For thousands of years, the main institution of political power was monarchy, which received its authority from God. Heaven endowed the ruler with the divine right of kings. Emperors and kings performed a sacred role as intermediaries between man and God.
Today, many nations are run by democracies. In practice, democracy isn’t the rule of the people, but rather the rule of the representative chosen by the people. The election of a president is a democratic procedure. Once in office, the president has broad powers over politics, economics, the military, foreign relations, and so on.
Democracy cannot guarantee that good people will be elected. As the overall moral standard of society sinks, the winning candidates may well be those who specialize in empty or inflammatory rhetoric or are prone to cronyism. The damage to society is huge when a democracy does not take provisions to maintain the moral standards set by gods. The advantages of electoral representation disappear and are subsumed into mob politics that throw society into chaos and fragmentation.
The point is not to debate the respective merits of a particular political system. We are simply stating that moral values are the cornerstone of social stability and harmony. Democracy and the rule of law are merely the format by which society operates.
Liberalism and progressivism have now become the standard of “political correctness” in the West. In fact, they have been pushed to the point of becoming a secular religion.
Western leftists have used different labels throughout history, sometimes calling themselves liberal and sometimes calling themselves progressive. The two concepts do not differ significantly.
The ultimate concept of liberalism and progressivism is similar to that of communist ideology. Proponents advocate “freedom” and “progress” as absolute moral good and attack any dissenting opinion as heresy.
Similar to communism, atheism, evolution, and scientism, liberalism and progressivism replace the belief in God with humanist reason, effectively taking man himself to be a god.
They share the same enemies as the communists and blame social problems on perceived injustices or defects in the capitalist system, which they intend to subvert or overthrow.
Their methods are similar to those of communists. They think their cause so important that no means is off-limits to them. They can use violence or deception as called for in different situations.
The quasi-religious characteristics of liberalism and progressivism are inseparable from the historical background of their origin.
Rapid scientific progress since the eighteenth century greatly strengthened humankind’s confidence in its own ability and fuelled the progressive intellectual trend. French philosopher Marquis de Condorcet, a pioneer of progressive thinking, stated in his work Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind that reason leads people to the path of happiness and morality or goodness. Following this, progressivism became more aggressive and began pushing reason onto the altar of worship.
Progressive thinking allows one to view reason, conscience, and the Creator as separate, fostering the idea that man does not need the Creator’s salvation: He can use his own rationality and conscience to sweep away the evils of greed, fear, jealousy, and the like; man can establish paradise on earth and do away with the divine.
The arrogance of progressivism is exhibited in a statement by 19th-century French politician and art critic Jules Castagnary: “Beside the divine garden from which I have been expelled, I will erect a new Eden. … At its entrance, I will set up Progress … and I will give a flaming sword into his hand and he will say to God, ‘Thou Shalt not enter here.’” 
Filled with this kind of thought, people entertain an illusion of controlling humanity’s destiny and manipulating its future—that is, mankind wants to play the role of God—to create a utopia without God, a “paradise on earth,” which is the essential idea of communism. The struggle to achieve this paradise has caused a deluge of blood and misery.
Western countries are home to longstanding democratic traditions, such as the American separation of powers. Taking control over state power is not as simple as in the East. To establish control in the West, the evil specter had to adopt various indirect means of commandeering government institutions and marketing its treachery.
The United States is a multi-party system dominated by two parties. To enter the political mainstream, communism must infiltrate one or both parties and use them to take control of congressional votes. Meanwhile, its candidates must take up key positions in the government and courts. The extent to which communism has subverted U.S. politics is quite severe.
In order to secure a stable voting block, U.S. leftist parties have magnified the animosity between low- and high-income groups, while attracting an increasing number of immigrants and “vulnerable” groups such as the LGBT community, women, minorities, and so on. Left-wing politicians do all they can to pander to their demographic by advocating communist ideas, spurning the basic moral standards God set for humankind, and even shielding illegal immigrants so that they can join the ranks of the left.
A billionaire with a history of supporting left-wing movements has heavily funded leftist candidates to run for president of the United States and other important positions. Key among these are the secretaries of state, who are responsible for electoral affairs and play a critical role in resolving disputes. The billionaire has thrown much aid into the campaigns for these positions. 
Even when illegal immigrants committed crimes on U.S. soil, leftist authorities turned a blind eye and set up sanctuaries to protect them from the government. During the administration of a former leftist president, he attempted to grant amnesty to five million illegal immigrants, but the draft resolution was ultimately shelved by the Supreme Court.
Left-wing parties have fought for the voting rights of illegal immigrants. Of course, the motive isn’t necessarily to benefit the illegal immigrants or the general population, but to bolster the Left’s voter demographic. On Sept. 12, 2017, a city in an eastern U.S. state passed a bill to grant non-citizens the right to vote in local elections, including residents with green cards, student and work visas, or even those with no documentation of legal immigration status. It attracted widespread media attention for its potential effects on the electoral system in other parts of the country. 
Under the influence of the evil communist specter, American left-wing parties used underhanded measures to attract more votes and political control. America’s future hangs in the balance.
The previous leftist administration was heavily infiltrated by communists and socialists. Many groups that supported the former president had clear links to socialist organizations.
The former president is a disciple of the Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky. Following his election, he appointed advisors from far-left think tanks. His universal health care policy fined those who refused to enroll in it. He passed bills to legalize marijuana and homosexuality, allowed transsexuals to join the army, and so on.
When the California State Assembly was controlled by the Left, some representatives tried to abolish a law barring the Communist Party from participating in government. This attempt failed following strong opposition from the Vietnamese-American community.
The administration also concocted policies that corrupted human relations. In 2016, the “bathroom bill” signed by the sitting president allowed for people who identify as transgender to enter bathrooms of their chosen gender, regardless of their physical sex—in other words, a man who thinks he is a woman can enter the ladies’ room. The bathroom bill was made effective in public schools throughout the country. Schools that refuse to implement the bill will lose funding from the federal government.
Communist politics are not restricted to the totalitarianism practiced in communist states. As we emphasize, communism is a specter of supernatural power. It manipulates the thoughts of evildoers and deceives the gullible to act as its agents in the human realm. Donning alternative forms, the evil specter of communism has hijacked the political process of free nations in the Western world.
Europe is already in the grip of socialist ideology and policies. The United States is a special country. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the communist movement raged across Europe, its impact on the United States was limited. In 1906, German scholar Werner Sombart wrote a book on the topic called Why Is There No Socialism in the United States?  But the situation has since changed dramatically.
In 2016, a candidate of a major American political party openly promoted socialism in his campaign for the U.S. presidency. In communist vocabulary, socialism is just the “primary stage” of communism, and it was once viewed with scorn by most Americans. But the candidate said that he thinks there are a lot of people who get very nervous when they hear the word “socialist.” This politician managed to become one of the two leading candidates in his party.
A poll taken toward the end of the 2016 campaign showed that in one of the major leftist parties, 56 percent of people said they had a positive opinion toward socialism, continuing a trend suggested in 2011 by the Pew Research Center.  The Pew poll showed that 49 percent of U.S. citizens under the age of 30 viewed socialism positively, but only 47 percent were positive toward capitalism.  This marks an overall ideological shift to the left as society loses its understanding of communism.
The illusions that many in the West hold about socialism today mirror the experiences of countless impressionable young people who embraced communism in the last century in the Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere. The younger generation lacks deep understanding of their own history, culture, and traditions. Their resistance to socialism, which to them looks mild and humane, is nonexistent. The great communist deception of the 20th century is coming to repeat itself in the 21st.
Marx’s axiom “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is quite effective in deceiving the young, who fantasize about a life of generous socialist welfare as seen in the Nordic countries. These countries’ welfare systems have caused many social problems, but all attempts to bring about fundamental changes to the systems are stonewalled by the multitude of welfare recipients. The only electable politicians are those who continue to expand taxation and government intervention by using anticipated revenue.
As the economist Milton Friedman said, “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” 
High-welfare socialism promotes the continuous expansion of government and leads people to vote away their freedoms. It is an important step in the communist specter’s plans for enslaving humanity. Once all nations make the transition to socialism, the current Nordic model of socialism is but a simple step from democracy to totalitarianism. Once the socialist “primary stage” is completed, political leaders will immediately implement communism. Private property and the democratic process will be abolished. The welfare state will metamorphose into a yoke of tyranny.
Almost everything in the modern world is somehow related to politics. A single policy, law, incident, or scandal can send the public into a frenzy. The election of a leader can draw attention around the globe.
Most people only associate communist politics with countries under the rule of a communist party and believe that even those countries have stopped practicing communism. In fact, communism has concealed itself under various guises, such as socialism, neoliberalism, and progressivism. Upon closer examination, it will be seen that the evil specter of communism governs the entire world.
Superficially, the free world appears to understand the harm wreaked by communism. Yet in the 170 years since the publication of The Communist Manifesto, governments around the globe have been openly or covertly influenced by Marxist theories. In some respects, the free world has unexpectedly surpassed the self-avowed communist states when it comes to putting these theories into practice.
America is the leader of the free world and a traditional bastion of anti-communism. Yet in the 2016 election, an openly socialist candidate came close to the presidency. In polls, over half of young men said they supported socialism. 
In Europe, socialism is already the prevailing political force. One European politician said: “Today it’s a combination of democracy, rule of law, and the welfare state, and I’d say a vast majority of Europeans defend this—the British Tories can’t touch the National Health Service without being beheaded.” 
In communist states, the communist specter enjoys total political power. It uses the state as an instrument to commit mass murder, demolish traditional culture, extinguish moral values, and persecute practitioners of righteous cultivation ways—with the ultimate aim of destroying humanity.
Communist ideology persists despite the fall of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. In the wake of the Cold War, following decades of destruction wrought by espionage and subversion, the specter of communism is running rampant across the entire continent.
Though the communist specter failed in its attempt to bring the Western world under its direct state control, it subverted the governance of Western nations by advocating socialist policies, inciting violence, undermining traditional morality, and causing social unrest. It intends to set the West down a demonic path as it goes about the destruction of humankind.
Before 1969, state divorce laws across the United States were based in traditional religious values. In order for a divorce to be considered, it required a legitimate claim of fault from one or both of the spouses. Western religion teaches that marriage was established by God. A stable family is beneficial to the husband, wife, children, and all of society. For this reason, the church and U.S. state laws all stressed the importance of preserving marriages except in extenuating circumstances. But in the 1960s, the ideology of the Frankfurt School had radiated out to society. Traditional marriage came under attack, and the most damage was done by liberalism and feminism. Liberalism rejected the divine nature of marriage by reducing its definition to a social contract between two people, while feminism views the traditional family as a patriarchal instrument in the suppression of woman. Divorce was promoted as a woman’s liberation from the “oppression” of an unhappy marriage, or her path to a thrilling life of adventure. This mindset led to the legalization of no-fault divorce, allowing either spouse to disband a marriage as irreconcilable for any reason. The U.S. divorce rate grew rapidly in the 1970s. For the first time in American history, more marriages were being ended not by death, but by disagreement. Of all newlywed couples in the 1970s, nearly half would divorce. Divorce has deep and long-lasting effects on children. Michael Reagan, the adopted son of former President Ronald Reagan, described the separation of his parents: “Divorce is where two adults take everything that matters to a child — the child’s home, family, security, and sense of being loved and protected — and they smash it all up, leave it in ruins on the floor, then walk out and leave the child to clean up the mess.”  Promoting the “right to abortion” is another one of the methods the devil uses to destroy people. Initially, the discussion on legalized abortion was restricted to specific circumstances such as rape, incest, or the debilitating health of the mother. Advocates of sexual liberation believe that sex should not be limited to the confines of marriage, but unwanted pregnancy presents a natural obstacle to this sort of lifestyle. Contraceptives may fail, so the promoters of unrestricted sex took up the cause of legalized abortion rights. At the 1994 United Nations International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, it was openly stipulated that “reproductive rights” are a natural human right, including the right to a “satisfying and safe sex life,” which covers abortion on demand.  At the same time, feminists introduced “my body, my rights” to argue that women have the right to give to or kill their unborn children. The debate expanded from allowing abortion in special circumstances to giving women the power to unilaterally end human life. While tempting people to give in to their desire, the devil uses feminism and sexual freedom to promote the massacre of the unborn. Not only have people been led to commit monstrous crimes, they have also abandoned the traditional understanding that life is sacred. …… In 1965, just 5 percent of children were born to unmarried mothers.  In that time, it was taken for granted that children grew up knowing their biological fathers. By the 2010s, however, unwed mothers accounted for 40 percent of births.  From 1965 to 2012, the number of single-parent families in America shot from 3.3 million to 13 million.  Though some fathers stayed, through cohabitation or later marriage, the majority of children born to these single mothers grew up without their fathers. Fathers serve as role models to their sons by teaching them how to be men, and show their daughters what it feels like to be respected in the way women deserve. Children suffer greatly from the absence of a father. Research shows that children who grew up without fathers often suffer from low self-esteem. They are likely to skip classes and drop out of school at a rate as high as 71 percent. Many do drugs, join gangs, and commit crimes: 85 percent of jailed youths and 90 percent of vagrants were raised in fatherless households. Early sexual experience, teen pregnancy, and promiscuity are common. People who grew up without their fathers are 40 times more likely to commit sex offenses compared with the rest of the population.  The Brookings Institute offered three key pieces of advice for young people looking to escape poverty: Graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and wait until age 21 to marry and have children. Statistically speaking, only 2 percent of Americans who meet these conditions live in poverty, and 75 percent are considered middle class.  In other words, completing education, finding employment, marrying at a suitable age, and having children in the confines of marriage is the most reliable way to become a responsible adult living a healthy, productive life. Most single mothers rely on government charity. A report published by the Heritage Foundation used detailed statistical data to show that the welfare policy so strongly advocated by feminists actually encourages the creation of single-mother households, even to the point of penalizing couples from marrying since they would receive fewer benefits.  The government has effectively replaced the father with welfare. Welfare policies have not helped families living in poverty. Instead, they have simply supported the ever-increasing number of single-parent families. With the children of such households themselves prone to poverty, the result is a vicious cycle of expanding reliance on state aid. This is exactly what the specter of communism aims to achieve: control over every aspect of the individual’s life through high taxation and omnipresent government. …… The Wall Street Journal published a report quoting the U.S. Census Bureau finding that in 2000, 55 percent of people between the ages of 25 and 34 were married, and 34 percent had never been married. By 2015, these figures had changed to 40 percent and 53 percent respectively. Young people in the United States are avoiding marriage because in today’s culture, sex and marriage are completely separated. What do they need to get married for?  In this degenerate environment, the trend is toward casual, no-strings-attached hookups. Sex has nothing to do with affection, not to mention commitment and responsibility. Even more frightening is the profusion of myriad sexual orientations. Facebook’s user profile options provide sixty different types of sexual orientations. If young people can’t even tell if they are male or female, how will they view marriage? The evil specter has used the law and society to completely rework these God-given concepts. Homosexuality and other degenerate sexual behavior was originally referred to as “sodomy” in English. Sodomy is a Biblical reference to the city of Sodom, wiped out in God’s wrath for people’s practice of sexual degeneracy. The word “sodomy” serves as a warning to humankind that disastrous consequences will occur if people stray from divine principles. The gay rights movement worked very hard to appropriate the term “gay,” a word with an originally positive meaning, and lead people to further sin. “Adultery” used to be a negative term referring to immoral sexual habits. Today, it has been watered down to “extramarital sexual relations” or “cohabitation.” In The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, Hester Prynne committed adultery and struggled to remake herself through repentance, but in today’s society, repentance is not necessary: Adulterers can enjoy life holding their heads high and proud. Chastity used to be a virtue in both Eastern and Western cultures. Today it is an anachronistic joke. Passing judgment on homosexuality and sexual morality is forbidden in the dictatorship of political correctness. The only acceptable stance is to respect others’ “free choice.” This is true not only in everyday life, but throughout academia, where morality is divorced from practical reality. Deviated and degenerated things have been normalized. Those who indulge in their desires feel no pressure or guilt. The devil’s plot for humanity’s damnation is well underway. Western people under the age of fifty can barely remember the culture that used to exist in society. At that time, almost all children grew up with the presence of their biological fathers. “Gay” meant “happy.” White wedding gowns represented chastity. Pornographic content was banned from TV and radio. But that was undone in just sixty years, as the devil completely overturned the traditional way of life. …… Marx and other communists advocated the abolition of the family by pointing out and exaggerating the existence of phenomena such as adultery, prostitution, and illegitimate children, despite the fact that the communists themselves were also guilty of these things. The gradual degeneration of morality that occurred in the Victorian era eroded the sacred institution of marriage and brought people further from divine teachings. The communists urged women to violate their marital oaths for the sake of their supposed personal happiness. But the result was the opposite, like drinking sea water as a remedy for thirst. The communist specter’s “solution” for oppression and inequality amounts to nothing more than dragging down the standards of human morality to hellish depths. It made behavior once universally condemned as ugly and unforgivable into the new norm. In the “equality” of communism, all are marching to the same fate of destruction. The communist specter created the mistaken belief that sin is not caused by the degeneration of morality, but by social oppression. It led people to find a way out by turning their backs on tradition and moving away from God. It used the beautiful rhetoric of freedom and liberation to advocate feminism, homosexuality, and sexual perversion. Women have been stripped of their dignity, men have been robbed of their responsibility, and the sanctity of family has been trampled upon, turning the children of today into the devil’s playthings.
The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) movement has been closely associated with communism ever since the first utopians began touting homosexuality as a human right. Since the communist movement claims to emancipate people from the bondage of traditional morality, its ideology naturally calls for supposed LGBT rights as a part of its program of “sexual liberation.” Many proponents of sexual liberation who staunchly support homosexuality are communists or share their views. The world’s first major LGBT movement was started by senior figures of Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SDP) during the 1890s. Led by Magnus Hirschfeld, this group promoted homosexuality as being “natural” and “moral.” In 1897, the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee, known in German as the “Wissenschaftlich-humanitäres Komitee” (WhK), was founded by Hirschfeld to advocate for LGBT causes and began their first public campaign that year. In 1895, when British writer Oscar Wilde was investigated for his sexual relationship with another man, the SDP was the only group that stood up in his defense. SDP leader Eduard Bernstein proposed a bill to overturn the law banning sodomy. One of the most radical examples of sexual liberation in the era came following the Bolsheviks’ October Revolution in Russia. Soviet sexual policies, which were discussed earlier in this chapter, abolished legal prohibitions on homosexual relationships, making the Soviet Union the most liberal country on earth by leftist standards. In 1997, the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa passed the world’s first constitution that recognized homosexuality as a human right. The ANC, a member of the Socialist International (formerly a branch of the now-defunct Second International), has consistently supported homosexuality. Inspired by Hirschfeld’s WhK, in 1924, Henry Gerber founded the Society for Human Rights (SHR), the first American LGBT rights organization. SHR was short-lived, as several of its members were arrested soon after its establishment. In 1950, American communist Harry Hay founded the Mattachine Society in his Los Angeles residency. The organization was the first influential LGBT group in the United States. It expanded to other areas and released its own publications. In 1957, zoologist Evelyn Hooker claimed in her research that there was no mental difference between homosexual and heterosexual men. Her work then became the main “scientific basis” used to justify homosexuality. Hooker had links to a member of the Mattachine Society, who persuaded her to support homosexuality. Her study has been criticized for picking all its subjects from the ranks of the Mattachine Society.  In the 1960s, accompanying the wave of sexual liberalization and the hippie movement, the homosexual cause went public. In 1971, the National Organization for Women (NOW), a major American feminist organization, stated its support for homosexual rights. In 1974, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) cited Evelyn Hooker’s research as the main evidence for taking homosexuality off the list of mental disorders. But in the actual vote, this decision was opposed by 39 percent of the APA’s members. In other words, the research was far from unanimously convincing. Hooker and her follow-up researchers chose the so-called adjustment test results as a measure for the psychological status of homosexuals. To put it plainly, if a person can adapt to society, maintain self-esteem and good interpersonal relationships, and has no psychological barriers in his or her regular social life, he or she can be considered a psychologically normal person. In 2015, Dr. Robert L. Kinney III published an article in the medical journal Lincore that discussed the flaws in the standard Hooker used to determine the presence or lack of mental disorder. An an example, there is a type of mental illness called xenomelia, which creates in its sufferers a strong desire to cut off their own healthy, functioning limbs. Similar to how some homosexuals are convinced they were born with the wrong sex organs, xenomelia patients strongly believe that one or more of their body parts do not belong to them. This kind of patient is fully capable of adapting to society, maintaining self-esteem and good interpersonal relationships, and has no psychological barriers to functioning in society. Patients experience satisfaction when the offending limb is amputated and report that it improves their lives.  Kinney’s report cited other mental illnesses. For instance, people with a certain type of psychological disorder enjoy eating plastic. Nonsuicidal victims of another illness have a strong desire to hurt themselves physically, and so on. They often have good social “adjustment,” evidenced by such qualifiers as having earned college degrees. All these conditions are nevertheless psychological abnormalities as recognized by the scientific community.  Many studies confirm that homosexuals have significantly higher rates of contracting AIDS, committing suicide, and abusing drugs than the general population,  even in countries such as Denmark, where same-sex marriages have long been legal and destigmatized.  The prevalence of AIDS and syphilis among homosexuals is between 38 and 109 times that of the normal population.  Before the breakthroughs in AIDS treatment made in the 1990s, the average lifespan of homosexuals was eight to twenty years lower than the average population.  These facts do not suggest that homosexuality is normal or healthy. As the LGBT movement continues to grow, the “politically correct” label of “homophobia” is used to attack those opposed to homosexuality, and experts who present findings that homosexuality is a mental illness are marginalized. A considerable number of homosexuals have obtained degrees in psychology and psychiatry and have become “experts” in “queer studies.” The supposedly scientific evidence widely quoted today to support homosexuality as “normal” behavior is the “Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation,” written by a working group appointed by the APA in 2009. Kinney has noted that out of the seven members of the working group, six, including the chairman, were homosexual or bisexual. The study cannot be considered scientifically neutral. Joseph Nicolosi, late president of the National Institute of Gay and Lesbian Studies, disclosed that at the time, the most qualified experts applied to join the working group, but because they belonged to the academic school that supported the use of treatment to correct homosexuality, none were accepted.  Nicholas Cummings, a former APA president, said in a public statement that politics trumps science in the Association, which has been taken over by advocates of homosexual rights.  Today, the adjustment standard supported by queer-studies “experts” and proponents of the homosexual movement is also widely used by the APA to measure other sexual-psychological abnormalities, such as pedophilia. According to the APA, a pedophile is defined as an adult who feels intensely aroused or has sexual fantasies upon seeing a child, regardless of whether these impulses are acted upon or not. But as long as he or she is capable of demonstrating “adjustment,” then the pedophile’s sexual orientation should be considered “normal.” Rather, only when pedophiles feel shame, inner conflict, or other types of debilitating psychological pressure does it count as a disorder. This standard of diagnosis runs completely counter to normal human values: According to the APA, a person who feels shame and guilt for having unacceptable impulses is mentally ill, but someone who is comfortable with these impulses is supposedly healthy. Homosexual marriage was legalized following this logic, and acceptance of pedophilia cannot be long in coming. David Thorstad, a Trotskyite and member of the American Communist Party, founded the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Another important figure in the American LGBT movement and a promoter of pedophilia is Allen Ginsberg, a communist, and admirer of Fidel Castro. Aside from NAMBLA, another major pedophile organization is the Childhood Sensuality Circle, founded in California in 1971 by disciples of the German communist and pioneer of sexual liberation Wilhelm Reich. Pandora’s box has been thrown wide open. According to the adjustment standard of today’s psychology, various perverted sexual freedoms advocated by the utopian socialist Charles Fourier, including incest, group marriage, and bestiality, can also be considered normal psychological states. The divine union of husband and wife has been distorted to include same-sex couples. It follows that incestuous families and “marriage” between humans and animals can be legalized. The devil is reducing man to a beast, without standards or morals, so that he will be eventually destroyed. The LGBT movement, sex liberation, and feminism have put the family structure and human morality under total siege. It is a betrayal of the traditional marriage that God arranged for mankind. To treat homosexuals as fellow human beings is kind and good, but the devil has manipulated this kindness to deceive and destroy people who have forgotten that gods created men and women in their image and set the conditions for being human. When man is no longer man, and woman is no longer woman, when people abandon divine moral codes and side with the devil for the sake of their desires, then there is no escape from the abyss of damnation. We may kindheartedly say “we respect your choice” to those who have gone astray and wandered to the edge of the abyss, but this serves only to push them closer to danger. True compassion is to tell those who are misguided to distinguish between right and wrong, to lead them back to the upright path, and help them avoid doom — even if it means being resented or misunderstood.
Feminism is now prevalent in all sections of society. According to a public survey conducted by Harvard in 2016, about 59 percent of women expressed support for feminist views. One major assertion of contemporary feminism is that apart from the physiological differences in male and female reproductive organs, all other physical and psychological differences between men and women, including divergences in behavior and personality, are social and cultural constructs. By this logic, men and women should be completely equal in all aspects of life and society, and all manifestations of “inequality” between men and women are the result of a culture and society that is oppressive and sexist. For example, the number of men working as executives in large companies, high-level academics in elite universities, and senior government officials far outstrips the proportion of women in similar positions. Many feminists believe this is mainly caused by sexism, when in fact a fair comparison between the sexes can be made only when considering factors such as ability, hours, work ethic, and the like. Success in high-level positions often requires long-term, high-intensity overtime work — the sacrifice of weekends and evenings, sudden emergency meetings, frequent business travel, and so on. Giving birth tends to interrupt a woman’s career, and women are inclined to reserve time to spend with their families and children instead of dedicating themselves completely to their work. In addition, people with the aptitude to fill high-level positions tend to possess strong personalities, whereas women tend to be gentler and more agreeable. These are the main reasons why females fill such a small proportion of high-level positions. However, feminists regard women’s tendencies to be gentle and to orient themselves around family and children as traits imposed upon them by a sexist society. According to feminism, these differences should be corrected by services such as public daycare and other forms of welfare.  Contemporary feminism cannot tolerate any explanation of inequality between men and women that bases its argument on natural physiological and psychological differences between men and women. All blame must be laid at the feet of social conditioning and traditional morality. In 2005, Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University, spoke at an academic conference to discuss why women are less likely than men to teach in the scientific and mathematics fields of top universities. In addition to the 80-some hours per week required for these positions, and their unpredictable work schedules (time most women would reserve for family), Summers proposed that men and women may simply differ in their competence when it comes to advanced science and math. Despite supporting his statements with relevant studies, Summers became the target of protests by the feminist organization NOW. The group accused him of sexism and demanded his removal. Summers was roundly criticized in the media and forced to make a public apology for his statements. He then dedicated $50 million to increase the diversity of the Harvard faculty.  In 1980, Science Magazine published a study showing that male and female middle school students had significant differences in their mathematical reasoning ability, with boys performing better than girls.  A subsequent study that compared SAT math test scores for males and females found male examinees were four times as likely to achieve a score of more than 600, as compared with females. This gap became even more extreme at the 700-point threshold, where 13 times more male test-takers reached this score than did females.  The same research team did another study in the year 2000, finding that both male and female SAT examinees who demonstrated mathematical genius on their SAT scores tended to obtain advanced degrees in science and math-related fields, and were satisfied with their achievements. Lawrence Summers’s arguments were backed up by scientific data. Some reports noted that Summers’s treatment following the 2005 conference mirrors the re-education policies used by communist regimes to suppress dissidents. Even as the causes of inequality had yet to be determined, equality of outcome was enforced by encouraging “diversity” — that is, ensuring a larger number of female instructors in the math and scientific fields. It is simple to see the links between feminism and socialism. The nineteenth-century French diplomat and political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville said: “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: While democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”  None of this is meant to prove that men are superior to women in intelligence or ability, as men’s and women’s talents manifest themselves in different competencies. Deliberate attempts to eliminate differences between the sexes run counter to common sense and prevent both men and women from fulfilling their potential. While the reasons for psychological and intellectual disparities between men and women may not be immediately obvious, denying their physical and reproductive differences flies in the face of fact. In the traditional view of both the East and the West, men are protective figures. It’s normal that firefighters are overwhelming male. However, feminists, believing in absolute equality between men and women, demand that women take on traditionally male duties, with unexpected results. In 2005, the New York Fire Department allowed a woman to become a firefighter without passing the physical trials, which typically include completing tasks while wearing oxygen tanks and other equipment weighing 50 pounds. Other firefighters expressed concerns about this, saying that colleagues who couldn’t meet the standards would inevitably create burdens and danger for the rest of the team and for the public. The fire department eventually hired the woman so as to avoid a lawsuit: Feminist groups had long blamed NYFD’s high physical standards for the low proportion of women entering the firefighting force.  The Chicago fire department faced similar challenges and was forced to lower the standard in order to increase the number of female firefighters. In Australia, many city fire departments have implemented gender quotas. For each male applicant hired, a woman has to be hired as well. In order to meet this requirement, vastly different physical standards have been set for men and women despite their applying for the same dangerous, high-stress job. This illogical campaign for equality of outcome didn’t stop there. The quotas created friction between male and female firefighters, who reported that their male coworkers blamed them for being unqualified and incompetent. Feminist groups latched onto this as “bullying” and “psychological pressure.”  The situation created yet another battle for feminists to fight in their ostensible crusade for equality. But this absurdity is a deliberate step in the plans of the communist specter: By challenging the supposed patriarchy — that is, traditional society — feminism undermines the traditional family the same way that class struggle is used to undermine the capitalist system. In a traditional culture, it is taken for granted that men should be masculine and women should be feminine. Men shoulder responsibility for their families and communities by protecting women and children — the very patriarchal structure that feminism challenges on the grounds that it confers unfair advantages to men while restraining women. Feminism has no place for the traditional spirit of chivalry or gentlemanly behavior. In a feminist world, the men aboard the sinking Titanic would not have sacrificed their places in the lifeboats so that the female passengers could have a better chance at survival. Feminism’s crusade against patriarchy has also entered the realm of education. In 1975, a Pennsylvania court ruling on a lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Intercollegiate Athletic Federation ordered that schools must include both male and female students in all physical activities, including wrestling and American football. Girls were not allowed to abstain on the basis of their gender alone.  In her 2013 book The War Against Boys: How Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, American scholar Christina Hoff Sommers argued that masculinity is coming under attack.  She showcased the example of Aviation High School in Queens, New York, which primarily accepts students from low-income families. The school raised these children to high standards of academic achievement and was ranked as one of the best high schools in America by US News and World Report. The school specializes in teaching its students via hands-on projects such as constructing electrical mechanical aircraft, and unsurprisingly, the class body is overwhelmingly male. Girls, while forming a smaller percentage of students, also perform remarkably and earn the respect of their peers and instructors. Nevertheless, Aviation High School faced increasing criticism and threats of lawsuit from feminist organizations demanding that more female students be admitted. Speaking at the White House in 2010, the founder of the National Women’s Law Center took specific aim at Aviation High School as a case of “gender isolation” and said, “We are hardly going to rest on our laurels until we have absolute equality, and we are not there yet.” For feminists, raising boys to pursue masculine traits of independence and adventure, and encouraging girls to be gentle, considerate, and family-oriented amounts to nothing more than oppression and sexist inequality. Modern feminism is forcing society into a gender-free future by attacking the psychological characteristics of men and women that characterize their respective sex. This has particularly severe implications for children and young people who are in their formative years and among whom increasing numbers are expected to become homosexual, bisexual, or transgender. This is already underway in some European countries, where more and more children report feeling that they were born in the wrong body. In 2009, the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), based at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in London, received 97 referrals for sex transitioning. By 2017, GIDS was receiving over 2,500 such referrals annually.  Traditional society regards childbirth and the education of children to be the sacred duty of women, ordained by God or Heaven. In the annals of both East and West, behind every great hero is a great mother. Feminism discards this tradition as patriarchal oppression, and holds that expecting women to be responsible for raising their children is a key example of this oppression. Contemporary feminist literature is replete with denunciations of motherhood and married life as being monotonous, boring, and unfulfilling. The bias of this dim view is apparent when considering the personal lives of well-known feminists. Nearly all of them suffer from broken relationships or failed marriages, or they are childless. Feminism has opened the door to all kinds of ridiculous notions. There are those who insist that the personal is political and see domestic conflicts as gender wars. Some consider men parasites who enslave women’s minds and bodies. Others describe children as a hindrance to women looking to reach their full potential, and claim that the roots of oppression are in the family structure. Modern feminism openly proclaims that its aim is to destroy the traditional family. Typical statements include the following: “The precondition for women’s liberation is an end to the marriage system.”  “The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be.”  “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.  Feminist movements resolved supposed social problems by promoting moral degeneracy and destroying human relations in the name of “liberation.” According to Sylvia Ann Hewlett, an American economist and gender specialist, modern feminism is the major contributing factor to a large number of single-mother households, while no-fault divorce actually provides a convenient means for men to abandon their responsibilities. Ironically, feminism’s assault on the existing family structure works to destroy the haven that ensures the happiness and security of most women. Easy divorce did not emancipate women. Studies found that 27 percent of divorced women were living below the poverty line, a percentage three times higher than that of divorced men.  The specter of communism cares nothing about women’s rights. Feminism is merely its tool to destroy families and corrupt humankind.
The feminist movement is another tool the communist specter has used to destroy the family. When it began in the 18th century, the feminist movement (also known as first-wave feminism) started in Europe and advocated that women should be accorded the same treatment as men in education, employment, and politics. The center of the feminist movement shifted from Europe to the United States in the mid-19th century. When first-wave feminism started, the notion of the traditional family still had a strong foundation in society, and the feminist movement did not advocate directly challenging the traditional family. The influential feminists at that time, such as Mary Wollstonecraft of 18-century England, Margaret Fuller of 19-century America, and John Stuart Mill of 19th-century England, all advocated that in general women should prioritize the family after marriage, that the potential of women should be developed within the domain of the family, and that women should enrich themselves for the sake of the family (such as educating the children, managing the family, and so on). They thought, however, that some special women who are particularly talented should not be constrained by society, and should be free to utilize their talents, even to the extent of competing with men. After the 1920s, when the right for women to vote was written into law in many countries, the first wave of women’s rights movements gradually receded. In the following years, with the impact of the Great Depression and World War II, the feminist movement essentially laid down its flag. At the same time, the communist specter began to sow the seeds of destruction for traditional marriage and sexual ethics. The early utopian socialists in the 19th century laid the direction for modern radical feminist movements. François Marie Charles Fourier, called “the father of feminism,” declared that marriage turns women into private property. Robert Owen cursed marriage as evil. The ideas of these utopian socialists were inherited and developed by later feminists, including, for example, Frances Wright, who in the 19th century, inherited the ideas of Fourier and advocated sexual freedom for women. The British feminist activist Anna Wheeler inherited Owen’s ideas, fiercely condemning marriage for supposedly turning women into slaves. Socialist feminist activists were also an important part of the feminist movement in the 19th century. At that time, among the most influential feminist publications in France were La Voix des Femmes, the very first feminist publication in France, and Free Women (La Femme Libre, later renamed La Tribune des Femmes), as well as La Politique des Femmes, among others. The founders of these publications were either followers of Fourier or of Henri de Saint-Simon, the advocate of modernity. Because of the close connection between feminism and socialism, the authorities scrutinized feminism. When the first wave of women’s rights movements proceeded in full swing, the devil of communism also made arrangements to introduce a variety of radical thoughts to attack traditional concepts of family and marriage, paving the way for the more radical feminist movement that followed. The second wave of feminist movements began in the United States in the late 1960s, then spread to Western and Northern Europe, and quickly expanded to the entire Western world. American society in the late 1960s went through a period of turmoil, with the civil rights movement, anti-Vietnam War movement, and various radical social trends. Feminism, taking advantage of this unique set of circumstances, emerged in a more radical strain and became popular. The cornerstone of this wave of feminist movements was the book The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, published in 1963, as well as the National Organization for Women (NOW), which she founded. Using the perspective of a suburban middle-class housewife, Friedan fiercely criticized the traditional family role of women, and argued that the traditional image of a happy, content, joyful housewife is a myth forged by a patriarchal society. She argued that middle-class suburban families are “a comfortable concentration camp” for American women, and that modern educated women should reject the sense of accomplishment attained through supporting their husbands and educating their children, but instead realize their worth outside the family.  A few years later, more radical feminists dominated the National Women’s Organization, inheriting and developing Friedan’s ideas. They said that women had been oppressed by patriarchy since ancient times and attributed the root cause of women’s oppression to the family. In response, they came to advocate the complete transformation of the social system and traditional culture, and struggle in all aspects of human affairs—the economy, education, culture, and the family—to achieve female equality. Classifying a society into the oppressor and the oppressed to advocate for struggle, liberation, and equality is exactly what communism is all about. Traditional Marxism classifies groups according to their economic statuses, while neo-feminist movements divide people based on gender. Betty Friedan, the author of The Feminine Mystique, was not, as her book described, a middle class suburban housewife bored with her housework. Daniel Horowitz, a professor at Smith College, wrote a biography of Friedan in 1998 titled Betty Friedan and the Making of The Feminine Mystique. His research reveals that Friedan, under her maiden name Betty Goldstein, had been a radical socialist activist since her college years up to the 1950s. At different times, she was a professional journalist, or propagandist to be accurate, for several radical labor unions in the orbit of the Communist Party USA. David Horowitz, a former leftist and no relation to Daniel Horowitz, reviewed her published articles to understand the development of her views.  She was a member of the Young Communist League while in UC–Berkeley. Friedan even requested twice, at different times, to join the CPUSA. Judith Hennesee, her authorized biographer, also indicates she was a Marxist.  Kate Weigand, an American scholar, points out in her book Red Feminism that feminism in fact did not stay quiet in the United States from the early 20th century to the 1960s. During that period, a large group of red feminist writers with communist backgrounds paved the way for the subsequent second-wave feminist movement. These include Susan Anthony, Eleanor Flex, Gerda Lerner, Eve Merriam, and the like. As early as 1946, Anthony applied the Marxist analytical method to draw an analogy between the white oppressing the black, and the male oppressing the female. However, due to the McCarthyism of the period, such writers no longer talked about their red background.  In Europe, French writer Simone de Beauvoir’s iconic work The Second Sex ushered in the craze for the second wave of feminism. De Beauvoir used to be a socialist. In 1941, together with communist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and other writers, she created Socialiste et Liberté, a French underground socialist organization. With the rise of her reputation for feminism in the 1960s, de Beauvoir declared that she no longer believed in socialism, and claimed that she was only a feminist. She said, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” She advocated that though sex is determined by physiological characteristics, gender is a self-perceived psychological concept formed under the influence of human sociality. She argued that the temperaments of obedience, submissiveness, affection, and maternity are all derived from the “myth” carefully designed by the patriarchy for its oppression of women, and advocated that women break through traditional notions and realize their unrestrained selves. This mentality in fact lies at the heart of the damaging notions of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, and the like. Since then, various feminist thoughts have emerged in a constant stream, all looking at the world through the lens of women being oppressed by a patriarchy, which is realized through the institution of the traditional family—making the family, then, an obstacle to the realization of female equality.  De Beauvoir held that women are restrained by their husbands due to marriage, and called marriage as disgusting as prostitution. She refused to get married and maintained an “open relationship” with Sartre. By the same token, Sartre also engaged in sexual encounters with other women. Her view on marriage is the standard among contemporary radical feminists. Such chaotic sexual liaisons and relationships are precisely the system of communal wives envisioned by Charles Fourier, forerunner of utopian communism in the 19th century.
The evil spirit’s ideological trends find their origins in the 19th century. After a century of transformation and evolution in the West, they finally came to the fore in the United States in the 1960s. In the 1960s, influenced and encouraged by neo-Marxism and various other radical ideologies, social and cultural movements manipulated by the evil spirit appeared. These include the hippie counterculture, the radical New Left, the feminist movement, and the sexual revolution. The turbulence of these social movements was a fierce attack against America’s political system, traditional value system, and social fabric. The movements quickly spread to Europe, rapidly altering the way the mainstream thought about society, the family, sex, and cultural values. While this was going on, the gay rights movement was also rising. The confluence of these forces led to the weakening of traditional Western family values and the decline of the institution of the traditional family and its centrality in social life. At the same time, social turmoil triggered a series of problems, including the proliferation of pornography, the spread of drug abuse, the collapse of sexual morality, the rise of the juvenile crime rate, and the expansion of groups depending on social welfare. …… Sexual liberation (also known as the sexual revolution) originated in the United States in the 1960s. Its subsequent rapid spread through the world dealt a devastating blow to traditional moral values, in particular traditional family values and sexual morality. The evil spirit made ample preparations for using sexual liberation against Western societies. The free love movement paved the way to gradually erode and disintegrate traditional family values. The concept of “free love” violates traditional sexual morality, and argues that sexual activity of all forms should be free from social regulation. In this view, individual sexual activities, including marriage, abortion, and adultery, should not be restricted by the government or law, nor subject to social sanction. The followers of Charles Fourier and the Christian Socialist John Humphrey Noyes were the first to coin the term “free love.” In recent times, the main promoters of free love ideas are almost all socialists or people deeply influenced by socialist thought. For example, among those pioneering the free love movement in Britain was socialist philosopher Edward Carpenter, who was also an early activist for gay rights. The gay rights movement’s most famous advocate, British philosopher Bertrand Russell, was an avowed socialist and a member of the Fabian Society. He claimed that morality should not limit humanity’s instinctive drive toward pleasure and advocated premarital and extramarital sex. The main forerunner of the free love movement in France was Émile Armand, in his early days, an anarcho-communist who later built on Fourier’s utopian communism, founded French individualist anarchism (which falls under the broader category of socialism), and advocated promiscuity, homosexuality, and bisexuality. The pioneer of the free love movement in Australia was Chummy Fleming, an anarchist (another socialist offshoot). The free love movement in America bore important fruit—Playboy, the erotic magazine founded in 1953. The magazine made use of coated paper to create the impression that it was artistic and not seedy. It also used expensive color printing, with the result that pornographic content typically regarded as low-class and vulgar swiftly entered the mainstream, and Playboy became a “high-class” leisure magazine. For more than half a century, it has spread the toxin of sexual freedom to people around the world and has laid siege to traditional morals and perceptions regarding sex. In the middle of the 20th century, with hippie culture increasing in popularity and free love gaining widespread acceptance, the sexual revolution (also known as sexual liberation) made its official debut. The term “sexual revolution” was coined by Wilhelm Reich, the founder of communist psychoanalysis and a German communist. He combined Marxism with Freudian psychoanalysis, and believed that the former liberated people from “economic oppression,” while the latter liberated people from “sexual repression.” Another founder of sexual liberation theory was Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School. During the Western counterculture movement of the 1960s, his slogan “make love, not war” embedded the notion of sexual liberation deep within people’s hearts. Since then, with the publication of Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, and the widespread use of oral contraceptives, the notion of sexual liberation swept through the West. It is worth mentioning that contemporary scholars have discovered distorted statistical data in Kinsey’s work, as well as exaggeration, over-simplification, and other fallacies driven by his political and ideological commitments. Kinsey set out to show that extramarital sex, homosexual sex, and so on were common, and thus to direct society to accept the normalization of these phenomena, a task at which he was largely successful.  All at once, being “sexually liberated” became fashionable. Among young people, promiscuity came to be considered normal. Teens who admitted to being virgins were ridiculed by their peers. Data show that of those who turned 15 years of age between 1954 to 1963 (the 60s generation), 82 percent had premarital sex before the age of 30.  In the 2010s, new brides who were still virgins before they married numbered only 5 percent, while 18 percent of brides had previously had 10 or more sexual partners before marriage.  The cultural mainstream has become saturated with sex, including in literature, film, advertising, and television.
In the traditional cultures of the East and West, marriage was established by gods and is considered to be arranged by Heaven. Once formed, the bond of marriage cannot be broken. Both men and women were created by gods according to their own images, and they are all equal before gods. At the same time, gods also made men and women different physically, and established respective roles for them. In the Western tradition, women are the bone of men’s bones and flesh of their flesh.  A man must love his wife as though she were part of his own body, and if necessary, sacrifice himself to protect his wife. In turn, a woman should cooperate with and help her husband, making the couple an integral whole. Men are responsible for working hard and making a living to support the family, while women suffer in childbirth. All this stems from the different original sins people carry. Similarly, in Eastern traditional culture, men are associated with the yang of yin and yang, which is symbolically connected with the sun and the sky, and which thus demands that they continuously strive to make progress and shoulder the responsibility of taking care of the family through hard times. Women belong to the yin principle, symbolically connected to the earth, which means they bear and nurture everything with great virtue. They should be yielding and considerate of others, and have the duty to support their husbands and educate their children. Only when men and women work well in their own roles can the yin and the yang be harmonized and children grow and develop in a healthy manner. Traditional families play the role of transmitting beliefs, morality, and maintaining the stability of society. The family is the cradle of belief and the bond for the transmission of values. Parents are the first teachers in children’s lives. If children can learn traditional virtues such as selflessness, humility, gratitude, endurance, and more from their parents’ words and deeds, they will benefit for the rest of their lives. Traditional married life also helps men and women grow together in morality. It requires husbands and wives to treat their emotions and desires with a new attitude and to be considerate and tolerant of each other. This is fundamentally different from the idea of cohabitation. Human emotions are fickle. If the couple are together because they like to be together and break up because they don’t like to anymore, the relationship is not much different from a common friendship unbounded by marriage. Marx ultimately hoped for widespread “unconstrained sexual intercourse,”  which of course is about dissolving the traditional marriage and thus in the end eliminating the institution of the family. …… Communism believes that the family is a form of private ownership. To eliminate private ownership, therefore, it follows that the family should also be eliminated. The original principle of communism regards economic factors to be key in determining the kind of family relationships formed. Contemporary Marxian-Freudianism regards sexual desire as the key to questions associated with the family. The common characteristic of these two ideologies is their casting aside of basic human morality, their worship of materialism, desire, and pragmatic interests. All of this simply turns humans into beasts. It is a twisted ideology that has the effect of destroying the family by corrupting thought. The fantastic delusion that sits at the heart of communism is the doctrine of the liberation of mankind. This manifests not merely as supposed liberation in an economic sense, but also the liberation of mankind itself. The opposite of liberation, of course, is oppression. So where does the oppression that must be resisted come from? Communism’s answer is that the oppression comes from people’s own notions, which are imposed by traditional social morality: The patriarchy of the traditional family structure oppresses women; traditional sexual morality oppressed human nature, and so on. The feminism and homosexual rights movements of later generations inherited and then expanded upon this communist-inspired theory of liberation. It leads to a full battery of concepts in opposition to traditional marriage and family, as well as sexual liberation, homosexuality, and the like. All of these ideas have become tools used by the devil to undermine and destroy the family. Communism sets itself against and wishes to overthrow all traditional moral values, as clearly stated in The Communist Manifesto.