The Devil and Karl Marx: Communism's Long March of Death, Deception, and Infiltration

by Paul Kengor

Two decades after the publication of The Black Book of Communism , nearly everyone is or at least should be, aware of the immense evil produced by that devilish ideology first hatched when Karl Marx penned his Communist Manifesto two centuries ago. Far too many people, however, separate Marx the man from the evils wrought by the oppressive ideology and theory that bears his name. That is a grave mistake. Not only did the horrific results of Marxism follow directly from Marx’s twisted ideas, but the man himself penned some downright devilish things. Well before Karl Marx was writing about the hell of communism, he was writing about hell.
 
“Thus Heaven I’ve forfeited, I know it full well,” he wrote in a poem in 1837, a decade before his Manifesto. “My soul, once true to God, is chosen for Hell.” That certainly seemed to be the perverse destiny for Marx’s ideology, which consigned to death over 100 million souls in the twentieth century alone.
 
No other theory in all of history has led to the deaths of so many innocents. How could the Father of Lies not be involved?
 
At long last, here, in this book by Professor Paul Kengor, is a close, careful look at the diabolical side of Karl Marx, a side of a man whose fascination with the devil and his domain would echo into the twentieth century and continue to wreak havoc today. It is a tragic portrait of a man and an ideology, a chilling retrospective on an evil that should have never been let out of its pit.

 

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Biography, Philosophy, Cultural, Religion

461 pages, Hardcover

First published August 1, 2020

About the author

Paul G. Kengor is an author and professor of political science at Grove City College and the senior director of the Institute for Faith and Freedom, a Grove City College think tank. He is a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace. Kengor has focused much of his work on Ronald Reagan, faith and the presidency, conservative politics, the Cold War, Communism, and Catholicism.

Reviews

[Ashley Miranda-Paquet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interestingly dark

Very good read about the history of Karl Marx and the history of Marxism. It's very dark and twisted so reader beware! This information needs to be told because it's eerily similar to what is happening right now.

[Taliesin Hutson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Funniest book I've read this year 5/5 perfect comedy. My favorite part was when the author included a whole chapter detailing all of the allegations that Marx was either possessed but demons or personally worshipped the devil, and followed up these accounts by reassuring is readers that he doesn't really think that any possession occurred and he just included them for the lulz.

I know that as a reasonable person with left-leaning tendencies, I was setting myself up for disappointment when I picked this book up, but I truly hoped that it would have good arguments as to why Marx's personal failings were indicative of greater problems with his ideologies. Instead, I was meet with endless pages of tiresome rants about the dangers of atheism.

This book will not change your mind. If you already think that liberalism is evil, and its practitioners are evil communists in disguise, you'll probably be entertained, but if you were hoping this to be anything but an angry tirade, you will be disappointed.

[Cav · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Devil and Karl Marx was a mixed bag for me... Although I have a great personal disdain for the ideology and implementation of socialism/communism, I found the writing here to be lacking.
The book has some serious flaws that take away from what is otherwise an interesting subject matter.

The book is full of writing about the incompatible nature and conflict between communism and organized religion. It is the central theme of the book. There is a very liberal usage of religious rhetoric throughout here. A huge chunk of the book is devoted to an almost blow-by-blow historical account of the specific conflicts between religion and socialism, including direct quotes of many back-and-forths that are in the public record. Author Paul Kengor spends much more time than is worth here citing many long quotes and speeches from various different ecclesiastics; priests, popes, et al.
There are also many references to, and quotes from the Bible here. It was a bit much for my tastes, to be honest...

The end of the audiobook has a notation from publisher TAN Books, where they disclose that they are a publisher of books meant to spread the gospel, and evangelize the Christian faith. I wish I knew this before starting the book...
A more honest title for this book would have been something along the lines of: Karl Marx and Communism's Conflict with Religion.

Kengor also spends quite a bit of time talking about Marx's poetry. He uses poems by Marx to make character attacks against him. Who cares about Marx's poetry?? Not me, anyhow.
Kengor also has the better part of a chapter devoted to the boils on the body of Karl Marx. Yes, seriously.

I would think that the wholesale human suffering brought on by the societal experiment called socialism would be a decent enough argument against Marx's ideology. Mentioning his poems, and talking about his poor personal hygiene seem to be ridiculous "arguments" to me...

And although the book does have a decently-written epilogue that talks about the spread of cultural Marxism in Western society, too much of the writing here is very dry, verbose, and long-winded. This book could have done well with a much more rigorous editing. At least 100 pages could have been cut for the sake of brevity.
I guess the inclusion of the word "Devil" in the book's title should have been a harbinger of what was to come within its pages...

**********************

So, while I had high hopes for this one, I did not enjoy it, and would not recommend it.
2 stars.

[Jon. Nelson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Please don't believe the lies this book tells you, it's no more than modern-day Red-Scare propaganda. What else could you expect from an author who wrote an entire book comparing Ronald Reagan to god?
To be transparent, I am a Leftist myself. I am currently studying political science and history so I have a fairly well-gathered understanding of the two in conjunction with my personal political ideology. This book is full of misconceptions, false equivalencies, and has one direct narrative to paint. The fact of the matter is, this author (despite his claims) doesn't seem to have even the slightest understanding of the intentions that Leftist ideologies hold. Arguing their efficiency or success could've been a more realistic approach, but trying to dismiss an entire ideology by spreading lies about its foundation has made me question Paul Kengor's overall intelligence.
"The Devil and Karl Marx" brings up valid critiques, but loses itself in some wild crusade to disenfranchise an entire belief system simply because it doesn't align with the authors.

[booklady · Rating 5 out of 5]

Indescribably dark as one would expect and yet there were unexpected rays of light such as the discovery of the anti-communists papal encyclicals written over the years; would there were more. Below is a list which I have gleaned from the text:

1846 – Pius IX, Qui Pluribus (On Faith and Religion): communism was a “dark design” of “men in the clothing of sheep, while inwardly ravening wolves.” “After taking their captives gently, they mildly bind them, and then kill them in secret,” this encyclical somehow knew, or foreknew. “They make men fly in terror from all practice of religion, and they cut down and dismember the sheep of the Lord.” This was published pre-The Communist Manifesto.

1849 – Pius IX, Nostis Et Nobiscum (On the Church in the Pontifical States): which referred to both socialism and communism as “wicked theories,” “perverted teachings,” and “pernicious fictions.” They were linked together throughout the encyclical.

1878 – Leo XIII, Quod Apostolici Muneris (On Socialism): defined communism as “the fatal plague which insinuates itself into the very marrow of human society only to bring about its ruin.”

1891 – Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (On Capital and Labor): according to the author most think this encyclical was harsh on capitalism but actually it was very supportive of a fair capitalist system, recognizing that communism could NEVER work and would demean and use the worker.

1928 – Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (On Religious Unity)

1931 – Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno (On Reconstruction of the Social Order): (section 120): “Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”

1932 – Pius XI, Caritate Christi Compulsi (On the Sacred Heart)

1932 – Pius XI, Acerba Animi (on Persecution of the Church in Mexico)

1933 – Pius XI, Dilectissima Nobis (On the Oppression of the Church in Spain)

1937 – Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris (On Atheistic Communism)*

Vatican II – writings which were never published 😢

May 1991 – John Paul II, Centesimus Annus (On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum)

As for the rest of the text, I confess to skimming the particularly heinous sections which I won’t even relate. Marx and his cohort, Engels were described by the author, Paul Kengor through his own research as well a number of favorable as well as unfavorable biographies written about them. Even those who were predisposed to write well of these men could not find much that was positive to say except that they were the victims of their own evil. They lived miserable lives. Communism never begets happiness.

The author limited his scope to Marxism/Communism/socialism as it unfolded in Europe, Russia and then here in the United States and how it has infiltrated religious denominations, seminaries, social and cultural institutions, the education system, moral philosophy and government. We don’t have the classical Marxism of Marx or Lenin as was imposed on the Russian people. That would not work here in America where the standard of living is relatively high and economic dissatisfaction could not be counted on for workers to clamor for change.

Rather, we have a planned and infiltrated cultural communism which has been ongoing since the 1930s with the cooperation of American communist plants in every group, branch and organization in our country. The author went to great length to show how this was done. It is almost too sad to think about, but it is very real. I am not a conspiracy seeker, but I am a believer in Good and Evil. if you do not believe me, please read this book for yourself.

“If you marry the mood or the spirit of the age,” warned Fulton Sheen, “then you will be a widow in the next one. These fashions simply do not last.” Sheen affirmed that “we’ve got to have some principles that do not change to live by.” In order “to think well, one has to have principles that are independent of space and time. By which one can live. We know that these principles exist, and we know there’s such a thing as truth simply because there’s a logos, there’s an intelligence behind the universe.” Sheen fought valiantly against Communism when he was alive. He knew where the REAL truth was.

*Thank you, Pope Pius XI, for your courage, forthrightness, persistence and dogged determination to consistently address the communistic scourge in your time. Until I read this book, I had no idea how bad communism was–IS–nor all you did to try to make the world aware of it, nor how silent most of your successors have been on this subject.

[Emily Friedl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Terrifying but necessary read.

[Audrey · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars

This is a scholarly examination of the devil’s influence on Marxism and its followers from a mostly Catholic perspective, though all people of faith may find it relevant.

I forget who said that the devil’s most successful lie is convincing people he doesn’t exist. I don’t think this book will make much sense to those who don’t believe in the devil.

Based on my understanding, Satan is the devil, the father of lies and contention. The fruits of Marxism show tens of millions dead, many more tortured, oppressed, and impoverished. Marxism pits groups of people against each other, resulting in wars and bigotry. So it’s pretty obvious to me that the devil influenced and/or invented Marxism.

The book goes over Marx’s obsession with the devil, Marxism’s hostility toward religion (including Lenin’s and Stalin’s torture of clergymen and worshippers), and some of the disciples of Marx who were also into all kinds of depravity. He describes how socialists infiltrated clubs, churches, unions, and government. (They found it easiest to infiltrate unions and Protestant churches.) The author criticizes those who think Christianity is compatible with socialism/communism and proves that’s impossible.

The author is incredibly thorough in providing support for his statements, so sometimes it’s like beating a dead horse, but it’s information that’s good to have.

Language: occasional strong language in quotes
Sexual Content: clinical descriptions of sexual torture, pedophilia, and similar things
Violence: somewhat graphic descriptions of torture
Harm to Animals: sexual abuse
Harm to Children: Nothing graphic
Other (Triggers): devil worship, domestic abuse, suicide

********************************
No other political ideology has produced as much wretched poverty, rank repression, and sheer violence. In country after country, implemented in varying forms across wide-ranging nationalities, traditions, backgrounds, faiths, and ethnicities, communism coldly and consistently violated the full sweep of most basic human rights, from property to press, from speech to assembly, from conscience to religion. So restrictive was communism in the twentieth century that its implementers routinely refused to allow citizens the right to exit (that is, escape) the destructive systems imposed within their borders. In some cases, they erected walls to herd and fence in the ���masses” they claimed to champion.

“Communist regimes turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government.” (The Black Book of Communism)

Atheist communists and socialists have always mistakenly felt that the answers to man’s miseries are found not in God (the existence of which they deny) but in economic materialism. It is so ironic that communists and socialists blast the wealthy for being allegedly obsessed with money and material things. But as most rich people learn, money does not buy happiness. Humans desire more than that. How profound that Jesus told Satan that man does not live on bread alone.

This kind of utopian idealism is common to the communist left and even much of the wider left, which otherwise proudly touts its cynicism and suspicion, especially of religious people. But when a centralized government looks to corral and herd the collective masses, the hardest left-wing pessimist can morph into the most hopeful idealist. Leftists scoff at the Baptist preacher clinging to his Bible or Catholic grandma clinging to her rosary, but damned if leftists are not equally as faithful when clinging to government as holding the path to salvation. The most doubting and brooding of communists have not been exempt from such full-faith secular idealism.

Marxism from the outset was a seriously perverse ideology that brooded in misery, wallowed in misery, advanced itself in the name of misery, and ultimately produced misery. It is not surprise that anyone who has studied its roots sees among them numerous pernicious ideas and influences.

Of course, Marx envied everyone’s wealth. Marxism and communism thrive on envy of others’ wealth.

Marx’s landlord evicted him and his family because of communism’s founding father’s revulsion at the idea of an individual providing for himself and his family. Marx would have ached for an all-encompassing, cradle-to-grave, womb-to-tomb, collectivist-welfare state that confiscates revenue from wealthy people and redistributes it to lazy socialist academics and theorists peddling inane ideas from their messy desk piled with papers.

“Communism begins where atheism begins,” declared Marx. In the Communist Manifesto, he and Engels remarked, “Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality.”

The Soviet Union was openly hostile to religion. It was officially atheist. That is a key fact: to be officially atheist does not mean that a nation is irreligious or unreligious or takes no position on religion. The USSR had an official position on religion; it was not neutral. The position was that there was no God. Moreover, that atheism translated into a form of anti-religion that included a systematic campaign to try to eliminate religious belief within the USSR and everywhere outside of the Soviet Union where the Bolsheviks worked diligently to advance the frontiers of communism.

[Fulton] Sheen said that communists had failed to convince the world that there is no God. Rather, he quipped, they had succeeded only in convincing the world that there is a devil.

Pope Benedict XVI said of Marx, “His error lay deeper. He forgot that man always remains man. He forgot man and he forgot man’s freedom. He forgot that freedom always remains also freedom for evil. ... He thought that once the economy had been put right, everything would automatically be put right. His real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favorable economic environment.”

(Leo XIII Rerum Novarum)
To remedy these wrongs, the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property … They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights … Were [the plan] to be carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. ... Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.

(Pope John XXIII quoting Pius XI)
“Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.” “Christian socialism” is an oxymoron.

The slogan of “real socialism” ... signaled a perennial problem with socialists: their ongoing fatal conceit that they were the awaited ones, the enlightened ones, the anointed ones who would do socialism right. Their socialism was the right, the true, the proper, the real socialism. Such is the incessant new claim of every new generation of socialists: simply give them enough power and enough of your freedom, and they will do socialism right, this time.

John Paul II favored a better method, known as subsidiarity. ... It opposes collectivism and statism. The principle of subsidiarity maintains that nothing should be done by a bigger and more complex organization or level of society that could instead be done by a smaller and simpler one. It looks to localism and decentralization first, whether by individuals, private and religious organizations and charities, or even local government, before looking to a larger federal bureaucracy or welfare state. Those closest to the problem or need can usually deal with it more effectively, more compassionately, and at a more human-personal level.

This claim of shoulder-to-shoulder aims could not have been a more gross misrepresentation. There may have been similar desires [between Christianity and communism] for higher employment, more welfare, poverty reduction, a more “equitable” wealth redistribution, a smaller income gap, but a careful read of the Communist Manifesto or anything by Lenin and Stalin showed no similarities whatsoever with the language of the Old and New Testaments or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This point deserves a little more elaboration here, because it is based on a surprisingly common assertion by “social justice” and progressive Christians to this day—namely, that communism and socialism have attractive similarities with Christianity, and thus should not be dismissed by Christians. No, no, and no. That is a very foolish and shallow conclusion, one that results from a great ignorance of the actual teachings and texts of communism.

The black man was expected to follow the dictates of Sol and the white masters. Good Negro communists were to be unquestioning Negro communists, who sat quietly and did as they were told. A good black communist listened to the white communist—his comradely master. For all their bluster about elevating blacks, this was how communists treated their African-American brothers.

“[Alexander] Tratchenberg once said to me,” recalled [Bella] Dodd in her memoir, “that when communism came to America it would come under the label of ‘progressive democracy.’ ‘It will come,’ he added, ‘in labels acceptable to the American people.’” These were labels like progressive, liberal, and democracy. ... “We will take the United States under labels we have made very lovable; we will take it under liberalism, under progressivism, under democracy. But take it we will.”

The political left’s cultural revolution on the sexual-gender-family front is ubiquitous, as is its intolerance of any dissenters. We see it in the culture of fear and intimidation by the self-prided forces of “diversity” and “tolerance” who viciously seek to denounce, dehumanize, demonize, and destroy anyone who disagrees with their brazen newfound conceptions of marriage and family, even as their inventions are at odds with the prevailing position of 99.99 percent-plus of human beings who have bestrode the earth since the dawn of humanity. Instead, traditional Christians are the ones portrayed as the outliers, as abnormal, as extremists, as bigots, as “haters.”

On Cultural Marxism, aka Critical Theory:
They are willing to tolerate all sorts of novel inventions, from new forms of “marriage” and sexuality to endless gender options. They actually don’t criticize quite everything, but instead only the things they don’t like. Like liberals and progressives who beam about “diversity” and “tolerance,” critical theorists and cultural Marxists vilify only those who depart from their newfangled vision for the world and humanity. If you agree with their fundamental transformation, then you are good and accepted. If you disagree, then prepare to be boycotted, turned into a pariah on social media, lynched by Twitter mobs, pursued by lawyers and dragged into court. You are not to be included under the rainbow umbrella of “diversity,” which, it turns out, is not as multi-colored as they had led the world to believe. This is their great tolerance-diversity fraud.

[The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha · Rating 5 out of 5]

Over the course of reading "The Devil and Karl Marx," I could not resist pausing to read in full the therein quoted, "Tortured by Christ," by Richard Wurmbrand, the Lutheran pastor who describes the most horribly torture imaginable by God-hating atheists in Communist Romania (think priests being forced to consecrate and commune with human feces, among other things), reminding me of the equally enlightening "With God in Russia" by Fr Walter Ciszek, SJ. To my reading list, I also added "School of Darkness" by Bella Dodd, who claimed to have personally funneled over a thousand Communists into the Catholic priesthood in a coordinated attempt to destroy the Church from within. She ultimately abandoned Communism and returned to her Catholic faith after meeting the Venerable Bishop Fulton Sheen, who became her spiritual mentor. One cannot help but wonder how many Church scandals were a direct result of this Communist infiltration into the Church, for which Kengor provides ample evidence. Protestant churches were even less resistant to infiltration, and the result today is that many seem to care more about leftist politics than Christianity itself. Finally, I was led to "Marxist Feminists Ruined Lives," an article in Front Page Magazine by Mallory Millet, the sister of the feminist heroine Kate Millet, who made significant contributions to abortion rights and the sexual revolution. Mallory believes that her sister was literally possessed by demons. As crazy as that may sound, the personal life of her sister and the occult rituals that she participated in (think naked women and boa constrictors) were far crazier. The same is true of the personal life of Karl Marx... Was he a Satanist? Some of his poetry may suggest so. It's not so often that I read a book that explains so much. I'll be unpacking this one for a while to come.

[Jeff Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can't say this was an enjoyable book since it deals with so much of what is unseemly. It is not making the case that Marx was in fact possessed or under demonic influence. The title's connection refers mostly to how even his friends described him and several of Marx's statements.

Mainly It starts by documenting his life and his friends, along with the movement he started. There is a lot of documented material that is presented.

My only critique is the comments injected throughout, that although I agreed with the content of this editorializing, other might see them as more off-putting.

I listened to the audiobook version and Kevin O'Brien did a masterly job. He has a great ear for voices and was able to present quotes and readings from transcripts/books in-character. A lesser voice talent would have made this distracting or seemingly comical.

[Greg Clayton · Rating 1 out of 5]

Complete garbage. This is a disingenuous right-wing hack job by an author who has not read or studied Marx. I wish I could get the time I wasted on this poor excuse for propaganda back.

[Xenophon · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent pamphlet on the reprobate roots of Marxism. It suffers from a lack of focus and casual tone.

That said, the first couple of chapters and the final couple chapters are worth the price of the book. Kengor is strongest when he leans philosophical and biographical.

It's worth handing to a mature high schooler.

[Edvin Farinholt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent

This is a very good book with an extensive list of references for one who wants to pursue the subject further this book is especially relevant at this time when we are being confronted with Marxist revolutionary.

[Ronnie Reagan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Marx wrote angry poems about God. Communists are atheists. Here are 552-pages-worth of ways to restate the first two sentences.

[Ann · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a deeply disturbing book and a deeply disturbing look into the writings of Karl Marx and those who picked up the mantle of Communism once he got the movement going. Communism’s promise of utopia has instead left a trail of death destruction and misery. The writings of Marx and others who followed in his footsteps, not only show a rejection of all that is sacred ... all that has roots in Judeo-Christian values ... all that claims to be absolute truth ... consequently this leads to lives filled with debauchery and perversion. One of the most disturbing aspects of communism, is it’s godless foundation. The obliteration of religion and God is shown by the author, to be one of it’s chief goals. Communism’s cunning, deceitful infiltration into religious organizations especially during the early 20 th century was breathtaking.
While Marx and his ilk started out highlighting the supposed economic inequalities between the rich and the working class, thus calling for an economic revolution, they found that by the 21st Century the more successful route was to call for a cultural revolution. In both cases, Marxism is about class warfare, creating victims, pitting these victim classes against the so-called ruling class, dismantling all of the traditions that have held civilizations together, and calling for the remaking of the culture
The means for doing this, always involve deceit, coercion, propaganda, and the philosophy that the ends justify the means. The target group is the youth of whatever generation they are trying to coerce ... meaning that our public education system and our colleges are in the crosshairs.
The frightening thing about Marxism is that it is showing its ugly head once again in our own culture.

[Ricardo Gordillo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible. I have been struggling to figure out how the gay agenda is tied to marxism. Paul Kengor connected the dots for me. At times, I had difficulty understanding why he paid so much attention to the investigations and the interviews of congressional committees. But, I realized that he was laying down the foundation of what was to come. Big payoff at the end.

Dr. Kengor avoids rushing to judgement and gives his subjects the benefit of doubt. When he does not know, he acknowledges that he does not know. However, he does tend to lead the reader to a foregone conclusion. This was balanced with ample examples of reminding the reader that we cannot know the mind of his subjects and what they were thinking.

This book is loaded with good information. It contains 686 footnotes most of which are references to source material. I don't think I've ever underlined or annotated a book as much as this one. I had three and a half pages of notes indicating page numbers of things I found interesting. This is a book I will very likely go back to again and again.

[Brian Ledtke · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a tough one. The first 25% or so was so interesting talking about Marx and Engels and both of their backgrounds but then for some reason Kengor decides to spend the next 50% of the book defending Catholics and how they weren't infiltrated by Communism. He also spends chapter upon chapter detailing hearings that happened between a Committee and ex-Communists where they also talk about how they didn't or did infiltrate the Catholic church.

Honestly, this book should have been called Catholics and Karl Marx.

The last 25% or so detailed how Communism has made it's way into the 21st century which was interesting. So half the book was good, half was positively painful to get through. An absolute slog.

[Leslie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I must read, should be in all high schools.

[Robert Stout · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Devil and Karl Marx starts off by examining the miserable life of Karl Marx and Engels. Marx was always poor, and he did not have a job nor did he ever look for one. Both of Karl Marx's daughters Eleanor and Laura committed suicide. After discussing the terrible life of Marx, the book explores the Soviet repression in Russia. The reality of the Bolshevik control of the Russian Orthodox church is unsurprising. The USSR was a police state where religion was brutally repressed. What wasn't banned was controlled. What was permitted was exploited. Paul Kengor lays out the deep history of the communist party USA and shows how they penetrated and attempted to undermine Christian teaching in both the Protestant and Catholic faiths. Kengor shines a light on torture throughout Russia and eastern Europe, especially the Pitesti prison in Romania where priest were assaulted.

The second half of the book examines some of the sordid personalities such as Lenin and Trotsky who ruthlessly criticized capitalism and traditional values. I was surprised to learn that the Kremlin planned to assassinate Pope John Paul II because of his popularity in Poland. Paul Kengor shifts gears and examines the dark luminaries that have arisen and were followers of Marxism. The first is a surprise: Aleister Crowley, who is best known for being an occultist and satanist. Crowley was attracted to both Nazism and Communism because these two ideologies were anti-Christian. Next is Walter Duranty, who was a New York Times "man in Moscow" reporter. Duranty lied about Stalin's policies and the Ukrainian famine that killed about 20 million people. Next is Harry Hay who helped find the gay and transgender movement in the U.S. Hay was also a pedophilia who advocated for adult - child sexual relationships. Hay's hooked up with TV actor Will Geer from the Waltons. Geer indoctrinated Hays in Marxist - Leninism and he became an ardent Stalinist.

The Devil and Karl Marx takes a depressing turn and examines the minions, pagans, weirdos and radicals within the German Frankfurt school. This cabal pushed for sexual openness were everything is permissible. Two of the members that Kengor examines are Wilhelm Reich and Walter Benjamin. Wilhelm Reich was deeply into sex, and he became a Marxist who traveled to the USSR. Reich's sexual politics was too much for the Soviets who kicked him out of Russia. He advocated for the sexual rights of children and Reich hated Christianity and Judaism which advocated for monogamous marriage and the protection of the family. The other Frankfurt member is Walter Benjamin who was convinced that capitalism and traditional values were doomed after World War I. Benjamin was a Marxist who practiced demonic occultism or "daemonic" as he philosophized about it.

Kengor explores "Cultural Marxism" and examines the contributions of Saul Alinsky and radical feminist Kate Millet who developed an "ideology steamroller" to demolish the patriarchy, family and Christianity in the name of revolution. Cultural Marxism argues that there is no truth, and they developed "the dictatorship of relativism" were all that matters is a person's ego and self-gratification. The Devil and Karl Marx provides a devastating analysis of the history of Stalinism and cultural Marxism. The book has over six hundred footnotes and is well researched. The book is both gripping and depressing at the same time - highly recommended.

[Marcus Grant · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book by listening to Albert Mohlers podcast ‘Thinking in Public.’ Mohler’s discussion with Paul Kengor led me to put this book on my reading list and it did not disapoint! With 461 pages Kengor draws from primary sources to tell a biographical story of Karl Marx, his family, and close associates like Friedrich Engels. Kengor notes that Marx could not live up to his own ideas and his ideas and his personal live should not be separated. It is shocking that Marx’s ideas are so mainstream in Western culture given that Marx refused to work and provide for his family. Resulting in three of his daughters dying of malnutrition and the others doing a suicide pact with their husbands but one husband backed out last second. Marx always begged people for money and waited for his own family members to die so he could get an inheritance from them. When his parents died he never even went to their funerals. He mooched the most off of Engels who was wealthy and gave Marx a considerable amount of money every year.

Kengor helps distinguish Marx’s view of God versus modern Marxist’s view of God. Marx never doubted the existence of God but rather sought to replace the Devil in God’s place on the throne. Modern day Marxist’s argue against the existence of God completely. Which is ironic and laughable. Why would you argue against the existence of something that you believe does not even exist? Unless your conscience afflicts you and you supress the truth within yourself in hopes of easing your conscience and justifying your actions. This book is a must read!

[Mykolas Lozoraitis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book that focuses not only on an economic side of Marxism since Marx's soul is all over the Western World today. Engels wrote a book on the origins of the family, private property and the state. He aimed to show that since those institutions did not exist all throughout the history, they can not exist again. The aim was to set a precedent for absence. Just one of the first edicts was the abolition of the family. This was followed by a whole chain of decisions that we could summarize today as sexual liberation. A good communist woman had to sexually please a communist man if he asked for it. Such example is really a case nowadays. Physical love was a common good that everyone had to share. Parenting was nationalized. After separation from marriage and the introduction of free love mechanism in society, newborns were taken from their parents and sent to public foster homes, where they were educated as „good communists“. The first parades of sexual minorities took place in St. Petersburg, but that was more of something extreme than the main goal of the Bolshevik revolution. Lenin’s sexual revolution was focused on the abolition of the natural family and the marriage that formed its essence, triggering anyone’s love with anyone. However, it must be understood that every ideological innovation arises in a specific cultural environment and the idea of homogeneous marriages, homogeneous love in general was still incomprehensible and foreign, it was difficult and imagined that this was possible. The war against the natural family was the ultimate goal, pursued on the principle that sex is everything and attachment to one person is not necessary. In communism, the idea that a person must be attached to someone else is fundamentally wrong. This is directly related to the current sexual revolution in the West, because the controversy today is not about who can marry who - a man with a woman, or a man with a man, or a woman with a woman – as it is the most common question, but about what marriage and family actually are. Positions here are not "male to female" or "same-sex". The real positions are these: the traditional position is that marriage is not just for the sake of emotional attachment and pleasure, but primarily for the sake of creating a new life. It‘s for this reason and nothing else that modern and any state pays special legal and full respect to the family institution that ensures the upbringing of citizens and the continuation of the state. The „liberal" attitude is not „for a man with a man", but for the fact that anyone can marry solely on the basis of a sense of love and their marriage is only for a pleasant life as much as they themselves want to do it. In this controversy, the communist idea was that it‘s time to distance oneself from children or „decouple sex from diapers" what the proliferation of contraception and so-called reproductive rights did in the post-war period and has greatly served the future and revolution of sexual minorities. It‘s also very important to emphasize that Soviet Russia was the first modern state to legalize abortion. It was done after realizing that liberation from all the bonds of morality, taboos of shyness, and marriage is impossible if you don‘t enable a possibility to easily get rid of the unwanted consequences of sex, which they considered children to be. Technological and economic progress nowadays has helped to do this the most, making it impossible to feel the negative consequences. The main problem of the sexual revolution in Soviet Russia was illness and children. Of course, there was a „second floor" of problems, a loss of social ties, because sharing the loved ones goes against human nature and psychology. There could be no viable society in which such a relationship was maintained. In the post-war re-creation of a sexually liberated society, this extreme was abandoned, insisting that people should be able to live in pairs of two, with whom they want and without sharing communes, but at least be freed from the danger of having children. Because medical advances in the 70s allowed it and Lenin's extremism to „communicate" love and sex was abandoned, the new form of liberated sexuality was much easier to adopt in the West today than in early 20th-century Soviet Russia. Paradoxically or not, but these ideas are now associated with liberalism. The most important thing for liberalism is the possibility of free agreement between the people and the fact that majority would not impose on the minority and that the state would leave more room for everyone to agree on their own rules, which is fundamentally unsustainable. Liberalism, as consistent, is unsustainable because it doesn‘t offer some kind of agenda, because it simply leaves room for people’s free choice, so it‘s natural that then someone comes to that place. History teaches that 150 years ago the old Marxism, now the new Marxism (leftism) is very fond of going to that free space. Liberalism only frees up space for ideas to come, but its worldview does not offer anything, meanwhile leftism offers. It will take some time before people will realize that many of the things that are now called liberal today are not really liberal in any sense. The key slogan of freedom for liberals is very convenient, because it‘s convenient to attribute to oneself and use in discussion. One argues by explaining something about meanings and goals and the other responds with „it‘s freedom", „let the man choose whatever he wants". However, this is only a surface in both this and other discussions. In fact, it‘s very difficult to accept a true liberal these days, because the essence of liberalism is to respect other opinions, in particular by respecting and allowing illiberal opinions to exist. You don’t have to be liberal to respect liberals, essentially your own opinions. This very base is completely lost today. People who present themselves as liberals are, in fact, mostly neo-Marxists or leftists - these two words will sooner or later prevail in this debate - demand that new laws would establish norms for abortion, the concept of family, language policy, deconstruction of history, and other matters. The alleged liberal, who is in fact a Marxist, demands that something must established by law on the matter of concern to him, consistent with his views creating a binding pluralism. It‘s nothing liberal about it. A true liberal would say that we must leave it to the public to decide and when it decides, it will be that all opinions must be heard and respected. Such thinking is completely lost. Liberalism wants the state to interfere as little as possible in human relations in all areas. It can be a beautiful relationship, a friendship or a business, it can also be anger, hatred, disputes. It doesn't matter - people interact with each other and the state intervenes as little as possible, providing protection from violence. Meanwhile, the so-called liberals today seek the state’s intervention as much as possible in explaining how people should behave in their relationships with each other. A perfect example is the so-called hate speech. Anyone can offend you and you can offend anyone. It may be ugly, but it would be a personal affair. People behave within the limits of the law. In classical liberalism, as long as someone don‘t injure or deprive property, people have the right to be unfriendly and rude to each other. However, one of the fundamental postulates of the new Marxism was that instead of a workers' revolution (the proletariat proved incapable of provoking a world revolution), a minority revolution was needed. Society as some cake can always be cut and opposed by various cuts according to group identities and this is what identity politics is called today. In each section one can find the majority and the minority that will be on the fringes of society. All possible minorities in society are in principle eligible for this on the basis of their religious, racial, national, sexual or whatever their desired identity. And then they are taken up as inviolable and inherently protected from criticism and evaluation, because their identity is inherently valuable to society and so it‘s needed to create special, privileged legal conditions for them. This belief in the intrinsic value of being a minority is called enrichment in diversity. Privileged legal conditions include positive discrimination, quotas, especially for blacks entering universities, according to the logic that their identity group has historically suffered from whites aka from the majority. Another form of privileges is language and vocabulary management. Prohibit ugly talk about specific groups in society. All of this is anti-liberal: interfering in people’s lives where they can figure out each other the way they see fit. Ideological representatives and developers of communism in pre-war Germany, specifically a school of Frankfurt or Critical Theory made a huge impact into importing such ideas to US. Its authors were largely Jews and therefore had to flee Germany after Hitler came to power, that‘s why many of them fled to the US and very successfully developed their critical theory, also known as the New Marxism, after the war. The premise of this theory is that minorities in society singled out on the basis of a wide range of identities should be highlighted and placed in a privileged position. In Marxism theory the state is considered a mechanism of coercion and must be abolished. These ideas and their authors - Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, were extremely popular and became prominent professors, public intellectuals in the post-war United States, especially at Columbia University. It could be said that exactly there they raised a generation of hippies, who had not seen the war, the academic youth of the 1970s, who then spread those ideas more widely. Indeed, this is one of the most striking and successful examples of how a narrow group can fundamentally change the thinking of not only one society, but the entire Western civilization in its desired direction. There is no doubt that the New Marxist movement in the United States during the Cold War benefited the Soviet Union. 70s was a turning point in America - decisions included both the legalization of abortion and the removal of homosexuality from the list of diseases. The legalization of abortion by the decision of the Supreme Court was really radical with no restrictions at all. Changing the medical status of homosexuality was not a science-based or medicine-based decision as well. There are a number of testimonies from the psychiatrists who made that decision and one might say, repentance for the way it was made. Huge protests began and for weeks or some time those protests were held at the headquarters of the U.S. Psychiatric Association, where its leadership gathered. They even broke into the meeting rooms, demanding to stop „stigmatizing" and eventually it was succumbed to pressure. Later, psychiatrists who adopted it, such as professor N. Cummings, insisted for further research into the issue, recognizing the decision taken as aimed at improving the social situation of homosexuals. It was their words that they are primarily scientists, not political activists. Psychologist Alice Miller examined the fates of famous artists, insurgents who grew up in difficult conditions and did not receive enough love and security. One poet was described very precisely: he rebelled against the bourgeoisie all his life, but essentially protested only against his own mother. Feeling unnecessary, pain that he fails to name, emptiness, and feeling of worthlessness. Such inner anxiety, the desire for love, becomes a permanent state, a modus operandi, or the way you look at life and certain things. Raising hysteria, demanding something. In this way, internal conflict is projected externally and internal emptiness is sought to be compensated by revolutions, reforms, or coercive force. But the internal emptiness is internal that no external means will compensate for it, so any relief doesn‘t come because revolutions, on the contrary, it turns out something that wasn't resolved. Then again new enemies are being searched for and everything is like a vicious circle. Finally, as Solzhenitsyn described Stalin in his novels, a person dies without overcoming anything. There is nothing behind the screen until you check it yourself.

[Ellie Austin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this book was an important read. It’s evident that the ideologies from Karl Marx and his subsequent followers are currently wreaking havoc in our culture and our society. I found this book very helpful in trying to understand how, in 2022, we have come to accept and embrace the lifestyles, ideas, beliefs etc. that we have. As a warning there are some really tough parts of this book to get through: I found the sections detailing stories from communist prisons especially hard and discouraging. I will also admit that I mostly skipped and skimmed through the 5th section of the book that covered the sexual misconduct of people (I can guess from the small bits of what I did read without flooding my brain with those horrible images).
I would also like to say that as a Catholic this book greatly increased my love for the Catholic Church and Fulton Sheen. The Pope’s continual rejection of the communist ideologies starting BEFORE the publication of the Communist Manifesto and Catholics, especially Fulton Sheen, have done humanity a great kindness in protecting us from a complete fall into the goals of Marxism. This book also served as a great reminder how important it is to educate my children and not entrust their education to public schools.
My complaint about this book is I think it could have been trimmed down a bit. I felt that the author repeated things a lot. I understand he did this for emphasis, but I think it could have been cut down a bit.
If you ever find yourself scratching your head and asking “how on earth did we get here?“ then I would recommend this book.

[Jacob Pippin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, the book was very informative. But I must say the authors Roman Catholicism got a bit annoying (granted it’s a RC publisher). In my opinion there are numerous Protestant theologians and scholars that have handled Marxism better. At times I wasn’t sure if it was a Marxism denunciation or a RC apologetic.

[Ronald Aylward · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is worth reading to get an understanding the damage that was done and is being done by Communists in the United States. After reading this, I would not send a child to a public school district or a College that is not private or christian.

The military academies have also not been infiltrated.

[Andrew · Rating 1 out of 5]

Alternates between unscholarly Ad Hominem attacks and boring slogs of information. A legitimate topic in need of a better writer.

[Tyler · Rating 5 out of 5]

A 2019 Gallup poll found 43% of Americans believed socialism would be a "good thing" for the United States, an 18 point increase over the 25% reported in 1942.[1] This is a frightening thought, as Socialism and Communism have brought nothing but misery everywhere they are implemented. Professor Paul Kengor addresses the roots of Marxism, its influence on the Church, and on American culture in his book The Devil and Karl Marx: Communism’s Long March of Death, Deception, and Infiltration. Dr. Kengor is an author and professor of political science at Grove City College, a private Christian liberal arts college in Grove City, Pennsylvania. He is also the executive director of the Institute for Faith and Freedom.[2]

The Devil and Karl Marx is divided into six parts: 1. The Specter, 2. Karl Marx, 3. The Bolshevik War on Religion and the Churches Resistance, 4. Infiltration and Manipulation, 5. They Are Legion, and 6. Conclusion.[3] Dr. Kengor goes into great depth in each part which is beyond the scope of my review, but I will touch on his biography of Marx, Communism’s Infiltration of the Church, and the impact of Cultural Marxism today.

Biography

The first section explores who Marx was as a person, focusing on Marx’s spirituality and morality. Marx, contrary to what many believe, was not an atheist in the fact that he rejected the existence of God. He knew God but hated Him and praised the devil. Kengor notes that Marx biographers typically avoid discussing his “musings about the prince of darkness.”[4] Yet, Marx’s personal writings are laced with references to the demonic, and those closest to him often spoke as if he was under an evil influence. This is seen in the words of Marx’s poem “The Pale Maiden.”

“Thus Heaven I’ve forfeited, I know it full well. My soul, once true to God, Is chosen for Hell.”[5]

Marx also refused to work. He was a parasite to those in his life and sucked “as much income from his parents as possible.” This is ironic, considering that point three of the ten-point plan in the Communist Manifesto called for “abolition of all right of inheritance.”[6] As Kengor notes:

“In November 1849, one year after publishing his crowning work, the Communist Manifesto, Marx’s landlord evicted him and his family because of communism’s founding father’s revulsion at the idea of an individual providing for himself and his family. Marx would have ached for an all-encompassing, cradle-to-grave, womb-to-tomb, collectivist-welfare state that confiscates revenue from wealthy people and redistributes it to lazy socialist academics and theorists peddling inane ideas from their messy desk piled with papers.”[7]

The character of Marx also showed through in his failings as a husband and father. His two son’s died from exposure due to his inability to provide, and both of his daughters killed themselves in suicide pacts later in life. He was also unfaithful in his marriage as Marx was in a sexual relationship with his nanny Lenchen.[8] It’s unclear if this was a mutual relationship or forced, but Marx got her pregnant, and Engels took the child in as his own to protect Marx’s marriage.

Communism’s Infiltration of the Church

Communism is an evil philosophy that has killed an estimated 100 million or more people around the globe. To put this in perspective, the death toll of World War I and II would have to be combined, then doubled to get near the death toll of communism.[9] Not only is Marxism deadly, but in theoretical and practical form, it deprives people of their unalienable rights. As Kengor describes, “[i]t is a totalitarian, atheistic ideology. Communism’s chief form of redistribution is repression, crime, and murder.”[10] It is a materialist philosophy that does not recognize that “man does not live by bread alone” (Deut. 8:3; Matt. 4:4, ESV). Marxism thrives on the envy of others’ wealth.[11] Which Dr. Kengor highlights as “ironic” that “communists and socialists blast the wealthy for being allegedly obsessed with money and material things when, in fact, communists and socialists are obsessed with money and material things.”[12]

As a materialist philosophy, it is also in opposition to the Divine. Marx viewed religion as oppressive and stated, “[t]he abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.”[13] Marx also stated that “communism begins where atheism begins” and “communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality.”[14] Dr. Kengor provides an excellent survey of Marxism’s attack on religion in Part 3, “The Bolshevik War on Religion and the Churches Resistance.”

In Part 4 “Infiltration and Manipulation,” Kengor goes into great detail explaining how the Soviet Union attempted to influence and use the church to meet its objectives. Communists in the US infiltrated the church by appealing to supposed common sympathies such as: “workers’ rights, wealth redistribution, shrinking the income gap, denouncing the rich, [all while] fomenting class envy.” Communists exploited the church, using the language of “social justice” to recruit Christians “in their petitions, their marches, their campaigns, and their objectives.” Dr. Kengor highlights how Communist Party USA started using social justice language in 1919. This wasn’t because they believed in Jesus, but it was an effort to manipulate believers, specifically progressive Christians.[15] Kengor explains that many “Christian-Socialists” like to highlight the similarities between the teachings in Scripture and Marxism, but states:

“The fact that certain passages of the Old and New Testaments, or certain religious orders, express forms of communalism or sharing or helping the poor or even pooling together of common resources does not, ipso facto, mean that those ancient or medieval elements were practicing the nineteenth-century ideology that would become known as ‘communism’…[that is] like witches and warlocks trying to reach out to Catholics and Christians because each side, after all, has a spiritual element.”[16]

Cultural Marxism

In the final third of the book, Prof. Kengor addresses Cultural Marxism, also referred to as Western or American Marxism, which was born out of the Frankfurt School. Communists “sowed bitter fruits” that would grow throughout the twentieth century and continue today. Many of the people in the 2019 Gallup poll “have no idea of the rancid roots of this poisoned tree” they support as a “good thing” for the US.[17]

Early in the twentieth century arose a “field of fanatics” who came to be known collectively as the Frankfurt School. These Marxists were all about culture and sex. The academics of the Frankfurt School were neo-Marxists, a new kind of twentieth-century communist who was not interested in Marx’s economic/class ideas but worked to remake society “through the eradication of traditional norms and institutions.”[18]

Kengor does an outstanding job explaining the key academics who created Critical Theory which is now bearing fruit in devastating ways. As he notes, “when God and tradition” are “said to no longer exist, anything and everything is possible.”[19]

Unlike traditional Marxists, Critical Theorists did not organize the workers and the factories. They organized the intellectuals, artists, media, and the film industry to be the conveyor belts driving the Cultural Revolution.[20] Through these institutions, the Frankfurt School worked to undermine a traditional or Christian understanding of society and instead worked to liberate society from the constraints of Western culture. Kengor quotes Max Horkheimer on the goal of Critical Theory “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them.” Kengor states these “’circumstances’ are the traditional Western institutions and moral norms that have held together the Judeo-Christian world for millennia.”[21]

Doing this, Critical Theory framed “seemingly benign” conventions as systematic injustices to be attacked. This is where modern academics attack everything from “the patriarchy” to “white imperialism” to “transphobia” and even “biological sex.”[22] Many in the US now accept Critical Theory as fact. As Kengor highlights, Critical Theory is now “taken for granted by millions of teachers, writers, even churchmen, who have no idea that they are committed to cultural Marxism.”[23] It is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Dr. Kengor describes it this way.

“In a way, it is maddeningly frustrating—seemingly almost willfully deceptive, one suspects— that the academy has chosen or clung to the term “critical theory” to covertly fly the banner of cultural Marxism; such is a more palatable label to shop its wares, to market its ideological snake-oil.”[24]

Biblical Christianity provides the antidote to the Marxist movement. It provides the foundation for surviving the corrosive ideologies of this age. The Church is a constant reminder of the principles that do not change, and it is no “wonder Karl Marx and his minions hated religion. It halts their essential project to fundamentally transform.”[25]

The Devil and Karl Marx is well researched and worth the time to read. I recommend that any Christian who wants to understand how the specter of communism has continued to haunt our world read Dr. Kengor’s outstanding work.

For more reviews please visit: www.findinglifeintheword.com

Notes

[1] Mohamed Younis, “Four in 10 Americans Embrace Some Form of Socialism,” Gallup, May 20, 2019, https://news.gallup.com/poll/257639/f....

[2] Grove City College, “Paul Kengor,” Faculty Directory, last modified October 15, 2021, https://www.gcc.edu/Home/Staff-Direct....

[3] Paul Kengor, The Devil and Karl Marx: Communism's Long March of Death, Deception, and Infiltration. (Ashland: TAN Books, 2020), ProQuest Ebook Central.

[4] Ibid., 37.

[5] Karl Marx, “The Pale Maiden,” 1837, quoted in Kengor, The Devil and Karl Marx, 16.

[6] Kengor, The Devil and Karl Marx, 58-59.

[7] Ibid., 61.

[8] Ibid., 81-83, Nanny maybe to kind of a word as Marx never paid her and may have been raping her.

[9] Kengor, The Devil and Karl Marx, 13-14.

[10] Ibid., 13.

[11] Ibid., 59.

[12] Ibid., 21.

[13] Karl Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” Deutsch Französische Jahrbücher, February 10, 1844, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx....

[14] Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West (Indianapolis and NY: Bobbs-Merrill, 1948) quoted in Kengor, The Devil and Karl Marx, 82.

[15] Kengor, The Devil and Karl Marx, 114.

[16] Ibid., 132-133.

[17] Ibid., 17.

[18] Ibid., 214.

[19] Ibid., 215.

[20] Ibid., 215.

[21] Ibid., 222.

[22] Ibid., 240.

[23] Ibid., 240.

[24] Ibid., 242.

[25] Ibid., 247.

[Diogo Assis · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading the book, but this is difficult to read. There are some parts that can be disturbing, especially when it comes to sexual matters.

I did have one issue with it. The way atheists were portrayed as evil, Marxist, and wicked people was unfair. Just because some atheists support communism, it does not mean that all atheists share the same beliefs.

As an atheist and a supporter of laissez-faire capitalism, I believe that most atheists simply do not find it reasonable to believe in a higher power. We believe in taking responsibility for our own lives and finding strength within ourselves. Despite his Marxist leanings, I agree with John Lennon when he said: "I don't believe in Beatles. I just believe in me".

I think it is important for people to be reasonable, have common sense, and respect others. Being reasonable means having common sense, evaluating what is right, and respecting yourself and others. As Frédéric Bastiat mentions in his book "The Law", one must respect other people's "rights to protect his person, his liberty, and his property".

Atheism did not start with Marx or communism; people have been questioning the existence of gods for centuries.

The author is clearly a devoted catholic. However, at some points, he appears to be intolerant of anyone with different views on religion. In fact, this book ends with a call for people to become missionaries. Therefore, I call for people to be more reasonable and trust themselves while always respecting other people's rights to protect their persons, their liberties, their properties... and have common sense.

Aside from this issue, I was amazed by the level of detail, especially regarding past events and hearings in Congress. I really liked how the author reminded us of recent political events and how they are connected to the Marxist ideology (plan).

I definitely recommend this book to those who want deeper knowledge of the principles of socialism/communism/Marxism and how they are everywhere in today's society. We must be cautious and protect future generations from having their minds manipulated by the media, social networks, Hollywood, and school systems.

[Gene Arthur Molloy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Whilst there is much to be learned from this book, most of it seems to have been written by someone other than Mr. Kengor. Sure he attributes the myriad of quotations to the original authors, but that makes this quite an academic endeavor. It seemed to me a patchwork of other people’s work. There are 42 pages of endnotes that will attest to that.

Mr. Kengor then uses his acknowledgements to whine about the mental torture he and his researchers had to go through with the subject matter. I am sure no one twisted their arms to write this book. Surely it was for financial gain, and not altruism.

If you want to know about Marxism and what manner of dark, twisted, and possibly possessed people adhere to it and promote it, have at it. You will learn. If you want to follow the twisting, turning, morphing path it has taken on its way into today’s culture, have at it. You will learn. If you are looking for original thought, well, maybe look elsewhere.

[Gerard Guzzo · Rating 4 out of 5]

An insightful look at the depths of depravity and sheer wickedness that Marx indulged in to push his communist agenda. The first section is a revelation of the sheer demonic motivations of Marx and his contemporaries.The mid section I found a little tedious. It's essentially about how communists sought to infiltrate American society and it focuses strongly on the transcript of a congressional hearing. The final section highlights how effective that infiltration has been and how we are living in the results of it now.

[Mamie Sessions]

That was a marathon not a sprint. And I did not train for this race.. made a few short cuts and came out with a concussion??

[Karl · Rating 5 out of 5]

excellent survey of soviet trojan horse tactics playing out to subvert american institutions.