind (New York: Broadside Books, 2012), Chapter 1.
 Franz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, trans. Constance Farrington (New York: Grove Press, 1963), 92.
 Jean Paul Sartre, “Preface,” The Wretched of the Earth, by Franz Fanon, 22.
 Roger Kimball, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, revised edition (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1998), 25–29.
 Jonathan Culler, Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 4.
 Fredrick Jameson, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981), Chapter 1.
 Roger Kimball, “An Update, 1998,” Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, 3rd Edition (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2008), xviii.
 Karl Marx, “The German Ideology” (Progress Publishers, 1968).
 “Most Cited Authors of Books in the Humanities, 2007,” Times Higher Education, https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/BanduraTopHumanities.pdf.
 Joshua Phillip, “Jordan Peterson Exposes the Postmodernist Agenda,” The Epoch Times, June 21, 2017, https://www.theepochtimes.com/jordan-peterson-explains-how-communism-came-under-the-guise-of-identity-politics_2259668.html.
 Roger Kimball, “The Perversion of Foucault,” The New Criterion, March 1993, https://www.newcriterion.com/issues/1993/3/the-perversions-of-m-foucault.
 David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin, One Party Classroom (New York: Crown Forum, 2009), 51.
 Ibid., 51–52.
 Bawer, The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind, Chapter 3.
 Horowitz and Laksin, One Party Classroom, 3.
 David Horowitz, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2013), 84–5.
 Horowitz and Laksin, One Party Classroom, 212.
 David Horowitz, Indoctrinate U.: The Left’s War against Academic Freedom (New York: Encounter Books, 2009), Chapter 4.
 Horowitz and Laksin, One Party Classroom, 1–2
 Quoted from http://www.azquotes.com/author/691-Bill_Ayers.
 Horowitz, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, 102.
 “Who Won the Civil War? Tough Question,” National Public Radio, November 18, 2014, https://www.npr.org/sections/theprotojournalist/2014/11/18/364675234/who-won-the-civil-war-tough-question.
 “Summary of Our Fading Heritage: Americans Fail a Basic Test on Their History and Institutions,” Intercollegiate Studies Institute Website, https://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2008/summary_summary.html.
 “Study: Americans Don’t Know Much About History,” July 17, 2009, https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Study-Americans-Dont-Know-About-Much-About-History.html.
 Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (New York: Harper Collins, 2003).
 Horowitz, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, 74.
 Dinesh D’ Souza, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (New York: The Free Press, 1991), 71.
 Paul Samuelson, “Foreword,” in The Principles of Economics Course, eds. Phillips Saunders and William B. Walstad (New York: McGraw-Hill College, 1990).
 Alan D. Sokal, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” Social Text No. 46/47 (Spring–Summer, 1996), 217–252.
 Alan D. Sokal, “A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies,” Lingua Franca (June 5, 1996). Available at http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html.
 Alan D. Sokal, “Parody,” “All Things Considered,” National Public Radio, May 15, 1996, https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1043441.
 Alan D. Sokal, “Revelation: A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies,” in Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy, ed. The Editors of Lingua Franca (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), 52.
 Thomas Sowell, Inside American Education: The Decline, The Deception, The Dogma (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 212–213.
 Donald Alexander Downs, Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus (Oakland, CA: Independent Institute, 2004), 51.
 Eugene Volokh, “UC Teaching Faculty Members Not to Criticize Race-Based Affirmative Action, Call America ‘Melting Pot,’ and More,” The Washington Post, June 16, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/16/uc-teaching-faculty-members-not-to-criticize-race-based-affirmative-action-call-america-melting-pot-and-more/?utm_term=.c9a452fdb00f.
 “Victory at IUPUI: Student-Employee Found Guilty of Racial Harassment for Reading a Book Now Cleared of All Charges,” Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, https://www.thefire.org/victory-at-iupui-student-employee-found-guilty-of-racial-harassment-for-reading-a-book-now-cleared-of-all-charges/.
 “Colleges Become Re-Education Camps in Age of Diversity,” Investor’s Business Daily, https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/students-indoctrinated-in-leftist-politics/.
 Greg Lukianoff, “University of Delaware: Students Required to Undergo Ideological Reeducation,” Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, https://www.thefire.org/cases/university-of-delaware-students-required-to-undergo-ideological-reeducation/.
 Alison Flood, “US Students Request ‘Trigger Warnings’ on Literature,” The Guardian, May 19, 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/19/us-students-request-trigger-warnings-in-literature.
Below are references for sections 2-3.
 A Nation at Risk, https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html.
 Mark Bauerlein, The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2008), Chapter One.
 John Taylor Gatto, Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling (Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2005), 12.
 Charles J. Sykes, Dumbing Down Our Kids: Why American Children Feel Good about Themselves but Can’t Read, Write, or Add (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1995), 148–9.
 Thomas Sowell, Inside American Education (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 4.
 Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America: A Chronological Paper Trail (Ravenna, Ohio: Conscience Press, 1999), xvii.
 Robin S. Eubanks, Credentialed to Destroy: How and Why Education Became a Weapon (invisibleserfscollar.com, 2013), 48.
 Ibid., 49.
 Ibid., 45–46.
 “Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries,” Human Events, May 31, 2005, http://humanevents.com/2005/05/31/ten-most-harmful-books-of-the-19th-and-20th-centuries/.
 Mortimer Smith, And Madly Teach: A Layman Looks at Public School Education (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1949). See also: Arthur Bestor, Educational Wastelands: The Retreat from Learning in Our Public Schools, 2nd ed. (Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1985).
 John A. Stormer, None Dare Call It Treason (Florissant, Missouri: Liberty Bell Press, 1964), 99.
 I. L. Kandel, “Prejudice the Garden toward Roses?” The American Scholar, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Winter 1938–1939), 77.
 Christopher Turner, “A Conversation about Happiness, Review – A Childhood at Summerhill,” The Guardian, March 28, 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/28/conversation-happiness-summerhill-school-review-mikey-cuddihy.
 Alexander Neil, Summerhill School: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing (New York: Hart Publishing Company, 1960), Chapter 3.
 Ibid., Chapter 7.
 Joanne Lipman, “Why Tough Teachers Get Good Results,” The Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2013, https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-tough-teachers-get-good-results-1380323772.
 Daisy Christodoulou, Seven Myths about Education (London: Routledge, 2014).
 Diane West, The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing down Western Civilization (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2008), 1–2.
 Fred Schwartz and David Noebel, You Can Still Trust the Communists… to Be Communists (Socialists and Progressives too) (Manitou Springs, CO: Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, 2010), back cover.
 Stein v. Oshinsky, 1965; Collins v. Chandler Unified School District, 1981.
 John Taylor Gatto, The Underground History of American Education: A Schoolteacher’s Intimate Investigation into the Problem of Modern Schooling (The Odysseus Group, 2000), Chapter 14.
 Diane Ravitch, “Education after the Culture Wars,” Dædalus 131, no. 3 (Summer 2002), 5–21.
 Steven Jacobson, Mind Control in the United States (1985), 16, https://archive.org/details/pdfy-6IKtdfWsaYpENGlz.
 “Inside a Public School Social Justice Factory,” The Weekly Standard, February 1, 2018, https://www.weeklystandard.com/katherine-kersten/inside-a-public-school-social-justice-factory.
 History Social-Science Framework (Adopted by the California State Board of Education, July 2016, published by the California Department of Education, Sacramento, 2017), 431, https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/hs/cf/documents/hssfwchapter16.pdf.
 Ibid., p. 391.
 Stanley Kurtz, “Will California’s Leftist K-12 Curriculum Go National?” National Review, June 1, 2016, https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/will-californias-leftist-k-12-curriculum-go-national/.
 Phyllis Schlafly, ed., Child Abuse in the Classroom (Alton, Illinois: Pere Marquette Press, 1984), 13.
 Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud (Boston: Beacon Press, 1966), 35.
 B. K. Eakman, Cloning of the American Mind: Eradicating Morality through Education (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1998), 109.
 William Kilpatrick, Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right from Wrong and What We Can Do about It (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 16–17.
 Thomas Sowell, Inside American Education: The Decline, the Deception, the Dogmas (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 36.
 Ibid., Chapter 3.
 “Death in the Classroom,” 20/20, ABC Network, September 21, 1990, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbiY6Fz6Few.
 Sowell, Inside American Education: The Decline, the Deception, the Dogmas, 38.
 Kilpatrick, Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right from Wrong and What We Can Do about It, 32.
 “We Teach Children Sex … Then Wonder Why They Have It,” Daily Mail, August 1, 2004, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-312383/We-teach-children-sex–wonder-it.html.
 “Focus on Youth with ImPACT: Participant’s Manual,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://effectiveinterventions.cdc.gov/docs/default-source/foy-implementation-materials/FOY_Participant_Manual.pdf?sfvrsn=0.
 Robert Rector, “When Sex Ed Becomes Porn 101,” The Heritage Foundation, August 27, 2003, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/when-sex-ed-becomes-porn-101.
 Norman K. Risjord, Populists and Progressives (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005), 267.
 Madeline Gray, Margaret Sanger (New York: Richard Marek Publishers, 1979), 227–228.
 Rebecca Hersher, “It May Be ‘Perfectly Normal,’ But It’s Also Frequently Banned,” National Public Radio, September 21, 2014, https://www.npr.org/2014/09/21/350366435/it-may-be-perfectly-normal-but-its-also-frequently-banned.
 Kilpatrick, Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right from Wrong and What We Can Do about It, 53.
 Maureen Stout, The Feel-Good Curriculum: The Dumbing Down of America’s Kids in the Name of Self-Esteem (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Publishing, 2000), 1–3.
 Ibid., 17.
 B. K. Eakman, Educating for the ‘New World Order’ (Portland, Oregon: Halcyon House, 1991), 129.
 “Teacher of the Year Ceremony,” C-Span, https://www.c-span.org/video/?39846-1/teacher-year-ceremony
 Sol Stern, “How Teachers’ Unions Handcuff Schools,” The City Journal, Spring 1997, https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-teachers%E2%80%99-unions-handcuff-schools-12102.html.
 Troy Senik, “The Worst Union in America: How the California Teachers Association Betrayed the Schools and Crippled the State,” The City Journal, Spring 2012, https://www.city-journal.org/html/worst-union-america-13470.html.
 Kilpatrick, Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right from Wrong and What We Can Do about It, 39.
 Samuel Blumenfeld and Alex Newman, Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children (Washington D. C.: WND Books, 2015), Chapter 14.
 Schlafly, Child Abuse in the Classroom, 14.
 Valerie Strauss, “A serious Rant about Education Jargon and How It Hurts Efforts to Improve Schools,” Washington Post, November 11, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/11/11/a-serious-rant-about-education-jargon-and-how-it-hurts-efforts-to-improve-schools/?utm_term=.8ab3d85e9e45.
 Stormer, None Dare Call It Treason, 104–106.
 Regarding the criticism of “common core,” see Duke Pesta, “Duke Pesta on Common Core – Six Years Later,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRr6nBEnz4, and Diane Ravitch, “The Common Core Costs Billions and Hurts Students,” New York Times, July 23, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/the-common-core-costs-billions-and-hurts-students.html.
 There are many such cases. For examples, readers to refer to Zhou Jingwen, Ten Years of Storm: The True Face of China’s Red Regime [風暴十年：中國紅色政權的真面貌], (Hong Kong: shi dai pi ping she [時代批評社], 1962). Web version available in Chinese at https://www.marxists.org/chinese/reference-books/zjw1959/06.htm#2
 Luo Pinghan, “The Educational Revolution of 1958,” Literature History of the Communist Party, Vol. 34
 Robert Gearty, “White Privilege Bolstered by Teaching Math, University Professor Says,” Fox News, October 24, 2017, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/24/white-privilege-bolstered-by-teaching-math-university-professor-says.html.
 Toni Airaksinen, “Prof Complains about ‘Masculinization of Mathematics,’” Campus Reform, August 24, 2017, https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9544.
 W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Communist (Salt Lake City: Izzard Ink Publishing, 1958, 2014), Chapter 12.