tv Book Discussion on Takedown CSPAN November 1, 2015 8:00am-9:24am EST
and how this shift has affected the nation's unemployment rate. next sunday booktv will be in attendance at the george w. bush presidential center in dallas for a pulitzer prize winning biographer john eaton at stock on the life of america's 41st president george h. w. bush, he will be joined in conversation by former president george w. bush. that is a look at some of the author programs booktv will be covering this upcoming week. many of these events are open to the public. look for them to air in the near
future on booktv on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, welcome to the heritage foundation, welcome to those who join us on our heritage website, joining us on booktv, we ask everyone in house to check your phone for the last time to make sure it is needed as a courtesy to others. we will oppose the program on the heritage home page for your future reference. and internet viewers are also welcome, simply each hilling
ftle to shift professor paul kengor is professor of political science, author of a dozen books. and extensive experience of the archival research, and communist party usa. he serves as a visiting fellow at the hoover institution at stanford. you received his doctorate from the university of pittsburgh graduate school, public international affairs, and a master's degree at america's international service and holds an honorary doctorate from steubenville, ohio. we welcome him today to discuss his latest book "takedown: from communists to progressives, how the left has sabotaged family and marriage". please join me in welcoming paul
kengor. [applause] >> thank you everybody for coming and thank you, c-span as well. thank god for c-span. i second that. there are not many who put it out there and let people watch without the filter and interpretation of somebody telling you how you are supposed to interpret and i would say too to people who watch this on c-span, this is a provocative topic. nevada people will be upset, i understand that. if you believe in dialogue and speaking about these things i am open to incessant me an e-mail and i will have a dialogue with you and engage with you on this topic. avoid streams of four letter words and other incendiary over
the top sort of language that would make the dialogue easier. i can to ignore e-mails that are really over-the-top. i would be happy to communicate and answer questions. people ask me, i am a cold war historian, historian of communism and friends of mine in a homey and say why do you want to tackle this issue? marriage, family, you are jumping into the culture. do you really want to do this? no. it is not been fun called all nasty names for supporting basically what 99.99% of people their views of marriage and family for the last 2,000 years. to put your neck on the line and get attacked is not fun. i would rather not do this precisely because of my background in these areas of lecturing a over and over again
on the communist manifesto and calm markets's views on family that i had to write this from a historical, ideological perspective of someone who studied the intellectual history of the ideological of -- that being the case, i have a power point presentation, it is always talk and talk a really good student of mine put together this power point presentation. as long as i can press the buttons correctly i think i will be all right in doing this, take down the radical left's assault on the family based on my book takedown -- "takedown: from communists to progressives, how the left has sabotaged family and marriage" which came out a few months ago and it is out in the electronic form and hard copy and i dedicate this, as it says on screen to those with the courage to resist redefining the teachings of god, nature, their
fate, and ancestors while liberals and progressives, and in the name of tolerance, in the name of tolerance denounced the base, dehumanize and destroy islam. this is what happens when you disagree with the forces of tolerance and diversity on issues of marriage and family. they seek to destroy you. i dedicate the book to the people who are willing to stick, the urge to stick to the teachings of god, nature, with the quote from pope francis of all things january 16th, 2015, in the philippines. i love this quote, it fits so perfectly with the history that i laid out in the book. there are forms of ideological colonization, that is really very -- the -- describes what we
are facing here. they are not born of dreams of god or the mission god gave us, they come from without. the family is threatened by growing efforts to redefine the very institution of marriage by relativism, the of femoral. every threat to the family is a threat to society itself. one thing conservatives, you take the spectrum of conservatives and communists, the absolute fundamental importance of the family which is why conservatives want to preserve and conserve it, which is why the most radical leftists always sought to change it. there's nothing more fundamental than the family. every threat to the family is a threat to society itself, the future of humanity passes with the family said pope francis. i have written an article
recently in response to francis's trip to the united states called cherry picking pope francis which you can find online for his views on marriage and family which are very misunderstood. let's go through the history of this. calm markets. there is this phrase in the communist manifesto. my students read the communist manifesto. nothing bothers me more isn't -- i run into this all the time on the road, young people especially say the communist manifesto is really a pretty good book if you just stop and read it, talks about sharing and helping your fellow, helping humanity. i know as soon as i heard that they haven't actually read the communist manifesto. if you read it, it is an awful book and it doesn't take long to get through it. it is short. go to marxist.org and get online for free, read marx's ten point plan. he talks about the entire theory
of the communists may be summed up in a single sentence. abolition of private property. right there, my 5-year-old daughter can tell you if you abolish private property, going to have to kill you. karl marx even says in order for this to happen, despotism will be necessary at least for a time. he would have to be an idiot to not realize to abolish private property you need to be a desperate but there's a lot line in there is always jumps out at my students. abolition of the family. even the most radical flareup of this infamous proposal. so the communist manifesto in 1848, already at that point in time, talk about abolition of the family budget referred to it as that infamous proposal of the communists. it has been infamous already in
1840, and bryce students say what does that mean? i spend two chapters walking through that very carefully giving different stories on that but i will move on. i will come back to. even before karl marx there were ideological colonists who were out to be deferring marriage and the family. a couple of them, robert allen, john humphrey, a former american. others were foreign-born but they all tried to set up different ideological colonies in the united states this. this idea of redefining family and marriage of accelerate in the last 200 years especially since the 1800s is nothing new. john humphrey noyes attempted to do this, robert owen, the new harmony colony in indiana, these people all sought to read the
fine and reshape the traditional and disbanding of one man, 1-woman marriage. marriage based families with one man, one dad and one mother. so is that they were all trying to change this. robert owen stood atop his new harmony colony on july 14, '26. you guys never heard of this. what happened on july 4th, 1826? 50th anniversary of the declaration of independence. john adams, thomas jefferson taking their final breaths literally dying, the country celebrating america's judy, everyone in america excited. while this was going on, this great document we are celebrating, the declaration of independence, robert owens, socialist stand up and proclaiming declaration of mental independence and he said, quote, now to declare to you and
the world that man up to this hour has been all parts of the year the slave to a trinity of the most monstrous evil that could be combined to inflict mental and physical evil. a trinity of the most monstrous evils, i got to read more. i refer to private property, absurd and irrational systems of religion and marriage founded upon individual property combined with some of these irrational systems, property, religion, marriage, here in america 50th anniversary of the declaration of independence. all of these ideas are always swirling around, always, chipping away. we ignore them at our peril. i would say at our willful, self-imposed ignorance. some people don't want -- people will e-mail me and call me names
are a angry i am even going into this. marks and angles, it is not possible to speak of love and family, marx wrote blessed his he has no family. something went he said that it was partly in jest because he was complaining which he was about his financial situation but if you know about karl marx's relations with his wife, his children, marks have very bad marriage. marks was not a good husband and father. several of his kids died before he did. at least a couple of them committed suicide. one of the daughters committed suicide in a suicide pact with her husband, mark's son in law who marks denigrated with the most awful racist wing wedge, his son-in-law was part cuban so he had cuban blood in him which marx saw as inferior type of
blood. marks cheated on his wife and nursemaid, seems to have impregnated, marx never acknowledged the existence that the child was his, as for angles he loved that idea blessed is he who had no family, right on, conrad. he refused to get married. he had several mistresses, all of which wanted him to make earnest women of from and he refused to marry them. didn't like it. he disliked marriage so much he didn't get married. abolition of the family, bertillon marriage, is in reality at system of housewives. a system of wives--the communist revolution he wrote in the communist manifesto is the most radical rupture with traditional relations, no wonder its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. these guys wanted to
fundamentally transform marriage common notions of property, religion, the family. you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents. to describe we plead guilty but you will say we destroyed the most hallowed of relations will replace home education by social. if you look at the 10 point, the 10 point plan, in the communist manifesto, calls for 40 public education for all children and adults. they did not want children being educated at home. they wanted children educated in public schools. marks went against the abortion law claptrap about the family. let me move on. they also hated what they hated the most, what was hated the most, religion, private property, family and marriage and of course marx called religion the what?
fuel beat of the masses. he also said communism begins where atheism begins. linen especially despised religion. he said all worship of divinities necrophilia. see what necrophilia means. all worship of divinity is necrophilia. argues thing for you don't have any quote like that from washington and jefferson? that is the founder of the soviet union. he wrote in 1913 there can be nothing more abominable than religion. nothing more abominable that religion. compared religion to venereal disease. trying to think what is the worst thing out there, necrophilia, venereal disease, that is religion. that is religion. ankles a year after marks' died,
wrote together as posthumously after marx's death, this is the book marked wanted to write. a erodible, the family and ankles says in there with the transfer of the means of production to common ownership, the single-family ceases to be the economic unit of society. what did he wanted to do? private housekeeping should be transformed to a social industry, wanted to nationalize, the care and education of children becomes a public affair, society looks after all children alike with their legitimate or not. one of the leading feminists of the bolshevik revolution, ever read him? you should. for 100 years ago the leading feminist of the bolshevik revolution, cara soviet eleanor
roosevelt. she said here's the old type of family has had its day. the worker mother must learn not to differentiate between hairs and mine. the worker mother must remember there only are children. the children of russia's communist workers. communist society will take upon itself all the duties involved in the education of the child. i am juxtaposing that next to a quote from melissa harris perry, very well-educated, duke, princeton, wake forest, very strong academic, she isn't in as nbc, part of the lean forward campaign, one of the leading intellectual progressives today, she made the statement a couple years ago, how close it sounds, we have never invested as much in public education as we should because we have a private notion of children. she doesn't like that.
we haven't had a very collective notion of our children. we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents for kids belong to their families and recognize the kids the long to the community. when i had to go and find that quote for the book and is looking for resources to side and among the other places where i found it was the fox news website and i was reading the readers' comments of people who jo lin king and set i have never seen anything like this before, this is crazy. where is she coming up with this, never heard the idea that our children don't belong to us, they belong to society. it is not new at all. the bolsheviks and ankles have been talking about this for 120, 140 years. this isn't new. not new at all. what is new is there is now progressive movement in america by people who advocate these
things. with wide public support. that is what is new. a lot of things, i show this again and again in the book, so many of the things today's progressive movement supports, are 50 to 100 years behind the bolsheviks. i don't mean that across the board blooding people and so forth but you will see on abortion, divorce or be defining the family, education, not in educating children in the home on a lot of these things. not 100 out of 100 issue is but a number of quite remarkable issues. american communists whittaker chambers and todd talked-about the communist party and marriage in the united states, communist party usa. a member of cp usa, the party did all it could to push women into industry, the bourse was
family is the social unit, and i often talk of adopting children but the comrades persuaded me communism is an all embracing philosophy which embraces everything you do, determines the kind of marriage you have, your relations with your children, relationships in your community and your profession, whitaker chambers, the great courage com-communism to conservatism talked about party marriages. a communist marriage and a communist marriage was usually a marriage that generally wasn't done in a church, wasn't in any way sacramental wine list and was very often temporary. they had huge rates of divorce long before we had high divorce levels in the united states today. chambers said of the communists they regarded my at -- marriage as a bourgeois convention and loathed it with the same intensity with which many
middle-class persons loaf sin. entire marriage. divorce in communist russia i will go through quick, one of the first things the bolsheviks did in russia was legalized abortion. if you wanted to own private property, wanted freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, if you wanted a fur coats or bank account, all of that the state got in a way. if you wanted to force the sky was the limit. you are the freest person in the world. fill out a card, put a post stand on it and you got it. we will make this easy. there won't be any bureaucratic state obstacle to getting in the way. you want a divorce, go. go, go, go, go. very soon, within 10 or 15 years
they saw divorce rates, communist bolshevik russia higher than ever seen before. people, i cite in the book one example, a study from the late 1960s, this is published in a book by harvard university press, the seminal book on marriage and family life in communist russia. it was not unusual to meet soviet men and women who had been married and divorced upwards of 15 times. the atlantic in 1926 published a piece titled the russian effort to abolish marriage. remember marks, abolition of the family. if divorce was an epidemic in the u.s.s.r. abortion was the black plague. the other thing the russians made sure -- this is really easy to do, if you want an abortion,
go. there are no state obstacles, full privatization. you want an abortion go get it. linen had written as early as 1913 he promised and conditional on moment of all laws against abortion. the. resolution is in what year? 1917. by 1920 abortion was made fully and legally available, provided free of charge. by 1934 moscow women were having three abortions for every live birth. we have never been that bad in the united states. it has flipped for us the other way. 3:1 by 1934. abortion got so bad in bolshevik russia that stalin--not because he was any greater promoter of the culture of life but stalin said we are not going to have population if this goes on.
stalin is reprimanded by trotsky. you can't be a good communists and abolish abortion. what you doing? come on! but stalin said we won't have a population if this keeps up. stalin died march 5th, 1953. cheese eventually replaced by khrushchev, one of the first thing screeches did as well as cracking down on religion even stronger was brought back abortion. you can't be a good communist and not have abortion. by the late 1960s, harvard university press book, one can find soviet women who had as many as 20 abortions. by the 1970s value u.s.s.r. was averaging 7 to 8 million abortions. our worst years of roe versus wade we burn 1:1. 7 to 8,000,003 year. by 2050 russia, there was a
great washington post piece front this. russia is looking at a population, 120 million to 104 million which they attributed to abortion and abortion induced fertility from women having too many abortions. vladimir putin put the first major limits on abortion in russia in decades because he realized among other things the disappearing population. russians and doing national fertility days to try to get more children. i will skip that. margaret sanger. i have a chapter in the book, she has been in the news of late, the founder of planned parenthood which began as the american birth control week. margaret sanger took a pilgrimage to russia in 1934. like many american attempt and progressives, a couple chapters,
george bernard shaw off, why can't i think of it, margaret sanger had an affair, h. g. wells, john do we, a founding father of american public education, several chapters on him, they would make these pilgrimages to washington, they are all progressives, all on the left, some are socialists, some of the mark communist sympathizers, they are thinking maybe the bolsheviks are just a little bit ahead of us, they want revolution, we are talking evolution. maybe -- let's go see what they are doing so saying there goes over in 1934 to see if she can learn any lessons from the bolsheviks on birth control. at this point sanger wrote a piece i share with my students, she was not publicly on record
in support of abortion. she wanted planned parenthood in order to have birth control for women to be able to control the number of births, eugenics, racial eugenics, we know about her negro project and other stuff racially speaking, she wanted -- she wanted birth control for sexual freedom for women which she herself engaged in. she had an affair with a.g. wells, sanger at that point said when people see we want birth control we want to for purposes of abortion, we do not. there is nothing more dangerous than the of boarding of a woman's offspring. we do not support abortion. 80 years after that statement now her planned parenthood not only supports abortion but wants federal funding for and if you
are against them getting federal funding -- you are a moron. progresses' had to evolve on that position. goes to russia in 1934 to see what she can learn from the bolsheviks on birth control and she wrote an article in the birth control review 1935, she said this. in russia bolshevik russia the mother and child are under protection and care of the government to an extent never before equalled in history. then she said this, this is margaret sanger and bolshevik russia. theoretically there are no obstacles to birth control in russia. it is accepted on the grounds of health and human rights. we, america, could well take example from russia, the soviet union, 1934, on the verge of the
great purge. we could take example from russia, the founder of planned parenthood weather are no legal restrictions, nowhere does condemnation and birth control instruction in this part of the regular welfare service of the government. that is where we are in america. birth control instruction as part of the regular wealth and service of the government, no legal restriction, no religious condemnation and if you don't support birth control being part of the regular welfare service of the government you troglodytes you favorite--favor a war on women. we are 80 years behind what she sought in bolshevik russia. she said this. on abortion she was however to her credit she was aghast at the number of abortions she was seeing in moscow. this was horrible. she said this.
the total number is not known but the number for moscow alone is estimated at 100,000 year. she had that right. was given correct information on that. listen to this. here is a picture of progressive utopianism. listen to what she says here. hall officials with whom i discussed the matter stated that as soon as the economic and social plans of soviet russia are realized neither abortion nor contraception will be necessary or desired. a functioning communistic society will assure the happiness of every child and will assume the full responsibility for 12 fair and education. if they just had more power, don't worry, give us more communism, more state control and abortion and contraception won't even be necessary, right? the full faith of the
progressive, the utopian faith is centralizing government. moving on, got to jump ahead, you really start to get serious change and understanding of marriage, family, sexually, it is not communist party usa. not with the traditional communists, ala of those people tended to be more socially conservative even though they radical enough. the big change comes with the cultural marxist and there are people in america googleing right now and wondering does this even exist? the frankfurt school out of germany in the 1920s and 30s were cultural marxists, freudian marxists, very shrewdly understood the they were not going to be able to take down the west through economic, class
based processes because when marxism was put up against capitalism in the west it would lose every time. the most liberal american knows the free market outperforms because they live it, they experience, it will outperform communism. these guys said the key to taking down the west is through culture and especially through sexual amity, gender and the conveyor belts, media, movies, hollywood, new york, especially especially especially academia, academia, academia. that is the key. the long slow march of the institution. they fused marxism with freudian and these guys began changing and messing with and trying to alter gender, sexual alley, sexual relations, argue that people were fully capable of
bisexuality from of very young age people were full capable of premarital sex, extramarital sex, smashing monogamy, one of the regional preachers of smashing monogamy before the 1960 naps new left into up, george lucas was one of the founders, cultural communists, 1910. one of the founders of the mark swindles institute, he said woman is the enemy. needless to say most of these guys did not have a good marriages. woman is the enemy. healthy love dies in a marriage which is a business transaction. the boardwalk family gives us -- -- traditional families stink.
politics is only the means. culture is the goal. there were a bunch of these freudian marxists. they end up needing to free berlin because many of them were jewish and when hit a came in and took germany in his madness they were forced to flee berlin. there are very few places in the world the we are willing to accept fugitive free for 40 and marxists. colleges rollout the red carpet that there was one at columbia university and john dewey in particular lobbied the school president along with a number of other professors, these guys are doing fabulous work, bringing it to the united states, to columbia, do we is thinking, honorary president, the life of the national education association and thinking these
guys can do fabulous work and can do wonderful work through columbia teachers college which was preeminent college in the united states. to you of the freudian marxist was wilhelm right. i have a full chapter on him. the guy was sexually completely out of control at a very young age. trying to have sex in bed with his nanny, really young, not i can or 12 but 6, 7, age years old. chronic, don't want to say this stuff on tv, the things he did to himself sexually were very unusual. wilhelm reich said this. marriages fall to pieces as the results of the ebert keeping discrepancy between sexual needs and economic conditions, he
wrote the book the sexual revolution. sexual needs can be gratified with one and the same partner for a limited time only. tell that to your wives. sorry but my sexual needs can be gratified for a limited amount of time. kind of smash this monogamous relationship. this results in the wretchedness of marriage. wilhelm reich. herbert marcusa was the most influential of the frankfurt school of culture. kind of intellectual do route to the new left, the weather underground, bill airs, tom hayden, these people -- extremely influential. they handed out a dozen
institutions, harvard, columbia, a bunch of others. marcusa talked-about polymorphous perverse the, sexual walid that included oral, anal, general product to schism -- protestantism, heterosexual intercourse, he believed sexual liberation was achieved by exploring near -- new permutations of sexual desires, sexual activities and gender. what i am taking you through is the change over time from radical far left, traditional marxist culture, all culminating with where we are today. all this stuff taken to where we were today. what freud called perverse sexual desires, non reproductive forms of sexual behavior, non reproductive forms, not just
they tolerate only what they want to tolerate. when you only tolerate things you agree with that is not tolerance. tolerance is where i totally disagree with you. i hate your ideas. we lived in a diverse country and i respect your right to have a different point of view. i won't sue you or shut you down. marcusa and these guys argue for
repressive tolerance, not tolerating ideas from the right and here's what fascinating, if you support the concept of mail/female based marriage which has been the position of 99.9999% of humanity for the last 2,000 years you are now on the right and so you shouldn't be tolerated. marcusa. new left marxist feminist, 1963 book the feminine mystique, here you go, she was a marxist. i found an acknowledgment on one of the web sites like a fact check the thing, she was a marxist and a comments and response, who cares if she is a marxist? are you joe mccarthy?
she said suburban homesteads, and to walk back, a very good scholar and he notes portions of feminine mystique that retaken from the book i quoted earlier. action will be in the draft of one of the early versions of the book, the feminine mystique, taking notes from angles so is not mccarthyism. you have to understand where these ideas come from, that she was a communist. kate led, one of the founders of the national organization along with betty, wrote the book sexual politics, she argued, she would go on to argue not only
for non monogamous marriage but also bisexuality. sex with the opposite ends today she support same-sex marriage. she wrote in sexual politics, sexual revolution would require perhaps first of all an end of traditional sexual inhibitions and taboos particularly those that most threatened patriarchal, monogamous marriage, homosexuality, illegitimacy, adolescents and extramarital sexual outing. my wife is not patriarchal, she is a woman and she totally supports monogamous marriage. this is mallory molest her and her sister kate talking about attending a group in 1969 where it is -- there are students from columbia very highly educated
women, mallory and is today a conservative, she said they went into a litany, a prayer in the catholic church, why are we here today? to make revolution. what kind of revolution? the cultural revolution. how do we make cultural revolution? by destroying the american family. how do we destroy the american family? her sister was there. by destroying the american patriarch, how do we do that? by destroying monogamy. how we destroy monogamy? by promoting promiscuity. prostitution. it goes on and on and on. i won't go through the whole thing. but again, i am explaining to use the trajectory, the history, you don't go directly from marks
and robert owens to the same sex marriage, you go through cultural marxism, and it left, marcusa, all these different things. in the 1960s paper cultural, they picked up the smashing monogamy. and bill airs, the red family started in berkeley hills by robert scheer who married jane fonda. the red family. again experimenting with non monogamous marriage, group marriages, all of them. mark read, we blank on all your conventional values, the way they talk back then. there are no limits to our politics of transgression. there were no limits to
politics, they did smashing monogamy, older folks. this was the model of the weather underground is the women's collected and the weather underground in bringing down america. members of the women's collective argument argued men were a necessary, you didn't need to. a woman didn't need that man for sex. they are changing all of this stuff. bill air's talks about in his september 11th, 2001, published interview in the new york times, september 11th, 2001, talk about they said there should not only be monogamous couples, they to in 2010 have monogamous marriage, they wanted everybody to try to experiment with bisexuality and homosexuality.
read couldn't do it. he tried a couple times, couldn't do it. it didn't work for him. amazing to read this. he blames on cultural taboos. maybe you are just biologically not attracted. the marxist blames it on culture. got us all screwed up. not even turned on by my naked body here. culture has screwed us up. bill airs on the other hand said he tried to have sex with his male best friend and did. he was apparently capable. the ideology that holds them to this action to try to take down the traditional family. smashing monogamy, the publisher, somebody help me, michael lerner who was hillary
clinton's politics guy in the 1990s. michael lerner of jewish spiritual magazine, very liberal, very left, now in the same sex marriage as well. he talks about when he got married herring debate having a wedding cake that said smashed monogamy on it. he and his wife exchanged wedding rings that were hammered out of down fuselages from american aircraft shot down in vietnam. he also had one of those rings. so they exchange according to david horowitz, michael lerner's fiancee was the daughter of conservative military man. here they are exchanging rings from downed aircraft in vietnam, smashing monogamy, their marriage lasted year.
this violates not just biblical law that natural law. we lost a lot of really good people in the weather underground because some of the guys and girls didn't want other partners. they wanted to be faithful to each other but that went against the code, right? taking down the traditional family and marriage. got to move quicker here. communists and homosexuality, communists, especially the old guard, were not pushing homosexuality, they burn not pushing same-sex marriage. again that comes with the new left, the cultural -- even the cultural marxist, nobody was -- no matter how serena, how far to the left you are, none of those guys were talking about same-sex marriage. that would have struck the most extreme of these guys, it is
incomprehensible but homosexuality, communist party usa, they were not pushing this. j. edgar hoover was tarred and feathered and smeared and made fun of by communists, they portrayed them as a cross dresser. in those days they called a transvestite. when the left doesn't like issue they can be the worst homophobe on the planet. they really went after j. edgar hoover. the most prominent gay communist pioneer, i have read his memoir and a leading biography of him, fascinating. the take is he was expelled from the economy this movement because he was homosexual. it looks more like he left because he knew it would, this the communist party problems if he stayed has a homosexual. he says the communist party usa
did look the other way on certain homosexuals. will greer who played rand paul ball and on wall ands was the gay lover of harry a. who brought him into the communist party. so he had always been homosexual but he was drawn into the communist movement by will geer. here is the fascinating fearing that compelled me to stick my neck out and make a lot of people hate me for writing this book, for talking about this subject. i started noticing, i read everyday people's world which is the web site, successor publication to the daily worker which was the soviet directed and funded mouthpiece of communist party usa for a
century. it is the successor. i read communist party usa's website. this is my field. i can to be ignorant and make up things, our read which is interesting because the left our current doesn't usually read the right. i get all kinds of nasty e-mails run this presentation from people who will not read this book, they won't we did. i am reading harry hays books, i read all of their stuff. that is called true open mindedness. that is called a real diversity and real tolerance when you actually read the other side and consider what they have to say. when you banish the other side, and want to find them and throw them in jail and demonize them, i started noticing a few years ago that american communists were very supportive of same-sex marriage. i quote in the book, a 2006
statement from a young communist, economists stand in solidarity. the month of june is designated pride month in celebration of the struggles and achievements of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans gender people in the united states. in 2006 we have a long way to go. that really struck me. then i started noticing three years ago i started noticing strong, staunch pieces in support of same-sex marriage in speeches by people like sam webb and people's world every week call time. last june, the most recent june, people's world really celebrated gay-rights month. they become some of the strongest supporters of same-sex marriage. i was puzzled by it. i thought wow! they're not just mildly supportive of it, they are intense advocates.
why is communist party so on board? i am not making this up. you are literally far more likely to find the colors of the rainbow flag at the website of people's world and a red flag, hammer and sickle because they do a pretty good job of not total using the word communist that they are really out there supporting the full total lbgt agenda. those who are against it they really go after. they should have gone after the indiana at freedom thing, the communists hammered them, raked them over the coals. a 100% on the lgbt bandwagon. my background, the communist movement, international, fidel castro was the world's biggest
homophobe. through gay people in insane asylums, not houses. that was one of the least gay friends replaces on the planet. now, i will quote a couple different things, the may 10th, 2012, huffington post, 400 transvestite sashayeded behind castro, during a condo line to celebrate the fifth cuban day against homophobia. really? they get thrown in jail? the regime supports that. marchers shattered down with homophobia, long live sexual diversity. mary ellen castro says of fidel he has done some advocacy work, and advocacy work speaking of the need to make progress in
terms of rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity. why is castro's q. but on board for same-sex marriage? what is going on here? to meet this all makes sense when you take it back to the original communist goal, talk about communist party usa, abolition of the family, communism being the most radical rupture in traditional relations, for isn't this all comes together. for them same-sex marriage gives them the tool they have been looking for for a couple hundred years whereat--stand for the first time ever in the history of the far left they have a tool to reshape family and marriage for the mainstream population at support. this is perfect for what they want to do. let me say this so clearly.
it doesn't mean same-sex marriage is a communist plot. no one is saying that. that doesn't mean that typical same-sex marriage supporters a communist, they are not. they are obviously not. may be 1% of the american population is a communist. what it does mean is the communists are thrilled with the same-sex marriage movement because it has given them a chance to do what they always wanted to do which is go against natural traditional biblical definition of marriage. they have been waiting for so long, they finally have it. what do communists hate more than the family? religion. this is an outstanding tool for the communist state and religious beliefs. when they say can davis thrown in jail, they love that.
when they see the baker being persecuted for not being fined for not wanting to be forced to make the cake for a wedding they believe violates their religious beliefs, when they season being shut down and attacked for that the communists love it. they absolutely love this. this is what they wanted to do. just a couple final things and i will wrap up and take some questions. there are groups out there including the group beyond same-sex marriage and they are looking, they have a web site, the on same-sex marriage, broad coalition of people on the left, they see same-sex marriage as the chance for them to fundamentally reshaped that male/female based marriage and create all sorts of positions, i tell people all the time my
problem is far less with same-sex marriage than it is with affect what same-sex marriage does is finally allows that the legal levels of ability to break the mold of mail/female marriage that has been society for thousands of years. once you break that mold you are open to all sorts of new configurations of which same-sex marriage is just one. i think the best thing for a child is a home without mom and dad. what everybody strives for. the left totally agreed with me on that for a while. a blessed moment in the 1990s, national fatherhood initiative, i started this book by quoting a wonderful beautiful father's day speech in 2007 by senator barack obama on how important it is to have dads at home. the left agreed with us but now
fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we're going to do with marriage when we get there. rely the institution is not going to change. it's a lie. you're changing it. you are redefining marriage, changing it. the institution of marriage is going to change and i think it should change. again i don't think it should exist. i don't like lying and creating fiction. that's not what i came out of the closet. listen to this final statement. i have three kids who have five parents more or less. i don't see why they shouldn't have five parents legally. check out the piece from a girl who wrote, i had five parents and it sucked your are right? it's not fun to five parents. it's very confusing for a little child.
i have three kids of my parents more or less. i don't see why they should have five parents legally. i met my new partner and she just had a baby and the baby's biological father is my brother. my daughter's biological father lives in russia. so the five parents break down into groups of three. you need a board to outline those. really i would like to live in the legal system is capable of reflecting the reality. i don't think that's compatible with the institution of marriage. i'm not saying all these people can't love child, but the most stable thing for society has always been a kid with a mom and dad to let me add because there's probably a people yelling at the tv that are watching this on c-span. they will point out a, you christians do a pretty darn good job yourself the screen of marriage. right. totally.
absolutely. no question about it. no question about it. no question about that. however, for the last 2000 years, male-female marriage he really, really well for about 1980 of them. these recent self-inflicted wounds in their are a blip on this historical radar. even with as much as christians and other people and heterosexuals have screwed up marriage, they didn't redefine it. they didn't break the mold. what's so different about same-sex marriage is it redefines it. once you've decided you have the ability to redefine it, and to call marriage which always only met a male and female bond, what you feel you can redefine these terms and call it whatever you want, anthony kitty did that in
1992. he said being an american, liberty in america means coming up with your own meanings of meaning, their own definitions of life, history, the universe. also being an american today means coming up with the own definition of marriage. there's a danger in that. i tell people on the left, look beyond same-sex marriage. my problem is less with that than redefinition. wrap up, and my done? this is the last slide real quick. was so shockingly different about today's people who are redefining and reshaping marriage, the people who are attacking the natural traditional standard, the typical same-sex marriage supporter today and the new left marxist of the '60s, the cultural marxist of the '30s, what do they all share in common? not that they are all communists, what they all share in common is the notion that there is not a fixed natural,
traditional, biblical absolute for the family. they all believe no matter where they are, timing is, far left or not, that they themselves can redefine these things and they all share that in common. for the far left they are absolutely beside themselves and thrilled, shocked, shocked by thrilled, exuberance, that they finally for the first time ever have mainstream public support for their ideas to take down a natural tradition. in the past but i just put them under government surveillance in the countries they were in. people considered them crazy extremists, but not for the first time ever they have the support of the majority of the population. and the people who oppose them, especially for religious
reasons, they are called in the extremists, the fanatics, the outliers. so i must say to the people on the far left, i congratulate you. this is a remarkable true, this is a remarkable accomplishment. you have done it. you have pulled it off and it's been a long time coming, but you did it. all right, thank you very much. happy to take your questions. [applause] >> yes, who do we have? do we have a mic? >> it's great to hear from you. >> thank you. >> this redefinition of marriage do you see it as leading to a division between those who are advocating -- [inaudible] what would your response be by either party? >> i think generally that we
marriage ceases to have like a single definition and can mean anything to anyone, and everyone can have their own definition, you've got the dictatorship of relativism. i don't think that strengthens marriage at all. i think at some point makes marriage almost meaningless to where you could have so many different conventions and understandings. i should add as well that again, for gave people who are listening, the heterosexuals also separated the procreative function from marriage. and so a people will say look, you had her sectionals, don't give me this jive about how marriage is about reproduction. it's not. for some it is. don't tell us that being married is about reproduction. we don't have to have come and that's true. that's absolutely right. i can, heterosexuals have done a really good job of screwing up
marriage themselves. but there's a real danger in breaking the mold. read justice kennedy's decision, do a little google on agile find very, very quickly people are posting things on different websites saying that by kennedy's definition you cannot deny that man and three women in montana or wherever, that now want their marriage equality, they now want their marriage rights. and those people are saying wait a second, if love wins, well, there's three of us here, we love each other. if consenting adults should be allowed to form a marriage, we are consenting adults. i'm not forcing the two women. where are our marriage rights? where is our marriage but are using our love is illegitimate? we have kids, or we want to have kids. are using to them that our love,
our marriage is illegitimate? by using that exact same rationale, that exact same thinking you cannot deny that group of marriage. you can't. you are also, again using the same language in the same standard, you cannot deny the moslem men who once for wise. i mean, he's going to be able to point to that same logic. and when that happens i know your type established some boundaries but we do it because you have broken the mold. it will not have been my fault because i'm arguing for the male-female standard that's been around for 2000 years. i know a lot of religious folks don't like to see this but i say all the time that you wouldn't have this church-state acrimony in the battle of the religious believes that gays have done civil unions. i know gave people say yeah but, you and order conservative personal buddies don't support it either.
maybe not, maybe not religiously speaking but certainly at a legal level. what made this such a battleground with christians and people like jim davis and others, tim davis is different. she's a law clerk who gives out marriage licenses. asserted that baker and the photographer, for then they believe marriage was ordained by their creator, by god. they believe they have no right to redefine it. they think they would be singing, blossoming their god if they irrigated unto themselves the ability to do something that was a unique problems applause of nature. when i passed into the next room i've got enough to answer for. i don't have to stand up and say well, i also redefine your marriage stuff while i was at it. they believe that they don't have the right to do that. did you really believe in tolerance and diversity you opt
respect the right to disagree and not just call them names. that's not just right, right? and by the way, as a christian i believe in tolerance. i call it charity. and my charity also means that i think it is sinful to persecute, attack or her people because of their same-sex attraction. it's my same christian belief system convinced that but also tells i can't redefine marriage. so be real careful about wanting to attack my religious faith because it also does things that leads to genuine tolerance of people with sexual lifestyles that i disagree with. another question. down here, yes. [inaudible] >> microphone. thank you. >> you may have mentioned it, that it's now something that same-sex partners do, going into
foster homes and adopting and just moving in on foster children. >> same-sex adoption, that is, i think, there is a piece for crisis magazine. i think that might've been a motivation and one of the reasons given adoption of russian jews in united states. it had to do with political and effort on this as well. please do research on. there's a number of different players, but among other things proven once more russian jews to stay in russia because of the hotel the problem. that's i redefinition of them as well. -- more russian children. >> same-sex adoption, same-sex
marriage quote a product of the father of lies, unquote. just google pope francis national catholic register, father of lies. and liberals, you'll find that this thing has a lot of views on marriage that you don't like at all. but again he's also very tolerant, charitable toward people with same-sex attraction. so he's got certain standards, standards our religion tells him he can't support same-sex adoption or marriage, but history also tells him that he must be charitable and merciful and loving to people that he disagrees with. yes. over here. >> what is your viewpoint on someone like david horowitz? i find it significant when i was having a conversation with bill
ayers, i know they used to be friends, colleagues, comrades. >> horvitz is completely broken with all of them. i quote whore with a number in this book and brought as well, to excellent, outstanding former communists who do such great, great work today. few people knew that side, the sts weather underground 60s new left like horowitz and ron. horowitz, destructive generation, radical son. so but, yeah, they saw all of us. and horowitz and ray dosh understand th the difference between old timers, the more orthodox class-based economic-based communist party u.s.a. types and the new left,
'60s communist. you have to understand again this cultural marxism, that's where things really change. that's why i beg people on the left don't caricature my argument, don't simplify it. there's this trajectory that goes from 1800 come early 1800s up to today, and people don't just wake up one day and walked out of starbucks and redefine the institution of marriage. there had to be chipping away at different parts of this over and over and over again. you don't just wake up and one day completely reject as hatred that views on marriage and family that was held by your grandparents, your great grandparents, your great, great grandparents, great, great, great grandparents, your great, great, great, great -- should have the labor this point? i think i should. great, great, great, great
great, great, great, great great grandparents. they are not just all wild hatemongers come on right? people have reasons. attack the people who disagree. and not only am i a christian, every orthodox roman catholic, really if you want to know my views on marriage, pope francis views on marriage, personally, but as a conservative, conservatives believe in conserving and preserving it is nothing more elemental and fundamental to society than the family. you would not expect the conservative to just wake up one day and say, let's redefine marriage. you would expect a progressive to do that. i mean, what is progressive but he means they're always changing, always evolving.
which also by the way means progressives, liberals 20 years ago, the vast majority of the democratic party supported the defense of marriage act. so did bill clinton. barack obama did just a few years ago. that was on male-female marriage. now 20 years later they've all changed, and if we continue to hold the position that they did, which was the position of all of our ancestors for 2000 years, we are called the extremist. wait a second, we have your position you held a marriage. were you guys haters have been? but this also means if you ask them, it's 2015, what will your position on marriage be in 2035? will you support marriage between a man and three women? would you support a three woman marriage? and right now it might be yelling no. no, we don't support that. but the truth is, you don't know
what your position is going to be in 2035 because the essence of the progressive is that things are always changing. they are always progressive, always evolving. margaret sanger writes in the nation in 1932 that there's nothing more awful than abortion. we cannot support abortion. today planned parenthood is america's largest abortion provider. if you don't supported -- do you know what the progressive position will be on marriage in 2035? they will tell you when they get there. they don't know what it would be now either. they will tell you when they get there. you can be sure this. when they get there, and it's different, and it will be, if you don't support their position, they will call you the wildest extremist. that's what they do. yes. last question.
[inaudible] kids go to jail at a far higher rate and vastly less likely to go to college. >> this was morocco -- barack obama's point in his father's a speech in june 2000. kids need dads spent i like quoting barack obama, kids without the father of five times more likely to drop out of high school and eight times more likely to go to jail. leaving aside -- >> and by the way, we haven't even seen like what will a whole bunch of homes without moms be like. we have the data on what homes without dads are like him and that's been really bad. >> leaving aside every and
similar publications, or the any other liberal elements to realize the real consequences of evolving traditional marriage and fatherhood and you want to bring the fathers back into the families because again bill clinton those guys were arguing this in the 1990s, and the length was arguing the importance of dance. that dads have often been thrown under the bus for this push for the same-sex marriage movement. the argument now, divorced dads in home, has been pushed aside in order to argue for same-sex marriage. i would add here, by the way none of this is to say that same-sex parents can't love a child of course they can. none of this will save the kids will grow up and said i didn't love my parents. people would say no, if you have same-sex parents can provide the road over the child's head, they can love their children, they
can pay for their college, they can, too, of course. no one is denying any of that. if that's the case why not a three or four person marriage? i mean, a four-person marriage, you could really get the kids to and from soccer practice, right? you could really have people helping. you really have money for the college education. double the work, you've got to really -- so if your definition of strictly a function again of, that people can love and what they can provide or that they love each other, you can't use those arguments and prohibit the multi-person marriage. liberals, you are the ones will have to tell the multi-person marriage according to your own standards why they can't do it. my standard will be the same as it is not that i think the best thing for child is one mother and one father, public policy should strive for.
okay, i need to stop. thank you. and please again feel free to e-mail me. please be nice into e-mails, please, please. >> and again, "takedown" we do have copies available. paul will be up and i decided. thank you for your kind attention and see you on a future occasion. [inaudible conversations] >> do you think that today 2015 in america that every american actually enjoy, are they care to democracy and to the all experienced democracy? had to start with me. >> well, i think on the second part i think know. i don' think average american necessary expenses democr i