Phillip Worts shows how Communist strategies have been revived,

redefined and are now being used to control the American people:


“Communist Oriented Policing?”


©2000 Phillip Worts, Detective San Diego Police Department




            There is a myth that communism is dead and that the cold war is over.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The problem is that few people today understand what communism really is and just where the cold war battle lines are actually drawn.  Crack open a dictionary and look up the term “Dialectical Materialism.”  You should find something like this:


“A philosophy founded by Karl Marx… which forms the basis of Communist doctrine:  it combines the materialistic idea of matter over mind with the Hegelian dialectic in which opposing forces are constantly being reunited at a higher level.”  -- Lexicon Webster Dictionary


But that definition might beg the question, “What is the Hegelian dialectic?”  For modern man, the answer to that question is epic.  The Hegelian dialectic has profoundly impacted the world in which you live.



What is communism?


The Dialectic:  Fomenting the Revolution


            The concept of the dialectic has been around for a long time.  It is simply that of opposite positions:  Thesis (position) vs. Antithesis (opposite position).  In traditional logic, if my thesis was true, then all other positions were by definition untrue.  For example, if my thesis is 2 + 2 = 4, then all other answers (antithesis) are false.  Georg W.F. Hegel, the nineteenth century German philosopher, turned that concept upside down by equalizing Thesis and Antithesis.  All things are now relative.  There is no such thing as absolute truth to be found anywhere.  Instead, “truth” is found in Synthesis, a compromise of Thesis and Antithesis.  This is the heart and soul of the consensus process.


            This is diametrically opposed to the Judeo-Christian world-view prevalent in the Western world for the better part of two millennia that held that God existed, that He existed outside of the material creation and that man had a moral obligation to Him and His laws.  God was transcendent and thus truth was absolute and transcendent, outside of our ability to manipulate it.  This all changed with Hegel and modern man was born.  Man could not challenge any authority and position, even God.  Since there is no such thing as absolute truth, “my truth” is just as good as “your truth”, so don’t tell me what to think or how to behave.  As Nietzsche, the “God is Dead” philosopher, would later say, “There is absolutely no absolute.”  Now 2 + 2 can equal 5, or 17, or whatever you feel is right.  (Hint:  This is why our schools are failing.  All teachers are certified on Benjamin Bloom’s work.  He said “…we recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and all places”).  


            At about the same time that Hegel was passing from the scene, Karl Marx caught the revolutionary fever.  He drew heavily from Hegel (the dialectic) and Feuerbach (materialism).  He picked up where the other philosophers left the discussion, but with a twist.  He scornfully stated, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways.  The point, however, is to change it.”  To CHANGE the WORLD was to become the warp and woof of Marxism.  In the Marxian interpretation of reality, God had been abandoned.  Alone in his universe, man was to fill the vacuum left by religion with materialism.  Religion was the enemy of all progress.  As he wrote in 1843, “Religion is the opium of the people.”  No longer bound to a relationship with his Creator, the social relationship of “man to man” became the principle of Marx’s theory.  It followed that these social relationships, which necessarily involve conflict, cause the changes in human progress.  As the opening words of the Communist Manifesto announce:  “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”  Note the dialectic reasoning:  the clash of opposites produces synthesis and change.  Man, freed from religious restraints will carry the revolution (change via conflict) forward until all are equal in a man made utopia on earth.  To that end, the Manifesto concludes, “Working men of all countries, unite!”


To summarize Marxism:


·        It is Dialectical Materialism, or, in simpler terms: a God-expunged human reasoning process.


·        REVOLUTION is its goal, to “change the world”, Marx said.


·        The CHANGE is to be from a Theistic World View (Old World Order) to a Humanistic World View (New World Order).  The term New World Order was a popular euphemism for world communism for years.  Conspiracy kooks did not invent it.  When it started to take on negative connotations, it was dropped for the nicer sounding label, Global Governance.


·        Change is to occur through CONFLICT, (Crisis/Problems/Issues).



The Cold War.   Where is the battlefield?


Change Happens:  The Re-culturing of America


            Even as the worldwide communist revolution got underway in earnest around the globe, a rift was forming within Marxist intellectual circles.  Around the turn of the century there was a growing trend within this movement that a better way to change the world is not abruptly and violently at the point of a bayonet, (traditional Marxist revolution), but rather it should be done slowly and incrementally by transforming individuals and their cultural institutions.  Then you can control a country as effectively as if you conquered it militarily.  In fact, this method is preferred because one does not have to rebuild bombed out cities and dig all those mass graves!


            The home for this new wave of dialectical Marxist thinking became the emerging “science” of socio-psychology.  It may come as a surprise to many to discover that virtually all of the pillars of modern psychology were humanistic utopians who believed that there is no God, that mankind can and should be manipulated (for its own good, of course), and that all social problems can be solved by the proper reprogramming of man’s mind.  This would lead to an era of peace and prosperity based on diversity, tolerance and unity.  Most of their work dealt with the details of human behavior, but their over-arching view was that of transforming society (echo the revolution).  Hence, they came to be known as “Transformational Marxists”.


            One such group was the Fabian Socialists, who took their name from the Roman general, Fabius.  Fabius, it will be remembered, was confronted with Hannibal’s invasion of Italy.  Hannibal with his elephants held the advantage of superior forces, but was far from home and supplies.  Instead of confronting his foe head on, a battle he would have certainly lost, Fabius utilized hit-and-run tactics.  Harassing his enemy and wearing him down incrementally piece-by-piece over time until Hannibal capitulated, Fabius won the war.  The Fabian Socialists adopted this strategy in their goal of world socialism.  In a similar vein, the transformational Marxists advocated a “slow march through the institutions,” as famous Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci would say.  Gramsci’s theories cannot be overstated in this regard, as this strategy has become synonymous with his name.  The Gramsci Strategy is the “War of Position”, (i.e. the battle ground is for the mind and culture) vs. the “War of Maneuver”, (i.e. traditional battlefield warfare with guns and bombs).  Gramsci engendered the anger of his communist counterparts in Moscow when he basically told them they were doing it all wrong.  Gramsci died in prison under Mussolini’s regime, but his strategy has become the strategy for changing society.[1]


            Meanwhile, in Germany, a group of some 21 Marxist socio-psychologists gathered in Frankfurt and formed the Institute of Marxist Research.  Perhaps that was a little too obvious for their opponents and they renamed it the Institute for Social Research.  When Hitler rose to power, most of these men fled to America and continued their work here.  Kurt Lewin, J.L. Moreno, Theodor Adorno, Erik Fromm, Max Horkhiemer and others found positions in American universities and had their work funded by pro-Marxist foundations.


            Kurt Lewin is of special interest for this discussion because it was he who went to M.I.T. and conducted the research involving group dynamics that laid the foundation for Total Quality Management.  At the risk of oversimplifying how the process of group dynamics works, it could be summarized as a method of belief and behavior modification, using dialectic-reasoning skills (remember, all truth is relative), in a group setting.  It utilizes the inherent fear an individual person has of being alienated from the group.  By use of a change agent, or “facilitator”[2], individuals are herded toward “consensus” by compromising their position for the sake of “social harmony.”  According to Lewin,


            “A successful change includes, therefore, three aspects:  UNFREEZING the present level, MOVING to the new level, and FREEZING group life on the new level.” [3]

            This is precisely the technique with which the communists brainwashed American POWs, the only difference being they could accelerate the “unfreezing” phase with physical torture.[4]  In group dynamics the pain is not physical, it’s emotional.  Do not underestimate the force of emotional pain.  POWs frequently described their long periods in isolation as worse than some of the most brutal physical torture.  Isolation from the group is a powerful behavior modification weapon.  Transformational Marxists such as Kurt Lewin refined their weapon for the new battlefield:  Using group dynamics to invade the culture to affect the paradigm shift.


                The weapon looks like this:


·        A Diverse Group  (“Diversity” needed for conflict)


·        Dialoging to Consensus  (Dialectic process)


·        Over a Social Issue  (Problem/Crisis/Issues)


·        In a Facilitated Meeting  (Controlled environment using facilitator/change agent)


·        To a Predetermined Outcome  (Paradigm shift)




The Marxist Trojan Horse




TQM is an organizational transformation strategy that uses:


·        Group Dynamics

·        Facilitator/Change Agents (“Strategic Planning” occurs in councils)

·        “Problem Solving”

·        Systems Management (ISO 9000)


Decoding the term “Total Quality Management” is impossible without an understanding of the Marxist foundation upon which it was built.  I use the word “decoding” because so many of the dialectic concepts are masked by nice sounding double-talk.


            TOTAL = Holistic, Gestalt, Global

QUALITY[5] = People. (Also slang, short for TQM systems in general, e.g. “We have a Quality organization”).

            MANAGEMENT = The facilitators, the agents of change.


            With this background we arrive at our current application of the dialectic in our nation.  I would like to now focus on the role that your local law enforcement agency has in the “re-culturing of America.”  Your local beat cop has a special part to play, and he doesn’t even realize it.  Not only has TQM change agents restructured many of the police departments in America, they are now in a position to turn the police themselves into the facilitators of the community through a program called COPs, or Community Oriented Policing.  COPs is a federally funded program administered through the U.S. Department of Justice.  What is COPs?  The most succinct definition I found was in a DJ brochure:





            Shift in philosophy about police duties vs. community responsibilities to a team concept of TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT of the community.  Reidentifying the police role as a FACILITATOR in the community.  (Emphasis mine).


            Translation:  Transformation from a constitutionally empowered local police force performing their duty to keep the peace to that of a change agent working within the community to affect a Marxist paradigm shift.  Pay close attention to what the influential German Marxist Georg Lukacs had to say about who the facilitators are in the community:  “The institutions in socialist society which act as the facilitators between the public and private realms are the Soviets.  They [facilitators] are the congresses [diverse groups], which facilitate the debate [dialoguing to consensus] of universal problems [social issues] in the context of the everyday.”[6]


·        Leaders of the community (law enforcement, government, business, education, health, civic, non-profit, medical, religious, etc.) collaborating to identify problems in the community, what the significant impact on people will be, and suggesting solutions to those problems.  (This is POP, or Problem Oriented Policing.  See footnote).[7]


·        Identifying common ground, where all factions of a community can work together for the COMMON GOOD of the community in a broader problem-solving approach.  Forming a partnership between police and the rest of the community where each is accountable to each other and the community as whole.  (Emphasis mine.  End of COPs definition).


Note the reference to the “common good”, the ever-present ideal in the communist state.  Individual rights become subordinated to the so-called greater good.  This raises serious concern over the role of the police officer in society as a “partner” with community groups and social service programs, which due to the blurring of lines of responsibility, are unaccountable to the public [voters].


To further understand the philosophy of COPs, one does not have to look further than the late socio-psychologist Dr. Robert Trojanowicz.  Formerly the director of the National Center for Community Policing at the University of Michigan, he is considered the father of Community Oriented Policing. 

Consider the following selections from his writings:


“Social control is most effective at the individual level.  THE PERSONAL CONSCIENCE IS THE KEY ELEMENT in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated.”[8]


“The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior.”[9]


This is an astonishing admission of the fundamental dynamics of crime prevention and social disorder.  The most conservative thinkers alive today couldn’t have better articulated what makes for domestic tranquility in any society.  Our founding fathers were keenly aware of this fact.  James Madison cited the fact that our form of limited government is “wholly inadequate” without personal conscience as the internal social control.  So then, in an effort to solve America’s moral chaos, we are going to restore the personal conscience by encouraging accountability to a higher authority (ten commandments) and strengthening the family, right?  Don’t be silly, says Dr. Trojanowicz.


“Unfortunately, because of the reduction of influence exerted neighbors, the extended family and even the family, social control is now often more dependent on external control, than on internal self-control.”[10]


            Oh, darn, he says.  Since that “unfortunate” breakdown of conscience and the family structure, the social order is now dependent on “external control”.   Read that, “The State”.  Unfortunately indeed!  Dr. Trojanowicz ponders the dilemma of the current state of affairs in his paper Community Policing and the Challenge of Diversity:


“In addition to raising questions (dialectic reasoning questions all absolutes) about our national identity, increasing diversity also raises questions about how we define American ‘values’ and ‘morality.’  (Absolute values of right and wrong vs. relative values).  Many strongly held traditional beliefs derive from Judeo-Christian traditions, blended with faith in the intrinsic virtues of family and the American Dream of the United States as a meritocracy where those who are willing to work hard will succeed.  Can this model encompass the experience of the growing number of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists among us?  (What, Muslims Hindus and Buddhists aren’t willing to work hard?)  Does it reflect sufficient sensitivity to the concerns of people of color, women and gays?”[11]


Got that?  Traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs (with their absolute truths and morals) are out, diversity and relative values are in.  If we are not to restore the personal conscience and the family, what is his solution?  He continues:


“The community of interest generated by crime, disorder and fear of crime becomes the goal to allow community policing officer an entre into the geographic community.”[12]


If you did not fall out of your chair with that line, you weren’t paying attention.  Social chaos is the GOAL for the transformational Marxist.  The crisis of crime and disorder is the door for the police officer as facilitator/change agent to enter the community (the “client”, or the latest term, “customer”)[13] and to initiate the paradigm shift!  Even though these social architects plainly admit what is most vital in making for a crime free community, they have absolutely no intention of restoring “individual conscience” or going back to repairing the traditional family.  On the contrary, for the past sixty years these socio-psychologists have been introducing these very dialectic concepts into our school system with the intent on demolishing personal conscience.  Is there any doubt they have succeeded?  For them, there is no going back:


“They Americans) may not yet recognize that there is no ‘going back to basics’ in education.”  Training manual for Goals 2000.


“If ‘Equality of Opportunity’ is to be become a part of the American Dream, the traditional family must be weakened.”   Socio-psychologist James Coleman.


“In order to effect rapid change, one must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved.”   Socio-psychologist Warren Bennis in his book, The Temporary Society.  Bennis’ book “Leaders”, was recommended reading at one time when one was promoted to sergeant on the S.D.P.D., wherein he identifies the leaders in any organization as “agents of change”.


Dr. Trojanowicz admits in no uncertain terms that is what his research is all about:


            “It should also be noted that the continuing interest in finding a viable definition for the term community has not merely been an intellectual exercise.  The theme underlying much of the research is that once you can identify a community, you have discovered the primary unit of society ABOVE the level of the individual and the family that can be mobilized to take concerted action to bring about POSITIVE SOCIAL CHANGE.”[14]


            Just in case you doubt the Marxist nature of their concepts of community transformation, Trojanowicz quotes Saul Alinsky, the extreme Marxist change agent of the ‘60’s who authored Rules for Radicals.  Alinsky proposed “we begin viewing community through the prism of issues (Issues=problems=crisis=conflict) which, in essence, constitutes the most urgent kind of community of interest.”[15]


“What community policing does is put an officer in daily face-to-face contact with the community, so that he or she can have the input of the community in setting priorities.  Unlike police programs of the past where police administrators or so-called community leaders set the police agenda, the community policing movement encourages average citizens to become involved.”[16]


            Formerly, the police administrators were accountable to the elected officials who were accountable to the voters (representative democracy).  This new paradigm that Trojanowicz describes is exactly what Marxist Georg Lukacs termed “participatory democracy” and is nothing more than the Soviet style council.  The United States Constitution was the law of the land (absolute authority) restraining government intrusion into the rights of the individual.  The framers designed it to insulate the private realm (the individual) from the public realm (government).  Allow me to repeat Lukacs:


“The institutions in socialist society which act as the facilitators between the public and private realms are the Soviets.”


            By practicing the dialectic, we are removing the only barrier between a tyrannical government and the private citizen.  Your neighborhood cop is now that facilitator, the Soviet.  Why a police officer?


“In the role of the community ombudsman/liaison (i.e. facilitator), the community policing officer also acts as the community’s link to other public agencies.  The police are the only governmental agency open 24 hours a day, which makes them the ideal public agent to begin regenerating community spirit.”[17]


The Soviet:


A Diverse Group

Dialoging to Consensus

Over a Social Issue

In a Facilitated Meeting

To a Predetermined Outcome



Conclusion:  Useful idiots?


            When Lenin was consolidating the Bolshevik revolution, he wrote how he would implement the communist bureaucracy without hardcore Marxist believers.  While the elite rulers of his inner circle understood the structure he was building, Lenin said he would exploit the natural vanity and ambition of people to forward his agenda without them knowing what they were really doing.  Eager to gain his favor and to enhance their political careers, they would fall all over themselves trying to promote his agenda.   He called these types of people “Useful Idiots.”  Before you brand every police officer you see as an undercover Marxist, understand that most of them comprehend little of what they are participating in.  In reality, most officers intuitively know that something is wrong in their organization, but they play the game rather than risk damaging their career.  Sadly, they constitute a vast army of “useful idiots.”


            I’m all for “promoting mutual trust” and “cooperation between the people and the police” and “empowering neighborhoods.”  These “positive social changes” are the selling points for Community Policing.  But in reality, those appealing ideals camouflage the vehicle of Marxist change.


Who asked the citizenry if they wanted their communities “transformed” and their government “reinvented?”  Who asked parents if they wanted their children to learn with their feelings instead of learning facts?  Who asked your local police officers if they wanted their beliefs and attitudes manipulated?  No one asked because if someone did, they would have been run out of town.  Instead, using dialectic-reasoning skills, they have schemed to seduce, deceive and manipulate every community in the land into a utopian vision of so-called “unity in diversity.”  These social engineers have no intention of taking America back to individual conscience within the family structure in order to preserve domestic peace and tranquility.  That would mean a return to recognizing and submitting to the Higher Authority.  This “vision” has failed whenever it has been tried.  By participating in the dialectic, we have deified human reason; traded in God and truth for relative values and consensus; and abandoned individual liberty and inalienable rights for the common good and diversity.  In the final analysis, we are destined for Totalitaria, and worse, the loss of our souls.


            The terms “communism”, “socialism”, “Marxism”, “New World Order” etc., may be worn out and abandoned.  The names change, because deception is one of the rules of the game.  Many erroneously believe that the cold war is over and that we actually won.  But the revolution is still very much alive and America is losing.  The culture war is raging in our schools, our workplaces, our media and our churches.  Antonio Gramsci would be very pleased if he could see just how effective his strategy has been.



Contact Phillip Worts at




[1] A certain governor from Arkansas attended the Gramsci Institute in Italy.


[2] In early works from the ‘40s and ‘50s such as Kenneth Benne’s Human Relations in Curriculum Change, Warren Bennis’s Planning of Change and Planned Change by Ron Lippett, they frequently refer to those helping bring about change as “change agents” or “agents of change”.  The “change agents” eventually were referred to simply as “Facilitators”, from the word Facile that means to guide and make easy.


[3] Kurt Lewin, Human Relations in Curriculum Change, p.34  (I recently attended training sponsored by the COPs program, “Facilitation Skills for Law Enforcement”, which was a crude re-hash of Kenneth Benne’s book on organizational change.  It prominently features Lewin’s material).


[4] Socio-psychologists Edgar Schien and Warren Bennis studied how the communists brainwashed POWs so they could apply their techniques “humanely” in American classrooms.


[5] Antonio Gramsci categorizes objects, things that can be reproduced, as quantity.  “Quality” he says, “should be attributed to men, not to things…” Prison Notebooks p.308.  If that sounds like convoluted reasoning, that’s because it is!


[6] Georg Lukacs, The Process of Democratization, p.46.  Soviet can mean an individual, someone who practices the dialectic, or a political system.  In Russia, the soviet system consists of a hierarchy of councils, from the local level all the way to the top echelon, the Supreme Soviet Council.  In this context, the soviet is the system, particularly the local council.


[7] Problem Oriented Policing (POP) was supposedly “invented” by Dr. Herman Goldstein.  But the “problem solving techniques” embodied in POP were laid out by Lewin in the 1940’s and is simply a rip-off of one aspect of TQM.


[8] Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, The National Center for Community Policing, University of Michigan, The Meaning of “Community” in Community Policing, p.2


[9] Ibid


[10] Ibid


[11] Dr. Trojanowicz, Community Policing and the Challenge of Diversity, p.2


[12] Trojanowicz, The meaning of “Community” in Community Policing, p.3


[13] In Planned Change, by Ron Lippitt, the organization or individual that is targeted for change is the “client”, as if he were a “consumer” of the change agent’s services.  I think “victim” more accurately describes the recipient of such “service.”  The San Diego Police Department recently opened a new division entitled The Business Center.  The concept is right out of Lippitt’s work.  The police dept.’s “customers” are “consumers” of police services.


[14] Trojanowicz, The meaning of “Community” in Community Policing, p.4, emphasis added


[15] Ibid, p.9


[16] Ibid, p.9


[17] Ibid, p.10, emphasis added