M. Stanton Evans: That means that you penetrate the universities, you write the books, the novels, the poetry, the music, the book reviews. And once you can draw the culture, then you can shape the thought of rising generations.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：這就意味着你要滲透到大學裏去，寫書、寫小說、寫詩歌、作曲、寫書評。一旦你能控制文化，你就可以左右年輕一代的思想。
John Stormer: He differed from Marx. Instead of, for example, destroying the Church and the other basic institutions, he said infiltrate them and use them to change the culture.
約翰∙斯多莫：他與馬克思不同。他不是去毀掉教堂和其它基本的社會機構，他是滲透到這些機構里去，用制度本身去改變文化。
Dr. Robert Chandler: What Gramsci had to say was that this is the way that government is perpetuated and society is perpetuated is through these Churches because they set the standards. They set the framework of the way people live, of rules, how a family should be structured.
羅伯特∙謙德勒博士：葛蘭西的說法是，政府和社會能夠一直延續是因為教堂，教堂制定各種規範。教堂制定人們生活的框架，制定規則，規定了家庭的結構。
Trevor Loudon: He didn’t want a revolution on the streets that would be overturned by the police the next day. He wanted to change society over the long-term so they would have a revolution without us even realizing it basically.
翠弗爾∙路頓：他不想到街上去鬧革命，因為很快就會被警察制止。他想要長期改變社會，這種革命的形式是我們根本意識不到的。
Hon. Howard Phillips: And the communists had been very effective in promoting their ideology in Hollywood, in the mass media.
尊敬的霍華德∙菲利普斯：共產主義者非常成功地把他們的意識形態推銷給了荷里活和大眾媒體。
M. Stanton Evans: And I think he was quite right. I think that’s exactly what is happening. I think it’s worked, and it’s working right now. And that’s where a lot of these people come from.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：我認為他的辦法是有效的。這就是目前正在發生的。它起到作用了，而且正在起作用。很多像他這樣的人就是這麼來的。
Trevor Loudon: And that’s been the big success story of communism in the last fifty years. It’s the professors, it’s the educationalists, it’s the journalists. They are the shock troops, the Gramscian shock troops, of the future.
翠弗爾∙路頓：這就是過去五十年來共產主義的巨大勝利，那些教授、教育家、新聞記者、他們是葛蘭西未來的震擊部隊。
Narrator: And one of Gramsci’s all-star disciples, Saul Alinsky, became one of the most influential radicals of the1960s.
旁白：葛蘭西的一位明星門徒是索爾∙阿林斯基，他成為1960年代最具影響力的一位激進分子。
Trevor Loudon: Saul Alinsky was a prominent radical in1930s Chicago. He worked closely with the Communist Party. He used to go down and train at the rifle range with Leon Despres, who was later a mentor of Barack Obama. They used to train to shoot because they knew the revolution was just around the corner. But that didn’t come, so he got a bit more subtle.
翠弗爾∙路頓：1930年代時，阿林斯基在芝加哥就是個備受矚目的激進派人士。他與共產黨關係密切。他有段時間和里昂∙德普瑞一起在射擊場練打靶，德普瑞後來成為奧巴馬的一位導師。那時候他們一起練打靶是因為他們知道革命就要來了。但是革命沒有來，所以阿林斯基選了一條更狡黠的路。
Brannon Howse: Saul Alinsky called for a community organizer to stir things up, to create agitation. In fact, he said, you』ll be accused of being an agitator, and that’s exactly what you are. He wanted the haves and have-nots fighting with each other.
布蘭登∙豪斯：阿林斯基指使社會組織者去撥弄是非，煽動人群。實際上他說過，別人會控訴你是個煽動者，而你名副其實就是個煽動者。他要讓有產與無產的人相互對抗。
Narrator: It wasn’t until I was watching an old film from WWII that I realized what the Left has been doing in America to pit the poor against the rich, blacks against whites, and the young against the old. It’s the same tactic Hitler used to disunify Germany.
旁白：我在看了一部二戰老電影之後，才明白左派人士在美國一直在做什麼，他們讓窮人與富人、黑人與白人、年輕的與年長的對抗。希特拉分裂德國也是用的這套策略。
Man in clip from old WWII film: You see, they knew that they were not strong enough to conquer a unified country. So they split Germany into small groups. They used prejudices as a practical weapon to cripple the nation. Remember this when you hear this kind of talk. Somebody is going to get something out of it. And it isn’t going to be you.
二戰影片片段里的人：他們知道他們無法戰勝一個統一的國家，所以他們把德國分裂成一個個小群體。他們利用人們的偏見作為武器，把國家削弱。當你今後聽到這類説辭時，記住這一點。有人將從中獲利，而那個人不會是你。
Brannon Howse: And they used the conflict as justification for more government to stop the chaos. So they create the chaos, and then they step in as the solution to the chaos. And as Francis Schaeffer said, once this chaos comes, most people will willingly give over to authoritarianism, because they don’t want the chaos.
布蘭登∙豪斯：他們利用這種衝突作為加大政府力度來制止混亂的藉口。所以他們先製造混亂，然後他們再介入作為這種混亂的解決者。正如弗朗西斯∙薛華所說，當這種混亂降臨時，大部分人就會主動向專制主義屈服，因為他們不想看到混亂。
The Hon. Ed Meese, III: His book was kind of the field manual, if you will, for these activists organizations.
尊敬的埃德文∙米斯III：可以說，他的書就是這些積極分子組織的實際操作指南。
Brannon Howse: Which President Obama studied and taught at a workshop for four years in Chicago as a community organizer for ACORN.
布蘭登∙豪斯：奧巴馬總統研究過他的書，他在芝加哥的〝社區組織立即改革協會〞（ACORN）擔任社區組織者時，曾根據這本書執教了四年的講座。
Narrator: As I was reading through Rules for Radicals to see where he was coming from, I just happened to take a look at the dedication in the front of the book. And this is what I saw:「Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical...the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.」 Saul Alinsky, from Antonio Gramsci, has had an incredible amount of influence on our President[Obama] and on our society. And he dedicates his book openly to Lucifer? Satan? I think that says more about where their ideas and plans are based than anything else.
旁白：我在讀《激進分子的條規》（Rules for Radicals）時，想尋找阿林斯基思想的根源。我無意中看到書的一開始有一段獻辭。我看到的是：〝我們不應該忘記要對第一個激進者有基本的致意…人類所知道的最早的一位激進者對制度進行了反抗，他的反抗是如此有效，他至少贏得了自己的王國—他就是路西法（撒旦）。〞思想源於葛蘭西的阿林斯基，對我們的總統[奧巴馬總統]和我們的社會有巨大的影響力。而他把自己的書獻給撒旦？魔鬼？我認為這已經充分說清楚了他們的思想和計劃的根本來源於什麼。
Jim Simpson: You asked what Saul Alinsky’s impact is on the Leftist movement today, and it basically defines it. It defines it.
吉姆∙辛普森：你問到阿林斯基對今天的左派運動有什麼影響，他基本上定義了左派運動。他定義了它。
Narrator: Saul Alinsky took the best of Gramsci and the best of the Fabian Socialist ideas, combined, repackaged, and sold them to the60s radicals. After studying Alinsky, Richard Cloward and his wife, Frances Fox Piven, came up with what is today known as the Cloward-Piven strategy.
旁白：阿林斯基汲取了葛蘭西和費邊社的社會主義思想的精華，將它們匯集、重新包裝、然後兜售給了1960年代的激進派們。在研究了阿林斯基後，李查德∙科洛伍德和他的太太弗朗西斯∙福克斯∙皮文，想出了我們今天叫做〝科洛伍德-皮文戰略〞。
Trevor Loudon: Their idea was basically to destroy society, or to destroy capitalism per se, they needed to overload the system. The idea was to get everybody you possibly could on welfare, to get everybody you possibly could basically milking the system in some way or another.
翠弗爾∙路頓：他們的想法基本上就是毀掉社會、或者說毀掉資本主義本身，他們需要讓體系超載。他們的辦法是儘可能讓更多的人吃政府福利，不論通過什麼方法，儘可能讓更多人把體系壓榨殆盡。
Jim Simpson: It was called the crisis strategy, and it became very well-known by activists and radicals in the60s. They published an article in the May1966 issue of The Nation magazine called「The Weight of the Poor,」 in which they outlined their strategy.
吉姆∙辛普森：這叫做危機戰略，它被1960年代的積極分子和激進分子所熟知。他們在1966年5月份的《國家》雜誌（The Nation）發表了一篇名為〝窮人之重〞（「The Weight of the Poor,」）的文章，在文中陳述了他們的這套戰略。
Brannon Howse:[Wade] Rathke read that article, and Rathke ended up starting what we now know today as ACORN. And of course Cloward and Piven had been studying Saul Alinsky. So Antonio Gramsci gives us Saul Alinsky; Saul Alinsky gives us the Cloward-Piven strategy, this husband and wife[unsure35:00] that said let’s collapse the American economy by implementing so many entitlements, so much of a welfare state[that] it collapses. He, Rathke, studied the Cloward-Piven strategy. He starts ACORN.
布蘭登∙豪斯：偉德∙拉斯科讀了這篇文章，他後來創建了我們今天知道的〝社區組織立即改革協會〞（ACORN）。當然，科洛伍德與皮文學習了阿林斯基的思想。也就是說，葛蘭西給了我們阿林斯基，阿林斯基給了我們〝科洛伍德-皮文戰略〞，這對夫妻想通過儘可能增加應得福利的人數讓美國經濟垮掉，使美國成為福利過多的國家，導致其垮台。拉斯科研究了〝科洛伍德-皮文戰略〞。他創建了ACORN。
Narrator: And of course ACORN gave us Obama. And to show what a small world it is, Wade Rathke who started ACORN was the draft resistance organizer for SDS, the group the Fabians started.
旁白：當然，ACORN產生了奧巴馬。世界是多麼的小：拉斯科不僅創建了ACORN，他還是「學生爭取民主社會組織」（SDS）抵抗徵兵的組織者，SDS就是費邊社發起的。
Trevor Loudon: They』ve used that strategy ever since to expand voting rolls, to expand welfare rolls wherever they can, basically just to overload the system, to increase the tax burden on the class, and basically bring capitalism one step closer to destruction.
翠弗爾∙路頓：自此以來，他們一直用這套戰略儘可能地增加有投票權人數、享受福利人數，總之就是讓體系超載，增加中產階級繳稅負擔，讓資本主義離毀滅更近一步。
Narrator: I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that we still have open borders, that so many people are dependent on the government, and that the Left keeps pushing these programs when all they』ve done is tear apart the black families in America and create generational cycles of poverty.
旁白：所以我們到今天為止邊境仍然門戶大開，那麼多人仍然依靠政府生活，這也就不令人奇怪了。左派仍然在推進這些計劃，其實他們唯一做到的就是把美國的黑人家庭撕裂，導致了世世代代的循環性貧困。
Narrator: The last group that has worked alongside the Fabians and the Frankfurt School using Gramsci’s approach is the Communist Party USA.
旁白：最後一個與費邊社和法蘭克福學派並肩作戰，並採用葛蘭西路線的是美國共產黨。
Dr. David Noebel: Probably the most important book on this subject is called Toward Soviet America by William Z. Foster. William Z. Foster was the head of the Communist Party himself. He ran for the president of the United States in1932. But in the book, Toward Soviet America, he literally lays out, chapter by chapter by chapter, what is entailed to bring about a USSA, not just a USSR.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：這個題材最重要的一本書可能是威廉姆∙Z∙福斯特着的《走向蘇維埃美國》（Toward Soviet America）。福斯特本人是共產黨的領袖。他在1932年參加過美國總統競選。但是他在《走向蘇維埃美國》一書里，一章一章清楚地闡述了需要怎樣做才能創造出一個〝蘇維埃美國〞，而不僅是〝蘇聯〞。
Narrator: Two of the movements they started in America have played a significant role in tearing apart our families and breaking down our morality.
旁白：他們在美國掀起的兩個運動對於撕裂我們的家庭與毀壞我們的道德起到重要作用。
[On screen: Feminist Movement]
[女權運動]
Phyllis Schafly: Betty Friedan is credited with really starting the feminist movement in this country. The purpose really was to attack full time homemakers, to get them out of the home, to make them think they live dreary lives, to make women feel they are victims. It’s the science of victimology. And that is so unfortunate, because the American woman is the most fortunate class of people who ever lived on the face of the earth. And to try to tell them they are victims of an oppressive, unjust patriarchy is just a grievous lie. But unfortunately, they are teaching young women that and have been doing it for many years.
費利斯∙雪弗利：貝蒂∙傅瑞丹被認為是美國女權運動的奠基人。其真正目的是攻擊全職家庭主婦，讓她們離開家裏、讓她們認為自己的人生很悲哀又乏味、認為自己是受害者。這是受害者心理學。這實在很不幸，因為美國的女性是這個星球上有史以來最幸運的人群了。讓她們相信她們是生活在壓迫的、不公正的父系社會下的犧牲品—這是個徹底的謊言。不幸的是，多年來，他們正是把這種思想灌輸給年輕女性的。
Narrator: While Betty Friedan was pushing her book, Feminine Mystique, she implied that she was coming from the point of being a frustrated housewife herself, who just wanted to be a help to other women. But later in the1990s, it came out she was in fact a radical propagandist for the Communist Party and a staunch supporter of Stalin. So when she had described the American family as「a comfortable concentration camp,」 it wasn’t because of her experience at home. It was because she was just doing her part to dismantle our families.
旁白：貝蒂∙傅瑞丹在宣傳她的書《女性的奧秘》（Feminine Mystique）時，她暗示她本身曾是一個苦惱的家庭主婦，她只是想幫助其她女性。但是在1990年代末，人們發現她其實是一名共產黨的激進宣傳人員和斯大林的死忠支持者。當她把美國家庭形容成是〝舒適的集中營〞時，這不是因為她個人在家裏的經歷，而是因為她就是要來摧毀我們的家庭。
[On screen: The Homosexual Movement]
[同性戀運動]
Dr. David Noebel: I’m a student of communism, and the communists set up various groups in various societies. Their society that they set up to promote homosexuality in this country was called the Mattachine Society. It was founded by Henry Hay, a leading member of the Communist Party. So since I was studying communism and teaching on the issue of communism, you just follow leads, and all of a sudden you realize—what is this Mattachine? I』ve never heard of this Mattachine Society! Well, it was Henry Hay’s organization set up to infiltrate the culture of the United States to make homosexuality normal.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：我是學共產主義的。共產主義者們在不同的社會成立各種組織。在美國，他們成立了一個推廣同性戀的組織，叫做〝馬特蕊協會〞（Mattachine Society）。協會的創始人是亨利∙黑爾，他是共產黨的一位領導人物。因為我學共產主義、教和共產主義相關的問題，你就抽絲剝繭這樣去追蹤，突然你發現—這個〝馬特蕊協會〞是什麼？我從來沒有聽説過！它其實就是亨利∙黑爾建立的一個組織，用來滲透美國文化，讓同性戀正常化。
Trevor Loudon: It’s always been a movement dominated by the Left. It’s all these so-called「-isms.」 You』ll find there’s a communist or socialist behind every one of them. And you』ll always see the targets. It’s basically the traditional family unit.
翠弗爾∙路頓：這場運動一直是由左派主導的。所有的這個〝主義〞那個〝主義〞，它們的背後不是藏着共產主義者就是社會主義者。而他們的目標一貫是傳統的家庭單位。
Dr. David Noebel: The war is still against the family. If you go back to the「Communist Manifesto」 and read Karl Marx carefully, the war is against what they call the bourgeois family, which was really the biblical family—father, mother, and child.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：這場戰爭一直針對的是家庭。如果你去仔細讀馬克思的〝共產主義宣言〞，他說要對中產階級家庭宣戰。中產階級家庭其實就是聖經里講的家庭—有父親、母親、子女。
Hon. Steve King: They want to plow through marriage. They want to change the very definition and meaning of marriage because their open door to engineering society in this utopian way is blocked by the very values of our Christian civilization that’s taught through marriage.
尊敬的史蒂夫∙金：他們要對婚姻下手。他們要改變婚姻的根本定義和意義，因為他們想要通過一種烏托邦的方式重新塑造這個社會，但是擋在他們面前的恰恰是基督教文明的價值觀本身，這些價值觀是通過婚姻來傳授的。
Bryan Fischer: And so the Left just has got to destroy the family, because if there is any one thing that will prevent the Left from carrying out its agenda, it’s healthy and strong nuclear families.
布萊恩∙費西爾：所以，左派必須要毀掉家庭，因為如果有一樣東西阻擋左派實現他們的目標，那就是健康穩固的核心家庭。
Narrator: And so from the Fabian Socialists society to the Frankfurt School to Antonio Gramsci and the Communist Party USA, from these four, you will find connections to almost every left-leaning person and organization in America. Their influence has been incredible. It was in the1960s[when] all the groups on the Left seemed to realize Antonio Gramsci was right. In a Judeo-Christian society, you will never be able to persuade people to rise up in a Marxist revolution and start killing each other off. The only way to take the culture down is through penetrating the institutions of influence to change the people from within.
旁白：所以，從費邊社到法蘭克福學派，到葛蘭西，再到美國共產黨，你會發現他們與美國幾乎每一個傾向左派的人或機構都有關係。他們的影響之大不可思議。在1960年代，所有左派團體都意識到葛蘭西是對的：在一個猶太教-基督教社會，你永遠不可能説服人們發起一場馬克思式的革命、相互殺戮。摧毀這個文化的唯一辦法就是滲透入侵那些最具影響力的制度，從內部瓦解人們。
[On screen: Why are they so against morality?]
[他們為什麼那麼反對道德？]
Narrator: I guess the biggest surprise I had while studying these four groups was seeing that a large part of their agenda was trying to make us an immoral people.
旁白：我在研究這四個組織的過程中，最讓我感到意外的是，他們的一個主要目的是把我們變成道德敗壞的人。
The Hon. Ed Meese, III: The communists knew in the1930s and since that time, and the Leftists know today, that if you can break down the cultural traditions, the basic rules of morality, then it’s much easier to move people in different directions that are counter to the good of society.
尊敬的埃德文∙米斯III：1930年代以來的共產主義者和今天的左派都知道，如果可以毀掉文化傳統，毀掉基本的道德規範，那麼要把人們引向社會良善的對立面就容易得多了。
Wendy Wright: They recognize that it’s all part of the same fabric. Their ideologies all work together to break down families, to break down the sanctity of human life, the value of human life, to break down the idea that there is a God that we are accountable to.
溫迪∙萊特：他們知道這都是社會組織的構成部分。他們的全部意識形態就是要摧毀家庭、摧毀人類的聖潔的生活、摧毀人的價值、摧毀有上帝的説法，以及我們要對上帝有所交代的説法。
Bryan Fischer: They are essentially validating the Judeo-Christian worldview by the very things they attack because in their effort to destroy our culture, they know that they have to go after the very things that the Judeo-Christian tradition honors and values: morality, belief in God, faith, the importance of family, the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage.
布萊恩∙費西爾：通過他們攻擊的目標，他們實際上是在證實猶太教-基督教的世界觀，因為他們在試圖毀掉我們的文化時，他們知道需要針對猶太教-基督教引以為榮和珍視的最根本的東西：道德、對上帝的信念、信仰、家庭的重要性、生命的聖潔、以及婚姻的聖潔。
Narrator: It’s amazing our enemies could see our morality was our greatest strength. And yet so many Americans don’t seem to get it. Morality is simply having the character to do what you should do instead of what you have the freedom to do. And that’s the only way freedom works. A people cannot be given freedom without morality or they will self-destruct. And that’s what we see happening in America today. The bottom line is freedom and free enterprise are simply fruit on the tree of morality. Our founding fathers clearly understood this principle, and so do our enemies.
旁白：我們的敵人能夠發現道德就是我們最強大的力量—這實在令人驚異。可是有那麼多美國人還不懂這點。簡單的説，道德就是具備了只做應做之事的品行，而不是隨心所欲想做什麼做什麼。只有這樣，自由才可行。如果人無德，就不能有自由，否則他們會自毀。而我們看到，這正是美國的現狀。底線是，自由和自由企業兩者只不過是道德之樹產生的果實。我們的建國先父們對此十分清楚，我們的敵人也很清楚。
[On screen:「Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.」– John Adams]
[「我們的憲法只為擁有道德和信仰的人群而立。它對任何其他人群均不適當。」–約翰∙亞當斯（美國第二任總統）]
Narrator: There is an important fact we need to face. If we had Ronald Reagan as president, low taxes, and a strong national defense, the ship certainly wouldn’t be sinking as fast as it is now. But it would still be sinking. A booming economy doesn’t take care of the major problems we face: fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce; forty percent of all children born out of wedlock; over three thousand women a day aborting their babies; nineteen million new cases each year of sexually transmitted diseases; schools that teach the children everything is relative—there is no right or wrong; and the list goes on and on. I recently read in our local paper that over the last twelve months, almost seven percent of all high school students in my state tried to commit suicide. Our society is falling apart, whether we want to admit it or not.
旁白：有一個重要的事實我們需要面對。如果我們的總統是雷根，稅收低，擁有強大的國防，那麼我們肯定不會像現在下沉的這麼快。但是我們仍然會繼續下沉。經濟的繁榮解決不了我們面對的主要問題：50%的婚姻以離婚收場；40%的孩子是非婚生的；每天超過3000名女性墮胎；每年有1千9百萬人新感染上性病；學校教孩子：一切都是相對而言的，沒有對與錯之分；這只是舉幾個例子，還有很多。我最近在本地報紙上讀到，在過去12個月以來，我住的州里的高中學生中，幾乎7%試過自殺。無論我們願不願意承認，我們的社會在崩潰。
[On screen:「My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.」– Karl Marx]
[「我的人生目標是推翻上帝、毀掉資本主義。」-馬克思（共產主義之父）]
Narrator: Karl Marx had the insight to see that dethroning God and destroying capitalism went hand in hand. As you attempt to dethrone God by erasing the morality in a society and destroying His institutions—the family and the Church—you are destroying capitalism because as the families fall apart and the Church loses its influence, society starts to crumble. And then government has to expand to pick up the pieces.
旁白：馬克思洞察到，推翻上帝和摧毀資本主義有密切關聯。當你通過毀掉社會道德和上帝建立的制度—家庭與教堂—來推翻上帝時，你也同時在摧毀資本主義，因為一旦家庭崩裂，教堂失去影響力，社會就開始崩潰。那麼政府就不得不通過擴張來收拾殘局。
Jim Simpson: The question, as Whittaker Chambers put it, was God or man? God or man?
吉姆∙辛普森：如惠特克∙錢伯斯所說，一個關鍵問題是：尊崇上帝還是尊崇人？上帝還是人？
Hon. H.L. Richardson: Karl Marx was an atheist.
尊敬的H.L.理查德遜：馬克思是個無神論者。
Hon. Steve King: Marx’s philosophy was that people existed for the benefit of the state.
尊敬的史蒂夫∙金：馬克思的哲學觀是：人們為了國家的利益而存在。
M. Stanton Evans: What Marxism did and does and all the other「-isms」 of the modern era is to try to dethrone God by deifying man.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：馬克思生前身後所作的一切，以及當今所有這些〝主義〞試圖要做的，就是要推翻上帝，把人推上神壇。
Jim Simpson: You have to discredit God. He’s your competition.
吉姆∙辛普森：你必須要讓上帝喪失信譽。上帝是你的競爭對手。
Wendy Wright: The20th century ushered in several ideologies that sought to devalue God and elevate man—communism, relativism, humanism. They all deny that there’s a God, and they claim that by doing so they’re really elevating man. But if you look at how each of those philosophies end up working out in real life, there are always some classes of human beings that don’t deserve the same value or rights as anyone else.
溫迪∙萊特：二十世紀出現的幾個意識形態，其目的是讓上帝失去價值，並提升了人—共產主義、相對主義、人本主義。它們都否認上帝的存在，它們宣稱，這樣做就可以提升人的地位。但是如果我們看一看在真實生活中採用這些意識形態會出現什麼結果，我們發現總有某些階級的人群的價值或權利被剝奪了。
M. Stanton Evans: To turn it around, to believe in freedom the way we have been raised, you have to believe that there’s something precious about every human person. And of course, that’s from the Bible: Imago Dei. We are all created in the image of God. Therefore, every human being is entitled to respect and dignity and freedom. And that is distinctive to Biblical religion. You don’t find it anywhere else.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：反之，我們從小所受的教育告訴我們，如果你相信自由，你就要相信每一個人都是珍貴的。當然這來自《聖經》：具有上帝的形象。我們都是按照上帝的形象被創造出來。所以每一個人都應獲得尊重、尊嚴和自由。這是基督教義所獨特之處，你在其它地方找不到。
Narrator: Almost all the ideas that have made America such a unique and great country, our Founding Fathers got straight out of the Bible. I guess that’s why the Left only has a problem with one religion—Biblical Christianity. They never complain about separation of church and state when it comes to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any of the other religions. In fact, a couple years ago, the Dalai Lama came to my town. And during the school day, at taxpayer’s expense, thousands of our local school children were bussed in to hear him talk. I wonder if they would ever do that for someone like Billy Graham. No, they must destroy the Bible’s influence in America, so they can step in with big government in its place. It’s an age-old question. Are we going to believe in God, or are we going to play God ourselves.
旁白：幾乎所有讓美國成為獨一無二又偉大的國度的理念，都是我們的建國先父直接從《聖經》提取出來的。我覺得這就是為什麼左派只針對一個宗教—基督教。而一說到伊斯蘭教、佛教、印度教或其它宗教，他們從來沒有控訴過政教分離的問題。事實上幾年前，達賴喇嘛來過我住的城鎮。那天是學生上學的日子，本地的學校花納稅人的錢，用校車載着數以千計的學生去聼達賴喇嘛講話。我在想如果是葛培理牧師來了，會不會也出現同樣的情景。不，他們必須要毀掉《聖經》對美國的影響，這樣就可以用大政府取而代之。還是這個老問題：我們是相信上帝，還是自己充當上帝？
Bryan Fischer: Essentially for the Left, the choice that they see very clearly is that people are going to depend upon God or they are going to depend upon government. They want people to depend upon government, so they have to destroy faith in God.
布萊恩∙費西爾：對左派來説，他們非常清晰地看到了兩個選擇：人們依賴上帝，或者人們依賴政府。左派希望人們依賴政府，所以他們必須毀掉人們對上帝的信念。
Tim Wildmon: At it’s core, it’s a rebellion against God and God’s laws.
蒂姆∙威爾德門:它的核心是針對上帝與上帝之法則的一場反叛。
Dr. Robert Chandler: And that’s what the battle is about. That’s what the assault is on. That’s why Christianity is a target.
羅伯特∙謙德勒博士：這就是這場戰爭的關鍵問題，是攻擊的目標。這就是為什麼基督教成為了襲擊的目標。
Wendy Wright: And that’s why we saw the gulags in the Soviet Union. We saw the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. In all the ideologies that elevate man end up devaluing certain human beings.
溫迪∙萊特：這就是為什麼在蘇聯出現了古拉格集中營，出現了德國納粹的集中營。所有提升人地位的意識形態最終都會貶低一部份人。
Narrator: Dictators on the Left—Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and all the others—always have come to power by acting like they’re going to change things to make it better for the people. Yet history has shown us the devastating results that have happened every single time. There is no example in history of big government that didn’t abuse its power over the people. But people who have believed in the God of the Bible, and that rights are a gift from Him to everyone, have always have stood up for the preciousness of every human life.
旁白：左派立場的獨裁者們—希特拉、斯大林、毛澤東、卡斯特儸等等—他們奪得權力的方法都是通過宣稱要讓人們的生活變得更加美好。但是歷史已經告訴我們，這樣做所導致的一次又一次災難性的後果。歷史上沒有過大政府治理國家而不濫用權力統治人民的情況。但是相信《聖經》所述之上帝的人們、相信人的權利是上帝賜予每個人的人們，一直以來都捍衛着每個人的珍貴。
Wendy Wright: You look at those who have fought for true human rights throughout the ages, and it’s those who do have a strong faith in God. Those who fought against slavery, and those now today who are fighting for the sanctity of human life.
溫迪∙萊特：一直以來，那些真正在捍衛人權的人，他們是對上帝有堅定信念的人。他們也曾反抗奴隸制，而今天他們在捍衛人類生活的聖潔性。
M. Stanton Evans: The Declaration[says],「We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.」 Aristotle didn’t believe that. He said some people are born to be slaves, and some other people are born to rule over them. And the reason that you and I know different is not because we’re smarter than Aristotle—he was a smart man—but we have something he didn’t have. We have the Bible. And so, therefore, that’s where we get these ideas. And from pagan antiquity or neo-paganism or all the modernisms, you get the opposite.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：獨立宣言說：〝我們認為這些真理是不言而喻的，人人生而平等。〞亞里士多德不相信這點。他認為有些人生來就是奴隸，有些人生來就是統治者。而我們之所以秉持與他不同的理念，並不是因為我們比他聰明—亞里士多德是個很聰明的人—而是我們擁有他所沒有的。我們有《聖經》。因此我們的理念來自於《聖經》。而無論是古代異教或新異教或所有這些現代主義，它們的說法都是相對立的。
Narrator: After studying this topic for the last two years and reading literally hundreds of their books and articles and speeches, I』ve come to the conclusion[that] whether the Left knows it or not, their plans and goals can all be summed up very simply: they are at war with God. A people that are moral and believe their rights come from God would not only never want what they’re selling, but would also never need it. And they know that.
旁白：過去兩年我一直在研究這個課題，讀了足有數百本他們的書籍、文章與演講，我得出的結論是，無論左派是否知道，他們的計劃也好、目標也好，歸納起來很簡單：他們在與上帝交戰。有道德的人們、相信權利是上帝所賜予的人們不但絕不會接受他們那一套，也永遠不需要他們那一套。他們自己也知道這點。
[On screen: How have they pulled this off?]
[他們是怎麼做到的？]
[On screen: Tools to remake America]
[把美國改頭換面的工具]
[Media][媒體]
Hon. H.L. Richardson: It’s obvious if you’re trying to subvert a country, you want to control the news. You want to control public opinion.
尊敬的H.L.理查德遜：顯然，如果你要顛覆一個國家，你就必須控制新聞媒體，你要控制輿論。
Janet(Folger) Porter: A lot of people realize, well, there’s a biased media. And most people know that. Even The Washington Post admitted it, yeah, we were biased for Obama. So what?
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：很多人都發現了媒體有偏頗。這一點大部分人都知道。連〝華盛頓郵報〞都承認：沒錯，我們偏袒奧巴馬。那又怎麼樣？
Cliff Kincaid: And when you enter into the equation「so what,」 that means the biases, the opinions of the reporters, enter into what is news. They decide whether you have a right to know.
克里夫∙金賽德：當你說〝那又怎麼樣〞時，你報導的新聞里就融入了你的偏見和意見。這就變成由他們決定哪些事情你有知曉權。
Janet(Folger) Porter: And it’s no longer a bias. They turned from just political bias to activism.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：而且已經不只是偏見了，已經從政治偏見變成激進主義。
Hon. H.L. Richardson: They go to the places that influence, or I should say, where they can have leverage.
尊敬的H.L.理查德遜：他們控制了那些有影響力的媒體，或者我應該說那些他們能夠有效施加影響的地方。
Cliff Kincaid: Generations of journalists have been trained to interpret events, interpret the news—not report the facts—interpret the news.
克里夫∙金賽德：好幾代的新聞記者學的是如何去詮釋一個事件、詮釋一條新聞—不是報導事實—而是怎麼去解釋新聞。
Jim Simpson: They do not deal in facts because facts aren’t effective for them. They have very few facts on their side.
吉姆∙辛普森：他們不關注事實，因為對他們來說，事實不能發揮效應。他們的新聞里沒有多少事實。
Hon. H.L. Richardson: They』ve gone into and penetrated these major areas to where they can influence it in the direction they want to go.
尊敬的H.L.理查德遜：他們已經滲透了這些主要的領域，按照他們想要的方向去施加影響。
Cliff Kincaid: We』ve seen a massive shift away from old-fashioned objective news reporting to what he called「interpretive reporting」—what others call「advocacy journalism.」 And it’s advocacy for a cause.
克里夫∙金賽德：我們看到新聞報導已經在很大程度上從傳統的客觀報導變成現在叫做〝解釋性的報導〞--其他人把這叫做〝鼓吹式報導〞，為某項事業而鼓吹。
The Hon. Ed Meese, III: And as a result, we have a news media in the United States that is extremely liberal at the present time.
尊敬的埃德文∙米斯III：結果就是，當今的美國新聞媒體極端自由化。
Jim Simpson: Which was a major, major goal—to control not merely the newsprint, but the television media and Hollywood. Stalin said himself, if I could control Hollywood, I could rule the world.
吉姆∙辛普森：這是一個非常主要的目標—不僅控制紙張報刊，也控制電視媒體和荷里活。斯大林曾說過，如果我能控制荷里活，我就可以統治世界。
[Education][教育]
Beverly Eakman: Children are always the first targets of anybody trying to bring down a system.
比弗莉∙伊科曼：如果要摧毀一個體系，孩子永遠是第一個目標。
[On Screen:「Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.」– Vladimir Lenin]
[「給我四年的時間去教孩子，我播下的種子將永遠不會被根除。」-列寧]
Phyllis Schlafly: John Dewey is believed to be the most influential man in the whole area of public education.
費利斯∙雪弗利：約翰∙杜威被視作是整個公立教育領域最有影響力的人。
Brannon Howse: He went to Russia in1928 to help study the Karl Marx way of education and bring it back to America.
布蘭登∙豪斯：1928年，他去蘇聯學習馬克思的教育辦法，並把這套方法帶回了美國。
John Stormer: Dewey was an atheist. He was a socialist, a humanist.
約翰∙斯多莫：杜威是無神論者、社會主義者、人本主義者。
Brannon Howse: He was part of the socialist society of America.[He] helped found that.
布蘭登∙豪斯：他幫助成立了美國的社會主義學會。
Phyllis Schlafly: What he believed in was that education should socialize the child to make him a willing tool of the state.
費利斯∙雪弗利：他認為，教育應該使孩子社會化，使孩子願意成為國家的工具。
Narrator: It might be surprising to some that the man who is still idolized as the father of public education in America is the very man who did everything in his power to dumb down our children, so that they would willingly accept his vision of a socialist America.
旁白：有些人可能會感到詫異，我們仍然尊崇為美國公共教育之父的人，竟然盡其所能地愚化我們的孩子，使他們願意接受他心目中的社會主義美國。
Trevor Loudon: It started with Dewey in the early1900s. It expanded, really expanded since the1960s. The hard Left gets control of the teacher’s unions and the training colleges. If you』ve got those two institutions, you can pretty much dictate all educational policy.
翠弗爾∙路頓：它是從1900年代早期從杜威開始，真正進入大幅度擴展階段是1960年代。強硬左派們控制了教師工會和師範學院。一旦控制住這兩個機構，你基本上就控制了所有教育政策。
Phyllis Schlafly: The people who were demonstrating against our country and against our government in the1960s have now become tenured professors in the universities. So they’re the ones who are writing the textbooks, teaching the teachers, running the teacher’s colleges.
費利斯∙雪弗利：在60年代抗議我們的國家和政府的那些人現在已經是大學裏的終身制教授了。正是這些人在撰寫我們的教科書、培訓我們的老師、控制着各所師範學院。
M. Stanton Evans: And it’s self-perpetuating because once you have the universities, then you train more cadres, and more and more and more.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：而且它會不斷地永遠自我延續下去，因為一旦你掌控了大學，你就可以培訓更多骨幹，一批又一批。
Phyllis Schlafly: They discovered they could do more to remake our country by going into the schools than they could by throwing bombs.
費利斯∙雪弗利：他們發現，通過控制學校來改變美國要比投擲炸彈的效果好得多。
Narrator: I believe the average patriotic American underestimates the importance and influence education has on their children. That’s how the large majority we had in1980 to elect Ronald Reagan in a landslide has been lost. It’s not because the other side has had lots of children. No, they’re aborting theirs. But instead, they’re capturing ours through the propaganda they teach them seven hours a day for thirteen years and even longer if they attend college. We are losing most of our children to the other side because of the anti-American, anti-God, and anti-free enterprise rhetoric they are filled with in the government schools.
旁白：我認為，愛國的美國大眾都低估了教育對孩子的重要性與影響力。在80年代，大部分選民支持雷根而使他獲得壓倒性的勝利的這種局面現在已經沒有了。這並不是因為左派們生了很多孩子的緣故。不，他們把很多孩子都墮掉了。這是因為他們通過宣傳教育把我們的孩子給洗腦了，每天七小時，持續十三年，如果上大學，那麼還要更長。我們大部分孩子都倒戈到他們的陣營去了，因為現在的政府辦的學校充斥着反對美國、反對上帝和反對自由企業的辭令。
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner: Government schools are not teaching basic reasoning processes. They’re not teaching logic. They’re not teaching actual data of history and science and mathematics.
E.凱文∙貝斯納博士：政府辦的學校並沒有在教基礎的論證程序，他們不教邏輯，沒有在教真實的歷史、科學和數學。
Phyllis Schlafly: And if your education is rather limited, then you’re inclined to believe that government can be the solution to your problems.
費利斯∙雪弗利：如果你的受教育程度有限，你就容易相信政府可以解決你的各種問題。
Beverly Eakman: When you look at the desks in the schoolroom, you』ll find four together or maybe a table—they sit around a table. Independent desks are very rare in most classrooms because they don’t want to promote the self-sufficiency, independence mindset.
比弗莉∙伊科曼：你看學校教室里的書桌，都是四個在一起，或者用大桌子—學生圍着大桌子坐。大部分教室很少用單人獨自坐的書桌，因為他們不想推崇具有自給自足、獨立思考能力的頭腦。
Dr. David Noebel: You go back to William Z. Foster and his book Toward Soviet America, you will see how he has a whole chapter there on how we have to supplant education in this country and ultimately force every student to attend public school. That’s the other thing. I hope the home-schoolers catch onto this. The home-schoolers and the Christian day school movement are going to have some very rough times ahead of them because the public school crowd cannot afford to have any competition. And they’re being given plenty of competition by the home-schoolers right now.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：回到威廉姆∙Z∙福斯特着的《走向蘇維埃美國》一書，你發現他用了一整章闡述如何把這個國家的教育改頭換面，最終迫使每個學生都必須在公立學校讀書。這說到另外一個問題。我希望家庭教育者們可以明白一點，你們及基督教日間學校運動將會面臨艱難的路途，因為公立學校是不允許有競爭對手的。而家庭學校目前是公立學校的強有力的競爭對手。
Trevor Loudon: You see the effects of that in lower educational standards. There’s no more studying of the classics, or studying of the civics, or you know how the US Constitution was formed. It’s all progressive education. It’s all based on identity politics, the「-isms,」 the current trendy「-isms」—environmentalism, racism.
翠弗爾∙路頓：我們已經看到它所起到的效果了：即教育標準的降低。學生不再學習經典著作或公民學、或美國憲法是如何形成的。現在的教育完全是「進步」式的，完全基於身份政治、現在正流行的「主義學說」–環保主義、種族主義等。
Beverly Eakman: They’re training them for the collective and a collective mindset and a dependency mindset.
比弗莉∙伊科曼：他們要把學生訓練成有整齊劃一的、依賴性的頭腦。
