《蠶食美國》深刻揭露了共產主義如何滲透美國並破壞美國價值觀與立國之本的巨大陰謀。（圖片來源：新唐人亞太台製圖）
新唐人電視台獨家播映中文字幕版紀錄片《蠶食美國》（一）和（二）後，引發廣大觀眾強烈反響。大量讀者通過各種渠道向本台反饋，希望看到該片全文解說詞，以便對共產主義對美國、對世界的滲透與破壞有更深入的了解。為回饋觀眾厚愛，本台將全文刊發《蠶食美國》（一、二）中英文對照解說詞，以饗讀者。
Agenda: Grinding America Down
行動計畫：蠶食美國
Narrator= Curtis Bowers
旁白＝柯蒂斯∙鮑渥斯
Clip of Ronald Reagan: Hello, in the traditional motion picture story, the villains are usually defeated. The ending is a happy one. I can make no such promise for the picture you’re about to watch. The story isn’t over. You and the audience are part of the conflict.
羅納德∙雷根片段：你好。在傳統的電影套路中，壞人通常都會被打敗，故事以圓滿告終。各位接下來要看的影片，我卻無法作出這樣的保證。影片中的故事仍未結束。在故事中的衝突里，你和其他觀眾都置身其中。
Dr. David Noebel: More human beings were slaughtered in the20th century than all previous centuries combined.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：在20世紀，被屠殺的人數超過之前所有世紀的總和。
Brandon Howse: We’re talking a congressional record.125 million dead.
布蘭登∙豪斯：國會記錄顯示，死亡人數達1.25億。
Jim Simpson: Their entire purpose was to detach our culture from any moral anchors whatsoever.
吉姆∙辛普森：他們只有一個目的－讓我們的文化喪失一切道德準則。
John Stormer: You look at the changes in America since1960 perhaps. The whole culture has been transformed.
約翰∙斯多莫：差不多從1960年代以來，我們看到，美國的整個文化都被轉變了。
Phyllis Schlafly: They’re coming out of the belief that the village should raise the child. The village means the government.
菲莉斯∙詩萊弗利：他們的理念是基於：孩童應該由整個村子撫養。村子指的就是政府。
Brandon Howse: They have deliberately destroyed the American family understanding that’s the foundational block that builds a society.
布蘭登∙豪斯：一直以來，他們有意圖地毀掉了美國的家庭，因為他們懂得家庭是社會的基石。
Tim Woldmon: We』ve come from Norman Rockwell’s[unsure1:40] America to, you know, Hugh Hefner’s[unsure1:45] America.
蒂姆∙渥德蒙：我們從諾曼∙洛克威爾的美國，變成今天休∙海夫納的美國。
Dr. Robert Chandler: If we lose the Judeo-Christian framework, we’re lost. Forever.
羅伯特∙謙德勒博士：如果我們失去猶太教－基督教的框架，我們就將永遠迷失。
Narrator: The Left wants you to think the cultural changes that have taken place in America since the1960s have done nothing but progress us forward towards a Brave New World.
旁白：左派想讓人們相信的是，美國自上世紀六十年代以來經歷的文化變革都是進步，帶領我們走向「美麗新世界」。
Trevor Loudon: They looks at what holds society together. They understand it, but they don’t want that. They want change. And they will subvert and rot every good and decent thing we believe in, because they have a vision for new society. And that must mean the replacement of the old society.
翠弗爾∙路頓：他們看到了社會的凝聚力來自於什麼。那不是他們想要的，所以他們要改變。他們會把我們相信的所有善良美好的事物都顛覆與腐化，因為他們想要構建一個「新」社會，那就意味着舊的必須被取代。
Narrator: This film will show that the Brave New World they seek is nothing more than the failed policies and ideologies of the communism that enslaved over a third of the world’s population during the20th century. It will show that most people on the Left aren’t communists—just the「useful idiots」 that Lenin spoke of being used to promote a socialist agenda, which is the first and necessary step towards communism.
旁白：本片要展現的是，他們尋求的「美麗新世界」只不過是來自於共產主義那些失敗的政策與意識型態－它們在整個20世紀奴役了世界上超過三分之一的人。本片要告訴世人，大多數左派並不是共產主義者－他們只不過是列寧口中那些「有用的白痴」，被用來推動社會主義行動計畫，這是通往共產主義的第一步，也是必要的一步。
M. Stanton Evans: They basically tried to say that the state itself is ultimate. There’s no law higher than the state. And if there’s no law higher than the state, there’s no appeal against it.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：基本上他們要說的是，國家是至高無上的。沒有法律凌駕於國家之上。如果沒有法律高於國家，也就無法反對它了。
Narrator: History has proven beyond any doubt that the free enterprise that freedom produces provides more for anyone willing to work than any other system. So why would the Left still be pushing their socialist agenda on us? I mean, it’s really just microwave communism! There’s only two possibilities: they’re either ignorant, or they’re evil. From my investigation over the last two years into what has caused America’s drastic decline, I am sorry to say, the Left won’t be able to use the ignorant card. They』ve left too much evidence of their agenda in their books, articles, and speeches. No, America has an enemy that is getting very close to accomplishing its plan of destroying the greatest country in all world history.
旁白：歷史已經毫無疑問地證明了，在自由社會裏，自由經營體系給予願意勞動的人的果實要超過其它任何制度。那麼左派為什麼仍然要把社會主義的綱領施加給我們呢？我是說，它其實就是隱藏的共產主義！只有兩種可能性：他們無知，或者他們邪惡。在過去兩年，我研究了是什麼造成美國的急遽衰退，我得出的結論是，很遺憾，左派不能用無知當藉口。他們在他們的著作、論文和演講里留下了太多證據。是的，美國有一個敵人，這個敵人很接近於實現他的計畫－毀掉人類歷史上最偉大的國家。
Jim Simpson: Once people figure it out, they’re going to do what people everywhere do. They’re going to start protesting. They’re going to start revolting. And when that happens, that’s when the powers that be feel threatened and they use the power that they have.
吉姆∙辛普森：人們一旦明白過來，就會像世界其他地方的人那樣開始抗議、開始反抗。當那一天到來時，當權者就會感到威脅，就會開始行駛他們的權力。
Curtis Bowers: This story really begins for me back in the summer of1992. I got a phone call from an older gentleman I knew who was a writer. And he asked me if I would go attend a meeting for him at the University of California-Berkeley. He told me that the Communist Party USA recently split over differences about how to best take America down. Some were wanting to still work towards a violent revolution, while others were wanting to focus their efforts on using public policy to subvert America from the inside. He was curious what they had to say. I mean, after all, the Berlin Wall had just come down. The Soviet Union had dissolved. And the whole world was saying「Communism is dead.」 So why were they meeting and what were they up to? I was in graduate school at the time, and the whole idea of slipping in undercover to a communist meeting sounded pretty neat. So I decided to go. The first surprise I had was when I walked into the auditorium, I was expecting it to be filled with college radicals. But instead it was50,60, and70-year-olds—I mean grandparents—professionally dressed with briefcases. And I realized this might be a little more serious than I thought.
柯蒂斯∙鮑渥斯：對我來說，這個故事其實是從1992年的夏天開始的。我認識的一位當作家的老先生給我打了個電話。他請我幫他去參加一場在加州大學柏克萊分校的會議。他告訴我，最近美國共產黨因為就如何奪取美國產生了分歧而導致內部分成兩派，部分黨員仍然希望通過暴力革命，而另一些黨員則希望主要通過公共政策從內部顛覆美國。老先生很好奇，想了解他們會怎麼說。畢竟，柏林圍牆剛剛倒了不久，蘇聯也已經解體了。全世界都在說「共產主義完蛋了。」那麼為什麼他們還要開會？他們有什麼意圖？我當時還在讀研究生，覺得能秘密潛入一個共產黨大會聽起來很有趣，所以我就決定去。我在走入會場時，讓我感到意外的第一件事是，我本以為會看到一群激進的大學生。但是沒想到，全都是50歲、60歲、70歲的祖父輩老爺爺，一個個西裝筆挺，拿着公文包。我意識到這個會議比我預想的要嚴肅。
As the weekend unfolded, I listened carefully as they outlined their plan and agenda, and how they were going to infiltrate the institutions of America to influence us in the direction they wanted us to go. To destroy our families, they wanted to promote cohabitation instead of marriage. They wanted to try to get children away and into government programs at the earliest age possible. And they also said they』d like to get behind the feminist movement because they felt it had been very successful in making women discontent with marriage and motherhood. To destroy business, they wanted to get behind the environmental movement. And in1992, the environmental movement was very modest. But they thought it was the only vehicle capable of creating enough regulation and red tape to discourage business growth. And finally to destroy our culture of religion and morality, they said, if we can get Americans to accept homosexuality, they thought it would begin to extinguish our traditional moral values Americans held. I remember thinking at the time, this plan doesn’t seem very realistic. It’s not something I』ll need to worry about in my lifetime.
那個周末，我仔細聽了他們闡述的計畫和行動綱領，聽了他們準備如何滲透美國的各種制度，把我們引向他們希望的方向。為了毀掉我們的家庭制度，他們想要鼓吹同居而不是婚姻。他們想要儘早的讓兒童脫離家庭教育，由政府代為管教。他們還說要支持女權運動，因為他們發現女權運動非常成功的讓女性對相夫教子的家庭生活產生了不滿。為了毀掉私營企業，他們想要支持環保運動。在1992年時，環保運動還只是星星之火。但是他們認為只有這項運動可以帶來過度的規章條例管制，從而遏止企業發展。最後，為了毀掉我們建立在宗教信仰與道德之上的文化，他們說，如果我們可以讓美國人接受同性戀，就可以開始滅掉美國人秉持的傳統道德觀了。我記得當時我想，這個計畫很不切實際，我有生之年不用擔心它會實現。
It was fifteen years later. I was appointed by the governor to be a state representative in the legislature. I』d only lived in my district for two years, so I thought it would be a good idea if I wrote a monthly letter to the editor. Each month I wrote it on a different topic. In January2008, as I was contemplating what to write my letter on, I thought back to the meeting in1992. And I thought of the goals they』d outlined, and where America was today, and I couldn’t believe how successful they had been. I mean, our families were totally disintegrating. The environmental movement had become the most powerful force for destroying our free markets. And hate crimes legislation was being considered in Washington D.C. that made it a crime to even say anything against the homosexual movement. I realized, people needed to know what was going on. After I wrote this letter, within days, people were protesting at the capital. It was the featuring story on the evening news.
十五年後，我被州長任命擔任州議會代表，當時我在我的區只居住了兩年，所以我決定每個月寫篇文章發給報社。每個月我都選一個不同的主題。2008年1月，我正在琢磨這個月該寫什麼的時候，我回憶起了1992年參加的那場會議。我想起了他們當時列出的那些目標，以及後來美國經歷的變化，我簡直不敢相信他們竟然能那麼成功。我們的家庭正在分崩離析，環保運動已經成為摧毀我們自由經濟的最強大的一股力量，而華府正在考慮通過的仇恨犯罪法使人們連說出任何反對同性戀運動的話都成了犯罪。我意識到，人們需要知道正在發生什麼。我那個月的文章發表之後，很快人們就開始在首都抗議，成為了晚間新聞的主要消息。
News clip:「Controversial comments of state legislature buzzing tonight. After a freshman lawmaker alleges the communist agenda has infiltrated mainstream America, it’s the big story live at6.」
新聞剪輯：「州議會的爭議性的評論成為今晚熱點。一位立法新手表示共產主義已經滲透了美國主流社會，這是今晚6點新聞直播的首要消息。」
Curtis Bowers: And over forty letters to the editor had been printed in response to what I had said.
柯蒂斯∙鮑渥斯：我的文章發表後，報社隨後陸續發表了四十多封與此相關的讀者來信。
[Telephone Beep] Today, I just wanted to give you support on your newspaper article. Don’t let them grind you down. Signed[unsure10:28 bye?].
〝電話留言〞我今天只是想表達我對這篇文章的支持。不要讓他們把咱們給蠶食了。再見。
Curtis Bowers: I realized then, I』d hit on something. One of the letters written in my defense stated that a book from1958 had outlined a similar agenda. And this got my attention. The book was The Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen who had been a former FBI agent. And inside the book, it documented forty-five current communist goals from1958. And as I slowly read through the list, seeing how specific their agenda had been to subvert us on the inside, I couldn’t believe it.
柯蒂斯∙鮑渥斯：我意識到，我觸到了人們的一根神經。有一封支持我的信里寫到，有一本1958年出版的書也列出了類似的行動計畫。這引起了我的注意。書名叫做⟪裸體的共產黨人⟫（The Naked Communist），作者是克里昂∙斯葛森（Cleon Skousen），是一名前聯邦調查局調查員。這本書列出了在1958年，共產黨的45個目標。隨着我仔細地閱讀每一個目標，我發現他們制定了這麼詳盡的行動計畫，要從內部顛覆美國，簡直令我難以置信。
[On screen] Goal#28: Eliminate prayer in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of「separation of church and state」.
第28個目標：以違反「政教分離」原則為理由，取消學校禱告。
[On screen] Goal#40: Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
第40個目標：讓人們失去對家庭制度的信任。鼓勵亂性並使離婚容易實現。
[On screen] Goal#17: Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teacher association.
第17個目標：控制學校。把學校作為社會主義理念的傳動帶。弱化授課大綱。控制教師協會。
[On screen] Goal#24: Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them「censorship」 and a violation of free speech and free press.
第24個目標：把所有管制猥褻污穢罪的法律稱作「審查制度」，稱作對言論和新聞自由的侵犯，從而達到廢除這些法律的目的。
[On screen] Goal#25: Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography in books, magazines, motion pictures, and TV.
第25個目標：通過在書籍、雜誌、影視里宣揚色情，毀掉文化道德標準。
[On screen] Goal#26: Present home-sexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as「normal, natural, healthy.」
第26個目標：把同性戀、墮落和亂性視作「正常的、自然的、健康的。」
[On screen] Goal#20,#21: Infiltrate the press, gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
第20個與第21個目標：滲透新聞媒體，控制廣播、電視和影視界的重要職位。
[On screen] Goal#27: Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with「social」 religion. Discredit the Bible.
第27個目標：滲透教堂，以「社會」宗教替代天啟宗教。讓人們喪失對《聖經》的信念。
Curtis Bowers: They』d accomplished almost every single one of them. And nobody seemed to be noticing. For at least the last fifty years, they』d been working actively behind the scenes, in the shadows, trying to move our people and our culture in a direction that was designed to destroy us.
柯蒂斯∙鮑渥斯：他們實現了幾乎所有目標。竟然沒有人注意到這件事。至少過去五十年以來，他們隱藏在幕後、在陰影里，積極從事着他們的活動，企圖把我們的民眾、我們的文化帶向毀滅。
Narrator: Someone needed to find out the truth of what had happened to our country. Could all of these very specific goals have been accomplished by accident? Or was there something there under the surface intentionally rotting away America’s culture? I decided to go get the facts from some of my favorite writers and speakers around the country. These are a few of the questions I asked them.
旁白：必須有人去挖掘出真相，了解我們國家究竟發生了什麼事情。這麼多具體的目標被實現了，難道只是巧合嗎？還是說有一股隱藏在暗處的力量在處心積慮地腐蝕美國的文化？我決定向一些我最喜愛的作家與演講家了解事實。以下是我問他們的幾個問題。
[Question on screen: Is Communism dead?]
〝共產主義死了嗎？〞
Trevor Loudon: The common myth is that communism is dead, but there are more Communist Party members in the world today than there ever have been.
翠弗爾∙路頓：人們普遍相信共產主義已死。但是今天在全世界，共產黨的人數超過歷史上任何時候。
Hon. Ed Meese, III: One of the things the communists are doing worldwide is not using that name. And so what we have is people with some of the same ideas masquerading in the United States under a variety of names. They’re even trying to get away from the word「liberal」 to describe them. And they’re trying to call themselves「progressives」.
尊敬的埃德文∙米斯：現在全世界的共產黨在做的一件事，是不使用「共產黨」這個名稱。所以我們看到在美國，有一些秉持（與共產主義）相同意識型態的人，用各種其它名稱來偽裝自己。他們甚至不想被稱作「自由派人士」，他們希望稱自己為「進步派」。
Jim Simpson: If you go to the Communist Party website, all the programs and policies they support are「progressive」.
吉姆∙辛普森：如果你去看一看共產黨的網站，他們支持的所有計畫和政策都屬於「進步派」的。
Trevor Loudon: So「progressives」 are anything from a hardcore liberal to a communist to a socialist. They all call themselves「progressives.」 And they all have broadly the same values and work together.
翠弗爾∙路頓：所以所謂的「進步派」的範圍包括強硬的自由派、共產黨、也包括社會主義者。他們全都叫自己是「進步派」，他們的價值觀也大體相同，並且相互配合。
John Stormer: J. Edgar Hoover called them「masters of deceit.」 A good magician waves one hand in the air while he’s doing his dirty work with his other hand. And while everybody is saying communism has died, they moved through much of Africa.
約翰∙斯多莫：約翰∙埃德加∙胡佛曾說，他們是「欺騙的高手」。一個好的魔術師會把一隻手在空中搖擺的同時，另一隻手正在偷偷做着見不得人的勾當。當所有人都在說共產黨已死的時候，他們已經席捲了非洲大部分地區。
Trevor Loudon: Communism is resurgent in South Africa
翠弗爾∙路頓：共產主義在南非正在復活。
John Stormer: Into south and Central America
約翰∙斯多莫：（共產主義）進入了南美和中美。
Dr. David Noebel: Right now, six countries in Latin America are now communistic.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：現在，拉丁美洲有六個國家是共產主義性質的。
M. Stanton Evans: You』ve got communist China. We have Cuba. North Korea. We have Vietnam.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：中國、古巴、朝鮮，還有越南，都是共產主義。
Trevor Loudon: It still dominates behind the scenes in Russia. It’s still very strong in eastern Europe. It’s strong in the EU. It is strong in virtually every country in the world.
翠弗爾∙路頓：（共產主義）仍然在暗中操控着俄國，在東歐也勢頭強勁。在歐盟諸國也是。在世界上的幾乎每個國家，它都很強大。
Jim Simpson: Whittaker Chambers said that communism succeeds because most people that promote communist causes are not communist—the「useful idiots」 that Lenin calls them. It gives it an air of legitimacy it would never have if it was identified with communists and communism.
吉姆∙辛普森：惠特克∙錢伯斯說，共產主義之所以成功，是因為大部分推行共產主義事業的人並不是共產黨，他們是列寧口中的那群「有用的白痴」。這樣他們就獲得了正當性，因為如果被認作是共產黨或共產主義，是絕對無法獲得正當性的。
Narrator: So why has it been so easy for them to get people on the Left who aren’t communist to push for their agenda? Once I looked at the political scale, it all started to make sense. On the far left, you have100% government, and on the far right,0 government. Anarchy is no government and doesn’t make sense at all. On the far left, you have socialism, communism, and nazism—all systems that have a socialist form of government with only slight variances between them. Traditionally, Republicans were slightly to the right of center, and Democrats were slightly to the left. In recent years though, through the radical influence of the media, Hollywood, and the multitude of Marxist professors in our universities, both parties have slid to the left, with the Democrats going so far, they have openly joined hand-in-hand with the radicals. That’s why they all work together. All the groups on the left now have the same goal: a socialist America.
旁白：為什麼他們能輕而易舉地讓不是共產黨的左派人士來推行他們的計畫呢？我在研究了政治刻度表之後就開始明白了。刻度表的最左邊代表100%政府，最右邊代表沒有政府。沒政府就是無政府狀態，這是根本行不通的。最左邊有社會主義、共產主義、納粹主義－這些體制都有一個社會主義形式的政府，相互之間大同小異。傳統上來講，共和黨的位置是中間略微偏右，民主黨的位置是中間略微偏左。然而近年來，通過媒體、荷里活以及我們大學裏許多信奉馬克斯主義的教授們的激進影響，兩黨都向左移了，而民主黨左移的步伐是如此巨大，已經達到公開與激進派手牽手的程度。所以他們都屬於一夥的。現在左邊所有這些派別的目標是一樣的：讓美國變成社會主義。
Janet(Folger) Porter: I thought we were over communism. I thought, okay, we won that battle. The Berlin Wall came down. Ronald Reagan won the day. We』ve got to look at how he fought this because we’re fighting it again on American soil, not hostilely attacking us like we feared in the Cold War. It is from within.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：我以為共產主義已經過去了。我以為，我們贏了那場戰爭。柏林圍牆倒了。羅納德∙雷根贏了。我們必須要了解他是如何贏得那場戰爭的，因為我們現在要在美國本土再一次對抗它，而這次它不像冷戰時充滿敵意的攻擊我們，令我們感到恐懼。這次它從內部瓦解我們。
Trevor Loudon: And it has no opposition. None. And that’s the frightening thing.
翠弗爾∙路頓：而且它沒有對手。沒有。這一點才令人害怕。
Narrator: I think it’s pretty clear to see communism isn’t dead. They now disguise it by calling it different names. But the ideas behind it are alive and well. Almost one and a half billion people still live in openly communist countries, but unfortunately most of us in America who are under the age of fifty have no idea what communism means to the people who live under it. So my next question was what’s so bad about communism?
旁白：我想已經很清楚了，共產主義並沒有死。它用其它名稱把自己偽裝起來。但是背後的理念仍然健在。全世界幾乎15億人生活在公開稱自己是共產主義的國家裏。不幸的是，美國大部分50歲以下的人都不清楚生活在被共產主義統治的國家是什麼樣子。所以，我問的下一個問題是：共產主義究竟為什麼那麼不好呢？
Phyllis Schlafly[red dress, curly hair]: Communism is so evil.
菲莉斯∙詩萊弗利：共產主義簡直太邪惡了。
M. Stanton Evans: It’s a completely tyrannical system.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：它完全是個暴政。
Hon. Howard Phillips: The whole history of communism is one of mass murder.
尊敬的霍華德∙菲利普斯：共產主義的整個歷史就是一個大規模屠殺的歷史。
Dr. Jim Bowers: Tens of millions of people brutally murdered by the communists.
吉姆∙鮑渥斯博士：數以千萬的人被共產主義者殘酷殺害。
Jim Simpson: The mass murder of more people in times of peace than all the wars of history combined.
吉姆∙辛普森：在和平年代被大規模屠殺的人數比歷史上所有戰爭加起來死的人還要多。
John Stormer: Each of those countries where they have taken control, millions have been murdered.
約翰∙斯多莫：在共產主義控制的每一個國家，都有數以百萬計的人民被殺害。
Dr. David Noebel: When you’re asking for what is the legacy of Marxism, it is the greatest killing machine in all of human history.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：如果你問馬克思主義留給後人什麼，那就是人類歷史上最兇殘的殺人機器。
Brannon Howse: We’re talking a congressional record—135 million dead due to communism. I think the real number is probably, if you add in abortions, over500 million.
布蘭登∙豪斯：我們有國會記錄－1.35億人因共產主義而死亡。我認為如果算上墮胎的話，真實的數字超過5億人。
Hon. Ed Meese, III: The rulers live rather well, and at the same time, you had all kinds of people who were enslaved, put in prison, oppressed. So you had, really, the opposite of what they claimed was going to be the result of their revolutionary activities.
尊敬的埃德文∙米斯：統治者過得很好，但同時有許多各種各樣的人被奴役、坐牢、受到壓迫。所以，跟他們承諾的通過革命要實現的結果相比，真實情況正好相反。
Dr. David Noebel: You would think that if the20th century was the most murderous of centuries, everyone would say, let’s find out why. And the truth is, you can’t even ask the question. It is verboten to even ask the question because the ideas that brought about that mass murder are still being taught in our public schools today.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：你可能覺得，如果20世紀是死亡人數最多的世紀，大家都應該會想，讓我們找出原因。但事實是，你連這個問題都不能問。這個問題是禁止的，因為我們的公立學校現在仍然在宣揚導致那些大規模死亡的理念。
Narrator: I think one of the reasons why this has happened is because there’s so much confusion surrounding the world communism. Technically speaking, communism is simply the final phase and goal of socialism. And socialism is best described by two words: big government. Government controls almost everything and they use this power to take things by force from one person and give it to another. The liberals in America sincerely believe that this isn’t evil at all. It is what will finally make things fair and just. There’s only one problem that pulls some of us away from this wonderful, utopian vision: history. From history we see that whether it was Hitler’s national socialism or Stalin’s soviet socialism, socialism by whatever name and in all its forms is the ultimate evil. Sooner or later, it destroys everything in its path: law, morality, family, prosperity, productivity, education, incentive, and finally life itself. The problem with socialism is that it creates the conditions for a Stalin or a Hitler to come to power. And that’s why communism has such relevance today. It’s the final destination on the road we’re traveling.
旁白：我覺得這樣的事情之所以會發生，其中一個原因是人們對「共產主義」這個概念非常渾淆不清。嚴格意義上講，共產主義就是社會主義的最終階段與目標。而社會主義可以用兩個單詞最準確地形容：「大政府」（big government）。政府控制幾乎一切，並藉助這種權力強制性的奪取一個人的東西再交給另一個人。美國的自由派人士真心認為這麼做一點也不邪惡。他們相信這是實現真正公平與正義的路徑。然而，只有一個原因讓我們其中一部分人對這幅美輪美奐的烏托邦景象敬而遠之：歷史。通過歷史，我們看到無論是希特拉的國家社會主義、還是斯大林的蘇聯社會主義模式，無論它叫什麼名字或以什麼形式出現，社會主義都是終極邪惡。它遲早會毀滅一切：法律、道德、家庭、繁榮、生產力、教育、激勵制、最後是生命本身。社會主義的問題在於，它給像斯大林或希特拉這樣的人掌握權力創造了條件。這就是為什麼共產主義與今天的我們如此密切相關，因為它是我們現在所走的道路的終點站。
Narrator: Friedrich Nietzsche tried to convince the world that God was dead. Charles Darwin tried to prove humans are simply part of the animal kingdom. And Karl Marx realized that the philosophies of Nietzsche and Darwin would legitimize his own philosophy of communism. He knew their ideas would justify the brutality and slaughter that would be necessary to implement communism worldwide.
旁白：尼采曾試圖讓世界相信上帝已死。達爾文曾試圖證明，人類只不過是動物王國的一員。而馬克思意識到，尼采和達爾文的哲學觀可以為他自己的共產主義觀點提供合法性。馬克思明白，他們的理念將為殘暴與殺戮提供合法性。要在全世界範圍實施共產主義，殘暴與殺戮是必不可少的。
Narrator: It was in March of1883, Karl Marx, the father of modern-day communism died. The assumption that communism would die with him was a logical one, since only nine people attended his funeral. In October that same year in London, England, a group was forming called the Fabian Socialist Society.
旁白：卡爾∙馬克思，現代共產主義之父，死於1883年3月。由於只有九個人參加了他的葬禮，人們理所當然地認為共產主義也隨着馬克思一起死亡了。同年10月，在英國倫敦，有一個叫做「費邊社」的社會主義團體成立了。
Dr. David Noebel: The Fabian Socialists decided they were going to socialize the world incrementally. They called it socialism by evolution instead of Marxist socialism by revolution.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：費邊社的成員決定，他們要逐步地在世界上實現社會主義。他們用的稱謂是漸進式的社會主義，而不是馬克思說的通過革命實現社會主義。
Trevor Loudon: It always worked in tandem with the communists. Some Fabians were also communist. There was a bit of interchange of membership.
翠弗爾∙路頓：他們一直與共產黨們合作。部分費邊社成員本身也是共產黨。兩個組織的會員有一定重疊性。
Dr. David Noebel: And the Fabian Socialists are slowly but surely bringing about the socialization of the world. Europe is pretty well done. They are now working in Latin America. Latin America is not just socialistic in many countries. They’re already Marxist. You have the hardcore Marxists in Venezuela and Nicaragua. El Salvador just went communistic. And of course Fidel is sitting right there laughing at this whole thing. And we haven’t even figured this thing out yet. We don’t even know there’s a bloody, red plague coming up to meet us. We think that we’re just going to watch the cartoons on Saturday morning and everything will be fine.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：雖然費邊社的步伐緩慢，但是他們切實地在全世界範圍一步步實現社會主義。歐洲已經基本實現了。他們現在正在攻克拉丁美洲。拉丁美洲許多國家不僅是社會主義，甚至已經是馬克思主義了。比如委內瑞拉和尼加拉瓜是實打實的馬克思主義者。薩爾瓦多剛剛變成共產主義性質。當然還有卡斯特羅，他正坐在那裏看這場好戲。而我們根本還沒有搞清楚是怎麼回事。我們甚至不知道一場血腥的紅色瘟疫正在向我們襲來。我們還以為可以一直每周六早晨看看卡通，世界會一直美好下去。
M. Stanton Evans: They had a lot to do with bad stuff happening.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：不幸的事情發生，都與他們有很大關係。
Narrator: There are two things I found that gave me a good idea where the Fabians were really coming from. First of all, their symbol was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. And secondly, George Bernard Shaw who was a leader in the Fabians for almost fifty years said,「I am a communist, but not a member of the Communist Party. Stalin is a first-rate Fabian. I am one of the founders of Fabianism, and as such very friendly to Russia.」
旁白：有兩個發現讓我看清楚了費邊社的真面目：第一，他們的標記是一隻裹着羊皮的狼；第二，蕭伯納擔任了費邊社近50年的首腦人物之一，他曾說：「我是個共產主義者，但是我並沒有加入共產黨。斯大林是位一流的費邊社主義者。我是費邊社主義的創始人之一，因此我對俄國非常友好。」
Trevor Loudon: Fabians eventually beget Students for A Democratic Society, which beget the Weather Underground, which beget basically the social changes that have happened in America in the last forty years. Many of the SDS members from the1960s still have an incredible influence on the direction our country is heading. One is the Reverend Jim Wallis, who was president of SDS when he was a student at Michigan State University.
翠弗爾∙路頓：費邊社最後產生了「學生爭取民主社會組織」（簡稱「SDS」），之後又產生了「氣象人組織」，基本上美國過去四十年來經歷的社會變革都是他們一手策劃的。上世紀60年代的許多SDS成員今天仍然對美國的走向有舉足輕重的影響力。其中一位是吉姆∙沃利斯神父，當他還在密歇根州立大學讀書時，他曾是SDS的主席。
Dr. David Noebel: And yet today, he is the spiritual advisor to the President of the United States[Barack Obama]. They』ve been friends for many years. They go back to Chicago and the Chicago politics crowd. And during the Vietnam War, he was rooting for the Vietcong to beat the United States army, and when they did, he just couldn’t believe it. He said it was one of the happiest days in his life.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：然而今天，他是美國總統[巴拉克．奧巴馬]的精神顧問。他們是多年的朋友。他們在芝加哥以及芝加哥當地政壇時就認識。越戰時，他支持越共打敗美國軍隊，越共打勝後，他簡直不敢相信。他說，這是他一生中最高興的一天之一。
Narrator: And another leader in the Students for a Democratic Society and founder of the Weather Underground is William Ayers, who has been a long time friend and neighbor of President Obama. It came out in2009 that Obama’s book Dreams from My Father was even written by Ayers. So the influence from the Fabian Socialist society goes right into the White House.
旁白：「學生爭取民主社會組織」的另一位領導者和「氣象人組織」的發起者是威廉姆．阿耶斯，他與奧巴馬總統是多年的朋友和鄰居。2009年有消息稱奧巴馬的書《我父親的夢想》甚至就是阿耶斯所寫。也就是說費邊社的影響直接進入了白宮。
Narrator: The next group I found that has seriously impacted America’s culture is the Frankfurt School.
旁白：我發現的另一個對美國文化產生重大影響的團體是「法拉克福學派」（Frankfurt School）。
Trevor Loudon: The Frankfurt School was a sort of outpost in America of European socialism.
翠弗爾∙路頓：它可以說是歐洲社會主義在美國的前哨站。
Jim Simpson: Willi Münzenberg with a few other Bolsheviks founded the Frankfurt School.
吉姆∙辛普森：威利．慕恩岑伯格和其他幾名布爾什維克創建了法蘭克福學派。
M. Stanton Evans: The true leading members were Herbert Marcuse and Franz Neumann. Franz Neumann was in fact a Soviet agent.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：真正的領導者是赫伯特．馬爾庫斯和弗朗茨．諾伊曼。弗朗茨．諾伊曼其實是個蘇聯間諜。
Jim Simpson: Their entire purpose was to stand the entire educational system of the West, and the United States in particular, on its head.
吉姆∙辛普森：他們的全部目的就是要徹底改變西方尤其是美國的整個教育體系。
Narrator: Bertrand Russell, who worked with the Frankfurt School, said by using psychological techniques to teach the children, we will be able to produce「an unshakeable conviction that snow is black.」
旁白：伯特蘭．羅素曾經在法蘭克福學派教學。他說：通過心理學技巧教學生，我們可以讓學生「毫無動搖地堅信雪是黑色的。」
Trevor Loudon: They established a school here.
翠弗爾∙路頓：他們在這裏辦了一所學校。
Brannon Howse: With the help of John Dewey. He helps bring these German intellectuals to America in1933, drop them down at Princeton, Berkeley, Brandeis to go after education and media.
布蘭登∙豪斯：約翰∙杜威在1933年幫助把這些德國知識分子帶到美國來，把他們安置在普林斯頓、伯克萊、布蘭迪斯等地，讓他們去滲入教育和媒體領域。
Jim Simpson: Included in those goals were the teaching of homosexuality and sexuality to children, the promotion of excessive drinking, and destruction of religion in the United States. That was a big one.
吉姆∙辛普森：他們的目標包括教給孩子同性戀與性、鼓勵酗酒、毀掉美國的宗教信仰。這是個主要目標。
Trevor Loudon: And they basically started the social rot.
翠弗爾∙路頓：可以說，社會的腐化是由他們開始的。
Jim Simpson: Willi Münzenberg said we are going to make the West so corrupt, it stinks.[Actual quote seems to be「We will make the West so corrupt, it stinks」.]
吉姆∙辛普森：威利．慕恩岑伯格說，我們要讓西方腐爛的臭不可聞。
Narrator: I love spending time with my family, July4th, baseball, and apple pie. And my mind can’t even comprehend that there were groups of intellectuals back in the1930s plotting and planning how they could make America so corrupt, it stinks.
旁白：我喜歡與家人共享天倫之樂：無論是一起慶祝獨立日、打棒球、或吃蘋果派。所以我簡直無法理解在1930年代就有一批知識分子在居心叵測地計劃如何讓美國腐爛的臭不可聞。
Trevor Loudon: There are certain lines and certain limits. And the Left has always pushed it as hard as they can, as far as they can, and will protect any pornographer, any deviant, any negative cultural form they can find basically to degrade the culture.
翠弗爾∙路頓：我們有一些底線和限度。而左派一直以來不斷盡其所能地在突破底線和限度，為了讓文化墮落，他們會保護任何色情業者、離經叛道者、以及負面的文化形式。
Brannon Howse: And that goes along with the feminism of today, which was part of the Frankfurt School’s desire to destroy a patriarchal society for a matriarchal society—in other words, remove the father as the loving provider, discipliner, discipler, leader of his home, where you instill virtues, integrity, and modesty. That’s been broken down on purpose, because they know if they can destroy the family, they can destroy a nation. And instead of a father who leads and disciples and protects the home and provides the home, the government steps in as a nanny state.
布蘭登∙豪斯：這也符合今天女權主義運動，其實它是法蘭克福學派想要毀掉父系社會、以母系社會取而代之的做法--換句話說，取消父親的角色：慈愛的養家者、教育者、新信徒的輔導者、一家之主，為家注入道德、正直與謙卑。他們是刻意為之的，因為他們知道：如果他們能摧毀家庭，就能摧毀國家。父親本該是一家之主，起到信徒輔導者、保護者和養家的作用，但是他的作用被政府取代，政府扮演了保姆。
Jim Simpson: The Frankfurt School developed the concept of cultural Marxism.
吉姆∙辛普森：法蘭克福學派想出了〝文化馬克思主義〞的概念。
M. Stanton Evans: Penetrate the culture, take it over, and then everything else will follow.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：入侵文化、控制文化，其它的都會順勢而成。
Brannon Howse: And of course they did that, and today, we have a complete cultural revolution. As many people in America are familiar with the phrase「make love not war,」 that actually came from Herbert Marcuse who was with the Frankfurt School. So these guys went after education, they went for media. They』ve been very successful in changing the entire worldview of Americans through what they call political correctness, but what is really cultural Marxism with the goal being to destroy Christianity, then create chaos, and then move to their ultimate goal which is from cultural Marxism to traditional Marxism which is socialism.
布蘭登∙豪斯：當然他們就是那樣做的。今天我們看到了徹底的文化革命。美國很多人都知道一句話〝要愛情不要戰爭〞，它實際上是赫伯特．馬爾庫斯講的，他是法蘭克福學派的。他們試圖控制教育、控制媒體。他們非常成功地用政治正確這種說法改變了美國人的整個世界觀，但實際上這是文化馬克思主義，目的是摧毀基督教精神，然後創造混亂，然後實現他們的終極目標—從文化馬克思主義到傳統馬克思主義，也就是社會主義。
Narrator: Most of the strategy to remake America from within started with Antonio Gramsci, who wrote over2,000 pages back in the1930’s outlining how to take a Judeo-Christian culture down from the inside. The plan he suggested has been the main focus of the Left ever since.
旁白：安東尼奧∙葛蘭西起草了大部分從內部再造美國的策略。1930年代，他草擬了多達2000多頁的大綱，逐條說明如何從內部瓦解猶太教-基督教文化。自那以後，他建議的計劃成為左派人士的焦點。
The Hon. Ed Meese, III: Antonio Gramsci was a neo-Marxist philosopher.
尊敬的埃德文∙米斯III：安東尼奧∙葛蘭西是一名新馬克思主義哲學家。
Brannon Howse: Antonio Gramsci was an Italian communist.
布蘭登∙豪斯：安東尼奧∙葛蘭西是一名意大利共產黨。
Trevor Loudon: Antonio Gramsci is probably the biggest troublemaker in the world. He’s probably got more responsibility for social ills than anyone else on the planet.
翠弗爾∙路頓：安東尼奧∙葛蘭西可能是世界上最大的麻煩製造者。與這個星球上任何人相比，他可能要對各種社會問題負最多的責任。
Hon. H.L. Richardson: He knew of the importance of undermining the morals in the character of this country.
尊敬的H.L.理查德遜：他懂得，破壞這個國家的道德是至關重要的。
Hon. Howard Phillips: Because America had a strong Christian heritage. You had to attack the culture. You had to change the culture.
尊敬的霍華德∙菲利普斯：因為美國有很穩固的基督教傳統。你必須要攻擊這個文化，改變這個文化。
Hon. H.L. Richardson: Even the pornography and the areas that most people normally wouldn’t accept.
尊敬的H.L.理查德遜：甚至包括色情和大部分人無法接受的一些事情。
Dr. David Noebel: He said we’re going to destroy the West by destroying its culture. We’re going to infiltrate, and we’re going to turn their music, their art, and their literature against them.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：他說，我們毀掉西方的途徑是毀掉它的文化，我們要滲透進去，用他們自己的音樂、藝術、文學去對抗他們自己。[page]
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。[page]
Wendy Wright: And it seems that they again want to have people be uneducated so then they do become wards of the state. They’re dependent on the government to provide everything for them.
溫迪∙萊特：他們似乎想再次讓人們變成愚民，這樣他們就會被國家監管看護，依賴於政府為他們提供一切。
Janet(Folger) Porter: It’s under ten percent of kids[that] believe there’s an absolute right and an absolute wrong. And why are we surprised? We』ve sent our kids into this government system that indoctrinates them, that teaches them about tolerance and diversity and multiculturalism and not about reading, writing, and arithmetic, not about what our Founding Fathers had to say. It’s consequences.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：現在不到10%的學生相信有絕對的對與絕對的錯。我們有什麼可詫異的呢？我們把自己的孩子送到教條式的政府教育系統里，教給他們的都是所謂容忍、多元化和多文化這些東西，而不是閱讀、寫作和算術、也不是建國先父的話語，那就會有相應的後果。
Narrator: Few would argue that the education that children are receiving in the public schools is pathetic at best. But with the amount of tax dollars we spend each year, over twice as much as it would cost to send the students to private school, why do we allow this to continue? The group that my investigation led me to that seems dedicated to making sure the children don’t get a good education who was a real shocker.
旁白：大多數人都會同意,公立學校的教育水平充其量也只能說可悲。可是我們每年花在公立教育上的納稅人的錢，比把孩子送到私立學校要超出兩倍。為什麼我們仍在縱容這個現狀呢？究竟是誰似乎在竭盡所能阻止孩子受到良好教育呢，我的調查揭露出的始作俑者令人驚訝。
Phyllis Schlafly: The schools are pretty much controlled by teacher’s unions, National Education Association.
費利斯∙雪弗利：公立學校基本上被教師聯合工會與全國教育協會控制。
Mike Smith, ESQ.: If you look at their platform and goals, you would think they’re a socialist or almost communistic organization.
麥克∙史密斯律師：如果你去看這些組織的平台和目標，會以為他們是社會主義甚至共產主義組織。
Phyllis Schlafly: They are for the entire feminist agenda, starting with abortion on demand, tax-funded abortions. They’re for the whole gay rights agenda. They’re for the whole globalism agenda. They are extremely anti-parent, and it is an effort to get the children to abandon the values of their parents.
費利斯∙雪弗利：他們支持女權主義的全部綱領，首先就是按需墮胎，以及用納稅人的錢資助墮胎。他們全盤支持同性戀權利綱領。他們全盤支持全球主義。他們極端反對父母，並且努力使孩子放棄父母的價值觀。
Brannon Howse: National Education Association has no patience, tolerance, or use for traditional teachers. They’re looking for people who want to be agents of change.
布蘭登∙豪斯：全國教育協會對於僱用傳統觀念的老師毫無耐心、也無法容忍。他們要找的是想要帶來改變的人。
Wendy Wright: They want to throw out all the lessons of history, and really it’s an attempt to then impose their own views and ideas onto people, get them to act as activists.
溫迪∙萊特：他們想無視歷史的種種教訓，然後試圖把他們的看法和理念強加給人們，把人們變成激進分子。
M. Stanton Evans: If you control those institutions, then you can control everything else.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：如果你控制了那些組織，你就能控制了一切。
Mike Smith, ESQ.: It’s all public schools, all for their jobs, and they have gotten behind all the radical kinds of curriculum that’s being introduced. They’re for it one hundred percent. They』ve had a tremendous effect on public education. It’s not positive.
麥克∙史密斯律師：控制所有的公立學校，佔領這些工作職位，推動所有激進的教學大綱—這些他們百分之百支持。他們對公立教育的影響巨大，卻並非正面影響。
[Immorality][道德敗壞]
Wendy Wright: We also see immorality being promoted through our schools. The kind of sex-ed curriculum that is being used and paid for with our tax dollars would shock most parents.
溫迪∙萊特：我們也看到在學校里推行道德敗壞的事情。現在學校教的、由納稅人的錢資助的性教育課程會讓大多數父母都吃驚。
Narrator: I think one of the main problems we face is parents naively thinking that the schools are the same today as they were when they were young. They don’t realize there is a battle going on in this country for the hearts and minds of our children. The game is between fifteen and twenty-five years of age. That’s the whole game. If you’re over twenty-five, the chances are they’re going to put a few pennies toward you to corrupt you. But their game right now is to corrupt the fifteen to twenty-five-year-olds or less. And right now they’re down to the first grade where Heather has two mommies, daddy’s roommate, gay pride parade. And now by eighth grade, they』ll pass out condoms in school colors because that’s so patriotic.
旁白：我認為現在的一個主要問題，是家長天真地以為今天的學校和他們當年的學校是一樣的。家長沒有意識到，現在在美國，有一場爭奪孩子心靈與思想的戰爭正在進行。針對的是十五歲至二十五歲的人—這是這場對抗的主要目標。如果你超過二十五歲，他們可能不會花太多力氣腐化你。他們主要是腐化年齡在十五歲到二十五歲的青少年，甚至更年幼的孩童。現在，他們已經在教一年級學生《海希爾有兩個媽媽》（女同性戀主題的兒童書）、《爸爸的室友》（男同性戀主題的兒童書）、以及同性戀遊行。學校會給八年級學生派發代表學校顏色的避孕套，因為他們說這很有愛國精神。
Phyllis Schlafly: And it’s perfectly obvious that[if] you get a hold of the child early, you can change his values away from his parents』 values and get him to follow you. And they’re very open about saying that. National Education Association has passed resolutions saying they want children from birth.
費利斯∙雪弗利：很明顯，如果你能儘早控制孩子的思想，就可以使他/她背離父母的價值觀，並轉而追隨你的價值觀。他們並不掩藏這個意圖。全國教育協會已經通過決議，要從孩子一出生就由他們接管。
Narrator: Isn’t that interesting?「The Communist Manifesto」 also thought the state should take control of children at birth. The Left has always been good at disguising their real agenda by coming up with phrases made from words we’re very familiar with, but then giving them new definitions.「Social justice」 is the current phrase of choice and is being used to teach children the failed Marxist ideas of yesteryear are what they should strive for today.
旁白：這很耐人尋味。〝共產主義宣言〞同樣說過，國家應該從孩子一出生就控制他們。左派一直很善於偽裝他們真正的計劃，他們會用我們熟知的詞語進行包裝，但是會給這些詞語注入新的含義。目前他們選擇的詞是〝社會正義〞，通過這個詞，他們把當年失敗的馬克思主義教給今天的孩子，告訴他們這是今天奮鬥的目標。
Brannon Howse: We see「social justice」 curriculum today, which is the buzzword for communism, socialism, Marxism, which Bill Ayers is teaching. It’s in many of our colleges. And the social justice curriculum is being taught in high schools all over the nation.
布蘭登∙豪斯：今天我們在授課大綱里看見〝社會正義〞一詞，就知道那是共產主義、社會主義和馬克思主義當下的時髦外衣而已。這些是威廉姆．阿耶斯教的。美國很多大學的授課大綱里都有。全國所有高中也把〝社會正義〞納入其執教大綱。
M. Stanton Evans: Justice is good. If you then start calling it something「blank」 justice then you’re modifying it. And what it really means is, I think, taking from one group of people and giving to another group. So I would call it social「isms.」
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：正義本身是對的。但是當你在正義前面加上修飾詞，你就在修改正義的含義。我覺得它真正的意思是，從一組人群那裏奪取財富，給予另外一組人群。所以我會把這叫做社會「主義」。
Dr. Robert Chandler: And it’s used to break down the differences between the way things are done and the way it should be done.
羅伯特∙謙德勒博士：它使人們分不清現實與正道之間的差別。
Trevor Loudon: So when they’re teaching social justice in the schools, they’re not talking about free enterprise and capitalism and individual self-responsibility—all the things that made America great. They’re talking about the things that made Europe and the Soviet Union and China so bad.
翠弗爾∙路頓：學校教社會正義時，不講自由企業、資本主義及個人對自我負責等—這些是讓美國偉大的因素。他們講的東西是禍害了歐洲、蘇聯和中國的因素。
Narrator: The longer we allow our schools to teach the children that America has so many faults, it’s not worth saving, instead of the fact that even with its faults, it is the greatest country that has ever existed, the less chance we have of ever turning our people back from the dead-end road we’re currently on—a road that promises to give us a perfect world if we』ll only give up our sovereignty and our freedom.
旁白：學校教的是：美國瘡痍滿目、已經無可救藥；而不是：即便有缺點，美國仍然是歷史上最偉大的國家。如果我們繼續允許學校給孩子灌輸這樣的東西，就越來越難把人們從歧路上喚回來—這條道路告訴人們，只要交出我們的主權和自由，就承諾給我們一個完美的世界。
Dr. David Noebel: You’re going to find more and more of the following. This is now called a world pledge. We no longer want the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America because that is considered nationalistic. And of course, the socialist, the communist, the Marxist, and the extreme Left wing of the country want nothing to do with it.「I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth, sea, and air; to honor every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere.」 This came out first of all in Superior, Wisconsin. So Superior, Wisconsin was their guinea pig, and there was very little said against it. And so it would then go to the next, and the next, and the next. Before long you have the whole school system standing up saying「I pledge of allegiance to the world」 instead of「I pledge allegiance to the US.」 The public schools right now, if you read Toward Soviet America, have nearly accepted every item that William Z. Foster said we needed to place into the public school curriculum.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：以下的情景將越來越常見：現在有個東西叫普世宣誓。我們不再願意向美國國旗宣誓，因為那太民族主義。當然，那些社會主義者、共產主義者、馬克思主義者、還有美國極左派們都想遠離民族主義這個詞。普世宣誓是這樣的：「我宣誓效忠於這個世界，要關愛地球、海洋和空氣；要尊重每一個生命、讓和平與正義遍佈天下。」普世宣誓最早是在威斯康辛州的蘇比瑞爾市試用，蘇比瑞爾市成了他們的小白鼠，幾乎無人提出反對。那麼就會在下一個地方採行、然後再下一個、再下一個。很快整個學校系統就會開始採行「我宣誓效忠於這個世界」，而不再是「我宣誓效忠於美國」。如果你去讀《走向蘇維埃美國》，你會發現今天的公立學校幾乎接納了威廉姆∙Z∙福斯特所闡述的，每一個他試圖納入公立學校教學大綱的內容。
Trevor Loudon: And we’re seeing the results, you know? People are not as informed as they once were. They think in different ways, and they think in the way that the Left intends them to think.
翠弗爾∙路頓：我們已經看到後果了：現在人不像以前人那樣了解情況，他們的觀念變了，他們在按照左派想要的方式在思考問題。
Narrator: Antonio Gramsci realized that if you can take over the institutions in a culture, you will be able to use those to influence society to create the socialist man you want. I think the most brilliant part of his plan was that he realized you could not only create a man that wanted big government to take care of him, cradle to grave, but—and this is the genius of Gramsci—you could create a man that needed big government to take care of him, cradle to grave. A man so dumbed down and so minimized in society, he wouldn’t have the intellect or character to take care of himself. The reason this is so deadly for America is that once we have a certain percentage of the population in that category, our limited constitutional form of government is no longer possible because too many people won’t be able to exist in that framework. We are approaching that tipping point rapidly.
旁白：葛蘭西意識到，如果你可以控制一個文化的各方面的制度，你就可以利用它們去創造你想要的社會主義者。我認為他這個計劃最絕妙的一點是：他明白你不但能夠讓人們想要被大政府從搖籃一直管理到墳墓，而且—這也是葛蘭西最天才的地方—你能讓人們不得不需要被大政府從搖籃一直管理到墳墓。當人被愚化到這種程度，變成社會如此渺小的一員時，他已經沒有能力也沒有骨氣來自己當家做主了。這對美國為什麼這麼致命呢？因為一旦我們的人口中，達到一定比例的人屬於那一類，我們有限的憲政體制就不可能再繼續，因為有太多人無法在這個框架里生存。現在我們正在快速朝着那個比例接近。
[Environmentalism][環保主義]
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner: If you can persuade people that government should be in control of the distribution and use of energy, you can persuade them, or rather, you have persuaded them of the necessary and sufficient condition for government control of the most intimate aspects of our lives.
E.凱文∙貝斯納博士：如果你能夠説服人們，能源的分配與使用應該由政府來控制，你就能説服人們，或者說，你已經説服了人們，必須給政府創造這個條件，讓它能充分控制與我們生活最密切相關的方面。
Trevor Loudon: One of the main thrusts of socialism these days is obviously through the environmental movement.
翠弗爾∙路頓：今天社會主義的主要推動力之一顯然是環保運動。
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner: You know, one hates to pick on Al Gore too quickly and easily, but I read the whole of his book, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit back in1992 when it was first published. And if you know anything about the history of political philosophy, you read the last chapter in that called a「Global Marshall Plan,」 and you understand that there is no way to implement what Al Gore was calling for in1992 in that book except by means of totalitarian world government.
E.凱文∙貝斯納博士：你知道，我很不願意急切又輕率地挑高爾的毛病，不過我在1992年當他的書《瀕臨失衡的地球—生態與人類精神》剛剛出版時就把它讀完了。如果你對政治哲學的歷史有任何了解，那麼你在讀這本書的最後一章名為〝全球馬歇爾計劃〞時，你就應該明白，要想實現高爾在1992年提出的這個倡議，唯一的辦法就是建立全球範圍的集權政府。
Jim Simpson: Patrick Moore, who was a co-founder of Greenpeace, and he was a very dedicated environmentalist, quit Greenpeace when he realized that it had been captured by radical leftists who were intent on using the environmental movement as a vehicle to destroy capitalism.
吉姆∙辛普森：派翠克∙摩爾這個人曾經是〝綠色和平〞環保組織的一位共同創建人，非常致力於環保事業。他後來辭退了〝綠色和平〞的工作，因為他發現這個組織已經陷於極端左派人士之手，他們企圖利用環保運動毀掉資本主義。
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner: How many factories work when there’s a power outage? None. You want to hurt business, you want to drive down industrial production, you just drive up the prices of energy, you just diminish its availability, and the easiest way to do that is to make people scared to death of the cheapest forms of energy, which are fossil fuels—oil, coal, natural gas—and nuclear energy. They had already made people afraid of nuclear because of irrational fears of nuclear reactor meltdowns, which were physically impossible anyway, but then they had to figure out a way to make them afraid of fossil fuels. Well the way to do that was to say they’re going to cause catastrophic global warming.
E.凱文∙貝斯納博士：當不供電時，有幾家工廠能夠運作？沒有。你要想傷害企業，減少工業生產，只需要提高能源價格，讓企業無法獲得足夠能源。怎麼做呢？最簡單的方法就是使人們對價格最低廉的能源產生巨大恐懼，那就是化石燃料—石油、碳、天然氣—以及核能源。他們已經讓人們對核能源產生恐懼，因為人們不理性地擔心會發生核反應堆熔解，其實這種情形是不可能的。然後他們又要想辦法讓人們害怕化石燃料。他們的辦法就是聲稱化石燃料會造成災難性的全球變暖。
Janet(Folger) Porter: So I used to think this was just one great big distraction. If they want to put their energies toward the environment, but now I see that this is now being turned around and used as a tool to further a socialist agenda.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：我原本以為這不過是他們要把能源用於環境事業的干擾舉措。但是現在我明白了，他們在利用這個作為推動社會主義進程的工具。
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner: Charles Rubin, a political scientist who wrote the book, The Green Crusade, has told this story extremely well. Environment comes from a French word meaning「surroundings.」 Well, now what is surroundings? Everything around you, right? And so as Rubin points out, environmentalism is literally「everythingism.」 And so, if you were a socialist committed ideologically to the notion of government having control of everything about our lives, and you saw that you were losing the contest in terms of the creation of wealth and its distribution to capitalism, you had to find some other basis on which to promote your vision of government and to pursue its implementation. Environmentalism or「everythingism」 was the perfect card.
E.凱文∙貝斯納博士：查爾斯∙魯賓是一位政治學家，他在《綠色十字軍東征》（The Green Crusade）一書中極精彩地描繪了這個故事。〝環境〞一詞（Environment）最早來自於法語的〝周圍〞（surroundings）。什麼是周圍呢？就是你四周的一切事物，對不對？所以魯賓就指出，環保主義實際上是〝一切主義〞。所以，如果你是一名社會主義者，你相信政府應該控制人們生活的方方面面，而你看到在創造財富和分配財富這兩方面，你贏不了資本主義，那麼你就不得不尋找另外的基點來推動你心目中的政府模式以及實施你的計劃。而環保主義，或者說〝一切主義〞，就是你的一張王牌。
Narrator: In December of2009, when the「Climategate」 scandal broke open, and it became public that even the leaders of the movement knew the whole global warming idea was a farce—it wasn’t just them having bad data—we as Americans knew, once and for all, that this movement was simply part of their agenda. It’s my guess that regardless of the evidence that comes out against them, they will not let this tool they have waited for the last hundred years for, go to waste—a tool that gives them the absolute power and control they want, but allows them to get it under the guise of saving the planet.
旁白：2009年12月，〝氣候門〞醜聞曝光後，公眾獲知連環保運動的領軍人物也知道整個全球變暖的說法是場鬧劇—這不是他們數據有誤這麼簡單—作為美國人，我們徹底知道了這場運動不過是他們行動計劃里的一步棋而已。我估計，雖然有證據對他們不利，但是他們不會白白放棄這個等待了一百年的得力工具—有此利器，他們可以擁有絕對的權力和控制力，而且能夠打着拯救地球的幌子達到他們的目的。
[Have they been successful?]
[他們是否成功？]
Trevor Loudon: He was born of left-wing parents. He was mentored as a young man by a Communist Party member called Frank Marshall Davis. Now Davis joined the Communist Party in Chicago, and he was very well connected there. So young Obama eventually wound up in Chicago, and he started working with the very same people that had been working with his friend Frank Marshall Davis.
翠弗爾∙路頓：他出生在父母都是左派的家庭。在他青年時，一個叫做弗蘭克．馬歇爾．戴維斯的共產黨員是他的導師。戴維斯在芝加哥加入的共產黨，他在那裏人脈很廣。所以，年輕的奧巴馬後來到了芝加哥，與奧巴馬緊密共事的那群人是與他的朋友戴維斯緊密共事的同一群人。
Hon. Steve King: All of his associations have been with people that are way left of center—hardcore left.
尊敬的史蒂夫∙金：所有與他共事的人都與非常左派的人士有聯繫—強硬左派人士。
Hon. H.L. Richardson: And he’s doing nothing more than what is predictable based upon that background.
尊敬的H.L.理查德遜：他所做的一切也不過就是我們可以預想到的他這種背景的人會做的事情。
Hon. Steve King: The nicest word for his agenda is a「socialist」 agenda. And we could go on down the line of the other descriptors of the types of an economy and society that he’s building.
尊敬的史蒂夫∙金：他的施政路線，即便用最好的詞形容，也屬於〝社會主義〞路線。他正在創建的經濟和社會類型，我們可以用其它更靠左的那些詞語來形容。
Trevor Loudon: He’s all the things Gramsci wanted to use for social change. Yeah, he’s the epitome of the movement.
翠弗爾∙路頓：他是葛蘭西想用來推動社會變革的完美人選。沒錯，他就是這個運動的縮影。
Narrator: If you think there’s no way that so few could be so effective, consider this: When the Communist Party USA split in1992, the group that formed was the Committees of Correspondence. And it was their meeting I attended that summer at Berkeley. As I started researching that group, I saw that many of the same people who started or have worked with the Committees of Correspondence and its sister organizations were the same people who were involved with President Obama’s campaign and administration. I found file after file on Trevor Loudon’s website documenting, with footnotes and photographs, these connections. The radical Left has been so successful, they have persuaded the American people to put one of their own in the White House.
旁白：如果你不相信這麼一小群人能做成這麼大一件事，請想一想這點：當美國共產黨在1992年分裂以後，隨後建立了〝聯絡委員會〞（Committees of Correspondence），我那個夏天在伯克萊大學參加的實際上就是這個委員會的會議。我在展開對該組織的調查之後發現，很多與這個組織及其姐妹組織共事或曾經共事的人都參與了奧巴馬總統的競選與行政團隊。我在翠弗爾∙路頓的網頁上找到很多文件證明這些聯繫，有腳註、有照片。極端左派人士簡直太成功了，他們竟然説服了美國民眾讓他們的人入主了白宮。
Dr. David Noebel: Socialism and Marxism go together like Mary and Mary’s little lamb.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：社會主義和馬克思主義是如影隨形的，就像瑪麗和瑪麗的小綿羊一般契合。
Trevor Loudon: The general populace knows very little about what the socialists are up to.
翠弗爾∙路頓：一般大眾對這些社會主義者的企圖知之甚少。
Dr. David Noebel: If you’re going to find socialism, you’re going to find the hardcore communists right behind it.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：哪裏有社會主義，哪裏就有強硬派的共產主義人士站在他們後面。
Trevor Loudon: One of the main avenues has been through what they call the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Twenty percent of the US Congress are members of this organization. They have chairmanships of most of the major House committees and are easily the single most powerful bloc in the US Congress, and virtually all of them are tied to either Democratic Socialists of America, the Communist Party USA, or other radical organizations.
翠弗爾∙路頓：他們達成目的的一個主要途徑是通過〝國會進步黨團〞。美國國會20%的人屬於該黨團成員。大多數眾院委員會的主席都由該黨團成員擔任，所以它毫無疑問是國會實力最強的一個團體，這個團體幾乎所有人都與〝美國民主社會主義者〞（DSA）、〝美國共產黨〞或其它極端激進組織有關。
Dr. David Noebel: We’re literally, at this very time, watching what’s transpiring and has been going on, from the Fabian Socialist point of view, from1883 to the present. So these guys don’t give up.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：此時此刻，按費邊社的觀點，我們毫不誇張地正在目睹着從1883年一直演變到現在，一步步發生的變化。所以這群人從來就沒有放棄過。
Trevor Loudon: And they’re going at breakneck speed because they know they』ve got an opportunity now to change America in a way that can never be changed back. And they’re going for broke.
翠弗爾∙路頓：而且他們在一日千里地推動他們的計劃，因為他們看到了這個千載難逢的機會，可以把美國推向一條不歸路。所以他們毫無保留地放手一搏。
Dr. David Noebel: The Bolsheviks, they’re just waiting in the woods, and they’re just smiling like you can’t believe. You just read the Communist Party USA blog, and they just can’t believe their good fortune. Every time they turn around, they just can’t believe this is happening. They’re like me. I’m a Christian conservative, and I can’t believe they』ve been so successful in doing this.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：那些布爾什維克人躲在暗處簡直樂開了花。你去讀美國共產黨的博客，他們簡直不敢相信自己的好運，無法相信這竟然是真的。就跟我一樣，我是一名保守派基督徒，我也簡直無法相信他們能這麼成功。
Narrator: The Left has started multitudes of foundations and nonprofit organizations, many of which are using our tax dollars to grind America down.
旁白：左派們成立了一大堆基金會和非盈利組織，其中許多是用納稅人的錢在蠶食美國。
Hon. Ed Meese, III: They use all kinds of patriotic words to masquerade an extreme Leftist orientation, which, if anything, would enslave the people in the same kinds of things with the same kind of ultimate results as communism had.
尊敬的埃德文∙米斯III：他們用各種各樣的愛國詞藻掩飾極端左派傾向的意圖。可以確定的是，極端左派會同共產黨一樣，以同樣的方式奴役人民，造成同樣的終極後果。
Dr. David Noebel: The communist will let the socialist go so far, and then ultimately, the communists will really turn on their fellow socialists, and they』ll wipe them out too. And their attitude I think is really, probably, pretty close. They figure, look, if these socialists betrayed their own country, the chances are once we get in power, they』ll betray us too. So they』ll figure, let’s just rub them out right now. And at a given point, you』ll see in the history of communism that they』ve been very effective in rubbing out their fellow socialists who brought about their socialism before the Bolsheviks and the hardcore Communists—with a capital「C」—took them over.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：當社會主義者們走到一定程度以後，最終，共產黨人就會跟他們反目，把他們也一併除掉。我猜測他們的心態應該是：如果這群社會主義者可以背叛自己的國家，那麼一旦我們掌權，難保他們不背叛我們。所以他們就想乾脆我們現在就把這群人除掉。通過共產主義的歷史我們看到，當社會主義實現時，一旦時機成熟，這群布爾什維克人和強硬的共產黨們-大寫〝C〞的這群人（Communists）-就會非常有效地一舉除掉他們的社會主義同胞。
Jim Simpson: One thing we do really have to recognize is this is a domestic enemy. This is not just people with different ideas. These are not just nice folks who have funny, silly ideas that they will eventually figure out are just not very mature. No, these people are dangerous, dangerous enemies. And they are intent on overthrowing this country and imposing the socialist system that will mean extreme hardship for the vast majority of people in this country.
吉姆∙辛普森：我們必須要清醒的認識一點：他們是我們國內的敵人，而不僅是一群擁有不同理念的人。他們不是一群本質善良、想法天真而最終會面對現實會成熟起來的人。不，這是一群極端危險的敵人。他們的意圖是推翻這個國家，把社會主義制度施加給美國，這意味着美國將來絕大部分人將陷入極度困苦之中。
Hon. Steve King: That’s true with them constantly seeking to re-engineer society, so they reach this level of utopian perfection. Where[as] we on the other side, we advance the idea that this is about the cause of freedom, and if it hadn’t been for Jesus Christ, there never would have been any United States of America, because the inspiration for freedom drove our Founding Fathers. They were informed by their faith, and, I believe, guided by the hand of God.
尊敬的史蒂夫∙金：比如他們不斷在尋求重新改造這個社會，以期達到烏托邦程度的完美。而我們推行的理念是：我們自由的緣由來自於基督耶穌，如果不是耶穌，就根本不會有美利堅合眾國，因為我們的建國先父被自由的啟示所驅使，才創建了美國。是信仰為他們指路，我相信，是上帝指引着他們。
[Is it too late?]
[我們還來得及回頭嗎？]
Hon. H.L. Richardson: No.
尊敬的H.L.理查德遜：來得及。
M. Stanton Evans: No.
M.史丹頓∙艾文斯：來得及。
Hon. Ed Meese, III: Perhaps, treacherously close.
尊敬的埃德文∙米斯III：或許是千鈞一髮的時候。
Dr. David Noebel: It is never over until it’s over. When the fat lady sings—isn’t that the slogan—when the fat lady sings, it’s over. Now, she might be clearing her throat.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：只要還沒結束，就有機會。不是有句俗語：當胖女人唱歌時，歌劇才將落幕嘛？現在那個胖女人可能已經在清喉嚨了。
Trevor Loudon: We saw the great country of Germany in the1920s brought to its knees. Hitler came to power and destroyed the country. We see countries like Zimbabwe in Africa, which was once a prosperous breadbasket, now just wreaked. Argentina was destroyed by the socialist[Juan] Perón in the50s. It was one of the richest countries in the world. So no we’re not at the point of no return. But it’s getting pretty late in the day. There’s no time to be casual. That’s for sure.
翠弗爾∙路頓：在1920年代，我們看到德國這麼偉大的國家被屈服了，希特拉掌權後毀掉了德國。還有非洲的津巴布韋，曾經是富足的產糧大國，後來也滿目瘡痍。阿根廷在1950年代被庇隆這個社會黨人搞垮了，它本來是世界上最富的國家之一。不，我們回頭還來得及。但是，時間真的已經不多了，我們不能再繼續掉以輕心，這是肯定的。
Narrator: We』ve spent too many years thinking because we have Republicans in office or the stock market is doing well that everything is okay. This is why the Left has gained so much ground. It doesn’t matter who’s been in office. They』ve just continued pushing forward with their agenda. Well, I believe this is our last chance to push back.
旁白：這麼多年來，我們一直以為只要共和黨掌權，或者股票市場健康發展，就萬事無妨。這種思路恰恰是為什麼左派能一直發展壯大。無論哪個黨掌權，左派都在一如既往地推進他們的計劃。我覺得，我們已經到了背水一戰的時刻了。
[What must be done?]
[什麼是當務之急？]
Dr. David Noebel: If people are looking for something to do, we have our work cut out for us.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：想要有所作為的人們，我們的工作是十分艱巨的。
Dr. David Gibbs, Jr.: I believe one of the things that we can do that will have a profound impact in changing America is praying.
小大衛∙吉伯斯博士：我相信，有一件事情可以對改變美國發生深遠的影響，那就是祈禱。
Janet(Folger) Porter: Soon as we get off our knees, we need to get on our feet.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：祈禱之後，我們要儘快行動。
Tim Woldmon: Become educated about what’s going on in the country.
蒂姆∙渥德蒙：主動去了解這個國家正在發生什麼。
Hon. Howard Phillips: Spend time reading.
尊敬的霍華德∙菲利普斯：花時間去閲讀。
John Stormer: Understand their philosophy and their goals.
約翰∙斯多莫：要懂得他們的理念與目標。
Dr. David Noebel: They have to master this documentary. They have to go over it a dozen times.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：人們必須要熟知這部紀錄片，要看個十幾遍。
Narrator: It might be having a monthly movie night with family and friends watching one of the many great documentaries out there about what is going on in our country.
旁白：全家和朋友間可以每個月組織一次看電影活動，大家一起選一部優秀的紀錄片，有很多這樣的片子，通過這種方法了解我們國家在發生什麼。
Hon. Ed Meese, III: One of the things that I think people in the United States who believe in our country, believe in our values, can do, quite frankly, is stand up for those values, to make their views known.
尊敬的埃德文∙米斯III：我覺得對於相信美國、相信美國價值的美國人民，簡單地說，大家可以做的一件事，是為自己相信的事情去辯護，說出自己的看法。
Hon. H.L. Richardson: And there are times that you』ve got to speak up. And you』ve got to call things what they are.
尊敬的H.L.理查德遜：有些時候你必須要發出聲音。你必須要說出事情的本來面目。
Wendy Wright: We need to be willing to be criticized, and to not be silent because of the criticism.
溫迪∙萊特：我們不能怕別人批評，也不能因為別人批評就保持沉默。
Janet(Folger) Porter: It was Martin Luther who said if we’re faithful on all battlefronts besides precisely where the battle is the hottest, then we’re traitors to the cause.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：馬丁∙路德說過，如果我們在所有的戰場都保持忠貞信念，但是卻偏偏在戰況最激烈的戰場失去信念，那麼我們就背叛了我們的宗旨。
Brandon Howse: I like to quote by Abraham Lincoln, who said silence makes cowards out of the best of men. And we』ve got a lot of people who need to be speaking up right now.
布蘭登∙豪斯：我想引述林肯的一句話，他說即便是最優秀的人，如果保持沉默，也與懦夫無異。而現在很多人需要站出來發聲。
Janet(Folger) Porter: We have an obligation to speak the truth about the policies that are taking us a hundred and eighty degrees from God’s will.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：這些政策使我們180度的偏離了上帝的意志，我們有責任說出它們的真相。
Hon. H.L. Richardson: Expand within your Church. Expand within the people that you have contact[with]. Bring them up to speed in knowledge on what’s going on.
尊敬的H.L.理查德遜：在你的教堂傳播真相，在你周圍的人當中傳播真相，讓他們了解現在正在發生什麼。
Narrator: We need to organize those around us. By simply mobilizing the unique groups of people we are in contact with and being their source of information, we can have an extraordinary effect.
旁白：我們需要把周圍的人組織起來。只是簡單地把我們社交圈裏的人們動員起來，並為他們提供訊息，我們就能產生巨大的影響。
Jim Simpson: Lenin said that the organized minority will beat the disorganized majority every time.
吉姆∙辛普森：列寧說，無論何時，有組織的少數都會戰勝無組織的大多數。
Tim Woldmon: Why should we be buying products from companies that are going to fund organizations that attack our values?
蒂姆∙渥德蒙：對於那些給攻擊我們價值觀的組織提供資金的企業，我們為什麼還要買他們的產品呢？
Dr. David Noebel: They need to be really smart in using the mass media. They might want to blog.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：在使用大眾媒體時要特別有智慧，或許可以選擇博客這個途徑。
Trevor Loudon: Using the power of Youtube and that sort of thing to educate as many people as possible. A good Youtube video can reach millions of people. And if Susan Boyle can do it, why can’t we?
翠弗爾∙路頓：利用Youtube等這類工具的威力，儘可能把信息告訴更多人。一個好的Youtube視頻可以讓數百萬人看到。如果Susan Boyle能成功，為什麼我們不可以？
Narrator: If you do the right kinds of things on Youtube that are creative, and do them frequently, you can drive a message through society, influencing millions at almost no cost.
旁白：如果你在Youtube上做得好、有創意、堅持做，就可以讓社會聽到你的聲音，幾乎不用什麼本錢就可以影響數以百萬的人。
Dr. David Gibbs, Jr.: We need to be the people who graciously, but consistently, make contact.
小大衛∙吉伯斯博士：我們應該大方禮貌、始終如一地與周圍人接觸聯繫。
Mike Smith, ESQ.: And express to those folks we elected what we want them to do, and what we believe in, and what we think is right. And if they don’t follow those things, then we need to make efforts to get them out and get other people in that will.
麥克∙史密斯律師：告訴我們選舉出的官員，我們對他們有哪些訴求，我們相信什麼，我們認為什麼是對的。如果他們做不到我們的訴求，我們就需要把他們撤換下來，另選能做到的他人。
Trevor Loudon: Take the good ones and stick to them. Don’t waste the time on people who won’t stand up for their country.
翠弗爾∙路頓：對那些好的人講明真相，不要把時間浪費在那些不為自己國家説話的人身上。
Dr. David Gibbs, Jr.: All the others are making contact. The people who really want to honor America need to make contact.
小大衛∙吉伯斯博士：其他那些人都在四處活動聯絡，而真正想為美國帶來榮譽的人才最應該與周圍人廣為聯絡。
Narrator: We also need to be influencing our own families. We』ve got to teach our own children and grandchildren the difference between truth and error, why they believe the things they do, and the true source of America’s greatness.
旁白：我們還要影響自己的家人。我們必須要讓子孫明白真理與錯誤之間的差別，為什麼我們相信我們所相信的，以及美國偉大的真正源泉。
Dr. David Noebel: If what we’re talking about is true, the most important thing we can do is protect our young because that is where all of this is leading. They need to get that younger generation under their belt.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：如果我們所說的是真實的，那麼我們要做的最重要的事是保護我們的孩子，因為他們才是最終的目標。我們需要把年輕一代爭取過來。
Mike Smith, ESQ.: And more and more parents are going to have to say that they’re just going to have to sacrifice and take responsibility for their kid’s education because that’s really where it starts—to impart that belief. The southern baptist, we’re seeing that eighty five percent of their kids, after they get out of their home, are essentially rejecting their faith, rejecting what they were taught. And of course, I think the reason for that is because their parents didn’t have a lot of influence over them.
麥克∙史密斯律師：越來越多的家長不得不說，他們必須要做出更多犧牲來負責教育自己的子女，因為教育是一切的開始—把信念注入孩子心中。現在南方浸禮教的情形是，85%的孩子在離開家之後基本就放棄自己的信仰，排斥他們從小所學的內容。當然我覺得這是因為他們的父母對他們並沒有產生很深的影響。
Phyllis Schlafly: I believe the public schools are the greatest cultural influence in this country.
費利斯∙雪弗利：我認為，公立學校是這個國家對文化影響最大的。
Dr. David Noebel: You homeschool your kids or get them into Christian day school.
大衛∙諾伯爾博士：你可以在家裏教育孩子，或者送孩子去基督教日間學校。
Janet(Folger) Porter: If there is any way at all, homeschool your children. Homeschoolers out test everybody.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：只要有任何可能，你就應該讓孩子留在家裏上學。在家裏讀書的孩子考試成績比別人都好。
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner: Our children need to be taught from Scripture a properly Biblical worldview.
E∙凱文∙貝斯納博士：我們需要通過《聖經》教給孩子們一個正確的世界觀。
Mike Smith, ESQ.: That requires time. It requires effort. It requires purpose.
麥克∙史密斯律師：這需要時間，這需要努力，這需要信念。
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner: Our minds should be the sharpest minds in the world.
E∙凱文∙貝斯納博士：我們的思維應該比所有人都敏銳。
Mike Smith, ESQ.: We need to work within our family to educate our children on what kind of country they live in and build their faith and then get involved.
麥克∙史密斯律師：我們需要從自己家庭開始，教育孩子他們生活的國家是什麼樣的國家，培養他們的信念，然後參與對的事情。
Narrator: The Left has been working for decades to push us away from God and His laws, and we need to be willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to turn our country back to Him. Throughout our history as Americans though, there has always been a great price to be paid for preserving, protecting, and defending this great land.
旁白：數十年以來，左派一直在努力讓我們遠離上帝、遠離上帝的法則，我們需要作出一切犧牲來讓我們的國家回到上帝身邊。在美國的歷史上，為了維繫、保護和捍衛這片偉大的土地，人們一直在復出巨大的代價。
Dr. David Gibbs, Jr.: The people who built America paid a great price. The people who went to war for our nation, boy, did they pay a price. And one of the American values was we will pay a price for what is right. We will give of ourselves even if it requires the giving of our lives. That was an American value. That’s why it is such a heroic and honorable thing when a soldier defending us pays that price. That’s like when you go to Arlington Cemetery in Washington and the Tomb of the Unknown[Soldier]. You stand there and you say this is America. We were the people who so believed in these values that it’s an honor to stand for even if it can cost you your very life.
小大衛∙吉伯斯博士：我們的建國先父們付出了巨大的代價。為我國而戰的人們，天啊，他們付出了多麼沉重的代價。美國的價值觀之一就是，我們為正義而付出代價。我們會犧牲自己，哪怕這意味着奉獻自己的生命。這曾是美國的價值觀。所以當一位軍人為國捐軀時，那是英雄又充滿榮譽的事。當你站在華盛頓的阿靈頓公墓和無名戰士墓前，你會說，這才是美國。曾幾何時，我們是如此相信美國的這些價值觀，即便以身殉國，都引以為榮耀。
Wendy Wright: One thing I think we do need to remember though is that as we look at those we consider to be heroes in the past, they weren’t people who just went along with the status quo. They weren’t people who were just saying what was accepted at that time in history. They were people who were rising up above the evil that was being committed in their culture at that time. That’s why they were heroes because they weren’t like everyone else.
溫迪∙萊特：我們需要記住的一點是，我們今天視為英雄的人們，他們在有生之年並非隨波逐流之輩，也並非人云亦云迎合當時大眾口味的人。他們是敢於面對當年敗壞文化的邪惡之流的人。所以他們是英雄，因為他們與眾不同。
Hon. H.L. Richardson: Never, ever lose sight of the power of one individual American. They can have an unbelievable magnifying effect just by the very fact they make up their mind to do so.
尊敬的H.L.理查德遜：永遠不要小看哪怕是一個美國人的力量。只要他們信念堅定，他們就會產生難以置信的影響力。
Janet(Folger) Porter: I believe that’s the only chance, the only hope we have as a nation. Hope is not found in rhetoric. Hope is found in God, the God of Creation. And you know what? Our Founders were in covenant with that God.
珍妮特（弗爾傑）波特：我相信這是這個國家唯一的機會、唯一的希望。希望不能通過華麗的詞藻實現。希望來自於上帝—造物之主。大家知道嗎？我們的建國先父就曾與主簽過神聖的契約。
Dr. Jim Bowers: You need a dedicated, informed, praying Christian making things happening and being determined to do so.
吉姆∙保爾博士：我們需要的是堅持不懈、明達知情、虔誠祈禱的基督信徒來實現這件事，通過頑強的信念來實現。
Narrator: Time has only allowed me to present a fraction of what I found. The reason I call this film「Agenda」 is because I wanted to make a clear distinction between what I was researching and all the conspiracy theories out there. The dictionary says a conspiracy is an evil plan formulated in secret by two or more persons, but an agenda is simply a list of things to be done. At every turn of my investigation, I found agendas by people and groups of the Left outlining their plan in their own words. They』ve been doing most of this right out in the open. Some of you might be thinking these Marxist ideas aren’t the most serious threat we face. What about militant Islam, our open borders, the national debt, or even China? Well, I agree. America is facing so many serious threats right now. But the reason I believe this is the most dire is because it’s destroying us on the inside. Through the political correctness and dumbing down, it’s causing us to lose our ability to call evil evil and stand against it. I fear for our country. If we go along business as usual, not informed, not aware of what’s going on, then the very small minority, that have a plan and are great at organizing the uninformed and misguided, will make sure their plan is carried out. I hope you realize it won’t just be your children and grandchildren that pay the horrific price of living in the society they’re trying to create. No, it will be far worse than that.
旁白：由於時間關係，我只能把發現的一小部分內容在這裏分享。我把這部影片叫作〝行動計劃〞，因為我想將我的調查與其它那些陰謀論明確區分開。字典上說，〝陰謀〞是指兩人以上秘密制定的一個邪惡計劃。而〝行動計劃〞只不過就是要逐一完成的一個清單。我在調查中一再發現，左派的人士與團體用他們自己的言詞制定出他們自己的行動計劃，而且大部分都是公開的。有的人可能會想，美國面對的燃眉之急不是這些馬克思主義理念，而是例如武裝伊斯蘭教派者、開放邊境、國債、甚至中共等等。怎麼說呢，我同意。當今的美國正面臨着重重威脅。但是我之所以認為本片所述才是美國的心腹大患，是因為它在從美國的內部瓦解我們。通過政治正確和思想愚化，它讓我們已經喪失了稱邪惡為邪惡並抵禦它的能力。我為我們的國家擔憂。如果我們繼續這麼下去，不去了解實情，不知道正在發生什麼，那麼極少數的這部分有計劃有組織能力的人就能利用無知又被誤導的大眾，確保他們的計劃一定會實現。我希望大家能明白，我們要承受的巨大代價不僅是我們的子孫要生活在他們企圖創造的可怕的世界裏，真正等待着我們的還要比這可怕得多。
Trevor Loudon: Every time a civilization goes down or a country goes down, militarily or economically, somebody else fills the gap. Now, if you look around the world now, it’s going to be China, which is massively arming. You』ve got Russia, which is becoming increasingly belligerent. You』ve got the radical Islamic world, which works hand in glove with Russians and the Chinese all the time. You』ve got a virtually red Latin America. You』ve got a neutral, socialist Europe. So America hasn’t got a lot of friends left in the world. Now, that’s not just going to affect America. That’s going to affect every single remaining country in the free world. Who’s going to stand up to China if America doesn’t? Who’s going to stand up to the Russians? Is Europe going to do it? Australia? New Zealand? Canada? Not a chance. If America—and this is the point I think Americans need to comprehend—if America goes down economically, it will go down militarily. If America goes down militarily, we all go down. The free world is finished. And it will be finished for a very, very long time.
翠弗爾∙路頓：每當一個文明或一個國家隕落時，無論是從武力上還是經濟上，它的位置就會被他人取代。放眼世界，這個取代者將是中國（共），中國（共）正在大力發展軍力。還有俄羅斯，它正變得越來越好戰。還有極端伊斯蘭教派，他們與俄羅斯和中國也有千絲萬縷的關係。拉丁美洲基本上已經赤化。還有一個中立的，社會主義化的歐洲。所以美國在世界上剩下的朋友不多了。這不僅是美國會受到影響，自由世界每一個剩下的國家都會受到影響。如果美國不直面中國（共），誰又可以呢？誰又能夠與俄羅斯對抗呢？歐洲？澳大利亞？新西蘭？加拿大？根本不可能。如果美國垮了—我覺得這是美國人要搞明白的一點—如果美國的經濟垮了，它的軍事就會跟着垮。如果美國的軍事垮了，我們全跟着一起下沉。自由世界就完了。而且會滅亡很久很久。